Skip to main content

Full text of "General introduction to the study of Holy Scripture"

See other formats 


x  ■■ 


C/ 


'vNOX  COLLEGc 


1T^ 


KNOX  COLLk£u: 

TOBON  TO. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

University  of  Toronto 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/generalintroductOObrig 


DR.    BRIGGS'S   WORKS. 


A  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture. 
Crown  $vOy  net  .  .  .  .  ,  ,  .      ^3.00 

Messianic  Prophecy  :  The  Prediction  of  the  Fulfilment  of 
Redemption  through  the  Messiah.  A  critical  study  of  the 
Mes^nic  passages  of  tlie  Old  Testament  in  the  order  of  their 
development.     Seventli  edition,  crown  Svo        .  .  ,        2.50 

The  Messiah  or  the  Gospels.      Crown  8vo  ,  .  .         2.00 

The  Messiah  or  the  Apostles.     Crown  8vo  .  .         3.00 

The  Higher  Criticism  or  the  Hexateuch.  New  edition, 
revised  and  enlarged.      Crown  8 vo  .  .  .  .         2.50 

The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  :  The  Three 
Great  Fountains  of  Divine  Authorit)-.  Second  edition,  crown 
Svo 1.75 

American  Presbyterianism  :  Its  Origin  and  Early  Histor)', 
together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters  and  Documents,  many  of 
which  have  recently  been  discovered.      Crown  Svo,  with  maps     3.00 

Whither  ?  A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times.  Third 
edition,  crown  Svo       .  .  .  ,  .  .  .         1.75 

The  Authority  or  Holy  Scripture.  An  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress.     Ninth  edition,  crown  Svo,  paper  .  .  .50  cents 

The  Defense  of  Professor  Briggs.     Crown  Svo,  paper,  net  50  cents 

The  Case  against  Professor  Briggs.  Three  parts,  crown 
Svo,  paper.      Parts  I.  and  II.,  each,  50  cents;   Part  III.  .    75  cents 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 


STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 


LIBRARY 

KNOX  COLLEGE. 

TORON  TO. 


GENERAL    INTRODUCTION 


STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


THE  PRINCIPLES,  METHODS,  HISTORY,  AND  RESULTS 

OF  ITS  SEVERAL  DEPARTMENTS  AND  OF 

THE   WHOLE 


BY 


CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

EDWAKD   EOBINSON    PROFESSCR    OF  BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY   IN   UNION 
THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,    NEW   YORK    CITY 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1899 


COPYRIGHT,   1899,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


NortoooD  IPrrBB 

J.  S.  Cuihinu  4  Co.  -  Berwick  &  Smith 

Norwood  MMr  II. S.  A. 


TO 

E\\e  Alumni  nnli  5tutirnts 

OF  UXIOX  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,   NEW  YORK  CITY 
WHO    HAVE    STUDIED   WITH    ME 

Wsc  f^oln  Scripture 

THIS    BOOK    IS    DEDICATED   IS   RECOGNITION   OF  ^ 

THEIR   FIDELITY   IX   TESTING   TIMES 

AND   IN    HOLT   LOVE 

ON   THE    TWENTY-FIFTH    ANXIVEHSART 

OF    MY   PROFESSORATE 


PREFACE 

In  1883  the  volume  entitled  Biblical  Study,  its  Principles. 
Methods,  and  History,  together  u'ith  a  Catalogue  of  Books  of 
Reference  was  published.  lu  the  preface  it  was  said  :  "  This 
work  is  the  product  of  the  author's  experience  as  a  student  of 
the  Bible,  and  a  teacher  of  theological  students  in  Biblical 
Study.  From  time  to  time,  during  tlie  past  fourteen  years,  he 
has  been  called  upon  to  give  special  attention  to  particular 
themes  in  public  addresses  and  Review  articles.  In  this  way 
the  ground  of  Biblical  Study  has  been  quite  well  covered. 
This  scattered  material  has  been  gathered,  and  worked  over 
into  an  organic  system." 

The  volume  has  been  issued  from  the  press  nine  times  since 
that  date,  and  there  stiU  seems  to  be  a  demand  for  it  on  the 
part  of  the  public.  The  author  has  long  felt  the  need  of  a 
more  thorough  revision  of  the  volume,  as  the  result  of  fifteen 
years"  additional  study ;  but  he  has  been  prevented  by  many 
hindrances  from  doing  what  he  so  greatly  desired  to  do,  until 
the  present  year.  He  has  used  his  volume  as  a  text-book  in 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Xew  York,  during  all  this 
period,  and  has  gone  over  the  whole  subject  afresh  every  year. 
This  year  being  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  his  professorate, 
lie  felt  impelled  to  vmdertake  the  task,  and  to  make  out  of  the 
volume  a  new  one,  which  would  cover  the  whole  ground  of  the 
study  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  results  of  all  that  study  during 
the  past  fifteen  years.     Accordingly  the  volume  has  not  simply 


been  revised,  it  has  been  made  over  into  a  new  one.  The 
material  in  the  old  book  has  become  the  nucleus  of  new  mate- 
rial, so  that  this  volume  has  grown  to  be  fully  twice  the  size 
of  the  original  work. 

The  twelve  chapters  of  Biblical  Study  have  been  worked 
over  and  brought  up  to  the  present  position  of  Biblical  Science, 
and  enriched  with  ample  illustration  of  every  important  prin- 
ciple and  method  used  in  the  study.  The  chapter  on  the  Canon 
has  grown  into  two  chapters,  in  one  of  which  the  historj'  of  the 
Canon  has  been  traced  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  present, 
and  in  the  other  a  careful  s|!atement  of  the  criticism  of  the 
Canon  has  been  given  with  the  principles  for  discerning  it  and 
determining  it  with  certainty.  The  chapter  on  the  Text  has 
grown  into  four  chapters.  This  chapter  was  justly  criticised  for 
its  incompleteness,  as  compared  with  other  sections  of  the  book. 
I  have  given  great  pains  to  this  department,  and  have  traced 
in  successive  chapters  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  the  history  of  the  text  of  the  Greek  Bible,  and  the  trans- 
lations of  the  Bible,  and  have  explained  the  practice  of  Textual 
Criticism,  giving  illustrations  of  every  important  principle.  I 
have  contmued  the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism  down  to 
the  present  time.  Owing  to  circumstances  beyond  my  control, 
I  was  compelled  to  undergo  an  ecclesiastical  trial,  and  was  con- 
demned for  heresy  for  my  views  on  this  subject.  This  made 
ray  views  and  my  trial  a  necessary  part  of  the  history  of  Higher 
Criticism,  and  compelled  me  to  give  these  a  place  in  the  history. 
1  have  aimed  to  be  as  objective  as  possible.  I  have  greatly 
enlarged  my  treatment  of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  Literature. 
In  the  chapter  on  Prose  Literature,  I  have  given  a  very  full 
discussion  of  Biblical  History,  and  especially  of  the  Prose 
Works  of  the  Imagination  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  chapter 
on  Hebrew  Poetry  has  grown  into  four  chapters,  ip  wliich  I 
endeavour  by  ample  illustrations  to  set  forth  those  views  of 


Hebrew  Poetry  which  I  have  held  aud  taught  for  the  past 
twenty-five  j^ears  with  increasing  confidence.  Illustrations 
from  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  from  the  Old  Testament 
are  given  here  as  elsewhere  throughout  the  book.  Some  of 
my  readers  may  be  surprised  at  the  amount  of  poetry  found  in 
the  New  Testament.  But  I  think  that  they  will  see  from  the 
illustrations  given  that  if  the  views  of  Hebrew  Poetry  taken  in 
the  volume  are  correct,  the  specimens  from  the  New  Testament 
are  as  fine  and  sure  specimens  as  those  from  the  Old  Testament. 
In  the  preface  to  Biblical  Study,  it  was  said :  "  The  ground 
for  Biblical  Study  has  been  covered,  with  the  exception  of 
Biblical  History.  This  department  has  been  included  in  the 
Reference  Library  because  it  seemed  necessary  for  complete- 
ness. It  has  been  omitted  from  the  discussions  because  it  is 
usual  to  classify  Biblical  History  with  Historical  Theology. 
The  author  did  not  care  to  determine  this  disputed  question  in 
a  work  already  sufficiently  extensive."  In  this  volume  I  have 
made  up  that  defect ;  not  only  because  it  was  a  defect,  but 
because  in  fact  the  Historical  Criticism  of  Biblical  History  has 
become  a  burning  question,  and  it  is  likely  to  burn  with  in- 
creasing flame  and  heat  during  the  present  generation.  These 
chapters  have  cost  me  much  labour.  They  open  up  the  most 
difficult  part  of  this  work,  and  it  is  probable  that  in  these  I 
expose  myself  to  the  greatest  criticism  on  the  part  of  the  so- 
called  conservatives.  I  have  composed  these  chapters  with 
great  painstaking  and  ^^dth  a  good  conscience,  and  a  deep  sense 
of  a  call  to  public  duty  in  this  regard.  I  have  prepared  the 
way  by  a  history  of  the  study  of  Biblical  History,  then  have 
opened  up  the  principles  and  methods  of  Historical  Criticism 
with  ample  illustrations,  and  finally  I  have  endeavoured  to 
organize  and  construct  the  discipline  of  Biblical  History. 
Grave  mistakes  have  been  made  in  recent  years  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  Higher  Criticism.     Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that 


thej'  will  not  be  repeated  in  the  discussions  of  the  Historical 
Criticism  ? 

I  have  given  two  new  chapters,  one  on  the  Credibility  of 
Holy  Scripture,  the  other  on  the  Truthfulness  of  Holy  Script- 
ure. These  chapters  deal  with  burning  questions  also,  which 
I  have  already  considered  at  some  length  during  my  defence 
to  the  charges  brought  against  me,  touching  the  question  of 
"the  Inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture."'  I  have,  in  these  chapters, 
discussed  the  question  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  induction 
of  facts  from  all  the  ranges  of  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture ; 
and  have  then  carefully  /tested  the  so-called  "  a  priori  argu- 
ment for  the  Inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture."  I  shall  doubtless 
increase  my  offence  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  condemned  me 
before ;  but  I  have  confidence  that  I  have  so  stated  the  case  as 
to  give  relief  and  help  to  the  multitudes  who  have  been  dis- 
turbed and  even  crowded  from  Holy  Church  and  Holy  Scripture 
by  the  Pharisees  of  our  times ;  and  it  is  my  comfort  that  I 
shall  lead  not  a  few,  by  these  chapters,  as  I  have  by  the  grace 
of  God  througli  my  other  writings,  back  to  Holy  Scripture  and 
Holy  Church,  with  a  firmer  faith  and  a  holy  joy  and  love  in 
their  exhibition  of  the  grace  and  glory  of  our  God  and  Saviour. 

The  Table  of  Contents  gives  a  full  analysis  of  the  volume. 
There  are  two  indices.  The  Index  of  Texts  may  be  used  for 
reference  in  the  exposition  of  a  large  number  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  difficult  passages  of  Holy  Scrij)ture.  The  large- 
face  tjqDe  shows  at  a  glance  the  most  important  references. 
The  large-face  type  of  the  Index  of  Authors  and  Writings 
gives  the  passage  where  citations  are  made,  or  opinions  are 
discussed,  or  titles  of  works  are  first  given.  The  Bibliography 
of  each  subject  may  be  found  in  its  appropriate  place  in  the 
volume  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  discipline.  The 
index  will  easily  guide  to  all  the  titles  of  the  booksi  There  is 
really  a  mucli  fuller  bibliography  in  this  volume  proportion- 


atel}'  than  in  the  classified  list  of  books  given  as  an  appendix 
to  Biblical  Study. 

No  one  can  read  this  book,  whatever  his  opinion  as  to  its 
merits  may  be,  without  saying  that  it  corresponds  with  its  title, 
and  that  the  Bible  is  to  the  author  Holy  Seripture. 

Biblical  Study  was  dedicated  to  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock, 
D.D.,  LL.D.,  and  Isaac  A.  Dorner,  D.D.,  "survivors  of  two 
noble  faculties  to  whom  the  author  owes  his  theological  train- 
ing." These  teachers  have  followed  all  my  other  teachers  into 
the  presence  of  our  Lord.  On  this  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of 
my  professorate  it  seems  appropriate,  having  become  the  senior 
professor  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  that  I  should 
dedicate  this  volume  to  my  pupils.  This  is  especially  gratify- 
ing because  of  the  well-known  loyalty  with  which  they  stood 
b}'  me  in  those  trying  years  when  I  was  battling  for  truth  and 
righteousness  against  an  unreasoning  panic  about  the  Bible, 
and  an  anti-revision  partisanship  against  those  who  had  taken 
an  active  part  in  the  movement  for  a  revision  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  and  the  preparation  of  a  new  consensus 
creed  ;  and  also  in  those  more  trying  years  in  which  I  suffered 
tlie  penalties  of  unrighteous  and  illegal  ecclesiastical  discipline. 
In  the  class-room  thej-^  have  encouraged  me  by  their  studious 
attention,  their  confidence,  and  their  enthusiasm ;  in  the  minis- 
try they  have  been  faithful  and  loyal.  I  feel  bound  to  them 
not  only  as  a  teacher  and  a  friend,  but  in  the  stronger  bond  of 
that  Holy  Love  which  Our  Master  taught,  and  which  I  have 
endeavoured  also,  in  so  far  as  I  was  able,  to  teach  them.  One 
of  these  pupils  is  my  daughter,  Emilie  Grace  Briggs,  B.D., 
mthout  whose  patient,  laborious,  and  scholarly  help  I  could 
not  have  finished  this  volume.  To  her  my  thanks  are  due,  in 
public  as  well  as  in  private. 

C.  A.  BRIGGS. 

Januaet,  1899. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 
THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  THE   STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Biblical  Study  the  most  important  of  all  studies,  1 ,  the  most  extensive,  1  ;  the 
most  profound,  2  ;  the  most  attractive.  3. 

Obstacles  to  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  4  ;  Bibliolatry,  5  ;  Sectarian  partisan- 
ship, 6  ;  using  the  Bible  as  an  obstruction  to  progress,  8. 

CHAPTER   II 

THE  SCOPE   OF  THE   STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

General  term  of  the  department,  12  ;  relation  to  other  departments,  12. 
Biblical   Literature,    18 ;    Biblical   Canonics,   21 ;   Textual   Criticism,   23 ;    the 

Higher  Criticism,  24. 
Biblical  Exegesis,  27  ;  Biblical  Hermeneutics,  27. 

Biblical  History,  35  ;  Historical  Criticism,  37  ;  Biblical  Archaeology,  37. 
Biblical  Theology,  39  ;  Biblical  Religion,  Faith,  and  Ethics,  40. 

CHAPTER   III 
THE   LANGUAGES   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

The  languages  of  the  Bible  prepared  by  Providence  for  the  purpose,  42. 

The  Shemitic  famUy,  46  ;  the  Arabic  group,  46  ;  the  Assyrian  group,  47 ;  the 
Hebrew  group,  47  ;  the  Aramaic  group,  49. 

The  Hebrew  language,  51  ;  its  origin,  61  ;  simple  and  natural,  54  ;  correspond- 
ence of  language  and  thought,  55 ;  majesty  and  sublimity,  50 ;  life  and 
fervour,  59. 

The  Aramaic  language,  61  ;  language  of  commerce  in  Persian  period,  61  ;  com- 
mon speech  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  62. 

The  Greek  language.  64  ;  comjilex  and  artistic.  65  ;  style  of  speech,  66;  beauti- 
ful and  finished,  60  ;  strength  and  vigour,  67  ;  Hebraistic  colouring,  68  ; 
transformed  for  expression  of  Christian  ideas,  70. 


j^ji  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    IV 
HOLY  SCKIPTUKE   AND   CRITICISM 

Inherent  necessity  of  criticism,  76  ;  historical  necessity,  77. 

What  is  Criticism  ?  78  ;  a  method  of  knowledge,  79  ;  destructive  and  construc- 
tive  79  •  requires  careful  training  to  use  it,  80. 

Principles  of  criticism,  81  ;  derived  from  General  Criticism,  81  ;  from  Historical 
Criticism  82  ;  from  Literary  Criticism.  85 ;  Textual  Criticism,  86  ;  the 
Hi-her  Criticism,  92  ;  integrity,  92  ;  authenticity,  93  ;  literary  features,  94  ; 
credibility,  95  ;  historical  position,  95  ;  differences  of  style,  97  ;  differences 
of  opinion,  99  ;  citations,  100  ;  positive  testimony,  101 ;  silence,  101 ;  Bentley 
and  the  Epistle  of  Phalaris,  107. 

Criticism  of  Holv  Scripture,  109  ;  confronted  by  traditional  theories,  109  ;  un- 
hindered by  deo^sions  of  the  Church,  112;  or  Catholic  tradition,  115; 
demanded  by  the  truth-loving  spirit,  115. 

CHAPTER   V 
HISTORY   OF  THE,  CANON  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

History  of  the  term  Canon,  117  ;  Holy  Scripture  and  Covenant,  117. 

Formation  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  118  ;  The  Ten  Words,  118  ;  Deuter- 
onomic  Code,  119  ;  the  Law,  120;  tradition  of  the  fixing  of  the  Canon  by 
Ezra  120  •  by  the  Great  Synagogue,  121 ;  the  Prophets,  123  ;  the  Writings, 
124;' evidence  of  Ben  Sirach,  124;  of  the  Septuagint,  124;  of  Pliilo  and 
.Tose'phus.  125  ;  disputes  of  the  Pharisees  as  to  the  Canon,  128  ;  final  determi- 
nation of  the  Canon  at  Jamnia,  130. 

Canon  of  Jesus  and  His  Apostles,  131 ;  general  terms  do  not  decide,  131  ;  they 
abstain  from  using  writings  disputed  among  the  Jews,  131 ;  they  do  not 
determine  the  Canon  except  as  to  the  authority  of  certain  writings,  132. 

Formation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  133;  the  Gospels,  133;  the 
PauUne  Epistles,  134  ;  the  Catholic  Epistles,  134. 

The  Canon  of  the  Church,  137  ;  Decisions  of  Synods,  137  ;  two  streams  of 
tradition,  138  ;  Canon  of  the  Codices,  138. 

CHAPTER   VI 
CRITICISM  OF  THE  CANON 

The  Canon  in  the  Reformation,  140 ;  Luther  and  the  Reformers.  142  ;  Decision 
of  the  Council  of  Trent,  143 ;  the  Protestant  principle,  144  ;  Protestant 
scholasticism,  147.  ,   „  ,.  .        ,.a 

The  Canon  of  the  British  Reformation,  140  ;  the  Articles  of  Religion,  148  ; 
the  Scotch  Confession,  149.  ,  ,-,     u    i 

The  Puritan  Canon,  149  ;  The  Westminster  Confession,  160  ;  Cosin,  161 ;  Herle, 
152  ;  Lyford,  164. 


The  Canon  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  155  ;  dogmatic  reac- 
tion, 156  ;  Semler,  158. 

Modern  American  theorj'  of  the  Canon,  158  ;  the  Princeton  School,  159  ;  Canon- 
icity  and  Authenticity,  100. 

Determination  of  the  Canon,  163  ;  testimony  of  the  Church,  163  ;  character  of 
Holy  Scripture,  165 ;  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  166. 


CHAPTER  VII 
HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF   THE   HEBREW  BIBLE 

The  original   text  of  the   Hebrew  Bible,  169;  primitive  script,  170;  Aramaic 

script,  171 ;  editorial  work  of  the  early  scribes,  173. 
The  text  of  the  Sopherim,  174  ;  the  official  text,  175  ;  the  work  of  the  Sopherim, 

176. 
The  Massoretic  text,  180;  vowel  points  and  accents,  181 ;  work  of  the  Massorites, 

182. 
Hebrew  Manuscripts,  183  ;  Palestinian,  183  ;  Babylonian,  185 ;  Samaritan  Codex, 

185. 
Printed  texts,  186 ;  earliest  text,  186 ;  Complutensian  text,  186 ;  second  Eab- 

binical  Bible,  186  ;  Baer  and  Ginsburg,  187. 


CHAPTER   VIII 
HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK  BIBLE 

The  Greek  Septuagint,  188 ;  translated  gradually  in  the  order,  Law,  Prophets, 

Writings,  188. 
The  Greek  New  Testament,  190  ;  at  firet  separate  writings  on  rolls,  190  ;  no 

codex  till  third  century,  191. 
Other  Greek  versions,  191  ;  Aquila,  191  ;  Theodotian,  192  ;  Symmachus,  192. 
Official  Greek  texts,  192  ;  Origen's  Hexapla,  192  ;  Hesychius,  193  ;  Lucian,  193. 
Manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Bible,  195  ;  Majascules  and  Minuscules,  195. 
The  Neutral  text,  195  ;  Vatican  Codex,  195  ;  Sinaitic  Codex,  196. 
The  Egyptian  text,  197  ;  Alexandrian  Codex,  197  ;  Codex  Ephraem,  198. 
Text  of  the  Hexapla,  200  ;  recently  discovered  Hexapla  text,  200. 
Western  text,  200  ;  Codex  Bezie,  200 ;   recent  discussions  of  Western  text  by 

Harris  and  Blass,  202. 
Text  of  Lucian,  203  ;  relation  to  Josephus,  203. 
Later  Syrian  text.  205  ;  characteristic  conflation,  205. 
Printed  Greek  texts,  206  ;   Complutensian,  206  ;  Erasmus,  206 ;  Aldine,  206  ; 

Stephens,  206  ;  Beza.  206  ;  Sixtine,  207  ;  Elzevir,  207  ;  Mill,  207  ;  Bengel, 

207  ;  Wetstein,  207  ;  Griesbach,  207  ;  Holmes  and  Parsons,  207  ;  Lachmann. 

208  ;  Tischendorf,  208  ;  Tregelles,  209  ;  Westcott  and  Hort,  209  ;  Lagarde, 
209 ;  Swete,  209. 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   IX 

THE   TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE 

Aramaic  Targums,  210 ;  Onkelos,  211 ;  Jonathan,  211  ;  others,  211. 

The  Syriac  Bible,  212  ;  Curetonian,  212  ;  Peshitto,  212  ;  Haraklean,  212. 

The  Latin  Vulgate,  213 ;  Jerome's  version,  213  ;  Codex  Amiatinus,  213  ;  Sixtine 

edition,  213  ;  Clementine  edition,  213. 
The  Arabic  version,  214  ;  Saadia,  214  ;  others,  214. 
Persian  version,  214  ,  Tawus,  214. 
English  versions,  214  ;  Tyndale,  214  ;  Rogers,  215 ;  Tavemer,  215  ;  Coverdale, 

215  ;  Great  Bible.  215  ;  Genevan,  216  ;  Douay,  215  ;  Authorized  Version, 

216  ;  Revised  Version,  216. 

Other  versions,  216  ;  German,  216  ;  French,  217  ;  Dutch,  217  ;  others,  217. 

/ 
CHAPTER  X 

TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTITRE 

Textual  criticism  at  the  Reformation,  219 ;  Ximenes,  219 ;  Levita  and  Ben 
Chayim,  209  ;  de  Rossi  and  Scholastics,  221. 

Textual  criticism  in  the  seventeenth  century,  222 ;  Cappellus,  Horinus,  and 
Buxtorf,  222  ;  Walton  and  Owen,  224  ;  Matthew  Pool,  226. 

Textual  criticism  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries,  226 ,  Bentley  and 
Mill,  227  ;  Lowth,  228 ;  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  227 ;  Tischendorf 
and  Gregory,  228;  Westcott  and  Hort,  228;  Keil,  Green,  and  W.  R. 
Smith,  229. 

Application  of  textual  criticism  to  Holy  Scripture,  231. 

The  genealogical  principle,  231 ;  text  of  Ben  Asher.  231 ;  the  Mishna,  Baraithoth, 
and  Gemara,  232  ;  Midrashim,  234 ;  Jewish  rabbins,  235  ;  use  of  ancient 
versions,  236;  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha,  237  ;  the  original  autographs, 
238  ;  illustrations  of  the  genealogical  principle,  239  ;  genealogy  of  the  Greek 
Bible,  240. 

Conflation  and  other  corruptions,  242 ;  illustrations  from  the  Gospels,  242 ; 
illustrations  from  the  Old  Testament,  242 ;  corruptions  of  alphabetical 
Psalms,  242  ;  dittography,  243  ;  wrong  separation  of  words,  243 ;  slips  of 
the  eye,  244  ;  an  original  logion  of  Jesus,  244. 

CHAPTER  XI 
HISTORY  OF  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  Higher  Criticism  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  247 ;  of  the 
Reformers,  247  ;  of  the  Puritans,  248 ;  of  the  Reformed  Theologians,  249 ; 
Bentley  and  Boyle,  260  ;  how  to  deal  with  traditional  theories,  251. i 


CONTENTS  XV 

The  Rabbinical  theories,  252  ;  the  Baba  Bathra's  statement,  252  ;  the  Gemara 
upon  it,  256. 

Hellenistic  and  Christian  theories,  256  ;  Josephus  and  Philo,  256 ;  Apocalypse 
of  Ezra,  257  ;  the  Fathers,  257. 

The  New  Testament  view  of  the  Old  Testament,  259  ;  Jesus  and  criticism,  259  ; 
New  Testament  use  of  the  Writings,  261 ;  of  the  Psalter,  262  ;  of  the 
Prophets,  265  ;  of  the  Law,  268. 

Rise  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  273  ;  Spinoza  and  Simon,  274  ;  scholastic  opposi- 
tion, 276;  mediating  theories,  276;  Astruc's  discovery,  278;  Eichhorn's 
documentary  hypothesis,  279. 

Higher  Criticism  of  the  nineteenth  century,  282  ;  Geddes,  Vater,  and  the  frag- 
mentary hypothesis,  282  ;  De  Wette  and  the  genesis  of  documents,  285  ; 
Reuss,  Wellhauseu,  and  the  development  hypothesis,  283 ;  Home,  284  ; 
Colenso,  284  ;  Samuel  Davidson,  285 ;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  286 ;  Toy, 
Briggs,  and  H.  P.  Smith,  286 ;  more  recent  Higher  Criticism,  289. 


CHAPTER  XII 

PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM 

Literary  study  of  the  Bible,  293  ;  Literary  training  necessary,  293. 

The  Historical  Evidence,  295  ;  the  Second  Isaiah,  295  ;  date  of  the  Apocalypse 

of  John.  296. 
The  evidence  of  style,  296  ;  etymological  differences,  296  ;  syntactical  differences, 

300  ;  dialectic  differences,  300  ;  differences  of  style,  300  ;  description  of 

Leviathan,  301  ;  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  301. 
The  evidence  of  opinion,  302  ;  theophanies  of  the  Hexateuoh,  302 ;  Holy  Spirit 

in  Isaiah,  303  ;  Messiah  of  the  Apocalypse,  303. 
The  evidence  of  citation.  304 ;  in  the  Psalter,  304 ;  in  Jonah's  Psalm,  305 ; 

Logiou  in  the  Gospels,  305. 
The  evidence  of  testimony,  306  ;  Micah  in  Jeremiah,  306  ;  Saint  Paul  in  Second 

Peter,  307. 
Argument  from  silence,  307  ;   not  within  the  author's  scope,  307 ;   within  his 

scope,  307  ;  reasons  for  silence,  308. 
The  Integrity  of  Scripture,  309  ;  single  writings,  309  ;  collections  of  writings  by 

same  author,  310 ;    by  different  authors,  310 ;   edited  works,  310 ;    inter- 
polations, 314. 
The  Authenticity  of  Scripture,  317  ;  name  of  author  given,  317  ;  traditional 

ascription,  318. 
Anonymous  Holy  Scripture,  319  ;    Histories,  319 ;    Wisdom  Literattire,  320 ; 

Psalter,  321  ;  Law,  322. 
Pseudonymous  Holy  Scripture,  323  ;  not  forgeries,  323 ;  pseudepigrapha,  324 ; 

Biblical  pseudonyms,  325. 
Compilations,  326 ;  Kings  and  Chronicles,  326 ;  Luke  and  Acts,  326 ;  Matthew 

and  John,  327. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  XIII 
BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE 

Poetry  and  Prose,  328  ;  Rhetorical  Prose  aud  Poetry,  329. 

Historical  Prose,  329 ;  Prophetic  and  Priestly  Histoid,  329 ;  three  strata  of 
Prophetic  History,  330;  the  four  Gospels  and  Acts,  330. 

Historical  use  of  the  Myth,  333 ;  Monotheistic  myths,  333 ;  Sons  of  God  and 
daughters  of  men,  333  ;  Samson,  333. 

Historical  use  of  the  Legend,  335  ;  early  chapters  of  Genesis,  335 ;  legends  in 
the  life  of  David,  336  ;  poetic  legends,  337. 

Prophetic  Discourse,  338  ;  oratory  in  prophetic  histories,  338 ;  prophetic  elo- 
quence, 339  ;  discourses  of  Jesus,  339  ;  of  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul,  339. 

The  Epistle.  340  ;  Letters  in  E^a  and  Nehemiah,  340  ;  Epistles  of  the  New 
Testament,  340. 

Prose  works  of  the  Imagination,  341  ;  Haggada  of  Rabbins,  341 ;  Parables  of 
Jesus,  341  ;  apocryphal  stories,  342  ;  poetic  works  of  the  imagination,  342. 

The  Book  of  Ruth  an  Idyll,  342  ;  scenery  of  the  times  of  the  Judges.  343  ; 
ideal  picture,  343  ;  conflict  with  Deuteronomic  law,  343  ;  historic  basis,  344. 

Tlie  Story  of  Jonah,  345 ;  sets  forth  a  prophetic  lesson,  345 ;  the  miracles  are 
marvels,  345  ;  the  ideal  repentance,  346  ;  the  prayer  figurative,  347  ;  an 
early  Haggada,  348  ;  a  marvel  of  the  love  of  God,  340. 

The  story  of  Esther,  349  ;  historic  discrepancies,  350  ;  does  not  explain  Purim, 
350  ;  Esther,  heroine  of  patriotism,  350. 

The  stories  of  Daniel,  351  <  a  Maccabean  book,  351  ;  Aramaic  stories,  351  ;  his- 
torical discrepancies,  352;  historic  fiction,  352. 


CHAPTER  XrV 
CHARACTERISTICS   OF  BIBLICAL  POETRY 

Features  of  Hebrew  poetry,  355  ;  religious  poetry,  356  ;  simple  and  natural,  357  ; 

subjective,  358  ;  sententious,  358  ;  realistic,  359. 
Ancient  theories  of  Hebrew  poetry,  361 ;  compared  with  Arabic  poetry,  361  ; 

compared  with  cla.ssical  metres,  302. 
Modern  theories,  303 ;  .Jones,  303  ;  Saalchutz,  363  ;  Bickell,  364  ;  Ewald,  305. 
Lowth's  doctrine  of  parallelism,  300  ;  Bishop  Jebb's  introverted  parallelism,  367  ; 

the  stairlike  movement,  367. 
Ley's  theory  of  measures,  369  ;  Briggs'  early  views,  370  ;  primary  and  secondary 

poetic  accent,  370. 
Poetic  language,  371  ;  full  sounding  forms,  371  ;  archaisms,  371. 


CONTENTS  xvii 

CHAPTER  XV 
THE  MEASURES  OF  BIBLICAL  POETRY 

Assonance  and  rhyme,  373  ;  identical  suffixes,  373  ;  assonance,  375 ;  word  play, 

375. 
Measures  by  word  or  accent,  376 ;  trimeter,  376 ;  tetrameter,  379  ;  pentameter, 

380 ;  hexameter,  382 ;  -varying  measures,  384. 

CHAPTER   XVI 
THE  PARALLELISMS  OF  HEBREW  POETRY 

Parallelism  of  members,  385  ;  the  couplet,  385 ;  the  triplet,  388  ;  the  tetrastich, 
390 ;  the  pentastich,  392  ;  the  heiastich,  394 ;  the  heptastich,  395 ;  the 
octastich,  397  ;  the  decastich.  397. 

The  strophe,  398  ;  of  two  lines,  400 ;  of  three  lines,  401  ;  of  four  lines,  401  ;  of 
five  lines,  402  ;  of  six  lines,  403  ;  of  seven  lines,  406  ;  of  eight  lines,  407  ;  of 
nine  lines,  410 ;  of  ten  lines,  411  ;  of  twelve  lines,  411 ;  of  fourteen  lines, 
412  ;  unequal  strophes,  413. 

CHAPTER   XVII 
THE   KINDS  OF  HEBREW  POETRY 

Lyric  poetry,  415;  the  hymn,  prayer,  and  song  of  Moses,  415;  Psalter,  415; 

Lamentations,  415. 
Gnomic  poetry,  416  ;  fable,  416  ;  riddle,  417  ;  temperance  poem,  418  ;  gnome  of 

the  sluggard,  418. 
Composite  poetry.  418  ;  dramatic  poetry,  419  ;  P.salm  xxiv.  419  ;  Hosea  xiv.  419  ; 

Job,  420  ;  Song  of  Songs,  420 ;  Poetrj'  of  Wisdom,  422 ;  Job  xxxi.  422 ; 

prophetic  poetry,  424  ;  Isaiah  liii.  424. 

CHAPTER   XVIII 
HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Oral  and  written  Word,  427  ;  general  interpretation,  428 ;  art  of  understanding 

and  explaining,  428. 
Rabbinical  interpretation,  429 ;  legal  or  Halacha,  430 ;  illustrative  or  Haggada, 

431  ;  allegorical  or  Sodh,  432  ;  Cabala  or  mystic,  432  ;  literal  or  Peshat,  433. 
Hellenistic   interpretation,   434 ;    allegorical   method  of  Philo,   434 ;    rules   of 

allegory,  435. 
Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  Testament,  436  ;  Jesus'  use  of 

the  Halacha,  437  ;  of  Haggada,  438  ;  of  the  Sodh,  438 ;  Jesus'  characteristic 

methods,  441 ;  methods  of  the  apostles,  443. 


xviii  CONTENTS 

Interpretation  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the  Schoolmen,  447  ;  TertuUian,  447  ; 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen,  448  ;  Tj-chonius'  rules,  449  ;  Augustine's 
rules,  449 ;  Antiochan  school,  451 ;  tradition  and  ecclesiastical  authority, 
453;  Epitomes,  Postiles,  Glosses,  454  ;  Lyra,  454;  Council  of  Trent,  455. 

Interpretation  of  the  Reformers  and  their  successors,  456  ;  Erasmus  and  Tyn- 
dale.  456  ;  the  Protestant  principle,  457  ;  the  scholastics,  458. 

The  Interpretation  of  the  Puritan  and  Arminians,  459 ;  Cartwright,  459  ;  Ball, 
460;  Westminster  Confession,  461;  Leigh,  462  ;  Francis  Roberts,  464  ;  Fed- 
eral school,  466  ;  Pietism,  467  ;  Grotius,  Hammond,  and  John  Taylor,  468. 

Biblical  interpretation  of  modem  times,  469 ;  Eruesti,  469  ;  Semler,  469 ;  the 
grammatico-historical  method,  470  ;  Schleiermacher  and  the  organic  method, 
471 ;  the  method  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  as  the  history  of  redemption, 
472. 

CHAPTER   XIX 

THE   PRACTICE  OF  INTERPRETATION  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Grammatical  interpretation.  474  ;  philological  study,  474  ;  great  improvement  in 

knowledge  of  Biblical  languages,  475. 
Logical  and  rhetorical  interpretation,  476  ;  laws  of  thought,  476  ;  logic  of  Bibli- 
cal authors,  477  ;  Biblical  rhetoric,  478. 
Historical  ijiterpretation,  478 ;  mistakes  of  supernaturalism,  479  ;  tradition  versus 

history,  479. 
Comparative  interpretation,  480  ;  mistakes  of  rationalists,  480 ;  unity  in  variety, 

480. 
The  literature  of  interpretation,  481 ;  magnitude  of  the  literature,  481 ;  consent 

of  the  fathers,  481 ;  bondage  to  the  theologians,  482. 
Doctrinal  interpretation,  483  ;  the  rule  of  faith,  483  ;  the  analogy  of  faith  in  the 

substance  of  Holy  Scripture,  483. 
Practical  interpretation,  484 ;  the  Bible  a  book  of  life,  484 ;   Holy  Spirit  the 

supreme  interpreter,  485. 

CHAPTER   XX 
HISTORY   OF  THE   STUDY  OF  BIBLICAL   HISTORY 

The  use  of  Biblical  History  prior  to  the  sixteenth  century,  487  ;  Josephus,  487 ; 
Tatian,  Hegcsippus,  and  Julius  Africanu.s,  488  ;  Eusebius.  489 ;  Sulpicius 
Severus  and  Augustine,  489  ;  Rudolf  of  Saxony,  489. 

Study  of  Biblical  History  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  489  ;  Har- 
monies, 490  ;  archseological  writers,  490. 

Study  of  Biblical  History  in  the  eighteenth  century,  490  ;  conflict  of  supernatu- 
ralists  with  Deism,  Atheism,  and  Rationalism,  490  ;  mediating  efforts,  491 

Biblical  History  in  the  nineteenth  century,  491  ;  Heixler  ami  Eichhorn,  491  ; 
Deists  and  Thomas  Payne,  492. 

The  mythical  hypothesis,  493 ;  DeWette  and  G.  L.  Baur,  493 ;  Strauss.  493  ; 
Ullmann,  405  ;  failure  of  mythical  hypothesis,  496. 


CONTENTS  xix 

The  legendary  hypothesis,  497  ;  Renan,  497 ;  failure  of  the  legendary  hypothe- 
sis, 498. 

The  development  hypothesis,  498  ;  F.  C.  Baur  and  Vatke,  498  ;  schools  of  Baur 
and  Neander,  499 ;  Ritsehl,  500  ;  Haruack,  500  ;  criticism  of  tlie  school  of 
Ritschl,  503  ;  Ewald,  504  ;  Wellhausen,  504  ;  Stade,  Kittel,  and  Kent,  504  ; 
Graetz  and  Jost,  505. 

Advance  in  several  departments  of  Biblical  History,  505 ;  the  rise  of  contem- 
porary history,  .505 ;  Schneckenberger  and  Bertheau,  505 ;  more  recent 
studies  in  Oriental  archaeology,  506 ;  unscientific  methods  of  Sayce  and 
Hommel,  506 ;  Robinson,  the  father  of  modern  Biblical  geography,  507 ; 
Biblical  geography  since  Robinson,  507. 

The  results  of  historical  criticism,  508  ;  defects  of  the  older  histories,  509  ;  a 
new  Biblical  History,  510. 

CHAPTER   XXI 
THE  PRACTICE   OF   HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

Genesis  of  historical  material,  511 ;  illustrated  from  Biblical  chronology,  512  ; 

from  the  history  of  the  chronicler,  513  ;  from  naming  of  Saint  Peter,  514  ; 

from  speaking  -with  tongues  at  Pentecost,  517. 
Grenuineness  of  historical  material,  519 ;  illustrated  in  question  of  the  historicity 

of  Daniel,  519  ;  of  erroneous  historical  statements,  520  ;  rashness  in  finding 

errors,  521  ;  the  myth,  521  ;  Arabic  gospel  of  infancy,  522  ;  the  virgin  birth 

not  a  myth,  522  ;  legends,  527  ;  used  in  the  epistles,  527  ;  in  the  Gospels,  527. 
Reliability  of  historical  material,  529 ;  illustrated  by  the  story  of  the  Deluge, 

529  ;  Water  from  the  Rock,  529  ;  Census  of  Quirinius,  530. 
The  Aim  of  Historical  Criticism,  531 ;  removal  of  erroneous  traditions,  531 ;  the 

recovery  of  historic  truth  and  fact,  532. 

CHAPTER   XXII 
BIBLICAL   HISTORY 

The  Scope  of  Biblical  History,  533  ;  Biblical  histories,  533  ;  History  contained 
in  other  Holy  Scriptures,  533. 

Contemporary  History,  534 ;  of  the  ancient  empires,  534  ;  of  New  Testament 
times,  534. 

The  History  of  Israel,  535  ;  part  of  L^niversal  History,  535  ;  other  nations  guided 
by  Providence,  537. 

Biblical  History  proper,  538  ;  the  types  of  Biblical  History,  538  ;  the  theophanic 
presence,  542  ;  the  kingdom  of  redemption,  547  ;  divine  fatherly  discipline, 
549  ;  sovereignty  of  the  Holy  God,  550. 

The  Order  of  Biblical  History,  553  ;  History  of  the  Old  Covenant  and  New  Cov- 
enant, 553 ;  Moses,  David,  Ezra,  553 ;  Forerunners  of  Christ,  Christ,  and 
his  Apostles,  553. 

Sections  of  Biblical  History,  554  ;  Biblical  chronology  and  geography,  554  ;  Bib- 
lical archaeology,  554. 


XX  CONTENTS 

Sources  of  Biblical  History,  555  ;  mytbical  sources,  557  ;  legendary  sources,  558  ; 

poetical  sources,  559  ;  ancient  laws,  5G0 ;  documentary  sources,  563. 
The  Historic  Imagination,  564. 

CHAPTEE  XXIII 
BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY 

The  four  types  of  theology,  569 ;   the  mystic,  570 ;  the  scholastic,  570  ;   the 

speculative,   571 ;    the  practical,   571  ;  the  comprehensive  catholic,   571 ; 

mingling  of  types,  572. 
Rise  of  Biblical  Theology,  575  ;  Zacharia  and  Ammon,  575  ;  distinguished  from 

dogmatics,  575  ;  Gabler,  576  ;  De  Wette  and  Von  Coin,  578 ;  the  historical 

principle,  576. 
Development  of  Biblical  Theologj',  578  ;  Strauss,  578  ;  F.  C.  Baur,  578  ;  theory 

of  Jewish  Christian,  and  PartUne  parties,  578  ;  Neander's  theory  of  types, 

579  ;  Schmid  assigned  Biblical  Theology  to  Esegetical  Theology,  579 ;  Reuss 

and  Lutterbeck  set  Biblical  Theology  in  the  midst  of  the  religious  ideas  of 

the  times,  583  ;  Kuenen  and  Wellhausen,  585  ;  recent  investigations,  587 ; 

younger  Ritschlians,  589. 
The  Idea  of  Biblical  Theology,  592 ;  limited  to  canonical  writings,  592  ;  not  a 

history  of  religion  in  Biblical  times,  593  ;  how  related  to  Dogmatics.  594 ; 

the  ethical  element,  597  ;  the  element  of  religion,  597 ;  the  theology  of  the 

Bible  in  its  historic  formation,  598. 
The  place  of  Biblical  Theology,  599 ;  not  a  part  of  Biblical  Historj',  599 ;  the 

highest  section  of  the  study  of  the  Bible,  600  ;  the  fundamental  source  of  all 

other  divisions  of  Theology,  COl. 
Methods  of  Biblical  Theology,  601  ;   the  genetic  method,  601  ;  the  inductive 

method,  602  ;  the  unity  and  variety,  602  ;  blending  of  methods,  603. 
System  of  Biblical  Theology,  603  ;  the  covenant  the  dominant  principle,  604  ; 

iistoric  divisions,  604  ;  synthetic  divisions,  604  ;  the  several  types,  606. 


CHAPTER   XXIV 
THE   CREDIBILITY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Dogmatic  theory  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  007  ;  need  of  a  reconstruction 
of  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Bible,  607. 

The  Bible  and  other  sacred  books,  608  ;  errors  in  sacred  books,  608  ;  mistake  of 
depreciating  them,  609  ;  their  excellent  features  not  derived  frouii  the  Bible, 
610. 

Science  and  the  Bible,  612  ;  Bible  subject  to  the  criticism  of  Science,  613  ;  Bible 
does  not  teach  Science.  614  ;  scientific  errors  do  not  destroy  credibility,  614. 

The  Canon  and  Inerrancy,  615;  the  question  of  errors  in  the  original  autographs, 
615  ;  Canon  is  independent  of  the  question  of  the  autographs,  616  ;  auto- 
graphs of  authors  and  of  editors,  618  ;  autographs  neglected  by  early  Jews 
and  Christians,  020. 


CONTEXTS  xxi 

Textual  criticism  and  credibility,  621 ;  errors  in  best  texts  obtainable,  621  ;  no 
infallibility  of  vowel  points  or  script,  621  ;  the  divine  authority  in  transla- 
tions, 622  ;  no  stress  to  be  laid  on  external  letter  of  Scripture,  623 ;  textual 
form  not  infallible,  624. 

The  Higher  Criticism  and  credibility,  627  ;  traditional  errors  as  to  literattire,  627  ; 
inconsistencies  due  to  variation  of  sources  and  authors,  628  ;  literary  form 
not  infallible,  629. 

Historical  Criticism  and  credibility,  631 ;  discrepancies,  631 ;  errors  in  sources, 
631 ;  historical  form  not  infallible,  632  ;  infallibility  in  substance  of  divine 
teaching  as  to  religion,  faith,  and  morals,  633. 


CHAPTER   XXY 

THE   TRUTHTTILNESS  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Is  the  Bible  the  Word  of  Grod  ?  634  ;  it  cannot  be  assumed  but  must  be  proved. 
634 ;  essential  truthfulness  consistent  with  circtmistantial  errors,  635 ;  human 
medium  of  revelation,  635 ;  providential  superintendence  not  inspiration, 
636. 

Must  God  speak  inerrant  words  to  men  ?  637  ;  argument  from  the  Book  of 
nature,  637  ;  from  theophanies,  638  ;  from  psychology  and  pedagogy.  638  ; 
from  the  methods  of  Jesus.  639 ;  Bible  inerrant  onlj'  in  its  religious  instruc- 
tion. 640. 

Gradual  development  of  the  Hebrew  religion,  641 ;  burnt-offerings  of  human 
beings,  641 ;  sacrificial  system,  642  ;  laws  of  ceremonial  sanctity,  643 ;  in- 
stitutions of  Israel  elementary,  643. 

Gradual  development  of  morality,  643 ;  laws  sufficient  for  the  time,  643  ;  but 
inadequate  for  a  later  age,  644 ;  the  ethics  of  falsehood,  644;  the  spirit  of 
revenge,  644 ;  Mosaic  law  of  divorce,  645  ;  the  temporary  and  the  eternal, 
645  ;  ethics  of  Jesus,  645. 

Gradualness  of  Biblical  doctrine.  G46  ;  doctrine  of  God,  646  ;  vindictiveness,  646  ; 
anthropomorphisms.  647  ;  doctrine  of  man,  647  ;  doctrine  of  redemption, 
647  ;  messianic  ideals,  648 ;  future  life,  648  ;  inadequateness  of  form,  infal- 
libility of  substance,  649. 


CHAPTER   XXYl 
THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AS   MEANS   OF   GRACE 

Redemption  by  the  grace  of  God,  651;  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  in  their 
harmony,  6.52. 

The  Gospel  in  Holy  Scripture,  6.52  ;  relations  of  faith  to  Holy  Scripttire,  652  ; 
relation  of  grace  to  Holy  Scripture,  653  ;  exaltation  of  the  person  of  Christ, 
654  ;  organic  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Church,  654. 


XX  ii  CONTENTS 

The  Grace  of  God  in  Holy  Scripture,  654 ;  Scripture  contains  the  Gospel  of  Sal- 
vation, 665  ;  contains  the  redemption  offered  and  applied  in  Christ,  656  ; 
grace  of  regeneration,  657  ;  of  sanctiiication,  658. 

The  efficac}-  of  Holy  Scripture,  659  ;  not  ez  opere  operato,  660 ;  dynamic  in  the 
experience  of  man,  660. 

The  appropriation  of  the  Grace  of  Holy  Scripture,  660 ;  attention,  661 ;  faith, 
665 ;  practice,  668. 


INDICES 


Texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  671. 
Books,  Authors,  and  Subjects,  679. 


GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 


STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 


CHAPTER   I 

THE  ADVANTAGES   OF  THE  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

1.  Biblical  Study  is  the  most  important  of  till  studies,  for 
it  is  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God,  which  contains  a  divine 
revelation  of  redemption  to  the  world.  Nowhere  else  can  such 
a  redemption  be  found  save  where  it  has  been  derived  from  this 
fountain  source  or  from  those  sacred  persons,  institutions,  and 
events  presented  to  us  in  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  the  chief 
source  of  the  Christian  religion.  Christian  theology,  and  Chris- 
tian life.  While  other  secondary  and  subsidiary  sources  may 
be  used  to  advantage  in  connection  with  this  principal  source, 
they  cannot  dispense  with  it.  For  the  Bible  contains  the  reve- 
lation of  redemption  ;  the  Messiah  and  His  kingdom  are  the 
central  theme  ;  its  varying  contents  lead  by  myriads  of  paths 
in  converging  lines  to  the  throne  of  the  God  of  grace.  The 
Bible  is  the  sure  way  of  life,  wisdom,  and  blessedness. 

'1.  Biblical  Study  is  the  most  extensive  of  all  studies,  for  its 
themes  are  the  central  themes  which  are  inextricably  entwined 
in  all  knowledge.  Into  its  channels  every  other  study  pours 
its  supply  as  all  the  brooks  and  rivers  flow  into  the  ocean.  The 
study  of  the  Bible  is  a  study  for  men  of  every  class  and  every 
occupation  in  life,  for  all  the  world.  No  profound  scholar  in 
any  department  of  investigation  can  avoid  the  Bible.  Sooner 
or  later  his  special  studies  will  lead  him  tliither.  The  Bible 
is  an  ocean  of  heavenly  wisdom.  The  little  child  may  sport 
upon  its  shores  and  derive  instruction  and  delight.  The  most 
accomplished  scholar  finds  its  vast  extent  and  mysterious 
depths  beyond  liis  grasp. 


2  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

We  open  the  Bible  and  on  its  earliest  pages  are  confronted 
with  the  story  of  the  origin  of  the  world,  the  creation  of  man, 
and  the  problem  of  evil.  The  biblical  histories  present,  in 
brief  yet  impressive  outlines,  the  struggle  of  good  and  evil, 
the  strife  of  tribes  and  nations,  and,  above  all,  the  interplay 
of  divine  and  human  forces,  showing  that  a  divine  plan  of  the 
world  is  unfolding.  The  springs  of  human  action,  the  secrets 
of  human  experience  and  motive,  are  disclosed  in  the  measures 
of  psalm  and  proverb.  The  character,  attributes,  and  pur- 
poses of  God  are  unveiled  in  the  strains  of  holy  prophets.  The 
union  of  God  and  man  in  redemption  is  displayed  in  the  prog- 
ress of  its  literature.  Two  great  covenants  divide  the  plan 
of  redemption  into  the  old  covenant  and  the  new.  The  former 
presents  us  instructions  which  are  a  marvel  of  righteousness, 
sacredness,  and  love  ;  institutions  that  are  symmetrical  and 
grand,  combining,  as  nowhere  else,  the  real  and  the  ideal, — 
the  light  and  guide  to  Israel  bearing  on  to  the  new  covenant. 
In  the  latter  the  jNIessiah  presents  His  achievements  of  redemp- 
tion in  which  are  stored  up  the  forces  which  have  shaped  the 
Christian  centuries,  and  the  secrets  of  the  everlasting  future. 
All  the  sciences  and  arts,  all  the  literatures  and  histories,  all 
the  philosophies  and  religions  of  the  world,  gather  about  the 
Bible  to  make  contribution  to  its  study  and  derive  help  from 
its  instruction.  A  student  of  the  Bible  needs  encyclopiedic 
knowledge.  The  Bible  will  never  be  mastered  in  all  its  parts 
until  it  is  set  in  the  midst  of  universal  knowledge.  It  comes 
from  the  Supreme  Wisdom,  and  it  can  be  comprehended  only 
by  those  who  have  attained  the  heights  of  wisdom. 

3.  Biblical  Study  is  the  most  profound  of  all  studies,  for 
it  has  to  do  with  the  secrets  of  life  and  death,  of  God  and  man, 
of  this  world  and  other  worlds.  Its  central  contents  are  divine 
revelations.  These  came  from  God  to  man  because  man  could 
not  ivttain  them  otherwise.  Even  those  contents  of  the  Bible 
that  are  not  revealed,  are  colored  and  shaped  by  the  revelations 
with  which  they  are  connected.  All  study  which  goes  beyond 
the  surface  soon  reaches  the  mysterious.  There  are  mau}'^ 
mysteries  that  patient  and  persistent  investigation  has  solved  ; 
others  are  in  process  of  solution  ;  still  others  future  study  maj- 


ADVANTAGES   OF  THE   STUDY  3 

be  able  to  solve.  But  the  mysteries  revealed  in  the  Bible  are 
those  which  man  had  not  been  able  to  attain  by  inductive  and 
deductive  investigation,  and  which  it  is  improbable  that  he 
could  have  attained  without  special  divine  guidance,  at  least  at 
the  time  that  that  knowledge  was  necessary  for  the  progress 
of  mankind  at  the  stage  in  his  historical  development  when  the 
revelation  was  given.  When  the  study  of  the  other  depart- 
ments of  human  learning  has  reached  their  uttermost  limits, 
there  still  remains  a  wide  expanse  between  those  limits  and  the 
contents  of  divine  revelation,  which  man  cannot  cross  by  his 
own  unaided  powers.  Divine  revelation  is  to  the  other  depart- 
ments of  human  knowledge  what  heaven  is  to  earth.  It  is  above 
them,  it  encircles  them,  and  it  envelops  them  on  every  side. 
Like  heaven,  it  discloses  illimitable  heights  and  breadths. 
Those  things  which  are  revealed  lift  the  student  of  the  Bible 
to  regions  of  knowledge  that  reach  forth  to  the  infinite.  And 
yet  profound  as  the  divine  revelation  is,  it  is  simple.  It  is  like 
the  sunlight  bearing  its  own  evidence  in  itself.  It  is  like  the 
blue  vault  of  heaven  clear  and  bright.  It  is  a  revelation  for 
babes  as  well  as  men,  for  the  simple  as  well  as  the  learned. 
God  sendeth  it  as  the  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust,  for  "  He 
is  kind  unto  the  unthankful  and  the  evil."  ■*  The  most  profound 
study  cannot  master  it.  Any  attentive  study  of  it  is  rewarded 
with  precious  knowledge. 

4.  Biblical  Study  is  the  most  attractive  of  all  studies.  No- 
where else  is  there  so  great  a  variety  in  unity.  The  Literature 
of  the  Bible  has  been  carefullj'  selected  out  of  a  vastly  greater 
extent  of  Literature  by  the  taste  of  God's  people  in  many  suc- 
cessive generations,  each  one  adding  its  approval  to  that  of 
its  predecessors.  This  taste  determined  that  which  was  given 
for  the  permanent  blessing  of  mankind  and  discriminated  the 
writings  gathered  in  the  Bible  from  others  which  were  tempo- 
rary, local,  and  provisional  in  their  character.  The  wise 
guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit  on  the  one  hand  and  the  recogni- 
tion of  excellence  by  God's  people  on  the  other  hand,  co-worked 
to  produce  Holy  Scripture. 

In  the  Bible  there  is  a  wonderful  variety  of  topic,  covering 

1  Mt.  515  .  Lk.  685. 


4  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  whole  field  of  Theology,  that  divine  science  which  embraces 
and  absorbs  all  human  knowledge.  In  the  Bible  there  is  a 
marvellous  richness  of  material  combining  in  one  organic  whole 
the  sublime  and  the  beautiful  in  God,  in  man,  in  nature,  and 
in  the  interrelation  of  God  with  man  and  nature.  In  the  Bible 
there  is  an  extraordinary  wealth  of  literar}'  form  and  style, 
representing  the  thinking  and  the  emotions  of  manj'  genera- 
tions ;  composed  in  three  of  the  greatest  languages  used  as 
the  vehicle  of  communion  of  man  with  man. 

In  the  Bible  there  is  a  magnificent  unity  and  variety  in 
history.  Nowhere  else  are  the  generations  of  mankind  so 
linked  together.  In  the  Bible  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  are 
turned  to  the  children,  and  the  hearts  of  the  children  to  the 
fathers.!  Though  the  Jewish  people  constitute  the  central 
nucleus  of  this  marvellous  stor}^  they  are  not  the  whole  of  it. 
They  are  the  centre  of  a  story  which  is  as  wide  as  humanitj' 
and  whose  circumference  is  the  creation  of  God. 

The  Bible  is  as  various  as  human  life  is  various.  It  is  in- 
teresting to  the  child,  it  attracts  the  peasant,  it  charms  the 
prince,  it  absorbs  the  sage.  It  is  the  Book  of  love,  salvation, 
and  glor}"^  for  all  the  world. 

Obstacles  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture 

The  Bible  is  designed  for  the  blessing  of  all  mankind.  But 
all  have  not  enjoyed  its  benefits  ;  partlj'  because  those  who  have 
the  Bible  in  their  possession  have  not  made  it  known  to  their 
fellow-men  as  they  were  commissioned  to  do  bj'  our  Saviour  ;  ^ 
and  partly  because  they  have  made  the  Bible  known  only  so 
far  as  they  understood  it,  or  they  supposed  that  their  fellow- 
men  were  able  to  receive  it.  If  they  have  given  it  to  others 
at  all,  it  has  been  in  such  bits  of  it  as  the  teachers  were  able 
to  explain  to  their  humble  and  obedient  pupils.  Even  in 
Christian  lands,  where  the  Bible  ma}'  easil}'  be  found,  there 
are  few  who  experience  its  ideal  advantages.  Too  many  re- 
ligious teachers,  in  mistaken  zeal,  are  so  anxious  to  guard  the 
sanctity  of  the  Bible  tliat  they  refrain  from  opening  its  treas- 
1  Mai.  4«.  »  Mk.  16«. 


ADVANTAGES   OF   THE   STUDY  5 

ures  to  the  free  use  of  the  people.  Other  teachers  in  all 
generations  perpetuate  the  work  of  the  Pharisees  and  obtrude 
their  theories  and  speculations  upon  the  Bible,  making  the 
Word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  their  traditions;  they  take 
away  the  key  of  knowledge  ;  they  enter  not  in  themselves,  and 
them  that  are  entering  in  they  hinder. ^  If  the  Bible  has  been 
withheld  from  the  people  by  Roman  priests,  obstacles  to  the 
study  of  the  Bible  have  been  erected  in  the  path  of  students 
by  Protestant  ministers.  It  would  be  a  happy  result  if  each 
could  so  expose  the  sin  and  guilt  of  the  other  as  to  induce  both 
to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance  and  to  render  entire 
obedience  to  the  commission  of  Christ. 

1.  The  Study  of  the  Bible  is  most  commonly  obstructed 
among  Protestants  by  BibJioJatry. 

The  Bible  has  been  hedged  about  with  awe  as  if  the  use  of 
it,  except  in  solemn  circumstances  and  with  special  and  pre- 
scribed devotional  feelings,  was  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Men  have  been  kept  from  the  Bible  as  from  the  holy  sacraments 
by  dread  of  the  serious  consequences  involved  in  any  fault  in 
their  use.  The  Bible  has  been  made  an  unnatural  and  unreal 
book,  by  attaching  it  exclusively  to  hours  of  devotion,  and 
detaching  it  from  the  experiences  of  ordinary  life.  The  study 
of  the  Bible  will  inevitably  lead  to  holy  and  devout  thoughts, 
will  surely  bring  the  student  to  the  presence  of  God  and  His 
Christ,  and  will  certainly  secure  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  But  it  is  a  sad  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Bible  can  be 
approached  only  in  special  frames  of  mind  and  with  peculiar 
devotional  preparation.  It  is  not  to  be  covered  as  with  a  fune- 
real pall  and  laid  away  for  hours  of  sorrow  and  affliction.  It 
is  not  to  be  placed  upon  an  altar  and  its  use  reserved  for  hours 
of  public  or  private  worship.  It  is  not  to  be  regarded  with 
feelings  of  bibliolatry.^    It  is  not  to  be  used  as  a  book  of  magic, 

>  Mt.  15«;  Mk.  7";  Lk.  11^;  Col.  28. 

*  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  most  radical  Protestants,  those  who  are  most  bitter 
in  their  denunciation  of  the  adoration  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  by  such  of  their 
fellow-Christians  as  believe  in  the  real  substantial  presence  of  our  Lord  therein, 
are  the  ver)"  ones  who  are  most  inclined  to  Bibliolatry.  It  is  certainly  no  easier 
to  think  that  our  Saviour  should  dwell  between  the  covers  of  a  book  than  that 
He  .should  be  resident  for  a  time  in  the  bread  of  the  Holy  Communion. 


6  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRUTURE 

as  if  it  had  the  mysterious  power  of  determining  all  questions  at 
the  opening  of  the  book.^  It  is  not  to  be  used  as  a  cabalistic 
book,  to  determine  from  its  words  and  letters,  the  structure  of  its 
sentences,  mysterious  guidance  for  the  initiated  alone. ^  It  is  not 
to  be  used  as  an  astrologer's  horoscope,  to  discover  from  its  won- 
drous symbolism,  through  seeming  coincidences,  the  fulfilment 
of  biblical  prophecy  in  the  events  transpiring  round  about  us  or 
impending  over  us.  The  Bible  is  no  such  book  as  this.  It  is 
a  book  of  life,  a  real  book,  a  people's  book.  It  is  a  blessed  means 
of  grace  when  used  in  devotional  hours,  —  it  has  also  holy  les- 
sons and  beauties  of  thought  and  sentiment  for  hours  of  leisure 
and  recreation.  It  appeals  to  the  gesthetic  and  intellectual 
as  well  as  moral  and  spii-itual  faculties,  the  whole  man  in  his 
whole  life.  Familiarity  with  the  Bible  is  to  be  encouraged. 
It  vnll  not  decrease,  but  rather  enhance  the  reverence  with 
whicli  we  ought  to  approach  tlie  Holy  God  in  His  Word.  The 
Bible  takes  its  place  among  the  masterpieces  of  the  world's 
literature.  The  use  of  it  as  such  no  more  interferes  with 
devotion  than  the  beauty  and  gi-andeur  of  architecture  and 
music  prevent  the  adoration  of  God  in  the  worship  of  a  cathe- 
dral. Rather  the  varied  forms  of  beauty,  truth,  and  goodness 
displayed  in  the  Bible  will  conspire  to  bring  us  to  Him  who  is 
the  centre  and  inspiration  of  them  all. 

2.  The  Study  of  the  Bible  is  obstructed  by  sectarian  partisan- 
ship. A  sin  against  the  Bible  is  often  committed  by  the  indis- 
criminate use  of  proof  texts  in  dogmatic  assertion  and  debate. 
These  texts  are  hurled  against  one  another  by  zealous  partisans 
in  controversy  with  such  differences  and  inconsistency  of  inter- 
pretation as  to  excite  the  disgust  of  all  openminded  persons. 
It  has  become  a  proverb  that  anything  can  be  proved  from  the 
Bible.  Then  again  the  Bible  is  too  often  used  as  a  text-book 
of  abstract  definitions  giving  absolute  truth.  The' Protestant 
Reformers  threw  aside  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  the  in- 

1  There  are  many  sad  instances  of  this  misuse  of  the  Bible.  Doubtless  there 
are  cases  in  which  there  has  apjiareutly  been  good  guidance,  but  there  are  others 
in  which  men  and  women  liavc  been  misled  to  the  ruin  of  themselves  and  other 
people.  This  method  of  resnrtiiis  to  a  divine  oracle  is  less  likely  to  lead  to  faith 
and  holiness  than  to  disappoiiitniL-nt.  di.strust  of  God.  and  eventual  unbelief. 

•^  See  Chap.  XVIII.  p.  4.32,  for  this  method  of  using  the  Old  Te.stament. 


ADVANTAGES   OF  THE   STUDY  7 

fallible  interpreter  of  the  Bible  and  refused  to  submit  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  as  final.  They 
asserted  tlie  right  of  private  judgment  for  themselves  and 
others.  But  their  successors  established  a  Protestant  rule  of 
faith  which  became  as  tyrannical  over  private  judgment  as 
Roman  tradition  had  ever  been.  Over  against  these  abuses,  we 
maintain  that  the  Bible  was  not  made  for  ecclesiastical  dogma- 
ticians  and  lawyers,  but  for  the  people  of  God.  It  gives  the 
concrete  in  the  forms  and  methods  of  literature.  Its  state- 
ments are  ordinarily  relative  ;  they  depend  ujjon  the  context  in 
which  they  are  imbedded,  the  scope  of  the  author's  argument, 
his  peculiar  point  of  view,  his  type  of  thought,  his  literary 
style,  his  position  in  the  unfolding  of  divine  revelation.  There 
are  occasional  passages  so  pregnant  with  meaning  that  they 
seem  to  present,  as  it  were,  the  quintessence  of  the  wliole 
Bible.  Such  texts  were  called  by  Luther  little  bibles.  But 
ordinai'ily,  the  texts  can  be  properly  understood  only  in  their 
context.  To  detach  them  from  their  place  and  use  them  as  if 
they  stood  alone,  and  deduce  from  them  all  that  the  words  and 
sentences  may  be  constrained  to  give,  as  absolute  statements,  is 
an  abuse  of  logic  and  the  Bible.  Such  a  use  of  other  books 
would  be  open  to  the  charge  of  misrepresentation.  Such  a 
use  of  the  Bible  is  an  adding  unto  the  Word  of  God  new  mean- 
ings and  a  taking  away  from  it  the  true  meaning.  Against 
this  we  are  warned  by  the  Bible  itself.^  Deduction,  inference, 
and  application  may  be  used  within  due  bounds,  but  they 
must  always  be  based  upon  a  correct  apprehension  of  the 
text  and  context  of  the  passage.  These  processes  should  be 
conducted  with  great  caution,  lest  in  transferring  the  thought 
to  new  conditions  and  circumstances,  there  be  an  insensible 
assimilation  first  of  its  form  and  then  of  its  content  to  these 
conditions  and  circumstances,  and  it  become  so  transformed 
as  to  lose  its  biblical  character  and  become  a  tradition  of  man. 
It  is  a  melancholy  feature  of  Biblical  Study  that  so  much 
attention  must  be  given  to  the  removal  of  the  rubbish  of 
traditional  misconceptions  and  misinterpretations  that  has  been 
heaped  upon  the  Word  of  God  continually  just  as  in  the  times 
'  Rev.  22"'- '". 


8  STUDY   (JF   HOLY   SCRU'TURE 

of  Jesus.  The  Bible  is  like  an  oasis  in  a  desert.  Eternal 
vigilance  and  unceasing  activitj-  are  necessary  to  prevent  the 
sands  from  encroaching  upon  it  and  overwhelming  its  fertile 
soil  and  springs  of  water. 

The  Bible  was  given  to  us  in  the  forms  of  the  world's  litera- 
ture, and  its  meaning  is  to  be  determined  by  the  reader  as  he 
determines  the  meaning  of  other  literature  by  the  same  princi- 
ples of  exegesis.  It  is  a  Protestant  principle  that  the  Word 
of  God  should  be  given  to  the  people  in  their  own  familiar 
tongue  with  the  right  of  private  judgment  in  its  interjiretation. 
It  is  a  corollary  of  this  principle  that  thej-  be  taught  that 
it  is  to  be  understood  in  a  natural  sense,  as  other  writings 
are  understood.  The  right  of  private  judgment  is  debased 
when  partisanship  determines  that  judgment  and  when  secta- 
rianism perverts  it.  The  Bible  was  not  given  to  sustain  the 
partisan  or  to  uphold  the  sect ;  but  to  teach  the  Truth  of  God 
and  to  guide  in  the  holy  life.  The  right  of  private  judgment 
implies  the  right  to  seek  the  Truth  in  the  Bible  and  the  dut}' 
to  teach  that  Truth  without  fear  or  favour.  Any  unnatural 
and  artificial  interpretation  of  the  Bible  bears  its  own  condem- 
nation in  itself.  The  saving  truths  of  Scripture  can  be  "  sav- 
ingly understood  "  only  through  the  illumination  of  the  Sjiirit 
of  God,i  but  this  is  not  for  the  reason  that  they  are  not 
sufficiently  plain  and  intelligible,  or  that  some  special  princi- 
ples of  interpretation  are  needed  of  a  bibliolatrous,  scholastic, 
or  cabalistic  sort ;  it  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  in  order  to 
salvation  they  must  be  applied  to  the  soul  of  man  by  a  divine 
agent,  and  appropriated  by  the  faith  of  the  heart  and  the 
practice  of  the  life. 

3.  The  Study  of  the  Bible  has  been  greatly  hindered  by  the 
use  of  it  as  an  obstruction  to  progress  in  knowledge  and  in  life. 
The  craving  for  place  and  power  is  felt  by  self-willed  men  in 
all  ages  and  in  all  callings.  The  Church  has  not  been  able  to 
keep  itself  free  from  such  ambitions.  Ecclesiastical  domina- 
tion is  the  worst  kind  of  domination,  because  it  is  so  contrary 
to  the  ideal  of  the  Church  and  tiie  example  of  Christ.  And 
yet  in  every  generation  men  arise  who  claim  to  be  the  cham- 

'  Westminster  Ci»)fi'ssioH.  I.  0.     See  pp.  485  spq. 


ADVANTAGES   OF  THE   STUDY  9 

pions  of  orthodoxy  ami  tlie  guardians  of  ecclesiastical  autlioritj'. 
They  assert  the  authority  of  the  Church  and  hold  up  texts  from 
the  Bible  as  the  supreme  test  of  every  new  thing  that  is  pro- 
posed for  the  improvement  of  mankind.  They  presume  to 
oppose  the  discoveries  of  science,  the  researches  of  philosophy, 
the  unfolding  of  theology  into  fresher  and  better  statements, 
the  improvement  of  religious  life  and  work,  and  even  the 
deeper  and  more  thorough  study  of  the  Bible,  by  holding 
up  isolated  texts  and  insisting  on  antiquated  interpretations. 
Nearly  every  profound  thinker,  since  the  days  of  Socrates,  has 
been  obliged  to  pause  in  his  work  and  defend  himself,  like 
the  apostle  Paul,  against  these  "dogs"  and  "evil  workers.""^ 
Galileo  was  silenced  by-  the  quoting  of  the  Bible  against  the 
Copernican  theoi-y  of  the  revolution  of  the  earth  around  the  sun.^ 
Descartes  had  to  defend  his  orthodoxy.  The  enemies  of  the 
critical  philosophy  of  Kant  charged  that  no  critic  who  fol- 
lowed out  the  consequences  of  his  positions  could  be  a  good 
man,  a  good  citizen,  or  a  good  Christian.^ 

The  results  of  Geology  have  been  ojjjDosed  by  those  who  in- 
sist that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days  of  twenty-four  hours. 
Biology  has  to  fight  its  way  against  those  who  affirm  that  the 
doctrine  of  development  is  against  the  Scriptures.  Such  use 
of  the  Bible  has  too  often  the  effect  of  driving  scholars  away 
from  it,  and  especially  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  most  abused 
part  of  it.* 

Every  advance  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  has  been  confronted 
by  these  enemies  of  the  truth.  The  investigation  of  the  Canon, 
Textual  Criticism,  the  Higher  Criticism,  Historical  Criticism, 
Biblical  Theology,  all  these  departments  had  to  fight  for  exist- 

1  Phil.  32. 

2  White,  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom. 
N.  Y.  1896.     Vol.  I.  pp.  130  seq. 

•■*  These  points  are  discussed  by  Krug,  Ueher  das  Verhdltniss  der  ICritisrhen 
Phihisiiphie  zur  moralischen,  politischen  und  religiiisen  Kultxir  der  Mensrhcn. 
Jena,  1708. 

*  "  The  fact  is  therefore  indisputable,  that  theologians  have  liandled  Scripture 
on  such  faulty  principles,  that  they  have  laid  down  as  truths  indisputably  divine 
a  number  of  dogmas  which  have  brought  revelation  into  direct  collision  with 
some  of  the  greatest  discoveries  of  modern  science,  and  that  after  having,  on 
their  fir.st  enunciation,  denounced  tliem  as  incon-sistent  with  the  belief  that 
Scripture  contains  the  record  of  a  divine  revelation,  they  have  been  compelled  to 


10  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ence,  and  then,  after  they  had  won  their  right  to  exist,  have 
the  still  more  difficult  battle  to  wage  against  those  hypocritical 
and  traitorous  companions  who  make  a  show  of  using  the  prin- 
ciples and  methods  of  the  scientific  study  of  the  Bible,  either 
for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  them,  or  else  as  advocates  and 
partisans  of  traditional  and  sectarian  opinions.  The  history 
of  all  these  combats  is  the  same.  The  theological  Bourbons 
never  learn  anything  from  past  defeats.  They  z-epeat  the  same 
obstructive  methods,  and,  when  defeated,  make  the  same  insin- 
cere apologies.  The  race  of  time-servers  continues  to  propa- 
gate itself  from  age  to  age.  They  alwaj'S  take  the  via  media 
and  lean  to  the  traditional  side.  They  alwaj-s  encourage  the 
traditionalists,  and  obstr:uct  faithful  biblical  scholars.  And  so 
the  combat  goes  on.^  The  Divine  Spirit  leads  into  all  the  truth 
in  spite  of  every  obstacle  erected  by  Christian  dogmaticians 
and  ecclesiastical  assemblies.  The  later  theologians  correct 
the  earlier  theologians,  and  later  ecclesiastical  assemblies  al- 
waj"s  eveutuall}'  give  their  voice  on  the  side  of  the  Truth  of 
God. 

But  it  is  ever  necessary  for  the  friends  of  truth  and  of  prog- 
accept  them  as  unquestionable  verities.  Moreover,  the  general  distrust  arising 
from  failures  of  this  kind  has  been  intensified  by  the  pertinacity  with  which 
theologians  have  clung  to  various  unsound  positions  which  they  have  only 
abandoned  when  further  resistance  had  become  impossible.  The  history  of  the 
conflict  between  Science  and  Revelation  is  full  of  such  instances,  and  the  con- 
sequences have  been  disastrous  in  the  extreme."  —  C.  A.  Row,  Revelation  and 
Modern  Theology  Contrasted.    London,  1883.    p.  7. 

1  "  The  newer  thought  moved  steadily  on.  As  already  in  Protestant  Europe, 
so  now  in  the  Protestant  churches  of  America,  it  took  strong  hold  on  the  fore- 
most minds  in  many  of  the  churches  known  as  orthodox :  Toy,  Briggs,  Francis 
Brown,  Evans,  Preserved  Smith,  Moore,  Haupt,  Harper,  Peters,  and  Bacon  de- 
veloped it,  and,  though  most  of  them  were  opposed  bitterly  by  synods,  councils, 
and  other  authorities  of  their  respective  churches,  thej-  were  manfully  supported 
by  the  more  intellectual  clergy  and  laity.  The  greater  universities  of  the  coun- 
try ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  these  men  ;  pereecution  but  intrenched 
them  more  firmly  in  the  hearts  of  all  intelligent  well-wishers  of  Christianity. 
The  triumphs  won  by  their  opponents  in  assemblies,  synods,  conventions,  and 
conferences  were  really  victories  for  the  nominally  defeated,  since  they  revealed 
to  the  world  the  fact  that  in  each  of  these  bodies  the  strong  and  fruitful  thought 
of  the  Church,  the  thought  which  alone  can  have  any  hold  on  the  future,  was 
with  the  new  race  of  thinkers  ;  no  theological  triumphs  more  surely  fatal  to  the 
victors  have  been  won  since  the  Vatican  defeated  Copernicus  and  Galileo." 
—  White,  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom, 
Vol.  II.  p.  370. 


ADV'AXTAGES  OF   THE   STUDY  11 

ress  in  the  Church  to  oppose  and  to  overcome  obstructionists. 
It  is  the  duty  of  all  lovers  of  the  Bible  to  break  up  the  super- 
stitions that  cluster  about  it,  to  expose  the  false  polemic  use  of 
its  texts,  to  prevent  dogmaticians  from  using  it  as  an  obstacle 
to  progress  in  civilization,  and  to  show  that  it  favours  all  truth 
and  every  form  of  scholarly  investigation.  The  Bible  is  an 
honest  book  in  all  its  parts,  —  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  every 
sincere  disciple  of  wisdom  will  find  in  its  pages  not  only  the 
real  and  the  highest  truth,  but  will  be  stimulated  and  encour- 
aged to  press  forward  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
unto  all  truth.i 

The  design  of  this  book  is  to  set  forth  the  principles  and 
methods  of  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  describe  its  depart- 
ments, and  to  give  sketches  of  their  history.  It  is  proposed, 
first  of  all,  to  survey  the  whole  field,  and  then  to  examine  in 
more  detail  the  several  departments.  We  shall  aim  to  explain 
the  true  uses  of  the  Bible  and  show  throughout  that  Biblical 
Study  is,  as  we  have  claimed,  the  most  important,  extensive, 
profound,  and  attractive  of  all  studies. 

1  John  16». 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    SCOPE   OF   THE   STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  general  term  for  the  various  departments  of  the  Study 
of  Holy  Scripture  as  given  in  most  Theological  EncyclopEedias 
is  Exegetical  Theolegj-.  Exegetical  Theology  is  one  of  the 
four  grand  divisions  of  Theological  Science.  It  is  related  to 
the  other  divisions,  as  the  primary  and  fundamental  discij)line 
upon  which  they  depend,  and  from  which  they  derive  their  chief 
materials.  Exegetical  Theology  is  not  an  appropriate  term  for 
the  stud}'  of  the  Bible,  especially  as  that  study  is  now  under- 
stood. For  the  exegetical  study  of  the  Bible,  although  an  im- 
portant section  of  Biblical  Study,  is  far  from  being  the  whole 
of  it.  And  the  work  of  exegesis  is  just  as  important  in  the 
study  of  the  sources  of  Church  Historj',  or  the  sources  of  any 
other  study.  No  one  can  study  the  Bible  thoroughly  and  com- 
pletely without  the  use  of  the  historical  method  and  without 
also  the  systematic  organization  of  his  material,  and  the  prac- 
tical use  of  it.  We  shall  use  for  oui-  purpose,  therefore,  the 
simpler  term  Study  of  Holy  Scripture. 

This  study  is  limited  to  the  Holy  Scripture  itself  and  to 
those  auxiliary  departments,  which  are  in  essential  relation  to 
it.  It  has  to  do  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  their  origin,  his- 
tory, character,  exposition,  doctrines,  and  guidance  in  life.  It 
is  true  that  the  other  branches  of  theology  have  lik-ewise  to  do 
with  the  sacred  writings,  in  that  their  chief  material  is  derived 
therefrom,  but  they  differ  from  the  study  we  now  have  in  view, 
not  only  in  their  methods  of  using  this  material,  but  likewise 
in  the  fact,  that  they  do  not  themselves  search  out  and  gather 
this  material  directly  from  the  lioly  writings,  but  depend  upon 
the  more  particular  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  therefor.  Church 
12 


THE   SCOPE   OF   THE   STUDY  13 

History  traces  the  development  of  that  material  as  the  deter- 
mining element  in  the  historj-  of  the  Church  of  God  ;  Dogmatic 
Theology  arranges  that  material  in  the  form  most  appropriate 
for  systematic  study,  for  attack  and  defence,  in  accordance  with 
the  needs  of  the  age ;  Practical  Theology  directs  that  material 
to  the  conversion  of  the  people,  and  training  them  in  the  holy 
life.  Thus  the  whole  of  theology  depends  upon  the  study 
of  Holy  Scripture,  and  unless  this  department  be  thoroughly 
wrought  out  and  established,  the  whole  theological  structure 
will  be  weak  and  frail,  and  it  will  be  found,  in  the  critical 
houi',  resting  on  the  shifting  sands  of  human  opinion  and  prac- 
tice, rather  than  on  the  immovable  rock  of  Divine  Truth. 

The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  is  all  the  more  important,  that 
each  age  has  its  own  peculiar  phase  or  department  of  truth 
to  elaborate  in  the  theological  conception  and  in  the  life. 
Unless,  therefore,  theologj'  freshens  its  life  by  ever-repeated 
draughts  from  Holy  Scripture,  it  will  be  unequal  to  the  tasks 
imposed  upon  it.  It  will  not  solve  the  problems  of  the 
thoughtful,  dissolve  the  doubts  of  the  cautious,  or  disarm  the 
objections  of  the  enemies  of  the  truth.  History  will  not  do 
so  with  her  experience,  unless  she  grasp  the  torch  of  divine 
revelation,  wliich  alone  can  illuminate  the  future  and  clear  up 
the  dark  places  of  the  present  and  the  past.  Dogmatic  The- 
ology will  not  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  age  if  she  appear 
in  the  worn-out  armour  or  antiquated  costume  of  former  gen- 
erations. She  must  beat  out  for  herself  a  new  suit  of  armour 
from  biblical  material  which  is  ever  new ;  she  must  weave  to 
herself  a  fresh  and  sacred  costume  of  doctrine  from  the  Scrip- 
tures which  never  disappoint  the  requirements  of  mankind  ; 
and  thus  armed  and  equipped  with  the  weapons  of  the  Living 
One,  she  will  prove  them  quick  and  powerful,  convincing  and 
invincible,  in  her  training  of  the  disciple,  and  her  conflicts  with 
the  infidel  and  heretic.  And  so  Practical  Theology  will  never 
be  able  to  convert  the  world  to  Christ,  and  sanctify  the  Church, 
without  ever  renewing  its  life  from  the  biblical  fountain.  The 
pure,  noble,  and  soul-satisfying  truths  of  God's  Word  must 
so  pervade  our  liturgy,  hymnology,  catechetical  instruction, 
pastoral  work  and  preaching,  as  to  supply  the  necessities  of 


14  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  age,  foi-  ••  man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every 
word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God."'^ 

The  history  of  the  Cliurch,  and  Christian  experience,  have 
shown  that  in  so  far  as  the  other  branches  of  theology  have 
separated  themselves  from  this  fundamental  discipline,  and  in 
proportion  to  the  neglect  to  study  Holy  Scripture,  the  Church 
has  fallen  into  a  dead  orthodoxy  of  scholasticism,  has  lost  its 
hold  upon  the  masses  of  mankind,  so  that,  with  its  foundations 
undermined,  it  has  yielded  but  feeble  resistance  to  the  onsets 
of  infidelity.  And  it  has  ever  been  that  the  reformation  or 
revival  has  come  through  the  resort  to  the  sacred  oracles,  and 
the  reoi-ganization  of  a  freshly  stated  body  of  doctrine,  and 
fresh  methods  of  evangelization  derived  therefrom.  We  thus 
have  reason  to  thank  God  that  heresj'  and  unbelief  so  often 
drive  us  to  our  citadel,  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  force  us 
back  to  the  impregnable  fortress  of  Divine  Truth,  so  that, 
depending  no  longer  merely  upon  human  weapons  and  defences, 
we  may  use  rather  the  divine.  Thus  we  reconquer  all  that 
may  have  been  lost  through  the  slackness  and  incompetence 
of  those  who  have  been  more  anxious  for  the  old  ways  than 
for  strength  of  position  and  solid  truth,  and  by  new  enterprises 
we  advance  a  stage  onward  in  our  victorious  progress  toward 
the  End.  Our  adversaries  may  overthrow  our  systems  of 
theology,  our  confessions  and  catechisms,  our  local  church 
organizations  and  methods  of  work,  for  these  are,  after  all, 
human  productions,  the  hastily  thrown  up  outworks  of  the 
truth  ;  but  they  can  never  contend  successfully  against  the 
Word  of  God  that  liveth  and  abideth,^  which,  though  the  heavens 
fall  and  the  earth  pass  away,  will  not  fail  in  one  jot  or  tittle 
from  the  most  complete  fulfilment,^  which  will  shine  in  new 
beauty  and  glory  as  its  parts  are  one  by  one  searchingly  ex- 
amined, and  which  will  prove  itself  not  only  invincible,  but 
all-conquering,  as  point  after  point  is  most  hotly  contested. 
We  are  assured  that  at  last  it  will  claim  universal  obedience  as 
the  pure  and  faultless  mirror  of  Him  who  is  Himself  tlie  efful- 
gence of  the  Father's  glory  and  the  very  image  of  His  substance.* 

1  Deut.  8» ;  Mt.  4<.  «  1  Pet.  l^".  »  Mt.  5". 

*  2  Cor.  3" ;  Heb.  1».     See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  Apostles,  p.  244. 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  STUDY  15 

It  is  an  important  characteristic  of  the  Reformed  churches 
that  they  give  the  Sacred  Scriptures  such  a  fundamental  posi- 
tion in  their  confessions  and  catechisms,  and  lay  so  much  stress 
upon  the  so-called /o/-»ia^  principle  of  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion. Thus  in  both  Helvetic  confessions  and  in  the  Westmin- 
ster confession  they  constitute  the  first  article,^  while  in  the 
Heidelberg  and  Westminster  catechisms  they  are  placed  at  the 
foundation  —  in  the  former  as  the  source  of  our  knowledge  of 
sin  and  misery  and  of  salvation  ;  ^  in  the  latter,  as  dividing  the 
catechism  into  two  parts,  teaching  "  what  man  is  to  believe  con- 
cerning God,  and  what  duty  God  requires  of  man  "  ;  ^  and  the 
English  Articles  of  Religion  lay  down  the  principle  of  the  An- 
glican Church  that :  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  neces- 
sary to  salvation  :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor 
may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that 
it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  Faith,  or  be  thought 
requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation."* 

The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  being  thus,  according  to  its 
idea,  the  fundamental  theological  discipline,  and  all-important  as 
the  fruitful  source  of  theology,  it  must  be  thoroughly  elabora- 
ted in  all  its  parts  according  to  exact  and  well-defined  scientific 
methods.  The  methods  proper  to  the  discipline  are  the  syn- 
thetic and  the  historical,  the  relative  importance  of  which  is  con- 
tested. The  importance  of  the  historical  method  is  so  great  that 
not  a  few  have  regarded  the  discipline,  as  a  whole,  as  at  once  a 
primary  division  of  Historical  Theology.  The  examination  of  the 
biblical  sources,  the  Sacred  Writings,  being  of  the  same  essential 
character  as  the  examination  of  other  historical  documents,  they 
should  be  considered  simply  as  the  sources  of  Biblical  History, 
and  thus  the  writings  themselves  would  be  most  apjjropriately 
treated  under  a  history  of  Biblical  Literature,  and  the  doctrines 
under  a  history  of  Biblical  Doctrine.^  But  the  sacred  writings 
arc  not  merely  sources  of  historical  information ;  they  are  tlie 

1  Xiemeyer,  Colleetio  Confess.,  pp.  115,467  ;  Schaff,  Creeds  of  CItristi'ndom, 
1877,  III.  pp.  211,  2.37.  2  Quest,  iii.  xL\. 

^  Larger  Catechism,  Que.st.  v.  ;  Shorter  Catechism,  Quest,  iii.  *  Art.  VI. 

^  Compare  the  author's  articles  on  Biblical  Theology,  American  Presbyterian 
Rpvieic.  1870.  pp.  ]22  seq.,  and  Presbyterian  Jieview,  .Tuly,  1882,  pp.  OO.*!  seq.,  .and 
Chap.  XXIII.  of  this  volume. 


16  STUDY   (IF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

sources  of  the  Faith  to  be  believed  aud  the  morals  to  be  prac- 
tised b}"  all  the  world  ;  they  are  of  everlasting  value  as  the  sum 
total  of  sacred  doctrine  and  teaching  for  mankind,  being  not 
only  for  the  past,  but  for  the  present  and  the  future,  as  God's 
Hoi}-  Word  to  the  human  race,  so  that  their  value  as  historical 
documents  becomes  entirely  subordinate  to  their  value  as  a 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  the  norm  and  rule  of  faith  and  life. 
Hence  the  synthetic  method  must  predominate  over  the  histori- 
cal, as  the  proper  exegetical  method,  and  induction  rule  in  all 
departments  of  the  work  ;  for  it  is  the  office  of  our  discipline  to 
gather  from  these  sacred  writings,  as  the  storehouse  of  Divine 
Truth,  the  holy  material,  ip'  order  to  arrange  it  by  a  process  of 
induction  and  generalization  into  the  generic  forms  that  may 
best  express  the  conceptions  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  themselves. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  is  clear  that  the  analytic  method 
can  have  but  a  very  subordinate  place  in  our  branch  of  theology. 
It  may  be  necessary  in  separating  the  material  in  the  work  of 
gathering  it,  but  this  is  only  in  order  to  the  synthetic  process 
to  which  it  leads  aud  wliich  must  ever  prevail.  It  is  owing  to 
the  improper  application  of  the  analytic  method  to  exegesis, 
that  such  sad  mistakes  have  been  made  in  interpreting  the 
Word  of  God,  making  exegesis  the  slave  of  dogmatics  and  tra- 
dition, when  she  can  only  thrive  as  the  free-born  daughter  of 
truth.  Her  word  does  not  yield  to  dogmatics,  and  before  her 
voice  tradition  must  ever  give  way.  For  exegesis  cannot  go  to 
the  text  with  preconceived  opinions  and  dogmatic  views  that 
will  constrain  the  text  to  accord  with  them,  but  rather  with  a 
living  faith  in  the  perspicuity  and  power  of  the  Word  of  God 
alone,  of  itself,  to  jiersuade  and  convince ;  and  with  reverential 
fear  of  the  voice  of  Him  who  speaks  through  it,  which  involves 
assurance  of  the  truth,  and  submission  and  prompt  obedience  to 
His  will.  Thus,  exegesis  does  not  start  from  tlie  unity  to  in- 
vestigate the  variety,  but  from  the  variety  to  find  the  unity.  It 
does  not  seek  the  author's  view  and  the  divine  doctrine  tlirough 
an  analysis  of  the  writing,  the  chapter,  the  verse,  down  to  the 
word  ;  but,  inverselj-,  it  starts  with  the  word  and  the  clause, 
pursuing  its  way  through  the  verse,  paragraph,  section,  chapter, 
writing,  collection  of  writings,  tiie  entire  Bible,  until  the  whole 


THE   SCOPE   OF  THE   STUDY  17 

Word  of  God  is  displayed  before  the  mind  from  the  summit 
that  has  been  attained  after  a  long  and  arduous  climbing. 

Thus  the  Study  of  H0I3'  Scripture  is  altogether  scientific  : 
its  premises  and  materials  are  no  less  clear  and  tangible  than 
those  with  which  any  other  science  has  to  do,  and  its  results 
are  vastly  more  important  than  those  of  all  other  sciences  com- 
bined, for  they  concern  our  salvation  and  everlasting  welfare. 
Furthermore,  this  material,  with  which  we  have  to  do,  is  the 
very  Word  of  God  to  man,  and  we  have  a  science  that  deals 
with  immutable  facts  and  infallible  truths,  so  that  our  science 
takes  its  place  in  the  circle  of  sciences,  as  the  royal,  yes,  the 
divine  science.  But  this  position  will  be  accorded  it  by  the 
sciences  only  in  so  far  as  theology  as  a  whole  is  true  to  the  spirit 
and  character  of  its  fundamental  discipline,  and  just  so  long  as 
it  is  open-eyed  for  all  truth,  courts  investigation  and  criticism 
of  its  own  materials  and  methods,  and  does  not  assume  a  false 
position  of  dogmatism  and  traditional  prejudice,  or  attempt  to 
tyrannize  over  the  other  sciences  or  obstruct  their  earnest  re- 
searches after  the  truth. 

The  Stud}'  of  Holy  Scripture  being  thus  fundamental  and  im- 
jiortant,  having  such  thoroughgoing  scientific  methods,  it  must 
have  manifold  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  its  work.  These, 
in  their  order  and  mutual  relation,  are  determined  by  a  proper 
iidjustment  of  its  methods  and  the  subordination  of  the  histori- 
cal to  the  inductive  process.  Thus  at  the  outset  there  are  im- 
posed upon  those  who  would  enter  ujaon  the  study  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  certain  primary  and  fundamental  questions  respecting 
the  holy  writings,  such  as  :  Which  are  the  sacred  writings  ?  why 
do  we  call  them  sacred '?  whence  did  they  originate  ?  under  what 
historical  circumstances  were  they  written?  who  were  their 
authors  ?  to  whom  were  they  addressed  ?  what  was  their  de- 
sign ?  are  the  writings  that  have  come  down  to  us  genuine  ?  is 
the  text  reliable  ?  These  questions  may  be  referred  to  the  gen- 
eral department  of  Biblical  Literature.  Then  the  Scriptures  are 
to  be  interpreted  according  to  correct  principles  and  methods, 
with  all  the  light  that  the  study  of  centuries  throws  upon  them. 
This  is  Biblical  Exegesis.  Finallj-.  the  results  of  this  exeget- 
ical  process  are  to  be  gathered  into  organisms  of  Biblical  His- 


18  STUDY   OF   HOLT   SCRIPTURE 

tory  and  of  Biblical  Theology.  These  then  are  the  four  grand 
divisions  into  which  our  discipline  naturally  divides  itself,  each 
in  turn  having  its  appropriate  subordinate  departments. 

I.     Biblical  Literature 

Biblical  Literature  has  as  its  work  to  determine  all  those 
introductory  questions  that  maj^  arise  respecting  the  sacred 
writings,  preliminary  to  the  work  of  exegesis.  These  questions 
are  various,  yet  may  be  grouped  in  accordance  with  a  general 
principle.  But  it  is,  first  of  all,  necessary  to  limit  the  bounds 
of  our  department  and  exclude  fro^  it  all  that  does  not  properly 
come  within  its  sphere.  Thus  Hagenbach  ^  brings  into  consid- 
eration here  certain  questions  which  he  assigns  to  the  auxiliary 
disciplines  of  Sacred  Philologj-,  Sacred  Archieology,  and  Sacred 
Canonics.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  whj",  if  these  are  in  any 
essential  relation  to  our  department,  they  should  not  be  logi- 
cally incorporated,  while  if  they  do  not  stand  in  such  close 
relations  why  they  should  not  be  referred  to  their  own  proper 
departments  of  study.  Thus  Sacred  Canonics  clearly  belongs 
to  our  discipline,  as  a  necessary  part  of  Biblical  Literature.^ 
Sacred  Archaeology  belongs  no  less  certainly  to  Biblical  His- 
torj'.^  Sacred  PhUology  should  not  be  classed  with  Theology 
at  all ;  for  the  languages  of  tiie  Bible  are  not  sacred  from  any 
inherent  virtue  in  them,  but  only  for  the  reason  that  they  have 
been  selected  as  the  vehicle  of  divine  revelation,  and  thus  their 
connection  with  the  Scriptures  is  providential  rather  than  nec- 
essarj'.  And  still  further,  all  departments  of  theolog)'  are  in 
mutual  relation  to  one  another,  and  in  a  higher  scale  all  the 
departments  of  learning  —  such  as  theology,  philosophj',  phi- 
lology, and  history  —  act  and  react  upon  one  another.  Hence, 
tliat  one  department  of  study  is  related  to  another  does  not 
imply  that  it  should  be  made  auxiliary  thereto.  Thus  the  lan- 
guages of  Scripture  are  to  be  studied  precisely  as  the  other  lan- 
guages, as  a  part  of  General  Pliilologj'.  The  Hellenistic  Greek 
is  a  dialect  of  the  Greek  language,  which  is  itself  a  prominent 
member  of  the  Indo-(iermanic  family  ;  while  the  Hebrew  and 
'  Encyklopadie,  9te  Aufl.,  .s.  40.  >  See  p.  21.  >  See  p.  .37. 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  STUDY  19 

Aramaic  are  sisters  with  the  Assyrian  and  Syriac,  the  Arabic 
and  Ethiopic,  the  Phtenician  and  Samaritan,  of  the  Shemitic 
family.  The  study  of  these  languages,  as  languages,  properly 
belongs  to  the  college  or  university  course,  and  has  no  appro- 
priate place  in  the  theological  seminary.  Valuable  time  is 
consumed  in  these  preparatory-  studies  that  is  taken  from  our 
study  itself  and  never  fully  compensated  for.  One  might  as 
truly  study  general  history  in  the  theological  course  as  a  prep- 
aration for  Church  History,  and  philosophy  as  a  preparation 
for  Dogmatic  Theology,  and  rhetoric  as  a  preparation  for  Prac- 
tical Theology.  All  these  alike  are  preparatory  disciplines, 
belonging  to  the  college  and  not  to  the  theological   school. 

The  Shemitic  languages  ai-e  constantly  rising  into  promi- 
nence, over  against  the  Indo-Germanic  family,  and  demand 
their  appropriate  place  in  the  curriculum  of  a  liberal  education. 
Philologists  and  theologians  should  unitedly  insist  that  a  place 
should  be  found  for  them  in  the  college  course  ;  ^  and  that  this 
valuable  department  of  knowledge,  upon  the  pursuit  of  which 
so  much  depends  for  the  history  of  the  Orient,  the  origin  of 
civilization  and  mankind,  as  well  as  for  the  whole  subject  of 
the  three  great  religions  of  the  world,  should  not  be  neglected 
in  our  institutions  of  learning.  It  should  be  made  evident  that 
philology,  history,  and  philosophy  are  essential  for  those  who 
are  in  their  collegiate  courses  preparing  for  the  Study  of 
Theology. 2 

There  can  be  no  thorough  mastery  of  the  Hebrew  tongue  by 

1  German  theology  has  a  great  advantage,  in  that  the  theological  student  is 
already  prepared  in  the  gymnasium  for  the  university  with  a  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  relatively  equivalent  to  his  Greek.  The  Presbyterians  of  Scotland 
require  an  elementary  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  in  order  to  entrance  upon  the 
theological  course.  In  the  Roman  theological  training,  the  languages  of  the 
Bible  belong  to  the  introductory  philosophical  course,  and  are  not  included  in 
the  four  years'  course  of  theology  proper.  When  my  Biblical  Study  was  issued, 
in  1883,  no  more  than  three  or  four  American  universities  and  colleges  made 
provision  for  the  study  of  the  Hebrew:  language  in  their  courses.  In  recent 
years  great  progress  has  been  made.  Almost  all  the  large  colleges  and  universi- 
ties have  introduced  the  Shemitic  languages  as  elective.  And  several  theologi- 
cal schools  liave  special  classes  for  students  who  take  entrance  examinations  in 
Hebrew.  In  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  such  cla.sses  for  advanced 
Btudents  in  Hebrew  and  Biblical  Greek  are  in  successful  operation. 

■•'  See  my  article,  "The  Scope  of  Theology  and  its  Place  in  the  University," 
The  American  Journal  of  Theology,  January,  1897.     See  also  Chap.  III. 


20  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKU'TURE 

clinging  reverently  to  the  traditional  methods  of  Hebrew  study 
or  those  in  use  among  Jews  who  learn  to  speak  and  write 
modern  Hebrew.  AVe  might  as  well  expect  to  master  the 
classic  Latin  from  the  language  of  the  monks,  or  classic  Greek 
from  modern  Greece.  The  cognate  languages  ai-e  indispensa- 
ble. And  it  is  just  here  that  a  rich  treasure,  prepared  by 
Divine  Providence  for  these  times,  is  pouring  into  our  laps. 
The  Assyrian  alone,  as  recently  brought  to  light,  and  estab- 
lished in  her  position  as  one  of  the  older  sisters,  is  of  inestima- 
ble value,  not  to  speak  of  the  Arabic  and  Syriac,  the  Ethiopic, 
Phoenician,  Samaritan,  and  the  lesser  languages  and  dialects 
that  the  monuments  are  constantlj-  revealing.  Immense  mate- 
rial is  now  at  hand,  and  is  suW  being  gathered  from  these 
sources,  that  has  considerably  modified  our  views  of  the  He- 
brew language,  and  of  the  histor}-  and  religion  of  the  Hebrews 
in  relation  to  the  other  peoples  of  the  Orient.  We  now  know 
that  the  Hebrew  language  has  such  a  thing  as  a  syntax,  and 
that  it  is  a  highly  organized  and  wonderfully  flexible  and 
beautiful  tongue,  the  result  of  centuries  of  development.  As 
the  bands  of  Rabbinical  tradition  are  one  after  another  falling 
off,  the  inner  spirit  and  life  of  the  language  are  disclosing 
themselves,  the  dry  bones  are  clothing  themselves  with  flesh, 
and  rich,  warm  blood  is  animating  the  frame,  giving  to  the 
features  nobility  and  beauty.^  If  the  Church  is  to  be  renowned 
for  its  mastery  of  the  Bible,  if  the  symbols  and  the  life  of  the 
Church  are  to  harmonize.  Christian  theologians  must  advance 
and  occupy  this  rich  and  fruitful  field  for  the  Lord,  and  not 

'  It  is  exceedingly  gratifying  that  our  American  students  are  eagerly  entering 
upon  these  studies.  The  large  classes  in  the  cognate  languages,  in  our  semina- 
ries, promise  great  things  for  the  future  in  this  regard.  Twenty-five  years  ago, 
when  I  began  teaching  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  little  atten- 
tion was  given  to  the  cognate  languages.  I  organized  a  graded  course  in 
Biblical  Aramaic,  Syriac,  and  Arabic,  to  which  Assyrian  was  soon  added  by 
Professor  Francis  Brown.  Since  then  the  study  of  the  Shemitic  languages  has 
become  common  in  most  of  our  theological  seminaries  and  universities.  The 
leaders  in  this  movement  have  been  C.  11.  Toy,  of  Harvard  ;  W.  R.  Harjier, 
formerly  of  Y'ale,  now  of  Chicago  ;  J.  V.  Teters,  formerly  of  Philadelphia  ;  and 
George  Moore,  of  Andover.  The  classes  in  the  Shemitic  languages  in  our  Ameri- 
can seminaries  and  universities  average  a  larger  number  of  students  than  those 
in  the  universities  of  Germany,  and  are  greatly  in  excess  of  those  in  Great 
Britain. 


THE   SCOPE   OF   THE   STUDY  21 

abandon  it  to  those  whose  interests  are  purely  philological  or 
historical. 

While,  therefore,  I  exclude  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  and 
cognate  languages  from  the  proper  range  of  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture,  I  magnify  their  importance,  not  only  to  the  theologi- 
cal student,  but  also  to  the  entire  field  of  scholarship.  Other 
scholars  may  do  without  them,  but  for  the  theologian  tliese 
studies  are  indispensable,  and  he  must  at  the  very  beginning 
strain  all  his  energies  to  the  mastery  of  the  Hebrew  tongue. 
If  it  has  not  been  done  before  entering  upon  the  study  of  the- 
ology, it  must  be  done  in  the  very  beginnings  of  that  study, 
or  else  he  will  be  forever  crippled. 

We  now  have  to  define  more  closelj'  the  proper  field  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature.  Biblical  Literature  has  to  do  with  all  questions 
respecting  the  Sacred  Scriptures  that  may  be  necessary  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  Biblical  Exegesis.  Looking  at  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  as  the  sources  to  be  investigated,  three  fields  of 
inquiry  present  themselves  :  the  canon,  the  text,  and  the  writ- 
ings. Three  groups  of  questions  arise  :  1.  As  to  the  idea, 
extent,  character,  and  authority  of  the  canon,  collected  as  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Church.  2.  As  to  the  text  of  which  the 
canon  is  composed,  the  manuscripts  in  which  it  is  preserved, 
the  translations  of  it,  and  the  citations  from  it  in  ancient  authors. 
3.  As  to  the  origin,  authorship,  time  of  composition,  character, 
design,  and  destination  of  the  writings  that  claim,  or  are 
claimed,  to  belong  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  These  subor- 
dinate branches  of  Biblical  Literature  may  be  called  Biblical 
Canonics,  the  Lower  or  Textual  Criticism,  and  the  Higher 
Criticism. 

1.  Biblical  Canonics  considers  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  to  its  idea,  its  historical  formation,  its  extent,  character, 
authority,  and  historical  influence.  These  inquiries  are  to  be 
made  in  accordance  with  historical  and  synthetic  methods. 
We  are  not  to  start  with  preconceived  dogmatic  views  as  to 
the  idea  of  the  canon,  but  derive  this  idea  by  induction  from 
the  Sacred  Writings  themselves.  In  the  same  manner  we  have 
to  decide  all  other  questions  that  may  rise.  Thus  the  extent 
of  the  canon  is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  consensus  of  the 


22  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Church,!  or  by  the  citation  and  reverent  use  of  Scriptures  in 
the  Fathers,  or  by  their  recognition  by  the  earliest  standard 
authorities,^  for  these  historical  evidences,  so  important  in  His- 
torical Theology,  have  no  value  in  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Canonicity  is  not  rightly  defined  by  the  accord  of  a  writ- 
ing with  orthodoxy  or  the  rule  of  faith,^  for  such  a  test  is  too 
broad,  in  that  other  writings  than  sacred  are  orthodox,  and 
again  too  narrow,  in  that  the  standard  is  the  shifting  one  of 
subjective  opinion,  or  external  human  authority,  which,  indeed, 
presupposes  the  canon  itself  as  an  object  of  criticism.  Still 
less  can  we  determine  canouicity  by  apostolic  or  prophetic 
authorship.  It  is  by  no  means  cei^ain  that  all  prophetic  and 
apostolic  writings  would  be  canonical  even  if  they  had  been 
preserved.  And  it  is  in  fact  impossible  to  prove  prophetic 
and  apostolic  authorship  for  the  majority  of  the  canonical  writ- 
ings unless  we  use  these  terms  so  broadly  as  to  give  them  no 
definite  reference  to  any  known  prophets  and  apostles.  Such 
external  reasons,  historical  or  dogmatic,  may  have  a  provi- 
sional and  temporary  authority  ;  but  the  one  only  permanent 
and  final  decision  of  these  questions  comes  from  the  internal 
marks  and  characteristics  of  the  Scriptures,  their  recognition 
of  one  another,  their  harmony  with  the  idea,  cliaracter,  and 
development  of  a  divine  revelation,  as  it  is  derived  from  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  as  well  as  from  their  own  well-tested  and 
critically  examined  claims  to  inspiration  and  authority,  and, 
above  all,  from  the  divine  authority  speaking  by  and  with 
them  to  the  Church  and  the  Christian.  These  reasons,  and 
these  alone,  gave  them  their  historical  position  and  authority 
as  a  canon  ;  and  these  alone  perpetuate  their  authority  to 
every  successive  generation  of  Christians.  It  is  only  on  this 
basis  that  the  historical  and  dogmatic  questions  may  be  prop- 

1  Inileed,  there  is  no  consensus  with  reference  to  the  extent  of  the  canon 
whether  it  includes  the  Apocryplial  books  or  not,  and,  still  further,  the  opinions 
of  recosnizoil  ancient  autliorities  differ  in  the  matter  of  distinguishing  within  the 
canon,  between  writings  of  primary  and  of  secondary  autliority. 

-  These,  indeed,  are  not  entirely  agreed,  and  if  they  were,  they  could  only 
give  us  a  human  and  fallible  authority. 

3  It  was  in  accordance  with  this  subjective  standard  that  Luther  rejected  the 
epistle  of  .lames  and  the  book  of  Esther.  Comp.  Domer,  Gesch.  der  Protest, 
rheologie,  1868,  s.  234  seq. 


THE   SCOPE   OF   THE    STUDY  23 

eily  considered,  with  refereuce  to  their  recognition  by  Jew  and 
Christian,  and  with  regard  to  their  authority  in  the  Church. 
The  writings  having  been  determined  in  their  limits  as  a 
canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  we  are  prepared  for  the  second  step, 
the  examination  of  the  text  itself. 

2.  Textual  Criticism  considers  the  text  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures both  as  a  whole  and  as  to  the  several  writings  in  detail. 
The  Sacred  Writings  have  shared  the  fate  of  all  human  pro- 
ductions in  their  transmission  from  hand  to  hand,  and  in  the 
multiplication  of  copies.  Hence,  through  the  mistakes  of  copy- 
ists, the  intentional  corruption  of  the  heretic,  the  supposed 
improvement  of  the  over-anxious  orthodox,  and  the  efforts  of 
Christian  scribes  to  explain  and  to  apply  the  sacred  truth  to 
the  readers,  the  manuscripts  whicli  have  been  preserved  betray 
differences  of  readings.  This  department  has  a  wide  field 
of  investigation.  First  of  all,  the  peculiarities  of  the  Bible 
languages  must  be  studied,  and  the  idiomatic  individualities 
of  the  respective  authors.  Then  the  age  of  the  various  manu- 
scripts must  be  determined,  their  peculiarities  and  relative 
importance  in  genealogical  descent.  The  ancient  versions 
come  into  the  field,  especially  the  Septuagint,  the  Aramaic  and 
Samaritan  Targums,  the  Syriac  Peshitto,  and  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate. Each  of  these  in  turn  has  to  go  through  the  same  sift- 
ing as  to  the  critical  value  of  its  own  text.  Here,  especially 
in  the  Old  Testament,  we  go  back  of  any  surviving  manu- 
scripts and  are  brought  face  to  face  with  differences  that  can 
be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  of  originals,  whose 
peculiarities  have  been  lost.  To  these  may  be  added  the  cita- 
tions of  the  original  text  in  the  Fathers  and  the  Talmud  and 
in  the  numerous  writings  of  Hebrew  and  Christian  scholars. 
Then  we  have  the  still  more  difficult  comparison  of  parallel 
passages,  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  themselves  where  differences 
of  text  show  differences  reaching  far  back  of  any  known  manu- 
script or  version.^      Textual   criticism  has  to  meet   all  these 

1  Comp.  Ps.  14  with  Ps.  53  ;  Ps.  18  with  2  Sam.  22  ;  and  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings,  on  the  one  hand,  with  the  books  of  the  Chronicler  on  the  other,  and, 
indeed,  throughout.  Compare  also  the  canonical  books  of  ECTa,  Nehemiah,  and 
Daniel  with  the  Apocryphal  addition.s  and  supplements  in  the  Septuagint  ver- 


24  STUDY   OF    HOLV   SCIUPTURE 

difficulties,  answer  all  the  questions  which  emerge,  aucl  har- 
monize and  adjust  all  the  differences,  in  order  that,  so  far  as 
possible,  the  genuine,  original,  pui'e,  and  uncorrupted  text  of 
the  Word  of  God  may  be  gained,  as  it  proceeded  directly 
from  the  oi-iginal  authors  to  the  original  readers.  This  dejiart- 
ment  of  study  is  all  the  more  difficult  iov  the  Old  Testament, 
that  the  field  is  so  immense,  the  writings  so  numerous,  various, 
and  ancient,  the  languages  so  little  understood  in  their  histori- 
cal peculiarities,  and,  still  furthei-,  in  that  we  have  to  overcome 
the  prejudices  of  the  Massoretic  system,  which,  while  faithful 
and  reliable  so  far  as  the  knowled^  of  the  times  of  the  jNIasso- 
retes  went,  yet,  as  resting  simply  on  tradition,  without  critical 
or  historical  investigation,  and  without  any  proper  conception 
of  the  general  principles  of  Hebrew  grammar  and  compara- 
tive Shemitic  philology,  cannot  be  accepted  as  final ;  for  the 
time  has  long  since  passed  when  the  vowel  points  and  accents 
of  the  Massoretic  text  can  be  deemed  inspired.  We  have  to 
go  back  of  them,  to  the  unpointed  text,  for  all  purposes  of 
criticism.  And  the  unpointed  text  itself  needs  correction  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  of  Textual  Criticism. 

3.  The  Higher  Criticism  is  distinguished  from  the  Lower  or 
Textual  Criticism  by  presupposing  the  text  and  dealing  with 
individual  writings  and  groups  of  writings.  The  Higher  is 
contrasted  with  the  Lower  in  this  usage  as  the  second  or  higher 
stage  of  a  work  is  contrasted  with  the  first  or  lower  stage,  or 
more  fundamental  part  of  a  work.^  The  i^arts  of  writings 
should  be  first  investigated,  the  individual  writings  before  the 
collected  ones.  With  reference  to  eacli  writing,  or,  it  niay  be, 
part  of  a  writing,  we  have  to  determine  the  liistorical  origin 
and  authorship,  the  original  readers,  the  design  and  cliaracter 

sion,  and  finally  the  citation  of  earlier  writings  in  the  later  ones,  especially  in 
the  New  Testament.  An  interesting  and  delicate  work  of  criticism  is  to  compare 
in  the  Gospels  the  different  versions  of  the  original  Logia  of  .Jesus. 

1  borne  ignorant  people  in  recent  discussions  seemed  to  think  that  Higher 
meant  a  pretentious  and  arrogant  claim  that  this  criticism  was  higher  than  the 
older  traditional  opinion.  The  newer  criticism  is  doubtless  vastly  higher, 
nobler,  and  better  in  every  way  than  the  uncritical  traditional  method  of  hand- 
ling Biblical  Literature  ;  but  the  term  was  not  used  historically  with  any  such 
meaning  and  it  never  has  had  any  such  meaning  in  the  minds  of  biblical 
scholars. 


THE   SCOPE   OF   THE   STUDY  25 

of  the  composition,  and  its  relation  to  other  writings  of  its 
group.  These  questions  must  be  settled  jjartly  bj'  external  his- 
torical evidence,  but  chiefly  by  internal  evidence,  such  as  the 
language,  style  of  composition,  archseological  and  historical 
traces,  the  conceptions  of  the  author  respecting  the  various 
subjects  of  human  thought,  and  the  like.  With  reference  to 
such  questions  as  these,  we  have  little  help  from  traditional  views 
or  dogmatic  opinions  which  originalh-  were  mere  conjectures 
or  hastily  formed  opinions  without  sufficient  considei-ation  of 
the  laws  of  evidence  or  the  matter  of  the  evidence  itself.  Tlie 
antiquity  of  such  conjectures  does  not  enhance  their  value  any 
more  than  it  does  other  errors  and  mistakes.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  prevailing  views  in  the  Church  with  reference 
to  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalter,  or  the  Gospel  of  John,  or  any 
other  book  of  Holy  Scripture,  these  will  not  deter  the  conscien- 
tious exegete  from  accepting  and  teaching  the  results  of  a 
critical  study  of   the  Sacred  Writings  themselves. 

It  is  just  here  that  Christian  theologians  have  greatl}'  injured 
the  cause  of  the  truth  and  the  Bible  by  dogmatizing  in  a  de- 
partment where  it  is  least  of  all  appropriate,  and,  indeed,  to 
the  highest  degree  improper ;  as  if  our  faith  depended  at  all 
upon  these  traditional  opinions  respecting  the  Word  of  God. 
B}'  their  frequent  and  shameful  defeats  and  routs  tradition- 
alists bring  disgrace  not  only  upon  themselves  but  upon  the 
cause  they  misrepresent.  They  alarm  weak  but  pious  souls  who 
have  taken  refuge  in  the  fortress  itself,  and  then  prejudice  the 
sincere  inquirer  against  the  Scriptures,  as  if  these  questions 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  were  questions  upon  whose  decision 
depended  orthodoxy  or  piety,  or  allegiance  to  the  Word  of  God 
or  the  symbols  of  the  Church.  The  Westminster  standards 
teach  that  "  the  Word  of  God  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedi- 
ence,"^ and  that  "the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  for 
which  it  ought  to  be  believed  and  obe3'ed,  dependeth  not  upon 
the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  the 
author  thereof." ^  The  other  Protestant  symbols  are  in  accord 
with  them.  How  unorthodox  it  is,  therefore,  to  set  up  another 
rule  of  prevalent  opinion  as  to  questions  of  the  Higher  Criti- 

1  Larger  Catechism,  Quest,  iii.  2  Confess,  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.  4. 


26  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRII'TURE 

cisiu  and  make  it  an  obstacle  and  a  stumbling-block  to  those 
who  would  accept  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God  alone. 
So  long  as  the  Word  of  God  is  honoured,  and  its  decisions  re- 
garded as  final,  what  matters  it  if  a  certain  book  be  detached 
from  the  name  of  one  holj-  man  and  ascribed  to  another,  or 
classed  among  those  with  unknown  authors?  Are  the  laws 
of  the  Pentateuch  any  less  divine,  if  it  should  be  proved  that 
they  are  the  product  of  the  experience  of  God's  people  from 
Moses  to  Josiah?!  jg  tj^g  Psalter  to  be  esteemed  any  the  less 
precious  that  the  Psalms  should  be  regarded  as  the  product  of 
many  poets  singing  through  many  centuries  the  sacred  melo- 
dies of  God-fearing  souls,  responding  fi-om  their  hearts,  as  from 
a  thousand-strmged  lyre,  to  the  touch  of  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  ?  Is  the  book  of  Job  less  majestic  and  sublime,  as  it 
stands  before  us  in  its  solitariness,  the  noblest  monument  of 
sacred  poetry,  with  unknown  author,  unlcnown  birthplace,  and 
from  an  unknown  period  of  history  ?  Are  the  ethical  teachings 
of  the  Proverbs,  the  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  any 
the  less  solemn  and  weighty,  that  they  may  not  be  the  product 
of  Solomon's  wisdom,  but  of  the  reflection  of  many  holy  wise 
men  of  diflierent  epochs,  gathered  about  Solomon  as  their  head  ? 
Is  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  any  less  valuable  for  its  clear 
presentation  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament  priesthood 
and  sacrifice  in  the  work  of  Christ,  that  it  must  be  detached 
from  the  name  of  Paul  ?  Let  us  not  be  so  presumptuous,  so 
irreverent  to  the  Word  of  God,  so  unbelieving  with  reference 
to  its  inherent  power  of  convincing  and  assuring  the  seekers 
for  the  truth,  as  to  condemn  any  sincere  and  candid  inquirer 
as  a  heretic  or  a  rationalist,  because  he  may  differ  from  us  on 
such  questions  as  these  !  The  internal  evidence  must  be 
decisive  in  aU  questions  of  Biblical  Criticism,  and  the  truth, 
whatever  it  may  be,  will  be  most  in  accordance  with  God's 
Word  and  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interest  of  the  Church.^ 

1  British  and  Foreign  Ecang.  Review,  July,  18G8,  ArL  "  The  Progreas  of 
Old  Testament  Studies." 

-  The  whole  of  this  paragraph  was  written  and  delivered  before  the  outbreak 
of  the  Professor  W.  Kobertsou  Smith  controversy  in  Scotland  and  the  discussions 
respecting  the  Iligher  <"riticisiu  in  the  United  States.  I  see  nn  rea.son  to  change 
a  single  word  of  it.     Those  majorities  of  isnorant  and  bigoted  men  who  rejected 


THE   SCOPE   OF  THE   STUDY  27 

Thus  Biblical  Literature  gives  us  all  that  can  be  learned 
respecting  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  its  text  and  the  vari- 
ous writings ;  and  presents  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  the  holy 
Word  of  God,  all  the  errors  and  improvements  of  men  having 
been  eliminated,  in  a  text,  so  far  as  possible,  as  it  came  from 
lioly  men  who  "  spake  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  ^  so 
that  we  are  brought  into  the  closest  possible  relations  with  the 
living  God  through  His  Word,  having  in  our  hands  the  very 
form  tliat  contains  the  verj'  substance  of  divine  revelation ;  so 
that  with  reverence  and  submission  to  His  will  we  may  enter 
upon  the  work  of  interpretation,  eontidently  expecting  to  be 
assured  of  the  truth  in  the  work  of  Biblical  Exegesis. 

II.   Biblical  Exegesis 

First  of  all  we  have  to  lay  down  certain  general  principles 
derived  from  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God,  upon  which  this 
exegesis  itself  is  to  be  conducted.  These  principles  must  be 
in  accord  with  the  proper  methods  of  our  discipline  and  the 
nature  of  the  work  to  be  done.  The  work  of  establishing 
these  principles  belongs  to  the  introductory  department  of 
Biblical  Hermeneutics.  The  Scriptures  are  human  produc- 
tions, and  yet  truly  divine.  They  must  be  interpreted  as 
other  human  writings,  and  yet  their  peculiarities  and  differ- 
ences from  other  human  writings  must  be  recognized,^  especially 
the  supreme  determining  difference  of  their  inspiration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  In  accordance  with  this  principle  they  require 
not  only  a  sympathj'  with  the  human  element  in  the  sound 
judgment  and  practical  sense  of  the  grammarian,  the  critical 
investigation  of  the  historian,  and  the  iesthetic  taste  of  the  man 
of  letters  ;  but  also  a  sympathy  with  the  divine  element,  an 
inquiring,  reverent  spirit  to  be  enlightened   by  the  Spirit  of 

the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  Presbyterian  General  Assemblies  of  Scotland  and 
America,  have  been  already  overwhelmingly  condemned  by  the  subsequent 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  ;  and  they  will 
speedily  be  put  to  shame  by  a  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America.  These  controversies  emphasize  the  importance 
and  the  correctness  of  the  principles  then  stated.  We  shall  come  upon  them 
again  in  Chap.  VII.,  which  is  devoted  to  the  subject. 

1  2  Pet.  1^1.  *  Corap.  Immer,  Hermeneutik  der  N.  T.  s.  9. 


28  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

God,  without  which  no  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  as  sacred, 
inspired  writings  is  possible.  It  is  this  feature  that  distin- 
guishes the  discipline  from  the  other  corresponding  ones,  as 
Sacred  Hermeneutics.  Thus  we  have  to  take  into  account  the 
insj)iration  of  the  Scriptures,  their  harmony,  their  unit}'  in 
variety,  their  sweet  simplicity,  and  their  sublime  myster}- ; 
and  all  this  not  to  override  the  principles  of  grammar,  logic, 
and  rhetoric,  but  to  supplement  them ;  j-es,  rather,  infuse  into 
them  a  new  life  and  vigour,  making  them  sacred  grammar, 
sacred  logic,  and  sacred  rhetoric.  And  just  here  it  is  highly 
important  that  the  history  of  exegesis  should  come  into  the  field 
of  study  in  order  to  show  us  the  abuses  of  false  principles  of 
interpretation  as  a  warning ;  and  the  advantages  of  correct 
principles  as  an  encouragement.^ 

After  this  preliminary  labour,  the  exegete  is  prepared  for  his 
work  in  detail.  The  immensity  of  these  details  is  at  once 
overpowering  and  discouraging.  The  extent,  the  richness, 
the  variety  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  poetry,  history,  and  proph- 
ecy, extending  through  so  many  centuries,  and  from  such  a 
great  number  of  authors,  known  and  unknown,  the  inherent 
difficulty  of  interpreting  the  sacred  mysteries,  the  things  of 
God  —  who  is  sufficient  for  these  things '!  who  would  venture 
upon  this  holjr  ground  without  a  quick  sense  of  his  incapacity 
to  grasp  the  divine  ideas,  and  an  absolute  dependence  upon  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  show  them  unto  him?^  Trulj%  here  is  a  work 
for  multitudes,  for  ages,  for  the  most  profound  and  devout 
study  of  all  mankind ;  inasmuch  as  here  we  have  to  do  with 
the  whole  Word  of  God  to  man.  The  exegete  is  like  the 
miner.  He  must  free  himself  as  far  as  possible  from  all 
traditionalism  and  dogmatic  prejudice,  must  leave  the  haunts 
of  human  opinion,  and  bury  himself  in  the  Word  of  God.  He 
must  descend  beneath  the  surface  of  the  Word  into  its  depths. 
The  letter  must  be  broken  through  to  get  at  the  precious 
idea.  The  dry  rubbish  of  misconception  must  be  thrown  out, 
and  a  shaft  forced  tlirough  every  obstacle  to  get  at  the  truth. 
And  while  faithful  in  the  employment  of  all  these  powers  of 

1  Comp.  especially  Diestel,  Gesch.  d.  A.  T.  in  der  Chrixt.  lurche.    Jena,  1869. 
»  John  16". 


THE  SCorE  OF  THE  STUDY  29 

the  huiiuui  intellect  and  will,  the  true  exegete  fears  the  Lord, 
and  only  thereby  hopes  for  the  revelation  of  wisdom  through 
his  intimacy  with  Him.^ 

1.  The  exegete  begins  his  work  with  G-rammatical  Exegesis. 
Here  he  has  to  do  with  the  form,  the  dress  of  the  revelation, 
which  is  not  to  be  disregarded  or  undervalued,  for  it  is  the 
form  in  which  God  has  chosen  to  convey  His  Truth,  the  dress 
in  which  alone  we  can  approach  her  and  know  her.  Hebrew 
grammar  must  therefore  be  mastered  in  its  etymology  and 
syntax,  or  grammatical  exegesis  will  be  impossible.  Here 
patience,  exactness,  sound  judgment,  and  keen  discernment 
are  required,  for  every  word  is  to  be  examined  by  itself,  ety- 
mologically  and  historically,  not  etymologically  alone,  for  Greek 
and  Hebrews  roots  have  not  infrequently  been  made  to  teach 
very  false  doctrines.  It  has  been  forgotten  that  a  word  is 
a  living  thing,  and  has,  beside  its  root,  the  still  more  impor- 
tant stem,  branches,  and  products  —  indeed,  a  history  of  mean- 
ings. The  word  is  then  to  be  considered  in  its  syntactical 
x-elations  in  the  clause,  and  thus  step  by  step  the  grammatieal 
sense  is  to  be  ascertained,  the  false  interpretations  eliminated, 
and  the  various  possible  meanings  correctly  presented  and 
classified.  Without  this  patient  study  of  words  and  clauses 
no  accurate  translation  is  possible,  no  trustworthy  exposition 
can  be  made.^  It  is  true  that  grammatical  exegesis  leaves  us  in 
doubt  between  many  possible  constructions  of  the  sense,  but 
these  doubts  will  be  solved  as  the  work  of  exegesis  goes  on. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  eliminates  many  views  as  ungrammatical 
which  have  been  hastily  formed,  and  effectually  prevents  that 
jumping  at  conclusions  to  which  the  indolent  and  impetuous 
are  alike  inclined. 

2.  The  second  step  in  exegesis  is  Logical  and  Rhetorical 
Exegesis.  The  words  and  clauses  must  be  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  the  context,  the  development  of  the  author's 

1  Job  2828  ;  Ps.  25»  ;  Prov.  8"  seq. 

'  Yes,  we  may  say  that  no  translation  can  be  thoroughly  understood  after  the 
generation  in  which  it  was  made,  without  this  resort  to  the  original  text,  which 
alone  can  determine  in  many  cases  the  meaning  of  the  translators  themselves, 
when  we  come  upon  obsolete  terms,  or  words  whose  meanings  have  become 
modified  or  lost. 


30  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

thought  and  purpose ;  aud  also  iu  accordance  %vith  the  prin- 
ciples of  rhetoric,  discriminating  plain  language  from  figura- 
tive, poetry  from  prose,  history  from  prophec}',  and  the  various 
kinds  of  history,  poetry,  and  prophecy  from  each  other.  This 
is  to  be  done  not  after  an  arbitrary  manner,  but  in  accordance 
with  the  general  laws  of  logic  and  rhetoric  that  apply  to  all 
writings.  While  the  use  of  figurative  language  has  led  the 
mystic  and  the  dogmatist  to  employ  the  most  arbitrary  and 
senseless  exegesis,  yet  the  laws  of  logic  and  rhetoric,  correctly 
applied  to  the  text,  will  clip  the  wings  of  the  fanciful,  and  de- 
stroy the  assumptions  of  the  dogmatist,  and,  still  further,  will 
serve  to  determine  many  questions  that  grammar  alone  cannot 
decide,  and  hence  more  narrowly  define  the  meaning  of  the 
text. 

3.  The  third  step  in  exegesis  is  Historical  Exegesis.  The 
author  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  his  historical 
surroundings.  We  must  apply  to  the  text  the  knowledge  of 
the  author's  times,  derived  from  archeology,  geography,  chro- 
nolog}>  and  general  history.  Thus  only  will  we  be  able  to 
enter  upon  the  scenery  of  the  text.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
resort  to  the  history  of  exegesis ;  one's  own  observation  is 
sufficient  to  show  the  absurdities  and  the  outrageous  errors 
into  which  a  neglect  of  this  principle  leads  many  earnest  but 
ignorant  men.  No  one  can  present  the  Bible  narrative  in  the 
dress  of  modern  every-day  life  without  making  the  story  ridic- 
ulous. And  it  must  be  so  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
Historical  circumstances  are  essential  to  the  truthfulness  and 
vividness  of  the  narrative.  Instead  of  our  transporting  Script- 
ure events  to  our  scenery,  we  must  transport  ourselves  to  their 
scenery,  if  we  would  correctly  understand  them  and  realize 
them.  If  we  wish  to  apply  Scripture  truth,  we  may,  after  hav- 
ing correctly  apprehended  it,  eliminate  it  from  its  historical 
circumstances,  and  then  giv£  it  a  new  and  appropriate  form  for 
practical  jDurposes ;  but  we  can  never  interpret  Scripture  with- 
out historical  exegesis  ;  for  it  serves  to  more  narrowly  define 
the  meaning  of  the  text,  and  to  eliminate  the  unhistorical  ma- 
terials from  the  results  thus  far  attained  in  the  exegetical 
process. 


THE   SCOPE   OF   THE    STUDY  31 

4.  The  fourth  step  in  exegesis  is  Comparative  Exer/esia.  The 
results  already  gained  with  reference  to  anv  particular  pas- 
sage are  to  be  compai'ed  with  the  results  attained  in  a  like 
manner  in  other  similar  passages  of  the  same  author,  or  other 
authors  of  the  period,  and  in  some  cases  from  other  periods  of 
divine  revelation.  Thus,  by  a  comjjarisoji  of  scripture  with 
scripture,  additional  light  will  be  thrown  upon  the  passage, 
the  true  conception  will  be  distinguished  from  the  false,  and 
the  results  attained  adequately  supported. 

5.  The  fifth  step  in  exegesis  may  be  called  Literary  Exegesis. 
Great  light  is  thrown  upon  the  text  by  the  study  of  the  views 
of  those  who,  through  the  centuries,  in  many  lands,  and  from 
the  various  points  of  view  have  studied  the  Scriptures.  Here 
on  this  battle-ground  of  interpretation  we  see  almost  everj- 
view  assailed  and  defended.  Multitudes  of  opinions  have  been 
overthrown,  never  to  reappear  ;  others  are  weak  and  tottering 
—  comparativelj'  few  still  maintain  the  field.  It  is  among 
these  latter  that  we  must  in  the  main  find  the  true  interpre- 
tation. This  is  the  furnace  into  which  the  results  thus  far 
attained  by  the  exegete  must  be  thrown,  tliat  its  fires  may 
separate  the  dross  and  leave  the  pure  gold  thoroughly  refined. 
Cliristian  divines,  Jewish  i-abbins,  and  even  unbelieving  writers 
have  not  studied  the  Word  of  God  for  so  many  centuries  in 
vain.  No  true  scholar  can  be  so  presumptuous  as  to  neglect 
their  labours.  No  interpreter  can  rightly  claim  originality  or 
freshness  of  conception  who  has  not  familiarized  himself  with 
this  mass  of  material  that  others  have  wrought  out.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  the  best  check  to  presumption,  to  know  that 
every  view  that  is  worth  anything  must  pass  through  the  fur- 
nace. Any  exegete  who  would  accomplish  anything  should 
know  that  he  is  to  expose  himself  to  the  fire  that  centres 
upon  any  combatant  that  will  enter  upon  this  hotly  contested 
field.  From  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  he  will  come  into 
contact  with  human  views,  traditional  opinions,  and  dogmatic 
prejudices.  On  the  one  side  these  will  severely  criticise  and 
overthrow  many  of  his  results  ;  on  the  other  his  faithful  study 
of  the  Word  of  God  will  be  a  fresh  test  of  the  correctness  of 
those  human  views  that  have  hitherto  prevailed.     Thus,  from 


32  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  acting  and  reacting  influences  of  tliis  conflict,  the  truth  of 
God  will  maintain  itself,  and  it  alone  will  i^revail. 

We  have  tlius  far  described  these  various  steps  of  exegesis, 
in  order  that  a  clear  and  definite  conception  may  be  formed  of 
its  field  of  work  —  not  that  they  are  ever  to  be  represented  by 
themselves  in  any  commentary,  or  even  carried  on  indepen- 
dent!}' by  the  exegete  himself,  but  they  should  be  regarded  as 
the  component  parts  of  any  thorough  exegetical  process  ;  and 
although,  as  a  rule,  naught  but  the  results  are  to  be  published, 
yet  these  results  imjilj-  that  no  part  of  the  process  has  been 
neglected,  but  that  all  have  harmonized  in  them. 

In  advancing  now  to  the  higher  processes  of  exegesis,  we 
observe  a  marked  difference  from  the  previous  ones,  in  that 
those  have  to  do  with  tlie  entire  text,  these  with  only  select 
portions  of  it.  In  these  processes  while  results  are  to  be 
attained  which  will  be  most  profitable  to  the  great  masses  of 
mankind,  yet  those  incur  the  severest  condemnation  who,  with- 
out having  gone  througli  these  fundamental  processes  them- 
selves, either  use  the  labours  of  the  faithful  exegete  without 
acknowledgment,  or  else,  accepting  traditional  views  without 
examination,  build  on  untested  foundations.  Tlie  Christian 
world  does  not  need  theological  castles  in  the  air  constructed 
by  dogmatic  traditionalists,  or  theories  of  Christian  life  erected 
by  narrow-minded  enthusiasts,  but  a  solid  structure  of  divine 
truth  built  by  Christian  scholars  on  the  solid  courses  of  biblical 
stud}-  as  the  temple  of  Divine  Wisdom,  the  home  of  the  soul, 
and  a  sure  stronghold  for  living  and  dying. 

6.  The  sixth  step  in  exegesis  is  Doctrinal  Exegesis,  which 
considers  the  material  thus  far  gathered  in  order  to  derive 
therefrom  the  ideas  of  the  author  respecting  religion,  faith,  and 
morals.  These  ideas  are  then  to  be  considered  in  their  relation 
to  each  other  in  the  section  and  cliapter  of  the  Sacred  Writing. 
Thus  we  get  the  doctrine  that  the  author  would  teach,  and  are 
prepared  for  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  doctrines  of  other 
passages  and  authors.  Here  we  have  to  contend  with  a  false 
method  of  seiirching  for  the  so-called  spiritual  sense,  as  if  the 
doctrine  could  be  independent  of  the  form  in  which  it  is  re- 
vealed, or,  indeed,  so  loosely  attached  to  it,  that  the  grammar 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  STUDY  33 

and  logic  should  teach  one  thing,  and  the  spiritual  sense 
another.  There  can  be  no  spiritual  sense  that  does  not  accord 
with  the  results  thus  far  attained  in  the  exegetical  process. 
The  true  spiritual  sense  conies  before  the  inquiring  soul  as  the 
j)roduct  of  the  true  exegetical  metliods  that  have  been  de- 
scribed. As  the  differences  of  material  become  manifest  in 
the  liandling  of  it,  the  doctrine  stands  forth  as  divine  and 
infallible  in  its  own  light.  Any  other  si^iritual  sense  is  false 
to  the  Word  of  God,  whether  it  be  the  conceit  of  Jewish  caba- 
lists  or  Christian  mystics. 

7.  The  seventh  and  final  effort  of  exegesis  is  Practical 
Exegesis,  the  application  of  the  text  to  the  faith  and  life  of 
the  jjresent.  And  here  we  must  eliminate  not  only  the  tempo- 
ral bearings  from  the  eternal,  but  also  those  elements  that 
apply  to  other  persons  and  circumstances  than  those  in  hand. 
Everything  depends  upon  the  character  of  the  work,  whether 
it  be  catechetical,  homiletical,  evangelistic,  or  pastoral.  All 
Scripture  may  be  said  to  be  practical  for  some  purpose,  but  not 
every  Scripture  for  every  purpose.  Hence,  practical  exegesis 
must  not  only  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  text,  but  also  the 
true  application  of  the  text  to  the  matter  in  hand.  Here  we 
have  to  deal  with  a  false  method  of  seeking  edification  and  de- 
riving pious  reflections  from  every  passage  of  Holy  Scripture 
without  regard  to  the  time,  the  place,  or  the  persons  to  whom 
it  was  written.  This  method  of  constraining  the  text  to  mean- 
ings that  it  cannot  bear,  does  violence  to  the  Word  of  God, 
which  is  not  only  not  to  be  added  to  or  taken  from  as  a  whole, 
but  also  as  to  all  its  parts.  This  spirit  of  interpretation,  while 
nominally  most  reverential,  is  really  very  irreverential.  It 
originates  from  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
neglect  to  use  the  proper  methods  of  exegesis.  It  is  born  of 
the  presumption  that  the  Holy  Spirit  will  reveal  the  saci'ed 
mysteries  of  religion  to  the  indolent,  if  only  he  is  sufficiently 
l^ious.  He  may  indeed  hide  the  truth  from  the  irreverent 
critic,  but  He  will  not  reveal  it  except  to  those  who  not  only 
have  piety,  but  who  also  search  for  it  as  for  hidden  treasures. 
This  indolence  and  presumptuous  reliance  ujion  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  too  often  proves  to  be  a  dependence  upon  one^s 


34  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

own  conceits,  fancies,  and  self-will,  has  brought  disgrace  upon 
the  Word  of  God,  as  if  it  could  be  manifold  in  sense,  or  were 
able  to  prove  anything  that  might  be  asked  of  it.  Nay,  stUl 
worse,  it  leads  the  preacher  to  burden  his  discourse  with  mate- 
rial which,  however  good  it  may  be  in  itself,  not  only  has  no 
connection  with  the  text,  but  no  practical  application  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  hour,  or  the  needs  of  his  people.  Over 
against  this  abuse  of  the  Scriptures,  the  exegete  learns  to  use 
it  projjerly,  and  while  he  cannot  find  everywhere  what  he  needs, 
yet  he  ma}-  find,  by  searching  for  it,  far  more  and  better  than 
he  needs  ;  yes,  he  learns,  as  he  studies  the  Word  of  God,  that 
it  needs  no  forcing,  but  that  it  aptly  and  exactly  satisfies  with 
appropriate  material  every42liase  of  Christian  experience,  gently 
clears  away  every  shadow  of  difficulty  that  may  disturb  the 
inquiring  spirit,  proving  itself  sufficient  for  each  and  every  one, 
and  ample  for  all  mankind. 

We  have  endeavoured  to  consider  the  various  processes  of 
exegesis  by  which  results  are  attained  of  essential  importance 
to  all  the  other  departments  of  theolog}^  The  work  of  the 
exegete  is  foundation  work.  It  is  the  work  of  the  study,  and 
not  of  the  pulpit,  or  the  platform.  It  brings  forth  treasures 
new  and  old  from  the  Word  of  God,  to  enrich  the  more  promi- 
nent and  public  branches  of  theology.  It  finds  the  nugget  of 
gold  that  they  are  to  coin  into  the  current  conceptions  of  the 
times.  It  brings  forth  ore  that  they  are  to  work  into  the  ves- 
sels or  ornaments,  that  may  minister  comfort  to  the  household 
and  adorn  the  home  and  the  person.  It  gains  the  precious 
gems  that  are  to  be  set  by  these  jewellers,  in  order  that  their 
lustre  and  beauty  may  become  manifest  and  admired  of  all. 
Some  think  it  strange  that  the  Word  of  God  does  not  at  once 
reveal  a  system  of  theolof/if^  or  give  xis  a  confes^sion  of  faith,  or 
catechism,  or  liturgy.  lUit  Holy  Scripture  withheld  these  with 
beneficent  purpose. ^ 

'  "  Since  no  one  of  the  first  promulgators  of  Christianity  did  tliat  which  tUey 
must,  some  of  them  at  least,  have  been  nntnralUj  led  to  do,  it  follows  that  they 
must  have  been  supernal umUy  withheld  from  it.  .  .  .  Each  Church,  there- 
fore, was  left  through  the  wise  foresight  of  llim  who  alone  '  knew  what  is  in 
man,'  to  provide  for  its  own  wants  as  they  should  arise;  —  to  steer  its  ovni 
course  by  the  chart  and  compass  which  His  holy  Word  supplies,  regulating  for 


THE   SCOPE   OF  THE   STUDY  35 

For  experience  shows  us  that  no  body  of  di\-inity  can  answer 
for  more  than  its  generation.  Every  catechism  and  confession 
of  faith  will  in  time  become  obsolete  and  powerless.  Liturgies 
are  more  persistent,  but  even  these  are  changed  and  adapted 
in  the  process  of  their  use  by  successive  generations.  All  these 
symbols  of  Christian  Worship  and  Christian  Truth  remain  as 
historical  monuments  and  symbols,  as  the  worn  and  tattei'ed 
banners  that  our  veterans  or  honoured  sires  have  carried  victo- 
riously through  the  campaigns  of  the  past ;  but  they  are  not 
suited  entirely  for  their  descendants.  Each  age  has  its  own 
peculiar  work  and  needs,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that 
not  even  the  Bible  could  devote  itself  to  the  entire  satisfaction 
of  the  wants  of  any  particular  age,  without  thereby  sacrificing 
its  value  as  the  book  of  all  ages.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  Bible 
gives  us  the  material  for  all  ages,  and  leaves  to  man  the  noble 
task  of  shaping  that  material  so  as  to  suit  the  wants  of  his  own 
time.  The  Word  of  God  is  given  to  us  in  the  Bible,  as  His 
truth  is  displayed  in  physical  nature,  in  an  immense  and  varied 
storehouse  of  material.  We  must  search  the  Bible  in  order 
to  find  what  we  require  for  our  soul's  food,  not  expecting  to 
employ  the  whole,  but  recognizing  that  as  there  is  enough  for 
us,  so  there  is  sufficieut  for  aU  mankind  and  for  all  ages.  Its 
diversities  are  appropriate  to  the  various  types  of  human  char- 
acter, the  various  phases  of  human  experience ;  and  no  race, 
no  generation,  no  man,  woman,  or  child,  need  fail  in  finding  in 
the  Scriptures  the  true  soul-food,  for  it  has  material  of  abound- 
ing wealth,  surpassing  all  the  powers  of  human  thought  and 
all  the  requirements  of  human  life. 

III.     Biblical  History 

The  work  of  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture  does  not  end  with 
the  work  of  Biblical  Exegesis,  but  advances  to  higher  stages  in 
Biblical  HiUory  and  Biblical  Theology.  In  the  department  of 
Biblical  Exegesis  our  discipline  produces  the  material  to  be 
used  in  the  other  departments  of  theology,  but  it  also  has  as  its 

itsplf  the  sails  and  rudder  according  to  the  winds  and  currents  it  may  meet  with." 
—  See  Whately,  Essays  on  Some  of  the  Peculiarities  of  the  Christian  Religion. 
Fifth  edition,  London,  1846.     Essay  vi.  pp.  3-19,  355. 


36  tSTUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTURK 

own  highest  problem,  to  make  a  thorough  arrangement  of  that 
material  in  accordance  with  its  own  sj'nthetic  method  in  its 
own  departments.  As  there  is  a  histor}'  in  the  Bible,  an  un- 
folding of  divine  revelation,  a  unity  and  a  wonderful  variety ; 
so  our  study  of  Holj'  Scripture  cannot  stop  until  it  has  ari-anged 
the  biblical  material  in  accordance  with  its  historical  position, 
and  its  relative  value  in  the  one  structure  of  divine  revelation. 
And  here,  first,  we  have  to  consider  the  field  of  Biblical 
History. 

It  has  been  the  custom  in  many  theological  schools  to  treat 
Biblical  History  under  the  head  of  Church  History.  This  cus- 
tom is  based  on  a  theory  that  the  Christian  Church  embraces  the 
whole  historical  life  of  the  people  of  God,  which  ignores  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  Old  Testmnent  and  the  New  Testament.^ 
Many  theologians  treat  Biblical  History  as  a  section  of  Histori- 
cal Theolog}^  and  exclude  it  from  Exegetical  Theology. ^  But 
the  line  separating  Exegetical  Theolog}-  from  Historical  Theol- 
ogy is  not  a  line  that  divides  between  Exegesis  and  History  ;  for 
Historical  Theology  cannot  get  on  without  an  exegesis  of  the 
sources  of  Chui'ch  History,  and  if  Exegesis  is  to  determine  what 
is  to  belong  to  Exegetical  Theology,  then  Clu-istiau  Archa?ology, 
Patristics,  Christian  Epigraphy  and  Diplomatics  should  all  go 
to  Exegetical  Theolog}^  as  truly  as  Biblical  History  to  Histori- 
cal Theology.     But  in  fact  the  adjectives  Exegetical  and  His- 

'  The  Church  of  Christ  did  not  exist,  in  fact,  before  the  day  of  rcntecost. 
The  people  of  God  during  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  were  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  as  established  at  Mount  Iloreb  by  the  Old  Covenant,  and  there  was  an 
'  >ld  Testament  conareiiation,  a  Church  of  Yahweh  ;  but  the  Church  of  Christ 
came  into  beini;  first  with  tlic  establishment  of  the  New  Covenant  and  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  tin;  enthroned  Messiah.  .See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the 
Apostles,  pp.  21  seq.  There  is  a  continuity  bet  weiMi  the  Old  Testament  institu- 
tion and  the  New,  but  the  differences  of  dispensations  should  not  be  ignoi-ed. 

■^  So  Hagenbach  {Eneyklopiidie,  11  Anil.,  1884,  ,«.  219  seq.).  He  regards  Bib- 
lical History  as  the  transition  from  Exegetical  to  Historical  Theology.  But  he 
makes  Biblical  Archeology  to  include  Biblical  Geogiaphy  and  Natural  History, 
and  clas.ses  it  under  Exegetical  Theology.  This  dislributiou  of  the  material  is 
without  sufficient  reason,  and  is  inconsistent.  Heinrici  (Theologische  Encyklo- 
p-'idie,  1893,  s.  25  seq.)  makes  the  Biblical  Discipline  and  Ciuirch  History  the  two 
l)arts  of  Historical  Theology,  and  classifies  Biblical  History  and  Biblical  Arche- 
ology with  the  Biblical  Discipline.  Cave  (^Introdvetion  to  Theoloijy,  2d  edition, 
1896)  uses  Biblical  Tlieology  as  the  general  title  for  all  biblical  studies,  and 
includes  Biblical  History  and  Biblical  Archseologj-  among  them. 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  STUDY  37 

torical  do  not  adequately  discriminate  the  departments.  Hence 
the  tendency  among  many  scholars  to  use  Historical  Theology 
as  the  general  term  to  cover  both  the  Bible  and  the  Church. 
There  is  at  present  no  consensus  among  scholars  as  to  the  best 
terms  to  be  used  for  the  several  departments ;  but  there  is  a 
general  agreement  among  more  recent  students  that  Biblical 
History  and  all  related  subjects  must  be  classed  with  the  bibli- 
cal studies  whatever  term  may  be  used  as  a  general  title  of  these 
studies.^ 

Under  the  general  head  of  Biblical  Historj-  we  have  first  to 
consider  Historical  Criticism,  the  proper  method  of  testing  and 
verifying  the  material  of  Biblical  History.  We  have  next  to 
study  the  auxiliary  disciplines  of  Biblical  History,  namel}' :  Bib- 
lical Archieology,  Biblical  Geograijhj-,  Biblical  Chronology,  and 
the  Natural  History  of  the  Bible.  Jlost  writers  include  all  these, 
except  Biblical  Chronology,  under  the  general  head  of  Biblical 
Archteolog}%  but  without  sufEcient  reasons.^ 

The  third  section  of  Biblical  Historj"  will  present  the  histoi-y 
of  the  people  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Bible.  And  here  we 
must  distinguish  Biblical  Histor}'  as  a  biblical  discipline  from 
the  History  of  Israel  as  a  section  of  universal  history.  The 
methods  of  dealing  with  the  history  contained  in  the  Bible 
from  those  two  different  points  of  view  is  very  great,  and  they 
cannot  be  confused  without  detriment  to  both  departments. 
Biblical  History  limits  itself  strictly  to  the  biblical  material 
and  uses  the  whole  of  that  material  from  the  biblical  point  of 
view.  Whereas  General  History  uses  so  much  of  the  biblical 
material  as  suits  its  purpose,  and  organizes  it,  with  all  other 
material  it  can  obtain,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  general 
history  of  the  world.  It  is  also  necessary  to  distinguish  Bibli- 
cal History  from  the  recent  discipline  entitled  Contemporary 
History  of  the  Bible.  This  discipline  sets  the  biblical  material 
in  the  light  of  material  gathered  from  all  other  sources.  Inas- 
much as  it  uses  all  the  biblical  material  and  gathers  all  other 
material  in  the  interest  of  the  study  of  the  Bible,  it  should  be 

'  See  m)-  article  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theohigy,  January,  1897. 
2  So  Ha^renbach,  I.e.,  Heinrici,  I.e..  and  especially  Benzinger,  Hebr.  Archii- 
'•li.rjie,  1894.     See  Chap.  XXII.  pp.  683  seq. 


38  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

regarded  as  a  section  of  Biblical  History  and  the  Stud}-  of  Holy 
Scripture.  It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  this  dis- 
cipline is  more  closely  related  to  Biblical  Archaeology  or  to 
Biblical  History  proper.  That  depends  in  great  measure  upon 
the  method  and  scope  of  the  treatment.  The  discipline  has  not 
yet  been  sufficiently  matured  to  decide  this  question.^ 

Biblical  History  sums  up  the  great  events,  institutions,  and 
heroic  leaders  in  their  historical  origin  and  development.  The 
divine,  vital,  and  immediate  presence  determines  the  course  of 
that  history,  and  theophanic  manifestations  mark  its  great 
epochs.  The  Old  Testament  history  unfolds  through  the 
centuries  until  it  culminates  in  the  New  Testament  history  in 
the  advent  of  Jesus,  the  Messiah  aud  Saviour  of  mankind,  and 
in  His  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  enthronement  upon  His 
heavenly  throne  as  the  sovereign  Lord  of  His  Church  and  of 
the  world,  and  the  founding  of  His  Church  through  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets,  commissioned  by  the  Lord  Himself. 

IV.     Biblical  Theology 

The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  culminates  in  Biblical  Theol- 
ogy ;  all  its  departments  pour  their  treasures  into  this  basin, 
where  they  flow  together  and  become  compacted  into  one 
organic  whole.  For  Biblical  Theology  rises  from  the  exegesis 
of  verses,  sections,  aud  chapters,  to  the  higher  exegesis  of  writ- 
ings, authors,  periods,  and  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as 
wholes,  until  the  Bible  is  discerned  as  an  organism,  complete 
and  symmetrical,  one  as  God  is  one,  and  yet  as  various  as  man- 
kind is  various,  and  thus  only  divino-human  as  the  complete 
revelation  of  the  God-man. 

In  this  respect  Biblical  Tlieology  demands  its  place  in  theo- 
logical study  as  the  highest  attainment  of  exegesis.  It  is 
true  tiiat  it  has  been  claimed  that  the  history  of  Biblical  Doc- 
trine, as  a  subordinate  branch  of  Historical  Theology,  fully 
answers  its  purpose  ;  and  again,  that  Biblical  Dogmatics,  as  the 
fundamental  part  of  Systematic  Theology,  covers  its  ground. 
These  branches  of  the  sister  grand  divisions  of  theology  deal 
'  See  Chap.  XXII.  pp.  544  scq. 


THE   SCOPE   OF  THE   STUDY  39 

with  many  of  its  questions  and  handle  much  of  its  material, 
for  the  reason  that  Biblical  Theology  is  the  highest  point  of 
exegesis  where  the  most  suitable  transition  is  made  to  the 
other  departments  ;  but  it  does  not,  it  cannot  belong  to  either 
of  them.  As  Biblical  Theology  was  not  the  product  of  His- 
torical or  Sjstematic  Theology,  but  was  born  in  the  throes 
of  the  exegetical  process  of  the  last  century,  so  it  is  the  child 
of  exegesis,  and  can  flourish  only  in  its  own  home.  The  idea, 
methods,  aims,  and  indeed,  results,  are  entirely  different  from 
those  of  Church  History  or  Dogmatic  Theology.  It  does  not 
give  us  a  history  of  doctrine,  although  it  uses  the  historical 
method  in  the  unfolding  of  the  doctrine.  It  does  not  seek  the 
history  of  the  doctrine,  but  the  formation,  the  organization  of 
the  doctrine  in  history.  It  does  not  aim  to  present  the  system 
of  Biblical  Dogma,  and  arrange  biblical  doctrine  in  the  form 
that  Dogmatic  Theology  would  have  assumed  even  in  Biblical 
Times ;  but  in  accordance  with  its  synthetic  method  of  seeking 
the  unity  in  the  variety  it  endeavours  to  show  the  biblical  order 
of  doctrine,  the  form  assumed  by  theology  in  the  Bible  itself, 
the  organization  of  the  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals  in  the 
'historical  divine  revelation.  It  thus  considers  the  doctrine 
at  its  first  historical  appearance,  examines  its  formation  and 
its  relation  to  others  in  the  structure,  then  traces  its  unfolding 
in  history,  sees  it  evolving  by  its  own  inherent  vitality,  as  well 
as  receiving  constant  accretions,  ever  assuming  fuller,  richer, 
grander  proportions,  until  in  the  revelation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  organization  has  become  complete  and  finished  so 
far  as  the  Bible  itself  is  concerned.  It  thus  not  only  dis- 
tinguishes a  theology  of  periods,  but  a  theology  of  authors  and 
writings,  and  shows  how  they  harmonize  in  the  one  complete 
revelation  of  God.i  Biblical  Theology  is  not  the  ideal  name 
for  this  discipline,  but  it  is  the  name  that  has  been  historically 
associated  with  it,  and  it  is  improbable  that  it  will  ever  be  dis- 
placed. But  Theology  in  Biblical  Theology  is  used  in  an 
intermediate    sense,  —  not   so  broadly  as  to   cover  the  whole 

'  See  author's  articles  on  Biblical  Theology,  in  American  Presbyterian  Re- 
view, 1870,  and  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1882,  and  Chap.  XI.  of  Briggs, 
Biblical  Study,  and  Chap.  XXIII.  of  this  volume. 


40  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

field  of  theolog}"  in  the  Bible,  for  then  it  would  be  another 
name  for  Biblical  Study  itself ;  and  not  so  narrowly  as  to 
embrace  only  doctrines  of  faith,  for  it  comprehends  three  great 
divisions  :  1.  Biblical  Religion,  dealing  with  the  facts  and  insti- 
tutions of  religion  ;  2.  Biblical  Doctrines,  which  are  the  objects 
of  faith  ;  and  3.  Biblical  Ethics,  the  principles  and  laws  of 
biblical  morals  and  their  historical  evolution  in  holy  conduct. 
From  this  comprehensive  and  elevated  jioint  of  view  of  Bibli- 
cal Theology  many  important  questions  may  be  settled,  such 
as  the  Relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New  Testament 
—  a  fundamental  question  for  all  departments  of  theology.  It 
is  onl}-  when  we  recognize  that  the  New  Testament  is  not  onl}- 
the  historical  fulfilment  of~the  Old  Testament,  but  also  is  its 
exegetical  completion,  that  the  unity  and  the  harmou}-,  all  the 
grander  for  the  variety  and  the  diversitj'  of  the  Scriptures, 
become  ev-ident.  It  is  only  from  this  point  of  view  that  the 
apparently  contradictory  views,  as,  for  instance,  of  Paul  and 
James,  in  the  article  of  justification,  and  of  the  synoptic 
gospels  and  the  gospel  of  John  in  their  conceptions  of  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  may  be  reconciled  in  their  difference  of 
types.  It  is  onl}^  here  that  a  true  doctrine  of  inspiration  can 
be  attained,  properl}'  distinguishing  the  divine  and  human 
elements,  and  yet  recognizing  them  in  their  union.  It  is  only 
thereby  that  the  weight  of  authority  of  the  Scripture  can  be 
fully  felt,  and  the  consistency  of  the  infallible  canon  invincibly 
maintained.  It  is  only  in  this  culminating  work  that  the 
preliminary  processes  of  exegesis  are  delivered  from  all  the 
imperfections  and  errors  that  still  cling  to  the  most  faithful 
work  of  the  exegete.  It  is  only  from  the  hands  of  Biblical 
Theology  that  Church  History  receives  its  true  keys.  Dogmatic 
Theology  its  indestructible  pillars,  and  Practical  Theology  its 
all-conquering  weapons. 

Thus  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  is  a  theological  discipline, 
which,  in  its  various  department.s,  presents  an  inexhaustible 
field  of  labour,  where  the  most  ambitious  may  work  with  a  sure 
prospect  of  success,  and  wliere  tlie  faithful  disciple  of  the  Lord 
may  rejoice  in  the  most  intimate  fellowship  with  the  Master, 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  STUDY  41 

divine  truths  being  received  immediately  from  His  lioly  and 
loving  hand,  old  truths  being  illuminated  with  fresh  meaning, 
new  truths  filling  the  soul  with  indescribable  delight.  The 
Bible  is  not  a  field  whose  treasures  have  been  exhausted,  for 
they  are  inexhaustible.  As  in  the  past,  holy  men  have  found 
among  these  treasures  jewels  of  priceless  value  ;  as  Athanasius, 
Augustine,  Anselm,  Luther,  and  Calvin,  have  derived  there- 
from new  doctrines  that  have  given  shape  not  only  to  the 
Church,  but  to  the  world ;  so  it  is  not  too  much  to  expect  that 
even  greater  saints  than  these  may  yet  go  forth  from  their 
retirement,  where  they  liave  been  alone  in  communion  with 
God  through  His  Word,  holding  ujd  before  the  world  some  new 
doctrine,  freshly  derived  from  the  ancient  writings,  which, 
although  hitherto  overlooked,  will  prove  to  be  the  necessary 
complement  of  all  the  previous  knowledge  of  the  Church,  no 
less  essential  to  its  life,  growth,  and  progress  than  the  Athana- 
sian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  sin, 
and  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith.  A 
scientific  biblical  study  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  ere  long  remove  the  clouds  of  prejudice  and  bigotry  which 
envelop  the  battle  of  the  sects  and  enable  all  men  to  see  the 
Truth,  the  entire  Truth  of  God,  in  all  its  wondrous  simplicity, 
beauty,  grandeur,  and  glory.  Biblical  science  in  its  warfare 
with  error  and  bigotry  uses  smokeless  powder,  and  all  its  aims 
and  their  results  are  in  the  clear  light  of  heaven  and  open  to 
the  vision  of  the  entire  world. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   LANGUAGES   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTT7RB 

The  languages  of  the  Bible  were  prepared  by  Divine  Provi- 
dence as  the  most  suitable  ones  for  declaring  the  divine  revela- 
tion to  mankind.  Belonging,  as  they  do,  to  the  two  great 
families  of  speech,  the  Shemltic  and  the  Indo-Germanic,  which 
have  been  the  bearers  of  civilization,  culture,  and  the  noblest 
products  of  liuman  thought  and  emotion,  they  are  themselves 
the  highest  and  most  perfect  developments  of  those  families ; 
presenting,  it  is  true,  their  contrasted  features,  but  yet  com- 
bining in  a  higher  unity,  in  order  to  give  us  the  complete  divine 
revelation.  Having  accomplished  this,  their  highest  purpose, 
they  soon  afterward  became  stereotyped  in  form,  oi",  as  they 
are  commonly  called,  dead  languages ;  so  that  henceforth  all 
successive  generations,  and  indeed  all  the  families  of  earth, 
might  resort  to  them  and  find  the  common,  divine  revelation  in 
the  same  fixed  and  unalterable  forms. 

Language  is  the  product  of  the  human  soul,  as  are  thought 
and  emotion,  and  therefore  it  depends  upon  the  nature  of  that 
soul,  the  historical  experiences  of  the  family  or  race  giving 
birth  to  it,  and  especially  upon  the  stage  of  development  in 
civilization,  religion,  and  morals  that  may  have  been  attained. 
The  connection  between  langu.ige  and  thought  is  not  loose,  but 
is  an  essential  connection.  Language  is  not  merely  a  dress  that 
thought  may  put  on  or  off  at  its  pleasure  ;  it  is  the  body  of 
which  thought  is  the  soul ;  it  is  the  flesh  and  rounded  form  of 
which  thouglit  is  the  life  and  emotion  the  energy.  Hence  it  is 
that  language  is  moulded  by  thought  and  emotion,  by  experi- 
ence and  culture  ;  it  is,  as  it  were,  the  speaking  face  of  the  race 
employing  it,  and  it  becomes  the  historical  body  in  which  the 
42 


LANGUAGES  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  43 

experience  of  that  race  is  organized.  In  many  nations  which 
have  perished,  and  whose  early  history  is  lost  in  primeval  dark- 
ness, their  language  gives  us  the  key  to  their  history  and  expe- 
rience as  truly  as  the  Parthenon  tells  us  of  the  Greek  mind,  and 
the  Pj'ramids  display  Eg3'ptian  culture. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference,  therefore,  as  to  the  lan- 
guages that  were  to  bear  the  divine  revelation  ;  foi",  although 
the  divine  revelation  was  designed  for  all  races,  and  may  be 
conveyed  in  all  the  languages  of  earth,  j-et,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
delivered  in  advancing  historical  development,  certain  particular 
languages  had  to  be  emplo3-ed  as  most  suitable  for  the  purpose, 
and  indeed  those  which  could  best  become  the  streams  for  en- 
riching the  various  languages  of  the  earth.  There  are  no  lan- 
guages, not  even  the  English  and  the  German,  which  have 
drunk  deepest  from  the  classic  springs  of  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Greek,  —  there  are  no  languages  which  could  so  adequate^ 
convey  the  divine  revelation  in  its  simplicity,  grandeur,  fulness, 
variety,  energy,  and  impressiveness  as  those  selected  by  Divine 
Providence  for  the  purpose. 

Hence  it  is  that  no  translation  can  ever  take  the  place  of  the 
original  Scriptures ;  for  a  translation  is,  at  the  best,  the  work 
of  more  or  less  learned  men,  who,  though  they  may  be  holy  and 
faithful,  and  may  also  be  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  yet 
unable  to  do  more  than  give  us  their  own  interpretation  of  the 
Sacred  Writings.  If  they  are  to  make  the  translation  accurate 
and  thorough  and  adequate  to  convey  the  original  meaning,  they 
must  enter  into  the  very  spirit  and  atmosphere  of  the  original 
text ;  they  must  think  and  feel  with  the  original  authors  ;  their 
hearts  must  throb  with  the  same  emotion ;  their  minds  must 
move  in  the  same  lines  of  thinking ;  they  must  adapt  them- 
selves to  the  numerous  types  of  character  coming  from  various 
and  widely  different  periods  of  divine  revelation,  in  order  to 
correctly  apprehend  the  thought  and  make  it  their  own,  and 
then  reproduce  it  in  a  foreign  tongue.  A  mere  external,  gram- 
matical, and  lexicographical  translation  is  inadequate  for  the 
purpose.  Unless  the  spirit  of  the  original  has  been  not  only 
apprehended,  but  conveyed,  it  is  no  real  translation.  All-sided 
men  are  necessary  for  this  work,  or  at  least  a  body  of  men 


44  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

representing  the  various  types  and  phases  of  human  experience 
and  character.  But  even  when  such  have  been  found  and  they 
have  done  their  best,  they  have  only  partially  fulfilled  their  task, 
for  their  translation  only  expresses  their  religious,  ethical,  and 
practical  conceptions  which  at  the  utmost  are  those  of  the  holi- 
est and  most  learned  men  of  the  particular  age  in  which  they 
live.  But  inasmuch  as  the  divine  revelation  was  given  through 
holy  men  who  spake  not  only  from  their  own  time  and  for  their 
own  time,  but  from  and  for  the  timeless  Spirit,  the  eternal  ideas 
for  all  time,  the  advancing  generations  will  ever  need  to  under- 
stand the  Word  of  God  better  than  their  fathers,  and  must,  if 
they  are  faithful,  continually  improve  in  their  knowledge  of 
the  original  Scriptures,  in  their  power  of  apprehending  them, 
of  appropriating  them,  and  of  reproducing  them  in  speech  and 
life.  "~ 

How  important  it  is,  therefore,  if  the  Church  is  to  maintain 
a  living  connection  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  enter  ever 
deeper  into  their  spirit  and  hidden  life,  that  it  should  encour- 
age a  considerable  portion  of  its  youth  to  pursue  these  funda- 
mental studies.  At  all  events,  the  Church  should  ever  insist 
that  its  ministry,  who  are  to  train  God's  people  in  the  things 
of  God,  should  have  not  merely  a  superficial  knowledge  of  the 
Bible,  such  as  any  layman  may  readily  attain,  but  sliould  enjoy 
a  deep  and  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  original  perennial 
fountains  of  truth.  History  has  already  sufficiently  shown  that 
when  this  is  neglected,  the  versions  assume  the  place  of  the 
original  Divine  Word ;  and  the  interpretations  of  a  particular 
generation  become  the  stereotyped  dogmas  of  many  genera- 
tions. When  the  life  of  a  Christian  people  is  cut  off  from  its 
primary  source  of  spiritual  growth,  a  barren  scholasticism,  with 
its  mechanical  institutions,  and  perfunctory  liturgies  and  cere- 
monies assume  the  place  and  importance  of  the  Divine  Word 
and  living  communion  with  God. 

The  languages  of  the  Bible  being  the  only  adequate  means 
of  conveying  and  perpetuating  the  divine  revelation,  it  is  im- 
portant that  we  should  learn  them  not  merely  from  the  out- 
side, with  grammar  and  lexicon,  but  also  from  the  inside,  with 
a  proper  conception  of  the  genius  and  life  of  these  tongues  as 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY    SCKll'TURE  45 

emploj'ed  by  the  ancient  saints,  and  especiall}'  of  the  historical 
genius  of  the  languages  as  the  sacred  channels  of  the  Spirit's 
thought  and  life.  Language  is  a  living  thing,  and  has  its 
birtli,  its  growth,  its  maturity,  and  often  also  its  decline  and 
its  death.  Language  is  born,  not  a*s  a  system  of  roots  or 
detached  words,  that  gradually  come  together  by  natural  selec- 
tion into  sentences.  As  plants  may  grow  from  roots  after 
they  hare  been  cut  down,  but  do  not  have  their  birth  in  roots, 
but  in  the  seed-germs  which  contain  the  plants  in  embryo  ;  so 
language,  although  it  may  be  analyzed  into  roots,  yet  was  not 
born  in  roots  and  never  existed  in  roots,  but  came  into  being 
as  sentences,^  as  thought  is  ever  a  sentence,  and  not  a  word. 
Then  as  the  mind  develops,  thought  is  developed  with  its  body, 
language,  and  the  language  grows  with  the  culture  of  a  people. 
All  languages  that  have  literary  documents  may  be  traced  in 
their  historical  development.  Especially  is  this  the  case  with 
the  languages  of  the  Bible;  they  have  a  long  history  back  of 
them;  centuries  of  literary  development  were  required  to  pro- 
duce them. 

L  The  Shemitic  B'amily  of  Languages 

The  Hebrew  language  was  long  supposed  to  be  the  original 
language  of  mankind  ;  but  this  view  can  no  longer  be  held  by 
philologists,  for  the  Hebrew  language,  as  it  appears  to  us  in 
its  earliest  forms  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  bears  upon  its  face 
the  traces  of  a  long  previous  literary  development. ^  This  is 
confirmed  by  comparing  it  with  the  other  languages  of  the 
same  family. 

The  Shemitic  family  may  be  divided  into  four  groups  :  ^ 
(1)  the  Southern  or  Arabic,  (2)  the  Eastern  or  A.ssyrian,  (-3)  tlie 
Western  or  Hebrew,  (4)  the  Northern  or  Aramaic. 

>  Sayce.  Principles  of  Comp.  Philology,  pp.  136  seq.,  2d  ed.,  London,  1875. 

2  Ewa'd,  Gesck.  des  Volkes  Israel,  3te  Ausg. ;  Gbtt.  1864,  s.  78  seq. ;  Ewald. 
Ausf.  Lehrb.  des  Heb.  Sprarhe,  7le  Ausg. ;  Gott.  1863,  s.  23. 

'  Zimuiern  (Vergleichende  Grammatik,  1898)  makes  five  groups  by  separat- 
ing the  Ethiopic  from  the  Arabic ;  but  he  recognizes  the  propriety  of  classing 
these  together  as  Southern  Shemitic.  and  he  does  not  give  sufficient  reasons  for 
the  exaltation  of  the  Ethiopic  into  a  special  group. 


46  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCHIPIURE 

1.  The  Arabic  grozip  oi  Shemitic  languages  presents  us  one 
of  the  most  primitive  families  of  human  speech.  The  Arabic 
language  itself  is  spoken  by  many  millions  of  our  race  at  the 
present  time.  It  is  the  richest  of  the  Shemitic  tongues  in 
etymology,  syntax,  and  literature.  It  has  absorbed  valuable 
material  from  many  other  languages,  but  it  has  transformed 
these  foreign  elements  by  its  own  genius.  It  is  a  living  tongue 
whose  life  is  longer  than  that  of  any  other  known  to  history. 
It  is  the  richest  of  languages  in  its  vocabulary  and  one  of  the 
wealthiest  in  the  variety  and  extent  of  its  literature.  It  is  as 
fresh  and  vigorous  as  ever,  with  its  wonderful  power  of  en- 
riching itself  by  new  formations  and  adaptations  from  other 
tongues.  It  is  to  be  ranked  with  the  greatest  languages  such 
as  the  Greek  and  the  German.  The  Koran,  the  holy  book 
of  the  Mahometans,  of  th^  seventh  century  of  our  era,  is  the 
classic  model  which  has  kept  the  language  to  its  historic  mould. 
Modern  Arabic  lias  approached  very  nearly  the  stage  of  lin- 
guistic development  of  the  classic  Hebrew  of  the  Bible.  Modern 
Arabic  is  nearer  the  classic  Hebrew  than  is  the  Hebrew  of 
the  Mishna.^  The  Ethiopic  language  is  a  southern  Arabic 
spoken  in  ancient  Abyssinia.  The  oldest  forms  of  the  Shemitic 
family  are  often  found  in  it.  Its  verbal  system  is  the  most 
elaborate  of  all.  The  chief  literature  is  Cliristian,  including 
translations  of  the  Scriptures,  many  ancient  liturgies  and 
pseudepigraphical  writings,  the  most  important  of  which  are 
the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah.  A  modern 
variety  of  the  Ethiopic  is  found  in  the  Amharic.'^ 

The  Sabean  or  Himyaric  is  preserved  only  in  inscriptions 
from  the  southern  part  of  Arabia  extending  from  the  Persian 
Gulf  to  the  Red  Sea.  It  is  often  helpful  in  explaining  archaic 
forms  and  by  presenting  intermediate  stages  and  missing  links 
in  the  development  of  Sliemitic  forms  of  etymology  and  syntax.' 

'  Caspar!,  A  Grnminar  of  the  Arabic  Language,  translated  and  edited  by 
Wm.  Wright;  3d  ed.  by  W.  R.  Smith  and  de  Goeje,  Cambridge,  1896:  Socin, 
Arabische  Orammatih;  ."5  Aufl.,  Berlin,  1804  ;  English  2d  ed.,  New  York,  1885: 
Lane,  Arabic  Lexicon,  London,  18fi:'-188!). 

"  Dillniaiin,  (Iranvnalil-  dor  Ar-tliiitpischen  Sprache,  Leipzig,  1857  ;  Cbresto- 
mathia  AHhinpica,  IHtSd;  Lexicon  Lingua  ^thiopico",  18115;  rnctorius,  Aethi- 
opische  Orammatik,  Halle,  1886  ;  Amharische  Sprache,  Halle,  1879. 

'  Hommel,  Siidarabische  Chrestomathie,  1893. 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY  SCKIPTURE  47 

2.  The  Assyrian  (jroup  is  next  to  the  Arabic  in  its  stage  of 
linguistic  development.  It  embraces  the  Babylonian  and  tlie 
Assyrian,  the  ancient  hmguages  of  the  Shemitic  popuhition  of 
the  valleys  of  the  Euphrates  and  of  the  Tigris.  A  vast  number 
of  inscriptions  in  these  languages  have  been  discovered  and 
many  libraries  of  clay  tablets  and  bricks,  which  served  in  ancient 
times  the  purpose  of  rolls  and  books,  have  been  unearthed. 
Great  libraries  of  these  ancient  writings  have  been  removed 
from  the  ruins  of  ancient  cities  and  brought  to  the  museums 
of  Europe  and  America.  A  vast  literature  has  been  opened 
up,  full  of  interest,  and  of  immense  value  for  the  early  history 
of  mankind.  It  is  said  that  this  literature  is  so  extensive  that 
it  will  take  all  the  Assyrian  scholars  of  the  world  many  years 
to  decipher  the  whole  of  it.  New  discoveries  increase  the 
amount  of  literature  more  rapidly  than  it  can  be  decijihered. 
This  group  of  languages  is  intermediate  between  the  Arabic 
and  the  Hebrew  groups  ;  and  accordingly  it  is  of  great  impor- 
tance for  showing  the  transition  from  Arabic  types  to  Hebrew 
types.  The  Assyrian  literature  is  nearer  to  the  literature  of 
the  Old  Testament  than  any  other.  For  biblical  scholars  it 
is  of  inestimable  value.  A  flood  of  light  has  been  east  upon 
the  Bible  by  its  revelations.  We  may  expect  still  greater  help 
in  the  f  utui-e.^ 

3.  The  Hebrew  group  embraces  the  Phoenician  and  a  number 
of  dialects  of  the  Hebrew.  The  Phoenician  is  preserved  in  a  large 
number  of  inscriptions  discovered  in  ancient  Phrenicia,  at  Car- 
thage, and  other  Phoenician  colonies  in  North  Africa  and  on 
the  coasts  of  France  and  Spain,  together  with  a  few  lines  in 
the  Poenulus  of  Plautus.^  Gesenius  made  a  large  collection 
of  these  inscriptions.  But  a  more  complete  collection  is  in 
course  of  publication  at  Paris. ^     The  Phoenician  is  helpful  in 

'  See  E.  Sclirader,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testament,  trans. 
by  O.  Wliitchouse,  1885-1888  ;  Brown,  Assyriology,  its  Use  and  Abuse  in.  Old 
Testament  Study,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1885;  Delitzsch,  Fried.,  Assyrische 
Grammatik,  Berlin,  1889  ;  Assyrisches  Handworterbuch,  Leipzig,  1894-1896. 

"  V.  1-3. 

» Gesenius,  Scriptures  Lingnceque  Phcenicite,  Lipsiae,  18.37 ;  Corpus  In- 
scriptionum  Semiticum,  Pars  I.,  Inscriptioties  Phcenicix,  Paris,  1881-1891  ; 
Schroeder,  Phonizische  Sprache,  Halle,  1869  ;  Levy,  Phonizisches  Worterbuch, 
Breslau,  1804  ;  Bloch,  Phoenisches  Glossar,  Berlin,  1890. 


48  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  study  of  archaic  Hebrew  forms.  It  is  intermediate  between 
the  Assyrian  and  the  Hebrew  in  its  stage  of  linguistic  develop- 
ment. The  inscriptions  also  throw  a  great  light  upon  the 
religion  of  the  inhabitants  of  ancient  Canaan. 

The  Hehretv  language  itself  is  more  extensive  than  the 
Hebrew  of  the  Bible.  It  was  the  language  of  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  Canaan.  This  dialect  is  preserved  only  in  a 
few  proper  names,  and  in  the  glosses  to  the  Tell-el-Amarna 
Letters.^ 

The  Moabite  dialect  was  unknown  until  1868,  when  the  so- 
called  Moabite  stone  was  discovered  at  Dibon,  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan.  This  stone  is  now  in  the  Louvre  at  Paris.  It 
dates  from  the  ninth  century  B.C.  It  is  also  called  the  ilesha 
Stone  from  the  contents  of  the  inscription.  It  is  valuable  for 
the  side  light  it  casts  upon  biblical  histor}',  and  also  upon  the 
modes  of  writing  ancient  Tlebrew.^ 

The  biblical  Hebrew  has  several  stages  of  development,  and 
also  dialects.^  The  archaic,  classic,  and  post-classic  forms  ma)' 
be  distinguished  in  the  Bible.  There  was  also  an  Ephraimitic 
dialect,  tending  to  the  Aramaic  ;  a  trans-Jordanic,  tending  to 
the  Arabic ;  besides  the  Judaic,  which  became  the  classic  type 
of  Hebrew. 

The  only  ancient  Hebrew  apart  from  the  Bible  is  the  Siloam 
inscription  discovered  in  1880.*  This  is  valuable  for  its  ex- 
planation of  ancient  methods  of  writing  words  as  well  as  for 
archaeological  interests. 

An  interesting  and  valuable  specimen  of  Hebrew  has  recently 

1  H.  Winckler,  The  TcU-H-Amarna  Litters.  Berlin  and  New  York,  1896. 

"  Clermont  Ganneau,  La  Stc4e  de  Mesa  Moi  de  Moab,  Paris,  1870  ;  Smend  and 
Socin,  Die  Insclirift  des  Knttigs  Mesa,  Freib..  1886. 

'  Gesenius,  Thesanrus  philologicus  criticus  lingua:  Hehrmm  et  Chaldwie 
V.T.,  3  Tom.  1836-18'J.'!;  Gesenius,  Ilebriiisclies  und  Aramiiisches  Haudworter- 
buch  ilbcr  das  A.  T.  12te  Aufl.  von  F.  Buhl,  1896  ;  A  Hebrew  and  English  Lexi- 
con of  the  Old  Testament  based  on  the  Lexicon  of  Gesenius  as  translated  by 
Ed.  liobinson,  edited  by  Francis  Brown,  with  the  cooperation  of  S.  R.  Driver 
and  C.  A.  Briggs,  Parts  I.-VII..  1891-1899;  Kouig,  Historisch-kritisches  Lehrge- 
bdude  der  Hebrdischen  Spracke,  3  Theile,  1881-1897  ;  Gesenius,  Heb.  Oram. 
umgearbeitet  von  E.  ICautzsch,  26te  Aufl.,  1896,  trans,  by  Collins  and  Cowley, 
Oxford,  1898. 

'  Briggs,  "Siloam  Inscription,"  Presbyterian  lievieio.  1882.  See  also  Driver, 
Hooks  of  Samuel,  1890,  pp.  xv.  seq. 


LAXGUAGES   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  49 

been  discovered  in  part  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  ;ipocryphal 
book  of  "  Ecclesiasticus  or  the  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sira." ' 

The  post-biblical  Hebrew  is  a  later  development  of  the  lan- 
guage in  the  direction  of  the  Aramaic.  It  appears  in  the 
second  and  third  Christian  centuries  in  the  Mishna,  and  the 
Baraithoth  of  the  Talmud,  and  in  commentaries  on  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  new  Hebrew  is  t)ie  language  of  the  schools,  and 
is  no  more  a  living  tongue  than  the  Latin  of  the  schools  is  a 
living  Latin. ^ 

4.  The  Aramaic  i/roup  ma}'  be  divided  into  the  eastern  and 
western  families.  The  eastern  includes  the  primitive  language 
of  northeastern  Sj'ria,  the  Syriac,  the  ]\Iandaic,  and  the  language 
of  the  Babylonian  Gemara.  The  western  includes  the  Pales- 
tinian dialect  of  the  Aramaic,  the  Samaritan  language,  the 
language  of  Palmyra,  and  the  Nabatean.  The  eastern  Aramaic 
presents  the  oldest  and  strongest  forms.  The  chief  member  of 
the  family  is  the  Syriac,  which  has  a  very  extensive  Christian 
literature,  embracing  the  most  important  early  versions  of  the 
New  Testament  from  the  second  Christian  century,  several 
other  important  versions  of  the  Bible,^  a  considerable  number 
of  early  apocr3-phal  and  pseudepigraphical  writings,  the  works 
of  the  great  theologian  Ephraem  of  the  fourth  century,  and  a 
large  amount  of  literature  extending  deep  into  the  Middle  Ages. 
^Modern  Syriac  is  spoken  at  present  in  Kurdistan  and  at  Tur 
Abdin  on  the  Tigris.* 

A  branch  of  eastern  Aramaic  is  the  dialect  of  the  Mandseans, 
or  Sabians,  or  Christians  of  St.  John,  who  still  survive  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Basra  and  Wasit  in  lower  Babylonia.* 

'  Cowley,  Neubauer,  and  Driver.  The  Original  Hebrew  of  a  Portion  of  Eccle- 
sinsticHS  (391M9"),  Oxford,  1897. 

-  Geiger,  Lehrbuch  znr  Spracke  der  Mishna,  Breslau,  184.5  ;  Strack,  H.  L., 
Lehrbuch  der  Neuhebrdischen  Sprache  und  Litteratur,  Karlsruhe,  1884.  See, 
also,  pp.  232  seq.  3  gge  p.  212. 

*  See  Noeltleke,  Theo.,  Kurzgefasste  Syrische  Gramniatik,  Leipzig,  1880 ; 
Nestle,  Syriac  Grammar  with  Bibliography,  Chrestomathy,  and  Glossary,  1889  ; 
Duval,  Traite  de  Gram.  Syr.,Vax'\s,  1881  ;  Brockelmann,  Lex.  Syr.,  Berlin  and 
Edinburgh.  1895 ;  Smith,  R.  Payne,  Thesaurus  Syriacus,  Oxford,  1868-1897  ; 
Castell,  Edm.,  Lexicon  Syriacum,  Gottingen,  1788. 

»  Their  chief  writings  are  the  Ginza  or  Sidra  Uabba,  called  the  Book  of  Adam, 
and  Sidra  d'Yahya,  or  Book  of  John.  See  Noeldeke,  Manddische  Grammntik, 
Halle.  1875  ;  Petermann,  Thesaurus  sive  Liber  Magnus,  2  Bd.,  Berlin,  1867. 


50  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  Babylonian  Gemara  and  the  Rabbinical  literature  founded 
thereon  give  another  important  dialect  of  the  eastern  Aramaic. ^ 

The  western  Aramaic  presents  the  latest  stage  of  the  lan- 
guage in  many  resjjects.  The  earliest  member  of  this  family 
is  the  Samaritan,  which  is  a  strange  mixture  of  Aramaic  and 
Hebrew,  using  side  by  side  the  Aramaic  and  the  Hebrew  forms 
of  the  relative  pronoun  and  the  plural  of  nouns,  the  Aramaic 
emphatic  state,  and  the  Hebrew  article.  But  the  language  is 
essentially  Aramaic.  It  has  reached  a  more  advanced  stage  of 
decay  than  any  other  of  the  Shemitic  stock.  Its  literature  is 
important,  embracing  a  Targum  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  dates 
in  its  written  form  from  the  second  Christian  century,  and  a 
number  of  historical,  liturgical,  and  theological  writings.^ 

The  ruins  of  Palmyra  give  inscriptions  in  another  dialect  of 
western  Aramaic.  The  rocks  of  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  of 
Petra,  and  the  Huaran  afford~Tnany  inscriptions  in  a  dialect 
that  is  called  Nabatean.^ 

The  Aramaic  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,*  the  Aramaic 
specimens  in  the  New  Testament,*  the  dialect  of  the  Palestinian 
Gemara,^  and  the  Rabbinical  literature  founded  thereon  are  all 
in  the  western  Aramaic  language. 

The  early  Palestinian  Christians  seem  to  have  used  a  dialect 
of  the  western  Aramaic.  Some  specimens  of  this  dialect  have 
recently  been  discovered.' 

All  these  languages  are  more  closely  related  to  one  another 

'  Levy,  .Tacob,  ChaJddisches  Worterbuch,  2  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1876;  yeuhebrd- 
isches  uud  Chaldiiisches  Worterbuch  uher  die  Talmudim  und  Midrashim,  4  Bd., 
Leipziii,  187(5-1889 ;  Dalman,  Aramdisch  NeuhebriiiscJies  Worterbuch  zu  Tar- 
gum, Talmud  und  Midrasch.  Tcil  L,  1897.     See,  also,  pp.  232,  283. 

*  See  Petermann,  Brevis  LingiiicB  Samaritancc,  Berlin,  1873  ;  Brijrgs,  article 
on  "  Samaritan.s  "  in  Johnson's  Cyclopcedia ;  Nutt,  Samaritan  Sistory,  Dogma, 
and  Literature,  London,  1874. 

»  See  Neuliauer  in  Studia  Bihlica,  Oxford,  1885,  I.  3. 

*  Luzzato,  Grammar  of  the  Biblical  Chahlaic  Lantjuage,  New  York,  1876  ; 
Brown,  C  K.,  Aramaic  Method,  New  York,  1884  ;  Kautzscli,  Gram.  d.  Bibl. 
Aram.,  Leipzig,  1884  ;  Strack,  Gram.  d.  Bibl.  Aram.,  Leipzij;,  1897. 

'  Meyer,  Jesu  Muttersprache.  D:is  galiliiische  Arauiaisch  in  seine  Bedeutung 
fUr  die  Erklarung  der  Reden  Jesu.     Frei.  1896.     See  pp.  404,  406. 

"  Dalman,  Gram.  d.  j'iidi.'!ch-pald.itinische.n  Aramiiisch,  Leipzig,  1894  ;  Ara- 
mSisehe  Dialektpntben.  Leipziir,  189(;. 

'Lewis.  A  Palp.itinian  Ni/riac  Lertionary,  Cambridge,  1897;  Schwally, 
Idinticnn  des  christlich-paiast.  Aramiiisch,  Giessen,  1893. 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  51 

tlian  those  of  the  Indo-Germanic  family,  the  people  speaking 
them  having  been  confined  to  comparatively  narrow  limits, 
crowded  on  the  north  by  the  Indo-Germanic  tongues,  and  on 
the  south  by  the  Turanian.  These  languages  are  grouped  in 
sisterhoods.  They  all  go  back  upon  an  original  mother-tongue 
of  which  all  traces  have  been  lost.  In  general  the  Arabic  or 
Southern  group  presents  the  older  and  fuller  forms  of  etymology 
and  syntax,  the  Aramaic  or  Northern  group  the  later  and  sim- 
pler forms.  The  Hebrew  and  Assyrian  groups  lie  in  the  midst 
of  this  linguistic  development,  where  the  Assyrian  is  nearer  to 
the  Southern  group  and  the  Hebrew  to  the  Northern  group. 
The  differences  in  stage  of  linguistic  growth  from  the  common 
stock  depend  not  so  much  ujDon  the  period  or  distance  of  sepa- 
ration as  upon  literary  culture.  The  literary  use  of  a  lan- 
guage has  the  tendency  to  reduce  the  complex  elements  to 
order,  and  to  simplify  and  wear  away  the  superfluous  and 
unnecessary  forms  of  speech  and  syntactical  cimstruction. 
These  languages  have,  for  the  most  part,  given  us  a  consider- 
able literature;  they  were  spoken  by  the  most  cultivated 
nations  of  the  ancient  world,  mediating  between  the  great  cen- 
tres of  primitive  culture  —  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile.  Everj^- 
thing  seems  to  indicate  that  they  all  emigrated  from  a  common 
centre  in  the  desert  on  the  south  of  Babylonia,^  the  Arabic 
group  separating  first,  next  the  Aramaic,  then  the  Hebrew, 
while  the  Babylonian  gained  ultimately  the  mastery  of  the 
original  population  of  Babjdonia,  and  the  Assyrian  founded  the 
great  empire  on  the  Tigris. 

II.  The  Hebrew  La^tgtjage 

We  have  already,  in  the  previous  section,  considered  the 
Hebrew  group  of  languages  in  general  ;  we  have  now  to  study 
the  Hebrew  language  more  particularly,  especially  as  it  is  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  The  book  of  Genesis  ^ 
represents  Abram  as  going  forth  from  Ur  in  Babylonia,  at  first 
northward  into  Mesopotamia,  and  then  emigrating  to  Canaan, 

'  Schrader,  Die  Abstammuvg  der  Chaldder  und  die  Vrsitze  der  Semiten^ 
Zeitschrift  d.  Deutsch.  M.  G.,  1873.  -  Gen.  ll^". 


52  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

just  as  we  learn  from  other  sources  the  Canaanites  had  done 
before  him.  The  monuments  of  Ur  reveal  that  about  this 
time,  2000  B.C.,  it  was  the  seat  of  a  great  literai-y  develop- 
ment.^  The  father  of  the  faithful,  whose  origin  was  in  that 
primitive  seat  of  culture,  and  who  lived  as  a  chieftain  of  mili- 
tary prowess,^  and  exalted  religious  and  moral  character  among 
the  cultivated  nations  of  Canaan  ;  and  who  was  received  at 
the  court  of  Pharaoh,'^  that  other  great  centre  of  primitive  cul- 
ture, on  friendly  terms,  to  some  extent  at  least  made  him- 
self acquainted  with  their  literature  and  culture.  Whether 
Abraham  adopted  the  language  of  the  Canaanites,  or  brought 
the  Hebrew  with  him  from  the  East,  is  luiimportant,  for  the 
ancient  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  are  nearer  to  the  Hebrew 
and  Phoenician  than  they  are  to  the  other  Shemitic  families. 
If  these  languages,  as  now  presented  to  us,  differ  less  than  the 
Romance  languages.  —  the  daughters  of  the  Latin  ;  iu  their 
earlier  stages  in  the  time  of  Abraham  their  difference  could 
scarcel)^  have  been  more  than  dialectic.  The  ancient  Phoeni- 
cian, the  nearest  akin  to  the  Hebrew,  was  the  language  of  com- 
merce and  intercourse  between  the  nations  in  primitive  times, 
as  the  Aramaic  after  the  fall  of  Tyre,  and  the  Greek  after  the 
conquest  of  Alexander.  Thus  the  Hebrew  language,  as  a  dia- 
lect of  the  Cauaanite  and  closely  related  to  the  Babylonian,  had 
already  a  considerable  literary  development  prior  to  the  en- 
trance of  Abraham  into  the  Holy  Land.  The  older  scholars  were 
naturally  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  Eg3-pt  was  the  mother 
of  Hebrew  civilization  and  culture.  This  has  been  disproved  ; 
for,  though  the  Hebrews  remained  a  long  period  in  Egyptian 
bondage,  they  retained  their  Eastern  civilization,  culture,  and 
language,  so  that  at  the  Exodus  they  shook  off  at  once  the 
Egyptian  culture  as  alien  and  antagonistic  to  their  own.  For 
the  very  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  language^  literature,  and 
civilization  are  those  of  the  Babylonian.  The  biblical  tradi- 
tions of  the  Creation,  of  the  Deluge,  of  the  Tower  of  Babel, 
are  those  of  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians.  The  sacred  rest- 
day,  with  the  signiiicance  of  the  number  seven,  the  months, 

>  George  Smith.    The  Chaldean  Account  uf  Genesis,  etc.,  pp.  29  seq.     New 
York,  1876.  2  Gen.  14.  «  Gen.  12""«« 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  53 

seasons,  and  years,  the  weiglits  and  measures,  coins,  —  all  are 
of  the  same  origin.  Still  further,  that  most  striking  feature  of 
Hebrew  poetry  —  the  parallelism  of  members  —  is  already  in 
the  oldest  Babjdonian  hj'mns.^  Yes,  the  very  temptations  of 
the  Hebrews  to  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtoreth,  of  Chemosh 
and  Moloch,  are  those  that  ruined  the  other  branches  of  the 
Shemitic  race.^ 

As  Abraham  went  forth  from  the  culture  of  Babylon  to  enter 
upon  the  pilgrim  life  in  Canaan  under  the  guidance  of  his  cove- 
nant keeping  God ;  so  Closes  went  forth  from  the  culture  of  Egypt 
to  organize  a  kingdom  of  priests,  a  sacred  nation  of  Yahweh. 
As  Abraham  was  the  father  of  the  faithful,  the  great  religious 
ancestor  of  Israel,  Moses  became  the  great  prophetic  lawgiver, 
the  father  of  the  prophetic  and  legal  development  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  It  is  possible  that  traces  of  the  influence  of 
Egyptian  civilization  may  yet  be  found  in  the  earliest  strata 
of  the  laws  and  institutions  of  Israel ;  but  little  if  any  such 
infiueuce  has  yet  been  disclosed.  The  Hebrews  seem  to  have 
thrown  off  the  culture  of  Egypt  with  its  bondage.  David 
founded  the  Hebrew  monarchy  and  breathed  a  spirit  of  song 
into  the  national  life,  and  Solomon  became  the  father  of 
Hebrew  wisdom  :  but  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  in- 
fluence of  Moses.  David,  and  Solomon  upon  the  literary  mon- 
uments, which  have  been  preserved  to  us  in  Hebrew  Law, 
Psalmody,  and  Wisdom,  was  little,  if  any,  more  than  that  of 
Samuel  upon  the  literary  monuments  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

Although  we  have  in  the  Old  Testament  little,  if  any,  litera- 
ture which  may  in  its  present  form  be  ascribed  to  these  fathers 
of  the  old  covenant  religion,  yet  their  influence  upon  the  lan- 
guage and  literature  was  certainly  creative  and  formative.  They 
gave  the  language  and  the  literature  their  essential  spirit  and 
genius.  They  made  the  language  a  religious  language,  and  the 
literature  a  religious  literature.  They  were  the  fathers  of  the 
great  types  of  Law,  Psalmody,  and  Wisdom  ;  and  it  was  inevi- 
table that  they  should  give  their  names  to  the  great  collections 
of  these  types  of  literature  for  all  time. 

1  See  pp.  .S79,  381. 

*  Schrader,  Semitismus  und  Babylonismus,  Jahrb.  v.  Prot.  Theol.,  1875. 


54  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Looking  now  at  the  language  as  religious  according  to  its 
genius,  and  considering  it  in  its  fundamental  types  and  their 
historical  development,  we  observe  the  following  as  some  of  its 
most  prominent  characteristics : 

1.  It  is  remarkably  simple  and  natural.  This  is  indeed  a  com- 
mon feature  of  the  Shemitic  languages.  As  compared  with  the 
Indo-Germanic,  they  represent  an  earlier  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  mankind,  the  childhood  of  the  race.  Theirs  is  an  age 
of  perception,  contemi^lation,  and  observation,  not  of  conception, 
reflection,  and  reasoning.  Things  are  apprehended  according 
to  their  appeai'ance  as  phenomena,  and  not  according  to  their 
internal  character  as  noumena.  The  form,  the  features,  the  ex- 
pressions of  things  are  seen  and  most  nicely  distinguished,  but 
not  their  inward  being  :  the  effects  are  observed,  but  these  are 
not  traced  through  a  series  of  causes,  but  only  either  to  the  im- 
mediate cause  or  else  by  a  leajj  to  the  ultimate  cause.  Hence 
the  language  that  expresses  such  thought  is  simple  and  natural. 
We  see  this  in  its  sounds,  which  are  simple  and  manifold,  dis- 
liking diphthongs  and  compound  letters  ;  in  its  roots,  uniformly 
of  three  consonants,  generally  accompanied  by  a  vowel ;  in  its 
inflections,  mainlj*  by  internal  modifications ;  in  its  simple  ar- 
rangements of  clauses  in  the  sentence,  with  a  limited  number  of 
conjunctions.  Thus  the  conjunction  tvaiv  plays  a  more  impor- 
tant part  in  the  language  than  all  conjunctions  combined,  dis- 
tinguished by  a  simple  modification  of  vocalization,  accentuation, 
or  position,  between  clauses  coordinate,  circumstantial,  and  sub- 
ordinate, and  in  the  latter  between  those  indicating  purpose 
and  result.  1  This  is  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  the  lan- 
guage, without  a  parallel  in  any  other  tongue.  And  so  the 
poetry  is  constructed  on  the  simple  principle  of  the  parallel- 
ism of  members,  these  being  synthetic,  antithetic,  or  pro- 
gressive ;  and  in  the  latter  case  advancing,  like  the  waves  of 
the  sea,  in  the  most  beautiful  and  varied  forms.^  Hence  it  is 
that  the  Hebrew  language  is  the  easiest  to  render  into  a  foreign 
tongue,  and  that  I  lebrew  poetry  can  readily  be  made  the  common 
property  of  mankind. 

1  See  Driver,  Hebrew  Tenses,  3d  ed.,  1892. 

2  See  Chap.  XVI.,  Parallelisms  of  Hebrew  Poetry. 


LANGUAGES  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  55 

2.  We  observe  a  striking  correspondence  of  the  language  to 
the  thought.  This  rests  upon  a  radical  difference  between  the 
Sliemitic  and  Indo-Germanic  family  in  their  relative  apprecia- 
tion of  the  material  and  the  form  of  language. ^  The  form,  the 
artistic  expression,  is  to  the  Hebrew  a  very  small  affair.  The 
idea,  the  thought,  and  emotion  flow  forth  freely  and  embody 
themselves  without  any  external  restraint  in  the  speech.  This 
is  clear  from  the  method  of  inflection,  which  is  mostly  by  inter- 
nal changes  in  the  root,  expressing  the  passive  by  changing  the 
clear  vowel  into  the  dull  vowel,^  the  intensive  by  doubling  the 
second  radical.^  the  pure  idea  of  the  root  by  the  extreme  short- 
ness of  the  infinitive  and  the  segholate,^  the  causative  and  the 
reflexive  by  lengthening  the  stem  from  without,^  and,  so  far 
as  cases  and  moods  exist,  expressing  them  harmoniously  by  the 
three  radical  short  vowels.® 

How  beautiful  in  form,  as  well  as  sense,  is  the  abstract  plural 
of  intensitj'  by  which  the  fulness  of  the  idea  of  God  is  conceived 
in  such  passages  as  these  : 

"For  Yahweh  your  God,  He  is  the  sovereign  God''  of  gods,  and 
the  sovereign  Lord  of  lords,  the  great  and  the  mighty  and  the  awe- 
inspiring  God." 

"An  allknoiving^  God  is  Yahweh." 

"  The  knowledge  of  the  All  Holy '  is  understanding." 

"For  high  one  over  high  one  is  watching, 
The  Most  High '"  over  them." 

1  Grill,  iiher  d.  Verhdltniss  d.  indogerm.  ?(.  d.  semit.  Sprar.hiourzeln  in  the 
Zeitschrift  D.  M.  G.,  1873. 

-  The  active  of  the  simple  form  in  Arabic  is  3  m.  s.  Perf.  qdtala,  the  passive 
qutila ;  the  active  of  the  intensive  form  in  Hebrew  is  3  m.  s.  Perf.  qittel,  the 
passive  quttdl. 

^  The  simple  form  of  the  verb  in  Hebrew  3  m.  s.  Perf.  is  qatdl,  the  intensive 
qittel.  The  intensive  nouns  are  in  their  ground  form  such  as  qattal,  qittal, 
qnttal,  qattil,  qittil,  qatlul,  qattol,  qittul. 

*  The  infinitive  in  Hebrew  is  q'tol ;  the  segholate  normal  forms  are  qatl, 
qitl,  qutl. 

'  The  causative  stems  prefix  Tia  or  sha ;  the  reflexive,  hith  and  na. 

*  In  Arabic  the  moods  of  the  imperfect  are  :  indicative  yaqtulu,  subjunctive 
yaqtula.  jussive  yaqtxdi,  energetic  yaqtvlana ;  preserved  by  the  Hebrew  in  part 
in  the  indicative,  jussive,  and  cohortative  forms.  In  Arabic  the  cases  are : 
nominative  m,  genitive  i,  accusative  a;  also  preserved  in  part  in  Hebrew  in  the 
poetic  endings  in  i  and  o,  and  in  the  local  accusative  in  a. 

'  D"n'?sn  'rh»,  B"n«n  "jnK  Dt.  lO".         » n-vTip  Prov.  9i». 

e  n'Un  bin  l  Sam.  2\  i»  D'HSJ  Eco.  5'. 


56  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  fulness  of  life,  of  youth   and  of  happiness  for  man  are 
similarly  expressed.' 

We  may  mention  also  the  dependence  of  the  construct  rela- 
tion, and  the  use  of  the  suffixes.^  This  feature  is  striking  iu 
Hebrew  poetry,  where  the  absence  of  strictness  of  artistic  form 
is  more  apparent.  We  see  that,  with  a  general  harmony  of 
lines  and  strophes,  the  proportion  in  length  and  number  is  not 
infrequently  broken  through,  and  thus  indeed  the  artistic  effect 
is  heightened  as  in  the  Song  of  Deborah.^  And  though  the 
Hebrew  poet  uses  the  refrain,  yet  he  likes  to  modify  it,  as  in 
the  lament  of  David  over  Jonathan,*  and  in  the  magnificent 
prophecy  of  the  great  projjhet  of  the  exile. ^  Again,  though 
the  Hebrew  poet  uses  the  alphabet  to  give  his  lines  or  strophes 
a  regularity  in  order,  using  it  as  so  many  stairs  up  which  to 
climb  in  pi-aise,  in  pleading,  in  lamentation,  and  iu  advancing 
instruction,®  jet  in  the  book~"of  Lamentations  each  chapter 
varies  in  number  of  lines,  and  in  use  of  alphabet.  Free  as  the 
ocean  is  the  poet's  emotion,  rising  like  the  waves  in  majestic 
strivings,  heaving  as  an  agitated  sea,  ebbing  and  flowing  like 
the  tide  in  solemn  and  measured  antitheses,  sporting  like  the 
wavelets  upon  a  sandy  beach. 

3.  The  Hebrew  language  has  a  wonderful  majesty  and  sub- 
limity. This  arises  partlj'  from  its  original  religious  genius,  but 
chiedy  from  the  sublime  materials  of  its  thought.  God,  the 
only  true  God,  Yahweh,  the  H0I3'  Redeemer  of  His  people,  is 
the  central  theme  of  the  Hebrew  language  and  literature,  a 
God  not  apart  from  nature,  and  not  involved  in  nature,  no 
Pantheistic  God,  no  mere  Deistic  God,  but  a  God  who  enters 
into  sympathetic  relations  with  His  creatures,  who  is  recog- 

^  E.g.,  the  Hebrew  language  gives  the  two  words :  Wurd  of  God,  in  construct 
relation,  and  expresses  tlie  relation  between  them  by  an  internal  change  in  the 
vowel  of  one  of  them,  rather  than  by  the  insertion  of  a  preposition,  or  the  use  of 
a  case  :  e.g.  D'bhar  ^Elohim.  In  late  Hebrew  this  might  be  given  as  Dabhar  It 
^Elohim.  The  possessive  pronoun  is  attached  to  the  noun  as  a  suffix :  e.g.  d'bharo 
=  his  word.  »  Jd.  5.  *  2  Sam.  V^^. 

'  Is.  40-66.     See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  pp.  3.S8  seq. 

'These  are  specimens  of  alphabetical  poems.  I'ss.  9-10,  ,34,  .37,  111,  112. 
119,  146;  Lam.  1-4. 


LANGUAGES   OF   PIOLY   SCRIPTURE  57 

nized  and  praised,  as  well  as  miiiistereil  uuto  by  the  material 
creation.  Hence  there  is  a  realism  in  the  Hebrew  language 
that  can  nowhere  else  be  found  to  the  same  extent.  The 
Hebrew  people  were  as  realistic  as  the  Greek  were  idealistic. 
Their  God  is  not  a  God  thought  out,  reasoned  out  as  an  ulti- 
mate cause,  or  chief  of  a  Pantheon,  but  a  personal  God,  known 
by  them  in  His  association  with  them  by  a  proper  name,  Yahweh. 
Hence  the  so-called  anthropomorphisms  and  anthropopathisms 
of  the  Old  Testament,  so  alien  to  the  Indo-Germanic  mind  that 
an  Occidental  theology  must  explain  them  away,  from  an  in- 
capacity to  enter  into  that  bold  and  sublime  realism  of  the 
Hebrews.  Thus,  again,  man  is  presented  to  us  in  all  his  naked 
reality,  in  his  weakness  and  sins,  in  his  depravity  and  wretched- 
ness, as  well  as  in  his  bravery  and  beauty,  his  holiness  and  wis- 
dom. In  the  Hebrew  hei'oes  we  see  men  of  like  passions  with 
ourselves,  and  feel  that  their  experience  is  the  key  to  the  joys 
and  sorrows  of  our  life.  So  also  in  their  conception  of  nature. 
Nature  is  to  the  Hebrew  poet  all  aglow  with  the  glory  of  God, 
and  intimately  associated  with  man  in  las  origin,  history,  and 
destiny.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  science ;  that  was  for  the 
Indo-Germanic  mind  ;  but  they  give  us  that  which  science  never 
gives,  that  which  science  is  from  its  nature  unable  to  present 
us  :  namely,  those  concrete  relations,  those  expressive  features  of 
nature  that  declare  to  man  their  Master's  mind  and  character, 
and  claim  human  sympathy  and  protection  as  they  yearn  with 
man  for  the  Messianic  future.  Now  the  Hebrew  language  mani- 
fests this  realism  on  its  very  face.  Its  richness  in  synonyms  is 
remarkable.  It  is  said  that  the  Hebrew  language  has,  relatively 
to  the  English,  ten  times  as  many  roots  and  ten  times  fewer 
words  ; '  and  that  while  the  Greek  language  has  1800  roots  to 
100,000  words,  the  Hebrew  has  2000  roots  to  10,000  words.^ 
This  wealth  in  synonyms  is  appalling  to  the  Indo-Germanic 
scholar  who  comes  to  the  Hebrew  from  the  Latin  and  the  Greek, 
where  the  synonyms  are  more  or  less  accurately  defined.  But 
nothing  of  tiie  kind  has  yet  been  done  by  any  Shemitic  scholar. 
It  is  exceedingly  doubtful  whether  this  richness  of  synonyms 

>  Grill,  in  I.e. 

2  Bottclier,  Ausf.  LKhylmcli  d.  Heh.  Sprache.  I.  p.  8.     Leipzig,  1866. 


58  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

can  be  reduced  to  a  system  and  the  terms  sharply  and  clearly 
defined  ;  the  differences  are  like  those  of  the  peculiar  gutturals 
of  the  Shemitic  tongues,  so  delicate  and  subtle  that  they  can 
hardly  be  mastered  by  the  Western  tongue  or  ear. 

This  wealth  of  synonym  is  connected  with  a  corresponding 
richness  of  expression  in  the  synonymous  clauses  that  play  such 
an  important  part  in  Hebrew  poetry,  and  indeed  are  the  reason 
of  its  wonderful  richness  and  majesty  of  thought.^  Thus  the 
sacred  poet  or  prophet  plan's  upon  his  theme  as  upon  a  man}"^- 
stringed  instrument,  bringing  out  a  great  variety  of  tone  and 
melody,  advancing  in  graceful  steppings  or  stately  marchings 
to  the  climax,  or  dwelling  upon  the  theme  with  an  inexhausti- 
ble variety  of  expression  and  colouring.  The  Hebrew  language 
is  like  the  rich  and  glorious  verdure  of  Lebanon,  or  as  the  lovely 
face  of  the  Shulamite,  dark  as  the  tents  of  Kedar,  yet  rich  in 
colour  as  the  curtains  of  Solomon,  or  her  graceful  form,  which  is 
so  rapturously  described  as  she  discloses  its  beauties  in  the 
dance  of  the  hosts. ^  It  is  true  that  Hebrew  literature  is  not 
as  extensive  as  the  Greek  ;  it  is  confined  to  history,  poetry, 
fiction,  oratory,  and  ethical  wisdom  ;  ^  but  in  these  departments 
it  presents  the  grandest  pi'oductions  of  the  human  soul.  Its 
history  gives  us  the  origin  and  destiny  of  our  race,  unfolds  the 
story  of  redemption,  dealing  now  with  the  individual,  then  with 
the  family  and  nation,  and  at  times  widening  so  as  to  take  into 
its  field  of  representation  the  most  distant  nations  of  earth  ;  it 
is  a  history  in  which  God  is  the  great  actor,  in  which  sin  and 
holiness  are  the  chief  factors.  Its  poetry  stirs  the  heart  of 
mankind  with  hymns  and  prayers,  and  sentences  of  wisdom ; 
and  in  the  heroic  struggles  of  a  Job  and  the  conquering  virtue 
of  a  Shulamite,  there  is  imparted  strength  to  the  soul  and  vigour 
to  the  character  of  man  and  woman  transcemling  the  influence 
of  the  godlike  Achilles  or  the  chaste  Lucretia.  The  great 
prophet  of  the  exile  ^  presents  the  sublimest  aspirations  of  man. 
Where  shall  we  find  such  images  of  beauty,  such  wealth  of 
illustration,  such  grandeur  of  delineation,  such  majestic  repre- 
sentations?    It  seems  as  if  the  prophet  grasped  in  his  tremen- 

»  See  pp.  .366  se.q.  a  See  Chap.  XIII.  and  XVII. 

"  Song  of  Songs,  1' ;  7".  «  Is.  40-66. 


LANGUAGES  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  69 

dous  soul  the  movements  of  the  ages,  and  saw  the  very  future 
mirrored  in  the  mind  of  God. 

4.  The  Hebrew  language  is  remarkable  for  its  life  and  fervour. 
This  is  owing  to  the  emotional  and  hearty  character  of  the 
people.  There  is  an  artlessness,  self-abandonment,  and  earnest- 
ness in  the  Hebrew  tongue  ;  it  is  transparent  as  a  glass,  so  that 
we  see  through  it  as  into  the  very  souls  of  the  people.  There 
is  none  of  that  reserve,  that  cool  and  calm  deliberation,  that 
self-consciousness  that  characterize  the  Greek. i  The  Hebrew 
language  is  distinguished  by  the  strength  of  its  consonants  and 
the  weakness  of  its  vowels  ;  so  that  the  consonants  give  the 
word  a  stability  of  form  in  which  the  vowels  have  the  greatest 
freedom  of  movement.  The  vowels  circulate  in  the  speech  as 
the  blood  of  the  language.  Hence  the  freedom  in  the  varying 
expressions  of  the  same  root  and  the  fervour  of  its  full-toned 
forms.  And  if  we  can  trust  the  Alassoretic  system  of  accentua- 
tion and  vocalization,  the  inflection  of  the  language  depends 
upon  the  dislike  of  the  recurrence  of  two  vowelless  consonants;  ^ 
and  on  the  power  of  the  accent  over  the  vocalization  not  only 
of  the  accented  syllable,  but  also  of  the  entire  word.^  This 
gives  the  language  a  wonderful  flexibility  and  elasticity.  In 
the  Hebrew  tongue  the  emotions  overpower  the  thoughts  and 
carry  them  on  in  the  rushing  stream  to  the  expression.  Hence 
the  literature  has  a  power  over  the  souls  of  mankind.  The 
language  is  as  expressive  of  emotion  as  the  face  of  a  modest 
and  untutored  child,  and  the  literature  is  but  the  speaking  face 
of  the  lieart  of  the  Hebrew  people.  The  Psalms  touch  a  chord 
in  every  soul,  and  interpret  the  experience  of  all  the  world. 
The  sentences  of  wisdom  come  to  us  as  the  home-truths,  as  the 
social  and  political  maxims  that  sway  our  minds  and  direct  our 
lives.  The  prophets  present  to  us  the  objective  omnipotent 
truth,  which,   according  to   the   beautiful   story  of   Zerubba- 

1  Ewald,  in  I.e.,  p.  3.3;  Bottcher,  in  I.e.,  p.  9.  Bertlieau,  in  Herzog,  Beal 
Eneyklopddie,  I.  Aufl.  Bd.  v.  p.  613. 

-  Hence  the  remarkable  use  of  the  Shewas  and  the  law  of  the  half-open  syl- 
lable. In  the  oldest  language  doubtless  every  consonant  had  a  full  vowel  as  in 
Arabic. 

^  Hence  the  use  of  tlic  pretonic  Qdmetz.  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  belongs 
to  the  ancient  language.    The  principle  is,  however,  independent  of  this  question. 


60  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

bel,^  is  the  mightiest  of  all,  flashing  conviction  like  the  sun  and 
cutting  to  the  heart  as  by  a  sharp  two-edged  sword. ^  The  his- 
tory presents  us  the  simple  facts  of  the  lives  of  individuals  and 
of  nations  in  the  light  of  the  divine  countenance,  speaking  to 
our  hearts  and  photographing  upon  us  pictures  of  real  life. 

These  are  some  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  which  have  made  it  the  most  suitable  of  all  languages 
to  give  to  mankind  the  elementary  religious  truths  and  facts 
of  divine  revelation.  The  great  body  of  the  Bible,  four-fifths 
of  the  sum  total  of  God's  Word,  is  in  this  tongue.  It  is  no 
credit  to  the  American  people  that  the  Hebrew  language  has  no 
place  at  all  in  many  of  our  colleges  and  universities ;  that  its 
study  has  been  confined  to  so  great  an  extent  to  theological 
seminaries  and  to  the  students  for  the  ministry.  It  is  not 
strange  that  the  Old  Testament  has  been  neglected  in  the  pul- 
pit, the  Sabbath  school,  and  the  family,  so  that  many,  even  of 
the  ministry,  have  doubted  whether  it  was  any  longer  to  be 
regarded  as  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  not  strange  that  Christian 
scholars,  prejudiced  by  their  training  in  the  languages  and 
literatures  of  Greece  and  Rome,  should  be  unable  to  enter  into 
the  spirit,  and  appreciate  the  peculiar  features  of  the  Hebrew 
language  and  literature,  and  so  fail  to  understand  the  elements 
of  a  divine  revelation.  Separating  the  New  Testament  and  the 
words  and  work  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles  from  their  founda- 
tion and  their  historical  preparation,  studeuts  have  not  caught 
the  true  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  nor  apprehended  it  in  its  unity 
and  variety  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.^  But 
this  is  not  all,  for  we  shall  now  attempt  to  show  that  the  other 
languages  of  the  Bible,  the  Ai'amaic  and  the  Greek,  have  been 
moulded  and  transformed  by  the  theological  conceptions  and 
moral  ideas  that  had  been  developing  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
and  which,  having  been  ripened  under  the  potent  influence  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  were  about  to  burst  forth  into  bloom  and 
eternal  fruitfulness  in  these  tongues  prepai-ed  by  Divine  Provi- 

1 1.  Esdras  i^^K  2  Heb.  4'^. 

'  It  is  becoming  more  evident  now  than  ever  tliat  it  is  impossible  rightly  to 
interpret  the  New  Testament  without  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Aramaic  languages,  in  whicli  indeed  tlie  words  of  Jesus  and  the  primary  sources 
of  the  New  Testament  writings  were  given.     See  pp.  190,  244. 


LANGUAGES   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTUKE  61 

dence  for  the  purpose.  The  Hebrew  language  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  hxuguage  of  religion,  and  moulded  entirely  by  religious 
and  moral  ideas  and  emotions.  The  Greek  and  the  Aramaic 
are  of  an  entirely  different  character  ;  they  were  not,  as  the 
Hebrew,  cradled  and  nursed,  trained  from  infancy  to  childhood, 
armed  and  equipped  in  their  heroic  youth  with  divine  revela- 
tion, but  they  were  moulded  outside  of  the  realm  of  divine  reve- 
lation, and  only  subsequently  adapted  for  the  declaration  of 
sacred  truth.     And  first  this  was  the  case  with  the  Aramaic. 

HI.     The  Aramaic  Language 

goes  back  in  its  history  to  the  most  primitive  times.  It  is  the 
farthest  developed  of  the  Shemitic  family,  showing  a  decline, 
a  decrepitude,  in  its  poverty  of  forms  and  vocalization,  in  its 
brevity  and  abruptness,  in  its  pleonasm,  and  in  its  incorpora- 
tion of  a  multitude  of  foreign  words.  It  was  the  language  of 
those  races  of  Syria  and  Mesopotamia  that  warred  with  the 
Egyptians  and  Assyrians,  and  possibly,  as  Gladstone  suggests, 
took  part  in  the  Trojan  War,i  who  were  the  agents  through 
whom  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  alphabets  were  con- 
vej'ed  to  those  peoples.  At  all  events  the  Aramaic  became  the 
language  of  commerce  and  intercourse  between  the  nations 
during  the  Persian  period,^  taking  the  place  of  the  Phcenician, 
as  it  was  in  turn  supplanted  by  the  Greek.  The  children  of 
Judah  having  been  carried  into  captivity  and  violently  sepa- 
rated from  their  sacred  places  and  the  scenes  of  their  history, 
gradually  acquired  this  commercial  and  common  language  of 
intercourse,  so  that  ere  long  it  became  the  language  of  the 
Hebrew  people,  the  knowledge  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  being 
confined  to  the  learned  and  the  higher  ranks  of  society.  Hence, 
even  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Daniel,  considerable  portions 
were  written  in  Aramaic.^ 

The  Aramaic  continued  to  be  the  language  of  the  Jews 
during  the  Persian,  Greek,  and  Roman  periods,  and  was  the 

1  Gladstone's  Homeric  Synchronism,  New  York,  1876,  p.  173. 

2  It  must  also  have  been  widely  spoken  in  the  Assyrian  period,  as  we  see  from 
2  Kg.  18"  ;  see  also  Fried.  Delitzsch,  Wo  Lag  das  Parodies.  Leipzig,  1881, 
p.  2.58.  8  See  pp.  172,  351. 


62  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTURE 

common  speech  of  Palestine  in  the  times  of  our  Lord,i  although 
it  had  long  ceased  to  be  the  language  of  commerce  and  inter- 
course, the  Greek  having  taken  its  place.  And  so  the  Greek 
gradually  penetrated  from  the  commercial  and  official  circles 
even  to  the  lowest  ranks  of  society.  Thus  there  was  a  min- 
gling of  a  Greek  population  with  the  Shemitic  races,  not  only  in 
the  Greek  colonies  of  the  Decapolis  and  the  cities  of  the  sea- 
coast  of  Palestine,  but  also  in  the  great  centres  of  Tiberias, 
Samaria,  and  even  in  Jerusalem  itself.  Greek  manners  and 
customs  were,  under  the  influence  of  the  Herodians  and  the 
Sadducees,  pressing  upon  the  older  Aramaic  and  Hebrew,  not 
without  the  stout  resistance  of  the  Pharisees.  The  language 
of  our  Saviour,  however,  in  which  He  delivered  His  discourses 
and  instructions,  was  undoubtedly  the  Aramaic.  For  not  only 
do  the  Aramaic  terms  that  He  used,  which  are  retained  at  times 
by  the  evangelists,  and  the  proper  names  of  His  disciples,  but 
also  the  very  structure  and  style  of  His  discourses,  show  the 
Aramaic  characteristics.  Our  Saviour's  methods  of  delivery 
and  stvle  of  instruction  were  also  essentially  the  same  as  those 
of  the  rabbins  of  His  time.  Hence  we  should  not  think  it 
strange  that  from  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  literature  alone  we 
can  bring  forward  parallels  to  the  wise  sentences  and  moral 
maxims  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  rich  and  beautiful 
parables,  by  which  He  illustrated  His  discourses,  and  the  fiery 
zeal  of  His  denunciation  of  hypocrisy,  together  with  the  pro- 
found depths  of  His  esoteric  instruction.  Our  Saviour  used 
the  Aramaic  language  and  methods,  in  order  thereby  to  reach 
the  people  of  His  times,  and  place  in  the  prepared  Aramaic 
soil  the  precious  seeds  of  heavenly  truth.  It  is  the  providential 
signiticance  of  the  Aramaic  language  that  it  thus  prepared 
the  body  for  the  thought  of  cur  Saviour.  It  is  a  language 
admirably  adapted  by  its  simplicity,  perspicuity,  precision,  and 
definiteness,  with  all  its  awkwardness,  for  the  associations  of 
every-day  life.  It  is  the  language  for  the  lawyer  and  the 
scribe,  the  pedagogue  and  the  pupil ;  indeed,  the  English 
language  of  the  Shemitic  family. ^     Thus  the  earlier  Aramaic 

1  Schurer,  Neutestament.  Zeitgesch.,  Leipzig,  1874,  p.  372.     See  pp.  172  seq. 
3  Volck  in  Herzog'a  Seal  Encyklopadie,  II.  Aufl.  1,  p.  603. 


LANGUAGES   OF    HOLY   SCULPTURE  63 

of  the  Bible  gives  us  only  official  documents,  letters,  and 
decrees,  or  else  simple  narrative.  But  the  language  was  subse- 
quently moulded  by  the  Jewish  people  after  the  return  from 
exile,  thi-ough  the  giving  of  the  sense  of  the  original  Hebrew 
Scriptures.^  This  resulted  in  the  production  of  oral  targums 
or  popular  versions  of  the  ancient  scriptures  which  were  lianded 
down  by  oral  transmission  by  those  who  officiated  in  the  syna- 
gogues and  were  not  committed  to  writing  until  after  centuries 
of  oral  use. 2  The  life  of  the  Jewish  people,  subsequent  to  the 
exile,  was  largely  devoted  to  this  giving  of  the  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  both  in  the  Halacha  of  the  rabbinical 
schools,  and  in  the  Haggada  of  the  synagogue  and  the  social 
circle.^  It  is  true  that  the  Halacha  was  developed  in  the  rival 
schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  into  the  most  subtle  questions 
of  casuistry,  and  our  Savioiu-  often  severely  reproved  the 
Pharisaic  spirit  for  its  subtlety  and  scholasticism  ;  yet  not 
infrequentlj'  He  employed  their  methods  to  the  discomfiture  of 
His  opponents,*  although  His  own  spirit  was  rather  that  of  the 
old  prophets  than  of  the  scribes.  The  Haggada  was  developed 
by  the  rabbins  into  a  great  variety  of  forms  of  ethical  wisdom 
and  legend.  This  we  see  already  in  the  apocryphal  books  of 
Wisdom,  in  the  stories  of  Zerubbabel,  of  Judith,  of  Susanna, 
and  of  Tobit.^  This  latter  method  was  the  favoui-ite  one  of  our 
Saviour,  as  suited  for  the  instruction  of  the  common  people, 
and  to  it  we  may  attribute  the  parables,  which,  though  after 
the  manner  of  the  scribes,^  have  yet  a  clearness  and  trans- 
parency as  the  atmosphere  of  the  Holy  Land  itself,  a  richness 
and  simplicity  as  the  scarlet  flower  of  the  fields  He  loved  so 
well,  a  calm  majesty  and  profound  mystery  as  the  great  deep  ; 
for  He  was  the  expositor  of  the  divine  mind,  heart,  and  being 
to  mankind.^ 

1  Neh.  8«.  2  See  pp.  210  seq.  «  See  pp.  4:10  seq. 

*  Mt.  22'^"'*.  See  Weizsacker,  XJntersuchungen  uber  die  ev.  Gesckichte, 
Gotha,  1864,  pp.  .358  seq. 

'  Zunz,  Gottesdienxtlichen  Vortrage  der  Juden,  Berlin,  18.32,  pp.  42,  100,  120  ; 
Etheridge,  Introduction  to  Hebrew  Literature,  London,  18.50,  pp.  102  seq.  Those 
who  are  interested  in  this  subject  may  find  a  large  collection  of  this  Ilaggadistic 
literature  in  the  BibUothecn  Rahhinica,  Eine  Sammhing  Alter  Midraschim  ins 
Deutsche  iibertragen  von  Aug.  Wunsche,  20  Lief.     Leipzig,  1880-84. 

«  Uausrath,  Die  Zeit  Jesus,  Heidelberg,  1868,  p.  90.  '  John  l'*. 


64  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  richest  collection  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  the  sen- 
tences of  Wisdom,  uttered  originally  in  Aramaic,  but  trans- 
lated by  the  apostle  Matthew  in  his  Logia  ^  into  Hebrew,  and 
then  finally  in  our  synoptic  Gospels  into  Greek.  No  one  can 
fully  understand  them  until  he  traces  them  back  to  their 
Sliemitic  originals  and  sees  them  in  the  measured  lines  and 
well  ordered  strophes  and  varied  parallelisms  characteristic  of 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  gnomic  poetrj-.^ 

The  office  of  the  Aramaic  language  was  to  mediate  between 
the  old  world  and  the  new  —  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  ;  fur 
the  Greek  language  was  the  one  chosen  to  set  forth  the  divine 
revelation  in  its  fulness. 

IV.     The  Greek  Language 

was  born  and  grew  to  full  maturity  outside  of  the  sphere  of 
the  divine  revelation,  and  j'et  was  predestined  "as  the  most 
beautiful,  rich,  and  harmonious  language  ever  spoken  or 
written  "  "  to  form  the  pictures  of  silver  in  which  the  golden 
apple  of  the  Gospel  should  be  preserved  for  all  generations.'"^ 
For,  as  Alexander  the  Great  broke  in  pieces  the  Oriental 
world-monarchies  that  fettered  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  pre- 
pared a  theatre  for  its  world-wide  expansion,  so  did  the  Greek 
language  and  literature,  that  his  veterans  carried  with  them, 
prove  more  potent  weapons  than  their  swords  and  spears  for 
transft)rming  the  civilization  of  the  East  and  j)rei:)aring  a  lan- 
guage for  the  universal  Gospel.  The  Greek  language  is  the 
beautiful  flower,  the  elegant  jewel,  the  most  finislied  ma.ster- 
piece  of  Indo-Germanic  thought.  In  its  early  beginning  we 
see  a  number  of  dialects  spoken  by  a  brave  and  warlike  people, 
struggling  with  one  another,  as  well  as  with  external  foes, 
maintaining  themselves  successfully  against  the  Oriental  and 
African  civilizations,  while  at  the  same  time  they  appropriated 

>  See  McGiftert,  Eusebhts,  pp.  162,  163,  173,  and  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gos- 
pels., pp.  41  seq.,  71  seq. 

2  See  my  articles  on  '•  Tlip  Wisdom  of  Jesus,"  in  the  Expository  Times,  June, 
July.  August,  and  November,  1897. 

»  Scliaff,  Ilisl.  of  the  Apostolic  Churrh,  p.  ur,.  New  York,  1869.  See  also 
SchatT,  JJistory  of  the  Christian  Church,  1.  p.  78.     New  York,  1882. 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  65 

those  elements  of  culture  which  they  could  incorporate  into 
their  own  original  thought  and  life ;  a  race  of  heroes  such  as 
the  earth  has  nowhere  else  produced,  fighting  their  way  up- 
ward into  light  and  culture  until  they  attained  the  towering 
summits  of  an  art,  a  literature,  and  a  philosophy,  that  has  ever 
been  the  admiration  and  wonder  of  mankind.  As  Pallas 
sprang  forth  in  full  heroic  stature  from  the  head  of  her  father 
Zeus,  so  Greek  literature  sprang  into  historical  existence  in 
the  matchless  Iliad.  Its  classic  period  was  constituted  by  the 
heroism  and  genius  of  the  Athenian  republic,  which  worked 
even  more  mightily  in  language,  literature,  and  art,  than  in  the 
fields  of  politics  and  wai-,  producing  the  histories  of  a  Thu- 
cydides  and  a  Xenophon,  the  tragedies  of  an  ^schylus  and  a 
Sophocles,  the  philosoph}-  of  a  Socrates  and  a  Plato,  the  oratory 
of  a  Demosthenes  and  an  ^^Eschines.  Looking  at  the  Greek 
language  before  it  became  the  world-language,  and  so  the  lan- 
guage of  a  divine  revelation,  we  observe  that  its  characteristic 
features  are  in  strong  contrast  with  those  of  the  Hebrew 
tongue. 

1.  The  Greek  language  is  complex  and  artistic.  As  the 
Hebrew  mind  perceives  and  contemplates,  the  Greek  conceives 
and  reflects.  Hence  the  Greek  etymology  is  elaborate  in  its 
development  of  forms  from  a  few  roots,  in  the  declensions  and 
cases  of  nouns,  in  the  conjugations,  tenses,  and  moods  of  the 
verb,  giving  the  idea  a  great  A'ariety  of  modifications.  Hence 
the  syntax  is  exceedingly  complex  in  the  varied  use  of  the  con- 
junctions and  particles,  the  intricate  arrangement  of  the  sen- 
tences as  they  may  be  combined  into  grand  periods,  which 
require  the  closest  attention  of  a  practised  mind  to  follow,  in 
their  nice  discriminations  and  adjustments  of  the  thought.^ 
Hence  the  complex  and  delicate  rules  of  prosody,  with  the 
great  variety  of  metres  and  rhythms.  The  Greek  mind  would 
wrestle  with  the  external  world,  would  search  out  and  explore 
the  reason  of  things,  not  being  satisfied  with  the  phenomena,  but 
grasping  for  the  noumena.  Thus  a  rich  and  varied  literature 
was  developed,  complex  in  character,  for  the  epos,  the  drama, 

'  Curtius,    Griech.    Gesch.,    Berlin,  1865,  2d   Aufl.,  L  pp.  19,  20;   History 
of  Greece,  New  York,  1875,  Vol.  I.  pp.  30,  .32. 


