PROFESSOR PFLEIDERER'S HIBBERT LECTURE.* READERS of this work ought also

to read along with it Professor Pfleiderer's former work on Paulinism. In some respects, in- deed, the " Lectures " are better than the more elaborate work. They are written in a more artistic, we might say a more dramatic, fashion. For the most part, only conclusions are given; the processes by which these are reached are hinted at, but not articulately stated. We have to refer to his former work in order to find the grounds and reasons which justify the various positions taken by Professor Pfleiderer in this inter- esting book. The truth is, that neither in the former work nor in the present one, has Professor Pfleiderer set forth all the grounds on which his construction of Paulinism is based. We have to go beyond his own writings to find the foundation of his work. The Hibbert Lecture is based on the results set forth in his Paulinism and his Paulinism takes for granted the truth and correctness of Baur's view of the develop- ment of Christianity. The value of his contribution to Pauline theology thus largely depends on the truth of the Tiibingen theory.

It would be idle to deny that the publication of Baur's works

• Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle Pant on the Development of Christianity. By Otto Pfieiderer, D.D.. Professor of Theolegy in the Univer- sity of Berlin. Translated by 1. Frederick Smith. LDnd.m: Williams and Norgato.

has marked an epoch in the critical study of the New Testament. His great learning, his clearness of statement, his power of con- structing plausible hypotheses, and his ingenuity in finding arguments in support of them, attracted to his works the sustained attention of friends and foes. It is not our purpose here to state or to criticise the Tiibingen theory. We may remark that the works of Professor Pfleiderer assume its truth, it least in the main features of it. It is tree, indeed, that Pro- fessor Pfleiderer makes some concessions, and in some instances departs from the positions taken by Baur. He still holds the validity of Baur's method, as is shown in the following extract :—

" It was the strictly historical examination of primitive Christianity, as it originated with the great Tiibingen theologian, Christian Ferdi- nand Baur, which first gave the key to an understanding of the char- acteristic peculiarities and the historical significance of the Apostle Paul. For it was that examination which, by an accurate, critical sifting of the documents, proved how erroneous was the ancient tradition of the harmonious agreement of all the Apostles; how pro- found, on the contrary, was the antagonism between Paul and the first Apostles ; how animated the contention of the parties ; how pro- tracted and laborious the process of their union in the Church." (pp. 7-8 )

As with Baur, so with Pfleiderer, this antagonism, contention, and subsequent union is the guiding principle in the construc- tion of early Church history. All the surviving documents are read in the light of it, and are arranged in order, according as traces of conflict or irenic tendencies predominate. If there are manifold signs of disagreement between various sections of the Church, if there are traces of conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the documents are set down as early. Where more peaceful tendencies appear, and signs are manifest that the tempest has lulled, then the documents are later ; and when the conflict has vanished, we are in the last stage of the primitive period of early Church history. There is thus a beautiful simplicity in the action of this principle. We have only to disregard all other considerations, and string the documents on this thread, and we shall have a plausible account of the progress of the Christian religion.

The concessions which Professor Pfleiderer is constrained to make are rather unfortunate for the theory. He is unable to say, with Baur, that the opponents to whom Paul and Barnabas had to offer so strenuous a resistance were none other than the elder Apostles themselves. With regard to the decisions of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, he says :—

"I am of opinion that this question has not in reality the great importance which is often attached to it ; for whether the removal of this specific difference is thought to be possible or not, appears to me to be of quite secondary moment in view of the unquestionable fact that, with regard to the real meaning and object of the Apostles' agreement, the accounts of Paul and the Acts conduct to essentially unanimous results." (pp. 111-112.)

Furthermore, he finds within the Epistles of Paul himself—those Epistles, we mean, which he acknowledges to be Pauline—an increasing tendency towards conciliation and peace. So much is this the case, that Professor Pfleiderer has only to quicken the movement of this tendency in order to be in substantial agree- ment with the traditional view.

On the other hand, we find that Professor Pfleiderer, notwith- standing these concessions, is still in substantial agreement with Baur. He exaggerates the differences between the parties in the early Church. He assumes that the differences which subsist between the Ebionites and the Marcionites of the second century are identical with those which separated the first Church from the Church of Paul. Now, this is an assumption for which there is really no evidence ; and the description by Professor Pfleiderer of the state of opinion in the first Church is a fancy-picture.

The same may be said of his account of the conversion of Paul.

He admits that "it is beyond doubt that Paul was fully convinced of the objective reality of the appearance of Christ with which he was favoured," and yet he has an elaborate psychological explanation to show that the vision was purely subjective :—

"An excitable, nervous temperament ; a soul that had been violently agitated and torn by the most terrible doubts ; a most vivid phantasy, occupied with the awful scenes and persecutions on the one hand, and on the other by the ideal image of the celestial Christ ; in addition, the nearness of Damascus with the urgency of a decision' the lonely stillness, the scorching and blinding heat of the Desert—in fact, every- thing combined to produce one of those ecstatic states in which the soul believes that it sees those images and conceptions which pro- foundly agitate it, as if they were phenomena proceeding from the outward world."

