[38] A common feature in all traditions is what Wellhausen describes as the main characteristic of the Chronicler, 'the timeless manner of looking at things which is natural to him.' He 'figures the old Hebrew people as in exact conformity with the pattern of the later Jewish community.' Proleg. to Hist. of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 190-193. In tradition what is authoritative tends to be represented as what always has been authoritative.
[39] Thus the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are properly called forgeries; and the evidence of this would lie in the fact that the author could not have afforded to disclose the method and circumstances of their production.
[40] Thus Riehm, whose position is described above on p. xx, has a noble section (Einleit. pp. 349 ff.) on the Pentateuch considered as the record of a Revelation. The conviction of the revelation of God is ascribed in part to 'the immediate impression which the Pentateuch makes. Anyone who reads it, so as to allow its contents to work upon his spirit, must receive the impression that a consciousness of God, such as is here expressed, cannot be derived from flesh and blood.'
[41] De fide Catholica. The treatise is ascribed to Boethius: see Boetii, Opuscula Sacra (Teubner Series), p. 178. On the fresh evidence of the authorship of those treatises supplied by the Anecdoton Holderi see Hodgkin's Letters of Cassiodorus, London, 1886, pp. 80-1.
[42] See the account in Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, London, 1877, pp. 156-160, and p. 166. Cf. also Newman's words below, p. 350.
[43] pp. 359-60.
[44] Nothing—except, on the customary interpretation, His reference to Psalm cx. This does seem to lay stress on David's authorship, unless it be regarded, as it certainly seems to me fair to regard it, as a question, rather than as positive instruction at all—a question simply calculated to lead the Pharisees to examine their own principles. Unless it be so interpreted it does seem to depend, as an argument, on personal authorship, because unless it be by David, it seems very difficult to suppose it written in David's person. It would naturally be a Psalm in which the King is addressed.
[45] S. John v. 46-47.
[46] S. Luke i. 17; S. Matt. xi. 14; xvii. 12.
[47] Nineteenth Century, July, 1890, p. 20. The bulk of his argument is directed against a position different from mine. Here I am only concerned with a single point.