66  STUDV   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

the  philosophical  treatise,  and  scientific  discussion  are  purely 
Greek,  and  could  have  little  place  among  the  Hebrews,  i 

2.  The  Greek  language  is  characterized  by  its  attention 
to  the  form  or  style  of  its  speech,  not  to  limit  the  freedom  of 
the  movement  of  thought  and  emotion,  but  to  direct  them  in 
the  channels  of  clear,  definite,  logical  sentences,  and  beautiful, 
elegant,  and  artistic  rhetorical  figures.  The  Greek  was  a 
thorough  artist ;  and  as  the  palaces  of  his  princes,  the  temples 
of  his  gods,  the  images  of  his  worship,  his  clothing  and  his 
armour,  must  be  perfect  in  form  and  exquisite  in  finished  deco- 
ration, so  the  language,  as  the  palace,  the  dress  of  his  thought, 
must  be  symmetrical  and  elegant. '■^  Hence  there  is  no  language 
that  has  such  laws  of  eui^hony,  involving  changes  in  vocaliza- 
tion, and  the  transposition  and  mutation  of  letters ;  for  their 
words  must  be  musical,  their  elates  harmonious,  their  sen- 
tences and  periods  symmetrical.  And  so  they  are  combined 
in  the  most  exquisite  taste  in  the  dialogues  of  the  philosopher, 
the  measures  of  the  poet,  the  stately  periods  of  the  historian 
and  the  orator.  The  sentences  "are  mtricate,  complex,  in- 
volved like  an  ivory  cabinet,  till  the  discovery  of  its  nomina- 
tive gives  you  the  key  for  unlocking  the  mechanism  and 
admiring  the  ingenuity  and  beauty  of  its  rhetoric."  ^ 

3.  The  Greek  language  is  thus  beautiful  and  finished.  The 
Greek  mind  was  essentially  ideal,  not  accepting  the  external 
world  as  its  own,  but  transforming  it  to  suit  its  genius  and  its 
taste.  This  was  owing  to  its  original  humanizing  genius  and 
its  central  theme,  man  as  the  heroic,  man  as  the  ideally  per- 
fect.* As  the  language  and  literature  of  the  Hebrews  were 
inspired  to  describe  the  righteous  acts  of  Yahwelrs  dominion 
in  Israel  and  the  victories  of  His  holy  arm.^  and  thus  were 
majestic  and  sublime ;  so  the  language  and  literature  of  tlie 
Greeks  were  to  sing  the  exploits  of  the  godlike  Achilles,  the 

1  Donaldson,  The  New  Cratylus,  Sd  ed.  p.  153. 

2  Curtius,  Gricch.  Gesch.  I.  pp.  20,  21 ;  History  of  Greece,  New  York,  1875, 
I.  pp.  32-34. 

3  W.  Adams.  Charge  on  Occasion  of  the  Indttction  of  Dr.  Shedd  as  Professor 
of  Itihlical  IJtcrnture,  New  York,  1804,  p.  10. 

*  ^c\\?i.S,  Apostolic  CInirch.  New  York,  p.  145;   Zezschviitz,  Profangracitiit 
und  biblischer  Sprachgebrauch,  Leipzig,  1869,  p.  13.  '  Jd.  6"  ;  Ps.  98'. 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  67 

crafty  Ulysses,  and  the  all-couquering  Hercules ;  to  paint 
the  heroic  struggles  of  the  tribes  at  Thermopylie,  Salamis,  and 
Flatea,  to  conceive  a  model  republic  and  an  ideal  human  world, 
and  thus  were  beautiful,  stately,  and  charming.  The  gods  are 
idealized  virtues  and  vices  and  powers  of  nature,  and  con- 
ceived after  the  fashion  of  heroic  men  and  women,  arranged 
in  a  mythology  which  is  a  marvel  of  taste  and  genius.  Nature 
is  idealized,  and  every  plant  and  tree  and  fountain  becomes  a 
living  being.  Indeed,  everything  that  the  Greek  mind  touched 
it  clothed  with  its  own  ideals  of  beauty.  Hence  the  drama  is 
the  most  appropriate  literature  for  such  a  people,  and  the  dia- 
logue the  proper  method  of  its  philosophy. ^ 

4.  The  Greek  language  has  remarkable  strength  and  vigour. 
Its  stems  have  been  compressed,  vowel  and  consonant  com- 
pacted together.  Its  words  are  complete  in  themselves,  end- 
ing only  in  vowels  and  the  consonants  ru  r,  and  s ;  they  have  a 
singular  independence,  as  the  Greek  citizen  and  warrioi-,  and 
are  protected  from  mutilation  and  change.^  It  is  true  it  has 
a  limited  number  of  roots,  yet  it  is  capable  of  developing  there- 
from a  great  variety  of  words  ;^  so  that  although  it  cannot 
approach  the  wealth  of  synonym  of  the  Hebrew,  yet  its  words 
are  trained  as  the  athlete,  and  capable  of  a  great  variety  of 
movements  and  striking  effects.  Its  syntax  is  organized  on 
the  most  perfect  system,  all  its  parts  compacted  into  a  solid 
mass,  in  which  the  individual  is  not  lost,  but  gives  his  strength 
to  impart  to  the  whole  the  weight  and  invincible  push  of  the 
phalanx.  Hence  the  Greek  language  is  peculiarly  the  lan- 
guage of  oratory  that  would  sway  the  mind  and  conquer  with 
invincible  argument.  It  is  the  language  of  a  Demosthenes,  the 
model  orator  for  the  world.  It  wrestles  with  the  mind,  it 
parries  and  thrusts,  it  conquers  as  an  armed  host. 

Such  was  the  language  with  which  Alexander  went  forth  to 
subdue  the  world,  and  which  he  made  the  common  speech  of 
the  nations  for  many  generations.     It  is  true  that  the  Greek 

'  Curtius,  Griech.  Gesch.  III.  p.  508 ;  History  of  Greece,  New  York,  1875, 
Vol.  V.  pp.  169,  170. 

'■^  Curtius,  Griech.  Oesch.  I.  p.  18 ;  Hist,  of  Greece,  New  York,  1875,  Vol.  L 
p.  29. 

'  Jelf,  Greek  Oram.  4th  ed.,  Oxford,  1864,  p.  330. 


68  STUDY   OF   HOLT   SCRIPTURE 

was  required  to  forfeit  somewhat  of  its  elegance  and  refinement 
in  its  collision  with  so  many  barbarous  tongues,  but  it  lost 
none  of  its  essential  characteristics  when  it  was  adopted  by  the 
Egyptian,  the  Syrian,  and  the  Jew.  The  Jews  were  scattered 
widely  in  the  earth,  engaged  in  commercial  pursuits  that 
required  them,  above  all  others,  to  master  the  common  sijeech 
of  the  nations.  Hence  those  of  Europe.  Asia  Minor,  and 
Africa,  easily  adopted  the  Greek  as  their  vernacular,  and  it 
gradually  became  more  and  more  the  language  of  Syria  and 
Palestine.  This  was  furthered  bj-  the  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  into  the  Greek  at  Alexandria,  the  centi-e  of 
the  Greek  culture  of  the  times.  This  translation  shows  upon 
its  face  the  difficulties  of  rendei-ing  for  the  first  time  foreign 
conceptions  into  a  strange  tongue,^  but  nevertheless  it  became 
of  incalculable  importance  in  prepaiTng  the  way  for  the  New 
Testament  writers.  The  original  productions  of  the  Jews  of 
Alexandria  and  Palestine,  some  of  which  are  preserved  in  the 
apocrj^phal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Pseudepi- 
grapha  combined  to  produce  the  same  result. ^  Gradually  the 
Jewish  mind  was  modified  by  the  Greek  thought  and  culture, 
and  the  Greek  language  was,  on  the  other  hand,  adapted  to  the 
expression  of  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  conceptions.  The  apostles 
of  our  Lord,  if  they  were  to  carry  on  a  work  and  exert  an 
influence,  world-wide  and  enduring,  were  required,  from  the 
very  circumstances  of  the  times,  to  use  the  Greek ;  for  the 
Aramaic  would  have  had  but  a  narrow  and  ever-diminishing 
influence,  even  if  their  labours  had  been  confined  to  the  S3^na- 
gogues  of  the  dispersed  Jews  in  Palestine  and  Syria.  Hence 
we  are  not  surprised  that,  without  au  exception,  so  far  as  we 
know,  our  New  Testament  writers  composed  their  works  in 
Greek,  yes,  even  gave  us  the  Aramaic  discourses  of  our  Saviour 
in  the  Greek  tongue.  Nor  was  this  without  its  providential 
purpose ;  for  though  our  Saviour  delivered  His  discourses  in 
Aramaic,  yet  they  were  not  taken  down  by  the  apostles  as  they 

'  Reuss,  Sellenistisches  Idiom,  In  Herzog,  Beal  EnnjktopSdie,  I.  Aufl.  p.  709, 
II.  Aufl.  p.  745;  Hatch,  Esmys  in  Biblical  Greek,  Oxford.  1889,  pp.  1  seq. 

"  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  4  seq. ;  and  Messiah  of  the  Apostles, 
pp.  13  seq. 


LAXGUAGES   OF   HOLY   t^CRU'TLKE  69 

heard  them  in  that  tongue,  but  were  subsequently  recalled  to 
their  minds  'by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  in  accordance  with  the 
promise  of  our  Lord,  brought  all  things  to  their  remembrance.^ 
These  then  transmitted  them  to  their  disciples  either  in 
Aramaic,  Hebrew,  or  Gi-eek,  as  they  found  it  most  convenient 
in  their  teaching  and  preaching  in  different  lands  and  among 
many  different  nations.  The  original  Logia  of  St.  Matthew 
and  the  sources  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  and  possibly  the 
original  Gospel  of  St.  Jolm,  were  written  in  Hebrew.  But  in 
whatever  way  the  disciples  of  the  apostles  received  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  they  gave  it  to  the  woi'ld  in  Greek,  and  it  remains 
for  the  world  in  the  Greek  language  alone.  It  is  evident  there- 
fore that  Ave  have  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  it  passed  from  the 
Aramaic,  in  part,  at  least,  through  the  Hebraic  conceptions  of 
those  who  gave  the  primary  oral  and  written  sources,  and  the 
whole  of  it  through  the  Hellenistic  conceptions  of  the  writers 
of  our  present  Gospels.  The  words  of  Jesus  have  been  coloured 
and  paraphrased  bj^  the  minds  and  characters  of  those  who  were 
guided  b)'  the  Divine  Spirit  to  report  them. 

This  process  of  change  may  easily  be  traced  in  the  use  of  the 
original  Logia  by  the  Gospels ;  e.g.  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
this  is  an  original  logion  of  Jesus : 

Whoso  findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it ; 
But  whoso  loseth  his  life  shall  find  it. 

This  is  a  simple  antithetic  couplet  of  the  tetrameter  movement,^ 
complete  and  perfect  in  itself.     This  was  cited  Mk.  8"  as  follows : 

Whosoever  would  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ; 

And  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's  shall  save  it. 

It  is  evident  that  Mark  interprets  in  the  use  of  "  would  save  "  and 
"  shall  save  "  for  "  find  "  in  the  two  clauses ;  and  that  it  inserts 
"  for  my  sake  and  the  gospel's  "  in  order  to  show  that  this  loss  of 
life  must  have  a  Christian  motive.  Furthermore,  this  addition 
destroys  the  measure  of  the  line  and  transforms  the  couplet  from 
poetry  to  prose. 

Matthew  16^  cites  from  Mark,  the  primary  gospel,  as  usual ; 
but  it  omits  "  and  the  gospel's  "  and  restores  the  original  "  shall 
find  it "  in  the  second  clause  instead  of  Mark's  "  shall  save  it." 

1  John  143«.  "-  See  pp.  379,  .385. 


70  STLDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Luke  9^*  also  cites  from  Mark,  leaving  out  "  and  the  gospel's," 
but  inserting  the  demonstrative  "  the  same  shall  save  it." 

13ut  ]\[atthew  and  Luke  in  other  passages  cite  the  logion  directly 
from  the  Logia,  and  not  mediately  through  Mark.  Thus  Mt.  10® 
cites  it  exactly  from  the  Logia,  and  makes  no  change  except  by 
inserting  " for  my  sake"  in  the  second  clause.  Luke  IT'',  how- 
ever, paraphrases  here  so  that  the  most  of  the  language  is  new : 

Whosoever  shall  seek  to  gain  his  life  shall  lose  it ; 
But  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  shall  preserve  it. 

It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  no  additions  are  made  to  it. 
But  the  greatest  change  is  found  in  the  Gospel  of  John  12^ : 

He  that  loveth  his  life  shall  lose  it ; 

And  he  that  hateth  his  life  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life  eternal. 

The  first  line  is  simply  a  paraphrase,  but  the  second  line  makes 
a  long  insertion  as  well  as  a  paraphrase,  so  that  nothing  of  the 
original  is  left  but  the  substance  of  theT:hought.  Furthermore, 
the  antitheses  of  love  and  hate,  and  of  this  world  and  the  life 
eternal,  are  characteristic  of  the  author  of  John's  gospel,  and 
show  clearly  how  his  mind  has  coloured  and  reconstructed  the 
logion  of  Jesus. 

•  It  was  evidently  the  design  of  God  that  the  Saviour's  words, 
as  well  as  acts  and  His  glorious  person,  should  be  presented  to 
the  world  through  those  four  typical  evangelists,  who  appropri- 
ately represent  the  four  chief  phases  of  human  character  and 
experience,  and  that  they  should  be  stereotyped  in  the  Greek 
language.^ 

The  Xew  Testament  writers  used  the  common  Greek  of  their 
time,  yet  as  men  who  liad  been  trained  in  the  Hebrew  Scrijit- 
ures  and  in  the  Rabbinical  methods  of  exposition,  but  above  all 
as  holy  men  who  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Hence,  as  the  Greek  language  had  now  to  perform  a  work  for 
which  it  liad  providentially  been  preparing,  and  yet  one  which 
it  had  never  yet  attempted,  namel}-,  to  conve}-  t)ie  divine  reve- 
lation to  mankind,  so  it  must  be  remoulded  and  shaped  by  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit  to  express  ideas  that  were  new  both  to  the 
Greek  and  the  Jew,  but  which  had  been  developing  in  the  lan- 
guages and  literatures  of  both  nation.s,  for  each  in  its  way  pre- 

'  Winer,  New  Test.  Gram.,  Thayer's  edit.,  Andover,  1872,  p.  27;  Bleek, 
Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.,  11.  Autt.,  Berlin,  1866,  p.  76  j  Edin.,  1869,  pp.  72  seq. 


LANGUAGES   OF   HOLY   SCKU'TUKE  71 

pared  for  the  Gospel  of  Christ.^  Hence  we  are  not  surprised 
that  the  biblical  Greek  should  be  distinguished  not  only  from 
the  classic  models,  but  also  from  the  literary  Greek  of  the  time. 
Wheu  compared  with  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  and  the 
Apocrypha,  it  approximates  more  to  the  literary  Greek,  being 
'•  not  the  slavish  idiom  of  a  translation,  but  a  free,  language- 
creating  idiom,  without,  however,  denying  its  cradle.'"^  It  is 
true  that  much  of  its  elegance  and  artistic  finish  has  been  lost, 
and  the  nicely  rounded  sentences  and  elaborate  periods,  with 
their  delicately  shaded  conceptions,  have  disappeared,  yet  its 
distinguishing  characteristics,  especially  its  strength  and 
beauty,  its  perspicuity,  and  its  logical  and  rhetorical  power, 
have  been  preserved  ;  while  to  these  have  been  added  the  sim- 
plicity and  richness,  the  ardour  and  glow  of  the  Shemitic  style  ; 
but  over  and  above  all  the.se.  the  language  has  been  emploj-ed 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  transformed  and  transfigured,  yes, 
glorified,  with  a  light  and  sacreduess  that  the  classic  literature 
never  possessed.^ 

It  is  true  that  the  \vritings  of  the  New  Testament  are  not 
all  on  the  same  level  of  stj^le  and  language.*  The  gospels  of 
Matthew  and  ^lark,  and  the  Epistle  of  James,  together  with 
the  Apocalypse,  have  stronger  Hebraic  or  Aramaic  coloui'ing,^ 
which  disturbs  the  Greek  lines  of  beauty,  the  Greek  form 
being  overpowered  by  the  life  and  glow  of  the  Shemitic  emo- 
tion. In  the  writings  of  Lute  and  John,  and  especially  of 
Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  strength  and  excel- 
lence of  the  Greek  unite  with  the  peculiarities  of  the  Aramaic 
and  the  Hebrew  in  striving,  under  the  potent  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  to  convey  the  new  religion  in  the  most  adequate 
and  appropriate  language  and  style. 

1  Scliaff,  ApostuUc  Church,  p.  1-tG ;  also  Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian 
Church.  1.  pp.  76  seq. 

-  Reuss.  Heltenistischcs  Idiom,  in  Herzog,  I.  Aufl.,  V.  p.  710  ;  II.  Aufl.,  V. 
p.  747  ;  Winer,  Neto  Test.  Gram.,  p.  39. 

2  Hatch,  Es.iays  in  Biblical  Greek;  Oxford,  1889 ;  Kannedy,  Sources  of  Neio 
Testament  Greek,  Ediii.,  1895;  Vincent,  Student^ s  New  Testament  Handbook, 
1893,  pp.  4-10. 

*  Immer.  Hermeneutik  des  Xeuen  Testaments,  Witteraberg,  1873,  pp.  106  seq., 
Amer.  ed.,  Andover.  1877,  p.  1.32  ;  Reus.s,  in  I.e.,  p.  747. 

'  This  is  due  in  large  measure  to  their  Hebraic  and  Aramaic  sources. 


72  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Here  the  humanizing  and  idealistic  tendencies  of  the  Greek 
coihbine  with  the  theological  and  realistic  tendencies  of  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic  ;  for  to  these  New  Testament  writers 
the  person  of  Christ  assumes  the  central  and  determining  posi- 
tion and  influence,  as  Yahweh  the  one  God  did  to  the  Old 
Testament  writers.  Christ  is  Lord  in  the  New  Testament  as 
Yahweh  is  Lord  in  the  Old  Testament.  Christ  became  the 
emperor  of  the  Scrijitures,  to  use  Luther's  expression,  and  His 
person  irradiated  its  language  and  literature  with  His  own 
light  and  glory.  Thus  when  the  mind  now  no  longer  strove 
to  conceive  the  simple  idea  of  the  one  God  YaliM'eh,  but  the 
complex  idea  of  the  person  of  Christ  as  Messiah  and  Lord,  and 
eventually  as  God,  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  languages  were 
entirely  inadequate  ;  and  the  Greek,  as-lhe  most  capable,  must 
be  strained  and  tried  to  the  utmost  to  convey  the  idea  of  the  logos, 
who  was  in  the  beginning,  was  with  God,  and  was  God,  and  yet 
became  the  incarnate  Word,  the  God-man,  tiie  interj)reter  in  com- 
plete humanity  of  the  fulness  of  the  Deity. ^  Notwithstanding 
the  historical  preparation  for  this  conception  in  the  theophanies 
of  the  Hebrews,  the  nous  of  Plato,  the  logos  of  Philo.  and  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon  and  Sirach,  it  mms  yet  a  new  conception, 
which  the  world  could  not  appropriate  without  the  transform- 
ing and  enlightening  influence  of  the  Spii'it  of  God.^  So  in 
anthropology  the  apostle  Paul  combines  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
conceptions  in  order  to  produce  a  new  and  perfect  conception. 
Taking  the  ps3'chology  of  the  Greek  as  a  s^^stem,  he  gave  the 
central  place  to  the  Hebrew  ruaeh  or  spirit,  finding,  to  use  the 
words  of  Zezschwitz,  its  "  undisturbed  centralization  in  living 
union  with  the  Spirit  of  God.""^  He  uses  the  p.sychological 
conceptions  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  transforms  them  for  the 
higlier  purpose  of  setting  fortli  the  strife  of  the  flesh  with  the 
spirit,  and  the  false  position  of  tlie  psvchical  nature  over  against 
the  spirit.  So  also  for  the  first  he  gives  to  the  world  the  true 
conception  of  the  conscience  as  "  the  remnant  of  the  spirit  in 

'  .John  1'-"  ;  see  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  496  seg. 

^  Donier.  Eiitwifhlungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  CAmri,  Stuttgart, 
1845,  I.  p.  64  ;  Edin.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1861,  pp.  44,  45 ;  Sch.iff,  in  Lange,  Com. 
on  John.  N.  Y..  p.  56. 

'  Zezscliwitz.  Profanr/rijcitat,  etc.,  pp.  36  seq 


LANGUAGES   (1F   HOLY   SCIUPTUKE  73 

the  psychical  man,"  ''  the  divine  voice,"  the  consciousness  of 
which  Socrates  felt  as  the  "  summit  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  wisdom  by  the  Greek  spirit." '  Hence  the  development 
of  the  doctrine  of  sin  with  its  technical  terms,  and  of  holiness 
with  its  new  ideas  and  language.  How  infinitely  deeper  and 
higher  than  the  Greek  are  these  conceptions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment language,  as  the  person  of  Christ,  presented  by  the  om- 
nipotent Spirit,  convicts  the  world  in  respect  of  sin,  and  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment. ^  The  Word  as  tabernacled 
among  us,  \\-ith  glory  as  of  an  only  begotten  from  a  Father, 
full  of  grace  and  faithfulness,  ^  assumes  the  place  not  only  of 
the  heroic  ideal  man  of  the  Greeks,  but  even  of  the  unapproach- 
able holy  Yahweh  of  the  Hebrews.  Hence  the  elevation  of  the 
graces  of  meekness,  patience,  long-suffering,  self-sacrifice  ;  and 
their  union  with  the  Greek  virtues  of  strength,  beauty,  braverj-, 
manhood,  organize  a  new  etliical  ideal.  And  so  in  all  depart- 
ments of  Christian  thought  there  was  a  corresponding  eleva- 
tion and  degradation  of  terms  and  conceptions.  We  need  only 
mention  regeneration,  redemption,  reconciliation,  justification, 
sanctification,  life  and  death,  heaven  and  hell,  the  Church,  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  repentance,  faith.  Christian  love,  baptism, 
the  Lord's  supper,  the  Lord's  da}',  the  advent,  the  judgment, 
the  new  Jerusalem,  everlasting  glory.*  Truly  a  new  world 
was  disclosed  by  the  Greek  language,  and  the  literature  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  the  Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic  and  the 
Greek  combined  their  energies  and  capacities  in  the  grasp  of 
the  divine  creating  and  shaping  Spirit,  who  transformed  the 
Greek  language  and  created  a  new  and  holy  Greek  literature 
just  as  He  makes  the  earth  heave  and  subside  into  new  forms 
and  shapes  under  the  energy  of  the  great  forces  of  its  advan- 
cing epochs. 

The  especial  literarj'  development  of  the  New  Testament  is 
the  sermon  and  the  theological  tract.  We  trace  these  from 
the  first  beginning  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  through  the  dis- 

1  Zezschwitz,  in  I.e..  pp.  55-57,  Hatch,  in  I.e.,  pp.  94  seq. 

2  John  168.  3  John  1". 

*  Bleek,  Einleitiing,  p.  71  ;  Immer,  Henneneutik,  p.  105;  Am.  ed.,  Andover, 
1877,  pp.  129-131  ;  Cremer,  Bih.  Theul.  MTiHerhuch  der  Xeu.  Testament. 
GracUiit;  and  Trench,  iVeio  Testament  iSyuonyms,  under  the  respective  words. 


74  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

courses  of  the  book  of  Acts  into  the  epistles.  Looking  at 
the  sermons,  we  observe  that  they  are  no  longer  on  the 
Aramaic  anil  Hebraic  model,  as  are  the  discourses  of  our 
Lord,  but  we  see  the  Greek  orator  in  place  of  the  Aramaic 
rabbin.  So  with  the  epistles,  especially  these  of  Saint  Paul ; 
although  he  reminds  us  of  the  rabbinical  schools  in  his  use  of 
the  halacha  and  haggada  methods, ^  yet  he  exhibits  also  the  dia- 
lectic methods  of  the  Greek  philosopher.  Thus  the  Greek 
orator  and  philosopher  prepared  the  language  and  style  of 
Saint  Paul,  the  preacher  and  theologian,  no  less  than  the 
Hebrew  prophet  and  wise  man  gave  him  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  his  wisdom  and  experience.  And  although  the  Greek 
literature  of  the  New  Testament  has  no  Demosthenes'  On  the 
Crown,  or  Plato's  Republic,  as  it  has  no  Iliad  or  Prome- 
theus, yet  it  lays  the  foundation  of  the  sermon  and  the 
tract,  which  have  been  the  literary  means  of  a  world-transform- 
ing power,  as,  from  the  pulpit  and  the  chair,  Christian  minis- 
ters have  stirred  the  hearts  and  minds  of  mankind,  and  lead 
the  van  of  progress  in  the  Christian  world  :  for  the  sermon 
combines  the  prophetic  message  of  the  Hebrew  with  the  orator- 
ical force  of  the  Greek,  as  it  fires  the  heart,  strives  in  the 
council-chamber  of  the  intellect,  and  pleads  at  the  bar  of  the 
conscience  ;  while  the  epistle  combines  the  sententious  wisdom 
of  the  Hebrew  with  the  dialectic  philosophy  of  the  Greek,  in 
order  to  mould  and  fashion  the  souls  of  men  and  of  nations, 
by  the  great  vital  and  comprehensive  principles  which  consti- 
tute the  invincible  forces  of  Christian  history. 

I  Gal.  4-^  seq.  ;  Rom.  3>  seq.,  etc.     See  pp.  444  seq. 


CHAPTER  IV 

HOLY   SCKIPTURE   AXD   CRITICISM 

Holy  Scrlptcre  is  composed  of  a  great  variety  of  writings 
of  holy  men  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  a  long 
series  extending  through  many  centuries,  preserved  to  us  in 
three  different  original  languages,  the  Hebrew,  the  Aramaic, 
and  the  Greek,  besides  numerous  versions.  These  languages 
■were  themselves  the  products  of  three  different  civilizations, 
which  having  accomplished  their  purpose  passed  away,  the  lan- 
guages no  longer  being  used  as  living  speech,  but  preserved 
only  in  written  documents.  They  present  to  us  a  great  variety 
of  literature,  as  the  various  literary  styles  and  the  various  liter- 
ary forms  of  these  three  languages  have  combined  in  this  one 
sacred  book  of  the  Christian  Church,  making  it  as  remarkable 
for  its  literary  varietj'  as  for  its  religious  unity. 

The  Bible  is  the  sacred  canon  of  the  Israel  of  God,  the  infal- 
lible authority  m  all  matters  of  worship,  faith,  and  conduct. 
From  this  point  of  view  it  has  been  studied  for  centuries  by 
Jew  and  Christian.  Pious  men  in  all  ages  have  faithfully 
endeavoured  to  learn  from  it  the  holy  wUl  of  God  and  to  apply 
it  to  their  daily  life.  They  have  used  all  the  resources  at  the 
disposal  of  man  to  gather  the  sacred  material,  and  employ  it 
in  the  construction  of  sacred  institutions  and  the  formation  of 
systems  of  doctrine  and  morals.  The  inevitable  tendency  has 
been,  not  only  to  discern  the  divine  authority  in  Holy  Scripture 
and  to  recognize  the  divine  teaching  therein,  but  also  so  to 
exalt  the  divine  element  as  to  underrate  or  ignore  the  human 
element  in  the  Bible.  The  Church  in  its  official  utterance  has 
kept  itself  to  the  normal  line  of  truth;  but  many  of  the  theolo- 
gians have  unduly  extended  their  doctrine  of  inspiration  so  as 
75 


76  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

to  cuver  the  external  letter,  the  literary  form  and  stj-le.  in  the 
theory  of  verbal  inspiration,  and  even  to  include  the  method 
of  the  deliver)-  of  the  revelation  to  the  sacred  writers  by  the 
theories  of  divine  dictation  and  the  overpowering  ecstatic  con- 
trol of  the  Divine  Spirit ;  and  they  have  so  extended  the  infal- 
lible teachhig  as  to  make  it  include  the  incidental  words  of 
weak,  ignorant,  and  wicked  men,  and  even  of  Satan  himself. 

The  fact  has  been  too  often  overlooked,  that  it  has  not  seemed 
best  to  God  to  create  a  holy  language  for  the  exclusive  vehicle 
of  His  Word,  or  to  constitute  peculiar  literar}-  forms  and  stj-les 
for  the  expression  of  His  revelation,  or  to  commit  the  keeping 
of  the  text  of  this  Word  to  infallible  guardians.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  as  He  employed  men  rather  than  angels  as  the 
channels  of  His  revelation,  so  He  used  three  human  languages 
with  all  the  varieties  of  literature  that  had  been  developed  in 
the  various  nations  using  these  languages,  in  order  that  He 
might  approach  mankind  in  a  more  familiar  waj-  in  the  human 
forms  with  which  they  were  acquainted  and  Avhich  they  could 
readilj'  understand;  and  He  permitted  the  sacred  text  to  de- 
pend for  its  accuracy  upon  the  attention  and  care  of  the  succes- 
sive generations  of  His  people.  Hence  the  necessity  of  Biblical 
Criticism  to  determine  the  true  canon,  the  correct  text,  and  the 
position  and  character  of  the  various  writings. 

Holy  Scripture  comes  down  to  us  through  the  centuries  en- 
veloped in  numberless  traditional  theories  and  interpretations 
which  are  too  often  confounded  with  Scripture  itself.  Some- 
times these  traditions  are  expressed  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
books,  the  titles  given  to  them,  the  headings  of  chapters  and 
sections,  and  other  similar  editorial  work  upon  the  writings 
themselves.  But  more  frequently  they  envelop  the  writings 
like  a  mist  of  pious  sentiment,  or  a  cloud  of  traditional  opinion, 
sometimes  in  current  literature,  but  oftener  in  the  language  of 
the  synagogue,  the  church,  and  the  school ;  which  is  transmitted 
from  father  to  son,  or  from  master  to  pupil  as  the  genuine 
orthodox  opinion.  In  all  those  centuries  in  v/hich  religious 
opinion  was  chiefly  traditional,  depending  on  the  teaching  of 
the  Fathers,  it  is  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  none  of  these 
traditional  theories  about  the  Bible  ever  received  the  official 


HOLY   SCKII'TIHE   AND   CKITICISM  77 

endorsement  of  any  section  of  the  Cliristiau  C'liuicli.  And  the 
diversity  of  opinion  in  the  several  hijers  of  the  Tahnud  and 
among  ancient  Jewish  rabbis  shows  that  libert}-  of  opinion  on 
these  matters  has  ever  been  a  heritage  of  Israel. 

At  the  revival  of  learning,  when  Christian  scholars  began  to 
study  the  original  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  most  learned  Hebi'ew  scholars  of  their  age, 
it  became  inevitable  that,  in  course  of  time,  if  the  spirit  of  the 
Reformation  was  to  endure,  all  the  traditional  theories  about 
the  Bible  would  eventually  have  to  be  tested. 

The  free-born  spirit  of  the  Reformation  was  repressed  in  tlie 
age  of  Protestant  scholasticism,  which  built  up  the  S3'stems  of 
Protestant  dogmatics  and  ecclesiasticism  over  against  Roman 
Catholic  dogmatics  and  ecclesiasticism.  But  a  terrible  retribu- 
tion came  upon  unfaithful  Protestantism  in  the  outbreak  of 
free  thought  in  Deism,  Atheism,  and  Rationalism,  which  laid 
violent  hands  upon  everything  that  was  deemed  sacred  in 
Christianity,  and  forced  Protestantism  from  a  dogmatic  into  an 
apologetic  position.  It  was  the  serious  conflicts  in  this  age  of 
apologetics  which  brought  to  birth  the  age  of  modern  scientific 
criticism.  Criticism  sprang  forth  a  youthful  giant  to  solve  the 
problems  of  the  modern  age  of  the  world. 

All  traditions  must  be  tested.  Certainty  must  in  some  way 
be  attained.  How  can  it  be  attained  in  the  opinion  of  any 
man  save  by  an  intuition  of  God,  or  by  an  infalliljle  decision 
of  the  Church,  or  by  the  most  exact,  jjainstaking,  comprehen- 
sive, and  thorough-going  investigation  ?  We  cannot  look  for 
an  intuition  from  God  in  matters  of  traditional  opinion.  There 
is  nothing  to  warrant  it.  To  those  who  would  rest  upon  the 
infallible  authority  of  the  Church,  we  may  say,  there  has  been 
no  decision  of  the  Church  in  matters  of  Biblical  Criticism,  and, 
in  the  divided  condition  of  Christianity  at  the  present  time, 
what  church  can  speak  with  sufficient  authority  to  decide  these 
questions?  If  the  reformers  would  not  submit  to  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  in  the  all-important  question  of  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,  what  council  could  now  speak  a  decisive 
word  as  to  matters  of  Biblical  Criticism '! 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  only  pathway  to  certainty 


78  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTURE 

in  these  matters,  is  tlie  laborious  pathway  of  scieutitic  criticism. 
And  let  us  thank  God  for  this.  It  removes  our  Bible  from  the 
custody  of  ecclesiastics  and  scribes,  and  puts  it  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  of  God  of  all  nations.  Here  Hebrew  and  Christian 
may  work  in  the  same  workshop  and  with  the  same  tools.  All 
the  sects  and  divisions  of  Christianity  and  Judaism,  yes,  all  the 
religions  of  the  world,  may  come  to  the  same  Bible  and  search 
it  with  all  the  powers  and  resources  of  genuine  scholarship  and 
find  out  for  themselves  of  a  certaint}'  whether  it  is  the  Book 
of  God. 

One  would  have  thought  that  all  truth-seeking  men  would 
rejoice  in  an  age  of  criticism.  For  what  is  criticism  but  the 
quest  after  truth,  the  test  of  its  _certainty  and  the  method  of 
its  verification  ?  All  honest  men  should  rejoice  in  every  effort 
to  make  the  truth  more  evident  to  themselves  and  more  con- 
vincing to  others.  For  the  saying  of  that  ancient  Jew,  Zerub- 
babel,  is  the  watchword  of  knowledge  :  "  Great  is  the  truth  and 
stronger  than  all  things  ...  it  endureth  and  is  strong  forever, 
and  liveth  and  prevaileth  forever  and  ever."  ^ 

But,  in  fact,  every  department  of  criticism  had  to  be  con- 
quered from  the  ecclesiastics  and  scholastics,  who  held  scholar- 
ship in  subjection  to  their  theories. 

I.    What  is  Criticism? 

Biblical  Criticism  is  one  of  the  departments  of  Historical 
Criticism  as  Historical  Criticism  is  one  of  the  divisions  of  Gen- 
eral Criticism.  Criticism  is  a  method  of  knowledge,  and,  where- 
ever  there  is  anything  to  be  known,  the  critical  metliod  has  its 
place.  Knowledge  is  gained  by  the  use  of  the  faculties  of  the 
human  mind,  through  sense-perception,  the  intuitions,  and  the 
reasoning  powers.  If  these  were  infallible  in  their  working, 
and  their  results  were  always  reliable,  there  would  be  no  need 
of  criticism  ;  but,  in  fact,  these  faculties  are  used  by  fallible 
men  who  do  not  know  how  to  use  them,  or  employ  them  in 
various  degrees  of  imperfection,  so  that  human  knowledge  is 
ever  a  mixture  uf  the  true  and  the  false,  the  reliable  and  the 
1  1  Esilras  4^*^. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  79 

luireliable ;  and  errors  of  individuals  are  perpetuated  and  en- 
hanced by  ti'ansmission  from  man  to  man  and  from  generation 
to  generation.  Criticism  is  the  test  of  the  certainty  of  knoivledge, 
the  method  of  its  verification.  It  examines  the  products  of 
human  thinking  and  working,  and  tests  them  by  the  laws  of 
thought  and  the  rules  of  evidence.  It  eliminates  the  false, 
the  uncertain,  and  the  unsubstantial  from  the  true,  the  certain, 
and  the  substantial. 

The  unthinking  rely  upon  their  own  crude  knowledge,  which 
they  have  received  from  their  fathers  and  friends,  or  acquired 
by  their  narrow  experience,  without  reflecting  upon  the  uncer- 
tainty necessarily  attached  to  it.  But  the  reflecting  mind  which 
has  experienced  the  uncertainty  of  its  own  acquisitions  and  of 
those  things  that  have  been  transmitted  to  it,  cannot  reh'  upon 
anything  as  reaUy  kno^\^l  until  it  has  been  tested  and  found 
reliable  by  criticism.  For  criticism  reviews  the  processes  of 
thought  and  the  arguments  and  evidences  by  wldch  its  results 
have  been  acquired.  It  studies  these  products  in  their  genesis, 
examines  them  carefull}-  in  the  order  of  their  ijroduction,  veri- 
fies and  corrects  them,  improves  upon  them  where  improve- 
ment is  possible,  strengthens  them  where  strength  is  needed, 
but  also  destroys  them  when  they  are  found  to  be  worthless, 
misleading,  or  false,  as  mere  conceits,  illusions,  or  fraudulent 
inventions. 

Criticism  is  thus  on  the  one  side  destructive,  for  its  office  is 
to  detect  the  false,  eliminate  it,  and  destroy  it.  This  is  not 
infrequently  a  painful  process  to  the  critic  himself,  and  to  those 
who  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  deceived,  and  who  have 
been  relying  upon  the  unreliable  ;  but  it  is  indispensable  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  ;  it  is  the  path  of  safety  for  the 
intellect  and  good  morals  ;  it  removes  the  obstructions  to  prog- 
ress in  knowledge.  The  destruction  of  an  error  opens  up  a 
vision  of  the  truth,  as  a  mote  removed  from  the  e3'e  or  frost 
brushed  from  the  window. 

Criticism  is  also  constructive.  It  tests  and  finds  the  truth. 
It  rearranges  truths  and  facts  in  their  proper  order  and  har- 
mony. In  accordance  with  the  strictness  of  its  methods,  and 
the  thoroughness  of  their  application,  Avill  be  the  certainty  of 


80  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCIJIPTLKE 

the  results.  But  criticism  itself,  as  a  human  method  of  know- 
ledge, is  also  defective  and  needs  self-criticism  for  its  own  recti- 
fication, security,  and  progress.  It  must  again  and  again  verify 
its  methods  and  correct  its  processes.  Eternal  vigilance  is  the 
price  of  truth  as  well  as  of  liberty.  It  improves  its  methods 
with  the  advancement  of  human  learning.  In  the  infancy  or 
early  growth  of  a  nation,  or  of  an  individual,  or  of  the  world, 
we  do  not  find  criticism.  It  belongs  to  the  manhood  and 
maturity  of  a  nation  and  the  world's  civilization. 

Criticism  requires  for  its  exercise  careful  training.  Only 
those  who  have  learned  how  to  use  its  tools  and  have  employeil 
them  with  the  best  masters,  and  have  attained  a  mastery  of  the 
departments  of  knowledge  to  be  critici^d,  are  prepared  for  the 
delicate  and  difficult  work  of  criticism  ;  for  knowledge  must  be 
attained  ere  it  can  be  tested.  Criticism  refines  the  crude  oil 
of  knowledge.  It  cleanses  and  polishes  the  rough  diamond  of 
thought.  It  removes  the  dross  from  the  gold  of  wisdom. 
Criticism  searches  all  departments  of  knowledge,  as  a  torch  of 
lire,  consuming  the  hay,  straw,  and  stubble,  that  the  truth  of 
God  may  shine  forth  in  its  majesty  and  certainty  as  the  imper- 
ishable and  eternal.  No  one  need  fear  criticism,  save  those 
who  are  uncertain  in  their  knowledge  ;  for  criticism  leads  to 
certitude.      It  dissipates  doubt.      Fiat  Lux  is  its  watchword. 

We  are  not  surprised  that  criticism  has  thus  far  been  largely 
destructive,  for  there  were  many  errors  that  had  grown  up  and 
become  venerable  with  age,  and  were  so  interwoven  and  em- 
bedded in  systems  of  philosoph}',  of  theology,  of  law,  of  medi- 
cine, and  of  science,  as  well  as  in  the  manners  and  customs  of 
men,  that  a  long  conflict  wiis  necessary  to  destroy  them.  Men 
in  general  are  more  concerned  with  the  maintenance  of  estab- 
lished positions  and  systems  and  of  vested  interests  than  they 
are  interested  in  the  truth  of  God  and  of  nature.  Scholars, 
wlien  they  see  tlie  venerable  errors,  hesitate  to  destroy  them 
for  fear  of  damaging  their  own  interests  or  those  of  their 
friends,  and  sometimes  out  of  anxiety,  for  the  truth,  with  which 
the  error  is  entangled.  But  in  the  providence  of  God,  some 
great  doubter  like  Voltaire,  or  Hume,  or  Strauss,  or  some  great 
reformer  like  Luther  ur  Zwingli.  arises  to  lay  violent  hands  upon 


HOLY    SCRIPTIKK    AND    ClUTICISM  81 

the  systems  in  which  truth  and  error  are  combined,  raze  them 
to  the  ground  and  trample  them  in  the  dust,  that  from  the 
ruins  the  imperishable  truth  may  be  gathered  np  and  arranged 
in  its  proper  order  and  harmon}-. 

The  modern  world  since  the  Reformation  has  become  more 
and  more  critical,  until  the  climax  has  been  reached  in  our  day. 
The  destruction  of  error  has  been  the  chief  duty  of  criticism, 
but  its  constructed  work  has  not  been  neglected,  and  this  will 
more  and  more  rise  into  importance  in  the  progress  of  know- 
ledge. It  is  not  without  significance  that  the  age  of  the  world 
most  characterized  by  the  spirit  of  ci-iticism  has  been  the  age 
of  the  most  wonderful  progress  in  all  departments  of  human 
knowledge. 

Criticism  divides  itself  into  various  branches  in  accordance 
with  the  departments  of  knowledge  :  (1)  Philosophical  Criti- 
cism; (2)  Historical  Criticism;  and  (3)  Scientific  Criticism. 
Limiting  ourselves  to  Historical  Criticism,  we  distinguish  it  from 
other  criticism,  in  that  it  has  to  do  with  the  materials  of  tlie 
past,  the  sources  of  the  history  of  mankind ;  as  Philosophical 
Criticism  has  to  do  with  the  facts  of  human  consciousness,  and 
Scientific  Criticism  with  the  facts  of  external  nature.  Histori- 
cal Criticism  deals  with  tlie  various  sources  of  history  :  literary 
documents,  monuments,  laws,  customs,  institutions,  traditions, 
legends,  and  m3'ths.  Tlie  great  importance  of  the  literary 
sources  justifies  their  separation  in  the  distinct  branch  of 
Literary  Criticism.  Biblical  Criticism  is  one  of  the  sections  of 
Historical  Criticism,  as  it  has  to  do  with  Biblical  History  and 
with  Biblical  Literature. 

IL    The  Pkixciples  of  Criticism 

The  principles  and  methods  of  Biblical  Criticism  will  thus 
embrace  those  (1)  of  General  Criticism,  (2)  of  Historical  Criti- 
cism, (3)  of  Literary  Criticism,  and  (4)  of  Biblical  Criticism. 
Biblical  Criticism  has  thus  the  advantage  of  all  this  prelimi- 
iiai-y  work  in  other  fields  to  guide  and  illustrate  its  own 
peculiar  work. 

1.    From  General  Criticism  it  derives  the  fundamental  laws 


82  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

of  thought,  which  must  not  be  violated,  such  as  tlie  laws  of 
identity,  of  contradiction,  of  exclusion,  and  of  sufficient  reason.^ 

The  four  fuudameutal  laws  of  thought  are  these : 

(1)  The  Law  of  Identity  is  usually  expressed  thus  :  a  thing  is 
what  it  is,  A  is  A,  or  A  =  A.  This  is  a  uecessary  law  of  self- 
consistent  thought.  Kaut  makes  it  the  f)rinciple  of  analytic 
judgment;  Hamilton,  the  law  of  logical  affirmation,  or  definition. 
There  are  two  kinds  of  identity,  absolute  and  relative.  Errors  in 
reasoning  under  this  law  are  usually  in  using  relative  identity  as 
if  it  were  absolute. 

(2)  The  Law  of  Contradiction  may  be  thus  stated :  a  thing 
cannot  be  and  not  be  at  the  same  time  ;  or  a  thing  must  either  be 
or  not  be ;  or  the  same  attribute  cannot  at  the  same  time  be  af- 
firmed and  denied  of  the  same  subject.  This  law  is  called  by 
Hamilton  the  law  of  non-contradiction. 

(3)  The  Law  of  Excluded  Middle  is  as  follows :  Everything  is 
either  A  or  not  A ;  everything  is  either  a  given  thing  or  some- 
thing which  is  not  a  given  thing.  There  is  no  mean  between  two 
contradictory  propositions.  If  we  think  a  judgment  true,  we 
must  abandon  its  contradictory ;  if  false,  the  contradictory  must  be 
accepted.     This  law  is  a  combination  of  the  first  and  second  laws. 

(4)  The  Law  of  Sufficient  Reason  is  that :  Every  judgment  we 
accept  must  rest  upon  a  sufficient  ground  or  reason. 

It  also  derives  from  General  Criticism  the  laws  of  probation, 
which  must  be  applied  to  all  reasoning.  There  must  be  no 
begging  of  the  question  at  issue,  no  reasoning  backward  and 
forward  or  in  a  circle,  no  jumping  at  conclusions,  no  setting  out 
to  prove  one  thing  and  then  insensibly  substituting  another 
thing  in  its  place.  ^  These  laws  of  probation  are  the  sharp  tools 
of  the  critic  with  wliicli  he  tests  all  tlie  acquisitions  of  the 
human  mind  and  all  the  reasonings  of  scholars  in  all  depart- 
ments of  knowledge. 

2.  From  Historical  Criticism  Biblical  Criticism  derives  the 
principles  of  historic  genesis.  The  evidences  of  history  belong 
to  the  past.  They  are  oral,  written,  or  monumental.  They 
passed  through  several  stages  before  tlicy  reached  us.     They 

'  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Logic,  Boston,  1800,  pp.  57,  81  ;  also  McCosli.  Tjaws 
of  Discursive  Thought,  N.Y.  1871,  pp.  195  seq.  ;  Thomson,  Laws  of  Thought, 
IV.  sect,  114;  Ilyslop,  Elements  of  Logic,  N.Y.  180:!,  pp.  291  seq. 

-  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  Logic,  p.  369;  MoCosh,  Laws  of  Discursive  Thought, 
pp.  18;J  seq. 


HOLY   SCKIPTl'RE   AM)   CKITICISM  83 

must  be  traced  back  to  their  origin  in  order  to  determine 
whether  thev  are  genuine  ;  or  whether  they  have  been  invented 
as  interesting  stories  for  hours  of  idleness  and  recreation, 
or  as  forgeries  with  the  intent  to  deceive  ;  or  whether  there 
is  a  mingling  of  these  various  elements  that  need  to  be  sepa- 
rated and  distinguished.^ 

An  example  may  be  found  in  the  story  familiar  to  Presbyterian 
pulpits  that  George  Gillespie  uttered  the  answer  to  the  question 
of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  "  What  is  God  ? "  in  praj^er  when  the 
Westminster  Assembly  was  in  perplexity  how  to  answer  it.  This 
story  was  fathered  by  Hetherington  in  his  history  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  And  yet  this  writer  of  history  states  in  his 
preface  that  the  records  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  were  said 
to  be  in  the  Williams  Library-  in  London.  He  wrote  a  history  of 
the  Westminster  Assembly  without  taking  the  trouble  to  journey 
from  Scotland  to  London  to  examine  the  original  records  of  that 
Assembly.  What  basis  has  that  story  in  fact  ?  None  whatever  I 
(1)  The  official  Records  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  show  that 
George  Gillespie  left  the  Assembly  and  returned  to  Scotland 
months  before  the  Assembly  began  its  work  on  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism. He  was  not  present  at  the  time  and  therefore  could  not 
have  made  such  a  prayer. 

(2)  Furthermore,  the  answer  was  not  taken  from  any  one's 
prayer.  The  records  show  that  this  answer  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism was  condensed  from  the  answer  of  the  Larger  Catechism, 
and  that  the  answer  of  the  Larger  Catechism  was  made  on  the 
basis  of  the  Catechism  of  Herbert  Palmer,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  having  this  matter  in 
charge,  with  sundry  improvements  from  other  well-known  Cate- 
chisms of  the  time.- 

The  order  and  processes  of  the  development  of  the  material 
must  be  considered  in  order  to  determine  its  integrit)^  or  how 
far  it  has  been  modified  bj^  external  influences  or  the  struggle 
of  internal  inconsistencies,  and  how  far  the  earlier  and  the 
later  elements  may  be  distinguished  and  the  excrescences 
removed  from  the  original. 

I  may  use  Gillespie  again  to  illustrate  the  growth  of  a  legend, 
in  the  heaping  upon  one  man  the  honor  due  to  several,  and  also  of 

1  Gieseler,  Text-Bni.k  of  Chnrrh  History.  X.Y.  1857,  I.  p.  23. 
^  Briggs,  Vociimentdry  History  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  Presbyterian 
Review,  1880,  pp.  155  seq. 


84  STL'DV   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

substituting  a  subordinate  in  place  of  tlie  principal  hero  of  an 
occasion.  I  shall  quote  from  the  Presbyterian  historian,  Dr. 
Mitchell. 

'■  The  question  of  the  autonomy  of  the  Church  came  up  6rst  in 
the  Westminster  Assembly  when  its  members  were  preparing  the 
Propositions  concerning  Church-government,  of  which  an  account 
was  given  in  nij-  last  lecture,  and  it  was  theu  that  that  far-famed 
single  combat  between  Selden  and  Gillespie  took  place  round  which 
later  Scottish  tradition  has  thrown  stich  a  halo.  The  manuscript 
minutes  coincide  with  Lightfoot's  Journal  in  assigning  Gillespie's 
speech  not  to  the  session  of  20th,  but  to  that  of  21st  February. 
In  Gillespie's  own  notes  it  is  introduced  at  the  close  of  the  ac- 
count of  the  former  session  with  the  words,  '  I  reply,'  not  '  I 
replied,'  and  may  simply  embody  a  brief  outline  of  the  reph-  he 
was  to  make  on  the  following  day.  The,  reply  made  to  Selden  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment  was  that  of  Herle,  who  in  1646  succeeded 
Dr.  Twisse  as  Prolocutor,  and  judging  even  from  the  fragmentary 
jottings  preserved  by  Byfield,  one  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  a  very 
able  reply.  GUlespie  and  Young  appear  to  have  taken  the  evening 
to  arrange  their  thoughts,  and  at  next  session  made  very  telling 
replies,  the  former  to  the  general  line  of  argument,  the  latter  to 
the  citations  from  Rabbinical  and  patristic  authorities."'  ^ 

The  eliaracter  of  the  material  must  1)6  studied  in  order  to 
determine  how  far  it  is  reliable  aud  trustworthy  ;  wliether  it 
is  ill  accordance  with  the  experience  of  mankind,  and  so  nat- 
ural ;  or  contrary  to  that  experience,  and  so  unnatural  or 
supernatural ;  wliether  it  is  in  harmony  with  itself  and  consist- 
ent with  its  own  conditions  and  circumstances  ;  whether  there 
are  disturbing  influences  that  determine  the  material  so  as  to 
warp  or  colour  it  and  how  far  these  influences  extend. - 

The  value  of  the  materials  of  histoiy  dei^ends  upon  such 
considerations  as  these  ;  also  upon  the  nearness  or  remoteness 
of  the  material  to  the  matters  concerning  which  they  render 
testimony ;  upon  the  extent  and  variety  of  evidence,  if  that 
extent  and  variety  are  primitive  and  not  derived  from  an  origi- 
nal source  upon  which  they  all  dejiend.  The  consistency  and 
persistence  of  materials  are  also  evidences  of  vitality  an<l 
inherent  strength  of  evidence. 

J  A.  F.  Mitcliell.  The  Westminster  Assemhlij,  1883,  pp.  287.  288. 
^  See  Droysen,  GntwJhss  tier  Ilistorik:  Leipzig,  1868,  pp.  16,  17. 


HOLY   SCRTPTrUE    AND   CRITICISM  85 

The  sources  of  histoiy  that  cannot  bear  tliis  criticism  are 
not  reliable  sources.  The  ajjplication  of  these  simple  tests 
removes  from  the  pages  of  history  numberless  legends,  fables, 
and  myths,  and  determines  the  residuum  of  truth  and  fact  that 
underlies  them.  It  is  distressing  to  part  with  the  sweet  stories 
which  have  been  told  us  in  our  early  life,  and  which  have  been 
handed  down  by  the  romancers  from  the  childhood  and  youth 
of  our  race.  We  may  still  use  them  as  stories,  as  products 
of  the  imagination,  but  we  dare  not  build  on  them  as  historic 
verities.  As  men  we  must  know  the  truth.  We  cannot  afford 
to  deceive  ourselves  or  others. 

Many  of  these  legends  and  traditions  have  strongly  intrenched 
themselves  and  lie  like  solid  rocks  in  the  path  of  historic  investi- 
gation. They  must  be  exploded  to  get  at  the  truth  ;  and  this 
cannot  be  done  without  noise  and  confusion,  and  outcries  of 
alarm  from  the  weak  and  timid,  and  those  who  are  interested 
in  the  maintenance  of  error  and  court  popularity  by  an  appeal 
to  prejudices.  Sometimes  these  traditions  maj'  be  overcome 
by  positive  evidence  obtained  b}-  careful  research  in  ancient 
documents,  and  by  parallel  lines  of  evidence.  But  it  is  not 
always  possible  to  obtain  sufficient  external  positive  evidence. 
Sometimes  we  have  to  rely  upon  a  long-continued  and  unbroken 
silence,  and  sometimes  we  have  to  challenge  the  tradition  and 
reject  it  from  sheer  lack  of  evidence  and  the  suspicious  circum- 
stances of  its  origin  and  growth. 

3.  From  Literary  Criticism  Biblical  Criticism  derives  its 
chief  principles  and  methods.  As  literature  it  must  first  be 
considered  as  text.  The  Principles  of  Textual  Criticism  have 
been  worked  out  in  the  study  of  the  texts  of  the  literature  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  and  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers.  Biblical 
Textual  Criticism  has  to  determine  the  correct  text  of  Holy 
Scripture ;  that  is,  the  writings  as  composed  of  letters,  words, 
sentences,  chapters,  books,  and  collections  of  books.  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  their  contents  except  so  far  as  these  may 
help  in  its  more  formal  work. 

(a)  Textual  Criticism  first  collects  all  the  original  manu- 
scripts, endeavours  to  ascertain  when  they  were  written,  in 
what  country  and  by  what  school  of  scribes.     Then  it  arranges 


86  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

them  in  families  so  as  to  determine  their  genealogies,  and  thus 
it  gets  at  the  parent  manuscripts,  those  of  primar}-  authoritj\i 
These  are  carefully  compared  in  order  to  determine  where 
they  agree  and  where  they  differ,  their  consensus  and  their 
disseusus ;  and  when  they  disagree,  to  determine  which  was 
the  original  reading. 

(6)  Textual  Criticism  next  examines  the  ancient  transla- 
tions of  the  Scriptures  ;  for  these  give  evidence  as  to  the 
original  readings  which  they  translated. 

(e)  The  textual  critic  next  betakes  himself  to  the  citations 
of  the  Bible  in  ancient  writers.  These  are  sometimes  earlier 
than  the  Versions  or  even  than  the  ]\Ianuscripts.  They  give 
important  evidence  as  to  the  original^  from  which  these  cita- 
tions were  made  in  the  different  periods  of  the  history  of 
Christian  literature  and  Rabbinical  literature. 

(d)  The  citations  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves are  also  of  very  great  importance  ;  for  although  they 
are  often  loose  and  paraphrastic  in  their  character,  they  3'et 
not  infrequently  give  evidence  as  to  the  original  text  which 
they  cite. 

I  shall  venture  to  give,  as  an  illustration,  a  legion  of  Jesus, 
which  exhibits  very  clearly  the  several  principles  given  above. 
The  original  logion  in  the  Hebrew  Logia  of  Saint  Matthew  was  in 

all  probability 

P1K3  tnc»  ro'can 
new  nc'K  nn'rran 

He  who  putteth  away  bis  wife  committeth  adultery : 
She  who  putteth  away  her  husband  committeth  adultery. 

The  couplet  is  a  trimeter,-  and  the  parallelism  is  complete  word 
for  word  throughout. 

(a)  This  was  cited  in  Mk.  10"-i=: 

Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  and  marry  another,  comniittetli  adultery 
against  her : 

And  if  she  herself  shall  put  away  her  husband,  and  marry  another,  she  com- 
mitteth adultery. 

The  Hebrew  participle  is,  as  not  infrequently,  translated  into 
Greek  as  a  relative  clause.     In  both  lines  of  the  couplet  "and 

'  See  Scrivener  in  I.e.,  pp.  404  seq.  Wostcott  and  Hort  deserve  great  credit 
for  their  elaboration  of  this  principle  in  I.e.,  pp.  39  scq.  ^  See  pp.  .376  seg. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  87 

marry  another"  is  inserted.  This  changes  the  emphasis  of  the 
prohibition  from  separation  to  remarriage.  Besides,  in  the  first 
line  the  adultery  is  made  more  specifically  a  sin  against  the  wife. 
In  addition  the  measure  of  the  lines  of  gnomic  poetrj-  and  the 
parallelism  are  disturbed. 

(6)  Matthew  19^  cites  from  Mark  only  the  first  of  these  lines : 

Whosoever  shall  put  awaj'  his  wife,  except  for  fornication,  and  shall  marry 
another,  committeth  adultery. 

It  omits  the  specification  "against  her,"  but  cites  in  other 
respects  entirelj".  Only  it  gives  an  additional  clause  "  except 
for  fornication,"  which  limits  the  universal  prohibition  of  separa- 
tion, of  the  original  logion,  and  of  remarriage,  of  Mark's  exposi- 
tion, and  gives  an  exceptional  case  when  separation  and  remarriage 
would  not  be  unlawful. 

(c)  ^Matthew  5^  cites  directly  from  the  Logia : 

Every  one  that  putteth  away  his  wife,  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication, 
maketh  her  an  adulteress. 

Here  Matthew  renders  the  Hebrew  participle  by  the  Greek 
participle.  It  makes  the  same  insertion,  "  saving  for  the  cause 
of  fornication,"  as  in  its  citation  from  Mark,  except  that  it  uses 
-TrapeKTo's  \6yov  for  /ij)  i-l.  But  it  also  changes  the  person  in  the 
last  half  of  the  line,  so  that  the  one  who  puts  away  his  wife, 
instead  of  committing  the  act  of  adultery  himself,  causes  his 
wife  to  commit  adultery ;  that  is,  by  compelling  her  to  seek  refuge 
■with  another  man.  It  is  noteworthy  that  ]\Iatthew  here  is  nearer 
to  the'  logion  by  its  omission  of  the  remarriage.  It  should  also 
be  mentioned  that  in  the  two  passages  of  Matthew  a  later  hand 
has  added  the  clause  "  and  he  that  marrieth  her  when  she  is  put 
away  committeth  adultery,"  which  may  be  regarded  as  a  late 
ecclesiastical  addition  due  to  the  influence  of  Lk.  16'*. 

(d)  Luke  16^^  also  cites  directly  from  the  Hebrew  logion : 

Every  one  that  putteth  away  his  wife,  and  marrieth  another,  committeth 

adultery : 
And  he  that  marrieth  one  that  is  put  away  from  a  husband  committeth 

adultery. 

Luke  thus  gives  the  logion  complete.  He  retains  the  participial 
form  in  the  Greek,  but  he  agrees  with  Mark  in  inserting  remar- 
riage. He  knows  nothing  of  the  exceptional  "  fornication,"  which 
is  evidently  peculiar  to  Matthew  and  due  to  it  alone.  The 
peculiarity  of  this  passage  is  the  change  of  person  in  the  second 
line.  This  is  possibly  due  to  Luke's  pointing  the  Hebrew  original 
as  a  passive  instead  of  as  an  active  participle. 


88  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

(e)  The  apostle  Saint  Paul  also  cites  this  logion  of  the  Lord 
in  1  Cor.  7'"-" : 

But  unto  the  married  I  give  charge,  yea  not  I,  but  the  Lord.  That  the  loife 
depart  not  from  her  husband  (but  and  if  she  depart,  let  her  remain 
unmarried,  or  else  be  reconciled  to  her  husband)  ;  and  that  the  httsband 
leave  not  his  wife. 

Saint  Paul  is  here  citing  from  the  original  Hebrew  logion  in  the 
italicized  clauses,  and  agrees  with  it  in  laying  the  stress  on  sep- 
aration. He  makes  no  reference  to  adultery,  and  inserts  his  ovnx 
qualifications. 

Furthermore,  Saint  Paul,  like  our  gospel  of  Matthew,  gives  an 
exception.  The  exception  of  Jlatthew  is  fornication ;  the  exception 
of  Saint  Paul  is  wilful  desertion :  "  Y^t  if  the  unbelieving  depart- 
eth,  let  him  depart ;  the  brother  or  the  sister  is  not  under  bondage 
in  such  cases ;  but  God  hath  called  us  in  peace"  (ver.*^). 

There  are  also  errors  in  translation  which  arise  from  lack 
of  knowledge  of  the  original,  or  inability  to  give  adequate 
expression  to  the  idea  of  the  original,  save  by  paraphrase,  and 
in  defective  judgment  as  to  the  best  way  of  rendering  it. 
Errors  in  citation  arise  from  slips  of  the  memory  and  the 
desire  to  use  a  part  and  not  the  whole  of  the  passage,  or 
the  adaptation  of  it  to  circumstances  beyond  the  scope  of 
the  original. 

(e)  When  the  biblical  critic  has  exhausted  all  these  external 
evidences,  he  still  confronts  man)-  questions  unsolved,  many 
doubtful  readings,  ilust  he  halt  here  ?  By  no  means.  Textual 
Criticism  is  a  science.  There  are  laws  which  determine  the 
transmission  of  all  literature.  It  has  been  determined  by  care- 
ful induction  in  those  investigations  what  are  the  sources  of 
error,  those  mistakes  which  are  natural  to  inexactness  of  vision, 
hearing,  and  penmanship  :  such  as  in  words  of  similar  sound,  in 
letters  of  like  form,  in  the  repetition  of  words  in  passing  from 
line  to  line,  in  the  omission  or  insertion  of  chiuses  by  slips  of 
the  eye,  and  in  the  transfer  of  explanatory  notes  from  the 
margin  to  the  text.  The  experienced  textual  critic  is  keen  to 
detect  these  errors,  and  to  remove  them  even  from  the  earliest 
manuscripts.  He  is  aware  of  the  tendency  of  scribes  to  uncon- 
sciously substitute  the  known  for  the  unknown,  the  familiar 
for  the  unfamiliar,  or  by  explanatory  marginal  notes  to  make 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  89 

conjectural  corrections  which  in  time  exchange  phiees  with  the 
original  text,  or  crowd  the  original  readings  into  forgetfulness. 
The  trained  critic  well  knows  that  pedantry,  traditionalism, 
and  literalism  —  common  characteristics  of  scribes  —  misled 
them  into  errors  of  a  different  character,  but  no  less  serious 
than  those  which  arose  from  rapid  reading  and  copying  by 
other  scribes.  The  internal  sense  is  often  a  safer  guide  than 
the  external  letter,  especially  in  manuscripts  which  are  defec- 
tive and  difficult  to  read.  There  are  also  errors  in  the  text 
due  to  the  wear  and  tear  of  manuscripts  in  their  use,  and  by 
exposure  to  the  carelessness  of  men  and  the  destructive  forces 
of  inclement  nature.  These  render  the  manuscripts  illegible, 
indistinct,  or  mutilated,  and  great  caution  and  experience  and 
often  real  genius  are  needed  to  restore  them.^ 

(/)  When  Textual  Criticism  has  exhausted  all  its  processes 
and  has  contributed  all  the  wealth  of  its  experience  to  the 
solution  of  the  difficulties  of  ancient  readings,  there  still  remain 
problems  which  it  cannot  solve  by  its  own  unaided  resources. 
To  the  solution  of  these  it  looks  up  to  its  sisters,  —  the  Higher 
Criticism,  the  Historical  Criticism,  and  Biblical  Theolog}-, 
which  in  their  higher  work  often  throw  great  light  upon  the 
dark  problems  of  the  Lower  Criticism. 

The  value  of  the  manuscripts  having  been  determined,  we  are 
prepared  to  examine  the  relative  value  of  the  readings.  Tlie 
principles  on  which  this  is  done  are  :  (1)  The  reading  which 
lies  at  the  root  of  all  the  variations  and  best  explains  them 
is  to  be  jjreferred.  (2)  The  most  difficult  reading  is  more 
likel}-  to  be  correct  from  the  natural  tendency  of  the  scribe 
to  make  his  text  as  easy  and  intelligible  as  possible,  and  the 
natural  process  of  simplification  in  transmission. ^  (3)  The 
reading  most  in  accordance  with  the  context,  and  especially 
with  the  style  and  usage  of  the  author  and  his  times,  is  to  be 

'  See  Cappellus,  Critica  Sacra,  1650,  Lib.  I.  ;  Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the 
Criticism  nf  the  New  Testament,  1874,  pp.  7  seq. ;  Isaac  Taylor,  History  of  the 
Transmission  of  Ancient  Bonks  to  Modern  Times,  new  edition,  Liverpool, 
1879,  p.  22  ;  also  Westcott  and  Ilort,  Xcw  Ti.slamenl  in  the  Original  Greek, 
Vol.  II.,  Introduction,  N.Y.  1882,  pp.  5  seq. 

"■  These  two  principles  are  combined  by  Westcott  and  Hort  in  I.e.,  pp.  22  seq., 
under  the  term  "  transcriptional  probability." 


90  STUDY   UF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

preferred.     This  is  on  the  pi-inciple  of  consistency  and  "  intrin- 
sic probability."  ^ 

These  illustrations  will  suffice. 

1.  There  are  three  citations  of  a  logion  of  Jesus  in  Mt.  S'*^, 
18«',  Mk.  9*^. 

(a)  Matthew's  gospel  cites  from  the  logion  thus : 

And  if  thy  right  eye  causeth  thee  to  stumble,  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it 

from  thee : 
For  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should  perish  ; 
And  not  thy  whole  body  be  cast  Into  Gehenna. 
And  if  thy  right  hand  causeth  thee  to  stumble,   cut  if    off  and  cast  it 

from  thee. 
For  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members  should  perish  ; 
And  not  thy  whole  body  go  into  Gehenna.  .^Mt.  5^*^. 

Here  it  is  evident  there  are  two  strophes  of  a  Hebrew  logion, 
of  three  symmetrical  lines  each.  But  some  of  the  lines  are  too 
long  for  the  measure. 

(b)  Mark  cites  from  the  same  Logion : 

And  if  thy  hand  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off : 

For  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed, 

Rather  than  having  thy  two  hands  to  go  into  Gehenna,  into  the  unquenchable 

fire. 
And  if  thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off : 
It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt, 
Rather  than  having  thy  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 
And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cast  it  out : 
It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  with  one  eye, 
Rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  Gehenna,  where  their  worm 

dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  —  Mk.  9**-**. 

It  is  evident  that  Mark  gives  three  strophes  instead  of  two,  of 
the  same  number  of  lines.  Sometimes  the  measures  have  been 
destroyed  by  added  lines,  but  in  the  main  the  lines  have  better 
measures  than  INft.  5^"^. 

(c)  The  second  passage  in  ]\Iatthew  is,  as  the  context  shows,  a 
citation  from  IMark : 

And  if  thy  hand  or  thy  foot  causeth  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off  and  cast  it 

from  thee : 
It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed  or  halt. 
Rather  than  having  two  hands  or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  the  eternal  fire. 
And  if  thine  eye  causeth  thee  to  stumble,  pluck  it  out  and  cast  it  from  thee  : 

1  See  Westcott  and  Hort,  in  I.e.,  pp.  20  seq.  Scrivener  expands  these  princi- 
ples to  seven  in  number  in  I.e..  pp.  4.')6  seq.  ;  Davidson,  Treatise  of  Biblical  Criti- 
cism, Boston,  1853,  pp.  .'iSli  seq.,  gives  principles  of  Textual  Criticism  for  the  Old 
Testament. 


HOLY   SCRIPTUKE   AND   CKITICISM  91 

It  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  with  one  eye, 

Rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  the  Gehenna  of  fire.  — Mt.  18*-'. 

It  is  evident  that  Matthew  has  liere  condensed  the  first  and 
second  strophes  of  IMark  and  given  the  third. 

We  have  now  to  determine  the  original  logion  that  lies  back  of 
these  two  stages  of  transmission. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  original  was  three  strophes  of 
three  lines  each,  and  that  a  logion  so  symmetrical  in  lines  and 
strophes  was  also  symmetrical  in  measures  of  lines. 

It  is  easy  to  remove  the  explanatory  additions.  Mark  adds  to 
Gehenna,  in  the  first  triplet,  the  explanatory  "  into  the  unquench- 
able fire  " ;  and  to  the  third,  "  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and 
the  fire  is  not  quenched."  Matthew,  in  its  second  version,  sub- 
stitutes "  everlasting  fire "  for  Gehenna,  and  in  the  third  triplet 
enlarges  Gehenna  into  "Gehenna  of  fire."  It  is  evident  that 
these  changes  were  all  made  to  explain  the  Hebrew  Gehenna  to 
Gentile  readers.  They  come  from  the  evangelists,  and  not  from 
Jesus.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  all  these  cases  only  Gehenna 
was  used  in  the  original  logion.  So  in  the  antithesis  Mark  sub- 
stitutes for  life,  in  the  third  triplet,  the  explanatory  "  kingdom  of 
God."  Furthermore,  Matthew  in  its  first  version  gives  "right 
hand  "  for  hand,  and  "  right  eye  "  for  eye.  It  is  now  plain  what 
the  original  logion  was  from  which  these  three  texts  were  derived  : 

1.  It  thy  hand  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off : 
It  is  better  for  thee  maimed  to  enter  into  life. 
Than  to  have  two  hands  and  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 

2.  And  if  thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  ofi : 
It  is  better  for  thee  halt  to  enter  into  life. 
Than  to  have  two  feet  and  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 

3.  And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cast  it  out : 
It  is  better  for  thee  with  one  eye  to  enter  into  life, 
Than  to  have  two  eyes  and  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 

2.  In  the  difference  of  reading  of  the  Song  of  David,  2  Sam.  22", 
Ps.  18",  we  have  in  the  Psalm  ST1,  and  in  Samuel  XT'!.  The 
former  is  a  rare  word ;  the  latter,  a  common  one.  It  would  be 
natural  for  a  copyist  to  change  XT'!  to  XT'!,  but  not  the  reverse. 
Moreover,  the  more  difficult  form  gives  the  best  sense:  "And 
darted  on  the  wings  of  the  wind."  The  other  rendering  would  be, 
"  He  appeared  on  the  wings  of  the  wind."  Moreover,  Deut.  28^' 
favors  the  Psalter. 

3.  2  Samuel  22=  reads  nStt^ia  where  Ps.  18=  reads  'h^Tl.  The 
former  is  right,  as  we  see  by  the  context. 


92  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRU'TURE 

5.  For  breakers  of  death  compasseil  me, 
And  the  streams  of  Belial  made  me  afraid. 

6.  The  cords  of  Sheol  were  round  about  me  : 
The  snares  of  death  came  upon  me. 

In  Psalm  18  the  copj'ist  has  unconsciously  repeated  "  cords  " 
by  slip  of  the  eye  from  ver.  6. 

4.  Having  secured  the  best  text  of  the  writiiig.s,  criticism 
devotes  itself  to  the  higher  task  of  considering  them  as  to 
integrity,  authenticity,  literary  form,  and  reliability.  This  is 
appropriately  called  Higher  Criticism.  This  branch  of  criti- 
cism has  established  its  principles  and  methods  of  work.' 

It  is  named  the  Higher  Criticism  because  it  is  higher  in  its 
order  and  in  its  work  than  the  Lo^'er  or  Textual  Criticism. 
This  department  of  criticism  has  lived  and  worked  under  this 
name  for  more  than  a  century.  It  is  not  likely  that  it  will 
change  its  name  to  accommodate  the  prejudices  of  the  ignorant, 
or  to  justify  the  misrepresentations  of  the  anti-critics. 

The  Higher  Criticism  devotes  its  attention  to  the  literary 
features  of  the  Bible.     It  has  four  great  questions  to  answer. 

(1)    As  to  the  integrity  of  the  writings. 

Is  the  writing  the  work  of  a  single  author,  as  Browning's 
Ring  and  the  Book ;  or  is  it  a  collection  of  writings  of  different 
authors,  as  the  new  Anglican  Lux  3Iundi?  Is  it  in  its  original 
condition,  as  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism;  or  has  it 
been  edited  and  interpolated  by  later  writers,  as  the  Apostles' 
Creed  and  the  Westminster  Confession?  May  the  parts  be 
discriminated,  the  original  form  of  the  writing  determined,  and 
the  different  steps  in  interpolation  and  editing  clearly  traced ; 
as  the  successive  layers  of  the  Talmuds  and  the  several  official 
editions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Praj-er?  Or  is  this  a  difficult 
and  delicate  process  ;  as  in  the  recently  discovered  Teaching 
of  the  Apostles,  or  in  that  wonderful  collection  of  Oriental 
tales.  The  Thousand  and  One  Nights?  All  these  varieties  of 
literary  work  arc  common  in  the  world's  literature,  why  not  in 

1  Thus  the  learned  Roman  Catholic,  Du  Pin.  in  the  introduction  to  his  mag- 
nilicont  work  on  ecclesiastical  writers,  gave  an  admirable  statement  of  them 
with  reference  to  those  ecclesiastical  writers  before  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Scriptures  had  fairly  begun.  Xouvelle  Bihiiotheque  des  Auteurs  Ecclisiastiques, 
Paris,  1094  ;  New  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  London,  1696. 


HOLY   SCKH'TUKE   AND   ClilTICISM  93 

the  Biule?  How  can  we  know  until  we  have  examined  the 
question  whether  the  book  of  Isaiah  is  the  work  of  a  single 
author  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  or  whether  it  is  a  collection  of 
writings  of  dift'erent  prophets  gathered  about  the  prophecies  of 
Isaiah  as  the  most  important  nucleus?  It  is  necessarj-  for  the 
critic  to  determine  whether  the  Psalter  is  in  its  original  condi- 
tion or  whether  we  may  not  trace  a  series  of  minor  psalters 
going  through  the  hands  of  many  different  editors  untU  at 
length  the  present  Psalter  was  produced  as  the  crown  of  many 
centuries  of  prayer  and  praise  in  Israel. 

(2)    As  to  the  authenticity  of  the  ivritings. 

Is  the  writing  anonymous  like  most  of  the  editorials  in  our 
newspapers  and  so  much  of  the  epistolary  advice  of  oui*  self- 
constituted  friends  and  counsellors?  Is  it  pseudonymous, 
where  the  author  wishes  to  disguise  his  hand  from  fear  of  per- 
secution, as  in  the  Martin  3Iarprelate  tracts  ;  or  to  instruct  as  a 
prophet  in  the  guise  of  antiquity,  as  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch;  or  to  gain  an  unbiassed  hearing  to  unpalatable  truths, 
as  in  the  Letters  of  Junius  ;  or  to  speak  slanderous  words  with- 
out the  peril  of  detection,  as  in  the  pamphlet  literature  of  poli- 
tical and  ecclesiastical  controversies;  or  to  hide  the  blushes  of 
modest  beginners  in  literature  ? 

Or  does  the  writing  bear  the  author's  name  ;  and  if  so,  is  it 
genuine  ?  Did  it  come  from  the  author  himself  ?  Or  is  it  the 
conjecture  of  a  later  editor,  as  in  the  assignment  to  Gersou  of 
the  Be  Imitatione  Christi?  Is  it  a  forgery,  as  the  Epistles  of 
Phalaris?  Or  does  the  writing  bear  a  name  which  has  been 
suggested  by  its  contents  ?  ^lay  not  the  proper  name  attached 
to  the  book  be  the  name  of  the  hero  or  the  heroine  of  the  stor}". 
or  the  name  which  the  author  has  chosen  to  honor  by  the  pro- 
duction of  his  pen  ?  All  these  methods  of  attaching  names  to 
writings  are  common  in  the  world's  literature.  We  must  ask 
these  questions  of  the  writings  contained  in  the  Bible.  How 
did  the  name  of  Moses  become  attached  to  the  Pentateuch  ?  Is 
there  any  valid  ground  for  it  in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  or  in  any 
original  title  ;  or  has  it  come  from  a  late,  and  unreliable  con- 
jecture ?  Is  Malachi  the  name  of  the  prophet,  or  a  pseudonym, 
as  Calvin  supposed?     Are  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ecclesiastes 


94  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCUIFTURE 

pseudonymous,  as  modern  critics  suppose,  or  were  these  writings 
really  written  by  Daniel  and  Solomon  ?  Did  Ruth  and  Esther 
write  these  books,  or  are  they  simply  the  heroines  of  these 
stories?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  proper  names  in  the  titles 
of  the  Psalms?  Such  are  the  numerous  questions  which  arise 
under  the  head  of  authenticity  in  the  study  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures. 

(3)    As  to  literary  features. 

What  is  the  style  of  the  author  and  his  method  of  compo- 
sition ?  Does  he  write  in  poetry  or  in  prose  ?  What  kind 
of  poetry  does  he  produce  ;  Ij'ric,  gnomic,  dramatic,  or  epic 
poetry?  W^hat  is  the  measuremei^t  of  his  lines?  How  does  he 
arrange  his  strophes?  Or  if  he  writes  prose,  is  it  history,  ora- 
tory, the  epistle,  or  the  treatise  ?  Is  he  easy  and  graceful,  or 
rapid  and  brilliant,  or  steady  and  forceful,  or  slow  and  dull,  or 
stiff  and  pedantic  ?  What  are  the  characteristics  which  distin- 
guish him  from  other  authors  ?  These  questions  are  familiar  to 
students  of  the  world's  literature.  Literary  critics  have  to 
answer  them.  The  biblical  critic  cannot  escape  them  simply 
because  the  biblical  writers  are  said  to  be  JMoses  and  David, 
Solomon  and  Isaiah  ;  or  because  we  believe  that  the  Divine 
Spirit  Himself  speaks  to  us  in  these  writings  ;  for  they  contain 
different  varieties  of  prose  and  poetical  style.  The  discovery 
of  the  principles  of  Hebrew  poetry  by  Bishop  Lowth  made  a 
revolution  in  our  knowledge  of  the  psalmists,  the  wise  men,  and 
the  prophets.  It  makes  an  immense  difference  whether  the 
early  chapters  of  Genesis  are  poetry  or  prose.  A  comiiarison 
of  the  styles  of  the'  chronicler  and  the  prophetic  historians 
enables  us  to  form  a  far  better  judgment  upon  the  value  of 
their  history  and  its  lessons  than  we  otherwise  could.  The 
whole  interpretation  of  Job,  Esther,  Ruth,  and  Jonah  depends 
upon  whether  we  regard  them  as  historical  narratives,  or  as 
essentially  works  of  the  imagination.  All  of  these  literary 
questions  will  be  asked  of  the  biblical  books  whether  we  wish 
it  or  not.  That  man  is  not  a  biblical  scholar  who  hesitates  to 
ask  them,  out  of  fear  lest  his  traditional  ojjinions  may  be  im- 
perilled. Such  a  man,  though  he  may  be  studying  the  Bible, 
so  far  as  it  is  possible  through  the  coloured  glasses  set  in  the 


HOLY   SCRIPTURK   AND    CKiriCIS.M  95 

rigid  frames  he  has  imposed  upon  his  eyes,  is  yet  not  a  sincei-e 
biblical  student,  for  he  declines  to  open  his  eyes  in  the  sunlight 
of  divine  truth. 

(4)    As  to  the  credibility  of  the  tcritinr/s. 

We  are  obliged  as  biblical  critics  after  we  have  determined 
all  these  preliminary  questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to  face 
the  most  serious  question  of  credibilitj-.  Literary  critics  are 
compelled  to  ask  these  questions  in  their  study  of  the  world's 
literature.  Is  the  writing  reliable  ?  Do  its  statements  accord 
with  the  truth,  or  are  they  coloured  and  warped  b}^  prejudice, 
superstition,  or  reliance  upon  insufficient  or  unworthy  testi- 
mony? What  character  does  the  author  bear  as  to  prudence, 
good  judgment,  fairness,  integrity,  and  critical  sagacity  ?  Bib- 
lical critics  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  these  questions  of  criti- 
cism. Whatever  may  be  their  reverence  of  Holy  Scripture 
they  must  ask  these  questions  of  it.  The  reverent  critics  will 
ask  these  questions  reverently.  Rationalistic  critics  will  ask 
them  soberly  and  impartially.  Critics  whose  aim  it  is  to  dis- 
pute the  divme  authority  of  Holy  Scrij)ture  will  be  irreverent 
and  unfair.  The  spirit  of  the  investigation  is  determined  by 
the  temper  and  character  of  the  investigators,  not  by  its  princi- 
ples and  methods,  which  are  the  same  to  all  scientific  students 
of  the  Bible.  The  investigation  must  go  on.  It  matters  little 
how  many  oppose  it.  Opposition  ma}-  delaj-  the  end ;  it  can- 
not prevent  it.  It  may  make  the  investigation  a  holy  war  and 
the  establishment  of  its  results  a  catastrophe  to  the  faith  and 
life  of  its  opponents.  But  the  normal  development  of  the 
investigation  is  the  calm,  steady,  invincible  march  of  science. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  its  scientific  princijales  by  which 
it  determines  all  these  questions.' 

(1)  The  writing  must  be  in  accordance  icith  its  supposed  his- 
toric position  as  to  time  and  place  and  circumstances. 

A  writing  is  the  product  of  the  experience  of  the  author  or 
editor.  It  could  not  be  produced  ■\\ithout  that  experience. 
The  historic  ^^Titings  of  the  world  are  born,  not  made.     They 

'  A  brief  statement  of  these  principles  is  presented  in  relation  to  Biblical 
Critioiam  by  Professor  Henry  1'.  Smith,  in  his  article  on  the  -'Critical  Theories 
of  Julius  Wellhausen,"  Presbyterian  Review,  1882,  III.  p.  370. 


96  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKll'XUKE 

could  uot  be  born  before  the  time.     When  born  they  show  the 
marks  of  their  parentage  and  the  times  of  their  birth. 

"  Time  is  one  of  the  most  certain  proofs ;  for  nothing  more  evi- 
dently shows  that  a  book  cannot  belong  to  that  time  wherein 
it  is  pretended  to  have  been  written,  than  when  we  find  in  it 
some  marks  of  a  later  date.  These  marks,  in  the  first  place,  are 
false  dates;  for  "tis  an  ordinary  thing  for  impostors,  that  are 
generally  ignorant,  to  date  a  book  after  the  death  of  the  author 
to  whom  they  ascribe  it,  or  of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  dedicated, 
or  written  ;  and  even  when  they  do  fix  the  time  right,  j'et  they  often 
mistake  the  names  of  the  consuls,  or  in  some  other  circumstances : 
All  which  are  invincible  proofs  that  he  that  dated  this  book  did  not 
live  at  that  time.  Secondlj',  impostors  very  often  speak  of  men  that 
lived  long  after  the  death  of  those  p^'sons  to  whom  they  attribute 
those  spurious  discourses,  or  they  relate  the  history  of  some  pas- 
sages that  happened  afterwards,  or  they  speak  of  cities  and  people 
that  were  unknown  at  the  time,  when  those  authors  T\Tote." ' 

Dr.  Henry  M.  Dexter  has  recently  shown  that  the  records  pub- 
lished a  few  years  ago  in  England  as  the  records  of  the  Baptist 
Church  of  Crowle,  1599-1620,  were  forgeries,  by  the  heaping  nj( 
of  references  in  these  records  to  men  and  events  long  subsequent 
to  those  times.'' 

But  this  principle  may  be  used  in  a  positive  argument.  A  few 
years  ago  I  discovered  a  letter  in  the  Hunterian  JIuseum,  Gla.s- 
gow,  giving  the  names  of  all  the  magistrates,  churches,  and  min- 
isters of  Xew  England,  when  the  letter  was  written.  The  letter 
was  a  copy  and  not  the  original.  It  was  unsigned ;  it  had  no 
address ;  there  was  no  external  evidence  except  the  fact  that  it 
had  been  in  this  collection  of  American  books,  tracts,  and  manu- 
scripts for  a  long  time,  and  came  from  a  reliable  source,  making 
its  genuineness  altogether  probable.  By  a  careful  studj'  of  the 
names  of  persons  and  places,  and  of  the  events  described  in  this 
letter,  I  was  able  to  determine  that  the  letter  was  written  by  John 
Eliot,  the  apostle  to  the  American  Indians,  not  earlier  than  May 
22)id,  1650,  nor  later  than  June  5th.  1650,  that  is  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  two  weeks.  No  one  has  ever  questioned  these  results 
of  my  higher  criticism  of  this  document.' 

This  principle  when  applied  to  the  writings  of  Holy  Script- 
ure leads  to  sure  results.     As  surely  as  the  diflferent  geological 

1  Du  Pin,  JVeto  History  of  Ecclesiastical  }rriters.  3d  edit .  corrected,    London, 
1606,  pp.  vii.  seq.  -  John  Smijthe,  the  Se  Baptist,     Boston,  1887. 

'  Brings,  .American  Prcsbi/terianism,  Appendix,  xxix.-xxxvi,  N.Y'.,  1885. 


HOLY    .SCKIPTURE    AND    CRITICISM  97 

epochs  leave  their  traces  on  the  strata  of  the  rocks,  and  the 
astronomical  epochs  are  disclosed  in  tlie  revolutions  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  so  surely  literature  reflects  the  history  of  the  times 
which  gave  it  birth.  A  biblical  Avriting  could  not  be  born 
before  its  time  any  more  than  any  other  writing.  Holy  Script- 
ure bears  upon  it  the  traces  of  its  historic  origin  as  truly  as 
any  other  scripture.  Higher  Criticism  may  determine  the  his- 
toric origin  and  development  of  the  writings  of  Holy  Scrijiture 
by  these  traces  as  surel}'  as  in  any  other  department  of  the 
world's  literature.  We  may  not  always  be  able  to  detect  the 
historic  origin  of  the  book,  but  to  find  it  is  like  the  dawn  of 
the  sun  after  a  cloudy  night. 

(2)  Differences  of  style  imply  differences  of  experience  and 
afie  of  the  same  author;  or,  u'hen  sufficiently  great,  differences  of 
author  and  of  period  of  composition. 

"  In  short,  stile  is  a  sort  of  touch  stone,  that  discovers  the  truth 
or  falsehood  of  books ;  because  it  is  impossible  to  imitate  the  stile 
of  any  author  so  perfectly  as  that  there  will  not  be  a  great  deal 
of  difference.  By  the  stile,  we  are  not  only  to  understand  the 
bare  words  and  terms,  which  are  easily  imitated;  but  also  the 
turn  of  the  discourse,  the  manner  of  writing,  the  elocution, 
the  figures,  and  the  method :  All  which  particulars,  it  is  a  diffi- 
cult matter  so  to  counterfeit  as  to  prevent  a  discovery.  There 
are,  for  instance,  certain  authors,  whose  stile  is  easily  known,  and 
which  it  is  impossible  to  imitate  :  We  ought  not,  however,  always 
to  reject  a  book  upon  a  slight  difference  of  stile,  without  any 
other  proofs ;  because  it  often  happens  that  authors  write  differ- 
ently, in  different  times :  Neither  ought  we  immediately  to  re- 
ceive a  book  as  genuine,  upon  the  bare  resemblance  of  stile,  when 
there  are  other  proofs  of  its  being  spurious ;  because  it  may  so 
happen,  that  an  ingenious  man  may  sometimes  counterfeit  the 
stile  of  an  author,  especially  in  discourses  which  are  not  very 
long.  But  the  difference  and  resemblance  of  stile  may  be  so 
remarkable  sometimes,  as  to  be  a  convincing  proof,  either  of  truth 
or  falsehood." ' 

This  principle  has  been  so  firmly  established  that  no  one  can 

intelligently  deny  it.     Style  is  the  dress  of  thought,  or  rather 

the  expressions  of  its  face  and  the  graceful  movement  of  its 

form.     Every  human  being  has  his  individuality  of  face  and 

'  I.e.,  p.  viii. 


98  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTURE 

form,  his  characteiistic  movements  and  expression  by  which  he 
is  distinguished  and  known  from  others.  Every  wi-iter  has  his 
handwriting.  Even  the  tj'pewriter  does  not  destroy  these  dif- 
ferences. Every  writer  has  his  stock  of  words,  his  favourite  ex- 
pressions, the  phrases  of  his  family,  or  his  school,  or  his  party, 
his  attitude  of  mind,  his  pose  of  statement,  his  characteristic 
utterances ;  and  if  in  his  quest  of  truth  he  has  gained  such  an 
advancement  as  to  be  a  writer  of  documents  which  live  through 
the  centuries,  liis  powers  of  speech  and  writing  have  expanded 
to  the  work  required  of  them  and  they  have  expressed  these 
advanced  conceptions  in  language  which  would  not  be  appro- 
priate if  it  were  not  in  a  true  sense  oi'iginal,  and  as  peculiar  to 
the  man  as  his  thinking  and  acting.  It  is  quite  true  that  the 
style  of  writers  grows  as  they  grow  in  knowledge  and  experi- 
ence, and  the  earlier  writings  of  an  author  may  be  readily  dis- 
tinguished from  his  later  writings.  But  throughout  his  entire 
literarj'  development  there  will  be  a  unity  and  an  identity  of 
character  in  his  style  which  will  mark  him  off  from  all  other 
writers  as  truly  as  his  face  and  its  expressions  are  different  from 
every  other  face  and  ever  remain  cliaracteristic  from  infancy  to 
old  age. 

It  is  quite  true  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  detect  difference  of 
style  than  difference  of  face.  Experience  in  criticism  as  well 
as  accuracy  and  careful  investigation  are  required  for  such 
criticism.  Not  every  tyro  is  capable  of  it.  And  if  an  un- 
trained critic  or  an  amateur  fail  in  the  necessary  discrimina- 
tions, that  is  no  test  of  their  reality,  or  of  their  accuracy  when 
seen  by  the  experienced  eye  and  traced  by  the  expert  hand. 
Mistakes  are  made  in  faces  and  forms  even  b}'  detectives.  Mis- 
takes are  more  likely  to  occur  in  the  delicate  traceries  of  lit- 
erature. But  mistakes  do  not  disprove  the  importance  of  a 
detective  agency.  Still  less  do  they  disprove  the  value  of  lit- 
erary criticism.  They  teach  that  those  who  enter  upon  such 
investigations  should  get  the  training  that  is  necessary,  acquire 
by  experience  the  talents  of  experts,  and  use  their  delicate 
tools  with  refinement  and  taste,  scientific  accuracy,  and  thorough- 
ness, and  with  a  confidence  in  tlie  truth  tliey  are  seeking  to 
determine. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  99 

Any  one  familiar  with  literature  knows  how  difficult  it  is  for 
a  well-known  writer  to  tlisguise  his  hand.  It  will  often  be  recog- 
nized through  all  disguises  even  by  those  who  are  not  experts. 
This  principle  has  been  successfully  applied  in  many  genera- 
tions of  criticism  to  all  departments  of  the  world's  literp.ture. 
It  has  also  been  applied  to  the  ^\Titings  of  Holy  Scripture  with 
the  most  fruitfid  results.  It  needs  no  training  to  see  that  each 
one  of  the  evangelists  has  a  different  style.  It  needs  no  ex- 
pert's knowledge  to  distinguish  that  the  Chronicler  writes  dif- 
ferently from  the  prophetic  historians.  But  it  does  need  the 
professional  critic  to  tell  you  what  those  differences  are,  to 
tabulate  them  and  use  them  as  evidences  for  the  determination 
of  questions  of  the  integrity,  authorship,  style,  and  credibility 
of  these  writings. 

(8)  Differences  of  opinion  and  conception  hnph/  differences 
of  autlior  ivhen  these  are  sufficientltj  great,  and  also  differences  of 
period  of  composition. 

'•  The  opinions  or  things  contained  in  a  book,  do  likewise  discover 
the  forgery  of  it:  (1)  When  we  find  some  opinions  there,  that 
were  not  maintained  till  a  long  time  after  the  author,  whose  name 
it  bears.  (2)  When  we  find  some  terms  made  use  of,  to  explain 
these  doctrines,  which  were  not  customary  till  after  his  death. 
(3)  When  the  author  opposes  errors,  as  extant  in  his  own  time,  that 
did  not  spring  up  till  afterwards.  (4)  When  he  describes  cere- 
monies, rites,  and  customs  that  were  not  in  use  in  his  time.  (5) 
When  we  find  some  opinions  in  these  spurious  discourses,  that 
are  contrary  to  those  that  are  to  be  found  in  other  books,  which 
unquestionably  belong  to  that  author.  (6)  When  he  treats  of 
matters  that  were  never  spoken  of  in  the  time  when  the  real 
author  was  alive.  (7)  When  he  relates  histories  that  are  mani- 
festly fabulous." ' 

This  is  a  principle  of  great  simplicity  and  of  far-reaching  con- 
sequences. There  is  a  gradual  development  of  thought  in  this 
world  of  ours.  Each  age  has  its  opinions,  each  writer  his  point 
of  view.  The  views  of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State  which 
are  embedded  in  the  American  official  copy  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  could  not  have  been  written  before  the  American 
Revolution.     Even  if  the  history  of  the  revision  of  the  Confes- 

'  I.e.,  p.  viii. 


100  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

siou  had  been  lost  aud  long  forgotten,  the  fact  of  the  revision 
would  lie  in  the  language  of  the  document  itself.  The  Augs- 
burg Confession  could  not  have  been  composed  before  the  birth 
of  the  great  Reformation.  If  the  external  history  of  its  compo- 
sition had  been  lost,  the  internal  evidence  would  be  sufficient 
to  show  it.  The  Emancipation  Proclamation  was  born  of  the 
crisis  of  the  American  Civil  War.  When  else  could  it  have 
been  composed  ? 

It  is  true  that  tradition  is  always  at  work  fathering  anonymous 
writings  with  ancient  venerated  names.  An  interesting  example 
is  found  in  the  paradoxes  of  Herbert  Palmer,  which  have  been 
attributed  to  Lord  Bacon  and  are  -^ound  in  many  editions  of 
his  printed  works.  The  finding  of  several  editions  of  a  little 
book  containing  these  paradoxes  under  the  name  of  Herbert  Palmer 
was  suflBcient  external  evidence  to  enable  Dr.  Grossart  to  re- 
move them  from  Bacon's  works.  But  the  external  evidence  is  not 
alwaj-s  attainable.  Take  for  example  the  famous  sentence  fathered 
so  long  on  Augustine:  "In  necessary  things  ^inity,  in  unnecessary 
things  liberty,  in  all  things  charity."  A  little  reflection  ought  to 
have  convinced  any  student  of  the  history  of  opinion  that  Augus- 
tine could  not  in  his  age  of  the  world  either  have  expressed  or 
understood  such  a  sentence.  Critical  scholars  long  refused  it  to 
Augustine  on  that  account.  But  it  was  not  until  recent  times  that 
the  full  evidence  of  the  origin  of  this  word  of  peace  was  foimd  in 
a  tract  of  Rupertus  ileldenius  in  the  earlj-  days  of  the  irenic 
movement  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Having  determined  the  characteristic  doctrine  of  a  period  and 
the  leading  features  of  an  author,  it  is  not  easy  for  an  expert 
critic  to  mistake  in  his  judgment  as  to  any  other  writing  of  that 
author  or  period.  This  is  a  more  difficult  line  of  investigation 
at  the  present  time  because  few  scholars  have  worked  at  it  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  but  it  is  the  most  con^-iucing  when  the 
facts  have  been  tabulated  and  their  lessons  learned. 

(4)  Citations  show  the  dependence  of  the  author  iipoit  the 
author  or  authors  cited,  where  these  are  definite  and  the  identity 
of  the  author  cited  can  he  clearly  established. 

Sometimes  these  citations  are  clear  and  strong  evidence  aud 
so  decide  our  question  beyond  reason  of  a  doubt.  At  other 
times  there  is  grave  difficulty. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AXD   CRITICISM  101 

An  illustration  of  this  principle  and  its  difficulties  maj'  be  given 
in  the  story  of  tracing  the  maxim  of  peace  to  Kupertus  Meldenius. 
A  distinguished  German,  Llicke,'  found  this  word  of  peace  in  a 
tract  of  great  rarity  which  bore  the  name  of  Kupertus  Meldenius. 
He  refers  to  its  use  by  Richard  Baxter,  but  affirms  that  Baxter  no- 
where mentions  the  source  from  which  he  derived  it.  However, 
he  traces  it  from  Baxter  backward  to  this  early  tract  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  and  makes  it  probable  that  Kupertus  Meldenius 
wrote  it.  But  soon  after  another  German  scholar  discovered  an- 
other rare  tract  of  the  same  period  by  George  Franc,  in  which  the 
same  thought  is  expressed  in  similar  terms,-  and  this  somewhat 
weakens  the  argument  for  the  origin  of  the  phrase  in  Kupertus 
Meldenius.  It  was  my  good  fortune  to  make  this  probable  evi- 
dence certain  by  finding  accidentallj'^  in  a  rare  tract  of  Kiehard 
Baxter  a  passage  which  had  been  overlooked  by  all  previous  schol- 
ars, in  which  Baxter  attributes  the  phrase  to  Kupertus  Meldenius 
and  in  which  he  states  that  he  derived  it  from  a  citation  in  a  work 
of  Conrad  Berg.  This  work  of  Conrad  Berg  is  so  rare  that  only 
one  copy  of  it  is  known  to  be  in  existence.  But  after  some  diffi- 
culty I  foimd  this  copy  in  the  Koyal  Library  at  Berlin,  saw  the 
passage  from  which  Baxter  derived  it,  saw  that  it  was  part  of  a 
long  citation  from  Kupertus  Meldenius,  compared  the  citation 
with  the  original  tract,  and  so  made  the  evidence  complete.^ 

These  four  principles  are  embraced  under  the  internal  evi- 
dence. To  them  we  must  now  add  two  principles  of  external 
evidence. 

(5)  Positive  testimony  as  to  the  writing  in  other  writings  of 
acknowledged  authority ; 

(6)  The  silence  of  authorities  as  to  the  writing  in  question. 
These  are  combined  by  Du  Pin  : 

"  The  external  proofs  are,  in  the  first  place,  taken  from  ancient 
manuscripts ;  in  which  either  we  do  not  find  the  name  of  an 
author:  or  else  we  find  that  of  another:  The  more  ancient  or 
correct  they  are,  the  more  we  ought  to  value  them.  Secondly, 
from  the  testimony  or  silence  of  ancient  authors ;  from  their  testi- 
mony, I  say,  when  they  formally  reject  a  writing  as  spurious,  or 

1  Ueher  das  Alter,  den  Verfasser,  die  ursprungliche  Form  und  den  wahren 
Sinn  des  Friedenspruches,  18.50. 

-  Karl  Bertheau,  in  Herzog,  Ileal  Encyklopddie,  1881,  IX.,  s.  !S3l. 

'  Briggs,  "Origin  of  the  Phrase  •  in necessariis  unitas,'  etc.,"  Presbyterian 
Review,  1887,  pp.  496  seq. ;  also  "Rupertus  Meldenius  and  his  Word  of  Peace," 
Presbyterian  Beview,  1887,  pp.  74:3  seq. 


102  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTURE 

\vhen  they  attribute  it  to  some  other  author ;  or  from  their  silence 
when  they  do  not  speak  of  it,  though  they  have  occasion  to  men- 
tion it:  This  argument,  which  is  commonly  called  a  negative  one, 
is  oftentimes  of  very  great  weight.  When,  for  example,  we  find, 
that  several  entire  books  which  are  attributed  to  one  of  the 
ancients,  are  unknown  to  all  antiquity :  When  all  those  persons 
that  have  spoken  of  the  works  of  an  author,  and  besides,  have 
made  catalogues  of  them,  never  mention  such  a  particular  dis- 
course :  When  a  book  that  would  have  been  serviceable  to  the 
Catholics  has  never  been  cited  by  them,  who  both  might  and 
ought  to  have  cited  it,  as  having  a  fair  occasion  to  do  it,  'tis  ex- 
treamly  probable  that  it  is  supposititious.  It  is  very  certain  that 
this  is  enough  to  make  any  book  doubtful,  if  it  was  never  cited 
by  any  of  the  ancients ;  and  in  that  ca^e  it  must  have  very  authen- 
tik  characters  of  antiquity,  before  it  ought  to  be  received  without 
contradiction.  And  on  the  other  hand,  if  there  should  be  never 
so  few  conjectures  of  its  not  being  genuine,  yet  these,  together 
with  the  silence  of  the  ancients,  will  be  sufficient  to  oblige  us  to 
believe  it  to  be  a  forgery."  ' 

The  argument  from  silence  has  risen  to  so  much  greater 
importance  since  the  seventeenth  century  that  we  shall  venture 
to  define  it  more  narrowly.^ 

(a)  Silence  is  a  lack  of  evidence  when  it  is  clear  that  the  matter 
in  question  did  not  come  within  the  scope  of  the  author's  plans  and 
purposes. 

In  the  book  of  Esther,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Divine  Name, 
and  no  conception  of  Divine  Providence.  This  seems,  at  tlie  first 
glance,  very  strange.  The  history  of  Esther  would  be  as  fitting  to 
illustrate  Divine  Providence  as  the  story  of  Joseph.  We  should 
expect  that  the  Divine  Xame  would  have  been  frequently  in  the 
mouths  of  the  heroes  of  the  story.  And  yet,  on  closer  examina- 
tion, it  appears  that  the  book  of  Esther  was  written  with  a  very 
different  purpose  from  the  story  of  Joseph.  It  was  the  work  of 
a  patriotic  Jew  who  wished  to  enforce  fidelity  to  Jewish  national- 
ity. The  author's  scope  was  patriotic  and  ethical,  rather  tliau  reli- 
gious or  doctrinal.  Hence,  while  the  name  of  the  Persian  monarch 
appears  IS"  times,  the  name  of  God  does  not  occur.  Persian 
decrees,  and  the  fidelity  of  Esther  to  her  nation,  and  skill  in  over- 

>  In  I.e.,  p.  viii. 

*  For  ail  elaboration  and  explanation  of  these  principles  we  must  refer  to  the 
author's  paper  on  the  argument  e  silentin.  read  before  the  Society  of  Biblical 
Literature  and  Exege.sis  in  .lune,  1883,  and  published  in  their  Journal  for  1883. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  103 

coming  the  intrigues  of  its  enemies,  take  the  place  of  the  Divine 
Providence.  The  same  is  true  in  the  Song  of  Songs.  Its  scope 
is  essentially  ethical,  to  show  the  victory  of  marital  love  over  all 
the  seductions  that  may  be  employed  to  constrain  it  toward  others 
than  the  rightful  object  of  it.  The  author  had  no  occasion  to  use 
the  Divine  Name  or  to  speak  of  religious  themes. 

(b)  Silence  is  an  evidence  that  the  matter  in  question  had  cer- 
tain characteristics  which  excluded  it  from  the  author  s  argument. 
This  argument  is  on  the  well-knowu  popular  principle  that 
silence  gives  consent.  If  there  were  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
it  would  certainly  have  been  produced. 

A  fine  example  of  this  argument  is  given  by  Bishop  Lightfoot 
in  his  review  of  the  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion  "  '  in  treat- 
ing of  the  silence  of  Eusebius.  He  quotes  from  Eusebius,  H.  E., 
III.  3,  to  the  effect  that  the  design  of  Eusebius  was  to  give  (1)  the 
references  or  testimonies  in  case  of  disputed  writings  of  the 
Canon  only;  (2)  the  records  of  anecdotes  in  case  of  the  acknow- 
ledged and  disputed  ^^Titings  alike.  If  the  Gospel  of  John  had 
been  a  disputed  writing,  Eusebius  would  have  given  references 
and  testimonies  according  to  his  first  principle.  He  does  not  do 
this,  therefore  "  the  silence  of  Eusebius  respecting  early  witnesses 
to  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  an  evidence  in  its  favour.  Its  apostolic 
authorship  had  never  been  questioned  by  any  church  writer  from 
the  beginning  so  far  as  Eusebius  was  aware,  and  therefore  it  was 
superfluous  to  call  witnesses." 

(c)  The  matter  in  question  lies  fairly  within  the  author^  scope, 
and  it  was  omitted  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons  which  may  he 
ascertained. 

This  phase  of  the  argument  from  silence  was  used  in  the  re- 
nowned argument  of  Warburton.^  He  argues :  If  religion  be  neces- 
sarj'  to  civil  government,  and  if  religion  cannot  subsist  under  the 
common  dispensation  of  Providence  without  a  future  state  of  re- 
wards and  punishments,  so  consummate  a  lawgiver  [Moses]  would 
never  have  neglected  to  inculcate  the  belief  of  such  a  state,  had 
he  not  been  well  assured  that  an  extraordinary  Providence  was 
indeed  to  be  administered  over  his  people.  This  argument  has 
been  often  disputed.  Both  premises  have  been  called  in  question. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  idea  that  "  religion  cannot  subsist 
under  the  common  dispensation  of   Providence,  without  a  future 

'  Contemporary  Reviexo,  XXV.,  pp.  183  seq. 

*  Divine  Legation  of  Moses  Vindicated,  London,  1837,  Vol.  II.  pp.  531  seg. 


104  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

state  of  rewards  and  punishments,"  rests  on  too  narrow  an  induc- 
tion of  the  religions  of  the  world.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Warburton  is  disposed  to  minimize  the  Old  Testament  statements 
as  to  the  future  life  ;  and  yet  it  seems  that  he  is  certainly  correct 
in  his  statement  that  the  Peutateiichal  codes  are  silent  as  to  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  and  that  this  silence 
was  designed.  Warbui-ton  calls  attention  justly  to  Closes'  famil- 
iarity with  the  Egj-ptian  religion  and  its  highly  developed  es- 
chatology.  We  have  now  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the 
Babylonian  and  other  Shemitic  religions,  with  which  the  patri- 
archal ancestors  were  first  brought  in  contact,  were  full  and 
elaborate  on  this  subject.  The  Hebrews  throughout  their  history 
were  in  communication  with  nations  which  had  the  most  elabo- 
rate eschatologies.  The  silence  of  th^se  codes  was  designed.  We 
are  not  convinced  that  this  silence  is  to  be  explained  altogether 
on  the  principle  that  the  Hebrew  government  was  a  theocracy  of 
extraordinary  Providence;  yet  we  are  sure  that  it  was  the  design 
of  the  codes  to  emphasize  the  duties  and  the  life  in  the  Holy  Land 
under  the  divine  instruction,  and  of  the  blessings  in  store  for 
such  a  life,  and  to  ignore  the  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments on  that  account.  The  essential  thing  was  the  divine  bless- 
ing in  life,  and  the  most  dreaded  thing  was  the  divine  curse  in 
life.  This  was  a  healthy  ethical  position.  Only  an  unhealth}' 
religion  will  depreciate  the  moral  character  of  life  in  this  world, 
in  the  interest  of  the  future  life. 

(d)  The  silence  of  the  author  as  to  that  which  ivas  tvithin  the 
scope  of  his  argument  zeas  unconscious  and  therefore  ignorance  is 
implied. 

Where  there  is  silence  in  authors,  we  maj-  assume  ignorance 
as  to  the  matter  in  question,  and  even  find  positive  disproof  of 
the  story.  An  event  or  an  opinion  might  not  be  known  to  a 
particular  person,  or  might  be  known  to  but  a  few,  and  these 
might  perish.  But  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  those  to  whom 
the  event  or  knowledge  was  known,  would  make  it  known  if 
it  were  within  the  scope  of  their  argument.  We  prove  the 
growth  of  knowledge  from  the  silence  of  early  writers  and  the 
statements  of  later  writers.  The  statement  of  opinions  gives 
us  the  basis  for  the  history  of  opinions.  Silence  is  an  evidence 
of  ignorance  as  to  them. 

A  tradition  handed  down  from  Fox.  and  apparently  supported 
by  the  Colophon  of  Tyndale's  first  edition  of  his  translation  of 


HOLY   SCRirTUKE   AND   CRITICISM  105 

Genesis,  '•  emprinted  at  Marlborow  in  the  land  of  Hesse,  by  me 
Hans  Luft,  &c.,''  pretends  that  Tyndale  was  a  student  at  Marburg, 
and  that  he  went  from  thence  to  Hamburg  by  way  of  Antwerp, 
to  meet  Coverdale  in  1529;  Mombert'  disproves  this  tradition  by 
showing  that  (1)  there  is  no  record  at  ^larburg  of  Hans  Luft  ever 
having  set  up  a  printing  press  there,  and  (2)  that  the  Album  of 
the  University  does  not  contain  Tyudale's  name  among  the  matric- 
ulates, as  it  would  have  done  if  he  had  matriculated,  inasmuch 
as  it  gives  Patrick  Hamilton  and  others :  and  (3)  there  is  an 
absence  of  historic  evidence  as  to  Coverdale's  going  to  Hamburg. 

(e)  When  the  silence  extends  over  a  variety  of  ivritings  of 
different  authors,  of  different  classes  of  writings  and  different 
periods  of  composition,  it  implies  either  some  strong  and  over- 
powering external  restraint  such  as  divine  interposition,  or  eccle- 
siastical or  civil  poiver;  or  it  implies  a  general  and  wide-spread 
public  ignorance  which  presents  a  strong  presumptive  evidence 
regarding  the  reality  and  truthfidness  of  the  matter  in  question. 

Many  examples  of  this  line  of  argument  might  be  adduced. 
Aj-chbishop  Whatel}^  proves  from  the  silence  of  Scripture  as  to 
Confessions  of  Faith,  Liturgies,  Rubrics,  and  the  like,  that  the 
authors  were  supernaturally  withheld  from  giving  them  in 
order  to  give  liberty  to  the  Church.^  This  is  the  phase  of  the 
argument  from  silence  which  is  used  with  so  much  effect  to 
prove  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  originated  in  the  time  of 
Josiali  and  the  priest-code  in  the  exile.  The  history  previous 
to  these  times  presents  an  ignorance  of  these  codes  and  unre- 
buked  violation  of  them.  The  literatui-e  previous  to  these 
times  is  unconscious  of  their  existence.^ 

The  argument  from  silence  is  therefore  an  argument  of  great 
importance,  all  the  more  convincing  from  its  delicacy  and  the 
indirect  and  roundabout  paths  by  which  it  reaches  its  end. 
Sometimes  it  shoots  like  a  comet  to  a  surprising  result,  but 
usually  it  traces  its  way  in  every  variety  of  beautiful  curves. 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  Holy  Scripture  is  a  study,  which 

has  its  well-defined  principles,  its  accurate  methods,  its  clearly 

expressed  questions  ;  and  its  results  are  as  sure  as  those  of  any 

other  science. 

'  Handbook  of  the  English  Versions  of  the  Bible.  New  York,  1883,  pp.  107  seq. 
-  Es.say.s.  Kingdom  of  God.  ^  See  pp.  .307,  .32.3. 


106  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

The  internal  evidence  must  be  used  with  great  caution  and 
sound  judgment,  for  an  able  and  learned  forger  might  imitate 
so  as  to  deceive  the  most  expert,  and  the  author  of  a  pseud- 
epigraph  might  intentionall}'  place  his  writing  in  an  earlier  age 
of  the  world  and  in  circumstances  best  suited  to  carry  out  his 
idea.  But  sooner  or  later  a  faithful  and  persistent  application 
of  the  critical  tests  will  determine  the  forgeries  and  the  pseud- 
epigraphs  and  assign  tliem  their  real  literarj'  position.  As  to 
the  relative  value  of  the  internal  and  external  evidence  we 
cannot  do  better  than  use  the  judicious  words  of  Sir  William 
Hamilton  :  "  But  if  our  criticism  from  the  internal  grounds 
alone  be,  on  the  one  hand,  impotent  to  establish,  it  is,  on  the 
other  hand,  omnipotent  to  disprove.'"  ^ 

The  importance  of  this  higher  criticism  is  well  stated  b)'^ 
DuPin: 

"  Criticism  is  a  kind  of  torch,  that  lights  and  conducts  us  in  the 
obscure  tracts  of  antiquitj',  by  making  us  to  distinguish  truth  from 
falsehood,  history  from  fable,  and  antiquity  from  novelty.  'Tis 
by  this  means,  that  in  our  times  we  have  disengaged  ourselves 
from  an  infinite  number  of  very  common  errors,  into  which  our 
fathers  fell  for  want  of  examining  things  by  the  rules  of  true 
criticism.  For  'tis  a  surprising  thing  to  consider  how  many 
spurious  books  we  find  in  antiquity;  nay,  even  in  the  first  ages 
of  the  Church."  - 

In  order  to  illustrate  these  principles  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
we  shall  present  a  few  additional  specimens  of  their  applica- 
tion from  eminent  divines. 

The  first  illustration  that  we  sliall  give  is  with  reference  to 
the  question  of  integrity.  The  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  is  the 
most  sacred  writing  exterior  to  the  canon  of  Scripture. 

Till  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  the  current 
belief  of  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  Christendom  that  the 
Apostles'  Creed  was  "  membratum  articidatumque"  composed  by 
the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  before  their 
separation,  to  secure  unity  of  teaching,  each  contributing  an  arti- 
cle (hence  the  somewhat  arbitrary  division  into  twelve  articles"). 

The   arguments  adduced  by  Dr.  Schaff  to  prove  that   this 
tradition  is  false,  are  :    (1)  The  intrinsic  improbability  of  such 
>  Logic,  p.  471.  >"  l.c.,  p.  vii. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  107 

a  mechanical  composition.  (2)  The  silence  of  Scripture. 
(3)  The  silence  of  the  apostolic  fathers  and  of  all  the  Ante- 
Nicene  and  Nicene  fathers  and  synods.  (4)  The  variety  in 
form  of  the  creed  down  to  the  eighth  century.  (5)  The 
fact  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  never  had  any  currency  in  the 
East,  where  the  Nicene  Creed  occupies  its  place. ^ 

Many  scholars  have  studied  the  structure  of  the  Creed  more 
fully,  and  have  shown  the  process  of  its  formation  and  all  the 
changes  through  which  it  passed,  until  it  gradually,  in  750  A.D., 
assumed  its  present  stereotyped  form.^ 

One  of  the  best  illustrations  of  the  effective  work  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  with  reference  to  the  question  of  authenticity,  is  afforded 
by  Bentley  in  his  celebrated  work  on  the  epistles  of  Phalaris.^ 
Bentley  proves  these  epistles  to  be  forgeries  of  a  sophist :  I.  By 
internal  evidence.  (1)  They  do  not  accord  with  their  presumed 
age,  but  with  other  ages.  They  mention  (a)  Aloesa,  a  city  which 
was  not  built  till  140  years  after  the  latest  year  of  Phalaris ; 
(6)  Theridean  cups,  which  were  not  known  imtil  120  years  after  the 
death  of  Phalaris ;  (c)  Messana,  as  a  diiferent  city  from  Zaude, 
whereas  it  was  a  later  name  for  the  same  city,  which  was  not 
changed  till  60  years  after  the  death  of  Phalaris;  (d)  Tauro- 
minium,  140  years  before  it  was  ever  thought  of. 

(2)  Differences  of  style  :  (a)  the  use  of  the  Attic  dialect  instead 
of  the  Doric,  the  speech  of  Phalaris,  and  indeed  not  of  the  old 
Attic,  but  the  new  Attic  that  was  not  used  till  centuries  after 
Phalaris'  time. 

(3)  Differences  of  thought  :  (a)  reference  to  tragedy  before 
ti'agedy  came  into  existence ;  (6)  use  of  Attic  and  not  Sicilian 
talents  in  speaking  of  money;  (c)  use  of  the  word  -irpovoia  for 
Divine  Providence,  which  was  not  used  before  Plato,  and  of  koct/hos 
for  the  universe,  which  was  not  so  used  before  Pythagoras ; 
(d)  inconsistencies  between  the  ideas  and  matter  of  the  epistle, 
which  are  those  of  a  sophist,  and  the  historical  character  of  Phala- 
ris as  a  politician  and  tyrant. 

(4)  Relation  to  other  writers.  He  uses  Herodotus,  Demosthenes, 
Euripides. 

II.   The  external  evidences  are :  (5)    testimony.     Atossa  is  said 

>  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  New  York,  1877,  I.  p.  19. 

-  Lumby,  History  of  the  Creeds,  Cimbridse,  1873,  pp.  169  seq.  See  more 
fully  Kattenbush,  Das  apostolische  Symbol,  Leipzig,  1804. 

2  ,1  Dissertation  upon  the  Epistles  of  Phalaris,  London,  1699,  a  new  edition 
edited  by  Wilhelm  Wagner,  London,  1883. 


108  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

to  have  been  the  first  inventor  of  epistles.  Hence  those  that  carry 
the  name  of  Phalaris  two  generations  earlier  must  be  impostures. 
(6)  Silence.  There  is  a  thousand  years  of  silence  as  to  these 
epistles.  "For  had  our  letter  been  used  or  transcribed  during 
that  thousand  j'cars,  somebody  would  have  spoken  of  it,  especially 
since  so  many  of  the  ancients  had  occasion  to  do  so ;  so  that  their 
silence  is  a  direct  argument  that  they  never  had  heard  of  them." ' 

We  have  dwelt  at  some  length  upon  the  principles  and 
methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  because  of  their  great  impor- 
tance in  our  day  with  reference  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and 
the  lack  of  information  concerning  them  that  still  prevails  to 
an  astonishing  degree  among  men  who  make  some  pretensions 
to  scholarship. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  vindicated  its  rights  in  the  field 
of  biblical  study  as  well  as  in  all  other  kmds  of  literature.  It 
matters  little  who  may  oppose  its  course,  what  combinations  may 
be  made  against  it,  it  will  advance  steadily  and  irresistibl}-  to  its 
results ;  it  will  flow  on  over  every  obstacle  like  a  might}-  river 
and  bury  every  obstruction  beneath  its  waves.  In  time  it  will 
give  a  final  decision  to  all  the  literary  problems  of  Holy  Script- 
ure. No  other  voice  can  decide  them.  Men  may  for  a  time 
refuse  to  listen  to  its  voice,  they  may  try  to  deaden  it  by  a  chorus 
of  outcries  and  shoutings  of  opposition.  But  Higher  Criticism 
is  in  no  haste,  she  can  wait.  She  does  not  seek  the  favour  of 
ecclesiastics,  or  the  applause  of  the  populace.  She  seeks  the 
truth,  and  having  won  the  trutli  she  is  sure  of  the  everlasting 
future. 

It  is  true  that  critics  have  made  serious  mistakes  in  the  past. 
And  it  is  quite  probable  that  they  are  making  mistakes  at  the 
present  time.  But  what  department  of  scholarly  investigation 
is  free  from  mistakes  ?  Holy  Scripture  is  in  the  hands  of  every 
one,  and  almost  ever}'^  one  thinks  he  is  a  competent  critic,  and 
therefore  it  is  more  exposed  to  blunders  than  any  other  litera- 
ture. It  is  quite  true  that  some  able  and  honest  men  are 
opposed  to  the  principles  and  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
But  every  one  of  these  is  opposed  to  criticism  on  dogmatic 
grounds,  because  it  imperils  the  dogmas  of  his  school  and  party. 

»  New  edition,  1883,  p.  481. 


HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  109 

The  same  set  of  men  have  opposed  eveiy  advance  of  modern 
science  and  modern  philosophy.  Such  men  are  not  true  bibli- 
cal scholars.  What  kind  of  a  detective  would  he  make,  who 
should  maintain  that  there  was  no  sure  way  of  detecting  crimi- 
nals ?  What  sort  of  a  chemist  would  he  make,  who  spent  his 
strength  in  opposing  and  ridiculing  the  principles  and  results 
of  chemistry  ?  One  sees  what  sort  of  scholars  those  are,  who 
exhaust  their  energies  in  discrediting  the  principles  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  and  in  battling  against  its  sure  results.  The 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  has  an  array  of 
able  scholars  who  would  adorn  any  profession  and  grace  any 
science,  and  they  are  in  as  close  agreement  in  their  results  as 
any  other  body  of  scholars  in  any  other  science,  or  in  any  other 
profession. 

III.    The  Criticism  of  Holy  Scripture 

Thus  far  Biblical  Criticism  has  derived  from  other  branches 
of  criticism  the  principles  and  methods  of  its  work.  Has  it 
not,  however,  some  peculiar  features  of  its  own,  as  it  has  to  do 
with  the  sacred  canon  of  the  Christian  Church?  Does  the 
fact  that  the  canon  of  Sacred  Scripture  is  holy,  inspired,  and 
of  divine  authority,  lift  it  above  criticism,  or  does  it  give 
additional  features  of  criticism  that  enable  us  to  test  the  genu- 
ineness of  these  claims  respecting  it  ?  The  latter  is  the  true 
and  only  safe  position,  and  it  is  evident  that  our  effort  should 
be  to  determine  these  principles  and  methods.  We  reserve 
this  question  for  our  following  chapter. 

In  the  meanwhile  we  have  to  meet  on  the  threshold  of  our 
work  a  priori  objections  that  would  obstruct  our  progress  in 
the  application  of  the  principles  and  methods  of  criticism  to 
the  Bible. 

Biblical  Criticism  is  confronted  by  traditional  views  of  the 
Bible  that  do  not  wish  to  be  disturbed,  and  by  dogmatic  state- 
ments respecting  the  Bible  which  decline  reinvestigation  and 
revision.  The  claim  is  put  forth  that  these  traditional  views 
and  dogmatic  statements  are  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures 
and  the  symbols  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  orthodox  faith  is 
put  in  peril  by  criticism. 


110  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SC1U11URE 

Such  claims  as  these  can  only  influence  the  adherents  of  the 
Church,  and,  at  the  utmost,  debar  them  from  the  exercise  of 
criticism.  They  cannot  be  more  than  amusing  to  the  unbe- 
lieving and  the  sceptical,  who  care  but  little  for  the  Church 
and  still  less  for  theologians  and  their  orthodoxy.  They  will 
use  the  tests  of  criticism  without  restraint.  We  cannot  pre- 
vent them.  The  question  is  whether  Christian  scholars  iilso 
shall  be  entitled  to  use  them  in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  or 
whether  Holj^  Scripture  is  to  be  intrusted  solely  to  the  hands 
of  dogmatic  theologians  and  scholastics  who  usually  have  little 
if  any  technical  knowledge  of  Holy  Scripture  itself.  And  we 
are  entitled  to  ask:  Why  should  the  Scriptures  fear  the  most 
searching  investigation  ?  If  they  are  truly  the  Word  of  God 
they  will  maintain  themselves^  and  vindicate  themselves  in  the 
battle  of  criticism.  If  we  are  sure  of  this,  let  us  rejoice  in  the 
conflict  that  will  lead  to  victory;  if  we  are  in  doubt  of  it,  it  is 
best  that  our  doubts  should  be  removed  as  soon  as  possible. 
Then  let  the  tests  be  applied,  and  let  us  know  in  whom  we 
trust  and  what  we  believe.^ 

It  is  pretended  that  the  Church  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  in 
peril,  and  that  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  thereby  under- 
mined. If  there  were  one  clearly  defined  orthodox  doctrine  of 
inspiration  to  which  all  Christians  agreed,  as  supported  by 
Holy  Scripture  and  the  creeds  of  the  Church,  our  task  would 
be  easier.  But,  in  fact,  there  are  many  various  theories  of  in- 
spiration, and  several  ways  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion that  are  without  support  in  Scripture  or  symbol.  It  is 
necessary,  therefore,  to  discriminate,  in  order  to  determine  ex- 
actly what  is  in  peril,  whether  inspiration  itself  and  the  author- 
ity of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  or  some  particular  and  false  theory 
of  inspiration  and  the  authority  of  some  theologian  or  school 
of  theology. 

The  doctrine  of  inspiration  may  be  constructed  (1)  by  a 
cai'eful,  painstaking  study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  themselves, 
gathering  together  their  testimony  as  to  their  own  origin, 
character,  design,  value,  and  authority.  This  gives  us  the 
biblical  doctrine  of  the  Scrijitures  and  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
1  Robert  Rainy,  Bible  and  Criticism,  London,  1878,  p.  33. 


HOLY   SCKU'TLUE   AND   CRITICISM  111 

tion  as  a  part  of  Biblical  Theolocry-  Any  one  who  has  at- 
tempted this  task  will  admit  that  Holy  Scripture  is  extremely 
modest  in  its  claims  and  that  the  biblical  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion and  scriptural  autliority  is  much  more  simple  and  much 
less  definite  and  exacting  than  any  of  the  theories  of  the  theo- 
logians. (2)  The  doctrine  of  inspiration  may  be  constructed 
from  a  study  of  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Church,  which 
express  the  faith  of  the  Church  as  attained  in  the  great  crises 
of  its  history,  in  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  experiences 
and  life  of  men.  This  gives  us  the  .symbolical,  or  orthodox,  or 
Church  doctrine  of  inspiration.  The  Church  doctrine  does  not, 
in  fact,  obstruct  the  pathway  of  criticism.  (3)  The  doctrine 
of  inspiration  may  be  constructed  by  a  study  of  Scripture  and 
symbol,  and  the  logical  unfolding  of  the  results  of  a  more 
extended  study  of  the  whole  subject  in  accordance  with  the 
dominant  philosophical  and  theological  principles  of  the  times. 
This  gives  us  the  dogmatic,  or  school,  or  traditional  doctrine  of 
inspiration  as  it  has  been  established  in  particular  Schools  of 
theology,  and  has  become  traditional  in  the  teaching  of  certain 
chairs  and  pulpits,  in  the  various  particular  theories  of  inspira- 
tion that  have  been  formulated.  It  is  with  these  theories  and 
with  these  alone  that  Biblical  Criticism  has  to  battle. 

As  we  rise  in  the  doctrinal  process  from  the  simple  biblical 
statements,  unformulated  as  they  lie  in  the  sacred  writings  or 
formulated  in  Biblical  Theology,  to  the  more  complex  and 
abstract  statements  of  the  symbols  expressing  the  formulated 
consensus  of  the  leaders  of  the  Church  in  the  formative 
periods  of  history,  and  then  to  the  more  theoretical  and  scho- 
lastic statements  of  the  doctrinal  treatises  of  the  theologians  ; 
while  the  doctrine  becomes  more  and  more  complex,  massive, 
consistent,  and  imposing,  and  seems,  therefore,  to  become  more 
authoritative  and  binding  ;  in  reality  the  authority  diminishes 
in  this  relative  advance  in  systematization,  so  that  what  is 
gained  in  extension  is  lost  in  intension  :  for  the  construction 
is  a  construction  of  sacred  materials  by  human  and  fallible 
minds,  with  defective  logic,  failing  sometimes  to  justify  prem- 
ises, and  leaping  to  conclusions  that  cannot  always  be  defended, 
and  in  a  line  and  direction  determined  by  the  temporary  and 


112  STUDY   UF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

provisional  couditions  and  necessities  of  the  times,  neglecting 
modifying  circumstances  and  conditions.  The  concrete  that 
the  Bible  gives  us  is  for  all  time,  as  it  is  the  living  and  eternal 
substance  ;  though  changeable,  it  reproduces  and  so  perpetu- 
ates itself  in  a  wonderful  variety  of  forms  of  beauty,  yet  all 
blending  and  harmonizing  as  the  colours  of  the  clouds  and  skies 
under  the  painting  of  the  sunbeams  ;  but  the  abstract  is  the 
formal  and  the  perishable,  as  it  is  broken  through  and  shat- 
tered by  the  pulsations  and  struggles  of  the  living  and  devel- 
oping truth  of  God,  ever  striving  for  expression  and  adaptation 
to  every  different  condition  of  mankind,  in  the  different  epodis 
and  among  the  various  races  of  the  world. 

The  course  of  religious,  history  has  clearly  established  the 
principle  that  there  is  a  constant  tendency  in  all  religions,  and 
especially  in  the  Christian  religion,  in  the  sj'stematic  or  dog- 
matic statement  to  constrain  the  symbol  as  well  as  the  Script- 
ures into  the  requirements  of  the  particular  formative  principle 
and  the  needs  of  the  particular  epoch.  The  dogmatic  scheme  is 
too  often  the  mould  into  which  the  gold  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  silver  of  the  creed  are  poured  to  coin  a  series  of  definitions, 
and  fashion  a  system  of  theology  which  not  only  breaks  up  the 
concrete  and  harmonious  whole  of  the  Scriptures  into  frag- 
ments, stamping  them  with  the  imprint  of  the  particular  con- 
ception of  the  theologian  in  order  to  their  reconstruction;  but 
not  infrequently  the  constructed  S5'stem  becomes  an  idol  of 
the  theologian  and  his  pupils,  as  if  it  were  the  orthodox,  the 
divine  truth,  while  a  mass  of  valuable  scriptural  and  symbolical 
material  is  cast  aside  in  the  process,  and  lies  neglected  in  the 
workshop.  In  course  of  time  the  s3-mbols  as  well  as  the  Script- 
ures are  overlaid  with  glosses  and  perplexing  explanations,  .so 
that  the}'  become  either  dai-k,  obscure,  and  uncertain  to  the 
ordinary  reader,  or  el.se  have  their  meanings  deflected  and  per- 
verted, until  the}'  are  once  more  grasped  by  a  living,  energet- 
ical faith  in  a  revived  state  of  the  Church,  and  burst  forth 
from  their  scholastic  fetters,  that  Holy  Scripture,  the  Churcli"s 
creed,  and  Christian  life  maj"^  once  more  correspond.  While 
traditionalism  and  scholasticism  have  not  prevailed  in  tiie 
Protestant  churclies  to  the  same  extent  as  in  tlie  Greek  and 


HOLY   SCKirrUUE   AND   CUITICISJI  113 

Roman  churches  ;  for  the  right  of  private  judgment  and  the 
universal  priesthood  of  believers  have  maintained  their  ground 
with  increasing  vigour  in  Western  Europe  and  America  since 
the  Reformation  ;  yet  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  principle  of 
traditionalism  is  ever  at  work  in  the  chairs  of  theology  and  in 
the  pulpits  of  the  Church  :  so  that  in  seeking  for  truth  and  in 
estimating  what  is  binding  on  faith  and  conscience,  even  Prot- 
estants must  distinctly  separate  the  three  things  :  Bible,  sym- 
bol, and  tradition  ;  the  Bible,  the  sole  infallible  norm  ;  the 
symbol,  binding  those  who  hold  to  the  body  of  which  it  is  the 
banner  ;  the  tradition  of  any  sect  or  school  which  demands  at 
the  most  the  respect,  revei-ence,  careful  consideration,  and  the 
presumption  in  its  favour  on  the  part  of  the  adherents  of  that 
sect  or  school.  It  is  assumption  for  it  to  claim  the  same 
authority  as  Bible,  Church,  or  Catholic  tradition.  It  will  be 
tested  and  tried,  if  worthy  of  consideration,  and  it  must  take 
its  chances  in  the  crucible. 

It  is  of  vast  importance  that  we  should  make  these  dis- 
tinctions on  the  threshold  of  the  study  of  the  critical  theories  ; 
for  there  is  no  field  in  which  modern,  local,  and  provincial 
tradition  has  been  more  hasty  in  its  conclusions,  more  busy  in 
their  formation,  more  dogmatic  and  sensitive  to  criticism,  more 
reluctant  and  stubborn  to  give  wa}'  to  the  truth,  than  in 
the  sacred  fields  of  the  Divine  Word.  Thus  criticism  is  con- 
fronted at  the  outset  now  as  ever  with  two  a  priori  objections. 

1st.  There  are  those  who  maintain  that  their  traditional 
views  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  inseparably  bound  up  with 
their  doctrine  of  inspiration  ;  so  that  even  if  they  should  be  in 
some  respects  doubtful  or  erroneous,  they  must  be  left  alone 
for  fear  of  the  destruction  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  itself. 
This  is  true  of  those  traditional  theories  of  inspiration  which 
in  some  quarters  have  expanded  so  as  to  cover  a  large  part  of 
the  ground,  and  commit  themselves  to  theories  of  text,  and 
author,  date,  style,  and  integrity  of  writings,  in  accordance 
with  a  common,  but,  in  our  judgment,  an  injudicious  method 
of  discussing  the  whole  Bible  under  the  head  of  Bibliology  in 
the  prolegomena  of  the  dogmatic  system ;  but  this  is  not  true 
of  the  symbolical  doctrine  of  inspiration,  still  less  of  the  script- 


114  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ural  doctrine.  The  most  that  this  objection  can  require  of  the 
critics  is,  that  they  should  be  careful  and  cautious  of  giving 
offence,  or  of  needlessly  shocking  prejudice  ;  that  they  should 
be  respectful  and  reverent  of  the  faith  of  the  people  and  of 
revered  theologians  ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  it 
will  make  them  recreant  to  their  trust  of  seeking  earnestly, 
patiently,  persistently,  and  prayerfully  for  the  truth  of  God. 
In  fact,  these  school  doctrines  of  iuspiration  have  obtruded 
themselves  in  place  of  the  symbolical  and  scriptural  doctrine, 
and  it  is  necessary  to  destroy  these  school  doctrines  in  order  to 
the  safety  of  the  biblical  doctrine  and  the  symbolical  doctrine. 
However  distressing  this  may  be  to  certain  dogmatic  divines 
and  their  adherents,  it  affords  gratilication  to  all  sincere  lovers 
of  the  truth  of  God.  \ 

2d.  There  are  those  who  claim  that  their  traditional  theory 
is  the  logical  unfolding  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Symbols  and  the 
Scriptures.  But  this  is  begging  the  very  question  at  issue, 
which  will  not  be  ^aelded.  Why  should  dogmatic  theologians 
claim  exemption  from  criticism  and  the  testing  of  the  grounds 
of  their  systems  ?  Such  an  arbitrary  claim  for  deductions  and 
consequences  is  one  that  no  true  critic  or  liistorian  ought  to 
concede :  for,  by  so  doing,  he  abandons  at  once  the  right  and 
ground  of  criticism,  and  the  inductive  methods  of  historical 
and  scientific  investigation ;  and  sacrifices  his  material  to  the 
dogmatist  and  scholastic,  surrendering  the  concrete  for  the 
abstract.  The  very  sensitiveness  to  criticism  displa3-ed  in 
some  quarters  justifies  suspicion  that  the  theories  are  weak 
and  wiU  not  sustain  investigation. 

Traditional  theories  cannot  overcome  critical  theories  with 
either  of  these  a  priori  objections  of  apprehended  peril  to  faith 
or  pretended  logical  inconsistencies  with  dogma,  but  must  sub- 
mit to  the  test  of  criticism.  One  of  tlie  most  characteristic  prin- 
ciples of  Puritanism  is  that : 

"  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from 
the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  wliich  are  in  anything 
contrary  to  Mis  Word  or  beside  it  in  matters  of  faith  and  worship: 
so  that,  to  believe  snch  doctrine,  or  to  obey  such  commandments 
out  of  conscience,  is  to  betray  true  liberty  of  conscience;  and  tlie 


HOLY   SCPIPTURE   AND   CRITICISM  115 

requiring  an  implicit  faith,  and  an  absolute  and  blind  obedience,  is 
to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience  and  reason  also."  ' 

Biblical  Criticism  bases  its  liistoric  right  on  the  principles  of 
the  Reformation  and  of  Puritanism,  and  it  finds  no  hindrance  in 
the  Catholic  principle  of  the  supremacy  of  Church  tradition,  for 
thtis  far  tliese  present  no  obstacles  to  criticism.  It  is  the  un- 
churchly,  undefined,  and  unlearned  tradition  which  pi'esumes  to 
obstruct  the  work  of  Biblical  Criticism. 

Recent  critical  theories  arise  and  work  as  did  their  prede- 
cessors, in  the  various  departments  of  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Here  is  their  strength,  that  they  antagonize  modern 
traditional  dogma  with  the  Bible  itself,  and  appeal  from  pro- 
vincial school  theology  to  Catholic  credal  theology.  Unless 
traditional  theories  of  inspiration  can  vindicate  themselves  on 
biblical  grounds,  meet  the  critics,  and  overcome  them  in  fair 
conflict,  in  the  sacred  fields  of  the  Divine  Word,  sooner  or 
later  traditional  theories  will  be  driven  from  the  field.  It  will 
not  do  to  antagonize  critical  theories  of  the  Bible  with  tra- 
ditional theories  of  the  Bible  ;  for  the  critic  appeals  to  history 
against  tradition,  to  an  arraj^  of  facts  against  so-called  infer- 
ences, to  the  laws  of  probation  against  dogmatic  assertion,  to 
the  Divine  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures  against  external 
authority.  Historj-,  facts,  truth,  the  laws  of  thought,  are  all 
divine  products,  and  most  consistent  with  the  Divine  Word, 
and  they  will  surelj-  prevail. 

The  great  majority  of  professional  biblical  scholars  in  the 
various  universities  and  theological  halls  of  the  world,  embra- 
cing those  of  the  greatest  learning,  industry,  and  piety,  demand 
a  revision  of  traditional  theories  of  the  Bible,  on  account  of 
a  large  induction  of  new  facts  from  the  Bible  and  history. 
These  critics  must  be  met  with  argument  and  candid  reasoning 
as  to  these  facts  and  their  interpretation,  and  cannot  be  over- 
come by  mere  cries  of  alarm  for  the  Church  and  the  Bible, 
which,  in  their  last  analysis,  ustially  amount  to  nothing  more 
than  peril  to  certain  favourite  views.  What  peril  can  come 
to  the  Holj'  Scriptures  from  a  more  profound  critical  study 

>  Westminster  Conf.  of  Faith,  XX.  2  ;  see  also  A.  F.  Mitchell,  The  West- 
minster Assembly :  its  History  ami  Standards,  London,  1883,  pp.  8  seq.,  465. 


116  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCIUPTURE 

of  them  ?  The  sword  of  the  Spirit  alone  will  conquer  in  this 
warfare.  Are  Christian  men  afraid  to  put  it  to  the  test  ?  For 
this  is  a  conflict  after  all  between  true  criticism  and  false  criti- 
cism ;  between  the  criticism  wliich  is  the  product  of  the  evan- 
gelical spirit  of  the  Reformation,  and  critical  principles  that 
are  the  product  of  deism  and  rationalism.  Biblical  criticism 
has  been  marching  from  conquest  to  conquest,  though  far  too 
often  at  a  sad  disadvantage,  like  a  storming  party  who  have 
sallied  forth  from  their  breastworks  to  attack  the  trenches  of 
the  enemies  of  the  Bible,  finding  in  the  hot  encounter  that  the 
severest  fire  and  gravest  peril  are  from  the  misdirected  bat- 
teries of  their  own  line.  We  do  not  deny  the  right  of  dog- 
matism and  the  a  priori  method,  within  their  proper  spheres  ; 
but  we  maintain  the  greater  right  of  criticism  and  the  induc- 
tive method  in  the  field  or  the  study  of  Holj'  Scripture  and 
their  far  greater  importance  in  the  acquisition  of  true  and 
reliable  knowledge  of  Holy  Scripture.  If  criticism  and  dog- 
matism are  harnessed  together,  a  span  of  twin  steeds,  the_y  will 
draw  the  car  of  theology  rapidly  towards  its  highest  ideal; 
but  pulling  in  opposite  directions  the}'  tear  it  to  pieces. 


CHAPTER   V 

HISTORY    OF    THE   CANON    OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE 

The  first  work  of  Biblical  Criticism  is  to  investigate  the 
Canon  of  the  Bible  and  to  determine,  so  far  as  possible,  the 
entire  extent  and  the  exact  limits  of  Holy  Scripture.  This 
investigation  is  first  of  all  an  historical  study.  It  is  first  neces- 
sary for  us  to  know  what  writings  have  in  fact  been  othcially 
recognized  as  canonical  in  the  different  epochs  in  the  history 
of  Israel  and  the  Christian  Church.  When  we  have  all  the 
historical  facts  before  us,  then  we  may  by  induction  establish 
principles  and  rules  for  the  critical  investigation  of  the  Canon 
and  apply  those  rules  for  its  final  testing  and  verification. 
The  term  Canon  was  first  applied  to  Holy  Scripture  by  the 
Greek  Fathers  of  the  fourth  Christian  century,  i  But  the 
underlying  conception  of  a  sacred  collection  of  literature,  or 
books  of  divine  authority,  as  the  norm  of  religion,  faith,  and 
morals,  is  much  more  ancient.  This  conception  is  in  some 
respects  more  fully  expressed  in  the  terras,  "  the  Holy  Script- 
ures,'^ 2  and  "  the  Scriptures,''  ^  which,  though  most  ancient, 
have  continued  to  the  present  day  as  the  most  common  and 
appropriate  titles  of  the  Bible.  Still  more  ancient  are  the 
terms  the  Book  or  Books  of  the  Law,  the  Latv  of  Vahiceh,  the 
Law  of  God,  the  Laiv;*  and  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Cove- 

'  Buhl,  Kannn  nnd  Text  des  Alt.  Test.,  Leipzig,  1891,  s.  1  ;  Holtzmann, 
EinUitunrj  in  d.  Xeue  Test.,  2te  Atifl.,  1886,  s.  162  seq. 

•  ypa<t)a\  Siyiai.  Rom.  1=  ;  (ra)  lepa  ypau/iaTa,  2  Tim.  3'^  .  josephus,  Antiq.  Jud., 
Prooem  ."3  ;  Philo,  Legat.  ad  Caium,  §  29,  II.  574  ;  ai  Upa]  Bip\i>i,  Josephus,  Antiq. 
Jud.,  Prooem  4  ;  2i«,  202si,  etc.  ;  Philo,  De  Vita  Mos.,  lib.  3,  t.  2,  p.  163 ;  ra  0i0Ma 
TO  07(0,  1  Mace.  12'. 

'  al  ypifa'i.  Mt.  22=9  ;  Jcilm  539  .  Acts  172-  "  ;  D"-.SCn,  Dan.  92. 

•  Ti  BiSKia  ToZ  v6,uov.  1  ILicc.  l-'*  ;  the  Book  of  the  Law,  Neh.  S^  ;  2  Chr.  .34W  ; 
the  Law  of  Yahweh,  Ezr.  7'' ;  1  Chr.  16"  ;  2  Chr.  Siy^^ ;  the  Law  of  God,  Neh. 
102). a);  i  yi/j^o!,  John  lO^*  ;  1  Cor.  14=1 ;  mim,  Neh.  10»  ••''  ;  cf.  my  article  on 
TWr\  in  Robinson's  Gesenius  Hebr.  Lexicon,  new  edition,  B.D.B. 

117 


118  STUDY   Or   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

nant^  that  is,  the  covenant  between  God  and  His  people.  The 
two  ancient  divisions  of  the  Bible  persist  to  the  present  time 
as  the  Old  Covenant  or  Testament,  and  the  New  Covenant 
or  Testament. 

I.    The  Formatiok  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon 

It  is  necessary  to  go  much  further  back  in  the  history  of 
the  formation  of  the  Canon  than  biblical  scholars  usually  do. 
It  is  the  common  opinion  that  tlie  formation  of  the  Canon 
began  with  Ezra.^  Others  think  that  it  began  with  the  official 
adoption  of  the  Deuteronomic  code.^  But  if  we  are  to  go  back 
to  the  adoption  of  the  code  of  the  Law  by  Ezra,  or  further 
back  to  the  code  of  Deuteronomy,  why  should  we  not  go  still 
further  back  to  the  code  of^  the  Covenant  and  to  the  primary 
code  of  the  Ten  Words  ?  These  earlier  codes  were  something 
more  than  "  preparations  for  a  Canon  "  ;  they  were  recognized 
as  of  divine  authority,  no  less  truly  by  the  earlier  generations, 
than  were  the  Deuteronomic  code  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  and 
the  Priest  code  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 

1.  Accordingly  the  formation  of  the  Canon  began  witli  the 
promulgation  of  the  Ten  Words  as  the  fundamental  divine  Law 
to  Israel.  These  Ten  Words  were  given  in  their  original  form 
as  brief,  terse  words  or  sentences.  The  specifications  and 
reasons  were  added  in  the  several  different  documents  of  the 
Hexateuch,  and  these  were  eventually  compacted  together  in 
the  two  versions,  Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5.*  These  Ten  Words  were 
given  by  the  theophanic  voice  of  God  to  Israel  on  ]\Iount 
Horeb.  They  were  taken  up  into  all  the  original  documents 
of  the  Hexateuch.  They  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  entire  legisla- 
tion. Tliey  have  the  authority  of  God,  and  public  recognition 
and  adoption.     They  were  kept,  on  the  two  tables  of  stone,  in 

>  Pi&Kos  Stae^KTis,  Eccl.  24-» ;  BiB\tov  SmflijKns,  1  Mace.  1"  ;  cf.  M  rfi  kva- 
yytifffi  T^s  na\aias  Stadrittlis^  2  Cor.  3**. 

3  Buhl.  Kaiion  und  Text  des  Alt.  Test.,  s.  8. 

»  Rylt%  Tlic  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  London,  1892,  pp.  47  seq.  See  also 
Cornili,  Einleilunrj,  1891,  s.  277. 

*  See  "  Genesis  of  the  Ten  Words,"  in  my  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch, 
new  edition,  New  York,  1897,  pp.  181  aeq. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   CANON   OF   HOLY   SCRIPIURE  119 

the  holy  ark  in  the  most  Holy  Place  of  the  tabernacle  and  the 
temple.  If  any  document  fulfils  all  the  tests  of  canonieity  the 
Tables  of  the  Law  certainly  do. 

The  promulgation  of  the  Ten  Words  was  soon  followed  by 
the  giving  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  On  the  basis  of  this 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  covenant  of  Horeb  was  established  by 
a  covenant  sacrifice  in  which  the  people  solemnly  pledged  them- 
selves to  obedience,  and  the)'  were  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  in  order  to  consecrate  them  in  this  covenant  rela- 
tion. Their  representatives  then  partook  of  the  sacrificial  feast 
of  the  covenant  in  the  presence  of  the  Theophany.^ 

This  covenant  is  the  one  upon  which  the  entire  subsequent 
religion  of  Israel  depends.  It  is  the  old  covenant  to  which 
the  new  covenant  established  by  Jesus,  in  connection  with  the 
institution  of  the  sacramental  feast  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  the 
antithesis.  No  book  that  ever  was  written  fulfils  so  entirely 
the  tests  of  canonieity  as  this  fundamental  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant upon  which  all  subsequent  Hebrew  law  is  built.  The 
Book  of  the  Covenant  appears  in  one  form  in  the  Judaic  narra- 
tive,^ in  another  in  the  Epliraimitic  narrative,^  and  has  also 
been  taken  up  into  the  Deuteronomic  code.*  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  original  Book  of  the  Covenant  contained 
only  the  brief  terse  Words  ;  and  that  the  other  tj-pes  of  Hebrew 
law,  such  as  statutes,  judgments,  and  commands,  contained  in 
the  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  in  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  are  later  adtlitions  from  varied  sources,  in  the  development 
of  Hebrew  Law  in  the  northern  and  southern  kingdoms. 

2.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  canonical  advance  until  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  when  the  Deuteronomic  code  was  brought  to 
light  and  received  canonical  recognition.* 

^  Ex.  24'-".  See  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition, 
1897.  pp.  6  seq. 

-  Ex.  34.  See  "The  Decalogue  of  J  and  its  Parallels  in  the  other  Codes,"  in 
my  Uiyher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition,  pp.  189  seq. 

'  K.x.  20-^23.  See  "The  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  its  Parallels  in 
the  later  Codes,"  I.e.  pp.  211  seq. 

*  See  I.e..  pp.  243  seq. 

'  2  Kings  22-23  =  2  Chr.  .34-35.  See  Ryle,  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  for 
an  admirable  exposition  of  this  event.  See  also  my  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Hexateuch,  pp.  15  seq.,  81  seq. 


120  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTURE 

3.  It  is  agreed  among  scholars  that  the  first  layer  of  the 
present  Hebrew  Canon,  The  Law  (embracing  the  five  books, 
Genesis  to  Deuteronomy),  was  constituted  and  officially  adopted 
through  the  influence  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,i  and  the  nation 
was  solemnly  engaged,  by  covenant  and  by  oath,  to  obey  it. 

4.  It  has  been  very  commonl}-  held  among  the  Jews  and  the 
Christians  that  the  entire  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
fixed  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 

(a)  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  story  of  Nehemiah  to  justify 
such  an  opinion.  Nevertheless  Nehemiah  8-10  has  been  inter- 
preted as  referring  to  the  entire  Canon  on  the  basis  of  a  legend, 
in  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,^  a  pseudepigraphical  writing  dating 
from  the  close  of  the  first  century  of  our  ei-a.  The  story  is 
that  the  whole  Canon  was  recalled  to  the  memory  of  Ezra  by 
divine  inspiration  and  recorded  byx^im  with  the  help  of  five  of 
his  disciples. 

(a)  On  the  face  of  it  the  story  is  a  legend,  but  it  doubtless 
had  an  older  tradition  at  its  basis.  It  is  probable  that  the 
whole  legend  is  a  gradual  evolution  of  the  story  given  in 
Nehemiah. 

(;S)  It  is  unknown  to  Josephus  and  Philo,  and  there  are  no 
traces  of  it  in  any  previous  writer,  or  any  contemporary  writer. 

(7)  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  the  Samaritan  Canon 
is  confined  to  the  Pentateuch,  which  could  not  have  been  the 
case  if  the  separation  of  the  Samaritans  from  tlie  Jews  had 
taken  place  subsequent  to  the  establishment  of  the  entire  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

(8)  It  is  also  opposed  by  the  fact  that  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  Prophets,  and  a  large  part  of  the  other  writings,  were 
composed  subsequent  to  Ezra. 

(e)  Furthermore,  the  threefold  division  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  bears  on  its  face  the  evidence  that  the  Canon  was 
formed  in  three  successive  layers.^ 

(6)    Another  legend  is  the  story  tliat  the  whole  Canon  of  the 

J  Neh.  8-10. 

"^  Chap.  14"  stq.  This  is  2  Esdras  of  the  Greek  Apocrypha  and  4  Ezra  of  the 
English  Apocry))ha.     Sie  Hrigcs.  ^leanah  of  the  ApoKtles,  pp.  11  scq.,  see  p.  257. 

'  See  Ryle,  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  2;!9  .o./.,  for  a  thorough  discus- 
sion of  this  passage  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  and  its  historical  influence. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  121 

Old  Testament  was  fixed  bj"  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  modern  Protestant  opinion  as  to 
the  Great  Synagogue  is  based  upon  the  statements  of  Elias 
Le^-ita  ^  and  Buxtorf  ,^  But  these  statements  are  simply  the  use. 
■without  critical  examination,  of  Je\yish  legends  which  unfolded 
dtu'ing  the  centuries  of  Rabbinical  literature  from  a  slender 
support  in  the  Mishnaic  tract  Pirqe  Abotii  ^  and  a  Baraitha 
of  the  Talmud.* 

The  Pirqe  Aboth  states  that :  "  Moses  received  the  Torah  from 
Sinai  and  delivered  it  to  Joshua,  and  Joshua  to  the  elders,  and 
the  elders  to  the  prophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the  men  of  the 
Great  Synagogue.  They  said  three  things :  Be  deliberate  in 
judgment,  and  raise  up  many  disciples,  and  make  a  fence  to  the 
Torah.  Simon  the  Just  was  of  the  remnants  of  the  Great 
Synagogue."     (Chap.  I.) 

The  Baraitha  of  the  Baba  Bathra  says :  "  The  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel  and  the  Twelve,  Daniel  and  the  Eoll  of 
Esther,  whose  sign  is  J13p." 

These  passages  represent  that  the  men  of  the  Great  Sjnia- 
gogue  wrote,  that  is,  collected  and  edited,  Ezekiel,  the  twelve 
Minor  Prophets,  Daniel  and  Esther ;  and  that  they  received 
and  transmitted  the  Torah.  Nothing  is  said  in  either  passage 
of  their  having  anything  to  do  with  the  organization  of  a  Canon 
of  Holj'  Scripture,  or  of  their  addition  of  any  writing  to  the 
Canon.  The  legend  of  the  establishment  of  the  Canon  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  is  thus  a 
later  evolution  of  the  story  of  the  editing  of  certain  Old  Testa- 
ment writings  bj^  them,  and  of  their  part  in  the  transmission 
of  the  Torah.  But  even  this  primitive  story  of  the  Mishna 
and  Baraitha  is  unhistorical,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  makes 
Simon  the  Just,  of  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  a  member 
of  a  sj'nagogue  which  the  tradition  elsewhere  assigns  to  the 
age  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In  fact,  this  legend  is  more  unsub- 
stantial than  the  other. 

'  Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth,  edited  by  Ginsburg,  1867.  pp.  112  seg. 
^  Tiberias  sice.  Commentarins  Mai^orcthirus.  1620. 

'  Strack,  Die  Spriiche  der   Vater.  Karlsruhe,  1882  ;  Taylor,  Sayings  of  the 
Jewish  Fathers,  Cambridge,  1877. 
*  See  pp.  2.52  seq. 


122  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

(a)  Back  of  these  Rabbinical  sayings  of  the  second  and  third 
Christian  centuries,  there  is  no  historical  evidence  whatever  of 
the  existence  of  any  such  body  of  men  as  the  Great  S^niagogue. 
The  silence  of  all  writings  from  the  first  century  backwards  is 
absolute.  They  could  not  have  omitted  to  mention  such  a 
body  as  this  if  it  ever  had  an  existence,  because  it  came  within 
their  scope  to  do  so  if  so  important  a  thing  as  the  final  deter- 
mination of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  under- 
taken by  such  a  body  of  men.  The  apocr3'phal  literature  in  its 
wide  and  varied  extent  knows  nothing  of  such  a  body.  The 
numerous  pseudepigraphical  writings  maintain  unbroken  silence. 
Philo  and  Josephus  are  unconscious  of  anything  of  the  kind. 
The  New  Testament  writers  ignore  it  and  write  as  if  it  never 
existed. 

(/3)  The  legend  of  the  determination  of  the  Canon  by  Ezra 
and  his  disciples,  already  considered,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
fixing  of  the  Canon  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  even 
if  Ezra  were  at  their  head.  The  legend  of  Ezra's  activity  is 
much  earlier  than  that  of  the  activity  of  the  men  of  tlie  Great 
S3'nagogue.  It  is  unlikely  that  it  would  have  originated,  if 
there  had  ever  been  any  such  legend  of  the  work  of  the  men 
of  the  Great  Synagogue  prior  to  it. 

(7)  It  is  opposed  by  the  fact  that  a  considerable  number  of 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed  subsequently 
to  the  supposed  times  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 

(8)  The  well-known  disputes  as  to  the  Canon  among  the 
Jews  in  the  first  Christian  century  could  hardly  have  taken 
place,  if  such  a  venerable  body  as  the  men  of  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue had  determined  everything  relating  to  the  Canon. 

(e)  It  is  improbable  that  the  Greek  version  would  have 
added  anything  to  the  Sacred  "Writings,  if  thej'  had  been  fixed 
so  long  before  by  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue. 

This  legend  must  be  dismissed  as  nothing  more  than  a  pure 
invention  made  by  the  early  rabbins  to  establish  an  unbroken 
continuity  of  sacred  teachers  of  the  Law,  wlio  might  transmit 
it  as  so  many  links  in  the  chain  of  authority.' 

'  See  Kuenen,  Ueber  die  Manner  der  grnssen  Sijnagoge,  in  Gesammelte  Ah- 
handlungen,  Freib.  1894,  s.  125  seq. ;  also  Kyle,  Canon  of  the  Old  Testajnent, 


HISTORY   OF  THE   CANON   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  123 

(e)  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  have  a  second  division  which 
bears  the  name  Prophets.  In  the  earliest  Hebrew  list  known 
to  us,  they  are  arranged  as  follows  :  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  and  the  Twelve.'  This  repre- 
sents a  second  layer  of  canonical  formation.  It  does  not 
embrace  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  therefore  must  have  been 
fixed  before  Daniel  gained  canonical  recognition.  It  includes 
the  prophecy  Is.  24-26,  Avhich  probabh'  belongs  to  the  time  of 
Alexander  the  Great.  Therefore  this  Canon  cannot  be  earlier 
than  the  Greek  period  subsequent  to  Alexander  in  the  third 
century  B.  c.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  Jesus  ben 
Sirach  from  the  early  part  of  the  second  century  B.C.  In 
Ecclesiasticus,^  in  the  praise  of  the  fathers,  he  goes  over  the 
heroes  of  the  books  of  the  Law,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings,  and  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
the  Twelve,  especially  mentioning  the  latter  by  the  technical 
name  of  the  Twelve.^  It  is  evident  that  the  collection  of  the 
Twelve  had  then  been  closed,  and  all  the  Prophets  were  used 
as  sacred  books.  That  seems  to  carry  with  it  the  entire  pro- 
phetic collection  as  we  now  have  it.  Furthei-more,  Daniel  cites 
Jeremiah  as  belonging  to  the  books,*  which  implies  a  collection 
of  prophetic  books  of  recognized  divine  authority. 

In  the  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus,  written  by  the  grandson  of 
the  author  in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  it  is 
said  that :  '■  Many  and  great  things  have  been  delivered  unto 
us  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  by  others  that  have  fol- 
lowed their  steps  " ;  and  the  author  speaks  of  his  grandfather, 
Jesus  ben  Sirach,  as  having  "  given  himself  to  the  reading  of 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and  other  books  of  our  fathers." 
These  passages  clearly  recognize  the  division  of  the  Prophets 
as  next  in  the  Canon  to  the  division  of  the  Law. 

It  is  also  probable  that  this  second  formation  of  the  Canon, 
composed  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  is  reflected  in  the 
phrase  "•  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  "  of  New  Testament  times. ^ 

Excursus  A.  pp.  250  seq.  Both  of  these  are  valuable  discussions  of  the  subject. 
They  make  it  perfectly  evident  that  no  such  body  as  the  Great  Synagogue  ever 
existed.  i  See  pp.  2,V2  set/.  -  Chapters  44-50. 

» Ecclus.  49">.    c'S"2:n  -rr  n":»  bji. 

*  Dan.  9*.  s  jit.  5^  ■  Acts  IS'S. 


124  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  second  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  seems  to  have  been 
established  in  the  high-priesthood  of  Simon,  whose  character 
and  administration  are  so  liiglily  praised  by  Ben  Sirach.' 

(5)  The  third  layer  of  the  Hebrew  Canon  is  composed  of  the 
Writings.  These  in  the  oldest  lists  are,  Ruth,  Psalms,  Job, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Lamentations,  Daniel, 
Esther,  Ezra,  and  Chronicles. 

(a)  It  is  still  held  by  some  scholars  tliat  the  testuuony  of 
the  grandson  of  Ben  Sirach  in  his  prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus  is 
in  favour  of  the  opinion  that  the  third  division  of  the  Canon  had 
been  fixed  before  his  time.  But  the  terms  that  are  used  do  not 
make  this  evident.  In  the  one  passage  he  says  :  "  by  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  and  by  others  that  have  followed  their 
steps."  In  the  other  passage  he  saj's :  "  the  reading  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  and  oth^  books  of  our  fathers."  The 
Law  and  the  Prophets  are  technical  terms,  but  the  other 
expressions  differ  so  greatly  in  the  two  passages  from  one 
another,  and  also  from  the  later  technical  term,  that  they  evi- 
dently are  not  technical  terms.  It  is  quite  true  that  none  of 
the  writings  contained  in  the  third  division  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon  were  composed  subsequently  to  the  second  half  of  the 
second  century  B.C.,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  they  had 
been  collected  into  a  canon  in  the  third  century  B.C.,  or 
included  by  this  prologue  in  its  reference  to  the  other  writers 
or  other  books. 

(J)  It  is  improbable  that  the  Greek  Septuagint  version 
would  have  added  to  this  third  division  of  the  Canon  and 
rearranged  the  books  composing  it,  if  it  had  been  fixed  before 
the  translations  were  made. 

The  Septuagint  gives  a  much  larger  collection  of  writings. 
The  story  prevailed  for  many  centiu'ies  in  the  E<istern  and 
Western  churches  that  tUis  translation  was  made  b}'  sevent)*- 
two  accomplished  scholars  chosen  from  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel,  with  the  cooperation  of  Ptolemicus  Philadelphus, 
king  of  Egypt,  and  the  Jewish  liigh-priest  of  Jerusalem,  and 
that  they  were  inspired  to  do  their  work  by  the  Divine  Spirit. 
This  story  has  been  traced  to  its  simpler  fmm  in  Josephus^ 
lEcclus.  60.  ^Aiilio.  XII.  2. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   CANON   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  125 

and  Philo.i  and  back  of  these  to  the  original  letter  of  Aristeas, 
and  that  has  been  proved  to  be  a  forgery  ^  and  its  statements 
have  been  shown  to  be  wide  of  the  truth.  An  internal  exami- 
nation of  the  Septuagint  version  shows  it  to  have  been  made 
b}'  different  men  on  different  principles  and  at  different  times. 

Frankel  is  followed  by  a  large  number  of  scholars  in  the 
opinion  that  the  Septuagint  was  a  Greek  Targum  which  grew 
up  gradually  at  first  from  the  needs  of  the  synagogue  worship 
in  Egypt  and  then  from  the  desire  of  tlie  Hellenistic  Jews  to 
collect  together  the  religious  literature  of  their  nation,  just  as 
the  Palestinian  and  Babylonian  Targums  were  subsequently 
made  for  the  Jews  of  Palestine  and  Syria  who  spoke  Aramaic.^ 

Some  of  the  sacred  books,  such  as  Daniel  and  Esther,  have 
additional  matter  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  Massoretic  text. 
The  apocrj-phal  writings  are  mingled  with  those  of  the  Hebi-ew 
Canon  without  discrimination.*     As  Deane  ^  says  : 

"If  we  judge  from  the  MSS.  that  have  come  down  to  us,  it 
would  be  impossible  for  any  one,  looking  merely  to  the  Septuagint 
version  and  its  allied  works,  to  distinguish  any  of  the  books  in  the 
collection  as  of  less  authority  than  others.  There  is  nothing  what- 
ever to  mark  off  the  canonical  writings  from  what  have  been  called 
the  deuterocanonical.  They  are  all  presented  as  of  equal  standing 
and  authority,  and,  if  we  must  make  distinctions  between  them, 
and  place  some  on  a  higher  platform  than  others,  this  separation 
must  be  made  on  grounds  which  are  not  afforded  by  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  various  documents  themselves."' 

(e)  Another  evidence  for  the  fixture  of  the  Old  Testament 
Canon  has  been  found  in  a  supposed  writing  of  Pliilo  of  the  first 
Christian  century.®  This  work  speaks  of  the  Law,  the  Proph- 
ets, hymns,  and  other  writings,  making  either  three  or  four 
classes,  but  without  specification  of  particular  books.  But  this 
writing  has  recently  been  proved  to  have  been  written  in  the 

1  Vita  Mosis,  II.  §§  5-7. 

^  TIip  oiisinal  text  of  the  letter  is  best  given  in  Merx,  Archivfur  Wissen- 
srhriftliche  Erforschunu  des  Alten  Testaments,  I.  pp.  242  seq.  Halle,  1870.  See 
also  pp.  188  seq. 

'  Frankel,  Vorstudien  z.  d.  Septuaginta,  Leipzig,  1841  ;  Sclioltz,  Alexand. 
Uebeisetz.  d.  litirh  lesaias,  1880,  pp.  7  seq. 

■•  See  p.  1.''.8  for  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  several  codices  of  the  Septuagint. 

*  Book  of  Wisdom,  Oxford,  1881,  pp.  37  seq.  "  De  Vita  Contemp.  S.  lU. 


126  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

third  century  A.d..  and  wrongly  attributed  to  Philo.i  The 
testimony  of  Philo  is  therefore  reduced  to  the  books  that  he 
quotes  as  of  divine  authority.  He  uses  all  of  the  Rabbinical 
Canon  except  Ruth,  Esther,  Ezekiel,  Lamentations,  Daniel, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Songs. ^  He  uses  Proverbs  and 
Job.  This  we  would  expect  from  Philo's  t}"pe  of  thought  and 
the  subject-matter  of  his  writings.  But  his  omission  of  Ecclesi- 
astes and  the  Song  of  Songs  is  surprising.  These  writings  be- 
long to  the  same  class  of  Wisdom  Literature  as  Job  and  Proverbs. 
They  would  have  given  him  the  very  best  field  for  his  peculiar 
method  of  allegor}-.  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  the  symbolical  proph- 
ets, we  would  expect  him  to  make  use  of.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances it  is  not  valid  to  argue  against  the  canonicity  of 
the  apocryphal  books  because  Philo  does  not  quote  them  as 
authoritative.  The  books  of  the|  Palestinian  Canon  which  he 
omitted  came  within  his  scope  more  than  the  apocryphal  wi-it- 
ings.  If  silence  is  to  be  used  against  the  Apocrypha,  it  is  still 
more  telling  against  those  writings  of  the  third  Canon  which  he 
omits. 

"  It  is  abundantly  clear  that  to  Philo  the  Pentateuch  was  a  bible 
within  a  bible,  and  that  he  only  occasionally  referred  to  other 
books  whose  sanctity  he  acknowledged,  as  opportunity  chanced  to 
present  itself.  There  are  two  reasons  which,  whether  considered 
separately  or  in  conjunction,  may  be  said  in  a  measure  to  account 
for  Philo's  silence  in  respect  of  these  four  books.  (1)  In  the  1st 
century  a.d.  some  of  the  books  of  the  Hagiographa  were  probably 
not  yet  accepted  by  all  Jews  as  worthy  to  be  ranked  among  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  (2)  Some  of  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures were  translated  into  Greek  much  later  than  others ;  and  the 
problems  of  the  Greek  text  in,  e.g.  Daniel  and  Ksther,  show  that 
there  was  often  a  considerable  difference  between  the  text  of  rival 
Greek  versions,  which  fact  must  be  considered  to  be  incompatible 
with  the  early  recognition  of  their  sacred  authority  among  the 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion. 

1  Lucius,  Die  Therapcutrn  und  ihre  SteUung  in  der  Aakese.  Strassliurff,  1880  ; 
Strack.  art.  Kannn,  in  lleizo};.  2te  Auti.,  vii.  p.  425  ;  A'i'hW/mh;;,  5te  Aiifl.,  1898, 
s.  174  ;  Mas.sebipau,  Le  Traite  de  la  I'ie  Contemplative.  I'aris.  1888,  maintains 
its  genuini'noss  ;  and  Sanday,  Inspiratinn,  1893.  p.  9!'.  says  :  "  tlie  tide  of  opinion 
seems  to  have  turned  in  its  favour."     I  cannot  agree  with  him. 

3  Eichhorn,  EinlfiCu)ig,  3te  Aiisg.  1803,  L  p.  98. 


HISTOKV   OF   THE   CAXUX   OF   HOLY   SCUIPTL'KE  127 

'•  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  mere  citation  of  a  book  is  not 
the  same  as  the  recognition  of  its  Divine  Inspiration.  In  the  case 
of  the  books  of  Judges  and  Job,  Philo  quotes  from  them,  but  it  is 
not  strictly  accurate  to  say  that  he  definitely  acknowledges  their 
position  as  inspired  Scripture.  The  evidence  does  not  permit  us 
to  go  so  far.  At  the  same  time  it  is  practically  impossible  that  a 
book  like  Judges,  included  as  it  was  among  the  "  Prophets  "  of 
the  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture,  should  have  been  rejected  by 
Philo ;  and  exceedinglj-  unlikel}'  that  Job,  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  the  poetical  Hagiographa,  should  not  have  ranked  in  his 
estimation  as  Scripture.  While  we  may  feel  convinced  that  these 
books  were  in  Philo's  Scripture,  the  evidence  does  not  amount 
to  actual  demonstration. 

"The  case  is  different  with  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs, 
and  Daniel,  which  have  been  among  the  latest  books  to  be  received 
into  the  sacred  (.'anon.  It  may  indeed  be  said  of  any  one  of  them, 
as  might,  perhaps,  be  said  of  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  that  they  did 
not  furnish  Philo  with  suitable  material  for  quotation,  or  that 
Philo  was,  for  some  reason,  not  so  close  a  student  of  these  books. 

•'  But  another  explanation  is  possible.  In  the  case  of  all  four  of 
these  books,  there  is  good  ground  for  supposing  that  their  Canon- 
icity  had  not  been  fully  recognized  in  Egypt  in  the  lifetime  of 
Philo.  And  while,  in  view  of  other  e^'idence,  we  may  claim  that 
the  Canonicity  of  Daniel  was  probably  generally  established  in 
Palestine  in  the  1st  century  b.c,  and  possibly  also  that  of  Eccle- 
siastes, we  have  not  the  right  to  make  the  same  plea  for  the 
recognition  of  Esther  and  the  Song  of  Songs."  ' 

((i)  Josephus^  mentions  22  books  as  making  up  his  Canon 
—  five  of  the  Law,  thirteen  of  the  Prophets,  and  four  of  the 
poems  ami  precepts.  He  uses  all  of  the  Talmudic  Canon  except 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Job.^  The  silence 
of  Josephus  as  to  these  cannot  be  pressed,  because  thej-  did  not 
clearly  come  within  his  scope.  Various  efforts  have  been  made 
to  determine  his  books,  but  without  conclusive  results.  If  on 
the  one  hand  the  lists  of  Origen  and  Jerome  favour  the  Talmudic 
Canon,  the  list  of  Junilius  Africanus  favours  the  exclusion  of 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Job,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Esther.*  Graetz  ^ 
excludes  the  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  from  the  list  of 

'  Ryle.  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture,  1895,  pp.  xxxii,  xxxiii. 
^  Contra  Apion,  I.  8.  »  Eichhnrn,  in  I.e.,  I.  p.  123. 

*  See  Kibn,  Theodore  von  Mopsuestia  nnd  Julius  Africanus  als  Exegeten, 
Frtib.  1880.  p.  86.  '  Qesch.  d.  Juden,  III.  p.  501,  Leipzig,  1863. 


128  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Josephus.  He  falls,  then,  by  his  22,  just  these  two  short  of  the 
Talmudic  list  of  24.  This  neglect  of  these  two  writings  by 
Josephus  would  coincide  witli  their  neglect  by  Philo  and  the 
New  Testament,  and  with  the  strong  opposition  to  them  on  the 
part  of  many  Palestinian  Jews  in  the  first  Christian  century. 
It  seems  to  me  unwarranted  to  suppose  that  Josephus  attached 
Ruth  to  Judges  and  Lamentations  to  Jeremiah  without  counting 
them.  It  is  a  conjecture  without  sufficient  evidence  to  sustain 
it.  We  are  left  by  Josephus  in  uncertainty  as  to  certain  Old 
Testament  books.  Moreover,  the  statements  of  Joseplius  do 
not  carry  with  them  our  confidence  as  to  the  %iews  of  the  men 
of  his  time.  Zunz  is  correct  in  his  statement :  "  Neither  Philo  nor 
Josephus  impart  to  us  an  authentic  list  of  the  sacred  writings." ' 

(e )  We  know  that  several  books  were  in  dispute  among 
the  Pharisees,  such  as  Ezekiel,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
Esther.  They  were  generally,  but  not  unanimously,  acknow- 
ledged. The  Sadducees  are  said  b}'  some  of  the  Fathers  to  have 
agreed  with  the  Samaritans  in  rejecting  all  but  the  Pentateuch. 
This  must  be  a  mistake.  But  we  can  hardly  believe  that  they 
accepted  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  in  view  of  their  denial  of  angels 
and  the  resurrection.  The  Essenes  and  the  Zealots  agreed  in 
extending  the  Canon  to  esoteric  writings.  The  Apocalj^pse  of 
Ezra  mentions  70  of  these  as  given  to  Ezra  to  interpret  the  24, 
and  so  of  even  greater  authority.  These  parties  difier  from  the 
Pharisees  only  in  that  they  committed  the  esoteric  wisdom  to 
writing,  whereas  the  Pharisees  handed  it  doAvn  as  tradition, 
and  proliibited  the  committing  it  to  writing,  until  at  last  it 
found  embodiment  in  the  several  laj'ers  of  the  Talmuds. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  the  Canon  of  the  Palestinian  Jews 
received  its  latest  addition  by  common  consent  not  later  than 
the  time  of  Judas  Maccabeus,^  and  no  books  of  later  composi- 
tion were  added  afterward ;  yet  the  schools  of  the  Pharisees 
continued  the  debate  with  I'eference  to  some  of  these  writings 
until  the  assembly  of  rabbins  decided  it  at  Jamnia.  The  Hel- 
lenistic Jews  had  a  wider  and  freer  conception  of  the  Canon.* 

»  OottesdienstUchen  Ynrtrlifje  der  Juden,  1832.  p.  18. 

2  Strack,  in  Herzog,  Real-Enajk.  2te  Aufl.,  vii.  p.  42C  :  Ewald,  Lehre  d.  BibH 
von  OoU,  I.  p.  3(i3.  »  Ewald.  in  I.e.,  p.  .104. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON   OF   HOLY    SCKIPTURE   .         129 

The  order  of  the  formation  of  the  third  hiyer  of  the  Canon 
may  be  conceived  as  follows.  The  first  of  the  Writings  to 
gain  recognition  was  the  book  of  Psalms.  The  earlier  minor 
Psalters  were  collected  in  the  Persian  period ;  but  the  composi- 
tion of  psalms  continued  during  the  Greek  period  deep  into 
tiie  Maccabean  age.  The  Psalter  of  Solomon,  collected  in  the 
middle  of  the  first  century  B.c.,i  gives  us  the  limit  beyond 
which  we  cannot  go.  Its  use  in  the  temple  worshijj,  and  above 
all  in  the  synagogue,  and  at  the  great  feasts,  at  festival  meals, 
in  pilgrimages,  and  in  processions,  gave  it  popular  autliorit}-  as 
Holy  Scripture.  It  is  probable  that  the  phrase  "  the  Law  of 
Moses  and  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  "^  represents  the  syna- 
gogue use  of  the  term  and  the  popular  opinion.  The  earliest 
writing  which  quotes  the  Psalter  as  Scripture  is  the  first  book 
of  Maccabees  at  the  close  of  tlie  second  centur}.^  The  gen- 
eral recognition  of  the  Psalter  must  have  preceded  this  date, 
and  accordingly  not  be  later  than  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  B.C. 

The  next  writings  to  receive  recognition  were  doubtless  Job 
and  Proverbs,  the  chief  monuments  of  the  Wisdom  Literature. 
This  Wisdom  Literature  exercised  a  great  influence  among  the 
Jews  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  B.C.,  as  we  learn  from 
the  Wisdom  of  Ben  Sirach,  which  also  gained  in  later  times 
canonical  recognition  b}'  not  a  few  Hebrew  rabbins ;  and  in 
the  New  Testament  times,  as  we  learn  from  the  apocryphal 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  con- 
tained in  the  Logia  of  Matthew  and  cited  in  our  Synoptic 
Gospels,*  and  in  the  Pirqe  Aboth  or  Sayings  of  the  Jewish 
Fathers.  The  books  of  Ruth  and  Lamentations  received  early 
recognition  ;  but  were  assigned  different  places  in  the  Pales- 
tinian and  Alexandrinian  Canons.  The  book  of  Daniel  also 
was  early  recognized  as  the  parent  of  the  later  favourite  apoca- 
lyptic literature,  as  represented  especially  in  the  Book  of  Enoch 
and  the  Apocalj'pse  of  Ezra,  which  also  in  their  turn  received 

'  Ryle  and  James,  Psalms  of  Solomon,  1801  ;  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels, 
1894,  pp.  31  seq. 

2  Lk.  24".  3  1  Mace.  T'",  quotes  from  Ps.  792.3. 

*  See  my  articles  on  the  "  Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,"  in  the  Expository 
Times,  June,  July,  August,  and  November,  1897. 


130  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

canonical  recognition  by  many  Jews  and  Christians.  But 
the  books  of  Ecclesiastes,  Songs  of  Songs,  Esther,  Ezra,  and 
Chronicles  only  gradually  won  their  way,  and  did  not  finally 
gain  their  place  in  universal  recognition  until  the  assembly  of 
Janinia. 

The  third  layer  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  not 
definitely  limited  among  the  Jews  until  the  close  of  the  first 
Christian  century.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in 
70  A.D.,  the  Jewish  rabbins  established  themselves  at  Jamnia. 
Two  assemblies  seem  to  have  been  held  there ;  one  about  90 
A.D.,  the  other  in  118  A.D.  At  these  assemblies,  under  the 
presidency  of  Eleazar  ben  Azariah,  the  canonicity  of  the  Song 
of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes  was  discussed.  They  were  finally 
decided  to  be  canonical,  and  so  the  third  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  closed  i  for  the  H&brews. 

"  All  the  Holy  Scriptures  defile  the  hands  :  the  Song  of  Solomon 
and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands.  E.  Judah  says,  The  Song  of 
Solomon  defiles  the  hands,  but  Ecclesiastes  is  disputed.  R.  Jose 
says,  Ecclesiastes  does  not  defile  the  hands,  but  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon is  disputed.  R.  Simeon  says,  Ecclesiastes  belongs  to  the 
light  things  of  the  school  of  Sliammai,  and  the  heavy  things  of 
the  school  of  Hillel.  R.  Simeon,  son  of  Azai,  says,  I  received  it 
from  the  seventy-two  elders  on  the  day  when  they  enthroned  R. 
Eleazer,  son  of  Azariah  in  the  council,  that  the  Song  of  Solomon 
and  Ecclesiastes  defile  the  hands.  R.  Akiba  said,  God  forbid  that 
a  man  of  Israel  should  ever  deny  that  the  Song  of  Solomon  defiles 
the  hands.  For  no  day  in  the  history  of  the  world  is  worth  the 
day  when  the  Song  of  Solomon  was  given  to  Israel.  For  all  the 
writings  are  holy,  but  the  Song  of  Solomon  is  holy  of  holies. 
And  if  there  has  been  any  dispute,  it  referred  only  to  Ecclesiastes, 
R.  Johanau,  son  of  Joshua  said,  the  companions  of  R.  Akiba 
according  to  the  son  of  Azar  so  they  disputed,  and  so  they 
decided.' 

"  in  the  Talm.  Babli.  Meg.  7\  '  Rabbi  Meir  saith :  The  book 
Koheleth  defileth  not  the  hands,  and  with  respect  to  the  Song 
of.  Songs   there  is  difference  of  opinion.     Rabbi  Joshua  saith : 

>  Gratz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  1863,  ITT.  pp.  496  scq. ;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The 
Old  Testament  in  the  Jeicish  Church.  2d  ed.,  London,  18!)2.  p.  185;  Cheyne, 
Jol>  and  Solomon.  London,  1887,  pp.  280  seq. 

^  Mi.ihna,  'l>act  Yadaim.  iii.  See  Robertson  Smith  in  The  Old  Testament 
in  the  Jeicish  Church,  p.  180,  note. 


HISTOllY   OF  THE   CAXON   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  131 

The  Song  of  Songs  defileth  tlie  hands,  and  with  respect  to 
Koheleth  there  is  difference  of  opinion.  Rabbi  Simeon  saith : 
Koheleth  belongeth  to  the  things  which  the  school  of  Shanimai 
maketh  easy  and  the  school  of  Hillel  maketh  difficult ;  but  Euth, 
the  Song  of  Songs,  and  Esther  defile  the  hands.  Eabbi  Simeon 
ben  Menasiah  saith :  Koheleth  defileth  not  the  hands,  because 
it  containeth  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon.'  " ' 

II.  The  Caxon  of  Jesus  and  His  Apostles 

The  New  Testament  does  not  determine  the  extent  and 
limits  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  Jesus  gives  His 
authority  to  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,^  which 
alone  were  used  in  the  S3'nagogue  in  His  times  ;  but  the  Psalms 
only  of  the  Writings  are  mentioned.  There  are  no  sufficient 
reasons  for  concluding  that  by  the  Psalms  Jesus  meant  all  the 
other  books  besides  Law  and  Prophets.  If  the  term  "  Writ- 
ings "  had  become  a  technical  term  for  the  third  division  of  the 
Canon,  it  is  improbable  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  would  sub- 
stitute Psalms  for  it ;  all  the  less  that  Psalms  has  a  definite 
historical  sense. 

The  New  Testament  uses  for  the  Old  Testament  the  follow- 
ing general  terms  :  (1)  the  term  Scriptures  for  the  whole  ;  ^  or 
Sacred  Writings;*  (2)  Latv,  referring  to  the  Psalter  ;  ^  referring 
to  several  passages  of  the  Prophets  ;  ®  and  to  Isaiah  ;  •''  (3) 
Prophets;^  (1)  Latv  and  Prophets;^  Moses  and  Prophets ;  ^'^ 
Law  of  3Ioses  and  the  Prophets  ;^^  (5)  Laiv  of  Moses  aiid 
Prophets  and  Psalms.^^  This  fluctuation  shows  that  in  the 
minds  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  there  was  no 
definite  threefold  division  known  as  Law,  Prophets,  and 
Writings. 

Indeed  the  New  Testament  carefully  abstains  from  using  the 
writings  disputed  among  the  Jews.  It  does  not  quote  at  all 
Ecclesiastes,  Song   of   Songs,    Esther,    Ezra,    Nehemiah ;    and 

1  See  Ryle,  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  1802.  pp.  198  seq. 

2  Lk.  24".  8  Lk.  24^  ;  Acts  13-^. 
»  Acts  172- 11 ;  18«-!».                            9  Mt.  5"  ;  Acts  13i5. 

*  2  Tim.  .315.  10  Lk.  \6^-  3i ;  242' ;  Acts  26*!. 

'  John  103*  .  i6«.  11  Acts  283». 

«Johu]2".  "Lk.  24". 
'  1  Cor.  14^1. 


132  STUDY   (IF   HOLY   SCUIl'TURE 

onl}"  incidentalh"  Ezekiel  aud  Cliroiiicles  in  the  same  way  as 
apocryphal  and  pseudepigraphical  books  are  used.  Was  this 
silence  discretionary,  in  order  to  build  only  on  books  recog- 
nized by  all,  or  does  it  rule  from  the  Canon  those  books  so 
ignored  ? ' 

Thus  the  book  of  Jude  cites  the  Apocalypse  of  Enoch  and 
the  Assumption  of  Moses,^  both  belonging  to  the  pseudepigra- 
pha,  which  did  not  receive  recognition  in  the  Hebrew  Canon. 
So  also  the  earliest  Christian  writing  outside  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  cites  twice  from 
the  Old  Testament  ^  and  thrice  from  the  Apocrypha.^ 

We  may  not  be  able  to  answer  this  question  positively.  But 
these  things  are  plain,  (a)  The  New  Testament  gives  its 
authority  only  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which  it 
cites  as  Scripture.  (6)  There  >eems  to  be  no  good  reason 
why  the  New  Testament  writers  should  not  have  cited  these 
other  books,  and  therefore  we  cannot  certainly  say  that  their 
silence  is  of  no  consequence.  On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot 
say  that  these  Old  Testament  writings  fairly  came  within  the 
scope  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  that  therefore  the 
omission  of  them  condemns  them.  The  most  that  we  can  say, 
is  that  the  New  Testament  neither  condemns  them  nor  confirms 
them.  It  is  evident  that  Charles  Hodge  is  in  serious  error 
when  he  saj's,  "  Protestants  answer  it  (the  question  as  to  can- 
onicit)')  by  sajnng,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned, 
that  those  books,  and  those  only,  which  Christ  and  His  apostles 
recognized  as  the  written  Word  of  God,  are  entitled  to  be 
regarded  as  canonical."  ^  In  fact,  Jesus  and  His  apostles  no- 
where undertake  to  define  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  their  incidental  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  when  summed 
up,  leaves  several  books  undefined  as  to  their  canonicity. 

"  The  controversies  as  to  the  date  of  the  formation  of  the  Jewish 
Canon  seem  really  to  turn  upon  the  ambiguity  in  the  meaning  of 
the  word  'canon'  itself.     If  by  'canon'  we  mean  the  estimate  of 

1  Eichhom,  I.e.,  I.  .t.  in4.  -  Jude  9-14. 

'  Lines  273  scij.  from  Mai.  I"-  "  ;  line-s  315  s?7.  from  Zee.  14^ 
'  Line.s  91  scr/.  from  Ecclus.  4' ;  lines  80  seq.  from  Ecclus.  4»' ;  lines  7  seq.  from 
Tobit  4'5. 

'  Systematic  Thtology,  Vol.  I.  p.  152. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   CAXOX   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  13:3 

certain  books  as  sacred  and  inspired,  then  we  have  proof  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  existed  from  the  time  of  Hillel, 
Philo,  and  the  New  Testament,  if  not  from  the  time  of  the  books 
of  Maccabees  and  Ecclesiasticus.  But  if  by  the  Canon  we  mean 
that  this  estimate  was  formally  and  authoritatively  recognized  and 
that  a  list  of  books  was  drawn  up  to  which  the  estimate  applied, 
then  we  cannot  say  that  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
formed  before  the  transactions  at  Jamnia  at  the  end  of  the  first 
and  beginning  of  the  second  centuries." ' 

This  is  quite  true,  as  we  shall  see  later  on.  We  have  to  dis- 
tinguish between  individual  recognition,  recognition  by  common 
consent,  and  official  recognition.  In  fact,  these  are  three  dif- 
ferent stages  in  the  historical  formation  of  the  Canon. 


III.    The  Formation  of  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament 

The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  began  very  much  as  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  began,  and  it  unfolded  and  enlarged 
itself  gradually  in  the  growth  of  the  Christian  Church. 

1.  The  earliest  effort  among  the  disciples  of  Jesus  was  to 
collect  the  words  of  the  Lord.  This  was  done  by  St.  iMatthew 
in  his  Logia.2  This  collection  was  used  in  our  Gospels  of 
Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke,  as  a  primary  authority,  very  much 
as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  used  in  the  several  docu- 
ments of  the  Hexateuch.  The  use  that  was  made  of  such  logia 
by  Clement,  Barnabas,  Hernias,  and  especially  Papias,  makes 
it  clear  that  the  Christians  of  their  time  regarded  all  such 
logia  of  the  Lord  as  of  normal  divine  authority. ^ 

The  story  of  Our  Lord's  life  early  received  attention.  Mark 
gives  the  most  primitive  conception  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  The 
gospel   of   Mark  was  used  by  our  Matthew  and  Luke.     Our 

1  Sanday.  Inspiration,  1893,  p.  123. 

2  Other  collections  were  made,  as  is  evident  from  the  recently  discovered 
fragment  of  a  collection  of  Logia  of  Jesus.  See  facsimile,  translation,  and  notes 
in  Login  Jesu,  Sayinc/s  of  Our  Lord,  from  an  early  Greek  papyrus,  discovered 
and  edited,  with  translation  and  commentary,  by  B.  P.  Grenfell  and  A.  S.  Hunt. 
London,  1897  ;  Two  Lectures  fin  the  Sayings  of  Jesus  recently  discovered  at 
Oxyrhynchus,  by  Walter  Lock  and  William  Sanday,  Oxford,  1897. 

»  Holtzmann,  Einleitung,  2te  Aufl.,  Freib.  1886,  s.  110  seq. 


134  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

gospel  of  John  is  probably  based  upon  an  original  gospel  of  the 
apostle  John,  very  much  as  our  gospel  of  Matthew  is  based  on 
the  primitive  Matthew.  The  four  gospels  constitute  the  first 
layer  of  the  New  Testament  Canon.  The  four  gospels  gained 
the  consensus  of  recognition  in  the  Church  by  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  prior  to  Justin,^  who  cites  them  as  authori- 
tative, and  represents  that  they  were  read  in  the  churches 
alongside  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets  ;  and  to  Tatian,  who 
compacted  them  together  in  his  Diatessaron  to  be  the  official 
gospel  of  the  Syrian  Church  for  several  generations.^ 

2.  The  next  layer  of  the  Canon  was  the  thirteen  epistles  of 
Paul  (Romans,  1,  2  Corinthians,  Galatians,  1,  2  Thessalonians, 
Philippians,  Philemon,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  1,  2  Timothy, 
Titus)  and  Acts.  To  these  the— epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
generally  attached  in  the  East  but  not  in  the  West.  This 
layer  of  the  Canon  had  certainly  gained  universal  recognition 
by  the  close  of  the  second  century. 

The  first  and  the  second  layer  of  the  Canon  are  alone 
recognized  in  the  Doctrine  of  Addai,  which  gives  us  the  primi- 
tive usage  of  the  Church  of  Edessa.^ 

Zahn  *  says  that  "  the  two  chief  groups  of  which  the  New 
Testament  of  the  Catholic  Church  consisted,  the  fourfold 
gospel  and  the  thirteen  Pauline  epistles,  were  present  as  col- 
lections, and  quite  widely  circulated,  at  the  latest  about  125. 
They  must  have  originated,  to  use  a  round  number,  before  the 
year  120."  This  is,  however,  an  extreme  position,  not  firmly 
supported  by  the  evidence.^ 

3.  A  third  layer  of  tlie  Canon  only  gained  gradual  recog- 
nition. This  layer  eventually  received  the  name  of  the  Catho- 
lic Epistles.  Of  these,  1  Peter  and  1  John  were  recognized 
by  common  consent  in  the  second  century  ;  but  all  the  others, 
James,  2  Peter,  Jude,  2  and  3  John,  were  disputed.     The  Reve- 

»  Apnl.  I.  6fi,  67  ;  Dial.  49,  100. 

«  jalicher,  EinJeUuiitj,  1894,  .«.  292  seq. 

•  Dnct.  Ad^ai,  p.  46.  See  Zalin,  Oesch.  d.  Ncutest.  Kanon,  I.  s.  373 ;  San- 
day,  Stuilia  Bihiira,  III.  p.  245. 

*  Gesehichte  des  yeutest.  Kanon^  I.  s.  797. 

'  Harnack,  Das  Neue  Testament  um  das  Jahr  tOO,  1889 ;  JUlicher,  EinUitung, 
1894,  s.  292  seq. 


HISTORY  OF  THE   CANON  OF   HOLY  SCRH'TURE  135 

lation  was  also  doubted  or  denied.  All  of  these  except  James 
were  lacking  in  the  earUest  Syriac  New  Testament,  and  there 
is  not  a  trace  of  any  of  them  in  Syriac  Christian  literature 
before  350  a.d.^  There  was  a  large  number  of  other  writings 
besides,  such  as  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  the  Epistles  of  Clement,  accepted  by  some  as  canoni- 
cal and  by  others  rejected. 

The  Muratorian  fragment  from  the  last  years  of  the  second 
centuiy,  representing  the  common  opinion  of  Rome  at  the  time, 
includes  in  its  list  the  Gospels,  Acts,  thh'teen  epistles  of  Paul, 
1  and  2  John,  Jude,  and  Revelations  of  John  and  Peter ;  but 
it  says  that  2  John  and  Jude  have  as  little  right  to  their  names 
as  Wisdom  to  that  of  Solomon,  and  that  the  Revelations  of 
John  and  Peter  were  not  for  public  reading.  It  also  states 
that  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  was  only  for  private  reading. 
Excluded  from  the  list  are  Hebrews,  James,  1  and  2  Peter,  and 
3  John.  The  Cheltenham  list  agrees  with  this  position  in 
part  by  omitting  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  James,  and  Jude. 

"  Hebrews  was  saved  by  the  value  set  upon  it  by  the  scholars 
of  Alexandria ;  the  Apocalypse  by  the  loyalty  of  the  West ;  and 
the  Epistle  of  St.  James  by  the  attachment  of  certain  churches  in 
the  East,  especially  as  we  may  believe  that  of  Jerusalem."  -  And 
again,  "  ^Vhat  a  number  of  works  circulated  among  the  churches 
of  the  second  centuxj-,  all  enjoying  a  greater  or  less  degree  of 
•  authority,  only  to  lose  it !  In  the  way  of  Gospels,  those  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews,  according  to  the  Egyptians,  according  to 
Peter ;  in  the  way  of  Acts,  the  so-called  '  Travels '  (irepioSoi.)  of 
Apostles,  ascribed  by  Photius  to  Leucius  Charinus,  the  Preaching 
of  Peter,  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla ;  in  the  way  of  Epistles, 
1  and  2  Clement,  Barnabas;  an  allegory  like  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas;  a  manual  like  the  Didache;  an  Appcalypse  like  that 
of  Peter.  Truly  it  may  be  said  that  here,  too,  the  last  was  first 
and  the  first  last.  Several  of  these  works  had  a  circidation  and 
popularity  considerably  in  excess  of  that  of  some  of  the  books 
now  included  in  the  Canon.  It  is  certainly  a  wonderful  feat  on 
the  part  of  the  early  Church  to  have  by  degrees  sifted  out  this 
mass  of  literature;  and  still  more  wonderful  that  it  should  not 
have  discarded,  at  least  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned, 

'  See  .Julicher,  Einleitung,  s.  337  seq. 
^  Sanday,  Inspiration,  pp.  24,  25. 


136  STUDY   01"   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

one  single  work  which  after  generations  have  found  cause  to  look 
back  upon  with  any  regret.  Most  valuable,  no  doubt,  many  of 
them  may  be  for  enabling  us  to  reconstruct  the  history  of  the 
times,  but  there  is  not  one  which  at  this  moment  we  should  say 
possessed  a  real  claim  to  be  invested  with  the  authority  of  the 
Canon." ' 

The  New  Testament  writings  were  critically  examined  by 
Origen  early  in  the  third  century.  He  divided  them  into 
three  classes :  (1)  those  universally  accepted,  the  four  Gospels, 
Acts,  the  thirteen  Pauline  Epistles,  Hebrews,  1  Peter,  1  John, 
and  the  Apocalypse  (the  first  and  second  Canons)  ;  (2)  those 
that  were  to  be  rejected ;  (3)  the  doubtful  writings,  Jaines, 
Jude,  2  Peter,  2  and  3  John. 

Influenced  by  Origen,  Eusebius  in  his  Church  History  makes 
essentially  the  same  classification.  In  the  first  class  he  includes 
all  of  Origen's  list  except  Revelation,  of  which  he  saj's :  "  After 
them  is  to  be  placed,  if  it  really  seem  proper,  the  Apocalypse 
of  John,  concerning  which  we  shall  give  the  different  opinions 
at  the  proper  time."  In  the  second  class  he  mentions :  Acts 
of  Paul,  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  Apocalypse  of  Peter,  Barnabas, 
and  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles.  He  seems  inclined  to  class 
here  also  the  Revelation,  with  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,  for 
he  says  :  "  And  besides,  as  I  said,  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  if  it 
seem  proper,  which  some,  as  I  said,  reject,  but  which  others 
class  with  the  accepted  books.  And  among  these  some  have 
placed  also  the  Gosjiel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  with  which 
those  of  the  Hebrews  that  have  accepted  Christ  are  especially 
delighted."  2 

Thus  there  is  the  same  fluctuation  of  opinion  in  the  third 
layer  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  have  seen 
in  the  third  layer  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  'J'estament,  and 
outside  of  this  layer,  apociyphal  and  pseudejrigraphical  New 
Testament  writings  coi-responding  with  the  apocryphal  and 
pseudepigraphical  Old  Testament  writings.  The  many  Jew- 
ish apocalypses  and  Sibylline  oracles  and  Christian  pseud- 
epigrapha  which   were  written    during   the    first   and   second 

>  I.C.,  pp.  27,  28. 

2  III.  25.     See  edition  of  McGiffert,  pp.  156  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   CANON   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  137 

centuries  B.C.  and  in  the  first  and  second  centuries  a.d.  were 
cited  without  discrimination,  excepting  by  a  few  critics  such 
as  Origen  and  Jerome.^ 

IV.    The  Canon  of  the  CnrKcn 

The  Christian  Church  made  no  official  determination  of  the 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  at  any  of  the  great  oecumenical  coun- 
cils. The  only  definitions  of  the  Canon  that  were  oftieially 
made  were  by  a  provincial  council  at  Laodicea  in  the  East ; 
and  bj-  provincial  synods  in  the  West,  at  Hippo  and  Carthage  ; 
and  then  all  confirmed  by  the  Greek  Trullan  council  in  692  a.d. 
Their  definitions  represent  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Catho- 
lic Church  of  the  fourth  century  which  persisted  until  the 
Reformation. 

The  Council  of  Laodicea,  composed  of  Bishops  of  Phrygia 
and  Lydia  in  the  middle  of  the  foiu'th  century  (between  343 
and  381  a.d.),  prohibited  the  public  use  of  any  other  than 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. ^ 

There  is  a  list  of  the  canonical  books  in  the  Sixtieth  Canon 
of  this  council,  but  this  seems  to  have  been  a  later  addition.^ 

The  list  excludes  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment except  Barucli  and  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  and  in  other 
respects  limits  itself  to  the  Canon  of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  It 
gives  all  of  the  present  Xew  Testament  Canon  except  the 
Apocal3^pse.  This  represents  the  critical  tendencies  of  the 
Eastern  Church.  The  Syrian  Christians  were  still  more  criti- 
cal. The  book  of  Chronicles  is  not  in  the  ancient  Syriac 
version,  and  is  neglected  by  Ephraem  in  his  commentaries. 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  also  excludes  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

1  Sanday,  "  Value  of  Patristic  Writings  for  the  Criticism  and  Exegesis  of  the 
Bible,"  Expositor.  February,  1880;  Davidson,  Canon,  pp.  101  seq. 

^  Mansi,  Concill.  nov.  coll.,  II.  574,  Canon  59,  Sn  oi)  5(2  idiwTiKois  ^aX^oiis 
\iy€a6ai  if  rg  ^icicXija-ijt,  oi5S^  dKav6n<rTa  /St^XIo,  dXXi  /iAxo  rd  xamviKa  ttjs  KaiiiTJs 
Kal  TraXatas  diaOTiKTjs. 

'  Its  authenticity  is  attacked  by  Spittler.  Krit.  Untersuchunri  des  60  Laodic. 
Kanons,  1777  ;  but  defended  by  Bickell,iS£!((Z.  und  Krit.  1830,  III.  s.  591  seq. ; 
Hefele,  Conciliengesch.,  I.  s.  750  ;  and  others.  Sanday,  Inspiration,  p.  60,  says  : 
'•It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  list  appended  as  Can.  LX.  to  the  Council  of 
Laodicea  Ls  not  original." 


138  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  Job.  The  Nestorian  Canon  excludes  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  Esther.^  The  Apocalypse  of  John  is  ignored 
by  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  many  others.  Jerome  gives 
his  sanction  to  the  Palestinian  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
excludes  the  Apocrypha.  He^  recognizes  that  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter  and  James  were  deemed  by  some  to  belong  to 
those  authors  ;  that  Jude  was  rejected  by  some  ;  that  2  and  3 
John  were  ascribed  to  the  Presbyter  John  by  some.  He  also 
mentions  doubts  as  to  the  five  Catholic  epistles,  Hebrews,  and 
the  Apocalypse.^  The  Synod  of  Hippo  in  393  a.d.  and  of 
Carthage  in  397  A.D.,  under  the  influence  of  Augustine,  decided 
for  the  larger  Canon,  including  the  apocryphal  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  full  Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  This 
opinion  is  sustained  by  the  oldest  Greek  Uncials.* 

The  Vatican  Codex  includes  in  the  Old  Testament  the  Greek 
Esdras,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  Greek  Esther, 
Judith,  Tobit,  Barucli,  Letter  of  Jeremiah,  and  Theodotian's 
Daniel.  The  Siuaitic  Codex  has  Tobit,  Judith,  1  and  4  Macca- 
bees, Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  the  entire  New 
Testament,  and  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  The  Alexandrian 
Codex  has  Baruch,  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  Theodotian's  Daniel, 
Greek  Esther,  Tobit,  Judith,  Greek  Esdras,  1,  2,  3,  4  Maccabees, 
Prayer  of  Manasseh,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  Sirach, 
and  in  addition  to  the  New  Testament  three  epistles  of 
Clement. 

The  Cheltenham  list  (359  a.d.?)  mentions,^  besides  the 
Palestinian  Canon,  1  and  2  Maccabees,  Tobit,  and  Judith.  In 
the  New  Testament  it  omits  Hebrews,  2  Peter,  James,  and 
Jude. 

The  Ethiopia  Version  gives  a  still  more  extensive  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  including  the  ajjocalypses  of  Ezra  and 
Enoch,  the  martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  and  the  book  of  Jubilee. 

'  Buhl,  Kanon,  s.  62. 

2  De  Viris  illnstribvs.  1,  2,  4,  9. 

'  Epistola  129  ad  Dardanum. 

*  See  Gregory,  Prolr<jomena,  pp.  346,  355  ;  Swete,  The  Old  Testament  in 
Oreek  according  to  the  iScptnagint,  I.  pp.  xvii,  xx,  xxii.     See  also  pp.  196  seq. 

*  See  Sanday,  "  Cheltenham  List  of  the  Canonical  Books,"  in  Studio  Siblica, 
III.  1891,  pp.  217  seq:,  where  many  valuable  tables  are  given. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CANON  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  139 

The  opinion  of  Augustine  prevailed  in  the  Western  Church, 
and  the  limits  of  the  Canon  were  by  general  consent  the  larger 
Augustinian  Canon,  including  the  Apocrypha  with  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  full  New  Testament  Canon.  Jerome,  how- 
ever, had  influence  upon  a  few  scholars.  Fewer  entertained 
doubts  as  to  such  a  book  as  Esther  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Apocalypse  of  John  in  the  New  Testament. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CRITICISM    OF   THE   CAIfON 

We  have  traced  the  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  Scriptures  and  have  seen  its  gradual  forma- 
tion, at  first  by  the  recognition  of  the  writings  one  after 
another  by  individuals,  then  by  common  consent,  and  at  last 
by  official  action  in  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  Church.  The 
limits  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  were  defined  by  the 
official  action  of  the  Synagogue  at  Jamnia ;  but  the  limits  of 
the  Canon  were  never  officialh'  defined  by  the  Church  except 
in  provincial  sjTiods  of  limited  influence  and  authority.  This 
was  the  situation  at  the  Protestant  Reformation,  when  for  the 
first  time  the  limits  of  the  Canon  became  a  burning  question 
in  the  Church. 

I.    The  Canon  in  the  Reformation 

The  Reformation  was  a  great  critical  revival,  due  largely  to 
the  new  birth  of  learning  in  Western  Europe.  The  emigra- 
tion of  the  fugitive  Greeks  from  Constantinople,  after  its  capt- 
ure by  the  Turks,  had  planted  a  3'oung  Greek  culture.  A 
stream  of  thought  burst  forth,  and  poured  like  a  quickening 
flood  strong  and  deep  over  Europe.  Cardinal  Ximenes,  with 
the  aid  of  a  number  of  Christian  and  Jewish  scholars,  such 
as  Alphouso  de  Zamora,  Demetrius  Ducas,  and  Alphonso  de 
Alcala,  issued  the  world-renowned  Complutensian  Poh'glot, 
1513-17.  The  Greek  New  Testament  was  studied  with  avidity 
by  a  series  of  scholars,  among  whom  Erasmus  was  preeminent. 
He  published  the  first  Greek  Testament  in  1516.  Elias  I.evita 
and  Jacob  ben  Cliayim  introduced  Christians  into  a  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Reuchlin  laid  the  foundation  for 
140 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   CAXON  141 

Hebrew  scholarship  among  Christians,  by  publishing  the  first 
Hebrew  grammar  and  lexicon  combined  in  1506. ^  This  return 
to  the  original  text  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  aroused 
the  suspicions  of  the  scholastics  and  monks,  and  the  new  learn- 
ing was  assailed  with  bitterness.  Even  Levita  had  to  defend 
himself  against  the  charge  of  heterodoxy  for  teaching  Chris- 
tians the  Hebrew  language,  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  Talmud.^ 
But  the  Reformers  took  their  stand  as  one  man  for  the  critical 
study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  investigated  the  original 
texts  under  the  lead  of  Erasmus,  Elias  Levita,  and  Reuchlin. 
This  critical  stud)-  of  Holy  Scripture  raised  many  questions 
which  had  been  long  sleeping  or  whose  feeble  voice  had  been 
easily  suppressed  by  ecclesiastical  authority.  It  soon  became 
evident  to  all  that  many  doctrines  and  practices  resting 
upon  traditional  custom  were  imperilled  ;  and  the  authority  of 
the  Church,  especially  as  expressed  through  the  papal  adminis- 
tration, began  to  be  seriously  que.stioned.  Several  of  the 
apocryphal  books  seemed  to  sustain  doctrines  and  practices 
Avhich  some  of  the  Reformers  found  to  be  opposed  to  the 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament.  Esther,  Ecclesiastes,  and 
the  Song  of  Songs  were  difficult  to  reconcile  with  Christianity. 
The  book  of  James  and  the  Apocalypse  did  not  seem  easily  to 
reconcile  with  the  epistles  of  Paul.  And  so  the  canonicity  of 
the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  several  of  the 
writings  of  the  stricter  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  and  even 
of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  were  suspected,  doubted, 
or  denied.  The  Protestant  Reformers  appealed  from  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Church  and  its  customs,  and  the  authority  of  the 
prelates  and  the  pope,  to  Christ  and  the  Holy  Scriptures.  This 
raised  necessarily  the  question,  which  are  the  Holy  Scriptures? 
What  writings  are  to  be  regarded  as  canonical?  The  hie- 
rarchj'  maintained  that  it  was  the  province  of  the  Church  to 
determine  by  its  authority,  as  expressed  through  the  papal  ad- 
ministration, not  only  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  but 
also  the  limits  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  so  forced  for  the  first 

'  Gesenius,  Gesch.  d.  hebr.  Sprache,  pp.  106  seq. 

2  See  his  Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth,  edited  by  Ginsburg,  London,  1867,  pp.  97 
seq. 


142  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

time  in  Christian  history  an  official  determination  of  the  extent 
and  limits  of  the  Canon  by  the  authority  of  the  Church.  The 
Protestant  Reformers  declined  to  recognize  the  authority  of 
the  Church  in  these  particulars. 

Luther  in  his  controversy  with  Eck  said,  "  The  Church 
cannot  give  any  more  authority  or  power  than  it  has  of  itself. 
A  council  cannot  make  that  to  be  of  Scripture  which  is  not  by 
nature  of  Scripture."'  ^     Calvin  says : 

"  But  there  has  very  generally  prevailed  a  most  pernicious  error 
that  the  Scriptures  have  only  so  much  weight  as  is  conceded  to 
them  by  the  suffrages  of  the  Church,  as  though  the  eternal  and 
inviolable  truth  of  God  depended  on  the  arbitrary  will  of  men." 
...  "  For,  as  God  alone  is  a  sufficient  witness  of  Himself  in  His 
own  Word,  so  also  the  Word  will  never  gain  credit  in  the  hearts 
of  men  till  it  be  confirmed  by  the  internal  testimony  of  the  Spirit. 
It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  same  Spirit,  who  spake  by  the 
mouths  of  the  prophets,  should  penetrate  into  our  hearts,  to  con- 
vince us  that  they  faithfully  delivered  the  oracles  which  were 
divinely  intrusted  to  them."  ^ 

This  principle  is  well  expressed  in  the  2d  Helvetic  Confes- 
sion, the  most  honoured  in  the  Reformed  Church  : 

"  We  believe  and  confess  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  holy 
prophets  to  be  the  very  true  Word  of  God  and  to  have  sufficient 
authority  of  themselves,  not  of  men  "  (Chap.  I.).  "  Therefore  in 
controversies  of  religion  or  matters  of  faith  we  cannot  admit  any 
other  judge  than  God  Himself,  pronouncing  by  the  holy  Scriptures 
what  is  true  and  what  is  false;  what  is  to  be  followed,  or  what  is 
to  be  avoided  "  (Chap.  II.). 

The  Galilean  Confession  gives  a  similar  statement : 

"  We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical,  and  the  sure  rule  of 
our  faith,  not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the 
Church,  as  by  the  testimon}'  and  inward  persuasion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from  other  ecclesi- 
astical books  "  (IV.  Art.).' 

Thus  while  other  testimony  is  valuable  and  important,  yet, 
the  decisive  test  of  the  canonicity  and  interpretation  of  the 

'  Disputatio  excel.  D.  theolog.  Joh.  Eccii.  et  LiUheri,  hist.,  HI.  pp.  129  seq  ; 
Berger,  La  Bible  au  Stiziime  Steele,  Paris,  1S79.  p.  86. 

^  Institutes,  I.  7.  >  See  also  the  Belgian  Confession,  Art.  V. 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   CANON  143 

Scriptures  is  God  Himself  speaking  in  and  through  them  to 
His  people.  This  alone  gives  the  fides  divina.  This  is  the 
so-called  formal  principle  of  the  Reformation,  no  less  impor- 
tant than  the  so-called  material  principle  of  justification  by 
faith.  1 

Tlie  Reformers  applied  this  critical  test  to  the  traditional 
theories  of  the  Bible,  and  eliminated  the  apocr3'p]ial  books  from 
the  Canon.  They  also  revived  the  ancient  doubts  as  to  Esther, 
Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Epistle  of*. James,  2  Peter,  Jude, 
and  the  Apocalypse.  The  Reformed  symbols  elaborated  the 
formal  principle  further  than  the  Lutheran,  and  ordinarily 
specified  the  books  that  they  regarded  as  canonical.  In  this 
they  rejected  the  traditions  of  the  early  Christian  Church. 

The  Church  of  Rome,  in  accordance  with  its  principle  of 
church  authority  and  tradition,  determined  the  apocryphal 
books  to  be  canonical  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  defined 
officially  the  extent  and  limits  of  the  Canon,  and  excluded  all 
doubts  and  questionings  on  the  Canon  from  the  realm  of  ortho- 
doxy. The  Protestant  Reformers  accepted  the  Canon  of  their 
symbols,  excluding  the  apocryphal  books,  not  because  of  the 
Jewish  tradition,  which  they  did  not  hesitate  to  dispute,  as  they 
did  that  of  the  Church  itself,  but  for  higher  internal  reasons. 
It  is  doubtless  true  ^  that  the  Reformers  fell  back  on  the  author- 
ity of  Jerome  in  their  determination  of  the  Canon,  as  they  did 
largely  upon  Augustine  for  the  doctrine  of  grace ;  but  this 
was  in  both  cases  for  support  against  Rome  in  authority  which 
Rome  recognized,  rather  than  as  a  basis  on  which  to  rest  their 
faith  and  criticism.  They  went  further  back  than  Jerome  to 
the  more  fundamental  principle  of  the  common  consent  of  the 
believing  children  of  God,  which  in  course  of  time  eliminated 
the  sacred  canonical  books  from  those  of  a  merely  national  and 
temporary  character,  because  these  books  approved  themselves 
to  their  souls  as  the  very  Word  of  God.  As  Dr.  Charteris 
says : 

»  Dorner,  Oesch.  Prot.  Theo.,  pp.  234  seq.,  379  seg.  ;  Julius  Miiller,  "Das 
Verhaltiiiss  zwischen  der  Wirksamkeit  des  heiligen  Geistes  und  dein  Guaden- 
mittel  des  gottlichen  Wortes,"  in  his  Dogmat.  Abhandlungen,  1871,  pp.  139  seq.  ; 
Reuss,  Histoire  dn  Canon,  pp.  308  seq. 

»  W.  Robertaon  Smith,  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  1881,  p.  41. 


144  STUDY   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

"  The  Council  of  Trent  had  formally  thi-own  down  a  challenge. 
It  recognized  the  canon  because  of  the  traditions  of  the  Church, 
and  on  the  same  ground  of  tradition  accepted  the  unwritten  ideas 
about  Christ  and  His  apostles,  of  which  the  Church  had  been  made 
the  custodian.  The  reformers  believed  Scripture  to  be  higher  than 
the  Church.  But  on  what  could  they  rest  their  acceptance  of  the 
canon  of  Scripture  ?  How  did  they  know  these  books  to  be  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  only  and  ultimate  divine  revelation  ?  They  an- 
swered that  the  divine  authority  of  Scripture  is  self-evidencing, 
that  the  regenerate  man  needs  no  other  evidence,  and  that  only 
the  regenerate  can  appreciate  the  evidence.  It  follows  from  this, 
if  he  do  not  feel  the  evidence  of  their  contents,  any  man  may 
reject  books  claiming  to  be  Holy  Scripture."' ' 

It  is  true  this  test  did  not  solve  all  questions.  It  left  in 
doubt  several  writings  which  had  been  regarded  as  doubtful 
for  centuries.  But  uncertainty  as  to  these  does  not  weaken 
the  authority  of  those  that  are  recognized  as  divine  ;  it  only 
affects  the  extent  of  the  Canon,  and  not  the  authority  of  those 
writings  regarded  as  canonical. 

"  Suppose  we  were  not  able  to  give  positive  proof  of  the  divine 
inspiration  of  everj'  particular  Book  that  is  contained  in  the  Sacred 
Records,  it  does  not  therefore  follow  that  it  was  not  inspired ;  and 
yet  much  less  does  it  follow  that  our  religion  is  without  founda- 
tion. Which  I  therefore  add,  because  it  is  well  known  there  are 
seme  particular  Books  in  our  Bible  that  have  at  some  times  been 
doubted  of  in  the  Church,  whether  they  were  inspired  or  no.     But 

1  cannot  conceive  that  doubt  concerning  such  Books,  where  persons 
have  suspended  their  assent,  without  casting  any  imbecoming  re- 
flections, have  been  a  hindrance  to  their  salvation,  while  what  they 
have  owned  and  acknowledged  for  truly  divine,  has  had  sanctifying 
effect  upon  their  hearts  and  lives."  ^ 

This  is  the  Protestant  position.  Unless  these  books  have 
given  us  their  own  testimony  that  they  are  divine  and  therefore 
canonical,  we  do  not  i-eceive  them  with  our  hearts ;  we  do  not 
rest  our  faith  and  life  upon  them  as  the  verj'  AVord  of  God  ; 
we  give  mere  intellectual  assent ;  we  receive  them  on  authority, 
tacitly  and  without  opposition,  and  possibly  with  the  dogma- 

>  "The  New  Testament  Scriptures:  their  Claims.  History,  and  Authority," 
Croall  Lectures,  1882,  1S83,  p.  20:?. 

2  Ed.  Calauiy,  Inspiration  a/  the  Holy  Writings,  London,  1710,  p.  42. 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   CANON  145 

tisra  wliicli  not  uiifrequently  accompanies  incipient  doubt,  but 
also  without  true  interest  in  them,  and  true  faith  in  their  divine 
authority,  and  the  certainty  of  their  divine  contents.  The 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  as  defined  by  the  Reformed  symbols 
may  be  successfully  vindicated  on  Protestant  principles.  The 
Church  has  not  been  deceived  with  regard  to  it.  Esther, 
Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Songs,  and  the  Apocalj'pse  will  verify 
themselves  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  study  them.  But  it  is 
illegitimate  to  first  attempt  to  prove  their  canonicity  and  then 
their  inspiration,  or  to  rely  upon  Jewish  Rabbinical  tradition 
any  more  than  upon  Roman  Catholic  tradition,  or  to  anathe- 
matize all  who  doubt  some  of  them,  in  the  spirit  of  Rabbi  Akiba 
and  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  only  legitimate  Protestant 
method  is  that  of  the  Reformers  :  first  prove  their  canonicity 
from  their  own  internal  divine  testimony,  and  accept  them  as 
canonical  because  the  Christian  soul  rests  upon  them  as  the 
veritable  divine  Word.  "  For  he  that  believes  what  God  saith, 
without  evidence  that  God  saith  it;  doth  not  believe  God,  wliile 
he  believes  the  thing  that  is  from  God,  et  eadem  ratione,  si  con- 
tigisset  Aleorano  Turcica  credidisset.'"  ^ 

The  fault  with  the  Reformers  was  not  in  their  use  of  this 
sure  test,  but  in  their  neglect  to  use  it  with  sufficient  thor- 
oughness. Unfortunately  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  influ- 
enced by  other  subjective  tests  and  dogmatic  considerations. 
Thus  Luther,  by  his  exaggeration  of  his  interpretation  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  justification,  was  unable  to  understand  the 
Epistle  of  James,  and  spoke  of  it  as  "an  epistle  of  straw." 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  rejection  of  2  Maccabees  was 
due  in  great  measure  to  its  support  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  sacrifices  for  the  dead ;  ^  and  that  the  Wisdom  of 
Sii-ach  was  rejected  partly,  at  least,  because  of  its  supposed 
countenance  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
works.  Such  dogmatic  objections  influenced  greatly  the  Re- 
formers in  their  views  as  to  the  entire  Apocrypha.  They  did 
not  apply  their  principle  in  its  simplicity  and  in  its  purity,  but 
allowed  themselves  to  confuse  it  with  other  less  valid  considera- 

•  Whichcote,  Eight  Letters  of  Dr.  A.  Tuckney  and  Benj.  ]mchcote,  1753, 
p.  111.  '  2  2  Mace.  1239-«. 


146  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

tions.  This  set  a  bad  example  to  their  successors,  who  were 
more  subjective  and  dogmatic  in  their  princijjles,  and  less 
evangelical  and  vital. 

Furthermore,  the  Protestant  Reformers,  in  the  matter  of  the 
Canon,  were  simply  claiming  a  liberty  of  opinion  with  regard 
to  the  limits  of  the  Canon  which  had  been  freely  exercised  by 
the  early  Christian  Fathers,  and  which,  indeed,  had  never  been 
seriously  questioned  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  was  not 
necessary  for  them  to  battle  against  Catholic  tradition,  which 
indeed  was  undoubtedly  on  their  side,  if  onlj-  they  traced  the 
tradition  far  enough  backwards  in  the  historic  development  of 
the  Catholic  Church. 

In  fact,  the  Roman  Catholics,  on  the  one  side,  were  claiming 
the  right  of  the  Church  to  define  the  doctrine  of  the  Canon  of 
Holy  Scripture,  and  they  exercised  that  right  for  the  first  time 
in  Christian  history.  The  Church  had  the  same  right  to  define 
the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  as  to  define  other  Christian  doc- 
trines. Unfortunately  the  Council  of  Trent  was  not  a  truly 
oecumenical  council.  It  represented  only  a  portion  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  therefore  its  definitions  are  the  defini- 
tions of  the  Roman  Catholic  partj"^  in  the  Church.  They  do 
not  represent  the  Greek,  Oriental,  and  Protestant  conmiunions. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Protestant  Reformers  were  not  simply 
exercising  the  right  of  private  opinion  with  reference  to  certain 
books,  whether  they  belonged  to  the  Canon  or  not ;  but  they 
set  up  a  new  test  of  canonicity,  which,  however  true  and  reli- 
able it  may  be  in  itself,  had  not  the  consent  of  antiquity,  and 
ought  not  to  have  been  imposed  upon  Christians  as  a  new 
dogma.  When  the  Reformed  symbols  undertook  to  rule  the 
apocrypha  out  from  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  they  were 
officially  limiting  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  no  less  truly 
than  the  Council  of  Trent,  only  they  represented  a  much  smaller 
constituency  and  a  lesser  section  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
The  practical  result  was  that  the  Council  of  Trent  defined  a 
larger  Canon,  the  Reformed  s3'nods  a  smaller  Canon. 

So  long  as  the  controversy  with  Rome  was  active  and  ener- 
getic, and  ere  the  counter-reformation  set  in,  the  Protestant 
principle  maintained  itself ;    but  as  the  internal  conflicts  of 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   CANON  147 

Protestant  churches  began  to  absorb  more  attention,  and  the 
polemic  with  Rome  became  less  vigorous,  the  polemic  against 
brethren  more  A'iolent,  the  Keformed  S3'stem  of  faith  was  built 
up  by  a  series  of  scholastics  over  against  Lutheranism,  and 
Calvinistic  scholastics  contended  against  Arminianism.  The 
elaboration  of  the  Protestant  Reformed  system  by  a  priori 
deduction  carried  with  it  the  pushing  of  the  i)rinciples  of  Prot- 
estantism more  and  more  into  the  background.  The  authority 
of  the  Reformed  Faith  and  Tradition  assumed  the  place  of  the 
Roman  Faith  and  Tradition  ;  and  the  biblical  scholarship  of 
Protestant  churches,  cut  off  from  the  line  of  Roman  Tradition, 
sought  historical  continuity  and  worked  its  way  back  along  the 
line  of  Hieronymian  Tradition  to  the  earlier  Jewish  Rabbini- 
cal Tradition  ;  and  so  began  to  establish  a  Protestant  tradi- 
tional orthodoxy  in  the  Swiss  schools  under  the  influence  of 
Buxtorf,  Heidegger,  and  Francis  Turretine  ;  and  in  the  Dutch 
schools  under  the  influence  of  Voetius. 

Lutheran  theology  had  the  same  essential  development 
through  internal  struggles.  The  irenical  school  of  Calixtus 
at  Helmstadt  had  struggled  with  the  scholastic  spirit,  until  the 
latter  had  sharpened  itself  into  the  most  radical  antagonism  to 
the  Reformed  Church  and  the  Melanchthon  type  of  Lutheran 
theology.  Carlov  stated  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  in 
the  same  essential  terms  as  the  Swiss  scholastics,  and  M'as 
followed  therein  b}-  the  Lutheran  scholastics  generally. 

"  It  treated  Holy  Scripture  as  the  revelation  itself,  instead  of  as 
the  memorial  of  the  originally  revealed,  ideal,  actual  truth ;  the 
consequence  being  that  Holy  Scripture  was  transformed  into  God's 
exclusive  work,  the  human  element  was  explained  away,  and  the 
original  living  power  thrust  away  behind  the  writing  contained  in 
letters.  Faith  ever  draws  its  strength  and  decisive  certainty  from 
the  original  eternally  living  power  to  which  Scripture  is  designed 
to  lead.  But  when  Scripture  was  regarded  as  the  goal,  and  attes- 
tation was  sought  elsewhere  than  in  the  experience  of  faith  through 
the  presence  of  truth  in  the  Spirit,  then  the  Reformation  stand- 
point was  abandoned,  its  so-called  material  j)rinciple  violated,  and 
it  became  easy  for  Rationalism  to  expose  the  contradictions  in 
which  the  inquirers  had  thus  involved  themselves."  ' 

1  Domer.  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  II., p.  186. 


148  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

II.   The  Caxox  of  the  Buitish  Reformation 

The  Church  of  England  was,  at  the  Reformation,  composed 
of  varied  elements.  The  Reformation  in  England  was  horn  of 
the  native  British  stock  of  Christianity ;  and  yeU  bwiug  to  the 
oft-repeated  persecutions  by  Church  and  State,  the  English 
Reformers  were  banished  to  the  continent,  and  when  they 
returned,  after  the  persecution  had  relaxed,  they  brought  with 
them,  —  some,  influences  from  Wittenburg ;  others,  influences 
from  Strassburg,  Basel,  Zurich,  and  Geneva.  The  English 
Reformation  was  thus  enriched  by  the  mingling  together  of 
all  the  influences  of  the  Reformation  ;  but  it  was  also  forced 
to  confront  the  A^ery  serious  problem  of  Avelding  together  all 
these  influences.  That  which  could  not  be  accomplished  on 
the  continent  could  hardly  be  accomplished  under  still  greater 
difliculties  in  Great  Britain. 

Three  parties  came  into  conflict  in  tlie  British  churches,  — 
the  more  conservative  Anglo-Catholic  part}",  the  more  radical 
Puritan  party,  and  the  mediating  or  comprehensive  party. 
The  mediating  party  expressed  its  views  on  the  Canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  in  the  Articles  of  Religion.  They  take  an  inter- 
mediate position  between  the  Protestant  Reformers  and  the 
Roman  Catholics  in  their  doctrine  of  the  Canon  : 

"  In  the  name  of  the  Holj'  Scripture,  we  do  understand  those 
Canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  Xew  Testament,  of  whose  author- 
ity was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church.''  The  twenty-four  books 
of  the  Hieronj'mian  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  are  then  men- 
tioned. It  then  continues  :  "  And  the  other  books  (as  Hierome 
saitli)  the  Church  doth  read  for  example  of  life  and  instruction  of 
manners :  but  yet  dotli  it  not  ajiply  them  to  establish  any  doctrine." 
It  then  names  fourteen  apocryphal  books,  and  concludes :  "  All  the 
books  of  the  Xew  Testament,  as  they  are  commonly  received,  we 
do  receive  and  account  them  for  Canonical."'     (Art.  VI.) 

The  Articles  thus  base  themselves  on  the  Hieronymian  tra- 
dition as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  did  on  the  stronger 
Augustinian  tradition  ;  but  they  do  not  claim  the  authority  of 
the  Church  to  define  the  Canon,  and  they  do  not  set  up  any 
test  of  canonicitv. 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   CANOX  149 

The  Scotch  Confession  of  1560,  however,  maintains  the 
position  of  the  Protestant  Reformers  : 

"  As  we  beleeve  and  eonfesse  the  Scriptures  of  God  sufficient 
to  instruct  and  make  the  man  of  God  perfite,  so  do  we  aifirme  and 
avow  the  anthoritie  of  the  same  to  be  of  God,  and  nether  to  depend 
on  men  nor  angelis.  We  affirme,  therefore,  that  sik  as  allege  the 
Scripture  to  have  ua  uther  anthoritie  hot  that  qnhilk  it  lies  received 
from  the  Kirk,  to  be  blasphemous  against  God,  and  injurious  to 
the  trew  Kirk,  quhilk  alwaies  heares  and  obeyis  the  voice  of  her 
awin  spouse  and  Pastor ;  bot  takis  not  upon  her  to  be  maistres 
over  the  samin."     (Art.  XIX.) 

Thomas  Cartwright.  the  chief  of  the  English  Puritans, 
takes  the  same  \'iew: 

"  Q.  How  may  these  bookes  be  discerned  to  bee  the  word  of 
God? 

"  A.   By  these  considerations  following : 

"First,  they  are  perfectly  holy  in  themselves,  and  by  them- 
selves :  whereas  all  other  writings  are  prophane,  further  then 
they  draw  holinesse  from  these ;  which  yet  is  never  such,  but 
that  their  holinesse  is  imperfect  and  defective. 

"  Secondly,  they  are  perfectly  profitable  in  themselves,  to 
instruct  to  salvation,  and  all  other  are  utterly  unprofitable  there- 
unto, any  further  then  they  draw  from  them. 

"  Thirdly,  there  is  a  perfect  concord  and  harmonic  in  all  these 
Bookes,  notwithstanding  the  diversity  of  persons  by  whom,  places 
where,  and  time  when,  and  matters  whereof,  they  have  been 
written. 

