The Princeton Theological Review

Volume XXIV

October, 1926

* Number 4

The Princeton
Theological
Review

CONTENTS

John D. Davis 529

Frederick W. Loetscher

“A New Standard Bible Dictionary” 568

Oswald T. Allis

Jesus and the Old Testament 632

R. D. Wilson

Reviews of Recent Literature 662

Survey of Periodical Literature 691

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1926

The Princeton Theological Review

EDITED FOR

THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

Oswald T. Allis

Each author is solely responsible for the views expressed in his article
Notice of discontinuance must be sent to the Publishers; otherwise subscriptions will be continued
Subscription rate, Two Dollars a year, single copies Sixty Cents
Entered as Second Class Mail Matter at Princeton, N. J.

BOOKS REVIEWED

Barton, B., The Man Nobody Knows 687

Begbie, H., Broken Lights: A Short Study on the Varieties of
Christian Opinion 691

Brightman, E. S., An Introduction to Philosophy 662

Cave, S., The Doctrine of the Person of Christ 673

Champion, J. B., The Virgin’s Son 695

d’Aygalliers, a. W., Ruysbroeck the Admirable 670

Douglas, L. C., These Sayings of Mine 685

Duff, J. M., A Gold Dollar 696

Forrest, W. 'M., Do Fundamentalists Play Fair? 695

Gilkey, C. W., Jesus and Our Generation 694

Gordon, E., The Leaven of the Sadducees 692

Greene, R. A., Songs of the Royal Way 697

Hague, D., The Story of the English Prayer Book 668

Jones, E. S., The Christ of the Indian Road 677

Macartney, C. E., Putting on Immortality 671

McCombs, V. M., From Over the Border 690

Mueller, J. T., Five Minutes Daily with Luther 698

Sheldon, C. M., Charles M. Sheldon: His Life Story 683

Smith, W. H., Modernism, Fundamentalism and Catholicism 667

Sprague, P. W., The Influence of Christianity on Fundamental
Human Institutions 664

Watson, J. M., Science as Revelation 665

Wheeler, W. R., et al. Modern Missions in Mexico 690

Copyright 1926, by Princeton University Press

The Princeton
Theological Review

OCTOBER 1926

JOHN D. DAVIS*

The Reverend John D. Davis, Doctor of Philosophy,
Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Laws, Helena Professor of
Oriental and Old Testament Literature in Princeton Theo-
logical Seminary, died on June 21, 1926, in the seventy-
third year of his age.

At the beginning of the last academic session he seemed to
be in the full enjoyment of his usual vigor of body and mind,
and, so far as his colleagues could observe, he performed his
duties throughout the year with his customary fidelity, ef-
ficiency, and success. Few, even among those intimately as-
sociated with him, had any inkling that his health was being
impaired. His familiar form was conspicuous for its ab-
sence from the Commencement Exercises in May, and as
the word spread among the members of the Faculty, the
graduating class, and the large gathering of alumni and
friends of the Seminary, that our beloved senior professor
had left town in order to undergo a surgical operation, ex-
pressions of sincere regret and deep solicitude were heard on
every hand; nor were our apprehensions altogether allayed
by the assurance, emanating from a seemingly trustworthy
source, that under normal circumstances his early restoration
might be confidently expected. All that human skill and af-

* A memorial discourse, delivered by appointment of the Faculty of
Princeton Theological Seminary, in Miller Chapel, on Tuesday, October
12. 1026.

530

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

fection could suggest was done for the distinguished patient
in the Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia, and for some time
he made satisfactory progress. But as the days grew into
weeks, the reports concerning his increasing weakness began
to dim our hopes of his ultimate recovery, and then to fill us
with grave forebodings of the irreparable loss his departure
would inflict upon us and upon the institution to which not
only all the years of his professional career but his very life
itself had been dedicated. Those who were privileged to
know him in the strength and beauty of his Christian char-
acter will find no occasion for surprise in the testimony of
Dr. E. P. Davis, a college classmate and intimate friend : “In
his last illness of six weeks, he greatly endeared himself to
those who cared for him. His courage, patience, and un-
selfishness were remarkable.” But the time of his departure
had come, and quietly, with the peace of God in his heart,
he fell on sleep, meeting death as one meets a familiar friend.
Another commencement season — that of Princeton Univer-
sity, his alma mater — was just at its height on that lovely
Monday in June, when the sad tidings from Philadelphia
reached this community. Among the visiting alumni were
many of his own academic generation who, recalling his
brilliant career at college and his long and eminently fruitful
and influential life-work, that more than fulfilled the promise
of his youth, paid grateful tribute to his memory. On the
following Wednesday afternoon, Jime 23, the funeral serv-
ices were held at his late residence, and the body was laid to
rest in the Princeton Cemetery.

We mourn our heavy loss. The passing months have only
deepened our sense of the affliction that has befallen us. I do
not venture to speak for those who have been most sorely be-
reaved ; for that home which cherished him as husband and
father, and which he so richly blessed with the treasures of
his mind and heart. Nor am I mindful only of my individual
sorrow over the death of a revered preceptor and dear friend.
I am thinking of the Faculty, most of whom were likewise
once his pupils, and all of whom honored and admired him as

JOHN D. DAVIS

531

the incumbent of the illustrious chair he adorned, and es-
teemed him as a brother beloved. I am thinking of the return-
ing students, who have been deprived of a professor at
whose feet they sat with grateful appreciation and delight. T
am thinking of the hundreds, nay the thousands, of graduates
of this institution throughout our country and in all parts of
the world, who are deeply sensible of the incalculable debt
they owe this venerated teacher for benefits received from
his scholarly accomplishments, his pedagogical skill, his intel-
lectual stimulation, his spiritual wisdom, his faith-confirming
instruction in the Bible, and his exemplary Christian life. I
am thinking of this whole community — this Princeton that
he so dearly loved — where he received his collegiate and theo-
logical education, and where he fulfilled his calling through
more than forty years, making his labors add to the renown
of this ancient seat of learning, and leaving as a citizen of
this place a name of inflexible integrity and unsullied honor,
a record of quiet but faithful devotion to all civic duty.
And I am thinking of the Church at large, our own com-
munion and sister evangelical denominations, which he has
enriched by his contribution to the training of so many of
their ministers and their missionaries, and by the products of
his gifted pen, that inspired many Christian standard-bearers
to look to him, as unto a trustworthy leader, for expert
knowledge, for wholesome counsel, for safe guidance, for
that discretion that is the better part of valor, and for that
courage that is born of the conviction, intelligent and pro-
found, that the revealed truth of God cannot fail of its
ultimate triumph in the thought and life of the world. Truly,
we have reason to mourn for ourselves, for this Seminary,
and for the whole Church, as we contemplate the loss of so
eminent a scholar, so successful a teacher, so influential an
author, so effective a defender of the faith, and withal so
worthy an embodiment of that divine grace that reveals its
very noblest ministry of sanctification when it clothes the
high talents and achievements of an erudite man of science
with the modesty and humility of the true seeker after God.

532

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

But though we mourn, we sorrow neither as those who
have no hope, nor yet as those who forget the obligations of
gratitude. Rather are we here to-day to commemorate, with
thanksgiving to the Author of all good, this well-spent life.
We who knew his sterling work and worth would honor his
memory with the homage of our admiration and affection.
In this sacred place, where as student, instructor, and pro-
fessor he joined in worship with so many of our academic
generations, and where so often at morning prayers and in
the Sunday services he led us in our devotions and pro-
claimed to us the word of the Lord, we would reverently
glorify God in him.

There are elements, indeed, in the highly specialized and
technical scholarship of Dr. Davis — notably in the fields
of biblical archaeology and Assyriology — which make me
poignantly aware of my limitations in trying to meet the
just requirements of the service of this hour. But I accepted
the appointment by my colleagues, because I realized that the
invitation was one to which circumstances gave the authority
of a command, and more especially because I felt justified
in the conviction, that veneration and affectionate regard for
one whom I have known as teacher, colleague, and friend
for thirty years would transform the duty into one of those
labors of love in which the difficulties involved are lost to
view amidst a throng of grateful memories.

John D. Davis was born in the city of Pittsburgh on the
fifth day of March, 1854. On his father’s side, three genera-
tions of the family had lived in New York and Pennsylvania
since the year 1784, when James Davis, like his father before
him a friend of Wesley and a licensed exhorter among the
Methodists, left his native Ireland for America. A capable
and enterprising business man, he established cracker fac-
tories in Cooperstown and Albany. In 1808, his son John, a
youth of eighteen, crossed the mountains, and at Pittsburgh
built and successfully conducted a bakery of his own. He
was a member of the famous Pittsburgh Blues and saw serv-

JOHN D. DAVIS

533

ice in the War of 1812, being wounded at Fort Meigs.
Robert, the third in this descending line, and the father of
Dr. Davis, continued for a number of years the hereditary
business. The strong Presbyterian traditions of western
Pennsylvania had for some time been dissolving the Wes-
leyan affiliations of the family, and in this member of it had
produced an efficient elder and Sunday school superintend-
ent, first in the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, to-day
a part of Pittsburgh, and subsequently in its offshoot, the
Forty-third Street Church in the same city. The maiden
name of Dr. Davis’s mother was Anne Shaw. She was the
daughter of a Lawrenceville farmer, whose ancestors in
Yorkshire, England, had for generations been owners of
cloth manufacturies and fulling works.

Sprung from a stock marked by such vigor, capacity, am-
bition, and piety, Dr. Davis spent his childhood and youth in
a home that admirably reflected not only the industry, thrift,
and enterprise but also the evangelical faith and the high
ethical standards of that predominantly Ulster Scot Presby-
terian community. The boy was fortunate, too, in the educa-
tional opiX)rtunities he enjoyed in the city that was rapidly
developing into the chief metropolis of western Pennsyl-
vania. He received his academic training at Newell’s Clas-
sical Institute, one of his teachers there being William M.
Sloane, whose later distinguished career at the College of
New Jersey and at Columbia University gave to our de-
parted friend, as to the members of many classes that enjoyed
his courses in general history, frequent occasion to recall
with pride and gratitude his inspiring personality and his
instructive lectures. At about fifteen years of age, as Dr.
Davis himself has recorded the fact, he became, on profes-
sion of his faith, a communicant member of the Lawrence-
ville Presbyterian Church. At seventeen he was ready for
college, but family reverses caused by the panic of 1870
necessitated a delay of four years in the prosecution of his
plans. During most of this period he was employed as a teller
in one of the Pittsburgh banks, — an experience which, costly

534

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

as it was in the time taken from preparation for what was
destined to be par excellence the vocation of a learned special-
ist, nevertheless must have contributed not a little to his future
success by serving to develop that robust common sense, that
sobriety and soundness of judgment, and that businesslike
directness of method and style that characterized his work
in the classroom, and that regard for practical considerations
that marked his counsel in the deliberations of the Faculty.

Mr. Davis had thus already attained his majority when, in
the fall of 1875, he entered Princeton College as a freshman.
Older than most of his classmates, he was likewise more
earnest and faithful in the use of his academic privileges. He
had worked hard to secure the benefits of a liberal education,
and he was determined to make the most of his opportunities.
We are not surprised to learn that throughout his course he
maintained an intense devotion to his scholastic duties.
Neither in those days nor in later years did he have any sym-
pathy with that conception of a university which reduces it
to a mere annex to a football field or a hockey rink. A class-
mate, the same Dr. Davis to whom I have already referred,
testified that at college his friend was “remarkable for the
uniform excellence of his attainment” ; that “in direct con-
trast to many who pursue their studies but carefully avoid
overtaking them, he caught up with all his” ; that “his friends
were the studious, thoughtful men of high moral ideals” ; and
further, that “he was greatly liked throughout his class” ;
and that “his piety was evident without being obtrusive.”
As is well known, the class of 1879 at Princeton has on its
roll an unusual proportion of graduates who achieved dis-
tinction in their various walks in life. Among them was
Woodrow Wilson, one of the two Presidents of the United
States whom Nassau Hall has contributed to the service of
our country, the other being James Madison, of the class of
1771. It is therefore a tribute no less to his fidelity and zeal
as a student than to the vigor and versatility of his natural
endowments that, in a class of so many gifted men, the high-
est academic honor, that of the Latin salutatory at com-

JOHN D. DAVIS

535

mencement, was conferred by the Faculty upon him whose
life and work we are commemorating.

And there is another entry in the college record of Dr.
Davis which deserves mention, not only as a further recog-
nition by the authorities of his ability and attainments, but
also as an important formative influence in the making of the
future professor. A fellowship in the classics was awarded
to him at graduation. I have it on good authority that Presi-
dent McCosh had hoped that Mr. Davis would prefer the
fellowship in philosophy. And one cannot but wonder what
the outcome would have been, had this talented student
devoted a graduate year or two to the cultivation of the
theoretical sciences. Doubtless, he was well aware by that
time of the bent of his mind, with its fondness for concrete
knowledge, and its rather pronounced aversion, if one may
judge from later evidence, to the abstractions of metaphys-
ical thought. But I can readily imagine how such pursuits
might have furnished an admirable supplement to his rare
linguistic gifts and imparted to his instruction, especially in
the exegetical courses, a more highly organized form and
possibly also a stronger doctrinal interest. But I must not
anticipate. Let it here suffice to say that philosophic acumen
and breadth are not often found in fruitful wedlock with
the meticulous erudition of the philological ex|3ert. At all
events, we must regard the year which Mr. Davis spent as
Classical Fellow at the University of Bonn, Germany, as a
quite decisive factor in his intellectual development. It con-
firmed the set of his mind toward the study of language and
literature. It was only a question of time, when his deeply
religious nature would make him exchange the treasures of
Greece and Rome for the greater riches found in the sacred
Scriptures of ancient Israel.

Accordingly, after spending another year in Europe,
partly in more general study and partly in travel, Mr. Davis
entered upon his theological course in this Seminary. His
work in Germany gave him advanced standing in some of
the subjects, and he completed the curriculum in two years.

536 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

graduating in 1883, and receiving, in recognition of his gen-
eral excellence in scholarship and his special attainments in
the Old Testament, the George S. Green Fellowship in He-
brew. The award was doubtless the more highly prized by
him in view of the fact that it was accompanied by an invita-
tion from the Faculty to assist during the next session in the
instruction in Hebrew, — an invitation the acceptance of which
would facilitate his realization of a cherished wish, that of
lengthening from two semesters to four the customary
period spent abroad in graduate study by the winners of this
fellowship.

The academic year beginning in the fall of 1883 marks,
therefore, the commencement of Dr. Davis’s notable career
as a teacher. I have no information in regard to his maiden
efforts as an assistant in the department of which in due
time he would be the honored head. But his success may be
inferred from the fact that after completing two years of
further study at the University of Leipsic — 1884 to 1886 —
the Seminary offered him the John C. Green Instructorship
in Hebrew, left vacant by the withdrawal of Dr. James F.
McCurdy.

With respect to this second sojourn in Germany, we need
only remark that from the standpoint of general scholarship
and special preparation for work in the Old Testament, he
had now become one of the best equipped men in the whole
realm of theological education in this country. Particularly
in Assyriology, then still little more than a budding science,
but already giving assurance of a valuable fruitage, he had
made extensive acquisitions and, having selected for his
more intensive cultivation a tract of unusual promise — the
relation of early Semitic tradition to the narratives in the
first chapters of Genesis — he tilled this field with the dili-
gence and enthusiasm of the husbandman confident of a rich
harvest. Incidentally, it may be added that, like most Ameri-
cans who in those days attended German universities, es-
pecially in the large cities. Dr. Davis found much in the life
of this gifted people to broaden and enrich his general cul-

JOHN D. DAVIS

537

ture. He familiarized himself with the masterpieces of art in
their museums and galleries. He learned to know and to
love their music. He deepened his knowledge of their literary
classics. He worshipped with them in their churches and got
a better understanding of their simple but fervent and genial
piety, so different from what the casual observer in their
theological classrooms would expect. He entered sympathet-
ically into their manners and customs and permitted himself
to come under the spell of that untranslatable but very real
Gemuthlichkcit that gives German social life its delightful
charm. And he made friends. One of the most beautiful
letters of condolence I have ever read was that sent to his
bereaved family by the lady — a Roman Catholic — in whose
home he lived as a student in Leipsic forty years ago, — an
impressive revelation of the enduring influence for good
which this young American had exerted upon that entire
household.

Returning to Princeton in 1886 to resume the instructor-
ship in Hebrew, he secured from the College of New Jersey
that same year the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, chiefly
upon the basis of the work he had been doing abroad. In
April, 1887, he was ordained to the Gospel ministry by the
Presbytery of Pittsburgh at Shadyside. As early as 1888
his services as instructor received recognition in his election
as Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages. In 1892
the title of his chair was changed to that of Semitic Philol-
ogy and Old Testament History; and in 1900, on the death
of Dr. William Henry Green — generally recognized as the
foremost Hebraist in America and the most influential de-
fender of the unity of Genesis, the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, and the authenticity of the biblical history — he
succeeded this illustrious scholar as the Helena Professor of
Oriental and Old Testament Literature. In June 1889, he
married Miss Marguerite Scobie, of San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, and presently established his home in the house we
have so long been accustomed to associate with his name. In
1898 he was honored by Princeton University with the

538 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

degree of Doctor of Divinity, and in 1902 by Washington
and Jefferson College with the degree of Doctor of Laws.

Such in hare outline are the salient facts in the develop-
ment of our late senior professor. And so far as the data
of external biography are concerned, little more will need
to be said. For his was the typically uneventful life of the
scholar. He was an intelligent observer of affairs but he did
not come into close touch with them. Seldom was his voice
heard in address or sermon outside of Princeton. He took no
public part in the Revision Controversy that arose during the
first decade of his professorship, or in the conflict of recent
years between so-called Fundamentalism and Modernism
Nothing was more to his taste than a lively discussion in the
classroom over some disputed point in biblical criticism or
exegesis ; but he disliked warfare in the church courts, and,
it may be added, he had little aptitude for it. Owing to his
temperament, and no doubt also because of the nature of his
work in the Old Testament, he had no great zeal for purely
denominational questions and issues. In the ordinary sense
of the term, he was no churchman. Coveting neither office
nor honor of any kind, and having no personal ends to
gratify, he held himself aloof from everything that savored
of ecclesiastical politics.

Along the cool sequestered vale of life

He kept the noiseless tenor of his way.

Modest, reserved, self-repressing, diffident at times to the
point of shyness, he well knew he was not at his best on the
conference platform or in the arena of theological debate.
Once only in the almost forty years of his membership in
the Presbytery of New Brunswick did he consent to serve as
a commissioner to the General Assembly. He had no hanker
for publicity, no ambition to be a maker of programmes for
others to carry out, no desire to be conspicuous in moulding
events by direct personal influence upon them : rather would
he spend himself, quite unseen of the world, in training a suc-
cession of men who would be able and who, let us add, would
commonly enough be willing to essay the role of active lead-

JOHN D. DAVIS

539

ership. Fond of travel, and keenly interested in everything
that makes it worth while, he visited Palestine and made
repeated trips to Europe for study and recreation ; but there
is nothing of an official or public character connected with
these incidents. They, too, only serve to emphasize that
singleness of purpose that dominated his whole life-work.
“This one thing I do” was his vocational motto. As much as
in him lay, he would give himself to the duties of his chair.
He was content, nay it was his delight, to be totus in illis. He
was not one of that rather large and in the aggregate very
influential class of men — the Christian ministry has prob-
ably furnished the best examples of the sort — who can do
various things fairly well, and whose claims to special recog-
nition, if there are any, are due to their versatility. Rather
is it his distinction that he brought the resources of a keen
and vigorous intellect, the scientific equipment of one of the
best orientalists of his day, and the judicial temper of a
finished scholar to bear upon his chosen specialty, and that
in the good providence and grace of God he was enabled to
devote to this work, as instructor and professor, an un-
divided attention and an unflagging zeal for forty-one years.

Dr. Davis came to his chair, as we have said, in 1888. His
colleagues in the Faculty at that time were, in the order of
seniority. Dr. Green, Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge, Dr. Aiken,
Dr. Patton, who that same year became President of Prince-
ton College but continued to ser\^e the Seminary as Lecturer
on Theism, Dr. Paxton, and Dr. Warfield, who had just
begun to occupy the chair he was destined so long and so
greatly to adorn. With one exception, all were graduates of
the Seminary, and all save the last two had been on the
teaching staff when Dr. Davis was a student here. It is as
beautiful in itself as it is significant for the best traditions of
this institution, that the new arrival in the Faculty was
deeply impressed by the unity and concord of its members,
by the strictly organic character of the Seminary’s life, and
by the charm of that genius hujus loci that has here ever
haunted the home of its birth and imbued and moulded one

540

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

by one those who have come under its benign influence. As
he himself expressed it, the professors were “members one
of another, animated by the same purpose, having the same
aims, mutually dependent upon one another, and contrib-
utors to one another.” And what he says of his predecessor,
Dr. Green, when the latter entered upon his professorship in
1851, is equally true of himself in 1888: “Of this organism
[he] at once became an integral part, consciously and heart-
ily so. He was actuated by its spirit, he rejoiced in its type of
life, and he performed his work as a function of the insti-
tution, harmoniously related to the labors of his colleagues.”
To estimate the contribution which Dr. Davis made to
this organism of the Seminary’s life and service, and the
better to understand the methods and ideals of scholarship
which he had, so to say, inherited from his teachers, espe-
cially his predecessors in his own field, and which he in turn
so ably maintained, it may be well to recall a few outstand-
ing facts in the development of this department. The story
is resplendent with some of the most illustrious names in the
history of higher education in our country. This Seminary
has always maintained that for sound and solid work in
theological science the study of the original languages of the
Bible is indispensable. Exegesis of the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures has been from the beginning the very centre and
core of our theological curriculum — the trunk of our whole
tree of sacred knowledge. It has been the glory of this school
of the prophets that it has never been willing to make its
final appeal to the authority either of the Latin Vulgate or
of any other version of the Bible. Instruction in Hebrew,
therefore, was part of the task committed to Dr. Archibald
Alexander, the first professor in this Seminary; and the
first book produced within the sphere of the department we
are considering was his treatise on the canon of Scripture,
a volume of which six American editions were called for
during the author’s lifetime, besides one each in England
and Scotland. As early as 1820, a special instructorship in
the original languages of Scripture was established, with the

I

JOHN D. DAVIS

541

Kev. Charles Hodge as the incumbent. And apparently it was
not only this teacher and the governing boards of the Sem-
inary that were enthusiastic over these linguistic courses;
for we find that in 1822 the Junior Class pledged itself to
raise $7,000 for a Professorship in Oriental and Biblical
Literature, and the Senior Class $4,000. What good reason
there may be for the silence of my sources in regard to con-
tributions from the Middlers of that day, I do not know;
but the professorship was forthwith created, and Dr. Hodge
gave eighteen of his nearly sixty years of service in the
Seminary to the duties of this chair. But it was Dr. Joseph
Addison Alexander, that superb scholar with his veritable
genius for philology and his altogether remarkable gifts of
interpretation and expression, who from 1835 to 1851 or-
ganized the Old Testament department at Princeton and
gave it an international reputation. And in 1846 William
Henry Green began, as instructor in Hebrew, his em-
inent career of over half a century in his chosen field. An
acknowledged authority speaks of him as “the most influen-
tial Hebrew teacher of his time among English-speaking
men.” But Dr. Green was much more than a grammarian.
His work in vindicating the scholarliness of conservative
higher criticism in general, and in particular the unity and
authenticity of the Pentateuch and the trustworthiness of
Scripture as a supernatural revelation of redemption, entitles
him to a foremost place among the great apologists of the
Christian Church.

It was, then, as an heir and beneficiary of such splendid
traditions of theological education that Dr. Davis took his
place in that noble succession of teachers and authors who
have given our Old Testament department a commanding
position in the world of scholarship. How well, we must
now ask, did he fill the measure of his opportunity? What
did he accomplish? What was the scope and quality of his
service, and what, so far as one can gauge it, was the sum
total of his influence?

542

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Let US first of all survey the work of the professor in his
classroom. With your permission I shall here draw mainly
upon my own recollections as a student; for though these
are now three decades old and may seem to my youngest
hearers to belong to the cycle of time known as ancient
history, they are still sufficiently vivid to warrant my use
of them as trustworthy. Only let me add, in justice to my-
self and my theme, that on various points of interest I have
exchanged notes and impressions with classmates and with
students of more recent years.

When I entered the Seminary as a Junior in 1897, Dr.
Davis had three required courses in the curriculum. We first
came under his tuition in Hebrew. This instruction, five
hours a week, formed in those days the major part of his
duties in the classroom. For the first four years of his
professorship, he was alone in this linguistic work; but after
1892, when the John C. Green Instructorship was again
filled, he had an assistant. In 1900, when the department
was reorganized and he was transferred to Dr. Green’s
chair, the course in elementary Hebrew was committed to
other hands. There were thus some twelve classes, or, if we
count the years of his instructorship, fifteen, whom Dr.
Davis introduced to the study of the Old Testament in the
original.

I well remember the professor of those days. He was
then in the early forties, and his individuality, quite as
marked at that time as in more recent years, was one not
soon to be forgotten. I can see him now, his note-book under
his arm, slowly sauntering toward Stuart Hall, with that
long, springy stride that gave his gait a kind of rhythmical
undulation. His personality, as we viewed him behind his
desk, was one to command instant respect. Slender of build,
but tall, erect, energetic, dignified, and solemn even to seem-
ing austerity, he at first sight impressed more than he at-
tracted. But so gentle was his voice, his spirit so reverent,
humble, sincere, and earnest, and his whole bearing so
modest, unassuming, and friendly, that we soon found in

JOHN D. DAVIS

543

him much besides his scholarship to admire. There was
something peculiarly arresting, too, in that quick, jerky toss
of his head to one side, and in the very angularities of his
gesticulation, as he held his long right arm aloft, almost at
full length, to introduce some new turn of thought or give
point to some emphatic phrase in his slow and measured
style of utterance. In his winsome face the most striking
features were his full, clear, brown eyes, tranquil and medi-
tative ; scrutinous and penetrating as you felt their steady
gaze; but ever and anon rolling sharply upward, half fur-
tively, as if they fain would shrink from meeting yours, half
wistfully, as if in quest of some thought lurking in the
topmost recesses of his mind; but kindly withal, and suffus-
ing his whole countenance with a benign serenity. Such in
outward appearance was the man in his prime, and such he
remained in health and strength to his last illness, only that
in his latest years his physical vigor was somewhat dimin-
ished, his manner of speaking grew even more reserved and
deliberate, and his full beard and thinning hair became
tinged with gray.

But let me revert to the course in Hebrew. Dr. Davis’s
method of conducting it was characteristically his own; and
let me hasten to add, it was a method that may be regarded, as
indeed it commonly was, as well-nigh perfect. I recall ho'W,
when I was a student at Princeton College, one of the clas-
sical professors, learning that I was about to enter the Sem-
inary, took occasion to assure me that of all the teachers of
language he was ever personally acquainted with. Dr. Davis
was the most efficient and successful. It was an extraordinary
commendation, coming as it did from an acknowledged mas-
ter in a similar field of instruction. Students are not always
competent judges in such matters, but it gives me pleasure to
record that there were many besides myself in the class —
and what was true of this class was, I am confident, true of
others taking this course — who felt constrained to say for
themselves precisely what this teacher of Greek had ex-
pressed as his deliberate judgment.

544

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

In its external features the system was simplicity itself.
The student was referred to the textbook, Dr. Green’s Gram-
mar, for such things as declensions, conjugations, and those
set forms which have to be mastered at one time or another
by dint of sheer memorizing; but with a minimum of what
may be called the tactics of the drillmaster, the professor
dictated the essentials of the daily exercises with a lucidity
and conciseness, and with an economy of technique, that
were truly remarkable. As day by day the class was led by
the well-considered stages — I had almost said the easy steps
— of this process of analyzing, classifying, illustrating, and
fixing in the mind the basal facts of Hebrew grammar, syn-
tax, and word formations, the conviction was borne in upon
us that our guide was indeed an expert in the art of applying
common sense to language study. He never allowed his
learning to add to the difficulties inherent in the thing to be
learned. He would occasionally illumine a Hebrew idiom by
calling to his aid a general principle of comparative philol-
ogy, but there were no embarrassing riches of that sort
thrust upon us. He knew his subject; but he also knew how
to impart his knowledge of it. He was a complete stranger
to what in such instruction, as in most other fields of peda-
gogy, is probably the commonest and deadliest vice, that
miiltiloquium that obscures the main points in a discussion
with a fuliginous verbosity over recondite but altogether
irrelevant considerations. Hebraist that he was, he had a
Hellenic sense of proportion, putting first things first, and
treating others according to their due importance : his rules
were rules and his exceptions were exceptions. It was not
strange, therefore, that he kindled in many members of the
class a veritable enthusiasm for the study of Hebrew, and
that he enabled even average students to participate in the
work with a delightful sense of intellectual achievement and
progress, as they followed his lead into that realm of strange,
non-Aryan linguistic phenomena which open to view the
fascinating world of Semitic thought and life.

Nor may I neglect the moral and spiritual values of this

JOHN D. DAVIS

545

course. No doubt, there was in it, as in all work of that
kind, a necessary element of what may be called drudgery.
But the very routine became, in the presence of this man of
God, a means of grace to his pupils, a test of their characters,
a constant aid in the deepening of their devotion to the high
calling for which they realized he was preparing them. He
would admit that many of the facts with which as beginners
in Hebrew we had to deal were dry and uninviting, but he
made us see that the language of Scripture is the very skele-
ton of revealed truth, — bare, bleached, hard, and repellent, it
may be, — but so fundamental that there can be no manifesta-
tion of life or activity without it, much less any grace of mo-
tion or beauty of form; and he convinced us that like begin-
ners in anatomy we were not to grudge spending a few
months inspecting and handling the bony specimens, in
order that in due time each one of them might become, as it
were, our dear familiar. Of discipline in the ordinary sense
there was, accordingly, scarcely any need. His high and se-
rious temper, the sheer weight and insistence of his personal-
ity, were a sufficient admonition and rebuke for the indolent,
the careless, and the indifferent; and for all, an unfailing
incentive to a more rigorous fidelity. Never harsh or unkind,
he bore patiently with any who might be afflicted with nat-
ural dulness or incapacity. If, as sometimes happened, the
daily pensum was too heavy, he would make amends in the
next assignment, gladly conceding that even with theological
students engaged in the study of Hebrew there may be occa-
sion to remember the text : “Even the youths shall faint and be
weary.” So he won our permanent regard, not by seeking
popularity through indulgent and easy-going methods, but
by meriting a place for himself in that small but elect class of
great preceptors who command our enduring admiration and
gratitude, because they give us arduous tasks worthy of our
best endeavors, discover to us our resources and potentialities,
and ever appeal to our highest aspirations. Let me repeat my
testimony that, taking one thing with another. Dr. Davis was

546

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the best teacher of language under whom it has been my priv-
ilege to study.

The second course which our class had with Dr. Davis
was that in Old Testament History. I have often thought that
of all his classroom work this was the part which he himself
liked best, and from which the general run of his students —
there were, indeed, exceptions — derived most benefit.

The instruction was carried on by a method admirably
adapted to his purpose as a scientific teacher of sacred his-
tory. Doubtless, had he selected a good manual for the class,
he might have covered more ground, imparted more informa-
tion of a systematic sort, and secured for the course as a
whole a more rounded and finished form, as well as a fuller
presentation of the doctrinal implications of the subject. But
his aim was not that of a .Sunday school teacher content to
tabulate the more obvious biblical facts and to impress the
pupil with their religious significance. Dealing, as he did,
with college graduates, many of whom came to the study of
the Bible under the influence of those widely prevalent schools
of textual and historical criticism which eliminate from the
inspired record every element of the supernatural, he sought,
by means of an intensive but constructive study of the
sources of Jewish history, both native and foreign, to vali-
date the essential content of the traditional Christian concep-
tion of the origin and development of the religion of Israel.
And this he undertook, not by delivering set lectures giving
the processes and results of his own research, but by guiding
the class in the exercise of making its own inductive survey
of the Scriptural data, and by supplementing this material
with his special contributions from contemporary non-bib-
lical sources. Assuredly, there was nothing cut and dried in
the untrammeled but well-directed give and take of the dis-
cussions in this classroom. “Cudgel your brains,” he was
wont to say to us, as we wrestled with some of the problems
that have to be faced in this field; and many Juniors, I dare
say, got more intellectual thrills out of their repeated en-
deavors to do a bit of honest, straightforward, independent

JOHN D. DAVIS

547

thinking in this course, than they did out of any other scho-
lastic activity of their Seminary days. Many a graduate, I
am confident, looks back to this classroom as the memorable
place where, so to say, he ventured for the first time, seated
all by himself in his own little theological Ford, to turn on the
ignition switch, get his cerebral motor briskly revolving, take
the shift-lever of his thinking-gear out of itslong resting place
in neutral, and then confidently, with the true zest of adven-
ture, go forth on his maiden trip out into the great open spaces,
across the broad, fertile valleys, and up the picturesque moun-
tain heights of Old Testament history. I emphasize this fea-
ture of Dr. Davis’s pedagogy, because I regard it as revealing
one of his outstanding merits as a teacher. He w'as deeply
concerned to have us learn to think for ourselves. He inspired
us to develop self-reliance in meeting the varied problems of
archaeology, chronology, and geography, as these emerge
from the sources of primitive history. He would not tolerate
our regarding him as an oracle whose ipse dixit is the end of
all controversy. He had the true teacher’s belief that it is a
genuine kindness to students to spare them no requirement of
their intellectual manhood, but so to train them in sound
methods of research, in powers of judgment, and in scholarly
temper, that they can for themselves determine the real state
of a question, balance opposing considerations, and discrim-
inate between the certain and the hypothetical, between
brilliant but fallacious speculations and those convincing
arguments that yield soimd knowledge. He thus gave us so
thorough an understanding of the aims, methods, and char-
acteristics of Hebrew historiography, that we could intelli-
gently apply for ourselves the principles of a valid biblical
criticism against the reconstructionists of the divisive school
of Wellhausen.

But I must say a word about his personal attitude toward
debatable questions. No doubt, there were those in every class
taking this course who regarded him as being far too reluc-
tant to commit himself to what they fancied was the only
possible, or at least the only safe conclusion for a believer in

54§ the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

supernatural revelation. Some pro'bably even thought him
deficient in sincerity, candor, and courage. They felt that even
his most guarded statements could he interpreted in the direc-
tion of a too concessive apologetic. As for myself, I must
freely acknowledge that I was sometimes disappointed when,
in his replies to questions that puzzled us, he paid what I
thought was an undue deference to the dictum, “Brevity is
the soul of wit.” There were moments when his laconic
“Perhaps” or “Possibly so” rather mystified us. Nor were
we always satisfied that he needed to be quite so eager, when
discussing Old Testament miracles, to try to buttress our
faith by an underpinning of considerations taken from the
general order of the divine providence. But on the other
hand, it is my more mature judgment that a true historical-
mindedness justified our teacher in his oft-repeated represen-
tation that even at this late day many questions in this field
of ancient history must be left open; that the evidence pro
or con is not conclusive ; that we must wait for further light.
And as regards his ethical attributes as a teacher, what im-
pressed me much more than his occasional Hamlet-like ir-
resolution were his downright honesty ; his candor and bold-
ness in thrusting upon us the difficulties which historical
scholarship in this department dare not evade; his utter
unwillingness to substitute declamation for argument, or to
use any subterfuge against his opponents in the camp of
rationalistic critics; and above all, his serene confidence in
the truthfulness and the trustworthiness of the sacred history
— his reverent loyalty to the Bible as the Word of God. “If
we had never learned it before,” says one of his former
students, “we learned there what absolute fair-mindedness
is.” And another writes to the same effect; “But the man
who got deepest into my life” — he is referring to the mem-
bers of the Faculty in his day — “above all, because of his
evident sincerity and transparent honesty, was Dr. Davis. I
could not but respect him for his accurate and profound
scholarship, but I loved him for his fair-mindedness.” These
testimonies. I feel confident, reflect the sentiment of the

JOHN D. DAVIS

549

great majority of those who studied Old Testament historj'
under Dr. Davis.

But it was in the Senior year course on the exegesis of the
prophets that we found the crown of the professor’s work
in the classroom. Time will permit only a brief reference to
some of the salient features of this instruction. Here, too, the
method was of prime importance. He was less concerned to
familiarize us with the contents of a book taken as a whole,
or to have us relate its teachings to the general system of
Christian doctrine, than he was to ground us in right princi-
ples of interpretation, and thus to inspire us to cultivate
worthy habits of Bible study. He therefore concentrated the
class exercises upon a limited number of those great cardinal
passages in the major and minor prophets that have specially
challenged the attention of commentators throughout the
history of the Church. To stimulate that independence of
thought and effort which alone can make of a pupil some-
thing of a scholar, he assigned to different groups the task
of preparing for discussion brief digests of the opinions of
typical expositors on the problems involved in the given sec-
tion— such general matters as the nature of inspired proph-
ecy, the historical situation of the author, his purpose in
writing ; and the specific questions pertaining to textual and
historical criticism, the exact meaning of controverted terms,
the merits and defects of some of the representative inter-
pretations, and the like. These diverse and often contradic-
tory views thus submitted by the members of the class were
supplemented by others which the professor cited from his
extensive notes or from his capacious memory, and then this
whole mass of material was critically sifted, classified, and
discussed from every legitimate standpoint. It was an in-
structive object lesson in scientific, historico-grammatical ex-
egesis ; an impressive illustration of the way in which an ac-
complished biblical scholar uses his tools and does his work.

But the mere technique of the method can give no adequate
idea of the skill and success with which Dr. Davis employed
it. Here, too, the personality of the teacher — his intellectual

550

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and moral qualities — must be taken into the account. Calm,
cautious, unhurried, dispassionate, open-minded, ever ready
to give due weight to any relevant consideration, he brought
to his exegetical labors not only a solid erudition in Semitic
scholarship and biblical learning, but also the resources of a
mind thoroughly trained for historical research; a fine lin-
guistic tact ; a meticulous accuracy of statement ; keen spirit-
ual discernment; a sober, judicial temper that could make no
concessions either to the ai^bitrary extravagances of a ration-
alistic expositor or to the equally unwarranted dogmatism of
an over-zealous orthodoxy ; a broad, catholic sympathy with
all lovers of evangelical truth ; and an overmastering sense of
the unique character of Holy Scripture as a God-given mes-
sage of redemption.

No doubt, there were some in every class who found this
method of instruction more noble in its conception than at-
tractive and fruitful in its execution. And unquestionably,
the scholarly ideal here set before them was high and difficult
of attainment. The work required in collating and evaluating
the divergent views that are so plentifully to be found in the
proverbially dry-as-dust critical commentaries is so labo-
rious, that it is by no means strange that some students gave
up all hope of ever being able to pattern their future Bible
study after this model. They longed for more of that sort of
exegesis in which the teacher gives a maximum of the kind
of material which the student can put to sermonic uses with
a minimum of creative effort. It may be admitted, too, that the
results with which Dr. Davis had at times to content himself
were rather fragmentary and meagre; that the exigencies of
the discussion ever and again left important issues at loose
ends. But most of us felt that the professor’s pedagogy was
a valid illustration of the truism : “He who aims highest may
not hit the mark, but he will strike higher than one who aims
lower.” And certainly his very thoroughness made us realize
that his interpretation of a difficult passage, or his conclusion
on a controverted point, had an antecedent presumption of
being the best attainable. Most of us, too, were quite prepared

JOHN D. DAVIS

551

to admit that it is no part of the duty of a professor of
exegetical theology to drop ready-made loaves into the ever
empty bread-boxes of those members of the class who have
to grapple with the weekly problem of finding the necessarj'
wherewithal for their more or less impromptu homiletic
distribution of the staff of life to finicky, but not very hungry,
Sunday morning congregations in self-complacent little coun-
try churches. I feel confident that I speak for most of my
fellow students when I say that we regarded this course as
something akin to the very glorification of philology — the
love of words giving place to a love of the Word, a love so
deep and strong that it deemed no amount of time or toil
spent on the sacred oracles too costly an offering to be made
by one who would enter into the innermost sanctuary of re-
vealed truth.

I cannot speak from personal knowledge in regard to the
many other courses, some of them required and others op-
tional, which Dr. Davis conducted during his long years of
service in the Seminary. Nor, in view of all that has now
been said of his prescribed work in this department, need
we give further consideration to these aspects of his ministry.
Suffice it to say that the elective classes which from time to
time he organized gave students ample opportunity to enrich
their knowledge of the Old Testament under the guidance of
this expert scholar and efficient teacher. Graduate students
in particular welcomed these privileges, and spoke in the
highest terms of the benefits received from this more ad-
vanced instruction.

As we survey the sCope and quality of this varied work in
the classroom, we gratefully acknowledge that Dr. Davis has
rendered a service to this institution and to the Church at
large which merits the most generous recognition. He has,
indeed, honored the teacher’s calling by his ability, his in-
dustry, his fidelity, his success, and most of all by the graces
of his ripe Christian character. The academic profession may
claim him as a conspicuous example of its highest virtues.
And in particular, as an heir of the noblest tradition of this

552

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

school of sacred learning, its loyalty to the primary and au-
thentic forms of the Word of God, he has worthily main-
tained that succession of great teachers in his department
who have illustrated and vindicated the highest and best use
to which the study of the Hebrew language and the litera-
ture of the Old Testament can be consecrated. He believed
in the value and the feasibility of giving candidates for the
Gospel ministry a thorough first-hand acquaintance with the
Bible. He was in hearty sympathy with the work of his col-
leagues in the practical departments and always gave gen-
erous recognition to its claims. But he had no fear that even
the most zealous students would endanger their future use-
fulness by any excess of devotion to the basal problems of
biblical history and exegetical science. There were, indeed,
some in every class to whom his gifts and powers made but
a slight appeal ; they were largely men who failed to appre-
ciate his aims and methods because of their inadequate pre-
liminary training or because of their inability to profit from
courses which in the nature of the case belong to the most
technical studies in a seminary curriculum. But the great ma-
jority of his students recognized him as a teacher whose
efficiency and success made a weighty contribution to the
prestige of Princeton as a centre of theological education.
And if we would fairly estimate the service of this incumbent
of what is often regarded by competent judges as the highest
and most wddely influential office on earth, that of the profes-
sor engaged in preparing men for the Gospel ministry, we
must know him, not simply in the seclusion of his study or at
his desk before a class, but in the lives of those who have sat
under him, who have caught something of his spirit, and who
will never cease to cherish his memory because of the vital
and effective ways in which he impressed himself on their
minds and hearts. If I might venture to put into a single sen-
tence my appreciation of Dr. Davis as a teacher, I should
say that, in an era of profound theological upheaval and
widespread religious doubt and uncertainty, he achieved a
remarkable success in guiding his students through the per-

JOHN D. DAVIS

553

plexities and perils of a thoroughly scientific investigation
and critical discussion of fhe literature of the Old Testament,
and making their personal Christian faith emerge from the
necessary ordeal, purified, indeed, by suffering, but likewise
strengthened by the sacrificial toil, confirmed and perfected
through an ampler and surer knowledge of its impregnable
historic foundations in the law and the prophecies of ancient
Israel. Let me conclude what I have to say on this part of my
theme by quoting a typical testimony from a former student :
“To those of us who had the blessing of knowing him, he
has given an inspiration which is a constantly enriching ex-
perience. In the classroom he did more than any other man
to make the Bible a living book, and to help me to a sane
interpretation of the divine and human factors in its compo-
sition. But he did infinitely more for me by what he was. As
sincerely as I can express myself, he interpreted by his own
life the true spirit of Christ. When I think of his work, the
words have been coming to me ever since my Seminary days :
‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth’.”

A man may be a conspicuously successful teacher without
being a fruitful writer; but it adds greatly to his prestige in
the classroom, if his students know that he is a recognized
authority in his field of instruction. Now it is emphatically to
this latter class that we must assign Dr. Davis as a theological
professor. He gave evidence, early, continued, and abundant,
of his ability to produce work of standard merit in the realm
of Old Testament scholarship. His literary output is, indeed,
less extensive than that of some of his distinguished prede-
cessors in his chair, but in its unique combination of scientific
excellence and wide popular usefulness, it compares favor-
ably with the publications that have done most to establish
and maintain the authoritative position of this department
in the world of Hebrew and Semitic learning.

It was in 1894 that his first book appeared, a small octavo

554

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

volume of 150 pages, bearing the title Genesis and Semitic
Tradition. It embodied the results of years of laborious re-
search among those freshly unearthed documents, written in
cuneiform characters, which attest that the ancient peoples
on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates “had accounts of
the early ages which told the same story as the Hebrew nar-
ratives or showed common conceptions with them.”

The author’s purpose is neither apologetic nor expository
but critical. Recognizing that these newly discovered writings
establish the antiquity of the traditions in the first chapters
of Genesis, and not only so, but that the former contribute
important details for a right understanding of the latter and
illumine many terms which before were obscure or ambig-
uous, he sifts what is genuine and valuable in this material
from its worthless accretions; corrects the many mistransla-
tions which were “due in part to the infancy of the science
of Assyriology and in part to undue haste,” but which had
given rise to widely current yet utterly misleading conclu-
sions as to the extent to which the Hebrew record may have
been indebted to Babylonian antecedents; and finally under-
takes an orderly and detailed evaluation of the legitimate
data. These tasks are accomplished with a skill and thor-
oughness that reveal the author’s rare critical acumen and
sagacity, his characteristically patient and determined pre-
cision of method, and that fine, scholarly restraint, caution,
and fairness that distinguish all his work as a scientific
historian. He successfully avoids the faults that have com-
monly marred the use of these difficult, often illegible and
unintelligible sources, especially by popular but inadequately
equipped writers: the acceptance, on the one hand, of only
those portions that accommodate themselves most readily
to an easy but unsafe biblical apologetic; and the perversion,
on the other, of such passages as are deemed prejudicial to
the inspired narrative. Time and again he warns against rash
inductions, and insists upon the necessity of suspending
judgment and waiting for more light. “It is regretted,” he
says, “that on several topics negative results only can be

JOHN D. DAVIS

555

obtained; but patience with negative results and the quiet
tarrying by the argument for and against are better than
haste.”

