Some New Testament Problems [review-book]

Louis Burton Crane
1905 The American Journal of Theology  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS I 9 mistake both in the table and in the body of the book, since the whole of vs. 36 is assigned to E. Gen. 29:24 is designated as secondary on p. I Io, but not on p. xvi. On p. xvii Gen. 37:13 is given as a whole to J, but in the analysis on p. 127 vs. I3a is given to J and vs. I3b to E. The table gives Gen. 40: 1-23 as all E', but pp. 130 and 131 give vss. 3b and 15b to E2. In like manner 41:I4b, 35b, and 42: 28a are not designated as secondary in the table of contents. Gen. 41:46 is marked in the table as wholly secondary, but in the analysis vs. 46b is given to E'. On p. xviii Gen. 48:8a should read 48:9a, and Exod. I:7b-I2 is inaccurate because in the parallel column vs. 7c is given to another source. Exod. 12:21 (p. xix) should be put into a parenthesis. Exod. I5:19-21 is assigned by the table to P, but in the analysis only 15:19 is given to P and vss. 20, 2I to E. Such discrepancies cause serious inconvenience to the person who wishes to use the harmony-table for ascertaining quickly the assignment of a particular verse to its source. The differences between the table and the body of the book are so numerous that one finds that he cannot trust the table, but must in every case hunt up the passage in the body of the book in order to be sure of the author's view. One is disposed, however, to excuse such minor inaccuracies in view of the enormous labor that Dr. Kent has evidently put upon this book, and the great service that it is sure to render in popularizing Old Testament criticism. LEWIS BAYLES PATON. HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARlY. SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS Another attempt has been made, this time by Wrede,' to explain the fourth gospel as a theological polemic. If Baldensperger2 could make a fairly reasonable argument for his unreasonable theory that the gospel was directed against the disciples of John the Baptist, we ought to expect Wrede to make out a much stronger case for his theory that the Jews were the enemies of the Christian church combated by the author. For if this book was written with a definite class of people in mind, whose claims the writer intended to discredit, then Wrede is right. If this book is a polemic, it is a polemic against the Jews. We are, however, convinced that the condition is contrary to fact. Wrede has read the gospel with much insight.