|
BACK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
CHAPTER VI
CHRIST AND CRITICISM
BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, KCB., LLD.,
AUTHOR OF "THE BIBLE AND MODERN CRITICISM," ETC., ETC., LONDON ENGLAND
In his "Founders of Old Testament Criticism" Professor
Cheyne of Oxford gives the foremost place to Eichhorn. He hails him, in fact, as
the founder of the cult. And according to this same authority, what led
Eichhorn to enter on his task was "his hope to contribute to the winning back of
the educated classes to religion." The rationalism of Germany at the close of
the eighteenth century would accept the Bible only on the terms of bringing it
down to the level of a human book, and the problem which had to be solved was to
get rid of the element of miracle which pervades it. Working on the labors of
his predecessors, Eichhorn achieved this to his own satisfaction by appealing to
the oriental habit of thought, which seizes upon ultimate causes and ignores
intermediate processes. This commended itself on two grounds. It had an
undoubted element of truth, and it was consistent with reverence for Holy
Scripture. For of the founder of the "Higher Criticism" it was said, what cannot
be said of any of his successors, that "faith in that which is holy, even in the
miracles of the Bible, was never shattered by Eichhorn in any youthful mind."
In the view of his successors, however, Eichhorn's
hypothesis was open to the fatal objection that it was altogether inadequate. So
the next generation of critics adopted the more drastic theory that the Mosaic
books were "mosaic" in the sense that they were literary forgeries of a late
date, composed of materials supplied by ancient documents and the myths and
legends of the Hebrew race. And though this theory has been modified from time
to time during the last century, it remains substantially the "critical" view of
the Pentateuch. But it is open to two main objections, either of which would be
fatal. It is inconsistent with the evidence. And it directly challenges the
authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as a teacher; for one of the few undisputed
facts in this controversy is that our Lord accredited the books of Moses as
having divine authority.
THE TRUE AND THE COUNTERFEIT
It may be well to deal first with the least important of
these objections. And here we must distinguish between the true Higher Criticism
and its counterfeit. The rationalistic "Higher Criticism," when putting the
Pentateuch upon its trial, began with the verdict and then cast about to find
the evidence; whereas, true criticism enters upon its inquiries with an open
mind and pursues them without prejudice. The difference may be aptly illustrated
by the position assumed by a typical French judge and by an ideal English judge
in a criminal trial. The one aims at convicting the accused, the other at
elucidating the truth. "The proper function of the Higher Criticism is to
determine the origin, date, and literary structure of an ancient writing." This
is Professor Driver's description of true criticism. But the aim of the
counterfeit is to disprove the genuineness of the ancient writings. The justice
of this statement is established by the fact that Hebraists and theologians of
the highest eminence, whose investigation of the Pentateuch problem has
convinced them of the genuineness of the books, are not recognized at all.
In Britain, at least – and I am not competent to speak of
Germany or America – no theologian of the first rank has adopted their "assured
results." But the judgment of such men as Pusey, Lightfoot and Salmon, not to
speak of men who are still with us, they contemptuously ignore; for the
rationalistic Higher Critic is not one who investigates the evidence, but one
who accepts the verdict.
THE PHILOLOGICAL INQUIRY
If, as its apostles sometimes urge, the Higher Criticism
is a purely philological inquiry, two obvious conclusions follow. The first is
that its verdict must be in favor of the Mosaic books; for each of the books
contains peculiar words suited to the time and circumstances to which it is
traditionally assigned. This is admitted, and the critics attribute the presence
of such words to the jesuitical skill of the priestly forgers. But this only
lends weight to the further conclusion that Higher Criticism is wholly
incompetent to deal with the main issue on which it claims to adjudicate. For
the genuineness of the Pentateuch must be decided on the same principles on
which the genuineness of ancient documents is dealt with in our courts of
justice. And the language of the documents is only one part of the needed
evidence, and not the most important part. And fitness for dealing with evidence
depends upon qualities to which Hebraists, as such, have no special claim.
Indeed, their writings afford signal proofs of their unfitness for inquiries
which they insist on regarding as their special preserve.
Take, for example, Professor Driver's grave assertion that
the presence of two Greek words in Daniel (they are the names of musical
instruments) demand a date for the book subsequent to the Greek conquest.
