A DEFENCE of the traditional belief in the authenticity and integrity of the Sacred Books of the New Testament by a writer of such ability as Dr. Salmon must be welcome. Though his work is apologetic, he has fairly grappled with the difficulties, and refuted the objections of his opponents. Dr. Salmon is acquainted with the works of Protestant interpreters of Germany, but takes no notice of Catholic interpreters, in whose books he might have found far better arguments against the rationalistic views of the modern school of criticism than are his own. Too much attention has been paid to Baur, and the Neo-Tubingian school, since their theories have been given up by most theologians, while critical remarks on the text and analyses of the Sacred Books are wanting.

The book is divided into twenty-live lectures, of which the first three are introductory. Lectures IV.- VII. discuss the reception of the Gospels in the early Church; Lectures VIII.-XI1. are devoted to the Synoptical Gospels; Lectures XIII.-XVII. to the Johannine [663] Books; Lectures XVIIL-XIX to the Acts of the Apostles; and only one Lecture to the Pauline Epistles; while the remaining Lectures deal with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of SS. James, Peter, and Jude. Dr. Salmon has included also the Apocryphal; Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, but treated the controversial points so shortly that this part of his book is of little value. We shall now point out some parts which seem to us well done, and where he supplements the Introduction of Comely. Both authors show that Justinus was acquainted with the Gospel of St. John (Salmon, p. 82; Comely, p. 22 0) and that the ideas, and even some words, cannot be accounted for unless he drew his information from the Gospel. Yet there are still some varieties which may cause doubt. Here Dr. Salmon, referring to Sanday, “Gospels in the Second Century,” shows that no greater exactness of quotation is found in the Fathers than in the Apostles quoting the Old Testament that they looked much more to the meaning than to the identical words; moreover, that Justinus, in every one of his variations from the text of the New Testament, has several Fathers following him. Not only is Justinus’ Logos Theory entirely derived from St. John, but a similar coincidence is also found in Justinus’ Exposition of the Blessed Eucharist. Dr. Salmon admits that the sixth chapter of St. John is a much more clear and full statement of the Eucharistic doctrine than is found in any other passage. Quoting Dr. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, Dr. Salmon shows, p.172, that the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts have in common the use of technical medical terms.

The great differences of style to be found in the Epistles of St. Paul have ever been employed by rationalistic writers as proof against the genuineness of some of his writings. Dr. Salmon (p.470) gives a very good reason for this by comparing St. Paul to Xenophon, whose vocabulary was so much modified by travelling. While the first and second books of the “Hellenica” are written in pure Attic, and contain few Doricisms and lonicisms, the latter books are full of un-Attic words picked up from his changing surroundings. He also refers to Dr. Stanley-Leathes, who shows that a different vocabulary is by no means a proof of different authorship, as is seen by comparing the vocabulary of Milton’s Allegro to the Pensoroso and to Lycidas. By applying these principles, he vindicates to St. Paul the Epistles of the Ephesians, Collossians, and others, pointing out carefully the similarity of style and argumentation. We cannot see why the authorship of St. Paul might not be maintained with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and why Dr. Salmon should attribute this [664] letter to Barnabas. The remarks of Dr. Salmon on the Epistles of St. Peter are very much to the point, while granting great similarity with the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans, he proves that, “In spite of his borrowings, this letter bears a distinct stamp of originality and individuality. The second Epistle has met with more numerous and fierce assailants, who try to prove that this Epistle is unworthy of St. Peter, that the style is quite different, that it has only five quotations from the Old Testament against thirty-one quotations of the First Epistle, that the particle [Gk. ws] is used differently.[”] These arguments have little weight against the fact that many words which are not found elsewhere in the New Testament are common to the two Epistles of St. Peter and to his speeches in Acts. [Greek citations in Acts i. 17, 2 Peter i. 1; Acts iii. 12 and 2 Peter i. 7; Acts x. 27 and 2 Peter ii. 9. follow here]”

Having quoted so much of what is good in Dr. Salmon’s book, we may as well point out some of the inaccuracies and deficiencies. The historical part of the book is incomplete. We find no history of the lives of the writers, no characteristics of the men and their styles, no analyses of their books; the reader is not furnished with sufficient details so as to be able to judge for himself. The account of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels is singularly defective. Dr. Salmon rejects the theory that the three evangelists borrowed from the [Gk. Aóyta], a primitive document containing the speeches of Our Lord, because they would in that case have adopted the same order and arrangement, and yet admits that one sacred writer has borrowed from the other. He scarcely touches on the most important point that the Gospels arose from catechetical instructions. Thus he fails to account for the difference of their aim and purpose, and hence for the difference of matter, together with great similarity. The assertion that the brothers of Jesus were not cousins of Our Lord, but sons of Joseph from a former marriage, is unfounded. The Apostles, especially St. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, did not preach in Greek, but as Neubauer, in the Studia Biblica (Oxford, 1885), has pointed out, in Aramaic, the language spoken in Galilee. Greek was little known in Palestine, as can be clearly proved from history; only very few of the educated Jews were acquainted with this language, and did not speak a pure Greek. Only in the Second Century the study of this language was more cultivated,. This is also proved by the fact that so few Greek words are found in the Midrash. The statement that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek is not only contrary to common tradition, but also to the fact that thus he would not have been understood by his countrymen. [665] There are here and there some hard sayings against the Catholics, some too great concessions to the rationalistic writers, but the book will, no doubt, contribute to preserve among Protestants reverence for the New Testament.