University of Chicago. Divinity School.

The American journal of theology online

. (page 59 of 84)
Online LibraryUniversity of Chicago. Divinity SchoolThe American journal of theology → online text (page 59 of 84)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


interests. Her greater tasks will be taken in hand, and thus possibly
through clericalism, or in spite of clericalism, the fundamental evil
of Italy, parliamentarism, will be overcome.

Castles in the air? Certainly. Possibly they will remain such.
The state and the church, Quirinal and Vatican, have not yet con-
cluded their treaty of peace. The pope has not yet left his " prison,"



Digitized by



Google



500 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OP THEOLOGY

as it used to be called, and shown himself on soil belonging to
the government. But his country palace, Castelgandolfo, has been
repaired and is awaiting its master. His cardinal secretary of state
has already made his inspection there. If peace is concluded, and if
aflFairs develop along the lines we have traced, then Italy will owe
thanks, not only to its king, whom it passionately loves, but to its
pope, to whom it looks up in awe and veneration. Then Cavour's
great aim will have been attained, even though it be only in the form
of an opposition party: the Church will be an organic part of the
State. That would be the capstone in the edifice of united Italy.



Digitized by



Google



CRITICAL NOTES



THE GOSPELS IN THE LATIN VULGATE

In recent studies of the Vulgate version,'' the conviction has forced
itself upon me that, so far from being the work of one translator, it represents
several hands, some of them at least of much greater antiquity than has
been supposed. Especially in the case of the gospels has it become apparent
to me that more than one translator has wrought upon them. As I have
recently had occasion to say elsewhere, it is therefore quite wrong to treat
the Vulgate of the gospels as a harmonious work, and it is clear that the
text-critical value of it is greatly enhanced, seeing that the translation goes
back into a time when the gospels were not yet imited into one collection.

To this argument serious objection has been made, on the ground that
uniformity in translation was not sought or considered by ancient trans-
lators. As this is a question of no mean importance, I beg to lay before
the readers of this Journal some considerations bearing upon its decision.

Laying quite aside a priori reasoning I appeal to the statistics.
Take the Concordance of Moulton-Geden and so simple a verb as Aitoktci-
yuVf "to kill." It occurs in Matthew 12 times; in Mark, 10 times (not
in 3:4; here the Vulgate read AiroXArcu, perdere); in Luke, 12 times;
in John, 12 times. Now, this word is rendered occidere in Matthew, Mark,
and Luke tverywherty in John nowhere; interfkere in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke nowhere, in John everywhere. Is this accidental ? Or does it suggest
that John was translated by a different hand from the Synoptists ?

Take dpx^^pm. It occurs in Matthew 25 times; in Mark, 21 times;
in Luke, 15 times; in John, 21 times. It is rendered pontijex in Matthew,
Mark and Luke but once, among 61 cases; in John everywhere^ except
in the first passage (7:32), where the Vulgate has principes and seems to
have read ^x^'^^ instead of Apx^^p^l^- Is this again accidental?
Or does it prove diversity of translators ? It is obvious that the translation
of John is due to another hand than that of the rest.

But that also Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not translated by the
same man is shown by the fact that in Matthew the regular translation of
dpx^cpcvs is princeps sacerdotuMy and in Mark summtis sacerdos. In

« Novum Testamentum Latine. Textum Vaticanum cum apparatu critico ex
editionibus et libris manuscriptis coUecto imprimendum curavit D. Eberhard Nestle.
Stuttgart: Priv. WUrtt. Bibelanstalt, 190. 1x9+657 pages; 5 maps. There is also
a Greek-Latin edition.

501



Digitized by



Google



502 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OP THEOLOGY

Matthew there is not a smgle deviation from princeps sacerdotum; in Mark
summus sacerdos appears i6 times (among 21), and is replaced by potUifices
in 15:11, because the preceding verse ended in summi sacerdotes and it
would have sounded very badly to go on again summi sacerdotes;, in 14:35
by the simple sacerdotes, because summus sacerdos had occurred aheady
in the same verse; by princeps sacerdotum in 2:26; 10:33; ii-i8. But
these are such exceptions as prove the rule.

Take a third example, irapaicaActK. It occurs in Matthew 9 times;
in Mark, 9 times; in Luke, 7 times; in John, nowhere. It is rendered
rogare in Matthew 6 times, deprecari nowhere; vice versa, deprecari in
Mark, 7 times, rogare twice.