It has been established by Professor Sayce and others that the intercourse
between Babylon and Greece in, and before, the clays of Nebuchadnezzar would
amply account for the presence in the Chaldean capital of musical instruments
with Greek names. And Colonel Conder, moreover, – a very high authority –
considers the words to be Akkadian, and not Greek at all! But apart from all
this, we can imagine the reception that would be given to such a statement by
any competent tribunal. The story bears repeating –it is a record of facts –
that at a church bazaar in Lincoln some years ago, the alarm was raised that
pickpockets were at work, and two ladies had lost their purses. The empty purses
were afterwards found in the pocket of the Bishop of the Diocese! On the
evidence of the two purses the Bishop should be convicted as a thief, and on the
evidence of the two words the book of Daniel should be convicted as a forgery!
HISTORICAL BLUNDER
Here is another typical item in the Critics' indictment of
Daniel. The book opens by recording Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem in the
third year of Jehoiakim, a statement the correctness of which is confirmed by
history, sacred and secular. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, tells us that
during this expedition Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his father's death,
and that, committing to others the care of his army and of his Jewish and other
prisoners, "he himself hastened home across the desert." But the German
skeptics, having decided that Daniel was a forgery, had to find evidence to
support their verdict. And so they made the brilliant discovery that Berosus was
here referring to the expedition of the following year, when Nebuchadnezzar won
the battle of Carchemish against the army of the king of Egypt, and that he had
not at that time invaded Judea at all. But Carchemish is on the Euphrates, and
the idea of "hastening home" from there to Babylon across the desert is worthy
of a schoolboy's essay! That he crossed the desert is proof that he set out from
Judea; and his Jewish captives were, of course, Daniel and his companion
princes. His invasion of Judea took place before his accession, in Jehoiakam's
third year, whereas the battle of Carchemish was fought after his
accession, in the king of Judah's fourth year, as the biblical books
record. But this grotesque blunder of Bertholdt's "Book of Daniel" in the
beginning of the nineteenth century is gravely reproduced in Professor Driver's
"Book of Daniel" at the beginning of the twentieth century.
CRITICAL PROFANITY
But to return to Moses. According to "the critical
hypothesis," the books of the Pentateuch are literary forgeries of the Exilic
Era, the work of the Jerusalem priests of those evil days. From the Book of
Jeremiah we know that those men were profane apostates; and if "the critical
hypothesis" be true, they were infinitely worse than even the prophet's inspired
denunciations of them indicate. For no eighteenth century atheist ever sank to a
lower depth of profanity than is displayed by their use of the Sacred Name. In
the preface to his "Darkness and Dawn," Dean Farrar claims that he "never
touches the early preachers of Christianity with the finger of fiction." When
his story makes Apostles speak, he has "confined their words to the words of a
revelation." But ex. hyp., the authors of the Pentateuch "touched with
the finger of fiction" not only the holy men of the ancient days, but their
Jehovah God. "Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying." This and kindred formulas are
repeated times without number in the Mosaic books. If this be romance, a lower
type of profanity is inconceivable, unless it be that of the man who fails to be
shocked and revolted by it.
But no; facts prove that this judgment is unjust. For men
of unfeigned piety and deep reverence for divine things can be so blinded by the
superstitions of "religion" that the imprimatur of the church enables
them to regard these discredited books as Holy Scripture. As critics they brand
the Pentateuch as a tissue of myth and legend and fraud, but as religionists
they assure us that this "implies no denial of its inspiration or disparagement
of its contents. 1
ERRORS REFUTED BY FACTS
In controversy it is of the greatest importance to allow
opponents to state their position in their own words; and here is Professor
Driver's statement of the case against the Books of Moses:
"We can only argue on grounds of probability derived
from our view of the progress of the art of writing, or of literary
composition, or of the rise and growth of the prophetic tone and feeling in
ancient Israel, or of the period at which the traditions contained in the
narratives might have taken shape, or of the probability that they would have
been written down before the impetus given to culture by the monarchy had
taken effect, and similar considerations, for estimating most of which, though
plausible arguments on one side or the other may be advanced, a standard on
which we can confidently rely scarcely admits of being fixed."
("Introduction," 6th ed., page 123.)
