The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-12
ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
REy. DIR. >. e. HfDEN CLOSES ms
SCHOLARLY COUgSL
On the "Orlgin and History Of tho New
Testament" Before His Bible Class
At tho Y. Nc. 4.

Rev. Dr ] G.. Hidcn delivered the mint n
md closing lecture or his mastery series
on the origin and History OF the New
Testament 40 the y. Nj. G. y. recently.
lie said
In SIS material. style. tone. and spirit.
inc fourth Gospel is sfrangcly ana str.k-
fnkiy different from aI the others. ma
studying this narrative the intelligent
and alpTcclatvo reader hnos himself in
a ncN spiritual atmosphere which the
other EVaneonsts did LOT breathe.
IL may bo assumed mat almost every
thoughuui ana ohsorvsnt reader OF the
Fourth Gospel has noticed. or az least
fcit. the very remarkable pccularitics
which ChaHCicri1c that document when
we compare u with any. or with ail, OF
fhs otncr three memoirs Of Jesus. -'ot
only is Tho general tone OF John Gospel
dlncrcnf from that % Matthew. Mark. OF
Luxe bul The material rs almost entirely
different lfou. mat ~ any other Gospel.
q. "A large Iau OF th' narrative. ano OF
the distouIs,s given by Jonn, We nave
no. even ID uaDc lu any of the other b1A-
peIS. John alone tells OF thust pre-
existed state. az 'tne Word chapter
lsf Ia chapter 20. We have vu accuIuf
Of oar Lore nf'-. mir'cl"- tnrn."- inc
water into wIit-al1 th.~ story d. u.cu-
liar 10 JOHN. - also are fho Uifrpi.fD
on "a. Sew ltun. iu Ci.ptrr 30. ana me
discourse c. tnt woman 81 the well chap
Ter s0. thc heIinte OF the man 90 thr
pool 'caaptcr .th. che long discourse al
s.ap, rntufn. Cllr-er 9Th. ncarlY every
fhing iu thrptnr- sfh. SIN, iih, ana lNl!l,
and oven tnr whole story nt fhe icspl-
r,cfiou al pa saTus iu chuptc- ltn
From the llth chapter 10 thc cui OF the
Gospel There .Ic onll fHW points 81
coifacf between JOnn ava IN" Dthcr
Fynufrnsts-e Tor Instarce, as tine
trjtI ItUuatlOn. cruwiNlun. ana ieS-
direction of Jesus. but Joy lar the larger
portion OF even these chapters is peculiar
Some of the strangest, many OF the
mos striking. and not tow al the most
important things that John tells ms are
altogttlcr untouched 10y Sh thc oiht.
VAIN. reasons have been given 10
account for these remarkable phenouic
NJ: lut I have never seen them sdiisllc-
fortl. EXPLAINED one or tnt most uti1 "
,ef.cforv OF all the explanations thdt !
bave ever seem occurred ia an essay
written hv 10 preacn az ahliitE am cur
lure. ln discussing the matter SOM !" .i'' i
In detail. hc said that tho Holy spirit hid
irctahlv reserved some thinEs Tor J"Ail
a. feuf ms view involved theory pi
inspiration altogether too mechanic at 20
III the facts as set forth TOT ms nee 10y
Luxe. I'm the introduction Of ms Hospc.
Tuf John H. also peculiar in n'r "U'l'-
sious lie was the only one oi the l"NI
Evanselists VINO was present al thc
fransngurat- and DE- 81 Ga" nniN one
OF the -four who does not mention o..
Tie was Ia. only Evangelist VINO WIS
near the person of Jesus. during tpc a-o~
nv I'm the gardeu of Gcths'maht ,Iu He
is the only one who is silent ahout IT,
An inhdcl writer. Nnp~" Mork h'S "t
tracted more attention than II deserved
has broachrd the theory that the author
Of the Fourth Gospel Was greatly oiS-
satisfied with the narratives oi thc o'hVi
three, and hence determined q" btEc
STORY Of his OWn-a story thal %houlu h'.
ss Al IS. very widely different from any "i
The Othcrs We see not the sHEh''rt
ground for this wild surmisc. Johh' as
o
spoken In his condemnation oil iciSl"u9
feachere who were. in his judgment per
Verting the Truth. intoxicating lalSe Nis"S
az the person and work OF 'hlisI Anu
vet there H. in the Fourth Gospel NOT lhc
slightest hint that John was qisSall'-
ned with any OF the other three NN"ib'
lists. , .,,.,, of
Johns Gospel should differ widely from
that of Matthew. Mark; ana Lux Is
F ,.oi 10 be- wondered al. when We CONSIDER
, the peculiar circumstances uhu,I WI,
he wrote There seems tu pt SUI
ground for believing that ne wrote ms
t,ospel many years after the other 'hite
t;osi els had been published TO TIE W"liu'
IL this view Is correct. th'h We are ~,
ina gno an ole preacher ana pastor, VI
large experience. and mellow plety-a
ur.gchcr who had for years neld a very
roculiai relation to Christi tender III
innate. personal friend Of Jesus a 10y
Ing scui. TO whom the Master ldu, j! ''.'
and who had lovingly accepted inc sa-
ore tr1sf-iu short the disciple Nhpnl
Jesus loved. We are To mink OF ''S
man as writing out OF a fun heart. ana q
tenGer soul. memoir OF tho W." i'VI,
fled Son of God Under ihese rrculn-
stnrce,. We may reasonably cNpe'' rOHH
peculiarties 10 appear in nis narrative.
The Dialogues OF Plato. and the
"Memorabil'a" of NeuophOn both
depict the great teachers So
crates: but Plato's picture differs
very widely from that OF Nenophon.
Both writer's were disciples Of Socrates.
Both We're able writer's. Both loved and
honorcd then master. But NenOphon
could not have written the Dialogues
nor Plato the Memorabilia.
To those who contend that there ought
10 be a literai agreement between the
narratives at the several EvangrilsfS.
and who seem disposed 20 reject the Cos
pels for lack of such agreement We need
only say that such literal agreement
would be sure 90 awaken the SUSPICION
that tie tNangclisis had decided among
themselves That particular tale was 10
be told. and had then told precisely the
IA" which hac been agreed upon before
hand: and this sort Of collision would in
Naii"1tr tf"ir testimony in any court
OF Justice waCre the laws OF evidence are
Understood ana applied.
lf rllLtsSCS tell substantially the same
s'or' Int d'ncr i'm the details. We .o',drd
az, uni OF such differences: but n they
tel The same tale. WORD for word. or
nearly so. We are Obliged to suspect coll
fusion.
Inspiration does not destroy. but Gle
Yates and onlighteus the natural powers:
and hence We see the personal peCuli-
arities or the several inspired writer's
coming out lust as plainly as DO those
of uninspircd writer's. The style OF Paul
Is no more like that OF James than Ma
cau'ays is Ike Carlylc's. II may be and
ought 60 he. admitted that the evidence
OF tbs tiutl of the New Testament ~ not
denonStrdtivt. that Is 70 say 10 Is not
the same kind OF evidence as that which
uon ~ geometry II such were me pa
turc # the evidence. then there wouli be
no room for ftith. \ man who has iol-
lowed the train OF reasoning which
prove the truth of the first propos 'iru
IN Davies 'LcgenLrc." cannot be properly
said 20 believe the truth Of that thcorcm
He knows H. lie cannot doubt ~ IL o..
tries. The very nature OF the subject
matter BE- such that the opposite Of ;he
ss 'sulisifated proposition IS unthiuhant.
No sane m'nd that has followed the
- rn"rsiratlor eau for a moment mar .lr
tie "tr ,iou that the proposition tdt &c.
falfc. Consequently mathematics is no
test Of character. posse ss,S 40 moral
quality has no power 10 dsVtlup and fix
ones loyalty To- the truth. The most
SuptriatiNo villain that over dis -raccd
hdma2itN believed that twice two was
four. The atheist. Lapiacc. was one or
the greatest mathcmatiCiaus that ever
why ne had left God out Of his Neon
ipu4 Celeste NfrCsvnru.r rDrffDrls