« הקודםהמשך »
382 Discrepancy between John and the other Evangelists
. J. CLOPPENBURG, Ep. de Controversia inter Baron. et Casaub. de Agno Paschali ; in his Opp. Theol. tom. i. Amst. 1684.
L. CAPPELL, 'Ezixpois ad amicam se inter et Cloppenb. epist. collationem de ultimo Chr. Paschale, fc. Amst. 1644. Also in Cloppenb. Opp. Theol. t. i.
S. BOCHART, Hierozoicon, lib. ii., c. 50, p. 560 sq. ed. Leusden. -Comparatively little that is new has been brought out on either side since Bochart.
J. FRISCHMUTH, Diss. utrum Agnum Paschalem Salvator eodem die cum Judaeis comederit, &c. Jenæ 1673. Also in Thesaur. Theol. Philol, t. ii. Amst. 1701–2.
D. PETAVIUS, De anno et die Dominicæ Passionis. In his Annot. ad Epiph. Col. 1682.
A. BYNAEUS, De Morte Jesu Christi, libri iii. 4to. Amst. 1691-98.
B. LAMY, Harmonia sice Concord. quatuor Evang. Par. 1689. Also, Commentarius in Harmon. 2 tom. Par. 1699.
Traité hist. de l'ancienne Pâque des Juifs, où l'on examine à fond la question : si J. C. fit cette Pâque la veille de sa mort. Par. 1693.
S. LE NAIN TILLEMONT, Lettre au Père Lamy sur la dernière Pâque de notre Seigneur. In his Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. Ecclesiast. Tom. ii. App.
Also, Harmonié ou Concorde Evangel. suivant la methode et avec les notes de feu M. Toinard. Par. 1716.
H. Witsius, Diss. an Christus eodem quidem cum Judaeis die, sed non eâdem diei parte, ultimum suum pascha manducaverit. In his Melett. Leidens. p. 421 sq. Herb. 1717.
J. H. Maius, De tempore Pasch. Chr. ultimi. Giessen 1712. A. CALMET, Diss. de la dernière Pâque J.C.
S. DEYLING, De J. C. die emortuali. In his Observat. Sacrae, p. i. Lips. 1735.
G. F. GUDE, Demonstr. quod Chr. in coena sua oTaugwoiew Agnum Paschalem non comederit, 4to. Lips. 1733. Also, Ed. 2, ab objectionibus Ikenii vindicata. Lips. 1742.
C. Iken, Diss. de tempore celebratæ a Serv. ultima coenæ paschalis. Brem. 1735.—Diss. ii. qua difficultates contra sententiam ds. adstructam moveri solitæ diluuntur, P. i., ii. Brem. 1739.-All these are found also in Iken's Dissert. Phil. Theol. tom. ii. ed. Schacht, Traj. Bat. 1749, 1770, Diss. 9-11. Also, Diss. qua contra Gudium demonstratur, cænam Jesu Christi otaupúorov vere paschalem fuisse. Brem. 1742. Also in Dissert. Phil. Theol. tom. ii. diss. 12.
J. Fr. Frisch, Abhandlung von Osterlamm und dem letzten Osterlammstage Christi. Lips. 1758.
J. P. GABLER, Ueber den Anfang des Passahfestes bei den alten Juden, in his Nat. Theol. Journ. b. iii.; also in his Kleinere Schriften, b. i.-Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Passahmahls Jesu, in Nat. Theol. Journ. b. ii., Kl. Schrr. b. i.-06 Jesus wirklich das Osterlamm gegessen habe ? Ibid.
C. G. BRETSCHNEIDER, Probabilia de Evangelio Joannis. Lips. 1820, P.
sq. L. USTERI, Comm. crit. in qua Evang. Joannis genuinum esse ex comparatis IV. Evv. narrationibus de cena ultima et passione Chr. ostenditur. Turici 1823.
K. G. W. THEILE, Ueber die letzte mahlzeit Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. b. ii. p. 153 sq.—Noch etwas über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. Ibid. b. v. p. 129 sq.
