New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-12-14
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
REMAINS LIFE OF JESUS.

rrrE
hon The Original French by CHARLES tDwIs NILBouR
6yo. PIP. 1886. Carleton
With no pretension TO exact critical analysis, III. /
psuan here presents Of the leading conclusions
,fmoderD European speculation and research in I
,opular unsystematic form, illustrated by the fruits
II personal experience as a traveller in Palestine,
and enlivened by the perpetual play OF brilliant
and suggestive fancy and deep sense of the pa
.hetc and poetical aspects Of his theme. Although
free from the skeptical and destructive tendencies
which mark the labors of many Of his predecessors
in this field of inquiry, he departs perhaps 10 less
widely from the current traditions of theology. IL
Corning his theories, he makes no account of dog
mas. takes purely human point Of view in treating
the subject in hand and constructs biography OF
Jesus irrespective of the faith of the Church 81
the same time, he writes in tender ana reycrent
spirit fully recognizing the beauty and elevation OF
the life which be portrays, and its vital importance
IN the history of humanity. His book, accordingly,
is exposed to attack from the most opposite quar-
tcrs--some viii accuse it OF On excess Of belief
others Will condemn it as the denial of all that is
sacred and precious in the religion of Chrsien lon.
1t will be censured by the ecclcsiasic for its ncgt
Of the supernatural element in the biography Of
Jesus-by the unbelieycr for its earnestness in
CLAIMING for him prominence among the sons Of
ten-by the critical scholar for its frequent loose
ness and Inconsistency Of statement, lis nconclu-
Give rcasonings, and the predominance Of imagra-
sion over Judgment in its composition.
With regard TO the pregnant question Of The
euthority of the Gospels as sources Of history,
NJ. Eenan holds that although TO some extent
legendary in their character. they possess high
value, as carrying back TO the half century fol-
lowing the death Of Jesus, and in two cases, to eye
witnesses of his acts. The Gospel of Luke IS q
regular composition, founded on previous docu-
-nents, written entirely by the same hand ard Of
the mos. perfect unity Its author was undouhi-
edly the same as the author of the Book Of Acts,
aud if not Luke himself, as is probable from Ill
fernal evidence, was man Of the second apostolic
generation, and not subsequent SECONDHAND
compiler.
The Gospels of Matthew and Marx DO not show
che same stamp of individuality. They are iHper-
aonal IN their composition, with no trace Of thoirl-
dividual authors. II is certain that they on-
Seror to the Gospel OF Luke, and Of much less i'd
vanoed character as compilations. Most probably
we have neither the original works OF Matthew ror
of Marx, but the first two Gospels are arrangements
IN which it has been attempted to supply tie defects
IN one text by another. Each compiler wished 10
possess q complete copy. The one who had Only
Gle dscourses in his copy, desired to have the
satiycs, and the reverse. Thus the Gospel OF Mat
chew has incorporated nearly al the anecdotes Of
Mark, while the Gospel Of Mark contains multi
tude of traits which derived from the notices OF
Matthew Each moreover drew largely from The
oxtant traditions concerning the life Of Jesus, which
were so far from having been exhausted by the Cos
pels that the Acts Of tie Apostles and the Whiting
of the earlies. Fathers contain many sayings Of
which appear authentic, and which are not found Ia
either OF the -four Gospels that we possess.
The Gospel Of John, according TO NJ. Renan,
presents questions of difficult solution. How
Is il that by the side of definite details which SAVIOR
80 strongly Of an eyewitness, we find discourses
90 totally different from those Of Matthew Tie
general plan Of the life Of Jesus appears much more
consistent and satisfactory than that Of the INT
three Gospels but there are passages in which we
perceive dogmatic interest peculiar TO the CON-
pliers ideas entirely foreign TO Jesus, ard oven
symptoms Of a personal and sectanan influence.
Was it indeed John the son Of Zebedee, the brother
of James-of whom not a single mention is made
In the fourth Gospel-yho was able to wIite Ia
Greek those abstract metaphysical disconrses, 10
which neither the other Gospels, the Talmud,
present any parallel "All this" says VI. Rouan.
ais weighty, and for myself | dare not positively
believe thet the fourth Gospel written entirely
81 the pen Of former fisherman of Galilee. Ba'
It cannot Justly be doubted that it was written 81
least before the end OF the fist century, and po-
ceeGed from the grea. school Of Asia Minor, which
held to John, nor that its version of the life Of tho
Master is worthy Of high consideration and often Of
preference. In fact, many things in this Gospel
cannot be explained the suppostion that 1t is
only a theological disposition without historical
value; but on the contrary, are perfectly compre-
sensble If we see in them, according 10 the trad-
lions the recollec,ions Of an old man, sometimes Of
marvellous freshness, sometimes having suffered
strange mutations.
Upon the whole ~ Renan accepts The four ca
nonical Gospels as authentic IL his opinion, they
all date back to the first century they are in sub
stance written by the authors whose names III
bear; but Of very unequal value as materer
for history. Matthew clearly deserves unlimited
confidence as regards the discourses; be giyos
actual notes from a clear and vivid memory Of tie
teaching of Jesus. The narrative portions grouped
IN the first Gospel around this primitive center have
not the same authority. They contain many
leg ls Of rather Himsy texture, which sprang
from the piety of the second Christian generation.
The Gospel Of Mark is much frmer, more precise,
end less burdened with fables Of later origin pr
the first three Gospels, this is the Oldest the mos
original and with the fewest subsequent addition.
The material details in Mark have precision which