Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

lute supernaturalism which finds expression in the antithesis between σάρξ and πνεῦμα. The Christian state is said to destroy the continuity in the life of man, because in making him pneuma it does not restore or develop what was originally given in his nature, but supplants the latter by something altogether new. The second concerns the mythical soteriology which the Apostle is believed to have first introduced into the new religion, by grafting upon the original interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ the widely-spread pagan ideas concerning the dying and rising deity which while at first nature-myths had received in the mystery-religions a more spiritual significance, thus imparting to Christian experience the character of a joint-dying and joint-resurrection with Christ. In regard to the former of these points Bousset thinks that it constitutes one of the aspects of Paulinism in which the latter opened the door for the later Gnostic inroads into the Christian Church. Gnosticism is only the consistent carrying out of the doctrine of a metaphysical schism between nature and grace. In answer to this it may be observed that the author has onesidedly interpreted the Pauline statements about the σápέ. It is not true that the σápέ in its technical sense represents the original natural condition of man. Insofar as it is synonymous with sin it is not the product of creation. Paul nowhere affirms it to be so, and to charge this monstrous doctrine to him even by implication, for the sole reason that he does not explicitly repudiate it, or says in so many words that the oάpέ was produced in man through sin, is hardly fair. In Rom. v. the conception of the rise of death, and consequently of the σápέ from which death is inseparable, out of the one deliberate apáπшμа of Adam forms clearly the background of the Apostle's argumentation. When this is allowed it can no longer be claimed that the Pauline soteriology breaks the continuity between nature and grace, for Christ restores precisely what the entrance of the σápέ destroyed. Of course it is quite true that the Apostle's doctrine of salvation contains side by side with this another strand. It represents the pneuma as doing more than neutralizing the influence of sin. It lifts man to the higher stage of the supernatural life, which the first Adam even before he sinned did not possess. Insofar there is a novum, something superimposed in the Christian state. Still it would be incorrect to find in this a suspension of the continuity or identity of life. Bousset in adopting Reitzenstein's interpretation of the term veνμaтikós in contrast toxikós is more cautious than the latter for he makes it to mean only no longer mere man (p. 132), whereas according to Reitzenstein it would actually mean no longer man, the yuxý having ceased to exist and the pneumatic man having become deified.1 It is worth observation that the distinction between the two strands that enter into the Pauline doctrine of the work of the Spirit is clearly marked by the twofold antithesis σαρκικός πνευματικός and ψυχικός πνευματικός. The psychic man is the natural man as such. The sarkic man is the

1 Cpr. however p. 203 of Bousset's book, where the term "deification" is used in connection with Paul's words in 2 Cor. iv., 6.

sinful natural man. It is certainly significant that in 1 Cor. xv. 45 ff. where Paul puts over against each other the creation-state and the eschatological state of pneumatic life, he does not characterize the former as sarkic but as psychic.

As to the other point the fault found with Paul's mythology of salvation, we can only reply that the charge stands or falls with the pagan derivation of the Apostle's soteriology. If the idea of dying and rising with Christ should not have this provenience, but be explainable, as Schweitzer has promised to explain it, on the background of the eschatological distinction between the two ages, then there would be no mythology in this matter at all. To be sure Bousset's criticism at this point cuts more deeply than this. It ultimately is directed against the whole Pauline conception of sin as a matter of nature and not merely a state of mind. Hence the distinction between the simple gospel of Jesus centering in the sole idea of the forgiveness of sin and the supernaturalism of the Pauline religion of salvation. Of the thesis that the best and highest in man must be given him from on high and ab extra, it is claimed, not the slighest trace exists in the teaching of Jesus. Hence Bousset approves in principle of Wrede's way of formulating the difference between Jesus and Paul. But the fundamental fault of this whole way of looking at things lies with the liberal misinterpretation of the teaching of Jesus. The soteriological element in Jesus' Gospel was not confined to his proclamation of the forgiving grace of God. If this were all then a great gulf between Jesus and Paul would indeed exist. But the salvation which Jesus preached was closely connected with his eschatology and meant deliverance and eternal life in the day of judgment. If this be compared with the Pauline doctrine, and the latter correctly viewed in its own eschatological setting, then it will be seen that, notwithstanding all difference in detail, there is no actual opposition, but a deeper unity at bottom between the two.

