We may lization and history, so often called in question in the West. boldly affirm that the author has attained the object of his labour. At a moment when Greece is condemned in Europe unheard, this book has appeared very opportunely as a defence of Hellenism. It is thus that the European press characterizes this product of an enlightened patriotism, in analyzing it in terms as flattering to the author as to the nation for whose apology this book serves. We have here made a rapid sketch of the intellectual work of the last few months. We do not wish to speak now of other publications and labours of young men who promise still more than they realize for science. What we have to say to-day is that Greece, which has taken some eminent steps in progress and in modern culture, ought to repeat to Europe with assurance these words of her Archimedes: Δός μοι ποῦ στῷ καὶ τὴν γὴν κινήσω (Give me a fulcrum, and I will shake the earth). The narrow horizon within which this small kingdom was cnclosed when it was created does not allow of that intellectual spring and flight which is necessary for the accomplishment of the views and wishes of those who see in Greece the most active and enlightened propagator of civilization among the peoples of the East. Lord Beaconsfield has said of us recently, that we ought to hope, because the future belongs to us. I know not whether these words are a biting irony of the author of "Coningsby," or whether they express his sincere opinion on the future of Greece in the East. Doubtless the future belongs to those who hope and work; but no nation can produce anything great by struggling on a soil so small, so barren, and so narrow, just as no individual can work efficiently if deprived of every resource, and kept without air and light. Such is the position of Greece to-day. She can neither work sufficiently for her physical and moral development, nor become powerful and capable of contending against the Panslavist invasion in the East. Europe will, no doubt, understand this at last; but it will then be too late. N. KASASIS. CONTEMPORARY BOOKS. T I.-BIBLICAL LITERATURE. (Under the Direction of the Hon. and Rev. W. H. FREMANTLE.) HE Bishop of Natal has published his seventh and final volume on the Pentateuch (The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically Examined, by the Right Rev. J. W. Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal. Part VII. Longmans: 1879). In the reface he notices the various works, including the Speaker's Commentary, the work of Alford on the Pentateuch, and those of Kalisch, Graf, and Kuenen, which have appeared of late years, together with the New Table of Lessons, and explains the method of the present volume. The body of the work consists of an examination of the Scriptural books from Judges to the Canticles, undertaken with the view of showing what testimony they yield to the views maintained by the author in the earlier part of the work. Incidentally, however, the books themselves come under review, and the opinion of the author on their age, authorship, and purpose is given. The general results of this laborious criticism may be given as follows: It is believed that five persons or sets of persons, at five different periods, composed or rehandled the Pentateuch and the other historical books. These are (1) the first Elohist (E), who was Samuel or one of his scholars; (2) the second Elohist (E), who wrote about the end of Saul's reign or early in that of David; (3) the Jehovist or Jahvist (J), who wrote towards the end of David's or the beginning of Solomon's reign, who may be identified with Nathan, and may possibly be the same with E; (4) the Deuteronomist (D), who probably was Jeremiah; and (5) the Levitical Legislators (LL), who wrote about 250 B.C., or even later. The share which each of these is supposed to have had in the six first books of the Bible is given in the final appendix, a "Synoptical Table of the Hexateuch.” In another appendix, the author explains the changes in his views of numerous passages, which have led to the more precise conclusions now put forward, and the task is attempted of giving (1) the story of E alone in Exodus and Numbers, and (2) the story of E and J by themselves in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. Thus the author gives the reader the fullest means of judging of his theory. It may be best to give the author's conclusions as to the authorship of the various books in order : Genesis, chiefly written by E and J, with some additions by E and D. Exodus, mostly by J and D, with a shorter narrative by the earlier authors. Numbers, mainly by J and D, but with considerable additions by LL. Deuteronomy, almost wholly by D, but with a few verses by J and LL. Joshua, shared between all the writers, but in the proportions indicated by the numbers 1, 1, 4, 4, 7. Judges, mostly by E. 1 Sam. to 1 Kings xi., by J. The rest of the books of Kings, by D. The books of Chronicles, Ezra, and half Nehemiah, by LL; a late, hierarchical, and quite untrustworthy work. Esther, a mere romance of a late date. Job, written after the Captivity, about 450 R.C. Psalms, at various times; great stress is laid