Gambar halaman

standing before the moral sense of the race as the unsurpassed, unsurpassable, and unequalled ethical ideal.” But the Son of God did not only picture the character which His kingdom seeks for its subjects, but He also provided the means and powers to produce it out of our fallen nature. He brought again the fountains of the Divine power and purity down on the plane of humanity by the incarnation. For all this Gospel age till the end shall come, He has established, under the Holy Ghost, means and

powers of regeneration and renovation, of washing and quickening, of guidance and strengthening, of culture and elevation, in which, after and beyond the forgiveness of sins, each believer is to become “a new creature,” the things of the old fallen, immoral life passing away, and all things becoming new, the law of eternal duty and righteousness, not annulled, but established and written in the heart made alive in its love. Forgiveness, justification by faith, stands as only the first step in the application of redemption personally; beyond that, and pre-eminently, Christianity means a life, the recovery and perfection of human nature in its ethical character and action, enthroning the principles of love, duty, and righteousness in the conscience and the heart, and bringing personal life into rhythmic, musical harmony with eternal righteousness and goodness.

But the great Divine purpose has in view social regeneration. Each man is saved as a unit, but he is a unit of a race. There is a human solidarity, into which everyone's life is organized, that has been disordered and agonized by sin, and is to be redeemed to order, goodness, and blessedness. So social regeneration is part of the supreme ethical intent of Christianity.

Though Christianity has done much in this sphere, it is now universally recog. nized that it has not yet been rightly or fully applied to social problems, and for the victory of truth and righteousness. Everywhere there is a deep and no longer silent sense of evil and disjointedness in civil, social, and economic relations. Art, science, invention, philosophy, political economy, co-operative schemes, all the enormous activity and colossal work of recent progress, have no healing for the evil, and must fail to bring in the new day, the social regeneration, the age of right, and brotherhood, and love, and peace. Evolution, in its far away golden age, by the everlasting struggle for existence, the battle of strength against weakness, contains no prophecy of the millennium. For the millennium must come, not in the victory of strength, but of goodness. Let it be for ever remembered that it is not by agnostic negations, but by the old truths of a Divine Saviour, through a vicarious atonement, justification by faith, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost, that this ethical result can

There is no other dynamic. This is humanity's only hope. “If the followers of Christ--and be it remembered Christianity works to this great goal through individual life—would only apply the teachings and principles and powers of Christianity fully, in all their many-sided relations and influence, first to their personal character, and then to everything around them, wherever their organic life touches, in the family, community, business, politics, government of towns and cities, and all inter-human relations and economic questions, in the loving spirit of Christ and the brotherhood of man, according to “ the golden rule,” truly the firstfruits of paradise restored would appear and ripen. A better state than the best dreams of Utopias would become solid facts.

THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS. By John HENRY BARROWS, D.D., Chicago (The Homiletic Review).— It is not likely that the New Testament will escape the searching, and sometimes hostile, criticism which has been applied to the Old Testament. Students have already recognized that there are additions to the original manuscripts, and possibly alterations of it, made by later editors. To what extent


this is the case, how far it affects the “historicity,” and how it bears relation to the doctrines taught by the Church in the second century, will be very freely discussed during the next few years.

Dr. Barrows asks the question, “ Are the Gospels true histories, to be received as such by candid students to-day?" These four books are evidently unlike the biographies that are issued from the modern press. They are to some extent, perhaps to a large extent, the reports of the spoken testimonies of persons who were acquainted with the Nazarene Prophet. It may be said that they give the impression of truthfulness to the reader. They are simple and self-evidencing narratives. We cannot think that their writers were either weak-minded, fanciful, or untruthful. The four evangelists give no play to their emotions or their fancies. Very different is the impression produced on the reader by the Apocryphal Gospels, or the legends of Buddha. In estimating the impression of the Gospels it is, however, necessary to distinguish between the impression made by the Synoptists, and that made by the fourth Gospel, which carries with it so much of the individuality of the writer.

