Full Text
THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL
VOLUME VII
REVIEW
JULY 1909
JOHN CALVIN—THE MAN.*
NUMBER 3
One could scarcely have assigned to him a task more
difficult than that of selecting, out of a crowded and influen-
tial life, the most salient acts and events for narrative;
choosing, out of the congeries of traits which constitute
the character of a great man, those of the first importance
for portrayal; so combining them in presentation that those
who hear will carry with them at least an impression of a
great historical figure; and doing all this within the limits
of a manuscript which will employ for its delivery not more
than thirty minutes of terrestrial time. Yet this is the duty
which those responsible for this celebration have devolved
on their first speaker.
But who, if he were offered the opportunity, would not
seize it with avidity, to do honor to the memory of one to
whom our civilization, in all its highest interests of civil
government, education, morality and religion, owes a debt
so incalculable as it does to John Calvin? And it is there-
fore with great joy and with a lively sense of the honor that
is mine in being permitted to speak of him, even under these
difficult conditions, that I rise only to refresh your memory
concerning his career and character and the elements of his
greatness.
He was born at Noyon, in Picardy, in northeastern
France, on July 10, 1509. His father was apostolic notary
- One of three brief addresses delivered at the Calvin Celebration,
Princeton Theological Seminary, May 4, 1909.
24
RECENT LITERATURE
491
there were, so to speak, many Aristions, or disciples of our Lord. This
being the case, had the early Church shared Dr. Gregory’s standpoint,
it would be passing strange that it should pass by all the utterances of
the many Aristions, and content themselves with the gospel of Mark.
The simple fact is that it is time that “scientific theology” were out-
growing some of its petty apriorism, and were getting the courage of
the habit of looking fully in the face all the facts with which it is called
to deal. And surely it may do this without fear of becoming “ortho-
dox”. It has only openly to break with the history of the Christian
Church, not as history, but simply as history that is in any way entitled
to shape present day beliefs. If its representatives are not willing to
take the humble position of disciples under the old regime, what is to
prevent them from themselves becoming the apostles and prophets of a
new order? One cannot avoid the feeling that there is justice in what
Canon Cheyne says, when he virtually charges them with mistaking
moral cowardice for modesty or for becoming caution. Surely they
have among them the material, first and last, by and large, for a very
“goodly fellowship of prophets”, and—though it must be confessed that
none are at present in sight—who can say that they will never develop
a “noble army of martyrs”?—though, to be sure, when one stops to
think of it, they have not much that is really worth witnessing for, at
least at any great personal cost.
But I must close, and I cannot do so without again expressing the
very great pleasure I have had in reading Dr. Gregory’s valuable book.
True, he has not added much—at least directly—to our knowledge
either of the nature or the origin of the canon of the New Testament.
But he has, in his own delightful way, made accessible to us much
material that can be used with fine effect for that purpose.
Columbia, S. C.
W. M. McPHEETERS.
A SHORT GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT for students famil-
iar with the Elements of Greek. By A. T. ROBERTSON, A.M., D.D.,
Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist The-
ological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. A. C. Armstrong & Son, 3 and
5 West 18th Street, near Fifth Avenue, New York, 1908. Pp. xxx,
- Second edition, 1909.
Dr. Robertson’s book is intended to be “an intermediate handy work-
ing grammar for men familiar with the elements of Greek both in
school and in the pastorate”, but in reality he has not confined himself
to such a limited sphere. The frequent observations upon questions
of comparative philology, especially the abundant use of the Sanskrit,
make the book something more than an elementary text-book. Indeed
it may well be questioned whether the author has not sometimes gone
farther afield than is advisable for any work on New Testament
grammar, whether elementary or not. The contribution of a New
Testament grammar to the history of the Greek language should be
limited to an exposition of the changes that took place between the
classical period of prose literature and the first Christian century; ear-
492
THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
lier changes should be discussed only where they throw light upon these
problems.
The book contains many good observations, evidently the result of in-
dependent thought as well as of a diligent employment of the literature
of the subject. But it is perhaps a stimulating book to be read through,
rather than a convenient book of reference. It has a place among
the discussions of the language of the New Testament, but that place
is hardly the “definite and unoccupied field” of “the last year in college
and the first in the seminary.” The beginner is unfortunately only too
likely to be confused rather than stimulated by Dr. Robertson’s refer-
ences to the ablative, locative, associative-instrumental, and the like.
