These lectures were delivered in accordance with the terms of the Morse
foundation in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, between October
12 and November 4, 1904; and they were afterwards repeated, with some
changes, in Oxford. I have tried to improve their form both while they
were being delivered and since. But I have been content to state the
case for the most part broadly and constructively, and have not (as I
had at one time intended) burdened the pages with notes and detailed
discussions.
I am conscious of inadequate treatment throughout, but especially
perhaps in Lecture VII. There has been a movement of thought going on
ever since the lectures were begun; and, if I am not mistaken, the
burning point of the whole controversy has come to rest more and more
upon the question discussed in this lecture. But on neither side has the
real issue been pressed home with any thoroughness. Critical writers are
in the habit of assuming with very little proof that the theology of St.
John is simply a development of that of St. Paul, and that the theology
of St. Paul was from one end to the other the Apostle’s own creation. I
cannot think that this is a true representation of the facts; it seems
to me to ignore far too much the Mother Church and that which gave its
life to the Mother Church. At the same time I am quite aware that what I
have given is rather a sketch for a possible answer to this question,
than a really satisfactory discussion of it. There are not wanting signs
that a fuller examination of the relations between the teaching of
Christ on the one hand and St. Paul and St. John on the other is the
next great debate that lies before us. In this debate the question of
the genuineness and authenticity of the Fourth Gospel will be but an
episode.
It is a matter of regret to me that the subject of these lectures should
have been so predominantly controversial. I cannot help feeling the deep
cleft which divides me from many of the writers whose views I have
discussed—a cleft that extends to matters more fundamental still than
the criticism of the Gospel. I find it in some ways a relief to think of
the division between us as greater even than it is. Where there is frank
and open hostility, the approaches that are made by the one side to the
other are more highly valued. And from this point of view there is much
in the writings of those of whom I am obliged to think as opponents that
greatly appeals to me. As typical of this I may mention the pamphlet by
Freiherr von Soden entitled _Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu_. I
have referred to this pamphlet in a note on p. 129, in terms that are
not those of praise; and it true that the critical portion of the
pamphlet, especially so far as it deals with the Fourth Gospel, seems to
me very defective. I also cannot disguise from myself that the author
explicitly denies what I should most wish that he affirmed (op. cit., p.
92). But, when I have said this, it is only just to add that I have read
the concluding sections of his essay with warm respect and admiration.
And what is true of this essay is true of much beside.
I console myself by thinking that German criticism with which I have had
to break a lance more often than with any other, has a wonderful faculty
for correcting itself. Only in the last few years we have had, first the
discussions started by Wellhausen about the title Son of Man, and then
those set on foot by Wrede in his book _Das Messiasgeheimnis in den
Evangelien_, and in each case criticism seems to be working its way
through to a view that is really right and reasonable. In like manner
the extravagant estimate of the apocalyptic element in the Gospels which
has been in vogue in recent years seems to be reducing itself to sounder
dimensions. In each case there is error; but in each case the error is
corrected, and something is learnt and gained by the way. May we not
hope that on this question of the Fourth Gospel, and the still more
vital matters with which it is bound up, by degrees the tension may be
relaxed, and there may be the same experience of permanent gain? Already
one may see great potentialities of good in much that as it at present
stands may well give cause for concern.
One common form of criticism that may be directed against this book I
confess that I should rather deprecate. Even my friend Dr. Cheyne, whose
sympathies are so large, allows himself to write: ‘Apologetic
considerations are brought in to limit our freedom. The Fourth Gospel
must be the work of the Apostle John, and must be in the main
historical, because the inherited orthodoxy requires it’ (_Bible
Problems_, p. 40 f.). Does he really think that this is our only reason
for holding those paradoxical positions? Or rather, I would put my
question in another way; Does he really think that ‘the inherited
orthodoxy’ is nothing better than a taskmaster that stands over us with
a whip, to keep us from straying? Is that his view of the divine meaning
in the history and development of nineteen centuries? I have had
occasion incidentally to define my attitude on this subject, and I may
perhaps refer to the pages on which I have done so (pp. 3-5; comp. pp.
233-235; 262 f.). I hope that this attitude is at least as consistent
with an earnest pursuit of truth as that which appears to assume that
orthodox or traditional opinions are always wrong.
Again, I am not conscious of that ‘paralyzing dread of new facts’ of
which my friend speaks. It may be true that new theories perhaps, rather
than new facts, have a greater attraction for some of us than for
others. But, as far as I am concerned, if I have been silent in public
on some of the no doubt important questions raised, the cause has been
chiefly want of time. Life is very short, and very crowded, and we are
not all rapid workers, or gifted with the power of facing in many
directions at once. And yet I have tried to keep pace with the progress
of thought; the problems which Dr. Cheyne propounds are not unfamiliar
to me; and I am not without more or less deliberate views about them.
Dr. Cheyne’s book is enough to convince me that the problems are really
urgent; and I shall do my best to say what I have to say upon them as
soon as I can.
Perhaps it should be explained that the enumeration of books and writers
does not profess to be exhaustive. In the main I have confined myself to
the more recent, and to what may be called ‘living’ literature. Some few
things may have dropped out because they did not happen to fall in with
the method of treatment adopted. Of these the various writings of Dr.
Edwin A. Abbott are the most important that I can remember. To the older
works mentioned on pp. 12-15 there should have been added Archdeacon
Watkin’s Bampton Lectures for 1890 as a summary of earlier criticism.
The absence of reference to the elaborate work of Dr. Joh. Kreyenbühl
(_Das Evangelium der Wahrheit_, vol. i, 1900; vol. ii, 1905) is due in
part to the accidental loss of my copy of the first volume. But it would
be wrong to suggest that I should have had patience enough to discover
what there is of sanity in its learned but fantastic pages.
It only remains for me to express my heartfelt thanks to those who so
kindly invited me to deliver these lectures, and to those who gave me
such generous and considerate hospitality, while they were being
delivered. My visit to America was deeply interesting to me. I returned
home, not only with the feeling that I had made new and valued friends,
but also with a greatly strengthened hope and desire that American and
English workers may long be found side by side—not as though either of
them had already obtained, or were already made perfect, but pressing
on, if so be that they may apprehend that for which also they were
apprehended by Christ Jesus.
I must also add a word of very sincere thanks to my friends Dr. Lock,
who read the whole, and Mr. Ll. J. M. Bebb, who read a part of the
proofs of these lectures, and to whose kindness and care I owe it that
they are not more faulty than they are.
OXFORD. _Easter, 1905_.