網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

of the teachings of the apostle. They seem to fall from his lips as commonplaces of his system without which he could not conceive of Christianity.

Lest there should be fearfulness on the part of Titus to communicate these truths to the perverse people whom he is appointed to serve, Paul closes this part of his admonition with a strong exhortation: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority." It is well to note that this admonition is in the present tense. Titus is not to rest content with one sermon or with one exhortation, but he is to persevere until he accomplishes the purpose for which he speaks. "These things," he says, "speak" and bring them to their remembrance. Paul urges him with all the intensity of his nature. He adds a final word on the subject, "with all authority." This word may be rendered "with all commandment." He was not to speak hesitatingly or doubtfully; he was not to apologize for the utterances which he was to make, but to speak by way of command. He was an authoritative preacher, and should speak with the authority of one sent of God.

His final admonition in this part of his letter is, "Let no man despise thee." It is supposed that this passage means that his voice should be positive. It indicates that he should have a character which must be respected and a message to which people must listen. It is the setting forth of his message as a minister of the Church of Christ-the assurance of his right to speak-and it implies that it is the duty of the people to hear. But there is another meaning which may naturally grow out of this passage. In this view Titus is exhorted to conduct himself so that no man can despise him. There are some ministers that cannot be despised. They may be disliked, but never despised. This is not merely because they speak with a voice of authority, but because the life which they exhibit before men makes their utterances authoritative. It is the duty of the minister to live so closely with God, to be so thoroughly in love with his people and the truths which he is called to speak, and so useful in his life among men, that they cannot fail to respect him. Such ministers are everywhere respected, even by those who do not sit under their ministry or heed their voice. This closing verse of the second chapter of this epistle is very suggestive to ministers of the Gospel. They are reminded of the great fundamental principle of Christianity, namely, the grace of God. As was said in the opening of this paper, "grace" is one of the great words of the New Testament. It is one of the great central points of Christianity. Without it the Church is destitute of power, with it she is able to bestow manifold blessings upon the world. The apostle does not hesitate to combine practical exhortation with fundamental Christian truth in his exhortation to Titus, whom he had appointed as the pastor of the church in Crete.

ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH.

DELITZSCH AND HIS CRITICS.

OUR readers are familiar with the origin of the Babel and Bible controversy, which, though on the wane, has not yet spent its force. St. James's apothegm: "Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" was never better illustrated than in this discussion. Delitzsch's first brochure contained only thirty pages, his second, one less, and both together, not more than thirty thousand words, or about sixty such pages as this. He is out with another pamphlet of seventy-five pages, entitled Babel und Bibel, Ein Rueckblick und Ausblick (Retrospect and Prospect). The first two brochures were unmercifully attacked by critics of all schools and shades of opinion-Christians and Jews, Protestants and Catholics, orthodox and liberal theologians, and several expert Assyriologists. It seems that everybody had something to say. We knew this apart from the new brochure, from which we learn that the learned Assyriologist, having completed his duties for the summer semester at the university, and having placed his own museum in order, retired for rest (?) to the British Museum, so rich in Assyriological treasures and cuneiform inscriptions. Before leaving Berlin he selected from a wilderness of criticism which had been sent him no less than 28 pamphlets, 300 long articles, and about 1,350 shorter ones, most of which were adverse to his pamphlets. The criticisms which he regarded as of no value, as well as those written in foreign languages, were left in Berlin. He further adds what he told the writer last July-that criticisms still pour in incessantly, and that literally from every part of the globe, "from Calcutta to the remotest farm on the California prairies, and from Norway to Cape Town. They come from all classes, high and low; many of them from women, and most all of them anonymous and unfriendly in tone."

