TENTAMEN ANTI-STRAUSSIANUM.*

WE are inclined to value the essay whose title we have placed below, less for any thing that it contains itself, than because it appears to us to suggest in what direction further evidence of the antiquity of the evangelical history should be looked for, and will probably be found. Dr. Dobbin has in this essay led the way into a new field of inquiry, which promises, we think, if carefully cultivated, to yield valuable results. For this he is well entitled to our thanks-although such results, in our opinion, he has not yet attained.

We gather from expressions of Dr. Dobbin, that he regards the kind of argument which he here employs as capable of being further exemplified, from materials afforded by the Christian Scriptures. In this opinion we are persuaded he is not mistaken, and we hope that he will be induced to pursue the subject. Whatever other "philological matter" he may have to produce, in confirmation of his anti-mythical argument, we shall be very glad to receive at his hands, especially if accompanied by the same earnest, and yet liberal and courteous, spirit which animates this Tentamen.

But, without further preface, in order that our readers may be enabled to judge of the nature of Dr. Dobbin's argument for themselves, we will at once proceed to give some short account of it.

It is sufficiently known that the great object of Dr. Strauss' work, Das Leben Jesu, is to prove that the Gospels are not to be regarded as properly histories of the life of Jesus, but rather as fabulous narratives, stories which grew up in the lapse of many years after the death of our Lord. They became fixed at length, we are told, in the form in which we now have them: and in this form,-so little are they founded on actual realities, and so much on mere ideas and expectations entertained in connection with the Messiah,-we cannot at the present day ascertain confidently the true original facts of the life of Jesus. Such a theory as this obviously requires that a considerable interval shall have elapsed between the death of our Saviour and the time when the traditions, or myths, respecting him assumed the connected narrative form of our present Gospels. The evangelical histories, then, if the mythical theory be true, must be of comparatively late origin-late as compared with the date of Christ's death, and late as compared with the dates commonly assigned to them.

It is in refutation of this supposition of a late origin of the Gospels that Dr. Dobbin offers the argument of the Tentamen. He does not, indeed, venture to name the probable date of the composition of those narratives. That is beside his purpose. But he maintains that they are older than the Epistles of the New Testament, which, we know from abundant evidence, must have been written not so very many years after the crucifixion-not, at any rate, sufficiently long after that event to allow of time for the origin and development of that overgrown wilderness of myths, which the Gospels must be, if the theory of Dr. Strauss be true.

Tentamen Anti-Straussianum. The Antiquity of the Gospels asserted, on Philological Grounds, in refutation of the Mythic Scheme of Dr. D. F. Strauss. An Argument, by Orlando T. Dobbin, LL.Ď., T.C D. 8vo. Pp. 113. London-Ward and Co.

66

a

Our author's plan is simple. "We shall exhibit one fact," he says; "a fact directly subversive of the basis of Mythicism' fact from Scripture, but rather a form of phrase, than a mode of doctrine.' (Tent. p. 24.) This "one fact" is, "that in a peculiar usage the New-Testament writers are divisible into two great classes." This peculiar usage, again, "is that of the name by which the Saviour of men is designated, in the Gospels and Epistles respectively." (P. 30.) Dr. Dobbin then proceeds to shew, by the actual citation from the Greek Testament of all the passages in which the names of our Lord occur, that he is called Inoous, Jesus, in the Gospels and Acts, "to the almost exclusion of every other" name; whereas in the Epistles that name occurs comparatively seldom. "The name Inoous," he observes, "is thus seen to occur nearly seven hundred times in the works of the four evangelists, as the proper designation of the Saviour of men. In the Epistles, on the other hand, it occurs less than seventy times." (P. 40.)

Our author next comments upon 66 a use in the Epistles which is comparatively wanting in the Gospels." This consists in the employment of the term Xpitos, Christ, either alone or in combination with Ingous, as the personal designation of our Lord. Here, again, we have an actual citation of all the passages in the Greek Testament in which the name Xporos thus presents itself, from which it appears that this word " occurs about sixty times in the Gospels and Acts, while it occurs two hundred and forty times in the Epistles and Revelation." In the Gospels, moreover, "it never occurs without the article, except in three instances. . . . while the more common use of the word in the Epistles is without the article." (P. 48.)

"The form Inous Xpiros occurs only five times in the Gospels, and in one of those cases (Matt. i. 18) is very suspicious-a whole ancient class of MSS. wanting it," while in the Epistles this form occurs "at least one hundred and sixty times."

"The form Xpitos Ingous never once occurs in the Gospels, and only some two or three times in the Acts.... while in the Epistles it is very common.”

