Sanglé3 to make out Jesus a paranoiac, no more sane personality than his appears in the annals of mankind.

"Mysticism," says Granger, "is that attitude of mind which divines and moves toward the spiritual in the common things of life, not a partial and occasional operation of the mind under the guidance of far-fetched analogies." Mysticism has also been defined as a "type of religion which is characterized by an immediate consciousness of personal relationship with the Divine." Again mystics are said to have a vivid consciousness of the "Beyond "- one of the vague impersonal terms by which philosophers like to avoid saying 'God." Once more mysticism is said to consist of a consciousness that more than ourselves is impinging on the skirts of our being." If these definitions of mysticism are true, we should expect to find in Jesus the supreme mystic, for it would be difficult to find another whose mind moved as unswervingly as his "toward the spiritual in the common things of life," not partially and occasionally, but as continually and steadily as the needle points to the pole. Jesus called the "Beyond "-"the more than ourselves that impinges on the skirts of our being "-" Father," and it is a truth concerning him, though it has become a commonplace to say it, that his consciousness of immediate communion with the Father surpassed that of other men. It was the atmosphere of his life; the inspiration of all his efforts; his refreshment when weary. These, however, are statements proof of which will be submitted below.

Before taking up that proof, it is necessary to say a word concerning the sources of our knowledge of Jesus. In speaking to a group of well-trained theological students, it is unnecessary to take time to explain why one does not employ the Gospel of John as a source. It is a later interpretation of the nature of Jesus, not an authentic biography of him. As

3 La folie de Jesus, Paris, 1910, 1911. Per contra, see, A. Schweitzer, Expositor, Ser. 8, vol. vi, 328 ff., 439 ff., 554 ff.

one of the first great theological interpretations of him, it is magnificent, but the Jesus depicted here moves across the pages, not as one who shares the pains and mystical inspirations of our humanity, but as a heavenly Being from another sphere. This is true, even if we recognize, as the writer does, that in some respects the Fourth Gospel reflects the mind and spirit of Jesus better than the Synoptics. Its author's exalted conception of the deity of Christ blinded his eyes to the mystical experiences which the Master shared with humanity. The sources of information for our subject are, accordingly, the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, however, themselves rest upon sources, and concerning these sources there are contending theories. According to the most widely accepted theory two main sources underlie Matthew and Luke. They are Mark (or an Ur-Marcus) and Q. According to Professor Burton's theory, which appeals more to me, there are five sources, Mark, the Logia of Matthew, a Galilean document, and two Peraean documents. The question of analysis, however, will not seriously affect our discussion. Whichever of the two views of the sources one holds, most of the passages that come into consideration in estimating the mysticism of Jesus can be traced back to a very early date. This is especially true, if one admits, as I am compelled to do, that the arguments of Harnack and Torrey by which the date of the Book of Acts is pushed back to 63 A. D. are valid. In that case the Gospel of Luke cannot have been written later than 60-61 A. D., and the Gospel of Mark and the other sources would be still earlier.1

Bearing these remarks in mind, let us see what our sources have to say of the mysticism of Jesus. The earliest indication of a mystical tendency in Jesus comes to us from the "infancy narrative of Luke- a source outside all the

This early date of the Synoptic Gospels has not yet been generally accepted by New Testament scholars.

66

main documents enumerated above. If the Gospel was written not later than the early part of 61 A. D., the document must have been composed not more than thirty years from the crucifixion. The event narrated is said, however, to have occurred when Jesus was twelve years old. The evidence for it cannot, therefore, be called contemporary. There is about the narrative, nevertheless, a verisimilitude, an appropriateness, a consonance with the later habits and character of Jesus, that lead one to accord it a high degree of credibility. I refer, of course, to the words of Jesus uttered when his parents, finding him in the Temple, reproved him for having stayed behind alone in Jerusalem, when they set out for home. Did you not know," said Jesus, "that I must be in the things of my Father?" You do not need to be reminded that interpreters differ as to the meaning of his words. Some take "in the things of my Father" to refer to the Temple, and so understand the boy to say in substance: "It is strange that you should be at a loss where to look for me! Did you not know that I would be in my Father's house?". According to this interpretation, the mystical feeling of the youthful Jesus is very manifest. Not many boys of twelve have been so conscious of the Fatherhood of God as to linger joyfully in temple or church after the family have gone home from sheer gladness to be in the Father's house! The more familiar interpretation of the phrase is, however, conveyed in the rendering of the Authorized Version: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" If this be the meaning, the words are still witness to a unique mysticism on the part of the youthful Jesus, for his words betray an "attitude of mind which divines and moves towards the spiritual." The joy of the spiritual fascinated him, and so absorbed his thought that he remained behind in the Temple with strangers.

If any doubt attaches to the historicity of the narrative

just considered, none whatever attaches to the account of the baptism of Jesus. It forms a part of the Gospel of Mark, one of our earliest sources, and was regarded as so important that each of the other Gospels repeated it. It forms a part of what Professor Bacon twenty years ago happily denominated the autobiography of Jesus.5 I am not sure but that Bacon has since changed his mind about the matter, but, even if he has, in my judgment his cogent argument stands. At the time that Jesus drew forth from Peter, in the retirement at Cæsarea Philippi, the confession "Thou art the Christ," Jesus himself drew aside for a little the veil of his inner life and recounted enough of his experience at the Baptism and Temptation, so that they could understand on what, in his own soul, the Messianic claim rested. The account of the Baptism and Temptation is then autobiographical material. According to the earliest form of this narrative:

"Straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: and a voice came out of the heavens, 'Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.'"

These words clearly record an experience of Jesus. It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending; it was Jesus who heard the voice saying: "Thou art my beloved Son." After the manner of Oriental speech, the language clearly describes in objective terms an experience in the soul of Jesus. This experience, was, however, so intense that Jesus heard the voice speaking. Writers on mysticism tell us that, “In many instances, especially with persons of peculiar psychical 5"The Autobiography of Jesus," in the American Journal of Theology, II, 1898, pp. 527-560.

The labored argument of writers like Nathaniel Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, New York, 1905, p. 262 ff., by which it is attempted to show that all this material is invention, is peculiarly unconvincing.

disposition, the mystical experience is attended with unusual phenomena, such as automatic voices or visions, profound body changes, swoons, or ecstasies. These physical phenomena are, however, only the more intense and excessive resonances and reverberations which in milder degree accompany all psychical processes." 7

From the point of view of healthy-minded experts on mysticism this passage in Mark records a great mystical experience of Jesus. It marked the point when his earlier profound but not fully developed consciousness of intimate relations with that Great Beyond that we call God reached an epoch-making point in its development, and he realized that he was in a unique sense the Son of God, and that, whatever the real content of the Messianic expectations of the seers of his race might be, it was his mission to fulfill them. When one pictures to himself what such Messianic expectations as those set forth in the Enoch Parables (Enoch, chapters 46 and 48) meant to the devout Jew, what visions of exalted destiny, of preëxistence, and of future mission they must have evoked when, also, one considers what the fine and sensitive psychical organization of Jesus must have been, one realizes a little the intensity of the experience that was his at the moment of his baptism. No wonder that his eye seemed to see a vision, and his ear to hear a voice!

For the events which followed, we still have the authority of the autobiography, for the account of the Temptation is a part of the autobiography. The narrative of the Temptation formed, according to one school of critics, a part of the document Q; according to another, a part of G, or the Galilean document. In either case it was a part of an evangel which was composed but little, if any, later than the Gospel of Mark, and its historical value is as good.

It has been assumed above that the unique sonship of God of which Jesus became conscious at the Baptism carried with 7 Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, IX, 1917, p. 84.