Изображения страниц

to conscience? He denies that he has ever made the heart and conscience of man the supreme authority in deciding what religion is. The life and teaching of the Saviour reveal religion, not as a formula, but as a power over the heart and conscience. These faculties of man apprehend religion, but do not determine it. Finally, to show how far he is from attributing to his own mental powers the infallible authority which he denies to the Church or to the Bible as a book, he takes as an example the reasons which lead him to repudiate the Calvinistic doctrine of election. These are not his own interpretations of special passages of Scripture, but the conception of the Divine Fatherhood as shown in the Gospels, which would be contradicted by such a doctrine. His concluding words make his position clear. “ All is subjective, for I cannot discard myself. All is objective, for I do not pretend to derive anything from myself; poor and feeble as I am, my whole desire is to receive. To be very distrustful of oneself, to seek to come face to face with the teaching and life of the Saviour, in order to know Him well, though ashamed of serving Him so ill, to search for truth fearlessly in humble dependence upon the aid of the Holy Spirit—this is the method I would ever desire to use. Is this being carried away by reliance on one's own judgment? Is this finding all light and life in one's own self ? Is this rejecting all authority because I wish to be my own teacher ? Truly, I do not think it is."

THE INWARD LIGHT AND CHRIST'S INCARNATION (Friends' Quarterly Examiner).—In an article marked by the “sweet reasonableness” which the Friends have led us to associate with their teaching, Mr. Tallack seeks to vindicate the doctrine of the Inward Light, which is falling somewhat into abeyance in their Society. The doctrine is that God has not left Himself without a witness in any age or in any nation of the world, and that in all forms of religion there are gleams-faint it may be, but real--of that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that the graces and virtues which appear even in the heathen are to be reckoned in the same class with those that spring from a conscious obedience to God's law. He emphatically declares that it is necessary to believe this in order to be convinced of God's justice and fairness. “It throws," he says, “precious

" light on the otherwise solemn enigma of the future destiny of the millions on millions of human beings who have lived without seeing a Bible, and gone down to the grave without hearing of God's exceeding love in the gift of His dear Son as the Saviour and Redeemer of the world.” Of course, the doctrine of the Inward Light may be, and has been, abused, and our author is careful to guard against this. It is, apart from the revelation of God's love in the Incarnation, at best but as twilight compared to noonday. It should not be made a reason for indolence in missionary or evangelistic effort, or for withholding the Holy Scriptures from universal distribution, Natural Religion can only develop a stage of religious childhood, and necessarily leaves very much more to be desired for the soul's growth. It reveals God's eternal power, but not His sympathy and love; hence the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

comparative coldness attendant on all devotion apart from God's personality in Christ. In a very winning manner he shows that light, even Divine light, does not necessarily give power over evil, or over the fear of death ; but that faith in Him who died for our sins and was victor over death, does both. He says, “The noblest of the heathen, such as Plato and Socrates, had, at best, a faith which was as a guess, a conjecture. How sad their hopelessness under bereavement! But what a world of difference there is between the obituary inscriptions of the pagan Romans recording their sense of irreparable loss at the decease of their most dear' wives and daughters and sons, as compared with the later Latin inscriptions on the Christian dead : ‘In hope,'' in peace,' 'in Christ.' It was not a mere change, it was a revolution in human history, even in the history and life, and hope, and impulse of the inmost souls of men. And what brings this hope still to the poor Buddhist, or Hindoo, or Chinese, or Japanese ? Not the Inward Light, blessed in its limited degree though it be; not even that, but only the Gospel record of the historic Christ, the first-begotten from the dead,' who alone, but finally, has conquered death, and opened the kingdom of Heaven, with its immortal youth and its glorious processes of eternal education, 'to all believers.''

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]



By Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., St. John's COLLEGE, OXFORD, The appearance of the third edition of Dr. Driver's book in less than six months from its publication is sufficient proof of its importance, and of the interest with which it has been received. It is not necessary to enlarge upon the characteristics of Dr. Driver's work; scientific thoroughness, lucidity, caution, and reverence are the qualities with which he has made us familiar in his criticism. There is no mere theorizing or special pleading. Now and again we cannot help wishing that the exigencies of the series, of which this is the first volume, had not made compression a necessity; but we have sufficient facts presented to enable us to form a judgment for ourselves; the entire process of the “ higher criticism ” is exhibited as fully as possible ; and at the same time we feel throughout that the deeper interests. of the Old Testament revelation are never lost sight of, however subtle the analysis, however penetrating the scrutiny.

But we must whet the reader's appetite for a thorough digestion of the book by giving, in the short space at our disposal, a more detailed account of its contents. It will be well to quote a few sentences from the Preface to indicate what may be expected later on. The method of scientific investi

1 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. By S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1891.),

[ocr errors]

gation must, of course, be the inductive, though naturally this cannot always be formally exhibited. “The argument in the majority of cases is cumulative," as irresistible as it is often inexhaustible (p. xi.). We are next reminded of an important distinction in the critical study of the Old Testament, “ that of degrees of probability.Because the critic must sometimes speak with hesitation about the conclusion he arrives at, it does not therefore follow that the entire result is discredited. For instance, the “ Priests' Code" can be readily distinguished from the rest of the Hexateuch ; and when this document has been marked off, there are facts which indicate that the remainder is not homogeneous, though the precise limits of the component elements can only be defined with more or less probability; but this does not entitle us to reject the analysis which shows that this remainder, “JE,” is composite in structure. Then Dr. Driver goes on to state that critical conclusions, based upon "the ordinary principles by which history is judged and evidence estimated,” involve no sort of “conflict either with the Christian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form(pp. xiv. xv.). “The whole is subordinated to the controlling agency of the

. Spirit of God”; and the human factor in the revelation which criticism brings into clearer light, while it is “quickened and sustained by the informing Spirit,” is “never wholly absorbed or neutralized by it” (p. xvii). The various writers are not lifted above the current literary habits of their day. This is the explanation of what, upon the traditional review, has been found a great difficulty in the Historical Books, viz., that we find in them traditions which have been unconsciously modified and coloured by the associations of a later age, and that “some freedom was used by ancient historians in placing speeches or discourses in the mouths of historical characters (ib.). The application of these principles meets us constantly throughout the book. Thus, for instance, the account of the conquest of Palestine given by the Deuteronomic editor of the book of Joshua is found to be made up of “genera

generalizing summaries” of the oldest Israelitish tradition, which represented the conquest as being far less considerable in extent and affected rather by the exertions of individual tribes than by an organized nation (p. 108). Similarly, the Priests' Code presents "an ideal picture of the Mosaic age,” and “includes elements, not, in the ordinary sense of the term, historical” (p. 120). Other examples will be, the Song of Hannah (p. 164) and Solomon's Prayer of Dedication, " which has received its present form at the hands of the compiler" (p. 181); the book of Esther, too, while resting on an historical basis, “includes items that are not strictly historical” (p. 454). The most striking illustration of the principles laid down occurs in the case of the Chronicles, in whose age "a new mode of viewing the past history of his nation began to prevail

the past, in a word, was idealized, and its history (where necessary) re-written accordingly” (pp. 500-1). We cannot but feel grateful to Professor Driver for these clear and emphatic statements.

[ocr errors]

There follows a short chapter on the growth of the Canon according to the Jews. The principal external evidence from the Apocrypha and the Talmud is discussed, and proved to be worthless. “There is no foundation in antiquity whatever " for the common opinion that the Canon

was closed by Ezra or in Ezra's time"; while the shadowy conclave of the Great Synagogue is found to be nothing more than a controversial expedient propounded in the sixteenth century by Elias Levita. Consequently, we are thrown upon our own resources, and “the age and authorship of the books of the Old Testament can be determined only upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the books themselves.”

Now we come to the Hexateuch, the treatment of which occupies nearly a third of the whole book. For the sake of clearness, let us take the different codes or documents in their chronological order.

