THEOLOGY
FIRST CHRISTIAN IDEAS. By E. C. Selwyn. Murray, 9s. net.
The late Dr. Murray was of that type of scholar which England produces to perfection, and of whom Dr. Abbott is our most notable and distinguished example. An untiring patience, a close attention to detail, a rather over-dogmatic manner, and at times a simple felicity are the chief marks of the school. In this posthumous volume Dr. Selwyn continues his argument, advocated in previous books, that the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, and that a great deal of the New Testament is Midrash—that is, hortatory comment—on Old Testament stories. That he proves this thesis it would be too much to affirm; but he certainly strengthens his case by the careful handling he gives here to selected passages, especially the narratives of the Infancy and the Temptation. At times one meets sentences in which one recognises the old headmaster rather than the student. For instance, "The origin of the term Mass is Mazzoth, the cakes of unleavened bread, and no other etymology is worth a moment's consideration"; but generally Dr. Selwyn's points are made carefully, modestly, and carry conviction. This is especially true of a really startling piece of exegetical translation in Chapter III. The upholders of the Helvidian view that the brethren of Jesus were the children of Mary are fond of quoting the phrase of St. Luke, "She brought forth her first-born son." Dr. Selwyn, with a simplicity that seems unaware of its force, removes this argument in the following passage:
Here we may notice two points which show his [Luke's] close observance of Scripture. The first is one that opens a just complaint against R.V., which renders "She brought forth her first-born son" (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν Πρωτότοκον {ton huion autês ton Prôtotokon}). Luke is not speaking of uterine children of Mary, but he is declaring a solemn title, on which St. Paul had already dwelt. The title is based upon Ps. 89—"I will make him my First-born, higher than the sons of the earth." Which renders the Greek best, the R.V. or "She brought forth her son, the First-born"? There can be no question.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Selwyn wrote an extremely unattractive style, and is singularly unmethodical in the arrangement of his material. We have little doubt that this and his other books will be pillaged by popular preachers and theologians who have none of his scholarship. After all, such a fact is not an unworthy conclusion to the life of a great schoolmaster, who belongs to a profession which is fated to give ideas to those who will but rarely admit or even remember their source.
PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN CREEDS. By Edward Carpenter. Allen & Unwin. 10s. 6d. net.
No one would deny the correspondence between much of the theology and ceremonial of the Christian religion and previous creeds. What significance is to be attached to that correspondence will depend on the bias of the student. The Christian historian will see in the facts of anthropology evidence that Christianity is a natural as well as a revealed religion, and that its claims are greatly strengthened just because of pagan premonitions. The sceptic may be inclined to dismiss all Christian refinement of older myths as so much rubbish, of which the world must be rid before it can live coldly in the bleak light of a scientific materialism. Anyhow, there seems little advantage in anyone writing elaborately on the subject who is not a scholar. Mr. Carpenter is amiable, occasionally interesting, more often merely garrulous, but he seems to have no claims to scholarship, nor, what is ever fatal, to be able to estimate the value of previous scholars' works. One instance will suffice. He names the few eccentrics, Drews, Robertson, Bossi, Jensen, who deny the historicity of Jesus Christ; calls it a "large and learned body of opinion," and adds that "a still larger (but less learned) body fights desperately for the actual historicity of Jesus." The statement is really absurd. Not to mention orthodox scholars, Harnack alone could swallow his "learned body" without feeling discomfort.
His own method shows too great an eagerness to produce parallels at all costs. He notes that many gods, Dionysus, Mithra, Osiris were born in caves; Jesus Christ was born in a stable. But why call a stable an underground chamber? The facts are twisted to suit his theory; indeed, the whole book reminds one of those strained allegorical treatises which were common in the Middle Ages. The principal flaw in his book, as in all similar essays, is that he never approaches the records of the different religions, to which he is comparing Christianity, with a hundredth part of the severity he applies to Christian documents. He does not even discuss the age of manuscripts, a question of the first importance in the problem of religious origins. How many religions can show pre-Christian manuscript authority for the traits which, in the absence of that evidence, we may have believed were borrowed from Christianity itself?