588 NEW TESTAMENT 



the change, that the question is increasingly reduced to one of name 

 only. 



We cannot be far wrong in affirming that, however we may for 

 convenience divide or name departments, the New Testament student 

 of to-day recognizes that the books of the New Testament constitute 

 his chief sources, but claims for himself also all other literature that 

 can contribute to the accomplishment of his task of discovering how 

 Christianity arose; recognizes that the interpretation of these books 

 is his central work, to which all else must be related as contributing 

 to it or as built upon it; yet refuses to be limited to the business of 

 literary interpretation, and claims the right as historian, not only 

 to discover that his sources affirm this and that, but also to inquire 

 whether and how far what they say corresponds to historic fact; 

 and so defines as his field the beginnings of Christianity and as his 

 problem whatever within that field belongs to the historian. When, 

 therefore, we speak in this paper of the books of the New Testament, 

 it should be understood that what is really referred to is all those 

 early Christian books which constitute the sources for the history 

 of the origin of Christianity, and that in so designating them we are 

 simply naming the whole group a parte potiori. 



But this very definition of New Testament study as distinctly his- 

 torical raises another question pertaining to the scope of the science. 

 Does historical study include the interpretation of events and the 

 valuation of teachings as well as the interpretation of literature, the 

 statement of teachings, and the tracing of historic connections? 



Into this question, which is of far-reaching importance for the 

 definition of the nature and the determination of the function of 

 New Testament study, alike the limits of space and regard for the 

 rights of my colleague, Professor Bacon, forbid me to enter at 

 length. It may perhaps, however, be permitted me to offer two 

 suggestions. First, I venture to think that historians in general, 

 and New Testament historians in particular, will not long consent 

 to exclude from their own field that which Harnack l well calls 

 "the business and highest duty of the historian," namely, to "deter- 

 mine what is of permanent value." If with Percy Gardner 2 they hold 

 " that events of history, when interpreted, may be the basis of doc- 

 trine," they are not likely to concede that such a process is illegit- 

 imate, or that the New Testament student is debarred from under- 

 taking it. The impulse which alone is adequate to promote vigorous 

 prosecution of New Testament study will not permit the student 

 to content himself with statements of objective historic fact, consent- 

 ing to be debarred from asking questions of value and permanent 

 validity. The strength of the impulse to exceed these bounds is 

 shown in such books as Wernle's Beginnings of Christianity and 



1 What is Christianity, p. 13. * Hibbert Journal, April, 1903, p. 569. 