We again say there is no evidence for any one of these assump- tions, and certainly no evidence that the mind of Paul was occupied "by the ideal image of the celestial Christ." The • evidence from the acknowledged Epistles of Paul is all in the

contrary direction. Perhaps the strangest part of this speculation is found in the concluding part of the fore- going quotation, which is as fellows :—" However, whether we are satisfied with this psychologically explained vision, or -prefer to regard an objective Christophany in addition necessary to explain the conversion of Pan], it remains in either case certain that it was God who, in the soul of Paul, caused a light to shine to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." The conclusion is certainly valid on the supposition of "an objective Christop/aany ;" but it is no so obvious how a vision due to an excited nervous tempera- ment and a vivid phantasy could give the light of the know- ledge of the glory of God.

We hasten on to consider Professor Pfleiderer's account of the literature of the New Testament. This also is very strange. The Book of Revelations is a hostile attack on Paul and his theology ; and the Gospel of Mark is the Pauline reply to it. Matthew's Gospel is the rejoinder to Mark ; and in Luke's Gospel we have the first step towards conciliation, and the conciliatory process is consummated in the Gospel according to John. This bold summary seems incredible. It looks as if Professor Plleiderer was writing the history, say, of the Tubingen School itself, in which book was followed by book, article was replied to by article, and pamphlet gave rise to pamphlet. We feel bound to give the following quotation to justify our state- ment. Professor Pfleiderer has described the Gospel of Mark as a Pauline manifesto :— " Jewish Christianity, thus attacked with weapons from the arsenal of Gospel tradition, made its reply in the Gospel according to Matthew. In this Gospel, the earlier one of Mark has been combined with copious additional materials, consisting of discourses of Jesus, and taken from Galilean tradition ; and the combination has been effected in such a way that the author, who occupies the same position as the writer of the Apocalypse, urges his dissent from both the Pauline freedom from the law, and the narrow particularism of the Jews. At the very beginning of the lengthy Sermon on the Mount,' to which is assigned such a prominent position as the programme of the labours of Jesus, the Evangelist inserts into the materials before him a few sentences which contain unmistakeably an allusion to the Apostle Paul : Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven ; but $vhosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.' The humblest part is here assigned to Paul in the Kingdom of Heaven, with an evident intentional allusion to his own personal con- fession, because both in practice and teaching he broke the small things of the Law (` the letter ') ; a share in the Kingdom of Heaven is not altogether denied him (which would have been necessary in opposition to an ungodly Antinomianism); but it is only equal rank and equal rights with the first Apostles, for which Paul had so often contended, that are absolutely refused him by the Jewish-Christian Evangelists. Peter, on the other hand, is represented expressly as the first.' If Paul himself had based his full Apostleship on an immediate revelation from God, finding in this more than a sufficient compensation for his imperfect acquaintance with Christ after the flesh, the Evangelist Matthew, on the contrary, makes this immediate revelation of God, which had not been com- municated through 'flesh and blood,' the pre-eminent distinction of Peter In the highest degree characteristic is the turn which the Jewish Christian Gospel has given to the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus is made to say, 'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, cast out devils, and done many mighty works ? And then will I profess unto them I never knew you ; depart from me ye that work lawlessness.' We hear in these words plainly the judgment of a legalistic Jewish. Christian upon these Paulinists who call Jesus their Lord, are accus- tomed to speak of him in exalted language, and perform miracles also in his name, but who will, notwithstanding all that, not be acknow- ledged by the Messiah as his followers, for the reason that they work lawlessness." (pp. 178 80.) A little further on we find that Luke has skilfully turned this Jewish saying into a Pauline one. He substitutes the word Arxae; for apoiaac, and by this clever stroke he turns the sayings of Je:ms against the Jews. Let us listen to Professor Pfleiderer :— " To the anti-Pauline sentence of Matthew against the workers of lawlessness,' Luke gives an anti-Judaic turn; to the fellow-workers and contemporaries of Jesus, who place reliance on the fact that they have eaten and drunk in his presence, and be has taught in their

streets, Jesus makes reply in this passage I know not whence

ye are; depart from me, ye doers of iniquity." -

Professor Pfleiderer is fond of psychological problems. Here is one he has not looked at. These evangelists had a great reverence for Christ, and treasured up his sayings. How does this consist with the practice he assigns to them of inventing sayings and putting them into the month of Jesus; sayings which, on Professor Pfleiderer's showing, are invented for party purposes, and for the sake of controversial advantage over their opponents ? There is an amount of gratuitous offensiveness in the supposition that the Gospels, as we have them, originated in this way. Let that pass, however. We have space for only one remark. The Jewish Gospel of Matthew is not hostile to the admission of Gentiles into the Church Matthew records the visit of the Gentile Magi to the infant Saviour ; a Gentile centurion had faith greater than any Israelite; and Gentiles are admitted to a place vacated by the rejection of the Jews. Pilate frees himself from the guilt, which guilt is accepted by the Jews ; and Matthew agrees with John in speaking of the non-Christian parts of the Hebrew nation as "Jews," a usage which implies that the Christians were a separate community. These are some of the facts on which the assumptions of Professor Pfleiderer suffer shipwreck.