So far as English criticism is concerned, it cannot be said that anything which has been urged has broken down the strong lines of defence which we
* Thus, in dwelling upon the contending parties and their disputes as to the ' historical ' and the ' biblical ' Christ, Feine writes : ' Die Streitfrage lief also darauf hinaus, ob die Aufer- stehung Jesu mit in der Bild des geschichtlichen Christus einzubeziehen sei Oder nicht ' ; cf. Das Christenium Jesu mid das Christentwn der Apostel, 1904,
47, 48.
See especially the reply of Prof. W. Walther of Rostock narnack's Das Wesen des Christentums^, 1904, pp. 47, Harnack's last category is expressed bv the word • Undurchdri ..„ lichcs.' Reference should also be made to T. H. Wright's The Finger 0/ God, 1903, p. 194, and his valuable Appendix on the view taken by Dr. Percy Gardner and by Dr. Harnack of our Lord's miracles, and also on early Christian and mediffival
324), dismisses the attribution of the Fourth Gospel to a prcshy t John as without v,alue, and regards the Gospel as composed I a Christian, ilependent upon the Apostle John, at the openil
388
CRITICISM
CRITICISM
owe to Lightfoot, Westcott, Sanilay, and n recently to Dr. Drummond. As Dr. Stanton lias rightly urged, there must have been good gi-ounds for believing that the Fourth Gospel was founded upon Apostolic testimony, in order to overcome the
Prejudice which would be created by the contrasts etween it and accounts which had been more generally received.*
9. But whilst, in the respects which we have nientioned, the position of the Ritschlian School is so unsatisfactory, we may welcome, with those who are not at all in .sympathy with Ritsehl's views or with the Wews of his followers, the witness borne by so many Ritschlians to a living Lord and the unique place which they assign to tl: Person of Christ in any account of Christianity.f Among those, e.g., who are classed as Ritschlians we have < the one hand men like Troeltsch supporting strongly ai ardently the value of the study of Comparative Religion for right Itnowledfe of Christianity, and maintaining that the religious-historical method should be applied to every depart- ment of theological thought ; whilst Harnack, with Eeischle, hesitates to follow, and is eridently alive to the fact that the method in question may be carried too tar. Dr. Harnack's words on the subject are remarkable. He expresses his desire that the German theological Faculties may remain so for the pursuit of inquiry into the Christian religion, because Christianity is not a religion by the side of other religions, but the. religion, and because Christ is not one Master by the side of other Masters, but the Master ; the disciples were'conscious that they possessed in Christ not merely a Master, but that they knew themselves to be men, new men, redeemed by Him, and that therefore they could preach Him as Saviour and Lord.t It is quite tme that the American writer, Professor W. A. Brown, Bees in some of Harnack's statements, and in his recognition of the gospel of Jesus as that which satisfies the deepest depths of humanity, the promise of a better understanding between the two parties in the RitschUan ranks : ' With this recognition of the ailima naturaliter Christiana, of a preparation for Christi-
torical method.
however, the advocates of the religious-his- ; least m its extreme fonn, show no disposition to confine themselves to the comparison of Christianity with other reli^ons in respect to its inward witness alone ; they extend this comparison to the historical facts of the NT, and they do so in a manner which savours of recklessness and ex- travagance. || The need of caution seems to be admitted even by Pfieiderer when he writes, ' Before all things, we must guard agiinst the constant practice of imagining that the inward affinity of religious conceptions implies a connexion in their external history.' IF
And when we turn to the Ritschlians, it is evident that men like Reischle are weU aware of the many safeguards with which the reUgious-historical method and its study should be guarded." His criticism, e.g. that we should note not only points of like- ness but points of unlikeness in any pursuit of the method in
- " is endorsed by Heinrici and others, who have joined '- '- opposing the reUgious-historical study of
with Harnack
* The Gospels as Historical Docjiments, i. p. 277 ; and cf. to the same effect, Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, pp. 15, 41 ; see also Dr. Chase, Cambridge Theological Eisays, 1906, p. 38.3. Mr. Conybeare has the boldness to assure us that any modern scholar who upholds the hypothesis of the Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel is at least as wanting in perspective and insight as the much derided upholders of the \iew that the Pauline Epistles were only concocted in the 2nd cent. (Bibbert Journal, July 1903, p. 620). But he takes no notice of Dr. Drummond's defence, and, whilst he is loud in his praises of the Ahhi Loisy, it may be of interest to note that another liberal Romanist, P6re Calmes, has now given us an admirable defence of the Johannine authorship, rtrunn!!,- selon Saint Jean, 1900. For a sharp and decisi\ •■ rrplx tn ihc extraordinary attack by Kreyenbiihl upon the ,-mili.irslii|i, ^r, Outjahr, Die Glartbensuriirdigkeit des Irenni<,-li.-n /,„,,„;,>.,,, iiber die Ab/assung des vierten kanonischen Eyaui!'^/luii>.< ^^M^^ p. 4 fl. . . .