  PAGE Preamble xi Chapter I.—THE SNARE OF PRESUPPOSITION Presupposition in science. The Copernican theory. The reception of Galileo, Harvey, and Darwin. Blinding effects of scholarship. The theological record. Mutations of Christian opinion. Defence of the belief in witchcraft. Leibnitz and Newton. Criticism of the Pentateuch. Parvish, Astruc, Voltaire, Colenso, and the professional scholars 1 Chapter II.—MODES OF CONSERVATIVE FALLACY Persistence of the theological temper. Each abandoned position first defended with the same fierceness. Saner forms of conservatism. Persistence in presupposition. Canon Inge on Jesus and Paul. The logical hiatus. Mill’s precedent. His dithyrambic mood and critical inadequacy. Disregard of the documentary evidence. Need to face the real problem. The sociological process. Mill’s dictum contrasted with those of Newman and Baur 6 Chapter III.—ILLUSIONS AS TO GOSPEL ETHIC Mill’s method and mind non-historical. “The historic sense.” Dr. J. E. Carpenter’s. The concept of “sublimity.” God portraiture. Its limitations. The Gospel ethic. Significance of the contradictions. The parable of the Good Samaritan. Incompetent verdicts of theologians. The story of Lycurgus and Alcander. Plutarch on forgiveness of enemies. Fanaticism of Christian estimates of antiquity 18 Chapter IV.—THE METHOD OF BLUSTER The historic problem. Its treatment by a Unitarian cleric. The method of bluster. The real and the pretended character of the Gospel according to Mark. Wellhausen’s Chapter V.—SCHMIEDEL AND DEROGATORY MYTH Collapse of the thesis of “human characteristics.” The myth and the historicity of Herakles. The more considerate thesis of Schmiedel: argument from “derogatory” episodes. Kalthoff on the human characteristics in Ruth and Jonah. Confusion of the new argument. Jesus introduced in Mark with divine characteristics. The Unitarian blunder as to “conventional” and “unconventional” hero-worship. Jewish and Pagan heroes and Gods alike put in “derogatory” positions. Herakles, Dionysos, and Apollo. Need to apply anthropological, mythological, and hierological as well as N. T. scholarship. Grounds for a Christian myth of the Founder as opposed by his family 44 Chapter VI.—THE VISIONARY EVANGEL B. Weiss’s “Primitive Gospel.” Its characteristics common to Mark. The enigma of the evangel of the Twelve. That problem never rightly realized by the exegetes. The allegorical explanations to be withheld from the people. Complete deficit of historical matter. The evangel of the Twelve a myth. Real origin in a rite, not in an evangel. The last hypothesis: a political evangel that could not be later avowed. Incompatibility of this view with the Gospels. Composition of the record. Why the Primitive Gospel lacked the Tragedy. Breakdown of the traditionary explanation. Orthodox avowals of anomaly 51 Chapter VII.—THE ALLEGED CONSENSUS OF SCHOLARS Resort to the myth-theory forced by the data. Unitarian attitude to that. Appeal for acceptance of the “consensus of scholars.” No such consensus ever attained. Dalman on his fellow-specialists. His own presuppositions. Pretensions to solve historical problems through philology. Distinction between pedantry and science. Candour of Schmiedel. Inadequacy of his method. Resistance of scholarship to Chapter VIII.—CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS Modifications of conservative attitude. Lack of good faith or of comprehension. Samples of misrepresentation. The Unitarian attitude. Treatment of myth-solutions: the Myth of the Temptation. Dr. Thorburn’s orthodox solution. Mythology and psychology. Psychic determinants of resistance to new views. Attitude to “healing powers” ascribed to Jesus. Force of presupposition. Davidson’s “must.” 74 Chapter IX.—BLASS AND FLINDERS PETRIE The attempt to find an “impersonal” test of the documentary basis. Dr. Flinders Petrie on The Growth of the Gospels. Theory of selection and compilation from logia. Acceptance of any item as early. The argument of Blass as to possibility of real predictions. Case of Savonarola. Nature of the problem. Political anticipation versus prophecy. Investigation of the Savonarola case. His earlier prophecies, conditional and absolute 82 Chapter X.—THE SAVONAROLA FALLACY Comparison between Savonarola’s prediction of the Sack of Rome and the gospel prophecy of the Fall of Jerusalem. Normality of Savonarola’s vaticinations. Historical blunder of the Blass school as to medieval warfare. Frequency of sacrilege in Christian war. The Christian sack of Constantinople 93 Chapter XI.—THE “LOGIA” THEORY AND THE HISTORICAL TEST Blass on the gospel prophecy: analysis of the texts. Their arbitrary handling by Blass. The “Nucleus” theory of Dr. Petrie. Its arbitrary implications. Impersonal method of selection not followed by impersonal inference from the results. The logia theory much more compatible with the myth-theory than with the tradition. Test cases 104 Chapter XII.