Thus it appears that the usual name of our Lord in the Gospels is Ιησούς, very rarely Ιησους Χριστος, and never Χριστος Ιησους. On the contrary, in the Epistles the more usual name is either Inoous Xpotos, or Χ. Ιησους, οι Χριστος alone,the form Ιησους occurring comparatively seldom. The proposition which Dr. Dobbin founds on the fact of this difference is as follows:

"That the difference thus proved to exist indicates a different period for the composition of the two classes of writings, the Gospels and Epistles; and that these periods must have been an early date for the Gospels, and one considerably later for the Epistles."-P. 50.

This proposition the author of the Tentamen endeavours to establish by several arguments, of which the best, we think, is that derived from the usage of the apostolical Fathers, (below whose age it seems needless to descend for evidence in the case, although Dr. Dobbin has cited instances in support of his position from various Fathers down to the beginning of the fifth century). The apostolical Fathers apply to our Lord the same names as we find in the Epistles—Χριστος, Ιησούς Χ., Χ. Inσous. In their writings, "the name Inous, standing alone, does not occur six times, unless it be in the direct quotation of a holy scripture

containing it, and one, if not more, of these very few readings is more than suspected." (P. 56.) Thus it appears that in the age immediately succeeding that in which the Epistles were written, and for a considerable period, (from 95 A.D. to 160 or 170,) the names of our Lord which characterize the Epistles continued to be employed-proof, says our author, that the Gospels were not written in this later period; for, if they were, why do not they also exhibit the prevailing names, rather than the simple form Ιησους ?

We wish that we could regard the argument thus framed by Dr. Dobbin with the same confidence which he himself appears to place in it. We cannot do so, although we think the subject worthy of further and careful examination. We will offer a few brief remarks in illustration of our meaning, remarks which we make in the most friendly spirit, and with no other view than that of contributing to a just estimate of the value of Dr. Dobbin's argument.

The present application of the fact which our author brings so distinctly into view is, so far as we know, the first attempt of the kind; and the author of the Tentamen has, therefore, the merit, as he himself reminds us, of producing an original argument. The fact itself, however, must have been observed by many among the multitude of intelligent and acute minds which have been at various times engaged in the study of the Scriptures. It certainly has not, as Dr. Dobbin supposes, "escaped detection until now." (P. 54.)

In an article in the Christian Reformer for 1836 (pp. 78-87), by the Rev. R. Wallace, now Professor of Theology in Manchester New College, that fact is distinctly alluded to, and some views and reasonings are there presented, which might be made of service to the present argument. Mr. Wallace observes:-" This addition, however [of the name Christ], did not take place during our Lord's life; for wherever he is represented either as spoken of, or addressed, by any of his contemporaries, in the Gospels, it is uniformly under the name Jesus." (C. R. 1836, p. 78.) Again:-"The name Jesus occurs upwards of three hundred and sixty times in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; but there is scarcely a single well-authenticated instance in which our Lord is called Jesus Christ by those evangelists. Nor is the case materially different as regards the Gospel of John; for although the name Jesus is introduced by this evangelist certainly not less than two hundred and fifty times, we only once meet with the name Jesus Christ-John i. 17." (Ibid. p. 79.) The same writer afterwards_observes, that our Lord is "repeatedly introduced under the name of Jesus Christ, in the Epistles; and this, in fact, is the usual mode of designating him, in the later books of the New Testament." (Ibid. p. 86.)

Dr. Dobbin, we have seen, states that there are only five instances in the Gospels in which our Lord is called Jesus Christ,-one of these, as he also states, being suspicious. Mr. Wallace goes further than this, and shews by very satisfactory reasoning, that, in three out of those five instances the reading Jesus Christ cannot be regarded as the original reading of the passage; that the fourth instance (John xvii. 3),

* In Matt i. 18, the word Ingou is probably an interpolation. Omitting it, we have Xporos left with the article-not a personal name, but one of office. In regard to John xvii. 3, which might seem a second instance in St. John's

as mentioned in the note below, is not a case in point; and, consequently, that there is only a single passage in the four Gospels (John i. 18) in which the compound name Jesus Christ is applied to our Lord.

This is so far an undesigned confirmation of the argument of Dr. Dobbin. But, let us proceed to inquire, how does the occurrence of even the one instance in St. John's Gospel accord with that argument? We conceive that it is undeniable, from the internal character of the fourth Gospel, that its composition was late, as compared with the date of many, or most, of the Epistles. This view is rendered the more certain by the undoubted occurrence in this Gospel of the compound name Jesus Christ, the form which is taken by Dr. Dobbin himself to be indicative of comparative lateness of composition. Let us assume, again, as we have good reason for doing, that this form does not occur in the first three evangelists. We then immediately, on our author's own principle, arrive at a conclusion in harmony with the view commonly entertained of the comparative age of the fourth and of the Synoptical Gospels. In the latter, the name indicative of late origin does not occur at all; in the former it does occur, though only once that once, however, being, we conceive, as conclusive evidence of the use of the compound name, at the time the fourth Gospel was written, as would be afforded by the much more frequent occurrence of that name.

