256: "Poimandres," p. 33.

It seems unnecessary to guess with Zahn that "Arikia" should be read

instead of "Arkadia," or to assume that Hermas was a native of Arcadia,

or had a book of travels in his hands, or that he was thinking of Hermes

or the Hermetic writings. The literary tradition connecting Arcadia with

shepherds and with pastoral poetry was in itself enough, as Vergil's

"Eclogues" may suggest. It is admitted that Hermas was a literary man

even if "a man of the people," and what more natural place for a

shepherd to appear, if it was to be upon a mountain, than a mountain in

Arcadia? Shepherds have suggested Arcadia from the time of Vergil to

that of Sir Philip Sydney, and Vergil, in breaking away from the Sicily

of Theocritus, was quite probably following a tradition already

established at Rome.

An historian of Roman religion, W. Warde Fowler, says of Christianity as

preached by Paul that "the plant, though grown in a soil which had borne

other crops, was wholly new in structure and vital principle. I say this

deliberately, after spending so many years on the study of the religion

of the Romans, and making myself acquainted in some measure with the

religions of other peoples. The love of Christ is the entirely new power

that has come into the world; not merely as a new type of morality, but

as 'a Divine influence transfiguring human nature in a universal love.'

The passion of St. Paul's appeal lies in the consecration of every

detail of it by reference to the life and death of the Master."[257]

257: "The Religious Experience of the Roman People," 1911, pp. 466,

467.

The gospel which conquered the Roman Empire was no syncretic product

growing from Græco-Roman soil, no _mélange_ of oriental religions and

Greek philosophy, no cunningly devised fable or myth for the myth-loving

Greeks. No explanation of the character of Pauline Christianity, or of

its victory over its rivals in the ancient world, can ignore the

statements of Paul himself: "When the fulness of time was come, God sent

forth his Son; he revealed his Son in me, that I might preach him among

the Gentiles" (Gal. iv. 4; i. 16).

II. CHRISTIANITY AND MODERN RELIGIONS

The relation of Christianity to modern religions is a matter of

practical rather than theoretical interest. After the brilliant

victories of the early missionary age, the activity of the church in

spreading the gospel among the non-Christian peoples was for many

centuries remitted, and it is only practically within the last one

hundred years that the Christian Faith has been brought into actual

contact, through the work of its missionaries, with the non-Christian

religions.

Through its missionary propaganda Christianity has shown its genuineness

and its devotion to the commands of its Founder; and so far as it has

proved its ability to meet the religious needs and quicken the religious

and intellectual life of diverse nationalities, it has supplied a

practical demonstration of its divine origin and authority. The

missionaries have supplied the church with a pattern of apostolic zeal,

and have kept burning the fire of a passionate love and devotion for

their Master. A British statesman has said that the unselfish

imperialism of its missionary propaganda has been the crowning glory of

the Anglo-Saxon race.

While the unceasing struggle of Christianity against worldliness, greed,

indifference and unbelief still continues, it may be said that

Christianity has to-day no rival as a claimant to be the universal

religion. It alone can stand the white light of modern science, and it

alone can stand the test of those moral ideals which have been largely

created by itself. It is absolutely certain that none of the present

ethnic religions can compete with Christianity in its contest for world

supremacy.

The great danger to Christianity to-day, from the side of other

religions, is not that of persecution or the hostility of the state. The

danger lies in the temptation to compromise. Let Christianity, it is

said, lay aside its assumption of divine and exclusive authority and of

infinite superiority to all other religions, and let it make in its

ethics some concessions to the weakness of human nature, and the path to

world-conquest will be open.

Never was the temptation to compromise, with Judaism on the one hand and

heathenism on the other, stronger than it was in the early ages of the

Christian Church. If Christianity had compromised in the time of Jesus

and Paul, persecution would have ceased and the scandal of the cross

would have been removed. If early Christianity had compromised with

heathenism, and had not waged unrelenting warfare upon idolatry, it

could have escaped the united hostility of the state and of the other

religions and philosophies; on the other hand, if Christianity had come

to terms with Judaism or Paganism, while it might perhaps be known

historically as an obscure Jewish sect, or as a ripple upon the wave of

oriental religious influence upon the Græco-Roman world, it would never

have been the mighty spiritual power that it has been in human society.

It is a mistake to-day to think that for Christianity the way of

conquest is the way of compromise, and that Christianity can become a

world religion, superseding all others, by laying aside its distinctive

features and its exalted and exclusive claims. It would, indeed, be a

mistake to import our doctrinal systems in all their controversial

details into the heathen world, and the mystical oriental mind may

easily clothe Christianity, itself an oriental religion, in new and more

beautiful forms; but it would be, if possible, a greater mistake to

attempt to substitute ethics or natural religion for doctrinal

Christianity.

The rock of Islam will not yield to the preaching of a merely human and

prophetic Jesus; nor will the preaching of the Fatherhood of God and the

Brotherhood of man--the same message which the Swamis and Babists, with

a more pantheistic content to their message, preach in England and

America--be effective to overthrow the hoary superstitions of India and

the caste system with its hold upon every fibre of human nature.

A prominent educator and leader of thought has recently complained that

Christianity as usually preached in foreign lands is unsuitable to the

oriental mind. On the other hand, he chides the members of his own

religious communion because they, "with magnificent ideals, with

glorious concepts, with the truth of Christ in all its purity and

simplicity, sit in smug content offering the world of missions, in the

hour of its hunger, only the dry bones of criticism of those who

already serve."[258] But every practical movement, enlisting great masses

of men and demanding tremendous sacrifice for its accomplishment, must

have a rational basis. A humanitarian impulse is not sufficient to carry

through to a conclusion so vast and world-embracing a plan as is

contemplated by Christian Missions. The impulse however strong and noble

will evaporate, unless based upon and fed by a theory of what the

Christian religion is, of what it offers to men, of man's need of it,

and of the obligation of Christians to carry it to the non-Christian

nations. The history of missions has shown that no mere feeling of

benevolence or desire to better social and economic conditions, but the

command of Christ, love for Christ and gratitude to Christ has led the

army of missionaries to endure separation, hardship, persecution and

death.

258: Dr. Charles W. Eliot as reported in the press.

Lowell has said that every new edition of an Elizabethan dramatist "is

but the putting of another witness into the box to prove the

inaccessibility of Shakespeare's standpoint as poet and artist." Every

comparison of Christianity with other religions, ancient and modern,

brings its own superiority into stronger relief. In Jesus Christ and in

Him alone have been fulfilled the great religious ideas of the race. In

Him as prophet God's word is perfectly spoken, and He is the example

who leads in the way of His own precepts. In Him are fulfilled the ideas

of sacrifice and priesthood; He is the great High Priest, separate from

sinners in His holiness, but near them in His compassion and mercy. He

has put away sin and put away sacrifice by the offering of Himself once

for all, and has destroyed the whole sacrificial system of Jews and

Gentiles. He is the fulfillment of the idea of incarnation, of God

coming to man and of the Most High visiting the children of men, for

their rescue from all danger and the supply of all their needs.

In other religious and philosophical systems there have been golden

maxims for the conduct of life, wonderful insights into truth and

visions of beauty, and evidences of the reaching out of the human soul

after God; but Christianity is the only religion of which the

enlightened reason and conscience of the world can say that it is from

heaven and not from men. In no other religion has there been a long

period of centuries of preparation in the religious education of a

people to be the recipients and the messengers, in the fullness of time,

of the final revelation. In no other religion is there found a teaching

so profound, and yet so simple and self-evidencing, upon the great

themes of human interest, God, Immortality and Duty. From no other has

gone forth an influence so beneficent and transforming in human

history. In no other has there been a Calvary and an Easter Day, the

great historic facts upon which the hopes of the world rest, and in no

other has the undiscovered country been transformed into "the Father's

house."

VI

The Christian Faith and Biblical Criticism

We are living at a time when territory formerly deemed sacred is being

traversed by hosts of forbidding aspect under the banners of natural

science, of philosophy, and of the psychology and history of religion.

The greatest foe of all, it has been thought by some, has arisen within

the household of faith in the form of Biblical Criticism.

An eloquent American preacher, Dr. Richard S. Storrs, has said that when

Luther translated the Bible into the vernacular, "the peasant's roof was

lifted to a level with the stars." Into every home whose inmates could

read there came, with the Bible in their own tongue, the message of

divine love and redemption. With the freedom to read the Bible came also

the freedom to study the Bible, to judge by its standard the doctrines

and usages of the church, to compare Scripture with Scripture, and even

to bring Scripture itself with its credentials before the bar of reason.

Whatever the extremes into which criticism may have run in an age in

which the Cartesian principle of doubt is applied to every received

opinion, the rights of Biblical Criticism must be conceded as a legacy

of the Reformation.

About the works of Homer, of Plato, of Dante and of Shakespeare there

has gathered a mass of material in the way of commentary and discussion,

but it is safe to say that in recent years the literary output in all of

these departments of study taken together is small in comparison with

that which centres around the Bible. The Biblical critic has helped to

attract to the Bible the intellectual interest of our age, as well as to

make it the storm-centre of theological controversy. He has made it a

principal object of scholarly as well as devotional interest, has thrown

a flood of light upon its pages from history, archæology, philology and

comparative religion, and has challenged the devout Bible reader to a

more intelligent, minute and painstaking examination of the fundamental

documents of his faith.

The specialization of the age has assigned the Old Testament and the New

Testament to different departments of study, and the problems of each

must be independently investigated. It is evident, though, that the

fortunes of the Old Testament and the New are closely bound up together.

The same principles of criticism are likely to be applied to both, and

whether we begin with naturalism or supernaturalism in the Old Testament

we shall probably end with it in the New Testament. In both Testaments

Babylonian influence may be traced, and the twelve apostles may follow

the twelve patriarchs into the limbo of myth. If no supernatural process

of redemption, in the way of history, prophecy or revelation, can be

discovered in the Old Testament, it is unlikely that any will be

discovered at all. The Fourth Gospel as well as the Pentateuch has been

analyzed into documents, and the same great historical transposition is

seen in both Testaments; Jewish monotheism is said to have begun with

Amos instead of with Abraham, and Christianity in its distinctive

features with Paul instead of with Jesus.

