critical methods. the oldest solution of the problem of the fourth gospel

i. i. defects in the methods of current criticism.

it is now rather more than eight years since harnack wrote the famous preface to his chronologie der altchristlichen litteratur. it was an instance of the genial insight of the writer, and a keen diagnosis of the criticism of the day.

the main outline of the preface will be remembered. looking back over the period from which science was just beginning to emerge, the writer characterized it as one in which all the early christian literature including the new testament had been treated as a tissue of illusions and falsifications. that time, he went on to say, was past. for science it had only been an episode, during which much had been learnt and after which much had to be forgotten. his own researches, harnack explained, would be found to go in a reactionary direction even beyond the middle position of current criticism. the results might be summed up by saying that the oldest literature of the church, in its main points and in most of its details, from the point of view of literary history, was veracious and trustworthy. in the whole new testament there was probably only a single writing that could be called pseudonymous in the strict sense of the term, 43the so-called second epistle of st. peter; and, apart from the gnostic fictions, the whole number of pseudonymous writings down to irenaeus was very small, and in one case (the acts of thecla) the production of such a work was expressly condemned. in like manner the amount of interpolation was also far less than had been supposed; and the tradition relating to this early period might in the main, and with some reservations, be trusted.

baur and his school had thought themselves compelled, in order to give an intelligible account of the rise of christianity, to throw over both the statements in the writings themselves and those of tradition about them, and to post-date their composition by several decades. they were driven to do this by mistaken premises. starting with the assumption that all these writings were composed with a definite purpose, to commend some sectional view of christianity, they were constantly on the watch for traces of that purpose, and they found them in the most unexpected places. the views of baur and his followers had been generally given up; but the tendencies set on foot by them remained. the christian writings were still approached in an attitude of suspicion; they were cross-examined in the spirit of a hostile attorney; or else they were treated after the manner of a petit ma?tre, fastening upon all sorts of small details, and arguing from them in the face of clear and decisive indications. baur thought that everything had a motive, and an interested motive. but, whereas he sought for the motive on broad lines, his more recent 44successors either gave themselves up to the search for minor incidental motives, or for interpolations on a large scale, or else they gave way to a thorough-going scepticism which confused together probabilities and improbabilities as though they were all the same.

harnack went on to describe the results of the labours of the last two decades (1876-96) as constituting a definite ‘return to tradition.’ this return to tradition he regarded as characteristic of the period in which he was writing; indeed he looked forward to a time when the questions of literary history which had excited so much interest would do so no longer, because it would come to be generally understood that the early christian traditions were in the main right.

this preface of harnack’s attracted considerable attention, and probably nowhere more than in england. english students hailed it as the beginning of a new epoch, and one in which they could be more at home. it fell in with certain marked characteristics of the english mind. even the progressive element in that mind naturally works on conservative lines; it has been reluctant to break away from the past. the very advances of freedom, so steady and so sure, have not been revolutionary; they have been advances

‘of freedom slowly broadening down

from precedent to precedent.’

but it was not only the destructive conclusions of continental criticism with which dissatisfaction was felt, and which gave an apologetic colour to much english work. the methods were in many ways not less 45distasteful than the conclusions. englishmen felt, whether they said so or not, that there was something wrong. and therefore, when a scholar of harnack’s distinction put their thoughts into words and pointed to the very defects of which they seemed to be conscious, their hopes were raised that at last a movement was begun which they could follow with sympathy, and in which they might perhaps to some extent bear a part.

when i take upon myself to speak in this way of ‘english students,’ i of course do so with some reservations. i have in mind the rather considerable majority of the theological faculties in our universities, and i might say the majority of the teaching staffs of all denominations throughout great britain; for there are excellent relations, and a great amount of solidarity, among british teachers of theology in all the churches. a good general representation of the average views would be found (e. g.) in hastings’ dictionary of the bible. no doubt there is also the other type—the type represented by encyclopaedia biblica. there are not a few among us who are less dissatisfied with continental methods, and who pursue those methods themselves with ability and independence. and beyond these there are very many more, especially among the cultivated and interested laity, who are acquainted in a general way with what has been done on the continent, and who are impressed by what they take to be the results, though for the most part they have not time to test the processes. i say advisedly that this class is impressed by what it conceives to be 46results, because i imagine that, while there is a feeling that continental scholars are freer in their researches and less trammelled than our own, there is also some reserve owing to the consciousness that the results have not been fully tested. to this extent i should say that the intellectual posture of this class was one of waiting—serious and interested waiting—rather than of complete committal either to one side or to the other.

