The Prestige of Great Names

Irish Church Quarterly

The Prestige of Great NamesAuthor(s): Henry ToddSource: The Irish Church Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 36 (Oct., 1916), pp. 276-286Published by: Irish Church QuarterlyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30067657 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Church Quarterly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The IrishChurch Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.82 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:06:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icq

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30067657?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


276 THE PRESTIGE OF GREAT NAMES.

THE PRESTIGE OF GREAT NAMES.

AMONGST "the shining precepts" enumerated by Lord Acton, in his Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History, there is one which every reader of books on biblical or on philosophical subjects should always remember, namely, "guard against the prestige of great names." The temptation to accept unreservedly the statements of a writer of acknowledged eminence is very great. It relieves the student of any further trouble, and it enables him to use the argumentum ad verecundiam should any one express opinions contrary to those he has adopted. This habit of leaning on authority is one to which many persons are addicted. Pressure of professional work limits their opportunities for study, and they are often obliged to content themselves with accepting without examination what they find in the works of distinguished men. Consequently it may not be out of place to enforce by a few reasons the warning against the prestige of great names.

First of all, though everybody admits that books frequently contain bad arguments-hence lists of Fallacies in works on Logic-yet it is often forgotten that they contain many errors, and sometimes very bad ones, respecting matters of fact. These mistakes may be classified, either according to the causes that produce them, or according to their effects on the reader. Group- ing them in this way it is possible to exemplify them without being too tedious. A common cause of inexactness is excessive reliance on the power of memory. Sir Walter Scott was intimately acquainted with Shake- speare's Plays, yet he refers in the eleventh chapter of Waverley to " what Falstaff calls the sweet of the night." It is Master Silence, and not Sir John, who uses the



THE PRESTIGE OF GREAT NAMES. 277

expression "the sweet of the night." The Rev. Dr. Swete, in a note in his Commentary on The Apocalypse of St. John, on the ninth verse of the first chapter, gives a list of six words which he describes as " Pauline words but not exclusively so." One of these words is COLWcOVwKO, and it is exclusively Pauline, for it occurs in I Tim. vi. 18, and nowhere else in the New Testament. This word has attracted attention on account of the various renderings it has received, and also because it has to be distinguished from derCocSoros, another word of single occurrence in the New Testament, which precedes it. It is impossible to suppose that Dr. Swete is unac- quainted with it, and therefore the most probable cause of his error is that he trusted his memory too much.

In the last number of the IRISH CHURCH QUARTERLY there is an excellent review of Archdeacon Allen's Com- mentary on St. Mark's Gospel. The reviewer, having pointed out some of the Archdeacon's mistakes, suggests that they may be oversights in proof-reading, but seems to feel that the heading " The Widow's Mite " can hardly be explained in this way. Here are indicated two sources of error, one due to imperfect proof-reading, and another to compliance with popular but erroneous expressions. Archdeacon Allen can, perhaps, illustrate another method of going astray. In his Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, published in 1907, he gives, in a note on the thirty-fifth verse of the thirteenth chapter, the occurrences in the New Testament of the expression " the foundation of the world," and amongst them "three times " in Hebrews. This mistake is not an oversight in proof- reading, because it is not likely that the Archdeacon originally wrote "two times" in Hebrews. The word translated " foundation " occurs three times in Hebrews, and the error seems to be due to reading a concordance too quickly: in other words, the Archdeacon has not reproduced correctly the authority he consulted. It is somewhat singular that the very same mistake occurs in




Dr. McNeile's Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, published last year. In the note on Matt. xxv. 34, we are told that KaTraoX1) KOrLov occurs in Lk. xi. 50; Jo. xvii. 24; Epp.5; Apoc.2 It does not occur five times in the Epistles, and Dr. McNeile appears to have read his concordance hastily.

A writer may, however, reproduce correctly a book that he has consulted, and may only be reproducing an error. Dr. Bury in his Introduction to Gibbon's History admits that he did this when composing his Later Roman Empire. Paspat&s asserted that the Augusteum in Con- stantinople lay between the Palace and the Hippodrome, and Dr. Bury accepted the statement. On discovering the mistake Paspat8s was treated by the editor of Gibbon as if he had committed a crime. Dr. Salmon, in his posthumous work, relates how he may, by accepting Strauss' account of Paulus, have been unfair to the latter.

In addition to the preceding causes there is one which recalls a story told by Boswell. " A lady once asked Dr. Johnson how he came to define pastern the knee of a horse; instead of making an elaborate defence, as she expected, he at once answered, 'Ignorance, madam, pure ignorance.' " Great men sometimes write on subjects of which they know very little. Mr. Gladstone wrote on the Old Testament without any knowledge of Hebrew, and Matthew Arnold wrote on Celtic literature without any knowledge of Gaelic, Erse, or Cymry.

