« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
only in Ex. xxxii. 26; Prov. vi. 6, paraphrased by Hesychius in the first line by TOPEVOU; in the New Testament, iévai is not found at all.
2. In Biblical Greek, ueonußpía denotes only the time of day (Acts xxii. 6), and twenty-two times in the LXX ; intelligibly, for the Oriental calls the south the right
not by the position of the sun, but by his wn position in prayer. In Biblical Greek, even in Luke, the south is vótos (Luke.xii. 55; xiii. 29). The Hebrew Negeb, by which Delitzsch renders the present karà ueonußpiav, is never so translated in the LXX. Eusebius also, in his Topography, uses yeonuBpía in a geographical sense only thrice, instead of the usual vóros.
3. The south road from Jerusalem is not the Gaza, but the Hebron road, by which no doubt Gaza can be reached. But if the latter were meant, as supposed by modern editors, and, in consequence of the wrong translation, by old legends, it must have read: by the way which goes by Hebron ; not simply: which goes to Gaza. In the time of Eusebius the fountain, in which the chamberlain was baptized, was shown in the Gaza road.
4. If one is certainly to meet a man in a road, the time must be indicated when he will be passing it. The case is different when Ananias has to find Saul and the messenger of Cornelius Peter in a house. Thus it is probable a priori that kata peonußplav indicates the time of day.
5. In a quite similar connection katà with accus. denotes the time toward (xvi. 25, katà MegovÚKTLOV), i.e., shortly before midnight; there also in some MSS. the article is wanting as here, whilst tepi with accus. (xxii. 6, nepi deonußpiar) denotes about noon, i.e., shortly before or after.
6. About this time of day a road, animated at other times, is empty; perhaps the much-debated expression, “the same was desert,” is to be thus explained. But in any case Zeller may be right in making Philip to have returned with the Apostles to Jerusalem, whereas Meyer and most others think of him as still in Samaria. Chrysostom, who read apds ueo., interprets as the latter.
7. “After my attention was directed to the passage in Acts by the passage Ecclus. ix. 7 (èv puuais modéws kai év épħuous aúths, where the Latin translator has in vicis et plateis) and xlix. 6 (úpnuwrav tås odous aútñs), I afterwards found a reference to the temporal sense first in the old interpreter Starke, who, however, rejects it, saying : • The meaning is not about noon-day, for there was no need to say this here, and in that country no journeying ordinarily takes place about noon-day, because of the great heat, but: toward the South'; and secondly, in the English Revised Version, where the rendering 'at noon' is put as an alternative in the margin. May I hope that future interpreters of the Acts will not merely notice this new, or revised, explanation of apparently so simple a passage, but even adopt it?"
A GERMAN CRITICISM OF A GERMAN DIVINE. By Dr. ERICH HAUPT, HALLE (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1892, Second Part).-Prof. Nösgen, of Rostock (successor of Philippi the commentator), is writing a new history of the New Testament Revelation. The first volume, embracing the Gospel history, has recently appeared, and the other, dealing with the Apostolic age, is to follow. The writer of the present notice did his best to learn the drift of Nösgen's work, but found himself largely baffled by the author's wordy and involved style. It is a relief to him to find that even Prof. Haupt (author of an excellent commentary on 1 Epistle of John), has had a similar experience. His long article gives a very clear account of the purport of the work, at once doing justice to its good points and criticizing its weak ones. The critic does the latter part of his work with evident reluctance and pain, as might be expected in
one of his gentle spirit. What is remarkable is that Haupt is at one with Dr. Nösgen in his main conclusions, in hearty faith in the evangelical history and doctrine. But none the less he dissents from Nösgen's mode of advocacy and defence, which seems to be a reproduction of the method of Hengstenberg. A good cause suffers from bad arguments. Nösgen's industry, laboriousness, apologetic earnestness and zeal are all admirable; it is his wisdom and tact which seriously fail. The critic finds the book heavy reading on account of the peculiarly clumsy and monotonous style. Both the method and substance are sharply criticized in several respects.
Starting from the principle that the revelation of God given in Christ consists of words and acts (ignoring the Person of Christ Himself as a revelation), Nösgen protests against the separation of the two elements, and contends for their union and reciprocal influence. Another of his contentions is that the Christian revelation must be viewed as something altogether apart from ordinary history, a wholly supernatural product. The first position contains nothing new or objectionable. Neither of the two factors of revelation should be entirely severed from the other. They interpenetrate in the closest manner. Most writers concede and act on the principle. A separate discussion of the two elements, indeed, is useful in the interest of clearness, and perhaps the absence of this explains some of the difficulty of Nösgen's work ; but the two sides are always again brought into union. The other principle is far more open to objection. It asserts the old non-historical view of revelation. According to it, revelation is given not through, but alongside the human and natural. It may be possible to carry this principle out to some extent in reference to Christ Himself, because of the uniqueness of His life and character. But how can it be done in regard to the Apostles, who, outside their special office, were simply men like others? The obvious effect is to obliterate the distinction which even believers must make between Christ and the Apostles, to co-ordinate the two parts of revelation in the New Testament, and so far to rob Christ of His uniqueness. He that has Christ has the Father; he that sees Christ sees the Father. This can be said of no Apostle. “All that the Apostles know is light from His light. . . . . The Apostolic age is to be viewed as a period of revelation, not merely because the Apostles received revelations of a miraculous kind, but primarily because the entire history of the age brought clearly out the full meaning of the revelation given in Christ, chiefly by quite natural
Without bringing into account this element of historical influence, the revelation of the Apostolic age cannot be exhibited, for the history is the form in which the latter is given. ... . Certainly the Apostolic age is part of the period of revelation, since the content of the latter was only fully understood in that age, and its aim, namely the founding of a community at peace with God, was realized; but the history of the age cannot be regarded as a co-ordinate continuation of God's revealing work in Christ.” Thus the critic completely traverses the second principle.
He also contests Dr. Nösgen's rigid theory of Inspiration, on which the “absolute " trustworthiness of the New Testament writings is an a priori maxim.” “ To me,” Dr. Haupt says, "the historical character of the Gospel narratives in all essentials is quite certain, and if I have any difficulties, these are so little a matter of joy that it would be a joy to me if they could be removed." Nösgen's rigid maxim, he argues, is just, neither to the nature of Christian faith, nor to the facts of the case. It is not just to Christian faith to make its very existence depend as much on every detail of historical statement as on the great central facts of redemption. “If it is not true that the temple-veil was rent asunder, I am told in effect it is illogical in me to believe in the truth of the Resurrection on which my salvation depends."
So again the historical evidence only is taken into account, all the subjective confirmation of personal experience being ignored. Nor is such a maxim just to the facts. The more any one binds up the entire case of Christianity with every detail of historical statement, the more he is bound to defend every such detail. This Dr. Nösgen does most vigorously, but often with arguments and in ways which are far from carrying conviction. He is too often blind to the weakness of his own case and the strength of the opposite one, to say nothing of reflections upon the motives of others.
To refer somewhat more fully to the author's treatment of the Resurrection, he shows himself unable to distinguish between a mere figment of imagination and a revelation in a vision. He describes some opponents as saying that Paul "regarded as real what he only saw in spirit.” So, in fact, he only saw in spirit and held it real! Thus inward facts are less real, acco
ccording to our author, than objects of The distinction between a mere subjective fancy and the real revelation of the exalted Saviour has not even occurred to him. I do not mention this to defend the hypothesis of a revelation by vision, but only to show how little the author can distinguish between different ideas.” Haupt also regards the effort to base the verity of the Resurrection on historical proof exclusively as wrong and dangerous. He, of course, himself holds the historical proof to be ample. Still, the issues are too great to be staked on that ground alone. “If this Christ has become to me the author of a new, supersensual life, the foundation of my whole being, He through whom my life has first gained security and meaning, this is proof to me that He did not fall a prey to destruction, not merely that He enjoys some sort of existence in general, but that He is the exalted Head of His kingdom, and is doing to-day what He did before, namely, seeking and saving the lost. In such personal experience, and in it alone, do we find the ground from which we can receive the Biblical narratives as historical, and also the supplement of that which, in the mere historical aspect, would remain an open question. There is a further misunderstanding in Nösgen's assertion, in presence of Paul's statement, that, if Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, there is no ground for saying that the Easter faith of Christians cannot be established by historical argument. First, it is clear that the statement of Paul remains just as true when the verity of the Resurrection is deduced from Christian experience as when it is proved historically. But Nösgen will reply, Paul himself in that passage proved the Resurrection to the Corinthians historically. Just so. He gave a series of cases in which men believed in Christ as living on the ground of their own experience. This is precisely my standpoint in holding that all believers in the Risen One have got this faith in substantially the same way—on the ground of their own experience. For thát they saw 'Him in bodily form, and we not, makes no difference in the nature of the case. Not merely because here the saying applies, the Spirit quickens, the flesh is useless,' but also because the Lord Himself, after His resurrection, always blamed His disciples for refusing to believe in His resurrection unless they saw Him in bodily form. It is also a misunderstanding to say that “the Resurrection of Christ is no question of science, but a question of the certainty of the facts believed as to which the decision rests with the Apostles.' On the contrary, according to Nösgen, the Resurrection would be a question of science, since he is continually trying to establish the authenticity and truth of the Gospel narratives on grounds of reason; but this is a scientific procedure. Certainly the Resurrection is not a question of science in the highest sense, but one of faith; and for this very reason the course taken by Nösgen is one that cannot lead to the goal."
Notwithstanding these and other similar criticisms, there are points on which Haupt agrees with Nösgen, and the discussion of these points leads to much interesting exposition. He agrees in the view that Christ's work of revelation begins with His public ministry, the history of the miraculous birth being treated as introductory to the latter. “He has not put the history of the birth, although he holds it to be thoroughly historical, at the beginning, but treated it as an explanation of what we see in the man Jesus, as a necessary postulate without which His self-consciousness could not be what it is. This, in my opinion, is the only right way to arrive at certainty respecting the real centre of the history, namely, that His birth was a miracle, not a natural product of human history.” So, again, he commends Nösgen for disclaiming the view that there is nothing individual and peculiar in Christ's character, that He is simply the universal human ideal. “On the contrary, it is rightly maintained that Jesus exhibits thoroughly concrete, individual traits in every respect. He shows no aptitude for being scholar, artist, statesman, general all at once. His human endowment is such that it corresponds to the task that lay before Him. His moral and religious character also was no universal one, but individual. The truer all this is, the more unreasonable it seems for Nösgen to decline the task of describing this individuality. He holds it impossible, because the description of Christ's inner life is above the reach of simply human psychology. Sinful men, like us, lack the inner likeness necessary for such a work. Doubtless there is some truth in this. We can never fully penetrate into the mystery of the Lord's inward life. No ordinary man, even, is wholly transparent to another. But it does not follow from this that no knowledge of other characters is possible. Many of the peculiar traits in the Lord's image can be ascertained and described. We only need to ask whether the first disciples did not carry in their soul a clearly defined, although imperfect, image of the Lord's character, in distinction from other men, or whether that image was to them wrapped in mist. If the former is certainly the case, it must have been possible for them to embody the image of this unique personality in words; and again the same must be possible to us in a more limited degree, on the basis of their narratives.”
Finally, let us mention a novel suggestion of Haupt's. It is that the Lord returned to heaven at the Resurrection and at the close of each subsequent appearance to the disciples. “This, in my opinion, is the only view which corresponds to the Biblical narrative, and suits the circumstances. It is favoured, not only by the disappearance after every manifestation, not only by the fact that throughout the New Testament the Resurrection and Ascension are combined together, and by the fact that the Ascension, in the usual sense of the word, receives no special emphasis ; but, above all, by the analogy of the Damascus manifestation. This, as we know, Paul places in the same line with the earlier appearances. If thus Christ revealed Himself to Paul out of this heavenly glory, the same may be true of the former cases. Nösgen cannot support his opposition by the saying to Mary, 'I am not yet ascended,' for Jesus immediately says in the present, 'I ascend.' There is no ground for the monstrous view that every time Jesus must have assumed the old body. For the undoubted meaning, at least, in Luke and John, is that the body in which He appeared was not the old one, and the same follows from the phrase, “ Thou fool,' with which Paul introduces the statement that the body sown is not the one that rises again, for it is sown a physical body, and it is raised a spiritual body."
Would that Dr. Haupt himself would give us a history of the New Testament revelation !
THE ULTIMATE TEST OF BIBLICAL FAITH. DR. KOENIG, Rostock (Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift, January, 1892).—The views of Dr. Haupt, hinted at in the previous article, and more fully expounded in a separate publication, are sharply criticized by the Rostock professor in a long and able article, which is also published separately (Die letzte Instanz des Biblischen Glaubens, Leipzig, Deichert). Dr. Haupt finds the supreme proof of the divinity of Christianity and the supreme ground of faith in the effects of faith on the individual. He makes the inward subjective evidence virtually supersede the outward historic evidence of Scripture. But how is the former to arise except on the ground of the latter ? Must not the latter precede? Haupt's position has some affinity with the one taken by Dr. Dale in his work on Christ and the Gospels, where the same questions apply. It is easy to see how one who is a believer in the historical Christ of Scripture, though his knowledge and faith may
be imperfect, may be led to a higher spiritual faith, which thenceforward holds its ground in face of all difficulties; but it is not easy to see how spiritual faith could ever arise in connection with ignorance or denial of the historical Christ. These are substantially the reasons which Dr. Coenig presses home in his essay; he has a much clearer and happier style than his colleague, Dr. Nösgen. Omitting personal questions, we may note a few points in his argument.
Dr. Koenig says, “ All my investigations into the attempts made in the course of centuries to construct a basis of Christian faith have convinced me that the real, not merely supposed, connection of Christianity with a real superhuman sphere cannot be established by any line of proof that starts from the teachings or effects of Christianity.” The teachings in the strict sense are certain statements as to Christ's person, certain commands and promises. Are all these self-evidently Divine ? If so, how account for the vast amount of unbelief? “Further, the effects of Christianity are never in the New Testament viewed as existing apart from historic Christianity, and, therefore, never treated as phenomena from which the Divine character of Christianity itself can be inferred. They are rather regarded as signs by which the persons experiencing them may recognize the fact of their own participation in the blessings of that union with Christ which is the fruit of faith. These effects are such as the sense of redemption, inward peace, &c. The reception of the Spirit is not treated as an independent attestation because of the case with which natural and supernatural may be confounded.” “To those who have already entered into actual relation to the Father by acknowledging historic Christianity, the Holy Spirit, the medium of Divine love (Rom. v. 5), is an earnest and pledge of the full inheritance of Christians, a proof that Christ and God are theirs."
“In modern days the teaching and effects of Christianity are treated in more than one direction as if they were independent proofs of the superhuman origin of Christianity, as if they were sufficient for this purpose without previous acknowledgment of Christianity. One way of doing this is to place the external and internal evidences of the Divinity of the religion of the Bible behind the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is said that the former criteria yield merely a fides humana, and that a fides divina can be obtained only in the latter way, and, further, that the inward signs of the Spirit's workings in reading and hearing the words of Scripture are the sole conclusive proof of the Divine origin of Holy Scripture.” Dr. Koenig has fully discussed this position in a separate work. In the article he goes on to say, “ If it were true that in reading and hearing the Bible more persons felt moral and religious influence, and even improvement, than is the case, this would not establish a really unique connection of the Bible with an objective Divine revelation. To say nothing of the fact that other books give rise to elevated and elevating emotion, I must remark that the loftiest teachings of Scripture might