1. The earliest document of the Hexateuch is that which comes from the hand of the Jehovist (J), so called from his marked preference for the name Jehovah. Hebrew prose literature contains nothing finer than the narratives of this writer. In vivacity and force, in delicacy of touch and appropriateness of detail, his style is unsurpassed (see, e.g., Gen. ii.-iii., xviii. xxiv., lxiv. 18 ff. ; Exod. iv. 1-16). His religious point of view is that of the great prophets of the eighth century. “Indeed," to quote Dr. Driver's sentence, “his characteristic features may be said to be the fine vein of ethical and theological reflection which pervades his work throughout” (p. 113). While his representations of the Deity are highly anthropomorphic, he has the prophet's insight into the state and destiny of man, the nature of God, and the Divine purposes of grace as manifested in the past, and destined to be revealed in the future. The legal code of J is that contained in Exod. xx., xxii.-xxiii., xxxiii., known as “ The Book of the Covenant.” It stands at the head of Israel's statute-roll. "The laws themselves are designed to regulate the life of a community living under simple conditions of society, and chiefly occupied in agriculture” (p. 33). This is the code which was in force during the period of the Judges, and the earlier kings and prophets.

2. Next in order comes the Elohist (E), so called because he prefers Elohim as the Divine name. A confusion may occur here which it is important to avoid at once. A preference for the name Elohim is also a characteristic of the Priestly Code as far as Exodus vi. 3. But many passages where this Divine title occurs do not contain the other invariable marks of the style of the Priestly Code; we are thus forbidden to assign them to the latter document, and we conclude that they belong to the Elohist. This writer is to be realized as distinct from the Jehovist; his “standpoint is the prophetical, though it is not brought so prominently forward as in J," and in general the narrative is more “objective" (p. 111), and the style scarcely so imaginative.

“ The Elohist has a keen sense of Israel's dignity and lofty future; and we notice that he takes a special delight in dreams and theophanies. The story of Joseph (Gen. xl., xli., xlii.) is a good specimen of his style and treatment.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

{ E 37, 2'-11.

[ocr errors]

The following instance from Gen. xxxvii. will show how distinct E is from J, and also the manner in which the two narratives are interwoven: 12-21. 25-27.

28 (to silver). 31-35. 22-24. 28° (to pit).

28.-30. 36. If the reader will follow this scheme carefully, and read the verses assigned to J and those assigned to E consecutively, he will find that there are two accounts of the same event, presenting some remarkable points of divergence. According to J, Joseph is sold by his brethren to some Ishmaelites; while according to E, he is cast into a pit by his brethren, and thence stolen by a company of “Midianites, merchantmen,” who bring him into Egypt; all this without his brethren's knowledge. Further, according to J, it is Judah who takes the lead; whereas E tells us that Reuben suggests the idea of the pit, in order to deliver his brother, and restore him to his father. It is Reuben who returns to the pit, and finding it empty, rends his garments. This distinction between the two documents is further illustrated by the fact that, according to J, Abraham's principal residence is at Hebron, afterwards the great Judaic sanctuary; in E he dwells chiefly at Beersheba, the sanctuary frequented by the Ephraimites (p. 111). The fact that E's narrative bears a strong Ephraimitic tinge induces most critics to agree that he was a native of the northern kingdom. We must notice that the Decalogue (Exod. xx. 1-21) belongs to E. But while the differences between the two documents are apparent in many cases, it often happens that they are so combined as to render the analysis difficult and uncertain. Thus there occurs a combination known as JE, the work of a later compiler, which, although it is clearly marked off from the rest of the Hexateuch, and bears traces of its composite character, yet it cannot always be severed into its component parts with any certainty. Dr. Driver warns us against the over-minuteness of some scholars, who would push the analysis too far.

As to the relative date of J and E, critics agree that neither of them can be later than c. 750 B.C. The prophetical element in the two documents will place them in the period which saw the rise of the early prophets (Amos, Hosea, &c.). Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Stade place J in 850-800 B.C., and E c. 750. Professor Driver seems inclined to adopt these dates (p. 116).

3. Next in chronological order comes the great code of Deuteronomy, marked by striking peculiarities of style and subject matter. Its position in the growth of Israelitish legislation is clearly defined. On the one hand it presupposes the usage prescribed in the code of JE, on the other it differs widely from the elaborate and highly-developed enactments of the Levitical legislation. Let the student work out for himself the synopsis of laws given on pp. 68 ff. The intermediate position of Deuteronomy will be found indisputable. It will be seen at a glance that many of the laws are repeated from the book of the Covenant, or derived from pre-existent usage. It is the object of the author “to insist upon their importance, and to supply

, motives for their observance. The new element in Deuteronomy is thus not the laws, but their parenetic setting. Deuteronomy may be described as the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »