t See Orr, The Christian Fiew of God and the W,irld, pp. 63, 79, on the central place of Christ's Person in His religion. * Ritachlianism is perhaps nothing more nor less than a deter- mined attempt to find the whole contents of Christianity in the Person of Christ* {Cambridge Theolttgical Essat/g, 1905
I Die Aufgabe der theol. Faeutidten ' "
1903, pp. 28B, 287. el's extraordinary theory as to n the third day. Expos.' Times, t writer may refer to The Testi- l> 526, 627, or A. Meyer's Die
"^iS.
Hein
anity as if it were only one of many religions. Thus ;i insists with great force that if the resurrection of Jesus idered from the religious-historical point of view it is
iiique ; and
the
Jeremias, ... .„
Gunkel, insists that the resurrection of Jesus, as it is described as taking place, is without analogy in any other religion.* In the same pamphlet Reischle warns us against the danger of attaching too great value to analogies, and transforming them into relations of dependence. He does not deny that analo^'ies ■ ■ between 9riental religions and Christianity, but he is apprecia-
keenly alive to the fact that their right and i
He:
regards . this J<
Gnosticism an important role in "establishing points of con- nexion between Christianity and other religions (op. cit. pp. 30, 31). So, too, he rightly draws attention to the danger of over- valuing the form of an ex-pression to the neglect of the actual meaning of its contents, and he quotes the aphorism, ' Si duo dicunt idem, non est idem ' (op. cit. pp. 31, 33). He further illustrates this position by the use of the familiar formula, ■ In the Name of Jesus,' of which Heitmiiller has made so niuch.t Such words might, no doubt, be employed as a magical or super- stitious formula, but tliey might also 'be used as a confession of Chi-istian faith in Jesus, or as an invocation to Him in praver or as an appeal to Him as the Mediator with God. " '
Once more, and above all, Reischle rightly insists upon the insurmountable limits which beset the religious-historical method in any endeavour to solve the problem of the personal religious life of great religious personalities. If this is difficult in the case of Paul, it is still more so, urges Reischle, in the case of Jesus (op. cit. pp. 42, 43). J
10. But this acknowledgment of the marvellous personality of Jesus may not only be seen in the writings of the Ritschlian School and its various and variant members. We may recognize it— it is not too much to say— in German writers of every school and in German works which appeal to all sorts and conditions of men.
Amongst modern Church historians in Germany no name stands more deservedly high than that of von Dobschiitz. ' The Apolo^st,' he tells us in the concluding words of his work on Primitive Li.fe in the Early Church, 'could point triumphantly to the realization of the moral ideal among Christians of every standing. That was due to the Christ, and actually transforme
against us?" "And this is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith." . . . Christianity possessed what the speculations of Neo-Platonism lacked, the sure historical basis of Jesus Christ's Person.' But the remarks of von Dobschiitz are of further interest, because he again emphasizes the im- portance to be attached to the Person and work of Jesus, in his 'Relifionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher,'
contribution
the course of publication m Germany. Here, 1 the Apostolic Age, and he points c
he dwells
find Judaism with a strong addition of Messianic expecta- ; Jesus had transformed the stiff monotheistic belief in God into a living trust in God, and a joyous spirit of adop- as God's children had taken the place of Pharisaic self- satisfaction and timorous fear.5 Or we turn to another series of books, of a somewhat larger and more expensive kind, en- titled Lebeihifragen, and here, too, we meet with the same emphatic testimon.N'. Thus Weinel tells us that the Hegelian philosophy hindered Strauss from estimating or understanding
with tradition, they
reverence, for Jesus
. ■ of salvation in the
gospel which He taught. And as this image of Jesus in its
liWng reality and in its purity is placed before the eyes of men,
prophesies that it will win the heart of humanity until all
■n are more and more transformed into its likeness.
11. But then we have to face the remarkable fact that this picture of the wondrous personality of Jesus is most frequently derived by advanced critics from the Synoptics alone. f'lie Fourth Gospel is ruled out of court, or at the best reduced to a testimony of secondary worth. The accoimt,
Heinrici, Urchrlstentiim, 1902, p. 38 ; .K. Jeremias, Babylon- het im NT, p. 43 : ' Die Tatsache der Auferstehung Jesu Christ! ist in der ReUgionsgeschichte analogielos.' t Im Namen Jesu, 1903, p. 197 ff.
t See on this pre-eminence belonging to the Person of Christ contrast to other religions, Fairbaim, Philosophy of Religion, pp. 532, 533 ; and Soderblom, Die Jteligionen der Erde. 1905 - 62-64.
Das Apostolitche Zeitalter, p. 6.
CRITICISM
CEITICISM
389
c.ij., of the raising of Lazarus, if it is no longer treated after the manner of Renan as a flagrant deception to which Jesus lent Himself, is regarded not as historical but as allegorical.* But even in what is allowed to us of the Synoptic record, doubt is thrown upon our Lord's claim to judge the world, or upon His declaration that He would give His life as a ransom for many, to say nothing of the refusal to admit, as we have already noted, a large proportion of His miracles as historical.