We have no space to dwell at length on the author's exposition of the Johannine type of Christianity. The absence of the kúptos-title from the Gospel (with the exception of Chap. xxi, considered a later appendix) is explained from the peculiar Christ-mysticism, to which the designation of the Savior as "Lord" appeared inappropriate and which has found its characteristic expression in Jesus' own characterizing the disciples as "friends", no longer "servants", xv, 14 ff. This seems hardly in accord with the majestic, transcendental features borne by the Johannine Christ in other respects. And it might be questioned if the avoidance of 8 Kúpios and the preference for the simple Jesus as a designation of the Saviour in the body of the Gospel cannot be better explained from the desire of the Evangelist to emphasize the true humanity of Jesus over against the docetic heresy. The reemergence of the title in Chap. xx, 28 and xxi, 7 ff. seems due to the difference made by the resurrection is the relationship between Jesus and the disciples, as in Acts also kúpos is a post-resurrection title. The central idea of the Fourth Gospel is found to be that of deification through vision of the deity, and this again is explained

from the joint-influence of the mystery-religions which culminated in an éπоπтεíα of the godhead, and the astronomical-astrological form of piety widely prevalent in that age and also traceable in Philo, with whom it passes over into a less rational, mystical apprehension of the divine. The author, to be sure, is compelled to admit that, apart from I Jno. iii. 2, and here the statement is eschatological, the Gospel never speaks of "deification" and there is no warrant to read this meaning, after the manner of the later Greek theology, into the conception of the obtaining of eternal life. Nor is it necessary to interpret the efficiency ascribed to the word of Christ in the light of the magical function exercised by the word in the mysteries. For whatever analogies to the Logos-conception may exist elsewhere, in that connection the word is never personified as it is in John. As for the prominence of "light" and "life", this the Gospel has in common, it is true, with Gnosticism, particularly with the Hermetic literature, but here the question of date is yet far from settled and a dependence on the Fourth Gospel by no means excluded, although Bousset eagerly adopts the early dating of the Hermetic ideas by Reitzenstein. That the representation of eternal life as a present possession as distinguished from an eschatological outlook proves the dependence of the Gospel on Hellenistic mysticism can be maintained only by striking out as unauthentic the eschatological utterances in Chap. v, 28-29, vi, 39-54, and minimizing on the other hand the presence of the same idea in Paul, thus placing the Johannine theology at a greater distance from the Pauline teaching on this point than actually exists.

We have contented ourselves with touching on the way in which the author deals with the great epochs in the New Testament developments of truth. There is much in the other chapters, dealing with extra-canonical material, that is exceedingly interesting and instructive, especially in the chapters on Gnosticism and Irenaeus. The whole book bears witness on almost every page to the rich learning and great constructive power of the writer. There are not many pages in it which an orthodox reader will be able to read without dissent, but there are a great many from which in spite of this, and perhaps for this very reason, he will be able to learn. Princeton.

GEERHARDUS Vos.

The Christology of St. Paul. Hulsean Prize Essay with an Additional Chapter by the REV. G. NOWELL ROSTRON, M.A., Vicar of St. Lawrence, Kirkdale, Late Principal of St. John's Hall, Durham; Late Scholar of St. John's College, Cambridge. New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company. 1912. Pp. xv, 249. (Library of Historic Theology.)

Rostron's book offers a good survey of the problems of Paulinism so far as these are viewed in relation to the orthodox faith of the church. It does not deal with the Christology alone, as the title might lead to expect, but, on the principle that the Person and the work are inseparable and react and cast light one on the other, it draws within the purview of the discussion the whole range of

