1992 - H.J. de Jonge - The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels.pdf

7/27/2019 1992 - H.J. de Jonge - The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels.pdf

1/17

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEM ERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOV ANIENSIUMCI

JOHN AND THE SYNOPTICSEDITED BY

ADELBERT DENAUX

L E U V E NUNIVERSITY PRESS

UITGEVERIJ PEETERSL E U V E N1992


2/17


3/17

TH E LOSS OF FAITH IN THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELSH.S. R E I M A R U S (CA 1750) ON J O H N AND THE S Y N O P T I C S

Unt i l 1700 almost all biblical scholars assumed that one couldharmonize th e Gospel of John with th e Synoptic Gospels, despite it sdivergences from them. They also believed that a harmony of that kindcould form a trustworthy historical account of the last years of Jesus'life. Around 1750, however, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, professor ofOriental languages at Hamburg (1694-1768)1, declared: "The fourevangehs t s cannot possibly be harmonized. Their contradictoryaccounts betray that the Gospels are not based on facts"2.

In Reimarus we witness for the first time in history the complete lossof faith in the historicity of the Gospels. It is true that to a certainextent Reimarus had had predecessors in some English deists. Amongthem w e may single out for m ention M atthew Tindal, w hose chief w orkChristianity s O ld s th e Creat ion (1730) Reimarus knew, ThomasChubb, whose The True Gospel of Jesus Christ Asserted (1738) andPosthumous Works (1748) Reimarus does not seem to have known, and1 On Reimarus, see David Friedrich STRAUSS, H e r mann Samue l R e imar us u nd seineSchutzschrift f r die vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes , B on n , 1862, 21877 , Albert S C H W E I T Z E R ,"Hermann Samuel Reimarus" , = Chapter 2 in Geschichte d er Leben-Jesu-Forschung,Tubingen , 21913, 61950, (S iebenstern-Taschenbucher, 77-78), M nchen /Ham burg, 1966,pp 56-68, G un ter G A W L I C K , et al (eds), Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) ein"bekannter Unbekannter" d er Aufklrung in H ambur g , Gottingen , 1973, Henn ing G R A F

R E V E N T L O W , D as Arsenal d er Bibelkritik d es Reimarus D ie Auslegung d er Bibel, insbeson-dere d es Alten Tes taments , be i d en engl ischen Deuten, m G GAWLICK, et al ( eds ) , H SReimarus (vide supra), pp 44-65, Gunter GAWLICK, Hermann Samuel Reimarus , inMar t i n GRESCHAT (ed), Gestal ten d er Kirchengeschichte , VII I D ie Aufklarung, Stuttgart-Berhn-Cologne-Mainz , 1983, pp 299-311, Peter S T E M M E R , We is s ag ung u nd Kritik EineStudie zu r Hermeneut ik be i Hermann Samuel Reimarus , Gottingen, 1983, Eise WALRA-V E N S , La Bible chez les hbres penseurs en Al lem a gn e , m Y v on B E L A V A L an d D o mi mq u eB O U R E L ( e d s ) , Bible de tous les temps, V II Le siede d es Lumieres et la Bible, Paris, 1986,pp 579-590, Paul H O F F M A N N , Die historisch-kritische Osterdiskussion von H S Reimarusbis zu Beginn des 20 Jahrhunderts , m Paul H O F F M A N N (ed), Zu r neutes tament l ichenberlieferung von der Auferstehung Jesu (W ege der Forschung, 522), Darmstadt, 1988, pp15-67, W ilhe lm S C H M I D T - B I O G E M A N N , Die Destrukt ive Potenz phi losophischer Apologet ikoder der Verlus t des biblischen Kredits be i Hermann Samuel Reimarus , m Henning GrafR E V E N T L O W , W al te r S P A R N an d John W O O D B R I D G E (eds), Historische Kritik u nd biblischerKanon m der deutschen Aufklrung (W olfen butte ler Forschun gen, 41), W iesbaden, 1988,pp 193-2042 "Die vier Evangelisten sind unmglich zu harmomren , und verrahten, durch ihrewiedersprechende Erzehlung, einen in facto [that is, s fa r s the facts are concerned]unricht igen Grund", R E I M A R U S , Apologie (ed G A L E X A N D E R ) , II, p 582


4/17

410 H.J . DEJO NG EPeter A nne t, whose The Resurrection of Jesus Considered (1744) Reima-ru s did not use either3 . B ut Reimarus was the first to connect hisrejection of the historicity of the Gospels with extensive, serious anddetailed investigations of the documents concerned. In R eimarus we seehow confidence in the general reliability of the Gospels turned into aradical distrust and into an almost total rejection of the Gospels'historical trustworthiness.The question I w an t to deal with in this short paper is: how didReimarus come to his innovative position, which was to prove ofoverwhelming and lasting significance up to the present day? I shallargue three things. Firstly, that in Reimarus ' rejection of the historicalreliability of the Gospels, the discrepancies between the Gospels playeda considerable role, especially the divergencies between John and theSynoptics. Secondly, that ultimately, for Reimarus to reach his radicalconclusions, the discrepancies between th e Gospels were not the crucialfactor, the cardinal point being his view that the Gospels were anyhow adeliberate misrepresentation of Jesus' person and work. Thirdly andfinally, I shall argue that, in its turn, Reimarus ' view of the Gospels sdeceitful misrepresentation of Jesus' person, work and teaching wasnothing but a logical consequence of his philosophical starting point:Reimarus, too, was a deist. As a deist, he rejected all revelation. Butthis forced him to assume that th e revelation alleged to be contained inthe Gospels was nothing but human fabrication. Of this purely humancharacter of the Gospels, then, the discrepancies between the Gospelswere taken by Reimarus to be the effect, the Illustration and theconfirmation.One preliminary remark has still to be made here. The following willnot b e based on the excerpts from Reimarus know n s the W olfenbttelFragments, published by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing from 1774 to 1778,but on the fll text of Reimarus' "Apology or Defence for the RationalW orshippers of God" (Apologie oder Schutzschrift fr die vernnftigenVerehrer Gottes). Reimarus wrote a first version of this work in theyears 1744-1750, a second recension in 1750-1760 and a third an ddefinitive recension in 1760-1768, but he kept his work on this giganticproject a secret and did not proceed to publish it. He feit that the timewas not yet ripe for the publication of this work and rightly feared therepercussions if he should become k no wn s its author. He did not evenspeak about it except with some close friends. The first edition of the

3. See GRAF REVENTLOW, Das Arsenal (see n. 1), p. 59, note 12 : "Reimarus benutztenicht nur Toland, Shaftesbury und Collins, sondern auch Woolston, Tindal und Morgan.(...). Auf der anderen Seite scheint er P. Annet , T he Resurrection of Jesus Cons idered,1744, nicht gekannt zu haben, denn dessen Annahme, Jesus sei nur scheintot gewesen, eh eer sich den Jngern al s Auferstandener zeigte, htte er sich in seinem Arsenal nichtentgehen lassen".


5/17

H.S. R E I M A R U S O N J O H N A N D T H E SYNOPTICS 411final version appeared only in 19724. The book runs to more thansixteen hundred printed pages. In it, Reimarus argues that the adher-ents of a purely "rational religion" should be tolerated by the civilauthorities, since rational religion (in German, "die vernnftige Reli-gion" 5) is the only well-founded an d valid religion, in contradistinctionto any so-called revealed religion, such s the religions of the Bible an dof C hristianity. In Reimarus' view, reason should replace revelation andnatural religion should replace Christianity6.In Reimarus' radical rejection of revelation, th e differences betweenth e Gospels, among other arguments, played an important, al thoughnot a decisive role. B ut le t us look first at the view Reimarus had of theliterary relationships betw een the Gospels.

Reimarus' view of the interrelationships between th e Gospels was notrevolutionary. He held that th e Gospels were composed in the canoni-cal order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and that each later evangelisthad k n o w n all his predecessors, that is, M ark had known Mat thew,Luke had known M atthew and M ark , and John had kn own the threeSynopt ics7. W i th regard to the relationship between John and theSynoptics Reimarus held that John had intended to correct andimprove on his three predecessors. In his own words: "John, s thelatest evangelist, found something to criticize in all others"8.Reimarus' view of the literary relationships between the Gospels wasneither new, nor based on fresh research. Reim arus simply borrowed itfrom John Mills ' "Prolegomena" of the year 17079. But exactly th esame view can be found in many other writers on the Gospels, both in

4. H ermann Samuel REIMARUS, Apologie oder Schutzschr i f t fr die vernnf t igen Ver-ehrer Gottes, I-II (ed. Gerhard ALEXANDER), Frankfurt am Main, 1972.5. The expression occurs on, e.g., pp. 56, 60 and 63 of vol . I of ALEXANDER'S edi t ion.6. Charles H. TALBERT, in REIMARUS, F r ag m e nt s (ed. Charles H . TALBERT, translatedby R a l p h S. FRSER), Philadelphia, 1970; = London, 1971, reprinted Chico, 1985, pp. 10-1 1 .

7. For Reimarus' views of the interrelationships between the four Gospels, see hisApologie , II, pp. 530-531, 533 and 539.8. "Johannes, als der Spteste, hatte noch an allen was auszusetzen", Apologie (ed.ALEXANDER), II, p. 533. John Mills had already characterized the Gospel of John s"caeterorum t r ium supplementum"; se e Joannes MILLIUS (and Ludolfus KSTERUS, ed.),N o v u m Testamentum G r a e c u m , Amsterdam, 1710, "Prolegomena", paragraph 182. ThatJohn wanted to correct or to Supplement the Synoptic Gospels is of course an ancienttheory, at least s old s Clement of Alexandria; see Werner Georg KMMEL, Einle i tung ind as Neue Tes tament , Heidelberg, 171973, pp. 197-198, and especially Helmut MERKEL, DieWidersprche zwischen den Evangel ien (WUNT, 36), Tbingen, 1971, p. 66. Merkelobserves that the "Ergnzungshypothese" was used by Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius andA u g u s t i n e (De consensu evangel i s tarum IV 11-20).9. N ovum T e s t am e nt um . C u m lect ionibus variantibus [.. .] (ed. Joannes MILLIUS),Oxford, 1707. For Reimarus' reference to Mills, see Apologie , ed. ALEXANDER, II, p. 528.Mil ls dated the Synoptics to the years A.D. 61-64 and the Gospel of John to the yearA.D. 97.


6/17

412 H J D E J O N G Eth e 17th and 16th centuries, among them tw o mfluential Biblicalscholars, th e Lutheran Martin Chemnitz (1593) and the ArminianHugo Grotius (164l)10. T he theory at issue w as generally regarded sthe one advocated by Augustine. This traditional attribution to Augus-tine deserves some closer attention an d will be the subject of theAppendix at the end of this contribution.

IReimarus deals with the discrepancies between the Gospels in twodifferent sections of his w ork. The first time he goes into the problem iswhen he argues that the historicity of Jesus' bodily resurrection breaks

down on the differences and contradictions between th e accounts of theresurrection given in th e Gospels11. The second time Reimarus makesan issue of the discrepancies between the Gospels is in his "CnticalHistory of the Canon of the New Testament"12.Let us turn first to Reimarus ' discussion of the narratives of Jesus'resurrection. B etween these narratives the re are, according to Reimarus,at least te n differences and, moreover, a great number of f lagrantcontradictions. The differences are so serious that any harmonization isbound to remain utterly unconvincing. In Reimarus' view, the "Art ofour harmonists" ("die Kunst unsrer Harmonisten") is unable to recon-cile the four witnesses in such a way s to make their testimony soundt rus twor thy1 3 . The differences between the resurrection narratives dis-cussed by Reimarus include the following.1. In John there is only one woman who goes to the tomb, namelyMary Magdalene. In the Synoptics she is accompamed by one, or two,or four other women.2. In John, M ary Magdalene does not come to the tomb only once (sm th e Synoptics), but twice, and it is only at her second visit that shesees the angels sitting in the tomb.3. John relates (20,3-9) that Peter and another disciple visited the tomb10 See the Appendix below1 1 Apologie, Second Part The New Testament, Book III, Chapter 3 "Beweis derAuferstehung Jesu aus der Apostel Zeugnis", ed A L E X A N D E R , II, pp 188-271 This sectioncorresponds to the W olfenbut teler Fragment "ber di e Auferstehungsgeschichte" pub-hshed by G E L E S S I N G m Zu r G esch ich te und Lteratur Aus den Schtzen d er herzogl ichenBibliothek zu Wolfenbuttel, Vierter Beytrag, Braunschweig 1777, pp 437-494, but the textpubhshed by Lessing represents th e second, not the third and final recension of theApologie Reim arus argues that the apostohc doctnne of the Church s handed dow n byth e apostles, th e so-called "apostohc System", is without base, since it depends on thehistoricity of Jesus' resurrection The historicity of Jesus' resurrection, ho wever, canno t bemamtamed m view of the contradict ions between th e accounts of this event in th eGospels12 This is an Appendix to the Apologie, m Alexander 's edition, vol II, pp 521-54313 Ed A L E X A N D E R , II, pp 213-214


7/17

H S R E I M A R U S O N JOHN A N D T H E SYNOPTICS 413and found it empty, the Synoptics, however, make no mention what-soever of this episode4 Accordmg to John, the angels m the tomb said nothing to M a r y butth e words " W h y are you weepmg?" Accordmg to the Synoptics,however, th e angel, or the angels, were much more communicative,testifymg mter ah a that Jesus had nsen5 The words th e nsen Jesus spoke to Mary Magdalene accordmg toJohn are entirely different from the words Jesus spoke to her accordmgto Matthew6 John's account of the appearances of the risen Lord to the disciples,namely twice m Jerusalem and once m Galilee, is incompatible with th eappearance stones m the Synoptics