The present state of discussion in the Old Testament field indicates, to

one not a specialist in this department, that positions which have been

regarded as assured are not yet settled beyond question. The literary

analysis is ingenious and plausible, but, as is shown in Orr's "Problem

of the Old Testament," the argument is balanced. To offset the literary

analysis and the rearrangement of the history in accordance with an

evolutionary scheme, there are certain considerations from history,

archæology, and common reason. No such analysis has been ventured in the

case of modern documents that are confessedly composite, and in the case

of Homer, the nearest classical parallel, there is the same uncertainty

in the results.

Purely literary considerations, as Ramsay has remarked, yield before

other more objective and historical data, and the literary theories are

adjusted to meet the new situation.[259] The temporary popularity in the

New Testament field of the Baur-Tübingen theories, based on Hegelian

principles of development, and then their general abandonment, suggest

the need of caution before we accept any concensus of criticism, based

upon literary and philosophical grounds alone, as the last word upon the

subject. Our special concern in this lecture is with the problems of the

New Testament, and we may consider briefly, I. The Pauline Epistles, II.

The Acts, III. The Synoptic Problem, and IV. The Johannine Problem.

259: "Luke the Physician," p. 262.

I. THE PAULINE EPISTLES

It is frequently said that the figure of the Apostle Paul stands out

against the background of history in bolder relief and with individual

features more strongly marked than does any other character in

antiquity. Not only has his public career been narrated by one who was

apparently his friend and companion in labours, but he has left a large

collection of letters, full of profound teaching upon religion and

ethics, and abounding in autobiographic details and in intimate

revelations of character.

The school of Baur recognized as genuine only the four central epistles,

Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians, making in bulk about

three-fifths of the writings, exclusive of Hebrews, which have been

assigned to Paul. The tendency of criticism since the time of Baur has

been steadily in the direction of the acceptance of other epistles as

Pauline. Colossians, Philippians and I Thessalonians have now been added

to the list of the generally accepted writings, and it is only the

fringe of Paul's writings that can be said to be still in dispute. Of

these "anti-legomena," 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and the Pastorals, it

is noticeable that two of them are rejected largely on the ground that

they resemble so closely in ideas and vocabulary the admittedly Pauline

letters of I Thessalonians and Colossians, while a Pauline nucleus is

often acknowledged in the Pastorals by those who do not assign the

epistles as a whole to Paul.

Students of Ephesians, moreover, are coming to hear in it more and more

clearly, if we mistake not, the voice of the Apostle and the expression

of his mature Christian experience, and of that doctrine of the church

in which Royce sees the essence of Paulinism. A. C. Headlam says that it

is the careful study of a book that will often solve the question of its

origin, and remarks: "To me Ephesians is Pauline through and through,

and more even than Romans represents the deepest thought of the

Apostle."[260] The important fact is that, when all the disputed epistles

are excluded, the progress of criticism has placed beyond reasonable

doubt the great body of the Apostle's teaching and the bulk of his

writings. The practical question now at issue, as Ramsay has observed,

is not, "What did Paul write?" but "What did Paul teach?"[261]

260: "St. Paul and Christianity," 1913, p. viii.

261: _Contemporary Review_, August, 1913, p. 198.

In Paul's acknowledged writings we have a solid basis in fact from which

to estimate the Gospel narratives and the Acts. The epistles of Paul

carry us back into the circle of the earlier apostles and of the

Jerusalem church, and throw light upon various events and aspects of the

life, character, words, death, and resurrection of Christ.

II. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

The book of Acts, while secondary in interest to the Gospels, occupies a

central place in New Testament criticism. It is the bridge between the

Ascension and the time thirty years later when Nero persecuted "a great

multitude called Christians at Rome." It covers the period in which

doctrinal evolution took place. Through its authorship it bridges the

gap between the Gospels and the Pauline church among the Gentiles.

The course of the history in the early chapters of Acts is so different

from that which the imagination of a later age would have pictured, that

it bears upon its face the marks of early origin and of trustworthiness.

To a later writer, without contact with the actors, and writing after

the destruction of the Temple and the final breach of the Christians

with the Jews and the assured success of the Gentile mission, it would

seem exceedingly improbable (1) that the apostolic company should have

continued to worship in the Temple; (2) that they should at first have

found favour with the people; and (3) that they should have remained in

Jerusalem with no apparent intention of leaving until scattered by

persecution; and perhaps (4) that the Sadducees should have been the

first to start the persecution. The recorded history, improbable to a

later age, bears upon its face the stamp of truth. The imagination of a

post-Pauline writer would have given us, we may be sure, a very

different picture of church history. It would scarcely have conceived of

the primitive Christology of Peter's speeches, the use of the term,

"child," or "servant" of God (παῖς [pais]) in place of the Pauline term,

"Son of God" (υἱός [huios]), yet with the same attitude, shared by

Christians of earlier and later time, of adoration, worship and love.

The presumption in favour of credibility is strengthened by the author's

full and detailed treatment of persons and places. "A man who would

venture to introduce ninety-five persons and a hundred and three places

into a history of his own times must have been pretty sure of his

ground. The majority of these persons were still living when he wrote;

into every one of these places his volume shortly penetrated.... The

correctness of his geography upholds the truth of his history."[262]

262: Arthur Wright: "Some New Testament Problems," pp. 88, 89.

A great many of the statements of the Acts can be checked by comparison

with Paul's epistles, as has been shown by Paley's "Horæ Paulinæ," and

more recently, for the first part of the Acts, by Harnack. In case of

apparent conflict, it has been said, "we are confronted by the task of

reconciling the differences between two first-century documents, each of

which has, admittedly, very powerful claims."[263] More than half of the

Acts is taken up with the labours of the Apostle Paul, and yet the Acts

does not mention or show knowledge of his epistles. This fact, used by

some to throw doubt upon the genuineness of the epistles, may be an

indication of the early date of the Acts, and of so close a relationship

between the author and the Apostle that the evidence of letters would be

unnecessary.

263: Dawson Walker: "The Gift of Tongues," 1906, p. 181.

Important alike in its bearing upon the questions of credibility and

authorship, is the evidence of the so-called "we-sections." A _prima

facie_ case is made out that the author of the Acts was an eye-witness

of some of the scenes it records, and a companion in travel of the

Apostle Paul. This evidence has of late been greatly strengthened by

linguistic investigation. While critical attempts are still made to

divide the Acts into documents, the "we-sections" (xvi. 10-17; xx. 5-15;

xxi. 1-18; xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16), as Sir J. Hawkins says, show an

"immense balance of internal and linguistic evidence in favour of the

view that the original writer of these sections was the same person as

the main author of the Acts and of the Third Gospel."[264]

264: "Horæ Synopticæ," 2d ed., 1909, p. 188.

No living writers have done more to stimulate interest in the book of

Acts than have Sir W. M. Ramsay and Harnack, and the writings of both

have materially strengthened the case alike for its Lukan authorship,

and, in the main, for its historical accuracy. Ramsay, starting, as he

says, from the standpoint of the Tübingen school, "with the confident

assumption that the book was fabricated in the middle of the second

century, and studying it to see what light it could throw on the state

of society in Asia Minor, was gradually driven to the conclusion that it

must have been written in the first century and with admirable

knowledge."[265]

265: "Pauline Studies," p. 199.

Harnack's defense, in his four monographs,[266] of the Lukan authorship,

integrity, historical reliability (where the supernatural is not in

question) and early date of the Acts is the most outstanding and

significant achievement of the age in New Testament criticism. Harnack's

work has been so thorough and convincing that it may be said to have

carried the theological world by storm. At least his powerful argument

for Lukan authorship does not appear to have been successfully met. The

attempt to turn its flank by asserting that the Paul of Acts, in making

a vow, shaving his head and entering into the Temple, was not the

defender of Gentile liberty who wrote Galatians, and so that the author

of the Acts was not the companion of Paul, is met by Harnack in the

fourth of his monographs. Paul, he declares, not only was a Jew, but

remained so, whether consistently or not. Harnack thinks that Paul

shrank back from taking the last logical step,[267] but that in this the

author of the Acts represents the relation of Paul to Judaism precisely

as do his letters.[268] Stanton well remarks that the difficulty of

accounting for alleged discrepancies between the Acts and the Epistles

is equal or greater on the supposition that the author wrote 100 A. D.,

or later, than if the author was the companion of Paul.[269] The very

fact, for example, that Luke says that Paul worshipped in the Temple is

an indication that we have here no conception of a later age to which

such an act would have seemed unnatural.

266: "Beiträge zur Einl. in das N. T.": I. "Lukas der Arzt," 1906;

II. "Sprüche und Reden Jesu," 1907; III. "Die Apostelgeschichte,"

1908; IV. "Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur

Abfassungszeit des Synoptischen Evangelien," 1911. For convenience

these will be alluded to as I, II, III, and IV, in connection with

the English translation.

267: IV, p. 35; "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels," p. 49.

268: _Ibid._, p. 62; E. T., p. 88.

269: "The Gospels as Historical Documents," Pt. II, 1909, p. 242.

In his "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels" (IV), Harnack

reverses his former opinion and strongly defends a date for the Acts

within the lifetime of Paul and before the end of his trial at Rome.

Reviewing his former arguments for a later date, he finds them

inconclusive, and thinks that the earlier date is required by the abrupt

close of the Acts. Minor considerations favouring an early date are (1)

the titles for Christ in the early chapters, and for Christians, and the

description of the Jews as "the people of God"; (2) the fact that the

Jews are the persecutors and not the persecuted; (3) the absence of any

indication of the use of Paul's letters such as would be expected in a

later writer; (4) the use of the "first day of the week," instead of the

"Lord's Day," and of the names of Jewish feasts, in which Luke stands

with Paul against later writers. And (5) even the prediction, Acts xx.

