Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
BOOK REVIEWS 653
follow the developing social life, its interests, needs, and problems and
show how their satisfaction, solution, or frustration produced the char-
acteristic religious forms and beliefs of the people. Only so is it possible
to understand their joy in a religion different from that of other peoples.
This probably accounts for the fact that the author condemns some
things and often regrets that other religions did not achieve the exalted
ideas of God and salvation attained in Christianity. The reason is in
the social situation and the task of the historian of religion is to under-
Professor Soper has chosen deliberately to give to his book an apolo-
getic cast in the interest of Christianity as he interprets it. His philoso-
phic presupposition is that God has been progressively revealing himself
to the peoples as they were able to receive the truth and that he has
revealed himself most completely in Jesus Christ. There can be no
objection to this position if one is writing apologetics. It is just so
that modern Buddhist and Moslem writers are presenting their own reli-
gions. But for all things there is a time — a time for apologetics and a
time for history of religions. They do not belong together. The sacred
duty of the scientific student of religions is not to pity, nor to preach,
nor to condemn, but to understand and to interpret. And yet, in spite
of its apologetics, which may indeed commend it to the general reader, the
Christian pastor, and beginning students to whom it is addressed, the
book is a welcome addition to the literature of the science.
A. Eustace Havdon
University of Chicago
ISRAEL AND EGYPT 1
This is the work of a busy pastor in Glasgow. The amount of labor
that has gone into the making of this book is amazing. Mr. Knight
has read almost everything of importance upon the subject and he has
reported his reading accurately. The care that is shown in the proof-
reading is typical of the whole work. The book is a veritable mine of
information upon Egypt and Palestine and will constitute a monument
to the diligence of the author.
The historical value of this book is open to serious question. The
reviewer will not concern himself with its contribution to the history of
Egypt, except to point out that Mr. Knight takes Petrie as his guide for
'Nile and Jordan. An Archaeological History of the Inter-Relations between
Egypt and Palestine from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Jerusalem in A .D. 70. G. A.
Frank Knight. London: James Clarke and Co., 1921. xii-f-572 pages. 5 maps. 36s.
654 TEE JOURNAL OF RELIGION
the most part and consequently adopts the longer chronology. For
example, he places the beginning of the First Dynasty at 5510 B.C., in
contrast to Erman, Meyer, Breasted, et al., who put it at about 3500 B.C.
He follows Hommel in making Egyptian civilization to have originated
in Babylonia, whence it was brought to Egypt by Semitic invaders, who
were in turn conquered by the Egyptians to whom, however, the Semites
taught the arts of civilization.
In the field of Hebrew history, there can be no serious difference of
judgment on the part of historical students as to the slight value of Mr.
Knight's treatment. It is innocent of any knowledge of historical
method. There is no sharp discrimination in the evaluation of sources.
The Chronicler ranks high as a credible historian. The Targum,
Josephus, Manetho, the Apocrypha, and the Apostle Stephen all come
in for recognition as witnesses to the history of the ancient world and are
given much weight as preserving ancient traditions. The Song of Songs
furnishes "facts " as to Solomon. All is grist to Mr. Knight's mill. The
plagues recorded in Exodus actually happened as there related. The
tabernacle of the Priestly Code was an actual building as described.
The story of Joseph, including the episode with Potiphar's wife, is liter-
ally true as told. It is refreshing after wandering so long in uncertainty
about early Hebrew chronology, to turn to Mr. Knight's table and find
that Isaac was born in 2065 B.C., Abraham died in 1990 B.C., Moses was
born in 1525 B.C., the Exodus occurred in 1445 B.C., Moses died in
1405 B.C., and David was born in 1039 B.C. and died in 969 B.C. The
"Pharaoh of the Oppression" was Thothmes III and Amenhotep II
was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Queen Hatshepset was the daughter of
Pharaoh who saved the life of the infant Moses.
One end that Mr. Knight had in view in writing this book was to
stress the influence exerted by Egypt upon the life and thought of the
Hebrews. This is a perfectly proper purpose and is in the main right.
It is practically certain that the influence of Egypt upon Hebrew life has
so far been underestimated. But Mr. Knight overdoes the matter.
He sees Egyptian influence where there is no reason to see it. For
example, why must Job's longing for a record of his words inscribed upon
the rock be connected with the rock-inscriptions of Egypt? Was not
the rock of Behistun known to the Hebrews of that day ? The Assuan
colony had an Aramaic copy of the Behistun inscription. Were there
not rock-cut inscriptions in Sinai and on the Dog River? Again,
why must Job's reference to "clay under the seal" argue for Egyptian
influence ? Was not the seal well known in Palestine itself, to say nothing
of the clay tablets and the seals of Babylonia? When Job says, "Oh,
BOOK REVIEWS 655
that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his
seat!" must we see an Egyptian background? Were gods enthroned
only in Egypt? The Code of Hammurabi, for example, represents
Shamash, the sun-god, as seated upon his throne delivering the laws to
the king. Is it to be supposed that contemporary Persian or Greek god
were never thought of as sitting down ? Need we go abroad at all to
account for Yahweh's being thought of as seated upon a throne ? Such
claims as these weaken an otherwise good case. In so far as Mr. Knight
succeeds in impressing upon his readers the fact that the relations
between the life of Egypt and the life of Palestine were continuous and
intimate, his work will be of service in enlightening the present age re-
garding the unity of the civilization of the ancient oriental world.
J. M. Powis Smith
University of Chicago
A NEW THEORY OF GOSPEL ORIGINS 1
Mr. Robinson Smith's solution of the Synoptic Problem, as readers of
his earlier publications know, is the simple one "that Luke followed on
after Matthew and used him as a source, even as Matthew followed on
after Mark and used him as a source." To the demonstration and elabo-
ration of this thesis, with related investigations, the present volume is
dedicated. There are five main lines of argument, summarily presented
in the first chapter. Proof 1, which Mr. Smith seems to regard as most
telling, consists of a list of twenty-two passages in Mark, of which
Matthew in eighteen cases chose the first part and Luke the second, or
what was left after Matthew had had "first choice." Proof 2 consists in
over one hundred and fifty passages in which Luke "consciously or
unconsciously" agrees with Matthew in the latter's alterations of his
Markan source. Only a half dozen of these are given; for the rest
reference is made to E. A. Abbott's Corrections of Mark, and to Sir John
Hawkins. Proof 3 is the citation of nineteen passages in which Luke
seems to change further Matthew's changes from Mark. Proof 4 is
based on eleven passages in which Luke pieces together a detail from
Mark and a detail from Matthew. Proof 5 consists of four doublets in
Luke, one of which comes from Mark, the other, says Mr. Smith, from
If these five lines of proof could be substantiated, without discount,
they would indeed make a very strong case. But a careful examination
1 The Solution of the Synoptic Problem. Robinson Smith. London: Watts and
Co., 1920. 10s. net.