It must not be thought that conservative scholars have shown any
weakening of confidence in their cause. Quite the contrary. The latest
period, which has seen so much recrudescence of opposition, has also
seen not only the old positions maintained by those who had maintained
them before, but an important accession to the literature on the Fourth
Gospel—from the hand of a veteran indeed, but a veteran who had not
before treated the subject quite directly. I refer to Zahn’s monumental
_Introduction to the New Testament_, 2 vols., published in 1899, with
which may be taken vol. vi of the same writer’s _Forschungen z. Gesch.
d. neutest. Kanons_ published in 1900. It is no disparagement to other
workers in the field of Early Christian Literature to say that Dr. Zahn
is the most learned of them all. We could indeed count upon our fingers
several who know all that really needs to be known; but Dr. Zahn has a
singular command of the whole of this material in its remotest recesses.
He keeps a keen eye not only on theological literature proper, but on
everything that appears in the world of scholarship that might have any
bearing upon the questions at issue. An indefatigable industry he shares
with more than one of his colleagues; but he is surpassed by none in the
vigour and energy of mind with which he works up his knowledge.
And yet, with all his masterly erudition, and imposing as is the
monument which he has erected of it, I am afraid that I should have to
call it in some ways a rather isolated monument. There is something in
Dr. Zahn’s work and in his position that is rather solitary. He has
indeed his _fidus Achates_ in Professor Haussleiter of Greifswald, and I
do not doubt that his influence is widely felt among theologians of the
Right. It is an encouragement to all who are like-minded to know that
this strong tower of learning and character is with them. But it is
hardly to be expected that Dr. Zahn’s writings, especially his greater
writings, should ever be popular. Those closely packed pages, with long
unbroken paragraphs and few helps to the eye and to readiness of
apprehension, are a severe exercise for the most determined student: to
any one else they must be forbidding. And when such a student has made
his way into them, he is apt to find in them every quality but one. The
views expressed on all points, larger and smaller, testify unfailingly
to the powers of mind that lie behind them, but the one thing that they
do often fail to do is to convince. There has fallen upon the shoulders
of Dr. Zahn too much of the mantle of von Hofmann: if he were a little
less original, he would carry the reader with him more.
Another veteran scholar, who has continued his laborious and unresting
work upon the Fourth Gospel during this period, Dr. Bernhard Weiss[2],
suffers less from this cause. Not that the writings of Dr. Weiss are
much easier (they are a little easier) or more attractive in outward
form. But one has a feeling that the Berlin Professor is more in the
main stream—that he is more in touch with other opinion on the right
hand and on the left. For this reason one finds him, on the whole, more
helpful. Every question, as it arises, is thoughtfully weighed, and a
strong judgement is brought to bear upon it. Each edition of Dr. Weiss’
books is conscientiously revised and brought, so far as can be
reasonably expected, up to date. This untiring worker, as he enters upon
the decline of a long life, has the satisfaction of looking back upon a
series of volumes, always sound and always sober, which have contributed
as much as any in this generation to train up in good and wholesome ways
those who are to follow. Dr. Weiss’ work upon the Fourth Gospel is
distinguished at once by his steady maintenance of the Apostolic
authorship and by his steady insistence on the necessity of allowing for
a certain freedom of handling. This freedom in the treatment, more
particularly of the discourses, Dr. Weiss was practically the first
writer to assert on the conservative side. He has sometimes stated it in
a way that I cannot but think rather exaggerated.
Along with Bernhard Weiss it is natural to name Dr. Willibald Beyschlag,
of whose dignified conduct of the proceedings at the Halle Tercentenary
reports reached us in England, followed—as it seemed, too soon—by the
news of his death on Nov. 25, 1900. Beyschlag was a good average
representative of the liberal wing of the defenders of the Fourth
Gospel, who also combine its data with those of the Synoptics in
reconstructing the Life of our Lord. His style has more rhetorical ease
and flow than that of Weiss, and he states his views with confidence and
vigour; but one feels that in his hands problems are apt to become less
difficult than they really are. For a reasonable middle position, a
compromise between extremes on both sides, we may go to Beyschlag as
well as to any one; but it may be doubted whether he really sounds the
depths of the Gospel[3].
In this respect writers like Luthardt (died Sept. 21, 1902) and Godet
(died Oct. 29, 1900), who are nearer to the old-fashioned orthodoxy, are
more satisfactory. Of these writers we have fairly recent editions:
Luthardt’s _Kurzgefasster Kommentar_ came out in a second edition in
1894, and a posthumous edition of Godet’s elaborate and weighty work
began to appear in 1902. With such books as these we may group the
reprint of the commentary by Drs. Milligan and Moulton (Edinburgh, n.
d.) and the two commentaries, in _The Expositor’s Bible_ (1891-2) and in
_The Expositor’s Greek Testament_, 1897, by Dr. Marcus Dods.