25, which looks primarily to Jerusalem, not Rome, would not have been

written, if the second imprisonment be accepted, after its apparent

falsification by I Timothy i. 3 and 2 Timothy i. 18. H. Koch develops

these arguments independently,[270] and it can no longer be said that the

early dating of the Acts is "a pre-critical theory which rests on

sentimental or subjective grounds."[271]

270: "Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," 1911.

271: J. Moffatt: "Historical New Testament," p. 414, note 4. It is

noticeable that Moffatt now favours the Lukan authorship, "put

practically beyond doubt by the exhaustive researches of Hawkins and

Harnack" ("Introduction to New Testament," p. 295), while advocating

a date later than Josephus' "Antiquities" (pp. 29 f.).

Why should the author follow so carefully the fortunes of the Apostle on

his voyage to Rome, and describe so fully the initial stages of his

trial, and yet leave the reader in doubt concerning its outcome?

Commentators have been puzzled by the seemingly inordinate space which

Luke devotes to the details of the voyage and shipwreck. Sometimes it is

said that the voyage marks the final rejection of the Jewish people; or

in the description is seen a literary device intended to intensify the

suspense of the reader; or allegorical interpretations are resorted to

by those who think that Luke would not thus descend from the level of

the philosophical historian to that of the novelist.

In the minute description of the voyage and shipwreck, Koch sees

evidence that the writer's experiences as Paul's companion on the

voyage were still fresh in his mind. The details would scarcely have

been remembered and recorded so vividly after twenty-five years. Even if

a journal had been kept, it is still strange that the minutiæ of the

story should have been retained in the perspective of the finished

history. "The author still stands under the fresh impression of the

wonderful divine guidance through which Paul, in spite of all dangers

and hindrances, reached his long sought goal." "What interest would a

reader of later times have in details such as that on an Alexandrian

ship precisely two hundred and seventy-six men were found?" In the

seventh or eighth decade more important contemporary events would have

stood in the foreground of interest.[272] A striking parallelism has been

observed between the Third Gospel and the Acts, while, supposing Paul's

death to have occurred, it is urged that Luke has missed "the

finest--the most essential--point of the whole comparison, the death of

Paul."[273]

272: H. Koch: "Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes,"

pp. 61, 62.

273: D. Walker: "The Gift of Tongues," p. 228.

The assumed intention of the author to write a third treatise does not

help the matter much. It is absurd, Ramsay admits, to relate the earlier

stages of the trial at great length, "and wholly omit the final result

which gives them intelligibility and purpose"; but his conclusion is

that "it therefore follows that a sequel was contemplated by the

author," a sequel which the "first" (prôtos) of Acts i. 1 implies, if

Luke "wrote as correct Greek as Paul wrote."[274] But the intention of

writing a sequel does not explain the failure to mention the outcome of

the trial. Luke would have no motive like the writer of a continued

story for keeping the reader in suspense, and the simple addition of the

words "until his release or acquittal" would have relieved the suspense,

and given "intelligibility and purpose" to the detailed description of

the earlier stages of the trial. The account of the Ascension is not

omitted from Luke's Gospel although given in greater detail in the Acts.

There is nothing un-philosophical in the abrupt ending of a history

which brings the record down to the date of writing.

274: "Paul the Traveller," pp. 307-309. The use of "first" (πρῶτos

[prôtos]) is not decisive, for it is used where there are but two

objects in the comparison in Acts xii. 10 (and see vii. 12), Hebrews

ix. 8 and 15, Apoc. xx. 5, and even I Corinthians xv. 47.

The leading argument against an early date for the Acts is drawn from

the possible use by Luke of the writings of Josephus, and the crux of

the question is in the words put into the mouth of Gamaliel (Acts v. 36,

37). The coincidence of the names of Theudas and Judas of Galilee (Acts

v. 36, 37; Antiq. xx. v. 1 and 2) is striking and, if the two men named

Theudas be identified and Josephus is correct, Luke is guilty of an

anachronism in putting an allusion to him into the mouth of Gamaliel;

for the Theudas of Josephus falls in the time of Fadus who was

procurator under Claudius, about 45 A. D. The following points deserve

to be noticed:

(1) Luke had from Paul, whether or not Paul was present at the meeting

of the Sanhedrin, the best means of knowing what Gamaliel, his teacher

and the spokesman of the Pharisaic party, actually said. (2) The

assumption that Luke was quoting Josephus is in itself very difficult

when we compare the passages. Luke speaks of about four hundred under

Theudas while Josephus mentions a great part of the people; Luke speaks

of Judas while Josephus speaks of the sons of Judas. To quote thus

loosely from his assumed authority and then to commit the further

blunder of making Gamaliel allude to an event which occurred at least a

dozen years later is, while possible, strangely out of keeping with

Luke's proved care and accuracy in most of his historical allusions. The

difficulty is acknowledged by those who make Luke dependent on Josephus.

Why did Luke diverge from a correct narrative if he had one before him?

Writers who affirm (Holtzmann) and those who deny (Schürer) the

dependence on Josephus practically agree that if Luke had read Josephus

he had forgotten him. (3) In the narrative of the death of Herod (Acts

xii. 20 f.; Antiq. xix. viii. 2), where the two authors most obviously

come together, both are plainly describing the same event, and yet seem

to be quite independent both in the use of words and in the details of

the description. (4) The cumulative evidence of an early date for Luke

weighs heavily in the scale against the hypothesis of dependence upon

the "Antiquities" written about 93 or 94 A. D.

The question of date cannot be said to be absolutely settled, but the

tendency of criticism as illustrated by Harnack is to the acceptance of

an early date, as well as to that of the Lukan authorship of the entire

book. It is difficult to see how Harnack, with his present defense of a

date before Paul's release from prison, can consistently maintain his

skepticism where the supernatural events recorded in the Acts are

concerned. It is idle to say that his "revolution in chronology" has no

effect upon the question of reliability. It is an established principle

of historical method that the nearer a tradition is to the event it

professes to describe, the more likely it is to be trustworthy. The

resources of Harnack's learning have been used in support of the

reliability of Luke in his geographical and chronological

references,[275] and his treatment of persons and reports of their

speeches.[276] He has shown that Luke was in touch with the leaders of

the Jerusalem church, and that his statements are abundantly confirmed

by the writings of Paul. If Luke wrote within the lifetime of Paul, the

Acts was published while the main actors were still living, and, by

inference, it recorded events as Peter and Barnabas and Apollos and

Philip and Mark thought that they happened. If further, as Harnack

argues, it was written during Paul's imprisonment there seems no room

for doubt that it was written under the eye and with the full

endorsement of its principal actor, and that we have thus the implicit

guarantee not only of Luke but of Paul also for the accuracy of its

record.

275: III, p. 97; "Acts of the Apostles," p. 112.

276: _Ibid._, pp. 101 ff.; E. T., pp. 117 ff.

III. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

It has been said that the two most important questions for religion are

those of the rational foundations of theism and of the trustworthiness

of the Four Gospels.[277] The Gospel records have always been regarded as

the citadel of the Christian Faith. Not only do they contain the record

of works of power and words of grace, and of a transcendent Personality,

but they have always been considered to have been themselves

supernatural in origin and character. They have been regarded as "a

house not made with hands" (Robertson Nicoll), "a miracle of the Holy

Ghost" (Stier), "the heaven-drawn picture of Christ, the living Word."

The criticism of the past century, in its quest for the historical

Jesus, has taken a very different attitude towards the Evangelical

records. By many critics they have been regarded as a patchwork of

traditions, a work of pious but credulous men, whose idealization and

exaggeration, in the supposed interest of faith, it is necessary to

discount in order to reach the bed-rock of historical fact.

277: Dr. Francis L. Patton, in an address.

The literary relation of the Synoptic Gospels to one another has

furnished to the New Testament student a problem of great intricacy and

singular fascination. Its importance for our present purpose is in its

bearing upon the trustworthiness of our canonical Gospels. The school of

Baur, under the influence of the Hegelian dialectic, saw in Matthew, the

Jewish Gospel, the thesis; in Luke, the Gentile Gospel, the antithesis;

and lastly in Mark, the neutral Gospel, the synthesis or last term of

the development. Criticism since the time of Baur has, with much

unanimity, seen in Mark not the latest but the first of the Gospels, and

has made Matthew and Luke dependent upon Mark.

The theory which has for some years held the field is the so-called

"two-document" theory. According to this Matthew and Luke, usually

regarded as independent of each other, are both dependent, for much of

their narrative portion and for the framework of their history, upon

Mark, and, for the non-Markan discourse material which they have in

common, upon a collection of the sayings of Jesus, formerly designated

as "the Logia" but now usually called by the letter "Q." The importance

of the Synoptic Problem, for our present purpose, is in its historical

rather than its literary features. Assuming the priority of Mark, and

assuming that Matthew and Luke were dependent upon him alone in those

parts of their narratives which have Markan parallels, it is clear that

we must regard all deviations made by the other Synoptists from the

Markan narrative as of only secondary value. Variations from Mark, if

Mark be the sole source, whether these consist of additions, omissions

or modifications in the narrative, obviously add nothing to our

knowledge of the facts, but simply represent changes which the later

writers have made in their source from subjective reasons. It is

important, then, to ask whether, in the present state of opinion upon

the inter-Synoptic relations, there is reason to believe that Matthew

and Luke are following Mark as their sole authority for the narratives

which have Markan parallels.

There is now a quite general recognition of the fact that the literary

problem presented by the Synoptic Gospels is exceedingly intricate, and

that the "two-document" hypothesis in its simplicity has not solved all

the difficulties. It is recognized that it must be modified in one of

three directions.

