Was Dr. Harnack’s “Jesus” as Great as the Disciples

This suggests a conclusion of the most startling kind. While Renan accords to his “Jesus” a position “far above His disciples,” and places Him “on the highest summit of human great-

* Of course I am here arguing on Dr. Harnack’s assumption that the Gospels are mere human documents and not divinely inspired. The question of inspiration is too large for discussion here. I beg to refer to my

book, The Bible and Modern Criticism, especially chapters vii. and xiii.

ness,” Prof. Harnack’s “Jesus” is plainly no more than primus inter pares. Now here is an inexorable dilemma. If the fourth Gospel is authentic, Prof. Harnack’s scheme collapses like a house of cards. If otherwise, then the fact confronts us that the “discourses” of this unknown disciple — let us call him John II. — have, throughout the whole Christian era, exercised a wider and profounder influence over the minds and hearts of men than the sayings of “Jesus” himself. It has often happened in the world’s history that the real leader in a great movement has been overshadowed by someone whose personal magnetism has secured for him greater popularity.

And he is not the only claimant to pre-eminence. That the author of this Gospel, which some would call the greatest book in the world — a book, moreover, written at such a time — should not have left even a tradition of his personality or name is a supposition which tries even a trained capacity for mishelief. But his anonymity would tell against him in a plebiscite. In Paul, on the other hand, we have a man whose matchless life-story lies before us, not only in his own epis-B 17 tles, but in the narrative of Luke. His unreserved and passionate devotion to his Master only serves to increase his hold upon our respect and admiration. Is it so clear a case then that the modern Jew is wrong in saying that Paul was the founder of Christianity? His was “the boldest enterprise,” Dr. Harnack tells us; and he ventured upon it “without being able to appeal to a single word of his Master’s.”* Then again the claims of Peter cannot be ignored. Nor am I sure that, in the view of not a few, these popular candidates for chiefship would not be overshadowed by the tragic figure of the Baptist. At all events the question is worth looking into by the light of Prof. Harnack’s scheme. And it will probably be found that the grounds on which some would veto the discussion have less weight than they suppose.