since my visit to america i seem to be better able to speak of the situation there, though closer acquaintance did but in the main confirm and define the opinion that i had previously formed. there are several differences between the conditions in the two countries. on the other side of the atlantic there are probably greater inequalities of theological instructedness. they have a greater number of universities and seminaries, in which the standard varies more than it does with us. and while on the one hand general culture and that kind of vague knowledge of the nature and tendencies of criticism which goes with general culture is more widely diffused in these islands, on the other hand i should be inclined to think that a real first-hand knowledge of critical work is more often to be found there than it is here. this is due to the fact that a large proportion of the ablest professors and teachers have been themselves trained in germany. and yet, in spite of these differences and inequalities, there is a general tendency, which seemed to me to embrace the whole nation.

47it was summed up in a few words by one of the methodist bishops (it will be remembered that the episcopalian methodists are strong in america) with whom i had some conversation. he had, i believe, been secretary of some board of religious education, and spoke with wide knowledge. i should be afraid to say how many students had passed through his hands. and, speaking of these students, he said that their general attitude was this: ‘they want to keep their faith; and yet they also want to see the realities of things.’

the same description would, i believe, fit the teachers and professors as well as the students, including those trained in germany. they too want to keep their faith, and to help their students to keep their faith. as compared with the state of things in germany, there is a more general and sustained effort to make their teaching positive and constructive; and this constructive teaching takes, i suspect, in most cases very similar lines—i should describe it as in the main ritschlianism of the right. at the same time, they too want to see the reality of things; in other words, they want to teach by strictly scientific methods. and the only further remark that i should have to make would be that they are perhaps a little inclined—and it naturally could not be otherwise—to look at these methods through german spectacles.

now i would not hesitate to carry this generalization still further. we, in this country, have probably a greater number of cross currents; there is a greater number of media that stand between the individual 48and his ultimate aims and wishes, in the shape of loyalties to this or that church or party. and yet i think that, broadly speaking, we should not be wrong in summing up what is really at the bottom of the minds and hearts of the whole anglo-saxon race in the same words: ‘they want to keep their faith; and yet they also want to see the realities of things.’

it is the equilibrium of these two propositions that is most characteristic. i fully believe that motives of the same kind are present among the germans as well as ourselves. i could easily name a number of german professors who, i feel sure, are as anxious to keep their faith as we are. at the head of the list i should put harnack himself, whose views have been so much discussed in this country. there is, however, a greater diversity of attitude among the professorial body as a whole. and so far as they were agreed—i am speaking especially of the widespread liberal branch—they would, i think, all invert the order of the two propositions: they would give precedence to the desire to get at realities; and they would identify this getting at realities with the use of scientific method. the reason is that in germany, more than elsewhere, the prevalent standards of judgement are essentially academic. the universities give the lead and set the tone for the whole nation; and the universities have now been accustomed for many generations to an atmosphere of free thought.

now it is far from my intention to undervalue, either the use of scientific method in general, or german science in particular. i have the highest opinion of 49both. by far the greater part of the advance that has been made in theology—and i believe that a great advance has been made in our own country as well as elsewhere—i would again appeal to hastings’ dictionary as representing a sort of average—has been due to the stricter application of science; and a great part of this has been german science. honour must be given where honour is due. we must not hold back the full recognition that at the present time germany holds the first place in science, and that its output of scientific work is perhaps as great as that of all the rest of the world besides. i am not sure whether this is an exaggeration, but i hardly think it is.

but in all the more tentative forms of science, such as philosophy, history, and theology, there is, or at least has been so far, a double element, one that is stable and permanent, and another that is more or less local and ephemeral.

if i proceed to offer some criticisms upon german critical methods, i am perfectly well aware that the germans in turn would have something to criticize in ours. at the present day discussion is not limited to any one country, but is international. it is by scholars of different race and training comparing notes together that mistakes are corrected, methods gradually perfected, and results established. i shall not hesitate therefore to point out where it seems to me that german methods have gone wrong. and i feel that i can do this the more freely when a scholar of harnack’s high standing has set the example. the faults that we seem to have noticed in german criticism 50are very much those which he has indicated: it has been too academic, too doctrinaire, too artificial, too much made in the study and too little checked by observation of the facts of daily life. the very excellences of the german mind have in some ways contributed to the formation of wrong standards of judgement. more than other people the germans have the power of sustained abstract thought, of thoroughness in mustering and reviewing all the elements of a problem, of thinking a problem out in such a way as not to leave gaps and inconsistencies. hence they are too ready to assume that all the rest of the world will do the same, that if an important piece of evidence is omitted in an argument it can only be because it was not known, that carelessness and oversights and inconsistencies are things that need not be reckoned with. and there is also too great a tendency to argue as though men were all made upon one pattern. there is a want of elasticity of conception. and, to sum up many points in one, there is a great tendency to purism or over-strictness in the wrong place, and to over-laxity also in the wrong place, to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.

what one desiderates most is greater simplicity, greater readiness to believe that as a rule, in ancient times as well as modern, people meant what they said and said what they meant, and that more often than not they had some substantial reason for saying it.

51

ii. instances in which criticism has corrected itself.

these are not merely a priori reflections, but they are based upon experience of the actual course that criticism has taken. by this time criticism has a considerable history behind it. it has corrected some of its mistakes, and is able to look back upon the course by which it came to make them. in this way it should learn some wholesome lessons.

i will take three rather conspicuous examples in which criticism has at first gone wrong and has afterwards come to set itself right, in the hope that they may teach us what to avoid in future. i imagine that they may be found to throw some side-light upon the particular problem of the fourth gospel.

the first example that i will take shall be from the criticism of the ignatian epistles. i may assume that the seven epistles are now generally allowed to be genuine, and written by ignatius, bishop of antioch, on his way to martyrdom at rome sometime before the end of the reign of trajan (i. e. before 117). this result is due especially to the labours of two scholars, zahn and lightfoot. it is instructive to note with what kind of argument they had to contend.

both in their day had to stem a formidable current of opinion. bishop lightfoot wrote in the preface to his great work dated ‘st. peter’s day, 1885’:

‘we have been told more than once that “all impartial critics” have condemned the ignatian epistles as spurious. but this moral intimidation is unworthy of the eminent writers who have sometimes 52indulged in it, and will certainly not be permitted to foreclose the investigation. if the ecclesiastical terrorism of past ages has lost its power, we shall, in the interests of truth, be justly jealous of allowing an academic terrorism to usurp its place.’

i should not find it difficult to produce parallels to this kind of intimidation in the case of the fourth gospel. to look back in face of them upon the issue of the ignatian controversy is consoling.

much was said in the course of the controversy about certain features of style and character as unworthy of an apostolic father. it was enough to answer with bishop lightfoot that ‘objections of this class rest for the most part on the assumption that an apostolic father must be a person of ideal perfections intellectually as well as morally—an assumption which has only to be named in order to be refuted[22].’

it is true that the letters contained exaggerated language of humility, and also an exaggerated eagerness for martyrdom. beside these general features, there were a good many strange and crude expressions of other kinds. it is needless to say that it did not in the least follow that such expressions could not have been used by ignatius. but if the critics had been willing to study the letters a little deeper and with a little more sympathy, they might have found reason to change their estimate even of these acknowledged flaws.

in dealing with ignatius it is always important to remember that we have to do with a syrian and not 53a greek. certainly the language that he wrote was not in his hand a pliant instrument. it always cost him a struggle to express his thought; and the expression is very often far from perfect. the figure of the writer that one pictures to oneself is rugged, shaggy (if one may use the word), uncouth; and yet there is a virile, nervous strength about his language which is at times very impressive. and even his extravagances differ in this from many like extravagances, that they are not in the least insincere. for instance, if we read through the letter to polycarp, we shall see in it a really great personality. and ignatius had a very considerable power of thought as well as of character. outside the new testament, he is the first great christian thinker; and he is one who left a deep mark on all subsequent thinking.

i have little doubt that the strong expressions of humility that are found from time to time in ignatius are wrung from him by the recollection of the life that he led before he became a christian. they are doubtless suggested by st. paul, and they spring from a feeling not less intense than his.

the humility of st. john is a different matter. but as very shallow and obtuse criticisms are sometimes passed upon it, the ignatian parallel may serve as a wholesome warning. i shall have occasion to return to this point later.

the main arguments against the ignatian authorship of the letters were drawn from the seemingly advanced condition of things which they implied in the way of heretical teaching on the one hand, and church 54organization on the other. the objections on these grounds have been quite cleared up; and now the letters supply some of the most important data that the historian has to go upon.

it will be remembered that bishop lightfoot began by converting himself before he converted others. he had been inclined to think at one time that the shorter syriac version represented the true ignatius. he tells us himself how he came to give up this opinion. he says:

‘i found that to maintain the priority of the curetonian letters i was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed ignatian forger feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill, and self-restraint, which transcended all bounds of probability’ (preface to the first edition).

this is another bit of experience that it may be worth while to bear in mind.

my second example is perhaps in this sense not quite so clear a case, that there is not as yet as complete a consensus in regard to it as there is in regard to the ignatian letters. it is taken from the discussions which have been going on at various times in the last twenty-five years as to the genuineness of the treatise de vita contemplativa which has come down to us among the works of philo.

a marked impression was made on the side of the attack by a monograph by lucius, die therapeuten u. ihre stellung in d. gesch. der askese, published in 1879. this, together with the acceptance at least of the 55negative part of its result by schürer, inaugurated a period during which opinion was on the whole rather unfavourable to the treatise. a reaction began with two articles by massebieau in 1888, followed by the important and valuable work of mr. f. c. conybeare, philo about the contemplative life, oxford, 1895. the success of this defence may be regarded as clenched by the accession of such excellent and impartial authorities as cohn and wendland, who are bringing out the great new edition of philo, and of dr. james drummond. it is true that schürer reviewed mr. conybeare in an adverse sense so far as his main conclusion was concerned, and that he still maintains his opinion in the third edition of his geschichte d. jüdischen volkes (1898); but i must needs think that his arguments were satisfactorily and decisively answered by dr. drummond in the jewish quarterly review for 1896.

one or two points in this reply of dr. drummond have a general bearing, relevant to our present subject.

lucius had maintained that the treatise was of christian origin, and that it was composed not long before the time of its first mention by eusebius. the history of the text is opposed to this; and dr. drummond is quite right in saying ‘the argument seems valid that eusebius did not make his extracts from a work which had been recently sprung upon the market, but from one which had already undergone a long process of transcription.’ i may point to dr. schmiedel’s article in the encyclopaedia biblica as one of many examples of reasoning similar to that of lucius 56in regard to the fourth gospel. it is a common thing among critics to think it unnecessary to allow any but the smallest interval between the first production of a book and the date of its first mention in the literature that happens to be extant. i would not lay down an absolute rule. circumstances vary in different cases. but i would contend that in any case they need careful consideration, and that assumptions like those of lucius and schmiedel are highly precarious.

the next point i would notice is the argument from identity of thought and style. one of the striking features in mr. conybeare’s book was the vast accumulation of parallels both in thought and expression between the de vita contemplativa and the certainly genuine works of philo. dr. schürer thinks that this might be due to imitation. on that head i should like to quote dr. drummond:

‘the purely literary evidence will affect different men differently. to those who have no difficulty in attributing to the forger a boundless power of refined imitation it will carry little weight. to others who act upon the proverb, ex pede herculem, and believe that successful forgery in the name of an author, if not of high genius, at least of unusual ability and distinguished style, is an exceedingly difficult art, this line of evidence will come with almost overwhelming force. it is easy enough to imitate tricks of style, or to borrow some peculiarities of phrase; but to write in a required style, without betraying any signs of imitation; to introduce perpetual variation into sentences which are nevertheless characteristic; to have shades of thought and suggestion, which remind one of what has been said elsewhere, and nevertheless are 57delicately modified, and pass easily into another subject; in a word, to preserve the whole flavour of a writer’s composition in a treatise which has a theme of its own, and follows its own independent development, may well seem beyond the reach of the forger, and must be held to guarantee the genuineness of a work, unless very weighty arguments can be advanced on the other side.’

this paragraph seems to be very much in point for those who, like schmiedel, h. j. holtzmann and professor bacon, would distinguish the author of the first epistle of st. john from the author of the gospel.

on this point it is also worth while to consider dr. drummond’s replies to the inconsistencies alleged to exist between particular details in the de vita contemplativa and the other philonic writings. there is always a tendency in the critical school to make too much of these little prima facie differences, which generally shrink a good deal on closer examination.

my last example shall be taken from the vita antonii, ascribed to, and now generally believed to be a genuine work of, st. athanasius. the vita antonii holds an important place in the literature of the beginnings of monasticism. as such it was involved in the wholesale scepticism on that subject which was pushed to its furthest limits by the late professor weingarten in the seventies and eighties. how complete the reaction has been may be seen in the recent edition of the historia lausiaca by dom cuthbert butler. among weingarten’s converts 58was our english scholar, professor gwatkin; and i do not think that anything could speak more eloquently than just to transcribe the list of objections brought against the vita antonii by professor gwatkin in his studies of arianism (cambridge, 1882). i proceed to give the more important of them in an abridged form:

‘in the rest of the works of athanasius there is no trace of antony’s existence. considering the grandeur of the saint’s position, and his intimate relations with the bishop of alexandria, this fact alone should be decisive.’

observe the argument from silence, which is enlarged upon in the remainder of the paragraph.

1. the treatise is addressed to the monks of the west, whereas ‘monasticism was unknown in europe in the reign of valentinian, and at rome in particular when jerome went into the east in 373; and at milan it had only lately been introduced by ambrose at the time of augustine’s visit in 385.’

2. ‘apart from its numerous miracles, the general tone of the vita is unhistorical. it is a perfect romance of the desert, without a trace of human sinfulness to mar its beauty. the saint is an idealized ascetic hero, the mons antonii a paradise of peaceful holiness. we cannot pass from the scriptores erotici to the vita antonii without noticing the same atmosphere of unreality in both. from anthanasius there is all the difference of the novel writer from the orator—of the cyropaedia from the de corona.’

3. ‘though athanasius had ample room for miracles in the adventures of his long life, he never records anything of the sort.... but miracles, often of the most puerile description, are the staple of the vita antonii, and some of them are said to have been done before the eyes of athanasius himself, who could not 59have omitted all reference to them in the writings of his exile.’

again, the argument from silence.

4. ‘antony is represented as an illiterate copt, dependent on memory even for his knowledge of scripture.’ yet he alludes to plato, plotinus, &c., and in general reasons like a learned philosopher.

5. ‘the vita antonii has coincidences with athanasius in language and doctrine, as we should expect in any professed work of his.... but the divergences are serious’....

6. it is implied throughout the vita antonii that the monks were extremely numerous throughout the east during antony’s lifetime. now there were monks in egypt, monks of serapis, long before; but christian monks there were none’ (studies of arianism, pp. 100-2).

now i am not for a moment going to disparage this display of learning. it is very clever; it is very scholarly: in the state of knowledge when it was written it was at least very excusable in its statements. altogether it was as brilliant a piece of criticism as one would wish to see. to this day the objections read quite formidably. and yet the inference drawn from them is pretty certainly wrong; indeed the whole array is little more than an impressive bugbear.

with such warnings from the past before our eyes, i think we should be inclined to scrutinize rather closely arguments of a like kind when they meet us in the course of our present investigation.

60

iii. examples of mistaken method as applied to the fourth gospel.

at this point we may go back to harnack’s preface. and here i cannot help expressing my regret that it has not had more of the influence that it deserved to have, both in the country of its author and elsewhere. i am even tempted to go a little further, and express my regret that it has not had more influence upon the author himself. i will henceforward confine myself more strictly to the fourth gospel. and it seems to me that, in his incidental treatment of this, harnack has more than once forgotten his own precepts.

he expends endless ingenuity in trying to prove that there was a confusion, in the minds of the christian writers of the second century, between the apostle st. john and a certain ‘presbyter’ of the same name, who really lived, as the apostle was supposed to have lived, at ephesus in the roman province of asia. an important difficulty in the way of this proof is the explicit testimony of irenaeus. to meet this difficulty, the attempt is made to show that irenaeus derived all his knowledge, or supposed knowledge, about st. john and his surroundings from two sources, a very brief intercourse in early youth with polycarp, bishop of smyrna, and the book of papias, called expositions of the oracles of the lord. it is like nero wishing that rome had one neck, in order that it might be cut at a single stroke. by reducing the channels through which irenaeus received his knowledge to these two, it became more possible that if 61they happened in any way to lend themselves to the confusion, that confusion should really take hold of his mind and express itself in his writings. the learning and ingenuity and skill displayed are admirable. but how futile, from the very first, to suppose that all the information irenaeus possessed about the greatest leader of the church of his own home came only through these two channels and no others; indeed, that he was like the princess in the fairy tale, shut up in a tower and cut off from all communication with the outer world. we know that two at least of his companions in the gallic churches of vienne and lyons came from the same region as himself. it is commonly supposed that these churches had as a nucleus a little colony from asia minor. in his fourth book irenaeus often refers to a certain presbyter, whom harnack rightly shows to have been not a direct hearer of the apostles, but at one degree removed from them, a disciple of those who had heard from the apostles. it is natural, with lightfoot, to identify this presbyter with pothinus, irenaeus’ own predecessor in his see, who had passed the age of ninety when he died in the persecution of the year 177. in any case, pothinus must have been a store-house of traditions and memories, to which irenaeus would have constant access. we know also that after the persecution irenaeus was in rome; and there is some reason to think that he had resided there more than twenty years before[23]. this was another great 62centre with which he was familiar, and to which news and traditions of the past came streaming in from every quarter of the christian world. and yet we are asked to believe that irenaeus was the victim of a confusion that in any number of ways might have been corrected. as dr. drummond well says, ‘critics speak of irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three visits to polycarp’s lecture-room, and never known any one else. in fact, he must have known all sorts of men, of all ages, both in the east and the west, and among others his venerable predecessor pothinus, who was upwards of ninety at the time of his death. he must have had numerous links with the early part of the century[24].’

again the same writer says:

‘the testimonies of irenaeus, of polycrates, and of clement are those on which we must mainly rely. in judging of the collective force of the evidence, we must not forget that the second century was a literary age. the churches freely communicated with one another by letters, and there was an abundant theological literature of which only a few fragments have survived. i see no reason why the churches of asia should not have had as well-grounded a certainty that john had been once among them as we have that goldsmith was once in london[25].’

to deal with all this body of evidence as harnack deals with it is very like ‘arguing on the strength of 63a few particulars in the face of clear and decisive indications[26].’

here is another instance of the very thing that harnack himself complained of. he has made up his mind that chap. xxi of the gospel could not have been written until after the death of the author. but in ver. 24 the editors of the gospel say expressly that the apostle who figures so conspicuously in it was the author of the whole book (‘this is the disciple who beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things’). this, according to harnack, only convicts them of a deliberate untruth, contradicted by the verses immediately preceding. if we must needs accuse the unfortunate editors of falsification, we might at least give them credit for the sense to take care that their falsehood was not exposed by their own words, and almost (as it were) in the same breath. but the fact is that the premiss, from which harnack argues, is purely gratuitous, as i hope to show in the next lecture.

perhaps it is the same persons, the editors of the gospel—in any case it is the presbyters who were closely connected with them—who are charged with another piece of dishonesty. harnack sees that mere accident will not account for the supposed confusion of john the presbyter with john the apostle. he therefore does not shrink from imputing deliberate fraud.

‘the legend purposely set on foot that the author of the gospel was the son of zebedee, &c.[27]’

64‘but papias, through the oral traditions about which he took so much trouble, already stood under the influence of presbyters, of whom some perhaps purposely started the legend that the presbyter john was the apostle[28].’

‘the john who had the encounter with cerinthus, after what has been said can only be the presbyter. but in the confusion, “the unconscious” alone can hardly have been involved.’

the dishonesty went beyond the confusion of the two persons. it is also seen in the definite ascription of the gospel to the apostle.

‘the twenty-fourth verse of the twenty-first chapter of the fourth gospel, about which we have spoken, will always remain a strong indication of the fact that in ephesus the fourth gospel was deliberately put out after the death of its author as a work of the apostle, and so that the apostle and the presbyter were deliberately identified, as philip the evangelist was made to change places with philip the apostle[29].’

facilis descensus. when once we begin imputing fraudulent actions we may very easily find that we have to go on doing so. it should, however, be remembered that the ground for all this is no assured fact, but only the exigencies of a complicated theory which, quite apart from this, has a load of improbability to contend with.

i will give one further example of a different kind. the tendency of the criticism that has been, and still is largely in vogue, is to give what seems to me quite undue weight to the exceptional, the abnormal, the 65eccentric, as compared with that which is normal and regular.

in the controversy over the fourth gospel one of the questions has been as to the exact degree of importance to be attached to the so-called alogi, who, about the third quarter of the second century, denied st. john’s authorship of the writings attributed to him, including the gospel, and by a piece of sheer bravado ascribed it to the heretic cerinthus.

harnack’s account of this—coterie perhaps rather than sect—is just. ‘the attack did not spread; it was soon defeated; but the memory of it lingered on, and the policy of the church, auspiciously begun by irenaeus, came to be that of teaching the absolute equality in rank and value of the four component parts of the gospel[30].’ but the point to which i wish to call attention is that the church writers did not allow the existence of these alogi to prevent them from classing the gospel among the homologoumena, or books about the canonicity of which all christians were agreed. eusebius uses strong language. he says that both the gospel and the first epistle were accepted without dispute by his own contemporaries as well as by the ancients (h. e. iii. 24. 17). and, if it is said that eusebius was writing a century and a half after the alogi, when that little side-eddy of opinion had subsided and been forgotten, it is not eusebius alone who ignores their existence in this manner. irenaeus is one of those who certainly knew about them; and yet he regards the four gospels, 66our present four, as a sort of divine institution, deeply implanted in the nature of things, directly presided over and inspired by christ the word (adv. haer. iii. 11. 9). a little later clement of alexandria speaks of the same four gospels as specially handed down among christians (strom. iii. 13. 93). and, again, a little later origen describes them as ‘alone unquestioned in the church of god under heaven’ (eus. h. e. vi. 25. 4). still earlier, a contemporary of the alogi, tatian, gave effect to the same belief by composing his diatessaron. and the muratorian fragment also endorses it.

this striking unanimity from all parts of the christian world serves to reduce the alogi to their right dimensions. the reason why they have bulked rather larger than they should do is, i believe, because they wielded the pen. it will be remembered that dr. salmon was for reducing them to the single person of caius of rome. schwartz also argues that not more than a single writer may be meant. he thinks that in any case epiphanius had a book before him[31]. the alogi were in any case a very ephemeral phenomenon, chiefly significant in the history of the canon, as marking the slight element of resistance to the establishment of the group of four gospels.

ii. the oldest solution of the problem of the fourth gospel.

you will think perhaps that i have been a long time in approaching the direct treatment of the fourth 67gospel. it is quite true that i have thought well to begin the approach from a distance, as it were by sap and trench, before planting my guns—such as they are. i have indeed the ambition in this course of lectures not only to state a case in regard to the fourth gospel, but also at the same time to contribute, if i may, to the work so admirably initiated by dr. drummond, of commending by the way what i conceive to be sound principles of criticism, as contrasted with others which i consider unsound. it happens that a discussion of the fourth gospel specially lends itself to this purpose.

in accordance with what i have been saying, you will not expect of me any new and startling theory to account for the phenomena of the fourth gospel. i am content to go back to the oldest categorical statement in respect to it that history has handed down to us. it seems to me that this statement, plain and direct as it is, really gives an adequate explanation, if not exactly of everything, yet at least of all the salient points that need explaining.

eusebius (h. e. vi. 14. 7) has preserved for us the substance of a passage from the hypotyposes, or outlines, of clement of alexandria, which he says that clement derived from the ‘early presbyters’ (παρ?δοσιν τ?ν ?ν?καθεν πρεσβυτ?ρων), and which dealt among other things with the order of the gospels. after speaking of the other evangelists, he says that ‘last of all john perceiving that the bodily (or external) facts had been set forth in the (other) gospels, at the instance of his disciples and with 68the inspiration of the spirit composed a spiritual gospel.’

a very similar tradition had been given by eusebius in an earlier book (iii. 24). he heads the chapter, ‘on the order of the gospels,’ and in the course of it he writes as follows:

‘nevertheless, of all the disciples of the lord, only matthew and john have left us written memoirs, and they are reported (κατ?χει λ?γο?[32]) to have been led to write under pressure of necessity. matthew, having previously preached to the hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed to writing the gospel that bears his name in his native tongue, and so by the written book compensated those whom he was leaving for the loss of his presence. and when mark and luke had by that time published their gospels, they say that john, having before spent all his time in oral preaching, at last came also to write for some such reason as this. the three gospels first written having been by this distributed everywhere, and having come into his hands, they say that he accepted them, bearing witness to their truth, but (adding) that there was only wanting to their record the narrative of what was done by christ at first and at the beginning of his preaching.’

at this point eusebius digresses to show that what was said was true. the first three evangelists began the main body of their narrative after john the baptist was cast into prison; but st. john expressly tells us that, at the time of the events related in his early chapters, john was not yet in prison. any one attending to this, eusebius said, would no longer 69suppose that the gospels were at variance with each other, and would see that john had reason for being silent as to the genealogy of our saviour’s human descent, as this had been already written by matthew and luke, and for beginning with his divinity, as though this had been reserved by the holy ghost for him as one greater than they. these last are the words of eusebius, who is very probably influenced by his recollection of the language of clement. unfortunately we cannot locate the rest of the tradition. it would be only a guess to suppose that it came from hippolytus, at the time of his controversy with caius. but in any case there is a good deal of evidence to show that the opening sections of the gospels were being much canvassed towards the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century. the passage is in general agreement with clement, and avoids his mistake in saying that the two gospels containing the genealogies were the first to be written. really clement alone has all the essential points, which are these:

1. the gospel is the work of st. john the apostle—for there is no doubt that he is intended.

2. it was written towards the end of his life, after the publication of the other three.

3. the three gospels were in the hands of the apostle, and he had read and up to a certain point approved of them.

4. what he himself undertook to write was a gospel, not a biography; the difference is important.

705. in contrast with the other gospels it was recognized as being in a special sense ‘a spiritual gospel.’

i believe that these data will enable us to understand all the facts, both those which are more favourable to the gospel and those which are in a sense less favourable.

1. the best of reasons is given for all those marks of an eye-witness which we shall see to be present in great number and strength. they point to a first-hand relation between the author and the facts which he records. if the gospel is not the work of an eye-witness, then the writer has made a very sustained and extraordinary effort to give the impression that he was one.

2. by throwing the gospel to the end of the apostle’s life, a considerable interval is placed between the events and the date of its composition. that means that the facts will have passed through a medium. unconsciously the mind in which they lay will have brought its own experience to bear upon them; it will have a tendency to mix up the plain statement of what was said and done with an element of interpretation suggested by its own experience. and this will be done in a way that we should call ‘na?ve,’ i. e. without any conscious self-analysis. the mingling of objective and subjective will take place spontaneously and without reflection. the details will not be given out exactly as they went in; and yet the writer will not be himself aware that he is setting down anything but what he heard and saw.

713. the relation of the fourth gospel to its predecessors accurately corresponds to that described in the tradition. on the one hand their contents are very largely assumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he thinks it necessary, to correct them. the relation is easy and natural; it at once accounts for the selection of the incidents narrated. the author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose.

4. and that purpose, it is important to remember, was not by any means purely historical. the author was writing a gospel, not a biography in the modern sense of the word. his object was definitely religious, and not literary. he tells us in set terms what he proposed to do: ‘these things are written, that ye may believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god; and that believing ye may have life in his name.’ he did not really aim at a complete narrative of external events or an exhaustive study of a complex human character. he aimed at producing faith; and he sought to produce it by describing at length a few significant incidents, taken out of a much larger whole.

5. the previous writings that came into his hands were also gospels; and they too were intended to produce faith. but in this direction the author of the fourth gospel felt that something more remained to be done. christendom had its gospels, but not as yet exactly ‘a spiritual gospel.’ a ‘spiritual gospel’ meant one that sought to bring out the divine side of its subject. when st. paul at the beginning of the 72epistle to the romans draws an antithesis between the son of david ‘according to the flesh’ and the son of god ‘according to the spirit of holiness,’ he is anticipating exactly this later contrast between the gospels of the bodily life and of the spirit. ‘spiritual’ means ‘indwelt by the spirit of god.’ and it was that side of the life of christ in which the spirit of god was seen living and working in him that the fourth evangelist undertook specially to describe.

if, then, it is objected that the gospel is onesided, that it gives undue prominence to this divine side, we begin by asking what is meant by undue, what standard of measurement marks it as undue. obviously the standard is that which we have just dismissed as altogether beside the mark, the standard of the modern biography. the gospel does not in the least profess to do what the modern biographer does; but what the writer does profess to do, he was perfectly within his right in doing. he desired to set forth christ as divine. if that is to be onesided, of course he is onesided. clement tells us why he did it. it was because he thought that the physical and external side, the human side of his subject, had had justice done to it already. in this respect the older gospels were adequate, and he had no special wish to add to them. the one thing he did feel called upon to add, and that he knew he could add, was a fuller delineation of the divine side. he is not to be blamed for doing the very thing which he proposed.

the paragraph in clement of alexandria is stated by him to be derived from ‘the early presbyters.’ 73they were a good authority; probably, if not altogether identical with the group drawn upon by papias, yet at least in part identical with it. papias and irenaeus on the one hand, and clement of alexandria on the other, are just two branches of the same tree, or at least two suckers from the same root. that root is often called the school of st. john. it is from the school of st. john that they ultimately derive their information about st. john. what authority could be better?

it is not possible to say how far the language of clement comes from the presbyters, and how far it is his own. the phrase ‘a spiritual gospel’ may be his own coinage, an early effort of descriptive criticism, putting into words what he felt to be the distinctive characteristic of the gospel. in any case the phrase is a happy one; it just expresses, in the briefest compass, that which really most differentiates the fourth gospel from the other three.