ones. The point has never been discussed fully in England,
and by but a very few scholars on the Continent. The result is that it
is only possible at present to say that three solutions are possible
and are awaiting discussion. The first is that Paul's thought moved
very rapidly in the last years of his life, and that the difference
between the earlier and the later epistles only represents the
development of his thought. This is certainly a possible solution.
There is no literary objection to it which cannot adequately be
answered. The only doubt is the psychological question whether the
development implied is not so great as to be improbable. A second
possibility is that the later epistles are not Pauline but are the work
of some of Paul's followers. This is also possible, and from the
nature of the case scarcely admits of proof or of refutation. The
third possibility was suggested in 1877 by H. J. Holtzmann, who thought
that Ephesians represents the work of the second generation, and that
Colossians was a genuine epistle interpolated by the author of
Ephesians. It is said sometimes that this is an incredibly complicated
hypothesis. Undoubtedly it is complicated, but so are the facts, and
those who regard it as incredible forget that it is merely the
application to the Pauline epistles of exactly the same process as
every one knows to have been suffered by the epistles of Ignatius.
Therefore this theory {122} also is perfectly possible, and ultimately,
unless the interest in critical questions dies out altogether, the
discussion of these three possibilities is certain to receive fresh
attention.[15]

The critical questions concerned with the Fourth Gospel are better
known. But whether it is later than the later epistles of Paul, and
whether it represents the result of their influence or is a parallel
line of thought is another problem which has not yet been fully
discussed: in any case, it is cognate with them. No one knows who
wrote the Fourth Gospel. Tradition ascribes it to John the son of
Zebedee, but all critical probability is against this theory. It seems
tolerably clear that the Fourth Gospel was not written by an
eye-witness, and that it implies not a knowledge of the historic Jesus
so much as an acquaintance with the subapostolic Church. It is
apparently an attempt to rewrite the story of Jesus in the interests of
a "pre-existent" Christology, and of a high form of sacramental
teaching.

Tr