The opening chapter on “The Creation of the Universe,”
originally published in The Presbyterian and Reformed Re-
view, is particularly valuable as a quite conclusive discussion
of the relation of the cuneiform and the biblical narratives
on this subject. Suggestive in its boldness, if not altogether
satisfactory in its argumentation, is the chapter on “The
Help Meet for Man.” The author inclines, indeed, to the
view that the biblical account of the creation of Eve records
a real event ; but he reveals no little sympathy with the alter-
native theory that the narrative may be only another of the
many instances, familiar alike in Babylonian tradition and in
sacred history, in which visions are used for the inculcation
of truth in symbolic form. In discussing the Deluge, the
writer indulges in a clever bit of strategy at the expense of
the divisive critics of Genesis, by showing from the cunei-
form records themselves that difference in style is no sure
proof of diversity of authorship. But time forbids my going
into further detail. Only a careful perusal of the volume will
give any adequate idea of “the admirable combination of
conservatism and liberality” with which Dr. Davis handles
the difficult questions which the first chapters of the Bible
have always raised for exegetical theologians, questions
which have been lifted to a higher level of importance than
ever by the recent discovery o'f these celebrated tablets and
by the confident claims made in behalf of the evolutionary
hypothesis. The book does much credit to American scholar-
ship. It still deserves, more than thirty years after its publi-
cation, to be consulted by all students of the Bible; and it
may be heartily recommended to any who, disturbed by
present-day discussions as to the relation of theology to other
sciences, desire confirmation of their faith in the trust-
worthiness of the Scriptural narrative of creation and of the
early history of the race.

The most important and by far the best known of Dr.

556 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Davis’s works, the magnum opus which will transmit alike
the benefits and the fame of his biblical scholarship to coming
generations, is his justly celebrated Dictiomry of the Bible
With Many New and Original Maps and Plans and Amply
Illustrated. It made its first appearance in 1898, an octavo
volume of 802 pages. A second edition, with more maps and
considerable new archaeological material, was issued in 1903
and reprinted in 1907. The third edition, a thorough revision
of the work, with many articles recast and enlarged, and
others added, was published in 1911, and reprinted eight
times in the next twelve years. The fourth and final edition
was issued in November, 1924, and reprinted in June 1925,
bringing the total number of copies made to about 50,000.
The sales have covered not only the United States but also
the British Isles. A few weeks before the author’s death, per-
mission was given to a special commission in Latin America
to translate the book into Portuguese.

These facts amply substantiate the claim alike of the
publishers and of many scholarly experts and hosts of gen-
eral readers that this is the best one-volume dictionary of the
Bible in the English language. The objective characterization
of the work by the author himself may fittingly be quoted ;

The book aims to be a dictionary of the Bible, not of speculation
about the Bible. It seeks to furnish a thorough acquaintance with things
biblical. To this end it has been made a compendium of the facts stated
in the Scriptures, and of explanatory and supplementary material drawn
from the records of the ancient peoples contemporary with Israel ; it has
been adequately furnished with authoritative illustrations, not pictures
drawn from the imagination, but actual delineations of the very things
themselves ; and it has been fully equipped with maps, all recent, and
most of them drawn specially for this work from the latest authorities.

Dr. Davis’s style, it may be said, is well suited to the re-
quirements of an encyclopaedic treatise. It is clear, terse,
direct, with scarcely a superfluous word in 840 pages. One
knows not, indeed, which to admire the more, the amount of
solid learning he has stored in this volume, or the lucidity
and thoroughness with which every major subject is treated.
Permit me to quote from the best appraisal of the work I

JOHN D, DAVIS

557

have ever seen, that of the author’s colleague, the late Dr.
William Henry Green :

The charm of the whole is the accuracy of the statements and the
candor and fairness manifested in dealing with disputed points. While
there is no parade of learning, the results of the latest and best scholar-
ship are everywhere presented. It may be accepted with confidence as
embodying the fruits of the most recent and reliable researches and the
utmost that is known of the subjects treated. In matters that are at
present in dispute among scholars this fact is frankly stated, the argu-
ments urged on different sides of the question at issue are candidly and
succinctly exhibited, and the opinion of the author as to the state of the
controversy is honestly given. Those who hold a different opinion will
not agree with his conclusions, but no objection can be made to his
method or to the fairness with which he states the opinions which he
opposes. His position is throughout conservative. There is no obstinate
adherence to the old simply because it is old, when it can no longer be
honestly defended. But on the other hand, there is no chasing after
novelties, however plausible, simply because they are new ; no impatience
of old-established views, which have stood the test of ages, and which
are as valid now as ever. A reverent and believing attitude is maintained
toward Holy Scripture. Its declarations are accepted as true. Its books
are accepted as the products of the men whose names they bear. The
sacred history is not reconstructed in accordance with modern revolu-
tionary speculations; but its truth is vindicated in a manner to show
that the author’s faith is no weak irrational credulity, but a conviction
resting on solid and intelligible grounds.

I have made this extended citation not simply because it
gives us an authoritative judgment concerning Dr. Davis’s
most widely influential publication, but more especially also
because it will help us toward a final estimate of his critical
attitude in general and his whole scholarly achievement. For
what is here said of the Dictionary is equally true of the
author’s other writings; his numerous articles and book
notices in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review and The
Princeton Theological Review, his “Critical Notes” in The
Westminster Teacher (1899-1907) ; his brief but instructive
discussions in The Bible Student, mainly on points of arch-
aeology and ancient history; and his notable essay on “Per-
sian Words and the Date of Old Testament Documents,”
contributed to Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Mem-
ory of William Rainey Harper (1908). In these occasional
productions are garnered many of the choicest fruits of his

558 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

lifelong devotion to the cause of biblical learning. I have
given myself the satisfaction, in preparing this address, of
refreshing my memory in regard to their number, range, and
content. I closed my survey of them with the conviction that
in the aggregate they exhibit even more impressively than do
his books those two traits of his scholarship which Dr. Green
has particularly emphasized in the statement quoted — his
masterful thoroughness and his judicial temper. The author
everywhere reveals those superb qualifications for the scien-
tific investigation and interpretation of the Old Testament
which we have found to be characteristic of his instruction
in the classroom : his exemplary philological equipment ; his
intimate acquaintance with the history of Israel and of the
contemporary nations ; his perfect familiarity with the prob-
lems, old and new, which have engaged the attention of spe-
cialists in this field ; his ready command of the whole appara-
tus of critical scholarship ; his conscientious fidelity in the ap-
plication of sound hermeneutical principles and methods; his
keen powers of analysis; his skill in classifying data, weigh-
ing evidence, testing results, and making valid inductions;
his freedom from dogmatism and fanciful exegesis; his
avoidance alike of barren s|>eculation and hackneyed plati-
tude; his incisive logic and cogency in argument; his power
of clear definition and precise and succinct statement; his
sobriety in judgment and his willingness in every doubtful
case to wait for further light; his honesty and candor; his
manly independence and courage in defending his positions
both against popular dislikes and against scholarly attacks;
his scrupulous fairness and chivalrous courtesy to his op-
ponents ; his love of truth, his robust confidence in the sacred
text, and his sympathetic appreciation of the transcendent
worth of Holy Scripture as the very Word of God.

And it is in the light of these gifts and accomplishments, so
long and so conspicuously manifested in his teaching and in
his writing, that we can form a true estimate of what many
will regard as the most valuable part of his service to the

JOHN D. DAVIS

559

cause of truth — his defence of “the faith which was once for
all delivered unto the saints.” Here, too, he worthily main-
tained the noble traditions of his chair. Like his predecessors,
he stood for the authenticity, integrity, and trustworthiness
of the Old Testament, believing and abundantly proving that
the claims which the books make for themselves explain the
phenomena to be accounted for, better than does any other
view of their origin and nature. Like his predecessors, he
accepted that Augustinian-Calvinistic system of doctrine
which, broad-based on the evangelicalism of inspired prophet
and apostle, lifts its massive greatness to the eternal dwell-
ing place of the Most High, — a majestic mountain, on whose
mighty slopes and wide table-lands, everywhere watered by
the river of life that proceedeth out of the throne of God and
of the Lamb, repose those green fields in which the great
Shepherd and Bishop of souls sustains and refreshes his
flock. Like his predecessors, he let his moderation be known
of all men, but without ever wavering in his loyalty to the
truth; and studied the peace and prosperity of the Church,
but without any compromise between her well-established
faith and those brilliant but barren speculations that have
tried to sap her very foundations. Like his predecessors, he
never feared genuine progress in biblical learning, but
always opposed that theological bolshevism that ignores or
rejects the assured results of centuries of Christian ex-
perience and scientific apologetics. Like his predecessors, he
recognized that in our better understanding of oriental modes
of thought, in our fuller knowledge of Jewish and other
ancient history, and in our richer possession of the promised
gifts of the Holy Spirit, there is room for the hope that the
Church will enjoy an increasingly complete occupation of her
God-given heritage. But he, too, was thoroughly conserva-
tive in his views of the Old Testament canon, both as to the
time when it was made and as to the principles that deter-
mined its formation; in his conception of the nature of the
law and the mission of the prophets; and in his use of the
textual and higher criticism. He believed in the necessity,

560 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

legitimacy, and value of the most painstaking investigation
of the sacred literature, and welcomed light from whatever
source it might come, being confident that the issue would
only vindicate the claims which the Bible makes for itself.
But he was convinced that the arguments of the divisive
analysists were in the main fallacious and their results ex-
tremely dubious. And by his own constructive use of the
valid criteria he not only helped in the solution of many
specific problems as to the dates and authorship of individual
books, but reinforced the whole school of conservative crit-
icism to which he belonged. By his own example he time and
again showed that the highest attainments in biblical science
have no necessary connection with rationalistic tendencies
and conclusions. He neither ignored nor minimized the im-
portance of the hypotheses which a naturalistic philosophy
had made the current orthodoxy in the camp of his opponents.
But with the keen weapons of his exact scholarship he met
his antagonists on their own ground, and not only refuted
their views but established the validity and credibility of his
own.

Thus it has come to pass that this quiet student, by his long
life of habitual and intimate communion with the master
minds, ancient and modern, in the realm of biblical criticism,
archaeology, history, and exegesis, has placed the whole
Church under obligation to himself by confirming her con-
fidence in her divinely given constitution. If he seldom ap-
peared in public discussions, he never failed, when he did
speak, to interest and instruct his hearers. Who that heard
his address in yonder Alexander Hall a few years ago can
forget the profound impression he made upon that academic
audience by his scholarly exposition of the biblical account
of creation ? It was a striking illustration of the fact, familiar
enough to his own students, and often gratefully acknowl-
edged by them, that in these times of stress and strain, when
the scientific world is distraught by its very achievements
and bewildered by its own disintegration, when knowledge,
indeed, is exalted but wisdom is despised, he knew how to

JOHN D. DAVIS

561

speak words of soberness and strength in behalf of the truth
enshrined in the Book of books. If his exegetical findings
occasionally show indecision, it is because the indecision is
warranted by the evidence. If they are not always brought
into intimate correspondence with systematic theology, this
is not due to any unwillingness or inability on his part to
appreciate the importance of this science, 'but rather to the
fact that his work as an interpreter was primarily historical
and not dogmatic. He preferred to take single, isolated
passages and, as it were, smite them with the javelin of his
penetrating exegesis, that the light might play upon every
minute fragment. And if he added relatively little that was
new, he did much to conserve and commend the knowledge
bequeathed to us from the past. I have said that in the or-
dinary sense of the word he was no churchman; but in a
larger sense he was a true and faithful servant of the Church
Universal, a defender and promoter of her most cherished
interests. His publications are more than a guide for the
perplexed : they are a shield for faith, an arsenal for the
unarmed, a storehouse of biblical scholarship and spiritual
wisdom fitted to sustain and comfort all those who, whatever
be their ecclesiastical affiliations, still believe in the written
and the Incarnate Word of God.

His loyalty he kept, his love, bis zeal ;

Nor number, nor example with him wrought
To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind
Though single.

I fear I may be taking more time than custom allows for an
address of this kind, but I should be falling utterly short of
the proprieties of the occasion, if I failed to supplement, how-
ever briefly, the few incidental references I have made to the
character of our departed friend. For after all, the man him-
self was greater than any expression of himself by voice or
pen. Let us, therefore, in conclusion, look for a moment a
little more closely at his personality, a little more deeply into
his inner life.

562

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

And perhaps the most obvious remark for me to make in
this connection is likewise the most significant: though T
have known Dr. Davis for thirty years, and for most of this
period had the kind of association with him that goes with
membership in a small faculty, I cannot say that I have
known him well. And I surmise that all my colleagues with-
out exception would bear the same testimony. He had, in-
deed, few intimates. He loved to live and toil in solitude. His
“soul was like a star, and dwelt apart.” You often saw him
walking alone, 'but seldom with others. He was no clubman.
Golf had no lure for him. He held himself aloof from cliques
and parties, and in manly independence chose his own way.
His classroom, his home, his Bible — these, I take it, were, so
to say, the outer and inner courts and the holy of holies in the
sanctuary of his life.

He was pre-eminently a domestic man ; his pleasures were
those of his own fireside. Nor could any parent be more
solicitous for his children’s welfare, or more self-sacrificing
in their behalf. He had two sons and four daughters, and it
was his custom, as each child grew up, to spend Sunday af-
ternoon reading to him or her, as the case might be, or to
several together: surely to them this memory will abide as
one of their most sacred and precious possessions, as for
every Christian observer the sight itself is one than which this
world has nothing more beautiful to offer — a great biblical
scholar in fatherly love and tenderness seeking to lead little
ones, his very own, into wisdom’s ways of pleasantness and
peace.

But for most of us, I repeat, his habitual reserve was
seldom laid aside. His taciturnity was at times fairly be-
wildering. He could sit at a faculty meeting for more than
an hour without uttering a solitary word, though 'he was
the senior professor, and most of the little group were former
pupils of his. He was one of the most self-suppressing men
I have ever known. And yet he was naturally cheerful, good-
natured, and of an ardent temperament, capable of cherishing
and expressing strong emotions. He was always ready

JOHN D. DAVIS

563

enough to hear what you might have to say, and ever and
again his genial smile would give proof of the marked be-
nevolence of his disposition. But he could be strangely objec-
tive and unreciprocative. If he cared for you, you could infer
the fact from his way of treating you, but you would listen
in vain for any verbal assurance. Capable of admiration but
chary of praise, he was quick to recognize merit in a student,
colleague, or friend, but if he deigned to compliment you,
there was likely to be something about his bantering manner
that would make you feel that perhaps after all you were
missing the correct exegesis of his words of commendation:
at any rate, you would not be unduly puffed up. Considerate
and courteous as he was, he could, by way of exception, when
his feelings were deeply stirred, be blunt and brusque with a
caustic severity. In general, I should say that his fortiter in re
was unequally yoked with his suaviter in modo. Like most
positive natures, he had great decision of character, with
likes and dislikes which you might argue against but could
not modify. He was swift to detect sinister motives, and
though he might not care to say much about his discovery,
you instinctively felt that he had valid reasons for his cau-
tion. On the other hand, his generous sympathies often led
him to say a good word for one whom others might regard
as quite hopelessly delinquent. I have repeatedly referred to
his noble candor, that serene radiance that springs from an
altar-fire within, from a heart glowing with the love of
truth. Nor need I say more of his single-eyed devotion to
his task. He literally rejoiced to be faithful; early in life
he entered into the secret of true fidelity: “Duty by habit is
to pleasure turned.” Modest, unpretentious, free from any
airs of superiority, a hater of shams, duplicities, and all the
arts of indirection, he seems to have been a perfect stranger
to those foibles and infirmities that so often mar even clerical
manners and morals — vanity, pride, jealousy, uncharitable-
ness, censoriousness, inordinate ambition, lust of power and
prominence. Never in thirty years did I hear him express a
word of envy or malice. I have known teachers who have

564

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

had a stronger hold on the affections of their students, and
some who have called forth more intense admiration, but
few, if indeed any, who by sheer force of personality and
weight of character have commanded more profound respect
and veneration. And in these more recent years it has been
his gentleness, his almost feminine tenderness, his meekness,
his goodwill, his noble tolerance, his broad humanity, his
long-suffering and never failing charity that have endeared
him to us, making us mingle affection with our esteem and
reverence.

But if was in his religious life, his simple, fervent, unos-
tentatious piety, that Dr. Davis most fully revealed himself.
He was in such intimate and constant communion with the
Prophets and Psalmists of Israel, with the Apostles of the
New Covenant, and with that Redeemer in whom and for
whom he lived, that the great truths of Holy Scripture be-
came part and parcel of his inmost being; those truths that
are the formative principles of a strong and beautiful Chris-
tian character, that stir the profoundest emotions in the
believer’s heart and inspire his best endeavors, that keep
aflame the spirit of worship, love, and service, and yield
their fruit unto holiness.

He was thoroughly churchly in his religion. He delighted
in the appointed ordinances of the house of God and loved
his place in the sanctuary. He cared little for ecclesiastical
novelties, whether they pertained to forms of worship or
methods of work. A convinced Presbyterian in doctrine and
polity, he rejoiced in the type of faith and life with which
the sisterhood of Reformed Churches have blessed the world.
But he felt that Christians can well afford to differ on many
minor points, and that, as they have done so in the past, they
probably always will. He was no narrow theological partisan.
He had no zeal for controversy, but thought that training the
children of the kingdom in sound biblical learning was better
for them and for the kingdom than was the promotion of
strife among brethren. His churchmanship had primarily
to do with the basal linguistic facts of revealed truth, and it

JOHN D. DAVIS

565

was impossible for him to be a mere sectarian; for, as Dr.
Patton some years ago reminded us, “There is nothing de-
nominational about the ‘apocopated future’ or the ‘vav con-
versive’.’’

Dr. Davis’s preaching was just as unconventional as were
his classroom methods. There was such a studied simplicity
about his homiletic art that it would scarcely occur to you
to regard him as a learned man in the eminent sense of the
word. There was nothing professorial or professional about
his pulpit ministrations. Whether he read from a manuscript
or, as he sometimes did, spoke from brief notes, he hardly
ever touched upon the speculative phases of his subject, but
ordinarily contented himself with a few practical reflections
on his text. Addressing himself chiefly to the conscience and
will of his hearers, he commonly selected themes that sug-
gested an ethical rather than a dogmatic development. Caring
little for rhetorical color and embellishment, and likewise for
mere exegetical subtleties, he spoke with great plainness and
directness to sinner and saint. He nearly always produced an
impression of marked solemnity and, frequently, when un-
der the power of emotions that fairly choked his voice and
filled his eyes with tears, he exercised an oratorical power
that swayed his audience like a wind-swept field of grain.
At its best, his preaching was something like a Hebrew
prophet’s message combining stern admonition with tender
appeal, well fitted to pierce and purge the conscience and to
stimulate duty, by giving some fresh glimpse of the ineffable
glory of the God of our salvation.

In his religious life as a whole, the outstanding trait was
his profound humility, perhaps the most distinctively Chris-
tian grace in the entire garniture with which the sanctifying
Spirit invests the renewed mind. It was this characteristic
above all others that appeared in his public prayers, — his
expressions of adoration, penitence, thanksgiving, and child-
like faith, — as in unhackneyed speech, in language breathing
the refreshing atmosphere of the inspired Word, he spoke to
God out of the fulness of a heart that knew well its own sin

566 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and misery and need. The poet Heine has given us a criticism
of the mere philologist that is final : he knows many tongues,
but he knows not the language of the stars. But Dr. Davis
was no mere philologist. In his early youth the heavenly
tidings had come to him, and all through his life they kept
coming in fulness, power, and blessed assurance, humbling
him, indeed, before the throne of the divine majesty, as the
marvel of redeeming grace ever humbles the true child of
God, ere in turn it lifts him in fervent worship to the very
presence-chamber of the Most High.

I close as I began. We cannot but mourn our heavy loss ;
but our very grief pleads with us to thank God for that
goodness and grace that endowed this servant of his with
such rare gifts of mind and heart, and prospered him so
abundantly in his high vocation, and made him a source of
such great blessings to this Seminary and to the whole
Church. We count him happy in the length of his years, in
the measure of his services, and in the beneficent issues of his
noble career. It was such a life as a scholar would wish for
himself, and now that it has been made perfect in death, we
who knew and loved him rejoice most of all in this, that he
who so well deserved and so modestly bore his wreath of
academic laurels has now been deemed worthy, as a sinner
saved by grace, to receive that highest coronation of the
human spirit, the crown of life that fadeth not away. There
was a phrase which we students often heard fall from the
lips of our late teacher — I have referred to it more than once :
“We must wait for further light.” It is our confident faith
that our departed friend, now blessed with the beatific
vision of the glory of the Lord, has his heart’s desire in the
fulness of that light that never was on sea or land save in
the Life that is the light of all worlds. We would not grudge
him his home-going. But as we thank God for the life and
work of John D. Davis, let us with renewed earnestness and
fidelity dedicate ourselves to the task of knowing and mak-
ing known that same truth of God which he so deeply loved,
so faithfully taught, and so nobly defended. We may never

JOHN D. DAVIS 567

be able rightly to appraise the greatness of this heritage; but
at least

We have a voice with which to pay the debt
Of boundless love and reverence and regret
To those great men who fought, and kept it ours : —

And keep it ours, O God !

Princeton. Frederick W. Loetscher.

“A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY”

Seventeen years have elapsed since the Standard Bible
Dictionary was first published ; and a new, enlarged and com-
pletely revised edition has recently appeared/ In general it
follows the lines of the original work, its aim being to bring
the first edition up to date. Consequently those who are
familiar with the edition of 1909 will be able to judge fairly
accurately of the general character of the present work. But
for the sake of those who are not very familiar with the 1909
edition it may be well to describe it briefly before entering
upon a more detailed examination of the new edition which
is intended to supplant it.

The Edition of 1909

The original edition was prepared by Jacobus and Nourse
of Hartford Seminary and Zenos of McCormick Seminary
working “in association with American, British and Ger-
man scholars.”^ Of Americans there were twenty-one: eight
from Hartford Seminary (Jacobus, Macdonald, Mackenzie,

1 A New Standard Bible Dictionary : Designed as a comprehensive
help to the study of the Scriptures, their languages, literary problems,
history, biography, manners and customs, and their religious teachings.
Edited by Melancthon W. Jacobus, D.D., Dean, and Hosmer Professor
of New Testament Exegesis and Criticism, in Hartford Theological
Seminary; Edward E. Nourse, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology,
and Instructor in New Testament Canonicity and Textual Criticism, in
Hartford Theological Seminary; and Andrew C. Zenos, D.D., Dean, and
Professor of Biblical Theology in McCormick Theological Seminary,
Chicago ; in association with American, British, and German scholars ;
completely revised and enlarged ; embellished with many illustrations,
plans, and maps; Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and London,
1926. [N. B. Owing to the fact that so many names appear in the list of
contributors to this dictionary it has seemed wise to omit such titles as
“Dr.” and “Professor” and refer to the writers simply by their last
names].

2 In the 1909 edition Jacobus is called “editor-in-chief” and Nourse
and Zenos are described as “associates” (see title on the back of the
cover). But in the 1926 edition as on the title page of that of 1909 no
such distinction is made, and the order of names. Jacobus, Nourse,
Zenos might be regarded as simply alphabetical.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 569

Mitchell, Nourse, Paton, Pratt, Thayer) ; four from McCor-
mick Seminary (Carrier, Dickey, Robinson and Zenos) ;
two from Chicago University (Mathews, Price) ; one each
from Auburn Seminary (Riggs), Western Seminary (Kel-
so), Cornell University (Sterritt), Harvard University
(Ropes), Syrian Protestant College, Beirut (Post) ; also
two pastors (Leary, Trout). Of British scholars there were
ten: Bartlet, Denney, Dods, Driver, Falconer, Gray, Lake,
McCurdy, Milligan, Sanday. Of Germans there were five :
von Dobschiitz, Guthe, K5nig, Nowack, Thumb.

While the fact that fifteen of the thirty-six contributors
to the first edition were British or German gave the Diction-
ary a markedly international character, it was of course in the
main a product of American scholarship. Most of 'the foreign
scholars, with the exception of the two Canadians (Falconer,
McCurdy), contributed only a few articles, some but one:
British — Bartlet (Acts), Denney (Church Life, Jesus
Christ, Paul), Dods (Jude, Ep. of, Peter, Eps. of). Driv-
er (Aramaic Language, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Num-
bers), Gray (Genealogy of O. T.), Lake (N. T. Canon),
Milligan (Antichrist, Thessalonians), Sanday (Mir-
acles) : German — von Dobschiitz (N. T. Text), Guthe
(Marriage and Divorce, Palestine (most). Ships) Ko-
nig (Ezra and Nehemiah, Isaiah, O. T. Canon), Nowack
(15 articles, including Agriculture, Heb. Archaeology,
Mourning, Warfare), Thumb (Hellenistic and Bib-
lical Greek). But on the other hand the intrinsic im-
portance of most of the articles assigned to these foreign
scholars made their contribution to the Dictionary far great-
er than the relative number of the articles would indicate.

The two Canadian representatives contributed a consider-
able number of articles. Ealconer’s were mostly brief and
dealt with the persons and places mentioned in the N. T. ;
but included also the articles Timothy, Timothy (Eps. of),
Titus (Ep. of). McCurdy wrote the important articles As-
syria, Babylon. Babylonia. Egypt, Ethnography (in

570

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

part), Israel (History of), Semitic Religions, and about
twenty shorter articles.

Turning to the American scholars we find that of the eight
Hartford men. Jacobus wrote the important articles on the
Gosi>els and on most of the Epistles of Paul, together with
a number of others; Macdonald had three articles (Arab,
Ecclesiastes, Job); Mackenzie, ten (inch Conscience,
Faith, God, Justification, Will) ; Mitchell, one (Gnosti-
cism) ; Nourse, a large number of articles, chiefly bearing on
the O. T., both long (e.g.. Chronicles, Deuteronomy,
Hexateuch, Peter, Priesthood) and short; Paton, about
sixteen articles (notably Esther, Jerusalem, O. T. Text) ;
Pratt, twelve articles (notably Music, Praise, Prayer,
Psalms and Worship) ; Thayer, most of the brief articles
on O. T. proper names.

Of the McCormick men. Carrier had forty articles
(chiefly on O. T. biography, e.g., Aaron, Amos, Eve, Jo-
seph, Zerubbabel) ; Dickey, about twenty usually very
short articles; Robinson, twenty-five articles on O. T. place
names; Zenos, many articles both long (e.g.. Eschatology,
Prophecy, Sacrifice, Salvation, Temple) and short, in
both the O. T. and N. T. fields.

Mathews of Chicago had four articles (Demon, Herod,
Pharisees, Sadducees) ; Price of Chicago, about thirty
articles (chiefly Assyrio-Babylonian biographical and geo-
graphical names) ; Riggs of Auburn, about twenty articles
(e.g., Maccabees, Targum, Wisdom of Solomon) ; Kelso
of Western, about fifty articles (e.g., Ark, Cherubim,
Flood, Tribes, and a number on O. T. geography) ; Ster-
ritt of Cornell, many brief articles dealing with N. T.
geographical words (also article Versions) ; Ropes of Har-
vard, one (Sermon on the Mount); Leary, many brief
articles (also Cosmogony, Song of Songs) ; Trout, many
articles on N. T. biography and geography (also Pente-
cost), Post of Beirut, one (Disease and Medicine).

In the Preface to the first edition, it is stated that the
Dictionary owed its origin to two facts; the one that the

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

571

Biblical dictionaries of Hastings and Cheyne are too “dis-
cursive” and expensive to serve as handy reference lx)oks
accessible to the general student, the other that the plan
first entertained by the publishers of translating the one vol-
ume Bibclworterhuch of Hermann Guthe did not prove to be
a practicable one. This implies that what was intended by the
editors might be roughly defined as a one-volume Hastings
or Cheyne. And this is borne out by the statement of its
critical position which is expressed as follows and appears
unchanged in the revised edition :

The critical position to which such a Dictionary is necessarily com-
mitted must be one of acceptance of the proved facts of modern scholar-
ship, of open-mindedness toward its still-debated problams, and of
conservation of the fundamental truths of the Christianity proclaimed
and established in the message and mission of Jesus Christ. The con-
stituency to which the Dictionary appeals is not to be helped by an
apologetic method that ignores what a reverent critical scholarship has
brought to light regarding the Book of the Christian religion;* nor is
it to be served by a radical spirit so enamored of novelty and opposed to
tradition that it would seek to establish a new religion on the ruins of
the historical facts of Christianity. It can be ministered to only by a
clear, charitable, uncontroversial presentation of the results which a
century and a half of earnest, conscientious, painstaking, self-denying
study of the Bible has secured, to the end that all students and readers
of the Book may be led into its more intelligent understanding and its
more spiritual use.^

It is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by the
fact that nearly all the foreign contributors had been con-
tributors to Hastings.

* An interesting commentary on this phrase is to be found in the
article Bible. It reads as follows : “Nothing can be further from the
truth, then, than to say that the religion of Israel or Christianity are
‘book-religions.’ In both the book is the product, not the cause; in both
the religion was in existence and in a strong vital touch with life and
history before the book appeared ; in both the book is the expression of
and witness to the strength and vigor as well as character of the religion.
How different in these respects the Bible is from other sacred books is
as evident as is the related fact, the difference between the religions of
other sacred books and the religion that produced the Bible” (1909 ed.,
p. 99). This means that the Bible is the product and not the source of
Christian experience. This statement does not appear in the 1926 edi-
tion. But the same view is expressed by Moffatt in his article The
Approach to the New Testament (see pp. 607 f infra.).

^ P. viii ('both editions).

5/2

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The Revised Edition of 1926

As it is with the New Standard that we are primarily con-
cerned, we shall devote our attention chiefly to the changes,
the revisions and the new material, which it contains. But
since, notwithstanding the extensive revision,® old material
is present in large measure, we shall not hesitate to call at-
tention to it as occasion may offer, though it be at the risk
of discussing matters which have already received attention
at the hands of others. In discussing the Dictionary, both
new and old material, it will be our aim to ascertain how
far the New Standard realizes the aim set forth in the state-
ment of its critical position and more especially the deeper
question whether that position is a true one.

One of the important features in the New Standard is the
considerable increase in the number of contributors: fifty-
four as against thirty-six in the first edition. This is due
largely to the fact that “a group of scholars were invited to
revise, or rewrite if that seemed preferable, those articles
whose authors had died in the intervening period, or found
it impossible to undertake the revision of their own work.”
There are only four of the original contributors whose
names do not appear in the new edition — Dods, Konig,
Sanday® and Thumb. This means that the new edition has
twenty-two new contributors. We shall look first at the
foreign contributors.

There are eleven new foreign contributors, most of whom
have revised or rewritten only a very few articles; S. Angus
of St. Andrews, Sydney, has rewritten several of Sterritt’s
articles, and revised most of the remainder; C. H. Dodd, of
Oxford, has rewritten Falconer’s N. T. Chronology; G.
S. Duncan of St. Andrews, Scotland, has revised Milligan’s
Thessalonians ; A. E. Garvie, Principal of Hackney and

® “It has covered every title, even the smallest, and in such a way as to
make the book practically a new work” (p. xi).

® The inclusion of the name of Sanday in the list of contributors is
clearly a mistake, since his article Miracles has been “rewritten” by
Gillett.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

573

New College, Hampstead, England, has revised Denney’s
Jesus Christ and Paul; W. G. Jordan of Queen’s Uni-
versity, Kingston, Canada, has rewritten Konig’s Ezra and
Nehemiah and O. T. Canon, and revised most of Riggs’
articles; H. A. A. Kennedy of the New College, Edinburgh,
has rewritten Dods’ Jude (Ep. of), Peter (Epistles of),
and Jacobus’ Colossians; J. E. McFadyen of the United
Free Church College, Glasgow, has revised Driver’s Chron-
icles and Numbers, and also written an introductory article
The Approach to the O. T. H. R. Mackintosh of the New
College, Edinburgh, has revised Mackenzie’s Faith, God,
Holy Spirit ; J. Moffatt of Glasgow has written an article on
The Approach to the N. T. A. S. Peake of Victoria
University, Manchester, has rewritten Konig’s Isaiah and
Driver’s Jeremiah and also contributed an article Israel
(Religion of) ; A. Souter of the University of Aberdeen has
revised von Dobschiitz’s N. T. Text.

Of the new American contributors A. L. Gillett of Hart-
ford Seminary has rewritten Sanday’s Miracles; C. H.
Hawes of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts has rewritten
Sterritt’s Books and Writing and Falconer’s Money; E.
C. Lane of Hartford Seminary has rewritten McCurdy’s
Aram, Riggs’ Angel, revised Thumb’s Greek Language
(in part) and revised (or rewritten) a number of short
articles 'by Falconer and Leary; R. H. Pfeiffer of Boston
University School of Theology has rewritten McCurdy’s
Israel (History of) ; A. C. Purdy of Hartford Seminary
has rewritten Jacobus’ Hebrews (Epistle of) ; A. T. Rob-
ertson of the Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Ken-
tucky, has revised Thumb’s Greek Language (in part) ; R.
W. Rogers of Drew Seminary has rewritten McCurdy’s Ar-
TAXERXES, Chedorlaomer, Cyrus, Darius, and revised his
Assyria, Babylon, Babylonia, and Egypt; O. R. Sellers
of McCormick Seminary has rewritten several of Carrier’s
articles and revised the rest, he has also revised Gray’s Gen-
ealogy; J. M. Powis Smith of Chicago University has re-
vised McCurdy’s Semitic Religion ; W. H. Worrell of the

574

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

University of Michigan has revised the Ethnography of
McCurdy and Nourse; H. G. Dorman, of the American
University, Beirut, Syria, has revised Post’s Disease and
Medicine.

Of the original contributors the majority have taken no
part in the revision and their work has been revised or re-
written by others. Of the fifteen foreigners four (Dods,
Konig, Sanday, Thumb) have had their work replaced. Eight
others (Denney, Driver, von Dobschutz, Falconer, Gray,
McCurdy, Milligan, Nowack) have had their work revised
and in the case of Driver, Falconer and McCurdy partly re-
placed by others. Three (Bartlet, Guthe, and Lake) have
apparently done their own revising. Of them all Bartlet alone
has made further contributions; he has rewritten Jacobus’
Apollos, Apostles, Baptism, Barnabas, and revised Den-
ney’s Church Life and Falconer’s Timothy (Epistles
of), Titus, Titus (Epistle of).

Of the twenty-one Americans, the work of sevpn (Carrier,
Dickey, Leary, Mitchell, Post, Riggs and Sterritt) has been
revised or rewritten by others. Eight others have revised all
(Kelso, Pratt, Price) or most (Mackenzie, Mathews, Robin-
son,Thayer, Zenos) of their own work, but made no
further contribution. The remaining six (Jacobus, Macdon-
ald, Nourse, Paton, Ropes and Trout) have done all or most
of their own revising and also revised, or rewritten, the
articles of others or contributed new ones. Jacobus has re-
vised most of Dickey’s brief articles , and has written a new
article Synoptic Problem while at the same time handing
over several of his former subjects to others. Macdonald
has revised Driver’s Aramaic Language. Nourse has ap-
parently done more revising than any one else ; we find his
initials added to those of Dickey, Falconer, Leary, Mathews,
Mitchell, Milligan, Riggs, Robinson, Sterritt, Thayer, Trout
and Zenos.® It would seem that Nourse has acted as a kind

^ Robinson’s Aphek has been revised by Nourse.

®Once or twice to those of Mathews, Mitchell, Thayer, Trout, more
often to those of Riggs, Leary, Falconer, Dickey, and Sterrett, most
often to those of Zenos.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

575

of final redactor. Yet it is rather remarkable to find him edit-
ing the wor'k of Zenos, his fellow editor and former teacher.
Paton has revised or rewritten a number of articles, chiefly
some by Leary, McCurdy and Nowack, and has contributed
a new article Excavation and Exploration. Ropes has
rewritten Jacobus’ Brethren of the Lord. Trout has re-
vised a number of minor articles.

The greater part of the work of revising this Dictionary,
in so far as it is indicated by the signatures appended to the
articles, has consequently been done by Nourse, Paton and
Lane of Hartford Seminary, by Sellers of McCormick, and
by Angus of Australia. One of the clearest indications of
the care with which the revision has been made is found in
the way in which the results of recent excavations, etc., have
been incorporated or referred to in the articles.® In a similar
way the bibliographies have been brought down to date in so
far, that is to say, as works written from the critical view-
point are concerned.

The Nature of the Revision

Since we have in the New Standard so thorough-going a
revision of the original edition it is important to consider
the nature of this revision. There are two general types of
dictionary of which the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the
New International may be regarded as representative. In the
one all the important articles are signed; and the reader
knows on whom he is depending for information. In the
other the articles are unsigned ; the reader cannot tell who is
responsible for a given article. He merely knows that it has
back of it the authority and reputation of the work and its
editorial board. It is claimed that this increases the value of
the articles by making them less the expression of individual
opinion. But the disadvantages of such a method are obvious.
Few works of any great compass are of equal value through-
out; a generally good work may contain some bad or

® E.g., Amorite, Carchemish, Gallic, Gebal, Nineveh, Samaria, Ur,
Weights and Measures.

576

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

mediocre articles ; and a contributor is more likely to do his
best work when held personally responsible for it than when
he does hack-work for which he receives no credit.

The Standard belongs as we have seen to the former class
of dictionaries. All but the very briefest articles carry the
initials of the author. And the list of contributors and the
prominence given to this list (it is placed immediately after
the title page) shows that the editors felt that a dictionary
which contained contributions by such distinguished scholars
as Denney, Milligan, Nowack and Sanday (to mention only
a few) might claim to be authoritative and expect to be popu-
lar. The New Standard has continued the same general
policy. All articles of any importance are signed; and the
list of contributors is given the same conspicuous place. In
the case of a much larger number of the very brief articles
the initials of the author are omitted.^® But this is a minor
matter. The noticeable thing is the great number of articles
which have two sets of initials and for which consequently
dual responsibility is claimed. Thus “J. D. — A. E. G.” at the
end of the article Paul means that Garvie has revised Den-
ney’s article.

Yet we note with some surprise that the changes made
by the reviser are in no wise distinguished from the
text of the original article.^^ This is noteworthy; it means

10 E.g. in Beth-Haran (Zenos) and Beroea (Sterritt) the initials
have been dropped and editorial changes made. On the other hand in the
case of Elijah, an article of nearly a page, the omission of Zenos’
initials is clearly accidental.

11 In many instances, especially in the case of very brief articles, the
second initials simply indicate that the article has been passed on and
approved by the reviser, e.g., in Dickey’s Chaste, Nourse has made no
changes, while in his Charity Jacobus has only corrected an obvious
misprint. In Barsabbas, Falconer’s initials (R. A. F.) have been allowed
to stand alone at the end of the second part of the article. This is
clearly an oversight.

12' We are told in the Preface: “Naturally, wherever it was possible,
the revision of articles that were to be retained was entrusted to the
original authors, although cases were not infrequent where there was
collaboration’’ (p. vii). We are left, however, in ignorance as to when
this collaboration is to be assumed as having taken place.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

577

that except where it is clear from the nature of the changes
(e.g., the reference to literature published subsequent to the
date of the first edition), the reader is in no position to judge
how much of the new article is Garvie, for example, and how
much is still Denney, unless he compares the new article with
the old, which few are likely to do, or is so well acquainted
with the views of the two scholars that he can, after the
manner of the higher critic, distinguish D from G, and recog-
nize where G, or we might better say R (the redactor), has
edited the words of his source to make them reflect the truer
wisdom of a later age (fifteen years advance in scholarship).

Let us look at an instance taken from the article Paul
which has been referred to above. The nth section of this
article deals with “The Council Decree.” The opening sen-
tences read in the 1909 edition as follows :

The provisional settlement of this question is recorded in Acts chap, xv ;
Gal. chap. ii. It was entirely in Paul’s favor.

In 'the 1926 edition these sentences have been altered and
expanded to read as follows :

The provisional settlement of this question is recorded in Acts chap.
XV. Whether Paul is referring to this settlement in Gal. chap, ii is very
doubtful. Some scholars, on the basis of the ‘South Galatian’ view,
hold that the Epistle to the Galatians was the first of Paul’s letters, and
was written in the first heat of the controversy from Antioch before
the Council was held ; and there is much to be said for this conclusion :
for (i) it removes the difficulty of reconciling the accounts in Acts
chap. XV and Gal. chap, ii of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem; (2) the con-
duct of Paul, Peter, and Barnabas as depicted in Gal. is more intelligible
before than after the decrees in Acts chap, xv (per contra, see Gala-
tians, § 3). This decree was entirely in Paul’s favor.

Comparing these statements we see that Denney clearly be-
lieved that Gal. ii referred to the Council Decree, while
Garvie considers this very doubtful. Furthermore, the
changes of phrase, slight as they are, prevent the reader from
detecting (we doubt if even a skilled critic would discover
any “source analysis” unless he happened to know Denney’s
opinion as to Gal. ii) that D^ practically contradicts D. Has
the view of Denney become so hopelessly old fashioned with-

13 p. 648b.

11 P. 687b.

5/8

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in a decade and a half, that such liberties can properly be
taken with his apparently mature and carefully stated opin-
ions ? Would it not have been much better to put such edito-
rial changes in brackets? Then the reader would have the
facts clearly before him. Denney’s view would stand intact,
and Garvie’s disagreement and the reasons therefor would
be apparent. This has nothing to do with the question whether
Garvie is right in his editorial changes. The question is
simply whether Denney, since his name still appears as the
original author, should be allowed to speak for himself, with
such clearly indicated comments as Garvie may deem it wise
to supply, or whether Garvie is entitled to make Denney re-
verse his position without giving the reader the slightest in-
timation that he has done so.

Let us look at a few more examples. The ‘Messianic Con-
sciousness’ of Jesus has been much discussed in recent years.
Denney tells us :

We know nothing of a growth of the Messianic consciousness. No doubt
it had psychological antecedents and conditions which prepared for it
and made it possible, but we can only conjecture vaguely upon them. It
appears as suddenly as a lightning flash, and it shows no trace of devel-
opment or of modification. How the seemingly inconsistent elements in
it were to be fused only His future life would show.^*

Denney-Garvie reads thus :

We know nothing of a growth of the Messianic consciousness, at least
not within the period of the public ministry. No doubt it had psycho-
logical antecedents and conditions, which prepared for it and made it
possible, but we can only conjecture vaguely upon them. (Garvie, in his
Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907), has attempted as far as the
data allow to explore the self-consciousness of Jesus in its develop-
ment.) How the seemingly inconsistent elements in it were to be fused
only His future life would show.^®

Here the case is more complicated because the parenthetical
reference to Garvie’s discussion of this subject is misleading,
since the date of his book ( 1907) suggests that the reference
might originate with Denney himself, which it does not.^’^

13 P. 409a.

1® P. 438a.

11 Cf., e.g. p. 536 where the reference to Kaiser Wilhelm’s visit to
Machpelah in 1898 is an editorial addition of Paton’s.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

579

Further, the insertion of the clause “at least not within the pe-
riod of the public ministry” and the omission of the sentence
“It appears as suddenly as a lightning flash, and it shows no
trace of development or modification” avoids any inconsis-
tency with Garvie’s reference to his own discussion of this
important question. Is this quite just to Denney? His article
appeared in 1909, two years after Garvie’s book. He did not
refer to this book, and his statements indicate that, if he
knew it, as he may well have done, he did not agree with it.
Garvie in revising the article incorporates a reference to this
book and alters Denney’s views to accord with it.^® Can we
regard this as legitimate ?

Turning to Denney’s third article. Church Life and
Organization, which has been revised by Bartlet, we find
an interesting example of editing in the comment on the
word “disciples.” Denney’s words are :

This last word (the feminine fiaO^rpia Acts ix. 36) is found only in
Acts and in the (jospels. Though it signifies not merely a pupil but an ad-
herent, it seems to have been felt unequal to the truth; Jesus was more
than a Teacher, the Christian owed more to Him than a pupil to his
master, and in the Epistles the word disappears.^®

The following is Bartlet’s explanation :

This last word is found only in Acts and the CJospels. Although it signi-
fies not only a pupil but an adherent, its suggestion of actual personal
relationship with Jesus as Teacher seems to have caused it early to die
out (save for martyrs, as specially ‘learners’ of their Lord in His
earthly example: so e.g., Ignatius).®®

That this explanation is quite dififerent and avoids the clear
implication of Denney’s assertion that Jesus was more than
a teacher, does not need to be stressed.

Many other examples might easily be cited. Thus, not
merely has Dorman made many changes in Post’s Disease
AND Medicine, but he has also added a section on “The
Healing Ministry of Jesus,” in which he intimates that Jesus
shared “the limitations of the human mind” in believing

Another example of the editing of this article is a long insert on
pp. 44if. dealing with Jesus’ miracles.

1® P. 132a.

2® P. 133b.

580 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that “insanity, hysteria and epilepsy” were due to an unclean
spirit and among His cures are mentioned “three cases of
raising the apparently dead.” The word “apparently” shows
clearly the bias of the reviser. Yet there is nothing to indicate
that this whole section is due entirely to Dorman. On the
other hand in Mitchell’s Gnosticism the first brief para-
graph has been expanded (by Nourse?) to over a column
and a half, the rest being only slightly changed. In his article
Egypt McCurdy referred to Merneptah’s mention of Israel
as one of the peoples conquered by him and added “It is
doubtful whether the Hebrew ‘Exodus’ had then (c. 1260
B.c.) taken place.” Rogers changes this sentence to read “It
is probable that the Hebrew ‘Exodus’ had then (c. 1225 b.c.)
taken place.” In the article Babylonia McCurdy stated that
“The first dynasty of Babylon lasted till about 2100 b.c.”
Rogers changes 2100 to 1760. This is probably approxi-
mately correct, but it is rather a drastic change to make in an
article to which McCurdy’s name is still attached.

In our opinion the only satisfactory, we are tempted to
say, the only legitimate way in which changes can be made
in a signed article is by bracketted insert, marginal comment,
or concluding note.^® But even if the validity of the other
method is admitted, the question of how much revising is
permissible in an article to which the name of the original
author is still attached is a difficult one; and we do not
think that it has been satisfactorily solved in this volume.
There are articles which have been so radically changed (e.g.,
the article Eli) that it is hardly just to the original author to
retain his name in connection with them. They have practic-
ally ceased to be his. On the other hand there are articles
(e.g. Babylonish Garment) that bear only the initials of

21 Mathews holds that Jesus and His disciples “shared in the popular
demonology’’ (p.i77a). Denney argues that this does not matter, since
Jesus did not come to teach medicine or psychology (p. 441b).

32 For other examples see pp. spdf infra.

23 In some instances this would be quite simple (e.g., in the case of
the new closing paragraph in Greece and Samaria). In others it would
be much more difficult

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 58 1

the reviser, which follow so closely the general form of the
original article that it seems hardly proper to ignore this fact.

One of the important new features of the Dictionary, as
has been already pointed out, is that two articles have been
added at the beginning treating of the important subject of
“Approach.” The one which treats of The Approach to
THE Old Testament is by McFayden; the companion article
on The Approach to the New Testament is by Moffatt.
Both of these scholars are professors in the United Free
Church College in Glasgow, and consequently speak more or
less authoritatively for a large group of Presbyterians in
Scotland and elsewhere. These articles are of especial inter-
est because they are clearly intended to set forth the “critical
position” of the Dictionary somewhat more in detail than has
been done by the editors’ preface. They therefore merit care-
ful study as they reveal clearly the methods, tendencies and
conclusions of that “modern” study of the Bible of which
the Standard Bible Dictionary — both editions — is the ex-
pression.

The Approach to the Old Testament

McFayden’s article is a thoroughly characteristic onef*
and its significance lies in the fact that its author does not
hesitate to state boldly and with manifest enthusiasm those
conclusions of the critics which it is often the endeavor to
tone down and conceal, lest they shock the devout and unso-
phisticated student of the Bible. Our author delights in the
differences, discrepancies and even contradictions of the
O. T. “The outlook and personalities of the writers are,” he
assures us, “refreshingly diverse.” “Could any contrast be
greater,” he asks, “than that between the glowing exuber-
ance, alike in message and style, of Deutero-Isaiah (Is.
xl-lv) and the meager jejune prose of Haggai; or between
Jeremiah who cared less than nothing for ritual and Ezekiel

2* C£. especially article “Zionism” in Expos. Times for May 1924; also
the series on “The Bible and Modern Thought” in The Record of the
Home and Foreign Mission Work of the United Free Church of Scotland,
October 1925 — March 1926.

582 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

to whom it was almost the all in all?” “The most pervasive
and fundamental contrast, however, is,” he assures us, “that
between the prophet and the priest. Amos at the beginning
and Malachi at the end of the prophetic succession are dia-
metrically opposed.” He declares that “by far the most fla-
grant divergence of all is that between Samuel and Kings on
the one hand and Chronicles on the other.” And finally we
read “The most momentous contradiction in the O. T. occurs
in connection with the origin of the Hebrew sacrificial sys-
tem.” These are strong and arrogant words to use regarding
the Old Testament Scriptures : “most pervasive and funda-
mental contrast — diametrically opposed — flagrant diverg-
ence— most momentous contradiction” !

The reason for McFadyen’s apparent delight in such al-
leged differences, is not far to seek. “Criticism,” he tells us,
“is inevitable. The problems with which it deals are created
by the facts, such facts, e.g., as discrepancies and contradic-
tions.” No wonder then that he is interested in these alleged
differences. He is a critic; and criticism deals largely with
just such phenomena. If there were no discrepancies and
contradictions, criticism, as understood by him and as prac-
ticed by most of the critics, would be at a discount. It would
not play the superlative role that it does. It is natural, then,
that the critic should be on the lookout for differences and
contradictions. They are his specialty. Explain them satisfac-
torily; and his services as an expert on such morbid phe-
nomena are not needed.^ But if the critic is an expert on such

25 We have referred to these difficulties as “morbid” phenomena, but
the word is even more appropriate as applied to the critic’s attitude
toward these phenomena. He is constantly searching for “difficulties”;
and in consequence he becomes hypersensitive and finds them where
none exist. Thus Nourse counts up as many as seven points about which
“the main differences” between J and E in Exodus centre (p. 24Qf.).
But most of them simply result from the determination of the critics to
analyze Exodus into documentary sources. Similarly, Baton holds that
the book of Esther “contains a number of inconsistencies with itself”
(p. 230a). As an illustration of this he tells us that “In ii. 6 Mordecai is
one of the captives carried away with Jehoiachin in 596 b.c., but in iii.
7, viii. 2, he becomes prime minister in the 12th year of Xerxes, 474 b.c.”

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 583

distressing phenomena as “contradictions,” features which
seem to make it impossible to believe in the infallibility and
authority of the Bible — we cannot regard two contradictory
authorities as both of them valid — , how does he solve them?

“The Most Momentous Contradiction”

We have a good example of such a solution in the case of
the “most momentous contradiction in the O.T.” already re-
ferred to. The whole paragraph reads as follows :

The most momentous contradiction in the O. T. occurs in connection
with the origin of the Hebrew sacrificial system. Amos (v. 25), still
more explicitly Jeremiah (vii. 22) and by implication Micah (vi. 6-8),
maintain that J" had given no commandment concerning sacrifice,
His demand was for a moral service. But how is it possible to reconcile
this with the book of Leviticus which, almost from end to end, is an
elaborate regulation of the sacrificial and other ritual, prescribed and
issued by Moses at the command and with the authority of J" Him-
self? Criticism resolves this contradiction by putting the law, as ex-
pressed in Leviticus and the cognate sections of the Pentateuch, later
than the prophets. The true chronological order is not the law and the
prophets, but the prophets and the law; and this is one of the most
vital and illuminating discoveries of criticism.

This Statement will bear careful scrutiny. It would indeed
be an “illuminating” discovery that Amos, Jeremiah and Mi-
cah could truthfully say that they knew nothing of a Mosaic
ritual of sacrifice, because the “priestly” ritual which makes
such definite claims to Mosaic authority was the invention of

This sounds serious. But it is not. In ii. 6f. we read, “Now in Shushan
the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of
Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite; who had been car-
ried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away
with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon
had carried away.’’ The question is simply to whom does the “who” refer,
Mordecai or his great-grandfather Kish? If to Mordecai, we have a
glaring inconsistency: if to Kish, the inconsistency disappears. The
language is ambiguous : “grammatical considerations do not decide the
question”— even the keen eyed Kuenen admitted that (Hastings’ Dic-
tionary, in loco). It is decided by the critic’s attitude to Esther; and
Baton’s attitude is hostile in the extreme. Consequently instead of giving
Esther the benefit of a favorable interpretation of an admittedly am-
biguous expression, he asserts positively and dogmatically that it con-
tains an inconsistency.

P. 6.

584 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

a later age. It would seriously affect our attitude to
the O. T. were we to find that considerable portions of it make
explicit claims which other parts emphatically deny. But we
are unable to see that Criticism “resolves” this difficulty by
the apparently simple process of post-dating the Law. If the
Law was Mosaic, the prophets ought to have known this.
Their denial amounts to a contradiction of its claims. But if
the Law was late and non-Mosaic, then the ‘priestly’ writers
of post-exilic times ought to have known this ; and their as-
sertion of its Mosaic origin and authority contradicts the
prophets. The contradiction has not been “resolved” ; the onus
of it has simply been shifted. Instead of its being the priests
who are right in affirming that the ritual of sacrifice is of
Mosaic and therefore Divine authority and the prophets who
are in error in denying this, it is the prophets who are right
in denying these lofty pretensions of the priests and the
priests who are guilty of what we might call, to put it mildly,
a selfish use of the imagination.

Furthermore it is to be observed that this so-called solu-
tion of the critics has very serious implications. For if the
critics are correct in maintaining that the prophets were right
in denying that Moses legislated regarding sacrifice, and if
the priests’ claim of Mosaic authority for it is false, what
reason is there to suppose that ritual sacrifice formed a part
or at least an essential part in the religion of Israel of which
the prophets were the great exponents? McFadyen speaks
here only of the origin of sacrifice. But the contradiction
which the critics find here goes far deeper than the origin of
sacrifice; it concerns its value and validity as well. It tends
not only to the disparaging of priestly religion; it leads
logically to its rejection in toto. This appears clearly in the
antithesis which he has drawn for us between Jeremiah “who
cared less than nothing for ritual” and Ezekiel “to whom it
was almost the all in all.”^^ It appears even more clearly in the

2'^Cf. p. 58if supra. Elsewhere McFadyen has called Ezekiel “a priest,
or a prophet with a priestly heart” {Expos. Times, May 1924, p. 343).
Wellhausen dubbed him the ‘‘priest in prophet’s mantle.” Paton tells us

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ' 585

evidence cited to show that Amos and Malachi are “diamet-
ically opposed.” For McFadyen goes on to picture this an-
tithesis as follows : “Amos maintaining that J" demands not
sacrifice and offerings but righteousness only (v. 24!), and
Malachi declaring that the people have robbed God and
brought His vengeance up>on themselves by withholding the
tithes and presenting blemished and inadequate offerings
(i. 14, iii. 8-12).” This comes very far short of being a solu-
tion of difficulties. For it leads to the conclusion that in the
Old Testament we have two distinct types of religion, or two
different religions, the prophetic and the priestly, which can
by no means be reconciled the one to the other.^®

Furthermore the proposed solution has the most important

that the prophets of the post-exilic period “lost their ethical message”
(p. 403b), and he alleges in proof of this that “After the fall of Jerusa-
lem Ezekiel ceased to preach repentance, and concerned himself with
the restoration of Judah. In chaps, xl-xlviii he gave a purely ritual code
for the use of the restored Temple.” Malachi (to whom MoFadyen has
referred as “diametrically opposed to Amos”) and the Third Isaiah
are similarly rebuked by Paton for their interest in priestly ritual (Id.).

2® In discussing Propitiation (p. 743!) Mackenzie attempts to avoid
the “contradiction” between priest and prophet of which the critics make
so much. He holds that we have in the Old Testament two views of the
method of the Divine forgiveness. In dealing with the word kaphar and its
derivatives, he points out that in some instances it is used with “refer-
ence to the ritual of sacrifice,” while in others it is used of “the imme-
diate Divine act of pardon.” Speaking of the latter he holds that “In some
of these cases the sin was probably committed ‘with a high hand,’ i.e., it
was a breach of that covenant within which alone the sacrificial system
had its force. And hence we find this marvelous act of Divine mercy
traced directly and only to the mercy and loving kindness of God (^.g.,
Ps. XXV. II, cxxx. 3, 4).” He characterizes as “superficial” the view that
the priestly conception of religion was primitive and inferior: “It is
superficial to solve the problem by saying that the sacrificial view was
lower, because it grew out of primitive notions of the Divine nature and
relations, and was really abolished for the higher spirits by the other
view that the Divine forgiveness is unconditioned save by the repent-
ance which its promise produces. The two views lived on together in
Israel.” Yet Mackenzie’s own view is open to the most serious difficulty.
It is expressly stated in the Old Testament in more than one passage that
the punishment of the sin of the “high hand’ was not simple forgiveness,
but the “cutting off” of the guilty party. We do not read that Eli’s sons
were forgiven ; we read rather that there was no forgiveness for them

586 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

New Testament implications. If the priest and the prophet
represented different and conflicting types of religion, with
which party did Jesus side? Paton tells us that “John the
Baptist and Jesus represent a revival of the ethical message
of the pre-exilic prophets” (p. 403b). In discussing the at-
titude of Jesus toward sacrifice, Zenos tells us :

The birth of Jesus was signalized by the offering of the customary
sacrifice of purification (Luke ii. 22). But in His life and ministry. He
placed the sacrificial system as a whole in a very subordinate position. As
a topic of direct teaching, in fact, He completely ignored it. . . . As far
as known He never offered sacrifice. To what extent His conduct should
be interpreted as a formal rupture with the sacrificial system, and how
far, if at all, He regarded it of use, cannot possibly be ascertained. It is
certain, however, that by shifting the centre of thought and practise from
the outward to the inner sphere, Jesus effectually introduced a new view
of religion, which was inevitably destined to result in the abrogation of
the old system. His disciples evidently so understood His mind.^s

This is of the utmost significance, because “rupture” cannot
possibly be construed as meaning “fulfilment.” “Rupture”
would be the appropriate word only if Jesus adopted the
“prophetic” doctrine in its strictest form, as the words “if at

and that they perished ignobly at the hands of the Philistines. To as-
sume that under the Old Dispensation sins for which no atonement was
provided or permitted were simply forgiven raises the question “Why
should atonement — the covering of sin with blood — be necessary for sins
of infirmity and ignorance, and none be needed for those which strike at
the very throne of God?” Mackenzie does not answer this question
satisfactorily. There is no satisfactory answer to it; and simply to ask
it shows how serious is the difficulty in which this solution lands us. The
Old Testament clearly sets forth a ritual of atonement as the means by
which forgiveness is to be secured. It also describes the sin of the high
hand as unpardonable. Consequently it would seem that in passages where
forgiveness is spoken of without any mention of sacrifice, we are ex-
pected to understand that it is simply assumed that the conditions of the
law are to be and will be complied with. This does not mean that there
could be no exceptions to or modifications of the exact terms of the
prescribed ritual (the law of the delayed passover (Num. ix. 6f.) and
the irregularities connected with Hezekiah’s passover (2 Chron. xxx. lyf )
are examples of such exceptions) ; but it does mean that these exceptions
to the law of expiation are not to be elevated into a new and better way
which makes the legal requirements meaningless and insistence upon
them absurd.

29 p 797t.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 587

all” would suggest that He did. That Zenos favors this view
seems to be indicated by the further statement that the “abro-
gation” of the sacrificial system is due to His “shifting the
centre of thought and practise from the outward to the inner
sphere” which is a “new view” of religion which the critics
regard as characteristic of “prophetic” religion. Zenos’ words
therefore, imply that Jesus’ attitude toward sacrifice was
clearly “prophetic,” it being only a question as to the extent to
which he carried His opposition to the whole priestly system.
This is to be borne in mind in reading such a statement as the
following: “In the development of New Testament thought
upon the basis of the life and teaching of Jesus, sacrifice grad-
ually receded into the background.” Did ritual sacrifice recede
into the background because Jesus fulfilled it or because He
opposed it ? Zenos points out that “In Hebrews the position is
clearly reached that every cardinal thought of the ancient
ritual, and many subordinate ones, had been brought to their
full expression and, therefore superseded by the person of
Jesus.” This might seem to imply that the word to use is
“fulfilled.” But of Jesus’ own attitude Zenos goes on to say:

Jesus Himself did not use the language of the ritual in laying before His
disciples the meaning of His own work, and especially of His death. His
expression with reference to giving His life ‘a ransom for many’ (Mk.
X. 45) is open to debate, but in all probability is not drawn from the
sacrificial system. The nearest approach made by Him to identifying His
death with an Old Testament sacrifice, as regards significance, is that
contained in the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (q.v.). But
the Apostolic interpretation, in both the Pauline and Johannine forms,
very clearly works out the meaning of the Gospel along the lines of sac-
rificial symbolism.

Here we observe a marked tendency to distinguish the
leaching of Jesus regarding the significance of His death
from that of His disciples. If in the face of what the Old Tes-
tament has to say about the necessity of expiation (Lev. xvii.
II sums up for us its doctrine of blood atonement) and if,
despite the high estimate in which Jesus held the Old Testa-
ment, as to which we have many proofs, and if, in spite of the
clear teaching of the New Testament that the Old Testament
law of expiation was fulfilled in the death of Christ (Heb. ix.

588 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

22 SO interprets Lev. xvii. ii) — if, in spite of these things,
Zenos is prepared to admit that the word “rupture” is at all
applicable to Jesus’ attitude to the priestly ritual, we have
in this very fact a clear indication of the grave consequences
of the critical theory of a “contradiction” between the priest
and the prophet. It is true that in his discussion of the Lord's
Supper to which he refers the reader, Zenos rejects the view
that after the crucifixion, when it had “dawned” on the disci-
ples that Jesus was the Passover sacrifice, “The original cir-
cumstances were lost sight of, and new words and acts
imagined in their place.” This theory together with others
which he mentions he regards as “too ingenious to represent
the true history.” But it is hard to see wherein his own view
differs essentially from it. If the words of institution re-
corded by the evangelists and Paul are the words of Jesus
Himself, how can anyone deny that Jesus, far from repudiat-
ing the priestly ritual, expressly taught that His death would
constitute its fulfilment? If the words are not His, or if they
have been garbled or twisted or “interpreted,” then the word
“imagined” is as appropriate as any other.

It is to be noted further that Zenos holds regarding the
Supper that “it is evident that its meaning was primarily
that of the mystic infusion of the spirit of Christ symbolized
in the external act of the eating of a common meal.” Whether
the word “primary” is to be taken in the sense of original or
of most important, is not clear. Perhaps both ideas are in-
volved. At all events it is important to note in this connection
that Zenos holds that the “root” out of which Hebrew and
heathen forms of sacrifice issued is not expiation, but “the
table-bond between the worshiper and his god.” This, he
assures us, includes the idea of expiation : “In the notion of
such a bond all the other ideas, expiatory, propitiatory and
tributory are germinally present.” If then the primary mean-
ing of the Supper was “table-bond” communion, the element
of expiation might be only “germinally” present in it. Hence
we find here a double tendency: to deny that Jesus looked

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 589

upon His death as sacrificial, and to make expiation a subor-
dinate element in sacrifice.®®

It is not clear just how far Zenos is prepared to press the
application of the critical theory we have been considering.
That the statements we have quoted tend strongly in the di-
rection of an undue if not exclusive emphasis upon the “pro-
phetic” (using the word in the “critical” sense) office of
Christ and a corresponding depreciation or denial of the
“priestly” office cannot be denied. Yet Zenos in describing
the meaning which the Lord’s Supper has for the “modern
mind” places first “the commemorative aspect of it, bringing
to mind the redemptive death of Christ” ; and he twice uses
the word “redemption” in describing it. Just to what extent
“expiation” is involved in his use of this word it is difficult
to say. Some statements would suggest that it is only “germ-
inally” present, if present at all. Others would indicate that
it is to be recognized as a valid, perhaps even an important
factor. We do not wish to do injustice to a distinguished
scholar or to draw inferences from his words which he would
himself repudiate. Our principal concern is to point out that
by its assertion of a “contradiction” between priest and
prophet and by its “solution” of that contradiction through
the depreciation or rejection of the priestly side of the religion
of Israel, Criticism has forged a weapon that is most destruc-
tive to our Christian faith. The “contradiction” destroys the

In discussing the word Lamb (p. 503) Zenos tells us that in Isa. liii.
7 the metaphor is that of “guilelessness as opposed to cunning,” that
“In the testimony of John the Baptist (John i. 29) to Jesus, the d/ivds is
evidently the lamb of Is. liii. 7” which of course means that John’s
language was not sacrificial ; in fact he contrasts it with the use of the
word in Rev. which he regards as “undoubtedly sacrificial.” We note
further that Jacobus feels that “the Baptist’s designation of Jesus as
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (Jn. i. 29, 36) is
so different from his conception of the Coming One as given us in the
Synoptics as to suggest a development of his spiritual ideas by others”
(p. 470). This is of course open to the objection that these words are ex-
pressly declared to be the words of the Forerunner. It also raises the
vitally important question whether this “development” is to be regarded
as authoritative.

590

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

trustworthiness of the Bible ; for two contradictory systems
of religion cannot both be true. The “solution” strikes at the
heart of Christianity, the Cross of Christ as a sacrifice for sin.
Yet both contradiction and solution are of the critic’s own
making. The Old Testament Scriptures make it abundantly
plain that the Law with its ritual of sacrifice was divinely
ordained, that the non-observance and abuse of the Law was
due to apostasy, that the polemic of the prophets was not
directed against sacrifice as such, but against the abuse of
sacrifice; while the New Testament Scriptures assert that
Christ bare our sins in His own body on the tree and in so
doing fulfilled the teachings of both the Law and the
Prophets.

Old T estament Religion “in the Raw”

How drastic is the reconstruction of the Old Testament
which is made necessary by the acceptance of the “critical
approach” is further illustrated by the following statement
taken from near the middle of McFadyen’s article :

The full appreciation of the sequence of O. T. history and the develop-
ment of Hebrew thought is only possible on the basis of such a rear-
rangement of O. T. material as has been won by the patient toil of gen-
erations of critical scholars. To begin with Gen. chap, i or to regard the
book of Lev. as a witness to the mind of Moses would be to vitiate our
conception of the sequence and development, as these belong to the
latest and post-exilic stratum of the historical books. In view of the
composite nature of these books it is not easy to say where a beginning
might be most wisely made — possibly with the book of Judges, where
social and religious life is, so to speak, in the raw.

The first six books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Le-
viticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua — constitute nearly
thirty per cent of the entire Old Testament. They tell of Crea-
tion, the Fall, the Protevangel, the Call of Abraham, the So-
journ in Egypt and the Exodus, the Giving of the Law at Mt.
Sinai, the Wilderness Wandering, the Crossing of the Jordan
and the Conquest of Canaan. But we dare not begin at the be-
ginningbecause to do so would violate the critical “conception
of the sequence and development” which has been won by “the
patient toil of generations of critical scholars,” and which
rests on the theory of “the composite nature of these books.”

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

591

We must begin with Judges. W e are not to start our acquaint-
ance with the Bible with Adam, Abraham, Moses, Joshua.
That would be fatal. But Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, and
the Danites will serve as a proper introduction. Why? Be-
cause in Judges we meet the social and religious life “so to
speak, in the raw.”

This expression, “in the raw,” is not an Old Testament
phrase; it does not occur in Judges. But it is true to the life
which Judges pictures. For Judges tells us that Israel had
“turned quickly” away from Jehovah their God, and that
then “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
But, why, if this be so, should we want to begin our study
with such a distressing picture as Judges presents to us? If
the life of this period was a declension from a better and a
higher scale of living and thinking, why not study it in its
true perspective as an apostasy from Israel’s true religion,
and begin with the picture of that true religion which is
given in the preceding books? The only answer that can be
given to this very natural question is that the critic is unwill-
ing to accept the account which the earlier books give of that
higher and better condition from which this is declared to
be a tragic declension. This can be attributed to the fact that
as McFadyen tells us criticism has so disintegrated the earlier
books that only when they are reconstructed by the critic can
they 'be read with understanding by the Bible student. But
this is not the most important, the really fundamental reason,
since Judges can be and is disintegrated by source analysis
just as readily as the books which precede it. The ultimate rea-
son is indicated by those illuminating words “in the' raw.”
McFadyen counsels the reader who wants to approach the Old
Testament with the right perspective to begin with Judges
because the critics believe that it gives a fairly correct picture
of what the early, or we might say the pre-prophetic, religion
of Israel actually was. Actually, we say, because the critics
are quite sceptical as to that higher religion from which it is
represented as a declension. They will admit that the cult of
the ‘desert god’ of Sinai was relatively purer than the Baal

592

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

worship of agricultural Canaan. But they are not at all
certain just how much — we would better say, how little — of
the corpus of legislation attributed to Moses can be really
conceded to him. Why then accept the picture in Judges?
Simply because it accords fairly accurately with what the
critics think the religion of Israel ought to have been or
might have been at that time. It represents the actual social
and religious state of Israel as similar to that of the neigh-
boring peoples. As a picture of actual conditions, it makes
no such unique claims for Israel as are made in the preceding
books. Consequently it fits into that theory of naturalistic
evolution which is in the mind of the critic, consciously or
unconsciously, the controlling factor. Hence the critic en-
dorses it. But the Bible represents this approximation of Israel
to the religion of their neighbors as an apostasy.®^ This the
critic denies, emphatically denies, in the sense in which the
six skipped-over books — Genesis-Joshua — represent it. The
real religion is to be learned from the apostasy of the Judges !
This method of approach is quite generally reflected in such
of the Old Testament articles as are not of a purely objective
nature.

Thus Baton’s new article Israel, Social Development
OF,®^ throws considerable light upon the subject of “life in
the raw.” If the first six books of the Old Testament are
to be largely ignored in determining the nature of the early
religion of Israel, are we not left very much in the dark with
regard to it? Judges does not give us much information.

31 Cf. espec. Judg. ii. 10-19. We are told expressly and repeatedly
that Israel “did evil” (ii. ii, iii. 7, 12, iv. i, vi. i, x. 6, xiii. i), that they
“forsook” (ii. 12, 13, x. 6, 10, 13), that they “turned quickly out of the
way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the
Lord” (cf. Josh. xxiv. 31). Such statements must of course be attributed
to a Deuteronomic or post-Deuteronomic editor, if the theory of the
critics as to the true significance of Judges’ picture of Israel’s life in the
raw is to be accepted. Hannah’s Song is also treated as late.

32 While this article deals with the social development, it also discusses
religious problems in a very illuminating way, as the following quota-
tions will indicate. It takes the place of Nowack’s Hebrew Archaeology
in the 1909 edition.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

593

Paton tells us that he aims to give a “genetic study of institu-
tions” ; and he divides the subject into four periods ; “Semitic,
Nomadic, Agricultural, and Commercial.” The first gives
the familiar evolutionist sketch of primitive society and its
development. The second is entitled, “The Hebrew Nomadic
Period (Before 1200 b.c.)”; and its first section is of great
interest as it tells us definitely how the higher critic recon-
structs the history of Israel. It is called “Sources for the
Hebrew Nomadic Period.”

Our sources for the Nomadic Period of Hebrew history are in the main
the documents embedded in the Hexateuch. (See Hexateuch). These
documents are based on oral traditions, and these traditions are of very
diverse origin, namely; (i) traditions which did not arise until after
the conquest of Canaan; (2) traditions borrowed from Babylonia;®* (3)
traditions borrowed from Egypt; (4) traditions borrowed from the
Amorites who preceded Israel in the land of Canaan, and (5) genuine
old Hebrew traditions that have come down from the period prior to the
conquest. There is thus only a small portion of the Pentateuchal tradi-
tion that can be used as a source for the Hebrew nomadic period. This
is supplemented by comparative philology, comparative sociology, and
comparative religion, the presumption being that ideas and institutions
which later Israel had in common with the other Semites existed already
in the nomadic period.®^

How theoretical this is, and how large a margin it allows
for conjecture is obvious. Comparative philology, compara-
tive sociology, and comparative religion are to figure largely
in the reconstruction of a religious history which claims to
be different, distinct and unique. Consequently we are not
surprised to read that “The Kenites were the primitive wor-
shipers of Jehovah at Sinai®® who accompanied Israel into the

®® Cf. p. 244a where he tells us that “The cosmogony and astronomy
of the latter Hebrews, their traditions of the creation. Garden of Eden,
fall, antediluvian patriarchs, and flood, the types of their religious
poetry, and the fundamental principles of their religious and social
legislation, are now known to have come from the ancient Sumerians by
way of the later Semitic Babylonians and the Canaanites” (p. 244a) —
a sweeping statement to say the least!

®* P. 399b.

®® On the other hand, Nourse (p. 492a) speaks of this theory as
“beset with many difficulties,” while Peake (p.38sb), regards it as
“dubious.”

594

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

land of Canaan” and that “The Hebrew prophets who pre-
ceded Amos seem to have held theories similar to those of the
Kenites and Rechabites. They agreed with them in hostility
to the Baals of Canaan (2 Kgs. x. 15-17).” So understood
the epic struggle between Elijah and the baal-priests resolves
itself largely into one between the servant of the ‘desert god’
of the Kenites and the devotees of the agricultural gods of
Canaan and Tyre; nomad vs. farmer or, to use more up-to-
date language, communist vs. capitalist!®^ This Kenite influ-
ence apparently ended with these early prophets, for we are
told : “There is no evidence that the writing prophets shared
in the nomadic ideals of the earlier prophets.”

Similarly Peake, while affirming that “Strictly speaking
the religion of Israel was, like the nation, the creation of
Moses,” yet maintains that “The Hebrews were a Semitic
stock and they brought much of their Semitic heritage with
them in the religion of Yahweh.” There is of course an ele-
ment of truth in this. The Hebrews did not cease to be Sem-
ites when they became followers of Jehovah. But when Peake
goes on to say a little later on

But it is very difficult to reach any satisfactory conclusion as to the re-
ligious beliefs of Moses and the characteristics of the religion he founded.
We can not assign any of the Pentateuchal sources to him. But the earlier
documents may be used with proper precautions, and the value of the
tradition they contain should probably be rated higher than they have
been by the dominant critical school. Since he, no doubt, drew on earlier
religious and legal developments, our knowledge of surrounding peoples
may be of service. But it is not easy to draw the right inferences, and no
people made even a distant approach to Israel’s achievement.

3® P. 401b. Paton assures us elsewhere (p. 399b) that “J" was not the
ancestral god of Israel (Ex. iii. 13! and vd. 2)” despite the fact that the
very passages cited in proof of the statement imply the contrary. The
most that could be argued from the passages referred to is that the God
of Israel was not originally known by the name Jehovah. But this is
not what Paton means as the quotations we have given conclusively
prove.

Cf . Sellers on Abel’s sacrifice : “Why the sacrifice of Abel was
more pleasing to J" than Cain’s is not stated ; the implication may be that
Cain’s bloodless offering, like that of the agricultural Canaanites to
their Baals, displeased J", who preferred pastoral life” (p. i6a).

Art., Israel, Religion of (p. 383b)

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 595

it is clear that conjectures based on comparative religion must
figure largely in this reconstruction. Consequently we are
not surprised when Nourse tells us that Jeroboam “was not
guilty of making a complete innovation” when he introduced
the calf worship: “for the worship of J" by means of images
was practiced before his time (cf. e.g., Judg. xvii. 4, xviii.
17, 30-31).”®® Here the references are to Judges; and of
course nothing is said to suggest that this picture of life “in
the raw,” as McFadyen has called it, is an apostasy. On the
contrary the remark that “the plural (‘these be thy gods’)

. . . is more natural here than at Ex. xxxii. 4, 8” indicates
that to be a polytheist as well as an idolator was not a heinous
offence in the days of Jeroboam.

Such being the case, it is no wonder that more than eleven
pages should be given to the article Semitic Religion. The
original article by McCurdy has been revised by J. M. Powis
Smith. Smith has largely rewritten the opening sections; and
in them we find the following illuminating statement regard-
ing the “Semites and their Neighbors” :

They were in constant contact one with another and developed a common
type of civilization. No people was able to live in isolation or desired to do
so. . . . The striking thing about the Hebrews was their readiness to
borrow ideas and customs, as well as the more concrete products of
civilization, from whatsoever people came into association with them.
Hebrew civilization and religion were to a considerable degree the result
of an eclectic process. The remarkable thing is that the Hebrew exercised
such a fine discrimination in what he took and what he rejected.^®

“Fine discrimination,” indeed! We wonder what Moses and
Joshua, Elijah and Isaiah would say as to this. But we do not
need to wonder. For they have told us again and again wthat
they thought of Israel’s “readiness to borrow” from their
neighbors; and how far from “fine” they considered such
conduct to be. But they labored, of course, under the mistaken
impression, as the comparative religionist would call it, of
supposing that the religion of Israel was really essentially
different and distinct from all others.

P. I2ib.
40 P. 817b.

596 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

This article, it may be noted, furnishes us with excellent
illustrations of the hand of the redactor. Not merely does the
statement which we have just quoted, come from Powis
Smith, but in the paragraph on the “Ultimate Origin of the
Semitic Religions, we note a significant change. In the
1909 edition the opening sentences read thus:

What, in brief, were the origin and history of the Semitic religions? All
heathen religions seem to be alike in their ultimate beliefs and motives.
The immense differences between them are due to the differentiations of
environment and historical vicissitude.

In the second sentence the word “heathen” is significant. It
seems to imply that the religion of Israel is to be distin-
guished from the other Semitic religions : and this is favored
by the fact that an allusion has already been made to the
“spiritual worship of Jehovah.” Smith changes the word
“heathen,” to “Semitic.” Evidently he does not like to call
these religions “heathen,” since this implies a distinction
which he would regard as invidious. We observe further that
according to this writer human sacrifice was an element in
Israel’s religion. Speaking of “Molech” he tells us that “hu-
man sacrifice seems to date in Israel from the earliest times.”^®
In this he differs from McCurdy who held that these practices
“came too late in Israel’s history to have been derived from
Palestine proper.”** We note further that in the section on
“Images and Idolatry” McCurdy has used the words “idol,”

41 P. 8i8b.

42 P. 781a.

4* P. 825a. He goes on to say “cf. the story of Abraham and Isaac
which is a protest against it, and the laws regarding the offering of the
first-born in the oldest codes.” This is a good illustration of the use
which the critics make of narratives which they treat as late and un-
reliable. Smith would probably hesitate to affirm that Abraham was a
historical person or that there was any such actual transaction as the nar-
rative describes. Yet he finds in it not merely an instructive illustration
of the prophetic protest against human sacrifice, but even a proof that
such a rite was an ancient one in Israel. Eclecticism has become a fine
art with the critics.

44 P. 787b (1909 ed.). Zenos treats the slaughter of enemies (enjoined
and described in Deut. xx. 12-14, Josh. vi. 25ff.) as a “sacrifice” to the
Lord of Battles “according to a primitive Semitic custom” (p. 162a).

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

597

“idolatry,” “idolatrous.” These, except where reference is
made to the usage of the EV, are carefully eliminated by
Smith. This is not a mere stylistic preference of this writer
for we note that the article Greek and Roman Idolatry
by Sterritt and Zenos has been replaced by two articles by
Angus entitled Greek Religion and Roman Religion.
Clearly the word “idolatry” is offensive to the student of
comparative religion.^®

In connection with this subject of idolatry or image wor-
ship as he prefers to call it, Powis Smith makes a further in-
teresting modification of the words of McCurdy in the article
we have just been discussing. In speaking of “images of liv-
ing objects,” McCurdy has told us ;

The human shape, as distinguished from the animal, was natural, and
perhaps mostly inevitable, where the motive was to give expression to
the conception of the character of invisible deities by visible and tangible
features. And yet, so far as we know, J" Himself was never represented
in a human likeness; His supposed salient qualities were set forth sym-
bolically in animal form in imitation of heathen cults.*®

The first sentence has been retained without change by Powis
Smith. But the second has been altered to read as follows :

Whether or not J" was ever represented in human form is another
question. He was certainly thought of in highly anthropomorphic terms
(see God, § 2), and His worshipers constantly spo'ke of going to worship

This would naturally be the case with one who attaches the im-
portance to the Greek religion that is done by Angus, for he tells us
that “ . . . Greek religion did not perish. It was disintegrated to rein-
tegrate and bequeath its timeless truth to Christian theology. The Greeks
consecrated their unique genius to Christ — an epochal event for our
faith, contrasted with the failure of Mithraism to secure Greek
loyalty” (p. 321). This is decidedly different from Paul’s view, for he
found that his sermon on Mars’ Hill made no appeal to the cultured and
intellectual Greeks ; and he told the Corinthians bluntly that the essence
of Christianity, “Christ crucified,” was foolishness to the Greek, which
it should not have been if there was as close connection between Chris-
tianity and the mystery cults as the statements of this writer would
seem to imply. That the Greek and Roman religions were disintegrating
Paul recognized and has made clear in the first chapter of Romans. But
that something far more drastic than “reintegration” was needed was
equally clear to him.

P. 787a. A reference to the discussion of the “Golden Calves” fol-
lows this quotation.

598 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

as ‘going to see the face of J".’ But His supposed salient qualities were
commonly set forth symbolically in animal form in imitation of heathen
cults.*^

This quotation gives us another interesting example of
editorial revision ; but it is specially significant because of the
light which it throws on the important question of “approach
to the Old Testament.” For our interpretation of the expres-
sion “going to see the face of J" ” will depend upon our
manner of approach to the Old Testament as a whole. If we
accept the view advocated in this volume that the best and
safest place to begin our study of Israel’s religion is with the
apostasy of the Judges, and if we adopt the comparative
method of study as the surest means of ascertaining its true
nature and development, then of course it will be natural to
interpret this phrase in a baldly literal sense, as meaning orig-
inally ‘going to worship before the idol-image of the god of
Israel,’ and it will then be an interesting task to ascertain when
this grossly anthropomorphic conception gave way to a true
and worthy one. But if we approach the study of the Old
Testament by reading the books in the old familiar order —
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. ; if we read the express warn-
ings against idolatry which they contain (Ex. xx. 4, 5, 22,
23 ; Deut. iv. I2fif., etc.) , then it will be clear to us that to the
true Israelite ‘going to see the face of Jehovah’ meant some-
thing totally different. Logically the critic has no right to
insist upon interpreting these words in a way which drags the
religion of Israel down to the level of the heathenism by
which it was surrounded. And the critic is too strongly op-
posed to what he terms the literalism of the “traditionalist”
to be entitled to insist upon a strictly literal rendering here,
merely because such an interpretation happens to accord
with his low estimate of the religion of Israel. It is his method
of approach which is his only real warrant for what would be
otherwise an utterly unwarranted interpretation.

P. 824a. The reference to the discussion of the “Golden calves” is
retained by Smith.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

599

Our “Mother,” the Serpent!

As an excellent illustration of the way in which compara-
tive philology, comparative sociology and comparative re-
ligion reconstruct the Bible we may refer to Carrier’s Eve as
revised by Sellers, placing the two forms of the article side
by side for the sake of easy comparison :

EVE hawwah) : Adam’s

wife (Gn. iii. 20, iv. i ; 2 Co.
xi. 3; I Ti. ii. 13). Similar word-
formations are often used to de-
note occupations, hence njn should
mean ‘motherhood’ preeminently.
The story of the Fall indicates a
stage of culture wherein woman
was already subordinate, hence it
is probably subsequent to the hy-
pothetic matriarchate period.

A.S.C.

EVE ( hawwah): ,\dam’s
wife (Gn. iii. 20, iv. i ; 2 Co. xi. 3 ;
I Ti. ii. 13). The popular etymol-
ogy in Gn. iii. 20 is doubtful. A
possible meaning of hawwah is
‘serpent,’ and we may have here an
instance of the primitive cult asso-
ciation of women and serpents
(Proc. Anter. Philosoph. Soc. 50:5,
II ). But cf. Skinner’s note on Gn.
iii. 20 in ICC. The story of the
Fall indicates a stage of culture
wherein woman was already sub-
ordinate, hence it is probably sub-
sequent to the hypothetic matri-
archate period. A.S.C. — O.R.S.

This brief article deals in both editions with two points :
the meaning of the name Eve and the age of the story. Carrier
apparently found no difficulty with what Sellers calls the
popular etymology” which explains the name “Eve” (life)*^
as given because she was “the mother of all living” (hayyim).
But his account of the origin of the story is noteworthy. The
story itself plainly purports to describe the creation of the
first human pair, and the relation in which they stood to one
another and to the rest of mankind. It is to this fact that the
name “Eve” owes its singular appropriateness. The story is
so interpreted by Jesus. In arguing with the Jews about
divorce. He refers to this narrative as setting forth the orig-
inal marriage relationship, ’’from the beginning it was not so.”
According to this passage man has not slowly worked up to

His explanation of it as a nomen opificum (fa‘dl) seems, however,
questionable. It would be more natural to regard it as a feminine seghol-
ate of the o class (like gannd, rabbd, etc.), which seems to be the usual
classification.

6oo

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the ideal of monogamy; it was his original state. And, ac-
cording to Jesus’ interpretation of it, all lower standards are
a falling away from the original state as there set forth. Yet
Carrier tells us that this is not the case; that the “subordinate
position” of woman fixes the date of this story as subsequent
to the “hypothetic matriarchate period.”*® The creation story
would then reflect not the primitive but a comparatively ad-
vanced stage in the social life of mankind.®” It is noteworthy
therefore that Carrier uses the word “hypothetic.” There is
no proof, aside from the theory of evolution, that the matri-
archal system ever was universal or that it necessarily pre-
ceded the patriarchal system.®* Carrier virtually admitted this
by calling it “hypothetic.” Yet he did not hesitate apparently
to attach more significance to this questionable theory of the
evolutionist than to the definite words of Jesus “from the
beginning it was not so.”

Turning now to Sellers’ revision of this article, we notice
that Sellers sees no reason to change the part which we have
just been discussing. It is allowed to remain intact. It is the
first part to which he takes exception, the name “Eve.” He
tells us that the interpretation given in Genesis, an etymology
which he contemptuously stigmatizes as “popular,” is “doubt-
ful.”He does not explain why he regards it as doubtful. He
is not sure that he has a better one to offer. But, while merely
speaking of the meaning “serpent” as “possible,” which sug-
gests that it is no more probable than the one he discards, he
clearly prefers it to the one given by the narrative itself.®®

The Matriarchate is referred to by Paton who states positively that
it was “the earliest form of Semitic society” (p-SpSh). Nourse appar-
ently agrees with this view, but holds that the matriarchate or polyandry
lies “beyond the horizon of O. T. history” (p. 259a) and, that “the
original constitution of Israel was patriarchal” (p. 492b).

It has been claimed that an example of the matriarchate is to be
found in Jacob’s marriages.

The Babylonian civilization was patriarchal in the time of Abraham
and earlier. As compared with this recognized fact the arguments de-
rived from Arabia for a Semitic matriarchate are late and inconclusive.

In this Sellers is simply reviving the theory put forward years ago
by Noldeke and favored by Wellhausen, that the name “Eve” is to be

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

6oi

The only advantage of the serpent etymology®® seems to be
that, instead of being simple, natural and sensible, as is the
case with the “popular” etymology which Sellers rejects, it is
suggestive of superstition and myth, folk-lore, totemism and
magic, and therefore suited to the supposedly primitive con-
ditions which a creation myth might be expected to reflect.®*
Eve accords now very well with the evolutionist’s scheme of
things.®® But there are two serious objections to it : it makes
‘primitive’ nonsense out of a sublime Old Testament narra-

connected with the Arabic word for “serpent” (hayyath). But in Arabic,
both the etymology and the meaning of this word are doubtful. If, as
seems probable, it comes from the root “to be alive,” the serpent may
have received this name because of its supposed longevity (Cf. Lane,
Arab. -Eng. Lexicon, in loco; Encyc. Brit., iith ed., XXIV, 677a). This
would be a natural explanation. In Hebrew the word has acquired the
meaning “wild animal,” though it does not mean “serpent.”

As to the difficulty, if it really be such, that the name Eve is written
hawwih not hayyah, this Arabic etymology does not help us, since
the word “serpent” in Arabic is written with “y,” the etymology from
a waw root being doubtful (cf. Lane, as cited).

Nourse tells us : “We cannot go to Gen. chaps, ii-iii for the literal
facts of the origin of man, or of evil,” but “We must judge the ma-
terial or formal elements of all these narratives [Gen. i-xi] precisely as
we do the very similar matter [note the phrase!] found in abundance all
over the ancient world” (p. 292). What is meant by “similar matter” it
is not hard to discover. Thus the statement is made by Carrier-Sellers
that the bells on the high priest’s dress suggest “the idea of a counter-
charm by which evil influences were to be driven away” (p. 539b).
Kelso explains the cherubim by saying that “The religious imagination
of the Hebrews, working on mythological figures which they had in com-
mon with their neighbors, produced these symbolic figures” (p. 128b). We
are told by McCurdy-Smith that the narrative of the brazen serpent
rests on “the widespread notion that looking upon the image of a
noxious creature was curative” (p. 826b). Kelso points out that the
names Leah (wild cow), Rachel (ewe), etc., have been regarded as
survivals of totemism. But he declares that “philologically, this view has
a shaky foundation” (p. 922a). The distinction between clean and un-
clean beasts has often been explained in this way (cf. e.g. art. Unclean
in Hastings’ Dictionary ; art. Totemism in Encycl. Brit.

Since the word hayyah means “serpent” in Arabic, Sellers might
well carry his “serpent” etymology a little further and render the
verse thus “and Adam called the name of his wife ‘Serpent,’ for she was
the mother of all serpents.” But apparently he felt that he had gone as
far as the evolutionary theory demanded.

602 the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

tive, and it makes the Lord’s use of that narrative an illus-
tration of His inferiority to the higher critic of today. These
objections deserve careful pondering. In his article Marriage
in Hastings’ Dictionary, W. P. Paterson has stated the issue
clearly as follows :

The scriptural account of the origin and history of marriage cannot
satisfy the thorough evolutionist. According to the biblical representa-
tion, its perfect type was exhibited in the union of the first pair, upon
this followed a declension to imperfect forms and sexual licence, and
finally Christianity summoned mankind to realize the ideal by reverting
to the divinely instituted original. But on evolutionary principles the
ideal is to be found, not at the beginning but at the end — if anywhere ;
and the problem is to show from what base beginnings, under what im-
pulses, and by what stages, marriage as we understand it came to be,
and to be intrenched behind the laws.^®

Yes, the scriptural account cannot satisfy the thorough evo-
lutionist. So Carrier made it late and unreliable (reflecting a
relatively late stage in human history, the patriarchal) and
Sellers has completed the process by making it speak the lan-
guage of grotesque mythology. Yet the Lord api>ealed to it
as setting forth the original form and the ideal form of
marriage !

“Life in the raw,” as a picture of the religion and culture
of Israel, with comparative philology, comparative sociology
and comparative religion brought in to fill in the details, nec-
essarily gives us as we have seen a description of the religion
of Israel which closely resembles that of the neighboring
nations instead of one which is markedly different from
them. But it is to be observed that such a reconstruction as
the critics attempt has a still more disastrous result : it even
pictures conditions in Israel as worse than in these nations
by which she is said to have been so strongly influenced.
Thus Guthe tells us, that “Israelitish marriages were regu-
larly polygamous, in remarkable distinction from the regula-
tions of the Codex Hammurabi, which holds fast to monog-
amy as fundamental”” — a statement which is to say the least
much too sweeping in view of the qualification which follows

Vol. III. p. 263a.
57 p. 555a.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 603

closely upon it: “Poor people contented themselves with one
wife, although that cases were not rare in which a man had
two wives is evident from the fact that the law in Deut. xxi.
15-17 deals particularly with such cases.” Similarly the
emphasis placed on the ‘double standard ’of morality for men
and women is decidedly overdone in the statement regarding
the man, that “We nowhere read anything to the effect that
he was forbidden extra-marital intercourse with other
women.”®® It is true that the standard of chastity was more
strict for the woman than for the man, that for a man such an
act was adultery in the strict sense only when committed
with a married or betrothed woman. But when we remember
the numerous restrictions that were imposed by the Law and
by the conditions of Oriental life,®® it is evident that, except
that polygamy was allowed the man, so high an ideal stand-
ard was set before him, that it can be truly said “In this, as
in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world.”
Furthermore, it should be remembered that, by its rigid ex-
clusion of everything suggestive of sensuality the religion of
Israel separated itself most markedly from the neighboring
peoples. But what we are particularly concerned to point out
is that according to the express claims of the Old Testament,
claims for which the authority of the Lord Flimself can be
invoked, monogamy was the fundamental law not merely for
Israel but for all mankind. Polygamy is traced to the Cain-
ites, the Law tolerates but does not sanction it, “Bible pictures
of domestic happiness are always connected with monog-
amy.”®® It is only when the evolutionary approach of the
higher critic is adopted and obvious facts are ignored or

P- 555b.

Such facts as these : that in the East then as now men and women
probably married young and that not to be married was regarded as a
disgrace ; that if a man violated a free virgin he must marry her or pay
her father the dower of virgins, it being expressly provided that a father
must not prostitute his daughter; that even if the woman were a bond-
woman the act was sinful; that intercourse with “strangers” was pro-
hibited; that religious prostitution was forbidden.

*0 Cf. Oehler, Old Testament Theology, § 69; International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 1998a.

6o4

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

misinterpreted that the social and religious standards of
Israel fall below the level of her neighbors.®^ The Law did
not it is true set Israel a perfect standard. The New Dispen-
sation is clearly superior to the Old. But the Law did set a
standard so high that Israel was never able to attain to it. On
the contrary the history of Israel was one of constant revolt
against the Law of God and of turning aside to the cults and
customs of her neighbors, which shows that these were less
rigorous and more attractive. The Old Testament represents
such conduct not merely as an act of treason to Jehovah but
as a sinful falling away from the high ideal of life which He
had given them, a forsaking of His way to walk in ways that
were not good.

The Approach to the New Testament

In his article on The Approach to the New Testa-
ment, Motfatt deals with three fundamental questions : the
canon and text of the New Testament, its authority and its
interpretation. They are not discussed under exactly these
heads ; but these are the problems with which he deals.

As to the text, while recognizing that there are many
controverted readings, he assures us that as to “the large
majority” there is “a fair consensus of authorities for some
one reading.” And he makes the following statement :

With any good modem edition of the Greek text in his hands, supple-
mented by an adequate modern English version, the reader need have
little hesitation in believing that he is as near as can be, or need be, to
the position of those who first read these documents in their original
form.®2

This statement is reassuring and gratifying, but our satis fac-

We note at times what seems like a definite attempt to disparage
Israel as compared with other nations. Why, we are tempted to ask, does
Zenos say of the slaying of Sisera that Jael “put him to death in a most
revolting manner” (p. 409a), but simply remark regarding the treacher-
ous murder of Ben-hadad “The next day Hazael put Ben-hadad to
death and usurped the throne” (p. 332b) ? Is it because in Judg. v. Jael is
highly praised for an act which delivered Israel for a time from a
foreign yoke? It might seem so

62 p. g

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 605

tion with it is somewhat marred by the freedom which is
characteristic of certain of the modern versions which might
have our author’s approval. It is also adversely affected by
the statement made elsewhere in this article that an out-
standing question of the day is whether some of the New
Testament books — notably John and Acts — may be transla-
tions of Aramaic originals. This question is regarded as im-
portant because “it suggests the possibility that here and
there the passage of the tradition from Aramaic or Hebrew
into the Greek may have altered the sense of a saying.” The
disquieting nature of such an admission is not allayed by the
words, “But, upon the whole, it is not likely that investiga-
tions in this field will affect materially the main outlines of
early Christian belief.” For the phrase, “main outlines of
early Christian belief,” may mean different things to differ-
ent people, and what we would regard as very drastic and
dangerous conjectural changes might be made without af-
fecting what Moffatt might regard as essential to early
Christian faith. Since the days of the Reformation the appeal
of Protestant theologians has been to the Scriptures in the
original tongues, to the Old Testament in Hebrew (and
Aramaic), to the New Testament in Greek. But if this theory
of Aramaic originals for considerable parts of the New
Testament were to be admitted, the Greek text would lose its
place as the ultimate authority. The thorough-going Biblical
scholar would have to ask himself not merely whether he had
ascertained the correct meaning of the Greek text, but a
further and a far more difficult question, whether this text
was the correct translation of a hypothetical Aramaic orig-
inal. The ultimate question would be, not, as has been for
centuries supposed. What is the meaning of the original
Greek ? but. Does the Greek correctly represent the Aramaic
original? The practical effect of such a theory is obvious. If
a man is dissatisfied with the English version he can consult
commentaries which will give him the facts in so far as one
who knows no Greek can appreciate them. If he is still dis-
satisfied, he is at liberty to study New Testament Greek and

6o6

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

read the New Testament, as we have been wont to say, “in
the original.” But suppose he is told that this is, at least in
part, a translation and perhaps an inaccurate translation of
an Aramaic original, what then ? “Where can I get a copy o f
this Aramaic original?” he asks. “Nowhere,” is the reply.
“We do not know that there ever was one. But its possible
existence is one of the ‘outstanding questions’ for scholars
to determine.” “But how can I be sure,” he asks, “that this
Greek translation is reliable?” And the only answer the
critic can give him is this doubtful comfort : “Upon the
whole, it is not likely that investigations in this field will
affect materially the main outlines of early Christian belief” !

As regards the Canon, Moffatt tells us:

While all the books in the N. T. were written within a hundred years
after the crucifixion of Jesus, it took several centuries before the Church
finally fixed the Canon, that is, the list of the books which were to be re-
garded as inspired.

The Canon was fixed, he believes, “by the end of the fourth
century” ; but he does not state specifically on what basis the
decision was made.®®

We come now to the question of the authority of the New
Testament. To what does the New Testament owe its author-
ity? The belief of evangelical Protestantism has been that
the books which comprise the New Testament were accepted
by the Early Church because they were written by or under
the authority of the Apostles, the men whom the Lord made
in a peculiar sense His witnesses. But nowhere does this
article make any such claim for them. On the contrary we are
told:

63 A little later he tells us that “the books of the New Testament are
not in the collection by accident.” He is almost prepared to say with
Denney that “they gravitated toward each other in the course of the
first century of the Church’s life and imposed their unity on the Chris-
tian mind. That they are at one in some essential respects is obvious.
They have at least unity of subject: they are all concerned with Jesus
Christ, and with the manifestation of God’s redeeming love to men in
Him.” But that this unity is due to anything more than close contact
with the One who is the “focus” is not asserted.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 607

Whether or not Paul wrote Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles, whether
Peter wrote First Peter, or the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, are
matters which, although profoundly interesting, do not essentially alter
the religious message of these documents. The determining issue is the
primary conviction about the significance of Jesus Christ, and the main
interest today is to evaluate the forms in which this was conveyed to the
first generation of Christians.®^

This Statement is significant. It is of course true that in so
far as the statements in Ephesians for example are imper-
sonal they would be true whether Paul made them or not.
But the Epistle begins “Paul, an apostle O'f Jesus Christ by
the will of God to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to
the faithful in Christ Jesus” (cf. iii. iff., iv. i, 17, vi. 19 ff.).
If the value of Ephesians is independent of Paul, why does he
assume such an air of personal authority instead of simply
writing an objective statement regarding ‘‘the significance
of Jesus Christ”? The natural answer is that there were then
as now many different opinions as to “the significance of
Jesus Christ.” Herod held one, Pilate another, Caiaphas
another, the Judaizers another, the Gnostics yet another. The
Apostolic conception claimed to be, and the Early Church re-
garded it as, the correct and authoritative portrayal. Yet
apparently Moffatt attaches little importance to the question
whether these writings were Apostolic or not. It is enough
for him that they were written within a century after the
crucifixion and consequently may be regarded as conveying
“the immediate impression of God’s revelation in the life of
Jesus Christ” made upon the early Christian community. But
surely early date is not sufficient in itself to guarantee the
credibility and adequacy of the record. Some of the most
dangerous misconceptions of that Life arose in this very
period as the Apostolic polemic clearly shows.

But if the New Testament does not owe its authority to the
fact that it is the work of Apostolic men, an authoritative
record because given by inspiration of God, what is its au-
thority, if it indeed has any?

The N. T. is the record of a supreme religious experience and also of
the interpretations of that experience. The latter are often couched in

P. 12.

6o8

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

temporarj’ and transitional forms, which lie open to historical criticism ;
but the religious experience does not depend necessarily upon the inter-
pretations. The living Spirit of God maintains the life of the Christian
fellowship, which penetrates again and again to the reality of the
creative force of the revelation in Jesus Christ.®®

If we understand correctly the meaning of this passage and
of other statements which hear upon it, Moffatt is here at-
tempting in Ritschlian fashion to make the Gospel independ-
ent of the destructive results of higher criticism. Believing
as he does that criticism has made it impossible to accept
many of the data of the New Testament, that belief in its
infallibility is impossible, he cannot say of the New Testa-
ment as Jesus said of the Old : “It is written.” He believes
that it contains errors of fact and errors of interpretation.
So he takes refuge in the belief that all such matters are non-
essential. The centre of the Gospel is Christ, and the picture
of Christ is so tremendous, so overwhelming that it is self-
evidencing :

For the revelation with which the N. T. is charged is not a fixed deposit
of dogma, supernaturally conveyed, but a Life generated by the Spirit
of Jesus Christ. This Life implies no doubt certain truths or doctrines
which have to be retained and from time to time restated. But they are
only tenable in and through participation in the Life itself. What enforces
them is not any dogma of Church tradition, not any arbitrary hypothesis
of verbal inspiration, but the authority with which life speaks to life.®®

The N. T. books are the record of this experience. They were written
in the first flush of this supreme revelation, and they eventually ac-
quired their common title on account of their religious content.®'

This simply means that the final authority in religion is
Christian experience. VVe go to the New Testament not as an
authoritative book, but as a book which gives us the “im-
mediate impression” of Christ as received by His early
followers. And we must trust to the Spirit of God to give
us “a fresh interpretation” suitable to our own age, to enable
us to distinguish between the kernel and the husk, between
“the reality of the creative force of the revelation in Jesus
Christ” and interpretations which are “often couched in
temporary and traditional forms which lie open to historical

85 Ih.

®8 P. 13.

®7 P. II.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 609

criticism.” The New Testament may be “an indispensable
record of the revelation in Christ” ; but there is much in it
which must be restated or interpreted if it is to have meaning
and value for the present age.®®

This brings us to the question of interpretation. Our
author is deeply impressed with the difference, we might call
it gulf, between our age and New Testament times. To ap-
preciate the New Testament we must be receptive; but

This does not imply that we are called upon to believe exactly as men
in the first century believed about the world and nature; their mental
environment and outlook has long passed, and the more we recover it
by antiquarian study, the more do we realize that it would be unreal for
us to put ourselves back into their attitude of mind toward miracles,
for example. What is essential is the faculty of entering into the re-
ligious faith which took this form at this period.®®

Elsewhere we read :

In our own day, the argument from prophecy has been reset, for
example. It is no longer possible to expect a literal fulfilment of some
O. T. prophecies about the rehabilitation of Israel as a Messianic com-
munity ruling the world from Jerusalem, or to treat the Messianic an-
ticipations of the O. T. as literally fulfilled in Jesus. What appeals to us
is rather the religious experience and ideals of the O. T., and in the N. T.
we recognize that the primitive Church reads its O. T. under the
limitations of a time-view which we can no longer fully share.'^®

The above quotations make it clear that miracle and
prophecy are two, and apparently two of the most obvious,
as we should consider them also the most important, ele-

®* Thus Dickey has told us of the raising of Lazarus : “It is too stupen-
dous for any personal follower of Jesus, at least, simply to have invented.
Some historical foundation is required, and the underlying facts, what-
ever they are, may therefore belong to that body of trustworthy infor-
mation regarding the ministry of Jesus in Judaea which appears to have
been known to the author of the Fourth Gospel alone.” In revising these
sentences Jacobus has simply substituted the words “most probably
therefore belong” for “may therefore belong.” But neither scholar tells
us what these underlying facts are. Dickey adds, however, “Assum-
ing this to be true, and that our philosophical attitude to the miraculous
does not preclude its possibility, the resurrection of Lazarus may have
occurred, and the words ‘I am the resurrection and the life’ have had,
therefore, more than a purely spiritual significance” — a non-committal
statement which Dr. Jacobus cuts out.

«» P. 8. ^0 P. 10.

6lO THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ments in that New Testament time-view which according to
Mofifatt the modem man “can no longer fully share.” Con-
sequently it is plain that “critical” interpretation of the Bible,
both Old Testament and New, must concern itself primarily
with these two phenomena as outstanding examples of that
supernaturalism which pervades the Bible.

That the task of restating or interpreting the Bible in
terms of the modern time-view is a difficult one, would seem
to be obvious. Moffatt finds a great difference even between
the New Testament and the Old, despite the fact that “his-
torical criticism [as he understands it] was hardly in exist-
ence at such an early date,” so great, indeed, that he can
say “as a rule the only way of conserving the Old Testament
was to allegorize it,” which means that the Old Testament is
allegorized in the New. But if the difference between the Old
Testament and the New Testament was so great, even in an
age when higher criticism was unknown, as to make it neces-
sary for the New Testament writers to resort to so drastic a
method of interpretation or conservation as allegorizing,
how much more drastic must we expect the modern interpre-
tation of the New Testament as well as of the Old to be, ncnv
that “historical criticism” is so powerful a factor in deter-
mining men’s attitude toward the past? That “criticism” is a
two-edged weapon, Moffatt feels obliged to admit. “Some
critical methods and conclusions would,” he warns us, “ideal-
ize Jesus into a symbol. It is idle to pretend that the accept-
ance of such theories would not impair the security of Chris-
tian truth.” Perfectly true, but where are we to draw the
line ? For example, we read :

The N. T. is dominated by the impression of the redeeming realities of
the Gospel. Jesus Christ’s person and work are the supreme subject and
object of all the N. T. books, and it is by the standards of this revelation
that they are ultimately to be weighed. These standards are not to be
picked up by a superficial reading even of the Gospels. For the Gospels
themselves witness to a variety and a development in their interpretation,
and they present the difficult problem, for example, of determining how
far the eschatological horizon affects the outlook of Jesus as well as of
the Early Church upon duty.'^^

P. 12.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 6ll

This means that one of the tasks of criticism is to determine
to what extent the Lord Jesus Christ was Himself influenced
by a time-view which we cannot any longer accept. Yet what
could be more disastrous to faith in Jesus as Saviour and
Lord than the fear that in matters which have to do with that
mysterious world of the Future, which no one of us can see,
but whither the destinies of all of us are surely tending, Jesus
our Guide may have been a child of His age, influenced by
the current opinions of two thousand years ago ?

Just before writing the words last quoted Moffatt refers to
de Morgan’s “satirical” description in Joseph Vance of a
Positivist solicitor who “was an example of a Christian who
had endeavored to strain off the teachings of Jesus the Naz-
arene from the scum and the dregs of the world and the
churches, and had never been able to decide on the mesh of
his strainer.” Then Moffatt goes on to say : “Now the mesh
of the strainer is not constant. But a mesh there must be, and
a mesh which does not allow the fundamental reality of the
divine Sonship of Jesus to slip through as an accretion.”
Every Trinitarian will agree to this. But is it not equivalent
to letting this fundamental reality slip through when the
express prerogative of the divine Son to speak “with author-
ity” is set at naught by the critic who claims the right to
determine to what extent the divine Son of whom we read
in John, “He that cometh from Heaven is above all. And
what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth,” was influ-
enced by the “eschatological horizon” of the age of His
earthly ministry? What boots it to insist on retaining the
divine Sonship as a fundamental reality, if the glorious pre-
rogatives and attributes of this Sonship are to be allowed to
slip through the mesh ?

What mesh are we to use in interpreting the Bible ? Is it to
be the mesh of “the level of contemporary intelligence”?
Moffatt tells us that no religion ever survives in any healthy
form if it allows itself to fall below this level. But what does
this mean?

This does not mean that religion is bound to accept the dicta or dogmas

6i2

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of contemporary science, either in philosophy or in history. These have
their vogue, and yield to others, or suffer modification as research pro-
ceeds. But it does mean that religion can not afford to ignore or defy the
methods of the purest and most exacting research as applied to its
sacred books.'^^

In the first two sentences of the above quotation Moffatt
sjieaks as a historian, and his characterization of the con-
temporary intelligence of any age as ephemeral, having a
certain vogue and likely to be modified or replaced, is em-
inently fair. But in the last sentence he does not speak as a
historian but as a special pleader. If what he has already said
is true, “the purest and most exacting research” of any given
age is no infallible mesh. It may have its vogue and give way
to a better. Yet clearly he is claiming in effect that the
“higher criticism” is the purest and most exacting form of
research, and also giving to it an authority and finality
which, speaking as a historian, he would consider decidedly
hazardous. With Moffatt the historian we are heartily
agreed. With Moffatt the special pleader for “higher criti-
cism” as the “purest and most exacting form of research” we
are utterly at variance. “Pure” should mean impartial, un-
prejudiced. The higher criticism is not unprejudiced. It ap-
proaches the Bible with a precommitment in favor of natural-
ism and of evolution, both as philosophy and as science; and
it insists on applying these principles in a “most exacting”
way to a Book which from cover to cover claims to be the
record of a unique, pervasive, and supremely important super-
natural revelation in word and deed. If it were conclusively
proved that the “modern” time-view accepted by the critics is
unalterably true, a revolutionary restatement of Biblical data
would unquestionably be necessary. But Moffatt the historian
has warned us of the unlikelihood that finality has been
reached. And we believe that the Christian should regard the
fact that criticism plays such havoc with the Bible as sufficient
warrant for agreeing with Moffatt the historian and for

P. 10.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 613

adopting a cautious and conservative attitude toward Mof-
fatt the critic.

Since Moffatt in pointing out the difference between the
modem time-view and that of New Testament times refers
expressly to miracle and prophecy, we shall consider briefly
the nature of the reinterpretation advocated, as it is set forth
in this Dictionary in the articles dealing with these topics.
Miracles.

The article Miracles by Gillett replaces that of Sanday in
the first edition. Its author is especially concerned with what
Sanday has called “the rationale of miracles.” Like the latter
he ibelieves it “is beyond possible doubt” that what are com-
monly called miracles have occurred. The problem is simply
to relate these phenomena to our modern knowledge. Miracle,
he tells us, is “a general term used to designate a certain
group of phenomena of human experience all of which con-
tain three elements which may roughly be characterized
respectively as the scientific, the psychological, and the
logical.” As to the scientific element he assures us that either
to affirm or deny miracles as non-natural or supernatural
involves “the same fallacy of a presupposed omniscience as
to the range of human experience.” All we can safely affinu
is that they are “imusual, ^.rfm-ordinary.” As to the psycho-
logical element we are told that a miracle “produces in the
beholder, or in the one who hears of it second hand a charac-
teristic psychological reaction. It awakens wonder, surprise,
perhaps also gratitude, fear, self-examination.” The logical
element may be called “possibly better the causal or meta-
physical.” It has frequently led men to infer that back of a
non-natural event there must be a supernatural power. “Such
a conclusion suggests,” our author thinks, “the dualistic no-
tion of two powers at work in the field of human experi-
ence. . . .

While as we have intimated our author believes that so-
called miracles have actually occurred, in discussing “miracles
as facts” and “miracle as a religious factor” he makes a
significant limitation of the function of miracle :

6i4 the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Its value as a religious concept does not lie in proving the existence of
God, or the divinity of the agent exhibiting supernatural power ; but in
manifesting the attitude of God, already conceived to exist, toward man,
and indicating the consequent response that should be made by man
toward God. Religion and revelation are reciprocal terms. As religious
phenomena, miracles are not to be viewed as proofs of God; but as
revelations about God.

This certainly seems a very arbitrary attempt to restrict the
function of miracle. It is hard to see why an event which will
reveal what God is should not also show that God is. And if it
is uncertain “just how far the occurrence of such events pro-
vided the original stimulus to the conviction of the existence
of deity,” i.e., if we are not clearly entitled to assume that
miracles are needed to prove the existence of God, why should
they be needed to reveal His nature, unless it is to be frankly
admitted that that revelation may and does transcend the
natural? But it is not difficult to understand why Gillett
should draw this arbitrary distinction. For one who believed
in God might be expected to seek to discover His hand in
history and to recognize it even in relatively ordinary events,
while one who did not believe in Him would demand and
might not even then be convinced by proofs of the most con-
clusive character. The believer will seek to see God every-
where, the unbeliever will see Him nowhere. If miracles are
addressed only to the believer this naturally tends to shift the
problem of miracles from the objective to the subjective
sphere. Assume a sufficiently sensitive religious conscious-
ness and natural events will acquire great religious signifi-
cance.

Consequently it is natural that stress should be laid by our
author up>on the “interpretation of miracles.” “The modem
distinction between facts and values” is stressed, and we are
told that it “puts the interpretation of miracles in a new
light”:

The essential question is not as to the precise accuracy of the description
of the event, or as to the existence of a power other than that operating in
nature ; but as to the meaning and value of the event in its bearings on
the mutual relations of God and man.

In other words, what actually happened is a secondary mat-

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 615

ter as compared with the meaning and value which, rightly,
or even wrongly it would seem, can be derived from it or
attached to it. Our author continues :

That the appearance of a non-natural event, i.e., an event outside pre-
vious experience, proves the operation of a divine, supernatural agency
is psychologically true — men have widely interpreted it that way — but
logically false. That the appearance of a non-natural event, in the above
sense, proves either the operation of an unknown ‘natural law’ or the un-
observed operation of a known ‘law’ is, similarly, psychologically true
and logically false. Both rest back on metaphysical presuppositions as to
the nature of ultimate reality, more or less religious.

This coincidence of the “psychologically true” and the “log-
ically false” may be a great comfort to the Ritschlian theo-
logian. But it is likely, we think, to be rather confusing to
some at least of the readers of this article. So it will be
well perhaps to use a concrete illustration. We turn, there-
fore, to the one which Gillett himself uses, the Crossing of
the Red Sea.^® He writes as follows;

The record of miracles in the Bible and their progressive interpreta-
tion as clarified by modern historical scholarship not only illustrates what
has been said concerning the general attitude toward miracles, but also
indicates that modern thought with respect to them is moving more
nearly into accord with the Bible view. Take for example the O. T.
miracles associated with the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt.
They were brought out ‘with strong power and with a mighty hand.’ It is
evident that the narratives themselves show, as they recede in time from
the event, a marked increase in marvelous, ejrfraordinary accessories to
the occasion, as in respect to the crossing of the Red Sea (cf. Ex. xiv. 21a
[J] and xiv. 22 [P] or the poetic statement in xv. 8). But it is not simply
as marvelous events associated with the departure from Egypt and the
wanderings in the wilderness that they are through all Hebrew history
lauded and sung. They are the lore of the folk ; but they are not simply
folklore. Their significance is profoundly religious. They are rehearsed

It would be possible to select a better illustration since in the nar-
rative of the Red Sea the use of secondary causes — the wind and sea — is
clearly stated and strongly emphasized. Consequently this event was in
the main at least a special providence, rather than a miracle in the nar-
rowest sense of an event “in the external world, wrought by the im-
mediate power of God and intended as a sign or attestation” (Davis,
// Dictionary of the Bible, p. 504). But this one illustrates with sufficient
clearness the unwillingness of the critic to do full justice to the simple
statements of Scripture describing the sovereign control which God can
and does exert over His universe.

6i6

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

as a revelation of the gracious attitude of J" toward His chosen people
which it is both the privilege and the duty of the people to discern, and
which ought to awaken in them the response of loyal hearts and
obedient conduct.

What does this mean? If we understand the writer correctly,
it means that we cannot assert that any thing “non-natural”
occurred at the Red Sea. The “marvelous, extra-ordimry
accessories” are late; the earliest account, that of J, describes
a natural phenomenon of which we can only say that it was
very opportune, and even that account is relatively remote
and may be overdrawn. We are dealing with folk-lore.
What, then, is it which made this event so wonderful,
so memorable ? It is that Israel was able to draw such a pro-
found religious lesson from an event which was perhaps
relatively inconspicuous. But this brings us to the great ques-
tion whether we can accept the psychological interpretation if
we reject the objective fact. Gillett states the problem thus :

The crux of the question of miracles is not whether or not an ‘absolute
miracle’ is conceivable, or whether or not the records of miraculous
events are scientifically precise in their historical details, or whether or
not they involve a dualistic view of the universe. It really lies in the
validity of the value judgments of the religious consciousness as inter-
pretive of a certain class of events in the natural world as revelations of
the character of God.

Yes, here is the “crux” of this theory. For suppose the He-
brew’s interpretation of the Crossing of the Red Sea should
prove to be one of those value- judgments which as Patton
reminds us “need objective reality to make them worth any-
thing.” If there was nothing extraordinary about the Cross-

Pfeiffer describes the Crossing of the Red Sea after this fashion :
“Leading the tribes across a shallow branch of the Red Sea where the
pursuing Egyptians perished at the return of the tide, Moses brought
the wanderers to the oasis of Kadesh, near the southern border of
Judah” (p. 377b). Certainly there is nothing very extraordinary about
that! McCurdy had expressed it more strongly: “Pursued by Egyptians,
a way was opened for them over an arm of the Red Sea,” which sounds
more like what he called a “signal proof of the favor and power of J".”
Apparently Pfeiffer thought that this savored too much of the miraculous
or as he would probably prefer to say, magical, so he changed it accord-
ingly.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 617

ing of the Red Sea, were not the men who invented the re-
ligious interpretation of it recorded in Ex. xiv-xv and the
men who accepted this interpretation, living even in their
remote age in “a fool’s paradise of subjectivity”? And if
there is serious danger today that in the case of the
Ritschlian theologian “religion will share the fate of the
German mark which had subjective value so long as it repre-
sented objective reality, but when it came to have only sub-
jective value lost even that,” did not the Israelites who fol-
lowed Moses stand in a similar peril? If they had had no
signal proofs of Jehovah’s favor, were they not presumptu-
ous in looking upon themselves as in a peculiar sense His
people? If something had actually happened, they were en-
titled to build on it. But a value judgment resting on no tan-
gible evidence is as valueless as “the ghost of a dead faith.

It is clear then we believe that the whole trend of this dis-
cussion is to avoid the “scientific” objections to the superna-
tural by regarding miracles as “psychological” phenomena.
According to the Bible the miracles were mighty acts of God
wrought in behalf of a people only too ready to disobey and
reject His will and therefore constantly in need of Divine
guidance, help and correction. According to Gillett, and he is
only speaking for many who adopt the view set forth in his
article, the miracles were events “in the natural world” the
exact nature of which is uncertain, but from which the re-
ligious genius of the Israelites was able to draw “meaning
and religious value as respects the mutual relations of God
and man.” The “wonder” lies not in the objective act but in
the subjective interpretation. Instead of marvelling at the
wonders which God wrought in behalf of a perverse and un-
responsive people, whose history was signalized by disbelief
and disobedience, we are expected to marvel at the wonderful
religious interpretation which the Jew has given to his, ac-
cording to the critics, rather ordinary and commonplace
history.’^® “The genius of Israel” — so runs the title of a recent

Patton, Fundamental Christianity, pp. 202, 205, 300.

Thus Carrier-.Sellers conclude the article Fasts and Feasts with the

6i8

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

book which represents this viewpoint — is the wonderful re-
ligious phenomenon with which the Old Testament seeks to
acquaint us. On this wise the Biblical miracle is replaced by a
psychological miracle of man’s devising. The question ceases
to be, What hath God wrought? and becomes, What has
man inferred and discovered? Yet we believe that those who
will study this psychological miracle in the light of real
history and of a true psychology which does not idealize man
but sees him as he really is, will realize that this psychological
miracle which the critics have devised is a far more difficult
one to account for than the objective miracles of which the
Bible tells us.

The trouble with Gillett’s whole argument is, as we see it,
that he adopts an attitude toward the supernatural which leads
him to reject what the Bible has to say both as to the nature
and the cause of the miracles which it records. When the
Christian accepts the resurrection, for example, as a miracle,
he does not assume “omniscience as to the limits of the nat-
ural world’’ nor does he accept “the dualistic notion of two
powers at work in the field of human experience.” What he
does do is simply to accept the express statement of the Bible
that this amazing act was wrought by the power of God and
to draw the inference that the works of God as Redeemer
may and do supersede and transcend His works of Creation
and Providence. The Bible gives him both the record of a
wonderful event and points him to a Cause adequate to its
accomplishment. Accepting the Biblical account of the wonder

following paragraph; “In conclusion, it is important to observe that,
under the transforming genius of Israel’s religious teachers, these feasts
became the medium of expression for the people’s gratitude to J", and
the memories of his grace, which quickened their sense of unworthiness.
Only a narrow view would insist that a people could put no more into a
form of worship than existed in the crude period of inexperienced
childhood, for this would deny to growing spiritual consciousness that
larger expression which maturity demands.’’ That these feasts com-
memorated great deliverances and blessings which the nation owed to
Jehovah their God is lost sight of or ignored. The higher significance
which the Old Testament attributes to acts of God is ascribed to “the
transforming genius of Israel’s religious teachers.”

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

619

as actual fact and realizing the adequacy of the Cause to
which it is attributed, he finds in the miracle a sufficient basis
for all the precious religious implications which are drawn
from it. But when the extraordinary character of the miracle
is disparaged or denied in the interest of “scientific” natural-
ism, the inevitable result is a religious value judgment built
upon no tangible foundation.

Prophecy.

The article Prophecy by Zenos has only been slightly
changed in the new edition. We note that its author in speak-
ing of “prophetic inspiration” tells us that

The secret of the prophets’ power was the invincible conviction in their
own souls and in the souls of their hearers that the message which they
delivered was not their own invention, but came directly from the God
whom they served. They felt themselves to 'be appointed to their life-
work and equipped for it by an irresistible influence which was none
other than the very spirit of

We are told further with regard to “predictive prophecy”
that

The power of the prophet to foresee and announce beforehand events
which J" designed to accomplish was a gift of J" endowing and
distinguishing its recipient as a special agent of God in furthering His
will. The prophets as a class did indeed possess a large amount of
political sagacity; but they invariably viewed the quality as something
not acquired by education, inherited, or otherwise obtained in natural
ways, but as a bestowment from on high.'^®

These statements seem to indicate that their author is pre-
pared to do full justice to predictive prophecy as an outstand-
ing feature of Biblical prophecy. Unfortunately there are
other statements which very greatly impair their value. One
of these is the following statement as to the “interpretation
of prophecy” :

The starting-point in the interpretation of prophecy is that the prophetic
word is always addressed in the first place to a specific audience. There
in no such thing as prophecy dealing with non-existent situations. Every
word of God is called forth by a definite time and environment.

P. 741a.
P. 742b.
742a.

620 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

This Statement resembles the familiar dictum of A. B. David-
son : “The prophet is always a man of his own time, and it is
always to the people of his own time that he speaks, not to a
generation long after, nor to us.”®“ The extent to which this
limits the scope of prophecy should be apparent to everyone.
The disastrous results of its application to the Old Testa-
ment are most clearly illustrated by the partitionment of the
book of Isaiah which is largely the result of the application
of this principle. Thus, Peake in his article Isaiah tells us
that :

The third division [xl-lxvi] is by common consent not the work of
Isaiah. For the conditions in which he lived and worked have been
replaced by a wholly different situation. Even had he foreseen the Baby-
lonian Exile, he must have spoken of it in the future tense; whereas in
this section the Jews are described as in captivity and in many passages
their deliverance is said to be at hand.®i

Consequently the “Second Isaiah” is assigned to a date
“toward the close of the Babylonian Exile.” But the whole of
this section cannot be attributed to this prophet, for “the
situation changes” we are told, even within these twenty-
seven chapters. So the last eleven are assigned in the main to
“about the middle of the 5th cty. b.c. or perhaps somewhat
earlier.” Hence we have not merely a Deutero-Isaiah, but a
Trito-Isaiah also, not to mention lesser editors and contrib-
utors. And this principle does not affect the second part of
Isaiah alone, for we are told further by Peake that

In chap. xiii. we have a prediction of the final overthrow of Babylon by
the Medes, which also reflects conditions toward the close of the exile;
and the same is probably true of xxi. i-io. This demonstrates that even
in chaps, i-xxxv. there are non-Isaian elements.

No reference is made by this scholar to the fact that xiii. i
reads thus : “The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son
of Amoz did see.” This important statement is simply ig-
nored. We cannot depend on it for the date of the prophecy.
Instead we must seek to determine “to what historical situa-
tion or stage of religious development any particular section

Hastings’ Dictionary, Vol. IV, p. ii8b.
81 p. 370.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 621

is to be assigned.” This shows us not merely that the theory
of the critics as to the occasion of prophecy results in the dis-
memberment of Isaiah, but that in applying it the critics are
ready to disregard testimony of the most positive character
if it is not in accord with the theory which they have pro-
pounded.

But if prophecy must have, as we have seen, a “specific
audience,” and if these auditors must be the contemporaries
of the prophet, of how distant a future may the prophet
speak without talking “above the heads” of his auditors?
This is an important question. Let us hear what Zenos has to
say about it by continuing the quotation of his statement re-
gardingthe “interpretation of prophecy.” After stating as we
have seen that “every word of God is called forth by a definite
time and environment,” he continues :

But when the exigency that has elicited it has passed away, the word
does not lose its value ; for in meeting the exigency the prophet has an-
nounced principles of permanent validity. Whenever similar situations
arise in the future the prophecy serves as a standard to be referred to.
Circumstances may change, but principles remain the same; and once
uttered, principles must be recognized as having bearings whenever
similar circumstances arise again. The interpreter must then first ask:
What did the prophet intend to say to his immediate audience? and
afterward : What underlying principles of his utterance may be taken as
his message to the world of mankind for all time? This does not mean
that the prophet had two separate audiences in view when he spoke, but
that the fundamental positions on which his address is based are the
same for all ages.®*

If we understand it correctly the meaning of this statement
is that prophecy being designed to meet an exigency affecting
an existent (i.e. contemporaneous, or clearly impending)
situation, will have a fulfilment appropriate to this exigency.
Its bearing upon a future not closely or immediately con-
nected with this exigency will not be in the nature of fulfil-
ment, strictly speaking, but will be due to the fact that the
prophet has announced principles which because of their
permanent value will fit and therefore be applicable to all
similar situations in the future as they may arise. This will

®* P. 742a.

622

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

be clearer perhaps if we use as an illustration Zenos’ inter-
pretation of a great and familiar prophecy, the Immanuel
prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 :

The only admissible view, as far as the intention of Isaiah is concerned,
is that he had in mind a child born in his own days, whose birth would
be symbolical of the Divine favor displayed in such manifest power as
to assure His people that God was with them. But if this was Isaiah’s
thought, the use of the passage by Matthew must be either the result of
misunderstanding of the prophet’s meaning, or the appropriation of his
words as a formula in which the virgin birth of the Savior might
felicitously be embodied. If the alternative be drawn sharply between
these two views, the second would be by far preferable. But it is quite
possible to suppose that the evangelist did see in the birth of the Savior
the fulfilment of the hopes roused by the promise of God’s presence with
and among His people, and expressed this thought by applying the old
oracle to the event he was narrating. Stich an appropriation altho not
correct, judged by standards of modern literary and historical usage,
would be in perfect harmony with the methods of using the O. T. at the
time.®®

Here we have a clear illustration of the application of the
principles enunciated by Zenos. The only “admissible” view
is that Isaiah had in mind a child born in his own day. That
would relate the prophecy both as to the time of its utterance
and the date of its fulfilment directly to his own immediate
audience. The underlying principle of permanent value would
be that a child might symbolize the Divine favor, if the events
attending its birth and infancy were sufficiently remarkable
to “assure His people that God was with them.” Any subse-
quent event which illustrated the same principle might, then,
be said to fulfil the prophecy.®^

83 P. 368b.

®^ This is illustrated by Nourse’s discussion of the “Servant” passage
in Isaiah. He tells us : “One figure alone in all history has fully met the
ideal sketched by the prophet here. Yet it is neither necessary nor possible
to hold that the prophet foresaw His actual career. His life. His
cross, and His resurrection. The prophet grasped certain of those great
essential elements which, just because they are necessarily true, must
have been realized in Him who came to fulfil all righteousness” (p. 834a).
It is of course a debatable question how fully the prophets were able
to understand the meaning of the revelations which were given to them
regarding the promised Salvation. We are constantly in danger of read-
ing into them more of the fulfilment with which we as Christians are

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 623

Yet Zenos cannot disguise from himself the fact that
Matthew seems clearly to see in this prophecy something
more than a symbol or typical instance of God’s helpfulness,
that he sees in it what we would call a real prediction of the
birth of the Savior. So he sets before us two alterna-
tives : either Matthew was laboring under a “misunder-
standing” of the prophet’s meaning or he was using the
words as a “formula.” Of the two, if the alternative is to be
sharply drawn, he prefers the latter. But he tells us frankly
that if “the evangelist did see in the birth of the Savior the
fulfilment of the hopes roused by the promise of God’s pres-
ence with and among His people, and expressed this thought
by applying the old oracle to the event he was narrating”
(an explanation which he describes as “quite possible”),
such an appropriation would not be “correct” judged by
modern standards but would be “in perfect harmony with
methods of using the Old Testament at the time.”*® In
other words, if Matthew thought Isaiah really foretold the
birth of Christ, he was mistaken; if he used Isaiah’s words
as a “formula,” he was making an incorrect use of it, but one
perfectly permissible in bis day. In short, the Immanuel
prophecy was “fulfilled,” if we are really entitled to use this

familiar than we can be sure the prophets themselves were able to see.
They were spokesmen, their message was not their own but God’s. But
such New Testament passages as Luke iv. 16-21, Matt. xxii. 41-46,
John xii. 41, Luke xxiv. 25-27, are irreconcilably opposed to a conception
of prophecy which reduces it to the formulation of “principles of
permanent value” which must be exemplified to some degree in every
worthy life and therefore supremely in the one perfect Life. To deny
this is to deny that there is any essential difference between Isaiah’s
prophecy of the Suffering Messiah and Plato’s moral judgment that if
a perfect man were to visit this earth he would certainly be put to
death.

®®Cf. the following statement by Leary (retained by Paton) re-
garding the Patriarchs: “We may safely say, however, that there is a
strong presumption against the individual interpretation of any of the
patriarchs before Abraham. Nevertheless, the Biblical writers may have
believed that these names belonged to individuals” (p. 684a). The
modern critic has no hesitation about disagreeing with the statements of
the Old Testament when they are out of harmony with his own opinions.

624 the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

word at all, in the days of Isaiah: any use of it by Matthew
other than as symbolic of the presence of God with His
people, was either mistaken or incorrect. How seriously such
a view restricts the perspective of prophecy and how clearly
it tends to reduce it to the limits of the natural, must be
apparent to all. No wonder Moffatt tells us that the New Tes-
tament writers “allegorized” the Old Testament.

To the Bible student who is familiar with the methods of
the Old Testament critic this use of the word “formula” will
be quite familiar. When we read repeatedly in the book of
Leviticus the words “and the Lord spake unto Moses, say-
ing,” that is a “formula.” It does not mean what it says, that
the Lord spake unto Moses. Nourse does not mention Moses
once in his article Leviticus; the Priest Code is of course
late. The words “the Lord spake unto Moses saying” are
simply a formula by which the authority of the great Moses
was claimed for laws of which he had no knowledge. The
critics know that the laws are late, consequently the word
“formula”®® is a euphemism for a statement contrary to ac-
tual fact. And here we have the same thing in the New
Testament. The words “that it might be fulfilled” are a
formula. They do not mean “fulfilled,” they are simply a
high sounding and impressive phrase with which a New Tes-
tament writer introduced his own mistaken or incorrect ideas
as to the meaning of an Old Testament prophecy, or, as
Moffatt would say, “allegorized” it. When we remember
that quotations from the Old Testament are of frequent oc-
currence in the New Testament, that the theme of many of
these quotations is the ‘fulfilment’ of Old Testament proph-
ecy, and that this is especially true of Matthew,®^ we realize

Zenos tells us elsewhere (p. 758b) that “The formulas ‘The Scrip-
ture saith,’ ‘It saith,’ ‘It is written,’ ‘Then was the Scripture fulfilled
which saith,’ ‘This was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled,’ some-
times mean no more than quotation-marks in modern book-making.’’
In view of what we have read we are inclined to doubt whether to
Zenos they mean as much as this. It must be on some such basis as this
that he interprets our Lord’s express reference to Ps. no as Davidic,
since he tells us that it may be “of Maccabean date” (p. 575^).

Jacobus says of Matthew : “Matthew presents the Master from the

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

625

the significance of this restriction of the scope of prophecy
advocated by Zenos. Theoretically he may admit predictive
prophecy ; practically he denies it, and in denying it he does
not hesitate to challenge, indeed he cannot avoid challenging
the correctness of the New Testament interpretation of Old
Testament prophecies.

Conclusion

Further examples and illustrations of the critical position
of the Neiu Standard might easily be given. But this review,
though in many ways inadequate, has already made too large
demands upon the patience and interest of the reader. Yet
despite the fact that many topics have not been touched upon
and most of the contributors have been hardly more than
mentioned, enough has been said we believe to make its con-
trolling principles clear and to show the serious results of
their application to the contents of the Bible.

The fundamental assumption of the editors is clearly this,
that the Bible must be adapted to the requirements and stand-
ards of modern scholarship. This, as we have seen, is
made evident in the Preface, where we read that the critical
position of the Dictionary is one of “acceptance of the
proved facts of modem scholarship, of open-mindedness
toward its still-debated problems, and of conservation of the
fundamental truths of the Christianity proclaimed and es-
tablished in the message and mission of Jesus Christ.” The
meaning of this statement should be clearer now, in view of
the discussion upon which we have been engaged. What are
these “proved facts,” the acceptance of which is assumed at
the outset? The first “fact” is the humanness of the Bible.
This means that the Bible contains both truth and error and
represents a time-view or a series of time-views which have
been largely superseded. Its contents must therefore be sifted
and interpreted for the double purpose of distinguishing truth

view-point of fulfilled prophecy, to appeal to Jewish minds” (p. 309b)
When we remember that Westcott and Hort find more than a hundred
Old Testament quotations in this Gospel, we realize something of the
seriousness of the charge that Matthew’s methods of quotation will not
Stand the test of modern scholarship.

626

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

from error and of stating the truth in modern terms. It
means in other words that the Bible has only so much author-
ity as modern scholars are willing to recognize as compatible
with the acceptance of the modem “time-view.” The second
“fact” is the theory of evolution. This means that in explain-
ing the phenomena of history, Biblical no less than secular,
the emphasis is to be placed on the natural or human side
of history, despite the emphasis which the Bible so carefully
and repeatedly places on the Divine factor both as regards
origin and development. It means that miracle and prophecy
must not interfere with the normal and natural development.
In other words, it involves an attitude of distinct unfriend-
liness to the supernatural. The third “fact” is the compara-
tive method of studying and investigating the phenomena of
the Bible. This means that the statements of the Bible re-
garding the religion of Israel are to be tested as to their
credibility by our knowledge of conditions existing among
other peoples, despite the insistence of the Biblical writers
that the religious history described in the Scriptures is imique
and distinctive. The fourth “fact” is the correctness of the
conclusions which are generally accepted in “critical” circles
and which represent the application of the above principles
to the Scriptures.

These “facts” are accepted by the editorsof this Dictionary.
They regard them as no longer open to discussion, the argu-
ment is closed. It is only toward the “still-debated problems”
that “open-mindedness” is promised. This is noteworthy
because the editors assure us that their aim is to furnish
the reader with “a clear, charitable, uncontroversial presen-
tation” of the results of the “critical” movement which they
accept. This would seem to be a very difficult task in view of
the highly controversial nature of many of the conclusions
arrived at by the critics. How is it accomplished? By ignor-
ing all those who do not accept the “critical” viewpoint.
Thus, Peake in his article on the Religion of Israel, while
assuming that Deuteronomy (or the “kernel” of the book)
was probably prepared during the reign of Manasseh, gives

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 627

courteous consideration to the radical theory of Holscher
and others, which would make it post-exilic. Yet he ignores
completely the fact that most Christians accept the manifest
claim of the book to be at least substantially Mosaic. Is this
“clear, charitable, uncontroversial” ? Plainly it is not. It is
not clear, because it conveys the impression that Deuteron-
omy may be later than the time of Manasseh but cannot be
earlier, despite the fact that its Mosaic authorship was never
questioned until comparatively recent times. It is not chari-
table, because it treats a view which has been held for cen-
turies and is still the view of most Christians as if it were
unworthy of mention, not to say serious consideration, and
its advocates might be regarded as negligible quantities. It is
not uncontroversial, because to ignore an opponent is usually
regarded as the most serious afifront which can be paid him ;
and this method has not infrequently led to more contro-
versy and bitterness than a treatment which while frankly
controversial has showed itself both clear and charitable by
recognizing the existence of an opposing view, however un-
welcome the fact of the existence or persistence of such a view
may be. Yet this Dictionary is characterized by “open-mind-
edness” only so far as the problems of criticism are con-
cerned. Toward what they would call the “traditional” view
the editors claim the right to maintain a “closed mind.” For
them it has only antiquarian interest.

Since the editors of this Dictionary proceed upon the as-
sumption that the critical theories are correct, it may be
noted that this volume offers an excellent opportunity for
testing the correctness of one of the most important of their
“proved facts.” This is due to the fact that we have 'before
us a book which is distinctly described as a revision of a
previous work. According to the critics the literature which
we call the Bible has passed through many editions and
revisions; and they claim the ability to detect the hand of
editor and redactor and to disentangle sources in a way
which to the average reader is both amazing and bewildering.
The critics assume that this analysis is correct, at least in

628

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the main. But many Bible students — in the opinion of the
editors they do not deserve to be called scholars — are still
very skeptical of the conclusions reached. Here would be a
good opportunity to test its correctness. The New Standard
is a volume not very much more extensive than the English
Bible. Many of its articles are clearly designated as “edited”
by the appending of two sets of initials. To disentangle these
sources should be child’s play for the critics as compared
with the task on which they have been engaged in the Old
Testament. Yet we venture to assert that if they would at-
tempt the source analysis of the New Standard and test their
conclusions by the Standard their confidence in their Penta-
teuchal sources would be not a little shaken. We do not
expect them to accept this suggestion. But we would com-
mend it to any whose attitude to this question has not yet
become that of unquestioning acceptance of the conclusions
of the critics.®®

In forming our final estimate of the Neiv Standard as
of its predecessor we must remember the thesis upon which
it proceeds. It aims to adapt the Bible to the conclusions of
modern scholarship. How much of the Bible can be adapted
is not clear. But that a great deal must be rejected or so radi-
cally reconstructed as to be scarcely recognizable is perfectly
obvious. Thus, the radical change which “comparative re-
ligion” is insisting on in the message and methods of the
missionary is a cause of grave concern to those who still be-
lieve in the uniqueness of Christianity, and in its exclusive

A. Bertholet in his “Apokryphcn and Pseudepigraphen” (added as a
supplement to Budde’s Geschichte d. altheb. Litteratur, 1906) makes the
following striking statement regarding “source-analysis” as applied to
the extra-canonical books : “What they [the writers of this literature]
offer us is, consequently, in no sense entirely original, and it cannot even
be claimed that they have always made the borrowed material entirely
their own : this often results in obscurity and contradiction, in confusion
of ideas and expression, which can be remedied by source analysis only in
the rarest cases.” This is a remarkable admission. For surely a method
which as the critics think can be applied with such success to the Pen-
tateuch should be applicable also to Enoch, Jubilees and Tobit and, we
may add, to the New Standard Bible Dictionary.

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

629

claims. It is astonishing that so many of the critics seemingly
fail to recognize the drastic character of the reconstruction
which they advocate. McFadyen tells us :

Criticism is only a means to an end, and the end is interpretation. Its
purpose is essentially constructive; it aims at destroying nothing but
misconceptions. The question is often asked, ‘How much has criticism
left?’ and the answer is ‘Everything.’ The land has been redistributed,
but the ground remains — every inch of it.*®

True, but how and what does it remain? The beautiful
picture of a garden in which our first parents lived in inno-
cent communion with God and with one another has been
redistributed as a jungle in which a beast-like man gradually
mastered the beast within and the beast without. The patri-
archal period is so hidden by the haze of distance, that its
heroic figures appear as myths or tribal movements. Sinai is
so veiled in mist and fog that we cannot be sure whether we
see before us the unshakable granite of that mountain
“where God dwelt” and at which. He proclaimed the Ten
Words and entered into covenant with Israel, or whether we
see before us boldly outlined on the clouds a Brocken spectre,
the reflection of later Israel’s pious imaginings. Redistrib-
uted? Yes, but as granite fact or fog bank fancy? We see
Abel offering a sacrifice which Jehovah accepted and we trace
the blood which flowed from that first sacrifice and lo, it leads
to Egypt and the passover, to Sinai and the priestly ritual, to
the tabernacle and the temple and finally to the Upper Room
and Calvary. And lo, we are told that this stream had its rise
in the land that is called Primitive, and passes through the ter-
rible region, called Expiation which belongs to “the angry god,”
whose servants are called priests, and that the prophets long
ago told men that they need no longer pass through much if
any of this dismal country with its blood bespattered altars
and its disitant glimpse of an awful Cross, but that they could
pass directly by the gateway called Repentance and Reforma-
tion into the land of Beulah. This longer journey becomes
in the redistribution of the land unnecessarily circuitous;

The Record for October 1925, p. 422.

630 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and so that Priestly Land whither so many resorted for heal-
ing of their infirmities now tends to become an unfrequented
byway. The ground remains, perhaps, but how changed,
how unfamiliar, how unsubstantial is that panorama which
the Scriptures unfold before us, when redistributed by the
critics. The Bible has been adapted to modern standards and
has ceased to be the Book that so many generations of be-
lieving Christians have revered and loved. It is no longer a
final authority to which men can appeal; it is an old-fash-
ioned book which must be brought up to date if it is not to
lose caste in this rapidly moving modern age and cease en-
tirely to influence the course of human history.

The claim which the Bible makes for itself is a very dif-
ferent one from this which the critics make for it. It claims
to be a standard to which every age must conform and by
which every age will be judged. “The grass withereth,” cries
the prophet, “the flower fadeth; but the word of the Lord
shall stand for ever.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away
but my words shall not pass away,” says One to whom all
the prophets bear witness. “For we have not followed cun-
ningly devised fables,” declares the Apostle Peter, when we
made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” “As of
sincerity, as of God, in the name of God, speak we in Christ”
says the Apostle to the Gentiles. “If any man thinketh himself
to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things that I write unto you are the commandments of the
Lord.” The Bible speaks with the authority and finality of
God : “Thus saith the Lord !” Men can as little outgrow it, as
they can outgrow its Author. To the ear that He has opened it
speaks with an immediacy and certainty which needs no
“reinterpretation,” and will accept none.

The issue between the Bible and the critics can be summed
up in a word : adopt or adapt ! Shall we adopt the Bible as
the standard by which all things, even the conclusions of
modem scholarship are to be tested ? Or shall we adapt the
Bible to what may be today “the proved facts of modem

A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY

631

scholarship,” but tomorrow may occupy a conspicuous place
in the museum of exploded theories. The one will give us the
blessed assurance that we are built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief
Cornerstone, that we share the faith of Abraham and David,
of Isaiah and Ezra, of Paul and John, The other will impress
us more and more with the distance which separates us from
them, and what is far worse, separates us from Him to whom
they bear witness, a distance which tends to become a gulf
which the bridge that is called Reinterpretation can never
span. Adopt or Adapt, — which ?

Princeton. Oswald T. Allis.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

Objection has frequently been made to the use of the tes-
timony of Jesus in corroboration of the historicity of the
persons and events of the Old Testament to which the Gos-
pels tell us that He referred, apparently in full belief in the
accuracy and veracity of the Old Testament accounts of
these persons and events. These objections are based funda-
mentally upon the supposition, that Jesus in these references
was merely conforming to the opinions and beliefs common
among the Jews of His time, or that He really did not know
enough to perceive that these opinions of His contemporaries
were false and their beliefs groundless. Eor myself, I have
always been of the belief and am today, that Jesus knew more
about the Old Testament than the Jews of His day and than
any, or all, of the wise men of all time; and this belief is
based upon the conviction that God hath demonstrated Him
to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead. And,
if He is the Son of God, I can believe that He was conceived
by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified for
my sins, and that He has ascended up on high, having brought
life and immortality to light in His gospel. As my Lord and
Teacher, I take what He has said con amore, ex animo, and
without any mental reservations. Doubts arise in my mind
only when I cannot be sure of what He did say, or of the
meaning of what He said, owing to difificulties in the text or
in its interpretation. Nevertheless, nothwithstanding this faith
of mine and partly because of it, I am interested in attempting
to remove from the minds of others the doubts which hinder
them from trusting His words as the words of truth. Conse-
quently, in the following pages, I shall address myself to an-
swering the questions. What did Jesus say with regard to the
Old Testament? and. Can any one show that what He said is
not true ? In view of the character of Jesus as portrayed in the
New Testament it seems to me that all Christians at least
should accept His opinion as tothefactsof theOldTestament,
unless it can be proved beyond controversy that what He

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

633

thought and said about these facts is false. When it shall
have been shown that Jesus was wrong in His treatment of
the Old Testament, it will be time to resort to the theory of
kenosis,^ in order to retain at least a remnant of our faith.

As the basis of this article, I shall take a criticism by Dr. T.
R. Glover of Cambridge, England, of two lectures delivered
by me in June, 1925, before the Bible League of the United
Kingdom in Central Hall, Westminster.^ A stenographic re-
p>ort of these lectures seems to have been published in a bul-
letin of the Bible League. I have never seen this report, but
it appears from the criticism that it contained some typo-
graphical errors — especially in the Latin citations — over
which the critic makes himself merry. I commend to him a
perusal of Polybius’ defense of Ephorus when the latter was
attacked by Timaeus on the ground of certain obvious incon-
sistencies in some of his statements.®

After this preliminary criticism, the learned critic pro-
ceeds to state for me the principle of my method, as follows :
“He knows quite well, and admits it, that the accuracy of
any statement in the Old Testament is only to be verified
in one way — by evidence.” I neither know nor admit any
such statement ; but, on the contrar}% I maintain that inas-

1 1 refer here to the theory of kenosis according to which it is held that
the “emptied himself” (R.V.) of Phil. ii. 7, included His divine knowl-
edge as well as His form, or glory.

2 Written under his signature with the caption “Fundamentalism on
the Defensive” by T. R. Glover, D.D., LL.D., and published in the Daily
News, London, Jan. 16, 1926.

3 Polybius in his Histories as translated by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh,
M.A., Cambridge, says in Book xii. 4 (a), in speaking of the attack of
Timaeus upon Ephorus as follows : “He [i.e. Timaeus] falsely charges
Ephorus with contradicting himself, on the ground that he asserts that
Dionysius the Elder ascended the throne at the age of twenty-three,
reigned forty-two years, and died at sixty-three. Now no one would
say, I think, that this was a blunder of the historian, but clearly one of
the transcriber. For either Ephorus must be more foolish than Coroebus
and Margites, if he were unable to calculate that forty-two added to
twenty-three make sixty-five; or if that is incredible in the case of a man
like Ephorus, it must be a mere mistake of the transcriber, and the
carping and malevolent criticism of Timaeus must be rejected.”

634

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

much as the Old Testament Scriptures, wherever they could
be thoroughly tested, have stood the test of outside evidence,
the presumption is that the prima facie evidence of the Scrip-
tures is to be taken as correct where it cannot be tested. I
maintain, further, that no mere opinion, even of the wisest
man now living, is sufficient to cast a doubt upon the veracity
of documents two or three thousand years old ; that opinions
and conjectures are not evidence ; and that the only evidence
by which we can test the reliability of ancient historic docu-
ments, except so much as is to be acquired from analogy,
must be derived from other ancient and, if possible, contem-
poraneous documents.

The critic then proceeds to express his opinion as to certain
parts and statements of the Old Testament to which the Lord
refers. To quote his own words, he says: “After all his [i.e.
Wilson’s] talk of defending Daniel ‘philologically, palaeo-
graphically and historically’ it is plain [i.e., plain to Dr.
Glover], that he rests on traditional dogma.” If he had read
my Studies on the Book of Daniel, he would probably not
have made such an assertion. He cites me, further, as saying :
“I never thought that I knew more than Jesus Christ”; and
then proceeds to make the following comment :

That means in plain English, this : Our Lord — if the text is right, if the
oral transmission behind the text is right, if the interpretation is right
that He was definitely deciding a textual question, if no other qualifica-
tion is to be added — appears, or can be made to appear, to attribute the
noth Psalm categorically to David and to accept Jonah’s three days in
the whale’s belly.

Now, to anybody who compares Luke and Matthew, and cares to look
at the sense of the passage, it is plain [51V/] that the reference to Jonah
is parallel with that to the Queen of Sheba and that the whale verse in
Matthew is irrelevant and is only explicable as an interpolation.^

* Dr. Glover here gives a good example of his own method of criti-
cism. He asserts that “the whole verse in Matt. xii. 40 [referring to
Jonah] is irrelevant and is only explicable as an interpolation.” This he
does in spite of the fact that all the manuscripts, texts and versions of
Matthew support the genuineness of this verse. All the texts and ver-
sions of Jonah, also, agree in the account of the miracle as given in our
English Bible and as cited in the New Testament.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

635

The passages, referred to above, concerning the noth
Psalm are Matt. xxii. 43-45, Mark xii. 35-37, Luke xx. 41-
44 ; those concerning the Queen of Sheba are found in Matt,
xii. 42 and Luke xi. 31 ; and those concerning Jonah in Matt,
xii. 39, 40, xvi. 4, and Luke xi. 29, 30. My readers will be
good enough to read for themselves these passages and, also,
the heading of Psalm cx., the account of the Queen of Sheba
in I Kings x. i-io, and the first and second chapters of the
book of Jonah. My readers will note, also, that the correct-
ness of the English version of the original text of all these
passages cannot be denied^®; and that the manuscripts and ver-
sions agree as to the accuracy of the text that has been trans-
mitted to us. Then, let my readers bestir themselves and
think what they would decide, if they were serving on a jury,
as to the evidence of documents, regarding whose text and
obvious meaning there could be no doubt on the ground of
evidence except only that suggested by the lawyer who
wanted to impugn the veracity of the documents. We knotv
that these passages of the Old Testament were the same in
the time of Jesus that they are now. We have the testimony
of three of the Synoptic Gospels as to Psalm cx; two refer-
ences to Jonah in Matthew and one in Luke; and references
to the Queen of Sheba in Matthew and Luke. No textual
variants of any moment are found in any of the manuscripts
or versions. There is no serious dispute as to the meaning of
any clause in any of the passages. And yet, the distinguished
public orator of Cambridge seems to expect us to reject all of
this impregnable testimony of Kings, Psalms and Jonah, and
of Matthew, Mark and Luke, simply because he and those
like him have thought out a lot of “ifs” and use without
evidence such phrases as “it is clear to me” with a view to
showing that Jesus did not mean what He said, or did not say
what He meant. Before undertaking again to inveigh against
the prima facie evidence of the Scriptures, it will be well for
Dr. Glover to gather together some objective evidence in

Except that k^to5 would better be rendered “sea-monster” or “great
fish.”

636

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

language, manuscripts, versions and inscriptions, that will
enable him to persuade a grand jury of sensible lawyers,
trained in the law of evidence, or even of the general public,
that he has a case fit to be presented before a court for trial.

After having given expression to the general opinions
above stated. Dr. Glover proceeds to throw upon the Bible
Union the burden of proof, as to the veracity of the Scrip-
tures and as to the knowledge of Jesus, declaring that before
we can believe in the trustworthiness of the one or the knowl-
edge of the other there must first be “established” the fol-
lowing seven points. His statement is as follows ;

Several things then have to be established — First, that the historical tra-
dition is solidly represented by the Authorized Version; second, that our
Lord never meant more than the Bible League has discovered ; third,
that He was deadly literal (and it is clear He was not) ; fourth, that
He never argued ad hominem (which He clearly did) ; fifth, that He
really aimed at establishing the verbal accuracy of Biblical texts (though
He threw over Moses’ laws as to the Sabbath and divorce) ; sixth, that
He, made in the likeness of man, after “emptying Himself,’’ as St. Paul
puts it, must have retained omniscience on things of major or of minor
importance; and, seventh, that if astray or indifferent as to a comma of
the received O.T. text of His day. He is of no further value. And I think
some of these propositions will take some arguing.

Now, I have no means of knowing what the thousands of
members of the Bible League may hold, individually or col-
lectively, as to these seven points ; so I shall merely state my
own views with regard to them. Taking them up in order,
then, let me say ;

I. It is scientifically certain that the Authorized Version,
so-called, represents with substantial accuracy the meaning
of the “received text” both of the Old Testament in Hebrew
and Aramaic and of the New Testament in Greek. Not
merely so, but every version of the Bible, honestly made, from
the Septuagint down to the last published by the British and
Foreign, or the American, Bible Society, “solidly represents”
the history of Israel, the prophecies, and the poetical books
of the Old Testament; and the life of Jesus, the acts of the
Apostles, the revelation of St. John, and the epistles of the
New Testament. That is, they all present the great facts of

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

637

sacred history and the doctrines of redemption in such a way
that they who know them may by them be made wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2. I doubt if any member of the Bible League ever thought,
or said, that the Lord never meant more than he himself or all
the members of the League taken together had discovered;
or, for that matter, than Dr. Glover, or any other man has
discovered, or could discover.

3. Some things seem to be “clear” to Dr. Glover that are
not clear to us. For example, what does he mean by “deadly
literal” ? Is he sure that there is not a 7^o«-literal that is much
more deadly than a deadly literal ? As he has not given any
specifications, nor any evidence, but merely makes an asser-
tion, let us wait and see what he means. Perhaps, we shall
agree with him.

4. Who says that Jesus never used the ad hominem argu-
ment ? It is certainly possible and many consider it probable
that in His argument with the Jews about the casting out of
demons Jesus used such an argument when He said, “And if
I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children
cast them out?” (Matt. xii. 27, cf. Lk. xi. 19). The question
is not whether Jesus ever used an ad hominem, but whether
in referring to Jonah and to Ps. cx. etc., he was employing
this argument. This is obviously a very different question.

5. What the Lord may have “aimed at” aside from setting
aside, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of man, the outgrown
laws of Moses, given because of the hardness of Israel’s
heart, I do not know — nor does Dr. Glover, nor any other
man. What is clear, however, is, that Jesus recognizes the
verbal accuracy and the authority of the Biblical texts bear-
ing upon the Sabbath and divorce; and, then, as the Lord of
both Sabbath and of man. He makes known a higher and
better law.

6. As to the doctrine of kenosis, I am not prepared to say
that the God-man must have maintained His omniscience;
but I am ready to maintain that as far as any one today
knows, every reference that He made to the Old Testament

638 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

is true. In former days, many good Christian men, who truly
loved the Lord and relied humbly on His grace, believed in
this doctrine ; largely because they thought that the sayings
of Jesus with regard to the Old Testament were not true in
fact. Judging by the analogy of the Greek and Roman his-
tories, they argued that the early history of the Old Testa-
ment consisted largely of myths and legends; and having
given up their faith in its historic trustworthiness, and recog-
nizing that Jesus believed in its trustworthiness, they pre-
served their faith in Him by taking refuge in kenosis. But
today we know that the history of Israel, unlike that of
Greece and Rome, is confirmed by a mass of evidence, which
rules out all the old-time mythical theories as to its origin.
Wherever the Old Testament records can be thoroughly
tested, they have stood the test. As to writing, language,
forms of literature, law, history and religion, it stands ap-
proved by the evidence of contemporaneous documents of
unquestioned veracity and relativity. Its statements must be
accepted on their face value unless it can be shown by evi-
dence from outside that they are false.

7. It will be time enough to discuss this last point, when it
shall have been shown that Jesus did go astray or was in-
different to the Textus Receptus of His day.®

^ It is true that Jesus does not expressly say that He is interested in, or
is making use of, the Textus Receptus of His day; but this is different
from implying that He was indifferent to it. Besides it cannot be shown
that Jesus went astray in His use of the text of the Old Testament. One
of the most noteworthy facts in the consideration of the New Testament
citations from the Old Testament, is the marvelous manner in which the
citations attributed by the evangelists to Jesus Himself agree with the
Textus Receptus of our Hebrew Bibles. In most of these citations by
Jesus, we have exactly the same text in the Gospels as we find in the
Hebrew, e.g.. Matt. iv. 4, 7, v. 5, 21, 27, 31, 38, 43, viii. 17, ix. 13 ( ?), xv. 4,
27, xvii. 16, xix. 4, 7, 19, xxi. 13, 16, 42, xxii. 32, 44, xxvii. 46. In Matt,
iv. 10 and Luke iv. 8 the word “only” is added in accordance with the
Septuagint and with the sense. In Matt. xi. 10, xiii. 14, 15, 35, xxvi. 37
the text is substantially the same. In xv. 8, 9, there is a slight variation by
way of adaptation and in xix. 5 an “unimportant variation.” In xxvi. 31,
there is an interpretation by way of adaptation ; and in xxiv. 21 a “free
citation.” See Quotations in the New Testament by Crawford Howell
Toy, late Professor in Harvard University.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

639

How, then, is it with the statements of the Old Testament
to which Jesus refers and which from the prima facie evi-
dence of the Gospels He seems to have believed to be true?
Can these statements be accepted as true or can they not ? Dr.
Glover is clearly of the opinion that they cannot be accepted.
His whole line of argument rests upon this assumption. If
his assumption is correct his arguments are worthy of con-
sideration. But if that assumption is untrue, most of his con-
tentions are of no value. We shall now proceed therefore to
examine all the passages in which Jesus refers to the Old
Testament, which are cited by Dr. Glover, as well as a num-
ber of others which he does not mention, with a view to
showing that Dr. Glover’s assumption is not justified by the
facts.

Adam.

In Matt. xix. 4 Jesus says: “Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and fe-
male,” referring to Gen. i. 27. As the context clearly shows,
Jesus means the pair of whom it was said in Gen. i. “let us
make man in our image according to our likeness,” and
whom He created male and female. In the more particular
account in Gen. ii, it is said in vs. 7 that Jehovah formed
Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life and, in vs. 22, that He built up Eve
from a rib or side of Adam. Does any one know that this
account is not true to the facts ? Surely, man is made of dust,
or chemical elements, to which our physical bodies return
after death. Surely, also, man must have been male and
female from the beginning of the race to which we belong.
Surely, last of all, we have more or less of the divine likeness
and image. Is any man prepared to affirm that he knows that
this God-like genus homo to which we belong and of which
Jesus speaks was not, or could not have been, made as Jesus
says that he was? The when, the where, the how, no one
knows. Why not admit as much as this ?

In Matt. xix. 5 He says further that God said: “For this

640

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to
his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh (cf. Mk. vi. 7, 8).
This is objected to on the ground that it affirms monogamy
to have been the original family bond. This has been chal-
lenged by the evolutionists who regard the monogamous re-
lation as the result of a long process of development. But can
anyone maintain that this has been conclusively proved to be
the case? If man is really a fallen creature, as the Bible af-
firms, he may have departed rapidly and far from this primi-
tive ideal. If man is not a fallen being, not merely does our
whole theology need to be radically reconstructed, but the
need of redemption is annulled and God’s revelation of free
and abundant grace through Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
becomes an absurd delusion.

Abel.

“The blood of Abel” (Lk. xi. 51), or “righteous Abel”
(Matt, xxiii. 35), implies that there was an Abel and that he
was killed by Cain as is stated by the record in Gen. iv. There
is no evidence in existence to show that this account is not
true nor that Jesus did not know that it was true.

Noah.

In Matt. xxiv. 37, 39, Jesus says that “as the days of Noe
were, so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. For as in
the days that were before the flood, they were eating and
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day that
Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came,
and took them all away,” etc. (See, also, Luke xvii. 26, 27).
This passage implies that Jesus believed there was a Noah, an
ark, a flood, and that all who had not entered the ark were
swept away. Every one of thesi points is clearly set forth in
Gen. vi-viii and is (though with another name for Noah)
confirmed by the Babylonian account of the deluge found in
the Eleventh Tablet of the Gilgamesh story. Jesus says
nothing about the ark’s dimensions, nor about how many
persons or animals or what kinds of provisions entered the ark,
nor about the way the flood came, nor about how long it en-

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

641

dured, nor about its extent. About all of these minor questions
he is silent; but as to the four main points in the narrative of
the flood, He certainly states them as if He believed them to
be true. Can any historian, geologist, or philosopher, prove
that such a flood with its accompaniments, did not occur?
Having seen the Johnstown flood and lived through the
Yokohama earthquake, I am exceedingly sceptical about all
theories of uniformitarianism in the course of this earth’s
history.® A study of the Johnstown flood and its ravages and
of the overflows of the Mississippi and other great rivers
would be a good preparation for those who attempt to settle
the chronology of Egypt by measuring the amount of sedi-
ment from the ordinary rate of increase of the soil in the last
3500 years, or so.’^ A study of the earthquakes of which we
know, such as that of Yokohama, might make people more
modest about generalizing concerning the rate of changes in
the earth’s surface and might also throw some light on the
ease with which God could have effected the passage of the
Jordan and the fall of the walls of Jericho; and, one might
add, the turning back of the shadow on the dial plate of
Ahaz. That earthquakes were common in Palestine seems
evident from i Kings xix. 1 1, 12, Is. xxix. 6, Amos i. i, Zech.
xiv. 5 and the references to them in Matthew, Acts and The
Revelation. The manner in which the difficulty about the sun
standing still has been removed by a study of Babylonian as-

® Sir William Dawson says in his work The Earth and Man, page 3:
“The uniformity has been in the methods, the results have presented a
wondrous diversity and development” ; and on p. 287 “the erosion [in the
pluvial, or post-pliocene, age] was enormous in comparison with anything
in our experience.”

’’ In the Forum for October, Sir Flinders Petrie, whom we all honor
for his great work in Egyptology, calculates that the rise of the sediment
in the valley of the Nile has been at the same rate for 3500 years ago as
it is today. He says on p. 532 that “it is not likely to have accumulated on
an entirely different scale before that time.” Against the validity of this
assumption see Chapter VTI of G. M. Price’s New Geology. Why may
the two feet or so of pebbles and rubble in the Fayoum Valley not be
due to a sudden and overwhelming overflow occasioned by the bursting of
some inland African lake and a sudden breach in the west bank of the
Nile?

642 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

tronomy, showing that the Hebrew word translated in the
English version by standing still means to he darkened, or
eclipsed^ should teach us that real knowledge is in harmony
with the Word of God. God, who made and preserves the
universe, including chemicals and physical forces and vege-
table and animal life, is the greatest of all chemists and
physicists and physicians; and floods and earthquakes and
eclipses and life and death and resurrections and immortality
are still within His power, His wisdom. His control. That He
should have caused the Noachic flood and have given us a
sign that there would never be another like it, is clearly
within the confines of reasonable belief to all who believe in
Him at all. Certain it is, at least, that no man knows enough
to say that there was no Noachic flood, or that Jesus was
wrong, or did not know, that such a flood took place.

Abraham.

In nine distinct passages Jesus mentions Abraham by
name, as follows :

a. Matt. viii. 1 1 ; “many shall sit down with Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”

b. Matt. xxii. 31, 32 : “As touching the resurrection of the
dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by
God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead,
but of the living.” Mark xii. 26, 27: “As touching the dead,
that they rise ; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how
in the bush God spoke unto him, saying, I am the God of
Abraham,” etc. “He is not the God of the dead but the God
of the living.” Luke xx. 37, 38: “Now that the dead are
raised even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the
Lord the God of Abraham,” etc. “For He is not a God of the
dead, but of the living.”

c. In Luke xiii. 16, Jesus calls a woman a “daughter of
Abraham whom Satan hath boimd,” etc.

® See my article, “What does ‘the Sun Stood Still’ Mean?” in this
Review, Vol. xvi., pp. 46-54.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 643

d. In Luke xix. 9 he calls Zaccheus “a son of Abraham.”

e. Luke xiii. 28 “There will be weeping and gnashing of
teeth when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all
the prophets in the kingdom of God,” etc.

/. In Luke xvi. 22, He concludes the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom by the words : “If
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

g. In John viii. 39, He speaks of “the children of Abra-
ham” and “the works of Abraham.”

h. In John viii. 56, He says that “Abraham rejoiced to see
my day and he saw it and was glad.”

i. In John viii. 58, He says : “Before Abraham came into
being, I am.”

In every one of these nine passages, Jesus speaks as if He
thought that there was a man called Abraham. He says that
He Himself existed before Abraham was born and implies
that He had seen Abraham, inasmuch as this verse was a
reply to the question of the Jews in the preceding verses:
“Thou art not yet fifty years old and hast Thou seen Abra-
ham?” He claims, also, to have known the works of Abra-
ham (John viii. 39) and that the living God was the God of
an Abraham who was still living in heaven long after his body
had died on earth. These statements clearly indicate, that
Jesus believed that He existed before Abraham, knew all
about his life here, and thought that he, Abraham, still ex-
isted. What logical ground has a Christian for denying any
of these things ? What man knows enough to say that Jesus
was wrong in believing them to be true ?

Without mention of the name of Abraham, the Lord re-
fers to four other events connected with his history — the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. xi. 24, Mark
vi. II, Luke x. 12), Lot’s going out of Sodom (Luke xvii.
28, 29), Lot’s wife (Luke xvii. 32), and the institution of the
rite of circumcision by the fathers before the time of Moses
(John vii. 22). In our present state of knowledge about these

644

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

events, it is certain that we do not know that the references
to them by Jesus are not all true. Doubtless, when Dr. Glover
produces some direct evidence upon these statements militat-
ing against the truthfulness of what the evangelists state that
Jesus said, the members of the Bible League of the United
Kingdom will sit up and take notice. His mere opinion upon
these matters is of no more value as evidence than the opinion
of any other man now living. That is, it is of no value
whatsoever.

Moses.

In every one of the Gospels, Jesus is said to have referred
by name to Moses, and to some words or acts of his :

a. Matt. xix. 8 : “Moses suffered you to put away your
wives, but in the beginning it was not so,” etc.

h. Mark x. 3 : “What did Moses command you?”

c. Luke XX. 37 : “That the dead are raised, Moses shewed
at the bush,” etc.

d. John iii. 14: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so shall the Son of Man be lifted up,” etc.

e. John V. 45 : “One accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye
trust.”

/. John vi. 32 (referring to the manna) : “Moses gave you
not that bread from heaven.”

g. John vii. 19 : “Did not Moses give you the law ?”

h. John vii. 23 ; He speaks of “the law of Moses.”

These eight passages show us that Jesus believed that there
was a Moses who figured in these events recorded of him in
the Pentateuch and especially who gave the Law to the
Israelites. Particularly noteworthy is His use of the raising
up of the serpent in the wilderness. Does anyone know that
any one of these statements is wrong or that Jesus did not
know that they were true ? If so, how does he know ? What is
his evidence? No event of history is self-evident and nothing
is impossible with God.

Jesus cites from every one of the five books ascribed to
Moses and He says expressly “He wrote of me.” This implies

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

645

three things. First, there was a Moses; secondly, he wrote;
thirdly, he wrote concerning Jesus. As to the first of these
implications, that is, that there was a man called Moses, can
there really exist a man who thinks he knows enough to make
a denial that such a person ever existed at the court of Pha-
raoh sometime between 1250 and 1500 b.c.?® We know that
the Hebrew language was in common use in Palestine and
Syria before the time of the conquest of these countries by
Thothmes III who probably preceded Moses by several cen-
turies; for the cities of these lands, which he enumerates
three times on the gates of the temple which he built at Kar-
nak, mostly bear good Hebrew names. We know further
that the scribes both of Palestine and Syria on the one hand
and of Egypt on the other knew Hebrew, for the Hebrew
words inserted by way of explanation in the El Amarna
letters written to the kings Amenophis, the Third and Fourth,
could otherwise not have been either written in these letters,
or read by the scribes of Egypt. Eurther, the mention of the
Israelites by Merenptah shows that a people of this name was
known to him ; and it is probable that the word Habiru of the
Amarna letters was the Babylonian equivalent of “Hebrew”
( ) . Since it is certain, therefore, that there were He-

brews in Egypt at the time when according to the Scriptures
Moses was born and enacted his extraordinary deeds, it is a
ridiculous assumption of a knowledge not possessed by any
man to assert that Moses could not have existed.

Further, no one can doubt that the Hebrews were in Pales-
tine in the time of Shishak and of Tiglath-Pileser HI (IV) ;
and the Biblical records give us the only account known of
the origin of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel whose separ-
ate existence is confirmed by the Assyrian documents. The
books of the prophets, the Psalms, and the historical books
of the Old Testament, all unite in assuring us that the Israel-
ites were in Canaan long before the time of Saul and David

® Moses may have existed without being mentioned on the Egyptian
monuments. See Studies in the Book of Daniel, chaps. I and II.

See W. Max Muller’s Die Paldstina-liste Thutmosis III.

646

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and that their religious centre at Jerusalem was firmly fixed
by the construction of the temple in the timeof Solomon. That
there was a period of judges before there was a king in Israel
can be denied by no one ; and there must have been a first and
a foremost of these judges who led the people in the conquest
which all must admit to have occurred. Who, then, was this
first of the judges? Who was this leader of the Israelitish
people who led the embattled hosts of the Hebrews against
the walled cities and chariots of the preceding inhabitants of
the land? The Bible calls him Moses and his minister Joshua
and makes him to have been the founder of the institutions
of his people. Does anyone know that the Bible is wrong in
what it says with regard to this man Moses? More particu-
larly, can any one have the audacity to say that he knows that
there was not a Hebrew leader, prophet, and founder of the
people and institutions having this name? No. A thousand
times: No. And, if they do not know this, what right have
they to say that Jesus did not know that he was, or that he
was wrong in assuming that he was.

Secondly, if there was a Moses, why may he not have writ-
ten books or documents ? Surely, no one can deny that writing
was in use from the Tigris to the Nile hundreds of years
before the time when the Biblical accounts say that Moses
lived. Moreover, we know that both Hebrew and Babylon-
ian^^ as well as Egyptian were known at the court of Pha-
raoh before the time of Moses, and that thousands of scribes
were active about 1500 b.c. in Babylonia, Crete, Syria,
Palestine, Egypt, and among the Hittites and Southern Ara-
bians. Were the Hebrews the only ones who could not read
and write ?

Again, we know that the peoples of those times were think-
ing and writing about the same kinds of things that we find
described in the books of the Pentateuch. The Babylonians of

The Amarma letters written in cuneiform could not have been read,
had there not been those at the Court of Egypt who knew it. The paren-
theses in Hebrew would have been senseless unless the scribes of Egypt
could have read them.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 647

Abraham’s time have left us accounts of the creation and
flood similar in many respects to those contained in Genesis.
The numerous autobiographies of the ancient Egyptians re-
semble in many particulars the lives of Abraham, Jacob,
Joseph and Moses. The art of poetry, as exemplified in the
poems of the Pentateuch, is in its main features like that to be
found among the remains of both Babylonian and Egyp-
tian literature. The subjects and form of the laws are
found in the code of Hammurabi; and the vast ceremonial
literature of the Babylonians, while different in subject and
treatment, is of the same general form as that in the books
of Moses. The temples of Egypt, also, must have been con-
structed after plans which would dwarf the plan of the taber-
nacle and have minimized the work of Aholiab and Bezaleel.
The customs of the Babylonians appear properly in the life of
Abraham and those of the Egyptians in the lives of Joseph
and Moses. The nations and cities mentioned harmonize with
what we could have expected to characterize documents writ-
ten about 1500 B.c. In short, it is impossible to pick out a
statement made in the books attributed to Moses of which it
can be said : This could not have been written by him, or by
some one inserting a parenthesis to explain his statements.
And finally, there is no man living that knows enough to
affirm that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.

Thirdly, Jesus says that Moses “wrote” of Him.^^“ This
idea is reaffirmed in Luke xxiv. 27 when it is said that on the
way to Emmaus, Jesus beginning from Moses and from all
the prophets interpreted in all the Scriptures the things con-
cerning Himself ; and in Luke xxiv. 44 where we read that

“a John V. 46. The importance in the mind of the Lord of Moses’ hav-
ing written concerning Him appears more clearly when we look at the
context which reads : “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of
another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not
think that I will accuse you to the Father : there is one that accuseth you,
even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed me : for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how
shall ye believe my words ?’’

648 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Jesus said to the apostles, that it was necessary that all things
be fulfilled that were written in the law of Moses and in the
Prophets and in the Psalms concerning Him.

To what things recorded by Moses concerning Himself
did Jesus probably refer? We find in the Pentateuch the fol-
lowing predictions that can most naturally be interpreted as
referring to the Messiah :

I. In Gen. xlix. 10: “The scepter shall not depart from
Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until that
Shiloh come; and unto him shall be the gathering (?) of the
people.” The Targum of Onkelos renders “lawgiver” ( ppni2 )
by “scribe” and Shiloh by “the Messiah whose is the king-
dom” and the last clause by “him shall the peoples obey.” The
Targum of Jonathan renders the verse: “Kings and sultans
shall not cease from those of the house of Judah nor scribes
from the thousands of the law from his descendants until
the time when the king Messiah shall come, the least of his
sons, and on account of him shall the peoples pass away.”
The Samaritan Targum (Petermann’s edition) reads: “The
scepter shall not cease from Judah nor a leader from between
his ranks until that Shiloh come and to him shall the peoples
be assembled.” The Greek LXX reads: “A ruler shall not
depart from Judah nor a leader from his loins until the things
that are in store for him shall come ; and he is the expectation
of the nations.” The Latin Vulgate reads : “The scepter shall
not be taken away from Judah nor a leader from his loins
until he who is to be sent shall come; and he shall be the
expectation of the nations.” The Arabic of Saadya reads:
“The scepter shall not pass away from Judah nor a lawgiver
from his command until that he to whom it belongs shall
come and unto him shall the tribes be gathered.”

It is easy to see by reading these early versions, that the
Jewish expositors interpret this verse of the Messiah. Does
any one of the present generation know that these words
were not said originally by Jacob in the spirit of prophecy
and that they were not written by Moses and that they do not

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 649

really refer to Jesus? If any one knows, how does he know
and what is the evidence that he knows ?

2. The “star” and “scepter” of Num. xxiv. 17 are ren-
dered by “king” and “Messiah” by the Targums of Onkelos
and Jonathan and by many Christian expositors. Does any
one know that this is not the correct interpretation? If so,
how does he know ?

3. The protevangelium of Gen. iii. says that the seed of
the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head. This has been in-
terpreted as meaning that the Messiah shall destroy the power
of that old serpent, the devil. Does anyone know that this is
not the right meaning? If so, how does he know ?

4. The prophet like unto Moses of Deut. xviii whom the
Lord was to raise up and whom the people should hear most
probably refers to Jesus. At any rate, who knows that it
does not ?

The Manna.

This seems to be the most suitable place to bring in the
reference of Jesus to the manna. In John vi. 30, 31, the
people said to Jesus ; “What sign shewest thou then, that we
may see and believe thee ? what dost thou work ? Our fathers
did eat manna in the desert, as it is written. He gave them
bread from heaven to eat.” This eating of the manna Jesus
admits and says in verse 49, “Your fathers did eat manna in
the wilderness” (cf. vs. 58).

Now, nobody knows for certain just what this manna was.
It may have been some kind of gum. It may have been some
kind of tuber like a jx)tato. It may have been something else.
We do know, that the introduction of the potato saved the
French people from the horrors of famine resulting from the
Revolution. We do know, that the failure of the potato crop
caused the terrible Irish famine. We do know how edible
mushrooms spring up in a night and cover the face of the
ground, and that Mr. Burbank made the apparently useless
cactus into an edible vegetable. But just what God did there
in the wilderness, we do not know, nor how He did it. Nor

650 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

do we know how Jesus fed the five thousand. Neither do we
know how He made the universe and the mountains and the
cattle on a thousand hills. He is the greatest of all physicists,
electricians and mechanics, the maker of chemists and chem-
icals, the fashioner of our bodies and spirits and the one who
cares for them. When He wills to go beyond the ordinary
processes and laws of the nature, which He has created, we
pause in adoration and wonder and exclaim : What has God
wrought ? We read Job and Isaiah and cry out : What is man
that thou are mindful of him?

David.

Jesus twice refers to David. The first reference has to do
with the question of Sabbath observance (Matt. xii. 3f., Mk.
ii. 25f., Lk. vi. 3f ). Jesus points out first that a law may per-
mit of exceptions. Then from the nature of these exceptions
he infers that “the Sabbath was made for man and not man
for the Sabbath.” As to the law of the Sabbath Jesus may
have been thinking of the Fourth Commandment (Ex. xx.
8) or of the Sabbath of the creative week (Gen. i.). But
the reference is not specific. Is there any proof that the law
of the Sabbath cannot have been in operation in the times of
David? Not a few even of the destructive critics still regard
the Decalogue as Mosaic and there is absolutely no direct
evidence that it is not. The first exception cited deals with
the incident at Nob. The incident rests on the narrative of
I Sam. xxi. It assumes that there was a David, that he went
to Nob, that there was a house of God there, where there
were priests and shewbread, and that David made unlawful

Jesus in Matt xii. 4 speaks of David as “entering into the house of
God at Nob,” whereas the phrase “house of God” is not used in the
account given in i Sam. xxi, xxii. Nevertheless, it is obvious that there
must have been a house of some kind in which to keep the shewbread and
the sword of Goliath and the ephod and where one could inquire of the
Lord. (See xxii. 13.) Besides, Nob is called “the city of the priests”
(xxii. 19), and the place where these priests ministered would properly
be called the house of God. Compare Gen. xxviii. 17, 22, Deut. xxiii. 19,
Jos. vi. 24, Jud. xvii. 5, I Sam. i. 24, iii. 15, 2 Sam. xii. 20 et al. tnuL, and
especially Jud. xviii. 31.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 65 1

use of the shewbread. The second exception affirms that the
law required the priests to “profane” the Sabbath (by of-
fering sacrifice). What evidence is there which proves that
these statements cannot be correct? There is no evidence so
far as we are aware. There is only the theory of certain
of the critics that the priestly legislation which refers to
shewbread must, despite its explicit claims to the contrary,
be post-exilic.

Secondly, in the three first Gospels it is expressly said that
Jesus attributed the authorship of the noth Psalm to David
(Matt. xxiv. 43, 45, Mark xii. 35, 37, Luke xx. 42, 44).
With virtual unanimity, these modem critics, almost 3000
years after David’s time, deny that David wrote the psalm.
They give two principal grounds for their denial. ( i ) They
say that the presence (a) of the word “youth” in verse three
shows that the psalm must have been written after the cap-
tivity; because, they say, the ending -u, or -iith, was adopted
into Hebrew from the Aramaic after that time. But, this
ending is known to have been an ending of many Babylonian
nouns as early as the time of Hammurabi^® and it is probably
found in a Hebrew noun in one of the El-Amarna letters.^*
(b) The second objection is the mention of Jerusalem. But
since Jerusalem is mentioned in the El-Amaraa letters,^®
there is no reason known why it may not have existed in the
time of Abraham and have had a king at that time named
Melchizedek. Besides, the records of Egypt and Babylon
show clearly that a king reigning over Jerusalem about 1000
B.c. may easily have known the name of a king who had
reigned over the same city a thousand years before.^®

The ending -uth occurs frequently in Babylonian even as early as
Hammurabi. See my article on Scientific Biblical Criticism in this
Review, Vol. XVII. p. 402.

i*E.g. in ripwti (mN£n), cf. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Brief e, no.
269, I. 17.

15 Jerusalem is mentioned in the Amarna letters (Knudtzon) in 287, ii.
25, 46, 61, 63; 289, II. 14, 29; 290, I. 15.

i®Nabunaid, king of Babylon from 555 to 538 b.c., speaks of Sargon,
son of Naramsin as living 3200 years before his time and puts Ham-

652 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The heading of Psalm cx. in the Hebrew Textus Receptus
ascribes the psalm to David. The name of David is omitted
from the heading in Kennicott’s MSS. 97, 133 and 238; that
is, in only three manuscripts out of more than four hundred.
All the manuscripts of all the primary versions, Greek Sep-
tuagint, Aramaic Targum, Syriac Peshitto, Latin Vulgate,
and (to judge from Field^^ and the Syriac version of Origen’s
Hexapla) Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, ascribe this
psalm to David. The secondary versions of the Septuagint,
also, Sahidic and Memphitic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Latin,
uniformly, ascribe this psalm to David, the only exception
being the Arabic, which was not made till some time between
1100 and 1500 A.D.^® To assert that Jesus was wrong in say-
ing that David wrote this psalm is, in view of the fact that
there is not a scrap of evidence to show that he did not while
almost all the headings of all the texts and versions expressly
state that he did, one of the most noteworthy instances in
existence of the extreme egotism and unfairness of the de-
structive critics. It is bad enough when a professed infidel
assails the trustworthiness of the statements of Jesus; but it
makes one’s blood boil, to see his clear statements of fact,
supported by all the evidence known to history, denied by
those who hold positions of trust in the church of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God.

Elijah and Elisha.

In Luke iv. 25, 26, the Lord says that “many widows were
in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up
three years and six months, zvhen the great famine was
throughout the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent
save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a
widow.” This city is mentioned already in the Papyrus An-

murabi 700 years before Burnaburiash. See Zehnpfund-Langdon, Neu-
bab. Kbnigsinschriften, I. pp. 229, 245.

Field in his edition of Origen’s Hexapla gives about all the frag-
ments that are known. Ceriani’s facsimile edition of the Harklensian
Syriac is our best single source of information as to the Hexapla.

IS The date of the Arabic version is discussed at length by Ryssel in
ZATW. V. 102-138.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

653

astasi I, and in the Taylor Inscription of Sennacherib/® Sen-
nacherib says that he took from Luli, king of Sidon, the cities
of Great Sidon, Little Sidon, Sarepta and Akzib, Akko, and
other places and set Ethbaal upon the throne of the kingdom.
Surely, Dr. Glover is not going to deny that there was an
Elijah ! Nor does he know enough to say that there was not a
famine such as the one mentioned. Perhaps, he doubts
whether there were any widow women either in Israel or
Sarepta !

In Luke iv. 27, Jesus says : “Many lepers were in Israel in
the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of these was
cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” This statement is
based upon the record of 2 Kings v, where Naaman is called
the captain of the host of the king of Syria, of which Damas-
cus was the capital. A Hebrew maiden was a captive in his
household. That there was a kingdom of Damascus at this
time is abundantly corroborated by the Assyrian inscriptions,
as also that the Syrians had armies capable of contending
with the Assyrians. That a Hebrew maiden may well have
been a captive in Naaman’s house is in accordance with the
history of the time in which Elisha lived. Leprosy was a
prevalent disease in that part of the world as early as that
time.^

Jonah.

Two incidents in the book of Jonah are cited by Jesus in
such a way as to lead us to conclude that he really thought
that they had occurred. One is, the existing of Jonah in the
belly of the fish for three days ; and the other, the rep>entance
of the men of Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah. As to the
first of these, it is clear, that no unbiassed reader can doubt
that the argument of Jesus demands and his language im-
plies that both he and his hearers believed that the real his-

19 Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliotek, II. 90.

9® According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica (XVI. 479) leprosy was
endemic in Egypt as early as 1500 B.c. In the Bible, outside of 2 Kings v.,
it is noted already in Exodus iv. 6 (J), and Deut. xxiv. 8, and frequently
in Leviticus and Numbers ; also, in 2 Sam. iii. 29 and 2 Kings vii. 3, 8.

654 the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

toric event had happened. Jesus does not say “as it is said that
Jonah was” ; but, “as Jonah was.” He does not say “so shall
it be said that the Son of man shall be three days in the heart
of the earth” ; but “so shall the Son of man be three days in
the heart of the earth.” The certainty of the second clause de-
pends upon that of the first. The language in the Gospels sup-
ports the view that Jesus looked upon both clauses as express-
ing facts. For the rule in Greek as stated by Jelf is that the
words are indicative “when the comparison is viewed as an
actual fact.”^'^

We seem driven, then, to the conclusion that Jesus believed
that a great fish swallowed Jonah and that he lived in its belly
for three days, unless we are ready to give up the belief that
Jesus was three days in the grave. But we Christians are con-
vinced that He was in the grave three days. We cannot
logically give up one without giving up the other. Surely,
that God could have a great fish ready and able to swallow
Jonah and that God could keep him alive for three days in
the fish’s belly is no more wonderful, nor miraculous, than
that He should raise Jesus from the dead. It is ridiculous to

21 Jelf, Grammar, § 868.4; cf. also Kiihner, Gram, of Gk. Languag'e,
§ 342. In the similative, or comparative, clauses of the New Testament
Greek the clause introduced by “as” ( kuOuis, wcnrep, ws ) almost always
uses an indicative, wherever a verb is found; and the clause introduced
by “so” depends upon that introduced by “as.” That is, the “so” state-
ment is as certain, or true, as the “as” statement. It is evident that to
say “as Alexander founded Alexandria with streets running at right
angles, so did Penn found Philadelphia” imiplies that to the speaker both
events are looked upon as true. Whereas, to say “as Ishtar went down
to hell” or “as Dante went down to the Inferno” so shall all the nations
that forget God go down would scare those only who believed that
Ishtar and Dante had gone down. They would inevitably conclude that
as Ishtar’s and Dante’s descents are figurative and never in reality oc-
curred, so their descent is to be taken as figurative. This will appear to
those who look up the clauses in the New Testament beginning with
Ka6m<;, suich as Luke xi. 30, xvii. 26, John iii. 14, vi. 57, 58, viii. 28, xii.
50, xiv. 31, XV. 4, XX. 21, I Cor. xv. 49, 2 'Cor. i. 5, viii. 6, x. 7, Phil. iii.
17, Col. iii. 13, I Thess. ii. 4, i John iv. 17. It appears, also, in the clauses
with wcTTrep and ws, such as Matt. v. 48, xii. 40, xiii. 40, xiv. 27, 37, Luke
xvii. 24 John v. 21, 26, Rom. v. 12, 19, 21, vi. 4, 19, xi. 30, i Cor. xi. 12,
XV. 22, 2 Cor. i. 7, Gal. iv. 29, Eph. v. 24, Jas. ii. 26.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

655

call this great fish a whale, inasmuch as a whale is not a
fish.^* There is no evidence that the Greeks ever meant what
we call whale by their word “ketos.” It was rather a sea-
monster of some kind. That there were sea-monsters in the
Mediterranean in ancient times supposed to be able to swallow
a man seems evident from the story of Andromeda. The ketos
(KrjTO'i) is used by Homer as a synonym of seal No

one knows enough to say what kind of a sea-monster the
great fish of Jonah may have been, nor to say that such a
monster may not have existed. As to the preservation of
Jonah’s life for three days in the belly of a fish, no one knows
enough about the bellies of all fishes to say that there have
been none in which a man might live for an indefinite time.
Besides, God is said to have prepared this particular great
fish and it may have been abnormal in its size and formation.
In view of what our modem physicians can do in the preser-
vation of life by means of oxygen, it seems absurd to attempt
to limit the power of the Almighty in the case of Jonah,“
for it is reasonable to suppose that He who made the chemical
elements and their compounds as well as the chemists who
combine and decompose them, is able to do many things in
the chemical line that would surprise and surpass the greatest
of human chemists. The physicians use oxygen in “the
resuscitation of the apparently drowned”; why could God
not use it to preserve life in the belly of the fish? Would
these Christians who profess to believe in the resurrection of
Jesus from the dead have preferred that Jonah had died and
been resurrected to his having been preserved alive in the
belly of the fish ? They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
They are like a horse that shies and baulks at a piece of
paper and rushes fearlessly to the cannon’s mouth. For they
are making preservation or resuscitation of life, which dif-
fers only in degree from what human physicians can ac-

22 See Encyc. Brit. XXVIII. 568. The only word I can find in Semiitics
for “whale” is the Arabic and DEthiopic 'anbar.

23 On the use of oxygen in medical practice see Encyc. Brit. XX. 424a.

656 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

complish, a greater fact than a resurrection, which the great
giver of life alone can effect.

As to just what kind of a plant the “gourd” (kikdydn, Jon.
iv. 6, 7, 9, 10) may have been, it is difficult to determine.^
But, whatever the plant may have been, it is ridiculous to
suppose that God could not have caused it to grow up in a
night. It is strange that many of those who are loudest in their
praise of that great genius, Burbank, the wizard of the
cactus, should talk as if the maker and endower of Burbank
and of all the plants that grow, should not be able to manipu-
late the forces and elements of plant life so as to hasten the
steps in the growth of a pumpkin. Thank God for Burbank.
Thank Him for Pasteur and Edison and Ford and Watt and
Stephenson and Marconi and all the brilliant benefactors of
the human race, whom He has endowed with gifts to bless
mankind. But thank Him still more for the revelation of
Himself as the Creator of all things and persons, as the
Controller and Governor of the universe.

As to the other questions entering into the discussion of
the book of Jonah, I refer my readers to my articles on the
authenticity of Jonah.^ I have shown there, that the objec-
tions against the historical character of the book arising from
its language, rhetoric, and historical complications, are
groundless. For,

1. An investigation of the vocables alleged by the critics
to be signs of a late date shows that there is not sufficient
evidence to support the allegation that these vocables are
late.

2. An examination of the so-called reminiscences demon-
strates the fact that the second chapter of Jonah is unique
and original in its phraseology.

3. No one can show that the allusions to Nineveh and its

2* The ancient versions generally render by “gourd,” but Jerome by
“ivy.” The kikkanitu of the Assyrian is said by Muss-Arnolt to mean
“cucumber.”

25 ‘The Authenticity of Jonah” in this Review, Vol. XVI, pp. 280-296,
430-456.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 657

king are not exactly in accordance with the facts of arch-
aeology.

(1) That it is said of Nineveh that it “was” (rUTTl Greek
^v) a very great city does not imply that Nineveh was no
longer in existence; for both in Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac,
Ethiopic and Greek the verb “to be” is used in the Perfect
(Greek Imperfect) to denote “has been and is.”^®

(2) It is futile to say that there could not have been a man
called “king of Nineveh.” For as I have shown in Studies
in the Book of Daniel the mayor of a city might in Hebrew
and Aramaic be called a melek or king. And, secondly, the
empire of Assyria was in such a state of confusion and civil
war in the time of Jonah that one of the contestants for the
throne may very well have been designated by the title “king
of Nineveh.”*^ Besides, Jonah’s mission was not specially to
the king hut to the whole people of Nineveh. There was,
therefore, no special reason for mentioning him by name.

Dr. Glover says that “the reference to Jonah is parallel
with that to the queen of Sheba.” This can only mean that Dr.
Glover thinks that the story of Jonah is no more true than
is that of the queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon; thus imply-
ing that every one admits, or should admit, that a queen of
Sheba could not have, and did not, come to Jerusalem as the

nn'n “was and is.” Cf. Wright Arab. Grammar II. i, B (c), (d) :
“The Perfect indicates a past act of which it can be said that it has taken
place, or still takes place (has been and is).” Jelf’s Gram, of the Gk.
Lang. § 398.4 : “The Imperfect is used when the thought which* the sen-
tence expresses is not taken merely as an indefinite proposition, true at
the present moment, but is referred in the speaker’s (or writer’s) mind
to some past time.” So especially the Imperfect is used for eo-rt
He gives many examples from Homer, Sophocles, and Plato. So also,
Kuhner, Grammar § 256.4 (a). See also, Noldeke Syr. Grammar § 256,
“a Perfect, expressing the result of a prior occurrence, has often for us
the appearance of a present; thus h’wa has become yiyove often = ‘is’;”
and Dillmann, Eth Gr. p. 126, “halawa ‘to be’ in the sense of ‘it is’ is
nearly always in the Perfect where we in German cite the present.”

The mayor of Nineveh was called limmu. In Aramaic or Hebrew
this would best be rendered by melekh, and in Greek by archon or
basileus. See Studies in the Book of Daniel, pp. 83-95 and Winckler’s
History of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 232.

658 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

book of Kings states. It is implications such as this, that make
the judicious grieve. Dr. Glover might easily have learned
that the Sabean inscriptions from South Arabia are variously
dated by different adept scholars at from 800 to 1600 b.c.“
Even if we accept the latest of these dates as the correct one.
no one, would be likely to maintain that the Sabeans did not
exist and that they did not write documents long before
the ones we have as yet discovered. Certainly, no one will
deny that the Sabeans may have flourished as early as 1000
B.c. Before the time of the Ptolemies, when the overland
route to India was established, the route to the Orient was
by ship to Southern Arabia and from there by caravan to
Egypt and Palestine. The Sabeans controlled this route and
managed the caravans. It was just about twice as far from
Aden to Jerusalem as from Mecca to Damascus; and yet,
every one knows that Mahomet journeyed yearly for a time
all the way from Mecca to Damascus.^® Could not the Queen
of Sheba, then, have made one trip from Southern Arabia to
Jerusalem? Besides, it is a singular fact that queens seem to
have been common in ancient Arabia. Egypt had its one great
queen, Hatshepsu, in the i8th dynasty and one in the 30th
dynasty, Cleopatra ; Judah had one usurping queen, Athaliah ;
but in the Assyrian records, Tiglath-Pileser III (IV) men-
tions Zabibi, queen of Arabia, and Samsi, queen of Arabia,
mentioned again by Sargon, and It’amara of the Sabeans.®®
In view of the recent discoveries of written documents in
Syria and Palestine antedating Solomon by hundreds of
years, and of the express statements of i Kings xi. 41 with
regard to writings containing the acts of Solomon, it requires
more than the off-hand assertion of the public orator of Cam-
bridge to prove that the Queen of Sheba did not visit Solo-
mon in all his glory.

28 On the state of opinion as to the Sabean inscriptions, see Encyc.
Brit. II. 264a ; Lidzharski, Ephemeris I. 90,

89 See Ibn Hisham, I. 90.

8° Schrader, Keilinsch. Bib. II, 33, 55.

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT

659

Daniel.

Again, Dr. Glover dismisses the whole question of the
genuineness and authenticity of Daniel, as if it were certain
that the Lord did not mean to endorse the historicity of the
book. Even if he did mean it. Dr. Glover assures us that he
did not know enough to speak with authority upon such a
subject. He presents seven reasons why we should not ac-
cept the sayings of Jesus at their face value. These reasons
are mostly subjective and so far as Daniel is concerned de-
pend for their validity upon Dr. Glover’s ability to show that
as a matter of fact Daniel was not, and the book of Daniel is
not, what the apparent meaning of Jesus implies. It is a case
of Glover versus Christ. Now, I for one frankly admit that
I am on the side of Christ; not merely because I think He
knew what He was talking about, but because I am con-
vinced that the critics have failed to make good their charges
against the claims of Daniel to be historical. It is absurd for
one who believes that “by Him the worlds were made” and
that “it was impossible for death to hold Him” to affirm the
miracles of Daniel are sufficient to refute its historicity. It is
absurd also for one who believes that God foreknows what-
soever comes to pass or even that he can at any time reveal
the distant future to man, to deny the predictive character of
Daniel’s prophecies on the ground of their minute details. As
to the languages of Daniel I have given in my article, “The
Aramaic of Daniel,”®^ in my Studies in the Book of DanieP-
and in my “Scientific Biblical Criticism,”®* the reasons for
concluding that it is most probable that the book was written
in Babylonia about the year 500 b.c., and that there is no
contemporary documentary evidence in existence to show
that it was written in Palestine in the second century b.c.
In my Studies in the Book of Daniel and in a dozen or more

Biblical and Theological Studies by the Faculty of Princeton Theo-
logical Seminary (1912), pp. 261-305.

®^Vol. I was published in 1916 by Putnam, N.Y.

83 This Review, Vol. XVII, pp. 190-240, 401-456.

66o

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

articles in this Review since 1916^* and in my articles on
“The Title of the Persian Kings” in the SacJiau Denkschrift,
I have endeavored to show by objective reliable documentary
evidence that neither in literary form nor historical and doc-
trinal substance is there ground for concluding that the state-
ments of the book of Daniel are not trustworthy. I freely
confess that I do not understand the meaning of every word
and phrase, nor can I explain all the difficulties ; but I hojie I
have shown, that the critics have not made out their charges
against the book of Daniel, and that its prima facie evidence
may still be reasonably believed.

The above passages give all of the direct references of
Jesus to the persons and events of the Old Testament. He
does say in Luke x. 18, that He saw Satan fall as lightning
from heaven and in John xvii. 5 that He had glory with the
Father before the worlds were; but these events are matters
of faith and beyond the scope of this article. In regard to all
of the statements of Jesus, however, which might have been
tested, or can be tested, by evidence known to us, it can truly
be said, that there is not one of them concerning which there
is any proof that it is not true. Even if Jesus had been merely
a man, it would be unfair to charge him with making false
statements, if we could not prove it. To charge that the events
to which He refers can not be true and that, therefore. He
did not know that they happened, is a ridiculous inconsist-
ency on the part of anyone who claims to be a Christian ; or
a Theist; because both of these profess to believe that God
can and does interfere, when He will, in the affairs of hu-

“The Book of Daniel and the Canon” (XIII, pp. 352-408) ; “The
Silence of Ecclesiasticus concerning Daniel” (XIV, pp. 448-474) ; “ rUD,
‘to Appoint’ in the Old Testament” (XVI, pp. 645-654) ; “The Word
•vntn in Daniel xii. 3” (XVII, pp. 128-133) ; “Scientific Biblical
Criticism” (XVII. 403, 409-411, 420, 432) ; “Apocalypses and the Date
of Daniel” (XIX, pp. 529-545) ; “Daniel not Quoted” (XX, pp. 57-68) ;
“Darius the Mede” (XX, pp. 177-211) ; “The Origin of the Ideas of
Daniel” (XXI, pp. 161-200) ; “Influence of Daniel” (XXI, pp. 337-371,
pp. 541-584) ; “The Background of Daniel” (XXII, pp. 1-26) ; “The
Prophecies of Daniel” (XXII, pp. 377-401); “Aramaisms in the Old
Testament” (XXIII. 4, 12, 19, 23-31).

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 66l

manity. Further, anyone who professes to believe that the
New Testament teaches that the Scriptures of the Old Tes-
tament were “of divine origin and excellence’’ ( lepd ), that
every Scripture is inspired of God (^eoVi/eyo-To?) (2 Tim. iii.
15, 16), that Jesus found in the Law, the Prophets and the
Psalms, things that concerned Himself (Luke xxiv. 27, 44),
and that Jesus, the evangelists, and all the writers of the
books of the New Testament, show their faith in the ve-
racity of the Old Testament records, must hesitate to place
his opinion over against that of the founders of Christianity.
Lastly, those of us who believe that Jesus was the Messiah
sent from God, the prophet that was to come into the world,
the Logos, the only-begotten Son of God, will be pardoned
for thinking that it is little short of blasphemy for a profess-
ing Christian to assert that Jesus did not know. If we believe
not Him when He has spoken of earthly things, which we can
more or less investigate and test, how can we believe Him
when He speaks of heavenly things? Let us all say, with
joy and thanksgiving : Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou
knowest that we love Thee.

Princeton. R. D. Wilson.

REVIEWS OF

RECENT LITERATURE

PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE

An Introduction to Philosophy. By Edgas S. Brightman. Borden P.
Bowne Professor of Philosophy in Boston University. Henry Holt
and Co. Pp. xii. 393. $3.00.

Dr. Brightman was a pupil of Bowne, whose place he now holds, and
and the views so ably defended by Dr. Bowne are everywhere present
in this book. Few have argued more ably than Bowne for the position
that the ultimate, ontological reality is Personal. This, of course, is the
heart of the theistic view, especially as against all forms of pantheism.
Dr. Brightman holds the same position, and as against the multifarious
opposing views swarming in the world, and especially in the United
States, he defends Ontological Personality with great ability. As he
also holds that finite personalities are truly real, and that personality is
the only reality, the view is now called (mainly by its opponents) Per-
sonalism and Plural Personalism.

Dr. Brightman holds that the test of truth for us, is “coherence.” This
as against the pragmatist, and neo-realist, etc., who assert that there is
no objective truth, but that truth for us is whatever “works.” In Dr.
Brightman’s view, the universe is a coherent system, because the crea-
tion of a Unitary Person. Htence, our approaches to a knowledge of it
should partake of “coherence.” Also, in his hands this test of truth is
used as an argument for the coherence of the whole system. On the
vexed “epistemological” problem, — ^what warrant have we for thinking
that we know anything? — ^how shall we escape the limits of our person-
alities?— what is the relation between subject and object, knower and
known? — Dr. Brightman argues ably for “epistemological dualism.”
This view refuses to turn things into thought, or thought into things, in
order thereby to escape the problem of how mind can know things,
especially by means of our sensory apparatus (the problem of the “how”
is no easy one) ; but especially he strikes at the present-day evasion of
the question of the neo-realist (some forms) the pragmatist (some
forms) and others who declare that there is no problem because both
mind and matter, knower and known, are not existent realities in them-
selves, but are both phases of the stream of inter-acting events which,
in some manifestations is mind, in others, is matter (See Dewey, in his
recent work, — the culmination of this position. — Experience and Na-
ture.). Consciousness, Dr. Brightman declares, testifies to their differ-
ence, if it is able to testify to anything, and if its testimony is worthless,
then hopeless skepticism is our fate. He strongly argues for the objec-
tive reality of Values, — the central problem of Ethics, the denial of
which is the most dangerous feature of present-day philosophy. Theistic
Idealism, as a world view, including the Personality and Creative activity

RECENT LITERATURE 663

of God, Universal Purpose, the definite place in life of Religious Values,
are all strongly upheld.

In only two portions of his general system, does Dr. Brightman (here,
also, agreeing with Bowne) abandon w^hat should still be defensible
positions. Both argue that the finite spirit, or Person, must be created,
and therefore have a true “selfhood” of its own. This, constitutes it a
“reality,” though, of course, depending for its existence, for all its
powers, etc., on the creative power and will of God. So far, good. But
as to the “reality” of matter, both Bowne and Brightman are not so sure.
That is, as to whether it has been created with activities of its own, in
whatever range they may exist, or whether it is the continuous outgo
of the power of God. To the reviewer, their arguments here are singu-
larly weak. Nor is any good purpose to be gained for their system by the
attitude. There is great power and value in the able, and profound ar-
guments by which Bowne, as against the materialism of his day, showed
that Matter can never be an Ontological Reality, — can not possibly be
self-existent, — can not possibly form a unitary system, of self-running
capacities, — as is demanded by Materialism. But there seems no good
reason at all why it should not also be a direct creation of God, and
therefore “real” to that extent.

Also, Dr. Brightman argues against the existence of the “soul” as a
spiritual “substance,” yielding here to the arguments of present-day
“psychologists without a soul,” and defends instead of the “soul,” the
existence of the “person.” Just what he means here, as differing be-
tween the two, is hard to see clearly. Bowne, as far as the reviewer is
aware, hardly went so far.

But one can make use of all Dr. Brightman’s other views, and decline
to follow him here, as these points are not necessarily wrapped up with
his other arguments. The book, on the whole, has large value, and is
sure to be greatly useful to any reader. It has many merits. On the whole,
its position is sound. It is simple and clear. The reviewer has never read
a book which made the most difficult problems of philosophy as under-
standable for the untrained reader. It is very broad in scope of reference
to problems and writers. One will find in it the positions of every im-
portant school of the present day, in America. There is not so much
direct reference to the great European thinkers of today, Bergson, Croce,
Gentile, of France and Italy, nor to some leading writers of England.
Still, the range of subjects discussed is so large that light in reference
to all of them will be gained. And on nearly every point, the discussion is
so sane, so clear, so balanced, that it deserves a wide reading.

One important position deserves notice. As against men like Dewey,
who argue for an “empirical philosophy” which shall rigidly remain in
the limits of our “experience,” and thereby finally declare that there is
no cause, substance, matter, mind, god, objective reality, objective value,
etc., because we have no experience of them. Dr. Brightman shows
clearly that they are not true “empiricists” themselves, but that in every
case some important elements of experience have been omitted from
their view. Experience, of course, in the true sense, is the source of our

664

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

knowledge, — no one can know anything which has not been a part of
his “experience,” — ^but the explanation of that experience, the inferences
we are warranted in drawing from it, our beliefs as to what lies behind
it and makes it all possible, these demand that we call upon all our ex-
perience for information. And here, our religious experiences, our spirit-
ual life, the voice of the moral imperative in the soul, the intuitions and
categories of thought, all have important place and are not to be
omitted in our conclusions as to the Ultimate Reality lying behind our
life.

Fulton, Missouri. Daniel S. Gage.

APOLOGETICAL THEOLOGY

The Influence of Christianity on Fundamental Human Institutions. The
Bohlen Lectures, 1924. By Philo W. Sprague, Rector-Emeritus, St.
John’s Church, Charlestown, Moss. New York and Chicago ; Flem-
ing H. Revell Company. 19215. Pp. 185. Price $1.50.

The Church, the Family, the State, and the Industrial System are the
four fundamental human institutions on which the influence of Chris-
tianity is here discussed. The author sets up as his main proposition the
principle that all men are by nature the children of God. This he calls
“the everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ” (p. 53), “the basic Christian
fact” (p. 94), “the central truth of Christianity” (pp. 40, 129, 177). This
idea is constantly re-iterated, without any qualification whatever, a
rather careless procedure, we think, especially from the New Testament
standpoint. It is true that there is a sense in which all men are the
children of God their Creator. It is true that Jesus stressed the individual
(cf. pp. 24-25). But it is not true that Fie taught an unqualified doctrine
of man being by nature the child of God. Indeed, if anything. He
taught just the opposite in His repeated statement to Nicodemus : “Ye
must be born anew” (John 3:3, 7). And this agrees with the Pauline
anthropology that we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), as
with David’s affirmation in Psalm 51 :5, and many other texts. Not only
does the author produce no specific evidence for what he calls the
central truth of Christianity, but he lets this low theory vitiate his
whole book, and, as far as we can see, the influence of Christianity thus
understood is very much underestimated. The need for it is not so
great, after all. Where you. have an unsound diagnosis, your prescrip-
tion is likely to be wrong, too. All we need is to realize that we are God’s
children. That settles at once our moral problems (p. 75). But does it?
How so? By what mental twists are we asked to regard such psycho-
logical self-help as essentially Christian?

Episcopalians who read this book will probably be surprised at its
position on the divorce question, and many others will scarcely be
satisfied with it (pp. 75-88). The author claims that Christ did not lay
down any rule on this subject, that He was merely setting forth an
ideal without forcing it on any one. This is a very precarious position.
Carry this method of “spiritual interpretation” (p. 79) to its logical

RECENT LITERATURE

665

conclusion, and how much concrete moral leadership will be found in
the teachings of Jesus? Are the ideals of Jesus not to guide us just as
surely as if they were fixed rules? Perhaps we have here an instance of
where it would be more becoming to have more obedience to His plain
word and less explanation of it.

Four mistakes are laid at the Church’s door : its struggle for temporal
power, its attitude toward the human body and the human mind, and its
teaching concerning Hell. On this last point one sentence is enough to
give the author’s position as well as his subjective method of argument:
“We cannot conceive of any offence so great that it should deserve the
eternal punishment of Hell” (p. 37). Well, perhaps God can. Here again
is the whole trouble with this book: its diluted conception of sin. One’s
idea of just punishment and adequate moral vindication depends on
one’s view of the offense, of the one wronged, and of the evil effects
produced. Would Mr. Sprague be able to conceive, with Jesus, of an
offense so great that it could cast into a Gehenna where the worm dies
not and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:47-48) ? Or of Him who is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10 :28) ? Or of the
hopeless and irreversible condition of the rich man in Luke 16:19-31?
We know the familiar eiseffesis by which such passages are robbed of
their real meaning, but such artifices only recall the Devil’s chuckle in
Kipling’s line : “It’s clever, but is it art ?”.

While we cannot agree with much in this book, it is only fair to say
that the author has said some things worth holding. “Wherever the
spirit of God takes possession of a man there is the kingdom of God”
(p. 25), only we would spell “spirit” with a capital S. “No man should
speak of rights who will not acknowledge duties” (p. 116). “What we
lack is such a sense of the sacredness of laws as tvill result in their en-
forcement” (p. 124). These and others might be quoted only to warn
one that he must read these lectures with a discriminating mind, and
that so read, the reader will not go entirely unrewarded.

Lancaster, Ohio. Benjamin F. Paist.

Science as Revelation. By John M. Watson. New York: The Macmillan
Co. 1925. 12 mo. Pp. vii, 203.

The author of this volume states in his preface that he has acquired
for himself “a newer, higher, holier view of religious faith, one that is
satisfactory to the intellect as well as to the heart”; and yet he confesses
“the fact that science does not claim to have any final knowledge in any
department of research. On the contrary we know but very little. . . .
But we cannot suspend judgment and wait for future centuries to reveal
more of the truths of nature. The best we can do is to consider and
decide upon the basis of the latest and best scientific and philosophic
thought.” Queer science this, and a strange sort of revelation that
settles nothing and leaves the seeker suspended in mid-air!

So much for this misnomer of the title of the book. What follows is
a combination of fact and fancy, dogmatism and reserve. Two of the
commonest fallacies obtrude themselves in the discussion, — ^the use of

666

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

evolution in the sense of growth or development, and of variety in the
sense of species. Having given up the Bible as an authority on Creation
and other facts of revelation the author falls back on Nature as his only
source of light. Whatever might be his disclaimer, he is a materialist
pure and simple. The hands may be the hands of Esau, but the voice is
ever the voice of Jacob the supplanter. For the declarations of Scripture
are supplanted by the assertions of men thus left to speculation. The
personality of God is resolved away and in its place we have a force
inherent in matter ; “We say that ‘God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and
unchangeable.’ Yet speak of ‘Him’ and give our God a manlike person-
ality” (p. 20). “. . . the nature of the one great moving force, the intel-
ligent energy inherent in all substances” (p. 271). “The God of all
creation is Energy” (p. 272). “The astronomer, the physicist, the
biologist, the botanist, the zoologist, and the anthropologist find that the
energy of the atom and the presiding energy that lies back of all
organized structures account for the creation of all things” (p. 273).
“We must recognize the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of that
divine Energy that has brought us into our present state” (p. 285).

The personality of man — ^the thinking, yearning, worshipping soul —
shares the same fate. It is the product of the physico-chemical condi-
tions of the brain (pp. 65, 114, 130, 198-201).

The ethical sense is an acquired faculty (pp. 208, 219) and a matter
of education (pp. 215-219) to become “fixed in the germ-plasm” by a
long process of education and development (p. 225). No wonder the
conclusion is reached that understanding the moral law “is impossible
to the person who does not have a basic knowledge of the natural
sciences” (p. 236). What hope, then, is there for the millions of the
human race, thus left without a Divinely implanted capacity, reinforced
by a supernatural revelation, to know God and do His will?

“Our religious beliefs will have to be revised” continually, since
“nothing stays put, nothing is permanent” (pp. 258-9). And so, “What
the future has for us depends upon what the law of change shall yet
bring forth and that depends to a great extent upon how well we co-
operate in readjustment with it” (p. 262).

How superior to this groping in the dark is the apostolic assurance —
“the word of the Lord endureth forever; and this is the word which by
the gospel is preached unto you” !

The author’s conclusion is the atheist’s creed and satisfaction; “Na-
ture is all. Without it man has nothing; with it he has everything. In
knowledge of the cosmos man finds his very highest inspiration, and in
cooperation with it lies his greatest, his only good. Here man may find
everything to satisfy his mental and spiritual needs ; elsewhere he finds
nothing” (p. 295).

We prefer the Holy Bible with its revelation of a transcending God
as the Father of the spirits of men, who has redeemed them from sin
by the blood of His only begotten Son and who fits them by His renew-
ing Spirit for union with Himself on earth and in heaven.

Upland, Mich. Newton Wray.

RECENT LITERATURE

667

Modernism, Fundamentalism and Catholicism. By the Rev. William
Henry Smith, B.D., Ph.D., Rector of Trinity Church, Wethers-
field, Conn. Milwaukee, Wis. ; Morehouse Publishing Co.

A very compact, small but affluent work. The language is clear and the
style attractive; but the very brief Table of Contents and the lack of
any Index detract from its value as textbook or permanent library
companion for consultation.

The author seems to be very fair in his statements of the “motives,
aims and emotions which underlie the three movements of thought” in
this trilogy of modern Christian belief.

“Modernism is a mental attitude rather than a doctrine.” It discards
the traditional authority of both church and Scripture. It rests its
authority on “naturalism.” Its trust is in “modern discoveries and ideas,
notably those grouped under natural science. Biblical criticism, history
and psychology of religion, and (deeper than these) a partly agnostic,
relativistic philosophy which is skeptical of all that claims to be absolute
truth.” Some “Middle of the Road” Modernists may object to this defi-
nition; but “Dog Tray” must share the character of the pack with
which he runs.

Fundamentalism is "merely the uprising of orthodox super naturalism
against modern naturalism" — to quote from Dr. Curtis L. Laws who
coined the word as now used. “It is simply orthodox Protestantism in
the midst of a Protestantism gone astray,” quoting from Dr. James
M. Gray of Moody Institute. Fundamentalism is literal acceptance of
all the articles of the Apostles Creed plus the infallible Scripture, and
an antagonism toward any teaching or assumption that contradicts any
one of these Apostolic beliefs. It fights Liberalism because this opposes
all supernaturalism ; it battles Modernism because this opposes the
“sameness,” that is, the unchanging character and content of super-
naturalism. Evolution has been “a storm center” between Fundamental-
ism and Modernism. The author treats of “Faithless Theology, “Expur-
gation of the Schools,” “Modernism Unfruitful” and concludes that
Modernism exists only because it “reflects the thought of this un-
believing age.”

When the author takes up his third division he reveals his heart and
constructs a Rubric. He presents a non-Papal Catholic reaction almost
ignoring the Roman Catholic Church as it emerged from the Ck>uncil of
Trent. In this he is hardly fair to the present day Roman Catholic
Church ; but in his zeal for a reunion, discarding the errors of Modern-
ism and gathering up the sound fruits of Fundamentalism for a united
Catholic Christendom, he overlooks the massive, bulwarked organiza-
tion whose keys are still in Rome.

Part Four on “Reunion” is most interesting. He shows that “a
rapprochement of Catholics and Fundamentalists” is trending espe-
cially in Luitheran and Anglican circles ; but that the Protestant element
of this future union must accept the Church with its Scripture as the
ultimate authority. And, in parting with our author, whom we greatly
honor for his admirable authorship, we remind him how the great

668

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Leibnitz in 1686 in his “Systema theologicum” tried to find a common
ground for reunion of the Roman and Reformed churches — and found
it not.

Minneapolis, Minn. John Tallmadge Bergen.

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

The Story of the English Prayer Book. By Dyson Hague, Rector of the
Church of the Epiphany, Toronto, Doctor of Divinity and Lecturer
an Liturgies and Ecclesiastical History, Wydiffe College, etc.
London : Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd. 1926. Pp. viii, 279. Price
$1.80.

This is a remarkably fine study of the development of the English
Prayer Book from the earliest efforts at a. liturgical model down to the
latest expression in the present Book of Common Prayer of the Church
of England. Special chapters are also given on the American, Scottish,
Irish, and Canadian Prayer Books. The account gathers mainly around
the First Prayer Book of 1549, its revision in the Second Prayer Book
of 1552, the revision by the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, and the
final revision of 1662.

What is particularly impressive in this presentation is its historical
accuracy and fairness. The Prayer Book is rightly viewed as the
product of the Protestant Reformation, not of the reign of Henry VHI.,
1548 being the dividing year. Not till that year was there a real break
with Roman ritual and worship (pp. 10, 41, 95). Moreover, the gradual
change in liturgy was due to a change in theological doctrine. Transub-
stantiation, Purgatory, worship of Saints and relics, etc., were definitely
rejected. “It was the climax of a series of separations, clean and
clear-cut from the Church of Rome” (p. 4). For this altered doctrine
in the Prayer Book Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer were burned at the
stake (p. 186). Behind it all was the English Bible. “It was the Bible that
caused the Prayer Book. It was the translation of the Bible that was
the cause of the formation of the Prayer Book” (p. 48). “If the Bible
had never been published, the Prayer Book had never been compiled”
(pp. 73-74). The Prayer Book of the Church of England today is sub-
stantially that of 1552 (p. 173). Cranmer’s changing views are recog-
nized, but it is held that they were always in one direction: toward the
Reformed theology (pp. 117-119). He was the guiding genius of the
new Prayer Book.

Dr. Hague develops the history of this reform with enough detail to
assure any reader that the Prayer Book of 1552, with its revisions, was
decidedly “low church.” Or, to use more specific terminology, it was
distinctly Reformed. That is to say, it was not Roman or Lutheran.
Prayers for the dead were abolished; the Bible in the vernacular was
publicly read and expounded; the service was in English and was
shared by the people; the Roman iSarum Mass was displaced by the
Protestant Lord’s Supper, even the word “Lord’s Table” was used

RECENT LITERATURE

669

instead of the “altar,” and this was a movable table, not a fixed altar ;
vestments were simplified, special altar ritual vestments, genuflections,
lights, and cross-bearing processions were forbidden (pp. 139-142, 166,
173, 201). With one bold sweep almost every vestige of the old Roman
sacerdotalism was eradicated and the service given back to the people
much after the order of the Continental Reformed churches.

A still more sweeping change lay in the new theory of the ministry.
Non-Conformists wiill be particularly interested in this. The Church of
England clergy are not priests in the Roman sense of the word. The
clergyman is called a presbyter, never sacerdos (pp. 41, 176). “There
can be no doubt now, that the emphasis of the Church of England is
laid upon the minister as a presbyter-minister, a man whose function is
not sacerdotal, but ambassadorial and pastoral” (p. 176). The troubles
with the Scottish Church and the Puritans are of course dwelt upon.
“Doctrinally, the Church of England was Puritan,” and the growth of
the non-conformist party “was greatly due to the autocratic rigidity of
the Bishops, and their magisterial sternness” (p. 204). On the other
hand, the Puritans were “foolishly narrow and exacting in their de-
mands” (p. 225). “Both parties were irreconcilably intolerant. The
Episcopal party had no idea of conciliation. The Puritan party had no
idea of compromise, no matter how reasonable or conciliatory the other
party might have been. And so, of course, nothing was done” (p. 227).
The attempt to force the Prayer Book on the Scotch is well summed up :
“Scotland was lost to the Church of England by the utterly impolitic en-
deavour to force upon an unwilling people a liturgy that contained
many semi-Romish features” (p. 217).

When one attends a modern Church of England service or the Amer-
ican Protestant Episcopal service of a “low” church, he beholds some
sixteenth century history bearing abiding fruit today. Such a treat, we
fear, is all too rare in our time. The artful re-Romanizing of the church
liturgy is still a subtle process, just as it was when the Prayer Book
was in formation. The extremes to which the Tractarianism of the
Oxford Movement went, are well known facts of English Church His-
tory. Latent in this Romeward trend is, of course, a theology that is not
genuinely Reformed, a doctrinal background inconsistent with that of
the Thirty-nine Articles and most surely out of sympathy with that of
the Prayer Book of the Church of England. It is a question which it
seems every Church has to face, especially in these unsettled days,
namely, that of the Church’s unflinching loyalty to the plain sense of its
own standards.

Of the Prayer Book as a rallying point for a re-united Protestantism.
Dr. Hague very wisely indulges in no prophecy. Non-conformity will
always have to be reckoned with. There are pious souls that worship
without a fixed liturgy, very many, in fact. Dr. Hague has done his
part in giving, not personal bias, but plain history. Here is a book that
should be especially profitable to those who use the Prayer Book in
their worship, while it will also be an inspiration to all who crave a
beautiful and orderly service.

Lancaster, Ohio.

Benjamin F. Paist.

670 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Ruysbroeck the Admirable. By A. Wautier d’Aygalliers. Authorized
Translation by Fred Rothwell. London and Toronto: J. M. Dent &
Sons Ltd. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 1925. Pp. xliii., 326.
Price $5.

Ruysbroeck U Admirable was first published in Paris by Perrin & Co.
in 1923. It was a thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the University of Paris. In 1925 it won the Marcelin-Giuerin prize of
the French Academy. Its author, a son-in-law and successor of Charles
Wagner, of The Simple Life fame, is professor of the History of
Philosophy in the Protestant Faculty in Paris, also Pastor of the Foyer
de I’Ame, the Reformed Evangelical Liberal Church of Paris. This
work, following his Critical Study of the Sources of the Life of Ruys-
broeck (1909), is sufficient to rate him as a real French authority on the
life and teaching of this fourteenth century Flemish mystic.

Every true historian likes to read a biography which gives evidence on
each page of scholarly historical research. ,Such is found in this work,
and the translator is to be thanked for placing it at the disposal of
English and American readers. As a background, social and ecclesiastical
conditions in the fourteenth century are detailed, followed by a sketch
of the life of Jan Ruysbroeck, the “Ecstatic Doctor” (1293-1381). A
second part expounds his doctrine, traces it as influenced by Scholasti-
cism and Neo-Platonism, then treats of Ruysbroeck’s original contribu-
tion and influence and his relation to modern thought.

It is pointed out that Ruysbroeck belongs to the class of speculative
mystics. He developed a philosophy and theology possessing very
dominant features of Scholasticism and Neo-Platonism. From the Scho-
lastic side he was definitely influenced by Albertus Magnus, Thomas
Aquinas, Bonaventura, Bernard of Clairvaux, and the Sdiool of St.
Victor. In his Neo-Platonism the hand of St. Augustine, Scotus Erigena,
Plotinus, and the Pseudo-Dionysius is seen. Yet he is no slavish follower.
He reorganizes the elements that he borrows. His work produces a moral
revival, yet he cannot be regarded as a precursor of the Protestant Refor-
mation. His influence is seen in the celebrated Theologia Deutsch, which.
Dr. d’Aygalliers holds, only slightly influenced the thought of Luther.
Ruysbroeck stood for a reform of the Church, but was persistently
loyal to it.

The history of Mysticism exhibits certain reactions that have ever
brought it into grave suspicion among genuine evangelicals. It has
sometimes issued in a lop-sided psychology in which the feelings are too
often the rule of life; sometimes in a dangerous neglect of the objective
Scriptures and sacraments as means of grace; sometimes in the cold
self-suppression of asceticism; and again in the wild excesses of the
grossest immorality; while philosophically it has always had to struggle
to keep itself immune from the contagion of pantheism. Ruysbroeck is
not above this last temptation. Professor d’Aygalliers notes that he was
early suspected of it, that a mystic union was the central doctrine of his
system, that he gave just grounds for the suspicion, and that in him
“there is an unconcealed tendency toward pantheism” (p. 275; cf. pp.

RECENT LITERATURE 67 1

66, 290-291). Nevertheless, Ruysbroeck’s passionate mysticism was
fashioned after that of the Church (pp. 197-198).

This book is an effort to rediscover a forgotten mystic, and at the
same time to give Mysticism a new historic valuation for our own time
(cf. p. 309). And although we must ever guard Mysticism from its
extremes, particularly today, when the validity of the historic and objec-
tive phenomena of Christianity is being lost in the mystical vaporings of
the so-called religion of the spirit, we must also remember that there
is a legitimate Christian mysticism, stressing a vital union between the
Christian and his God, a definite inner guidance of the Holy Spirit ; that
there is a Divine immanence in nature, of which poets sing and artists
paint; and that to the mystics we owe much, probably more than we
realize. The mysticism, or whatever name you call it, that holds the
human spirit close to its God is inevitable and right, but the mysticism
that shades off into an idle, selfish, quietistic individualism and inde-
pendence of the written revelation of God cannot ultimately be harm-
less. Grateful for all the solid good that the mystics have achieved,
especially in their reactions against rationalism and formalism, we
must have a faith that fits the whole man. That faith we have in the
Christianity of the Bible.

Lancaster, Ohio. Benjamin F. Paist.

SYSTEMATICAL THEOLOGY

Putting on Immortality. Reflections on the Life Beyond. By Clarence
Edward Macartney. Minister of Arch Street Presbyterian Church,
Philadelphia. Fleming H. Revell Company. New York, Chicago,
London, and Edinburgh. 1926. Pp. 189.

This book is an able and exceedingly judicious treatment of a great
subject by one who has put the Christian Church under repeated debts to
himself by his exposition and defense of Christian truth. Once again we
acknowledge our debt to Dr. Macartney for this further contribution to
the truth.

We have characterized this book as a judicious treatment of its great
theme. This characteristic is illustrated in several ways. The “intima-
tions” of immortality innate in man, which are stated in the first chapter,
are rightly estimated, and not put forward as “proofs” of a philosophical
doctrine of immortality. The “pagan ideas” in chapter two are correctly
evaluated. In the fine chapter on the Old Testament conception of the
future life the proper distinction is made between the aspirations and
beliefs of God’s chosen people and the revelation of God to them. Also
the author is justified in singling out the Old Testament ideas of God
and man as the chief grounds of witness to this doctrine, to which
might be added the Old Testament idea of eternal life or communion
with God.

We find the same fine tact when we turn to the treatment of the New
Testament teaching. Dr. Macartney knows that Jesus Christ has brought
life and immortality to light in the Gospel. But he also knows that we

672

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

will look in vain for any bare philosophical conception of immortality
in the New Testament. Consequently the subject is rightly treated in
connection with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, the idea of
death as the wages of sin, and the redemptive work of Christ in its
total effects. We are given Biblical ideas, not those of Greek philosoph-
ical idealism, and this is the outstanding merit of the book.

The New Testament conception of the future state before the resur-
rection is adequately stated against the doctrine of “soul sleep’’ and
that of the intermediate state as wrongly conceived in some of the
patristic literature, in the Roman Catholic Church, and in some forms
of modern theology. Not all of these erroneous views are dealt with,
but the positive statement of this difficult subject as far as is war-
ranted by the New Testament is correctly stated.

After stating clearly the Biblical doctrine of the Last Judgment, the
author gives an able defense of the Biblical and universal Christian
doctrine of Future Retribution over against the doctrines of Annihila-
tionism and Restorationism, and closes with a noble and affecting state-
ment of the future blessedness of the ibeliever.

Almost all of the difficult questions of Christian Eschatology are
touched on, and the conclusions seem to us to be in accord with the
teaching of the Bible. This book, therefore, is more than a series of
reflections on immortality ; it is a brief, popular, and thoroughly Scrip-
tural treatment of Christian Eschatology.

Dr. Macartney is known as a leading opponent of Modernism. He
could not have chosen a more fitting theme to bring out one of the chief
points of difference between Modernism and historical Christianity. The
Christianity of the New Testament is primarily “other-worldly.” as Dr.
Macartney puts it, or eschatological in its emphasis and point of view.
Modernism in most of its forms has placed the emphasis on this life
rather than on the life to come. This statement holds true notwithstand-
ing the present day emphasis on spiritualism, a movement in modern
thought which is ably criticised by our author in one chapter. This
movement, however, can scarcely be called characteristic of modern
religious thought in general. Hence in emphasizing the “other-worldly”
emphasis of historical Christianity, Dr. Macartney has put his finger on
one of the chief points of difference between historical Christianity and
the religion of modern romanticism with its emphasis on present human
values. This difference cuts deep. It nuns back into the whole conception
of sin and redemption, and of the nature of Christianity as a redemptive
religion in the New Testament sense of that much abused term. Hence
this book does more than give the Biblical conception of the future life.
It throws light on the nature of Christianity by reviewing it from the
angle of New Testament eschatology and especially the emphasis which
the New Testament puts upon eschatology.

Not only as a comfort to those who have lost loved ones through
death, but as a refutation of many forms of so-called “modern Chris-
tianity,” we heartily commend this finely written book.

Princeton. C. W. Hodge.

RECENT LITERATURE 673

The Doctrine of the Person of Christ. By Sidney Cave, M.A., D.D.,
President of Chestnut College, Cambridge. 1925. Price $i.75-

The interest of this most clearly and simply written little work con-
sists chiefly in its historical section. Having given an interesting but at
times inaccurate account of the history of the doctrine the author pro-
ceeds in the last chapter to “The Present Problem’’ in which we would
naturally anticipate a constructive presentation of his own view.

In brief, it must be said that the author is a much better historian than
theologian. Had the last chapter been exchanged with the first chapter
it is questionable whether most readers would be inclined to proceed,
except with a purely external interest and long suffering attitude, into
the prolixities of the history of the doctrine of Christ’s person. Surely
if we track with patience all of the winding passages of history it is with
the hope of emerging into the broad light of a constructive and faith-
supporting Christology. Quite the contrary we find here the same
anomaly that we find in Voltaire. Voltaire despised tradition and would
be expected to dislike such a factual thing as history, the bearer of tra-
dition. But Voltaire did consult history and had a definite theory of it
and use for it. And that use, as some one has expressed it, was to wield
it “as a battering ram against tradition.” On this ground Voltaire has
been severely denied the right to be a historian. History is not to be
used : it is to be accepted, and accepted in much the same way that
Margaret Fuller said “I accept the Universe” and Carlyle retorted “Gad,
you’d better.” When on the one hand H. G. Wells uses history to prove
his philosophical relativism, and Hegel or Strauss on the other extreme
use it to prove their theory of the dialectic of the Absolute “Idea,” then
they have ceased to become historians, they are theorists. They pursue
not history but the “high and dry road of an a priori.”

It is precisely this road that President Cave has pursued. He is not
a good theologian and we should like to say for that very reason that
he is not a good historian. The author’s view is quite modestly put last,
after the eight-ninths of historical treatment, suggesting that history
naturally leads into his personal views as its climax. The last chapter
should have been placed first, we contend, to symbolize the solemn fact
that history has been made to speak forth in the accents of the author’s
a priori. Though written with facile style, a rich variety of sources and
a sincerity and general objectivity, the historical eight-ninths of the
work are designed to show the inutility of early church creeds because
“too inconsistent,” “too obscure,” and because they operated with the
metaphysical category of “substance” instead of “personality” (what
“personality” even connotes, philosophically, the author confesses has
not yet been clearly discovered, p. 240). History is made its own bat-
tering ram with its own solid walls of Christological facts for special
target.

It is this unhistorical use of history doubtlessly which leads to such
errors as the following. On page 233 it is stated that “in the early church
doctrine of the Trinity, the unity of the Godhead was so strongly em-
phasized that the Son was regarded rather as an eternal aspect of God

674

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

than as a ‘person’ in any modern sense.” As proof of this, mirable dictu,
Augustine is cited in a footnote where he likens the Trinity to the
“memory, intelligence and will” in the human mind. But what is meant
by this is perfectly clear from Augustine’s statement in the greatest
exposition of the Trinity made in the early 'Church {De Trinitate,
V :9), that there is one substance (or essence) and “three persons.” If
President Cave objects that Augustine did not use the term “person”
in the modern sense we agree heartily for it reflects the more credit on
Augustine. What is the modem conception of “person”? Tot homines,
quot sententiae ! Is it Webb’s definition in his “God and Personality,” or
Pringle-Pattison’s definition in his “The Idea of God”? Is it the defini-
tion of New Realism or Pragmatism with their examination of the
“soul” ? “There is no modern philosophy,” President Cave himself
quotes, “There are only modern philosophers.” If by the “modern
sense” of 'the term “person” President Cave means that common dis-
position in these days to have away with the “mind-stuff theory^’ (W.
James), the “sub-cutaneous self” (R. Barton Perry) or in short the
doctrine of “substance” as lying at the root of personality, then Au-
gustine is right and modernism is wrong. Since it is with modernism
that President Cave belongs, another erroneous statement on this point
might be understood though not condoned, “Augustine’s treatment of
the doctrine of the Trinity is speculative, not religious.”

Another error is found in the tendency to classify Calvin’s Christology
along with the Antioch School “which had as its peril, Nestorianism,”
and to suggest its gravitational motion in that direction (p. 151). This
tendency breaks out in objectional form on p. 234 where the author goes
so far as to say that the Antioch School, Augustine in places, and Calvin
“can easily degenerate into mere Adoptionism in their Christology.” This
group as a type are presumptuously characterized as seeing in Christ
“a man filled -with the Divine.” By this is meant the “immanence”
view in some sense, if we may judge from the context. Such construc-
tions in the historical section arouse in our minds the final dilemma, —
Cave’s History of Doctrine or The History of 'Cave’s Doctrine. For
theology has not yet forgotten that when Dorner wrote his History of
the Doctrine of the person of Christ the end-product was a History of
Corner’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ.

Turning from the eight chapters of History to the ninth chapter
entitled “The Present Problem,” the author attempts not “another
reconstruction of the doctrine of the person of our Lord” but a “more
modest” end, “to try to show what seems to be the true approach to the
problem which these facts [i.e. of history] present.”

When the author with modesty lays aside the attempt at a new dog-
matic construction for the undogmatic role of showing “the true
approach” to the problem we are not unmindful of the delightful yet
amiable assumption lying ready to spring at us in that word “true.” It
reminds us of Carlyle’s quarrel with Matt. Arnold over his dogmatism.
Finally, they both admitted that they had dogmas, to which Carlyle

RECENT LITERATURE 675

added with great concern, “The only difference between your dogma
and my dogma is that my dogma is true.”

If our surmise is correct the author would regard the first or historical
eight-ninths of his work as the dogmatic part and his own one-ninth as
undogmatic, the first as “Gewalt and Irrtum” as Goethe styled the
History of Dogma, and the latter “true” — at least he calls his own “the
true approach.” However it is perfectly obvious that undogmatic
thought is as dogmatic as dogmatic thought. There is nothing more
arbitrary than the dogma that there can be no dogma. Theodore
Parker’s “I don’t believe ! I don’t believe !” is as vigorously dogmatic as
Luther’s “I believe!” Let not the reader of this work then think that
when its author has disposed of all of the most constructive dogmas of
history no intellectual imposition remains to burden the mind. The
discipline termed the History of Dogma originated with the 17th and
18th century rationalists and pietists who studied it that they might
be freed from the claims and obligations of dogma. Modern German
theologians have perfected the study with the same motive, as the
illustrious Harnack testifies (Grundriss, p. 8) ; “The history of
dogma, in that it sets forth the process of the origin and development of
dogma offers the very best means and methods of freeing the Church
from dogmatic Christianity.” In identical spirit has President Cave,
whose work is quite Germanistic in method, sources and spirit, led us up
to his dogmatic undogmatic Christianity as the (anti-) climax of history.
One can scarcely be restrained from citing a recent characterization of
H. G. Wells’ History of the World as the “Adventure of a Generous
Soul in the Midst of Catastrophies.” Can the author claim to genuinely
“profit by the lessons of the past” (p. 227) when he comes to formulate
his own “true approach”?

In what respect then is the final chapter by the author dogmatic? We
believe that it is dogmatic (i) in assuming that the true Christology
must in no sense be made an “added burden to our faith in God”; (2)
that in preventing its becoming so it is necessary to reduce the Bible
teaching to the absolute requirements of “the thought and experiences of
modem men,” or of modern philosophical thought (p. 227, 233, 234, 235,
238) or the spirit of this age. The “modern mind” is everybody’s mind;
the “modern man” is a Proteus ; the spirit of the age is often against the
Spirit oif the Ages. An accommodation of terminology by way of its
simplification is often imperative in this age. But terms are uniforms
for thoughts. Change the terms, and thoughts are not merely given a
new appearance but often a new content. If President Cave proposes
merely to change the uniforms for modern ones, well and good. But it is
the thoughts behind the uniforms at which he is striking. And for the
thought content of the Chalcedonian creed and Christology, modern
man is no more of a criterion than the fifth century man. The constant
appeal to the “modern mind” and “modern man” is most illusory, and
quite illegitimate until such a generic “mind” or “man” is defined. And
after they are defined it still remains to be proven that modern men are
more accurate, trutii-loving, astute, zealous, religious and more theologi-

6;6

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

cal than a Jerome, Augustine or an Athanasius. And after the twentieth
century mind is defined it still remains to be proven that its theology
is final before the intellectual onslaughts of the twenty-first and twenty-
second century mind. “Truth takes no account of centuries.” This master
motive of accommodation, mediation and concession appears to be the
fundamental weakness of the present work. The error of the book is
chiefly this, its general attitude which conditions every proposition of
the ninth chapter. (3) To criticise several of these propositions it is
necessary to regard first the assumption that the “substance” notion and
the associated idea of “deification” by use of it exclude “Christianity
as fellowship and communion between God and man,” p. 233. This con-
struction of things is borrowed directly from Ritschlian anti-metaphysik
and the “modern mind.” For the category of “substance” the author
throughout seems to substitute the concept of “personality,” and
personality “in a modern sense” (p. 233). The vicious relativism of this
modern concept has been indicated above.

With customary Ritschlian discrimination the idea of deification by
use of the substance category in the early creeds is regarded as “pagan.”
We are naturally to infer that the “modem” concept of “personality”
is not only less crude but more Christian. Of course it is obvious that
the old notion of substance is the indispensable basis for any concept of
personality; and, to steal Wordsworth’s words from their connotation,
“I would rather be a ‘Pagan’ suckled in creed outworn” than to be
modern in a definition of “personality” which left out the ontological
bottom for it to rest upon. Personality is personality plus. To think of it
without a metaphysical basis belongs to almost the same rank of fallacy
as conceiving that a thing can both be and not be at one and the same
time. Only between personalities which ontologically exist can there be
“communion.”

(4) Rejection of the “substance” notion leads to the proposition that
the Chalcedonian doctrine of the Trinity over-emphasized the Unity of
God resulting in making the Son a mere “aspect” of God. The author
is here quite unfair to the orthodox party which denounced Sabellianism
and Patripassianism in the early 'Church. The alternative to the “one
substance” teaching of the Trinity which President Cave presents, is a
“Divine Society” Trinity, “perfectly united in will, character and inter-
penetrating love” (p. 237). In this he is consistently tritheistic. He ap-
parently preserves the pre-existence of Christ and denies humanitarian-
ism, but eschews pre-existence in essential unity with the Father. Since
this pre-existence cannot be directly experienced and proved by man it
partakes of the nature of a “boundary-thought,” which is implied in
faith but not known directly. An algebraic x might successfully designate
it.

(5) Upon the Incarnation and the question of Kenosis or non-
Kenosis the author abandons intellectual effort and asserts the historical
method which gives us only “facts” and leaves us to the mercy of these
bare facts. “Theories can only be tentative and provisional,” p. 239.
Tu quoque! Is it not a “theory” which says there shall be only “facts,”

RECENT LITERATURE

677

and which says “it matters not whether we see in Christ a God-filled
man (the “immanence” theory) or the incarnate Son of God if we have
found in Him the perfect Revealer of God,” p. 239. This is an old and
familiar Ritschlian saw and betakes us to — (6). The value-judgment
feature of the work. The intellectual matter of whether the one or the
other of these two (most certainly principially) different views of the
Incarnation is true is dismissed. “Our need, in such an age as ours,” he
elsewhere says (p. 246) “is less for a correct Christology than for the
practical assertion of the validity of those Christian values which our
faith in Christ involves.” Christology was a matter for sufficiently cor-
rect intellectual statement to impel the author to severely criticise the
orthodox and purely humanitarian Christologies on either extreme. But
when it comes to an exact formulation of his own position the author
flinches, lays hold on the value-judgment and becomes theologically
blind to great distinctions. Both orthodox and humanitarian extremes
have persisted, he notes. This teaches both and all “patience and humil-
ity” (p. 239). We are not to call each other names, such as “Sabellian,”
“tritheistic.” This displays an archaic temper of mind.

What is left then, we query, beside vague values and platitudinous
pacifism? An amiably ambling “We don’t know Where we are going but
we are on our way” type of theologizing, a theologia viatoris, as he terms
it after Thomas Aquinas. We are viatores, pilgrims, not comprehensores,
those who have attained. While brave and flexible such an outlook
renders the Christ of the ages and all Christology “the baseless fabric
of a dream,” and leaves the “problem” which he attacked still a problem.
Having denounced the orthodox Christology as a “sacred mystery”
baffling to the faith of the common man. President Cave has left a
still greater mystery requiring a still greater fides implicita. Stirling
wrote a book on the mysteries of Hegelianism entitled “The Secret of
Hegel.” Some one aptly remarked that if Hegel was a secret, Stirling
managed to keep the secret, and such has the present author done. Vacil-
lating around the “immanence” view of the two natures, the author has
conspicuously failed to attain the frankness and plainness of thought
of the modern man and thus defeated the very end he sought to attain.
For the average man grasps at more than will-o’-the-wisps for his re-
ligion.

The future work of philosophy upon the concept of “personality” will
not, as the author opines, brighten the future of Christology (p. 240).
The only hope for this type of theology is to get as quickly out of the
ego-centric predicament of value theorizing as possible to an objective
norm, the Christian Scriptures.

Princeton. F. D. Jenkins.

PRACTICAL THEOLOGY

The Christ of the Indian Road. By E. St.\nley Jones. New York, Cin-
cinnati : The Abingdon Press. 1925. Pp. 213.

We have read this little volume with a feeling of sadness. It is written

678

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

by an experienced missionary to India whose chief characteristic seems
to be an utter devotion to Jesus Christ and a profound experience and
conviction of the saving power of Christ. Also with much of what the
author says we can agree. It is a great mistake, he tells us, for the mis-
sionary to go to the East with a “superiority complex” as regards
Western civilization over that of the East. The missionary should preach
Jesus Christ “disassociated” from Western civilization in so far as
Western civilization is dominated by unChristian or anti-Christian ideals.
The center of Christianity is the Person of Jesus, the author says, and
Jesus can win India if He is “disassociated” from all that in the West
which makes Him an “incrusted” 'Christ.

At the same time, however, we cannot but regard this book as a subtile
attack upon Christian doctrine, and we deplore the quite fashionable idea
that zeal for truth and zeal for missions are incompatible.

This is evidenced in many ways throughout this book. Certainly let us
not go to India in a boastful spirit as forerunners of imperialism or
industrialism. But when Dr. Jones says we must leave India to “inter-
pret” Christ for herself, when he adopts a purely mystical attitude, are
we not in danger of developing an “inferiority complex” with respect
to the Apostolic Christ, the Jesus of Paul and Peter and John, nay, with
respect to our Lord’s own Messianic consciousness? For if that Mes-
sianic consciousness means anything, it means that He places Himself
over against all men of every nation, and comes to them with His own
claims, with His own interpretation of Himself and that of His authori-
tative Apostles. We cannot leave India to put its own interpretation on
Jesus, any more than we can leave America, or England, or Germany to
do so. The Western Creeds, from which Dr. Jones would have Jesus
“disassociated” have value and authority only in so far as they accu-
rately state and make clear the truths about Christ given by Revelation.
But in so far as they do this, they are valid for all times and for all
lands.

The author says that when he first went to India he “was trying to
hold a very long line — a line that stretched from Genesis to Revelation.”
He “had to fight behind Moses and David.” But when he found that the
Gospel lay in the Person of Jesus, his task was strengthened and simpli-
fied. But D-r. Jones believes firmly in the Deity of Christ. Must he not
then accept Christ’s view of the Old Testament? Jesus knew that Moses
and the Prophets spoke of Him. He acknowledged “a long line” from
Genesis to Malachi. He based His claims upon this “long line” ; He ac-
knowledged its authority.

This same anti-doctrinal attitude is exhibited most clearly of all in the
false antithesis erected in Chapter nine, entitled “What or Whom ?” All
through this chapter it is implied that we can have trust in a Person
without knowledge about that Person. But this is absolutely impossible.
Jesus said “But whom say ye that I am?” But this is the same as the
question “What think ye of Christ?” Faith in 'Christ is more than assent
to truths about Christ, but trust or faith in Christ always involves assent
to truth about Christ. We cannot have a purely undoctrinal Christianity.

RECENT LITERATURE

679

Dr. Jones implicitly admits this when, after saying that the “what-
emphasis” is divisive, but not so the “whom-emphasis,” he nevertheless
says that the Church divided once over the “whom,” namely, “in the
Unitarian issue,” and adds that “here it had the right to divide” for
the question of who Jesus is is vital to Christianity. But this of course
is an abandonment of the position of a non-doctrinal Christianity. It is
now a question of how much or how little doctrine we can get along
with. This question can be settled only by an appeal to the Christian
Revelation.

Not only is the question. Who is Jesus? the same as the question
“What think ye of Christ?”, but as soon as we speak of “the Gospel”
we ask. What did this divine ^Christ do for man’s salvation? If the
Church’s doctrine of the Atonement is too forensic, as Dr. Jones seems
to think, we would reply that it is based on the teaching of Paul and
Peter and of Jesus Himself. By what rules of clear thinking can we
hand Jesus over to India and say — you must take Him as Divine, as
very God of very God, but you may “interpret” His salvation in terms
of your own mysticism? Dr. Jones says the Gospel is “Jesus Christ and
Him crucified.” But what is the meaning of the Cross? If He really
“bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” we may find peace and
hope, but if He simply illustrated a way of self-sacrificing love which
we poor sinners are unable to attain unto, the Cross becomes our despair
instead of our glory and ground of hope. Christianity catmot do without
an “interpretation” of the Cross, and it cannot be left to India, America,
England, or Germany, but we must accept Christ as He is offered in the
Gospel, i.e., by Himself and His Apostles. This is not to offer a “West-
ern Christ” to India. It is to be ambassadors of Christ and offer the
world the Christ and the Christianity of the 'Christian Revelation, the
Christ and His redemption taught by 'Christ Himself and His authori-
tative Apostles. Dr. Jones, to judge by some passages in his book, would
acknowledge all this. But if so, the missionary cannot simply “leaive
Christ to India” to interpret for herself. And what holds true for India
holds true for every nation of the earth. By all means let us welcome the
work of Indian exegetes and theologians so far as they interpret the
Christ of the Bible. The knowledge of Christ given by Divine Revela-
tion is to be “reflected," as Dr. Kuyper beautifully puts it, in the con-
sciousness of redeemed humanity. Let every nation of the earth make its
contribution to this reflected glory of the Lord, but let every nation and
every theologian make the Biblical Revelation his “seat of authority”
in respect to the knowledge of God, and Christ, and Christianity.

This false antithesis between “What” and “Whom,” between trust in
a Person and knowledge about a Person — ^two things which are insep-
arable, and the latter of which conditions the former — not only leads Dr.
Jones to sit somewhat loosely to Revelation and to Christian doctrine, it
leads him also to use that ambiguous and most distressing phrase “a
Christlike God.” What does this mean? In American Modernism it has
been used by advocates of a non-theistic Christianity; or by others not
so extreme who would advocate an “ethical theism’^ and strip God of

68o

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

just those incommunicable attributes which make God to be God, who
would also deny the great theistic truths of Creation and Providence,
who would make God too much like men excepting human sinfulness.
Positivism, the idea of a finite God, the idea that love expresses the
whole of 'God’s Being, or that He is siimply a name for Love wherever
found, — all such anti-theistic and anti-Christian views can hide behind
this phrase “a Christlike God.” It need scarcely be said that Dr. Jones is
far removed from such views. Let it be said at once and positively that
he would repudiate them each and all. But when he suggests at least
that the pantheism which merges God in the world-process is to be
rejected for one like that of India which instead of seeing God in all
things, sees all things in God, we are obliged to ask if he is not in
danger of falling into an a-cosmic pantheism, while rejecting a pan-
cosmic atheism. Certainly the God of Indian philosophy is not the God
of Christ and His Apostles, not the Infinite Creator, Preserver and
Governor of the Universe, who made the lilies of the field, whose Holi-
ness (i.e., transcendence) separates Him from all that is finite. A Spirit
infinite, eternal, and immutable in all His Being and perfections, such as
wisdom, holiness, power, justice, goodness and truth. We again are not
suggesting that Dr. Jones is not a theist, but we cannot leave India or
any other nation to make its own God. We miust bow in reverence to the
God who has revealed Himself to men. Revelation again is the supreme
category. And when you have said that, you have put your finger on one
of the faults of t^jis ibook which by its mystical tendency fails to do
full justice to the idea of Revelation. That we are not doing the author
an injustice is evidenced by the fact that he quotes with approval the re-
mark of a Hindu who, pointing to some Hindu social workers, said to
Dr. Jones, Look at those “Hindu Christians.” Is, then, the essence of
Christianity just social work? Of course Dr. Jones would not affirm this,
but then why does he quote this remark with approval? It exhibits
clearly the tendency of his book.

But all of these depressing features of this little volume follow from
one essential, fundamental, and vital error, namely that life precedes
doctrine, and that doctrine is the symbolical expression of life. That Dr.
Jones really adopts this fundamental epistemological error, that we are
not misrepresenting his position, is clearly shown (pp. 154, 155) when in
speaking of certain German missionaries who having learned Christian
doctrine “go round the circle of truth once in three years.” Dr. Jones
comments that this was all “faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly
null.” He continues that “Jesus did not do that. He gave Himself to
them (His first followers). When they got the life they created suitable
raiment (italics mine) in which to clothe it. Life was more than rai-
ment.” This means that Christian truth is but the raiment, that is, to use
the language of the theologian who has best expressed this view, the
late Professor Sabatier of France, the symbolical form in which Chris-
tian life clothed itself. Dr. Fosdick of New York has given expression
to the same idea in his Modern Use of the Bible when he speaks of
Christian doctrines as the “intellectual frameworks” of Christian ex-

RECENT LITERATURE

68 1

perience. They are ever changing to suit each age, while the “abiding
experience” remains the same. Dr. Fosdick, however, fully realized the
consequences of this view when he said in his "Cole Lecture" before
Vanderbilt University that his own statements of doctrine would not be
valid a generation or so hence. It also would follow that we would
require different “frameworks” or “raiment” for Christian life and ex-
perience in different parts of the world contemporaneously. This seems
to be the idea underlying Dr. Jones’ conception of the Indian Christ or
the Christ of the Indian Road, as he calls it.

In regard to this position, two things must be said. First of all, it is
not true of Jesus and his first followers, as Dr. Jones supposes it to be.
In the two outstanding cases in the Gospels where Gentile faith is es-
pecially commended by our Lord, the case is quite otherwise. The Cen-
turion trusted in Jesus as one who had power (and authority) to heal
physical disease by a mere word of authority like that of a military
officer. His faith obviously depended on a very high conception of the
Person of Jesus, and his experience of the power of Christ followed
his faith. That this was the right and true way Jesus proved by saying
that He had not found such faith in Israel. The same is true of the case
of the Syro-Phenician woman whose faith was determined by the fact
that she recognized Jesus’ Messiahship, as is evidenced by her addressing
Jesus as Son of David. She recognized the prerogative of the Jews and
yet asked for herself the saving power of the Son of David. Her ex-
perience of Jesus’ power to save, followed her faith which Jesus com-
mended by saying “O woman, great is thy faith.” Doubtless, our
Lord’s disciples did not fully and at all times correctly understand
Him, but that an idea of His Person underlay their experience of His
saving power and their trust in Him, cannot be doubted by anyone who
has read the sources carefully. The same is true of the Apostle Paul, the
greatest of all missionaries. It vras the “revelation of the Son of (jod”
and the Gospel which Paul calls “my Gospel” which produced in Paul
by the power of the Spirit that profound Christian experience which
enabled him to say “For me to live is Christ.” Only the Spirit can
produce true Christian life and experience. But as for revelation, doc-
trine, and experience, no one who reads Paul’s letters carefully can fail
to see that Paul’s theology underlay, and under the influence of the
Spirit, caused, his life and experience. The statements of Dr. Jones are
not borne out by the facts.

But in the second place, the idea that life and experience produce doc-
trine, and that the latter is but the “raiment” in which the life expresses
itself, must lead to utter scepticism as to truth. Truth is the same and
abides true everywhere and always. If doctrine is the flotsam and
jetsam of the stream of life and only its “raiment,” then doctrine can
never be true. It may be useful as current coin of experience, but abso-
lute truth it can never be. In fact if truth is a mere “raiment” of life, it
becomes a biological function which can never be called truth. Indeed
for such an epistemology the question of truth and error can never be
raised, much less settled. This position would do away with the possi-

682

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

bility of attaining truth in the sphere of natural science as well as in
the religious sphere. Not only would all that distinguishes Christianity
from other religions have to be abandoned, we could not choose between
theism, materialism, or pantheism. These are intellectual concepts. Such
also is the distinction between right and wrong, such also are the funda-
mental concepts of science. In short there could be no knowledge in any
sphere if we adopt this epistemological principle. But fortunately the
underlying epistemological principle of this scepticism upon examina-
tion is refuted by psychological facts. Sensations and feelings do not, as
a matter of fact produce ideas. On the contrary ideas condition feelings.
This is true in the sphere of natural science as T. H. Green showed in
his famous introduction to Hume’s Essay on the Human Understanding
in which Green refuted the sceptic Hume. But the same is true in the
religious sphere. Our religious attitude toward God is conditioned by an
idea of God received from general Revelation, and similarly our Chris-
tian experience and life are conditioned by our idea of His Person and
work received from special Revelation. This is only to say again that
without general Revelation there is no religion, and without the special
Christian Revelation, there is no Christianity.

We would not, however, for a moment be understood as implying that
Dr. Jones draws these dreadful sceptical conclusions from his premise.
He does not. He is a devout believer in and most devoted servant of the
Lx>rd Jesus Christ. His book, and more, his life, shows this. All this,
however, does not alter the fact that his premise is wrong, and that
others, more logical than he, have drawn these very conclusions both as
to the finality of Christianity, and as to the possibility of man’s attain-
ing truth in any sphere. Moreover we believe that it is this premise which
more than anything else has led to the unsatisfactory conclusions to
which we have called attention.

But to return to the question of Christ, Christianity, and Christian
Missions, we would conclude that the question is not between Eastern
and Western modes of thought or feeling, but between the human
search for God, and God’s revelation of Himself to men in Jesus Christ
and the Biblical record of that Revelation. Dr. Jones sums up his posi-
tion in concluding his book by an illustration. There is, he says, a
beautiful marriage custom in India that dimly illustrates the mission-
ary’s task. At the wedding ceremony the women friends of the bride
accompany her to the home of the bridegroom. They usher her into the
presence of the bridegroom, but that is as far as they can go. Then they
retire and leave her with her husband. That, he says, is the missionary’s
task in India; To know Christ, to introduce Him, to retire — “not
necessarily geographically,” but to trust India with Christ and Christ
with India. It goes without saying that Christ the Lord can be trusted
with any country of the earth. But it is also true that no country of the
earth can be trusted “to interpret Christ” for itself. This would leave
Jesus of Nazareth to be the sentimental object of India’s religious
aspiration, instead of giving India the Christ who has revealed Himself
and God in the Bible. And what is true of India is true of America. We

RECENT LITERATURE

683

can trust America to Christ, but we cannot trust Christ to be interpreted
by America. To trust Christ to be interpreted by America might leave us
with a non-theistic and sentimental attachment to Jesus, instead of
giving America the Lord and Saviour of the New Testament Revelation.

In a word, we believe that the missionary has a message and that his
supreme duty is to deliver that message — the good news of salvation
revealed by God. The missionary must be adaptable to his surround-
ings and to those to whom he is sent. Like Paul he may become all things
to all men. But let him beware of adapting his message. He must
demand that all men adapt themselves to it. And a message the mission-
ary must have. I recall in my student days a story the late Professor B.
B. Warfield told us in the classroom. It was about a missionary who had
no definite message, but who believed that Christianity was a life not a
doctrine, and who went out to India with this false antithesis in mind.
He happened to be sent to a people who were religious in life and
conduct, more naturally religious than the missionary himself. Having
no message, as Paul had for the Athenians whom he found very “God-
fearing,” this missionary did the only logical thing. He packed his trunk
and returned home.

It may be asked by some why we have said so much about what we
regard the faults of this book, and so little comparatively of its merits.
The answer is simple. One can speak at length about the ideas in a book,
but it is not possible to speak at length about the Christian experience
and utter devotion to his Lord which the author everywhere exhibits.
This little book fairly breathes with the spirit of love and devotion to
the Lord Jesus 'Christ. This is its merit, and this it would be an im-
pertinence to seek to analyse or even to speak of at length. But we share
with Dr. Jones his absolute conviction that the living Lord has the
power to be the Saviour of India. Is He not presented to us in the
New Testament as the Saviour of the world?

Princeton. C. W. Hodge.

Charles M. Sheldon: His Life Story. Illustrated from Photographs. By

Charles M. Sheldon. New York: George H. Doran Company.

1925. Pp. 309. Price $2.50 net.

There is usually something interesting in a human life-story told by
the one who lived it. An autobiography has the advantage of getting the
story told exactly as the subject of the sketch wishes it told. Not only
is this particular autobiography a plain statement of the chief facts of
a very useful life, but it is so well told that we could almost picture
ourselves reading again the soul-stirring pages of In His Steps. All the
way from boyhood and school life, through Phillips Academy, Brown
University, and Andover Theological Seminary, to his first pastorate in
a little Vermont village, on to Topeka, Kansas, where his great work
was to be done; his literary labors, among them one story, of which
22,000,000 copies have been published in over twenty different languages ;
his travels, his ceaseless toils in behalf of Prohibition (1914-1915) ; his
Chief Editorship of the Christian Herald; and now, close to the three-

684

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

score years and ten, still a resident of his beloved Topeka, lecturing,
writing, and preaching — such is the life-story of Charles M. Sheldon.

As we take a broad view of this life, several phases of it stand out as
pre-eminently worthy of special remark. One is his relations with the
“Flying Squadron,” which began in Peoria, 111., SepL 30, 1914, and
ended in Atlantic City, N.J., June 6, 1915. It involved long and irregular
hours, endless speaking engagements everywhere, irregular meals, and a
perilous minimum of sleep. Yet when the final history of prohibition
sentiment in the United States is written. Dr. Sheldon and the “Squad-
ron” will deserve recognition.

Doubtless the Topeka Daily Capital will have many reasons to re-
member Dr. Sheldon. But one reason will always go back to a certain
week in March, 1900, when the Editor of that paper, in all seriousness,
turned It over to Dr. Sheldon to see if a daily newspaper could be run
successfully for one week on a rigid application of strictly Christian
principles. This was a concrete chance to test the lofty idealism of
“What would Jesus do?.” Chapter V. tells this story, and the account
is almost a “thrill.” The paper’s average daily circulation rose to 360,000.
Its moral influence was widespread. It was a decided financial success,
though Dr. Sheldon refused to keep for himself his share of the profits.
Of course. Dr. Sheldon understands that any test, to be really valid,
should be permanent, not a matter of a single week, but of years. But
he was only asked to try it out for a week to see if it could be done at
all, and he accepted the challenge, with unmistakable results that attest
both his Christian courage and journalistic ability.

Dr. Sheldon, however, will be best remembered by most persons for
his charming Christian story In His Steps, or What Would Jesus Do?
It was written in 1896, and read to his Sunday evening congregations.
We recall the criticisms of this book when it first appeared. It is not our
purpose to estimate these attacks. The present book refers to them
(pp. loo-ioi). We do remember the deep impression which this story
made on us as a practical attempt to carry the high idealism of funda-
mental Christian principles into every walk of life. Bold things are
attempted in the pulpit today. This was a new type of homiletic ap-
proach that only those should attempt who know how. Dr. Sheldon
knew how. That a clergyman should write a story was no new thing.
But it was a venture to read it, chapter by chapter, each Sabbath to a
congregation. Yet should not the parables at least hint to us how fond
of stories Jesus was Himself? And the stories in the Old Testament
have ever laid hold of the imagination of the young. The incontrovert-
ible fact is, people like a story. In connection with this book, and lest any
one, uninformed, should suppose that its author became fabulously rich
on it, let it be noted, as Dr. Sheldon points out, that through a defective
copyright, he received almost nothing, and of course could not legally
exact any royalty. With some authors this might have embittered their
lives, but the fine Christian spirit of Dr. Sheldon is evident in the total
absence of any resentment or desire to

“Rail at Blind Fate with many a vain Alas !”

RECENT LITERATURE

685

Rather he felt that if his book had had a clear title it would have also
had a much smaller audience. It is ennobling, in this day, to have souls
look at life that way I

This career is of the intensive rather than the scholastic and meditative
type. In a sense. Dr. Sheldon was a “compaigner,” for prohibition, for
a more Christian journalism, for a richer evening service, etc. It often
happens that this type fails in a true appreciation of the toils and
findings of the more cloistered type, and of the positive blessings that
come through struggle and controversy. There is some evidence, we
think, in his own account, (pp. 262-3), that Dr. Sheldon was not alto-
gether free from this defect. Yet he had a “working creed” for his
ministry which he outlines in Chapter X., and while we might not want
to subscribe to all that he says here, there are some very valuable sug-
gestions, so excellent, in fact, that any clergyman will profit greatly by
seriously considering them and practising them in his own ministry.
There is real wisdom here. The emphasis, for example, on the pastor
knowing the Bible, whatever else he knows, and whatever else his people
know, is exceedingly pointed and timely.

A chapter, by Mrs. Sheldon, tells in romantic vein of her first meet-
ings with her future husband and the friendship that became love. The
closing chapter is a reprint from the Christian Herald of a clever article
on “Two Old Friends: Old Age and Death.” This was added by urgent
request, and perhaps it forms as good an ending to the story as any. We
fancy it is not always easy to know just how best to close an auto-
biography. The main tasks have been finished; yet not all. But all
Christians Who read this story will have cause to rejoice in it and to
thank God for the many and efficient ways in which He has used this
consecrated life.

Lancaster, Ohio. Benjamin F. Paist.

These Sayings of Mine. An Interpretation of the Teachings of Jesus. By
Lloyd C. Douglas. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1926. Pp.
xviii, 234. Price $1.50.

“When the crowds along the Via Dolorosa shed bitter tears as he
passed, staggering under his shameful load, he said : ‘You need not
weep for me 1’ Nor was his refusal to be pitied to be accounted for as a
sudden flare of martyr’s valor. He meant it, in very truth. He knew that
he had finished his work.” With these words the author of this book tells
us plainly that Jesus finished His work before He was crucified. He had
given His teaching to the world. In His teaching was a power which was
to transform human life. “He (Jesus) knew that He had planted some-
thing in the soil of society that nobody would ever be able to dig up !
Like leaven in meal, a strange catalyzing energy had been introduced
into the spiritual chemistry of civilization. — ^He was confident, even as
death filmed his eyes, that this indestructible element was already at its
task of transformation. — Nothing now could ever stop it!”

This book is “An Interpretation of the Teachings of Jesus,” the author
holding that Jesus came to be a teacher. His teachings are able to save

686

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the world. Too much emphasis has been placed on the birth and death of
Jesus and His work of teaching has been neglected. In emphasizing the
virgin birth and the death of Christ, there is given “the impression that
the only noteworthy events in Jesus’ life were his birth and death.’’ The
principles of His teaching have been neglected and these principles “we
believe could redeem the social order from its present plight.’’ “It is
strange, in the light of the fact that he (Jesus) staked his whole min-
istry upon his teachings which, he declared, were divinely communicated
to him, that practically the entire emphasis of the Church should have
been placed upon his nativity and his tragedy. One doubts if this could
have been his wish, for he was quite insistent that it was his message
that he wished to leave.”

With such a view we cannot agree. It is a pity that such a teacher was
not able to prevent His teaching from being misunderstood. It is a pity
that God in sending Him into the world did not prevent the angel who
announced His coming from making this mistake. The angel of the
Lord said to Joseph, “She shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his
name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” The angel
expected Jesus to be a Saviour and not a teacher. John the Baptist made
the same mistake. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of
the world.” Moses and Elijah made the same mistake. They talked with
Jesus about His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem. They
did not talk about His teaching. The disciples, selected, trained and
taught by Jesus, made the same mistake. Large sections of the four
gospels are given over to the death of Jesus.

The fact is, the disciples got it from Jesus Himself. Jesus did teach.
His teaching, however, was not what He came to do. He came to save
mankind and His teaching was incidental to His work of redemption.
The disciples got from Him His own interpretation of Himself. It was
Jesus Himself who said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder-
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” “The Son of man came
not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom
for many.” “I am the good shepherd and the good shepherd layeth down
his life for the sheep.” “Father, save me from this hour ; but for this
cause came I unto this hour.” “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto me.” The risen Christ explained Himself to the two
disciples on the way to Emmaus. In explaining Himself He did not
refer to His teachings. He referred to His death. “Ought not Qirist to
have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?”

Paul preached not Jesus the teacher. “We preach Christ crucified.”
(This is still a stumbling-'block.) “God forbid that I should glory save
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “I declare unto you the gospel
which I preached unto you which also you have received and wherein
you stand, by which also you are saved.” What now is that gospel ? Paul
has just said that he is declaring unto the Church in Corinth the gospel.
“I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” And Paul received
it from Christ. “I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was

RECENT LITERATURE 687

preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

The author goes further : “So inseparably associated in the Christian’s
mind are the teachings of Jesus and the unique personality of their
author, that the acceptance of his programme of life, as a standard of
faith and conduct, is customarily known as ‘accepting Christ’.” That is,
if we accept the teachings of Jesus and attempt to live by them, we can
say that we have accepted Christ.

Is that true? Dr. Joseph Klausner is one of the great living Hebrew
scholars. He is a professor in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He
says that the Jews ought to accept the teachings of Christ. He looks
forward to the time when “the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest
treasures in the literature of Israel for all time.” But Dr. Klausner does
not accept Christ. He repudiates Him as the Saviour of men. To him
the thought of Jesus as God to be worshipped is impious and blasphe-
mous.

Rabbi Stephen S. Wise says that “the Jews must accept Christ as a
Jewish teacher and accept his ethical code.” But Rabbi Wise will have
nothing to do with Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of men. To
accept the teachings of Jesus is not equivalent to accepting Christ. Paul
did not say, “I know the body of truth which I have believed and I am
persuaded that it is able to keep me.” Paul said, “I know whom I have
believed.” This book emphasizes what you believe and what you are to
do. The Bible and the 'Church have emphasized Whom we 'believe and
what God has done for us. It is only in His strength that we then are
able to begin to live out, to some extent, at least, the teachings of Christ.

Dr. Douglas’ interpretations of some of the parables are original,
practical and very suggestive.

N orristown. Pa. J. M. Corum, Jr.

The Man Nobody Knows. A Discovery of the Real Jesus. By Bruce
Barton. Author of “What Shall It Profit a Man.” The Bobbs-
Merrill Company, Indianapolis. 1925. Pages : Preface (unpaged)
and 220. Price $2.50.

The over-pretentious title of this book and the deserved reputation
of its author have doubtless lured many readers. Despite the effusive
ministerial commendations put out by the publishers, it is difficult to
see how its conspicuous superficiality can lead to anything but disap-
pointment for those who do know the Jesus of the New Testament. Pre-
tending to be “a discovery of the real Jesus,” this is what it is not.
What Mr. Barton has done is to dress up a more or less imaginary and
distorted Jesus in the realistic garb of the modem reporter’s terminol-
ogy. By so doing, he has made a vivid picture, but a wholly misleading
one. Jesus is presented as the Executive, the Outdoor Man, the Sociable
Man, the Founder of Modern Business, and the Master. Two chapters
give His methods and advertisements.

Nobody will deny anybody’s privilege of making ^Christ real to the
present age. That is our duty. In so doing, however, there is a certain

688

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

limit beyond which such realism has no right to go. That line is drawn
by the historical facts of Christ’s life and His plain teaching. Over-
influenced by a lively imagination and a certain anti-theological bias, Mr,
Barton falls into repeated exaggeration and overstatement. For in-
stance, he says (p. 67; cf. pp. 58, 181) that at first Christ’s preaching
resembled the Baptist’s in its sternness, but gradually this note of warn-
ing diminished and God became the loving Father. But a reading of the
Sermon on the Moiunt, which came in the middle of the Galilean
ministry, compared with the open denunciations of the Pharisees and
the eschatalogical discourses and parables (Matt. 23-25), which belong
in His last week, will show how unreliable such a statement is. Again,
when he -writes up a first-page report of Christ’s rebuking the Pharisees,
and His insistence on mercy rather than ceremonial sacrifice, and quotes
Christ in headline as saying “Creeds Unimportant ’’ (p. 132), we know
it is Mr. Barton’s anti-creedal bias that is speaking, not the real Jesus,
for the historical Christ never said or intimated anything of the kind.
Christ came not to “establish a theology but to lead a life’’ (p. 136).
Surely, this old fallacy has worked overtime ! As if you could ultimately
separate philosophy and history, ethics and conduct ! Peter’s commended
confession (Matt. 16:13-20) and John’s intimate assertions in John
i:i-i8, 20:30-31, and his clear reaction against Gnostic tendencies, as
evinced in his epistles, might help to a clearer understanding of the
“real” Jesus. To take another example, Mr. Barton (pp. 180-181) ac-
cuses Theology of giving us a Jesus so divine that He could not possibly
be tempted. “He -was born differently from the rest of us, Theologj-
insists. He did not belong among us at all, but came down from Heaven
on a brief visit, spent a few years in reproving men for their mistakes,
died and went back to Heaven again. A hollow bit of stage-play. What
chance for temptation in such a career?” (p. 180). Plainly, this is the
hasty utterance of an undiscriminating mind. There is here no serious
intention to approach the mystery of the theanthropic Jesus. The Christ
of the New Testament is both (jod and man, and as man He was truly
tempted. The rationale of this is theology, which is so distasteful to Mr.
Barton. Yet even he is theological enough to be quite sure that Christ’s
consciousness of His deity must have come to Him in the solitude of
nature (pp. 8-12). He is also sure that Christ did not interpret His
miracles as His followers did (p. 46), and that, at this distance, the
whole problem of His miracles is beyond us: we accept them or reject
them according to the make-up of our own minds (p. 65). This must be
temperamental theology. It seems to be the specific type of eclecticism
which the author avows.

The pages are full of these wild, unstudied statements. Paul is made
to congratulate the Athenians on “having so many fine religions” (p.
103). A careful reader of Acts 17:22 (SeicriSai/uoi/ecrTtpow) knows
that this was not the apostle’s idea at all. He was far from commending
their religions. Again : Mary is represented as bidding Jesus to go to bed
early as the people would be wanting to see Him at the synagogue the
next day. (p. 197). This shows how far the imagination can go when

RECENT LITERATURE

689

given the rein, and how dangerously near, in principle, it may come
to the unhistorical Christ of the Apocryphal Gospels. Both are imagined.
And w'hat seems perfectly innocent may not be so at all.

What amazes one is that this should be proclaimed as a “discovery of
the real Jesus.” How easy it is to draw on one’s imagination, drag Jesus
out of His oriental setting into occidental forms of thought and
expression quite foreign to Him and His first and truly accredited
biographers, and then persuade one’s self and a few others that this is
the real Jesus. It is the same temptation to which some modern transla-
tions of the Bible so easily succumb. But what is the “real” Jesus? To
say that Jesus was a forceful executive, an outdoor man, a sociable
man, an advertiser, and a keen business man, is but to touch the inci-
dental periphery of His life. All this may be very novel and interesting,
and harmless so long as it adheres strictly to fact. But it is not the big
thing about Jesus. It is of little moment .whether Jesus ever laughed or
not. By their silence the evangelists may have so regarded it. Burt
Christ’s command to repent, His instructions given to His disciples. His
teachings with regard to Himself and the Kingdom of God, His Deity,
His sacrificial atonement, His resurrection from the dead, and His
return to judge the world, these are the big things that constitute the
real Jesus of the New Testament; so much so, that any other Jesus
is unreal and hopelessly inadequate.

It is here that this book breaks down. Overconcerned with the nice-
ties and pleasantries of Christ’s social life, it misses that for which He
really lived and died. The closing chapter (p. 193) sets down as the
final tests of a man’s living two questions; “How does he bear disap-
pointment? How does he die?” But, in all soberness, are these the
final tests of a human life? The Stoic and the ascetic bore disappoint-
ment as few others. Yet we would scarcely accept Stoicism or asceti-
cism as the final criterion of life. And as to dying, the final test is not
so much how a man dies, but what is it that he dies for? This book does
not discuss Christ as Saviour. In fact, John’s beautiful and meaningful
description of Him as “the Lamb of God” is repeatedly scorned by Mr.
Barton. It is too sissified (Preface, and pp. 39, 59). This author wants
no “meek and lowly” Jesus, no “man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief.” Accordingly, the vicarious view of the atonement is caricatured,
as we would expect (pp. 59-60). The Father, having sentenced all to
death, is persuaded to commute the sentence by the suffering of His
best-beloved. But the sentence was not commuted. It was death in both
cases. A sentence is not commuted when a legal substitute is provided.
In this new “discovery of the real Jesus,” there is no idea of any
satisfaction for sin, which bulks so large in Matthew 20:28 (Mark
10:45), in Isaiah, and in the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and the
Hebrews. How can we possibly have the real Jesus with this left out?

In 1917, under the title More Power to You, Mr. Barton published a
collection of fifty editorials from Every Week. These were exceedingly
clever, written in a trenchant style, and evincing some clear thinking.
How different is this book! Mr. Barton understands the art of writing

690

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

editorials. But in The Man Nobody Knows he has produced a book
which, overpraised, overpriced, and lacking in sound scholarship where
sound scholarship was most needed, is regrettable. It is, too, we should
remind ourselves, a book which, with its persistent reading into the
records what is not there, could very easily prove mischievous and per-
nicious, though, of course, never so intended by its author.

Lancaster, Ohio. Benjamin F. Paist.

Modern Missions in Mexico. By W. Reginald Wheeler, Dwight H.
Day, James B. Rodgers. Philadelphia; The Westminster Press
1925. Pp. xi, 291. Price $2.50.

From Over the Border. A Study of Mexicans in the United States. By
Vernon Monroe McCombs. Council of Women for Home Missions
and Missionary Education Movement. New York. 1925. Pp. 192.
Price Cloth $.75, Paper $.50.

The first volume is the outcome of a two months’ trip through Mexico
made in the autumn of 1922 by a committee representing the Board of
Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. The first
part of the book gives an account of the mission stations visited, and
the second part is a study of the general religious and educational con-
ditions of our southern neighbor. Under the plan adopted several years
ago by the majority of the missionary boards operating in Mexico, the
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. was assigned for the most part the
inaccessible portions of the Republic inhabited by ignorant and un-
evangelized Indians. The emphasis is placed as in so much of the
missionary literature of the day more upon education for the improve-
ment of economic conditions and less on the results of direct evange-
listic effort. In the very backward State of Chiapas, for example, the
story is of a much needed agricultural project in education initiated and
carried through by one of the Board’s missionaries with such success
that it attracted the attention of the Federal authorities and became the
model for similar efforts elsewhere. The Mexican kaleidoscope changes
so frequently that it is to be regretted that the book was published three
years after the short journey was made when new problems had arisen
and new conditions had to be faced. The material suffers from lack of
orderly presentation, and the opinions expressed are rather those of the
traveller who passes than of the student who lingers. These unavoidable
characteristics are compensated for by the vividness of the impressions
received and the interesting ways of expression. The story of the trip
and the opinions it called forth are well worth reading, and we are sure
that those who study these pages attentively will gain a more intelligent
appreciation of the educational and evangelistic problem presented by
“Old” Mexico.

Dr. McComb’s book describes the present condition of the Mexicans
in the United States, the large number of whom already here is con-
stantly increasing because of an immigration not subject to quota as is
that from the countries of Europe. In a series of pictures vivid as
those we see moving past on the screen, the author enlightens us on

RECENT LITERATURE

691

Mexican life “above” the border, how contacts may be made with these
Mexican neighbors of ours, what has been accomplished by education
and what still remains to be done, what the Mexicans believe, and the
manner and success of the religious work carried on for their benefit.
The problem of Mexico and the Mexicans is now much in the public
mind, and the solutions proposed are exceedingly many and varied. The
Christian who holds that no one of our racial problems can be solved
without the presentation of the gospel of 'Christ will find here much in-
formation for intelligent action and intercessory prayer.

Each volume is followed by a bibliography of relevant books and
articles, but unfortunately neither has an index.

Lincoln University, Pa. George Johnson.

Broken Lights: A Short Study on the Varieties of Christian Opinion.

By Harold Begbie. New York : George H. Doran Company. 1926.

173 pages.

This book contains in a revised and somewhat enlarged form a series
of articles contributed by Mr. Begbie to an 'English newspaper, the
Daily Mail. Its author writes in the belief that “if the average thought-
ful man, whose mind is at present undecided what to believe, could find
in a single volume, and expressed in quite simple and untechnical lan-
guage, the reasons which induce various devoted men to believe what
they do believe it would help him to come to a more rational decision
concerning his own opinions.” Such a book, written in a well-informed
and objective manner, and not as a bit on propaganda, would meet a
real need. We hardly think, however, that Mr. Begbie has supplied us
with such a book. If we mistake not he is not so much interested in
telling us what other men believe as in commending his own conception
of the origin and nature of religion. The real object of the book is ex-
pressed when its author writes: “Therefore this book has two objects:
to stimulate interest in religion on the part of the average man, and to
remind the experts and officials in charge of religious institutions that in
all those matters which divide them the spirit is of infinitely greater
importance than the letter” — ^provided we keep in mind the sort of re-
ligion in which Mr. Begbie seeks to promote an interest. The following
paragraphs indicate his viewpoint which is thorough-going in its adop-
tion of the evolutionary explanation of all things, including religion and
morality — “Is it more reasonable to suppose that this epic of evolution,
which from a microscopical germ has produced self-conscious personality
with its invisible values, and its ideal of sacrifice, is a meaningless acci-
dent, signifying nothing; or that self-conscious personality, aspiring
onwards, is only a stage on life’s journey through a boundless uni-
verse?”; “Religion in our time teaches men to think of Christianity as a
means of deepening and intensifying this aspiration of the individual
soul on which the whole progress of the world depends, and bids them
come to Christianity, if they would understand it, not troubled by theo-
logical difficulties, and not to argue about this dogma or that, but be-
lieving that Christ can direct their aspirations toward the path of im-

692

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

mortality.” How thoroughly naturalistic Mr. Begbie is in his thinking
is indicated by the fact that he quotes approvingly a statement that we
live in a world that has definitely decided ‘‘to make a bonfire of all
speculations unsupported either by comparison with observation, or by
reasoning based on natural knowledge.”

As the title suggests Mr. Begbie regards the varieties of religious
opinion as so many beams of light “'broken from the white radiancy of
Eternity.” The varieties of “Christian opinion” dealt with are Roman
Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, Liberal Evangelicalism, Conservative
Modernism, Left Wing Modernism and Practical Mysticism — to use
Mr. Begbie’s terminology. Additional chapters deal with “Modernism
in General” and ‘'Modern Agnosticism.” It will be noticed that the only
outstanding variety of Christian opinion that receives no treatment
other than vituperative, is the Evangelical — what we regard as Chris-
tianity in its only pure and satisfactory form. It would have been more
accurate and have conduced to clarity of thought, it seems to us, if in-
stead of speaking of “Liberal Evangelicalism,” “Conservative Modern-
ism” and “Left Wing Modernists” he had spoken of Modernists of the
right wing, center, and left wing respectively, seeing that they differ
only as regards the thoroughness and consistency with which they carry
out the principles of Modernism. Mr. Begbie perceives that “the left
Wing of Modernism is in extreme conflict with the Catholic Church,
and that the nature of its conflict separates Modernism not one whit less
completely from all the other Churches of Christendom than from the
Mother Church of Rome,” a perception that should lead him to recog-
nize that Modernism in any of its consistent manifestations is a religion
other than Christianity.

Mr. Begbie has given us an interesting but not very sympathetic or
well-informed study of certain varieties of religious opinion — Christian
and non^Christian — not for their own sake but for the sake of com-
mending his own mistaken conception of the origin and function of
religion.