Apar t from these and some further differences between the resurrec-t ion stones m the Gospels, there are also a great number of glaring,irreconcilable contradictions between them Reimarus discusses them atgreat length and with merciless precision These contradictions includethe followmg ones1 Accordmg to John Joseph of Anmathaea and Nicodemus treatedthe dead body of Jesus with myrrh and aloes, wrapped it with the spicesm Strips of linen cloth and buned it on Fnday before sunset N owaccordmg to Mark and Luke, some women witnessed this bunal ofJesus Nevertheless Mark and Luke relate that on Sunday morn mgthese same w omen we nt to the tomb, bringmg spices, m order to anointJesus Here Mark and Luke are m flat contradiction with John2 John says that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene while she wasStanding at the tomb (20,10), but Matthew Claims that this happenedafter she had hurried away from the tomb and was on her way to thedisciples Matthew and John, w ho were bo th disciples of Jesus and wereboth supposed to have been eyewitnesses of the nsen Lord, clearlydisagree with regard to the place where Mary saw JesusIn his "Crical History of the Canon of the New Testament"Reimarus pomts to a number of further discrepancies between theGospels, especially between John and the Synoptics He mentions, mteraha1 th e nature of Jesus' discourses, m John they reveal John's own"mystenous" theological style Moreover, Jesus' words s recorded byone evangehst are often different from what Jesus is reported to havesaid on the same occasion by other evangelists142 the chronological place of the account of the feeding of the fivethousand ( Jn 6,1-15, M t 14,13-21, Lk 9,10-17, M k 6,30-44), this placeis not the same m all the Gospels15

14 Apologie (ed ALEXANDER), II, p 54115 Apologie (ed ALEXANDER), II, p 541


8/17

414 H.J. D E J O N G E3. the position of the purification of the temple; it takes place at thebeginning of Jesus' public activity in John, but at the end in theSynoptics16.In Reimarus' opinion, then, the numerous differences and contradic-t ions between the Gospels prove that the Gospels are nothing butpurely human products. As accounts of Jesus' activity and teachingthey are irreconcilable and unreliable. They cannot serve s the basisfor a reconstruction of Jesus' deeds and words.

IIN ow all of the differences between th e Gospels discussed by Reima-

ru s had been known to students of the Bible fo r centuries. Until 1700,however, they had not seemed to show that John could not bereconciled with th e Synoptics. Nor had they shown that one could notreconstruct a trustvvorthy historical account of Jesus' career. W hy thendid Reim arus reach these conclusions?The reason is that Reimarus regarded the Gospels not only s merelyhuman fabrications, devoid of any divine Inspiration, but also s theproducts of pious fraud. In Reimarus ' view, the Gospels reflect th edeliberate efforts of the evangelists to reshape the image of Jesus. Thehistorical Jesus had only wished to free the land of Israel in a politicalsense. W h e n his mission failed and he himself was killed, th e discipleswere afraid to lose the comfortable and prestigious positions they hadheld during Jesus' lifetime. They decided, therefore, to preach Jesushenceforth s a spiritual, suffering, heavenly Redeemer, who was tocome back from heaven in the future to found the eternal kingdom ofGod. In short, the disciples devised a new Christian theology, whichReimarus designates s "the new System" or "the apostolic System"("das apostolische System"), to be distinguished from th e pure, prima-rily moral teaching of Jesus. This deceitful new apostolic System wasthe starting-point from which the evangelists remodeled the teaching ofJesus and wrote their Gospels. The evangelists' accounts of Jesus'deeds, words and discourses do not follow historical reality; reality wasadapted to the new apostolic System 17 . A s a result, th e Gospels portrayJesus in a fundamentally inaccurate way.Moreover, thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death, when the evangel-ists put their minds to write down their Gospels, they had entirely lostsight of each other. C onsequently, they were unable to co-ordinate th eirwork. Hence th e differences and contradictions between th e Gospels.

16. Apologie (ed. ALEXANDER), II, p. 541.17. "Folglich haben sich ... ihre Nachrichten von seinen [Jesus'] Reden nicht nach derW irkl ichke i t der factorum, sondern die erzehlten facta und Reden nach ihrem neuenSystem richten mssen. Daher is t alles das, was dahin schlgt, in ihrer Geschichteverdchtig", Apologie (ed. ALEXANDER), II, p. 541.