The popularity of the booklets is well known. Edition after edition has been published, not only in German, but also in English, Danish, Swedish, Hungarian, Italian, and Czech. We can readily believe the professor when he says that nothing is more distasteful to him than publicity, and that the charge of "nothing new" is not unwelcome, though an injured air pervades the entire new pamphlet. Those who know Professor Delitzsch know him only to love him. He is fully as amiable as his late beloved father, so well known to a large number of our older American theologians. He stands in the front rank of Assyriologists, and may properly be called their corypheus. He is a charming man, most unassuming and approachable, and never happier than when surrounded by a few pupils, desirous of delving into the mysteries of archæology. Notwithstanding the great success of his pamphlets, nobody is satisDelitzsch chafes under the imputation that they lack originality. He says with some feeling: "My Christian and Jewish friends monotonous

fied.

ly assure me, till I am exhausted with their repetitions, that my booklets contain nothing new, nor even present the old in an especially intellectual [geistvoll] form. Then, why all this stir, if, as theologians, professors, and pastors, and cuneiform experts in the bargain, aver, my lectures contain absolutely nothing new?”

Delitzsch is not convinced of the justice of this charge. He instances, in proof, the following: the Sargur documents, with their teachings regarding paradise and sheol-not known till 1901; the Jave-ilum or Ja'umilum tablets, known only to experts, and not published by the British Museum till 1898 and 1899, and the parallels between the codes of Moses and Hammurabi, which cannot be called old, since his second lecture was delivered in January, 1903, and the code of Hammurabi was not given to the public till October, 1902.

But why this stir, demands Delitzsch, if nothing new has been said? The real answer is that both lectures were delivered before the emperor. Now, his majesty had always been regarded not only as very religious, but also as quite conservative in his theological beliefs. The fact that Delitzsch was invited to deliver a second lecture in the castle was interpreted by many as a proof that Wilhelm II had been converted to the professor's views. Nothing was farther from the truth, for the emperor has since defined his position in most unequivocal language. Harnack puts the whole matter in a nutshell thus: "The opinion was likely to become widespread, had indeed become widespread, that the emperor occupied the same theological standpoint as Professor Delitzsch. Not wishing to permit this misunderstanding, the emperor wrote as the public read." The fact that the emperor was present at the two lectures, and that Delitzsch was asked to repeat them at the palace, added to the fact that his majesty wrote as he did to Admiral Hollman on the subject, explains to a great extent the great sensation produced, though Delitzsch does not seem to accept this view of the case. He attributes the extensive circulation and discussion of his booklets to entirely other causes, namely, the great chasm between the professional theologian and the layman in the Church. The latter, he claims, has been kept in ignorance of the great advances in biblical criticism and recent archæological discoveries. The public schools, the pulpit, and the theological professors are responsible for this gap, which should be bridged over at any cost. The indifference of the teacher and clergy to these modern views he attributes, in the words of Harnack, to "indolence and fear of disturbing existing conditions." The truth must be boldly proclaimed, since "it is the truth, the unveiled truth, the whole truth, that makes us free." Cornill, representing the theologians, protests, saying that German scholars have no esoteric doctrines, but that their views are publicly proclaimed from their chairs, and all have the privilege of procuring their books. If the public does not avail itself, the scholars must not be held responsible. He naïvely adds, there are matters in theological "science concerning which discretion is the lesser evil." Delitzsch resents the imputation of Gunkel-that he has been actuated by a desire for sensation. Gunkel published, September 3, 1903, in Der Rundschau, a Berlin daily, a sharp animadversion, entitled

"Funeral Oration over Babel and Bible," in which occur the following words: "May our science [theology] be spared from such another sensation for centuries." Such a remark is at least ungracious.

He also protests against the charge of superficiality, explaining that the pamphlets were first delivered as lectures before an audience, made up, it is true, of cultured people, yet chiefly of nonspecialists, embracing every shade of religious belief. Besides, his time was limited, and the subject "had to be treated so as to interest and charm, and not to bore or lull his audience to sleep."

Another charge against Delitzsch is that he overstepped the boundaries of his profession. This point was, we believe, first made by the emperor. Our readers will remember that on Delitzsch's second visit to the palace he became entangled in some religious or theological discussion with the empress, who is ultra-orthodox, and with Dr. Dryander, the court preacher, also very conservative. The emperor was there too, but, strange to say, he simply "listened and remained passive." Delitzsch, to use the emperor's own words, "unfortunately abandoned the standpoints of the strict historian and Assyriologist, going into religious and theological conclusions which were quite nebulous and bold." The emperor characterizes his attack upon some of the Christian doctrines as "a deed for which the study of Assyriology did not justify him." This sentiment is shared by the theologians and Assyriologists alike, for one of the latter, Dr. Bezold, says: "In questions pertaining to revelation, Assyriology has no voice whatever."