H. E. GUERIKE, Versuch einer Vereinigung der evang. Relationen über d. letzte Mahlz. Jesu. In Winer's Krit. Journ. b. iii. p. 257 sq.
J. H. Rauch, Ueber d. letzte Passahmahl u. 8. w. In Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1832. Heft. 3, p. 537 sq.--English: On the time of our Lord' last Passover and Crucifixion. In the Biblical Repository, 1834, vol iv. p. 108 sq.
M. SCHNECKENBURGER, Chronologie der Leidenswoche, in his Beitrr, zur Einleit. in N. T. Stuttg. 1832.
W. L. DE WETTE, Bemerkungen zu Stellen des Evang. Johannis. In Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1834. Heft. 4, p. 939 sq.
See also the Commentaries on John by Calvin, LAMPE, KUINOEL, Paulus, Lücke, THOLUCK, H. A. W. MEYER, DE WETTE, &c. &c.
Art. IV.- Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, von
Gust. Fr. OEHLER, U. S. W. Stuttgart, 1845. 8vo, pp. 95. The expression, Theology of the Old Testament, is not a familiar one to English ears.
The idea which it represents is perhaps not much more so to English minds. Certainly the thing holds no adequate place, if it have any place at all, in our theological literature. We hardly admit even a Biblical, as distinguished from a Systematic, or from a Church Theology; although in regard to the first, and the last, especially, there is a simple and obvious difference, logically at least, even if not practically, in the point of departure and the methods pursued, if not in the results attained, between a theology which shapes itself by the teachings of the Bible, and a theology which takes its form from the faith of the church. These may, in point of fact, entirely harmonise. The standards deemed regulative of orthodoxy may coincide precisely with the utterances of Holy Writ. And in that case, the theologian who undertakes to
exhibit in systematic order the truths of Scripture, would have to go over exactly the same ground, and occupy in all the same position, as he who aims at presenting the belief of the church. And it consequently might be found more convenient, as well as serve a number of valuable ends, to combine these two things together, rather than to treat them separately. It may be advisable to unfold the Confession of Faith and the Bible in connection, rather than apart, that thus an opportunity may be taken, not only to show what the teachings of each are, but also to show that these are identical, or rather, that the former is simply based upon or drawn from the latter. whatever may be said in favour of this combination, whatever convenience may attend it, and whatever advantages may follow from it, it is neither necessary nor desirable to forget that they are, in conception at least, distinct. It is an important Protestant principle, that the standards of the church are her standards, not for their inherent value, but only because they represent the Bible ; and that they ought to be her standards only in so far as they represent the Bible. If they swerve from that, the true and highest form of faith and duty, their authority is null, and they ought in so far to be discarded. Church dogmas are of worth only in so far as the church has held fast to the lively oracles of infallible truth; only in so far as the faith of the church coincides with the faith once de livered to the saints. The standard of her faith, which she has for important reasons framed for herself, may not be put upon a par with the divinely inspired sources of her faith, as though those had, like these, an original underived authority. And for this reason, it may be well that the distinction between Biblical and Church theology should be stated and remembered, even though it may not be practically observed. It is not a matter of course, however, that they should even harmonise, much less coincide. They have not always been harmonious in fact.
The condition of the church here may be a reason why this distinction has not been more insisted on amongst us ;-why it has either not been made or has been esteemed unimportant. All diversities of theological belief have their representatives in the numerous denominations of Christians, with their proper symbols, and their well understood distinguishing sentiments. Every man may thus seek his proper affinity in the ranks of those like-minded with himself, or failing to discover such, may head an independent sect of his own. Every one may accordingly find in the belief of that branch of the church to which he is attached, the counterpart of what he personally holds to be the teaching of the Bible. Biblical theology and church theology are thus to him the same, or differ only in the aspect under which the same body of truth is contemplated.
An altered condition of things can, however, be readily conceived, which would naturally and necessarily bring the distinction between these two modes of theology into greater prominence. Suppose, for example, that it should become a matter of doubt and controversy in any communion, what the settled and proper faith of that communion was. Suppose, that the strifes which rose concerned questions like those now agitating the Episcopal Church, not only in this country, but in Britain, regarding the true intent of the Prayer Book, or like those some years since, in the bosom of our own communion, touching the tenets of the Presbyterian Church. And if, still farther, as was the case in the Quaker controversy, the denominational creed was to be found, not in definite articles or symbols of faith, but in a great number of voluminous writings belonging to different occasions, different periods, and even different countries, and these ambiguous perhaps, or perhaps contradictory upon the points in dispute; it can be easily seen, that in such a case the distinction must be made. What is the faith of the Bible ? what is the faith of the church? would be totally distinct questions; each would possess an independent importance, and they would of necessity be treated separately.
Again, suppose a different case. One may be imagined in which the faith of the church was perfectly well understood, and no controversy could be raised upon that ground; but many within her pale, whether constituting a majority or not, whether following one road or not, had departed from her recognised tenets. Now, let it be assumed, either that the church creed was right, or that it was wrong; in either case there will be a juncture which cannot fail to suggest and to bring out the distinction already several times referred to. This case is not a merely imaginary one in either of its aspects. Besides numerous other exemplifications of it which might be named, the period of the Reformation is an instance of the former; the counter revolution in Europe in the last century, in which a shallow rationalism took the place of the Reformers' faith, though still retaining the Reformers' symbols, affords an instance of the latter. And this last was really the occasion and the time which gave birth to Biblical Theology in its present sense, and as a study to be separately pursued.
It does not, however, fall within the limits of the theme suggested by the treatise before us, to discuss the subject of Biblical Theology generally, nor even to raise the question with regard to its desirableness; accordingly, we pass this by, and advance nearer to our proper theme, by remarking, that if Biblical and Dogmatic Theology have thus to so great an extent coalesced amongst us, it was scarcely to be expected that any clear separation would have been effected between the different branches of Biblical Theology itself. A salutary fear of marring the unity of the sacred volume may have had something to do with restraining the formation of an Old Testament, as distinguished from a New Testament, Theology, and within the latter again of further subdivisions, such as a Petrine or Pauline Theology, or that of the beloved disciple. We must not be understood to sanction either the principles or the methods of many of those who have admitted these distinctions, and who have undertaken to carry them out. We have neither fellowship nor sympathy with those who would sunder the real and intimate bond of union between all the sacred writers, by ignoring or denying the directing influences of the Holy Spirit, by whom all were moved. Regarding merely their human origin, they entirely isolate the books of Scripture, as the work of independent thinkers; or esteem them to have had no more connection with each other than they are occupied with the same or similar subjects, and were the products of the same age, and of a similar congeries of influences. This is to overlook the very thing which makes the Bible what it is, the very thing which gives to it its chief value for us and for the world. The Bible is a unit; not, however, as a uniform undistinguishable mass as a unit; but as a system combining many and various parts, yet all constructed and arranged under the guidance of one master Mind, and all harmonising, all governed by one pervading principle, all conspiring to one grand and worthy result. A machine has unity in spite of its complication; or rather, the sense of unity which beholding it produces, is heightened by reason of the very complication of its parts; its wheels moving upon wheels with their various velocities and directions, yet no interference, no jarring, all necessary to the end of its formation. A tree has unity, with its roots, its trunk, its branches, its leaves, diverse, yet the same. The pure ray of light, as it comes to us direct from heaven, is one; and yet it has all the prismatic colours beautifully blended within it.
While investigations into the varied exhibitions of truth, to be met with in different parts of the sacred volume, may be so conducted as to interfere with the unity of the whole, they need not be. Nor does a just regard for the divine character and inspiration of the sacred volume require that these should be overlooked, or thrust into a corner as insignificant and unimportant. There is no impropriety in the admission that there are peculiarities of style and diction belonging to each of the sacred writers, and no harm is done by investigating what these are. On the contrary, they have a place and an impor