soteriology. It was inevitable under these circumstances that the treatment of many topics, and some of these of the first importance, should become somewhat general and sketchy crowding out some large aspects of the Christological question itself and much more or less relevant detail throughout. New points of view are not presented, but the author shows himself familiar with the recent literature bearing on his subject. His standpoint is that of the Nicene faith in regard to theology proper, and in regard to soteriology he upholds the vicarious interpretation of the atonement as genuinely Pauline. As to the sources of Paul's teaching, while making allowance for the Jewish and Hellenistic element and the primitive Christian tradition, he takes the principial ground that the Apostle's doctrine is a transcript of his life or experience. To some extent this is undoubtedly true and to emphasize it is necessary over against the older intellectualizing of the process which gave birth to the specifically Pauline ideas. On the other hand we believe it is easy to go too far in this direction and to make such a general recourse upon the experience cover up the existence of problems which yet wait for a solution. Unless the experience be taken in a very specific sense of the reception of supernatural knowledge, it fails in many places to explain the product which is supposed to have issued from it, because on closer examination the ideas rcsulting are seen already to be inherent in and indispensable to the experience. If on the other hand experience be taken as the correlate of supernatural communication, why not call it revelation, and explicitly acknowledge that in a very important sense Paul's doctrine was not subjectively developed by him, but received per modum revelationis strictly so called.

The most recent phase upon which the study of Paul has entered through the comparison of the mystical side of his teaching with alleged analogous trains of thought in the mysteries hardly receives the prominence which at the present juncture it deserves. It is touched upon only in a passing way and the general opinion expressed that merely the form and in no sense the substance of the ideas involved is derivable from the source. Here especially the lack of genetic treatment or the reduction of all genesis to experience makes itself disadvantageously felt. Those who make much of the indebtedness of Paul to Hellenistic syncretism derive from that source not merely the form but the substance of the mystical side of the Apostle's teaching itself, or at least maintain that he drew it from the general atmosphere, out of which also the mystery-religions grew up and in which they thrived. In view of this it is of some importance to consider whether the ideas in question cannot be as naturally or even more naturally explained as a legitimate outgrowth of previous factors inherent in pre-Pauline revelation; the general category of experience hardly suffices in this connection.

There are some detailed points in regard to which the author in our opinion deviates from the excellent exegetical and doctrinal judgment which on the whole his work exhibits. It is hardly permissible

to grant that the έ ovpávov of 1 Cor. xv. 47 may have an implied reference to the preëxistent heavenly state, and yet to controvert the view that the preëxistent Christ possessed a human element in His make-up. For the reference in the passage is distinctly and pointedly to the "Second Man", and there is no logical escape from Dr. Edwards' conclusions, except by insisting upon it, that the Apostle here speaks of the genesis of the glorified Christ through the resurrection, and that the preëxistence does not come into view at all, a position which is exegetically also the most plausible, and to which Rostron himself a little later on seems to incline. In discussing the famous Christological passage Phil. ii., 5 ff. the author makes the hazardous statement that "so far as Christ by the necessities of His life on earth was obliged to limit the exercise of His cosmical functions, so far did God the Father directly and mediately take them upon Himself" (p. 128), and thus would seem to fall in with a certain type of Kenoticism with reference to which in the preceding discussion on the whole his attitude is rather reserved than otherwise. In his revulsion from the neo-Apollinarianism of Sanday, who would make the Deity fill the place of the subliminal consciousness of the human Christ, the author seems to go too far in discrediting the subconscious as an integral element in the religious nature. We would hesitate to subscribe to the statement that "the subconscious . . . has no moral character in itself." On other points, we are glad to notice modern vogues in the interpretation of Paul are resisted e.g. the shifting of the emphasis from the crucifixion to the incarnation, which Westcott has done so much to popularize.

The book can render excellent service to all students of the Apostle's teaching who feel in need of reassuring themselves of the substantial agreement of Paulinism with the historic faith of the Protestant church. In the discussion about the continuity between Jesus and Paul the other charge so frequently made, that Protestantism is a quasi-Paulinism and not a genuine reproduction of the great Apostle's teaching, should not be lost out of view. That we are in accord with Paul is as important a principle to maintain as that Paul was in accord with the Master. Princeton.

GEERHARDUS Vos.

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

The Balkans: A Laboratory of History. By WILIAM M. SLOANE, Member of the American Academy; Professor of History in Columbia University; Author of The French War and the Revolution; Napoleon Bonaparte: A History; French Revolution and Religious Reform, etc. New York: Eaton and Mains. 1914. 8vo; pp. viii, 322. $1.50 net.

Between the years 1903 and 1910, we are informed in the Preface, "the author made three fairly extended journeys in lands which had once been a part of the Turkish empire. What he was able as a mere

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »