Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Vol. I: Aaron—Lystra. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1916.1
With this “Dictionary of the Apostolic Church” presumably the series of Biblical Encyclopædias which was begun by Dr. Hastings’ “Dictionary of the Bible” will be brought to completion. The first volume of the “Dictionary of the Bible” was issued in 1898; the last volume of this “Dictionary of the Apostolic Church,” the first of which is now before us, will scarcely be issued much before the middle of 1917. Twenty years, or thereabouts, will have been consumed, therefore, in the preparation and publication of the series. The intermediately published “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels” was supposed to have been keyed to a little more popular note than the general “Dictionary of the Bible.” It apparently was therefore found by a larger public of more practical value; and a call was made for another work which should do for the rest of the New Testament what that Dictionary had done for the Gospels. The present work is the answer to this call. It should be noted, however, that it is not precisely a Dictionary of the rest of the New Testament. There are circles in which the New Testament is losing its uniqueness, and the editors of this Dictionary live within those circles. They think in terms not of the delivery of the revelation of God, and its assimilation, but of periods of the developing Church. They present us with a Dictionary, therefore, not of the Apostolicum, as the ancients would have called it, dividing the New Testament into “the Gospels and the Apostles,” but of “the history of the Church as far as the end of the first century.” Here the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache—although it is not pretended that all of these fall within the first century—are set ostentatiously by the side of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse of John; the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts and Apocalypses are added; and we are invited to contemplate the first Christian century in the total mass of the literature to which it gave birth. This has hardly been done in the practical interests of ministers of the Word, requiring help in preparation for their ministrations in the sanctuary.
As is his wont, Dr. Hastings has gathered to his aid in the preparation of this Dictionary a large company of competent scholars. About a hundred writers take part in it. Among them there are seven Continental scholars (P. Batiffol, E. von Dobschütz, H. Jordan, O. E. Moe, A. von Schlatter, A. Thumb, J. de Zwaan)—four of whom, it will be observed, are Germans: these contribute in all thirteen articles, none of which, however, except Schlatter’s stimulating article on the Holy Spirit, lies at the center of things. Besides five scholars who reside in Canada, eight of the writers are Americans. These are C. A. Beckwith, S. J. Case, J. A. Faulkner, S. Mathews, A. T. Robertson, G. L. Robinson, A. C. Zenos—and our own Dr. Vos, who contributes the articles on Brotherly Love, Goodness, Joy, Kindness, Longsuffering, Love. The American writers contribute some twenty-six articles in all, but again none of these lies at the center of things. Dr. A. T. Robertson might have made his articles on such topics as Bond, Debt, Deliverer, Destruction important, but he has chosen rather to work formally and briefly.
There are naturally included in the scope of this Dictionary general articles on the several books of the New Testament, from Acts to Revelation. A general article on “Gospels” has been added, supplemented by isagogical material in the article on Luke (the person). These, along with such ancillary material as that supplied by such articles as those on Epistle, Letter, Dates, provide a tolerably complete Introduction to the New Testament Books. The general tone of this Introduction is sufficiently “Liberal,” although many “Conservative” opinons are mixed in. Take the question of the dates of the Synoptic Gospels, for instance. W. C. Allen, who writes the article “Gospels,” is inclined to very early dates—Mark in the neighborhood of 45, Matthew about 50, and Luke between 47 and 60. Similarly A. C. Zenos seems not disinclined to assign Mark to about 60, Luke to about 61, and Matthew to about 68. Even Kirsopp Lake (p. 20) does not seem quite sure that Luke was written later than 70, and this would carry with it an earlier date for at least Mark. The Book of Acts, Lake would still date in the decennium 90–100; he speaks of Harnack’s argument for its early date as one-sided and expects a reaction from it; and he is still inclined to represent Acts as dependent on Josephus (pp. 20, 721). With respect to this last point it is a satisfaction to be able to point to the excellent article on Josephus, by E. von Dobschütz, whose solid refutation of the dependence in question reads almost as if it had been written with direct reference to Lake’s argument for its likelihood. We note in passing that von Dobschütz opposes the recent tendency to pronounce the famous passages in Josephus which mention Christ to be genuine.