New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-20

inc the Biblical Theology Edited by James
Has s.s,s y Wh the Arssss Gc,SSo
XIV Si. Charles scribners Sons
Doubtless the editor and publishers OF TINS
work know how many volumes 1t VIII consist
OF. but they refrain from giving any inlorma-
ticn on that point on the u,le-pase or IN 'he
preface This. however IS almost the only wcfd
OF criticism that VIC find ourselves able 10 utter
in regard to the work. II the succeeding VOL
uroes maintain the same standard Of cautious.
accurate and thorough scholarship-as doubtless
they will-the English speaking public VIII be
in possession Of work that in itself VIII be a
valuable library Of Biblical literature ana
Theology There are other works that ably cover
the same general ground. But he great al
vantage possessed by this one Is that IL EN-
bodies the latest and most approved CONCLUSIONS
Of Biblical scholarship presented by some OF
the greatest Biblical scholars in the world VINO
sign their names TO their articles. DR. hastings
who formerly the president OF the oh'o"
Theological Seminary in this city. Is a3undantly
qualified for tie difficult pest OF editor. HIS
personal assistant. Mr. selb!e is known as
painstaking scnolar while emong those VINO CO.
operate with Dr. Hastings in the revision OF
proofs are Professors A. B. Davidson. OF New
College Edinburgh: S. r. Driver. OF oxford; II.
MahaYey Of Du'lir; Kyle Of Cambridge; Sai-
mond. 81 Aberdeen: Principal Stewart. or ~.
Andrews: Principal Fairhsirn and Mr. j. Vernon
BARTLETT OF Mansfield College. oxford. and DR..
Donald Shearor the old teacher Of DR.. Hastings
In this volume alone. 1871 writers are repre-
sented every one Of whom IS an acknowledged
authority in some special field OF B'piical
scholarship. That book with such editors ana
contributors Will prove valuable and even IN
dispensable alike 10 the Biblical scholar anu
student is not at all strange In ld'' II VIII
Ill "A vacant place IN modern Biblical literature
as Biblica! investigation has made such great
strides in recent years that the value or oider
treatises on the subject Is very much impaired.
The volume IL ernbell.shed by three excellent
maps ard by numerous illustrations.
The articles on the Chronology Of the Old
Testament. by Professor r /. Curtis. ard on
the Chronology OF the New Testament. by & H.
Turner. ar, very good examples Of the careful
md up-to-date scholarship tina; characterizes
this work OF the data in Genesis for the period
between the creation and the food, PROFESSOR
Curtis says: These numbers cannot IN
any case be accepted as historical END hence
for real chronology OF the early ages Of man
they are valueless" Indeed. Of the Old Tesla
ment chronology generally. he holds that II was
largely arbitrary and conjectural being con
structei to fit into the Hebrew tradition that
four thousand years were TO elapse between the
Creation and the coming OF the Mess'ah' But
scholars to-day declare that this period Is en-
tircly too short Recent archaeological discov-
cries indicate high degree Of civilization thon-
SANDS OF wears before the Biblical date for the
Creation. and Maspero places the beginning or
Egyptian civilization 5000 or 10000 years g. C.
OF the article on the Chronology. OF the New
Testament, il would not be correct 10 say tha'
II clears ND all the difficulties involved for that
probably cannot be done. But all the light posi-
HE Is throw, uoon them and no attempt is made
to ignore them. A very good instance of this Is
the statement in Luke's Gospel that Christ's
birth occurred during the, census ordered by
Augustus. and carried out in Syria by the legate
Cvren,us tOulrinius). On this point We quote
rs follows: "A famous census did. indeed. take
placc Ouiriniiw being the (iOreriior sent 10
carry It out ten years more mae the Nativity.
When Judea. on the deposition Of Archglaus
in Al D. 6. became Roman Province: and II
provoked the revolt OF Judas the Gaulonite. or
Galilean. But there is as' reason 10 believe
that Ou,rinius must be the name wanting on
mutilated inscription which describes some Of
fetal who twice governed Syria under Augustus;
and In that case another census might bc
postulated fer his other tenure. to justify 81.
Luke, X u were not mat even thls other cdiirot
possibly have concluded with the Nativity.
st. Luke then is in error in the name Of Qui
rinius ST. Luke's evidence adds nothing
Trustworthy for the chronology OF the Nativity
beyond its synchronism with a census. But If
ST. I.uke's census haJ date. or rather.
wrong one does early Christian tradition help
10 fix the Nativity more nearly?'
The article on Cosmcgory shows the similarity
between the Genesis and the Babyonian Story
OF the Creation Was the Babylorian story de-
rived from the Hebrew story? asks the writer,
Principal Owen c. Whitehouse. No. he replies;
on the contrary the Hebrews adopted and modi-
fed the elements OF the Babyloni&n tradition or
the Creation II this view Is the true one II
follows, OF course. that the Biblical account or
the Creation is simply a myth
In speaking Of the relation Of the Bible to
science. Principal Whitehouse says: Much as
we value the remarkable harmonics that never
the.ess exis: between science and Scripture.
there is clear proof that Biblical Apologize is
proceeding on false lines when II seeks 10 con-
strain the Biblical narrative into harmony with
the results CT modern science" In his opinion.
the Cosmoeony Of the Bible IS valuable because
eft sets God above the great complex world
process. and yet closely linked with 1t as per-
sonal intelligence and will that rules VIGOROUSLY
and without rival"
Another valuable article Is that on the Acts
of the Apostles by Professor A. c. Headleam. OF
Oxford a period Of Church history that has re-
Gently come into the field OF controversy by the
publication OF Professor McGnerts book. re-