This modest reference to "literary composition" and "the
art of writing" is characteristic. It is intended to gloss over the abandonment
of one of the chief points in the original attack. Had "Driver's Introduction"
appeared twenty years earlier, the assumption that such a literature as the
Pentateuch could belong to the age of Moses would doubtless have been branded as
an anachronism. For one of the main grounds on which the books were assigned to
the latter days of the monarchy was that the Hebrews of six centuries earlier
were an illiterate people. And after that error had been refuted by
archaeological discoveries, it was still maintained that a code of laws so
advanced, and so elaborate, as that of Moses could not have originated in such
an age. This figment, however, was in its turn exploded, when the spade of the
explorer brought to light the now famous Code of Khammurabi, the Amraphel of
Genesis, who was king of Babylon in the time of Abraham.
Instead, however, of donning the white sheet when
confronted by this new witness, the critics, with great effrontery, pointed to
the newly-found Code as the original of the laws of Sinai. Such a conclusion is
natural on the part of men who treat the Pentateuch as merely human. But the
critics cannot have it both ways. The Moses who copied Khammurabi must have been
the real Moses of the Exodus, and not the mythical Moses of the Exile, who wrote
long centuries after Khammurabi had been forgotten!
AN INCREDIBLE THEORY
The evidence of the Khammurabi Code refutes an important
count in the critics' indictment of the Pentateuch; but we can call another
witness whose testimony demolishes their whole case. The Pentateuch, as we all
know, and the Pentateuch alone, constitutes the Bible of the Samaritans. Who,
then, were the Samaritans? And how and when did they obtain the Pentateuch? Here
again the critics shall speak for themselves. Among the distinguished men who
have championed their crusade in Britain there has been none more esteemed, none
more scholarly, than the late Professor Robertson Smith; and here is an extract
from his "Samaritans" article in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica":
"They (the Samaritans) regard themselves as Israelites,
descendants of the ten tribes, and claim to possess the orthodox religion of
Moses * * * The priestly law, which is throughout based on the practice of the
priests in Jerusalem before the Captivity, was. reduced to form after the Exile,
and was published by Ezra as the law of the rebuilt temple of Zion. The
Samaritans must, therefore, have derived their Pentateuch from the Jews after
Ezra's reforms." And in the same paragraph he says that, according to the
contention of the Samaritans, "not only the temple of Zion, but the earlier
temple of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli, were schismatical." And yet, as he
goes on to say, "the Samaritan religion was built on the Pentateuch alone."
Now mark what this implies. We know something of racial
bitterness. We know more, unfortunately, of the fierce bitterness of religious
strife. And both these elements combined to alienate the Samaritans from the
Jews. But more than this, in the post-exilic period distrust and dislike were
turned to intense hatred--"abhorrence" is Robertson Smith's word--by the
sternness and contempt with which the Jews spurned their proffered help in the
work of reconstruction at Jerusalem, and refused to acknowledge them in any way.
And yet we are asked to believe that, at this very time and in these very
circumstances, the Samaritans, while hating the Jews much as Orangemen hate the
Jesuits, and the whole Jewish cult as schismatical, not only accepted these
Jewish books relating to that cult as the "service books" of their own ritual,
but adopted them as their "Bible," to the exclusion even of the writings of
their own Israelite prophets, and the venerated and sacred books which record
the history of their kings. In the whole range of controversy, religious or
secular, was there ever propounded a theory more utterly incredible and
preposterous!
ANOTHER PREPOSTEROUS POSITION
No less preposterous are the grounds on which this
conclusion is commended to us. Here is a statement of them, quoted from the
standard textbook of the cult, Hasting's "Bible Dictionary":
"There is at least one valid ground for the
conclusion that the Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the
Exile. Why was their request to be allowed to take part in the building of the
second temple refused by the heads of the Jerusalem community? Very probably
because the Jews were aware that the Samaritans did not as yet possess the
Law-Book. It is hard to suppose that otherwise they would have met with this
refusal. Further, anyone who, like the present writer, regards the modern
criticism of the Pentateuch as essentially correct, has a second decisive
reason fro adopting the above view." (Professor Konig's article,
"Samaritan Pentateuch," page 68.)