9/17

H S R E I M A R U S O N J O H N A N D T H E SYNOPTICS 415The irreconcilable discrepancies between th e four Gospels are proof oftheir untrustworthiness.Needless to say that, even if Reimarus' theory concerning th e fraudcomm itted by the apostles and evangelists has to be dismissed s utterlyunfounded, th e theory remains of great historical significance andvalue: it introduces th e notion of Gemeindebi ldung, that is, the ideathat, both in form and contents, the Gospels owe much to the creativeanswers th e early Church gave to the questions with which she wasfaced after Jesus' death18. In passing it should be noticed that th e seedsof Reimarus ' sharp distinction between the historical Jesus, a respect-able teacher of rational religion and sound m orals, on the one band andthe wnters of the New Testament, driven by a corrupt, irrationaltheology, on the other, had been sown by a number of English deists,among them Thomas W oolston and M atthew Tindal (and ThomasChubb)19.From th e structure of Reimarus ' argumentation it is clear that th ediscrepancies among th e Gospels did not themselves lead him to hisradically sceptical view of the Gospels s historical sources. Rather, itwas th e other way around: it was his and others' a priori scepticismabout th e trustworthiness of the Gospels, regarded s products of thedeceitful "new apostolic System", that made th e well-known discrepan-cies suddenly seem irreconcilable. Reimarus regarded and treated thedivergences between th e Gospels s support and evidence for hispreconceived view that th e Gospels were th e result of deceit anddeception. Starting from this latter theory, he decided that the divergen-cies, which unti l then had always seemed to allow of harmonization,were irreconcilable. From then on harmonizing the Gospels was point-less at least in Reimarus' opinion, which he kept secret.

18 Another great ment of Reimarus is of course that he drew attention to theimportance of the eschatological element m Jesus' teaching, an element that had beenneglected for centunes It is especially through this revaluation of the eschatologicalcomponent m the teaching of Jesus that Reimarus, via the works of David FriedrichStrauss, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schwettzer and Rudolf Bul tmann, has had a lastmginf luence on New Testament scholarship19 On the English deists s forerunners of the views Reimarus presented in hisApologie, s well s of the German Enlightenment m general, see Henning GrafREVENTLOW, Bibelautontat u n d G e i s t d er M o d ern e (Forschungen zur Kirchen- undDogmengeschichte, 30), Gottingen, 1980, English translation The Authonty of the Bibleand th e Rise of the Modern World (Irans John BOWDEN), Philadelphia, 1985 Cf WernerGeorg KMMEL, D a s N eu e T e s tame n t Geschichte der Erforschung semer Probleme,Freiburg/Munchen, 21970, p 106. "Die Bedeutung des Reimarus hegt dann, dassdie geschichtliche Aufgabe der Scheidung zwischen der Verkndigung des geschichtlichenJesus und der Predigt der Urgememde nun f r weite Kreise unausweichlich gemachtwurde"


10/17

416 H.J. D E J O N G EIII

W hy did Reimarus assume a priori that the Gospels were untrust-worthy and could not provide the basis for a reliable harmonisticreconstruction of Jesus' life and teaching? The reason is that Reimarusw as a deist. In his case this meant that he accepted the existence ofGod, God's providence laid down in the laws of nature, the eternity ofthe soul, and the Obligation for man to live a morally pure lifeconsisting in correct behaviour towards God and men. He also heldthat there w as salvation for the soul in an eternal life to come. But herejected all revelation and all supernatural Intervention in the history ofmankind. The only religion that was acceptable to him was what hecalled "rational religion" (German: "die vernnftige Religion"20).Measured by rational criteria, then, the religions of the Old and NewTestaments were unacceptable, since they were based on miracles andother supernatural interventions in the history of man. Traditionally,th e truth of the Christian religion depended on the historicity of Jesus'resurrection. A s a deist, however, Reimarus rejected divine interven-tions in the form of such miracles s th e resurrection of Jesus. Inconsequence, he had to denounce the Gospels s misrepresentations ofhistorical reality. In them, Jesus' activity and words had been deformedand distorted. Reimarus interpreted the Gospels, therefore, s purelyhuman fabrications, reflecting the corrupt "new apostolic System" of theapostles and evangelists.M y initial question was: what made the well-known discrepanciesbetween the Gospels, that had never formed an insurmountable prob-lem for those who had wished to harmonize the Gospels, suddenly seemirreconcilable, and why did they suddenly seem to destroy the histori-city of the Gospels? T he answer is, because Reimarus made thesediscrepancies function within the framework of two concentric theories.The all-embracing and primordial theory was the deistic rejection of allrevelat ion and divine Intervention in history. Within this macro-theorythere was the derived theory according to which the Gospels cannot bet rus twor thy since they relate all sorts of supernatural Intervention inhistory. T he obvious distortion of historical reality was due to thepurely human, all too human origin of the Gospels. Within the frame-work of these tw o concentric theories the discrepancies between theGospels now came to function s evidence that these works were indeedthe products of human work and human deceit. That is why thediscrepancies n ow became an insuperable difficulty for the harmoniza-t ion of the Gospels. A s long s harmonists had wanted the divergencesbetween these four books to be reconcilable, they had succeeded in