on Ps. lxviii., which is assigned to the age of David, “ the golden age of Hebrew literature," which produced also the Songs of Moses and Deborah, Proverbs, written at various times from Solomon till after the Exile. Canticles, in the time of Rehoboam II., about 800, and in the Northern kingdom. The Bishop believes that the name Jahveh was originally used by some of the tribes of Canaan, that it was then merely a name like that of Chemosh or Milum, but that it was adopted by E, the great writer of the early days of David, as the name of the national deity of Israel, and inserted by him in his narrative of the Exodus, and under the influence of the Prophets came gradually to be associated with the noble ideas of purity and righteousness. The criticisms upon the authors of the latest books are severe and vehement. In the books of Chronicles "the real facts of Jewish history, as given in Samuel and Kings, have been systematically distorted and falsified, in order to support the fictions of the LL, and glorify the priestly and Levitical body, to which the Chronicler himself belonged." In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, not only the whole narrative (except part of Nehemiah) but also the decrees of the kings of Persia, the letters of the governor, and the prayers of Ezra and the Levites are pure fictions of the Chronicler;" and the book of Esther is an unhistorical romance, suggested by a wish to account for the existence of the Feast of Purim, which was probably no more than the commemoration of the choosing by lot of the new inhabitants of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah. 66 It was said by Dr. Arnold that the Old Testament required a Niebuhr; and Bishop Colenso is not a Niebuhr. Indeed, it is but fair to him to say that he is modest enough to disclaim functions such as those of the great German, and to regard himself as preparing the way for their future exercise. Many of his criticisms are telling and convincing. But in his construction he is weak. Even if men can be persuaded that the employment of fiction in the Old Testament histories is as extensive as the Bishop supposes, and that at every turn they are to be on the watch, not only for a Levitical colouring of the narrative but for the most barefaced invention, yet they will hardly be persuaded that the name of Moses should be “regarded as merely that of the imaginary leader of the people out of Egypt, a personage quite as shadowy and unhistorical as Eneas in the history of Rome or our own King Arthur." Indeed, when even Kuenen attempts a reconstruction of the earlier history, his narrative is merely a bald and meagre statement of the events as usually believed. The impartial reader will close this book with the conviction that the goal has not been reached, and will await the time when mere criticism must give way to positive history. The work of the Bishop of Natal has extended over eighteen years. It closes in a different tone and amid different feelings on the subject from those in which it was begun. It arose in a panic about the doctrine of inspiration; and it created a panic. In the first volume sound criticism could hardly see clearly or escape the series of absurdities on account of the clouds of controversy. In the last volume all this is changed. The author writes calmly and in the consciousness that many of the views it propounds are no longer unacceptable. The present state of theological thought in the English Church (how far brought about by the work itself each man must judge for himself) is such that any serious criticism will be weighed quietly and without prejudice. The plan of the New Testament Commentary for English Readers (A New Testament Commentary for English Readers. By Various Authors. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Vol. II. Cassell, Petter and Galpin: 1879) has been given in our notice of the first volume (CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for August, 1878). The second volume is in every respect worthy of the first. The Acts of the Apostles and the Second Epistle to Corinthians are taken by Professor Plumptre; the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians by Mr. Sanday; the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Mr. Teignmouth Shore. The Acts of the Apostles afford Professor Plumptre a congenial field for his powers. He considers that the main purpose of the book is "to inform a Gentile convert of Rome how the Gospel had been brought to him, and how it gained the width and freedom with which it was actually presented." He admits, but justifies, the mediating or reconciling character of the work. This is done successfully, for the most part; but perhaps his vindication of the omission of the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch will be felt to be somewhat constrained, both when he remarks that "there is absolutely no evidence that he (St. Luke) was acquainted with that fact," and when he says: "Would a writer of English Church History during the last fifty years think it an indispensable duty to record such a difference as that which showed itself between Bishop Thirlwall and Bishop Selwyn at the Pan-Anglican Conference of 1857 ?" The introduction, besides the usual dissertations on the authorship, &c., contains some important and suggestive sections on the relation of the work to the controversies of the time, to the Epistles of St. Paul, and to external history, and on the sources from which St. Luke probably derived his information. It contains also lists of the coincidences between the Acts and St. Paul's and St. Peter's Epistles, of their points of contact with the contemporary history of the outer world, and of the incidents which show the naturalness and veracity of the narrative. The introduction closes with an excellent chronological table from A.D. 28 to 100. 