"  Fourthly,  there  is  an  admirable  force  in  them,  to  incline  men's 
hearts  from  -t^ce  to  vertue. 

'•'  Fifthly,  in  great  plainenesse  and  easinesse  of  stile,  there 
shineth  a  great  ^lajesty  and  authority. 

"  Sixthly,  there  is  such  a  gracious  simplicity  in  the  writers  of 
tliese  Bookes,  that  they  neither  spare  their  friends,  nor  them- 
selves, but  most  freely,  and  impartially,  set  downe  their  owne 
faults  and  infirmities  as  well  as  others. 

''  Lastly,  God's  owne  Spirit  working  in  the  harts  of  his  children 
doth  assure  them,  that  these  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God."  ' 

III.    The  Ptjritax  Canon 
The  Westminster  Confession  gives  expression  to  the  mature 
Puritan  faith  respecting  the  Scriptures  : 

I  Thos.  Cartwright,  Treatise  of  the  Christian  Beligion,  London,  1616. 


150  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

§  2.  "  Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  word  of  God 
written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  which  are  these  "  (mentioning  the  66  books  commonly 
received).  "  All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the 
rule  of  faith  and  life." 

§  3.  "  The  books  commonly  called  Apocrypha,  not  being  of  di- 
vine inspiration,  are  no  part  of  the  canon  of  the  Scripture ;  and 
therefore  are  of  no  authoritj-  in  the  Church  of  God,  nor  to  be  any 
otherwise  approved,  or  made  use  of,  than  other  human  writings." 

§  4.  "  The  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought 
to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of 
any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  (who  is  truth  itself,) 
the  author  thereof ;  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it 
is  the  word  of  God." 

§  5.  "  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture ; 
and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efBcacy  of  the  doctrine, 
the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope 
of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery 
it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other 
incomparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are 
arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the 
word  of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  assur- 
ance of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authoritj-  thereof,  is  from 
the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Siiirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with 
the  word  in  our  hearts."     (I.  §  2-5.) 

The  Westminster  Confession  distinguishes  in  its  statements 
(1)  the  external  evidence,  the  testimony  of  the  Church  ;  (2) 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  ;  (3)  the 
fides  divina.  Here  is  an  ascending  series  of  evidences  for  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures.  The  fides  humana  belongs  strictlj' 
only  to  the  first  class  of  evidences.  This  testimony  of  the 
Church  is  placed  first  in  the  Confession  because  it  is  weakest. 
The  second  class  not  only  gives  fides  humana.  but  also  divina, 
owing  to  the  complex  character  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  ; 
but  the  third  class,  as  the  highest,  gives  purely  fides  divina. 
The  Confession  carefully  discriminates  tiie  weight  of  these 
evidences.  The  authority  of  the  Church  only  induces  "  an 
high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture."  The 
internal  evidence  of  the  "excellencies  and  entire  perfection 
thereof  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   CANON  151 

itself  to  be  the  word  of  God "' ;  but  our  "  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof "' 
come  only  from  the  liighest  evidence,  "the  inward  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our 
hearts."  In  accordance  with  this,  "The  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  depeudeth  wholly  upon  God."  ^  On  this  principle, 
then,  the  Canon  is  determined.  The  books  of  the  Canon  are 
named,^  and  then  it  is  said,  "All  which  are  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life."  The  apocr3-phal 
books  are  no  part  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  because  they  are 
not  of  divine  inspiration.^  It  is,  therefore,  the  authority  of 
God  Himself,  speaking  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  and  with 
the  Word  to  tlie  heart,  that  determines  that  the  writings  are 
infallible  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  and  it  is  their  inspira- 
tion that  determines  their  canonicity. 

Thus  the  Westminster  Confession  stated  the  point  of  view 
of  the  Protestant  Reformers.  The  members  of  this  assembly 
of  divines  were  not  as  a  bodj'  scholastics,  though  there  were 
scholastics  among  them ;  but  were  preachers,  catechists,  and 
expositors  of  the  Scriptures,  with  a  true  evangelical  spirit. 
They  were  called  from  the  active  work  of  the  ministry,  and 
from  stubborn  resistance  to  Prelatical  authority,  to  the  active 
work  of  reforming  the  Church  of  England  into  closer  con- 
formity with  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  continent.  Among 
the  doctrines  to  be  reformed  was  the  doctrine  respecting  the 
Holy  Scripture.  The  Puritans  were  not  content  with  the 
statement  of  the  Articles  as  to  the  Canon.  They  were  deter- 
mined to  take  an  advanced  Reformed  position.  Accordingly 
they  state  the  three  tests  of  canonicity  and  give  each  its 
proper  place  and  order  in  the  argument.  In  this  respect  they 
made  an  important  dogmatic  advance,  but  it  was  an  advance 
only  of  a  single  party  in  the  Church  of  England.  The  Pre- 
latical view  is  stated  by  Bishop  Cosin  :  * 

"  For  though  there  be  many  IiUemal  Testimonies  belonging  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  whereby  we  may  be  sirfficiently  assured,  that 
they  are  the  true  and  lively  oracles  of  God,  .  .  .  yet  for  the  par- 

'  §  4.  2  §  2.  8  §  3. 

*  Scholastic  History  of  the  Canon,  London,  1657,  pp.  4  seq. 


152  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

ticular  and  just  nxnnher  of  such  book^,  whether  thev  be  more  or 
less,  than  either  some  private  persons,  or  some  one  ^mrticular  church 
of  late,  have  been  pleased  to  make  them,  -we  have  no  better  nor 
other  external  rule  or  testimony  herein  to  guide  us,  than  the  con- 
stant voice  of  the  catholic  and  universal  Cliurch,  as  it  hath  been 
delivered  to  us  upon  record  from  one  generation  to  another." 

This  view  not  ouly  antagonizes  the  views  of  the  Puritans 
and  continental  Reformers,  but  it  is  a  reaction  from  the  mod- 
erate intermediate  statement  of  the  Articles  towards  the  Roman 
Catholic  position. 

The  Puritans  in  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  revising 
Article  VI.  of  the  Articles  of  Religion  erased  the  statements  : 
"Of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church"; 
"  And  the  other  books  (as  Hierome  saith)  the  Church  doth 
read  for  example  of  life  and  insti'uction  of  manners  ;  but  yet 
doth  it  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doctrine."  And  they 
changed  the  statement :  "  All  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  they  are  commonly  received,  we  do  receive  and  account  them 
for  canonical "  ;  so  as  to  read :  "  All  which  books,  as  they  are 
commonly  received,  we  do  receive  and  acknowledge  them  to 
be  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God ;  and  in  that  regard,  to  be 
of  the  most  certain  credit,  and  highest  authority." 

Charles  Herle,  the  Prolocutor  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
states  the  Protestant  position  over  against  the  Roman  : 

"  They  (the  Papists)  being  asked,  why  they  believe  the  Scrij^ture 
to  be  the  Word  of  God  i  Answer,  because  the  Church  says  'tis  so; 
and  being  asked  againe,  why  they  beleeve  the  Church?  They 
answer,  because  the  Scripture  saies  it  shall  be  guided  into  truth; 
and  being  asked  againe,  why  they  beleeve  that  very  Scripture  that 
says  so?  They  answer,  because  the  Church  says  'tis  Scripture, 
and  so  (with  those  in  the  Psalm  xii.  8),  they  walk  in  a  circle  or 
on  every  side.  They  charge  the  like  on  us  (but  wrongfully)  that 
we  beleeve  the  Word,  because  it  sayes  it  self  that  it  is  so;  but  we 
do  not  so  resolve  our  Faith;  we  believe  unto  salvation,  not  the 
Word  barely,  because  it  witnesses  to  itself,  but  because  the  Spirit 
speaking  in  it  to  our  consciences  witnesses  to  them  that  it  is  the 
Word  indeed ;  we  resolve  not  our  Faith  barely  either  into  the 
Word,  or  Sjiirit  as  its  single  ultimate  jirinciple,  but  into  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Sjiirit  speaking  to  our  consciences  in  the  Word."  ' 
1  Detiir  Snpienti.  London,  1665,  pp.  152.  153. 


CRITICISJl   OF   THE   CANON  153 

The  Puritans  were  in  radical  opposition  to  Rome.  They 
\vere  maintaining  the  formal  principle  of  Protestantism.  If 
they  had  not  taken  this  position,  they  would  have  been 
powerless.     As  Reuss  says  : 

"  Xothing  was  more  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  Luther,  of  Calvin,  and 
their  illustrious  fellow-laborers,  nothing  was  more  radically  con- 
trary to  their  principles,  than  to  base  the  authority  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  upon  that  of  the  Church  and  its  tradition,  to  go  in 
eifect,  to  mount  guard  over  the  fathers,  and  range  their  catalogues 
in  line,  cause  their  obscurities  to  disappear  by  forced  interpretations 
and  their  contradictions  by  doing  violence  to  them,  as  is  the  custom 
of  our  day.  They  very  well  knew  that  this  would  have  been  the 
highest  inconsistency,  indeed  the  ruin  of  their  system,  to  attribute 
to  the  Church  the  right  of  making  the  Bible  after  they  had  con- 
tested that  of  making  the  doctrine ;  for  that  which  can  do  the 
greater  can  do  the  less."' ' 

There  never  had  been  a  period  in  which  the  authority  of 
Holy  Scripture  was  more  hotly  discussed  than  in  the  times  of 
the  English  Commonwealth.  In  1647  the  London  ministers 
(many  of  whom  were  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly) 
issued  their  testimony  again.st  false  views  of  Holy  Scripture  as 
well  as  of  other  matters.     They  mention  as 

"  Errors  against  the  Divine.  Authority  of  the  Hohj  Scrii)ture,  That 
the  Scripture,  whether  true  Manuscript  or  no,  whether  Hebrew, 
Greek,  or  English,  it  is  but  human;  so  not  able  to  discover  a 
divine  God.  Then  where  is  your  command  to  make  that  your 
rule  or  discipline,  that  cannot  reveal  you  God,  nor  give  you  power 
to  walk  with  God  ?  Tliat,  it  is  no  foundation  of  Christian  Religion, 
to  believe  that  the  English  Scriptures,  or  that  book,  or  rather  vol- 
ume of  books  called  the  Bible,  translated  out  of  the  originall 
Hebrew  and  Greek  copies,  into  the  English  tongue  are  the  Word 
of  God.  That,  questionless  no  writing  whatsoever,  whether 
translations  or  originalls,  are  the  foundation  of  Christian  Re- 
ligion." ^ 

■  Reuss,  Histoire  du  Canon,  p.  .313. 

^  A  Testimony  to  the  Truth  of  J /•  sua  Christ  and  to  our  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant.  Subscribed  by  the  ministers  of  Christ  within  the  Province  of  London, 
Dec.  14,  1647.  Ix)ndon,  1648.  .Similar  testimonies  were  signed  in  many  of  the 
English  counties  during  the  same  year.  In  the  McAlpin  collection  of  the  library 
of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  N.Y.,  there  are  ten  of  them. 


154  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

William  Lyford,  an  esteemed  Puritan  divine,  wrote  a  com- 
mentary on  this  testimony  of  tlie  London  ministers.^ 

After  controverting  tlie  "foure  fold  error :  (1)  of  them  that 
would  place  this  authority  (of  Scripture)  in  the  Church ;  (2)  of 
them  who  appeale  from  scripture  to  the  spirit ;  (3)  of  them 
that  make  reason  the  supreme  Judge ;  (4)  of  them  that  ex- 
pound scriptiu-e  according  to  Providences,"  lie  goes  on  to 
expound  the  position  of  tlie  Puritans. 

"  The  authority  and  truth  of  God  speaking  in  the  Scripture, 
is  that  upon  which  oiu-  faith  is  built,  and  doth  finally  stay  itselfe : 
The  ministry  of  the  Church,  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  the 
right  use  of  reason  are  the  choicest  helps,  by  which  we  believe, 
by  which  we  see  the  law  and  will  of  God;  but  they  are  not  the 
law  itself ;  the  divine  truth  and  authority  of  God's  word,  is  that 
which  doth  secure  our  consciences.  ...  If  you  ask  what  it  is 
that  I  believe  ?  I  answer,  I  believe  the  blessed  doctrines  of  salva- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ ;  if  you  ask,  why  I  believe  all  this,  and  wlij- 
I  will  venture  my  soul  to  all  eternity  on  that  doctrine  ?  I  answer, 
because  it  is  the  revealed  will  of  God  concerning  us.  If  you  ask 
further,  How  I  know  that  God  hath  revealed  them  '*  I  answer,  by 
a  two-fold  certainty;  one  of  faith,  the  other  of  experience;  (1)  I 
do  infallibly  bj'  faith  believe  the  Kevelation,  not  upon  the  credit  of 
any  other  Revelation,  but  for  itselfe,  the  Lord  giving  testimony 
thereunto,  not  only  by  the  constant  Testimony  of  the  Church,  which 
cannot  universally  deceive,  nor  only  by  miracles  from  heaven,  bear- 
ing witness  to  the  Apostle's  doctrine,  but  chiefly  bj'  its  own  proper 
divine  light,  which  shines  therein.  The  truth  contained  in  Script- 
ure is  a  light,  and  is  discerned  by  the  sons  of  light:  It  doth  by 
its  own  light,  persuade  us,  and  in  all  cases,  doubts,  and  questions, 
it  doth  clearly  testifie  with  us  or  against  us;  which  light  is  of 
that  nature,  that  it  giveth  Testimony  to  itself,  and  receiveth 
authority  from  no  other,  as  the  Sun  is  not  scene  by  any  light  but 
his  own,  and  we  discerne  sweet  from  soure  by  its  own  taste.  .  .  . 
(2)  Whereimto  add,  that  other  certainty  of  experience,  which  is  a 
certainty  in  respect  of  the  Affections  and  of  the  spiritual  man. 
This  is  the  Spirit's  seal  set  to  God's  truth  (namely),  the  light  of 
the  word ;  when  it  is  thus  shewen  unto  us,  it  doth  work  such 
strange  and  supernatural  effects  upon  the  soul ;  ...  It  persuades 

1  The  Plain  Man's  sense  exercised  to  discern  good  and  evil,  or  A  Discorenj 
■of  the  Errors,  Heresies,  and  Blasphemies  of  these  Times,  and  the  Toleration 
of  them,  as  they  are  eoUeeted  and  testified  against  hy  the  ministers  of  London, 
in  their  Testimony  to  the  Truth  of  Jesus  Christ.     London,  1(565. 


CRITICISM  OF  THE   CANON  155 

us  of  the  truth  and  goodness  of  the  will  of  God ;  and  of  the  things 
revealed ;  and  all  this  by  way  of  spiritual  taste  and  feeling,  so 
that  the  things  apprehended  bj-  us  in  divine  knowledge,  are  more 
certainlj-  discerned  in  the  certainty  of  experience,  than  anything 
is  discerned  in  the  light  of  uaturall  understandini^." 

"  They  that  are  thus  taught,  doe  know  assuredly  that  they  have 
heard  God  himselfe :  In  the  former  way,  the  light  of  Divine  Eea^ 
son  causeth  approbation  of  the  things  they  believe.  In  the  later, 
the  Purity  and  power  of  Divine  Knowledge,  causeth  a  taste  and 
feeling  of  the  things  they  heare :  And  they  that  are  thus  estab- 
lished in  the  Faith,  doe  so  plainly  see  God  present  with  them  in 
his  Word,  that  if  all  the  world  should  be  turned  into  Miracles,  it 
could  not  remove  them  from  the  certainty  of  their  perswasion  ; 
you  cannot  imperswade  a  Christian  of  the  truth  of  his  Eeligion, 
you  cannot  make  him  thinke  meanly  of  Christ,  nor  the  Doctrine 
of  Kedemption,  nor  of  duties  of  Sanetification,  his  heart  is  fixed 
trusting  in  the  Lord.  So  then  we  conclude,  that  the  true  reason 
of  our  Faith,  and  ground,  on  which  it  finally  stayeth  itself,  is  the 
Authority  of  God  himself,  whom  we  doe  most  certainly  discerne, 
and  feele  to  speake  in  the  word  of  faith,  which  is  preached  unto  us." ' 

This  is  the  true  doctriue  of  the  Puritans,  in  which  they 
know  no  antagonism  between  the  human  reason,  the  religious 
feeling,  and  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  Word  of  God.  It  is  a 
merciful  Providence  that  they  were  guided  to  this  position, 
for,  if  they  had  gone  with  the  Swiss  scholastics  in  basing 
themselves  on  Rabbinical  tradition  as  to  the  Old  Testament, 
they  would  have  committed  the  British  churches  to  errors  that 
have  long  since  been  exploded  by  scholars. 

IV.    Discussion  of  the  Cason  in  the  Seventeenth  and 
Eighteenth  Centukies 

British  Chri.stianity  had  to  struggle  with  the  Friends  (or 
Quakers),  who  exalted  the  authority  of  the  inner  light  above 
the  letter  of  Scripture,  as  well  as  with  the  Roman  Catholics, 
who  subjected  the  Canon  to  the  authority  of  the  Church.  But 
there  was  also  the  contention  between  the  Puritan  doctrine  as 
stated  in  the  Westminster  Confession  and  the  doctrine  as  stated 
by  Bishop  Cosin.  Few  were  willing  to  abide  by  the  simple 
and  indefinite  statement  of  the  English  Articles  of  Religion. 
'  I.e.,  pp.  39  seq. 


156  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Bishop  Cosin  misled  Anglicans,  and  even  later  Presbyterians, 
into  a  false  position.  How  can  we  ascertain  the  voice  of  the 
Church  as  to  the  Canon,  and  how  determine  the  genuine 
Christian  traditions?  There  is  no  voice  of  the  universal 
Church.  As  we  have  seen,  prior  to  the  Reformation,  only 
provincial  synods  spoke,  and  these  differed,  —  one  following 
the  Hebrew  Canon  and  another  the  Greek  Canon.  —  and  thus 
exposed  the  differences  which  have  always  been  in  the  Church. 

At  the  Reformation  the  Roman  Catholic  Council  of  Trent 
decided  for  one  Canon,  the  Protestant  synods  for  another  Canon. 
We  must  wait  for  a  reunited  Christendom  before  the  Church 
can  give  its  authority  to  fix  the  Canon,  even  if  it  has  in  itself 
the  divine  authority  to  do  so.  The  Protestant  Confessions 
deny  the  right  of  the  Church  so  to  do.  It  remains  to  be  seen 
whether  Protestantism  will  ever  consent  to  an  ultimate  defini- 
tion of  the  Canon  even  by  the  Reunited  Church. 

It  will  hardl}-  be  claimed  that  we  should  submit  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Canon  to  a  majority  vote  of  the  Fathers.  Even 
if  we  were  willing  to  do  this,  we  could  not  secure  the  voice  of 
the  majority,  because  the  writings  of  the  majority  have  perished. 
It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  we  should  follow  the  maximum 
of  the  writings  regarded  as  canonical.  If  we  should  do  this, 
we  would  have  to  enlarge  the  extent  of  the  Canon  beyond  that 
of  the  Council  of  Trent.  If  we  should  follow  the  minimum,  we 
would  limit  still  more  than  the  Protestant  Canon.  Shall  we 
pursue  the  via  media  ?  But  who  shall  define  the  width  of  even 
the  middle  way  ?  There  is  no  pathway  to  certainty  in  any  of 
these  directions. 

The  conflicts  of  conformists  and  non-conformists,  and  the 
struggle  between  evangelical  faith  and  deism  in  Great  Britain, 
and  of  scholasticism  witii  pietism  on  the  continent,  caused  the 
scholastics  to  antagonize  the  human  element  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  and  to  assert  the  external  authority  of  traditional 
opinions  and  of  Protestant  orthodoxy  over  the  reason,  the  con- 
science, and  the  religious  feeling  ;  while  the  apologists,  follow- 
ing the  deists  into  tiie  field  of  the  external  arguments  for  and 
against  the  religion  and  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  built  up  a  series 
of  external  evidences  which  were  sufficiently  strong  to  over- 


CRITICISM  OF   THE   CAXON  157 

come  the  deists  intellectually,  and  to  di'ive  them  into  atheism 
and  pantheism.  All  this  was  at  the  expense  of  vital  piety  in 
the  Church  ;  for  the  stronger  internal  evidence  was  neglected. 
The  dogmatists  forgot  the  caution  of  Calvin  :  "  Those  pei'sons 
betray  great  folly  who  wish  it  to  be  demonstrated  to  infidels, 
that  the  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God,  which  cannot  be  known 
without  faith"!  ^^^^  they  exposed  the  Chui'ch  to  the  severe 
criticism  of  Dodwell : 

"To  give  all  men  Liberty  to  judge  for  themselves  and  to  expect 
at  the  sam^  time  that  they  shall  be  of  the  preacher's  mind,  is  such 
a  scheme  for  unanimity  as  one  would  scarce  imagine  any  one 
would  be  weak  enough  to  devise  in  speculation,  and  much  less 
that  anj'  could  ever  prove  hardy  enough  to  avow  and  propose  to 
practice,"  - 

and  led  some  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  an  "  irreconcil- 
able repugnance  in  their  natures  betwixt  reason  and  belief."^ 

The  efforts  of  the  more  evangelical  type  of  thought  which 
passed  over  from  the  Puritans  into  the  Cambridge  school,  and 
the  Presbj^erians  of  the  type  of  Baxter  and  Calam}',  to  construct 
an  evangelical  doctrine  of  the  reason  and  the  religious  feeling 
in  accordance  with  Protestant  principles,  failed  for  the  time, 
and  the  movement  died  away,  or  passed  over  into  the  merely 
liberal  and  comprehensive  scheme,  or  assmned  an  attitude  of 
indifference  between  the  contending  parties.  The  Protestant 
rule  of  faith  was  sharpened  more  and  more,  especially  among 
the  Independents,  and  the  separating  Presbyterian  churches  of 
Scotland,  after  the  fashion  of  John  Owen,  rather  than  of  the 
Westminster  divines ;  whilst  the  apologists  pressed  more  and 
more  the  dogmatic  method  of  demonstration  over  against 
criticism.* 

The  Reformed  faith  and  evangelical  religion  were  about  to 
be  extinguished  when,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  the  Puritan 
vital  and  experimental  religion  was  revived  in  Methodism, 
which  devoted  itself  to  Christian  life,  and  so  proved  the  saving 
element  in  modern  British  and  American  Christianity. 

The  Churches  of  the  continent  of  Europe  were  allowed,  in 

'  Institutes,  VIII.  13.  *  Meligion  not  founded  on  Argument,  pp.  90  seq. 

'  lu  I.e.,  p.  80.  *  Lechler,  Gesch.  d.  Deismus,  1841,  pp.  411  seq.    ' 


158  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCIUI'TURE 

the  Providence  of  God,  to  meet  the  full  force  of  Rationalism 
and  pay  the  penalty  of  the  sinful  blunders  of  the  scholastics 
of  the  previous  century.  The  Canon  Avas  criticised  by  Sem- 
ler  and  his  school,  and  canonicity  became  a  purely  historical 
question.  Schleiermacher  was  raised  up  to  be  the  father  of 
modern  evangelical  German  theology.  He  began  to  recover 
the  lost  ground  and  to  build  the  structure  of  modern  tlieology 
in  the  true  mystic  spirit  on  the  religious  feeling  apprehending 
Jesus  Glu-ist  as  Saviour.  A  series  of  intellectual  giants  have 
carried  on  his  work,  such  as  Neauder,  Tholuck,  Rothe,  Midler, 
and  Dorner.  These  led  German  Theology  back  to  the  position 
of  the  Protestant  Reformers  and  the  principle  of  the  divine 
evidence. 

It  is  not  safe  to  follow  the  German  divines  in  all  their 
methods  and  statements.  These  depend  upon  the  centurj^  of 
conflict  which  lies  back  of  them  and  through  which  we  have 
not  passed.  British  and  American  theolog}-  has  its  own  pecul- 
iar principles,  methods,  and  work  to  perform.  It  is  now  in 
the  crisis  of  its  liistory,  the  same  essentially  that  German 
theology  had  to  meet  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  centurj'. 
The  tide  of  thought  has  ebbed  and  flowed  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  continent  several  times  since  the  Reformation. 
The  tide  has  set  strongly  now  in  our  direction. 

V.    A  Modern  American  Theory  of  Canonicity 

In  recent  times  another  method  of  determining  canonicitj' 
has  been  proposed.  It  does  not  have  the  stamp  of  antiquity 
upon  it,  it  has  no  ecclesiastical  authority  behind  it,  and  yet  it 
makes  loud  claims  of  orthodoxy  for  itself.  It  lias  been  taught 
by  some  modern  Presbyterians  that  tlie  Canon  is  fixed  by  the 
authority  of  the  prophets  who  wrote  the  books. 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  states: 

"  We  determine  what  books  have  a  place  in  this  Canon  or  divine 
rule  by  an  examination  of  the  evidences  which  show  that  each  of 
them,  severally,  was  written  by  the  inspired  propliet  or  apostle 
whose  name  it  bears,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Gospels  of  Mark 
and  Luke,  written  under  the  superintendence  and  published  by 


CRITICISM  OF  THE   CANON  159 

the  authority  of  an  apostle.  This  evidence  in  the  case  of  the 
sacreil  Scriptures  is  of  tlie  same  kind  of  historical  and  critical 
proof  as  is  relied  upon  by  all  literary  ruen  to  establish  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  any  other  ancient  writings,  such  as 
the  odes  of  Horace  or  the  works  of  Herodotus.  In  general  this 
evidence  is  (a)  Internal,  —  such  as  language,  style,  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  matter  they  contain;  (h)  External,  —  such  as  the 
testimony  of  contemporaneous  writers,  the  universal  consent  of 
contemporary  readers,  and  corroborating  history  drawn  from 
independent  credible  sources." ' 

It  is  just  this  theory  of  the  Canon  taught  by  the  Princeton 
school  of  theology  and  their  numerous  adherents,  and  also  bj' 
Dr.  Shedd  and  other  theologians  of  other  schools,  that  forced 
American  Presbyterianism  into  such  a  serious  and  unreasona- 
ble war  against  the  Higher  Criticism.  Dr.  Shedd  goes  so  far 
as  to  say:  "If,  as  one  asserts  [referring  to  my  words],  'the 
great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by  authors 
whose  names  are  lost  in  oblivion,'  it  was  written  hy  iminsjnred 
vien.  .  .  .  This  would  be  the  inspiration  of  indefinite  persons, 
like  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry,  whom  nobody  knows,  and  not  of 
definite  historical  persons,  like  Moses  and  David,  Matthew 
and  John,  chosen  by  God  by  name  and  known  to  men."^ 

This  theory  is  shattered  on  the  fact  that  the  writings  of  the 
Canon  do  not,  as  a  rule,  give  the  names  of  their  prophetic 
authors.  The  only  reference  to  authors  in  connection  with 
most  of  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  traditions 
which  are  not  found  in  the  earliest  Hebrew  manuscripts  and 
authorities.  Therefore,  we  cannot  be  sure  of  these  authors. 
We  cannot  safely  build  the  authority  of  the  Canon  of  Holy 
Scriptures  on  such  questionable  authority  as  there  may  be  in 
the  names  of  authors  whose  only  connection  with  the  writings 
rests  upon  the  uncertainties  of  tradition.  We  cannot  build 
certaint}'  on  uncertainty.  We  cannot  find  divine  authority 
in  fluctuating  human  traditions. 

The  five  books  of  the  Law,  —  the  entire  first  Canon  ;  the 
four  prophetic  histories,  —  the  entire  first  division  of  the  sec- 
ond Canon  ;  are  anonymous  in  the  original  Hebrew  text.     A 

1  Commentary  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,  pp.  51,  52. 
*  See  my  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  pp.  93,  94. 


160  STUDY   UF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

very  considerable  portion  of  the  four  latter  prophets  consists 
of  anonymous  prophecies  -which  have  been  attached  to  the 
prophecies  which  bear  names.  Thus  all  of  the  first  Canon  and 
the  major  part  of  the  second  Canon  are  anonymous.  Of  the 
third  Canon  the  three  former  writings.  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and 
Job,  are  anonymous  ;  of  the  five  Rolls  all  are  anonj^mous  ;  of 
the  latter  writings  all  three  are  anonymous.  Thus  of  the  entire 
Old  Testament  Canon  the  only  writings  which  can  be  said  to 
gain  authority  from  the  names  of  the  authors  are  the  four  latter 
Prophets ;  and  with  regard  to  these  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
how  little  we  know  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  and 
Zechariah  apart  from  their  own  writings.  And  as  for  the 
minor  prophets,  what,  apart  from  their  writings,  are  Hosea, 
Amos,  ]Micah,  Xahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  to  us?  And  as 
for  Joel  and  Obadiah,  we  cannot  tell,  apart  from  a  critical  study 
of  their  writings,  when  they  lived,  and  the  results  of  that  in- 
vestigation are  uncertain.  And  the  book  of  Jonah  is  a  post- 
exilic  work  of  the  imagination  using  the  name  of  Jonah  as  a 
convenient  hero  for  the  story.  Consider  for  a  moment,  in  the 
light  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  the  absurdity  of  this  theory  of 
building  the  authority  of  the  Canon  on  the  authorit}-  of  authors. 
How  can  they  prove  the  canonicity  of  the  Psalms,  unless  they 
build  on  the  old  traditional  theory  that  David  wrote  them  ? 
Some  of  the  choicest  Psalms  are  not  fathered  by  any  titles. 
Will  they  cut  these  out  of  the  Psalter  ?  Even  if  all  the  names 
mentioned  in  the  traditional  psalms  were  the  authors  of  the 
psalms  which  bear  their  names,  they  can  only  vouch  for  por- 
tions of  the  psalms  as  they  were  originally  written.  But  who 
shall  vouch  for  those  psalms  as  edited  and  adapted  to  syna- 
gogue worship  in  our  Psalter'  To  establish  the  authority  of 
our  Canon,  it  is  of  at  least  as  much  importance  that  the  editor 
should  be  inspired  as  the  original  avithor.  The  final  editor  is 
responsible  for  our  Psalter.  Here  is  a  case  where  an  inerrant 
original  autograph  is  of  little  value.  The  autograph  of  the 
final  editor  is  needed,  and  no  one  proposes  to  name  him. 

But  some  will  sa)-  Jesus  and  the  apostles  vouch  for  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Psalter.  True ;  but  was  there  no  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  Psalter  was  canonical  prior  to  the  testimony 


CKITICISM   (IF   THE   CANON  161 

of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Did  the  Old  Testament  wait  for  His  au- 
thority to  make  it  canonical  ?  The  Hebrews  did  not  think  so 
when  they  put  it  in  their  third  Canon.  And  Jesus  did  not 
think  so,  for  He  did  not  make  it  canonical ;  He  recognized  it 
as  already  a  part  of  the  Canon. 

The  scientific  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism  destroj-s  this 
modern  theory  of  the  authority  of  the  Canon  and  'forces  us 
back  either  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  authoritj' 
of  the  Church,  or  else  the  opinion  of  the  Protestant  Reformers, 
as  elaboi-ated  and  improved  and  best  stated  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  : 

"The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to 
be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any 
man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  (who  is  truth  itself,)  the 
author  thereof ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is 
the  word  of  God."  ' 

This  principle  of  establishing  the  Canon  lifts  it  above  mere 
ecclesiastical  authority,  far  above  the  speculations  of  dogma- 
ticians  and  fluctuating  traditions,  and  builds  it  on  the  rock 
summit  of  the  authority  of  God  Himself. 

It  was  ever  the  internal  divine  evidence  and  the  hoi}'  char- 
acter of  Holy  Scriptures  that  persuaded  the  ancients  of  their 
canonicity,  and  these  evidences  have  persuaded  devout  souls 
in  all  times. 

But  some  say  :  j"ou  are  giving  every  man  the  right  to  make 
his  own  Bible.  Not  so  ;  criticism  takes  from  every  denomina- 
tion of  Christians  and  from  tradition  and  from  the  theologians 
their  spurious  claims  to  determine  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture 
for  all  men ;  but  it  does  not  give  that  authority  to  am-  indi- 
vidual man.  It  puts  the  authority  to  determine  His  H0I3' 
Word  in  God  Himself.  It  teaches  us  to  look  for  the  divine 
evidence  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves.  It  tells  us  to 
open  our  minds  and  hearts  and  submit  ourselves  to  the  mes- 
sage of  the  Divine  Spirit  and  accept  the  Bible  God  has  made 
for  us.  But  it  does  tell  every  man  to  make  up  his  own  mind 
as  to  the  authoritj-  of  the  writings  which  are  said  to  belong  to 
Holy  Scripture.  It  endorses  the  right  of  private  judgment  in 
11.4. 


162  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRffTURE 

this  matter  as  in  all  others.  It  makes  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Canon,  and  of  every  writing  in  the  Canon,  a  question 
between  everj^  man  and  his  God. 

Tlie  Princeton  school  of  theology  has  misled  the  Presbyterian 
Church  into  a  false  position,  which  is  neither  that  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  nor  that  of  the  Protestant  Reformers  or 
British  Puritans,  nor  the  intermediate  and  cautious  position 
of  the  Anglican  divines.  They  have  incautiously  risked  the 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  with  the  traditional  theories  of 
authorship  and  the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  They 
have  induced  a  recent  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  to  de- 
cide against  an  orthodox  opinion  and  in  favour  of  heterodoxy. 

It  is  perilous  to  follow  these  blind  guides  of  British  and 
American  scholasticism  and  fall  into  the  ditch  that  lies  in  their 
path.^  It  is  wise  to  learn  from  the  experience  of  those  who 
have  passed  through  the  conflict  and  achieved  the  idctor)'.  It 
is  prudent  to  do  all  that  is  possible  to  prevent  the  ruin  to 
American  Christianity  that  is  sure  to  come  if  ecclesiastical 
leaders  continue  to  commit  the  old  blunders  over  again.  The 
revival  of  true  vital  religion,  and  the  successful  jirogi-ess  of 
theology  in  the  working  out  of  the  principles  inherited  from 
the  Protestant  Reformation,  depend  upon  a  speedy  reaction 
from  the  scholastic  theology  of  the  Zurich  Consensus  and  the 
exaggerated  Puritanism  of  John  Owen  and  the  provincial 
types  of  theology,  and  a  renewal  of  the  life  and  unfettered 
thought  of  the  Reformation  and  of  British  Christianity  in  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

It  is  the  inevitable  result  of  research  into  the  Canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  that  the  last  word  should  be  spoken  by  Holy  Script- 
ure itself.  It  is  the  Divine  Spirit  alone  who  gave  the  divine 
evidence  in  the  past  and  upon  whom  we  must  rest  for  our 
evidence  in  the  present  and  the  future.  We  cannot  be  certain 
that  anything  comes  from  God  unless  it  bring  us  personally 
somethmg  evidently  divine.  If  the  Divine  Spirit  has  left  some 
of  the  ancient  writings  in  doubt  in  the  minds  of  some  of  the 
ancients,  and  some  with  less  internal  and  external  evidence 
than  others,  this  is  not  to  question  the  divine  voice,  which  gives 
'  Mt.  15". 


CRITICISM   OF  THE   CANON  163 

certainty  to  those  who  are  capable  and  willing  to  receive  it. 
It  should  stir  us  up  to  a  more  thorough  study  of  these  Holy 
Scriptures,  lest  in  some  way  we  should  not  have  discerned  that 
divine  evidence  which  has  been  graciously  imparted  to  students 
who  may  have  been  more  faithful  or  more  devoted  than  oui'- 
selves.  We  should  maintain  our  own  freedom  to  question  and 
to  reject  from  the  Canon  such  writings  as  do  not  justify  them- 
selves in  the  arena  of  criticism ;  and  at  the  same  time  we 
should  respect  the  opinion  of  those  who  thinlf  that  they  have 
evidence  that  we  have  thus  far  been  unable  to  receive,  and 
above  all  we  should  be  extremely  reluctant  to  dissent  from  the 
historic  consensus  of  the  Ckristian  Church  in  this  matter,  and 
especially  the  official  deliverances  of  Holy  Chuich. 

VI.    The  Deterjiination  of  the  Canon 

It  has  become  more  and  more  evident,  since  Semler '  reopened 
the  question  of  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  that  the  only  safe 
position  is  to  build  on  the  rock  of  the  Reformation  principle  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures.  This  principle  has  been  enriched  in 
two  directions,  —  first,  by  the  study  of  the  unity  and  harmony 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  an  organic  whole,  and,  second,  by 
the  apprehension  of  the  relation  of  the  faith  of  the  individual 
to  the  consensus  of  the  Church. 

The  principles  on  which  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  is  to 
be  determined  are,  therefore,  these  : 

(1)  The  testimony  of  the  Church,  going  back  bj'  tradition 
and  AATitten  documents  to  primitive  times,  presents  probable 
evidence  to  all  men  that  the  Scriptures,  recognized  as  of  divine 
authority  and  canonical  by  such  general  consent,  are  indeed 
what  they  are  claimed  to  be. 

This  testimony  is  quite  unanimous  as  to  the  entire  Protestant 
Canon.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  testifies  to  the  apocry- 
phal Books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  addition.  The  testimony 
of  the  Church  from  the  fourth  until  the  sixteenth  century  is 
overwhelmingly  in  favour  of  the  apocryphal  books  likewise. 
In  the  Canon  of  the  Church  tlie  historic  testimony  of  its 
'  Abhandlung  vonfreier  Untersuchung  des  Kanon,  4  Bde.  1771-1775. 


164  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

formation  is  strongest  as  to  the  Law  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  Gospels  in  the  Xew  Testament,  next  strongest  as  to  the 
Prophets  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  book  of  Acts  and  the 
Pauline  epistles  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  third  layer  of 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  the  Psalter,  Proverbs^  Job, 
and  Daniel,  have  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
Ruth  and  Lamentations  have  never  been  doubted  ;  in  the  third 
layer  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  1  Peter  and  1  John 
seem  to  have  remained  undoubted  from  the  second  century. 
As  regards  all  of  these  books  tlie  historical  evidence  is  so 
strong  that  it  could  hardly  be  stronger.  As  regards  the  books 
of  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and 
Chronicles,  these  have  all  had  to  battle  for  recognition  in  the 
Canon  from  the  most  ancient  times,  and  doubts  and  denials 
have  arisen  in  modern  times.  The  same  may  be  said  of  James, 
2  Peter,  Jude,  2  and  3  John,  and  Revelation  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. These  may  with  propriety'  be  regarded  as  having  a 
lower  grade  of  evidence  ;  and  men  may  be  permitted  to  doubt 
their  canonicity  without  censure  now  as  they  were  in  ancient 
times.  The  historical  eA-idence  for  all  of  these  is  very  strong. 
They  have  all  won  their  way  into  the  Canon  after  a  stout  and 
long-continued  struggle,  and  they  have  all  maintained  their 
place  and  resisted  every  subsequent  attack  upon  them.  We 
may  also  be  permitted  to  saj'  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
ultra-Protestant  hostilitj"  can  be  maintained  against  all  the 
apocryphal  books.  The  Wisdom  of  Sirach  and  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon  are  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Canon,  and  are  used  in 
the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.  They  impress  man}' 
minds  more  favourably  than  Ecclesiastes  and  the  Song  of  Songs. 
1  Maccabees  is  also  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Canon,  and  seems 
to  be  in  itself  an  important  if  not  an  essential  book  in  the 
development  of  Biblical  History.  There  are  man}-  who  derive 
more  religious  benefit  fi'om  it  than  from  Esther.  The  Bene- 
dicite  of  the  three  children,  inserted  in  the  Greek  Version  of 
Daniel,  has  been  used  from  the  earliest  times  in  Christian  wor- 
ship, and  has  indeed  exerted  a  more  sacred  influence  than  the 
Avhole  of  the  Hebrew  Daniel.  The  tendency  among  thoughtful 
Protestants  is  to  restore  these  writings  to  tlie  Canon. 


CRITICISM   OF   THE   CANON  165 

(2)  The  Scriptures  themselves,  in  their  pure  and  hol}'^ 
character,  satisfying  the  conscience  ;  their  beaut}',  harmon}", 
and  majesty,  satisfying  tlie  sesthetic  taste  ;  their  simplicity  and 
fidelity  to  truth,  together  with  their  exalted  conceptions  of 
man,  of  God,  and  of  history,  satisfying  the  reason  and  the 
intellect ;  their  piety  and  devotion  to  the  one  God,  and  their 
revelation  of  redemption,  satisfying  the  religious  feelings  and 
deepest  needs  of  mankind,  —  all  conspire  to  convince  that  they 
are  indeed  sacred  and  divine  books. 

This  argiunent  will  appeal  to  different  men  in  different 
ways.  It  will  depend  partly  upon  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Scriptures,  partly  upon  their  interpretation,  and  upon  Biblical 
History  and  Biblical  Theology.  The  books  of  Jonah,  Esther, 
and  Daniel  will  appeal  to  some  minds  much  more  powerfully 
if  they  are  seen  to  be  historical  fiction  than  if  they  appear  to 
be  historical  books  full  of  legends  and  mistakes.  The  Song 
of  Songs  viill  commend  itself  as  canonical  to  a  man  who  dis- 
cerns it  to  be  a  drama  of  marital  love,  when  he  could  not  accept 
it  if  it  were  supposed  to  be  merelj-  an  allegory  of  the  love  of 
Christ  to  His  Church,  or  a  collection  of  love  songs.  Ecclesi- 
astes  might  be  rejected  bj''  a  man,  if  all  its  sayings  were 
regarded  as  equally  authoritative,  but  accepted  if  he  were 
able  to  distinguish  the  God-fearing  words  from  the  sceptical 
words.  It  depends  in  great  measure  upon  the  kind  of  history, 
religion,  and  morals  one  finds  in  the  biblical  writings  how  far 
he  will  be  convinced  that  they  are  divine  books.  Many  men 
have  been  driven  away  from  the  Bible  by  the  false  science, 
gloomy  religion,  and  immoral  theology  that  Christian  teachers 
have  too  often  obtruded  upon  it.  If  the  Bible  is  to  exert  the 
influence  of  its  own  character  upon  men,  it  must  be  stripped 
entirely  free  from  all  the  false  characteristics  that  have  been 
attributed  to  it.  If  men  are  not  won  by  the  holy  character 
of  the  biblical  books,  it  must  be  because  for  some  reason  their 
eyes  have  been  withheld  from  seeing  it. 

(3)  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the  par- 
ticular writing,  or  part  of  writing,  in  the  heart  of  the  believer, 
removing  every  doubt  and  assuring  the  soul  of  its  possession 
of  the  truth  of  God,  the  rule  and  guide  of  the  life.     This  argu- 


166  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ment  is  of  no  value  except  to  a  believer,  to  a  devout  Christian. 
But  to  such  an  one  it  is  the  invincible  divine  argument. 

(4)  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  by  and  with  the  sev- 
eral writings  in  such  a  manner  as  to  assure  the  believer  in  the 
study  of  them  that  they  are  the  several  parts  of  one  complete 
divine  revelation,  each  writing  having  its  own  appropriate  and 
indispensable  place  and  importance  in  the  organism  of  the 
Canon. 

This  is  a  cumulative  argument.  The  certainty  that  one 
writing  in  the  Bible  is  divine,  makes  it  easier  to  recognize 
another  writing.  If  the  character  of  one  canonical  book  has 
been  discerned,  it  is  easier  to  recognize  another  book  having 
that  same  character.  As  the  number  of  books  increases  about 
which  there  is  certaint)-,  the  difficulties  as  regards  the  others 
decrease.  Practically  there  is  little  if  any  doubt  in  the  minds 
of  Cliristians  as  regards  the  great  majority  of  the  biblical 
books.  Only  a  few  of  them  are  doubted  now  by  any  Chris- 
tians. Only  a  few  have  ever  been  doubted.  The  path  of 
certainty  is  from  the  known  to  the  unknown.  Furthermore, 
the  structure  of  the  Canon  is  of  immense  importance.  We 
have  seen  its  historic  importance.  It  has  also  an  inductive 
importance.  The  books  of  the  Bible  constitute  an  organic 
whole  under  the  two  Covenants.  When  the  mind  has  studied 
them  thus  organically,  the  Divine  Spirit  guides  in  their  organic 
study  and  so  gives  what  may  be  regarded  as  organic  certainty ; 
that  is,  the  certainty  that  the  books  have  tlieir  essential  place 
in  the  organism  of  the  Divine  Word. 

(5)  The  Spirit  of  God  bears  witness  to  the  Church  as  an 
organized  Ijody  of  such  believers,  through  their  free  consent  in 
various  communities  and  countries  and  centuries,  to  this  unity 
and  variety  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  the  one  complete  and 
perfect  Canon  of  the  divine  word  to  the  Church. 

This  argument  is  really  the  old  historic  argument  fortified 
by  the  vital  argument  of  the  divine  evidence.  The  testimony 
of  the  Church  as  an  external  human  historical  organization 
cannot  give  certainty.  But  when  we  come  to  know  that  the 
Church  has  l^een  guided  by  the  Divine  Sjiirit  in  all  the  centuries, 
iirst  in  the  formation  of  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  then 


CKITICISM   OF   THE   CA^ON  167 

in  its  recognition  of  the  Canon  in  the  three  stages,  —  individual 
recognition,  consensus,  and  official  determination ;  that  the 
same  Holy  Spirit  who  gives  certainty  to-day  has  given  cer- 
tainty to  the  Church  in  all  the  ages  of  the  past,  working  in 
the  individual  and  also  in  the  entire  organism,  —  then  we  may 
know  that  the  testimony  of  the  Church  is  the  testimony  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Church  and  througli  the  Church. 
We  recognize  the  same  voice  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Church 
and  in  our  own  Reason.  The  argument  is  complete,  because 
the  Divine  Spirit  has  spoken  to  us  with  the  same  voice  and  to 
the  same  effect  through  the  three  media  in  which  alone  He 
speaks  to  man.  The  official  fixing  of  the  Canon  by  the  Church 
varies  as  to  the  apocryi^hal  books  alone.  The  tendency  among 
Protestants  is  back  to  the  Apocrypha.  It  is  altogether  proba- 
ble that  if  we  coidd  have  a  reunited  Church,  the  Church  would 
define  a  Canon  with  unanimous  consent. 

The  logical  order  of  the  testimony  is  this  :  the  human  testi- 
mony, the  external  evidence,  attains  its  furthest  possible  limit 
as  probable  evidence,  bringing  the  inquirer  to  the  Scriptures 
with  a  high  and  reverent  esteem  of  them.  Then  the  internal 
evidence  exerts  its  powerful  influence  upon  his  soul,  and  at 
length  the  divine  testimony  lays  hold  of  his  entire  nature  and 
convinces  and  assures  him  of  the  truth  of  God  and  causes  him 
to  share  in  the  consensus  of  the  Christian  Church. 

"Thus  the  Canon  explains  and  judges  itself;  it  needs  no  foreign 
standard.  Just  so  the  Holy  Spirit  evokes  in  believers  a  judg- 
ment, or  criticism,  which  is  not  subjective,  but  in  which  freedom 
and  fidelity  are  combmed.  The  criticism  and  interpretation,  which 
faith  exercises,  see  its  object  not  from  without,  as  foreign,  or  as 
traditional,  or  as  in  bondage,  but  from  withiu,  and  abiding  in  its 
native  element  becomes  more  and  more  at  home  while  it  ascribes 
to  every  product  of  apostolic  men  its  place  and  proper  canon- 
ical worth."  "  True  faith  sees  in  the  letter  of  the  documents  of 
Revelation  the  religious  content  brought  to  an  immutable  objec- 
tivity which  is  able  to  attest  itself  as  truth  by  the  divine  Spirit, 
which  can  at  once  warm  and  quicken  the  letter  in  order  to  place 
the  living  God-man  before  the  ej'es  of  the  believer."  ' 

'  Dorner,  System  tier  Chrisllichen  Glaubfiislehre,  Berlin,  1879,  I.  pp.  CC7 
seq. ;  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Edinburgh,  1881,  II.  pp.  229  seq. 


168  STUDY    OF   HOLY   SCUIPTURE 

The  reason,  the  conscience,  and  the  religious  feeling,  all  of 
which  have  arisen  during  these  discussions  of  the  last  century 
into  a  light  and  vigour  unknown  and  unanticipated  at  the 
Reformation,  should  not  be  antagonized  the  one  with  the  other, 
or  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  should  all  be  included  in  that 
act  and  habit  of  faith  by  which  we  apprehend  the  Word  of  God. 
These  cannot  be  satisfied  by  the  external  authority  of  scholars 
or  schools,  of  Church  or  State,  of  tradition  or  human  testimony, 
however  extensive,  but  only  bj"  a  divine  authority  on  which 
they  can  rest  with  certainty,  ilen  wiU  recognize  the  canon- 
ical ^\Titings  as  their  Holy  Scripture,  onlj-  in  so  far  as  they 
may  be  able  to  rise  through  them  as  external  media  to  the 
presence  of  their  Divine  Master,  who  reigns  in  and  by  the 
Word  wMch  is  holy  and  divine,  in  so  far  and  to  that  extent 
that  it  evidentlj'  sets  Him  forth. 

As  I  have  elsewhere  said :  "  It  is  the  testimony  of  human 
experience  in  all  ages  that  God  manifests  Himself  to  men  and 
gives  certainty  of  His  presence  and  authority.  There  are 
historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority  —  the 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.'"  i 

Men  will  recognize  the  Divine  Voice  whenever  and  wherever 
it  speaks  to  them.  Some  men  are  convinced  as  to  the  truth  by 
the  Divine  Voice  speaking  through  the  Church  alone,  others 
by  the  Divine  Spirit  speaking  through  the  Bible,  and  still 
others  only  through  the  witness  in  their  own  Reason.  Blessed 
be  he  who  knows  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  equally  well  in  the 
three  relations. 

1  See  Briggs,  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  An  Inaugural  Address,  9th  edition, 
1896,  pp.  25  seq. ;  Briggs,  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Season,  2d  edition, 
1894,  pp.  57  seq. 


CHAPTER    VII 

HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE    HEBREW   BIBLE 

Textual  Criticism  has  to  determine  the  Text  of  the  Bible. 
It  is  necessary  to  study  the  history  of  the  Text,  and  then  apply 
the  principles  of  Textual  Criticism  to  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
citations,  and  so  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  original  text  upon 
which  they  all  depend.  The  Text  of  the  Bible  has  passed 
through  similar  changes  to  those  that  are  manifest  in  all  other 
kinds  of  literature.  The  citations  of  the  Bible  have  the  same 
indefiniteness  and  the  same  variations  from  the  original  as  cita- 
tions from  other  writings.  The  Versions  have  the  same  diffi- 
culties and  departures  from  the  original  as  other  translations. 
The  manuscripts  have  gone  through  the  same  experiences  of 
wear  and  tear  as  other  manuscripts.  The  same  mistakes  of 
copyists  have  been  made, — by  omission,  insertion,  transposition, 
haste,  and  indistinctness  of  vision  or  utterance.  The  same  use 
of  conjecture  has  been  made  by  scribes  to  remove  difficulties 
and  errors. 

I.    The  Original  Text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 

The  history  of  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testament  begins  with 
the  history  of  the  Canon.  The  earliest  Canon  was  written 
upon  tables  of  stone, — the  Ten  Words  upon  two  tables,  the 
Words  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  pentades  and  decalogues 
upon  several  tables. ^  The  Deuteronomic  code  of  law  was 
written  on  a  roll,  probably  of  skin.  Jeremiah's  collection  of 
prophecies  was  written  on  a  similar  roll,  and  so  were  all  the 

1  See  Briggs'  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition,  1897,  pp.  6 
seq.,  181  seq.,  189  seq.,  211  seq.     Ci.  Dt.  27="';  Jos.  882. 
169 


170  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

sacred  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  from  that  time  onward. 
It  is  probable  that  papyrus  was  used  for  private  manuscripts ; 
but  for  public  manuscripts  it  is  improbable  that  anything  else 
than  skin  was  used.i  In  ancient  times  each  sacred  writing 
was  written  upon  a  separate  roll.  The  first  laj-er  of  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  the  Law,  was  probably  written  on  several 
skins,  eventually  on  five,  corresponding  with  the  five  books 
which  gave  their  name  to  the  Pentateuch.  The  second  layer 
of  the  Canon  was  written  on  eight  rolls.  The  twelve  minor 
Prophets  were  written  sometimes  on  separate  rolls,  as  is 
evident  from  the  differences  of  arrangement  in  the  earliest 
Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts  ;  but  usually  on  the  same  roll, 
after  their  number  was  definitely  fixed  in  the  Canon.  The 
third  laj^er  of  the  Canon  was  for  a  long  time  as  indefinite  in 
the  number  of  rolls  as  in  the  number  of  writings  which  were 
supposed  to  constitute  it.^ 

The  first  Canon  was  certainly  written  in  the  ancient  Hebrew 
alphabet,  which  was  a  variety  of  the  Phoenician  script,  such 
as  that  used  on  ancient  Maccabean  coins,  in  the  Siloam  in- 
scription, and  on  the  Mesha  Stone. ^  The  Samaritan  codex  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  still  preserved  in  characters  of  the  same 
essential  type.  That  was  the  sacred  alphabet  of  the  Canon, 
when  the  Samaritans  separated  from  the  Jews  of  Jei'usalem.* 

According  to  the  Talmud,  on  the  authority  of  Mar  Zutra  of  the 
fourth  century,  or  Mar  Ukba  of  the  third  centnr}',  "  The  Law  was 
at  first  given  to  Israel  in  Hebrew  writing  and  in  the  sacred  lan- 
guage ;  but  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  the  Law  was  given  a  second  time 
in  Assyrian  writing  and  in  the  Aramaic  language.  Then  they 
chose  for  Israel  the  Assyrian  writing  and  the  sacred  language, 
and  they  left  to  the  Idiots  tlie  Hebrew  writing  and  the  Aramaic 
language."  There  can  be  no  doubt  from  the  context  that  by  "the 
Idiots  "  was  meant  the  Samaritans,  and  that  the  Assyrian  writing 
is  that  of  the  square  Aramaic  character.^    This  statement  con- 

1  Jer.  362»««-  See  Loisy,  Hiatoire  Critique  du  Texte  et  dfs  Versions  de  la 
Sible,  1892,  Tom.  1",  pp.  95  seq. 

■'  See  pp.  124  seq.  "  See  p.  48.  *  See  pp.  121.  185. 

'  Taint.  Bab.  Sank.,  22  a.  See  Driver,  yntes  on  the  Uebreio  Text  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel,  1800,  pp.  ix.  seq.;  Neub;mer,  Studia  Bibliea,  III.,  1801, 
pp.  9  seq.  ;  and  Ginsburg,  Introduction  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  1897,  pp.  288  seq., 
—  all  of  whom  give  the  original  and  translation. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         171 

firms  what  is  plain  from  other  sources  of  information  :  that  the 
Samaritans  had  retained  the  Law  in  the  old  Hebrew  writing,  and 
that  the  Jews  had  adopted  the  Aramaic  writing  in  its  stead.  In 
other  respects  this  statement  is  either  false  or  purely  conjectural. 
It  is  not  true  that  the  Samaritans  used  the  Aramaic  language  for 
the  Law.  The  Samaritan  codex  is  in  the  Hebrew  language  as 
well  as  the  Hebrew  writing.  The  Samaritans  made  a  Targum,  or 
popular  translation  of  the  Law,  in  the  Samaritan  language ;  but 
the  Jews  did  precisely  the  same,  making  an  Aramaic  Targum  for 
Palestine  and  the  East,  and  a  Greek  Targum  for  Egypt  and  the 
West.  There  is  no  historic  evidence  that  the  Jews  abandoned  the 
old  Hebrew  writing  because  of  any  influence  from  the  Samaritans. 
There  is  no  historic  evidence  for  the  opinion  that  Ezra  introduced 
the  Aramaic  i\Titing.  It  is  altogether  improbable  that  he  gave 
the  Law  in  the  Aramaic  language,  and  that  subsequently  the 
scribes  returned  to  the  original  Hebrew  text  of  it.  Neubauer 
defends  the  tradition  so  far  as  the  writing  is  concerned,^  princi- 
pally on  the  ground  that,  if  the  Hebrew  characters  had  once 
impressed  their  sanctity  "  on  the  mind  of  the  nation  through  their 
use  in  transcribing  Scripture,"  they  would  never  have  been  aban- 
doned. He  thinks,  therefore,  that  the  two  kinds  of  writing 
existed  side  by  side  from  the  time  of  Ezra  until  the  Maccabean 
age.  But  this  argument,  if  soimd,  is  equally  valid  as  regards  the 
statement  of  these  Sopherim  that  the  Law  was  given  by  Ezra 
in  the  Aramaic  language.  If  the  Law  had  been  given  by  Ezra  in 
the  Aramaic  language  and  the  Aramaic  script,  the  writing  would 
have  sustained  the  language  and  the  language  the  writing,  and 
neither  would  have  been  abandoned.  But  the  Samaritans  would 
not  have  retained  the  Hebrew  writing  and  the  Hebrew  language 
of  the  Law  under  these  circumstances,  especially  as  we  now  know 
that  the  law  code  of  the  present  Pentateuch  did  not  exist  for  the 
Jews  until  Ezra  brought  it  to  them.-  The  statement  that  Ezra 
gave  the  Law  in  the  Aramaic  language  is  not  at  present  defended 
by  any  one.  The  opinion  that  Ezra  gave  the  Law  in  Aramaic 
characters  is  in  the  same  sentence  of  the  Talmud.  The  discredit- 
ing of  the  one  clause  discredits  likewise  the  other.  It  is  not 
worthy  of  any  more  consideration  in  itself,  and  there  is  no 
historic  evidence  whatever  to  sustain  it. 

We  have  at  present  no  means  of  determining  when  the 
Aramaic  characters  were  introduced  for  the  canonical  writings. 
It  seems  probable  that  this  change  took  place  at  first  among 

'  ?.c.,  p.  13.  ^  See  pp.  322  seq. 


172  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  Jews  of  Mesopotamia  and  Babylon,  especiall}-  in  the  private 
manuscripts,  and  then  extended  over  the  Aramaic-speaking 
world  even  into  Egypt,  where  the  Jews  were  under  Aramaic 
influence  until  the  Greek  conquest  under  Alexander.  The 
irresistible  tendency  was  to  use  the  Aramaic  writing  with  the 
Aramaic  language,  and  to  transliterate  the  old  Hebrew  char- 
acters, which  were  constantlj^  growing  unfamiliar  even  to 
scholars.  The  only  restraining  influence  would  be  in  Palestine, 
and  especially  at  Jerusalem,  the  centre  and  capital  of  the  Jews' 
religion. 

During  the  earlier  Maccabean  wars  most  of  the  copies  of 
the  Law  were  destroyed  by  the  Syrian  oppressors.  The  pious 
Jews  of  Palestine  had  to  resort  to  their  Eastern  or  their  Egyp- 
tian brethren  for  manuscripts.  These  manuscriiats  were  prob- 
ably written  in  Aramaic  characters.  Few  manuscripts  written 
in  the  old  Hebrew  characters  were  now  left,  and  these  were 
gradually  crowded  out  of  use.'  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
it  was  first  in  the  ^Maccabean  age  that  the  authoritative  codices 
of  the  Law  were  written  in  the  Aramaic  characters.  And  it 
may  be  that  the  collection  of  sacred  books  made  by  Judas  Mac- 
cabeus was  in  this  writing.^ 

The  second  layer  of  the  Canon,  the  Prophets,  was  not  only 
originally  written  in  the  Hebrew  writing,  but  it  is  also  ex- 
tremely probable  that  the  Prophets  were  collected  into  the 
Canon  in  Hebrew  writing.  They  were  all  composed  and  col- 
lected before  the  Maccabean  age.  This  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  there  are  many  errors  in  transmission,  which  can  be 
explained  only  from  a  confusion  of  letters  which  were  dissimilar 
in  the  Aramaic  alphabet,  and  only  similar  in  the  old  Hel)re^^• 
alphabet.* 

The  writings  of  the  third  Canon  extend  into  the  ^Maccabean 
age.  It  is  probable  that  all  those  written  before  this  time 
were  written  in  the  old  Hebrew  letters.  But  the  book  of 
Daniel  gives  us  several  chapters  in  the  Aramaic  language. 
This  was  doubtless  \vi'itten  in  the  Aramaic  writing,  and  it  is 

1  See  Neubauer,  Studia  Bihlica.  III.  p.  14.  ^  2  Mace.  2'*. 

•'•  Graetz  (Krit.  Onii.  ,:■.  d.  I'Kalmeu,  x.  130  seq.)  and  Ginsburg  (Introductkiii, 
pp.  291-295)  give  examples  from  Judges,  Samuel,  Jeremiali,  Isaiah,  and  Ezekiel. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         173 

probable  that  the  Hebrew  which  incorporated  it  was  also  writ- 
ten in  Aramaic  characters.  It  may  well  be  that  Esther  and 
Ecclesiastes  were  originally  written  in  Aramaic  characters,  as 
well  as  man)-  of  the  Apocrj-pha.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  Psalter,'  Proverbs,'-  Job,  and  Lamentations  were  origi- 
nally written  with  the  ancient  letters.  It  is  also  probable  in 
the  case  of  Ezra,^  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  and  Ruth.  It  is 
doubtful  with  the  other  writings. 

During  this  period  of  the  formation  of  the  official  Canon, 
and  of  the  substitution  of  the  Aramaic  characters  for  the 
Hebrew,  there  were  certain  changes  in  the  text  which  have  left 
their  permanent  traces. 

(_a)  Emendations  were  made  chiefly  for  religious  reasons. 

The  substitution  of  the  word  Lord,  ""JIS,  for  the  divine  name 
Tahiceh,  miT",  was  certainly  prior  to  the  earliest  layer  of  the 
Septuagiut  Version ;  for  Kupios  is  constantly  substituted  for  it. 
There  are  traces  of  such  substitution  in  the  Hebrew  text  itself. 

The  substitution  of  BoshetJi,  riw'^,  shame,  for  Baal,  b>3,  the  god 
of  the  Canaanites,  and  also  for  Baal  in  proper  names  compoiuided 
with  Baal,  was  made  before  the  Septuagint  translation  of  the 
Prophets,  but  was  not  thoroughly  carried  out  in  all  the  texts.* 
The  change  in  proper  names  is  usual  in  Samuel,  where  the 
Chronicler  preserves  the  original  form.'  This  seems  to  indicate 
that  this  change  was  made  by  the  scribes  chiefly  in  the  time 
before  the  final  admission  of  Chronicles  into  the  Canon.     The 


'  Perles  (Analekten,  189-5,  pp.  50  seq.)  gives  examples  of  errors  in  the  Psalter 
and  .Job.  which  can  only  come  from  the  ancient  Hebrew  letters. 

-  Baumgartner  {tUxide  critique  stir  I'Jltat  dit  Texte  ihi  Lirre  des  Proverbes, 
Leipzig,  1890)  makes  it  plain  that,  while  the  larger  proportion  of  the  errors  of 
transliteration  in  the  text  of  Proverbs  is  due  to  mistakes  in  the  distinguishing 
of  similar  letters  of  the  Egj'ptian  Aramaic  alphabet,  and  a  smaller  number  to 
mistake.s  in  the  older  Aramaic  alphabet,  there  is  still  a  limited  number  that  can 
be  explained  only  by  the  ancient  Hebrew  alphabet. 

3  Giiisburg  {Introduction,  p.  29.3)  gives  Ezra  0*  as  an  example  of  a  mistake 
ol  Aleph  for  Tav  in  the  old  Hebrew  alphabet.  But  Baumgartner  (I.e.,  s.  279) 
thinks  that  such  mistakes  might  be  as  well  explained  from  the  ancient  Aramaic 
alphabet  also. 

*  Cf.  ii  /3da\,  Jer.  2^,  7',  ll'S",  19^ ;  Hos.  210,  13i ;  Rom.  11*  ;  which  implies 
the  reading  of  oiVx'''")  ^t  |3do\.  See  Dillmann,  Baal  mit  d.  uieibl.  Artikel.  in 
the  ilonntsberickte  d.  Konigl.  Acad.  d.  Wiss.  zu  Berlin,  1881. 

'  However,  in  2  Sam.  11-'  the  Septuagint,  Syriac,  and  Vulgate  versions  all 
read  'rrs"",  and  in  2  Sam.  2.3*  Lucian's  text  of  the  Septuagint  preserves  'Uff/SdoX. 


174  STUDY  or   HOLY  SCIUPTURE 

same  is  true  of  the  reading  of  Shame,  Bosheth,  n^3,  for  King, 
Mdekh,  'TjT'O,  when  applied  to  the  god  of  the  Aniinouites.' 

(h)  The  earlier  scribes  also  acted  as  editors.  They  divided 
first  the  Law  and  then  the  Psalter  into  five  books.  These 
divisions  are  not  logical  divisions.  The  natural  divisions  in 
both  cases  would  be  into  three  books.  The  divisions  are  me- 
chanical, and  they  were  doubtless  made  for  liturgical  reasons. 
Another  ancient  division  for  both  the  Law  and  the  Psalter, 
into  seven  books,  is  mentioned  in  the  Talmud.^  These  divi- 
sions all  may  have  reference  to  the  use  of  the  Law  and  the 
Psalter  at  the  feasts  of  the  Jews. 

(c)  The  scribes  also  divided  the  sacred  books  into  sections. 
These  sections  do  not  correspond  altogether  with  the  later  sec- 
tions of  the  Talmudic  and  Massoretic  periods,  but  they  were 
doubtless  arranged  for  public  reading  in  the  sjTiagogues.  Two 
such  sections  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.^ 

(<i)  No  verses  are  known  so  far  as"  prose  writings  are  con- 
cerned ;  but  the  ancient  poems  in  the  historical  books,  and  the 
poetical  books  of  Psalms,  Lamentations,  and  the  Wisdom 
Literature,  were  certainly  written  in  distich,  tristich,  tetrastich, 
and  the  like.  It  is  probable  that  the  greater  portion  of  the 
poetry  in  other  books  was  written  in  this  wa}^  also.  This 
enabled  Josephus  and  even  Jerome  to  speak  of  trimeters,  tetram- 
eters, and  hexameters.  But  this  method  of  writing  poetry 
was  subsequently  lost,  except  for  the  ancient  poems  in  tlie 
Pentateuch,  because  of  the  Massoretic  system  of  accentuation 
for  cantilatiou  in  the  synagogue.* 

II.     The  Text  of  the  Canon  of  the  Sopherim 

There  is  no  evidence  of  any  attempt  to  establish  an  official 
Hebrew  text  until  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 

J  Lev.  1821  (Sept.  B  Kpx"");  20"  (Sept.  dpxw);  '  K-  H"  (Sept.  /3o<riXn!s); 
2  K.  2.3>''  (Sept.  MiXox)  ;  Jer.  9,2^  (Sept.  MoXix  /SairiXeiJsV 

2  Tahn.  Shahboth,  llS  6,  llOn;  Midmah  Berexhith  Rahba,  LXIV.  ioX.lld. 
Num.  10^ ;   Vayyikra  liabha,  Lev.  9'  ;  Uaslii  on  I'rov.  li'. 

»  The  section  of  tlie  Bush  iirl  rod  pirov  Mk.  12*,  referring  to  Ex.  3,  and  ^i- 
'H\t((i  Roni.  11-,  referring  to  tlie  story  of  Elijah,  1  K.  HI,  are  the  only  two  known 
to  the  New  Testament. 

*  See  Chap,  XIV,  pp.  362,  363. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF  THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         175 

Romans  in  70  A.D.  There  was  indeed  a  codex  of  the  Law  in 
the  temple,  which  was  taken  by  Titus  to  Rome  among  the 
spoils.'  But  the  ancient  Greek  Version,  the  ancient  Syriac 
Version,  the  earliest  Aramaic  Targums,  and  the  citations  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  Book  of  Jubilees,^  and  other  writings  of 
the  first  and  second  centuries  B.C.  and  the  first  century  a.d., 
make  it  evident  that  there  was  no  official  Hebrew  text  until  the 
second  century  a.d. 

After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  scribes  made  a  rally 
at  Jamnia,  where  tliey  established  a  school  and  held  several 
assemblies.^  They  determined  the  extent  of  the  Canon  and 
occupied  themselves  with  fixing  the  text  of  the  manuscripts 
which  had  been  saved  from  the  wreck  of  war.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  Rabbi  Akiba  and  his  associates  at  Jamnia  not 
only  fixed  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  established 
the  fii'st  official  Hebrew  text  of  the  Canon.*  There  is  a  fixture 
in  the  consonantal  text  of  Hebrew  manuscripts  from  the  second 
centui-}-  onwards,  which  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  the 
establishment  at  that  time  of  such  an  official  text.^  This  text 
was  established  in  troublous  times,  when  it  was  impossible  to 
give  the  time  and  painstaking  required  for  such  an  undertak- 
ing. There  was  no  leisure  to  correct  even  the  plainest  mis- 
takes.® It  was  made  by  the  comparison  of  a  few  manuscripts. 
Tradition  speaks  of  three,  in  cases  of  disagreement  the  majority 
of  two  always  determining  the  correct  reading. 

1  Josephus,  B.  J.,  VIL  5,  §  5.  This  is  said  to  have  been  given  by  the  Em- 
peror Severus,  about  220  a.d.,  to  a  synagogue  built  by  him  at  Rome.  Giusburg, 
(I.e.,  pp.  410  seq.)  gives  a  list  of  thirty -two  readings  said  to  have  been  taken 
from  this  codex. 

*  The  Book  of  Jubilees,  or  Little  Genesis,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  testifies  to 
a  text  somewhat  different  from  that  of  the  Sopherim.  See  Dillmann,  Beiiriige 
aus.  d.  Bufh  d.  .TnhiJncn  z.  Kritik.  d.  Pentateurh-Textes,  Sitzungsherichte  0.. 
Konig.  Preus.  Akad.  der  Wisseyischaften,  188.3.  The  same  is  true  with  reference 
to  other  pseudepigrapha. 

»  See  pp.  i:50,  1.31. 

*  See  Bacher,  Hebr.  Sprachroissenschafl,  1892,  )!.  2. 

*  Olshausen.  Psalmen,  s.  18  ;  L^arde,  Anrn.  z.  (rriech.  Uebersetsung  d.  Pro- 
verbien,  1803,  s.  444  seg.  ;  Kuenen,  Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,  1804,  s.  83  seq. 
This  is  denied  by  Hermann  Strack,  in  Semitic  Studies  in  Memory  of  A.  Kohut, 
1897,  p.  571,  on  the  ground  that  he  has  found  in  ancient  manuscripts  a  very 
great  number  of  various  readings  vfhich  are  unknown  to  scholars. 

6  Comill,  Ezechiel,  1880,  s.  10. 


176  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

The  Sopberiiu  found  in  the  court  of  the  temple  the  codex  "ilVfi, 
and  the  codex  *t31D"*,  and  the  codex  SIH.  In  one  they  found 
written  Sip  'Tl^H  pVS2  (I)eut.  33^),  and  in  two  written  ri3VJ3 
mp  \lbS;  and  they  accepted  two.  and  rejected  one.  In  one 
they  found  written  SsTi"  "32  '^'.'C":  flS  n'^'^T"!  (Ex.  24"),  and 
in  two  written  han'C  "22  "~l"3  flS  fhv^);  and  they  accepted 
two,  and  rejected  one.  In  one  they  found  written  nine  times  XT! 
instead  of  XIH,  and  in  two  written  eleven  times  S^H;  and  they 
accepted  the  two,  and  rejected  the  one.^ 

Some  scholars  think  that  all  manuscripts  var^'ing  from  the 
official  text  were  ruthlessly  destroyed. ^  Whether  this  was  so 
or  not,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  destruction  of  manu- 
scripts during  the  Avar  of  Hadrian  (132-135  A.D.)  would  so 
reduce  the  number  of  competing  manuscripts,  that  the  official 
manuscripts  of  the  scribes  would  gain  the  supremacy. 

The  official  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  the  second  Christian 
century  was  composed  of  consonantal  letters  alone.  Even  the 
quiescent  letters,^  which  were  used  in  ancient  times,  before  the 
invention  of  vowel  points,  to  indicate  the  vowel  in  difficult 
words,  were  not  used  with  any  precision  :  *  and  later  sci'ibes 
were  free  to  exercise  their  own  judgment  in  the  use  of  them. 
And  so  the  Massoretic  text  perpetuates  a  great  lack  of  uni- 
formity and  even  inaccuracy  of  usage.  The  text  used  by  the 
translators  of  the  Septuagint  was  without  separation  of  words 
and  without  the  final  letters,  and  also  with  occasional  abbrevia- 
tions ;  but  the  Sopherim  of  the  second  and  third  centuries 
made  the  separation  of  words,  introduced  the  five  final  letters, 
and  removed  all  abbreviations. ^  The  work  of  the  Sopherim 
continued  until  the  sixth  century,  when  the  Massorites  began 
their  labours.  The  work  of  the  Sopherim,  as  described  in  the 
Talmud  and  early  Rabbinical  commentaries,  was  : 

(1)  the  fixing  of  the  pronunciation  of  certain  words; 

(2)  the  removal  of  certain  superfluous  particles  from  the  text; 

•  Jerusalem  Taanifh,  IV.  2 ;  Sopherim,  VI.  4.  See  Ginsburg,  Introduction 
to  Hehr.  Bible,  pp.  408,  40!),  who  gives  text  and  translation. 

2  Niildeke,  IlilgenftUrsZfiVsoAn/t,  1873,  s.  444  seq. ;  \V.  R,  Smith,  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Jewish  Church,  2d  ed.,  pp.  62  seq. 

3  sn". 

'  Ginsburg,  Introduction,  pp.  LS"  sr-t/.;  Perles,  Analekten,  s.  36. 
'  Ginsburg,  Introduction,  pp.  297  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE    HEBREW   BIBLE         177 

(o)  the  mention  of  words  which,  though  not  written,  yet 
ought  to  be  read,  and  the  designation  of  words  which,  though 
written,  ought  not  to  be  read. 

The  Babjlonian  Tahnud  gives  these  three  under  the  technical 
terms:  (1)  CnSID  XnpJ2 ;  (2)  DnSID  "TID^!,' ;  (3)  sSl  P'lp 
P'riD,  ]^^~ip  vhl  pTiDr  As  examples  of  the  first  are,  pS 
when  alone  or  preceded  by  the  article,  D"!2w".  D''"llkJ2.  The  second 
gives  five  instances  in  which  the  conjunction  ITou',  and,  is  to  be 
omitted  (Gen.  18\  24^;  Xu.  31-;  Pss."  36',  68"-«).  The  third  men- 
tions that  mS,  Euphrates,  is  to  be  inserted  (2  Sam.  8')  ;  ^'K,  mnn 
■  (2  Sam.  16-'):  D'S2,  they  are  coming  (J er.  ol^^) ;  rO,  to  her  (Jei: 
oO»);  nS  (Ruth  2");  "hn,  to  me  (Ruth  3=' '0;  and  the  following 
words  are  not  to  be  read :  S2  (2  K.  o'*)  :  nsi  (Jer.  32" ) ;  ^r\^11\  let 
him  bend  (Jer.  51') ;  Z'tZn,Jive  (Ezek.'iS'")  ;  and  CS.  (f  (Ruth  3^=). 
Xedarim,  37  6-38  «.  These  are  only  specimens  of  a  larger  number 
of  instances  in  these  departments  which  are  given  in  later  times. 

(4)  Extraordinary  points  were  placed  above  letters  or  words 
to  indicate  that  they  were  spurious. 

The  Sij^hri,  the  earliest  Midrash,  or  commentary  on  ]N'umbers. 
gives  ten  of  these,— Nu.  9'";  Ge.  16;,  18',  19^,  33^"37^^';  Xu.  21-'\ 
3®,  29'' ;  Deut.  29-\  —  all  in  the  Pentateuch.  They  were  subse- 
quently increased  to  fifteen  bv  adding  four  from  the  Prophets,  — 
2  Sam.  19=° ;  Is.  44' ;  Ezek.  4lH  46=^ ,  —  and  one  from  the  Writings, 
Ps.  27'«.' 

(5)  Letters  were  suspended  in  order  to  express  doubt  as  to 
their  proftriety. 

3,  in  Jud.  18*',  changes  Moses  to  3fanasseh  in  order  to  remove 
reproach  from  the  name  of  Moses.  "J,  in  Ps.  80",  indicates  a 
doubtful  reading,  as  between  IS',  the  Nile,  and  "IV',  forest ;  and 
a  preference  for  the  latter  with  possiblj'  a  reference  to  Rome 
instead  of  the  original  reference  to  Egypt.  The  other  two 
instances  (Job  38  ''•  ^)  indicate  a  preference  for  D'SC"!  over  Q'w'^, 
in  order  not  to  offend  the  dignitj-  of  David  and  of  Xehemiah.^ 

(6)  The  letter  Nun  was  inverted  before  and  after  a  clause, 
in  order  to  indicate  bracketed  material,  which  was,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  scribes,  out  of  place. ^ 

'  See  Gin.sburs,  I.e.,  pp.  310  seq.,  who  gives  the  original,  a  translation,  and 
comments  on  the  fifteen  example.?.  -  Sanhedrin,  10,  3  b. 

'Numbers  \0^-^;  Ps.  107=3.  st  23. 26. 2:.  a.  jj  ;  so  Siphri  on  Xu.  10»*,  Tatm.  Sab- 
bath, 115  h-UG  a  ;  Sophnrim,  VI.  1. 


178  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

(7)  There  are  also  certain  corrections  or  emendations  of  the 
scribes. 

D'^EID  ppn.  A  list  of  eleven  of  these  is  given  in  the  Me- 
chiltha  on  Ex.  15'  (of  the  second  century) :  Zee.  2^ ;  Mai.  1'^ ;  1  Sam. 
3";  Job  7^;  Hab.  1'=;  Jer.  2";  Ps.  106» ;  Nu.  11'^;  2  Sam.  20'; 
Ezek.  8'';  Nu.  12'^.  These  were  subsequently  increased  to  eigh- 
teen bv  seven  additional  ones:  Ge.  18^';  2  Sam.  16"^ ;  1  K.  12'^; 
2  Ch.  iO'«;  Hos.  4' ;  Job  32';  Lam.  3^. 

Is  u.  11'^  was  changed  from  ^n^^D,  T/iy  evil,  the  evil  sent  by 
God  upon  Israel,  to  'n>"13,  my  evil,  in  order  to  avoid  the  refer- 
ence to  God  and  a  possible  imputation  of  moral  evil  to  Him.         ' 

Hab.  1^  was  changed  from  T\V2T\  X*?,  Tliou  diest  not,  to  vh 
m523,  v:e  sJiail  not  die,  because  it  was  supposed  that  the  very 
thought  of  God  as  dj-ing  was  unworthy  of  Him.  A  full  discus- 
sion of  all  these  passages  is  given  by  Ginsburg.' 

(8)  The  scribes  also  strove  to  remove  from  the  text  indel- 
icate expressions,  anthropomorphisms,  and  other  statements 
unworthy  of  their  religion. 

The  Talmud^  gives  the  rule:  In  every  passage  where  the  text 
has  an  indelicate  expression  a  euphemism  is  to  be  substituted  for 
it,  as  for  instance,  for  ^3'!'J^y^  ravish,  violate,  outrage  (Deut.  28**; 
Is.  13";  Jer.  3*;  Zech.  14-),  n323ty\  to  lie  with,  is*  to  be  substi- 
tuted ;  for  n"'bS",  posteriors  (Deut.  28^ ;  1  Sam.  5",  6*)  read 
ClinU,  emo'ods;  for  D"'3V"in,  dung,  exci-ements,  or  C"JV  '"IH,  doves' 
dung  (2  K.  6^),  read  ClVm,  decayed  leaves ;  for  Dn'SirT  or  CIT^n, 
excrement  (2  K.  IS-':  Is.  oG'-)  substitute  nsii£,  deposit ;  for  DnTkT, 
urine  (2  K.  18^;  Is.  36*^),  read  nH'^'?:"!  '!2!2,  u-uter  of  their  Jeet;  for 
mtfiniob,  middens,  privies  (2  K.  lO-"^),  substitute  mS2£1fi'7,  sewers, 
ret  reals.' 

(9)  They  removed  expressions  wliich  seemed  blasphemous. 

Ginsburg^  gives  as  a  specimen  of  this  2  Sam.  12",  where  it  is 
said  of  David :  "  Howbeit,  because  by  this  deed  thou  hast  greatly 
blasphemed  Yahweh."  The  scribes  have  inserted  "  enemies,"  so 
as  to  make  tliem,  rather  than  David,  guilty  of  the  blasphemy. 
He  also  mentions  Ps.  10',  where  *]^3,  bless,  has  been  inserted  as  a 
gloss  to  j"J<3.  hlaspheme,  and  calls  attention  to  other  substitutions 

of  in3  for  bhp. 

•  Introduction,  pp.  347  seq.  •  See  Ginsbun;.  I.e.,  p.  346. 

2  Megilla,  26  6  /Jerusalem  Megilla  IV.  *  i.e.,  pp.  363  seq. 


HISTORY   OF  THE  TEXT   OF   THE    HEBREW   BIBLE         179 

(10)  The  Sopberira  also  made  divisions  in  tlie  sacred  text. 
The  earliest  of  these  were  the  sections  called  Parashiyoth.  In 
the  first  century  there  were  similar  divisions,  but  the  present 
ones  belong  to  the  Sopherim.^  There  are  two  kinds,  the  open 
and  the  closed,  the  one  indicating  a  greater  division  than  the 
other.2 

The  Sopherim  also  arranged  the  Pentateuch  for  liturgical 
purposes.  The  Palestinian  Jews  divided  it  into  154  sections, 
called  Sedarim,  for  a  triennial  course  of  Sabbath  readings. 
The  Babylonian  Jews  had  a  di^dsion  of  fifty-four  Sedarim  for 
an  annual  course  of  Sabbath  readings.^  Besides  tliese  there 
were  verses  called  Pesukim,  already  mentioned  in  the  Mishna.* 

The  Prophets  and  the  Writings  have  also  Parashij-oth  and 
Sedarim.  Some  of  these  come  from  the  most  ancient  times, 
othei's  from  the  Sopherim.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  present 
Sedarim  date  from  the  Massoretic  period.  There  are,  however, 
selections  for  Sabbath  reading  called  Haphtaroth,  twenty-seven 
in  the  former  Prophets,  and  fiftj^-two  in  the  latter  Prophets. 
Such  selections  were  made  in  the  first  centur}',  but  the  selection 
then  seems  to  have  been  made  by  the  reader  at  the  time.^  But 
they  were  fixed  by  the  Soj^herim,  as  they  are  referred  to  in  the 
Mishna.^ 

There  were,  moi-eover,  differences  of  reading  which  came 
downi  in  the  two  great  schools  of  the  Sopherim, — the  Palestinian 
and  the  Babjionian,  —  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Talmud. 
These,  and  all  other  matters  connected  with  the  text,  were 
more  precisely  indicated  in  the  work  of  the  Massorites. 

^  MegiXla,  IH.,  5;  Shahh..  f.  103?;;  Menach.,  f.  .30/;  Hupfeld,  Stud,  und 
Krit.,  \V31,  s.  8:i7  Aura. 

2  There  are  290  opeu  Parashiyoth  in  the  Pentateuch  and  379  closed  Parash- 
iyoth. Ill  some  manuscripts  and  in  printed  texts  tliese  are  indicated  by  B  and  D 
in  the  spaces. 

»  The  numbers  54,  1-54,  were  for  the  extra  month  which  was  introduced  every 
five  or  six  years  to  make  up  for  the  inexactness  of  the  ancient  year.  Accord- 
ing to  Ginsburg  ((.c,  pp.  33  seq.)  there  are  really  167  Sedarim  in  the  Pentateuch. 

*  Menilla.  IV.  4. 
5Lk."4i';;  Acts  IZ"^'-^. 

*  But  the  order  of  the  Talmud  does  not  agree  with  the  order  of  the  later  manu- 
scripts, and  there  is  a  difference  in  usage  between  the  German  and  the  Spanish 
Jews. 


180  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

III.     The  ]\Iassoketic  Text  of  the  Old  Testament 

The  difference  between  the  work  of  the  Soplierim  and  of  the 
Massorites  is  thus  stated  b}'  Ginsburg  :  ^ 

"  Henceforth  the  Massorites  became  the  authoritative  custodians 
of  the  traditionallj-  transmitted  text.  Their  functions  were  entirely 
different  from  those  of  their  predecessors,  the  Sopherim.  The 
Sopherim,  as  we  have  seen,  were  the  authorised  revisers  and 
redactors  of  the  text  according  to  certain  principles,  the  Jlasso- 
rites  were  precluded  from  developing  the  principles  and  altering 
the  text  in  harmony  with  these  Canons.  Their  province  was  to 
safeguard  the  text  delivered  to  them  by  '  building  a  hedge  around 
it,'  to  protect  it  against  alterations,  or  the  adoption  of  any  readings 
which  still  survived  in  manuscripts  or  were  exhibited  in  the  ancient 
Versions.  For  this  reason,  they  marked  in  the  margin  of  every 
page  in  the  Codices  every  unique  form,  every  peculiarity  in  the 
orthography,  every  variation  in  ordinary  phraseologies,  every 
deviation  in  dittographs,  etc." 

The  principal  work  of  the  Massorites  was  iu  fixing  the  tradi- 
tional pronunciation  of  the  words  and  sentences  of  the  Sacred 
Wi-itings  and  tlie  traditional  method  of  reading  the  sacred 
books  in  the  synagogue.  This  was  accomplished  by  the  sys- 
tems of  vowel  points  and  accents  which  they  added  to  the 
sacred  unpointed  text,  and  the  diacritical  signs  which  they 
established.  The  simplest,  and  j^robably  the  earliest,  addition 
to  the  text  was  the  point  in  the  bosom  of  the  letter,'^  which 
indicates  sometimes  that  the  letter  is  doubled  ;  ^  sometimes  that 
it  is  unaspirated  and  hard  ;  *  and  sometimes  that  a  quiescent 
letter  has  its  full  consonantal  power  ;  *  and  the  stroke  above 
the  letter  indicating  the  soft  or  aspirated  letter*  and  the  qui- 
escence of  the  letter.' 

The  Syriac  language  uses  a  point  for  the  discrimination  of 
the  hard  and  soft  letters,  distinguishing  by  putting  it  above  or 
below  the  letter.  So  also  the  point  beneath  a  word  indicates 
the  simple  form  of  noun  or  verb,  the  point  above  the  less  sim- 
ple  form.     The  Syriac  also  uses  two  points  to  indicate  the 

I  I.e.,  p.  42L  5  Mappiq.  n  =  ah,  not  a. 

»  rn,  a  point.  «  ncn,  soft.  2  =  bh. 

'  Dagesh  forte,  2  =  Kb.  '  f\  =  a. 
*  DagCsh  lene,  Z  =  b.  and  not  bh. 


HISTORY   OF   THE  TEXT   OF   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         181 

plural  number.  The  Arabic  uses  the  point  to  discriminate  a 
larger  number  of  letters  than  the  Hebrew  ;  but  for  a  sign  of 
doubling  a  different  sign,  called  Teshdid,  and  also  a  different 
sign  for  the  Mappiq,  called  Hemza. 

The  Hebrew  vowel  points,  as  the}'  now  exist,  have  a  long 
historical  development  back  of  them.  The  simplest  system  of 
vowel  jjoints  is  the  Arabic,  which  distinguishes  only  the  three 
simple  vowels  a,  i,  u,  and  the  absence  of  a  vowel. 

The  Syriac  gives  us  a  double  system,  the  Greek  and  the 
Syrian  proper,  standing  between  the  Arabic  and  the  Hebrew. 
The  Hebrew  has  also  two  systems,  the  ordinary  sj'stem  and  the 
suiDerlinear  system,  the  latter  commonly  but  incorrectly  named 
the  Bab}'louian.  These  go  back  on  an  earlier,  simpler  sys- 
tem, somewhat  like  tlie  Arabic,  which  has  been  lost.^  The 
origin  of  the  system  of  pointing  the  Shemitic  languages  was 
probably  in  the  Sp-ian  school  at  Edessa,^  and  from  thence  it 
passed  over  from  Syriac  texts  at  first  to  Arabic  texts  and 
afterward  to  Hebrew  texts.  The  movement  began  with  dia- 
critical signs,  such  as  we  find  in  the  Syriac,  to  distinguish 
certain  letters  and  forms.  This  gave  place  to  a  system  of 
vowel  points.  Among  the  Hebrews  there  was  a  gradual  evo- 
lution of  the  present  elaborate  system.  It  did  not  reach  its 
present  condition  until  the  seventh  century,  at  Babylon,  and 
the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  of  our  era,  in  Palestine.^ 

The  accents  went  through  a  similar  course  of  development. 
They  serve  for  a  guide  in  the  cantilation  of  the  synagogues, 
the  division  of  the  sentences,  and  the  determination  of  the 
tone.  These  also  were  modelled  after  the  musical  notation  of 
the  Syrian  Church.* 

They  were  not  written  in  Hebrew  manuscripts  until  the 
close  of  the  seventh  century.^     The  earliest  effort   to  divide 

'  Gesenius,  ffebr.  Gram.,  ed.  Rodiger  and  Kautzscli,  2G  Aufl.  p.  31.  Trans. 
Collins  and  Cowley,  1898,  p.  3.3. 

*  Bacher,  Htbi:  Sprach^oissenschaft,  1892, .«.  6  ;  Harris,  Jewish  Quarterly  Be- 
vieic,  1889,  p.  235.  This  is  denied  by  Gwilliam  in  Studia  Biblica,  III.  p.  64. 
He  thinks  that  the  Syrian  Massora  was  derived  from  the  Hebrews. 

'  Dillmann,  Biheltext.  A.  T.,  in  Herzog,  Eitoj.,  II.  pp.  394-396. 

*  Wickes,  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation  of  the  Three  So-called  Poetic  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  Oxford,  1881 ;  G.  F.  Moore,  Proc.  Am.  Oriental  Society, 
1888,  p.  jcxxvii.  ■'  Wickes,  I.e.,  p.  8. 


182  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTUKE 

the  sentences  was  doubtless  the  double  point  at  the  close  of 
the  verse,  and  the  single  point  in  the  middle.  This  ma)-  have 
been  made  by  the  Sopherim.  There  must  have  been  a  long 
development  before  the  present  elaborate  systems  were  devised. 
There  are  three  systems  of  accents,  the  so-called  Babylonian, 
the  Palestinian  jjrose  system,  and  the  Palestinian  poetic  system.^ 
The  poetic  system  is  used  only  in  the  Psalter,  Proverbs,  and 
Job.  The  IMassorites  strove  to  distinguish  between  the  ordi- 
nary cantilation  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  a  more  melo- 
dious rendering  for  the  three  great  poetical  books,  just  as  the 
Christian  Church  has  one  rhythmical  form  for  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles,  and  another  for  the  chanting  of  the  Psalms.  It  is 
probable  that  the  ilassorites  were  influenced  by  Christian 
usage  to  make  the  ser^-ice  of  the  synagogue  more  ornate  and 
worthy  of  their  religion. 

The  work  of  the  Massorites  was  extended  to  the  use  of  a 
number  of  signs  to  indicate  peculiarities  in  the  text.  A  little 
circle  above  the  letter  was  used  to  indicate  the  extraordinary 
forms  of  letters,^  the  extraordinary  points.'^  the  Readings.*  A 
little  star  was  used  to  indicate  errors  that  they  would  not  cor- 
rect.* On  the  margins  and  at  the  end  of  the  manuscripts  the 
Massorites  noted  the  emendations  of  the  scribes,  the  removal  of 
the  conjunction  and,  the  differences  of  readings  between  the 
Babylonian  and  Palestinian  authorities,  and  also  between  the 
principal  Western  autliorities.  They  numbered  the  sections, 
verses,  words,  and  letters  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  and  even 
counted  the  number  of  times  certain  words  were  used.  All  of 
this  work  is  of  great  value  for  the  liistory  of  the  Text. 

The  Massorites  did  not  hesitate  to  change  the  order  of  the 

1  'Wickes,  Treatise  on  the  Accentuation  of  the  Ttrenty-one  So-called  Prose 
Soaks  of  the  Old  Testament.  t)xford,  1887,  pp.  142  seq..  sliows  that  the  so- 
called  Babylonian  systems  of  vowel  points  and  accents  Ls  Babylonian  only  in 
the  sense  that  they  are  fcmnd  in  Babylonian  manuscripts-;  and  he  claims  that 
these  systems  were  later  modifications  of  the  earlier  syst<>m,  which  is  now,  and 
has  always  been,  the  only  oflicial  one  for  the  Babylonian  as  well  as  for  the 
Palestinian  Jews. 

'  Final  ^fem  in  middle  of  word.  Is.  fl* ;  large  Seth  at  the  beginning  of  Gene- 
sis; larjre  Waw  in  Lev.  11*^;  little  Aleph,  Lev.  1' ;  suspended  letters,  Jer.  IS*, 
Ps.  80".  >  .See  p.  177.  *  See  p.  177. 

'  Aleph  with  Daijesh,  Gen.  43*;  neglect  of  rules  of  pause,  Geu.  11',  27*. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT  OF   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         183 

sacred  books.  They  have  transmitted  the  Prophets  in  a  dif- 
ferent order  from  that  given  in  the  Talmud.  They  arranged 
the  five  Rolls  for  use  at  the  five  great  feasts  of  Judaism,  and 
also  rearranged  the  Writings. 

The  work  of  the  western  Massorites  reached  its  culmination 
in  the  tentli  century,  in  the  text  of  Ben  Asher,  and  the  work 
of  the  Orientals  about  the  same  time  in  the  text  of  Ben 
Naphtali.  The  text  of  Ben  Asher  became  the  standard  text 
upon  which  all  subsequent  manuscripts  in  the  West  and  all 
printed  editions  have  been  based. ^ 

IV.     Hebrew  Manuscripts  of  the  Old  TssTAMEiifT 

The  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  divided 
into  three  classes  :  the  Palestinian,  the  Babylonian,  and  the 
Samaritan. 

1.    The  Palestinian  Manuscripts 

The  most  of  the  manuscripts  that  have  been  preserved  are  of 
this  class.  Here  we  have  to  distinguish  between  synagogue 
rolls  and  private  manuscripts.  The  former  Avere  prepared  with 
so  much  care  that  mistakes  became  difiicidt.  The  INIishna^ 
prescribes  the  rules  for  their  preparation  with  the  greatest  pre- 
cision. Hence  it  is  that  in  manuscripts  of  the  Law  thus  far 
collated,  of  both  the  Babylonian  and  the  Palestinian  groups, 
the  differences  in  the  consonantal  text  are  few  and  unimpor- 
tant. The  synagogue  rolls,  however,  present  only  the  Law, 
the  pericopes  of  the  Prophets,^  and  the  five  Rolls  ;  *  and  these 
are  without  the  Massoretic  apparatus  and  are  as  a  rule  not 
ancient.  They  are  written  on  rolls  of  parchment  and  of 
leather.  The  private  manuscripts,  written  also  on  paper  alone, 
contain  the  Massoretic  apparatus.  None  of  these  reach  back 
into  the  pre-Massoretic  period.  None  of  those  collated  by 
Kennicott  and  De  Rossi  reach  back  of  the  eleventh  century.^ 

1  Bacher,  Hehr.  Sprarhtcissenschaft,  s.  10.  ^  Sopherim,  VI.  4. 

»  The  Haptaroth,  see  p.  179.         *  Ruth,  Lam.,  Esther,  Eccl.,  Song  of  Songs. 

'  Kennicott.  Vet.  Test.  Hebr.,  2  vols.,  Oxford,  1776,  1780,  compares  615 
manuscript.s.  .52  editions  and  Talmud;  De  Rossi,  Vance  lection.  Vet.  Testamcnti, 
4  vrls.,  Parma,  1784-1788,  compares  731  manuscripts,  300  editions  and  the 
ancient  versions. 


184  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Several  manuscripts  at  Aleppo,  Cairo,  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  are  in  dis- 
pute. Some  claim  that  they  belong  to  the  ninth  century,  but 
the  general  opinion  is  that  they  are  not  earlier  than  the  eleventh 
century.^ 

There  are  a  number  of  lost  manuscripts  of  the  Palestinian 
school  tliat  are  renowned. 

(a)  The  Codex  Mugar  is  often  cited  in  the  earliest  exist- 
ing Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  is  regarded  by  Ginsburg  as  the 
oldest  of  those  cited. ^ 

(6)  The  Codex  Hillel,  not  earlier  than  the  seventh  century 
A.D.,  was  consulted  b}'  Jacob  ben  Eleazar  in  the  twelfth 
century.^ 

(e)  The  Codex  Ben  Asher  is  of  the  first  half  of  the  tenth 
century.  The  entire  Massoretic  text  of  the  Occidental  Jews 
rests  upon  this.  This  manuscript  was  at  first  at  Jerusalem : 
afterwards  it  was  removed  to  Egypt. 

((i)  The  Codex  Sanbuki  probably  belonged  to  a  Hungarian 
family  of  that  name.  It  is  of  unknown  date.  It  is  cited 
occasionally  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts. 

(e)  The  Massora  also  refers  to  a  Jericho  codex  of  the  Law, 
and  a  Sinai  codex  of  the  Prophets.* 

'  A  codex  ascribed  to  Aaron  ben  Asher,  or  Ben  Asher  the  Younger,  and  pre- 
served in  Aleppo,  is  thought  by  many  to  be  very  ancient.  Its  antiquity  and 
genuineness  is  defended  by  Ginsburg  {Introduction,  pp.  242  seq.)  as  of  the  date 
earlier  than  980,  a  copy  of  which,  of  about  1000  a.d.,  being  now  in  the  Imperial 
Public  Library  at  St.  Petersburg.  So  great  an  antiquity  is  denied  by  Wickes 
(I.e..  1887,  pp.  vii-ix)  and  Lagarde  (X  C4.  G.  IT',  1890.  16).  Strack  {Semitic 
Studies  in  Memorij  of  A.  Kohut,  p.  503)  withholds  his  decision  until  the  manu- 
script can  be  more  carefully  examined.  Schiller-Szinessy  claims  that  a  Hebrew 
manuscript  numbered  No.  12,  at  the  University  of  Cambridge,  England,  was  of 
the  date  of  8.56,  but  Neubauer  {Academy,  1887,  p.  :?21,  Studia  Biblica,  III.  pp.  28 
seq.)  has  disproved  it.  Ginssburg  {I.e..  pp.  241  seq.)  claims  that  the  codex  of  Ben 
Asher  the  Elder,  in  the  synagogue  of  the  Karaite  Jews  at  Cairo,  is  genuine  and  of 
the  date  of  890-895.  and  that  a  copy  of  it  was  purchased  in  the  year  1530  and  is 
in  the  synagogue  at  Cracow.  This  is  disputed  by  S.  Baer,  Wickes,  and  Neubauer 
(see  Stud.  Bibl..  III.  pp.  25  seq.);  but  Herman  Struck  { Semitic  Studies  in  Mem- 
ory of  A.  Kohut,  s.  563)  thinks  that  their  reasons  are  insufficient.  Ginsburg  {I.e., 
pp.  409  seq.)  de.scribes  a  manuscript  4445  of  the  British  Museum  Library,  which 
he  claims  to  be  of  the  date  of  820-860  a.d. 

2  See  Ginsburg.  I.e..  pp.  429  seq. 

>  So  David  Kimchi  testifies  {Michlol,  fol.  78  ^.  col.  2). 

♦  Ginsburg,  I.e.,  pp.  434  .<ieq. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF   THE   HEBREW   BIBLE         185 

2.  Tlie  Babylonian  Manuscripts 

The  earliest  known  to  scholars  is  the  St.  Petersburg  codex 
of  the  Prophets,^  916  a.d.  The  oldest  of  the  entire  Bible  is 
a  codex  at  St.  Petersburg  supposed  to  be  of  1009  a.d.^  A 
lost  manuscript  of  the  Babylonian  school  is  the  Codex  Ben 
Naphtali,  which  is  referred  to  in  the  Massora  as  a  standard 
authority,  of  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  centxu-y  a.d.  Many 
of  its  readings  are  also  preserved  by  Kimchi  in  his  grammar 
and  lexicon.     No  copy  of  this  manuscript  is  known  to  exist. 

3.  The  Samaritan  Codex 

An  ancient  manuscript  of  this  codex  is  preserved  in  the 
Samaritan  synagogue  at  Nablous,  in  Samaria.  It  is  claimed  by 
the  Samaritans  that  it  has  been  handed  down  from  Abisha,  the 
great-grandson  of  Aaron,  whose  name  is  inscribed  upon  it.  It 
is  mentioned  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and 
Procopius  of  Gaza  among  the  Fathers,  but  was  lost  sight  of 
subsequently  until  1616  a.d.,  when  Pietro  della  Valle  pro- 
cured a  copy  of  it  at  Damascus.  It  was  published  in  the  Paris 
Poh'glot  of  1645  and  in  the  London  Polyglot  of  1657.  At 
once  a  hot  dispute  arose  as  to  its  value,  which  continued  for 
two  centuries,  Morinus,  Houbigant,  and  Hassencamp  exalting 
it  above  the  Massoretic  text;  Hottiuger,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and 
Tychsen  advocating  the  superiority  of  the  latter.  Gesenius^ 
was  the  first  to  thoroughly  compare  the  texts.  His  view  was 
that  while  the  text  was  an  independent  one  in  its  origin,  it  has 
yet  been  improved  by  the  Samaritans  in  order  to  avoid  ob- 
sciu-ities,  and  in  the  interests  of  their  own  religion,  at  times 
betraying  ignorance  of  Hebrew  grammar  and  syntax.  It  has 
many  features  of  resemblance  to  the  Septuagint  Version.  Ge- 
senius  calculates  them  at  more  than  one  thousand.     These  facts 

'  Published  by  Herman  Strack  in  photo-lithograph,  Prophetarum  posterionim 
Codex  Bab'jlonicus  PHropoUtanvs,  St.  Petersburg,  1876. 

-  Wickes  gives  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  this  manuscript  is  of  much  later 
date  {Accents,  IX.).  But  Harkavy  and  Strack,  263-274.  Katalog.  d.  Hehr. 
Bihelhamlschriflen,  in  St.  Petersburg,  1875,  and  Baer  and  Strack,  Dikduke  ha- 
teaiiiim.  XXIV.  seq.,  accept  the  date.  Ginsburg  also  thinks  that  this  codex  does 
not  really  represent  the  Babylonian  text,  although  it  has  the  so-called  Baby- 
lonian system  of  vowel  points  and  accents  (I.e.,  pp.  215  seq.). 

'  De  PentalKUCi  Samaritani  Origine,  1815. 


186  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

attracted  the  attention  of  scholars,  so  that  on  the  one  side 
Hottinger,  Hassencamp,  Eichhorn,  and  Kohn  contended  that 
the  Septuagint  was  translated  from  the  Samaritan  text,  and  on 
the  other  side  Grotiiis,  Usher,  and  others  urged  that  the  Samar- 
itan was  made  from  the  Septuagint.  Both  these  views  have 
been  shown  to  be  impossible  and  have  been  abandoned  by 
recent  scholars,  who  give  the  text  an  independent  authority. 
It  was,  then,  either  with  the  Septuagint  derived  from  a  com- 
mon older  manuscript  of  Jerusalem,  as  Gesenius,  Nutt,  and 
others ;  or,  as  the  differences  between  them  are  quite  numerous, 
they  are  based  on  independent  original  manuscripts,  the  origi- 
nal of  the  Samaritan  text  having  been  brought  from  Jerusalem 
by  JNIanasseh  when  lie  introduced  the  Samaritan  schism.  The 
text  was  published  again  by  Blayney,  Oxford,  1790,  in  square 
characters.  The  variations  from  the  Massoretic  text  have  been 
noted  by  Petermann.^ 

The  influence  of  Gesenius  led  many  of  the  older  scholars  to 
too  unfavourable  views  of  this  text.  Recent  scholars  show  an 
increasing  confidence  in  its  readings. 

V.  Printed  Texts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 

1.  The  earliest  printed  editions  of  the  Hebrew  text  were  the 
Psalter  at  Bologna,  1477,  and  the  Law,  1482.  The  whole  Bible 
was  first  printed  at  Soucino,  Lombardy,  in  1488 ;  then  at  Naples, 
1491-1493.  Another  edition  was  printed  at  Brescia  in  1494. 
This  was  used  by  Luther  in  making  his  version.  The  same 
text  is  used  in  Bomberg's  first  Rabbinical  Bible,  1516-1517, 
edited  by  Felix  Pratensis,  and  in  his  manual  editions,  1517  seq. ; 
and  also  by  Stephens,  1539  seq.^  and  Sebastian  jMunster. 

2.  The  second  independent  text  was  issued  in  the  Complu- 
tensian  Polyglot,  1514-1517,  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  with  vowel 
points  but  without  accents. 

3.  The  third  independent  text  was  edited  by  Jacob  ben 
Chayim  in  the  second  Rabbinical  Bible  of  Bomberg,  1524-1525. 
This  was  carefully  revised  after  the  Massora. 

'  Versuch  einer  hehrdinrhen  Formenfehre  nach  ifcr  Aussprache  der  hentigen 
Samaritaner,  Leipzig,  18G8. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE    HEBREW  BIBLE         187 

All  the  printed  texts  from  that  time  until  recent  times  are 
mixtures  of  these  three  texts. 

(a)  The  Antwerp  Polyglot,  1569-1572,  under  the  manage- 
ment of  Arias  Montanus. 

(J)  The  manual  editions  of  Hutter,  1587  seq. 

(tf)  Buxtorf's  Rabbinical  Bible,  1618-1619,  and  his  manual 
editions. 

id)  The  Paris  Polyglot,  1629-16^5. 

(«)  The  London  Polyglot.  1654-1657. 

(/)  A  number  of  manual  editions  with  mixed  texts  follow : 
Leusden.  1667  ;  Jablonski,  1699  ;  Baer,  1701 ;  Michaelis.  1720  ; 
Van  der  Hooght,  1705 ;  Opitius,  1709  ;  Hahn,  1831 ;  Theile, 
1849. 

4.  Baer  and  Delitzsch  undertook  a  fourth  independent  text 
by  the  use  of  the  entire  Massoretic  apparatus  accessible.  The 
several  books  of  the  Hebrew  text  were  published  apart,  1869- 
1895,  when  Baer  and  Delitzsch  having  both  died,  their  work 
remained  unfinished. 

5.  A  fifth  independent  text  has  just  been  published  by  Gins- 
burg,  1894,  which  will  doubtless  for  some  time  be  the  standard 
edition  of  the  Massoretic  text.  It  is  essentially  "based  upon 
the  first  edition  of  Jacob  ben  Chajim's  Massoretic  recension."^ 

1  Ginsburg,  Introduction,  Preface. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE 

The  Jews  in  Egj-pt  during  tlie  Persian  supremacy  doubtless 
used  the  Egyptian  dialect  of  the  Aramaic,  which  has  been  pre- 
served to  us  in  certain  inscriptions.  But  soon  after  the  Greek 
conquest  of  Egj-pt,  they  changed  their  language  to  an  Egyptian 
dialect  of  the  Greek.  The  Jews  flourished  in  Egypt,  especially 
in  the  new  city  of  Alexandria,  and  became  rich  and  powerful 
so  that  they  built  many  fine  synagogues.  They  soon  felt  the 
need  in  their  worship  of  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
into  the  tongue  of  the  people.  This  began,  as  in  Palestine,  by 
oral  translations  in  the  sj^nagogue,  but  it  was  not  long  before 
it  became  more  important  than  in  Palestine  to  commit  these 
translations  to  writing.  Accordingly  a  Greek  translation  of 
the  Law  was  first  made,  then  of  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms. 
The  other  Writings  were  not  used  in  the  synagogue,  and  there- 
fore they  were  only  translated  for  jjrivate  reading  at  a  later 
date.  The  legend  that  the  Greek  Old  Testament  was  trans- 
lated all  at  once  by  seventj-  select  men,  who  used  a  manu- 
script sent  to  them  from  Jerusalem,  has  no  historic  basis. ^ 

I.    The  Greek  Sei'tuagint 

The  Greek  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  was  probably  made 
early  in  the  third  century  B.C.,  the  Projihets  and  the  most  of 
the  Writings  were  translated  before  the  middle,  of  the  second 
century,  but  the  whole  of  them  and  the  Apocryplia  not  until 
the  first  century .2      It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Pentateuch 

'  See  pp.  124  seq. 

^  Gratz  (Oesch.  Juden.,  III.  pp.  428  seq.)  holds  that  the  transhition  was  not 
made  under  Ptolemajus  Philadelphus  at  the  beginnhig  of  the  third  century  b.c, 
but  under  Ptolemieus  I'hilomoter,  middle  of  the  second  century  b.c,  and  that 
188 


HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GREEK  BIBLE     189 

was  translated  by  Palestinian  Jews  under  royal  sanction  ^  ac- 
cording to  the  tradition  :  but  the  translators  of  the  Prophets 
and  the  Writings  must  have  been  Egyptian  Jews.  The  books 
of  Samuel  and  Jeremiah  differ  in  the  Greek  so  very  greatly 
from  the  Hebrew  traditional  text  that  we  must  conclude  that 
thej^  were  translated  from  manuscripts  which  were  at  an  eaiiy 
date  independent  of  Palestinian  manuscripts ;  especially  as 
they  are  free  from  a  considerable  number  of  iNIidrashim,  which 
must  have  made  their  way  into  the  Hebrew  text  after  the 
Egyptian  manuscripts  were  written,  and  at  a  time  when 
scribes  felt  at  liberty  to  make  such  considerable  additions  to 
the  text.  Baumgartner  has  shown  that  the  book  of  Proverbs 
was  translated  from  a  Hebrew  text,  written  in  the  Egyptian 
Aramaic  character,  and  that  it  shows  traces  also  of  having  been 
written  in  older  Aramaic  characters  after  it  had  been  translit- 
erated from  the  ancient  Hebrew  characters.''  HoUenberg 
makes  the  same  statement  for  the  book  of  Joshua  ^  and  Vollers 
for  the  twelve  minor  prophets.*  Workman  makes  a  similar 
statement  as  to  Jeremiah,  but  does  not  give  sufficient  evidence 
of  it. 5 

The  book  of  Sirach  was  translated  into  Greek  about  1-30 
B.C.,  and  added  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Egyptian  Canon  ; 
and  others  of  the  apocryphal  books  and  writings  were  added, 

the  Jewish  peripatetic  Aristobuhis  played  the  chief  part  in  its  accoiiiplishment ; 
but  most  scholars  agree  with  Wellhaiiseii  that  the  translation  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  made  under  Ptolemseus  Philadelphus.  That  is  all  the  letter  of  Aristeas 
really  refers  to.  It  was  quite  natural  that  later  tradition  should  extend  it  to  the 
whole  Old  Testament.  Besides,  the  Prologue  of  the  Greek  Ecclesiasticus  knows, 
about  130  B.C.,  of  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  other  books. 

1  Buhl  {I.e.,  s.  124)  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  three  accounts  of  the 
translation  of  the  Law  in  the  letter  of  Aristeas,  the  addition  to  Esther,  and  the 
book  of  Sirach,  all  aixree  in  representing  the  translators  as  being  Palestinian, 
and  remarks  that  the  Palestinian  Jews  really,  in  most  cases,  understood  Greek 
better  than  the  Egj-ptian  Jews  understood  Hebrew,  and  that  the  translators 
would  naturally  be  Palestinian  Jews  who  had  recently  migrated  to  Egjpt. 

Freudenthal  (Hellenistisclie  Studien,  1875,  s.  185)  has  shown  that  Samuel, 
Kings,  Chronicles,  Job,  and  probably  Joshua,  had  been  translated  by  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.     Strack  (I.e.,  s.  lOS)  agrees  to  it. 

'  £tiule  eritique  snr  Vetat  du  texte  du  livre  des  Proverbes,  1890,  pp.  247  seq. 

'  Der  Charakter  d.  Alexand.  Uebersetzung  d.  Buches  Josna,  1876,  s.  12. 

♦  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  188.3,  s.  231. 

'  The  Text  of  Jeremiah,  1889,  pp.  233  seq. 


190  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

until  by  the  close  of  the  first  century  B.C.  the  entire  Greek  Old 
Testament  had  been  completed  in  the  Greek  language.  This 
was  the  Bible  of  the  early  Christians,  not  only  in  Alexandria, 
but  all  over  the  Roman  world.  The  writers  of  the  epistles  of 
the  New  Testament  quote  from  it,  and  they  are  followed  by 
all  the  sub-apostolic  Fathers  and  Christian  writers  of  the  earlier 
Christian  centuries. 

II.    The  Greek  New  Testament 

In  the  second  Christian  century  the  Greek  New  Testament 
was  added  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  most  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  originally  written  in  Greek  for  Greek  readers. 
The  Logia  of  Matthew  was  written  in  Hebrew,  in  order  that  it 
might  be  added  to  the  Holy  Scripture  for  Jewish  Christians. 
The  earlier  apocalypses  of  the  book  of  Revelation  were  also 
written  in  Hebrew.^  The  Epistle  of  James  was  probably 
written  in  Hebrew  also,  as  well  as  the  Canticles  of  the  early 
chapters  of  Luke.^  But  these  were  all  translated  into  Greek, 
or  taken  up  into  larger  Greek  writings,  and  their  Hebrew 
originals  perished.  Accordingly  the  New  Testament  became 
in  fact  a  Greek  New  Testament. 

AH  of  the  writings  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  were 
in  circulation  early  in  the  second  century ;  but  they  were  not 
collected  into  a  Canon  before  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century.  They  were  in  private  manuscripts,  and  for  the  most 
part  at  least  written  on  papyrus.^ 

"  No  autograph  of  any  book  of  the  New  Testament  is  known  or 
believed  to  be  still  in  existence.  The  originals  must  have  been 
early  lost,  for  they  are  mentioned  by  no  ecclesiastical  writer, 
although  there  were  many  motives  for  appealing  to  them,  had 
they  been  forthcoming,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries."  .  .  . 

"  We  know  little  about  the  external  features  of  the  MSS.  of  the 
ages  of  ])ersecution :  but  what  little  we  do  know  suggests  that 
they  were  usually  small,  containing  only  single  books  or  groups  of 
books,  and  not  seldom,  there  is  reason  to  suspect,  of  comparar 
tively  coarse  material."  ■* 

'  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  p.  301. 

2  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Go^'iycls.  p.  42.  '  See  pp.  1.S3  teq. 

*  Westcott.  and  Uort,  New  Testament  in  Greek,  Introduction,  pp.  4,  9-10. 


HISTOKV   OF  THE   TEXT   OF  THE   GREEK   BIBLE  191 

The  separate  writings  were  often  copied  before  they  were 
gathered  into  the  groups  which  constitute  the  present  Canon, 
aud  scattered  widely  over  the  world.  But  in  the  times  of  per- 
secution large  numbers  of  them  were  destroyed,  especially  dur- 
ing the  persecution  of  Diocletian. 

The  roll  of  papyrus  was  the  book  of  the  early  Christians. 
For  public  reading  in  the  churches,  rolls  of  skin  were  probably 
used  among  the  Chiistians,  as  among  the  Jews,  Avhenever  the 
community  was  able  to  bear  the  expense.  But  the  entire 
library  of  Origen  and  Pamphilus  at  Casarea  consisted  of  papy- 
rus rolls.  1 

The  sacred  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  consti- 
tuted quite  a  librarj'  of  these  rolls ;  the  rolls  ordinarily  con- 
tained onh*  a  single  writing.  Even  the  Gospels  appear  in 
several  different  orders  on  the  monuments  of  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centui-ies,  showing  that  each  was  usually  on  a  separate 
roll.  No  monumental  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  codex  of 
parchment  appears  before  the  close  of  the  third  century  ;  no 
literary  evidence  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
These  codices  were  at  first  very  expensive,  and  so  the  papyrus 
rolls  continued  in  private  use  deep  into  the  fifth  century.  ^ 

III.    Other  Greek  Versions 

The  use  of  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the 
Christians  and  its  many  differences  from  the  Hebrew  official 
text  as  established  by  the  Sopherim  of  the  school  of  Rabbi 
Akiba,  excited  the  hostility  of  the  Jewish  scribes,  and  every 
effort  was  made  to  discredit  it.  In  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century  a.d.  a  Greek  version  was  made  by  Aquila,  a  pupil  of 
Rabbi  Akiba,  on  the  basis  of  the  official  Hebrew  text.^  It 
is  extremely  literal  and  endeavours  conscientiously  to  follow 
the  official  text.* 

1  Birt,  Das  antike  Buchwesen,  1882,  s.  109. 

2  Schultze,  JRolle.  und  Codex,  in  Greifswalder  Sludien,  1895,  s.  150  seq. 
«  Megilla,  I.  9  ;  Qidduschin,  I.  1. 

*  The  sign  of  the  definite  accusative  HK  is  translated  by  (rvv,  the  local  H  by  5^, 
"iaK'7  by  T(J  \4yeiv.  These  are  striking  examples  of  an  extreme  literalism  which 
goes  so  far  as  to  impair  the  real  meaning  of  the  passage.  This  AquUa  is  men- 
tioned by  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Bxres,  III.  24  ;  Ensebius,  Hist,  eccl.,  V.  8,  10 ;  Jerome 


192  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRU'TURE 

The  greater  part  of  this  version  has  been  lost,  only  frag- 
ments having  been  preserved.  At  the  same  time  the  influence 
of  Aquila  may  be  seen  in  the  revision  of  the  Septuagiut  text 
of  Ezekiel  and  Ecclesiastes,  into  which  elements  from  Aquila 
have  been  taken  up.^  Another  Greek  version  was  made  about 
the  same  time  by  Theodotion.  He  revised  the  Septuagint  to 
make  it  conform  to  the  official  text.^  His  translation  has  only 
been  preserved  in  fragments,  apart  from  the  book  of  Daniel, 
which  supplanted  the  Septuagint  Version  of  Daniel  in  the 
usage  of  the  Church,  and  other  elements  which  have  been 
taken  up  into  the  Greek  Bibles.  Symmachus  undertook  about 
the  same  time^  to  make  a  better  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  a  Christian  point  of  view*  and  in  more  elegant  Greek. 
There  are  fragments  of  three  other  independent  Greek  ver- 
sions of  the  old  Testament  which  have  been  jjreserved,  known 
as  Quinta,  Sexta,  and  Septima,  of  unknown  origin.^  These  are 
chiefly  of  the  poetical  books.  All  these  make  it  evident  that 
there  was  a  wide-spread  dissatisfaction  with  the  Septuagint 
at  the  close  of  the  second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, not  only  on  the  jDart  of  the  Jews  but  also  of  the  Chris- 
tians. It  is  probable  that  the  zealous  polemic  of  the  Jewish 
scribes  on  the  basis  of  the  official  Hebrew  text  brought  about 
this  serious  situation. 

IV.    The  Official  Texts  of  the  Greek  Bible 

Origen  during  his  abode  at  Csesarea  (232-254  a.d.)  made  a 
gigantic  effort  to  remove  this  dissatisfaction  and  establish  a 

on  Is.  8'*,  Epist.  57  ad  Pmnmachmm,  c.  11 ;  Origen,  ad  Afric  (I.  14,  Belarue). 
Cf.  Schurer,  Gesch.  d.  Jud.,  II.  311.  Cornill  {E.-fk.,  s.  04, 104)  mentions  Codex 
62  of  Holmes,  wliicli  shows  the  influence  of  Aquila.  The  Septuagint  of  Kohe- 
letli  and  llie  Song  of  Songs  also  .show  his  influence,  not  only  in  the  Greek,  but 
also  in  the  Syriac  translation.    See  Buhl,  ;.c.,  s.  155. 

1  Cornill,  Ezekiel,  s.  104  seq. ;  Oillmann.  Uebcr  d.  Griech.  Uebersetzimg  der 
Knheletli,  in  Sitxuiigsberichte  d.  Koiiig.  Preus.  Akad.  d.   Wiss.,  1S92. 

-  Theodotion  is  mentioned  by  Irenoeus  (Adr.  HcerA  as  a  jiro-selyte  of  Ephesus. 
.Jerome  calls  him  an  Ebionite  (Comm.,  Ilab.  3"-'^     ("f.  Prcef.  Comm.  in  Dan.). 

•'  He  is  usually  assigned  to  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  But  Epipha- 
nius  put.s  him  in  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius.  Mercati  has  recently  come  to  the 
Kami'  conclusion  (ser  Strack,  I.e.,  s.  201). 

*  Eusebius  (H.  E.,  VI.  17)  and  Jerome  (i.e.)  both  call  him  an  Ebionite. 

^  Eusebius.  i.e..  VI.  10. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE  198 

reliable  Greek  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  gathered  in  his 
Hexapla  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Hebrew  text  transliterated  into 
Greek  characters,  the  three  versions  of  Aqiiila,  Theodotion.  and 
Symmachns,  and  a  revised  Septuagint  text.' 

Whei-e  the  Septuagint  was  missing  he  used  Theodotion  with 
an  asterisk.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  this  revision  of  the 
text  of  the  Old  Testament  was  accompanied  by  a  similar  move- 
ment for  the  collection  of  the  Xew  Testament  writings  and  a 
revision  of  their  text.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Origen 
had  a  hand  in  it.^ 

The  text  of  the  Septuagint  fixed  by  Origen  in  the  Hexapla 
was  issued  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  at  Ciesarea,  and  proba- 
bly also  a  revision  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  was  made 
at  about  the  same  time  under  similar  influences,  and  these 
became  the  official  Greek  Bible  for  the  Church  of  Palestine. 
Soon  afterwards,  Hesychius  revised  the  text  of  the  entire  Bible 
in  Alexandria,  and  it  became  the  official  text  of  the  Church  of 
Eg^-pt.  About  the  same  time  Lucian  the  Mart3"r  (311  +  ) 
made  another  independent  revision  of  the  entire  Greek  Bible 
at  Antioch.  Thus  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  there 
were  three  rival  texts  of  the  Greek  Bible  in  use. 

Jerome  refers  to  the  work  of  Lucian  and  Hesychius  in  his 
Pi-(xf.  in  Paralip.,  thus,  "Alexandria  et  ^Egyptus  in  Septuaginta 
suis  Hesyehium  laudat  auctorem,  Constautinopolis  usque  Antio- 
chiam  Luciaui  martjTis  exemplaria  probat.'"  Cf.  also  his  Epist. 
106,  ad  Sunniani  et  Fretelam,  and  Pra>f.  in  Evanrj.,  ''I  pass  over 
those  manuscripts  which  are  associated  with  the  names  of  Lucian 
and  Hesychius,  and  the  authority  of  which  is  perversely  main- 

1  The  Greek  fragments  of  the  Hexapla  were  gathered  by  Field  {Oriyenis 
Hexaplorum  qnce  supersunt.  2  vols.),  Oxford,  1867-1875.  A  Syriac  translation 
of  the  Septuagint  text  of  the  Hexapla  was  made  by  Paul  of  Telia  in  61()  a.d. 
A  manuscript  of  this  translation  of  the  eighth  century  was  discovered  in  the 
Ambrosian  Library  of  Milan  and  issued  by  Ceriani  in  1874.  Still  more  recently 
a  fragment  of  the  entire  Hexapla  of  a  number  of  the  Psalms  has  been  discovered 
in  the  Ambrosian  Librarj-  by  Giov.  Mercati,  who  has  given  a  brief  account  of  it 
in  1896,  and  who  will  soon  publish  it.  It  embraces  P.s.  45  and  parts  of  17,  27-31. 
34,  Zb.  48,  88  (of  the  numbers  of  the  Septuagint).  Cf.  Giov.  Mercati,  Un 
Palimpsesto  Ambrosiano  dei  Salmi  Esapli,  Turin,  1898. 

-  See  Holtzmann.  EinUitung.  s.  47.  who  quotes  from  Origen :  '•  In  exempla- 
ribus  autem  Xovl  Testamenti  hoc  ipsum  posse  facere  sine  periculo  non  putavi  " 
(in  Mt.  XV.  14).     See,  however,  Jerome  on  Mt.  24^  and  Gal.  3'. 


194  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

tained  by  a  handful  of  disputatious  persons.  It  is  obvious  that 
these  writers  could  not  amend  anything  in  the  Old  Testament 
after  the  labours  of  the  Seventy ;  and  it  was  useless  to  correct 
the  New,  for  versions  of  Scripture  which  already  exist  in  the 
languages  of  many  nations  show  that  their  additions  are  false." ' 
Cf.  with  reference  to  Hesychius  further  Jerome's  Comm.  on 
Is.  58".  Nestle,  in  Z.  D.  M.  G.,  XXXII.  s.  481  seq.,  quotes  from 
a  scholion  of  Jacob  of  Edessa,  the  statement  that  Lucian  when 
he  saw  "'^HX  in  the  text  and  KvpLoi  on  the  margin  he  combined 
the  two,  'ASmvai  Kvpioi.  A  similar  conflation  is  indeed  found  in 
the  earliest  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  phrase 
mn"31S  (see  Cornill,  Ezekiel,  pp.  172  seg.).  Nestle  {MarginaJien, 
Tubingen,  1893,  s.  45)  suggested  that  Lucian  had  used  the  Peshitto 
version.  This  was  confirmed  by  Stockmayer  in  his  investigation 
of  the  books  of  Samuel,  and  is  agreed  to  by  Strack  {I.e.,  s.  194). 
Field  {Hexapla.  LXXXVIII.)  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
formula  miT'  "'ns,  so  common  in  Ezekiel,  is  given  by  Ed.  Rom. 
Kvpio'i,  in  Com]}.  Aid.  Codd.,  III.,  XII.,  26,  42,  49,  etc.,  Kiipios  Kvpun ; 
but  in  Codd.,  22,  36,  48,  etc.,  a8u>vaC  Kupios. 

When  Christianity  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Csesars  great 
efforts  were  made  for  the  transcribing  and  distribution  of  manu- 
scripts to  supply  the  place  of  those  that  had  been  destroyed  in 
the  last  persecution.  Finally  the  Emperor  Constantine,  about 
332  A.D.,  ordered  Eusebius  to  prepare  "fifty  copies  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  ...  to  be  written  on  prepared  p^irchment 
in  a  legible  manner,  and  in  a  convenient,  portable  form,  by 
professional  transcribers  thorouglily  practised  in  their  art." 
These  were  "  magnificent  and  elaborately  bound  volumes  of  a 
threefold  and  fourfold  form."^  None  of  these  have  been  pre- 
served, but  we  may  justly  suppose  that  the}'  were  at  least  as 
large  and  stately  as  the  Uncial  codices  of  the  fourth  centurj'- 
from  other  cities,  which  have  been  preserved.  These  codices 
doubtless  tended  to  establish  official  texts  for  a  large  pai't  of  the 
eastern  Roman  Empire,  and  it  may  be  that  the  conflate  Syriac 
text,  which  became  the  dominant  text  from  the  fourth  century 
onwai'd,  dates  from  these  codices. 

Many  ancient  versions  were  made  from  the  Cireek  Bible.     The 

1  Xircne  and  ront-yicoi}!-  Fathn-.i.  2d  series,  Vol.  VI.,  St.  Jerome,  p.  488. 
"  Kusebitts,  Vit.  Cdiistdii.,  IV. ."(!-.""  ;  Ricliardson's  edition,  Nicene  and  Post- 
iV'icoie  Fathers,  2d  scrips,  Vol.  I.,  1890,  p.  549. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF  THE   GREEK   BIBLE  195 

early  Latin  versions  of  North  Africa  and  North  Italy ;  the 
Egyptian  versions,  the  Memphitic  and  Thebaic,  were  made 
in  the  second  century;  the  Gothic  in  the  fourth  century;  the 
Ethiopic  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries,  and  the  Armenian  in 
the  fifth  century.  These  represent  several  stages  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  text  of  the  Greek  Bible. 

V.    Maxusckipts  of  the  Greek  Bible 

The  earlier  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Bible  are  called  Uncials, 
or  Majuscules,  because  they  are  written  in  capital  letters  with- 
out accents ;  the  later  are  called  Minuscules,  because  they  are 
written  in  a  smaller  hand.  A  careful  study  of  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  Greek  Bible  on  the  genealogical  principle  en- 
ables scholars  to  arrange  them  in  the  following  groups  : 

VI.    The  So-called  Neutral  Text 

The  earliest  uncial  manuscript  of  the  Greek  Bible  is  the  Vati- 
can codex,  of  the  fourth  Christian  century,  catalogued  as  B. 

"Written  in  an  uncial  hand  of  the  fourth  century  on  leaves  of 
the  finest  vellum  made  up  in  quires  of  five ;  the  lines,  which  are 
of  sixteen  to  eighteen  letters,  being  arranged  in  three  columns  con- 
taining forty-two  lines  each,  excepting  tlie  poetical  books,  where 
the  lines  being  stichometrical,  the  columns  are  only  two.  There 
are  no  initial  letters,  although  the  first  letter  of  a  section  occar 
sionally  projects  into  the  margin ;  no  breathings  or  accents  occur 
prima  manu,  the  punctuation  if  by  the  first  hand  is  rare  and  sim- 
ple. Of  the  759  leaves  which  compose  the  present  quarto  volume, 
617  belong  to  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  twenty  leaves  of  the 
original  codex  have  been  torn  away,  and  there  are  kicunie  also  at 
f.  178  (part  of  a  leaf)  and  at  f.  348  (ten  leaves  of  the  original 
missing) ;  these  gaps  involve  the  loss  of  Gen.  1'— iC^,  2  K.  2^''  "*"'', 
Vs.  10.5^-137" ;  the  missing  passages  in  Genesis  and  Psalms  have 
been  supplied  by  a  recent  hand.  The  Prayer  of  Manasses  and 
the  Books  of  the  Maccabees  were  never  included  in  this  codex. 
The  other  books  are  in  the  following  order :  Genesis  to  2  Chron., 
Esdras  1,  2,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Canticles,  Job,  Wis- 
dom of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Sirach,  Esther,  Judith, 
Tobit,  Hosea,  and  the  other  Minor  Prophets  to  Malachi,  Isaiah, 


196  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCUIPTURE 

Jeremiah,  Baruch,  Lamentations,  and  epistle  of  Jeremiah,   Eze- 
kiel,  Daniel  (the  version  ascribed  to  Theodotion)." '  « 

It  seems  best  to  use  Swete's  descriptions  so  far  as  they  go,  for 
this  and  the  other  great  codices,  because  they  are  concise,  accurate, 
and  technical ;  and  it  is  better  for  scholars  to  rest  upon  a  common 
ground  in  such  technical  matters.  He  does  not  specify  the  New 
Testament  part  of  the  codices ;  and  these  I  must  add.  Codex  B 
has  all  the  New  Testament  except  Heb.  9"-13",  the  Pastorals, 
Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

The  Codex  Vaticanus  represents  a  text  earlier  than  any  of 
the  revisions  of  the  third  century,  and  it  belongs  to  a  family 
which  was  used  by  Origen  when  he  made  his  Hexapla.^  It  gives 
what  Westcott  and  Hort  term  the  Neutral  Text,  that  is,  a  text 
which  is  free  from  the  corruptions  which  came  in  in  all  the  sub- 
sequent revisions,  although  it  still  has  early  corruptions  of  its 
own.3  This  text  is  now  accessible  to  scholars  in  the  facsimile 
Roman  edition,  and  also  in  a  convenient  and  reliable  form  in 
Swete's  edition  of  the  Septuagiut,  published  by  the  University 
Press  of  Cambridge,  England,  which  follows  the  Vatican  codex, 
and  onl)'  uses  the  Alexandrian  and  Sinaitic  where  the  Vatican 
text  is  missing. 

The  next  earliest  manuscript  is  the  Sinaitic,  discovered  by 
Constantinus  Tischendorf  in  1844—1859.*  It  also  is  an  Uncial 
of  the  fourth  century. 

"  Written  in  an  uncial  hand,  ascribed  to  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  in  lines  which,  when  complete,  contain  from  twelve 
to  fourteen  letters,  and  which  are  arranged  in  four  columns  on 
unusually  large  leaves  of  a  very  tine  vellum,  made  from  the  skin 
of  the  ass  or  of  the  antelope.  Tlie  leaves  are  gathered  into  quires 
of  four,  excepting  two  which  contain  five.  There  are  no  breath- 
ings or  accents ;  a  simple  point  is  occasionally  used.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  MS.  is  complete  ;  of  the  Old  Testament  the  follow- 
ing portions  remain :  fragments  of  Gen.  23,  24,  and  of  Numbers 
5,  6,  7,  1  Chron.  iF-19'',  2  Esdras  9,  to  end.  Nehemiah,  Esther, 
Tobit,  Judith,  1  Mace,  4  Mace,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah',  Lam.  l'-2-'°,  Joel, 
Obadiah,  Jonah,  Nalium,  Habakkuk.  Zeplianiah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  Malaehi,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon, 

1  Swete,  Old  Tfstament  in  Oreek,  Vol.  I.  p.  xvii. 

2  Strack,  EinUitung.  s.  194  ;  Silberstein.  Z.  A.  T.  W..  iSQZ,  s.  U. 

'  See  Westcott  and  Hort,  Neto  Tr.ilament  in  &reck,  Introduction,  p.  150. 
*  Gregory,  Prolegomena,  pp.  345  seq. 


HISTOKV   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE  197 

Wisdom  of  Solomon,  Wisdom  of  the  Son  of  Siracli,  Job." '  This 
codex  not  only  contains  the  whole  of  the  present  Canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  also  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  fragments 
of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.'-' 

Tliis  manuscript,  usuallj^  known  as  S,  but  also  by  others  as 
S,  is  the  nearest  in  text  to  the  Vatican  Codex  B;  but  it  con- 
tains readings,  especially  in  John,  Luke,  and  the  Apocalypse, 
of  the  two  distinct  types  which  are  known  as  Western  and 
Alexandrian  readings.^ 

The  differences  between  these  two  great  Uncials  of  the 
fourth  century  are  such  as  to  imply  several  stages  of  trans- 
mission between  them  and  the  time  when  thej'  departed  from  a 
common  parent.  German  scholars,  after  Tischendorf,  value  S 
more  highly  than  British  scholars  do.  The  parent  manuscript 
is  placed  by  Hort  not  later  than  the  early  part  of  the  second 
Christian  century.*  This  parent  must  have  been  therefore  a 
collection  of  rolls,  a  little  library  of  the  different  writings. 

VII.    The  Egyptian  Text 

The  third  great  Uncial  manuscript  is  the  Alexandrian  A, 
of  the  British  Museum,  dating  from  the  fifth  century. 

"  Written  in  an  uncial  hand  of  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century, 
on  vellum  of  fine  texture  originally  arranged  in  quires  of  eight 
leaves,  occasionally  (but  chiefly  at  the  end  of  a  Book)  of  less  than 
eight ;  three  or  four  and  twenty  letters  go  to  a  line  ;  fifty  or  fifty- 
one  lines  usually  compose  a  column,  and  there  are  two  columns 
on  a  page.  Large  initial  letters,  standing  in  the  margin,  announce 
the  commencement  of  a  paragraph  or  section,  excepting  in  Vol. 
III.,  which  appears  to  be  the  work  of  another  scribe.  There  are 
no  breathings  or  accents  added  by  the  first  hand  ;  the  punctuation, 
more  frequent  than  in  B,  is  still  confined  to  a  single  point.  The 
three  volumes,  which  contain  the  Old  Testament,  now  consist  of 
C30  leaves.  Of  these  volumes  only  nine  leaves  are  lost  and  five 
mutilated.  The  portions  of  the  Septuagint,  which  are  thus  defi- 
cient in  A,  contained  Gen.  14'*"",  lo'-''''-'^  16'^=;   1  K.  12'^'-14'; 

'  Swete,  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  p.  xx. 

-  For  a  full  description  of  this  codex  and  a  history  of  its  discovery  by  Tisch- 
endorf, see  Gregory,  Prolegomena,  pp.  346  seq. 
'  Gregory,  I.e..  p.  346. 
*  Xew  Testament  in  Greek,  Introduction,  pp.  222  seq. 


198  STUDY  OF   HOLT  SCRIPTURE 

Ps.  49i«-79"'.  The  codex  opens  (1,  f.  3)  with  a  table  of  the  books 
written  in  uncial  letters  somewhat  later  than  the  body  of  the  iMS. 
The  fii'st  volume  contains  the  Octateuch  with  Kings  and  Chronicles 
(ofiov  ISi/SXi-a  V).  The  books  of  Chronicles  are  followed  (Vol.  II.)  by 
the  Prophets  (wpo4>r)Ta.L  is)  Minor  and  Major,  Jeremiah,  including 
Baruch,  Lamentations  and  the  Epistle ;  Daniel  (Theodotion's  ver- 
sion) is  succeeded  by  Esther,  Tobit,  Judith,  Esdras  1,  2,  and  the 
four  books  of  jNIaccabees.  The  third  volume  contains  the  Psalter, 
with  Ps.  CLI.,  and  the  Canticles,  Job,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  the  AVisdom  of  Solomon,  and  the  "Wisdom  of  the 
Son  of  Sirach.  The  table  shews  that  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  once 
occupied  a  place  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  volume  which  contains 
the  New  Testament."' '  This  codex  contains  all  of  the  present 
Canon  of  the  Xew  Testament  except  Mt.  1^-25'';  John  6" -8''; 
2  Cor.  4'^ -12'.     It  also  has  the  two  epistles  of  Clement  except 

■]^58-63     213-20    2 

This  manuscript  was  in  the  possessiou  of  the  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  for  manj^  centuries  before  it  was  presented  to 
Charles  I.  of  England  in  1628.     Swete  saj's :  ^ 

"  It  seems  probable  that  A,  which,  as  far  back  as  the  furthest 
period  to  which  we  can  trace  its  history,  was  preserved  in  Egypt, 
had  been  originally  written  there ;  and,  as  ilr.  E.  M.  Thompson 
has  pointed  out,  the  occurrence  of  Egyptian  forms  of  the  Greek 
letters  in  the  superscriptions  and  colophons  of  the  books  proves 
that  '  the  !MS.,  if  not  absolutely  written  in  Egypt,  must  have  been 
immediately  afterwards  removed  thither.' " 

To  the  same  family  belongs  the  Codex  Ephraem  C,  also  of 
the  fifth  century,  now  iu  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  It 
is  a  bundle  of  fragments,  preserving  tliree-fifths  of  the  whole 
original  manuscript  in  the  uncial  character.  But  it  is  a 
palimpsest ;  that  is,  the  original  letters  have  faded  or  been 
washed  oiit,  and  the  nianuscriiit  has  been  Mritten  over  by  selec- 
tions from  Ephraem  the  Sj-rian.* 

The  Codex  Vaticanus  452  of  the  Prophets,^  of  the  eleventh 
century,  was  also  originally  in  the  possession  of  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  and  presents  a  text  of  the  same  general  char- 

1  Swete,  I.e.,  p.  xxii.  *  See  Gregory,  Prolegomena,  pp.  366  seq. 

-  See  Gregory,  rrnleijomena.  p.  355. 

»  I.e.,  p.  xxui,  note.  '  H.  &  P.,  91. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK  BIBLE  199 

acter  as  A.^  So  also  does  the  Codex  Arabrosianus  of  the  Law, 
assigned  to  the  fifth  century  by  Ceriani.^ 

To  these  may  be  added  the  Codex  Bodleianus  of  Genesis  of 
the  eighth  century.  ^  These  represent  an  Alexandrian  official 
text,  but  probably  later  than  the  revision  of  Hes3'chius. 

E.  Klostennann  *  thinks  that  the  recension  of  Hesj'chiiis  is 
represented  by  Codex  Vaticanus,  gr.  556.^  Ceriani  claims  the 
text  of  Codex  Marchalianus  for  Hesychius.^ 

So  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  Hort  thinks  that 
the  text  of  A  is  mixed  with  both  Syrian  and  Western  readings. 
Silberstein  has  made  a  careful  examination  of  the  text  of  3 
Kings  (1  Kings  of  our  Bible),  and  finds  that  of  the  259  Hexa- 
pla  additions  as  indicated  by  the  asterisk,  nine-tenths  appear 
in  A,  and  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  dependence  of  this 
text  upon  the  recension  of  Origen." 

Similar  detailed  work  on  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  is  necessary  before  the  exact  relation  of  A  to  Origen 
and  Hesychius  and  the  earlier  Alexandrian  text  can  be  fully 
determined. 

"  The  text  of  A  stands  in  broad  contrast  to  those  of  either  B 
or  S,  though  the  interval  of  years  is  probably  small.  The  con- 
trast is  greatest  in  the  Gospels,  where  A  has  a  fundamentally 
Syrian  text,  mixed  occasionally  with  pre-Syrian  readings,  chiefly 
Western.  In  the  other  books  the  Syrian  base  disappears,  though 
a  Syrian  occurs  among  the  other  elements.  In  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  the  Alexandrian  outnumber  the  Western  readings.  All 
books  except  the  Gospels,  and  especially  the  Apocalypse,  have 
many  pre-Syrian  readings  not  belonging  to  either  of  the  aberrant 
types ;  in  the  Gospels  these  readings  are  of  rare  occurrence.  By 
a  curious  and  apparently  unnoticed  coincidence  the  text  of  A  in 
several  books  agrees  with  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  so  many  peculiar 
readings  devoid  of  Old  Latin  attestation  as  to  leave  little  doubt 
that  a  Greek  MS.  largely  employed  by  Jerome  in  this  revision  of 

1  Comill.  Ezekiel.  s.  71. 

^  Momimenta  Sacra  et  Profana,  III..  Mediol.,  1864.  See  also  Swete,  i.e., 
p.  xxri,  for  a  full  description. 

3  See  Swete,  ?.c.,  p.  x,xvi.  *  Analecta,  s.  \Q.  ^  H.  &  P.,  26. 

^  Ceriani,  de  Codice  Marchaliano.  See  Nestle  in  Urtext  und  Uebersetzunyen, 
s.  73. 

'  Z.  A.  T.  II'.,  1893,  s.  68,  09;  1894,  s.  26. 


200  STUDY   OF   1U)LY   SCKIPTURE 

the  Latiu  version  must  have  had  to  a  great  extent  a  common 
origiual  with  A."  * 

Hort  thinks  that  "  Not  a  single  Greek  MS.  of  any  age  .  .  . 
has  transmitted  to  us  an  Alexandrian  text  of  anj-  part  of  the 
New  Testament  free  from  large  mixtm-e  with  other  texts."' ^ 

VIII.  The  Text  of  the  Hexapla 

The  uncial  manuscript  Marchalianus  of  the  Prophets,  dating 
from  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  represents  the  Gi-eek  text 
of  Origen's  Hexapla  on  the  margin.^  The  chief  authority 
for  this  text,  however,  is  the  Codex  Sarravianus  in  Lej'den, 
containing  the  Heptateuch.*  Codex  Venetus,  gr.  1,  ma}'  be 
added  on  the  authority  of  Lagarde,  Ceriani,  and  Giesebrecht.* 
Cornill  adds  also  the  cursives.  Codex  Chisianus  of  the  Prophets,* 
the  Codex  Barberinus  of  the  Prophets.''  The  Codex  Coislini- 
anus,^  containing  the  Octateuch,  also  has  the  text  of  the  Hex- 
apla. The  recently  discovered  Hexapla  of  a  section  of  the 
Psalms  gives  us  the  exact  copy  of  the  work  of  Origen.  The 
other  manuscripts  need  careful  comparison  with  this  so  soon  as 
it  may  be  published. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Origen  or  Eusebius  or  Pamphilus 
issued  a  revised  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

IX.  The  So-called  "Western  Text 

The  Codex  Bezse,  D,^  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  from  the  sixth 
centui-y,  contains  "substantially  a  Western  text  of  Cent.  II., 
with  occasional  readings  probably  due  to  Cent.  IV.  .  .  . 
AVestern  texts  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  preserved  in  two 

I  Westcott  and  Hort,  JVeio  Testament  in  Greek,  Introduction,  1882,  p.  152. 

•^  I.e.,  p.  150. 

3  This  is  XII.  of  H.  &  P.     See  Cornill,  EzeMel,  s.  15 ;  Nestle,  I.e.,  s.  T:). 

*  H.  &  P.,  IV.  and  V. ;  published  in  pliototype by  Omont,  Leyden,  1897.  See 
Strack,  I.e.,  s.  190  ;  Nestle,  UrUxt  und  Uebersetznng,  s.  72. 

*  H.  &  P.,  23.  E.  Kloslermann,  Annleeta,  s.  9-10,  34,  shows  that  it  belongs 
with  H.  &  P.,  XI.,  Vat.  gr.  2106,  malting  up  a  complete  Old  Testament. 

o  This  manuscript  alone  gives  the  old  Greek  translation  of  Daniel;  all  others 
give  Theodotion. 

'  //.  &  P.,  86,  contains  the  Prophets  except  Daniel. 

«  H.  <£■  P.,  X.     See  Buhl.  I.e..  s.  138  ;  Nestle,  I.e.,  s.  72. 

8  See  Gregory,  Prah^ijumena.  pp.  369  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE  201 

independent  uncials,  D^  and  (tj."^     This  Western  text  is  tlius 
described  by  Hort: 

"The  chief  and  most  constant  characteristic  of  the  Western 
readings  is  a  love  of  paraphrase.  Words,  clauses,  and  even  whole 
sentences,  were  changed,  omitted,  and  inserted  with  astonishing 
freedom,  wherever  it  seemed  that  the  meaning  could  be  brought 
out  with  greater  force  and  defiuiteness.  They  often  exhibit  a  cer- 
tain rapid  vigour  and  fluency  which  can  hardly  be  called  a  rebellion 
against  the  calm  and  reticent  strength  of  the  apostolic  speech,  for 
it  is  deeplj-  influenced  by  it,  but  which,  not  less  than  a  tamer  spirit 
of  textual  correction,  is  apt  to  ignore  pregnancy  and  balance  of 
sense,  and  especially  those  meanings  which  are  conveyed  by 
exceptional  choice  or  collocation  of  words.  .  .  . 

"Another  equally  important  characteristic  is  a  disposition  to 
enrich  the  text  at  the  cost  of  its  purity  by  alterations  or  additions 
taken  from  traditional  and  perhaps  from  apocryphal  or  other  non- 
biblical  sources.  .  .  . 

"  Besides  these  two  marked  characteristics,  the  AVestern  read- 
ings exhibit  the  ordinary  tendencies  of  scribes  whose  changes  are 
not  limited  to  wholly  or  partially  mechanical  corruptions.  .  .  . 

"As  illustrations  may  be  mentioned  the  insertion  and  multipli- 
cation of  genitive  pronouns,  but  occasionally  their  suppression 
where  they  appeared  cumbrous ;  the  insertion  of  objects,  genitive, 
dative,  or  accusative,  after  verbs  used  absolutely ;  the  insertion  of 
conjunctions  in  sentences  which  had  none,  but  occasionally  their 
excision  where  their  force  was  not  perceived,  and  the  form  of  the 
sentence  or  context  seemed  to  commend  abruptness ;  free  inter- 
change of  conjunctions;  free  interchange  of  the  formulae  intro- 
ductory to  spoken  words ;  free  interchange  of  participle  and  finite 
verb  with  two  finite  verbs  connected  by  a  conjunction ;  substitu- 
tion of  compound  verbs  for  simple  as  a  rule,  but  conversely  where 
the  compound  verb  of  the  true  text  was  difficult  or  unusual ;  and 
substitution  of  aorists  for  imperfects  as  a  rule,  but  with  a  few 
examples  of  the  converse,  in  which  either  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  context  or  an  outbreak  of  untimely  vigour  has  introduced  the 
imperfect.  A  bolder  form  of  correction  is  the  insertion  of  a  nega- 
tive particle,  as  in  ilt.  21^-  (oi  being  favoured,  it  is  true,  by  the 
preceding  tov),  Lk.  11^^,  and  Rom.  4''-' ;  or  its  omission,  as  in 
Rom.  5",  Gal.  2%  5". 

"  Another  impulse  of  scribes  abundantly  exemplified  in  Western 
readings  is  the  fondness  for  assimilation.      In  its  most  obvious 

'  Westcott    and    Hort,   I.e.,   pp.    148,    149.       D-  =  Codex  Claromontanus ; 
G'  =  Codex  Bornerianus. 


202  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

form  it  is  merely  local,  abolishing  diversities  of  diction  where  the 
same  subject-matter  recurs  as  part  of  two  or  more  neighbouring 
clauses  or  verses,  or  correcting  apparent  defects  of  symmetry. 
But  its  most  dangerous  work  is  '  harmonistic '  corruption ;  that  is, 
the  partial  or  total  obliteration  of  differences  in  passages  other- 
wise more  or  less  resembling  each  other.  Sometimes  the  assimi- 
lation is  between  single  sentences  that  happen  to  have  some  matter 
in  common ;  more  usuallj',  however,  between  parallel  passages  of 
greater  length,  such  especially  as  have  in  some  sense  a  common 
origin.  To  this  head  belong  not  ouly  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  but  parts  of  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  and  again  of 
Jude  and  2  Peter,  and,  above  all,  the  parallel  records  in  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  to  a  certain  extent  in  all  four." ' 

There  are  great  differences  of  opiniou  as  to  the  value  of  this 
Western  text,  especially  between  British  and  German  scholars. ^ 

Rendel  Harris,  in  his  recent  study  of  this  text,  makes  the 
following  statements : 

"  So  extensively  has  the  Greek  text  of  Codex  Bezae  been  modi- 
fied by  the  process  of  Latiniza.tion  that  we  can  no  longer  regard  D 
as  a  distinct  authority  apart  from  it.  In  the  first  instance  it  may 
have  been  such ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  have  been  the  ori- 
ginal from  which  the  first  Latin  translation  was  made.  But  it  is 
probably  safe  to  regard  D  -|-  d  as  representing  a  single  bilingual 
tradition.  .  .  . 

"  It  is  the  Bezan  Latin  that  is  of  prime  importance,  while  the 
Greek  has  no  certain  value  except  where  it  differs  from  its  oicn 
Latin,  and  must  not  any  longer  be  regarded  as  an  independent 
authority.  .  .  . 

"  The  coincidences  between  D  and  Irenaeus  take  us  again  to  a 
primitive  translation  that  cannot  be  as  late  as  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  And  finally,  an  examination  of  the  relicts  of 
Tatian's  Harmony,  and  of  the  Syriac  Versions  shows  reason  for 

1  Westcott  and  Hort,  I.e.,  pp.  123-125. 

2  "  Eine  ratselliafte  Handschrift,  uber  deren  'Wert  die  Meinungen  weit  ausei- 
nander  gehen.  Wahrend  die  einen  in  ilu-  das  einzigartige  Denkmal  einer  zwar 
verwilderten,  aber  sicherlich  manches  Urspriingliche  enthaltenden  Textesgestalt 
erblicken,  wie  sie  vor  der  endlichen  Konstituiernng  des  Kanons  verbreitet 
gewesen,  gilt  sie  anderen  als  der  llauptreprasentant  des  durch  willl<iirliche 
Aenderungen  und  Interpolationen  entstellten  sogen.  Oocidentalisclien  (west- 
ern) Textes,  und  dazwisclien  stelien  eine  Anzalil  Sonderanffassungen,  welche 
ihrerseits  der  Eigenart  der  unter  alien  Umstanden  liochbedeutsamen  Urkunde 
Rechnungzutragensuchen."  Von  Gebhardt  in  Urtext  und  Uebersetzungen  der 
Bibel,  s.  31. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF  THE   GREEK   BIBLE  203 

believing  that  the  bilingual  at  least  as  concerns  the  Gospels  is 
oldei-  than  Tatian." ' 

Harris  thinks  that  the  Western  text  is  Roman  of  the  second 
centurj'  and  that  Tatian,  who  studied  and  taught  at  Rome,  used 
it  in  his  Diatessaron.^ 

Still  more  recently  Resch  advanced  the  theorj^  that  the 
differences  in  the  great  original  Texts  are  due  to  independent 
translations  of  a  Hebrew  original.^  Chase  endeavours  to  show 
a  strong  Syrian  influence.*  Blass  has  given  strong  reasons  for 
the  opinion  that  the  Western  text  of  Acts  rests  upon  another 
edition  of  the  original  than  that  used  by  the  other  ancient 
family  of  manuscripts.^  Harris  in  consideration  of  these  theo- 
ries adheres  to  his  opinion,  yet  recognizes  the  force  of  Blass' 
arguments. 

X.    The  So-called  Text  of  Lucian 

The  Western  text  of  the  New  Testament  has  apjparently 
nothing  exactly  to  correspond  with  it  in  the  Greek  text  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  is  due  to  the  defects  of  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts of  this  text,  in  that  they  contain  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament alone.  It  cannot  escape  attention,  however,  that  whilst 
this  text  is  sustained  by  the  most  ancient  Latin  and  Syriac 
texts  of  the  New  Testament,  these  same  ancient  Latin  and 
Syriac  texts  in  the  Old  Testament  sustain  the  so-called  text  of 
Lucian.  Driver  and  Mez^  both  call  attention  to  this  and  sum 
up  the  evidence.  Mez  calls  attention  to  the  facts  that  Ceriani" 
saw  the  agreement  of  the  old  Latin  with  Lucian  in  Lamenta- 
tions ;  Vercellone  ^  for  the  codex  of  Leon,  WelUiausen  for 
Samuel,  Jacob  for  the  book  of  Esther,  Silbersteiu  ^  for  the  first 
book  of  Kings.     Driver  says  :  ^^ 

1  Coikx  Bezce  in  Texts  and  Sttidies,  Cambridge,  IL  1,  pp.  114,  161,  192. 
2?.c.,p.  234. 

5  Resch,  Agrapha,  1892,  pp.  350,  351 ;  Die  Logia  Jesu  nach  dem  Griechischen 
und  Hehriiischen  Text  loiederhergestelU,  1898. 

*  Chase,  The  Old  Syriac  Element  in  the  Text  of  Cod.  Bezx,  1893. 

6  Bla.ss,  Studien  und  Krit.,  1894,  s.  86-120;  Acta  Apost.,  1896  ;  Evangelium 
secundtim  Lucam  secundum  formam  quae  videtur  Eomanam,  1897. 

^  Driver.  Samuel,  p.  Ixxvii ;  Mez.  Die  Bibel  des  Josephus.  1895,  s.  81. 

'  Ceriani,  Mon.  Sacr.  et  Profan.,  1861,  I.  1,  p.  xvi.  (Addenda). 

'  Vercellone,  Varice  Lectiones,  II.  436. 

^  Z.  A.  T.  W.,  1893,  s.  20.  "'  Samuel,  1890,  pp.  Ixxvii,  Ixxviii.  - 


204  STUDY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

"  Tlie  conclusion  which  the  facts  observed  authorize  is  thus  that 
the  Old  Latin  is  a  version  made,  or  revised,  on  the  basis  of  MSS. 
agreeing  closely  with  those  which  were  followed  by  Lucian  in 
framing  his  recension.  The  Old  Latin  must  date  from  the  second 
century  a.d.  ;  hence  it  cannot  be  based  upon  the  recension  of 
Lucian  as  such :  its  peculiar  interest  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  affords 
independent  evidence  of  the  existence  of  ]MSS.  containing  Lu- 
ciau's  characteristic  readings  (or  renderings),  considerably  before 
the  time  of  Lucian  himself." 

]Mez  carefully  examines  the  citations  from  the  Old  Testament 
in  Josephus,  Antiq.,  Books  V.-VII.,  and  reaches  the  conclusion 
that  the  so-called  text  of  Lucian  is  older  than  Josephus,  and 
that  Theodotion  made  a  revision  of  it. 

The  Codex  Vaticanus  330  was  recognized  by  Field  and  then 
by  Lagarde  as  giving  essentially  the  text  of  Lucian.  This 
manuscript  was  the  chief  authoritj'  for  the  text  of  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot.' 

In  the  New  Testament  the  recension  of  Lucian  is  not  known 
to  exist  in  any  manuscript.  This  is  just  as  striking  as  the 
absence  of  Western  readings  from  manuscripts  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

XI.   The  Later  Syrian  Text 

Westcott  and  Hort  distinguish  between  an  eai'lier  and  later 
Syriac  revision,  and  are  willing  to  ascribe  the  earlier  to  Lucian. 
But  all  the  manuscrijjts  except  those  of  the  families  thus  far 
specified,  and  consequently  the  vast  majority  of  all  existing 
manuscripts,  belong  to  the  later  Sj'riac  revision.  Westcott  and 
Hort  do  not  distinguish  the  earlier  S3'rian  readings  and  make 
no  effort  to  ascertain  the  text  of  Lucian.  Here  they  are  weak. 
This  is  their  view  of  Sj-rian  readings  : 

"The  fundamental  text  of  late  extant  Greek  MSS.  generally 
is  beyond  all  question  identical  with  the  dominant  Antiochian 
or  Graeco-Syrian  text  of  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  community  of  text  implies  on  genealogical  grounds  a  com- 
munity of   parentage:   the  Antiochian  Fathers  and  the  bulk  of 

1  Field.  Origenis  Ilexapl.,  I.,  Prol..  p.  Ixxxviii;  Cornill,  Ezekiel.  s.  65;  Buhl, 
I.e.,  s.  140.  Lagarde  also  used  for  Lucian,  H.  &  P..  19,  44,  82,  93,  108,  118,  and 
Cornill,  H.  &  P.,  22,  23,  36,  48,  51,  231. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT   OF  THE   GREEK   BIBLE  205 

extant  IMSS.  written  from  about  three  or  four  to  ten  or  eleven 
centuries  later  must  have  had  in  the  greater  number  of  extant 
variations  a  common  original  either  contemporary  with  or  older 
than  our  oldest  extant  MSS.,  which  thus  lose  at  once  whatever 
presumption  of  exceptional  purity  they  might  have  derived  from 
their  exceptional  antiqmty  alone."  ' 

This  text  presupposes  the  work  of  Lucian  and  other  rival  texts. 

"  The  guiding  motives  of  their  criticism  are  transparently  dis- 
plaj-ed  in  its  effects.  It  was  probably  initiated  by  the  distracting 
and  inconvenient  currency  of  at  least  three  conflicting  texts  in  the 
same  region.  The  alternate  borrowing  from  all  implies  that  no 
selection  of  one  was  made,  —  indeed  it  is  difl&cult  to  see  how  under 
the  circumstances  it  could  have  been  made  —  as  entitled  to  su- 
premacy by  manifest  superiority  of  pedigree.  Each  text  may 
perhaps  have  found  a  patron  in  some  leading  personage  or  see, 
and  thus  have  seemed  to  call  for  a  conciliation  of  rival  claims."  * 

The  general  characteristics  of  these  texts  are  as  follows : 
"  Both  in  matter  and  in  diction  the  Syrian  text  is  conspicuously 
a  full  text.  It  delights  in  pronouns,  conjunctions,  and  exfiletives, 
and  supplied  links  of  all  kinds,  as  well  as  in  more  considerable 
additions.  As  distinguished  from  the  bold  vigour  of  the  '  "West- 
ern '  scribes,  and  the  refined  scholarship  of  the  Alexandrians,  the 
spirit  of  its  own  corrections  is  at  once  sensible  and  feeble.  En- 
tirely blameless  on  either  literary  or  religious  grounds  as  regards 
vulgarised  or  luiworthy  diction,  yet  shewing  no  marks  of  either 
critical  or  spiritual  insight,  it  presents  the  Xew  Testament  in  a 
form  smooth  and  attractive,  but  appreciably  impoverished  in  sense 
and  force,  more  fitted  for  cursory  perusal  or  recitation  than  for 
repeated  and  diligent  study."  ^ 

Great  progress  has  been  made  in  recent  years  in  the  classi- 
fication of  the  manuscripts  ;  but  much  still  remains  to  be  clone. 
It  seems  to  be  evident  that  B.  X,  and  their  group  represent  a  text 
earlier  than  any  of  the  revisions  of  the  third  century.  We 
are  in  the  way  of  determining  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  re^asecl  by  Origen  and  Lucian.  The  general  character  and 
antiqiiitj"  of  the  so-called  Western  text  of  the  New  Testament 
has  been  established,  and  the  tendency  is  to  an  increasing  esti- 
mate of  its  value  as  compared  with  B.     The  relation  of  that 

1  '.Yestcott  and  Hort.  J.c,  p.  92.        ^  -Westcott  and  Hort,  I.e.,  pp.  133.  134. 
8  Westcott  and  Hort,  I.e.,  p.  135. 


206  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

text  to  the  New  Testament  revision  of  Lucian  and  to  the  Old 
Testament  Luciau  has  still  to  be  determined.  The  school  of 
Westcott  and  Hort  halt  in  theii-  study  of  the  Syrian  text.  It 
is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  late  Syrian  and  the 
earlier  Syrian  text.  They  seem  altogether  uncertain  as  regards 
the  earlier  Syrian  text.  It  is  probable  that  these  questions  of 
Textual  Criticism  will  have  to  be  determined  b}-  the  special 
study  of  all  the  different  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Back  of  the  codices  of  the  third  century  lie  libraries  of  roUs, 
and  in  tliese  libraries  each  roll  had  a  history  of  its  own.  The 
future  work  of  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Bible  is 
largely  in  the  second  century  B.C. 

XII.    Printed  Texts  of  the  Greek  Bible 

1.  The  first  printed  text  of  the  Greek  Bible  is  in  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot,  1.514-1517.^  This  text  was  revised  in  the 
Antwerp  Polyglot,  1569-1572,  and  the  Paris  Polyglot,  1645. 

2.  Erasmus  published  his  Greek  New  Testament  in  five 
editions,  1516-1535.  Luther  translated  from  tlie  second  edition 
of  1519.2 

3.  The  Aldine  edition  ^  of  the  Old  Testament  was  published 
at  Venice,  1518. 

4.  Robert  Stephens  issued  four  editions  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament,  1546-1551.  He  used  in  addition  to  Erasmus  and 
The  Complutensian,  fifteen  manuscripts,*  and  for  the  first  time 
in  1551  divided  the  Greek  text  into  verses. 

5.  Theodore  Beza  issued  four  editions  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament,  in  folio,  1565-1598,  and  five  octavo  editions,  1565- 
1604.  He  knew  of  D  of  the  Epistles,  but  seems  to  have  made 
little  use  of  it.^ 

1  This  text  was  based  on  the  Vatican  codices  .330,  346  (H.  &  P.,  108,  248'). 
and  a  few  manuscripts  of  minor  importance  in  Madrid,  such  as  Venet.  V.  (H. 
di  P.,iiS). 

^  Erasmus  used  several  manuscripts  of  Basle,  Evv.  1,  2  ;  Acts  2  ;  Apoc.  1, 
and  for  the  third  edition  Ev.  61. 

»  It  was  based  on  H.  &  P.,  29,  68,  121 ;  Lagarde,  Mitt.  2,  57  ;  Sept.  St.  1, 
'2  ;  Nestle,  in  Urtext  und  Uebersetzungen,  s.  65. 

*  He  used  but  slightly  V>  and  L  of  the  Gospels. 

6  Ezra  Abbot,  Critical  Easayn,  1888,  p.  210. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT  OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE  207 

6.  In  1586  there  was  published  at  Rome  the  Sixtine  edition 
of  the  Greek  Okl  Testament.  This  was  based  on  B.  but  the 
parts  hacking  in  B  were  supplied  from  other  manuscripts,  which 
were  not  indicated.  This  text  was  also  given  in  the  London 
Polyglot,  1657,  with  a  critical  apparatus  and  various  readings.^ 

7.  The  Elzevirs  of  Leyden  issued  a  series  of  editions  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament  from  1624  onward.  The  second  edition 
of  the  j'ear  1633  claimed  to  give  the  received  text  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  there  was  no  intrinsic  merit  in  these  editions 
based  on  manuscript  authority  to  justify  this  reputation. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  numerous  efforts  were  made  to 
give  better  texts. 

8.  Mill  issued  his  New  Testament  at  Oxford  in  1707,  the 
text  of  Stephens  of  1550  with  a  rich  critical  apparatus. 

9.  The  Codex  Alexandrinus  was  published  by  Grabe,  Lee, 
and  Wigan  at  Oxford  in  1707-1720  with  prolegomena. 

10.  Bengel  issued  his  critical  text  of  the  New  Testament  in 
1734.  He  arranged  the  manuscripts  in  two  families,  the  Afri- 
can and  the  Asiatic. 

11.  Wetstein  published  his  New  Testament  in  1751-1752  at 
Amsterdam,  with  prolegomena  and  critical  apparatus  from  the 
manuscripts.  He  was  the  first  to  designate  the  manuscripts 
with  letters  and  numbers. 

12.  Sender  and  his  pupil  Griesbach  in  their  New  Testament 
Criticism  di\-ided  the  manuscripts  into  three  classes:  the  West- 
ern, the  Alexandrian,  and  the  Byzantine.  Griesbach  sums  up 
the  characteristics  of  the  two  older  texts  in  the  plu-ase  "  gram- 
maticum  egit  alexandrinus  censor,  interpretem  occidentalis."^ 
His  New  Testament  appeared  in  several  editions  from  1774- 
1806 ;  see  especially  small  edition  of  1805. 

13.  Holmes  and  Parsons  issued  their  Greek  Old  Testament 
at  Oxford  1798-1827,  citing  a  mass  of  manuscripts  which  they 
arranged  in  families  in  accordance  with  the  great  historical 
editions  of  the  third  century,  Lucian,  Hesychius  and  Origen. 
They  used  20  Uncials  and  277  Minuscules.^ 

'  These  are  from  A,  D  ;  also,  according  to  Nestle.  I.e.,  p.  66  ;  H.  &  P.,  IV., 
XII.,  60,  75,  86.  8  See  Nestle,  I.e.,  s.  66,  6". 

-  Gregory,  rrolegomena,  pp.  187, 188 ;  see  0.  von  Gebhardt,  I.e.,  s.  44. 


208  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

1-1.  Lachmann's  New  Testament  appeared  in  two  editions, 
1831  and  1850.  He  disregarded  printed  texts  and  limited  his 
text  so  far  as  possible  to  the  text^  of  the  Eastern  famil}-  of 
manuscripts. 

Schaff  compiles  a  number  of  testimonies  to  Lachraaun.  and 
endorses  them  as  follows  : 

Tregelles  says  (p.  99)  :  "  Laclimann  led  the  way  in  casting  aside 
the  so-called  textus  receptus,  and  boldly  placing  the  New  Testa- 
ment wholly  and  entirely  on  the  basis  of  actual  authority."  Reuss 
calls  him  (Biblioth..  p.  239)  "  vir  doctisshnus  et  KpLTiKWTa.To<;."  The 
conservative  Dr.  Scrivener  (p.  422  seq.)  depreciates  his  merits, 
for  he  defends,  as  far  as  possible,  the  traditional  text.  But  Dr. 
Hort  (G')'.  Test.,  II.  23)  does  full  justice  to  his  memorj' :  "A  new 
period  began  in  1831,  when,  for  the  first  time,  a  text  was  construed 
directly  from  the  ancient  documents  without  the  intervention  of 
any  printed  edition,  and  when  the  first  systematic  attempt  was 
made  to  substitute  scientific  method  for  arbitrary  choice  in  the 
discrimination  of  various  readings.  In  both  respects  the  editor, 
Lachmann,  rejoiced  to  declare  that  he  was  carrying  out  the  prin- 
ciples and  unfulfilled  intentions  of  Bentley,  as  set  forth  in  1716 
and  1720."  Atbot  saj-s  of  Lachmann  (in  Schaff's  Rellg.  Encycl., 
I.  275) :  "  He  was  the  first  to  found  a  text  wholly  on  ancient  evi- 
dence ;  and  his  editions,  to  which  his  eminent  reputation  as  a 
critic  gave  wide  currency,  especially  in  Germany,  did  much  toward 
breaking  down  the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  textus  recejytus."^ 

15.  Tischendorf  laboured  for  thirty  years  on  the  text  of  the 
Greek  Bible.  His  first  edition  of  the  New  Testament  apjjeared 
in  1810,  of  the  Old  Testament  in  1850.  His  last  edition  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  issued  in  1860,  of  the  New  Testament  in 
1)^(34_1872.  He  died  before  completing  the  prolegomena.  The 
prolegomena  to  the  New  Testament  was  prepared  bj-  Gregory 
after  consulting  about  a  thousand  manu.scripts,  and  published 
in  1881-1891.  Tischendorf  discovered  the  Sinaitic  codex  and 
many  other  valuable  manuscripts  and  has  doiie  more  for  the 
Greek  Bible  than  any  one  since  Origen. 

J  He  used  manuscripts  A,  B,  C.  and  P.  Q,  T.  Z  of  the  Gospels,  and  II  of  the 
Epistles.  He  called  in  the  Western  text  of  D,  E,  for  Acts  and  G  for  Epistles,  to 
decide  when  there  was  difference  between  the  Orientals.  See  von  Gebh.Trdt. 
^.c,  46. 

^  Schaff,  Companion,  to  the  Greek  Testament,  1883,  pp.  2S0,  267. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE   GREEK   BIBLE  209 

16.  Tregelles  also  devoted  his  life  to  the  New  Testament 
text  and  published  his  works  from  1844-1879. 

17.  The  last  and  in  some  respects  the  most  solid  work  on 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  New  Testament  of  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  1881,  with  an  introduction  which  is  the  most 
valuable  contribution  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament  that  has  j'et  appeared ;  their  text  was  prepared  in 
accordance  ^ith  the  genealogical  principle  and  on  the  basis  of 
the  tlistinction  of  four  families  of  manuscripts,  the  preference 
as  to  age  belonging  to  the  neutral  text  of  B. 

18.  The  Cambridge  school  have  also  given  us  the  best  text  of 
the  Greek  Old  Testament  in  Swete's  edition,  1887-1894,  based 
on  the  correct  text  of  B,  which  is  the  earliest  and  most  im- 
portant authority,  with  various  readings  from  the  other  chief 
authorities.  This  is  preparatory  to  a  much  larger  work  in 
course  of  preparation  for  the  Universitj'  Press  by  Swete, 
Brooke,  and  McLean,  with  a  complete  critical  apparatus. 

19.  The  plan  of  Lagarde  to  edit  the  chief  ancient  texts  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  begun  ^Tith  his  edition  of  the  text  of 
Lucian,  but  he  died  after  completing  the  iirst  volume,  1883.  The 
more  recent  work  in  textual  criticism  has  been  in  the  detailed 
labour  upon  particular  books,  in  which  many  scholars  have 
done  distinguished  work.  A  most  important  work  on  the 
New  Testament  has  been  the  editing  of  a  number  of  the  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  by  Weiss,  and  of  the  Acts  and 
Luke  by  Blass. 


CHAPTER   IX 

THE   TKANSLATIOXS    OF   THE    BIBLE 

A  NUMBER  of  earlj-  versions  were  made  from  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  text  of  the  New 
Testament. 

I.    The  Aramaic  Versions 

The  Aramaic  versions  began  in  the  spiagogues  of  Palestine, 
Syria,  and  the  Orient,  among  the  Aramaic-speaking  Jews,  as 
a  necessity  of  worship  in  the  synagogue,  not  later  than  the 
second  century  B.C.  But  the  translations  were  oral,  by  scribes 
who  had  a  competent  knowledge  of  both  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Aramaic.  Such  Aramaic  translations  were  in  use  in  the  times 
of  Jesus  and  His  apostles,  and  were  doubtless  used  bj'  Jesus 
and  His  apostles  in  their  public  ministry.  The  citations  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  primitive  Gospels  were  from  these 
Aramaic  popular  translations. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  many  modern  critics  ^  that  the  citations 
from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  Testament  were  never 
made  from  the  Hebrew  text,  but  always  from  the  Greek  Tar- 
gum  or  the  Aramaic  Targum.  These  Targums  were  modified 
and  improved  by  paraphrase  and  explanation  from  time  to 
time  before  they  were  committed  to  writing.     Tliose  that  have 

>  Bohl.  Forschungen  naeh  cine  Volksbibel  stir  Zeit  Jesti,  Wien,  1873; 
Alttest.  Citate  in  Xeuen  Test.,  Wien,  1878  ;  Toy,  QuotaUnns  in  the  Xew  Test., 
1884  ;  Neubauer,  Sludia  Biblica.,  I.  3.  Turjiie,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Xeic, 
1868,  pp.  260  seq.,  classifies  the  278  citations  as  follows:  WJ  agree  witli  both  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Massoretic  text,  10  agree  with  the  Massoretic  text  alone,  37 
agree  with  the  Septuagint,  175  agree  with  neither,  3  have  nothing  to  corre- 
spond with  them  in  the  Old  Testament.  Tliis  is  strongly  in  favotir  of  the  use  of 
an  Aramaic  Targum  bj'  the  New  Testament  writers. 
210 


THE   TEAXSLATIOXS   OF  THE   BIBLE  211 

been  preserved  are  in  the  western  dialect  of  the  Aramaic, 
altliough  they  were  modified  in  their  subsequent  use  in  the 
synagogues  of  tlie  Orientals  by  the  introduction  of  an  eastern 
Aramaic  colouring.  These  Targums  do  not  in  all  respects 
conform  to  the  official  text  of  the  Sopherim.  They  represent 
in  some  respects  an  earlier  text.  The  earliest  of  these  Tar- 
gums. called  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  is  limited  to  the  Law.i 
It  is  written  in  the  Judaic  dialect.  It  exhibits  the  character- 
istics of  the  Sopherim  in  its  effort  to  avoid  anthropomorphisms, 
obscene  allusions,  and  everything  unworthy  of  God  in  the  Jew- 
ish religion.  But  it  paraphrases  and  endeavours  to  explain  the 
original.^  A  later  Targum  on  the  Law  not  earlier  than  the 
seventh  century,  called  the  Targum  of  Pseudo-Jonathan,  by 
mistake  for  Yerushalmi,  paraphrases  still  more  largely.  It  is 
in  a  later  dialect  of  Aramaic.  Another  Targum  Yerushalmi 
has  been  preserved  only  in  fragments. 

An  early  Targum  on  the  Prophets,  called  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  written  in  the  Judaic  dialect  has  been 
preserved.  The  Talmud  ^  alludes  to  him  as  a  pupil  of  Hillel 
and  as  writing  a  paraphrase  of  the  Prophets.  This  translation 
has  been  much  changed  by  oral  transmission.  It  is  thought 
b}-  Schiirer  and  Buhl  that  Joseph  the  Blind  revised  it ;  but 
Dalman  and  Nestle  deny  it.  Certainly  it  preserves  much 
earlier  material,  which  is  not  in  accord  with  the  Hebrew  text 
of  the  Sopherim  or  their  interpretation.* 

These  Targums  represent  the  oral  translations  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  as  used  in  the  worship  of  the  synagogue. 
The  Targums  on  the  other  books  are  all  much  later  and  for 
private  use.      The  Targums  on  Psalms  and  Job  are  in  the 

1  It  seems  probable  that  the  traditional  Onkelos  and  Aquila  are  really  the 
same  persons,  the  pupil  of  Akiba.  Bmt  there  is  evidently  a  mistake  of  tradi- 
tional ascription.  There  is  no  similarity  between  the  Greek  version  of  Aquila 
and  this  Aramaic  version.    Its  method  and  principles  are  wide  apart. 

-  It  was  first  printed  in  1482  at  Bologna  with  Hebrew  text  and  commentary 
of  Rashi,  and  frequently  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.  The  best 
edition  is  Berliner,  Tarf/um  Onkelos,  1884.  It  was  translated  with  other  Tar- 
gums by  Etheridfje,  18fi2-186j. 

«  Baba  Bnthra.  VIII.  134  a  ;  Mcgilla,  f.  3  a. 

*  The  name  of  Jonathan  is  thoujlit  by  some  to  be  a  variation  of  Tlieodotion. 
This  Targum  is  printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  and  great  Polyglots, 


212  STUDY  OF   UOLY   SCRIPTURE 

manner  of  Jonathan,  and  probably  by  the  same  author.  The 
Targum  of  the  Proverbs  is  nearer  to  the  Hebre-sv  text. 
The  Targum  on  the  five  Rolls  is  ascribed  to  Joseph  the  Blind 
by  tradition,  but  really  is  not  earlier  than  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury. ^  There  are  two  Targums  on  Esther,^  and  a  Targum  on 
Daniel  of  the  twelfth  centm-y.^  A  Targum  on  Chronicles 
of  the  ninth  century  *  resembles  closely  the  Syriac  translation 
in  the  Syriac  Old  Testament  and  maj-  have  been  made  from  it. 
All  of  the  Writings  have  Targums  except  Ezra  and  Xehemiah  ; 
but  these  Targums  were  private  and  not  official.^ 


II.    The  Sykiac  Bible 

The  earliest  translation  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  into 
Sj-riac,  known  to  us,  is  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian.  Next  to 
this  in  antiquity  is  apparently  the  text  recenth'  discovered  in 
1893  bj-  ^Irs.  Lewis,  and  published  by  Bensly,  Harris,  Burkill, 
and  Mrs.  Lewis  herself,  189J— 1896.  Still  later  is  the  Curetou- 
ian  Syriac  Gospels,  discovered  b}-  Cureton  in  1858.^  The  Old 
Testament  was  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into  the  Syriac  for 
the  most  part  in  the  second  Christian  century,  and  the  other 
books  of  the  Xew  Testament  from  the  Greek  so  far  as  the 
Syrian  Church  recognized  the  Sacred  AVritings  as  canonical. 
The  official  S3-riac  Bible,  called  the  Peshitto  or  Peshitta,"  was 
of  gradual  origin  on  the  basis  of  these  older  translations. 

The  S3'riac  Bible  was  re\ised  under  the  influence  of  Litciau 
and  assimilated  to  his  text  of  the  Septuagint  as  well  as  the 
Greek  Xew  Testament.  Another  version  was  made  in  508  by 
Philoxenis  from  the  Greek,  and  this  was  re%dsed  by  Thomas  of 
Haraklea  in  616  a.d. 

^  These  Tarcriims  are  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  and  great  Polyglots. 

2  The  earliest  of  these  is  in  Walton's  Polyglot ;  the  other  was  printed  by 
Francis  Taylor,  London,  1665. 

3  It  is  in  manuscript  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris. 
*  It  was  published  by  Beck,  Augsburg,  1680-1683. 

^  Buhl,  I.e.,  s.  183. 

"  Cureton,  Semains  of  a  very  Ancient  Hecension  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Syriac, 
London,  1858. 

"  Peshitto  is  the  western  Syriac.  Peshitta  the  eastern  Syriac,  pronunciation. 


THE   TRAXSLATIONS   OF  THE   BIBLE  213 

III.    The  Latix  Vulgate 

Jerome,  the  greatest  biblical  scholar  of  ancient  times,  devoted 
a  large  portion  of  his  life  to  the  revision  of  the  Latin  Bible. 
At  first  he  made  a  revision  of  the  Italian  Latin  version  used 
in  Rome.  He  revised  the  Psalter,  and  it  was  used  in  the 
Roman  churches  in  Venice  until  recent  times.  It  is  still  used 
in  Milan  as  the  Roman  Psalter.  He  made  a  second  revision, 
which  has  been  used  in  the  Church  of  France  as  the  Galilean 
Psalter.  He  finally  undertook  to  make  a  new  translation  from 
the  Hebrew  text  under  the  help  of  Bar  Anina,  a  learned  Jew. 
The  Greek  versions,  especially  that  of  Symmachus,  were  kept 
in  view.  The  Hebrew  text  used  by  him  was  the  text  of  the 
Sopherim.  The  version  was  begun  in  390  and  completed  in 
405  A.D.  The  version  of  Jerome  supplanted  the  older  Latin 
versions ;  but  not  without  mixture  with  them  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical manuscripts  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  uses  of 
the  Latin  Church.  He  did  not  translate  the  Apocrypha. 
These  came  from  the  old  versions. 

The  earliest  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  is  the  Codex  Amia- 
tinus,  prepared  shortly  before  716  a.d.,^  in  the  Laurentian 
Library,  Florence.  The  Codex  Toletanus  at  Toledo  is  said  to 
belong  to  the  eighth  century.  The  Codex  Fuldensis  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  the  abbey  of  Fuldo,  dates  from  546.^  The 
Vulgate  was  first  printed  in  1450  at  Mainz,  and  in  many  sub- 
sequent incunabula  editions,  said  to  be  more  than  two  hundred 
in  number,  before  1517  a.d.  The  first  critical  edition  is  in  the 
Complutensian  Polj-glot,  1517.  Protestant  editions  were  issued 
by  Andreas  Osiander  in  1522,  and  b}^  Robert  Stephens  at  Paris, 
1.523  seq.y  and  much  improved  in  1540.  The  Tridentine  Coun- 
cil, in  1546,  declared  the  Vulgate  to  be  the  official  text  of  tlie 
Bible.  Efforts  were  then  made  to  prepare  an  official  text. 
The  Sixtine  edition  was  issued  in  1590,  under  the  patronage 
of  Pope  Sixtus  v.,  as  the  official  edition.  This  was  withdrawn 
after  the  death  of  the  pope,  and  a  new  text  undertaken  under 
the  advice  of  Bellarmin,  and  issued  in  1592  as  the  Clementine 

1  See  Studia  Biblica,  II.  pp.  27.3,  324. 

2  SchaS,  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament,  p.  151. 


214  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

text  under  Clement  VIII.,  and  again  in  1593,  and  finally  in  a 
more  correct  form  in  1598. 

A  modern  edition  of  the  Vulgate  was  published  in  1822  by 
Leander  Van  Ess,  who  devoted  many  years  to  a  critical  study 
of  it.i 

IV.  The  Arabic  Version 

The  Arabic  version  was  made  in  the  tenth  century  from  the 
Hebrew  text  of  fhe  Old  Testament  by  Rabbi  Saadia  ha  Gaon 
(912f).  The  author  was  a  fine  Hebrew  and  Arabic  scholar, 
and  his  translation  is  excellent.  At  times  it  paraphrases  after 
the  manner  of  the  Targums.^ 


V.  A  Persian  Versiox 

A  Persian  version  of  the  Law  was  made  from  the  ]\Iassoretic 
Hebrew  text  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  by  Rabbi 
Jacob  Tawus.  It  is  literal  and  follows  closely  the  revisions  of 
Aquila  and  Saadia.     It  is  in  the  London  Polj^glot. 

VI.  English  Versions 

The  Anglo-Saxon  versions  and  the  early  English  versions  of 
Wicklif  and  the  Poor  Friars  were  made  from  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate ;  but  during  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  the  English 
Protestant  Reformer,  William  Tyndale,  translated  from  the 
Massoretic  Hebrew  text  and  the  Greek  New  Testament.  He 
translated  the  New  Testament  in  1524-1525.  He  then  translated 
the  Law,  which  was  published  in  1530,  and  the  book  of  Joshua 
in  1531.  He  probably  translated  other  portions  of  the  Old 
Testament  also  before  his  death,  but  thej'  were  not  published. 
Miles  Coverdale  translated  the  whole   Bible  from  the   Latin, 

1  Van  Ess,  Pvagni.  Krit.  Gesrii.  d.  Vulg.,  Tubingen,  182  J  ;  Kaulen,  Gesch. 
der  Vulrj.,  Mainz,  1868. 

-  Another  Arabic  version  was  made  in  the  eleventli  centurj'.  but  it  has  been 
interpolated  from  the  Syiiac  by  a  Cliristian  hand.  It  has  been  preserved  only  in 
the  book  of  Joshua  and  1  K.  12  to  2  K.  121^,  and  Neh.  l-O-'.  How  much  more 
of  it  there  was  we  know  not.  There  is  also  a  translation  of  the  Law  by  an  Afri- 
can Jew  of  the  thirteenth  century,  published  by  Erpenius  in  1022. 


THE   TRA^'SLATIONS   OF  THE   BIBLE  215 

the  German  of  Luther,  and  the  Zurich  Bible,  under  the  au- 
thoi-ity  of  Cromwell,  and  it  was  published  in  1535. 

Jolin  Rogers  (pseudo-Thomas  Matthew)  was  the  literary 
executor  of  Tyndale.  He  published  a  folio  edition  of  the 
Bible  in  1537.  He  used  Tyndale  for  the  Pentateuch,  and 
Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  and  1  Chronicles,  and  for  the 
New  Testament ;  but  the  rest  of  the  Bible  was  Coverdale's. 

Richard  Taverner,  under  the  advice  of  Cromwell,  undertook 
to  revise  the  English  Bible,  which  he  did  in  1539.  He  retui-ns 
to  the  Vulgate  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment he  is  more  faithful  to  the  original  Greek. 

Coverdale,  under  the  instruction  of  Cromwell,  undertook  an- 
other revision  and  produced  what  is  known  as  the  Great  Bible, 
which  was  published  in  1539.  The  second  edition,  1540,  had  a 
preface  b_v  Cranmer.  This  became  the  authorized  version  and 
remained  such  for  twentj'-eight  j^ears.  The  larger  part  of  the 
Scrijjtures  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1519-1552  are  from  this 
Bible. 

The  English  exiles  at  Geneva,  William  Wbittiugham,  Thomas 
Sampson,  Anthony  Gilby,  and  others,  made  the  so-called  Geneva 
Version.  The  New  Testament  was  translated  from  the  original 
Greek  by  Whittingham  in  1557.  It  is  a  revision  of  Tyndale 
under  the  influence  of  Beza.  The  Old  Testament  was  trans- 
lated from  the  Hebrew  by  Sampson,  Gilby,  and  others,  and  was 
published  in  1560.  This  became  the  standard  Bible  for  the 
Puritan  ministers  of  England  until  the  version  of  King  James 
took  its  place. 

Archbishop  Parker  undertook  a  new  revision,  and  the  work 
was  distributed  among  a  number  of  bishops,  deans,  and 
scholars.  It  was  at  last  finished  and  published  in  1568.  It 
was  re%'ised  again  in  1572,  and  became  known  as  the  Bishops' 
Bible. 

The  Roman  Catholics  undertook  an  English  version  based 
on  the  Vulgate  but  keeping  the  other  versions  in  view.  The 
New  Testament  appeared  in  1582  at  Rheims,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  1609  at  Douay. 

And  so  three  great  parties  in  England  were  represented  by 
three  English  versions  of  the  Bible. 


216  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

King  James,  in  accordance  with  the  petition  of  the  Puritans 
at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  in  1604,  authorized  a  new 
version.  Fift3--four  scliolars  were  appointed,  divided  into  six 
companies,  to  do  the  work.  BUson,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  and 
Dr.  ]Miles  Smith  were  the  final  revisers.  It  was  published  in 
1611,  and  eventually  drove  all  the  Protestant  versions  from 
the  field.  They  used  Beza's  Greek  Testament  of  1589.  It 
remains  the  common  version  of  the  English-speaking  Protes- 
tants until  the  present  time.^ 

An  Anglo-American  revision  was  made  bj'  a  large  company 
of  scholars  representing  the  different  Protestant  religious  bodies 
of  Great  Britain  and  America.  It  was  completed  and  published, 
the  New  Testament  in  1881,  the  Old  Testament  in  1881.  The 
New  Testament  revision  was  based  on  the  use  of  all  the  re- 
sources of  modern  Textual  Criticism.  The  Old  Testament  revi- 
sion was  based  on  the  currently  used  INIassoretic  text,  without 
any  attempt  to  use  the  resources  of  the  modern  Textual  Criti- 
cism of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  satisfying  neither  to  the 
people,  who  are  attached  to  the  common  version  and  see  no 
sufficient  reason  for  abandoning  it,  nor  to  scholars,  who  are 
displeased  with  the  excessive  conservatism  and  pedantry  which 
characterize  it,  especially  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  very 
desirable  that,  when  the  next  re\'ision  takes  place,  Roman 
Catholics  and  Protestants  may  unite  in  it. 

VII.    Otheu  Vehsioxs 

(1)   The  German  Bible. 

German  Bibles  were  among  the  first  books  to  appear  from 
the  press  after  the  invention  of  printing.  Fourteen  editions  of 
the  High  German  Bible  appeared  between  1166  and  1518,  be- 
sides four  editions  of  the  Low  German  Bible.  These  were  all 
translations  from  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Martin  Luther  made 
the  Bible  used  by  the  German  people  since  the  Reformation. 
He  issued  the  New  Testament  in  1522,  the  Pentateuch  in  1523, 
and  finally  completed  the  Bible  in  1534.  Many  subsequent  edi- 
tions were  revised  by  him,  until  the  tenth,  1544-1545.  Luther 
1  Schaff,  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament,  pp.  312  seq. 


THE   TRAXSLATIOXS   OF  THE   BIBLE  217 

translated  from  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament,  using  the  text  of 
Brescia,  and  from  the  Greek  New  Testament,  using  the  edition 
of  Erasmus  of  1519.^  The  Roman  Catholics  issued  several 
rival  German  Bibles  :  Emser,  in  1527  ;  Eck,  in  1537  ;  and  the 
Dominican,  Dietenberger,  in  1534.  This  edition  was  subse- 
quently revised  by  Ulenberg,  in  1630,  and  at  ^Mainz  in  1662, 
and  became  the  German  Catholic  Bible.  In  1868,  at  Eisenach, 
the  Evangelical  Church  Diet  appointed  a  Commission  for  the 
revision  of  Luther's  Bible.  The  New  Testament  appeared  at 
Halle  in  1867,  the  re'V'ised  edition  in  1870.  The  Prohebiiel 
was  published  in  1883,  the  revision  was  finished  in  1892.  The 
best  German  translation  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  of 
Weizsiicker.  Kautzsch  has  recently  issued  an  excellent  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  with  critical  notes,  2te  Aufl.,  1896. 

(2)  French  Versions. 

Lefevre  d'Etaples  made  a  French  Protestant  version  of  the 
Bible,  which  was  published  at  Antwerp  in  1530  ;  but  the  ver- 
sion of  Olivetan,  published  in  1535  at  Neufchatel  and  corrected 
by  Cah-in,  obtained  wider  recognition.  Under  the  influence  of 
Calvin,  the  pastors  of  Geneva  undertook  a  revision  under  the 
leadershij)  of  Beza,  and  in  1588  issued  a  version  which  main- 
tained its  place  until  the  present  day.  But  it  is  well-nigh  .sup- 
planted now  by  a  new  translation  from  the  original  Greek  and 
Hebrew  bv  Dr.  Louis  Segond.  The  Old  Testament  was  pub- 
lished in  1874,  the  New  Testament  in  1879. 

(3)  Dutch  Versions. 

A  Dutch  translation  from  Luther  and  the  Cologne  Bible  was 
issued  in  1526  by  Jacob  van  Liesveldt.  Van  Uttenhove  made 
a  new  translation  from  Luther's  Bible  with  the  help  of  Olive- 
tan's,  and  published  it  in  1556.  The  States-General  of  Holland 
authorized  a  new  translation  in  1624,  which  was  completed  and 
published  in  1637.  It  was  called  the  States  Bible,  and  has  held 
its  place  until  the  present  time.  The  new  translation  author- 
ized by  the  General  Synod  in  1854,  and  published  so  far  as  the 
New  Testament  is  concerned  in  1867,  has  not  displaced  it. 

(4)  Other  Translations. 

The  Bible  was  also  translated  into  Italian,  Danish,  Swedish, 
"  See  pp.  180,  206. 


218  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

and  other  modern  languages  before  the  Reformation.  In  the 
era  of  the  Reformation  it  was  translated  into  all  the  European 
languages.  In  more  recent  years,  tlu-ough  the  laboui-s  of 
foreign  missions,  it  has  been  translated  into  the  greater  part 
of  the  known  languages  of  the  world.  But  none  of  these  trans- 
lations have  any  value  for  the  purposes  of  the  criticism  of  the 
text  of  Holy  Scripture. 


CHAPTER  X 

TEXTUAL    CRITICISM   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

We  should  not  hesitate  to  recognize  that  a  certain  kind  of 
Textual  Criticism  was  used  in  the  most  ancient  times  by  the 
Sopherim  and  Massorites,  who  have  transmitted  to  us  the  tra- 
ditional Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  work  of 
Origen,  Lucian,  Hesycliius,  and  Jerome,  upon  the  Greek  Bible 
was  also  Textual  Criticism,  so  far  as  the}'  earnestly  and  indus- 
triously sought  to  get  the  best  text  of  Holj'  Scripture.  But  all 
this  work  was  carried  on  in  a  crude  fashion,  and  without  defi- 
nite principles  of  Textual  Criticism.  Biblical  Textual  Criti- 
cism began  its  work  in  the  era  of  the  Reformation. 

I.    Textual  Criticism  at  the  Reformation 

Erasmus  led  the  movement,  so  far  as  the  Greek  Bible  is  con- 
cerned. In  1505  he  edited  Valla's  Annotations  to  the  Netv  Tes- 
tament, in  the  preface  of  which  he  urges  a  return  to  the  original 
Greek  text  and  its  grammatical  exposition.  In  1516  he  issued 
his  Greek  New  Testament.  This  passed  through  many  editions 
and  became  the  basis  for  the  study  of  the  Greek  New  Tes- 
tament among  Protestants.  An  impulse  to  sound  criticism 
among  Roman  Catholics  had  also  been  given  by  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot  of  Cardinal  Ximenes. 

The  Protestant  Reformers  had  given  their  chief  attention  to 
the  criticism  of  the  Canon,  the  establishment  of  the  sole  au- 
thority of  the  Scripture,  and  to  its  proper  interpretation,  but 
they  liad  not  altogether  overlooked  the  criticism  of  the  text. 
With  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  thej^  had  been  chiefly 
influenced  by  two  Jewish  scholars,  the  one  Elias  Levita,  who 
lived  and  died  in  the  Jewish  faith,  the  other  Jacob  ben  Chayim, 
219 


220  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

who  became  a  Christian.  Chaj'im  edited  the  second  edition  of 
Bomberg's  Rabbinical  Bible  and  issued  an  elaborate  introduc- 
tion to  it.  He  also  edited,  for  the  first  time,  the  3Iassora.  It 
^vas  a  common  opinion  among  the  Jews  that  the  vowel  points 
and  accents  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  came  down  from  Ezra, 
and  even  Moses  and  Adam.  Levita  explodes  these  traditions 
by  the  following  simple  line  of  argument : 

"  The  vowel  points  and  the  accents  did  not  exist  either  before 
Ezra  or  in  the  time  of  Ezra  or  after  Ezra  till  the  close  of  the 
Talmud.  And  I  shall  prove  this  with  clear  and  conclusive  evi- 
dence. (1)  In  all  the  writings  of  our  Rabbins  of  blessed  memory 
whether  the  Talmud,  or  the  Hagadah,  or  the  Midrash.  there  is 
not  to  be  found  any  mention  whatever  of  or  any  allusion  to  the 
vowel  points  or  accents."  (2)  and  (3)  The  Talmud  in  its  use  of 
the  Bible  discusses  how  the  words  should  be  read  and  how  divided. 
This  is  inconsistent  with  an  accented  official  text.  (4)  '•  Almost 
all  the  names  of  both  the  vowel  points  and  the  accents  are  not 
Hebrew,  but  Aramean  and  Babylonian."  ' 

The  Reformers  rejected  the  inspiration  of  the  Massoretic 
traditional  pointing  and  only  accepted  the  unpointed  text. 
Luther  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  the  points  as  new  human 
inventions  about  which  he  does  not  trouble  himself,  and  says, 
"  I  often  utter  words  which  strongly  oppose  these  points,"  and 
"they  are  most  assuredly  not  to  be  preferred  to  the  simple, 
correct,  and  grammatical  sense." '^  He  goes  to  work  with  the 
best  text  he  can  find  to  give  the  Word  of  God  to  the  people. 
So  Calvin^  acknowledged  that  they  were  the  result  of  great 
diligence  and  sound  tradition,  yet  to  be  used  Avith  care  and 
selection.  Zwingli  gave  great  value  to  the  Greek  and  Latin 
versions  and  disputed  the  Massoretic  signs.* 

It  is  astonishing  how  far  post  Reformation  Swiss  Protestant 
divines  allowed  themselves  to  drift  away  from  this  position, 
and  how  greatly  they  entangled  themselves  once  more  in  the 
bonds  of  Rabbinical  traditionalism.     This  was  chiefly  due  to 

1  Levita.  Maasoreth  Ha-Massoreth,  edited  by  Ginsburg.  pp.  127  scq.  London, 
1867. 

2  Com.  on  Gen.  47"  ;  on  Is.  9«. 

*  Com.  on.  Zech.  11'.  *  Opera  ed.  Schult.,  V.  pp.  556  seq. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  221 

another  Jewish  scholar,  Azzariah  de  Rossi,'  who  claims,  to  use 
the  concise  statement  of  Dr.  Ginsburg :  ^ 

"  That  as  to  the  origin  and  development  of  the  vowels  their 
force  and  ^'irtue  were  invented  by,  or  communicated  to,  Adam,  in 
Paradise ;  transmitted  to  and  by  ^Moses ;  that  they  had  been  par- 
tially forgotten,  and  their  pronimciation  vitiated  during  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity;  that  they  had  been  restored  by  Ezra,  but  that 
they  had  been  forgotten  again  in  the  wars  and  struggles  during 
and  after  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple ;  and  that  the 
Massorites,  after  the  close  of  the  Talmud,  revised  the  system, 
and  permanenth'  fixed  the  pronunciation  by  the  contrivance  of 
the  present  signs.  This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  present 
vowel  points  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Talmud.  The  reason  why 
!Moses  did  not  punctuate  the  copy  of  the  law  which  he  wrote,  is 
that  its  import  should  not  be  imderstood  without  oral  tradition. 
Besides,  as  the  law  has  seventy  different  meanings,  the  writing  of 
it,  without  points,  greatly  aids  to  obtain  these  various  interpreta- 
tions; whereas  the  affixing  of  the  vowel  signs  would  preclude  all 
permutations  and  transiiositions,  and  greatlj"  restrict  the  sense  by 
fixing  the  pronunciation." 

His  principal  reliance  was  upon  some  passages  of  the  book 
Zohar  and  other  cabalistic  writings,  which  he  claimed  to  be 
older  than  the  Mishna,  but  which  have  since  been  shown  to  be 
greatly  interpolated  and  of  questionable  antiquity.^ 

Relying  upon  these,  the  elder  Buxtorf,  with  his  great  author- 
ity, misled  a  large  number  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  Re- 
formed divines  of  the  continent  to  maintain  the  opinion  of  the 
divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  jNIassoretic  vowel  points  and 
accents.*  In  England,  Fulke,*  Broughton,^  and  Lightfoot " 
adopted  the  same  opinion.  These  Rabbinical  scholars  exerted, 
in  this  respect,  a  disastrous  influence  upon  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

1  The  Lifjht  of  the  Eyes.  Cri?  -l"«a.  1574-1575,  HI.  59. 

-  Life  of  Elias  Lei-ita.  in  connection  with  his  edition  of  Levita's  Massoreth 
Ha-Massoreth,  London,  1867,  p.  53. 

2  Ginsburg  in  I.e.,  p.  52  ;  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible,  Paris,  1881,  p.  121. 
*  Tiberius  sive  Commentarius  Masorethicus,  Basle,  1620. 

'  A  Defence  of  the  Siticei-e  and  True  Translations  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  into 
the  EnriU.ih  Toni/ue,  etc.,  158.3 ;  Parker  Society  edition,  1843.  pp.  55,  578. 

^  Daniel.-  his  Chaldee  Visions  and  his  Hebrew,  London,  1597,  on  Chap.  925. 

'  Chorographical  Century,  c.  81 ;  Works,  Pitman's  edition,  1823,  VoL  IX. 
pp.  150  seq. 


222  STUDY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

II.   Textual  Ckiticissi  lx  the  Sevexteexth  Cextury 

The  critical  principle  reasserted  itself  mightily  through  Lud- 
\rig  Cappellus,  of  the  French  school  of  Sauuiui-,  where  a  freer 
type  of  theology  had  maintained  itself.  A  new  impulse  to 
Hebrew  scholarshiiJ  had  been  given  by  Amira,  Gabriel  Sionita, 
and  other  Maronites,  who  brought  a  wealth  of  Oriental  learning 
to  the  attention  of  Christian  scholars.  Pocock  journeyed  to 
the  East,  and  returned  with  rich  spoils  of  Arabic  literature. 
France,  Holland,  and  England  vied  with  one  another  in  their 
use  of  these  literarj^  treasures,  and  urged  them  for  the  stud}' 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  over  against  the  Rabbinical  tradition. 
Erpenius  in  Holland,  the  great  Arabist,  was  the  teacher  of 
Cappellus,  and  first  introduced  his  work  to  the  public.  Cap- 
pellus fell  back  on  the  %iews  of  Elias  Levita,  the  teacher  of  the 
Protestant  Reformers,  and  of  these  Reformers  themselves ;  and 
denied  the  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  and  accents, 
and  the  common  Massoretic  test ;  and  insisted  upon  its  revision, 
through  the  comparison  of  ancient  versions.'  Cappellus  was 
sustained  by  the  French  theologians  generally,  even  by  Rivetus, 
also  bj'  Cocceius,  the  father  of  the  Federal  school  in  Holland, 
who  first  gave  the  author's  name  to  the  public,  and  by  the  body 
of  English  critics.^ 

In  this  connection  a  series  of  great  Polyglots  appeared, 
beginning  witli  the  Antwerp  of  the  Jesuit,  Arias  Montanus, 
assisted  by  And.  Masius,  Fabricus  Boderianus,  and  Franz 
Rapheleng;^  followed  by  the  Paris  Polyglot  of  Michael  de 
Jay,*  edited  by  Morinus  and  Gabriel  Sionita ;  and  culminating 
in  the  London  Polj'glot  of  Brian  Walton,  in  which  he  was 
aided  by  Ed.  Castle,  Ed.  Pocock,  Thos.  Ilvde,  and  others;* 
the  greatest  critical  achievement  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
which  remains  as  the  classic  basis  for  the  comparative  study  of 
versions  until  the  present  daj-. 

1  His  work  was  published  anonymously  in  1624  at  Leyden  under  the  title 
Arcanum  punctuationis  revelatnm.  though  completed  in  1(521. 

2  Comp.  Schnederuiann,  Die  Contruverse  des  Lud.  Cappellus  mit  den  Bux- 
torfen.  I>eipzig.  187!i. 

'  Bihlia  liegia,  8  vols,  folio,  1609-1572.  *  1029-1645,  10  vols,  folio. 

'  6  vols,  folio,  1657. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  223 

The  work  of  Cappellus  remained  unanswered,  and  worked 
powerfully  until  1G48.  In  the  meantime  the  Roman  Catholic 
Frenchman,  Morinus,  taking  the  same  position  as  Cappellus, 
pressed  it  in  order  to  show  the  need  of  Church  authorit}'  and 
tradition.!  This  greatly  complicated  the  discussion  by  making 
the  view  a  basis  for  an  attack  on  the  Protestant  position.  The 
j-ounger  Buxtorf  was  stirred  up  to  maintain  the  traditional 
Rabbinical  position  against  Cappellus. ^  The  three  universities 
of  Sedan,  Geneva,  and  Leydeu  were  so  aroused  against  Cap- 
pellus that  they  refused  to  allow  the  publication  of  his  great 
work,  Critiea  Sacra,  which,  however,  appeared  in  1650,  the 
first  of  a  series  of  corresponding  productions.^  Heidegger  and 
Turretine  rallied  the  universities  of  Zurich,  Geneva,  and  Basle 
to  the  Zurich  Consensus,  which  was  adopted  in  1675,  against 
all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  school  of  Saumur,  and 
the  more  liberal  type  of  Calvinism,  asserting  for  the  first  and 
only  time  in  the  S3'mbols  of  any  Christian  communion  the  doc- 
trine of  verbal  inspiration,  together  with  the  inspiration  of 
accents  and  points. 

Thus  the  formal  principle  of  Protestantism  was  straitened, 
and  its  vital  power  destroyed  by  the  erection  of  dogmatic 
barriers  against  Biblical  Criticism.  "  They  forgot  that  they 
by  this  standpoint  again  made  Christian  faith  entirely  depend- 
ent on  tradition;  jes,  with  respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  on 
the  synagogue."'* 

The  controversy  between  Brian  Walton  and  John  Owen  is 
instructive  just  here.  John  Owen  had  prepared  a  tract ^  in 
which  he  takes  this  position:  "Nor  is  it  enough  to  satisfy  us 
that  the  doctrines  mentioned  are  preserved  entire  ;  every  tittle 
and  iota  in  the  Word  of  God  must  come  under  our  considera- 
tion, as  being  as  such  from  God.'"  ^ 

Before  the  tract  was  issued  he  was  confronted  by  the  prol- 
egomena to  Walton's  Biblla  Pohjglotta,  which,  he  perceived, 

^  Exercitationes  hihlicx,  \Q&Z. 

2  Tract,  depunct.  vocal,  et  accent,  in  Uhr.  V.,  T.,  heb.  origine  antiq.,  1648. 
»  See  Tholuck,  Akadem.  Leben,  II.  p.  .S32. 
*  Dorner,  Gesch.  Prot.  Theologie,  p.  451. 

'  TTie  Divine  Original,  Authority,  and  Self-evidencing  Light  and  Purity  of 
the  Scriptures.  «  Works,  XVI.  p.  303. 


224  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTURE 

undermined  his  theory  of  inspiration  ;  and  he  therefore  added 
an  appendix,  in  which  he  maintains  that : 

• 
"  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  were  immedi- 
ately and  entirely  given  out  by  God  himself,  His  mind  being  in 
them  represented  unto  us  without  the  least  intervenieucv  of  such 
mediums  and  ways  as  were  capable  of  giving  change  or  alteration 
to  the  least  iota  or  syllable."  ^ 

Brian  Walton  replies  to  him  : 

"For  when  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation,  divers  ques- 
tions arose  about  the  Scriptures  and  the  Church ;  the  Romanists 
observing  that  the  punctuation  of  the  Hebrew  text  was  an  inven- 
tion of  the  ilasorites,  they  thereupon  inferred  that  the  text  with- 
out the  points  might  be  taken  in  divers  senses,  and  that  none  was 
tyed  to  the  reading  of  the  Rabbins,  and  therefore  concluded  that 
the  Scripture  is  ambiguous  and  doubtful  without  the  interpretation 
and  testimony  of  the  Church,  so  that  all  must  flee  to  the  authority 
of  the  Church  and  depend  iipon  her  for  the  true  sense  and  meaning 
of  the  Scriptures.  On  the  other  side,  some  Protestants,  fearing 
that  some  advantage  might  be  given  to  the  Bomanists  by  this  C07i- 
cession,  and  not  considering  how  the  certaintfi  of  the  Scriptures 
might  well  be  maintained  though  the  Text  were  unpointed,  instead 
of  denying  the  consequence,  which  they  might  well  have  done, 
thought  fit  rather  to  deny  the  asfiumption,  and  to  maintain  that  the 
points  were  of  Divine  original,  whereby  they  involved  themselves 
in  extreme  labyrinths,  engaging  themselves  in  defence  of  that 
which  might  be  easily  proved  to  be  false,  and  thereby  wronged 
the  caiise  which  they  seemed  to  defend.  Others,  therefore,  of 
more  learning  a,nd  judgment  kno^vmgthaA,  this  position  of  the  divine 
original  of  the  }mints  could  not  be  made  good ;  and  that  the  truth 
needed  not  the  patronage  of  an  untruth,  would  not  engage  them- 
selves therein,  but  granted  it  to  be  true,  that  the  points  were  in- 
vented by  the  Jiahhins,  yet  denied  the  consequence,  maintaining, 
notwithstanding,  that  the  reading  and  sense  of  "the  text  might  be 
certain  vrMwnt  punctuation,  and  that  therefore  the  Scriptures  did 
not  at  all  depend  upon  the  authority  of  the  Church :  and  of  this 
judgment  were  the  chief  Protestant  Divines,  and  greatest  linguists 
that  then  were,  or  have  been  since  in  the  Christian  World,  such  as 
I  named  before ;  Luther,  Zwinglius,  Calvin,  Beza,  jMuscuIus,  Bren- 
tius,  Pellicane,  Oecolampadius,  Mercer,  Piscator,  P.  Phagius,  Dru- 

'  Of  the  Intefirity  and  Purity  nf  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  ScriptureD,  irith  Con- 
siderations of  the  Prolegomena  and  Appendix  to  the  Lute  ^'  liitdia  Pobjyiotta," 
Oxford,  1050. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTUKE  225 

sius,  Schindler,  Martinius,  Scaliger,  De  Dieu,  Casaubon,  Erpenius, 
Sixt.  Amana,  Jac.  aud  Ludov.  Capellus,  Grotiiis,  etc.  —  among  our- 
selves, Archbishop  Ussher,  Bishop  Prideaux,  Mr.  Mead,  Mr.  Seklen, 
and  iunumerable  others,  \vhom  I  forbear  to  name,  who  couoeived 
it  would  nothing  disadvantage  the  cause,  to  yield  that  proposition, 
for  that  they  could  still  make  it  good,  that  the  Scripture  was  in 
itself  a  svfflcieiit  and  certain  rule  for  faith  and  life,  not  depending 
upon  any  human  authority  to  support  it."  ^ 

We  have  quoted  this  extract  at  length  for  the  light  it  casts 
upon  the  struggle  of  criticism  at  the  time.  John  Owen,  honoured 
as  a  pi-eacher  aud  dogmatic  -writer,  but  certainly  no  exegete, 
had  spun  a  theory  of  inspiration  after  the  a  priori  scholastic 
method,  and  with  it  did  battle  against  the  great  Polyglot.  It 
was  a  Quixotic  attempt,  and  resulted  in  ridiculous  failure.  His 
dogma  is  crushed  as  a  shell  in  the  grasp  of  a  giant.  The  in- 
dignation of  Walton  burns  hot  against  this  -wanton  and  un- 
reasoning attack.  But  he  consoled  himself  -^-ith  the  opening 
reflection  that  Origen's  Hexapla,  Jerome's  Vulgate,  the  Com- 
plutensian  Polyglot,  Erasmus'  Greek  Testament,  the  Antwerp 
and  Paris  Pol3-glots,  had  all  in  turn  been  assailed  b}'  those 
whose  theories  and  dogmas  had  been  threatened  or  overturned 
bj-  a  scholarly  induction  of  facts. 

The  theory  of  the  scholastics  prevailed  but  for  a  brief  period 
in  S\vitzerland,  -where  it  w"as  overthrown  by  the  reaction  under 
the  leadership  of  the  younger  Turretine.  The  theory  of  John 
Owen  did  not  influence  the  divines  who  under  the  authority 
of  the  British  Parliament  constructed  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith : 

"  In  fact,  it  was  not  till  several  years  after  the  Confession  was 
completed,  and  the  star  of  Owen  was  in  the  ascendant,  that  under 
the  spell  of  a  genius  and  learning  only  second  to  Calvin,  English 
Puritanism  so  generally  identified  itself  with  what  is  termed  his 
less  liberal  view."  - 

Owen's  tj'pe  of  theology  -n^orked  in  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion, as  well  as  in  other  dogmas,  to  the  detriment  of  the  simpler 
and  more  evangelical  Westminster  theology ;   and  in  the  latter 

'  The  Considerator  Considered.  London,  16.59,  pp.  220  seq. 
*  Mitchell,  Miiiittes  of  Weslmi)ister  Assembly,  p.  xx. 


226  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

part  of  the  seventeenth  century  gave  Puritan  theology  a  scho- 
lastic type  which  it  did  not  possess  before.  But  it  did  not 
prevent  such  representative  Presbyterians  as  Matthew  Poole, 
Edmund  Calamy,  and  the  Cambridge  men,  with  Baxter,  from 
taking  the  more  scholarly  position.  The  critics  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  produced  masterpieces  of  biblical  learning, 
which  have  been  the  pride  and  boast  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
to  the  present.  Like  Cappellus,  thej-  delighted  in  the  name 
critical,  and  were  not  afraid  of  it.  John  Pearson,  Anton  Scat- 
tergood,  Henry  Gouldman,  and  Richard  Pearson,^  and  above  all 
Matthew  Poole,  published  critical  works  of  great  and  abiding 
merit."^ 

III.    Textual  Criticism  in  the  Eighteenth  and 
Nineteenth  Centuries 

Biblical  Criticism  continued  in  England  till  the  midst 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  Mill  issued  his  critical  New  Tes- 
tament in  1707,  the  fruit  of  great  industry,  and  was  assailed 
by  unthinking  men  who  preferred  pious  ignorance  to  a  correct 
New  Testament.^  But  Richard  Bentley  espoused  the  cause 
of  his  friend  with  invincible  arguments,  and  he  himself  spent 
many  years  in  the  collection  of  manuscripts.  He  died  leaving 
his  magnificent  work  incomplete,  and  his  plans  to  be  carried 
out  by  foreign  scholars. 

For  "  now  original  research  in  the  science  of  Biblical  Criticism, 
so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned,  seems  to  have  left  the 
shores  of  England  to  return  no  more  for  upwards  of  a  century; 
and  we  must  look  to  Germany  if  we  wish  to  trace  the  further 
progress  of  investigations  which  our  countrymen  had  so  auspi- 
ciously begun."  * 

Bishop  Lowth  did  for  the  Old  Testament  what  Bentley  did 
for  the  New.  In  his  works  ^  he  called  the  attention  of  scholars 
to  the  necessity  of  emendation  of   the   Massotetic  text,  and 

1  Crltici  Sacri.  9  vols,  folio,  1660. 

2  Synopsis  Critlcorum,  5  vols,  folio,  1669. 

>  Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  X.  T.,  2d  cd.  1874,  p.  400. 
*  Scrivener  in  /,c.,  p.  402. 

'  De  Sacra  Poesi  Ihbra'ortim.  1753,  and  Isaiah:  A  JS'eio  Translation,  icith 
a  Preliminary  Dissertation  and  Xotes,  1778,  2d  ed.,  1779. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  HOLY   SCRLPTURE  227 

encouraged  Kennicott  to  collate  the  manuscripts  of  the  Old 
Testament,  -which  he  did,  publishing  the  result  in  a  monu- 
meutal  work  in  1770-1780.^  This  was  preceded  by  an  intro- 
ductory work  in  1753-1759. ^ 

Bishop  Lowth,  with  his  fine  aesthetic  sense  and  insight  into 
the  principles  of  Hebrew  poetry,  saw  and  stated  the  truth : 

"  If  it  be  asked,  what  then  is  the  real  condition  of  the  present 
Hebrew  Text;  and  of  what  sort,  and  in  what  number,  are  the 
mistakes  which  we  must  acknowledge  to  be  found  in  it:  it  is 
answered,  that  the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  Text  is  such,  as  from 
the  nature  of  the  thing,  the  antiquity  of  the  writings  themselves, 
the  want  of  due  care,  or  critical  skill  (in  which  latter  at  least  the 
Jews  have  been  exceedingly  deficient),  might  in  all  reason  have 
been  expected,  that  the  mistakes  are  frequent,  and  of  various 
kinds;  of  letters,  words,  and  sentences;  by  variation,  omission, 
transposition:  such  as  often  injure  tlie  beauty  and  elegance, 
embarrass  the  construction,  alter  or  obscure  the  sense,  and  some- 
times render  it  quite  unintelligible.  If  it  be  objected  that  a 
concession  so  large  as  this  is,  tends  to  invalidate  the  authority 
of  Scripture;  that  it  gives  up  in  effect  the  certainty  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  doctrines  contained  in  it,  and  exposes  our  religion 
naked  and  defenceless  to  the  assaults  of  its  enemies:  this,  I  think, 
is  a  vain  and  groundless  apprehension.  .  .  .  Important  and  fun- 
damental doctrines  do  not  wholly  depend  on  single  passages;  and 
universal  harmony  runs  through  the  Holy  Scriptures;  the  parts 
mutually  support  each  other,  and  supply  one  another's  deficiencies 
and  obscurities.  Superficial  damages  and  partial  defects  may 
greatly  diminish  the  beauty  of  the  edifice,  without  injuring  its 
strength  and  bringing  on  utter  ruin  and  destruction.^ 

After  this  splendid  beginning,  Old  Testament  criticism  fol- 
lowed its  New  Testament  sister  to  the  continent  of  Europe  and 
remained  absent  until  our  own  day. 

On  tlie  continent  the  work  of  Mill  was  carried  on  by  J.  A. 
Hengel,*  J.  C.  Wetstein,^  J.  J.  Griesbach,^    J.  M.  A.  Scholz,' 

'  Vettts  Test.  Heb.  cum  var.  lectionihus,  2  Tom.,  Oxford. 
2  The.  Slate  of  the  Printed  Hebrcio  Text  of  the  Old  Testament  considered, 
2  vols.  8vo,  Oxford. 

'  Lowth,  Isaiah,  2d  ed.,  London,  1779,  pp.  lix.,  Ix. 

*  Prodromus,  .V.T.  Gr.,  1725.     Novum  Test.,  1734. 

°  Xew  Test.  Gr.  cum  lectionihus  variantibus  Codicum,  etc.,  Amst.,  1751-1752. 

«  Symbols  Critics,  2  Tom.,  178.5-179.3. 

'  Bib.  krit  lieise  Leipzig,  182.3;  N.T.  Greece,  2  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1830-1836. 


228  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

C.  Laclimann,!  culminating  in  Const.  Tischendorf,  wlio  edited 
the  chief  uncial  authorities,  discovered  and  edited  the  Codex 
Sinaiticus?  and  issued  numerous  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, tlie  earliest  in  1841.  He  crowned  his  work  with  the 
eighth  critical  edition  of  the  New  Testament,*  which  he  lived 
to  complete,  but  had  to  leave  the  prolegomena  to  an  American 
scholar,  who  succeeded  him  in  his  chair  at  Leipzig  and  com- 
pleted his  Avork  in  188-4-1894. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  De  Rossi  carried  on  the  work  of 
Kennicott.*  Little  has  been  done  since  his  day  until  recent 
times,  when  Baer  united  with  Delitzsch  in  issuing  in  parts  a 
revised  Massoretic  text,  1869-1895 ;  Hermann  Strack  exam- 
ined the  recently  discovered  Oriental  manuscripts,  the  chief 
of  which  is  the  St.  Petersburg  codex  of  the  Prophets,^  and 
Frensdorf  undertook  the  production  of  the  Massora  Magna.^ 
Within  recent  times  Textual  Criticism  has  taken  strong  hold 
again  in  England.  S.  P.  Tregelles,"  F.  H.  Scrivener,®  B.  F. 
Westcott,  and  F.  J.  A.  Hort''  have  advanced  the  Textual 
Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  beyond  the  mark  reached 
bj^  continental  scholars.  The  text  of  Westcott  and  Hort  has 
become  the  standard  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  for  Great 
Britain  and  America,  and  the  principles  of  the  Textual  Criti- 
cism of  the  New  Testament,  as  stated  by  them,  are  regarded 
as  the  basis  for  further  advance  by  most  English-speaking 
scholars.  In  Old  Testament  criticism  England  is  advancing 
to  the  front  rank.     The  work  of  Giusburg  on  the  Massora  ^^  is 

1  Xorum  Test.  Greece  et  Latine,  2  Bil.,  Berlin,  1842-1850. 

2  Bibliorum  Codex  Siniiiticits  PetropoJUaiiiis,  St.  Petersburg,  1862 ;  Die 
Sinaibibel,  Ihre  Entdeckumj,  Herausynhe  uiid  £rwerbung,  Leipzig,  1871. 

'  Novum  Testamentum  Greece.  Editio  octava :  Critica  Major,  Lipsiae, 
1869-1872. 

*  VariCB  lectiones  Vet.  Test.,  4  Tom.,  Parm.,  1784-1788. 

'  Prophetarum  Posteriorum  Codex  Babylonims  PetropoUtamis,  Petropoli, 
1870. 

«  Die  Masaora  Magna ;  Erster  Theil,  Massoretisches  Worterbucli,  Hanover 
unci  Leipzig,  1870. 

"  The  Greek  Netc  Testament  edited  from  Ancient  Authorities,  etc.,  4to,  18.J7- 
1872,  pp.  1017. 

8  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the  .Veio  Testament,  3d  ed.,  1883. 

»  The  JVcio  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  Vol.  II.  Introduction  and 
Appendix.     N.Y.,  1882. 

"  The  Massorah  compiled  from  Manuscripts  Alphabetically  and  Lexically 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  229 

the  greatest  acliievemeiit  since  the  unpublished  work  of  Elias 
Levita.  And  his  edition  of  the  IMassoretic  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  probably  ere  long  supplant  all  others. 

The  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  lagged  behind 
the  New  Testament.^  And  the  reason  of  it  is,  that  scholars 
long  hesitated  to  go  back  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

Keil  in  Germany  for  a  long  time  resisted  the  advance  of  Text- 
ual Criticism,  and  in  his  anxiety  to  maintain  the  present  Mas- 
soretic  text  did  not  hesitate  to  charge  the  Septuagint  version 
with  the  carelessness  and  caprice  of  transcriljers  and  an  uncriti- 
cal and  wanton  passion  for  emendation.  W.  H.  Green  of 
Princeton  and  his  school  represent  the  same  spirit  of  hostility 
to  Textual  Criticism  in  the  United  States  of  America.  The 
English  revisers  of  the  Old  Testament  placed  the  results  of 
Textual  Criticism  in  the  margin  of  their  revision,  but  the 
American  revisers,  under  the  headship  of  W.  H.  Green,  ob- 
jected to  all  Textual  Criticism  whatever,  and  remonstrated 
against  any,  even  in  the  margin.  More  recently  Old  Testa- 
ment scholars  have  urged  more  strongly  the  application  of 
Textual  Criticism  to  the  Old  Testament.  Griitz,  the  Jewish 
scholar,  rightlj-  says  that  we  ought  not  to  speak  of  a  Masso- 
retic  text  that  has  been  made  sure  to  us,  but  rather  of  dif- 
ferent schools  of  Massorites,  and  follow  their  example  and 
remove  impossible  readings  from  the  text.^ 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  as  Robertson  Smith  states  :  "  It  has 
gradually  become  clear  to  the  vast  majority  of  conscientious 
students  that  the  Septuagint  is  really  of  the  greatest  value  as  a 
witness  to  the  earl}-  state  of  the  text."  ^  Bishop  Lowth  already  * 
calls  the  INIassoretic  text 

"The  Jews'  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament."  "We  do 
not  deny  the  usefulness  of  this  interpretation,  nor  would  we  be 
thought  to  detract  from  its  merits  by  setting  it  in  this  light ;  it  is 

arranged.  Vols.  I.  and  II.,  Aleph-Tav,  London,  1880-1883  ;  Vol.  III.,  supple- 
mentarj'  188-5;  Vol.  IV.,  promised  soon. 

'  Davidson,  Treatise  of  Biblical  Criticism,  Boston,  1853,  I.  pp.  160  seq. 

2  Krit.  Com.  zu  den  Psalmen  nebst  Text  und  Uebersetzung,  Breslau,  I.,  1882, 
pp.  118  seq. 

f  Old  Test,  in  Jeinish  Church,  p.  86. 

*  In  his  Preliminary  Dissert,  to  Isaiah,  2d  ed.,  London,  1779,  p.  Iv. 


230  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTCRE 

perhaps,  upon  the  whole,  preferable  to  any  one  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions ;  it  has  probably  the  great  advantage  of  having  been  formed 
upon  a  traditionary  explanation  of  the  text  and  of  being  generally 
agreeable  to  that  sense  of  Scripture  which  passed  current  and  was 
commonly  received  by  the  Jewish  nation  in  ancient  times :  and  it 
has  certainly  been  of  great  service  to  the  moderns  in  leading  them 
into  the  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  tongue.  But  they  would  have 
made  a  much  better  use  of  it,  aud  a  greater  progress  in  the  expli- 
cation of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  had  they  consulted 
it,  without  absolutely  submitting  to  its  authority ;  had  they  con- 
sidered it  as  an  assistant,  not  as  an  infallible  guide." 

Probably  few  scholars  would  go  so  far  as  this,  yet  there  is  a 
strong  tendency  in  that  direction.  The  fact  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament does  not  base  its  citations  upon  the  original  Hebrew 
text  in  literal  quotation,  but  uses  ordinarily  the  Septuagint 
and  sometimes  Aramaic  Targums  with  the  utmost  freedom, 
has  ever  given  trouble  to  the  apologist.  Richard  Baxter  meets 
it  in  this  way  : 

"  But  one  instance  I  more  doubt  of  myself,  which  is,  when 
Christ  and  his  apostles  do  oft  use  the  Septuagint  in  their  citations 
out  of  the  Old  Testament,  whether  it  be  alwaies  their  meaning  to 
justifie  each  fraijshition  and  particle  of  sense,  as  the  Word  of  God 
and  rightly  done  ;  or  only  to  use  that  as  tolerable  and  containing 
the  main  truth  intended  which  was  then  in  use  among  the  Jews, 
aud  therefore  understood  by  them ;  and  so  best  to  the  auditors. 
And  also  whether  every  citation  of  number  or  genealogies  from 
the  Septuagint,  intended  an  approbation  of  it  in  the  very  points  it 
differeth  from  the  Hebrew  copies." ' 

The  study  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  ad- 
vanced in  recent  3-ears  by  a  great  number  of  scliolars  in  Ger- 
many, France,  Switzerland,  Holland,  Austria,  Italy,  Great 
Britain,  and  America ;  scholars  of  all  faiths,  Jew  and  Chris- 
tian, Roman  Catliolic  and  Protestant.  The)'  have  vied  with 
one  another  in  this  fundamental  work  of  biblical  stud)-.  It 
has  now  become  practically  impossible  for  any  scholarl)'  work 
to  be  done  on  the  Old  Testament  without  the  use  of  all  the 
resources  of  Textual  Criticism  for  a  sure  foundation. 

^  More  Seasons,  1672,  p.  49;  see  also  p.  46. 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  231 

IV.    The  Application  of  Textual  Criticism  to   Holy 
Scripture 

Biblical  Textual  Criticism  derives  from  general  Textual 
Criticism  its  principles  and  methods  of  work.  These  differ  in 
their  ajjplication  to  the  Bible  only  as  there  are  special  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  biblical  writings  that  differ  from 
those  of  other  writings.     As  Hort  says  : 

"  The  leading  principles  of  textual  criticism  are  identical  for  all 
writings  whatever.  Differences  in  application  arise  only  from 
differences  in  the  amount,  variety,  and  quality  of  evidence :  no 
method  is  ever  inapplicable  e.Kcept  through  defectiveness  of  evi- 
dence." ' 

V.    The  Genealogical  Principle 

The  application  of  the  genealogical  principle  to  the  text  of 
the  Bible  results  in  the  following  outline  of  work,  so  far  as 
the  Hebrew  Bible  is  concerned. 

1.  The  first  effort  must  be  to  ascertain  the  text  of  Ben 
Asher  of  the  tenth  Christian  century.  All  the  Palestinian 
manuscripts  known  to  us,  and  all  the  citation.s  in  Jewish  writers 
since  that  date,  guide  to  this  result.  The  recent  printed  texts 
of  Baer  and  Delitzsch  and  of  Ginsburg,  although  rivals,  agree 
in  the  main  in  giving  this  text  in  a  reliable  form. 

