Gambar halaman

by the way in which the author throughout his work places the two lines of teaching side by side, never mixing them up. It is not for us to discuss this critical analysis, the reasons of which are contained in the untranslated part of the author's work. Dr. Wendt has no doubt that, whatever may be the effect of future criticism on details, his final position will remain firm. We are rather curious to inquire what the effect will be on the old views of Christ's life and teaching. The summary of final results given in the second volume enables us to judge on this point.

Dr. Wendt maintains most strenuously as the result of his inquiry the agreement of the Johannine and the Matthew discourses. This is a significant result when we remember the means by which it has been obtained. The critical methods have been applied in their utmost stringency, the Gospel text has been dissected and split up without regard to traditional views, passages like John xvii. 5 and viii. 58 have been reduced to their lowest meaning; yet the old results are very largely adhered to. “From the comparison of the contents of the Johannine discourses of Jesus with the contents of His teaching recognized in the main synoptical sources, a most highly significant harmony results upon all points, not indeed in regard to the form and details, which rather show diversity, but certainly in regard to the implicit religious view and mode of judgment. This harmony is all the more noteworthy, because it is manifested at the very points of the teaching of Jesus which did not belong to the substance of the Christian teaching in post-Apostolic times, but rather are characteristic elements of the teaching of Jesus recognizable from our oldest synoptical sources, for which the Christian Church generally had no true understanding." The author then indicates a number of topics, including the main doctrines of Christ discussed in these volumes, of which the assertion is true. “I believe that even if one sought to give an account of the contents of the teaching of the Johannine discourses of Jesus without regard to the synoptical records, one would require to give no essentially different arrangement.” He also gives as the “main result” of his critical investigation, “ the recognition of the dependence of the great discourses of this Gospel on an Apostolic source, which originates from the same author as our Johannine Epistles, and which we can yet with tolerable certainty distinguish from the historical editing of our fourth evangelist.”

Another result to be noted is the impression of Christ's teaching as a whole-of its unity, consistency, moral depth and grandeur (vol. ii. p. 389-397). As far as it goes, the author's account is all that we could desire. From a different standpoint we have no doubt that the results arrived at imply a great deal more than the author acknowledges; but we are anxious here rather to take account of points of agreement than of points of difference. " The highest thing we have to say of Jesus is that with Him teaching and life were perfectly blended. His teaching rested on His own inner experience; His works and sufferings, on the other hand, were a vivid representation and a grand attestation of His teaching. Thus He was more than a mere teacher of a new religion ; He was at the same time the perfect representative of the religious relationship to God which He taught. In this inward harmony of holy teaching and living, He moved in the presence of His disciples, and we can well comprehend that from the short space of time during which they were with Him, although they were able to understand and hold fast only a little of the contents of His teaching, which struck them at first as something so new and strange, yet they retained the indelible impression of having seen and experienced in their midst in His human appearance the perfect revelation of God.”

The translator has evidently done his work with the greatest care. A little more freedom and independence on his part, especially in translating instead of reproducing foreign idioms, would have been a great improvement-e.g., what is gained by retaining “working over” instead of saying “revise"? The former is simply unintelligible to English readers.



John MACPHERSON, M.A., Findhorn. Edinburgh: Clark. 1892. THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. By the Rev. Professsor G. G. FINDLAY,

B.A., Headingley College, Leeds (The Erpositor's Bible). London: Hodder &

Stoughton. 1892. AMIDST the abundance of excellent work bestowed during the past twenty years or so on most of the Pauline Epistles, that to the Ephesians has suffered until quite recently from comparative neglect. Partly no doubt the difficulties of its exegesis, partly the feeling that the questions surrounding its origin and destination were hardly ripe for satisfactory discussion, a feeling which the last work on the subject, viz., Holtzmann's Kritik (1872) did not a little to strengthen; and, in England, the yearly expectation—now, alas! finally abandoned-of an edition which should take its place along with Lightfoot's classic commentaries on Galatians, Philippians, and Colossians : all this is enough in some measure to account for the lull of discussion on the subject for so many years.

