Chapter XV.—[THE METHOD OF M. LOISY]
M. Loisy and the “liberal” school. His attitude to the myth-theory. His certitudes. Disclaims biography, and produces one. His treatment of the legend. The problem of the multitude of healings. Collapse of the assumption in the case of Nazareth. Inconsistency of M. Loisy’s method, and weakness of his solutions. His acceptance of the Joseph legend. “The carpenter.” Difficulty set up by Origen. The myth solution. “The son of Mary.” Dilemma set up by later passages. Problem of the Messianic declaration of Peter. Impossibility of the personality set up by Petrine and anti-Petrine records 141
Chapter XVI.—[THE TRIAL CRUX]
Lax treatment of the main problems by M. Loisy. Acceptance of the non-historical as historical. The Purification of the Temple. The Agony. Approximation to the true solution. The priestly Trial. Virtual abandonment of the narrative by M. Loisy. Illicit reconstruction. Successive retreats of the “liberal” school. Surrender of (1) the Trial before Herod, (2) the Johannine record, (3) the Trial before the priests. Stand on the Trial before Pilate. Untenableness of that. The Roman Trial admittedly a loose tradition. Impossible as recorded. A clear solution supplied by the myth theory. Irreconcilable character of the Triumphal entry and the unanimous hostility of the people before Pilate. The Barabbas story admittedly unhistorical. Its presence accounted for only by the myth-theory 161
Chapter XVII.—[THE JESUS-FIGURE OF M. LOISY]
The dilemma of the Evangel of the Twelve. M. Loisy on the Teaching of Jesus as preparative for the cult. Destructive effect of his admissions as to the teaching of Paul. His attitude towards the myth-theory. Demanding definiteness, he rests in the indefinite. His self-contradictions. His ascription of originality to quoted teachings. Incompatibility of his Teacher and his Messiah. The teaching as to divorce not that of one expecting a new order. Its prior currency. Bases of the gospel ethic. The Good Samaritan documentarily a late creation 173
Chapter XVIII.—[THE PAULINE PROBLEM]
M. Loisy on the testimony of Paul. His misconception as to its bearings on the myth-theory. Van Manen helped by his own thesis to accept the historicity of Jesus. The myth-theory quite independent of the dating of the Epistles. Importance of noting that, early or late, they are interpolated. M. Loisy’s treatment of the documentary problem. Van Manen’s strong case against the Epistles. Need to revise the details of the chronology. Also to orient the myth-theory aright. Inadequacy of the theories of Kalthoff and Kautsky 185
Chapter XIX.—[THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION]
Prospects of controversy. Slow advance of the “liberal” view. Identity of the final positions of Strauss and Loisy. Tentative beginnings of the myth-theory. Effects of persecution and of Strauss’s final dialectic. Schweitzer on the evolution “from Reimarus to Wrede.” Bruno Bauer. Claims for “the German temperament.” Need for a truly scientific temper. Effects of Bauer’s flaws of mood and method. Schweitzer’s amenity and candour. Demonstrates the shortsightedness of German specialism. Schweitzer’s ignorance concerning the myth-theory in its later developments. His laxities in research. His own thesis 193