(1) There may be said to be a growing appreciation of the part which

oral transmission has played in the composition of the Gospels. This is

shown for example in the volume of Oxford "Studies in the Synoptic

Problem" (1911),[278] and by the statement of Sir John Hawkins, who, in

the second edition of his "Horæ Synopticæ" (1909), expresses the strong

opinion "that at least the Second and Third Evangelists had provided

themselves with written documents as their main sources, but that they

often omitted to refer closely to them, partly because of the physical

difficulties which there must have been in consulting manuscripts, and

partly because of the oral knowledge of the life and sayings of Jesus

Christ which they had previously acquired as learners and used as

teachers, and upon which therefore it would be natural for them to fall

back very frequently."[279] It is natural to suppose, with Schmiedel,

that oral tradition continued for a considerable time after the first

documents were written.[280]

278: Compare the statement of J. V. Bartlett: "I am not convinced

that there ever was a written 'book of discourses' that has

perished" (p. 360).

279: "Horæ Synopticæ," 2d ed., p. 217.

280: Art. "Gospels," Encycl. Bib., vol. ii. col. 1846.

(2) A considerable number of scholars, finding that Mark condenses his

account of such incidents as the Baptism and Temptation of Jesus and the

discourse concerning Beelzebub, and that Matthew and Luke are parallel

in matter which they add at these points to the Markan account, have

concluded that Mark must have used Q, the assumed source of the

Matthew-Luke agreements. A moderate statement is that of Dr. Sanday: "I

do not think that Q was used by Mark regularly and systematically, as

the later Evangelists use his own narrative; but he must have known of

its existence, and reminiscences of it seem to have clung to him and

from time to time made their way into his text." [281]

281: "Studies in the Synoptic Problem," pp. xvi, xvii.

(3) Another group of scholars, basing their view on the agreement of

Matthew and Luke against Mark in matter with Markan parallels, and on

the difficulty of accounting for some omissions from Mark in the later

Evangelists (such as the omission in Luke, where it would be most

appropriate, of the story about the Syro-Phoenician woman), have framed a

theory of different recensions in Mark, one being used by Matthew, a

different one by Luke, and a final recension, whether the work of the

Evangelist himself or of an editor, representing our canonical Mark.

This theory in different forms has been advocated by Stanton in his

"Gospels as Historical Documents," Part II (1909), and more recently by

Holdsworth in his "Gospel Origins" (1913). When the two-document theory

is held in this form, the priority of Mark belongs only to the assumed

earlier editions, for whose extent and contents there is no objective

evidence except the assumed dependence, while our canonical Mark is

later than either Matthew or Luke.

There is a growing tendency to find secondary elements in Mark as well

as in Matthew or Luke. Hawkins, it will be recalled, gives a list of

passages in Mark "which may have been omitted or altered (by the other

Evangelists) as being liable to be misunderstood, or to give offense, or

to suggest difficulties."[282] Of the passages which seem (a) to limit

the power of Jesus, or (b) to be otherwise derogatory to, or unworthy of

Him, the more noteworthy of the twenty-two instances given by Hawkins

are as follows: under (a),

282: "Horæ Synopticæ," 2d ed., pp. 117 f.

1. Mark i. 32-34, "He healed many that were sick." Matthew viii. 16, "He

healed all"; cf. Luke iv. 40, "Every one of them."

3. Mark vi. 5, "He could there do no mighty work, save etc." Matthew

xiii. 58, "He did not many mighty works there because of their

unbelief."

Under (b),

2. Mark i. 12, "The Spirit driveth him forth." Matthew and Luke use

words meaning to "lead."

4. Mark iii. 21, "They said he is beside himself." This is omitted by

Matthew and Luke.

10. Mark x. 17, 18, "Good Master" and "Why callest thou me good?" appear

in Matthew xix. 16, 17 (R. V.) as "Master" and "Why askest thou me

concerning that which is good?" Luke follows Mark.

Over against these passages may be placed others where the change, if

any, and whether made unconsciously or for reasons of style or with

conscious tendency, would seem to be in the other direction.

1. In the Parable of the Vineyard, Matthew xxi. 37, "My son." Luke xx.

13, "My beloved son." Mark xii. 6, "He had yet one, a beloved son."

2. Matthew x. 42, "A cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple."

Compare Mark ix. 41, "In name because ye are of Christ."

3. Luke xxiii. 47, "Certainly this was a righteous man." Mark xv. 39,

"Truly this man was the Son of God," or "a son of God." Matthew xxvii.

54 follows Mark.

4. (According to Bousset) Mark's abbreviation of Q in iii. 27 makes it

appear that it was Jesus who bound the strong man, instead of God.[283]

283: "Kyrios Christos," p. 49.

5. Matthew xiii. 55, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" Compare Luke iv.

22, "Is not this Joseph's son?" Mark vi. 3, "Is not this the carpenter,

the son of Mary?" Belief in the Virgin Birth is perhaps safeguarded by

Mark.

6. Mark x. 45, "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, etc."

Here Bousset sees a dogmatic working over of Luke xxii. 27, "I am among

you as one that serves."[284] Matthew xx. 28 follows Mark.

284: "Kyrios Christos," p. 9, note 1.

So far as tendency to Christological heightening is concerned, critics

of the school of Bousset are now especially severe against Mark. It

appears that "Luke's Gospel in the Passion history has preserved a

series of primary traditions over against Mark."[285] Holdsworth finds a

number of secondary elements, mostly stylistic, in Mark where the three

Gospels have a common narrative. Among these are the vivid touches of

the second Gospel, considered to be "distinctly secondary features," the

fuller descriptions in many instances, and the use of the noun "gospel"

not found at all in Luke although the verb is used, and not found in

Matthew in its absolute sense.[286]

285: "Kyrios Christos," p. 44.

286: "Gospel Origins," pp. 118 f.

Taking, then, the present state of opinion as to the relation of our

Mark to the other Gospels, we see that while in general the "priority of

Mark" is in some sense defended, yet the relation between any given

passage in Matthew or Luke and its parallel in Mark may be variously

construed. When Matthew, for example, deviates from Mark, this

modification according to current theories may arise (1) from the first

Evangelist's fancy or his dogmatic tendency, and will in either case be

historically worthless. It may arise (2) from reliable oral tradition,

and in this case be as worthy of credence as the Markan source. It may

be derived (3) from the source Q, but may be for some reason omitted by

Mark, whose knowledge of Q is assumed. The deviation in Matthew may (4)

have been found in a proto- or deutero-Mark, but have been omitted in his

final edition. The difference in this case between Matthew and Mark is

no greater than that between two editions of the same work.

The point to be emphasized is that, in the present state of opinion upon

the Synoptic problem, the difference of one Evangelist from another does

not in itself invalidate the testimony of either. The Synoptic problem,

while primarily a literary problem, is indeed "fraught with momentous

issues which the Church, and not scientific criticism only, is concerned

to face";[287] but in the present state of the discussion, the fact that

Matthew adds to or modifies the narrative of Mark does not necessarily

place the Matthean modification upon a lower plane of credibility than

the Markan statement. The Matthean modification may be an exact copy of

an earlier edition of Mark, or may be derived from one of Mark's

sources, Q, or may be taken from that stream of oral tradition coming

from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," which Luke in his

preface evidently regarded as the touchstone of historical truth,

whatever his use of written sources.

287: H. L. Jackson, in "Cambridge Biblical Essays," 1909, p. 432.

Passing over the vexed question of Q, we may observe that the acceptance

of Harnack's early dating of the Acts and Luke would further complicate

the two-document theory. He agrees that Luke was written before the

Acts, and the Acts before Paul's trial at Rome was decided; further that

Mark is one of the sources of Luke, and that Mark was written at Rome.

"Tradition asserts no veto against the hypothesis that Luke, when he met

Mark in the company of Paul the prisoner, was permitted by him to peruse

a written record of the Gospel history which was essentially identical

with the Gospel of Mark given to the Church at a later time." Perhaps,

he intimates, "Luke was not yet acquainted with Mark's final revision,

which, as we can quite well imagine, Mark undertook while in Rome."[288]

The priority of Mark, under this supposition, is left hanging by a

slender thread. It is highly probable that Luke gathered the material

for his work (and a great part of it was certainly independent of Mark)

while in Palestine, and if he did not see Mark's Gospel, or a rough

draft of it, until he was in Rome, it is improbable that the Markan

document was his primary and principal source, as the two-document

theory asserts.

288: IV, p. 93; "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels,"

p. 133.

Whatever the literary foundation of the two-document theory, it cannot

be said to have led to any very important historical results. Those who

regard the portrait of Jesus in Mark as historical see in the portrayal

of Matthew and Luke only a difference in the _nuances_ of the narrative.

On the other hand, those who cannot accept the picture drawn by the

First and the Third Evangelists are equally unable to accept that given

to us by Mark. The criticism of the sources, in its usual form, has not

revealed to us a Jesus who is more historical than the Jesus of any of

the Synoptists; and it is necessary to pursue the quest in the more

problematical region of "sources of sources." In this process Mark is

found to be as little historical as the other Synoptic Gospels, or even

as the Gospel of John.

The "dissonances of the Evangelists" appear to be left practically where

they were before the present movement in Synoptic criticism began. They

remain what they always have been when one Gospel is compared with

another, and are neither softened nor made more acute by any certain

results which have been reached in the study of the Synoptic problem.

Some, no doubt, may say that the discrepancies are so great that the

Synoptic Gospels cannot be accepted as historical records; while others

will say, as does a devout commentator on the Acts, that "such is the

naturalness of Holy Scripture that it seems as though it were

indifferent about a superficial consistency. So it ever is with truth:

its harmony is often veiled and hidden; while falsehood sometimes

betrays itself, to a practised ear, by a studied and ostentatious

uniformity."[289] Others again will appeal to the writers on historical

method, such as Langlois and Seignobos: "The natural tendency is to

think that the closer the agreement is, the greater is its demonstrative

power; we ought, on the contrary, to adopt as a rule the paradox that an

agreement proves more when it is confined to a small number of

circumstances. It is at such points of coincidence between diverging

statements that we are to look for scientifically established historical

facts."[290] The inter-Synoptic differences are certainly, in general, no

greater than those which a single author allowed himself in the accounts

of the same incident, as is shown in Luke's threefold account of the

conversion of the Apostle Paul.