The articles by Milligan in the Encyclopædia Britannica, and by Schmiedel in the new Ersch and Gruber, broke the long silence, and were followed by von Soden's able pair of articles in the Jahrb f. Prot. Theol. for 1887. Then, from 1890 onwards, has come a shower of editions. First, Mr. Beet's, with his well-known merits, but scarcely equal to his Romans or Corinthians; then in 1891 Klöpper and v. Soden, both thoroughly able and scholarly, but, as the present reviewer believes, unduly adverse to the Epistle; also a posthumous “opus imperfectum ” from the hand of Beck, and, lastly, in the present year, the commentaries now to be reviewed.

1. A thoroughly critical commentary on Ephesians, with introduction and notes representative of the best Biblical scholarship, has been, and remains, a sore need of the English Biblical student. The English Meyer is the only approximation to it, and is in some respects already out of date. The same is true of Ellicott, the best of our native contemporaries, but altogether deficient in “ Einleitung.” Those who turn to Mr. Macpherson's work in quest of what we have described will not find it. They will find work as good as thoroughly uncritical work can possibly be: that is all. Mr. Macpherson has indeed read widely and up to date. His enumeration of works bearing on the Epistle (pp. 96-106) is good and fairly complete, although his estimate of their quality must be taken cum grano salis (witness his failure to appreciate the calibre of Dr. R. W. Dale, p. 105 and passim ; but he says the civil thing, p. 331, note). Not only does he make use of Westcott's Hebrews, and of Klöpper, v. Soden, and Beck, but of the fragments of Heracleon (Texts and Studies, 1891). No pains have been spared to collect materials from every source, and in this respect Mr. Macpherson's work has evidently been a labour of love. But it is impossible to overlook the entire absence of that historical spirit which is the indispensable condition of lasting work whether in introduction, in textual criticism, or in exegesis.

Taking the latter point first, Mr. Macpherson is as a rule sober, and always reverent: where the question is one of common sense rather than of scholarship he is usually right, e.g., on the source of Eph. v. 14 (but why not compare the decisive géypattal of 1 Cor. ii. 9 ?), or on the “prophets” of ii. 20 (where yet we have to reckon with the ypapai npoontikal of Rom. xvi. 26, in a context so similar to Eph.

But what can be said of such a philological monster as the rendering of

iii. 5).

οικονομία by “ the law of the house ” (p. 240 on iii. 3: the right parallel is surely 1 Cor. ix. 17)? A more historical view of the Epistle would have led the editor to a very different treatment of the contrast of υμάς and ημείς, ii. 1, 3, p. 185 sq., and would certainly have preserved him from setting aside the obviously parallel contrast of the words (i. 12, 13) as “ casual”! Mr. Macpherson is, of course, within his rights in following Chrysostom and Meyer (iii. 1) against all the other best commentators in inserting the verb “ am "; but he goes too far (v. 2) in claiming for Ünép a “substitutionary” sense. The preposition may be used to denote a vicarious act, but cannot connote, as åvti does, the vicarious idea. On v. 30, 31, Mr. Macpherson is less happy than Beet, whom he disparages in the footnote, and certainly less so than Mr. Findlay. This latter passage brings us to the genera] subject of Mr. Macpherson's treatment of textual criticism, which is profoundly unsatisfactory. That the English version, not the original Greek of the Epistle, is the basis of the commentary is, in a work of this scale, a mistake : it leads to questions of text and grammar being glanced at in a desultory fashion, or merely on an emergency, instead of being treated, as they should be, critically and systematically as the foundation of the whole. But even as it is, there is no excuse for the loose and amateurish way in which the text of the Epistle is discussed. For textual principles Mr. Macpherson leans on Godet (p. 50); it would have been better if he had im. bibed even more of that scholar's exegetical spirit, but drawn his textual principles from a native source. It may be laid down as Mr. Macpherson's principle that subjective considerations outweigh any amount of documentary evidence. The interpolation in v. 30, just alluded to, is a flagrant case, but not more so than several others, e.g., the retention of tip ayánnu in i. 15; while in some cases interesting textual points are wholly ignored, e.g., pp. 250, 256. As to the discussion of the muchvexed reading év 'Emeow in i. 1 (pp. 45 sqq.) the blunders and confusion defy all description. If the writer has not mastered Tischendorf's lucid digest of the evidence, he may be excused for failing to understand the bearings of the patristic data ; but he might at any rate take care to understand Westcott and Hort before roundly rebuking them for a "dogmatic” statement which is precisely the opposite of their real meaning. At this point, textual criticism merges into introduction, whither it will not be necessary to follow our writer very far. The introduction (pp. 1-106) is lengthy enough to have given the English reader what he so badly needs, a thorough sisting of all the historical and linguistic difficulties which enter into the problem of the origin of the Epistle. But linguistic and philological matters are conspicuous by their absence. Instead, we have to begin with, thirty-two pages on “ Ephesus and the Ephesian Church,” of which the very little that directly or indirectly concerns the Epistle might have been disposed of in a tenth of the space. The rest is either dilution or padding, not always coherent; e.g., while on p. 25 we learn that the Ephesian residence of St. John left no marked impression there, we find on p. 29 an Ephesian bishop a century later " boldly affirming the Johannine tradition and doctrine." The only other point worth mention here is that the writer follows Weizsäcker in taking èonplouáxnoa (1 Cor. xv. 32) in the literal sense. Most students will, I think, be as little disposed to follow the illustrious German in turning meta. phor into fact in this instance, as in sublimating fact into allegory in that of Philemon and Onesimus.

