| 19. Mythical view of the narrative, in its different stages. | ||||
The above exposition of the necessity, and lastly, of the possibility of doubting the historical fidelity of the gospel narrative, {P.88} has led many theologians to explain the account of the birth of the Baptist as a poetical composition; suggested, by the importance attributed by the Christians to the forerunner of Jesus, and by the recollection of some of the Old Testament histories, in which the births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samuel, and especially of Samson, are related to have been similarly announced. Still the matter was not allowed to be altogether invented. It may have been historically true that Zechariah and Elizabeth lived long without offspring; that, on one occasion while in the temple, the old man's tongue was suddenly paralyzed; but that soon afterwards his aged wife bore him a son, and he, in his joy at the event, recovered the power of speech. At that time, but still more when John became a remarkable man, the story excited attention, and out of it the existing legend grew. | ||||
It is surprising to find an explanation almost identical with the natural one we have criticised above, again brought forward under a new title; so that the admission of the possibility of an admixture of subsequent legends in the narrative has little influence on the view of the matter itself. As the mode of explanation we are now advocating denies all confidence in the historical authenticity of the record, all the details must be in themselves equally problematic; and whether historical validity can be retained for this or that particular incident, can be determined only by its being either less improbable than the rest, or else less in harmony with the spirit, interest, and design of the poetic legend, so as to make it probable that it had a distinct origin. The barrenness of Elizabeth and the sudden dumbness of Zechariah are here retained as incidents of this character, so that only the appearing and prediction of the angel are given up. But by taking away the angelic apparition, the sudden infliction and as sudden removal of the dumbness loses its only adequate supernatural cause, so that all difficulties which beset the natural interpretation remain in full force, a dilemma into which these theologians are, most unnecessarily, brought by their own inconsequence; for the moment we enter upon mythical ground, all obligation to hold fast the assumed historical fidelity of the account ceases to exist. Besides, that which they propose to retain as historical fact, namely, the long barrenness of the parents of the Baptist, is so strictly in harmony with the spirit and character of Hebrew legendary poetry, that of this incident the mythical origin is least to be mistaken. How confused has this misapprehension made, for example, the reasoning of Bauer! It was a prevailing opinion, says he, consonant with Jewish ideas, that all children born of aged parents who had previously been childless became distinguished personages. John was the child of aged parents, and became a notable preacher of repentance; consequently it was thought justifiable to infer that his birth was predicted by an angel. What an illogical {P.89} conclusion! for which he has no other ground than the assumption that John was the son of aged parents. Let this be made a settled point, and the conclusion follows without difficulty. It was readily believed, he proceeds, of remarkable men that they were born of aged parents and that their birth, no longer in the ordinary course of nature to be expected, was announced by a heavenly messenger; John was a great man and a prophet; consequently, the legend represented him to have been born of an aged couple, and his birth to have been proclaimed by an angel. | ||||
Seeing that this explanation of the narrative before us, as a half (so called historical) myth, is encumbered with all the difficulties of a half measure, Gabler has treated it as a pure philosophical, or dogmatical myth. Horst likewise considers it, and indeed the entire two first chapters of Luke of which it forms a part, as an ingenious fiction, in which the birth of the Messiah, together with that of his precursor, and the predictions concerning the character and ministry of the latter, framed after the event, are set forth; it being precisely the loquacious circumstantiality of the narration which betrays the poet. Schleiermacher likewise explains the first chapter as a little poem, similar in character to many of the Jewish poems which we meet with in their apocrypha. He does not however consider it altogether a fabrication. It might have had a foundation in fact, and in a wide spread tradition; but the poet has allowed himself so full a license in arranging, and combining, in moulding and embodying the vague and fluctuating representations of tradition, that the attempt to detect the purely historical in such narratives, must prove a fruitless and useless effort. Horst goes so far as to suppose the author of the piece to have been a Judaising Christian; while Schleiermacher imagines it to have been composed by a Christian of the famed Jewish school, at a period when it comprised some who still continued strict disciples of John; and whom it was the object of the narrative to bring over to Christianity, by exhibiting the relationship of John to the Christ as his peculiar and highest destiny; and also by holding out the expectation of a state of temporal greatness for the Jewish people at the re-appearance of Christ. | ||||