The Gospels are the narratives of men who witnessed the life of Christ, or of those who were the friends of eye-witnesses. This assertion rests on the fact that they are written in Hellenistic Greek, and on the testimony of the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries. It is, however, remarkable that in no case does the author claim his authorship, and it must be admitted that the matter rests on the early traditions, and on the reasonableness of argumentative assumptions.

It may be urged that the differences between the records of these four Gospels provide a valuable argument for their historicity and genuineness. " The discrepancies between them forbid the theory of collusion and fraud, and tend to strengthen the conviction of the candour and faithfulness of the men who wrote of what they saw and believed.” But this argument will have to be set in new form to meet the suggestion that the Gospels, as we now have them, have been edited in the interests of second century Church doctrine. It will be necessary for us to recover, if it ever is possible for us to do so, the genuine productions of the original writers or speakers. If we could do so, we might discover that the discrepancies largely belonged to the editing.

The evidence is strengthened by the testimony of Paul; only we must distinguish between his witness to certain facts which are also recorded in the Gospels, and his assumed testimony to the Gospels as wholes. No doubt the Gospels were early accepted as true, but were they so accepted because the Church required such belief, or were they so accepted apart from Church demands. Unless the latter can be shown, the argument can be turned against the Gospels.

The rapid spread of the Christian Church is an evidence of the truth of the Gospel history, but that is a very different thing from the truthfulness of certain books in which the history is given. There can be no reasonable doubt of the great Christian facts, but this does not make unreasonable the critical examination of the channels through which the facts are conveyed to us. Dr. Barrows keeps too much in the region of familiar common-place. His article may interest and help ordinary Bible-class students, but it can only be aggravating to any one touched with the modern critical spirit.

THE HISTORY AND DEFINITION OF HIGHER CRITICISM. By Rev. HOWARD OSGOOD, D.D. (The Bibliotheca Sacra.)-Diestel describes Eichhorn's Higher Criticism as “ careful separation of the original and later parts of a book." Criticism in its simplest, widest meaning is nothing more than decision, judgment. By necessity we are all critics; we are compelled to balance the “for and against

[ocr errors]


of all matters brought before us every day that we may reach intelligent decisions. But the term “criticism" is also used in a special sense, of the art of judging works of literature or art. It is with criticism and the critic in their technical signification, that we are now concerned. Birth is as indispensable to a critic as to a poet. Learning does not make the critic. That a critic's opinions may gain the assent of any large number of the well-informed and judicious in his own line of study there is need of a large, genial, healthy mind, open to light from every source, of exact learning almost encyclopædic, of judgment as honest and impartial as the scales of justice, and of ability to state in simple terms, without pretence and without passion, his own views. The personal equation, which asserts itself even in mathematics, forms a large part of all criticism and cannot be deducted from it. The whole criticism, in every part and portion of it, is also determined by the point of view taken by the critic. If a man believes in supernatural inspiration, his whole criticism of the Bible will be determined by that view. If one is lax in his views and practice of morality, he cannot hide himself so that his criticism will not uncover him.

J. G. Eichhorn, the son of a protestant German pastor, was born in 1752; studied at Göttingen, for four years from 1770, under J. D. Michaelis, Heyne, and others ; became professor of Oriental languages at Jena, in 1775, removed to Göttingen in 1788, and remained there until his death in 1827. “ Unwearied diligence, ceaseless activity of mind, great facility of expression, boundless dogmatism, insatiable ambition,” were his salient characteristics. Eichhorn says, in his Introduction to Old Testament, “My greatest labour has been turned to a field hitherto unworked, the investigation of the various writings of the Old Testament by help of the higher criticism, a name not new to any humanist.” He does not offer any definition the term, or the rules and principles by which higher criticism is to gain its positive results in the most delicate literary investigations. Eichhorn calls it “ higher criticism” because he makes it precede " lower criticism,” and gives rules and principles by which it must test single words and readings. This, however, is inverting the natural order, for surely the scientific investigation of all literary productions must begin with the multitudinous facts of the text, and until they are settled by the well known laws of textual criticism all founding of conclusions upon the text is guess-work.

The clue to the discovery of higher criticism is found in Eichhorn's mingling great and little criticism with higher and lower criticism. Dionysius of Thrace (B.C. 80) says,

“ The method of writing and reading the written language, of knowing the form of the letters, and their combinations, that is, syllables, the ancients called little philology; they called a theory about the poets great philology.” Eichhorn makes his higher criticism the equivalent of great philology, but turns the Alexandrian method upside down in making higher criticism the antecedent and director of lower or textual criticism. He endeavoured to stamp higher criticism as a true division of criticism in general, but it found no favour with the masters of classical criticism in his day, nor has it ever been accepted by them. Of German Biblical critics, we find Planck does not use higher criticism. Jahn says, “ Higher criticism is in reality nothing else than critical conjecture." De Wette defines criticism, but does not mention higher criticism. Lücke never mentions it. Schleiermacher rejects both the term and its proposed distinction. Drechsler speaks of higher criticism as equivalent only to rationalistic criticism. Thiersch, Lutz, Ebrard, Rothe, Immer, Weiss, Perthes, and others, never mention higher criticism. Even Kuenen, of Holland, never speaks of it. For his exact and clear thinking that term was too empty, deceptive, and supercilious. Its retention is simply due to the fact that the rationalistic school of Old

He says,

Testament critics in Germany, in despite of all that classical and other Biblical writers have said, have used the term to express their method. They use it as though it really meant something scientifically definite, and were the highest possible reach of scientific exegesis. They have never explained its principles and processes any more than Eichhorn explained them. And men of the first standing as critics utterly reject the term and its proposed distinctions, not because they are opposed to criticism in general, or to any special department of criticism, but because, as a term, it is unscientific, unstable, meaningless, and the distinction from lower criticism sought to be made by it is false. “Unless higher criticism means the whole sphere of criticism it is self-condemned as an instrument to use upon the Bible, or on any great work, either of antiquity or of the present. If higher criticism, as now defined by a living writer, means criticism only of the human side of the Bible, its incompetency and incompleteness is self-confessed, unless the Bible is only a human book." Dr. Briggs would made this name represent all progress in Biblical criticism.

“ Criticism divides itself into various branches in accordance with the departments of knowledge: I. Philosophical Criticism. II. Historical Criticism. III. Scientific Criticism.” “ Biblical criticism is one of the sections of literary or historical criticism, From Literary Criticism Biblical Criticism derives its chief principles and methods. As literature, it must first be considered as text.”

“Having secured the best text of the writings, criticism devotes itself to the higher task of considering them as to their integrity, authenticity, literary form, and reliability. This is appropriately called Higher Criticism.” Dr. Osgood subjects these explanations to severe examination, and brings out the differences between Dr. Briggs' position and that of Eichhorn.

Prof. F. Brown says, “Higher Criticism deals with the human element in the Bible, and with that under certain aspects only. It has to do simply and only with the literary problems furnished in the Bible. It aims to learn the structure and author. ship of the different books, to study the literary form of the Bible as distinguished from other Biblical matters. .... It is concerned with literary phenomena, with historical situation, with anything that throws light on the problem of how, when, and by whom the books of the Bible were composed. . . . . The Higher or Literary Criticism deals only with the literary form of the Bible.” Dr. Osgood says Dr. Brown is an excellent scholar, “but all his acumen is not sufficient to make a distinction between higher and literary criticism that will bear the slightest scrutiny, or that he himself can preserve."

“A century of intense activity in criticism of all literatures has brought forth new worlds of thought, and introduced severer and more accurate methods of proof. But the history of criticism of literature has proved that nothing is more illusive than the attempted divisions of criticism into certain spheres, and the names given to these divisions. Of all the attempted divisions of criticism, the most unscientific and meaningless is that of Higher Criticism. Its emptiness becomes more plain by every attempted definition."

