[9] So Wernle: "Die AnfÄnge unserer Religion," 2d ed., 1904, p. 177. He says that Paul makes of Jesus "an almost new creation," yet uses the same titles as the other apostles.
[10] "Aus Wissenschaft und Leben," II, p. 217. He adds that "herewith is the problem (of a 'second gospel' in the New Testament) pushed back in time from Paul to the earliest disciples of Jesus."
[11] If Paul taught not a bodily but a "spiritual" resurrection, as some interpreters think that his language in I Cor. xv. 50 implies, the emphasis upon the supernatural would be greater in the case of the primitive church. In his "Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," 1907, Kirsopp Lake says that the affirmation of an empty tomb was made by most early Christians, and "almost certainly by St. Paul" (p. 242). He contends, however, that the "story of the empty tomb must be fought out on doctrinal, not on historical or critical grounds" (p. 253).
[12] "The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son." "Das Wesen des Christentums," 1900,p. 91; E. T., "What is Christianity?" p. 154.
[13] Recent exegesis finds a Pauline meaning in the words whether it refers them to Jesus or to the influence of Paul. Plummer ("Matthew," p. 280) says: "'The Son of Man came' implies the preËxistence of the Son; it is not merely a synonym for being born." (Cf. John xviii. 37.) In the use of the word ??t??? [lytron], Bacon thinks that, "here and in xiv. 24 Mark goes beyond Paul's careful use of language" ("Beginnings of Gospel Story," p. 149). Bousset, on the other hand, emphasizing "the many," thinks that Paul was the first to give the full reach to the thought. (Op. cit., p. 2.) According to Wendling, in Mark x. 45, the fully developed Pauline doctrine of the ?p???t??s?? [apolytrÔsis] (Rom. iii. 23 ff.) is crystallized into an aphorism and put into the mouth of Jesus; "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, etc." (See Sanday's "Oxford Studies," p. 399.)
[39] Bousset, op. cit., will not admit that we have the actual words of Jesus in Mark xiii. 32 (p. 52), in Matt. xi. 5 (p. 71, note 3), in Matt. xii. 32 (p. 9), in Mark xv. 34 (p. 87), or in viii. 14-20 (p. 82).
[41] "Golden Bough," 2d ed. (1900), III, pp. 187 ff.; "Orpheus" (E. T.), pp. 229 ff. It is interesting to note that Frazer's section on the death of Christ has in the third edition, 1910-1914, been placed in an appendix, with the remark: "The hypothesis which it sets forth has not been confirmed by subsequent research and is admittedly in a high degree speculative and uncertain." (Part VI, "The Scapegoat," p. 412, note 1.)
[76] Jacques Loeb says that "whoever claims to have succeeded in making living matter from inanimate will have to prove that he has succeeded in producing nuclein material which acts as a ferment for its own synthesis and thus reproduces itself. Nobody has thus far succeeded in this, although nothing warrants us in taking it for granted that this task is beyond the power of science."—"Darwin and Modern Science," p. 270.
[82] See Royce: "The World and the Individual," II, p. 325.
[83] E. G. Conklin: "Heredity and Responsibility," in Science, January 10, 1913.
[84] "No other animal types," says Wallace, "make the slightest approach to any of these high faculties [such as are seen in man] or show any indication of the possibility of their development. In very many directions they have reached a limit of organic perfection beyond which there is no apparent scope for further advancement. Such perfect types we see in the dog, the horse, the cat-tribe, the deer and the antelopes, the elephants, the beaver and the greater apes; while many others have become extinct because they were so highly specialized as to be incapable of adaptation to new conditions. All these are probably about equal in their mental faculties, and there is no indication that any of them are or have been progressing towards man's elevation, or that such progression, either physically or mentally, is possible."—"Man's Place in the Universe," 3d (popular) ed., pp. 328, 329.
[96] "Thoughts on Religion," 2d ed., pp. 161, 162.
[97] "The Loss of the SS. Titanic: Its Story and Its Lessons," by Lawrence Beasley, B. A. (Cantab.), Scholar of Gonville and Caius College, one of the survivors. Boston, 1912.
[98] J. B. Carter: "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome," p. 95.
[122] In an appreciation of the late John Davidson, it is said that "an obsession by sexual metaphors was his imaginative besetting sin."—A. S. Mories, in Westminster Review, July, 1913, p. 81.
[138] The hermit saints, from this modern standpoint, would not deserve to be called religious at all, as witness this remark of Ames: "If religion is participation in the ideal values of the social consciousness, then those who do not share in this consciousness are non-religious."—"Psychology of Religious Experiences," p. 356.
[139] See J. H. Williams: "The Mountain That Was 'God,'" pp. 40, 113.
[151] For fuller discussion of this movement, the writer may refer to his article, "Pragmatism, Humanism and Religion," in the Princeton Theological Review, October, 1908.
[152] "Life and Consciousness," Hibbert Journal, October, 1911, p. 34.
[165] "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion," p. 121; E. T., "The Truth of Religion," p. 176.
[166] "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion," p. 295; E. T., p. 425.
[167] "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion," p. 299; E. T., p. 430.
[168] "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion," p. 303; E. T., pp. 435 f.
[169] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 236; E. T., "Can We Still Be Christians?" p. 218.
[170] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 154; E. T., p. 143.
[171] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 129; E. T., p. 120.
[172] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 186; E. T., p. 172.
[173] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 28; E. T., p. 27.
[174] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" 1911, p. 167; E. T., p. 155.
[175] "Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion," p. 370; E. T., p. 527.
[176] "KÖnnen wir noch Christen sein?" p. 37; E. T., pp. 34 f.
[177] Eucken's neglect of the experiential standpoint is a common complaint among his critics. See M. Booth: "R. Eucken: His Philosophy and Influence," p. 199.
[178] "The Truth of Religion," p. 577. The German, p. 404, is less emphatic.
[179] "L'Évolution CrÉatrice," p. 294; E. T., p. 271.
[222] "Primitive Christianity," pp. 294, 295. Clemen would himself trace the idea of the Virgin Birth to a passage in Philo ("De. Cher." 13 f.) in which the wives of the Patriarchs represent virtues (p. 297).
[250] "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels," p. 61 n. Kennedy believes that the vocabulary of Paul is to be explained from the Old Testament, while much of it was current among the mystery brotherhoods (Op. cit., p. 198). Bousset acknowledges that Paul's terminology may perhaps in part be derived from the Old Testament, which would be the most natural source of his use of pneuma instead of nous to describe the spiritual part of man, and of the opposition in words between pneuma and sarx (Op. cit., p. 141, note 2). Clemen ("Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das Älteste Christentums," 1913, p. 61) says that "looked at broadly, Paul remains in verbal and much more in actual relationships untouched by the mystery religions."
[251] J. M. Creed: "The Hermetic Writings," Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1914, p. 529.
[252] Art. "Hermes Trismegistus," Encycl. Britt., 10th ed. For a history of the evolution of opinion, see G. R. S. Mead: "Thrice-Greatest Hermes," 1906, Vol. I, pp. 17 ff.
[253] For the Greek text of both passages see "Poimandres," pp. 11, 12; and for the translation see Mead: Op. cit., ii, pp. 3, 4, and Lightfoot: "Apostolic Fathers," p. 421.
[266] "BeitrÄge zur Einl. in das N. T.": I. "Lukas der Arzt," 1906; II. "SprÜche und Reden Jesu," 1907; III. "Die Apostelgeschichte," 1908; IV. "Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit des Synoptischen Evangelien," 1911. For convenience these will be alluded to as I, II, III, and IV, in connection with the English translation.
[267] IV, p. 35; "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels," p. 49.
[269] "The Gospels as Historical Documents," Pt. II, 1909, p. 242.
[270] "Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," 1911.
[271] J. Moffatt: "Historical New Testament," p. 414, note 4. It is noticeable that Moffatt now favours the Lukan authorship, "put practically beyond doubt by the exhaustive researches of Hawkins and Harnack" ("Introduction to New Testament," p. 295), while advocating a date later than Josephus' "Antiquities" (pp. 29 f.).
[272] H. Koch: "Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," pp. 61, 62.
[274] "Paul the Traveller," pp. 307-309. The use of "first" (p??tos [prÔtos]) is not decisive, for it is used where there are but two objects in the comparison in Acts xii. 10 (and see vii. 12), Hebrews ix. 8 and 15, Apoc. xx. 5, and even I Corinthians xv. 47. identified and Josephus is correct, Luke is guilty of an anachronism in putting an allusion to him into the mouth of Gamaliel; for the Theudas of Josephus falls in the time of Fadus who was procurator under Claudius, about 45 A. D. The following points deserve to be noticed:
[287] H. L. Jackson, in "Cambridge Biblical Essays," 1909, p. 432.
[288] IV, p. 93; "Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels," p. 133.
[289] C. J. Vaughan: "The Church of the First Days," p. 547.
[290] "Introduction to the Study of History," pp. 201, 202.
[291] Ezra Abbot, 1880 (see "The Fourth Gospel," by Abbot, Peabody and Lightfoot, 1891) and James Drummond: "Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel," 1904.
[292] "A New Theory of Shakespeare," Independent, December 22, 1910, p. 1373.
[296] "Present Day Criticism," Expositor, March, 1912, p. 251. For the statement of a Syriac calendar (411 A.D.) commemorating "John and James the Apostles at Jerusalem" as martyrs on 27th December, see Allen and Grensted: "Introduction to the Books of the New Testament," 1913, p. 94.
[297] Eusebius: "Hist. Eccl.," iii. 39. "What was said ... by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say." The argument for two Johns is based upon the fact that the name is mentioned twice and that different tenses are used.
[298] Rev. H. J. Bardsley: "The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to the Authorship of 'St. John,'" Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XIV, No. 56, July, 1913, p. 491.
[299] C. A. Bernoulli, in appendix to Overbeck's "Johannesevangelium," 1911, pp. 504, 505.
[300] "Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," 1910. From the Synoptists, he says, we do not learn of disciples of the Baptist becoming disciples of Jesus. "But if the work of the Baptist was what the Synoptists declare it to have been, namely, to prepare the way for the Christ, it is hardly conceivable that this work, faithfully carried out, could have failed of this result—to supply disciples for Him" (p. 59).
[301] "Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel," in "Cambridge Biblical Essays." The best explanation of the silence of the Synoptists upon the raising of Lazarus is still that given by Holdsworth, "Gospel Origins," p. 126: "Every missionary knows that to mention the names of converts in published accounts of their work among a people hostile to Christianity is fraught with peril to those who are mentioned.... The difficult question of the appearance in the Fourth Gospel of the raising of Lazarus finds its best explanation in an application of this rule.... Although the Synoptists record the saying of Christ that the name of the woman who broke the bottle of spikenard ... should be mentioned [or rather her deed] wherever the Gospel was proclaimed, that name was never mentioned by them." Long afterwards John mentions Mary's name.
Transcribers note: P 156 Home-land changed to homeland P 12 The Theistic Infer enc changed to The Theistic Inference