The authenticity of the Epistle (pp. 32-44) is treated too much in vacuo : where almost everything depends on details, general statements are of little use to any body. The destination of the Epistle is the subject of a long and on the whole very weak discussion (pp. 45-69). As the reviewer's estimate of the evidence has recently

[ocr errors]


been submitted to the public (THE THINKER, August, 1892, pp. 119-127) little need be said here. The question of text has been referred to already. Mr. Macpherson is an uncompromising defender not only of the words èv 'Emeow, but of the exclusively Ephesian destination of the letter. The main question (p. 55 sq.) is of the bearing of i. 15, iii. 2, 4, iv. 21, on the problem. What Mr. Macpherson has to say is neither striking nor concise. On the “character and type of doctrine" (pp. 69-86). which is of course a crucial test of authenticity, and might profitably have been treated before it, Mr. Macpherson is on congenial ground; he gives a useful summary of the views of Köstlin and Pfleiderer, with a criticism and conclusion of his own. Although the student will get a better idea of the leading thought of the letter from Milligan's article in the Encyl. Brit., there is not much here calling for adverse criticism. Mr. Macpherson's own doctrinal point of view is perhaps rather prominent. Not that the present reviewer has any quarrel with “a moderate sensible Calvinism ” (p. 192), or indeed with “moderate sensible” views of any kind. But throughout the volume there is a tendency to bring in the controversy in question without necessity, e.g., pp. 200 sq., 263, 121, and p. 37, where the opening thanksgiving of chap. i. is said to be “occupied with a discussion of the subject! Those to whom Calvinism versus Arminianism is the one burning question are notoriously given to finding materials for their pet controversy in the most unlikely places. But students who regard that ancient battle about the unknown much as Milton regarded the wars of our Saxon ancestors will not be tempted to read it between the lines of this Epistle. Mr. Macpherson gives pp. 86.94 to the question of "date and relation to other epistles." His views on this subject are peculiar, and indeed eccentric. Rightly rejecting the idea that Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were written at Cæsarea, he yet places them at the beginning of the Roman captivity, Philippians having been written two years before,—at Cæsarea! The reason for this strange view appears to be the writer's wholesome awe of those German critics who reject the idea of a second captivity or of a release from the two years' Roman imprisonment,-coupled with a resolutely apologetic attitude with reference to the Pastoral Epistles. As a result, we have the culminating paradox of the Epistle to Titus being severed from its two companions, and put back to the date of 2 Corinthians ! What next? The discussion on the relation of our Epistle to that to the Colossians contains nothing calling for comment. After a table of contents, there follows a bibliographical chapter, which has been already noticed.

