THE CHRISTIAN REVIEW.

No. VII.

SEPTEMBER, 1837.

ARTICLE I.

[WE have been favored by Mr. David Fosdick, Jr., with the following extract, translated from a recent German work of Professor Olshausen, on the Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament. This work, Mr. Fosdick is now engaged in translating and preparing for the press. We prefix a brief notice of Olshausen, for which we are indebted to a friend:

"Dr. Hermann Olshausen (not to be confounded with his brother, the orientalist, Justus Olshausen, professor in the university of Kiel) was born in 1796, at Oldesloe, between Hamburg and Lubeck, in Holstein. His father, who was a dignitary of the church, gave him a careful education. After preparing for the university, mostly at the gymnasium of Gluckstadt, near the mouth of the Elbe, he entered the university of Kiel, in the 19th year of his age. After two years, he removed from the university of his native State to that of the Prussian capital, where the character of his scholarship and his religious views took their peculiar stamp. Professor Tholuck, then a fellow-student at Berlin, was the instrument of his conversion. They were intimate friends, and held nearly an equal rank as scholars. Tholuck, in the mean time, during his intercourse with the venerable Baron Von

VOL. II.-NO. VII.

41

Kottewitz, laid aside his skepticism, and became a decided Christian. Professor Olshausen, in a familiar interview with him, attempted to reason him out of his new religious views. 'Tholuck,' said he, if it were not for your foolish Moravian notions, you might obtain one of the first professorships in Germany. But as it is, you can never rise to any high station.' Tholuck replied, 'Did you ever read the books of these Moravians?' 'No,' was the answer. 'Let me tell you, then,' continued he, 'that, with all your talent and theological learning, you will never get to heaven, without that which these Moravians have, and which you have not.' They parted with mutual sorrow. Professor Tholuck now seriously feared, that a long-cherished friendship was broken up. They did not see each other again for a week, when the solicitude of this pious youth induced him to visit his friend in his own room; and what were his emotions, when he found Mr. Olshausen seated by a table covered with Moravian books, and in great distress of mind! After much kind counsel and prayer with him, that faithful Christian had the pleasure of seeing his friend a convert to experimental religion.

"It is thought, that, while Neander, Schleiermacher and De Wette exerted an influence on Olshausen's mind, that of Neander was the most decisive in its effects. He devoted himself chiefly to the study of the New Testament; and it is in this department of theology that he has most distinguished himself. The leading object of his labors has been, to displace the cold, heartless criticism of such men as Paullus, Kuinöl, Rosenmüller, Koppe and Wegscheider,-who neglect all the weightier matters of the law, and have little sympathy with the spirit of the New Testament writers, and to substitute a spiritual interpretation, which should elicit the beauties and excellences of the abused book of God. He is a spiritualist or idealist, in opposition to the low rationalists; and a speculative theologian, nearly like Neander, and between Lücke and Tholuck, in contradistinction to the empyrical orthodox divines. His philology is of the later school of Winer and Lücke, though less severe; and his hermeneu

tical principles, leading him to search after a deeper spiritual sense, differ considerably from those of Ernesti. His occasional writings on a deeper sense' of scriptural language, and his commentary on the historical books of the New Testament, show him to agree nearly with Lücke, in his youthful work on interpretation. The truth evidently lies between him and his opponents.

"In 1818, he became theological Repetent at Berlin, and in 1822, professor of theology at Königsberg, where he wrote and published most of his works. In 1835, he was called to a more agreeable situation, as professor at Erlangen. Like all of the 'speculative pietists' of the present day, in Germany, he has met with gross opposition. Every body knows what insults were offered to Tholuck, at first, in Halle, and to Hahn, on his removal to Breslau. While Olshausen's work on the Gospels and the Acts had a wider circulation than any similar work in Germany, his friends could not even get a miniature likeness of him engraved in his own city (Königsberg), such was the prejudice against him by the rationalists there; and it was necessary to send to Berlin, to get an artist of moral courage enough to undertake it.

"Most of his works have been already mentioned. The little popular work, on the Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament, is one of his best productions. His commentary is very attractive, full of ingenuity and learning, often exceedingly happy, but sometimes fanciful."]

OF THE REVELATION OF JOHN.

The sublime book which concludes the New Testament, the Revelation of St. John (@coldyos), with its wonderful images and visions, has met with a more extraordinary fate than any other writing of the New Testament. The impressive and absorbing nature of the contents of the book has seldom permitted any one to examine it with cool impartiality; and while some have become the enthusiastic advocates of the book, others have appeared as its most violent opponents, not only rejecting the production as not apostolical, or as forged, but even reviling it as the production of an heretical spirit.

Thus it has happened, that while no production of the New Testament can exhibit more and stronger historical evidence of its genuineness and apostolic authority than the Revelation, none has met with more antagonists; and, indeed, many of its antagonists are men who have merited much gratitude from the church for their struggles in behalf of the truth. Among these is Luther, who shows himself a determined opponent of John's Revelation. He says, in his Preface to it:

"There are various and abundant reasons why I regard this book as neither apostolical nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not make use of visions, but prophesy in clear and plain language, as do Peter, Paul, and Christ, also, in the gospel; for it is becoming the apostolic office to speak plainly, and without figure or vision, respecting Christ and his acts. Moreover, it seems to me far too arrogant, for him to enjoin it upon his readers to regard this, his own work, as of more importance than any other sacred book, and to threaten, that if any one shall take aught away from it, God will take away from him his part in the book of life. (Rev. 22: 19.) Besides, even were it a blessed thing to believe what is contained in it, no man knows what that is. The book is believed (and is really just the same to us) as though we had it not; and many more valuable books exist for us to believe in. But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production; and this is reason enough for me, why I should not esteem it very highly."

From this strong language of the great reformer, it is sufficiently evident how repulsive the contents of the Revelation were to him. As he termed the epistle of James a strawy epistle, because it seemed to him to contradict Paul's doctrine in regard to faith, so he rejected the Revelation, because the imagery of the book was unintelligible to him. This was obscure to him, from the fact, that he could not thoroughly apprehend the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth, which is exhibited in the Revelation, and forms the proper centre of every thing contained in it.

The same point has, at all times, in the church, operated very powerfully upon the judgments of learned men, in regard to the Revelation; and therefore we must, before any particular examination of this production, make some general observations on the propriety of permitting doctrinal views generally, and the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth particularly, to have an influence on criticism.

In recent times, critical investigations of the sacred books have pretty generally proceeded on the principle, that doctrinal

views ought not to exert any influence upon inquiries respecting the genuineness of the Scriptures. It has been easy to lay down this principle, because, generally, the binding authority of sacred writ has been denied, and writers have not felt it incumbent on them to admit as an object of faith every thing that was stated in genuine apostolic writings. Indeed, to many an investigator it has been very gratifying, that, in genuine writings of the apostles, things should occur, which to him seemed evident errors; since, in such case, it became more easy to prove, that the apostles even had stated many things erroneously, and that, therefore, what was true in their productions should be separated from what was false. With Luther, however, and all the other old theologians, the case was different. They acknowledged the Scriptures as binding on their faith; and, therefore, could by no means wholly exclude doctrinal considerations. For, were a book proved to be apostolical by all possible historical and internal arguments, but plainly subverted the gospel, and preached a different Christ from the true historical Son of God and man, no faithful teacher of the church of Christ should receive and use any such production, -notwithstanding all the evidence in its favor, any more than listen to an angel from heaven who should bring another gospel. (Gal. 1:8.) Such was Luther's position; and, in this view, we may respect and honor his opposition to the epistle of James and the Revelation of John. His only error in this, in itself commendable, endeavor boldly to distinguish what was antichristian, was, that he decided too rashly and hastily, and thus did not investigate with sufficient thoroughness, and, on the ground of appearances merely, pronounced that to be not biblical which in reality was so. That this was the case in regard to his judgment concerning the discrepancy between James and Paul is, at the present day, universally admitted. In regard to the Revelation, however, many still think, that he judged correctly, although, in my opinion, he erred here as much as in relation to the epistle of James.

We cannot say, therefore, that doctrinal considerations are not of the least consequence in critical investigations; though certainly we must not permit them to have an improper influence, so as to disturb the historical investigation, nor too hastily make an objective rule of our present subjective views, but endeavor to investigate more thoroughly what is at present obscure and inexplicable. Such an endeavor will often educe