VIII.

EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT.

"BABEL UND Bibel."

"Babel und Bibel" is the subject of a series of now famous lectures delivered by Friederich Delitzsch in the Academy of Music of Berlin. The lecturer is the son of the late Franz Delitzsch, the Old Testament scholar, and professor of Assyriology in the University of Berlin. Under the brief and popular title the relation between the results of Babylonian excavations and the contents of the Bible is discussed. The audience, assembled January 13, 1902, was composed of members of the German Oriental Society, among whom is His Majesty the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Germany, who was, also, present. The lecturer, the audience and the subject combined in making the occasion memorable. Yet no one dreamt how great a wood this little fire would kindle.

The somewhat liberal views as to the influence of Babylonia on the religious concepts of the Israelites aroused comment and unfavorable criticism in the audience. The Emperor was so favorably impressed, or perhaps so unfavorably, that he invited Dr. Delitzsch to repeat his lecture in the Royal Palace, in the presence of the Empress, the court, and invited guests. The invitation was accepted and the lecture repeated on February 1, 1902. It was then published in the form of an innocent booklet and, with the notice it had already received in the daily and religious periodicals, it circulated rapidly over Europe and soon reached the United States. The result was a flood of newspaper articles, pamphlets, and books, which now constitute the literature of the "Babel und Bibel" controversy. In the replies we find views favorable and unfavorable to those presented in the lecture. Every

school of theological thought is represented from the conservatives to the radicals. Both conservatives, from whom we should expect it, and liberals, from whom we should not expect it, oppose the conclusions in the lecture.

In the meantime Dr. Delitzsch had left Berlin to superintend the excavations in Babylon. After an absence of seventeen weeks he returned to be greeted by piles of literature in answer to his first lecture. Thereupon he prepared a second lecture and delivered it, January 12, 1903, again in the presence of the Emperor and the Empress and a distinguished suite. In less than a month 30,000 copies of this lecture were sold. Some of the answers have reached the ninth edition. Instead of pouring oil on the troubled waters, the lecturer maintained his former positions by more copious illustrations, made more advanced statements, and provoked more serious opposition. Rumors circulated that he not only attacked the authority of the Old Testament, but questioned the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic faith. By reason of his membership in the Oriental Society, his attendance on the lectures, and his position as summus episcopus of the Prussian Church, the Emperor was constrained to address a letter on this subject to the first Vice-President of the Oriental Society, Admiral Hollman. The letter was written, not only with the views of Dr. Delitzsch as expressed in the lectures in mind, but with the views of the lecturer, expressed in private conversation, that he did not share the faith of the Church in the Godhead of Christ and that among other grounds the study of the Old Testament had dispelled the belief, before him. On this account the Emperor felt it his duty to make a public declaration of his views on the points involved.

The letter states that Dr. Delitzsch "upset many a cherished conception " with which the people "link ideas that are sacred and dear to them." He adds significantly, "that is an achievement which only a mighty genius should venture to attempt, but for which the mere study of assyriology is not enough to qualify anyone." He, also, warns scholars against

a hasty presentation of the results of scholarship before an unprepared people. As a theologian by profession, he can state, in the form of theological treatises, theses, hypotheses, and theories, as well as convictions, what it would not be proper to advance in a popular lecture or book." Referring to his own views of revelation the Emperor distinguishes between a general and continuous revelation on the one hand, and a specific and purely religious revelation culminating in the Messiah on the other. With regard to the first kind of revelation, I have to say there is to my mind not the slightest doubt that God constantly and continually reveals himself in the human race. *** He follows with fatherly love and interest the development of the human race; in order to lead it and to advance it further, he reveals' himself now in this, now in that, great sage, whether it be priest or king, whether it be among heathens, Jews, or Christians. Hammurabi was one of these, and so were Moses, Abraham, Homer, Charlemagne, Luther, Shakespeare, Goethe, Kant, the Emperor William the Great. *** God has certainly revealed' himself to divers persons in divers ways corresponding to the position of a nation and the standard of civilization it has attained, and he still does so in our day."

"The second kind of revelation, the more strictly religious, is that which leads up to the appearance of our Lord. From Abraham onward, it is introduced slowly, but with prescient vision, infinite wisdom, and infinite knowledge, or else mankind would have been lost." Then he traces the special revelation in Abraham, Moses, and their successors. By God's direct intervention the oppressed Israelites emerge once more from Egypt and settle in Palestine. "And so the process continues through the centuries until the Messiah foretold and announced by prophets and psalmists, at last appears. This was the greatest revelation of God in the world. For he appeared in the Son himself; Christ is God; God in human form."

He, also, defines his conception of the O. T. as the word of

God. "For us Evangelicals, in particular, the word has through Luther become our all, and as a good theologian Delitzsch ought not to forget that our great Luther has taught us to sing and to believe "the word they must allow to stand." Yet he is willing to admit "that the O. T. contains a number of passages which are of the nature of purely human history and are not 'God's revealed word.' *** For example, the act of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai can only symbolically be regarded as inspired by God, inasmuch as Moses was obliged to resort to the revival of laws which perhaps had long been known (possibly they originated in the Codex of Hammurabi) in order to draw and bind together the structure of his people. *** The historian may be able *** to establish at this point a connection with the laws of Hammurabi, the friend of Abraham, and the link would perhaps be logically correct; but this would never invalidate the fact that God prompted Moses and to this extent revealed himself to the people of Israel.”

It

This imperial utterance is positive and progressive. became the object of comment second in interest only to the lectures themselves. The Emperor grants German scholars absolute freedom of research, but guards them against drawing false conclusions from their data and an imprudent publication of their views to the detriment of the faith of the comOn the question of inspiration he differs from the old orthodox view. He does not identify the O. T. and the word of God, but finds God's word in the O. T. He renounces the dictation theory and believes that the biblical writers used documents and traditions, which came from various sources, and with the aid of God's spirit prepared them for the sacred narrative.

mon man.

The story of the controversy would not be complete without a reference to Professor Harnack's letter on the Emperor's letter. In his inimitable manner he praises and censures his colleague Delitzsch and agrees with and differs from His Majesty the Emperor. He welcomes the fact that the former

"has inculcated upon extensive circles a more correct view of the O. T." But in the next breath he asks, has he indeed done this? Among other things he says in reply, "to my mind he has not done enough to keep his hearers and readers from forming an erroneous impression." He implies also, that the effect of the lectures has been to cause the people to disparage the O. T. "Again, because up to the present moment a superhuman idea of the O. T. has prevailed, it follows according to a well-known psychological law that now the pendulum of appreciation swings to the opposite extreme. And in truth in the very lanes and alleys one may overhear the statement that from the O. T. there is now nothing to be got."" In this very happy manner he finds a legitimate place for the Emperor's letter.

The latter he praises for the "absolute freedom" which he accords to German scholars. The Emperor "further recognizes that theology cannot shirk these questions, but that they must be threshed out most thoroughly with courage and freedom. He hands them over to theological science."

phasizes with approval the last sentence of the imperial letter, which reads as follows: "Religion has never been a product of science, but an outpouring of the heart and being of man, caused by his intercourse with God."

Professor Harnack, however, differs from the Emperor's theory of a double revelation and the formula he used in regard to the divinity of Christ. In regard to revelation he says: "There cannot consequently be two revelations—religion, moral force and knowledge being most closely interwoven-but only one, the bearers of which were and are in truth wholly different from each other in character, vocation and mission." On the deity of Christ he says: "The Christian community is bound to repudiate every appreciation of Christ which effaces the difference between him and the other teachers. *** But whether for all that the cast-iron formula Godhead of Christ' is correct may, nay must, be questioned. He himself did not use it, but chose other desig