It is much more important to deal with errors from the point of view of their effects on the reader. Hooker is one of the " great names" in literature and in theology. Learning, eloquence, reasonableness and humour appear in all parts of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Hooker's knowledge of Holy Scripture is extensive and profound, and he displays it as a harmonist, as an ex- positor, and as a philosopher. It is always an advantage to know his views on a difficult passage. Occasionally, however, he makes a statement that is not absolutely




accurate. In Bk. v, ch. lxxviii, we read: "Evangelists were presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as agents in ecclesiastical affairs wheresoever they saw need. They whom we find to have been named in Scripture evangelists, as Ananias, Apollos, Timothy and others were thus employed." Ananias and Apollos are nowhere named in Scripture evangelists, and it is not stated that they were presbyters whom the Apostles sent abroad. Hooker's mistake may be described as a harmless one, because it does not shake the reader's confidence in him. Another mistake of a harmless kind will now be given for the purpose of comparing the learned clergy of the seventeenth century with those of the nineteenth. It is generally assumed that the latter are superior to the former, but this is doubtful if the test be the amount of Scripture registered in the memory. Robert Burton, Democritus Junior, towards the end of the First Partition of the Anatomy of Melancholy, quotes from P. Forestus "a story of two melancholy brethren, that made away themselves, and for so foul a fact were accordingly censured to be infamously buried, as in such cases they use, to terrify others, as it did the Milesian virgins of old; but, upon farther examination of their misery and madness, the censure was revoked, and they were solemnly interred, as Saul by David, 2 Sam., 2.4.' The Anatomy of Melancholy was published in Bohn's Libraries, its editor being A. R. Shilleto, a most distinguished scholar. His comment on the above quotation is as follows :-" It was the men of Jabesh-Gilead who buried Saul, not David. See I Sam. xxxi. 11-13; 2 Sam. ii. 4-7. David only commended what they had done. Burton's inaccuracy is surprising in so learned a man." Shilleto is surprised that the learned Burton had stated that David buried Saul. Evidently Shilleto forgot all about 2 Sam. xxi. 12-14. He does not give this reference in his note. Burton has this passage in his mind, though, quoting most likely from memory, he




thought it was in 2 Sam ii. At any rate, in view of 2 Sam. xxi., it seems perfectly correct to say that David buried Saul, and it affords a parallel to the " two melancholy brethren " who were buried twice, just as Saul was buried twice. It is Shilleto, rather than Burton, who is inaccurate.

Some instances of inexactness will now be considered which are calculated to undermine a reader's confidence in those who have undertaken to instruct him. The Century Bible deserves, on the whole, very great praise, but it contains some glaring mistakes. One of the volumes consists of the Epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Phile- mon, and Philippians, edited by G. Currie Martin. In a note on Eph. v. 14, we read: " There is a curious reading found in one or two Mss. (the famous Codez Bezae among them) 'and thou shalt touch Christ.' " In a note on Col. i. 21, we read: "The rendering given in the margin (' ye have been reconciled') is read by only one great Ms.-the Codex Bezae at Cambridge, which is famous for extraordinary readings." In the Index we find Codex Bezae and the two references. To represent the famous Codex Bezae as containing the Epistles to Ephe- sians and Colossians is an amazing blunder. The present writer asked Dr. Adeney to get it corrected, and he promised to do so.

In 191o a book was published entitled The Growth of the Gospels as shown by Structural Criticism, by W. M . Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.B.A. The work claims to be based on " impersonal criticism " and "personal judgement" is entirely excluded. Certain facts are staring everybody in the face, and Dr. Petrie merely writes them down. The Synoptic Gospels are made up of (i) a nucleus, (2) two-Gospel sequences, (3) scattered documents, (4) disintegrated documents, (5) isolated episodes, (6) unrepeated episodes. Many persons have spent years in studying the Synoptic Gospels and have never discerned these documents, etc. Dr. Petrie gives us some curious information. For example,




he tells us that Mark took two passages from the Mat- thaean Sermon on the Mount, but that Luke went through it three times to select suitable quotations for his subjects. It is not encouraging us to read the Sermon on the Mount to tell us that Mark only took from it about three verses. Without inquiring how Dr. Petrie knows this let us test his knowledge in order to see his fitness for discussing the growth of the Gospels. With reference to the nucleus he says that in it " Galilee is only vaguely named without indicating a single locality. There is but one precise statement of any place north of Jerusalem and Jericho. That exception is Caesarea (Matt. xvi. 13), and that exactly localized account was doubtless due to Philip the evangelist of Caesarea (Acts xxi. 3)." There are boys and girls in our Sunday-schools who know more about Caesarea than the learned Dr. Petrie. Another statement is sufficient to show that Dr. Petrie has very little knowledge of the characteristics of St. Luke's Gospel. He says " that Matthew and Mark writing at Jerusalem say 'the sea of Galilee,' which no one in Galilee would call it. But Luke, collecting narrative in Galilee, uses the local name, ' sea of Gennesaret.' " The simple fact is that it is characteristic of St. Luke that he never calls it a " sea " of any kind, but describes it as a lake. Dr. Petrie does not appear to have an accurate knowledge-to put it very mildly--of the Gospels whose growth he claims to have described. This case is alone sufficient to show the folly of trusting in any man, however great his reputation may be.

We now come to mistakes, regarding matters of fact, which have serious consequences and which must be described as most harmful errors. Dr. Percy Gardner published a book entitled A Historic View of the New Testa- ment. This work consists of the Jowett Lectures of 19o0, and it has been extensively read. It can be purchased for the small sum of sixpence, so that its sale is likely to continue. In the fifth lecture Dr. Gardner announces " a fact little known to Christians in general, yet one which

c




will clearly appear to all who read the Gospels with attention." Immediately after this somewhat sensational an- nouncement Dr. Gardzer adds : " If we turn to the begin- ning of the Gospel of Mark, we find that he has nothing to say of any birth at Bethlehem, but speaks of the Founder consistently as of Nazareth, and as the son of Joseph and Mary." Dr. Gardner most certainly is not one of those " who read the Gospels with attention." As a matter of fact, Joseph the husband of Mary is never mentioned by Mark, and he has never spoken of the Founder "as the Son of Joseph and Mary." Mark re- ports some sayings of our Lord's countrymen in which they refer to Him as " the Son of Mary." Dr. Gardner's statement affects our belief in the Virgin Birth, and deserves severe condemnation. It is made much worse by his implied claim that he is one of the few " who read the Gospels with attention." He has not yet learned to do this, as his latest work, The Ephesian Gospel, shows. For example, in the fourth chapter of this book, he dis- cusses " the saying which comes twice over in the Gospel -iii. 14; xii. 32-34-as to the lifting up or exaltation of the Son of MEan." The saying occurs three times. Dr. Gardner passes by John viii. 28. So much for a man who claims that he reads the Gospels with attention and implies that others do not.

Let us now return to Dr. Bury, who was so angry with Paspates for misplacing the Constantinopolitan Augus- teum. Dr. Bury has written A History of Freedom of Thought, which can be purchased for one shilling, and which has been read in all probability by thousands. In this book Christianity is treated as if it were the source of all evil, and its fundamental doctrines are described as "' mythology." Now Dr. Bury makes many statements, which, if they are to be taken as statements of actual facts, are very startling. In the seventh chapter we are told " that it can no longer be said that for the life of Jesus there is the evidence of eye-witnesses." How has Dr. Bury discovered the untrustworthiness of Luke i.




1-4 ? Without dwelling on this, let the following sentence be noted :-" Another disturbing result of unprejudiced examination of the first three Gospels is that, if you take the recorded words of Jesus to be genuine tradition, he had no idea of founding a new religion." This is a most amazing statement. Surely, Matt. xxviii. i8-20o are " recorded words of Jesus," and if we take them "to be genuine tradition" there is no shadow of doubt that Jesus contemplated the "founding of a new religion." If a "great name" is sufficient to recommend a cause, Dr. Bury's is great enough, but he is frequently wrong in his facts because he defers to so-called authorities and does not examine the evidence for himself. The man who got angry with Paspates for misplacing a building allows himself to be misled on matters infinitely more important.

It would be easy to add to, the foregoing examples of the mistakes made by scholarly men in their references to Holy Scripture. Accurate knowledge of the Bible is the exception, not the rule. It can only be acquired by those who constantly make it their aim, and strenuously strive to achieve it. That blunders are made is not wholly a misfortune. The parochial clergyman is sometimes confronted, in the house of a parishioner, with quotations from Paine, M. Arnold, P. Gardner, etc., and is sometimes overwhelmed, at a clerical meeting, with the dicta of Harnack and others. It is often difficult to show the weakness of an argument, but if the authority quoted can be shown to be astray in his facts, something is done towards detaching the devotee from his idol.

Leaving aside the question of accuracy altogether, Lord Acton's precept may be commended for other, and perhaps stronger reasons, one of which is the difficulty of accepting in its entirety the teaching of any man, however illus- trious. Bishop Berkeley holds a most important position in the history of philosophy, and his writings are marked by a clearness of statement rarely found in books dealing with substance, causality, reality, and similar mysteries. Let us see the consequences of accepting his teaching on




all subjects. Recently the action of the Ulster Volunteers raised a question of the highest practical importance, namely, Should armed resistance be offered to any mea- sure sanctioned by our Sovereign Lord the King, and the Houses of Parliament ? Property and life depend on the answer to this question. Now those who give it a reply in the negative can appeal to the "great name" of Berkeley. At no time has this philosopher's prestige been greater than it is at present, and it might be taken for granted that his views on a very plain text of Scrip- ture would secure general assent, particularly as those views were maintained by appealing to " the principles of Reason common to all mankind." The very way by which he establishes his idealism is the very way by which he establishes the doctrine of passive obedience. Anyone who takes the liberty of rejecting Berkeley's views on the latter can also take the liberty of rejecting his views on the former, but it is well to remember that according to Berkeley to reject either is to defy "the principles of Reason." So that a follower of Berkeley in all things is committed to passive obedience.

There is a feature of The Discourse on Passive Obedience which deserves particular notice. In it we have Berkeley's ethical theory, which has been passed by in many a History of Ethics. It can be described in a few sentences. Self-love makes us "regard things as they are fitted to augment or impair our own happiness; and accordingly we denominate them good or evil." At first we pursue sensible pleasure and present pleasure, but gradually learn that nothing counts except one's " eternal interest." God wishes "the general well-being of all men," and has supplied us with laws of nature which " have a necessary tendency to promote the well-being of the sum of mankind." Berkeley is a utilitarian. What has he to tell us on the problem of evil? In section i53 of The Principles of Human Knowledge we are directed to enlarge our view, and to take certain things into account, with the result that "we shall be forced to acknowledge




that those particular things, which, considered in themselves, appear to be evil, have the nature of good, when considered as linked with the whole system of beings." If you consider the present war by itself it will " appear to be evil," but in reality it has "the nature of good." Idealism, Optimism, Passive Obedience, Theological Utilitarianism are the four points of Berkeleyism. Many scholarly men who reject Berkeley's views on Passive Obedience and Ethics urge that he is largely right in his Idealism. It may be so, but the fact that he is astray on some most important matters makes the person who de- clines his Idealism feel unabashed and quite at his ease. At any rate Berkeley is a good example of the difficulty of following a great man's teaching in all respects.

A third reason in favour of the maxim quoted in the opening sentence of this paper is, that the master whom we have elected to follow may change his opinions, or he may hold opinions on one subject which are difficult of adjustment to those he holds on another. Members of the Church of Ireland most rightly revered Dr. Salmon, though very few of them could claim to have read all his books. This inability really enhanced their sense of his greatness, and added to their readiness to accept his teaching. Is that teaching without variation ? We all know that it is not. In the Introduction to the New Testament the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel is strongly maintained. The internal evidence is presented-to use a phrase of Peake's-in the form of "circles gradually narrowing to a point," and the five lines of attack on the traditional position are stormed. The well-informed knew that here Dr. Salmon was somewhat weak. The argument, that the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics are so many and so serious that the former could not have been written by an Apostle, was not stated as formidably as it might have been, and it looks as if Dr. Salmon only realized its full significance when he undertook a special and minute study of the Synoptics. This is to be regretted, because we learn from The Human




Element in the Gospels that the Apostle John was not the author of the Fourth Gospel, but we do not learn how all the arguments on the other side have lost their weight. However, one good result is that the custom of settling everything by a quotation from Dr. Salmon is at an end. The real greatness of the man is, of course, entirely un- diminished. Dr. John Brown, of Biggar and Edinburgh, who died in 1858, was for the last eleven years of his life the great light of the United Presbyterians. As a lec- turer in one of their colleges, and as a preacher in one of their principal churches, he exercised a very powerful influence on all sections of their communion. His son- the author of Rab and his Friends-in his Letter to John Cairns, D.D., has told us a singular thing about the man whom his co-religionists regarded as a pillar of ortho- doxy, and that is that he found "the essence of all that was best on the philosophy of mind " in Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. That a teacher in a United Presby- terian college should say this is extraordinary, and it looks as if he did not see the consequences of Hume's doctrines. At any rate, Dr. John Brown's views on philosophy are not in accord with his teaching on theology, and we must hope that his pupils exercised their own minds and did not blindly follow him, as they are reported to have done.

The intrinsic advantages of study may be mentioned as a final reason in favour of Lord Acton's maxim. It must be observed in order to cultivate self-reliance and inde- pendence of judgement, without which learning degene- rates into a mere exercise of the memory, and the student becomes a mere retailer of other men's opinions. Who- ever has worked at Philosophy, History, or Biblical Criti- cism will often find it difficult to decide between conflicting views, but the effort to reach a conclusion carries with it its own reward. Deference must be shown to one's intel- lectual superiors, but it will be tempered by the recollec- tion that they are fallible mortals after all.

HEJNRY TODD.



Documents

The Prestige of Great Names