FOREIGN OUTLOOK

SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT

F. R. Lipsius. He has recently dealt with a subject of vital importance to theology and, indeed, to religion. In his book Kritik der Theologischen Erkenntnis (Critique of Theological Knowledge), Berlin, C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1904, he undertakes to show that the methods by which Christians seek to assure themselves of God and of his nature are inadequate. After criticizing the usual arguments and supports of the doctrine of God he proposes an argument which he thinks leads us to certainty, but to a certainty which is Christian only if we are willing to give up the historical Christian conception of the divine personality. His argument is based on the doctrine of the universality of the law of causation which compels us to assume a principle of order which reveals itself in the world, though it is in no sense transcendent, and which finds its highest manifestation in conscious personal spirit—that is, in man. The arguments used by Lipsius against the personality of God are not new and their worthlessness has been shown so often that nothing need be said here against them. But one would think that it might have occurred to him that this principle of order which finds its highest manifestation in man's conscious personal spirit could not well be less than conscious and personal. The very law of causation to which he appeals requires that the cause shall be adequate to the effect. But it is interesting to note his criticism of the different arguments. He includes in his range not only the older arguments but the newer as well. He will have nothing to do with the newest of all-that is, the argument drawn from the theory of knowledge. So also he renounces Lotze's argument, which, in one form and another, has been much in vogue. Likewise he rejects the socalled biological proof which argues for a transcendental teleological principle from the manner in which organisms originate. All these must go. But the most interesting portion of his treatise is that which is directed against the Ritschlian theology. He starts out by showing that this system must be designated as an emotional one. In this same class he places Kant and others who make their starting point the moral law or the ethical experiences, and on the basis of this seek to establish the doctrine of God. All such systems must be regarded as fundamentally emotional, because the moral law cannot possibly be regarded as a good except as a result of an emotion. But the feelings are always the results of impressions and are conditioned by them. The only way, therefore, by which the emotional theology can hope to sustain itself is to show that, besides the feelings resulting from impressions, there are others not so conditioned, but having their ground in themselves. This Schleiermacher undertook to do; but modern psychology has completely shattered that doctrine. His conclusion is, therefore, that the emotional theology has

no sufficient foundation. While we must agree with this, and while we cannot regard the Ritschlian theology as altogether well grounded, it is a fact that Lipsius does not do that theology justice, and, therefore, has not overthrown its contentions. The Ritschlian theology does not pretend that there are feelings that arise spontaneously, but it holds that the estimates of value that accompany observations are the source of mental conceptions, and judgments of a special kind; namely, religious conceptions and judgments. The Ritschlians may or may not be right in tracing our religious conceptions to this source, and they may or may not satisfy the mind's demand for certainty, but at least Lipsius has not touched their position. It would seem that, while no argument is absolutely compulsory, the result of so many lines of argument converging to the same point is compulsory. Lipsius's mistake is in looking only at the single argument.

G. Holscher. This is by no means a new name in the theological world; and while he is recognized as having some well defined faults it is also recognized that he is a man of unusual power in some respects. His latest venture, which has been met with the usual mixture of commendation and condemnation, is a book entitled Kanonisch und Apokryph. Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Kanon. (Canonical and Apocryphal. A Chapter from the History of the Old Testament Canon). Leipzig, A. Deichert Nachf, 1905. Hölscher maintains that the collection and use of the Scriptures was earlier than their canonization. This is well known to be the fact with the New Testament Scriptures and Hölscher has undertaken to show that it is equally the fact with the Old. He regards the passage in Josephus (Against Apion, 1, 8) as indicating that only those books were canonical which had the four marks of inspiration, holiness, fixed compass, and inviolable wording. Judged by this measure there was not, according to Hölscher, an Old Testament canon prior to about the year 100 B. C. Neither the Son of Sirach nor the translator of the Book of Esther knew any such canon, as their meddling with the text shows. It is, therefore, erroneous to assume three stages in the process of canonization of the Old Testament: first the law, second the prophets, and, third, the poetical books. Even the law was not regarded as canonical prior to the time mentioned. Neither the subjection of the people to the Deuteronomic law, found in 2 Kings 22 and 23, nor the similar subjection to the law of Moses, found in Nehemiah 8-10, can be called their canonization, for while the compass of those books was fixed the other three characteristics of canonization were lacking. The same was true in the same period for the prophetica! and the poetical writings. The limit of the collection of these books was as uncertain in Palestine as in the dispersion. Ruth and Lamentations were reckoned alike by the Palestinians and the Alexandrians as part of the prophetic books, Ruth being attached to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. But from the beginning of the first century B. C. the idea of the canonicity of the books must have existed. There was a dispute in the schools of Hillel and Schammai as to whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon made