Further, ^iriTCftoK occurs in Matthew 7 times; in Mark, 9 times;
in Luke, 12 times ; in John, nowhere. It is rendered comminari in Matthew
nowhere, in Mark 8 times — i.e., everywhere but once (8:32); in Mat-
thew and Luke the regular translation is increpare; in the Old Latin codex
a in Mark everywhere ohiurgare. See on this word, as well as on So^a{»,
H. T. White's tabulated classifications in OldrLalin Biblical Texts, Vol.
Ill, pp. xxiii fif. I think this again proves that Matthew and Mark are
translated by different hands.

Anyone who would satisfy himself that Luke also is due to a different
hand may carefully compare the history of the passion. In the Roman
church, in Holy Week, this history is read first from Matthew, then from
Mark, then from Luke. Following this rule, some years ago, I was struck
by the observation that expressions which are quite identical in Greek are
different in Latin. Take the one verse, ** Watch and pray that ye enter
not into temptation;" Matthew 26:41, '^ut non itUretis in tentationem;"
thus also Mark 14:38; but Luke 22:46, *^ne intretis.^* To make sm^
of my conclusion, I took the Concordance' almost at random, and found
it fully corroborated. Jerome testifies himself, in the letter to Pope Damas-
us, that he changed as little as possible: ''Quae ne multiun a lectionis
Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo tempera vimus ut, his tan-
tum quae sensum videbantiu- mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur
ut fuerant."

The importance which the gospels of the Vulgate gain, when they are
no longer considered the work of Jerome in the fourth century, but in
the main the product of the second — ^perhaps the early part of the second —
will justify my wish to win for my observation and conclusion, which appear
to be new, a thorough examination, and if possible acceptance.

£b. Nestle
Maulbronn, Geimany



Digitized by



Google



CRITICAL NOTES 503

SHEBNAANDELIAKIM: A REPLY
In the Journal for last October Professor Kdnig did me the honor of
subjecting my article on "A New Chapter in the Life of Isaiah," which
appeared in the Journal for October, 1905, to a thorough, though kindly,
criticism. It calls both for my sincere thanks and fov a reply. A refor-
mulation of the theories advanced in the light of the criticisms passed upon
them may be of use in determining whether they are to be rejected as an
imwarrantable speculation or to be raised to the dignity of a working hy-
pothesis.

As my critic and I substantially agree on the exegesis of Isa. 22 : 15-18, 1
shall make only one correction in a particiilar in which I laid myself open
to a not imnatural misapprehension. I did not make the denial of the gen-
uineness of vs. i$b **a secondary basis" of my reconstructions. While
holding that the clause is probably not genuine (p. 623), I distinctly postu-
late its historical trustworthiness (p. 634). I pass on to the really vital
points in the discussion.

A. In the exegesis of vss. 24, 25 Professor K5nig (p. 679) agrees with me
(p. 623) that the subject of vs. 25 cannot be Shebna, but he claims (p. 677)
that I deny that it refers to Eliakim. On the contrary, I argue for this with
all the earnestness at my conmiand (p. 626). Where we differ is in our
views of the originality of vss. 24, 25. My contention is that, when once
vss. 24 fif. are referred to Eliakim, their original connection with what pre-'
cedes must be denied (a) because the admittedly (Professor Konig, p. 679)
ironical reference to Eliakim is quite out of place in a prophecy against his
rival Shebna, and {h) because such an ironical reference is equally out of
harmony with the enthusiasm expressed for Eliakim in vss. 20-23. Hence,
if vss. 24 fif. refer to Eliakim, they must be uttered by opponents of Eliakim
and not by the writers of vss. 15-23. The attempt of Professor K5nig to
connect vss. 24 fif. with what precedes by construing them conditionally
cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Granting for the sake of argument
that the verses could be construed conditionally (which I really do not
grant), yet a conditional force can be fairly given to a sentence not con-
ditional in form only when the context necessitates it. But in the present
instance the context actually forbids taking vss. 24 fif. conditionally. Shebna
is the person addressed throughout vss. 15-23 on the usual interpretation.
But what object is there in introducing even a conditional warning against
Eliakim in a philippic against Shebna ? If Eliakim were addressed, we
might discover one; but he is not. Further, after the positive declaration
that Eliakim is to be an honor to his father's house, we look for anything
but a warning not to let the honor of his father's house hang too heavily



Digitized by



Google



, 504 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

upon him, lest he fail. But if Professor Konig's conditional construction
be rejected, the denial of the originality of vss. 24 fiF. in this connection is the
only alternative. The historical inference from this conclusion follows
almost of itself. Shebna and Eliakim are rivals. As Shebna is opposed
at the same time to Isaiah — i. e., is anti-prophetic — it is natural to suppose
that Eliakim, his rival, is a member of the prophetic party. But the rivalry
between these two leaders must have been very intense and have influenced
the national life very profoundly. The intense partisan spirit of vss. 24, 25
testifies to the acuteness of the situation.

B. The second exegetical basis in my argument to which Professor
Konig takes exception is that vs. 19 is a gloss and vss. 20-23 are to be
separated from vss. 15-18. This position was foimded upon the following
considerations:

I.. The change of person at vs. 19, which points to a possible break in
the text. Professor Konig contends that the change of person is a frequent
phenomenon in prophecy and does not necessarily witness to a faulty text.
Granted. On the other hand, the change of person often is a danger signal.
Is it so here? I think so, and for the following reason. Isaiah is tre-
mendously wrought up in vss. 15-18. It is the one case in which he singles
out a private individual for attack, and his language is severe in the extreme.
In other words, Isaiah's own personality is emphasized in vss. 15-18 as in
few other passages in his prophecies. Hence the change at vs. 19, where he
is supposed to speak in the name of God, is in this instance psychologically
unnatural. Yet I would not dare to rest my case on this argument
alone.

2. But the argument from change of person is supported by the content
of vs. 19, which says less than vss. 15-18. In vss. 15-18 death is promised;
in vs. 19, only deposition from office. As Eliakim is promised the vacated
office of Shebna in vss. 20-23, vs. 19 is most naturally taken as the intro-
duction to what follows rather than as the conclusion to what precedes.
Vs. 19 modulates the general and all-inclusive threats of vss. 15-18 into
the specific threat of deposition from office, in order to lead on into the
new theme of the promise to Eliakim in vss. 20-23. My point is that
the author of vs. 19 has the interpretation of vss. 20-33 ^ ^ promise to
Eliakim of the office of Shebna especially in mind. Vs. 19 is therefore
the connecting link between vss. 15-18 and 20-23; but its logical connec-
tion is with the latter verses and not with the former, as it begins the subject
of Shebna's punishment anew. It is not contended that there is even a
formal contradiction between vs. 19 and vss. 15-18, and here Professor
Konig is right as against Marti; but it is contended that just at the point



Digitized by



Google



CRITICAL NOTES 505

where we meet with a suspicious change of person, there we meet also with
a break in the logical sequence of the passage.

3. At this point I would raise the question whether the interpretation
of vss. 20-23 which is implied in vs. 19 is correct. The contention of my
article was that, if vss. 20-23 are considered by themselves, they seem to
promise something far higher than the office of major domo to Eliakim;
viz., the kingship itself. In reply to the arguments adduced to support this
view, Professor Konig (a) asks: Why, if the kingship was promised, was not
Tl!DbW2 used instead of nbWD^ ? I might retort: Why, if only the office
of major domo was intended, was not ^S13 used instead of tibwiDiU ? On
my view, which sees in vs. 19 the work of a glossator who misinterpreted
vss. 20-23, we perceive how he felt \mder the necessity of interpreting
nblD^O in a very restricted sense in order to suit his theory, (b) Again
Professor Konig gives no argument to support his denial (p. 684) of my
inference from WHS. (c) It is urged further (p. 684), that the description
of Eliakim as a father to Judah and Jerusalem could apply to the major
domo. I grant it, but it will apply even better to the king, (d) Professor
Konig holds that the key (vs. 22a) distinctly points to the major domo.
But vs. 22b points to a king as the possessor of the key. In the power to
open and shut we have absolute power. There is no place for a king above
the possessor of this key, and Rev. 3:7 is a far more accurate analogy to
our present passage than I Chron. 9 : 27 which Professor Konig adduces
(p. 686).

Professor Konig's final argument that Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, was not
of the Davidic line, and hence could not have been promised the kingship,
will be considered kter. But apart from this one argument it is claimed
that vss. 20-23 considered by themselves are far more naturally interpreted
as promising the kingship than as promising the office of major-domo.
But if vss. 20-23 originally promised the kingship to Eliakim, it follows
inevitably that the author of vs. 19, which connects this promise with the
prophecy of the deposition of Shebna (vss. 15-18), has misimderstood
vss. 20-23, and that vs. 19 is a gloss. But the arguments thus far employed
— change of person, doubtful connection of vs. 19, internal impressions*
of vss. 20-23 — ^would not be sufficient of themselves to support my construc-
tions, and hence I introduced at this point the argument that to me is of
most weight in corroborating the previous arguments, but the full force
of which Professor Konig does not seem to have appreciated, for he appar-
ently fails to take note of the way in which it was utilized.

C. My third main proposition was that, when vss. 15-18 and 20-23 are
respectively examined in the Ughl of chaps. 36 and 37, the discrepancy



Digitized by



Google



5o6 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

between the two sections already suggested by what has preceded now
becomes very obvious.

I. The crucial point is the chronological relationship of 22:15-18 to
chaps. 36 and 37. I sought to show that vss. 15-18 can be understood
only when placed after chaps. 36 fif. The position of Shebna as scribe
(a cabinet position; cf. I Rings, chap. 4) and as a member of a special
committee to treat with Isaiah in the most critical situation of Hezekiah's
reign, is incredible after Isaiah's terrible denunciation of him. On the
other hand, if 22 : 15-18 follows chaps. 36 and 37, we at once have an intel-
ligible and illuminating sequence. The indignation of Isaiah is seen to
be stirred by the fact that Shebna, who was scribe in chaps. 36 fif., had
succeeded in supplanting Eliakim, the major domo. I fail to see what
right Professor Konig has to say that, if this sequence of chap. 22 after
chap. 36 is adopted, "it can be inferred neither from chaps. 36 ff. nor from
22:15-18 that Shebna actually did force out Eliakim .... and we drift
into the realm of baseless conjectiu*e." If Eliakim is major domo in chaps.
36 flF. and Shebna is major domo in 22 : 15-18 and 22 : 15-18 follows chaps.
36 fif., Shebna must have entered into Eliakim's office, and the anger of
Isaiah certainly justifies the conjectiu-e that Shebna had supplanted Eliakim.
Professor Konig lu-ges against the proposed sequence (a) that my descrip-
tion of the anger of Isaiah is hyperbolical (p. 684). I suppose this objection
is intended to weaken the discrepancy between 22 : 15-18 and chaps. 36 fif.,
if 22 : 15-18 is placed before chaps. 36 fif. The reader must be left to judge
of my hyperbole at this point, {b) Professor Konig is also confounded at
the amount of supposition which my theory of the sequence demands.
But Professor Konig concedes (p. 685) that he must make assumptions also:

The threat against Shebna in 22 : 15-18 fiuids a sufficient explanation in the
aiTOgance of Shebna which is indicated by the double ''here" (22:16a) and in
other mistakes of Shebna which had merited the appellation ''thou shame of thy
Lord's house" (vs. 186). If we find the cause for the prophetic condenmation
in the encroachments of which Shebna had been guilty, we can stand by the text
as the trustworthy basis for our judgment. [Italics mine.]

♦But what are these mistakes and encroachments? Professor Konig does
not tell us. My view allows us to specify them. They were upon Eliakim
and what Eliakim stood for. Is this such an addition to the text ? Is it
not an inevitable deduction from the text? (c) Finally Professor Konig
feels the difficulties of the usual view of the sequence. He admits that it
requires one assumption, viz., "that the divine threat was actiially ful-
filled, though perhaps in a modified form." Unfortunately Professor
Kdnig's article in the Jewish Encyclopedia is inaccessible to me, and I



Digitized by



Google



CRITICAL NOTES $07

cannot be sure of what he means by a '^ modified form;" but I imagine
he refers to the view which sees in Shebna's position of scribe in Isa.,
chaps. 36 ff., the beginning of Shebna's degradation, he being at this time
deposed from the major domoship; or possibly he holds that this supposed
degradation is the only fulfilment, the threat in 22:15-18 being remitted,
''modified," for some reason or other. In either case Professor Konig,
like those who have preceded him, can find in chaps. 36 fiF. a fulfilment
ofdy of 22:20-23, not of 22:15-18. In other words, chaps. 36fif. are
related to 22: 15-18 and 20-23 in two different ways. While chaps. 36 jQf.
could be explained as following 22:20-23 as usually interpreted, though
even this is unnatiu^l, they cannot be explained as following on 22 : 15-18.

2. But if 22:15-18 are once located after chaps. 36 flF., then there are
but two possible interpretations for vss. 20-23. These verses cannot be
placed before chaps. 36 fiF. ; for ex hypothesis Shebna had not as yet sup-
planted Eliakim. But Isaiah would not be promising Eliakim an office
which he was abready occupying. Hence, if vss. 15-18 are placed after
chaps. 36 ff., vss. 20-23 will also be pkced after these chapters. In that
event vss. 20-23 must be either a promise to Eliakim of resiUtUion to the
office formerly occupied by him, as Calvin suggested, or vss. 20-23 is a
promise to Eliakim of another office, namely that of the kingship. As
there is no hint in vss. 20-23 that Eliakim had ever before occupied the
office here promised him, but, on the contrary, since it is clear that he
is promised something through which he was to gain a new dignity both for
himself and for his family, we are shut up to the supposition that he is
here promised the kingship. Thus, when vss. 20-23 and 15-18 are studied
in the light of chap. 36, the suggestions previously advanced with reference
to vss. 19 and 20-23 are abimdantly confirmed. Verse 19 is now clearly
seen to be a gloss connecting two passages, vss. 15-18 and 20-23, which
originally had nothing immediately to do with each other.

