Far as I conceive that all these writers have travelled away from the
truth, they followed each other in such quick succession that it would
have been strange if public opinion had not been affected by them. To
one who himself firmly believed in St. John’s authorship of the Gospel,
and in its value as a record of the beginning of Christianity, the
outlook last autumn seemed as, I said, very black. A single book
dispelled the clouds and cleared the air. Dr. Drummond’s _Character and
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ is of special value to the defenders of
the Gospel for two reasons: (1) because it is the work of one who cannot
in any case be accused of dogmatic prepossessions, as it would to all
appearance be more favourable to his general position that the Gospel
should not be genuine or authentic; and (2) because the whole work is
something more than a defence of the Gospel; it is a striking
application to a particular problem of principles of criticism in many
respects differing from those at present in vogue, and at the same time,
as I cannot but think, a marked improvement on them.
To these points must be added the inherent qualities of the book
itself—the thorough knowledge with which it is written, its evident
sincerity and effort to get at realities, its nervous directness and
force of style, its judicial habit of weighing all that is to be said on
both sides.
Perhaps the most important and the most far-reaching of all the
corrections of current practice is a passage in the text with the note
appended to it upon the _argument from silence_. The text is dealing
with the common assumption that because Justin quotes less freely from
the Fourth Gospel than from the other three, therefore he must have
ascribed to it a lower degree of authority.
‘But why, then, it may be asked, has Justin not quoted the Fourth
Gospel at least as often as the other three? I cannot tell, any more
than I can tell why he has never named the supposed authors of his
Memoirs, or has mentioned only one of the parables, or made no
reference to the Apostle Paul, or nowhere quoted the Apocalypse,
though he believed it to be an apostolic and prophetical work. His
silence may be due to pure accident, or the book may have seemed
less adapted to his apologetic purposes; but considering how many
things there are about which he is silent, we cannot admit that the
_argumentum a silentio_ possesses in this case any validity.’
To this is added a note which raises the whole general question:
‘An instructive instance of the danger of arguing from what is not
told is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. He does not mention the
names of the writers of the Gospels, except John; he does not tell
us anything about any of them; he says nothing about the origin or
the date of the Gospels themselves, or about their use in the
Church. He quotes from them extremely little, though he quotes
copiously from the Old Testament. But most singular of all, in a
defence of Christianity he tells us nothing about Christ Himself; if
I am not mistaken, he does not so much as name Him or allude to Him;
and, if the supposition were not absurd, it might be argued with
great plausibility that he cannot have known anything about Him. For
he undertakes to explain the origin of the word Christian; but there
is not a word about Christ, and his conclusion is ἡμεῖς τούτου
εἵνεκεν καλούμεθα ὅτι χριόμεθα ἔλαιον θεοῦ (_Ad Autol._ i. 12). In
the following chapter, when he would establish the doctrine of the
resurrection, you could not imagine that he had heard of the
resurrection of Christ; and instead of referring to this, he has
recourse to the changing seasons, the fortune of seeds, the dying
and reappearance of the moon, and the recovery from illness. We may
learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a
writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not
occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing: or even
because he does not mention them when his subject would seem
naturally to lead him to do so[19].’
The remarkable thing in this note is not only its independence and
sagacity, but more particularly the trained sagacity which brings to
bear upon the argument just those examples which are most directly in
point and most telling.
Professor Bacon, in the first of his recent articles (_Hibbert Journal_,
i. 513), good-naturedly defends the present writer from the charge of
wishing to discredit the argument from silence in general. And it is
true that in the place to which he refers I had in mind only a
particular application of the argument. Still I am afraid that I do wish
to see its credit abated. At least it is my belief that too much use is
made of the argument, and that too much weight is attached to it. There
are two main objections to the way in which the argument is often
handled. (1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent—what
extent of material does the argument cover? Often this extent is so
small that, on the doctrine of chances, no inference can rightly be
drawn from it. And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most
fallacious. Dr. Drummond’s examples of this will I hope become
classical[20].
Dr. Drummond’s book contains a multitude of passages like the above and
exhibiting the same qualities. Many of them are a vindication of popular
judgement as against the far-fetched arguments of professed scholars.
The excellence of his method seems to me to consist largely in this,
that he begins by making for himself an imaginative picture of the
conditions with which he has to deal, not only of the particular piece
of evidence which shows upon the surface, but of the inferential
background lying behind it; that he thus escapes the danger of the
_doctrinaire_ who argues straight from the one bit of evidence before
him to the conclusion; and that he also constantly tests the process of
his argument by reference to parallel conditions and circumstances in
our own day which we can verify for ourselves.
If I were to express an opinion on the characteristic positions which
Dr. Drummond takes up, I think it would be that, whereas he seems to me
to overstate a little—but only a little—the external evidence for the
Gospel, he at the same time somewhat understates the internal evidence.
He gives his decision against the Fourth Gospel sometimes where I cannot
help thinking that a writer of equal impartiality would not necessarily
do so. It would also be unfair if I did not say that his general
estimate of the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel is lower than I
should form myself.
I have spoken of Dr. Drummond’s book first because of its importance as
a landmark in the study of the Gospel, and because it covers the whole
of the ground with which we are concerned. But another book preceded it
by a week or two in the date of its publication, which as yet deals only
with a limited portion of this ground, and yet which, unless I am
mistaken, presents qualities similar in general character to those of
Dr. Drummond, though perhaps the expression of them is rather less
striking. I refer to Dr. Stanton’s _The Gospels as Historical
Documents_, Part I. Dr. Stanton’s book is planned on a larger scale than
Dr. Drummond’s in so far as it includes all four Gospels; but as yet he
has only dealt with the external evidence bearing upon their early use.
An important part of the volume is naturally that devoted to the Fourth
Gospel. Like Dr. Drummond, Dr. Stanton also presents a marked contrast
as to method with the group of continental writers that we have just
been considering. It was therefore a matter of special interest that his
book should be reviewed a few months after its appearance by Dr.
Schmiedel in the _Hibbert Journal_ (ii. 607-12). It is not very
surprising that Dr. Stanton was moved to reply to his critic in the next
number (pp. 803-7). There is a direct antithesis of contrasted and
competing principles.
It may naturally be thought that I am a biased judge in such a case; but
I confess that it seems to me that the advantage is very much on the
side of my countryman. He shows without much difficulty that Dr.
Schmiedel has seriously misrepresented him. Indeed one might say that
the critic’s representation of views and arguments was not so much
derived from the book he was reviewing as from his own internal
consciousness of what might be expected from an apologist. This,
however, is the personal, and more ephemeral, aspect of the controversy.
It is of more general interest to note the critical assumptions made in
the course of the review. The writer admits that his opponent ‘not
unfrequently gives the impression of being animated by the sincere
resolve to maintain nothing save only what can be assumed with
certainty.’ ‘With certainty’ is characteristic; the writer attributes to
Dr. Stanton (in this case) what he would have aimed at doing himself. In
the eyes of the school to which Dr. Schmiedel belongs, I will not say
exactly that all the data of which they approve are certain, but they
are treated very much as if they were; in building up an argument upon
them, possibilities easily and imperceptibly glide into probabilities,
and probabilities into certainties. Dr. Stanton disclaims the idea of
dealing with certainties; he would only profess to adduce facts on a
nicely graduated scale of probability, which by their cumulative weight
went some way to carry conviction.
