Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

of God Himself-no other will suffice. The revelation of God wherever seen will also possess authority because it is the expression of God Himself, hence for Christians the authority of the true, the good, the ought, goes back to God the Creator and Preserver, and from Him as source obtain their power to control. For the same reason, and, considering our need, in a more urgent degree, the special revelation alluded to above will possess authority.

These considerations enable us to understand the confessional statements concerning the authority of the Holy Scripture. Its authority is not merely that it contains the true, that it expresses the good, that it instructs us concerning our duty; so do many other things; nor is it that it contains the original records of Christ for us to examine and retain what will stand our proving; but it is that it itself forms a part of the special revelation, prepared by the Holy Spirit in the manner we have already described, to be the permanent possession of the people of God. It possesses authority as source, not repetition; not merely as means of

grace but as means of revelation; not merely the record of what grace did for far off peoples in the distant centuries, to be used by us as an occasional stimulus for feeble devotion; but the revealing to us personally, here and now, of that God whose word liveth and abideth for ever.

As a matter of course many objections are offered to this view. Some characterise it as Bibliolatry and others reëcho Lessing's gibe about the "Paper Pope". Proof is demanded, but in questions of fact the only proof possible is the presentation of the fact that the occurrence in question took place. Many are not content however; they point to the indirect testimony: that the “circumstances” of Scripture make it impossible for us to allow its claim of supreme authority as our forefathers did; that there are many internal contradictions; that many scripture books are not authentic; that we cannot reconcile scripture history with profane history; that we can no longer hold to creation or miracles; that the life and morals of the scripture characters are often very


bad; that it is full of myths and superstitions; that the original texts are lost and that those we have are not infrequently suspicious, and so on through all the familiar list. Scripture however still survives and the century of the fiercest attack has been the century of its farthest reaching conquests—not however by the aid of those who had lost faith in its authority but in the hands of those who upheld it. 45

So we see many repeating in inverse order the procedure of which our Lord complains in John v. 39, 40. The Jews. acknowledged the authority of Scripture but rejected that of Jesus Christ; the men of today acknowledge the authority of Christ but reject that of Scripture. Must we not however, if we come to Christ, come through Scripture? And if we bow to the authority of Christ, must we not also bow to the authority of the Book of the Spirit of Christ? If we yield however we must do so with all our heart. It must not be the obedience of those who say that although the Scripture is full of ineptitudes, errors, misconceptions, anachronisms, childish views; although it is merely the story of how the race groped up after God, nevertheless we still resolve to hold to it in view of the great good it does in the world. That is similar to the attitude of those who say that Jesus Christ was a poor weak sinful ignorant man like the rest of us, but notwithstanding we may still respect Him in view of His good intentions and the effect He has produced. Doubtless such an attitude is better than open enmity. But the homage that is due to God and to His Word in carne or in litteris simplis is not the condescending respect of benevolence but the implicit obedience of the creature to the Creator Lincoln University, Pa.

GEORGE JOHNSON. * Cf. “The Word and the World" by J. Hope Moulton, in The International Review of Missions, Jan. 1913.




Dr. Driver died on the 26th day of February, 1914, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. He was born in Southampton on October 2, 1846, and was educated at Winchester College and New College, Oxford. In 1874, while Fellow of New College, he published A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, which attracted the immediate attention of Hebrew students to his scholarship. By this book he first made his name. Whatever one may think of the desirability of speaking of the moods and tenses of the Hebrew verb, Dr. Driver's vast collection of examples and happy arrangement of them have splendidly exhibited the methods by which the Hebrews expressed those thought-relations which the Greeks more sharply distinguished by the moods and tenses of their verb, both alone and in combination with particles. The appearance of this book was followed by his appointment in 1875 to be Tutor of Hebrew in New College and by his choice for membership in the Old Testament Company for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Bible, a position which he retained until the completion of the work in 1884. He was now known as a proficient Hebrew scholar, and in 1882 was made Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, in succession to the celebrated Dr. Pusey.

In 1891 Dr. Driver gave to the public An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. In its pages he made the first definite announcement of his attitude towards the three schools of Old Testament criticism, and his allegiance to the school of Graf-Wellhausen. There had been previous indications of the trend of his thoughts; for in a modest little book entitled Critical Notes on the International Sunday School Lessons from the Pentateuch, 1887, in the introductory remarks he definitely accepted the literary analysis of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua into the four sources known as

* The Life-Work of Samuel Rolles Driver. A sermon preached in Christ Church Cathedral on March 8, 1914, by W. SANDAY, D.D., F.B.A., Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1914. Pp. 12. Price sixpence net.

J, E, D, and P, but he used great caution in referring to the dates of these writings (so also in Contemporary Review, Feb. 1890, pp. 217-219, and 229; comp. Journal of Philology, 1882). In 1890 his Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel appeared. This work is really an introduction to textual criticism, using the books of Samuel to illustrate method; but in the comments on the text some evidence is given that the author has adopted the Grafian dating of the Pentateuchal codes and assigned P to a time after Ezekiel (see 2 Sam. vi. 1; viii. 18; xv. 24, 27). It was in the Introduction, however, where Dr. Driver was first explicit in regard to his acceptance of Graf's theory of the origin of the Pentateuch. In this volume he also commits himself to the late date and unhistorical character of the Book of Daniel, and pronounces his judgment upon many of the minor problems that engage the attention of students of the Old Testament. The book at once took its place as the leading introduction to the Old Testament for English readers. Within a year three editions were exhausted and a fourth was published, the ninth Edinburgh edition came from the press towards the end of 1913, and a thirteenth New York edition in 1910. Mainly through this publication, but with his reputation enhanced by the Commentary on Deuteronomy, 1895, and the three volumes in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Dr. Driver became the most influential representative of the school of GrafWellhausen in Great Britain and throughout the Englishspeaking world. In the opinion of Professor Kautzsch of Halle it was chiefly Dr. Driver who "conquered England for the scientific criticism of the Old Testament" (Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1897, col. 42).

Though Dr. Driver sometimes found himself unable definitely to accept critical views which were propounded while the Introduction was passing through its repeated editions, yet he "deemed it only proper to notice and describe them, so far as space permitted” (Introduction, p. xv). All of them, however, and some notable ones, did not obtain mention (Cheyne. Founders of Old Testament Criticism, pp. 294 f, 303 f, 372'; Siegfried, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1892, col. 124). A friend of Dr. Driver's, and a fellow-worker in the field of Old Testament criticism, has expressed his disappointment. at some such omissions, and has attributed Dr. Driver's silence on these matters to a possible feeling on his part that theories which he omitted to mention or neglected to discuss were “critical extravagances with which time might be left to deal” (A. S. Peake, Expositor, 1914, p. 397). This is a surmise, the suggestion of one who knew Dr. Driver well, and it is not unreasonable, especially when along with the limitations of space a chief characteristic of Dr. Driver's is remembered. He had no leaning to mere speculation; he always sought for tangible evidence. The lack of such support fully accounts for the omission of reference to a theory in the pages of the Introduction. It certainly and justly ruled out some views that originated not far from Oxford itself.

Naturally, then, Dr. Driver did not belong to the radical section of his school. Both Professors Cheyne and Kautzsch have spoken of him as being at times too cautious. It is quite possible that, as Professor Cheyne asserted, in consequence of Dr. Driver's "long devotion to the more exact, more philological study of the Hebrew Scriptures” he “could not see his way as far nor as clearly as those critics of a wider range, who had entered on their career at an earlier period” (Founders of Old Testament Criticism, p. 260). But the main reason for Dr. Driver's moderation ordinarily was found in one or both of two causes, in the lack either of tangible evidence of some sort or of a manifest compulsion of the theory. To use his own words, he made it his "aim to avoid speculation upon slight and doubtful data" (Introduction, p. ix or vi). Where the two grounds for an opinion were wanting, he allowed full weight to impressions. For example, he thought that the literary phenomena of the early books of the Bible indicated their composite origin, and therefore he accepted that view. He knew that archaeology, so far at least as it has yet spoken, does not declare the existence of the patriarchs, but only testifies to the correctness of the historical background, and therefore he denied the authority of archaeology at the present time to speak as a witness for the personality of the forefathers of Israel. But on the other hand he was impressed by "the amount of personal incident and detail in the patri

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »