Book Briefs: July 21, 1958

Uneven Performance

Unger’s Bible Dictionary, edited by Merrill F. Unger, Moody Press, 1957, 1192 pp., $8.95.

The book-jacket describes this work as containing “7000 definitions based on all recent discoveries and latest evangelical scholarship.” The natural inference that this represents an entirely new, up-to-date work is somewhat counteracted by the statement in the preface that it is based upon C. R. Barnes’ “Bible Encyclopedia” which first came out in 1900. The revision and rewriting of this earlier work is then stated to be of such a “drastic nature” as to warrant the substitution of Unger’s name for Barnes’. To your reviewer this seems to have been a mistaken decision; the revision does not appear drastic enough to justify this substitution, and the purchaser who relies upon the very considerable reputation of Dr. Unger to find in this work a really first-class and entirely up-to-date Bible dictionary is going to be somewhat disappointed.

Percentagewise there is rather little of Unger’s independent work, and not all of that is (largely because of limitations of space) up to his own best standard. Even in areas where modern research has contributed much of value, the revision and supplementation has been inadequate. For example, the fairly long article on “Nebuchadnezzar” remains practically the same as it was in Barnes, except for the addition of one short paragraph on the archaeology of Chaldean Babylon and the Ishtar Gate. Perhaps the publication of Wiseman’s work on the Neo-Babylonian Archives appeared a little too late for this dictionary, but surely a figure of Nebuchadnezzar’s importance deserved a fresh treatment on the part of an Old Testament expert like Unger. In the New Testament area, it is perhaps more understandable why the long article on “Paul” should remain unchanged (except that the Greek characters have been completely eliminated by transcription in Roman letters—a questionable improvement). But would it not have been more sensible for the publisher to have associated a New Testament scholar with Dr. Unger and thus made possible a better balance in the work of revision? If so high a price is. to be charged for a production of this sort, the public is entitled to at least this much of a team to collaborate on the revision of a work over 50 years old.

For the most part, however, Professor Unger’s contributions are of a high order. In matters relating to Christian doctrine he is very careful; the article on “Inspiration,” for example, is a great improvement over McChesney’s article in Barnes, which opened up the way for a denial of biblical inerrancy in a most damaging way. With convincing lucidity Unger exegetes the pivotal verses of Scripture that deal with inspiration, and makes a clear and satisfying distinction between the inerrancy of the autographa and the imperfect transmission of the text, under the safeguarding providence of the Holy Spirit to insure against the intrusion of doctrinal error.

In matters of biblical introduction he holds consistently and persuasively to the historic position of the Church in such controversial areas as the authenticity of Daniel and the Solomonic authorship of both Ecclesiastes and Canticles. The usual arguments advanced by the Liberal critics against the genuineness of these books are treated with great fairness, and yet they are firmly and cogently refuted in most instances. (His handling of the supposed “Greek” words in Canticles is not as satisfactory as it might have been; he failed to discuss the very live possibility that such words are of Sanskrit origin rather than Greek.) Such fashionable identifications have come recently into vogue, like the equation of the “Daniel” of Ezekiel 14:14 with the legendary Daniel of the Ugaritic mythology, are forthrightly rejected (p. 238b) on very convincing grounds. In respect to the date of the Exodus, he comes out very clearly for the 1440 date, and in general adheres to the chronology of the Hebrew text with commendable consistency. Joseph and Jacob are placed back in the Twelfth Dynasty instead of in the Hyksos period. Hezekiah is dated 725–697 rather than being shifted to a later decade or two, as many recent chronologists have done (arguing from the supposed new evidence of the age of Tirhaqah at the time of Sennacherib’s 701 invasion of Palestine). Yet regrettably enough, Unger does not discuss this new evidence in his article on Tirhaqah.

It is in the field of archaeology that one would have expected a great fullness of information, since Dr. Unger has written an excellent textbook on this subject. And yet, perhaps because of space limitations, this expectation is but imperfectly realized. By comparison with another quite recent Bible dictionary put out by Harper’s, this volume contains less information, even though the former is a smaller book. Like so many other Bible dictionaries the entries in Unger have been too rigidly restricted to names actually appearing in the text of the Bible. Harper has adequate information on Re, Osiris, Ishtar and several other pagan gods of importance to the ancient neighbors of Israel, but there is not a word on them in Unger (at least under their own names). Oddly enough, the article on the major god, Bel, has been much reduced from its length in Barnes, and the article on obscure Beelzebub has been increased. The space given to Ras Shamar is appreciably less than that in Harper’s, and correspondingly inferior in the amount of information it contains. The decisive importance of the data from the Ras Shamra tablets is indicated only in vague generalities, even though they provide remarkable confirmations of the origin of the ritual portions of the Pentateuch and of the Psalms. Unger is perfectly equipped to expatiate on these matters, but he has failed to do so. Strangely enough, this article is unsigned, even though there was no corresponding article for Ras Shamra in Barnes. As for the entry under “Archaeology,” Unger’s treatment is excellent. He ably brings out the apologetic implications of archaeological discovery in recent decades and offers a more extended discussion on it than does the Harper book.

Minor defects in Unger’s Dictionary are found in the area of proofreading. On the whole, however, the entire production shows the marks of undue haste and mistaken economy. The performance is uneven, a combination of real superiorities with distressing defects. For this high a price, readers will undoubtedly prefer a dictionary that is more consistently up-to-date.

GLEASON L. ARCHER, JR.

Papal Infallibility

The Vatican Revolution, by Geddes MacGregor, Beacon, 1957. 226 pp., $4.95.

The author of this work, a Presbyterian minister and Rufus Jones Professor of philosophy and religion at Bryn Mawr College, has endeavored to make a study of the doctrine of the “infallibility of the pope.” He has dealt with the question not so much as a philosopher or theologian, however, but as an historian; and by doing so has made his critique of this recently promulgated Roman Catholic doctrine extremely effective.

Commencing with an outline of the events leading to the actual formulation and publication of the doctrine in 1870, the author describes in detail the political maneuvering and lobbying of Pope Pius IX and his supporters in their endeavors to have papal infallibility recognized as a dogma of the church.

It is obvious from the evidence here adduced that there was in the Roman church at that time a small but able opposition to the infallibilists’ views. The only difficulty was that in failing to fight the doctrine to the bitter end, they allowed it to receive what was in appearance unanimous consent, and so to become an article of faith of the Roman church.

Following his account of the actual acceptance of the doctrine by the council of 1870, the author goes back to the Middle Ages to point out that while the idea of papal infallibility had been held in a vague manner by some theologians during that epoch before the Reformation, it had by no means gained general acceptance nor had it achieved the status of a required article of faith. Only with the rise of the Society of Jesus did it come to the forefront and then as a weapon with which to fight Protestantism.

In his chapter entitled, “The Flight from Democracy,” the author gives a carefully worked out history of the gradual imposition of this doctrine on the church by the Jesuits. It is a searching analysis of the history of the Roman church since the sixteenth century, and it explains for Roman Catholics why Protestants today fear that church’s search (despite all its statements to the contrary) for political power.

In order to make the Romanist position crystal clear, chapters are also devoted to “The Meaning of Infallibility,” and “The Meaning of Ex Cathedra,” setting forth the current views in relation to the church’s earlier history. The concluding chapter is devoted to the practical importance of this doctrine in America today. Finally, two appendices are added, one giving the text of the Vatican decrees containing the doctrine of infallibility and the other consisting of a “Note on the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption of Mary.”

This is a very useful and important book. While it is not by any means written with an anti-Roman Catholic bias, it does give a very clear account of the development of the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Everyone who is interested in contemporary developments in this field should read, note, learn and inwardly digest.

Although the author at times seems to indicate a liking for the so-called “liberal” theological approach, his own views seldom show adherence to it themselves. If the book could be improved in any way, it would be by a discussion of the Protestant Reformers’ views of the Infallibility of the Scriptures and the matter of the church, in contrast to current Roman teaching.

W. S. REID

Critical Scholarship

The Exilic Age, by C. F. Whitley, Westminster Press, 1957. 160 pp., $3.50.

The author of this little volume has been for some years lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament in the University College of North Wales. The book is well-written and shows that its author is well-acquainted with the “critical” literature bearing upon the field he deals. As a presentation of that critical view, which is widely popular today, the book has both interest and value. On the other hand it illustrates in a rather startling way the wide difference that exists between biblical and critical scholarship.

The author has entitled his book The Exilic Age because he regards the 6th century B.C. the most fruitful intellectually in the entire pre-Christian period. He points out that Zoroaster and Buddha were born in it and that it marked the transition from the domination of the Near East by Semitic to Indo-European peoples. His aim is to show the great role which certain of the Hebrew prophets played in this epoch-making age. The three figures with which he deals are Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah (i.e. Isa. 40–55). Daniel is not even mentioned, which means that the writer is so firmly convinced that the Book of Daniel is Maccabean that it would be a waste of time even to mention it in a book dealing with the Exilic Age. The fact that there are scholars who defend the unity of Isaiah is admitted. But the view of Duhm that Deutero-Isaiah belongs to the Exilic Age and is to be restricted to chapters 40–55 is adopted without discussion. So of the great figures which Dr. Whitley places in this period, one, according to the historic faith of the Church, both Jewish and Christian, belongs considerably earlier and another is conspicuous by his absence.

From what has just been said it will be evident that from the viewpoint of conservative scholarship there are very serious defects in this book. The author regards Deutero-Isaiah as representing “the most sublime expression of Hebrew religion as well as the most profound thought of his day” (p. 152). An outstanding proof of this is, he tells us, the monotheism taught by this prophet. “We must read the utterances of Deutero-Isaiah before we hear the question, ‘Is there a God beside me?’ and the categorical denial, ‘Yea … I know not any’ (44:8); and again we read, ‘I am Yahweh and there is none else; beside me there is no God’ (45:5)” (p. 135). These are sublime utterances. But we need to remember that according to the Bible they are not to be found first on the lips of an unknown prophet of the Exilic Period. They are strikingly paralleled in Deuteronomy 4:35, 39 which according to Driver teach that “Jehovah is not only God, but sole God.” But Dr. Whitley, of course, like Dr. Driver, assigns these great Mosaic utterances to the time of Josiah. Furthermore he tells us that the great passage, Jeremiah 10:5–16, is an insertion of a later editor and “reminiscent [sic!] of the thought and theology of Deutero-Isaiah” (p. 49). As to this we may observe that such a reminiscence of the real Isaiah would be appropriated in the genuine writings of Jeremiah.

As for the question of Mosaic Monotheism, Dr. Whitley tells us: “It must be remembered that in view of the nature and date of the Pentateuchal documents, upon which we are dependent for our information about Moses, we have no reliable means of ascertaining the particular conception of God which he entertained in the thirteenth century, B.C.” (p. 134). “Indeed we may infer that the influence of Zoroaster, who is referred to in six passages in the book, upon Deutero-Isaiah was far greater than that of Moses who is mentioned in but two. And we are told that Zoroasterianism was probably known in Babylon when Deutero-Isaiah was preaching there some forty years later” (p. 137).

That Dr. Whitley adopts the now popular form criticism is indicated by such statements as the following. Regarding Jeremiah he tells us, “In common with all the prophetic literature of the Old Testament many sources, with numerous editorial additions, combine to form the present book” (p. 33). As to Deutero-Isaiah we are cautioned that while “we may assign the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah to a Babylonian background in the period of the exile, it is questionable if their compilation as preserved in Isaiah 40–55 is the work of their author.” We should recognize that “Like his predecessors, Deutero-Isaiah seems to have uttered his oracles as occasion required, but the collection of these oracles and their compilation into book form seems to have been the work of the disciples of the prophet.” Lest this unduly alarm us we are given the very dubious assurance: “We have no reason, however, to doubt the genuineness of most of the material of the book or to conclude that the figure and personality of the prophet are lost in the loftiness of his thought” (p. 128).

Such statements would seem to justify the conclusion that according to the school of criticism to which Dr. Whitley belongs, it is quite certain that none of Isaiah 40–55 can come to us from the lips of Isaiah the son of Amoz, but it is by no means certain just how much of it comes from the lips of the Great Unknown of the Exilic Period.

OSWALD T. ALLIS

Fragmentized Decalogue

The Ten Commandments and Modern Man, by H. G. G. Herklots, Essential, Fair Lawn, New Jersey, 1958. 189 pp., $2.75.

The introduction indicates the timeliness of a restatement of the Ten Commandments. Our generation needs “principles to guide us in an uncertain future” (p. 17). Canon Herklots wisely observes that the Decalogue’s value depends on an unconditional commitment to God, called “the Abrahamic presupposition.” Unfortunately, Jesus Christ is not mentioned at this vital point.

The appeal of the introduction and the exhortations of the chapters will move few to obedience. The author cuts the very nerve of the Decalogue by accepting tired, old critical arguments. The Decalogue is fragmentized, supplemented, altered and edited. It leaves one wondering what the very source and authority of the Ten Commandments were after all. The most fundamental question is answered completely unsatisfactorily.

Herklot’s view of sin is weak. Disobedience of the Commandments results in depersonalization (p. 48). Theft is not so much a sin. against God as it is an “evasion of responsibility and a denial of neighbourhood” (p. 143).

The author is to be commended, however, for good selections from Scripture, for a fine critique of polytheism (pp. 26 and 27), for citing some of the nobler points of Old Testament religion, for historical sketches of the observance of some of the Commandments, and the application of the Decalogue’s principles to today’s situations. He is at his best in the treatment of the ninth Commandment.

The book provides some sermonic material and some valuable thoughts for Christian living, but for a full treatment of the Commandments with a greater appreciation of the Decalogue as divine revelation, the reader will have to look elsewhere.

ROBERT B. DEMPSEY

Ministry Of Methodism

The Methodist Way of Life, by Gerald Kennedy, Prentice-Hall, 1958. 211 pp., $3.50.

The past and present of a major denomination forms the basis for “a great story” told by Bishop Kennedy of the Los Angeles area of the Methodist Church. The author reveals his purpose, not only to chronicle but to interpret. This volume seeks to give an overall understanding of the origin and development of Methodism, with the major part of the 211 pages devoted to the American branch of the church.

The author writes as one who has found his spiritual home in the Methodist church. The organizational unity and administrative efficiency of the church appeal to him, while he has never found the connectional and centralized character of Methodism burdensome. He does, of course, write as a man with concerns. He is far from happy with racial segregation within the church, and at times betrays a concern lest the pressures of organization displace the power of God in the work of her ministry.

The major part of the work is devoted to the external and social ministry of Methodism, with a good deal of description of the World Mission of the church, past and present. Bishop Kennedy is obviously missionary-minded, and at times is almost critical of the tendency toward secularization in mission schools. He accepts doctrinal diversity as a normal phenomenon in a body of such size, and rejoices that doctrinal controversy has never meant cleavage within the institution.

His general optimism with respect to Methodism’s past projects itself into his anticipation of the future. He gives the briefest mention of the work of the Federation for Social Action, and is completely untroubled by matters which from time to time exercise writers like Stanley High.

The outsider will find a comprehensive bird’s eye view of the Methodist church from this volume. The bishop has a captivating style and writes with an enthusiastic and “from within” point of view. The evaluation of The Methodist Way of Life must needs rest with the reader. The one who is more largely concerned with the proclamation of historical Christianity may find the work less satisfying than the one who is impressed by a massive agency bearing upon today’s society.

HAROLD B. KUHN

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.