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 viiisame 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 ixdisguise 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 xagainst 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 xiwant 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.
xiiit 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.