On p. vi, the author remarks that “it is a satisfaction to note how
commonly the excellent critical text of Nestle agrees with that of
Westcott and Hort.” This agreement is hardly surprising, in view of
the fact that Nestle’s text is simply a combination of Westcott and
Hort with the texts of other modern editors. Dr. Robertson’s arrange-
ment of material is at times faulty; for example, on p. 24, the number
of verbs with neuter plural subject is discussed under “declension of
substantives,” whereas it certainly belongs under syntax. On p. 89, the
author speaks of “the practical equivalence” in the New Testament “of
eis and accusative and ev (the locative) with verbs of rest and motion”.
This is misleading. If the blending occurs at all, it occurs only
in a very small proportion of cases. On p. 90, we read, “But in-
stead of the predicate nominative we often have eis and the accusative
as in the Attic Greek.” Something is wrong here. The usage men-
tioned is of course not Attic. On p. 153, the author underestimates
rather than overestimates the intelligence of his readers when he warns
them that the Greek τοῦ which is used with the infinitive to express
purpose is not our English “to”!
The style of the book is hardly what might have been expected from
the author of the admirable Epochs in the Life of Jesus. It is at times
abrupt almost to the verge of crudeness, and is not always clear. At
times, one is almost tempted to suppose that the author has jotted down
detached notes without revision. Thus, on p. 79, second line from the
bottom, “either” is used for “any”. On p. 131, it is said that “the
doctors much disagree”. On p. 133, we read, “That is another matter
to be raised on other grounds.” On p. 179, 1. 9, the use of “alone” for
“only” obscures the sense. What is the meaning of the following sen-
tence that occurs on p. 12: “The hiatus was not considered so objec-
tionable after the manner of the Ionian writers”?
A bibliography which embraces such widely different works as West-
cott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek (inaccurately called
Greek New Testament) and Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, would better
have been subdivided. On p. 60, Deissmann’s Philology of the Greek
Bible is called “the best single handbook of the new knowledge from
the papyri and the Septuagint.” Such high praise would lead one to
expect something more than a modest little collection of four popular
lectures, which makes no pretence whatever at anything like detail. The
RECENT LITERATURE
493
usefulness of Dr. Robertson’s book would be increased by the addition
of an index rerum.
The early appearance of a second edition indicates the usefulness of
the work. Typographical errors have been corrected, but no important
changes have been introduced.
Princeton.
J GRESHAM MACHEN.
JESUS UND DIE HEIDENMISSION. Biblisch-Theologische Untersuchung
von DR. MAX MEINERTZ, A.O.Ö., Professor der Neutestamentlichen
Exegese in Braunsberg. Münster i. W. 1908. Verlag der Aschen-
dorffschen Buchhandlung. (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. A. Bludau, Münster i. W. Heft 1,
2.) 8vo.; pp. xii, 244. Mk. 6. 40.
The question of Jesus’ attitude towards universalism and missions,
while ever of supreme importance, especially in a missionary age like
ours, has acquired new interest from the manner of its treatment in
Harnack’s work “The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the
First Three Centuries”. The chapter devoted to “Jesus Christ and
Universal Missions” marks undoubtedly a weak spot in an otherwise
exceptionally strong and able book. True, Harnack’s position on the
negative side does not differ from that of many recent critics. He
denies the authenticity of the great missionary commandment recorded
in Matt. xxviii. 19 and of the more or less parallel passages at the close
of Mark and Luke. But, in characteristic consonance with his general
disposition to treat the tradition as gently as possible and to remove
difficulties rather by skillful exegesis or textual reconstruction than by
violent critical measures, he maintains that in the body of the Synoptic
Gospels there is on a fair interpretation comparatively little to be found
that puts Jesus in a false historic light. The Synoptists have, in his
opinion, exercised great self-restraint in not to any large extent carry-
ing back the missionary idea and missionary sentiment of their own time
into the sayings of Jesus. Now other critics who on the historical
question share the negative attitude of Harnack, yet fail to observe
this self-restraint in the Synoptical record. Johannes Weiss, to mention
only one writer, while just as sceptical as regards the great commis-
sion, succeeds in discovering much more material steeped in the mission-
ary-spirit in Jesus’ teaching. Harnack tones down and puts a minimiz-
ing exegesis on such statements, so as to bring them in line with the
view that Jesus’ universalism was confined to the “intensive” kind and
to the O. T. eschatological forecast of the ultimate inclusion of Gen-
tiles in the kingdom of God, neither of which called for positive mis-
sionary effort. Weiss, on the other hand. gives the statements their full
force, thus explaining them, so far as their missionary import is con-
cerned, from the outlook of the later church. Harnack recognizes more
as authentic, Weiss more as influenced by the missionary-principle.
Only in regard to Jesus’ historical position they practically agree.
In view of the new interest thus imparted to the discussion, Meinertz'