Delitzsch admits that he might have given the mere facts without any comment, but says that would have been cowardly, for had he not, on taking his degree (Ph.D., the only title he has, and this he never parades), solemnly sworn that "he would voluntarily represent the cause of truth and defend the same bravely as long as he lived"? He believed what he said and therefore had to say it. He further believes that he is qualified for such discussion and possesses sufficient knowledge of the Old Testament to be entitled to an independent judgment. He reminds his critics that he has studied the Bible from his youth, that he devoted six years to the religions of India, that from his twenty-second year, then, under the guidance of some of the most celebrated Old Testament scholars, he has incessantly continued his investigations in the religio-historical, extending them to the Koran and to the Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform literatures. It is folly therefore to charge one who has done all this with ignorance of which no intelligent theological student at the close of his first semester at a German university should be guilty. We are inclined to think that Delitzsch has the right in this ne sutor ultra crepidam argument.

The charge against which Delitzsch protests most strongly is that wherein he is accused of teaching that Israel's monotheism is derived from Babylonian sources. He accuses König of great unfairness in reiterating this charge, in later editions of Babel und Bibel. He is still more severe on Gunkel. He finds it passing strange that his colleague could have published a "really false statement," namely, that "he [Delitzsch] had proclaimed Babylonian monotheism in a loud voice." Then he pays

his respects, without deigning to name him, to one of his old pupils, our Professor Hilprecht, thus: "It is deplorable that even Assyriologists who understand all the circumstances should imitate such jugglery, and that one of these should declare in different German cities that Israel did not derive its monotheistic conception from that immense graveyard, Babylon; worse still, when another declares that there is not a trace of monotheism to be found in Babylon."

He cites several passages from his lectures or brochures to show that he is not guilty of saying that Israel derived its monotheism from the Babylonians. Let the reader decide whether he makes a case:

"And now may I be allowed a final word regarding that which invests the Bible with a general historical significance-its monotheism?"Babel und Bibel, 1, p. 44.

"The religion of the Canaanitic tribes who had immigrated into Babylonia soon disappeared before the polytheism of many centuries, which had been practiced by the ancient inhabitants."-P. 47.

"In spite of all this, polytheism, crass polytheism, remained for three thousand years the state religion of Babylonia."-P. 49.

"I have never ceased to emphasize the crass polytheism of the Babylonians, and feel under no obligation to palliate it.”—ii, p. 32.

The term "ancient inhabitants" is a little ambiguous, and we should call attention to the fact that it is often applied to the allophylian, or primitive, pre-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, often called Sumerians. These dwelt in the fertile plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, and very naturally their territory was invaded by outsiders from less fertile countries. There was a constant going and coming, war followed conquest and conquest war. These invaders, without doubt, brought in many new ideas, religious and otherwise. This explains the second reference above to "the religion of the Canaanites," who invaded Babylon about 2500 B. C. Then came the Cassites about 2000, and the Chaldeans about 1000 B. C.

It was from these regions that Abraham went to Canaan. He must have carried some Babylonian ideas with him. This does not say that Israel derived its monotheism from the Babylonians as a people, but simply that the progenitors of Israel were acquainted with Babylonian customs, language, and religion. This fact is further shown by the study of many proper names of the period, especially those compounded with Jave or El. Delitzsch promises a discussion of the name Moses, which he conjectures to be of Babylonian origin and not Egyptian, as has been commonly supposed. Now, if Abraham came from southern Babylonia, it is not wonderful that the supreme being was known there under the name Jave.

Delitzsch emphasizes the high state of morals in Babylonia, in some regards higher than those of the Israelites; at any rate, not any less humane, nor more cruel, as has been generally supposed. He also takes pleasure in explaining that the theophanies of the Hebrew Scriptures are not to be taken literally any more than those of the cuneiform texts. Indeed, most of the former are paralleled in the latter. Both are symbolical and not historical. Thus the angelic visions and the giving of the law on Sinai are not to be believed as historical facts, but religious symbols,

« 上一頁繼續 »