‘Concerning Barn. iv. 14, [Dr. Stanton] says (p. 33) with justice that
this is our earliest instance of the citation of a saying of Christ as
“scripture.” In the year A.D. 130, the date upon which he rightly fixes
for the composition of the _Epistle of Barnabas_, this estimate of the
Gospels would have been in the highest degree surprising, since it is
not until A.D. 170 that the next examples of such an estimate make their
appearance.’ Dr. Schmiedel goes on (1) to have recourse to the
accustomed expedient of suggesting that Barnabas is quoting, not from
the words of the Gospel which are identical, but from a passage in 4
Ezra which is quite different; and (2) if that expedient fails, to
represent the quotation as a ‘winged word,’ though it is expressly
introduced by the formula ‘it is written.’
However, it is not of either of these points that I wish to speak, but
rather to call attention to what Dr. Schmiedel thinks would be ‘in the
highest degree surprising.’ Why so surprising? What substantial ground
have we for expecting anything else? In the first place Dr. Schmiedel
begins by exaggerating the significance of the phrase ‘it is written,’
as though on its first extant occurrence it would necessarily imply full
canonical authority. And then he goes on to lay stress upon what is
really little more than the absence of literature. If we take the whole
extant Christian literature between the years 130 and 170 A.D., it would
not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far the greater part of
that is taken up with external controversy. What sort of argument can be
drawn from such a state of things as to the exact estimate which
Christians formed of their own sacred books? No valid argument can be
drawn from it either way, and it is far better simply to confess our
ignorance. It is reasonable to suppose that there was a gradual
development in the process by which the Gospels attained to the position
that we call canonical; but the data to which we have access do not
allow us to map out its stages with any precision.
It seems to me to be a fundamental defect in the reasoning of Dr.
Schmiedel and his school that they fail to see that the real question
is, not simply, What is the evidence for this or that proposition? but,
What is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body
of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the inferences
drawn from it?
I pass over some quite unwarrantable assumptions which Dr. Schmiedel
makes as to the apologetic point of view: such as that, ‘if there can be
shown to be resemblance between a canonical and a non-canonical writing,
the former is uniformly to be regarded as the earlier’; and that
‘Apocryphal Gospels would not have been used in the influential circles
of the Church.’ Apologists would lay down nothing of the kind, though in
a certain number of concrete cases they may think that the priority of a
canonical to a non-canonical writing does not need arguing, and though
they may also think that in some particular case the evidence for the
use of an Apocryphal Gospel by a Church writer is insufficient.
Dr. Schmiedel easily satisfies himself that he has refuted an argument
bearing on the Fourth Gospel. Professor Stanton had rightly maintained,
‘There must have been good grounds for believing that the Fourth Gospel
was founded upon the apostolic testimony in order to overcome the
prejudice that would be created by the contrasts between it and the
Synoptics.’ He has shown, I think, in his reply, that the instances
alleged against this are not relevant, and also that the part played by
the two ideas of Apostolicity and Catholicity in the forming of the
Canon are not quite correctly stated by his opponent. But even if they
had been as stated the original contention would still have been left
standing, because agreement with previously accepted writings was part
of the idea of Catholicity. It is a sound argument to say that a work so
independent as the Fourth Gospel must have come with good credentials to
obtain the place which it held.
Lastly, when Dr. Schmiedel speaks so imposingly of ‘the silence of the
entire first half of the second century in regard to the sojourn of the
Apostle John in Ephesus,’ I would once more ask him what this silence
amounts to. What is the total bulk of the literature on which the
argument is based? Is it possible to draw from it an inference of any
value at all[21]?
Footnote 1:
It is this last work that I consider an exception to the high standard
of ability in the group of which I am speaking. It is absolutely
one-sided. I do not doubt the writer’s sincerity, but he is blissfully
unconscious that there is another side to the argument.
Footnote 2:
_Einleitung in d. N. T._, 3rd ed., 1897; _Das Johannes-Evangelium_,
9th ed. (4th of those undertaken by Dr. Weiss), 1892.
Footnote 3:
For Beyschlag’s treatment of the Fourth Gospel see _Zur johanneischen
Frage_, reprinted from _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_ (Gotha, 1876);
_Neutest. Theologie_ (Halle a. S., 1891), i. 212-19; _Leben Jesu_ (3rd
ed., Halle, 1893).
Footnote 4:
English readers may be reminded that Dr. Ezra Abbot was an American
Unitarian who died in 1884. He was a leading member of the American
Committee which joined in the production of the Revised Version, and,
after serving as Assistant Librarian, became Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard University in 1872. He was a scholar of
retiring habits, and was one of those who spend in helping and
improving the work of others time that might have been given to great
work of their own. His literary remains were religiously collected
after his death.
Footnote 5:
_Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters_, p. 92 f.
Footnote 6:
The writings of Dr. Delff that bear upon the subject of the Fourth
Gospel are _Die Geschichte d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth_ (Leipzig, n.
d., but the preface is dated 1889); _Das vierte Evangelium
wiederhergestellt_ (Husum, 1890); _Neue Beiträge zur Kritik und
Erklärung des vierten Evangeliums_ (Husum, 1890).
Footnote 7:
Bousset thinks that this may mean ‘related to’ the high priest
(_Offenb._ p. 46 n.); but this is questioned by Zahn (_Einl._ ii.
483).
Footnote 8:
This book is not to be confused with _Die urchristlichen Gemeinden_
published two years earlier, and now translated under the title
_Christian Life in the Primitive Church_.
Footnote 9:
Professor Harnack gave a lecture, which I was privileged to hear, at
the Union Seminary on October 10, 1904.
Footnote 10:
_Das vierte Evang._ p. 12 ff.
Footnote 11:
_Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2555.
Footnote 12:
_New Light_, &c., p. 149.
Footnote 13:
A third article, on the internal evidence, appeared in January of the
present year, iii. 353 ff.
Footnote 14:
_Urchristentum_ (ed. 2, Berlin, 1902), ii. 389.
Footnote 15:
_Ibid._ p. 450.
Footnote 16:
_Hibbert Journal_, ii. 620.
Footnote 17:
_Enc. Bibl._ ii. 2554.
Footnote 18:
_Beginnings of Christianity_, ii. 166 ff.; cf. von Dobschütz,
_Probleme_, p. 94.
Footnote 19:
_Character_, &c., p. 157 f.
Footnote 20:
An incidental passage in Dr. Dill’s _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus
Aurelius_ (p. 120 f.) deserves to be set by the side of Dr.
Drummond’s. He is speaking of the _Satiricon_ of Petronius. ‘Those who
have attributed it to the friend and victim of Nero have been
confronted with the silence of Quintilian, Juvenal, and Martial, with
the silence of Tacitus as to any literary work by Petronius, whose
character and end he has described with a curious sympathy and care.
It is only late critics of the lower empire, such as Macrobius, and a
dilettante aristocrat like Sidonius Apollinaris, who pay any attention
to this remarkable work of genius. And Sidonius seems to make its
author a citizen of Marseilles. Yet silence in such cases may be very
deceptive. Martial and Statius never mention one another, and both
might seem unknown to Tacitus. And Tacitus, after the fashion of the
Roman aristocrat, in painting the character of Petronius, may not have
thought it relevant or important to notice a light work such as the
_Satiricon_, even if he had ever seen it. He does not think it worth
while to mention the histories of the Emperor Claudius, the tragedies
of Seneca, or the _Punica_ of Silius Italicus.’
Footnote 21:
The two books of Drs. Drummond and Stanton were reviewed by M. Loisy
in the _Revue Critique_, 1904, pp. 422-4, and Dr. Drummond’s by Prof.
H. J. Holtzmann in _Theol. Literaturzeitung_, 1905, cols. 136-9. Both
reviews were disappointing, though Dr. Holtzmann’s contains the usual
amount of painstaking detail. It is natural that play should be made
with the real inconsistencies of Dr. Drummond’s position; but his
weightier arguments are in neither case directly grappled with.
LECTURE II
CRITICAL METHODS. THE OLDEST SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE FOURTH
GOSPEL