Page images
PDF
EPUB

therefore required that the gospel should be written in Greek. Its canonical authority was recognised by all the primitive fathers. The most probable date of the composition is A.D. 64.

On the question of the authenticity of the last eleven verses of the gospel, Dr. Davidson inclines to the opinion that they were added by some other person, and are not the work of Mark. The external testimony is, however, in their favour; which we think more than counterbalances any argument from their manner, style, or phraseology. No writer is uniform in these respects, and they might probably have been added by the evangelist at a time subsequent to his completion of the rest.

Luke wrote his gospel from a collection of documents prepared by various persons who had been hearers and eye-witnesses of our Lord, as well as from some oral accounts he had received. He was probably a Gentile by birth; and the same person mentioned by Paul as the beloved physician. Some have hence concluded, without much probability, that Luke was a manumitted slave. By Eusebius and Jerome it is asserted that he was a Syrian, a native of Antioch. It is, however, far more likely that he was a Greek, and of a Grecian city, perhaps of Philippi, as Greswell thinks, or of Troas, as others. Dr. Davidson is of opinion, from chapters ix. 51-xviii. 14, which present great difficulties to the harmonist, that Luke did not purpose to write his narrative in chronological order.

The fact, apparent on the surface of the Acts, that Luke was a friend and companion, if not the spiritual son of Paul, led to an early tradition in the church, that the gospel was written under that apostle's superintendence, and by his authority. Of this, however, there is no proof. Dr. Davidson thus states his opinion on the canonical authority of the gospel :

"Luke's gospel is not of canonical authority because of the special influence which Paul had upon it. Its credibility and authority must be placed on another basis equally secure. That it fully deserves its present position among the gospels is unquestionable; but it does not deserve it by virtue of any truth in the ancient tradition.”—p. 185.

The authenticity and integrity of the book as it now stands is most ably vindicated by Dr. Davidson against the objections which have been raised; and the allegations of the Straussian school, that myths and traditional sayings are inserted in the first two chapters, are admirably refuted.

Our notice of the author's investigations on the Gospel of John must be brief. He devotes an unusually large space to the subject of its authenticity-some eighty pages, especially directed against the elaborate attack of Lützelberger upon it. It were impossible to convey to our readers an idea of the vast variety of particulars embraced in this powerful reply to the most powerful of the modern assailants of the gospel but by long quotations, which our space will not permit. We must refer them to the work itself. It is an excellent example of

the tact and learning of the author. The following passage is his summing up:

"We cannot refrain from expressing our deep and growing conviction of the historical fidelity by which the sacred document is pervaded. That it bears the impress of the beloved disciple, fresh and vivid from his tender spirit, appears to us unquestionable. And that it purports to be from his pen is not less apparent. There are, it is true, difficulties connected with it which may never be satisfactorily resolved, amid our ignorance of the circumstances in which it appeared; but such difficulties belong in part to every ancient book, and are immeasurably increased in the present case, on the supposition of our gospel having originated in the second century, on Hellenistic ground. The man who could exhibit such a portrait of Christ from his own reflection and fancy at that late period, must have been a prodigy to which the century presents nothing approaching to a parallel; for it need not be told how barren that century was in individuals of creative intellect and large heart, like the author of the document in question. And then it must be maintained, not only that he produced a work equally removed from the anthropomorphic, material religiousness, as from the narrow intellectuality of his day, but that he remained in miraculous concealment. The spirit elevated so far above his countrymen and contemporaries, giving utterance to such aspects of Christ's character as have attracted universal humanity in all future time, continued unknown. Exerting, as he did, immeasurable influence on the consciousness of the Christian church, he was always buried in impenetrable obscurity. And yet he was able to procure universal acceptance for his work, as though it really belonged to an apostolic time, and to an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ. He completely succeeded in his imposture. The few great ideas which he clothed with flesh and blood, commended themselves with astonishing readiness to the mind and heart of the Christian world, undetected in their source, age, and aim. They who can believe all this, with Baur and his school, have renounced all claim to genuine historical criticism, by abandoning themselves to a reckless caprice, where calmness of investigation and unbiassed love of truth are entirely wanting."-pp. 311, 312.

This admirable work of Dr. Davidson, is closed by an examination of the various hypotheses which have been proposed to account for the correspondences of the first three gospels. Although the matter of the gospels is the same, there are many differences in its arrangement. Many parallels occur, and many verbal coincidences. Four modes of accounting for these have been proposed:-1. That the gospels were derived from a common written source or sources. 2. That the earlier gospels were consulted in the composition of the later. 3. That they were derived from oral tradition. 4. A combination of the last two opinions. After an examination of these various views, Dr. Davidson thus states his own :

"We believe, then, that the component portions of the history of Jesus' life on earth were often related by the apostles. These authorised teachers dwelt in them, revolving them as the source of their holiest feelings and highest consolation. Their own thoughts turned to them with an interest intense and permanent. They loved to muse on them. They loved to make them known to any who would listen to their communication. They narrated them to doubters and deniers, as well as to the sincere inquirer. They were often called upon to speak of them in different situations, to different hearers.

Thus the habit of repetition tended to mould their teachings in a certain determinate form-the most correct form possible; so that they might be accurately related by others who should go forth as evangelists and missionaries, agreeably to the type formed by the apostles. In this way we account, in part, for the remarkable coincidences of the written gospels embodying oral accounts. The habits of the apostles, the character of their education, the poverty of the Alexandrian dialect, the mode of oral interpretation to which they had been accustomed as Jews, the age in which they lived, conspired to bring the oral narratives into an archtypal form, which was subsequently transferred to the written gospels."-pp. 408-9.

We must here close this valuable contribution to biblical study and literature. It has appeared at the right moment, and will aid powerfully in stemming that torrent of rationalism and mythism with which we are threatened. We cannot doubt that it will become the text-book in our colleges, upon the important theme of which it treats. Our students should become accurately acquainted with its details, that they may be able to encounter and unmask the specious and popular forms in which error has gone forth. We await with interest the continuation of the work, which Dr. Davidson has so well and ably begun.

III. THE FOURTH UNIVERSAL EMPIRE OF DANIEL. BY H. L. REICHEL, Teacher in the Theological Seminary at Gnadenfeld, in Upper Silesia.*

In the second chapter of Daniel's prophecies, as well as in the seventh, our attention is, in an especial manner, directed to the fourth universal empire; for in it all earthly power, in its opposition to the kingdom of God, should certainly reach its height and termination. This it is which both chapters, in harmony with each other, point out to us; but with this difference, that while in chapter vii. we find the might and the overthrow of the last kingdom rudely placed over against each other, in chapter ii. we are permitted more exactly to perceive the internal decay of this kingdom, subsisting and progresing at the same time with its outward power, by which its final ruin is prepared.

But let us consider the particular features of both descriptions. The king saw the legs of the image to be of iron (chap. ii., 33,) and receives from Daniel the interpretation—" A fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise." (ver. 40.) Thus early is the fearful energy and invincible power of this kingdom depicted. In a yet stronger manner is it featured in chapter vii. Then saw Daniel "a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,-diverse from all the others, with teeth of iron and claws of brass, devouring, and breaking in pieces,

*From "Theologische Studien und Kritiken."

and stamping the rest with his feet. (ver. 7-19.) If the most fearful beasts were required to symbolize the former kingdoms, for this kingdom creation could yield no symbol. Daniel sees a beast which he knew not how to name. The difference between them consists not in this, that the power common to all appears in a new modification; but, on the contrary, it is throughout its entire being distinct from them; for everything which can be conceived of power and terribleness is in it combined. For thus we read in the interpretation, (ver. 23): "There shall be a fourth kingdom upon the earth, which is diverse from all kingdoms, and devours the whole earth, treading it down, and breaking it in pieces."