An attentive consideration of the Old Testament histories, to which, as most interpreters admit, the narrative of the annunciation and birth of the Baptist bears a striking affinity, will render it {P.90} abundantly evident that this is the only just view of the passage in question. But it must not here be imagined, as is now so readily affirmed in the confutation of the mythical view of this passage, that the author of our narrative first made a collection from the Old Testament of its individual traits; much rather had the scattered traits respecting the late birth of different distinguished men, as recorded in the Old Testament, blended themselves into a compound image in the mind of their reader, from which he selected the features most appropriate to his present subject of the children born of aged parents Isaac is the most ancient prototype. As it is said of Zechariah and Elizabeth "they both were advanced in their days" (v. 7.) so Abraham and Sarah "were advanced in their days" (Ba'im bayamim) (Gen. xviii; LXX, probebhkotej h(merwn), when they were promised a son. It is likewise from this history that the incredulity of the father, on account of the advanced age of both parents, and the demand of a sign, are borrowed in our narrative. As Abraham, when the Lord promises him he shall have a son and a numerous posterity who shall inherit the land of Canaan, doubtingly inquires "Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" kata ti gnwsomai, oti klhronomhsw authn; (Gen xv. 8. LXX), so "Whereby shall I know this?" kata ti gnwsomai touto; (v. 18.) The incredulity of Sarah is not made use of for Elizabeth; but she is said to be of the daughters of Aaron, and the name Elizabeth may perhaps have been suggested by that of Aaron's wife. (Exod. vi. 23. LXX.) The incident of the angel announcing the birth of the Baptist is taken from the story of another late-born child, Samson. In our narrative indeed, the angel appears first to the father in the temple, whereas in the story of Samson he shows himself first to the mother, and afterwards to the father in the field. This, however, is an alteration arising naturally out of the different situations of the respective parents. (Judges xiii.) According to popular Jewish notions it was no unusual occurrence for the priest to be visited by angels and divine apparitions while offering incense in the temple. The command which before his birth predestined the Baptist-whose later ascetic mode of life was known-to be a Nazirite, is taken from the same source. As, to Samson's mother during her pregnancy, wine, strong drink, and unclean food, were forbidden, so a similar diet is prescribed for her son, adding, as in the case of John, that the child shall be consecrated to God from the womb. The blessings {P.91} which it is predicted that these two men shall realize for the people of Israel are similar, (comp. Luke i. 16, 17, with Judges xiii. 5.) and each narrative concludes with the same expression respecting the hopeful growth of the child. It may be too bold to derive the Levitical descent of the Baptist from a third Old Testament history of a late-born son from the story of Samuel; (compare 1 Sam. i. 1; Chron. vii. 27.) but the lyric effusions in the first chapter of Luke are imitations of this history. As Samuel's mother, when consigning him to the care of the high priests, breaks forth into a hymn, (1 Sam. ii. 1.) so the father of John does the same at the circumcision; though the particular expressions in the Canticle uttered by Mary of which we shall have to speak hereafter - have a closer resemblance to Hannah's song of praise than that of Zechariah. The significant appellation "John" predetermined by the angel, had its precedent in the announcements of the names of Ishmael and Isaac; but the ground of its selection was the apparently providential coincidence between the signification of the name and the historical destination of the man. The remark, that the name of John was not in the family, (v. 61.) only brought its celestial origin more fully into view. The tablet upon which the father wrote the name (v. 63.) was necessary on account of his incapacity to speak ; but it also had its type in the Old Testament. Isaiah was commanded to write the significant names of the child Maher-shalal-hash-baz upon a tablet. (Isaiah viii. 1, ff.) The only supernatural incident of the narrative, of which the Old Testament may seem to offer no precise analogy, is the dumbness; and this is the point fixed upon by those who contest the mythical view. But if it be borne in mind that the asking and receiving a sign from heaven in confirmation of a promise or prophecy was usual among the Hebrews (comp. Isaiah vii. 11, ff.); that the temporary loss of one of the senses was the peculiar punishment inflicted after a heavenly vision (Acts ix. 8, 17, ff.); that Daniel became dumb while the angel was talking with him, and did not recover his speech till the angel had touched his lips and opened his mouth, (Dan. x. 15, f.) the origin of this incident also will be found in the legend and not in historical fact. of two ordinary and subordinate features of the narrative, the one, the righteousness of the parents of the Baptist, (v. 6.) is merely a conclusion founded upon the belief that to a pious couple alone would the blessing of such a son be vouchsafed, and consequently is void of all historical worth; {P.92} the other, the statement that John was born in the reign of Herod (the Great) (v. 5.) is without doubt a correct calculation. | ||||
So that we stand here upon purely mythical-poetical ground; the only historical reality which we can hold fast as positive matter of fact being this: the impression made by John the Baptist, by virtue of his ministry and his relation to Jesus, was so powerful as to lead to the subsequent glorification of his birth in connection with the birth of the Messiah in the Christian legend. | ||||