Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion | Page 7

character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen
and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had
his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or
he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear
presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as
explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of
the reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may
be candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in
any other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The
arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this part
of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such
writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments
remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the
Fourth Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the

Son of Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness
and love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to
such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of this
statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in the
Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion is
undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to
idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses this
same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers and
free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the scandal
which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct
antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles
on this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not
to deny, the Hebraic [14:3] character of the Fourth Gospel, does he
wholly ignore the investigations of Luthardt and others, which (as
'apologists' venture to think) show that the whole texture of the
language in the Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes
to 'the minuteness of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence
of its authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the
'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no
difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the
identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have
been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such
arguments as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance
[15:1]; arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the
thorough naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on
the subtle and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the
speakers, on the local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with
the narrative, on the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from
Christian) ideas, more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the
speeches, and the like. And, if he could have brought forward any
parallel to all this in the literature of the time, or could even have
shown a reasonable probability that such a fiction might have been
produced in an age which (as we are constantly reminded) was
singularly inappreciative and uncritical in such matters, and which
certainly has not left any evidence of a genius for realism, for its

highest conception of romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness
of the Clementines or the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he
could have done this, he would at least have advanced his argument a
step [15:2]. Why again, when he is emphasizing the differences
between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel, does he content
himself with stating 'that some apologetic writers' are 'satisfied by the
analogies which could scarcely fail to exist between two works dealing
with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3] without mentioning for the benefit of
the reader some of these analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is
styled the Word of God in these two writings, and these alone, of the
New Testament? He recurs more than once to the doctrine of the Logos,
as exhibited in the Gospel, but again he is silent about the presence of
this nomenclature in the Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts
the Christology of the Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St
John [15:5], does he not mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our
Lord's words in Matt. xi. 27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my
Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save