The Historical Proofs of Christianity [pp. 51-84]

THE PRINCE TON RE VIE W.
John into a liberal-minded apostle, as Baur affirmed to be necessary. This has become evident, whether the apostle was the
author of the Apocalypse or not. As to the New Testament
writings, Hilgenfeld,' probably the ablest living representative
of the Tiibingen school, now holds that Paul wrote I. Thessalonians and Philippians, together with Philemon, in addition to
the four great Epistles-I. and II. Corinthians, Galatians, and
Romans-which Baur had allowed to him. The progress is in
the right direction towards the recognition of Colossians and
Ephesians-which Reuss has ably defended 2'-and of other
Epistles which, more on subjective than historical grounds, have
been called in question. But, even as the case now stands
among the critics, the fundamental assumption of the Ttibingen
school that the primitive type of Christianity was Ebionitic,
has no tenable footing. That assumption is contradicted, as will
appear, by the synoptical Gospels. It is contradicted by the
Epistles of Paul, even by those which on all hands are conceded
to be genuine. It.is unreasonable to assume that he introduced
most important elements of doctrine respecting the person of
Christ, which the other apostles must have known that he
taught, but against which it is not pretended that they uttered
a lisp of dissent. In this altered state of opinion, when the pre
mises of Baur have been so far abandoned, and when his
hypothesis respecting the date of the Gospel has been so variously and essentially modified, it remains to be seen whether
his general theory as to its authorship can longer be maintained.
The farther back it is found necessary to shift the date of
the Gospel, the more menacing is the situation for the theory
of non-apostolic authorship. Keim is not alone in the retreat
from the old ground taken by B3aur and Volckmar. Hilgenfeld
is not disposed to deny that the Fourth Gospel was used by
Justin, and therefore places its origin between A.D.. 30 and I4o.
Renan, after not a little vacillation, now holds that it saw the
light in A.D. I25 or I30. Schenkel fixes on a date ten years
earlier, A.D. II5-I20, which is somewhat later than the limits
1 "Einl. in d. N. T.," pp. 239, 331, 333.
2 " Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften d. N. T.," i. 107, sel.
54