robable. The NT writings are chiefly letters
etween correspondents. Whatever may have been the intellectual idiosyncrasies of the writers, it is inconceivable that they do not express a consciousness common to writers and recipients. Indeed, this is expressly claimed by the writers, and Paul insists that his teaching is simply the faith of Christian people as such. The existence of a Pauline or Johannine Christianity which was not that of the Church at large, and, in particular, was not the Christianity of Christ, is an unproved hypothesis, not warranted by the known facts of the NT period, and not required for their inter- pretation.
If, then, the NT as a whole is substantially correct, both in its narratives of events and in its interpretation of them, the problem for the his- torian is not ‘from the Sermon on the Mount to the Nicene Creed,’ but ‘from the NT as a whole to the Nicene Creed.’ The question at issue is, ‘Is there anything in the Nicene Creed which, in respect of the truth sought to be expressed, is not already in the New Testament?’
Go back now to the moral and intellectual situa- tion of the age in which Christianity appeared. Greek philosophy has led men to a fundamental dualism, and has uttered the demand of the human spirit for union with God. Neoplatonism, the last
espairing effort of Greek thought, fails to meet the demand. Christianity enters the Hellenic world with the proclamation of that for which Hellenic thought had sought in vain, union with God. ‘This, accomplished in Christ, is its message to the Hellenic world, and to the heart of man as such. A mere amended Judaism would have had no point of contact with the Greek mind, or with the spirit of man anywhere. The personal Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, is the centre of the primitive gospel.
Conceive now Christianity entering the Hellenic world ; it will bear a twofold relation to Hellenic culture and to Greek forms of thought. (a) It will be influenced by them. It is implicitly the solution of the problem of Greek philosophy. It will thus naturally use the terminology of Greek philosophy, and i the formule of unsuccessful thought with the meanings of a divine revelation. (ὁ) It will stiffly refuse to be coerced by them. The Christian idea of union with God, viz. recon- ciliation through a Person, utterly transcended Greek thought. Again and again, in the centuries
receding Nicia, the attempt was made to reduce
Shristianity to a phase of Greek Philosophy.
Sabellianism on the one hand, Arianism on the other, were more logically consistent as specula- tive systems than the fulness of the gospel. Yet Christianity declined to surrender its independ- ence. In the end the Christian experience was gathered into the Nicene Creed, which, in effect, is this: Christianity, stating, in terms borrowed from Greek Philosophy, that which is too great for any system of philosophy, a truth distinctive, unique, a revelation, not a discovery.
Lirerature.—On the nature and function of Philosophy, E Caird, Essays, 2 vols. 1892. On the relation between Philo
854 PHINEES
sophy and Religion, E. Oaird, Evolution of Religion, 2 vols. 1808. and discussions in T. Η, Green’s Collected ‘orks (1888), vol. iii. On the development of Greek Philosophy, the Histories of Philosophy by Schwegler (1847, Eng. tr. 1867), Zeller (1883, Eng. tr. 1836), See (7th ed. 1883-56, Eng. tr. from 4th ed. 1872-74), Windelband (Geach. der alten Philosophie, 1888, Eng. tr. 1900: Geach. der ῬΑ. 1892). On Neoplatonism and its rela- tion to Christianity, Harnack, ¢ jeschichte, 1886-90 (Eng. tr. 1894-09). On the relation of Christianity to Greek Philosophy, Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 1888. T. B. KILPATRICK.
PHINEES (Φινεές, Finees).—1. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron. 1 Es 5° 85. 9 (B Φορός, A dureés), 2 ἘΒ 1%, 2. The son of Heli and father of Achias. These three names are mentioned among the progen‘tors of Ezra only in 2 Es 1 (cf. the lists in Ezr 7, 1 Es 8): their inser- tion here is probably an error, since Ezra belonged to the line of Eleazar, and Phinehas son of Eli to the younger branch of the line of Ithamar. 3. A
riest of the time of Ezra, and father of Eleazar, q Es 8° (LXX 5). H. St. J. THACKERAY.
PHINEHAS (onyp, LXX duiveds).—14. Son of Eleazar, and his successor in the high priesthood, Ex 6”, 1Ch 6“, Ezr 75, 1 Es 82, 2Es 1. The circumstance by which Phinehas is chiefly re- membered (Nu 25) bears a striking analogy to the most decisive crisis in the life of St. Peter. The great confession at Cesarea- Philippi was areal more significant and epoch-making in the growth of Christian discipleship than was that act of fiery zeal at Shittim in the history of the Old Covenant, when for the first time the Mosaic religion came into collision with Baal worship, its future rival. In both cases we have, ‘in the fulness of the time,’ a great moral decision to be made of world importance, ‘Jehovah or Baal,’ ‘but whom say ye that I am?’ Alike at Shittim and at Cesarea, amidst a general hesitancy and failure to grasp the situation, there is a prompt response on the part of one alone, followed by the pronouncement on that one of a pignel blessing of ar-reaching import. When ‘Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor’ it was no ordinary revolt or mur- muring. Something more was needed ‘to make atonement’ than the official execution by man of ‘all the chiefs of the people,’ or even than the visitation of a plague by The Divine want was satisfied by the personal devotion of the young eek who, while others Ere helplessly, identi-