289: C. J. Vaughan: "The Church of the First Days," p. 547.

290: "Introduction to the Study of History," pp. 201, 202.

IV. THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM

It is scarcely surprising that the mystery which surrounds the most

mysterious Personality in history should communicate itself to the

records which tell of His life, and even to the authors of these

records. If the Synoptic problem is a "well," as Goethe said, the

problem presented by the "spiritual Gospel" usually assigned to the

Apostle John is equally fascinating and difficult. The mystery of the

Master has in part enveloped the disciple whom Jesus loved.

The questions of the authorship and the historicity of the Fourth Gospel

are closely bound together. If the Gospel is a theological romance

intended to give currency to the conceptions of the Alexandrian

philosophy, it is clear that its authorship cannot be ascribed to one of

the disciples of Jesus. On the other hand, if it was written by one of

the Apostolic band, it must certainly, whether reliable or not in its

details, contain a wealth of historical reminiscence which will enrich

our knowledge of the personality, the words and the deeds of Christ.

It is an interesting fact that a strong defense of the Apostolic

authorship of the Gospel has been made, in the present generation and in

the one which preceded it, by writers whose theological position would

incline them to an opposite conclusion.[291] The strength of the evidence

for Johannine authorship lies in the testimony which it receives from

all parts of the early church, whether divisions be made on geographical

or theological lines, and in the links of connection which bind the

witnesses to the alleged scene of John's labours and to the Apostle

himself.

291: Ezra Abbot, 1880 (see "The Fourth Gospel," by Abbot, Peabody

and Lightfoot, 1891) and James Drummond: "Character and Authorship

of the Fourth Gospel," 1904.

If it be objected that John, as a Galilean fisherman and an unlettered

man, could not have produced a work so profound in thought and so

polished in Greek composition, the objection may be compared with that

which is raised against the authorship of the plays which go under the

name of Shakespeare. Andrew Lang remarks with irony upon the surprising

belief that "a young man from a little country town, and later an actor,

could possibly possess Shakespeare's vast treasures of general

information, or Latin enough to have read the Roman classics."[292]

292: "A New Theory of Shakespeare," _Independent_, December 22, 1910,

p. 1373.

The external evidence for Johannine authorship is strong and, with the

exception of the obscure sect of the "Alogi,"[293] is uniform. It is

"sufficient," and there can be little doubt that it would be efficient

in producing general belief except for the theological interests

involved. Objections to the Apostolic authorship from the side of the

external evidence are based (1) upon supposed indications that John was

martyred with James at Jerusalem and never lived in Ephesus at all, and

(2) upon the statement of Papias, interpreted to mean that two men by

the name of John lived in Ephesus. (1) The evidence upon the first point

is confessedly late and confused. It is contained in the statements of

Georgios Hamartolos, a ninth-century writer, and in the so-called "De

Boor Fragment," purporting to contain an extract from a fifth-century

writer, Philip of Side. The former says that Nerva, "having recalled

John from the island, dismissed him to live in Ephesus. Then, being the

only survivor of the twelve disciples, and having composed the Gospel

according to him, he has been deemed worthy of martyrdom. For Papias,

the Bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of him, says in the

second book of the 'Oracles of the Lord,' that he was slain by the Jews,

having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the prediction of

Christ concerning him, and his own confession and assent in regard to

this." He adds that the learned Origen, in his commentary on Matthew,

"affirms that John μεμαρτύρηκεν [memartyrêken] (has borne witness, or

suffered martyrdom), intimating that he had learned this from the

successors of the Apostles."[294] But Origen, in his comment on Matthew

xx. 23, says that "the king of the Romans, as tradition teaches,

condemned John, witnessing for the truth, to the island of Patmos." If

Georgios Hamartolos thus incorrectly refers to Origen as a witness to

the martyrdom of John, less weight attaches to his professed

reproduction of the statement of Papias.

293: Epiphanius: "Haer.," li.

294: See F. W. Worsley: "The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists," 1909,

pp. 174 f.

The "De Boor Fragment" contains the statement that "Papias, in the

second book, says that John the Divine and James his brother were slain

by the Jews."[295] This supports the statement of the ninth-century

writer in regard to the second book of Papias, but the evidence, whether

for the martyrdom of John by the Jews, or for the fact that John was put

to death at the same time with his brother James, as is sometimes

inferred, is exceedingly slight. Paul (Gal. ii. 9) speaks of John at a

time usually identified with the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.),

although Ramsay would identify it with Acts xi. 30, thus placing it

immediately before the death of James (Acts xii. 2). The statement of

Georgios that John lived in Ephesus at the time of Nerva also negatives

this supposition. Of the slightly attested view that John was martyred

at an early date, Dr. Dawson Walker remarks: "It is difficult to think

that this latter hypothesis would have met with so great favour if it

had not been such an effective instrument in excluding St. John from any

possibility of being the writer of the Fourth Gospel."[296] The

statements that John was put to death by the Jews may possibly be an

inference from the prophecy, "The cup that I drink ye shall drink, etc."

(Mark x. 39).

295: "Texte und Untersuchungen," v. 2, p. 170.

296: "Present Day Criticism," _Expositor_, March, 1912, p. 251. For

the statement of a Syriac calendar (411 A.D.) commemorating "John

and James the Apostles at Jerusalem" as martyrs on 27th December,

see Allen and Grensted: "Introduction to the Books of the New

Testament," 1913, p. 94.

(2) A mediating theory, based upon the well-known statement of

Papias[297] in which a "presbyter" John may, with much probability, be

distinguished from the Apostle of that name, does not deny the influence

of the Apostle upon the construction of the Fourth Gospel, while its

ultimate authorship is assigned to the "presbyter" John. The hypothesis

of the two Johns rests upon the statement of Papias' fragment as

interpreted by Eusebius; but Eusebius, while suggesting that the

"presbyter" might have written the Apocalypse, indicates no doubt of the

Apostolic authorship of the Gospel and the First Epistle. The

possibility that there were two Johns, who were both in some sense

disciples of the Lord (as Papias describes the "presbyter"), who both

lived in Asia Minor, and who were both more or less concerned in the

writing of the Fourth Gospel, cannot be denied. But it is also possible

that Papias has been misinterpreted, and that, when he described the

"presbyter" John, the disciple of the Lord, he had only the Apostle John

in mind. In this case we should be freed from the necessity, involved in

the theory of authorship we are considering, of supposing that the

Apostle had a mysterious _alter ego_ of the same name, who was with him

alike in Palestine and in Asia Minor, shared in a degree his authority

and published the substance of his teaching, and so completely merged

his personality in that of the Apostle that in the Gospel record no

trace of a separate "presbyter" can be found, and there is no mention of

the name of either John.

297: Eusebius: "Hist. Eccl.," iii. 39. "What was said ... by John or

Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and

the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say." The argument

for two Johns is based upon the fact that the name is mentioned

twice and that different tenses are used.

The First Epistle, supposed to be a sort of supplement to the Gospel, is

of importance in its bearing upon the question of authorship. As a

recent writer says: "The persistent note of authority which is

overheard, rather than heard, in the Epistles is the more impressive

because it is only implied. St. John assumes that his authority is

unquestioned and unquestionable by those Asians who are loyal to the

Christian tradition. When we compare his letters with those of his

younger contemporaries, we conclude that it was unquestionably because

he was an Apostle."[298]

298: Rev. H. J. Bardsley: "The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to

the Authorship of 'St. John,'" _Journal of Theological Studies_,

Vol. XIV, No. 56, July, 1913, p. 491.

Another mediating position, adopted by those who do not accept the full

Apostolic authorship, is found in a theory of partition, which assigns a

portion of the Gospel to the Apostle. The artistic unity of the Gospel

and the qualities of style which distinguish it from other writings

present a grave difficulty to any theory of partition. As a sort of

half-way house it will scarcely be permanently tenable. Of Spitta's

analysis, which assigns a part of the Gospel to the Apostle, it has been

objected by a critic of more radical sympathies that such an admission

places him outside the limits of scientific criticism.[299]

299: C. A. Bernoulli, in appendix to Overbeck's "Johannesevangelium,"

1911, pp. 504, 505.

The stronghold of the evidence alike for and against the Johannine

authorship is to be found in the facts of the Gospel itself. On the one

hand a powerful argument, such as that which has been developed by

Lightfoot and Westcott, can be drawn to show that the author of the

Gospel must have been a Jew, a Jew of Palestine, a disciple of Jesus,

one of the inner circle of disciples, and in fact none other than the

"beloved disciple" himself. The internal facts of the Gospel are used in

a different way by others to show that the Fourth Gospel differs so

radically in scene, in the style of its discourses, and indeed in its

entire portrait of Jesus, that it cannot be accepted as historical, or

as the work of one of the disciples.

The difference in scene between the Galilean Gospels and the Jerusalem

Gospel presents no great difficulty, but the crux of the problem is in

the difference in style and subject matter. The Jesus of the Synoptics

cannot, it is said, have spoken in the style of the discourses in John.

Before this judgment can be accepted without qualification, several

points deserve to be noticed. The difference in style is in part

accounted for by the difference in subject matter and in the character

of the audience. There are out-croppings of the Johannine style in the

Synoptics, especially where the subject of discourse is similar. The

passage, Matthew xi. 25-30, which, as we have seen, contains the

essential teachings found in John xiv., is a notable illustration. The

Jerusalem audience again was different from the Galilean audience. If it

be said that when the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel speaks in Galilee (John

vi.) He uses the same mystical style as when He speaks in Jerusalem, it

should at least be considered that the discourse in Capernaum is not

given as a sample of the usual synagogue preaching of Jesus. The scene

clearly marks a crisis in the ministry, a crisis indicated in the other

Gospels by the northern journey for retirement which immediately

followed, but made more intelligible by the supposition that the

Capernaum discourse was practically a clearer revelation to the Galilean

audience of the consciousness of Jesus and the spiritual character of

His work. When we recall that such expressions, familiar to John, as

_Logos_, Lamb of God, propitiation for sin, are never placed by John in

the mouth of Jesus, we have strong negative evidence that the discourses

of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are not the free composition of the author

himself.

