rect, but generally becoming obscured in the course of time by additions and embellishments added to it. In modern times the distinction has become still more marked; as myths are made to be fables resting on an idea only, and developed as if they were truth, though generally connected either with persons, places, or cir- cumstances which have really existed, while by tradition is understood the transmission of real facts or events connected with an idea. Strauss, in his Li/e of Jesus, defines myths as •' the historical garb (of the original j Christian ideas) used in the aimless poetical tradition I (of the early Church) which composes the whole of the I Gospel." It is in the nature of myths to be often a sort I of symbol of the thoughts from which they sprang. ' This connection between them is well established in UUmann, Ilistorisch vder Mythisch (Ilamb. 1838, p. 50 sq.). Both are realizations of an idea ; in the symbol by signs, in the myth by words. "The symbol ex- presses the immediate and permanent connection be- tween the supernatural and the pliysical. The myth can take its rise in historical elements which it assimi- lates, or sin)i)ly in the thoughts; this establishes the distinction between historical and philosophical myths, between which extremes, of course, there arc many in- termediates." Both myths and tradition are, then, dis- tinct from history, but form the vague mist out of which history steps forth. This leads to a distinction between the historical period of a people's existence, or that when tradition commences to be certain, and the myth- ical period. Now to the Bible student and to every Christian arises the question, first clearly proposed by Herder, whether in the original history of mankind, and especially of the chosen people, the same rule holds good that the time of tradition was preceded by a mythical period. This proposition may probably be admitted in a modified form ; but the expression myths must be rejected, as many erroneous views would other- wise become entangled with it, and because "we are used to hear it especially applied to the fantastic produc- tions of the poets of heathen religions" (Ullmann, p. 58). Yet it cannot be denied that the O. T. contains passages the sense of which is traditional and mythic, and that acute criticism is required to get at real liistorical events in their true order, not only in the apocryphal books, but even in those recognised as canonical. The necessity of such criticism, which in former times was altogether neglected as useless, has become evident after the at- tacks of freethinkers and deists, and especiallj' since tl>e rationalists have brought forth their theory of myths and traditions to attack the reality of miracles, "as these are never to find a place in history."
Dr. jM-Clintock (in the preface to his translation of Xeander's Life of Christ, N. Y. 1848, p. xiv sq.) has thus sketched the origin and progress of the mythical i)roc- ess of criticism, as tlie natural outgrowth of the ration- alistic form which infidelity assumed in Germany :
"The declared aim of the rntionnlisls was to interjiret the Bible on latiunal i)iiuciples'; that is to say, to Und nothin-r in it beyond tlie scope of human reason. Not sujipnt;!!!;; iis writers to be impostors, nor denying ihe rccDid to be a lej.'itiniiUc source, in a ccrtnin scum-, of le- lisrioiis instniclioii, tliey soiiglit to ficf i( from fvciytliiiig ■iiijicnia/iirdl ; dconiiiiL' it to be, not a direct (li\iin.' rove- laiioi), but n product of the htimnn iniiul, nidcd, iiuifod, by Divine Providence, but in no exlriiordiii.iry or niir:ic- ulous way. Tlic inniK-hs, Ibeicfou', lind to be explained away; aiid this w.is (bme in iniy mode tlmt tin- ingenuity or philostipliii ofthe expositor niiulit sugt:c.-t. Sometimes, for iusiancc, iliey were no miracles at all, but simple nat- ural facts, and mU the old interpreters had misunderstood the writers. ISometinies. again, the uritcrs ofthe sacred history niisiniderstoort the facts, deoming tliein to lie nii- racuhnis when they were not; e. g. when t'hrisl 'healed the sick," he merelv prescribed for tlieni, iis a kind jiliysi- cian, with skill and success; when he 'raised the dejid,' he only restored men from a swoon or tnince; when he 'subdued the storm,' there was simply a happy 'coinci- dence,' making a strong impression upon the "minds of the disciples; when he fed the 'live thousand," lie only set an cxnmple of kindness and benevolence which the rich by-stanilcrs cijcrly fidlowcd by openini: their stores to feed the bmiL-ry nuiititude, etc. "Hut even this clastic exegesis, when stretched to its utmost capacity, would
MYTHICAL THEORY
807
MYTHICAL THEORY
not explain every case : gome parts of the narratives were etiibboruly unyielding, and new metliods were demanded. For men who had gone so far, it was easy to go farther— the text itself was not spared : this passage was doubtful, that was corrupt, a third was spurious. la short, ' criti- cism,'as this desperate kind of interpretation was called, was at last able to make anything, and in a fair way to make nothing, out of the sacred records. But still the ra- tionalist agreed with the orthodox supernaturalist in ad- mitting that there was, at bottom, a basis of substantial truth in the records, and asserted that his efforts only tended to free the substantive verity from the envelop- ments of fable or perversion with which tradttion had in- vested it. The admission was a fatal one. The absurdi- ties to which the theory led could not long remain unde- tected. It was soon shown, and shown effectually, that this vaunted criticism was no criticism at all; that the objections which it offered to the Gospel history were as old as Porphyi'y, or, at least, as the English Deists, and had been refuted again and again ; that the errors of in- terpretation into which the older expositors had fallen might be avoided without touching the truth and inspira- tion of the evangelists ; and, in a word, that there could be no medium between open infidelity and the admission of a supernatural revelation. During the first quarter of the present century the conflict was waged with ardor on both sides, but with increasing energy on the side of truth ; and every year weakened the forces of rationalism. Still, the theological mind of Germany was to a considerable extent unsettled: its Tholuck and Hengstenberg stood strong for orthodoxy; its Twesten and Nilzsch applied the clearest logic to systematic theology ; its Marheineke and Daub philosophized religiously; its Bretschneider and Hase upheld reason as the judge of revelation; while not a few maintained the old rationalism, though with less and less of conviction, or at least of boldness.