2.  We  next  have  to  determine  the  official  text  of  the 
Sopherim  of  the  second  Christian  century.  Starting  with  the 
text  of  Ben  Asher,  which  is  the  main  stock,  we  have  to  bring 
into  consideration  the  three  streams  of  Massoretic  tradition, 
the  Palestinian,  the  Babylonian,  and  the  Karaite,  and  trace 
them  all  back  to  their  common  parent.  We  may  thus  classify 
the  Rabbinical  writings  from  the  second  to  the  tenth  century 
and  arrange  them  in  families  and  by  age,  in  order  to  use  their 
citations.  The  most  important  works  to  be  considered  are  the 
Talmuds  and  the  Midrashim. 

The  most  important  of  the  Rabbinical  writings  are  the 
Talmuds, — the  Babylonian  and  the  Palestinian.    These  contain 

1  Westcott  and  Hort,  jVew  Testament  in  the  Oriyinal  Greek,  Introduction, 
1882,  p.  19. 


232  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch  in  several 
layers. 

(a)  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  3Iishna,^  codified  by 
Rabbi  Jehuda,  but  completed  by  his  immediate  disciples.  It 
was  handed  down  as  a  compact  body  of  tradition  from  the 
close  of  the  second  century  a.d.  but  was  not  committed  to 
writing  until  the  rest  of  the  Talmud  was  completed,  in  the 
sixth  century.'' 

(6)  The  next  in  importance  are  the  Baraithoth.^  These  are 
external  ]\Iishnayoth  other  than  those  contained  in  the  code  of 
Rabbi  Jehuda.  These  are  of  uncertain  date  ;  some  of  them 
older  than  the  Mishna  of  Rabl)i  Jehuda,  some  of  them  contem- 
porary, some  more  recent,  probably  none  later  than  the  third 
century.  These  are  cited  in  the  Talmud  by  the  formulas 
"Our  Rabbins  teach,"  "It  is  taught."*  These  Baraithoth  come 
from  private  rabbins  such  as  R.  Yanai,  R.  Chij-a,  Bar  Kappara. 
The  rabbins  Hillel,  Shammai,  and  Akiba  made  earlier  coUec- 

i  ri3B?0  =  Seuripum,  repetition  of  tlie  T,aw. 

'  This  has  been  published  apart  in  various  editions  ;  e.g.  1  vol.  folio,  Naples, 
1402;  Surenhusius,  6  vols,  folio,  Amsterdam,  1698-170.3;  Jost,  Q  tlile,  Berlin, 
1832-1834  ;  SUtenfeld,  6  thle,  Berlin,  1863,  and  others.  It  is  composed  of  six 
omn,  which  are  subdivided  into  11  +  12  +  7  +  10  +  11  +  12  =  63  tracts.  The 
most  famous  of  these  is  the  Pirqe  Aboth,  a  collection  of  sentences  or  sayings 
of  the  Fathers  from  the  second  century  b.c.  to  the  second  century  a.d. 

'  Sn'13,  pi.  rwna.  To  distinguish  between  the  Mishna  of  Rabbi  .Tehuda 
and  all  the  other  elements  as  Gemara,  is  incorrect  and  misleading  unless  we  use 
these  terms  in  a  purely  formal  sense,  and  distinguish  in  the  Gemara  the  MisUnaic 
elements  from  the  commentary  of  the  Gemara  upon  them.  Thus  Emanuel 
Ueiilsch,  in  his  Literaiy  Bemains  (p.  40)  :  "Jehuda  the  '  Redactor '  had  excluded 
all  but  the  best  authenticated  traditions,  as  well  as  all  discussion  and  exegesis, 
unless  where  particularly  necessary.  The  vast  mass  of  the.se  materials  was  now 
also  collected  as  a  sort  of  apocryphal  oral  code.  We  have,  dating  a  few  genera- 
tions after  the  Redaction  of  the  official  Mish/ia,  a  so-called  external  Misltna 
(Baraitha)  ;  further,  the  discussions  and  additions  belonging  by  rights  to  the 
Mishna  called  Tosephta  (Supplement)  ;  and  finally,  the  exegesis  and  methodology 
of  the  Ualacha  (Hifri,  Sifra,  Mechilta),  much  of  which  was  afterwards  intro- 
duced into  the  Talmud."  So  Levy  in  his  i\'f»  Ifebraisches  und  Chahtaisches 
Wfirterbtirh  (I.  260)  defines:  "  8n""l3  as  properly  that  which  is  outside  of  the 
Canon  (we  must  supply  Nn"na  to  Snn;)  ;  that  is,  every  Mishna  (-or  Halacha, 
doctrine)  which  was  not  taken  up  into  the  collection  of  the  Mishna  by  R.  Jehuda 
Hana-si,  and  many  of  ^Yhich  collected  separately  by  his  later  contemporaries  are 
contained  in  different  conipendiums."  See  Gratz,  GeschichCe  der  Juden,  IV. 
232/  ;  Wogue,  Ilistoire  de  V Exegese  niblique,  1881,  p.  18r,. 

*  One  of  the  most  valuable  of  the.se  is  the  Kn"12  with  reference  to  the  order 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.     (See  p.  252.) 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTURE  233 

tious,  but  these  passed  over  into  the  Mishna  of  Rabbi  Jehuda 
and  the  Baraithoth.  The  Linguage  of  the  ]\lishnaaiid  Baraitha 
is  late  Hebrew. 

(c)  The  third  in  importance  in  the  Talmuds  is  the  Toseph- 
toth,^  or  additions.  There  are  fifty-two  of  these  sections,  whose 
redaction  is  also  referred  to  the  third  century.  The  language 
of  these  is  Hebrew,  but  more  coloured  with  Aramaic. ^ 

(d)  The  Gemara^  is  a  commentary  on  the  earlier  elements 
of  the  Talmud.*  There  are  two  of  these  which  make  up  the 
two  Talmuds,  the  Babylonian  and  the  Jerusalem. 

The  Jerusalem  Gemara  is  the  product  of  the  Rabbinical 
school  of  Tiberias  and  was  codified  about  350  a.d.  It  treats 
of  thirty-nine  only  of  the  sixty-three  tracts  of  the  Mishna. 

The  Babylonian  Gemara  is  four  times  as  large  as  the  Jeru- 
salem. It  extends  over  thirty-six  and  one-lialf  tracts  of  the 
Mishna,  of  which  eight  and  one-half  are  different  from  those 
treated  in  the  Jerusalem  Gemara.  It  comes  from  the  Rabbini- 
cal school  at  Sura  on  the  Euphrates,  the  founder  of  which  was 
Rab  (Abba  Areka),  a  scholar  of  Rabbi  Jehuda.  Its  compila- 
tion extended  from  the  fifth  to  the  eighth  century. ^ 

The  Gemaras  are  in  Aramaic  of  the  eastern  and  western 
dialects.     Portions  of  the  Babj'lonian  is  in  Med.  Hebrew. 

'  mnBom. 

-  Thirty-one  of  these  are  contained  in  Ugolino's  Thesaurus,  translated  into 
Latin. 

*  Chiarini,  Le  Talmud  de  Babylone,  18.31,  p.  19,  go  so  far  as  to  say  :  "  Les 
Mekiltoth,  ies  Tosaphoth  et  les  Beraitoth  ont  aussi  porte  le  litre  de  nvjca  on  de 
r.iT'lJ  nvJiTO,  parce  qu'' elles  jouissarent  de  la  meme  autorite  que  la  Mischna  de 
Jnda  le  Saint,  et  qtt''elles  etaient  plus  reputees  encore  que  cette  derniere  des 
cote  de  Vordre  et  de  la  clarte."  But  they  are  regarded  as  apocryplial  Mishna- 
yoth  by  some.  But  this  does  not  decide  their  intrinsic  value.  See  also  Pressel, 
in  Herzog,  Heal  Ency.,  1  Aufl.,  XV.  p.  661  ;  Gelbhaus,  Habhi  Jehuda  Hanassi, 
Wien,  1876,  p.  92  ;  Schurer,  Lehrb.  d.  N.  T.  Zeitfjeschichte,  p.  42;  Zuuz,  Got- 
tesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  der  Juden,  Berlin,  1832,  pp.  49  seq. 

'  The  Jerusalem  Talmud  was  first  printed  by  Bomberg  at  Venice,  folio 
(1522-1523);  the  Babylonian  by  Bomberg  at  Venice,  12  vols,  folio,  in  1520.  These 
are  scarce  and  valuable,  but  are  both  in  the  library  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  Nineteen  tracts  of  the  Jerusalem  Gemara  and  three  tracts 
of  the  Babylonian  are  in  Ugolino.  Chiarini  began  to  translate  the  Talmud  into 
French  in  1831,  but  did  not  get  beyond  the  Berakoth.  M.  Schwab  has  trans- 
lated into  French  the  Jenisalem  Talmud,  11  vols.,  Paris,  1871-1890.  A  German 
translation  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  by  L.  Goldschmidt  is  now  in  progress. 


234  STUDV  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

(e)  The  To&aphoth  are  additional  glosses  to  the  Talmud  from 
the  school  of  Rashi  of  the  twelfth  century. 

The  Talmuds  contain  numerous  citations  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Scriptures.  Of  earlier  date  than  the  ilassoretic  text, 
they  are  of  great  service  for  purposes  of  criticism.  But  criti- 
cal editions  of  the  Talmud  are  still  a  desideratum. 

The  Midrashim^  are  expository  commentaries  on  Holy  Script- 
ure. The  earliest  of  these  belong  to  the  time  of  the  Mishna, 
and  are  quoted  in  the  Gemaras.  They  are  in  Hebrew.  The 
later  are  in  Aramaic  of  different  centuries. 

These  are  :  (1)  the  Mtkhilta,-  upon  a  portion  of  Exodus ;  (2)  the 
Sifra,^  upon  Leviticus;  (3)  the  Sifri*  upon  Numbers  and  Deuter- 
onomy. Their  language  is  Hebrew ;  (4)  the  Babboth,'  a  large  col- 
lection on  the  Pentateuch  and  Megilloth. 

(a)  One  on  Genesis  from  the  sixth  century  called  Bereshith 
Rabba,  also  Wayehi  Rabba  of  the  twelfth  century. 

(6)  Shemotli  Rabba,  on  Exodus,  eleventh  to  twelfth  centurj'. 

(c)  Wayyiqra  Rabba,  on  Leviticus,  from  middle  of  seventh  cen- 
tury. 

(d)  Bemidbar  Rabba,  on  Numbers,  from  the  twelfth  century. 

(e)  Debarim  Rabba,  on  Deuteronomy,  900  a.d. 

(/)  Shir  Baslishirim  Rabba,  on  Song  of  Songs,  late  in  the  Middle 
Ages. 

(g)  Midrash  Euth,  of  the  late  ]\Iiddle  Age. 

(/i)  Midrash  Echa,  on  Lamentations,  of  seventh  century. 

(i)  Midrash  Koheleth,  of  the  late  Middle  Age. 

\j)  Midrash  Esther,  940  a.d.« 

(5)  The  PesiktaJ 

(a)  Pesikta  of  Rab  Kahana.  These  are  expositions  of  the  lec- 
tionaries  or  readings  for  the  synagogue  year.  They  are  not  ear- 
lier than  the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  century  a.d.* 

(6)  Pesikta  Rabbathi,  second  half  of  the  ninth  century, 
(c)  Pesikta  Zntarta  of  R.  Tobia,  twelfth  century. 

1  B^^ia    :  2>"n,  to  sUuly,  inquire. 

*  Sn'r'ra.  Published  by  J.  H.  Weiss,  Vienna,  1865 ;  best  edition,  Frietimann, 
Vienna,  1870.     Latin  translation  in  Ugolino,  XIV. 

'  K~EC.  Published  by  Weiss,  Vienna,  1862.  Latin  translation  in  Ugolino, 
XIV. 

*  "lEC.  Published  by  Friodmann,  Vienna,  1864.  Latin  translation  in  Ugolino, 
XV.  » ni"!  c-inp. 

'  These  have  been  translated  into  German  by  Wiinsche  in  his  Bibliotheca 
liabbinica.  '  xnp'CB.  «  Edition  by  Solomon  Buber,  Lyck,  1868. 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  235 

(6)  Pirke'  R.  Elieser,"  a  haggadistic  work  in  fifty-four  chapters, 
of  the  eighth  century,  upon  Peutateuchal  history.^ 

(7)  Tanchumu :  *  Midrash  of   the  Pentateuch  of  the  ninth  cen- 
tury. 

(6)  Yulqut  Shinioni : '  Midrash  of  the  whole  Bible  of  the  first 
half  of  thirteenth  century." 

Three  early  historical  works  are  of  some  importance  : 

(a)  The  Meyillath  Taanith,''  or  Roll  of  Fasts.  It  is  mentioned 
in  the  Mishua,^  and  belongs  to  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  It  is  Aramaic  in  the  language  of  text,  but  the  later 
commentary  is  in  Hebrew  of  eighth  century. 

(6)  Seder  Olam  Habba,^  explanation  of  biblical  history  from 
Adam  to  the  rebellion  of  Bat  Cochba.  It  is  cited  in  the  Tal- 
mud, and  ascribed  to  R.  Jose  beu  Chalafta  of  160  a.d.  It  is 
full  of  later  interpolations.'" 

(c)  The  Seder  Olam  Zittta,^^  is  a  genealogical  work  of  the 
eighth  century. 

In  this  body  of  ancient  literature,  much  of  which  precedes 
the  Alassoretic  text,  we  have  a  mass  of  citations  which  are  of 
value  for  the  criticism  of  the  old  biblical  text  of  the  Sopherim. 

Besides  these  there  were  a  large  number  of  distinguished 
rabbins  of  the  Middle  Ages,  such  as  Saadia  of  the  tenth  cen- 
tury in  Egypt,  and  his  pupil,  Isaac  Israeli,  in  North  Africa;  in 
the  eleventh  century  Chasdai  Ibn  Shaprut  and  Samuel  ha- 
Nagid,  Menaheni  ben  Saruk  and  Dunash  Ibn  Labrat,  in 
Spain  ;  in  the  twelfth  century  Moses  Ibn  Ezra,  Juda  ha-Levi, 
Abraham  ben  Meir,  Ibn  Ezra,  and,  chief  of  all,  Maimonides, 
1135,  the  most  distinguished  Jew  since  Rabbi  Jehuda.  He 
wrote  commentaries  on  the  Mishna  in  Arabic.^-  His  influence 
extended  throughout  the  JeMdsli  and  Christian  world. 

'  "P^S.  2  Baraitha  derabbi  Elieser.  '  Edition,  Warsaw,  1874. 

<  so-n:n.  ^  ti'pb'. 

^  An  edition  publislied  at  Wilna,  1876.  The  Midrash  on  Zechariah  has  re- 
cently been  translated  and  published  by  King,  Cambridge,  1882. 

'  n'jrn  rhm.  s  Taanith,  II.  8.  9  N3T  Db^u  -nc. 

'"  An  early  edition  was  published  at  Basel,  1580.  The  best  edition  is  in 
Anecdcitn  Oxoniensia,  Semitic  series.  Vol.  I.  part  VI.,  189.5.       "  NCU  obnJ  "nC. 

^^  The  Introductions  have  been  published,  namely,  the  Porta  Mosis,  trans,  by 
Pocock,  Oxford,  105.5;  Moreh-Xehhiikhim,  a  treatise  of  theulogy  and  religious 
philosophy,  by  Buxtorf,  Basel,  1629,  trans,  into  English  by  Friedlander,  Lon- 
don, 1885. 


236  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

In  Germany  was  the  celebrated  Simeon  Kara,  the  author  of 
the  Yalqut ;  in  France,  Rashi,  104:0-1105,  contemporar}-  of  God- 
frey of  Bouillon,  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Bible ;  Samuel 
ben  Meir,  1085  ;  Joseph  Kimchi,  at  the  close  of  the  twelfth 
century,  and  his  most  distinguished  son,  David  Kimchi,  about 
1200,  who  wrote  commentaries  on  the  Bible,  a  lexicon,  gram- 
mar, etc. 

In  the  fifteenth  century  Jewish  learning  found  expression  in 
Abravanel,  1-437,  born  at  Lisbon,  who  wrote  commentaries  on 
the  Pentateuch,  Proverbs,  and  Daniel ;  Elias  Levita,  born  in 
1471,  in  Bavaria ;  Abraham  ben  jMeir,  at  Lucca,  employed  by 
Bomberg.  The  rabbins  of  the  Middle  Ages  are  important 
authorities  for  determining  the  Massoretic  text.  The  com- 
mentaries of  Rashi  and  Aben  Ezra  are  printed  in  the  Rabbin- 
ical Bibles  on  either  side  of  the  iMassoretic  text  and  Targums. 

In  these  citations  we  have  help,  in  the  latest  to  determine 
the  correct  Massoretic  text,  and  in  the  earlier  to  determine 
the  correct  Taanite  text.  These  citations  need  a  more  careful 
examination  and  comparison  than  has  yet  been  given  to  them. 
But  the  agreement  of  scholars  thus  far  is  to  the  effect  that  the 
consonantal  text  used  in  the  Mishna  is  essentiallj'  our  conso- 
nantal text.  It  was  fixed  in  its  present  form  at  the  close  of  the 
second  century  A.D. 

The  versions  now  come  into  line.  The  Arabic  version  of 
Saadia  of  the  tenth  century  is  valuable  for  the  first  step  back  of 
the  text  of  Ben  Asher.  The  Vulgate  version  of  Jerome  gives 
evidence  of  the  text  of  the  Sopherim  of  the  second  century. 

3.  The  next  step  backwards  is  to  ascertain  the  Maccabean 
text.  The  main  stock  is  the  ofiicial  text  of  the  Sopherim  of 
the  second  century.  The  Aramaic  Targums  of  Onkelos  on 
the  Law  and  of  Jonathan  on  the  Prophets  give  evidence  in  part 
for  the  text  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian. era  and  possi- 
bl)'  earlier.  The  Syriac  version  gives  evidence  of  a  Hebrew 
text  of  the  first  Cliristian  century.  The  citations  in  the  New 
Testament  from  the  Aramaic  Targums  on  the  Old  Testament 
carry  us  back  into  the  early  part  of  the  first  century  of  our 
era.  The  citations  in  the  Apocrj-pha  and  Pseudepigrapha,  so 
far  as  they  cite  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  Aramaic  Targums, 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  237 

give  evidence  to  texts  of  the  first  century  of  our  era,  and  of  the 
first  and  second  centuries  B.C.,  according  to  their  dates.  The 
most  valuable  of  these  is  the  book  of  Jubilees,  which  gives  im- 
portant independent  evidence  as  to  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
first  century  B.C.  The  book  of  Jubilees  has  been  studied  with 
great  care  by  Dillmann  and  Charles.  The  latter  ^  gives  twenty- 
five  passages  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  where  the  Massoretic  text 
should  be  corrected  by  the  book  of  Jubilees,  which  in  these 
instances  is  sustained  by  the  Samaritan  codex  or  the  ancient 
versions. 

There  is  a  large  Jewish  literature  from  the  first  Christian 
century  backwards,  whose  citations  are  important  for  the 
determination  of  the  pre-Rabbinical  and  pre-Christian  text. 

(rt)  The  writings  of  the  Hellenists.  Josephus  was  a  volumi- 
nous wi"iter.2  He  gives  evidence  of  an  early  text  of  the  Septu- 
agint,  corresponding  in  the  main  with  the  so-called  Lucian 
Kecension.     This  has  been  shown  recently  by  Mez.^ 

Philo,  born  in  20  B.C.,  lived  till  the  middle  of  the  first  cen- 
tury A.D.,  and  wrote  a  large  number  of  treatises.*  Ryle  has 
recently  shown  the  critical  value  of  his  citations.^ 

(i)  The  apocryphal  books.  ^ 

Esdras  (of  the  first  century  B.C.)  ;  Tobit,  Judith,  and  Wis- 
dom of  Solomon  (of  the  second  century  B.C.)  ;  Ecclesiasticus 
(of  the  early  second  century)  ;  Baruch  (of  the  first  century 
a.d)  ;  Epistle  of  Jeremy  (ancient).  Song  of  the  Three  Chil- 
dren, Susanna,  Bel  and  the  Dragon  ;  the  four  books  of  Mac- 
cabees (the  first  from  the  middle  of  the  first  century  B.C., 
the  second  from  the  early  part  of  the  first  century  a.d.,  the 


'  Anecdota  Oioniensia.  The  Ethiopic  Versio7i  of  the  JTebreio  Book  of 
Jubilees.  1895,  p.  xxiv. 

2  Jewish  Antiquities  (93-94  a.d.),  containing  Jewish  history  from  the  begin- 
ning; Jewish  War  ("0-80  ?  a.d.);  Axttobiography  (100  a.d.);  Contra  Apionem. 
The  best  edition  of  Josephus  is  Niese,  Berlin,  1887-1895,  Whiston's  translation 
of  Antiquities,  Traill's  of  Jeioish  War. 

3  See  p.  203. 

*  Mangey,  2  vols,  folio,  London,  1742.  Hand-edition  by  Richter,  8  vols. 
Leipzig,  18^8-1830,  translated  into  English,  Bohn's  Library.  New  Greek  edi- 
tion by  Cohn.  Berlin,  1896. 

*  Ryle,  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture.  1895. 

«  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  4  seq. 


238  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

third  from  late  in  the  first  century  A.D.,  the  fourtli  also  from 
the  first  eentur\-  a.d.). 

(c)  The  Pseudepigraphs  are  of  a  veiy  large  number  :  The 
Psalter  of  Solomon  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  first  century  B.C.,  but  is  preserved  in  Greek. 
The  book  of  Enoch,  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  is  pre- 
served entire  only  in  ^-Ethiopic.  The  Assumption  of  Moses  is 
from  the  first  Christian  century.  Fourth  Ezra  is  from  early  in 
the  second  century  a.d.  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  recently 
found  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  iNIilan  by  Ceriani,  is  from  the 
early  second  century  A.D.  The  Ascension  of  Isaiah  is  from 
the  second  half  of  the  second  century  B.C.  The  Testament  of 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs  is  from  the  early  part  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. The  book  of  Jubilees,  or  Little  Genesis,  is  from  the  first 
century  B.C.  The  Sibylline  Oracles  are  in  fourteen  books,  from 
the  second  century  B.C.  to  the  close  of  the  first  century  A.D.^ 

4.  The  next  step  in  Textual  Criticism  is  to  ascertam  the 
original  autographs  of  the  Canon  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
when  they  were  first  collected  and  fixed.  The  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  possibly  also  of 
some  of  the  Writings,  takes  us  back  of  the  Maccabean  text. 
The  Samaritan  codex  of  the  Law  gives  us  on  the  whole  the 
earliest  independent  witness  to  the  original  text  of  the  Canon 
of  the  Law. 

5.  We  have  as  a  final  step  to  ascertain  the  original  text,  the 
autographs  of  the  authors  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  This  we 
can  ascertain  on  the  basis  of  the  texts  thus  far  established,  by 
bringing  into  consideration  parallel  passages,  such  as  those  of 
Samuel  and  Kings  on  the  one  side  and  Chronicles  on  the  otlier  ; 
parallel  versions  of  the  same  poem,  as  Ps.  14  =  5.3;  Ps.  18  = 
2  Sam.  22  ;  citations  of  earlier  writings  in  later  ones  ;  and 
the  rules  of  internal  evidence. 

Tlio  following  examples  of  the  appliration  of  the  genealogical 
principles  to  pai'licular  passages  will  suffice: 

Tlie  English  Authorized  Version  reads  in  Gen.  49'"  "until 
Shiloh  come."     The  Revised  Version  retains  this  in  the  text, 

'  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  9  seq. ;  and  Messiah  of  the  Apostles, 

pp.  2  seq. 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  239 

but  puts  on  the  margin  other  renderings.     The  Massoretic  text, 
nS'il'  SI2'  '3  T^,  may  be  translated  in  this  way. 

(a)  But  the  first  appearance  of  this  translation  known  to  us  is 
by  Sebastian  Mimster  in  1534.  Through  his  influence  it  passed 
over  into  the  Great  Bible  in  1539,  and  has  been  retained  in  all 
subsequent  English  versions.  Mtinster  seems  to  have  been  mis- 
led to  this  interpretation  by  the  use  of  HTiT  as  a  name  of  the 
Messiah  in  the  Talmud.'  But  that  does  not  justify  the  trans- 
lation '•  until  Shiloh  come "  anj-  more  than  the  use  of  Yinnon, 
Ps.  72'",  Chaninah,  Jer.  16",  ^Menacliem,  Lam.  1'",  and  the  leprous 
one,  Is.  53^,  as  names  of  the  Jlessiah,  would  justif}'  a  translation 
of  all  these  passages  in  accordance  therewith.  In  fact  there  is  no 
such  translation  of  Gen.  49'"  known  to  Jewish  tradition.  ri'!''»r  is 
found  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  name  of  a  place,  but  nowhere 
as  the  name  of  a  person. 

(b)  The  Massoretic  pointing  liTtl'  really  represents  the  tradi- 
tional opinion  that  /"C  was  a  noun  with  the  archaic  sufRx,  mean- 
ing his  son.  This  is  the  interpretation  of  the  Targuni  Yerushalmi 
and  many  Jewish  scholars  of  the  tenth  century.  It  is  true  that 
there  is  no  such  word  in  Biblical  Hebrew.  But  the  Mishna  uses 
the  form  ^"h'C  with  the  meaning  embryo,  and  it  would  seem  that 
the  ancient  Jews  interpreted  TiT  as  a  cognate  stem  with  '7'7'C 
Calvin  followed  this  opinion,  but  few  others  have  adopted  it  since 
the  Reformation. 

(c)  The  '  is  of  the  nature  of  a  Massoretic  interpretation,  as  is  so 
frequently  the  case  with  the  quiescent  letters  in  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  original  consonantal  text  read  n'^C*.  This  is  evident  from 
the  Arabic  of  Saadia  of  the  tenth  eenturj-,  who  did  not  follow  the 
Massoretic  pointing,  but  translated  it  as  if  it  were  pointed  n?i^ ; 
that  is,  the  relative  "t^,  the  preposition  7,  and  the  suffix  li. 
Saadia  is  sustained  by  Aquila,  who  testifies  to  the  official  inter- 
pretation of  the  rabbins  of  the  second  Christian  centur}'.  Sj-m- 
machus  and  Theodotioii  give  the  same  witness.  Jerome  read 
nbiT  or  n7  w',  but  he  interpreted  it  as  n'^'w  =  one  sent,  qui  mitten- 
dus  est. 

(d)  "We  may  now  go  back  of  the  official  text  of  the  second 
Christian  century  to  the  Maccabean  text.  The  Targum  of 
Onkelos  and  the  Syriac  version  testify  to  HvC,  and  translate : 
the  Targum,  "whose  is  the  kingdom,"  the  Syriac,  "whose  it  is," 
which  is  explained  by  Aphraates  and  Ephraem  as  "  whose  is  the 
kingdom." 

(e)  We  may  now  go  back  to  the  text  of  Ezra.     The  ancient 

1  Sank.,  98  6.    See  Driver,  Journal  of  Philology,  1885,  in  an  article  on  .iSt. 


2-iO  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCUIPTURE 

Greek  versiou  aud  the  Samaritan  codex  both  confirm  H'^w",  and 
the  former  renders  tws  av  tA.^3  ra  a-oKuixtva.  a.vT<^. 

(/)  We  maj-  also  go  a  step  still  further  backward  under  the 
guidance  of  an  apparent  citation  in  Ezek.  21^',  where  the  phrase 
liSw'.-H  "t^  TwS  S2  Ti  seems  to  be  not  only  a  reminiscence 
but  an  interpretation  of  Gen.  49'°,  and  confirms  n?w'  with  tlie 
interpretation  1*7  "I'tS. 

Thus  the  genealogical  principle  establishes,  beyond  the, shadow 
of  a  doubt,  that  the  original  reading  of  the  passage  was  H'^w',  aud 
that  the  interpretation  was  either  "  that  which  belongs  to  him," 
or  "  whose  it  is." 

For  another  example  we  may  use  Ps.  22'° '",  which  is  translated 
in  our  English  Bible,  "  Thou  didst  make  me  trust  (when  I  was) 
upon  my  mother's  breasts."  This  is  a  correct  translation  of  the 
]\[assoretic  text  'ITtSSSi  (Hipliil  participle).  But  in  the  time  of 
Jerome  the  unpointed  text  was  TltO^ti,  for  he  takes  it  as  the  noun 
TlUSJi,  my  trust.  So  do  the  Syriac  aud  ancient  Greek  versions, 
leading  us  back  to  the  JIaccabean  Psalter.  But  we  may  go  fur- 
ther back  still,  for  Ps.  22'"  is  quoted  in  paraphrase  in  the  later 
Ps.  71',  where  we  have  Tltsntt,  the  noun. 

The  genealogy  of  the  Greek  Bible  is  traced  back  in  a  similar 
waj-.  Lagarde  represented  that  in  the  case  of  the  Septuagint 
it  was  necessary  to  ascertain  the  three  great  official  texts  of  the 
tliird  centur3\  Liician,  Hesychiiis,  and  Eusebius.  All  the  man- 
uscripts should  be  classified  so  far  as  possible  to  show  their  de- 
scent from  these.  On  the  basis  of  these  three  one  may  work 
back  to  the  common  parent.  Westcott  and  Hort  have  shown 
that  we  have  two  groups  of  texts  that  are  older  than  these  re- 
censions ;  namely  (1)  the  Western  text,  represented  by  D,  the 
old  Latin,  the  old  Syrian,  and  sundry  citations  ;  and  (2)  the 
neutral  text  of  B,  S,  going  back  to  a  common  parent  in  the  second 
century.  The  translations  all  come  into  evidence  in  showing 
the  texts  from  which  they  were  translated,  and  the  Christian 
Fathers  of  the  different  centuries  in  the  use  of  the  versions  and 
manuscripts  from  which  the}'  cited.' 

An  interesting  example  of  the  use  of  the  genealogical  principle 
in  the  New  Testament  is  in  1  Peter  3  ".     The  Authorized  Version 

'  I  think  it  unnecessary  to  give  a  classification  of  the  Fathers  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  the  de.scent  of  citations.  Tliese  are  accessible  easily  to  all  students. 
I  have  given  the  JewLsli  Literature  because  it  is  not  so  accessible. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  :241 

reads:  "But  sanctify  the  Lord  God  in  your  hearts."  But  this 
reading  is  found  only  in  the  uncials  of  the  ninth  century,  K,  L,  1', 
and  in  no  earlier  writers  than  Theophylact  and  (Ecumenius.  The 
great  uncials,  B,  S  and  A,  C,  the  Syriac,  Sahidic,  Coptic,  and  Armen- 
ian versions,  —  all  give  Xpioror,  Christ,  in  place  of  6i6y,  God.  The 
genealogical  principle  therefore  determines,  without  doubt,  the 
original  reading,  and  so  the  Revised  Version  renders,  "  But  sanc- 
tify in  your  hearts  Christ  as  Lord."  This  evidence  might  be 
fortified  by  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament.  But  no  further 
evidence  is  needed. 

The  genealogical  method  does  not  always  determine  the  origi- 
nal reading ;  then  we  have  to  fall  back  on  the  internal  evidence. 
As  an  example  of  the  faiku-e  of  the  genealogical  method  I  may 
cite  the  case  of  Acts  20^.     I  shall  quote  from  myself : 

'•  There  is  a  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  reading  here. 
The  external  authority  of  INISS.,  versions,  and  citations  is  not  de- 
cisive. Tischendorf,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  the  mass  of  German 
•  critics  read  '  Church  of  the  Lord ' ;  Scrivener,  Westcott,  and 
Hort,  and  the  leading  British  scholars  read  '  Church  of  God.'  If 
any  unprejudiced  man  will  compare  the  great  mass  of  authorities 
cited  on  both  sides,  he  will  be  convinced  that  there  is  amjjle  room 
for  difference  of  opinion.  The  context  favors  '  Church  of  the 
Lord.'  This  reading  is  also  favored  by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  unique 
reading,  and  therefore  difficult.  Nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment do  we  find  the  phrase  '  Church  of  the  Lord.'  The  scribe  in 
doubt  would  follow  the  usual  phrase.  That  the  more  difficult 
reading  has  survived  is  a  proof  of  its  originalitj'.  The  reading 
'  Church  of  God  '  gives  by  implication  '  blood  of  God.'  This  is 
found  in  Ignatius  and  other  early  writers,  possibly  on  the  basis  of 
this  passage,  but  it  involves  a  conception  which  is  alien  to  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  extremely  im^jrobable  that  Luke  would 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Paul  such  an  unexampled  and  extraordinary 
expression  under  the  circumstances.  It  involved  a  doctrine  of 
startling  consequences.  Such  a  doctrine  would  not  come  into  the 
language  of  Holy  Scripture  in  such  an  incidental  way.  The 
American  Eevision,  therefore,  is  to  be  followed  in  its  reading 
'  Church  of  the  Lord '  rather  than  the  A.  Y.  or  the  British  Eevision 
'  Church  of  God.' "  > 

'Briggs,  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895,  p.  81.    See  Ezra  Abbot,  Critical 
Essays,  pp.  294  seq. 


242  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


VI.  Conflation  and  other  Corruptions 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  late  S3'rian  texts,  and  in  a  large 
measure  also  of  Lucian's  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  they 
indulge  in  a  considerable  amoimt  of  conflation.  Underlying 
conflation  is  the  feeling  that,  as  far  as  possible,  all  of  the  original 
text  should  be  preserved  ;  and  that,  in  cases  of  doubt,  it  is 
better  to  preserve  all  than  to  run  the  risk  of  losing  anytliing. 
Conflation  is  indeed  found  in  the  earliest  texts  both  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New  Testament,  and  must  have  taken  place 
to  a  considerable  extent  back  of  any  versions  known  to  us. 
Conflation  arises  partly  from  the  comparison  of  earlier  authori- 
ties, and  partly  from  the  insertion  of  ancient  marginal  explana- 
tions, or  glosses.  A  very  good  example  of  conflation  is  given 
in  Westcott  and  Hort. 

"  :\[k.  9'^ 

"  (a)  7r5s  >ip  TTvpl  iXiae^(TtTai  (s)  B  LA  1  —  118-209  61  81  435  aP 
me.  codd.  the  arm.  codd. 

"  (yS)  TTao-a  yap  Ova-La  dXl  aXKrOijcreraL  D  CU"  («)  b  Cjf'-i  (k)  tol  holm 
gig  (a  c  tol  holm  gig  omit  oAt :  a  omits  yap :  k  has  words  appar- 
ently implj-ing  the  Greek  original  xao-a  8c  (or  yap)  oio-ia  ava\w6y- 
acTai,  o  being  read  for  0.  and  \N\AU  for  \Al\XlC). 

'■  (S)    Tas    yap    Trvpl    dXiadijcreTai,    Kal    Tracra    Ovdia    aXt    a\i.(jdij<Ji.Tai, 

ACNXEFGHKMSUVrTT  cu.  omn.  exc.  15  fq  vg  syr.  vg  hi  me. 
codd  letli  arm.  codd  go  Vict  (cu'"  vg.  codd.  opt  omit  aXi;  X  adds 
it  after  irvpi). 

'•A  reminisceoce  of  Lev.  vii.  13  (xai  vSy  Suipov  Suo-ias  vp-wv  aXi 
oAio-^vo-cTai)  has  created  /?  out  of  a,  TTYPIWIC0  being  read  as 
0YCI  \^A(KAlC0  with  a  natural  reduplication,  lost  again  in  some 
Latin  copies.  The  change  would  be  aided  by  the  words  that 
follow  here,  KoXof  to  aA.as  k.t.X.  In  S  the  two  incongruous  alterna- 
tives are  simply  added  together,  yap  being  replaced  bj'  Kai.  Besides 
AC  NX,  S  has  at  least  the  Vulgate  Syriac,  and  tlie  Italian  and  Vul- 
gate Latin,  as  well  as  later  versions." ' 

Here  w^e  see  the  original  in  the  neutral  text,  a  variation  by  a 
mistake  in  the  Western  text,  and  then  a  full  conflation  in  the 
Syrian  texts. 

An  interesting  example  of  corruption  of  an  original  text  is  pre- 
sented in  Fs.  25.     This  Psalm  is  an  alphabetical  hexameter.     All 

1  Westcott  and  Ilort'."!  Xeto  TcstaJiieiit  in  Greek;  1882,  pp.  101,  102. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  243 

the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  from  S  to  n  are  reiiresented 
except  2,  1,  and  p.  But  it  is  quite  easy  to  restore  these.  The  line 
with  3  is  restored  by  making  the  preceding  verse  close  •vrith  T^bii. 
The  measure  requires  this  change  also.  The  line  beginning  with 
1  is  restored  by  transposing  ^H'-'T'I  to  the  second  clause  before 
"^ms.  A  prosaic  copyist  has  combined  two  lines  of  poetry  into  a 
single  prose  sentence.  The  line  with  p  has  been  lost  by  a  slip  of 
the  ej'e  causing  a  repetition  of  HSI  of  the  next  line.  Change 
HS"1  to  mp,  and  the  line  is  restored. 

Examples  of  dittography  are  Ps.  67*  and  IIS'-''''^''. 

In  Ps.  67*',  Cn'^S  132^3'  is  a  mere  repetition  of  the  first  two 
words  of  the  preceding  line.  The  Psalm  is  composed  of  three 
trimeter  pentastichs.  This  dittography  destroys  the  measure  of 
the  last  line  by  just  these  two  words. 

There  are  two  examples  in  Ps.  118 :  verse  12  b  repeated  from  the 
preceding  line,  and  verse  15  6  by  a  slip  of  the  eye  to  the  following 
line.  In  both  cases  they  destroy  the  measures  of  the  lines.  They 
are  but  half  lines,  and,  if  counted,  would  destroy  the  symmetrj'  of 
the  strophes  of  the  Psalm,  which  are  composed  uniformly  of  seven 
hexameters. 

Examples  of  the  wrong  separation  of  words  are : 

(a)  Ps.  68'' :  npn  '/D  C3  should  be  Z'lp^  'rDti  SO.  It  is 
a  citation  from  Deut.  33- :  S3  'I'DtD  nilT. 

(6)  Ps.  11' :  -ns::  D3in  should  be  ms::  IM  in  as  Sept.,  Aq., 
Jer..  Syr.,  Targ. 

The  letter  V  has  been  overlooked  by  an  ancient  scribe  of  the 
Massoretic  text  of  Ps.  140",  and  so  we  have  Hti?^  iustead  of 
the  correct  l^^w"  of  the  Sept. 

The  particle  "3  has  been  omitted  in  the  IMassoretic  text  of  Ps. 
143',  and  so  the  assonance  with  vss.  8*',  10"  has  been  lost.  The 
'S  is  preserved  in  on  of  Sept.  The  final  D  of  ^!;>'  in  Ps.  144^  has 
been  overlooked;  lience  the  pointing's":  but  D^^^  is  sustained 
by  Aq.,  Jer.,  Sept.  Targ.,  as  well  as  by  the  original  from  which 
the  citation  was  made,  Ps.  18**  =  2  Sam.  22*'. 

Ps.  31-  presents  an  interesting  example  of  a  tetrastich,  rhyming 
in  ''3_,  which  has  been  obscured  in  the  Massoretic  text  but  can 
easily  be  restored.  It  is  cited  in  the  later  Psalm,  71'-^.  In  both 
Psalms  there  has  been  a  transposition  of  "^npnUD,  which  begins 
the  second  verse  of  Ps.  71,  but  which  with  the  following  'JttSs 
closes  the  second  verse  of  Ps.  31.  It  should  begin  the  second 
verse,  and  the  first  verse  should  close  with  ""Jtsbs.  Ps.  71  has 
changed  the  imperative  to  a  jussive,  and  substituted  ""JTlCn,  and 
then  bv  conflation  added  ';t2'!'2m.     The  second  line  of   Ps.  31 


244  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

proper  closes  with  -jS"':*:!  mnj2.  In  Ps.  71  '':3:''i:nm  has  taken 
its  place  by  a  slip  of  the  eye  to  the  close  of  the  following  line, 
and  so  ■'i'^'Un  mn!2  has  been  left  out.  In  the  third  line  Ps.  31 
is  entirely  correct.  But  Ps.  71  in  the  Massoretic  text  has  misread 
rmiCDn3'!'1>!2  as  ni2kn!2ri27iVJ2  in  the  ancient  unpointed  con- 
tinuous text.  Apart  from  the  quiescent  letters  the  onlj^  difference 
is  a  mistake  of  1  for  3  and  a  transposition  of  2k  and  "I.  But  Sept, 
Sym.,  Targ.,  and  some  Hebrew  manuscripts  read  n"!2  here,  although 
Jerome  aud  the  Syriac  follow  the  present  text.  So  Sept.  reads  as 
TOTTov  oxvpov  here,  but  Sj'm.,  Jerome,  Syr.,  and  Targum  agree  with 
the  Massoretic  text.  It  is  altogether  probable,  therefore,  that  in 
the  Maccabean  Hebrew  text  Ps.  71  agreed  with  the  original  Ps. 
31.  The  corruption  of  the  text  was  later.  In  the  fourth  line 
Ps.  31  is  correct,  except  that  a  final  'i'?Xni  has  been  added  by 
conflation,  7n3  being  a  variation  of  HTO.  The  second  half  of  the 
line  is  not  given  in  Ps.  71. 

The  original  words  of  Jesus  in  the  Logia  may  be  discerned  from 
the  use  of  Textual  Criticism  of  the  several  citations  in  the  Gospels 
and  elsewhere.  Jesus  said :  "  A  prophet  is  not  without  honour, 
save  in  his  o\vn  country,  aud  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own 
house."  (Mk.  6*.)  This  is  given  in  Mt.  13^":  "A  prophet  is  not 
without  honour,  save  in  his  own  country,  and  in  his  own  house." 
Lk.  4  ^"  has  :  "  Doubtless  ye  will  say  unto  me  this  parable.  Phy- 
sician, heal  thyself;  whatsoever  we  have  heard  done  at  Caper- 
naum, do  also  here  in  thine  own  country."  John  4**  gives  it  in  the 
form,  "  Jesus  himself  testified  that  a  prophet  hath  no  honour  in 
his  own  country."  A  study  of  these  citations  makes  it  plain  that 
the  original  saying  of  Jesus  did  not  include  '•  and  among  his  own 
kin,  and  in  his  own  house."  That  is  an  enlargement  of  the  ori- 
ginal words  "  in  his  own  countrj-,"  given  in  Luke  and  John.  This 
is  confirmed  by  the  recently  discovered  Logia  of  Jesus,  from  an 
early  Greek  papyrus.  The  fifth  of  these  has  oik  iarn'  Sexros  jrpo(/»/r?;s 
iv  Ttj  naTpL&i.  avTov,  which  is  Very  close  to  Luke's  ovStU  tt/joc^jJtt/s  Scktos 
OTTiv  fv  Ttj  TTarpiSi  avTov. 

This  line  has  an  additional  line  in  parallelism  with  it  in  this 

fifth  logion,   namely  :    oi&i  mrpos   ttouI  ©tparci'as  €15  Tovi  yii'uxTKOVTav 

airrov.  This  makes  with  the  other  a  couplet.  In  all  probability, 
this  presents  the  original  couplet  of  Jesus,  which  is  preserved 
only  in  the  single  line  of  the  Gospels,  for  it  is  contrary  to  the 
usages  of  Hebrew  Wisdom  to  use  single  lines,  or  a  form  of  poetry 
of  less  than  a  couplet.  Single  lines  of  Wisdom  do  not  exist  except 
as  fragments  of  groups  of  lines.  Furthermore,  this  second  line  is 
suggested  by  the  context  of  Luke.     The  original  couplet  is : 


TEXTUAL   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  245 

A  prophet  is  not  acceptable  in  his  own  country ; 

Neither  doth  a  physician  work  cures  upon  them  that  know  him. 

By  a  careful,  accurate,  and  thorough-going  use  of  the  scien- 
tific methods  and  principles  of  Textual  Criticism,  the  traditional 
texts  upon  which  the  earlier  scholars  relied  have  been  jDurified, 
and  we  may,  with  considerable  confidence,  determine,  to  a  great 
extent,  very  ancient  forms  of  the  text  quite  near  to  the  original 
autographs  of  the  final  editors  of  the  biblical  writings,  and  in 
not  a  few  cases  we  may  determine  with  reasonable  accuracy 
the  autographs  of  the  authors  themselves.  We  may  be  encour- 
aged by  the  advance  in  the  science  of  Textual  Criticism  to  look 
for  greater  productivity  and  fruitfulness  in  the  future. 


CHAPTER   XI 

HISTORY  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF  HOLT  SCRIPTTJKE 

We  have  seen  in  previous  chapters  that  there  was  a  great 
critical  re\dval  at  the  Reformation ;  that  the  Biblical  Criticism 
of  the  Protestant  Reformers  was  based  on  the  formal  principle 
of  Protestantism,  the  divine  authority  of  Holj'  Scripture  over 
against  tradition ;  that  the  voice  of  God  Himself,  speaking 
to  His  people  through  His  Word,  was  the  great  test ;  that 
the  Protestant  Reformers  tested  the  traditional  theory  of  the 
Canon  and  eliminated  the  apocryphal  books  therefrom  ;  that 
they  rejected  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  versions  as  the  ulti- 
mate appeal,  and  resorted  to  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew 
texts ;  that  they  tested  the  ^lassoretic  traditional  pointing  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and,  rejecting  it  as  merely  traditional, 
resorted  to  the  original  unpointed  text ;  that  they  tested  the 
traditional  manifold  sense  and  allegorical  method  of  interpre- 
tation, and,  rejecting  these,  followed  the  plain  grammatical 
sense,  interpreting  difficult  and  obscure  passages  by  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit  in  passages  that  are  plain  and  undisputed. 

We  have  also  studied  the  second  critical  revival  under  the 
lead  of  Cappellus  and  Walton,  and  their  conflict  Avith  the 
Protestant  scholastics  who  had  reacted  from  the  critical  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformation  into  a  reliance  upon  Rabbinical  tra- 
dition. We  have  seen  that  the  Puritan  divines  still  held  the 
position  of  the  Protestant  Reformers,  and  were  not  in  accord 
with  the  scholastics.  We  have  now  to  trace-  a  third  critical 
revival,  which  began  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteentli  century 
in  the  investigations  of  the  poetic  and  literary  features  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  Bishop  Lowth  in  England  and  the  poet 
Herder  in  Germany,  and  of  the  structure  of  Genesis  by  the 
physician  Astruc  in   France.     The   first   critical   revival   had 

246 


HIGHER  CRITICISJI   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  247 

been  mainly  devoted  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  its  authority 
and  interpretation.  The  second  critical  revival  had  studied 
the  original  texts  and  versions.  The  third  critical  revival  gave 
attention  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  literature. 

I.  The  Higher  Criticism  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seven- 
teenth Centuries. 
Little  attention  had  been  given  to  the  literary  features  of 
the  Bible  in  the  sixteenth  century.  We  may  infer  how  the 
Reformers  would  have  met  these  questions  from  their  freedom 
with  regard  to  traditional  views  in  the  few  cases  in  which  they 
expressed  themselves.  Luther  denied  the  Apocal3'pse  to  John 
and  Ecclesiastes  to  Solomon.  He  maintained  that  the  Epistle 
of  James  was  not  an  apostolic  writing.  He  regarded  Jude  as 
an  extract  from  2  Peter,  and  said,  What  matters  it  if  Moses 
should  not  himself  have  written  the  Pentateuch  ?  ^  He  thought 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  by  a  disciple  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  who  was  a  learned  man,  and  made  the  epistle  as 
a  sort  of  a  composite  piece  in  which  there  are  some  things  hard 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  Gosjjel.  Calvin  denied  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  doubted  the 
Petrine  authorship  of  2  Peter.  He  taught  that  Ezra  or  some 
one  else  edited  the  Psalter  and  made  the  first  Psalm  an  intro- 
duction to  the  collection,  not  hesitating  to  oppose  the  tra- 
ditional view  that  David  was  the  author  or  editor  of  the  entire 
Psalter.  He  also  regarded  Ezra  as  the  author  of  the  prophecy 
of  Malachi  —  Malachi  being  his  surname.  He  furthermore 
constructed,  after  the  model  of  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  a 
harmony  of  the  pentateuchal  legislation  about  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments as  a  centre,  holding  that  all  the  rest  of  the  com- 
mandments were  mere  "  appendages,  which  add  not  the  smallest 
completeness  to  the  Law."  ^ 

■  See  Diestel,  Oesch.  des  Alien  Test,  in  tier  christlichen  Kirche,  1869,  pp.  250 
seq. ;  and  Vorreden  in  Walch  edit,  of  Luther's  Werken,  XIV.  pp.  35,  140-153  ; 
Tischreden,  I.  p.  28. 

^  "Therefore,  God  protests  that  He  never  enjoined  anything  with  respect  to 
sacrifices  ;  and  He  pronounces  all  external  rites  but  vain  and  trifling  if  the  very 
least  value  be  assigned  to  them  apart  from  the  Ten  Commandments.  Whence 
we  more  certainly  arrive  at  the  conclusion  to  which  I  have  adverted,  viz.  that 


248  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Zwingli,  CEcolampadius,  and  other  Reformers  took  similar 
positions.  These  questions  of  authorship  and  date  troubled 
the  Reformers  but  little ;  they  had  to  battle  against  the  Vul- 
gate for  the  original  text  and  popular  versions,  and  for  a 
simple  grammatical  exegesis  over  against  traditional  authority 
and  the  manifold  sense.  Hence  it  is  that  on  these  literary 
questions  the  Apologies,  Articles  of  Religion,  and  Confessions 
of  Faith  in  the  time  of  the  Reformation  take  no  position  what- 
ever, except  to  lay  stress  upon  the  sublimity  of  the  style,  the 
unity  and  the  harmony  of  Scripture,  and  the  internal  evidence 
of  its  inspiration  and  authority.  Calvin  sets  the  example  for 
the  Reformed  Churches  in  this  particular  in  his  Institutes,  and 
is  followed  by  Thomas  Cartwright,  Archbishop  Usher,  and 
other  eminent  Calvinists. 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  in  entire  accord 
with  the  otlier  Reformed  confessions,  and  with  the  well- 
established  principles  of  the  Reformation.  It  expresses  a  de- 
vout admiration  and  profound  reverence  for  the  holy  majestic 
character  and  style  of  the  Divine  Word,  but  does  not  define 
the  human  authors  and  the  dates  of  the  various  writings.  As 
A.  F.  Mitchell  says  : 

"  Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  their  list  of  the 
canonical  books  with  that  given  in  the  Belgian  Confession  or  the 
Irish  articles,  may  satisfy  himself  that  they  held  with  Dr.  Jameson 
that  the  authority  of  these  books  does  not  depend  on  the  fact 
whether  this  prophet  or  that  wrote  a  particular  book  or  parts  of  a 
book,  whether  a  certain  portion  was  derived  from  the  Elohist  or 
the  Jehovist,  whether  Moses  wrote  the  close  of  Deuteronomy, 
Solomon  was  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  or  Paid  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  but  the  fact  that  a  prophet,  an  inspired  man,  wrote 
them,  and  that  they  bear  tlie  stamp  and  impress  of  a  divine 
origin." ' 

they  are  not,  to  speak  correctly,  of  the  substance  of  the  Law.  nor  avail  of  them- 
selves in  the  worship  of  God,  nor  are  required  by  the  I.awsiver  himself  as  neces- 
sary, or  even  as  useful,  unless  they  sink  into  this  inferior  position.  In  fine,  they 
are  appendages  which  add  not  the  smallest  completeness  to  the  Law,  but  whose 
object  is  to  retain  the  pious  in  the  spiritual  worship  of  God,  which  consists  of 
Faith  and  Repentance,  of  Prai.ses  whereby  their  gratitude  is  proclaimed,  and 
even  of  the  endurance  of  the  cross."  —  Preface  to  Harmony  of  the  Fom  Last 
Books  of  the  Pentatfuch. 

^  Minutes  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines,  November, 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  249 

And  Matthew  Poole,  the  great  Presbyterian  critic  of  the 
seventeenth  century-,  quotes  with  approval  the  following  from 
the  Roman  Catholic,  ]\Ielchior  Canus  : 

"  It  is  not  much  material  to  the  Catholick  Faith  that  any  book 
was  written  by  this  or  that  author,  so  long  as  the  Spirit  of  God  is 
believed  to  be  the  author  of  it ;  which  Gregory  delivers  and 
explains :  For  it  matters  not  with  what  pen  the  King  writes  his 
letter,  if  it  be  true  that  he  writ  it." ' 

Andrew  Rivetus,  one  of  the  chief  Reformed  divines  of  the 
continent,^  after  discussing  the  various  views  of  the  authorsliip 
of  the  Psalms,  says  : 

"  This  only  is  to  he  held  as  certain,  whether  David  or  Moses  or 
any  other  composed  the  psalms,  they  themselves  were  as  pens, 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  wrote  through  them :  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  trouble  ourselves  about  the  pen  when  the  true  author  is 
established." 

In  his  Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,^  he  enters  into 
no  discussion  of  the  literary  questions.  This  omission  makes  it 
clear  that  these  questions  did  not  concern  the  men  of  his  times. 
Until  toward  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century,  those  who, 
in  the  brief  preliminary  words  to  their  commentaries  on  the 
different  books  of  Scripture,  took  the  trouble  to  mention  the 
authors  and  dates  of  writings,  either  followed  the  traditional 
views  without  criticism  or  deviated  from  them  in  entire  uncon- 
sciousness of  giving  offence  to  the  orthodox  faith.  This  faith 
was  firml}-  fixed  on  the  divine  author  of  Scripture,  and  they 
felt  little  concern  for  the  human  authors  employed.  One  looks 
in  vain  in  the  commentaries  of  this  period  for  a  critical  dis- 
cussion of  literary  questions.* 

1644  to  March,  1649,  edited  by  A.  F.  Mitchell  and  J.  Struthers,  Edin.,  1874, 
p.  xlix. 

1  BJoio  at  the  Boot,  4th  ed.,  1671,  p.  228. 

^  In  his  Prolog,  to  his  Com.  on  the  Psalms. 

'  Isngoge  sen  Introductio  generaUs  ad  scripturam  sacram,  1627. 

♦  As  specimens  the  following  from  the  Assembhfs  Annotations  may  suffice. 
(1)  Francis  Taylor  on  Job:  ''Though  most  excellent  and  glorious  things  be 
contained  in  it,  yet  they  seem  to  partake  the  same  portion  with  their  subject ; 
being  (as  his  prosperity  was)  clouded  often  with  much  darkness  and  obscurity, 
and  that  not  only  in  those  things  which  are  of  lesse  moment  and  edification 


250  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTL'RE 

The  literary  questions  opened  by  Lowtli,  Herder,  and  Astruc 
were  essentially  new  questions.  The  revived  attention  to  clas- 
sical and  Oriental  history  and  literature  carried  with  it  a  fresh 
studj"  of  Hebrew  history  and  literature.  The  battle  of  the 
books  waged  between  Bentle}'  and  Boyle,  which  was  decided 
in  the  interests  of  literary  criticism  by  the  masterpiece  of 
Bentlej',^  was  the  prelude  of  a  struggle  over  all  the  literary 
monuments  of  antiquity,  in  which  the  spurious  was  to  be  sepa- 
rated from  the  genuine.  It  was  indispensable  that  the  Greek 
and  Latin  and  Hebrew  literature  should  pass  through  the  fires 
of  this  literary  and  historical  criticism,  which  soon  received  the 
name  of  Higher  Criticism.     As  Eichhorn  says  : 

(viz.  the  Time  and  Place  and  Penman,  etc.),  but  in  points  of  higher  doctrine 
and  concernment.  The  Book  is  observed  to  be  a  sort  of  holy  poem,  but  yet  not 
a  Fable  ;  and,  though  we  cannot  expressly  conclude  when  or  by  whom  it  was 
written,  though  our  maps  cannot  show  us  what  Uz  was,  or  where  situate,  yet 
cannot  this  Scripture  of  Job  be  rejected  until  Atheisme  grow  as  desperate  as 
his  wife  was,  and  resolve  with  her  to  curee  God  and  dye."  The  traditional 
view  that  Moses  wrote  Job  is  simply  abandoned  and  the  authorship  left  unknown. 
(2)  Casaubon,  Preface  to  the  Psalms:  "The  author  of  this  book  (the  immedi- 
ate and  secondary,  we  mean,  besides  the  original  and  general  of  all  true  Script- 
ure, the  Holy  Ghost  .  .  .),  though  named  in  some  other  places  of  Scripture 
David,  as  Lk.  20*'-,  and  elsewhere,  is  not  here  in  the  title  of  the  book  expressed. 
Tlie  truth  is,  they  are  not  all  David's  Psalms,  some  having  been  made  before 
and  some  long  after  him,  as  shall  be  shown  in  due  place."  The  traditional  view 
as  to  the  Davidic  authorship  of  the  Psalter  is  abandoned  without  hesitation  or 
apology.  (3)  Francis  Taylor,  Preface  to  the  Proferbs :  "That  Solomon  is  the 
author  of  this  book  of  Proverbs  in  general  is  generally  acknowledged  ;  but  the 
author,  as  David  of  the  P.salms,  not  because  all  made  by  him,  but  because  either 
the  maker  of  a  good  part,  or  collector  and  approver  of  the  rest.  It  is  not  to  be 
doubted  but  that  many  of  these  Proverbs  and  sentences  were  known  and  used 
long  before  Solomon.  ...  Of  them  that  were  collected  by  others  as  Solomon's, 
but  long  suice  his  death,  from  Chapters  25-^30,  and  then  of  those  that  bear 
Agur's  name,  .30,  and  Lemuel's,  .31.  ...  If  not  all  Solomon's,  then,  but  partly 
his  and  partly  collected  by  him  and  partlj'  by  others  at  several  times,  uo  wonder 
if  diverse  things,  with  little  or  no  alteration,  be  often  repeated." 

Joseph  Mede  ( iror/i-s,  II.  pp.  'JOS,  1022,  London,  10(U),  Henry  Hammond 
(^Paraphrase  and  Annotations  upon  the  Xew  Testamejit,  London,  1871,  p.  136), 
Kidder  (Demonstration  of  the  Messias,  London,  1726,  IL  p.  76),  and  others 
denied  tlie  integrity  of  Zechariah.  and.  on  the  ground  of  Mt.  27',  ascribed  the 
last  six  chapters  to  Jeremiah.  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
questioned  by  Carlstadt  {De  Script.  Canon,  1521,  §  85).  who  left  the  author 
undetermined.  The  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  Masius  (Com.  in  Josh.,  1674, 
Praf,  p.  2,  and  Chapters  10'3,  W  ;  Critica  Sacr.,  II.  p.  1892,  London,  1660), 
and  the  British  philosopher,  Hobbes  (Leviathan.  1651,  p.art  III,  o.  33)  distin- 
guished between  Mosaic  originals  and  our  present  Pentateuch. 

1  Spisllcs  of  Phalaris  and  FaUles  of  yEsop,  16S)',> ;  see  Chap.  IV.  p.  107. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  251 

"  Already  long  ago  scholars  have  sought  to  determine  the  age  of 
anonymous  Greek  and  Roman  writings  now  from  their  contents, 
and  then  since  these  are  often  insufficient  for  an  investigation 
of  this  kind,  from  their  language.  They  have  also  by  the  same 
means  separated  from  ancient  works  pieces  of  later  origin,  which, 
by  accidental  circumstances,  have  become  mingled  with  the  ancient 
pieces.  And  not  until  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been 
subjected  to  the  same  test  can  any  one  assert  with  couhdence  that 
the  sections  of  a  book  all  belong  in  reality  to  the  author  whose  name 
is  prefixed."  ^ 

The  traditional  \ae\vs  of  the  Old  Testament  literature,  as 
fixed  in  the  Talmud  and  stated  in  the  Christian  Fathers,  came 
down  as  a  body  of  lore  to  be  investigated  and  tested  by  the 
principles  of  this  Higher  Criticism.  There  were  four  ways  of 
meeting  the  issue :  (1)  By  attacking  the  traditional  theories 
with  the  weapons  of  the  Higher  Criticism  and  testing  them  at 
all  points,  dealing  with  the  Scriptures  as  with  all  other  writings 
of  antiquity.  (2)  By  defending  the  traditional  theories  as  the 
established  faith  of  the  Church  on  the  ground  of  the  authority 
of  tradition,  as  Buxtorf  and  Owen  had  defended  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  against  Cappellus  and  Walton. 
(3)  B}'  ignoring  these  questions  as  matters  of  scholarship  and 
not  of  faith,  and  resting  on  the  divine  authority  of  the  writings 
themselves.  In  point  of  fact,  these  three  methods  were  pur- 
sued, and  three  parties  ranged  themselves  in  line  to  meet  the 
issues, — the  deistic  or  rationalistic,  the  traditional  or  scholastic, 
the  pietistic  or  m3'stical,  —  and  the  battle  of  the  ages  between 
these  tendencies  was  renewed  on  this  line.  There  was  a  fourth 
and  better  way  which  few  pursued  :  (1)  inquii'e  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  about  themselves,  and  separate  this  divine 
authority  from  all  other  authority  ;  (2)  appl)'  the  principles  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  to  decide  questions  not  decided  by  divine 
authority  ;  (3)  let  tradition  have  its  A-oice  so  far  as  possible  in 
questions  not  settled  by  the  previous  methods. 

1  Einleit.  III.  p.  67. 


252  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


II.   The  Rabbixical  Theories 

The  most  ancient  Rabbinical  theory  of  the  Old  Testament 
literature  known  to  us  is  contained  in  the  tract  Baha  Bathra  of 
the  Talmud.  In  this  passage  we  have  to  distingiiish  the  Bar- 
aitha  from  the  G-emara.^ 

Babaitha.  —  The  rabbins  have  taught  that  the  order  of  the 
Prophets  is,  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings,  Jeremiah 
and  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  the  Twelve  (minor  prophets). 

Gemara.  —  (Question) :  How  is  it  ?  Hosea  is  first  because  it  is 
written,  "In the  beginning  the  Lord  spake  to  Hosea."  But  how 
did  he  speak  in  the  beginning  with  Hosea  ?  Have  there  not  been 
so  man}-  prophets  from  Closes  unto  Hosea  ?  Kabbi  Jochanan  said 
that  he  was  the  first  of  the  four  prophets  who  prophesied  in  the 
same  period,  and  these  are :  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Amos,  and  Micali. 
Shoidd  then  Hosea  be  placed  before  at  the  head  ?  {Re}>l>/) :  No, 
since  his  prophecies  had  been  written  alongside  of  Haggai,  Zecha- 
riah,  and  Jlalachi,  and  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  ]Malachi  were  the 
last  of  the  prophets,  it  was  counted  with  them.  (Question):  Ought 
it  to  have  been  written  apart  and  ought  it  to  have  been  placed 
before  ?  (Reply) :  Ko ;  since  it  was  little  and  might  be  easily  lost. 
(Question) :  How  is  it  ?  Isaiah  was  before  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 
Ought  Isaiah  to  be  placed  before  at  the  head?  (Re2'>l>j):  Since  the 
book  of  Kings  ends  in  ruin  and  Jeremiah  is,  all  of  it,  ruin,  and 
Ezekiel  has  its  beginning  ruin  and  its  end  comfort,  and  Isaiah  is 
all  of  it  comfort;  we  join  ruin  to  ruin  and  comfort  to  comfort. 

Baraith.\.  —  The  order  of  the  Writings  is,  Euth  and  the  book 
of  Psalms,  and  Job,  and  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs  and 
Lamentations,  Daniel  and  the  roll  of  Esther,  Ezra  and  Chronicles. 

Gemara.  —  (Question)  :  But  according  to  the  Tanaite  who  said 
Job  was  in  the  daj-s  of  Moses,  ought  Job  to  be  placed  before  at 
the  head?  (Repli/):  We  begin  not  with  afflictions.  (Question): 
Euth  has  also  afflictions  ?  (Repli/)  :  But  afflictions  which  have  an 
end.  As  Eabbi  Jochanan  says,  Why  was  her  name  called  Ruth  ? 
Because  David  went  fortli  from  her  who  refreshed  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He  !  with  songs  and  praises. 

Baraitha.  —  And  who  wrote  them  ?  IMoses  wrote  his  book, 
the  section  of  Balaam  and  Job ;  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  the 

'  liaba  Bathra,  folio  14  6.  See  pp.  232,  23.3.  I  follow  the  editio  princeps, 
12  vols,  folio,  Venitia.  Romberg,  1520,  but  have  also  consulted  the  edition  pub- 
lished at  Berlin  and  Frankfort-on-the-Oder  by  Jablonsky,  1736,  which  follows 
the  Basle  edition  in  expurgating  the  anti-Christian  passages.  Both  of  these  are 
in  the  library  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  X.Y. 


HIGHEK   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  253 

eight  verses  of  the  law ;  Samuel  wrote  his  book  and  Judges  and 
Kuth ;  David  wrote  the  book  of  Psalms  with  the  aid  of  the  ten 
ancients,  with  the  aid  of  Adam  the  first,  Melchizedek,  Abraham, 
Moses,  Hemaii,  Jeduthun,  Asapli,  the  three  sons  of  Korah ;  Jere- 
miah wrote  his  book,  the  books  of  Kings  and  Lamentations ; 
Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs, 
and  Ecclesiastes,  whose  sign  is  pC J2^ ; '  the  men  of  the  great  syna- 
gogue wrote  Ezekiel  and  the  Twelve  (minor  prophets),  Daniel  and 
the  roll  of  Esther,  whose  sign  is  iXp ;  Ezra  wrote  his  book  and 
the  genealogy  of  Chronicles  unto  himself. 

Gemaea.  —  This  will  support  Eab,  for  Eabbi  Jehuda  told  that 
Eab  said :  Ezra  went  not  up  from  Babylon  until  he  had  registered 
his  own  genealogj',  then  he  went  up.  (Question) :  And  who  finished 
it  (his  book)  ?  (Repbj)  ;  Xehemiah,  son  of  Hachaliah.  The 
author  (of  the  Baraitha)  said  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  the  eight 
verses  of  the  law ;  this  is  taught  according  to  him  who  says  of  the 
eight  verses  of  the  law,  Joshua  wrote  them.  For  it  is  taught: 
And  Moses  the  servant  of  the  Lord  died  there.  How  is  it  possible 
that  iloses  died  and  wrote :  and  Closes  died  there  ?  It  is  only 
unto  this  passage  [Moses  wrote,  afterwards  Joshua  wrote  the 
rest.  These  are  the  words  of  Eabbi  Jehuda,  others  say  of  Eabbi 
Kehemiah,  but  Eabbi  Simeon  said  to  him :  Is  it  possible  that  the 
book  of  the  Law  could  lack  one  letter,  since  it  is  written :  Take 
this  book  of  the  Law  ?  It  is  only  unto  this  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He !  said,  and  Moses  said  and  wrote.  From  this  place  and 
onwards  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  said  and  Moses  wrote  with 
weeping.  .  .  . 

(Question) :  Joshua  wrote  his  book  ?  But  it  is  written  there  : 
And  Joshua  died.  (Rephj):  Eleazar  finished  it.  (Question):  But 
yet  it  is  written  there:  And  Eleazar  the  son  of  Aaron  died. 
(Reply) :  Phineas  finished  it.  (Question) :  Samuel  wrote  his  book  ? 
But  it  is  written  there  :  And  Samuel  died,  and  they  buried  him  in 
Eama.     (Rej'ly) :  Gad  the  seer  and  Xathau  the  Prophet  finished  it. 

We  have  to  distinguisli  the  view  of  the  Tanaini  in  the 
Baraitha  and  the  view  of  the  Amoraira  in  the  Gemara.^  The 
Tanaim  do  not  go  beyond  the  scope  of  giving  (1)  the  order 
of  the  Sacred  Writings,  (2)  their  editors. 

(1)  In  the  order  of  the  writings  we  observe  several  singular 

1  These  are  the  first  letters  of  the  Hebrew  names  of  these  books. 

'  The  Tanaim  are  the  authors  of  the  Mishiiayoth,  the  Amoraim  are  the 
expounders  of  the  Mi/<hnayoth  and  autliors  of  the  Gemara  (see  Mielziiier,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Talmud,  1894,  pp.  22  seq.). 


254  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKU'TURE 

features,  Avliich  lead  us  to  ask  whether  the  order  is  topical, 
chronological,  liturgical,  or  accidental.  The  Amoraim  ex- 
plain the  order  generally  as  topical,  although  other  explana- 
tions are  given,  but  their  reasons  are  inconsistent  and 
unsatisfactory.  Is  there  a  chronological  reason  at  the  bottom? 
Tliis  is  clear  in  the  order  of  three  classes,  —  Law,  Prophets,  and 
other  Writings.  But  will  it  apply  to  the  order  of  the  books 
in  the  classes  ?  There  seems  to  be  a  general  observance  of  the 
chronological  order,  if  we  consider  the  subject-matter  as  the 
determining  factor,  and  not  the  time  of  composition.  In 
the  order  of  the  Prophets,  Jeremiah  precedes  Ezekiel  properh'. 
But  why  does  Isaiah  follow  ?  Is  it  out  of  a  consciousness  that 
Isaiah  was  a  collection  of  several  writings  besides  those  of  the 
great  Isaiah,^  or  from  the  feeling  that  Isaiah's  prophecies  had 
more  to  do  with  the  restoration  than  the  exile,  and  so  naturally 
followed  Ezekiel?  The  Miuor  Prophets  are  arranged  in  three 
groups,  and  these  gi'oups  are  chronological  in  order.  Hosea 
was  placed  first  out  of  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  his  intro- 
ductory words.  INIalachi  appropriately  comes  last.  But  this 
order  of  the  Prophets  in  the  Baraitha  is  abandoned  by  the 
Massorites,  who  arrange  Isaiali,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel.  In  the 
other  writings  there  is  a  sort  of  chronological  order  if  we  con- 
sider the  subject-matter,  but  the  Massoretic  text  differs  from 
the  Baraitha  entirely,  and  indeed  the  Spanish  and  German 
manuscripts  from  one  another.  We  cannot  escape  the  convic- 
tion that  there  was  a  liturgical  reason  at  the "  basis  of  the 
arrangement,  which  has  not  yet  been  determined.  At  all 
events,  its  authority  has  little  weight  for  purposes  of  Higher 
Criticism. 

(2)  ^s  to  their  editorship.  The  verb  "  wrote,"  ^  cannot 
imply  composition  in  the  sense  of  authorship  in  several  cases 
of  its  use,  but  must  be  used  in  the  sense  of  editorship  or  re- 
daction. Thus  it  is  said  that  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
wrote  Ezekiel,  the  Minor  Prophets,  Daniel,  and  the  roll  of 
Esther.  This  cannot  mean  that  they  were  the  original  authors, 
but  that  they  Avere  editors  of  these  books.  It  is  not  stated 
whether  they  edited  them  by  copy  from  originals  or  from  oral 
1  Slrack  in  Ilerzog,  Heal  Encij.,  VII.  p.  43.  =  Zn. 


HIGHER   CIUTICISM   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTURE  255 

tradition.  Kashi  takes  the  latter  alternative,  and  thinks  that 
holy  hooks  could  not  be  written  outside  of  Palestine. i  An 
insuperable  objection  to  this  editing  of  Daniel  and  Esther 
at  the  same  time  as  Ezekiel  and  the  Twelve,  is  their  exclusion 
from  the  order  of  the  Prophets,  where  they  would  have  naturally 
gone  if  introduced  into  the  Canon  at  that  time ;  Esther  with 
the  prophetic  histories,  and  Daniel  with  Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
Jeremiah. 2 

Again,  when  it  is  said  Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote 
Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  this  can 
only  mean  editorship,  and  not  authorship.  The  TosapJioth  on 
the  Baraitha  says :  "  Hezekiah  and  his  college  wrote  Isaiah ; 
because  Hezekiah  caused  them  to  busy  themselves  Avith  the 
law,  the  matter  was  called  after  his  name.  But  he  (Hezekiah) 
did  not  write  it  himself,  because  he  died  before  Isaiah,  since 
]Manasseh,  his  successor,  killed  Isaiah."  The  redaction  of 
Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  by  Hezekiah's 
company,  is  probably  a  conjecture  based  upon  Proverbs  25. ^ 
But  the  whole  story  is  incredible.  It  carries  with  it  a  Canon 
of  Hezekiah,  and  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  subsequent 
positions  of  these  books  in  the  Canon. ^ 

David  is  represented  as  editing  the  Psalter  with  the  aid  of 
ten  ancients  ;  that  is,  he  used  the  Psalms  of  the  ten  worthies 
and  united  them  with  his  owti  in  the  collection.  Moses  is 
represented  as  writing  his  book,  the  section  of  Balaam  and 
Job.  The  section  of  Balaam  is  distinguished  probably  as 
edited  and  not  composed  by  iloses.  In  view  of  the  usage 
of  the  rest  of  this  Baraitha,  we  cannot  be  sure  whether  it 
means  that  Moses  edited  the  Law  and  Job,  or  whether  here 
"  wrote  "  means  authorship.  The  same  uncertaint}^  hangs  over 
the  references  to  Joshua,  Samuel,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezra. 

The  statements  of  the  Baraitha,  therefore,  seem  rather  to 
concern  official  editorship  than  authorship,  and  it  distinguishes 
no  less  than  eight  stages  of  redaction  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  :   (1)  By  Moses,  (2)  Joshua.  (3)  Samuel,  C4)  David, 

'  Strack  in  Herzog,  Real  Ency.,  VII.  p.  418;  Wright,  Kohdeth,  pp.  454  seq.  ; 
Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible,  pp.  19  seq. 

-  See  pp.  123  seq.  '  See  pp.  124  seq. 


256  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

(5)  Hezekiali  and  his  college,  (6)  Jeremiah,  (7)  the  men  of 
the  Great  S3'nagogue,  (8)  Ezra. 

The  G-emara  in  its  commentary  upon  this  passage  enlarges 
this  work  of  redaction  so  as  to  give  a  number  of  additional 
prophets  a  hand  in  it.  Joshua  completes  the  work  of  Moses, 
Eleazar  the  work  of  Joshua,  and  Phineas  his  work ;  Gad  and 
Nathan  finish  the  work  of  Samuel,  then  come  David,  Hezekiah, 
Jeremiah,  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue ;  and  Nehemiah 
finishes  the  work  of  Ezra. 

III.   Hellenistic  and  Christian  Theories 

Having  considered  the  Rabbinical  tradition,  we  are  noAV 
prepared  to  examine  that  of  the  Jewish  historian,  Josephus. 
His  general  statement  is  : 

"  We  have  not  myriads  of  books  among  us  disagreeing  and  con- 
tradicting one  another,  but  only  twenty-two,  comprising  the  his- 
tory of  all  past  time,  justly  worthy  of  belief.  And  live  of  them 
are  those  of  ]\Ioses,  which  comprise  the  Law  and  the  tradition  of 
the  generation  of  mankind  until  his  death.  This  time  extends 
to  a  little  less  than  three  thousand  years.  From  the  death  of 
Moses  imtil  Artaxerxes,  the  king  of  the  Persians  after  Xerxes, 
the  prophets  after  Jloses  composed  that  which  transpired  in  their 
times  in  thirteen  books.  The  other  four  books  present  hymns  to 
God  and  rules  of  life  for  men." ' 

"And  now  David,  being  freed  from  wars  and  dangers,  and 
enjoying  a  profound  peace,  composed  songs  and  hymns  to  God 
of  several  sorts  of  metre:  some  of  those  which  he  made  were  trim- 
eters, and  some  were  pentameters."  - 

Josephus'  views  as  to  Hebrew  literature  varj'  somewhat  from 
the  Talmud.  He  strives  to  exalt  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in 
evei'y  way  as  to  style,  antiquity,  and  variety  above  the  classic 
literature  of  Greece.  He  represents  iNIoses  as  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch,  even  of  the  last  eight  verses  describing  his 
own  death. ^  Scholars  do  not  hesitate  to  reject  his  views  of  the 
number  and  arrangement  of  the  books  in  the  Canon,  or  his 
statements  as  to  the  metres  of  Hebrew  poetry  ;  we  certainty 
cannot  accept  his  authority  witliont  criticism,  in  questions  of 

>  Contra  Apion.  I.  §  8  ^  ^i,,,,-^.,  vil.  12.  '  Antiq..  IV.  8,  48. 


HIGHER  CKITICISM  OF  HOLY   SCKIPiUllE  257 

authorship.  Philo  agrees  with  Josephus  in  raaking  Moses  bv 
prophetic  inspiration  the  author  of  the  narrative  of  his  own 
death,!  jj^t  i^^s  little  to  say  about  matters  that  concern  the 
Higher  Criticism. 

A  still  more  ancient  authority  than  the  Talmud,  and  an  au- 
thority historically  to  Christians  higher  than  Josephus,  is  the 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  from  the  first  Christian  century,  printed 
among  the  apocryphal  books  in  the  Englisli  Bible,  and  pre- 
served in  five  versions,  and  used  not  infrequently  by  the 
Fathers  as  if  it  were  inspired  Scripture.  This  tradition  repre- 
sents that  the  Law  and  all  the  holy  books  were  burned  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  lost ;  that 
Ezra  under  divine  inspiration  restored  them  all,  and  also  com- 
posed seventy  others  to  be  delivered  to  the  wise  as  the  esoteric 
wisdom  for  the  interpretation  of  the  twenty-four.^ 

This  view  of  the  restoration  of  the  Old  Testament  writings 
by  Ezra  was  advocated  bj*  some  of  the  Fathers.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  ^  says  : 

"  Since  the  Scriptures  perished  in  the  captivity  of  Xebuchad- 
nezzar,  Esdras  the  Levite,  the  priest,  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes, 
king  of  the  Persians  having  become  inspired,  in  the  exercise  of 
prophecy  restored  again  the  whole  of  the  ancient  Scriptures." 

So,  also,  TertuUian,*  Chrysostom,^  an  ancient  wTiting  attrib- 
uted to  Augustine,®  the  heretical  Clementine  homilies."  Another 
common  opinion  of  the  Fathers  is  represented  by  Irenseus  :  ^ 

1  Life,  of  Moses,  III.  39. 

-  Ezra  saitli  :  -'For  thy  law  Is  burnt,  therefore  no  man  knoweth  the  things 
that  are  done  of  thee,  or  the  works  that  shall  begin.  But  if  I  have  found  grace 
before  thee,  send  the  Holy  Ghost  into  me,  and  I  shall  write  all  that  hath  been 
done  in  the  world  since  the  beginning,  which  were  written  in  thy  law,  that  men 
may  find  thy  path,"  etc.  "Come  hither  (saitli  God),  and  I  shall  light  a 
candle  of  understanding  in  thine  heart  which  shall  not  be  put  out,  till  the  things 
be  performed  which  thou  shalt  begin  to  write.  And  when  thou  hast  done,  some 
things  shalt  thou  publish,  and  some  things  shalt  thou  show  secretly  to  the  wise. 
.  .  .  The  first  that  thou  hast  written  publish  openly,  that  the  worthy  and  the 
unworthy  may  read  it ;  but  keep  the  seventy  last,  that  thou  mayest  deliver  them 
only  to  such  as  be  wise  among  the  people  ;  for  in  them  is  the  spring  of  under- 
standing, the  fountain  of  wisdom,  and  the  stream  of  knowledge"  (U-'-"). 

'  Slromata,  I.  22.  '  De  cuUu  faminarum.  c.  3. 

5  Horn.  vni.  in  Epist.  Hebrceos,  Jligne's  edition,  XVII.  p.  74. 

^  De  mirabilibus  sacrx  scripturcB,  II.  33,  printed  with  Augustine's  works, 
but  not  genuine.  '  Horn.  III.  c.  47.  '  Adv.  Hcereses,  III.  21,  2. 


258  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRLPTUKE 

"  During  the  captivity  of  the  people  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  the 
Scriptures  had  been  corrupted,  and  when,  after  seventy  years,  the 
Jews  had  returned  to  their  own  land,  then  in  the  time  of  Artax- 
erxes  King  of  the  Persians,  [God]  inspired  Esdras  the  priest,  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  recast  all  the  words  of  former  prophets,  and 
to  reestablish  with  the  people  the  Mosaic  legislation." 

So,  also,  Theodoret  ^  and  Basil. ^  Jerome  ^  says  with  reference 
to  this  tradition  :  "  Whether  j'ou  wish  to  say  that  Jloses  is  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  that  Ezra  restored  it,  is  indiffer- 
ent to  me."  Bellarmin  *  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  books  of  the 
Jews  were  not  entirely  lost,  but  that  Ezra  corrected  those  that 
had  become  corrupted,  and  improved  the  copies  he  restored. 

Jerome,  in  the  fourth  ceutuiy,  relied  largely  upon  Jewish 
Rabbinical  authority,  and  gave  his  great  influence  toward  bring- 
ing the  fluctuating  traditions  in  the  Church  into  more  accord- 
ance with  the  Rabbinical  traditions,  but  he  could  not  entirely 
succeed.  He  held  that  the  orphan  Psalms  belonged  as  a  rule 
to  the  preceding  ones,  and  in  general  followed  the  rabbins  in 
associating  the  sacred  writings  with  the  familiar  names, — 
Moses,  Da^-id,  Solomon,  Jeremiah,  Ezra,  and  so  on.  There  is, 
however,  no  consensus  of  the  Fathers  on  these  topics. 

Junilius,  in  the  midst  of  the  sixth  centur}-,  author  of  the  first 
extant  Introduction.^  a  reproduction  of  a  lost  work  of  his  in- 
structor, Paul  of  Xisibis,  of  the  Antiochian  school  of  Exegesis, 
presents  a  view  which  may  be  regarded  as  representing  very 
largely  the  Oriental  and  Western  churches.  He  di^'ides  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Kew  Testaments  into  seventeen  his- 
tories, seventeen  prophecies,  two  proverbial  and  seventeen  doc- 
trinal writings.  Under  authorship,  he  makes  the  discrimination 
between  those  having  their  authors  indicated  in  their  titles  and 
introductions,  and  those  whose  authorship  rests  purely  on  tra- 
dition, including  among  the  latter  tlie  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.® 

'  Prwf.  in  Psahnos. 

2  Epist.  ad  Cliilonem,  Migne's  edition,  IV.  p.  358.  See  Simon,  Hist.  Crit.  de 
Vietix  Test.,  Anisterd.,  1685,  and  Fabricius,  Codex  Pseudepigraph.,  Hamburg, 
1722,  pp.  1156  seq.  ^  Adv.  Helvidium.  *  JDe  verba  J)rL,  lib.  2. 

'  Institutio  lietjularis  DiviiKe  Legis. 

"  "  Script <ires  diviiionim  libroruni  qua  ratione  cognoscimus  ?  Tribus  modis  : 
aut  ex  titulis  et  proemiis  ut  proplieticos  libros  et  .^pnstoli  epistolas,  aut  ox  titulis 
tantum  ut  evangelistas.  aut  ex  traditione  veterum  ut  Jloyses  traditur  scripsisse 


HIGHER   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  259 

This  work  of  Junilius  held  its  own  as  an  authority  in  the  West- 
ern Church  until  the  Reformation.  It  would  be  dithcult  to  define 
a  consensus  of  the  first  Christian  century  or  of  the  Fathers  in 
regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament or  other  questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  The  variant 
traditions,  unfixed  and  fluctuating,  came  down  to  the  men  of  the 
eighteenth  century  to  be  tested  by  the  Scriptures,  and  by  the 
principles  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  they  found  no  consensus 
patrum  and  no  orthodox,  doctrines  in  their  way. 

IV.    The  New  Testament   View  of   Old  Testamext 

Literature 
It  is  claimed,  however,  that  Jesus  and  His  apostles  have  de- 
termined these  questions  for  us,  and  that  their  divine  authority 
relieves  us  of  anj'  obligation  to  investigate  further,  as  their 
testimony  is  final.  This  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  view 
of  Junilius  or  the  Fathers.  So  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  this 
argument  was  first  urged  by  Maresius,i  in  opposition  to  Pej're- 
rius  and  pressed  by  Heidegger,  the  Swiss  scholastic,  who  sided 
with  Buxtorf  and  Owen  against  Cappellus  and  Walton.  But 
the  argument  having  been  advanced  by  these  divines,  and 
fortified  by  the  Lutheran  scholastic,  Carpzov,  and  maintained 
by  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  and  Home,  and  by  many  recent 
writers  wlio  lean  on  these  authorities,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to 
test  it.  Clericus  went  too  far  when  he  said  that  Jesus  Christ 
and  His  apostles  did  not  come  into  the  world  to  preach  criti- 
cism to  the  Jews.^     The  response  of  Hermann  Witsius,  that 

quinque  primes  libros  historire,  cum  non  dicat  hoe  titnlus  neo  ipse  ref erat  '  dixit 
dominus  ad  me,'  sed  quasi  de  alio  '  dixit  dominus  ad  Moysen.'  Similiter  et  Jesu 
Xave  liber  ab  eo  quo  nuiicupatur  traditur  scriptus,  et  primum  regxim  librum 
Samuel  scripsisse  perhibetur.  Sciendum  prseterea  quod  quorundam  libronim 
penitiLs  ignorantur  auctores  ut  Judicum  et  Ruth  et  Regura  iii.  ultimi  et  cetera 
similia,  quod  ideo  credendum  est  divinitus  dispensatum,  ut  alii  quoque  divini 
libri  non  auctorum  merito,  sed  sancti  spiritus  gratia  tantum  culmen  auctoritatis 
obtinuisse  nnscantur"  (§viii.  2;  see  Kihn,  Theodnr  von  lUopsiiestia  iindJunilins 
Africnnus  als  Excf/eten,  pp.  .319-330). 

1  Maresius,  licfiitatio  Fahulat  Preadamitre,  ICofi ;  Heidegger,  Exercit.  Bih- 
Ucce,  1700  ;  nissert.  IX.  pp.  250  seq. 

■^  In  Scntimeus  de  quelques  Theologiens  de  Holland  sur  VHistoire  Critique, 
p.  126,  Amst.,  1G85,  Clericus  says:  "Jesus  Christ  et  ses  Apotres  n'etant  pas 
venus  au  monde,  pour  ens^gner  la  Critique  au  Juifs,  il  ne  faut  pas  s'^tonner, 
s'ils  parlent  selon  I'opinion  commune." 


260  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Jesus  came  to  teach  the  truth,  and  could  not  be  imposed  upon 
by  common  ignorance,  or  be  induced  to  favour  vulgar  errors,  is 
just.i 

And  yet  we  cannot  altogether  deny  the  principle  of  accom- 
modation in  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  The  principle  of 
accommodation  is  a  part  of  the  wonderful  condescension  of  the 
divine  grace  to  human  weakness,  ignorance,  and  sinfulness. 
Jesus  teaches  that  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  their 
hearts,  suffered  ancient  Israel  to  divorce  their  wives  for  reasons 
which  the  higher  dispensation  will  not  admit  as  valid. ^  The 
divine  revelation  is  a  training-school  for  the  disciple,  ever 
reserving  from  him  what  he  is  unable  to  bear,  and  holding 
forth  the  promise  of  greater  light  to  those  using  the  light 
they  have. 

"  It  is  not  required  in  a  religious  or  inspired  teacher,  nor  indeed 
would  it  be  prudent  or  right,  to  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  imiu- 
formed  hearers,  by  inculcating  truths  which  they  are  unprepared 
to  receive.  If  he  woidd  reap  a  harvest,  he  must  prepare  the 
ground  before  he  attempts  to  sow  the  seed.  Neither  is  it  re- 
quired of  such  an  one  to  persist  in  inculcating  religious  instruc- 
tion after  such  evidence  of  its  rejection  as  is  sufficient  to  prove 
incurable  obstinacy.  Now  it  must  be  granted  that  in  most  of 
these  cases  there  is  accommodation.  The  teacher  omits,  either 
altogether  or  in  part,  certain  religious  truths,  and,  perhaps,  truths 
of  great  importance,  in  accommodation  to  the  incompetency  and 
weakness  of  those  whom  he  has  to  instruct.  ...  It  appears, 
then,  that  accommodation  may  be  allowed  in  matters  which  have 
no  connection  with  religion,  and  in  these,  too,  so  far  as  regards 
the  degree  and  the  form  of  instruction.  But  positive  accommoda- 
tion to  religious  error  is  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  neither  is  it 
justifiable  in  moral  principle."  ^ 

^"Enim  vero  non  fuere  Christus  et  Apostoli  Critices  doctores,  quales  se 
haberi  postulant,  qui  hodie  sibi  regnura  litteraruin  in  quavi.s  vindicant  scientia  ; 
fuerunt  lainen  doctores  veritatis,  neque  passi  sunt  sibi  per  eoinnmneni  ignoran- 
tiam  aut  procerum  astnm  iniponi.  Non  oerte  in  munduin  venere  ut  vulgares 
errores  foverunt,  suaque  auctoritate  munirent,  nee  per  Jndseos  solum  sed  et 
populos  unice,  a  se  pendentcs  longe  lateque  spargerent."  —  Misc.  Sacra,  I. 
p.  117. 

-  Mt.  19». 

'  Ur.  S.  H.  Turner,  in  his  edition  of  Planck's  TntroiJuclioH  to  Sacred  Philol- 
ogy, Edin.,  1834,  pp..  275-277.    New  York,  1834,  pp.  280  seq. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  261 

Jesus  withlield  from  the  twelve  apostles  many  things  of  vast 
importance,  which  they  could  not  know  then,  but  should  know 
hereafter. 1  Jesus  did  not  enter  into  any  further  conflict  with 
the  errors  of  His  time  tlian  was  necessary  for  His  purposes  of 
grace  in  the  Gospel.  He  exercised  a  wise  prudence  and  a 
majestic  reserve  in  matters  of  indifference  and  minor  impor- 
tance, and  was  never  premature  in  declaring  Himself  and  the 
principles  of  His  Gospel.  There  were  no  sufficient  reasons 
why  He  should  correct  the  prevailing  views  as  to  the  Old 
Testament  books,  and  by  His  authority  determine  these  liter- 
ary questions.  He  could  not  teach  error,  but  He  could  and 
did  constantly  forbear  with  reference  to  errors.  Polygamj-  and 
slavery  have  been  defended  from  the  New  Testament  because 
Jesus  and  His  apostles  did  not  declare  against  them.  If  all 
the  views  of  the  men  of  the  time  of  Christ  are  to  be  pronounced 
valid  which  He  did  not  pronounce  against,  we  shall  be  involved 
in  a  labyrinth  of  difficulties. 

The  authority  of  Jesus  Clirist,  to  all  who  know  Him  to  be 
their  divine  Saviour,  outweighs  all  other  authority  whatever. 
A  Christian  man  must  follow  His  teachings  in  all  things  as  the 
guide  into  all  truth.  Tlie  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  is  involved 
in  that  of  the  apostles.  What,  then,  do  Jesus  and  His  apostles 
teach  as  to  the  questions  of  Higher  Criticism  ?  If  they  used  the 
language  of  the  day  in  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament  books, 
it  does  not  follow  that  thej'  adopted  any  of  the  various  views 
of  authorship  and  editorship  that  went  with  these  terms  in  the 
Talmud,  or  in  Josephus,  or  in  the  Apocal3'pse  of  Ezra ;  for  we 
are  not  to  interpret  their  words  on  this  or  on  any  other  subject 
by  Josephus,  or  the  Mishna,  or  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  or  any 
such  external  authorities,  but  by  the  plain  grammatical  and 
contextual  sense  of  their  words  themselves.  From  the  various 
New  Testament  passages  we  present  the  following  summary  of 
what  is  taught  on  these  subjects  : 

I.  Of  the  Writings  the  only  ones  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  connection  with  names  of  persons  are  the  Psalter  and 
Daniel.  With  reference  to  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Prov- 
erbs, Job,  Song  of  Songs,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  Lamentations, 
1  John  13'. 


262  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  Ruth,  the  New  Testament  gives  no  evidence  whatever  in 
questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism.' 

1.    The  PBalter. 

Saint  Peter  cites  Ps.  69",  109*  as  "  which  the  Holy  Spirit  spake 
before  by  the  mouth  of  David,'"  and  "  For  it  is  written  in  the 
book  of  Psalms.""^  The  assembled  Christians  cite  Ps.  2*"'  as 
"by  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  mouth  of  our  father  David. "^ 
Saint  Peter  cites  Pss.  16»-",  110'  as  "David  saith."*  Saint 
Paul  cites  Ps.  69^"^  as  "  David  saith  "  ;  ^  and  Ps.  32'--  as  "  David 
also  pronouncetli  blessing."®  Jesus  cites  Ps.  110'  as  "David 
himself  said  in  the  Holj'  Spirit."^ 

The  maximum  of  evidence  here  is  as  to  the  Davidic 
authorship  of  Pss.  2,  16,  32,  69,  109,  and  110,  in  all,  six 
Psalms  out  of  the  150  contained  in  the  Psalter.  As  to 
the  rest,  there  is  no  use  of  them  in  connection  with  a  name. 
There  is,  however,  a  passage  upon  which  the  Davidic  author- 
ship of   the  entire  Psalter  has  been   based,^  where  a  citation 

^  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  subject,  we  would  refer  to  the  exhaustive 
paper  of  Prof.  Francis  Brown,  "  The  New  Testament  Witness  to  the  Authorship 
of  Old  Testament  Books,"  in  the  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Literature 
and  Exegesis,  1882,  pp.  95  seq. 

2  Acts,  l"^-'o.        3Acts4»^.      4Acts2^»«.      '  Rom.  liwo.      6  Rom.  4<«. 

'  Mk.  12^*^.  Mt.  22»3-*'  cites  here  from  Mark,  and  condenses  into  "  How  then 
doth  David  in  the  Spirit  call  him,"  and  Lk.  20"-"  also  cites  from  Mark,  and 
varies  "  For  David  himself  saith  in  the  Book  of  Psalms." 

8  Thus,  William  Gouge,  one  of  the  most  honoui-ed  Puritan  divines,  in  his 
Commentary  on  Hebreics,  in  discussing  this  passage,  says  : 

"  From  the  mention  of  David  in  reference  to  the  Psalm,  we  may  probably 
conclude  that  David  was  the  penman  of  the  whole  Book  of  Psalms,  especially 
from  this  phrase,  'David  hiuiself  saith  in  the  Book  of  Psalms'  (Lk.  20''''). 
Some  exceptions  are  made  against  this  conclusion,  but  such  as  may  readily  be 
answered. 

"  Objection  1.  —  Sundry  psalms  have  not  the  title  of  David  prefixed  before 
them  ;  they  have  no  title  at  all,  as  the  first,  second,  and  others.  .,4w*-.  — li  they 
have  no  title,  why  should  they  not  be  ascribed  to  David,  rather  than  to  any 
otlier,  considering  that  tlie  Book  of  Psalms  is  indefinitely  attributed  to  him  (as 
we  heard  out  of  the  forementioned  place,  Lk.  20*-),  which  is  the  title  prefixed 
before  all  the  Psalms,  as  comprising  them  all  under  it  ?  Besides,  such  testimo- 
nies as  are  taken  out  of  Psalms  that  have  no  title  are  applied  to  David,  as 
Acts  4^,  and  this  testimony  that  is  here  taken  out  of  Ps.  95'. 

"  Objection  2.  — Some  titles  are  ascribed  to  other  authors  ;  as  Ps.  72,  127,  to 
Solomon.  Ans.  — The  Hebrew  servile  lamed  is  variously  taken  and  translated ; 
as  sometimes,  of,  Ps.  3',  'A  Psalm  of  David.'     Then  it  signifieth  the  author: 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  263 

from  Ps.  95''^  is  given  "in  David,  iv  AavelB."  ^  This  means 
that  David  was  the  name  of  the  Psalter  and  that  this  title 
■was  used  interchangeably  with  "the  book  of  Psalms,"  or 
"Psalms." 

Accordingly,  "  David  "  in  all  the  examples  given  above,  may 
be  nothing  more  than  a  name  for  the  entire  Psalter,  and  may 
have  no  personal  reference  to  David  whatever ;  for  it  matters 
little  whether  a  citation  is  made  "in  David,"  "by  David,"  or 
"  as  Da\'id  saitb  "  ;  these  all  mean  essentially  the  same  thing  ; 
and  if  David  is  a  name  for  the  Psalter  in  one  case,  it  may  be  in 
all  cases.  An  exception  may  be  made  in  the  citation  of  Ps. 
110  by  Jesus.  The  argument  of  Jesus  seems  to  depend  upon 
the  fact  that  David  himself  said  the  words,  "  The  Lord  said 
unto  my  Lord."  But  this  would  be  sufficiently  considered,  if 
we  should  suppose  that  the  author  of  the  Psalm,  in  composing 
it,  let  David  appear  as  the  speaker  here. 

Thus  it  is  used  in  most  titles,  especially  when  they  are  applied  to  David.  Other 
time  this  is  translated  for,  as  Ps.  72',  127'.  In  these  it  implieth  that  the  Psalm 
■was  penned /or  Solomon's  use  or  for  his  instruction.  It  may  also  be  thus  trans- 
lated, concerning  Solomon.  That  the  72d  Psalm  was  penned  by  David  is  evi- 
dent by  the  close  thereof,  in  these  words  :  '  The  prayers  of  David  the  son  of 
Jesse  are  ended.' 

"  Objection  3.  —  Some  titles  ascribe  the  Psalm  to  this  or  that  Levite,  as  Ps.  88 
to  Heman  and  83  to  Ethan ;  yea,  twelve  Psalms  to  Asaph  and  eleven  to  the 
sons  of  Korah.  Ans.  —  All  these  were  very  skillful,  not  only  in  singing,  but 
also  in  setting  tunes  to  Psalms.  They  were  musick  masters.  Therefore,  David, 
having  penned  the  Psalms,  committed  them  to  the  foresaid  Levites  to  be  fitly 
tuned.  ...  It  will  not  follow  that  any  of  them  were  enditers  of  any  of  the 
Psalms,  because  their  name  is  set  in  the  title  of  some  of  them. 

"  Objection  4.  — The  90th  Psalm  carried  this  title  :  '  A  Prayer  of  Moses  the 
Man  of  God.'  Ans.  —  It  is  said  to  be  the  prayer  of  Moses  in  regard  of  the 
substance  and  general  matter  of  it ;  but,  as  a  Psalm,  it  was  penned  by  David. 
He  brought  it  into  that  form.  David,  as  a  prophet,  knew  that  Moses  had 
uttered  such  a  prayer  in  the  substance  of  it ;  therefore,  he  preflxeth  that  title 
before  it. 

"  Objection  5.  —  The  1.37th  Psalm  doth  set  down  the  disposition  and  carriage 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  which  was  six  hundred  fourty 
years  after  David's  time,  and  the  120th  Psalm  sets  out  their  return  from  that 
Captivity.  Ans.— To  grant  these  to  be  so,  yet  might  David  pen  those  Psalms ; 
for,  by  a  prophetical  spirit,  he  might  foresee  what  would  fall  out  and  answerably 
pen  Psalms  fit  thereunto.  Moses  did  the  like  (Dt.  292-,  etc.,  and  Sl^i.a^^  etc.). 
A  man  of  God  expressly  set  down  distinct  acts  of  Josiah  330  years  before  they 
fell  out  (1  K.  132).  Isaiah  did  the  like  of  Cyrus  (Is.  4428;  45i),  which  was 
about  two  hundred  years  beforehand." 

>  Heb.  4'. 


264  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Dr.  Plunimer  may  be  cited  for  an  explanation  of  this  citation  by 
Jesus : 

"  The  last  word  has  not  yet  been  spoken  as  to  the  authorship  of 
Ps.  110 ;  but  it  is  a  mistake  to  maintain  that  Jesus  has  decided  the 
question.  There  is  nothing  antecedently  incredible  in  the  hj'poth- 
esis  that  in  such  matters,  as  in  other  details  of  human  informa- 
tion, He  condescended  not  to  know  more  than  His  coutemporaries, 
and  tliat  He  therefore  believed  what  He  had  been  taught  in  the 
school  and  in  the  synagogue.  Xor  ought  we  summarily  to  dismiss 
the  suggestion  that,  although  He  knew  that  the  Psalm  was  not 
written  by  David,  He  yet  abstained  from  challenging  beliefs  re- 
specting matters  of  fact,  because  the  premature  and  violent  cor- 
rection of  such  beliefs  would  have  been  more  harmful  to  His  work 
than  their  undisturbed  continuance  would  be.  In  this,  as  in  many 
things,  the  correction  of  erroneous  opinion  might  well  be  left  to 
time.  But  this  suggestion  is  less  satisfactory  than  the  other 
hypothesis.  It  should  be  noticed  that,  while  Jesus  afiirms  both 
the  inspiration  (Mt.,  Mk.)  and  the  Messianic  character  (Mt.,  ^tk., 
Lk.)  of  Ps.  110,  yet  the  argumentative  question  with  which  He 
concludes,  need  not  be  understood  as  asserting  that  David  is  the 
author  of  it,  although  it  seems  to  implj-  this.  It  may  mean  no 
more  than  that  the  scribes  have  not  fairly  faced  what  their  own 
principles  involve.  Here  is  a  problem  with  whicli  they  ought  to 
be  quite  familiar,  and  of  which  they  ought  to  be  able  to  give  a  solu- 
tion.    It  is  their  position,  and  not  His,  that  is  open  to  criticism."  • 

This  explanation  is  a  valid  one,  although  it  is  not  the  one  which 
I  prefer. 

The  modefn  Higher  Criticism  does  not,  in  fact,  assign  a 
single  one  of  these  Psalms  to  David.  In  the  Hebrew  text, 
Pss.  16,  32,  69,  109,  110,  have  David  in  their  titles,  but  Ps.  2 
is  an  orphan  Psalm  without  title.  David  in  the  titles  of  these 
Psalms  did  not  originally  mean  authorship  ;  it  meant  tliat  these 
Psalms  were  taken  by  the  editor  of  the  Psalter  from  a  collec- 
tion of  Psalms,  which  bore  the  name  of  David,  in  that  thej^  had 
been  gathered  under  his  name  as  a  sort  of  lionorary  title.  The 
earliest  minor  Psalter  was  called  David,  just  as  eventually  the 
ultimate  Psalter  was  called  David. 

The  question  of  integrity  is  raised  by  the  citation  of  our 
Ps.  2   as  Ps.  1,  according  to  the   best   manuscripts. ^    Were 

1  Plummer,  Commentary  on  Luke,  1896,  pp.  472,  473. 

'  Acts  IS".     So  Tischendorf,  Critica  Major,  Editio  Octara.     Westcott  and 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  2(35 

these  two  Psalms  combined  in  one  at  the  time,  or  was  the  first 
Psalm  regarded  as  introductory  and  not  counted  ?  Both  views 
are  supported  by  manuscripts  and  citations. 

2.  Daniel  ll'*'  =  12"  is  used  under  the  formula,  "  which  was 
spoken  through  Daniel  the  prophet." ^  With  reference  to 
this,  I  will  simply  quote  the  judicious  words  of  Francis 
Brown : 

"It  will  be  remembered  that  the  passage  cited  in  Mt.  24" 
is  from  the  second  division  of  the  book,  a  division  which,  with  the 
exception  of  certain  brief  introductory  notes,  contains  prophecies 
exclusively,  and  that  this  division  is  distinctly  marked  off  from 
the  preceding  by  the  nature  of  its  contents,  and  by  the  brief  intro- 
duction, Dan.  7*.  Now,  suppose  evidence  were  to  be  presented 
from  other  quarters  to  show  that  while  the  book  as  a  whole  was 
not  written  by  Daniel,  the  last  six  chapters  contained  prophecies 
of  Daniel,  which  the  later  author  had  incorporated  in  his  book. 
On  that  supposition,  the  words  of  Jesus  taken  in  their  most  rigid, 
literal  meaning  would  be  perfectly  satisfied.  We  may  go  yet 
further.  If  other  evidence  should  be  adduced  tending  to  show 
that '  Daniel,  the  prophet,'  was  a  pseudonym,  still  there  would  be 
nothing  in  Jesus'  use  of  the  expression  to  commit  Him  to  any  other 
view.  For  the  words  were  certainly  written,  and  written  in  the 
form  of  a  prophecy,  and  were  a  prophecy,  and  the  book  containing 
them  was  an  inspired,  canonical,  and  authoritative  book ;  the  cita- 
tion was,  therefore,  suitable  and  forcible  for  Jesus'  purposes,  who- 
ever the  author  may  have  been,  and  the  use  of  a  current  pseudonym 
to  designate  the  author  no  more  committed  Jesus  to  a  declaration 
that  that  was  the  author's  real  name,  than  our  use  of  the  expres- 
sion '  Junius  says '  would  commit  us  to  a  declaration  that  the 
Letters  of  Junius  were  composed  by  a  person  of  that  name;  or 
than,  on  the  supposition  already  discussed,  that  'Enoch'  was 
regarded  as  a  pseudonym,  Jude  14  would  indicate  the  belief  of 
the  author  that  Enoch  himself  actually  uttered  the  words  which 
he  quotes." ' 

II.  The  Prophets.  1.  The  only  one  of  the  former  prophets 
or  the  prophetic  historical  books  mentioned  in  connection  wdth 

Hort  say  that  "Transcriptional  Probability,  which  prima  facie  supports  vpiirif, 
is  in  reality  favourable  or  unfavourable  to  both  readings  alike"  (^.c.  Appendix, 
p.  95). 

1  Mt.  2415.  But  this  is  evidently  an  addition  by  our  Matthew,  and  it  was 
not  spoken  by  Jesus,  for  it  is  not  in  ilk.  13'^  or  Lk.  21^. 

2  In  Z.c,  pp.  106,  107. 


266  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

a  name  is  Samuel :  ^  "  All  the  prophets  from  Samuel  and  them 
that  followed  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of 
these  days."  The  reference  here  is  to  the  book  of  Samuel,  for 
the  reason  that  there  is  no  Messianic  prophecy  ascribed  to 
Samuel  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  context  forces  us  to  think 
of  a  Messianic  prophecy.  We  find  it  in  the  prophecy  of  Nathan 
in  the  book  of  Samuel.  These  historical  books  then  bore  the 
name  of  Samuel,  and  their  contents  are  referred  to  as  Samuel's. 

Samuel  caimot  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  this  book  that 
bears  his  name.  Indeed,  Samuel's  death  is  described  in  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter  of  1  Samuel,  that  is,  about  the  middle  of 
the  books.  The  book  of  Samuel  shows  the  hands  of  three  dif- 
ferent writers,  not  one  of  them  so  early  as  Samuel.  Samuel 
is  used  as  an  appropriate  honorary  title  of  the  book,  just  as 
David  was  of  the  Psalter ;  and  he  is  represented  as  saying 
whatever  is  in  the  book,  even  the  words  of  Nathan,  just  as 
David  speaks  all  that  the  psalmists  speak  in  the  Psalms. 

As  to  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Kings  we  have  no  use  of  them  in 
such  a  way  as  to  raise  questions  of  Higher  Criticism. 

2.  Of  the  latter  prophets  the  New  Testament  refers  only  to 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  and  Joel  in  connection  with  names. 
Ezekiel  and  nine  of  the  minor  prophets  are  not  used  in  such  a 
way  as  to  raise  questions  of  Higher  Criticism.  Jonah  ^^  is  re- 
ferred to  as  a  prophet  in  connection  with  his  preaching  to  the 
Ninevites  and  his  abode  in  the  belly  of  the  great  fish,  but  no 
such  reference  is  made  to  the  book  that  bears  his  name  as  to 
imply  his  authorship  of  it.  The  question  whether  Jonah  is  his- 
tory or  fiction  is  not  decided  by  Jesus'  use  of  it ;  for  as  a  para- 
ble it  answered  His  purpose  no  less  than  if  it  were  history. 

3.  Hosea  1^",  2^  are  quoted^  as  "in  Hosea."  This  is 
probably  nothing  more  than  the  name  of  the  writing  used. 
Joel  2^"'-  is  quoted:*  "This  is  that  which  hath  been  spoken 
through  the  prophet  Joel."  No  questions  need  to  be  raised  as 
to  these  passages. 

4.  Jeremiah  is  citcd,^  under  the  formula,  "  that  which  was 
spoken  througli  Jeremiah  tlie  propliet,  saying."  The  former 
citation  is  from  Jeremiah  31 '^  the  latter  from  Zechariah  11'-'". 

'Acts  3".        2  Mt.  12™-<i.        8Roin.  9«.        <  Acts  2i«.         ^  Mt.  2",  27». 


HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  HOLT  SCRIPTURE  267 

This  raises  the  question  of  the  integrity  of  Zechariah.  On  the 
basis  of  this  passage  Chapters  9-11  of  Zechariah  were  ascribed 
to  Jeremiah  by  jMede,  Hammond,  and  Kidder.^  But  it  is  now 
generally  conceded  that  the  evangelist  has  made  a  mistake. 
This  raises  the  question  how  far  errors  of  this  character  affect 
the  credibility  of  a  writing. 

5.  Isaiah  is  frequently  cited  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
formula,  '•  through  Isaiah  the  prophet,  saying."  Thus  the  evan- 
gelist Matthew  cites  ^  Is.  9^"^;  40^,  42i-*,  53*  :  and  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Acts^  Is.  6^'^:  The  formula  "Isaiah  said"  is 
used  in  the  citation  of  Is.  G^'"';  -40*,  in  the  Gospel  of  John ;  *  the 
citation  of  Is.  ll^^,  5S\  65^"^;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.* 
The  formula,  "  the  book  of  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah," 
is  used  by  Luke^  in  citing  Is.  40^"^,  61^"^.  Is.  53*  is  cited  as 
the  "word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet"  ;"  Is.  53^"*  as  "reading  the 
prophet  Isaiah"  ;^  Is.  10^"'«-  as  "Isaiah  cries  out"  :^  Is.  1^  as 
"  Isaiah  foretold"  ;  *"  Is.  6*"*"  as  "  prophecy  of  Isaiah  "  ;  ^  Is.  29*2 
as  "Isaiah  prophesied."^  Besides  these  there  is  a  passage  of 
more  difficulty,*^  where,  with  the  formula,  "  written  in  Isaiah 
the  prophet,"  are  cited  Mai.  3*  and  Is.  40^.  This  seems  to  be 
a  clear  case  in  which  the  evangelist  has  overlooked  the  fact 
that  one  of  his  citations  is  from  Malachi.  This  raises  the 
question  how  far  such  a  slip  is  consistent  with  credibility. 
The  various  formulas  of  citation  seem  on  the  surface  to  imply 
the  authorship  of  our  book  of  Isaiah  by  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
and  also  its  essential  integrity,  inasmuch  as  the  citations  are 
from  aU  parts  of  the  book.  But  we  have  foiuid  that  Samuel 
is  represented  as  prophesying,  when  the  prophecy  is  by  Nathan 
in  the  book  that  bore  the  name  of  Samuel,  and  that  David 
speaks  in  all  the  Psalms.  How  can  we  be  sure  that  this  is 
not  the  case  with  Isaiah,  likewise,  in  the  phrases,  "  through 
Isaiah  the  prophet,  saying,"  "  Isaiah  said,"  "  words  of  Isaiah 
the  prophet,"  "  Isaiah  cries  out,"  "  Isaiah  foretold,"  "  Isaiah 
prophesied "  ?     The   jDhrases,  "  book   of   the   prophet   Isaiah," 

>  See  p.  .310.      »  Jit.  4",  3',  12'',  8i'.       »  Acts  282s.  *  John  12'»-»,  l^s. 
&  Rom.  16",  IQW.  2»-!i.                          6  Lk.  3*,  4".  ■  John  12'8 

•  Acts  S**.  »Rom.  ifi'.  10  Rom.  9^ 

"  Mt.  13".  "  Mk.  7«  =  Mt.  15'.  »3  Mk.  l^. 


268  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

"reading  the  prophet  Isaiah,"  "prophecy  of  Isaiah,"  certainly 
imply  nothing  more  than  naming  the  book. 

They  may  be  interpreted  in  several  ways:  either  that  Isaiah 
wrote  all  the  book  of  Isaiah,  or  that  he  wrote  the  earlier  por- 
tions of  it,  and  that  the  prophecies  appended  by  the  later  edi- 
tors of  the  book  did  not  change  its  name  ;  or  that  it  came  down 
by  tradition  associated  with  the  name  of  Isaiah,  having  been 
edited  under  his  name  when  the  second  Canon  was  established. 
These  terms  no  more  imply  authorship  than  the  names  Ruth, 
Esther,  Samuel,  David.  In  fact,  ten  of  the  citations  in  the 
New  Testament  given  above  are  from  Is.  40-66.  which,  as  all 
modern  critics  agree,  was  not  written  by  Isaiah,  or  in  the  time 
of  Isaiah,  but  in  the  time  of  the  exile,  by  a  great  prophet  un- 
named and  unknown.  The  remaining  citations  would  be  com- 
monly regarded  as  genuine  prophecies  of  Isaiah. 

III.  The  Law.  1.  Jesus  speaks  of  "  the  Law  of  Moses" ^  and 
"the  book  of  Moses." ^  The  evangelist  uses  "Moses  "  for  the 
Law.^  So  the  apostles  refer  to  "  the  Law  of  Moses,"  *  and  use 
"  Moses  "  for  the  Law.^  These  are  all  cases  of  naming  books 
cited.  They  have  as  their  parallel  David  as  the  name  of  the 
Psalter  ;  Samuel,  also,  of  the  book  of  Samuel.^  It  is  certainly 
reasonable  to  interpret  Moses  in  these  passages  in  the  same 
way,  as  the  name  of  the  work  containing  his  legislation,  and 
the  history  in  which  he  is  the  central  figure. 

2.  (a)  Jesus  cites  from  the  fifth  commandment,  Ex.  20'^, 
and  from  a  statute  of  the  code  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  21^",  ac- 
cording to  Mark  as  "  Moses  said,"  corrected  by  Matthew  into 
"  God  said."  ^  The  former  of  these  was  uttered  by  God  to  the 
people,  and  was  written  upon  one  of  the  tables  as  the  fifth  of 
the  Ten  Words.  The  other  was  a  statute,  not  in  the  original 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  but  taken  up  into  it  from  a  pentade 
of  statutes,  coming  originally  from  the  most  ancient  lawgivers 
of  Israel.^ 

(6)  Jesus  said  to  the  leper,  "  Go  thy  way,  shew  thyself  to 
the  priest,  and  offer  for  thy  cleansing  the  things  which  Moses 

1  John  7".  2  Mk.  12».  »  Lk.  24".  ♦  Acts  28«>. 

'  Acts  1521,  2  Cor.  .3".    «  Heb.  4',  Acts  3".    See  p.  323.     '  Mk.  Tif  =  Mt.  16«. 
*  Briggs,  Higher  Critieisnt  of  the  Bexateuch.     New  edition,  1897,  p.  219. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  269 

commanded,  for  a  testimoii}' unto  them."^  This  refers  to  the 
law  for  cleansing  the  leper  in  Lev.  14.  It  belongs  to  the  Priest 
code,  the  last  codification  of  Hebrew  law  in  the  time  of  the 
exile. 

(e)  In  discussing  the  question  of  divorce  with  the  Pharisees, 
Jesus  said,  "  What  did  Moses  command  you  ?  And  they  said, 
Moses  suffered  to  write  a  bill  of  divorcement,  and  to  put  her 
away.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them.  For  your  hardness  of  heart 
he  wrote  you  this  commandment." ^  This  law  of  divorce  is  in 
Deut.  2-1^"*.  It  is  one  of  the  judgments  from  the  courts  of  the 
elders  belonging  to  the  earlier  strata  of  the  Deuteronomic  code.^ 

(<i)  Jesus  said,  "  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  3-et 
none  of  you  doeth  the  law  ?  .  .  .  Moses  hath  given  you  cir- 
cumcision (not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers) ;  and  on 
the  Sabbath  ye  circumcise  a  man.  If  a  man  receiveth  cii'cum- 
cision  on  the  Sabbath,  that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be 
broken  ;  are  ye  wroth  with  me,  because  I  made  a  man  every 
whit  whole  on  the  Sabbath  ?  "  *  Here  Jesus  ascribes  the  whole 
Law  to  Moses,  and  specifically  the  law  of  circumcision.  This 
latter  is  corrected  by  the  editor  of  the  original  John,  who  here, 
as  so  often,  inserts  a  qualifying  or  explanatory  statement.  The 
editor  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  circumcision  was  not 
exactly  of  Moses,  but  of  the  Fathers.  He  remembers  that  it 
was  given  to  Abraham  by  God,  and  not  first  to  Moses.  Indeed, 
there  is  surprisingly  little  in  the  Law  codes  with  reference  to 
circumcision.  In  the  Priest  code,  in  connection  with  the  law 
for  purification  of  women  after  childbirth,  the  circumcision  of 
the  boy  comes  in  incidentally."  There  is  then  a  reference  to 
the  circumcision  of  the  son  of  Moses,^  and  a  law  for  the  cir- 
cumcision of  strangers."  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
original  John  represents  .Jesus  as  stating  that  Moses  gave  the 
law  of  circumcision,  which  was  really  given  by  God  to  Abra- 
ham. He  does  it  because  of  the  usage  of  his  day.  Moses  and 
Law  were  identical  terms,  and  whatever  was  written  in  the  five 
books  of  the  Law  could  be  ascribed  to  Moses,  just  the  same  as 
whatever  was  written  in  the  Psalter  was  ascribed  to  David, 

1  Mk.  1"  =  Mt.  8*  =  Lk.  5".       ^  jjt.  iQS-i.  Mt.  19'-8.     »  Briggs,  I.e.,  p.  253. 
*  John  7i»-2«.  '-  Lev.  128.  «  Ex.  4».  '  Ex.  12«<-«8. 


270  STtTDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  whatever  was  spoken  in  the  book  of  Samuel  was  ascribed 
to  Samuel.  In  fact,  Jesus  in  these  several  passages  ascribes  to 
Moses,  in  this  larger  sense,  the  fifth  commandment,  spoken 
by  God  to  Israel,  the  law  of  circumcision  given  by  God  to 
Abraham,  the  statute  of  the  Covenant  code  derived  from  the 
primitive  courts  of  Israel,  the  judgment  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code  derived  from  the  courts  of  the  elders,  and  the  law  of  the 
Priest  code  derived  from  the  priestly  courts.  They  can,  with 
propriety,  be  attributed  to  Moses,  using  Moses  as  the  name  for 
the  books  of  the  Law  and  all  the  legislation  contained  therein. 
But,  in  fact,  none  of  these  specific  laws  were  given  to  Moses 
or  were  derived  from  Moses.  They  were  eitlier  earlier  or  later 
than  Moses,  except  the  fifth  command,  which  was  given  by 
God  directly  to  all  the  people. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  Moses  as  giving  the 
law  of  priesthood,  and  as  a  lawgiver  whose  law  could  not  be 
disobeyed  with  impunity. ^  These  passages  represent  Moses 
to  be  the  lawgiver  that  he  appears  to  be  in  the  narratives  of 
the  Pentateuch  ;  but  do  not,  by  any  means,  imply  the  author- 
ship of  the  narratives  that  contain  these  laws,  any  more  than 
the  reference  ^  to  the  command  of  Christ  in  Lk.  10",  and  to  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  Jesus,^  imply  that  Jesus  was 
the  author  of  the  gospels  containing  His  words. 

3.  Moses  is  frequently  referred  to  as  a  prophet  who  wrote  of 
Jesus  as  the  Messianic  prophet.*  All  these  references  are 
doubtless  to  the  prediction  of  Deut.  IS^^'i^.  There  is  no  suffi- 
cient reason  for  doubting  that  Moses  uttered  such  a  prophecy, 
although  its  present  form  shows  the  hand  of  the  Deuteronomic 
redactor.*  But  the  references  here  might  still  all  be  explained 
of  Moses  as  standing  for  the  whole  Law.  and  so  as  uttering  all 
the  prophecies  contained  in  the  Law,  just  as  Siunuel  uttered 
the  prophecy  of  Nathan.  There  is  certainly  nothing  in  these 
statements  to  imply  that  Moses  wrote  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, or  the  Deuteronomic  code,  or  the  entire  Law. 

4.  Certain  historical  events  narrated  in  the  Pentateuch  in 

»  Heb.  7",  W^.  2  1  Cor.  9".  »  1  Cor.  11m«« 

«  .lobn  1«,  6'«*";  Acts  322-2«,  T^",  20*'. 

'  Briggs,  ilcssianic  Prophecy,  Tlh  ed.,  1898,  pp.  112  seq. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  271 

which  Moses  takes  the  lead  are  mentioned,^  but  these  simply 
refer  to  the  historical  character  of  the  transactions ;  tliey  do 
not  imply  exclusive  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  writings  contain- 
ing these  historical  incidents. 

5.  In  the  passage,  "Moses  indeed  said,  A  prophet  shall  the 
Lord  God  raise  up  unto  you,  etc.  .  .  .  Yea,  and  all  the 
prophets  from  Samuel,  and  them  that  followed  after,  as  many 
as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of  these  days,"  ^  it  is  necessary 
to  interpret  "  Samuel "  of  the  book  of  Samuel,  and  think  of  the 
prophecy  of  Nathan  ;  and  if  this  be  so,  is  it  not  most  natural 
to  interpret  "Moses"  here  as  also  referring  to  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  rather  than  the  person  of  Moses?  If  that  be 
true  in  this  case,  it  may  also  be  true  of  other  cases  classed 
under  (2)  and  (-3).  Samuel  cannot,  it  is  admitted,  be  regarded 
as  the  author  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name ;  why,  then, 
should  any  one  suppose  that  we  are  forced  to  conclude  from 
these  passages  that  jNIoses  is  the  author  of  the  books  that  bear 
his  name  ? 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  method  of  determining  what 
the  words  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles  may  mean  in  detail  does 
not  show  what  they  must  mean  when  taken  together.  It  has, 
however,  been  forgotten  by  the  objectors  that  the  proper  exe- 
getical  method  is  inductive,  and  that  the  path  of  exegesis  is  to 
rise  from  the  particulars  to  the  general.  The  dogmatic  method 
is  in  the  habit  of  saying  a  passage  must  mean  thus  and  so  from 
dogmatic  presuppositions.  The  exegete  prefers  the  may  until 
he  is  forced  to  the  must.  He  has  learned  to  place  little  confi- 
dence in  the  "  must  mean "  of  tradition  and  dogmatism  ;  for 
he  has  so  often  been  obliged  to  see  it  transform  into  must  not, 
impossible,  from  exegetical  considerations.  Who,  then,  is  to  say 
must  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament,  exterior  to 
itself  ?  Is  the  Talmud  to  say  must  to  the  words  of  oui-  Lord 
Jesus  ?  Is  the  traitor  Josephus,  or  the  pseudepigraph  of  Ezra, 
to  say  must  in  an  interpretation  of  the  apostles  ?  Nay.  We 
let  them  speak  for  themselves,  and  if  we  are  to  choose  between 
a  variety  of  possible  interpretations  of  their  words  we  prefer 
to  let  Higher  Criticism  decide.  For  Higher  Criticism  is  exact 
1  Heb.  85,  9'»,  1221,  etc.  =  Acts  ^'^'». 


272  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  thorougli  in  its  methods,  and  prefers  the  internal  evidence 
of  the  Old  Testament  books  themselves  to  any  external  evi- 
dence. This  may  bring  Jesus  into  conflict  with  Josephus  and 
tlie  rabbins  and  mth  traditional  theories  ;  but  it  is  more  likely 
to  bring  Him  into  harmony  with  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 
Professor  B.  Weiss  has  well  said  in  another  connection: 

"  However  certainly,  therefore,  the  religious  ideas  of  later 
Judaism,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  of  Jewish  Theology,  had  an 
influence  upon  the  forming  of  the  religious  consciousness  as  it  is 
exhibited  in  the  writings  of  the  Xew  Testament,  our  knowledge 
of  the  extent  in  which  these  ideas  and  doctrines  lay  within  the 
field  of  vision  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  is  far  from 
being  precise  enough  to  permit  us  to  start  from  them  in  ascertain- 
ing that  religious  consciousness.  It  is  only  in  the  rarest  cases 
that  biblical  theology  will  be  able  to  make  use  of  them  with  cer- 
tainty for  the  purpose  of  elucidation." ' 

No  one  could  emphasize  the  importance  of  historical  exegesis 
more  than  we  are  disposed  to  do ;  but  we  cannot  allow  tradi- 
tionalists —  who  are  the  last  to  use  this  method  except  when, 
for  the  time  being,  it  serves  their  purposes  —  by  the  improper 
use  of  it  to  force  upon  criticism  interpretations  that  are  possible 
but  not  necessary,  and  which  are  excluded  by  other  and  higher 
considerations  presented  bj'  the  Word  of  God  as  contained  in 
tlie  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  has  been  a  common  literary  usage  for  centuries  to  repre- 
sent a  book  as  speaking  by  the  name  bj'  which  it  is  known, 
whether  that  be  a  pseudonym,  or  indicate  the  subject-matter 
or  the  author.  To  insist  tliat  it  must  always  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment indicate  authorship  is  to  go  in  the  face  of  tlie  literary 
usage  of  the  world,  and  against  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament 
itself,  certainly  in  the  cases  of  Samuel  and  David  and,  therefore, 
probably  in  other  cases  also,  such  as  Moses  and  Isaiah. 

We  have  shown  that  the  questions  of  Higlior  Criticism  have 
not  been  determined  by  the  ecclesiastical  autliority  of  creeds  or 
the  consensus  of  tradition.     And  it  is  a  merciful  Providence 

^Bibtical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  T.  &  T.  Clark's  edition.  Ediii., 
1882,  I.  p.  14. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  273 

that  this  has  not  been  the  case.  For  it  would  have  committed 
the  Church  and  Chi-istians  to  man}-  errors  which  have  been  ex- 
posed by  a  century  of  progress  in  the  Higher  Criticism.  Those 
who  still  insist  upon  opposing  Higher  Criticism  -with  traditional 
views,  and  with  the  supposed  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
apostles,  do  not  realize  the  perils  of  the  situation.  They  seem 
to  be  so  infatuated  with  inherited  opinions  tliat  they  ai-e  ready 
to  risk  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and 
the  existence  of  the  Church,  upon  their  interpretation  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles.  The}-  apparently  do  not  see 
that  they  throw  uj)  a  wall  to  prevent  any  critic  who  is  an  un- 
l)eliever  from  ever  becoming  a  believer  in  Christ  and  the  Bible. 
They  would  force  evangelical  critics  to  choose  between  truth 
and  scholarly  research  on  the  one  side,  and  Christ  and  tradition 
on  the  other.  But  there  are  many  far  better  scholars  who  are 
Christian  critics,  and  they  will  not  be  deterred  from  criticism 
themselves,  or  allow  others  to  be  deterred,  by  these  reactionary 
alarmists.  The  issue  is  plain,  the  result  is  not  doubtful:  the 
obstructionists  will  give  way  in  this  matter,  as  they  have  already 
in  so  many  other  matters.^  Holy  Scripture  wUl  %Tindicate  itself 
against  those  who,  like  the  friends  of  Job,  have  not  spoken 
right  concerning  God  ^  in  presuming  to  defend  Him. 

V.  The  Rise  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

The  current  critical  theories  are  the  resultants  of  forces  at 
work  in  the  Church  since  the  Reformation.  These  forces  have 
advanced  steadily  and  constantly.  In  each  successive  epoch 
scholars  have  investigated  afresh  the  sacred  records  and  brought 
forth  treasures  new  as  well  as  old.  Various  theories  have  been 
proposed  from  time  to  time  to  account  for  the  new  facts  that 
have  been  brought  to  light.  Biblical  science  has  shared  the 
fortune  of  the  entire  circle  of  the  sciences.  The  theories  have 
been  modified  or  discarded  under  the  influence  of  additional  in- 
vestigations and  the  discovery  of  new  facts  for  which  they  could 
not  account.  The  facts  have  remained  in  every  case  as  a  per- 
manent acquisition  of  Biblical  Criticism,  and  these  facts  have 
1  See  pp.  9  seq.,  223  seq.  "  Job  42 '. 


274  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

gradually  accumulated  in  mass  and  importance,  until  they  now 
command  the  services  of  a  large  body  of  enthusiastic  investiga- 
tors. They  have  gained  the  ear  of  the  literary  -world,  and  they 
enlist  the  interest  of  all  intelligent  persons.  The  questions  of 
Higher  Criticism  have  risen  to  a  position  among  the  great 
issues  of  our  time,  and  no  one  can  any  longer  ignore  them. 

All  great  movements  of  human  thought  liave  their  prelimi- 
nary and  initial  stages,  and  are  preceded  by  spasmodic  efforts. 
Even  the  enemies  of  the  true  Faith  not  infrequentlj^  become 
the  providential  agents  for  calling  the  Church  to  a  fresh  iaves- 
tigation  of  the  sacred  oracles.  Thus  Spinoza,  the  pantheistic 
philosopher,  applied  Historical  Criticism  to  the  Old  Testament 
books,!  and  concluded  that  Moses  could  not  have  written  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  the  historical  books  from  Genesis  through 
the  books  of  Kings  constitute  one  great  historical  work,  a  con- 
glomeration of  many  different  originals  by  one  editor,  probably 
Ezra,  who  does  not  succeed  in  a  reconciliation  of  differences, 
and  a  complete  and  harmonious  arrangement.  The  books  of 
Chronicles  he  places  in  the  Maccabean  period.  The  Psalms 
were  collected  and  divided  into  five  books  in  the  time  of  the 
second  temple.  The  book  of  Proverbs  was  collected  at  the 
earliest  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  The  prophetical  books  are  col- 
lections of  different  fragments  without  regard  to  their  original 
order.  Daniel,  Ezra,  Esther,  and  Nehemiah  are  from  the  same 
author,  who  would  continue  the  great  historical  work  of  Israel 
from  the  captivity  onwards,  written  in  the  Maccabean  period. 
Job  was  probably,  as  Aben  Ezra  conjectured,  translated  into 
Hebrew  from  a  foreign  tongue. ^  This  criticism  was  shrewd,  but 
chiefly  conjectural.  It  paved  the  way  for  future  systematic 
investigations. 

Soon  after  Spinoza,  Richard  Simon,^  a  Roman  Catholic,  began 
to  apply  Historical  Criticism  in  a  systematic  manner  to  the  study 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  represented  the  his- 
torical books  as  made  up  of  the  ancient  writings  of  the  prophets, 
who  were  public  scribes,  and  Avrute  down  tlie  history  in  official 

1  Tract.  Thco.  Polit.,  1670,  c.  8. 

2  See  Siegfried,  Spinoza  ah  Kritiker  und  Ausleger  <les  Alten  Testament, 
Berlin,  1867.  *  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  1678. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  275 

documents  on  the  spot,  from  the  time  of  Moses  onward,  so  that 
the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  shape  is  not  by  Moses.  Simon 
distinguished  in  the  Pentateuch  between  that  which  was  written 
by  Moses,  e.g.,  the  commands  and  ordinances,  and  that  written 
by  the  prophetical  scribes,  the  greater  part  of  the  history.  As 
the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  were  made  up  by  abridg- 
ments and  summaries  of  the  ancient  acts  preserved  in  the 
archives  of  the  nation,  so  was  the  Pentateuch.  The  later 
prophets  edited  the  works  of  the  earlier  prophets,  and  added 
explanatory  statements.  Simon  presents  as  evidences  that 
Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch  :  (1)  The  double  account 
of  the  deluge.  (2)  The  lack  of  order  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  narratives  and  laws.  (3)  The  diversity  of  the  stjie.  The 
Roman  Catholic  scholar  goes  deeper  into  the  subject  than  the 
pantheist  Spinoza  has  gone.  He  presents  anotlier  class  of 
evidences.  These  three  lines  were  not  suihciently  worked  by 
Simon.  He  fell  into  the  temptation  of  expending  his  strength 
on  the  elaboration  and  justification  of  his  theory.  The  facts  he 
discovered  have  proved  of  permanent  value,  and  have  been 
worked  as  a  rich  mine  by  later  scholars,  but  his  theory  was 
at  once  attacked  and  destroyed.  The  Arminian,  Clericus,  in 
an  anonymous  work,'  assailed  Simon  for  his  abuse  of  Protestant 
writers,  but  really  went  to  greater  lengths  than  Simon.  He 
distinguishes  in  the  Pentateuch  three  classes  of  facts,  —  those 
before  Sloses,  those  during  his  time,  and  those  subsequent  to 
his  death, —  and  represents  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form 
as  composed  by  the  priest  sent  from  Babylon  to  instruct  the 
inhabitants  of  Samaria  in  the  religion  of  the  land.^  Afterward 
he  gave  up  this  wild  theory  and  took  the  more  tenable  ground  ^ 
of  interpolations  by  a  later  editor.  Anton  Van  Dale*  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  Mosaic  code  and  the  Pentateuch,  which 
latter  Ezra  composed  from  other  writings,  historical  and  pro- 

'  Sentimens  de  quelqiies  theologiens  de  Holland  sur  VHistoire  Critique, 
Amst.,  1685. 

»  2  K.  17.     In  I.e.,  pp.  107,  129. 

»  Com.  on  Genesis,  introd.  de  Seriptore  Pent.,  §  11.  Simon  replied  to 
Clericus  in  Reponse  au  Livre  intitule  Sentimens,  etc.  Par  Le  Prieur  de  BoUe- 
viUe,  Rotterdam.  1686. 

*  De  origine  etprogressu  idol.,  1696,  p.  71,  and  Epist.  ad  Morin.,  p.  686. 


276  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

phetical,  inserting  the  Mosaic  code  as  a  -nhole  in  his  work. 
This  is  also  essentially  the  view  of  Semler.^ 

These  various  writers  brought  to  light  a  most  valuable  col- 
lection of  facts  that  demanded  the  attention  of  biblical  scholars 
of  all  creeds  and  phases  of  thought.  They  all  made  the  mis- 
take of  proposing  untenable  theories  of  various  kinds  to  account 
for  the  facts,  instead  of  working  upon  the  facts  and  rising  from 
them  by  induction  and  generalization  to  perriianent  results. 
Some  of  them,  like  Spinoza,  were  animated  by  a  spirit  more 
or  less  hostile  to  the  evangelical  faith.  Others,  like  Clericus, 
were  heterodox  in  other  matters.  The  most  important  investi- 
gations were  those  of  the  Roman  Catholics. 

Over  against  these  critical  attacks  on  the  traditional  theo- 
ries, we  note  the  scholastic  defence  of  them  by  Huet,  a  Jesuit,^ 
Heidegger,^  a  Calvinistic  scholastic,  and  Carpzov,^  a  Lutheran 
scholastic.  These  divines,  instead  of  seeking  to  account  for 
the  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  critics,  proceeded  to  defend 
traditional  views,  and  strove  in  every  way  to  explain  .away  the 
facts  and  so  to  commit  the  Christian  Church  in  all  its  branches 
against  the  scientific  study  of  Holy  Scripture. 

There  were,  however,  other  divines  who  looked  the  facts  in 
the  face  and  took  a  better  way.  Thus  Du  Pin,^  Witsius,* 
Spanheim,'  Prideaux,®  Vitringa,^  and  Calmet,'"  sought  to  ex- 
plain the  passages  objected  to,  either  as  improperly  interpreted 
or  as  interpolations,  recognizing  the  use  of  several  documents 
and  a  later  editorship  by  Ezra  and  others.  Tliey  laid  the 
foundations  for  evangelical  criticism,  which  was  about  to  begin 
and  run  a  long  and  successful  course." 

It  is  instructive  just  here  to  pause  by  Du   Pin,  who  lays 

'  Apparatus  ad  Uberalem  Vet.  Test.  Interp.,  1773,  p.  67. 

'  In  his  Demonstratio  Eeangelica,  1670,  IV.  cap.  xiv. 

'  Exercitiones  Bibliccc,  1700,  Dissert.  IX.  7. 

*  Introduction  ad  Libros  Canoniais  Bib.   Vet.  Test.     2  ed.,  Lipsise,  1731. 

'Dessert,  prelim.  Bib.  des  auteurs  eccl.,  l'ari.s.  1688.  A  Xew  History  of 
Ecclesiastical  ]\'>-iters,  3d  edition,  London,  1606,  pp.  1  seq. 

«  Misc.  Sacra,  1692,  p.  103.  '  Historia  ecclesiast.  V.  T.,  I.  p.  260. 

'  Old  and  New  Testaments  connected,  1716-1718,  I.  6  (3). 

»  Observa.  Sacra.,  1722,  IV.  2.  '»  Co»»i.  litterale,  1722,  I.  p.  xiii. 

"  See  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition,  1897,  pp. 
36  seq. 


niGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  277 

down  such  admirable  rules  of  literary  criticisui  ^  with  refer- 
euce  to  ecclesiastical  books.  When  Simon  raises  the  question 
why  he  does  not  apply  these  rules  to  the  Pentateuch,  he  replies 
by  saying : 

'•  A  man  may  say,  that  all  these  rules  which  I  have  laid  down, 
are  conviucing  and  probable  in  different  degrees,  but  that  the 
sovereign  and  principal  rule  is  the  judgment  of  equity  and  pru- 
dence, which  instructs  us  to  balance  the  reasons  of  this  and  t'other 
side,  in  distiuctl}-  considering  the  conjectures  that  are  made  of 
both  sides.  Now  this  is  the  general  rule  of  Kational  Criticism, 
and  we  abuse  all  the  rest  if  we  don't  chiefly  make  use  of  this."  ^ 

In  this  way  the  difference  between  Simon  and  himself  was 
easily  reduced  to  that  between  good  sense  and  nonsense.  This 
method  of  settling  difficult  questions  certainly  stops  debate 
between  the  parties  for  the  moment,  but  is  far  from  conviucing. 

Before  passing  over  to  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  we  shall  present  the  views  of  this  master  of  the 
literary  criticism  of  ecclesiastical  writers  in  his  time,  respect- 
ing the  biblical  books : 

"  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  first  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
(except  sundry  interpolations).  .  .  .  We  can't  so  certainly  tell 
who  are  the  authors  of  the  other  books  of  the  Bible :  some  of  'em 
we  onlj-  know  by  conjecture,  and  others  there  are  of  which  we  have 
no  manner  of  knowledge.  .  .  .  The  time  wherein  Job  lived,  is 
yet  more  diSicult  to  discover ;  and  the  author  of  the  book,  who 
has  compiled  his  history,  is  no  less  unknown.  .  .  .  Though  the 
Psalms  are  commonl}-  called  the  Psalms  of  David,  or  rather  the 
Book  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  yet  'tis  certain,  as  St.  Jerom  has  ob- 
served in  many  places,  that  they  are  not  all  of  'em  his,  and  that 
there  are  some  of  them  written  long  after  his  death.  'Tis  therefore 
a  collection  of  songs  that  was  made  by  Ezrah.  .  .  .  The  Proverbs 
or  Parables  belong  to  Solomon,  whose  name  is  written  in  the  be- 
ginning of  that  book.  .  .  .  We  ought  therefore  to  conclude,  .  .  . 
that  the  first  twenty-four  chapters  are  Solomon's  originally,  that 
the  five  following  ones  are  extracts  or  collections  of  his  proverbs, 
and  that  the  two  last  chapters  were  added  afterwards.  .  .  .  The 
book  of  Ecclesiastes  is  ascribed  to  Solomon  by  all  antiquity :  And 
yet  the  Talmudists  have  made  Hezekiah  the  author  of  the  book, 
and  Grotius,  upon  some  slight  conjectures,  pretends  it  was  com- 

1  See  pp.  96seg.  2  ;.(._^  p   jg. 


278  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

posed  by  Zerubbabel.  It  begins  with  tliese  words,  The  Words  of  the 
Preacher,  the  Son  of  David,  lung  of  Jerusalem  ;  which  may  be  ap- 
plied to  Hezekiah  as  well  as  to  Solomon :  ...  we  ought  rather  to 
understand  it  of  Solomon.  .  .  .  The  Song  of  Songs  ...  is  al- 
lowed to  be  Solomon's  by  the  consent  of  the  synagogue  and  the 
church.  The  Talmudists  attribute  it  to  Ezrah,  but  without 
groimds.  The  books  of  the  Prophets  carry  the  names  of  their 
authors  undisputed."  ^ 

About  the  same  time  sevei-al  Roman  Catholic  divines,  as  well 
as  Vitringa,  took  ground  independently  in  favour  of  the  theory 
of  the  use  of  written  documents  by  Moses  in  the  composition 
of  Genesis.  So  Abbe  Fleury,^  and  Abbe  Laurent  Francois ;  ^ 
but  it  was  chiefly  Astruc,  a  physician,  who  in  1753*  made  it 
evident  that  Genesis  was  composed  of  several  documents.  He 
presented  to  the  learned  world,  with  some  hesitation  and  timid- 
it)^  his  discovery  that  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  Elohim  and 
Jehovah,  divided  the  book  of  Genesis  into  two  great  memoirs 
and  nine  lesser  ones. 

This  was  a  real  discovery,  which,  after  a  hundred  years  of 
debate,  has  at  last  won  the  consent  of  the  vast  majority  of 
biblical  scholars.  His  analysis  is  in  some  respects  too  mechani- 
cal, and,  in  not  a  few  instances,  is  defective  and  needed  rectifi- 
cation, but  as  a  whole  it  has  been  maintained.  He  relies  also 
too  much  upon  the  different  use  of  the  divine  names,  and  too 
little  upon  variations  in  stjde,  language,  and  narrative.*  The 
attention  of  German  scholars  was  called  to  this  discovery  by 
Jerusalem.®  Eichhorn  was  independently  led  to  the  same  con- 
clusion.^ But  still  more  important  than  the  work  of  Astruc 
was  that  of  Bishop  Lowth,*  who  unfolded  the  principles  of  par- 

1  I.e.,  pp.  1-5. 

2  Mamrs  des  Israelites,  Bruxelleg,  1701,  p.  6.  This  was  translated  into  Eng- 
lish and  enlarficd  by  Adam  Clarke.     3d  edition,  1800. 

5  Prunes  de  la  Reliyion  de  Jesus  Christ,  contra  les  Spinosistes  et  les  Deistes, 
1751,  I.  2,  c.  3,  art.  7. 

*  In  his  Conjectures  sur  les  Memoires  originaux  dont  il  paroit  que  Moyse  s'est 
aervipour  le  livre  de  la  Oenese. 

'  See  Brings,  Hiyher  Critieism  of  the  Hexateueh.  new  edition,  18S17,  pp.  46  seq. 

'"'  Inliis  liriefe  i'ther  d.  Mosaischcn  Schriften,  1702.  3te  Aufl.,  1783,  pp.  104.163. 

■  Urgeschichte  in  the  Sepertorium,  T.  iv.,  1779,  especially  T.  v.,  1779. 

'  In  De  Sacra  Poeni  Ilchrccorum,  1753,  and,  1779,  in  Prelim.  Diss.,  and  Trans- 
lation of  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  279 

allelism  in  Hebrew  poetry,  and  made  it  possible  to  study  the 
Old  Testament  as  literature,  discriminating  poetry  from  prose, 
and  shovNing  that  the  greater  part  of  prophecy  is  poetical.  His 
work  on  Hebrew  poetr}-  was  issued  in  Germany  by  Micliaelis, 
and  his  translation  of  Isaiah  by  Koppe,  who  took  the  position 
that  this  prophetical  book  was  made  up  of  a  number  of  docu- 
ments loosely  put  together  from  different  authors  and  different 
periods.^  Lowth  himself  did  not  realize  the  importance  of  this 
discovery  for  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Scriptures,  but  thought 
that  it  would  prove  of  great  service  to  Textual  Criticism  in  the 
suggesting  of  emendations  of  the  text  in  accordance  with  the 
parallelism  of  members. 

The  poet  Herder ^  tirst  caught  the  Oriental  spirit  and  life 
and  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  learned  the  varied  literary 
beauties  of  the  Bible,^  and  "reconquered,  so  to  say,  the  Old 
Testament  for  German  literature."* 

But  these  writings  were  all  preparatory  to  the  work  of  J.  G. 
Eichhorn,  in  1780."  Eichhorn  combined  in  one  the  results  of 
Simon  and  Astruc,  Lowth  and  Herder,  embracing  the  various 
elements  in  an  organic  method  which  he  called  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism.    In  the  preface  to  his  second  edition,  1787.  he  says: 

'  Koppe.  Bohert  Loii-lWs  Jesaias  neu  ubersetzt  nebst  einer  Einleitung  .  .  . 
mit  Zusatze  unci  Anmerkungeii,  4  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1779-1780. 

-  In  1780  he  published  his  Briefe  uber  das  Studium  der  Theologie,  and  in 
1782  his  Geist  der  Heb.  Poesie. 

'  Herder  in  his  first  Brief  says  :  "  Richard  Simon  is  the  Father  of  the  Criticism 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  recent  times."  "  A  Critical  Introduction  to 
the  Old  Testament,  as  it  ought  to  be,  we  have  not  yet."  1780.  In  2d  Auf., 
1785.  It  is  said  on  the  margin,  "  We  have  it  now  in  Eichhorn's  valuable  Ein- 
leit.  ins  AH.  Test.,  1780-1783." 

*  Dorner  in  Johnson^s  Encyclopcedia,  II.  p.  528. 

^  Einleit.  ins  AH.  Test.  As  Bertheau  remarks  in  Herzog's  Beal  Ency.,  I. 
Aufl.,  IV.  115:  "In  Eichhorn's  writings  the  apologetic  interest  is  ever}' where 
manifest,  to  explain,  as  he  expresses  it,  the  Bible  according  to  the  ideas  and 
methods  of  thought  of  the  ancient  world,  and  to  defend  it  against  the  scorn  of  the 
enemies  of  the  Bible.  He  recognized  the  exact  problem  of  bis  times  clearer  than 
most  of  his  contemporaries  ;  he  worked  with  unwearied  diligence  over  the  whole 
field  of  Biblical  literature  with  his  own  independent  powers  ;  he  paved  the  way 
to  difficult  investigations  ;  he  undertook  many  enterprises  with  good  success,  and 
conducted  not  a  few  of  them  to  sate  results.  With  Herder  in  common  he  has 
the  credit  of  having  awakened  in  wide  circles  love  to  the  Bible,  and  especially 
the  Old  Testament  writings,  and  excited  enthusiasm  carefully  to  investigate 
them." 


280  STUDY   OF   UOLY   SCRIPTURE 

'•  I  am  obliged  to  give  the  most  pains  to  a  liitlierto  entirely  un- 
worked  field,  the  investigation  of  the  internal  condition  of  the 
particular  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  by  help  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  (a  new  name  to  no  Humanist).  Let  any  one  think  what 
they  will  of  these  efforts,  my  own  consciousness  tells  me  that  they 
are  the  result  of  very  careful  investigation,  although  no  one  can 
be  less  wrapt  up  in  them  than  1  their  author.  The  powers  of  one 
man  hardly  suffice  to  complete  such  investigations  so  entirely  at 
once.  They  demand  a  healthful  and  ever-cheerful  spirit,  and  how 
long  can  any  one  maintain  it  in  such  toilsome  investigations? 
Thej-  demand  the  keenest  insight  into  the  internal  condition  of 
every  book ;  and  who  will  not  be  dulled  after  a  whOe  ?  " 

He  begins  his  investigation  of  tlie  books  of  Closes  with  the 
wise  statement: 

'•  Whether  early  or  late  ?  That  can  be  learned  only  from  the 
■m-itings  themselves.  And  if  they  are  not  by  their  own  contents 
or  other  internal  characteristic  traces  put  down  into  a  later  cen- 
tury than  they  ascribe  to  themselves  or  Tradition  assigns  them, 
then  a  critical  investigator  must  not  presume  to  doubt  their  own 
testimony  —  else  he  is  a  contemptible  raisonneur,  a  doubter  in  the 
camp,  and  no  longer  an  historical  investigator.  According  to  this 
plan  I  shall  test  the  most  ancient  Hebrew  writings,  not  troubling 
myself  what  the  result  of  this  investigation  maj-  be.  And  if 
therewith  learning,  shrewdness,  and  other  qualifications  which  I 
desire  for  this  work  should  fail  me,  yet,  certainly  no  one  will  find 
lacking  love  of  the  truth  and  strict  investigation." 

These  are  the  principles  and  methods  of  a  tru^  and  manly 
scholar,  the  father  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  It  is  a  sad  reflec- 
tion that  they  have  been  so  great!}"  and  generally  ignored  on 
the  scholastic  and  rationalistic  sides.  Eichhorn  separated  the 
Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents  in  Genesis  with  great  pains, 
and  with  such  success  that  his  .analysis  has  been  the  basis  of  all 
critical  investigation  since  his  day.  Its  great  advantages  are 
admirably  stated: 

"For  this  di.scovery  of  the  internal  condition  of  the  first  books 
of  Moses,  part}'  spirit  will  perhaps  for  a  pair  of  decennials  snort 
at  the  Higher  Criticism  instead  of  rewarding  it  ^vith  the  full 
thanks  that  are  due  it,  for  (1)  the  credibility  of  the  book  gains  by 
such  a  use  of  more  ancient  documents.  (2)  The  harmony  of  the 
two  narratives  at  the  same  time  with  their  slight  deviations  proves 


IIIGHEU    CKITU'ISM   OF   HoLY   SCUirTUKIO  281 

their  independence  and  mutual  reliability.  (3)  Interpreters  will 
be  relieved  of  difficulty  by  this  Higher  Criticism  which  separates 
documeut  from  dociuneut.  (4)  Finally  the  gain  of  Criticism  is 
also  great.  If  the  Higher  Criticism  has  now  for  the  tirst  distin- 
guished author  from  author,  and  in  general  characterized  each 
according  to  his  own  ways,  diction,  favorite  expressions,  and  other 
peculiarities,  then  her  lower  sister  who  busies  herself  only  with 
words,  and  spies  out  false  readings,  has  rules  and  principles  by 
which  she  must  test  particular  readings." ' 

Eichhorn  carried  his  methods  of  Higher  Criticism  into  the 
entire  Old  Testament  ^\dth  the  hand  of  a  master,  and  laid 
the  foundation  of  views  that  have  l^een  maintained  ever  since 
with  increasing  determination.  He  did  not  alwaj^s  grasp  the 
truth.  He  sometimes  chased  shadows,  and  framed  visionary 
theories  both  in  relation  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  like 
others  who  have  preceded  him  and  followed  him.  He  could 
nx)t  transcend  the  limits  of  his  age,  and  adapt  himself  to  future 
discoveries.  The  labours  of  a  large  number  of  scholars,  and  the 
work  of  a  century  and  more,  were  still  needed,  as  Eichhorn 
modestly  anticipated. 

These  discussions  produced  little  impression  upon  Great 
Britain.  The  conflict  with  deism  had  forced  the  majority  of 
her  divines  into  a  false  position.  If  they  had  maintained  the 
fides  divina  and  the  critical  position  of  the  Protestant  Reformers 
and  Westminster  divines,  they  would  not  have  hesitated  to 
look  the  facts  in  the  face,  and  strive  to  account  for  them  ;  they 
would  not  have  committed  the  grave  mistakes  by  which  bib- 
lical learning  was  almost  paralyzed  in  Great  Britain  for  half 
a  century. 2     Eager  for  the  defence  of  traditional  views,  they, 

'  In  I.e.,  II.  p.  ,S29  ;  see  also  Urriescliichte  in  Repertorinm,  1770,  V.  p.  187. 
We  cannot  help  calling  attention  to  tlie  fine  literary  sense  of  Eichhorn  as 
manifest  in  the  following  extract:  "  Head  it  (Genesis)  as  two  historical  works 
of  antiquity,  and  breathe  thereby  the  atmosphere  of  its  age  and  country. 
Forget  then  the  century  in  which  thou  livest  and  the  knowledge  it  affords  thee ; 
and  if  thou  canst  not  do  this,  dream  not  that  thou  wilt  be  able  to  enjoy  the 
book  in  the  spirit  of  its  origin." 

2  Mozley  in  his  lieminiscences,  1882.  Am.  edit.,  Vol.  II.  p.  41,  .says:  "There 
was  hardly  such  a  thing  as  Biblical  Criticism  in  this  country  at  the  beginning 
of  this  century.  Poole's  Synopsis  contained  all  that  an  ordinary  clergyman 
could  wish  to  know.  Arnold  is  described  as  in  all  his  glory  at  Kugby,  with 
Poole's  .Synopsis  on  one  side,  and  Facciolali  on  the  other." 


282  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

for  the  most  part,  fell  back  again  on  Jewish  Rabbinical  authority 
and  external  evidence,  contending  with  painful  anxiet)-  for 
authors  and  dates  ;  and  so  antagonized  Higher  Criticism  itself 
as  deistic  criticism  and  rationalistic  criticism,  not  discrimi- 
nating between  those  who  were  attackiug  the  Scriptures  in 
order  to  destroy  them,  and  those  who  were  searching  the 
Scriptures  in  order  to  defend  them.  It  is  true  that  the 
humanist  and  the  purely  literary  interest  prevailed  in  Eich- 
horn  and  his  school ;  they  failed  to  apply  the  fides  divina  of 
the  Protestant  Reformers ;  but  this  was  lacking  to  the  scho- 
lastics also,  and  so  unhappil}'  traditional  dogmatism  and  ration- 
alistic criticism  combined  to  crush  evangelical  criticism. 

VI.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Nixeteexth  Centuky 

There  is  a  notable  exception  to  the  absence  of  the  critical 
spirit  in  Great  Britain,  and  that  excejition  proves  the  rule.  In 
1792  Dr.  Alexander  Geddes,  a  Roman  Catholic  divine,  pro- 
posed what  has  been  called  the  fragmentary  hjpothesis  to 
account  for  the  structure  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua.^ 
But  this  radical  theory  found  no  hosjjitalit}-  in  Great  Britain. 
It  passed  over  into  Germany  through  Vater,-  and  there  entered 
into  conflict  with  the  documentary  hypothesis  of  the  school  of 
Eichliorn.  Koppe  had  proposed  the  fragmentary  hyiiothesis 
to  account  for  the  literary  features  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and 
now  it  was  extended  to  other  books  of  the  Bible.  Eichhorn 
had  applied  the  documentary  hypothesis  to  the  Gospels,  Isaiah, 
and  other  parts  of  Scripture.  The  first  stadium  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  is  characterized  by  the  conflict  of  the  documentary 
and  fragmentary  hypotheses  along  the  wliole  line.  The  result 
of  this  discussion  was  that  the  great  variety  of  the  elements 
tliat  constitute  our  Bible  became  more  and  more  manifest,  and 
the  problem  was  forced  upon  the  critics  to  account  for  their 
combination. 

1  The  Holy  Bible ;  or,  the  Books  accounted  Sacred  by  Jeios  and  Chrittians, 
etc.     London,  I.  pp.  xviii.  seq. 

'  Commentar  iibcr  den  Pi'nt^tfurh  mil  Einleitiinrien  zu  den  eimelnen  Ab- 
srhnitten  der  einge-trhiltrlm  von  Dr.  Alex.  Geddes'  merkwilrdigeren  kritisehen 
viid  exegetischen  Anmerktingen,  etc.     Halle.  1805. 


HIGHER  CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  283 

De  Wette^  introduced  the  second  stadium  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  by  calling  the  attention  of  the  critics  to  the  genesis 
of  the  documents.^  Gesenius  supported  him,^  and  sharply- 
opposed  the  fragmentary  hj^pothesis  of  Koppe,  and  strove  to 
account  for  the  genesis  of  the  documents  of  Isaiah  and  their 
combination.  Other  critics  in  great  numbers  worked  in  the 
same  direction,  such  as  Bleek,  Ewald,  Knobel,  Hupfeld,  and 
produced  a  great  mass  of  historical  and  critical  work  upon  all 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  same  problems  were  dis- 
cussed in  the  New  Testament,  especially  with  reference  to  the 
Gospels,  the  order  of  their  i^roduction,  and  their  inter-relation.* 
A  great  number  of  different  theories  were  advanced  to  account 
for  the  genesis  of  the  different  books  of  the  Bible.  The  result 
of  the  conflict  has  been  the  conviction  on  the  part  of  most 
critics  that  the  unity  of  the  writings  in  the  midst  of  the 
variety  of  documents  has  been  accomplished  by  careful  and 
skilful  editing  at  different  periods  of  biblical  history. 

It  became  more  and  more  evident  that  the  problems  were 
assuming  larger  dimensions,  and  that  they  could  not  be  solved 
until  the  several  edited  writings  were  comiDared  with  one 
another  and  considered  in  their  relation  to  the  development 
of  the  Biblical  Religion.  The  Higher  Criticism  thus  entered 
upon  a  third  stadium  of  its  history.  This  stadium  w.as  opened 
for  the  New  Testament  by  the  Tiibingen  school,  and  for  the 
Old  Testament  by  the  school  of  Reuss.  These  entered  into 
conflict  with  the  older  views,  and  soon  showed  their  insuffi- 
ciency to  account  for  the  larger  problems.  They  reconstructed 
the  biblical  writings  upon  purely  natui-alistic  principles,  so 
emphasizing  differences  as  to  make  them  irreconcilable,  and 
explaining  the  development  in  biblical  history  and  religion 
and  literature  by  the  theory  of  antagonistic  forces  struggling 
for  the  mastery.     These  critics  were  successfully  opposed  by 

>  Kritik  der  israeJUischen  Geschichte,  Halle,  1807  ;  Beitrdge  zur  Einleit., 
1806-1807  ;  Lekrb.  d.  hist.  krit.  Einleit.  in  d.  Bibel  Alien  und  Neuen  Testaments, 
Berlin,  1817-1826. 

-  See  author's  article,  "  A  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism, with  Special  Reference  to  the  Pentateuch,"  Presbyterian  Review,  IV.  pp. 
94  seq. 

'  Com.  ii.  d.  Jesaia,  Leipzig,  1821.        *  See  Weiss,  Leben  Jesu,  I.  pp.  30  seq. 


284  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  schools  of  Neander,  Hoffmann,  and  Ewald,  and  have  been 
overcome  in  the  New  Testament  by  the  principle  of  diversity 
of  views  combining  in  a  liigher  unity.  The  same  principle  will 
overcome  them  in  the  Old  Testament  likewise.* 

The  Higher  Criticism  during  the  first  and  second  stadia  of 
its  development  in  Germany  made  little  impression  upon  Great 
Britain  and  America.  In  1818,  T.  Hartwell  Home  issued  his 
Introduction  to  the  Critical  Studi/  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,^  which  has  been  highly  esteemed  for  its  many  excel- 
lent qualities  by  several  generations  of  students.  His  state- 
ment in  the  preface  to  the  second  edition  of  his  work  shows 
how  far  Great  Britain  was  behind  the  continent  at  that  time : 

"  It  (the  work)  originated  in  the  author's  own  wants  many  years 
since  .  .  .  when  he  stood  in  need  of  a  guide  to  the  reading  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  ...  At  this  time  the  author  had  no  friend  to 
assist  his  studies,  —  or  remove  his  doubts,  —  nor  any  means  of 
procuring  critical  works.  At  length  a  list  of  the  more  eminent 
foreign  Biblical  critics  fell  into  his  hands,  and  directed  him  to 
some  of  the  sources  of  information  which  he  was  seeking ;  he 
then  resolved  to  procure  such  of  them  as  his  limited  means  would 
permit,  with  the  design  in  the  first  instance  of  satisfying  his  own 
mind  on  those  topics  which  had  perplexed  him,  and  ultimately  of 
laying  before  the  Public  the  results  of  his  inquiries,  should  no 
treatise  ap^sear  tliat  might  supersede  such  a  publication." 

This  dependence  of  Great  Britain  and  America  on  the 
biblical  scholarship  of  the  continent  continued  until  the  second 
half  of  our  century.  Most  students  of  the  Bible  contented 
themselves  with  more  or  less  modified  forms  of  traditional 
theories.  Some  few  scholars  made  occasional  and  cautious  use 
of  German  criticism.  Moses  Stuart,  Edward  Robinson,  S.  H. 
Turner,  Addison  Alexander,  Samuel  Davidson,  and  others 
depended  chiefly  upon  German  works  which  they  translated 
or  rejiroduced.  At  last  the  Anglo-Saxon  world  was  roused 
from  its  uncritical  condition  by  the  attacks  of  Bishop  Colenso, 
on  the  historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of 

1  See  author's  article,  "Critical  Study  of  the  Higher  Criticism."  etc..  Pi-efhii- 
terian  Review,  IV.  p.  106  seq. ;  also  pp.  58(5  seq.  of  tliis  book. 
^  It  passed  through  many  editions,  4th,  1823  ;  lOlh,  1856. 


HIGHER   CKITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  285 

Joshua  ;  and  by  a  number  of  scholars  representing  free  thought 
in  the  Essai/s  and  Revieivs.^  These  writers  fell  back  on  the 
older  deistic  objections  to  the  Pentateuch  as  history  and  as  con- 
taining a  supernatural  religion,  and  mingled  therewith  a  repro- 
duction of  German  thought,  chiefly  through  Bunsen.  They 
magnified  the  discrepancies  in  the  narratives  and  legislation, 
and  attacked  the  supernatural  element,  but  added  little  to 
the  sober  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Scriptures.  So  far  as  they 
took  position  on  this  subject  they  fell  into  line  with  the  more 
radical  element  of  the  school  of  De  AVette.  They  called  the 
attention  of  British  and  American  scholars  away  from  the 
literary  study  of  the  Bible  and  the  true  work  of  the  Higher 
Criticism,  to  a  defence  of  the  supernatural,  and  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible.  They  were  attacked  by  several  divines  in  Great 
Britain  and  America  from  this  point  of  view  ;  but  their  con- 
tributions to  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Bible  were  either 
slurred  over  or  ignored.^  The  work  of  Colenso  had  little  sup- 
port in  Great  Britain  or  America  at  the  time,  but  it  made  a 
great  impression  upon  the  Dutch  scholar,  Kuenen,  through 
whose  influence  it  again  came  into  notice. ^ 

It  is  only  within  recent  ^-ears  that  an}*  general  interest  in  the 
matters  of  Higher  Criticism  has  been  shown  in  Great  Britain 
and  America.  This  interest  has  been  due  chiefly  to  the  labours 
of  a  few  pioneers,  who  have  suffered  in  the  interest  of  biblical 
science.  In  Great  Britain,  Samuel  Davidson,  Professor  of  Bib- 
lical Literature  in  the  Lancashire  Independent  College  at  ^lan- 
chester  from  1842  to  18.57,  in  the  latter  year  was  compelled  to 
resign  his  position  in  consequence  of  his  views  with  respect  to  the 


1  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  crilknUtj  examined.  Parts  I.-VII.. 
18G2-1879  ;  Recent  Inquiries  in  Theoloyy  by  Eminent  English  Churchmen,  being 
Essays  and  Eevieics,  4th  American  edition  from  2d  London,  1862. 

-  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the  authors  of  Aids  to  Faith,  being  a  reply 
to  Essays  and  Reviews,  American  edition,  1862 ;  W.  H.  Green,  The  Pentateuch 
vindicated  from  ttie  Aspersions  of  Bishop  Colenso,  New  York,  1863. 

'  Godsdienst  ran  Israel,  1869-1870.  the  English  edition.  Religion  of  Israel, 
1874  :  De  riif  Boeken  van  Mozes.  1872  ;  De  Profeten  en  de  profetie  on  der  Israel, 
1875,  translated  into  English.  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1877;  and 
numerous  articles  in  Theologisch.  Tijdschrift  since  that  time,  and,  last  of  all, 
H'bbert  Lectures,  Xational  Religions  and  Universal  Religions.  1882.  Kuenen's 
views  are  presented  in  a  pojnilar  form  in  the  Bible  for  Learners,  3  vols.,  1880. 


286  STUDV   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  expressed  in  the  second  vol- 
ume of  the  tenth  edition  of  Home's  Introductmi  to  the  Scripture, 
1856.*  This  sta3'ed  the  progress  of  criticism  in  Great  Britain 
for  some  years.  But  in  the  ninth  edition  of  the  Encyclopcedia 
Britannica,  there  appeared  articles  on  "Angels,"  the  "Bible," 
"  Canticles,"  "  Chronicles,"  and  other  topics  by  Prof.  W. 
Robertson  Smith,  which  advocated  essentially  the  development 
hj'pothesis  of  the  school  of  Reuss,  and  especially  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Wellhausen.  W.  R.  Smith  was  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  the  Free  Church  College  of  Aberdeen,  Scotland,  wliere  he 
began  to  teach  in  1870.  These  articles  excited  the  attention 
of  the  College  Committee  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  and 
brought  on  a  trial  for  heresy  in  that  church.  The  case  of  Pro- 
fessor Smith  reached  its  end  in  1881,  when  he  was  removed 
from  his  chair  in  order  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church, 
but  acquitted  of  heresy  in  the  matters  in  question.  Although 
Professor  Smith  was  dealt  with  in  a  very  illegal  and  unjust 
manner,  this  contest  gained  liberty  of  oijinion  in  Great  Britain. 
His  teacher,  A.  B.  Davidson,  of  Edinburgh,  who  held  essen- 
tially the  same  views,  was  undisturbed,  and  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  same  Free  Church,  in  May,  1892,  chose  Dr. 
George  Adam  Smith,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he 
held  similar  views,  to  be  the  successor  of  Principal  Douglas,  of 
Glasgow,  who  had  been  one  of  the  chief  opponents  of  W.  Rob- 
ertson Smith. 

The  lirst  to  suffer  for  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  United 
States  was  C.  H.  Toy,  who  was  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Interpretation  in  the  Baptist  Tlieological  School,  at  Greenville, 
S.C.,  from  1869  to  1879.  In  the  latter  year  lie  was  forced  to 
resign  because  of  his  views  as  to  Biblical  Criticism.  In  1880, 
however,  he  was  called  to  be  Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Harvard 
University,  where  he  has  remained  until  the  present.  Tlie 
discussion  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  United  States  began 
for  the  Presbyterian  body,  in  the  plea  for  freedom  of  criticism 
in  my  inaugural  address  as  Professor  of   Hebrew  in  the  Union 

'2d  edition,  1869;  Inlrodurtinn  to  the.  Old  Testament.  18G2-1863;  Introd^ic- 
tion  to  the  JVeto  Testament,  1868  ;  2d  edition,  1882  ;  The  Canon  of  the  Bible, 
1876;  3d  edition,  1880. 


HIGHER   CKITICISM  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  287 

Theological  Seminary,  X.  V..  in  ISTG.^  This  was  received  with 
a  mild  o^iposition.  The  subject  first  excited  public  attention 
through  my  article  on  the  "•  Right,  Dutj%  and  Limits  of  Biblical 
Criticism,"'  published  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  in  1881.  This 
was  followed  by  a  series  of  articles  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion. I  was  sustained  by  Henry  P.  Smith.  AV.  Henry  Green 
defended  the  traditional  theories,  and  was  sustained  chiefly  by 
A.  A.  Hodge  and  F.  L.  Patton  ;  S.  Ives  Curtiss  and  Willis  J. 
Beecher  took  a  middle  position.  The  discussion  was  closed  in 
1883,  by  articles  by  F.  L.  Patton  and  mjself.^  After  the  dis- 
cussion was  completed,  the  traditional  side  was  chiefly  advo- 
cated by  Bissel  and  Osgood,  the  side  of  the  Higher  Criticism 
by  Francis  Brown,  George  F.  Moore,  J.  P.  Peters,  and  F.  A. 
Gast.  W.  R.  Harper  undertook  a  discussion  in  the  Hehraica 
with  W.  Henry  Green.  In  this  discussion  Harper,  instead  of 
setting  forth  his  own  critical  views  frankly  and  determinedly, 
preferred  to  set  up  a  man  of  straw,  which  he  styled  the  views 
of  the  critics,  for  W.  H.  Green  to  attack.  The  development 
of  this  discussion  was  unfortunate,  for  it  seemed  to  identify 
Higher  Criticism  with  the  more  radical  views,  and  it  caused 
W.  H.  Green  and  his  friends  to  combat  them  with  an  intense 
earnestness,  and  a  zeal  for  orthodoxy,  which  disclosed  a  change 
from  their  attitude  in  the  discussion-in  the  Preshyterian  Review. 
The  intense  hostility  in  the  Presbyterian  body  to  Higher 
Criticism  was  due  in  considerable  measure  to  this  discussion  in 
the  Hehraica.  On  Nov.  11,  1890,  I  was  transferred,  by  the 
unanimous  choice  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  Tlieo- 
logical  Seminary,  to  a  new  chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  endowed 
by  the  President  of  the  Directors,  Charles  Butler.  In  the  in- 
augural address  delivered  Jan.  20,  1891,  on  the  "Authority  of 
the  Holy  Scripture,"  the  subject  of  Higher  Criticism  was  pre- 
sented as  follows  : 

"  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of  the  science  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch  or  Job; 
Ezra  did  not  write  the  Chronicles,  Ezra,  or  Nehemiah ;  Jeremiah 

'  See  pp.  26  seq. 

^  The  Dogmatic  Aspect  of  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  by  F.  L.  Patton.     Critical 
Study  of  the  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  by  C.  A.  Briggs. 


288  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

did  uot  write  the  Kings  or  Lamentations ;  David  did  not  write 
the  Psalter,  but  only  a  few  of  the  Psalms ;  Solomon  did  not  write 
the  Song  of  Songs  or  Ecclesiastes,  and  only  a  portion  of  the 
Proverbs ;  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his 
name.  The  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by 
authors  whose  names  or  connection  with  their  writings  are  lost  in 
oblivion.  If  this  is  destroying  the  Bible,  the  Bible  is  destroyed 
already.  But  who  tells  us  that  these  traditional  names  were  the 
authors  of  the  Bible  ?  The  Bible  itself  ?  The  creeds  of  the 
Church  ?  Any  reliable  historical  testimony  ?  None  of  these  I 
Pure,  conjectural  tradition  !  Nothing  more !  We  are  uot  pre- 
pared to  build  our  faith  for  time  and  eternity  upon  such  uncer- 
tainties as  these.  We  desire  to  know  whether  the  Bible  came 
from  God,  and  it  is  not  of  any  great  importance  that  we  should 
know  the  names  of  those  worthies  chosen  by  God  to  mediate  His 
revelation.  It  is  possible  that  there  is  a  providential  purpose  in 
the  withholding  of  these  names,  in  order  that  men  might  have  no 
excuse  for  building  on  human  authority,  and  so  shovdd  be  forced 
to  resort  to  divine  authoritj-.  It  will  ere  long  become  clear  to 
the  Christian  people  that  the  Higher  Criticism  has  rendered  an 
inestimable  service  to  this  generation  and  to  generations  to  come. 
What  has  been  destroyed  has  been  the  fallacies  and  conceits  of 
theologians  ;  the  obstructions  that  have  barred  the  way  of  literary 
men  from  the  Bible.  Higher  Criticism  has  forced  its  way  into 
the  Bible  itself  and  brought  us  face  to  face  with  the  holy  con- 
tents, so  that  we  may  see  and  know  whether  they  are  divine  or 
not.  Higher  Criticism  has  not  contravened  any  decision  of  any 
Christian  council,  or  any  creed  of  any  Church,  or  any  statement 
of  Scripture  itself." ' 

After  the  General  Assembly  liad  tried  in  vain  to  deprive  me 
of  my  chair,  thi-ougli  a  stretcli  of  avithority  wliicli  the  Directors 
of  Union  Seminary  could  not  either  legally  or  moi'ally  recog- 
nize, charges  were  brought  against  me  before  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York.  Two  of  these  charges  were  on  the  question  of 
Higher  Criticism,  namely :  "with  teaching  that  Moses  is  not 
the  author  of  the  Pentateucli,"  and  "with  teaching  that  Isaiali 
is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  hook  that  hears  his  name." 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  accjuitted  me  of  these  charges, 
not  on  the  ground  that  I  did  not  hold  tlu'se  opinions,  for  I  dis- 
tinctly asserted  these  opinions.  an<l  gave  ample  proof  of  them 

'  The  Inanrivral  Addriss.  Antlioritij  of  the  Ilvhj  Scripture,  1891,  pp.  .3,3,  34. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  289 

in  inv  Defence}  but  on  the  ground  that  these  opinions  did  not 
conflict  with  Holy  Scripture  or  tlie  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  But  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  the  United  States  of  America  found  me  guilty  of  heresy  in 
these  two  particulars,  as  well  as  in  others,^  in  which  I  held 
either  catholic  or  scientific  truth  against  traditional  and  modern 
error  ;  and  they  suspended  me  from  the  ministry  until  "  such 
time  as  he  shall  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance  to  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America." 

In  the  same  panic  Prof.  Henr}'  Preserved  Smith  was  tried  on 
similar  grounds.  One  of  the  specifications  in  the  charges 
against  him,  which  was  sustained,  was,  "  He  teaches  that  the 
last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  are  not  cor- 
rectly ascribed  to  him."  He  was  also  suspended  from  the 
ministry  in  the  same  year  by  the  Presbj-terj-  of  Cincinnati, 
which  action  was  sustained  next  year  by  General  Assembly. 

Thus  the  Presbj'terian  denomination  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  under  the  guidance  of  Prof.  William  Henry  Green, 
the  American  Hengstenbei-g,  and  others  like  minded,  has,  for 
the  first  time  in  history,  made  a  determination  of  questions  of 
Higher  Criticism,  and  has  decided  that  it  is  heresy  to  say  that 
'•  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,"  and  that  "  Isaiah  did 
not  write  linlf  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name "  ;  the  sure 
results  of  the  Higher  Criticism  accej^ted  by  all  genuine  critics 
the  world  ovei-,  whether  the}-  be  Roman  Catholic  or  Protestant, 
Jew  or  Christian.  The  General  Assembly  went  no  further. 
There  are  other  scholars  who  agi-ee  with  Henry  P.  Smith  and 
mvself.  and  who  remain  unchallenged.  The  General  Assembly 
could  not  prevent  Professor  Smith  or  myself  from  pursuing  our 
researches,  nor  have  they  stayed  the  hands  of  other  scholars. 
They  have  simply  committed  the  Presbyterian  body  to  a  false 
position. 

The  more  recent  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism  has  been  in 
the  detailed  work  of  analysis  of  the  different  writings.     In  the 

'  The  Defence  nf  Prnfessor  Briggs,  189.3,  pp.  115  seq. ;  The   Case  against 
Professor  Briggs,  Part  III.  pp.  205  seq. 
-  See  pp.  615  seq. 


290  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Old  Testament,  the  effort  is  to  find  the  sources  of  the  Judaic, 
Ephraimitic,  Deuteronomic,  and  Priestly  authors  in  earlier  doc- 
uments of  the  same  type,  J'*^,  E'-^  D^'^  P'"^,  and,  in  this  way, 
push  back  to  primitive  times ;  and  to  trace  out  the  documents 
of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  and  to  ascertain  how  far  they 
resemble  or  are  the  same  as  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch.  It 
seems  to  be  evident  that  there  wei"e  groups  of  earlier  Ephraim- 
itic and  Judaic  writers,  and  that  these  were  followed  by  groups 
of  Deuteronomic  and  Priestly  writers,  and  that  the  composition 
of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  a  much  more 
elaborate  affair  than  the  earlier  critics  supposed.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  Gospels.  The  use  of  the  primitive  Gospel  of  iSIark 
and  the  Logia  of  Matthew  by  our  Matthew  is  now  well  assured. 
The  use  of  other  sources  is  also  under  investigation.  The  work 
of  Luke,  in  his  use  of  various  sources  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
book  of  Acts,  is  a  burning  question  of  New  Testament  criti- 
cism, especially  in  view  of  the  recent  theory  of  Blass,  that  the 
Western  text  represents  an  original,  independent  edition  of  the 
work  of  Luke.^ 

I  have  myself,  in  recent  years,  endeavoured  to  show  five  dif- 
ferent archteological  sources  of  Hebrew  Law,  in  the  Words, 
Statutes,  Judgments,  Commands,  and  Laws.^  I  have  also 
endeavoui-ed  to  use  the  references  in  the  Gospels  to  the  words  of 
Jesus,  and  recover  the  original  gnomic  poetry  in  which  he 
uttered  his  wisdom.^ 

The  Old  Testament  prophets  have  been  analyzed  in  detail, 
especially  the  former  prophets,  by  Wellhausen,  Driver,  Moore, 
and  H.  P.  Smith,  and  the  later  jirophets  by  Cheyne,  Cornill, 
and  Duhm,  to  an  extent  that  seems  like  a  return  to  the  frag- 
mentary hypothesis,  liut  they  have  made  it  evident  that  all 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  passed  through  the  hands 
of  editors  who  did  not  hesitate  to  make  the  most  radical  changes 
in  the  original,  in  tlie  adaptation  of  them  to  later  uses.  Tiie 
Writings  have  also  been  searched,  especially  by  Toy  and  Cheyne, 

>  See  pp.  203  seg. 

-  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Htxatcuch.  new  edition,  jiji.  2)2  seq.  See  .ilso  pp. 
560  seq.  of  tliis  volume. 

3  "  Wisdom  of  .Tisu.s,"  articles  in  the  Expositury  TinKS,  1807.  See  also  pp. 
69,  90,  244.  306,  of  this  volume. 


HIGHER   CRITICISM   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  291 

with  the  result  of  pushing  the  whole  bod}'  of  them,  in  their 
present  form,  down  into  the  period  of  the  Restoration,  and  the 
disclosure  of  editorial  changes  by  successive  hands  to  an  extent 
which  seems  unsettling  to  those  unfamiliar  with  the  details  of 
the  investigation.  The  Apocal^-pse  of  the  New  Testament  has 
been  analyzed  with  as  much  attention  to  detail  as  the  Pseu- 
depigrapha.i  The  epistles  of  the  New  Testament  are  also  being 
searched  by  criticism,  and  it  is  becoming  evident  that  we  must 
recognize  the  hands  of  editors  even  in  some  of  them.  The 
great  questions  of  criticism  have  been  settled  bj'  the  consensus 
of  all  real  critics.  It  now  remains,  out  of  the  confusion  caused 
by  the  more  detailed  investigations  of  a  mass  of  workers,  in  all 
religious  bodies,  and  in  all  nations,  to  organize  the  results  into 
the  final  system.  This  much  may  be  said  in  general,  that  the 
tendency  of  all  this  criticism  in  detail  is  to  work  backwards  to 
closer  contact  with  the  original  authors  and  the  original  read- 
ings. When  all  the  work  of  editors  has  been  removed  from 
the  discussions,  the  original  stands  out  in  its  historical  environ- 
ment, with  graphic  realism  and  an  illuminating  authority. 

The  literarj'  study  of  Holy  Scripture  is  appropriately  called 
Higher  Criticism  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Lower  Criticism, 
which  devotes  itself  to  the  study  of  original  texts  and  versions. 
There  are  few  who  have  the  patience,  the  persistence,  the  life- 
long industry  in  the  examination  of  the  minute  details  that 
make  up  the  field  of  the  Lower  or  Textual  Criticism.  But  the 
Higher  Criticism  is  more  attractive.  It  has  to  do  with  literary 
forms  and  styles  and  models.  It  appeals  to  the  imagination 
and  the  aesthetic  taste  as  well  as  to  the  logical  faculty.  It 
kindles  the  enthusiasm  of  the  young.  It  will  more  and  more 
enlist  the  attention  of  men  of  culture  and  the  general  public. 
It  is  the  most  inviting  and  fruitful  field  of  biblical  stud}?^  in 
our  day.  ^lany  who  are  engaged  in  it  are  rationalistic  and 
unbelieving,  and  they  are  using  it  with  disastrous  effect  upon 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  and  the  orthodox  Faith.  There  is  also  a 
prejudice  in  some  quarters  against  these  studies  and  an  appre- 
hension as  to  the  results.  This  prejudice  is  unreasonable. 
This  apprehension  is  to  be  deprecated.  It  is  impossible  to  pre- 
'  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  284  seq. 


292  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

vent  discussion.  The  Divine  Word  will  vindicate  itself  in  all 
its  parts.  These  are  not  the  times  for  negligent  Elis  or  timor- 
ous and  jjresumptuous  Uzzahs.  Brave  Samuels  and  ardent 
Davids,  who  fear  not  to  emplo}-  new  methods  and  engage  in 
new  enterprises  and  adapt  themselves  to  altered  situations,  will 
overcome  the  Philistines.  The  Higher  Criticism  has  rent  the 
crust  with  which  Eabbinical  tradition  and  Christian  scholasti- 
cism have  eircased  the  Old  Testament,  overlaying  the  poetic 
and  prophetic  elements  with  the  legal  and  the  ritual.  Younger 
biblical  scholars  have  caught  glimpses  of  the  beauty  and  glor}' 
of  Biblical  Literature.  The  Old  Testament  is  studied  as  never 
before  in  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  beginning  to  exert  its 
charming  influence  upon  ministers  and  people.  Christian  The- 
ology and  Christian  life  will  ere  long  be  enriched  b}-  it.  God's 
blessing  is  in  it  to  those  who  have  the  Christian  wisdom  to 
recognize  and  the  grace  to  receive  and  employ  it. 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM 

The  Sacred  Scriptures  are  composed  of  a  great  variety  of 
literary  pi-oducts,  the  results  of  the  thinking,  feeling,  and  act- 
ing of  God's  people  in  many  generations.  Though  guided  by 
the  Divine  Spiint  so  as  to  give  one  divine  revelation  in  contin- 
uous historical  development,  they  yet,  as  literary  productions, 
assume  various  literary  styles  in  accordance  with  the  culture, 
taste,  and  capacity  of  their  authors  in  the  different  periods  of 
their  composition.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  contains  the  sacred  literature  of  the  Hebrews 
through  a  long  period  of  literary  development.  For  their 
proper  interpretation,  therefore,  we  need  not  only  the  religious 
spirit  that  can  enter  into  sympathetic  relations  with  the  authors, 
and  through  vital  union  with  the  Divine  Spirit  interpret  them 
from  their  inmost  soul ;  we  need  not  only  training  in  grammar 
and  logic  to  understand  the  true  contents  of  their  language  and 
the  drift  of  their  discourse ;  we  need  not  only  a  knowledge  of 
the  archaeology,  geography,  and  history  of  the  people,  that  we 
may  enter  into  the  atmosphere  and  scenery  of  their  life  and  its 
expression  ;  we  need  not  only  a  knowledge  of  the  laws,  doc- 
trines, and  institutions  in  which  the  authors  were  reared,  and 
which  constituted  the  necessary  grooves  of  their  religious  cult- 
ure, but  in  addition  to  all  these  we  need  also  a  literary  train- 
ing, an  ffisthetic  cidture,  in  order  that  by  a  true  literary  sense, 
and  a  sensitive  and  refined  aesthetic  taste,  we  may  discriminate 
poetry  from  prose,  histor}-  from  fiction,  the  bare  truth  from  its 
artistic  dress  and  decoration,  the  fruit  of  reasoning  from  the 
products  of  the  imagination  and  fancy. 


294  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Ever}-  race  and  nation  has  its  peculiarities  of  literary  culture 
and  style,  so  that  while  the  study  of  the  best  literary  models 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  of  modern  European  languages, 
may  be  necessarj-  to  develop)  the  best  literary  taste,  yet  in 
entering  upon  the  study  of  Biblical  Literatui-e  we  come  into 
a  field  that  was  not  influenced  at  all  by  an}^  of  these,  —  to  the 
literature  of  a  race  radically  different  from  all  the  families  of 
the  Indo-Germanic  race,  —  one  which  declines  to  be  judged  by 
the  standards  of  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  which  requires 
an  independent  study  in  connection  with  the  literature  of  its 
own  sisters,  especially  the  Arabic,  Syriac,  and  Assj-rian.  A 
special  training  in  these  literatures  is,  therefore,  necessarj-  in 
order  to  the  proper  estimation  of  the  Hebrew  literature ;  and 
criticism  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  ordinary  classic  literary 
culture  alone  is  unfair  and  misleading.  And  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  no  one  can  thoroughly  understand  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment who  has  not  made  himself  familiar  with  the  Old  Testament 
literature,  upon  which  it  is  based.  The  student  must  enter 
into  sympathetic  relations  with  the  spirit  and  life  of  the  Orient 
that  pervade  it. 

The  literar}'  study  of  the  Bible  is  essentially  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Bible.  A  reader  may  enjoy  the  literary  feat- 
ures of  Shakespeare,  Milton,  and  Homer,  without  himself  taking 
part  in  critical  work,  but  consciously  or  unconsciously  he  is 
dependent  upon  the  literary  criticism  of  experts,  who  have 
given  him  the  results  of  their  labours  upon  these  autliors.  So 
is  it  with  the  Holy  Scripture  :  the  ordinary  reader  may  enjoy 
it  as  literature  without  being  a  critic,  but  the  labours  of  critics 
are  necessary  in  order  that  the  Scriptures  may  be  presented  to 
him  in  their  proper  literary  character  and  forms.  Biblical 
Literature  has  the  same  problems  to  solve,  and  the  same 
m-ethods  and  principles  for  their  solution,  as  have  been  em- 
ployed in  other  departments  of  the  world's  literature. ^ 

We  shall  first  show  how  the  great  lines  of  evidence  used  b)' 
the  Higher  Criticism  should  be  applied  to  Holy  Scripture,  and 
then  present  the  result  of  that  evidence  with  reference  to  the 
great  prol)lems  of  Higher  Criticism. ^ 

'  See  pp.  92  seq.  '  See  pp.  96  seq. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  295 


I.    The  Historical  Evidence 

The  Higher  Criticism  first  applies  to  Holy  Scripture  the 
historical  test.  The  writings  must  be  in  accordance  with  their 
supposed  historical  position  as  to  time,  place,  and  circumstances. 

(a)  The  Book  of  Comfort,  Is.  40-66,  cannot  belong  to  the  time 
of  Hezekiah,  but  to  the  time  of  the  exile,  as  Driver  shows. 

'•  It  alludes  repeatedly  to  Jerusalem  as  ruined  and  deserted  {e.g. 
44=",  oS"^;  Ql\  C3",  64'") ;  to  the  sufferings  which  the  Jews  have 
experienced,  or  are  experiencing,  at  the  hands  of  the  Chaldaeans 
(42^=»,  43^  [E.  V.  marg.],  47^  "52^);  to  the  prospect  of  return, 
which,  as  the  prophet  speaks,  is  imminent  (40'',  46'^,  48™,  etc.). 
Those  whom  the  prophet  addresses,  and,  moreover,  addresses 
in  person,  arguing  with  them,  appealing  to  them,  stri\dng  to  win 
their  assent  by  his  warm  and  impassioned  rhetoric  (40^' ^•^,  43'°, 
48*,  oO'"'-,  ol*''-',  58^*,  etc.),  are  not  the  men  of  Jerusalem,  con- 
temporaries of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  or  even  of  Manasseh ;  they 
are  the  exiles  in  Babylonia.  Judged  by  the  analogy  of  i^rophecy, 
this  constitutes  the  strongest  possible  presumption  that  the  author 
actually  Jived  in  the  period  which  he  thus  describes,  and  is  not 
merely  (as  has  been  supposed)  Isaiah  immersed  in  spirit  in  the 
future,  and  holding  converse,  as  it  were,  with  the  generations  yet 
unborn.  Such  an  immersion  in  the  future  would  be  not  only  with- 
out parallel  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  would  be  contrary  to  the 
nature  of  prophecy.  The  prophet  speaks  always,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  his  own  contemporaries ;  the  message  which  he  brings 
is  intimately  related  with  the  circumstances  of  his  time ;  his 
promises  and  predictions,  however  far  they  reach  into  the  future, 
nevertheless  rest  upon  the  basis  of  the  history  of  his  own  age, 
and  correspond  to  the  needs  which  are  then  felt.  The  prophet 
never  abandons  his  own  historical  position,  but  speaks  from  it. 
So  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  for  instance,  predict  first  the  exile,  then 
the  restoration ;  both  are  contemplated  by  them  as  still  future ; 
both  are  viewed  from  the  period  in  which  they  themselves  live. 
In  the  present  prophecy  there  is  no  prediction  of  exUe.  The  exile 
is  not  announced  as  something  still  future ;  it  is  presupposed,  and 
only  the  release  from  it  is  predicted.  By  analogy,  therefore,  the 
author  will  have  lived  in  the  situation  which  he  thus  presupposes, 
and  to  which  he  continually  alludes."  ' 

(6)  An  example  of  a  plausible  historical  clue  to  date,  is  given 

1  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  Gth  ed.,  1897, 
pp.  2.37  seq. 


296  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

in  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Bowls,'  which,  La  its  original  form,  seems 
to  have  been  written  soon  after  the  death  of  Nero.     The  passage  is : 

••  The  seven  heads  are  seven  mountains. 
On  which  the  woman  sitteth  : 

"  (And  they  are  seven  kings ;  the  five  are  fallen,  the  one  is,  the 
other  is  not  yet  come ;  and  when  he  cometh,  he  must  continue  a 
little  while.)  (And  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  is  himself  also 
an  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven ;  and  he  goeth  into  Apoleia.)  " 

The  seven  heads  of  the  beast  are  described  by  a  later  editor, 
probably  the  one  who  combined  the  three  apocalypses  of  the 
Sevens,  as  a  series  of  seven  emperors.  Five  have  fallen  — 
Augustus,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Claudius,  Xero.  One  reigns.  Some 
tliink  of  one  of  the  rivals,  —  Galba,  Otho,  Vitellius ;  others  of  Ves- 
pasian, the  three  really  being  regarded  as  usurpers.  The  seventh 
is  not  yet  come,  but  when  he  comes  he  will  reign  for  a  little  while. 
The  seventh  completes  the  number  of  seven  heads.  It  is  proba- 
ble, therefore,  that  Harnack  is  correct  in  thinking  that  a  later 
editor  interprets  by  inserting  the  reference  to  the  eighth  as  the 
beast  of  the  scene,  and  so  finds  the  beast  in  Domitiau.'  We  would 
thus  have  three  different  interpretations  of  the  seven  heads, — the 
original  referring  to  the  seven  hills  of  Rome,  written  soon  after 
the  death  of  Xero ;  the  editor  of  the  second  edition  in  the  time  of 
Vespasian  referring  the  seventh  to  a  risen  Xero ;  the  editor  of  the 
third  edition  thinking  of  the  eighth  emperor  as  Domitian.' 


II.     The  Evidence  of  Style 

Differences  of  style  imply  differences  of  experience  and  age 
of  the  same  author,  or.  when  sufficiently  great,  difference  of 
author  and  of  period  of  composition.  Differences  in  stj'le  are 
linguistic  and  literary. 

1.  Linguistic  differences  vxay  be  etj^mological,  s3-ntactical,  or 
dialectic. 

(a)  Etymological  differences  are  of  great  importance  in  dis- 
tinguishing biblical  authors.  Word  lists  are  given  in  all  the 
chief  writings  which  deal  with  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.     Thus  Driver  gives  a  list  of  41  characteristic 

1  Rev.  17. 

2  Nachwort  to  Vischer.  Die  Offenbarung  Johannes  eine  jiidische  Apokalypse, 
1886,  s.  135. 

3  Briggs.  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895,  pp.  427  seq. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  297 

phrases  of  D,  50  phrases  of  P,  and  20  of  H.     Holziiiger  dis- 
cusses 125  characteristic  phrases  of  J  and  108  of  E.^ 

The  follo-ndng  two  specimens  of  linguistic  usage  may  suffice  for 
the  Old  Testament : 

(1)  The  first  person  of  the  pronoun  'J3S  is  used  in  Deuteron- 
omy 56  times.  The  only  real  exception  is  12*\  ^3S"DJ,  where  the 
reason  for  the  abbreviation  is  evidently  its  use  with  D^  The 
other  apparent  exceptions  in  Deuteronomy  are  due  to  different 
original  documents  which  have  been  incorporated  with  Deuteron- 
omy, e.(/.  32*'" ■^-,  part  of  the  priestly  document;  the  Song,  32'""'*"; 
and  29*  (D-),  where  there  is  a  mixed  text.  This  usage  of  Deuter- 
onomy is  found  elsewhere  only  in  the  song  of  Deborah,  Jd.  5 ;  the 
prophet  Amos,  10  times  (except  4^  ''3S"D3) ;  the  Deuteronomic 
redactor  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  save  in  little  pieces; 
Pss.  22,  46,  50,  91,  104,  141 ;  and  the  prophecy  Is.  21i-'°,  wliere  the 
examples  are  too  few  to  give  us  firm  ground  for  usage.  The 
shorter  form  'jS  is  used  in  H  and  P  about  120  times.  The  only 
exception  is  Gen.  23^,  which  is  probably  due  to  the  use  of  an 
ancient  phrase  (cf.  Ps.  39'^).  This  corresponds  with  the  usage 
of  exilic  writings,  as  Ezekiel,  which  uses  it  138  times  (the  only 
exception  36^  in  a  phrase);  Lamentations,  4  times;  and  of  post- 
exilic  prophets,  Haggai,  4  times ;  Zechariah  1-8,  10  times ;  Jlala- 
chi,  7  times  (except  3^) ;  Joel.  4  times ;  also  the  Chronicler,  47 
times  (except  1  C.  17',  derived  from  2  Sam.  7^;  and  Neh.  1") ;  Prov- 
erbs 1-8,  5  times ;  Canticles,  12  times ;  Daniel,  23  times  (except 
10*);  Esther,  6  times ;  Ecclesiastes,  29  times.  Xo  pre-exilic  writ- 
ing uses  ^3S  exclusively  except  Zephaniah  twice  and  the  Song  of 
Habakkuk  once  (regarded  by  many  critics  as  a  post-exilic  psalm) ;  ^ 
but  these  few  examples  cannot  determine  usage.  The  usage  of  E 
and  J  differs  both  from  D  and  P.  In  J  of  the  Hexateuch  ''D3S  is 
used  51  times  to  32  of  ''JX ;  in  E,  ■'30X  32  times  to  25  of  '3X.  With 
this  correspond  the  original  documents  of  Judges,  which  use  '23S 
15  times  to  11  of  "S,  and  the  Ephraimitic  documents  of  Samuel, 
whicli  use  ''33i<  19  times  to  10  of  ''3S.  All  these  show  a  prepon- 
derance of  usage  in  favour  of  ''33S.  Hosea  uses  each  11  times, 
and  the  earlier  Isaiah  each  3  times.  Other  writers  show  an  in- 
creasing tendency  to  use  ''3S.     The  Judaic  documents  of  Samuel 

1  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  6th  ed.,  1897  ; 
Holzinser.  Einleitung  in  den  Hexateuch,  1803.  See  atso  Brigg.'s,  Hir/her  Criti- 
cism of  the  Hexateuch.  new  edition,  pp.  69  seq.  J)  stand.s  for  the  Deuteronomic 
writers  of  the  Hexateuch,  P  the  Priestly  writers,  E  the  Ephraimitic  writers,  and 
J  the  Judaic  writers.    See  pp.  278  seq. 

2  See  r>.  .314. 


298  STUDY  OF  HOLY   SCKIPTUEE 

and  Kings  use  'JX  52  times  to  30  of  ''23S ;  the  Ephi-aimitic  docu- 
ment of  Kings.  ^iX  22  times  to  2  of  ■'23S ;  Jeremiah,  "'iS  52  times 
to  37  of  ■r;S :  Is.  40-66,  70  times  ':s  to  21  "aiS :  Job,  28  times 
'iS  to  14  ''3iS.  It  is  evident  that  three  layers  of  the  Hexateuch 
are  distinctly  characterized  by  their  use  of  this  pronoun,  and  they 
agree  with  other  groups  of  literature  in  their  usage.' 

(2)  The  shorter  form  37  is  always  used  in  the  documents  J  and 
P;  the  longer  form  DD*?  is  alwa3-s  used  in  the  law  codes  of  D 
and  H.  There  is  a  difference  of  usage  in  E  and  the  frame  of 
D.  E  uses  2S,  Gen.  31^,  42=*^,  45-'«,  50^';  Ex.  4=',  7^  (Driver's  J, 
Kautzsch's  JE),  10-'^;  Nu.  24";  but  32^,  Gen.  20^' ".  SV;,  Ex.  14^ 
(Driver's  J,  Kautzsch's  JE),  Jos.  24-'.  This  use  of  2,Z'^  might 
be  redactional,  but  it  is  not  evident.  The  frame  of  D  uses  33'? 
constantly,  except  Dt.  4"  (Sam.  codex  33S),  28^,  29^- '' (phrase 
from  Jeremiah) ;  Jos.  11™  (phrase  of  E  and  P),  14'  (elsewhere  in 
this  phrase  33^7).  It  is  evident  that  this  difference  in  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Hexateuch  is  not  accidental,  but  is  characteristic  of 
literary  preference  and  of  periods  of  composition,  for  it  corre- 
sponds with  the  usage  of  the  literature  elsewhere,  (a)  The  form 
37  is  used  in  the  earliest  poetical  literature,  Ex.  15 ;  Judges  5 ; 
1  Sam.  2;  the  earliest  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  Is.  15,  Zech.  9-11, 
and  the  Judaic  and  Ephraimitic  sources  of  the  jjrophetic  histories. 
This  corresponds  with  the  usage  of  J.  (b)  The  form  337  is 
used  in  the  earlier  Is.  11  times  (3*7  ouly  6'",  29",  possibly  scribal 
errors) ;  in  Zeph.  1^,  2"  (3*5  3",  scribal  error) ;  and  the  Deuter- 
onomic  redaction  of  the  prophetic  histories.  This  corresponds 
with  the  usage  of  D.  (c)  Kahum  uses  337  2*.  3*7  2",  but  Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel,  the  second  Isaiah,  and  Job  prefer  3*7,  but  occa^ 
sionally  use  33*?.  This  corresponds  with  the  usage  of  E.  (rf)  Is. 
13-14=3;  jer.  50-51;  Haggai;  Zech.  1-8  (except  7'-);  Jonah;  Joel; 
Ps.  78,  90,  104,  use  33'!'-  This  corresponds  with  the  usage  of 
H.  (e)  Lamentations  (except  3") ;  Is.  24-27,  34-35 ;  Malachi ; 
Obad. ;  Zech.  12-14;  ]Memori,als  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah,  use  3*7. 
This  corresponds  with  P.  So  do  Proverbs  (except  4=',  6^) ;  the 
Psalter,  with  few  exceptions ;  Euth,  Esther.  Ecclesiastes  (except 
9^),  and  Canticles.  (/)  The  Chronicler  and  Daniel  use  33*?.  but 
there  are  a  few  examples  of  3*?,  chiefly  in  set  phrases.  When 
one  considers  how  easy  it  was  for  an  editor  or  scribe  to  exchange 
3*?  and  337,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  difference  in  usage  has 
been  so  well  preserved.^  (See  my  article  37,  337,  in  the  new 
Hebrew  Lexicon.) 

'  Bripgs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition,  189",  pp.  70,  71. 
"  Briggs,  I.e.,  pp.  250,  267. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM  299 

In  the  New  Testament  each  writer  has  also  his  stock  of  words. 
These  are  given  by  Vincent.'  For  example,  take  the  words 
••  father ''  and  ''  church.'' 

(3)  Apart  from  the  Prologue,  the  Gospel  of  John  uses  Father, 
of  God  as  the  Father  of  the  Messianic  Son  from  heaven ;  and 
only  in  a  single  passage,  of  God  as  the  Father  of  men.  In  this 
latter  passage,  20'',  Jesus  says  to  the  woman,  "  I  ascend  unto  My 
Father  and  your  Father."  Westcott=  claims  4-''^,  5*^- '"=•'«,  lO-'^-''^, 
12^,  U^'%  lo'«,  U^-^-^  for  the  Fatherhood  of  men.  But  there  is 
nothing  in  the  context  of  any  of  these  passages  to  constrain  us  to 
think  of  the  Fatherhood  of  men.  In  several  of  them  the  refer- 
ence to  the  Son,  in  the  context,  suggests  the  prevailing  usage. 
In  others,  while  it  is  possible  to  think  of  the  Fatherhood  of  men, 
that  mere  possibility  cannot  resist  the  overwhelming  usage  of 
this  gospel.  6  Trar^p  is  used  79  times  of  God ;  6  Trarr^p  /xov,  25 
times  ;  TraTep,  9  times  ;  6  nar-qp  0-ov,  8''  ;  6  ^dv  TTaT-qp,  is"  ;  Trarrjp  I'Stos, 
5.^  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  God's  Fatherhood  of  men  seems  to 
come  from  the  Logia.  In  Mark  it  is  found  only  in  11^  =  Mt. 
6"'",  where  the  jshrase  is  evidently  a  logion,  and  the  nse  of 
6  iv  ToTs  oipai'ots  suggests  an  assimilation  of  this  passage  to  IMat- 
thew.  It  is  found  in  Luke,  apart  from  passages  jiarallel  with 
Matthew,  only  12^-,  which  is  also  probably  from  the  Logia.  But 
God's  Fatherhood  of  the  Messiah  is  in  all  the  Gospels :  Mk.  8^  — 
Mt.  lG-^  =  Lk.  9=^  Mk.  IS^^  =  Mt.  2-4^";  Mt.  26^  =  Lk.  22^=;  Mt. 
ir-5-2^  =  Lk.  10='' ~;  besides  in  Lk.  3^  22»,  29«,  and  in  Matthew 
with  6  ovpavios  15'*,  18''';  with  o  iv  (rois)  oupavoTs  7  times  and 
without  7  times.  It  is  evident  that  the  nse  of  "  heavenly  "  and 
"who  (is)  in  heaven"  comes  from  Matthew,  and  not  from  Jesus 
Himself;  just  as  Matthew  uses  kingdom  of  heaven  for  the  original 
kingdom  of  God.' 

(4)  Church  is  used  in  the  Gospels  only  Mt.  16",  where  it  is 
probably  not  original,*  and  twice  Mt.  18^',  where  it  probably  re- 
ferred to  the  brethren  or  brotherhood,  or  possibly  to  the  local 
assembly  after  the  usage  of  the  Septuagiut.  It  is  not  used  in  the 
epistles  of  Peter,  of  Jude,  or  in  the  first  or  second  epistles  of 
John.  It  is  used  in  the  Epistle  of  Jas.  5",  of  the  local  assembly 
with  its  elders,  which  is  virtually  the  same  as  synagogue.  It  is 
used  in  the  Eevelation  in  the  prologue  and  in  the  epistles  to  the 
seven  churches  in  Asia,  V-3^^,  19  times,  elsewhere  only  in  the 
epilogue  22'",  always  of  local  assemblies.  It  is  used  in  the  third 
Epistle   of  John  thrice  of  the  local  church.     It  is  used  in  the 

1   Word  Studies.  1887-1890.  '  Briggs,  JFessiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  274. 

*  Epistles  of  John,  p.  31.  ■*  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  190. 


300  STUDY   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

epistles  of  Paul :  Romans,  5  times  ;  Corinthians,  31  times ;  Galar 
tians,  3  times ;  Ephesians,  9  times ;  Philippians,  2  times ;  Colossians, 
4  times ;  Thessalouiaus,  4  times ; '  Timothy,  3  times ;  Philemon, 
once;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2  times;  in  the  historical 
sections  of  the  book  of  Acts,  22  times,  three  of  which  refer  to  a 
Greek  assembly.  The  Church  of  the  Lord  is  used  Acts  20** 
onlj',  but  the  Church  of  God  is  used  by  Paul  six  times  in  the 
earlier  epistles.  In  the  epistles  of  the  imprisonment  Church  is 
used  alone,  without  qualification.  But  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
the  Church  of  the  living  God  is  used,  1  Tim.  3",  and  the  Church 
of  God,  1  Tim.  3'. 

(6)  Syntactical  differences.  The  Hebrew  language  is  strict 
in  its  use  of  the  Waiv  consecutive,  in  the  earlier  period  of  the 
language.  In  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  the  Waiv  consecutive  of  the 
imperfect  is  often  neglected,  and  the  simple  Waw  with  the  per- 
fect is  used  instead.  In  the  exilic  projDliecy  Isaiah,  40-66,  the 
Waw  consecutive  of  the  perfect  is  neglected,  and  the  simple 
Waiv  with  the  imperfect  is  used  instead.  In  the  book  of  Eccle- 
siastes  the  Waw  consecutive  has  well-nigh  passed  out  of  use. 
This  shows  three  stages  of  sj-ntactical  development  of  the  He- 
brew language,  and  enables  us  to  arrange  the  different  writings 
in  accordance  therewith. 

(c)  There  are  dialectic  differences  in  the  Old  Testament. 
There  were  doubtless  three  dialects  in  the  Biblical  Hebrew,  — 
the  Ephraimitic,  the  Judaic,  and  the  Pereau.  An  example  of 
the  Perean  may  be  found  in  the  main  stock  of  the  book  of  Job, 
which  tends  towards  Arabisms.  The  Ephraimitic  dialect  was 
from  the  earliest  times  tending  in  an  Aramaic  direction.  It  is 
represented  in  the  Ephraimitic  sections  of  the  Hexateuch  and 
the  prophetic  histories. 

2.  Differences  of  style  are  evident  in  all  of  the  four  Gospels, 
and  are  carefullj-  defined  by  writers  on  the  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  by  the  commentaries.  Similar  differ- 
ences are  noted  in  the  Old  Testament  between  the  Chronicler 
and  the  prophetic  histories.  It  is  agreed  among  critics  that 
the  Ephraimitic  writer  is  brief,  terse,  and  archaic  in  style ;  the 
Judaic  writer  is  poetic  and  descriptive,  —  as  Wellhausen  says, 
"the  best  narrator  in  the  Bible."  His  imagination  and  fancy 
'  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  81,  82. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM  301 

are  ever  active.  The  priestly  writer  is  amialistic  and  diffuse, 
fond  of  names  and  dates.  He  aims  at  precision  and  complete- 
ness. The  logical  faculty  prevails.  There  is  little  colouring. 
The  Deuteronomic  writer  is  rhetorical  and  hortatory,  practical 
and  earnest.     His  aim  is  instruction  and  guidance.^ 

(a)  A  good  specimen  of  the  argument  from  style  is  given  by 
A.  B.  Davidson  in  his  study  of  the  book  of  Job. 

"  The  objections  that  have  been  made  to  the  long  passage,  chap- 
ters 40'^-41''',  describing  Behemoth  and  Leviathan,  are  briefly  such 
as  these :  that  the  description  of  these  animals  woidd  have  been 
in  place  in  the  first  divine  speech  beside  the  other  animal  pictures, 
but  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  idea  of  the  second  speech ;  that 
the  description  swells  the  second  speech  to  a  length  unsuitable  to 
its  object,  which  is  fvdly  expressed  in  chapter  40""" ;  and  that  the 
minuteness  and  heaviness  of  the  representation  betray  a  very  dif- 
ferent hand  from  that  which  drew  the  powerful  sketches  in  chajj- 
ters  38,  39. 

"  The  last-mentioned  point  is  not  without  force.  The  rapid  light 
and  expressive  lines  of  the  former  pictiu-es  make  them  without 
parallel  for  beauty  and  power  in  literature ;  the  two  latter  belong 
to  an  entirely  different  class.  They  are  typical  specimens  of  Ori- 
ental poems,  as  any  one  who  has  read  an  Arab  poet's  description 
of  his  camel  or  horse  will  feel.  These  poets  do  not  paint  a  picture 
of  the  object  for  the  eye,  they  schedule  an  inventory  of  its  juarts 
and  properties."  - 

(6)  A  fine  use  of  the  argiunent  from  style  is  given  by  Bishop 
Westcott  in  reference  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews :  "  The  style 
is  even  more  characteristic  of  a  practised  scholar  than  the  vocabu- 
lary. It  would  be  difiicult  to  find  anywhere  passages  more  exact 
and  pregnant  in  expression  than  1^"*,  2'*-'*,  7^^,  12'*"^.  The  lan- 
guage, the  order,  the  rhythm,  the  parenthetical  involutions,  all 
contribute  to  the  total  effect.  The  writing  shews  everywhere 
traces  of  effort  and  care.  In  many  respects  it  is  not  unlike  that 
of  the  Book  of  "Wisdom,  but  it  is  nowhere  marred  by  the  restless 
striving  after  effect  which  not  unfrequently  injures  the  beauty  of 
that  masterpiece  of  Alexandrine  Greek.  The  calculated  force  of 
the  periods  is  sharply  distinguished  from  the  impetuous  eloquence 
of  Saint  Paul.  The  author  is  never  carried  away  by  his  thoughts. 
He  has  seen  and  measured  all  that  he  desires  to  convey  to  his 

I  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  edition,  pp.  74,  75. 
-  Tne  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges.   Davidson,  The  Book  of  Job, 
p.  liv. 


302  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

readers  before  he  begins  to  write.  In  writing  lie  has,  like  an  ar- 
tist, simply  to  give  life  to  the  model  which  he  has  already  com- 
pletely fashioned.  This  is  true  even  of  the  noblest  rhetorical 
passages,  such  as  chapter  11.  Each  element,  which  seems  at  first 
sight  to  offer  itself  spontaneously,  will  be  found  to  have  been 
carefully  adjusted  to  its  place,  and  to  offer  in  subtle  details  re- 
sults of  deep  thought,  so  expressed  as  to  leave  the  simplicity  and 
freshness  of  the  whole  perfectly  unimpaired.  For  this  reason  there 
is  perhaps  uo  Book  of  Scripture  in  which  the  student  may  hope 
more  confidently  to  enter  into  the  mind  of  the  author  if  he  yields 
himself  with  absolute  trust  to  his  words.  No  Book  represents  with 
equal  clearness  the  mature  conclusions  of  human  reflection.  .  .  . 
Some  differences  in  style  between  the  Epistle  and  the  writings  of 
Saint  Paul  have  been  already  noticed.  A  more  detailed  inquiry 
shews  that  these  cannot  be  adequately  explained  by  differences 
of  subject  or  of  circumstances.  They  characterize  two  men,  and 
not  only  two  moods  or  two  discussions.  The  student  will  feel  the 
subtle  force  of  the  contrast  if  he  compares  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  to  which  it  has 
the  closest  affinity.  But  it  is  as  difficult  to  represent  the  contrast 
by  an  enumeration  of  details  as  it  is  to  analyse  an  effect.  It  must 
be  felt  for  a  right  appreciation  of  its  force."  ^ 

III.   The  Evidence  of  Opinion 

The  third  great  test  of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  the  e^'i- 
dence  from  doctrine,  opinion,  and  point  of  view.  Differences 
of  opinion  and  conception  imply  difference  of  author,  when 
these  are  sufficiently  great,  and  also  difference  of  period  of 
composition. 

(a)  There  is  a  different  conception  of  theophanies  in  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Hexateuch. 

E  narrates  frequent  appearances  of  the  theophanic  angel  of 
Elohim.  J  reports  appearances  of  the  theophanic  angel  of  Yalnceh. 
These  theophanic  appearances  are  mentioned  in  the  Ephraimitic 
and  Judaic  documents  of  the  prophetic  histories.  ■  But  neither  D 
nor  P  knows  of  such  a  theophanic  angel.  When  God  reveals 
Himself,  in  the  Ephraimitic  documents.  He  speaks  to  Moses  face 
to  face,  and  Moses  sees  the  form  of  God  in  the  pillar  of  God 
standing  at  the  door  of  his  tent.  In  the  great  theophanj-  granted 
to  Moses  in  the  Judaic  document  Ex.  23**"'",  Moses  is  permitted 

1  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  1889,  pp.  xlvi,  xlvii,  Ixxvii. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  303 

only  to  see  the  departing  form  of  God,  and  it  is  represented  that 
it  would  be  death  to  see  God's  face.  In  Deuteronomy  it  is  said 
that  the  voice  of  God  was  heard,  but  His  form  was  not  seen.  In 
the  priestly  document  it  is  the  light  and  lire  of  the  glory  of  God 
which  always  constitutes  the  theophany.  How  was  it  possible 
for  the  same  author  to  give  four  such  diiierent  accoimts  of  the 
methods  of  God's  appearance  to  Moses  and  the  people  ? ' 

(6)  There  is  a  difference  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
between  Isaiah  and  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  Isaiah  is  still  the  ancient 
doctrine,  which  conceives  of  it  as  an  energy  of  God  coming  espe- 
ciall}'  on  heroic  leaders  of  the  people.  It  was  to  be  poured  upon 
the  Messianic  King  to  endow  him  with  the  sevenfold  endowment 
for  his  reign  of  peace.  Is.  11" ;  and  without  guidance  b}'  the  Divine 
Spirit  apostate  children  add  sin  to  sin,  30' ;  but  in  the  Great  Un- 
known the  doctrine  reaches  a  height  which  has  no  parallel  except 
in  the  late  139th  Psalm.  The  Divine  Spirit  endows  the  Messianic 
Servant  in  42',  61',  and  will  revive  the  nation,  44' ;  it  accompanies 
the  ministry  of  the  prophets,  48'".  But  in  Cha^Jter  63'"  the  Spirit 
is  named  the  Holy  Spirit,  an  epithet  used  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament  only  in  Ps.  oV\  It  is  personified  beyond  any  other 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  represented  that  He  was 
grieved  by  the  rebellion  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  that 
He  led  them  in  their  journeys  to  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  He  was 
in  the  midst  of  them.  Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  is  assigned  the  work 
of  the  theophanic  angel  of  the  historical  narrative  of  JE,  and 
especially  as  bearing  with  Him  the  Divine  face  or  presence  as 
in  the  document  J.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  associated  with  the 
theophanic  angel  here,  just  as  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  Proverbs, 
first  chapter,  the  Divine  Spirit  and  the  Divine  Wisdom  are  asso- 
ciated. This  conception  of  the  Divine  Spirit  shows  a  marked 
advance,  not  only_beyond  Isaiah,  but  also  beyond  Ezekiel." 

(c)  In  the  book  of  Eevelation  there  are  different  and  distinct 
conceptions  of  the  Messiah  in  the  several  apocalj-pses.  The  ear- 
liest of  the  apocalypses  seems  to  me  to  be  the  Apocalypse  of  the 
Beasts,  which  presents  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  of  Ps.  110, 
and  which  seems  to  have  been  composed  in  the  reign  of  Caligula. 
The  second  of  the  apocalj-pses  was  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Dragon, 
which  cannot  be  much  later  in  time.  It  presents  the  Messiah  of 
Ps.  2.     These  apocalypses  were  possibly  combined  before  they 

1  Briggs.  Hirjher  Ci-itifisyn  of  thf  Hexatencli,  new  edition,  1807,  pp.  146,  147. 
-  The  Defence  of  Professor  Briggs,  before  the  Fresh,  of  New  York,  189.3, 
p.  1.39. 


30-4  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

were  incorporated  with  the  apocalypses  of  the  Sevens.  But  I 
cannot  see  any  decided  evidence  of  it.  The  earliest  of  the  apocar 
lypses  of  the  Sevens  seems  to  be  that  of  the  Trumpets,  whose 
Messiah  is  the  Son  of  Man  on  the  clouds  of  the  apocalj'pses  of 
Daniel  and  Enoch.  I  do  not  see  any  clear  evidence  of  date.  The 
next  of  these  was  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Seals.  The  Messiah  of 
this  Vision  is  the  Lion  of  Judah,  and  the  Lamb  who  purchased 
men  by  his  blood.  The  Apocalypse  of  the  Bowls  presupposes 
both  the  Apocalypse  of  the  Trumpets  and  the  Apocalypse  of  the 
Seals,  and  must  be  somewhat  later.  Its  ^Messiah  is  the  Lamb,  but 
especially  as  the  husband  of  the  Holj^  City,  his  bride.  In  its 
original  form  it  seems  to  date  from  the  reign  of  Galba.' 


IV.    The  Evidence  from  Citations 

Citations    show   the    dependence    of    the   author    upon   the 
author  or  authors  cited.     A  few  examples  will  suffice  : 

(o)  In  the  Psalter  Pss.  35^^^,  40'^'*,  70  are  essentially  the  same. 
The  problem  is  to  arrange  these  Psalms  in  their  order  of  depend- 
ence by  citation.  Psalm  35  has  in  its  title  simply  ''  belonging  to 
David " ; "  that  is,  it  was  in  the  original  Minor  Davidic  Psalter. 
Psalm  40  besides  "belonging  to  David"  is  classed  as  a  Mizmor,^  and 
was  in  the  Director's  Major  Psalter.  Psalm  70  has  "  belonging  to 
David,"  was  in  the  Director's  Psalter,  and  besides  has  a  liturgical 
assignment.*  From  these  circumstances  the  probabilities  are  in 
favour  of  the  order  35,  40,  70.  Psalm  35  is  composed  of  seven 
strophes  of  five  pentameter  lines  each.  Verses  '^^  constitute  the 
last  of  these  strophes.  Psalm  40'^'*  has  an  additional  line  at  the 
beginning  and  two  concluding  lines,  making  thus  the  last  seven 
lines  of  a  strophe  of  ten  pentameter  lines.  PS;dm  70  is  equivalent 
to  Ps.  40'^'*.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ps.  70  is  a  liturgical 
extract  from  Ps.  40.  It  is  possible  to  think  that  Ps.  35^°'  might 
be  a  liturgical  addition.  But  its  originality  is  favoured  by  the 
fact  that  the  language,  style,  and  spirit  of  this  strophe  are  similar 
to  those  of  the  opening  strophe  of  the  Psalm.  There  is,  however, 
an  awkward  break,  and  the  transition  is  not  easy  between  Ps.  40" 
and  40'*.     These  considerations  favour  the  order  35,  40,  70. 

(b)  Ruth  2'-  cites  in  the  midst  of  the  prose  narrative  a  bit  of 
poetry  : 

'  Briggs.  The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895,  p.  304. 


THE   rUACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  305 

May  Tahweli  recompense  thy  doing ; 
And  may  thy  reward  be  ample  from  Yahweh, 
The  God  of  Israel  to  whom  thou  art  come, 
To  take  refuge  under  His  wings. 

The  last  liue  of  this  extract  is  from  Fs.  91* : 

And  under  His  wings  shall  thou  take  refuge. 

The  exact  words '  are  fouud  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament, 
although  the  idea  of  seeking  refuge  under  the  wings  of  Yahweh 
is  a  favourite  idea  of  post>exilic  psalmists.  This  extract  from  a 
post-exilic  Psalm  shows  that  the  book  of  Ruth  is  post-exilic  also. 

(f)  Jonah  2-"'  contains  a  Psalm.  This  Psalm  has  two  coiuplete 
strophes  concluding  each  with  a  refrain.  These  are  followed  by 
a  half  strophe  without  a  refrain.  This  shows  that  the  praj-er  is 
onlj^  part  of  a  longer  Psalm  that  was  complete  and  symmetrical. 
The  prayer  is  also  a  mosaic  from  several  older  Psalms.-  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  Psalm  of  Jonah  ijresupposes  all  these 
earlier  Psalms,  and  that  the  Psalm  is  also  presupposed  by  the 
book  of  Jonah,  which  uses  only  jjart  of  it.  The  only  ciuestion 
which  remains  is  whether  the  Psalm  was  originallj-  used  by 
the  author  or  was  a  subsequent  insertion.  If  it  was  used  by  the 
author,  the  book  must  have  been  written  some  time  after  the 
restoration. 

{d)  We  have  in  the  Gospels  a  large  number  of  parallel  passages. 
It  is  now  agreed  that  both  ^Matthew  and  Luke  cite  from  the  ori- 
ginal Mark.  The  words  of  Jesus  respecting  His  kindred  may  be 
taken  as  an  example.     The  original  narrative  is  Mk.  3^'"*'. 

"  And  there  came  his  mother  and  his  brethren,  and,  standing 
without,  they  sent  unto  him,  calling  him.  And  a  multitude  was 
sitting  about  him;  and  they  say  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother 
and  thy  brethren  (and  thy  sisters,  well  sustained  A  D  E  F  H,  etc., 
Tisch.,  W.  H.,  margin)  without  seek  for  thee." 

Matthew  12**^'  gives  substantially  the  same,  but  varies  the  order 
of  the  sentences,  and  the  construction,  and  condenses.  "  While 
he  was  yet  speaking  to  the  multitudes,  behold  his  mother  and  his 
brethren  stood  without,  seeking  to  speak  to  him.  [And  one  said 
unto  him.  Behold,  thy  mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without, 
seeking  to  speak  to  thee.]  "  This  clause,  bracketed  by  Tisch., 
thrown  into  the  margin  by  W.  H.,  doubtless  is  a  later  insertion  in 
the  text,  ilatthew  interprets  the  object  of  the  seeking  as  to 
"  speak  to  him." 

1  ^"E32  pnn  ncn. 

2  Pss.  18*-',  .3123,  429,  692  .  pt.  322'. 


306  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Luke  8'*"^  also  condenses : 

"  And  there  came  to  him  his  mother  and  brethren,  and  they 
could  not  come  at  him  for  the  crowd.  And  it  was  told  him,  Thy 
mother  and  thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  see  thee." 
Luke  interprets  the  object  of  the  desire  as  "to  see  thee,"  and  he 
interprets  the  multitude  sitting  about  him  as  "  the  crowd."  Both 
Matthew  and  Luke  omit  the  reference  to  the  sisters,  which  prob- 
ably, through  their  influence,  disappeared  from  the  common  text 
of  Mark  also. 

Mark  3^*^  continues  thus  : 

''  And  he  answereth  them,  and  saith.  Who  is  my  mother  and  my 
brethren  ?  And  looking  round  on  them  which  sat  round  about 
him,  he  saith : 

"  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren  I 
For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God, 
The  same  is  my  brother  and  sister  and  mother." 

This  is  given  by  Mt.  12**-": 

"  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  him  that  told  him,  Who  is  my 
mother,  and  who  are  my  bretluen  ?  And  he  stretched  forth  his 
hand  towards  his  disciples  and  said : 

"  Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethren  I 
For  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  father  which  is  in  heaven, 
He  is  my  brother  and  sister  and  mother." 

This  is  then  given  by  Lk.  8-'  in  a  condensed  form  : 
''  But  he  answered  and  said  unto  them,  My  mother   and   my 
brethren  are  these  which  hear  the  word  of  God  and  do  it." 

Matthew  interprets  those  "  round  about  him  "  as  his  "  disciples," 
and  substitutes  for  the  "looking  round  on  them"  of  Mark,  "he 
stretched  forth  his  hand  towards "  them.  The  logion  is  the 
same,  except  that  Matthew  substitutes  here,  as  usual,  "  my  Father 
which  is  in  Heaven"  for  "God."  Ltike  verifies  the  original  as 
"  God."  Luke  condenses  the  logion  into  a  prose  sentence,  but  en- 
larges "  do  the  will  of  God  "  into  "  hear  the  word  of  God  and  do 
it,"  which  is  characteristic  of  Luke,  but  certainly  was  not  ori- 
ginal.    Li  all  respects  the  originality  of  Mark  is  assured. 


V.   The  Evidence  of  Testimony 

The  argument  from  testimony  is  so  evident,  that  illustrations 
seem  to  be  unnecessary.  In  direct  testimony  it  may  suffice  to 
refer  to  Jer.  26'^.     "  Micaiali  the  Moraslitite  prophesied  in  the 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM  307 

days  of  Hezekiah,  King  of  Juclah,  and  he  spake  to  all  the  people 
of  Judah,  saying.  Thus  saith  Yahweh  Sabaoth  : 

"  Zion  shall  be  plowed  as  a  field, 
And  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps, 
And  the  mountain  of  the  house  as  the  high  places  of  a  forest." 

This  is  a  direct  testimony  to  the  authorship  and  date  and 
historical  circumstances  of  ili.  3^^.  It  is  seldom  that  we  have 
such  direct  testimony.  Usually  when  there  is  any  testimony, 
it  is  indirect,  as  in  2  Pet.  3^''.  where  there  is  an  equivocal  refer- 
ence to  the  epistles  of  ISaint  Paul. 


VI.   The  ARGtrsiENT  feom  Silence 

The  argument  from  silence  is  of  great  importance  in  the 
Higher  Criticism  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  first  thing  to  de- 
termine in  reference  to  this  argument,  is  whether  the  matter 
in  question  came  fairly  within  the  scope  of  the  author's  argu- 
ment. ^ 

1.  Sometimes  the  matter  did  not  come  tidtliin  the  author's 
scope  at  all.  He  had  no  occasion  to  refer  to  it,  and  therefore 
no  evidence  can  be  gained  from  his  silence.  The  author  of  the 
Praise  of  Wisdom,  Prov.  1-9,  does  not  refer  to  the  institutions 
of  the  priest  code.  He  had  no  occasion  to  do  so.  His  purpose 
was  purely  ethical,  although  he  lived  in  a  period  when  the  en- 
tire system  of  the  priest  code  was  in  full  operation. 

2.  IJhe  matter  did  not  come  within  the  author^s  scope^  because 
there  were  good  reasons  u'hy  it  should  not.  There  is  an  absolute 
silence  in  all  the  Ephraimitic  and  Judaic  writers  and  prophets 
prior  to  Jeremiah  as  to  any  wrong  in  the  worshipping  of 
Yahweh  on  many  high  places.  They  constantly  mention  this 
worship,  never  censure  it,  but  aUude  to  it  as  the  proper  wor- 
ship, not  only  of  the  people  but  of  the  prophets  and  heroes 
of  the  nation.  This  kind  of  worship  must  have  had  something 
about  it  which  prevented  them  from  censuring  it.  It  must 
have  been  right  and  proper,  and  they  knew  of  no  legislation 
against  it. 

I  See  pp.  102  seq. 


808  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCHU'TUKE 

3.  The  matter  in  question  came  fairly  tvitliin  the  scope  of  the 
writer,  and  there  must  be  good  reasons  u<hy  it  ivas  not  mentioned. 

(o)  The  simplest  of  these  reasons  is,  that  the  omission  was  inten- 
tional. Thus  in  the  introduction  to  the  book  of  Job,'  the  author 
represents  Job  as  offering  up  whole  burnt  offerings  for  the  sup- 
posed sins  of  his  sous.  ^Vhy  were  the  sin  offerings  of  the  priest 
code  not  offered  ?  If  we  could  suppose,  with  many  of  the  older 
scholars,  that  Job  was  written  b}-  Closes  before  the  Law  was 
given,  the  omission  would  be  explained  as  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  law  of  the  sin  offering.  The  same  might  be 
true  if  we  thought  the  book  of  Job  written  before  the  priest  code 
came  into  operation  after  the  exile.  But  if  we  hold  that  the  book 
of  Job  is  post-exilic,  then  the  omission  of  the  reference  to  the  sin 
offering  was  intentional,  namely,  because  he  wished  to  put  his  hero 
in  the  patriarchal  state  of  society,  entirely  apart  from  the  institu- 
tions of  Israel.  There  is  indeed  an  apparent  incongruity  between 
the  highly  developed  ethical  sense  of  one  who  feared  lest  his  sons 
sinned  in  their  viinds,  and  the  offering  for  their  sins  the  j^'lmitive 
whole  burnt  offerings. 

(b)  The  omission  of  reference  to  the  sin  offering  in  Ps.  ~>1,  which 
is  a  penitential  Psalm,  and  which  mentions  the  sacrifices  of  whole 
liurnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  in- 
tentional. The  Psalm  gives  a  real  experience  of  the  time  of  the 
author,  and  it  is  improbable  that  he  woidd  omit  the  sin  offering, 
if  it  were  then  used  in  connection  with  the  confession  of  sin  in 
order  to  its  removal.  It  seems  altogether  likely,  therefore,  that 
Ps.  51  was  written  before  the  sin  offering  of  the  priest  code  was 
enforced  in  the  ritual  of  worship. 