After all, the question of the style of the Fourth Gospel is not so

important as that of its contents. Does it draw an essentially different

picture of Jesus from that of the Synoptic writers, or does it help us

to fill out and to interpret the Synoptic portrait? Two considerations

of a general nature should be kept in mind. Ordinary readers of the

Gospels in all ages have seen no lack of unity in the composite portrait

of the four Gospels; and recent criticism has shown that even to the

sharp sighted modern critic the harmony is so great that one who rejects

the historical character of John's Gospel will also reject the Second

Gospel, which was written from the standpoint that Jesus is the Son of

God (so Bousset), and is to be distinguished from the Fourth Gospel in

degree (_graduel_) rather than in essence. The aim of Mark, and there is

no reason to doubt that he reaches his aim, is in fact the same as that

of John, so far as concerns his desire that his readers may believe that

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John xx. 31).

If what the Synoptic Gospels say is true as to the words and the works

and the claims and the consciousness of Jesus, then we should expect

some such supplement as we find in John. We should expect either more or

less than we find in the Synoptic Gospels. When we read of the Divine

Voice at the baptism and the transfiguration, we ask, What did Jesus

Himself conceive His relation to God to be? The full answer is in John.

When we read, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name,

there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. xviii. 20), we should expect

fuller teaching on the relation of Jesus to the disciples. This we have

in the last discourses in John. When we read in the Synoptists accounts

of the teaching and the mighty works, we turn to John for the full

description of the Teacher and Lord, and of the mighty Worker

manifesting His glory. The Synoptic Gospels tell us of the authority of

Jesus and of His office of judgment and of His founding a Church. In

John we see the ground of His authority in His relation to God and in

His mystical relation to the disciples. In the Synoptists we have the

Last Supper and general prophecies of the future and commands for the

guidance of the Church. We should expect some more intimate and personal

revelation of His relation to the disciples, such as is furnished by the

Johannine picture of the disciple whom Jesus loved, and in the words,

"Woman, behold thy son" (John xix. 26, 27); and in the intimate

discourse of John xiv.-xvi. When we read, once more, that Jesus often

retired for prayer, but in the Synoptic Gospels have the record of only

one or two of His petitions: "Remove this cup from me.... Thy will be

done" (see Luke xxii. 42 and compare xxii. 32), we expect some such

enrichment of our knowledge of the prayer-life of Jesus as is contained

in John xvii.

The historical character of the Fourth Gospel is shown alike by the

light which it throws upon the course of events in the public ministry

and by the more subtle resemblances between John and the Synoptists, so

different in emphasis and shading that John's account cannot well have

been due to Synoptic tradition, and yet so much in agreement as to give

confidence that the same course of events underlies both accounts. If we

look at the outward course of events under the guidance of writers such

as Askwith[300] or A. E. Brooks,[301] we see that John's picture of the

earliest disciples in Judea may throw light upon the narrative of the

call of the four (Mark i. 16 f.). The crisis in the ministry, indicated

rather than explained in the Markan narrative, is more intelligible in

the light of John vi. The hosannas of the Triumphal Entry into

Jerusalem, as well as the settled determination of the rulers to put

Jesus to death, can be better understood with the help of John's

statements about Lazarus (see John xii. 9-11); and the accusation of the

witnesses, "We heard him say I will destroy this temple" (Mark xiv. 58),

and the weeping of Jesus over Jerusalem (Matt, xxiii. 37) are again more

intelligible in view of the Johannine statements about the temple of His

body (John ii. 20, 21), and the accounts of His frequent visits to

Jerusalem.

300: "Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," 1910. From the

Synoptists, he says, we do not learn of disciples of the Baptist

becoming disciples of Jesus. "But if the work of the Baptist was

what the Synoptists declare it to have been, namely, to prepare the

way for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that this work,

faithfully carried out, could have failed of this result--to supply

disciples for Him" (p. 59).

301: "Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," in "Cambridge Biblical

Essays." The best explanation of the silence of the Synoptists upon

the raising of Lazarus is still that given by Holdsworth, "Gospel

Origins," p. 126: "Every missionary knows that to mention the names

of converts in published accounts of their work among a people

hostile to Christianity is fraught with peril to those who are

mentioned.... The difficult question of the appearance in the Fourth

Gospel of the raising of Lazarus finds its best explanation in an

application of this rule.... Although the Synoptists record the

saying of Christ that the name of the woman who broke the bottle of

spikenard ... should be mentioned [or rather her deed] wherever the

Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never mentioned by them." Long

afterwards John mentions Mary's name.

Relationships of a more subtle kind may be found when John is compared

with the Synoptic Gospels. (1) The relation of Jesus to His mother is

the same in both. Compare Luke ii. 49, "Knew ye not that I must be in

the things of my Father"; and John ii. 4, "Woman, what have I to do

with thee?" The relation with His brethren is also the same, their right

to influence Him not being admitted. (2) The causes of opposition are

differently described, but are the same in principle. In both Mark ii.

and John v., the charges against Him are those of blasphemy and Sabbath

breaking, and in both cases are made in connection with the miracle of

healing. His defense of His action in healing on the Sabbath day is the

same in principle but different in detail. In both there is an _à

fortiori_ argument: "How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!"

(Matt. xii. 12); "If a man receive circumcision on the Sabbath ... are

ye wroth with me because I made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath?"

(John vii. 23). In both cases His action is defended by reference to His

unique position, in the one case in His relation to God, "My Father

worketh hitherto" (John v. 17); and in the other case in His relation to

men, "The Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark ii. 28). (3) The

relation of Jesus to various classes of people as described by John is

remarkably different in detail, but wonderfully similar in essence, when

compared with the Synoptic record. In each with entire difference of

scene and circumstance He meets with a woman that was a sinner, but the

essentials of penitence and the public expression of gratitude are

similar in both (Luke vii. 37 f.; John iv. 7 f.). No narratives could be

more independent of each other than those of the conversation with

Nicodemus in John iii., and with the rich young ruler in Mark x., yet in

both cases the attitude of Jesus towards an influential and upright and

religious man was the same. In spite of difference in language also, the

words to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again" (John iii. 7), do not differ

in their radical demands from the words addressed to the ruler, "One

thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast and come, follow me"

(Mark x. 21).

The comparison might be continued indefinitely, but only to show that

the picture of Jesus and of His relation to the Father, and to His

disciples, to publicans and sinners, to the Pharisees, to women, and to

the human race as Saviour and Judge, is so different in John that it

cannot be due merely to the influence of the Synoptic tradition, and yet

so identical in substance that it cannot possibly, with any regard for

literary probabilities, have been the free invention of the writer.

It is generally agreed that the writer of the Fourth Gospel took for

granted in his readers an acquaintance with the narrative or the

tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. He would not have written unless he

had some new light to throw upon the figure of Jesus, or some deeper

insight into His personality and work. The photograph and the portrait

may not perhaps agree in their mechanical measurements, but to one who

knows the subject the portrait may reproduce the original as faithfully,

and even more adequately, than does the photograph. Each is useful for

its own purpose, but both together are needed to give us the body and

the soul, the exact features and the expression, the total impression of

the personality.

The criticism of the Gospels has thrown the figure of Jesus into strong

relief, not only against the background of His time, but against the

background of humanity in general. In its recent developments, it has

left us practically with the choice between the Christ of the four

Gospels or a shadowy figure to be found in none of them. The true

historical Jesus that criticism has brought before us is clad in the

coarse garments of Galilee, but with the glory of the only-begotten of

the Father, full of grace and truth.

The searchlight of modern knowledge is the fierce light that beats upon

the throne. As nature and the human soul and the relationships of

thought and the phenomena of religion and the book of revelation are

more fully studied, the majesty and beauty of the central Figure in

history is more clearly revealed. Each age sees a new glory in Jesus

Christ. "It is one of the evidences of the moral greatness of Jesus,"

says Peabody, "that each period in Christian history, each social or

political change, has brought to view some new aspect of His character

and given Him a new claim to reverence." The modern age sees in Him and

in His Cross of love and sacrifice the guide and inspiration of its

ethical and social advance. It sees in Him and in His Cross the

solution, so far as ultimate solution may be possible, of its deepest

intellectual problems. It sees in Him not merely a Guide and a Revealer,

but a Redeemer from sin and the Giver of Eternal Life.

Bibliography of Recent Important Works

_For Chapter I_

HARNACK, A. Das Wesen des Christentums, 1900, 2d ed., 1908;

What is Christianity? 1901, 2d ed., 1910. Sprüche und Reden

Jesu, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908.

Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, 2 vols., 1911.

LOISY, A. L'Évangile et l'Église, 3d ed., 1904; The Church and

the Gospel, 1903.

BOUSSET, W. Was wissen wir von Jesus? 1904.

Kyrios Christos; Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den

Anfängen des Christentums his Irenæus, 1913.

SCHUMACHER, H. Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mat 11, 27 (Luc

10, 22), 1912 (Freiburger Theologische Studien, Heft 6).

SCHWEITZER, A. Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906; The Quest of the

Historical Jesus, 1910.

DREWS, A. Die Christusmythe, 4th ed., 1911; The Christ-Myth,

3d ed., 1910.

WARFIELD, B. B. The Lord of Glory, 1907; and recent articles in

theological reviews.

THORBURN, T. J. Jesus the Christ: Historical or Mythical? 1912.

_For Chapter II_

Darwin and Modern Science. Edited by A. C. Seward, 1909.

Anniversary Volume by Various Authors.

Fifty Years of Darwinism, 1909. Anniversary Volume by Various

Authors.

WEISMANN, A. The Evolution Theory, 2 vols., 1904.

WALLACE, A. R. The World of Life, 1911. Man's Place in the

Universe, 3d ed., 1905.