—FAILURE OF THE “LOGIA” THEORY The scientific inference. Omission and invention of logia necessarily to be inferred as well as selection. Implicit abandonment of certain prophecies, and resulting incoherence of the argument. Reversion to the fundamental issue between supernaturalism and reason. Final futility of the attempt to vindicate the documents. Possibilities as to currency of written logia. Illustration from Islam. The mass of incompatibilities in the Gospel Teaching. Possibilities of genuine self-contradiction. Carlyle and Ruskin. Mohammed. The gospels not thus explicable. Damaging implications of the logia theory. Variety of “Christs.” Papias. Baruch and Enoch 113 Chapter XIII.—RESURGENCE OF THE HISTORIC PROBLEM The actually recovered logia of Oxyrhynchus. Their incompatibility with Dr. Petrie’s assumption of historic genuineness for all. The real process of composition in Luke’s gospel. Motives for invention. The myth of the Seventy Disciples a sample and test case. Inadequacy alike of the documentary theory and that of scattered logia 123 Chapter XIV.—ORTHODOXY AND THE “ORAL” HYPOTHESIS The “oral” hypothesis of the Rev. A. Wright. His approximations to the “liberal” chronology as against the Blass school. His candour. Hypothesis of fifty-two Lessons. Another “selection” theory—selection from oral traditions locally cherished. Wide departures of Mr. Wright from his theory. Unaccountableness of apostolic information. The tradition as to baptism. Problem of the duration of the Ministry, and of the one or four visits to Jerusalem. The oral hypothesis, like the others, more compatible with the myth-theory than with the tradition. Stand on the Resurrection 129 Chapter XV.—THE METHOD OF M. LOISY M. Loisy and the “liberal” school. His attitude to the myth-theory. His certitudes. Disclaims biography, and produces one. His treatment of the legend. The problem of the multitude of healings. Collapse of the assumption Chapter XVI.—THE TRIAL CRUX Lax treatment of the main problems by M. Loisy. Acceptance of the non-historical as historical. The Purification of the Temple. The Agony. Approximation to the true solution. The priestly Trial. Virtual abandonment of the narrative by M. Loisy. Illicit reconstruction. Successive retreats of the “liberal” school. Surrender of (1) the Trial before Herod, (2) the Johannine record, (3) the Trial before the priests. Stand on the Trial before Pilate. Untenableness of that. The Roman Trial admittedly a loose tradition. Impossible as recorded. A clear solution supplied by the myth theory. Irreconcilable character of the Triumphal entry and the unanimous hostility of the people before Pilate. The Barabbas story admittedly unhistorical. Its presence accounted for only by the myth-theory 161 Chapter XVII.—THE JESUS-FIGURE OF M. LOISY The dilemma of the Evangel of the Twelve. M. Loisy on the Teaching of Jesus as preparative for the cult. Destructive effect of his admissions as to the teaching of Paul. His attitude towards the myth-theory. Demanding definiteness, he rests in the indefinite. His self-contradictions. His ascription of originality to quoted teachings. Incompatibility of his Teacher and his Messiah. The teaching as to divorce not that of one expecting a new order. Its prior currency. Bases of the gospel ethic. The Good Samaritan documentarily a late creation 173 Chapter XVIII.—THE PAULINE PROBLEM M. Loisy on the testimony of Paul. His misconception as to its bearings on the myth-theory. Van Manen helped by his own thesis to accept the historicity of Jesus. The myth-theory quite independent of the dating of the Epistles. Importance of noting that, early or late, they are interpolated. Chapter XIX.—THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION Prospects of controversy. Slow advance of the “liberal” view. Identity of the final positions of Strauss and Loisy. Tentative beginnings of the myth-theory. Effects of persecution and of Strauss’s final dialectic. Schweitzer on the evolution “from Reimarus to Wrede.” Bruno Bauer. Claims for “the German temperament.” Need for a truly scientific temper. Effects of Bauer’s flaws of mood and method. Schweitzer’s amenity and candour. Demonstrates the shortsightedness of German specialism. Schweitzer’s ignorance concerning the myth-theory in its later developments. His laxities in research. His own thesis 193 Chapter XX.—THE GROUND CLEARED FOR THE MYTH-THEORY The issue as between Schweitzer and Wrede. Each destroys one half of the “liberal” case for historicity. Schweitzer confutes Wrede, and then puts a still more untenable view. His acceptance of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem as historical. His Jesus hailed not as a Messiah but as Elias. Schweitzer’s new view of the Betrayal. Judas a revealer of his Master’s private claim to be Messiah. The multitude supposed to be thus cleared of the charge of fickleness. Schweitzer’s fallacy as to Messianic claims being blasphemous. His service to criticism by clearing the ground. His final ethical and sociological confusion. The fortunes of the myth-theory in England. Early adumbrations. Difference in modern spirit and method, resulting from establishment of anthropology as a science. Lyell and Tylor. Schweitzer’s scientific temper. The myth-theory. The battleground of the future. Positions of Sir J. G. Frazer. Countervailing declarations by supporters of the myth-theory. The question one of science, not sentiment 201 Conclusion 211 Index 217 |
|