In the same connexion may also be mentioned a little group of French
writings, headed by _Six Leçons sur les Évangiles_ (Paris, 1897), by
Abbé (now Monsignor) Pierre Batiffol—slight, but with a note of real
distinction both in style and matter; an Introduction by Abbé Jacquier
(_Histoire des Livres du N. T._, Paris, 1903), and a commentary by Père
Calmes (Paris and Rome, 1904)—both (as it would seem) sufficiently
competent and modern but not specially remarkable.
Besides these there are three works on the conservative side which
English-speaking readers at least can never forget—the searching
examination of the external evidence by Dr. Ezra Abbot (Boston, 1880,
reprinted in _Critical Essays_, 1888); articles in _The Expositor_ for
the early months of 1890 by Bp. Lightfoot (reprinted with other matter
bearing upon the subject in _Biblical Essays_, 1893); and the classical
commentary on the Gospel (first published as part of the _Speaker’s
Commentary_) by Dr. Westcott. Of these three works two stand out as
landmarks in theological literature; Dr. Lightfoot’s papers were
somewhat slighter and less permanent in form, consisting in part of
Notes for Lectures, though they bear all the marks of his lucid and
judicious scholarship, and though they are I think still specially
useful for students.
An Englishman addressing an American audience must needs pause for a
moment over the first of these three names[4]. It is the more incumbent
on me to do this because as a young man, at a time when encouragement is
most valued, I was one of many who profited by Dr. Ezra Abbot’s generous
and self-denying kindness. He opened a correspondence with me, and sent
me not only his own books but some by other writers that I might be
presumed not to possess, and it was touching to see the care with which
corrections were made in these in his own finely formed hand. I would
fain not only pay a tribute of reverence to the memory of Dr. Abbot, but
also, if I may, repay a little of my own debt by holding up his example
to the younger generation of American scholars as one that I would
earnestly entreat them to adopt and follow. I do not know how far I am
right, but I have always taken the qualities of Dr. Ezra Abbot’s work as
specially typical of the American mind at its best. His work reminds one
in its exactness and precision of those fine mechanical instruments in
which America has so excelled. To set for oneself the highest possible
standard of accuracy, and to think no time and no pains misspent in the
pursuit of it, is a worthy object of a young scholar’s ambition.
In like manner we, in England, have a standard proposed to us by Dr.
Westcott’s famous Commentary on St. John. It is the culminating product
of a life that was also devoted to the highest ends. It is
characteristic of Dr. Westcott that the Commentary was, I believe,
hardly altered in its later editions from the form in which it first
appeared. This was due to the thoroughness and circumspection with which
the author had in the first instance carried out his task. I believe
that in spite of the lapse of time Dr. Westcott’s Commentary remains,
and will still for long remain, the best that we have on the Fourth
Gospel, as it is also (with the article on Origen) the best and most
characteristic work that its author bequeathed to the world.
In this connexion I must needs mention another American scholar and
divine, to whom I am also bound by personal ties of affectionate
regard—the veteran Dr. George Park Fisher of Yale. It is matter for
thankfulness that he has been able to give to the world, carefully
brought up to date, a new edition of his _Grounds of Theistic and
Christian Belief_ (1902). The pages devoted to the Fourth Gospel are,
like the rest, full of knowledge and suffused with sweet reasonableness
and mild wisdom. Dr. Fisher’s attitude is perhaps not exactly that of
the younger men, but it certainly is not any less near to the ideal. If
I were a tutor or professor in an American seminary, there is no book
that I should more warmly recommend to my pupils. To imbibe its spirit
would be the best training they could have. I should think it especially
excellent as a starting-point for further study. It would implant
nothing that would have to be unlearnt.
Dr. Ezra Abbot has in many ways found a worthy inheritor in Dr.
Drummond; and it is perhaps true that the positive results which he
obtained are adequately embodied in Dr. Drummond’s book, though as a
model for work of the kind the older essay can never become antiquated.
But, speaking generally, I should think it a great misfortune if the
better examples of this older literature were thrust out of use by the
newer and more advanced criticism. I believe it to be one of the weak
points in that criticism that it too much forgets what has been done. It
contents itself with an acceptance that is often grudging or perfunctory
and always inadequate of results that have been really obtained. The
scheme of argument common to the older writers was to prove, in
gradually contracting circles, (1) that the author of the Gospel was a
Jew; (2) that he was a Jew of Palestine; (3) that he was a contemporary;
and (4) an actual companion and eye-witness of the ministry of our Lord.
We must expect the last two propositions to be matter for some
controversy, and I shall return to them later; but it seems to me that
scant justice is done to the argument as a whole.
Since this paragraph was written I have come across some words of
Professor von Dobschütz, which are so much to the point that I am
tempted to quote them:
‘That the Gospel not only shows a good knowledge of Palestinian
localities but also a thoroughly Jewish stamp in thought and
expression, is one of the truths rightly emphasized by conservative
theology which critical theology is already, though reluctantly,
making up its mind to admit: the Hellenism of the Fourth Gospel,
together with its unity, belongs to those only too frequent
pre-conceived opinions, on the critical side too, which are all the
more obstinately maintained the more unfounded they are[5].’
Would that all critical writers were so clear-sighted and so candid!