MORGAN, T. H. Evolution and Adaptation, 1908.

HENDERSON, L. J. The Fitness of the Environment, 1913.

THOMSON, J. A. The Bible of Nature, 1908.

MERX, J. T. History of European Thought in the Nineteenth

Century. Vol. II, 1903.

HERBERT, S. First Principles of Evolution, 1913.

_For Chapter III_

JAMES, W. Varieties of Religious Experience, 1903. The Will to

Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 1902.

STARBUCK, E. D. The Psychology of Religion, 1900.

AMES, E. C. The Psychology of Religious Experience, 1910.

LEUBA, J. H. A Psychological Study of Religion, 1912.

PRATT, J. B. The Psychology of Religious Belief, 1907.

STEVENS, GEORGE. The Psychology of the Christian Soul, 1911.

ROYCE, J. The Sources of Religious Insight, 1912.

BEGBIE, H. Twice-Born Men, 1909.

JASTROW, JOSEPH. The Subconscious, 1906.

COE, GEORGE A. The Religion of a Mature Mind, 1902.

HALL, G. STANLEY. Adolescence, 1904.

_For Chapter IV_

BERGSON, HENRI. L'Évolution Créatrice, 7th ed., 1911; Creative

Evolution, 1911.

LEROY, EDOUARD. The New Philosophy of Henri Bergson, 1913.

EUCKEN, RUDOLF. Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion, 3d ed., 1912;

The Truth of Religion, 2d Eng. from 3d German ed., 1913.

Können wir noch Christen sein? 1911; Can We Still Be

Christians? 1914.

JONES, W. TUDOR. An Interpretation of Rudolf Eucken's

Philosophy, 1912.

HERMANN, E. Eucken and Bergson: Their Significance for

Christian Thought, 1912.

GIBSON, W. R. BOYCE. Rudolf Eucken's Philosophy of Life, 3d

ed., 1912.

WARD, JAMES. The Realm of Ends, 1911.

ROYCE, JOSIAH. William James and Other Essays, 1911.

The Problem of Christianity, 2 vols., 1913.

_For Chapter V_

CLEMEN, CARL. Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen

Testaments, 1909; Primitive Christianity and Its non-Jewish

Sources, 1912.

Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das älteste

Christentum, 1913.

REITZENSTEIN, R. Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen

und frühchristlichen Literatur, 1904. Die Hellenistische

Mysterienreligionen, 1910.

CUMONT, F. Les Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain,

2d ed., 1909; The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, 1911.

KENNEDY, H. A. A. St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, 1913.

MEAD, G. R. S. Thrice Greatest Hermes, 3 vols., 1906.

FOWLER, W. WARDE. The Religious Experience of the Roman People,

1911.

MACKENZIE, W. D. The Final Faith, 1910.

MARETT, R. R. The Threshold of Religion, 1914.

Religionsgeschtliche Volksbücher, begun in 1904.

_For Chapter VI_

ORR, JAMES. The Problem of the Old Testament, 1906.

HARNACK, A. Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament: I.

Lukas der Arzt, 1906 (Luke the Physician, 1907); II. Sprüche

und Reden Jesu, 1907 (The Sayings of Jesus, 1908); III. Die

Apostelgeschichte, 1908 (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909); IV.

Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur

Abfassungszeit der Synoptischen Evangelien, 1911 (The Date of

the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911).

RAMSAY, SIR W. M. Pauline and Other Studies in Early Church

History, 1906.

KOCH, HEINRICH. Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen

Geschichtswerkes, 1911.

SANDAY, W. (ED.). Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 1911. The

Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905.

STANTON, VINCENT H. The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part

II, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909.

HOLDSWORTH, W. W. Gospel Origins: A Study in the Synoptic

Problem, 1913.

HAWKINS, SIR JOHN C. Horæ Synopticæ, 2d ed., 1909.

MOFFATT, JAMES. An Introduction to the Literature of the New

Testament, 1911.

ALLEN, W. C. and GRENSTED, L. W. Introduction to the Books of

the New Testament, 1913.

DRUMMOND, JAMES. An Inquiry Into the Character and Authorship

of the Fourth Gospel, 1904.

BACON, BENJAMIN W. The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate,

1910.

WORSLEY, F. W. The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists, 1909.

SCHAEFER, ALOYS. Enileitung in das Neue Testament, 1913.

Index

Abbot, Ezra, 228

Absolute, the, 125, 127, 147, 162

Activism, 138, 139

Acts of the Apostles, credibility of, 206-210, 215-216;

authorship of, 209;

date of, 210-215

Adolescence and conversion, 107-110

Adonis, 166

Allen, Grant, 58

Allen and Grensted, 232

Ames, E. C., 115, 117

Arrhenius, S. A., 76

Askwith, E. H., 238

Atonement, 157-160

Augustine, 93, 94, 98-99, 110

Bacon, B. W., 35

Baldwin, J. M., 63

Bardsley, H. J., 233

Bartlett, J. V., 219

Bateson, W., 65

Baur, F. C., 203, 204, 217

Begbie, H., 96

Bergson, H., 62, 63, 69, 73, 127-137, 146, 163

Bernoulli, C. A., 234

Booth, M., 144

Bousset, W., 20, 35, 38, 40-42, 46, 48, 174-176, 184, 188, 222, 223

Brooks, A. E., 238

Brooks, Phillips, 29

Browning, R., 162

Buddhism, 170

Carlyle, T., 43, 119

Carter, J. B., 96

Cheyne, T. K., 168

Christian experience, 53, 144;

evidence of, 122-124

Christianity, essence of, 15, 26, 27, 54;

of the New Testament writers, 16-21;

primitive and Pauline, 21-26;

of Jesus and Paul, 26-34;

doctrinal, 52, 54-55, 157-158;

Eucken's relation to, 142-145;

what is vital in, 156-158;

and ancient religions, 165-193;

and modern religions, 193-197

Christology, 161, 162, 175;

of Paul, 15, 23;

of Mark, 20, 223, 236;

of Jesus, 35-44;

and ethics, 28-35

Clemen, C., 168, 170, 181, 187, 189

Clifford, W. K., 93

Coe, G. A., 90

Confucius, 167-168

Conklin, E. A., 79

Conversion, 96-99, 107-110, 123

Copernicus, 60, 85

Creed, J. M., 189

Cumont, F., 178, 180

Darwin, C., 56, 85, 129

Darwinism, see Evolution

DeBoor fragment, 231

Deissmann, A., 172, 176

Dewey, J., 127

Dobschütz, E. von, 42, 53-54, 182

Drews, A., 45, 46, 48, 50

Driesch, H. A. E., 70

Drummond, Henry, 89

Drummond, James, 228

Edwards, Jonathan, 89, 122

Eigenmann, C. H., 62

Eimer, G. H. J., 63

_Élan vital_, see Vital impulse

Eliot, C. W., 197

Emerson, R. W., 58, 89

Emperor, worship of, 172-177

Environment, fitness of, 60, 68-69

Ephesians, epistle to, 204

Epigenesis, 73-75, 81, 83

Epiphanius, 229

Ethics, of Jesus and Paul, 27-35;

Christian, 51

Eucken, R., 33, 91, 137-146, 163

Eusebius, 232

Evolution, 56;

as unfavourable to religion, 57-58;

as favourable to religion, 59-60;

and the Copernican theory, 60-61;

method of, 61-66;

meaning of, 66-82;

and design, 66-73;

and theism, 82-85;

creative, 127-136

Faith, salvation by, 102, 104

Finalism, 132-134

Fletcher, M. S., 116

Forrest, D. W., 122

Fowler, W. Warde, 192

Fox, George, 107, 118

Franckh, 170

Frazer, J. G., 46

Georgios Hamartolos, 230, 231

Goethe, 228

Gospel, the double, 25, 53-54

Grace, 159-161

Gregory, E. L., 122

Grützmacher, R. H., 171

Haeckel, E., 58, 139

Hale, E. E., 101

Hall, G. S., 107

Harnack, A. von, 18, 25, 26, 27, 37, 38, 52, 53,

188, 207-211, 215, 216, 225

Hartmann, E. von, 128

Hase, K. A., 39

Hatch, E., 183

Hawkins, Sir J. C., 208, 211, 219, 221

Headlam, A. C., 204

Headley, F. H., 83

Hegel, 146-162

Heitmüller, W., 182

Henderson, L. J., 68, 69

Herbert, S., 65

Heredity, 61

Hermas, Shepherd of, 185, 190-192

Hermes, 189-192

Hermetic literature, 185-188, 189

Höffding, H., 121

Holdsworth, W. W., 221, 223, 238

Holtzmann, H. J., 214

Hügel, Baron F. von, 73

Huxley, T. H., 67, 85

Immortality, 59, 129, 130, 141, 152-154

Incarnation, 157, 162-163

Inge, W. R., 90

Intellectualism, 140

Ishtar, 171

Jackson, H. L., 224

James, William, 89, 90, 92, 100, 102, 104,

111-114, 119-120, 122, 125, 137

Jastrow, J., 102, 111

Jesus Christ, passion, 16-20, 41-42;

resurrection, 16-18, 25, 143;

person, 20;

authority, 31-32;

character, 31, 43-44, 51;

liberal view of, 44-49, 143-144;

mythical view of, 45-47

John, Gospel of, 227-242;

authorship of, 228-229;

external evidence, 229-233;

internal evidence, 234-238;

historical value, 238-242

Josephus, 211, 213-215

Justin, 170

Kalthoff, A., 22

Kant, 146, 152

Kelvin, Lord, 76

Kennedy, H. A. A., 180, 182, 188

Kidd, B., 58, 90

Kingsley, Charles, 59

Koch, H., 211-212

Kyrios-title, 174-177

Lake, K., 25

Lamarck, 63

Lang, A., 229

Langlois and Seignobos, 227

Law, R., 107

Lemme, L., 36

LeRoy, E., 132

Leuba, J. H., 115

Lightfoot, Bishop J. B., 190, 228, 234

Lodge, Sir O., 69, 86

Loeb, J., 76

Logia, see Q

Loisy, A., 37, 73, 177

Lowell, J. R., 197

Loyalty, religion of, 156-158

Luther, 99, 110

Lyell, Sir Charles, 56

Macalister, A., 68

Mark (Gospel), priority of, 217, 223, 225;

