phical mysticism of John was appreciated
only by a few who felt the beauty of the language and the strange charm
of its figures of speech. {75} To the common people Jesus was a loving
friend who comforted them in their sorrows, and the witness to a heaven
in which all tears would be wiped away. Of course, we must not be too
romantic in our interpretation of the outlook of the masses. These
sentiments often attached themselves to the given theology with
dogmatic fierceness; and in the background superstitious fears were
only too apt to smolder. But, on the whole, it is not false to say
that the gospel story of the life of Jesus with its simple pathos and
vivid diction appealed to the masses, while his personality met their
ideal of nobility and moral grandeur. Jesus, the man who was also the
Son of God, who came upon earth for them and for some reason died for
them, affected them as nothing else could. And is it not a wonderful
conception? Yes; in the right setting, there has been none grander in
all literature. It is a masterpiece of lyricized mythology. But, when
we have outlived its setting, it can affect us only as great literary
masterpieces do, when we consent to throw ourselves into the aesthetic
attitude.

The pragmatic and aesthetic qualities of a story do not guarantee its
historical truth. In fact, research has shown that practically all the
most charming anecdotes which have come down to us will not stand
critical examination. The historian of Christianity is well aware of
this situation. The general movement of enlightened religious thought
from the more mythical element to the career of Jesus, while it bears
witness to a more wide-spread interest in his personality, also
testifies to a growing doubt of the validity of the theological
constructions which have been woven around his figure. We wish to
know, if possible, exactly what he thought {76} and taught. Were we
able to determine this, we feel that much of the distorting atmosphere
would be withdrawn. But is not this, itself, one of those deluding
hopes which the attitude of compromise fosters? Do we not know in our
heart of hearts that the beliefs of Jesus reflected the beliefs of his
time, just as the beliefs of Kant or Luther are functions of the ages
in which they lived? But we have here an hypothesis which can be
tested by historical data. Were the views of Jesus like those of his
age? Nothing has come out more clearly than just t