The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-10-15
SOME NEW BOOKS.


given us u companion teUllSe 10 his Lllc OF
Saint Paul" The two books taken together
aim. by concentrating upon the writings of the
Apostles and Evnngelists such light as may be
derived from modern criticism and the indie
pendent study Of Jewish Pagan. and Christian
authors. to convey some conception of the
varieties Of religious thought and teaching
which prevailed in the schools OF Jerusalem and
Alexandria, and in other centres Of primitive
Christianity. In his selection of rcadings-a
difficulty which the student Of the New Testa-
ment encounters on tho threshold OF his inquiry
tho authors choice will be found to coincide
In most Instances with that of the revisers
of the New Testament. for the reason. as ho
tells us. that he was guided by tho same
principles. As to tho many questions touch
ing the authenticity and significance OF certain
documents included In tho New Testament
canon. which have been raised by Strauss.
Baur. Remain and Others Canon Farrar takes.
rs We should expect the orthodox side. He
INSERTS the commences not only Of each OF the
three epistcs attributed to st. John. but also
Of tho Apocalypse. and has no doubt that the
so-called EDstc OF James was penned by James
the brother OF Jesus, or that the Epstlo of
Jude emanated from jude another Of tho
Lords brethren. lie maintains the authentic
ity OF the two epistles ascrbed to Peter. though
he admits that tho external evidence in faver
Of the second epstlc is extremely weak On
the other hand. he denies categorcally that
the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by st.
Paul, and. after considering and discussing
the theories VIII ell have assigned it to Aquilla.
Titus. Silas. Barnabas. Clemens. Mark. and
Luke. inclincs strongly to the opinion that the
author was Apollos-a suggestion originally
made by Luther.
1t Is q bold and arduous undertaking at the
mt uto
the correctness Of the tradition which makos
st. John the author Of the Apocalypse. and at
the same time to offer lucid and coherent in
depreciation of that cryptographic document
We turn, therefore. with good deal Of curl
osity to the chapters devoted to this subject
We regret to say that the objections to the gen
uineness OF the book are not stated with the
fulness or rcfuted with the cogency which We
look for from Canon Farrar. As to the internal
evidence. supplied by comparison Of the
Apocalypse with the Gospel and Epistlcs attrib-
uted to the same apostle. Canon Farrar admits
that at the first glance 1t would seem impossible
to maintain that writings so different could
have como from the same hand. He acknowl-
edges that the Apocalypse is an expression of
Judaic Christianity while the Gospel and
Epistles are not Conceding. as he does that
the points Of contrast are more saliant than
the resemblances. he can only avoid the ma
tural inference Of distinct authorship. by in
sisting that while the fourth Gospel and the
Book Of Revelation could never have proceeded
simultaneously from tho same mind. yet both
arc the products Of different epochs in the
same mans life. divided from each other by
nearly n quarter OF q century. Ho contends
that the Apocalypse was written by St. John
soon .ttnr the blood-stained horrors Of the Ne
nian persecution" and amid the throbbing
agonies of the Jewish war;" which eliminated
IN &c destruction c. G. Jerusalem by Titus. But
In order to sustain this hypothesis. by which
alone. as he confesses. the plain drift
OF the internal evidence supplied by the
writings themselves can DO withstood.
he is obliged to deal very rudely with the
external testimony touching the date and au-
thorship of Revelation. Ireneus AYERS dis
tinctly that the Apocalypse was written
toward the close OF the reign Of Domitian. and
his authority was accepted by st. Jerome. None
Of the commentators on the book who have
placed tho dato OF the Apocalypse In the
reign OF Nero. carry with them so much weight
as the Bishop Of Lyons and Canon Fnrrar finds
himself driven to explain away the categorical
affirmance OF Irenaus in various unsatisfuc-
tory ways-as. for example. that st. John him
self may have been guilty Of slip Of memory
in making the statement in the first instance
Yet we read on page 40S: I'VE cannot ac-
cept a dubious expression Of the Bishop Of
Lyons rs adequate to set aside an
overwhelming weight Of evidence alike cxter
nal and internal. in proof of the fact that the
Apocalypse was written. at the latest soon after
the death Of Nero" The simple truth is that the
irreconcilabic differences between tho Apoca-
lypse and the fourth Gospel are perfectly e1-
plicable on the hypothesis that Irenuus was
correct as to the date and that the two books
proceeded from different hands-and by no
other.
II is curious that the same writer. who de-
tends so stubbornly. though so Intellectually.
the orthodox opinion regarding the date and
authorship of the Apocalypse. should admit
frankly that the science of comparative criti-
cism has made 1t little short Of certain that
the Epstle to tho Hebrews was not written by
St. Paul. With an amusing Inconsistencies
OF the propensity he has himself exhibited
in connection with another book. he declares
that the continued assertion Of the Pauline
authorship shows but too plainly to what an
extent the maniness Of criticism can be be-
numbel by the paralysis of custom. Adhesion
TO prejudice is too often mistaken for love Of
truth" As to the so-cGlled Second Ipstle Of
st. Peter Canon Farrar rcbukcs sharply those
thcologinns who. in the offensive tone OF
medieval dosmatHlng. assert that we receive
it on the testimony of the Universal Church"
and that If the Epistle be not the work Of
Peter. then Christs promise to His Church has
failed" Far from sharing their serene nssur-
ance on the subject he avows that common
honesty compels us to acknowledge that Of all
tho books of the New Testament the Second
Epistle Of st. Peter is the one for which we can
produce the smallest amount Of external evil
dcnce, and which. at the same time. offers the
greatest number of internal difficulties" Thus
the Epistle is not quoted. and is not unequivo-
cally referred to, by single writer in the first
or second century 1t is not found in the
Peshito Syriac nor in the old Itnlic versions.
1t is unknown to tho Muratorian Canon when
we come down to later writers we find that it
Is not once alluded to in all his comprehensive
works by st. Clement Of Alexandria, who even
seems to exclude it by the expression Peter
in the Epistlc." Origcn knew of its existence.
but also appears to question its gcnuipcncss.
for he uses the same expression Us ST. Clement,
Euscbius knew of ii. but only recognized one
genuine Fpistlc. 1t was not until toward the
close OF the fourth century that 1t was re-
luctantly admitted as canomical by some
OF the Church Councils. st. Jerome did
more than any other man TO hasten the
At. II Il.