PAUL AND THE PAROUSIA (Old and New Testament Student).—This is a stud of Paul's letters and some portions of the Acts, with special reference to th statements concerning the second coming of Christ; and it brings into promjsome fresh and interesting facts. The thirteen letters of Paul's fall into f tinctly marked groups. A. The letters to the Thessalonians. (1) 1 Thes from Corinth. (2) 2 Thess., 53 A.D., from Athens. Four years interv Four Great Doctrinal Letters. (1) 1 Cor., Spring of 57 A.D., from

[ocr errors]

2 Cor., Autumn of 57 A.D., from Ephesus. (3) Galatians, Winter of 57 A.D., from Corinth. Another interval of four years. C. The letters of the First Roman Imprisonment. Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, all in the year 62, from Rome. Then an interval of six years. D. The pastoral Epistles. (1) 1 Tim., Summer of 67 A.D., from Macedonia. (2) Titus, Autumn 67 A.D., from Ephesus. (3) 2 Tim., Spring of 68 A,D., from Rome. Each group was written in a year, and was followed by at least four years' silence. Those four years were times of change and growth. We feel, indeed, that we are reading the same author, but the years have made a difference. We ought to expect development in the letters as in the man, for these are the expression of the man as the fruit is the expression of the tree.

There is in Paul's letters a fading of the temporal element in his idea of the coming, until it disappears. His views undergo modification. The letters to the Thessalonians, the first group, are pre-eminently the Epistles of the Parousia. Only in these letters do we find detailed description of that event. The atmosphere of these letters is that of futurity. So intense was the teaching of the first letter that it disarranged ordinary life at Thessalonica, and a second letter became necessary to tell them that while the coming was imminent, it would not be immediate. In the second group, written four years later, the proportion of allusion is notably less. The subject did not fill his mind so completely as before; but he still expects to be living at the Parousia. In the third group, all from Rome in the year 62 A.D., Philemon and Ephesians have no reference; Colossians one doubtful one, and Philippians three, possibly four, but all with the time element omitted. In the last group, the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. and Titus have each one reference; 2 Tim. has several somewhat vague allusions, omitting entirely any idea of time.

The following conclusions are reached. (1) That the Parousia is the main subject of the first group, but occupies less and less prominence in the other three. (2) That the time of the coming is indicated as imminent in the early groups, and ignored in the later ones. (3) That in the first two groups Paul expected to be alive at the coming, and in the last two he expresses no such expectation. (4) That beyond doubt the Parousia occupies less and less space in his writing and thinking. Nowhere does Paul say that Christ will come to reign on earth. Only in one passage in an early letter (1 Cor. vi. 13) does he seem to think of believers as taking active part in the final judgment. As the temporal element in his utterances about the Parousia faded away,

his utterances about his personal decease became more and more clear. In A.D. 52 he expected to be alive at the coming. In 57 he seems to have had the same idea. But a little while after we find intimations of the possibility of his death (2 Cor. v. 10). Four years later, writing to the Philippians, he desires his death; nothing more. Six or seven years later we have the familiar passage, “ The time of my departure is at hand” (2 Tim. iv. 6-8). Each group has characteristic utterance about his death. First, that of silence, simply because he had no idea of dying. Second, the voice of possibility. Third, the voice of probability. Fourth, the voice of certainty. Side by side with the vanishing of the time-element from utterances about the Parousia, there was the increase of utterances concerning death. The fading of the one, and the appearing of the other, were in direct ratio.

Some remarkable changes in Paul's teachings are explained by this change. At first he writes against marriage for Christians, or, at least, in an unsympathetic tone about it: it seems useless in view of the Lord's speedy coming. But gradually he ceases to warn against matrimonial dangers, and commends marital affection, even

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »