APPENDIX. NOTES TO LECTURE I. NOTE I.: PAGE 3.-"Another point may be mentioned, as to which there has come to be a general agreement: namely, that the very late date assigned to the [Fourth] Gospel by Baur and Schwegler, somewhere between the years 160 and 170 A.D., cannot be maintained. Zeller and Scholten retreat to 150; Hilgenfeld, who is at last constrained to admit its use by Justin Martyr, goes back to between 130 and 140; Renan now says 125 or 130; Keim in the first volume of his History of Jesus of Nazara placed it with great confidence between the years 110 and 115, or, more loosely, A.D. 100-117. The fatal consequences [to his own theory of the book] of such an admission as that were, however, soon perceived; and in the last volume of his History of Jesus, and in the last abridgment of that work, he goes back to the year 130. Schenkel assigns it to A.D. 115-120."-[Dr. Ezra Abbott: "Authorship of the Fourth Gospel": Boston ed., 1880: pp. 11, 12. "The criticism which David Friedrich Strauss brought to bear on the gospel history in his 'Life of Jesus,' 1835, grew to be a criticism of the gospel books. After a temporary wavering, 1838, it turned especially to John's gospel, 1840. After the headlong attacks of Bruno Bauer, 1840 and later, F. C. Baur, in Tübingen, opened with his arti cle on composition of the canonical gospels, in the Theologische Jahr. bücher, 1844, the regular attack upon the Johannean authorship and the historical character of this gospel. It drew its material [according to Baur] from the synoptists, but shaped this according to its aims, 'forth from the Christian consciousness,' and with strictest consistency made the history subservient to the idea. Its origin cannot be put earlier than 160 A.D. Schwegler, Köstlin, Zeller, and others, tried to justify this view in different books and articles; Zeller, especially in regard to the testimony of the ancient church, wrote in 1845 and 1847. In 1849 and later, Hilgenfeld went further than Baur, and put the gospel between Valentinus' Gnosticism and Marcion's, finding Gnostic dualism in the gospel itself. But a series of investigations in the con trary direction, which proved the use of the gospel especially by Justin Martyr and the Gnostics of the second century, compelled criticism tc withdraw the origin of the gospel to an earlier date. Hilgenfeld went back to 135 A.D., and Keim to 110-115."-[Luthardt: "St. John's Gospel"; Edinburgh ed., Vol. 1: pp. 213, 214. "We need not then be surprised that in the end Baur alone has remained faithful to the position which he had chosen, and that the whole school has begun to beat a retreat, in order to seek another which it is easier to defend... If all the writers of the second century, from Ignatius to Justin, and from Justin to Athenagoras, lived and wrote prostrate at the feet of the Word made flesh, it is because the words of an Apostle were there, unceasingly delivering over that theme which is unfathomable to the hearts of believers to the meditation of thoughtful minds."-[Godet: "Comm. on Gospel of St. John"; Edin burgh ed., 1876: Vol. 1: pp. 208, 245. II. : : p. 3.-"A religion, that is, a true religion, must consist of ideas and facts both; not of ideas alone, without facts, for then it would be mere philosophy: not of facts alone, without ideas of which those facts are the symbols, or out of which they arise, or upon which they are grounded, for then it would be mere history."-[Coleridge: "Table Talk": Dec. 8, 1831; Works: New York ed., 1853: Vol. 6: p. 378. III. : p. 7.—“According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors. The whole Veda is in some way or other the work of the Deity: and even those who received the revelation, or, as they express it, those who saw it, were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable, therefore, to error in the reception of revealed truth. . . But let me state at once that there is nothing in the hymns themselves to warrant such extravagant theories. In many a hymn, the author says plainly that he or his friends made it to please the gods; that he made it as a carpenter makes a chariot, or like a beautiful vesture; that he fashioned it in his heart, and kept it in his mind; that he expects, as his reward, the favor of the god whom he celebrates." The poet's consciousness of higher influences was but 'another expression of deep-felt dependence on the Deity.' [Max Müller: "Chips from a German Workshop"; New York ed., 1881: Vol. 1: p. 18. "We have in these writings, as a whole [the most ancient documents connected with the religion of India], an authentic literature, which professes to be what it is, which neither asserts for itself a supernatural origin, nor seeks to disguise its age by recourse to the devices of the pastiche. . . The religion which is transmitted to us in these Hymns is, in its principal features, this: Nature is throughout |