The volume bas a somewhat liberal allowance of small errors, most of which may be classed as misprints; e.g. p. 10 sq., “Appollonius” (repeatedly); p. 21, “Colosse"; p. 40, “ interlopator”; p. 42 note, “ wissenschaftliche” for “ Protestantische"; p. 86, “ vigour” for “rigour"; p. 126, " v16-” for “vio-"; p. 183," pueda" wrongly accented; p. 191, "truth ” for “wrath"; p. 358, a Greek word without a breathing; p. 405 note, “ Clero.” for “Claromontanus.” The type, it is needless to say, is of the excellence usual in Messrs. Clark's publications. The English on the whole is clear and good, though scarcely terse. But “the entire adherents of the Tübingen school” (p. 42) is awkwardly ambiguous, while " rectoral justice” (p. 342) is worse.

It is the duty of a reviewer to take note of faults, and the present reviewer has done this duty in no invidious spirit. He hopes that his remarks may not have the effect of deterring the student from placing on his shelves an industrious and in many respects meritorious commentary on a somewhat insufficiently worked-out Epistle.

2. It is a pleasant and stimulating transition from the study of the book just noticed to that of Mr. Findlay's exposition. While this work calls for far less extended

[ocr errors]


notice in detail, it takes a distinctly higher rank both from the literary and the exegetical point of view. Mr. Findlay's commentary is avowedly popular and homiletical, not scientific. But the reader at once recognises just what he misses in Mr. Macpherson's work,

,-a genuine historical sense, and a clear steady appreciation of critical questions, which have evidently been thoughtfully weighed before the expository lectures were written. In this respect Mr. Findlay reminds us of Dr. Dale, but for the existence of whose lectures on Ephesians the present writer's performance would certainly take the first rank among works on the Epistle for the general reader. Mr. Findlay would probably deprecate, and the reviewer has no intention of entering upon, a comparison of the two works. But he can cordially assure even those who best know and value Dale on the Ephesians that they will derive both profit and enjoyment from the study of this new volume.

The commentary, unlike that in some other volumes of the series, is continuous, covering the whole Epistle, and is subdivided into thirty chapters, the leading idea of which is indicated by a title to each. The style of the lectures, as we may call them, is brilliant, sometimes a little rhetorical, but, considering their homiletical character, agreeably concise. But is “ bestowment” (pp. 34, 241) a good English word ? And it jars on us to hear of St. Paul's“ views" of Christ (p. 190). The writer brings in very many subjects by way of illustration, but generally to the point, and often very happily. Occasionally he reads too much into the Greek; e.g., I can scarcely see how it will bear the sense, pregnant with warning, which he extracts from kai motos in i. 1. Occasionally in pointing an epigram he is led to exaggeration : that “St. Paul agreed with Socrates and Plato in holding that virtue is knowledge ” is at best only a half-truth. But even where Mr. Findlay provokes dissent, he is suggestive and worth reading. On the question of the address of the Epistle, Mr. Findlay, while rejecting the disputed words in i. 1, is in substantial agreement with the present reviewer. On the question of authorship, also, he has seized the right point, and puts it exceedingly well. The bearing of the opening thanksgiving on the question of Divine predestination (p. 28 sqq.) is very delicately and wisely handled : St. Paul is allowed to speak for himself. Very just, again, are the remarks (p. 123) on the “ double reconciliation,” in which hostile critics of the Epistle have somewhat unfairly detected a non-Pauline trait. On the relation of St. Paul's teaching to the historical Christ there is a passage which bears the mark of thoughtful study (pp. 278-280) : the evidential function of miracle (p. 54), the phenomena of religious conversion (pp. 121, 122), the real meaning of “ truth” as a virtue (p. 330), are a few among very many subjects which are freshly and suggestively treated. The richness and variety of such subjects makes one regret the absence of an index, such as facilitates the use of some volumes of the series. Mr. Findlay has some strong remarks (e.g., pp. 149, 195) against the exclusiveness of Churchmen in regard to Nonconformists. Without wishing insincerely to minimize points of real difference between different bodies of Christians, the present reviewer cordially recognizes in this volume the signs of a profoundly rooted unity, which speaks of reunion, perhaps in the far future, but yet to be realized according to the measure in which we all strive to attain the full knowledge of the Son of God. We wish Mr. Findlay many readers, and among them there will be those who will read, and read again.


By Robert Tuck, B.A. London: Elliot Stock. THERE is a prevailing tendency toward a perilous undervaluing of the Old Testament Scriptures. The criticism of its literary features is in danger of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »