Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

of the repetition of this mythological conflict in the future, and in general the development of the whole idea of eschatology in the minds of the Babylonian astrologers from the precession of the equinoxes is not endorsed. For this a possible derivation of the idea of eschatological recurrence from Mazdeism is substituted. Gog is not a mythological conception (against Gressmann). The identification of Satan with the Dragon is due to Parsism. The belief that naturephenomena are precursors of the end is not traceable to any foreign source. Neither can the personal precursors of the Messiah be so explained. The Messianic idea is not of foreign origin. The argument against Gressmann on this point is staked on the un-Messianic interpretation of Isa. vii. and on the treatment of Mic. v., 2 as a late interpolation based on the misunderstanding of Isa. vii. as a Messianic prophecy. The prophets know nothing of a mother of the Messiah. The ancient myth of a Redeemer-king born of a virgin exists only in the imagination of Jeremias. Isa. ix. and xi. are not based on the idea of a return of the golden age. The Messiah is no more than the King of the last days, and he is looked forward to on no other principle than that there will be a restoration of the earlier power of Israel. Once more Gressman's interpretation of Isa. liii. is rejected on the grounds chiefly that the servant is not an individual, and that the sacrificial, expiatory character of his death is lacking in the myths of Adonis, and Attis and in the account of the righteous servant from the text of Assurbanipal's library. Gunkel's assertion that there even existed in Jewish belief a myth which ascribed death and resurrection to the Messiah is declared unfounded.

The author's preference, shared by him with Bousset, for Mazdeism as the chief foreign source of New Testament eschatological ideas clearly reveals itself in his discussion of the Son-of-Man problem. The idea is traced back to that of the Persian "heavenly man." Although Paul in 1 Cor. xv., 45 ff. polemizes against the idea so far as the priority in sequence of the heavenly man with regard to the earthly man is concerned, he is nevertheless said to have appropriated the substance of the idea in his doctrine of Christ as "the man from heaven." Clemen also explains from this source the popon coû of Phil. ii., for of this Persian "heavenly man" it is said that he was in the form of God. In the same context the poppǹ dovλov is interpreted on the basis of the Poimandres, where the primal man is represented as becoming évapμóvios Soûλos i.e. enslaved to the Heimarmene. The author is, however, careful to emphasize that all this does not carry an idea of pagan provenience into the core of the official consciousness of Jesus, because the function of judging the world was not originally inherent in the idea of the heavenly man, but was extraneously added to it in Judaism, and by Jesus Himself.

The expectation of a life after death both in its immortality and in its resurrection form is held to have had no antecedents in Babylonia. While in part indigenous to the development of Old Testament religion in the direction of spiritualizing and individualism, it also underwent a perceptible influence from Parsism.

The observation may be made on the basis of the foregoing that Dr. Clemen's reserve towards accepting the religious-historical explanations has something to do with his theological position as an adherent of the "liberal" views. He follows the "liberal" tradition of exegesis within the Old Testament, which may not unjustly be characterized as minimizing the supernatural and preferring wherever possible to rationalize the mental processes of the writers. Over against this the religionsgeschichtler have a positive liking for realism of interpretation and for emphasizing the magical irrational aspects of religious conceptions. It is plain that the former attitude more easily lends itself to the explanation of acts on the principle of indigenous rational development, whereas the latter more naturally exploits the disconnectedness of the irrational in favor of its hypothesis of foreign derivation. If Dr. Clemen's exegesis had been more realistic, the instances in which he admits that ideas are borrowed would have doubtless been more numerous. In the matter of interpretation e.g. of the Messianic texts we cannot help feeling that Gunkel and Gressman are more nearly right. If from the mysterious and disconnected character of such material we on our part do not draw the inference that it is derived from Babylon or Persia, this is simply due to the fact that we reckon with a solid supernaturalism. But on the standpoint of Clemen, who does not do this, a movement away from the "liberal" exegetical tradition would inevitably lead to acceptance of the religious-historical conclusions on a much larger scale.

