« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Israel? The history furnishes no example of a royal legislator; enough, of those who broke and trampled upon the laws of their fathers. Possibly, some prophet then? Which prophet? His modesty in concealing his name and adopting as pseudonym that of the leader of the Exodus is only equalled by the way in which he introduces the subject of prophecy in his work, as incidental to a law regulating magical arts. But why not a priest, possibly Hilkiah himself, who first introduces our code to the attention of his king ? Critics are by no means agreed among themselves whether the code is of priestly or prophetic origin; it is too little pronounced in either direction. Priestly, in any decisive features, it is far enough from being ; quite the reverse, if its uniform point of view be taken account of. The point of view from beginning to end is conspicuously that of a tender father of his people, emphatically Mosaic, in short, and nothing else. And that it is genuine, and not assumed for effect, the latest results of biblical archeology unite with the best results of literary criticism in strongly confirming. 1
1 The reasoning employed in this paper, to show that the independent legislation of Deuteronomy is Mosaic, bears with equal force against the theory that it has undergone any special revision, in a period subsequent to Moses. There is neither in form, spirit, or language, any valid evidence whatever of any such revision in the series of laws we have passed under review.
Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5.
BY PROF. EZRA ABBOT, D.D., LL.D.
INCE the publication of the articles on Rom. ix. 5, in the Jour
of the passage which seem worthy of notice, especially as in some of them those articles have been quoted with approval or criticised. The venerable pastor and Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva, Ilugues Oltramare, has a long and able note upon it in his recent elaborate and valuable Commentaire sur l'Epitre aux Romains (2 vols., Geneva and Paris, 1881-82). He adopts the doxological construction, placing a period after oápka. In England, the marginal note of the Revisers appears to have given great offence in certain quarters. "I must press upon every reader," says Canon Cook, “the duty-I use the word 'duty'emphatically — of reading the admirable note of Dr. Gifford (on this passage] in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' I should scarcely have thought it credible, in face of the unanswered and unanswerable arguments there urged, that English divines would venture to have given their sanction to one of the most pernicious and indefensible innovations of rationalistic criticism.” (The Revised Version of the first three Gospels, Lond., 1882, p. 167, note.) Elsewhere he speaks of "the very painful and offensive note on Romans ix. 5, in the margin of the Revised Version” (ibid., p. 194).
It appears that Canon Cook sent a challenge to Canon Kennedy, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, to meet the arguments of Dr. Gifford, and that this led to the publication of the first pamphlet to be noticed, the title of which is given below. Dr. Gifford replied to Professor Kennedy in a pamphlet of 66 pages,
? The Divinity of Christ. A Sermon preached on Christinas Day, 1882, before the University of Cambridge. With an Appendix on Rom. ix. 5, and Titus ii. 13. By Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D. . . . Printed by desire of the Vice-Chancellor. Cambridge, also London, 1883. 8o. pp. vii. 32.
? ... A Letter to the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D., . . . in reply to Criticisms on the Interpretation of Rom. ix. 5, in “The Speaker's Commentary.” By Edwin Hamilton Gifford, D.D. ... Cambridge, also London, 1883. 8°. and Professor Kennedy rejoined in a pamphlet of 72 pages, entitled Pauline Christology, Part I.1 We shall probably have in due time a surrejoinder by Dr. Gifford, and Part II. of Professor Kennedy's Pauline Christology.
Professor Kennedy translates the last part of Rom. ix. 5 as follows: “And of whom is the Christ as concerning flesh. He who is over all is God, worthy to be praised for ever. Amen." (Sermon, etc., p. 19.) As was remarked in our Journal for 1881, pp. 99, 132, there is no grammatical difficulty in this construction. But I cannot adopt the view which Professor Kennedy takes of the passage. He regards the last part of Rom. ix. 5 as added by St. Paul “ to win the ear and gain the confidence of the Jews by declaring his adherence to doctrines which they prized, a Jewish Messiah, and one supreme God worthy to be praised for ever." (Sermon, p. 21; comp. pp. 20, 25, and Pauline Christology, I., p. 61.)
My objections to this view are, (1) that there was no need of Paul's declaring his adherence to doctrines which neither he nor any other Christian of that day was ever charged with questioning, the Jewish origin of the Messiah, and the unity of God; and (2) that the last clause of verse 5, according to Dr. Kennedy's construction, is not a direct affirmation of monotheism in distinction from polytheism, though monotheism is implied in the language.
Were Professor Kennedy's construction of the passage to be adopted, I should rather regard the ó óv énè Trávtw as having reference to God's providential government of the universe, and especially to his providential dealings with the Jews, in the revelations and privileges granted them with a view to the grand consummation of them all in the advent of the Messiah, as the head of a new, spiritual dispensation, embracing all men upon equal terms. The öv, in this connection, may include the past, present, and future ; and we might paraphrase as follows, supplying what may naturally be supposed to have been in the mind of the Apostle : “He who is over all,” He who has presided over the whole history of the Jewish nation, and bestowed upon it its glorious privileges; He whose hand is in all that is now taking place, who brings good out of evil, the conversion of the Gentiles out of the temporary blindness and disobedience of the Jews; He whose promises will not fail, who has not cast off his people, and who will
1 Pauline Christology, Part I. Examination of Romans ix. 5, being a Rejoinder to the Rev. Dr. Gifford's Reply. By Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D. Cambridge, etc., 1883. 8o. Pp. 72.
finally make all things redound to the glory of his wisdom and goodness, “is God, blessed for ever. Amen."
But with this understanding of the bearing of the o ών επί πάντων, it seems more natural to regard the enumeration of the distinctive privileges of the Jews as ending with εξ ών ο χριστος το κατά σάρκα, and to take the last clause as a doxology, prompted by the same view of the all-comprehending, beneficent providence of God, and the same devout and grateful feeling, which inspired the doxology at the end of the eleventh chapter.
Professor Kennedy is a devout believer in the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ; and one cannot help admiring the conscientiousness and sturdy honesty which lead him, in the pure love of truth, to defend an unpopular view of this mooted passage. He speaks feelingly of “that mischievous terrorism, which, like carbonic dioxide in a crowded and closed room, pervades and corrupts with its stifling influence our British theological atmosphere." "Men," he says, “who judge of this verse as I do, and who publish and defend that judgment as I do, know that they have to encounter the open rage of a few, the suppressed displeasure of a great many, and the silence of masses, who, whatever they may think on one side or the other, yet for various private reasons consider 'golden silence' the safe course." (Pauline Christology, I., p. 3 ; comp. pp. 34, 38.)
It is not my purpose to enter into any detailed analysis or criticism of Professor Kennedy's pamphlets. He urges powerfully against Dr. Gifford's view the Pauline usage of Oeós, and other considerations ; but on some minor points takes positions which seem to me untenable, and exposes himself to the keen criticism of his antagonist, who is not slow to take advantage of any incautious expression. In the Pauline Christology, I., pp. 22, 23, he presents, though with some hesitation, an extraordinary view of the cause of Paul's grief expressed in Rom. ix. 2, 3, but I will not stop to discuss it. He also takes an indefensible position (ibid., pp. 26, 32) in regard to Cyril of Alexandria ; and draws, I conceive, an inference altogether false (pp. 28, 29) from the passages in Origen against Celsus viii. 12 and 72. The former of these will be discussed hereafter in reply to Dr. Gifford ; in the latter we have the expression του επί πάσι λόγου και θεού, where the éri mãou belongs only to dóyou, not to beoù also, as Professor Kennedy seems to understand it; comp. Cont. Cels. v. 4, Toù . . . eurXov dóyou kai 0 cow. Christ, according to Origen, is ó éri Tâoru kúpuos, and ó évì Tâoi dóyos, but not ó émi Tâoi diós, which is, as Dr. Kennedy elsewhere observes, “the Father's express title, applied by Origen to the supreme God nearly 100 times." (Pauline Christology, I., p. 27.)
Professor Oltramare had not seen the articles in our Journal, but replies effectively on many points to the arguments of Godet and Dr. Gifford. I only note here that Oltramare, Dr. Gifford, and Professor Kennedy agree in taking • xpuotós, in v. 5, not as a proper name, “Christ," but in the sense of “the Christ,” “the Messiah,” which the definite article suggests and the context requires, or at least favors.
Dr. Gifford's pamphlet is mainly occupied with a reply to Dr. Kennedy, but he bestows some criticisms on my paper in the Journal for 1881, of which it seems to me well to take notice. I regret to say that he also makes some complaints, which I must also consider.
He complains, first (Letter, p. 27), that in quoting a sentence of his (Journal, p. 91), I have omitted altogether the first part, in which the cause of Paul's anguish is said to be “the fall of his brethren.”
I omitted it simply for the sake of brevity. I had already assumed this as the cause of his grief at the beginning of the discussion (Journal, p. 91). I had expressly mentioned it as such, twice, on the very page (p. 91) containing my quotation from Dr. Gifford; it was implied in the clause "whom they have rejected," which I did quote, and it was a point about which there was no dispute. Every reader would take it for granted that when Paul's anguish was spoken of, it was his anguish on that account. Under these circumstances I fail to perceive how my omission of a part of Dr. Gifford's sentence, in which I had nothing to criticise, has given him any reasonable ground of complaint.
Here I observe that Dr. Gifford passes over without notice the first point of my criticism of his sentence (Journal, pp. 91, 92). I still venture to think that it is not unworthy of attention.
Dr. Gifford next complains that after having once quoted the remainder of his sentence fully, I proceed to criticise it, omitting in my second quotation the words “whom they had rejected.” I omitted this clause, because, having been just quoted, it seemed unnecessary to repeat it; because it formed no part of the particular privilege of the Jews of which Dr. Gifford was speaking, the climax of which was expressed by the words “the Divine Saviour"; and because its omission was likely to make the point of my criticism strike the reader somewhat more forcibly. That I have done Dr. Gifford no injustice seems to me clear from the fact that, in the sentence quoted, “ his anguish was deepened (not caused] most of all by the fact that their race gave birth to the Divine Saviour,” the phrase “ his anguish” can only mean