Here are two "decisive reasons" for holding that "the
Pentateuch was first accepted by the Samaritans after the Exile." First, because
"very probably" it was because they had not those forged books that the Jews
spurned their help; and so they went home and adopted the forged books as their
Bible! And, secondly, because criticism has proved that the books were not in
existence till then. To characterize the writings of these scholars as they
deserve is not a grateful task but the time has come to throw off reserve, when
such drivel as this is gravely put forward to induce us to tear from our Bible
the Holy Scriptures on which our Divine Lord based His claims to Messiahship.
THE IDEA OF SACRIFICE A REVELATION
The refutation of the Higher Criticism does not prove that
the Pentateuch is inspired of God. The writer who would set himself to establish
such a thesis as that within the limits of a Review Article might well be
admired for his enthusiasm and daring, but certainly not for his modesty or
discretion. Neither does it decide questions which lie within the legitimate
province of the true Higher Criticism, as ex. gr., the authorship of
Genesis. It is incredible that for the thousands of years that elapsed before
the days of Moses, God left His people on earth without a revelation: It is
plain, moreover, that many of the ordinances divinely entrusted to Moses were
but a renewal of an earlier revelation. The religion of Babylon is clear
evidence of such a primeval revelation. How else can the universality of
sacrifice be accounted for? Could such a practice have originated in a human
brain?
If some demented creature conceived the idea that killing
a beast before his enemy's door would propitiate him, his neighbors would no
doubt have suppressed him. And if he evolved the belief that his god would be
appeased by such an offensive practice, he must have supposed his god to be as
mad as himself. The fact that sacrifice prevailed among all races can be
explained only by a primeval revelation. And the Bible student will recognize
that God thus sought to impress on men that death was the penalty of sin, and to
lead them to look forward to a great blood shedding that would bring life and
blessing to mankind. But Babylon was to the ancient world what Rome has been to
Christendom. It corrupted every divine ordinance and truth, and perpetuated them
as thus corrupted. And in the Pentateuch we have the divine re-issue of the true
cult. The figment that the debased and corrupt version was the original may
satisfy some professors of Hebrew, but no one who has any practical knowledge of
human nature would entertain it.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
At this stage, however, what concerns us is not the divine
authority of the books, but the human error and folly of the critical attack
upon them. The only historical basis of that attack is the fact that in the
revival under Josiah, "the book of the law" was found in the temple by Hilkiah,
the high priest, to whom the young king entrusted the duty of cleansing and
renovating the long neglected shrine. A most natural discovery it was, seeing
that Moses had in express terms commanded that it should be kept there (II
Kings 22:8; Deuteronomy 31 :26).
But according to the critics, the whole business was a detestable trick of the
priests. For they it was who forged the books and invented the command, and then
hid the product of their infamous work where they knew it would be found.
And apart from this, the only foundation for "the assured
results of modern criticism," as they themselves acknowledge, consists of
"grounds of probability" and "plausible arguments"! In no civilized country
would an habitual criminal be convicted of petty larceny on such evidence as
this; and yet it is on these grounds that we are called upon to give up the
sacred books which our Divine Lord accredited as "the Word of God" and made the
basis of His doctrinal teaching.
CHRIST OR CRITICISM?
And this brings us to the second, and incomparably the
graver, objection to "the assured results of modern criticism." That the Lord
Jesus Christ identified Himself with the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a very
special way with the Book of Moses, no one disputes. And this being so, we must
make choice between Christ and Criticism. For if "the critical hypothesis" of
the Pentateuch be sustained, the conclusion is seemingly inevitable, either that
He was not divine, or that the records of His teaching are untrustworthy.
Which alternative shall we adopt? If the second, then
every claim to inspiration must be abandoned, and agnosticism must supplant
faith in the case of every fearless thinker. Inspiration is far too great a
question for incidental treatment here; but two remarks with respect to it may
not be inopportune. Behind the frauds of Spiritualism there lies the fact,
attested by men of high character, some of whom are eminent as scientists and
scholars, that definite communications are received in precise words from the
world of spirits. 2 And this being so, to deny that
the Spirit of God could thus communicate truth to men, or, in other words, to
reject verbal inspiration on a priori grounds, betrays the stupidity of
systematized unbelief. And, secondly, it is amazing that any one who regards the
coming of Christ as God's supreme revelation of Himself can imagine that (to put
it on no higher ground than "Providence") the Divine Spirit could fail to ensure
that mankind should have a trustworthy and true record of His mission and His
teaching.
A MORE HOPELESS DILEMMA
But if the Gospel narrative be authentic, we are driven
back upon the alternative that He of whom they speak could not be divine. "Not
so," the critics protest, "for did He not Himself confess His ignorance? And is
not this explained by the Apostle's statement that in His humiliation He emptied
Himself of His Deity?" And the inference drawn from this (to quote the standard
text-book of the cult) is that the Lord of Glory "held the current Jewish
notions respecting the divine authority and revelation of the Old Testament."
But even if this conclusion--as portentous as it is profane--could be
established, instead of affording an escape from the dilemma in which the Higher
Criticism involves its votaries, it would only serve to make that dilemma more
hopeless and more terrible. For what chiefly concerns us is not that, ex. hyp.,
the Lord's doctrinal teaching was false, but that in unequivocal terms, and with
extreme solemnity, He declared again and again that His teaching was not His own
but His Father's, and that the very words in which He conveyed it were
God-given.
A few years ago the devout were distressed by the
proceedings of a certain Chicago "prophet," who claimed divine authority for his
lucubration’s. Kindly disposed people, rejecting a severer estimate of the man
and his platform utterances, regarded him merely as a profane fool. Shall the
critics betray us into forming a similarly indulgent estimate of –– My pen
refuses to complete the sentence!
And will it be believed that the only scriptural basis
offered us for this astounding position is a verse in one of the Gospels and a
word in one of the Epistles! Passing strange it is that men who handle Holy
Scripture with such freedom when it conflicts with their "assured results"
should attach such enormous importance to an isolated verse or a single word,
when it can be misused to support them. The verse is Mark 13:32, where the Lord
says, with reference to His coming again: "Of that day and hour knoweth no one;
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." But
this follows immediately upon the words: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
My words shall not pass away."
THE WORDS OF GOD
The Lord's words were not "inspired"; they were the words
of God in a still higher sense. "The people were astonished at His teaching," we
are told, "for He taught them as one having exousia." The word occurs
again in Acts 1 :7, where He says
that times and seasons "the Father hath put in His own exousia." And this
is explained by Philippians 2:6, 7: "He counted it not a prize (or a thing to be
grasped) to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself"--the word on
which the kenosis theory of the critics depends. And He not only stripped
Himself of His glory as God; He gave up His liberty as a man. For He never spoke
His own words, but only the words which the Father gave Him to speak. And this
was the limitation of His "authority"; so that, beyond what the Father gave Him
to speak, He knew nothing and was silent.
But when He spoke, "He taught them as one who had
authority, and not as their scribes." From their scribes. they were used to
receive definite teaching, but it was teaching based on "the law and the
prophets." But here was One who stood apart and taught them from a wholly
different plane. "For," He declared, "I spake not -from Myself; but the Father
which sent Me, He bath given Me a commandment what I should say and what I
should speak. * * * The things, therefore, which I speak, even as the Father
bath said unto Me, so I speak" (John 12 :49, 50,
R. V.).
And let us not forget that it was not merely the substance
of His teaching that was divine, but the very language in which it was conveyed.
So that in His prayer on the night of the betrayal He could say, not only "I
have given them Thy word," but "I have given them the words which Thou
gavest Me." 3 His words, therefore, about Moses and
the Hebrew Scriptures were not, as the critics, with such daring and seeming
profanity, maintain, the lucubration’s of a superstitious and ignorant Jew; they
were the words of God, and conveyed truth that was divine and eternal.
When in the dark days of the Exile, God needed a prophet
who would speak only as He gave him words, He struck Ezekiel dumb. Two judgments
already rested on that people the seventy years' Servitude to Babylon, and then
the Captivity – and they were warned that continued impenitence would bring on
them the still more terrible judgment of the seventy years' desolations. And
till that last judgment fell, Ezekiel remained dumb (Ezekiel 3:26; 24:27; 33:22).
But the Lord Jesus Christ needed no such discipline. He came to do the Father's
will, and no words ever passed His lips save the words given Him to speak.
