2110-3-10-17

34 Great King Street Edinburgh.

7th July 1921.

My dear John.

You are indeed far ben in the Kingdom. The trouble you've taken about the blessed scrawl is really far too good of you, you will have treasure in Heaven indeed. Why should you hawk the good news about: a great figure like yourself, for a mighty poor one like me. It's been awfully kind of you, but just send me the old thing and if I want to publish it: I'll find some bloke perhaps, perhaps not.

But I wish you'd not bother about my feelings and tell me what Nicoll said

2

As far as part 1 is concerned it isn't a matter of Biblical scholarship: in the sense of any -thing technical and abstruse, It is merely an account of what the ideas in the teaching of Jesus are in broad outline. On this one person may take one view, and another another,

I believe my view to be correct, and e.g. all the propositions I state in the last page of part I to be sound; also the part dealing with the sermon on the mount, and the sections 2 and 3, which describe what the Good News is. If modern Biblical Scolarship says otherwise then I think it wrong: but I'd be interested to hear what it says on these subjects, do you

3

know, all the books that deal with the ideas of Jesus are "Goody-goody" books, written in an insufferably unctuous manner, and appealing to nobody but "professionals" or "semiprofessionals" (all but a few of them)

The books that have had far the greatest reput ation are Clutton Brocks "Kingdom" and Seeleys "Ecce Homo" just because they are free largely from humbug. I daresay I've overdone the other side a little and portrayed Jesus too much as a "diner out": but the object is to counteract the other tendency which sees Jesus always walking about Galilee with a halo on, and quite dehumanizes him and takes all meaning out of the whole affair - The

4

fact is that it doesn't want to find any meaning: It wants Jesus only as a peg to hang the Nicene Creed & the Westminster Confession on: just a terminus a quo of the Church.

Excuse me lapsing into argument.

Part 2. does contain a lot of matter that depends on a more or less abstruse study of Gospel history etc: so do the notes, - In the notes I renounce claim to authority where I go beyond my depth e.g. in the one on Apocalypse, & on Greek Thought.

But I'd be very much obliged to get any views that Nicoll has put in his letter: so that I might correct if necessary. But don't write him again for very likely he thinks the stuff not

5

good enough or too heterodox. Nobody would ever expect to get him to publish it (he's not a publisher is he?): it would prob ably send down the circulation of the B.W. 25 per cent. And of course lots of publishers would be extremely shy of it on the same grounds.

The ideas of Jesus were extremely startling at all times. And the mere process of restating them is bound to be equally startling: especially the people who think they know, and have never even reflected on them. Clutton Brock's book startled me a lot, but I could see at once it was right.

As for my own interests, publishing a book on Jesus at all may be a little against you at the bar - or indeed publishing a book on