use of Q, 220;

different editions of, 220;

secondary elements in, 221-223

Materialism, 96, 126, 163

Mead, G. R. S., 189, 190

Mechanism, 66, 68-69, 72, 83, 131

Messiah, 44, 47-48

Metempsychosis, 152-155

Missions, Christian, 193-197

Moffatt, J., 211

Mohammedanism, 144-145, 196

Morgan, C. Lloyd, 63

Morgan, T. H., 65

Mystery religions, 177-186, 189

Mysticism, 120-122

Nägeli, K. W., 63

Naturalism, 125, 136, 137, 139

Neo-Platonism, 189

Newman, Cardinal, 73

Newton, 56, 86

Nicoll, Sir W. Robertson, 216

Nietzsche, F., 128

Noyes, Alfred, 74, 80

Origen, 169, 230

Origin, of life, 75-78;

of man, 78-79

Orr, J., 202

Osborn, H. F., 62, 63

Osiris, 167

Ostwald, W., 69, 77

Overbeck, F., 234

Paley, W., 67, 207

Pampsychism, 153-155

Pantheism, 50, 84, 121, 142, 178

Papias, 231, 232, 233, 234

Patton, Francis L., 216

Paul, founder of Christianity, 21;

and the primitive apostles, 22-26;

and Jesus, 26-35;

conversion of, 98-99, 110, 227

Pauline Epistles, 203-205

Peabody, F. G., 242

Pearson, K., 76

Petersen, E., 171

Philip of Side, 230

Philo, 170, 189

Plato, 108, 169, 178

Plummer, A., 34, 36

Pluralism, 128, 146-153

Poimandres, 185-187, 189-192

Pragmatism, 119-120, 122, 127, 139, 146

Pratt, J. B., 104, 111

Preformation, 73, 80, 82

Priene inscription, 172

Psychology of religion, its founders, 89;

an aid to Christian faith, 91

Q (Quelle), 30, 218, 219, 220, 225

Ramsay, Sir W. M., 202, 205-208, 212-213, 231

Ransom, 19, 35

Rashdall, H., 159

Reinach, S., 46

Reitzenstein, R., 181, 185-191

Religion, normality of, 86, 92-96;

power of, 96-100;

and disease, 106, 107;

and sex, 107-110;

and the subconscious, 111-114;

and society, 115-119;

universal, 140;

characteristic, 140-141

Religious experience, its physchology, 92, 105;

its metaphysical implicates, 105, 106, 115, 119-122

Renan, E., 46, 58

Robertson, J. M., 47

Robinson, H. W., 123

Romanes, G. J., 59, 71, 93

Royce, J., 78, 89, 100, 103, 114, 146, 156-163

Sacraments, 180-182, 184-185

Salvation, need of, 100-102;

way of, 102-105

Sanday, W., 35, 39, 111, 220

Schäfer, Sir E. A., 77, 86

Schiller, F. C. S., 127

Schmiedel, P. W., 46, 219

Schopenhauer, 128

Schürer, E., 214

Schumacher, H., 37

Schweitzer, A., 21, 22

Selection, natural, 57, 63;

germinal, 63

Shaler, N. S., 61

Simpson, P. C., 123

Sin, 100, 102, 158-159

Smith, W. B., 46

Socrates, 43

Spiritual life, 140, 142-144

Spitta, F., 234

Stanton, V. H., 209

Starbuck, E. D., 89, 90, 97, 101, 103, 107, 112

Stevens, G., 98, 110

Stier, 217

Storrs, R. S., 200

Strauss, D. F., 45, 49

Subconscious, 111-114

Synoptic problem, 216-227

Teleology, 66-68

Theism, 50, 126, 137, 141, 147-150, 153, 155

Thomson, J. A., 70, 80

_Titanic_ disaster, 94-95

Tübingen school, see Baur

Uhlhorn, G., 97, 179

Underhill, A., 90

Variation, laws of, 62-63

Vaughan, C. J., 227

Vergil, Eclogues of, 173, 192

Virgin Birth, 170-173

Vital impulse, 60, 63, 128-129, 131, 133, 136-137

Voltaire, 86

Vries, de, 62, 63

Walker, Dawson, 207, 212, 231

Walker, H. H., 99

Wallace, A. R., 61, 67, 69, 80

Ward, James, 73, 116, 146-155, 163

Warschauer, J., 167

Weinel, H., 182

Weismann, A., 63-65, 76

Weiss, J., 50

Wendling, E., 35

Wendt, H. H., 181

Wernle, P., 24

Westcott, Bishop B. F., 162, 234

Whetham, W. C. D. and C. D., 87

Worsley, F. W., 230

Wrede, W., 20

Wright, A., 207

Wright, W. K., 100

Zahn, T., 192

Zinzendorf, Count, 97

_Printed in the United States of America_

SERMONS--LECTURES--ADDRESSES

_JAMES L. GORDON, D.D._

All's Love Yet All's Law

12mo, cloth, net $1.25.

"Discloses the secret of Dr. Gordon's eloquence--fresh, and intimate

presentations of truth which always keep close to reality. Dr. Gordon

also seems to have the world's literature at his command. A few of the

titles will give an idea of the scope of his preaching. 'The Law of

Truth: The Science of Universal Relationships'; 'The Law of Inspiration:

The Vitalizing Power of Truth'; 'The Law of Vibration'; 'The Law of

Beauty: The Spiritualizing Power of Thought'; The Soul's Guarantee of

Immortality."--_Christian Work._

_BISHOP FRANCIS J. McCONNELL_ _Cole Lectures_

Personal Christianity

Instruments and Ends in the Kingdom of God. 12mo, cloth, net $1.25.

The latest volume of the famous "Cole Lectures" delivered at Vanderbilt

University. The subjects are: I. The Personal in Christianity. II. The

Instrumental in Christianity. III. The Mastery of World-Views. IV. The

Invigoration of Morality. V. The Control of Social Advance. VI. "Every

Kindred, and People, and Tongue."

_NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS, D.D._

Lectures and Orations by Henry Ward Beecher

Collected by Newell Dwight Hillis. 12mo, net $1.20.

It is fitting that one who is noted for the grace, finish and eloquence

of his own addresses should choose those of his predecessor which he

deems worthy to be preserved in a bound volume as the most desirable,

the most characteristic and the most dynamic utterances of America's

greatest pulpit orator.

_W. L. WATKINSON, D.D._

The Moral Paradoxes of St. Paul

12mo, cloth, net $1.00.

"These sermons are marked, even to greater degree than is usual

with their talented preacher, by clearness, force and illustrative

aptness. He penetrates unerringly to the heart of Paul's paradoxical

settings forth of great truths, and illumines them with pointed

comment and telling illustration. The sermons while thoroughly

practical are garbed in striking and eloquent sentences, terse,

nervous, attention-compelling."--_Christian World._

_LEN G. BROUGHTON, D.D._

The Prodigal and Others

12mo, cloth, net $1.00.

"The discourses are vital, bright, interesting and helpful. It makes a

preacher feel like preaching once more on this exhaustless parable, and

will prove helpful to all young people--and older ones, too. Dr.

Broughton does not hesitate to make his utterances striking and

entertaining by the introduction of numerous appropriate and homely

stories and illustrations. He reaches the heart."--_Review and

Expositor._

BIBLE STUDY, DEVOTIONAL, Etc.

_A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D._

Studies in the New Testament

A Handbook for Bible Classes in Sunday Schools, for Teacher Training

Work, for use in Secondary Schools and Colleges. 12mo, cloth, net 50c.

_In it are no references to books of any kind outside the

Bible._ With the help of the maps and a New Testament one can

study this work _with no other books in hand_.

_REV. JOSEPH T. GIBSON, D.D._

=Jesus Christ=: The Unique Revealer of God

8vo, cloth, $1.50.

The author has sought to see, and aid others in seeing Jesus

Christ as He is presented in the Scriptures. He has compiled a

"Life" neither critical nor iconoclastic, but designed for

those who regard the Word of God as being not only the

infalliable guide to faith and duty, but the authentic

chronicle of the earthly life of our Lord. Dr. Gibson has

harmonized the Gospels and from them constructed a graphic

narrative which, contrives, to re-limn an old picture with

freshness and charm.

_REV. GEO. H. YOUNG, M.A._, _Ass't. Prof. Rhetoric and Public Speaking,

Colgate University_

The Illustrative Teachings of Jesus

The Parables, Similies and Metaphors of Christ. 12mo, cloth, net $1.00.

"A most readable and practical treatment of the methods of the

Master for the general Bible student and Christian worker. A

valuable contribution to one's conception of Jesus as the

'Teacher come from God,' and revealing in life, content of

instruction and method of presentation the will of the

Father."--_Review and Expositor._

_W. BEATTY JENNINGS, D.D._

The Social Teachings of Christ Jesus

A Manual for Bible Classes, Christian Associations, Social Study Groups,

etc. 16mo, cloth, net 50c.

In a series of twenty studies, the teachings of Jesus are

applied to specific social sins and needs of to-day, such as

poverty, pleasure, war, the drink traffic, etc., and shown to

be the sure and only solution of the problems of society.

_ROBERT FREEMAN_

The Hour of Prayer

Helps to Devotion When Absent from Church. 12mo, cloth, net 75c.

"A volume of reverent purpose designed especially for those who

wish some form of Sunday observance, or who, by stress of

circumstances, are prevented from attending services in the

churches. To shut-ins, mothers with young children, nurses and

others who are unable to attend public worship, the book will

particularly appeal."--_Buffalo Express._

Transcribers Note: P 156 Home-land changed to homeland

P 12 The Theistic Infer enc changed to

The Theistic Inference