4.  Where  a  matter  is  absent  from  an  entire  range  of  litera- 
ture prior  to  a  certain  period,  it  is  evident  that  the  matter  did 
not  constitute  a  part  of  public  knowledge,  and,  if  known  at  all, 
must  have  been  known  to  but  few.  A  careful  study  of  all  the 
ethical  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  convinces  me  tliat  there 
is  an  entire  absence  of  censure  of  the  sin  of. falsehood  until 
after  the  exile.  The  sin  of  false-witnessing  is  condemned  in 
the  Tables  ;  and  also  the  sin  of  falsehood,  so  far  as  it  is  con- 
nected with  rol)bery  and  murder,  is  frequently  and  severely 
scourged  in  the  Prophets.  But  they  seem  to  know  nothing 
of  the  sin  of  speaking  lies  as  such.     Wliat  is  the  evidence  from 

1  Job  1^ 


THE   PKACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CKITICISM  309 

their  silence?  They  were  altogether  unconscious  of  its  sinful- 
ness. The  holiest  men  did  not  hesitate  to  lie  whenever  thej- 
had  a  good  object  in  view,  and  they  showed  no  conscious- 
ness of  sin  in  it.  And  the  writers  who  tell  of  their  lies  are 
as  innocent  as  they.  The  evidence  from  this  silence  is  that 
the  Hebrews  did  not,  in  their  ethical  development,  reach  the 
understanding  of  the  sin  of  l3"ing  until  after  the  return  from 
exile,  and  then  largelj'  under  the  influence  of  Persian  ethics, 
which  from  the  earliest  times  made  truth-speaking  essential  to 
good  morals. 

These  are  examples  of  the  method  b}-  which  the  evidences  of 
the  Higher  Criticism  may  be  applied  to  Holy  Scrij)ture.  They 
are  constantly  applied  by  scholars  all  over  the  world,  in  all  the 
ranges  of  Biblical  Literature.  If  carefully  applied,  tested,  and 
verified,  they  lead  to  sure  results. 

We  have  next  to  present  the  results  of  this  evidence  with 
reference  to  the  great  problems  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 


VII.   The  Ixtegeity  of  the  ScRrpTXXRES 

The  first  questions  ■^•itli  reference  to  a  writing  are  :  (1)  Is 
it  the  product  of  one  mind  as  an  organic  Avhole ;  or  (2)  com- 
posed of  several  pieces  of  the  same  author  ;  or  (3)  is  it  a  col- 
lection of  writings  by  different  authors  ?  (4)  Has  it  retained 
its  original  integrity,  or  has  it  been  interpolated  ?  May  the 
interpolations  be  discriminated  from  the  original  ? 

1.  There  are  but  few  biblical  writings  which  can  be  regarded 
as  the  product  of  one  mind,  as  an  organic  whole.  And  few 
of  these  have  remained  without  interpolations  which  maj'  be 
easil}'  detected.  None  of  the  histoi'ical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  can  be  assigned  here.  The  only  prophetic 
writings  which  are  certainl}'  the  jiroducts  of  one  author  at  one 
time  are  Joel,  Jonah,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  and  Malachi.  Some 
miglit  add  Nahum ;  but  it  seems  evident  that  the  fii'st  part  of 
the  prophecy  is  an  alphabetical  poem,  which  had  been  greatly 
changed  before  it  was  prefixed  to  Nahum.  The  only  one  of 
the  writings  that  can  be  brought  under  tliis  class  is  the  Song 


310  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

of  Songs,  and  yet  many  recent  scholars  claim  that  it  is  com- 
posed of  a  number  of  separate  love  songs.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment all  the  epistles,  excepting  Romans '  and  1  Timothy,-  may 
be  regarded  as  having  few  if  any  interpolations  that  can  be 
certainly  detected,  although  not  a  few  critics  find  interpola- 
tions in  some  of  them.  There  are  a  number  of  other  writings 
in  which  interpolations  of  greater  or  less  importance  may  easily 
be  detected,  such  as  Ruth,  Esther,  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  Habakkuk, 
the  Ei^istle  to  the  Romans,  and  the  Gospel  of  Maxk.^ 

2.  There  are  several  collections  of  writings  by  the  same 
author.  Ezekiel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and  Lamentations* 
have  escaped  all  but  minor  interpolations.  Jeremiah  has 
passed  through  a  series  of  editings,  and  has  many  important 
interpolations.  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  each  give  a  collection  of 
judgments  against  the  enemies  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
prophecies  of  restoration  and  Messianic  felicity.  Ezekiel's 
name  covers  only  his  own  predictions.  To  Jeremiah  have 
been  appended  two  anonj'mous  chapters,  and  a  considerable 
amount  of  historical  material  has  been  inserted  bj'  the  several 
editors.  There  are  also  not  a  few  interpolations  in  the  Hebi'cw 
text  that  are  unknown  to  the  Greek  version. 

3.  The  twelve  Minor  Prophets  are  regarded  as  one  book  in 
most  of  the  ancient  Jewish  and  Christian  catalogues.  The 
JBaba  Bathra  represents  them  as  edited  by  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  after  the  exile. ^  Tliis  is  a  conjectui-e  without  his- 
torical evidence.  These  pi'ophets,  in  modern  times,  have  ordi- 
narily been  treated  separatel}*,  and  their  original  combination 
has  been  to  a  great  extent  forgotten.  Each  one  of  them  may 
be  tested  as  to  its  integrity.  The  only  one  about  which  there 
has  been  any  general  questioning  is  Zechariah.  The  eai'lier 
doubts  were  based  upon  Mt.  27',  which  ascribes  Zech.  12-13 
to  Jeremiah.''  If  that  passage  be  free  from  error,  the  section 
of  Zechariah  in  which  the  citation  is  contained  must  be  sepa- 
rated from  that  prophet  and  attached  to  the  prophecies  of  Jere- 

'  McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  275  seq.    See  also  pp.  315  seq.  of  this  volume. 
2  McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  405  seq. 
'See  pp.  314,  317. 

'  Some  scholars  regard  Lamentations  as  a  collection  of  dirges  by  different 
authors.  '  See  pp.  262  seq.  «  Sec  p.  250. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  311 

miah.  It  is  now  generally  conceded  that  this  cannot  be  done, 
and  that  the  evangelist  has  made  a  slip  of  memory  in  citation. 
The  integrity  of  Zechariah  has  been  disputed  in  recent  times 
from  literary  grounds.  Many  scholars  of  the  present  day  attrib- 
ute the  second  half  to  one  or  more  different  prophets.  Others, 
as  Wright  1  and  Delitzsch,- still  maintain  the  integrity  of  the 
book.  The  twelve  represent  different  periods  in  prophetic 
history*. 

Amos  is  the  simple  yet  grand  herald  of  all  the  prophets. 
Hosea,  the  great  prophet  of  the  northern  kingdom,  is  the  sweet- 
est and  tenderest,  the  most  humane  of  all.  Mieah  was  the  con- 
temporary and  co-worker  with  Isaiah.  These  three  represent 
the  earlier  prophets.  Next  comes  Nahum,  who  prophesied 
against  Nineveh.  The  associates  of  Jeremiah  in  the  age  of 
Josiah,  were  the  lesser  prophets,  Zephaniah  and  Habakkuk,  the 
great  theme  of  the  one  being  the  advent  of  Yahweh  in  judg- 
ment, of  the  other,  His  glorious  march  of  \dctory.  Obadiah 
probably  belongs  to  the  exile.  The  prophets  of  the  returned 
exiles  were  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  the  latter  the  chief  prophet 
of  the  restoration.  But  there  have  been  appended  to  Zechariah, 
by  the  editors  of  the  Prophetic  Canon,  two  other  predictions,  — 
one  of  the  time  of  Hezekiah,*  the  other  of  a  much  later  time 
than  Zechariah.  The  date  of  Malachi,  as  indeed  his  name,  is 
quite  uncertain,  but  he  was  not  earlier  than  Nehemiah  and  may 
have  been  later,  in  the  Persian  period.  There  remain  to  be  con- 
sidered two  of  the  prophets,  which  are  in  some  respects  most 
difficult  of  all.  Joel  used  to  be  regarded  as  the  earliest  of  the 
prophets ;  he  is  now  commonly  considered  one  of  the  latest. 
We  have  no  knowledge  of  the  prophet  apart  from  his  writings, 
and  the  contents  of  these  seem,  on  the  whole,  to  favour  a  date 
subsequent  to  Zechariah.  Jonah  differs  from  aU  the  INIinor 
Prophets,  in  being  narrative  rather  than  teaching.  Jonah  is 
among  the  prophets  because  of  the  prophetic  lesson  which  the 


■  Zechariah  and  his  Prophecies,  considered  in  Relation  to  Modern  Criticism, 
Bampton  Lectures,  1878,  London,  1879,  p.  sxx^'. 

2  Messianic  Prophecies,  translated  bv  S.  I.  Curtiss,  Edin.,  1881. 

'Some  scholars  think  this  also  is  post-exilic,  and  others  that  pre-exilic 
material  has  been  worked  over  by  a  very  late  prophet. 


312  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Story  unfolds.  The  stun"  is  as  ideal  as  any  of  the  symbols  in 
the  other  prophetic  writings.  ^ 

The  book  of  Proverbs  is  represented  by  the  Baha  Bathra^  as 
edited  by  the  college  of  Hezekiah.  This  is  based  upon  a  con- 
jecture founded  on  Proverbs  25.  It  has  also  been  held  that 
it  was  edited  by  Solomon  himself,  and  indeed  that  Solomon 
was  the  author  of  the  whole.  It  is  now  generally  agreed  that 
the  book  is  made  up  of  several  collections,  and  that  it  has 
passed  through  the  hands  of  a  number  of  editors  at  different 
times.  ^ 

There  are  two  great  collections  of  sentences  of  wisdom,  rep- 
resenting different  pei-iods  of  time  and  different  conceptions 
of  wisdom,  the  earlier  gi%-ing  37G  couplets,  with  2  ajDpeudices 
containing  13  pieces  of  varj-ing  length  from  2  to  10  lines 
each  ;  the  latter  gi\'ing  115  couplets  and  12  pieces  of  varying 
length,  not  exceeding  10  lines.*  There  is  an  introductory 
Praise  of  Wisdom,  in  the  first  9  chapters,  wliich  is  a  great 
poem  of  wisdom.  There  are  two  concluding  chapters  in 
which  the  pieces  are  of  a  later  and  more  miscellaneous  char- 
acter. There  are  ascribed  to  Agur,  2  pieces  of  10  lines  and 
one  of  15.  Under  Aluqah  is  a  collection  of  8  pieces,  4  of 
which  are  riddles.^  Under  Lemuel®  is  given  a  temperance 
poem  of  18  lines.  The  book  concludes  with  an  alphabetical 
poem  in  praise  of  a  talented  wife,  which  is  well  named  by 
Doderleiu,  the  golden  A  B  C  of  women. ' 

The  Psalter  is  composed  of  150  Psalms  in  five  books.  The 
Baha  Bathra^  makes  David  the  editor,  and  states  that  he  used 
with  his  own  Psalms  those  of  ten  ancient  worthies.  It  has  been 
held  by  some  that  David  wrote  all  the  Psalms.®  Calvin,  Du 
Pin,  and  others,  make  Ezra  the  editor.  ^^  It  is  now  generally 
agreed  that  the  Psalm-book  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  collec- 
tions, and,  like  the    book  of  Proverbs,  has  passed  through  a 

'  See  pp.  .345  seq.  -  Sec  p.  2o2. 

«  Delitzsch,  Bih.  Com.  on  the  Proverbs,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edin.,  1874  ;  Zockler 
in  Lange,  Bibleioork.  Com.  on  the  Proverbs,  N.Y.,  18T0. 
4  See  p.  .388.  »  See  p.  417. 

•  See  p.  418.  '  See  p.  383. 

»  See  p.  252.  »  See  p.  262. 

>»  See  pp.  247.  277. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM  313 

number  of  editings.  Some  have  thought  it  to  be  the  Psahu- 
book  of  the  first  temple.  Others,  and  indeed  most  moderns, 
tliink  that  it  was  edited  in  its  present  form  for  the  second 
temple.  1  Griitz  thinks  that  the  Psalter  was  finally  edited  for 
the  worship  of  the  sj-nagogue.^ 

Isaiah  is  represented  by  the  Baha  Bathra  as  edited  by  the 
college  of  Hezekiah.2  Its  integrity  was  disputed  by  Koppe,* 
who  maintained  that  it  was  a  collection  of  pieces  of  various 
prophets  loosely  associated.  It  is  generally  held  that  the  first 
half  of  Isaiah  is  composed  of  groups  of  prophecies  gathered  about 
those  of  Isaiah  as  a  nucleus,  and  tliat  the  second  half,  40-613, 
is  by  an  unknown  prophet  of  the  exile. ^ 

More  recent  investigation  makes  it  evident  that  Isaiah  was 
enlarged  to  be  about  the  same  size  as  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the 
Twelve,  by  appending  a  number  of  anonymous  prophecies. 
Tlie  chief  of  these  is  the  great  Book  of  Comfort,  Is.  40-66, 
which  reflects  for  the  most  part  the  situation  of  the  exile.  It 
itself  appeared  in  three  successive  editions,  with  different 
themes  and  different  measiu-es  of  poetry,  and  did  not  assume 
its  final  form  until  after  the  restoration,  and  even  then  did 
not  escape  subsequent  interpolation.*  This  Book  of  Comfort  is 
separated  from  the  earlier  collections  of  prophecies  by  an  his- 
torical section,  86-39,  which  has  been  taken  from  the  book  of 
Kings  and  attached  to  the  earlier  collection.  The  earlier  col- 
lection is  also  composite.  The  great  apocalypse,  24-27,  be- 
longs to  the  time  of  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
There  are  not  a  few  other  exilic  and  post-exilic  anonymous 
prophecies,  such  as  12, 13^-1423,  32-35.  There  are  earlier  proph- 
ecies used,  such  as  in  22"^,  15-10^2,  and  there  are  numerous 
interpolations  by  the  successive  editors  even  in  the  genuine 
original  prophecies  of  Isaiah." 

1  Perowne,  Book  of  Psalms,  2d  ed.,  London.  1870,  p.  78  ;  3d  ed.,  Andover, 
187(5,  p.  03  ;  Murray,  Lectures  on  the  Oriyin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalms,  N.Y., 
1880.  -  Com.  zu.  d.  Psalmen,  I.  pp.  62  seq.    See  p.  321. 

>  See  p.  252.  *  See  p.  279. 

6  Ewald,  Die  Propheten,  Gottlngen,  1868,  2te  Ausg.,  III.  pp.  20  seq.;  De- 
litzsch,  Messianic  Prophecies,  1881,  p.  84  ;  Cheyne,  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  1881, 
II.  pp.  201  seq.  ;  Cross,  Introductory  Hints  to  English  Headers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, London,  1882,  p.  238.  «  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  pp.  337  seq. 

'  Cheyne,  Introduction  to  the  Book  nf  Isaiah,  1895. 


314  STUDY   or   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

It  is  evident,  also,  that  the  genealogical  section,  Ruth  •41''"^, 
was  appended  to  the  story  of  Ruth.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
story  as  such  that  looks  for  such  an  ending.  The  story  natu- 
rally comes  to  an  end  with  the  birth  and  naming  of  Obed,  4i"°-'. 

The  Psalm  Hab.  3  is  commonly  regarded  bj"  modern  critics 
as  a  later  insertion.  It  has  a  title,  like  man}'  of  the  Psalms, 
"Prayer  of  Habakkuk,  the  Prophet,  upon  Stringed  Instru- 
ments," 1  and  a  subscription  ascribing  it  to  the  director.^  It 
also  has  the  selah^  characteristic  of  the  Psalter.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  this  Psalm  was  originally  in  the  Director's  ]Major 
Psalter  before  it  was  attached  to  tlie  prophet  Habakkuk,  and 
while  in  that  Psalter  received  the  musical  assignment,  and  also 
the  ascription  to  Habakkuk.  It  was  because  of  that  tradi- 
tional ascription  that  it  came  at  last  to  be  appended  to  the 
jjrophecy  of  Habakkuk.  The  Psalm  in  its  present  form  implies 
earlier  Psalms.  The  last  verses,  17-19,  seem  to  have  been 
added  to  the  original  Psalm  for  purely  liturgical  reasons.  The 
original  Psalm  in  verses  10  seq.  resembles  so  greatly  Ps.  77^'"^^ 
that  we  must  infer  a  use  of  one  by  the  other.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  Ps.  77  uses  the  Psalm  of  Habakkuk,  for  it  is 
itself  a  mosaic  of  three  original  separate  Psabus  or  parts  of 
Psalms.* 

4.  There  are  interpolations  in  the  Septuagint  version  in  con- 
nection with  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  and  Esther.  They  are  also 
found  in  the  New  Testament  by  the  general  consent  of  scholars, 
— in  Mk.  16*-*^',  5  in  the  Gospel  of  John  T»3-8ii,6  iu  the  famous 
passage  of  the  heavenl)^  witnesses,  the  First  Epistle  of  John  5', 
and  elsewhere.  We  have  seen  that  many  scholars  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  found  such  interpolations  in 
the  Pentateuch."  They  are  found  by  scholars  in  other  books  of 
the  Bible. 

1  n'i'JP  hv  of  Hebrew  text  is  doubtless  an  error  for  r""33.'?IJ  of  the  Sept. 
So  the  subscription  "nj'MS  is  a  mistake  for  m;":3  of  the  Sept. 

2  ns:D'r.  8  ver.  3^  9.  13. 

*  "T^-*  is  a  seven-lineil  trimeter  ;  77"-i<'  has  two  twelve-lined  trimeters  ;  and 
7717-21  i3  a  fourteen-lined  trimeter.  This  last  piece  is  in  itself  incomplete.  It 
was  partly  taken  from  the  Psalm  of  Habakkuk.  and  condensed  and  otherwise 
modified. 

^  See  the  marginal  note  of  the  revisers  in  the  Revised  Version  of  1881. 

6  Bracketed  in  the  Revised  Version  of  1881.  '  See  p.  276. 


THE  PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM  315 

In  the  New  Testament,  in  addition  to  the  passages  already 
cited,  one  more  may  suliice.  Dr.  McGiffert  explains  the  addi- 
tions to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  thus : 

"The  brief  note  of  introduction  referred  to  throws  more  light 
than  any  of  the  other  sources  upon  the  life  of  the  Ephesian 
church.  It  is  found  in  Rom.  1()'"^.  That  that  passage  did  not 
constitute  originally  a  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  seems 
plain  enough.  It  is  inconceivable  that  Paul,  who  had  never  been 
in  Rome  when  he  wrote  his  epistle,  should  not  only  know  per- 
sonally so  many  members  of  the  Roman  church,  but  should  also 
be  intimately  acquainted  with  their  situation  and  surroundings. 
There  is  far  less  of  the  personal  element  in  the  remainder  of  the 
epistle  than  in  most  of  Paul's  letters,  and  yet  in  this  single  six- 
teenth chapter  more  persons  are  greeted  by  name  than  in  all  his 
other  epistles  combined,  and  the  way  in  which  he  refers  to  them 
shows  a  remarkable  familiarity  with  local  conditions  in  the  church 
to  which  he  is  writing.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  comes  to  a 
fitting  close  at  the  end  of  chapter  fifteen,  and  the  disordered  state 
of  the  text  in  the  latter  part  of  the  epistle,  and  the  repetitions  and 
displacements  of  the  doxologies  in  some  of  the  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts, suggests  that  one  or  more  additions  have  been  made  to  the 
original  letter.  On  the  other  hand,  while  the  chapter  in  question 
seems  entirely  out  of  place  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  church  of 
Rome,  it  contains  just  such  greetings,  and  just  such  a  wealth  of 
personal  allusions,  as  might  be  expected  in  an  epistle  sent  to  Ephe- 
sus,  where  Paul  labored  so  long  and  zealously.  There  are  to  be 
found  in  it,  moreover,  certain  specific  references  that  point  to 
Ephesus  as  the  place  of  its  destination.  Among  those  to  whom 
Paul  sends  salutations  are  Epsenetus,  the  "first  fruits  of  Asia," 
and  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  whom  he  calls  his  fellow-workers,  and 
who,  as  we  know,  labored  with  him  in  Ephesus  diu-ing  at  least 
the  greater  part  of  his  stay  in  the  city.  He  refers  to  the  church 
in  their  house  both  in  this  chapter  and  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  which  was  written  at  Ephesus.  Among  those  who 
join  Paul  in  sending  greetings  are  Timothy  and  Erastus,  both  of 
whom  were  with  him  in  Ephesus.  It  is  clear  also  from  1  Cor.  1"^ 
and  16""'-  that  the  intercourse  between  the  Christians  of  Ephesus 
and  of  Corinth  was  close  and  constant,  and  it  is  therefore  not  sur- 
prising that  there  should  be  others  in  the  latter  city  at  the  time 
Paul  wrote  who  were  personally  known  to  the  Ephesian  disciples. 
Finally,  it  should  be  observed  that  Raid's  references  to  the  fact 
that  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  laid  down  their  necks  in  his  behalf, 
and  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  been  his  fellow-prisoners,  — 


316  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

references  which  seem  to  recall  events  well  known  to  the  Chris- 
tians to  whom  he  was  writing,  —  point  to  dangers  and  suiferings 
similar  to  those  we  know  he  was  called  upon  to  face  in  Ephesus. 
In  the  light  of  such  facts  as  these  it  is  altogether  probable  that 
we  have  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Romans  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  Ephesian  church.  It  is  possible  that  it  is  only  part  of  a 
larger  epistle  now  lost,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  we  have  it  prac- 
tically complete  and  in  its  original  form.  Just  as  it  stands  it 
constitutes  an  appropriate  note  of  introduction  and  commendation, 
and  there  is  no  sign  that  it  is  merelj'  a  fragment.  That  it  should 
have  been  attached  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not  particu- 
larly surprising.  It  was  evidently  written  from  Corinth,  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  was,  and  at  about  the  same  time  with  that 
epistle.  It  may  have  been  transcribed  also  by  the  same  hand, 
and  in  that  case  nothing  would  be  more  natural  than  that  the 
smaller  should  become  attached  to  the  larger  in  copies  of  the  two 
taken  in  Corinth  at  the  time  they  were  written." ' 

Bishop  Perowne  gives  this  testimony  as  regards  the  Psalter: 
"It  is  plain  that  these  ancient  Hebrew  songs  and  hymns  must 
have  suffered  a  variety  of  changes  in  the  course  of  time,  similar 
to  those  which  maj'  be  traced  in  the  older  religious  poetry  of  the 
Christian  Church,  where  this  has  been  adapted  by  any  means  to 
the  object  of  some  later  compiler.  Thus,  hymns  once  intended  for 
private  use  became  adapted  to  public.  "Words  and  expressions 
applicable  to  the  original  circumstances  of  the  writer,  but  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  new  purpose  to  which  the  hymn  was  to  be  put,  were 
omitted  or  altered.  It  is  onh-  in  a  critical  age  that  any  anxiety 
is  manifested  to  ascertain  the  original  form  in  which  a  poem  ap- 
peared. The  practical  use  of  hymns  in  the  Christian  Church,  and 
of  the  Psalms  in  the  Jewish,  far  outweighed  all  considerations  of 
a  critical  kind,  or  rather  these  last  never  occurred.  Hence  it  has 
become  a  more  difficult  task  than  it  otherwise  would  have  been 
to  ascertain  the  historical  circumstances  under  which  certain 
Psalms  were  written.  Some  traces  we  find  leading  us  to  one  period 
of  Jewish  histor}- ;  others  which  lead  to  another.  Often  there  is 
a  want  of  cohesion  between  the  parts  of  a  Psalm ;  often  an  abrupt^ 
ness  of  transition  which  we  can  hardly  account  for,  except  on  the 
hypothesis  that  we  no  longer  read  the  Psalm  in  its  original  form."  - 

All  these  questions  are  to  be  determined  b}^  the  principles  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.     The  authority  of  the  Bible  does   not 
depend  upon  the  integrity  of  particular  writings.     If  the  edit- 
1  McGiffert,  The  Apostolic  Age,  1897,  pp.  276-277.  »  In  I.e.,  p.  82. 


THE   I'RACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  317 

ing  and  interpolating  were  done  under  the  influence  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  this  carries  with  it  the  same  authority  as  the 
original  document.  If  the  interpolations  are  of  a  different 
character,  such  as  are  found  to  be  the  case  in  some  at  least  of 
the  apocryphal  additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther,  they  should  be 
removed  from  the  Bible.  If  the  authority  of  the  Bible  depended 
upon  our  first  finding  who  wrote  these  interpolations  and  who 
edited  the  books,  and  whether  these  interpolators  and  editors 
were  inspired  men,  we  could  never  reach  conviction  as  to  many 
of  them.  But  inasmuch  as  the  authority  of  the  Bible  depends 
not  upon  this  literary  question  of  integrity  of  writing,  but  upon 
the  Word  of  God  recognized  in  the  writing ;  and  we  prove  the 
inspiration  of  the  authors  from  the  authority  of  the  writings 
rather  than  the  authority  of  the  writings  from  the  inspiration 
of  the  authors,  —  the  authority  of  the  Bible  is  not  disturbed  by 
any  changes  in  traditional  opinion  as  to  these  writings.  The 
only  question  of  integrity  with  which  inspiration  has  to  do  is 
the  integrity'  of  the  Canon,  whether  the  interpolations,  the  sepa- 
rate parts,  the  writings  as  a  whole,  are  real  and  necessary  parts 
of  the  system  of  divine  revelation  —  whether  they  contain  the 
Divine  Word.  This  can  never  be  determined  by  the  Higher 
Criticism,  which  has  to  do  only  with  literary  integrity  and  not 
with  canonical  integrity.  AVe  doubt  not  the  canonicity  of  Mk. 
16""^,  although  it  seems  necessary  to  separate  it  from  the  origi- 
nal Gospel  of  Mark. 

VIII.   The  Authenticity  of  the  Scripttjres 

Several  questions  arise  under  this  head.  (1)  Is  the  author's 
name  given  in  connection  with  the  writing  ?  (2)  Is  it  anony- 
mous ?  (3)  Can  it  be  pseudonj-mous '!  (4r)  Is  it  a  compilation  ? 
All  these  are  ordinary  features  of  the  world's  literature.  Is  there 
any  sound  reason  why  they  should  not  all  be  found  in  Holy 
Scripture  ?  There  has  ever  been  a  tendency  in  the  Synagogue 
and  the  Church  to  ascribe  the  biblical  books  to  certain  well- 
known  holy  men  and  prophets.  Tradition  has  been  busy  here. 
There  is  no  book  of  the  Bible  that  has  not  one  or  more  tradi- 
tional authors.     And  so  in  all  departments  of  literature,  there 


318  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

is  scarcely  a  great  name  which  has  not  been  compelled  to  father 
■writings  that  do  not  belong  to  it.  The  genuine  writings  of 
Athanasius,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Ambrose  have  to  be  sepa- 
rated by  careful  criticism  from  the  spurious  ;  for  example  : 

"  Of  the  thirty  to  a  hundred  so-called  Ambrosian  hymns,  how- 
ever, only  twelve  in  the  view  of  the  Benedictine  editor  of  his 
works  are  genuine,  the  rest  being  more  or  less  successful  imitations 
by  unknown  authors.  Xeale  reduces  the  number  of  the  genuine 
Ambrosian  hymns  to  ten."  ^ 

It  is  well  known  that  Shakespeare's  genuine  plays  have  to  be 
discriminated  from  the  large  number  of  others  that  have  been 
attributed  to  him.  Shakespearian  criticism  is  of  so  great  im- 
portance as  to  constitute  a  literature  of  its  own.^  Sometimes 
the  writings  of  a  well-known  author  have  been,  in  the  process 
of  time,  attributed  to  another.  We  have  an  example  of  this  in 
the  Paradoxes  of  Herbert  Palmer,  which  have  been  regarded 
as  Lord  Bacon's.^ 

To  question  the  traditional  opinion  as  to  authorshij)  of  a 
writing  is  not  to  contest  the  authenticity  of  the  writing.  Au- 
thenticity lias  propei'ly  to  do  only  with  the  claims  of  the  writing 
itself,  and  not  with  the  claims  of  traditional  theories.  The 
Baba  Bathra  does  not  discrimiuate  between  editorship  and 
authorship.*  It  is  evident  that  to  the  scribes  of  the  second 
century  the  principal  thing  was  official  committing  to  writing 
and  not  the  original  writing  of  the  writing.  The  Talmudic 
statements  as  to  authorship  are  many  of  them  absurd  conject- 
ures. Josephus  and  Philo,  when  they  make  Moses  the  author 
of  the  narrative  of  his  own  death,  go  beyond  the  Baha  Bathra 
and  indidge  in  folly. 

The  titles  found  in  connection  with  the  biblical  books  cannot 
always  be  relied  upon,  for  the  reason  that  we  have  first  to  deter- 
mine whether  they  came  from  the  original  authors,  or  have  been 
appended  by  insj^ired  editors,  or  have  been  attached  in  the  Rab- 
binical or  Christian  schools.     Thus  the  difference  in  the  titles 

1  Scliaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  III.,  1868,  p.  691. 
■^  Knight's  Shakeapeare,  Supplemental  Volume. 

^  See  Grosart,  Lord  Vacon  not  the  Author  of  the  "  Christian  Paradoxes.'" 
Printed  for  private  circulation,  1865.  *  See  p.  253. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CRITICLS.M  319 

of  the  several  Psalms  between  the  Sejituagint  version  and  the 
Massoretic  text  are  so  great  as  to  force  the  conclusion  that 
many  of  the  titles  are  of  late  and  uncertain  origin,  and  that 
most,  if  not  all,  are  of  doubtful  authorit}'.! 

In  considering  the  question  of  authenticity,  we  have  first  to 
examine  the  writing  itself.  If  the  writing  claims  to  be  b}-  a 
certain  author,  to  doubt  it  is  to  doubt  the  credibility  and  author- 
ity of  the  writing.  If  these  claims  are  found  to  be  unreliable, 
tlie  credibility  of  the  writing  is  gone,  and  its  inspiration  is  in- 
volved. But  if  the  credibility  of  the  writing  is  not  impeached, 
its  inspiration  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  its  human 
authorship.^ 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  been  compelled  by  Deism  and 
Rationalism  to  meet  this  question  of  forgery  of  Biblical  Writ- 
ings. This  phase  of  the  subject  has  now  been  settled  so  far 
that  no  reputable  critics  venture  to  write  of  any  of  our  canoni- 
cal writings  as  forgeries. 

IX.    Anonymous  Holy  Sckeptuues 

There  are  large  numbers  of  the  biblical  books  that  are 
anonymous :  e.g.  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Job,  Jonah,  Ruth,  many  of 
the  Psalms,  Lamentations,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Tradition  has  assigned  authors  for  all  of  these.  It  is  also 
maintained  that  the  internal  statements  of  some  of  these  books 
point  to  their  authorship  by  certain  persons. 

We  have  seen  the  traditional  theories  of  Holy  Scripture 
embedded  in  the  Talmud.^  Christian  tradition  modified  these 
in  some  respects,  but  the  tradition  was  essentially  this  :  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  Job  were  written  b}'  Moses  ;  Joshua  by  Joshua  ; 

'  Murray,  Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalms,  1880,  pp.  79  seq. ; 
Perowne  in  I.e.,  pp.  94  seq. 

-  It  may  be  .said  that  the  pseudonym  claims  to  be  by  the  author,  whose  name 
is  given.  But  iu  fact  the  pseudonym  itself  makes  no  such  claim.  It  uses  the 
name  as  a  fiction,  and  usually  as  a  transparent  fiction.  If  any  one  is  deceived 
it  is  his  own  fault  or  the  fault  of  his  teacher.  He  may  be  deceived  in  a  similar 
way  by  any  kind  of  fiction.  The  pseudonym  has  never  been  regarded  as  forgery. 
See  pp.  32.3  seq. 

8  See  p.  2.32. 


320  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Judges  and  Samuel  by  Samuel  ;  Kings,  Jeremiah,  and  Lamen- 
tations by  Jeremiah  ;  the  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  by  Ezra  ; 
Esther  by  Mordecai  ;  the  Psalms  by  David ;  Proverbs,  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  by  Solomon ;  the  Prophets  b\'  those 
whose  names  are  attached  to  the  books.  Each  %vriting  was 
fathered  upon  a  well-known  biblical  character  in  whose  inspi- 
ration it  was  supposed  we  might  have  confidence. 

The  traditional  theory  ascribes  all  the  Law  to  jSIoses,  all  the 
Psalms  to  David,  all  the  Wisdom  to  Solomon.  One  is  impelled 
sometimes  to  ask  why  all  the  Prophecy  was  not  attributed  to 
Isaiah  or  to  Jeremiah,  according  as  the  name  of  the  one  or  the 
other  preceded  the  list  of  prophetic  writings.  How  narrow  an 
escape  has  been  made  from  attributing  the  whole  of  Prophecj'  to 
Jeremiah,  may  be  estimated  when  attention  is  called  to  the  fact 
that  one  of  the  ways  by  which  the  anti-critics  try  to  avoid  a 
miss-citation  in  the  Gospels,^  where  a  prophecy  is  attributed  to 
Jeremiah  which  was  really  anonymous,  though  united  with 
Zechariah,2  is  by  the  theory  that  the  name  of  Jeremiah  was 
given  as  a  general  title  to  the  whole  of  the  prophetic  books,  his 
prophecy  beginning  them  in  the  list  of  the  Baraitha,  the  earliest 
classification  of  books  in  the  Talmud. ^  From  the  point  of  view 
of  the  modern  scientific  Higher  Criticism,  it  is  no  more  absurd 
to  attribute  all  the  Prophecy  to  Jeremiah,  than  all  the  Law  to 
Moses,  all  the  Wisdom  to  Solomon,  and  all  the  Psalms  to  David. 
In  none  of  these  cases  has  there  ever  been  any  solid  ground  on 
which  such  theories  could  rest. 

Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  of  the  Wisdom  Liter- 
ature are  attributed  by  tradition  to  Solomon.  The  only  reason 
Job  escaped  this  traditional  parentage  was  probably  because  it 
was  not  regarded  b}"  the  ancients  as  belonging  to  the  Wisdom 
Literature  ;  and  its  patriarchal  scenery  made  it  most  natural 
for  them  to  think  of  a  patriarchal  age,  and  then  easily  of  Moses, 
who  stood  on  the  borders  of  that  age,  and  belonged  to  it  while 
in  the  land  of  Midian  Ix'fore  he  took  the  leadership  of  Israel. 
But  among  the  apocryplial  books  tliere  is  a  Wisdom  of  Solo- 

1  Mt.  27«.  =  See  p.  310. 

'  Sef  A.  A.  Hodge  and  B.  B.  Warfield,  Art.  "  Inspiration,"  Preshyterian  Re- 
view, 1881,  p.  259. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CKITICISM  321 

mon,  and,  among  the  pseudepigrapha,  a  Psalter  of  Solomon, 
which  are  cited  as  canonical  by  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers. 
But  the  Higher  Criticism  has  sho^yn  that  the  Psalter  of  Solo- 
mon belongs  to  the  times  of  Pompey,  the  first  centurj"  B.C.,  and 
that  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  belongs  to  the  early  jjart  of  the 
first  Christian  centurj-.  We  are  thus  prepared  to  question  the 
traditional  parentage  of  the  sapiential  literature  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon.  Ecclesiastes  is  the  latest  writing  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  shown  by  its  language,  style,  and  theologj'.  As  De- 
litzsch  says,  if  Ecclesiastes  could  be  Solomonic,  there  would  be 
no  such  thing  as  a  histor}-  of  the  Hebrew  language.^  The  Song 
of  Songs  is  an  operetta  in  five  acts,  describing  the  victory  of  a 
pure  shepherd  girl  over  all  the  seductions  and  temptations  that 
were  put  forth  by  Solomon  and  his  court  to  induce  her  to  aban- 
don her  affianced  shepherd.  Solomon  is  not  even  the  hero  of 
the  drama,  but  is  the  tempter  of  the  Shulamite. 

The  Proverbs  represent  a  collection  of  wisdom,  the  result  of 
many  centuries  and  oft-repeated  editings.  It  was  gathered 
under  the  name  of  Solomon  as  the  traditional  king  of  the  mse 
men. 

Thus  the  Wisdom  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
the  Apocrypha  is  resolved  into  a  number  of  writings  of  dif- 
ferent authors  and  of  different  collections  extending  through 
many  centuries  until  the  time  of  Christ,  and  preparing  the  way 
for  the  jewelled  sentences  of  wisdom  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the 
wisest  of  meu.^ 

The  Psalter  is  ascribed  bj-  tradition  to  David,  partly  as  author 
and  partly  as  editor.  But  the  testimony  of  the  titles  coming 
from  the  early  editors,  and  the  evidence  of  the  Psalms  them- 
selves, make  it  evident  that  the  Psalter  contains  the  psalmody 
of  Israel  in  all  the  centuries  of  his  development  in  sacred  lyrics 
of  prayer  and  praise.  There  were  several  minor  psalters  repre- 
senting different  periods  of  literary  activity;  there  were  several 
layers  of  psalms  representing  different  periods  of  Iji-ic  develop- 
ment. The  present  Psalter  is  not  earlier  than  the  Maccabean 
period ;  but  while  chiefly  representing  the  Persian,  Greek,  and 
Maccabean  periods  in  the  history  of  Israel,  yet  it  also  contains 

1  HokesUed  und  Kokehth,  :875,  s.  197.  =  See  pp.  392,  396,  401. 


322  STL'DY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Psalms  wliicli  go  back  to  the  times  of  the  prophets  and  the 
kings,  and  which  sprang  from  tlie  fountain-head  of  psalmody 
in  the  tender,  tuneful  heart  of  King  David  himself.  No  name 
so  worthy  as  David's  under  which  to  gather  the  psalmody  of 
the  nation  which  he  had  started  by  his  impulses  in  its  centuries 
of  prayer  and  praise  to  God,  even  if  he  wrote  few,  if  any,  of  the 
present  Psalms.  The  Psalter  is  a  synagogue  book  more  than 
a  temple  book,  and  therefore  it  has  been  found  appropriate  for 
the  Christian  worship  of  the  congregation  in  all  times. 

The  Psalter  of  Solomon  is  a  collection  of  beautiful  Psalms 
which  was  made  after  the  final  editing  of  our  Psalter ;  other- 
wise, they,  like  the  Psalm  appended  to  the  Septuagint  text, 
might  have  found  their  way  into  the  Psalter  itself. 

The  tradition  that  INIoses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  has  been  so 
evidently  disproved  that  it  is  altogether  unscholarly  for  any  one 
to  hold  to  this  opinion.  The  Pentateuch  has  been  shown,  after 
a  century  of  critical  work,  to  be  composed  of  four  great  docu- 
ments, which  were  written  in  different  periods  in  the  history 
of  Israel.  These  four  documents  have  each  its  own  narrative 
and  code  of  law.  These  narratives  and  law  codes  bear  traces 
of  earlier  narratives  and  law  codes,  which  they  have  taken  up 
into  themselves.  These  earlier  narratives  contain  original 
sources  in  the  form  of  ancient  poetry,  legends,  genealogies, 
and  other  historical  or  traditional  monuments.  The  law  codes 
contain  various  types  of  law,  indicating  their  source  in  the 
session  of  the  elders,  the  court  of  the  judges,  the  Levites  and 
the  Priests,  or  in  the  prophetic  word  and  divine  command. 
Criticism  is  carefully  tracing  these  back  through  all  their 
varied  development  in  the  documents  to  their  fountain-heads 
in  their  archtfological  forms.  The  gain  of  this  position  is 
immense.  Instead  of  the  old  tradition  that  the  Law  and  aU 
the  institutions,  civil,  religious,  and  domestic,  were  given  in  the 
wilderness  of  the  wandering  to  a  nation  who  had  had  an  expe- 
rience of  several  centuries  of  slavery,  and  had  not  yet  had  any 
experience  whatever  as  a  free  nation  settled  in  a  land  of  their 
own,  these  laws  and  institutions  are  now  seen  to  be  the  devel- 
opment of  the  experience  of  Israel  during  the  centuries  of  his 
residence  in  the   Holv  Land  itself.     No  one  could  think  of 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM  323 

ascribing  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  all  the 
elaborate  system  of  Common  and  Statute  law  in  Great  Britain 
and  America,  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  tribes  who  invaded  England 
and  established  the  basis  for  Anglo-Saxon  civilization.  It 
would  be  no  more  absurd  than  to  ascribe  the  elaborate  Penta- 
teuchal  codes  to  Israel  of  the  Exodus. 

The  Hebrew  Law  is  Mosaic  in  that  its  essential  fundamental 
laws  were  derived  from  Moses,  in  that  he  shaped  the  legal  policy 
of  Israel  for  all  times  :  the  institutions  are  Mosaic  because  Moses 
established  their  essential  nucleus.  All  that  was  subsequent  in 
the  Law  and  the  institutions  was  but  an  unfolding  of  the  germs 
given  by  Moses.  But  that  development  went  on  in  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  law,  in  the  expanding  of  the  institutions,  in  the 
luifolding  of  the  precepts,  m  the  experience  and  history  of  the 
people,  until  the  cope-stone  of  Mosaism  was  laid  by  Ezra, 
the  second  Moses,  in  rebuilt  Jerusalem  and  restored  Israel. 

We  have  in  Hebrew  literature  an  unfolding  through  the  cen- 
turies of  four  distinct  types:  the  legal  type,  beginning  with 
Moses,  and  continuing  through  all  the  ages  of  priestly  legisla- 
tion until  Ezra  crowned  the  work  with  the  completed  Law  ;  the 
prophetic  type,  beginning  with  Samuel  and  continuing  through 
all  the  centuries  until  the  Maccabean  Daniel  ;  the  type  of 
psalmody,  beginning  with  David  and  unfolding  until  our  Psalter 
was  finally  edited,  late  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees;  and  finally, 
the  type  of  wisdom,  beginning  with  Solomon  and  extending  to 
Ecclesiastes  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Sirach 
and  Wisdom  of  Solomon  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Canons. 

X.     PSEUDOJTYMOUS    HOLY   SCRIPTURES 

Are  there  pseudonymous  books  in  the  Bible  ?  This  is  a  well- 
known  and  universally  recognized  literary  style  which  no  one 
should  think  of  identifying  vfith  forr/ery  or  deceit  of  any  kind. 
Ancient  and  modern  literature  is  full  of  pseudonymes  as  well 
as  anonymes.  One  need  only  look  over  the  bibliographical 
works  devoted  to  this  subject,^  or  have  a  little  familiarity  with 

'  Barbier,  Dictiimnaire  des  Ouvrar/es  anonymes  et  pseudonymes,  4  torn. ,  Paris, 
1872-1878  ;  Halkett  and  Lang,  Dktioimry  of  the  Anonymous  and  Pseudonymous 
literature  of  Great  Britain,  4  vols.,  1882,  seq. 


324  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  liistory  of  literature,  or  examine  any  public  library,  to  settle 
this  question.  There  is  great  variety  in  the  use  of  the  pseu- 
donyme.  Sometimes  the  author  uses  a  surname  rather  than  his 
own  proper  name,  either  to  conceal  himself  by  it  from  the  pub- 
lic or  to  inti-oduce  himself  by  a  title  of  honour.  Thus  Calvin 
follows  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  ancients  that  the  prophecy 
of  Malachi  was  written  by  Ezra,  who  assumed  the  surname 
Malachi  in  connection  with  it.  Then  again  some  descriptive 
term  is  used,  as  by  the  authors  of  the  celebrated  [Martin  Mar- 
prelate  tracts.  Then  a  fictitious  name  is  constructed,  as  in  the 
title  of  the  famous  tracts  vindicating  Presbj-teriauism  against 
Episcopacy  ;  the  authors,  Stephen  Marshall.  Edmund  Calamy, 
Thomas  Young,  Matthew  NeMxommen,  and  William  Spurstow, 
coined  the  name  Smectymnuils  from  the  initial  letters  of  their 
names.  Among  the  ancients  it  was  more  common  to  assume 
the  names  of  ancient  worthies.  There  is  an  enormous  number 
of  these  pseudonymes  in  the  Puritan  literature  of  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries.  The  descendants  of  the  Pui-itans 
are  the  last  ones  who  should  think  of  any  dishonesty  or  impro- 
priety connected  with  their  use. 

Why  should  the  pseudonyme  be  banished  from  the  Bible? 
Among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  they  existed  in  great  numbers. 
Among  the  Jews  we  have  a  long  list  in  extra-canonical  books, 
covering  several  kinds  of  literature,  e.g.  the  apocalypses  of 
Enoch,  Baruch,  Ezra,  Assumption  of  Moses,  Ascension  of 
Isaiah,  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  the  Psalter 
of  Solomon.  Why  should  there  not  be  some  of  these  in  the 
Old  Testament  ?  It  is  now  conceded  by  scholars  that  Ecclesi- 
astes  is  such  a  pseudonyme,  using  Solomon's  name.^  It  is 
claimed  by  some  that  Daniel-  and  Deuteronomy ^  are  also  pseu- 
donymes.    If  no  a  priori  objection  can  be  taken  to  the  pseudo- 

"  This  is  invincibly  established  by  Wright.  Book  of  Koheleth.  London.  1883, 
pp.  79  seq. :  "  Solomon  is  introduced  as  the  speaker  throughout  the  work  in  the 
same  way  as  Cicero  in  his  treatise  on  '  Old  Age.'  and  on  '  Friendship.'  selects 
Cato  the  elder  as  the  exponent  of  his  views,  or  as  Plato  in  his  Dialogues  brings 
forward  Socrates." 

^  See  Strack  in  I.e..  pp.  164  seq.,  and  pp.  .351  seq.  of  this  vol. 

'So  Riehni,  Gesetzgehung  Mosis  im  Lande  ^f^)a^>.  18.'>4.  p.  112.  represents  the 
Deuteronomic  code  as  a  literarj-  fiction.  The  author  let.s  Moses  ajipear  as  a  pro- 
phetic popular  orator,  and  as  the  first  priestly  reader  of  the  Law.   It  is  a  literary 


THE   PRACTICE   OF  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM  325 

nyme  as  inconsistent  M'ith  divine  revelation,  —  if  one  pseudo- 
nyme,  Ecclesiastes,  be  admitted  in  the  Bible, — then  the  question 
whether  Daniel  and  Deuteronomy  are  pseudonymes  must  be 
determined  by  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  it  does  not  touch  the 
question  of  their  inspiration  or  authority  as  a  part  of  the  Script- 
ures. All  would  admit  that  no  forger  or  forgery  could  be  in- 
spired. But  that  every  one  who  wi-ites  a  pseudonyme  is  a 
deceiver  or  forger  is  absui'd.  The  usage  of  literature,  ancient 
and  modern,  has  established  its  propriety.  If  it  claims  to  be  by 
a  particular  author,  and  is  said  by  a  critic  to  be  a  pseudonyme, 
then  its  credibility  is  attacked,  and  the  question  of  its  inspira- 
tion is  raised.  In  the  New  Testament  the  Gospel  of  John  was 
thought  by  some  to  be  a  pseudonyme  of  the  second  Christian 
century,  but  this  has  been  entirely  disproved.     Weiss  tells  us  : 

"  There  was  certainly  in  antiquity  a  pseudonymous  literature, 
which  cannot  be  criticized  from  the  standpoint  of  the  literary  cus- 
toms of  our  day,  or  judged  as  forgery.  For  it  is  just  the  naiveti 
with  which  the  author  strives  to  find  a  higher  authority  for  his 
words  by  laying  them  in  the  mouth  of  one  of  the  celebrated  men 
of  the  past,  in  whose  spirit  he  desires  to  speak,  which  justifies 
this  literary  form.  Quite  otherwise  is  it  in  this  case  ;  the  author 
mentions  no  name ;  he  only  gives  it  to  be  understood  that  it  is 
the  unnamed  disciple  so  repeatedly  introduced  who  is  writing  here 
from  his  ovra  personal  knowledge ;  he  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  from 
the  comparison  of  one  passage  with  another  that  this  eye-witness 
cannot  be  any  one  but  John.  It  was  Renan  who,  in  the  face  of 
modern  criticism,  said  that  it  was  not  a  case  of  pseudonymous 
authorship  such  as  was  known  to  antiquity,  it  was  either  truth  or 
refined  forgery  —  plain  deception."' 

fiction,  as  Ecclesiastes  is  a  literary  fiction.  The  latter  uses  the  person  of  Solo- 
mon as  the  master  of  wisdom  to  set  forth  the  lessons  of  wisdom.  The  former 
uses  Moses  as  the  great  lawgiver,  to  promulgate  divine  laws.  This  is  also  the 
view  of  Noldeke,  AUtest.  Literatiir,  1868.  p.  30;  and  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The 
Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church.  N.Y.,  1881,  pp.  384  seq.,  who  u.ses  the 
terra  "legal "  fiction  as  a  variety  of  literary  fiction.  We  cannot  go  with  those  who 
regard  this  as  an  absurdity,  or  as  involving  literary  dishonesty.  Drs.  Riehm 
and  Smith,  and  others  who  hold  this  view,  repudiate  such  a  thought  with  abhor- 
rence. The  style  of  literary  fiction  was  a  familiar  and  favourite  one  of  the  later 
Jews.  And  there  can  be  no  a  priori  reason  why  they  should  not  have  used  it  in 
Bible  times. 

»  Weiss,  Life  of  Jesus,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edin.,  1883,  I.  p.  94. 


326  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPXrRE 

The  authenticity  of  the  Pauline  epistles  of  the  imprisonment 
and  the  pastoral  epistles  has  been  contested  in  a  similar  way. 
The  Pauline  epistles  represent  three  stages  of  growth  in  the 
experiences  and  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  apostle  Paul  himself. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  think  of  his  disciples  as  their  authors,  or 
to  descend  into  the  second  centurj'.^  The  Apocalypse  has  been 
disputed  from  ancient  times.  It  has  been  assigned  by  some  of 
the  ancients  to  a  presbyter,  John.  Recent  criticism  is  more 
and  more  against  placing  it  with  the  pseudonymous  apoca- 
lypses of  Peter  and  Paul. 


XI.    Compilation  in  Holy  ScEiPTirEE 

The  historical  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles^  and  the 
Gospel  of  Luke^  represent  themselves  as  compilations.  They 
use  older  documents,  which  are  sometimes  mentioned  by  name. 
The  question  then  is,  how  far  this  compilation  has  extended  ; 
and  whether  it  has  been  once  for  all,  or  has  passed  through  a 
number  of  stages.  Thus  the  books  of  Kings  refer  to  books 
of  Chronicles  which  are  not  our  books  of  Chronicles,  and  our 
books  of  Chronicles  refer  to  books  of  Kings  wliich  are  not 
our  books  of  Kings.  Both  of  these  historical  writers  seem  to 
depend  upon  an  ancient  book  of  Chronicles,  —  only  our  book 
of  Chronicles  has  used  it  in  its  citation  in  another  book  of 
Kings  than  the  one  presented  to  us  in  the  Canon,  for  it  gives 
material  not  found  therein.*  The  prophetic  histories  — Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings  —  represent  a  number  of  wi-iters,  earlier  and 
later,  who  have  worked  over  the  story  of  Israel  in  the  land  of 
Palestine  till  the  exile.  Some  of  these  are  Ephraimitic  writers, 
some  Judaic.  The  final  authors  were  Deuteronomic.  The  last 
touch  to  this  prophetic  history  was  given  by  a  Deuteronomic 
editor,  who  reedited  them  all  in  a  series,  early  in  the  exile, 
under  the  influence  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah. 

1  See  Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  1882.  pp.  784  seq.;  Weiss, 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  Neio  Testament,  Edinburgh.  1882,  I.  p.  285. 

2  1  K.  11",  U""®,  166 .  2  K.  118,  8-28,  20^» ;  1  Ch.  29-'> ;  2  Ch.  O*',  12'',  13»», 
16",  242",  26*2,  etc.,  33i8  '»,  3')-'  ;  Neh.  iy^\  «  li-". 

<  Xoldcke,  Alltest.  LUeratiir,  Leipzig,  1868,  pp.  67  seq. 


THE   I'KACTICE   OF   THE   HIGHER   CKITICISil  327 

The  narratives  of  the  Chronicler,  in  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and 
Nehemiah,  which  constituted  one  book,  represent  the  view  of 
the  histories  taken  by  a  priest  centuries  later,  at  the  close  of 
the  Persian  or  the  beginning  of  the  Greek  period.  His  work 
is  the  ecclesiastical  chronicle  of  Jerusalem,  rather  than  a  his- 
tory of  the  kings  or  the  people.  He  seems  to  have  used  a 
Jlidrash  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  which  has  been 
lost,  intermediate  between  the  present  prophetic  histories  and 
the  Chronicles.  The  question  arises  whether  the  otlier  his- 
torical books  are  not  also  compilations.  In  the  New  Testament 
the  chief  disputes  have  been  as  to  ^latthew  and  Mark.^ 

The  Gospel  of  jMatthew  is  a  compilation,  using  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Matthew  as  the  chief  sources.  The 
Gospel  of  Luke  is  a  compilation,  using  the  same  Gospel  of  Mark 
and  the  Logia  of  ilatthew,  and  also  other  Hebraic  sources  for 
its  gospel  of  the  infancy,  and,  possibly  also,  another  source  for 
the  Perean  ministry.  The  book  of  Acts  is  a  compilation,  using 
a  Hebraic  narrative  of  the  early  Jerusalem  Church,  and  the 
"  We "  narrative  of  a  co-traveller  with  Paul,  and  probably 
other  sources.  The  Gospel  of  John  is  also  partly  a  compila- 
tion, using  an  earlier  Gospel  of  John  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
and  the  Hj-mn  to  the  Logos  in  the  Prologue. 

The  Apocalypse  is  a  compilation  of  a  number  of  apocalypses 
of  different  dates. ^  The  book  of  Daniel  is  a  compilation  in 
two  parts,  —  the  one  giving  stories  relating  to  Daniel,  the  other, 
visions  and  dreams  of  Daniel.^  It  is  written  in  two  different 
languages,  —  the  Hebrew  and  the  Aramaic. 

The  two  remaining  problems  of  the  Higher  Criticism  cover 
so  much  ground  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  them  in 
several  chapters.  The  literary  forms  will  be  considered  in  the 
next  chapter,  on  the  Biblical  Prose  Literature,  and  the  four  chap- 
ters that  follow  on  Biblical  Poetical  Literature.  The  question  of 
credibility  will  be  discussed  in  the  chapter  on  the  Credibility 
of  Holy  Scripture. 

J  Weiss,  Leben  Jesu,  I.,  1882,  pp.  24  seq.,  gives  the  best  statement  of  this  dis- 
cussion and  its  results. 

*  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  284  seq. 
'  See  pp.  351  seq. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

BIBLICAL   PROSE    LITEKATUEE 

There  has  been  a  great  neglect  of  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture  as  literature,  in  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  Church. 
Few  scholars  have  ever  given  their  attention  to  this  subject. 
The  scholars  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  world  were  interested 
and  absorbed  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture  for  religious,  dog- 
matic, and  ethical  purposes.  Even  in  the  development  of  the 
discipline  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  the  literary  forms  were  the 
last  things  to  receive  attention. 

The  literary  forms  have  not  shared  to  any  great  extent  in  the 
revival  of  biblical  studies.  And  yet  these  are  exactly  the  things 
that  most  need  consideration  in  our  day,  when  the  literature  of 
Holy  Scripture  is  compared  with  the  literatures  of  the  other 
religions  of  the  ancient  world,  and  the  question  is  so  often 
raised  why  we  should  recognize  the  Christian  Bible  as  the 
inspired  word  of  God  rather  than  the  sacred  books  of  other 
religions. 

Bishop  Lowth  in  England,  and  the  poet  Herder  in  Germany, 
toward  the  close  of  the  last  century,  called  the  attention  of  the 
learned  world  to  this  neglected  field,  and  invited  to  the  study 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  sacred  literature.  Little  advance 
has  been  made,  however,  owing,  doubtless,  to  the  fact  that  the 
conflict  has  been  raging  about  the  history,  the  religion,  and  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  ;  and,  on  the  field  of  the  Higher  Criticism, 
in  questions  of  authenticity,  integrity,  and  credibility  of  writ- 
ings. The  finer  literary  features  have  not  entered  into  the  field 
of  discussion,  to  any  extent,  until  quite  recent  times.  De  Wette, 
Ewald,  and  especially  Reuss,  made  valuable  contributions  to 
this  subject,  but  even  tiiese  masters  have  given  their  strength 
to  other  toi^ics. 

328 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  329 

The  most  obvious  divisions  of  literature  are  poetry  and  prose. 
These  are  distinguished  to  the  eye  by  different  modes  of  writ- 
ing, and  to  the  ear  by  different  modes  of  reading  ;  but  under- 
neath all  this  is  a  difference  of  rhythmical  movement.  It  is 
difficult  to  draw  the  line  scientifically  between  poetry  and  prose 
even  here,  for  "  Prose  has  its  rhythms,  its  tunes,  and  its  tone- 
colors,  like  verse ;  and,  while  the  extreme  forms  of  prose  and 
verse  are  sufficiently  unlike  each  other,  there  are  such  near  grades 
of  intermediate  forms,  that  they  may  be  said  to  run  into  each 
other,  and  any  line  claiming  to  be  distinctive  must  necessarily 
be  more  or  less  arbitrary."^  Hence  rhetorical  prose  and 
v/orks  of  the  imagination  in  all  languages  approximate  closely 
to  poetry.  The  poetry  of  the  Bible  is  written  in  the  manu- 
scripts, and  is  printed  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts,  as  well 
as  in  the  versions,  with  few  exceptions,  exactly  as  if  it  were 
prose  ;  and  the  Hebrew  scribes,  who  divided  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scrii^tures  and  pointed  them  with  vowels  and  accents, 
dealt  with  the  poetry  as  if  it  were  prose,  and  even  obscured  the 
poetic  form  by  their  divisions  of  verse  and  section,  so  that  in 
many  cases  it  can  be  restored  only  by  a  careful  study  of  the 
unpointed  text  and  a  neglect  of  the  Massoretic  sections. 

The  subject  of  Biblical  Poetry  is  reserved  for  the  following 
chapters.  In  this  chapter  the  Prose  Literature  of  the  Bible 
will  be  considered.     This  is  found  in  rich  variety. 


I.   Historical  Prose 

Hhtory  constitutes  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  In  the  Old  Testament  there  are  different  kinds 
of  history  :  the  priestly  and  the  prophetic.  The  priestly  is 
represented  by  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  and  extends 
backwards  into  the  priestly  sections  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
characterized  by  the  annalistic  style,  using  older  sources,  such 
as  genealogical  tables,  letters,  official  documents,  and  entering 
into  the  minute  details  of  the  Levitical  system  and  the  organi- 
zation of  the  State,  but  destitute  of  imagination  and  of  the 

1  Lanier,  Science  of  English  Verse,  N.Y.,  1880,  p.  57. 


330  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

artistic  sense.  The  prophetic  is  represented  by  three  diiferent 
strata  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  Joshua  and  Judges,  and 
the  Pentateuch.  The  earliest  of  these,  the  Ephraimitic.  is  char- 
acterized bj'  a  graphic  realistic  style,  using  ancient  stories, 
traditions,  poetic  extracts,  and  entire  poems.  The  Judaic  writ- 
ing is  more  artistic,  giving  fcAver  earlier  documents  but  working 
over  the  material  into  an  organic  whole.  It  uses  the  imagina- 
tion freel}",  and  with  fine  esthetic  taste  and  tact.^  The  Deu- 
teronomic  writers  use  the  history  merely  for  the  great  prophetic 
lessons  they  find  wrapt  up  in  it. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  have  four  biographical  sketches  of 
the  noblest  and  most  exalted  person  who  has  ever  appeared  in 
histor}-,  Jesus  Christ,  in  their  variety  giving  us  memoirs  in  four 
distinct  types. ^ 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  is  graphic,  plastic,  and  realistic,  based 
on  the  reports  of  the  eye-witnesses,  and  is  nearest  to  the  person 
and  life  of  our  Lord.  It  uses  no  other  written  source  than  the 
original  Logia  of  Matthew,  which  it  cites  rarely  for  special  say- 
ings of  Jesus.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  uses  the  Logia  and  Mark, 
and  also  oral  tradition,  in  order  to  set  forth  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 
siah of  the  Jews.  The  Gospel  of  Luke  uses  the  Logia  and 
Mark,  and  other  written  as  well  as  oral  sources  to  represent 
Jesus  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  The  Gospel  of  John  uses  an 
original  memoir  of  the  apostle  Jolin,  and  sets  the  person  and 
life  of  Jesus,  as  therein  described  by  an  intimate  friend,  in  the 
additional  light  of  the  total  experience  of  the  apostolic  Church, 
and  sees  Jesus  iu  the  halo  of  religious,  philosophic  reflection 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Messiah,  the  enthroned  Son  of 
the  Father. 

The  book  of  Acts  presents  the  history  of  the  planting  and 
training  of  the  Christian  Church,  using  especially  a  Hebraic 
source  for  the  story  of  Peter  and  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  and 
the  story  of  a  companion  of  Paid  iu  his  missionary  journeys, 
organizing  the  material  into  the  second  part  of  a  work  which 
began  with  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  was  possiblj'  designed  to  be 

1  Billinann.  Genesia.  4tc.  Aufl.,  Leipzict,  1882,  pp.  xi  seq.;  NSldeke,  Alttest. 
Literatur.  Leipzig,  1S08,  pp.  15. «<'(/. 

2  Weiss,  Leben  Jesu,  Berlin,  1882,  I.  p.  103. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  331 

followed  by  a  third  work  giving  the  story  of  the  Church  in 
Rome,  which  the  author  did  not  live  to  write.^ 

All  these  forms  of  history  and  biography  use  the  same  va- 
riety of  sources  as  histories  in  other  ancient  literature.  Their 
historical  material  was  not  revealed  to  the  authors  by  the 
Divine  Spirit,  but  was  gathered  by  their  own  industry  as  his- 
torians from  existing  material  and  sources  of  information. 
The  most  that  we  can  claim  for  them  is  that  they  were  in- 
spired by  God  in  their  work,  so  that  they  were  guided  into 
truth  and  preserved  from  error  as  to  all  matters  of  religion, 
faith,  and  morals  ;  but  to  what  extent  further  in  the  details 
and  external  matters  of  their  composition  has  to  be  determined 
by  historical  criticism.  It  is  necessary  also  to  consider  to  what 
extent  their  use  of  sources  was  limited  by  inspiration,  or,  in 
other  words,  what  kinds  of  sources  were  unworthy  of  the  use 
of  inspired  historians.  There  are  those  who  would  exclude 
the  legend  and  the  myth,  which  are  found  in  all  other  ancient 
history.  If  the  legend  in  itself  imjilies  what  is  false,  it  would 
certainly  be  unworthy  of  divine  inspiration  to  use  it ;  but  if  it 
is  the  poetical  embellishment  of  bare  facts,  one  does  not  readily 
see  why  it  shoidd  be  excluded  from  the  sacred  historians' 
sources  any  more  than  snatches  of  poetry,  bare  genealogical 
tables,  and  records  often  fragmentary  and  incomplete,  such  as 
are  certainly  found  in  the  historical  books.  If  the  myth  neces- 
sarily implies  in  itself  polytheism  or  pantheism,  or  any  of  the 
elements  of  false  religions,  it  would  be  unworthy  of  divine 
inspiration.  It  is  true  that  the  classic  myths  which  lie  at  the 
basis  of  the  history  of  Greece  and  Rome,  with  which  all  stu- 
dents are  familiar,  are  essentially  polytheistic ;  but  not  more 
so  than  the  religions  of  these  peoples  and  all  their  literature. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  mj'ths  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  as  re- 
corded on  their  monuments  are  essentially  polytheistic.  Many 
scholars  have  found  such  myths  in  the  Pentateuch.  But  over 
against  this  there  is  the  striking  fact  that  stands  out  in  the 
comparison  of  the  biblical  narratives  of  the  creation  and  the 
flood  with  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  ;  namely,  that  the  bib- 
lical are  monotheistic,  the  Assyrian  polytheistic.  But  is  there 
'  See  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  3d  edit.,  1898,  pp.  27,  28.     , 


332  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

not  a  monotheistic  myth  as  well  as  a  polytheistic?  In  other 
words,  may  not  the  literary  form  of  the  myth  be  appropriate 
to  monotheistic,  as  well  as  to  polytheistic,  conceptions?  Maj* 
it  not  be  an  appropriate  literary  form  for  the  true  biblical 
religion  as  well  as  for  the  other  ancient  religions  of  the  world  ?^ 
These  questions  cannot  be  answered  a  priori.  They  are 
questions  of  fact.  The  term  "  myth  "  has  become  so  associated 
with  polytheism  in  usage  and  in  the  common  mind  that  it  is 
difficult  to  use  it  in  connection  vnth.  the  pure  monotheism  and 
supernatural  revelation  of  the  Bible  M-ithout  misconception. 
No  one  should  use  it  unless  he  carefully  makes  the  necessary 
discriminations.  For  the  discrimination  of  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  from  the  other  religions  must  ever  be  more  important 
than  their  comparison  and  features  of  resemblance.  There  can 
be  little  objection  to  the  term  "  legend,"  ^  which  in  its  earliest 
and  still  jjrevalent  use  has  a  religious  sense,  and  can  cover 
without  difficulty  most  if  not  all  those  elements  in  the  biblical 
history  which  we  are  now  considering.  There  is  certainly  a 
resemblance  to  the  myth  of  other  nations  in  the  close  and 
familiar  association  of  the  one  God  with  the  ancestors  of  our 
race  and  the  patriarchs  of  Israel,  however  we  may  explain  it. 
Whatever  names  we  may  give  to  these  beautiful  and  sacred 
traditions  which  were  transmitted  in  the  families  of  God's 
people  from  generation  to  generation,  and  finally  used  by  the 
sacred  historians  in  their  hoi)-  books  ;  whatever  names  we  may 
give  them  in  distinction  from  the  legends  and  myths  of  other 
nations, — none  can  fail  to  see  that  poetic  embellishment,  natural 
and  exquisitely  beautiful,  artless  and  yet  most  artistic,  which 
comes  from  the  imagination  of  the  common  people  of  the  most 
intelligent  nations,  in  these  sources  that  were  used  by  divine 
inspiration  in  giving  us  ancient  history  in  its  most  attractive 
form.  Indeed,  the  imagination  is  in  greater  use  in  Hebrew 
history  than  in  any  other  histor}',  with  all  the  Oriental  wealth 
of  colour  in  the  prophetic  historians. 

1  Lenormant,  Beginnings  of  History,  N.Y.,  1882,  p.  187. 

2  George  P.  Marsh,  article  "  Legend,"  in  Johnson's  Xew  Universal  Cyclopcedia, 
1876,  II.  p.  1714,  and  the  Letjemhi  Anrea,  or  Historia  Lombardica,  of  Jacobus 
de  Voragine  of  the  thirteenth  century. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  333 


II.   The  Historical  Use  of  the  Myth 

Scholars  differ  veiy  greatly  in  their  views  as  to  the  mythi- 
cal element  in  Holy  Scripture.  There  is  a  general  tendency 
on  the  part  of  most  critics  to  avoid  the  term.  But,  in  fact,  the 
term  '•  myth  "  means  nothing  more  than  a  primitive  religious 
story  as  to  the  origin  of  the  nation  or  race,  or  the  association 
of  its  ancestors  with  the  deity.  There  is  nothing  essen- 
tially polytheistic  in  the  term.  If,  therefore,  we  distinguish 
between  polytheistic  mythology  and  monotheistic  myths,  there 
is  no  valid  objection  to  the  use  of  the  term  "  myth  "  in  connection 
with  those  stories  of  the  origin  of  Israel,  and  the  communion  of 
tlie  ancient  heroes  with  the  heavenly  world,  which  are  so  primi- 
tive that  they  are  beyond  the  reach  of  external  history  and 
criticism. 

Take,  for  example,  the  story  of  the  intermaniage  of  the 
daughters  of  men  with  the  angels,  in  Gen.  G'"^.  If  this  story 
were  found  in  uny  other  sacred  book  but  the  Bible,  no  one 
would  hesitate  to  regard  it  as  a  myth.  Vain  efforts  have  been 
made  in  recent  times  to  explain  away  the  angels  in  various 
ways,  but  no  respectable  commentator  would  countenance  such 
a  thing  in  our  daj's.  There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the 
passage  refers  to  angels.  Why,  then,  should  we  hesitate  to 
regard  it  as  a  myth  ?  A  m3^th  is  not  necessarily  untrue  to  fact ; 
it  is  rather  a  popular,  imaginative  colouring  of  a  conception  of 
fact,  or  of  a  real  fact.  It  is  not  necessary  to  deny  that  there 
was  such  a  real  union  of  angels  with  mankind,  even  if  one 
hints  that  the  form  of  the  story  is  mythical. 

It  may  be  of  value  to  listen  to  the  words  of  several  eminent 
scholars  on  this  question.  Dr.  Moore  discusses  the  question  with 
reference  to  the  story  of  Samson. 

"The  similarity,  in  several  particulars,  between  the  story  of 
Samson  and  that  of  Herakles  was  early  noticed.  .  .  .  Many  modern 
writers  have  made  the  same  comparison,  and  inferred  that  Sam- 
son is  the  Hebrew  counterpart  of  the  PlicEniciau  Melqart,  the 
Greek  Herakles;  and  that  the  story  of  his  deeds  was  either  ori- 
ginally a  cognate  myth,  or  has  taken  up  numerous  mythical  ele- 
ments. .  .  .    The  older  writers  contented  themselves  with  drawing 


334  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

out  the  parallels  to  the  Herakles  myth ;  each  begins  his  career  of 
adventure  by  strangling  a  lion ;  each  perishes  at  last  through  the 
machinations  of  a  woman ;  each  chooses  his  oato  death.  Samson's 
fox-catching  is  compared  with  the  capture  of  the  Erymanthian 
boar,  the  Cretan  bull,  the  hind  of  Artemis ;  the  spring  which  is 
opened  at  Lehi  to  quench  his  thirst,  with  the  warm  baths  which 
Sicilian  nymphs  open  to  refresh  the  weary  Herakles  ;  the  carrying 
off  of  the  gates  of  Gaza  reminds  some  of  the  settmg  up  of  the 
Pillars  of  Hercules,  others  of  Herakles'  descent  to  the  nether- 
world. !Meier  and  Ewald  even  discover  that  Samson  has  exactly 
twelve  labours,  like  Herakles  (in  late  systems).  Steinthal  not 
only  identifies  Samson  with  IMelqart-Herakles,  but  attempts  to 
explain  the  whole  story  as  a  solar  myth,  by  a  thorough-going  ap- 
plication of  the  method  which  ^Max  Miiller  and  his  school  intro- 
duced in  Aryan  mythology.  He  is  followed  in  the  main  by 
Goldziher,  Seinecke,  and  Jul.  Braun.  .  .  .  Wietzke  identifies 
Samson  with  the  '  Egyptian  Herakles,'  Homs-Ra.  The  Philistine 
women  all  represent  '  Sheol-Tafeuet ' ;  the  Philistines,  with  whom 
he  is  in  perpetual  strife,  are  the  children  of  Sef>Typhon.  The  tale 
of  Samson  follows  the  Sun-god  through  the  year :  Spring  (chap- 
ter 14).  Summer  (15'"*"),  Autumn,  and  Winter  (15-'^''*) ;  chapter  16 
is  his  descent  to  the  world  below ;  he  breaks  the  gates  of  Hades 
(16'"^)  ;  bound  by  Delilah,  he  loses  his  eyes  and  his  strength,  but 
his  might  returns  and  he  triumphs  as  a  god  over  his  foes  (16*^- 
The  name  jVi'ttD  is  derived  from  w OsT  '  sun.'  ...  A  legend  whose 
hero  bore  such  a  name  would  attract  and  absorb  elements  of  an 
originally  mythical  character,  such  as  the  foxes  in  the  corn-fields, 
perhaps,  represent;  but  if  this  be  true,  all  consciousness  of  the 
origin  and  significance  of  the  tale  had  been  lost,  and  the  mythical 
traits  commingle  freelj'  with  those  which  belong  to  folk-story. 
This  explanation  is  at  least  as  natural  as  the  alternative,  that  an 
original  solar  myth  has  been  transformed  into  heroic  legend,  \vith 
the  admixture  of  a  large  non-mythical  element.  The  historical 
character  of  the  adventures  of  Samson  may  be  given  up  without 
denying  the  possibility,  or  even  probability,  that  the  legend,  which 
is  very  old,  has  its  roots  in  the  earth,  not  in  the  sky." ' 

A  more  cautious  view  is  presented  by  Dr.  Robertson. 

"  Any  traces  of  mythology  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament 
are  far  less  elaborate.  They  ma}'  be  said  to  be  mere  traces,  either 
remains  of  an  extinct  system  or  nuliments  that  were  never  devel- 
oped.—  such  as  the  references  to  the  'sons  of  God  and  the  d.iugh- 
ters  of  men,'  Rahab,  Leviathan,  Tannin,  and  such  like.     These,  it 

1  Moore,  The  International  Critical  Commentary,  Judges,  1896,  pp.  364,  365. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  335 

should  be  observed,  as  they  lie  before  us  in  the  books,  are  handled 
with  perfect  candour  and  simplicity,  as  if  to  the  writers  they  had 
become  divested  of  all  dangerous  or  misleading  associations,  or 
were  even  nothing  more  than  figures  of  speech."^ 


III.    Historical  Use  of  the  Legend 

There  is  veiy  much  less  opposition  to  the  use  of  legend  for 
the  sources  of  biblical  historj-.  There  are  few  real  critics  at 
the  present  day  who  would  deny  the  legends  which  lie  at  the 
basis  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  These  are 
simply  highly  coloured  and  richly  ornamented  stories  of  actual 
events  which  happened  in  the  primitive  times.  They  were 
handed  down  from  father  to  son  in  many  generations  of  popu- 
lar narrative,  jjassing  through  many  minds  and  over  mam- 
tongues,  receiving  in  this  way  colouring,  increment,  condensa- 
tion, changes  of  many  kinds,  which  do  not,  however,  destroy 
the  essential  truth  or  fact. 

Eyle  gives  an  excellent  statement  with  reference  to  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis. 

"  The  literature  of  Jloly  Scripture  differs  not  widely  in  its  out- 
ward/orn;  from  other  literature.  In  its  prehistoric  traditions,  the 
Israelite  literature  shares  many  of  the  characteristic  features  of  the 
earliest  legends  which  the  literature  of  other  nations  has  preserved. 

"  'What  though  the  contents  of  these  chapters  are  conveyed  in 
the  form  of  unhistorical  tradition !  The  infirmity  of  their  origin 
and  structure  only  enhances,  by  contrast,  the  majesty  of  their 
sacred  mission.  In  a  dispensation  where  every  stage  of  Hebrew 
thought  and  literature  ministers  to  the  unfolding  of  the  purpose 
of  the  IMost  High,  not  even  that  earliest  stage  was  omitted,  which 
to  human  judgment  seems  most  full  of  weakness.  Saint  and  seer 
shaped  the  recollections  which  they  had  inherited  from  a  forgot- 
ten past,  until  legend,  too,  as  well  as  chronicle  and  prophecy  and 
psalm,  became  the  channel  for  the  communication  of  eternal  truths. 

"  The  poetry  of  primitive  tradition  enfolds  the  message  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.  Criticism  can  analyze  its  literary  structure ;  science 
can  lay  bare  the  defectiveness  of  its  knowledge.  But  neither  in 
the  recognition  of  the  composite  character  of  its  writing,  nor  in 
the  discernment  of  the  childish  standard  of  its  science,  is  there 
any  reproach  conveyed.    For,  as  always  is  the  case,  the  instriunent 

1  Robertson,  The  Early  Eellgion  of  Israel,  1889,  p.  50a. 


336  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

of  Divine  Revelation  partakes  of  limitations  inalienable  from  the 
age  in  which  it  is  granted.  The  more  closely  we  are  enabled  to 
scan  the  human  framework,  the  more  reverently  shall  we  acknow- 
ledge the  presence  of  the  Spirit  that  pervades  it." ' 

Dr.  Driver  gives  us  his  opinion  as  to  one  of  the  legends  in  the 
life  of  David. 

"  The  narrative  17'-18'',  precisely  as  it  stands,  it  appears 
impossible  to  harmonize  with  16'''"^.  The  two  narratives  are 
in  fact  two  parallel  and,  taken  strictly,  incompatible  accounts 
of  David's  introduction  to  the  history.  In  16'*"^  David  is  of 
mature  age  and  a  '  man  of  war,'  on  account  of  his  skill  with  the 
harp,  brought  into  Saul's  service  at  the  time  of  the  king's  mental 
distress,  and  quickly  appointed  his  armour-bearer  (vv.  18,  21).  In 
17'-18*  he  is  a  shepherd  lad,  inexperienced  in  warfare,  who  first 
attracts  the  king's  attention  by  his  act  of  heroism  against  Goliath ; 
and  the  inquiry  17^^'^^  comes  strangely  from  one  who  in  16'*"^  had 
not  merely  been  told  who  his  father  was,  but  had  manifested  a 
marked  aifection  for  David,  and  had  been  repeatedly  waited  on 
by  him  (vv.  21,  23).  The  inconsistency  arises  not,  of  course,  out 
of  the  double  character  or  office  ascribed  to  David  (which  is 
perfectly  compatible  with  historical  probability),  but  out  of  the 
different  representation  of  his  Jirst  introduction  to  Saul.  In  LXX. 
(cod.  B)  1712-31. «.»'.  M_i85  are  not  recognised.  By  the  omission  of 
these  verses  the  elements  which  conflict  with  16'*"^  are  greatly 
reduced  {e.g.  David  is  no  longer  represented  as  unknown  to  Saul) ; 
but  they  are  not  removed  altogether  (comp.  1733.  ssir.  ^-i^j^  igis.2ii)-j 
It  is  doubtful,  therefore,  whether  the  text  of  LXX.  is  here  to  be 
preferred  to  MT. ;  both  We.  (in  Bleek's  Einleitung,  1878,  p.  216), 
and  Kuenen  (Onderzoek,  1887,  p.  392)  agree  that  the  translators 
—  or,  more  probably,  perhaps,  the  scribe  of  the  Hebrew  MS. 
used  by  them  —  omitted  the  verses  in  question  from  harmonistic 
motives,  without,  however,  entirely  securing  the  end  desired. 
The  entire  section  17-18^  was,  however,  no  doubt  derived  by  the 
compiler  of  the  book  from  a  different  source  from  16'*"^  (notice 
how  David  is  introduced,  17'"*^^,  as  though  his  name  had  not  been 
mentioned  before),  and  embodies  a  different  tradition  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  Saul  first  became  ac(juainted  with  David."  ^ 

There  are  many  examples  of  the  use  of  legends  in  their 
poetic  form.  Several  of  these  are  given  elsewhere  in  this 
volume.^     It  will  be  sufficient  to  cite  one  of  them  here. 

»  Ryle,  The  Early  yarrntives  of  Genesis,  1892,  pp.  136,  137. 

3  Driver,  Notes  on  the  Hebrcir  Text  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  1890,  pp.  116, 117. 

»  See  pp.  390.  391,  393. 


BIBLICAL  PROSK    LITERATURE  337 

Joshua  10'-""  gives  an  account  of  a  theophany  at  Beth-horon, 
which  decides  the  battle  in  favour  of  Joshua  aud  Israel.  The 
poetic  extract  is  from  an  ancient  ode,  describing  the  battle,  which 
has  been  lost.  It  is  a  fragment  of  a  strophe,  taken  from  the  book 
of  Yashar,  as  stated  in  the  context : 

"  Sun.  staml  thou  still  upon  Gibeon  ; 
And  thou,  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Ayalon. 
And  the  Sun  stood  still, 
And  the  Moon  stayed, 
Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies." 

But  the  previous  context,  Jos.  10",  gives  another  entirely  dif- 
ferent prose  legend  of  the  theophanj' : 

"  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  fled  from  before  Israel,  while 
they  were  in  the  going  down  of  Beth-horon,  that  Yahweh  cast 
down  great  stones  from  heaven  upon  them  unto  Azekah,  and  they 
died :  they  were  more  which  died  with  the  hailstones  than  they 
whom  the  children  of  Israel  slew  with  the  sword." 

These  two  legends,  the  one  poetic,  the  other  prose,  came  from 
two  different  original  documents,  and  were  based  ujjon  two  en- 
tirely different  versions  of  the  battle. 

The  dialogues  and  discourses  of  the  ancient  worthies  are 
simple,  natural,  and  profouud.  They  are  not  to  be  regarded 
a.s  exact  productions  of  the  words  originally  spoken,  whether 
preserved  in  the  memory  of  the  people  and  transmitted  in 
stereotj'ped  form,  or  electrot}'ped  on  the  mind  of  the  historian  or 
in  his  writing  by  divine  inspiration  ;  the}'  are  rather  reproduc- 
tions of  the  situation  in  a  graphic  and  rhetorical  manner,  dif- 
fering from  the  like  usage  in  Livy  and  Thucydides,  Herodotus 
and  Xenophon.  only  in  that  the  latter  used  their  reflection  and 
imagination  merely  ;  the  former  used  the  same  faculties  guided 
by  divine  inspiration  into  the  truth,  and  restrained  from  error 
in  all  matters  in  which  they  were  called  to  give  religious  in- 
struction. 

In  the  historical  writings  of  Holj'  Scripture,  there  is  a  wealth 
of  beauty  and  religious  instruction  for  those  students  who  ap- 
proach it,  not  only  as  a  work  of  divine  revelation  from  which 
the  maximum  of  dogma,  or  of  examples  and  maxims  of  practi- 
cal ethics,  are  to  be  derived  ;  but  with  the  higher  appreciation 
and  insight  of  those  who  are  trained  to  the  historian's  art  of 
representation,  and  who  learn  from  the  art  of  history,  and  the 


338  STUDY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

styles  and  methods  of  history,  the  true  interpretation  of  histori- 
cal books,  wliere  the  soul  enters  into  the  enjoyment  of  the  con- 
crete, and  is  unwilling  to  break  up  the  ideal  of  beauty,  or  de- 
stroy the  living  reality,  for  the  sake  of  the  analytic  process, 
and  the  abstract  resultant,  however  important  these  may  be  in 
other  respects,  and  under  other  circumstances. 


IV.    Prophetic  Discourse 

The  Bible  is  as  rich  in  oratory,  as  in  its  history  and  poet^3^ 
Indeed,  the  tlrree  run  insensibly  into  one  another  in  Hebrew 
prophec}'.  Rare  models  of  eloquence  are  found  in  the  histori- 
cal books,  such  as  the  plea  of  Judah  ;  i  the  charge  of  Joshua  ;  ^ 
the  indignant  outburst  of  Jotham ;  ^  the  sentence  pronounced 
upon  Saul  by  Samuel;*  the  challenge  of  Elijah.^  The  three 
great  discourses  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy  are  elaborate  ora- 
tions, combining  a  great  variety  of  motives  and  rhetorical  forms, 
especially  in  the  last  discourse,  to  impress  upon  Israel  the  doc- 
trines of  God,  and  the  blessings  and  curses,  the  life  and  death, 
involved  therein. 

The  prophetical  books  present  us  collections  of  inspired  elo- 
quence, which  for  unction,  fervour,  impressiveness,  grandeur, 
sublimity,  and  power,  surpass  all  the  eloquence  of  the  world,  as 
they  grasp  the  historical  past  and  the  ideal  future,  and  entwine 
them  with  the  living  present,  for  the  comfort  and  warning,  the 
guidance  and  the  restraint,  of  God's  people.  Nowhere  else  do 
we  find  such  depths  of  passion,  such  heights  of  ecstasy,  such 
dreadful  imprecations,  such  solemn  warnings,  such  impressive 
exhortations,  and  such  sublime  promises. 

Each  proi)het  has  his  own  peculiarities  and  excellences. 
"Joel's  discourse  is  like  a  rapid,  sjirightly  stream,  flowing  into 
a  delightful  plain.  Hosea's  is  like  a  waterfall  ^jlunging  down 
over  rocks  and  ridges  ;  Isaiah  as  a  mass  of  water  rolling 
heavily  along."®  Micah  lias  no  superior  in  simplicity  and 
originality  of  tliought,  spirituality  and  sublimity  of  conception, 

>  Gen.  44'W<.  =  Jos.  24.  » .Id.  9.  ■•  I  Sam.  15.  »  1  K.  18. 

'  Wiinsche,  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  Joel,  Leipzig,  1872,  p.  38. 


BIBLICAL   PKOSE   LITERATURE  339 

clearness  and  precision  of  prophetic  vision.  "  Isaiah  is  not  tlie 
especially  lyrical  prophet,  or  the  especially  elegiacal  prophet,  or 
the  especially  oratorical  or  hortatory  prophet,  as  we  would 
describe  a  Joel,  a  Hosea,  or  a  Micah,  with  whom  there  is  a 
greater  prevalence  of  some  particular  colours  ;  but  just  as  the 
subject  requires,  he  has  readily  at  command  every  different 
kind  of  style,  and  every  different  change  of  delineation  ;  and  it 
is  precisely  this,  that,  in  point  of  language,  establishes  his 
greatness,  as  well  as,  in  general,  forms  one  of  his  most  tower- 
ing points  of  excellence.  His  only  fundamental  iDeculiarity  is 
the  lofty,  majestic  calmness  of  his  style,  proceeding  out  of  the 
perfect  command  which  he  feels  that  he  has  over  his  matter."  ^ 
Jeremiah  Ls  the  prophet  of  sorrow,  and  his  style  is  heavy  and 
monotonous,  as  the  same  story  of  woe  must  be  repeated  again 
and  again  in  varied  strains.  Ezekiel  was,  as  Hengstenberg 
represents,  of  a  gigantic  appearance,  well  adapted  to  struggle 
effectively  with  the  spirit  of  the  times  of  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity,—  a  si^iritual  Samson,  who,  with  powerful  hand,  grasped 
the  pillars  of  the  temple  of  idolatry  and  dashed  it  to  the  earth  ; 
standing  alone,  yet  worth  a  hundred  prophetic  schools,  and, 
during  his  entire  appearance,  a  powerful  proof  that  the  Lord 
was  still  among  His  people,  although  His  visible  temple  was 
ground  to  powder.^ 

In  the  New  Testament  the  discourses  of  Jesus  and  His  para- 
bolic teaching  present  us  oratorj*  of  the  Aramaic  type  ;  simple, 
quiet,  transparent,  yet  reaching  to  unfathomable  depths,  and  as 
the  very  blue  of  heaven,  —  every  word  a  diamond,  ever}-  sen- 
tence altogether  spirit  and  life,  illuminating  with  their  pure, 
searching  light,  quickening  with  their  warm,  pulsating,  throb- 
bing love.^ 

The  discourse  of  Saint  Peter  at  Pentecost  will  vie  with  that  of 
Cicero  against  CatDine  in  its  conviction  of  the  rulers  of  Israel, 
and  in  its  piercing  the  hearts  of  the  people.  The  discourses  of 
Saint  Paul  on  Mars  HiU,  and  before  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem,  and 

1  Ewald,  Die  Propheten,  Gottingen,  18(57,  I.  p.  279. 

2  Hengstenberg,  Christology,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edin.,  1864,  Vol.  II.  p.  .3. 

'  See  A.  B.  Bruce,  Parabolic  Tearhinr/  of  Clirist,  London,  1882,  for  a  fine 
appreciation  of  the  literary  forms  of  the  parables. 


340  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  magnates  of  Rome  at  C<esarea,  are  not  surpassed  bj-  De- 
mosthenes on  the  Crown.  AVe  see  the  philosophers  of  Athens 
confounded,  some  mocking,  and  others  convinced  unto  salvation. 
We  see  the  Jewish  mob  at  first  silenced,  and  then  bursting  forth 
into  a  frantic  yell  for  his  blood.  We  see  the  Roman  governor 
trembling  before  his  prisoner's  reasonings  of  justice  and  judg- 
ment to  come.  We  do  not  compare  the  orations  of  Peter  and 
Paul  with  those  of  Cicero  and  Demosthenes  for  completeness, 
symmetrj',  and  artistic  finish ;  this  would  be  impossible,  for  the 
sermons  of  Peter  and  Paul  are  only  preserved  to  us  in  outline  ; 
but,  taking  them  as  outlines,  we  maintain  that  for  skilful  use 
of  circumstance,  for  adaptation  to  the  occasion,  for  rhetorical 
organization  of  the  theme,  for  rapid  displa}^  of  argument,  in 
their  grand  march  to  the  climax,  and  above  all  in  the  effects 
that  they  produced,  the  orations  of  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul 
are  preeminent. 

Nowhere  else  save  in  the  Bible  have  the  oratorical  types  of 
three  distinct  languages  and  civilizations  combined  for  unity 
and  varietj-  of  effect.  These  biblical  models  ought  to  enrich 
and  fortify  the  sermon  of  our  day.  If  we  should  study  them 
as  literar}-  forms,  as  much  as  we  study  Cicero  and  Demosthenes, 
or  as  models  of  sacred  eloquence,  the  pulpit  would  rise  to  new 
grandeur  and  sublimer  heights  and  to  more  tremendous  power 
over  the  masses  of  mankind. 


V.    The  Epistle 

The  Epistle  may  be  regarded  as  the  third  form  of  prose  litera- 
ture. This  is  the  contribution  of  the  Aramaic  language  to  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  letters  contained  in  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah.  But  it  is  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  epistle 
receives  its  magnificent  development  in  the  letters  of  Saint  James, 
Saint  Peter,  Saint  Paul,  Saint  Jude,  and  Saint  John, — some 
familiar,  some  dogmatic,  some  ecclesiastical,  some  pastoral,  some 
speculative  and  predictive,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
we  have  an  elaborate  essay. 

How  charming  the  letters  of  Cicero  to  his  several  familiar 
friends!     What  a  loss  to  the  world  to  be  deprived  of  them! 


BIBLICAL   I'KOSE   LITEUATURE  341 

But  who  among  us  would  exchange  for  tlieni  the  epistles  of  the 
apostles?  And  yet  it  is  to  be  feared  that  we  have  studied  them 
not  too  much  as  doctrinal  treatises,  perhaps,  but  too  little  as 
familiar  letters  to  friends  and  to  beloved  churches,  and  still  less 
as  literary  models  for  the  letter  and  the  essay.  It  might  refresh 
and  exalt  our  theological  and  ethical  treatises,  if  their  authors 
would  stud}'  awhile  Saint  Paul's  style  and  method.  They 
might  form  a  juster  conception  of  his  doctrines  and  principles. 
They  certainly  would  undei'stand  better  how  to  use  liis  doc- 
trines, and  how  to  apply  his  principles. 


VI.    Pkose  Wokks  of  the  Ijiaginatiok 

There  has  been  a  great  reluctance  on  the  part  of  Christian 
people  to  recognize  such  forms  of  literature  in  Holy  Scripture. 
But  an  increasing  number  of  scholars  find  several  such  works 
of  the  imagination  among  the  Old  Testament  writings.  We 
shall  approach  the  question  by  working  back  to  it  in  the  lines 
of  the  history  of  Hebrew  literature.  Works  of  the  imagina- 
tion play  a  very  impoi-tant  part  in  Hebrew  literature  outside 
the  Old  Testament.  The  Haggadistic  literature  of  the  Jews, 
used  chiefly  for  the  instruction  of  the  people  in  the  synagogues 
and  in  the  schools,  was  largely  composed  of  such  writings. 
Jewish  rabbins  used  parables,  stories,  and  legends  of  every 
variety  of  form  and  content  with  the  utmost  freedom,  in  order 
to  teach  doctrine  and  morals,  and  even  to  illustrate  and  enforce 
the  legal  precepts  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Our  Saviour  in  His 
teaching  used  the  same  method.  His  numerous  parables  have 
never  been  equalled  for  their  simplicity,  beauty,  and  power. 
No  human  imagination  has  ever  equalled  the  imagination  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  story-telling.  The  Prodigal  Son,  Dives  and 
Lazarus,  the  Good  Samaritan,  the  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins, 
the  Talents,  are  masterpieces  of  art.  No  historic  incident,  no 
individual  experience,  could  ever  have  such  power  over  the 
souls  of  men  as  these  pictures  of  the  imagination  of  our  Lord. 

The  apocryphal  literature  has  many  such  stories,  —  stories 
which  have  been  the  favourite  themes  of  Christian  art  in  all 


342  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

ages.  Juclith  and  Holofernes,^  Zerubbabel  aud  the  King  of 
Persia.^  the  INIaccabee  mother  and  her  seven  sons,^  Bel  and  the 
Dragon.^  Tobit.^  and  Susanna,*  are  sufficient  to  remind  us  of 
them.  These  are  all  regarded  as  canonical  in  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church.  Luther  says  of  Tobit :  "  Is  it  history  ?  then  is  it 
holy  liistory.  Is  it  fiction  ?  then  is  it  a  truly  beautiful,  whole- 
some, and  profitable  fiction,  the  performance  of  a  gifted  poet." 

Who  can  doubt  at  the  present  time  that  these  are  all  stories 
invented  by  the  imagination  of  the  authors,  written  in  order  to 
teach  important  religious  lessons  ? 

There  are  no  a  priori  reasons  therefore  why  we  should  not 
find  such  prose  works  of  the  imagination  in  the  Old  Testament. 
We  should  not  stumble  at  such  literature  even  if  the  idea  be 
new  to  us  or  repugnant  to  us.  If  we  have  poetic  works  of  the 
imagination  in  Job,  the  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes,  why 
not  prose  works  of  the  imagination  ?  If  Jesus  used  such  imag- 
inary scenes  and  incidents  as  we  see  in  his  parables,  why  may 
not  inspired  men  in  the  times  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation 
have  used  them  also  ? 

A  careful  study  of  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  shows 
that  we  have  four  prose  works  of  the  imagination  in  the  Old 
Testament,  all  ^v^itten  in  the  times  of  the  restoration.  These 
are  Ruth,  Jonah,  Esther,  and  Daniel. 

VII.    The  Book  of  Ruth  ax  Idyll 

The  book  of  Ruth  is  written  in  prose  with  two  little  snatches 
of  poetry.  It  has  appended  to  it  a  genealogical  table  which 
did  not  belong  to  the  original  document.  The  story  is  a  sim- 
ple and  graceful  domestic  story.  It  is  a  charming  idyll.  The 
scene  is  laid  in  the  times  of  the  Judges,  but  there  is  nothing  to 
remind  us  of  that  time  except  certain  antique  customs  which 
the  author  thinks  it  necessary  to  explain  to  his  readers.  Debo- 
rah, Jael,  and  Jephthah's  daughter  were  the  appropriate  heroines 
of  that  period.     They  are  the  striking  figures  of  a  rude  and 

1  The  book  of  Judith.  *  Greek  addition  to  Daniel. 

2  1  Esdras  4.  '  Book  of  Tobit. 

'  4  Mace.  '  Greek  addition  to  Daniel. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  343 

warlike  age.  But  Ruth  seems  altogether  out  of  place  in  such 
rough  times.  No  historian  would  ever  think  of  writing  such  a 
domestic  stor}-  as  Ruth,  as  au  episode  iu  the  history  of  such  a 
period. 1 

The  scenery  of  the  story  is  the  time  of  Judges,  so  far  as  the 
author's  antiquarian  knowledge  goes  ;  but  it  is  an  ideal  picture 
of  primitive  simplicity  and  agricultural  life  in  Bethlehem,  sep- 
arated from  all  that  was  gross  and  rude  and  rough  in  the  real 
life  of  those  times.  The  author  invents  the  scenery  for  his 
actors,  and  leaves  out  of  it  all  that  would  mar  its  simplicity 
and  detract  from  its  main  interest.  The  lesson  of  this  idyll 
is  given  in  the  words  of  Ruth  and  the  words  of  Boaz.  Ruth 
says  to  Naomi :  ^ 

"  Thy  people  shall  be  my  people, 
And  thy  God  my  God." 

Boaz  says  to  Ruth  :  ^ 

"  May  Yah  web  recompense  thy  doing, 
And  may  thy  reward  be  ample  from  Yahweh  (God  of  Israel), 
Under  whose  wings  thou  art  come  to  take  refuge." 

The  Moabitess  has  left  her  native  laud  and  her  father's 
house,  as  did  Abraham  of  old  ;  and  she  has  sought  refuge 
under  the  wings  of  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel,  and  she  has 
received  her  reward. 

This  story  of  Ruth  and  Boaz  is  all  the  more  striking  that  it 
comes  into  conflict  with  a  law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  its  enforce- 
ment by  Nehemiah.  Deuteronomy  gives  this  law  :  "  An  Am- 
monite or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter  into  the  assembly  of 
Yahweh  ;  even  to  the  tenth  generation  shall  none  belonging 
to  them  enter  into  the  assembly  of  Yahweh  for  ever."* 

This  certainly  excludes  Ruth,  a  Moabitess  of  the  first  genera- 
tion. Nehemiah  enforced  this  law  against  women.  He  tells 
us  : 

"  In  those  days  also  saw  I  that  the  Jews  had  married  women  of 

Ashdod,  of  Ammon,  of  Moab  ;  and  their  children  spake  half  in  the 

1  Some  have  sought  a  reason  in  the  fact  that  she  was  an  ancestress  of  David. 

But  there  is  nothing  in  the  character  of  the  monarchs  of  the  Davidic  dynasty 

that  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  they  would  encourage  a  writer  to  trace  their 

descent  from  a  poor  and  homeless  Moabitess,  however  excellent  her  character. 

2  lie.  3  212.  4  Deut.  23'. 


344  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

speech  of  Aslidod,  and  could  not  speak  in  the  Jews'  language,  but 
according  to  the  language  of  each  people.  And  I  contended  with 
them,  and  cursed  them,  and  smote  certain  of  them,  and  plucked 
off  their  hair,  and  made  them  swear  by  God,  saying,  Ye  shall  not 
give  your  daughters  unto  their  sons,  nor  take  their  daughters  for 
your  sons,  or  for  yourselves."  ' 

Now  how  shall  we  reconcile  the  story  of  Ruth  and  Boaz  with 
the  law  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  history  of  Nehemiah  ?  We 
are  reminded  of  another  law  of  Deuteronomy,^  that  the  eunuch 
shall  not  enter  into  an  assembly  of  Yahweh.  And  yet  the 
prophet  of  the  exile  says  :  "  For  thus  saith  Yahweh  of  the 
eunuchs  that  keep  my  sabbaths,  and  choose  the  things  that 
please  me,  and  hold  fast  by  my  covenant :  Unto  them  will  I 
give  in  mine  house,  and  within  my  walls  a  memorial  and  a 
name  better  than  of  sons  and  of  daughters.  I  will  give  them 
an  everlasting  name  that  shall  not  be  cut  off."  ^ 

The  book  of  Ruth  and  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile  take 
essentially  the  same  position.  They  see  that  the  grace  of  God 
to  eunuchs  and  Moabites  overrides  legal  precepts,  and  their 
zealous  enforcement  by  painstaking  magistrates.  This  seems 
to  give  a  hint  as  to  the  time  and  purpose  of  the  book  of  Ruth. 
It  was  written  probably  soon  after  the  return  from  exile  under 
Joshua  and  Zerubbabel,  in  the  spirit  of  the  great  prophet  of 
the  exile,  to  encourage  Israelites  to  take  advantage  of  the 
imperial  decree,  and  return  to  the  Holy  Land  ;  and  with  the 
special  purpose  of  encouraging  those  who  had  married  foreign 
wives,  and  also  the  foreign  widows  of  Israelites,  to  return  with 
their  children,  and  seek  refuge  under  the  wings  of  Yahweh,  in 
rebuilt  Jerusalem. 

Although  the  book  of  Ruth  is  a  woi-k  of  the  imagination,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  deny  that  Ruth  and  Boaz  were  historical 
characters.  The  historic  persons,  Ruth  and  Boaz,  and  the 
events  of  their  courtsliip  and  marriage,  were  embellished  by 
the  imagination  in  order  to  set  forth  the  great  lessons  the 
author  would  teach.  Just  as  Zerubbabel  was  used  iu  the 
apocryphal  literature  to  set  forth  the  lesson  that  truth  is 
mightier  than  wine,  women,  and  kings,  so  Ruth    is   used   to 

>  Neh.  13»-25,  2  Deut.  23>.  « Is.  56<^ 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  345 

teach  us  that  the  grace  of  God  pushes  beyond  the  race  of 
Abraham  and  redeems  even  the  Moabitess,  for  whom  no  pro- 
vision was  made  in  the  law  code  of  Deuteronomy  or  in  the  dis- 
cipline of  Nehemiah. 

VIII.   The  Story  of  Joxah 

The  book  of  Jonah  is  inserted  in  both  the  Hellenistic  and 
Rabbinical  Canons  among  the  Minor  Prophets,  and  jet  the  book 
does  not  contain  discourses  of  prophecy  as  do  the  other  Minor 
Prophets.  If  the  book  of  Jonah  were  history,  its  place  ought 
to  have  been  among  the  historical  books.  It  is  among  the 
prophetical  writings  with  proprietj-  only  so  far  as  the  story 
which  is  contained  in  it  was  pointed  with  prophetic  lessons. 
For  this  prophetic  purpose  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  story 
is  real  history  or  an  ideal  of  the  imagination,  or  whether  it  is 
historj'  idealized  and  embellished  by  the  imagination. 

1.  It  was  not  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  write  history.  The 
story  is  given  only  so  far  as  it  is  important  to  set  forth  the 
prophetic  lessons  of  the  book.  There  are  two  scenes, — the  one 
on  the  sea,  the  other  at  Nineveh.  The  story  begins  abruptlj- ; 
it  closes  abruptly  after  giving  the  lessons.  The  transitions  in 
the  story  are  the  rapid  flight  of  the  imagination,  and  not  the 
steady  flow  of  historical  narrative. 

2.  The  prophet  Jonah  is  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the 
book  of  Kings,^  and  a  prediction  of  minor  importance  is  men- 
tioned as  given  by  him.  It  seems  very  remarkable,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  the  book  of  Jonah  should  omit  this  ministry  in  the 
land  of  Israel ;  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Kings  should  mention  such  comparative!)^  unimportant  min- 
istry, and  yet  pass  over  such  important  proplietic  ministry  as 
that  given  in  the  book  of  Jonah. 

3.  The  two  miracles  reported  in  Jonah  are  marvels  rather 
than  miracles.  Tliere  is  nothing  at  all  resembling  them  in  the 
miracle-working  of  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  more  like  the  wonders  of  the  Arabian  Nights  than 
the  miracles  of  Moses,  of  Elijah,  of  Elisha,  or  of  Jesus  or  His 

'  2  K.  14-». 


346  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTCRE 

apostles.  It  is  true  that  there  are  great  sharks  in  the  Mediter- 
rauean  Sea  which  are  said  to  have  swallowed  men  and  horses 
and  afterwards  to  have  cast  them  up.  But  this  being  so,  the 
chief  difficulty  remains.  How  can  we  explain  the  suspended 
digestion  of  the  fish,  and  the  self-consciousness  of  Jonah  as 
indicated  by  his  prayer  ?  And  even  if  we  could  overcome  this 
difficulty  by  an  unflinching  confidence  in  the  power  of  God  to 
work  any  and  every  kind  of  miracle,  the  most  serious  objection 
would  still  confront  us.  It  is  not  so  much  the  supernatural 
power  in  the  miracle  that  troubles  us  as  the  character  of  the 
miracle.  There  is  in  it,  whatever  way  we  interpret  it,  an  ele- 
ment of  the  extravagant  and  the  grotesque.  The  divine  sim- 
plicity, the  holy  sublimit}*,  and  the  overpowering  grace  which 
characterize  the  miracles  of  biblical  history  are  conspicuously 
absent.  We  feel  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  such  a 
miracle,  and  we  instinctively  shrink  from  it,  not  because  of 
a  lack  of  faith  in  the  di\-ine  power  of  working  miracles,  but 
because  we  have  such  a  faith  in  His  grace,  and  holiness,  and 
majesty  that  we  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  God  could  work 
such  a  grotesque  and  extravagant  miracle  as  that  described  in 
the  story  of  the  great  fish.  So  the  story  of  the  wonderful 
growth  and  withering  of  the  tree  is  more  like  the  magic  of 
the  Oriental  tales  than  any  of  the  biblical  miracles.  It  seems 
to  be  brought  into  the  scene  as  an  embellishment  rather  than 
for  any  real  purpose  of  grace.  A  careful  study  of  all  the 
miracles  of  Holy  Scripture  excludes  this  magic  tree  from  their 
categories,  and,  to  say  the  least,  puts  it  in  a  category  by  itself. 
4.  The  repentance  of  Nineveh,  from  the  king  on  his  throne 
to  the  humblest  citizen,  the  extent  of  it,  the  sincerity  of  it,  the 
depth  of  it,  is  still  more  marvellous.  Nineveh  was  at  that 
time  the  capital  of  the  greatest  empire  of  the  world.  It  was  a 
proud  and  conquering  nation,  least  likely  of  all  to  repent. 
The  history  of  the  times  is  quite  well  known,  and  this  history 
seems  to  make  such  an  event  incredible.  Some  have  endeav- 
oured to  minimize  the  repentance  as  a  mere  official  one,  such 
as  were  ordered  by  monarchs  during  the  Middle  Ages.  But 
these  apologists  of  traditional  theory  forget  that  according  to 
the  story  God  recognizes  the  sincerity  and  the  extraordinary 


BIBLICAL  PROSE   LITERATURE  347 

character  of  the  repentance.  God  granted  His  mercy,  and 
recalled  His  decree  of  destruction  on  that  account.  This 
repentance  is  a  marvellous  event.  Nothing  like  it  meets  us  in 
the  history  of  Israel  or  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  It  is  an 
ideal  of  the  imagination.  Our  Savioui"  uses  the  story  of  the 
repentance  of  Nineveh  to  shame  the  unrepenting  cities  of  His 
time.  There  was  no  historical  repentance  so  well  suited  to 
His  purpose. 

5.  The  prayer  given  in  the  book  is  not  suited  to  it  if  the 
story  be  historical,  but  it  is  entirel}*  appropriate  if  it  be 
regarded  as  ideal  and  symbolic. 

This  prayer  is  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  of  a  man  who, 
either  in  fact  or  in  figure,  has  been  drowned  in  the  sea.  He  has 
gone  down  to  the  bottom,  the  seaweed  is  wrapt  about  his  head; 
he  has  then,  in  his  departed  spirit,  gone  down  to  the  roots  of 
the  mountains,  has  entered  into  Sheol,  the  abode  of  the  dead, 
and  has  been  shut  up  in  its  cavern  by  the  bars  of  the  earth. 
His  deliverance  has  been  a  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Such 
figures  of  speech  to  represent  great  sufferings  of  an  individual 
or  of  a  nation  are  found  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets.^ 

If  the  descent  into  the  belly  of  the  fish,  the  abode  therein 
three  days,  and  the  casting  up  again  are  simply  a  poetic  symbol, 
a  devouring  of  Israel  by  the  great  sea-monster,  Babylon,^  it 
is  entirely  appropriate  for  the  author  to  use  in  the  song  the 
sjrmbol  of  death,  Sheol,  and  resurrection,  as  a  parallel  symbol 
to  that  of  the  narrative,  the  swallowing  by  the  fish,  abiding 
three  days  in  the  fish,  and  casting  forth  by  the  fish. 

6.  The  whole  style  of  the  piece  is  such  as  we  find  in  the 
Jewish  Hagijada,  of  which  this  may  be  one  of  the  earliest 
specimens. 

1  Hosea  (13")  uses  the  same  figure  of  speech  for  the  exile  and  the  restoration. 
"  I  will  ransom  them  from  thepower  of  Sheol ;  I  will  redeem  them  from  Death.'" 
Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  also  represent  the  restoration  as  a  resurrection  from  Sheol, 
tlie  abode  of  the  dead,  and  as  the  rising  up  of  the  dry  bones  from  the  battle-field 
of  the  slain. 

-  Tlie  author  probably  had  in  mind  the  words  of  Jeremiah:  "Nebuchad- 
nezzar .  .  .  hath  swallowed  me  up  like  a  dragon,  he  hath  filled  his  maw  with  my 
delicates;  he  hath  cast  me  out"  {i>\^).  And  he  may  have  been  thinking  of 
Uosea's  words:  '-After  two  days  will  he  revive  us;  on  the  third  day  he  will 
raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  before  him  "  (6^). 


348  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

It  is  objected  that  our  Lord  in  His  use  of  Jouah,  gives  His  sanc- 
tion to  the  historicity  of  the  story ;  but  this  objection  has  little 
weight,  for  our  Lord's  method  of  instruction  was  in  the  use  of 
stories  of  his  own  composition.  We  ought  not  to  be  surprised, 
therefore,  that  he  should  use  such  stories  from  the  Old  Testament 
likewise.  It  is  urged  that  our  Saviour  makes  such  a  realistic  use 
of  it,  that  it  compels  us  to  think  that  he  regarded  it  as  real ;  but, 
in  fact,  he  does  not  make  a  more  realistic  use  of  Jonah  than  he 
does  of  the  story  of  Dives  and  Lazarus.  Just  such  a  realistic  use 
of  the  story  of  Jannes  and  Jambres  withstanding  ]Moses  is  made 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  the  author  compares  them 
with  the  foes  of  Christ  in  his  time,  2  Tim.  3*.  And  Jude  (v.  9) 
makes  just  as  realistic  a  use  of  the  storj^  of  Michael,  the  arch- 
angel, contending  with  the  devil,  aud  disputing  about  the  body  of 
Moses,  and  compares  this  dispute  with  the  railers  of  his  time. 
These  stories  are  from  the  Jewish  Haggada,  and  not  from  the  Old 
Testament.  No  scholar  regards  them  as  historic  events.  If  epis- 
tles could  use  the  stories  of  the  Jewish  Haggada  in  this  way,  why 
should  not  our  Lord  use  stories  from  the  Old  Testament?  Our 
Saviour  uses  the  story  of  Jonah  just  as  the  author  of  the  book 
used  it,  to  point  important  religious  instruction  to  the  men  of  bis 
time.  Indeed,  our  Lord's  use  of  it  rather  favours  his  interpreta- 
tion of  it  as  symbolic.  For  it  is  just  this  symbolism  that  the  fish 
represents,  —  Sheol,  the  swallowing  up,  —  death  ;  aud  the  casting 
forth,  —  resurrection,  —  that  we  have  seen  in  the  story  of  Jonah 
interpreted  by  the  prayer,  which  makes  the  story  appropriate  to 
symbolize  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

For  these  reasons,  the  story  of  Jonah  is  commonly  regarded 
by  modern  scholars  as  an  ideal  story,  a  work  of  the  imagination. 
There  are  two  great  lessons  taught  in  the  book  of  Jonah,  one 
in  each  scene  of  the  story.  The  first' lesson  is  similar  to  that 
taught  by  Amos  and  a  later  psalmist.^ 

God  has  power  to  bring  up  from  the  depths  of  the  sea,  from 
the  womb  of  Sheol,  from  the  belly  of  the  fish,  those  who  turn 
unto  Him,  to  His  hoi}-  temple.  Israel's  calling  as  the  prophet 
of  the  nations  cannot  be  escaped.  He  may  be  overwhelmed  in 
the  depths  of  affliction  ;  he  may  descend  into  Sheol,  the  abode  of 
the  dead  ;  he  may  be  swallowed  by  the  great  monsters  who 
subdue  the  nations, —  but  God  will  raise  him  up,  restore  him  to 
life  and  to  his  prophetic  ministry.     Jonah  —  Pharisaic  Israel 

»  Amos  95-  3  •  Ps.  139'-i». 


BIBLICAL   I'ROSE   LITERATURE  349 

—  may  renounce  his  high  calling  and  perish ;    but  a  second 
Jonah,  a  revived  and  converted  preacher,  will  surely  fulfil  it. 

But  the  greatest  lesson  of  the  story  is  in  the  repentance  of 
Nineveh,  and  the  attitude  of  Jonah  toward  that  great  event. 
Jonah  again  represents  historic  Israel,  preaching  with  sufficient 
readiness  the  doom  of  the  nations,  and  watching  for  the  Dies 
Irce  when  that  doom  would  be  fulfilled.  Jonah  goes  out  of  the 
citj'  and  selects  a  good  place  from  whence  he  can  see  the  grand 
sight.  —  the  overthrow  of  the  capital  of  that  nation  which  was 
the  greatest  foe  of  his  people.  But  Jonah  does  not  represent 
tlie  ideal  Israel.  God  has  other  views  than  Jonah.  He  does 
not  look  with  complacency  upon  the  death  of  120,000  babes, 
who  knew  not  enough  to  do  right  or  wrong.  He  does  not 
delight  in  the  death  of  men,  but  rather  in  the  repentance  of 
men.  A  million  or  more  human  beings  gathered  in  Nineveh, 
that  great  capital  of  the  ancient  world,  cannot  perish  without 
giving  sorrow  to  the  heart  of  God.  Jonah  ma}'  delight  in  such 
a  scene  ;  God  cannot.  The  repentance  of  Nineveh  is  sufficient 
to  change  all.  In  an  instant  the  decree  of  its  destruction  is 
annulled,  and  divine  love  triumphs  over  the  sentence  of  judg- 
ment. This  author  caught  such  a  wonderful  glimpse  of  the 
love  of  God  to  the  heathen  world,  that  it  makes  the  book  of 
Jonah  a  marvel  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament. 

IX.    The  Story  of  Esther 

The  book  of  Esther  is  one  of  the  Writings  of  the  Rabbinical 
Canon.  In  the  Hellenistic  Canon,  it  is  placed  after  the 
apocryphal  pieces  of  fiction,  called  Tobit,  and  Judith,  as  if 
recognized  to  be  of  the  same  type.  The  style  of  Esther  is 
di-amatic  and  rapid  in  its  development  of  incident.  Scene  after 
scene  springs  into  place,  until  the  climax  of  difficulty  is  reached, 
and  the  knot  is  tied  so  that  it  seems  impossible  to  escape. 
Then  it  is  untied  with  wondrous  dexterity.  All  this  is  the  art 
of  the  story-teller,  and  not  the  method  of  the  historian.  The 
things  which  interest  the  historian  are  not  in  the  book.  Esther 
is  a  didactic  story,  like  Ruth  and  Jonah,  Judith  and  Tobit, 
and  raises  more  historical    difficulties  than  can    easily  be    re- 


350  STDDY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

moved.  The  monarch  seems  to  be  Xerxes,  the  voluptuous  and 
absolute  ruler  of  the  Persian  Empire.  The  story  is  one  of  coui-t 
intrigue,  in  which  Esther,  the  favourite  wife,  and  her  uncle, 
Mordecai,  prevail  over  Haman,  the  prime  minister.  The  book 
is  connected  with  the  Purim  festival,  and  is  supposed  to  give 
the  historical  account  of  its  origin.  This  is  denied  by  many 
modern  scholars.  It  is  held  that  Esther  is  a  piece  of  historical 
fiction,  designed  to  set  forth  the  importance  of  the  Purim  fes- 
tival, as  a  national  feast,  and  to  teach  the  great  lesson  of  patri- 
otism. It  does  not  by  any  means  follow  from  the  connection 
of  the  book  with  the  feast,  that  the  book  is  historical.  Indeed 
Esther  does  not  explain  the  Purim  feast. i  It  does  not  give  any 
adequate  reason  why  the  Jews  of  Palestine  and  Egypt  and  of 
the  rest  of  the  world  should  celebrate  a  feast  which,  according 
to  Esther,  was  connected  with  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  re- 
maining in  exile  in  the  Persian  Empire,  an  event  less  worthy 
of  commemoration  than  a  hundred  others.  But  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  determine  its  exact  origin.  Many  a  Christian  feast 
rests  upon  uuliistoric  legends.  We  need  but  mention  the  feast 
of  the  Ascension  of  Mary,  the  feast  of  Saint  Veronica,  the 
feast  of  the  Finding  of  the  Cross,  and  the  feast  of  the  Sleepers. 
The  sole  redeeming  feature  of  the  book  is  its  patriotism. 
Esther  and  Mordecai  are  heroes  of  patriotic  attachment  to  the 
interests  of  the  Jews.  For  this  they  risk  their  honour  and 
their  Kves.  The  same  spirit  we  find  in  Judith,  and,  in  a  meas- 
ure, in  Neheraiah  and  Daniel.  If  patriotism  is  a  virtue,  and 
belongs  to  good  morals  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  systems, 
then  the  book  has  its  place  in  the  Bible,  as  teaching  this  virtue, 
even  if  everything  else  be  absent.  No  book  is  so  patriotic  as 
the  book  of  Esther.  Esther  is  the  lieroine  of  patriotic  devo- 
tion. She  is  the  incarnation  of  Jewish  nationality,  and  thus  is 
the  appropriate  theme  of  the  great  national  festival  of  the  Jews. 
And  in  all  the  Christian  centuries  Esther  has  been  an  inspii-a- 
tion  to  heroic  women  and  an  incentive  to  deeds  of  daring  for 
heroic  men.  And  if,  as  many  signs  seem  to  indicate,  woman 
in  the  next  century  is  to  use  her  great  endowments  in  a  large 

»  See  C.  H.  Toy,   "Esther  as  Babylonian  Goddess"   in   TTte  New  World, 
March,  1898.  pp.  130  seq. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  351 

measure  for  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  Esther 
will  exert  a  vaster  influence  in  inspiring  her  to  holy  courage 
and  unflinching  devotion  and  service.  For,  granting  that 
patriotism  in  its  narrower  sense  may  be  a  form  of  selfishness, 
yet  when  patriotism  has  been  transformed  into  an  enthusiasm 
for  humanit}-  and  a  passionate  devotion  to  the  Saviour  of  man, 
it  then  calls  forth  those  wondrous  energies  of  self-sacrifice  with 
which  woman  seems  to  be  more  richly  endowed  than  man. 

X.    The  Stories  of  Daniel 

The  book  of  Daniel  also  belongs  to  the  group  of  prose  litera- 
ture which  may  be  called  historical  fiction.  In  the  Hebrew 
Canon  Daniel  is  not  classed  with  the  Prophets,  but  with  the 
Writings.  The  Baraitha  ascribes  it  to  the  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue  ;  ^  later  tradition  to  Daniel  himself.  But  both  these 
theories  are  against  the  evidence.  The  language  is  of  a  later 
type.  As  Driver  says  :  "  The  verdict  of  the  language  of 
Daniel  is  thus  clear.  The  Persian  words  presuppose  a  period 
after  the  Persian  Empire  had  been  well  established  ;  the  Greek 
words  demand,  the  Hebrew  support,  and  the  Aramaic  permit  a 
date  after  the  conquest  of  Palestine  hy  Alexander  the  Great 
(B.C.  332)."  2 

The  Hebrew  book  of  Daniel  encloses  an  Aramaic  section, 
24b_y_  This  section  is  in  the  western  Aramaic  dialect,  and 
could  not  have  been  written  in  Babylon,  where  the  eastern 
Aramaic  was  used.  It  seems  probable  that  this  Aramaic  sec- 
tion is  older  than  the  enclosing  Hebrew  parts. ^  The  book  is 
divided  into  two  equal  parts,  Chapters  1-6,  a  series  of  stories, 
and  Chapters  7-12,  a  series  of  visions,  both  in  chronological 
order.  This  di\-ision  does  not  correspond  with  the  difference 
in  language,  and  comes  from  the  final  author.  The  stories  are 
all  in  the  older  Aramaic  section,  in  which  Daniel  is  always 
spoken  of  in  the  third  person.  They  are  not  historical  or  bio- 
graphical, but  are  episodes  with  prophetic  lessons.  They  are 
grouped  about  the  legendary  Daniel  of  Ezek.  14^^20^  28^,  and 

>  See  p.  252.  -  Introduction,  6th  ed.,  p.  508. 

»  Strack,  EinleUung,  ote  Aufl.,  p.  150. 


352  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRrPTURE 

are  of  the  same  type  of  historical  fiction  as  the  later  stories 
of    Susanna,  and  Bel  and  the   Dragon,  which  were  added  to 
Daniel  in  the  ancient  Greek  Septuagint  version. 
This  is  the  ojjinion  of  SaAce  :  ^ 

"'Darius  the  Mede'  is,  in  fact,  a  reflection  into  the  past  of 
Darius,  the  son  of  Hj-staspes,  just  as  the  siege  and  capture  of 
Babylon  by  Cyrus  is  a  reflection  into  the  past  of  its  siege  and 
capture  by  the  same  prince.  The  name  of  Darius  and  the  story 
of  the  slaughter  of  the  Chaldtean  king  go  together.  They  are 
alike  derived  from  that  unwritten  history,  which  in  the  East  of 
to-day  is  still  made  by  the  peoide,  and  which  blends  together  in  a 
single  picture  the  manifold  events  and  personages  of  the  past.  It 
is  a  history  which  has  no  perspective,  though  it  is  based  on  actual 
facts ;  the  accurate  calculations  of  the  chronologer  have  no  mean- 
ing for  it,  and  the  events  of  a  centur}'  are  crowded  into  a  few 
years.  This  is  the  kind  of  history  which  the  Jewish  mind  in  the 
time  of  the  Talmud  loved  to  adapt  to  moral  and  religious  pur- 
poses. This  kind  of  history  thus  becomes,  as  it  were,  a  parable, 
and  under  the  name  of  Haggadah  serves  to  illustrate  the  teaching 
of  the  Law." 

The  Aramaic  vision  of  Cliapter  7  is  entirel}-  parallel  with  the 
vision  of  Chapter  2.  If  the  story  of  Chapter  2  is  fiction,  the 
prediction  must  be  fiction  likewise.  These  two  ^-isions  are, 
therefore,  pseudepigraphic.  The  visions  of  Chapters  8-12  in 
the  Hebrew  language  are  of  a  still  later  date  than  Chapters  2- 
7,  and  are  pseudepigraphic  like^vise.  The  book  of  Daniel  is 
unknown  to  Ben  Sirach,  who  mentions  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel, 
and  the  Twelve  ;  ^  and  all  Hebrew  literature  is  silent  with  ref- 
erence to  it  until  the  earliest  Sibylline  oracle.  III.  388  ff.,  circa 
140  B.C.,  and  1  ^Nlacc.  2*^,  circa  100  B.C..  both  referring  to  the 
Aramaic  section.  Daniel  is  frequently  used  in  the  subsequent 
pseudepigrapha  and  the  New  Testament.  The  writer  is  evi- 
dently familiar  with  the  Greek  period  of  history,  but  un- 
familiarity  with  Babylonian  and  Persian  periods  leads  him  into 
crrave  historical  blunders.  The  Hebrew  sections  seem  to  imply 
the  troublous  times  of  Antiochus  Ejnphaues.  The  augelologv, 
eschatology,  and  Messianic  ideas  of  the  book  are  nearer  to  those 

'  Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Moiniments,  1894,  pp.  528,  629. 
2  See  pp.  123  seq. 


BIBLICAL   PROSE   LITERATURE  353 

of  the  book  of  Enoch  and  the  New  Testament  than  they  are  to 
those  of  other  writings  of  the  Okl  Testament.  The  religious 
ideas  are  nearer  those  of  the  late  Greek  period.  The  evidence 
from  all  these  sources  leads  us  to  the  opinion  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  was  written  as  historic  fiction  in  1G8-165  B.C.,  with  the 
use  of  various  earlier  documents,  as  an  encouragement  to  heroic 
courage  and  fidelity  to  the  national  religion. 
The  words  of  Bevan  may  be  cited  here  : 

"The  narratives  are  evidently  intended  to  be  consecutive  in 
point  of  time,  but  they  are  very  loosely  connected  with  each 
other.  Their  most  marked  feature  is  the  didactic  pur^jose  which 
appears  throughout.  In  every  one  of  these  stories  we  see  the 
righteous  rewarded,  or  the  wicked  signally  punished,  as  the  case 
may  be.  On  the  one  hand  Daniel  and  his  three  friends,  the  ser- 
vants of  the  True  God,  though  apparently  helpless  in  the  midst 
of  the  heathen,  triumph  over  all  opposition,  wliile  on  the  other 
hand  the  mightiest  Gentile  potentates  are  confounded  and  humbled 
to  the  dust.  This  would  in  itself  suffice  to  indicate  that  the  book 
was  intended  for  the  encouragement  of  the  Jews  at  a  time  when 
they  were  being  persecuted  bj'  pagan  rulers.  And  when  we  pass 
from  the  narratives  to  the  visions,  we  find  that  this  ^-iew  is  con- 
firmed. For  in  the  visions  the  final  victorj^  of  the  '  Saints '  over 
the  Gentile  powers  is  repeatedly  insisted  upon.  Further  exami- 
nation shews  that  this  victory  of  the  saints  is  to  take  place  in 
the  days  of  a  Gentile  king  who  will  surpass  all  his  predecessors 
in  wickedness.  ... 

"It  is,  however,  necessary  to  guard  against  a  possible  mis- 
conception. Though  the  author  of  Daniel  has  everywhere  the 
circumstances  of  his  own  time  in  view,  we  cannot  regard  Nebu- 
chadnezzar and  Belshazzar,  still  less  Darius  the  Mede,  simply  as 
portraits  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  The  author  is  contending,  not 
against  Antiochus  personally,  but  against  the  heathenism  of  which 
Antiochus  was  the  champion.  He  justly  considers  the  struggle 
between  Antiochus  and  the  faithful  Jews  as  a  struggle  between 
opposing  principles,  and  his  object  is  to  shew  that  under  all 
circumstances  the  power  of  God  must  prevail  over  the  powers  of 
this  world. 

"That  the  author  does  not  address  his  contemporaries  in  his 
o^\-n  name,  after  the  manner  of  the  ancient  prophets,  but  clothes 
his  teaching  in  the  form  of  narratives  and  visions,  is  perfectly  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  later  Judaism.  The  belief  that  no 
more  prophets  were  to  be  found  among  the  people  of  God  seems 
2a 


354  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

gradually  to  have  established  itself  during  those  ages  of  Gentile 
oppression  (Ps.  74').  Loathing  the  present,  the  pious  Jews  natu- 
rally idealized  the  past." ' 

These  are  then  the  most  general  forms  of  prose  literature 
contained  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  They  vie  with  the  literary 
models  of  the  best  nations  of  ancient  and  modern  times.  They 
ought  to  receive  the  study  of  all  Christian  men  and  women. 
They  present  the  greatest  variety  of  form,  the  noblest  themes, 
and  the  very  best  models.  Nowhere  else  can  we  find  more 
admirable  sesthetic  as  well  as  moral  and  religious  culture. 
Christian  people  should  urge  that  our  schools  and  colleges 
attend  to  this  literature,  and  not  neglect  it  for  the  sake  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  literatures,  which  with  all  their  rare  forms 
and  extraordinary  grace  and  beauty,  yet  lack  the  Oriental 
wealth  of  colour,  depths  of  passion,  heights  of  rapture,  holy 
aspirations,  transcendent  hopes,  and  transforming  moral  power. 

I  Bevau,  The  Book  of  Daniel,  1892,  pp.  22,  23,  24. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL,   POETRY 

The  Hebrews  were  from  the  most  ancient  times  a  remark- 
abl}'  literary  and  poetic  people.  Poetry  pervaded  and  in- 
fluenced their  entire  life  and  history.  The  Bible  has  pi-eserved 
to  us  a  large  amount  of  this  poetrj-,  but  it  is  almost  exclusively 
religious  poetry.  The  most  ancient  poetry  of  Assj-ria,  Babj^- 
lonia.  and  Egypt  is  likewise  religious.  There  is,  however,  evi- 
dence from  the  poetic  lines  and  strophes  quoted  in  the 
historical  books,  as  well  as  from  statements  with  regard  to 
other  poetry  not  included  in  the  collections  known  to  us, 
sufficient  to  show  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  poetic  litera- 
tui-e  of  the  Hebrews  has  been  lost.  This  poetrj'  had  to  do 
with  the  every-day  life  of  the  people,  and  with  those  national, 
social,  and  historical  phases  of  experience  that  were  not  strictly 
religious.  For  reference  is  made  to  the  Book  of  the  Wars  of 
Yahiveh  ^  and  the  Book  of  Ya%har?  anthologies  of  poetry  earlier 
than  any  of  the  poetic  collections  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ; 
and  also  to  a  great  number  of  songs  and  poems  of  Solomon 
with  reference  to  flowers,  plants,  trees,  and  animals.^  The 
mention  of  Ethan,  Heman,  Calcol,  and  Darda,  the  sons  of 
Mahol,  in  connection  with  the  wisdom  and  poems  of  Solomon, 
opens  a  ^vide  field  of  conjecture  with  regard  to  the  great 
amount  of  their  poetry.*  And  if  such  a  masterpiece  as  the 
book  of  Job  is  the  product  of  a  sacred  poet  whose  name,  or  at 
least  connection  with  the  poem,  has  been  lost,  how  many  more 
such  great  poems  and  lesser  ones  may  have  disappeared  from 
the  memory  of  the  Hebrew  people  during  their  exile  and  pro- 
longed afBictions  under  foreign  yokes.     For  we  cannot  believe 

>  Ku.  21".  2  Jo.  IQis ;  2  Sam.  119.  s  i  r.  432-3».         *  1  K.  4»i. 

355 


356  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

that  the  few  odes  ^  preserved  from  the  early  times  could  exist 
alone.  These  masterpieces  of  lyric  poetn-  must  liave  been  the 
flower  and  fruit  of  a  long  and  vaiued  poetical  development. 
Indeed  there  are  fragments  of  other  odes^  which  are  doubtless 
but  specimens  of  many  that  have  disappeared. 

Reuss  admirallly  states  the  breadth  of  Hebrew  poetry  : 

'■  All  that  moved  the  souls  of  the  multitude  was  expressed  in 
song ;  it  was  indispensable  to  the  sports  of  peace,  it  was  a  necessity 
for  the  rest  from  the  battle,  it  cheered  the  feast  and  the  marriage 
(Is.  5^ ;  Amos  6^ ;  Jd.  14),  it  lamented  in  the  hopeless  dirge  for 
the  dead  (2  Sam.  3**),  it  united  the  masses,  it  blessed  the  individ- 
ual, and  was  everywhere  the  lever  of  culture.  Young  men  and 
maidens  vied  with  one  another  in  learning  beautiful  songs,  and 
cheered  with  them  the  festival  gatherings  of  the  villages,  and  the 
still  higher  assemblies  at  the  sanctuary  of  the  tribes.  The  maid- 
ens at  Shilo  went  yearlj-  with  songs  and  dances  into  the  vinej'ards 
(Jd.  21''),  and  those  of  Gilead  repeated  the  sad  story  of  Jephthah's 
daughter  (Jd.  11*") ;  the  boys  learned  David's  lament  over  Jona- 
than (2  Sam.  1"*) ;  shepherds  and  himters  at  their  evening  rests 
by  the  springs  of  the  wilderness  sang  songs  to  the  accompani- 
ment of  the  flute  (Jd.  5").  The  discovery  of  a  fountain  was  the 
occasion  of  joy  and  song  (Ku.  21'').  The  smith  boasted  defiantly 
of  the  products  of  his  labour  (Gen.  4^).  Riddles  and  wittj-  say- 
ings enlivened  the  social  meal  (Jd.  14'- ;  1  K.  10).  Even  into  the 
lowest  spheres  the  spirit  of  poetry  wandered  and  ministered  to  the 
most  ignoble  pursuits  (Is.  23  "  "*).^ 

I.    The  Features  of  Hebrew  Poetry 

In  the  Hebrew  poetry  preserved  to  us  in  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures we  observe  the  following  characteristics  : 

1.  It  is  religious  poetry.  Indeed  it  was  most  suitable  that 
Hebrew  poetry  should  have  this  as  its  fundamental  characteris- 
tic ;  for  the  Hebrews  had  been  selected  by  God  from  all 
tlie  nations  to  be  His  own  choice  possession,-  His  first-born 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  *  and  therefore  it  was  their  dis- 
tinctive inheritance  that  they  should  be  a  religious  people  above 

1  Ex.  15 ;  Nu.  21 ;  Jd.  5.     See  pp.  369.  379,  41:5. 

2  Jo.s.  10  >2-  '■■' ;  1  Chr.  12".     See  pp.  337,  393. 

»  Art.  "  Heb.  Poesie,"'  Herzog,  Encyklopadte,  II.  Aufl.  V.  pp.  672  seq. 
♦  Ex.  4«',    19S. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  357 

all  things  else.  And  it  is  of  the  very  nature  of  religion  that 
it  should  express  itself  in  song  ;  for  religion  la3's  hold  of  the 
dee^jest  emotions  of  the  human  soul,  and  causes  the  heartstrings 
to  vibrate  with  the  most  varied  and  powerful  feelings  of  which 
man  is  capable.  These  find  expression  through  the  voice  and  pen 
in  tliose  forms  of  human  language  which  alone  by  their  rhyth- 
mic movement  are  capable  of  uttering  them.  From  this  point 
of  view  Hebrew  poetry  has  unfolded  a  rich  and  manifold  lit- 
erature that  uot  only  equals  in  this  regard  the  noblest  prod- 
ucts of  the  most  cultivated  Indo-Germanic  races,  the  Greek, 
the  Roman,  and  the  Hindu ;  but  also  lies  at  the  root  of  the 
religious  poetry  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue  and  the  Church 
of  Christ,  as  their  fruitful  source,  their  perennial  well-spring  of 
life  and  growth.  No  poetry  has  such  power  over  the  souls  of 
men  as  Hebrew  poetry.  David's  Psalms,  Solomon's  sentences, 
Isaiah's  predictions,  the  plaints  of  Job,  are  as  fresh  and  potent 
in  their  influence  as  when  first  uttered  b}'  their  masterly 
authors.  They  are  world-wide  in  their  sway  ;  they  are  ever- 
lasting in  their  sweep.  The  songs  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb  are 
sung  by  heavenly  choirs.^ 

2.  It  is  simple  and  natural.  Ewald  states  that  "  Hebrew 
poetrj"^  has  a  simplicity  and  transparency  that  can  scarcely  be 
found  anywhere  else  —  a  natural  sublimity  that  knows  but  little 
of  fixed  forms  of  art,  and  even  when  art  comes  into  play,  it  ever 
remains  unconscious  and  careless  of  it.  Compared  with  the 
poetry  of  other  ancient  peoples,  it  appears  as  of  a  more  simple 
and  childlike  age  of  mankind,  overflowing  with  an  internal 
fulness  and  grace  that  troubles  itself  but  little  with  external 
ornament  and  nice  artistic  law."-  Hence  it  is  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  poetr}-  and  rhetorical  i^rose  is  so  slight  in  Hebrew 
literature.  The  Hebrew  orator,  especially  if  a  prophet,  insjjired 
with  tlie  potent  influences  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  and  stirred 
to  the  depths  of  his  soul  with  the  divine  impulse,  speaks 
naturally  in  an  elevated  poetic  style,  and  accordingly  the  greater 
part  of  prophecy  is  poetic.  And  when  the  priest  or  king  stands 
before  the  people  to  bless  them,  or  lead  them  in  their  de- 
votions, their  benedictions  and  prayers  assume  the  poetic 
'  Rev.  16».  ^  Die  Dichter,  I.  p.  15. 


358  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

movement.  Thus  there  is  the  closest  correspondence  between 
the  emotion  and  its  expression,  as  the  emotion  gives  natural 
movement  and  harmonious  undulation  to  the  expression  by  its 
own  pulsations  and  vibrations.  The  pulsations  are  expressed 
by  the  beat  of  the  accent,  which,  falling  as  a  rule  on  the  ulti- 
mate in  Hebrew  words,  strikes  with  peculiar  power  ;  and  the 
vibrations  are  expressed  in  accordance  with  the  great  variety 
of  movement  of  which  they  are  capable  in  the  parallelism  of 
members.  AsW.  Robertson  Smith  correct!}^  says  :  "Among  the 
HebrcAvs  all  thought  stands  in  immediate  contact  with  living 
impressions  and  feelings,  and  so  if  incapable  of  rising  to  the  ab- 
stract is  prevented  from  sinking  to  the  unreal."  ^  This  faithful 
mirroring  of  the  concrete  in  the  poetic  expression  is  the  secret 
of  its  power  over  the  masses  of  mankind,  who  are  sensible  of  its 
immediate  influence  upon  them,  although  they  may  be  incapable 
of  giving  a  logical  analysis  of  it. 

3.  It  is  essentially  subjective.  The  poet  sings  or  writes  from 
the  vibrating  chords  of  his  own  soul's  emotions,  presenting 
the  varied  phases  of  his  own  experience,  in  sorrow  and  joy,  in 
faith  and  hope,  in  love  and  adoration,  in  conflict,  agony,  and 
despair,  in  ecstasy  and  transport,  in  vindication  of  himself 
and  imprecation  upon  his  enemies.  Even  when  the  external 
world  is  attentively  regarded,  it  is  not  for  itself  alone,  but  on 
account  of  its  relation  to  the  poet's  own  soul  as  he  is  brought 
into  contact  and  sympathy  with  it.  Tliis  characteristic  of 
Hebrew  poetry  is  so  marked  in  the  Psalter,  Proverbs,  and  book 
of  Job,  as  to  give  their  entire  theology  an  anthropological  and 
indeed  an  ethical  character.  Man's  inmost  soul,  and  all  the 
vast  variety  of  human  experience,  are  presented  in  Hebrew 
poetry  in  the  common  experience  of  humanity  of  all  ages  and 
of  all  lands. 

4.  It  is  sente7itious.  The  Hebrew  poet  expresses  his  ethical 
and  religious  emotions  in  brief,  terse,  pregnant  sentences  loosely 
related  one  witli  another,  and  often  witliout  anj-  essential  con- 
nection, except  through  the  common  unity  of  tlie  central  theme. 
They  are  uttered  as  intuitions,  that  wliieli  is  immediately  seen 
and  felt,  rather  than  as  products  of  logical  reflection,  or  careful 

1  British  Quarterly,  January,  1877,  p.  36. 


CH^VKACTEraSTICS  OF  BIBLIC^iL  POETRY  359 

elaborations  of  a  constructive  imagination.  The  parts  of  the 
poem,  greater  and  lesser,  are  distinct  parts,  the  distinction  often 
being  so  sharp  and  abrupt  that  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  and 
separate  the  various  sections  of  the  poem,  owing  to  the  very 
fact  of  the  great  variety  of  possibility  of  division,  in  which  it 
is  a  question  simply  of  more  or  less.  The  author's  soul  vibrates 
with  the  beatings  of  the  central  theme,  so  that  the  movement 
of  the  poem  is  sometimes  from  the  same  base  to  a  more  ad- 
vanced thought,  then  from  a  corresponding  base  or  from  a 
contrasted  one  ;  and  at  times,  indeed,  step  by  step,  in  marching 
or  climbing  measures.  As  Aglen  says,  "  Hebrew  eloquence  is 
a  lively  succession  of  vigorous  and  incisive  sentences,  produc- 
ing in  literature  the  same  effect  which  the  style  called  arabesque 
produces  in  architecture.  Hebrew  wisdom  finds  its  complete 
utterance  in  the  short,  pithy  proverb.  Hebrew  poetrj^  wants 
no  further  art  than  a  rhythmical  adaptation  of  the  same  sen- 
tentious style."  ^  Hence  the  complexit}- and  confusion  of  He- 
brew poetry  to  minds  which  would  find  strict  logical  relations 
between  the  various  members  of  the  poem,  and  constrain  them 
after  occidental  methods.  Hence  the  extravagance  of  Hebrew 
figures  of  speech,  which  transgress  all  classic  rules  of  style, 
heaping  up  and  mixing  metaphors,  presenting  the  theme  in 
such  a  variety  of  images,  and  with  such  exceeding  richness  of 
colouring,  that  the  Western  critic  is  perplexed,  confused,  and  be- 
wildered in  striving  to  harmonize  them  into  a  consistent  whole. 
Hebrew  poetry  appeals  through  numberless  concrete  images  to 
the  emotional  and  religious  nature,  and  can  only  be  appre- 
hended by  entering  into  sympathetic  relations  with  it  by 
following  the  guidance  of  its  members  to  their  central  theme, 
to  which  they  are  all  in  subjection  as  to  a  prince,  wdiile  in  com- 
parative independence  of  one  another. 

5.  It  is  realistic.  Shairp  says  :  "  Whenever  the  soul  comes 
into  living  contact  with  fact  and  truth,  whenever  it  realizes 
these  with  more  than  common  viviilness,  there  arises  a  thrill 
of  joy,  a  glow  of  emotion.  And  the  exjoression  of  that  thrill, 
that  glow,  is  poetry.  The  nobler  the  objects,  the  nobler  will 
be  the  poetry  they  awaken  when  they  fall  on  the  heart  of  a  true 
>  Bible  Educator,  Vol.  II.  p.  340. 


360  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

poet."^  The  Hebrew  poets  entered  into  deep  and  intimate 
fellowship  with  external  nature,  the  world  of  animal,  vegetable, 
and  material  forces ;  and  by  regarding  them  as  in  immediate 
connection  with  God  and  man,  dealt  only  with  the  noblest 
themes.  To  the  Hebrew  poet  all  nature  was  animate  with  the 
influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  who  was  the  agent  in  the  crea- 
tion, brooding  over  the  chaos,  and  conducts  the  whole  universe 
in  its  development  toward  the  exaltation  of  the  creature  to 
closer  communion  with  God,  so  that  it  maj-  attain  its  glory  in 
the  divine  glory.  Hence  all  nature  is  aglow  with  the  glorj' 
of  God,  declaring  Him  in  His  being  and  attributes,  praising 
Him  for  His  wisdom  and  goodness,  His  minister  to  do  His 
pleasure,  rejoicing  at  His  advent  and  taking  part  in  His 
theophanies.  And  so  it  is  the  representation  of  Hebrew  poetry 
that  all  nature  shares  in  the  destiny  of  man.  In  its  origin  it 
led  by  insensible  gradations  to  man,  its  crown  and  head,  the 
masterpiece  of  the  divine  workman.  In  his  fall  it  shared  with 
him  in  the  curse  ;  and  to  his  redemption  it  ever  looks  forward, 
with  longing  hope  and  throes  of  expectation,  as  the  redemption 
of  the  entire  creation.  And  so  there  is  no  poetry  so  sj^mpa- 
thetic  with  nature,  so  realistic,  so  sensuous  and  glowing  in  its 
representations  of  nature,  as  Hebrew  poetr}-.  This  feature  of 
the  sacred  writings,  which  has  exposed  them  to  the  attacks  of 
the  physical  sciences,  presenting  a  wide  and  varied  field  of  criti- 
cism, is  really  one  of  their  most  striking  features  of  excellence, 
commending  them  to  the  simple-minded  lovers  of  nature  ;  for 
■whUe  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  do  not  teach  truths  and  facts  of 
science  in  scientific  forms,  yet  they  alone,  of  ancient  poetry,  laid 
hold  of  the  eternal  principles,  the  most  essential  facts  and  forms 
of  objects  of  nature,  with  a  sense  of  truth  and  beauty  that  none 
but  sacred  poets,  enlightened  by  the  Sjurit  of  God,  have  been 
enabled  to  do.  Hence  it  is  that  not  even  the  sensuous  romantic 
poetry  of  modern  times,  enriched  with  the  vast  stores  of  re- 
search of  modern  science,  can  equal  the  poetry  of  the  Bible  in 
its  faithfulness  to  nature,  its  vividness  and  graphic  power,  its 
true  and  intense  admiration  of  the  beauties  of  nature  and  rever- 
ence of  its  sublimities. 

'  I'oetic  Interpretation  of  Nature,  p.  15. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  361 

II.    Ancient  Theories  of  Hebrew  Poetry 

The  leading  characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry  determine  its 
forms  of  expression ;  its  internal  spirit  swa3-s  and  controls  the 
form  with  absolute,  yea,  even  with  capricious,  power.  The 
Hebrew  poets  seem  acquainted  with  those  various  forms  of 
artistic  expression  used  by  the  poets  of  other  nations  to  adorn 
their  poetrj-,  yet  they  do  not  employ  them  as  rules  or  prin- 
ciples of  their  art,  constraining  their  thought  and  emotion 
into  conformity  with  them,  but  rather  use  them  freely  for 
jjarticular  purposes  and  momentary  effects.  Indeed  Hebrew 
poetry  attained  its  richest  development  at  a  period  when  these 
various  external  beauties  of  form  had  not  been  elaborated  into 
a  system,  as  was  the  case  at  a  subsequent  time  in  other  nations 
of  the  same  family  of  languages. 

There  are  various  ways  emploj-ed  in  the  poetry  of  the  sister 
languages  of  measuring  and  adorning  the  verses.  Thus  rhyme 
is  of  exceeding  importance  in  Arabic  poetr}^  having  its  fixed 
rules  ^  carefully  elaborated.  But  no  such  rules  can  be  found  in 
Hebrew  poetry.  Rhj-me  exists,  and  is  used  at  times  with  great 
effect  to  give  force  to  the  variations  in  the  play  of  the  emotion 
by  bringing  the  variations  to  harmonious  conclusions  ;  but  this 
seldom  extends  be3-ond  a  group  of  verses  or  a  strophe.^  So  also 
the  Hebrew  poet  delights  in  the  play  of  words,  using  their 
varied  and  contrasted  meanings,  changing  the  sense  by  the 
slight  change  of  a  letter,  or  contrasting  the  sense  all  the  more 
forcibly  in  the  use  of  words  of  similar  form  and  vocalization, 
and  sometimes  of  two  or  three  such  in  the  parallel  verses.^  Al- 
literation and  assonance  are  also  freely  employed.  All  this  is  in 
order  that  the  form  may  correspond  as  closely  as  possible  to  the 
thought  and  emotion  in  their  variations,  as  synonj-mous,  anti- 
thetical, and  progressive  ;  and  that  the  colouring  of  the  exjires- 
sion  may  heighten  its  effect.  The  principle  of  rhj^me,  however, 
remains  entirel}-  free.  It  is  not  developed  into  a  system  and 
artistic  rules. 

Tlie  measurement  of  the  verses,  or  the  principle  of  metres,  is 

»  Wright,  Arahic  Grammar,  2d  ed.,  II.  pp.  377-381. 
-  See  pp.  373  seq.  »  See  pp.  375,  376. 


362  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

thoroughly  developed  in  Arabic  poetry,  where  they  are  ordi- 
narily reckoned  as  sixteen  in  number. ^  Repeated  efforts  have 
been  made  to  find  a  system  of  metres  in  Hebrew  poetry.  Thus 
Josephus^  represents  that  the  songs  Ex.  15  and  Deut.  32  were 
written  in  hexameters,  and  that  the  Psalms  were  written  in 
several  metres,  such  as  trimeters  and  pentameters.  Eusebius^ 
says  that  Deut.  32  and  Ps.  18  are  in  heroic  metre  of  sixteen 
syllables,  and  that  trimeters  and  other  metres  were  em^Dloyed  by 
the  Hebrews.  Jerome  *  compares  Hebrew  poetry  with  the  Greek 
poetry  of  Pindar,  Alcasus,  and  Sappho,  and  represents  the  book 
of  Job  as  composed  mainly  of  hexameters  with  the  movement 
of  dactyls  and  spondees ;  and  ^  he  finds  in  the  Psalter  iambic 
trimeters  and  tetrameters.  But  these  writers  seem  to  have 
been  misled  by  their  desire  to  assimilate  Hebrew  poetry  to  the 
great  productions  of  the  classic  nations  Avith  which  the}'  were 
familiar. 

And  yet  there  is  a  solid  basis  of  fact  underl3'ing  these  state- 
ments. It  is  true  that  the  Massoretic  system  of  vowel  i^oints 
does  not  admit  of  any  such  arrangement  of  measured  feet  as 
is  known  in  Greek  and  Latin  poetry.  The  fragments  of  the 
transliterated  Hebrew  of  Origen's  Hexapla  show  us  that  the 
■Massoretic  system  is  extremely  artificial ;  the  pointing  of 
Origen's  time  does  not  yield  the  measui'ed  feet,  or  the  equal 
number  of  syllables  in  lines,  according  to  the  statement  of 
Eusebius,  who  must  have  either  built  upon  the  Hebrew  pro- 
nunciation as  given  by  Origen,  or  else  upon  information  from 
Hebrew  sources  or  upon  tradition.  Jerome  must  have  known 
the  Hebrew  pronunciation  of  his  day  and  the  measures  of 
poetry  as  known  to  the  Hebrew  of  his  day.  But  it  seems  al- 
together likelj"  that  the  accurate  pronunciation  of  the  ancient 
Hebrew  had  already  been  lost,  and  tiiat  the  knowledge  of  the 
measures  of  biblical  poetrj'  had  perished  likewise. 

There  is  no  evidence  in  Jerome's  version  that  he  under- 
stood the  measures  of  biblical  poetry.  There  is  certainly  no 
heroic  metre  of  sixteen  syllables  in  Ps.  18  or  Deut.  32.     The 

1  Wright,  Arabic  Orammar,  2d  ed.,  II.  p.  .S87.    '  He  Prccp.  Evang.,  XI.  5. 

2  AiUiquilies,  II.  16,  IV.  8.  VII.  12.  ••  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Job. 

^  Epist.  ad  Paulam. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  363 

number  of  syllables  varies,  if  we  count  the  two  separated  lines 
of  the  Hebrew  arrangement  as  one,  usually  from  twelve  to 
sixteen  syllables,  seldom  more  and  seldom  less.  There  are 
certainly  no  dactyls  in  the  book  of  Job.  It  is  quite  possible 
to  arrange  the  book  of  Job  like  Ps.  18  and  Deut.  32 ;  for  the 
book  of  Job  has  the  same  measure  as  these  ancient  poems,  and 
so  presents  the  appearance  of  hexameters  to  those  who  think 
these  other  poems  hexameters.  The  truth  that  underlies  the 
statement  of  these  ancient  authors,  which  they  received  from 
Hebrew  tradition,  is  that  there  are  trimeters,  tetrameters, 
pentameters,  and  hexameters  in  Hebrew  poetry.  The  measure- 
ment, however,  is  not  of  feet  or  of  syllables,  but  of  words  or 
word  accents,  just  as  in  ancient  Egyptian  and  Babylonian 
poetry.  1  If  the  hexameter  is  regarded  as  six  measures,  He- 
brew poetry  has  six  measures,  that  is,  six  words  or  word  groups, 
just  as  truly  as  Greek  and  Latin  poetry  has  six  measures  con- 
sisting of  so  many  feet  of  varied  arrangement  as  to  quantity. 


III.   MoDEKX  Theories  of  Hebrew  Poetry 

More  recent  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  and  meas- 
ure Hebrew  verses  after  the  methods  of  the  Arabic  and  Syriac. 
Thus  William  Jones  ^  endeavoured  to  apply  the  rules  of  Arabic 
metre  to  Hebrew  poetry.  But  this  involves  the  revolutionarj' 
proceeding  of  doing  away  with  the  ilassoretic  system  entirely, 
and  in  its  results  is  far  from  satisfactory.  The  Arabic  poetry 
may  be  profitably  compared  Avith  the  Hebrew  as  to  spirit,  char- 
acteristics, figures  of  speech,  and  emotional  language,  as  "Wen- 
rich  has  so  weU  done,^  but  not  as  regards  metres ;  for  these,  as 
the  best  Arabic  scholars  state,  are  comparatively  late  and  were 
probably  preceded  by  an  earlier  and  freer  poetic  style. 

Saalchiitz*  endeavoured  to  construct  a  system  of  Hebrew 
metres,  retaining  the  Massoretic  vocalization,  but  contending 
that  the  accents  do  not  determine  the  accented  syllable,  and 

1  See  p.  378.  '  Com.  Poet.  Asiat.  curav..  Eichhorn,  1777,  pp.  61  seq. 

'  De  Poeseos  Heb.  atque  Arabic,  orig.  indole  mutuoque  curisensu  atqne  dis- 
crimine,  Lipsis,  1843. 

•  Von  der  Form  der  Sebraischen  Poesie,  1825. 


364  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

SO  pronouncing  the  words  in  accordance  with  the  Aramaic,  and 
the  custom  of  Polish  and  (xerman  Jews,  with  the  accent  on  the 
penult  instead  of  the  ultimate. 

Bickell^  strives  to  explain  Hebrew  poetry  after  the  analogy 
of  Syriac  poetry.  His  theory  is  that  Hebrew  poetry  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  S}-riac,  not  measuring  syllables,  but  counting 
them  in  regular  order.  There  is  a  constant  alternation  of  ac- 
cented and  unaccented  syllables,  a  continued  rise  and  fall,  so 
that  only  iambic  and  trochaic  feet  are  possible.  The  Masso- 
retic  accentuation  and  vocalization  are  rejected,  and  the  Ara- 
maic put  in  its  place.  The  grammatical  and  rhj'thmical  accents 
coincide.  The  accent  is,  like  the  Syriac,  generally  on  the 
penult.  The  parallelism  of  verses  and  thought  is  strictly 
carried  out.  Bickell  has  worked  out  his  theoiy  with  a  degree 
of  moderation  and  thoroughness  which  must  command  admira- 
tion and  respect.  Not  distinguishing  between  long  and  short 
syllables,  and  discarding  the  terminolog)"^  of  classic  metres,  he 
gives  us  specimens  of  metres  of  5,  7,  12,  6,  8,  10  syllables,  and 
a  few  of  varying  syllables.  He  has  applied  his  theory  to  the 
whole  of  Hebrew  poetrj-,^  and  arranged  the  entire  Psalter, 
Proverbs,  Job,  Lamentations,  Song  of  Songs,  most  of  the 
poems  of  the  historical  books,  and  much  of  the  prophetic  poetry 
in  accordance  with  these  principles.  He  has  also  reproduced 
the  effect  in  a  translation  into  German,  with  the  same  number 
of  syllables  and  strophical  an-angement.^  The  theory  is  attrac- 
tive and  deserves  better  consideration  than  it  has  thus  far 
received  from  scholars  ;  yet  it  must  be  rejected  on  the  ground 
(1)  that  it  does  away  with  the  difference  between  the  Hebrew 
and  the  Aramaic  families  of  the  Sheraitic  languages,  and 
would  yirtually  reduce  the  Hebrew  to  a  mei'e  dialect  of  the 
Aramaic.  (2)  It  overthrows  the  traditional  accentuation  upon 
which  Hebrew  vocalization  and  the  explanation  of  Hebrew 
grammatical  forms  largely  depend. 

Doubtless  the  Massoretic  system  is  artificial  and  designed 


'  Metrices  Bihlicm,  1879  ;  Carmina  Vcteris  Tf.itameiiti  Metricc,  1882. 
2  Zeitschrift  d.  D.  M.  G.,  1880,  p.  56"  ;  Carmiita  i'cteris  Testatnetiti  Metrice, 
1882. 

'  Dichtunr/en  der  Jlebraer,  1882. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  36.5 

more  for  rhetorical  rendering  than  for  speech ;  yet  it  must 
have  a  real  basis  in  ancient  usage.  I  cannot  think  that  the 
accent  on  the  ultimate  was  the  invention  of  the  Massorites  or 
tlie  Sopherim.  There  seems  rather  to  be  just  this  original 
difference  between  the  great  groups  of  the  Shemitic  family,  that 
the  Hebrew  accents  on  the  ultimate,  the  Aramaic  on  the  penult, 
and  the  Arabic  on  the  antepenult.  The  change  of  the  accent 
to  the  penult  among  the  more  ignorant  Jews  was  more  natural 
tluui  an  artificial  change  from  the  penult  to  the  ultimate. 

(^3)  Furthermore,  Bickell  is  forced  to  make  many  arbitrary 
changes  in  the  text  to  carry  out  his  theory.  He  makes  many 
wise  suggestions,  however,  and  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  how 
constantl}-  his  arrangements  of  the  poetry  in  lines  and  strophes 
correspond  with  those  which  I  have  made  on  the  simpler  prin- 
ciple of  measurement  by  word  instead  of  measurement  by 
syllable. 

Hebrew  poetrj%  as  Ewald  has  shown,  may,  on  the  ]\Iassoretic 
system  of  accentuation  and  vocalization,  be  regarded  as  gener- 
ally composed  of  lines  of  seven  or  eight  sj^llables,  with  some- 
times a  few  more  or  a  few  less,  for  reasons  that  may  be  assigned. ^ 
Tills  is  especially  true  of  the  ancient  hj-mns,  which  are  chiefly 
trimeters,  and  of  the  major  part  of  the  Psalms,  which  are  either 
trimeters  or  double  trimeters,  and  so  hexameters.  Yet  even 
here  we  must  regard  Hebrew  poetry  as  at  an  earlier  stage  of 
poetic  development  than  the  Syriac.  The  poet  is  not  bound 
to  a  certain  number  of  syllables.  While  in  general  making  the 
syllabic  length  of  the  lines  correspond  with  the  parallelism  of 
the  thought  and  emotion,  he  does  not  constrain  himself  to  uni- 
formity as  a  principle  or  law  of  his  art ;  but  increases  or  dimin- 
ishes the  length  of  his  lines  in  perfect  freedom  in  accordance 
with  the  rhythmical  movements  of  the  thought  and  emotion 
tliemselves.  The  external  form  is  entirely  subordinated  to  the 
internal  emotion,  which  moves  on  with  the  utmost  freedom,  and 
assumes  a  poetic  form  merely  as  a  thin  veil,  which  does  not  so 
much  clothe  and  adorn,  as  shade  and  colour  the  native  beauties 
of  the  idea.  This  movement  of  emotion  gives  rise  to  a  general 
harmony  of  expression  in  the  parallelism  of  structure  in  lines 
1  Dichter,  I.  pp.  108  seq. 


366  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  strophes  —  a  parallelism  which  affords  a  great  variety  and 
beauty  of  form.  Sometimes  the  movement  is  like  the  wavelets 
of  a  river  flowing  steadilj*  and  smoothly  on,  then  like  the  ebb- 
ing and  flowing  of  the  tide  in  majestic  antitheses,  and  again,  like 
the  madly  tossed  ocean  in  a  storm,  all  uniformity  and  symme- 
try disappearing  under  the  passionate  heaving  of  the  deepest 
emotions  of  the  soul. 

IV.    Lowth's  Doctklnt;  of  Parallelism 

The  first  to  clearly  state  and  unfold  the  essential  principle  of 
parallelism  in  Hebrew  verse  was  Bishop  Lowth,^  although  older 
writers,  such  as  Kabbi  Asarias,  and  especially  Schottgen,^  called 
attention  to  various  forms  of  parallelism.  Lowth  distinguishes 
thi'ee  kinds  : 

1.  Synontpnous. 

O  Jehovah,  in  Thy  strength  the  king  shall  rejoice  ; 
And  in  Thy  salvation  how  greatly  shall  he  exult  I 
The  desire  of  his  heart  Thou  hast  granted  unto  him, 
And  the  request  of  his  lips  Thou  hast  not  denied.' 

2.  Antithetical. 

A  wise  son  rejoiceth  his  father ; 

But  a  foolish  son  is  the  grief  of  his  mother.* 

3.  Synthetic. 

Praise  ye  Jehovah,  ye  of  the  earth ; 
Ye  sea  monsters,  and  all  deeps  : 
Fire  and  hail,  snow  and  vapour. 
Stormy  wind,  executing  His  command.* 

Bishop  Lowth  also  saw  that  there  was  some  kind  of  metre  in 
Hebrew  poetry.     He  said  :  ^ 

"  Thus  much,  then,  I  think,  we  may  be  allowed  to  infer  from 
the  alphabetical  poems;  namely,  that  the  Hebrew  poems  are  writ- 
ten in  verse,  properly  so  called ;  th.at  the  harmony  of  the  verses 
does  not  arise  from  rhyme,  that  is,  from  similar  corresponding 
sounds  terminating  the  verses,  but  from  some  sort  of  rliythm, 
probably  from  some  sort  of  metre,  the  laws  of  which  are  now 
altogether  unknown,  and  wholly  indiscoverable." 

'  De  Sacra  Poest  Bebr.  XIX.,  1753  ;  also  Preliminary  Dissertation  to  his  work 
on  Isaiah,  1778. 

^  Bora:  Beb.,  Diss.  VI.,  De  Exergasia  Sacra.  '  Ps.  21'  -. 

*  Prov.  10'.  '  i's.  148"-*.  "  Isaiah.  Prelimin.ary  Dissertation,  p.  vii. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY  367 

Bishop  Lowth's  views  have  been  generally  accepted,  although 
they  are  open  to  various  objections ;  for  the  majority  of  the 
verses  are  synthetic,  and  these  in  such  a  great  variety  that  it 
seems  more  important  in  many  eases  to  classify  and  distinguish 
them  than  to  make  the  discriminations  proposed  by  Bishoj) 
Lowth.  There  is  a  general  mingling  of  the  three  kinds  of 
parallelism  in  Hebrew  poeti-y,  so  that  seldom  do  the  S3'nony- 
mous  and  antithetical  extend  beyond  a  couplet,  triplet,  or 
quartette  of  verses.  The  poet  is  as  free  in  his  use  of  the 
various  kinds  of  parallelism  as  in  the  use  of  rhyme  or  metre, 
and  is  only  bound  by  the  principle  of  parallelism  itself. 

4.  Bishop  Jebb^  added  a  fourth  kind,  which  he  called  the 
introverted  parallelism,  where  the  first  line  corresponds  with 
the  fourth,  and  the  second  with  the  third,  thus : 

My  son,  if  thine  heart  be  wise, 

My  heart  also  shall  rejoice  ; 

Yea,  my  reins  shall  rejoice, 
When  thy  lips  speak  right  things." 

This  is  a  difference  in  the  structure  of  the  strophe  and  in  the 
arrangement  of  the  parallelism,  rather  than  in  the  parallelism 
itself.  "We  may  add  two  other  kinds  of  parallelism,  —  the 
emblematic  and  the  stairlike. 

5.  The  emblematic  parallelism  is  quite  frequent  in  Hebrew 

poetry  : 

For  lack  of  wood  the  fire  goeth  out : 

And  where  there  is  no  whisperer,  contention  ceaseth. 

Coal  for  hot  embers,  and  wood  for  fire  ; 
And  a  contentious  man  to  intiame  strife.' 

Take  away  the  dross  from  silver, 

And  there  cometh  forth  a  vessel  for  the  finer. 

Take  away  the  wicked  from  before  the  king, 

And  his  throne  shall  be  established  in  righteousness.'' 

6.  An  unusual  but  graphic  kind  of  pai'allelism  is  the  stair- 
like  movement,  especially  characteristic  of  the  Pilgrim  Psalms  :^ 

I  will  lift  up  mine  eyes  unto  the  mountains  — from  whence  cometh  my  help : 
My  help  is  from  Yahweh  —  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth. 

1  Sacred  Literature,  §  iv.,  1820.  -  Prov.  2.315  16. 

»  Prov.  26»>-2'.  *  Prov.  25*^.  '  Ps.  120-134. 


368  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Jlay  He  not  suffer  thy  foot  to  be  moved  ;  —  may  He  not  slumber,  thy  Keeper. 

Behold  He  slumbers  not  and  sleeps  not,  —  the  keeper  of  Israel. 

Yahweh  is  thy  keeper^  —  is  thy  shade  on  thy  right  side  ; 

By  day  the  sun  will  not  smite  thee,  — nor  the  moon  by  night. 

Yahweh  will  keep  thee  from  every  evil  —  he  will  keep  thee,  thyself. 

Hei  will  keep  thy  going  out  and  thy  coming  in  —  from  now  on  even  for  ever.* 

The  last  word  of  the  first  line  becomes  the  first  word  of  the 
second.  The  last  two  words  of  the  third  line  are  taken  up  in  the 
fourth.  The  fifth,  seventh,  and  eighth  lines  repeat  the  keeper  of 
the  fourth  line. 

An  example  may  be  given  from  the  Song  of  Deborah :  ^ 

Curse  ye  Meroz,  saith  the  angel  of  Yahweh, 

Curse  ye  for  ever  —  the  inhabitants  thereof  ; 

Because  they  came  not  —  to  the  help  of  Yahweh, 

To  the  help  of  Yahweh  against  the  mighty. 

Blessed  above  tcives  be  .Tael, 

The  xcife  of  Heber  the  Kenite, 

Above  loives  in  the  tent  be  she  blessed. 

Water  he  asked  —  milk  she  gave  ; 

In  the  lordly  dish  —  she  brought  liim  curds; 

Her  hand  to  the  tent  pin  she  put  forth, 

And  her  right  hand  to  the  workman's  hammer; 

And  she  hammered  Sisera  —  she  smote  through  his  head, 

And  she  pierced,  and  she  struck  through  his  temples. 

At  her  feet  he  bowed,  he  fell,  he  lay  ; 

At  her  feet  he  boiced,  he  fell ; 

Where  he  boiced,  there  he  fell  slain. 

This  parallelism  of  members  was  until  recently  thought  to  be 
a  peculiarity  of  Hebrew  poetry,  as  a  determining  principle  of 
poetic  art,  although  it  is  u.sed  among  other  nations  for  certain 
momentary  effects  in  their  poetiy  ;  but  recent  discoveries  have 
proved  that  the  ancient  Assj'rian,  Babylonian,  and  Akkadian 
hymns  have  the  same  dominant  feature  in  their  jioetry,  so  that 
the  conjecture  of  Schrader,*  that  the  Hebrews  brought  it  with 
them  in  their  emigration  from  the  vicinity  of  Babylon,  is  highly 
probable.  Indeed,  it  is  but  natural  that  we  should  go  back  of 
the  more  modern  Syriac  and  Arabic  poetry  to  the  more  ancient 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  poetry  for  explanation  of  the  poetry 
of  the  Hebrews,  which  was  historically  brought  into  connection 
with  the  latter  and  not  with  the  former.     Taking  these  ancient 

1  m.T  has  been  inserted  without  rea.sou  in  the  JIassoretic  text  of  these  two 
passages. 

2  Ps.  121.  »Jd.  5^-'^.  *  J.'hr'i.  f.  Prot.  Theo..l.VJ:-2. 


CHAHACTEIUSTICS   OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY  369 

fcjheinitic  poetries  together,  we  observe  that  they  have  unfolded 
the  principle  of  parallelism  into  a  most  elaborate  and  ornate 
artistic  system.  Among  other  nations  it  has  been  known  and 
used,  but  it  has  remained  comparatively  undevelojjed.  Other 
nations  have  developed  the  principles  of  rhyme  and  metre, 
which  were  known  and  used,  but  remained  undeveloped  b}^ 
the  Hebrews,  Assyrians,  and  Babylonians. 

V.    Ley's  Theory  of  Measures 

In  addition  to  the  principle  of  parallelism,  others  have  sought 
a  principle  of  measurement  of  the  verses  of  Hebrew  poetry  by 
the  accent.  Thus  Lautwein,i  Ernst  Meier,^  and  more  recently 
Julias  Ley.^  The  latter  has  elaborated  quite  a  thorough  system, 
with  a  large  number  of  examples.  He  does  not  interfere  with 
the  Massoretic  system,  except  in  changes  of  the  maqqeph  and 
metJieff,  and  in  his  theory  of  a  circumflex  accentuation  in  mono- 
syllables at  the  end  of  a  verse.  He  arranges  Hebrew  poetry 
into  pentameters,  hexameters,  octameters,  and  decameters,  with 
a  great  variety  of  breaks  or  caesuras,  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
octameter,  which  may  be  composed  of  4  +  4  tones,  or  2  +  6,  3  +  5, 
or  5  +  3.  His  theory  gives  longer  verses  than  seem  suited  to 
the  principle  of  parallelism  and  the  spirit  of  Hebrew  poetry. 
His  octameters  are,  in  my  opinion,  chiefly  tetrameters,  and  his 
decameters  pentameters,  and  many  of  his  pentameters  trimeters. 
At  the  same  time  his  views  are  in  the.  main  correct.  He  has 
done  more  to  establish  correct  views  of  Hebrew  poetry  than  any 
other  since  Lowth.  The  accent  has  great  power  in  Hebrew 
verse.  The  thought  is  measured  by  the  throbbings  of  the  soul 
in  its  emotion,  and  this  is  naturally  expressed  by  the  beat  of  the 
accent.  The  accent  has  no  unimj)ortant  part  to  i^lay  in  English 
verse,  but  in  Hebrew,  as  the  poetic  accent  always  corresjionds 
with  tiie  logical  accent,  and  that  is  as  a  rule  on  the  ultimate,  it 
falls  with  peculiar  power.  Even  in  prose  the  accent  controls 
the  vocalization  of  the  entire  word,  and  in  pause  has  double 

1  Versuth  einer  riehtigen  Theorie  von  d.  hihUschen  Verskunst,  1775. 
^  Die  Form  der  Hebr.  Poesie,  1853. 

'  Grundziige  d.  lihythmus  des  Vers-  tind  Strophenbaues  in  d.  Hebr.  Poesie, 
1875  ;  Leitfaden  der  Metrik  der  Hebr.  Poesie,  1887. 


370  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

strength.  How  much  more  is  this  the  case  in  poetr}',  where 
the  emotion  expressed  by  homogeneous  sounds  causes  it  to  beat 
with  exceeding  power  and  wonderful  delicacj'  of  movement. 
This  can  hardly  be  reproduced  or  felt  to  any  great  extent  by 
those  who  approach  the  Hebrew  as  a  dead  language.  We  can 
only  approximate  to  it  by  frequent  practice  in  the  utterance  of 
its  verses. 

In  1881  I  published  my  views  of  Hebrew  poetry,  which  in 
the  main  correspond  with  those  of  Ley.  I  could  not  accept 
his  long  measures,  or  the  views  of  substitution  and  compensa- 
tion, which  he  has  since  abandoned.  But  I  have  held,  with 
increasing  firmness  in  my  teaching  and  writing,  that  the  Hebrew 
poet  measured  his  line  by  the  word  accent  or  word  groiip.^ 
The  Hebrew  poet  had  the  liberty  of  uliiting,  in  a  word  group, 
two  or  more  short  words.  The  many  monosyllables,  particles, 
segholates,  infinitives,  etc.,  might  be  used  in  this  way,  or  might 
be  treated  as  independent  words.  Tlie  particles  often  assume 
an  archaic  ending  for  this  purpose,  or  a  conjunction  is  pre- 
fixed.- 

There  are,  however,  long  words  where  the  secondary  accent 
must  be  counted  in  the  measure.  Such  long  words  are  not 
common  in  Hebrew,  but  they  have  to  be  considered  when  they 
occur.^  It  should  also  be  said  that  the  Hebrew  poet  changes 
his  measure  at  times  just  as  the  poets  of  other  literatures,  in 
order  to  give  variety  and  force  to  his  style.  Tiiis  is  most 
frequent  at  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  strophes.* 

There  has  been  a  strange  reluctance  on  the  part  of  Hebrew 
scholars  to  recognize  the  measures  of  Hebrew  poetry,  but 
within  a  few  years  great  advance  lias  been  made  in  this  respect 
in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

1  ffomiletical  Quarterly,  London,  1881,  pp.  398  seq.,  C55  seq.  ;  Biblical 
Study,  1st  ed.,  1883,  pp.  262  seq.;  Hehrdica,  five  articles  on  Hebrew  poetry, 
1886-1887. 

2  The  prefix  prepositions  ftt,  h,  3,  3  might  be  used  as  separate  words  by  giving 
them  the  ancient  form  of  '30,  lD'7,ia3,  183.  So  also  the  monosyllables  bx,  h'2, 
^^,  "?!?,  if  they  are  to  be  accented  as  separate  words,  assume  the  archaic  form 
'bx,  'h'Z,  "11?,  "hTl.  So  >ih  would  be  usually  if  not  always  toneless ;  but  R^l, 
xba,  sb'^D  may  receive  the  accent.     (See  Ley,  Leitfaden,  s.  4  seq.) 

'  For  specimens,  see  Ley,  Leitfaden,  s.  4,  and  notes,  pp.  382,  383. 
*  See  for  illustrations  pp.  383,  384. 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF   BIBLICAL  TOETRY  371 

Upon  these  two  princij>les  of  the  parallelism  of  members  and 
the  play  of  the  accent  the  form  of  Hebrew  verse  depends.  The 
ancient  verse  divisions  have  been  obscured  and  lost,  even  if 
they  were  ever  distincth-  marked.  We  can  recover  them  only 
by  entering  into  the  spirit  of  the  poetry,  and  allowing  ourselves 
to  be  carried  on  in  the  flow  of  emotion,  marking  its  beats  and 
varied  parallelism.  These  features  of  Hebrew  poetry  make  it 
a  universal  poetr}%  for  the  parallelism  can  be  reproduced  in 
the  main  in  most  languages  into  which  Hebrew  poetry  may  be 
translated,  and  even  the  same  number  of  accents  may  be  to  a 
great  extent  preserved  ;  only  that  the  colouring  of  the  words, 
and  the  varied  rhj-thm  of  their  utterance,  and  the  strong  beat- 
ing of  the  accent,  can  only  be  experienced  bj-  a  Hebrew  scholar 
in  the  careful  and  practised  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

VI.   The  Poetic  Language 

As  in  all  other  languages,  so  in  the  Hebrew  the  poetic  style 
is  elevated,  artistic,  and  cultivated,  and  hence  above  the  ever}-- 
day  talk  of  the  houses  and  streets.  For  this  purpose  it  selects 
not  the  language  of  the  schools,  which  becomes  technical,  pe- 
dantic, and  artificial,  but  the  older  language,  which,  with  its 
simplicity  and  strong  vital  energy,  is  in  accord  with  the  poetic 
spirit. 

Thus  in  the  forms  of  the  language  there  is  (a)  an  occasional 
use  of  the  fuller  sounding  forms,  as  athah  for  ah,  of  the  fem. 
noun ;  (J)  the  older  endings  of  prepositions  in  b''li  for  bal, 
minni  for  min,  'e?e  for  'eZ,  'die  for  'al,  'dclhe  iov'adh;  (<?)  the 
older  case  endings  of  nouns,  as  chai/'tJio  for  cJiayi/ath,  and  d'lii 
for  ben;  ((i)  the  older  suffix  forms  in  7710  and  emo  for  dm;  (e) 
the  fuller  forms  of  the  inseparable  prepositions  I'mo  for  I",  b''m6 
for  b' ;  (/)  the  nun  paragogic  or  archaic  ending  of  3  pf.  of 
verbs,  Hn  for  u. 

The  st3'le  is  more  primitive,  using  many  archaic  expressions 
that  have  been  lost  to  the  classic  language.  The  monuments 
of  Assyria  and  Babylon  show  us  that  the  earlier  Hebrew  lan- 
guage was  historically  in  contact  with  the  languages  of  Syria 
and  the  Euphrates.     The  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  shed  great 


372  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

light  on  these  poetic  archaisms.  A  later  connection  of  Hebrew 
with  Aramaic  is  indicated  in  the  later  historical  writings  of  the 
Bible.  The  poetic  language  is  also  remarkably  rich  in  syno- 
nyms, exceedingly  flexible  and  musical  in  structure,  and  thus 
the  older  forms  are  retained  in  these  synonyms  for  yariety  of 
representation,  when  they  have  long  passed  from  use  in  the 
prose  literature. 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE   MEASURES   OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY 

Hebrew  poetry  is  measured  iu  part  by  rhj-me  and  assonance, 
but  chiefly  by  the  beats  of  the  accents. 

I.      ASSONAJTCE    AND    RhOIE 

Many  specimens  of  word  painting  ma}-  be  found  in  Hebrew 
poetry.     The  following  examples  may  suffice  : 

Psalm  105  is  composed  of  six  hexameter  strophes  of  seven 
lines  each.  Two  of  these  strophes  (I.  and  V.)  have  rhyme  in 
the  form  of  identical  suffixes  of  the  noun  and  verb.  This  may 
be  sufficiently  represented  in  English  by  the  italicized  personal 
pronouns.  Each  line  of  the  first  strojohe  closes  with  the  suffix 
aiv;  each  line  before  the  caesura  has  the  suffix  6  or  mo ;  each 
line  of  the  fifth  strophe  closes  with  the  suffix  am. 

Strophe  I 

0  give  thanks,!  proclaim  nis  -  Dame  —  make  ^  known  among  the  peoples  His  * 

doings. 
Sing  to  Him,  make  melody  to  Him  ■ —  muse  on  all  His  wonders. 
Glory  in  His  holy  name  —  let  the  heart  of  them  be  glad  that  seek  Him.^ 
Resort  to  Yahweh  and  His  strength  —  seek  continually  His  face. 

1  mn'b  has  been  inserted  to  make  the  ascription  more  definite  ;  but  it  makes 
the  line  too  long,  and  was  unnecessary  in  the  original. 

2  The  hrst  half  of  the  line  throughout  ends  in  the  sutfix  i,  3d  pers.  sing. 
masc.  suifix  to  singular  noun,  His,  except  where  the  infinitive  construct  is  used, 
line  5,  and  the  3d  plural  (in  ID),  line  7.     See  note  on  p.  370. 

3  The  hexameter  always  has  a  casura.  See  p.  38:.'.  This  is  indicated  by  the 
mark  — . 

■*  The  line  always  closes  with  V,  3d  pers.  sing,  ni.isc.  suffix  to  plural  noun.  His. 
5  ,Tn"  'U'psa  for  the  original  Ttt'p^a.    The  insertion  of  m.T  makes  the  line 
too  long.  , 

373 


374  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTTRE 

Eemember  the  wonders  of  His^  doing  —  the  judgments  of  His  mouth  and  His 

marvels ;  - 
Y'e  seed  of  Abraham  His  servant  —  ye  children  of  Jacob,  His  chosen  ones. 
He  is  Yahweh  their  ^  God  —  in  all  the  earth  are  His  acts  of  judgment.* 


Stkophz  V 

Their  land  swarmed  with  frogs  —  in  the  chambers  of  their  '  king. 

He  said  it,  and  the  swarm  came  —  lice  in  all  their  border. 

He  gave  their  rains  to  be  hail  —  flaming  fire  in  their  laud. 

And  He  smote  their  vine  and  their  fig  tree  —  and  brake  in  pieces  the  tree  of 

their  border. 
He  said  it,  and  the  locust  came — and  the  yovmg  locust,  countless  their* 

number, 
And  did  eat  up  every  herb  of  their  land  —  and  did  eat  up  the  fruit  of  thfir 

ground. 
And  he  smote  all  the  firslbom  in  their  land  —  and  the  firstfruits  of  all  their 

strength.' 

The  6th  Psalm  is  an  example  of  the  use  of  the  suffix  of  the 
first  person  singular,  i,  at  the  close  of  each  line  except  the  last 
t^vo  of  the  first  strophe,  where  the  change  to  two  lines  with  kd 
=  Thee  is  effective. 

1.   Yahweh.  do  not  in  thine  anger  rebuke  me. 
Yahweh, s  do  not  in  thy  heat  chasten  me. 
Since'  I  am  withered i'  be  gracious  to  me; 
Since  '  my  bones  are  vexed  ">  heal  me  ; 
Yea  sorely  vexed  is  '  my  soul, 
And  it  is  come,"  Yahweh,  unto  my  death. 

1  Read  ^riTl'  n"K'?e5  for  Hebrew  ."TCT  "CK  '"H's'ts:,  which  is  prosaic. 

-  There  has  been  a  transposition  ;  ""riCO  goes  to  the  end  of  the  line.  The 
scribe  has  transformed  this  hexameter  line  with  cresura  into  a  prose  line. 

'  Read  "O'n'jS  for  'J"n'7S.  This  keeps  the  rhyme  in  o,  although  iO  is  3d  plural 
suffix.  ••  I's."  lOJi-'. 

'  Hebrew  C."T27a  is  evidently  a  mistake  for  ar'?B.  There  is  only  one  king  of 
Egypt  to  whom  this  passage  can  refer. 

*  The  suffix  was  unnecessary  here,  and  it  was  omitted  by  a  scribe  who  had  no 
intf  ie=t  in  the  rhyme.  We  should  read  DISCO  for  ^SCO.  To  give  the  force  in 
English,  it  is  necesssary  to  paraphrase.  '  Ps.  105**-*. 

*  The  parallelism  requires  the  iuserliou  of  i'ahweh. 

*  Transpose  the  clauses. 

>"  Omit  Yahiceh  in  these  instances.  It  makes  the  lines  too  long,  and  is 
unnecessary. 

"  This  line  iscornipt.     Instead  of  "na""!?  .T.T  nxi  read  •PtTlV  ,T."T  rwf]. 

The  omission  of  "  in  the  first  word  has  occa-sioned  the  incorrect  traditional 
pointing,  which  yields  no  good  sense.  Besides  the  Massoretic  ">  over  r. ,  while 
it  suggests  the  nriK  of  the  second  singular,  really  implies  a  traditional  doubt  as 
to  the  form. 


THE   MEASURES   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  375 

0  return,'  deliver  my  soul : 

For  the  sake  of  thy  kindness,"  save  me. 

For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of  thee  : 

In  Sheol,  who  will  give  thanks  to  thee  f 

2.    I  am  weary  with  my  groaning  ; 
All  night  make  I  to  swim  my  bed  ; 

1  water  with  my  tears  -  my  couch. 
Because  of  grief  wasteth  away  mine  eye  ; 
It  waxeth  old  because  of  »i(«e  adversary.' 
All  ye  workers  of  iniquity,  depart*  from  me; 
For  Yahweh  hath  heard  the  voice  of  my  weeping ; 
Yahweh  hath  heard  my  supplication  ; 

Yahwt-h  receivcth  *  my  prayer. 

They  will  be  ashamed  and  will  be  sore  vexed  all  mine^  enemies. 

There  is  a  fine  example  of  assonance  in  the  first  pentameter 

strophe  of  Ps.  110. 

Utterance  of  Yahweh  to  my  lord  —  Sit  at  my  right  hand, 
Until  I  put  thine  enemies  —  the  stool  for  thy  feet. 
With  the  rod  of  thy  strength^  —  I'ule  in  the  midst  of  thine  enemies. 
Thy  people  will  be  volunteers  —  in  the  day  of  thy  liost,  on  the  holy  mountains.' 
From  the  womb  of  the  morning  there  will  he  for  thee,  — the  dew  of  thy  young 
men. 

A  fine  example  of  Avord-painting  is  found  in  Jd.  5^  : 
cr  "zpr  :a'?n  is 
VTsx  nnm  m-ima 
The  movement   of  the  words  in  utterance  is  like  the  wild 
running  of  horses. 

The  most  elaborate  example  of  word  play  is  in  the  great 
apocal3-pse,  Is.  24-27.  It  is  indeed  cliaracteristic  of  this  mar- 
vellous hexameter.  The  force  of  the  original  Hebrew  can 
hardly  be  represented  in  English: 

rrn  I'sm  f'-,Kn  prn  pian  24' 

Sibboq  tibboq  hd'dretz  w'hibboz  tibboz. 

biV:  rhz:i  nbbax  jnsn  nbr:  n'?:K  24* 
^Ahh'la  nabh'ld  hd'dretz,  'itml'ld  ndhh'ld  tebhel. 

1  Omit  Tahweh  in  this  instance.  It  makes  the  line  too  long,  and  is  unneces- 
sary. 2  Transpose  the  clauses. 

3  Point  singular  '^^is  for  Massoretic  "^"TH-  *  Transpose  words. 

'  The  change  to  plural  is  probably  designed  at  the  close  of  the  strophe.  The 
last  clause  of  the  psalm  is  a  later  addition. 

*  "  May  Yahweh  send  it  forth  from  Zion,"  is  a  gloss  of  prayer.  It  breaks 
t'je  movement  of  the  poetry  by  an  abrupt  cliange  of  subject. 

'  Tin  ,  mountains,  instead  of  '"nn  ,  attire:  frequent  mistake  of  1  for  1. 


376  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

"h  "IS  "b  'n  'b  'nittKi  2416 

R'o'omor  rnsl  ?!  rdzi  U  'oia  fi 

Bogh'dhim  bdghdd.hu,  wubheghedh  hogh'dh'un  baghddhu. 

a'-av  nrsa  c';a-i"  -nra  25« 
c"pp:a  n"-iar  cnsa  a'lac' 

Mishte  sh'mdtum,  mishte  sh'mdrlm 
Sh'mdmm  m'muchdylm  sh'mdj'lm  m'zuqqdqlm. 

jnn  I'jnn  ;nn=  as*  'nzn  -nra  nrarn  27' 
•'As  the  smiting  of  those  that  smote  him  liath  he  smitten  him  ?  or  as  the  slaying 
of  them  that  were  slain  by  him  is  he  slain  ?  " 

Sometimes  great  force  is  produced  iu  a  poem  by  the  change 
of  a  single  letter  of  a  word  in  word  play. 

At  the  brooks  of  Reuben  were  great  decrees  of  mind. 
Why  tlidst  thou  dwell  among  the  sheepfolds, 
Listening  to  the  bleathigs  of  the  flocks? 
At  the  brooks  of  Reuben  were  great  scarchings  of  mind. 

This  tetrastich  begins  and  closes  with  the  same  identical  line, 
except  that  for  the  word  'ppPI,  decrees,  we  have  '"IpH,  searchings. 
There  is  a  single  letter  changed,  p  to  1,  to  emphasize  the  trans- 
formation of  the  bold  mental  decrees  into  the  timid,  hesitating 
searchings  of  the  mind.' 

II.    The  jNIeasuees  by  Word  or  Accent 

The  Hebrew  poet  measured  his  lines  by  the  beats  of  the 
accent,  or  by  word,  or  word-groups,  as  did  ancient  Babylonian 
and  Egyptian  poets.  Accordingly  three  beats  of  the  accent 
give  us  trimeters,  four  tetrameters,  five  pentameters,  and  six 
hexameters.  All  these  measures  appear  in  Hebrew  poetry,  as 
they  do  in  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  poetry.  There  are  no 
dimeter  lines,  except  occasional!)'  in  connection  with  trimeters 
and  tetrameters  to  vary  the  measure. 

1.     The  Trimeter 

The  trimeter  is  the  most  frequent  measure,  especially  in  the 
more  ancient  historical  poetry,  and  in  the  Psalter,  and  in 
the  Wisdom  Literature.     The  alphabetical  poems  enable  us  to 

1  Jd.  5i5''i.  Geo.  Moore  in  his  Commentary  on  Judge!!  thinks  the  .second  line 
a  mistaken  repetition  of  the  first,  and  that  it  gives  the  true,  original  text.  I 
cannot  agree  with  him. 


THE   MEASURES   OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY 


377 


study  the  trimeters,  as  tlie  lines  are  limited  by  the  letters 
of  tlie  alphabet  in  their  progress.  The  first  example  will  be 
taken  from  the  alphabetical  Ps.  9,  where  there  is  a  double 
Ihnitation  by  the  letter  Alej^h  and  by  the  rhyme  in  the 
suffix  Ka. 

^b  2  'ih-biz  1  nT« 

is  nibi'Ki  nnarx 
■far  f'bv  *  nnais 

Each  line  begins  with  the  first  person  of  the  cohortative  imper- 
fect of  the  verb  and  with  the  letter  Aleph ;  each  line  closes  with 
the  suffix  of  the  second  singular  noun.  Here,  then,  the  lines  are 
distinctly  marked  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  by  words  in 
assonance.  One  word  only  remains  in  each  line  between  the  two. 
These  lines  are  measured  by  three  words  or  three  word  accents. 
Psalm  111  is  a  fine  example  of  an  alphabetical  psalm : 


n"j 

nbrer 

nf? 

"b^ 

=£b-'?:= 

nTK 

Esra"! 

rax 

"iri'8  8 

n-;n 

D'-iir'" 

nTB 

VTipS- 

br 

B-ras: 

nvi' 

"era 

a-'ri: 

n'Trb 

irb 

c"f"aB 

"fen  6 

'?:'? 

c"»Tn 

'^•C'^ 

rass 

c-rr 

•bra 

-i-:m 

"liri 

laub 

nbff 

nvi3 

nr"? 

mar 

irpnsi 

W'-a 

c'Tirb 

nia 

rrnxbe:'? 

nri? 

-IBt' 

lair 

K-Mr 

rvip 

nvT 

n'n-n 

pin 

sinsT 

na:n 

n-rx-i 

VSTb 

im 

P1Tl3 

n,Trr 

'^=> 

ra-brr 

\"^n3 

n'715'7 

-ifr 

-isb 

mar 

in-jnn 

•'ar^ 

n';n 

TUTa-n: 

1  "Yahweh"  has  been  inserted  in  the  Massoretic  text,  as  usual  in  such 
circumstances.  In  use  in  worship  the  reference  to  Yahweh  was  plain  enough. 
For  private  reading  it  seemed  necessary  to  the  scribe  to  insert  it. 

^  "^b  has  been  omitted  by  the  Massoretic  text.     It  is  implied  by  the  Greek  aoL 

'  The  long  word  "^pr'SpB?  has  two  accents,  therefore  b-  is  to  be  attached  to 
it  by  MSqqeph. 

■•  There  has  been  a  transposition  of  'C'b^  and  IKiC  by  a  scribe  who  did  not 
tmderstand  the  rhyme  and  who  followed  the  prose  order  of  words. 

*  The  Greek  version  has  troi,  which  implies  either  an  interpretation,  or  "7  in 
the  text.  .T.T  has  been  inserted  as  usual,  but  it  makes  the  line  a  tetrameter. 
It  is  possible  that  the  poet  has  increased  his  measure  here,  for  sometimes  trim- 
eters begin  with  tetrameters,  but  it  is  not  probable. 

*  The  Greek  version  has  ee\ri)iaTa.  avrou  =  VSSn,  which  is  more  probable  than 
the  Hebrew  Drrssn.  '  urh  has  been  inserted  for  preciseness  of  statement. 

g  VT  'rra  makes  the  line  a  tetrameter.     It  is  improbable  ;   read  I'Efua. 

*  .T.T  rKl",  in  the  Hebrew  stands  for  an  original  irKI". 


378  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRU'TURE 

The  lines  are  distinctly  separated  by  the  fact  that  each  one 
begins  with  a  letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and  they  continue 
in  the  order  of  the  alphabet  until  the  psalm  is  complete  in 
twenty-two  lines.     Each  line  has  three  accented  words.^ 

Psalm  112  is  also  an  alphabetical  psalm  of  exactly  the  same 
structure  as  Ps.  111. 

In  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  there  is  a  separation  of  lines  in 
Dent.  32,  33;  2  Sam.  22;  Ps.  18,  which  indicates  that  these 
are  all  trimeters.  The  poems  ascribed  to  Balaam  ^  are  also 
trimeters,  although  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  itself  to  show  it. 

A  fine  example  of  tlie  trimeter  may  be  given  from  the  Egyp- 
tian poem  called  tlie  Hymn  to  the  Nile  : 

Adoration  to  the  Nile  ! 

Hail  to  thee,  O  Nile  ! 

Who  maiiifesteth  thyself  over  this  land, 

And  comest  to  give  life  to  Egypt ! 

Mysterious  is  thy  issuing  forth  from  the  darkness, 

On  this  day  whereon  it  is  celebrated  ! 

Watering  the  orchards  created  by  Ra, 

To  cause  all  the  cattle  to  live. 

Thou  givest  the  earth  to  drink,  inexhaustible  one  ! 

Path  that  descendcst  from  the  sky. 

Loving  the  bread  of  Seb  and  the  firstfruits  of  Nepera, 

Thou  causest  the  workshops  of  Pthah  to  prosper.' 

A  French  scholar  sa3's  of  this  poem  : 

"  The  text  of  the  Hymn  is  divided  into  fourteen  verses,  intro- 
duced by  red  letters,  and  each,  with  two  exceptions,  containing 
the  same  number  of  complete  phrases,  separated  from  one  another 
by  red  points.  Unfortunately  we  are  still  ignorant  of  the  rules 
of  Egyptian  poetry,  but  as  the  variant  readings  show  that  the 
number  of  syllables  in  one  and  the  same  sentence  is  not  the  same 
in  the  different  texts,  it  is  probable  that  the  tonic  accent  played  a 
chief  part  in  it."  * 

Erman,®  the  distinguished  Eg3-ptologist  of  Berlin,  also  sa^-s 
that  Egyptian  poetrj'  is  measured  by  the  tonic  accent,  and  that 
there  is  a  vast  amount  of  i^oetry  in  Eg3'ptian  literature. 

1  No  emendation  is  necessary  in  the  Hebrew  text.  The  use  of  the  MSqqeph 
ia  sufficient  in  lines  1,  11,  12,  13,  20,  21.  But  it  is  probable  that  in  some  of 
these  lines  there  has  been  a  slight  corruption  of  the  original  text,  as  I  have 
indicated  in  the  notes. 

2  Nu.  1Z'"i- 1*-2<.  8  liercnh  ''/the  Past,  new  edition,  III.  48. 
*  Paul  Guieysse,  Becords  of  the  Past,  III.  p.  47. 

'  Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,  1804,  p.  .'SOB. 


THE   MEASURES   OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY  379 

2.    The  Tetrameter 

The  tetrameter  is  composed  of  four  beats  of  the  accent  or 
word-groups.  It  is  usually  divided  by  a  c;esura  in  the  middle. 
The  following  specimen  of  an  ancient  Babylonian  hymn  may 
suitablj-  introduce  the  subject :  ^ 

In  heaven  who  is  great  ?  —  Thou  alone  art  great. 

On  earth  -nho  is  great  ?  — Thou  alone  art  great. 

Where  Thy  voice  resounds  in  heaven  —  the  gods  fall  prostrate. 

Where  Thy  voice  resounds  on  earth  —  the  genii  kiss  the  dust. 

This  resembles  in  some  respects  the  ode  of  the  Red  Sea.'^  The 
latter  has  a  refrain  which  does  not  appear  at  the  close  of  the 
strophes,  but  is  given  apart  from  them.  It  should  be  placed  at 
the  close  of  the  strophes.  The  strophes  increase,  the  second 
strophe  being  twice  the  length  of  the  first,  and  the  third  strophe 
three  times  its  length.  The  movement  is  clearly  tetrameter, 
with  the  caesura  in  tiie  midst  of  each  line. 

Strophe  I 

Tts^^srh  "^■'.Ti-.T'-rnaTi  "lu 

injaia-is"  •2!<-'nbK-im:Ki  ■btrrv 

ler  .Tn"-nan'?aT:"K  r^'.:v 

cr  nT-ib'm  ni-ns-nssna 

<ps-ia2  n'?'i:a:3-:a"D3'  rann 

ns:  nsr-r-m.-r"?  m-rs-i  „  ,   . 
or  I  ^^^''*"^' 


n-a  nan -133-11 
Strophe  II 


TTBJ  "asSan-b'^ff  \hnx 

"T  iar—:r  - -a-n  p-,x 

c"  "ac3--;-"^3  nsr: 


,  _„     .»„,  _._  >  Refrain. 

u  a  I  la  1  —  aa  1 1  c  c  > 


n33  'msj-niT  ira' 

a"is  |"mn-m,T  ^rB' 

7ap  c-inn--[:"s:  aiai 

rpa  ^a'ras"--j;-in  n'?c'n 

c"a  ianr:-"i"2s*  nnai 

n'b:;  n:  "aa  ias3 

B'  aba-nann  issp 


1  Transactions  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.,  II.  p.  62.  2  Ej,  15, 

•  m'  is  a  prosaic  insertion. 

*  The  cssura  is  striking  in  each  of  these  lines.  The  arrangement  agrees  with 
the  usual  division  of  the  lines,  except  in  the  second  line,  which  is  divided  in  the 
Massoretic  text  into  two  lines,  spoiling  the  movement. 

'  There  is  no  departure  from  the  tetrameter  movement  in  this  long  strophe. 
In  most  of  the  lines  the  csesura  is  plain.  In  the  Massoretic  text,  lines  5,  6,  7 
are  changed  into  trimeters  by  the  misuse  of  the  liaqqeph. 


380  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Strophe  III 


fc:2  "str  bz  'x: 

nnsi  nne-s-cn-'r:"  bzr\ 

jrto  •aT--;r"iT  •?-;:= 

rrrr  ~fiv--'zv  nt? 

rr:p  •rci'--.2r-  nr 

-jn"?™  nnn-'aiTi-"  lasrn 

nirr  ri'?:"2--nzrS  jira 

21"T  ■;:•:- n:,T  rnpa 

D'3  na-i-i33m  c:nJ 


»np=  --K;-n:a=  'a 

ps  •ai''r=r-ira'  n"^; 

n'rx;  Tcr-ircns  rrn: 

-]np  .T:-'7s--]rj3  rhn 

a"ji  i'.;;-:— a'au  irac 

ens  "eibs-ibnr:  tk 


Psalm  13  gives  an  example  of  a  tetrameter,  where  the  begin- 
ning of  the  lines  in  the  first  strophe  is  marked  by  an  identical 
phrase,  and  the  lines  conclude  with  rhyme  : 

How  long,  Yahweh,  —  forever'  wilt  thou  forget  me  f 

How  long  wilt  thou  hide  thy  face  from  me  f 

How  long  shall  I  take  counsel  in  my  soul  ? 

How  long'  shall  I  have  sorrow  —  by  day  '  in  my  heart? 

How  long  shall  he  be  exalted  —  over  me '  be  mine  enemy  ? 

There  are  not  so  many  examples  of  the  tetrameter  in  Hebrew 
poetry  as  of  the  other  measures.  There  are  few  in  the  Psalter. 
Fine  specimens,  however,  are  the  Song  of  Deborah,^  the  Lament 
of  David  over  Jonathan,®  and  Pss.  1,  4,  7,  12,  16,  -45,  46,  58. 


3.    The  Pentameter 

The  pentameter  has  five  beats  of  the  accent,  or  five  word- 
groups.  There  is  alwa3's  a  csesura,  usually  after  the  third  beat, 
but  sometimes  for  variety  after  the  second  beat. 

The  epic  of  the  Descent  of  Istar  to  Sheol  is  a  fine  example 

1  It  is  improbable  that  this  line  only  should  be  trimeter.  Insert  C"1J  In  accord- 
ance with  parallelism. 

2  We  now  have  a  supplementary  line  which  seems  not  to  have  belonged  to 
ihe  original  poem.  It  is  just  such  a  liturgical  supplement  as  we  often  find  in 
tlie  I'salter.  The  Massoretic  text  reduces  a  few  of  the  lines  to  triinetors  by  an 
improper  use  of  the  MSqqeph.     In  the  la-st  line  nirT  is  to  be  preferred  lo  "IK. 

'  These  three  cases  are  transpositions  made  by  the  scribe,  who  did  not  discern 
tlie  rhyme,  and  so  followed  tlie  prose  order  of  words.  The  restoration  of  the 
original  order  restores  tlie  Citsuras  also. 

*  n:S"nL*  is  restored  in  this  line.  The  Massoretic  text  omits  it.  It  is  improb- 
able that  the  original  lacked  it.  '•  Jd.  5.  '2  Sam.  I'*-''. 


THE   MEASURES   OF   BIBLICAL  POETRY  381 

of  the  pentameter  in  Babylnniau  poetry.^     The  following  ex- 
tract may  sufiice  : 

To  the  land  without  return  —  the  region  of  darkness, 

Istar,  daughter  of  Sin  —  her  face  did  set ; 

Yea,  the  daughter  of  Sin  —  did  set  her  face 

To  the  house  of  darkness  —  the  abode  of  Irkalla, 

To  the  house  whose  entering  —  knows  no  going  out  again, 

To  the  path  whose  way  —  has  no  returning, 

To  the  house  which  cuts  off  —  him  entering  it  from  light, 

Wliere  dust  is  their  nourishment  —  their  food  is  slime. 

Light  is  never  beheld  —  in  darkness  they  dwell  : 

They  are  clothed  like  the  bials  —  their  garments  are  wings. 

On  the  door  and  its  bolt  —  is  lying  the  dust. 

The  pentameter  is  the  most  frequent  measure  in  Hebrew 
poetry,  next  to  the  trimeter.  This  is  the  measure  which  is 
called  by  Budde  the  Kina  measure,  because  apparently  he  first 
noticed  it  in  the  book  of  Lamentations.  But,  in  fact,  there  is 
no  propriet}'  in  this  name.  The  earliest  Hebrew  dirge,  the 
Lament  of  David  over  Jonathan,  is  not  in  this  measure,  but  in 
the  tetrameter  ;  and  on  the  other  side  this  measure  is  not  espe- 
cially adapted  to  the  dirge.  All  kinds  of  poetry  appear  in  this 
measure.  It  seems  especially  adapted  to  didactic  poems,  such 
as  Ps.  119. 

The  pentameter  line  is  often  treated  as  if  it  were  composed  of 
two  lines  in  parallelism.  But  the  second  half  of  the  pentameter 
line  is  not  in  such  marked  parallelism  with  the  first  as  the 
second  line  of  a  trimeter  poem.  It  is  rather  supplementary  to 
the  first  half,  even  when  parallelism  appears. 

A  fine  specimen  of  the  pentameter  is  the  alphabetical  dirge 
contained  in  Lam.  -3.  The  dirge  has  twenty-two  strophes,  in 
which  the  initial  letter  of  the  strophe  is  a  letter  in  the  order  of 
the  Hebrew  alphabet.  But  the  alphabetical  structure  is  not 
confined  to  the  initial  letters  of  the  strophes.  Each  strophe 
contains  three  lines,  and  each  line  begins  with  the  characteris- 
tic letter  of  the  strophe.  Four  of  these  strophes  will  suffice  as 
specimens  of  the  twenty-two.  Bickell  makes  these  lines  of 
twelve  syllables  in  accordance  with  his  theory  of  the  structure 
of  Hebrew  verse.  In  general,  his  lines  of  twelve  syllables 
correspond  with  our  pentameter. 

'  F.  Brown,  "  Religious  Poetry  of  Babylona  "  in  Presbyterian  Review,  1888,  p.  69. 


382 


STCDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 


ml?  'nirnj-n'taa  'f-n  -in: 
yfh  xnuBS  ■:rr'.-int:"p  -j-in^ 


nrn-bs  it --[En'  ac"  "£-jk 


The  great  alphabetical  poem  iu  praise  of  tlie  Divine  Word, 
Ps.  119,  has  twenty-two  strophes,  and  each  strophe  is  com- 
posed of  eight  lines,  and  each  line  of  the  strophe  begins  with 
the  characteristic  letter  of  the  strophe.  The  pentameter  move- 
ment is  clear,  and  the  lines  are  distinctly  marked  off  by  the 
letters  of  the  alphabet.  Bickell  regards  the  lines  of  tliis  poem 
also  as  comi^osed  of  twelve  sj'llables. 


Tib-is  -lor'^-in-isTix  -irrnsr  naa 
■Tni::aa3  ■;ii:'n"':'K-Tnc'-n  ■£b"'r:a 

ypn  'jTa'r-nTn'  nns*  yn^ 

■fs  "'asra''rf3-inieD  'nsra 

jirrba  hm  -  "nrc  "rnnr  -[Tia 


rnma*  a"£'?nn-Ti'i~'a"an  nrs 
i.TC'iT  £'?-'7:2-rrniJ  nsj  'nrx 

nsa  nau'b-7nps  nn"j:  nnK 

Tpn  lar'r-'fm  ur  "fnx 

I'msa    '?f-'?K  "£-an3-r-rs  sf-rx 

ipni'  'csra  -naba  -  ar':— u-a  -'tx 
nxa~i!J  'jaTyn-'?x3-na'rx  Ti5nTix 


4.    2Vie  Hexameter 

The  Hebrew  hexameter  is  a  double  trimeter.  The  caesura 
ordinarily  divides  the  line  in  the  middle.  Hence  it  is  not 
alwaj-s  easy  to  decide  whether  the  line  is  a  hexameter  or  two 
trimeters.  But  there  are  several  helps  to  the  decision  of  this 
question :  (a)  The  hexameter  line  is  occasionally  divided  by 
the  caesura  into  4  +  2  or  2  +  4.     (6)  There  will  also  be  exam- 

1  This  word  has  two  accents,  on  account  of  the  number  of  long  vowels. 

2  The  only  changes  in  the  Massoretic  text  are  insertion  of  Maqqephs  in  lines 
1,  3,  7,  8,  10,  all  of  which  are  in  accordance  with  good  usage.  The  lines  have 
the  caesuras  after  the  third  beat  of  the  accent,  except  lines  5  and  12. 

'  These  are  all  long  words  with  two  accents,  both  of  which  are  counted  in  the 
measure.  ^      ,  ^  ^ 

■•  The  Hebrew  language  prefers  TlT'a'Bn  to  TiT  "a"an.  It  is  improbable 
that  the  line  is  hexameter.  Read  therefore  mina  instead  of  rn.T  minS.  The 
divine  name  is  unnecessary. 

^  The  Miqqephs  are  changed  in  lines  3,  6,  of  the  X  strophe,  and  in  lines  3,  5,  S, 
of  the  a  strophe.    These  need  no  justification. 


THE   MEASURES  OF   BIBLICAL   POETRY  883 

pies  of  two  caisuras  dividing  the  line  into  2  +  2  +  2.  (c)  Pen- 
tameter lines  will  be  found  to  vary  the  movement.  As  the 
poet  will  sometimes  shorten  his  trimeter  into  a  dimeter,  his 
tetrameter  into  a  trimeter,  and  his  pentameter  into  a  tetrame- 
ter, so  there  are  occasional  pentameter  lines  in  hexameter 
poems.  (tZ)  The  second  half  of  the  line  will  be  complement- 
ary to  the  first  half,  and  the  parallelism  will  be  between  the  hex- 
ameter lines.  I  shall  use  as  an  illustration  "the  golden  ABC 
of  women.*'  ^ 

nnra  c-i";2a  pni'-xi!:"  '£  'r-rrnrx 

rrh  "a"  "rb-r-rKbi  rS  'nnSaj 

.TB3  j'Erb  rL"n"-a"nr5i  nsi  ncm 

nan"?  s'in  prnaa— nn"c  rriaz  nrrn 

rrfnoh  prh-nn-s'?  'pS'rn'  -rb'^-'.'vz  apni 

mf-rr;  .Tsr  ■n^a-innpni  m'r  naai 

.Tni'n!-  fa«n:  -  rT';ra  rrz  nTjn 

~^£  "ran  n"£:i--'."C":a  nn"?-*:'  rrr 

ivSsb  nn'^ff  ,TTi--;L"'r  nr-.e  nss 

n':©  »£*?  r.ri-z'bzs-:bia  nr\-zb  ti-rri-ab 

rri'zb  lans^  rr-nfnrrr  cnsna 

ps-rprar  »  ircrr-n'rra  s-^sisz  utij 

'iyj:"?  r;;r3  Trm-ir'am  nrrr  po 

p-iriX  c'S  pnrn"-,-!r-a'?  -i-i-n  no 

nrrb-b'r  ncn  rTr."-nar-a  nnna  rrs 

bf ».-,*«'?  iTibiT  Dnb'!— nr"a  rrrbTi  rre's 

n'p'^.Ti  nbrr  -ab-'-.TTrs"  .-■:1:  "ap 

nz'rV'rr  n-'rr  r.si-'^'rriirr  .-T;a  nia-i 

b'^nrn  K'n-rrn-rsT  rrfx-'avi-'^rri''  irfi~ipip 

srrrra  cncrs  .T'p'rm-.TT  "isa  n^nin 

There  are  also  alphabetical  psalms  in  the  hexameter  move- 
ment. Psalm  145  has  twenty -two  alphabetical  hexameter  lines. 
Psalm    37   has   twenty-two   alphabetical   hexameter   couplets. 

1  Prov.  31 1'*-^!.  2  These  long  words  have  two  accents. 

*  'S  has  come  into  the  Massoretic  text  by  dittography. 

*  The  Wain  consec  implies  a  verb,  and  the  measure  is  just  this  much  too 
short.     1  have  ventured  to  insert  ICV  as  parallel  with  lap. 

'  This  beautiful  alphabetical  poem  might  be  taken  as  composed  of  alphabetical 
trimeter  distichs  so  far  as  most  of  the  poem  is  concerned,  for  the  caesura  is  in  the 
middle  of  the  liue  in  all  cases  except  three  lines.  But  lines  ".  and  !7  have  two 
csesuras,  and  liue  Z  has  a  csesura  after  the  fourth  beat. 


384  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCEIPrCEE 

There  are  man}-  other  hexameter  psalms.  It  is  a  favourite 
measure  of  later  prophec}'.  Thus  the  beautiful  hymn,  Is.  60, 
and  the  magnificent  apocalypse.  Is.  24-27,  are  in  this  measure.^ 

5.     Varying  Measures 

There  are  a  few  cases  in  which  the  measure  varies  in  the 
several  strophes.  The  simplest  and  finest  example  of  these  is 
Ps.  23,  which  in  the  first  strophe  is  trimeter,  in  the  second 
tetrameter,  and  in  the  third  pentameter. 

1.  Yahweh   Is-my-shepherd :     I-cannot-want. 
In-pastares  of-green-grass  He-causeth-me-to-lie-down ; 
Unto-waters  of-refreshment   He-leadeth-me ; 
Jle-myself  He-restoreth.-    

2.  He-guideth-me  in-paths  of-righteousness  for-his-name's-sake. 
Also   when-I-walk  iu-the-valley  of-dense-darkness 
I-fear-not  evil,   for-Thou-art  with-me : 

Thy-rod  and-Thy-stafi  they  comfort-me. 

3.  He-prepareth  before-me   a-table   in-the-presence-of  my-adversaries ; 
Has-He-anointed  with-oil   my-head ;  my-cup  is-abundance. 
Surely-goodness  and-mercy  pursue-ine  all-the-days  of-my-life, 
And-I-shall-return »  (to-dweU)-in-the-house-of  Yahweh  for-length  of-days.* 

We  have  seen  that  Hebrew  poetry  has  its  measures  as  clearly 
and  accurately  marked  as  other  poetry.  Great  light  is  thrown 
upon  the  meaning  of  a  multitude  of  passages  by  arranging  the 
poetrj'  in  accordance  with  its  true  measures.  And  it  is  a  sure 
guide  to  glosses  inserted  by  later  editors  in  the  text.  We  are 
yet  in  the  infancy  of  this  study.  Great  fruit  may  be  antici- 
pated from  the  prosecution  of  it  in  the  future. 

I  See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  7th  ed.,  pp.  296  seq.,  394  seq.,  where  these 
hexameters  are  arranged  in  measures  and  strophes. 

-  A  broken  line  ;  a  dimeter. 

3  A  pregnant  terra  implying  the  verb  "dwell,"  which  has  been  inserted. 

*  1  have  here  indicated  the  number  of  accents  by  combining  in  English  the 
woixis  combined  in  Hebrew. 


CHAPTER   XVI 

THE   PARALLELISMS   OF    HEBREW    POETRY 

The  great  formative  principle  of  Hebrew  poetry  is  the  par- 
allelism of  members.  These  members  vary  from  the  couplet 
to  the  strophe  of  fourteen  lines.  Seldom  does  the  strophe 
extend  bej'ond  this  number  of  lines.  However  numerous  the 
lines  may  be,  cand  however  the  strophes  and  larger  divisions  of 
a  poem  may  be  arranged,  the  principle  of  parallelism  determines 
the  whole. 

I.  The  Couplet 

The  simplest  form  of  the  parallelism  of  members  is  seen  in 
the  couplet,  or  distich,  where  two  lines  balance  one  another  in 
thought  and  its  formal  expression.  The  couplet  is  seldom  used 
except  in  brief,  terse,  gnomic  utterances. 

1.  The  simplest  form  of  the  couplet  is  the  synonymous 
couplet. 

The  following  specimens  of  the  synonymous  couplets  may 
suffice: 

The  liberal  soul  shall  be  made  fat : 

And  he  that  watereth  shall  be  watered  also  himself.' 

The  evil  bow  before  the  good  ; 

And  the  wicked  at  the  gates  of  the  righteous." 

A  man  hath  joy  in  the  answer  of  his  mouth  : 
And  a  word  in  due  season,  how  good  it  is  !  ^ 

A  merchant  shall  hardly  keep  himself  from  doing  wrong ; 
And  an  huckster  shall  not  be  freed  from  sin.* 

Saul  smote  his  thousands, 
And  David  his  myriads.^ 

1  Prov.  1125.  2  Prov.  14".  ^  prov.  \S^.  *  Ecclus.  262^. 

5  1  Sam.  18". 
2  c  385 


386  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

2.    Antithetical  coujilets  are  numerous  and  varied  : 

A  wise  son  raaketh  glad  his  father  ; 

But  a  foolish  son  is  the  grief  of  his  mother. 

Treasures  of  wickedness  profit  not ; 

But  righteousness  delivereth  from  death. 

Yahweh  wiU  not  let  the  desire  of  the  righteous  famish  ; 

But  the  craving  of  the  wicked  He  disappointeth. 

He  becometh  poor  that  worketh  with  an  idle  hand  ; 

But  the  hand  of  the  diligent  maketh  rich. 

He  that  gathereth  in  fruit  harvest  is  a  wise  son  ; 

But  he  that  lies  in  deep  sleep  in  grain  harvest  is  a  base  son.l 

In  the  second  of  these  couplets  the  antithesis  is  throughout: 
"  Righteousness  "  to  "  treasures  of  wickedness,"  and  "  delivereth 
from  death"  to  "profit  not."  Usually,  however,  there  are  one  or 
more  synonymous  terms  to  make  the  antithesis  more  emphatic. 
In  the  fourth  couplet  "  hand "  is  a  common  term,  and  the  contrast 
is  of  "  idle  "  and  "  diligent,"  "  becometh  poor  "  and  "  maketh  rich." 
In  the  third  couplet  "  Yahweh"  is  a  common  term  with  "  He,"  and 
"  desire  "  synonymous  with  "  craving,"  in  order  to  the  antithesis 
of  "  righteous  "  with  "  wicked,"  and  of  "  will  not  let  famish  "  with 
"disappointeth."  In  the  first  couplet  " son "  is  a  common  term; 
"  father  "  and  "  mother  "  are  synonymous,  in  order  to  the  antithesis 
of  "-wise"  and  "foolish,"  "maketh  glad"  and  "grief."  In  the 
fifth  couplet  "  son  "  is  a  common  term,  "  fruit  harvest "  is  synony- 
mous vnth.  "  grain  harvest,"  whereas  "  wise  "  has  as  its  antithesis 
"base,"  and  "gathereth"  "lies  in  deep  sleep." 

Sometimes  the  antithesis  is  limited  to  a  single  term  : 

JIan"s  heart  deviseth  his  waj' ; 
But  Yahweh  directeth  his  steps.^ 

Here  the  contrast  is  between  "man's  heart"  and  "Yahweh";  the 
remaining  terms  are  synonymous. 

The  antithesis  sometimes  becomes  more  striking  in  the  anti- 
thetical position  of  the  terms  themselves : 

He  that  spareth  his  rod,  hateth  his  son  ; 

But  he  that  loveth  him  seeketh  him  chastisement.' 

The  common  terms  are  "father"  and  "son,"  the  antithetical, 
"  spareth  his  rod  "  with  "  seeketh  him  chastisement,"  and  "  hateth  " 
with  "  loveth " ;  but  that  which  closes  the  first  line  begins  the 
secoTid,  and  that  which  begins  the  first  closes  the  second. 

The  following  additional  specimens  from  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus 
may  be  studied. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW  POETRY  387 

Whosoever  exalteth  himself  shall  be  hambled  ; 
But  whosoever  humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.' 

Unto  every  one  that  hath  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall  have  abundance  ; 
But  from  him  that  hath  not  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath. 2 

Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy  the  law  ; 
I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.^ 

•3.  Parallelism  is  ordinarily  progressive  in  that  great  variety 
of  form  which  such  a  rich  and  powerful  language  as  the  Hebrew 
renders  possible. 

The  blessing  of  Eebekah  by  her  brothers*  is  a  progressive  dis- 
tich: 

O  thou  our  sister,  become  thousands  of  myriads, 

And  may  thy  seed  inherit  the  gate  of  those  that  hate  them. 

The  second  line  sums  up  the  "  thousands  of  myriads  "  of  the 
first,  in  order  to  give  the  climax  of  the  wish,  in  the  inheritance  of 
the  gate  of  their  enemies. 

The  words  of  Moses  when  the  ark  of  the  covenant  set  forward 
and  Avhen  it  rested  are  couplets.^ 

Arise,  Yahweh,  and  let  Thine  enemies  be  scattered  ; 
And  let  those  who  hate  Thee  flee  from  before  Thee. 

Return,  Yahweh. 

To  the  myriads  of  thousands  of  Israel. 

The  first  of  these  couplets  is  synonymous  throughout;  the 
second  is  an  example  of  an  unfinished  line ;  the  pause  in  the  poet- 
ical movement  is  to  give  more  emphasis  to  the  second  line  when 
its  advanced  idea  is  expressed. 

The  following  additional  specimens  will  illustrate  the  variations 
possible  in  the  synthesis. 

The  fear  of  Yahweh  is  a  fountain  of  life, 
To  depart  from  the  snares  of  death.^ 

The  eyes  of  Yahweh  are  in  every  place. 
Keeping  watch  upon  the  evil  and  the  good.' 

Watch  and  pray  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation  : 
The  spirit  is  willing  but  the  flesh  is  weak.* 

Till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away, 

Not  one  yodh  shall  pass  away  from  the  law.' 

1  Mt.  2.3>2  =  Lk.  14",  18'*.  2  Mt.  25»=Mk.  4=^ ;  Lk.  S's,  IQ^s. 

'  lit.  0".  ••  Prophets  "  in  the  first  line  is  a  later  addition  to  the  text  which 
has  nothing  to  justify  it  in  the  context.  *  Gen.  24^. 

6  Num.  10«*  *5.  6  prov.  14-*^.  •  Prov.  15^.  »  Mk.  14S8  =  Mt.  26«. 

'•'  Mt.  5"  =  Lk.  16'".  The  ^  ^I'a  Kcpeo  of  Matthew  is  not  in  Luke,  and  is  not 
original.     It  makes  the  line  too  long. 


388  STUDY  oy  holy  scripture 

•4.  There  are  many  emblematic  couplets  : 

A  word  fitly  spoken, 

Is  like  apples  of  gold  in  baskets  of  silver. 

As  an  earring  of  gold  and  an  ornament  of  fine  gold, 
So  is  a  wise  reprover  upon  an  obedient  ear.i 

As  cold  virater  to  a  thirsty  soul, 

So  is  good  nevifs  from  a  far  country.  ^ 

They  that  are  vrhole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick  : 
I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  on  the  contrary,  sinners.' 

The  book  of  Proverbs  in  its  first  great  collection  contains 
376  couplets,  of  every  variety.*  The  second  great  collec- 
tion is  also  composed  chiefly  of  couplets,  although  specimens 
of  other  forms  occur.*  The  Wisdom  of  Jesus  has  a  large  num- 
ber also.^ 

II.    The  Triplet 

The  tristich,  or  triplet,  of  three  lines  is  not  common  in  He- 
brew poetry.  There  are  only  eight  in  the  entire  book  of 
Proverbs.' 

1.    The  synonymous  triplet  is  most  frequent. 

The  priests'  blessing  is  a  fine  specimen  of  a  synonymous  tris- 
tich. 

Yahweh  bless  thee  and  keep  thee  ; 

Yahweh  let  His  face  shine  upon  thee  and  be  gracious  to  thee  ; 

Yahweh  lift  up  His  face  upon  thee  and  give  thee  peace.' 

The  oldest  of  tlie  sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers  is  of  this  form : 

Be  deliberate  in  judgment, 
And  raise  up  many  disciples, 
And  make  a  fence  to  the  Law.' 

Jesus  uses  this  form  also. 

Ask  and  it  shall  be  given  unto  you  ; . 

Seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ; 

Knock,  and  it  shall  bo  opened  unto  you. 

1  Prov.  25"  12.  6  prov.  25-29. 

2  Prov.  25".  «  See  pp.  09,  80. 

«  Mk.  2"  =  Mt.  9"  =  Lk.  S"-  »'^.       '  Prov.  22^,  25»-  »•  «<■,  2-w-  ^%  28w,  .30«>. 
*  Prov.  10-22'".  *  Num.  (!-'--". 

»  Pirqe  Abotli  V. 


THE   PARALLELISMS  OF   HEBREW   POETRY  389 

This  is  followed  by  another  triplet,  progressive  to  it. 

For  every  one  that  asketh,  receiveth, 

And  he  that  seeketh,  findeth, 

And  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened,  i 

2.  The  antithetical  triplet  takes  the  form  of  one  antithetical 
line  to  two  other  lines.  Sometimes  the  antithesis  appears  in 
one  line,  sometimes  in  another. 

These  examples  will  suffice : 

Seest  thou  a  man  diligent  in  his  business  ? 

He  shall  stand  before  kings  ; 

He  shall  not  stand  before  mean  men.- 

Thine  own  friend,  and  thy  father's  friend,  forsake  not ; 

But  go  not  to  thy  brother's  house  in  the  day  of  thy  calamity : 

Better  is  a  neighbor  that  is  near  than  a  brother  far  off.' 

The  foxes  have  holes. 

And  the  birds  of  the  heaven  nests  ; 

But  the  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head.* 

3.  Progressive  triplets  are  more  frequent,  but  the  progres- 
sion is  seldom  thorough-going. 

These  specimens  show  the  variety  of  method : 

Go  not  forth  hastily  to  strive, 

Lest  in  the  end,  therefore,  what  wilt  thou  do, 

When  thy  neighbour  hath  put  thee  to  shame  ?  * 

Be  ye  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron : 
Loving  peace  and  pursuing  peace. 
Loving  mankind  and  bringing  them  nigh.* 

4.  The  emblematic  tristich  may  be  illustrated  by  the  fol- 
lowing specimens  : 

As  the  cold  of  snow  ui  the  time  of  harvest, 

So  is  a  faithful  messenger  to  them  that  send  him  ; 

For  he  refresheth  the  soul  of  his  masters.' 

As  one  that  taketh  off  a  garment  in  cold  weather, 

And  as  vinegar  upon  nitre  ; 

So  is  he  that  singeth  songs  to  an  heavy  heart.' 

1  Mt.  V-».  '  Prov.  27W.  '  Prov.  25'.  '  Prov.  25i«. 

*  Prov.  22».        «  Mt.  8i»  =  Lk.  9^.        «  Pirqe  Aboth  l".        s  pjoy.  263". 


390  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRrPTURE 


III.    The  Tetrastich 

The  tetrastich  is  formed  from  the  distich,  and  consists  gen- 
erally of  pairs  balanced  over  against  one  another,  but  some- 
times of  three  lines  against  one ;  rarely  there  is  a  steady  march 
of  thought  to  the  end. 

The  oracle  respecting  Jacob  and  Esau'  is  an  example  of  bal- 
anced pairs : 

Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb, 

And  two  peoples  will  separate  themselves  from  thy  bowels ; 

And  people  wUl  prevail  over  people, 

And  the  elder  will  serve  the  younger. 

The  pairs  are  synonymous  within  themselves,  but  progressive  with 
reference  to  one  another. 

The  blessing  of  Ephraim  by  Jacob  is  an  example  of  antithetical 

pairs: 

He  also  will  become  a  people, 

And  he  also  will  grow  great ; 

But  yet  the  younger  will  become  greater, 

And  his  seed  abundance  of  nations.^ 

The  soug  of  the  well  is  an  interesting  and  beautiful  example  of 
a  more  involved  kind  of  parallelism,  where  the  second  and  third 
lines  constitute  a  synonymous  pair ;  while  at  the  same  time,  as  a 
pair,  they  are  progressive  to  the  first  line,  and  are  followed  by  a 
fourth  line  progressive  to  themselves : 

Spring  up  well !     Sing  to  it ! 
Well  that  princes  have  dug ; 
The  nobles  of  the  people  have  bored, 
With  sceptre,  with  their  staves.' 

The  dirge  of  David  over  Abner  presents  a  similar  specimen, 
where,  however,  the  first  and  fourth  lines  are  synonymous  with 
one  another,  as  well  as  the  second  and  third  lines : 

Was  Abner  to  die  as  a  fool  dieth  ? 
Thy  hands  were  not  bound. 
And  thy  feet  were  not  put  in  fetters  : 
As  one  falling  before  the  children  of  wickedness,  thou  didst  fall.* 

A  fine  example  of  a  tetrastich,  progressive  throughout,  is  found 

1  Gen.  252«. 

2  Gen.  48".  The  measures  of  the  last  two  lines  are  spoiled  by  the  lator  pro- 
saic insertion  of  TnS,  "212,  and  riTI',  none  of  which  are  needed  for  the  sense. 

8Nu.  21"'8.  *2Sam.  33S3<. 


THE  PARALLELISMS  OF   HEBREW   POETRY  391 

in  the  extract  from  an  ancient  ode  describing  the  Gadites  who 
joined  David's  band : 

Heroes  of  valour,  men,  a  host, 

For  battle,  wielders  of  shield  and  spear ; 

And  their  faces  were  faces  of  a  lion. 

And  like  roes  upon  the  mountains  for  swiftness.! 

The  blessing  of  Abram  by  Melchizedek  is  composed  of  two  pro- 
gressive couplets : 

Blessed  be  Abram  of  God  Most  High, 

Founder  of  heaven  and  earth  ; 

And  blessed  be  God  Most  High, 

Who  hath  delivered  thine  adversaries  into  thine  hand." 

The  tetrastich  is  quite  frequent  in  Proverbs.  The  little  sup- 
plementary collection  of  the  Words  of  the  Wise  ^  has  no  fewer 
than  fourteen  of  them.*  The  second  great  collection  of  the 
proverbs  of  Solomon  °  has  four  examples,^  the  words  of  Agur 
onej  and  the  collection  of  Aluqa  one.^ 

These  may  suffice  as  specimens : 

The  eye  that  mocketh  at  his  father, 
And  despiseth  to  obey  his  mother, 
The  ravens  of  the  valley  shall  pick  it  out, 
And  the  young  eagles  shall  eat  it.^ 

The  second  couplet  gives  the  punishment  for  the  sin  of  violation 
of  the  parental  law,  which  violation  is  stated  in  the  first  couplet. 

The  following  tetrameter  is  a  fine  specimen  of  two  couplets,  in 
which  the  first  gives  the  comparison,  the  second  the  explanation : 

Take  away  the  dross  from  the  silver, 

And  there  cometh  forth  a  vessel  for  the  finer. 

Take  away  the  wicked  from  before  the  king, 

And  his  throne  shall  be  established  in  righteousness.' 

A  third  specimen  is  also  of  two  couplets : 

If  thine  enemy  be  hungn-,  give  him  bread  to  eat ; 
And  if  he  be  thirsty,  give  him  water  to  drink  : 
For  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head, 
And  Yahweh  shall  reward  thee.'" 

The  second  couplet  gives  the  reasons  for  the  conduct  recom- 
mended in  the  first. 

1  1  Chr.  12».  =  Gen.  14i9.  s  Prov.  22"-24. 

4  Prov.  22^^^  24-25. 2fi-27  2.3"'-"-  '^-n-  li-iii  I'-is  24'-2-  *-*•  **  i*-'^  ''-'*■  '^^-  21-22. 
6  Prov.  25-29.  '  Prov.  .30^.  ^  Prov.  25^^. 

«  Prov.  26*-'-9-i''- 21-22,  26".  8  prov.  30^".  w  Proy.  25^1-22. 


392  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Jesus  gives  many  sentences  of  this  type : 

No  household  servant '  can  have  two  masters : 
For  either  lie  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other ; 
Or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and  despise  the  other. 
Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon.- 

This  is  a  fine  specimen  of  introverted  parallelism.  The  foUowing 
have  two  progressive  couplets  : 

Every  idle  word  that  men  speak, 

They  shall  give  account  thereof  in '  the  judgment ; 

For  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified, 

And  by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  condenmed.* 

Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs, 
Neither  cast  your  pearls  before  the  swine, 
Lest  haply  »liey  trample  them  under  their  feet, 
And  turn  and  rend  you.^ 

An  interesting  specimen  of  the  tetrastich  is  :  ° 

If  "  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses, 
Your  Father  *  will  also  forgive  you  your  trespasses  ;  ' 
But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  trespasses, 
Neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your  trespasses. 

This  is  composed  of  two  antithetical  couplets.  It  is  inserted  by 
Matthew  immediately  after  the  Lord's  Prayer.  But  it  is  not 
given  by  Luke  in  that  context. 


IV.    The  Pextastich 

The  pentasticli  is  usually  a  combination  of  the  distich  and 
tristich.  A  beautiful  specimen  is  given  in  a  strophe  of  an  ode 
of  victory  over  the  Canaanites  at  Bethhoron,  which  has  been 
lost.io 

1  Matthew  omits  oiV^tt;!  of  Luke,  probably  in  order  to  generalize,  as  usual  in 
his  collection  of  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  (Mt.  5-7).  *  Mt.  6"  =  Lk.  16i'. 

'  It  is  common  in  Matthew  to  insert  day  before  judgment  in  order  to  make 
the  reference  more  distinct  to  the  ultimate  day  of  doom.  See  my  Messiah  of 
the  Gospels,  p.  240. 

*  Mt.  12»«'.  5  Mt.  7«.  6  Mt.  ^*-"  =  Mk.  U^'^'. 
'  The  connective  yip  has  been  inserted  in  order  to  attach  the  legion  to  its 

context  in  the  Gospel. 

*  The  evangelist  inserts  "heavenly  "  before  Father  in  the  first  couplet,  but 
not  in  the  second.  This  is  in  accord  with  the  peculiar  usage  of  our  Matthew. 
See  my  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  p.  "9. 

"  Matthew  omius  "  trespas.ses  "  in  the  second  line,  but  the  measure  requires 
it,  as  well  as  the  antithetical  statement  in  the  fourth  line. 
"J  Jos.  10'-'-''.     See  p.  o^l.  wliere  it  is  cited. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBKEW   POETRY  893 

The  oracle '  with  which  Amasai  joined  David's  band  is  an  exam- 
ple of  the  same  kind,  save  that  the  fifth  line  is  progressive  to  the 
previous  four  lines : 

Thine  are  we,  David, 
And  with  thee,  son  of  Jesse. 
I'eace,  peace  to  tliee, 
And  peace  to  thy  helpers  ; 
For  thy  God  doth  help  thee. 

The  song  of  Sarah  gives  a  couple*-  and  triplet : 

Laughter  hath  God  made  for  me. 
Whosoever  heareth  will  laugh  with  me. 
Who  could  have  said  to  Abraham  : 
Sarah  doth  suckle  children  ? 
For  I  have  borne  a  son  for  liis  old  age.^ 

The  pentastich  is  rare  in  the  book  of  Proverbs.  I  have  noted 
four  specimens.^    The  last  is  a  good  one : 

Put  not  thyself  forward  in  the  presence  of  the  king, 

And  stand  not  in  the  place  of  great  men  ; 

For  better  is  it  that  it  be  said  unto  thee,  Come  up  hither  ; 

Than  that  thou  shouldst  be  put  lower  in  the  presence  of  the  prince 

Whom  thine  eyes  have  seen. 

Here  the  triplet  gives  the  reason  for  the  recommendation  in  the 
couplet,  which  begins  the  quintet. 

There  are  several  specimens  in  the  Sayings  of  the  Jewish 
Fathers.     I  shall  give  two  : 

Be  not  as  slaves  that  minister  unto  the  Lord, 
With  a  view  to  receive  recompense  ; 
But  be  a.s  slaves  that  minister  to  the  Lord 
Without  a  view  to  receive  recompense ; 
And  let  the  fear  of  heaven  be  upon  you.* 

This  tetrameter  is  a  finer  specimen  than  we  have  found  in  Prov- 
erbs. It  is  composed  of  two  antithetical  couplets,  and  a  conclud- 
ing line  of  exhortation  synthetic  to  both. 

Here  is  a  still  finer  specimen  of  the  tetrameter  pentastich  — 
an  antithetical  pair : 

1.  More  flesh,  more  worms  ; 
More  treasures,  more  care  ; 
More  maid-ser\ants,  more  lewdness  ; 
More  men-servants,  more  thefts  ; 
More  women,  more  witchcrafts. 

1  1  Chr.  12".  "  Prov.  23*-5,  24ia-».  ^^,  25»-'. 

2  Gen.  21»"'.  «  Pirqe  Aboth  l^. 


394  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCKEPTUBE 

2.  More  law.  more  life  ; 

More  wisdom,  more  scholars  : 
More  righteousness,  more  peace  ; 

He  who  has  gotten  a  name,  hath  jiotten  a  good  thing  for  himself ; 
He  who  has  gotten  words  of  law,  hath  gotten  for  himself  the  life  of 
the  world  to  come.' 

The  following  is  the  best  specimen  of  introverted  -  parallelism 
that  can  be  found  in  the  entire  range  of  Wisdom  Literature : 

All  men  cannot  receive  this  saying,  but  they  to  whom  it  is  given ; 

For  there  are  eunuchs  which  were  so  born  from  their  mother's  womb. 

And  there  are  eunuchs  which  were  made  eunuchs  by  men. 

And  there  are  eunuchs  which  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the  sake  of  the 

kingdom  of  God : 
He  that  is  able  to  receive  it,  let  him  receive  it.^ 


V.   The  Hexastich 

The  hexastich  may  consist  of  three  couplets,  two  triplets, 
and  other  various  combinations.  A  few  specimens  will  suffice, 
as  others  will  be  given  in  connection  with  the  study  of  the 
strophe. 

The  blessing  of  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  Jacob  is  a  fine  hexa- 
stich : 

The  God  before  whom  my  fathers  walked  —  Abraham  and  Isaac, 

The  God  who  acted  as  my  shepherd —  from  the  first  even  to  this  day, 

The  Malakh  who  redeemed  me  from  every  evil  —  bless  the  lads: 

And  let  my  name  be  named  in  them, 

And  the  name  of  my  fathers,  —  Abraham  and  Isaac ; 

And  let  them  increase  to  a  great  multitude  —  in  the  midst  of  the  land.* 

The  first  tristich  is  in  its  three  lines  synonymous  so  far  as  the 
first  half  of  the  lines,  but  in  the  second  half  there  is  a  steady  march 
to  the  climax.  The  second  tristich  is  synonymous  in  its  first 
and  second  lines,  where  the  leading  idea  of  the  name  is  varied 
from  Jacob  himself  to  Abraham  and  Isaac,  but  the  third  line  is 
an  advance  in  thought. 

Isaac's  bles.sing  of  Esau  is  also  a  hexastich : 

Lo,  far  from  the  fatne-ss  of  the  earth  will  thy  dwelling-place  be, 

And  fur  from  the  dew  of  heaven  above, 

And  by  thy  sword  wilt  thou  live  ; 

And  thy  brother  wilt  thou  serve. 

And  it  will  come  to  pass  when  thou  wilt  rove  about. 

Thou  wilt  break  off  his  yoke  from  upon  thy  neck.' 

'  Pirqe  Aboth  28.  ^  See  p.  367.  '  Mt.  19"-". 

*  Gen.  481^16.  '  Oen.  27»»-«'>. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW   POETRY  395 

There  are  ten  liexastichs  in  the  book  of   Proverbs.'    I  shall 
give  one  specimen : 

Deliver  them  that  are  carried  a^vay  unto  death, 

And  those  that  are  ready  to  be  slain  see  that  thou  hold  back. 

If  thou  sayest,  Behold.  \Ye  knew  not  this, 

Doth  not  He  that  weigheth  the  hearts  consider  it  ? 

And  He  that  keepeth  thy  soul,  doth  He  not  know  it : 

And  shall  not  He  render  to  every  one  according  to  his  work?^ 

In  Ben  Sirach  we  find  the  following : 

Any  plague  but  the  plague  of  the  heart ; 

Any  wickedness  but  the  wickedness  of  a  woman  ; 

Any  affliction  but  the  aifliction  from  them  that  hate  me  ; 

Any  revenge  but  the  revenge  of  enemies ; 

There  is  no  poison  greater  than  the  poison  of  a  serpent ; 

There  is  no  wrath  greater  than  the  wrath  of  an  enemy.' 

The    Sayings    of    the    Fathers     gives    the    following    choice 
specimens : 

There  are  four  characters  in  those  who  sit  under  the  wise  : 

A  sponge,  a  funnel,  a  strainer,  and  a  sieve. 

A  sponge,  which  sucks  up  all ; 

A  funnel,  which  lets  in  here  and  lets  out  there  ; 

A  strainer,  which  lets  out  the  wine  and  keeps  back  the  dregs  ; 

A  bolt-sieve,  which  lets  out  the  dust  and  keeps  back  the  fine  flour.* 

We  add  this  specimen  because  it  is  similar  to  one  of  Jesus' 
soon  to  follow : 

Whosesoever  wisdom  is  in  excess  of  his  works  —  to  what  is  he  like  ? 

To  a  tree  whose  branches  are  abundant  and  its  roots  scanty  ; 

And  the  wind  comes  and  uproots  it  and  overturns  it. 

And  whosesoever  works  are  in  excess  of  his  wisdom  ■ —  to  what  is  he  like  ? 

To  a  tree  whose  branches  are  scanty  and  its  roots  abundant ; 

Though  all  the  winds  come  upon  it  they  stir  it  not  from  its  place.* 

This  has  two  antithetical  pentameter  triplets. 

VI.   The  Heptastich 

The  heptastich  is  capable  of  a  great  variety  of  arrangements. 

The  blessing  of  ]^oah  is  a  heptastich.     It  is  comprised  of  two 
distichs  and  a  tristich. 

Cursed  be  Canaan  ;  — • 

A  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren. 

'  Prov.  2.3'-^  ^'-^-  2^2"  2411-12  26^*-^,  30i^i^  i^i'-  ^-^  '*-^i-  '2-^. 

»  Prov.  2411-12.  8  Ecclus.  2515-15.  i  Pirqe  Aboth  5M. 

«  Pirqe  Aboth  32'.     See  p.  404. 


396  STUDY   UF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Blessed  be  Yahweh,  God  of  Shem, 
And  let  Canaan  be  their  servant. 
May  God  spread  out  Japheth. 
And  may  He  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem, 
And  let  Canaan  be  their  servant.' 

In  the  first  distich  we  have  an  example  of  an  unfinished  line,  a 
dimeter  with  the  second  line  progressive  to  it.  In  the  second  dis- 
tich we  have  a  simple  progression  in  the  thought.  In  the  final 
tristich  the  progression  runs  on  through  the  three  lines.  It  is 
also  worthy  of  note  that  the  last  line  is  in  the  three  examples  of 
the  nature  of  a  refrain. 

The  heptastich  is  not  common  in  Hebrew  Wisdom.  There  are 
two  examples  in  Proverbs.  The  first  of  these  is  the  picture  of  the 
sluggard.^    The  other  is  the  following : 

Eat  thou  not  the  bread  of  him  that  hath  an  evil  eye, 

Neither  desire  thou  his  dainties  : 

For  as  he  reckoneth  within  himself,  so  is  he. 

Eat  and  drink,  saith  he  to  thee  ; 

But  his  heart  is  not  with  thee. 

The  mor.sel  which  thou  hast  eaten  shall  thou  vomit  up. 

And  lose  thy  sweet  words.' 

A  fine  example  of  this  type  is  found  in  the  Sayings  of  the  Jew- 
ish Fathers,  a  pentameter : 

Consider  three  things,  and  thou  wilt  not  come  into  the  hands  of  transgressors. 

Know  whence  thou  comest  and  whither  thou  art  going. 

And  before  whom  thou  art  to  give  account  and  reckoning. 

Know  whence  thou  comest  :  from  a  fetid  drop  ; 

And  whither  thou  art  going  :  to  worm  and  maggot  ; 

And  before  Whom  thou  art  about  to  give  account  and  reckoning, 

Before  the  King  of  the  king  of  kings.     Blessed  be  He.* 

A  still  more  beautifid  specimen  is  given  by  Jesus : 

Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  earth. 

Where  moth  and  rust  doth  consume. 

And  where  tliieves  break  through  and  steal : 

But  lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven. 

Where  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  consume, 

And  where  thieves  do  not  break  through  and  steal : 

For  where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also.'' 

This  heptastich  is  composed  of  two  antithetical  triplets  of  ex- 
hortation, with  a  concluding  line  giving  the  reason  for  the  exhor- 
tation. 

1  Gen.  926-27.     See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  p.  30. 

"  Vtov.  24«>-»2.       See  p.  418.  ••  Pirqe  Aboth,  3>. 

»  Prov.  239-«.  '  Mt.  6i»-". 


THE   TARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW    POETRY  397 

The  triplets  are  antithetical,  line  for  line,  in  a  most  impressive 
correspondence  of  language  and  tliouglit. 

VII.    The  Octastich 

The  octastich  of  eight  lines  is  used  thrice  iu  Proverbs.  ^ 

A  favourite  everywhere  is  the  one  of  Agur :   . 

Two  things  have  I  asked  of  Thee, 

Deny  me  them  not  before  I  die  : 

Remove  far  from  me  vanity  and  lies  : 

Give  me  neither  poverty  nor  riches  ; 

Feed  me  with  the  food  that  is  needful  for  me. 

Lest  I  be  full  and  deny,  and  say.  Who  is  Yahweh  ? 

Or  lest  1  be  poor  and  steal. 

Or  use  profanely  the  name  of  my  God.* 

A  fine  specimen  is  in  Ecclesiastes : 

He  that  diggeth  a  pit  shall  fall  into  it ; 

And  whoso  brcakelh  through  a  fence,  a  serpent  shall  bite  him. 

Whoso  heweth  out  stones  shall  be  hurt  therewith  ; 

And  he  that  cleaveth  wood  is  endangered  thereby. 

If  iron  be  blunt,  and  one  hath  not  whet  the  edge. 

He  must  put  forth  strength  :  and  wisdom  is  profitable  to  direct. 

If  the  serpent  bite  before  it  is  charmed. 

Then  there  is  no  profit  in  the  charmer.^ 

Ben  Sirach  also  has  some  fine  specimens.     The  following  may 
be  cited,  because  of  its  similarity  to  some  sentences  of  Jesus : 

And  stretch  thine  hand  unto  the  poor. 

That  thy  blessing  may  be  perfected. 

A  gift  hath  grace  in  the  sight  of  every  man  living, 

And  from  the  dead  detain  it  not. 

Fail  not  to  be  with  them  that  weep. 

And  mourn  with  them  that  mourn. 

Be  not  slow  to  visit  the  sick : 

For  that  shall  make  thee  to  be  beloved.* 


VIII.   The  Decastich 

The  decastich,  a  piece  of  ten  lines,  is  used  in  Proverbs  in  the 
pentameter  temperance  poem  ;  ^  in  the  beautiful  piece  of  recom- 
mendation of  husbandry;®  also  in  a  word  of  Agur,  which  is 
regarded  as  an  early  specimen  of  the  sceptical  tendencies  which 
are  so  strong  in  Ecclesiastes,"  in  the  riddle  of  the  four  little 

»  Prov.  2.322-*5,  30"-9,  "-W.         *  Ecclus.  T^^-ss.  6  prov.  272*-". 

»  Prov.  30'-9.  5  Prov.  232>^  ;  see  p.  418.  '  Prov.  302-». 

•Eccles.  108-11. 


398  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

wise  creatures,^  and  in  the  ten-lined  strophes  of  the  Praise  of 
Wisdom. 2 

A  fine  specimen  is  given  in  Tobit,  as  follows  : 

Give  alms  of  thy  substance  ; 

And  when  thou  givest  alms  let  not  thine  eye  be  grudging ; 

Neither  turn  thy  face  from  any  poor, 

And  the  face  of  God  shall  not  be  turned  away  from  thee. 

If  thou  hast  abundance,  give  alms  iiccordingly  ; 

If  thou  hast  little,  be  not  afraid  to  give  according  to  the  little  : 

For  thou  layest  up  a  good  treasure  for  thyself  against  the  day  of  necessity. 

Because  alms  delivereth  from  death  ; 

And  suffereth  not  to  come  into  darkness  : 

For  alms  is  an  offering  for  all  that  give  it  in  the  sight  of  the  Most  High.' 

When  we  go  bej'ond  the  decastich  to  the  pieces  of  twelve 
lines  or  fourteen  lines,  we  gain  nothing  additional  to  illustrate 
the  principles  of  parallelism. 

IX.   The  Strophe 

The  strophe  is  to  the  poem  what  the  lines  or  verses  are  in 
relation  to  one  another  in  the  sj'stem  of  parallelism.  Strophes 
are  comiDOsed  of  a  greater  or  lesser  number  of  lines,  sometimes 
equal,  and  sometimes  unequal.  Where  there  is  a  uniform  flow 
of  the  emotion  the  strophes  will  be  composed  of  the  same  num- 
ber of  lines,  and  will  be  as  regular  in  relation  to  one  another  as 
the  lines  of  which  they  are  composed ;  but  where  the  emotion  is 
agitated  by  passion,  or  broken  by  figures  of  speech,  or  abrupt 
in  transitions,  they  will  be  irregular  and  uneven.  The  strophes 
are  subject  to  the  same  principles  of  parallelism  as  the  lines 
themselves,  and  are  thus  either  synonymous  to  one  another, 
antithetical,  or  progressive,  in  those  se^'eral  varieties  of  pai'al- 
lelism  already  mentioned.  A  favourite  arrangement  is  the  bal- 
ancing of  one  strophe  with  another  on  the  principle  of  the 
distich,  then  again  of  two  with  one  as  a  tristich.  Thus  the 
song*  of  Moses  has  three  parts,  with  four  strophes  in  each  part, 
arranged  in  double  pairs  of  strophe  and  antistrophe,  according 
to  the  scheme  of  3  x  2  x  2.     The  song  of  Deboraii  *  is  composed 

1  Prov.  302^28.     See  p.  418.  a  Prov.  1-9.  »  Tobit  4'-". 

*  Deut.  32.  6  .Id.  5. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW   POETRY  399 

of  three  parts,  with  three  strophes  in  each  part,  according  to  the 
scheme  of  3x3.  These  divisions  are  determined  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  parallelism,  not  being  indicated  by  any  signs  or  marks 
in  the  Hebrew  text. 

D.  H.  Miilleri  has  recently  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  what  he  names  responsion,  concatenation,  and  inclu- 
sion, in  Hebrew  as  well  as  in  Babylonian  and  Arabic  strophical 
organization.  He  gives  ample  illustrations,  for  which  he  de- 
serves more  credit  than  most  scholars  have  been  disposed  to  give 
him.  He  is  entirely  right  in  this  matter,  although  there  is 
nothing  new  in  his  theory  but  the  terminology  and  some  of  the 
illustrations.'^  Responsion  is  simply  the  antithetical  parallelism 
of  strophes,  concatenation  is  the  stairlike  parallelism  of  lines 
used  in  strophical  relations,  and  inclusion  is  the  introverted 
parallelism  of  strophes. 

Babylonian  and  Egyptian  j^oetry  have  clearly  marked  strojjh- 
ical  organization.  The  hymn  to  Amen  Ra,  said  to  be  of  the 
fourteenth  century  B.C.,  in  the  golden  age  of  Egyptian  history 
and  literature,  is  a  fine  specimen.  The  beginning  of  each  verse 
is  indicated  by  a  red  letter  ;  and  each  verse  is  also  divided  into 
short  pauses  by  small  red  points.^ 

This  is  the  eighth  strophe : 

Deliverer  of  the  timid  man  from  the  violent ; 

Judging  the  poor,  the  poor  and  the  oppressed  ; 

Lord  of  Wisdom,  whose  precepts  are  wise  ; 

At  whose  pleasure  the  Nile  overflows  ; 

Lord  of  Mercy,  most  loving ; 

At  whose  coming  men  live  ; 

Opener  of  every  eye  ; 

Proceeding  from  the  firmament ; 

Causer  of  pleasure  and  light ; 

At  whose  goodness  the  gods  rejoice  ; 

Their  hearts  revive  when  they  see  him. 

This  hymn  has  twentv  strophes,  the  number  of  lines  in  each 
being  as  follows :  12, 14,  8,  7, 13,  8,  9,  11,  9.  15,  14,  9,  10,  5.  11, 
13,  10,  5,  10,  18. 

^  Die  Propheten  in  ihren  urspriinglicken  Form.  Die  Grundgesetze  iJer  ur- 
semitiscken  Poesie.     2  Bde.,  Wien,  1896. 

^  T  have  taught  all  these  to  my  classes  for  years,  and  references  to  them  will 
be  found  in  my  earlier  writings. 

'  Records  of  the  Past,  II.  pp.  129  seq. 


•400  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  Hymn  to  the  Nile  is  remarkably  regular,  and  it  resem- 
bles in  length,  and  in  the  number  of  its  strophes  and  the  lines 
that  compose  them,  the  song  of  Moses.  ^  The  HjTnn  to  the  Nile 
has  the  following  fourteen  strophes :  11,  8,  8,  10,  10,  8,  10,  11, 
12,10,  9,  8,  14,  8.2 

The  development  of  the  strophical  system  in  ancient  Egyp- 
tian poetry  doubtless  influenced  Hebrew  poetr}-.  The  Egyptian 
culture,  combined  with  the  inlierited  Shemitic  culture,  enabled 
the  Hebrew  poets  to  appropriate  the  artistic  forms  belonging 
to  the  poeti-y  of  the  two  great  nations  of  the  old  world,  and 
reproduce  them  under  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  for 
the  training  of  Israel  in  the  holy  religion. 

There  is  no  intrinsic  reason  wh}-  the  strophes  of  Hebrew 
poetry  should  be  more  regular  than  those  of  Egyptian  poetry, 
but  in  fact  the  strophes  of  Hebrew  poetry  are  ordinarily  regu- 
lar in  the  number  of  the  lines. 

1.    Stj-ophes  of  Two  Lines 

Strophes  of  two  lines  are  not  common.  Psalm  34  is  an  ex- 
ample of  alphabetical  trimeter  couplets. 

Two  of  these  will  suffice  as  examples : 

S.   I  will  bless  Yahweh  at  every  time, 

Continually  His  praise  shall  be  in  my  mouth. 

Z.    In  Yahweh  my  soul  will  make  hev  boast ; 
The  meek  will  hear  and  they  will  be  glad. 

An  example  of  an  alphabetical  hexameter  couplet  is  found  in 
Ps.  37.  I  shall  take  the  strophes  with  ^  and  X3  as  illustrations, 
because  these  give  examples  where  the  ciesxu'a  does  not  come  in 
the  middle  of  the  line  : 

b.   The  wicked  borroweth  and  payeth  not  —  but  the  righteous  dealeth  gra- 
ciously and  giveth. 
For  they  that  be  blessed  of  Him  inherit  the  land  —  but  they  that  be  cursed 
of  Him  shall  be  cut  off. 
a.   Of  Yahweh  are  a  man"s  goings  established  —  but  He  delighteth  in  His  way : 
Though  he  fall  he  shall  not  be  utterly  cast  down  —  for  Yaliweh  upholdeth 
with  Ilis  hand. 5 

1  Deul.  32.  '  Secords  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  III.  pp.  4C  seg. 

»  Ps.  ST^i-s*. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW   POETRV  401 

2.    Strophes  of  Three  Lines 

The  triplet  is  more  frequeutly  used  in  strophes. 

An  example  has  been  given  in  the  alphabetical  dirge  of  Lam.  3.' 
Another  specimen  may  be  found  in  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  already 
given.-    This  additional  one  will  suffice. 

Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi : 
For  One  is  your  Rabbi ; 
And  all  ye  are  brethren. 

Call  ye  no  one  Father  : ' 
For  One  is  your  Father, 
He  which  is  in  heaven. 

Be  not  ye  called  Master  ; 

For  One  is  your  JLister ;  ' 

The  greatest  among  you  is  your  servant.  — ♦ 

This  beautiful  piece  of  AYisdom  is  of  great  artistic  beauty.  In 
the  Hebrew  original '  each  line  was  a  trimeter  measured  by  three 
beats  of  the  accent.  The  lines  are  organized  in  three  strophes  of 
three  lines  each.  The  number  three  determines  its  artistic  struct- 
ure, and  it  is,  accordinglj-,  the  cube  of  three ;  three  strophes  of 
three  lines  of  three  accents. 

-3.    Strophes  of  Four  Lines 

The  tetrastich  as  a  double  couplet  is  very  frequent  in 
strophes. 

Psahn  3  is  a  good  specimen  of  the  quartette  trimeter. 

1.  Yahweh,  how  are  mine  adversaries  increased  ! 
Many  are  rising  up  against  me  ; 

Many  are  saying  of  my  soul, 

There  is  no  salvation  for  him  in  God. 

2.  But  Thou  '  art  a  shield  about  me  ; 

My  glorj'  and  the  lifter  up  of  mine  head. 
With  my  voice  unto  Yahweh  I  wa.s  crying, 
And  He  answered  me  from  His  holy  hill. 

3.  As  for  me  I  laid  me  down  and  slept ; 

I  awaked  ;  for  Yahweh  was  sustaining  me. 

»  See  p.  382.  2  See  pp.  388.  389. 

'  "  On  the  earth  "  and  "  Messiah"  are  explanatory  additions,  which  destroy 
the  measure.  *  Mt.  2.3*-'^. 

'  In  translating  into  an  unknown  original,  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  exact 
words  that  were  used,  but  we  may  come  sufficiently  near  for  our  present 
purpose.  *  m.T  makes  line  too  long. 

2d 


402  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

I  will  not  be  afraid  of  myriads  of  the  people, 
That  have  set  themselves  against  me  round  about. 

4.    O  Arise,^  Save  me,  my  God  ! 

For  Thou  hast  smitten  all  mine  enemies  upon  the  cheek  bone ; 
Thou  hast  broken  the  teeth  of  the  wicked  • 
Salvation  belongs  to  Yahweh.^ 

4.    Strophes  of  Five  Lines 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Samuel  gives  us  ^  a  little  piece  of 
poetry  of  the  didactic  type  that  he  calls  :  "  The  Last  Words  of 
David."  This  h'ric  is  composed  of  four  strophes  of  five  trim- 
eter lines  each.* 

1.  Utterance  of  the  man  whom  the  Most  High  raised  up ; 
The  spirit  of  Y^ahvfeh  speaks  in  me, 

And  his  word  is  upon  my  tongue  ; 
The  God  of  Israel  doth  say  to  me, 
The  Rock  of  Israel  doth  speak. 

2.  A  ruler  over  men  —  righteous  ; 
A  ruler  in  the  fear  of  God. 

Yea,  he  is  like  the  morning  light  when  the  sun  rises, 

A  morning  without  clouds. 

From  shining,  from  rain,  tender  grass  sprouts  from  the  earth. 

3.  Is  not  thus  my  house  with  God  ? 

For  an  everlasting  covenant  hath  He  made  with  me. 
Arranged  in  all  things,  and  secured  ; 
Yea,  all  my  salvation  and  every  delight 
AVill  He  not  cause  it  to  sprout  ? 

4.  But  the  worthless,  like  thorns  all  of  them  are  thrust  away, 
For  they  cannot  be  taken  with  the  hand. 

The  man  touching  them. 

Must  be  armed  with  iron,  and  the  spear's  staff ; 

And  with  fire  they  will  be  utterly  consumed. 

Psalm  67  has  three  trimeter  pentastichs. 

1.    May  God  be  gracious  to  us  and  bless  us ; 
Let  His  face  shine  toward  us, 

1  "  Yahvreh  "  is  inserted  in  the  Hebrew  text  without  need. 

2  The  last  clause,  which  I  have  omitted,  is  a  liturgical  addition. 

3  2  Sam.  231-'. 

»  The  lyric  is  inti'oduced  with  these  words  :  "  David,  the  son  of  Jesse,  saith." 
Two  explanatory  statements  are  inserted  :  "The  anointed  of  the  God  of  Jacob  " 
and  "Sweet  in  the  songs  of  Israel"  ;  which  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
supposed  author  was  king  of  Israel  by  divine  appointment  and  that  he  was  a 
sweet  singer,  renowned  for  lyric  composition.  Tliese  statements  have  no  place 
in  the  poem  as  such. 


THE   PARALLELISMS  OF   HEBREW   POETRY  403 

And  give  to  us  peace ;  ^ 

That  Thy  way  may  be  known  in  the  earth ; 

Among  all  nations  Thy  salvation. 

2.  Let  the  people  praise  Thee,  O  God  ; 
Let  the  people  praise  Thee,  all  of  them  ; 
Let  the  nations  be  glad  and  sing  for  joy  ; 
For  Thou  wilt  judge  the  peoples  with  equity. 
And  the  nations  Thou  wilt  lead  in  the  eaxth. 

3.  Let  the  people  praise  Thee,  O  God, 
Let  the  people  praise  Thee,  all  of  them  ; 
The  land  hath  given  her  increase  ; 
And  Yahweh,  our  God,  will  bless  us,^ 
And  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  will  fear  him. 

5.    Strophes  of  Six  Lines 

The  six-lined  strophe  may  be  illustrated  by  the  tetrameter, 
Ps.  46,  which  also  has  a  refrain. 

1.  God  is  ours,  a  refuge  and  strength, 

A  help  in  troubles  ready  to  be  found  ; 

Therefore  we  shall  not  fear  though  the  earth  change, 

And  though  mountains  be  moved  into  the  heart  of  the  seas ; 

Its  waters  roar,  —  be  troubled. 

Mountains  shake  with  the  swelling  thereof. 

Tahiceh  Sabaoth  is  icrtft  us ; ' 

The  God  of  Jacob  is  our  refuge. 

2.  A  river  (there  is)  whose  streams  make  glad  the  city  of  God, 
The  holy  place  of  the  tabernacles  of  Elyon. 

God  is  In  her  midst  ;  she  cannot  be  moved  ; 
God  will  help  her  at  the  turn  of  the  morn. 
Nations  raged  —  kingdoms  were  moved  ; 
Has  He  uttered  His  voice,  the  earth  melteth. 
Yahweh  Sabaoth  is  toith  us  ; 
The  God  of  Jacob  is  our  refuge. 

3.  Come,  behold  the  doings  of  Yahweh, 
What  wonders  He  hath  done  in  the  earth. 

He  is  causing  wars  to  cease  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth  ; 
The  bow  He  breaketh,  and  cutteth  the  .spear  in  sunder.* 

1  It  is  improbable  that  the  high-priest's  blessing  (Xu.  6-*-^)  would  be  mu- 
tilated, especially  as  the  third  line  is  needed  to  make  up  the  five  lines  of  the 
strophe.     I  do  not  hesitate,  therefore,  to  restore  it. 

-  The  words  CHtK  ";2~Z"  are  repeated  in  the  Hebrew  text  by  dittography. 
They  destroy  the  measure.  I  have  therefore  elided  them.  The  original  Yahweh 
I  have  used  instead  of  the  later  Elohim. 

'  The  refrain  at  the  close  of  this  strophe  has  been  omitted  as  occasionally 
elsewhere  in  Hebrew  poetry,  and  it  should  be  restored. 

*  The  destruction  of  the  iustruments  of  war  is  as  in  Hos.  2*',  Is.  9*.  We 
regard  the  clause  r»<3  I'^V  TvhiV  as  a  later  marginal  addition  that  has  crept 


404  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Be  still  and  know  that  I  am  God  : 

I  shall  be  exalted  among  tlie  nations,  I  shall  be  exalted  in  the  earth. 

Yahv:eh  Sabaoth  is  irith  us ; 

The  God  of  Jacob  is  our  refuge. 

Jesus  gives  us  two  fine  specimens  of  this  type.  The  first  has ' 
two  antithetical  hexastichs  in  the  tetrameter  movement,  in  which 
each  line  of  the  second  strophe  is  in  parallelism  with  its  fellow 
in  the  first  strophe : 

1.  Every  one  which  heareth  -  these  words  of  mine  and  doeth  them, 
Shall  be  likened  unto  a  wise  man. 

Which  built  his  house  upon  the  rock  : 
And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came, 
And  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house  ; 
And  it  fell  not :  for  it  was  founded  upon  the  rock. 

2.  But  every  one  which  heareth  these  words  of  mine  and  doeth  them  not. 
Shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man. 

Which  built  his  house  upon  the  sand  ; 
And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came, 
And  the  winds  blew,  and  smote  upon  that  house  ; 
And  it  fell :  and  great  was  the  fall  thereof. 

This  certainly  is  finer  than  any  specimen  of  the  hesastich  in  the 
whole  range  of  the  literature  of  Wisdom.  The  gospel  of  3Iat- 
thew  has  preserved  this  piece  in  its  original  form,  but  Luke  ^  has 
condensed  it  and  made  it  into  a  prose  parable. 

We  shall  now  consider  a  longer  piece,  where  the  gospel  has 
condensed  the  concluding  strophe,  and  at  times,  also,  by  minor 
changes,  mars  the  beauty  of  the  other  strophes.  But  the  piece  is 
so  symmetrical  that  it  is  quite  easy  to  see  its  original  structure. 
This  splendid  piece  of  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus  describes  His  ro^-al 
judgment.*  It  is  unsurpassed  for  simplicity,  grandeur,  pathos, 
antithesis,  and  graphic  realism.  It  is  composed  of  five  pentameter 
strophes  of  six  lines  each.  The  first  strophe  is  introductory, 
describing  the  King  taking  His  seat  on  His  judgment  throne,  sur- 
rounded by  angels,  the  assembly  of  all  nations  before  Him,  and 
His  separating  them  as  a  shepherd  divides  his  sheep  from  his 
goats.  The  judgment  itself  is  presented  in  four  strophes,  a  pair 
for  the  righteous  and  a  pair  for  the  wicked,  each  pair  composed 
of  a  strophe  and  an  antistrophe,  and  the  second  pair  being  in 
such  thorough-going  antithetical  parallelism  to  the  first  pair  that 

Into  the  text.  It  is  trimeter  in  the  midst  of  tetrameters,  and  makes  the  strophe 
one  line  too  long.  '  Mt.  I"*-^. 

5  iras  SvTit  dkoi/ei  (v.  24)  and  tos  o  iKoiuv  (v.  26)  go  back  to  the  same 
original,  CBCt  ?3.  oBi-  is  a  connective  that  was  inserted  by  the  evangelist  to 
adapt  this  sentence  of  Wisdom  to  its  context. 

'  Lk.  6«'-«».  *  .Mt.  :;5"-". 


THE    PAKALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW   I'OETRY  405 

every  line  in  the  one  is  in  antithesis  to  every  line  of  the  other. 
The  whole  concludes  with  a  couplet  summing  up  the  everlasting 
penalty : 

1.  AVTieu  the  Son  of  Man  shall  corae  in  His  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  Him, 
Then  shall  He  sit  on  the  throne  of  His  glory  : 

And  before  Him  will  be  gathered  all  the  nations : 

And  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another, 

As  the  shepherd  separateth  the  sheep  from  the  goats : 

And  He  shall  set  the  sheep  on  His  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left. 

2.  Then  shall  the  King  say  unto  them  on  His  right  hand, 
Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom,' 
■Which  was  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world : 

For  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  Me  meat  :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave 

Me  drink : 
I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  Me  In :  naked,  and  ye  clothed  Me  : 
I  was  sick,  and  ye  visited  Me :  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  unto  Me. 

3.  Then  shall  the  righteous  answer  him,-  Lord, 

When  saw  we  Thee  an  hungered  and  fed  Thee,  or  athirst  and  gave  Thee 

drink  ? 
When  '^  saw  we  Thee  a  stranger,  and  took  Thee  in  ?  or  naked,  and  clothed 

Thee? 
When  ■'  saw  we  Thee  sick,  and  visited  Thee  ?  *  or  in  prison,  and  came  unto 

Thee  ? 
And  the  King  shall  answer  and  say  unto  them.  Verily  I  say  unto  you. 
Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  one  of  these  least  of  My  brethren,  ye  did  it  unto 

Me. 

4.  Then  shall  the  King'  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand. 
Depart  from  Me,  ye  cursed,  into  Gehenna,^ 

Which  is  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  : 

For  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  Me  no  meat :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave 

me  no  drink : 
I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  Me  not  in  :  naked,  and  ye  clothed  Me  not ; 

1  was  sick,  and  ye  visited  Me  not :  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  came  not  unto 

Me.' 

'  The  Greek  combines  lines  2  and  3  into  one  prose  sentence,  tt;^  iiT0ifj.a<Tti4i>rii> 
ifuy  /SaffiXeiax,  but  the  Hebrew,  as  Delitzsoh  gives  it,  is  Osb  njaion  nisbon,  so 
that  the  third  line  begins  with  the  participial  clause  (cf.  strophe  4,  line  3). 

2  Xifovra  is  a  prosaic  insertion.  Hebrew  poets  usually  omit  ^as'7,  leaving  it 
to  be  understood  (cf.  Ps.  2-).  ^  Si   is  an  insertion  of  the  Greek  translation. 

*  This  clause  is  verified  by  the  parallel  in  2,  line  0  ;  it  was  left  out  in  the 
prose  translation. 

s  The  parallelism  of  2,  line  1,  requires  "  King."  The  Greek  has  reduced  it 
to  the  mere  subject  implied  in  ipet. 

'■  There  is  a  tendency  in  the  Gospels  to  explain  the  Hebrew  Gehenna  to  Gen- 
tile readers.  I  think  that  Gehenna  was  in  the  original  in  antithesis  with 
"kingdom,"  and  that  "eternal  fire"  is  an  explanatory  substitution  (see  The 
Erpository  Times,  June,  1807,  p.  397).     See  also  Chap.  IV.  p.  90. 

'  This  line  has  been  reduced  as  strophe  3,  line  4.  There  the  verb  "  visited 
thee ''  was  left  out,  here  the  verb  "  came  unto  me." 


406  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

5.  Then  shall  the  -wicked '  answer  him,  Lord, 

When  saw  we  Thee  an  hungered  (and  did  not  give  Thee  meat  2),  or  athirst 

(and  gave  Thee  not  to  drink)  ; 
(When  saw  we  Thee)  a  stranger  (and  took  Thee  not  in),  or  naked  (and 

clothed  Thee  not)  ; 
(When  saw  we  Thee)  sick  (and  did  not  visit  Thee),  or  in  prison  (and  did  not 

come  unto  Thee). 
Then  shall  He  answer  and  say  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these,  ye  did  it  not  unto 

Me. 

The  following  couplet  was  probably  added  by  the  evangelist : 

And  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment ; 
But  the  righteous  into  eternal  life. 

6.    Strophes  of  Seven  Lines 

The  seven-lined  strophe  may  be  illustrated  by  the  four  pen- 
tameter strophes  of  Ps.  118. 

1.  Give  thanks  to  Yahweh  ;  for  He  is  good  —  for  His  mercy  is  for  ever; 
Let  Israel  now  say  —  that  His  mercy  is  for  ever  ; 

Let  the  house  of  Aaron  now  say  —  that  His  mercy  is  for  ever  ; 
Let  them  now  that  fear  Yahweh  say  —  that  His  mercy  is  for  ever. 
Out  of  my  distress  I  called  upon  Yah  —  He  answered  me  in  a  large  place. 
Yahweh  is  mine ;  I  will  not  fear :  —  what  can  man  do  unto  me  ? 
Yahweh  is  mine,  as  among  them  that  help  me  —  I  wiE  see  my  desire  in  my 
enemies. 

2.  Better  to  seek  refuge  in  Yahweh  —  than  to  trust  in  man. 
Better  to  seek  refuge  in  Yahweh  —  than  to  trust  in  nobles. 

All  nations  do  compass  me  about  —  it  is  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  that  I  will 

destroy  them. 
They  do  compass  me  about ;  yea,  they  do  compass  me  all  about  —  it  is  in  the 

name  of  Yahweh  that  I  will  destroy  them  : 
They  do  compass  me  about  as  bees  —  they  will  surely  be  quenched  as  the  fire 

of  thorns.^ 
They  did  thrust  sore  at  me  that  I  might  fall  —  but  Yahweh  helped  me ; 
My  help  and  my  song  is  Yah  —  and  He  is  become  mine  for  victory. 

3.  The  voice  of  rejoicing  and  victory  —  is  in  the  tents  of  the  righteous  :  * 

The  right  liand  of  Yahweh  is  exalted  —  the  right  hand  of  Yahweh  is  doing 
valiantly. 

1  The  antithesis  requires  the  "wicked"  over  against  the  "  righteouB,"  and 
not  simply  the  subject  of  the  verb.     The  measure  of  the  line  also  demands  it. 

2  In  this  strophe  the  clauses  were  all  condensed  in  the  Greek  prose  transla- 
tion by  omission  of  all  the  verbs,  and  the  summing  of  them  up  in  "minister 
unto  thee."    They  should  all  be  restored. 

'The  third  "It  is  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  that  I  will  destroy  them,"  is 
dittography.     I  elide  it  tlierefore. 

*  "The  right  hand  of  Yahweh  is  doing  valiantly,"  is  a  dittograph  from  the 
line  below.     I  elide  it  therefore. 


THE   PARALLELISJIS   OF   HEBREW  POETRY  407 

I  shall  not  die  but  I  shall  live  — and  I  will  declare  the  works  of  Yah. 

Yah  hath  chastened  me  sore  —  but  to  death  he  did  not  give  me. 

Open  for  me  the  gates  of  righteousness  —  that  I  may  enter  into  them  to  give 

thanks  to  Yah. 
Yonder  gate  is  Yahweh's  —  the  righteous  may  enter  therein. 
I  will  give  thanks  to  Thee,  for  Thou  hast  answered  me  —  and  art  become  mine 

for  victory. 

4.   The  stone  the  builders  rejected  —  is  become  the  head  of  the  comer. 
From  Yahweh  is  this  —  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes. 
This  very  day  Yahweh  hath  made  —  let  us  rejoice  and  let  us  be  glad  in  it. 

0  now  Yahweh  give  victory  —  O  now  Yahweh  send  prosperity. 

Blessed  be  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  Yahweh — ^we  bless  yon  from  the 

house  of  Yahweh. 
Yahweh  is  God  and  He  hath  let  shine  His  face  for  us  i  even  unto  the  horns 

of  the  altar. 
My  God  art  Thou,  and  I  wUl  give  thanks  unto  Thee  —  my  God  I  will  exalt 

Thee.2 

A  choice   pentameter  of   seven-lined  strophes  is  the  prophecy 
(Is.  14).     The  following  strophes  will  be  sufficient  to  illustrate  : 

1.  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven  —  O  day  star,  son  of  the  morning  ! 
How  art  thou  cut  down  to  earth  —  thou  who  didst  lay  low  the  nations  1 
Thou,  indeed,  who  saidst  in  thine  heart  —  I  wiU  ascend  unto  heaven, 
Above  the  stars  of  God  —  I  will  lift  up  my  throne. 

And  wiU  sit  in  the  mount  of  congiegation  —  ou  the  remote  parts  of  the 
north  : 

1  will  ascend  above  the  heights  of  cloud  —  I  wiU  be  like  to  'Elyon. 
Yet  unto  Sheol  thou  art  brought  down  —  to  the  sides  of  the  pit. 

2.  They  that  look  upon  thee,  narrowly  look  upon  thee  —  upon  thee  consider ; 
Is  this  the  man  that  made  the  earth  tremble  —  shook  kingdoms  ; 

Made  the  habitable  world  as  a  wilderness  — and  its  cities  overthrew  ; 
His  prisoners  did  not  loose  to  their  homes  —  all  (of  them)  kings  of  nations  ? 
All  of  them  lay  down  in  honour  —  each  in  his  own  house  : 
But  thou  art  cast  forth  as  an  abhorred  vulture  ^  —  clothed  with  the  slain. 
Among  those  pierced  with  the  sword,  descending  to  the  stones  of  the  Pit  *  — 
thou  art  like  a  carcass  trodden  under  foot.^ 

7.    Strophes  of  JSi^/ht  Lines 

The  strophe  of  eight  lines  is  more  frequent. 
Psalm  8  is  a  beautiful  example  of  a  hymn  in  two  strophes  of 
eight  lines  each,  with  a  refrain,  having  the  peculiarity  that  the 

1  The  clause  omitted  is  a  gloss  from  the  margin.     It  was  a  liturgical  direction 
with  regard  to  the  thank  offering  accompanying  this  Te.  Deiim  for  victory. 

2  The  psalm  closes  with  a  final  liturgical  line  :  "  Give  thanks  to  Yahweh  ;  for 
He  is  good  —  for  His  mercy  is  for  ever." 

'  Read  "VSl,  vulture,  for  "12£:,  branch,  and  strike  out  T^-pB  as  a  gloss. 
*  This,  according  to  usage,  is  the  Pit  of  Sheol.  ^  Is.  14i*-i3. 


408  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

refrain   begins  the  first  strophe  and  closes  the  second,  thus 
ending  the  psahn  : 

1.  Yahweb,  our  Lord, 

How  excellent  is  Thy  name  in  all  the  earth  ! 
Thou  whose  glory  doth  extend  over  the  heavens, 
Out  of  the  mouth  of  little  children  and  sucklings 
Thou  dost  establish  strength  because  of  Thine  adversaries, 
To  silence  enemy  and  avenger. 
When  I  see  Thy  heavens,  the  work  of  Thy  fingers. 
Moon  and  stars  which  Thou  hast  prepared  ; 
What  is  frail  man,  that  Thou  shouldst  be  mindful  of  him  ? 
Or  the  son  of  man,  that  Thou  visitest  him  ? 

2.  When  thou  didst  make  him  a  little  lower  than  divine  beings, 
With  glory  and  honour  crowning  him. 

Thou  mad'st  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  Thy  hands  ; 

All  things  Thou  didst  put  under  his  feet : 

Sheep  and  oxen,  all  of  them  ; 

And  also  beasts  of  the  field  ; 

Birds  of  heaven,  and  fishes  of  the  sea ; 

Those  that  pass  through  the  paths  of  the  sea. 

Yahweh,  our  Lord, 

How  excellent  is  Thy  name  in  all  the  earth  ! 

Jesus  gives  a  strikingly  beautiful  specimen  of  the  octastich  *  in 
three  tetrameter  strophes,  with  an  introductory  couplet.  These 
strophes  are  in  synonymous  parallelism,  line  for  line,  throughout 
the  eight  lines  of  the  three  strophes.  There  are  a  few  places 
where  the  gospel  has  marred  the  original  line  by  the  Greek  trans- 
lation, by  words  of  explanation,  or  by  condensation.  But  the 
piece  is  so  symmetrical  that  it  is  difi&cult  to  miss  the  original. 

Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  righteousness  before  men,^ 
Else  ye  have  no  reward  with  your  Father.  ^ 

This  is  the  introductory  couplet.  Three  kinds  of  righteousness 
are  now  taken  up :  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting.  Between  the 
prayer  and  the  fasting,  Matthew,  as  often  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  has  inserted  other  material  relating  to  prayer;  namely, 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  which  is  given  by  Luke  in  a  more  appropriate 
historical  place,  and  a  tetrastich  as  to  forgiveness.*  The  three 
strophes  are  as  follows  : 

I  Mt.  6>-6  i»-w. 

^  The  Greek  adds  the  explanatory  npbs  t4  eeaOrjvai  auroit,  which  makes  the 
line  too  long,  and  is  tautological. 

'  Matthew  as  usual  adds  rij!  ir  tois  ovpavoU. 

*  See  The  Expository  Times,  July,  18!t7,  p.  453. 


THE   PARALLELISMS   OF   HEBREW   POETRY  409 

1.  When  •  thou  doest  alms,  thou  shall  not  be  as  the  hypocrites : - 

For  they  sound  a  trumpet  before  them  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the  streets, 

That  they  may  have  glory  of  men. 

Verily  I  say  unto  you.  They  have  received  their  reward. 

But  thou,^  when  thou  doest  alms, 

Let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy  right  hand  doeth  : 

That  thine  alms  may  be  in  secret ; 

And  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall  recompense  thee. 

2.  When<  thou  prayest,^  thou  shalt  not  be  as  the  hypocrites  : 
For  they  love  to  stand  ^  in  the  synagogues  and  on '  the  streets, 
That  they  may  be  seen  of  men  to  pray. 

Verily  I  say  unto  you.  They  have  received  their  reward. 

But  thou,  when  thou  prayest. 

Enter  into  thine  inner  chamber  and  close  ^  the  door  : 

And  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret ; 

And  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall  recompense  thee. 

3.  When  thou  fastest,  thou  shalt  not  be  as  the  hypocrites: 

They  '  are  of  sad  countenance,  because  they  disfigure  their  faces, 

That  they  may  be  seen  of  men  to  fast. 

Verily  1  say  unto  you.  They  have  received  their  reward. 

But  thou,  when  thou  fastest. 

Anoint  thy  head  and  wash  thy  face :  ''' 

That  thou  mayest  be  seen  of  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret ; 

And  thy  Father  which  seeth  in  .secret  shall  recompense  thee. 

The  threefold  reiteration  in  these  parallel  lines  as  to  the  three 
classes  of  righteous  conduct  is  exceedingly  powerful. 

'  o5»  has  been  inserted_  as  a  connective. 

-  Comparison  with  the  other  strophes  makes  it  evident  that  there  has  been 
a  transposition  here,  which  ha.s  destroyed  the  measure  of  the  two  lines,  and 
made  them  into  one  prose  sentence.     It  is  easy  to  restore  the  original. 

'  "Thou"  should  be  inserted,  as  in  the  other  two  strophes. 

*  (ta!  is  a  Greek  insertion. 

'  There  is  a  variation  in  the  Greek  between  the  second  singular  and  second 
plural,  which  is  due  to  the  inexactness  of  the  translator.  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
restore  the  second  singular,  which  was  evidently  original  throughout. 

'  "Pray'"  has  been  transposed  in  Greek  from  the  next  line.  The  parallel 
lines  and  other  strophes  show  that  it  belongs  there. 

'  "  Corners '"  has  been  inserted  to  make  it  more  specific. 

*  The  Greek  connects  this  clau.se  with  the  following  sentence  because  of  its 
idiomatic  use  of  the  participle  for  the  Hebrew  verb. 

'The  Greek  attaches  (rKvepuwol  to  the  "hypocrites,"  but  the  parallel  lines 
show  that  there  should  be  a  statement  respecting  them  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  line. 

"  nn  ToU  aydpiiwois  —  iWi.  are  in.sertions  to  make  the  statement  more  em- 
phatic, but  they  destroy  the  measure  of  the  line  and  the  parallelism  with  the 
other  strophes. 


410  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTCKE 

8.    Strophes  of  Nettie  Lines 

Psalms  42,  43,  give  strophes  of  nine  lines  with  refrains  : 

1.  As  a  hart  which  crieth  out  after  the  water  brooks, 
So  my  soul  crieth  out  for  Thee,  O  God  ! 

My  soul  doth  thirst  for  God,  for  the  God  of  life  ; 

How  long  ere  I  shall  come  to  appear  before  the  face  of  God  ? 

My  teare  have  been  to  me  food  day  and  night ; 

While  they  say  unto  me  all  day,  Wliere  is  thy  God  ? 

These  things  would  I  remember,  and  would  pour  out  my  soul  within  me : 

How  I  used  to  pass  along  in  the  throng,  used  to  lead  them  up  to  the  house  of 

God, 
With  the  sound  of  rejoicing  and  praise,  a  multitude  keeping  festival. 

Why  art  thou  bowed  down,   my  soul?    and  why  art  thou  moaning 
within  me  ? 

Wait  on  God  :  for  yet  shall  I  praise  Kim. 

The  deliverance  of  my  face,  and  my  God. 

2.  Therefore  would  I  remember  Thee  from  the  land  of  Jordan,  and  the  Hermons, 

from  the  mount  Mizar. 
Deep  unto  deep  is  calling  to  the  sound  of  Thy  cataracts; 
All  Thy  breakei-s  and  Thy  billows  do  pass  over  me  : 
By  day  Yahweh  will  appoint  His  mercy, 

And  by  night  His  song  will  be  with  me,  prayer  to  the  God  of  my  life. 
I  must  say  to  the  God  of  my  rock,  Why  dost  Thou  forget  me  ? 
Why  go  I  mourning  because  of  the  oppression  of  an  enemy  ? 
As  a  breaking  in  my  bones  my  adverearies  do  reproach  me  ; 
While  they  say  unto  me  all  day,  Where  is  thy  God  ? 

Why   art  thou  bowed  down,   my  soul  ?    and_  why  art  thou  moaning 
within  me  ? 

Wait  on  God  :  for  yet  shall  I  praise  Him, 

The  deliverance  of  my  face,  and  my  God. 

3.  Judge  me,  O  God,  and  plead  my  cause  against  an  unmerciful  nation  ; 
Against  a  man  of  deceit  and  wickedness,  deliver  me. 

O  Thou  God.  my  fortress,  why  dost  Thou  cast  me  oS  ? 

Why  must  I  go  about  mourning  because  of  the  oppression  of  an  enemy  ? 

Send  Thy  light  and  Tliy  truth  :  let  thera  lead  me  ; 

Let  them  bring  me  unto  Thy  holy  mount,  even  to  Thy  dwellings  : 

That  I  may  come  to  the  altar  of  God, 

To  the  God  of  the  joy  of  my  rejoicing, 

That  I  may  praise  Tliee  with  harp,  O  God,  my  God. 

Why  art  thou  bowed  down,   my  soul  ?   and  why  art  thou  moaning 
within  me  ? 

Wait  on  God :  for  yet  shall  I  praise  Him, 

The  deliverance  of  my  face,  and  my  God. 

The  strophes  have  each  nine  lines,  the  refrain  three  lines.     I 

am  well  aware  that  other  arrangements  of  the  lines  are  usual,  and 
that  objection  may  be  taken  to  my  elimination  of  v.  7  a:  but  it 
seems  clearly  established  that  a  copyist's  mistake  has  caused  the 


THE   PARALLELISMS  OF   HEBREW   POETRY  411 

refrain  of  the  first  strophe  to  be  deprived  of  its  closing  word, 
which  begins  this  verse ;  and  the  other  three  words  are  easiest  to 
explain  as  copyist's  mistakes,  also  repeated  from  the  refrain. 

9.    Strophes  of  Ten  Lines 

Strophes  of  ten  lines  are  frequent.     Tlie  Psalm  of  Creation^ 
has  eight  trimeter  strophes  of  ten  lines  each. 

Two  strophes  will  suffice  to  illustrate : 

1.  Bless,  O  my  soul,  Yaliweh. 
My  God  -  Thou  art  very  great ; 

With  grandeur  and  glory  Thou  art  clothed ; 
Covering  Thyself  with  light  as  a  garment, 
Stretching  out  heaven  as  a  curtain  ; 
He  who  layeth  in  the  waters  His  chambers, 
He  who  maketh  the  clouds  His  chariot. 
He  who  walketh  on  the  wings  of  the  wind ; 
Making  winds  His  messengers, 
His  ministers  flaming  fire. 

2.  He  laid  the  earth  on  its  foundations : 
It  cannot  be  moved  for  ever  and  ever. 

With  the  deep  a-s  a  vesture  Thou  didst  cover  it. 

Above  the  mountains  waters  were  standing  ; 

At  Thy  rebuke  they  flee, 

At  the  sound  of  Thy  thunder  they  haste  away  ; 

They  flow  over  the  mountains,  they  descend  into  the  valleys. 

Unto  the  place  that  Thou  didst  lay  for  them. 

The  bound  Thou  didst  set  that  they  might  not  pass  over  : 

They  may  not  return  to  cover  the  earth. 

10.    Strophes  of  Twelve  Lines 

The  strophe  of  twelve  lines  may  be  illustrated  by  the  beauti- 
ful piece  of  Wisdom  (Prov.  9)  : 

1.    Wisdom  hath  builded  her  house. 
She  hath  hewn  out  her  seven  pillars  : 
She  hath  killed  her  beasts  ;  she  hath  mingled  her  wine  ; 
She  hath  furnished  her  table. 
She  hath  sent  forth  her  maidens  to  ci^y 
Upon  the  high  places  of  the  city  : 
Whoso  is  simple,  let  liim  turn  in  hither ; 
As  for  him  that  is  void  of  understanding,  she  saith  to  him  : 
Come,  eat  of  my  bread, 

1  Ps.  104. 

2  The  Jlassoretic  mn''  has  been  inserted  from  dittography.     It  makes  the 
trimeter  into  a  tetrameter  without  reason. 


412  STUDY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

And  drink  of  the  wine  wliich  I  have  mingled. 
Leave  off,  ye  simple  ones,  and  live  ; 
And  vpalk  in  the  way  of  understanding. 

2.   The  woman  Folly  is  clamorous  ; 
Simplicity,  —  she  knoweth  nothing. 
And  she  sitteth  at  the  door  of  her  house, 
On  a  seat  in  the  high  places  of  the  city. 
To  call  to  them  that  p;iss  by, 
Who  go  right  on  their  way  : 
Whoso  is  simple,  let  liim  turn  in  hither  ; 
And  as  for  him  that  is  void  of  understanding,  she  saith  to  him. 
Stolen  waters  are  sweet. 
And  bread  eaten  in  secret  is  pleasant. 
But  he  knoweth  not  that  the  Shades  are  there, 
That  her  guests  are  in  the  depths  of  Sheol. 

11.    Strophes  of  Fourteen  Lines 

The  strophe  of  fourteen  lines  is  frequent  in  Hebrew  poetry. 
Psalm  18  =  2  Sara.  22  is  a  good  example. 
Two  strophes  will  suffice  to  show  it : 

1.  I  love  Thee,  Yahweh,  my  strength. 

My '  rock  and  my  fortress  and  my  deliverer  ; 

My  God,  my  .strong  rock  in  whom  I  seek  refuge  ; 

My  shield,  and  horn  of  my  salvation,  my  high  tower, 

(I  said)  I  will  call  upon  Yahweh,  who  is  worthy  to  be  praised : 

So  shall  I  be  saved  from  mine  enemies. 

The  breakers  -  of  death  compassed  me. 

And  the  floods  of  Belial  terrified  me, 

The  cords  of  Sheol  compassed  me. 

The  snares  of  Death  came  upon  me  ; 

In  my  distress  I  call  upon  Yahweh, 

And  cry  unto  my  God  ; 

He  hears  my  voice  out  of  His  temple, 

And  my  cry  *  comes  unto  His  ears. 

2.  Then  the  earth  shook  and  trembled. 

And  the  foundations  of  tlie  mountains  moved, 
And  were  shaken,  because  He  was  wroth. 
There  went  up  a  smoke  in  His  no.strils. 
And  fire  out  of  His  mouth  devoured  : 
Coals  were  kindled  by  it. 
And  He  bowed  (he  heavens  and  came  down. 
Thick  darkness  under  His  feet, 

1  rvrv  of  Hebrew  text  sliould  be  elided.     It  is  an  assimilation  to  2  Sam.  22, 
which  omits  previous  line. 

2  "hzn  of    Hebrew   text  is  dittography   from   next  line.     The  reading  of 
2  Sam.  22  is  correct.     See  p.  91. 

«  I'sab  is  not  in  2  Sam.  22.     It  makes  the  line  too  long,  and  should  be  elided. 


THE   PARALLELISMS  OF  HEBREW   POETRY  413 

And  rode  upon  the  cherub  and  flew  : 

Yea,  flew  swiftly  upon  the  wings  of  the  wind. 

He  made  darkness  i  round  about  Him  His  pavilion, 

Darkness  of  waters,  thick  clouds  of  the  skies, 

From  the  brightness  before  Him,^  they  passed, 

Hailstones  and  coals  of  fire. 


12.    Unequal   Strophes 

The  strophes  are  not  always  of  an  equal  number  of  lines. 
Often  there  is  an  intentional  variation  of  their  number.  One 
of  the  earliest  odes^  is  composed  of  three  strophes,  gradually 
diminishing,  in  accordance  with  its  dirgelike  character,  in 
6x5x4  lines.  The  ode  is  abrupt  in  style,  rapid  in  transitions, 
full  of  rare  forms  and  expressions,  with  frequent  alliterations, 
and  of  real  beauty  : 

Come  to  Heshbon  ! 

Built,  yea  established  be  the  city  of  Sihon  ; 

For  fire  went  forth  from  Heshbon, 

Flame  from  the  city  of  Sihon. 

It  consumed  Ar  of  Moab, 

The  lords  of  the  high  places  of  Arnon. 

Woe  to  thee,  Moab  ! 
Thou  art  lost,  people  of  Chemosh  ! 
He  hath  given  over  his  sons  unto  flight, 
And  his  daughters  unto  captivity. 
Unto  the  king  of  the  Amorites,  Sihon  ! 

Then  we  shot  at  them —  He  was  lost  — 
Heshbon  unto  Dibon  — 
And  we  wasted  them  even  unto  Nophah, 
With  fire  unto  Medeba. 

The  refrain  is  frequently  used  in  Hebrew  poetry.  We  have 
had  a  number  of  exartiples  where  it  begins  or  closes  strophes  of 
equal  length.*  But  the  refrain  does  not  alwaj's  divide  the 
poem  into  equal  strophes.  Thus  the  dirge  of  Saul*  is  com- 
posed of  three  parts,  which  melt  away  according  to  the  scheme 
of  18,  5,  1.  The  refrain  itself  does  not  always  correspond 
throughout.  Thus  in  Ps.  80  it  increases  itself  for  emphasis  in 
the  heaping  up  of  the  divine  names  in  the  successive  strophes ; 

'  npD  of  Hebrew  text  is  an  explanatory  insertion. 

2  V2r  of  Hebrew  text  is  from  dittography. 

«  Nu.  21"-®'.        *  See  pp.  403,  406,  410.  "      ^  2  Sam.  I'^-s'. 


414  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  tliird  and  fourth  strophes  constitute  a  double  strophe,  giv- 
ing the  allegory  of  the  vine  with  a  double  refrain  at  the  close, 
massing  together  a  series  of  imperatives.  Psalm  45  gives  a 
varying  refrain  and  three  gradually  increasing  parts.  The 
refrain  is  also  used  for  the  division  of  larger  pieces  of  poetry, 
as  in  the  Song  of  Songs,  -where  it  divides  the  poem  into  five 
acts  ;  and  in  the  great  Book  of  Comfort  of  the  second  Isaiah, 
where  the  two  earlier  editions,  as  well  as  the  final  division,  are 
all  marked  by  refrains.^  In  all  these  cases  the  strophes  and 
the  divisions  of  the  poems  are  of  unequal  lengths.  The  strophes 
of  the  book  of  Job  and  of  the  Prophets  are  also  usuall}-  unequal.^ 

1  See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  7th  ed.,  pp.  141  seq.,  229  seq.,  3.38  seq. 

2  See  pp.  422-425. 


CHAPTER   XVII 

THE   KINDS   OF    HEDREW    POETRY 

Hebrew  poetry  may  be  divided  into  three  general  classes, 

—  Lyric,  Gnomic,  and  Composite. 

I.    Lyric  Poetry 

Lyric  poetry  is  the  earliest  development  of  literature.  We 
find  it  scattered  through  the  various  historical  and  prophetical 
books,  and  also  in  the  great  collection  of  Hebrew  Ij-ric  poetry, 
the  Psalter.  The  three  pieces  ascribed  by  tradition  to  Moses - 
subdivide  lyric  poetry  into  the  hj-mn,  the  prayer,  and  the  song. 
The  hymn  is  found  in  rich  variety,  —  the  evening  hymn,  the 
morning  hymn,  the  hymn  in  a  storm,  hymns  of  victory  or  odes, 
the  thanksgi\ang  hymn.  The  Korahite  Psalter  is  composed 
chiefly  of  hymns  ;  so  also  the  most  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  books 
of  the  Psalter,  including  the  greater  and  lesser  hallels,  the  hal- 
lelujahs, and  doxologies.     The  prayers  are  in  great  abundance, 

—  evening  and  morning  prayers,  a  litany  before  a  battle,  prayers 
for  personal  and  national  deliverance,  psalms  of  lamentation, 
penitence,  religious  meditation,  of  faith  and  assurance,  —  in  all 
the  rich  variety  of  devotion.  These  are  most  numerous  in  the 
psalms  ascribed  to  David,  and  may  be  regarded  as  esjiecially 
the  type  of  the  Davidic  Psalter,  the  earliest  prayer-book  of 
Israel.  A  special  form  of  this  class  is  the  dirge,  represented 
in  the  laments  of  David  over  Saul  and  Jonathan,  and  over 
Abner,  and  in  the  very  elaborate  and  artistic  book  of  Lamenta- 
tions, and  not  infrequently  in  the  Prophets.  The  songs  are 
abundant,  and  in  every  variety  of  historical  description,  pict- 
ures of  nature,  didactic  exhortation  and  advice,  social  and 
other  poems.     In  the  Psalter  there  are  songs  of  exhortation, 

»  Ex.  15  ;  Ps.  90 ;  Deut.  .32. 
415 


416  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

warning,  encouragement,  historical  recollection,  prophetic  an- 
ticipation, and  the  love  song.  The  psalms  of  Asaph  are  chiefly 
of  this  class  of  poems. 

II.    Gnomic  Poetry 

Gnomic  poetry  has  but  few  specimens  in  the  historical  books. 
There  has  been  preserved  a  riddle  of  the  ancient  hero  Samson  : 

From  the  eater  came  forth  food, 

And  from  the  strong  came  forth  sweetness. 

This  is  followed  by  a  satire : 

If  you  had  not  plovighed  with  my  heifer, 
You  would  not  have  found  out  my  riddle. * 

Another  witty  saying  of  this  hero  is  preserved : 

With  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  a  heap  two  heaps ; 

With  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  have  I  smitten  a  thousand  men.' 

The  fable  of  Jotham^  is  the  finest  specimen  of  this  gnomic 
poetry  to  be  found  in  Hebrew  apart  from  the  Wisdom  Litera- 
ture. 

The  trees  went  forth  on  a  time 

To  anoint  a  king  over  them. 

1.   And  they  said  unto  the  olive  tree : 
Come  thou,  ^nd  reign  over  us. 
But  tlie  olive  tree  said  unto  them  : 
Shall  I  leave  my  fatness, 
Wherewith  they  honour  God  and  men, 
And  go  to  sway  over  the  trees  '! 

•2.   And  the  trees  said  to  the  fig  tree  : 
Come  thou,  and  reign  over  us. 
But  the  tig  tree  .said  unto  them  : 
Shall  I  leave  my  sweetness, 
And  also  ray  good  fruit. 
And  go  to  sway  over  the  ti-ees  ? 

.3.   And  the  trees  said  unto  the  vine  : 
Come  tliou,  and  reigu  over  us. 
And  the  vine  said  unto  them  : 
Shall  I  leave  my  wine. 
Which  choereth  God  and  man, 
And  go  to  sway  over  the  trees  ? 

4.    And  *  the  trees  said  unto  the  bramble : 
Come  thou,  and  reign  over  us. 

iJd.  14"".  2.1d.  16'«.  'Jd.  9«-i'. 

*  The  Hebrew  b2  =  all  seems  an  mmecessary  insertion. 


THE   KINDS   OF    HEBREW    POETRY  417 

But  the  bramble  said  unto  the  trees  :  i 
Come,  seek  refuge  in  my  shadow  : 
'  And  fire  will  come  out  of  the  bramble, 
To  devour  the  cedars  of  Lebanon. 

The  Hebrews  were  fond  of  this  species  of  poetry,  but  we 
could  hardly  expect  to  fiud  much  of  it  in  the  Bible. ^  Its  re- 
ligious and  ethical  forms  are  preserved  in  a  rich  collection  in 
the  Proverbs,  consisting  of  fables,  parables,  proverbs,  riddles, 
moral  and  political  maxims,  satires,  philoso^jhical  and  specula- 
tive sentences.  There  are  several  hundred  distinct  couplets, 
—  synonymous,  antithetical,  parabolical,  comparative,  emble- 
matical,—  besides  Aft}'  larger  pieces  of  three,  four,  five,  six, 
seven,  and  eight  lines,  with  a  few  poems,  such  as  the  temper- 
ance poem,^  the  pastoral,*  the  pieces  ascribed  to  the  poets 
Aluqah,  Agur,  and  Lemuel,  the  alphabetical  praise  of  the  tal- 
ented wife,^  and  the  great  admonition  of  Wisdom  in  fifteen 
advancing  discourses.^ 

A  few  specimens  of  this  kind  of  poetry  will  suffice  to  illus- 
trate it. 

There  are  several  riddles  ascribed  to  Aluqah." 

(1)  The  riddle  of  the  insatiable  things : ' 

Two  daughters  (cry)  :  give  !  give  I 
Three  are  they  which  cann6t  be  satisfied  ; 
Four  say  not,  Enough. 

The  answer : 

Sheol.  and  a  barren  womb  ; 

Land  cannot  be  satisfied  with  water  ; 

And  fire  says  not  :  Enough. 

(2)  The  riddle  of  the  little  wise  people.' 

Four  are  little  ones  of  earth  ; 
But  they  are  wise  exceedingly. 
The  answer: 

The  ants  are  a  people  not  strong. 

But  they  prepare  in  summer  their  food  ; 

1  The  Hebrew  text  inserts  the  conditional  clause  ••  if  in  truth  ye  anoint  me 
king  over  you."  which  is  a  prose  sentence,  and  "if  not,'"  as  an  explanation: 
but  it  destroys  the  measure. 

*  .See  AViinsche,  Die  Bathselweisheit  bei  d.  Hebraern,  Leipzig,  1883. 

■■  Prov.  2:329^.  «  Prov.  1-9. 

«  Prov.  2722-27.  "  Prov.  30'"6 

»  Prov.  31'»-»> ;  see  p.  383.  where  it  is  given.  «  Prov.  30"-28. 

2  E 


418  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Conies  are  a  people  not  mighty, 

But  they  make  in  the  rock  their  home  ; 

A  king  the  locusts  have  not, 

But  they  march  forth  in  bands  —  all  of  them  ; 

The  spider  with  the  hands  thou  mayest  catch, 

But  she  dwells  in  the  palaces  of  kings. 

There  is  also  a  beautiful  temperance  poem  ^  composed  of  ten 
pentameter  lines. 

Who  hath  woe  ?   who   hath   wretchedness  ?    who  hath  stripes  ?   who  hath 

murmuring  ? 
Who  hath  wounds  without  cause  ?  who  hath  dark  flashing  eyes  ? 
Those  tarrying  long  at  the  wine :  those  going  to  seek  spiced  wine. 
Look  not  on  wine  when  it  sparkleth  red  ; 
When  it  giveth  in  the  cup  its  glance  ;  floweth  smoothly : 
Its  end  is  that  as  a  serpent  it  biteth.  and  like  an  adder  it  stingeth. 
Thine  eyes  will  see  strange  things,  and  thine  heart  utter  perverse  things ; 
So  that  thou  wilt  become  like  one  lying  down  in  the  heart  of  the  sea ;  and 

like  one  lying  down  on  the  top  of  a  mast. 
They  have  smitten  me    (thou  wilt  say),  but  I  am  not  hurt  :  they  have 

wounded  me.  I  feel  it  not : 
How  long  ere  I  shall  arise  that  I  may  seek  it  yet  again  ? 

Another  choice  piece  is  the  poem  of  the  sluggard  ^  of  seven 

trimeters. 

By  the  field  of  a  slothful  man  I  passed, 

And  by  the  vineyard  of  a  man  without  understanding ; 

And  lo,  its  wall  was  overgrown  with  thorns, 

Its  face  covered  over  with  nettles. 

And  its  wall  of  stones  was  broken  down  ; 

So  that  I  gazed  to  give  it  attention  : 

I  saw  —  I  received  instruction. 

This  is  followed  by  a  tetrastich  trimeter,  which  is  quoted  from 
the  Praise  of  Wisdom.^ 

A  little  sleep,  a  little  of  slumber, 

A  little  folding  of  the  hands  to  lie  down  ; 

And  thy  poverty  comes  walking  on. 

And  thy  want  as  a  man  armed  with  a  shield. 

III.    Composite  Poetry 

Composite  poetry  starts  in  part  from  a  lyric  base,  as  in 
prophecy,  beginning  with  the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses, 
and  the  poems  of  Balaam,  and  continuing  in  lesser  and  greater 
pieces   in   the   prophetical    writings,  the  Song   of  Songs,  and 

'  Prov.  2.3»-»s.  »  Prov.  ii"*-**.  '  Prov.  O'". 


THE   KINDS  OF  HEBREW  POETRY  -419 

Lamentations  ;  in  part  from  a  gnomic  base  as  in  the  book  of 
Job  and  Ecclesiastes. 

IV.    Dkajviatic  Poetry 

The  dramatic  element  is  quite  strong  in  Hebrew  poetry.     A 
few  examples  will  suffice. 

1.  I  shall  give  the  fii-st  from  the  Psalter : 

1  Lift  up  your  heads,  0  ye  gates  ; 
Chorus,     j  Yea,  lift  yourselves,  ye  everlasting  doors : 

I  That  the  King  of  Glory  may  come  in. 
Inquiry.        Who,  then,  is  the  King  of  Glory? 
T>  (  Yahweh.  strong  and  mighty, 

'  1  ahweh,  mighty  m  battle. 

I  Lift  up  your  heads,  O  ye  gates ; 
Chorus.     <  Yea,  lift  them,  ye  everlasting  doors ; 

L  That  the  King  of  Glory  may  come  in. 
Inquiry.       Who  is  he,  the  King  of  Glory  ? 
T>^^„„„^  (  Yahvreh  Sabaoth, 
^"^"""^-iHeistheKingof  Glory.i 

2.  The  prophet  Hosea  gives  a  good  example : 

Prophet.     O  return,  Israel, 

Unto  Yahweh  thy  God  ; 

For  thou  hast  stumbled  by  thy  iniquity. 

Take  with  you  words, 

And  return  unto  Yahweh  ; 

Say  unto  Him  everything. 
Ephraim.   Forgive  iniquity  and  accept  good  things; 

And  we  will  render  the  fruit  of  our  lips. 

Asshur  cannot  save  us. 

Upon  horses  we  will  not  ride, 

And  we  will  not  say  any  more  '  our  god ' 

To  the  work  of  our  hands  ; 

Thou  by  whom  the  orphan  receives  compassion. 
Tahweh.    I  will  heal  their  apostasy, 

I  will  love  them  freely  ; 

For  my  anger  hath  turned  from  him. 

I  will  be  as  the  dew  to  Israel ; 

Let  him  bloom  as  the  wild  flower. 

And  let  him  strike  his  roots  like  Lebanon, 

Let  his  shoots  grow, 

And  let  his  majesty  be  as  the  olive, 

And  let  him  have  scent  like  Lebanon  ; 

Let  those  who  abide  in  his  shadow  return, 

Let  them  quicken  the  corn, 

1  Ps.  24^-'".     See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  p.  146. 


420 


STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 


And  let  them  bloom  like  the  vine. 

And  theu-  memory  be  as  the  wine  of  Lebanon. 
Ephraim.  What  have  I  to  do  any  more  with  idols  ? 
Tahioeh.     I  have  ie.sponded,  and  1  shall  regard  him. 
Ephraim.  I  am  like  a  green  cypress. 
Tahweh.     Of  me  is  thy  fruit  found. 
Prophet.     Whoso  is  wise,  let  him  understand  these  things ; 

Understanding,  let  him  know  them  : 

That  the  ways  of  Yahweh  are  upright. 

And  the  righteous  walk  therein, 

But  transgressors  stumble  therein,  i 

3.   The  book  of  Isaiah  gives  one  of  the  grandest  specimens : 

Prophet.     Who.  there,  is  coming  from  Edom, 

Stained  red  in  his  garments  from  Bozrah  ; 

Who.  there,  made  glorious  in  his  apparel. 

Strutting  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength  ? 
Yahiceh.    I  that  speak  in  righteousness, 

That  am  mighty  to  save. 
Prophet.     Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel, 

And  thy  garments  like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  wine  fat  ? 
Yahiceh.     I  have  trodden  the  wine-press  alone  ; 

And  of  the  peoples  there  was  no  man  with  me  : 

Yea.  I  have  been  treading  them  in  mine  anger, 

And  tramjiling  them  in  my  fury. 

So  that  their  juice  is  sprinkled  upon  my  garments. 

And  all  my  raiment  I  have  stained. 

For  the  day  of  vengeance  was  in  my  heart ; 

And  the  year  of  my  redeemed  is  come. 

Yea,  I  was  looking  and  there  was  none  to  help  ; 

And  I  was  wondering  and  there  was  none  to  uphold  ; 

And  so  mine  own  arm  brought  salvation  for  me, 

And  my  fury  it  upheld  me. 

Verily,  I  have  been  stamping  the  peoples  in  mine  anger. 

And  I  have  been  breaking  them  to  pieces  in  my  wrath. 

And  I  have  been  pouruig  down  their  juice  on  the  eartli.- 

The  book  of  Job  uses  the  dramatic  element  in  a  series  of 
dialogues  between  Job  and  his  friends,  and  concludes  with  the 
voice  of  God.  The  dramatic  element  reaches  its  climax  among 
the  Hebrews  in  the  Song  of  Songs. 

The  first  act  of  the  Song  of  Songs  is  as  follows  : 


SCENK   I 

Solo.  Let  him  kiss  me  with  some  kisses  of  hi.s  mouth, 

For  thy  caresses  are  better  than  whie  ; 
For  scent  thine  ointments  are  excellent ; 

'  Hos.  14--'".     See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophery,  pp.  176  seq. 
•  Is.  6"!-".     See  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  pp.  313  seq. 


THE   KINDS   OF   HEBREW   POETRY 


421 


O  thou  sweet  ointment,  poured  forth  as  to  thy  name  ! 

Therefore  the  virgins  love  thee. 
Solo.  Oh  !  Draw  me  ! 

Chorus.  After  thee  we  will  lun  ! 

Solo.  O  that  the  king  had  brought  me  to  his  apartment ! 

Chorus.         We  will  rej'>ice  and  we  will  be  glad  with  thee, 

We  will  celebrate  thy  caresses  more  than  wine. 

Rightly  they  love  thee. 

Scene  II 
Shulamite.   Dark  am  I  — 
Chorus.  — but  lovely  — 

Shulamite.   —  daughters  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  tents  of  Kedar, 
Chorus.         —  as  the  curtains  of  Solomon. 
Shulamite.    Gaze  not  upon  me  because  I  am  swarthy. 

Because  the  sun  scanned  me : 

My  mother's  sons  were  angry  with  me. 

They  set  me  as  keeper  of  the  vineyards ; 

Jly  vineyard,  which  is  my  own,  have  I  not  kept. 

O  tell  me,  thou  whom  my  soul  loveth : 

Where  feedest  thou  thy  flock  ? 

Where  dost  thou  let  them  couch  at  noon  ? 

Why  should  I  be  as  one  straying 

After  the  flocks  of  thy  companions  ? 
Chorus.        If  thou  knowest  not  of  thyself,  thou  fairest  among  women, 

Go  forth  for  thyself  at  the  heels  of  the  flock, 

And  feed  thy  kids  at  the  tabernacles  of  the  shepherds. 


Scene  III 

Solomon.      To  my  mare  in  the  choice  chariot  of  Pharaoh  I  liken  thee,  my 
friend. 

Lovely  are  thy  cheeks  in  rows  (of  coin),  thy  neck  in  thy  necklace  ! 

Rows  of  gold  we  will  make  thee,  with  chains  of  silver. 
Shulamite.   While  the  king  was  in  his  divan,  my  nard  gave  its  scent. 

A  bundle  of  myrrh,  is  my  beloved  to  me,  that  lodgeth  between 
my  breasts ; 

A  cluster  of  henna,  is  my  beloved  to  me,  in  the  vineyards  of 
En  Geddi. 
Solomon.      Lo  thou  art  lovely,  my  friend, 

Lo  thine  eyes  are  doves. 
Shulamite.   Lo  thou  art  lovely,  my  beloved. 

Yea  sweet,  yea  our  arbor  is  green. 
Solomon.      The  timbers  of  our  houses  are  cedar. 

Our  wainscoting  cypress. 
Shulamite.   I  am  the  flower  of  Sharon, 

The  anemone  of  the  valleys. 
Solomon.      As  the  anemone  among  the  thorns. 

So  is  my  friend  among  the  daughters. 
Shulamite.   As  the  apricot  among  the  trees  of  the  wood, 

So  is  my  beloved  among  the  sons. 

In  its  shadow  I  delighted  to  sit. 


422  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

And  its  fruit  was  sweet  to  my  taste. 

0  that  he  had  brought  me  to  the  vineyard, 
His  banner  over  me  being  love  — 

Sustain  me  with  raisin-cakes,  support  me  with  apricots ; 

For  I  am  love  sick  — 

His  left  hand  would  be  under  my  head, 

His  right  hand  would  embrace  me. 

1  adjure  you,  daughters  of  Jerusalem,  by  the  gazelles, 
Or  by  the  hinds  of  the  field  that  ye  arouse  not, 

And  that  ye  stir  not  up  love  till  it  please. 


V.    The  Poetry  of  Wisdom 

There  are  many  fine  pieces  of  composite  poetry  in  Hebrew 
Wisdom.  I  shall  give  as  an  example  the  finest  piece  of  etliics 
in  the  Old  Testament,^  where  the  strophes  vary  with  the 
theme  : 

1.  A  covenant  have  I  concluded  with  my  eyes  ; 
How  then  should  I  consider  a  maiden  ? 
Else  what  portion  of  Eloah  from  above, 

Or  inheritance  of  Shaddaj-  from  on  high? 
Is  there  not  destruction  for  the  evil  doer  ; 
And  calamity  for  the  worker  of  iniquity  ? 
Is  He  not  seeing  my  ways  ; 
And  all  iny  steps  counting  '! 

2.  If  I  have  walked  with  falsehood. 

And  my  foot  has  made  haste  unto  deceit ; 

Let  Him  weigh  me  in  righteous  balances, 

That  Eloah  may  know  my  integrity  ! 

If  my  step  used  to  incline  from  the  way. 

And  after  my  eyes  my  heart  did  walk. 

And  to  my  palms  a  spot  did  cleave, 

Let  me  sow  and  let  another  eat, 

And  as  for  my  crops,  let  them  be  rooted  out. 

3.  If  my  heart  hath  been  seduced  unto  a  woman. 
And  at  the  door  of  my  neighbom'  I  have  lurked, 
Let  my  wife  grind  the  mill  for  another. 

And  over  her  let  others  bend  ; 

For  that  were  infamy  ; 

And  that  were  an  iniquity  for  the  judges  ; 

For  it  is  a  tire  that  devoureth  unto  Abaddon, 

And  in  all  my  increase  it  rooteth  up. 


4.   If  I  used  to  refuse  the  right  of  my  slave. 

Or  my  maid  servant,  when  they  plead  with  me  ; 
What  could  I  do  when  God  should  rise  up, 

'  Job  31. 


THE   KINDS   OF   HEBREW  POETRY  423 

And  when  He  would  investigate,  what  could  I  respond  to  Him  ? 
Did  not,  in  the  womb,  my  Maker  make  him. 
And  One  Being  form  us  in  the  belly  ? 

5.    If  I  used  to  keep  back  the  weak  from  his  desire, 
Ajid  caused  the  eye  of  the  widow  to  fail. 
And  ate  my  portion  alone. 
And  the  orphan  did  not  eat  of  it :  — 

Nay  —  from  my  youth  did  he  grow  up  unto  me  as  a  father  ; 
And  from  the  womb  of  my  mother  I  was  accustomed  to  guide  her. 

C.    If  I  could  see  a  man  ready  to  perish  without  clothing 
And  the  poor  having  no  covering  — 
Surely  his  loins  blessed  me. 

And  from  the  fleece  of  my  sheep  he  warmed  himself. 
If  I  lifted  up  my  hand  over  the  orphan. 
When  I  saw  my  help  in  the  gate  — 
My  shoulder  —  let  il  fall  from  its  blade. 
And  my  arm  —  let  it  be  broken  from  its  bone  ! 
For  there  was  fear  unto  me  of  calamity  from  God, 
And  because  of  His  majesty  I  could  not. 

7.  If  I  have  made  gold  my  confidence. 

And  unto  line  gold  said,  thou  art  my  trust ; 

If  I  used  to  rejoice  that  my  wealth  was  great. 

And  that  my  hand  had  found  vast  resources  ; 

If  I  used  to  see  the  light  that  it  was  shining  brightly. 

And  the  moon  moving  in  splendour. 

So  that  my  heart  was  enticed  m  secret. 

And  my  hand  kissed  my  mouth  :  — 

This  also  were  an  iniijuity  for  judges, 

For  I  had  denied  El  on  high. 

8.  If  I  was  accustomed  to  rejoice  in  the  calamity  of  the  one  hating  me, 
Or  was  excited  with  joy  when  evil  overtook  him ;  — 

Nay  !  I  did  not  give  my  palate  to  sinning, 

In  asking  with  a  curse  his  life. 

Verily  the  men  of  my  tent  say : 

Who  can  shew  us  one  not  filled  with  his  meat  ? 

Without  the  stranger  used  not  to  lodge. 

My  doors  to  the  caravan  I  used  to  open. 

9.  If  against  me  my  land  crieth, 
And  together  its  furrows  weep  ; 

If  its  strength  I  have  eaten  without  silver. 
And  the  life  of  its  lord  I  have  caused  to  expire  ; 
Instead  of  wheat  let  thorns  come  forth. 
And  evil  weeds  instead  of  barley.' 

10.    If  I  have  covered  as  man  my  transgression, 
Hiding  in  my  bosom  my  iniquity  ; 

1  This  strophe  has  been  misplaced  in  the  Hebrew  text.  It  does  not  come 
appropriately  at  the  close  of  the  piece.  I  have  accordingly  transposed  strophes 
9  and  10. 


424  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Because  I  feared  the  great  multitude, 

And  the  contempt  of  the  clans  made  me  afraid : 

And  so  was  silent,  would  not  go  out  to  the  gate  :  — 

O  that  I  had  one  to  hear  me  — 

Behold  my  mark  !  —  Let  Shadday  answer  me  ! 

0  that  I  had  the  bill  (of  accusation)  my  adversary  has  written ! 
Surely  I  would  lift  it  up  on  my  shoulder, 

1  would  hind  it  as  a  crown  of  glory  upon  me, 

'   The  number  of  my  steps  would  I  declare  to  him, 
As  a  prince  I  would  approach  him. 


VI.    Prophetic  Poetry 

I  shall  finally  present  a  specimen  of  prophetic  poetry  from 
the  great  unknown  prophet  of  the  exile,  and,  indeed,  the  most 
sublime  piece  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most 
artistic,!  consisting  of  five  gradually  increasing  strophes. 

1.  Behold  my  servant  shall  prosper, 

He  shall  be  lifted  up  and  exalted  and  be  very  high. 

According  as  many  were  astonished  at  thee  — 

So  disfigured  more  than  a  man  was  hi.s  appearance, 

And  his  form  than  the  sons  of  men  ;  — 

So  shall  he  startle  many  nations  ; 

Because  of  him  kings  will  stop  their  mouths  ; 

For  what  had  not  been  told  them  they  .shall  see. 

And  what  they  had  not  heard  they  shall  attentively  consider. 

2.  Who  believed  our  message, 

And  the  arm  of  Yahweh,  unto  whom  was  it  revealed  ? 

When  he  grew  up  as  a  suckling  plant  before  us, 

And  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground  ; 

He  had  no  form  and  no  majesty  that  we  .should  see  him, 

And  no  appearance  tliat  we  should  take  pleasure  in  him  ; 

Despised  and  forsaken  of  men  ! 

A  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with  grief  ! 

And  as  one  before  whom  there  is  a  hiding  of  the  face  I 

Despised,  and  we  regarded  him  not ! 

S.   Verily  our  griefs  he  bore 

And  our  sorrows  —  he  carried  them. 

Yet  wv  regarded  him  as  stricken. 

Smitten  of  God,  and  humbled. 

But  he  was  one  pierced  because  of  our  transgressions, 

Crushed  because  of  our  iniquities  ; 

The  chastisement  for  our  peace  was  upon  him  ; 

And  by  his  stripes  there  is  healing  for  us. 

We  all  like  sheep  strayed  away  ; 

Each  one  turned  to  his  own  way. 

While  Yahweh  caused  to  light  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all. 

'  Ls.  52'»-53. 


THE   KINDS   OF   UKBREW  POETRY  425 

4.  He  was  harassed  while  he  was  humbling  himself, 
And  he  opens  not  his  mouth  ; 

Like  a  sheep  that  is  being  led  to  the  slaughter 

And' as  an  ewe  that  before  her  shearers  is  dumb  ;  — 

And  he  opens  not  liis  mouth. 

From  oppression  and  from  judgment  he  was  taken  away, 

And  among  his  cotemporaries  who  was  considering, 

That  he  was  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the  living, 

Because  of  the  transgression  of  my  people,  one  smitten  for  them  ? 

With  the  wicked  his  grave  was  assigned, 

But  he  was  with  the  rich  iu  his  martyr  death  ; 

Because  that  he  had  done  no  violence. 

And  there  was  no  deceit  in  his  mouth. 

5.  But  Yahweh  was  pleased  to  crush  him  with  grief  ! 
When  he  himself  offers  a  trespass  offering. 

He  shall  see  a  seed,  he  shall  prolong  days  ; 

And  the  pleasure  of  Yahweh  will  prosper  in  his  hands : 

On  account  of  his  own  travail  he  shall  see  ; 

He  shall  be  satisfied  with  his  knowledge  : 

My  righteous  servant  shall  justify  many. 

And  their  iniquities  he  shall  carrj-. 

Therefore  will  I  give  him  a  portion  consisting  of  the  many, 

And  with  the  strong  .shall  he  divide  spoil  ; 

Because  that  he  exposed  himself  to  death. 

And  he  was  numbered  with  transgressors. 

And  he  did  bear  the  sin  of  many, 

And  for  transgressors  was  interposing. 

In  such  pieces  as  these  we  find  the  climax  of  Hebrew  poetic 
art,  where  the  dramatic  and  heroic  elements  combine  to  pro- 
duce in  a  larger  whole,  ethical  and  religious  results  with  won- 
derful power.  While  these  do  not  present  us  epic  or  dramatic 
or  pastoral  poems  in  the  classic  sense,  they  yet  use  the  epic, 
dramatic,  and  pastoral  elements  in  perfect  freedom,  combining 
them  in  a  simple  and  comprehensive  manner  for  the  highest 
and  grandest  purposes  of  the  projihet  and  sage  inspired  of  God, 
giving  us  productions  of  poetic  art  that  ai-e  unique  in  the 
world's  literature.  The  dramatic,  epic,  and  pastoral  elements 
are  means  used  freely  and  fully,  but  not  ends.  These  forms  of 
beauty  and  grace  do  not  retard  the  imagination  in  admiration 
of  themselves,  but  direct  it  to  the  grandest  themes  and  images 
of  piety  and  devotion.  The  wise  men  of  Israel  jiresent  us  in 
the  ideals  of  the  Shulamite,  Job,  and  Koheleth,  t3pes  of  noble 
character,  moral  heroism,  and  purity  that  transcend  the  heroic 
types  of  the  Iliad  or  ^^neid,  wrestling  as  they  do  with  foes  to 


426  STUDY   OF   UULY   SCRU'TURE 

their  souls  far  more  terrible  than  the  spears  and  javelins  and 
warring  gods  of  Greek  or  Trojan,  advancing  step  by  step, 
through  scene  after  scene  and  act  after  act,  to  holy  victory  in 
the  fear  of  God  ;  victories  that  will  serve  in  all  time  for  the 
support  and  comfort  of  the  human  race,  which  has  ever  to  meet 
the  same  inconsistencies  of  evil,  the  same  assaults  on  virtue, 
the  same  struggle  with  doubt  and  error,  therein  so  vividly  and 
faithfully  portrayed  to  us.  The  prophets  of  Israel  play  upon 
the  great  heart  of  the  Hebrew  people  as  upon  a  thousand- 
stringed  lyre,  striking  the  tones  with  divinely  guided  touch, 
so  that  from  the  dirge  of  rapidly  succeeding  disaster  and  ruin, 
they  rise  through  penitence  and  petition  to  faith,  assurance,  ex- 
ultation, and  hallelujah  ;  laying  hold  of  the  deep  thoughts  and 
everlasting  faitlifulness  of  God  ;  binding  the  past  and  present 
as  by  a  chain  of  light  to  the  impending  ]\Iessianic  future  ;  see- 
ing and  rejoicing  in  the  glory  of  God,  which,  though  new  for 
a  season  shrouded  behind  the  clouds  of  disaster,  is  soon  to 
burst  forth  in  a  unique  day.' 

1  Zecii.  U'>"t-. 


CHAPTER   XVIII 

THE   HISTORY   OF    THE    IXTEKPRETATION    OF    HOLY   SCKIPTmE 

The  Word  of  God  came  to  man  at  first  orall}',  in  connection 
with  theophanies.  These  theophanies  are  divine  manifestations 
in  forms  of  time  and  space.  From  them,  as  centres,  M"ent  forth 
divine  influences  in  word  of  revehition  and  deed  of  miracle. 
These  tlieophanies  attained  their  culmination  in  Jesus  Christ, 
the  incarnate,  risen,  and  glorified  Saviour.  The  Word  of  God, 
issuing  from  these  theophanic  centres,  was  appropriated  more 
and  more  by  holy  men,  upon  whom  the  Divine  Spirit  came, 
taking  possession  of  them,  influencing  and  directing  them  in  the 
exercise  of  prophetic  ministrj-.  An  important  part  of  this  min- 
istry was  the  oral  deliver}-  of  the  Divine  Word  to  the  people  of 
God  in  ascending  stages  of  revelation.  This  Word  was  gradu- 
ally committed  to  writing,  and  assumed  the  literarj^  forms  that 
are  presented  to  us  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

The  Word  of  God,  as  written,  is  to  be  appropriated  by  man 
through  reading  it.  meditating  upon  it,  and  putting  it  in  practice. 
Reading  is  an  appropriation  through  the  eye  and  ear  and  sense 
perception,  of  letters,  words,  and  sentences  as  signs  of  thought. 
^Meditation  is  the  use  of  the  faculties  of  the  mind  in  the  appre- 
hension of  the  substance  of  thought  and  emotion  contained  in 
these  signs,  the  association  of  it  with  other  things,  and  the 
application  of  it  to  other  conditions  and  circumstances.  This 
appropriation  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  appre- 
hending human  soul,  with  the  principles  of  the  composition  of 
written  documents,  and  also  with  the  nature  of  the  things  con- 
tained in  and  expressed  by  the  sensible  signs.  Biblical  inter- 
pretation is  a  section  of  general  interpretation,  and  it  differs 
from  other  special  branches  in  accordance  with  the  internal 
character  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible.  Interpretation  is  usually 
427 


428  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

regarded  as  a  section  of  applied  logic. ^  Schleieruiacher  defines 
it  as  the  art  of  correctly  understanding  an  author ;  ^  Klausen  ^ 
as  "the  scientific  establishment  and  development  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  and  rules  for  the  understanding  of  a  given 
discourse."  I  am  constrained  to  think  that  this  is  too  narrow  a 
definition.  I  agree  with  most  interpreters  in  the  opinion  that 
it  embraces  not  only  the  art  of  understanding  an  author,  but 
also  the  art  of  exposition  or  explanation  of  an  author  to  others.* 
I  am  also  compelled  to  go  still  further  and  include  as  a  part  of 
interpretation  the  practical  application  of  the  substance  of  the 
writing  to  other  appropriate  conditions  and  circumstances.  The 
older  interpreters,  especially  among  the  Puritans,  regarded  this 
latter  as  the  chief  feature.  The  interi^reter  needs,  according  to 
the  older  writers,  oratio,  meditatio,  et  tentatio.  This  tentatio, 
trial,  experience,  is  the  most  important  of  all.  This  was  urged 
by  Jesus  :  "  If  any  man  willetli  to  do  His  will,  he  sh.all  know 
of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  si^eak  from 
myself."^  Bernard  says:  "He  rightly  reads  Scripture  who 
turns  words  into  deeds."'  Francis  Koberts  says  :  "  The  mighti- 
est man  in  practice,  will  in  the  end  prove  the  mightiest  man  in 
Scripture.  Theoiy  is  the  guide  of  practice,  practice  the  life  of 
tlieoiy ;  where  Scripture,  contemplation,  and  experience  meet 
together  in  the  same  persons,  true  Scripture  understanding 
must  needs  be  heightened  and  doubled."^ 

Biblical  interpretation  is  the  central  department  of  Biblical 
Study  whence  all  other  departments  derive  their  material.  In 
this  field  the  strifes  and  struggles' of  centuries  have  taken  place. 
There  is  no  department  of  study  where  there  have  been  so  many 
differences,  and  where  there  still  remains  so  much  confusion. 
The  Bible  has  human  features  and  divine  features.     To  under- 

1  See  Carpzov,  Primce  Lintm  Herm..  Ilelmstadii,  1790,  p.  5;  Sir  Williain 
Hamilton,  Logic,  p.  474  ;  Klaiisen,  Henneneutik  des  Neuen  Testaments,  Leipzig, 
1841,  p.  7. 

2  Henneneutik  und  Kritik,  Berlin,  1838,  p.  3.  '  In  I.e.,  p.  1. 

*  Ernesti,  Institntio  Interp.  y.  T.,  1761,  §  10;  Principles  of  Interpretation, 
ed.  Moses  Stuart.  Andover,  4th  ed.,  1842,  pp.  14  .■<eq.;  Morus,  Hermeneutica 
X.  T.,  ed.  Eichstadt,  Lips.,  1797,  I.  pp.  3  seg. ;  Imnier,  Hermeneutics,  Andover 
edition,  1877,  p.  10.  '•  John  7''. 

"  Clavis  Bihliorum,  4th  ed.,  London,  1675.  p.  11  ;  see,  also,  Ranibach,  Insti- 
tuliones  Hermeneuticcz,  Jena,  1723,  8t!i  ed.,  1764,  pp.  2  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  429 

stand  them  in  their  harmonious  combination  is  the  secret  of  inter- 
pretation. This  secret  is  the  philosopher's  stone  after  which 
multitudes  of  interpreters  have  been  seeking  through  the 
Christian  centuries.     As  Lange  appropriately  says  :  ^ 

••  As  Christ  has  overcome  the  world  by  his  cross,  as  the  blood  of 
the  martyrs  has  become  the  seed  of  the  Church,  so  also  the  miscon- 
ceptions and  abuse  of  the  Bible  have  been  obliged  to  more  and 
more  redound  to  its  glorification.  The  battle  of  Biblical  Criticism 
in  the  first  four  centuries  brought  about  the  collection  and  estab- 
lishment of  a  purified  canon ;  the  arbitrariness  of  copyists  occa- 
sioned the  collection  of  codices  and  the  criticism  of  the  text;  the 
exegesis  of  the  allegorical  method,  called  into  life  the  vindication 
of  the  historical  sense  of  Scripture ;  the  fourfold  enchaining  of  the 
Bible  by  exegetical  tradition,  hierarchical  guardianship,  ecclesias- 
tical decisions,  the  Latin  language,  raised  the  Bible  in  the  Protes- 
tant world  almost  above  the  dignity  of  a  historical  revelation  of 
God ;  the  humanistic  exposition,  as  well  as  the  naturalistic  ex- 
planation of  miracles,  called  into  life  along  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment Grammar,  also  the  understanding  of  the  New  Testament 
idiom,  over  against  its  customary  depreciation  in  comparison  with 
the  classic  models ;  and  finally  the  pantheistic  criticism  occasioned 
the  revival  and  rich  imfolding  of  evangelical  history."' 

We  shall  first  consider  the  history  of  biblical  interpretation, 
then  on  the  basis  of  its  history  state  its  principles  and  methods. 

I.    Rabbixical  Interpretation 

The  Jewish  Rabbinical  schools  from  the  most  ancient  times 
recognized,  alongside  of  the  written  Word  of  God,  another  oral 
or  traditional  Word  of  much  greater  extent  and  authority  de- 
livered to  the  ancient  teachers,  and  handed  clown  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  in  the  esoteric  teaching  of  the  faithful  scribes, 
as  the  official  interpretation  of  the  written  Word.  This  was 
not  only  the  view  of  the  Pharisees,  who  subsequently  committed 
tliis  tradition  to  writing  in  the  Mishnas  and  Talmuds,^  but  also 
of  the  Zealots  and  Essenes.  It  was  claimed  that  this  oral 
Divine  Word  had  been  faithfully  handed  down  from  Ezra,^  who 
received  it  by  divine    inspiration  as  esoteric  wisdom  for   the 

'  Grundriss  der  biblischen  Hermcneutik.  Heidelberg,  1878,  p.  xxi. 
''  Weber,  System  d.  AUsynagogalen  Pdlestinisrhen  Theologie,  1880,  Leipzig, 
pp.  '.»2  seq.  '■>  See  p.  257. 


430  STLDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

initiated  disciples.  Others  claimed  a  still  higher  antiquity  for 
it,  going  back  to  Joshua  and  the  elders,  and  even  in  part  to  the 
twelve  patriarchs,  Enoch,  and  Adam  :  hence  the  large  number 
of  pseudepigraphs  in  which  this  wisdom  is  contained,  as  well  as 
in  the  Talmuds. 

This  traditional  interpretation  was  of  two  kinds,  Ualacha 
and  Haijijada.  The  Halacha  was  legal,  containing  an  immense 
number  of  casuistic  distinctions,  making  fences  about  the  Law 
in  wider  and  wider  sweep  till  the  Law  itself  became  for  the  peo- 
ple of  God  as  inaccessible  as  the  temple  of  Ezekiel,  into  which 
none  but  the  priests  of  the  line  of  Zadok  might  enter.  The 
Haggada  was  illustrative  and  practical,  embracing  a  wealth  of 
legend  and  allegory  that  so  coloured  and  enlarged  biblical  his- 
tory that  it  became  as  obscure  as  the  New  Testament  historj" 
upon  the  palimpsests  under  the  legends  of  the  monks  that  were 
written  over  it. 

From  the  older  Halacha  and  Haggada  methods  of  interpre- 
tation were  subsequeutl}'  separated  the  Peshat  and  the  Sodh. 
The  Peshat  is  the  determination  of  the  literal  sense,  and  is 
reall}^  a  branch  of  the  Halacha.  The  Sodh  is  the  determination 
of  the  mystical  or  allegorical  sense,  and  is  a  species  of  the 
Haggada.^ 

The  rules  of  Rabbinical  interpretation  graduall}'  increased  in 
extent.  Seven  rules  of  the  Halacha  are  asci'ibed  to  Hillel  in 
the  Siphra.^  These  are  enlarged  in  the  Baraltha  of  R.  Ismaell 
to  thirteen.^ 

These  rules  are  :  (1)  That  which  is  true  of  the  easier  or  less 
is  true  of  the  greater  or  more  difficult,  and  the  reverse  ;  (2)  two 
similar  passages  supplement  one  another  ;  (3)  that  which  is 
clearly  established  in  one  part  of  Scripture  is  to  be  presumed 
in  interpreting  others  ;  (4-11)  eight  rules  with  reference  to 
the  relation  of  the  genus  to  the  species,  by  inclusion,  exclusion, 
contrast,  and  their  relation  to  a  third  term,  in  the  forms   of 

1  Wogue  in  I.e.,  pp.  134,  164  seq. 

-  These  are  given  by  Schiiier,  ..V.  T.  Zeiigeschichte,  1874,  p.  447,  and  Hausrath. 
Zeit  Jesu,  Heidelberg,  p.  96. 

»  Chiarini  in  I.e.,  I.  pp.  60  seq. ;  Weber  in  I.e.,  pp.  106  seq.  The  best  state- 
ment of  them,  with  ample  illustrations,  is  given  by  Waehner,  Antiquitati'S 
Ebrceorum,  Gottingie,  1743,  pp.  422  seq. 


IIISTUUY   OF   TUK   liS-TERPKETATlON  431 

Rabbinical  logic  ;  (12)  the  word  is  determined  by  the  context, 
and  the  sentence  by  the  scope  of  the  passage  ;  (13)  when  two 
verses  contradict,  we  must  wait  for  a  third  to  explain  them. 
Some  of  these  rules  are  excellent,  and  so  far  as  the  practical 
logic  of  the  times  went,  cannot  be  disputed.  The  fault  of  Rab- 
binical exegesis  was  less  in  the  rules  than  in  their  application, 
although  latent  fallacies  are  not  difficult  to  discover  in  them, 
and  they  do  not  sufficienth'  guard  against  slips  of  argument. ^ 

The  ITagi/ada  method  was  elaborated  by  R.  Eliezar  into 
thirty-two  rules. '^ 

The  principles  of  the  two  methods  are  admirably  summed  up 
by  Wogue : 

"These  forty -five  rules  may  all  be  reduced  to  two  fundamental 
considerations.  (1)  Nothing  is  fortuitous,  arbitrar}',  or  indifferent 
in  the  Word  of  God.  Pleonasm,  ellipsis,  granuuatical  anomaly, 
transposition  of  words  or  facts,  everything  is  calculated,  every- 
thing has  its  end  and  would  teach  us  something.  The  casual,  the 
approximate,  the  insignificant  and  inconsequential  flower  of  rhet- 
oric, all  that  belongs  to  the  setting  in  human  language,  are  strange 
to  the  severe  precision  of  Biblical  language.  (2)  As  the  image 
of  its  author,  who  is  one  by  Himself  and  manifold  in  His  manifes- 
tations, the  Bible  often  conceals  in  a  single  word  a  crowd  of 
thoughts ;  many  a  phrase,  which  appears  to  express  a  simple  and 
single  idea,  is  susceptible  of  diverse  senses  and  numberless  inter- 
pretations independent  of  the  fundamental  difference  between 
literal  exegesis  and  free  exegesis,  in  short,  as  the  Talmud  says, 
after  the  Bible  itself,  the  divine  word  is  like  fire  which  divides 
itself  into  a  thousand  sparks,  or  a  rock  which  breaks  into  number- 
less fragments  under  the  hammer  that  attacks  it.  These  two 
points  of  view,  I  repeat,  are  the  soul  of  the  Midrash  in  general; 
the  latter  above  all  serves  as  the  common  basis  of  the  Halacha 
and  Harjfjada.  and  it  explains,  better  than  any  other  theory,  the 
long  domination  of  the  midrash  exegesis  in  the  synagogue."  ^ 

This  admirable  statement  shows  the  radical  errors  of  the 
Rabbinical  idea  of  the  Scriptures  :  (1)  everything  must  be  in- 

1  A  very  u-seful  illustration  of  all  these  rules  is  given  in  Mielziner,  Introduc- 
tiontothe  Talmud,  1897,  pp.  117-187.  He  concludes  by  saying  :  "  This  system  of 
artificial  interpretation  was  mainly  calculated  to  offer  the  means  of  ing^raf  ting  the 
tradition  on  the  stem  of  Scripture,  or  harmonizing  the  oral  with  the  written  law." 

-  Selections  of  these  are  given  by  Chiarini  in  I.e.,  T.  p.  81.  A  full  statement, 
with  ample  illustrations,  is  given  by  Waehner  in  I.e.,  I.  pp.  390  seq. 

"  Wogue  in  I.e.,  p.  169. 


432  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

terpreted  in  accordance  with  that  severe  precision,  which  alone 
is  worthy  of  God  ;  (2)  the  Scriptures  are  altogether  divine  and 
have  the  same  attributes  of  unity  and  infinity  that  God  Himself 
has. 

The  Sodh  was  used  in  the  most  ancient  times  bv  the  Essenes 
and  Zealots  and  found  expression  in  the  numerous  apocalypses 
and  pseudepigraphs  of  the  four  centuries  in  the  midst  of  which 
the  Messiah  appeared.  It  attained  its  culmination  in  the  Cab- 
alistic system  of  the  thirteenth  century.'  These  mystics  re- 
garded every  letter  of  the  Bible  as  so  highh'  important  that  it 
contained  a  secret  sense  for  the  initiated.  The  book  of  Sohar^ 
describes  the  system  in  the  following  parable  : 

"  Like  a  beautiful  woman,  concealed  in  the  interior  of  her  palace, 
who  when  her  friend  and  beloved  passes  bj-,  opens  for  a  moment  a 
secret  window  and  is  seen  by  him  alone,  and  then  withdraws  herself 
immediately  and  disappears  for  a  long  time,  so  the  doctrine  only 
shows  herself  to  the  chosen,  {i.e.,  to  him  who  is  devoted  to  her  body 
and  soul) ;  and  even  to  him  not  always  in  the  same  manner.  At  first 
she  simply  beckons  at  the  passer-by  with  her  hand,  and  it  generally 
depends  upon  his  ixnderstauding  this  gentle  hint.  This  is  the 
interpretation  known  by  the  name  1!21.  Afterwards  she  ai> 
preaches  him  a  little  closer,  lisps  him  a  few  words,  but  her  form 
is  still  covered  with  a  thick  veil  which  his  looks  cannot  penetrate. 
This  is  the  so-called  C1"n.  She  then  converses  with  him  with 
her  face  covered  by  a  thin  veil ;  this  is  the  enigmatical  language 
of  rnjn.  After  having  thus  become  accustomed  to  her  societj-, 
she  at  last  shows  herself  face  to  face  and  entrusts  him  with 
the  innermost  secrets  of  her  heart.    This  is  the  secret  of  the  law 

There  are  three  principles  of  Cabalistic  interpretations :  (1) 
Notariqon  —  to  reconstruct  a  word  b}^  using  the  initials  of  many, 
or  a  sentence  by  using  all  the  letters  of  a  single  word  for  initial 
letters  of  other  words  ;  (2)  Ghematria  —  the  use  of  the  numeri- 
cal values  of  the  letters  of  a  word  for  purposes  of  comparison 
with  other  words  which  yield  the  same  or  similar  combina- 
tions of  numbers;    (3)   Temura  —  the  permutation  of  letters 

1  Ginsburg,  Kabbalah,  London,  1865.  =  IF.  99. 

'I  give  the  translation  of  Ginsbnrp  in  I.e.,  p.  130;  comp.  Siegfried,  Philo 
vuii  AlKXandrla  als  AuslKjcr  des  Alt.  Test.,  1875,  Jena,  p.  291. 


HISTORY   or   THE   INTERI'KETATION  433 

by  the  three  Cabalistic  alpluibets,  called  'Atbach,  'AUnim,  and 
'Athhash.^ 

The  Peshat,  or  literal  interjjretation,  is  used  in  the  Targum 
of  Onkelos,  and  the  Greek  version  of  Aquila,  with  reference  to 
the  Law,  but  found  little  representation  among  the  ancient 
Jews.  The  Qarites  were  the  first  to  emphasize  it  in  the  eighth 
century.  Before  this  time  there  is  no  trace  of  Hebrew  gram- 
mar, or  Hebrew  dictionary.  The  Qarites  threw  off  the  yoke 
of  Rabliinical  Halacha,  and  devoted  themselves  to  the  literal 
sense  and  became  extreme  literalists.  Influenced  by  them, 
Saadia  introduced  the  literal  method  into  the  Rabbinical 
schools,  and  used  it  as  the  most  potent  weajjon  to  overcome 
the  Qarites.  He  became  the  father  of  Jewish  exegesis  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  was  followed  by  a  large  number  of  distin- 
guished scholars,  who  have  left  monuments  of  Jewish  learning.^ 
Wogue  attributes  this  rise  of  the  literal  method  to  the  influence 
of  Arabic  learning  at  Bagdad,  Bassora,  and  Cairo.  But  the 
Arabs  and  the  Persians  received  their  impulses  from  the  Nesto- 
rian  schools  of  Edessa  and  Nisibis,  which  mediated  the  transition 
of  Greek  learning  to  the  Orient,  which  also  from  the  times  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  Lucius  of  Samosata,  had  been 
chiefly  characterized  by  their  historic  method  of  exegesis.^ 

Thus  in  Judaism  there  grew  up  three  great  parties  which 
struggled  with  one  another  during  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  were  buried  under  a 
mass  of  tradition  that  was  heaped  upon  them  more  and  more 
for  centuries,  until  it  became  necessary  for  the  interpreter  who 
would  understand  the  hoi}'  word  itself  to  force  his  way  through 
this  mass,  as  at  the  present  day  one  who  would  find  the  ancient 
Jerusalem  must  dig  through  eighteen  centuries  of  debris  under 
which  it  has  been  Iniried  in  the  strifes  of  nations. 

There  is  doubtless  truth  at  the  bottom  of  all  these  systems. 
There  is  a  certain  propriety  in  distinguishing  the  fourfold  sense. 
The  literal  sense  will  not  apply  except  to  the  plainest  matter-of- 

1  See  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah,  London,  1865,  pp.  131  seq. ;  Wogue  in  I.e., 
pp.  274  seq. ;  Chiarini  in  I.e.,  pp.  95  seq.  ;  Siegfried  in  I.e.,  pp.  290  seq.  ; 
Etlieridge.  Jerusalem  and  Tiberias,  Sora  and  Cordova,  1856,  pp.  354  seq. 

2  Wogue  in  I.e.,  pp.  208  seq.  ;  Etheridge,  I.e.,  p.  226.  '  V.  193. 

2f 


434  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

fact  passages  ;  the  Haggada  method  is  necessary  in  the  rhetori- 
cal parts  of  Scripture.  Tlie  HaUiclra  method  is  necessary  for 
the  determination  of  the  principles  embedded  in  the  Scriptures. 
The  Sodh  method  is  necessary  in  the  interpretation  of  prophetic 
symbolism,  and  the  esoteric  instruction  of  the  Bible.  If  each 
of  these  four  methods  had  been  restricted  to  its  own  appro- 
priate sphere  in  the  Bible,  they  would  have  cooperated  with 
great  advantage  ;  but  where  these  methods  are  applied  at  the 
same  time  to  the  same  passages  with  the  view  that  the  Scripture 
has  a  manifold  sense  ;  where  again  these  methods  are  applied 
arbitrarily  to  all  passages  ;  where  they  are  used  to  remove  diffi- 
culties and  to  maintain  traditional  opinions  ;  or  where  any  one 
method  is  made  to  usurp  the  functions  of  all,  —  there  can  only 
result  —  as  there  did  result  in  fact  —  the  utmost  arbitrariness 
and  confusion.  The  Bible  was  no  longer  interpreted  ;  it  was 
used  as  the  slave  of  traditional  systems  and  sectarian  prejudices. 

II.    Hellenistic  Interpretation 

The  Hellenistic  Jews  were  largely  under  the  influence  of  the 
Platonic  philosoph}-,  which  they  sought  to  reconcile  with  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  The  chief  of  the  Hellenistic  Jews 
is  Philo  of  Alexandria.  Philo  was  not  a  Hebrew  scholar,  but 
was  acquainted  Avith  the  Aramaic  of  Palestine,  and  probably 
also  with  the  ancient  Hebrew.  ^  He  does  not  use  the  Hebrew 
text,  but  bases  himself  entirely  on  the  Greek  version,  and  uses 
tradition  in  its  two  forms  of  Halacha  and  Haggada,  but  especially 
the  latter,  which  he  elaborates  in  the  direction  of  the  Sodii  or 
allegorical  method.  He  distinguishes  between  the  literal  sense 
and  the  allegorical  as  between  the  body  and  the  soul.^  The 
sense  like  a  fluid  pervades  the  letter.  The  allegory  is  a  wise 
architect  who  builds  on  the  ground  of  the  Scriptures  an 
architectural  structure.' 

The  allegorical  method  of  Philo  is  so  well  stated  by  Siegfried, 

that  I  shall  build  upon  him  in  detail,  while  I  pursue  my  own 

method  in  a  more  general  arrangement.    There  are  three  rules  to 

determine  when  the  literal  sense  is  excluded  :  (1)  when  anything 

1  Siegfried  in  I.e.,  pp.  141  Keq.  '  De  migr.  Abraham,  xvl. 

3  2)e  Somn.,  II.  2. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  435 

is  said  unworthy  of  God  ;  (2)  when  it  presents  an  insoluble  diffi- 
culty ;  (3)  when  the  expression  is  allegorical.  The  last  rule 
alone  is  sound,  the  others  ai-e  a  priori,  and  result  in  the  imposi- 
tion on  the  Scriptures  of  the  preconceptions  and  prejudices  of 
the  interpreter.  The  rules  of  Philo's  allegorical  method  given 
by  Siegfried  are  twenty-three  in  number. ^  1  shall  arrange  them 
under  four  heads  in  a  somewhat  different  oi'der. 

I.  Grammatical  allegory.  An  allegory  is  indicated  in  the 
use  of  certain  particles  ;  in  the  modifications  of  words  bj'  pre- 
fixes or  affixes ;  in  stress  upon  number  of  noun  and  tense  of 
verb  ;  in  gender  of  words  ;  in  the  use  or  absence  of  the  article. 
Here  grammatical  exegesis  is  insufficient ;  there  are  mysterious 
hidden  meanings  to  be  found  in  these  grammatical  peculiarities. 

II.  Rhetorical  allegory  is  found  :  in  the  repetition  of  words  ; 
in  redundancy  of  style  ;  in  reiteration  of  statement ;  in  changes 
of  expression  ;  in  synonyms  ;  in  play  upon  words  ;  in  striking 
expressions  ;  in  position  of  words ;  in  unusual  connections  of 
verses ;  in  the  omission  of  what  would  be  expected  ;  in  the 
unexpected  use  of  terms.  Here  rhetorical  exegesis  is  insuffi- 
cient ;  there  must  be  a  hidden  sense  in  any  departure  from  the 
plain  prosaic  form. 

III.  Allegory  by  means  of  neiv  combinations  is  gained  :  by 
changing  the  punctuation  ;  by  giving  a  word  all  its  possible 
meanings  ;  by  internal  modifications  of  the  word  ;  b}^  new  com- 
binations of  words.  This  method  was  more  fully  wrought  out 
by  the  Cabalists^  and  is  the  most  abnormal  of  all  forms  of 
allegory. 

IV.  Symbolism  is  of  three  kinds :  of  numbers,  of  things, 
and  of  names.  This  method  is  the  most  appropriate  of  the 
forms  of  allegory ;  its  propriety  is  recognized  by  modern  exe- 
gesis when  used  within  due  bounds. 

To  Philo  and  his  school  the  inner  sense  attained  by  allegory 
was  the  real  sense  designed  by  God.  The  method  of  Philo 
was  doubtless  used  to  a  great  extent  among  the  Essenes  and 
the  Zealots.  There  are  traces  of  it  in  the  pseudepigraphs  and 
apocr)-phal  books  that  were  composed  in  the  time  of  Philo. 
Josephus  was  also  influenced  by  Philo,  and  was  inclined  to  the 
>  In  I.e.,  pp.  165  seq.  -  See  p.  432. 


436  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

use  of  allegory,  as  we  see  from  his  treatment  of  the  tabernacle.^ 
There  is  truth  at  the  bottom  of  the  allegorical  method,  namely, 
that  human  language  is  inadequate  to  convej'  the  thoughts  of 
God  to  man.  At  the  best  it  can  only  be  a  sign  and  external 
representation.  We  must  go  back  of  the  sign  to  the  thing 
signified.  The  mistake  of  the  allegorical  method  is  in  extend- 
ing it  be3'0ud  its  legitimate  bounds,  and  making  every  word  and 
syllable  and  letter  of  Scripture  an  allegory  of  some  kind,  and 
in  using  it  to  escape  difficulties  of  philosophy  and  theology, 
and  in  order  to  maintain  peculiar  religious  views. 

III.    The  Ixterpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  ix 
THE  New  Testament 

The  writings  of  New  Testament  Scripture  use  and  interpret 
Old  Testament  Scripture.  It  is  important  for  us  to  determine 
the  nature  and  principles  of  this  interpretation,  and  its  relation 
to  the  Rabbinical  and  Hellenistic  methods. 

In  the  Old  Testament  prior  to  the  exile,  the  prophets  use 
earlier  writings  by  way  of  citation  rather  than  interpretation. 
This  use  is  in  the  nature  of  free  reproduction  and  application 
rather  than  an  exposition  of  their  sense.  During  the  periods 
of  oral  revelation  and  prophecy,  the  interpretation  of  ancient 
Scripture  was  of  little  importance.  It  was  only  when  prophecy 
ceased,  and  oral  revelations  were  discontinued,  that  it  was 
necessary  to  ascertain  the  divine  will  by  the  interpretation  of 
ancient  written  documents. 

After  the  exile,  Ezra  introduced  the  moi-e  systematic  study 
of  the  Scripture,  and  established  the  miih-ash  method,  in  seek- 
ing for  the  meaning  of  ancient  Scriptures  and  their  application 
to  the  present.  The  peoj^le  were  assembled,  and  Ezra  and  the 
Levites  "  read  in  the  book  in  the  law  of  God  distinctly,  and 
gave  the  sense,  and  they  understood  in  the  reading."-  The  aim 
of  Ezra  and  his  associates  was  to  make  the  law  of  God  so  plain 
that  the  people  generally  could  understand  it. 

The  New  Testament  writers  constantly  use  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    Do  tliey  employ  the  methods  in  use  by  the  Palestinian 

1  AnUq.,  III.  7,  7  ;  Siegfried  in  I.e..  pp.  278  seq.  ^  Neh.  8«. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  437 

and  Hellenistic  Jews  of  their  time  ?  Different  answers  have 
been  given  to  this  question  from  partisan  points  of  view.  It 
is  important  to  ascertain  the  i-eal  facts  of  the  case.  The  most 
important  use  of  the  Scripture  is  ever  the  last  and  the  highest 
in  the  process  of  interpi-etation,  namely,  practical  interpretation 
or  application  ;  for  the  divine  revelation  has  in  view,  above 
all,  human  conduct.  This  is  most  frequently-  emplo3"ed  in  the 
New  Testament  bv  Jesus  and  His  apostles.  The  most  familiar 
example  is  in  the  temptation  of  Jesus,  when  He  overcomes 
Satan  by  the  application  of  the  words  of  the  law  :  "  Man  shall 
not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out 
of  the  mouth  of  God ; ""  "Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy 
God ;  "  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only 
shalt  thou  serve."  1  These  will  suffice,  also,  as  specimens  of 
the  literal  interpretation  as  used  by  Jesus. 

In  conflict  with  the  Pharisees  He  usuall}'  employs  the 
Halacha  method  as  most  appropriate  to  controversy  with  them, 
defeating  them  with  their  own  weapons.  Thus  He  employed 
Ps.  82^,  arguing  from  the  greater  to  the  less. 

"  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods  ?  If  He 
called  them  gods,  unto  whom  the  word  of  God  came  (and  the 
Scripture  cannot  be  broken),  say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father 
sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest ;  because  I 
said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  "  - 

He  used  the  Halacha  method  of  arguing  from  the  inner  con- 
trast of  general  and  pai'ticular  in  Ps.  IIO^. 

"  How  then  doth  David  in  the  Spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying : 
The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand,  till  I 
put  thine  enemies  underneath  thy  feet  ?  If  David  then  calleth 
him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son  ?  " ' 

Again  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Sabbath  law  IMatthew  let 
Jesus  quote  from  1  Sam.  21i-6 ;  Num.  289-10 .  Hos.  G^  ;  on  the 
principle  that  Scripture  passages  may  be  used  to  supplement 
one  another. 

"  Have  ye  not  read  what  David  did,  when  he  was  an  hungered, 
and  they  that  were  with  him ;  how  he  entered  into  the  house  of 

1  Mt.  4*-"'.  2  John  10»<-».  3  Mt.  22«-«5.     See  p.  264. 


438  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

God,  and  did  eat  the  shew-bread,  which  it  was  not  lawful  for  him 
to  eat,  neither  for  them  that  were  with  him,  but  only  for  the 
priests  ?  [Or  have  ye  not  read  in  the  law,  how  that  on  the  Sab- 
bath daj-  the  priests  in  the  temple  profane  the  Sabbath,  and  are 
guiltless  ?  But  I  say  unto  you,  that  one  greater  than  the  temple 
is  here.  But  if  ye  had  known  what  this  meaneth,  I  desire  mercy, 
and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have  condemned  the  guiltless.] 
For  the  son  of  man  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath."  ' 

In  these  and  similar  instances  Jesus  interprets  Scripture,  as 
a  Jewish  rabbin,  after  the  Halacha  method,  with  which  the 
Pharisees  were  familiar,  and  to  which  they  were  accustomed  in 
discussion  and  argument. 

Jesus  also  employs  the  Haggada  method.  This  indeed  is 
His  own  favourite  method  of  teaching,  inasmuch  as  His  dis- 
courses were  in  the  main  addressed  to  the  people.  His  method 
of  illustration  and  enforcement  of  truth  is  perfect  in  its  kind, 
as  only  a  divine  master  could  fashion  it.  If  we  take  the  .series 
of  parables  in  Lk.  15  as  an  example,  what  could  be  more 
simple,  appropriate,  beautiful,  and  impressive  ?  They  have 
been  the  gospel  of  redemption  to  millions  of  our  race.  A  few 
examples  may  be  given  of  this  method  of  interpretation.  In 
reply  to  the  bald  literalism  of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue. 

"  There  are  six  days  in  which  men  ought  to  work :  in  them 
therefore  come  and  be  healed,  and  not  on  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath ;  ■'  Jesus  says :  "  Ye  hypocrites,  doth  not  each  one  of  you  on 
the  Sabbath  loose  his  ox  or  his  ass  from  the  stall,  and  lead  him 
away  to  the  watering  ?  And  ought  not  this  woman,  being  a 
daughter  of  Abraham,  whom  Satan  had  bound,  lo,  eighteen  years, 
to  have  been  loosed  from  this  bond  on  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  ?  " ' 

In  the  interpretation  of  proj^hecy  and  history  Jesus  comes 
into  connection  with  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation, 
and  it  has  been  claimed  that  He  apjilies  it  with  the  fi'eedom  of 
a  Hellenist.  In  His  first  discnarse  in  the  synagogue  of  Naza- 
reth' He  interprets  the  jirnphecy  Is.  Gl  as  applying  to  Him- 
self.    This  prophecy  is  in  its  nature  figurative,  as  it  presents 

'  Ml.  12<-s.  But  Mk.  2"-28  and  Lk.  6*^  omit  the  bracketed  clause.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  Matthew  is  responsible  for  this  heaping-up  of  citations  from  the  Old 
Testament.  Jesus,  according  to  Mark,  uses  here  the  ariiument  from  the  general 
to  the  particular,  when  he  says,  "  The  .'^abbath  was  made  for  man.  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath."  "     'Lk.  13"««-  a  Lk.  4i>i-2^. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATXON  433 

the  servant  of  Yahweh  in  his  faithful  preaching  to  the  people. 
Jesus  correctly  sees  the  inner  sense  of  the  passage  and  finds 
His  own  likeness  depicted  there.  Jesus  interprets  the  corner- 
stone of  Ps.  118^^  as  refei-ring  to  Himself  and  His  kingdom. ^ 
This  is  not  a  prophecy  in  the  original  passage,  but  a  symboli- 
cal representation  of  the  reestablishment  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  work  of  Jesus  was  preeminently  such  a  work. 
Hence  the  inner  sense  affords  the  connection  that  makes  the 
use  of  the  symbol  appropriate.  A  touching  example  of  the 
liistorical  allegory  is  the  caution  of  Jesus,^  "  Remember  Lot's 
wife,"^  in  connection  with  His  prediction  of  the  judgment  upon 
Jerusalem  and  the  nations. 

I  shall  now  examine  some  of  the  most  striking  passages,  in 
which  certain  distinguishing  features  of  our  Saviour's  inter- 
pretation appear. 

The  iSadducees  came  to  Him  with  a  difficult  case  under  a 
general  law.* 

"  Moses  wrote  unto  us,^  If  a  man's  brother  die,  and  leave  a 
wife  beliind  hun,  and  leave  no  child,  that  his  brother  shordd 
take  his  wife,  and  raise  up  seed  unto  his  brother." 

Tlie  case  is  :  "There  Avere  seven  brethren :  and  the  first  took 
a  wife,  and  dying  left  no  seed ;  and  the  second  took  her,  and 
died,  leaving  no  seed  behind  him  ;  and  the  third  likewise : 
and  the  seven  left  no  seed.  Last  of  all  the  woman  also  died. 
In  the  resurrection  whose  wife  shall  she  be  of  them  ?  For  the 
seven  had  her  to  wife." 

Jesus  does  not  determine  this  case  by  an  appeal  to  Holy 
Scripture,  but  on  His  own  authority  delivers  a  doctrine  which 
settles  it :  "  For  when  they  rise  from  tlie  dead  they  neither 
marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  angels  in  heaven." 
He  takes  occasion,  however,  to  overcome  the  Sadducean  denial 
of  a  resurrection  by  an  appeal  to  the  Law  :  ^  "  Have  ye  not 
read  that  which  was  spoken  unto  you  b}-  God,  saying,  '  I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob?'  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living." 
It  is  clear  that  our  Saviour  takes  the  passage  out  of  its  context 

1  Mt.  21<2-+'  =  Mk.  12">-"  =  Lk.  20i'-i8.  "  Lk.  IT'^.  »  Gen.  19=5. 

<  Mk.  12i»-2' =  Mt.  222»^2  =  Lk.  20-"-««.  ^  Deut.  25^.  6  Ex.  36.      , 


440  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  gives  it  a  meaning  which  is  not  explicitly  there.  Where, 
then,  is  the  justification  for  His  interpretation,  and  what  is  the 
method  of  it  ?  He  derives  from  the  statement  of  the  covenant 
relation  between  God  and  the  patriarchs,  the  principle  that 
God  being  a  living  God,  the  relation  is  a  vital  relation,  and 
therefore  those  who  are  in  this  relation  are  living  ones  as 
possessors  of  the  life  the)"  have  received  from  God,  the  foun- 
tain of  life. 

The  continuation  in  life  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  after 
they  died  to  this  life  implies  that  they  as  well  as  their  seed 
will  eventually  enjoy  all  the  blessings  God  promised  them. 
These  they  cannot  enjo}-  unless  they  take  part  in  the  resur- 
rection. All  this  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  words  cited; 
but  it  cannot  be  inferred  except  by  the  stress  on  the  living 
God  and  His  power,  which  Jesus  added  to  the  original  passage. 
A  similar  argument  was  used  bj"  an  ancient  rabbi  from  another 
passage  of  the  Law.i 

"  Go  in  and  possess  the  land  which  Yaliweh  sware  unto  your 
fathers,  to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,  to  give  unto  them 
and  to  their  seed  after  them."  The  rabbi  called  the  attention 
of  his  hearers  to  the  fact  that  Yahweh  sware  to  give  the  land 
to  them,  and  not  to  give  it  to  you. 

Jesus  uses  the  laws  of  the  Tables,^  and  contrasts  His  own 
interpretation  of  them  with  the  traditional  interpretation. 
The  latter  looked  at  the  external  letter  and  warped  this  into 
accordance  with  traditional  theory  and  practice.  The  former 
enters  into  the  internal  spirit.  Jesus  goes  in  His  interpreta- 
tion beyond  any  human  propriety,  and  interprets  them  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  divine  Lawgiver  Himself.  No  huraau 
interpreter  would  be  justified  in  following  the  ^Master  thither. 
It  is  His  sovereign  prerogative  so  to  interpret. 

Jesus  recognizes  tlie  principle  of  accommodation  in  the  use 
of  the  Old  Testament.^  The  law  of  divorce  was  granted  by 
Moses,  owing  to  the  hardness  of  tlie  hearts  of  the  people  of 
his  time.  That  law  was,  however,  inconsistent  with  the  original 
divine  ideal  at  the  creation.  And  here  again  Jesus  interprets 
from  the  mind  of  God  in  the  Halacha  method,  the  words: 
'  Ueut.  1«.  *  Mt.  5-'  "< .  »  Mt.  19»  -^ . 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERrRETATION  441 

'•  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother, 
and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife  ;  and  the  twain  shall  become  one 
flesh."  ^  This  He  interprets  by  laying  hold  of  the  great 
thought:  '■'one  flesh."  "So  that  they  are  no  more  twain,  but 
one  flesh.  What  therefore  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not 
man  put  asunder.  "^  No  one  would  ever  have  thought  of  this 
interpretation  but  Jesus,  Avho  interpreted  the  mind  of  God, 
the  creator  of  man  and  the  author  of  marriage. 
Jesus  after  His  resurrection  said  : 

"  These  are  my  words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet 
with  you,  how  that  all  things  must  needs  be  fulfilled,  which  are 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  psalms,  con- 
cerning me.  Then  oj)ened  he  their  mind,  that  they  might  imder- 
stand  the  Scriptures ;  and  he  said  unto  them,  Thus  it  is  written, 
that  the  Messiah  should  suffer,  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  the 
third  day ;  and  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be 
preached  in  his  name  unto  all  nations,  beginning  from  Jerusalem."^ 

Here  our  Saviour  grasps  the  entire  Old  Testament  revelation 
in  its  unity,  and  represents  Himself  and  His  kingdom  as  its  cen- 
tral theme.  The  same  is  the  case  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  where  He  represents  the  feast  as  the  new  covenant  feast 
over  against  the  old  covenant  sacrifice. 

Jesus  Christ,  in  His  method  of  interpretation,  thus  laid  down 
the  distinctive  principles  of  scriptural  interpretation  which  en- 
abled His  apostles  to  understand  the  Old  Testament,  and  de- 
livered them  from  the  perils  of  the  allegorical  and  legal 
methods  of  His  times.  He  uses  the  four  kinds  of  biblical  in- 
terpretation, in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  various  classes 
of  men  in  His  times,  in  those  ways  that  wei'e  familiar  to  the 
Rabbinical  school,  the  synagogue  instruction,  the  popular  au- 
dience, and  the  esoteric  training  of  the  disciple.  He  uses  all 
that  was  appropriate  in  these  methods  :  but  never  emploj^s  any 
of  the  casuistry  or  hair-splitting  Halacha  of  the  scribes  ;  or  any 
of  the  idle  tales  and  absurd  legends  of  the  Haggada;  or  any  of  the 
strange  combinations  and  fanciful  reconstructions  of  the  Sodh 
of  the  Alexandrians.  His  use  of  Scripture  is  simple,  beautiful, 
profound,  and  sublime.     One  sees  through  the  Divine  Master 

'  Gen.  22«.  3  See  pp.  87  seq.  '  Lk.  24«"»-. 


442  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

that  the  written  Word  is  tlie  mirror  of  tlie  mind  of  God  ;  and 
the  eternal  Word  interprets  tlie  former  from  the  latter.  The 
rabbins  interpreted  the  Scriptures  to  accord  with  the  traditions 
of  the  elders  ;  Jesus  interpreted  them  to  accord  witli  the  mind 
of  God  their  author.  Hence  the  characteristic  authority  with 
which  He  spake  ;  the  freedom  with  which  He  added  to  the 
ancient  Scriptures,  and  substituted  a  liigher  revelation  for 
the  lower,  wherever  it  was  found  necessary.  As  Dorner  appro- 
priately says  : 

"This  is  the  wondrous  charm  of  His  words,  their  unfathomable, 
mysterious  depth,  despite  all  their  simplicity,  that  they  are  ever 
uttered,  so  to  speak,  from  the  heart  of  the  question ;  for  the  har- 
mony which  binds  together  and  comprehends  in  one  view  the  op- 
posite ends  of  things,  is  lovingly  and  consciously  present  to  Him, 
since  everything  is  related  to  His  kingdom.  Other  words  of  men, 
this  or  that  man  might  have  spoken ;  nay,  most  that  is  spoken  or 
done  by  us  is  merelj'  a  continuation  of  others  through  us ;  Ave  are 
simply  therein  points  of  transmission  for  tradition.  But  the 
words  which  He  drew  from  within — -these  precious  gems,  which 
attest  the  presence  of  the  Son  of  Man,  who  is  the  Son  of  God  — 
have  an  originality  of  an  unique  order;  they  are  His,  because 
taken  from  that  which  is  present  in  Him.  In  this  sense,  His 
prophetic  activity  is  sim^jly  manifestation.  Certainly,  where  in 
the  accommodation  of  love  He  condescends  to  men  in  figurative 
speech,  or  in  simple  talk,  intelligible  even  to  children,  or  avails 
Himself  of  ordinary,  especially  Old  Testament  ideas,  He  there 
suppresses  the  rays  of  His  originality.  But  when  He  does  this,  it 
is  in  order  to  fill  the  Old  Testament  husk  or  the  types  and  forms 
taken  from  nature  with  the  highest,  the  true  contents."  ' 

Jesus  does  not  la}-  dowir  any  principles  of  interpretation. 
But  we  may  venture  from  the  synthesis  of  His  exegesis  to  state 
the  three  following  principles  :  (1)  He  recognized  that  the  words 
of  Scripture  are  living  words  of  God  to  man,  bearing  upon 
human  conduct.  They  are  to  be  interpreted  b}'  entering  into 
living  communion  with  the  living  God  and  from  internal  per- 
sonal relations  to  their  author,  and  not  bj'  roundabout  methods 
of  traditional  definition  and  illustrative  legend.  (2)  Tlie  di- 
vine revelation  was  made  on  the  principle  of  accommodation  to 
the  weakness,  ignorance,  and  sinfulness  of  man,  requiring  no 
1  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  Vol.  III.  p.  389. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   IXTERPRETATIOX  443 

more  than  lie  was  able  to  bear.  The  temporary  provisions  are 
to  be  eliminated  from  the  eternal  principles  and  the  divine 
ideals.  (3)  The  Scriptures  are  an  organic  whole,  the  Gospel 
of  the  Messiali  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Messiah  and  His  kingdom  the  kej'  to  the  whole.  These  were 
fruitful  principles  and  ought  to  have  guided  the  Church  in  all 
time  and  preserved  it  from  manifold  errors. 

The  apostles  and  their  disciples  in  the  Xew  Testament  use 
the  methods  of  the  Lord  Jesus  rather  than  those  of  the  men  of 
their  time.  The  Xew  Testament  writers  differ  among  them- 
selves in  the  tendencies  of  their  thought.  St.  Peter,  St.  James, 
St.  Jude,  St.  ^latthew,  and  St.  Mark  incline  to  use  the  Haggada 
method ;  St.  Stephen,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Luke  to  tlie  more 
learned  Halacha  method;  St.  John  and  the  Ej^istle  to  the 
Hebrews  to  the  Sodli  or  allegorical  method;  but  in  them  all, 
the  methods  of  the  Lord  Jesus  prevail  over  the  other  methods 
and  ennoble  them. 

1.  The  Hatjyada  is  used  by  St.  Peter  when  he  cites  Scripture  ^ 
with  reference  to  the  case  of  Judas.  The  propriety  is  in  the 
parallelism  of  the  cases  of  the  doom  of  the  traitor  and  persecutor. 
The  Gospel  "-^  of  Matthew  makes  similar  uses  of  Holy  Scriptm-e 
and  applies  it  to  the  situation  of  Jesus. ^  There  is  here  a 
parallelism  of  circumstances,  in  which  the  ancient  prophecies 
illustrate  the  descent  of  Jesus  into  Egypt  and  the  lamentation 
at  Bethlehem,  by  the  descent  of  Israel  into  Egypt  and  the  wars 
that  desolated  Judea.  There  is  no  prediction  in  these  prophe- 
cies, or  interpretation  of  them  by  the  evangelist  as  prediction  ; 
but  the  association  of  the  passages  with  Jesus  has  its  propriety 
in  that  He  is  conceived  to  be  the  Messiah,  in  whom  the  fortunes 
of  Israel  are  involved.  "  Here  is  incorrectness  of  form  with 
truth  of  thought.'"* 

The  Epistle  of  St.  James  ^  uses  by  preference  what  has  been 
called  the  moral  Haggada.  To  maintain  his  proijosition  that 
faith  without  works  is  dead,  he  cites  the  examples  of  Abraham 
and  Rahab.®     So  he  refers  to  the  patience  of  Job  and  the  fervent 

'  Cf.  Acts  1»>;  Ps.  6935,  1098.  2  Mt.  3>3-i8.  »  Hos.  ll'  ;  Jer.  3U5. 

«  Tholuck,  AH.  Test,  in  .V.  T.,  Ote  Aufl.,  Gotha,  1868,  p.  44. 
»  Jas.  2^»«« .  '  Gen.  22 ;  Jos.  2. 


444  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

prayers  of  Elijah. ^  St.  Paul  also  uses  the  Haggada  in  his  citatior 
of  Ps.  19*,  to  illustrate  the  going  forth  of  the  gospel  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth,2  and  of  Deut.  -30" '^«-,  to  illustrate  the  truth  that 
the  word  of  the  gospel  was  nigh  in  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles,  in  the  faith  of  the  heart,  and  in  the  confession  of  the 
mouth.^  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  uses  it  especially  in  call- 
ing the  roll  of  the  heroes  of  faith.*  There  are  also  a  few  ex- 
amples in  the  New  Testament  of  the  use  of  legends  and  fables* 
for  purposes  of  illustration,  which  do  not  commit  the  authors  to 
their  historical  truthfulness. 

2.  The  Halacha  method  is  used  by  St.  Paul  arguing  from  the 
less  to  the  greater  ;  ^  from  analogy  : '  from  general  to  partic- 
ular; *  from  the  combination  of  passages  to  prove  the  corruption 
of  sin.^ 

The  Halacha  method  is  also  used  by  St.  James  to  prove  his 
point  that  whoso  transgi-esseth  one  of  the  laws  is  guilty  of  all,^" 
by  citing  the  general  law,"  and  the  special  commands. ^^ 

3.  The  allegorical  method  is  used  by  St.  Paul,  where  Hagar 
and  Sara  are  taken  to  represent  the  Pharisee  and  the  Christian,^* 
and  where  he  uses  the  water  from  the  rock  as  an  allegory  of 
Christ.'*  Here  the  apostle  sees  a  principle  clothed  in  the  history. 
He  uses  it  to  illustrate  and  enforce  an  analogous  case  where 
the  principle  applies.  As  Tholuck  sa5's,  "  The  apostle  is  like 
one  who  has  seen  a  finished  picture  and  then  afterwards  sees  in 
the  sketch  of  it  more  than  we  do  who  have  only  the  sketch."'* 
Is  it  not  rather  with  the  sunlight  of  prophetic  insight  he  sees 
into  the  essential  features  of  the  ancient  histories,  whereas  to  us 
they  are  in  the  obscurities  of  candlelight  ?  He  tells  us  more 
about  them  than  we  can  see  even  with  his  guidance.  It  is  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  the  allegorical  method  has  its 
greatest  display  in  the  New  Testament.  St.  Paul  uses  it  occa- 
sionally, the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  constantly. 
As  Tholuck  says,  "  The  literarj"^  character  of  Panl  is  Talmudic 

1  Jas.  5U- ".  2  Rom.  lO'^.  s  Rom.  lO^-w. 

♦  Heb.  11.  »  2  Pet  2«  •««• ;  Jude  9  seq.  ;  2  Tim.  3«.       See  p.  .S48. 

«  1  Cor.  9» "«  ;  Deut.  2o<.  '  2  Cor.  3" ;  Ex.  24'",  34=*^. 

«  Rom.  48 "«  from  Gen.  IS*.  Ps.  32>-2  ;  1  Cor.  H'^'"*-  from  Is.  28"-«. 
»  Rom.  3W8  from  Ps.  14'--\  S'.  140'.  lO" ;  Is.  69"  8  ;  Ps.  36».  "»  Jas.  2»-i». 

"  Lev.  19".      "  Ex.  20'3-i*.     "  GaL  4"  ••«.     "  1  Cor.  10«.     «  i,,  /.,..,  p.  37. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   IXTEKl'RETATION  445 

anil  dialectic,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  Hellenistic  and 
rhetorical."  1  Thus  the  Sabbath  of  the  Old  Testament  is  used 
to  allegorize  the  Sabbath  rest^  at  the  end  of  the  world.  The 
person  and  office  of  Melchizedek  are  used  to  allegorize  the  jNIes- 
sianic  high-priest,  and  there  is  an  allegory  in  the  etymology  of 
the  names  Salem  and  Melchizedek. ^  Here,  according  to  Riehm, 
the  author  "  leaves  out  of  consideration  the  historical  meaning 
of  Old  Testament  passages,  and  only  sees  the  higher  proplietic 
meaning  which  belongs  to  them  on  account  of  their  ideal 
contents."* 

The  Apocalypse  uses  the  allegorical  method  of  symbolism  in 
the  number  of  the  beast,  66ii.^  the  sun-clad  woman,^  the  river 
Euphrates."  the  city  of  Babylon,^  the  place  Harmageddon,®  the 
prophetic  numbers  of  Daniel '"  and  the  recombination  of  ancient 
prophecies,^^  and  the  descriptions  of  Paradise. ^^ 

There  are  many  who  in  our  times  seek  to  explain  away  the 
allegorical  interpretation,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
unbecoming  to  Jesus  and  His  apostles.  These  forget  that  it 
was  just  this  allegorical  method,  with  all  its  abuses,  that  has 
been  chiefly  employed  in  the  Synagogue  and  in  the  Church  for 
ages  by  the  ablest  and  most  pious  of  her  interpreters.  Thus 
Bishop  Lightfoot  reproves  such  persons :  ^^ 

"  We  need  not  fear  to  allow  that  Saint  Paul's  mode  of  teaching 
here  is  colored  by  his  early  education  in  the  rabbinical  schools.  It 
were  as  unreasonable  to  stake  the  apostle's  inspiration  on  the  turn 
of  a  metaphor  or  the  character  of  an  illustration  or  the  form  of  an 
argument,  as  on  purity  of  diction.  No  one  now  thinks  of  main- 
taining that  the  language  of  the  inspired  writers  reaches  the  clas- 
sical standard  of  correctness  and  elegance,  though  at  one  time  it 
was  held  almost  a  heresy  to  deny  this.  '  A  treasure  contained  in 
earthen  vessels,'  '  strength  made  perfect  in  weakness,'  '  rudeness 
in  speech,  yet  not  in  knowledge,'  such  is  the  far  nobler  conception 
of  inspired  teaching,  which  we  may  gather  from  the  apostle's  own 
language.  And  this  language  we  should  do  v.'ell  to  bear  in  mind. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were  sheer  dogmatism  to  set  up  the 

1  Ini.c,  p.  52.  2Heb.  4.  '  Heb.  7. 

»  Lehrb.  Hehriierbriefes,  Neue  Ausg.,  1867,  p.  204.  5  Rev.  13is. 

«  Rev.  12'««»-.  '  Rev.  I612.  s  pev.  17^  182.  9  Rev.  I6I6. 

M  Rev.  12«,  1.35.       "  Rev.  21,  22  ;  Ezek.  .33-;!8;  Dan.  V"'>;  12  ;  Is.  258,  6517, >,., 
12  Gen.  2*"9-.    ''  Saint  Paul 's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Andover,  1870,  p.  370. 


446  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

intellectual  standard  of  our  own  age  or  country  as  an  infallible 
rule.  The  power  of  allegory  lias  been  differently  felt  in  different 
ages,  as  it  is  differently  felt  at  any  one  time  by  diverse  nations. 
Analogy,  allegory,  metaplior  —  by  what  boundaries  are  these  sepa- 
rated, the  one  from  the  other  ?  "What  is  true  or  false,  correct  or 
incorrect,  as  an  analogy,  or  an  allegorj^  ?  What  argumentative 
force  must  be  assigned  to  either  ?  We  should  at  least  be  prepared 
■with  an  answer  to  these  questions,  before  we  venture  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  any  individual  case." 

4.  Tlie  apostles  were  taught  by  Jesus  to  consider  the  old 
covenant  as  a  whole  ;  to  see  it  as  a  shadow,  type,  and  prepara- 
tory dispensation  with  reference  to  the  new  covenant ;  to  re- 
gard the  substance  and  disregard  the  form.  Hence  under  the 
further  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  thej'  eliminated  the  tem- 
poral, local,  and  circumstantial  forms  of  the  old  covenant,  and 
gained  the  universal,  eternal,  and  essential  substance  ;  and  this 
they  applied  to  the  circumstances  of  the  new  covenant,  of  wliich 
the}-  were  called  to  be  the  expounders.  They  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  the  mind  of  the  reigning  Christ  as  Jesus  had 
interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  His  Father. 

Thus  St.  Peter  on  the  daj''  of  Pentecost '  grasps  the  situation 
and  sees  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  inauguration 
of  the  new  dispensation  described  by  the  prophet  Joel.^  In 
his  epistle^  he  applies  the  Sinaitic  covenant*  to  the  new  cove- 
nant relations.  This  was  from  the  sense  of  the  unity  of  both 
covenants  in  Christ,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  earlier  in  the  later. 
So  St.  Paul  goes  back  of  tlie  law  of  Sinai  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  and  finds  that  all  believers  are  the  true  children  of 
Abraham.  ^  He  represents  the  ancient  institutions  as  "  a 
shadow  of  the  things  to  come;  but  the  body  is  Christ's."® 
And  so  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  finds  the  en- 
tire system  of  Levitical  priesthood,  purification,  and  offerings 
fulfilled  in  Christ  and  His  ministry,  so  that  tlie  form  is  thrown 
off  now  that  the  "  very  image  "  of  these  things  has  been  made 
manifest.'  Tlie  author  of  the  Apocalypse  gathers  up  the  sub- 
stance of  unfulfilled  prophecy  and  attaches  it  to  the  second  ad- 
vent of  Jesus  ChrLst. 

>  Acts  2'8"«-.  =  Joel  3>'««-  (2=8"i ).  »  1  Pet.  2^"i.  *  Ex.  19. 

'  Eom.  4.  •  Col.  2".  '  Heb.  10i««-. 


HISTORY   OF   THE    INTERPRETATION  44-7 

This  organic  living  method  of  interpretation  of  Jesus  and 
His  apostles  is  the  true  Christian  method.  The  errors  in  the 
history  of  exegesis  have  sprung  up  to  the  right  and  the  left  of  it. 

IV.     IXTERPKETATIOX  OF  THE  FaTHEKS  AND  SCHOOLMEX 

In  the  ancient  Church  the  methods  of  exegesis  ^  of  the  Pales- 
tinian and  Hellenistic  Jews,  as  well  as  those  of  Jesus  and  His 
apostles,  were  reproduced.  The  strife  of  the  various  elements 
that  entered  into  the  aj^ostolic  Church  is  clearlj-  to  be  seen  in 
the  New  Testament  itself.^ 

The  Palestinian  methods  were  represented  in  the  Ebionites 
and  the  Jewish-Christian  tendency  that  passed  over  into  the 
Church.  Thus  Papias,  in  his  naive  way,  appeals  to  the  elders, 
Aristion,  the  Presbyter  John,  and  others,  rather  than  to  the 
New  Testament,  to  establish  his  premillenarianism.^  The 
Clementine  pseudepigraph  represents  the  apostle  Peter  in  con- 
flict with  Simon  ^lagus,  as  the  embodiment  of  Church  authority 
over  against  Gnosticism.  St.  Peter,  speaking  of  the  prophetic 
writings,  is  made  to  say  : 

"  Which  things  were  indeed  plainly  spoken,  but  are  not  plainly 
■\\Titten ;  so  much  so  that  when  they  are  read  thej^  cannot  be 
understood  ^vithout  an  expounder,  on  accoimt  of  the  sin  which 
has  grown  up  with  men."  * 

TertuUian  also  says  : 

"  Our  appeal,  therefore,  must  not  be  made  to  the  Scriptures ; 
nor  must  controversy  be  admitted  on  points  in  which  victory  will 
either  be  impossible,  or  uncertain,  or  not  certain  enough.  .  .  . 
The  natural  order  of  things  would  require  that  this  point  should 
be  first  proposed,  which  is  now  the  only  one  which  we  must  dis- 
cuss :  '  With  whom  lies  that  very  faith  to  which  the  Scriptures 
belong  ?  From  what,  and  through  whom,  and  when,  and  to  whom, 
has  been  handed  down  that  rule,  b}"  which  men  become  Christians  ? ' 
For  wherever  it  shall  be  manifest  that  the  true  Christian  rule  and 

1  For  the  history  of  exearesis  in  the  Christian  Church,  see  Rosenmiiller, 
Histnria  interpretationis  Ubrorum  sacrorum  in  Ecclesia  Christiana,  5  Tom., 
HilcJburghuss,  1795-1814,  but  especially  Khiusen,  Hermfneutik  des  NfJien 
Testaments,  Leipzig,  1811,  and  Samuel  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  Edin., 
1843 ;  M.  S.  Terry,  Bihiical  Hermeneutics,  2d  ed.,  1885. 

"  Acts  15  ;  1  Cor.  3  ;  Gal.  2  ;  1  Tim.  1  ;  .las.  2  ;  Rev.  2. 

5  Euscbius,  Eccl.  Hist.,  III.  39.  *  liecoynitions,  I.  Chap.  XXI. 


448  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

faitn  shall  be,  there  will  likewise  be  the  true  Scriptures  and  expo- 
sitions thereof,  and  all  the  Christian  traditions." ' 

Irenteus- and  Cyprian^  laid  stress  upon  the  literal  method 
of  exegesis  and  the  authority  of  tradition,  and  exercised  an  un- 
fortunate influence  upon  the  early  Latin  Church. 

The  Hellenistic  methotls  found  the  greatest  representation 
in  the  earlj'  Church.  The  New  Testament  wa-iters  emjiloyed 
the  Greek  language  and  the  Septuagint  version.  It  is  probable 
that  the  great  majority  of  the  earliest  Christians  were  Hellenists. 
Naturally  the  influence  of  Philo  and  the  allegorical  method 
became  very  great.  We  see  that  influence  alreadj-  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Johannine  writings.  We  find  it 
in  the  epistles  of  Clement  of  Rome  and  Barnabas,  of  the  apos- 
tolic Fathers  ;  in  Justin  and  the  apologists  generally.*  Clement 
of  Alexandria  gave  it  more  definite  shape  when  he  distin- 
guished between  the  body  and  soul  of  Scripture  and  called 
.attention  to  its  foui'fold  use.  He  compares  it  to  engrafting  : 
(1)  The  way  in  which  we  instruct  plain  people  belonging  to 
the  Gentiles,  who  receive  the  word  superficialh' ;  (2)  the 
instruction  of  those  who  have  studied  philosophj-,  cutting 
through  the  Greek  dogmas  and  opening  up  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures ;  (3)  overcoming  the  rustics  and  heretics  by  the  force 
of  the  truth  ;  (4)  the  gnostic  teaching,  which  is  capable  of 
looking  into  the  things  themselves.^  He  makes  the  remark: 
"  The  truth  is  not  to  be  found  by  changing  the  meanings,  but 
in  the  consideration  of  what  perfectly  belongs  to  and  beeomes  the 
sovereign  God,  and  in  establishing  each  one  of  the  points  demon- 
strated in  the  Scriptures  from  similar  Scriptures." " 

Klausen  well  saj's  : 

"By  the  assertion  and  vindication  of  this  principle  of  interpre- 
tation the  Alexandrian  teachers  have  been  the  preservers  of  the 
pure  Christian  doctrine,  when  the  crass  literal  interpretation  in 
many  parts  of  the  Latin  church,  especially  the  African  provinces, 
worked  to  justify  from  the  sacred  Scriptures  the  grossest  ideas  of 
the  being  of  God,  the  nature  of  the  soul,  and  the  future  life." ' 

'  Adv.  Ilcer.,  Chap.  XIX.  *  Klausen  in  J.c,  pp.  97  seq. 

"  Adv.  Jlier.,  I.  Chap.  IX.  4  ;  Chap.  X.  1.  '  Stromata.  VI.  15. 

*  Epist.  74.  0  Stromata,  VU.  16. 
'  In  I.e.,  p.  103. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  449 

Origen  carried  out  the  principles  of  interpretation  still 
further  and  became  the  father  of  the  allegorical  method  in  the 
Churcli.  He  distinguishes  a  threefold  sense  :  body,  soul,  and 
spirit.^  He  uses  thirteen  of  Philo's  I'ules.^  He  lays  stress  on 
the  allegory  and  often  uses  it  to  get  rid  of  anthropomorphisms, 
and  turns  a  good  deal  of  ancient  Jewish  history  into  allegorj^  ; 
but  he  does  not  neglect  the  literal  sense.  He  uses  the  three 
senses,  but  ranges  them  in  the  order  of  ascent  from  lowest  to 
liighest,  and  finds  in  the  spiritual  sense  the  one  chiefly  de- 
sirable. 

Eucherius  of  Lj-ons  in  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  centurj-  ^ 
divides  the  mystical  sense  into  two  kinds,  —  the  allegorical, 
what  is  to  be  believed  in  now ;  the  anagogical,  what  is  pre- 
dicted.'' In  Hilary  and  Ambrose  the  allegorical  method  became 
dominant  in  the  Latin  Cliurch.     Ambrose  says  : 

"  As  the  Church  has  two  eyes  with  which  it  contemplates  Christ ; 
namely,  a  moral  and  a  mystic,  of  which  the  former  is  sharj^er,  the 
latter  milder,  so  the  entire  divine  Scripture  is  either  natural,  or 
moral  or  mystic."  ^ 

Tychonius  belonged  to  this  school,  and  laid  down  seven  rules 
of  interpretation  :  (1)  Of  the  Lord  and  His  body;  (2)  the 
twofold  division  of  the  Lord's  body  ;  (3)  promises  and  law  ; 
(4)  relation  of  species  and  genus  ;  (5)  the  times  ;  (6)  reca- 
pitulation ;  (7)  the  devil  and  his  body.  These  rules  have  more 
to  do  with  the  doctrinal  substance  of  the  Scriptures,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Church  to  Christ,  the  Law  to  the  Gospel,  and  the  like. 
They  have  been  of  service  in  the  histoiy  of  the  Church  and  are 
mentioned  with  approval  by  Augustine,  although  he  shows 
their  insufficiency.^  Augustine  gave  the  allegorical  method  a 
better  shaping  in  the  Latin  Church.  He  distinguishes  four 
kinds  of  exegesis  :  (1)  historical,  (2)  etiological,"  (3)  ana- 
logical, (4)    allegorical,^  and  lays  down  the  principle  that  wliat- 

^  Horn.  V.  in  Lev.  -  Sieg:fried  in  I.e.,  pp.  353  seq. 

*  Liber  formularum  spiritualis  intellicjentix,  Migne  edition,  Tom.  .OO,  p.  727. 
See  Reuss.  desrh.  d.  ITeil.  Schrift.  N.  T.,  4te  Ausg.,  Braunschweig,  1864,  p.  543. 

*  Kihn,  Theodor  von  Mopsuestia  tmd  Junilius  Africanus  als  Exegeten, 
Freib.,  1880,  p.  30. 

■'■  Exposit.  in  Ps.  118,  Serm.  ii.,  n.  7  ;  ibid.,  36,  Pi-mf. 

'■  De  dortrina.  III.  30.    "  An  Inquiry  into  the  causes.     *  De  util.  cred. ,  Chap.  V. 
2g 


450  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ever  cannot  be  referred  to  good  conduct  or  truth  of  faith  must 
be  regarded  as  figurative.^  Klausen  gives  a  careful  summary  of 
the  exegetical  principles  of  Augustine.  These  are  reproduced 
by  Davidson,  from  whom  I  quote^  in  a  more  condensed  foi'm : 

"  (1)  The  object  of  all  interpretation  is  to  express  as  accurately 
as  possible  the  thoughts  and  meaning  of  an  author.  .  .  .  (2)  In 
the  case  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  this  is  not  attained  by  strictly 
insisting  on  each  single  expression  by  itself.  ...  (3)  On  the 
contrary,  we  should  endeavor  to  clear  up  the  obscurity  of  such 
passages,  and  to  remove  their  ambiguity  —  first,  by  close  attention 
to  the  connexion  before  and  after;  next,  by  comparison  with  kin- 
dred places  where  the  sense  is  more  clearly  and  definitely  given ; 
and  lastly,  by  a  reference  to  the  essential  contents  of  Christian 
doctrine.  (4)  The  interpreter  of  Holy  Scripture  must  bring  with 
him  a  Christian  reverence  for  the  divine  word,  and  an  hiunble 
disposition  which  subordinates  preconceived  opinions  to  whatever 
it  perceives  to  be  contained  in  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  (5)  Where 
the  interpretation  is  insecure,  notwithstanding  the  preceding  meas- 
ures, it  must  be  assumed,  that  the  matter  lies  beyond  the  circle  of 
the  essential  truths  belonging  to  the  Christian  faith.  (6)  It  is 
irrational  and  dangerous  for  any  one,  wliilst  trusting  in  faith,  and 
in  the  promises  respecting  the  operations  of  the  Holj'  Spirit  on 
the  mind,  to  despise  the  guidance  and  aid  of  science  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture." 

The  spirit  that  should  actuate  the  interpreter  is  beautifully 
stated  by  Augustine  : 

'•  The  man  who  fears  God  seeks  diligently  in  Holy  Scripture  for 
a  knowledge  of  His  will.  And  when  he  has  become  meek  through 
piet}'.  so  as  to  have  no  love  of  strife,  wlien  furnished  also  with  a 
knowledge  of  language  so  as  not  to  be  stopped  by  unknown  words 
and  forms  of  speech,  and  with  the  knowledge  of  certain  necessary 
objects,  so  as  not  to  be  ignorant  of  the  force  and  nature  of  those 
which  are  used  figuratively ;  and  assisted,  besides,  by  accuracy  in 
the  texts,  which  has  been  secured  by  skill  and  care  in  the  matter 
of  correction ;  —  when  thus  prepared,  let  him  proceed  to  the 
examination  and  solution  of  the  ambiguities  of  Scripture."' 

I  think  on  the  whole  that  Klausen  is  justified,  so  far  as  the 
Latin  Church  is  concerned,  in  his  statement  that : 

»  De  dorlriiKi.  III.  15. 

2  Klausen  iu  I.e.,  pp.  102  seq. ;  Davidson  in  I.e.,  pp.  133  seq. 

'  De  doanna,  IIL  1. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTERPRETATION  451 

"  None  of  the  rest  of  the  fathers,  earlier  or  later,  came  near 
Augustine  in  the  conception  and  statement  of  the  essential  charac- 
ter and  conditions  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  truths 
which  the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  century  again  invoked 
into  fruitful  life,  namely,  of  the  relation  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
to  Christian  doctrine,  and  of  the  scientific  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  which  have  become  subsequently  the  foinidations 
for  the  erection  of  evangelical  dogmatics,  may  all  be  shown  in  the 
writings  of  Augustine,  expressed  in  his  clear,  strong  language."' 

This  should,  however,  be  qualified  wdth  tlie  remark  that 
Augustine's  practice  did  not  altogether  accord  with  his  pre- 
cepts. He  was  dominated  by  the  rule  of  faith  ^  and  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  as  Irenreus  and  TertuUian  had  been.^ 
Augustine,  in  his  practice,  used  too  much  of  the  allegory  ;  and 
the  Latin  Fathers  followed  his  example  rather  than  his  precepts, 
and  more  and  more  gave  themselves  up  to  this  method.  Greg- 
ory the  Great  went  to  the  greatest  lengths  in  allegory. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  third  century  Lucius  of  Samosata 
established  at  Antioch  a  new  exegetical  school,  which  soon  rose 
to  a  great  power  and  influence,  and  produced  the  greatest  exe- 
getes  of  the  ancient  Church.  Its  fundamental  principles  are 
well  stated  by  Kihn.*  (1)  Every  passage  has  its  literal  mean- 
ing, and  only  one  meaning.  We  must,  however,  distinguish 
between  plain  and  figurative  language,  and  interpret  each  pas- 
sage in  accordance  with  its  nature.  (2)  Alongside  of  the  literal 
sense  is  the  typical  sense,  which  arises  out  of  the  relation  of  tlie 
old  covenant  to  the  new.  It  is  based  upon  the  literal  sense 
whicli  it  presupposes.  These  are  sound  principles  and  are  in 
accord  with  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament. 

"The  Antiochans  mediated  between  the  two  contrasted  posi- 
tions: a  coarse,  childish,  literal  sense,  and  an  arbitrary  allegorical 
interpretation ;  between  the  extremes  of  the  Judaizers  and  Anthro- 
pomorphites  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Hellenistic  Gnostics  and 
Origenists  on  the  other ;    ami  they  paved  the  waj'  for   a  sound 

>  In  I.e.,  p.  165. 

-  Diestel,  Gesch.d.  AH.  Test,  in  d.  Christ.  Kirche,  Jena,  1869,  p.  85  ;  A.Dorner, 
Anrjustinii.i  .tfin  theologixches  System,  Berlin,  1873,  pp.  240  seq. 

'  He  did  not  apprehend  the  essential  Protestant  principle  of  interpretation, 
namely,  the  analogy  of  faith  in  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

*  L.C.,  p.  29. 


452  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIl^TUKE 

biblical  exegesis  which  remained  influential  for  all  coming  time,  if 
indeed  not  always  prevalent."  ' 

The  Antiochan  school  produced  scholars  of  different  ten- 
dencies. Some  of  them,  like  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Diodorus 
of  Tarsus,  and  Nestorius,  pressed  historical  and  grammatical 
exegesis  too  far,  to  the  neglect  of  the  higher  typical  and  mysti- 
cal ;  but  in  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Ephraem  the  Syrian, 
the  principles  of  the  school  find  expression  in  the  noblest  prod- 
ucts of  Christian  exegesis,  which  served  as  the  reservoir  of 
supply  for  the  feeble  traditionalists  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  are 
valued  more  and  more  in  our  own  times. ^ 

With  the  decline  of  the  school  of  Antioch,  its  jirinciples  were 
maintained  at  Edessa  and  Nisibis,  and  thence  gave  an  impulse 
to  the  Arabs  and  the  Jewish  exegesis  of  the  Middle  Ages  ;  and 
thus  in  a  roundabout  way  again  influenced  the  Church  of  the 
West  at  the  Reformation.  But  an  earlier  influence  may  be 
traced  in  the  reproduction  of  the  work  of  Paul  of  Nisibis  by 
Junilius  Africanus  in  his  Institutes.'^  The  rules  of  Junilius  are 
brief  but  excellent : 

"  (Disciple.)  What  are  those  things  which  we  ought  to  guard  in 
the  understanding  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  ?  (Master.)  That  those 
things  which  are  said  may  agree  with  Him  who  says  tlieni;  that 
they  should  not  be  discrepant  with  the  reasons  for  which  they 
were  said ;  that  they  should  accord  with  their  times,  places,  order, 
and  intention.  (Disciple.)  How  may  we  learn  the  intention  of  the 
divine  doctrine  ?  (Master).  As  the  Lord  Himself  says,  that  we 
should  love  God  with  all  our  hearts  and  with  all  our  souls,  and 
our  neighbors  as  ourselves.  But  corruption  of  doctrine  is,  on  the 
contrar}',  not  to  love  God  or  the  neighbor."  ■" 

The  school  of  Nisibis  influenced  the  Occident  also  through 
Cassiodorus,  who  wished  to  establish  a  corresponding  theologi- 
cal school  at  Rome,  Init  failed  on  account  of  the  warlike  times.* 
If  this  had  been  accomplished,  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages 
might  have  been  very  different.  He  introduced  the  methods 
of  the  school  of  Nisibis  in  his  Listitutions.  This  was  an  impor- 
tant text-book  in  tlie  Middle  Ages  and  exerted  a  healthful  influ- 

>  i.e.,  p.  29.  '  Institiita  liegularia  Divince  LegH. 

2  Diestel  in  I.e..  pp.  135,  138.  *  Kilin  in  /.c,  p.  520. 

'  Kihn  in  I.e..  p.  210. 


HISTORY   OF   THE    INTERPRETATION  453 

ence.  He  urges  the  use  of  the  Fathers  as  a  Jacob's  ladder  by 
which  to  rise  to  the  Scriptures  themselves.  He  insists  upon 
the  comparison  of  Scripture  with  Scriptures,  and  points  out 
that  frequent  and  intense  meditation  is  the  way  to  a  true  under- 
standing of  tliem.i 

Jerome  seems  to  have  occupied  an  intermediate  and  not  alto- 
gether consistent  position.  He  strives  for  historical  and  gram- 
matical exposition,  yet  it  is  easy  to  see  that  at  the  bottom  he  is 
more  inclined  to  the  allegorical  method.  He  lays  down  no 
principles  of  exegesis,  but  scattered  through  his  writings  one 
finds  numerous  wise  remarks  : 

"  The  sacred  Scripture  cannot  contradict  itself."  ^  "  Whoever 
interprets  the  gospel  in  a  different  spirit  from  that  in  which  it  was 
written,  confuses  the  faithful  and  distorts  the  gospel  of  Christ."^ 
"  The  gospel  consists  not  in  the  words  of  Scripture  but  in  the 
sense,  not  in  the  surface  but  in  the  marrow,  not  in  the  leaves  of 
the  words  but  in  the  roots  of  the  thought."* 

Thus  there  grew  up  in  the  ancient  Church  three  great  exe- 
getical  tendencies  :  the  literal  and  traditional,  the  allegorical 
and  mystical,  the  historical  and  ethical,  and  these  three  strug- 
gled with  one  another  and  became  more  and  more  interwoven, 
in  the  best  of  the  Fathers,  but  took  on  all  sorts  of  abnormal 
forms  of  exegesis  in  others. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  the  vital  Christian  spirit  was  more  and 
more  suppressed,  and  ecclesiastical  authority  assumed  the  place 
of  learning.  The  traditional  principle  of  exegesis  became  more 
and  more  dominant,  and  alongside  of  this  the  allegorical  method 
was  found  to  be  the  most  convenient  for  reconciling  Scripture 
with  tradition.  The  literal  and  the  historical  sense  was  almost 
entirely  ignored.  The  fourfold  sense  became  fixed,  as  expressed 
in  the  saying  :  the  literal  sense  teaches  what  has  been  done,  the 
allegorical  what  to  believe,  the  moral  what  to  do,  the  anagogical 
whither  we  are  tending.^ 

In  the  Middle  Ages  exegesis  consisted  chiefly  in  the  reproduc- 

1  Kihn  in  i.e.,  pp.  211,  212  ;  Prcef.  de  Instit.  cUv.  litt.,  Migne,  Tom.  70,  p.  1105 
seg. 

^  Epist.  ad  Marcellam.  '  Epist.  ad  Gal.,  i.  6.  *  Epist.  ad  Gal.,  i.  11. 

^  Litera  gesta  docet,  quid  credas  allegoria,  moralis  qttid  agas,  quo  tendas 
Anagogia. 


454  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

tion  of  the  expositions  of  the  Fathers,  in  collections  and  compila- 
tions, called  epitomes,  glosses,  postilles,  chains.  In  the  Oriental 
Church  the  chief  of  these  compilers  were  :  Oecumenius  (1999), 
Theophylact  (flOOT),  and  Euthymius  Zigabenus  (tlllS). 
These  give  chiefly  the  exegesis  of  Chr3-sostom,  Theodoret, 
and  the  Antiochan  school.  In  the  Occidental  Church,  there 
is  more  independence  and  greater  use  of  the  allegory.  The 
chief  Latin  expositoi's  of  the  Middle  Ages  are  Beda  (f  735) :  Al- 
cuin  (1804),  Walafrid  Strabo  (t849),  Rhabanus  Maurus  (1856), 
Peter  Lombard  (fll64),  Thomas  Aquinas  (tl274),i  Hugo  de 
St.  Caro  (fl260).  The  only  exegete  of  the  Middle  Ages  who 
shows  any  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  the  converted  Jew,  Nicolaus  de  Lyra  (f  1340).  He  seems 
to  have  apprehended  better  than  any  previous  writer  the  proper 
exegetical  method,  but  could  only  partly  put  it  in  practice.  He 
was  doubtless  influenced  greatly  by  the  grammatical  exegesis  of 
the  Jews  of  the  Middle  Ages,  from  Saadia's  school,  and  especially 
by  Rashi.2  He  wrote  postilles  on  the  entire  Bible.  He  men- 
tions the  four  senses  of  Scripture,  and  then  says  : 

"All  of  them  presuppose  the  literal  sense  as  the  foundation. 
As  a  building,  declining  from  the  foimdation.  is  Hkely  to  fall,  so 
the  mystic  exposition,  which  deviates  from  the  literal  sense,  must 
be  reckoned  unbecoming  and  unsuitable." 

And  yet  he  adds  : 

"  I  protest,  I  intend  to  say  nothing  either  in  the  way  of  assertion 
or  determination,  except  in  relation  to  such  things  as  have  been 
clearly  settled  by  Holy  Scripture  on  the  authority  of  the  Church. 
All  besides  must  be  taken  as  spoken  seholastieally  and  by  way  of 
exercise ;  for  which  reason,  I  submit  all  I  have  said,  and  aim  to 
say,  to  the  correction  of  oiu-  holj^  mother  the  Church." ' 

It  is  astonishing  that  he  accomplished  so  much  while  work- 
ing  in   such   limits.     He  exerted  a  healthful, .  reviving  influ- 

1  His  Catena  Aurea  on  the  Gospels  have  been  translated  by  Pusey,  Keble, 

and  Newman,  6  vols.,  Oxford,  1870,  and  may  be  consulted  as  the  most  accessible 
specimen  of  the  interpretation  of  tlie  Middle  Ajies. 

2  See  Siepfrieil,  •'  Rnschi's  Einfluss  auf  Nioolaus  von  Lira  und  Luther  in  der 
Anslegung  der  Genesis,"  in  Mcr.v,  Arrhiv,  I.  pp.  428  srq.  ;  II.  pp.  :?9  seq. 

*  Postilla:  perpHux,  sen  brevia  commenlaria  in    Universa  Biblia,  prol.  ii.  ; 
Davidson  in  I.e.,  pp.  176  seq. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION  455 

ence  in  biblical  study  and  in  a  measure  prepared  for  the 
Reformation.  There  is  truth  in  the  saying,  "  If  Lyra  had  not 
piped,  Luther  would  not  have  danced."  ^  Luther  thought 
liighly  of  Lyra,  and  yet  Luther  really  started  from  a  principle 
entirely  different  from  the  literal  sense.  For  this  he  was  i-ather 
prepai'ed  by  Wicklif  and  Huss.  Wicklif  was  a  contemporary 
of  Lyra,  and  opposed  the  abuse  of  the  allegorical  method  from 
the  spiritual  side,  and  in  contrast  with  Lyra  recognized  the  au- 
thority of  the  Scriptures  as  above  the  authority  of  the  Church. 
He  makes  the  all-important  statement,  which  was  not  allowed 
to  die,  but  liecame  tlie  Puritan  watchword  in  subsequent  times  : 
"  The  Holy  Spirit  teaches  us  the  sense  of  Scripture  as  Christ 
opened  the  Scriptures  to  His  apostles."^  Huss  and  Jerome  of 
Prague  followed  Wicklif  in  this  respect.^ 

With  reference  to  the  interpretation  of  the  ^liddle  Ages  as  a 
whole,  the  remarks  of  Immer  are  appropriate  :  * 

"  It  lacks  the  most  essential  qualification  to  scriptural  iuterpre- 
tation,  linguistic  knowledge,  and  historical  perception.  .  .  .  This 
defect  inheres  in  the  mediaeval  period  in  general.  Hence  there 
could  be  no  advance  in  interpretation.  But  what  it  could  do  it 
did :  it  collected  and  preserved ;  and  what  was  thus  preserved 
waited  for  new  fructifying  elements,  which  were  to  be  introduced 
in  the  second  half  of  the  fifteenth  century." 

The  mediaeval  exegesis  reached  its  culmination  at  the  Council 
of  Trent,  where  Roman  Catholic  interpretation  was  limited  by 
the  four  rules  :  that  it  must  be  conformed  to  the  rule  of  faith, 
the  mind  of  the  Church,  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  and  tho 
decisions  of  the  councils.  But  the  seeds  of  a  new  exegesis  had 
been  planted  by  Lyra  and  Wicklif,  which  burst  forth  into  fruit- 
ful life  in  the  Protestant  Reformation. 

'  Si  Lyra  non  lyrasset,  Lutherus  non  saltasset. 

*  Lechler,  Johann  von  Wiclif,  Leipzig,  1873,  I.  pp.  483  seq. ;  Lorimer's  edi- 
tion, London.  1878,  11.  pp.  29  seq. 

'  Gillett,  Life  and  Times  of  John  Huss,  Boston,  1864,  2d  ed.,  I.  pp.  295  seq. 

*  Immer,  I.e.,  p.  37. 


456  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

V.    The  Ikterpretation  of  the  Reformers  and  their 
Successors 

The  Reformation  was  accompanied  by  a  great  revival  of 
biblical  study  in  all  directions,  but  especially  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Sacred  Scriptui-es.  The  Humanists  were  influ- 
enced, by  their  studies  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  languages 
and  literatures,  to  apply  this  new  learning  to  the  study  of  the 
Bible.  Erasmus  is  the  acknowledged  chief  of  interpreters  of 
this  class.  He  insisted  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures should  be  in  accordance  with  the  original  Greek  and 
Hebrew  texts,  and  urged  the  giving  of  the  grammatical  and 
literal  sense  over  against  the  allegorical  sense,  which  had  been 
the  ally  of  tradition.'  The  Humanists,  however,  did  not  go  to 
the  root  of  the  evd  ;  they  were  too  deferential  to  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  and  sought  to  correct  the  errors  in  exegesis  by 
purely  scholarly  methods.  The  Reformers,  however,  revived 
the  principle  of  Wicklif  and  Huss,  strengthened  it,  and  made  it 
invincible.  They  urged  the  one  literal  sense  against  the  four- 
fold sense,  but  they  still  more  insisted  that  Scripture  should  be 
its  own  interpreter,  and  that  it  was  not  to  be  interpreted  bj- 
tradition  or  external  ecclesiastical  authority.  Thus,  Luther 
says  : 

"  Every  word  should  be  allowed  to  stand  in  its  natural  meaning 
and  that  should  not  be  abandoned  unless  faith  forces  us  to 
it.-  ...  It  is  the  attribute  of  Holy  Scripture  that  it  interprets 
itself  by  passages  and  places  which  belong  together,  and  can  only 
be  understood  by  the  rule  of  faith.'" 

T3-ndale  says  : 

"  Thou  shalt  \mderstand,  therefore,  that  the  Scripture  hath  but 
one  sense,  which  is  the  literal  sense.  And  that  literal  sense  is  the 
root  and  ground  of  all,  and  the  anchor  that  never  faileth,  where- 
unto  if  thou  cleave,  thou  canst  never  err  or  go  out  of  the  way. 
And  if  thou  leave  the  literal  sense,  thou  canst  not  but  go  out  of 
the  way.  Neverthelater,  the  Scripture  useth  proverbs,  similitudes, 
riddles,  or  allegories,  as  all  other  speeches  do ;  but  that  which  the 
proverb,  similitude,  riddle,  or  allegory  signifieth,  is  ever  the  literal 

»  Klausen  in  I.e.,  p.  227.  ■  Walch  edition,  XIX.  p.  1601. 

«  W.alch,  III.  p.  ii042. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION  457 

sense,  which  thou  must  seek  out  diligently :  as  in  the  English  vre 
borrow  words  and  sentences  of  one  thing,  and  apj)ly  them  unto 
another,  and  give  them  new  significations.  .  .  .  Beyond  all  this, 
when  we  have  found  out  the  literal  sense  of  the  Scripture  by  the 
process  of  the  text,  or  by  a  like  text  of  another  place,  then  go  we ; 
and  as  the  Scripture  borroweth  similitudes  of  worldly  things,  even 
so  we  again  borrow  similitudes  or  allegories  of  the  Scripture,  and 
apply  them  to  our  purposes ;  which  allegories  are  no  sense  of  the 
Scripture,  but  free  things  besides  the  Scripture,  and  altogether  in 
the  liberty  of  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  Finally,  all  God's  words  are  spirit- 
ual, if  thou  have  eyes  of  God,  to  see  the  right  meaning  of  the 
text,  and  whereunto  the  Scripture  pertaineth,  and  the  final  end 
and  cause  thereof." ' 

The  view  of  the  Reformed  Ghui'cbes  is  expressed  in  the  2d 
Helvetic  Confession  :  ^ 

"We  acknowledge  that  interisretation  of  Scripture  for  authen- 
tical  and  proper,  which  being  taken  from  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves (that  is,  from  the  phrase  of  that  tongue  in  which  they  were 
written,  they  being  also  wayed  according  to  the  circumstances  and 
expounded  according  to  the  prop)ortion  of  places,  either  like  or 
unlike,  or  of  more  and  plainer),  accordeth  with  the  rule  of  faith 
and  charity,  and  maketh  notably  for  God's  glory  and  man's 
salvation."  ^ 

The  Protestant  Reformers  by  the  use  of  these  principles  pro- 
duced masterpieces  of  exegesis  and  set  the  Bible  in  a  new  light 
before  the  world.  Luther,  Zwingli,  and  Calvin  were  great 
exegetes;  *  Bollinger  (f  1575),  Oecolarapadius  (f  1531),  Melanch- 
thon  (f  1560),  Musculus  (f  15G3),  were  worthy  to  stand  by  their 
side.  Their  immediate  successors  had  somewhat  of  their  spirit, 
although  the  sectarian  element  already  influenced  them  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  different  national 
Churches.  The  Hermeneutical  larinciples  of  the  Lutherans  are 
well  stated  by  Matthias  Flacius,^  those  of  the  Reformed  by  Andre 
Rivetus.®     The  weakness  of  the  Protestant  principle  was  in  the 

'  TTie  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man,  1528 ;  Parker  edition.  Doctrinal 
Treatises,  pp.  .307  seq.  -  2'. 

3  I  give  the  English  version  from  the  Sarinony  of  the  Confessions,  London, 
1643,  on  account  of  its  historical  relations. 

*  Klausen  in  I.e..  p.  223  ;  also,  p.  112. 

^  Clavis  Scripturm  Sacros,  Antwerp,  lo07  ;  Basilese,  1609.  Best  edition,  ed. 
Musaeus,  1675.  '^  Isayoge,  1627. 


458  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

lack  of  clear  definition  of  what  was  meant  by  the  analogy  or 
rule  of  faith.  It  is  clear  that  the  Protestant  Reformers  set  the 
rule  of  faith  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  —  in  the  substance 
of  doctrine  apprehended  b}'  faith.  But  when  it  came  to  define 
what  that  substance  was,  there  was  difficulty.  Hence,  so  soon 
as  the  faith  of  the  Church  was  expressed  in  symbols,  these  were 
at  first  unconsciously,  and  at  last  avowedly,  identified  with  the 
rule  of  faith  in  Holy  Scripture  itself.  The  Lutheran  schohvstic, 
Gerhard,  says  : 

"  From  these  plain  passages  of  Scripture  the  rule  of  faith  is 
collected,  which  is  the  sum  of  the  celestial  doctrine  collected  from 
the  most  evident  passages  of  Scripture.  Its  parts  are  two  —  the 
former  concerning  faith,  whose  chief  precepts  are  expressed  in 
the  apostles'  creed  ;  the  latter  concerning  love,  the  sum  of  which 
the  decalogue  explains."' 

HoUazius  ^  defines  the  analogy  of  faith  as  "  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  faith,  or  the  principal  chapters  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  collected  from  the  clearest  testimonies  of  the 
Scriptures."  Carpzov^  makes  it  "the  system  of  Scripture 
doctrine  in  its  order  and  connection." 

If  this  system  of  doctrine  had  been  that  found  in  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  in  accordance  with  the  modern  discipline 
of  Biblical  Theology,*  there  would  have  been  some  propriety  in 
the  definition  ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  scholastic  theologians  pro- 
posed to  express  that  system  of  doctrine  in  their  theological 
commonplaces,  in  other  methods  and  forms  than  those  presented 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  rule  of  analogy  of  faith  became  practically 
these  theological  sj'stems  ;  and  so  an  external  rule  was  substi- 
tuted for  the  internal  rule  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  the 
Reformation  principle  was  more  and  more  abandoned,  and  the 
Jewish  Halacha  and  the  mediffival  scholasticism  reentered  and 
took  possession  of  Protestant  exegesis. *" 

Tlie  Reformed  Church  was  slower  in  attaining  this  result  than 
the  Lutlieran  Church,  owing  to  the  exegetical  spirit  tliat  had 
come  down  from  Occolampadius,  Calvin,  and    Zwingli  ;    but 

1  Gerhard,  Loci,  Tubingae,  1767,  Tom.  I.  p.  63. 

2  Exam.  TheoJogici  Acrnamatici,  1741,  Holiniie,  p.  1777. 

»  Primal  Lino:  Herm..  Ilclmstad.,  1790,  p.  28.  •  See  Chap.  XXIII. 

*  Volck,  in  Zockler,  Uandb.  Theo.  Wisk.,  p.  Oo7  ;  Klausen  in  I.e.,  p.  254. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   LNTERPRETATIOX  459 

already  Beza  leads  off  in  the  wrong  direction  ;  and,  notwith- 
standing the  great  stress  laid  upon  literal  and  grammatical 
exegesis  by  Cappellus  and  the  school  of  Saumur  in  France,  by 
Drusius,  De  Dieu,  and  Daniel  Heinsius  in  Holland,  the  drift 
was  in  the  scholastic  direction,  and  when  the  Swiss  churches 
arrayed  themselves  against  the  French  exegetes,  and  the 
churclies  of  Holland  were  divided  by  the  Arminian  controversy, 
and  the  historical  and  literal  exegesis  came  to  characterize  the 
latter,  the  scholastic  divines  more  and  more  employed  the 
dogmatic  method,  and  urged  to  interpret  in  accordance  with 
the  external  ride  of  faith. 

VI.     The   Interpretation  of   the   Puritans   and   the 
Arjiinians 

British  Puritanism  remained  true  to  the  Protestant  principle 
of  interpretation  till  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  centur}-.  The 
views  of  T^-ndale  and  the  Puritans  went  deeper  into  the  essence 
of  the  matter  than  those  of  the  continental  Reformers.  This 
was  doubtless  owing  to  the  fact  of  their  conflict  against  eccle- 
siastical authority  and  the  prelatical  party,  and  their  protests 
against  "  the  obtrusion  of  Popish  ceremonies "  on  the  Chris- 
tians of  England.  They  urged  more  and  more  the  principle 
of  the  Scripture  alone  as  the  rule  of  the  Church,  and  insisted 
on  XhQ  jus  divinum,  the  Divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  as 
the  supreme  appeal.     Thus  Thomas  Cartwright : 

"Scripture  alone  being  able  and  sufficient  to  make  us  wise  to 
salvation,  we  need  no  unwritten  verities,  no  traditions  of  men,  no 
canons  of  coimcels,  or  sentences  of  fathers,  much  less  decrees  of 
popes,  to  supply  any  supposed  defect  of  the  written  word,  or  to 
give  us  a  more  perfect  direction  in  the  way  of  life,  then  is  already 
set  down  expressly  in  the  canonical!  Scriptures.  .  .  .  They  are 
of  divine  authority.  They  are  the  rule,  the  line,  the  squyre  and 
light,  whereby  to  examine  and  trie  all  judgements  and  sayings  of 
men,  and  of  angels,  whether  they  be  such  as  God  approveth,  yea 
or  no ;  and  they  are  not  to  be  judged  or  sentenced  by  any." ' 

Especially  noteworthy  is  the  statement  that  no  external  rule 
is  to  be  used  to  supply  any  supposed  defects  of  the  written 
'  Treatise  of  Christian  Religion,  1616,  p.  78. 


460  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

word,  and  that  plain  direction  is  given  by  what  is  set  do\vn 
expressly  in  the  Scripture.  John  Ball  gives  an  admirable  state- 
ment of  the  Puritan  position  : 

"  The  expounding  of  the  Scriptiu-es  is  commanded  by  God,  and 
practiced  by  the  godlj^,  profitable  both  for  the  unfolding  of  obscure 
places,  and  applying  of  plaine  texts.  It  stands  in  t^vo  things. 
(1)  In  giving  the  right  sense.  (2)  In  a  fit  application  of  the 
same.  Of  one  place  of  Scripture,  there  is  but  one  proper  and 
naturall  sense,  though  sometimes  things  are  so  expressed,  as  that 
the  things  themselves  doe  signifie  other  things,  according  to  the 
Lord's  ordinance:  Gal.  4---^;  Ex.  12*=,  with  John  19*=;  Ps.  2'.  with 
Acts  4!'^^.  We  are  not  tyed  to  the  expositions  of  the  Fathers  or 
councels  for  the  finding  out  the  sense  of  the  Scripture,  the  Holj' 
Ghost  speaking  in  the  Scripture,  is  the  only  faithful  interpreter 
of  the  Scripture.  The  meanes  to  find  out  the  true  meaning  of  the 
Scripture,  are  conference  of  one  place  of  Scripture  with  another, 
diligent  consideration  of  the  scope  and  circiunstances  of  the  place, 
as  the  occasions,  and  coherence  of  that  which  went  before,  with 
that  which  followeth  after ;  the  matter  whereof  it  doth  intreat, 
and  circumstances  of  persons,  times  and  places,  and  consideration, 
whether  the  words  are  spoken  figuratively  or  simply ;  for  in  figu- 
rative speeches,  not  the  outward  shew  of  words,  but  the  sense  is 
to  be  taken,  and  knowledge  of  the  arts  and  tongues  wherein  the 
Scriptures  were  originally  written.  But  alwayes  it  is  to  bee  ob- 
served, that  obscure  places  are  not  to  bee  expounded  contrarj*  to 
the  ride  of  faith  set  downe  in  plainer  places  of  the  Scripture." ' 

The  analogy  or  rule  of  faith  is  expressly  defined  b}'-  him  as 
"  set  downe  in  plainer  places  of  the  Scripture,"  and  it  is  main- 
tained that  "the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  in  the  Scripture  is  the 
only  faithful  interpreter  of  the  Scripture."'  This  improvement 
of  the  Protestant  principle,  by  lifting  it  to  the  person  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  word  to  the  believer,  prevents  any 
substituticni  of  an  external  symbol  or  system  of  theology  for 
the  rule  of  faith  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  Archbishop 
Usher  takes  the  same  position  as  Ball : 

"  The  Spirit  of  God  alone  is  the  certain  interpreter  of  His  woi'd 
written  by  His  Spirit.  For  no  man  knoweth  the  things  pertaining 
to  God,  but  the  Spirit  of  God  (1  Cor.  2").  .  .  .  The  interpretation 
therefore  must  be  of  the  same  Spirit  bj-  which  the  Scripture  was 

•  Short  Treatise  eontaiuing  all  the  principall  Chrounds  nf  Christian  Helic/ion. 
Tenth  Impression.     London,  1635,  p.  39. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTEKl'RETATION  4(jl 

written ;  of  which  Spirit  we  have  no  certainty  upon  any  man's 
credit,  but  onely  so  far  forth  as  his  saying  may  be  confirmed  by 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  .  .  .  Hoiv  then  is  the  /Scripture  to  be  inter- 
preted hy  Scripture?  According  to  the  analogy  of  faith  (Ilom.  12"), 
and  the  scope  ami  circumstance  of  the  present  place,  and  confer- 
ence of  other  plain  and  evident  places,  by  which  all  such  as  are 
obscure  and  hard  to  be  understood  ought  to  be  interpreted,  for 
there  is  no  matter  necessary  to  eternal  life,  which  is  not  plainly, 
and  sufficiently  set  forth  in  many  places  of  Scripture." ' 

Tliese  extracts  from  the  Puritan  Fathers,  who  chiefly  influ- 
enced the  Westminster  divines,  will  enable  us  to  understand 
the  principles  of  interpretation  laid  down  in  the  Westminster 
Confession,  which  are  in  advance  of  all  the  symbols  of  the 
Reformation  in  this  particular  : 

"  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Script- 
ure itself ;  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the  true 
and  full  sense  of  any  Scripture  (which  is  not  manifold,  but  one), 
it  must  be  searched  and  known  by  other  places  that  speak  more 
clearly." 

"The  supreme  judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of  religion  are 
to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient 
writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits  are  to  be  examined, 
and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the 
Holy  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  Scripture."  ^ 

These  principles  of  interpretation  give  the  death-blow  to  the 
manifold  sense,  and  also  to  any  external  analogy  of  faith  for 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  It  has  been  made  contra-con- 
fessional  in  those  churches  which  adopt  the  Westminster  sym- 
bols to  believe  and  teach  any  but  the  one  true  and  full  sense  of 
any  Scripture,  or  to  appeal  to  "  doctrines  of  men,"  or  any 
external  rule  or  analogy  of  faith,  or  to  make  any  other  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  Himself  the  supreme  interpreter  of  Scripture  to  the 
believer  and  the  Church.  It  was  not  without  good  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  that  the  Westminster  divines  substituted  the 
"  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture "  for  the  analogy  of 
faith  which  had  been  so  much  abused,  and  which  was  to  be 
still  more  abused  by  the  descendants  of  the  Puritans,  after  they 

1  Body  of  Divinitie,  London,  1045 ;  4tb  ed.,  London,  ICJS,  pp.  24,  25. 
a  l»-io_ 


462  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

had  forgotten  their  Puritan  Fathers,  and  resorted  to  the  Swiss 
and  Dutch  scholastics  for  theological  instruction. 

Edward  Leigh  clearly  states  the  Puritan  position  in  his  chap- 
ter on  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture  : 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  judge,  aud  the  Scripture  is  the  sentence 
or  definite  decree.  We  acknowledge  no  publick  judge  except  the 
Scripture,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  teaching  us  in  the  Scripture,  He 
that  made  the  law  should  interpret  the  same.  .  .  .  The  Papist 
says  that  the  Scripture  ought  to  be  expounded  by  the  rule  of 
faith,  and  therefore  not  by  Scripture  only.  But  the  rule  of  faith 
and  Scripture  is  all  one.  As  the  Scriptures  are  not  of  man,  but 
of  the  Spirit,  so  this  interpretation  is  not  by  man,  but  of  the  Spirit 
likewise." ' 

I  shall  call  attention  to  some  other  features  of  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  seventeenth  century  in  England,  because  it  has 
been  neglected  by  British  and  American  scholars,  and  conse- 
quently also  by  German  critics  and  liistorians,  upon  whom  most 
of  our  modern  Anglo-Saxon  interpreters  depend. 

Henrj-  Ainsworth  says  : 

"I  have  chiefly  laboured  in  these  aimotations  upon  Moses,  to 
explain  his  words  and  speech  bj'  conference  with  himself,  and 
other  prophets  and  apostles,  all  which  are  commeuters  upon  his 
lawes,  and  do  open  imto  us  the  mysteries  which  were  covered 
under  his  veile ;  for  by  a  true  aud  sound  literall  explication,  the 
spiritual  meaning  may  be  the  better  discerned.  And  the  exquisite 
scanning  of  words  and  phrases,  which  to  some  may  seeme  need- 
lesse,  will  be  found  (as  painful  to  the  writer)  profitable  to  the 
reader."  - 

Francis  Taylor,  a  Westminster  divine,  a  great  Hebrew 
scholar  and  Talmudist,  author  of  many  commentaries  and 
other  practical  and  theological  works,  says  : 

"The  method  used  by  me  is  new,  and  never  formerly  exactly 
followed  in  every  verse,  by  any  writer,  Protestant  or  Papist,  that 

1  Systeme  or  Body  of  Divinity,  London,  165-1,  pp.  107,  119.  Leigh  was  a 
la\vyer  and  a  member  of  the  Long  Parliament,  and  is  said  to  have  been  a  lay 
member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Thoma.s  Watson,  in  his  Body  of  Pivir- 
tical  Divinity,  in  exposition  of  the  We.stminstor  Shorter  C.itechism.  London, 
1692,  p.  16,  lakes  the  same  position :  "  The  Scripture  is  to  be  its  own  interpreter, 
or  rather  the  Spirit  speaking  in  it ;  nothing  can  out  the  diamond  but  tlie  dia- 
mond ;  nothing  can  iutcrpret  Scripture  but  Scripture;  the  sun  best  discovers 
itself  by  its  own  beams."  '  renlateuch,  Preface,  1626. 


HISTORY   OF  TUE   INTERPRETATION  463 

ever  I  road.  (1)  Ye  have  the  grammatical  sense  in  the  various 
significations  of  every  Hebrew  word  used  throughout  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  gives  light  to  many  other  texts ;  (2)  Ye  have  the 
rhetorical  sense,  in  the  tropes  and  figures ;  (3)  The  logicall,  in  the 
several  arguments ;  (4)  The  theological  in  divine  observations."' 

This  is  an  exact  and  admirable  method,  which  ^yould  have 
delighted  Ernesti  in  the  next  century,  if  he  had  known  of  it, 
with  the  exception  of  the  last  point  in  which  the  Puritan  prac- 
tical interpretation  comes  in  play.  Edward  Leigh  2  also  lays 
down  excellent  principles : 

"The  word  is  interpreted   aright,  by  declaring  (1)  the  order, 

(2)  the  suinme  or  scope,  (3)  the  sense  of  the  words,  which  is  done 
by  framing  a  rhetorical  and  logical  analysis  of  the  text.  In  giv- 
ing the  sense,  three  rules  are  of  principal  use  and  necessity  to 
be  observed.  (1)  The  literal  and  largest  sense  of  any  words  in 
Scripture  must  not  be  embraced  further  when  our  cleaving  thereto 
would  breed  some  disagreement  and  contrariety  between  the  pres- 
ent Scripture  and  some  other  text  or  place,  else  shall  we  change  the 
Scripture  into  a  nose  of  wax.  (2)  In  case  of  such  appearing  disa- 
greement, the  Holy  Ghost  leads  us  by  the  hand  to  seek  out  some 
distinction,  restriction,  limitation  or  signe  for  the  reconcilement 
thereof,  and  one  of  these  will  always  fit  the  purpose ;  for  God's 
•word  must  always  bring  perfect  truth,  it  cannot  fight  against  itself. 

(3)  Such  figurative  sense,  limitation,  restriction  or  distinction  must 
be  sought  out,  as  the  word  of  God  affordeth  either  in  the  present 
place  or  some  other;  and  chiefly  those  that  seem  to  differ  with  the 
present  text,  being  duly  compared  together." 

I  do  not  know  where  a  more  careful  statement  of  this  deli- 
cate problem  of  harmonizing  Scripture  with  Scripture  can  be 
found.  3 

1  Epist.  dedicatory  to  the  Exposition  of  the  Proverbs,  London,  1655. 

2  In  I.e.,  p.  119. 

'  This  same  Edward  Leigh  was  one  of  the  l)est  biblical  scliolars  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  He  published  Annotations  upon  all  the  New  Testament,  pliil- 
logicall  and  theologicall  wherein  the  emphasis  and  elegance  of  the  Greeke  is 
observed,  some  imperfections  in  our  translation  are  discovered,  divers  Jewish 
rites  and  custonies  tending  to  illustrate  the  text  are  mentioned,  many  antilogies 
and  seeming  contradictions  reconciled,  severall  darke  and  obscure  places  opened, 
sundry  passages  vindicated  from  the  false  glosses  of  Papists  and  Heretics,  Lon- 
don, 1650,  folio.  The  title  is  descriptive  of  a  sound  method.  He  also  published 
C'ntica  Sacra  on  the  Hebreio  of  the  Old  Testament,  4to,  London,  1639 ;  Critica 
Sacra  on  the  Greek  of  the  Xno  Testament,  4to,  London,  1G46.     These  were 


464  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

The  Puritan  interpreters  laid  stress  upon  the  practical  inter- 
pretation or  application  of  Scripture.  The  best  statement  is 
given  b}'  Francis  Roberts.^ 

"  That  the  Holy  Scriptures  may  be  more  profitably  and  clearly 
understood,  certain  rules  or  directions  are  to  be  observed  and 
followed : 

"  I.  Some  more  special  and  peculiar,  more  particularly  concern- 
ing scholars.  As  (1)  The  competent  understanding  of  the  original 
languages.  ...  (2)  The  prudent  use  of  Logick.  ...  (3)  The 
subservient  help  of  other  arts,  as  Rhetoric,  Natural  Philosophy, 
etc.  .  .  .  (4)  The  benefit  of  hiimane  histories  to  illustrate  and 
clear  the  theme,  (o)  The  conferring  of  ancient  translations  with 
the  originals.  ...  (6)  The  prudent  use  of  the  most  orthodox, 
learned,  and  judicious  Commentators.  (7)  Constant  caution  that 
all  tongues,  arts,  histories,  translations,  and  comments  be  duly 
ranked  in  their  proper  places  in  subserviency  under,  not  in  regency 
or  predominancy  over  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  are  to  controle 
them  all. 

"II.  Some  more  general  and  common  directions,  which  may  be  of 
use  to  all  sorts  of  Christians  learned  and  unlearned.  ...  (1)  Beg 
wisdom  of  the  onely  wise  God,  who  gives  liberally  and  upbraids 
not.  ...  (2)  Labour  sincerely  after  a  trulj'  gracious  spirit,  then 
thou  shalt  be  peculiarly  able  to  penetrate  into  the  internal  marrow 
and  mysteries  of  tlie  holy  Scriptures.  ...  (3)  Peruse  the  Scrijit- 
ure  with  an  humble  self-denying  heart.  ...  (4)  Familiarize 
the  Scripture  to  thj'self  by  constant  and  methodical  exercise 
therein.  ...  (5)  Understand  Scripture  according  to  the  theo- 
logical analogy,  or  certain  rule  of  faith  and  love.  ...  (6)  Be 
well  acquainted  with  the  order,  titles,  times,  penman,  occasion, 
scope,  and  principal  parts  of  the  books,  both  of  the  Old  and  Xew 
Testament.  (7)  Heedfully  and  judiciously  observe  the  accurate 
concord  and  harmony  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  (8)  Learn  the 
excellent  art  of  explaining  and  understanding  the  Scriptures,  by 
the  Scriptures.  (9)  Endeavor  sincerely  to  practice  Scripture,  and 
you  shall  solidly  understand  Scripture." 

I  have  given  these  rules  at  length,  both  on'  account  of  their 
intrinsic  excellence  and  also  to  call  attention  to  a  work  of  great 

combined  in  a  folio,  1662.  They  were  translated  into  Latin  by  Henry  Midi^ich 
and  published  at  Amsterdam,  1679,  and  then  at  Leipzig,  16SK5,  with  preface  by 
John  Meyer,  a  Hebrew  professor  there,  and  in  this  way  exerted  a  great  influence 
on  the  continent  until  the  close  of  the  century. 

■  Key  of  the  Bible.  4th  cil.,  Loudon,  1675,  pp.5  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   INTEEPRETATION  465 

value  which  has  been  lost  sight  of  for  a  long  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  interpretation. 

The  same  Francis  Roberts '  is  the  author  of  a  massive  work 
in  two  folio  volumes,  which  construct  a  system  of  theology  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  covenants.^ 

In  his  epistolary  introduction  he  says  :  "  I  began  my  weekly 
lectures,  to  treat  of  God's  Covenants,  on  Sept.  2,  1651,  and 
have  persisted  therein  till  the  very  publication  of  this  book,  in 
May,  1657." 

In  the  same  introduction  he  describes  his  treatise  as  — ■ 

'•  A  Work  of  vast  extent,  comprising  in  it :  all  the  methods  of 
divine  dispensations  to  the  Church  in  all  ages ;  all  the  conditions 
of  the  Church  under  those  dispensations ;  all  the  greatest  and 
precious  promises,  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to 
come ;  all  sorts  of  blessings  promised  by  God  to  man ;  all  sorts 
of  duties  repromised  by  man  to  God ;  all  the  gradual  discoveries 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  onlj^  Mediator  and  Saviour  of  sinners;  the 
whole  mj-stery  of  all  true  religion  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  the  world ;  and  which  as  a  continued  thred  of  gold  runs  through 
the  whole  series  of  all  the  Holy  Scriptures,  .  .  .  because  I  have 
set  my  heart  exceedingly  to  the  Covenants  of  my  God,  which  (in 
my  judgment)  are  an  universal  basis  or  foundation  of  all  true 
religion  and  happiness,  I  have  shunned  no  diligence,  industry,  or 
endeavor  that  to  me  seemed  requisite  for  the  profitable  unveiling 
of  them." 

Francis  Roberts  in  tliis  work  carries  out  a  plan  devised  and 
partially  executed  by  John  Ball.^  According  to  Thomas  Blake,* 
"  his  purpose  was  to  speak  on  this  subject  of  the  covenant,  all 
that  he  had  to  say  in  all  the  whole  body  of  divinity.  That 
which  he  hath  left  behind  gives  us  a  taste  of  it."  In  this.  Ball 
anticipated  Cocceius  and  the  Dutch  Federal  theology,  as  indeed 

1  He  was  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  London  during  the  Commonwealth  period, 
but  at  the  Restoration  remained  in  the  Churcli  of  England. 

-  The  Mysterie  and  Marnnc  of  the  Bible:  viz.,  God's  Covenants  with  man,  in 
the  Jirst  Adam,  before  the  Fall;  and  in  the  last  Adam,  Jesus  Christ,  after  the 
Fall  ;  from  the  Beginning  to  the  End  of  the  fVorld ;  Unfolded  and  Illustrated 
in  positive  Aphorisms  and  their  Explanations.     2  vols.,  London,  1657. 

'  Treatise  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  London,  1645,  4to,  published  after  his 
death  by  his  friend  Simeon  Ashe,  and  with  commendatory  notices  by  five  other 
Westminster  divines. 

•  Treatise  of  the  Covenant  of  God  entered  with  mankinde  in  the  several  kindes 
and  degrees  of  it.    Preface,  London,  1653. 
2b 


466  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

his  system  of  the  covenants  is  of  a  purer  type,  having  all  the 
advantages  of  the  historical  method  of  the  Dutch  Federal 
school  without  its  far-fetched  typologies.  Indeed  the  theology 
of  the  covenants  had  been  embedded  in  Puritan  theology  since 
Thomas  Cartwright.^  The  covenant  principle  is  also  in  Usher's 
Body  of  Divinity,  and  the  Westminster  symbols.  In  truth, 
the  historical  principle  that  characterizes  the  covenant  theol- 
ogy is  better  wrought  out  by  Jolm  Ball  and  Francis  Roberts 
than  by  Cocceius.  It  will  be  found  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
covenants  passed  over  from  England  with  the  Puritan  spii-it 
into  the  Federal  school  of  Holland,  and  thence  into  Spener  and 
the  German  Pietists.  The  essential  mystic  spirit  is  common 
to  these  three  great  movements,  which  were  the  historic  succes- 
sors of  one  another  in  the  order,  England,  Holland,  Germany, 
although  each  assumed  a  form  adapted  to  its  peculiar  circum- 
stances and  conditions.^ 

The  Federal  school  in  Holland  was  characterized  by  a  ten- 
dency to  allegorize,  which  was  foreign  to  the  best  Puritan 
type,  although  Thomas  Brightman,  in  his  commentaries  on 
Reveliition,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Daniel,  reintroduced  the  alle- 
gorical method  into  the  Protestant  Church  and  carried  it  to 
great  lengths.  He  had  not  a  few  followers  in  Great  Britain, 
and  on  the  continent,  where  his  works  were  republished. 

This  element  is  united  with  the  principle  of  the  covenant  in 
the  Federal  theology,  and  proved  its  greatest  weakness.  The 
Federal  theolog}',  however,  exerted  a  wholesome  influence  in 
preserving  the  mystic  spirit  of  interpretation  over  against  the 
purely  external  historical  method  of  the  Arminians,  and  in  main- 
taining the  historic  method  of  divine  revelation  over  against  the 
external  and  mechanical  s^'stematizing  of  the  Dutch  scholastics. 
Spener  and  the  German  Pietists  also  represented  the  mystic 
spirit  of  interpretation  and  adopted  many  of  the  chief  features 
of  Piuitanisin.     They  laid   stress  upon  personal  relations  to 

1  In  his  Treatise  of  Christian  Heligion.  lOlC,  he  treats  first  of  the  doctrine  of 
God  and  then  of  man  ;  next  of  the  Word  of  Oixi.  and  tliis  lie  divides  into  two 
parts :  the  doctrine  of  the  Covenant  of  Works,  called  the  Law,  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  the  Gospel  ;  and  treats  of  Cliristolofzj-  and  Soteriology  under  the  latter. 

*  Cocceius  was  a  pupil  of  Ames,  the  British  Puritan.  See  Mitchell,  jrestmin- 
ster  Asaemhiy,  London,  188;?,  pp.  u44  seq. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   INTERPRETATION  467 

God  and  experimental  piety  in  order  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  This  was  accompanied  among  the  best  of  them  with 
true  schohirship.  The  Pietistic  interpretation  may  be  found 
stated  by  Franke,'  but  especially  by  Kambach,^  whose  work 
was  fruitful  for  many  generations  and  still  retains  its  value. 
The  best  exegete  in  this  direction  is  the  celebrated  Bengel, 
whose  interpretation  is  a  model  of  piety  and  accuracy.^  His 
principle  of  interpretation  is  briefly  stated  :  ''  It  is  tlie  especial 
office  of  every  interpretation  to  exhibit  adequately  the  force 
and  significance  of  the  words  which  the  text  contains,  so  as  to 
express  everything  which  the  author  intended,  and  to  introduce 
nothing  which  he  did  not  intend."  * 

The  principles  of  interpretation  of  the  Puritans  worked 
mightily  during  the  seventeenth  century  in  Great  Britain,  and 
produced  exegetical  works  that  ought  to  be  the  pride  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  churches  in  all  time.  Thomas  Gartwright,  Henry 
Ainsworth,  John  Reynolds,  John  Fox,  Nicholas  Bytield,  Paul 
Bayne,  Hugh  Broughton,  J.  Davenant,  Francis  Taylor,  Wil- 
liam Gouge,  John  Lightfoot,  Edward  Leigh,  William  Attersol, 
Thomas  Gataker,  Joseph  Caryl,  Samuel  Clapp,  John  Trapp, 
William  Greenhill,  Francis  Roberts,  and  numerous  others  have 
opened  up  the  meaning  of  tlie  Word  of  God  for  all  generations. 
Among  the  last  of  the  Puritan  works  on  the  more  learned  side 
was  the  masterpiece  ^  of  Matthew  Poole  ;  but  the  more  practi- 
cal side  of  interpretation  continued  to  advance,  until  it  attained 
its  highest  mark  in  Matthew  Heury.®  Other  practical  com- 
mentaries have  been  of  great  service  to  the  churches,  such  as 
those  of  Philip  Doddridge''  and  Thomas  Scott,*  but  the  Puritan 
interpretation  soon  lost  its  strength  bj'  the  neglect  of  the  non- 
conformists to  give  their  young  men  a  thoroughly  English 
Puritan    theological  education.     Excluded   from   the  English 

'  Mandiiratio  ad  lectionem,  S.S.,  1693;  Prmlectinnes  Hermeneut.,  1717. 
2  InstitHtiones  Hermeneuticm,  1723,  8th  ed.,  Jense,  ITW,  ed.  Buddeus. 
'  CrnomoH  N.  T.,  Tubingen,  1742,  English  edition  by  T.  Carlton  Lewis  and 
Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Philadelphia,  1860-1862. 

*  Preface,  xiv. 

'  Sf/nopsis  Criticorum,  5  vols,  folio,  1669. 

«  Expositions  of  the  Old  and  iVejo  Testaments,  London,  1704-1706. 

'  Family  /expositor,  (i  vols.  4to,  London,  1760-1762. 

*  Family  Bible,  with  notes,  4  vols.  4to,  1796. 


468  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCKlPTUKIi 

universities  by  their  religious  principles,  the  nonconformists 
were  unable  to  organize  educational  institutions  of  their  own 
that  were  at  all  adequate,  and  hence  the  ministry  fell  back 
upon  dogmatizing  or  spiritualizing,  equally  perilous,  without 
an  exact  knowledge  of  the  biblical  text.^ 

In  the  meanwhile,  the  Humanistic  spirit  had  maintained 
itself  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  it  found  expression 
among  the  Arminians  of  Holland.  The  chief  interpreter  of 
the  seventeenth  century  was  Hugo  Grotius,  who  revived  the 
spirit  of  Erasmus.  He  laid  stress  upon  historical  interpreta- 
tion.^  He  was  followed  by  the  Arminians  generally,  especially 
Clericus.  In  Great  Britain  Henry  Hammond  had  the  same 
spirit  and  methods. ^  Edward  Pocock*  seeks  as  the  main 
thing  "to  settle  the  genuine  and  literal  meaning  of  the  text." 
Daniel  Whitby  ^  also  represents  this  tendenc}-  ;  and  still  later 
Bishop  Lowth^  and  John  Taylor  of  Norwich."  The  latter 
says  : 

"  To  understand  the  sense  of  the  Spirit  in  the  New,  'tis  essen- 
tially necessary  that  we  understand  its  sense  in  the  Old  Testa^ 
ment.  But  the  sense  of  the  Spirit  cannot  be  understood  unless 
we  understand  the  language  in  which  that  sense  is  conveyed. 
For  which  purpose  the  Hebrew  Concordance  is  the  best  Expositor. 
For  there  you  have  in  one  view  presented  all  the  places  of  the 
sacred  code  where  any  words  are  used ;  and  by  carefully  collating 
those  places,  may  judge  what  sense  it  will,  or  will  not  bear,  which 
being  once  settled  there  lies  no  appeal  to  any  other  writing  in  the 
world :  because  there  are  no  other  books  in  all  the  world  in  the 

1  It  is  the  merit  of  C.  H.  Spurgeon  that  he  has  recently  called  attention  to  the 
neglected  Puritan  commentators  and  expressed  his  great  obligations  to  them. 
See  his  Commenting  and  Commentaries,  N.Y.,  1870,  and  also  Treasury  of 
David,  London,  6  vols.,  1870  seq.,  which  contains  copious  extracts  from  the 
Puritan  commentaries. 

*  Annotations  in  lib.  evang.,  Amst.,  1641  ;  Annot.  in  Vet.  Test.,  Paris,  1664. 
'  Paraphrase  and  Annotations  upon  all  the  Books  of  the  New   Te.'itnment, 

165.3,  8vo,  3d  ed.,  folio,  London,  1671.  In  a  postscript  concerning  hew  light  or 
divine  illumination,  over  again.st  the  Quakers,  he  insisted  upon  the  plain,  literal, 
and  historical  sense. 

*  Com.  on  Micah,  1677,  Sosea,  1085,  Joel,  1691. 

">  Pharaphrase  and  Commentary  on  the  JVew  Testament,  2  vols.,  1703-1709, 
folio. 

«  See  p.  227. 

'  Hebrew  Concordance,  2  vols,  folio,  London,  1754. 


HISTORY   OF   THE   IXTEKl'RETATIOX  469 

pure  original  Hebrew,  but  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  A 
judgment  therefore  dulj-  founded  upon  them  must  be  absolutely 
decisive." ' 

Taylor  acknowledges  his  great  indebtedness  to  the  philoso- 
pher Locke,^  and  «ho^^s  the  influence  of  that  philosophy  in  his 
exegesis.  Toward  the  close  of  the  centurj-  biblical  interpreta- 
tion more  and  more  declined  in  Great  Britain,  and  one  must  go 
to  the  continent,  and  especially  to  Germany,  for  the  exegesis  as 
well  as  for  the  Higher  and  Lower  Criticism  of  modern  times. ^ 

VII.    Biblical  Ixterpretatiox  of  ]\Iodekn  Times 

We  have  seen  in  our  studies  of  biblical  literature  that  there 
was  a  great  revival  of  biblical  studies,  especially  in  Germany, 
toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which  extended  to 
all  departments.  For  biblical  interpretation  Ernesti  was  the 
chief  of  the  new  era.  Ernesti  was  essentially  a  philologist 
rather  than  a  theologian,  and  he  applied  to  the  Bible  the  princi- 
ples which  he  had  emjjloyed  in  the  interpretation  of  the  ancient 
classics.  He  began  at  the  foundation  of  interpretation,  gram- 
matical exegesis,  and  placed  it  in  such  a  position  before  the 
world  that  it  has  ever  since  maintained  its  fundamental  impor- 
tance. He  published  his  principles  of  interpretation  in  1761.* 
Ernesti  was  followed  by  Zacharia,^  Morus,®  C.  D.  Beck,^  and 
others.  Moses  Stuart  translated  Ernesti  with  the  notes  of 
Morus  abridged.^ 

About  the  same  time  as  Ernesti,  Semler  urged  the  importance 

■  Preface  of  Hebreto  Concordance.  See  also  his  Paraphrase  with  notes  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Bomans,  London,  1745,  pp.  114,  127,  146. 

-  In  I.C.,  p.  149.  8  See  pp.  227,  281. 

*  Institutio  Interpretis  X.  7.,  1761,  3te  Aufl.,  1774;  5te  Aufl.,  ed.  Ammon, 
1809.  It  was  traiL'lated  into  English  and  edited  by  Bishop  Terrot  in  1809  from 
Ammon'.s  edition,  for  the  Bihliral  Cabinet,  I.  and  IV.,  Edinburgh. 

'  EinJeit.  in  d.  Ausler/ekunat,  1778. 

'■  Acroases.  ncad.  super  Herm.,  N.  T..  1797  and  1802,  ed.  by  Eichstadt. 

"  M(>noriram.  hermeneutices  librortim  JV.  Foed.,  Lips.,  180-3. 

'  Elementary  Principles  of  Interpretation,  translated  from  the  Latin  of  J.  A. 
Ernesti,  accompanied  by  notes,  witli  an  appendix  containing  extracts  from 
Moms,  Beck,  Keil,  and  Henderson,  4th  ed.,  Andover,  1842.  The  earlier 
edition  was  republished  in  England  with  additional  observations  by  Dr.  Hen- 
derson, London,  1827,  which  were  used  in  Stuart's  fourth  edition. 


470  STUDY   OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

of  historical  interpretation.!  Semler  was  an  open-minded,  de- 
vout scholar,  and  appropriated  freely  the  material  wherever 
he  could  find  it,  and  rejjroduced  it  in  forms  fashioned  by  his 
own  genius.  He  was  greatlj^  influenced  by  foreign  inter- 
preters, and  was  the  channel  through  whom  the  historical 
interpretation,  still  lingering  in  Reformed  lands,  made  its  way 
into  Lutheran  Germany.  Among  those  who  influenced  Semler 
may  be  mentioned :  J.  A.  Turretine,  who  had  introduced  the 
Swiss  revolt  against  scholasticism,^  John  Taylor  of  Norwich 
and  Daniel  Whitb}',^  and  L.  Meyer,  the  Spinozist.*  Semler 
was  followed  by  J.  G.  Gabler,  G.  L.  Bam-,  K.  C.  Bretschneider, 
and  others.  These  elements  of  interpretation  were  combined 
in  the  grammatico-historical  method  of  C.  A.  G.  Keil.^  The 
grammatico-historical  method  was  introduced  into  the  United 
States  of  America  chiefly  by  Moses  Stuart  and  his  school. 

The  defects  of  the  grammatico-historical  method  were  dis- 
covered, and  attacks  were  made  upon  it  from  both  sides. 
Kant  and  his  school  urged  rational  and  moral  exegesis,  to 
which  the  historical  must  yield  as  of  vastlj^  less  importance. 
There  was  truth  in  this  rising  to  the  moral  sense,  but  as  it  was 
stated  and  used  by  the  Kantians  it  resulted  in  binding  the 
Bible  in  the  fetters  of  a  philosophical  system  that  was  far  more 
oppressive  than  the  theological  sj-stem  had  been.  Stiiudlein,* 
Stern,"  Stark,^  and  Kaiser,^  and  above  all  Germar.^**  rendered 
great  serWce  by  urging  that  the  interpreter  should  enter  into 
sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  biblical  authors. 

On  the  other  side  the  little  band  of  Pietists  of  the  older 
Tiibingen  school  urged  the  inadequacy  of  the  grammatico-his- 
torical method,  and  insisted  upon  faith  and  piety  in  the  iuter- 

1  Vorbereic.  zur  theol.  Herm.,  1760-1769;  Apparatus  ad  liberahm,  iV.  T. 
Intetp.,  171)7. 

-  De  S.  S.  interp.  traclatus  bipartilus,  1728.  This  was  an  unauthorized  and 
defective  edition,  and  it  was  repudiated  by  the  author.  A  better  edition  was 
edited  by  Teller  in  1776. 

'  See  Tlioluck,  Vermischte  Schrifte.n,  Hamburg,  1839,  pp.  30,  40. 

*  Author  of  an  anonymous  treatise:  Philosophic  Script,  interpres.,  1666. 

'  Lehr.  d.  Herm.,  1810.  «  De  interp.  N.  T.,  1807. 

"  Ueber  den  Bcgriff  und  obersten  Grundsat:  d.  hist,  interp.  d.  .V.  T.,  1816. 

>  Beitr.  z.  Herm..  1817.  »  System  Herm.,  1817. 

1"  Beitrag  zur  alUjemein.  Hermeneutik,  Altoua,  1828. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  471 

preter.i  The  chief  of  these  were  Storr,^  Flatt  and  Steudel  of 
Tubingen,  Knapp  of  Halle,  and  Seiler  of  Erlangen.^ 

This  conflict  of  principles  worked  more  and  more  confusion. 
If  the  older  exegesis  was  at  fault  in  neglecting  the  human 
element  and  the  variety  of  features  of  the  Bible  on  the  human 
side,  the  newer  interpreters  of  the  grammatico-historical  school 
were  still  more  at  fault  in  neglecting  the  divine  element  and 
the  unity  of  the  Bible. 

A  healthful  method  of  interpretation  had  been  introduced 
from  England  in  the  translation  of  the  works  of  Bishop  Lowth, 
which  urged  literary  interpretation.  Hei-der,  Eichhorn,  and 
othei's  exerted  their  influence  in  the  same  direction.  Schleier- 
macher  deserves  the  credit  for  combining  all  that  had  thus  far 
been  gained  into  a  higher  unity,  by  his  organic  method  of 
interpretation.* 

Schleiermacher  lays  down  his  principles  in  a  series  of  theses: 

"  In  the  application  (of  Hermeneutics)  to  the  New  Testament 
the  philological  view,  which  isolates  every  writing  of  every  author, 
stands  over  against  the  dogmatic  view,  which  regards  the  New 
Testament  as  the  work  of  one  author.  Both  approach  one  another 
when  one  considers  that,  in  the  view  of  the  religious  contents,  the 
identity  of  the  school  comes  in,  and  in  vie\v  of  the  details, 
the  identity  of  language.  .  .  .  The  philological  view  lags  behind 
its  own  principle  when  it  rejects  the  general  dependence  for  the 
sake  of  the  individual  culture.  The  dogmatic  view  transcends 
its  needs  when  it  rejects  individual  culture  for  the  sake  of 
dependence,  and  so  destroys  itself.  The  only  question  that  re- 
mains is  which  of  the  two  is  to  be  placed  above  the  other ;  and 
this  must  be  decided  by  the  philological  view  itself  in  favor  of 
its  own  dependence.  When  the  philological  view  ignores  this  it 
annihilates  Christianity.  When  the  dogmatic  view  extends  the 
canon  of  the  analogy  of  faith  beyond  these  limits  it  annihilates 
Scripture." ' 

>  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  H.  S.  y.  T.,  4te  Aufl.,  1864,  p.  582  seq. 

*  De  sensu  historico,  1778. 

*  Bib.  Herm..  1830,  edited  in  Holland  by  Ileringa,  and  translated  from  the 
Holland  edition  and  edited  with  additions  by  Wm.  Wright,  London,  1835. 

*  His  Hermeneutik  und  Kritik  is  a  posthumous  work  by  his  pupil,  F.  Lucke, 
published  in  Berlin,  1838,  but  the  influence  of  his  method  was  felt  at  an  earlier 
date,  and  expressed  by  his  disciples. 

6  In  I.e.,  pp.  79-81. 


472  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Liicke,  of  Schleiermacher's  school,  well  states  the  principle 
when  he  says  that  we  must 

"  so  construct  the  general  principles  of  Hermeneutics  as  that  the 
proper  theological  element  may  be  united  with  them  in  a  really 
organic  manner,  and  likewise  so  fashion  and  carrj'  on  the  theo- 
logical element  that  the  general  principles  of  interpretation  may 
maintain  their  full  value."  ^ 

He  also  insisted  upon  love  for  the  Word  of  God,  as  the 
indispensable  requisite  for  the  interpreter.^ 

The  vast  importance  of  this  organic  method  is  seen  in  the 
exegetical  works  of  De  Wette,  Neander,  Klausen,  Bleek,  Lutz, 
Meyer,  and  most  of  the  chief  interpreters  of  modern  Germany. 

The  greatest  defect  of  interpretation  at  this  time  was  in  the 
lack  of  apprehension  of  the  true  relation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  the  Old  Testament.  The  Old  Testament  was  neg- 
lected by  Schleiermacher  and  many  of  his  school.  It  was 
necessar}'  for  the  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology  to  come  into 
the  field  ere  this  defect  could  be  overcome.  The  unfolding  of 
the  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  school  of  Neander 
established  the  organic  unity  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
combination  of  a  number  of  historical  types.  The  organic 
unity  of  the  Old  Testament  was  also  especially  urged  by 
Oehler  in  the  spirit  of  Neander,  together  with  some  of  the 
features  of  the  older  Tiibingen  school.  The  organic  unit}'  of 
the  whole  Bible  has  been  especially  insisted  upon  by  Hofmann 
of  Erlangen,  Delitzsch,  and  others  of  their  school.  This  is  a 
further  unfolding  of  the  organic  principle  of  Schleiermacher, 
and  the  revival  in  another  form  of  the  Puritan  principle  wrapt 
up  in  the  covenant  theology,  and  which  has  worked  through 
the  schools  of  Cocceius  and  the  Pietists,  to  .attach  itself  to  the 
scientific  principles  of  exegesis  that  have  thus  far  been  devel- 
oped. The  school  of  Hofmann  claim  the  principle  of  the 
history  of  redemption  ^  as  the  highest  attainment  of  Her- 
meneutics. This  insisting  above  all  upon  interpreting  Script- 
ure as  one  divine  book  giving  the  history  of  redemption  is  the 

>  Studien  und  Krit..  1830,  ]>.  421  ;  see  also  his  Grundriss  d.  N.  T.  Henn.,  1817. 
-  See  Klausen  in  I.e.,  p.  311  ;  Iiumer  in  I.e.,  p.  6(i  ;  Reuss  in  I.e.,  p.  605. 
'  See  Volck,  in  Zockler,  Jlandb.,  p.  661  seq.  ;   Hofmann,  Bib.  Henn.,  Nord. 
1880. 


HISTORY   OF   THK    IXTEKPRETATION  473 

restatement  of  the  Puritan  principle  of  the  gradual  revelation 
of  the  covenants  of  grace.  The  variety  of  the  Bible  is  better 
understood  in  relation  to  its  unity,  and  when  the  genesis  of  its 
revelation  of  redeun)tion  is  made  more  prominent. 