So much for the relation, in point of age, between the fourth Gospel and the three others. Further: it is readily granted that the simple name Jesus was the earlier personal designation of our Lord; the compound name Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, the later. Yet we doubt whether the use of the former name alone in the Synoptical Gospels is itself a sufficient proof of their early composition. We doubt―(1) Because St. John-whom we are not induced by any thing that Dr. Dobbin has advanced to regard as an early writer, but rather, on his own principle, as a late one-St. John, except in the one instance we have mentioned, always designates our Lord by the name Jesus. And if he, though writing late, does this, the fact that the first three evangelists follow the same usage, is no proof that they wrote early. We doubt (2) Because we think that even had one of the apostolical Fathers written a memoir of the life of Christ, he would, generally, in speaking of him, have employed the simple name Jesus, by which he was known and addressed during his life-time. Mere attention to historical accuracy would lead to this a statement which is in accordance with the constant usage of biographers. Napoleon, for example, became Emperor in 1804; yet a historian of his life would not, in referring to his parentage, his childhood, his school-days, his early military career, speak of him as the Emperor, the Emperor Napoleon, but would employ only the name by which he had been generally known before his elevation to the imperial dignity. It may be objected, that the term " Emperor" never became a personal name, as did the term Christ, but remained always significant of office. Take, then, Gospel of the use of the compound name, it is probable that the rendering of our Common Version is incorrect, "Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,"-and that the true meaning is, "That they may know thee to be the only true God, and Jesus whom thou hast sent to be the Christ." (Rosenmüller in loc.)

another case, in which a personal name is involved. Bulwer, the eminent novelist, is now Bulwer Lytton, having assumed the latter name some few years ago. A biographer would not speak of him as Bulwer Lytton previously to the time of his assumption of the second name, but simply as Bulwer. Thus, too, we think, a biographer of our Lord, even though writing after the introduction of the later name, Jesus Christ, would yet naturally use the name by which the subject of his narrative had been known during the period to which that narrative referred.

We are not able, at the time of writing these remarks, to refer to a collection of the Apocryphal Gospels; but we must observe that their usage, in regard to the name of our Saviour, would probably go far to set at rest the question of the soundness of Dr. Dobbin's argument. Those spurious Gospels are undoubtedly of late origin: if, then, it be found, on reference to them, that they generally apply to our Lord the simple name Jesus, the circumstance that the Canonical Gospels do the same thing cannot alone afford conclusive evidence of the early composition of the latter. It may be replied, however, that the former would naturally imitate the latter in the point referred to. If a contrary usage prevail in the Apocryphal Gospels, this, so far as it goes, will be in favour of Dr. Dobbin's argument.

We need hardly repeat, that we offer these remarks in no unfriendly spirit, but with the sole purpose of obtaining a correct estimate of the value of this new argument. We shall be exceedingly glad if it can be sustained in all its force. But this we doubt; and since writing the first few sentences of this notice, and looking a little more fully into the subject, our doubts have increased rather than diminished. G. V. S.

NONCONFORMIST CONFESSORS.

PERSECUTION and indulgence-indulgence and persecution-in ceaseless alternation, make up the entire history of the time. Yet a sense of religious duty withheld the Puritan ministers from laying aside their pastoral functions. The strength of a solemn vow still bound them to their flocks. So long as the penal laws were in force, they preached to their people in private and visited them by stealth; while their retreats were hunted out by informers of the most infamous character; their places of meeting broken in upon by a licentious soldiery; and learned and holy men, dragged to the bar of justice for simply preaching the Gospel, were insulted by magistrates, brow-beaten by judges, and laid up in fetid and unwholesome gaols, at that time nurseries of pestilence, and destitute of every Christian comfort and decency, among highwaymen and murderers. When the laws were suspended, by a declaration of indulgence, the ministers came forth more openly, and gathered round them large audiences of all ranks. During the ravages of the plague, and after the desolations of the fire of London, the Nonconformists pursued their sacred vocation with a quickened ardour and exemplary humanity; preaching in the forsaken churches, or setting up temporary tabernacles of wood to receive their hearers. And yet it was in the midst of these self-sacrificing exertions, while the plague was still raging, that the Oxford Act was issued, to disable their ministry. Rev. J. J. Tayler's Religious Life of England, p. 251.