LECTURE I
SURVEY OF RECENT LITERATURE
_The Situation in November, 1903._
The subject of these lectures illustrates in a striking way the
fluctuations and vicissitudes of critical opinion as presented before
the public. The facts remain the same, and the balance of essential
truth and error in regard to them also remains the same; but the balance
of published opinion is a different matter, and in regard to this the
changes are often very marked and very rapid.
In November last (1903), when I definitely accepted the invitation so
kindly given me by your President, and definitely proposed the subject
on which I am about to speak, the criticism of the Fourth Gospel had
reached a point which, in my opinion, was further removed from truth and
reality than at any period within my recollection. There had followed
one another in quick succession four books—or what were practically
books—three at least of which were of conspicuous ability, and yet all
as it seemed to me seriously wrong both in their conclusions and in
their methods. To the year 1901 belong the third and fourth editions,
published together, of the justly praised and largely circulated
_Introduction to the New Testament_ of Professor Jülicher of Marburg
(now translated into English by the accomplished daughter of Mrs.
Humphry Ward), the second volume of _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, containing
a massive article on ‘John, Son of Zebedee,’ by Professor P. W.
Schmiedel of Zürich, and a monograph on the Fourth Gospel by M. Jean
Réville of Paris.[1] To these was added in the autumn of last year a
complete commentary on the Gospel by the Abbé Loisy, whose more popular
writings were at the time attracting so much attention. A profound
dissent from the conclusion arrived at in these works was one of my main
reasons in offering to discuss the subject before you. The feeling was
strong within me that in this portion of the critical field—and I do not
know any other so vital—the time was one of trouble and rebuke; that
there was a call to me to speak; and that, however inadequate the
response to the call might be, some response ought to be attempted.
These were the motives present to my mind in the month of November when
I chose my subject. But by the beginning of the year (1904) the position
of things by which they had been prompted was very largely changed. The
urgency was no longer nearly so great. Two books had appeared, both in
the English tongue, which did better than I could hope to do the very
thing that I desired—one more limited, the other more extended in its
scope, but both maintaining what I believe to be the right cause in what
I believe to be the right way. These books were _The Gospels as
Historical Documents_, Part I, by Professor V. H. Stanton of Cambridge,
and _The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ by Dr. James
Drummond, Principal of Manchester College. I should be well content to
rest the case, as I should wish it to be stated, on these two books,
especially the second. But by the time when they appeared I was already
committed to my task. As I have said, one of them is limited in its
scope; and the other—admirable as it is, and heartily as I agree with
its principles as well as with most of its details—is perhaps not quite
so complete on all points as it is on some; so that there may still be
room for such a brief course of lectures as you ask of me, partly to
reinforce points already made, and partly, it may be, in some small
degree to supplement them.
* * * * *
What I have been saying amounts to a confession that my purpose is
apologetic. I propose to defend the traditional view, or (as an
alternative) something so near to the traditional view that it will
count as the same thing. It is better to be clear on this point at
starting. And yet I know that there are many minds—and those just the
minds to which I should most like to appeal—to which this will seem to
be a real drawback. There is an impression abroad—a very natural
impression—that ‘apologetic’ is opposed to ‘scientific.’
In regard to this there are just one or two things that I would ask
leave to say.
(1) We are all really apologists, in the sense that for all of us some
conclusions are more acceptable than others. No one undertakes to write
on any subject with his mind in the state of a sheet of white paper. We
all start with a number of general principles and general beliefs,
conscious or unconscious, fixed or provisional. We all naturally give a
preference to that which harmonizes best with these beliefs, though all
the time a process of adjustment may be going on, by which we assimilate
larger conclusions to smaller as well as smaller to larger.
(2) Even in the strictest science it must not be supposed that the
evidence will always point the same way. The _prima facie_ conclusion
will not always be necessarily the right one. It cannot be, because it
is very possible that it may conflict with some other conclusion that is
already well established. A balance has to be struck, and some
adjustment has to be attempted.
(3) If I defend a traditional statement as to a plain matter of fact, I
am the more ready to do so because I have found—or seemed to myself to
find—as a matter of experience, that such statements are far more often,
in the main, right than wrong. It is a satisfaction to me to think that
in this experience, so far as it relates to the first two centuries of
Christian history, I have the distinguished support of Professor
Harnack, who has expressed a deliberate opinion to this effect, though
he certainly did not start with any prejudice in favour of tradition. Of
course one sits loosely to a generalization like this. It only means
that the burden of proof lies with those who reject such a statement
rather than with those who accept it.
(4) I cannot but believe that there is a real presumption that the
Christian faith, which has played so vast a power in what appear to be
the designs of the Power that rules the world, is not based upon a
series of deceptions. I consider that, on any of the large questions,
that view is preferable which does not involve an abrupt break with the
past. It is very likely that there may be involved some modification or
restatement, but not complete denial or reversal.
To say this is something more than the instinct of continuity—something
more than the instinct expressed in such words as—
‘I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.’
It is the settled belief that there is a Providence that shapes our
ends, and that this Providence never has wholly to undo its own work,
but that there is a continuous purpose running through the ages.
That is the sense—and I do not think more than that—in which I plead
guilty to being an apologist. I hope there is such a thing as
‘scientific apology’ or ‘apologetic science,’ and that this is entitled
to fair consideration along with other kinds of science. I would not for
a moment ask that anything I may urge should be judged otherwise than
strictly on its merits.
* * * * *
I began by saying that the nearer past, the last three or four years,
has been distinguished by the successive appearance of a number of
prominent books on the criticism of the Fourth Gospel, which have been
all on the negative side. Those I mentioned are not only negative, but
they have taken the more extreme form of negation. Not content with
denying that the author of the Gospel was the Apostle St. John, they
insist at once that the true author is entirely unknown, and that
whoever he was he stood in no direct relation to the Apostle. It has
been the special characteristic of the last few years, as compared with
the preceding period, that this more extreme position has been held by
writers of note and influence. If we take the period from 1889 to
1900—or even if we go further back, say, from 1870 to 1900, the dominant
tendency had been different. Opinion had seemed to gravitate more and
more towards a sort of middle position, in which the two sides in the
debate could almost reach hands to each other. There was a distinct
recognition on the critical side of an element in the Gospel of genuine
and authentic history. And, on the other hand, there was an equally
clear recognition among conservative writers that the discourses of our
Lord in particular were reported with a certain amount of freedom, not
as they had been actually spoken but as they came back to the memory of
the Apostle after a considerable lapse of time. While the critics could
not bring themselves to accept the composition of the Gospel by the son
of Zebedee himself, they seemed increasingly disposed to admit that it
might be the work of a near disciple of the Apostle, such as the
supposed second John, commonly known as ‘the Presbyter.’
If this was the state of things six or seven years ago, and if this
description might be given of the general tendency of research in the
decade or two preceding, the same can be said no longer. The threads
that seemed to be drawing together have again sprung asunder. The sharp
antitheses, that seemed in the way to be softened down and harmonized,
have asserted themselves again in all their old abruptness. The
alternatives are once more not so much between stricter and less strict
history as between history and downright fiction, not so much between
the Apostle and a disciple or younger contemporary of the Apostle as
between a member of the Apostolic generation and one who was in no
connexion with it.
I am speaking of the more pronounced opinions on either side. Whereas
seven or eight or fifteen or twenty years ago the most prominent
scholars were working towards conciliation, at the present time, and in
the near past, the most strongly expressed opinions have been the most
extreme. The old authorities, happily for the most part, still remain
upon the scene, and they have not withdrawn the views which they had
expressed; but other, younger writers have come to the front, and they
have not shown the same disposition for compromise. They know their own
minds, and they are ready enough to proclaim them without hesitation and
without reserve.
The consequence is that the situation, as we look out upon it, presents
more variety than it did. There are many shades of opinion, some of them
strongly opposed to each other. It is no longer possible to strike an
average, or to speak of a general tendency. The only thing to be done is
for each of us to state his view of the case as he sees it, and to
appeal to the public, to the jury of plain men, and to the rising
generation, to decide between the competing theories.