66 The Book of the Acts is treated throughout as sound history, and this enables the commentator to find himself at home in all the circumstances of the contemporary world, both within and without the Church. In the scene on the Day of Pentecost full scope is allowed to the physical phenomena, the storm and darkness, the earthquake and the lightning. Ananias' death is understood as in the familiar phrase by the visitation of God." The state of Peter in his deliverance from prison (xii. 9) is understood by reference to the phenomena of somnambulism. The "revelation" by which St. Paul went up to the Council at Jerusalem is explained in harmony with the assertion of the Acts that he was sent by the Church at Antioch, as “a thought coming into his mind, as by an inspiration, that this was the right solution of the problem." The healing of the sick by handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched the body of St. Paul (xix. 12) is likened to that attributed to the relics of saints. The accounts of Theudas, Judas, Gamaliel (v. 57), of Claudius (xi. 28), of Herod (xii.), of the early life of St. Paul (vii. 58), of the numbers composing the first congregation at Jerusalem (iv. 37), are interesting and suggestive. Under the vivid realizations expressed in these notes we seem to see the Apostles sitting in permanent conclave (iv. 35), the daughters of Philip as members of an incipient," order of Virgins" (xxi. 9), or the rapacious Felix catching at the words "alms and offerings" when uttered by St. Paul (xxiv. 26). The extreme fertility of conjecture which we noticed in the Commentary on the Gospels is somewhat chastened, and is exercised in a more legitimate field. The possibility, for instance, of Stephen's having had some connection with Samaria, as accounting for various statements in his speech (note on vii. 16), the possibility that the words of St. Paul's description of God's goodness at Lystra (xiv. 17) may have formed part of an ancient sacrificial hymn, the conjecture that Apollos may have been the author of the apocryphal Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, are all interesting and worthy of consideration. Turning to Mr. Sanday's portion of the work, on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, we have in the introduction to the former Epistle a vigorous and original conception of the object of both Epistles. We give this in the words of the author : "The key to the theology of the Apostolic age is its relation to the Messianic expectation among the Jews. The central point in the teaching of the Apostles is the fact that with the coming of Christ was inaugurated the Messianic reign. It was the universal teaching of the Jewish doctors-a teaching fully adopted and endorsed by the Apostles-that this reign was to be characterized by righteousness. The means by which this state of righteousness is brought about is naturally that by which the believer obtains admission into the Messianic kingdom,-in other words, Faith. Righteousness is the Messianic condition, Faith is the Messianic conviction. But by Faith is meant, not merely an acceptance of the Messiahship of Jesus, but that intense and living adhesion which such acceptance inspired, and which the life and death of Jesus were eminently qualified to call out." In accordance with this view, Mr. Sanday, in his analysis of the Epistle, terms it "A treatise on the Christian scheme as a divinely-appointed means for producing righteousness in man, and so realizing the Messianic reign." а The simple view thus indicated, which is also borne out by the "Excursus on Faith, Righteousness and Imputation," is somewhat impaired by another Excursus (D), in which Sacrifice is regarded as the infliction of a penalty. In the notes also this view exercises a weakening influence, and, combined with some other similar features, produces a sense of indistinctness. Otherwise, the notes are written with great care, impartiality, and freedom. There is a devout sense of the greatness of the subject, and much modesty in the treatment of it, while at the same time the commentator does not hesitate to treat all the latter part of Gal. ii. as St. Paul's afterthoughts or comments upon his own words (a suggestion which has a wide application to other passages both in the Gospels and in the Epistles); or to speak of words such as those of Gal. v. 10: "I would that they were even cut off that trouble you," as "momentary ebullitions" which "are among the very few