Chicago Theological Seminary.

Current discussions in theology, Volume 3 online

. (page 5 of 22)
Online LibraryChicago Theological SeminaryCurrent discussions in theology, Volume 3 → online text (page 5 of 22)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


who is so severe in his criticisms, had been on the
company, would the essential result have been
changed? Would he have been more persuasive
than Davidson, Driver, Cheyne, and W. Robertson
Smith? It may be said, however, that the commis-
sion should have consisted only of scholars and critics
who are in sympathy with each other. But if the
critics named could not persuade the united com-
panies to carry out their views, how could they
persuade the church in England and America,
representing a far wider and more conservative con-
stituency, to adopt their translation? However
learned and critical the work might be it would be a
failure if it did not secure ultimate favor.

The grammatical shortcomings of the Revision
have been indicated, but it is evident that the re-
visers made as radical changes as were possible,
considering the prejudices of scholars and of the
people themselves against too great alterations in a
popular version.

On the whole, we must say that the execution
of this work is a noble tribute to the Christian
scholarship and brotherhood of the nineteenth cen-
tury, and is, at the same time, a clear evidence that
those who would explore the treasures of God's
Word and display them in their unalloyed richness,
must still have recourse to the Hebrew and the
Greek, and that for the minister at least these should
not be dead languages.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



Digitized by VjOOQIC



EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.
NEW TESTAMENT.



Digitized byCjOOQlC



PRESENT STATE

OF

NEW TESTAMENT STUDY.

BY

REV. JAMES T. HYDE,

Professor of New Testament Literature and

Interpretation,

Chicago Theological Seminary.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.
NEW TESTAMENT.



CHAPTER I.

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION.

<^ 1. Need of Defining It, Recent Works}

Introductions may be too prominent. The ves-
tibule may be too large for the building. Prelimi-
naries may involve even essential matters, and
subject them to a kind of provisional treatment^
For such reasons the word "Introduction,"^ as ap-
plied to the Scriptures, should be more sharply
defined. Instead of covering all that is introduc-
tory to their study and exposition, should it not be
limited to their intelligent reception? It includes
at least the history of the sacred books and of their
collection in the Canon.

Rabiger^ prefers the phrase "Biblical Isagogics,'*
and defines it as "the History of the Hebrew-Jewish
literature," including the extra-canonical writings

* We aim to review the literature, American, English and Ger-
man, of 1884-5, so as to indicate its value, and gather from it what
is most important in its New Testament bearings.

* It may be traced back to Adrian of the fifth century. It has
been used so vaguely that Schleiermacher calls it "a science without
limits." With DeWette, Bleek, and Schultze, it goes beyond its
proper province.

' Encyclopadia of Theology^ by Dr. J. F. Ribiger. Edinburgh,
T. & T. Clark, 1884.

Digitized by VjOOQIC



72 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

and excluding the Canon. But nothing is biblical
apart from its cano^icity: nor need we depart from
"the historico-critical standpoint" by distinguishing
between canonical and uncanonical writings.

From the father of New Testament historical
criticism, Dionysius of Alexandria,^ a pupil of Ori-
gen, about A. D. 250, and the father of modern
New Testament criticism, J. S. Semler,^ A. D. I77S»
we came as long ago as 1842 to Reuss* History^
which reached its fifth German edition in 1874, and
is now translated, with its bibliography and index
enlarged. It is not intended as an "Introduction,"
but as a complete and independent history. It has
five divisions, relating to the origin, collection, pres-
ervation, dissemination and use of the sacred books.
It is divided not by distinct periods but by related
facts. It is packed full of the details of criticism,
but is broadly rationalistic, and it hardly represents
the latest scholarship.

Reuss includes among the Scriptures not only
the books recognized as authentic, but "all writings
which have at any time been referred to the Apostles
and their inspiration, "and treats the New Testament
Apocrypha as sacred, indeed all Christians as in-
spired. He takes Scripture and tradition as "the
common source of knowledge and rule of doctrine. "

* He granted the canonicity of the Apocalypse, but disputed its
apostolic authorship.

* He first sharply distinguished the Word of God from the Scrip-
tures that contained it, and discussed the claims of particular books,
and gave special prominence to that internal evidence which varies
with the subjective caprice of the critic.

* History of the Sacred Scriptures of the Neiv Testament, by
Eduard Reuss, translated by E. L. Houghton. Boston, Houghton,
Mifflin & Co., 1884.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TESTAMENT. 73

This appears in his more recent History of the
Canon} He does not assign to Scripture any such
exclusive authority or peculiar value as belongs to
a well-settled Canon. But he shows that the Apos-
tles had no idea of writing for distant ages; that
instead of being raised above error at the Pentecost,
they were endowed with power chiefly for action;
that their new ideas were of gradual growth; that
their discourses were probably impromptu and after-
wards reduced to writing; that the Christian church
was founded and extended before there was any
Christian literature — in short, that the New Testa-
ment Canon was formed by degrees, and never so
fixed that the generations following had only to
accept it.