20. Cf. note 5.


11/17

H .S. REIMA RU S O N JO H N A N D T H E SYNOPTICS 417reconciling them. N ow that Reimarus no longer wanted them to bereconcilable, they were irreconcilable.Reimarus ' unders tanding of the Gospels did not primarily stem froma close investigation of the differences between these four books. It wasth e other way around: th e Stimulus came from Reimarus' philosophicalideas21. T he detailed observations were not the starting-point, but onlythe Illustration of, the confirmation of, and the supporting evidence for,ideas already conceived by way of speculation.The case is typical: a transformation in one's understanding forgood, s in this case, or for ill may well rest in part on detailedphilological observations. B ut they are not its cause. The real impulsecame from outside, from a grand speculative theory, borrowed from theEnglish deists. This was the theory that divine Intervention in historywas an unacceptable idea and that, s a consequence, there was anabsolute contradiction between the life and doctrine of the historicalJesus, w ho represented the highest imaginable morality and rationalreligion, and the portrayal of him s a divine, superhuman, heavenlySaviour by his apostles and the authors of the Gospels.

APPENDIXAUGUSTINE'S VIEW O F T H E I N T E R R E L A T I O N S O F T H E GOSPELS I NDE C O N S E N S U E V A N G E L I S T A R U M

Reimarus held that the evangelist Mark knew the Gospel of Matthew,that Luke knew both Matthew and Ma r k , and that John knew thethree Synoptic Gospels. This theory, which Reimarus borrowed fromJohn Mil ls 2 2 , was widely accepted in the 16th and 17th centuries.A m o n g the adherents of this theory we mention Johann Bugenhagen

21. That this is the structure of Reimarus' criticism of the resurrection stories hasalready been observed by G.E. Lessing in his preface to the W olfenbt tel Fragment "Vondem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jnger" (1778). See G.E. LESSING, W e r k e (ed. H.G.GPFERT), VII (ed. H. GBEL), Mnchen, 1976, pp. 493-494. Lessing wrote: "(Reimarus)schliesst so: 'die ganze Religion ist falsch, die man auf die Aufers tehung grnden will;folglich kann es auch mit der Auferstehung seine Richtigkeit nicht haben, und dieGeschichte derselben wird Spuren ihrer Erdichtung tragen, deren sie auch wirklich trgt'".I am indebted to my Student Mr. G.H. van Kooten (Delft) for bringing this importantpassage in Lessing to my attention.22. Joannes MILLIUS (and Ludolfus KSTERUS, ed.), Novum Testamentum Gr ae c um ,Amsterdam, 1710 (= Rotterdam, 1710; Leipzig, 1723; Amsterdam, 1746), "Prolego-mena", paragraphs 107-110, 116 and 182.


12/17

418 H.J . DEJONGE

(1554)2 3, Paul Krel l (Paulus Crellius, 1566)24 , Mart in Chemnitz(1593)2 5, Hugo Grot ius (1 64l ) 2 6 , and Florentius de Bruin (1690)27.Both in form er centuries and in our days the theory at issue has beenregarded s the one adhered to by Augustine. In the 16th Century th etheory was attributed to Augustine by, for instance, Martin Chem-n i t z 2 8 . Recently, we find the same attribution to Augustine, at least sfar s the theory concerns the relationships between the three Synop-tics, in such authoritative writers on the subject s A. Gonzaga daFonseca29, Arthur Bel l inzoni30 , and Adelbert Denaux31. T he attribu-tion to Augustine is also found in introductions to the New Testa-m e n t 3 2 . Recently, W .R . Farmer to o claimed that i t was Augustine'sview in Book I of his D e consensu evangel is tarum "that each succeeding

evangelist made use of the work of his predecessor(s)", obviouslymeaning that according to Augustine Mark used his only predecessorMatthew, that Luke used both Matthew and M ark and that John usedthe three Synoptics33.The attribution of the theory in question to August ine, however,seems to be based on a longstanding misinterpretation of Augustine'swords on the subject. If his D e consensu evangel is tarum contains anypassage at all dealing with the literary interdependence of the Gospels,it is I,ii,4. I am doubtful whether even in this passage A ugustine inten dsto make a literary-critical Statement on the interrelations of the Gos-pels. But if he makes any Statement of that kind it is here. In this