the hands unclean, that is whether they were sacred Scriptures; so that at that time the idea of canonicity must have been abroad. Hence Hölscher fixes the time of the origin of the concept of canonicity in the century just preceding the Christian era. When the Scribes came to fix the canon they determined that that was canonical which arose in the prophetic period, that is, in the time between Moses and Artaxerxes, or, as some said, Alexander the Great. Nothing prior to Moses was canonical. The adoption of that principle made it possible to reject all apocalyptic writings attributed to pre-Mosaic authorities, as, for example, Abraham. And this was the actual motive, dislike for apocalyptic literature, which led to the limitation of the canon. It was not because the rabbis were unsympathetic toward books of late composition, for such books were permitted for reading; and apocalyptic literature which arose subsequent to the time of the Maccabees was received in a friendly manner. With the destruction of the temple the rabbis came into sole power. Their chief delight was in the law. Hence they did not approve the visionary element and private speculation dominant in the apocalyptic literature, and in order to do away with its authority they invented the theory of canonicity. We shall have to leave to experts the question of the correctness of these views.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Geschichtshwene in den Evangelien nach modernen Forschungen (Historical Truth in the Gospel acording to Modern Researches). By Adolf Müller. Gieszen, A. Töpelmann, 1905. For the most part Müller does not profess to have done here an original piece of work, but rather to set forth the results which Werule in his "Synoptic Question," Wrede in his "The Messianic Mystery in the Gospels," and Johannes Weiss in his "The Oldest Gospel" have reached. It is a fact that there has broken out afresh a spirit of doubt relative to the synoptic records. This is seen in the recent books published on both sides of the Atlantic concerning Jesus Christ. Müller confines himself exclusively to Matthew and Mark, and thinks that some parts of their reports, at least, are to be trusted. Especially in the words of Jesus reported in connection with the circumstances in which they were spoken do we have trustworthy and religiously valuable material. Out of these words it appears that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah and future Judge of the world. It is possible also that he used the term Son of man concerning himself in a Messianic sense. But we have no trustworthy report of any series of events in the life of Jesus in any of the gospels. Much that is reported to us in connection with the healings which Jesus wrought sprang from the glowing phantasy of the disciples subsequent to their vision of him as the risen Lord. Müller is of the opinion that John or Mark wrote a primitive gospel in Aramaic based on recollections of the preaching of Peter, and that our canonical Mark is this primitive gospel wrought over in the spirit of Western Gentile Christianity. So also he thinks that the writer of our canonical Matthew used an Aramaic document either directly or in

a Greek translation. This primitive Matthew may have been written by the Apostle Matthew and contained reports of addresses of Jesus, together with a report of the circumstances in which they were spoken. It is an evidence of the quality of Müller's judgment when he supposes that the Apostle Matthew may have used the primitive Mark in writing his own primitive Matthew, as though Matthew would not be better able to write such words of Jesus from his own memory than Mark would be to write them from his memory of Peter's memory of Jesus. Müller thinks that a Logia-source for cur canonical Matthew is a vain hypothesis, as the disciples would not have given any words of Jesus except in connection with the circumstances under which they were spoken. A part of the addresses which are generally referred to the Logia-source were taken from the primitive Matthew. They were all brief and connected with a report of the circumstances. The longer addresses reported in our canonical Matthew are made up out of shorter ones found in the primitive Matthew. This whole theory that the disciples would not report words of Jesus apart from their historical occasion, and therefore would not report long addresses, is contrary to the known facts of composition in those days. The only way by which we can determine whether Jesus did deliver any of the longer addresses attributed to him or whether they are made up of brief sayings on different occasions and strung together by the authors of our gospels, is to examine them as to their self-consistency and in connection with the reports of the different evangelists. We have thus given the substance of this book with some strictures which spring from the feeling that Müller is not a good guide for the memory, but that he is suggestive to one who is able to discern and uncover his fallacies. Such books serve their purpose but they are not for the novice. To the initiated they are more valuable than books that contain more truth.

Ur-Marcus. Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der altesten Mitteilungen uber das Leben Jesu (Primitive Mark. An Attempt at a Reconstruction of the earliest Reports Concerning the Life of Jesus). By Emil Wendling. Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1905. The book arose out of some supposed discoveries in connection with Mark 4. 1-34. Wendling came to the conclusion that the passage in question was not the work of one hand. Applying the same thought to the whole of the gospel he became convinced that it is the product of three different hands. He thinks he has succeeded in separating from the remainder of the gospel a portion which he attributes to Peter. This includes 1. 16 to 3. 5, 31-35; 4. 1-9, 26-29; 6. 32-34, though not in its present form; 8. 27-38, in an earlier form than ours; parts of 11. 15-12. 37, and of the eschatological address in 13. 1-11, together with the institution of the Lord's Supper, the arrest and mistreatment of Jesus, the hearing before Pilate, and an account of the crucifixion. This he has called M'. He regards this portion as essentially historical. Another portion he calls M2, and thinks it a sort of poetic enlargement of M', which was probably written in Aramaic and translated into Greek by M2. This part includes 1. 4-14a; 4. 35-5. 43; 6. 14, the accounts of the execution of

John the Baptist, the feeding of the five thousand, the transfiguration, the healing of the epileptic and of the blind beggar of Jericho, the triumphal entry, the agony in Gethsemane, the hearing before the high priest, the denial of Peter, the mockery of Jesus by the Roman soldiers, and the details of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. The third writer, M3, has portions throughout the entire gospel. He furnished 1. 1-3; 3. 6, ff.; the call of the disciples, the Beelzebub controversy, the explanation of the parable of the sower, the parables of the leaven and the mustard seed, the scene in Nazareth, and the commission and sending out of the disciples, and the whole of 6. 45 to 8. 26. M3 was also a kind of editor, and he worked over the scene in Cæsarea Philippi, and furnished the most of the sayings of 8. 34 to 9. 1; the words concerning Elijah, 9. 9-13, and verses 28-50; the words concerning divorce; the cursing of the fig-tree; 12. 38-44, and the principal part of 13, and small additions to 14 and 15. His M3 wrought in the interest of a dogmatic conception of Jesus. His reason for thinking that Mark is not all from one hand is, he claims, certain unevennesses in the text, the patchwork quality of the contents, and the varying tenor of the different narrative portions. For example, M1 gives us the portrait of a teacher of great power, doing miracles, indeed, but making them subordinate. M2 thinks of Jesus as the Son of David and the Son of God who can not only heal all human sickness but triumph over the forces of nature and over death. M3 sees in him the Son of man, the Messiah of the Apocalyptic literature, surrounded by mystery, but he does not in any way make him more noble or lofty. One is reminded by this performance of the separation of the books of the Pentateuch into various documents. But it has by no means as much justification in the gospels as in the Pentateuch. In Genesis, for example, there are traces of two or three stories of the same event which appear to be woven together. In Mark, Wendling supposes that each writer took what lay before him and supplemented it. To make the process parallel with what happened in the Pentateuch it would be necessary to suppose that M', M2, and M3 wrote independent of each other, and that some editor bound their documents together with slight editorial modifications to suit the needs of the compilation. One thing comes out with ever-increasing clearness in all the somewhat radical gospel criticism of recent years, and that is that the healings of Jesus stand fast; also that the great substance of his teaching is unchanged. If we had nothing left but what Wendling thinks belonged to M', we would experience practically no change in our conceptions of Christianity.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL

Church Problems in French Switzerland. The question of the use of the individual cup in the Lord's Supper is much agitated, chiefly on the ground that the use of the common cup is dangerous to health, but no decisions have yet been reached. Much more important is a movement looking toward the separation of church and state. Both in Geneva and Neuenburg legal enactments to that end have been proposed