Zockler s Handbiuh^ in its second edition, as re-
vised and supplemented, is perhaps the most com-
plete and helpful guide, at least in its New Testament
Introdnction y and its Biblical Theology of the New
Testament. Its character is distinctly evangelical.

Farrar's Messages of the Book^ preaches a sepa-
rate discourse on each New Testament book, setting
forth not its authenticity but its scope and mean-
ing, with appended notes, in which he gives lead-
ing ideas, special expressions, outlines, and dates.
He illustrates some of them admirably, Mark and
Luke, however, better than Matthew or John; Acts
and Corinthians better than Romans. He holds



» Translated from the French by D. Hunter, 1884.

* Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften^ von Dr. O. Z6ck-
ler. Nordlingen, 1884.

• The Messages of the Books, by F. W. Farrar. New York,
E. P. Dutton & Co., 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



74 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

that all the Gospels were written within fifty years
after the death of Jesus, and vindicates the Fourth
as genuine. He ascribes thirteen Epistles to Paul,
Hebrews rather to Apollos. As to the form of the
Epistles, he says that Christianity is "unique." "Of
all the sacred books which the world has seen, there
is not one which is composed mainly or at all of
letters, with the single exception of the New Tes-
tament. "

Salmon's Introduction^ is the latest, and consists
of twenty-five apologetic lectures, relating mainly
to the authorship and date of books, not to their
text or contents. He spends his strength on the
weaker ppints, only with a diffuse style, and with
more polemic than critical power. He holds that
our Matthew was the original Matthew; that the
last verses of Mark were Mark's; that James was
written very early, and without reference to Romans;
that Peter wrote his first Epistle from Rome, and
wrote n. Peter also, and could not have depended
on Josephus; that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles,
and must have been released from his first imprison-
ment at Rome; that Hebrews was written from
Italy before A. D. 63, probably by Barnabas, to
the Jews of Palestine.

^ 2. Pending Questions, Pseudepigraphy.

Is it admissible — the theory of spurious author-
ship in k sacred writing? Surely not in the sense
that what claims to have been written by one author

' Historical Introduction to the Studv of the New Testament^
by Dr. George Salmon, of Dublin. London, J. Murray, 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TESTAMENT. 75

was written by another, only in the sense that what
has been attributed to one may have been written
by another. Yet we must look at this from the old
Jewish and early Christian point of. view. Jude
quotes from the so-called book of Enoch. What if
Peter did not write II Peter, nor Paul Ephesians or
Timothy and Titus? Prof. H. Ewald, on "Revela-
tion," the first volume of which is now translated,^
sheds some light on the origin of the Scriptures.
He declares that Ephesians, I and II Timothy and
Titus were written only in the name of Paul, II
Peter only in the name of Peter, and calls this * 'arti-
ficial authorship." Edersheim* says ** Pseudonymic
writings were common in that age, and a Jew might
perhaps plead that even in the Old Testament, books
had been headed by names which confessedly were
not those of their authors (such as Samuel, Ruth,
Esther). If those inspired poets, who sang in the
spirit and echoed the strains of Asaph, adopted that
designation, and the sons of Korah preferred to be
known by that title, might not they who could no
longer claim the authority of inspiration seek atten-
tion for their utterances by adopting the names of
those in whose spirit they professed to write? "
Farrar^ says, " The adoption of an honored name
which was not the name of the author was common
in Jewish literature. It must not be called by the
hard name of literary forgery. In many instances
it was not at all intended to deceive. A man wrote



1 Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1884.

« The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, N. Y., Randolph &
Co., 1884.

• The Messages of the Books, N. Y., E. P. Dutton & Co., 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



76 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

in the name of some great and well known person
because he desired to claim the sanction of high
authority; because he believedhis teaching to be in
accordance with that of the writer whose name he
assumed." So, then, no question of mere author-
ship is vital. It is well to distinguish between gen-
uine writings and authentic. For those not genuine,
that is, not written by those whose names they bear,
may be authentic, that is, amply confirmed in their
recorded facts and teachings. This distinction is im-
portant in dealing with modern critics. It applies to
the Gospels, no one of which names its author, and
of which we know only the traditional authors. But
does it apply to Letters opening with the salutation
or signed by the handwriting of an apostle? It mat-
ters not, when or where, or by whom, a book is writ-
ten, or how much it is worked over and interpolated
by a later hand, if its substantial contents are beyond
question. But an unknown or reputed author is not
like a pretended one. We should be slow to believe
that a professed author is not the real one. In
Paul's and Peter's Letters authenticity evidently in-
volves genuineness. The Second Epistle of Peter
claims to be from Peter when it begins " Simon
Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ," and
adds, " We were with him in the holy mount. "^

§ 3. How early were the New Testament writings
collected and co-ordinated with the Old?