flaws in a truly noble and generous character." As regards the curious question suggested by the MS. discrepancies in the last three chapters of the Epistle to the Romansnamely, whether the Epistle was sent to the Romans alone-Mr. Sanday follows Dr. Lightfoot in believing that its original form was such as we now have it, with the exception of the last three verses, and that these formed an appendix, added on at the end of chapter xiv., when, during his captivity at Rome, St. Paul converted the earlier part into a circular epistle. The interesting view of M. Renan, who believes it to have been originally a circular epistle, and takes the four endings (xv. 33, and xvi. 20, 24 and 27) as the endings of the copies addressed respectively to the Churches of Rome, Asia, Macedonia, and some other unknown, is rather too curtly discussed with the remark that it fails when applied in detail. There is one more serious omission in this part of the commentary. Though honourable mention is made of the commentaries of Dr. Vaughan and Dr. Lightfoot, of Meyer and Wieseler, Alford and Wordsworth, not a single allusion is made to that of Professor Jowett. We can hardly believe that the old theological prejudice against the author has blinded the present commentator to the great exegetical and philosophical value of Professor Jowett's labours. But we cannot account for this strange omission of a work to which all English students of St. Paul's Epistles are so much indebted. The two Epistles to the Corinthians are commented on respectively by Mr. Teignmouth Shore and Professor Plumptre. It is hardly possible that anything new or striking should be written on these Epistles, which in our day have not only passed through the hands of writers like Alford and Wordsworth, but have been a specially congenial field for the genius of F. W. Robertson and of Stanley. But Mr. Shore and Dr. Plumptre have well represented to English readers the sense and spirit of these Epistles and the Church-life which they reveal to us. Mr. Shore's judgment is, perhaps, at fault in a few special instances; he still believes not only in a nonextant Epistle to the Corinthians, but in an unrecorded visit of St. Paul to them; in which Professor Plumptre differs from him (conf. p. 285 with note on 2 Cor. xii. 14 and xiv. 1); he attributes the words, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. vii. 1) to St. Paul, not to those who wrote to him; and he thinks the history of the Last Supper was revealed to the Apostle directly in a tranceas to which he might be corrected by Professor Plumptre's explanation of St. Paul's "going up to Jerusalem by revelation" in the note on Acts xv. 2. But these are comparatively small blots, if they be blots, in an exposition which is well worthy to take its place in this most useful of modern Commentaries on the New Testament. We are glad to hear that Professor Plumptre's "Commentary on the Acts" has been reprinted for the use of schools, and we hope that the other parts of the Commentary may be similarly treated. The translation of Professor Cremer's "Biblico-Theological Lexicon," from the German, by Mr. Urwick (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greck, by Hermann Cremer, D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Griefswald. Translated by W. Urwick, M.A. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark), supplies a great want in our helps to the study of the New Testament. Parkhurst is out of date and limited in his range of reference. Winer is a Grammar, not a Lexicon. Archbishop Trench's Synonyms, with all their value, do not cover the whole ground. The student turns, therefore, with eagerness to such a book as that of Professor Cremer. And he will not be disappointed. The book is what it professes to be. The author speaks modestly and truly of his work: "The work which, after a labour of nine years, I have now brought to completion is certainly an attempt only, and effort to do, not a result accomplished; it simply prepares the way for a cleverer hand than mine." He writes as an earnest believer, a pupil of Tholuck's, whose commentaries he singles out as alone fully investigating the great conceptions embodied in particular words of the New Testament Greek. He seems to have been fired by an expression of Schleiermacher's, which might be taken as the motto for his work: A collection of all the various elements in which the language-moulding power of Christianity manifests itself would be an adumbration of New Testament doctrine and ethics." Like so many of Tholuck's pupils, he has tested his theology by the practical work of the ministry, not, however, neglecting the student's part, which after many years' toil has issued in the important work which has won him his professorship. The work has reached a second edition, and it is from this second edition (which contains an addition of 120 words) that the present translation is made. Some words will, we may hope, be added in future editions. Such a word, for instance, as Opokeía (James i.), which is used for religion itself; or, again, such a word as pow, with its compounds, which St. Paul makes the vehicle of so much teaching |