LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

the purest possible text.34 Westcott and Hort went further in working out a scientific theory with canons of interpretation which at first appeared to sweep the field and claim almost universal assent.35 More recently, however, it has been felt that these scholars were tempted to rely too much on one or two old manuscripts – chiefly, indeed, on a single manuscript, the Vatican, and to treat too contemptuously the claims of what is known as the "Western Text," represented among other authorities by the great Cambridge MS., the Codex Bezae. Accordingly their text cannot be regarded as final.36 Meanwhile perhaps the soundest working Greek Testament is that edited by Nestlè for the "British and Foreign Bible Society," which strikes the mean of several critical editions. The more accurate text has been accompanied by more correct translations, of which the most conspicuous are the English and American Revised Versions. This may be described as substantially one and the same revision of the so-called "Authorized Version"; but there are several emendations of the American revisers which were not accepted by their more conservative English coadjutors, although in nearly every case they must be allowed to be improvements both as regards scholarship and also in lucidity. Since the Revised Version appeared several completely new translations of the New Testament into modern English have been published.37

III. – RECENT CRITICISM

      The most remarkable characteristic of the latest Biblical criticism is the application to the New Testament of those disintegrating processes with the results of which on Old Testament studies we have long been familiar. This, however, is by no means so alarming as the claims of the more radical critics might suggest. It is true that some scholars carry their destructive criticism to an extreme – for instance, Schmiedel with the gospels, refusing to allow full assurance for the authenticity of more than five of our Lord's sayings, and Van Manen with the epistles, repudiating the authenticity of all those ascribed to St. Paul.38 But these critics stand almost alone; at all events they do not represent anything like the normal position of New Testament scholarship. The accident of their prominence in one of the great Bible dictionaries, which is simply due to editorial sympathies, must not disguise the fact of their eccentricity. Nothing is more remarkable in recent criticism than the fact that while the more conservative of the two new dictionaries39 accepts the main critical position of advanced scholarship with regard to the Old Testament, it differs toto coelo40 from its rival in its treatment of the New Testament. In these respects it fairly corresponds to the position taken up by most of the writers of the Expositor's Bible.

      A remarkable approach towards unanimity is to be seen in the views of scholars of various types with reference to what is known as the "synoptic problem," the problem of the origin of our first three gospels occasioned by the perplexing phenomena of their frequent close resemblance and signally frequent striking divergence. Fifty years ago opinions about this question were in a perfectly chaotic condition; indeed, there were about as many opinions as the highest possible arithmetical variation in the mutual relations of the gospels would permit. Some put Matthew first, some Mark, some Luke; and all conceivable theories as to their relation one to another, the use of earlier documents, and the degree of reliance on tradition or on written sources to be detected in their authors found eager advocates. But gradually the turbid waters settled and certain definite, generally accepted ideas were crystallized. In the present day it is almost universally agreed that Mark was written by the man whose name it bears, although when Pfleiderer gave his adhesion to this view such a confession from one who was regarded as a leader of the "left wing" of criticism occasioned some surprise.41 Further, it is the generally accepted opinion that the bulk of the narrative portion of Matthew – the chief exceptions being the Infancy and Resurrection narrative – is based on Mark, and that the same is true to a considerable extent with regard to Luke. There has been much discussion as to whether St. Mark's gospel has undergone revision. But the ripest results of study on this subject are represented by the conclusions of Dr. Abbott who has shown that our Mark is really the earlier edition of the gospel which in a later and slightly modified form, its ruggedness being smoothed, was used in the construction of Matthew and Luke. In the second place, it is very generally admitted that the discourses in Matthew, which are inserted in five blocks of sayings, like five wedges driven into the narrative as that stands in Mark, are the contents of a work consisting of the "oracles," or "sacred sayings," of Jesus which a very ancient church writer, Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis, tells us that Matthew compiled.42 Thus we get two of our gospels well authenticated, Mark being admitted to be the work of the man to whom it is ascribed and Matthew being acknowledged as in the main a combination of St. Matthew the Apostle's collection of the teachings of Jesus with the standard narrative in Mark. The infancy and resurrection narratives must have been derived from other primitive authorities.

      The case of our third gospel is somewhat different. As we might expect from his preface, St. Luke has availed himself of a wider range of materials. But he too, like the author of our first gospel, is now admitted to have used Mark as his primary basis, though not to so great extent, or so almost exclusively. In particular in that rich section which is commonly, though perhaps erroneously, ascribed to our Lord s Peræan ministry, he has a store of precious materials that are not met with in any other gospels. Similarly, while some verbal coincidences lead us to the conclusion that he also used St. Matthew's collection of the sayings of Jesus, it is evident that he had other collections of our Lord's teachings, from which, for instance, he got the parables of the Prodigal Son and of the Good Samaritan, and many other choice utterances the characteristic beauty and originality of which constitute their own authentication.

      Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we see that this wonderful book has been subjected to the most searching criticism during recent years with very interesting results. Half a century ago Baur declared that it could not have been written before the Year A. D. 160. Since then the finding of primitive Christian Documents43 which bear testimony to the use of this gospel in earlier times, together with the proofs of its archaic character brought out by a comparison of its contents with second-century literature, has forced the date of its origin steadily back and yet further back, till the latest possible date that can be assigned to it is quite early in the second century. But more than this, there is a growing tendency to connect this gospel with the son of Zebedee. Some scholars44 would assign the actual writing of the book to another person, perhaps John the Elder; but then they allow that this somewhat shadowy personage, referred to by Papias as a contemporary of the Apostles, derived his information from the Beloved Disciple. One leading scholar45 holds that the teachings of Jesus in our Fourth Gospel came from the Apostle John, while he thinks that most of the narrative portions are due to another hand. But in one of the latest works on the subject, Dr. Drummond ascribes the whole book to the Apostle and meets the adverse views of recent criticism with masterly replies. Even if the final verdict should be to ascribe the literary form of the work to John the Elder or some unknown scholar at Ephesus, the growing consensus of opinion is toward assigning the substance of it to St. John himself.

      The same period has seen a reasonable change in the critical treatment of the Acts of the Apostles. The "Tübingen School," represented in this case especially by Zeller, the author of well-known works on Greek philosophy, had treated the book as altogether a fancy picture of early church history designed to reconcile the two opposite parties of St. Paul and the elder Apostles by means of the compromise of Catholicism. That theory is now extinct, and recent research has gone a long way to vindicate the trustworthiness of the book, partly by showing the primitive character of the first half – especially as illustrated by the speeches of St. Peter and others,46 and later by the collection of many evidences of the historicity of the second portion of the book, namely, that containing the missionary journeys of St. Paul. We owe it especially to the brilliant studies of Prof. Ramsay

Скачать книгу