Having reviewed all the objections lU'ged by Professor Konig against
my exegesis and criticism of 22:15-25, it remains to consider his critique
of the historical inferences which I ventiured to draw horn this exegesis
and criticism.

D. It is at this point that the speculative nature of my conclusions is
most apparent, yet I must insist that, while inference never can take the
place of documented facts, still on the basis of inference we may construct
a helpful working hypothesis.

I. The surest datiun from which to start is the position of 22:15-18
after chaps. 36 fiF.; i. e., after the campaign of Sennacherib in 701. This
sequence implies that the anti-prophetic Shebna succeeded in supplanting



Digitized by



Google



So8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

Eliakim sometime after 701. But if 22:15-18 axe once placed after 701,
we must come down to the accession of Manasseh to find a suitable time
in which an anti-prophetic person could push himself into office, for after
701 till the close of Hezekiah's reign the influence of Isaiah was certainly
in the ascendant (pp. 637 flF.). At this point I would modify my theory
in one particular. The prestige of Isaiah after 701 was not gained by Isaiah
through the fulfilment of prophecies of deliverance; for there were probably
no such prophecies and no deliverance in 701. Further investigation
has convinced me that in 701 Isaiah was a prophet of doom, and that the
reforms initiated by the prophetic party after this year were due to the
repentance of the court because of Jehovah's visitation upon the kingdom
in 701, and the influence of Isaiah was due to the fact that he had foreseen
just what the outcome of Hezekiah's revolt against Assyria in 701 was to
be. (Cf. my article, **The Invasion of Sennacherib," Biblioiheca Sacra,
October, 1906.) Now, the success of Shebna can be understood perfectly
if brought into connection with the antiprophetic reaction at the accession
of Manasseh. If, therefore, the critical premise is accepted that 22:15-18
follows chaps. 36 ff., the historical conclusion that 22:15-18, implying a
successful encroachment of an antiprophetic character upon one of the
highest offices in the land, is to be placed in Manasseh's reign, cannot
be deemed improbable.

2. My second datum is the rivalry of Shebna and Eliakim. This is
admitted even on the old theory of the meaning of 22 : 15 ff. But if Shebna
is antiprophetic and is opposed by Isaiah, it follows that Eliakim must
represent the prophetic party. Again this inference is almost a matter of
course.

3. My third datum is that this rivaby was of the intensest nature and
must have profoundly affected the national life, as is seen in the fact that
the opponents of Eliakim actually succeeded in getting their opinions of
Eliakim incorporated into the biblical text. (vss. 24 ff.). But just what
form did this rivalry between Shebna and Eliakim take ? Was it a struggle
simply for the office of major domo ?

4. Here we arrive at my fourth datum — the fact that, when vss. 20-23
are taken by themselves, they seem to promise to Eliakim the kingship.
From this it was inferred that Eliakim, as the head of the prophetic party,
aimed at the overthrow of Manasseh, who was backed by the major domo
Shebna, the head of the antiprophetic party.

5. This inference was finally supported by II Kings, 21:16, which
was taken to refer to the bloody massacre by which this prophetic revolt
was put down. Is there anything in this general construction that is in



Digitized by



Google



CRITICAL NOTES 509

and of itself historically improbable? Professor Konig himself admits
(p. 685) the possibility of such a reaction. But he emphatically denies
that such a revolution actually did take place in the reign of Manasseh.
His objection to my proposed reconstruction of the historical situation is
admittedly a serious one. He claims that Eliakim, son of HUkiah, was
not of the Davidic dynasty, but a revolution in Judah to imseat the Davidic
dynasty is highly improbable. This I will have to concede. Hence, if
my hypothesis is to be maintained, it must be assumed that Eliakim was
of the royal family. This is indeed a disadvantage, as there is nothing
apart from the interests of the theory directly to justify this assumption.
Yet I cannot agree with Professor Konig that the fact that he is merely
called the son of Hilkiah would exclude his Davidic origin. He was
probably not closely connected with the court, and his family was in reduced
circimistances, for his enemies were able to heap ridicule upon him (vss.



Online LibraryUniversity of Chicago. Divinity SchoolThe American journal of theology → online text (page 59 of 84)