' The Historical Jesus, Pages. 3s. 6d. The Jesus Problem, Vii+264
' The Historical Jesus, Pages. 3s. 6d. The Jesus Problem, Vii+264
' The Historical Jesus, Pages. 3s. 6d. The Jesus Problem, Vii+264
' The Historical Jesus, 1916. XXiV+221 pages. 3s. 6d. The Jesus Problem,
1917. vii+264 pages. 5s. By John M. Robertson. London: Watts & Co.
BOOKSON THE HISTORICITYOF JESUS 379
sincerity." The extant "Pauline epistles" are not his work; they
"represent a polemic development, perhaps on the basis of a few short
Paulines," and are second-centuryproductions. The Acts "as a whole
is plainly factitious . . . . a blend of tradition and fiction, much manipu-
lated during a long period." As for the parallel elements in the accounts
of Peter and of Paul, "one or more may have wrought one narrative,
and a later hand or hands may have systematically interpolated the
other" (p. 143).
Mr. Robertson's most striking contribution to the discussion is
perhaps his inferriblemystery-play, given by the Jesuists, "which may
or may not have been definitely Jewish at the outset, " but was certainly
manipulated into its final form by gentile hands. In this play "the
apostles in generalare made to play a poor part; one plays an impossible
r6le of betrayer; and the legendary Judaizing apostle is made to deny
his Master" (p. 205). Incidentally there is an interesting suggestion
as to a detail in the Fourth Gospel (13: 29), "where 'the bag' is presump-
tively derived from a stage accessory in the mystery-drama, Judas
carrying a bag to receive his reward" (p. 217). If the development
of such a mystery-play with its implication of another God alongside
Jahveh seems to us improbable among first-century Jews, we are told
that Judaism was not at all the unified monotheism we customarily
think it, and we are given eight considerationson the other side, begin-
ning with "the essentially dramatic character of the Song of Solomon"
(p. 74). To be sure, "we have no mention of the existence of a Jesus
cult of any kind in the Hebrew books. But that is of necessity the case.
The Sacred Books would naturally exclude all mention of a cult which
in effect meant the continued deification of Joshua," who was inferribly
a primitive god (p. 82). The cult and its propagandawere well known,
some at least of its rites were public and popular, though the mystery-
play was performedalways in secret and is never anywhere mentioned,
so that Mr. Robertson's knowledge of it is purely inferrible. The
"silence of Josephus" concerningJesus and the Christians "is an insur-
mountable negation of the gospel story" (p. 122); one may inquire
why his silence concerning the Jesuists and their worship of a hero-god
Jesus does not render their existence precarious.
We have no desire, however, to question Mr. Robertson. We
have let him speak for himself. The more positive account of how the
Christian religion began and the Gospels were written is of greater
interest than the rather barren and often petty controversy with criticism
in the earlier volume. The two together constitute an astounding act of
A REFORMER BEFORE THE REFORMATION 38I
faith; for the mind that can honestly believe that the sublimest thing in
human history was thus achieved we have only speechless incompre-
hension. It is as if some children playing in a studio during the artist's
absence had left a canvas daubed over with-the Sistine Madonna.
The painting of Raphael and the gospel of Jesus were inferriblyotherwise
given to the world.
CLAYTON R. BOWEN
MEADVILLE THEOLOGICALSCHOOL