Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

house to the end of my life." No more natural or characteristic thoughts can be imagined for David, and no more appropriate historical setting could be desired for the psalm.

This is a consideration of the question of the data and authorship of the psalm "solely upon the basis of the internal evidence supplied by the book itself, by methods such as are followed in the present volume;" and nothing more clearly in harmony with its Davidic authorship could be expected or even desired. Nor is there anything in the psalm or out of it to set aside these considerations. Is it not violent to take this psalm from such a setting and such an author on the basis of mere conjecture, and without even the meager compensation of finding for it elsewhere a local habitation and name? If one-fourth as much of its language and spirit as, fairly interpreted, seem characteristic of David and in harmony with his experience, fitted the life and time of Jeremiah, or Simon Maccabæus, would not the critics assign it without hesitation to the time of the Exile or the Maccabees and to the appropriate author?

Upon grounds equally slight other psalms are wrested from their time-honored associations. "Psalm 90 in dignity and deep religious feeling is second to none in the Psalter: but it may be questioned whether it does not presuppose conditions different from those of Moses' age; and had Moses been the author, it is natural to suppose that it would have been more archaic in style than it actually is." (P. 358.) As throughout the book, the fact that "it may be questioned" settles the case with the author at once and forever. Is the fact that a thing may be questioned, enough to set at rest all opposing considerations? Does the fact that a document does not display characteristics which a critic who lives thousands of years afterward finds it "natural to suppose" might have been those of its alleged age, together with the fact that the critic has previously, and on equally

satisfactory grounds, relieved himself of all assistance which might have come to him by a comparison of the style of the document in question with that of other documents alleged to have been by the same author, justify the unequivocal decision that the alleged author was not the real author, and that the work is to be attributed to no one and to no time in particular? There is in such reasoning much that reminds one of the only fact which the detectives in search of Mark Twain's lost white elephant could at first determine with certainty,-namely, that the great hole in the side of the building was not the aperature through which the animal had effected an egress.

The testimony of Peter in Acts ii to Psalm xvi is not regarded by Dr. Driver as establishing its Davidic authorship, nor does Peter's opinion seem to weigh greatly against the critical conclusions which would assign it to a later time. The New Testament use of Psalm cx is harder to account for, since the testimony is not only definite and necessary to the argument, as is true also in its use of Psalm xvi, but the words are those of our Lord himself. Driver asserts, however, that "In the question addressed by our Lord to the Jews (Mt. xxii. 41-46; Mk. xii. 35-37; Luke xx. 41-44) his object, it is evident, is not to instruct them as to its authorship of the psalm, but to argue from its contents; and though he assumes the Davidic authorship, accepted generally at the time, yet the cogency of his argument is unimpaired so long as it is recognized that the psalm is a Messianic one and that the angust language used in it of the Messiah is not compatible with the position of one who was a mere human son of David." (p. 363.) The psalm may be ancient, Driver thinks, and apparently does belong to the period of the monarchy, but can hardly be Davidic. But we do not yet see that the Davidic authorship of this psalm is not involved of necessity in our Lord's argument; and it still appears to us that the Jews might easily have worsted

Jesus in the controversy, had they possessed the wisdom of Dr. Driver's book. If it is really true that David did not write this psalm, it is well for us to know it; but it is not well for us to accept the theory with the quiet assurance that it will make no difference with our belief. Such conclusions will necessitate a very considerable readjustment of faith: a readjustment which must be made if truth compels it, but not needlessly nor hastily nor yet without thought of the consequences.

[ocr errors]

He

We do not care to quarrel about the question of titles: we are ready to admit that the title of Psalm xxxiv.-"A Psalm of David, when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed"-fits the contents as ill as any that could easily have been devised. David had not at this particular time been blessing the Lord; deceit, and not praise had been in his mouth. had not been righteous and had not cried to the Lord and had not been delivered; his tongue had not been kept from evil nor his lips from speaking guile; he had acted the part of a fool, and had been turned away by the king-who was not Abimelech—and had been left by God to suffer the consequences of his folly. But do this and a few other, though less evident instances, justify the "question" (which is treated at once as though it were a demonstration) whether the titles.

"are

more trustworthy in the instances that remain"? (P. 356.) If Longfellow did not write the little ditty about the turnip growing behind the barn, does the untrustworthiness of the tradition which ascribes it to him, raise (and, for that matter, settle) a question as to his having written anything else that has been ascribed to him?

This article has already exceeded its proper bounds. In a closing word it is possible only to express our high appreciation of the many excellent qualities of the book, and to wish that its defects were absent. Much of what it brings. to us is true and good: while some of its positions seem hardly

1

worth the dignity of the appellation, guess work. The final effect of the book will be good. Its theories, true and false alike, are those which are "in the air," and the Church may far better receive them from reverent Christian scholars than from violent infidels. Let the work of investigation go on. Let every fact, and every conjecture which can throw light on the truth contained in the Bible, and truth concerning the Bible, be given a hospitable reception and a careful analysis. But let us not mix the facts and the conjectures; and let us not mistake the weather-cock for the compass. Truth is better than any theory; however ancient or widely believed, and the Church can suffer nothing from it. But assumption is not always truth; and assertion is not demonstration; and the new is not always the true theory. This is not an esoteric matter. A due regard must, it is true, be entertained for the opinions of scholars; and the theories of experts ought to receive, and rarely fail to receive, that respectful consideration and high regard deemed appropriate toward their authors, and often somewhat higher than the theories might seem to merit, if unsupported by great names. But these are not questions of names, but of facts; and these facts are intelligible to ordinary Bible students. It is not courteous for the ignoramus, however reverent and honest, to decry as infidels or rationalists all who do not agree with him: but it is in order for every man who has an accurate knowledge of his English Bible to search the Scriptures for himself, and see whether these things are so. The final judgment of the church at large will be more trustworthy than the conjectures of the critics. What is needed is a wider study of the questions involved: that need will be met in part by this volume and the study to which it will incite.

ARTICLE V.

CAREY, THE FOUNDER OF MODERN MISSIONS

BY THE REV. D. L. LEONARD, OF OBERLIN, OHIO.

THE recent centennial missionary gatherings in England, in which all Christendom in spirit has heartily joined, and which various churches have made the occasion to urge a substantial increase of zeal, giving, and toil for the world's evangelization, afford a fitting opportunity for reviewing the missionary achievements of the century lying between 1792 and the present year.

Going back to the date of William Carey's immortal sermon, May 31, the organization of the Baptist Missionary Society, October 2, and the setting forth of its first representatives in June of the following year, what do we find to be the situation as to missions? A few startling words tell the entire story. In Southern India, in Lutheran hands, an insignificant work was in a languishing condition. Kiernander and a little circle of laymen were astir in Calcutta. Some slight remains of desire for the salvation of the Indians were discoverable in New England and New York. And this, with a single notable exception, represented the sum total of faith, longing and endeavor in Protestant Christendom, in both the Old World and the New! Elsewhere, in populous Asia nothing, nothing in Africa, nothing in America, North or South, nothing in the Islands of the Sea. In particular, not a single English-speaking missionary to be found upon the face of the earth! The churches in a deep sleep as touching their duty and their privilege. The last command of their Lord altogether forgotten. No sympathy

« AnteriorContinuar »