In the course of time another feature, which increases its terribleness, is added to this omnipotence of the fourth kingdom. After Daniel had beheld its ten horns, he sees "Another little horn rise up, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth that spake presumptuous things—and his look was more stout than his fellows; and this horn made war with the saints, and triumphed over them." (chap. vii., 8, 20, 21.) The interpretation is given in verses 24 and 25: "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise, and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings, and shall utter blasphemies against the Highest, and wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change festivals and laws, and they shall be given into his hand for a time, and two times and half a time." Thus, the last king of this kingdom is delineated as one who, by his human wisdom (for this appears to me to be signified by the "eyes of a man," in the 8th verse), in conjunction with great power, shall be seduced into the audacity of rising against all divine and human laws, -into a frantic pride, which shall lift up itself in conscious hostility against the Most High. But although this kingdom, with all its worldly power, thus appears triumphantly to oppose the kingdom of God, it carries within itself, from an carly period, the germ of its destruction. It is to this point that chap. ii. directs our attention : "The legs of the image are indeed of iron, but the feet are of iron and clay," (ver. 33); which signifies, that if, on the one hand, the kingdom is indeed strong, on the other hand it is fragile, it will dissolve. They will attempt by human seed, that is to say, by marriage, again to unite the parts; but this union will have no continuance, just as little as iron and clay together. (ver. 41—43.)

What, now, is the kingdom here delineated? In the first instance, we will not interrogate history as to what kingdom has actually enjoyed a universal empire; we will suppose that our author may have erred, regarding as the last the kingdom flourishing in his days; we will not even consider that but one view is possible, if the results of our previous investigation are true;* on the contrary, we will see if the

*The author had previously established the reference of the former symbols to the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian empires.

views which have, up to this point, proved untenable, may not here perhaps receive some support.

If the first three kingdoms were the Babylonian, Median, and Persian, then this fourth can be none other than the Macedo-Grecian kingdom under Alexander and his successors. And in fact, our description fits it in many particulars. It rose fearfully in the East as a western kingdom, altogether diverse from the first. Under Alexander it possessed an iron energy; but after his death its unity disappeared; separate kingdoms were formed, which indeed sought by marriage again to unite, as is expressly mentioned of the Syrian and Egyptian kingdoms, in the eleventh chapter (ver. 6, 17), but without result. At last, there rises to the sovereign authority, in one of these kingdoms, a king, Antiochus Epiphanes, who seeks by stratagem and power to subdue the neighbouring kingdoms, to constrain them to exchange their religion for his own; who, in particular, cruelly oppresses the covenant people, abolishes the worship of Jehovah and the law of God, and in this way enters into conflict with the Most High himself. All this, as we find it related of Antiochus, in the eighth and eleventh chapters, accords not only with our description of the fourth kingdom in the second and seventh chapters, but many correspondences may be discovered between the image, under which figure the Macedonian kingdom is delineated in the eighth chapter, and the symbolization of the fourth kingdom in chapter vii. In this chapter a little horn at last appears, which becomes greater than the rest, makes war with the saints, and triumphs over them, and utters blasphemies against the Highest; in chapter viii. Antiochus Epiphanes is represented under the image of a little horn, which rises up after the others, and increases in greatness, till it magnifies itself against the host of heaven, and the prince of the host, and takes away the daily worship. Certainly a correspondence that cannot be mistaken, that cannot possibly be fortuitous! But does it oblige us to identify our fourth kingdom with the Macedonian kingdom depicted in the eighth chapter? That it does not will appear, if we take into account the differences which are to be found existing between the two delineations, and if also we are able to establish an internal ground for the correspondency of the two delineations, without conceding their identity.

The fourth kingdom is described to us as one whose power far exceeds that of all former kingdoms, so that they can by no means be compared with it. Was the Macedonian such a kingdom? No. But perhaps it so appeared to Daniel, on account of his fearfulness for the covenant people? The eighth chapter contradicts that. It describes not to us an unknown beast, diverse from all others which exist in the universe, but a he-goat, which fights with the ram. the other hand, a reference to Alexander almost of necessity appertains to the description of the Macedonian kingdom, as it is given to us in the eighth chapter of the first great horn, which is altogether wanting in the description of the fourth kingdom, (ver. 5 and 21). VOL. I.-No. XII.

3 A

On

« PreviousContinue »