70 A.D.

1

When we add to this the circumstance that there is not the slightest indication in the Gospels that the parable in itself was anything new, and find that in formal respects 1 the parables of the Mechilta and those of the Gospels are clearly similar, the likelihood is increased that the type of parable found in the Gospels is in reality considerably earlier than the time of our Lord. This conclusion has a certain documentary confirmation in the fact that in a Midrash (exposition) on Leviticus, the author, commenting on Lev 2535, brings it into connexion with Prov 1117, proving by a figure known to Rabbinism as Kalwachomer (ie. a conclusion from a less to a greater) that a man doing good to a stranger does much more good to himself. In illustration of his point the writer proceeds to tell the story of a Kalwachomer argument once uttered by the great Rabbi Hillel (who flourished before the time of our Lord). On one occasion at the close of a lecture Hillel was asked by his pupils, Rabbi, whither goest thou? (cf. Jn 138), and replied: To do a commandment. The commandment was to take a bath, and, on his pupils expressing surprise that this should be considered a commandment, Hillel used the argument, Kalwachomer, that if a man might receive legal recompense for keeping clean the statue of a king or emperor, set up in some public place, much more ought he fulfil the law by cleansing his own person, which, according to Gn 126f., was made in the image of God. The argument is doubtless playful, and Hillel is not represented as using the formula, Mashal; lemah haddabhar domeh, but the passage nevertheless goes far to confirm the conclusion that parables of the same form with those in the Mechilta and the Gospels were in use considerably before the time of our Lord.

In the part of his book directly devoted to the Rabbinical parables Fiebig confines himself as nearly as possible to translations of the relevant portions of the document with which he specially deals, and the procedure will be justified if its result be not only to familiarize the reader, in a way otherwise difficult or impossible, with the atmosphere of Rabbinism, but also to leave him

1 Especially the form of introduction: "Emshol lekha mäshal (or simply, Mäshäl!); Lemah haddabhar domeh?" ='I will tell thee a parable (or simply, A parable!); To what is the thing like?' Cf. the forms of introduction in Mt 13 and parallels.

with the impression that, while the aim of Rabbinical commentaries may be restricted to a degree that almost precludes the exercise of striking originality or largeness of vision, they are yet, on the whole, pervaded by a serious purpose, and contain more edifying matter than the unfavourable light in which Jewish scholarship not unnaturally appears in the New Testament would lead one to

suppose.

This is a gain that may be considered independent of the soundness or unsoundness of the conclusions bearing generally on the parabolic material of the Gospels, which Fiebig proceeds to draw in the second part of his book.

I am disposed, however, to regard Fiebig's results, as they bear on the Gospels, as in the main sound. They touch specially two matters. The first is the attitude of mind necessary to interpret the parables. Here there need be no hesitation in welcoming the confirmation, afforded by a study of the Rabbinical parables, of the view that the parables are not to be treated as allegories or riddles in which every detail is significant. Fiebig regards this confirmation as the main result of his book, and quotes in connexion with it some characteristically incisive remarks of Wellhausen in the latter's recently published commentary on the Gospel of Mark. 'One may not,' says Wellhausen, 'clip everything over a comb.' In other words, one must make up one's mind, looking to the whole situation, as to the main thought expressed or meant to be expressed in the particular parable, and cut it resolutely out of the block of matter in which it is incorporated, without giving a thought to the fragments that remain. Though there is nothing new in this for people who have read Jülicher or our own Bruce or Dods on the parables of Jesus, it may be instructive even for them to learn from Fiebig that, whatever difficulties our Lord's hearers may have at any time felt in understanding a particular parable, these difficulties would not naturally arise from any tendency in the hearers to spread the interpretation over a multi

tude of details.

The other point, on which Fiebig is disposed to lay emphasis, is in relation to a matter much discussed in recent years-the apocalyptic element in our Lord's teaching. To some it will perhaps seem as if Fiebig associated himself rather too readily with the views of writers like Joh. Weiss, whose tendency is to give a degree of prominence

to this element, which the Gospels do not warrant. However this may be, the presence of this element in our Lord's discourses is indubitable, and Fiebig has elsewhere done his part in showing its connexion with our Lord's habit of designating Himself as the Son of man. Those who regard with disfavour the tendency of some critics to ascribe portions of alleged discourses of Jesus, as contained even in the Synoptic Gospels, to processes of inventive edifying expansion prevailing in the early Church, will welcome the curb which Fiebig feels himself warranted in placing upon this tendency in relation to the parabolic discourses of Jesus. Jülicher, e.g., finds ecclesiastical expansion in the exposition of the Parable of the Sower, while allowing the parable itself to be a genuine utterance of Jesus. Fiebig's criticism of the general principle of this position seems to me the most interesting and, it may turn out to be, the most valuable portion of this book. If in the first part he shows (I venture to think successfully) that if we would understand the form of the Synoptic parables we must not neglect the ancient Rabbinical writings, in the second part he insists that if we are to understand this matter we must not overlook the fact that our Lord was in a real sense an apocalyptist. Why should the apocalyptic speaker not follow the mode of the apocalyptic writer, and include in his discourse not simply visions or allegories (or what may correspond to these) but also interpretations? Nothing doubtless could be further from the truth than to suppose in the construction of our Lord's discourses an element that could fairly be called 'artificial.'

He did not speak as if He were writing a book. But may it not be the case that when One, who nourished His own faith to a considerable extent on the Book of Daniel, and possibly on other writings of the apocalyptic class, found even in the disciples less capacity to apprehend the realities of the Kingdom than He expected, He recognized in that circumstance a call to be, as regards them, an interpreter as well as a seer of visions?

It would not be fair to give here the details of Fiebig's very interesting analysis of the situation depicted in Mt 13 and parallels. Suffice it to say that his argument goes to show that the difficulties which this section of the Gospels present to most readers may arise mainly from a failure to recognize that the distinction there drawn between the multitude who are addressed only in

parables and the disciples to whom it is given to know the 'mysteries' of the Kingdom, does not apply to the whole of the teaching of Jesusparabolic or direct-but only to the part of it dealing specially with the last things.

If this could be substantiated, there would seem to be as little reason to deny that Jesus gave esoteric explanations of some of the parables as there is to deny that He spoke these parables themselves.

On the whole, this is an instructive and stimulating book, and it may be hoped that the reception given to it by students of the Gospels will encourage its author to continue his efforts to extract light in the interpretation of the Gospels from a quarter to which few in the present generation of New Testament scholars can claim such right of access as he possesses. LEWIS A. MUIRHEAD. Broughty-Ferry.

The New Herzog.'

PROFESSOR SIEFFERT of Bonn contributes an elaborate article to the Hauck-Herzog Realencyklopädie (vol. xv.) on

PETER THE APOSTLE.

The treatment of the Gospel narratives is critical; all the sources are not regarded as of equal value, but 'tendency' plays a much less conspicuous part in the discussion than in the writings of modern representatives of the subjective school. There is no unscientific ruling out of the evidence of the Fourth Gospel; its statements are weighed as impartially as are those of the Synoptists, due regard being paid to the importance of the Petrine tradition preserved by Mark. Some of the results arrived at by Professor Sieffert, after a careful investigation of the difficult problems involved, may be briefly stated.

There is general agreement that what Schmiedel (Ency. Bib. iv. 4561) calls 'the honorific name 'Peter-was, as he himself believes, bestowed upon Simon by Jesus. But it is often asserted that in regard to the time when the name was given the Fourth Gospel contradicts the Synoptists. In the former, as early as the days of John's baptism, Jesus addresses his newly-won disciple as the man of rock; in the latter, 'Peter' occurs first in the account of the choice of the twelve apostles. It is,

however, an assumption that the Johannine narrative describes a formal conferring of the name with the intention that it should henceforth be regularly used; it is also an assumption that the statements in the Synoptic Gospels mean that the name was used for the first time when the twelve were chosen. Sieffert's suggestion is that 'Jesus described Peter as the rock-man as a mark of confidence soon after He made the acquaintance of His future apostle by the banks of the Jordan; on a later occasion, the confession at Cæsarea Philippi, and perhaps also as early as the choice of the twelve, Jesus reminded Simon of His words; thus gradually amongst the disciples Peter became the name regularly used.'

A further question arises: 'Is rock-man a correct description of the character of Peter, as it is revealed in the Gospels?' Beyschlag avoids the difficulty, but disregards the plain meaning of the narratives, when he explains the name as marking out Peter as the first stone and as a pillar in the kingdom which Jesus compared to a building. Hausrath thinks that the disciples fell into the error of supposing that the name referred to the character of Peter; but it is not easy to find any cogency in his attempt to trace its origin to the possibility that Jesus first found a home in the house of Simon. Against the theory of Strauss that the name is not older than the apostolic age, it is sufficient to place the judgment of Schmiedel already quoted, and to mention the antagonistic but equally baseless suggestion of Volkmar that before Simon met Jesus he was known as Simon Peter to distinguish him from other Simons.

