Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-09-19


Inc VISIT OF Archdeacon Farrar to this coun-
ny mas naturally directed renewed attention
70 such OF his published writings as have been
reprinted In this country. His "Life OF Christi
ana Lie OF st. Paul" have make, indeed, his
as.ae iainiiiar to very many American readers,
Out comparatively little heed has been paid to
noteworthy collection Of discourses called
Ine Mesaages of the Books In these disquisi-
'ons the history, authenticity, and purport Of
every one Oh the documents embraced in the New
testament canon are discussed in detail and
VIII Tue same candor and breadth Of view which
lave iorciDiy commended the authors more
elaborate productions It cannot be said that
tnis volume contains anything absolutely new
conversant with the generally received
Is, however, OF considerable interest and mo-
Hent 70 ascertain how much Of the results of
dignitarv s of oh an eminent divine and
uls nICdry OF the Church of England Is willing
not only TO accept in the seclusion Of his library
be baa 20 10 publicly approve. By noting what
demonstrate how much more latitude of opinion
Eh1,r etateo among clergymen of the Established
minstr IN l. England than among Presbyterian
q, W. observe first that the archdeacon refuses
~ rSseaTo our present Greek text of the Gospel
original Ne;s, as a translation from Hebrew
EWaid and others in separating the sayings or
10, .ogia rom the doings recounted. He can see
lute unity Of the book. For Mark he claims the
rank OF an independent witness. pronounces
sider 10 q no sense copyist of Matthew and con-
,'a1 extremely doubtful whether he had so
III Mac1 as seen the Gospel of the publican Apos-
c.e. IN the other hand, he decides against the
narrative, after a full recital of the evidence
anu arguments on both sides Of the contro-
Seisy; Inc archdeacon's conservatism is con-
ep.Cuuusly displayed in his affirmance of the
conv3cuon that We have in Johns Gospel
GENUINE fs ina work Of the beloved disciple. He ad
OiAACultl6S, many of which m inSnr.
mIountable. (Here, of course, he has reference
70 the arguments of the followers Of Baur with
PVT pc insists that objections far more formida-
ole may be raised to the opposite hypothesis Of
the Io%rth o 70 the theory that would make
dreamer of the second century. Hethinks that
the forgery Of this Gospel in the second century
more difficult than would the appearances Of
s ,ioa Divine Comedy" or Millions para
recall MS euphuistic reference to the compost
ton OF the fourth Gospel in the name Of st.
those of which Plato is fond" Not content
with rebuking Remains alusion to Plato as
. PROFOUNDLY misleading" Mr.. Farrar AYERS that
lions, not of a little literary artifice, but Of a
monstrous and inexcusable deception" The
arc does not to fully recognize that
Pneo 70 the falsifying performance, If there
we were one, is quite secondary to the fundamen-
-. 10 W 0utuOIH1tps IL Is 1OQlSD0nS.
able to refute the proofs resting on internal
evidence that the fourth Gospel, in its present
d 10 at an events, must have been composed
at GATE later than John can be supposed to
nave reached within the normal limits of
human life: Approaching the importance of
early date as possible the archdeacon does
MOI forget to mention in an appendix that
ke1m, though he denies the genuineness of the
To st. Paul Archdeacon Farrar attributes
,nlrteen eplstles-those, namely, to the Thessa-
l6enians, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the
Inc Epheslans: and the letters to Philemon,
Timothy and Titus. The reader will, of course,
doubts that have been cast upon the rennine.
ness of certain of these writings. Baur's argu-
ments against the First Epistle to the Thessa-
US, disposed of. But Mr. Farrar scarcely at
temRts to defend the integrity of the Epistle to
the Romans, and evidently agrees with those
VINO hold that the last chapter was really an
Of Ephesus. He does not assign bis reasons
Of ths ef t by
Epistle to the Philippians. He simply declares.
ex cGdhedr0, that 1.-The objections are more than
the other hand, when he comes to the Eplstle
TO the Ephesians. whose authenticity has been
Sc seriously impugned, he undertakes to discuss
altogether satisfied with his answers is indi-
Gated by his tendency to fail back on external
evidence. He finds support in the reflection
that this epistle was received by the whole
church, from the days of Ignatius to those of
Schleiermacher. On the other hand, the au-
his thinking, established by Internal evidence,
and especially by the abundance of memorable
sayings SAYING which he considers Pauline charac-
ter1stic. He admits, indeed, that all the pas
toral episties must have been written after A.
D; 81, for otherwise we should be driven to the
admission that they are not from the hands of
Paul. Mr.. Farrar. therefore, is Constrained to
assume that st. Paul escaped the NerOniah per.
secution, and did not meet his martyrdom
QhOnf a xufd
most scholars when he insists that all the pas
toral epistles must stand or fall together. Even
the to- us and T the 4ss
the Second to Timothy may be genuine.
neither by st. Paul nor by any other apostle is
squarely acknowledged. The effect Of the
overwhelming mass Of external and internal
of this document cites differently from St.
Paul. he writes differently; he thinks differ.
enfy me- a aan diferssnty he quotes from
structs and connects his sentences differently:
he builds s, up his paragraphs on wholly differ.
different. st. Paul is rugged and impetuous:
this writer Is deliberately and faultlessy rhe,
torical; Even his theology, though fundamen-
nology and under different aspects. ST. Paul
was the apostle to the Gentiles; this writer
ignores the Gentiles almost as completely as if
world" Nevertheless, we are reminded thai
this Ep1stle to the Hebrews is a writing of pecu-
mar historical interest," as being only canon
1cal specimen OF AleXandrian Christianity Mr.
tarrar lncllnes to accept Luther's conjecture
that the epistie was written by ApollOs. On
the contrary. the archdeacon considers Luz
Tiers depreciation of the Epistle of st. James
as "a downright strawy epistle to be a harsh
and mistaken judgment. For his own part.
Mr.. Farrar asserts not only that there can be
no reasonable doubt of the authenticity of the
epStle. but that we possess the letter in its |
earliest form. AS he has previously assumed |
1t to be the work Of James, the Lords brother
he, OF course, attributes to him the power OF |
Wrlung creek: OF the two epistles ascribed to |
st. Peter, ne hold the genuineness Of the first |
to be established by internal evidence, but he |
owns that there is less to be said for the second
canon, less even than might be urged for the |
Paullne authorship Of the Epistle to the He |
brews. For the Second Epistle of ST. Peter 1--WE |
can Offer, he says, 1.-THE smallest amount of ex-
ternal evidence, while at the same time 1t pre- |
Sents the greatest number OF internal difficul. |
ties. Since the Renaissance, indeed, almost |
all theOiog1ans, whether Catholics or Protes-
tants, have taken their cue from st. Jerome |
who, although admitting the Epistle into the |
Vulgate, notes that it was In his day rejected |
by most Christians. According to the arch |
St John is proved by overwhelming external |
testimony; but he speaks somewhat less posi-
lively with regard to the right of the Second |
and Third Epistles imputed to StJohn to figure
among the JOhannine writings.
IL may surprise some readers to find Arch.
deacon t'arrar accepting without hesitation the
JOhann1ne authorship OF the Book OF Revela-
ton, book which Luther called q dumb |
prophecy, which Zwinglius regarded as nom