The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-03-25


anal truth. and tina, no one. Apostle or saint.
could or did add anything 70 the original deposit.
however much be might eApound or %enforc. il.
This, according 10 " Watson, il the only position
which secure. a CONSISTENT, and authoritative
standard, by which later teaching can he Judged,
and that, apart from Jesus. own words, this
position II es,ablishpd by two arguments one
u these arguments Is drawn from the fitness u
things, Il being unlikely that Jesus, who came 10
declare The Divine will and reveal the Father would
leave any truths Of the frs, magnitude To he told
by Ills servants: the other, deduced from the
I facts In the case. IL being notorious tina, certain
doctrines Of theology have become the sources
u fierce repupn,ncs and griryous scandal in
the Church. and thai, certain customs Of had ethics
have grown 10 BE- the asia blished bnbi, Of MANY
good ueopls. con.picuously the cus,om Of slavery.
simply because psople wen, 10 the old Tes,.men,
! and 70 the Ep,stles. rather than 10 the GOSPEL.
for their text
Watson does no, denv m. .plri,ual genius
Of ST Paul, his devotion 10 the person OF
Christ. or his yrssp Of his Masters teachings
But he holds tina, ON. NAV no, make him equal
10 .Jesus without remoyin0 .Jes,s from IA, iudp.
men, s4at and d.s,roviny ,bs p,op,r,ion Of HOLY
Scripture. lie believes IL. IN fact. To b.. a grave
question whether 81. Paul bimself claimed 10 b.
on the same level OF authority a. Jesus, and he
thinks tina, such a question can he settled. not
by the production of particular passogss. but
| rather by reference TO the whole tone OF the Apos.
ties writings. II Is further pointed out by
DR.. Jacobu. that Wepdt, In bi, various writings,
holds that the APOSTLE Paul took from Jesus the
RELIGIOUS ideal which Jesus announced Az The
fulnl OF the pious hopes and promises OF the
, people OF Israel. but tina, Paul gave explanations
OF this ideal, and propounded methods for It's
realization which Jesus never intended The
cause for this deviation from Jesus's teachings
is attributed by Wendt 10 the fec, tina, Paul was
possessed Of certain presupposi,ions which be-
longed TO him from his pre- Christian Pharisaic
environment. Pfeiderer also, after studying
Paul. arrived al the conclusion that the peculiar.
tiles of the Pauline theology are due to the Pha.
risaism and the Hellenisn OF Paul's previous life,
Paul's conceptions Of sin and atonement and
justification and predesinaton, and OF the Mes.
siah. are traced 10 the theology Of ths Palestinlan
Synagogue. His conceptions Of the unspiritual
character Of the natural man, and Of tn" latter
renewal through the Holy Ghost, Of archaeological
things, and Of certain elements In Paul's
Christology, as well as his view Of predestina-
ton, arc attributed 10 the theology OF Alex.
andrian Hellenism, Again Saba,i,r studies
Paul, and finds that his system OF doctrine Is sim
ply Pharisaism transformed and inverted.
Tits, az We have said. the aim Of the book before
us To define the rele ton oi Paul TO Jesus. " which
end the author begins by An examination Of the
method which should DO followed In the inquiry
and then proceeds 10 compare the teachings OF
Jesus and Of Paul, and. finally, TO investigate
one Of Paul's doctrines elaborated in the later
part OF the Apostles life. The problem Of
method resolves itself into the inquiry. Shall
we stavt our study Of the New Testament
with what the books say OF themselves, or
with what others say about the books Our
authors answer Is that We should make the study
take its point OF departure not only from the do,1i.
ments themselves, but from the documents own
claims reg arding their origin: To gather around this
starting point such other facts and hints as II
gives regarding itself. eth r in support Of its claims
or in opposition to them. and then, with these
results OF internal evidence secured, 10 60 ont into
the field Of external evidence for such patristic
testimony as il is possible 10 obtain, be II con.
drmatory OF these results or contradictory 10
them Having explained the authors method
Of inquiry, let us turn TO the comparison of the
teachings OF Jesus and Paul, after which we shall
note what he says about the development OF Paul's
doctrine Of Christian unity. There are, Of course,
a number Of ostensible differences in the teach
ings Of Jesus and Paul DR.. Jacobus under.
takes to prove tina, these differences are not If.
reconcilable but natural; that IL 10 say. they are
the outcome OF growth and adjustment. Herein
he differs widely from most OF the ex pounders
Of the Higher Criticism. The evolutionary crit.
icism Of today IL willing to admit the presence
Of historical facts in Christianity, but II insists
that room must be left TO soy that the Christi
anity which reared itself upon their foundation
can be accounted for on the supposition of nat.
ural processes Of Intellectual activity and spirit.
ual enthusiasm. that the historical facts in Chm,
t,apity have produced the Christian religion
in a way which makes Apostolic teaching merely
a part OF speculative theology and deduces ali
Christ 5 authority from the sayings Of Christ him.
self, In other words, evolutionary criticism
claims that the facts Of Christianity have had
such inf uence upon Apostolic thought, and this
influence has been SO thoroughly along the line
OF the Apostles human individualism that th.
results produced are Of value only a. personal
opinions Tho proof adduced for this assertion
is the alleged irreconcila bleness between the
teachings Of Jesus and those Of his Apostle,
chiefly Paul On the other hand. the pos,,ion
taken by Or Jacobus Is the %follovinr Allow
the facts Of Gospel history 10 have had thar
influence upon the Apostles teaching. bu, ask
whether they must not have had a restrictive in
6lepc. upon Jesus's YEA ching. a. well AZ A widen.
ing influence upon that Of the Apostles Admit
the fact OF the di disagreement between the teachings
-, r..ua .nd ,hoa. ~ pa,L. hr, ALB wh.,h., ,h,-