Sieffert points out that Peter, as we know him in the Gospels, has all the traits of a sharply defined type of character; he is a true Galilean, and according to Josephus, his countrymen were well intentioned, confiding and courageous, lovers of freedom, but susceptible to outside influences, fickle, and lovers of novelty (Jos. Vita, 16, 17; cf. Bell. Jud. iii. 3. 2). In Peter's disposition implicit trust and undaunted courage blend with a liability to change, which sometimes amounts to instability. The explanation is not, as Holsten suggests, that the emotional nature was more active than the intellectual. It is rather to be found in the elasticity of a sanguine temperament, quickly responsive to external influences, but not permanently retentive of the impressions made; therefore, easily led now in one direction, now in another, and

prone to inconsistency in thought and action. Nevertheless, our Lord's description of Simon as the rock-man is fully justified. The judgment of character which therein finds expression is based upon no mere surface observation. 'Under the quicksand of an excessive mental mobility, Jesus recognized, with the glance that searched the depths of human nature, the firm bed-rock of a loyal heart upon which it was possible to build.' There was reason to hope that in such an energetic nature, when once it had received a decisive impulse, the tendency to instability would be overcome. Of this confidence Peter proved himself to be not unworthy. His Galilean simplicity of trust and his kindly disposition led to a believing and affectionate devotion to Jesus and His work, which made him trustworthy and steadfast, although traces of his natural fickleness from time to time appear.

At Cæsarea Philippi Peter's rock-like character was manifested. This incident is felicitously treated by Professor Sieffert, though on slight grounds he identifies Peter's confession (Mt 161ff.) with his words probably uttered about the same time, but under different circumstances: 'We have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God' (Jn 669). The confession recorded in the Fourth Gospel points, as Westcott says, 'to the inward character in which the apostles found the assurance of life,' whilst the later confession at Cæsarea Philippi was 'of the public office and theocratic Person of the Lord.' All that Sieffert says of Peter's firmness and decision applies, though we regard the Gospels as recording two occasions on which he displayed these qualities. His faith rested not so much on external grounds as on his inner experience of spiritual blessings received from Jesus.'

An exceedingly instructive section deals with the moral peril to which Peter was more and more exposed as he came gradually to realize the approach of the sufferings and death of Jesus. Sieffert thinks that Schmiedel 'without reason' casts doubts upon the historicity of the passage (Mt 1623f.) in which our Lord, to Peter's dismay, speaks of His passion. After commenting on the incidents in which Peter played a prominent part, as e.g., the feet-washing, the over-estimation of willingness to suffer with Jesus, the sleep in the garden of Gethsemane, the smiting with the sword, and the denials in the high priest's palace, Sieffert shows that to charge Peter with vacillation is not

It

to offer a sufficient explanation of his conduct. There is a certain consistency in his seemingly inconsistent procedure. 'The weakness of Peter is evident when he is required to be merely passive in the presence of the sufferings of Jesus; on the other hand, the thought of possible action arouses his energy.' When he promised inviolable loyalty he was thinking of heroic intervention, and, as a matter of fact, he had courage to draw his sword in defence of Jesus and to face the danger involved in a public confession of His Messiahship. But in the high priest's palace it might well seem of little moment whether he confessed Jesus or not; situation in itself less dangerous was for a man of Peter's temperament far more seductive.' It was ardent love for Jesus that prompted Peter to make his foolhardy promise, that wrought in him the gloomy grief which induced sleep, that incited him to the committal of a rash deed of violence. was ardent love for Jesus that made Peter bold to enter the high priest's palace, not only without the protection of acquaintance with members of the household, such as John enjoyed, but also in spite of extra peril resulting from his having compromised himself by impulsively using his sword. Sieffert thinks that it was also ardent love for Jesus which betrayed Peter in an unguarded moment to utter a falsehood in order that he might not be compelled to leave the presence of his Lord. The casual question of an inquisitive servant suddenly exposed Peter to this danger. To escape it he told a lie, but as soon as he realized that his lie involved the denial of Jesus, of which he had declared himself incapable, he bitterly repented. By this terrible experience Peter's spiritual nature was purified and strengthened from the narratives of his intercourse with the risen Saviour it is evident that his sorrow was abiding, and that the rock-man enjoyed again the complete trust of Him whom he was eager to serve and for whom he even dared to die. J. G. TASKER.

:

Handsworth College.