In this connection, moreover, two facts which are
strangely overlooked claim prominent notice. The first is that in Mark 13 the
antithesis is not at all between man and God, but between the Son of God and the
Father. And the second is that He had been re-invested with all that, according
to Philippians 2, He laid aside in coming into the world. "All things have been
delivered unto Me of My Father," He declared; and this at a time when the proofs
that "He was despised and rejected of men" were pressing on Him. His reassuming
the glory awaited His return to heaven, but here on earth the all things were
already His (Matthew 11:27).
AFTER THE KENOSIS
The foregoing is surely an adequate reply to the kenosis
figment of the critics; but if any should still doubt or cavil, there is another
answer which is complete and crushing. Whatever may have been the limitations
under which He rested during His ministry on earth, He was released from them
when He rose from the dead. And it was in His post-resurrection teaching that He
gave the fullest and clearest testimony to the Hebrew Scriptures. Then it was
that, "beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." And again, confirming all His
previous teaching about those Scriptures, "He said unto them, These are the
words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in
the psalms, concerning Me."
And the record adds: "Then opened He their mind that they
might understand the Scriptures." And the rest of the New Testament is the fruit
of that ministry, enlarged and unfolded by the Holy Spirit given to lead them
into all truth. And in every part of the New Testament the Divine authority of
the Hebrew Scriptures, and especially of the Books of Moses, is either taught or
assumed.
THE VITAL ISSUE
Certain it is, then, that the vital issue in this
controversy is not the value of the Pentateuch, but the Deity of Christ. And yet
the present article does not pretend to deal with the truth of the Deity. Its
humble aim is not even to establish the authority of the Scriptures, but merely
to discredit the critical. attack upon them by exposing its real character and
its utter feebleness. The writer's method, therefore, has been mainly
destructive criticism, the critics' favorite weapon being thus turned against
themselves.
A DEMAND FOR CORRECT STATEMENT
One cannot but feel distress at having to accord such
treatment to certain distinguished men whose reverence for divine things is
beyond reproach. A like distress is felt at times by those who have experience
in dealing with sedition, or in suppressing riots. But when men who are entitled
to consideration and respect thrust themselves into "the line of fire," they
must take the consequences. These distinguished men will not fail to receive to
the full the deference to which they are entitled, if only they will dissociate
themselves from the dishonest claptrap of this crusade ("the assured results of
modern criticism"; "all scholars are with us"; and so on – bluster and falsehood
by which the weak and ignorant are browbeaten or deceived) and acknowledge that
their "assured results" are mere hypotheses, repudiated by Hebraists and
theologians as competent and eminent as themselves.
THINGS TO FEAR
The effects of this "Higher Criticism" are extremely
grave. For it has dethroned the Bible in the home, and the good, old practice of
"family worship" is rapidly dying out. And great national interests also are
involved. For who can doubt that the prosperity and power of the Protestant
nations of the world are due to the influence of the Bible upon character and
conduct? Races of men who for generations have been taught to think for
themselves in matters of the highest moment will naturally excel in every sphere
of effort or of enterprise. And more than this, no one who is trained in the
fear of God will fail in his duty to his neighbor, but will prove himself a
good citizen. But the dethronement of the Bible leads practically to the
dethronement of God; and in Germany and America, and now in England, the effects
of this are declaring themselves in ways, and to an extent, well fitted to cause
anxiety for the future.
CHRIST SUPREME
If a personal word may be pardoned in conclusion, the
writer would appeal to every book he has written in proof that he is no champion
of a rigid, traditional "orthodoxy." With a single limitation, he would advocate
full and free criticism of Holy Scripture. And that one limitation is that the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be deemed a bar to criticism and "an end of
controversy" on every subject expressly dealt with in His teaching. "The Son of
God is come"; and by Him came both grace and TRUTH. And from His hand it is that
we have received the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
1. "The Higher Criticism: Three Papers,"
by Professors Driver and Kirkpatrick
2. The fact that, as the Christian
believes, these spirits are demons who impersonate the dead, does not affect the
argument.
3. Both the logoj and the rhmata John
17:5, 14; as again in Chapter 14:10; 24.
BACK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FORWARD
|