The same observation might be made with regard to the author's treatment of the specifically Christian ideas and institutions. Here his attitude is even more reserved and negative than where the Jewish inheritance is concerned. This is the natural result of the reflection that the primitive Christian church was much less open to direct influence from pagan sources than Judaism had been in its longer history. The canon accordingly results, that to prove influence it will be necessary in such cases to point out its working in the Jewish antecedents of Christianity, and with regard to the specifically Christian ideas this cannot be done. The author makes frequent and sound use of this canon. Nevertheless here also, we believe that from his unsupernaturalistic standpoint a less “liberally" colored exegesis would have rendered him more receptive to the views of the other party. As it is he makes concession only at isolated points, and that largely in formal respects. His criticism of the Gilgamesh theory is searching and conclusive. He has no use for the derivation of the passion and resurrection story from an Adonis or Attis or any other myth. The Sacaea cannot have given rise to the account of Jesus' maltreatment. The explanation of a large part of Paulinism from the mysteryreligions finds no favor in his eyes. At the utmost the form of expression and in no wise the substance has been influenced from this source. A somewhat peculiar position is taken with regard to the virgin-birth. The theories or origination of the idea from Isa. vii., of Babylonian, North-Arabian, Persian, Indian and Greek origin are

alike rejected. On the other hand Clemen does not believe that the idea is founded on fact. In his discussion of the Lucan narrative he employs the usual arguments to show that it was not originally inherent in the tradition, but subsequently added to it. How then does he account for its rise? He suggests that it may have sprung from a view previously current in Jewish circles that the patriarchs were supernaturally begotten of God without a human father through a virginbirth. And this idea, he thinks, could easily have been developed out of the older notion, vouched for by Paul, that Isaac was born after the Spirit, i.e. that there was a supernatural factor involved in his procreation. The sole support for this theory is the allegorizing statement of Philo to the effect, that, where the patriarchs represent virtues in the Old Testament narrative, they are not introduced as "knowing" women. In spite of Conybeare and Badham, there is nothing in Philo's statement to indicate, that his allegorizing fancy has at this point a solid basis of Jewish realistic belief. But the theory is interesting because it brings the virgin-birth into connection with the idea, that in our opinion, is actually embodied in it as a fact, viz. the necessity of the direct supernatural origin of the human nature of the Saviour, so far as this was possible within the terms of His office. If Dr. Clemen will translate his theory out of the sphere of ideas into the sphere of history, we are prepared to accept it.

The general conclusion at which the author arrives at the end in his retrospect at the discussion, needs a word of comment. It sounds comparatively reassuring to hear him declare that "if we leave external matters definitely on one side, the New Testament ideas that are perhaps derived from non-Jewish sources-for we may emphasize once more the hypothetical nature of most of our results-lie mainly on the fringe of Christianity, and do not touch its vital essence." But it should not be forgotten that the reassuring import of such a statement with its comforting distinction between "fringe" and "essence" is wholly dependent on the theological standpoint from which it is made and received. Dr. Clemen is a "liberal" theologian, and he distributes the contents of the New Testament as to essence and form in accordance with his liberal interpretation of what Christianity means. The historic faith of the church has always counted among the essence not a few things which "liberalism" declares purely formal. Insofar as certain of these things are declared by Dr. Clemen of pagan origin, it is small comfort for us to know, that to his "liberal" point of view they appear of a formal nature. The reassurance that we need regards, not the liberal but the orthodox interpretation of what constitutes the essence of Christianity. Conservatives have no occasion to infer from Dr. Clemen's book that the danger from the religious-historical interpretation of the New Testament is purely imaginary.

Of errata in the English text, partly occurring also in the original German, we note the following, p. 52 Mt. viii., 22 ff. for 23 ff.; p. 57 Lk. iv., 28 for 23; p. 69 in the quotation from Epictetus TOUTOV for TOUTO; on p. 129 should have no Dagest in the

The translation is uniformly accurate. Only on p. 86 the rendering

"this representation" would have better given the sense of the original than "all such reasoning." On p. 97, line 14 the “zugleich" of the original is neglected in the translation. On p. 368, last paragraph, “of course" should be "to be sure."

Princeton.

GEERHARDUS Vos.

Worte Jesu und Gemeindeüberlieferung. Eine Untersuchung zur Quellengeschichte der Synopse. Von Walther HAUPT. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. 1913. Pp. iv, 263. M. 7.50, geb. M. 8.50.

This is the third Heft in the series of Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament edited by Windisch, and, like the first by Spitta-Die synoptische Grundschrift in ihrer Überlieferung durch das Lukasevangelium, 1912, is a discussion of the Synoptic Problem. Taking Luke as the basis of his investigation Spitta sought to determine the character and content of the fundamental documentary source (Grundschrift) of the Synoptic Gospels. The result of his literary analysis is given in translation (pp. xiii-xlviii); the process by which this result is reached is set forth in a detailed study (pp. 1-450); the conclusions are then summarized (pp. 450-500) and compared with the results of a similar analysis of the Fourth Gospel (Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 1910). The Grundschrift (Gr) is found to be preserved entire-with the exception of a few short passages-in the Gospel of Luke. It began with the appearance of John and continued through the passion (death and resurrection). With it two other documentary sources are combined in the Third Gospel, the infancy narrative (i-ii) and a book of the discourses of Jesus (ix. 57-xviii. 14) -also certain independent sections and additions which are not derived from Mk-Mt but from an earlier form of Mk (Mk1) which in turn is derived from an earlier source (GrTM) different from the Gr embodied in Lk (Gr'), the two forms of the Gr representing different Greek translations of an Aramaic original.' Haupt too attaches importance to Lk in determining the content of the Grundschrift (G),

[blocks in formation]

Gr is dated in the beginning of the forties (p. 478).

Gr1

Lk

but the results of his investigation, while agreeing with Spitta's in certain details, differ in maintaining the dependence of Lk on Mk and in fixing the content of G, from which the narrative of the resurrection is excluded. His discussion serves more directly than Spitta's the development of the Two-Document Hypothesis. Presupposing the soundness of this general theory, Haupt seeks first of all a more accurate determination of the limits and order of Q by an examination of its relation to Mk. The matter common to Mk and Q shows that Mk is dependent on Q; the matter in Q common to Mt-Lk but not to Mk shows that Q existed in different forms. The narrative material in Mk goes back to a source G (Grundschrift) and this was known also to Mt-Lk-accounting for their agreement against Mk in passages common to the three. Ultimately the Synoptic tradition goes back to two narrative sources, one concerned with the incidents of the last two days of Jesus' life in Jerusalem, the other with events of His Galilean activity. These were united by the prophecy of His passion and thus constituted the first "life" of Jesus, the Stammbericht, from which the later sources of the Synoptic Gospels are derived. The later sources are primarily three,-G common to Mk-Mt-Lk, S peculiar to Mk, and L peculiar to Lk. The Stammbericht was without discourse material. This appears first in Q', which was prepared as a supplement to G and consisted of three discourses,-instructions to the disciples for their mission, teaching occasioned by dispute concerning precedence, and the parable of the sower. The last two discourses may have formed part of G, but the first indicates the character, point of view and dominant interest of Q'. This was narrowly Jewish Christian, particularistic, informed by the eschatological expectations of the community in Jerusalem. It was added to G about the year 50. Shortly afterward it was enlarged by the addition of discourse material consisting chiefly of the disputes of Jesus with the Scribes and Pharisees. The point of view of this redaction, Q', is broader-Hellenistic-and its character is determined by its interest in the Law. With these additions (Q', Q') G was known to Mk. But Mk used another source, S, which like G was derived from the Stammbericht but without addition of discourse material, lacked the apologetic Messianic 'Haupt's view of the relation of the Synoptic Gospels to the Grundschrift is indicated in the scheme,

[blocks in formation]

Mt and Lk used Mk but had recourse from it to G

« AnteriorContinua »