23. Johann BUGENHAGEN, Idea ac diathesis (1554/1558), used by Paulus CRELLIUS,Monotessaron historiae evangelicae, W ittenberg, 1566.24. Paulus CRELLIUS, Monotessaron historiae evangelicae, W ittenberg, 1566.25. Mart inus CHEMNITZ, Harmonia evangel ica , 11593; Frankfurt /Hamburg, 21652,"Prolegomena", cap. l, p. 3: "Et manifestius hoc inde colligitur, cum, juxta Epiphanii etAugustini sententiam, inter evangelistas illi, qui post alios scripserunt, priorum scripta etviderint et legerint".26 . Hugo GROTIUS, Annotat iones in libros Evangeliorum, Amsterdam, 1641; see theannotations on Mt 26,6; M k 1,23; Lk 1,1.27 . Florentius DE BRUIN, To kata tessaras euaggelion [Greek] of Overeenstemminge derEvangel ien , Dordrecht, 1690.28. See n. 25 above.29 . Aloysius GONZAGA DA FONSECA, Quaestio synoptica, Rome, 31952, pp . 105-106.30. Arthur J. BELLINZONI, JR . (ed.), T he Two-Source Hypothesis. A Critical Appraisal,Macon GA, 1985, p. 4: "St. Augustine (354-430) believed that Matthew was the earliestgospel, that Ma r k depended on Matthew, and that Luke depended on both Matthew andMark".31 . In his otherwise excellent synopsis of the Gospels in Dutch: Adelbert DENAUX an dMarc V E R V E N N E , Synopsis van de eerste drie evangelien, Louvain/Turnhout, 1986,p. XXXXVIII.32. See, fo r instance, A.F.J. K LUN, D e wordingsgeschiedenis van hei Nieuwe Testament ,Utrecht/Antwerpen, M965, 41974, p. 26.33 . W . R . FARMER, The Two-Gospel Hypothesis . The Sta tement of the Hypothesis , inDavid L. DUNGAN (ed.), The Interrelat ions of the Gospels (BETL, 95), Louvain, 1990,pp. 125-156, see p. 129.


13/17

H.S. REIMARUS ON JOHN AND THE SYNOPTICS 419passage, then, Augustine does not say that each later evangelist knewal l bis predecessors (in the plural). What he says is that each laterevangelist knew the Gospel of his direct predecessor (in the singular). Itmay be serviceable to quote Augustine's own words:

... et quamvis singuli suum quendam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videan-tur, non tarnen unusquisque eorum velut alterius praecedentis ignarusvoluisse scribere repperitur ve l ignorata praetermisisse, quae scripsissealius inveni tur3 4 .

... and although each of the evangelists m ay appear to have kept acertain order of narration proper to himself, yet each individual evangel-ist proves to have chosen to write not in ignorance of the other writer,that is, his predecessor. And if any evangelist leaves out materialincluded in another evangelist, he cannot be said to have done so out ofignorance.

Just b efore saying this A ugustine has pointed out that the evangelistswere believed to have written their books in the order Matthew, Mark,Luke, John. Since in the passage just quoted he states that eachevangelist knew "the other one, namely the one preceding him",Augustine mus t mean that Matthew w as known to Ma r k , Mark toLuke and Luke to John. Naturally, Augustine believed that eachevangelist had also had other sources to draw on for his knowledgeabout Jesus, namely, the Holy Ghost and, in the case of Matthew andJohn, their own experience s eyewitnesses of Jesus' public activity, inth e case of M a r k and Luke, oral tradition. Ultimately, however, th efour evangelists all had exactly th e same amount of knowledge aboutJesus. But each of them had only written what he thought useful for hispublic or wha t he recalled under th e guidance of the Holy Ghost.According to Augustine this explained why one evangelist teils a talewhich th e others pass over in silence. That th e Holy Ghost guided theirrecollections also explained why the evangelists offer a different chronol-o g y 3 5 . Because th e Holy Ghost brought th e event to the recollection ofone evangelist earlier in his writing than to another evangelist, oneplaced th e event earlier and the other later than historical chronologywould have demanded. But the differences between th e Gospels mustnot be ascribed to the lack of knowledge in any of the evangelists, foreach evangelist had precisely s much Information on Jesus s anyother evangelist: that is the essence of Augustine's Statement quotedabove. But if this Statement implies that the evangelists were dependent

34. AUGUSTINUS, D e consensu evangel i s tarum I, ii, 4, ed. F. Weihreich (CSEL, 43),Vienna/Leipzig, 1904, p. 4.35 . M . H . DE LANG, Jean Gerson's Harm ony of the Gospels (1420), in NederlandsArchiefvoor kerkgeschiedenis/Dutch Review of Chu r c h History 71 (1991) 35-47.


14/17

420 HJ D E J O N G Eon one another, then it says that Mark w as dependent on Matthew,Luke on Mark, and John on Luke.The passage of Augustine under consideration is generally taken tomean that each evangelist knew all his predecessors. This, however,seems to be a misinterpretation. It occurs fo r instance in HeinrichVogel's discussion of the passage in his monograph on Augustine'sD econsensu evangel i s tarum 36 . As far s I am aware, th e passage is left outof consideration by David Peabody in his lengthy article of 1983 onAugustine's view of the relationships between th e Gospels37. B ut thisarticle misrepresents Augustine'sview of the interrelations of the Gos-pels an yhow 3 8 .

A modern scholar who interpreted Augustine correctly is AdolfJlicher in his Introduction to the New Testament of 189439. Jlicherrightly states that, in contradistinction to Protestant orthodoxy,Augus-tine saw no problem in assuming "eine Benutzung des lteren Evange-l iums durch das nchstfolgende, also des Mt durch M C, des M C durchLc". A mong th e more recent critics who have interpreted Augustine

36 Heinrich Joseph VOGELS, St Augustms Schrift d e consensu e vang e hs t ar um (BiblischeStudien, XIII,5), Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908 On pp 82-83 Vogels translates "dass keinervon ihnen hat schreiben wollen, ohne vorher von der Arbeit des Vorgngers (smgular, m yitalics, H J de J ) Kenntnis genommen zu haben oder ohne sie beachtet zu haben" Butsubsequently he paraphrases " dass die spateren Evangelisten ihre Vorganger (plural,m y italics) gekannt und auch nicht unbercksichtigt gelassen haben"37 Possibly because the passage at issue contradicts the Neo-Gnesbachian hypothesisto which Peabody adheres See David PEABODY, Augustine and the Augustiman Hypothe-si s A Reexammation of Augustine's T h o u gh t m D e consensu evangelistarum, in W RFARMER (ed), New Synoptic Studies, Macon GA, 1983, pp 37-64 This article does notseem to me to do justice to Augustine's mtentions38 Peabody argues that it was Augustine's opimon in De consensu evangehstarum IVthat Mark was dependent upon both Matthew and Luke This theory is repeated byFarmer in the article quoted in note 33 above Peabody's view, however, is based on amisinterpretat ion of IV,x,ll Here Augustine does not mean to say that Mark fol lowedLuke in the sense that the former used the latter, but simply that Mark has more mcommon with Matthew and Luke than with John In IV,x,ll Augustine does not suggestthat Mark is dependent upon Luke, but that the way Mark's Gospel depicts Christ s anear th ly , human person resembles the way in which Matthew and Luke portray him, incontradistinction to John See Helmut MERKEL, Die berlieferung d er alten Kirche berdas Verhltnis d er evangehen, in David L DUNGAN (ed), Interrelat ionships (see note 33above), pp 566-590, especially pp 586-589 Chnstopher Tuckett has rightly pointed outthat after I ,n ,4 Augustine is no longer concerned about the relationships between theevangehsts s authors See Christopher M TUCKETT, Response to the Two-GospelHypothesis ,m D L DUNGAN (ed), Interrelationships (see note 33 above), pp 47-76,especially p 51, note 1539 Adolf JLICHER, Einleitung m d a s Neue Testament, Freiburg and Leipzig,


15/17

H.S. REIMARU S O N J OHN A N D T H E SYNOPTICS 421correctly, is W alter Schmithals, w ho rightly states that according toAugustine, D e consensu evangelistarum I, ii, 4, "jeder Evangelist inKenntnis seines Vorgngers geschrieben (habe)"

40.Zeemanlaan 47 Henk J. DE JONGENL-2313 SW Leiden

40. Walter SCHMITHALS, art. Evangel ien , in TRE X (1982), pp. 570-626; see p. 575,2.6.


16/17

PEETERS PRESSBondgenotenlaan 153,B-3000 LeuvenTel. (01 6)2 35 1 70Fax ( 016)22 85 00


17/17

1992 - H.J. de Jonge - The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 1992 - H.J. de Jonge - The Loss of Faith in the Historicity of the Gospels.pdf