Princeton. S. G. Craig.

The Leaven of the Sadducees ; or. Old and New Apostasies. By Ernest

Gordon. Chicago : The Bible Institute Colportage Association. 1926.

263 pages. Cloth $1.50; paper $1.00.

This able, fearless, and thought-provoking volume is an exposition
of the statement — quoted on the title page — of the late Charles W.
Eliot : “We trust the Unitarian doctrine and practice to leaven the inert
mass of archaic religious opinion. The penetration has been accom-
plished and the leaven has worked wonderfully.” It is Mr. Gordon’s
earnest belief that Modernism is Neo-Unitarianism and as such an
apostasy from the Christian religion. He treats Modernism, therefore,
as a phase of Unitarianism, often wearing the guise of Orthodoxy, and
the value of his book lies in the evidence which it affords ms of the
marked extent to which the leaven of Unitarianism has pervaded re-
ligious thought and life in these United States. Mr. Gordon maintains.

RECENT LITERATURE

693

moreover, that the rapid spread of Unitarianism has been the result of
tactics not always honorable. The evidence of wide-spread apostasy as
well as the evidence of dishonorable tactics is drawn from many sources
and is, we think, well-substantiated. This book has already attracted wide
attention. It sounds a warning to Evangelicals against encroaching
Modernism. It calls for an answer not only from the Modernists them-
selves but even more from those who have been co-workers with Uni-
tarians.

The opening chapter treats of “The Unitarian Defection in New Eng-
land.’’ The second chapter compares “Christian Missions and Unitarian
Missions” and shows that while the beginnings of the modern missionary
movement coincided with the Unitarian apostasy in America, both foreign
missions and home missions are practically non-existent among Unita-
rians. The third chapter entitled “The Good Works of Unitarianism”
points out the baselessness of the claim that Unitarians excel the Evan-
gelicals in observing the command to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
We get to the heart of the book in the next tvro chapters. Chapter four,
entitled “Unitarian Skepticism and Unitarian .Schemes” shows, in the
first place, that present-day Unitarians repudiate virtually every dis-
tinctive Christian belief, many of them being humanists rather than
theists. It maintains, moreover, that Unitarians are ceaselessly active in
their efforts to get into the Y.M.C.A., Y.W.C.A, the Federal Council of
Churches, and other organizations of evangelical Christianity, and,
quoting representative Unitarians, seeks to establish not only the claim
that their motive is to leaven these organizations with their teachings
but the further claim that their methods are often underhanded. These
quotations seem to make clear not only that there are crypto-Unitarians
in evangelical churches but that they remain there with the approval and
following the advice of confessed Unitarians. Chapter five is in many
respects the most significant in the book. It concerns “The Religious
Education Association” and charges that while this organization has a
smoke-screen of evangelical members it is largely dominated by Uni-
tarians or their sympathizers. Our author especially deplores the fact
that so many Bible chairs in colleges are in charge of teachers in close
touch with this organization. Take this significant statement: “That the
Religious Education Association with its Jews and Unitarians, its Leubas
and Starbucks, should actually be engaged in drawing up a religious-
educational scheme for the Christian institutions of the country is perhaps
the last word in effrontery. Yet this is the case, and its department of
universities and colleges, of which the free-thinker Professor Starbuck
has been the executive secretary, has a committee for the standardization
of college and university Biblical departments which has been at work
seven years, and has classified about three hundred of the colleges.” The
Religious Education Association, if our author is at all correct, consti-
tutes a real peril in its efforts to dominate the religious education of the
American youth. Chapters six and seven make it their task to show the
extent to which Unitarianism has leavened the theological seminaries of
the United States. “The Looting of Andover” is described as a classic

694

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

example of that pillaging that has ordinarily accompanied the march of
Unitarianism. That the worse may be yet to come is indicated by the
chapter deailing with “The Apostate Seminaries.” Evidence of apostasy
is brought to light in connection with Union Theological Seminary of
New York, The Divinity School of 'Chicago, Newton, Rochester, Crozer,
Colgate, Oberlin, Hartford, Garrett Biblical Institute, and Boston
University School of Theology — with no profession of having exhausted
the list of seminaries whose teachings, in part at least, are anti-Chris-
tian.

The final chapter “Modern Antiques of the Old and the New Enlight-
enment” shows that both the theology and the tactics of the Modernists
are borrowed from the past, more particularly that so-called Modernism
is little more than the Rationalism of the eigheenth century appearing
under a new name.

Written in langauge understandable by all this book deals with an
insidious attack on evangelical Christianity which must be met and
overcome if the Christianity of the New Testament, and of the ages,
is to continue to be a dominating factor in the religious life of the
American people.

Princeton. S. G. Craig.

Jesus and Our Generation. By Charles Whitney Gilkey, A.M., D.D.,
minister of the Hyde Park Baptist Church. Chicago. Chicago : The
University of Chicago Press. 1925. 183 pages.

This book contains “The Barrows Lectures” for 1924-1925 — the first to
be delivered on this foundation since the 1912-1913 lectures by the late
Charles R. Henderson. Its author is a well-known popular expounder of
modern religious liberalism who has been much in demand as a speaker
in the colleges and universities of the United States. His appointment
to this lectureship afforded him an opportunity to carry on this work
among the students of India. We are told that forty thousand persons
in six great Indian student centers — ^Bombay, Lucknow, Lahore, Cal-
cutta, Rangoon in Burma, and Madras — heard these lectures. Dr. Gilkey
comes forward as a speaker to and for the younger generation. What he
seeks to do is to present Jesus Himself as our own generation sees Him
in the belief not only that Jesus is the source and sum of what is most
central and vital in the Christian religion but that this vision of Jesus
is the acute spiritual need of our western world as truly as it is of the
Orient. Dr. Gilkey was well qualified for the task assigned him. Inasmuch
as the object in view was to present the Jesus of modern religious liber-
alism to the students of India, in an attractive rather than an erudite
way, the Barrows Trustees could hardly have selected a lecturer better
fitted to further their purpose.

We fully agree with Dr. Gilkey as to the central significance of Jesus
not only for the Christian religion but for the generation of which we
are a part. What He has meant for past generations, He means for this
generation. And what He has meant for the generations past and what
He means for the generation present. He will mean for the generations

RECENT LITERATURE

695

to come ; because He remains the same yesterday, today and forever.
In our judgment, however, the real Jesus — the historical as well as
living Jesus as contrasted with the mythical Jesus — and so the only Jesus
in whom with adequate intelligence we can put our trust for time and
eternity is a very different Jesus than the one set forth in the lec-
tures. In these lectures Jesus nowhere appears as the living object of
our faith who because of His life on earth and His sacrificial death is
qualified to be our saviour from the gfuilt and power of sin. In these
lectures, as Dr. Gilkey puts it, “we have steadily understood and inter-
preted essential Christianity as a way of life, incarnated in Jesus him-
self”— a mode of presentation that is good as far as it goes but which
omits what is most vital to Christian faith and hope. Because, in our
judgment, the liberalism of which Dr. Gilkey is so able and eloquent a
spokesman is something other than real Christianity we are unable to
believe that the students of India have a better knowledge of the
Christian religion by reason of having heard them. There is a need of
lectures on the “Relations of Christianity and the Other Religions” —
and so of the Barrows Lectureship — ’but it seems to us that it is useless
to expect a helpful discussion of this important theme by one who in
many respects has a false and in all respects an adequate conception of
what Christianity is.

Princeton. S. G. Craig.

The Virgin’s Son. By John B. Champion, M.A., B.D. Chicago: The
Bible Institute Colportage Association. 1924. Pp. 160.

This work is a vigorous discussion of the Virgin Birth and related
topics, especially suited to the intelligent layman. It is sound and
discriminating. To the reviewer its chief value is in showing how a
vigorous mind connects the Virgin Birth with truth about the Scriptures
and the deity of Christ. Practically this one little fact, as it seems to
be regarded by some who admit it, is so tied up with Inspiration, the
Atonement, and the Person of our Lord, that those who reject or doubt
the Virgin Birth are, as a rule, to be found denying or doubting also the
authority of Scripture, the Atonement, and the Deity of Christ. This
little book is commended as maintaining a truth in its relations to the
system of truth.

West New Brighton, N.Y. F. P. Ramsay.

Do Fundamentalists Play Fair? By Professor Wiluam Mentzel
Forrest of the University of Virginia. New York: The Macmillan
Co. 1926.

The author who speaks of himself as “having been free born, amtram-
meled by any ordination vow not to outgrow a creed or somebody’s inter-
pretation of Scripture,” etc., cannot be expected to shine like a fixed
star, but rather to glow for a moment like a meteor, and then vanish.

The point of the work is that Fundamentalists play “No Fair” with
their opponents all along the line. Banning Evolution from the public
schools without banning the whole of Biology is “No Fair.” By the same
process it is “No Fair” to permit Geology and Astronomy to remain

696

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

after Evolution has been banished. With semi-satirical and not quite
good natured reasoning he tries to force Fundamentalists to retain
Usher’s Bible chronology or play “No Fair.’’ The writer claims that all
the foundations on which the Fundamentalists build their beliefs are
only “assumptions,” and it is “No Fair” for them to condemn Modern-
ists or Liberals who make other “assumptions.” Professor Forrest
evidently is confused as to the meaning of the term “assumptions,”
overlooking the difference between an assumption that must he because
of its solid basis of fact, and the assumption that only may be, and even
some that cannot he. The argument threshes old straw and sometimes
rattles old bones, when it rehearses the worn out strictures of Colonel
Ingersoll on the mistakes of Moses and the abhorrence of the same
agnostic for the substitutionary atonement. “When God is enslaved by
any inexorable law which eternally damns everybody who does not
believe that he had to slay his son before he could forgive the penitent,
then there will be no God and Father of our Lord Jesus 'Christ left in
the universe” (p. 81).

This sentence is a sample of the author’s statement of fact and method
of reasoning. This is the heart of the book, and, we fear, the heart of the
writer ; and still more do we fear that it may become the heart of some
of the students of the University of Virginia.

Minneapolis, Minn. John Tallmadge Bergen.

A Gold Dollar. Studies in Nature and Life. By Joseph M. Duff, Ph.D.,
D.D. Fleming H. Revell Company. Pp. 138.

Are a minister’s sermons too bookish? Do they have too much of the
flavor of the study? Are they too much burdened with theology and
philosophy? Dr. Duff has practical advice for such a minister. Let him
buy an acre of land in the country near a brook. Let him spend his
vacation there. Let him have a few fruit trees and flowers and work at
it all in his own way. “For ten months to come the tremble of water
running over flat rocks and the dancing of sunlight sifted down through
leaves vVill be in your sermons.”

The past sweeps before your eyes again and again. The author
rambles through legends, through old churches and graveyards and the
history of pioneers and Indian raids. He entertains you in a truly
delightful way. His own love for the out-of-doors is most manifest.
The imagination has a very large place in the book but it is under a
sane control.

Now and then your heart is touched by a bit of tenderness. A drunk-
ard was being buried. “It was pitiful for one that loved the earth and
felt its beauty as he did to be going under ground away from it all
forever.”

The last essay in the book, “Hill 258,” tells of the death of Dr. Duff’s
son in France. It will be a real comfort to all who have lost loved ones.
Such a son is to be expected from such a father.

Dr. Duff calls his book “Studies in Nature and Life.” It is a most
wholesome book.

Norristown. Pa.

J. M. Corum, Jr.

RECENT LITERATURE 697

Songs of the Royal Way. By Richard Arnold Greene. Boston: The
Straford Company. 1925. Crown 8vo. Pp. 93.

This little volume contains about thirty poems of varying length,
dealing with the great facts, doctrines, aspirations and ideals of Chris-
tian faith and life. The longest poem is called “The Crucifixion”; and
there are others which celebrate the birth, the baptism, the temptation,
the transfiguration, the resurrection and the ascension of our Lord. All
the themes are treated in a deeply earnest and devout spirit. The note
of thanksgiving and adoration, of aspiration, consecration and exhorta-
tion is constantly present. The motive of the author in writing them is
well expressed by the closing stanza of the song “Christmas Praise” ; and
it also suggests the reason that the collection is called Songs of the
Royal Way:

May sin by us afar be driven !

We would not block the Royal Way:

Ourselves, our all be newly given.

Lord Christ, to Thee, this Christmas Day!

The poem in the collection which seems to us to be the best is the one
called “The New Body.” It is a long one, twenty-five verses, and
cannot be reproduced in full. But the six stanzas which are given below
will enable the reader to form a correct idea of it:

How shall we know them in His stainless regions, —

Our friends before us taken home to God?

How shall we find, amidst the ransomed legions.

The comrades, long in tender memory stored?

* * *

We “know in part.” At Jesus’ resurrection
When He the Magdalene called by name.

She knew His voice ; she caught the old inflection
Of love that banished all her fear and shame.

The voice that Mary heard ; the look so tender
That glorified the morning with its light

Were those that once had drawn her to surrender
Her sinful soul to Jesus in His might.

* * *

And we shall know those for awhile departed.

Since, Jesus own, they shall like Him arise —

Your voice, your touch we’ll know, oh! friends true hearted;

Your beaming smile; your tender, loving eyes.

* * ♦

We know the body of the resurrection
Will be the best that priceless Love can give —

For spirit, freed ; a body of perfection
That for our risen iSaviour’s praise shall live.

698

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

How glad. Lord Jesus, with the hope victorious
Should be Thine own, though knowing but “in part,” —

Blest with the promise of the resurrection glorious,

When, like Thee, we shall see Thee as Thou art !

* ♦ *

The dedication of this collection of verses is as follows : “To all de-
fenders of the faith once delivered to the saints this book is dedicated in
sympathy and gratitude by one who wouild join their army.” We feel
that especially in this poem from which we have just quoted Mr. Greene
has showed himself a worthy and skilful defender of the faith. He has
treated of a theme which has often caused anxious questionings even to
very earnest Christians, — recognition after death. “How shall we know,”
“how shall we find,” “with what new form invested, shall we behold” —
“our friends before us taken home to God”? The author has presented
the Christian argument very effectively and beautifully. We commend this
poem to those who are longing for ‘the touch of a vanish’d hand, and
the sound of a voice that is still.’ For it is full of the rich consolations
of the Gospel and shows clearly how well grounded is the blessed hope
that “We’ll know each other in the glory waiting.”

Princeton. Oswald T. Allis.

Five Minutes Daily With Luther. Daily Lessons from the Writings of
Martin Luther. By John Theodore Mueller, Professor of System-
atic Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, St. 'Louis, Mo.
New York; The Macmillan Co. 1926. Pages vii., 375. Leather.
Price $2.50.

These daily studies of Luther cover a year of 366 days. The exposi-
tions are taken mostly from Luther’s commentaries on Galatians, First
and Second Peter, and Jude. Five are on the Apostles’ Creed and ten
on the Lord’s Prayer. Each day’s reading covers a page, closing with
a stanza or two of a hymn or poem, of which several are repeated. An
index of passages and one of subjects are placed at the close of the
book.

Beautifully bound and printed, the book suffers from a proof-reading
far from expert, as the folloiwing examples will show : Read “Christ”
for “Chrsit,” p. 21, middle; “there” for “their,” p. 130, line 8 from
below; “he” for “be,” p. 145, top (in the text) ; “Lest” for “Let,” p. 231,
third line of hymn ; “by” for “be,” p. 235, third line of the hymn. Omit
“those,” p. 299, line 18. Insert “the” before “rejoicing” in the text at
top of p. 347. Read “writes” for “writers,” p. 355, line i. Did Luther
write (p. 216) that “already one thousand nine hundred years” had
passed since I Peter 4:7a was written? Either the dates, October ii and
9, or the material on pages 283 and 285 will have to be transposed.

The brief selections are not only good devotional matter: they are
also compact and wisely chosen examples of Luther’s distinctive teach-
ings on grace. Scripture, sacraments, the Law, and the various relations
of the Christian life. The two indices serve as most helpful reference
guides.

Lancaster, Ohio.

Benjamin F. Paist.

RECENT LITERATURE

699

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

American Church Monthly, New York, July: Campbell Gray, Mission
of the Church ; J. G. H. Barry, Place of Mysticism in Religion : F. J.
Foakes Jackson, Council of Trent on the Scriptures; Frederick S.
Arnold, Platonism; Emanuel A. Lemoine, Stoic and Christian Views
of Suicide. The Same, August: Sheldon M. Griswold, Spiritual Vision;
Frederick S. Arnold, Quality of the Clergy; John M. McGann, Death
in the Vernacular; E. Sinclair Hertell, Parish Priests in Medieval
England; C. H. Palmer, The Assyrians. The Same, September: E. J.
Eoakes Jackson, Council of Trent’s Eailure at Reform ; T. Bowyer
Campbell, Liturgy of the Mass; Alfred S. Newberry, The Proposed
Child Labor Amendment; William C. White, Erasmus the Catholic
Reformer.

American Journal of Philology, Baltimore, June: G. L. Hendrickson,
Cicero de Optimo Genere Oratorum ; Tenney Erank, Commentary on
the Inscription from Henchir Mettich in Africa; A. W. van Buren,
Epigraphical Salvage from Pompeii.

Anglican Theological Review, Afiddletown, July: Henry Davies, The
Future of the Episcopal Church in America ; Herbert H. Gowen, The
Egyptian Hallel; J. F. Springer, Aramaic and the Synoptic Problem.

Biblical Review, New York, July: John A. Faulkner, John’s Gospel
in 'Church History; A. T. Robertson, Text of Matthew 1:16; G. G.
Warren, Study in Galatians 2:15-21; Albert C. Wyckoff, The Down-
fall of the Mechanistic Dynasty; E. M. Martinson, Peter, a Fallen
Minister Restored; Howard T. Kuist, Shechem and the Bones of Joseph.

Bibliotheca Sacra, St. Louis, July: Robert M. Kerr, The Gospel: In-
dividual or Social ; George AIoC. Price, On Being a Good Scientific
Sport; A. W. Lewis, Efficiency of Sermons; C. P. Huizenga, Views of
Church and State.

Canadian Journal of Religious Thought, Toronto, July-August: W.
Morgan, Religion’s Right and Value; S. P. Rose, The Church at Wor-
ship; F. J. Moore, Catholic and Free; Bernard T. Holden, Visions of
Zechariah ; Richard Davidson, Catholicism ; J. Y. Campbell, The Apos-
tolic Decree in Acts 15: 29.

Catholic Historical Review, Washington, April : M. Theodosia O’Cal-
laghan, Echoes of Gallicanism in New Erance ; C. J. Kirkfleet, Inter-
national Eucharistic Congresses; William P. H. Kitchin, Cardinal
Mercier.

Congregational Quarterly, London, July: H. Bulcock, Idea of God;
Harry J. Woods, Religion in the City of Cells; A. Landon, Harmony of
Immortality ; E. J. Powicke, Richard Baxter’s Ruling Passion : H. J.
Cowell, An Oberlin Centenary; John Phillips, Barth’s Theology of
Crisis; A. W. Jackson, ‘^Christian Science”: an Inquiry.

Crozer Quarterly, Philadelphia, July: Douglas C. Macintosh, Bap-
tists and Church Union ; Eugene E. Ayres, Art and Dramatism in
Worship; Erank L. Anderson, Readjustments of the Modern Minister;
Albert H. Newman, An Orthodox Heretic of the Fourth Century;

700

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Ralph W. Nelson, Evolving Christian Ideas and the Problem of Terms.

Expositor, Cleveland, September: John A. Hutton, Why God May
Lead Us by the Round-about Way; Roy L. Smith, Making New the
Old; Murdock MacKinnon, Religion as a Remainder; Charles G.
Clark, Analytical and Synthetical Preaching.

Expository Times, Edinburgh, June: Alfred Guillaume, The Mid-
rash in the Gospels ; Adam C. Welch, Some Misunderstood Psalms,
Psalm 20; A. D. Martin, The Parable Concerning Hospitality; T.
Crouther Gordon, Theology and Archaeology. The Same, July: W. R.
Matthews, Recent Thought on the Doctrine of Immortality; James
Reid, Parable of the Ten Virgins; F. J. Rae, Changes in Religious
Thought in the Last Fifty Years; J. Rendel Harris, Accent and Em-
phasis. The Same, August: Stanley A. Cook, Recent Excavations in
Palestine; A. J. Gossip, How Christ Won Through; C. Ryder Smith,
Social Teaching of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Books; Buchanan
Blake, “He Descended into Hell.”

Homiletic Review, New York, July: Wm. H. Leach, American and
British Preaching; Wm. J. May, Yesterday and Tomorrow; E. C. Lin-
deman. Is Preaching a Valid Method? ; How I Set My Church to Work.
The Same, August: Worth M. Tippy, Church Buildings in Hot Qi-
mates; John R. Scotford, What the Undertaker Thinks of the Minister;
Alfred W. Anthony, The Pastor’s Relation to the Making of Wills ;
R. W. Settle, Preaching a Personal Matter; Fred Smith, Concerning
the Children’s Sermonet. The Same, September: Frances S. Dean,
Archbishop Tirayer, Primate of the Church of Armenia; John A.
Stover, The Perfect Sermon ; Marvin M. Walters, Making the
Farmer’s Service Worshipful; Wm. R. Glen, What the Minister May
Learn from the Lawyer; Timothy as Peter Pan; W. H. Geistweit,
Plans for a Year.

Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, July: A. Buchler, The Levi-
tical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine before the Year 70; Jacob
Mann, Note on “Some Judeo-Arabic Legal Documents”; Louis Finkel-
STEiN, Jewish Sacrifices and Festivals.

Journal of Biblical Literature, New Haven, 45 : 1-2 : J. A. Bewer, The
Hellenistic Mystery Religion and The Old Testament; S. J. Case, Jesus
and Sepphoris; B. W. Bacon, The Q Section on John and the Shemoneh
Esrelf, M. Burrows, The Johannine Prologiue as Aramaic Verse; J. A.
Montgomery, The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse ; R. O.
Kevin, The Lost Ending of the Gospel According to Mark; A. M.
Perry, On the Reporting of Miracles ; G. R. Driver, Aramaic of the
Book of Daniel; W. T. McCree, The Covenant Meal in the Old Testa-
ment ; J. Martin, A Famine Element in the Flood Story ; S. Feigen,
The Babylonian Officials in Jeremiah 39:3, 13; F. C. Burkitt, Micah 6
and 7 a Northern Prophecy; J. Gamble, Symbol and Reality in the
Epistle to the Hebrews.

Journal of Negro History, Washington, July: A. A. Taylor, The
Negro in Reconstruction of Virginia (con.).

Journal of Religion, Chicago, July: Rudolph Bultmann, The New

RECENT LITERATURE

701

Approach to the Synoptic Problem ; William A. Browx, A Century of
Theological Education and After; Archibald G. Baker, Twenty-five
Years of Thought Concerning Protestant Foreign Missions; J. M.
Powis Smith, Recent History of Old Testament Interpretation.

London Quarterly Review, London, July : J. Scott Lidgett, John
Wesley and John H. Newman; Coulson Kernah.'^n, The League of
Nations — or What?; Henry Bett, The Problem of Prayer; Vincent
Taylor, The Four Document Hypothesis; A. M. Chirgwin, Extra-
Territoriality in China; Ernest G. Braham, The Kantian Ethic; J. A.
Faulkner, Were the lEarly Christians Trinitarians?

Lutheran Church Review, Philadelphia, July: John O. Evjen, Luther’s
Ideas concerning Church Polity; John Aberly, Christian Frederick
Schwartz; Philip J. Hoh, John Frederick Oberlin ; Albert T. W.
Steinhauser, Luther’s .Small Catechism as a Manual of Devotion; John
A. W. Haas, Unity of Christian Truth.

Luthern Quarterly, Gettysburg, April: Henry Anstadt, Of Rights
and Usages, Augsburg Confession, Article xv ; W. R. Siegart, Some
Reflections on Evolution; Herbert C. Alleman, The Old Testament and
the New Psychology; J. M. Hantz, On Conscience; John A. Faulkner,
An Eminent Liberal on Luther’s Doctrine of Justification; Stinus S.
Loft, The Inner Mission Movement in Denmark.

Missionary Review of the World, New York, July: J. Scott King,
The Soil and the Spiritual Life; Ralph A. Felton, A Christian Pro-
gram for a Rural Church; Warren H. Wilson, Changes in Rural Life
During the Past Tw'enty-five Years ; A. B. Parson, The Gospel and
the Soil; John McDowell, The Real Job of the Rural Church; Mal-
colm Dana, Religious Adventure in Rural America; C. M. McConnell,
Qualifications of the Country Preacher; R. A. Adams, Religious Needs
of the Older Rural Districts; Andrew J. Montgomery, Pioneer Work
in Newer Communities; Elizabeth R. Hooker, United Churches in
Rural Communities. The Same, August : Elias Newman, Damascus in
Time of War; John S. Conning, Jesus in the Ghetto Today; Sumner
R. Vinton, Near East Relief as a Christian Mission; Melvin Fraser,
Thirty Years’ 'Changes in West Africa; Helen O. Belknap, An
Indian Mission in Arizona; William H. Cox, Fifty Years in the Island
of New Britain. The Same, September: Anthony W. Evans, A Travel-
er’s Observations in India ; Miss Ruth Muskrat wins the Prize ; George
E. Tilsley, Dan Crawford: Christian Pioneer of Africa; James Chal-
mers, Martyr of Papua; Walter B. Williams, A Miracle Wrought in
West Africa; Walter A. Squires, Rural Religious Education; Mar-
jorie Patten, The Cooperating Country Church; John R. Mott, Some
Advantages of Cooperation.

Monist, Chicago, July: Recent Philosophical Work in France and
French-Speaking Countries; Hartley B. Alexander, In the Eyes of
Youth ; Winthrop Parkhurst and W. J. Kingsland, Jr., Infinity and
Infinitesimal.

Moslem World, New York, July: J. Enderlin, The Nubians in

/02

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Egypt; Can Islam Be 'Reformed ? ; E. Stanley Jones, The Revolution in
Turkey; Mary C. Holmes, Islam in America; R. C. Das, Village
Mohammedans of Bengal : Walter T. Fairman, Approach to Moslems ;
Daisy G. Philips, The Feminist Movement in Egypt; Stephen V. R.
Trowbridge, For Egypt’s Childhood.

New Church Life, Bryn Athyn, September : Louis Pendleton, Per-
sonal Appearance of the Christ; Hugo Lj. Odhner, Sources of Early
Christian Thought.

Open Court, 'Chicago, July: Rudolph Kassner, The Leper; Lewis
Spense, The Gods of Peru; Victor S. Yarros, Leadership, Democracy,
and Culture ; Harold Berman, Gilbert K. Chesterton, Master Para-
doxist; J. V. Nash, A Modern Job; George A. P. Codwise, Descartes’
Conception of the External World; Jacob Singer, Taboo in the Hebrew
Scriptures.

Reformed Church Review, Lancaster, July: Ray H. Dotterer, Ten-
dencies in American Philosophy; H. A. Fesperman, Is the World
Growing Better ? ; A. E. Truxall, Unity and Continuity ; Alfred N.
Sayres, Fundamentals of the Christian Religion; A. Zimmerman, John
I :i-i8 and Genesis i ; A. S. Zerbe, Fossil Men and Modern Men : Albert
G. Peters, The Family as the Primary Social Unit.

Review and Expositor, Louisville, July: S. W. Hughes, Decision of
Character ; E. P. Alldredge, The Problem of Baptist Organization ; W.
W. Barnes, Progress of Baptist Principles from Jesus and Paul to
Constantine; Norman W. Cox, Tidings of the Voyage; S. P. Brooks,
The Theological Student and the World Progress; J. M. Dawson, The
Christian Emphasis on Personality.

Union Seminary Review, Richmond, July: Robert A. Lapsley, Jr.,
The New President; J. Sprole Lyons, The Pensacola General As-
sembly; Clarence E. Macartney, The Presbyterian Church and the
Nation; John A. MacLean, Jr., What is the Gospel?; Emmett W.
McCorkle, Bring Back the King; J. Gray McAllister, Our Trust-
worthy Bible; John S. Hill, Ben Lacy the Man.

Yale Review, New Haven, July: Edwin M. Borchard, Limitation
of Armaments ; Frederick J. Turner, The Children of the Pioneers ;
Raphael Demos, Education and Business; William A. Speck, New
Letters of Carlyle; Elizabeth W. DeHuff, Four Pueblo Folk-Tales.

Biblica, Roma, Julio: O. Pretzl, Septuagintaprobleme im Buch der
Richter; A. Vitti, Christus-Adam. De Paulino hoc conceptu interpre-
tando eiusque ab extraneis fontibus independentia vindicanda; J.
ScHAUMBERGER u. C. ScHocH, Iterum textus cuneiformis de Stella
Magorum ; J. Donovan, Note on the Eusebian Use of Logia.

Biblische Zeitschrift, Freiburg, 17: 1/2: Franz Wutz, Alte hebraische
Stamme im Psalmentext der Septuaginta ; Hubert Grimme, Sind in'
und mrr zwei verschiedene Namen und Begriffe?; H. Wiesmann,
Fine agyptische Quelle der Spriiche Salomons?; Joseph Freundorfer,
Eine neue Auslegung der Parabel von der “Selbstwachsenden Saat”;
Joseph Sickenberger, 1st die Magdalenen-Frage wirWich unidsbar?

Bilychnis, Roma, Maggio-Giugno : F. Rubbiani, T1 problema della

RECENT LITERATURE

703

pace problema morale ; R. Rinaldi, La dottrina religiosa della “Teorica”
Giobertiana; M. Vinciguerra, II nuovo esperimento del sindacalismo
cattolico. The Same. Luglio : R. Murri, Volonta e personalita ; M.
Favilli, II pensiero etico di P. Charron ; G. Pioli, II Messico e la sua
costituzione laica; M. Vinciguerra, L’Azione cattolica a una svolta e il
discorso del pontefice.

Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique, Toulouse, Mai-Juin; F. Cav-
allera, a propos d’une enquete patristique sur I’Assomption ; Louis
Saltet, Pretendue lettre de Jean xix sur saint Martial, fabriquee par
Ademar de Ohabannes.

Ciencki Tomista, Madrid, Juilio-Agosto : Ignacio G. Menendez-
Reigada, Unidad especifica de la contemplacion cristiana ; Luis Urbano,
Einstein y Santo Tomas ; Vicente Beltran de Heredia, Los manuscritos
de Santo Tomas, de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid.

Estudias Franciscans, Barcelona, Juny: Fermin de la Cot, Evangelio
de San Lucas; Ciril de Erzerum, Per les contrades de la Macedonia;
JosEP Garner, Cap el desarmament. The Same, Juliol : Frater Leo,
Gaudi . . . genial en tot; Ch. Dubosq, Sainte Therese de I’Enfant
Jesus; Fermin de la Cot, Evangelio de San Lucas (con.). The Same,
Agost: M. Pelegri, De la Providencia de Deu i del fi de la Creacio;
J. Carner, Cristianisme i Comunisme.

Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses, Montpellier, Juillet: Gabriel
Bouttier, Le temoignage du Sadhou Sundar Singh : L. Perrier, La
notion d’ame et la physiologic cerebrale ; L. de Saint-Andre, Les
miracles catholiques : Lourdes ; Charles Bruston, Quelques passages
obscurs du quatrieme evangile.

Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift, Aalten, Juni: Renneddy
Cameron, Het Schotsche Presbyterianisme en de Gereformeerde The-
ologie; J. J. C. Van Dijk, De Militaire dienst in het licht der Gere-
formeerde belijdenis. The Same, Juli: R. Hamming, William Teelinck;
Verslag van de I5e Algemeene Vergadering der Vereeniging van Pre-
dikanten van de Gereformeede Kerken in Nederland. The Same, Aug.;
G. Van Der Zee, Gegevens uit het kerkelijk archief van Hagestein.

Kirjath Sepher, Jerusalem, June: M. Wilensky, Abraham ibn Esra’s
books “Sepher ha Yesod” and “Sefat Yether.”

Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Tournai, Juin; E. Hocedez, LTdee d’in-
carnation et les religions non-chretiennes ; E. de Moreau, L’ Avenir du
catholicisme en Allemagne; Rene Brouillard, Vinification soientifique
et vin de messe. The Same, Juillet-Aout : E. Hocedez, Le mystere de
I’incarnation est-il specifiquement chretien?; J. Creusen, Un grand
eveque ; Mgr. Korum d’apres une biographic recente.

Onder Eigen Vaandel, Wageningen, 1 13 : Karl Barth, Ik ben de
Heere ; J. W. Verschoor, Philpot’s leerreden in Gereformeerde kringen ;
J. H. Semmelink, De Kerkgeschiedenis van Prof. Dr. J. H. Gunning.

Recherches de Science Religieuse, Paris, Juin-Aout: Pierre Batiffol,
L’Empereur Justinien et le Siege Apostolique; Lucien Cerfaux, La
Gnose Simonienne (a suivre) ; Jean Cales, Les Psaumes d’Asaph

704

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

(suite) ; Adhemar d’Ales, Principalis Cathedra et la Version Grecque
des Canons Africains.

Revue d’Ascetique et de Mystique, Toulouse, Juillet; J. de Guibert,
Charite parfaite et iDesir de Dieu ; Louis MARiis, Madeleine Boinet des-
tinataire des lettres 110-126 du P. ,Surin?; F. Cavallera, Paul de Thebes
et Paul d’Oxyrhynque.

Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique, 'Louvain, Juillet: G. Bardy, Le dis-
cours apologetique de S. Lucien d’Antioche; J. Viteau, L’institution
des Diacres et des Veuves ; R. Draguet, A propos du Mar cion de M. v.
Harnack.

Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, Strasbourg, Mars-
Avril: G. Holscher, Les origines de la communaute juive a I’epoque
perse; Ch. Hauter, Essai sur la notion de I’objet religieux; Ch. Brus-
TON, L’epitaphe d’Akhiram pere d’Ethbaal roi de Bylos : A. Solomon,
Lettre d’un professeur en theologie protestante a D’Alembert. The
Same, Mai-Juin: H. Strohl, Les idees religieuses d’Oberlin; Ch
Hauter, Essai sur la notion de I’objet religieux,; A. Causse, Les plus
vieux chants de la Bible.

Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie, Lausanne, Janvier-Avril :
Philippe Bridel, L’esprit du protestantisme ; Arnold Reymond, Quel-
ques aspects de la pensee protestante.

Scholastik, Freiburg, i :3 : Alfred Feder, Des Aquinaten Kommentar
zu Pseudo-Dionysius’ “De Divinis Nominibus’’; Heinrich Lennerz,
Zur iLosung von Schwierigkeiten in der (jotteslehre ; Hermann Dieck-
MANN, Die formgeschichtliche Methode und ihre Anwendung auf die
Auferstehungsberichte,

Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, Innsbruck, 50:3: J. B. Umberg,
Die richterliche Bussgewalt nach Jo 20 : :23 ; A. Merk, Der armenische
Irenaeus Adversus Haereses.

Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, Tubingen, 7:4: Horst Stephan,
Die religiose Frage — die Schicksalsfrage des deutschen Idealismus ;
Torsten Bohlin, Luther, Kierkegaard und die dialektische Theologie;
W. Betzendorfer, Glauben und Wissen bei Albert dem Grossen; G.
VoRBRODT, Zum Verhaltnis von Psychotherapie und Seelsorge.

The Princeton
Theological
Review

EDITED FOR THE

FACULTY

J. Ross Stevenson
John D. Davis
Geerhardus Vos
William P. Armstrong
Frederick W. Loetscher
Caspar Wistar Hodge
Oswald T. Allis
Finley D. Jenkins

Francis L. Patton
Wm. Brenton Greene, Jr.
Robert Dick Wilson
Charles R. Erdman
J. Ritchie Smith
J. Gresham Machen
Henry W. Smith
Joseph H. Dulles

BY

Oswald T. Allis

VO|LUME XXIV

1926

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

ARTICLES

The Headings of the Psalms. By R. D. Wilson i

The Relation of Reugion to Science and Philosophy. By J.
Gresham Machen 38

Is Jesus God? Part II. By F. D. Jenkins 67

The Rational Argument for Immortality. By Floyd E. Hamilton 96

The Reformed Faith in Modern Scotland. By John Macleod 177

The Revival of .Scholastic Philosophy. By George Johnson 206

The Genesis of Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

By Hastings Eells 225

Old Testament Emphases and Modern Thought. Part III, The
Crossing of the Red Sea. By Oswald T. Allis 252

The Headings of the Psalms. Part II. By R. D. Wilson 353

Modern Aspects of the Theory of Evolution. By Floyd E.
Hamilton 396

“Experience and Nature.” By Daniel S. Gage 449

The Subjective Side of Salvation in its Initial Stages. By
F. D. Jenkins 472

John D. Davis. By Frederick W. Loetscher 529

“A New Standard Bible Dictionary.” By Oswald T. .Allis 568

Jesus and the Old Testament. By R. D. Wilson 632

iii

NOTES AND NOTICES

Hoen’s Letter on the Eucharist and its Influence upon

Carlstadt, Bucer and Zwingli. By A. Hyma 134

The Meaning of ‘Alma (A.V. “Virgin”) in Isaiah vii. 14. By

R. D. Wilson 308

John D. Davis (1854-1926) 494

BOOKS REVIEWED

Barton, B., The Man Nobody Knows 687

Begbie, H., Broken Lights: A Short Study on the Varieties of

Christian Opinion 691

Bower, W. C., The Curriculum of Religious Education 343

Brightman, E. S., An Introduction to Philosophy 662

Brightman, E. S., Religious Values 317

Burkitt, F. C., Christian Beginnings 132

Buschgen, O. W., Money for Colleges 338

Cadman, S. P., Imagination and Religion 517

Cave, S., The Doctrine of the Person of Christ 673

Champion, J. B., The Virgin’s Son 695

Coe, G. a., What Ails Our Youth? 338

Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., The 167

Cooke, A. W., Sacraments and Society 322

Cooley, W. F., The Aim of Jesus Christ: A Critical Inquiry for the

General Reader 340

Crain, O. E., The Credibility of the Virgin Birth 134

Czarnomska, E., The Authentic Literature of Israel, Vol. I 501

d’Aygalliers, a. W., Ruysbroeck the Admirable 670

Dickie, J., The Fundamental Principles of the Reformed Church . . 157

Douglas, L. C., These Sayings of Mine 685

Dubois, H., De Kant a Ritschl 147

Duff, J. M., A Gold Dollar 696

Dupont, G., Le Fils de V Homme 514

Farnell, L. R., The Attributes of God 515

Forrest, W. M., Do Fundamentalists Play Fair? 695

Frost, H. W., Outline Bible Studies 346

IV

BOOKS REVIEWED V

Gilkey, C. W., Jesus and Our Generation 694

Gordon, E., The Leaven of the Sadducees 692

Gossip, A. J., From the Edge of the Crowd 341

Greene, R. A., Songs of the Royal Way 697

Haas, J. A. W., et al. Theological Studies 157

Hague, D., The Story of the English Prayer Book 668

Haldeman, I. M., Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick’s Book “The

Modern Use of the Bible" 169

Harris, C., The Religion of Undergraduates 345

Hayes, D. A., Greek Culture and the New Testament 326

Hawley, C. A., The Teaching of the Prophets 136

Herrmann, W., Dogmatik 149

Jacobs, C. M., The Story of the Church 145

Jefferson, C. E., Cardinal Ideas of Isaiah 141

Jones, E. S., The Christ of the Indian Road 677

Joseph, O. L., The Historical Development of Christianity 328

Legrand, P. E., Saint Jean Chrysostome 328

Macartney, C. E., Putting on Immortality 671

MacCallum, j. a.. The Great Partnership: God and Man 517

McAfee, C. B., The Christian Conviction 518

McAllister, J. G., Borderlands of the Mediterranean 169

McCombs, V. M., From Over the Border 690

Merrill, W. P., Liberal Christianity 160

Miller, K. D., Peasant Pioneers 336

Morgan, G. C., The Acts of the Apostles 510

Morrill, G. L., Life as a Stewardship 516

Mouzon, E. D., The Program of Jesus 139

Mueller, J. T., Five Minutes Daily with Luther 698

Muller, K., Kirchengeschichte 143

Needham, J., Ed., Science, Reality and Religion 499

Otto, R., Das Heilige 513

Otto, R., The Idea of the Holy 513

Pankhurst, C., Some Modern Problems in the Light of Bible

Prophecy 327

Perry, W. J., The Origin of Magic and Religion 325

Rade, M., Glaubenslehre, Vol. I, 2 331

Sheldon, C. M., Charles M. Sheldon: His Life Story 683

Smith, C. R., The Bible Doctrine of Wealth and Work 170

Smith, W. H., Modernism, Fundamentalism and Catholicism 667

Sneath, E. H., Shall We Have a Creed? 148

VI

BOOKS REVIEWED

Sprague, P. W., The Influence of Christianity on Fundamental

Human Institutions 664

Stewart, A., A Prophet of Grace 505

Underwood, A. C., Conversion: Christian and Non-Christian 320

Vanderlaan, E. C., Fundamentalism versus Modernism 335

Vanderlaan, E. C., Protestant Modernism in Holland 498

Verkuyl, G., Devotional Leadership 516

Watson, J. M., Science as Revelation 665

Week-Day Sermons in King’s Chapel 341

Wheeler, W. R., et al. Modern Missions in Mexico 690

Wieman, H. N., Religious Experience and Scientific Method 324

Wiggam, a. E., The New Decalogue of Science 495

Wilson, M. H., Seven Professions and the Teachings of Jesus ... 519

ZwEMER, S. M., The Law of Apostasy in Islam 168

CONTRIBUTORS

Allis, O. T., 136-139, 168-169, 252-307, 501-510, 568-631, 697-698.

Beach, S. W., 328-331, 336-338, 341-343-
Bergen, J. T., 338, 343-345, 667-668, 695-696.

Clark, D. S., 317-319.

Corum, J. M., Jr., 338-340, 685-687, 696.

Craig, S. G., 169-170, 324-325, 335-336, 340-341, 345-346, 499-SOi, 5I7-5I9,
691-695.

Eells, E. E., 170-171.

Eells, H., 225-251.

Erdman, C. R., 169, 516.

Gage, D. S., 449-471, 662-664.

Gemmill, B. M., 167-168, 328.

Hamilton, F. E., 96-123, 160-167, 396-448.

Hodge, C. W., 148-159, 331-335, 5i3-5i4, 671-672, 677-683.

Hyma, a., 134-131.

Jenkins, F. D., 67-95, 472-493, 514-516, 673-677.

Johnson, G., 206-224, 690-691.

Lathem, a. L., 346.

Loetscher, F. W., 143-148, 529-567.

Machen, j. G., 38-66, 132-136.

Mack.-vy, j. R., 510-513.

Macleod, j., 177-205.

McQuilkin, H. H., 141-143, 327-328.

Paist, B. F., 495-499, 519-521, 664-665, 668-671, 683-685. 687-690, 698.
PiTZER, R. C., 320-323.

Ramsay, F. P., 695.

Reinke, E. j., 139-141, 326-327.

Stevenson, J. R., 325-326.

Wilson, R. D., 1-37, 308-316, 353-395, 632-661.

Wray, N., 665-666.

Articles are indicated in black-faced type ; Notes and Notices in italics.

IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM SCHOLARLY?

By Robert Dick Wilson, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Semitic
Philology and Old Testament Criticism in Princeton Theo-
logical Seminary. With a Foreword by Philip E. Howard.
Philadelphia : The Sunday School Times, 1922. Price 25
cents. London: Marshall Bros., 1923. Price l sh.

“The book is a veritable arsenal of ammunition with which to
demolish the critical theories.” — Howard Agnew Johnston, in
Scientific Christian Thinking for Young People.

THE WORK OF THE PASTOR

By Charles R. Erdman, D.D., LL.D. The Westminster Press,
Philadelphia. 1924, 8vo, pp. vii. 257.

“This volume is intended to serve as a handbook to pastors
and as a textbook for students of theology. It should be found
helpful, however, to many others who are concerned with the
organization and activities of the Christian Church. . . . Large
portions of the last five chapters have been furnished by other
writers, who are recognized as specially trained and qualified
for their tasks.”

THE LORD WE LOVE

By Charles R. Erdman, D.D., LL.D. New York; George
H. Doran Company. Pp. 138. $1.50 net.

This series of studies deals with the most important events
in the life of Christ from his birth to his ascension. The studies
are expository in character, and while affirming the central
verities of Christian faith they are devotional and practical in
spirit and aim.

A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
By John D. Davis, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ori-
ental and Old Testament Literature in the Theological
Seminary at Princeton, N.J. With Many New and
Original Maps and Plans and Amply Illustrated. Fourth
Revised Edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1924.

“The Dictionary has been subjected to a revision, perva-
sive yet unobtrusive, in order to incorporate material gath-
ered by biblical research during the past decade and a half.
Purposely the book has not been increased in size, nor has the
pagination been changed.”

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS
By J. Ritchie Smith, D.D., Professor of Homiletics in
Princeton Theological Seminary. Author of “The
Teaching of the Gospel of John”; “The Wall and the
Gates.” New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

“This volume comprises a series of exegetical studies, in
which every passage of the four Gospels relating to the Holy
Spirit is examined that its precise significance may be dis-
covered. Abundant use has been made of the labour of many
scholars in this field ; but it has been the constant endeavour to
ascertain by the close and direct study of the text, in humble
reliance upon the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, what
He has chosen to reveal of his nature and his office”. (Pref-
ace.)

WHAT IS FAITH?

By J. Gresham Machen, D.D. New York: The Macmillan
Company. Pp. 263. Price $1.75. London: Hodder &
Stoughton. Price ysh.6d.

“If we had the resources we should provide a copy to every
minister and lay preacher in the British Isles” — The British
Weekly.

“It is pleasant to be carried along on the full, strong stream
of Dr. Machen’s English style, but the fearless and reasoned
evangelical passion of the writer stirs a deeper feeling than
pleasure” — C. Ryder Smith in the third of a series of leading
articles devoted to the book in The British Weekly.

“Professor Machen has written a strong and courageous
book . . .” — Christian World (London).

“The matter throughout is excellent, the manner energetic,
yet always fair, there being no intention of blinking diffi-
culties, and many readers will be glad to have so strong and
capable a defence of their faith” — Glasgow Evening Citizen.

“We commend this book ‘without reservations.’ It is a book
for the times that deals with what is most central to evangel-
ical religion and which must be safeguarded if evangelical
Christianity is to persist in the world” — The Presbyterian.

CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERALISM

By J. Gresham Machen, D.D. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1923. Price $1.75.

“This is a book that should be read by every thinking man,
whether he calls himself a conservative or a liberal. While evi-
dently the product of a thorough scholar, it is written through-
out in simple, non-technical words.” S. G. Craig in The Presby-
terian.