Reuss says, *'Not until the middle of the sec-
ond century. Others, "not until Theophilus," or A.

* Cf. R. Steck, Ueber die Annahme sog, unechter Schtiften im Neuen
Testament, Theo. Zeitschrift, 1884.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TESTAMENT. 77

D. 170. But I Tim. v. , 18 appears to quote Deuter-
onomy and Luke as alike ypatprj. Second Peter, iii. ,
16, refers to Paul's Epistles and the other recognised
ypacpdiy including, perhaps, some Gospels as well as
Epistles. Prof. B. B. Warfield examines "The des-
criptive names applied to the New Testament books
by the earliest Christian writers,"^ or before A. D.
175, and concludes, ** It appears that there vj^isfrom
the beginning of the second century a collection
(Ignatius, 2 Clement, Marcion) of " New Books "
(Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Igna-
tius, Marcion), esteemed as the " Oracles " of God
(Polycarp, Papias, 2 Clement), and " Scripture " (I
Timothy, II Peter, Barnabas, Polycarp, 2 Clement,
Basilides), which was attached to the Old Books as
part of one " Holy Canon*' (Test, xii., Patriarchs^)
with them. " His article bears against the co-ordin-
ation of the New Testament canonical and uncanon-
ical writings, for he adds, " Perhaps no single case
occurs of an application to any apocryphal book of
the New Testament of any of the titles by any
thoroughly orthodox writer of the first seventy-five
years of the second century. "

§ 4. The Synoptics, Their origin.

No new light has dawned on the synoptical pro-
blem. D. Schultze^ describes its complications, op-

» Bibliotheca Sacra, 1885. « Zockler's Handbuch, 1884.

» " The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;' puts Paul's writ-
ings and Acts with the Old Testament as if to canonize them. Its
text has been examined repeatedly since Nitzsch, in 1810, but now
more carefully by F. Schnapp, who assigns it to the last half of the
second century. It is ascribed to the first quarter of it by scholars
generally (Spence).



Digitized by VjOOQIC



78 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

posing, with Holtzmann and Keim, the priority of
Mark as defended by Weiss, agreeing with Holsten
that Matthew wrote first, at least in his Hebrew Gos-
pel, which Luke, he thinks, had before him, ascrib-
ing more than is common With German critics to
oral sources, as in Mark to Peter*s preaching and in
Luke to Paul's. The Mishna as Illustrating the
Gospels, by W. H. Bennett,^ though not founded
on the original Mishna, shows how the original
Mishna and Gospels alike were based on oral tradi-
tion. G. Wetzel^ favors the oral theory, yet thinks
that Mark and Luke were Matthew's scholars and
took notes from his instructions. P. Feine^ finds the
base of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, but
not its historical form in either Matthew or Luke,
both of which have torn the sayings of Jesus out of
their original connections and pieced them together,
all three Synoptists having used an original Mark.
A. Jacobsen^ thinks that Luke took from Matthew
and Matthew from Mark, yet not from the original
Mark. A. Hilgenfeld,^ following Hieronymus and
Lessing, insists that the Gospel of the Hebrews, which
Papias, Irenaeus and- others believed to have been
written by Matthew, was "the most ancient root of all
the Gospels, whether within or without the Canon."
R. A. Lipsius® calls it " love's labor lost," to explain
their origin by an earlier Gospel, and thinks that Pa-

1 Cambridge, 1884.

* Die Synoptischen Evangelien, Heilbronn^ 1883.
^QeEdershewion WetzePs Theory, Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885.

* Ueber das gegenseitige Verhdltniss der Texte der Bergpredigt,
Leipzig, 1885.

* Untersuchungen uber die Synoptischen Evangelien, Berlin, 1883.

* Evangeliorum, Lipsiae, 1884. • Jahrbucher, 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TESTAMENT. 79

pias referred to Matthew and Mark as we have them.
Farrar^ holds that Matthew wrote first, and regards
the opinion that he wrote originally in Hebrew as a
probable mistake of Papias. E. A. Abbott trans-
lates into English the first part of Rushbrooke's Sy-
nopticon^^ to exhibit in black type " the matter com-
mon to the first three Evangelists/' and treats this
" triple tradition" as the earliest Gospel and original
source of the first three Gospels, assuming its p re-
existence and their independence, also that paucity
of peculiar matter, as in Mark, is a sign of priority
in time, and that what is peculiar .to any one Gospel
is less certain than the rest of it, whereas the "triple
tradition," as Salmon shows, would be but singly
attested, and would have in it no story of our Lord*s
passion or resurrection. W. Sanday^ adopts, in the
main, the German theory that the common element
in them is derived not from oral but from written
sources, chiefly from the two documents mentioned
by Papias, viz., Matthew's \6yia of our Lord and
Mark's notes of Peter's preaching, yet concedes that
the Germans have not done justice to oral tradition,
and favors Holtzmann's theory of the priority of
Mark as modified by Weiss, who makes Mark to be
based, indeed, on Mark's notes of Peter's preaching,
but combined with Mark's own recollections of the
oral tradition current at Jerusalem, instead of with
any written Matthew. A. B. Bruce* argues that,
probably, Matthew and Luke depended on Mark,

» The Messages of the Books, New York, E. P. Button & Co. ,1885.
* London, 1884.

■ The Study of the New Testament. An Inaugural Lecture ^Oth-
ford, 1883. * The Presbyterian Review, 1884.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



80 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

either on an original Mark, as Holtzmann said, or,
as Weiss says, on our present Mark, which short
Gospel, though a poor one to come after, was a good
one to begin with. Here, then, is a chaos of specu-
lations — the despair of critics. How can the pro-
blem be solved without some new discovery?

§ 5. The Four Gospels.

It appears to be settled that Tatian*s Diates-
saron was based on our four Gospels, the Fourth
on the same footing as the other three. This is
confirmed by the recovery of parts of it in a Latin
Version of an Armenian Commentary on it by
Ephraem Syrus, about A. D. 370, which suggests
whether the Diatessaron was not written originally
in Syriac, as Zahn contends, instead of in Greek, as
Hort and Harnack hold, especially as there is at the
Vatican, according to Cardinal Pitra,^ an Arabic
Version of it, which has been described by Father
Ciasca^ and identified with the text commented on by
Ephraem. This new view of its having a Syriac
original, which Lagarde, Wace^ and Sanday favor,
may bring it into some relation to the Curetonian
Syriac Version. But who can carry us back of Ta-
tian?

No doubt Tatian's teacher, Justin Martyr, about
A. D. 150, who appeals to ''Memoirs made by the
Apostles, which are called Gospels," once even to
"Memoirs composed by the Apostles of Christ and
those who followed with them," meaning our pre-

* Anakcta Sacra, * Expositor^ 1882. Monthly Interpreter^ 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TESTAMENT. 81

sent Gospels including the Fourth, as Ezra Abbot
claimed, and Hilgenfeld, Keim, Weiss, Schultze,
Westcott and Sanday admit.

Perhaps The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles^
found at Constantinople, and published by Bishop
Briennios, in 1883, takes us back to the first cen-
tury. For scholars incline to put it earlier than they
did at first. ^ It reflects the teachings and usages
of the sub-apostolic age. It prescribes fasting twice
a week, favors river baptism or baptism in flowing
water, probably immersion, yet accepts aspersion or
sprinkling on the head if there is a scarcity of
water,^ and recognizes the Lord's Day. It is simple
in its precepts and antique in its tone. It goes well
with Hermas^ and Barnabas, whether before them
as Hitchcock says, or between them as says Zahn.
Von Gebhardt finds evidence of its genuineness in a
Latin MS. of the twelfth century, translated by Fez.
Harnack argues that it was written in Egypt, which
appears to be the common theory. Bishop Light-
foot* dates it back to A. D. 80-110, because it con-
nects the Eucharist with the Agape, identifies
bishop and presbyter, and has an itinerant alongside
of a localised ministry. He finds that it quotes



* Briennios dated it A. D- 120-160. Delitzsch, in the first half
of the second century. Harnack and Hilgenfeld, A. D. 160-190. Even
Volkmar no later than A. D. 134. Sabatier, early in the last half of
the first century. Canon Spence, about A. D. 80.

« Cf. A. Hilgenfeld on Die urchristliche Taufe, Zeitschrift, 1885.

» Hermas is put later than 100 by the Muratorian Canon and
later than Theodotion by J. R. Harris, who holds that Hermas de-
pends on Daniel, or as Hort puts it, " on Theodoti6n's Version of
Daniel rather than the LXX," but Salmon thinks that this does not
prove Hermas to be later than 100.

* Expositor^ London, 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



82 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

Matthew, especially the Sermon on the Mount,
gives the Lord's Prayer with a doxology and the
formula of baptism, echoes some sayings of Luke,
shows an acquaintance with four Letters of Paul,
viz., Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, II Thessa-
lonians, possibly also with I Peter, but not with
John's writings.

Schultze^ finds in it traces also of Acts, James, I
Th^ssalonians, I Timothy, Titus, Philemon, He-
brews, the Apocalypse and even John's Gospel.
'Harnack and Spence find in it "Memories of John. "^
Whether or not it was anterior to the New Testa-
ment Canon, and. even if it does not refer to Paul or
John, it has great value as confirming the earlier
Gospels.

§ 6. The Acts.

H. H. Evans* boldly contends that Paul was the
author of Acts and of the Third Gospel. He argues

» Zockler's Handbuch, 1884.

• The best edition of it as a text-book is by Profs. Hitchcock and
Brown (New York, 1885); ^^ ^^st as a digest of learning, by Dr.
Schaff (New York, 1885); the best for beauty and suggestive notes,
by Canon Spence (London, 1885).

■ With the Teachings Lightfoot {Expositor ^ London, 1885) asso-
ciates Ramsey's discovery, in 1883, at Hieropolis, Phrygia, of an
epitaph in which Abercius says that he is a disciple of the pure
Snepherd, that the Shepherd taught him "faithful writings'* and
sent him to Rome, where he saw the Queen and a people with a
bright seal, whence he went to Syria, found everywhere comrades,
took Paul for his companion and was led by faith to take for food a
fish which had been grasped by a pure virgin and was offered to
friends with bread and wine, alluding plainly to the Good Shepherd
of John's Gospel, the Church of Jlome with its seal of baptism, Paul's
journeys if not letters, the divine ichthusy the virgin mother and the
Lord's Supper; probably a monument of the second century by one
who, as he was in his seventy-second year, may have lived soon after
the death of John.

* London, 1884.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



NEW TPSTAMENT. 83

strongly from words which are common or peculiar
to Luke and Paul. But resemblance, however strik-
ing, is not identity. He fails to show that the author
of the Third Gospel was a Jew, that Luke had not
the capacity or authority to write it, why it was attri-
buted to Luke from Irenaeus down, or how the *we '
passages could come naturally from Paul. He shows
at most that Paul might have written them. He
makes a needless attempt to - supply a missing link
between the Gospels and Epistles, and to prove that
Luke's Gospel was written before A. D. 70, and
stamped with Paul's authority — all as against Strauss
and Zeller. A. Jacobsen claims that Acts i-xii.,
was made out of the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel
narratives and by the writer of the Third Gospel,
but much later. ^ H. Holtzmann also writes on the
same topic. ^

§ 7. PauVs Epistles.

The extreme negative critics, like Wittichen, have
left to us as genuine, says Edersheim,^ " Romans
(with the exception of the greater part of the last
two chapters), Corinthians, Galatians, I Thessaloni-
ans, parts of Colossians and of H Timothy, Philemon
and Philippians, " enough to confirm the essential facts
and doctrines of the Gospels. So then, when Rabiger
says that the Synoptists idealize the life of Jesus and
that even the resurrection was a " poem of the
future" rather than a strict historic fact, we stand

' Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte^ Berlin, 1885.

« ZntschHft, 1885.

• Prophecy and History^ New York, Randolph & Co., 1885.



Digitized by VjOOQIC



84 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

with Baur, Renan and Keim on Paurs " four undis-
puted Epistles," and ask, with Joseph Cook, in his
recent lecture on the Christian Evidences, " Is
Paul a dupe?"

Prof. Warfield discusses the date of Galatians
and holds that it was written probably at Ephesus,
A. D. 57, just before I Corinthians.^

To whom was Romans addressed? To Jewish
or Gentile Christians ? To the former, say Weiz-
sacker and now Mangold^ (relying chiefly on vii.,
4-6). So H.W. Beecher, in opening a Sytnposium on
Roman^y which leads Prof. Godet^ to ask, "If so,
why the first seven verses%. Why treat them as Gen-
tiles in vs. 6? Why vs. 13? Why call them * you *
and the Jews * they * ? Why prove the corruption
of the heathen world? Why speak of Abraham as
an uncircumcised heathen? Why go back to Adam
as the head of humanity? "

Which of the Epistles of the Captivity was ear-
liest? "Philippians,"says Farrar, relying chiefly on
its affinity with Romans. Lightfoot puts Philippians


1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Online LibraryChicago Theological SeminaryCurrent discussions in theology, Volume 3 → online text (page 5 of 22)