formed-although Dr. Ziller does not leave us in much doubt as to his own opinion-but what is the connexion between the miracles so described and the conceptions of God and the world which prevail in the Book. Did the biblical writers consider them to be deviations from the order of Nature, or did they merely take them to be marvellous events? Such a writer as J had no notion of a fixed order of Nature; hence he cannot have felt that the marvels he narrates were violations thereof. To E God seemed farther off from man and less comprehensible by him; the activity of such a deity would therefore assume more of the character of an interference with the laws of the world. And seeing that the older belief in a mere tribal god had to yield more and more to the faith in a God and Ruler of the whole world, it might have been expected that the belief in miracles would die out. On the contrary, the prophets continued to proclaim His nearness to His people and His activity on their behalf, and, in later Judaism the world was so full of super-earthly divine forces, that men thought they could discern them everywhere, in all realms of life, in the experiences of the nation and of individuals.' The explanation is to be found in the fact that although the prophets themselves had but little experience of what might be deemed miraculous events, they believed that Yahweh was the covenant God of Israel, and as such must have wrought wonders for His people in the past, and was certain to do so in the future. The state of mind thus created is reflected in the New Testament, where the heralds of the final catastrophe manifest their presence by performing miracles of all kinds: 'the blind see, the lame walk, and to the poor the gospel is preached,' the message, that is, of the Messianic kingdom. But some of the ideas connected with miracles, such as those which have to do with devils, demons, and the casting out of evil spirits, together with Paul's 'powers, angels, and dominions,' are, it can hardly be doubted, derived from Persia.

The conclusion of the whole matter is that the only miracles which have any positive religious value are those which are both genuine and wholesome, experienced in ourselves or reproduced in our experience, springing from a normal development of religious feeling and knowledge. 'Where such miracles do not occur it is best to renounce "Faith's dearest child." It is a wholesome and

strong faith alone that can create the genuine miracle which brings us strength and blessing in both inward and outer distress.' Whether Dr. Ziller's fellow-countrymen will find a wholesome and vigorous faith promoted by an essay on those lines is for them to say. In this country it will probably be thought that he is more successful in taking away than in restoring. J. TAYLOR.

Winchcombe.

Caría.

Clemens Alexandrinus.-The latest issue of 'Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Yahrhunderte' is the first volume of the works of Clement of Alexandria. The volume contains the Address to the Greeks (Protrepticus) and The Tutor (Pædagogus). The editor is Professor Otto Stählin of Munich.

The whole purpose of Professor Stählin's edition of these two works of Clement is to furnish the best possible text. To this end is devoted the long and thorough Introduction. It deals with the ancient witnesses, the manuscripts, the portions which have been transmitted indirectly, the editions, and the translations. Then, when the text comes, all these authorities are used thoroughly and skilfully. For every writer a critical text is the first necessity. No other text of those two books of Clement should now be used. The usual indexes are provided, most accurate, most complete.

In English very little scholarly work has been done on Clement of Alexandria. Apart from 'The Ante-Nicene Library' and Westcott's article in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography, only two names are worth mentioning-Dr. J. B. Mayor and Mr. P. M. Barnard. It is evident that Professor Stählin has used Hort and Mayor's edition of the seventh book of the Stromateis with much advantage to himself. He has used Barnard's edition of the Quis Dives Salvetur also (in which, by the way, there are indexes as full and accurate as Stählin's own). But we see no sign of any use made of Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria, though it appeared in the Cambridge 'Texts and Studies' also (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905; M.13.50).

Bovon's Study in the Work of Redemption. The work of Professor Jules Bovon is

finished. He died on the 28th of July 1904. Before the fatal illness came he had nearly completed the revision of the second volume of his great 'Study.' And it was a thorough revision. The second volume deals with the Teaching of the Apostles. On its topic there is nothing in any language which more happily unites sound scholarship, clear insight, and vivacity of style. The new edition differs considerably from the first, but with one exception the changes are minute, careful account being taken of the literature of the subject down even to the occasional magazine article in English. The exception is in respect of the Pastoral Epistles. These Epistles are now separated from the rest of the Pauline letters. This does not signify a doubt of their authenticity, but rather that their teaching stands by itself. Professor Bovon calls it Paulinism of the Second Degree (Lausanne: Bridel, 1905; 10 fr.).

Zahn's Galatians.-It has become customary to speak of Professor Theodor Zahn of Erlangen as the veteran. The title is an honourable one. It signifies experience, and, as applied to Zahn at least, it signifies also the utmost alertness of mind. Zahn's Introduction to the New Testament is the foremost Introduction in existence, especially for the uses of the British student, and we are glad to hear that it is about to be translated into English. Zahn's Commentary on the New Testament will take the place which Meyer has occupied so long. The most recently issued volume is St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. The editor is Professor Zahn himself. The introduction is brief, but packed with knowledge. packed with knowledge. The commentary is full and acceptable, for though Zahn is aware of the latest conjecture, he is not carried away by it. Two passages (25 424-26) receive treatment in extended notes, the discussion in both cases being purely textual, but most thorough and full of good points (Leipzig: Deichert, 1905; M.5.70).

Jacquier's Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Testament.-M. l'Abbé E. Jacquier has issued the second volume of his history of the books of the New Testament. It is occupied with the Synoptic Gospels. English students of the Synoptic Gospels should send for the book. Its largest and best portion is an analysis of the contents of the Synoptics-a clever and original