Francis  Roberts  already  states  the  principle  admirably: 

'•Still  remember  how  Jesus  Christ  is  revealed  in  Scripture, 
gradually  in  promises  and  covenauts,  till  the  noon-day  of  the 
gospel  shined  most  clearly.  .  .  .  For  (1)  God  is  a  God  of  order  ; 
and  He  makes  known  His  gracious  contrivances  orderly.  (2) 
Christ,  and  salvation  by  Him  are  treasures  too  high  and  precious 
to  be  disclosed  all  at  once  to  the  church.  (3)  The  state  of  the 
church  is  various ;  she  hath  her  infancy,  her  youth,  and  all  the 
degrees  of  her  minority,  as  also  her  riper  age ;  and  therefore  God 
revealed  Christ,  not  according  to  his  own  ability  of  revealing,  but 
according  to  the  churches  capacity  of  receiving.  (4)  This  gradual 
revealing  of  Christ  suits  well  with  our  condition  in  this  world, 
which  is  not  perfect,  but  growing  into  perfection,  fully  attainable 
in  heaven  only.  Now  this. gradual  unveiling  of  the  covenant  and 
promises  in  Christ,  is  to  be  much  considered  throughout  the  whole 
Scripture;  that  we  may  see  the  wisdom  of  God's  dispensations, 
the  imperfections  of  the  churches  condition  here,  especially  in  her 
minority ;  and  the  usefulness  of  comparing  the  more  dark  and 
imperfect  with  the  more  clear  and  complete  manifestation  of  the 
mysteries  of  God's  grace  in  Christ."^ 

W.c,  p.  10. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

THE   PRACTICE   OF    IKTEKPRETATION    OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Holy  Scripture  is  composed  of  a  great  number  of  different 
kinds  of  literature.  As  such  it  is  a  part  of  the  literature  of 
the  world,  having  features  in  common  \^'ith  all  other  literatures, 
and  also  features  peculiar  to  itself.  From  these  circumstances 
arise  the  fundamental  principles  of  interpretation.  Biblical 
interpretation  is  a  section  of  general  interjjretation.  Here  all 
students  of  the  Bible  are  on  common  ground.  Rationalistic, 
evangelical,  scholastical,  and  mystical,  —  they  should  all  alike 
begin  here.  This  is  the  broad  base  on  which  the  pyramid  of 
exegesis  is  to  rise  to  its  apex.  It  is  the  merit  of  Schleiermacher 
that  he  clearly  and  definitely  established  this  fundamental  re- 
lation.    From  general  interpretation  arises: 

I.    Grammatical  Interpretation 

Holy  Scripture  is  written  in  human  languages.  These  lan- 
guages contain  the  scripture  which  is  to  be  studied.  There  is 
no  other  way  than  to  master  them,  and  thoroughly  understand 
their  grammar.^ 

'•  Only  the  philologist  can  be  an  interpreter.  It  is  true  that  the 
office  of  interpretation  requires  more  than  mere  pliilology,  or  an 
acquaintance  with  language;  but  all  those  other  qualifications  that 
may  belong  to  it  are  useless  without  this  acquaintance,  whilst  on 
the  contrary,  in  very  many  cases  nothing  more  than  this  is  neces- 
sary for  correct  interpretation."  - 

Others  than  philologists  may  become  interpreters  of  Script- 
ure by  depending  upon  the  labours  of  iiliilologists  in  the  trans- 

1  See  Chap.  III. 

2  Planck,  Intrmhiction  to  Sarrfd  Philology  oml  Iitterpritation,  trans,  and 
edited  by  S.  H.  Turner,  Edin.,  1S34,  pp.  140-141. 

474 


THE  PRACTICE   OF   INTERPRETATION  475 

lations  and  expositions  that  they  produce  —  but  without  these 
the  originals  of  Scriptui-e  would  be  as  inaccessible  as  the 
Ilamathite  inscriptions,  which  still  defy  the  efforts  of  scholars 
to  decipher  them. 

The  great  defect  of  ancient  and  mediajval  interpretation  was 
in  the  neglect  of  the  grammar  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  depend- 
ence upon  defective  texts  of  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  ver- 
sions.^ Hence  the  multitude  of  errors  that  came  into  the 
traditional  exegesis  through  the  Fathers  and  schoolmen,  and 
became  rooted  in  the  history  of  doctrine  and  the  customs  of 
the  Church  as  evil  weeds,  so  that  it  has  taken  generations  of 
grammatical  study  to  eradicate  them.  It  is  the  merit  of  Ernesti 
in  modern  times  that  he  so  insisted  upon  grammatical  exegesis 
as  to  induce  exegetes  of  all  classes  to  begin  their  work  here  at 
the  foundation.  Grammatical  exegesis  is,  however,  dependent 
upon  the  progress  of  linguistic  studies.  There  has  been  great 
progress  in  the  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament  Greek :  in 
the  study  of  the  dialects,  in  the  comparison  of  the  Greek  with 
its  cognates  of  the  Indo-Germanic  family  of  languages,  in  the 
science  of  etjinology  of  words,  and  still  more  in  the  history  of 
the  use  of  words  in  Greek  literature.  In  the  study  of  the  He- 
brew language  there  has  been  still  greater  progress.  When  one 
traces  the  history  of  its  study  in  modern  times,  and  rises  from 
Levita  and  Reuchlin,  through  Buxtorf  and  Castell,  Schultens 
and  John  Taylor,  to  Gesenius,  Rodiger,  and  Ewald,  Kautzsch, 
Stade,  Konig,  Buhl,  Driver,  and  Francis  Brown,  one  feels  that 
he  is  climbing  to  greater  and  greater  heights.  The  older  in- 
terpreters, who  knew  nothing  of  comparative  Shemitic  phi- 
lology, who  did  not  understand  the  position  of  the  Hebrew 
language  in  the  development  of  the  Shemitic  family,  who  were 
ignorant  of  its  rich  and  varied  syntax,  wlio  relied  on  traditional 
meanings  of  words,  and  had  not  learned  their  etymologies  and 
their  historic  growth,  lived  almost  in  another  world.  The 
modern  Hebrew  scholars  are  working  in  far  more  extended 
relations,  and  upon  vastly  deeper  principles,  and  we  should  not 
be  surprised  at  new  and  almost  revolutionary  results. 

1  See  pp.  210,  456. 


476  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

II.    Logical  and  Rhetorical  Interpretations 

The  second  stage  of  our  pyramid  of  exegesis  is  logical  and 
rhetorical  interpretation.  Here  also  there  are  general  features 
in  common  with  other  literatures,  and  also  features  peculiar  to 
Biblical  Literature. 

(a)  The  laws  of  thought  are  derived  from  the  human  mind 
itself.  These  enable  us  to  determine  the  value  of  all  thought, 
to  discriminate  the  true,  close,  exact  reasoning  from  the  inexact 
and  fallacious.  It  is  assumed  by  some  that  the  Bible  is  divine 
in  such  a  sense  that  it  corresponds  with  these  laws  of  thought 
exactl}'  and  is  faultless  in  its  logic.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  astonish- 
ing that  we  find  so  little  that  is  technical,  or  in  the  form  of 
logical  propositions,  in  the  Bible.  Here  was  the  fault  of  the 
Jewish  Halacha,  and  the  media;val  dialectic,  and  the  modern 
scholastic  use  of  proof  texts.  The  Bible  has  been  interpreted 
by  the  formulas  of  Aristotle  in  the  Middle  Age,  and  tlien  by  the 
logical  methods  of  the  different  philosophies  in  the  modern  age. 
These  scholastic  and  philosophical  logicians  overlook  the  fact 
that  pure  logic  is  one  thing,  applied  logic  another,  and  the  his- 
tory of  its  application  a  third.  There  are  differences  in  logic 
as  in  other  things.  Human  logic  is  far  from  infallible.  Our 
modern  logic  has  not  remained  in  the  state  of  innocence,  nor 
has  it  reached  the  state  of  perfection.  Certainly  there  are  few, 
if  any,  dogmatic  divines  and  philosophers  who  do  not  violate 
its  principles  and  neglect  its  methods  as  stated  in  our  logical 
manuals.  Every  race  has,  indeed,  its  own  methods  of  reason- 
ing. The  German  and  the  French  minds  move  in  somewhat 
different  grooves.  Still  more  is  this  the  case  when  we  consider 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  and  the  Anglo-Saxon.  The  biblical 
writers  wrote  for  the  men  of  their  own  time  and  used  the  forms 
of  thought  of  the  men  of  their  time.  It  is  not  suflficient,  there- 
fore, to  apply  logical  analysis  to  the  text  of  the  Scripture,  as  is 
so  often  done.^  Tlie  proper  use  of  logical  interpretation  is  to 
seek  for  the  method  of  reasoning  of  the  biblical  author, — his 
plan,  his  scope,  his  course  of  argument,  and  the  relation  of 
his  methods  to  those  of  his  contemporaries. 
'  I<ange,  Uernxeneutik,  p.  43. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   INTERPRETATION  477 

"  The  Scripture  doth  not  explaine  the  \rill  of  God  by  universal 
and  scientific  rules,  but  by  narrations,  examples,  2»'ecepts,  exhorta- 
tions, admonitions,  and  promises  ;  because  that  manner  doth  make 
most  for  the  common  use  of  all  kinde  of  men,  and  also  most  to 
affect  the  will,  and  stirre  up  godly  motions,  which  is  the  chief 
scope  of  divinity." ' 

"  Language  is  not  the  invention  of  metaphysicians  or  convoca- 
tions of  the  wise  and  learned.  It  is  the  common  blessing  of  man- 
kind, framed  for  their  mutual  advantage  in  their  intercourse  with 
each  other.  Its  laws  therefore  are  popular,  not  philosophical, 
being  founded  on  the  general  laws  of  thought  which  govern  the 
whole  mass  in  the  community.  .  .  .  Scarcely  will  we  hear  in  a 
long  and  serious  conversation  between  the  best  speakers,  a  sen- 
tence which  does  not  need  some  modification  or  limitation  in  order 
that  we  may  not  attribute  to  it  more  or  less  that  was  intended. 
Nor  is  the  operation  at  all  difficult.  We  make  the  correction 
instantly,  wnth  so  little  cost  of  thought  that  we  would  be  tempted 
to  call  it  instinct  did  we  not  know  that  many  of  our  perceptions 
which  seem  intuitive  are  the  results  of  habit  and  education.  It 
would  be  an  exceedingly  strange  thing,  if  the  Bible,  the  most 
popular  of  all  books,  composed  by  men,  for  the  most  part  taken 
from  the  multitude,  addressed  to  all,  and  on  subjects  interesting 
to  all,  were  found  written  in  language  to  be  interpreted  on  differ- 
ent principles.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  it  is  not.  Its  style  is  emi- 
nentlj",  and  to  a  remarkable  degree,  that  which  we  would  expect 
to  find  in  a  volume  designed  by  its  gracious  Author  to  be  the 
people's  book  —  abounding  in  all  those  kinds  of  inaccuracy  which 
are  sprinkled  through  ordinary  discourse ;  hyperboles,  analogies, 
and  loose  cataehrestical  expressions,  whose  meaning  no  one  mis- 
takes, though  their  deviation  from  plumh,  occasionally  makes  the 
small  critic  sad."  ^ 

Again,  it  is  an  abuse  of  logical  interpretation  to  regard  the 
biblical  writers  as  all  alike  logical.  Those  who  take  the  logical 
methods  of  St.  Paul  as  the  key  to  the  New  Testament,  and  in- 
terpret, by  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  the  practical  St.  Peter 
and  St.  James  and  the  mystic  St.  John,  and  above  all  our  blessed 
Lord  Jesus  Himself,  the  Son  of  man,  embracing  in  Himself  all 
the  types  of  humanity  for  the  redemption  of  all,  —  do  violence 
to  these  other  writers,  rend  the  seamless  robe  of  the  gospel,  and 
do  not  aid  the  proper  understanding  of  St.  Paul  himself.    Those 

1  Ames,  Marrow  of  Sacred  Divinity,  London,  1643. 

2  llcClelland,  Manual  of  Sacred  Interpretation,  N.Y.,  1842,  pp.  61-63. 


478  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRU'TURK 

who  would  find  the  key  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Wisdom 
Literature,  would  commit  a  most  unpardonable  blunder.  How 
much  greater  is  the  sin  of  those  who  first  insist  upon  interpret- 
ing the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  in  accordance  with  the  analytical 
principles  of  modern  logic,  and  then  of  interpreting  all  the  rest 
of  the  New  Testament  by  this  interpretation  of  St.  Paul,  and 
then  the  whole  body  of  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  by  this  in- 
terpretation of  the  New  Testament.  In  view  of  such  a  method, 
one  might  inquire,  why  take  all  this  trouble  to  impose  meanings 
upon  such  a  vast  body  of  ancient  literature?  It  would  be  far 
easier  and  more  honest  to  construct  the  dogmatic  system  by 
logical  principles,  and  leave  the  Bible  to  itself.  We  are  not 
surprised  that  when  and  where  such  methods  have  prevailed, 
biblical  studies  have  been  neglected  and  despised. 

(6)  Rhetorical  interpretation  is  closely  connected  with  logi- 
cal. There  are  common  features  of  rhetoric  that  belong  to  all 
discourse,  and  there  are  special  features  which  are  peculiar  to 
the  Biblical  Literature.  The  Bible  has  been  tested  and  inter- 
preted too  often,  after  Greek,  German,  French,  and  English 
models.  We  have  to  discriminate  in  the  Bible  tlie  more  logi- 
cal parts  from  the  more  rhetorical  parts.  The  fault  of  the 
Halacha  and  scholastic  methods  was  in  their  overlooking  the 
rhetorical  featui-es  of  the  Bible.  The  fault  of  the  Haggada 
and  allegorical  methods  was  in  overlooking  the  logical.  In 
rhetorical  exegesis  it  is  essential  to  discriminate  poetrj-  from 
prose,  the  different  kinds  of  poetry  and  prose  from  each  other, 
the  style  of  each  author,  as  well  as  the  literary  peculiarities  of 
the  people  and  race  which  produced  the  Bible.  Here  is  a  field 
of  study  which  promises  still  greater  rewards  to  those  who  M'ill 
pursue  it,^  and  it  will  prove  of  especial  richness  to  the  homilist 
and  catechist. 

III.    Historical  Interpretation 

Thus  far  all  parties  work  in  common.     As  we  rise  to  the 

higher  stage  of  historical  interpretation  there  arise  differences 

between   the   rationalistic   and   supernaturalistic   interpreters, 

owing  to  certain  presuppositions  with  which  they  approach  the 

»  See  Chap.  XIII. 


THE   PKACTICE   OF   IXTEUPRETATION  479 

Bible.  There  are  different  conceptions  of  history-  The  super- 
naturalistic  interpreters  recognize  the  supernatural  element  as 
the  determining  factor  ;  the  rationalistic  interpreters  endeavour 
to  explain  everything  by  purely  natural  laws.  Among  believ- 
ers in  the  supernatural  there  is  also  a  difference,  in  that  some 
are  ever  resorting  to  the  supernatural  to  explain  the  history, 
while  other  more  judicious  interpreters  explain  by  the  natural 
element  until  they  are  compelled  by  overpowering  evidence  to 
resort  to  the  supernatural.  Semler  has  the  credit  in  modern 
times  of  laj-ing  gi-eat  stress  on  the  liistoric  interpretation.  In 
historical  exegesis  we  have  to  recognize  that  the  biblical  writers 
were  men  of  their  times  and  yet  men  above  their  times.  They 
were  influenced  by  inspiration  to  introduce  new  divine  revela- 
tions, and  to  revive  old  truths  and  set  them  in  new  lights  ; 
thej'^  were  reformers,  and  so  came  into  conflict  with  the  con- 
servatives of  their  time.  JIany  errors  scaring  up  here.  The 
Pharisees  interj)reted  the  Old  Testament  by  tradition.  The 
scholastics  piirsue  the  same  course  with  reference  to  the  New 
Testament.  The  rationalists  interpret  Scripture  altogether  by 
history  and  natural  forces.  Here  the  scholastic  and  rationalis- 
tic interpretei's  of  our  times  lock  horns.  They  are  both  alike 
in  error.  Tradition  is  the  bastard  of  history  and  should  be 
resorted  to  onlj*  when  we  have  no  histoiy,  and  then  with  cau- 
tion and  suspicion  as  to  its  origin.  History  is  to  helj),  not 
rule ;  for  in  the  history  of  redemption  the  supernatural  force 
shapes  and  controls  history.  The  true  method  is  to  rise  from 
the  natural  to  the  supernatural.  History  has  been  impregnated 
with  the  supernatural.  We  must  not  expect  to  find  the  super- 
natural ever\-where  on  the  surface.  The  supernatural  comes 
into  play  onl}'  when  the  natural  is  incapable  of  accomplishing 
the  divine  purpose ;  so  it  is  to  be  sought  when  it  alone  is 
capable  of  affording  explanation  of  the  phenomena.  Then  the 
supernatural  displays  itself  ^\dth  convincing,  assuring  force. 
Lutz  has  some  admirable  remarks  here  :  ^ 

"  The  historico-grammatical  method  of  iuterpretation  has  brought 
out  truths  which  cannot  be  valued  too  highly.  Xo  book  needs 
more  than  the  Holy   Scriptures  to  be  understood  in  accordance 

1  Bib.  Hem.,  Pforzheim,  1861,  2te  Ausg.,  p.  168. 


480  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

with  the  times  in  which  they  were  first  read.  .  .  .  But  it  is 
just  as  true  that  such  an  exposition  in  its  one-sideduess  limiting 
itself  to  grammar  and  history,  entirely  loses  sight  of  the  peculiar 
features  of  the  Bible,  and  would  bring  about  a  complete  separation 
between  church  and  exegesis.  Thereby  the  church  would  be  de- 
prived of  its  light,  and  exegesis  would  dig  its  own  grave." 

IV.    Comparative  Interpretation 

In  rising  to  comparative  interpretation  we  have  to  distin- 
guish still  further  the  attitude  of  interpreters  toward  the  Bible. 
Supernaturalists  come  to  the  Bible  as  a  sacred  Canon,  an  or- 
ganic whole.  Rationalists  come  to  the  Bible  as  a  collection  of 
merely  human  writings.  It  is  the  merit  of  the  Puritans,  of 
the  Federalists  of  Holland,  and  in  recent  times  of  the  schools 
of  Schleiermacher  and  Hofmann,  that  they  urged  the  organic 
unity  of  Scripture.  It  is  presumed  that  writers  are  consistent, 
and  that  writers  of  the  same  school  are  in  substantial  accord. 
This  is  a  general  presumption  derived  from  the  study  of  all 
literature.  But  we  must  go  further  and  insist  that  as  all  the 
writers  of  the  Bible  are  of  the  school  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  all 
conspired  to  give  us  the  complete  organism  of  the  Canon,  there 
is  a  unity  and  concord  that  extends  throughout  the  Bible. 
There  is  error  here  on  the  right  and  the  left.  The  rationalists 
regard  the  Bible  as  a  bundle  of  miscellaneous  and  heteroge- 
neous writings.  The  scholastics  regard  them  as  a  homogeneous 
mass.     As  Lauge  says : 

"  We  should  read  the  Bible  as  a  human  book,  but  not  as  a 
heathen  book ;  as  a  divino-human  book  .according  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  distinction  between  elect  men  of  God  who  walk  on  the 
heights  of  humanity  and  the  populace  in  the  low  plains  of  human- 
ity ;  as  the  documents  of  revelation,  whicli  participate  throughout 
in  the  revelation,  the  unicum  among  all  religious  writings." ' 

The  rationalists  sink  the  unity  in  the  vari^tj' ;  the  scholas- 
tics destroy  the  variety  for  the  sake  of  the  unity.  The  true 
position  is,  that  the  Bible  is  a  vast  organism  in  which  the  unity 
springs  from  an  amazing  variety.  Tiie  iniity  is  not  that  of  a 
mass  of  rocks  or  a  pool  of  water.     It  is  the  unity  that  one  finds 

'  Orumlrisis  ,J.  hib.  fjermeneiitik,  Heidelberg;,  1878,  p.  68. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   INTERPRETATION  481 

in  the  best  works  of  (iod.  It  is  the  unity  of  the  ocean,  where 
every  wave  has  its  individuality  of  life  and  movement.  It  is 
the  unity  of  the  continent,  in  which  mountains  and  rivers,  val- 
leys and  uplands,  flowers  and  trees,  birds  and  insects,  animal 
and  human  life  combine  to  distinguish  it  as  a  maguilieent  whole 
from  other  continents.  It  is  the  unity  of  the  heaven,  where 
star  differs  from  star  in  form,  colour,  order,  movement,  size,  and 
importance,  but  all  declare  the  glory  of  God. 

v.    The  Liter atuke  of  Interpretation 

The  fifth  stage  of  exegesis  is  the  use  of  the  literature  of 
interpretation.  The  Bible  is  the  Canon  of  the  Christian 
Church.  What  relation  does  it  sustain  to  the  Church  ?  We 
are  separated  from  the  originals  by  ages.  Multitudes  of  stu- 
dents have  studied  the  Bible,  and  their  labour  has  not  been  in 
vain.     As  a  prince  of  modern  preachers  says : 

"  In  order  to  be  able  to  expound  the  Scriptures,  and  as  an  aid  to 
your  pulpit  studies,  you  will  need  to  be  familiar  with  the  com- 
mentators :  a  glorious  army,  let  me  tell  you,  whose  acquaintance 
will  be  your  delight  and  profit.  Of  course,  you  are  not  such  wise- 
acres as  to  think  or  sav  that  you  can  expoimd  Scripture  without 
assistance  from  the  works  of  divines  and  learned  men,  who  have 
labored  before  you  in  the  field  of  exposition.  ...  It  seems  odd, 
that  certain  men  who  talk  so  much  of  what  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals 
to  themselves,  should  think  so  little  of  what  he  has  revealed  to 
others."  ' 

But  the  question  presses  itself  upon  the  exegete,  how  far  he 
is  to  go  in  allowing  himself  to  be  influenced  by  the  history  of 
exegesis.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  makes  the  literature 
of  the  Church  itself,  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  the  decision  of 
councils,  and  the  official  utterances  of  the  Popes  the  authorita- 
tive expositors  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  which  all  other  exposition 
is  to  be  conformed.  We  have  learned  from  the  history  of  exe- 
gesis how  cautious  we  should  be  with  the  expositions  of  the 
Fathers.^  We  have  found  the  best  interpreters  using  false 
methods  and  following  false  principles.  The  literature  of 
exegesis  is  an  invaluable  help,  but  this  help  is  negative  as  well 

'  Spurgeon.  Commenting  and  Commentaries,  p.  11.  '  See  pp.447  seq. 

2i 


482  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

as  positive.  It  exhibits  a  vast  multitude  of  errors  that  have 
been  exposed,  and  so  prevents  us  from  stumbling  into  them. 
It  shows  us  a  great  number  of  positions  so  plainly  established 
and  fortified,  that  it  were  folly  to  question  them.  But  at  the 
same  time  it  presents  a  number  of  positions  so  weakly  sup- 
ported that  they  excite  suspicion  of  their  validity  ;  and  others, 
where  contests  have  not  resulted  in  settlement.  The  literature 
of  exegesis  enables  us  to  understand  the  real  state  of  the  ques- 
tions that  have  to  be  determined  by  the  interpreter  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  prevents  us  from  wasting  our  energies  in  doing 
what  others  have  done  before  us,  or  in  working  in  barren  or 
unprofitable  fields ;  and  it  directs  us  to  the  fruitful  soil  of  the 
Bible,  the  mines  to  be  worked,  and  the  problems  to  be  solved. 
If  it  is  suicidal  for  interpretation  to  limit  itself  to  the  exegesis 
of  the  Fathers  and  the  schoolmen,  it  is  just  as  perilous  to  im- 
plicitly follow  the  Reformers  and  theologians  of  the  Protestant 
churches.  It  would  result  in  our  forsaking  the  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  devoting  oui'selves  to  the  interpretation 
of  the  interpreters.  In  some  respects  Protestants  have  been  in 
greater  bondage  here  than  Roman  Catholics,  for  Roman  Catho- 
lics have  been  held  in  check  onl}-  by  the  authoritative  decisions 
of  the  Church  and  the  consent  of  the  Fathers,  whereas  Protes- 
tant interpreters  have  very  generally  followed  the  private 
opinions  of  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or  Knox,  or  Wesley,  or  some 
other.  If  there  is  to  be  a  limitation  it  is  safer  that  such  limits 
should  be  found  in  a  consensus  or  official  decision  than  that 
they  should  be  found  in  anj-  individual,  however  great  he 
may  be. 

Francis  Roberts  happily  says: 

"  There  must  be  constant  caution  that  all  tongues,  arts,  histories, 
translations,  and  comments  be  duly  ranked  in  their  proper  place, 
in  a  subserviency  under,  not  a  regency  or  predominancy  over  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  to  controule  them'  all.  For  when 
Hagar  shall  once  usurp  over  her  mistress,  it's  high  time  to  cast 
her  out  of  doors  till  she  submit  herself."  ' 

'  111  I.e.,  p.  5. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   INTERPRETATION  483 


VI.    DocTKixAL  Interpketation 

In  rising  a  stage  higher  in  our  pyramid  to  doctrinal  interpre- 
tation, we  must  part  company  with  the  Protestant  scholastics, 
for  which  we  have  been  prepared,  as  were  Abraham  and  Lot, 
by  previous  minor  contentions.  The  Bible  contains  a  divine 
revelation.  The  Bible  gives  the  rule  of  faith.  It  is  to  be  in- 
terpreted in  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  faith.  This  anal- 
ogy is  the  substance  of  Scripture  doctrine  found  in  the  plainest 
passages  of  Scripture.  This  was  the  view  of  the  Reformers. 
But  the  scholastics  substituted  for  this  internal  rule  of  faith  an 
external  rule  of  faith,  —  first  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  then  in  the 
symbols  of  the  churches,  and  finally  in  the  Reformed  or  Lu- 
theran, or  some  other  sectarian  S3'stem  of  doctrine.  And  thus 
the  Sacred  Scripture  became  the  slave  of  dogmatic  systems. 
The  modern  exegete  finds  a  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Bible  itself 
which  he  has  learned  to  carefully  distinguish  from  Dogmatic 
Theology.  He  has  found  that  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  John  and 
Saint  James  and  Saint  Paid  were  all  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  have  in  Him  their  centre  and  life ;  that  no  one  of  them  can 
be  relied  on  in  the  writings  attributed  to  him  for  a  complete 
statement  of  Christian  doctrine  and  Christian  life,  that  all  have 
to  be  comprehended  in  a  large  synthesis  for  a  complete  under- 
standing of  Christianity.  The  modern  interpreter  has  learned 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  an  organic  whole,  in  wliich  priests 
and  prophets,  sages  and  poets  find  their  centre  and  life  in  the 
theophanies  of  God.  He  has  learned  that  Yahweh  and  Jesus 
are  one,  and  that  in  the  Messiah  of  prophecj^  and  history  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  become  an  organic 
whole.  With  this  bringing  forth  of  the  internal  substance  of 
the  Scriptures  in  its  unity  and  variety,  theological  exposition 
finds  its  satisfaction  and  delight,  and  the  analogy  of  faith  is 
harmonized  with  the  principles  of  interpretation  which  have 
prepared  the  way  for  its  advance  and  achievements.^  Francis 
Roberts  saw  this  in  part  and  stated  it  fairly  well  in  the  seven- 
teenth century. 2 

1  See  Chap.  XXIII.  2  j.c,  p.  lo. 


484  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCUIPTURE 

"  Now  that  we  may  more  successfully  and  clearly  understand 
Scripture  by  Scripture,  tliese  eusueiiig  piarticulars  are  to  be  ob- 
served: (1)  That  Jesus  Christ  our  mediator  and  the  salvation  of 
sinyiers  by  Him  is  the  very  substance,  marrov:,  soul,  and  scope  of  the 
whole  Scriptures.  "What  are  the  whole  Scriptures,  but  as  it  were 
the  spiritual  swadling  cloathes  of  the  Holy  child  Jesus.  (1) 
Christ  is  the  truth  and  substance  of  all  the  types  and  shadows. 
(2)  Christ  is  the  matter  and  substance  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
under  all  administrations  thereof ;  under  the  Old  Testament  Christ 
is  veyled,  under  the  New  Covenant  revealed.  (3)  Christ  is  the 
centre  and  meeting-jDlace  of  all  the  promises,  for  in  him  all  the 
promises  of  God  are  3^ea,  and  they  are  Amen.  (4)  Christ  is 
the  thing  signified,  sealed,  and  exhibited  in  all  the  sacraments  of 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  whether  ordinary  or  extraordinar}''.  (5) 
Scripture  genealogies  are  to  lead  us  on  to  the  true  line  of  Christ. 
(6)  Scripture  chronologies  are  to  discover  to  us  the  times  and 
seasons  of  Christ.  (7)  Scripture  laws  are  our  schoolmaster  to 
bring  us  to  Christ ;  the  moral  by  correcting,  the  ceremonial  by 
directing.  And  (8)  Scripture  gospel  is  Christ's  light,  whereby  we 
know  him ;  Christ's  voice,  whereby  we  hear  and  follow  him ; 
Christ's  cords  of  love,  whereby  we  are  drawn  into  sweet  union  and 
communion  with  him ;  yea  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation 
unto  all  them  that  believe  in  Christ  Jesus.  Keep  therefore  still 
Jesus  Christ  iu  your  eye,  in  the  perusal  of  the  Scripture,  as  the 
end,  scope,  and  substance  thereof.  For  as  the  sun  gives  light  to 
all  the  heavenl}'  bodies,  so  Jesus  Christ  the  sun  of  righteousness 
gives  light  to  all  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

VII.    Practical  Interpretatiox 

In  rising  now  to  the  highest  stage  of  interpretation  —  prac- 
tical interpretation  —  we  part  company  with  tlie  mystics  as  well 
as  the  scholastics.  The  Bible  is  a  book  of  life,  a  people's  book, 
a  book  of  conduct.  It  came  from  the  living  God.  It  tends  to 
the  living  God.  Here  is  the  apex  of  the  pyramid  of  interpre- 
tation. He  who  has  not  readied  this  stage  has  .stopped  on  the 
way  and  will  not  understand  the  Bible.  The  Bible  brings  the 
interpreter  to  God.  We  can  understand  the  Bible  only  by 
mastering  it.  We  need  the  master  ke}'.  No  one  but  the  Mas- 
ter Himself  can  give  it  to  us.  It  is  necessary  to  know  God  and 
His  Christ  in  order  to  know  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures  cannot 
be  understood  from  the   outside  by  grammar,  logic,  rhetoric, 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   IXTERPRETATIOX  485 

anil  history  alone.  The  Bible  cannot  be  aiulerstood  when  in- 
volved in  the  labyrinth  of  its  doctrines.  The  Bible  is  to  be 
understood  from  its  centre  —  its  heart  —  its  Christ.  Jesus 
Christ  does  not  reveal  Plimself  ordinarily  aside  from  the  Bible, 
by  new  revelations  outside  of  it  casting  new  light  upon  it  fi-om 
the  exterior,  as  the  mystics  suppose.  But  the  Messiah  is  the 
light-centre  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  He  is  entlironed  in 
them  as  His  Holy  of  Holies,  as  was  Yahweh  in  the  ancient 
tenijjle.  Through  the  avenues  of  the  Scriptures  we  go  to  find 
Christ  —  in  their  centre  we  find  our  Saviour.  It  is  this  per- 
sonal relation  of  the  author  of  the  entire  .Scripture  to  the  inter- 
preter that  enables  him  truly  to  understand  the  divine  things 
of  the  Scripture.  Jesus  Christ  knew  the  Old  Testament  and 
interpreted  it  as  one  who  knew  the  mind  of  God.^  He  needed 
no  helps  to  climb  the  jjyramid  of  interpretation.  He  ever  lived 
at  the  summit.  Tiie  apostles  interpreted  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
from  the  mind  of  Christ,  read  by  the  Spirit  He  had  given 
them. 2  We  have  no  such  divine  heljD.  These  who  claim  such 
help  are  mistaken.  The}-  mistake  the  ordinary  guidance  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  always  given  to  the  devout  Christian,  for  His 
extraordinary  guidance  given  to  the  founders  of  the  Church. 
The)-  are  presumptuous  in  assuming  to  rank  with  the  founders 
of  the  Church.  We  cannot  use  their  a  priori  methods,  but  we 
may  climb  toward  them.  We  may  have  all  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  quest  —  all  the  joy  of  discover}-. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  complete  our  studies  of  the  lower 
stages  of  exegesis  ere  we  climb  higher.  The  exegete  is  not 
building  the  pyramid.  He  is  climbing  it.  Every  passage  tends 
toward  the  summit.  Some  interpreters  remain  forever  in  the 
lowest  stages.  Others  spring  hastily  to  the  higher  stages  and 
fall  back  crippled  and  are  flung  down  to  the  lowest.  The 
patient,  faithful,  honest  exegete  climbs  steadily  and  laboriously 
to  the  summit. 

The  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  supreme  interpreter 

of  Scripture  is  the  highest  attainment  of  interpretation.     The 

greatest  leaders  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  have  acted  on  this 

principle,  however  defective  their  apprehension  of  it  may  have 

1  See  p.  442.  2  See  p.  443. 


486  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

been,  and  however  little  they  may  have  consciously  used  it  iu 
the  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptui-e.  It  was  tliis  conscious- 
ness of  knowing  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  and  having  the  truth  of 
God  that  made  them  invincible.  It  was  Athanasius  against 
the  world.  With  the  Divine  Truth  of  the  blessed  Trinit}-  he 
was  mightier  than  the  world.  It  was  Luther  against  pope  and 
emperor.  He  could  do  no  other.  The  Word  of  God  in  his 
hands  and  in  his  heart  assured  him  of  forgiveness  of  sin  and 
justification  by  faith  ;  and  poor,  weak  man  though  he  was,  he 
was  mightier  than  Church  and  State  combined. 

It  is  this  principle  "that  the  supreme  judge,  by  wliich  all 
controversies  of  religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees 
of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and 
private  spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we 
are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scripture,"  ^  that  made  the  Puritan  faith  and  life  invincible. 

Let  us  cling  to  it  as  the  most  precious  achievement  of  British 
Christianity  ;  let  us  raise  it  on  our  banners,  and  advance  with 
it  into  the  conflicts  of  the  day  ;  let  us  plant  it  on  every  hill 
and  in  every  valley  throughout  the  world ;  let  us  not  only  give 
the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  men  and  translate  it  into  their 
tongues,  but  let  us  put  it  into  their  hearts,  and  translate  it 
into  their  lives.  Then  will  biblical  interpretation  reach  its 
culmination  in  practical  interpretation,  in  the  experience  and 
life  of  mankind. 

1  Westminster  Confession,  I.  10. 


CHAPTER  XX 

HISTORY  OF   THE   STUDY   OF   BIBLICAL  HISTORY 

The  historical  material  contained  in  Holy  Scrijature  must  be 
tested  and  verified  just  the  same  as  all  other  historical  material. 
Until  this  historical  criticism  has  done  its  work,  faithfully, 
thorouglUy,  and  well,  the  material  may  have  religious  value  for 
all  who  are  willing  to  accept  it  on  tlie  testimony  of  the  Church 
or  because  of  its  religious  influence  upon  themselves  or  others, 
but  it  cannot  have  any  scientific  value  ;  it  cannot  be  used  as  a 
reliable  part  of  human  knowledge. 

The  historical  criticism  of  biblical  history  has  the  same 
methods  and  principles  as  those  employed  by  historical  criti- 
cism in  all  other  departments.  In  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture 
these  principles  and  methods  should  be  used  reverently,  because 
of  the  holy  character  of  the  material,  but  with  all  the  more 
scrupulous  thoroughness  and  accuracy. 

The  historical  material  contained  in  Holy  Scrijrture  has  been 
used  for  many  centuries  by  Jew  and  Christian,  and  employed 
not  only  for  religious  purposes  but  also  for  historical  purposes. 
But  it  is  only  in  quite  recent  times  that  any  serious  attempt 
has  been  made  to  study  biblical  history  in  a  scientific  spirit 
and  b}'  the  use  of  historical  criticism. 

I.    The  Use  of    Biblical    History   prior   to  the  Six- 
teenth Cextitry 

Josephus  is  the  father  of  Biblical  History  outside  the  Bible. 
In  his  Antiquities  (20  books),  and  Jewish  War  (7  books),  he 
endeavoui's,  as  an  advocate  of  the  Jewish  people,  to  set  forth 
their  history  in  the  most  favourable  light  before  tlie  Greek  and 
Roman  world  of  his  time.  He  was  an  excellent  and,  indeed, 
487 


488  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

brilliant  writer  and  ston'-teller,  but  he  had  no  conscience  for 
historical  accuracy,  and  had  little  interest  in  the  discrimination 
of  truth  from  error,  or  fact  from  fiction.  Philo  M-rote  a  life 
of  Moses,  but  it  has  no  historical  value;  it  is  altogether  alle- 
gorical and  didactic  in  its  purpose. 

Subsequent  to  Josephus  there  seems  to  have  been  no  interest 
in  biblical  history  among  the  Jews.  Their  whole  life  was  in 
the  study  and  practice  of  the  Law,  and  the  only  use  the 
rabbins  made  of  history  was  to  illustrate  and  enforce  the  Law. 
For  this  purpose  they  did  not  hesitate  to  embellish  history  and 
transform  it  into  historic  fiction.  This  method  goes  back  into 
the  Old  Testament  Canon  itself,  into  the  stories  of  Daniel  and 
Esther,  Ruth  and  Jonah,  and  even  into  the  Chronicler  and 
the  Ueuteronomic  writers,  who  idealized  the  past  in  order  to 
enforce  the  historic  lessons  they  would  teach. ^  The  only  his- 
torical works  used  by  the  Jews  until  modern  times  were  the 
Sedar  olam  rabba  and  Sedar  olam  zutta^  which  were  again  and 
again  interpolated  in  the  course  of  the  centuries. 

Among  Christians  the  earliest  historical  efforts  were  natu- 
rally upon  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  acts  of  the  apostles.  A 
large  number  of  apocryphal  books  of  this  kind  were  produced, 
none  of  which  gained  extensive  recognition.  They  were  full 
of  mythical  and  legendary  material,  and  were  all  eventually 
pushed  aside  and  crowded  into  oblivion  by  the  canonical 
Gospels  and  book  of  Acts.  The  orthodox  limited  themselves 
to  the  construction  of  harmonies  and  poetical  representations 
of  various  kinds.  The  Harmony  of  Tatian  was  extensively 
used  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  among  the  Syrians  crowded 
the  four  Gospels  out  of  use  for  several  generations.  The 
earliest  Christian  efforts  to  present  biblical  history  in  a  more 
systematic  wa}'  were  those  of  Hegesippus  and  Julius  Africanus. 
liegesippus,'  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  wrote 
five  books  of  memoirs,  the  result  of  his  liistorical  investigations 
at  Rome  and  elsewhere.  But  only  fragments  have  been  pre- 
served. Julius  Africanus,  of  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, wrote  five  volumes  of  chronology,  which  were  extant  in 

1  See  p.  341  seq.  •^  See  p.  235. 

»  Eusebius,   Church  History,  McGifferl's  ed.,  II.  L'3 ;   IV.  22,  pp.  125,  198. 


HISTORY   OF  BIBLICAL   HISTORY  489 

Jerome's  tirae,^  but  which  have  perished  with  the  exception  of 
fragments.  Eusebius  in  the  fourth  centui-y  was  the  chief  his- 
torian of  the  ancient  Church,  the  father  of  Church  history.  He 
wrote  a  chronicle  giving  the  history  of  the  world  up  to  his  own 
times  and  chronological  tables.^  He  takes  up  into  his  ecclesias- 
tical history  all  that  was  deemed  valuable  in  the  earlier  writ- 
ings, and  in  geographical  work  laid  the  foundation  for  biblical 
geography.^ 

In  the  Latin  Church  the  tii'st  and  chief  writer  upon  biblical 
histor}-  was  Sulpicius  Severus  {c.  400  B.C.).  He  wrote  a  sacred 
history  in  two  books.  The  lirst  book  extends  from  the  creation 
of  the  world  until  the  exile,  in  54  chapters ;  the  second  book, 
from  the  exile  until  the  martyrdom  of  Priscillian,  in  51  cliaj]- 
ters.  The  story  of  Christ  is  told  in  a  single  chapter,  27,  and 
the  story  of  the  apostles  in  two  chapters,  28-29.  There  is  no 
discrimination  between  historic  fact  and  fiction.  Judith  and 
Esther  and  the  tales  of  the  ]\Iaccabees  take  their  place  in  the 
history  on  the  same  level  as  the  most  important  events  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments.  Augustine,  in  his  de  civitate  dei,  uses 
biblical  history  merelj'  in  the  interests  of  Christian  doctrine. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  biblical  history  was  studied  for  dog- 
matic or  devotional  purposes.  Many  poetical  representations 
were  made  for  the  instruction  of  the  people,  and  ancient  har- 
monies were  reproduced  and  devotional  studies  were  given. 
The  greatest  work  upon  biblical  history  in  all  this  period  was 
the  Life  of  Christ,  by  Rudolf  of  Saxony,  1470,  which  went 
through  many  editions.  It  is  innocent  of  any  historic  sense, 
and  knows  no  diiference  between  fact  and  fable. 

II.    The  Study  of  Biblical  History  in  the  Sixteexth 
AND  Seventeenth  Centuries 

The  Reformation  was  not  a  revival  of  historical  studies  so 
much  as  of  literary  and  dogmatic  studies.  There  were  sev- 
eral efforts  to  study  the    Gospels   and   the   Pentateuch  in  a 

'  .leronie.  De  rdris  illustribtis,  63. 
-  xpo'-"^'-  "avova.  see  McGiffert's  Eusebius,  :il. 

'  TTfpl  Tuiv  TOTiKQv  dvofiaTwii  Tuiv  iv  TJ  0eiif  ypa<f)r],  trauslated  in  the  Onomas- 
ticnn  of  .leroine. 


490  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

harmonistic  way.  The  most  impoitant  works  of  this  kind 
were  the  Grospel  Harmonies  of  Osiauder,  1537,  and  Chemnitz, 
1593  ;  and  especially  the  Harmony  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Harmony  of  the  Grospels  by  Calviu. 

It  was  not  until  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  that 
Biblical  History  became  of  interest,  and  then  chiefly  from  an 
archasological  point  of  view,  because  of  the  increased  attention 
to  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages  and  antiqui- 
ties. A  great  collection  of  writings  of  archaeological  writers 
from  this  period  was  subsequently  made  by  Ugolino.^ 

Scaliger  laid  the  foundations  for  chronology  ^  and  Usher  ^ 
wrote  an  invaluable  work  upon  the  clu-onology  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  which  has  been  the  basis  of  all  chronological 
studies  until  recent  times.  But  other  scholars,  such  as  Good- 
win,* Lightfoot,"  Selden,®  Buxtorf,"  Bochart,^  and  Vitringa,* 
made  special  investigations  in  various  departments  and  en- 
larged the  field  of  historical  knowledge.  They  did  not  criti- 
call}^  sift  their  material,  but  they  gathered  it  and  arranged  it 
for  subsequent  sifting  by  historical  criticism. 

III.    The    Study   of    Biblical    History   in   the    Eigh- 
teenth Century 

In  the  eighteenth  century  the  conflict  between  Christianity 
and  Deism,  Atheism,  and  Rationalism,  led  to  a  re-investigation 
of  the  entire  field  of  biblical  history,  in  which  England,  France, 
Holland,  Switzerland,  and  German}'  shared.  On  the  one  side 
every  effort  was  put  forth  to  discredit  the  supernatural  in 

1  Thesaurus  antiquitatt.  sacra,  34  vols,  folio,  Venice.  1744-17G9. 
'  2'hesaurus  temporuni  Eusebii,  1600. 
'Annates  Vet.  et  X.  Test.,  2  vols.,  1650-16o4. 

*  Moses  et  Aaron,  1616. 

6  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  1644-1050;  Erubim,  10-20;  Arts  of  the  Apostles, 
164.');  Harmony,  rhraiiirles.  and  urder  of  the  Old  Testament,  1647;  Harmony, 
chronicle,  and  orSer  of  the  Xew  Testament,  lO-jo ;  and  especially  Hor(e 
HebraicK  et  2'almiidicce,  16.58-1604. 

«  De  jure  natural!  et  gentium  ju:rta  disciplinam  Helir(eorum,  1040  ;  De  suc- 
cessionc  in  pontificatum  Hel>ra:orum,  1038;  De  Synedriis,  1050. 

'  Synar/o'ja  Judaica,  1604. 

•  Orofiraphia  sacra  sen  Phaleg  et  Canaan,  1046  ;  Hierozoicon,  1063. 
"  Hypolyposes  historia:  et  chronologic  Sacra;  1008. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL   HISTORY  491 

biblical  history  and  to  put  it  iii  the  category  of  all  other 
ancient  histories,  and  even  to  depreciate  it  as  a  muss  of 
legends  and  fables.  On  the  other  side,  every  effort  was  made 
to  defend  the  supernatural,  and  even  to  exaggerate  it.  A 
middle  course  was  pursued  by  a  few.  These  strove  to  con- 
serve all  that  was  true  and  real  in  the  history,  and  to  let  all 
that  was  untrue  perish.  A  terrible  sifting  went  on,  and  all 
the  material  gathered  with  so  much  industry  in  the  previous 
century  had  to  pass  through  the  fire.  In  England  tiie  prin- 
cipal writers  of  solid  merit  were  Prideaux,'  Schuckford,^  Stack- 
house.^  Paley ;  *  in  France,  Basnage,^  Calmet ;  ®  in  Holland, 
Relaud "  and  Spanheim ;  ^  in  Germany,  Buddeus,®  Waehner,^" 
Bengel,^!  Kous,^  Hess,i^  and  Michaelis.i* 

IV.    Biblical  Historical  Criticism  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century 

Toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Herder,^^  j^-^^i 
especially  Eichhorn,'^  laid  the  foundations  for  a  more  historical 
study  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  began  to  use  the  historical  mate- 
rial in  the  Bible  with  a  genuine  historical  sjjirit.  They  en- 
deavoured to  put  the  biblical  writings  in  the  midst  of  the 
scenery  of  the  ancient  world,  and  to  interjjret  them  with  a  true 
understanding  of  their  literary  characteristics.  They  saw  the 
manj'  sources  and  variety  of  colours  of  the  historical  material ; 

'  The  Ohl  and  Xeic  Testaments  Connected,  1716-1718. 

'^  Sacred  and  Profane  History  of  the  World,  1728. 

«  New  History  of  the  Holy  Bible,  2  vols.,  1732.  *  fierce  PauUnce,  1790. 

*  Hisloire  des  Juifs  depiiis  Jesus-Christ  jtisqu'' a presettt,    1706. 

*  Dictionnnire  de  la  Bible,  1722. 

"  Antiguitntes  Sacr<B,  1708  ;  Palestina  ex  moniimentis,  1704. 
'  Opera  quatenus  complectantur  geographiam,  chronologiam  et  historiam 
sacram,  1701-1703. 

5  Hist.  eccl.  Vet.  Test.,  2  Bde..  1715. 
1'  Antiquitates  Hebrceorum,  2  vols.,  1701-1703. 

11  Ordo  temporum,  1741.  i*  Einleitung  in  d.  Bib.  Gesch.,  1770. 

1'  Gesch.  d.  3  letzten  Lebensjahre  Jesu,  1768  ;  Apostelgeschichte,  3  Bde.,  1775  ; 
Gesch.  der  Israeliten,  12  Bde.,  1776-1788. 

'♦  Spicilii/ium  (jeographiae  Heb.,  1769  ;  Mosaisches  Eecht,  G  Bde.,  1770-1775. 
w  Alleste  Urkxinde  des  Menscheuyrschli'rhts.  1774. 

'<'  Eichhoni,  Urgeschichte,  first  published  in  the  Bepertorium,  1779,  and  after- 
wards edited  by  Gabler,  1791,  1793. 


492  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPl'UKE 

they  kiiew  how  to  appreciate  the  mythical  and  legendary  mate- 
rial in  Holy  Scripture,  and  they  endeavoured  to  reconcile  these 
historical  features  with  their  holy  character  and  religious  use. 
The  recognition,  hy  such  a  preeminent  biblical  scholar  as 
Eichhorn,  of  the  mj-thical,  legendary,  and  poetic  material  in 
the  Hoi}-  Scriptures  and  their  use  of  more  ancient  documents, 
gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  study  of  Biblical  Historj-.  The  study 
of  Biblical  Histor}'  had  thus  far  been  unscientitic  and  capricious, 
both  on  the  side  of  the  Suiiernaturalists  and  their  Deistic, 
Atheistic,  and  Rationalistic  opponents.  The  Supernaturalists 
were  loath  to  recognize  anything  like  legend  and  myth,  and 
they  were  reluctant  to  admit  even  poetry  and  original  docu- 
ments. Their  opponents  were  more  concerned  to  discredit  the 
materials  of  biblical  history  than  to  test  their  true  character- 
istics. 

Thomas  Payne  may  be  taken  as  a  representative  of  the  views 
of  the  Deists  at  the  close  of  the  ceuturj-.  A  few  sentences  from 
his  famous  book  may  suffice.  "  It  is  not  the  antiquity  of  a  tale 
that  is  any  evidence  of  its  truth  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  symptom 
of  its  being  fabulous;  for  the  more  ancient  any  history  pretends 
to  be,  the  more  it  has  the  resemblance  of  a  fable.  Tlie  origin  of 
every  nation  is  buried  in  fabulous  tradition,  and  that  of  the  Jews 
is  as  much  to  be  suspected  as  auy  other." '  "  Speaking  for  myself, 
if  I  had  no  other  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  fabulous  than  the 
sacrifice  I  must  make  to  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  alone  would 
be  sufficient  to  determine  my  choice."  ^ 

Speaking  of  the  immaculate  conception  he  says,  "  This  story  is, 
upon  the  face  of  it,  the  same  kind  of  story  as  that  of  Jupiter  and 
Leda,  or  Jupiter  and  Europa,  or  anj-  of  the  amorous  adventures  of 
Jupiter,  and  shews,  as  is  alreadj'  stated  in  the  former  i)art  of  tlie 
Age  of  Reason,  that  the  Christian  faith  is  built  upon  the  heathen 
Mythology." » 

Speaking  of  the  resurrection  he  says,  "  The  story  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Jesus  Christ  is  told  with  that  strange  mixture  of  the  natu- 
ral and  impossible  that  distinguishes  legendarj'  tale  from  fact."* 

It  is  evident  that  Payne,  like  all  his  associates  and  predecessors 
of  the  Deistic  school  of  writers,  plays  fast  and  loose  with  tales. 
legends,  and  mj-ths,  and  is  destitute  of  auy  real  scientific  or  his- 


toric interest. 

*  Age  of  Reason.,  Conway's  edition,  N.Y.,  1800,  p. 
2  i.e.,  p.  00.  s/.c.  p.  163. 


90. 

*  I.e.,  p.  ICO. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL   HISTORY  493 

V.   The  Mythical  Hypothesis 

Through  the  influence  of  Eichlioru  a  scientific  and  historic 
interest  began  to  prevail,  and  scholars  set  themselves  to  work 
to  ascertain  how  much  poetry,  fiction,  legend,  and  myth  was 
contained  in  the  Bible,  and  how  the  real  facts  and  truths  of 
history  could  be  eliminated  therefrom.  Many  scholars  took 
part  in  the  investigation,  but  the  most  comprehensive  work 
was  done  by  De  Wette  ^  and  G.  L.  Baur.^  De  Wette  recog- 
nized the  poetic,  mythical,  and  legendary  material  in  biblical 
history,  not  only  in  the  early  history  of  Israel,  but  also  in  the 
life  of  Jesus.  G.  L.  Baur  was,  however,  the  first  to  apph'  the 
theory  of  the  myth  in  a  thorough-going  manner  to  the  exjjlana- 
tion  of  Biblical  History.  But  he,  and  all  others,  were  outdone 
by  Strauss,  who  in  1835  used  the  mythical  theory  in  a  most 
drastic  manner  for  the  interpretation  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

The  situation  is  well  described  by  A.  ]\I.  Fairbairn : 

"  Strauss  elaborated  his  hypothesis  with  extraordinary  inge- 
nuity. The  air  was  full  of  mythological  theories.  Wolf's 
Prolegomena  had  started  manj-  questions  —  critical,  mythical, 
religious  —  as  to  the  Homeric  poems  aud  primitive  Greece.  Nie- 
bidir  had  carried  a  new  light  into  the  history  of  ancient  Eome. 
Heyne  had  enunciated  the  principle,  .^-l  mytJtis  omnis  priscorum 
lioininum  cum  historia  turn  philosophia  procedit ;  and  he  and  Her- 
mann had,  though  under  specific  differences,  resolved  mythology 
into  a  consciously  invented  and  elaborately  concealed  science  of 
nature  and  man.  Creuzer  had  made  it  a  religious  symbolism, 
under  which  was  hidden  an  earlier  and  purer  faith.  Ottfried 
Midler,  in  a  finer  and  more  scientific  spirit,  had  explained  myths 
as  created  by  the  reciprocal  action  of  two  factors,  the  real  and 
ideal,  aud  had  traced  in  certain  cases  their  rise  even  in  the  his- 
torical period.  The  same  tendence  had  existed  in  scriptural  as 
in  classical  studies.  Mythical  interpretations  had  been  applied 
long  before  to  certain  sections  of  the  Old  Testament.  Eichhorn 
and  Banr.  Vater  and  De  Wette,  had  employed  it  with  greater  or 
less  freedom  and  thoroughness.  It  had  even  been  carried  into  the 
Xew  Testament,  and  made  to  explain  the  earlier  and  later  events 

^  Krilik  d.  Uraelitischer  Geschichte,  1806;  see  also  article  De  "Wette  in 
Herzog,  H.E..  Bd.  17,  s.  V2  seq. 

-  Geschichte  der  Htb.  Nation,  2  Btle..  1800;  Bebraische  Mytholnr/ie.  2  Bde., 
1820. 


494  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

in  the  life  of  Jesus,  those  jn'ior  to  the  Temptation,  and  those  sub- 
sequent to  the  Crucifixion.  Strauss  tlius  only  universalized  a 
method  which  had  been  in  partial  operation  before ;  made  the 
myth,  instead  of  a  portal  to  enter  and  leave  the  Gospels,  a  com- 
prehensive name  for  the  whole.  In  doing  so  it  was  not  enough 
to  build  on  old  foundations.  The  enormous  extension  of  the 
structure  needed  a  corresponding  extension  of  the  base.  The 
man  could  not  but  fail  at  the  end  whose  work  at  the  beginning 
was  not  simply  ill  done,  but  not  done  at  all." ' 

The  position  of  Strauss  is  thus  stated  by  himself: 

"The  precise  sense  in  which  we  use  the  expression  mi/thus, 
applied  to  certain  parts  of  the  gospel  history,  is  evident  from  all 
that  has  already  been  said :  at  the  same  time  the  different  kinds 
and  gradations  of  the  mythi  which  we  shall  meet  with  in  this 
history  may  here  by  way  of  anticipation  be  pointed  out.  We 
distinguish  by  the  name  ecaiiijeU'cal  mi/thu.'i  a  narrative  relating 
directly  or  indirectly  to  Jesus,  which  may  be  considered,  not  as 
the  expression  of  a  fact,  but  as  the  product  of  an  idea  of  his 
earliest  followers :  such  a  narrative  being  m3tlncal  in  proportion 
as  it  exhibits  this  character.  The  mythus  in  this  sense  of  the  term 
meets  us.  in  the  Gospel  as  elsewhere,  sometimes  in  its  pure  form, 
constituting  the  substance  of  the  narrative,  and  sometimes  as  an 
accidental  adjunct  to  the  actual  history.  The  pure  mythus  in  the 
Gospel  will  be  found  to  have  two  sources,  which  in  most  cases 
contributed  simultaneously,  though  in  different  proportions,  to 
form  the  mythus.  The  one  source  is,  as  already  stated,  the 
Messianic  ideas  and  expect.ations  existing  according  to  their 
several  forms  in  the  Jewish  mind  before  Jesus,  and  iude])endently 
of  him ;  the  other  is  that  particular  impression  which  was  left  by 
the  personal  character,  .actions,  and  fate  of  Jesus,  and  which 
served  to  modify  the  Messianic  idea  in  the  minds  of  his  people. 
The  account  of  the  Tr.anstiguration.  for  example,  is  derived  almost 
exclusively  from  the  former  source ;  the  only  amplification  taken 
from  the  latter  source  being  that  the}'  who  appeared  with  Jesus 
on  the  mount  s])ake  of  his  decease.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
narrative  of  the  rending  of  the  veil  of  the  temple  at  the  death  of 
Jesus  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  tlie  hostile  position  which 
Jesus,  and  his  Church  after  him,  sustained  in  relation  to  the 
Jewish  temple  worship.  Here  already  we  have  something  his- 
torical, though  consisting  merely  of  certain  general  features  of 
character,  position,  etc. ;   we  are  thus  at  once  brought  upon  the 

>  A.  M.  Fairbairn,    The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern   Theology,  1893,  pp. 
241-242. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL    HISTORY  495 

groiuul  of  the  historical  mythus.  The  hiMorkal  mythus  has  for 
its  groundwork  a  defiuite  individual  fact,  which  has  been  seized 
upon  by  religious  enthusiasm  and  twined  around  with  mythical 
conceptions  culled  from  the  idea  of  Christ.  This  fact  is  perhaps 
a  saying  of  Jesus,  such  as  that  concerning  '  fishers  of  men '  or 
the  barren  fig-tree,  which  now  appear  in  the  Gospels  transmuted 
into  marvellous  histories ;  or,  it  is  perhaps  a  real  transaction  or 
event  taken  from  his  life ;  for  instance,  the  nij-thical  traits 
in  the  account  of  the  baptism  were  built  upon  such  a  reality. 
Certain  of  the  miraculous  histories  may  likewise  have  had  some 
foundation  in  natural  occurrences,  which  the  narrative  has  either 
exhibited  in  a  supernatural  light  or  enriched  with  miraculous 
incidents.  All  the  species  of  imagery  here  enumerated  may  justly 
be  designated  as  mythi,  even  according  to  the  modern  and  precise 
definition  of  George,  inasmuch  as  the  unliistorical  which  they 
embody  —  whether  formed  gradually  by  tradition  or  created  by 
an  individual  author  —  is  in  each  case  the  product  of  an  idea. 
But  for  those  parts  of  the  historj"  which  are  characterized  by 
indefiniteness  and  want  of  connection,  by  misconstruction  and 
transformation,  by  strange  combinations  and  confusion  —  the  nat- 
ural results  of  a  long  course  of  oral  transmission ;  or  which,  on 
the  contrary,  are  distinguished  by  highly  coloured  and  pictorial 
representations,  which  also  seem  to  point  to  a  traditionary  origin, 
■ — -for  these  parts  the  term  legendary  is  certainly  the  more  appro- 
priate. Lastly.  It  is  requisite  to  distinguish  equally  from  the 
mythus  and  the  legend  that  which,  as  it  serves  not  to  clothe 
an  idea  on  the  one  hand,  and  admits  not  of  being  referred  to 
tradition  on  the  other,  must  be  regarded  as  the  addition  of  the 
author,  as  purely  individual,  and  designed  merely  to  give  clearness, 
connection,  and  climax  to  the  representation.  It  is  to  the  various 
forms  of  the  unhistorical  in  the  Gospels  that  this  enumeration 
exclusively  refers ;  it  does  not  involve  the  renunciation  of  the 
historical  which  the}'  may  likewise  contain.'' ' 

Strauss  recognizes  Ullmann  ^  as  his  chief  opponent,  although 
many  other-s  from  all  sides  attacked  him.  He  ^vas  correct  in 
his  judgment.  Ullmann  states  that  the  only  thing  new  in 
Strauss  was  that  he  carried  out  in  detail,  more  completely  and 
strenuously,  the  mythical  hjqiothesis  which  had  long  been  held 
by  others,  in  general  or  in  some  particulars.^  He  shows  that 
Strauss  does  not  sufficiently  distinguish  between  the  canonical 

1  Straus-s,  The  Life  of  .Testis.  Eng.  trans.,  Vol.  I.  pp.  85-87. 

^  Historisch  oder  M'jthisch?  1838.  '  /•'■•,  s.  .52. 


49G  STUDY   VF   HOLY   SCKll'TUKE 

anil  the  apocryphal  gospels,  when  he  makes  the  former  the  first 
stage  of  mythical  production,  and  the  latter  the  second  stage. ^ 
He  urges  that  there  is  a  middle  way  between  the  denial  of  the 
poetic,  the  legendary,  and  mythical  elements  altogether,  and 
the  extreme  assertion  of  them  by  Strauss.^  He  claims  that 
the  sj'mbolic  is  a  necessary  clothing  of  the  historical  in  the 
Christian  as  in  all  other  religions ;  that  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  religion  must,  in  the  ver}'  nature  of 
the  case,  have  a  different  character  from  that  of  other  ordi- 
nary historj- ;  that  it  was  a  new  spiritual  creation,  in  which 
the  extraordinarjr  and  even  the  inexjjlicable  occurs,  and  that 
it  is  accompanied  with  the  religious  enthusiasm  of  its  adher- 
ents ;  that  the  ideal  of  the  divine  and  perfect  everywhere  pre- 
vails ;  that  there  is  a  rich  fulness  of  new  ideas,  a  new  life 
which  clothes  itself  in  the  s)'mbolical,  the  allegorical,  and  the 
highest  poetry ;  and  that,  from  this  point  of  view,  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  a  religious  epic  of  the  most  glorious  character.^  With 
a  full  recognition  of  all  these  elements,  Ullmann  shows  that 
there  is  no  real  myth  in  the  life  of  Jesus  as  given  us  in  the 
four  Gospels. 

"  This  real  historical  point  of  unity  of  God  and  man,  this  com- 
plete presentation  of  the  true  life  in  a  perfector  of  faith,  must  be 
given,  if,  in  fact,  a  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  founded  and  man- 
kind won  for  it.  The  Church  must  have  a  living  head  and  a 
human  exemplar ;  it  could  be  founded  onlj%  if  an  individual,  who 
bore  in  himself  the  creative  fulness  of  the  divine  life,  was  really 
there  first  of  all,  as  the  kernel  and  the  root  of  the  miglity  growth 
which  then  spread  itself  out  over  all  peoples."'  * 

The  result  of  the  contest  as  to  the  life  of  Christ  introduced 
by  Strauss  was  to  show  that,  while  there  are  poetical  and  sym- 
bolical elements  in  the  canonical  Gospels,  there  are  no  myths 
whatever.  The  New  Testament  uses  the  mj'thical  element 
for  illustration  in  the  imagery  of  the  apocailj'pse  and  in  the 
exhortations  of  the  Epistles.*  There  are  no  real  myths  in  the 
New  Testament  history,  but  only  mythical  germs  Avhich  have 
been  preserved  and  are  used  for  illustrative  jiurposes. 

'  Z.c,  s.  64.  ^I.c,  s.  no.  3  ?.c.,  s.  73-:C. 

*  I.e.,  $.  S^o.  '  See  pp.  .S.'?:5,  346. 


HISTOKY    OF   BIBLICAL   IIISTOUY  497 


VI.    The  Legendary  Hypothesis 

In  the  discussions  of  the  previous  century  it  had  been  recog- 
nized by  the  Deistic,  Atheistic,  and  Rationalistic  assaihints  of 
the  Bible  that  there  was  a  large  amount  of  legendary  material 
in  biblical  history.  Eiclihorn,  De  Wette,  and  their  pupils  had 
also  recognized  it  with  sobriety  and  moderation  ;  but  Renan, 
in  1863,  was  the  first  to  apply  the  legendary  theory  rigorously 
for  an  explanation  of  the  life  of  Jesus  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels. 

Renan  states  his  position  thus  : 

"  The  historic  value  which  I  attribute  to  the  Gospels  is  now, 
I  think,  quite  understood.  They  are  neither  biographies,  after 
the  manner  of  Suetonius,  nor  fictitious  legends  like  those  of 
Philostratus ;  they  are  legendary  biographies.  I  would  compare 
them  with  the  legends  of  the  Saints,  the  Lives  of  Plotinus,  Proclus, 
Isidorus,  and  other  works  of  the  same  kind,  in  which  historic  truth 
and  the  intention  of  presenting  models  of  virtue  are  combined  in 
different  degrees.  Inaccuracy,  which  is  one  of  the  peculiarities 
of  all  popular  compositions,  is  especially  perceptible  in  them. 
Suppose  that  ten  or  twelve  years  ago,  three  or  four  old  soldiers 
of  the  empire  had  each  sat  down  to  write  the  life  of  Napoleon 
from  memory.  It  is  clear  that  their  relations  would  present 
numerous  errors  and  great  discrepancies.  One  of  them  would 
put  Wagram  before  ^Marengo;  another  would  write  without  hesi- 
tation that  Napoleon  drove  the  government  of  Robespierre  from 
the  Tuileries;  a  third  would  omit  expeditions  of  the  highest 
importance.  But  one  thing  would  certainly  be  realized  with  a 
good  degree  of  truth  from  these  artless  relations,  —  the  character 
of  the  hero,  the  impression  which  he  made  upon  tliose  about  him. 
In  this  view,  such  popular  histories  are  better  than  formal,  authori- 
tative history.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  Gospels. 
Intent  solely  on  setting  prominently  forth  the  excellence  of  the 
Master,  his  miracles  and  his  teachings,  the  evangelists  exhibit 
complete  indifference  to  everything  which  is  not  the  very  spirit 
of  Jesus.  Contradictions  as  to  times,  places,  persons,  were  re- 
garded as  insignificant ;  for,  the  higher  the  degree  of  inspiration 
attributed  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  the  farther  they  were  from 
according  this  inspiration  to  the  narrators.  These  were  looked 
upon  simply  as  scribes,  and  had  but  one  rule:  to  omit  nothing 
that  they  knew."  ^ 

'  Renan,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  Eng.  trans.,  N.Y.,  1873,  pp.  38,  39. 
2  k 


498  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCUIPTURE 

Renan  made  the  life  of  Jesus  into  a  religious  romance  :  and 
thereby  reduced  the  legendary  theory  to  an  absurdity.  His 
own  book  is  the  very  best  reply  to  his  theor3%  The  best  his- 
torical critics  recognize  now  as  they  did  before,  that  there  is 
legendary  material  in  biblical  history,  in  the  New  Testament 
as  well  as  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  the  legendary  theory 
will  not  account  for  biblical  history  or  any  important  part 
of  it. 

The  books  of  Strauss  and  Renan  by  the  drastic  application 
of  their  theories  to  the  most  sacred  of  all  histories,  the  life  of 
the  Messiah  and  Saviour  of  men,  did  immense  service  to  the 
cause  of  Historical  Criticism  ;  not  only  by  drawing  the  atten- 
tion of  Christian  scholars  to  the  greatest  of  all  persons  and 
themes,  but  also  by  testing  the  mythical  and  legendary  theories 
so  fully  as  to  lead  to  the  verification  by  historical  criticism  of 
all  the  essential  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  so  establishing  a 
basis  for  the  testing  in  like  manner  of  the  entire  field  of  bib- 
lical history.  The  work  of  Keimi  summed  up  all  that  was 
valuable  in  previous  critical  investigation.  He  took  an  inter- 
mediate position,  such  as  had  been  suggested  by  Ullmaun.  He 
was  full  of  ardour  for  truth  and  right,  and  shows  a  genuine 
historical  and  scientific  spirit.  The  more  recent  works  of 
Weiss,^  Beyschlag,^  and  Wendt*  are  built  on  his  foundation. 
Many  lives  of  Jesus  have  been  published  in  Great  Britain, 
America,  and  other  countries  which  liave  been  able,  valuable, 
and  useful ;  but  none  of  them  has  any  independent  scientific 
value  when  compared  with  the  works  above  mentioned. 


Vn.    The  Development  Hytothesis 

More  permanent  contributions  to  the  study  of  biblical  history 
were  made  for  the  New  Testament  by  the  greatest  of  all  modern 
Church  historians,  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  who  became  the 

'  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  3  Bde.,  1867-1872. 

2  Das  Lehen  .Tmn.  2  Bdo.,  18S2.  3  j)as  Leben  Jesu,  2  Bde.,  1886-1886. 

*  Die  Lehrc  Jesu,  2  Bde,  1886-1800. 


HISTORY   OF  BIBLICAL   HISTORY  499 

founder  and  leader  of  the  Tubingen  School ;  and  for  the  Old 
Testament  by  Willielm  Vatke,  who  founded  no  school  and  left 
no  disciples,  and  who  received  due  recognition  onh^  shortly 
before  his  death.  Both  of  these  scholars  simultaneously  in 
1835  applied  the  doctrine  of  development  of  the  Hegelian 
philosophy  to  the  study  of  biblical  history. 

Baur  took  the  position  that  the  Pastoral  Epistles  represented 
the  advocacy  of  the  traditional  doctrine  and  polity  of  the 
Church  against  Gnostics  of  the  second  century  ;  and  he  thus 
gained  a  foothold  for  tracing  the  origin  of  Christianity  in  the 
conflict  of  the  two  chief  apostles,  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul, 
in  the  Ncm^  Testament  times,  and  in  the  ultimate  reconciliation 
of  their  disciples.  His  more  developed  theory  appears  in  his 
later  works.  ^  All  study  of  New  Testament  history  and,  indeed, 
of  Church  History  since  that  date  has  depended  upon  the  work 
of  Baur.  The  chief  opponent  of  Baur  was  Neander,  who  recog- 
nized several  types  of  apostolic  teaching  reconciled  in  a  higher 
unity.^  About  these  two  great  historians  most  scholars  rallied 
in  all  subsequent  historical  investigations.  The  chief  pupils  of 
Baur  were  Edward  Zeller,^  Albert  Schwegler,*  and  Karl  Kost- 
lin.^  The  more  recent  representatives  of  the  school,  such  as 
Hilgenfeld.®  Volkmar,"  Holsten,^  and  more  especially  Weiz- 
sacker^  and  Pfleiderer,!"  have  learned  from  the  master,  but 
pursue  independent  and  fruitful  investigations.  The  medi- 
ating school  of  Neander  was  represented  by  Dorner,^^  Lechler.'- 


1  Die  sogenannteii  Pastoralhriefe,  1835 ;  Paulus,  1845 ;  Le.hrhuch  d.  christ- 
liclifn  Dogmengeschirhte,  1847  ;  Das  Christenthum  u.  die  christUche  Kirche  in 
den  3  ersten  Jahrhunderten,  1853. 

-  Seep.  578.    '  Die  Aposteh/eschichte  nach  ihrem  Inhalt  tind  Ursprung,  1854. 

*  Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  1846. 

5  E.si«iys  in  Theo.  Jahrbuchcr,  1847-18.50. 

^  Das  Urchristenthums  in  de7i  Haupticendepitnkten  seines  Eutwickelungs- 
ganges,  1855. 

'  Die  Jleligion  Jesii  xmd  ihre  Entvoickelung,  1857  ;  Jesus  Xazarentis  und  die 
erste  christliclie  Zeil,  1882. 

8  Zum  Erangelium  d.  Paulus  u.  d.  Peirus,  1867  ;  Das  Evangelium  des 
Paulus,  18.S0. 

'  Das  aposlolische  Zeitalter,  1886.  >'>  Das  Vrchristenthum,  1887. 

"  Entinieklungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi  von  den  dltesten 
Zeiteti,  1839.  2te  Aufl.,  1845-1850  ;  transl.  in  ICnslisii.  1801-1863. 

^  Das  aposlolische  und  das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  1851,  3te  Aufl.,  1885. 


500  STUDY   OF   mn.Y   SCIUI'TURE 

Schaff,'  Fisher,^  Weiss.^  Be3-schlag,*  and  many  others  who 
strove  to  use  all  the  results  of  historical  science  and  to  con- 
struct a  biblical  history  which  should  be  alike  altogether 
Christian  and  scientific. 

An  intermediate  and  independent  position  was  maintained 
by  Hase,  whose  Life  of  Jesiis  and  History  of  the  Church  pre- 
ceded the  works  of  Strauss  and  Baur.  He  learned  from  both 
and  all  others,  but  did  not  move  from  his  own  foundation. 

Ritschl  was  an  early  adherent  of  the  school  of  Baur,  but  he 
eventually  broke  with  that  school  and  advanced  a  new  theory  of 
apostolic  histor)-.  In  1850  he  came  into  conflict  ^'ith  Schwegler 
of  the  school  of  Baur  in  his  interpretation  of  apostolic  history, 
but  it  was  not  until  1857  that  he  broke  with  the  master  him- 
self.5 

The  thesis  of  Ritschl  was  that  Catholic  Christianitj-  is  a  defi- 
nite stage  of  the  religious  idea  within  the  Gentile-Christian 
sphere,  independent  of  the  conditions  of  Jewish-Christian  life 
and  in  contrast  to  the  fundamental  j^rinciples  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tianit3-.  Yet  it  is  not  merely  dependent  on  the  authority  of 
Saint  Paul,  but  bases  itself  on  the  authorit)-  of  all  the  apostles, 
represented  bj^  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul,  as  well  as  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  discoui-ses  of  Christ." 

This  thesis  is  an  improvement  upon  Baur,  as  is  recognized  by 
most  recent  scholars,'  however  much  they  may  differ  from  the 
dogmatic  principles  of  Ritschl  and  his  school. 

Weizsiicker,  Pfleiderer,  Harnack,  and  McGift'ert  are  the  chief 
writers  upon  apostolic  history  in  recent  times.  They  all  buUd 
on  Baur  or  Ritschl,  or  both. 

Harnack  saj's:  "Only  one  Gentile  Christian,  JIarcion, under- 
stood Paul,  and  he  misunderstood  him.  The  others  did  not 
go  beyond  the  appropriation  of  some  particular  Pauline  teach- 

^  History  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  18ol  (German);  1853  (English);  em- 
bodied in  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  I.  1882. 

-  77)6  Br'jinnings  of  Christianity,  1877  ;  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  180C. 
«  Lehrhuch  der'hih.' Theologie  des  X.  T..  1868;  Einhitung  in  das  X.  T,  188(5. 

*  Die  Chtist'iliKjif  des  Xeuen  Testaments,  181)1! ;  Die  christliche  Gemeinde- 
verfassung  im  Zeilalter  der  X.  T.,  1874;  Xeutestameutliche  Theologie.  1891. 

'  Entstehung  der  altk-atholischen  Kirche,  1st  Autl.,  1850;  2te  AuH.,  1867. 
'■  Albrecht  Jtitsrhl's  Lehen,  Bd.  I.,  18112,  s.  290. 

•  I'fleiderer.  Die  EntwickUtug  der  I'rot.  Theologie,  1891,  s.  284. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL   HISTORY  501 

iiigs,  and  showed  no  understanding  for  the  tlieology  of  the 
apostle,  so  far  as  there  is  shown  in  it  the  universalism  of 
Christianity  as  a  religion  without  recourse  to  moralism,  and 
without  explaining  away  the  Old  Testament  religion."  lie 
holds  that  there  are  four  chief  tendencies  in  the  apostolic  times 
and  not  merely  two,  the  Jewish-Christian  and  Gentile-Christian, 
namely :  (1)  The  strictl}'  Jewish,  in  which  the  Law  must  be 
scrupulously  obeyed  —  Practical  Particularism  and  Nomism. 
(2)  The  milder  Jewish-Christian,  in  which  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians are  required  to  fulfil  the  law,  the  Gentile  Christians  not, 
but  the  two  liave  to  be  kept  apart  —  Practical  Particularism ; 
Universalism  in  principle.  (3)  Neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  is  any 
longer  obligated  to  the  Law.  It  has  been  done  away  with  in 
Christ.  Paulinisra,  Universalism  in  principle  and  practice,  and 
Antiuominanism.  (4)  Neither  Jew  nor  Gentile  is  obligated  to 
the  ceremonial  Laws,  because  these  are  only  the  shell  of  tlie 
spiritual  and  moral  laws  which  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  Gospel 
—  Universalism  in  principle  and  practice,  spiritualization,  and 
limitation  of  the  Law.^ 

This  is  logical ;  but  no  sufficient  evidence  is  given  that  it  is 
historical.  There  is  little  doubt  that  there  were  four  parties 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  but  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that 
they  were  in  such  sharp  antagonism  as  this  scheme  would 
imply. '^ 

Harnack  asserts  that  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  second  cen- 
tury cannot  be  explained  as  a  development  out  of  the  theology 
of  Paul  or  as  a  compromise  between  original  apostolic  concep- 
tions, and  that  it  is  necessary  to  call  in  the  Hellenistic  spirit, 
which  began  to  stream  into  the  Church  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century." 

Pfleiderer*  criticises  this  view  of  Harnack  as  a  reaction  to 
the  view  of  tlie  older  Protestant  theologians,  who  regarded  the 
ancient  Church  doctrine  as  a  falling  away  from  the  apostolic.^ 

^  Dogmengeschichte,  1886,  I.,  s.  C3-G5  ;  History  of  Dogma,  transl.  from  3d 
Gennan  edition,  1895,  I.  p.  90.  -  See  pp.  586  seq. 

'  Dorjmengesckichte,  I.,  s.  41-42.  *  Urchristentktim,  1887,  s.  iv. 

'  "  Wiire  also  die  kellenistisrhe  Di'iikweise  als  solche  schon  e.ine  Verkehrting 
der  christlirhen  W'ahrheit,  irie  jene  Theologen  voraszusetzen  scheinen,  so  tc'iirde 
man  zu  dem  seltsameii  Schlnss  kommen  miissen,  dass  die  christliche  'ITieologie 


502  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

It  was  the  merit  of  Bruno  Baur.^  Hatch,-  and  Havet^  to  have 
called  attention  to  the  importance  of  the  Greek  element  for  the 
explanation  of  the  rise  of  Christianity ;  but  to  Harnack,  more 
than  to  any  one  else,  is  due  the  working  out  of  the  theory.  It 
may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  he  has  not  exaggerated 
it,  and  whether  Pfleiderer  does  not  more  trulj^  estimate  the 
Greek  influence  when  he  represents  that  the  Gentile  Christians 
had  already  been  prepared  by  the  Greek  spirit  in  Hellenistic 
Judaism  for  the  reception  of  the  teaching  of  Paul,  and  tliat  the 
combination  of  Paulinism  with  it  was  natural  and  not  of  the 
nature  of  an  apostasy  or  decline  from  origmal  Christianity. 

If  this  representation  of  Harnack  and  his  school  is  a  true 
representation,  then  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  the  faith 
and  life  of  the  Apostolic  Chiirch  and  the  major  part  of  the 
■m-itings  of  the  New  Testament.  According  to  these  histo- 
rians, the  New  Testament  in  the  main  represents  the  views 
of  Saint  Paul  and  his  disciples ;  for  even  the  writings  attrib- 
uted by  tradition  to  Saint  John  and  Saint  Peter  are  assigned 
by  them  to  the  school  of  Saint  Paul.  This  being  so,  few  of 
the  New  Testament  writings,  and  those  the  ones  least  used 
in  the  Church,  represent  the  real  faith  and  life  of  the  apostolic 
age.  Where,  then,  are  we  to  find  the  teaching  of  the  Twelve, 
who  were  trained  by  the  Master  Himself,  and  commissioned 
by  Him,  before  He  ascended  to  heaven,  to  be  His  witnesses, 
and  to  be  the  twelve  foundations  of  the  Christian  Church  ? 
If  we  have  not  the  teachings  of  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  James 
and  Saint  John  —  the  pillars  of  the  Church  —  in  the  New 
Testament,  where  are  we  to  find  them  aj^art  from  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  apostolic  Sees  and  the  results  of  their  teaching  in 
the  faith  and  life  of  the  local  churches  which  they  founded 
and  taught  ?  But  if  this  be  so,  the  New  Testament  can  no 
longer  be  regarded  as  the  sole  authoritative  norm  for  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  It  gives  us  for  the  most  part  only  the  norm  of 
Pauline  Christianitv,  whicli,  as  Harnack  claims,  the  Church  never 

bereits  in  ihren  netttestampntlichen  Anftingcn  ron  der  christUrhen  Wahrheit 
ahgefnllcn  sei.  Mil  der  unmi'iglichkcit  dieses  Schhtsses  hebt  sich  jene  Theorie 
von  selbst  anf."  —  I.e.,  .1.  iv.-v.  •  Christus  «»</  die  Cdsaren,  1877. 

2  The  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Church,  1881. 

•  Le  Christianisme,  lt<8t. 


HISTOKY   OF   BIBLIC^U-   HISTORY  503 

in  fact  followed,  and  which  was  only  understood  by  Marcion, 
and  by  him  misunderstood.  The  normal  Christianity  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles  is  not  in  the  New  Testament.  If  this  position 
is  the  true  one.  Protestantism  must  lay  aside  the  formal  princi- 
ple of  the  Protestant  Refoi-matiou  and  make  a  still  more  radical 
reformation  under  the  guidance  of  the  new  interpretation  of 
Saint  Paul's  Gospel,  or  else  acknowledge  that  the  Roman  tradi- 
tion bears  in  it  the  true  teaching  of  Saint  Peter  and  the  Twelve, 
by  which  even  the  New  Testament  and  Saint  Paul  himself 
must  be  tested  and  explained.  This  theorj-  of  apostolic  his- 
tory is  in  some  respects  an  improvement  upon  its  iiredecessors, 
in  that  it  recognizes  the  real  character  of  Catholic  Christianity 
in  tlie  apostolic  age,  and  makes  it  plain  that  Saint  Paul  did  not 
dominate  the  faith  and  life  of  the  apostolic  age,  as  has  been 
commonly  supposed  among  Protestants.^ 

But  the  theory  is  defective  in  its  interpretation  of  the  Gospel 
of  Saint  Paid.  He  is  not  the  antinomian  that  the}'  represent  him 
to  be.  They  greatly  exaggerate  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as 
the  norm  of  ihe  theology  of  Saint  Paul.  This  is  all  the  more 
unreasonable  in  connection  with  the  tendency  at  present  to  re- 
gard this  epistle  as  the  earliest  of  the  epistles.  The  theory 
is  also  defective  in  its  neglect  of  the  elements  of  Saint  Peter, 
Saint  James,  and  Saint  John  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
fact  there  are  four  types  of  New  Testament  doctrine,  all 
represented  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  Catholic  Christian- 
ity is  a  result  of  the  harmonious  combination  of  these  types.^ 
Hellenistic  Judaism,  Palestinian  Judaism,  the  Greek  and  the 
Roman  world,  each  in  its  measure  contributed  elements  of  in- 
fluence for  the  constitution  of  the  doctrine  and  life  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church ;  but  there  is  no  svifficieut  evidence  that  any  of 
them  or  all  of  them  were  able  to  impair  the  genuine  apostolic 
types  of  teaching. 

'  "  In  dieser  Beziehung  hat  das  quantitative  Verhaltniss  der  paulin.  Literatur 
ziiui  Ganzen  unseres  neutest.  Kanon  irrefiihrend  gewirkt,  iiiclem  man  die  langste 
Zeil  iiber  auch  den  Beitrag,  welchen  der  paulin.  LehrbegriS  zum  Glaubenstand 
der  alten  Kirche  geliefert  haben  so.ltc,  nach  denisclben  JIaasstabe  ab.scliatzte. 
Und  doch  oin  liirchl.  Goraeinde'ewusstsem,  durch  und  durch  angefuUt  mit  der 
Gedankenwelt  der  I'ls,  zumal,  am  Anfange  der  gesamraten  Knwickelung,  eine 
reine  Unmoglichkeit." — U.  J.  Holzmaun,  Lehrh.  d.  X.  T.  Theologie.  ISOT,  I.,  s. 
490,  491.  2  See  pp.  538  seq. 


50-i  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

It  is  a  comraou  fault  of  all  these  later  expositions  of  apos- 
tolic historj'  that  they  exaggerate  certain  doctrines  of  Paul 
which  they  consider  normal,  and  depreciate  the  impoi-tance  of 
all  others,  and  that  the}'  neglect  to  a  large  extent  the  events 
and  facts  of  ajDOstolic  history  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  reverse  the  relative  projiortions  of  doctrine  and 
life  as  found  in  the  Gospels  and  book  of  Acts. 

The  new  impulse  to  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  history 
given  by  Vatke  produced  little  effect  at  the  time.  The  school 
of  Hengstenberg  was  zealous  for  traditional  views  of  the  his- 
tory, and  Vatke's  position  was  too  theoretical  and  too  little 
groimded  in  genuine  litei-arj^  or  historical  criticism  to  be  con- 
vincing. The  school  of  Hengstenberg  reached  its  goal  and 
end  in  Keil.  Ewald,i  in  his  massive  work  on  Biblical  History, 
organized  the  discii^line  in  a  scientific  form  and  with  extraordi- 
nary richness  of  material,  gathered  from  the  treasures  of  a  life- 
time of  study.  Ewald  recognized,  with  the  insight  of  genius, 
the  documentary,  poetic,  legendary,  and  even  mythical  sources 
in  biblical  history ;  but  he  also  saw  the  facts  and  events  and 
truth  that  were  involved  in  them.  He  hesitates,  however,  to 
use  the  term  "  myth "  because,  as  he  says,  the  Greek  name 
"  mythus  "  is  inseparably  connected  vdth  the  entire  nature  of 
heathenism,  and  is  not  "  Gottessage,"  but  "  Gottersaffe."  He 
prefers  to  use  for  the  mytliical  element  ^^heiliger  oder  besser 
Gottessage."  All  subsequent  work  on  the  Old  Testament  his- 
tory is  built  on  Ewald.  The  school  of  Ewald  was  represented 
in  Great  Britain  by  Stanley,^  whose  work  exerted  a  wide  influ- 
ence, and  had  a  wholesome  effect. 

Julius  Wellhausen  first  applied  the  development  hyjiothesis 
of  Vatke  to  the  entire  Old  Testament  histor}-,  and  reconstructed 
it  accordingly.^  The  most  elaborate  work  in  the  same  essential 
direction  is  the  history  of  Stade.^  The  school  of  Ewald  is  still 
represented  by  the  work  of  Kittel.^     Kent  has  recently  pub- 

1  Gesrhichte  d.  Volkes  Israel,  7  Bde.,  3te  Auss:.,  1864-1868. 

2  Jlistorij  of  the  Jewish  Church.  3  vols.,  1863-1879. 

'  Wellhausen  himself  says:  " Meine  Untersurhunri  ist  breiter  angelegt  lis 
die  Grafs  und  nShert  sick  der  Art  Vatke's  von  welchem  letzteren  ich  auch  das 
M'iste  Mild  Besle  gelernt  zu  haben  bek-enne/'  —  (ieschichte  Israels,  1873,  ».  11. 

♦  Geschichte  des  V'olkes  Israel,  2  Bd.,  1887,  1888. 

■'•  Geschichte  der  Sebrihr.  1888-18'.I2. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL   HISTORY  505 

lished  a  brief  liistorv  of  the  Hebrew  people.^  in  a  true  scientific 
spirit,  but  without  the  extravagance  of  Wellhausen  and  Stade. 
He  may  be  classed  with  Kittel.  All  these  recent  scholars  at- 
tempt to  give  us  a  history  of  Israel  rather  than  a  biblical  history. 

A  more  eonser\-ative  ijosition  has  been  taken  by  Kiihlei-.^  who 
has  yet  not  been  able  to  escape  severe  criticism  from  the  still 
more  conservative  men  remaining  in  the  German  pulpits. 

An  able  work  upon  the  history  of  the  Jews  was  written  by 
Griitz,  a  Hebrew  scholar  of  the  first  rank,  with  an  excellent 
historical  sense  and  a  rich  gathering  of  material.^ 

The  history  of  -lost*  is  chiefly  devoted  to  the  history  of  the 
Jews  subsequent  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  of 
little  importance  for  biblical  history. 

VIII.    Advance  rs*  Several  Departments  of  Biblical 
History 

In  the  meanwhile  a  new  department  of  biblical  history  sprang 
into  being,  and  had  a  rapid  development.  This  was  made  neces- 
sary by  the  wonderful  increase  of  the  knowledge  of  ancient 
Greece  and  Rome,  and  more  especially  of  the  historic  monu- 
ments of  Egypt,  Bab3-lon,  and  Assyria.  The  first  to  organize 
this  branch  of  history  into  a  discipline  was  Schneckenburger. 
He  defines  the  discipline  in  his  posthumous  lecture,  1862,  as 
the  Contemporaneous  History,  the  historical  frame  for  the  his- 
tory, the  outer  ground  on  which  it  moves,  or  the  history  of  the 
time  in  which  the  events  occur.  He  limits  himself  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  divides  his  subject  into  two  parts :  (1)  The 
state  of  affairs  in  the  Roman  Empire,  especially  with  reference 
to  religions.     (2)  Judaism  of  the  New  Testament  times.* 

'  History  of  the  Hehrno  People,  18P6. 

'  Lehrbtirh  cJer  hiblischen  Geschirhte  des  A.  T.,  2  Bde.,  1875  seq. 

'  Geschichte  der  Juden  von  den  dUesten  Zeiten  bis  auf  die  Gegenicart,  11  Bde., 
2te  Aufl.,  1864-1870. 

*  (Tescfiichte  des  Jvdenthums,  3  Bde.,  1857-1859. 

'  Schneckenbur<rer,  Vorlesungen  tiher  XeutestamentUche  Zeitrjeschichte,  1862: 
^' Die  Xentestamentlirhe  Zeitgeschichte  ist  zu  iititersrheiden  von  der  Neutesta- 
mentliehen  Gesrhirhte.  Sie  ist  die  gleichzeitirje  Geschichte,  gleichsam  der 
historisrhe  liahmen  fiir  dieselbe,  der  ailssere  Boden,  auf  icelrhen  sich  die  Nen- 
testumentliehe  Geschirhte  fnrtbeicegt,  oder  Gesrhichte  der  Zeit,  in  welcher  die 
Xeutestamentliehen  Begebfnheiten  vorjielen.'' 


506  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Bertlieau  ^  had  paved  the  Avaj  for  tliis  discipline  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  1842,  in  his  dissertation  on  the  inhabitants  of 
Palestine  from  the  most  ancient  times  until  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  The  contemporary  history  of 
the  New  Testament  was  further  advanced  by  Hausratli,^  Eders- 
heim,^  and  especially  by  Schiirer*  and  O.  Holtzmann^;  but  no 
scholar  has  as  yet  organized  this  department  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, although  a  large  amount  of  prej^arator}'  work  has  been 
done  in  the  study  of  the  archreolog}'  and  history  of  Bab3-lonia, 
Assyria,  Egj'pt,  Phoenicia,  Persia,  and  the  other  ancient  nations, 
who  were  involved  more  or  less  in  the  history  of  Israel. 

Some  of  these  workers  have,  by  their  sound  judgment,  care- 
ful sifting  of  the  material,  and  scientific  use  of  the  methods  of 
historical  criticism,  made  important  contributions  to  our  know- 
ledge of  the  history  of  the  Oriental  nations  and  have  thro\vn 
much  light  upon  biblical  historj-.  Especially  deserving  of 
mention  are  :  Schrader,^  George  Smith."  Lenormant,^  W.  Rob- 
ertson Smith,^  Francis  Brown, i"  Ebers,i^  Erman,!^  Baudissin,^^ 
Baethgen,!*  Tiele,!^  ]\IcCurdy.i6 

Others  have  discredited  Oi-iental  archeology  by  hasty  con- 
jectures, by  unscientific  methods  of  iising  their  material,  by 

1  Zur  Geschichte  <ler  TsrafUten,  1842. 

2  yeiitestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte.  3  Theile,  1868-1874. 

«  TIte  Life  and  Times  o/jisus  tin-  Messiah.  2  vols.,  1883. 

*  Lehrbuch  der  Xeutestamentlicheii  Zeitgeschichte,  1874 ;  Oeschichte  des 
Jiidisehen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi.  1886-1890. 

'  Xeut^stanientliche  Zeitgeschichte,  1895. 

«  Die  Keilinschrijlen  ttnd  das  A.  T.,  1872  ;  2te  Aufl.,  1883;  translated  into 
English,  2  vols..  1885-1886. 

'  The  Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis,  1876. 

*  The  Beginnings  of  History  according  to  the  Bible  and  the  Traditions  of 
Oriental  Peoples,  translated  from  the  2d  French  ed.,  1882. 

*  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia,  1885  ;  Lectures  on  the  Beligion  of 
the  Semites,  1889. 

1*  Assyriology,  its  Use  and  Almse  in  Old  Testament  Sti{dy,  1885. 

"  Aegypten  ttnd  die  Biicher  Mnses,  1.,  18G8. 

"  Aegypten  nnd  agy/^tisches  Leben  im  Alterthitm,  1886-1887  ;  English  ed.,  1892. 

I*  Studien  zur  semitischen  lieligionsgeschichte.  1876-1878. 

"  BeitrUge  zur  semitischen  Beligionsgeschichte,  1888. 

16  Oesch.  V.  d.  Godsdienst.,  1876  ;  translated  as  Outlines  of  the  History  of  Re- 
ligion, 3d  ed..  1884  ;  De  vrucht  der  Assyriologie  voor  de  vergelijkende  geschiede- 
nis  der  Godsdiensten.  1877. 

"  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  3  vols.,  1894  seq. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL    HISTORY  507 

unscrupulous  striving  for  popularit}-,  by  the  hasty  publication 
of  any  possible  illustration  of  biblical  narratives  or  any  pos- 
sible verification  of  biblical  material.  Among  these  may  be 
mentioned  :   ^'igouroux,l  Sayce,'^  and  Honimel.-^ 

Biblical  geography  has  been  greatly  advanced  in  the  present 
century.  Relaud*  summed  up  all  previous  knowledge  of  Pal- 
estine, and  laid  the  foundations  of  the  discii^line  in  1714. 
But  Edward  Robinson  is  the  father  of  modern  biblical  geog- 
raphy. He  made  a  personal  investigation  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  Holy  Land  in  two  expeditions,  the  one  in  1837,  the  other 
in  1852,  and  published  the  results  in  three  monumental  vol- 
umes.^ The  most  important  systematic  work  on  the  subject 
was  published  by  Carl  Hitter,^  1848-1855. 

The  work  of  Robinson  was  followed  up  b}'  Tobler,"  De 
Saulcy,^  Sepp,^  Guerin.i"  Stanley,"  Tristram,!^  ]Merrill,i3  Wetz- 
stein,^*  Palmer, i**  Arnaud,!*^  Thomson, i"  Trumbull. ^^ 

A  new  impulse  to  the  study  of  biblical  geography  was  given 
by  the  Palestine  Exploration  Societies,  established  in  England, 
the  United  States,  and  Germany.     The  American  society  had 

1  La  Bible  et  Us  decouvertes  modernes,  4  Tom.,  3d  ed.,  18S1. 
-  The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Verdict  of  the  3Ionuinents,  1894  ;   The  Early 
History  of  the  Hebrews,  1897. 

3  The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  1897. 

*  Falcestina  ex  monnmeutis  veteribits  illustrata,  1714. 

*  Biblical  Researches  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Adjace7it  Regions,  3  vols.,  Bos- 
ton, 1841,  2d  ed.,  18G0  ;  Later  Biblical  Besearches  in  Palestine  and  in  the  Adja- 
cent Regions,  2d  ed.,  1857  ;  Physical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  180.5. 

•"  Vergleichende  Erdkunde  der  Sinaihalbinsel,  von  Palastina  und  Syrien, 
4  Bde.,  1848-1855  ;  trans,  by  Gage,  4  vols.,  1866. 

"Bethlehem  in  Palastina,  1849;  Golgotha,  1851;  Die  Siloaqitelle,  1852; 
Zviei  B'ucher  Topographic  von  Jerusalem,  2  Bde.,  1853-1854;  Dritte  Wan- 
derung  nach  Paldstina,  1857;  Ritt  durch  Philistcia,  1859;  Nazareth,  1868; 
Bibliographia  Geographica  Palestince,  1867  ;  Descriptiones  Terroe  Sanctce,  1874. 

8  Viiyage  en  Terre  Sainte,  2  Tom.,  Paris,  1865;  Jerusalem,  1882. 

9  Jerusalem  und  das  Heilige  Land,  2  Bde.,  2te  Aufl.,  1873-1876. 

1'  Description  geographique,  historique  et  archeologique  de  la  Palestine,  3 
Tom.,  1808-1880. 

"  Sinai  and  Palestine,  in  connection  with  their  history,  new  ed.,  1883. 

^  The  Topography  of  the  Holy  Land,  1876;  The  Land  of  Israel,  2d  ed., 
1866  ;  The  Land  of  Moab,  187.3. 

"  East  of  the  Jordan,  1875-1877  ;  new  ed.,  1883. 

"  Reisehericht  iiber  Hauran  und  die  Trachonen,  1860. 

w  Desert  nf  the  Exodus,  1871.  i6  La  Palestine,  1868. 

"  The  Land  and  the  Book,  1804.  "  Kadesh  Barnea,  1884. 


508  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

a  brief  life,  but  the  English  and  German  societies  have  had  a 
long  and  fruitful  life.  The  results  of  their  researches  appear 
from  time  to  time  in  their  journals.^  The  English  society  has 
also  published  many  volumes  and  maps,  and  has  accomplished 
a  complete  survey  of  Western  Palestine.^ 

In  recent  years  the  most  valuable  contributions  have  been 
made  by  Socin,^  George  Adam  Smith,*  and  Gautier.^ 

IX.    The  Results  of  Historical  Criticism 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Bible  has  become  a  new  book  to  the 
modern  scholar,  as  the  result  of  all  these  historical  studies  and 
the  researches  of  Historical  Criticism.  The  material  has  been 
in  large  part  sifted  and  has  been  scientifically  arranged.  The 
more  external  side  of  Biblical  History  has  naturally  received 
the  greatest  attention  in  recent  years.  More  work  has  been 
done  in  Biblical  History  since  1835  than  in  all  the  previous 
centuries  combined.  The  history  of  Israel  has  been  distin- 
guished from  the  Contemporary  History.®  It  is  now  necessary 
to  lift  the  more  internal  Biblical  History  into  its  high  position 
and  supreme  importance." 

Let  any  one  compare  the  new  Biblical  History  in  its  several 
branches  with  the  Biblical  History  of  thirty  years  ago,  and  he 
will  not  fail  to  notice  that,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  Bibli- 
cal Histoi'v  we  now  have  is  new. 

The  older  history  is  full  of  traditional  material  which  over- 
lavs  and  overrides  the  real  history  contained  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  fails  to  take  account  of  the  points  of  view  of  the 
parallel  narratives  of  the  chronicler  and  the  prophetic  histories. 
It   does   not   distinguish   the   documents  which   underlie   the 

>  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  Quarterly  Statements,  1869  to  date ;  Zeit- 
achrijt  des  Dentschen  Paliistin.  Vereins,  1876  to  date  ;  Palestine  Exploration 
Societu  Slntements,  1871-1877. 

'^  The  Survey  of  Western  Palestine,  special  papers,  1881 ;  Arabic  and  Eng- 
lish Name  Lists,  1881  ;  ^lemoirs  of  the  Tijpoijrnphy,  Orography.  Hydrography, 
and  Arrhmolugy,  .3  vols.,  1881-1883  ;   The  Fnunn  and  Flora  nf  Palestine,  1884. 

2  In  several  editions  of  Badeker's  Paliistinn  n>id  Syrien,  3d  ed.,  1891. 

*  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  1894. 

'  Souvenirs  de  Terre-Sainte,  1898. 

■>  Sec  p.  534.  '  See  p.  638. 


HISTORY   OF   BIBLICAL   HISTORV  509 

prophetic  histories,  and  note  the  varying  representations  of  the 
same  events  involved  therein.  It  does  not  estimate  the  four 
great  documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  and  knows  nothing  uf 
the  development  of  Hebrew  institutions  and  codes  of  law. 
It  does  not  see  the  light  which  shines  on  tlie  history  in  its 
different  epochs  from  the  prophets,  the  jisalmists,  and  the  sages. 
It  treats  all  the  legends  and  stories  of  the  imagination  as  if  they 
were  narratives  of  real  events.  It  overloads  certain  periods 
witii  a  literature  which  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  thus 
lights  them  with  illusive  and  delusive  colours.  It  deprives 
other  periods  of  the  literature  which  belongs  to  them,  and  so 
makes  biblical  blanks.  Chej^ne  has  called  attention  to  the  very 
great  flifference  between  the  David  of  the  historical  books  and 
the  traditional  David  interpreted  by  the  Psalter.^ 

A  still  greater  diffei"ence  is  to  be  found  between  the  history 
of  the  Exodus  contained  in  the  narratives  of  the  Exodus  and 
that  same  history  when  read  with  the  variegated  colours  of  all 
the  institutions  and  laws  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  exile,  whicli 
has  no  historical  narrative  to  unfold  its  lessons,  is  a  time  of 
dense  darkness  when  tradition  deprives  it  of  its  literature  ;  but 
when  filled  up  with  a  literature  which  belongs  to  it,  gathered 
about  Ezekiel  and  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Comfort  of  Isaiah 
40-66,  it  is  seen  abounding  in  prophets  and  psalmists  and  sages 
and  priestly  scribes ;  it  becomes  eloquent  with  historic  mean- 
ing. There  is  truly  a  biblical  blank,  enduring  for  centuries,  if 
we  make  the  Canon  close  with  INIalachi  and  the  history  with 
the  work  of  Xehemiah ;  but  if  we  see  that  a  large  portion  of 
the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  dates  from  the  Persian, 
Greek,  and  ^laccabean  periods,  all  subsequent  to  the  exile,  and 
view  the  histor}^  in  the  light  of  this  literature,  the  biblical  blank 
lias  disappeared  ;  the  gap  of  centuries  is  filled  up,  and  the 
histor}-  of  redemption  goes  right  on  in  prophetic  succession,  in 
glorious  continuity,  until  the  advent  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour. 

The  history  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  has  ever  accom- 
plished its  redemptive  purpose  bj'  its  sacred  facts  and  lessons. 
But  when  that  history  has  been  taken  from  the  sacred  writings 
and  worked  up  with  ill-founded  traditions  and  crude  theories 
'  Aids  to  the  Devout  Study  of  Criticism,  1892,  pp.  16  seq. 


510  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTUHE 

and  speculations  iuto  those  so-called  biblical  histories  which 
have  been  used  in  our  schools  and  families  until  the  present 
time,  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised  that  the  real  biblical  history, 
as  disclosed  by  historical  criticism,  should  differ  still  more  from 
them  than  the  modern  histories  of  Greece  and  Rome,  or  even 
of  Britain  and  America,  differ  from  those  used  in  the  early 
years  of  our  century.  It  makes  an  immense  difference  whether 
we  look  at  the  history  of  the  Bible  through  the  spectacles  of 
tradition,  or  with  the  microscope  of  criticism  ;  whether  v,e 
study  it  in  the  light  of  speculative  dogma,  or  in  the  light  of 
the  ancient  monuments  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  of  Egypt 
and  of  Palestine.  It  makes  an  immense  difference  whether  we 
study  it  under  the  cloud  of  the  pessimistic  theorj^  that  it  gives 
us  a  sei'ies  of  backslidings  ;  or  in  the  sunsliine  of  the  knowledge 
that  the  whole  history  is  the  march  of  a  redeemed  nation  under 
the  banner  of  their  King  and  their  God,  ever  onward  and  for- 
ward toward  the  goal  of  redemption  in  tlie  Messianic  age. 
The  pessimistic  theory  of  biblical  history  which  has  so  widely 
prevailed  in  Great  Britain  and  America,  and  which  still  lingers, 
makes  the  times  of  the  conquest  of  Palestine  under  Joshua  and 
the  subsequent  barbaric  times  of  the  Judges,  tlie  Golden  Age, 
from  which  all  the  rest  of  the  histoiy  is  a  falling  away  into 
ever  increasing  sin  and  depravity. 

To  the  modern  liistorical  criticism  of  the  Bible,  the  times  of 
Samuel  and  David  were  higher  and  better  than  those  of  Moses, 
but  the  times  of  Hezekiali  and  Joshua  were  higher  still.  The 
Exile  was  a  higher  discipline  and  more  productive  of  religious 
and  moral  teaching  than  the  Exodus.  The  restoration  under 
Zerubbabel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  vastl}^  transcended  the  con- 
quest of  Joshua  and  his  successors.  The  Maccabees  were 
greater  heroes  than  the  Judges,  and  the  Maccabean  age  vastly 
richer  in  holy  literature  and  in  hoi}'  deeds.  The  older  writers 
made  biblical  history  a  funeral  march  and  the  book  of  Lamen- 
tations its  appropriate  dirge.  The  newer  criticism  sees  that 
biblical  liistory  is  the  victorious  march  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  the  sixtj^-eightli  jjsalm  is  its  hymu. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   PRACTICE    OF    HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

The  principles  and  methods  of  historical  criticism  when 
applied  to  Holy  Scripture  are  essentially  the  same  as  those 
applied  to  all  other  historical  documents.  The  older  liistorical 
criticism  was  greatly  hampered  by  its  lack  of  knowledge  of  the 
documents.  This  was  true  ^^■hen  the  great  imjjulses  of  the 
modern  historical  criticism  of  biblical  history  was  started.  But 
now  through  the  researches  of  the  Higher  Criticism  the  doc- 
uments have  been  in  great  measure  correctly  estimated  and 
arranged.  The  poetic  elements  of  the  Bible  have  also  for  the 
most  part  been  defined  and  separated.  The  history  of  Hebrew 
legislation  is  now  quite  well  known.  The  chief  work  that  his- 
torical criticism  has  still  to  do  is  to  eliminate  more  carefully 
the  myth  and  the  legend,  and  to  determine  the  historical  ele- 
ments involved  therein  ;  and  then  to  study  the  historic  material 
in  order  to  determine  its  origin,  its  historical  evolution  and  its 
results,  its  genuineness,  and  its  reliability.  There  are  thus 
three  great  departments  of  historical  criticism :  1.  Genesis  of 
the  material.     2.  Genuineness.     3.  Reliability. 

I.    Gexesis  of  Historical  Material 

It  is  first  necessary,  as  regards  the  biblical  historical  material, 
to  detei-mine,  so  far  as  possible,  its  genesis ;  that  is,  its  origin, 
its  stages  of  development,  and  the  clianges  that  liave  taken 
place  in  this  development.  We  have  studied  the  question  of 
integrity  as  applied  to  the  documents ;  ^  we  have  now  to  study 
it  as  regards  the  material  contained  in  the  documents. 

1  See  pp.  92,  309  seq. 
oil 


512  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

1.  Biblical  Chronology 

The  book  of  Genesis  gives  us  a  chronology  of  the  antedilu- 
vians. There  are  three  diilerent  statements  of  the  numbers: 
that  of  the  ^Nlassoretic  text,  that  of  the  Samaritan  codex,  and 
that  of  the  Septuagint  version.  We  cannot  determine  the 
origin  of  these  numbers ;  but  we  may  by  a  study  of  these  ver- 
sions ascertain  something  about  their  development,  and  so  work 
back  toward  their  origin.  It  will  be  suiiicient  to  cite  two 
recent  scholars. 

"  Thus  we  have  three  different  lengths  assigned  for  the  period 
from  the  creation  of  man  to  the  Flood.  The  numbers  of  the 
Heb.  text  have  generallj"  been  regarded  as  the  original,  although 
recentlj-  those  of  the  Sam.  have  been  defended  by  Dillmann  and 
Budde.  The  LXX  text,  however,  was  accepted  bj^  the  Hel.  Jews 
and  the  early  Christian  Chm-eh,  and  has  foimd  defenders  among 
certain  Eng.  scholars  (Hales,  Jackson,  Poole,  Rawlinson,  and 
others),  who  have  looked  upon  it  with  favour  as  furnishing  a 
chronology  more  in  accord  with  the  antiquity  of  man  than  that 
of  the  Heb.  text.  But  these  numbers,  whichever  table  may  be 
regarded  as  the  original,  cannot,  in  any  case,  be  accepted  as 
historical,  and  hence  for  a  real  chronology  of  the  early  ages  of 
man  they  are  valueless.  To  accept  them  as  genuine  is  to  assume 
from  the  creation  of  man  a  degree  of  civilization  high  enough  to 
provide  a  settled  calendar  and  a  regular  registration  of  births 
and  deaths,  and  the  preservation  of  such  records  from  the  cre- 
ation of  man  to  the  time  of  the  composition  of  Gn.  All  that 
is  known  of  primitive  antiquity  is  against  such  a  supposition. 
The  art  of  writing  was  not  then  known ;  and  however  tenacious 
may  have  been  the  memory  of  man  it  is  doubtful  whether  lan- 
guage then  possessed  the  requisite  terminology  for  the  expression 
of  such  lapses  of  time.  ^lan  also  has  been  upon  the  earth  for  a 
far  longer  period  than  that  given  even  by  the  LXX  chronology. 
The  conjectural  character  of  the  table  of  Gn.  5  may  be  also  rec- 
ognized from  the  variations  of  the  three  texts.  Such  liberties 
would  probably  not  have  been  taken  with  figures' supposed  to  rest 
upon  authentic  historical  documents.  The  sacred  writer  chose  the 
form  of  a  genealogical  table  to  represent  the  early  period  of  the 
world's  history.  The  number  of  the  patriarchs,  te7i,  is  a  common 
one  in  the  lists  of  the  prehistoric  rulers  or  heroes  of  many  peoples. 
It  appears  at  once  to  be  a  suggestion  from  the  ten  fingers." ' 

'  F.  Brown,  "  Chronicles,"  in  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  1808,  Vol.  I.  p.  .39". 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   JIISTORICAL   CKITICISM  513 

''  It  seems  more  candid  and  natural  to  admit  that  Israelite  tra- 
dition, like  the  traditions  ef  other  races,  in  dealing  with  personages 
living  ia  prehistoric  times,  assigned  to  them  an  abnormally  pro- 
tracted period  of  life.  Hebrew  literature  does  not,  in  this  respect, 
differ  from  other  literature.  It  preserves  the  prehistoric  tradi- 
tions. The  study  of  science  precludes  the  possibility  of  such 
figures  being  literally  correct.  The  comparative  study  of  litera- 
ture leads  us  to  expect  exaggerated  statements  in  any  work  incor- 
porating the  primitive  traditions  of  a  people."  ' 

Sayce  is  radical  as  usual.  He  says:  "We  can  learn  nothing, 
accordingly,  from  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  about  the 
chronology  of  Israel  down  to  the  time  of  David."  ^  There  is 
no  justification  for  sucli  an  extreme  statement. 


2.   Tlie  History  of  the  Chronicler 

The  history  of  the  Chronicler  is  based  upon  a  midrash,^  or 
illustrative  use,  of  the  earlier  history  contained  in  the  books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings.  We  may  thus  trace  the  development  of 
the  historical  material  back  from  the  Chronicler  to  the  book  of 
Kings,  and  then  strip  off  the  accretions  of  the  Deuteronomic 
writers  and  find  the  original  Judaic  or  Ephraimitic  story.  As 
to  the  historical  value  of  the  numbers  and  names  of  Chronicles, 
I  shall  quote  Francis  Brown,  G.  B.  Gray,  and  E.  L.  Curtis. 

"  The  late  date  of  Ch.  presumably  hinders  it  from  being  a  his- 
torical witness  of  the  first  order.  It  could  be  so  only  if  its  sources 
were  demonstrably  such.  But  it  has  no  sources  certainly  older 
than  the  canonical  S.  and  K. ;  its  chief  source  is  probably  much 
later.  An  interval  of  250  or  300  years  separates  it  from  the  last 
events  recorded  in  K.  In  all  cases  of  conflict,  then  (see  the 
examples  above),  preference  must  be  given  to  S.  and  K.  The 
obvious  special  interests  of  Ch.  also  (see  above)  are  not  to  its 
advantage  as  a  simple  witness  to  facts.  Intrinsic  probability 
points  the  same  way  in  many  instances  (see  especially  Comparison 
D,  Xos.  2,  3,  6,  6,  8,  10,  12,  13,  16,  20,  and  Driver,  Bertheau, 
Oettli.  etc.,  on  the  passages) ;  this  holds  true  of  the  huge  numbers 
of  Ch.  as  well."'' 

'  Herbert  Edward  Ryle,  The  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis,  1892,  p.  87. 

-  The  Early  History  of  the  Hebrews,  1897,  p.  1 10. 

'  See  pp.  329  seq. 

*  r.  Brown,    'Chronicles,"  in  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  1898,  Vol.  I.  p.  395. 


614  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRU'TUKE 

"  From  the  inaccuracy  of  some  of  the  biblical  numbers,  and 
from  the  symmetry  of  their  sum,  it  is  not  improbable  that  missing 
lengths  of  the  reigns  of  some  kings  were  supplied  by  conjecture, 
so  as  to  make  the  duration  of  the  N.  kingdom  240  years,  and  the 
interval  between  the  founding  of  the  two  temples  4S0  years. 
Such  an  arrangement  would  be  helpful  to  the  memory  and  analo- 
gous to  reckonings  of  the  early  periods  of  the  world  and  of  Israel, 
and  such  an  arrangement  also  finds  a  counterpart  in  the  genealogy 
of  Jesus  in  Mt.,  where  the  generations  are  reduced  to  three  series 
of  14  each.  But.  taking  the  biblical  data  as  a  whole  for  this 
period,  they  do  not  present  sufficient  symmetry  to  be  entirely  or 
mainly  artificial.  Errors  doubtless  crept  into  lists  of  reigns,  and 
the  lengths  of  some  probablj-  were  not  preserved,  and  hence  were 
supplied  bj'  conjecture."^ 

"  To  summarize  the  bearing  of  the  names  on  the  question  of  the 
Chronicler's  sources :  to  a  certain  extent,  though  a  comparative 
small  one,  the  Chronicler  availed  himself,  directly  or  indirectly, 
of  trustworthj'  sources  of  early  periods  now  no  longer  extant ;  this 
is  most  conclusively  shown  by  the  personal  genealogies  of  1  Chr. 
234-ti^  g33-iu^  jggg  conclusively  suggested  by  other  passages,  e.g. 
1  Chr.  27^^';  but  in  many  cases  his  sources  were  thoroughly  un- 
historical,  e.g.  in  1  Chr.  4**^^,  and,  if  he  is  there  dependent  on  a 
source  at  all,  in  1  Chr.  24-27  (except  27^"^')."' 

3.    The  Naming  of  Saint  Peter 

The  Gospels  give  several  reports  as  to  the  naming  of  Saint 
Peter.  Saint  Mark  gives  an  account  of  the  appointment  of  tlie 
Twelve.  The  first  name  that  appears  is  "  Simon  he  surnanied 
Peter."  ^  In  the  Gospel  of  i\Iatthe\v  this  passage  of  Saint  Mark 
is  used  and  is  given  as  "  The  first,  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter."* 
In  the  Gospel  of  Luke  it  is  also  cited  in  the  form,  "  Simon,  whom 
he  also  named  Peter."  ^  Saint  Luke  agrees  with  Saint  Mark. 
If  we  depended  on  these  two  Gospels  alone,  it  would  be  most 
natural  to  suppose  that  Jesus  gave  Simon  the  name  Peter  when 
the  Twelve  were  appointed.  But  IMatthew  modifies  tlie  state- 
ment of  Luke  in  order  to  make  it  consistent  with  its  report  of 
the  naming  of  Saint  Peter  whicli,  according  to  it,  took  place 

1  E.  L.  Curtis,  "Chronology  of  Old  Testament,"  in  the  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  1898,  Vol.  I.  p.  40.3. 

2  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  Studies  in  Hehreio  Proper  Names,  1896,  p.  242. 
«  Mk.  3".  *  Mt.  10".  '  Lk.  0". 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   HIST(^>RICAL   CRmCISM  515 

at  a  much  later  date  in  connection  with  Saint  Peter's  recogni- 
tion of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 

"  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  hiin,  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simou  Bar-Jonah :  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto 
thee,  but  my  Father  ■which  is  in  heaven.  And  I  also  say  unto 
thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
church ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  I 
will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  aud  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  boimd  in  heaven:  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  * 

These  words  of  Jesus  to  Saint  Peter  are  given  only  in 
Matthew.  They  are  inserted  in  a  narrative  which  Matthew 
aud  Luke  both  derive  from  Mark,  and  therefore  must  be 
regarded  as  coming  from  the  author  of  our  Gospel  of  Matthew. 
The  question  then  arises,  where  did  it  get  this  word  of  Jesus  ? 
But  before  this  question  is  discus.sed,  we  have  to  notice  that 
the  naming  of  Saint  Peter  by  Jesus  is  given  hj  John  in  still 
another  connection,  namely,  when  Saint  Andi-ew,  the  disciple 
of  Saint  John  the  Baptist,  brings  him  to  Jesus. 

"  One  of  the  two  that  heard  John  speak,  and  followed  him,  was 
Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother.  He  findeth  first  his  own  brother 
Simon,  and  saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  the  Messiah  (which 
is,  being  interpreted,  Christ).  He  brought  him  imto  Jesus.  Jesus 
looked  upon  him,  and  said.  Thou  art  Simou,  the  son  of  John : 
thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas  (which  is  by  interpretation,  Peter)." - 

It  is  evident  that  the  Gospels  give  three  entirely  different 
times  in  which  the  naming  occurred.  There  was  no  tixed 
tradition  as  to  the  exact  time.  ^lark  and  Luke  are  against  the 
time  of  Matthew,  and  all  three  against  the  time  of  John.  Tliey 
all  agree,  however,  in  the  fact  of  the  naming. 

The  story  of  John  seems  to  belong  to  the  original  Hebraistic 
source  of  the  Gospel.  The  Aramaic  Mcitsiah  and  Cephas  are 
explained  by  the  Greek  terms  Christ  and  Peter. 

The  preceding  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  common 
to  this  narrative  and  to  Matthew.  Such  a  recognition  is  in- 
credible at  so  early  a  date  as  John  gives  it.  It  is  more  appro- 
priate at  the  date  when  Matthew  gives  it.     Such  a  recognition 


516  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

at  the  later  date  is  confirmed  b}-  Luke,  and  esfiecially  by  Mark. 
The  date  of  Matthew  and  the  circumstances  given  by  Matthew 
are  more  probable.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the 
naming  occurred  at  so  earlj'  a  date  as  ilatthew  gives  for  it. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  ^lark  and  Luke  should  not 
have  mentioned  it  in  that  connection.  The  words  of  Jesus, 
according  to  Matthew,  bear  on  their  face  the  traces  of  later 
conceptions.  It  is  quite  certain  that  Jesus  said,  '•  my  Father," 
and  '"kingdom  of  God,"  and  not  "my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven,"  or  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  both  of  which  expressions 
are  peculiar  to  ]NIatthew.i  It  is  extremelj*  probable  that  Jesus 
did  not  use  the  Aramaic  equivalent  for  "ecclesia"  =  church, 
and  that  Pauline^  influence  is  responsible  for  the  substitution 
of  "  church  "  for  an  original  word  of  Jesus,  which  was  probably 
"kingdom,"  or  "house."  This  is  more  consistent  with  the 
opposing  "  gates  of  Hades,"  the  imagery  of  building  on  a  rock, 
and  the  use  of  "  keys  "  ;  and  also  Avith  the  subsequent  use  of  the 
imagery  by  Saint  Peter  and  Saint  Paul.^  It  seems  altogether 
probable  that  underlying  the  Word,  as  our  Matthew  gives  it, 
is  a  logiou,  and  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  derived  it  from 
the  Logia,  and  gave  it  the  place  in  the  Gospel  which  seemed 
to  him  most  appropriate.  There  is  no  safe  clue  for  the  date 
of  the  naming,  but  the  naming  itself  is  made  certain  by  the 
three  stories  relating  to  it,  which  are  so  discrepant  as  to  show 
independent  historical  sources.  The  Word  given  by  Matthew 
stands  alone  without  external  support ;  but  if  a  logion  really  un- 
derlies it,  the  substance  of  the  Word  is  sustained  by  the  prim- 
itive Logia  of  Saint  Matthew.  And  the  substance  of  the  logion 
is  also  sustained  by  the  intrinsic  meaning  of  the  word  Cephas, 
Peter,  and  the  consistency  of  the  name  with  his  historic  posi- 
tion as  the  primate  of  the  apostles,  not  only  during  the  ministry 
of  our  Lord,  but  also  in  the  apostolic  age  of  the  Church. 

1  See  Briggs,  Messiah  ofGoapels,  pp.  78-79.  198.  203. 
'  See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  Gospels,  pp.  190  seq. 
«  1  Pet.  2<'««- ;  Eph.  2»^-. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   HISTORICAL   CRITICISM  517 


4.    Tin-  Speaking  u'ith   Tongues  at  Pentecost 

The  great  iiiiportaiu'e  of  this  phase  of  historical  criticism 
justifies  another  illustration  taken  from  the  book  of  Acts ; 
namely,  the  stor}-  of  the  sjjeaking  with  tongues  at  Pentecost. 
I  shall  first  quote  McGiffert. 

"  From  various  passages  in  the  New  Testament  we  learn  that 
a  peculiar  gift,  known  as  the  '  gift  of  tongues,'  was  very  widely 
exercised  in  the  apostolic  church,  and  the  fourteenth  chapter  of 
Paul's  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  makes  the  general  nature 
of  the  gift  sufficientlj'  plain.  It  was  evidently  the  frenzied  or 
ecstatic  utterance  of  sounds  ordinarily  unintelligible  both  to 
speakers  and  to  hearers,  except  such  as  might  be  endowed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  with  a  special  gift  of  interpretation.'  The  speaker 
was  supposed  to  be  completely  under  the  control  of  the  Spirit,  to 
be  a  mere  passive  instrument  in  his  hands,  and  to  be  moved  and 
played  upon  by  him.  His  utterances  were  not  his  own,  but  the 
utterances  of  the  Sjiirit,  and  he  was  commonly  entirely  uncon- 
scious of  what  he  was  saying.  He  was  not  endowed  with  the 
power  to  speak  in  foreign  tongues;  his  words  were  divine,  not 
human  words,  and  had  no  relation  whatever  to  any  intelligible 
human  language.  It  was  not  unnatural,  therefore,  that  the  speaker 
should  appear  demented  to  an  unbelieving  auditor,  as  Paul  implies 
was  not  infrequently  the  case.-  But  his  ecstatic  utterances,  in- 
spired as  it  was  believed  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  regarded  by 
his  fellow-Christians  as  spiritual  utterances  in  an  eminent  sense. 
The  'speaking  with  tongues  '  constituted,  in  the  opinion  of  a  large 
part  of  the  church,  the  supreme  act  of  worship,  —  the  act  which 
gave  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the 
speaker's  peculiar  nearness  to  his  God.  No  other  gift  enjoyed 
by  the  early  church  so  vividly  reveals  the  inspired  and  enthusi- 
astic character  of  primitive  Christianity.  It  was  apparently  this 
'gift  of  tongues'  with  which  the  disciples  were  endowed  at  Pente- 
cost, and  they  spoke,  therefore,  not  in  foreign  languages,  but  in 
the  ecstatic,  frenzied,  unintelligible,  spiritual  speech  of  which 
Paul  tells  us  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  That  the 
Pentecostal  phenomenon  is  thus  to  be  regarded  not  as  something 
unique,  but  as  the  earliest  known  exercise  of  the  common  gift  of 
tongues,  is  rendered  very  probable  bj'  the  lack  of  all  reference  to 
it  in  other  early  sources ;  by  the  absence  of  any  hint  that  the 
disciples  ever  made  use  in  their  missionary  labours,  or  indeed  on 

1  1  Cor.  121".  -'  1  Cor.  142». 


518  STUDY   OF  HOLY   SCRIPTUKE 

any  other  occasion  than  Pentecost  itself,  of  the  miracnlons  power 
to  speak  in  foreiijn  languages  ;  by  the  effect  produced  by  the  phe- 
uomenou  upon  some  of  those  present,  who  accused  the  speakers 
of  intoxication,  and  by  the  fact  that  it  is  treated  as  a  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  who  says  nothing  of  '  other  tongues,'  but 
characterizes  the  Messianic  Age  as  an  age  of  revelation  and  of 
prophecy.  But  the  most  decisive  argument  is  to  be  found  in 
Peter's  discourse,  which  constitutes  our  most  trustworthy  source 
for  a  knowledge  of  what  actually  occurred.  Xowhere  in  that  dis- 
course does  he  refer  to  the  use  of  foreign  languages  by  his  fellow- 
disciples,  not  even  when  he  undertakes  to  defend  them  against 
the  charge  of  drunkenness,  though  it  would  certainly  have  con- 
stituted a  most  convincing  refutation  of  such  a  charge." ' 

There  are  in  the  narrative  three  stages  of  explanation  of  the 
phenomena.  1.  The  first,  from  the  original  Hebraistic  written 
source,  represents  those  upon  whom  the  Spirit  came  as  speak- 
ing with  tongues  in  the  ecstatic  state,  just  as  in  the  two  other 
narratives  of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  reported  in  the  book  of 
Acts :  ^  some  of  them  spake  with  their  tongues  without  human 
speech  ;  others  interpreted  the  tongues,  and  spake  of  the  great 
works  of  God  to  those  about  them. 

2.  The  second  stage  is  the  speech  of  Saint  Peter,  which 
interprets  tlie  event  as  in  accordance  with  the  previous  story, 
but  which  lays  stress  upon  prophetic  speaking  with  tongues  in 
intelligent  speech  in  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel. 

3.  The  third  stage  advances  upon  the  interpretation  in  the 
sermon  of  Saint  Peter,  and  neglects  that  phase  of  speaking 
with  tongues  which  Saint  Paul  describes  as  the  interpretation 
of  tongues,  and  which  was  in  the  mind  of  the  original  narrator 
as  well  as  of  Saint  Peter  in  his  discourse  ;  and  it  interprets  the 
speech  as  in  a  great  many  different  languages. 

The  speaking  with  tongues  in  the  form,  both  of  unintelligible 
speech  and  of  its  interpretation,  is  sustained  by  many  allusions 
in  the  New  Testament  as  entirely  historical,-  and  is  psycho- 
logically and  physically  probable.  But  the  speaking  in  many 
different  languages  unknown  before  is  not  only  psychologically 
and  physically  incredible,  but  it  lias  little  liistoric  support  in 

'  McGiffert.  ,1  TThtury  of  ChristlaHity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  1897,  pp.  50-62. 
2  Acts  lO**-"',  19«. 


THE   PRACTICE   OF   HISTORICAL   CRITICISM  519 

the  later  and  unsupported  interpretation  of  the  ancient  docu- 
ments by  the  author  of  our  book  of  Acts. 

II.    Genuineness  of  Historical  Material 

We  have  also  studied  the  question  of  genuineness  of  docu- 
ments.^ We  have  now  to  study  it  in  connection  with  facts 
and  events.  We  have  to  consider  under  this  head  what  was 
the  design  of  the  one  who  furnished  the  material,  or  from  whom 
it  originally  came.  Was  his  purpose  to  give  us  fact  or  fiction  ; 
to  tell  us  the  truth,  or  to  deceive  us  by  a  forgery  of  lies  ;  or 
was  he  careless  as  to  truth  and  fact,  and  only  intent  upon 
enlisting  interest  and  giving  instruction?  Under  this  head  we 
have  to  consider  the  forgery,  the  myth,  the  legend,  the  fiction, 
and  the  historical  fact. 

1.    The  Historicity  of  Daniel 

The  stories  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  as  written  in  a  book  that 
bears  the  name  of  Daniel  as  a  pseudonym.-  raises  the  question 
whether  the  author  meant  to  deceive  his  readers  by  forging 
unliistorical  tales.  Such  a  forging  of  tales  to  deceive  is  opposed 
(1)  by  the  fact  that  the  book  of  Daniel  throughout  breathes 
the  spirit  of  truth  and  righteousness,  and  encourages  fidelity 
to  God  and  His  kingdom,  even  to  the  utmost  limits  of  martyr- 
dom ;  (2)  by  the  fact  that  the  author,  in  using  the  pseudonym 
of  an  ancient  worthy,  is  doing  nothing  more  than  to  use  a 
common  literary  artifice,  which  has  never  been  regarded  as 
dishonest.  It  was  transparent  to  his  original  readers,  and 
only  his  readers  in  later  generations  have  confounded  him  with 
the  real  Daniel.  (-3)  It  is  a  fact  that  the  stories  bear  upon 
their  faces  the  characteristics  of  historical  fiction,  and  were 
doubtless  so  received  in  the  times  when  they  were  written.^ 
These  stories  about  Daniel  were  subsequently  enlarged  by 
others  still  less  historical  in  the  tales  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
and  of  Susanna.  But  even  the  extravagance  of  these  tales  did 
not  stay  later  generations  from  regarding  them  as  historical. 

1  See  pp.  317  seq.  ^  See  pp.  323  aeq.  »  See  pp.  351  seq. 


620  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

No  one  has  ever  succeeded  in  pointing  to  a  single  biblical 
narrative  or  story  in  which  there  was  the  intent  to  deceive,  or 
in  wliich  there  is  the  slightest  evidence  of  a  forgery. 

2.    Erroneous  Historical  Statements 

There  are,  however,  manj^  instances  in  which  a  biblical  writer 
has,  owing  to  lack  of  sources  and  dependence  on  local  tradi- 
tions, been  led  into  erroneous  historical  statements.  H.  G. 
jNIitchell  reviews  the  statement  of  the  book  of  Kings  with 
regard  to  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  thus  : 

"One  would  naturally  infer  from  2  K.  19^  that  Sennach- 
erib's army  was  almost  completely  annihilated  by  the  angel  of 
Jehovah,  and  that  he  himself  escaped  only  to  be  assassinated  by 
two  of  his  sons  soon  after  his  return  to  Xineveh.  TMs,  however, 
was  not  the  ease.  In  the  first  place,  although,  as  one  can  read 
between  the  lines  of  his  own  statements,  he  was  obliged  to 
abandon  his  plan  for  the  conquest  of  Egyjit,  his  expedition  was 
so  far  successful  that  he  retained  his  hold  on  the  region  actually 
overrun,  and  prevented  Tirhaka  from  getting  possession  of  it. 
Secondly,  he  lived  after  his  return  no  fewer  than  twenty  years, 
and  conducted  several  successful  campaigns,  one  of  which  was 
directed  against  Edom  and  the  Arabs  on  its  border.  Finally,  in 
681  B.C.,  he  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Esarhaddon ;  but  upon  that 
date  (G86)  Hezekiah  had  been  succeeded  by  Manasseh,  and  Isaiah 
also  had  probably  finished  his  labors." ' 

I  know  of  no  one  who  so  frequently  questions  the  historical 
accuracy  of  statements  in  the  biblical  writings  as  Sa3'ce.  This 
is  all  the  more  remarkable  that  he  poses  before  the  public  as  a 
defender  of  the  historicity  of  the  Bible  against  "  higher  critics." 
In  fact,  he  is  defending  his  pet  theories,  and  he  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  discredit  biblical  statements,  to  a  rash  and  to  an  extreme 
degree,  whenever  the  Holj'  Scripture  obstructs  him.  Thus  he 
questions  the  naming  of  Jacob. 

"The  etymologj",  however,  is  really  only  one  of  those  plays 
upon  words  of  whicli  the  biblical  writers,  like  Oriental  writers 
generally,  are  so  fond.  It  has  no  scientific  value,  and  never  was 
intended  to  have  any.  Israel  is,  like  Edom,  not  the  name  of  an 
individual,  but  of   the  people  of  whom  the  individual  was  the 

'  Isaiah,  p.  43. 


THE   rRACTICK   OF    HISTORICAL   CUITICTSM  521 

ancestor.  Tlie  name  is  formed  like  that  of  Jaeob-el,  and  the  abbre- 
viated Jeshurun  is  used  instead  of  it  in  the  Song  of  Moses.  If 
the  latter  is  correct,  the  root  will  not  be  sArdh,  '  he  fought,'  or 
ydsar,  'he  is  king,'  but  i/dsJiur,  'to  be  upright,'  'to  direct';  and 
Israel  will  signify  '  God  has  directed.'  Israel,  in  fact,  will  be  the 
'  righteous '  people  wlio  have  been  called  to  walk  in  the  waj's  of 
the  Lord.'' ' 

Many  examples  might  be  given  of  Sayce's  lack  of  appreciation 
of  the  genuine  principles  of  historical  criticism.  It  is  not  so 
much  that  one  objects  to  his  results.  All  scholars  make  mistakes, 
and  occasional  mistakes  are  pardonable  to  accurate  scholars.  ISut 
Sayce's  historical  criticism  is  seldom  more  than  mere  speculation. 
Thus  he  makes  the  statement :  "  The  poets  and  later  writers  of 
the  Old  Testament  came  to  forget  what  was  meant  by  '  the  sea.' 
It  was  confounded  with  Yam  iSuph,  and  the  scene  of  the  Exodus 
was  accordingly  transferred  from  the  Gulf  of  Suez  to  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba.  It  is  in  the  song  of  triumph  over  the  destruction  of  the 
Egyptians  that  the  confusion  first  makes  its  appearance.  Here 
(Ex.  15^)  '  the  sea '  imd  '  the  Yam  Stijih '  are  used  as  equivalents, 
and  the  contents  of  the  song  are  summed  up  at  the  end  in  the 
statement  that  '  Moses  brought  Israel  from  the  Yam  Suph.'  But 
elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch  the  geography  is  accurate,  and  it  is  not 
until  we  come  to  the  speeches  in  the  book  of  Joshua  that  the  two 
seas  are  once  more  confused  together.  The  same  geographical 
error  is  repeated  in  two  of  the  later  Psalms,  as  well  as  in  a  pas- 
sage of  the  book  of  Nehemiah."- 

"  We  must,  then,  look  to  the  frontiers  of  Edom  and  the  desert 
of  Paran  for  the  real  Sinai  of  Hebrew  history.  But  it  is  useless 
to  seek  for  a  more  exact  localization  imtil  the  mountains  of  Seir 
and  the  old  kingdom  of  Edom  have  been  explored.  Then,  if  ever, 
the  Sinai  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  discovered.  It  would  seem 
that  it  formed  part  of  a  range  that  was  known  as  '  Horeb,'  the 
'desert'  mountains,  and  as  late  as  the  age  of  Elijah  it  was  still 
reverenced  as  '  the  Mount  of  God '  (1  Kings  19')."  ^ 

We  could  not  refuse  to  accept  this  assertion  of  abundant 
errors  in  Holy  Scripture  as  regards  the  sea  and  Mount  Sinai, 
if  it  were  supported  by  facts  and  established  by  genuine  his- 
torical criticism.  But  the  brief  discussion  of  the  subject  in  the 
context  of  the  passages  cited  is  entirely  uncritical  and  is  mere 
theorizing. 

1  Sayce,  The  Early  Hixtfiry  r,f  the  Hebrews,  pp.  73-74. 

2  i.e.,  pp.  183-184.  3  i.e.,  p.  189. 


522  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

3.    Tlie  Myth 

We  have  alread}^  seen  ^  that  sober  historical  critics  do  not 
hesitate  to  recognize  mythical  elements  in  Holy  Scripture ; 
although  many  hesitate  to  use  the  term  for  fear  lest  they  may 
be  understood  to  imply  thereby  polytheistic  elements  in  the 
Bible,  or  a  confounding  of  God  with  man  and  nature.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  there  are  mythical  stories  in  the  apocry- 
phal gospels,  relating  to  Jesus,  especially  in  the  story  of  the 
infancy. 

This  one  may  suffice  for  an  example  : 

"  Now  when  the  Lord  Jesus  had  completed  seven  years  from  his 
birth,  on  a  certain  day,  he  was  occupied  with  boys  of  his  own  age, 
for  they  were  playing  among  clay,  from  which  they  were  making 
images  of  asses,  oxen,  birds,  and  other  animals,  and  each  one 
boasting  of  his  skill,  was  praising  his  own  work.  Then  the  Lord 
Jesus  said  to  the  boys, '  The  images  that  I  have  made  I  will  order 
to  walk.'  The  boys  asked  him  whether  then  he  were  the  son  of 
the  Creator ;  and  the  Lord  Jesus  bade  them  walk.  And  immedi- 
ately they  began  to  leap ;  and  then  when  he  had  given  them  leave 
they  again  stood  still.  And  he  made  figures  of  birds  and  spar- 
rows, which  flew  when  he  told  them  to  flj^,  and  stood  still  when 
he  told  them  to  stand,  and  ate  and  drank  when  he  handed  them 
food  and  drink.  After  the  boys  had  gone  away,  and  told  this  to 
their  parents,  their  fathers  said  to  them,  '  My  sons,  take  care  not 
to  keep  company  with  him  again,  for  he  is  a  wizard ;  flee  from  him 
therefore  and  avoid  him,  and  do  not  play  with  liim  again  after 
this.' "  ^ 

There  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  canonical  Gospels.  The 
virgin  birth  of  our  Lord,  and  the  storj'  of  the  Incarnation  as 
cited  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  are 
more  exposed  to  the  mythical  hypothesis  than  any  others  in  the 
Gospels.  It  is  represented  that  the  virgin  birth  is  unknown 
to  the  primitive  Gospels  of  Saint  Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Saint 
Matthew ;  or  to  the  epistles,  even  when  they  urge  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation ;  or  to  the  Gospel  of  John ;  that  the  sources 
used  by  our  Matthew  and  Luke  are  jioetic  in  form  and  in  con- 

1  See  pp.  495  seq.,  504. 

^  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  .S6.  See  in  The  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  VIII. 
p.  412. 


THE    PRACTICE   OF    HISTORICAL   CRITICISM  523 

tent,  and  of  unknown  origin ;  that  the  description  of  the  virgin 
birth  as  given  liy  them  conflicts  with  phj-sical  science  and  psy- 
chologj';  and  that  their  story  resembles  the  myths  of  other 
ancient  religions. 

These  reasons  must  be  candidly  considered  by  all  those  who 
desire  to  attain  certainty  as  to  the  immaculate  conception  and 
the  virgin  birth  of  our  Lord.  I  think  they  may  all  be  sincerely 
met  and  entirely  overcome. 

1.  The  story  as  given  by  our  Matthew  and  Luke  does  not 
come  from  these  writers,  but  from  their  sources.  They  briefly 
remark  upon  it  and  interpret  it,  but  they  do  not  materially 
change  it.  These  sources  are  poetic  in  form  and  also  in  sub- 
stance, and  have  all  the  characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry  as  to 
parallelism,  measurement  of  lines,  and  strophical  organization. 

They  evidently  came  from  a  Jewish-Christian  community 
and  not  from  Gentile  Christians.  They  were  therefore  ancient 
sources,  different  from  and  yet  to  be  classed  with  the  Gospel 
of  Saint  ]Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Saint  Matthew,  rather  than 
with  our  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John. 

2.  We  have  to  take  account  of  the  poetic  clothing  of  the 
story.     The  piece  cited  by  Matthew  is : 

Joseph,  thou  son  of  David,  fear  not  to  take  unto  thee  Mary  thy  wife  : 
For  that  which  is  begotten  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
And  she  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  His  name  Jesus ; 
For  it  is  He  that  shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins.^ 

We  know  not  how  much  more  extensive  this  piece  of  poetry 
was,  but  it  implies  all  that  the  evangelist  says  in  his  context; 
namely,  that  the  virgin  bride  of  Joseph  was  found  to  be  with 
child,  and  that  he  recognized  that  the  child  was  begotten  not 
by  him  but  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  evangelist  may  or  may 
not  be  mistaken  in  the  tr.anslation  and  in  his  interjDretation 
of  the  predictions  of  Isaiah;^  or  he  may  use  it  as  a  suitable 
embodiment  of  his  thought.  Whatever  opinion  one  may  form 
on  this  subject,  it  does  not  affect  the  main  questioir:  that 
Matthew  used  a  poetic  source  for  this  story  and  interprets  it, 
just  as  he  used  the  Gospel  of  Saint  Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Saint 
Matthew,  and  frequently  interpolated  them  with  interpretations 
1  Ml.  1="--'.  -  Mt.  122-23 :  Is.  7". 


52-1  STUDY   UF   UULY   SCKIPTUUE 

also.  There  is  a  larger  use  of  poetic  sources  in  Luke.  Indeed, 
it  gives  a  series  of  beautiful  canticles  to  tell  us  the  story  of  the 
Forerunners  and  the  birth  of  Jesus,  with  comments  of  its  own. 
The  chief  of  the  poetic  extracts  used  by  Luke  is  the  follow- 
ing: 

The  Holy  Spirit  >;hall  come  upon  thee, 

And  the  power  of  the  Most  llijrh  shall  overshadow  thee : 

Wherefore  also  that  holy  thing  that  is  to  be  bom 

Shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 

And  behold,  Elizabeth  thy  kinswoman, 

She  also  hath  conceived  a  son  in  her  old  age  : 

And  this  is  the  sixth  month  ■with  her  that  was  called  barren  : 

For  no  word  from  God  shall  be  void  of  power.  —  Lk.  1*^^-3?. 

The  virgin  conception  of  Jesus,  as  here  announced  by  the 
archangel,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  if  it  were  a  miracle  in 
violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  but  rather  as  brought  about  by 
God  Himself  present  in  theophany.  The  conception  of  Jesus 
in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary  differs  from  all  other  concep- 
tions of  children  by  their  mothers,  in  that  there  was  no  human 
father.  The  place  of  the  human  father  was  taken  by  God  Him- 
self; not  that  God  appeared  in  theophanj-  in  human  form  to 
beget  the  child,  after  the  analogy  of  the  mythologies  of  the 
ethnic  religions ;  but  that  God  in  a  theophau}-,  in  an  extraor- 
dinary way  unrevealed  to  us,  and  without  violation  of  the  laws 
of  maternity,  impregnates  the  Virgin  INIary  with  the  holy  seed. 
The  words  of  the  angel  imply  a  theophanic  presence ;  for  though 
it  might  be  urged  that  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  upon  her  was 
an  invisible  coming  after  the  analog}*  of  man}-  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament,  yet  the  parallel  statement  that  the  divine  power 
overshadowed  her  cannot  be  so  interpreted.  For  it  not  only 
in  itself  represents  that  the  divine  power  covered  her  with  a 
shadow,  but  this  is  to  be  thought  of  after  the  uniform  usage  of 
Holy  Scripture  as  a  bright  cloud  of  glory,  hovering  over  her, 
resting  upon  her,  or  enveloping  her  with  a  halo  of  divinity,  in 
the  moment  when  the  divine  energy  enabled  her  to  conceive 
the  child  Jesus.' 

1  Tlie  same  verb,  i7naKiit;u>,  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  of  Ex.  40'-'',  with  refer- 
ence to  the  cloud  of  glory  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  also  to  the  theophanic  cloud  of 
the  Transfiguration  in  Mt.  17^  =  Mk.  0"  =  Lk.  9'*.     The  cloud  of  glory  is  always        '^ 
connected  with  God,  and  implies  more  than  the  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 


THE   TKACTICE   OF   HISTORICAL   CKITICISM  525 

This  representation  is  based  upon  the  well-known  pillar  of 
ulouil  lighted  with  divine  glory,  of  the  story  of  Exodus,^  and  of 
the  erection  of  Solomon's  temple.^  The  entrance  of  God  into 
His  tabernacle  and  temple  to  dwell  there  in  a  theophanic  cloud 
would  naturally  suggest  that  the  entrance  of  the  divine  life 
into  the  virgin's  womb  to  dwell  there  would  be  in  the  same 
form  of  theophanic  cloud.  The  earthly  origin  of  Jesus  in  the 
virgin's  womb  would  thus  begin  with  a  theophauy,  just  as  the- 
ophanies  accompany  His  birth,  His  baptism.  His  transfigura- 
tion, His  crucitixion,  and  His  resurrection. 

This  annunciation  represents  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  due 
to  a  theophan}-.  It  does  not  state  the  doctrine  of  His  preexist- 
ence,  although  that  doctrine  is  a  legitimate  inference.  It  rej)- 
resents  an  earl}^  stage  of  New  Testament  Christology.  It  does 
not  go  a  step  beyond  the  Paulinism  of  the  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians. 

This  annunciation  knows  nothing  of  the  incarnation  of  the 
Logos,  of  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel  of  John ;  ^  or  of  the  Son 
of  man  from  heaven,  of  the  Gospel  itself;*  or  of  the  effulgence 
of  the  glory  of  God,  of  Hebrews;^  or  of  the  firstborn  of  all 
creation,  of  Colossians;^  or  of  the  epiphany  of  the  Messiah,  of 
2  Timothy ; '  or  of  the  Kenosis,  of  Philippians ;  ^  but  represents 
an  earlier  Christology  than  any  of  these  writings.  Holzmann'' 
truly  states  that  Rom.  1^  8^  Gal.  4*,  do  not  imply  a  virgin 
birth,  but  may  be  interpreted  of  a  birth  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  in 
accordance  with  the  reference  to  Joseph  as  the  father  of  Jesus 
in  the  primitive  Gospels.  But,  as  Schmiedel  shows, ^"^  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Corinthians  teach  an  early  stage  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  preexistence  of  Jesus  in  the  second  Adam  from  heaven," 
and  the  head  of  humanity,^^  of  1  Corinthians;  and  especially  in 
the  self-impoverishment  of  the  rich  Messiah,  of  2  Corinthians. '^ 
This  more  primitive  form  of  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of 
the  Messiah  is  still  in  advance  of  the  doctrine  of  this  annun- 
ciation.    This  annunciation  of  a  theophanic  birth  is  really  a 

1  Ex.  4(fi*-^  ;  Nu.  915.  4  John  Z^K  '  2  Tim.  l". 

2  1  K.  81*-".  0  Heb.  1'.  «  Phil.  26-s. 

'John  1".  «  Col.  1".  9  Die  Synoptiker,  s.  532. 

1"  Die  liriefe  an  die  Tliess.  und  an  die  Korinther,  s.  I(i8. 
»  1  Cor.  IS^-"'.  '2  1  Cor.  11'.  "  2  Cor.  S'. 


526  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

simpler  conception  and  one  more  in  accordance  with  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  sending  of  the  Son 
of  God,  born  of  a  woman,  of  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  ^  and 
Galatiaus.^  It  is  true  that  none  of  these  passages  teach  a 
virgin  conception  and  birth;  but  they  teach  or  imply  more 
than  the  virgin  birth,  namely,  the  preexistence  of  the  Messiah 
before  His  entrance  into  the  world. ^ 

Thus  I  explained  the  story  in  its  connection  in  1894.  I  shall 
only  add  that  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of  the  Messiah 
and  the  doctrines  of  the  Kenosis,  of  Saint  Paul,  and  the  in- 
carnation, of  the  Prologue  of  John,  are  more  difficult  doctrines 
tlian  the  doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth.  If  the  preexistent  Mes- 
siah was  to  enter  the  world  and  become  a  man,  what  was  the 
most  natural  and  reasonable  and  divine  waj^  of  doing  it? 
Would  He  enter  and  take  possession  of  a  full-grown  man,  as, 
for  example,  the  human  Jesus  at  His  baj^tism?  The  ancients 
who  taught  this  were  regarded  rightly  as  heretics.  Would 
He  enter  and  take  possession  of  a  boy  or  an  infant  after  birth? 
Or  would  He  clothe  Himself  in  an  unconscious  foetus  in  the 
womb  of  a  mother  ? 

It  is  only  suiEcient  to  raise  these  questions  in  order  to  be 
pressed  back  by  an  inevitable  necessity  of  logical  consistency 
from  every  kind  of  dualism,  such  as  would  be  involved  in  any 
other  mode  of  incarnation  except  the  one  described  in  the  story 
of  the  virgin  birth;  namely,  the  theophanic  entrance  of  the  pre- 
existent Christ  into  the  womb  of  the  virgin  as  the  primal  germ 
of  a  living  individual.  It  does  not  seem  incredible  that  He, 
who  is  immanent,  omnipresent,  and  omnipotent,  sliould  concen- 
trate His  real  presence,  for  His  work  on  earth  as  the  Messiah,  in 
the  womb  of  a  virgin ;  and  there  is  no  violation  of  ph3'siology 
or  psychology  if  that  concentrated  presence  should  assume  tlie 
form  of  the  first  beginning  of  a  human  organism  and  attach 
itself  for  substance  and  growth  to  tlio  maternal  springs  of  vital 
energy. 

1  Rom.  8'.  2  Gal.  4«. 

'  Briggs,  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  48-51. 


THE   PKACTICE  OF  UISTORICAL  CKITICISM  527 

4.    Legends 

We  have  seen  that  the  best  Christian  scholars  recognize  that 
there  are  legends  in  Holy  Scripture. ^  The  only  question  is  as 
to  the  number  and  extent  of  them,  and  the  way  in  which  we 
may  distinguish  them  from  the  reality  that  underlies  them. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  story  of  Jannes  and  Jambres 
used  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothj--  is  such  a  legend.  Few 
find  difficulty  in  recognizing  that;  but  what  sliall  we  saj'  as 
regards  the  story  of  the  angel  stirring  the  waters,  in  the  Gospel 
of  John  in  the  Authorized  Version?^  The  Revised  Version 
omits  this  story,  although  it  gives  it  on  the  margin  as  contained 
in  many  ancient  authorities.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
is  a  legend  which  crept  into  some  ancient  texts. 

The  Revised  Version  also  brackets  the  story  of  the  woman 
taken  in  adulterj-,  and  states  on  the  margin  that  "  most  of  the 
ancient  authorities  omit  John  7*^-8^^.  Those  which  contain  it 
vary  much  fi-om  each  other."  This  is  a  beautiful  storj-,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  it  that  seems  unnatural  or  inconsistent  with 
the  character  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  it  is  a  story  that 
is  a  favourite  among  many  who  would  gladly  reject  other  parts 
of  the  Gospels  as  mj-thical  or  legendary.  And  yet,  while  it 
may  be  a  true  storj-,  it  is  probably  a  legend. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  stories  of  the  dream  of  Pilate's 
wife  *  and  the  washing  of  Pilate's  hands  °  are  legendar}-.  They 
are  peculiar  to  Matthew.  This  GosjDel  has  inserted  them  in 
the  midst  of  the  narratives  derived  by  it  from  Saint  Mark. 
They  are  just  the  soit  of  things  of  which  legends  are  made. 
The  Gospel  according  to  Peter  adds  to  the  washing  of  Pilate's 
hands  the  statement :  "  But  of  the  Jews  none  washed  his  hands, 
neither  Herod  nor  any  one  of  His  judges.  And  when  they 
wished  to  wash  them  Pilate  rose  up."®  The  question,  whetlier 
such  incidents  are  legendary  or  not,  does  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  impair  the  holy  character  of  the  Bible  or  the  particular 
narrative,  or  in  any  way  discredit  the  genuineness  of  the  great 
historic  facts  of  the  religion  and  faith  of  the  Bible. 

1  See  pp.  335  seq.  '  2  Tim.  3'.  s  John  S*-*.  *  Mt.  27". 

'  Mt.  272*'>-25.  '  1'  ;  Robinson  and  Jame.s,  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  p.  16. 


528  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIl'TLRE 

The  question  whether  a  statement  is  liistorical  or  legendary 
is  not  decided  by  the  fact  that  it  is  written  in  Holj-  Scripture. 
So  soon  as  we  see  clearlj-  that  the  lioly  writers  used  legends 
for  holy  purposes,  as  well  as  history,  we  maj'  leave  it  to  his- 
torical criticism  to  determine  whether  the  statement  is  legen- 
dary or  not.  But  historical  criticism  must  be  used  with 
reverence  and  caution.  I  shall  give  an  example  of  irreverent 
and  incautious  criticism  of  a  biblical  narrative  such  as  should 
be  avoided. 

"  Moses  was  met  by  Aaron  ■  in  the  mount  of  God,'  and  the  two 
brothers  returned  to  Egypt  together,  determined  to  deliver  Israel 
from  its  bondage,  and  to  lead  it  to  that  sacred  mountain  whereon 
the  name  of  its  national  God  had  been  revealed.  Unlike  Sinuhit 
Moses  took  with  him  his  Midianitish  wife  and  the  children  she 
had  borne  him.  At  this  point  in  the  uarrative  there  has  been 
inserted  the  fragment  of  a  story  which  harmonizes  but  ill  with  it, 
or  with  the  general  spirit  of  Old  Testament  history.  The  anthro- 
pomorphizing legend,  that '  the  Lord '  met  Moses  and  would  have 
killed  him  had  not  Zipporah  appeased  the  wrathfid  Deity  bj- 
circumcising  her  son,  belongs  to  the  folklore  of  a  people  still  in  a 
state  of  crude  barbarism,  and  is  part  of  a  story  which  enforced  the 
necessity  of  circumcision  among  the  Hebrew  worshippers  of  Yah- 
weli.  An  over-minute  criticism  might  find  a  contradiction  between 
the  statement  that  Zi]jporah  had  but  one  son  to  circumcise,  and  the 
fact  tliat  it  was  the  •  sons '  of  ]\Ioses  who  accompanied  him  to  Egypt 
(Ex.  4™).  Such  verbal  criticism,  however,  is  needless;  it  is 
sufficient  for  the  historian  that  tlie  story  is  a  mere  fragment, 
almost  unintelligible  as  it  stands,  and  in  complete  disaccord  with 
the  historical  setting  in  which  it  is  i)lace.d." ' 

III.    Reliability  op  Hlstoiucal  Material 

Historical  reliability  is  a  question  of  very  great  importance. 
It  has  to  be  determined  by  careful  criticism.  There  are,  indeed, 
many  gradations  of  reliability.  Some  things  are  impossible, 
some  improbable,  some  uncertain  ;  others  possible,  or  probable, 
or  certain.  Every  one  of  these  gradations  appear  in  the  study 
of  human  testimonj'  and  the  sources  of  history.  Undei-  tliis 
head  I  shall  give  a  few  specimens  to  illustrate  the  different 
departments  of  Biblical  History. 

'  Saj'ce,  '/lie  Early  Ilislury  of  the  Jlebreics,  p.  106. 


THE   I'UACTICK   OF    HISTOIUCAL   CIUTICISM  5:29 

1.  The  Story  of  the  Delude 

The  story  of  the  Deluge  appears  in  two  2)oetic  naiiatives 
intenvoven  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  How  far  is  it  reliable  his- 
tor}-/     Let  Ryle  answer. 

"  It  would  argue  want  of  candour  not  to  consider  frankly  at 
this  point  the  historic  character  of  the  narrative  which  describes 
so  tremendous  a  calamitj-.  And,  on  the  threshold  of  such  an 
inquiry,  we  have  to  deal  witli  the  fact  that  science  speaks  in  no 
hesitating  language  upon  the  subject.  There  is  no  indication  that 
since  man  appeared  upon  the  earth  any  universal  and  simultane- 
ous inundation  of  so  extraordinary  a  character  as  to  overwhelm 
the  highest  mountain  peaks  has  ever  occurred.  So  vast  an  accu- 
mulation of  water  all  over  the  terrestrial  globe  would  be  in  itself 
a  physical  impossibility.  None,  at  any  rate,  has  taken  place  in 
the  geological  period  to  which  our  race  belongs.  The  language 
relating  the  catastrophe  is  that  of  an  ancient  legend  describing  a 
prehistoric  event.  It  must  be  judged  as  such.  Allowance  must 
be  made,  both  for  the  exaggeration  of  poetical  description  and 
for  the  influence  of  oral  tradition  during  generations,  if  not  cen- 
turies, before  the  beginnings  of  Hebrew  literature." ' 

2.  TJie  Water  from  the  Bock 

There  are  two  stories  of  the  bringing  of  the  water  from  the 
rock.  The  prophetic  narrative^  puts  it  in  the  wilderness  of 
Sin  earl}'  in  the  wanderings.  The  priestly  narrative  ^  i^uts  it 
in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  forty  years  after.*  The  jjrobability 
is  that  these  are  two  different  accounts  of  the  same  miracle, 
occasioned  by  an  unconscious  mistake  of  a  single  letter  in 
reading  Sin  for  Zin,  or  vice  versa.  The  difference  as  to  the 
name  of  the  place  does  not  impair  the  reliability  of  the  event. 
It  rather  tends  to  verify  it;  for  it  shows  that  the  two  narratives 
are  independent,  and  that  we  have  two  witnesses  of  the  event 
rather  than  one,  the  second  dependent  on  the  first.  There  is 
certainly  a  geographical  error,  and  it  involves  an  error  as  to  the 
time  of  the  event.  But  these  errors  do  not  destroj-  the  relia- 
Ijility  of  the  event  itself. 

'  Ryle.  The  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis,  1802,  p.  112. 
2  Ex.  17.  '  Nu.  20. 

*  See  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexatettch,  new  ed.,  1897,  p.  79. 
2  m 


530  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

3.    The  Censiis  of  Quirinius 

The  story  of  the  census  of  Quirinius  as  given  in  Luke  -^ 
is  open  to  serious  doubt.  Plummer  states  the  case  with  care- 
fulness and  sobriety. 

"  rrom  B.C.  9  to  6  Sentius  Saturnimis  was  governor ;  from  b.c.  6 
to  4  Quinctilius  Varus.  Then  all  is  uncertain  until  a.d.  6,  when 
P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius  becomes  governor  and  holds  the  census 
mentioned  iu  Acts  5%  and  also  by  Josephus  {Ant,  xviii.  1. 1,  2. 1). 
It  is  quite  possible,  as  Zumpt  and  others  have  shown,  that  Qui- 
rinius was  governor  of  Syria  during  part  of  the  interval  between 
B.C.  4  and  a.d.  6,  and  tliat  his  first  term  of  office  was  b.c.  3,  2. 
But  it  seems  to  be  impossible  to  find  room  for  him  between  b.c.  9 
and  the  death  of  Herod ;  and,  unless  we  can  do  that,  Lk.  is  not 
saved  from  an  error  iu  chronology.  Tertullian  states  that  the 
census  was  held  by  Sentius  Saturninus  {Adv.  Marc,  iv.  19) ;  and 
if  that  is  correct  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  begun  by  him 
and  continued  by  his  successor.  On  the  other  hand,  Justin 
Martyr  three  times  states  that  Jesus  Christ  was  born  IttI  Kvprfvlov, 
and  in  one  place  states  that  this  can  be  officially  ascertained  ck 
Tuiv  anoypa<f>u)v  rC)v  ytvofievuiv  {AjmL,  i.  34,  46 ;  Dial.,  Ixxviii.).  We 
must  be  content  to  leave  the  difficulty  unsolved.  But  it  is  mon- 
strous to  argue  that  because  Lk.  has  (possibly)  made  a  mistake  as 
to  Quirinius  being  governor  at  this  time,  therefore  the  whole 
story  about  the  census  and  Joseph's  journey  to  Bethlehem  is  a 
fiction.  Even  if  there  was  no  census  at  this  time,  business  con- 
nected with  enrolment  might  take  Joseph  to  Bethlehem,  and  Lk. 
would  be  correct  as  to  his  main  facts.  That  Lk.  has  confused 
this  census  with  the  one  in  a.d.  6,  7,  which  he  himself  mentions, 
Acts  o'',  is  not  credible.  We  are  warranted  in  maintaining  (1) 
that  a  lloman  census  in  Judaea  at  this  time,  in  accordance  with 
instructions  given  by  Augustus,  is  not  improbable;  and  (2)  that 
some  official  connection  of  Quirinius  with  Syria  and  the  holding 
of  this  census  is  not  impossible.  The  accuracy  of  Lk.  is  such 
that  we  ought  to  require  very  strong  evidence  before  rejecting  any 
statement  of  his  as  an  unquestionable  blunder.  But  it  is  far  better 
to  admit  the  possibility  of  error  than  to  attempt  to  evade  this  by 
either  altering  the  text  or  giving  forced  interpretations  of  it." ' 

Many  other  examples  might  be  given,  but  our  purpose  is 
merely  to  illustrate  the  principles  and  methods  of  historical 
criticism,  and  not  to  collect  results. 

I  Alfred  riummer,  Gospel  according  to  Saint  Luke,  1890,  pp.  49-60. 


THK   rUACTICE   OF   HISTORICAL   CRITICISM  531 

IV.    The  Aim  of  Historical  Criticism 

The  work  of  historical  criticism  of  Holj^  Scripture  has  only- 
begun  its  career.  It  has  given  us  a  new  biblical  histoiy  illumi- 
nated with  new  light  and  enriched  with  the  colouring  of  Bible 
times.     The  work  will  go  on  until  it  fulfils  its  entire  task. 

Ancient  Jerusalem  lies  buried  beneath  the  rubbish  of  more 
than  eighteen  centuries.  It  is  covered  over  by  the  blood- 
stained dust  of  myriads  of  warriors,  who  have  battled  heroically 
under  its  walls  and  in  its  towers  and  streets.  Its  valleys  are 
filled  with  the  debris  of  palaces,  churches,  and  temples.  But 
the  Holy  Place  of  three  great  religions  is  still  there,  and 
tliither  countless  multitudes  turn  in  holy  reverence  and  pious 
jiilgrimage.  In  recent  times  this  rubbish  has  in  a  measure 
been  explored ;  and  by  digging  to  the  rock-bed  and  the  ancient 
foundations  bearing  the  marks  of  the  Phoenician  workmen,  the 
ancient  city  of  the  holy  times  has  been  recovered,  and  may  now 
be  constructed  in  our  minds  by  the  artist  and  the  historian  with 
essential  accuracy.  Just  so  the  Holy  Scripture,  as  given  by 
divine  inspiration  to  holy  prophets,  lies  buried  beneath  the 
rubbish  of  centuries.  It  is  covered  over  with  the  debris  of  the 
traditional  interpretations  of  the  multitudinous  schools  and 
sects.  The  intellectual  and  moral  conflicts  which  have  raged 
about  it  have  been  vastly  more  costly  than  all  the  battles  of 
armed  men.  For  this  conflict  has  never  ceased.  This  battle 
has  taxed  and  strained  all  the  highest  energies  of  our  race. 
It  has  been  a  struggle  in  the  midst  of  nations  and  of  families, 
and  has  torn  many  a  man's  inmost  soul  with  agony  and  groan- 
ings. 

The  valleys  of  biblical  truth  have  been  filled  up  with  the 
debris  of  human  dogmas,  ecclesiastical  institutions,  liturgical 
formulas,  priestly  ceremonies,  and  casuistic  practices.  His- 
torical criticism  is  digging  through  this  mass  of  rubbish.  His- 
torical criticism  is  searching  for  the  rock-bed  of  divine  truth 
and  for  the  massive  foundations  of  the  Divine  "Word,  in  order 
to  recover  the  real  Bible.  Historical  criticism  is  sifting  all 
this  rubbish.  It  will  gather  out  every  precious  stone.  Nothing 
will  escape   its  keen  eye.     Like  the  builders  of  Nehemiah's 


532  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

time,  eveiy  critic  has  to  build  with  his  weapons  in  hand;  for 
the  traditionalists  prefer  the  modern  ruins  to  the  ancient  city 
of  God,  and  they  battle  for  everj-  speck  of  rubbish  as  if  it  were 
the  choicest  gold.  But  as  surely  as  the  temple  of  Herod  and 
the  city  of  the  Asmoneaus  arose  from  the  ruins  of  the  former 
temples  and  cities,  just  so  sureh'  will  the  old  Bible  rise  in  the 
reconstructions  of  biblical  criticism  into  a  splendour  and  a 
glor}-  greater  than  ever  before. 

My  honoured  teacher,  Edward  Robinson,  the  father  of  modern 
biblical  geography',  on  his  first  exploring  expedition  discovered 
several  huge  stones  jutting  out  from  the  western  wall  of  the 
temple  area.  Close  examination  showed  that  they  were  the 
first  courses  of  the  spring  of  an  arch  which  bridged  the  vallej^ 
between  the  temple  and  Mount  Zion.  Men  wise  in  traditional 
opinions  disputed  the  discover}-  for  a  time.  But  after  the  death 
of  Robinson,  the  English  Palestine  Exploration  Societj-  dug  a 
pit  near  these  stones,  and  deep  down  beneath  the  rubbish  of 
centuries  the  remains  of  the  bridge  Avere  discovered  and  the 
critical  judgment  of  Robinson  vindicated.  It  was  a  great  jo}- 
for  me,  his  pupil  and  his  successor,  to  descend  into  the  pit  and 
see  these  stones  with  my  own  eyes.  Robinson's  experience 
and  mine  is  the  lot  of  most  explorers  and  their  successors,  and 
in  a  general  way  it  illustrates  the  present  situation  in  the  his- 
torical criticism  of  Biblical  Historv  and  its  ultimate  results. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

BIBLICAL   HISTORY 

Biblical  History  is  the  history  contained  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

I.    The  Scope  of  Biblical  History 

Those  who  exclude  the  Apocrypha  from  the  Old  Testament 
Canon  find  a  long  blank  in  the  history  between  the  times  of 
Nehemiah  and  the  advent  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.  Those  who 
include  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon  fill  up  this 
blank  in  large  measure  bj'  the  history  of  the  Maccabean  times. 
Much  of  the  blank  is  filled  in  other  respects  by  the  historical 
material  contained  in  other  biblical  writings.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary that  Biblical  History  should  limit  its  sources  to  the  his- 
torical jjrose  literature  of  the  Bible.  A  large  amount  of 
historical  material  may  be  derived  from  the  prophets  and  poets 
and  sages,  and  also  from  the  epistles  and  the  apocalypse. 

Biblical  History  is  not  coextensive  with  the  histories  con- 
tained in  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  it  is  rather  a  history 
which  comprehends  all  the  biblical  material  in  the  entire  extent 
of  Biblical  Literature.  Biblical  History,  moreover,  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  forms  and  methods  of  historical  composition  and 
representation,  or  to  the  grooves  of  historical  interpretation  of 
the  biblical  historian.  It  organizes  the  entire  biblical  material 
in  accordance  with  the  most  exact  and  thorough  scientific 
methods. 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  Biblical  History  from  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the  contemporar}-  history 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  on  tlie  other;  and  to  put  these 
three  branches  of  history,  which  deal  more  or  less  with  the  same 
themes,  in  their  true  relations. 

633 


534  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

II.     CONTESEPORAKY    HISTORY 

The  contemporarj'  histoiy  of  the  Old  Testament  aims  to  study 
the  history  of  the  nations  that  influenced  Israel.  It  studies  the 
monuments  of  Bab3-lonia,  Eg^-pt,  Phoenicia,  AssjTia,  and  the 
lesser  nations  that  encompassed  Israel  or  were  entwined  with 
him  in  his  development.  It  studies  the  histories  of  Persia, 
Greece,  and  Rome,- —  the  ancient  masters  of  the  world  that 
held  Israel  in  subjection.  The  contemporary  history  of  the 
New  Testament  studies  the  historj'  and  civilization  of  Greece 
and  Rome  and  the  influences  that  came  fi-om  Oriental  life  and 
thought,  so  far  as  these  constituted  the  environment  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  and  the  histoiy  of  the  Apostolic  Church. ^  All  these 
cast  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  history  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and 
give  us  invaluable  information  with  regard  to  the  external  in- 
fluences working  upon  Israel  and  cooperating  with  the  internal 
influences  to  produce  his  historical  training.  Great  attention 
has  been  paid  to  this  method  of  study  in  recent  times,  and  it 
has  in  many  minds  overwhelmed  and  absorbed  the  study  of  Bib- 
lical History  itself. 

Biblical  Histoiy  moves  on  its  way  in  the  narratives  olE  the 
Bible,  touching  the  great  nations  of  the  Old  World  at  various 
points  in  its  advancement,  giving  and  receiving  influences  of 
various  kinds,  but  pervaded  with  a  sense  of  an  overpowering 
force  that  has  determined  not  only  the  Histoiy  of  Israel,  but 
of  all  nations  of  the  world.  Israel  has  been  a  football  of  the 
nations,  trodden  under  foot  and  tossed  hither  and  thither  by 
those  mightier  than  he,  but  he  has  been  a  ball  of  light  and  fire 
that  no  violence  could  quench;  for  a  divine  blessing  was  in 
him  for  all  mankind.  God  cast  Israel  into  the  fiery  furnace 
that  his  dross  might  be  consumed  and  the  pure  gold  shine  in  its 
glorious  lustre.  The  nations  were  his  hammers,  to  beat  him  into 
the  holy  image  God  had  designed  for  lum  from  the  beginning. 

The  Hebrew  prophets  see  that  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel, 
shaped  all  the  migrations  of  the  nations,  all  the  movements  of 
mankind,  all  the  revolutions  of  history,  for  the  training  of  His 
own  well-beloved  people.^ 

'  See  pp.  605  seq.  "  Deut.  32»-9. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  535 

And  yet  Israel  was  not  for  himself  alone.  The  biblical  his- 
torians do  not  encourage  any  neglect  of  the  other  nations  of  the 
world.  They  represent  that  all  are  to  share  in  the  blessings  of 
Abraham;  they  see  all  nations  ultimately  before  the  judgment- 
seat  of  God ;  they  look  forward  to  their  ultimate  incorporation 
in  the  kingdom  under  the  Messianic  King.  The  prophet  re- 
bukes Israel  for  supposing  that  he  alone  was  the  people  of  God, 
and  that  all  the  other  nations  were  neglected  by  the  God  of  all 
the  earth.  ^ 

God  watched  over  the  other  nations  of  the  world,  guided  their 
history,  and  will  bring  them  also  to  salvation  and  judgment. 
No  one  can  altogether  understand  Biblical  History  until  he  has 
placed  it  in  the  light  of  its  contemporary  history;  and  yet  he 
would  make  a  serious  mistake  who  would  suppose  that  this 
contemporary  history  is  the  key  to  Biblical  History.  The 
Biblical  History  is  the  centre  of  this  circumference  of  nations. 
It  is  the  Sun  in  the  midst  of  the  world  in  whose  rising  all 
mankind  are  to  rejoice."  It  is  the  light  streaming  forth  from 
Biblical  Histoiy  that  illuminates  the  contemporary  history. 
Contemporary  history  reflects  the  rays  of  that  light.  The 
study  of  the  one  ought  not  to  conflict  with  the  study  of  the 
other. 

III.    The  History  op  Israel 

It  is  also  necessary  to  distinguish  Biblical  History  from  the 
History  of  Israel.  The  History  of  Israel  is  a  part  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  world.  It  is  a  section  of  the  discijjliue  of  universal 
historj-.  It  should  be  studied  with  a  purely  scientific  interest. 
It  uses  Biblical  History  as  one  of  its  sources;  it  uses  contem- 
porarj'  history  as  another;  it  arranges  all  its  material  in  a 
scientific  manner,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  historic 
development. 

It  is  more  extensive  than  Biblical  History.  It  fills  up  the 
numerous  blanks  that  are  left  therein  from  other  sources  of 
information. 

The  history  of  the  struggle  between  Persia  and  Greece,  and 
of  the  fortunes  of  Israel  in  those  times,  is  of  little  importance 


536  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURK 

to  Biblical  History;  but  it  is  of  great  importance  to  the  history 
of  Israel.  The  historian  will  lay  much  more  stress  upon  it  than 
upon  many  earlier  periods  where  the  biblical  writers  dwell  at 
length. 

The  student  of  the  histor}'  of  Israel  is  greatly  interested  in 
the  events  of  external  historj',  such  as  battles  and  sieges  and 
political  relations.  The  writers  of  the  Bible  have  little  interest 
in  these,  and  omit  to  mention  them,  save  so  far  as  thej-  have 
religious  bearings  or  can  be  used  for  religious  instruction.  As 
Professor  Kent  says : 

"  Historic  proportion  is  quite  disregarded.  For  example,  in  the 
book  of  Samuel  the  important  battle  of  Gilboa  is  treated  in  a 
few  verses,  while  the  relations  between  Samuel  (the  prophet)  and 
Saul  occupy  several  chapters.  This  and  kindred  facts  are  ex- 
plained when  the  aim  of  the  prophetic  writer  is  fully  appreciated. 
For  him  events  in  themselves  were  of  little  importance,  since  his 
purpose  was  not  -merely  to  write  a  history  of  his  people ;  instead, 
it  was  primarily  and  simply  to  teach  spiritual  truth.  To  attain 
this  exalted  end,  he  was  as  ready  to  employ  a  late  tradition  as  an 
early  narrative.  Often  when  he  found  two  accouuts  of  the  same 
event  he  introduced  both  of  them,  even  though  this  involved 
small  contradictions  and  historic  inaccuracies.  If  he  had  had  the 
data  at  his  command  whereby  he  could  determine  which  of  the 
two  was  the  older  and  therefore  the  more  authentic  record,  he 
probably  would  not  have  deemed  it  worthy  of  his  attention,  for 
it  would  not  have  rendered  his  teaching  any  more  effective  with 
his  contemporaries." ' 

The  history  of  Israel  is  less  extensive  than  Biblical  Histor}-. 
It  does  not  enter  into  the  province  of  the  divine  influence,  that 
most  characteristic  feature  of  Biblical  Histor}-.  It  stumbles  at 
theophanies,  miracles,  and  prophecies.  It  finds  it  difficult  to 
adjust  these  divine  influences  to  the  principles  of  scientific 
study.  The  purel}''  personal  relations  of  Yahweh  to  His  people 
are  matters  into  which  the  scientific  historian  does  not  venture. 

The  scientific  study  of  the  history  of  Israel  is  of  inestimable 
importance.  No  one  can  understand  altogether  the  history  of 
Israel,  unless  Israel's  true  place  and  importance  in  universal 
histor)'  have  been  determined.     Each  one  of  the  great  nations 

>  A  Ilhtorii  of  the  Hebrew  People,  1896,  Vol.  I.  p.  10. 


BIBLICAL   HISTORY  537 

of  the  Old  World  has  contributed  its  own  best  achievements 
for  the  weal  of  humanit}'.  No  one  can  understand  the  work- 
ings of  God  in  history  who  does  not  estimate,  to  some  extent 
at  least,  the  work  of  Egypt  and  Assyria,  of  Phoenicia  and 
Persia,  of  Greece  and  Rome,  in  the  advancement  of  mankind. 
The  history  of  the  world  is,  as  Lessing  shows,  the  divine  edu- 
cation of  our  race;  and  every  nation  has  its  share  in  that 
instruction,  and  contributes  its  quota  of  experience  to  the  suc- 
cessive generations.  The  nations  of  the  modern  world  have 
all  come  into  line  with  their  interplay  of  forces,  making  the 
problem  more  complex  and  wonderful.  The  old  nations  of 
the  Orient,  —  China,  India,  and  Japan,  —  with  Africa  and  the 
islands  of  the  sea,  share  in  that  education  and  service.  The 
world  is  one  in  origin,  in  training,  and  in  destiny.  There  is 
force  in  Kenan's  remark: 

"Jewish  History  that  would  have  the  monopoly  of  the  miracle 
is  not  a  bit  more  extraordinary  than  Greek  History.  If  the 
supernatural  intervention  is  necessary  to  explain  the  one,  the 
supernatural  intervention  is  also  necessary  to  explain  the  other."  '■ 

I  do  not  agree  with  his  use  of  the  term  "supernatural."  But 
I  do  agree  with  him  in  the  opinion  that  the  hand  of  God  alone 
can  explain  the  history  of  Greece  and  the  blessings  it  contained 
for  mankind.  The  school  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  were  cor- 
rect in  the  opinion  that  the  philosophy  of  Greece  was  a  divinely 
ordered  preparation  for  the  gospel,  as  were  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  of  Israel.  The  biblical  historians  were  the  first  to 
see  this  fact,  and  to  set  it  forth  in  the  horizon  of  their  narra- 
tives. They  see  that  the  God  of  Israel  is  the  God  seated  upon 
the  circle  of  the  heavens,  turning  the  hearts  of  kings  and 
nations;  they  know  that  the  Messiah  of  Israel  is  the  universal 
King ;  they  see  all  the  forces  of  history  converging  toward  His 
universal  sway.  It  is  a  Hebrew  poet  who  describes  the  New 
Jerusalem  as  the  city  of  the  regeneration  of  the  nations : 

Glorious  things  are  being  .spoken  in  thee,  city  of  God  ! 
I  mention  Rahab  and  Babel  as  belonging  to  those  who  know  me  ; 
Lo,  Philistia  and  Tyre  with  Cush  :  •'  This  one  was  born  there," 
And  as  belonging  t«  Zion,  it  is  said,  —  '•  This  one  and  that  one  were  bom  in 
her," 

'  Uistoire  du  Penple  W Israel,  I.  p.  v. 


538  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

And  "Elyon,  Yahweh  —  he  establisheth  her, 

He  counteth  in  writing  up  the  peoples,  —  •  This  one  was  bom  there."  " 

Yea,  they  are  singing  as  well  as  dancing,  all  those  who  dwell  in  thee.* 

The  origin  of  Christianity  and  its  development  in  the  Apos- 
tolic age  may  also  be  treated  in  the  same  vt&j  as  a  section  of 
Universal  History,  where  the  Biblical  sources  will  take  their 
place  alongside  of  other  historical  sources  and  no  attention 
will  be  paid  to  Canonical  limitations  or  Biblical  proportions. 
Such  a  method  is  quite  legitimate  so  far  as  it  is  faithful  to  its 
own  ideals  and  does  not  usurp  the  functions  or  depreciate  the 
importance  of  a  more  strictly  Biblical  History  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  History  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  itself. 

I  do  not  by  any  means  undervalue  the  scientific  study  of  the 
history  of  Israel  and  the  origins  of  Christianity;  I  do  not 
depreciate  the  importance  of  the  contemporary  history  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments,  when  I  insist  that  a  more  strictly 
Biblical  History  from  a  Biblical  point  of  view  ha^  its  own  place 
and  importance  as  the  lamp  of  the  nations  and  the  key  for  the 
development  of  mankind. 

IV.    The  Types  of  Biblical  History 

Biblical  Historj'  has  an  extensive  varietj-  of  sources.  There 
is  first  a  group  of  histories  that  are  of  unique  importance. 
We  have  alreadj'  considered  these  as  to  their  form  as  specimens 
of  historical  prose  literature.^  We  have  now  to  consider  them 
as  to  their  substance  and  the  use  of  the  historical  material  they 
give  us.  These  historical  writings  cover  a  long  range  in  time 
and  an  immense  mass  of  detail;  they  were  written  by  many 
writers  in  thi-ee  different  languages ;  and  3'et  they  have  common 
features,  which  distinguish  them  from  all  other  histories  and 
entitle  them  to  be  bound  together  in  one  book  as  Biblical 
Histor)'.  The  history  extends  over  a  vast  period  of  time;  it 
begins  with  the  creation  of  the  world,  it  closes  with  the  erection 
of  the  banner  of  the  Messiah  in  Rome,  tlie  capital  of  the  world. 
It  is  narrower  in  its  geographical  range.  Its  centre  is  Pales- 
tine, a  little  land  that  has  ahvaj's  been  and  always  must  be,  for 
geographical  reasons,  the  centre  of  the  world.     But  it  radiates 

•  Ps.  87.     See  Briggs.  Afessianic  Prophecy,  p.  227.  "  See  pp.  329  seq. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  539 

from  this  centre  into  all  the  territories  of  the  great  nations  of 
the  Old  World.  It  deals  with  a  little  nation  and  very  often 
with  single  persons;  but  that  nation  was  the  people  of  God, 
the  bearer  of  the  greatest  religions  of  the  world,  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  which  have  determined  the  entire  development 
of  mankind;  and  these  individuals  were  the  prophets  of  God: 
Abraham,  Moses,  Samuel,  David,  Solomon,  Elijah,  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Ezra, —  names  that  outshine  the  brightest  stars  of 
other  nations  in  moral  worth,  and  all  of  whom  point,  as 
watchers  of  the  night,  to  the  dawn  of  the  sun  of  the  world, 
Jesus  Christ,  the  greatest  of  men,  the  Son  of  God,  and  Saviour 
of  man.  Such  a  history  that  discloses  to  us  the  religious  heroes 
of  mankind,  the  banner-bearers  of  God,  and  that  culminates  in 
the  glories  of  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  has  a  unique  place  and 
importance  in  the  development  of  the  world. 

Biblical  History  is  wonderful  in  its  variety.  Four  dii^erent 
types  of  writers  give  us  four  different  points  of  view  of  the 
most  important  and  fundamental  characters  and  events.  There 
are  four  Gospels,  that  combine  to  give  us  a  comprehensive  view 
of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour.  An}^  one  of  them  is  easily  worth 
all  other  books  -wi-itten  by  men.  We  have  also  four  narratives 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Old  Covenant. 

Higher  Criticism  has  ti-aced  these  four  narratives  in  the 
Hexateuch,  and  has  for  the  most  part  separated  them  so  that 
we  can  place  them  in  parallelism,  just  as  we  do  the  Gospels  in 
our  Harmonies.  A  post-exilic  editor  compacted  them  together, 
just  as  Tatian  did  the  Gospels  in  the  second  Christian  century.^ 
Four  Gospels  are  historically  better  than  one ;  four  narratives 
of  the  story  of  the  founding  of  the  Old  Covenant  are  also  better 
than  one  for  all  those  who  desire  to  investigate  the  historicity 
of  the  material  contained  in  them.  We  have  to  give  up  the 
traditional  theory  of  Mosaic  ai;thorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  but 
we  gain  four  writers  in  the  place  of  Moses ;  and  the  history  of 
Moses,  and  the  establishment  of  his  covenant,  gains  in  strength 
by  the  testimony  of  four  witnesses  instead  of  one. 

In  the  history  of  the  kingdom  from  its  establishment  to  the 
exile,  we  have  two  parallel  narratives,  in  the  books  of  Samuel 
1  See  pp.  278  seq. 


540  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  Kings  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Chronicler  on  the  other ; 
but  Higher  Criticism  finds  in  the  narratives  of  Samuel  and 
Kings  three  original  writei-s,  similar  to  thi-ee  of  the  writers 
of  the  Hexateuch. 

In  the  period  subsequent  to  the  exile,  the  Clu-onicler  tells 
the  story  of  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  and  the  first  book 
of  Maccabees  the  glorious  revolution  of  the  Maccabean  age. 

Biblical  History  is,  however,  much  more  extensive  than  the 
historical  writings  contained  in  the  Bible.  The  chief  writers 
of  Biblical  History  were  prophets,  poets,  and  priests,  and  these 
have  given  us  historical  material  in  other  literary  forms. 
Hosea  and  Amos  share  the  features  of  the  Ephraimitic  his- 
torian. Isaiah,  Micah,  Zephaniah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  share 
the  features  of  the  Judaic  narrator.  Jeremiah,  the  second 
Isaiah,  and  Haggai  are  kindred  to  the  Deuteronomic  writers, 
Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  Joel,  and  Malachi  to  the  priestly  writers. 
Tliese  prophets  all  are  involved  in  the  history  of  their  times,  and 
either  shape  that  history  or  interpret  it  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  divine  mind  as  made  known  to  them.  If  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  a  philosophj'  of  Hebrew  history,  a  divine  plan 
and  purpose  in  it  all,  we  can  learn  more  of  the  secret  springs 
of  that  history  from  the  prophetical  writings  than  from  the  his- 
torical writings. 

So  in  the  New  Testament  the  epistles  give  us  the  underlj-ing 
principles  and  formative  ideas  of  apostolic  history.  No  one  can 
understand  the  foundations  of  the  apostolic  Church  who  depends 
on  the  book  of  Acts  alone.  And  the  great  collection  of  prophe- 
cies contained  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John  gives  us  historical 
information  as  to  the  martjT  period  of  the  apostolic  Church 
which  extends  bej'ond  the  histor}'  of  the  book  of  Acts,  without 
which  we  would  be  left  in  darkness. 

The  Hebrew  poets  and  wise  men  are  not  so  important  for 
historical  purposes,  and  yet  there  are  historical  poems  of  gi-eat 
value  in  the  Psalter;  and,  besides,  the  lyrics  and  the  sentences 
of  wisdom,  not  to  speak  of  the  larger  products  of  the  imagina- 
tion in  prose  and  poetr3%  give  us  clues  to  the  inner  spirit,  reli- 
gious experience,  and  ethical  ideals  of  the  history,  especially 
in  periods  wlien  all  other  information  is  lacking. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  .",41 

These  four  kinds  of  writers  of  Biblical  History  that  we  find 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New,  are  not  without  sig- 
nificance, for  they  correspond  with  four  types  that  run  through 
the  entire  literature  of  the  Bible.  St.  James,  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul, 
and  St.  John  represent  four  different  points  of  view  in  the  New 
Testament  epistles.  Each  of  these  types  has  its  corresponding 
gospel.  In  the  Old  Testament  we  distinguish  the  writers  of 
the  Wisdom  Literature  from  the  \\riters  of  the  lyric  poetry, 
and  both  of  these  from  the  prophetic  and  the  priestly  writers. 
These  are  the  same  types  that  we  find  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  we  ought  to  expect  to  find  them  represented  in  the  older 
histories.  These  are  not  fanciful  combinations  of  theorists  and 
speculators,  but  they  are  the  interesting  product  of  the  scien- 
tific study  of  the  Bible  itself.  When  we  compare  these  four 
types  of  biblical  writers  with  the  results  of  the  scientific  studj- 
of  other  religions  and  races,  we  find  that  they  correspond  with 
the  four  great  temperaments  of  mankind,  and  the  four  great 
types  of  character  that  reapjjear  throughoiit  human  history.  ^ 

It  is  one  of  the  wonderful  results  of  tlie  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  Bible  that  all  the  important  events  and  doctrines  rest  upon 
a  fourfold  foundation,  and  a  comprehension  of  the  four  great 
wa3-s  of  hioking  at  things  that  are  possible  to  the  human  mind. 
There  is  danger  in  our  study  of  the  Bible  on  this  very  account. 
Few  minds  are  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  grasp  the  entire 
representation  of  these  biblical  writers.  Each  man  will  natu- 
rally look  at  any  subject  through  the  eyes  and  the  representa- 
tions of  the  author  of  kindred  temperament  and  type.  The 
analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  has  brought  to  light  a  large  number 
of  apparent  inconsistencies.  This  was  what  ought  to  have 
been  expected.  They  are  no  more,  however,  than  those  that 
trouble  scholars  in  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  after  all  these 
centuries  of  study.  On  the  other  hand,  many  old  difficulties 
have  been  removed.  Many  statements  that  were  inconsistent 
and  even  contradictory  in  the  same  author  are  complementary 
and  sui)i)lementary  in  different  authors;  and  so  we  gain  a 
higher  unity  of  representation,  which  is  all  the  grander  for  the 
fourfold  variety  out  of  which  it  springs.  The  history  has  not 
1  See  pp.  569  seq.,  for  a  further  study  of  the  types. 


542  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

the  unity  of  a  straight  line,  a  series  of  points,  but  the  unity  of 
a  cube  —  such  unity  as  we  see  in  the  cubical  structure  of  the 
Holy  of  Holies  of  the  tabernacle,  and  the  temple.  The  new 
Jerusalem  of  the  Apocalypse  is  four-square.  The  army  of  the 
living  God  marches  in  four  solid  divisions.  The  cherubic 
chariot  of  its  King  faces  the  four  quarters  of  the  earth.  The 
four  cherubic  faces  represent  not  only  the  four  Gospels,  but 
also  the  four  types  that  are  in  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  the  histories  and  writings  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.    The   Tlieoplianic  Presence 

Biblical  History  has  certain  features  that  distinguish  it 
from  all  other  history.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the 
theophanic  presence  of  God. 

There  are  some  who  would  point  to  miracles  and  prophecy 
as  the  great  supernatural  features  of  the  Bible,  which  prove  its 
uniqueness  and  its  divine  origin.  But  it  is  just  these  super- 
natural features  of  miracles  and  prophecies  that,  in  our  day, 
constitute,  for  scientific  and  literary  scliolars,  the  chief  obsta- 
cles to  their  faith  in  the  Bible.  Biblical  History  is  not  unique 
in  this  regard.  The  ancient  histories  of  other  nations  claim 
miracles  and  divine  prophecy  for  the  leaders  of  their  religion. 
The  scientific  historian  is  tempted  to  treat  the  miracles  and 
prophecies  of  Biblical  History  in  the  same  way  in  which  he 
treats  them  in  the  history  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  Greece,  and  the 
Christian  Church.  He  is  bound  so  to  do,  unless  something  of 
a  distinguishing  character  is  found  in  these  features  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  Moses  and  Jesus  recognize 
miracle-working  and  prophecy  beyond  the  range  of  prophetic 
working,  outside  the  kingdom  of  God.^  There  must  be  some- 
thing in  the  divine  character  of  Biblical  History  that  will  vin- 
dicate its  reality  and  i)Ower,  or  it  cannot  be  saved  fi'om  the 
tomb  into  which  modern  liistorical  criticism  has  cast  the  super- 
natural in  all  other  history. 
\  It  lias  long  been  evident  to  Christian  historians  of  critical 
sagacity  that  the  Bible  does  not  magnify  the  supernatural  in 
>  Deut.  IS ;  Mt.  242»-« 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  543 

miracle-working  and  prophecy  to  the  same  extent  as  is  common 
in  treatises  on  the  evidences  of  Chi'istianity  and  in  systems  of 
Apologetics. 

Undue  stress  upon  these  things  has  called  attention  away 
from  still  more  important  features  in  Biblical  Historj-.  The 
miracles  of  Biblical  History  were  not  wrought  in  order  to  give 
modern  divines  evidences  of  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  biblical 
religion.  The  prophets  did  not  aim  to  give  apologists  proofs 
for  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  The  miracles  were 
wrought  as  acts  of  divine  judgment  and  redemption.  Prophecy 
wixs  given  to  instruct  men  in  the  religion  of  God,  in  order  to 
their  salvation  and  moral  growth.  The  miracles  were  not 
designed  to  show  that  God  was  able  to  violate  the  laws  of 
nature,  to  overrule  or  suspend  them  at  His  will.  The  miracles 
of  the  Bible  rather  show  that  God  Himself  was  present  in 
nature,  directing  His  own  laws  in  deeds  of  redemption  and  of 
judgment.  The  miracles  are  divine  acts  in  nature.  Projihecy 
was  not  designed  to  show  that  God  can  overrule  the  laws  of  the 
human  mind,  suspend  them,  or  act  instead  of  them,  using  man 
as  a  mere  sjieaking-tube  to  convey  heavenly  messages  to  this 
world.  Prophecy  i-ather  discloses  the  presence  of  God  in  man, 
stimulating  him  to  use  all  the  powers  of  his  intellectual  and 
moral  nature  in  the  instruction  of  the  jjeople  of  God.^  Mira- 
cles and  prophec}'  in  Biblical  History  are  the  signs  of  the 
presence  of  God  in  that  history.  He  has  not  left  that  history 
to  itself.  He  has  not  left  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  mind  to 
their  ordinary  development,  but  He  has  taken  His  place  at  the 
head  of  affaii-s  as  the  monarch  of  nature  and  the  king  of  men  to 
give  His  personal  presence  and  superintendence  to  a  history 
which  is  central,  and  dominant  of  the  history  of  the  world. ^ 

This  is  the  conception  that  we  find  in  Biblical  History. 
Miracles  were  chiefly  at  the  exodus  from  Eg3-pt  and  the  entrance 
into  Palestine.  Here  they  are  associated  with  the  theophanic 
presence  of  God.  They  reappear  in  the  age  of  Elijah  and 
Elisha,  a  period  marked  by  theophanies.  Then  again  they 
were  wrought  by  Jesus,  the  Messiah,  and  by  His  apostles, 
in  connection  with  theophanies  of  the   Divine  Spirit.       The 

•  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  jip.  21  seq.  -  1  Cor.  16"  25, 


544  STUDY  or   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Theophany,  the  Cliiistophany,  and  the  Pneumatophaii}-  are  the 
sources  of  the  miracles  of  the  Bible.  When  God  is  really 
present  in  nature,  in  the  forms  of  time  and  space  and  circum- 
stance, then  miracles  are  the  most  natural  things  in  the  world. 

The  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  also  springs  from  the- 
ophanies.  The  great  master-spirits  of  prophecy  were  called  by 
theophauies.  The  apostles  were  commissioned  by  Cluistoph- 
anies  and  Pneumatophanies.  God  entered  into  the  human 
mind,  into  its  perception,  conception,  and  imagination,  and 
guided  these  to  give  utterance  to  the  wonderful  things  of  God.^ 
I  do  not  presume  to  say  that  every  miracle  and  every  prophetic 
discourse  may  be  traced  directly  to  theophanic  influence,  j-et  I 
do  venture  to  say  that  tbe  most  of  them  can  be  traced  to  such 
origination,  and  that  the  others  may  likewise  be  referred  to  a 
more  secret  divine  presence  in  nature  and  in  man,  even  if  that 
presence  was  not  always  disclosed  in  some  external  manner. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  to  go  much  farther,  in  order  to 
realize  the  importance  of  the  theophany  in  Biblical  Historj'. 
It  is  the  representation  of  the  Patriarchal  Histoiy  that  God 
was  constantly  manifesting  Himself  to  the  antediluvians  and 
patriarchs  in  various  theophanic  forms,  to  guide  them  in  all  the 
important  affairs  of  their  lives.  The  primitive  narratives  of  the 
exodus  tell  us  that  God  assumed  the  form  of  an  angel  and  then 
of  a  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  and  remained  with  His  people  in 
a  permanent  form  of  theophany  from  the  exodus  from  Egypt 
until  the  entrance  in  the  Hoh-  Land.  God's  theophanic  pres- 
ence remained  with  His  people  until  the  exile.  The  ark  was 
His  throne,  the  tabernacle  His  abode,  the  temple  His  palace. 
The  sacred  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  knew  that  God  was 
reigning  in  Jerusalem  as  the  real  King  of  Israel  and  the 
nations,  by  personal  tlieophanic  presence. 

The  theophanic  presence  was  withdrawn  from  the  nation 
during  the  exile  and  only  granted  to  a  few' prophets;  but  on 
the  return  to  the  Holj-  Land,  God  again  appeared  in  wondrous 
theophanies.  These  are  not  recorded  in  the  cold,  dry  narrative 
of  the  Chronicler,  but  they  appear  in  the  psalms  and  proph- 
ecies of  the  period.     All  the  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testa- 

'  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  7th  ed..  pp.  20  seq. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  545 

ment  were  in  order  to  prepare  mankind  for  the  grandest  of  all 
theophanies  —  the  Licarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Indeed, 
Saint  Paul  saw  the  preexistent  Messiah  in  the  angel  of  the 
presence,  who  guided  Israel  thi-ough  the  wilderness  of  the 
wanderings. 1  From  this  point  of  view  the  theophanic  Christ 
prepares  the  way  for  the  Incarnate  Christ.  The  Incarnation 
was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  an  abiding  presence  of  God,  no 
longer  in  the  Holy  of  Holies,  but  in  familiar  intercourse  with 
men  until  His  death  on  the  cross  and  ascension  to  the  heavenly 
throne.  Then  a  few  days  of  divine  absence,  and  the  theophany 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  came  at  Pentecost. 

Pneumatophany  and  Clu'istophan}-  abound  in  the  period  of 
planting  the  Church  in  the  world.  The  last  known  to  the 
biblical  writings  is  the  wonderful  one  to  Saint  John  in  Patmos. 
And  here  Biblical  Histor}-  comes  to  an  end,  with  a  prophetic 
picture  of  the  final  scenes  of  all  history. 

From  this  survey,  it  is  clear  that  the  most  distinguishing 
feature  of  Biblical  Histor}'  is  the  theophanic  presence  of  God. 
The  narratives  of  the  biblical  writei-s  treat  of  the  times  of  that 
presence.  When  the  theophanj^  is  absent,  the  biblical  narra- 
tive is  absent  also.  When  the  theophany  is  absent,  the  biblical 
historian  sees  nothing  to  narrate ;  his  Lord  is  not  there.  His- 
tory is  to  him  a  blank.  When  the  theophany  is  withdrawn  and 
the  enthroned  Saviour  governs  His  kingdom  without  theophanic 
manifestations.  Biblical  History  passes  over  into  Church  His- 
tory. From  this  point  of  view.  Biblical  History  is  the  history 
of  the  theophanic  presence  of  God  in  His  kingdom  of  grace. 

This  central  feature  of  Biblical  History  determines  all  others. 

The  Ephraimitic  historian  begins  his  narrative  with  the  story 
of  theophanic  manifestations  to  the  patriarchs,  taking  a  special 
interest  in  Israel,  the  father  of  the  nation.  This  writer  is 
graphic,  plastic,  and  realistic.  God  appeal's  in  cb-eams.  He 
comes  in  forms  of  man  and  angel.  He  lets  Himself  be  seen 
and  touched.  He  even  condescends  to  wrestle  with  Jacob. 
He  appears  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush  as  the  angel  of  the 
presence.  He  assumes  human  form  and  lets  Moses  see  Him 
and  commune  with  Him  in  his  tent.     He  manifests  Himself  to 

'  1  Cor.  lO-"'-'.     See  Briggs,  Messiah  of  Apostles,  p.  99. 
2x 


5-16  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

the  elders  of  Israel,  enthroned  on  a  glorious  throne,  and  lets 
them  eat  the  covenant  sacritice  in  His  presence.  God  is  to  this 
narrator  ever  present  to  guide  the  nation  as  their  King. 

The  same  spirit  guides  the  Ephi-aimitic  narrator  who  tells 
the  story  of  the  later  histor3^  He  is  ver\'  zealous  for  his  own 
God,  and  scorns  the  gods  of  the  nations.  Elijah  condenses  this 
feeling  in  his  bitter  irony  to  the  prophets  of  Baal: 

"  Cry  aloud :  for  he  is  a  god ;  either  he  is  musing,  or  he  is  gone 
aside,  or  he  is  on  a  journey,  or  perad venture  he  sleepeth  and  must 
.   be  awaked." ' 

The  calm,  serene  confidence  of  the  prophet  is  justified  by  the 
theophanic  interposition  and  the  cry  of  the  people: 

"  Yahweh,  He  is  God !  Yahweh,  He  is  God ! "  ^ 

Saint  Mark  writes  in  a  similar  spirit  in  the  New  Testament. 
Saint  Mark  has  no  interest  in  introductory  matters  or  even 
results.  He  is  absorbed  in  the  Christ  of  history,  in  His  life 
and  deeds.  His  plastic  style  gives  us  Jesus  as  He  mani- 
fested Himself.  He  tells  his  story  in  such  a  realistic  and 
powerful  manner  that  we  bow  before  the  Clirist  as  the  King 
of  nature  and  of  men,  without  waiting  for  solicitation  or 
argument. 

Other  histories  give  us  evidences  of  the  presence  and  power 
of  God.  Mythological  conceptions  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  his- 
tories of  other  ancient  nations.  There  the  gods  descend  to 
earth  and  clothe  themselves  in  forms  of  nature  and  man;  but 
they  thereby  assume  the  parts  and  passions  of  man  and  share 
in  all  his  weaknesses,  sins,  and  corruptions;  or  thej-  become 
merely  forces  and  forms  of  phj'sical  nature.  But  the  the- 
ophanies  of  these  biblical  historians  never  confound  God  with 
man,  with  angels,  or  with  nature  —  the  form  assumed  by  God 
is  merely  for  manifestation  to  holy  men ;  and  it  is  a  thin  veil 
through  which  as  much  of  the  glory  of  deity  shines  as  the  holy 
men  were  able  to  bear.  And  whereas  mythological  conceptions 
are  only  at  the  mythical  roots  of  other  ancient  histories,  the 
theophanies  pervade  and  control  Biblical  History  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end.  There  is  no  other  history  in  which 
'  1  K.  182;.  2  1  K.  1839. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  547 

God  is  manifest  in  such  a  simple,  natural,  and  yet  kingly  way, 
where  men  see  Him,  know  Him,  and  obey  Him  as  their  own 
Prince  and  King. 


2.    The  Kingdom  of  Redemption 

The  Judaic  historian  begins  his  story  with  an  epic  poem, 
disclosing,  on  the  one  side,  the  origin  and  development  of 
human  sin  and  the  divine  wrath,  and  on  the  other  the  grace  of 
God  in  the  progress  of  redemption.  The  great  theme  of  his 
history  is  redemption  from  sin.  He  and  other  biblical  his- 
torians of  the  same  type  give  us  the  development  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Redemption.  The  great  Hebrew  epic  that  con- 
stitutes the  preface  of  this  history  is  the  most  wonderful  of 
stories.^  The  history  of  mankind  begins  with  Adam,  sculpt- 
ured by  the  hands  of  God  and  quickened  b}-  the  breath  of  God. 
The  man  is  placed  in  a  paradise  planted  by  the  hands  of  God, 
and  has  charge  of  animals  formed,  like  himself,  by  the  hands 
of  God.  He  receives  his  wife  from  the  hands  of  God,  built 
out  of  a  portion  of  his  own  body.  He  is  trained  in  conception 
and  speech  by  the  voice  of  God.  All  things  in  him  and  about 
him  exhibit  the  marks  of  God's  personal  presence  and  contact; 
and  yet  Adam  sinned  against  his  creator  and  benefactor,  and 
brought  an  entail  of  woe  upon  our  race.  The  epic  describes, 
in  a  series  of  pictures,  the  successive  catastrophes  of  mankind, 
the  Fall,  the  Fratricide,  the  Deluge,  and  the  Dispersion,  events 
that  lie  at  the  foundations  of  human  history.  Faint  reflections 
of  these  events  are  found  in  the  legends  and  myths  of  other 
ancient  nations,  but  nowhere  do  we  see  such  a  beautiful,  sim- 
ple, touching,  and  profound  story.  It  is  an  artist's  master- 
piece. It  is  poetry  in  form  as  well  as  substance  —  an  epic 
poem  of  the  highest  order.  Here  the  imagination  and  fancy 
are  supreme,  and  yet  there  is  nothing  of  those  grotesque  mytho- 
logical forms,  and  those  extravagant  legendary  scenes,  that 
constitute  the  staple  of  all  efforts  to  depict  the  origin  of  things 
among  other  ancient  nations.  The  poem  is  so  simple,  so  chaste, 
so  realistic,  so  artless,  that  it  has  been  mistaken  by  most  stu- 
'  See  Briggs,  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Iteason,  pp.  281  seq. 


548  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRLPTCKK 

deuts  for  prose.  Such  poetry  must  have  been  inspired  h}-  a 
divine  art;  such  imagination  and  fancy  must  have  been  in- 
flamed and  at  the  same  time  tempered  and  subdued  bj'  a  divine 
breath. 

The  poem  describes  the  origin  and  development  of  sin  in  the 
family  of  Adam,  in  the  descendants  of  Cain,  in  the  human  race, 
in  the  family  of  Noah,  in  the  builders  of  Babel.  The  wrath  of 
God  comes  upon  sin  in  several  catastrophes  of  judgment.  But 
redemption  is  never  absent.  The  promise  to  the  woman's  seed 
opens  up  the  path  of  Messianic  prophecy,  which  the  prophet 
traces  in  its  stages  of  divine  revelation,  so  that  human  sin  is 
overwhelmed  and  destroyed  in  the  progress  of  redemption.  Sin 
and  Redemption  are  the  master  words  of  his  entire  history. 
We  see  them  unfolding  in  the  patriarchal  story,  in  the  exodus, 
and  the  wanderings,  and  the  conquest.  Yahweh,  the  personal 
God  and  Saviour,  is  ever  with  His  people  to  guide  and  to  bless. 
This  prophet  is  the  brightest  and  best  narrator  in  the  Bible. 
His  stories  never  tire  us,  for  they  ever  touch  the  secret  springs 
of  our  heart's  emotions. 

A  writer  of  a  similar  spirit  tells  the  story  of  David,  of  his 
sins  and  sorrows  and  restoration,  and  traces  the  history  of  the 
kingdom  of-  redemption  in  his  seed. 

Matthew  is  an  evangelist  of  a  similar  spirit  —  the  favourite 
among  the  Gospels.  He  is  the  evangelist  of  the  Messianic 
promise,  of  the  kingdom  of  redemption,  and  of  the  conflict  of 
sin  and  grace. 

The  historj'  of  sin  and  of  redemption  in  these  biblical  his- 
torians is  unique.  Sin,  indeed,  is  everj-where  in  the  world. 
Other  histories  cover  it  over.  These  histories  expose  it.  And 
yet  Israel  was  not  the  greatest  sinner  among  the  nations.  If 
his  sins  are  more  patent,  are  more  in  the  light  of  historj', 
it  is  because  he  has  ever  been  a  penitent  sinner.  Deceitful 
Abraham,  craft}-  Jacob,  choleric  Moses,  wilful  Saul,  passionate 
David,  voluptuous  Solomon,  hasty  Peter,  doubting  Thomas, 
heresy-hunting  Paul, —  these  are  not  the  chief  of  sinners. 
Their  counterparts  are  to  be  found  in  all  ages  and  all  over  the 
world.  We  see  them  every  da}-  in  our  streets.  They  are  not 
distinguished  above  other  men  as  sinners;  but  they  are  distin- 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  549 

guislied  as  repenting  sinners,  the  discoverers  of  the  divine  for- 
giveness of  sin,  the  banner-bearers  of  redemption,  the  trophies 
of  di\ane  grace.  No  other  history  but  Biblical  History  gives 
us  such  a  history  of  I'edemptiou,  an  unfolding  of  the  grace  of 
God,  from  the  fii-st  jiromise  of  the  ancient  epic,  through  all  the 
intricate  variety  of  Messianic  prophecy  and  fuliilment,  until 
we  see  the  Redeemer  ascend  to  heaven,  the  son  of  woman,  the 
second  Adam,  the  serpent-bruiser,  victor  over  sin  and  death, 
to  reign  on  a  throne  of  grace  as  the  world's  Redeemer. 

3.    Divine  Fatherly  Discipline 

The  fifth  book  of  the  Hexateuch  is  called  Deuteronomy,  on 
the  ancient  Hellenistic  theory  that  it  was  a  repetition  of  the 
law.  Its  legislation  is  represented  in  the  narratives  of  the 
book  of  Kings,  rather,  as  the  Instruction  or  the  Covenant. 
This  legislation  is  embedded  in  narratives  that  assume  the 
oratorical  form.  They  have  a  character  of  their  own ;  they  are 
of  a  distinct  type  fi'om  the  narratives  thus  far  considered.  The 
same  writer  is  largely  responsible  for  the  historj-  of  the  Con- 
quest of  Canaan.  A  writer  of  the  same  type  has  touched  up 
the  history  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  This  writer 
has  the  conception  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  and  from  this 
point  of  view  he  estimates  the  historj'  of  God's  people.  The 
whole  history  is  a  discipline,  a  training  of  the  child  Israel  by 
his  father  God.  The  love  of  the  Father  and  His  tender  com- 
passion are  grandly  conceived,  and  the  sin  of  the  nation  is  a 
violation  of  the  parental  relation.  The  ideal  life  of  God's 
people  is  a  life  of  love  to  the  Heavenly  Father.  Man  shall  not 
live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  the  word  that  issues  from  the  mouth 
of  God.  The  divine  instruction,  the  holy  guidance,  is  w^hat 
the  child  needs  for  life,  growth,  and  prosperity.  All  blessed- 
ness is  summed  up  in  loving  God  and  serving  Him  with  the 
whole  heart.  All  curses  will  come  upon  those  Avho  forsake 
Him  and  refuse  His  instruction  and  guidance.  God  is  Judge 
as  well  as  Father,  and  this  discipline  is  to  end  in  an  ultimate 
judgment  that  will  award  the  blessings  and  curses  that  have 
been  earned.     The  Deuteronomist  judges  the  whole  history  of 


550  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Israel  from  this  point  of  view,  and  regards  it  as  determined  by 
the  disciplining  love  of  God. 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  of  the  same  type,  in  the  New  "Testa- 
ment. It  is  the  gospel  of  light  and  life  and  love.  The  love 
of  God,  displayed  throughout  Biblical  Historj',  reaches  its 
climax  in  that  love  which  gave  the  only  begotten  Son  for  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  The  life  that  was  in  the  words  of  the 
Old  Covenant  was  intensified  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  which  are 
spirit  and  life;  it  entered  the  world  and  dwelt  among  us  as 
the  Incarnate  Word,  the  light  of  the  world,  and  the  true  life 
for  mankind.  The  Biblical  History  is  thus  a  history  of  the 
fatherly  love  of  God.  We  shall  not  deny  that  other  histories 
display  the  love  of  God,  and  that  all  mankind  share  in  the 
heavenly  discipline.  But  it  was  left  for  the  biblical  histories 
to  discern  that  love,  and  to  describe  it  as  the  quickening  breath 
of  histor}^ 

4.     The  Sovereignty  of  the  Holy  God 

The  priesth'  historian  takes  the  most  comprehensive  view  of 
Biblical  History.  He  begins  with  an  ancient  poem  describ- 
ing the  creation  of  the  -world.  This  stately  lyric,  in  six  pen- 
tameter strophes,  paints  the  wondrous  drama  of  the  six  days' 
work  in  which  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe,  by  word  of  com- 
mand, summons  His  host  into  being,  and  out  of  i)rimitive 
chaos  organizes  a  beautiful  and  orderly  whole.  Tlie  sover- 
eignty of  God  and  the  supremacy  of  law  and  order  are  the  most 
striking  features  of  this  story  of  creation.^  I  doubt  if  there  is 
any  other  passage  of  the  Bible  that  has  attracted  such  universal 
attention  and  been  the  centre  of  such  world-wide  contest  from 
the  earliest  times.  Here  Biblical  History  comes  into  contact 
■with  physical  science  in  all  its  sections,  with  philosophy,  with 
the  history  of  ancient  nations,  as  well  as  with  theolog}'.  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  discuss  the  numberless  questions  that 
spring  into  our  minds  in  connection  with  the  first  cliapter  of 
Genesis.  I  shall  only  remark  that  if  one  takes  it  as  a  13'ric 
poem,  and  interprets  it  in  the  same  way  as  we  are  accustomed 

I  Rriftgs,  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Iteason,  pp.  283  seq.  See  pp.  :!80 
spr/.  for  the  pentaiiieler. 


BIBLICAL   HISTORY  551 

to  interpret  the  psalms  of  creation  ^  and  the  poetic  descriptions 
of  the  creation  in  Hebrew  Prophecy  ^  and  Hebrew  Wisdom,^  the 
most  of  the  difficulties  will  pass  awa}- ;  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  contest  with  science,  philosophy,  and  archaeology  will 
cease. 

It  is  plain  that  the  poem  does  not  teach  creation  out  of  noth- 
ing. Its  scope  is  to  describe  the  brmging  of  beautj'  and  order 
and  organism  out  of  primitive  chaos.  It  is  clear  that  the  poem 
makes  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  the  agents  of  creation,  and 
these  are  just  as  suitable  to  the  conception  of  development  in 
six  stages  as  to  the  conception  of  an  indefinite  number  of  dis- 
tinct originations  out  of  nothing. 

The  order  of  creation  should  not  trouble  us  ;  for  the  poet  is 
giving  us  six  scenes  in  the  Act  of  Creation,  six  pictures  of  the 
general  order  of  the  development  of  nature.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  suppose  that  there  was  a  wide  gap  between  these  pictures,  and 
that  there  was  no  overlapping.  When  God  said,  "  Let  light 
come  into  being,"*  He  did  not  continue  saying  these  words 
for  twenty-four  hours,  or  a  century  or  more.  Divine  speech  is 
instantaneous.  The  effect  of  His  saj'ing  may  go  on  forever, 
but  His  word  is  a  flash  of  light.  God  did  no  more  speaking 
on  the  second  day  than  on  the  first,  no  more  on  the  sixth  tlian 
on  the  third.  The  poet  certainly  does  not  tell  us  that  God 
spake  a  creative  word  for  every  object  of  creation,  or  even  for 
every  species  or  genus.  He,  who  in  His  di-\-ine  conception  is 
above  the  limits  of  time  and  space  and  circrunstance,  who  grasps 
in  one  conception  the  whole  frame  of  universal  nature,  with 
one  word,  or  one  breath,  or  a  thought,  might  have  called  the 
universe  into  being.  The  poem  of  the  Creation  conceives  God 
as  speaking  six  creative  words,  in  order  thus  to  paint  the  six 
pictures  of  creation  in  an  orderly  manner.  The  poet  does  not 
propose  to  comprehend  in  his  representation  all  the  forces  and 
forms  and  methods  of  the  work  of  God. 

Take  it  as  it  is,  it  is  a  lyric  poem  of  wonderful  power  and 
beaut}'.  Science  has  not  yet  reached  a  point  when  it  can  tell 
the  stor}'  of  creation  so  well.  The  story  of  creation  is  set  forth 
in  the  legends  and  myths  of  many  nations.     The  Babylonian 

iPss.  33,  104.  =Is. -lO'^"'-,  44--'.  s  Prov.  8,  Job  38.  «Gen.  !»., 


552  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

poem  gives  us  the  best  ethnic  representation.  But  all  these 
ethnic  conceptions  are  discoloured  by  mythological  fancies  and 
grotesque  speculations.  Compared  with  the  best  of  them,  the 
Biblical  Poem  is  pure  and  simple  and  grand.  A  divine  touch 
is  in  its  sketchings.  A  Divine  Spirit  hovered  over  the  mind 
of  the  poet  to  bring  order  and  beauty  out  of  his  crude  and  toss- 
ing speculations,  no  less  than  He  did  over  the  primitive  chaos 
of  the  world  itself. 

The  priestly  historian  gives  another  ancient  poem  of  the 
Deluge,  which  also  is  marked  by  the  same  general  characteris- 
tics of  the  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  supremacy  of  law,  that 
Ave  have  seen  in  the  poem  of  the  Creation.  He  connects  these 
and  his  other  histories  by  a  well-arranged  table  of  genealogies, 
giving  us  the  line  of  mankind  from  Adam  through  the  cen- 
turies of  the  holy  race.  He  conceives  of  God  as  a  holy  God, 
and  of  man  as  created  in  the  image  of  the  holy  God,  with 
sovereignty  over  the  earth.  It  is  sin  against  the  divine  majesty 
that  involves  the  catastrophe  of  the  deluge.  This  historian 
traces  the  history  of  Israel  in  a  series  of  divine  covenants  with 
Noah,  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  Moses.  These  involve  the  govern- 
ment of  God  and  the  service  of  a  holy  people.  The  constitu- 
tion of  a  holy  law  and  holy  institutions  is  his  highest  delight. 
God's  people  must  be  a  holy  people,  as  God  their  Lord  is  holy, 
and  all  their  approaches  to  Him  must  be  in  well-ordered  forms 
of  sanctity.  The  entire  history  of  tJie  exodus  and  the  conquest 
is  conceived  from  this  point  of  view. 

The  Chronicler  is  an  author  of  kindred  spirit.  He  describes 
the  history  of  the  kingdom  until  the  exile,  and  judges  of  it 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  holy  law  of  God.  He  also  gives 
us  an  account  of  the  restoration  and  establishment  of  the  holy 
jieople  in  the  Holy  Land,  under  the  priestly  rule  and  the  holy 
law.     And  here  he  brings  his  history  to  an  end. 

A  writer  of  similar  spirit  in  the  New  Testament  is  Luke. 
He  also  begins  his  genealogy  with  Adam.  He  also  gives  a 
later  unfolding  of  the  history  in  the  story  of  the  planting  of 
Christianity  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  He  also  has  a  pro- 
found sense  of  the  sovereignt}-  of  God,  the  work  of  the  Divine 
•Spirit,  and  the  ideal  of  holiness. 


BIBLICAL  HISTORY  553 

When  now  we  compare  these  biblical  historians  with  other 
ancient  historians,  we  observe  that  the  Egyptians  come  nearest 
to  the  Hebrews  in  their  conception  of  sanctity,  but  the  Hebrews 
transcend  them  in  making  holiness  the  norm  of  historj-.  The 
ideal  of  the  image  of  the  Holy  God  in  man  is  the  ideal  that 
these  biblical  writers  held  in  mind  as  the  goal  of  histor}-. 
Whence  could  they  have  derived  this  ideal  if  not  from  the 
mind  of  God? 


V.   The  Order  of  Biblical  History 

The  material  of  Biblical  History  may  be  divided  in  accord- 
ance with  its  great  underlying  principles  into  two  parts:  the 
history  of  the  Old  Covenant,  guided  by  theophanies,  which 
established  the  Old  Covenant  and  determined  the  order  and 
sequence  of  its  historical  development;  and  the  history  of  the 
Xew  Covenant,  guided  by  the  incarnate  Christ  and  His  Chris- 
tophanies,  which  established  the  New  Covenant  and  determined 
its  historj-.  The  unfolding  of  the  Covenant  under  the  guid- 
ance of  theophanies  and  Christophanies  makes  the  subordinate 
periods. 

The  histor}"-  of  the  Old  Covenant  is  divided  into  three  great 
periods.  These  may  be  distinguished  bj-  the  three  great  names 
which  more  than  any  others  determine  them, —  Moses,  David, 
and  Ezra.  Moses'  great  covenant,  and  the  theophanies  received 
by  him,  determine  the  fundamental  period  of  Biblical  Histor}-. 
All  the  patriarchal  and  antediluvian  stories  prepare  for  it. 
David's  covenant,  and  the  theophanies  witnessed  by  him,  deter- 
mine the  whole  central  period  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy.  The 
stories  of  Samuel  and  Saul  prepare  for  this.  Ezra's  covenant, 
and  the  more  spiritual  but  no  less  potent  influence  of  "the  good 
hand  of  his  God  upon  him,"^  determine  the  whole  final  period 
of  the  priests  and  scribes  until  the  advent  of  Christ.  The  his- 
tory of  the  New  Covenant  is  greater  in  intension,  but  much  less 
in  extension,  whether  of  time  or  place  or  circumstance.  It  may 
be  divided  into  the  time  of  the  Forerunners,  during  the  infancy 
and  early  life  of  our  Lord;  the  time  of  the  manifestation  of  the 
1  Ezr.  7«,  818 .  Neh.  2S-  w. 


554  STUDY   Of   UOLY   SCRIPTURE 

Messiah,  His  brief  eaithly  public  career;  and  finalh'  tlie  times 
of  the  apostles  as  commissioned  by  the  reigning  Lord  and 
empowered  by  the  indwelling  Spirit  to  organize  and  establish 
the  Christian  Church  in  the  world. 


VI.    Sections  of  Biblical  History 

Biblical  History,  even  more  truly  than  other  history,  has  a 
wide  field  of  material,  which  vasLj  be  subdivided  and  variouslj' 
arranged.  There  is  first  the  external  frame  of  the  history,  its 
environment  in  time,  place,  and  circumstance.  Its  environ- 
ment in  time  gives  the  discipline  of  Biblical  Chronology ;  its 
environment  in  place,  the  discipline  of  Biblical  Geography  ;  its 
environment  in  other  circumstances  of  various  kinds  relating 
to  human  nature  and  affairs  may  be  classified  under  the  elastic 
tenn  of  Biblical  ArchcBology.  There  are  many  recent  writera 
who  include  Biblical  Chronology  and  Biblical  Geography  under 
the  more  general  head  of  Biblical  Archeeology,  but  without 
propriety. 

It  is  doubtful,  indeed,  whether  Biblical  Archaeology  is  used 
with  propriety  for  many  of  the  other  things  that  are  usuallj' 
classified  under  it.  The  Natural  Histor}'^  of  the  Bible,  dealing 
with  animals  and  plants,  the  rocks  and  the  soil,  has  no  logical 
or  vital  connection  with  archaeology.  Archtcology,  as  the  sci- 
ence of  antiquities,  belongs  to  another  group  of  subjects  than 
Biblical  Geograpli}',  Clironology,  and  Natural  History.  These 
latter  belong  to  the  external  environment  of  the  history. 
Archseologj'  belongs  more  closely  to  the  history  itself,  to  tlie 
inner  environment,  to  the  monumental  records  of  the  history, 
and  to  the  source  of  the  historj-.  Clu-istian  Archaeologj'-  is 
termed  by  Piper  Monumental  Theology.'  Biblical  Archaeology, 
fi-om  this  point  of  view,  would  be  the  Monumental  Theology 
of  the  Bible.  Its  subdivisions  would  then  be  the  various 
monuments  of  Biblical  History.  Biblical  Archaeology  would 
then  embrace  Numismatics,  the  study  of  coins  mentioned  in 
the  Bible ;^  Epigraphies,  the  studj'of  biblical  inscriptions;  and 

1  Einhitiinfi  in  <l.  Motuimentate  Theologie,  Gotha,  1867. 

2  F.  \y.  Madden.  Historj/  ofjeioish  Coiiwje,  London,  1804. 


BIBLICAL   UISTOUY  555 

Biblical  Architecture  and  Sculpture,  the  study  of  the  buildings 
and  various  examples  of  plastic  art  mentioned  in  Holy  Scrijit- 
ure.^  But  there  are  other  matters  which  cannot  be  classed 
with  the  study  of  the  monuments ;  namel)',  the  domestic,  social, 
religious,  and  political  life  of  the  Jewish  people.  These  sub- 
jects may  in  great  part  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
Biblical  History  itself  or  with  Biblical  Theology.  Thus  the 
religious  life  and  all  the  religious  antiquities  may  be  con- 
sidered under  the  head  of  Biblical  Religion.  The  domestic, 
social,  and  political  life  may  come  under  the  head  of  Bililical 
Ethics.  The  political  and  religious  organizations  can  hardl}- 
escape  the  attention  of  the  biblical  historian.  But  there  will 
still  remain  a  residuum  of  these  topics  that  can  be  discussed 
but  inadequately,  and  as  it  were  aside,  in  Biblical  History  and 
Biblical  Tiieology,  and  therefore  a  place  must  be  found  for  them 
in  Biblical  Archeology,  which  then  under  this  head  will  sub- 
divide itself  into  domestic  antiquities,  social  antiquities,  reli- 
gious antiquities,  and  political  antiquities. 

Vn.   The  Sources  of  Biblical  History 

The  primitive  sources  of  Biblical  History  are  mythologies, 
legends,  poems,  laws,  whether  inscribed,  written,  or  traditional, 
historical  documents,  and  the  use  of  the  historical  imagination. 

1.    3Ii/thical  Sources 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  there  is  a  strong  mythological 
element  at  the  basis  of  Biblical  History  as  well  as  of  other 
ancient  histories.  The  myth,  is  indeed  the  most  primitive 
historic  form  and  mould  in  which  that  which  is  most  ancient 
is  transmitted  from  primitive  peoples.  There  are  such  myths 
in  the  stories  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  in  the  poetr}'  of  Job, 
Isaiah,  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  not  a  few  of  the  Psalms.  But 
it  is  characteristic  of  all  these  myths  that  they  have  been  trans- 
formed by  the  genius  of  Hebrew  poets  under  the  influence  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  so  that  all  that  is  polytheistic  has  disap- 

'  Conrad  Schick,  Die  Stiftshiitte,  der  Tempel  in  Jerusalem  und  der  Tempel- 
jilatz  der  Jetztzeit,  Berlin,  1890.  , 


.556  STUDY   OF   HOLY    SCRIPTCRE 

peared,  and  nothing  remains  wliicli  is  lunvorth}-  of  the  ideals 
of  the  Hebrew  religion.  It  will  be  sutticient  if  I  quote  liere 
from  recent  authorities  who  have  given  their  attention  to  this 
subject,  and  I  have  selected  for  this  two  recent  scholars.  ^ 

"  To  the  student  of  comparative  religion  it  is  no  doubt  of  great 
interest  to  notice  that  iu  the  story  of  the  origins  we  have  a  nar- 
rative which  shows  clear  traces  of  connection  with  Chaldcean 
traditions ;  to  the  believer  in  divine  inspiration  it  is  of  chief  im- 
portance to  notice  how  jirimitive  mj-tli  is  consecrated  to  spiritual 
uses,  and  how  in  the  process  it  is  purged  of  all  that  is  puerile  or 
immoral,  the  main  outlines  of  the  original  Babylonian  story  being 
retained,  while  the  lower  elements  in  it  are  entirely  overmastered 
by  the  sublime  spiritual  thoughts  of  a  lofty  religion.  Such  ele- 
ments are  indeed  only  survivals,  like  the  survivals  in  natural 
history,  serving,  for  aught  we  know,  some  beneficent  purpose, 
showing  that  Israel's  religion  had  its  roots  in  a  Semitic  paganism, 
from  which  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God  it  gradually 
emancipated  itself.  Xo  student  of  the  Old  Testament  will  find 
serious  difficidty  in  the  existence  of  mythical  or  even  polytheistic 
elements  which  have  in  fact  become  the  medium  of  pure  religious 
ideas,  and  which  have  been  so  far  stripjied  of  their  original  char- 
acter as  to  serve  the  purposes  of  a  monotheistic  system."  - 

Clieyne,  in  writing  of  mythological  elements  in  the  book  of 
Job,  says: 

"  One  of  the  peculiarities  of  our  poet  (whicli  I  have  elsewhere 
compared  with  a  similar  characteristic  iu  Dante)  is  his  willingness 
to  appropriate  mj-thic  forms  of  expression  from  heathendom. 
This  willingness  was  certainly  not  due  to  a  feeble  grasp  of  his  own 
religion;  it  was  rather  due  partly  to  the  poet's  craving  for  imagi- 
native ornament,  partly  to  his  sympatliy  with  his  less  developed 
readers,  and  a  sense  that  some  of  these  forms  were  admirably 
adapted  to  give  reality  to  the  conception  of  the  'living  God.' 
Several  of  these  points  of  contact  with  heathendom  have  been 
indicated  in  my  analysis  of  the  poem.  I  need  not  again  refer  to 
these,  but  the  semi-mythological  allusions  to  supernatural  beings 
who  had  once  been  in  conflict  with  Jehovah  (21^-,  2.'*^,  and  the 
cognate  references  to  the  dangerous  cloud-dragon  ovight  not  to  be 
overlooked.  Both  in  Egypt  and  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  we 
find  these  very  myths  in  a  fully  developed  form.     The  '  leviathan ' 

'  See  also  Gunkel,  Schopfung  itnd  Ckaos  in  Urzeit  und  Endseit,  1895. 
2  Robert  Lawrence  Ottley,  Aspects  of  the  Old  Testament,  1897.  pp.  67.  58. 


BIBLICAL   HISTORY  557 

of  3*,  the  dragou  probably  of  7'-  {taunui)  aud  certainly  of  26" 
(ndkhdsh),  aud  the  'rahab'  of  9''^,  26'",  remind  us  of  the  evil 
serpent  Apap,  whose  struggle  with  the  sun-god  Ra  is  described  in 
chap.  39  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  aud  elsewhere.  '  A  battle  took 
place.'  says  M.  IMaspero,  'between  the  gods  of  light  and  fertility 
and  the  ••  sous  of  rebellion,"  the  enemies  of  light  aud  life.  The 
former  were  victorious,  but  the  monsters  were  not  destroyed. 
They  constantly  menace  the  order  of  nature,  aud,  iu  order  to  resist 
their  destructive  action,  God  must,  so  to  speak,  create  the  world 
anew  every  day.'  An  equally  close  parallel  is  furnished  by  the 
fourth  tablet  of  the  Babylonian  creation-story,  which  describes  the 
struggle  between  the  god  Marduk  (Alerodach)  aud  the  dragon 
Tiamat  or  Tiamtu  (a  fem.  corresponding  to  the  Heb.  masc.  form 
fhoni  '  the  deep  ')....  Nor  must  I  forget  the  '  fool-hardy  '  giant 
(K'sil  =  Orion)  iu  9',  38'",  nor  the  dim  allusion  to  the  sky-reaching 
mountain  of  the  north,  rich  in  gold  (comp.  Is.  14'^,  and  Sayee, 
Academi/,  Jan.  28,  1882,  p.  64)  and  the  myth-derived  synonyms 
for  Sheol,  Death,  Abaddon,  and  '  the  shadow  of  death '  (or,  deep 
gloom),  26",  28-",  38'',  also  the  'king  of  terrors'  (18'*),  who  like 
Pluto  or  Yama  rules  in  the  Hebrew  Underworld.  Observe,  too, 
the  instances  iu  which  a  primitive  myth  has  died  down  into  a 
metaphor,  e.c/.  '  the  eyelids  of  the  Dawn '  (3",  41'*).  .  .  .  How  far 
the  poet  of  Job  believed  in  the  myths  which  he  has  preserved,  e.g. 
in  the  existence  of  potentates  or  ijotencies  corresponding  to  the 
'  cb-agou '  of  which  he  speaks,  we  cannot  certainlj'  tell.  Mr.  Budge 
has  suggested  that  Tiamat,  the  sky-dragon  of  the  Babylonians, 
conveyed  a  distinct  symbolic  meaning.  However  this  may  have 
been,  the  '  leviathan '  of  Job  was  probably  to  the  poet  a  '  survival ' 
from  a  superstition  of  his  childhood,  and  little  if  anything  more 
than  the  emblem  of  all  evil  and  disorder." ' 


2.    Legendari/  Sources 

Legends  constitute  the  form  in  which  historical  material  is 
handed  down  from  generation  to  generation  in  oral  transmis- 
sion, especially  in  times  prior  to  written  literature.  Holy 
Scripture  uses  a  great  abundance  of  these  legends.  The  popu- 
lar imagination  embellishes  them  ;  changes  them  in  many  ways 
as  to  time,  place,  <ind  circumstances;  and  only  preserves  the 
substance  of  the  truth  and  fact.  As  an  illustration  we  may 
take  the  patriarch's  representation  that  his  wife  was  his  sister. 
>  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  1887.  pp.  76-78. 


558  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCULPTURE 

There  are  three  narratives  of  this  event.'  Doubtless  there  was  an 
actual  occurreuce  of  this  kind  in  the  times  of  the  patriarchs ;  but 
each  one  of  these  narratives  shows  the  legendary  embellishment. 

The  Ephraimitic  narrative  represents  that  Abraham  was  the 
patriarch  and  that  the  event  took  place  at  the  court  of  Abime- 
lech,  king  of  Gerer.  But  the  Judaic  narrator  already  found 
two  stories  current  in  his  time,  one  making  Abraham  tlie  hero, 
the  other  Isaac ;  the  one  putting  the  event  at  the  court  of  Pha- 
raoh, the  other  at  the  court  of  Abimelech.  Historical  criticism 
cannot  do  otherwise  than  regard  these  as  three  legends  of  one 
and  the  same  event. ^ 

Another  example  is  the  story  of  the  slaying  of  the  giant 
Goliath.     I  shall  here  quote  Kent's  compact  statement : 

"  The  language  and  representation  of  chapter  16'"",  proclaim 
its  affinity  with  the  later  stratinn  of  narrative  contained  in 
8,  12,  and  15.  The  remainder  of  the  chapter,  however,  is  old. 
This  records  the  introduction  of  the  youthful  David,  already  '  a 
mighty  man  of  valor,  and  a  man  of  war  and  prudent  of  speech ' 
(16'*),  to  the  court  of  Saul,  and  of  his  winning  the  favor  of  the 
king  imtil  the  latter  makes  him  his  armor-bearer.  If  we  had  not 
discovered  that  the  book  of  Samuel  is  a  compilation,  we  should 
share  with  the  translators  of  the  Septuagint  the  difficulty  which 
led  them  to  leave  out  a  large  part  of  the  following  chapter  in  the 
fruitless  endeavor  to  reconcile  it  with  the  preceding.  For  chap- 
ter 17'-18°  tells  of  the  victory  of  the  lad  David  over  Goliath,  and 
of  his  subsequent  introduction  to  Saul  and  his  court,  who  are 
wholly  unacquainted  with  the  youthful  champion.  Even  if  this 
section  be  placed  before  16'^-',  the  difficult}'  is  not  entirely  re- 
moved. It  is  further  increased  when  we  read  in  2  Sam.  21''', '  And 
there  was  again  war  with  the  Philistines  at  Gob;  and  Elhanan,  the 
son  of  Jaare-oregim  the  Heth-lehemite,  slew  Goliath  the  Gittite, 
the  staff  of  whose  spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam '  (cf.  1  Sam. 
17^.  Evidently  here  are  distinct  narratives  handed  down  through 
different  channels.  Whetlier  the  Goliath  mentioned  was  actually 
slain  by  David  or  Elhanan  can  never  be  absolutely  determined. 
The  statement  of  1  Chr.  20'',  that  it  was  a  brother  of  Goliath 
who  fell  by  the  hand  of  Elhanan,  seems  to  be  an  endeavor  of  the 
later  chronicler  to  harmonize  the  two  statements  in  Samuel.     It  is 

1  Gen.  12'<>-a>  (J),  20  (E),  26«-"  (J). 

2  See  Sayce,  Early  History  of  the  Hehreirg,  pp.  64-65.  lie  admits  different 
versions  here. 


BIBLICAL   HISTORY  559 

by  no  means  impossible,  however,  that  in  some  one  of  the  many 
forays  of  the  Philistines  into  Judah  the  youthful  David  slew  the 
champion  of  the  Philistines.  The  memory  of  the  act  was  pre- 
served among  David's  kinsmen,  the  Judeans,  until  at  last  it  found 
a  place  in  the  prophetic  history  which  is  our  great  source  for  the 
period.  Certainl}-,  some  such  deed  or  deeds  he  performed  before 
he  gained  the  reputation  of  being  '  a  mighty  man  of  valor,'  which 
he  bore  when  introduced  to  Saul's  court.  His  subsequent  record 
confirms  this  conclusion." ' 

3.    Poetical  Sources 

A  ver)'  large  amount  of  ancient  poetry  is  given  either  in 
whole  or  in  fragments  in  the  historical  prose  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. A  large  part  of  this  poetry  is  given  b}'  the  Ephraimitio 
writei-s,  such  as  the  birth-song  of  Isaac,^  tlie  blessings  of  Isaac,^ 
the  blessings  of  the  sons  of  Josepli,*  the  ode  of  the  Red  Sea,^ 
the  oath  against  Amalek,®  Yalnveh's  word  establishing  the  royal 
priesthood  of  Israel,"  the  calling  of  Moses,^  the  citation  from  the 
book  of  the  wars  of  Yahweh,®  the  song  of  the  fountain,!"  ^j^g  q([q 
of  triumph  over  ^Ioab,i'the  oracles  of  Balaam,!^  the  blessings  of 
Moses,!^  the  song  of  Deborah, i*  the  fable  of  Jotham,'"  the  pro- 
tests of  Samuel,!^  the  extract  from  the  ode  of  victory. i" 

The  Judaic  writers  also  cite  ancient  poetry  as  follows  :  The 
blessing  of  Abraham, ^^  the  blessing  of  Rebekah,!^  oracle  about 
Jacob,^  Jacob's  blessing,^!  song  of  the  ark,^  song  of  Moses,^'^  and 
the  great  epic  of  the  catastrophes  of  the  fall  and  the  deluge,^ 
the  sayings  of  Samson,^^  the  triumph  of  the  Philistines,^  the 
hymn  of  Hannah,2"  a  sa3dng  of  Samuel,^  the  refrain  of  the  ode 
of  triumph  over  the  Philistines,^^  a  proverb  quoted  of  David,^" 

1  Kent,  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  1890,  Vol.  I.  pp.  104-106. 

2  Gen.  21*-'.    See  p.  393.  '3  Deut.  33. 

»  Gen.  272^-2aaMo.  gee  p.  394.  »  Jd.  5.    See  p.  368. 

4  Gen.  48i^'o- "•  a*.    See  pp.  390,  394.       ^''  Jd.  9"-'"'.     See  p.  416. 

'  Ex.  15.     See  p.  379.  "  1  Sam.  12^,  I.522-23.  a  33. 

«  Ex.  17"!.  '  Ex.  19*^.  1' 1  Sam.  17»<-a6  ■^»-'7.        is  Gen.  12'-3. 

»  Nu.  12*^.  9  Nu.  21»-i5.  19  Gen.  245".     See  p.  387. 

10  Nu.  21i'-is.     See  p.  390.  20  Qen.  25^3.  21  Gen.  49^-''. 

n  Nu.  2127-*'.    See  p.  413.  22  xu.  1035-36.     See  p.  .387. 

'2  Nu.  23'->''  18-2*.  243-9  15-24.  23  Oeut.  32i-«.     See  p.  390. 

2*  Gen.  2*^,  and  the  Judaic  parts  of  the  narrative  ot  the  Deluge.  See  p.  396 
•=5  Jd.  14H '*,  1518.  Seep.  416.  •'"  1  Sam.  2i-i».  2»  1  sam.  18'.  See  p.  385. 
*'  .Id.  162*.  ^  1  Sam.  16'.         *>  1  Sam.  24". 


560  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTUKE 

the  covenant  with  David,^  extract  from  ihe  book  of  Ya.shar  ;  - 
and  also  ascribed  to  David,  a  saying  to  Saul,^  the  dirge  of  Saul,* 
the  dirge  of  Abuer,^  the  hymn  of  victory,^  and  the  s^\■an  song 
of  DavidJ 

The  Deuteronomic  writer  only  uses  a  strophe  from  the  ode 
of  the  battlfe  of  Beth  Horon.^ 

The  priestly  narrator  begins  with  the  jxiems  of  the  Creation 
and  the  Deluge,^  and  a\go  gives  the  blessing  of  Jacob,i<*  and  the 
benediction  of  the  priests." 

There  is  also  inserted  in  the  book  of  Kings,  Isaiah's  prophecy 
against  Sennacherib. i-  The  blessing  of  Melchizedek  is  given 
in  a  midrash  of  uncertain  origin. ^^ 

The  Chronicler  preserves  two  extracts  from  an  ode  describ- 
ing the  volunteers  of  David  ^*  and  several  hymns  of  later  date.^* 

In  the  aggregate  this  poetry  is  more  extensive  than  either 
of  the  two  great  collections  of  Hebrew  poetry,  the  Psalter  and 
Proverbs. 

The  earlier  chapters  of  the  gospel  of  Luke  also  contain  sev- 
eral canticles  and  other  snatches  of  poetry  derived  from  a  Jew- 
ish Christian  communitj',  including  the  Annunciations,'*'  the 
Song  of  Elizabeth, 1'  the  Magnificat,'*  the  Benedictus,'^  and  tlie 
Nunc  Dimittis.20 

4.    AncieHt  Laws 

I  have  recentl}^  shown  21  that  Hebrew  laws  maybe  classified 
under  the  technical  terms  "words,"  "commandments,"  "stat- 
utes," "  judgments,"  and  "  laws  "  ;  and  that  each  of  these  terms 
comprehends  a  group  of  laws  which  may  be  traced  to  tlieir 
archajological  sources. 

1  2  Sam.  7»-'8.  «  2  Sam.  S'*^.     See  p.  390. 

2  1  K.  8'!-w  (LXX).  •  2  Sam.  22  =  P.s.  18.     See  p.  412. 

3  1  Sam.  2416.  7  2  Sam.  2:5'-'.  See  p.  402. 
«  2  Sam.  1>9-Jr.  See  p.  .390.  « .Tosh.  10'-''-i«.  See  p.  337. 
"  fien.  1  and  the  priestly  parts  of  the  story  of  the  Pplvige,  Gen.  6-8. 

»  Gen.  28'^.  "  1  Chr.  Ifi^o. 

"  Nu.  6'*-'^.     See  p.  HSS.  "  T.k.  1 13-17,  .kwb,  Jiv,')?^  2'"-". 

"  2  K.  192i-'«  =  Is.  37--^.  '■  Lk.  V^-*-\  "  Lk.  \*<^'-\ 

"  Gen.  14'9-=».     See  p.  391.  is  Lk.  l'-*-'".  ••»  Lk.  2»-«. 

»  1  Chr.  128- 18.    See  pp.  .S91,  .393. 

'^i  Higher  Criticism  nf  the  JJfxalrvrh.  now  edition.  1S97.  pp.  242  uri. 


BIBLIC-U.   UlSTOKY  561 

(a)  The  earliest  type  of  the  Hebrew  law  is  the  Word,  a 
short,  terse  seuteuce  in  the  form  of  '•  Thou  shult  not,"  or 
"  Thou  shalt,"  coming  from  God  through  the  prophets,  begin- 
ning with  Moses.  The  Ten  Words  on  the  two  tables  are  of 
this  type.i  So  are  also  the  wortls  of  the  Greater  Book  of  the 
Covenaiit,2  given  by  the  Ephraimitic  writer,  and  of  the  Little 
Book  of  the  Covenant,^  given  by  the  Judaic  writer.  Such 
older  words  are  also  embedded  in  the  legislation  of  the  three 
later  codes,  —  the  Deuteronomic  code,  the  code  of  Holiness, 
and  the  Priest  code.  They  may  easily  be  seen  underlying  the 
material  given  in  these  codes. 

(6)  An  ancient  type  of  law  is  the  statute.  These  statutes 
came  from  the  primitive  courts  of  Israel  before  the  institution 
of  elders  and  judges.*  These  decisions  and  statutes  were 
originally  short,  crisp  sentences  inscribed  upon  stones,  and  set 
up  in  public  places  for  the  warning  of  the  peojile,  usually  with 
the  penalt}-  attached.  A  decalogue  of  such  statutes  is  pre- 
sented in  Deuteronomy  apart  from  the  Deuteronomic  code.^ 
They  are  in  the  participial  form  ;  e.ff. : 

Cursed  be  whoso  setteth  light  by  his  father  or  his  motlier. 

A  group  of  them  is  found  in  the  Larger  Book  of  the  Covenant 
also.®  They  are  found  occasionally  in  the  later  codes,"_  but  in 
the  Deuteronomic  code  the  participial  form  passes  over  into  the 
form  of  the  third  person  of  the  verb  ;  e.g.: 

A  woman  shall  not  wear  that  which  pertaineth  unto  a  man.' 

In  the  code  of  Holiness  these  assume  the  relative  clause  * ;  e.g.  : 

Any  person  that  eateth  any  blood  that  person  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people. ^'^ 
These  later  statutes  evidently  came  from  the  courts  of  the  priests. 

(c)  The  Deuteronomic  code  has  a  group  of  laws  which  are 
called  commandments.^^  These  are  a  further  unfolding  and  a 
later  type  of  the  Words,  and  are  prophetic  in  character.  They 
asstime  the  form  of  the  second  person  plural.     Thej-  are  char- 

'  I.e..  pp.  181  aeq.  '  I.e.,  pp.  211  seq.  '  I.e.,  pp.  189  seq. 

*  Then  the  rulers  were  called  B'ppna  and  their  decisions  C'prt 
'/.c.  pp.  239s?g.         »  f.c,  pp.  217  se?.         •  Z.c,  pp.  249  «f(/.         '  Deut.  22^. 
'  The  C"pn  take  the  form  of  T'pn  and  the  relative  clause  is  either  "ICK  r'K  r'S 
or  -!rx  ce:.  «  Lev.  7^?.  "  niStt,  I.e.,  pp.  246  seq. 

2o 


562  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

acteristic  of   the  Dcuteronomic  code  ;  but  the}*  are  taken  up 

iuto  the  code  of  Holiness  and  the  Priest  code,  and  are  also  in 

redactioual  passages  of  the  earlier  codes.     This  is  a  pentade 

of  the  t3-pe  : 

Ye  shall  break  down  their  altars. 

And  ye  shall  dash  in  pieces  their  llazzeboth, 

And  ye  shall  burn  their  Asherim  with  lire, 

And  ye  shall  hew  down  the  graven  images  of  their  gods, 

And  ye  shall  destroy  their  name  out  of  that  place.i 

((?)  Another  type  of  law  is  the  judgment.'^  This  is  a  later 
form  of  the  statute.  It  gives  the  decision  of  a  case  b)'  a  judge,' 
which  becomes  a  legal  precedent.  It  is  always  in  the  form  of 
a  temporal  or  conditional  clause.  The  earliest  collection  of 
these  is  found  in  the  Greater  Book  of  tlie  Covenant,  but  they 
are  also  found  embedded  in  all  the  subsequent  codes.  This 
will  serve  as  a  specimen  : 

'•  1.  If  a  man  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  and  slaughter  it,  or  sell  it, 
five  cattle  shall  he  pay  for  the  ox  and  four  sheep  for  the  sheep. 

"  2.  If  the  thief  be  found  while  breaking  in,  and  he  be  smitten 
and  die,  there  shall  be  no  blood-guiltiness  for  him. 

"  3.  If  the  sun  has  risen  upon  him,  there  shall  be  blood-guilti- 
ness for  him.     He  shall  pay  heavih\ 

'■  4.    And  if  he  have  nothing,  he  shall  be  sold  for  his  theft. 

"5.,  If  the  theft  be  at  all  found  in  his  hand  alive,  from  ox  to 
ass  to  sheep,  he  shall  pay  double."* 

In  the  judgments  of  the  code  of  Holiness  the  type  assumes 
the  form  of  a  conditional  clause  with  the  word  "  man  "  prefaced.* 

And  a  man,  if  he  smite  any  person  of  man,  shall  be  put  to  a  violent  death.' 
In  the  Priest  code  a  slightly  different  form  is  at  times  assumed." 

(e)  It  is  the  usage  of  the  Priest  code  to  use  the  word  "Za?y"* 
for  special  priestly  enactments.  In  the  earlier  literature  law- 
is  used  of  the  Law  in  general,  and  not  of  particular  laws. 

Thus  we  have  in  the  law  codes,  in  the  technical  terms  and 
types  of  law,  arch;eological  evidence  of  their  origin  in  the  vari- 
ous ancient  centres,  prophetic,  judicial,  and  priestly,  which  in 
successive  generations,  under  divine  guidance,  gave  laws  and 
coditied  them. 


1  Deut.  12S. 

«t3Et?. 

6  ,2  crx. 

''2  mK. 

acECe,  I.e.. 

,  pp.  252  seq. 

«  Ex.  21 

'•-22'. 

6  Lev.  241  ■. 

emin. 

BIBLICAL   HISTORY  563 

5.    Documentary  Sources 

We  liave  already  seen  that  it  is  characteristic  of  Biblical 
History  to  use  earlier  documents.  The  Higher  Criticism  has 
shown  the  documentary  sources  of  our  Hexateuch  in  four  great 
narratives.  It  is  also  at  work  on  these  narratives  in  detail, 
and  finds  that  each  of  them  used  still  more  ancient  soiu-ces. 
There  are  several  distinct  strata  of  the  priestly  narratives. 
There  are  also  two  strata  of  the  Deuteronomic  writers 
clearly  marked.  The  work  of  distinguishing  primary  Judaic 
and  Ephrairaitic  writers  has  not  as  3'et  i-eached  such  decided 
results;  but  we  may  confidently  expect  that  it  will  ere  long 
attain  them.  Thus  we  have  disclosed  in  Hebrew  historical 
composition  a  working  over  and  a  reworking  over,  in  several 
stages,  of  original  documents ;  which  documents,  of  great  an- 
tiquity themselves,  used  the  sources  already  pointed  out ;  and 
thus  we  are  enabled  to  sift  the  material  and  arrange  it  in  the 
order  of  its  genesis,  and  to  test  its  real  historical  value. 

So  in  the  New  Testament  Ave  have  at  last  gained  firm  ground 
in  the  two  written  soui-ces  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  the  original 
St.  Mark  and  the  Logia  of  St.  Matthew.  We  have  still  to  de- 
termine the  other  wi-itten  sources  of  Luke,  and  to  distinguish 
the  apostolic  source  or  sources  of  the  Gospel  of  John  and  the 
book  of  Acts.  These  problems  will  eventually  be  solved  ;  and 
the  historical  value  of  the  material  will  be  greatly  increased  by 
this  thorough  sifting  and  arranging. 

There  are  some  who  shrink  from  the  late  dates  to  which  the 
Higher  Criticism  refers  the  historical  documents  of  the  Bible 
in  their  present  form.  They  think  this  impairs  and  threatens 
to  destroy  their  historicity.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  near- 
ness to  the  event  is  valuable  to  the  historian,  and  remoteness  in 
a  measure  impairs  his  testimony.  But  while  this  is  true,  yet 
the  historicity  of  the  material  is  not  really  impaired  by  the 
remoteness  of  the  event  reported,  provided  we  have  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  historian  used  for  his  purpose  proper  sources 
of  information,  which  bridge  the  chasm  between  him  and  the 
event.  An  early  writer  who  did  not  use  documentary  sources 
is  really  not  as  reliable  an  authority  as  a  later  writer  who  did 


5(34  STUDY   OF   HOLV  SCIUPTURE 

use  documentary  sources.  The  evidence  that  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism affords  for  the  fidelity  of  ancient  biblical  writers  to  their 
documents  —  that  they  used  them,  just  as  they  were,  without  any 
apjiarent  effort  to  harmonize  them,  or  to  remove  discrepancies  — 
is  a  strong  evidence  of  their  historicity.     As  Robertson  says: 

"  It  seems  to  be  too  readily  assumed  and  too  readilj'  admitted, 
that  contemporaneousness  and  credibility  of  documents  are  neces- 
sarily inseparable,  or  to  be  inferred  as  a  matter  of  coiu-se  one  from 
the  other.  A  moment's  reflection  will  show  that  an  event  may 
have  historically  occurred,  and  that  we  may  have  good  evidence 
of  it,  even  although  no  account  of  it  was  written  down  at  the 
moment  of  its  occurrence  ;  as  also  that  false  statements  in  regard 
to  certain  matters  of  fact  may  be  made,  and  put  on  record  at  the 
time  of  the  actual  occurrences.  The  mere  writing  down  of  these 
at  the  time  does  not  make  them  credible,  nor  does  the  omission 
to  write  those  make  them  incredible.  Assyrian  and  Egvptian 
kings  may  lie  upon  stone  monuments  —  very  probably  they  did  — 
in  regard  to  events  of  their  owu  day ;  and  Hebrew  historians  may 
tell  us  a  true  story  of  their  history,  though  they  wrote  it  long 
after  the  events.  The  point  to  be  established  is,  that  for  the  bib- 
lical theory  of  the  history  it  does  not  matter  who  wrote  the  histori- 
cal books.  The  theory  does  indeed  iniply  that  those  books  con- 
tain true  history ;  but  its  acceptance  of  the  facts  does  not  depend 
on  a  knowledge  of  who  wrote  them  down ;  for  on  this  point  the 
books  themselves  are  for  the  most  part  silent.  Moses  may  have 
Avritten  much,  or  may  have  written  little,  of  what  is  contained  in 
the  Pentateuch  ;  it  will  remain  unknown  who  were  the  authors  of 
the  succeeding  books :  our  knowledge  of  these  things  would  not 
necessarily  guarantee  the  history.  The  biblical  theory,  as  an 
account  of  the  manner  in  which  things  took  place,  does  not  stand 
or  fall  by  the  determination  of  the  contemporaneousness  of  docu- 
ments, and  the  modern  theory  certainly  has  no  higher  claim  to  the 
possession  of  contemporary  sources  for  its  support." ' 

VIII.    TiiK   IIi.sroKic    Imacix.vtiox 

After  all  has  l)e(!n  said  as  to  the  use  of  the  sources  of  thr 
biblical  historians,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  also  used 
their  historical  imagination.  This  is  not  a  fault.  It  is  an 
excellence.     It  i.s  an  essential  quality  of  all  the  best  historic 

1  Robert.son.  The  Early  Heligion  of  Israel,  1892,  pp.  40-47. 


BIBLICAL   HISTORY  565 

writing  in  all  ages.  It  is  doubtful  whether  better  examples  of 
its  use  can  be  found  than  in  the  biblical  histories.  We  have 
to  remember  that  the  writers  of  biblical  history  were  aiming 
above  all  to  be  religious  teachers  ;  and  that  they  did  not  study 
the  histories  with  a  purel}'  historic  interest,  but  with  a  very 
practical  interest,  as  prophets  or  as  priests. 
As  Kent  sa3-s: 

"  From  these  many  sources  the  prophets  gleaned  their  illustra- 
tions and  the  data  wherewith  they  reconstructed  the  outlines  of 
their  nation's  history,  which  was  itself  a  supreme  illustration  of 
the  truths  concerning  Jehovah  which  they  wished  to  impress. 
Scientiiic  or  historic  accuracy  they  did  not  claim.  One's  respect, 
however,  for  the  Old  Testament  and  the  work  of  the  prophets 
deepens  when  it  is  perceived  that  they  were  subject  to  all  the 
limitations  of  an  era  when  scientific  methods  of  investigation 
were  unknown  and  the  exact  historic  spirit  still  imhorn.  The 
scientific  and  historical  variations  are  in  themselves  jjroofs  of  the 
truth  of  the  divine  message  which  was  thus  given  forth  in  a 
form  attractive  and  intelligible  to  all." ' 

Therefore  we  have  to  take  into  account  the  point  of 
view  of  those  priests  who  wrote  the  priestly  section  of  the 
Hesateuch  and  the  work  of  the  Chronicler.  Their  priestly 
interest  determined  their  choice  of  material,  the  use  they  made 
of  it,  and  the  colours  and  shading  which  their  imagination  put 
upon  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  idealize  the  history 
in  the  interests  of  the  priesthood  and  the  temple  and  the 
Levitical  law. 

So  the  point  of  view  of  the  Deuteronomic  writers  is  the 
Deuteronomic  Law,  and  they  judge  the  history  by  that  Law, 
and  they  idealize  Moses  and  the  entire  previous  history  in  the 
light  of  that  Law.  Even  the  earlier  projjhets,  who  wrote 
the  Ephraimitic  and  Judaic  narratives,  wrote  in  the  prophetic 
interests  of  their  times. ^ 

"We  may  say  with  reference  to  them  all  that  they  did  not, 
and  could  not,  distinguish  between  truth  and  the  fiction  in  any 
of  the  older  legends  and  historic  documents  at  their  disposal. 
They  coidd  not  separate  the  hare  fact  from  its  mythical,  leg- 

1  Kent.  A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  1896,  p.  12. 

'^  See  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  new  ed.,  1897,  pp.  126  seq. 


566  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

endary,  and  poetic  embellishment.  Indeed,  they  preferred  it 
as  thus  embellished,  for  it  was  more  ai)propriate  in  this  form 
for  their  purpose  of  instruction.  Furthermore,  it  is  evident 
that  they  did  not  hesitate  to  indulge  themselves  in  historical 
fiction  where  they  had  not  sufficient  historic  information  and 
the  lessons  had  yet  to  be  taught.  Midrashim  of  this  sort  are 
incorporated  here  and  there  throughout  the  history.  It  is  only 
by  the  use  of  the  Higher  Criticism  assisted  by  historical  criti- 
cism that  they  can  be  eliminated. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Divine  Spirit  guided  these  his- 
torians in  their  historic  investigations  so  as  to  keep  them  from 
historic  errors.  The  Divine  Spirit  guided  them  in  their  re- 
ligious instruction  in  the  lessons  they  taught  from  history. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  of  other  guidance.  The  evidence  is 
all  against  such  guidance  as  prevented  them  from  making 
historic  errors.  They  certainly  did  record  error.  The  words 
of  Ottley  are  appropriate  here  : 

"  On  a  survey  of  the  ground  we  have  traversed,  it  appears  that 
there  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  the  inspired  writers  give 
a  presentation  of  the  facts  which  is  not  primarily  historical,  but 
prophetic,  their  main  design  being  that  of  religious  edification. 
It  follows  that  we  can  await  with  equanimity  the  verdict  of 
criticism  in  regard  to  the  exact  historical  worth  of  the  narra- 
tive. That  there  is  a  great  regard  for  certain  outstanding  facts 
of  the  history  is  unquestionable,  but  the  facts  are  often  col- 
oured by  high  imaginative  power,  and  are  estimated  according 
to  moral  significance.  In  regard  to  minor  details  there  is  ample 
room  for  diversity  of  opinion.  To  take  two  passing  illustra- 
tions. The  religious  lessons  of  Samson's  history  are  not  ma^ 
terially  affected  by  any  particular  view  respecting  the  precise 
character  of  the  narrative  which  describes  his  career.  The  por- 
trait of  David  is  not  the  less  a  treasure  for  all  time  because  to  a 
great  extent  it  is  idealized  by  devout  writers  of  a  later  age.  The 
important  question  is  whether,  in  their  interpretation  of  Israel's 
history,  the  prophetic  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  are  fundamen- 
tally wrong.  We  have  found  reasons  for  supposing  that  in  its 
general  point  of  view  '  tlie.  prophetic  ])hilosophy  of  history '  is 
true,  and  we  may  accept  the  cautious  summary  of  Professor  Rob- 
ertson as  fairly  stating  our  conclusions.  '  The  great  events,'  he 
says,  'of  Israel's  history,  the  turning-points,  the  points  determina- 
tive of  the  whole  life  and  history,  are  attested  by  the  nation  at 


BIBLICAL    UlSXOKY  667 

the  earliest  time  at  which  we  are  enabled  to  look  for  materials  on 
which  an  opinion  can  he  based.  Is'o  reason  can  be  given  for  the 
invention  of  them  just  at  this  time,  or  for  the  significance  which 
the  prophets  assign  to  them.  It  may  be  that  a  fond  memory- 
invested  with  a  halo  of  glory  the  great  fathers  of  the  race; 
it  may  also  be  that  a  simple  piety  saw  wonders  where  a  modern 
age  would  see  none.  Yet  the  individuality  of  the  characters  is 
not  destroyed,  nor  are  the  sequence  of  events  and  the  delineations 
of  character  shown  to  be  the  work  of  a  fitful  and  unbridled  imagi- 
nation.' " ' 

It  is  quite  true  that  from  this  point  of  view  it  is  difficult  to 
clraw  the  liue  between  historic  fact  and  historic  fiction ;  and 
to  many  minds  it  is  painful  to  transfer  that  material  to  the 
realm  of  fiction  which  thej'  had  alwaj's  supposed  was  safe  in 
the  realm  of  historic  fact.  It  is  still  more  difficult  for  some 
minds  to  be  unable  to  draw  the  lines  and  to  be  left  in  uncer- 
tainty. Nevertheless  this  is  the  exact  situation  in  which  we 
are  left  in  the  study  of  Biblical  History  ;  and  the  only  thing  we 
can  do,  so  far  as  the  study  of  that  history  is  concerned,  is  faith- 
fully to  apply  the  princij)les  of  Historical  Criticism  and  to  abide 
by  the  results.  We  cannot  change  the  facts,  discolour  them  or 
distort  them,  in  order  to  ease  the  intellectual  and  moral  difficul- 
ties of  those  who  are  loath  to  accept  the  results  of  Historical 
Criticism.  If  these  persons  are  unwilling  to  make  the  investi- 
gations themselves,  they  must  be  content  to  abide  the  decision 
that  may  be  reached  by  scholars  who  reverently  and  conscien- 
tiously, and  yet  rigorously  and  tlioroughl}',  make  the  necessary 
researches. 

But  apart  from  the  interests  of  history,  it  makes  not  the 
slightest  difference  so  far  as  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  as  to 
faith  and  morals  is  concerned,  how  greatly  the  proportions  of 
fact  and  fiction,  of  tlie  real  and  ideal,  may  be  changed  in  the 
progress  of  Historical  Criticism,  so  long  as  the  great  historic 
events  upon  which  our  religion  depends  remain  unimpeached. 
To  impeach  the  historicity  of  the  incarnation  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  our  Lord  destroys  the  Christian  religion.  Some  critics 
seek  to  do  this  by  the  use  of  Historical  Criticism  ;  but  Histori- 
cal Criticism  is  really  the  sure  weapon  which  God  has  put  into 
>  Ottley,  Aspects  of  the  Old  Testament,  1897,  pp.  156-158. 


568  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

our  bauds  to  vindicate  everything  which  is  really  historical. 
Historical  Criticism  enables  us  successfully  to  sift  the  entire 
material  and  to  separate  the  wood,  hay,  straw,  and  stubble  of 
human  opinion  from  the  gold  and  gems  of  the  real  historical 
and  everlasting  city  and  kingdom  of  God. 

At  Constantinople  one  sees  the  greatest  and  noblest  of  all 
Christian  churches  transformed  into  a  Mahometan  mosque. 
The  cross  was  displaced  by  the  crescent,  the  towers  by  the 
minarets,  and  the  beautiful  mosaic  work,  telling  in  pictorial 
art  the  wonders  of  the  life  of  Christ  and  of  Christian  historj- 
encircling  the  dome,  was  plastered  over  and  hidden  from  the 
eyes  of  men  for  centuries.  The  jjlastering  is  beginning  to  dis- 
appear, and  keen  eyes  can  see  through  it  the  outline  of  the 
mosaic  work  which  still  exists  behind.  Some  day  when  the 
Church  has  gained  possession  of  this  metropolitan  cathedral  of 
the  East,  it  will  remove  all  this  plastering,  cut  down  the  cres- 
cent and  the  minarets,  elevate  the  cross,  and  the  story  of 
Christ  and  Christianity  will  once  more  shine  from  every  part 
of  the  Chiu'ch  of  the  Divine  Wisdom.  Just  so  the  true  Biblical 
History  has  been  plastered  over  for  centuries  by  traditional 
theories.  Men  have  been  adding  layer  on  la3'er  to  these  tradi- 
tions. The  Reformation  began  to  rub  them  off.  But  the 
reactionary  age  conserved  those  which  were  left  and  jjlastered 
others  on.  Modern  Historical  Criticism  will  not  cease  its  work 
until  they  have  all  been  removed  once  for  all  and  forever. 
Critics  are  determined  to  know  the  true  Biblical  History  for 
themselves  and  for  all  men. 


CHAPTER   XXIII 

BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY 

Biblical  Theologj-,  as  a  theological  discipline,  had  its 
origin  in  the  effort  to  throw  off  from  the  Bible  the  accumulated 
traditions  of  scholasticism,  guard  it  from  the  perversions  of 
m3-sticism,  and  defend  it  from  the  attacks  of  rationalism.  Its 
growth  has  been  through  a  struggle  with  these  abnormal  ten- 
dencies. It  has  finally  developed  into  a  ■well-defined  discipline, 
presenting  the  unity  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  divine  organism, 
and  justly  estimating  the  various  human  types  of  religion,  doc- 
trine, and  morals. 

I.   The  Four  Types  of  Theology 

The  Bible  is  the  divine  revelation  as  it  has  become  fixed  and 
permanent  in  written  documents  of  various  persons  in  different 
periods  of  history,  collected  in  one  body  called  the  Canon,  or 
Holy  Scripture.  All  Christian  theology  should  be  founded  on 
the  Bible,  and  yet  the  theologians  of  the  various  Christian 
churches,  and  of  the  several  periods  of  Christian  history,  have 
differed  greatly  in  their  use  of  the  Bible.  Each  age  has  its 
own  providential  problems  to  solve  in  the  progress  of  our  race 
and  seeks  in  the  Divine  Word  for  their  solution,  looking  from 
the  point  of  view  of  its  own  immediate  and  peculiar  necessities. 
Each  temperament  of  human  nature  approaches  the  Bible  from 
its  own  needs.  The  subjective  and  the  objective,  the  form  and 
the  substance  of  knowledge,  the  real  and  the  ideal,  are  ever 
readjusting  themselves  to  the  advancing  generations.  If  the 
Bible  were  a  codex  of  laws,  or  a  system  of  doctrines,  there 
would  still  be  room  for  difference  of  attitude  and  interpretation; 
but  inasmuch  as  the  Bible  is  rather  a  collection  of  various  kinds 
5C9 


570  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

of  literature,  —  poetry  ami  prose,  history  and  storj-,  oration  and 
epistle,  sentence  of  wisdom  and  dramatic  incident, —  and  is,  as 
a  whole,  concrete  rather  than  abstract,  the  room  for  difference 
of  attitude  and  interpretation  is  greatlj-  enhanced.  Principles 
are  not  ahvaj^s  distinctly  given ;  they  must  ordinarily  he  derived 
from  a  concrete  body  of  truth  and  facts,  and  concrete  relations ; 
and  every  thing  depends  upon  the  point  of  view,  method,  process, 
and  the  spirit  with  which  the  study  is  conducted. 

1.  Thus  the  mystic  spirit  arising  from  an  emotional  nature 
and  unfolding  into  a  more  or  less  refined  aesthetic  sense,  seeks 
union  and  communion  with  God,  direct,  immediate,  and  vital, 
through  the  religious  feeling.  It  either  strives  by  mystic 
insight  to  break  through  the  forms  of  religion  to  the  spiritual 
substance,  or  else  by  the  imagination  sees  in  the  sensuous 
outlines  of  divine  manifestation  and  its  colours  of  beauty  and 
grandeur,  allegories  to  be  interpreted  by  the  religious  sesthetic 
taste.  The  religious  element  is  disproi^ortionately  unfolded, 
to  the  neglect  of  the  doctrinal  and  etliieal.  This  mystic  spirit 
exists  in  all  ages  and  in  most  religions,  but  it  was  especiall}' 
prominent  in  the  Ante-Nicene  Church,  and  iu  Greek  and 
Oriental  Christianity,  and  it  was  distinguished  by  intense 
devotion  and  too  exclusive  absorption  in  the  contemplation  of 
God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour.  Its  exegesis  is 
characterized  by  the  allegorical  method. 

2.  The  scholastic  spirit  seeks  union  and  communion  with 
God  by  means  of  well-ordered  forms.  It  searches  the  Bible 
for  well-defined  systems  of  law  and  doctrine  by  which  to  rule 
the  Church  and  control  the  world.  It  arises  from  an  intel- 
lectual nature,  and  grows  into  a  more  or  less  acute  logical 
sense,  and  a  taste  for  systems  of  order.  This  spirit  exists  in 
all  ages  and  in  most  religions,  but  it  was  especially  dominant 
in  the  middle  age  of  the  Church  and  in  Latin  Christianity. 
It  is  distinguished  by  an  intense  legalitj"-  and'  by  too  exclusive 
attention  to  the  works  of  the  law,  and  a  disproportionate  con- 
sideration of  the  sovereignty  of  God,  the  sinfulness  of  man, 
and  the  satisfaction  to  be  rendered  to  God  for  sin.  In  biblical 
studies  it  is  distinguished  by  the  legal,  analytic  method  of 
interpretation,  carried  on  at  times  with  such  hair-splitting  dis- 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  571 

tinctioii  and  subtilty  of  reasoning  that  Holy  Scripture  be- 
comes, as  it  were,  a  magician's  book.  Through  the  device  of 
the  manifold  sense  the  Bible  is  made  as  effectual  to  the  purpose 
of  the  dogmatician  for  proof  texts  as  are  the  sacraments  to  the 
priests  in  their  magical  operation.  The  doctrinal  element  pre- 
vails over  the  religious  and  ethical.  Dogma  and  institution 
alike  work  ex  opere  operato. 

3.  The  speculative  spirit  seeks  union  and  communion  with 
God  through  the  human  reason,  and,  like  the  mystic  spirit, 
disregards  the  form,  but  from  another  point  of  view.  Under 
the  guide  of  conscience  it  develops  into  a  more  or  less  pure 
ethical  sense.  It  works  with  honest  doubt  and  inquisitive 
search  after  truth,  for  the  solution  of  the  great  problems  of  the 
world  and  man.  It  is  distinguished  by  an  intense  rationality 
and  morality.  It  yearns  for  a  conscience  at  peace  with  God 
and  working  in  faith  toward  God  and  love  toward  man.  This 
has  been  the  prevailing  spirit  in  the  Germanic  world  since  the 
Reformation,  and  is  still  the  characteristic  spirit  of  our  age. 
The  Church,  its  institutions  and  doctrines,  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures themselves,  are  subjected  to  earnest  criticism  in  the 
honest  search  for  moral  and  redemptive  truth,  and  the  eternal 
ideas  of  right,  which  are  good  forever,  and  are  approved  by 
the  reason.  The  ethical  element  prevails  over  the  religious 
and  the  doctrinal. 

4.  The  practical  spirit  seeks  union  and  communion  with 
God  in  various  forms  of  Christian  life  and  work.  It  aims  to 
obey  the  word  of  God  and  do  the  will  of  God.  It  is  distin- 
guished by  an  intense  interest  and  enthusiasm  for  all  kinds  of 
religious  acti^'ity.  In  biblical  studies  it  seeks  above  all,  prac- 
tical exegesis  and  the  application  of  the  teachings  of  Holy 
Scripture  to  human  condtict.  This  spirit  is  a  special  charac- 
teristic of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  and  it  is  dominant  in  British 
and  American  Christianity. 

5.  The  trulj'  catholic  spirit  combines  what  is  true  and  of 
advantage  in  all  these  tendencies  of  human  nature.  Born  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  ever  appropriating  all  the  faculties  and 
powei"s  of  man,  and  eliminating  therefrom  defective  and  abnor- 
mal tendencies  and  habits.     It  is  reverent,  believing,  loving 


572  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

approach  to  God  thiough  the  means  of  grace.  It  is  above  all 
vital  union  and  communion  with  the  Triune  God  in  the  forms 
of  divine  appointment,  and  the  love  and  service  of  God  and  the 
brethren  with  all  the  faculties.  It  uses  the  form  in  order  to 
the  substance.  It  is  inquiring,  obedient,  devout,  and  reforma- 
tory. It  combines  the  subject  and  the  object  of  knowledge, 
and  aims  to  realize  the  ideal.  It  unites  the  devotional  with 
the  legal  and  moral  habits  and  attitudes.  It  strives  to  unite 
in  the  Church  the  various  types  of  human  experience  in  order 
to  complete  manhood,  and  the  completion  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  in  the  golden  age  of  the  Messiah. 

This  spirit  is  the  spirit  of  our  Saviour,  who  speaks  to  us 
through  four  evangelists  in  the  various  types,  in  order  to  give 
us  a  complete  and  harmonious  representation  of  Himself.  This 
is  the  spirit  which  combines  the  variety  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  writers  into  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is 
the  spirit  which  animated  the  Chi-istian  Church  in  its  great 
advancing  epochs,  when  a  variety  of  leaders,  guided  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  combined  the  types  into  comprehensive  move- 
ments. This  was  the  underlying  and  moving  principle  of  the 
Reformation,  where  vital  religion  combined  with  great  intel- 
lectual activity  and  moral  earnestness  to  produce  the  churches 
of  Protestant  Christianity. 

The  great  initial  movements  by  which  the  Christian  Church 
advanced  in  every  age  combined  the  variety  of  forces  into 
harmonious  operation;  but  these  in  every  case  gave  way  to 
reaction  and  decline,  in  which  the  various  forces  separated 
themselves,  and  some  particular  one  prevailed.  So  it  was 
again  in  the  seventeenth  century  after  the  Reformation.  The 
successors  of  the  Reformers,  declining  from  their  vital  religion 
and  moral  vigour,  broke  up  into  vai'ious  antagonistic  parties 
in  the  different  national  churches,  in  hostility  with  one  another, 
marring  the  harmony  of  catholic  truth  and  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation.  The  reaction  first  began  with  those  who  had 
inherited  the  scholastic  spirit  from  the  ^Middle  Age,  and  sub- 
stituted a  Protestant  scholasticism  for  the  mediaeval  scholasti- 
cism in  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches  of  the  continent, 
and  a  Protestant  ecclesiasticism  for  a  papal  ecclesiasticism  in 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  573 

the  churches  of  Great  Britain.  The  Scriptures  again  became  the 
shives  of  dogmatic  systems  and  ecclesiastical  machinery,  and 
again  they  were  reduced  to  the  menial  service  of  furnishing 
proof  texts  to  the  foregone  conclusions  of  dogmaticians  and 
ecclesiastics. 

The  French  Huguenots  and  British  Puritans,  in  their  strug- 
gles against  persecution,  maintained  a  vital  religion,  and 
reacted  to  the  unfolding  of  the  mystic  type  of  theology.  They 
devoted  their  attention  to  works  of  piety,  to  union  and  com- 
munion with  God,  and  to  the  practical  application  of  the 
Scriptures  to  Christian  life,  holding  fast  to  the  covenant  of 
grace  as  the  princijile  of  their  entire  theolog}',  while  they 
distinguished  between  a  theoretical  and  a  practical  divinity, 
presenting  the  former  in  the  common  Reformed  sense,  but 
advancing  the  latter  to  a  verv'  high  degree  of  development,  the 
best  expression  of  which  is  found  in  the  Westminster  symbols.^ 
Puritanism  had,  however,  within  itself  antagonistic  elements, 
which  separated  themselves  after  the  composition  of  the  West- 
minster standards,  into  various  types,  and  the  Puritan  spirit 
largely  became  stereot^-ped  in  the  Puritanical  sjiirit.  On  the 
one  side  it  reacted  to  scholasticism  in  the  school  of  the  great 
Independent  divine,  John  Owen,  and  on  the  other  into  mys- 
ticism,   in  the   many  sejiarating   churches  of   Great  Britain. 

1  John  Dury,  one  of  the  Westminster  divines,  a  Scotchman,  the  great  peace- 
maker of  his  age,  in  his  work,  An  Earnest  Plea  for  Gospel  Commtuiion,  sheds 
much  light  upon  this  subject.  He  defines  practical  divinity  to  be  "a  system  or 
collection  of  divine  truth  relating  to  the  practice  of  piety."  The  great  majority 
of  the  writings  of  the  Puritan  divines  and  Westminster  men  are  upon  this 
theme.  It  embraces  Chaps.  XIX. -XXXI.  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  the  larger  part  of  the  Catechisms,  and,  indeed,  the  more  characteristic, 
the  abler,  and  the  better  parts.  William  Gouge  (also  member  of  Westminster 
Assembly)  in  103;;  headed  a  petition  of  the  London  ministers  to  Archbishop 
Ussher  to  frame  a  system  of  Practical  Divinity,  as  a  bond  of  union  among 
Protestants,  distinguishing  between  essentials  and  circumstantials.  John  Dury, 
in  1654,  presents  such  an  outline  himself,  working  it  out  on  the  principle  of  the 
coven.ant  of  grace.  He  says:  "  Xor  is  it  possible  (as  I  conceive)  ever  to  unite 
the  Professors  of  Christianity  to  each  other,  to  heal  their  breaches  and  divisions 
in  Poctrine  and  Practice,  and  to  make  them  live  together,  as  brethren  in  one 
spirit  ought  to  do,  without  the  same  sense  of  the  Covenant  by  which  they  may 
be  made  to  perceive  the  terms  upon  which  God  doth  unite  all  those  that  are 
His  children  unto  Himself."  —  p.  19,  An  Earnest  Plea  for  Gospel  Communion, 
London,  1654. 


574  STUDY  OF  HOLV  SCRIPTURE 

Puritanism  passed  over  to  the  continent  through  William 
Ames  and  others,  and  in  the  school  of  Cocceius  maintained  a 
more  biblical  cast  of  doctrine  in  the  system  of  the  covenants. 
It  afterward  gave  birth  to  Pietism  in  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
German}-,  producing  the  biblical  school  of  Bengel  and  tlie 
Moravians ;  and  subsequently  bursting  forth  in  England  in 
the  form  of  Methodism,  -which  is  a  genuine  child  of  Puritanism 
in  the  stress  that  it  lays  upon  piety  and  a  Clu'istian  life, 
although  it  shares  with  all  these  movements  that  have  grown 
out  of  Puritanism  the  common  fault  of  undue  emphasis  upon 
the  religious  element,  and  of  a  more  or  less  exaggerated  mysti- 
cism, to  the  neglect  of  the  doctrinal  and  the  ethical. 

The  school  of  Saumur  in  France,  the  school  of  Calixtus  in 
Germany,  and  the  Cambridge  Platonists  in  England  (who  were 
Puritan  in  origin  and  training)  revived  the  ethical  type  and 
strove  to  give  the  human  reason  its  proper  place  and  functions 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  prepared  the  way  for  a  broad,  com- 
prehensive Church.  They  were  accompanied,  however,  by  a 
more  active  movement,  which,  by  an  undue  emphasis  of  the 
rational  and  the  ethical,  followed  John  Goodwin,^  Eiddle,-  and 
Hobbes  ^  into  a  movement  which  in  England  assumed  the  form 
of  Deism,  in  France  of  Atheism,  in  Holland  of  Pantheism, 
and  in  Germany  of  Rationalism.  And  thus  the  four  great 
types  became  antagonized  both  within  the  national  churches, 
in  struggling  parties,  and  without  the  national  churches,  in 
separating  churches  and  hostile  forms  of  religion  and  irreligion, 
of  philosophy  and  of  science.  And  so  the  spirit  of  the  Refor- 
mation was  crushed  between  the  contending  parties,  and  its 
voice  drowned  for  a  while  b}'  the  clamour  of  partisanship.  The 
struggle  continued  into  the  present  century,  but  lias  been  modi- 
fied since  Schleiermacher  in  the  growth  of  the  evangelical  spirit 

1  John  Goodwin  w.ii?  tlie  greatest  leader  of  the  Independents  in  their  strupsl'" 
against  a  dominant  Presbyterianism.  He  w.is  a  most  prolilic  writer  and  skilful 
combatant.  It  is  astonishing  how  much  he  has  been  neglected  by  the  Indf- 
pendents,  who  eventually  preferred  the  scholastic  Owen  and  the  mystic  Thomas 
Goodwin  to  him. 

*  Riddle  was  the  leader  of  the  Unitarians  of  the  period  of  the  Common- 
wealth, the  author  of  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Unitarians,  in 
opposition  to  the  Westminster  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms. 

'  Ilobbcs  was  the  great  political  philosopher  of  the  period. 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  575 

SO  as  to  become  the  potent  reconciling  force  of  the  nineteenth 
centurj-.i 

II.    The  Rise  of  Biblical  Theology 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  conflict  of  theoUigical  t3^pes  that 
Biblical  Theology  had  its  origin  and  historical  development. 
It  was  first  during  the  conflict  between  Rationalism  and  Super- 
naturalism  in  Germany  that  the  need  of  a  Biblical  Theology 
began  to  be  felt.  HoW  Scripture  was  the  common  battle-field 
of  Protestants,  and  each  party  strove  to  present  the  Scripture 
from  its  own  peculiar  point  of  view;  and  it  became  important 
to  distinguish  the  teachings  of  the  Scripture  itself  from  the 
teachings  of  the  schools  and  the  theologians  of  the  contending 
parties.  This  was  attempted  almost  simultaneously  from  both 
sides  of  the  conflict.  G.  T.  Zacharia,  a  pupil  of  Baumgarten 
at  Halle,  and  a  decided  supernaturalist,^  sought  to  compare  the 
biblical  ideas  with  the  Church  doctrine  in  order  to  correct  and 
purify  the  latter.  He  would  base  Dogmatics  on  the  Scriptures, 
which  alone  can  prove  and  correct  the  sj'stem.  The  author 
speaks  of  the  advancing  economy  of  redemption,  but  has  no 
conception  of  an  organic  development.^  Soon  after,  G.  F. 
Ammon  issued  his  work  on  Biblical  Theology.*  Ammon  was 
a  rationalist.  Miracles  and  prophecy  were  rejected  as  unten- 
able because  they  would  not  bear  critical  and  historical  inves- 
tigation. Ammon  would  gather  material  from  the  Bible  for  a 
dogmatic  system  without  regard  to  the  sj-stem  that  might  be 
built  upon  it.^  Thus  from  both  sides  the  scholastic  system 
was  undermined  by  the  scriptural  investigation. 

1  The  various  types  are  not  always  found  in  tlieir  strength  and  purity  as 
divergent  forces,  but  frequently  in  a  more  or  less  mixed  condition.  Tims  the 
Cambridge  Platonists,  while  predominantly  rational  and  ethical,  were  also  char- 
acterizeil  by  the  mystic  spirit,  especially  in  the  case  of  Henry  Moore.  The 
Puritans,  WiUiain  Perkins  and  William  Ames,  combined  the  scholastic  and 
mystic  types.  The  scholastic  and  the  rational  were  combined  in  Calixtus  and 
Arminius.     This  might  be  illustrated  by  numerous  examples. 

^  Bihl.  Theol.  oder  Untersttchung  des  biblischen  Gnmdes  der  vornehmsten 
theologischen  Lehren,  1772. 

»  See  Tholuck's  view  of  him  in  Herzoj,  Iteal  Enry.,  Ite  Auf.,  xviii.  p.  351. 

*  Kntwurf  einer  reinen  Bihl.  Theolrirjie.  17'J2,  and  Blblische  Theologie,  1801. 

'  Tholuck  regards  his  Biblical  Thei)logy  as  a  fundamental  one  for  the  his- 
torico-critical  rationalism.     See  Herzog,  lie  Aufl.,  xix.  pp.  54  seq. 


576  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

In  the  meanwhile  Michaelis,  (niesbacli,  and  Eichhorn  had 
given  a  new  impetus  to  biblical  studies.  J.  F.  Gabler  fii-st 
laid  the  foundations  of  Biblical  Theology  as  a  distinct  theo- 
logical discipline.^  He  was  the  pupil  and  friend  of  Eichhorn 
and  Griesbach,  who  influenced  him  and  largely  determined  his 
theological  position.  He  presented  the  historical  pri7iciple  as 
the  distinguishing  feature  of  Biblical  Theology  over  against  a 
system  of  Dogmatics.^  Gabler  himself  did  not  work  out  his 
principles  into  a  system,  but  left  this  as  an  inheritance  to  his 
successors.  Lorenzo  Baur^  defines  Biblical  Theology  as  a 
development,  pure  and  unmixed  with  foreign  elements,  of  the 
religious  theories  of  the  Jews,  of  Jesus,  and  the  apostles, 
according  to  the  different  historical  periods,  the  varied  acquire- 
ments and  views  of  the  sacred  writers,  as  derived  from  their 
writings.  He  sought  to  determine  the  universal  principles 
which  would  apply  to  all  times  and  individuals.  He  would 
from  the  shell  of  biblical  ideas  get  the  kernel  of  the  universal 
religion.*  De  Wette*  sought  to  separate  the  essential  from  the 
non-essential  by  religious  philosophical  reflection.  He  would 
exclude  the  local,  the  temporal,  and  the  individual  in  order  to 
attain  the  universal  religion.  He  made  the  advance  of  treating 
Biblical  Theology  in  periods,  and  of  distinguishing  the  charac- 
teristic features  of  Hebraism  and  Judaism,  of  Christ  and  His 
apostles;  but  in  his  treatment  the  dogmatic  element  has  too 
great  prominence  given  to  it,  so  that  he  justly  gives  his  work  the 

1  In  an  academic  discourse :  dc  justo  diserimine  theologicB  biblicm  et  dogmatical 
regundhqne  recte  utritisque  fmibus,  1787. 

2  Gabler  was  a  man  of  the  type  of  Eichhorn  and  Herder,  on  the  borders 
of  the  eighteentli  and  nineteenth  centuries,  from  wliom  the  fructifying  influ- 
ences upon  the  Evangelical  Theology  of  the  nineteenth  century  went  forth. 
He  laboured  for  many  years  as  professor  at  Jena,  and  worked  for  the  ad- 
Tancemenl  of  Biblical  and  Historical  Learning  with  an  intense  moral  earnest- 
ness. 

»  Bibl.  Tkeol  d.  X  T.,  1800-1802. 

*  1'.  C.  Kaiser's  Bihlische  T/uologie  oder  Judaismus  U7id  Cliristianismus 
nach  grammatisch-historischen  Inti'Vpretationsmetkodf  und  nach  einer  frei- 
muthigen  Stellung  in  die  kritisch  vergleichende  Universalgeschichte  der  Belig- 
inn  und  die  universale  Religion  (Bd.  I.,  181.3;  II.  a,  1814;  II.  b.,  1821)  is  of 
the  same  point  of  view. 

'  Bibl.  Dogmatik  des  Alt.  und  Xeuen  Testaments  oder  kritische  Darstellting 
der  Beligionslehre  des  Ilebraismus,  des  Judenthums,  des  Urchristenthums,  181.'?, 
3te  Aufl..  1831. 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY.  577 

title.  Biblical  DogmatiosA  W.  Vatke,^  in  1835,  issued  an  able 
and  instructive  woi-k,  discussing  fully  the  essential  character 
of  the  biblical  religion  in  relation  to  the  idea  of  religion.  He 
divides  his  theme  into  two  parts,  presenting  the  religion  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  The  first  part  is  subdivided 
into  two  stages  :  the  Bloom  and  the  Decay,  historically  traced. 
The  autlior  also  divides  into  a  general  and  a  sjiecial  part ;  the 
former  alone  has  been  published,  and  is  entirely  speculative 
in  character.  It  does  not  consider  the  individualities  of  the 
authors,  and  shows  no  real  advance  beyond  L.  Baur  and  De 
Wette  ;  ^  although  he  pre^jares  the  way  for  the  school  of  Reuss, 
by  his  use  of  the  philosoph}'  of  Hegel  for  a  new  conception  of 
the  development  of  the  religion  of  Israel.'*  Daniel  von  Cciln^ 
carries  out  the  historical  method  more  thoroughly  than  an}'  of 
his  predecessors,  and  presents  a  much  more  complete  system, 
but  he  does  not  escape  the  speculative  trammels  of  his  prede- 
cessors. He  presents  the  following  principles  of  Biblical 
Theology : 

"  (1)  To  carefidly  distinguish  the  times  and  authors,  and  the 
mediate  as  well  as  the  immediate  presentation  of  doctrine;  (2)  To 
strongl}'  maintain  the  religious  ideas  of  the  authors  tliemselves ; 

(3)  To  present  and  explain  the  symbolical  mythical  forms  and 
their  relation  to  the  pure  ideas  and  convictions  of  the  authors ; 

(4)  To  explain  the  relation  of  the  authors  and  their  methods  to 
the  external  conditions  of  the  people,  the  time  and  the  place 
under  which  they  were  trained ;  (5)  To  search  for  the  origin  of 
the  ideas  in  their  primitive  forms."" 

1  L.  F.  O.  Baumgarten  Crusias'  Grundz'ihje  der  Biblischen  Theologie,  1828, 
is  of  slight  importance,  reacting  from  the  advances  made  by  L.  Baur  and  De 
Wette. 

-  Reliiiion  des  Alten  Testaments  nach  den  kanonischen  Biichern  entwicJcell, 
as  the  first  part  of  a  Biblical  Theology. 

'  It  has  recently  come  into  prominence,  owing  to  the  author's  views  of  Old 
Testament  Literature,  whicli  are  in  agreement  with  those  of  Reuss  and  Kuenen, 
at  the  basis  of  the  Critical  Theories  of  Wellhausen.  .L  C.  F.  Steudel's  Vor- 
lesungen  iiber  die  Theohigie  des  Alten.  Testaments  nach  dessen  Tode  heraus- 
gegeben  von  G.  F.  Oehler,  1840,  is  still  on  the  older  ground,  taking  Biblical 
Theology  to  be  "  the  systematic  survey  of  the  religious  ideas  which  are  found 
in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,"  including  the  Apocryphal,  without  dis- 
tinction of  periods  or  authors  or  writings,  all  arranged  under  the  topics  :  Man, 
God,  and  tlie  relation  between  God  and  JIan. 

*  See  p.  i'M.  5  jjihi  TheoU,  1836.  «  Bibl.  Theologie,  I.  p.  30. 

2p 


578  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

De  Wette  and  Yon  Coin  recognize  a  difference  of  the  authors, 
but  not  from  any  inner  peculiarity  of  the  authors  themselves, 
but  from  the  external  conditions  of  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances. The  authors  are  jalaced  side  by  side  without  any  real 
conception  of  their  tlifferences  or  of  their  unity.  The  historical 
principle  is  ajjplied  and  worked  out,  but  in  an  external  fashion, 
and  the  relation  to  the  universal  religion  and  to  other  religions 
is  considered,  rather  than  the  interrelation  of  the  various  doc- 
trines and  types  of  the  Scriptures  themselves. 

III.    Development  of  Biblical  Theology 

This  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when  Strauss  issued  his 
Life  of  Jesus,  and  sought,  by  arraj'ing  one  New  Testament 
writer  against  another,  as  F.  Baur  justly  charges  against  him, 
to  prove  the  incompetence  of  all  the  witnesses  and  reduce  the 
life  of  Jesus  to  a  myth.i  F.  Baur  himself  sought  by  the 
historico-critical  process  to  show  the  natural  development  of 
Christianity  out  of  the  various  forces  brought  into  conflict  with 
each  other  in  the  first  and  second  Christian  centui'ies,  reducing 
the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  to  a  minimum.  Neander  grap- 
pled with  the  mythical  hypothesis  of  Strauss,  and  the  develop- 
ment hypothesis  of  F.  Baur,  and  sought  to  construct  a  life  of 
Jesus  and  a  history  of  the  apostolic  Church,  resting  upon  a 
sound  historical  criticism  of  the  New  Testament  writings.^  He 
introduced  a  new  principle  into  Biblical  Theology,  and  made  it 
a  section  in  his  History  of  the  Apostles.  He  sought  to  distin- 
guish the  individualities  of  the  various  sacred  writers  in  their 
conception  of  Christianity  and  to  unite  them  in  a  higher  unit)-. 

"  The  doctrine  of  Christ  was  not  to  be  given  to  man  as  a  stiff 
and  dead  letter,  in  a  fixed  and  inflexible  form,  but,  as  the  word  of 

1  F.  IJaur,  Krit.  Untersjich.  in  d.  kann.  Evang.,  p.  71.;  F.  Baur,  Kirchen- 
geschichto  deit  1!)  Jahrhunderts,  p.  307.  Strauss  replies  in  his  Lcben  Jesu  f.  d. 
deutscke  Volk.,  p.  64.     See  pp.  4!);^  seq. 

^  Grschichte  der  rflaiuuiuj  nnd  Leitung  der  diristlichen  Kirche  durch  die 
Apnstel,  1832,  6te  Aufl.,  1802  ;  translated  into  Englisli  in  Biblical  Cabinet,  Eilin- 
liiirgh,  1842  ;  Bohn's  Library,  London,  1856  ;  translated  by  J.  E.  Kyland,  revised 
•nnil  corrected  according  to  the  4tU  German  edition  by  E.  G.  Robinson,  N.  Y., 
laOo. 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  579 

the  Spirit  and  of  life,  was  to  be  proclaimed  in  and  by  its  life  in 
living  variation  and  variety.  Men  enlightened  by  the  Divine 
Spirit  caught  up  these  doctrines  and  appropriated  them  in  a  living 
manner  according  to  their  respective  differences  in  education  and 
life.  These  differences  were  to  manifest  the  living  xinity,  the  rich- 
ness and  depth  of  the  Christian  spirit  according  to  the  various 
modes  of  human  conception,  unconsciously  complementing  and 
explaining  each  other.  For  Christianity  is  meant  for  all  men, 
and  can  adapt  itself  to  the  most  varied  human  characters,  trans- 
form them  and  unite  them  in  a  higher  unity.  For  the  various 
peculiarities  and  fundamental  tendencies  in  human  nature  are 
designed  to  work  in  and  with  one  another  at  all  times  for  the 
realization  of  the  idea  of  humanity,  tlie  presentation  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  in  humanity.'" 

Xeander  thus  gave  to  Biblical  Theology  a  new  and  important 
feature  that  was  indispensable  for  the  further  development  of 
the  discipline.  Xeander's  presentation  has  still  manj'  defects. 
It  is  kept  in  a  too  subordinate  position  to  bis  history.  But  be 
takes  the  stand  so  necessar}'  for  the  growth  of  Biblical  Theology 
that  the  theolog}*  of  the  various  authors  is  to  be  determined 
from  their  own  characters  and  the  essential  and  fundamental 
conceptions  of  their  own  writings.  Xeander  presents  as  the 
central  idea  of  Paul,  the  Law  and  righteousness,  which  give 
the  connection  as  well  as  contrast  between  his  original  and  final 
conceptions.  The  fundamental  idea  of  James  is,  that  Chris- 
tianitj-  is  the  perfect  law.  John's  conception  is,  that  divine  life 
is  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer  ;  death,  in  estrangement 
from  Him. 

Sclunid,  a  colleague  of  F.  Baur  at  Tiibingen,  first  gave 
Biblical  Theolog}-  its  proper  place  in  Theological  Encyelo- 
psedia.^  He  defined  Biblical  Theolog}-  as  belonging  essen- 
tially to  the  department  of  Exegetical  Theolog}-.  "We 
understand  by  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Xew  Testament  the 
historico-genetic  presentation  of  Christianit)'  as  this  is  given 
in  the  canonical  writings  of  the  New  Testament ;  a  discipline 
which  is  essentially  distinguished  from  Systematic  Theology 

'  Gesch.  d.  Pf.  und  Leit.,  Gotha,  5te  Aufl.,  p.  501. 

2  In  his  invaluable  essay,  "Ueber  das  Interesse  und  den  Stand  d.  Bibl.  Theo. 
des  \eu.  Test,  in  unserer  Zeit,"  Tubinger  Zeitsehrift  f.  Theo.,  4te  Heft.,  1838, 
pp.  126,  129. 


580  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTUUE 

by  its  historical  character,  while  by  its  limitation  to  the  bibli- 
cal writings  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  sejjarated  from  His- 
torical Theolog}',  and  is  characterized  as  a  part  of  Exegetical 
Theology.  Of  this  last  it  constitutes  the  summit  by  which 
Exegetical  Theology  is  connected  with  the  roots  of  Systematic 
as  well  as  Historical  Theology,  and  even  touches  Practical 
Theology."  Sclimid  regards  Christianity  as  the  fullilment 
of  the  Old  Covenant,  which  consists  of  Law  and  Promise.^ 
He  seeks  to  present  Christianity  in  its  unit}'  with  the  Old 
Testament  as  well  as  in  its  contrast  thereto.  He  thus  gains 
four  possibilities  of  doctrine,  which  are  realized  in  the  four 
principal  apostles.  James  presents  Christianity  as  the  fulfilled 
Law  ;  Peter,  as  the  fulfilled  Promise  ;  Paul,  as  contrasted  with 
the  Law ;  and  John,  as  contrasted  with  both  Law  and  Promise. 
For  many  3^ears  he  lectured  on  the  Theology  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. These  lectures  were  published  after  his  death  by 
his  pupils.^ 

Oehler  (G.  F.),  also  of  the  university  of  Tiibingen,  takes 
the  same  position  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament. ^  He 
defines  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  as  ''the  historico- 
genetic  presentation  of  the  revealed  religion  contained  in  the 
canonical  writings  of  the  Old  Testament."  His  lectures  were 
first  issued  in  1873-1874,*  by  his  son.  Oehler  distinguishes  in 
the  Old  Testament  three  parts  :  ^losaism,  Prophetism,  and  the 
Chokma  —  the  first  fundamental ;  the  Prophetism  representing 
the  objective  side,  and  tiie  Chokma  the  subjective ;  these  two 
unfolding  in  parallelism  with  one  another.  Thus  he  marks  an 
advance  in  the  Old  Testament  in  tlie  discrimination  of  types, 
corresponding  with  the  distinguishing  of  types  in  the  New 
Testament  by  Neander  and  Schmid.^  Schmid  and  Oehler 
combine  in   giving  us  organic  systems  of  Biblical  Theology 

>  Bib.  Then.,  p.  367. 

^  Biblische  Theologie,  des  Ncuen  Testaments,  1853,  4th  ed.,  1869.  Translated 
into  English,  but  without  the  invaluable  dejiiiitions  at  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
tions.    Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1870. 

'  Prdlecjomena  znr  Theohitjie  des  Alten  Testnntents,  1846. 

«  Theologie  des  Alten  Test..  2  Bdo.,  2te  Aufl.,  1S83,  3te  Aufl.,  1891. 

'  His  work  has  been  translated  into  English  in  Clark's  Library,  Edin.,  2  vols., 
1874  ;  also  revised  and  edited  by  Prof.  G.  E.  D.iy,  N.Y.,  1883. 


BIBLICAL   TUEOLOGY  581 

as  the  highest  point  of  Exegetical  Theology,  with  a  distinction 
of  types  combining  in  a  higher  nnity,  and  with  Neander  intro- 
duce a  new  epoch  in  Biblical  Theology. ^ 

On  the  other  hand,  F.  Baur  attempts  to  account  for  the 
peculiarities  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  as  well  as  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  Church,  by  his  theory  of  the  two  oppos- 
ing forces,  the  Judaistic  and  the  Pauline,  gradually  uniting  in 
the  later  writings  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  second  century 
into  a  more  conservative  and  mediating  theology,  reaching  its 
culmination  in  the  Johannean  writings,  which  are  at  an  eleva- 
tion above  the  peculiarities  of  the  earlier  stages  of  development. 
Biblical  Theology  is  to  Baur  a  purely  historical  discipline.  In 
it  the  scriptural  doctrine  loosens  itself  from  the  fetters  of  the 
dependent  relation  in  which  it  has  been  to  the  dogmatic  sys- 
tems of  the  Church,  and  will  more  and  more  emancipate  itself 
therefrom.  New  Testament  Theology  is  that  part  of  Historical 
Theology  which  has  to  present  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  well  as 
the  doctrinal  systems  resting  upon  it,  in  the  order  and  connec- 
tion of  their  historical  development,  according  to  the  peculiar 
characteristics  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  one 
another,  so  far  as  this  can  be  ascertained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings.  Baur  strongly  objects  to  the  idea  of  Neander 
and  his  school,  that  there  is  a  unity  in  the  variety  of  New  Tes- 
tament doctrines,  which  is  the  very  opposite  of  his  own  view 
of  a  development  out  of  contrasted  and  irreconcilable  forces. 
Baur  justly  admits  that  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  must  be  at  the 
foundation.  The  doctrine  of  Jesus  must  be  drawn  chiefly  from 
the  discourses  in  Matthew,  yet  these  not  in  their  present  form, 
as  given  in  our  Gi-eek  Gospel,  but  in  their  original  form,  to  be 
determined  by  sound  criticism.  The  essential  principle  of 
Christianity  and  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  the  ethical  prin- 

'  The  posthumous  lectures  of  Professor  Havernick,  of  Konigsberg,  on  Bihl. 
Theo.  d.  Alt.  Test.,  were  published  by  Hahn  in  1848,  and  a  revised  edition  by- 
Hermann  Scbultz,  in  1863,  but  are  of  no  special  value.  Prof.  H.  Messner, 
of  Berlin,  in  1850,  published  Die  Lehre  der  Apostel  in  the  spirit  of  Neander. 
He  begins  with  the  system  of  James,  Jude,  and  Peter ;  makes  the  discourse  of 
Stephen  a  transition  to  the  Pauline  system,  and  gives  the  theology  of  Paul  with 
that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  appended,  and  concludes  with  the  theology 
of  John  and  the  Apocalyp.se.  He  finally  gives  a  searching  comparison  of  the 
various  forms  of  apostolic  doctrine,  seeking  a  unity  in  the  variety. 


582  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTUKE 

ciple ;  the  law  is  not  only  enlarged  by  the  Gospel,  but  the 
Gospel  is  contrasted  mth  it.  They  are  related  as  the  outer  to 
the  inner,  the  act  to  the  intention,  the  letter  to  the  spirit. 
"  Christianity  presented  in  its  original  form  in  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  is  a  religion  breathing  the  purest  moral  s\nrit."'  "This 
moral  element,  as  it  is  made  known  in  the  simple  sentences  of 
the  sermon  on  the  mount,  is  the  purest  and  clearest  content 
of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  the  real  kernel  of  Christianity,  to 
which  all  the  rest,  however  significant,  stands  in  a  more  or  less 
secondary  and  accidental  relation.  It  is  that  on  which  the 
rest  must  be  built,  for  however  little  it  has  the  form  and  colour 
of  that  Christianity  which  has  become  historical,  yet  it  is  in 
itself  the  entire  Christianity."' 

Neander  and  Baiir,  the  great  historical  rivals  of  our  century, 
thus  attain  the  same  end  in  John's  contemplation  which  recon- 
ciles and  harmonizes  all  the  previous  points  of  view.  Accord- 
ing to  Neander  and  his  school,  the  variety  therein  attains  a 
higher  unity ;  according  to  Baur  and  his  school,  the  contra- 
dictory positions  are  reconciled  in  an  ideal  spirit  which  is 
indifferent  to  all  mere  externals.  The  lectures  of  Baur  were 
published  after  his  death  in  1864.2 

Professor  Reuss,  of  Strassburg,  in  1852  issued  his  History  of 
Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age.^  In  the  Preface  to 
the  last  edition  he  states  : 

"  The  unity  which  has  been  sought  at  the  end  of  the  work,  I 
have  dwelt  upon  where  the  history  itself  points  to  it  —  namely, 
at  the  beginning.  It  is  in  the  primitive  Gospel,  in  the  teaching  of 
the  Lord  Himself,  that  we  find  the  focus  of  those  rays  which  the 
prism  of  analysis  places  before  us,  separately  in  their  different 
shades  of  colour.  As  it  has  not  been  my  design  to  produce  a  criti- 
cal or  theoretical,  but  a  historical  work,  I  have  necessarily  followed 
the  natural  evolution  of  the  ideas,  nor  did  it  come  within  my  prov- 
ince to  violate  this  order  to  subserve  any  practical  purpose,  how- 
ever lawful." 

'  Neu.  Test.   Theologie,  pp.  04  seq.     See  p.  499. 

^  Vorlesungen  uber  NeAitentamentliche  Theologie. 

^  Histoire  de  la  Theologie  Chretienne  an  iSiecle  Apostolique,  2  tomes.  A 
translation  of  the  M  edition  into  English  was  published  by  Hodder  &  Stouphtou, 
London,  in  2  vols.,  1872. 


BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  583 

It  is  the  distinguishing  merit  of  Reuss  that  he  sets  the 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  midst  of  the 
religions  movements  of  the  times.  He  begins  with  a  discus- 
sion of  Judaism,  e.g.  the  theology  of  the  Jews  subsequent  to 
the  exile  and  in  its  various  sects,  then  considers  John  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  Forerunners.  In  the  second  part  he  treats  of  the 
Gospels,  in  the  third  part  the  Jewish-Christian  Theology,  in 
the  fourth  the  Pauline,  and  in  the  lifth  the  theology  of  John. 
But  the  historical  method  absorbs  and  overwhelms  the  induc- 
tive, and  he  justly  names  his  work  a  History  of  Christian 
Theology  in  Apostolic  Times.  Standing  with  the  school  of 
Baur  in  contending  for  the  position  of  the  discipline  in  His- 
torical Theology,  he  differs  from  it  in  his  giving  up  the  recon- 
ciliation of  contrasts  in  John's  Theology.  In  the  same  year, 
1852,  Lutterbeck,^  a  Roman  Catholic  M'riter,  goes  even  more 
thoroughlj'  than  Reuss  into  the  doctrinal  systems  in  the  midst  of 
which  Christianity  arose  :  (1)  The  Heathen  systems ;  (2)  the 
Jewish ;  (3)  the  mixed  S3'stems  and  heresies  of  the  apos- 
tolic period.  He  then  passes  over  to  the  Christian  system, 
distinguishing  the  various  types  as  did  Neander,  and  shows 
their  genesis  and  internal  harmony  in  an  able  and  thorough 
manner,  tlistinguishing  three  stages  of  apostolic  doctrine : 
(1)  From  the  death  of  Christ  to  the  Apostolic  Council,  the 
original  type ;  (2)  the  time  of  contrasted  views,  50-70 ; 
(3)  the  period  of  mediation,  or  the  later  life  of  the  apostle 
John,  70-100  A.D. 

G.  L.  Hahn^  reacts  to  the  historical  ground  without  dis- 
tinction of  types.  B.  Weiss  ^  has  also  been  influenced  by  the 
conflict  between  the  schools  of  Neander  and  Bam-  to  take  an 
intermediate  position.  He  excludes  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the 
great  events  of  apostolic  history,  and  also  restricts  Biblical 
Theology  to  the  variety  of  the  types  of  doctrine  and  aban- 
dons the  effort  for  a  higher  imity.  Within  the  limits  chosen 
by  the  author  lus  work  is  elaborate  and  thorough,  and  a  most 

'  Neutestamentlichen  Lekrbeoriffe,  2te  Bde.,  1852. 
-  Thpolfir/ie  (les  Alien  TeMamcnts,  Vol  I.,  1854. 

"  Lehrb.  d.  Bibl.  Theo.  d.  N.  T.,  1868,  3te  Aufl.,  1880.  Translated  into 
English  in  Clark's  Library,  Vol.  I.,  1883. 


.584:  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURK 

valuable  addition  to  the  literature,  but  it  does  not  show  anj- 
progress  in  his  conception  of  the  discipline. 

Hermann  Schultz,  in  1869,^  laid  stress  upon  the  historico- 
critical  method  of  the  school  of  Baur.  He  includes  religion 
as  well  as  dogmatics  and  ethics  in  his  scheme,  excluding  the 
apocryphal  books  and  limiting  himself  to  the  canonical  writ- 
ings. His  woi-k  is  elaborate  and  thorough  in  its  working  out 
of  details,  but  does  not  show  any  real  progress.^ 

In  his  Biblical  Theology,  1870,  Van  Oosterzee^  does  not 
enter  much  into  details  or  present  a  thorough-going  compari- 
son, yet  he  seeks  the  higher  unity  as  well  as  the  individual 
types.  He  regards  Biblical  Theology  as  a  part  of  Historical 
Theology,  but  his  treatment  of  it  is  after  the  style  of  Neander. 
He  does  not  estimate  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  religious  life  of 
the  apostolic  Church.  He  neglects  the  religious  and  ethical 
elements,  and  as  a  whole  must  be  regarded  as  falling  behind 
the  later  treatises  on  the  subject.  Bernard*  issued  a  brief 
work  in  the  spirit  of  Xeander,  but  without  any  advance  in 
the  working  out  of  the  theme. 

Ewald  in  1871-1876  issued  his  massive  and  profound  work." 
The  first  volume  treats  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God. 
the  second  of  the  doctrine  of  God,  the  third  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  world  and  man,  the  fourth  of  the  life  of  men  and  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  These  divisions  of  the  subject-matter  are 
simple  and  comprehensive,  and  the  treatment,  especially  in  the 
first  volume,  is  admirable  and  profound ;  and  yet  the  historical 
side  of  the  discipline  falls  too  much  into  the  background  ;  so 
that  we  must  regard  the  work  on  the  whole  as  a  decline  from 
the  higher  position  of  the  schools  of  Neander  and  Baur.     In- 

1  Alttestamenttiche  Theologie.  2te  Aufl.,  1878  ;  5te  Aufl.,  1896. 

'  In  his  last  editions  Schultz  has  gone  over  to  the  school  of  Wellhausen,  and 
reconstructed  his  Biblical  Theology  so  as  to  distinguish  a  Prophetic  and  Leviticiil 
period,  and  abandons  the  historical  development,  and  th\Ls  like  Ewald  declines 
from  the  advanced  position  of  F.  Baur  and  Neander. 

'  BihL  Theo.  of  the  .Yeic  Test.  Translated  from  the  Dutch  by  M.  J.  Evans. 
X.Y..  1871). 

*  Progress  of  Doctrine  in  the  ..Yew  Testament,  Hampton  Lectures,  1864,  2d  ed., 
1867. 

'  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Oott  oder  Theologie  des  Alten  tmd  Neuen  Bundes. 
4  Bde. 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  585 

deed.  Old  Testament  Theology  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the  treat- 
ment that  was  necessary  to  bring  it  up  to  the  standard  of  the 
New  Testament  Theology.  The  older  views  of  the  biblical 
wi'itings  of  the  Old  Testament,  both  of  the  Critical  and  Tradi- 
tional sides,  were  too  mechanical  and  uncertain.  There  was 
needed  a  gi-eat  overturning  of  the  soil  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  a  radical  critical  stud)-  of  its  religion  and  histor}-,  such  as 
Strauss  had  made  in  the  New  Testament.  Such  a  treatment 
was  prepared  for  by  Vatke,  Reuss,  and  Graf,^  but  first  carried 
out  by  Kueneu,-  and  then  by  Julius  Wellhausen.^  These  dis- 
tinguished three  great  codes  and  sections  in  the  Pentateuch, 
found  two  antagonistic  elements  in  the  Old  Testament  Script- 
ures, ventured  upon  a  radical  reconstruction  of  Old  Testament 
religion  and  liistory,  and  established  a  large  and  enthusiastic 
school. 

Kuenen,  in  his  history  of  Israel,  finds  in  the  period  from 
Hezekiah  to  the  exile  two  antagonistic  parties  in  perpetual 
conflict.  The  one  is  the  more  popular  and  conservative  party, 
advocating  the  ancient  religion  of  the  land,  the  local  sanctuaries 
and  image  worship,  together  with  various  deities.  This  party 
was  formed  by  the  majority  of  the  prophets  and  the  older  Le- 
vitical  priests.  The  other  party  was  the  progressive  and  the 
reforming  party,  aiming  at  a  central  and  exclusive  sanctuary, 
and  the  worship  of  Yaliweh  alone  in  a  more  spiritual  man- 
ner. This  was  the  priestly  party  at  Jerusalem,  formed  by  tlie 
prophets  Isaiah,  Micah,  and  Jeremiah.  These  parties  strug- 
gled with  varying  fortunes  until  the  exile.  The  reforming 
party  issued  as  their  programme  the  Deuteronomic  code.  In- 
dependent of  them,  yet  at  times  merging  with  the  party  of 
progress,  was  the  tendency  of  Hebrew  wisdom.*  The  struggle 
was  thus  "between  Yahwism  and  Jewish  nationality."^     Dur- 

'  Hitzig,  in  his  posthumous  Vorlesunf/en  uber  Bibl.  Theo.  tend  Mess.  Weissa- 
gungen,  1880,  treats  first  of  the  principle  of  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
e.g.  the  idea  of  God  as  a  holy  spirit.  This  developed  itself  in  two  directions  : 
Universal i.'^m  and  Particularism.  The  book  is  defective  in  method,  arbitrary 
in  judgment,  and  shows  no  real  progress  beyond  this  distinction  of  types. 

-  Religion  of  Israel.  1869-1870  (in  the  Dutch  language,  translated  1873-1875 
into  English)  and  by  his  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1877. 

»  Gesch.  Israel,  Bd.  I.,  1878,  2te  Ausg.,  1883. 

*  lieligion  of  Israel.  11.  Chap.  6.  '  In  i.e.,  L  p.  70. 


586  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ing  the  exile,  influenced  by  Ezekiel's  programme  of  reconstruc- 
tion, the  priestly  legislation  of  the  middle  books  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch was  composed,  and  Ezra  introduced  it  to  the  new 
commonwealth  at  Jerusalem. 

''Ezra  and  Kehemiah  assailed  as  much,  the  iudepeudence  of  the 
religious  life  of  the  Israelites,  which  found  utterance  in  prophecy, 
as  the  more  tolerant  judgment  upon  the  heathen  to  which  many 
inclined ;  their  reformation  was  in  other  words  anti-prophetic  and 
auti-universalistic.  History  teaches  us  that  the  Reformation  of 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  nearly  coincides  in  date  with  the  disappear- 
ance of  Prophecy  in  Israel." ' 

The  three  great  codes  were  afterward  combined  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. Thus  this  scheme  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  Old 
Testament  legislation  and  religion,  adopted  bj''  such  a  large 
nmnber  of  critics,  resembles  in  a  most  remarkable  degree  the 
reconstruction  of  the  New  Testament  history  and  doctrine  pro- 
posed by  Baur;  namely,  two  antagonistic  and  irreconcilable 
forces  resulting  in  a  final  system  above  them  both. 

The  several  codes  and  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  have  now 
been  recognized  by  all  critical  scholars.  They  correspond  in  a 
remarkable  manner  with  the  various  presentations  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus.  And  so  the  great  types  such  as  we  find  in  the 
Prophetic,  Priestly,  and  Sapiential  writings  are  clearly  defined, 
corresponding  closely  with  the  Petrine,  Pauline,  and  the  Johan- 
nine  types  of  the  New  Testament.  The  correspondence  goes 
even  farther,  in  that,  as  the  Jewish-Christian  type  is  divided  in 
twain  by  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  and  bj'  the  apos- 
tles Peter  and  James,  so  the  prophetic  type  breaks  up  into 
the  Psalmists  and  the  Prophets.  The  three  great  types  must 
be  recognized  in  the  Old  Testament,  extending  through  the  his- 
torical, prophetical,  and  poetical  books  and  other  writings,  as  in 
the  New  Testament  the  types  are  recognized  in  the  Gospels,  the 
book  of  Acts,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse.'  Tlie  school  of 
Kuenen  and  Wellhausen  regard  them  as  antagonistic  like  the 

1  II,  pp.  240  seq.  See  the  article,  "The  Critical  Theories  of  Julius  Well- 
hausoii,"  by  I'rof.  Henry  P.  Smith,  in  the  Presbyterian  Jieviexo,  1882,  pp.  357 
seq.;  and  my  article,  "("liiical  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism," 
in  the  same  Review,  188;J,  i)p.  (>9  seq. 


BIBLICAL  TUEOLDGT  687 

parties  in  Church  and  State  in  our  own  daj-,  the  history  and 
religion  having  a  purely  natural  development.  Christian  schol- 
ars will,  in  the  main,  deal  with  the  Old  Testament  as  they 
have  done  with  the  New  Testament  under  the  lead  of  Neander, 
Schmid,  and  Oehler,  and  recognize  the  variation  of  tj-pe  in 
order  to  a  more  complete  and  harmonious  representation  as 
they  combine  under  the  supernatural  influence  of  a  divine 
progressive  revelation. 

Among  more  recent  works  may  be  mentioned :  Piepenbring,i 
of  the  school  of  Reuss.  He  arranges  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  periods.  (1)  Mosaism  fi'om  the  beginning  to  the 
eighth  century  B.C.  (2)  Prophetism  until  the  close  of  the  exile. 
(3)  The  priestly  period  from  the  exile  to  the  lirst  century  B.C. 

Riehm  also,  in  his  posthumous  work,^  little  influenced  by  the 
school  of  Reuss,  arranged  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  periods.  He  distinguishes  Mosaism,  Prophetism.  and  Ju- 
daism. Dillmann,  however,  in  his  posthumous  lectures  ^  agrees 
with  Ewald,  and  abandons  the  attempt  to  arrange  the  material 
in  periods.  After  a  historical  introduction  he  discusses  the 
subject  under  the  topics  :  doctrine  of  God,  doctrine  of  Man, 
and  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

Smend,*  of  the  school  of  Reuss,  treats  the  subject  in  the  three 
periods  :  (1)  the  Religion  of  Israel  ;  (2)  the  Religion  of  the 
Prophets,  beginning  with  Elijah,  and  (3)  the  Religion  of  the 
Older  Judaism,  beginning  with  the  Reformation  of  Josiah. 
His  volume  is  the  richest  of  all  in  detailed  investigation  ;  but 
his  historical  divisions  are  a  decline  from  those  of  Piepenbring, 
and  his  arrangement  of  the  material  is  confusing  and  unsatis- 
factory. By  his  title  he  shows  that  he  rmdulj*  emphasizes  the 
religious  element  over  against  Faith  and  Morals. 

C.  H.  Toy,*  on  the  other  side,  emphasizes  the  ethical  element 

'  TheoUigie  de  VAncien  Testament,  1887,  trans,  by  H.  G.  Mitchell. 

^  Alttestamentliche  TTieologie,  bearbeitet  und  herausgegeben  von  K.  Pahncke, 
1880. 

'  Handbrich  der  Alttest.  Theologie,  herausgegeben  von  R.  Kittel,  1895. 

'  Lehrbuch  der  Altte stamen llichen  Beligionsgeschichte,  1893. 

*  Judaism  and  Christianity,  1890.  It  is  discreditable  to  German  and  British 
writers  that  they  so  generally  ignore  a  volume  which  is  on  the  whole  the  best 
that  has  ever  been  written  on  its  subject. 


588  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKU'TURE 

and  gives  the  best  statement  of  biblical  ethics  and  sociologj-  that 
has  yet  been  produced. 

A  considerable  amount  of  special  investigation  in  Old  Testa- 
ment Theolog}'  has  been  made  by  many  scholars  —  such  as 
Orelli,!  Duff,^  Kahle,^  and  Kirkpatrick.^  The  archaeological 
sources  of  Old  Testament  Theology  have  been  investigated  by 
Baethgen,^  and  especiallj^  by  W.  Robertson  Smith.® 

Recent  works  on  New  Testament  Theology  have  devoted 
themselves  more  to  a  study  of  the  particular  types  with  refer- 
ence to  their  psj'chological  development  out  of  the  condition  of 
mind  and  historical  position  and  training  of  the  various  New 
Testament  wTiters.  Immer "  restates  the  positions  of  the  school 
of  Baur,  but  with  the  important  advance  that  he  traces  the 
various  stages  of  the  development  of  the  Pauline  theology 
itself  with  considerable  industrj'  and  skill;  so  Pfleiderer,^ 
Sabatier,^  and  especiallj^  Holsten,i^  who  strives  to  derive  the 
peculiarity  of  the  doctrine  of  Paul  out  of  his  consciousness 
rather  than  from  the  vision  and  Christophany  on  the  way  to 
Damascus. ^^     Thoma^  strives  to  explain  the  theology  of  John 

'  Die  AHtestamentliche  Weissagung  von  der  Vollendung  des  Gottesreiches, 
1882. 

*  Old  Testament  ThenUigij,  or  The  History  of  Hebrew  Religion  from  the 
Tear 800  B.C.,  ISm. 

3  Biblische  Eschatologie.  1870.  ■•  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  1892. 

^  Beitragezur  Semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  1888. 

6  Religion  of  the  Semites,  1894.  '  Theo.  d.  X.  T.,  1877. 

*  Influence  of  the  Apastle  Paul,  1885.  It  was  natural  that  the  theology  of 
Paul  should  receive  at  lii-st  the  closest  examination.  Usteri,  Enticickelung  des 
Paulinischen  Lehrhegriffes,  1829,  Cte  Aufl.,  1851.  is  a  classic  work  ;  followed  by 
Dabne.  Enticickelung  des  Paulinischen  Lehrhegriffes,  1835  ;  Baur,  Paulus  der 
Apostel  Jesu  Christi,  1845,  2te  Aufl.,  1866  ;  Opitz  (H.).  System  des  Paulus,  1874. 

'  VApotre  Paul  esquisse  d''une  Histoire  de  sa  Pensee.  1870.  Deuxifeme  edi- 
tion revue  et  augment^e,  1881,  Paris.  He  finds  the  origin  of  Paul's  theoloiiy 
in  the  combination  of  the  three  facts  —  his  Pharisaism  which  he  left,  tlie  Chris- 
tian Church  which  lie  entered,  and  the  conversion  by  which  he  passed  from  tlie 
one  to  the  other.  He  then  traces  the  genesis  of  tlie  Pauline  theology  in  three 
periods. 

>'  Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  u.  d.  Pelrus.  1868  ;  Evangelium  des  Paulus, 
1880. 

"  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce,  of  Glasgow,  in  his  article  on  "  Paul's  Conversion  and  the 
Pauline  Go.spel,"  in  the  Pres.  Beview.  1880,  pp.  652  seq..  ably  discusses  these 
theories,  and  shows  the  connection  of  Pauline  theology  with  the  supernatural 
event  of  the  Christophany  and  the  apostle's  consetiuent  conversion. 

'-  Die  Genesis  des  Johannes  Evangelium,  1882. 


BllJLlCAL  THEOLOGY  589 

as  a  development  out  of  the  struggling  doctrinal  conceptions 
of  Judaism  and  Alexaudrianism.^ 

Beyschlag2  gives  first,  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  (a)  according 
to  the  synoptists,  (6)  according  to  the  Gospel  of  John  ;  and 
then  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  :  (a)  the  original  apostolic 
ideas  of  the  Jerusalem  community  according  to  the  book  of 
Acts,  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  and 
of  the  Epistles  of  Paul ;  (6)  the  later  and  more  advanced  doc- 
trine of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  tlie  Apocalypse  and  the 
Epistle  of  John,  and  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and 
finally  (c)  the  pre-apostolic  doctrine  of  the  authors  of  the 
synoptic  Gospels  and  book  of  Acts,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and 
2  Peter,  and  the  Pastorals.  W.  F,  Adene}^  in  1894  issued  a 
brief  outline  ^  very  much  after  the  same  method,  giving  first  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  according  to  the  synoptists,  then  the  primi- 
tive tj'pe  of  the  apostles,  the  Pauline  type,  the  theology  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Johannine  type  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, Gospel,  and  Epistles. 

The  most  important  works  in  the  theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  present  time  are  those  of  Wendt  and  H.  J.  Holtz- 
mann.*  Wendt  endeavours  to  distinguish  the  teaching  of  the 
Logia  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  according  to  the  synoptists, 
and  also,  in  a  measure,  the  teaching  of  the  original  Gospel 
of  John  from  our  present  fourth  Gospel.  And  he  traces  the 
relation  between  these  various  forms  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Jews  of  the  time  as  expressed 
in  the  Pseudepigrapha  and  Apocrypha.^  Holtzmann  empha- 
sizes the  religious  ideas  enveloijing  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and 
introductory  to  the  apostolic  doctrine,  after  the  method  of 
Reuss  and  Lutterbeck.     Thus  he  puts  the  teaching  of  Jesus 

'  Other  special  writers  upon  particular  types  are  :  Riehm,  Lehrhegriff  des 
Hehraerhriefs.  1867  ;  K.  R.  Kostlin,  Lehrbegriff  des  Evang.  und  der  Briefe 
Johannes,  1845;  B.  Weiss,  Petrinische  Lehrbegriff,  1855;  Johanneische  Lehr- 
begriff, 18(i2  ;  Zschokke,  Theologie  der  Propheten  des  Alien  Testaments,  1877  ; 
W.  Schmidt,  Lehrgehalt  des  Jacobus  Briefes,  1869 ;  H.  Gebhardt,  Lehrbegriff 
der  Apakalij/ise,  1873. 

-  XeutcHamentUche  Theologie,  2te  Bde.,  1891-1892. 

'  The  Theology  of  the  Neio  Testament. 

*  Lehrbuch  der  Neutestamentliche  Theologie,  2te  Bde.,  1897. 

'  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  2  Th.,  1 886-1 H90. 


690  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

as  (2)  iu  the  midst  of  (1)  the  religious  and  moral  world  of 
thought  of  contemporary  Judaism  and  (3)  the  theological  prob- 
lems of  primitive  Christianity.  He  abandons  the  effort  to  dis- 
tinguish types  of  doctrine,  and  gives  under  Paid  and  apostolic 
literature  (1)  Paulinism,  (2)  Deuteropaulinism,  and  (3)  the 
Johannine  theology.  However  rich  in  material  these  volumes 
may  be,  in  conception  of  the  discipline  and  in  method  they  are 
reactionary  from  the  true  ideals  of  Biblical  Theology.  In  one 
respect  Holtzmaun  is  greatly  to  be  commended.  He  regards 
the  recent  tendency  to  make  the  Kingdom  of  God  the  central 
or  fundamental  and  determining  element  in  the  Teaching  of 
Jesus  as  a  mistake,  and  he  rightly  begins  with  the  fundamental 
question  of  the  attitude  of  Jesus  to  the  law.i  He  greatly  ex- 
aggerates the  mythical  and  legendary  elements  in  the  Gospels, 
and  also  the  external  religious  ide;is  of  the  times  in  their  forma- 
tive influence  upon  primitive  Christianity. 

A  large  amount  of  special  work  has  been  done  in  the  New 
Testament  theology  by  Irons,^  Menegoz,*  Uickson,*  Issel,* 
Gloel,®  Everiing,"  Bruce,^  Stevens,^  Du  Bose,!"  Everett," 
Kabisch,^^  Schwartzkopff,^*  Bousset,"  and  others  too  numerous 
to  mention.  The  theology  of  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Lord 
has  been  investigated  especially  by  Drummondi*  and  Stan- 
ton.16 

I  may  be  permitted  to  mention  my  effort  to  trace  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Messiah  with  correlated  conceptions  in  its  historical 

1  L.  c.  s.,  1.30  seq.  "  Christianity  as  taught  hy  St.  Paul,  1876. 

*  La  peche  et  la  redemption  d'apres  St.  Paul,  1882  ;  La  theologie  de  I'epitre 
aux  Hebreux.  1894. 

*  Sainl  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit.  1883. 
s  Der  lienriffder  Ilriligkeit  in  X.  T.,  1887. 

«  Dtr  Ilcilige  Geist  in  der  Heilsverkiindigung  des  Paulus,  1888. 

"  Die  paulinische  Anyehilogie  nnd  DHmoiudogie,  1888. 

'  Kingdom  of  God,  1889  ;  Saint  PauVs  Conctption  of  Christianity,  1894. 

»  Pauline  Theology.  1892  ;  Johannine  Theology,  1894. 
"  Soteriology  of  the  .Veio  Testament,  1892. 
"  Gospel  of  Paul.  189.3. 
"  Eschatologie  des  Paulus,  1893. 
"  Die  W'eissagungen  Jesu  Christi,  189.5. 

>•  Der  Autirhrist  in  der  Ueberlieferung  des  Judenthums  des  N.  T.  nnd  der 
alien  Kirche,  189-5. 

>'  The  Jewish  Messiah,  1877. 

'^  The  Jeicish  and  the  Christian  Messiah,  1886. 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  591 

development  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Apocrypha  and  Pseude- 
pigrapha,  and  tlie  New  Testament.' 

Many  younger  men  have  been  misled  by  the  theories  and 
speculations  of  Ritsclil  and  Weiszilcker  to  abandon  the  attempt 
to  trace  a  development  in  the  theology  of  Paul  or  of  Jesus. ^ 
They  have  a  theory  of  what  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was,  and  of 
what  the  doctrine  of  Paid  was  at  the  beginning  ;  and  they  do 
not  hesitate  to  exclude  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  Paul 
and  assign  to  other  and  later  wi'iters  what  does  not  accord  with 
these  conceptions.  This  I  can  only  regard  as  a  reaction  toward 
the  mischievous  tendencies  of  the  school  of  Baur,  which  have 
been,  to  such  a  great  extent,  overcome.  There  is  also  a  re- 
action in  the  same  school  toward  an  undue  emphasis  of  the 
historical  side  of  the  discipline,  especially  to  be  seen  in  Stade,^ 
Deismann,*  and  Wrede,^  which  results  in  doing  away  Mith  the 
discijjline  of  Biblical  theology  as  the  highest  department  of 
Biblical  Study,  and  the  substitution  for  it  of  a  history  of  religion 
in  the  times  of  the  Biljle. 

Biblical  Theology  may  be  expected  to  make  still  further 
advances :  (1)  in  the  study  of  the  relation  of  the  various  types 
to  one  another  and  to  their  unity ;  (2)  in  tlie  origin  and  devel- 
opment of  the  particular  types  ;  (3)  and  more  especially  in 
the  relation  of  the  New  Testament  Theology  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Tlieology  and  to  the  theology  of  the  Apocrjpha  and 
the  Pseudepigrapha. 

We  have  thus  far  distinguished  two  stages  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology.  Gabler  first 
stated  its  historical  principle,  and  distinguished  it  from  Sys- 
tematic Tlieology.  Neander  then  distinguished  its  variety  of 
types,  and  Selmiid  stated  its  exegetical  principle,  and  distin- 

>  Messianic  Prophecy,  1886,  7th  ed.,  1898;  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  1894; 
Messiah  of  the  Apostles,  1895.  -  See  pp.  500  seq. 

*  Ueher  die  Anfgahen  der  hihlischen  Theologie  des  K.  T.  in  Zeitsckrift  f. 
Theolnrfie  und  Kirch f,  1893,  s.  .31  seq. 

*  Zur  Methnde  dfr  bib.  Theo.  des  N.  T.  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Theologie  und 
Kirche,  18U.i,  s.  120  seq. 

»  Ueber  Aufgabe  und  Methode  der  sogenannten  Neutestamentlichen  Theologie, 
1897. 


592  STUDY    UF   HOLY    SCKIl'TURE 

guished  it  from  Historical  Theology  as  a  part  of  Exegetical 
Theology.  We  are  now  in  a  tliird  stage,  in  whicli  Biblical 
Theology,  as  the  point  of  contact  of  the  biblical  discipline  with 
the  other  great  sections  of  Theological  Eucyclopiedia.  is  show- 
ing the  true  relation  of  its  various  tjpes  to  one  organic  system 
of  divine  truth,  and  tracing  them  each  and  all  to  their  divine 
origin  and  direction  as  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  types 
of  human  thinking.  Biblical  Theology  will  act  as  a  conser\-- 
ing  and  a  reconciling  force  in  the  theology  of  the  next  century. 
Step  by  step  Biblical  Theology  has  advanced  in  the  progress  of 
exegetical  studies.  It  is  and  must  be  an  aggressive  discipline. 
It  has  a  fourfold  work:  of  remox-ing  the  rubbish  that  scholas- 
ticism has  piled  upon  the  Word  of  God  ;  of  battling  with 
rationalism  for  its  principles,  methods,  and  products ;  of  re- 
sisting the  seductions  of  mysticism ;  and  of  building  up  an 
impregnable  S5'stem  of  sacred  truth.  As  the  Jews  returning 
from  their  exile  built  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  working  with 
one  hand,  and  with  the  other  grasping  a  weapon,  so  must  bib- 
lical scholars  build  up  the  system  of  Biblical  Theology,  until 
they  have  erected  a  structure  of  biblical  truth  containing  the 
unity  in  the  variety  of  divine  revelation,  a  structure  compacted 
through  the  fitting  together  of  all  the  solid  stones  of  sacred 
truth  according  to  the  adaptation  of  a  divine  pre-arrangement. 

IV.    Thk  Idea  of  Biblical  Theology 

Having  considered  the  origin  and  history  of  Biblical  The- 
ology, we  are  now  prepared  to  show  its  position  and  impor- 
tance, and  define  it  as  to  its  idea,  method,  and  system. 

1.  Biblical  Theology  is  that  theological  discipline  which  pre- 
sents the  theology  of  the  Bible  in  its  historical  formation 
within  the  canonical  writings.  The  discipline  limits  itself 
strictly  to  the  theology  of  the  Bible,  and  tints  excludes  from 
its  range  the  theology  of  the  Apocryphal  and  Pseudepigraphi- 
cal  writings  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  sects,  the  ideas  of 
the  various  external  religious  parties,  and  the  religions  of  the 
world  brought  in  contact  with  the  people  of  God  at  different 
l)eriods  in  their  historj-.     It  is  true  that  these  must  come  into 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  593 

consideration  for  comparative  purposes,  in  order  tn  show  their 
influence  positively  and  negatively  upon  the  development  of 
biblical  doctrine;  for  the  biblical  religion  is  a  religion  in  the 
midst  of  a  great  variety  of  religions  of  the  world,  and  its  dis- 
tinctive features  can  be  shown  only  after  the  elimination  of  tlie 
features  that  are  common  with  other  religions.  We  must  show 
from  the  historical  circumstances,  the  psychological  prepara- 
tions, and  all  the  conditioning  influences,  how  far  the  origin 
and  development  of  the  particular  tj'pe  and  the  particular 
stage  of  religious  development  of  Israel  and  the  Church  were 
influenced  by  these  external  forces.  We  must  find  the  super- 
natural influence  that  originated  and  maintained  the  biblical 
types  and  the  biblical  religion  as  distinct  and  separate  from  all 
other  religions.  And  then  these  other  religious  forces  will  not 
be  employed  as  cooi'dinate  factors  with  biblical  material,  as  is 
done  by  Reuss,  Schwegler,  and  Kuenen,  and  later  writers  of 
the  school  of  Ritschl,  who  make  Biblical  Theology  simply  a 
history  of  religion,  or  of  doctrine  in  the  times  of  the  Bible 
and  in  the  Jewish  nation.  Rather  these  theological  concep- 
tions of  other  religions  will  be  seen  to  be  subordinate  factors 
as  influencing  Biblical  Theolog}'  from  without,  and  not  from 
within,  as  i^resenting  the  external  occasions  and  conditions  of 
its  growth,  and  not  its  normal  and  regulative  principles. 

Thus  Stade  urges  that  Old  Testament  Theology  is  a  his- 
torical discipline  and  that  it  cannot  be  limited  to  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament.  He  insists  that  there  should  be  a  return  to 
the  sound  principles  of  De  Wette  and  Von  Coln.^  Deissmann 
also  thinks  that  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  should  not 
be  limited  to  the  Canon  ;  but  that  its  purpose  is  to  give  the 
theolog}'  of  primitive  Christianit}'  rather  than  the  theology  of 
the  New  Testament  writings.  He  represents  that  it  has  three 
chief  problems :  (1)  to  present  the  religious  and  moral  con- 
tents of  the  thought  of  the  age  in  which  Christianity  origi- 
nated ;  (2)  to  give  the  special  formations  of  the  primitive 
Christian  consciousness ;  (.3)  the  comprehensive  character  of 
the  whole.     Under  the  second  head  he  would  give  :    (a)  the 

'  Zeitschrift  f.   Theologie  und  Kirche,  1893,  s.  48.     "Sie  hat  sich  an  dem 
A.  T.  als  Institution  und  nicht  an  dem  A.  T.  as  Canon  zu  orientieren,"  s.  46. 
2q 


594  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

synoptic  preachiug  of  Jesus :  (6)  the  Pauline  Christianity ; 
(c)  the  Johannine  Christianity.^  The  climax  is  reached  in 
Wrede.  who  proposes  to  do  away  with  the  term  "  Biblical  The- 
ology "  and  substitute  for  it  the  term  '•  History  of  the  Primitive 
Christian  Religion."' ^ 

There  is  doubtless  room  for  a  special  discipline  devoting  its 
attention  to  the  historj'  of  the  primitive  Christian  religion,  and 
using  other  sources  than  the  Biblical  sources,  the  Canon  of 
Holy  Scripture.  But  such  a  discipline  can  never  take  the 
place  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  is  entitled  to  the  name  Bib- 
lical only  so  far  as  it  uses  the  Biblical  writings  as  not  only 
normal  to  the  discipline,  but  also  as  defining  its  scope.  The 
biblical  limit  must  be  maintained;  for  the  biblical  material 
stands  apart  by  itself,  in  that  the  theology  therein  contained 
is  the  theology  of  a  divine  revelation,  and  thus  distinguished 
from  all  other  theologies,  both  as  to  its  origin  and  its  develop- 
ment. They  give  us  either  the  products  of  natural  religion 
in  various  normal  and  abnormal  systems,  originating  and  de- 
veloping under  the  influence  of  unguided  or  partially  guided 
human  religious  strivings,  or  else  are  apostasies  or  deflections 
from  the  religion  of  revelation  in  its  various  stages  of  develop- 
ment, or  else,  at  the  best,  represent  the  genuine  strivings  of 
Christianity  apart  from  and  beyond  the  biblical  guides. 

2.  The  discipline  we  have  defined  as  presenting  the  theology 
of  the  Bible.  It  is  true  that  the  term  "  Biblical  Theology " 
is  ambiguous  as  being  too  broad,  having  been  employed  as  a 
general  term  including  Biblical  Introduction,  Hermeneutics, 
and  so  on.  And  yet  we  must  have  a  broad  term,  for  we  can- 
not limit  our  discipline  to  Dogmatics.  Biblical  Dogmatics,  as 
rightly  conceived,  is  a  part  of  Systematic  Theology,  being  a 
priori  and  deductive  in  method.  Biblical  Dogmatics  deduces 
the  dogmas  from  the  biblical  material  and  arranges  them  in  an 
a  priori  dogmatic  system,  presenting  not  so  much  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  in  their  simplicity  and  in  their  concrete  form  as 
they  are  given  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  but  such  doctrines 
as  may  be  fairly  derived  from  the  biblical  material  by  the  logi- 

•  Zeitschrift  f.  TheoJogie  und  Kirche,  1893,  s.  126  se^. 

'  Ueher  Aufg.  und  Mcthode  der  sogcnannten  N.  T.  Theologie,  1897,  s.  80. 


BIBLICAL   TUEULOGY  595 

cal  process,  or  can  be  gained  by  setting  the  Bible  in  the  midst 
of  philosophy  and  Church  tradition.  We  cannot  deny  to  this 
department  the  propriety  of  using  the  name  "  Biblical  Dog- 
matics." For  where  a  dogmatic  system  derives  its  chief  or 
only  material  from  the  Scriptures,  there  is  force  in  its  claim 
to  be  Biblical  Theology.  We  do  not,  therefore,  use  the  term 
"  Biblical  Theology  "  as  applied  to  our  discipline  with  the  im- 
plication that  a  dogmatic  system  derived  from  the  Bible  is  non- 
biblical  or  not  sufficiently  biblical,  but  as  a  term  which  has 
come  to  be  applied  to  the  discipline  wliich  we  are  now  distin- 
guishing from  Biblical  Dogmatics.  Biblical  Theology,  in  the 
sense  of  our  discipline,  and  as  distinguished  from  Biblical  Dog- 
matics, cannot  take  a  step  beyond  the  Bible  itself,  oi-,  indeed, 
beyond  the  particular  writing  or  author  under  consideration  at 
the  time.  Biblical  Theolog}-  has  to  do  only  with  the  sacred 
author's  conceptions,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
legitimate  logical  consequences  of  these  conceptions.  It  is  not 
to  be  assumed  that  either  the  author  or  his  generation  argued 
out  the  consequences  of  their  statements,  still  less  discerned 
them  by  intuition ;  although,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must 
always  recognize  that  the  religion  and,  indeed,  the  entire 
theology  of  a  period  or  an  author  may  be  far  wider  and  more 
comprehensive  than  the  record  or  records  that  have  been  left 
of  it ;  and  that,  in  all  cases.  Biblical  Theology  will  give  us 
the  minimum  ratlier  than  the  maximum  of  the  theology  of  a 
period  or  author.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  also  esti- 
mate the  fact  that  this  minimum  is  the  inspired  authority  to 
which  alone  we  can  appeal.  The  only  consequences  with 
which  Biblical  Theology  has  to  do  are  those  historical  ones 
that  later  biblical  writers  gained  in  their  advanced  knowledge 
of  divine  revelation,  those  conclusions  that  are  true  histori- 
cally—  whatever  our  subjective  conclusions  maj^  be  as  to  the 
legitimate  logical  results  of  their  statements.  And  even  here 
the  interpretation  and  use  of  later  writers  are  not  to  be  assigned 
to  the  authors  themselves  or  the  theology  of  their  times.  The 
term  '•  Biblical  Dogmatics  "  should  be  applied  to  that  part  of 
Dogmatics  which  rests  upon  the  Bible  and  derives  its  material 
from  the  Bible  by  the  legitimate  use  of  its  principles.     Dog- 


596  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCUIPTUKK 

luatics  as  a  theological  discipline  is  fai-  wider  than  the  biblical 
material  that  is  employed  by  the  dogmatician.  The  biblical 
material  should  be  the  normal  and  regulative  material,  but  the 
dogmatician  will  make  use  of  the  deductions  from  the  Bible 
and  f  i-om  other  authorities  that  the  Clnirch  has  made  in  the  his- 
tory of  doctrine,  and  incorporated  in  her  creeds,  or  preserved 
in  the  doctrinal  treatises  of  the  theologians.  He  will  also  make 
use  of  right  reason,  and  of  philosophy,  and  science,  and  the  re- 
ligious consciousness  as  manifest  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
and  in  the  Christian  life  of  the  day.  It  is  all-important  that 
the  various  sources  shoidd  be  carefully  discriminated,  and  the 
biblical  material  set  apart  bj'  itself  in  Biblical  Dogmatics,  lest, 
in  the  commingling  of  matei-ial,  that  should  be  regarded  as 
biblical  which  is  non-biblical,  or  extra-biblical,  or  contra-bibli- 
cal, as  has  so  often  happened  in  the  working  of  ecclesiastical 
tradition.  And,  even  then,  when  Biblical  Dogmatics  has  been 
distinguished  in  Systematic  Theology,  it  should  be  held  apart 
from  Biblical  Theology;  for  Biblical  Dogmatics  is  the  point 
of  contact  of  Sj'stematic  Theolog)- with  Exegetical  Theology ; 
mid  Biblical  Theology  is  the  point  of  contact  of  Exegetical 
Theolog}'  with  Systematic  Theology,  each  belonging  to  its  own 
distinctive  branch  of  theolog}',  with  its  characteristic  methods 
and  principles.  That  system  of  theology  which  would  anx- 
iously conline  itself  to  supposed  biblical  material,  to  the  neg- 
lect of  the  material  presented  by  philosophj-,  science,  literature, 
art,  comparative  religion,  the  histor}-  of  doctrine,  the  s)"mbols, 
the  liturgies,  and  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  pious  religious 
consciousness  of  the  individual  or  of  Christian  society,  must  be 
extremely  defective  and  unscientific,  and  cannot  make  up  for 
its  defects  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  and  a  claim  to  be 
biblical.  None  of  the  great  systematic  theologians,  from  the 
most  ancient  times,  have  ever  proposed  any  sucli  course.  It 
has  been  the  I'esort  of  the  feebler  Pietists  in  ■Germany,  and  of 
the  narrower  Evangelicalism  of  Great  Britain  and  America, 
doomed  to  defeat  and  destruction,  for  working  in  such  con- 
tracted lines.  The  errors  involved  in  this  exclusive  dejiend- 
ence  on  biblical  material  have  now  been  made  so  evident  that 
uone  can  reasonabl)'  dispute  them.     It  is  now  perfectl}'  clear 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  597 

that  the  New  Testament  is  predominantly  Pauline,  and  we 
must  recognize  a  large  and  strong  tradition,  based  on  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  the  Twelve,  which  has  no  adequate 
representation  in  the  New  Testament  proportionate  to  the 
teacliing  of  Saint  Paul.  Only  in  this  way  can  the  Christianity 
of  the  second  century  be  historically  explained. ^ 

Biblical  Theology  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  S3'stematic 
Tlieology.  Systematic  Theology  is  more  comprehensive  than 
Biblical  Theology.  Biblical  Theology  is  important  in  order  to 
the  distinction  that  should  be  made,  in  the  lirst  place,  between 
the  biblical  sources  and  all  other  sources  of  theology,  and  then, 
in  the  second  place,  to  distinguish  between  Biblical  Theology 
as  pi-esented  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves,  and  Biblical 
Dogmatics  which  makes  deductions  and  applications  of  the 
biblical  material. 

•3.  But  Biblical  Theology  is  wider  than  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible.  It  includes  Ethics  also.  It  is  somewhat  remarkable, 
however,  that  no  one  has  thus  far  attempted  to  publish  a  Bibli- 
cal Ethics,  and  that  the  ethical  element  has  little,  if  any,  con- 
sideration in  the  most  of  the  Biblical  Theologies  which  have 
thus  far  been  published.  So  far  as  it  appears  it  is  interwoven 
with  the  doctrines  of  faith,  and  has  no  separate  existence,  and 
no  consideration  is  given  to  the  ethical  point  of  view.  The 
only  way  in  which  the  Ethics  of  the  Bible  can  be  given  proper 
recognition  is  in  the  recognition  of  it  as  a  separate  department, 
just  as  it  is  recognized  in  the  discipline  of  Dogmatics.  Not 
until  this  has  been  done  and  the  ethics  of  Holy  Scripture  has 
been  thoroughly  considered  in  its  historical  development  and 
in  its  unity  and  variety,  will  the  question  of  the  relation  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Law,  and  of  the  New  Testament  to  the  Old 
Testament,  be  satisfactorily  answered.  It  is  at  the  bottom  an 
ethical  question  ratlier  than  a  question  of  faith. 

4.  The  school  of  Baur,  and  even  Weiss  and  Van  Oosterzee, 
would  stop  with  biblical  doctrines  of  faith  and  Biblical  Ethics. 
But  Schmid,  Scliultz,  and  Oehler  are  correct  in  taking  Biblical 
Theology  to  include  religion  as  well  as  doctrines  and  morals ; 

1  See  p.  503. 


598  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

that  is,  those  historic  persons,  facts,  and  relations  which  embody 
religious,  dogmatical,  and  ethical  ideas.  This  discrimination 
is  important  in  Systematic  Theology,  but  it  is  indispensable  in 
Biblical  Theology  where  everything  is  still  in  the  concrete. 
Thus  a  fundamental  question  in  the  theology  of  the  New 
Testament  is,  what  to  do  with  the  life  of  Jesus.  The  life  of 
Jesus  is,  as  Schmid  shows,  the  fruitful  source  of  His  doctrine, 
and  a  theology  which  does  not  estimate  it  lacks  foundation  and 
vital  power.  The  life  of  Jesus  may  indeed  be  regarded  from 
two  distinct  points  of  view,  as  a  biographical,  or  as  a  doctrinal 
and  religious,  subject.  The  birth  of  Jesus  may  be  regarded  as 
a  pure  historical  fact  or  as  an  incarnation.  His  suffering  and 
death  may  be  historical  subjects,  or  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement.  His  life  may  afford  biographical  matter,  or  be 
considered  as  religious,  doctrinal,  and  ethical,  in  that  His  life 
was  a  new  religious  force,  a  redemptive  influence,  and  an  ethi- 
cal example.  Biblical  Theology  will  have  to  consider,  there- 
foi"e,  what  the  life  of  Jesus  presents  for  its  various  departments. 
And  so  the  great  fact  of  Pentecost,  the  Christophanies  to  Peter, 
Paul,  and  John,  and  tlie  apostolic  council  at  Jerusalem  must  all 
be  brought  into  consideration.  And  in  the  Old  Testament  we 
have  to  consider  the  various  covenants  and  the  religious  insti- 
tutions and  laws  that  were  grouped  about  them.  Without 
religion,  with  its  persons,  events,  and  institutions.  Biblical 
Theology  would  lose  its  foundations,  and  without  ethical  re- 
sults it  would  fail  of  its  rich  fruitage.  It  is  therefore  a  whole- 
some movement  of  the  more  recent  Ritsclilians  to  emphasize 
the  religious  and  vital  element  in  early  Christianity.  It  can 
become  unwholesome  only  so  far  as  thej"^  unduly  magnify  this 
element  over  against  tlie  other  equally  important  elements. 

5.  The  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology  presents  the  theology 
of  the  Bible  in  its  historical  formation.  This  does  not  imply 
that  it  limits  itself  to  the  consideration  of  the  various  particu- 
lar conceptions  of  the  various  autliors,  writings,  and  periods, 
as  Weiss,  and  even  Oehler,  maintain,  but  that,  with  Schmid, 
Messner,  Van  Oosterzee  after  Neandei-,  it  seeks  the  unity  in 
the  variety,  ascertains  the  roots  of  the  divergencies,  traces  them 
each  in  their  separate  historical  development,  shows  them  co- 


BIBLIC^VL  THEOLOGY  599 

operating  in  the  formation  of  one  organic  system.  For  Bib- 
lical Theology  would  not  present  :i  mere  conglomerate  of 
heterogeneous  material  in  a  bundle  of  miscellaneous  Hebrew 
literature,  but  would  ascertain  whether  there  is  not  some  prin- 
ciple of  organization  ;  and  it  finds  that  principle  in  a  super- 
natural divine  revelation  and  communication  of  redemption  in 
the  successive  covenants  of  grace,  extending  through  many- 
centuries,  operating  through  manj'  minds,  and  in  a  great  vari- 
ety of  literary  styles,  employing  all  the  faculties  of  man  and  all 
the  types  of  human  nature,  in  order  to  the  accomplishment 
of  one  massive,  all-embracing,  and  everlasting  Divine  Word, 
adapted  to  every  age,  every  nation,  every  type  of  character, 
every  temperament  of  mankind;  the  whole  world. 

V.    The  Place  of  Biblical  Theology 

Biblical  Theology  belongs  to  the  department  of  the  Study  of 
Holy  Scripture  as  a  higher  exegesis,  completing  the  exegetical 
process,  and  presenting  the  essential  material  and  principles  of 
the  other  departments  of  theology. 

The  boimdaries  between  Exegetical  and  Historical  Theology 
are  not  so  sharply  defined  as  those  between  either  of  them  and 
Dogmatic  Theology.  All  Historical  Theology  has  to  deal  with 
sources,  and  in  this  respect  must  consider  them  in  their  variety 
and  unity  as  well  as  their  development ;  and  lience  many  theo- 
logians combine  Exegetical  Theology  and  Historical  Theology 
under  one  head  —  Historical  Theology.  It  is  important,  how- 
ever, to  draw  the  distinction,  for  this  reason.  The  sources  of 
Biblical  Theology  are  in  different  relation  from  the  sources 
of  a  history  of  doctrine,  inasmuch  as  they  constitute  a  body  of 
divine  revelation,  and  are  in  this  respect  to  be  kept  distinct 
from  all  other  sources,  even  cotemporary  and  of  the  same 
nation.  They  have  an  absolute  authority  which  no  other 
sources  can  have.  The  stress  is  to  be  laid  less  upon  their  his- 
torical development  than  upon  them  as  an  organic  body  of 
revelation  ;  and  this  stress  upon  their  importance  as  sources, 
not  only  for  historical  development,  but  also  for  dogmatic 
reconstruction  and  practical  application,  requires  that  the  spe- 


600  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKIPTL'RE 

cial  study  of  them  should  be  exalted  to  a  separate  discipline 
and  a  distinct  branch  of  theologj". 

In  the  biblical  discipline,  Biblical  Theology  occupies  the 
highest  place,  is  the  latest  and  crowning  achievement.  It  is  a 
higher  exegesis,  completing  the  exegetical  process.  All  other 
branches  of  the  study  of  H0I3'  Scripture  are  presupposed  by 
it.  Biblical  Literature  must  first  be  studied  as  sacred  litera- 
ture. All  questions  of  date  of  writing,  integrity,  construction, 
style,  and  authorship  must  be  determined  by  the  principles  of 
the  Higher  Criticism.  Biblical  Canonics  determines  tlie  extent 
and  authorit}-  of  the  various  writings  that  are  to  be  regarded 
as  composing  the  sacred  Canon,  and  discriminates  them  from 
all  other  writings  by  the  criticism  of  the  believing  spirit  enlight- 
ened and  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Church.  Biblical 
Textual  Criticism  ascertains  the  true  text  of  the  Avritings  in 
the  study  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and  citations,  and  seeks  to 
present  it  in  its  pure  primitive  forms.  Biblical  Hermeneutics 
lays  down  the  rules  of  Biblical  Interpretation,  and  Biblical 
Exegesis  applies  these  rules  to  the  various  particular  passages 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Biblical  Theology  accepts  all  these 
rules  and  applications.  It  is  not  its  office  to  go  into  the 
detailed  examination  of  the  verse  and  the  section,  but  it  must 
accept  the  results  of  a  thorough  exegesis  and  criticism  in  order 
to  advance  thereon  and  thereby  to  its  own  proper  work  of 
higher  exegesis  ;  namelj',  rising  from  the  comparison  of  verse 
with  verse,  and  paragraph  with  paragraph,  where  simple  exe- 
gesis is  employed,  to  the  still  more  difficult  and  instructive 
comparison  of  writing  with  writing,  author  with  author,  period 
with  period,  until  by  generalization  and  synthesis  the  theolog)' 
of  the  Bible  is  attained  as  an  organic  whole. 

Biblical  Theolog}'  is  thus  the  culmination  of  Exegetical  The- 
ology, and  must  be  in  an  important  relation  to  all  other  branches 
of  theologj-.  For  Historical  Theology  it  presents  the  great 
principles  of  the  various  periods  of  liistorj',  the  fundamental 
and  controlling  tendencies,  which,  springing  from  human  nature 
and  operating  in  all  the  i-eligions  of  the  world,  find  their  proper 
expression  and  satisfaction  in  the  normal  development  of  Divine 
Revelation,  but  which,  breaking  louse  from  these  salutary  bonds, 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  601 

become  perverted  and  distorted  into  abnormal  forms,  producing 
false  and  heretical  principles  and  radical  errors.  And  so  in 
the  biblical  unity  of  these  tendencies  Biblical  Theology  pre- 
sents the  ideal  unity  for  the  Church  and  the  Christian  in  all 
times  of  the  world's  liistory-  For  Dogmatic  Theolog}',  Biblical 
Theology  affords  the  holy  material  to  be  used  in  Biblical  Apolo- 
getics. Dogmatics,  and  Ethics,  the  fundamental  and  controlling 
material  out  of  which  that  systematic  structure  must  be  built 
which  will  express  the  intellectual  and  moral  needs  of  the  par- 
ticular age.  fortify  the  Church  for  offence  and  defence  in  the 
struggles  with  the  anti-Christian  woi-ld,  and  give  unity  to  its 
life,  its  efforts,  and  its  dogmas  in  all  ages.  For  Practical  The- 
ology it  presents  the  various  tj'pes  of  religious  experience  and 
of  doctrinal  and  ethical  ideas,  which  must  be  skilfully  applied 
to  the  corresponding  differences  of  type  which  exist  in  all 
times,  in  all  churches,  in  all  lands,  and,  indeed,  in  all  religions 
and  races  of  mankind.  Biblical  Theology  is,  indeed,  the  Irenic 
force  which  will  do  much  to  harmonize  the  antagonistic  forces 
and  various  departments  of  theology,  and  bring  about  that 
toleration  within  the  Church  which  is  the  greatest  requisite  of 
our  times. 

VI.    Method  of  Biblical  Theology 

The  method  emploj-ed  bj^  Biblical  Theology  is  a  blending  of 
the  genetic  and  the  inductive  methods.  The  method  of  Bibli- 
cal Theology  arises  out  of  the  nature  of  the  discipline  and  its 
place  in  Theological  Encyclopiedia.  As  it  must  show  the  theol- 
ogy of  the  Bible  in  its  historic  formation,  ascertain  its  genesis, 
the  laws  of  its  development  from  germinal  principles,  the  order 
of  its  progress  in  every  individual  writer,  and  from  writer  to 
writer  and  age  to  age  in  the  successive  periods  and  in  the 
whole  Bible,  it  must  employ  the  genetic  method.  It  is  this 
genesis  which  is  becoming  more  and  more  important  in  our 
discipline,  and  is  indeed  the  chief  point  of  discussion  in  oui 
da}'.  Can  all  be  explained  by  a  natural  genesis,  or  must  an 
extraordinary  divine  influence  be  called  in  ?  The  various  ra- 
tionalistic efforts  to  explain  the  genesis  of  the  biblical  types  of 
doctrine  in  their  variety  and  their  combination  in  a  unity  in  the 


602  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Scriptures  are  extremely  unsatisfactory  and  unscientific.  With 
al]  the  resemblances  to  other  religions,  the  Biblical  Religion  is 
so  different  that  its  differences  must  be  explained,  and  these 
can  only  be  explained  by  the  claims  of  the  sacred  writers  them- 
selves, that  God  Himself  in  various  forms  of  Theophauy  and 
Christophany  revealed  Himself  to  initiate  and  to  guide  the 
religion  of  the  Bible  in  its  various  movements  and  stages. 
Slosaism  centres  about  the  great  Theoi)hany  of  Horeb,  as 
Christianity  centres  about  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
is  the  problem  of  Biblical  Theology,  as  it  has  traced  the  The- 
ology of  the  Jewish  Christian  type  to  the  Theophany  of  Pente- 
cost, and  of  the  Pauline  type  to  the  Christophany  on  the  way 
to  Damascus,  so  to  trace  the  Johannine  tj^pe  and  the  various 
Old  Testament  types  to  corresponding  supernatural  initia- 
tion. The  .Johannine  tj-pe  may  be  traced  to  the  Christopha- 
nies  of  Patraos.  The  Old  Testament  is  full  of  Theophanies 
which  originate  particular  Covenants  and  initiate  all  the  great 
movements  in  the  history  of  Israel.^ 

As  it  has  to  exhibit  the  unity  in  the  variety  of  the  various 
conceptions  and  statements  of  the  writings  and  authors  of 
every  different  type,  style,  and  character,  and  by  comparison 
generalize  to  its  results.  Biblical  Theology  must  employ  the 
inductive  method  and  the  synthetical  process.  This  inductive 
method  is  the  true  method  of  Exegetical  Theology.  The 
details  of  exegesis  have  been  greatly  enriched  bj-  this  method 
during  tiie  present  century,  esiiecially  by  the  labours  of  German 
divines,  and  in  most  recent  times  by  numerous  labourers  in 
Great  Britain  and  America.  But  the  majority  of  the  labourers 
in  Biblical  Theology  have  devoted  tlieir  strength  to  the  work- 
ing out  of  the  historical  principle  of  our  discipline.  Within 
the  various  types  and  special  doctrines  a  large  amount  of  higher 
exegesis  has  been  accomplished  in  recent  j-ears.  The  liighest 
exegesis  in  the  comparison  of  tyjjes  and  their  arrangement  in 
an  organic  system,  with  a  unity  and  determining  principle  out 
of  which  all  originate  and  to  which  they  return  their  fruitage, 
remains  comparativelj'  undeveloped.     Indeed  tlie  study  of  the 

"  See  pp.  542  seq. 


BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  603 

particular  types,  especially  iu  the  Old  Testament,  must  be  con- 
ducted still  further  and  to  more  substantial  results  ere  the 
highest  exegesis  can  fulfil  its  task. 

The  genetic  and  the  inductive  methods  must  combine  in 
order  to  the  best  results.  They  must  cooperate  in  the  treat- 
ment of  every  writing,  of  every  author,  of  every  period,  and  of 
the  whole.  They  must  blend  in  harmony  throughout.  On 
their  proper  combination  the  excellence  of  a  system  of  Biblical 
Theology  depends.  An  undue  emphasis  of  either  will  make 
the  system  defective  and  inharmonious. 

VII.   The  System  op  Biblical  Theology 

This  is  determined  partly  by  the  material  itself,  but  chiefly 
by  the  methods  of  dealing  with  it.  We  must  make  the  divi- 
sions so  simple  that  they  may  be  adapted  to  the  most  elemen- 
tary conceptions,  and  j-et  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace 
the  most  f idly  developed  conceptions ;  and  also  so  as  to  be 
capable  of  a  simple  and  natural  subdivision  in  the  advancing 
periods.  In  order  to  this  we  must  find  the  dominant  principle 
of  the  entire  revelation  and  make  our  historical  and  our  induc- 
tive divisions  in  accordance  with  it.  The  divine  revelation 
itself  might  seem  to  be  this  determining  factor,  so  that  we 
should  divide  historically  by  the  historical  development  of  that 
revelation,  and  synthetically  by  its  most  characteristic  features. 
But  this  divine  revelation  was  made  to  intelligent  man  and 
involved  thereby  an  active  appropriation  of  it  on  his  part,  both 
as  to  its  form  and  substance,  so  that  from  this  point  of  view 
we  might  di\'ide  historically  in  accordance  with  the  great 
epochs  of  the  appropriation  of  divine  revelation,  and  syntheti- 
cally by  the  characteristic  features  of  that  appropriation.  From 
either  of  these  points  of  view,  however,  there  might  be  —  there 
naturally  would  be,  an  undue  emphasis  of  the  one  over  against 
the  other  at  the  expense  of  a  complete  and  harmonious  repre- 
sentation. We  need  some  principle  that  will  enable  us  to 
comVjine  the  subject  and  the  object  —  God  and  man  —  in  the 
unity  of  its  conception.  Such  a  principle  is  happily  afforded 
us  in  the  revelation  itself,  so  distinctly  brought  out  that  it  has 


604  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

been  historicalh*  recognized  in  the  names  given  to  the  two 
great  sections  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments or  Covenants.  Tlie  Covenant  is  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  the  divine  revelation,  to  which  the  divine  revelation 
commits  its  treasures  and  from  which  man  continually  draws 
upon  them.  The  Covenant  has  a  great  variety  of  forms  in 
the  Sacred  Scriptures ;  but  the  most  essential  and  compre- 
hensive form  is  that  assumed  in  the  Mosaic  Covenant  at  Sinai, 
which  becomes  the  Old  Covenant,  preeminently,  and  over 
against  that  is  placed  the  New  Covenant  of  the  Messiah  Jesus 
Christ ;  so  that  the  great  historical  division  becomes  the 
Theology  of  the  Old  Covenant  and  the  Theology  of  the  New 
Covenant. 

The  Covenant  must  also  determine  the  synthetic  divisions. 
The  Covenant  is  a  union  and  communion  effected  between 
God  and  man.  It  involves  a  personal  relationship  which  it 
originates  and  maintains  by  certain  events  and  institutions. 
This  is  religion.  The  Covenant  and  its  relations,  man  appre- 
hends as  an  intelligent  being  by  meditation,  reflection,  and 
reasoning.  All  this  he  comprehends  in  doctrines,  which  he 
apprehends  and  believes  and  maintains  as  his  faith.  These 
doctrines  will  embrace  the  three  general  topics  of  God,  of  Man, 
and  of  Redemption.  The  Covenant  still  further  has  to  do 
with  man  as  a  moral  being,  imposing  moral  obligations  upon 
him  with  reference  to  God  and  man  and  the  creatures  of  God. 
All  these  are  comprehended  under  the  general  term  "Ethics." 
These  distinctions  appl}'  equally  well  to  all  the  periods  of 
divine  revelation  ;  they  are  simple,  they  are  comprehensive, 
they  are  all-pervading.  Indeed  they  interpenetrate  one 
another,  so  that  many  prefer  to  combine  the  three  under  the 
one  term  "  Theolog)' ,"  and  then  treat  of  God  and  man  and  the 
union  of  God  and  man  in  redemption,  in  each  division  by  itself 
with  reference  to  religious,  ethical,  and  doctrinal  questions ; 
but  it  is  easier  and  more  thorough-going  to  keep  them  apart, 
even  at  the  expense  of  looking  at  the  same  thing  at  times 
successively  from  three  different  points  of  view. 

From  these  more  general  divisions  we  may  advance  to  sucli 
subdivisions  as  may  be  justified  in  the  successive  periods  of 


BIBLICAL   TUEOLOGY  605 

Biblical  Theology,  both  on  the  historic  and  synthetic  sides, 
and,  indeed,  without  anticipation. 

Tlie  relation  between  the  historical  and  the  synthetic  divi- 
sions may  be  variously  viewed.  Thus  Ewald,  Dillmann,  and 
Schultz  make  the  historical  divisions  so  entirely  subordinate  as 
to  treat  each  topic  of  theology  by  itself  in  its  history. 

This  metliod  has  great  advantages  in  the  class-room.  It  is 
difficult  to  keep  the  attention  of  students  to  the  development 
of  the  whole  tield  of  Biblical  Theology.  The  lines  are  too 
extended.  It  is  easier  to  show  the  development  by  taking  a 
large  number  of  topics,  one  after  another,  and  tracing  each 
one  in  its  order  in  its  historical  development. ^  The  historical 
divisions  may  be  made  so  prominent  that  the  synthetic  will  be 
subordinated  to  them.  This  leads  towards  making  Biblical 
Theology  a  history  of  the  development  of  theology  in  the 
Bible. 

The  ideal  method  for  a  written  Biblical  Theology  is  not  to 
sacrifice  the  interest  of  the  Avhole  for  any  or  all  particular  sec- 
tions. They  should  be  adjusted  to  one  another  in  their  his- 
torical development  in  the  particular  period.  The  periods 
should  be  so  large  and  distinct  as  to  leave  no  reason  to  doubt 
their  propriety. 

It  will  be  necessary,  to  determine  in  each  period :  (1)  the 
development  of  each  particular  doctrine  by  itself,  as  it  starts 
from  the  general  principle,  and  then  (2)  to  sum  up  the  general 
results  before  passing  over  into  another  period. 

It  will  also  be  found  that  theology  does  not  unfold  in  one 
single  line,  but  in  several,  from  several  dififerent  points  of  view, 
and  in  accordance  with  several  different  types.  It  will  there- 
fore be  necessary,  on  the  one  side,  ever  to  keep  these  types 
distinct,  and  yet  to  show  their  unity  as  one  organism.  Thus 
in  the  Hexateuch  the  great  types  of  the  Ephraimitic,  Judaic, 


'  There  are  undoubtedly  grave  perils  connected  with  this  metliod.  I  think 
these  are  greatly  exaggerated  by  Wrcde  {Atifyabe  tiiid  Metkode  der  soffenannten 
NeuUslamentUchen  Theologie,  1897,  s.  17  seq.).  but  I  nevertheless  think  that 
he  has  rendered  a  real  service  by  pointing  them  out.  On  the  other  hand  he 
seems  to  be  blind  to  the  even  greater  perils  which  beset  the  exaggerated  use  of 
the  historic  method. 


606  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTUKE 

Deuteronomic,  and  priestly  narrators  will  be  distinctly  traced 
until  they  combine  in  the  one  organism  of  our  Hexateuch, 
presenting  the  fundamental  Law  of  Israel.  In  the  histori- 
cal books  the  same  four  types  of  historians  will  be  distin- 
guished and  compared  for  a  higher  unity.  The  four  great 
types  —  the  psalmists,  wise  men,  the  proi^hets,  and  the  scribes 
—  will  be  discriminated,  the  variations  within  the  types  care- 
fully studied  and  compared,  and  then  the  tyi^es  themselves 
brought  into  harmony ;  and  at  last  the  whole  Old  Testament 
will  be  presented  as  an  organic  whole.  The  New  Testament 
will  then  be  considered  in  the  forerunners  of  Christ ;  then  the 
four  types  in  which  the  evangelists  present  the  Theology  of 
Jesus,  each  by  itself,  in  comparison  with  the  others,  and  as  a 
whole.  The  Apostolic  Theologj-  will  be  traced  from  its  origin 
at  Pentecost  in  its  subsequent  division  into  the  great  types, 
the  conservative  Jewish  Christian  of  Saint  James  and  the  ad- 
vanced Je\\ish  Christian  of  Saint  Peter ;  the  GentUe  Christian 
of  Saint  Paul  and  the  Hellenistic  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ; 
and,  finally,  the  Johannine  of  the  Gospel,  Epistles,  and  Apoca- 
lypse of  John ;  and  the  whole  will  be  considered  in  the  unity 
of  the  New  Testament,  i  As  the  last  thing  the  whole  Bible 
will  be  considered,  showing  not  only  the  unity  of  the  Theology 
of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  but  also  the  unity  of  the  Theology 
of  Moses  and  David  and  all  the  prophets  with  the  Theology  of 
Jesus  and  His  apostles,  as  each  distinct  theology  takes  its  place 
in  the  advancing  system  of  divine  revelation,  all  conspiring  to 
the  completion  of  a  perfect,  harmonious,  symmetrical  organism, 
the  infallible  expression  of  God's  wUl,  character,  and  being  to 
His  favoured  cliildren.  At  the  same  time  the  religion  of  each 
l)eriod  and  of  the  wliole  Bible  will  be  set  in  the  midst  of  the 
other  religions  of  tlie  world,  so  that  it  will  appear  as  the  divine 
grace  ever  working  in  humanity,  and  its  sacred  records  as  the 
true  lamp  of  the  world,  holding  forth  the  light  of  life  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  world. 

1  I  have  carefully  considered  the  arguments  of  the  Rltschlians  ;  but  they  have 
not  convinced  me  that  Saint  I'aul  is  so  dominant  of  the  New  TpstamenI  as  they 
suppose,  or  that  they  are  correct  in  their  interpretation  of  Saint  Paul,  or  that 
there  is  so  great  an  antithesis  as  they  tind  between  Saint  Paul  and  the  Twelve. 


CHAPTER   XXIV 

THE   CREDIBILITY   OF    HOLY    SCKIPTURE 

All  of  our  studies  of  the  Bible,  thus  far,  have  led  us  to  the 
threshold  of  the  inquiry  how  far  Holy  Scripture  is  credible  and 
of  divine  authority.  The  deeper  study  of  Holy  Scripture  in 
our  day  has  made  this  a  question  of  far  greater  seriousness  than 
it  has  been  in  any  previous  generation  of  Jews  or  Christians. 
The  prevalent  dogmatic  theories  of  the  inspiration  and  infalli- 
bility of  the  Bible  have  been  undermined  in  the  entire  range  of 
Biblical  Study,  and  it  is  a  question  in  many  minds  whether 
they  can  ever  be  so  reconstructed  as  to  give  satisfaction  to 
Christian  scholars.  It  is  evident  that  such  a  reconstruction  is 
most  necessary  ;  but  men  are  reluctant  to  undertake  it,  for  it 
has  cost  severe  struggles  in  the  past  and  it  is  altogether  proba- 
ble that  still  severer  contests  are  in  store  for  the  men  of  this 
generation  who  have  the  insight,  ability,  and  courage  to  do  so 
great  a  work. 

The  history  of  the  Christian  Church  shows  that  it  is  the 
intrinsic  excellence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  has  given 
them  the  control  of  so  large  a  portion  of  our  race.  With  few 
exceptions,  the  Christian  religion  was  not  extended  by  force 
of  arms  or  by  the  arts  of  statesmanship,  but  by  the  holy  lives 
and  faithful  teaching  of  self-sacrificing  men  and  women  who 
had  firm  faith  in  the  truthfulness  of  their  H0I3'  Scriptures,  and 
who  were  able  to  convince  men  in  all  parts  of  the  world  that 
they  are  faithful  guides  to  God  and  salvation.  A  valid  argu- 
ment for  the  truthfulness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  might  be 
made  from  their  eflicacy  in  the  religious  training  of  so  large  a 
portion  of  mankind,  and  from  the  consecrated  lives  and  the 
supreme  devotion  to  their  religion  of  the  heroes  of  the  faith  in 
all  ages. 

607 


608  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

But  such  iiu  argument  would  only  authenticate  the  substance 
of  Holy  Scripture  :  it  would  not  verify  the  dogmas  about  the 
Bible  that  are  under  fire,  no  more  would  it  disprove  them. 
But  it  ought  to  give  encouragement  to  simple-minded  Christians 
who  are  incapable  of  taking  part  in  theological  controversy. 

I.    The  Bible  A^■D  Other  Sacked  Books 

All  the  great  historical  religions  of  the  world  have  sacred 
books  which  are  regarded  by  their  adherents  as  the  inspired 
word  of  God.  Preeminent  among  these  sacred  books  are  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  for  these  are  now 
the  religious  guides  of  Europe  and  America.  Australia  and  the 
islands  of  the  Pacific,  and  they  are  ever  increasing  their  adher- 
ents in  Asia  and  Africa. 

If  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  classed  with  these  other  sacred 
books  provisionally,  it  is  in  order  that  we  ma)'  define  the  feat- 
ures that  are  common  to  those  books  and  so  distinguish  the 
features  that  are  peculiar  to  each  of  them. 

If  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  those  of  God,  and  the  distinctive  features  of  all  the  other 
sacred  books  are  those  of  man,  the  comparative  studj'  \vill  make 
it  so  evident  that  every  one  in  the  world  will  eventually  see  it. 
That  Christian  who  fears  to  put  his  Bible  to  such  a  test  lacks 
confidence  in  it.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  and  the  New 
Testament  apostles  never  hesitated  to  challenge  all  other  reli- 
gions to  such  a  test.  If  Christians  would  conquer  the  world, 
here  is  an  opportunity  such  as  has  never  before  been  given  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  But  this  comparison  must  be  scien- 
tific, entu-ely  fair,  reasonable,  and  honourable  in  order  to  be 
effective.  Several  faults  are  commonly  committed  by  Christian 
apologists  in  such  comparisons. 

1.  A  great  error  is  committed  by  some  missionaries  and 
apologists  in  laying  stress  upon  the  errors  in  science,  history, 
philosophy,  and  geology,  and  the  grotesque  imagery  found  in 
tiie  sacred  books  of  the  East.  The  same  argument  may  be 
brought  to  bear  on  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  lias  been  brought 
bv  manv  in  our  time.     It  is  said   that  Biblical  Criticism,  in 


THE   CREOIBIMTV   OF   HOLY   SCUU'TURE  609 

pointing  out  errors  in  the  Bible,  is  doing  its  best  to  destroy  the 
Bible,  because  it  is  pursuing  the  same  method  that  our  mis- 
sionaries ai'e  pursuing  in  the  East  in  order  to  show  that  sacred 
books  so  full  of  errors  as  thej-  are  cannot  be  inspired.  Tlie 
argument  is  invalid  on  both  sides.  There  are  errors  in  cita- 
tions, in  geography,  in  science,  and  in  other  matters  also,  in  the 
sacred  books  of  the  East ;  but  there  are  also  errors  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  all  scholars  know.  Does  this  destroy  the  Bible 
as  a  divine  revelation  ?  Some  say  so.  Some  say  that  "  a  proved 
error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  onlj'  our  doctrine,  but  also 
the  Scripture's  claims,  and,  therefore,  its  inspiration  in  making 
these  claims.''  ^  But  these  errors  are  only  in  the  form  and  cir- 
cumstantials, and  not  in  the  essentials.  They  do  not  impair 
any  doctrine  or  principle  of  morals  or  religion.  j\Iany  of  the 
advocates  of  the  religions  of  the  East  are  now  meeting  Chris- 
tian apologists  face  to  face,  and  saying:  "As  there  are  errors  in 
our  sacred  books,  so  there  are  in  your  Bible  also."  The  man 
who  makes  an  attack  can  easily  find  ten  errors  to  one  seen  Ijy  a 
friendly  critic.  The  ^Moslem  has  as  good  a  right  as  the  Chris- 
tian to  say  that  a  sacred  book  which  contains  errors  cannot  be 
inspired.  There  are,  doubtless,  more  errors  in  the  sacred  books 
of  the  East  than  in  the  H0I3'  Scriptures.  Errors  abound  in 
them,  in  comparison  with  which  the  errors  in  the  Holy  Script- 
ures are  inconsiderable.  Yet  it  is  a  false  argument  to  claim 
that  there  is  nothing  reliable  in  these  books  on  that  account. 

We  should  be  entirely  candid  in  all  our  relations  with  men  of 
other  religions  ;  we  should  recognize  all  that  is  true,  noble,  and 
highest  in  their  sacred  books  ;  we  should  tell  the  adherents  of 
these  religions  to  strive  to  reach  the  highest  ideals  of  their  own 
religious,  and  then  they  will  approach  nearest  to  Christianity ; 
then  they  will  be  the  best  subjects  for  the  grace  of  God. 

2.  Another  fault  often  committed  against  the  sacred  books 
of  the  East  is  in  undue  emphasis  on  their  imperfect  morality. 
It  is  astonishing  how  many  Christian  writers  have  been  depre- 
ciating the  sacred  books  of  the  other  religions  of  the  world. 
They  seem  altogether  unconscious  of   the  fact  that  the  same 

'  See  BrigfTs,  Whither,  pp.  68  seq.,  where  this  statement  of  A.  A.  Hodge  and 
B.  B.  Warfield  is  disproved.     See  also  pp.  6I0  seq. 


610  STUDY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

method  may  be  pursued  with  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There  are 
many  who  have  pointed  to  the  mistakes  of  Moses,  and  to  the 
gross  immoralities  and  barbarities  of  the  book  of  Judges.  How 
can  a  divine  religion  countenance  such  barbarities  as  these  ? 
These  arguments  may  be  used  against  the  Bible  with  terrific 
force.  We  commonly  say  that  these  things  represent  a  lower 
stage  of  divine  revelation,  coming  to  men  as  the)-  could  bear  it, 
educating  them,  little  by  little,  to  prepare  them  for  the  higher 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  lower  stage  cannot  be  expected 
to  compare  with  the  higher  stages.  But  we  must  treat  the 
other  religions  of  the  world  in  the  way  in  which  we  are  obliged 
to  treat  the  Old  Testament.  We  must  recognize  that  they 
belong  to  earlier  stages  of  human  development,  that  they  have 
sprung  up,  not  in  Christian  countries,  but  far  away  from  the 
light  of  Christianity.  It  was  the  teaching  of  the  earlier  Church 
and  of  many  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  that  Greek  religion  and 
philosophy  were  used  by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  preparation  for 
Christ ianitj',  to  a  less  degree,  but  no  less  certainly,  than  the 
Jewish  religion  itself ;  and  that  Plato  and  Socrates  were  pre- 
paring the  way  by  which  Christianity  might  achieve  great  vic- 
tories over  the  ancient  world. ^  If  we  recognize  this  as  true 
with  reference  to  the  religion  and  philosophy  of  Greece,  why 
not  recognize  it  as  true  of  the  great  religions  and  sacred 
books  of  the  East  also  ?  May  it  not  be  tliat  God  has  been  pre- 
paring them  by  the  light  of  the  Logos,  who  is  sliining  in  all  the 
world,  so  far  as  they  can  understand  it,  for  the  time  when 
Christianity  shall  be  preached  to  them  ? 

3.  Another  fault  has  been  committed  in  the  study  of  the 
sacred  books  of  the  East.  Christian  men  who  are  compelled 
to  recognize  that  there  are  some  good  things  in  them  which 
cannot  be  explained  away,  try  to  explain  them  as  derived  from 
divine  revelation  by  some  indirect  subterranean  passage  from 
the  Jewish  religion,  or  maintain  that  Christiauitjs  in  some 
secret  and  undiscovered  paths,  has  been  brought  to  bear  upon 
them.  It  has  been  shown  clearly  that  the  Jewish  religion 
derived  more  from  other  ancient  religions  than  it  gave  them. 
The  Jewish  religion  derived  much  from  the  Babylonians  and 

>  See  p.  637. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  611 

Persians,  and  gave  very  little.  The  Cluistiau  religion  has 
been  influenced  much  more  by  Buddhism  than  Buddhism  has 
been  influenced  by  Christianity. 

Some  have  been  alarmed  because  so  many  of  tlie  ethical  say- 
ings of  our  Lord  have  been  found  in  the  sayings  of  Jewish 
rabbins  before  the  time  of  our  Lord.  Granted  that  Holy  Script- 
ure lias  derived  much  from  other  religious,  that  only  brings 
out  one  of  its  characteristics  of  excellence.  It  gives  the  re- 
ligion of  Humanity ;  it  appropriates  everything  good  in  man 
or  religion  found  anywhere  in  the  world ;  it  takes  up  into 
itself  everything  that  is  good ;  it  goes  on  absorbing  the  best 
features  of  other  religions,  as  all  the  rivers  are  absorbed  by  the 
ocean.  The  national  and  provincial  religions  and  mere  secta- 
rianism have  shut  themselves  up  from  everything  that  is 
derived  from  others.  But  the  religion  of  Humanity,  tlie  uni- 
versal religion,  appropriates  everything  that  is  good  and  noble 
from  all. 

These  faults  of  advocates  and  polemic  divines  have  greatly 
injured  the  cause  of  Christianity  in  its  relation  to  other  re- 
ligions, and  have  greatly  retarded  the  influence  of  the  Bible 
upon  men  of  other  faiths.  But  a  large  number  of  scholars 
have  been  studying  the  science  of  religion  with  industry  and 
abundant  fruit ;  they  have  not  hesitated  to  discern  the  true 
excel>ences  of  other  religious  books,  and  to  point  out  the 
defects  of  Holy  Scripture,  as  a  result  of  the  comparative  study 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  world. 

"  But  what  shall  we  say,  then,  of  the  pagan  religions  which  teach 
exactly  the  same  doctriue  ?  Shall  we  say  thej-  borrowed  it  from 
Christianity  ?  That  would  be  doing  violence  to  history.  Shall 
we  say  that,  though  they  iise  the  same  words,  they  did  not  mean 
the  same  thing  ?  That  would  be  doing  violence  to  our  sense  of 
truth.  Wliy  not  accept  the  facts  such  as  they  are  ?  At  first,  I 
quite  admit,  some  of  the  facts  which  I  have  quoted  in  ray  lect- 
ures are  startling  and  disturbing.  But,  like  most  facts  which 
startle  us  from  a  distance,  they  lose  their  terror  when  we  look 
them  in  the  face,  nay,  they  often  prove  a  very  Godsend  to  those 
who  are  honestly  grappling  with  the  difficulties  of  which  religion 
is  full.  Anyhow,  they  are  facts  that  must  be  met,  that  cannot  be 
ignored.     And  why  should  they  be  ignored  ?     To  those  who  see 


612  STUDY   OF    HOLY    SCRIPTURE 

no  difficulties  in  their  own  religion,  the  study  of  other  religions 
AviU  create  no  new  difficulties.  It  will  only  help  them  to  appre- 
ciate more  fully  what  they  already  possess.  For  with  all  that  I 
have  said  in  order  to  show  that  other  religions  also  contain  all 
that  is  necessary  for  salvation,  it  would  be  simply  dishonest  on 
my  part  were  I  to  hide  my  conviction  that  the  religion  taught  by 
Christ,  and  free  as  yet  from  all  ecclesiastical  fences  and  iutrench- 
ments,  is  the  best,  the  purest,  the  truest  religion  the  world  has 
ever  seen.  When  I  look  at  the  world  as  it  is,  I  often  say  that  we 
seem  to  be  living  two  thousand  years  before,  not  after,  Christ." ' 

We  may  now  .sa}'  to  all  men:  All  the  sacred  books  of  the 
world  are  accessible  to  you.  Study  them,  compare  them, 
recognize  all  that  is  good  and  noble  and  true  in  them  all,  and 
tabulate  the  results,  and  j-ou  Avill  be  convinced  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  true,  holy,  and 
divine.  When  we  have  gone  searcliingh-  through  them  all,  the 
sacred  books  of  other  religions  are  as  torches  of  varying  size 
and  brilliancj-,  lighting  up  the  darkness  of  the  night ;  but  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  like  the 
sun,  dawning  in  the  earliest  writings  of  the  Old  Testament, 
rising  in  prophetic  word  and  priestly  thora,  in  l3Tic  psalm,  and 
in  sentence  of  wisdom  until  the  zenith  is  reached  in  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Take  them, 
therefoi'e,  as  the  guide  of  your  religion,  your  salvation,  and  your 
life. 

II.   Science  and  the  Bible 

The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Christians  are  now  the  centre  of 
a  world-wide  contest.  We  are  living  in  a  scientific  age  which 
demands  that  every  traditional  statement  shall  be  tested  b}" 
patient,  thorough,  and  exact  criticism.  Science  explores  the 
earth  in  its  heights  and  depths,  its  lengths  and  breadths,  in 
search  of  all  the  laws  which  govern  it  and  the  realities  of 
which  it  is  composed.  Science  explores  the  heavens  in  quest 
of  all  the  mysteries  of  the  universe  of  God.  Science  searches 
the  body  and  the  soul  of  man  in  order  to  determine  his  exact 
nature  and  character.  Science  investigates  all  tlie  monuments 
of  history,  wliether  they  are  of  stone  or  of  metal,  whether  they 

>  Max  iliiller.  Physical  Jieli(iwn.  1891.  pp.  363-364. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   SCIUPTURE  613 

are  the  product  of  man's  handiwork,  or  the  construction  of  his 
voice  or  pen.  Tliat  man  must  be  lacking  in  intelligence  or  in 
observation  who  imagines  that  the  sacred  books  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  or  the  institutions  of  the  Church  can  escape  the 
criticism  of  this  age.  It  will  not  do  to  oppose  science  with 
religion,  or  criticism  with  faith.  Criticism  makes  it  evident 
that  a  faith  which  shrinks  from  criticism  is  a  faith  so  weak  and 
uncertain  that  it  excites  suspicion  as  to  its  life  and  reality. 
Science  goes  on  in  its  exact  and  thorough  work,  confident  that 
every  form  of  religion  which  resists  it  will  erelong  crumble 
into  dust. 

Searchers  after  truth  have  found  in  all  ages  that  they  have 
been  resisted  by  the  same  kind  of  Pharisees  as  those  who  re- 
sisted the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  Saint  Paul.  These  are 
always  found  guarding  ancient  traditions  in  venerable  tombs, 
while  the  neglected  truth  of  God  is  springing  up  in  beautiful 
flowers  and  jjlants  of  grace  all  around  them.^ 

All  departments  of  human  investigation  sooner  or  later  come 
in  contact  with  the  Christian  Scriptures.  All  find  something 
that  either  accords  with  or  conflicts  with  their  investigations. 
If  the  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  are  altogether  true,  infal- 
lible, and  inerrant,  they  ought  to  exert  a  controlling  influence 
on  all  these  studies.  If  there  is  irreconcilable  difference 
between  the  Bible  and  the  results  of  these  studies,  the  student 
is  compelled  to  choose  between  them.  All  the  world  knows 
the  history  of  the  conflict  between  scientific  men  and  defenders 
of  the  thesis  that  the  Bible  is  infallible  in  all  its  statements 
about  matters  of  science.  So  long  as  this  thesis  was  enforced 
by  ecclesiastical  authority  against  scientific  men,  science  was 
throttled ;  scientific  men  took  their  lives  in  their  hands  in 
every  investigation.  The  first  stage  of  the  conflict  resulted 
in  the  delivery  of  science  from  the  thraldom  of  the  ecclesi- 
astics. The  next  stage  of  the  conflict  was  the  advance  of 
science  in  spite  of  all  the  opposition  of  the  dogmaticians, 
until  the  situation  emerged  in  which  science  pursued  its  own 
independent  way  without  giving  any  heed  to  the  statements 
of  the  theologians.  No  real  student  is  checked  for  a  moment 
1  See  pp.  8  seq. 


614  STUDY   OF  nOLT   SCRIPTrRE 

b3'  -any  apparent  conflict  between  the  results  of  his  science  and 
a  statement  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  has  learned  that  the 
Bible  was  not  given  to  teach  science  but  religion,  and  that  the 
statements  of  the  Bible  which  come  in  conflict  with  science 
are,  from  tlie  point  of  view  of  their  authors,  as  a  part  of 
the  hiinian  setting  of  the  truth  of  God,  and  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  part  of  the  true,  infallible,  divine  instruction  com- 
mitted to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  This  is  the  real  situa- 
tion at  the  present  time,  however  uncomfortable  it  may  be  for 
those  who  still  think  it  necessary  to  defend  the  inerrancy  of 
the  Bible  in  every  particular  statement.  The  question  thus 
forces  itself  upon  us.  Can  we  maintain  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  in  the  face  of  all  these  modern  sciences '? 

We  are  obliged  to  admit  that  there  are  scientific  errors  in 
the  Bible,  errors  of  astronomy,  of  geology,  of  zoology,  of  bot- 
any, and  of  anthropology.  In  all  these  respects  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  author  of  these  sacred  writings  had  any  other 
knowledge  than  that  possessed  b}'  their  cotemporaries.  They 
were  not  in  fact  taught  by  the  Holy  Spirit  any  higher  know- 
ledge of  these  subjects  than  others  of  their  age.  Theii"  state- 
ments are  just  such  as  indicate  a  correct  observation  of  the 
phenomena  as  they  would  apjjear  to  an  accurate  observer  at  the 
time  when  they  wrote.  It  is  evident  in  a  cursory  examination 
that  they  had  not  that  insight,  that  foresight,  and  that  grasp  of 
conception  and  power  of  expression  in  these  matters  which 
they  exhibit  when  they  wrote  concerning  matters  of  religion. 
If.  as  all  must  concede,  it  was  not  the  intent  of  God  to  give  to 
the  ancient  world  the  scientific  knowledge  of  our  nineteenth 
century,  why  should  any  one  suppose  that  the  Divine  Spirit 
influenced  them  in  relation  to  any  such  matters  of  science  ? 
Why  should  they  be  kejDt  from  misconception,  from  misstate- 
ment, and  from  error  ?  The  divine  purpose  was  to  use  tliem  as 
religious  teachers.  So  long  as  they  made  no  mistakes  in  reli- 
gious instruction,  they  were  trustworthy  and  reliable,  even  if 
they  erred  in  some  of  those  matters  in  which  they  come  in  con- 
tact with  modern  science.  The  fact  that  the  errors  are  few 
show  us,  not  that  they  were  restrained  from  error  by  an  irre- 
sistible impulse  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  but  rather  that  they  were 


( 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   iJCKU'TURE  615 

in  that  exalted  spiritual  frame  of  mind  which  made  them  so 
anxious  to  be  trutlif ul  that  they  abstained  from  those  extrava- 
gant speculations  and  crude  conceptions  which  mark  the  writ- 
ers of  ancient  times  who  wei"e  less  spirituall}"  minded. 

III.    The  C.ijsON  and  Inerrancy 

It  is  maintained  by  some  modern  theologians,  of  the  Prince- 
ton School  of  Theology,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy  of  the 
original  autographs  of  Holy  Scripture  is  an  essential  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  religion.  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  condemned 
me  for  heresy  because  I  declined  to  say  that  the  original  auto- 
graphs were  inerrant.  The  statement  upon  which  I  was  tried 
and  condemned  was : 

"It  has  been  taught  in  recent  years,  and  is  still  taught  b}'  some 
theologians,  that  one  proved  error  destroys  the  authority  of  Script- 
ure. I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  there  are 
errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has  been  able  to  explain  away ; 
and  the  theory  that  they  were  not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer 
assumption,  upon  which  no  mind  can  rest  with  certaintj-.  If  such 
errors  destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it  is  already  destroj-ed 
for  historians.  'Men  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  truth  and  fact. 
But  on  what  authority  do  these  theologians  drive  men  from  the 
Bible  by  this  theory  of  inerrancy  ?  The  Bible  itself  nowhere 
makes  this  claim.  The  creeds  of  the  Church  nowhere  sanction  it. 
It  is  a  ghost  of  modern  evangelicalism  to  frighten  children.  The 
Bible  has  maintained  its  authority  with  the  best  scholars  of  our 
time,  who  with  open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recognize  any 
error  that  might  be  pointed  out  by  Historical  Criticism  ;  for  these 
errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in  the  essentials ;  they 
are  in  the  human  setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself ;  they  are 
found  in  that  section  of  the  Bible  that  theologians  commonly 
account  for  from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the  mind  of 
the  author,  as  distinguished  from  divine  revelation  itself."  ' 

The  decision  of  the  General  Assembly  was  the  following  : 

"We  find  that  the  doctrine  of  the  errancy  of  Scripture,  as  it 
came  from  them  to  whom  and  through  whom  God  originally  com- 
municated His  revelation,  is  in  conflict  with  tlie  statemeuts  of  the 

'  Briggs,  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  p.  35. 


616  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Holy  Scripture  itself,  which  asserts  that  all  Scripture  or  every 
Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God  (2  Tim.  3"^),  that  the 
prophecy  came  not  of  old  by  the  will  of  man,  but  that  holj-  men 
of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (2  Peter  1-') ; 
and  also  with  the  statements  of  the  standards  of  the  Church  which 
assert  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
are  the  Word  of  God  (Larger  Catechism,  question  3),  of  infallible 
truth  and  divine  authority  (Confession,  Chapter  I.,  section  5)." ' 

This  remarkable  statement  of  doctrine  is  apparently  due  to 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  General  Assembly.  Of 
course  no  scholar  could  vote  for  such  a  iiropositiou  :  it  shows 
such  profound  ignorance  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Westminster 
symbols,  and  it  presents  such  an  unjust  caricature  of  mj-  opin- 
ion. In  point  of  fact,  all  the  scholarly  members  of  the  Assembl)' 
protested  against  it  to  the  number  of  sixtj'-three.  But  they 
were  overcome  bj-  a  niajorit}-  who,  blinded  by  partisanship,  and 
in  a  panic  about  tlie  Bible,  had  not  taken  the  trouble  to  inform 
themselves  as  to  the  real  issue  and  as  to  the  serious  conse- 
quences of  their  votes  before  tliey  cast  them. 

The  question  in  dispute  was  not  whether  there  are  errors  in 
the  present  accessible  texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  whether  or 
not  these  errors  were  in  the  original  autograj)hs.  This  Assem- 
bly attempted  to  define  what  were  the  original  autographs: 
"  Scripture  as  it  came  from  them  to  whom  and  through  ^^•hom 
God  originally  communicated  His  revelation."  The  Scripture 
in  their  opinion  consisted  of  the  writings  as  first  written  down 
by  those  to  whom  God  communicated  His  revelation.  We  must 
go  back  of  all  the  texts  till  we  get  to  the  original  autographs 
of  the  authors  before  we  have  the  inerrant  Scripture.  What 
has  the  criticism  of  the  Canon  to  say  to  this  astonishing  dogma  ? 

1.  We  have  studied  the  liistor}'  of  the  formation  of  the 
Canon  and  then  the  criticism  of  the  Canon. ^  We  have  seen  that 
the  Canon  was  a  gradual  formation  ;  first  the-  Law,  then  the 
Prophets,  then  the  Writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  then  the 
Gospels,  then  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  finally  the  Catholic 
Epistles  and  Apocalypse  of  the  New  Testament-     The  Cauoni- 

'  TTie  Case  against  Professor  Briygs,  Part  III.  p.  309. 
3  See  Chaps.  V.,  VI. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   bCKIl'TURE  617 

cal  Scripture  was  ever  historically  the  Scripture  in  the  text  at 
the  time  recognized  by  the  Synagogue  and  the  Church.  No 
one  ever  thought  of  searching  for  the  original  autographs. 
And  from  the  point  of  view  of  canonical  criticism  it  is  ever 
the  text  of  Scripture  in  one's  hands  that  is  recognized  as  ca- 
nonical or  not.  From  this  point  of  view,  it  is  evident  that 
what  is  canonical  in  Holy  Scripture  is  entirely  independent 
of  any  special  form  of  the  text  or  of  the  original  autographs. 

It  is  true  that  the  Protestant  Reformers  and  the  Puritans  in 
their  symbolical  books  made  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts  the 
final  appeal  in  matters  of  religion  over  against  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  which  made  the  Latin  Vulgate  the  final 
authority  ;  but  even  the  Protestants  did  not  think  of  making 
the  original  autographs  their  authority.  They  knew  as  well 
as  we  do  that  they  had  them  not  and  could  never  have  them. 
The  Protestants  appealed  to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts  that 
they  knew,  and  devoted  themselves  chiefl}-  to  translating  them 
into  modern  languages  to  give  the  Word  of  God  to  the  people; 
and  they  used  these  translations  as  the  Word  of  God  of  infalli- 
ble, divine  authority.  No  one  in  the  time  of  the  Reformation 
was  so  foolhardy  as  to  aflirm  that  "  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is 
not  in  the  Latin  Bible,  is  not  in  the  Greek  Testament  of  Eras- 
mus, is  not  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  of  Bomberg,  but  is  solel}-  and 
alone  in  the  original  autographs  of  the  inspired  authors,"  which 
have  not  one  of  them  been  in  the  possession  of  the  Church 
since  the  second  century  a.d.  It  was  a  rational  position  for  the 
Council  of  Trent  to  make  the  Latin  Vulgate  the  authoritative 
Bible  and  to  provide  for  a  correct  official  text.  It  would  be  a 
reasonable  procedure  for  a  Protestant  assembly  to  decide  that 
the  Massoretic  Hebrew  text  of  Ben  Asher  and  the  Greek  Bible 
of  the  Vatican  codex  should  be  the  final  arbiter,  as  the  most 
correct  texts  at  present  attainable.  But  it  is  altogether  irra- 
tional to  take  the  position  that  the  inerraut  Bible  is  solely  and 
alone  in  the  original  autographs  which  no  one  has  seen  since 
the  Church  had  a  Canon,  and  which  no  one  can  ever  see. 

When  one  clearly  recognizes  the  essential  principles  of  ca- 
nonical criticism,  he  sees  clearly  that  that  which  is  canonical 
in  Holy  Scripture  must  be  in  every  recognized  text  and  in 


618  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

every  recognized  version,  and  that  the  Canon  cannot  be  con- 
fined to  any  version,  or  to  any  text,  still  less  to  the  original 
autographs.  In  point  of  fact,  so  far  as  the  evidence  goes,  the 
original  autographs  of  Holy  Scripture  were  never  recognized 
as  canonical.  It  was  not  until  the  Holy  Writings  had  l)een 
copied  and  circulated  that  they  received  that  general  recogni- 
tion which  is  essential  to  canonicity.  The  copies,  which  in 
many  cases  were  many  degrees  distant  from  the  autographs, 
were  recognized  as  canonical ;  and  in  no  case,  so  far  as  we  can 
determine,  were  the  autographs  recognized  as  canonical. 

It  is  instructive  just  here  to  note  that  the  early  Church  took 
no  pains  whatever  to  preserve  the  autographs  of  the  apostolic 
founders  of  the  Church.  No  autograph  of  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul 
or  St.  John  or  St.  James  was  known  to  the  early  Church ;  still 
less  an  autograph  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour.  ^ 

2.  The  question  of  the  original  autographs  is  not  so  simple 
and  easy  of  solution  as  the  majority  of  this  General  Assembly 
seem  to  have  thought.  The  question  emerges.  Which  autograph 
do  you  seek  ?  What  shall  we  say  as  regards  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord  at  the  close  of  the  Gospel  of  ^lark? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  not  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark 
as  that  Gospel  "  came  from  him  to  whom  and  through  whom 
God  originally  communicated  His  revelation."  It  was  appended 
to  Mark.^  And  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  story  was 
attached  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark  at  an  early  date,  and  that  it 
has  been  recognized  as  no  less  truly  canonical  and  divinely 
inspired  than  any  other  part  of  the  Gospel.  Is  it  now  to  be 
cast  out  of  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture  because  it  was  not  in 
the  original  autograph  of  Mark?  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the 
two  chief  texts  of  Luke  ?  ^  Which  of  these  two  is  the  original 
autograph  ?  They  have  both  been  recognized  by  the  Church 
for  centuries  as  canonical,  one  bj*  one  section  of  the  Church, 
and  the  other  by  another  section.  Is  it  first  necessary  for  us 
to  determine  this  question  before  we  can  liave  access  to  the 
original,  inerrant,  inspired  autographs'?  Or  will  it  be  sufficient 
to  recognize  either  or  both  texts  as  inspired  Scripture,  although 
they  are  discrepant  and  both  of  them  not  without  errors  ? 
J  See  p.  190.  *  Sec  p.  314.  »  See  p.  202. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY  SCRH'TURE  619 

If  we  regard  tlie  last  chapter  of  Romans  as  not  in  the  original 
autograph  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,^  does  this  remove  it 
from  the  Canon  of  inerrant,  inspired  Scripture  ?  And  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  difference  between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
Bibles '!  If  we  compare  the  Greek  version  with  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  Writings,  it  is  evident  that  editors  and  scribes  have 
been  at  work  subsequent  to  the  time  wheu  the  translations  were 
made  of  the  texts  upon  which  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
original  authorities  rely.^  The  additions  to  Daniel,  Esther, 
and  Ezra  in  the  Greek  version  show  the  work  of  editors  and 
scribes  upon  these  books.  There  are  also  serious  differences 
in  Jeremiah,  the  Psalter,  and  the  book  of  Proverbs.  Even  in 
the  Pentateuch  the  arrangement  of  the  material  is  different. 
If  we  maintain  that  in  all  cases  the  Hebrew  text  should  be 
followed,  and  the  work  of  the  scribes  upon  the  Hebrew  nianu 
scripts  which  underlie  the  Greek  text  should  be  rejected,  we 
are  met  with  the  use  of  the  Greek  text  by  the  apostles  in  the 
New  Testament  and  bj-the  Christian  Fathers  in  the  sub-apostolic 
age.  But  what  shall  we  saj'  of  the  editors  and  scribes  who 
have  made  the  editorial  changes,  which  may  be  traced  in  the 
Hebrew  text  itself  ?  Can  we  fix  a  time  when  the  Divine  Spirit 
ceased  to  guide  the  sacred  scribes  who  edited  and  reedited, 
arranged  and  rearranged  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 
Will  it  be  necessary  to  eliminate  all  the  editorial  additions  and 
glosses,  readjust  all  the  transpositions,  correct  all  the  mistakes, 
and  restore  the  text  to  the  exact  original  before  we  get  at  the 
original  inerrant  Scripture  ?  When  any  one  gives  his  serious 
attention  to  the  practical  work  of  criticism,  as  it  has  been 
described  in  the  pages  of  this  book,  he  will  see  in  what  an 
untenable  position  he  involves  himself  by  recognizing  errors  in 
all  documents  accessible  to  us,  and  by  insisting  solely  and  alone 
upon  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs.  In  point  of 
fact  as  regards  the  greater  part  of  the  writings  of  Holy  Script- 
ure, it  may  be  said  that  the  original  autographs,  as  they  "came 
from  Ihem  to  whom  and  through  whom  God  originally  commu- 
nicated His  revelation,"  were  not  the  ones  which  were  recog- 
nized by  the  Church  as  inspired  and  canonical  ;  but  the  Jews 
'  See  pp.  315  sej.  2  gee  pp.  173, 314. 


620  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

and  the  Christians  alike  recognized  rather  the  documents  as 
they  came  from  the  hands  of  later  editors  at  many  stages  of 
removal  from  the  original  autographs. 

3.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  fact  that  the  original  autographs 
of  the  holy  men  and  prophets,  from  whom  the  Holy  Scriptures 
came,  were  edited  and  changed  with  so  much  freedom  by  the 
later  editors  from  whom  our  Bible  ultimately  came. 

One  would  suppose  that  no  original  autograph  that  ever  was 
written  could  be  so  holy,  inerrant,  and  safe  from  change  as  the 
Logia  of  Jesus  by  the  apostle  Matthew.  And  yet  the  Logia 
was  used,  in  part,  in  quite  drastic  ways  by  both  our  Matthew 
and  Luke,  and  then  neglected  and  ultimately  lost.  The  only 
way  in  which  we  can  recover  it  is  by  the  process  of  criticism. 
The  most  precious  words  in  the  Old  Testament  are  those  of  the 
Psalter.  And  }-et  nothing  is  more  evident  than  the  fact  that 
many  of  the  choicest  psalms  have  passed  through  the  hands  of 
man}-  editors  in  a  number  of  minor  and  major  psalters,  before 
they  attained  their  present  form  in  our  Psalter.^ 

Our  Psalter,  as  it  has  been  used  in  Jewish  and  Christian 
worship  for  two  thousand  years,  is  the  work  of  editors  as  much 
as  authors  ;  and  he  who  would  seek  the  original  autographs  of 
the  original  poets  has  a  long  and  difficult  road  to  travel,  and 
one  in  which  no  certainty  can  be  attained.  One  can  hardly 
conceive  of  Dr.  Harsha,  or  even  Dr.  Warfield,  travelling  that 
pathway  to  inerrancj-  and  certainty. 

If  inerrancy  and  certainty  are  only  to  be  found  in  this  way, 
they  will  never  be  found.  Certainty  has  never  been  found  in 
this  way.  Such  autographs  the  Church  and  the  Synagogue 
have  never  known.  If  we  could  find  them,  in  all  probability 
we  would  see  them  containing  as  many  errors,  if  not  more, 
than  the  present  texts.  This  much  we  do  know,  that  in  all 
these  editorial  matters  the  scribes  made  errors  before  the  fixing 
of  the  Canon,  as  well  as  subsequent  thereto.  Criticism  can 
find  no  errorless  scribe,  no  inerrant  person.  This  is  immaterial 
so  long  as  the  religious  instruction,  as  given  in  tliese  books,  is 
trustworthy,  is  truthful  and  reliable. 

1  See  pp.  312,  ;!21. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  621 


IV.   Textual  Criticism  axd  Credibility 

It  is  conceded  by  all  biblical  scholars  at  the  present  time 
that  there  are  errors  in  all  the  texts  and  versions  of  the  Bible 
accessible  to  us,  but  it  is  urged  by  some  dogmaticians  that  if 
we  had  the  original  autographs  we  would  find  them  free  from 
error  and  altogether  inerrant  and  infallible.  From  the  point 
of  view  of  biblical  science  this  is  a  mere  speculation.  It  would 
not  be  worthy  of  consideration  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  it  is 
urged  as  an  essential  dogma  by  a  dominant  party  in  the  Ameri- 
can Presbyterian  Church. 

Textual  criticism  shows  that  the  best  texts,  versions,  and 
citations  of  these  Holy  Scriptures  that  we  can  get  have  numer- 
ous and  important  discrepancies.  The  errors  do  not  decrease 
in  number  as  we  work  our  way  back  in  the  laborious  processes 
of  criticism  toward  the  original  text.  The  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  Samaritan  and  the  IMassoretic  Hebrew  codices, 
between  the  earliest  Hebrew  manuscripts  and  the  earliest  man- 
uscripts of  the  Greek  version,  between  the  New  Testament 
citations  and  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  are  so  numerous 
tliat  few  biblical  scholars  are  able  to  take  a  comprehensive 
view  of  them  and  to  make  a  competent  judgment  upon  them. 
Tlie  most  exact  textual  criticism  leaves  us  with  numerous 
errors  in  Holy  Scripture  just  where  we  find  them  in  the  trans- 
mitted texts  of  other  sacred  books. 

How  far  does  the  exact  condition  of  the  text  of  the  Bible 
impair  its  credibility?  How  far  does  the  science  of  textual 
criticism  go  to  verify  the  truthfulness  of  Holy  Scripture  ? 

1.  So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  the  theory  of 
Buxtorf,  Heidegger,  Turretine,  Voetius,  Owen,  and  the  Zurich 
Consensus,  that  the  vowel  points  and  accents  were  original  and 
inspired,  has  been  so  utterly  disproved  that  no  biblical  scholar 
of  the  present  day  would  venture  to  defend  them.^  But  can 
their  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  stand  without  these  sup- 
ports ?  Looking  at  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  from  the  point 
of  view  of  textual  criticism,  we  see  at  once  that  there  can  be 

1  See  pp.  220  seq. 


622  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

no  inspiration  of  the  written  letters  or  uttered  sounds  of  our 
present  Hebrew  text ;  for  these  are  transliterations  of  the 
original  Hebi-ew  letters  which  have  been  lost,i  and  the  sounds 
are  traditional,  and  in  man}-  respects  artificial  and  uncertain. 
While  there  is  a  general  correspondence  of  these  letters  and 
sounds  so  that  they  give  us  essentially  the  original,  the}'  do 
not  give  us  exactl}-  the  original.  The  inspiration  must  there- 
fore lie  back  of  the  written  letters  and  the  littered  sounds,  and 
be  sought  in  that  which  is  common  to  the  old  characters  and 
the  new,  the  utterance  of  the  voice  and  the  constructions  of 
the  pen;  namely,  in  the  concepts,  the  sense  and  meaning  that 
they  convey. 

"  All  language  or  writing  is  but  the  vessel,  the  symbol,  or  decla- 
ration of  the  rule,  not  the  rule  itself.  It  is  a  certain  form  or 
means  by  which  the  divine  truth  cometh  unto  us,  as  things  are 
contained  in  words,  and  because  the  doctrine  and  matter  of  the 
text  is  not  made  unto  one  but  by  words  and  a  language  which  I 
understand ;  therefore  I  say,  the  Scriptm-e  in  English  is  the  rule 
and  ground  of  my  faith,  and  whereupon  I  relj-ing  have  not  a 
humane,  but  a  divine  authority  for  my  faith."  ^ 

Holy  Scripture  was  not  meant  for  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
nations  alone,  or  for  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars,  but  for  all 
nations  and  the  people  of  God.  It  is  given  to  the  world  in  a 
great  varietj-  of  languages  with  a  great  variety  of  letters  and 
sounds,  so  that  the  sacred  truth  approaches  each  one  in  his 
native  tongue  in  an  appropriate  relation  to  his  understanding, 
just  as  at  Pentecost  the  same  Divine  Spirit  distributed  Himself 
in  cloven  tongues  of  fire  upon  a  large  number  of  different  per- 
sons. Thus  every  faithful  translation  as  an  instrument  conveys 
the  Divine  Word  to  those  who  read  or  hear  it : 

"For  it  is  not  the  shell  of  the  words,  but  the  kernel  of  the 
matter  which  commends  itself  to  the  consciences  of  men,  and  that 
is  the  same  in  all  languages.  The  Scriptures  in  English,  no  less 
than  in  Hebrew  or  Greek,  display  its  lustre  and  exert  its  power 
and  discover  the  character  of  its  divine  original." ' 

This  is  shown   by  the   process  of   translation  itself.     The 

'  See  p.  170.  -  Lyford,  Plain  3fan's  Sfnxe  Exercised,  etc.,  p.  49. 

'  Matthew  Poole,  Blow  at  the  Boot,  London,  1679,  p.  234. 


THE   CREDIBILITV   OF   HOLY   SCIUPTURE  623 

translator  does  not  transliterate  the  letters  and  syllables,  trans- 
mute sounds,  give  word  for  word,  transfer  foreign  words  and 
idioms ;  but  he  ascertains  the  sense,  the  idea,  and  then  gives 
expression  to  the  idea,  the  sense,  in  the  most  appropriate  v.-Ay. 
It  is  admitted  that  close,  literal  translations  are  bad,  mislead- 
ing, worse  than  paraphrases  ;  Aquila  has  even  been  a  warning 
in  this  regard.^  The  method  of  Ezra  is  far  preferable,  to  give 
the  sense  to  the  people  without  the  pedantry  and  subtilties  of 
scholarship.     As  another  Puritan  sa3s  : 

"Now,  what  shall  a  poor  unlearned  Christian  do,  if  he  hath 
nothing  to  rest  his  poore  soul  on  ?  The  originals  he  understands 
not;  if  he  did,  the  first  copies  are  not  to  be  had;  he  cannot  tell 
whether  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  copies  be  the  right  Hebrew  or  the 
right  Greek,  or  that  which  is  said  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
or  Greek,  but  as  men  tell  us,  who  are  not  prophets  and  maj^  mis- 
take. Besides,  the  trauscribers  were  men  and  might  err.  These 
considerations  let  in  Atheisme  like  a  flood."  ^ 

It  is  a  merciful  providence  that  divine  insjiiration  is  not  con- 
fined to  particular  woi-ds  and  phrases,  and  grammatical,  logical, 
or  rhetorical  constructions  ;  and  that  the  same  divine  truth 
may  be  presented  in  a  variety  of  synonymous  words  and  phrases 
and  sentences.  It  is  the  method  of  divine  revelation  to  give 
the  same  laws,  doctrines,  narratives,  expressions  of  emotion, 
and  prophecies  in  great  variety  of  forms.  None  of  these  are 
adequate  to  convej'  the  divine  idea,  but  in  their  combination 
it  is  presented  from  all  those  varied  points  of  view  that  rich, 
natural  languages  afford,  in  order  that  the  mind  and  heart  may 
grasp  the  idea  itself,  appropriate  and  reproduce  it  in  other 
forms  of  language,  and  in  the  motives,  principles,  and  habits 
of  everj'-day  life.  The  external  word,  written  or  spoken,  is 
purely  instrumental,  conveying  divine  truth  to  the  soid  of 
man,  as  the  eye  and  the  ear  are  instrumental  senses  for  its 
appropriation  by  the  soul.  It  does  not  work  ex  opere  operato 
by  any  mechanical  or  magical  power. 

As  the  Lutherans  tend  to  lay  the  stress  upon  the  sacraments, 
in  their  external  operation,  and  the  Anglicans  upon  the  exter- 
nal organization  of  the  Church,  so  the  Reformed  have  ever  been 

1  See  p.  191.  *  Kich.  Capel,  liemains,  London,  1658. 


624  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCIUPTUKE 

in  peril  of  laying  the  stress  ou  the  letter,  the  external  operation 
of  the  Word  of  God.  The  Protestant  principle  struggles  against 
this  confounding  of  the  means  of  grace  with  the  divine  grace 
itself,  this  identification  of  the  instrument  and  the  divine  agent, 
in  order  therefore  to  their  proper  discrimination.  This  is  the 
problem  left  unsolved  by  the  Reformation,  on  wliich  the  sepa- 
rate churches  of  Protestantism  have  been  working,  and  which 
demands  a  solution  from  the  Church  of  tlie  nineteenth  century. 
Here  the  most  radical  question  is  that  of  the  Divine  Word  and 
its  relation  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Tliis  solved,  all 
the  other  questions  will  be  solved.  Herein  the  churches  of  the 
Reformation  may  be  harmonized.  Its  solution  can  come  only 
from  a  further  working  out  of  the  critical  principles  of  the 
Reformation ;  not  by  logical  deduction  from  the  creeds  and 
scholastic  dogmas  alone,  but  by  a  careful  induction  of  the  facts 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  The  fundamental  distinction 
between  the  external  and  the  internal  word  is  well  stated  by 
John  Wallis,  one  of  the  clerks  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  : 

"The  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  a  Lantliorn  rather  than  a 
Light;  they  shine,  indeed,  but  it  is  alieno  Inmine;  it  is  not  their 
own,  but  a  borrowed  light.  It  is  God  which  is  the  true  light  that 
shines  to  us  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  they  have  no  other  light  in 
them,  but  as  they  represent  to  us  somewhat  of  God,  and  as  they 
exhibit  and  hold  forth  God  to  us,  who  is  the  true  hglit  that '  eu- 
lighteneth  every  man  that  comes  into  the  workl.'  It  is  a  light, 
then,  as  it  represents  God  unto  us,  who  is  the  original  light.  It 
transmits  some  rays ;  some  beams  of  the  divine  nature ;  but  they 
are  refracted,  or  else  we  should  not  be  able  to  behold  them.  They 
lose  much  of  their  original  lustre  by  passing  through  this  medium, 
and  appear  not  so  glorious  to  us  as  thej-  are  in  themselves.  They 
represent  God's  simplicity  obliquated  and  refracted,  by  reason  of 
many  inadequate  conceptions;  God  condescending  to  the  weak- 
ness of  our  capacity  to  speak  to  us  in  our  own  dialect." ' 

The  Scriptures  are  lamps,  vessels  of  tlio  most- holy  cliaracter, 
but  no  less  vessels  of  the  divine  grace  tlian  were  the  apostles 
and  prophets  who  spake  and  wrote  them.  As  vessels  tliey  have 
come  into  material  contact  with  the  forces  of  this  world,  with 
human  weakness,  ignorance,  prejudice,  and  folly  ;   their  forms 

•  Sermons,  London,  1791,  pp.  127-128. 


THE   CKEDIBIMTY   OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE  625 

have  been  modified  in  the  course  of  the  generations,  but  their 
divine  contents  remain  unchanged.  We  shall  never  be  able  to 
attain  the  sacred  writings  in  the  original  letters  and  sounds  and 
forms  in  which  they  gladdened  the  eyes  of  those  who  lirst  saw 
them,  and  rejoiced  the  hearts  of  those  who  first  heard  them. 
If  the  external  words  of  these  originals  were  inspired,  it  does 
not  profit  us.  We  are  cut  off  from  them  forever.  Interposed 
between  us  and  them  is  the  tradition  of  centui'ies  and  even 
millenniums.  Doubtless  by  God's  "singular  care  and  provi- 
dence they  have  been  kept  piu-e  in  all  ages,  and  are  therefore 
authentical."^  Doubtless  throughout  the  whole  work  of  the 
authors  "  the  Holy  Spirit  was  present,  causing  His  energies  to 
flow  into  the  spontaneous  exercises  of  the  writei's"  faculties, 
elevating  and  cUrecting  where  need  be,  and  everywhere  se- 
curing the  errorless  expression  in  language  of  the  thought 
designed  by  God "  ;  ^  but  we  cannot  in  the  symbolical  or  his- 
torical use  of  the  term  call  this  providential  care  of  His  Word, 
or  superintendence  over  its  external  production,  inspiration. 
Such  providential  care  and  superintendence  is  not  diiJerent  in 
kind  with  regard  to  the  AVord  of  God,  the  Church  of  God,  or 
the  foi-ms  of  the  sacraments.  Inspiration  lies  back  of  the 
external  letter  :  it  is  that  which  gives  the  Word  its  efficacy  ; 
it  is  the  divine  afflatus  -which  enlightened  and  guided  holy 
men  to  apprehend  the  truth  of  God  in  its  appropriate  forms, 
assured  them  of  their  possession  of  it,  and  called  and  enabled 
them  to  make  it  known  to  the  Church  by  voice  and  pen.  This 
made  their  persons  holy,  their  utterances  holy,  their  writings 
hoi}-,  but  only  as  the  instruments,  not  as  tlie  holj-  thing  itself. 
The  divine  Logos  —  that  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  Script- 
ure, the  holy  of  holies,  whence  the  Spirit  of  God  goes  forth 
through  the  holy  place  of  the  circumstantial  sense  of  tj-jae  and 
symbol,  and  literary  representation,  into  the  outer  court  of  the 
words  and  sentences,  through  them  to  enter  by  the  ear  and  eye 
into  the  hearts  of  men  witli  enlightening,  sanctifying,  and  sav- 
ing power  : 

1  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  I.  viii. 

-A.  A.  Hodge  and  B.  B.  Warfield,  art.  ••  luspiratiou,"  Presbyterian  Eevieio, 
II.  231. 

2s 


626  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCKU'TUKE 

"  Inspiratioa  is  more  than  superintending  guidance,  for  that  ex- 
presses but  an  external  relation  between  the  Spirit  and  writer.  But 
Inspiration  is  an  influence  within  the  soul,  divine  and  supernatiiral, 
working  through  all  the  writers  in  one  organizing  method,  making  of 
the  manj'  one,  bv  all  one  hook,  the  Book  of  God.  the  Book  for  man, 
divine  and  human  in  all  its  parts;  having  the  same  relation  to  all 
other  books  that  the  Person  of  the  Son  of  God  has  to  all  other  men, 
and  that  the  Church  of  the  living  God  has  to  all  other  institutions." ' 

True  criticism  never  disregards  the  letter,  but  reverently 
and  tenderly  handles  every  letter  and  syllable  of  the  Word  of 
God,  striving  to  purify  it  from  all  di'oss,  brushing  away  the 
dust  of  tradition  and  guarding  it  from  the  ignorant  and  pro- 
fane. But  it  is  with  no  superstitious  dread  of  magical  virtue 
or  virus  in  it,  or  anxious  fears  lest  it  should  dissolve  in  the 
hands,  but  with  an  assured  trust  that  it  is  the  tabernacle  of 
God,  through  whose  external  courts  there  is  an  approach  to 
the  Lord  Jesus  Himself.  "  Bibliolatry  clings  to  the  letter ; 
spirituality  in  the  letter  finds  the  spirit  and  does  not  disown 
the  letter  which  guided  to  the  sj^irit-''^ 

Such  criticism  has  accomplished  great  things  for  the  New 
Testament  text.  It  will  do  even  more  for  the  Old  Testament 
so  soon  as  the  old  superstitious  reverence  for  Massoretic  tradi- 
tion has  been  laid  aside  by  Christian  scholars.  Critical  theories 
first  come  into  conflict  with  the  church  doctrine  of  inspiration 
when  they  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  truth  and  facts  of 
Scripture ;  when  they  superadd  another  authoritative  and  pre- 
dominant test,  whether  it  be  the  reason,  the  conscience,  or  the 
religious  feeling.  But  this  is  to  go  beyond  the  sphere  of 
evangelical  criticism  and  enter  into  the  fields  of  rationalistic, 
ethical,  or  mystical  criticism.  Evangelical  criticism  conflicts 
only  with  false. views  of  inspiration.  It  disturbs  the  inspiration 
of  versions,  the  inspiration  of  the  Massoretic  text,  the  inspiration 
of  particular  letters,  syllables,  and  external  words  and  expres- 
sions :  and  truly  all  those  who  rest  upon  these  external  things 
ought  to  be  disturbed  and  driven  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit, 
from  clinging  to  the  outer  walls,  to  seek  Him  who  is  the  sum 
and  substance,  the  Master  and  the  King  of  the  Scriptures. 

>  H.  B.  Smith,  Sermon  on  Inspiration,  1855,  p.  21.  =■  In  I.e.,  p.  36. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   SCRU'TUKE 


V.   The  Higher  Criticism  axd  Credibility 

This  is  the  most  delicate  and  ditBcult  question  of  the  Higher 
Ci'iticism  with  reference  to  all  literature,  but  especially  with 
reference  to  Biblical  Literature.  That  there  are  errors  in  the 
present  text  of  our  Bible,  and  inconsistencies,  it  is  vain  to  deny. 
There  are  chronological,  geographical,  and  other  circumstantial 
inconsistencies  and  errors  which  we  should  not  hesitate  to 
acknowledge.  Such  circumstantial  and  incidental  errors  as 
arise  from  the  inadvertence  or  lack  of  information  of  an  author, 
are  not  an  impeachment  of  his  credibility.  If  we  distinguish 
between  revelation  and  inspiration,  and  yet  insist  upon  inerrancy 
with  reference  to  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former,  we  virtually 
do  away  with  the  distinction.  No  mere  man  can  escape  alto- 
gether human  errors  unless  divine  revelation  set  even  the  most 
familiar  tilings  in  a  new  and  infallible  light,  and  also  so  control 
him  that  he  cannot  make  a  slip  of  the  eye  or  the  hand,  a  fault 
in  the  imagination,  in  conception,  in  reasoning,  in  rhetorical 
figure,  or  in  grammatical  exjiression  ;  and  indeed  so  raise  him 
above  his  fellows  that  he  shall  see  through  all  their  errors  in 
science  and  philosophj-  as  well  as  theology,  and  anticipate  the 
discoveries  in  all  branches  of  knowledge  by  thousands  of  years. 
Errors  of  inadvertence  in  minor  details,  where  the  author's  posi- 
tion and  character  are  well  known,  do  not  destroy  his  credibility 
as  a  witness  in  any  literature  or  any  court  of  justice.  It  is  not 
to  be  presumed  that  divine  inspiration  lifted  the  author  above 
his  age,  any  more  than  was  necessaiy  to  conve}'  the  divine  reve- 
lation and  the  divine  instruction  with  infallible  certainty  to 
mankind.  We  have  to  take  into  account  the  extent  of  the 
author's  human  knowledge,  his  point  of  view  and  type  of 
thought,  his  methods  of  reasoning  and  illustration.  The  ques- 
tion of  credibility  is  to  be  distinguished  from  that  of  infalli- 
bility.    The  form  is  credible,  the  substance  alone  is  infallible. 

The  Higher  Criticism  studies  all  the  literary  phenomena  of 
Holy  Scripture.  It  has  thus  far  done  an  inestimable  service  in 
the  removal  of  the  traditional  theories  from  the  sacred  books, 
so  that  they  may  be  studied  in  their  real  structure  and  character. 


628  STUDY   OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

The  Higher  Criticism  recognizes  faults  of  grammar  and  rhetoric, 
and  of  logic  iu  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  ScriiDtures.  The  bib- 
lical authors  used  the  language  with  which  they  wei-e  familiar; 
some  of  them  classic  Hebrew,  others  of  them  dialectic  and  cor- 
rupted Hebrew.  Some  of  them  have  a  good  prose  style  ;  others 
of  them  have  a  dull,  tedious,  pedantic  style.  Some  of  them 
are  poets  of  the  highest  rank  ;  others  of  them  write  such  infe- 
rior poetry  that  one  is  surprised  that  they  did  not  use  prose. 
Some  of  them  reason  clearly,  profoundly,  and  convincingly ; 
others  of  them  reason  in  a  loose,  obscure,  and  unconvincing 
manner.  Some  of  them  present  the  truth  like  intuitions  of 
light ;  others  labour  with  it,  and  eventually  deliver  it  in  a  crude 
and  undeveloped  form.  The  results  of  these  studies  show  that 
in  all  these  respects  the  biblical  authors  were  left  to  themselves, 
to  their  own  indi\'idualities  and  idiosyncrasies.  All  these  mat- 
ters belong  to  the  manner  and  method  of  their  instruction. 
Errors  in  these  formal  things  do  not  impair  the  infallibilitj''  of 
the  substance,  the  religious  instruction  itself. 

The  Higher  Criticism  shows  us  the  process  by  which  the 
sacred  books  were  produced ;  that  the  most  of  them  were  com- 
posed by  unknown  authors ;  that  they  have  jjassed  through  the 
hands  of  a  considerable  number  of  unknown  editors,  who  have 
brought  together  the  older  material  without  removing  discre- 
pancies, inconsistencies,  and  errors.  Take  the  Pentateuch,  the 
earliest  canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  composed  of  four 
great  documents,  whose  authors  are  unknown  to  us.  These  doc- 
uments were  consolidated  by  an  unknown  editor  in  the  times  of 
the  Restoration.  Each  of  these  documents  is  made  up  of  still 
older  documents  and  soiu-ces.^  These  may,  within  certain 
limits,  be  assigned  to  their  times  of  comj^osition,  but  not  to 
their  authors.  In  tliis  process  of  editing,  arranging,  addi- 
tion, subtraction,  reconstruction,  and  consolidation,  extending 
through  many  centuries,  wliat  evidence  have  we  that  these 
unknown  editors  were  kept  from  error  in  all  their  work  ? 
Witli  the  precious  divine  instruction  in  tlieir  hands  it  seems 
altogether  likely  that  they  were  left  to  their  honest  human 
judgment  without  any  constraint  or  restraint  of  a  divine  intlu- 

1  See  p.  322. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  629 

ence,  just  as  later  copj-ists  and  editors  have  been  left  to  them- 
selves. They  were  men  of  God,  and  judging  from  their  work, 
they  were  guided  b}-  the  Divine  Spirit  in  their  apprehension 
and  expression  of  the  divine  instruction,  but  also  judging  from 
their  work,  it  seems  most  probable  that  they  were  not  guided 
by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  their  grammar,  in  their  rhetoric,  in 
their  logical  expressions,  in  their  arrangement  of  their  material, 
or  in  their  general  editorial  work.  In  all  these  matters  they 
were  left  to  those  errors,  which  even  the  most  faithful  and 
most  scrupulous  writers  will  sometimes  make.  Unless  we  take 
some  such  position  we  are  reallj'  exposed  to  the  peril  of  making 
the  Holy  Spirit  the  author  of  bad  grammar,  of  the  incorrect 
use  of  words,  of  inelegant  expressions,  and  of  disorderly 
arrangement  of  material ;  which,  indeed,  was  charged  upon  the 
critics  of  the  seventeenth  century  by  their  earliest  opponents. ^ 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  we  are  not 
prepared  to  admit  errors  in  the  Scrij^tures,  until  they  shall  be 
proven.  Very  many  of  those  alleged  have  already  received 
sufficient  or  plausible  explanation ;  others  are  in  dispute  be- 
tween truth-seeking  scholars,  and  satisfactory  explanations 
may  hereafter  be  given.  New  difficulties  are  constantly  arising 
and  being  overcome.  The  question  whether  there  are  errors  is 
a  question  of  fact  to  which  all  theories  and  doctrines  must 
5neld.  It  cannot  be  determined  by  a  priori  definitions  and 
statements  on  either  side.  Indeed  the  original  autographs 
have  been  lost  for  ages  and  can  never  be  recovered.  How  can 
we  determine  whether  they  were  absolutely  errorless  or  not  ? 
To  assume  that  it  must  be  so,  as  a  deduction  from  the  theory 
of  verbal  inspiration,  is  to  beg  the  whole  question. 

Richard  Baxter  truly  says: 

"  And  here  I  must  tell  you  a  great  and  needful  truth,  which  .  .  . 
Christians  fearing  to  confess,  bj'  overdoing  tempt  men  to  Infidelity. 
The  Scripture  is  like  a  man's  body,  where  some  parts  are  but  for 
the  preservation  of  the  rest,  and  may  be  maimed  without  death. 
The  sense  is  the  soid  of  the  Scripture,  and  the  letters  but  the 
body  or  vehicle.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed,  Lord's  Prayer  and 
Decalogue,  Baptism   and   the   Lord's   Supper   is  the  vital   part, 

1  See  p.  276. 


630  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

and  Christianity  itself.  The  Old  Testament  letter  (written  as  we 
have  it  about  Ezra's  time)  is  that  vehicle,  which  is  as  imperfect 
as  the  revelation  of  these  times  was.  But  as  after  Christ's  incar- 
nation and  ascension  the  Spirit  was  more  abundantly  given,  and 
the  revelation  more  jierfect  and  sealed,  so  the  doctrine  is  more 
full,  and  the  vehicle  or  body,  that  is,  the  words,  are  less  imperfect 
and  more  sure  to  us ;  so  that  he  that  doubteth  the  truth  of  some 
words  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  some  circumstances  in  the 
New,  hath  no  reason  therefore  to  doubt  of  the  Christian  religion, 
of  which  these  writings  are  but  the  vehicle  or  body,  sufficient  to 
ascertain  us  of  the  truth  of  the  History  and  Doctrine." ' 

Higher  Criticism  comes  into  conflict  with  the  authority  of 
Scripture  when  it  finds  that  its  doctrinal  statements  are  not 
authoritative  and  its  revelations  are  not  credible.  If  the 
credibility  of  a  book  is  impeached,  its  divine  authority  and 
inspiration  are  also  impeached.  But  to  destroj'  credibility 
something  more  must  be  presented  than  errors  in  matters  of 
detail  that  do  not  affect  the  author's  scope  of  argument  or  his 
religious  instructions.  It  is  an  unsafe  position  to  assume  that 
we  must  first  prove  the  credibility,  inerrancy,  and  infallibility 
of  a  book  ere  we  accept  its  authority.  If  inquirers  waited 
until  all  the  supposed  errors  in  our  canonical  books  were  satis- 
factorily explained,  they  would  never  accejDt  the  Bible  as  a 
divine  revelation.  To  press  the  critics  to  this  dilemma,  iner- 
rant  or  uninspired,  might  be  to  catch  them  on  one  of  the  horns 
if  they  were  not  critical  enough  to  detect  the  fallacy  and 
escape,  but  it  would  be  more  likely  to  catch  the  people,  who 
know  nothing  of  criticism,  and  so  undermine  and  destroy  their 
faith. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  already  strengthened  the  credi- 
bility of  Scripture.  It  has  studied  the  human  features  of  the 
Bible  and  learned  the  wondrous  variety  of  form  and  colour 
assumed  by  the  divine  revelation.  IMany  of  the  supposed 
inconsistencies  have  been  found  to  be  different' modes  of  repre- 
senting the  same  thing,  complementary  to  one  another  and 
combining  to  give  a  fuller  representation  than  any  one  mode 
could  ever  have  given;  as  the  two  sides  of  the  stereoscopic  view 
give  a  representation  superior  to  that  of  tlie  ordinary  photo- 

'  Tlie  Catechizing  I'f  Families,  1083,  p.  36. 


THE   CREDIBILITY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  631 

graph.  The  unity  of  statement  found  in  the  midst  of  such 
wondrous  variety  of  detail  in  form  and  colour  is  much  more 
convincing  than  a  unity  of  mere  coincidence  such  .as  the  older 
harmonists  sought  to  obtain  by  stretching  and  strainhig  the 
Scriptures  on  the  i^rocrustean  bed  of  their  hair-splitting  scho- 
lasticism. Many  of  the  supposed  inconsistencies  have  been 
found  to  arise  from  different  stages  of  divine  revelation,  in  each 
of  which  God  condescended  to  the  weakness  and  the  ignorance 
of  men,  and  gave  to  them  the  knowledge  that  they  could  appro- 
priate, and  held  up  to  them  ideals  that  they  could  understand 
as  to  their  essence  if  not  in  all  their  details.  The  earlier  are 
shadows  and  types,  crude  and  imperfect  representations  of 
better  things  to  follow.^  ilany  of  the  supposed  inconsistencies 
result  fi-om  the  popular  and  unscientilic  language  of  the  Bible, 
thus  approaching  the  people  of  God  in  different  ages  in  con- 
crete forms  and  avoiding  the  abstract.  The  inconsistencies 
have  resulted  from  the  scholastic  abstractions  of  those  who 
would  use  the  Bible  as  a  text-book,  but  they  do  not  exist  in 
the  concrete  of  the  Bible  itself.  Many  of  the  supposed  incon- 
sistencies arise  from  a  different  method  of  logic  and  rhetoric 
in  the  Oriental  writers  and  the  attempt  of  modern  scholars  to 
measure  them  by  Occidental  methods.  Many  of  the  incon- 
sistencies result  from  the  neglect  to  appreciate  the  poetic  and 
imaginative  element  in  the  Bible  and  a  lack  of  asthetic  sense 
on  the  part  of  its  interpreters.  The  Higher  Criticism  has 
already  removed  a  large  number  of  difficulties,  and  will  remove 
many  more  when  it  has  become  a  more  common  study  among 
scholars. 

VI.    Historical  Criticism  axd  Credibility 

We  have  seen  that  there  are  historical  mistakes  in  Holy 
Scripture,  mistakes  of  chronologj'  and  geography,  errors  as  to 
historical  events  and  persons,  discrepancies  and  inconsistencies 
in  the  histories  which  cannot  be  removed  by  any  legitimate 
method  of  interpretation. ^ 

The  Historical  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  finds  discre- 

1  Heb.  85,  10',  11*0 ;  Col.  2".  ^  See  pp.  512  seq. 


632  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

pancies  between  the  parallel  narratives  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
and  between  the  different  sources  which  have  been  compacted 
by  later  editors  in  the  Hexateuch,  and  in  the  prophetic  his- 
torians. A  comparison  of  these  with  the  prophetical  and  the 
poetical  ^v^itings  also  makes  it  evident  that  there  are  historical 
errors  in  these  books.  It  is  exti'emeh^  improbable  that  these 
are  all  due  to  copyists  and  scribes  who  worked  upon  the  sacred 
writings  subsequent  to  the  formation  of  the  Canon.  It  is  more 
reasonable  to  suppose  that,  in  all  this  historical  framework  of 
the  divine  revelation,  the  sacred  writers  and  scribes  were  left 
to  themselves  to  make  those  few  mistakes,  which  the  best  men 
will  sometimes  make  in  their  most  conscientious  and  pains- 
taking writing  of  history. 

All  such  errors  are  just  where  you  would  expect  to  find 
them  in  accurate,  truthful  writers  of  history  in  ancient  times. 
They  used  with  fidelity  the  best  sources  of  information  acces- 
sible to  them :  ancient  poems,  popular  traditions,  legends  and 
ballads,  regal  and  family  archives,  codes  of  law,  and  ancient 
narratives. 1  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  received  any  of 
this  history  by  revelation  from  God.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  Divine  Spirit  corrected  their  narratives  either  when 
they  were  lying  uncomposed  in  their  minds,  or  written  in  man- 
uscripts. The  purpose  of  the  ancient  historians  was  to  give 
the  history  of  God's  redemptive  workings.  There  is  evidence 
that  they  were  guided  by  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  conception 
of  their  plan,  and  in  the  working  of  it  out  so  as  to  give  the 
religious  education  which  is  embedded  in  these  histories.  This 
made  it  necessary  that  there  should  be  no  essential  errors  in 
the  redemptive  facts  and  agencies,  but  it  did  not  make  it  neces- 
sary that  there  should  be  no  mistakes  in  dates,  in  places,  and 
in  persons,  so  long  as  these  did  not  change  tlie  religious  les- 
sons or  the  redemptive  facts.  None  of  the  mistakes,  discre- 
pancies, and  errors  which  have  been  discovered  disturb  the  great 
religious  lessons  of  biblical  historj'.  These  lessons  are  the 
only  ones  whose  credibility  we  are  concerned  to  defejid.  All 
other  things  belong  to  the  human  framework  of  the  divine 
story,  and  it  is  altogether  probable  that  in  this  framework  the 

1  See  pp.  565  seq. 


THE   CREDIBILITY  OF  HOLY   SCRIPTURE  G33 

authors  were  left  to  their  own  honest  judgment.  They  do  not 
show  in  their  historical  writing  that  insight,  foresight,  and 
grasp  which  they  show  when  thej^  are  pointing  the  religious 
lessons  of  history.  Where  that  insight,  foresight,  and  grasp 
are  lacking,  we  may  know  that  the  writers  have  been  left  to 
themselves,  to  the  free  exercise  of  their  human  faculties. 

Thus  all  departments  of  the  stud}-  of  Holy  Scripture  lead  to 
the  result  that  there  are  numerous  errors  of  detail  in  Holy 
Scripture,  that  there  are  no  such  things  as  inerrant  documents 
of  any  kind ;  but  that  the  substance  of  Holy  Scripture,  the 
divine  teaching  as  to  religion,  faith,  and  morals,  is  errorless 
and  infallible. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

THE   TRUTHFULNESS   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

All  departments  of  Biblical  Criticism  lead  us  to  errors  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  The  sciences  which  approach  the  Bible  from 
without  and  the  sciences  which  study  it  from  within  agree  as 
to  the  essential  facts  of  the  case.  In  all  matters  which  come 
within  the  sphere  of  human  observation,  and  which  constitute 
the  framework  of  tlie  divine  instruction,  errors  may  be  found. 
Can  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture  be  maintained  by  those  who 
recognize  these  errors  ? 

It  is  claimed  by  some  dogmatic  theologians  and  their  parti- 
sans, that  "  a  proved  error  in  Scrij^ture  contradicts  not  only  our 
doctrine,  but  the  Scripture  claims  and,  therefore,  its  inspiration 
in  making  those  claims."^  This  statement  challenges  scientific 
men,  historians,  and  biblical  scholars  to  abandon  either  their 
studies  or  their  Bible.  In  reply  to  such  a  challenge  scholars 
say  to  these  dogmaticians :  "  There  are  errors  in  the  Bible. 
Your  dogma  is  a  piece  of  human  folly  and  pi-esumption."  This 
party  defend  their  thesis  by  an  a  priori  argument.  They 
say :  "  God  is  true.  He  speaks  a  true  word.  His  word  is  an 
inerrant  word.  The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God.  Therefore  the 
Bible  is  inerrant."  This  argument  is  plausible,  but  superficial 
and  specious.     Both  its  premises  are  untrustworthy. 

I.     Is   THE    BiULE   the    WoRD   OF    GOD? 

The  minor  premise  of  their  argument,  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God,  needs  qualification  and  explanation ;  otherwise  it 
begs  the  whole  question.  The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  in  the 
sense  that  its  essential  contents  are  the  word  of  God.     But  it 

1  See  p.  609. 
634 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS  OF   HOLY   SCIUI'TUUE  G35 

is  not  the  word  of  God  in  the  sense  that  its  every  word,  sen- 
tence, and  chiuse  is  the  word  of  God.  From  that  point  of 
view  we  must  rather  say  the  Bible  contains  the  word  of  God. 
The  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  in  the  sense  that  it  contains  a 
divine  word  of  religious  instruction  to  men.  But  we  must 
distinguish  in  the  Bible  between  the  divine  word  of  instruc- 
tion and  the  human  vessel  wliich  contains  that  divine  Mord. 
The  errors  of  Holy  Scripture  are  in  the  vessel,  the  frame- 
work, the  setting;  not  in  the  contents,  or  the  substance  of  the 
Bible.  Therefore  even  if  the  major  premise  be  true  that  a 
divine  word  must  be  inerrant,  the  corrected  minor  ijremise 
would  only  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  divine  word  of  in- 
struction in  the  Bible  is  inerrant,  and  it  would  leave  room 
for  errors  in  the  liuman  setting. 

There  is  no  a  priori  reason  why  the  substantial  truthfulness 
of  the  Bible  should  not  be  consistent  with  circumstantial  errors. 
God  Himself  did  not  speak,  according  to  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures, moi-e  than  a  few  M'ords,  in  theophanies,  which  are  recorded 
liere  and  there  in  the  Old  Testament.  God  speaks  in  much 
the  greater  part  of  the  Old  Testament  through  the  voices  and 
pens  of  the  human  authors  of  the  Scriptures.  Did  the  human 
voice  and  pen  in  all  the  numerous  writers  and  editors  of  Holy 
Scripture  prior  to  the  completion  of  the  Canon  always  deliver 
an  inerrant  word  ? 

Even  if  all  the  writers  were  so  possessed  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  to  be  merely  passive  in  His  hands,  the  question  arises :  Can 
the  finite  voice  and  the  finite  pen  deliver  and  express  the  iner- 
rant truth  of  God?  If  the  language,  and  the  style,  and  the 
dialect,  and  the  rhetoric  are  all  natural  to  the  inspired  man,  is 
it  possible  for  these  to  express  the  infinite  truth  of  God  ?  How 
can  an  imperfect  word,  sentence,  and  clause  exjjress  a  perfect 
divine  truth  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  were 
not  as  a  rule  in  the  ecstatic  state.  The  Holy  Spirit  did  not 
move  their  hands  or  their  lips.  He  suggested  to  their  minds 
and  hearts  the  divine  truth  they  were  to  teach.  They  received 
it  by  intuition  in  the  forms  of  their  reason.  They  framed  it  in 
conception,  in  imagination,  and  in  fancy.  They  delivered  it  in 
tne  logical  and  rhetorical  forms  of  speech.     If  the  divine  truth 


636  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCIUPTURE 

passed  tbrough  the  conception  and  imagination  of  the  human 
mind,  did  the  human  mind  conceive  it  fully  without  any  defect, 
without  an}-  fault,  without  any  shading  of  error  ?  Had  the 
human  conception  no  limitations  to  its  reception  of  the  divine 
truth?  Had  the  human  imagination  and  fancj- no  colour's  to 
impart  to  the  holy  instruction  ?  Did  the  human  mind  add 
nothing  to  it  in  reasoning  or  conception  ?  Was  it  delivered  in 
its  entirety  exactly  as  it  was  received  ?  How  can  we  be  sure  of 
this  when  we  see  the  same  doctrine  in  such  variety  of  forms, 
all  partial,  all  inadequate  ?  How  can  we  know  this  when  we 
find  the  same  ethical  principle  in  such  a  variety  of  shading  ? 
If  the  human  medium  could  hardly  fail  to  modify  the  divine 
truth  received  bj-  it  in  revelation,  how  much  more  must  the 
human  medium  influence  the  divine  instruction  in  connec- 
tion with  biblical  history,  lyric  poetry,  sentences  of  wisdom, 
and  works  of  the  imagination  which  make  up  the  body  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Here  the  mass  of  the  material  was  derived 
from  human  sources  of  information  :  the  history  depended  upon 
oral  and  documentary  evidence ;  the  lyric  poetry  was  the  ex- 
pression of  human  emotion ;  the  sentence  of  wisdom  was  the 
condensation  of  human  ethical  experience ;  the  works  of  the 
imagination  were  efforts  to  clothe  religious  lessons  in  artistic 
forms  of  grace  and  beauty.  All  that  we  can  claim  for  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  production  of  these  parts  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is  an  inspiration  which  suggests  the  religious  lessons  to 
be  imparted. 

If,  as  some  claim,  in  addition,  there  was  a  providential  super- 
intendence guarding  the  biblical  writers  from  everj'  kind  of 
error,  we  are  compelled  to  state  that  this  guarding  from  error 
is  the  matter  in  contention.  It  cannot  be  assumed.  It  has  to 
be  proven.  It  is  improbable,  and  it  cannot  be  accepted  except 
through  the  most  conclusive  reasons,  which  no  one  has  j'et 
been  able  to  present. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  tliat  the  presumption  is  that  the  human 
spokesman  of  the  divine  word  has  given  the  divine  word  in  as 
true  and  original  a  form  as  possible ;  and  yet  that  the  limita- 
tions of  his  mind,  liis  language,  and  the  circumstances  of  his 
time  make  it  probable  that  he  could  give  it  only  partially,  and 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  637 

that  lie  wo\iUl  accompany  its  expression  with  sucli  errors  as 
would  spring  from  his  ignorance  and  inadvertence  in  cir- 
cumstantial matters. 


II.    Must  God  speak  Inekrant  Words  to  Max? 

The  major  premise  of  this  argument  is  also  specious  and 
needs  rectification.  We  cannot  assume  that  when  God  speaks 
to  men  He  must  always  speak  an  inerraut  word.  God  is  true, 
He  is  the  truth.  There  is  no  error  or  falsehood  in  Him.  He 
cannot  lie.  He  cannot  mislead  or  deceive  His  creatures. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  But  the  question  arises, 
When  the  infinite  God  speaks  to  finite  man,  must  He  speak 
words  which  are  inerrant?  This  depends  not  onlj-  upon 
God's  speaking,  but  upon  man's  hearing,  and  also  upon  the 
means  of  communication  between  God  and  man.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  show  the  capacity  of  man  to  receive  the  inerrant  word 
and  the  adequacy  of  the  means  to  convey  the  inerrant  word  as 
well  as  the  inerrancy  of  God,  before  we  can  be  sure  that  God 
can  only  commimicate  inerrant  words  to  man.  We  may  be 
certain  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  speaker  of  the  word,  but  how 
can  it  be  shown  that  the  means  of  communication  are  inerrant, 
or  that  man  is  capable  of  receiving  an  inerrant  word  ?  It  is 
necessary-  that  we  should  consider  that  in  all  His  relations  to 
man  and  nature  God  condescends.  The  finite  can  only  con- 
tain a  part  of  the  infinite.  God  limits  Himself  when  He 
imparts  anything  of  Himself  to  the  creature.  In  the  con- 
verse of  heaven  we  may  say  that  there  may  be  inerrant  com- 
munications. In  the  commands  of  God  to  seraphs  and  angels 
God  may  be  conceived  of  as  speaking  inerrant  words.  But 
has  God,  in  fact,  spoken  inerrant  woi-ds  to  weak,  ignorant,  sin- 
ful men  in  a  world  so  imj^erfect  and  inharmonious  as  oiu's? 
We  may  argue  from  analogies. 

1.  The  book  of  nature  discloses  much  of  the  glory  and 
power  and  wisdom  of  the  God  in  creation  and  providence. 
But  are  these  disclosures  inerrant?  Can  we  formulate  an 
exact  doctrine  of  the  attributes  of  God  from  these  disclosures 
of  nature  ?     No  one  believes  it.     Nature  is  incapable  of  doing 


638  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

anj'  more  tlian  of  disclosing  faint,  partial,  and  fallible  words 
of  God.  The  material  universe  is  incapable  of  doing  any  more 
than  to  give,  in  many  varying  colours,  faint  reflections  of  the 
liglit  of  the  spiritual  world. 

It  may  be  asked,  "  May  not  a  revelation  in  nature,  though  in- 
complete, be  inerrant  as  far  as  it  goes  ?  "  To  this  it  may  be 
replied,  yes,  if  it  go  only  so  far  in  its  incompleteness  as  to  issue 
forth  from  God  Himself.  But  if  it  go  so  far  as  to  enter  into 
the  realm  of  external  nature  and  mingle  with  the  physical  it 
will  go  so  far  as  to  lose  its  inerrancy.  The  inerrant  word  of 
God  in  nature  can  be  determined  onlj'  by  eliminating  the  essen- 
tial word  from  all  the  colouring  and  all  the  foi-mal  inexactness 
and  deflection  from  the  normal,  which  its  environment  in  nat- 
ure involves. 

2.  The  revelation  of  God  through  the  patriarchs  and 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  was  sometimes  accompanied 
by  theophanies.  In  theophanies  God  manifests  Himself  to  the 
human  senses  of  sight,  hearing,  and  occasionally  of  touch,  by 
assuming  some  form  discernible  by  the  senses.  Usually  God 
appears  in  some  form  of  light  or  fire,  sometimes  as  an  angel  or 
man,  sometimes  in  a  voice  and  sound.  These  forms  are  not 
the  real  form  of  God ;  they  are  forms  which  He  condescends 
to  assume  for  a  purpose.  They  do  not  an}'-  of  them  give  an 
inerrant  representation  of  the  mvisible  God.  The  law  forbids 
Israel  to  represent  God  under  any  external  form  whatever.  ^ 
Those  who  worship  Him,  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in  fidelity. 
God  does  not  give  an  inerrant  representation  of  Himself  in  the 
forms  of  time  and  space  within  the  material  universe.  And 
yet  these  manifestations  are  the  stepping-stones  of  Biblical 
History.  Tlie  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  lead  on  to 
the  Christophanies  of  the  New  Testament.^  They  are  indeed 
the  fundamental  realities  upon  which  all  the  divine  revelation 
in  word  depend. 

3.  If  God  does  not  reveal  Himself  inerrantly  in  the  great 
works  of  nature,  or  in  theojjhanies,  why  should  we  suppose 
that  He  makes  an  inerrant  revelation  when  He  makes  a  com- 
munication through  the  human  spirit  ?     It  is  quite  true  that 

»  Deut.  4'^".  =  See  p.  542. 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  639 

we  are  uow  rising  from  the  material  into  the  spiritual  \Yorld. 
Man  is  akin  with  deity  by  the  inheritance  of  the  reason  and 
all  the  wondrous  faculties  associated  therewith.  God  may, 
therefore,  reveal  Himself  as  Spirit  to  the  spirit  of  men,  far 
more  freely,  fully,  and  clearly  than  in  the  forms  of  the  material 
universe.  And  yet  we  have  to  consider  the  immense  distance 
between  the  condescending  God  and  the  most  exalted  human 
spirit.  If  the  human  spirit  is  capable  of  receiving  an  inerrant 
word,  we  may  believe  that  God  would  communicate  it.  But  is 
the  human  spirit  capable  ?  We  know  in  our  experience  in 
communicating  one  with  another  how  extremely  diificiilt  it  is 
to  transmit  an  inerrant  message.  The  utmost  pains  have  to  be 
taken.  We  cannot  trust  the  mind ;  we  must  make  a  record 
that  cannot  change.  We  know  that  it  is  impi-acticable  to 
teach  the  truth  inerrantly  to  the  ignorant  and  the  unprepared, 
even  so  far  as  we  may  have  it.  The  instruction  must  be 
adajrted  by  the  teacher  to  the  pupil.  The  same  truth  must  he 
taught  differentlj'  in  an  infant  class,  from  the  pulpit,  through 
the  daily  press,  in  the  college  class-room,  in  a  scientific  treatise. 
A  different  training  and  different  qualifications  are  necessary  in 
order  to  do  successfully  any  of  these  different  things.  In  each 
one  of  these  the  truth  is  necessarily  deprived  of  some  portion 
of  its  completeness  and  truthfulness.  It  seems  to  be  impossible 
for  a  teacher  to  convey  the  truth  exactly  as  he  sees  it,  or  to 
avoid  so  stating  it  that  errors  may  not  spring  up  on  every  side. 
We  know  in  part,  we  tell  what  we  know  in  part.  We  are  true 
so  far  as  we  can  be  ;  but  we  cannot  be  inerrant  in  our  speech 
or  in  our  writing,  even  with  regard  to  that  measure  of  truth 
which  we  really  possess.  If  this  is  true  in  the  relation  of 
human  spirit  with  human  spirit,  how  much  more  may  it  be  true 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  its  relation  to  the  human  spirit? 

4.  Jesus  had  many  things  to  say  to  His  disciples  that  they 
could  not  bear,  that  they  could  not  understand. i  The  Divine 
Teacher  could  not  teach  them  because  they  were  incapable  of 
receiving  His  teaching.  If  the  apostles  were  incapable  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  wlio  condescended  to  become  a  man,  to  live 
with  them,  and  to  speak  to  them  in  their  own  language,  in  their 
1  John  1612. 


640  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

ovm  idiom,  in  their  own  methods  of  instrnction  ;  if  He  had  to 
emploj-  parables,  which  still  remain  the  mj-steries  of  the  Gos- 
pels, wliich  are  capable  of  numerous  ei-roneous  interpretations ; 
if  His  own  wonderful  sentences  of  wisdom  are  so  capable  of 
erroneous  api^lication,  how  much  more  difficult  for  the  Divine 
Spirit  to  communicate  to  men  b^-  internal  suggestion  divine 
truth  in  such  inerrant  forms  that  the  prophets  and  apostles 
could  only  deliver  it  in  speech  and  pen  in  the  same  inerrant 
forms  in  which  they  received  it.  You  may  saj^  that  the  para- 
bles and  sentences  of  Jesus  are  inerrant,  that  the  fault  is  in 
the  interpretation.  But  whj^  were  those  jDarables  and  sentences 
not  given  in  such  words  and  sentences  as  w^ould  make  their 
meaning  clear  for  all  time  and  avoid  erroneous  interpretation  ? 
The  only  answer  we  can  give  is  that  Jesus  could  not  give  His 
teaching  in  inerrant  forms  ;  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  com- 
municate the  inerrant  word  to  men  without,  in  a  measure, 
depriving  it  of  its  inerrancy. 

Thus  the  analogy  of  divine  revelation  in  other  forms,  and  of 
the  communication  between  men  and  men,  and  especially  be- 
tween Jesus  and  His  apostles,  make  it  altogether  probable  that 
the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  does  not  carry  with  it 
inerrancy  in  every  particular.  It  was  sufficient  if  the  divine 
communication  was  given  with  such  clearness  as  to  guide  men 
aright  in  a  religious  life;  it  was  sufficient  that  they  knew  as- 
suredly that  God  could  not  deceive  or  mislead  thera,  but 
would  give  them  true,  faithful,  reliable  guidance  in  holy 
things.  The  errors  of  Holy  Scripture  are  not  errors  of 
falsehood,  or  of  deceit ;  they  are  such  errors  of  ignorance, 
inadvertence,  of  partial  and  inadequate  knowledge,  and  of 
incapacity  to  express  the  whole  truth  of  God  as  belong  to 
man  as  man,  and  from  whicli  we  have  no  evidence  that  even  an 
inspired  man  was  relieved.  Just  as  the  light  is  seen,  not  in  its 
pure,  unclouded  ra3s,  but  in  the  beautiful  colours  of  the  spec- 
trum, as  its  beams  are  broken  up  by  the  angles  and  discolora- 
tions  which  obstruct  their  course,  so  it  is  Avith  the  truth  of 
God.  Its  revelation  and  communication  meet  with  such  ob- 
stacles in  human  nature  and  in  this  world  of  ours,  that  men 
are  capable  of  receiving  it  only  in  divers  portions  and  divers 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  641 

manners,  as  it  comes  to  them  through  the  divers  tempera- 
ments and  points  of  view  and  styles  of  the  biblical  writers. 
Few  men  are  capable  of  discerning  more  than  one  portion  of 
these  colours  —  the  most  capable  know  in  part.  Not  till  the 
day  which  closes,  the  dispensation  dawns  will  any  one  know 
the  whole  ;  for  not  till  then  will  men  be  capable  of  seeing  the 
Christ  as  He  is,  and  of  knowing  God  in  His  glory. 

The  major  premise  of  the  a  priori  argument  is  not  an  intui- 
tion ;  it  lacks  sufi&cient  evidence  to  sustain  it.  All  the  evi- 
dence that  we  can  gain  points  the  other  way.  The  only  thing 
that  we  can  say  is  that  God's  word  to  man  will  be  as  inerrant 
as  possible,  considering  the  human  and  defective  media  through 
which  it  is  communicated.  There  is  an  intrinsic  improbability 
that  we  have  a  Bible  inerrant  any  further  than  that  religious 
instruction  extends  which  is  necessary  for  the  guidance  of  God's 
people  in  every  successive  epoch  in  the  development  of  divine 
revelation. 

III.    Gradual  Development  of  the  Hebrew  Religion 

The  position  we  have  thus  far  attained  enables  us  to  dispose 
of  the  greater  difficulties  which  lie  in  the  way  of  the  truthful- 
ness of  Holy  Scripture.  These  are  religious,  doctrinal,  and 
ethical  difficulties. 

The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  religion  which,  with 
all  its  excellence  as  compared  with  the  other  religions  of 
the  ancient  world,  inculcates  some  things  which  are  hard 
to  reconcile  with  an  inerrant  revelation.  The  sacrifice  of 
Jephthah's  daughter,^  and  the  divine  command  to  Abraham  to 
offer  up  his  son  as  a  whole  burnt-offering,^  seem  unsuited  to 
a  divine  religion.  There  are  many  who  try  to  explain  these 
difficulties  away  by  arbitrary  exegesis  and  conjectures  supple- 
mentary to  the  narratives,  but  in  vain.  The  narrative  in 
Judges  leaves  upon  our  minds  the  indelible  impression  that 
Jephthah  did  a  praiseworthy  act  when  he  sacrificed  his  daugh- 
ter to  God  ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  God  commanded 
the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  even  if  He  subsequently  accepted  a  sub- 

1  Jd.  11=9-").  ^  Gen.  22. 


642  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCKU'TUKE 

stitute  in  an  animal  victim.  There  is,  indeed,  no  prohibition 
of  the  offering  up  of  children  in  the  earliest  codes  of  the 
Hexateuch.  The  prohibition  was  first  made  in  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  and  originated  somewhat  late  in  the  history  of 
Israel.  The  early  Hebrews  shared  with  the  Canaanites  and 
other  neighbouring  nations  in  the  practice  of  offering  up  their 
children  in  the  flame  to  God.  From  the  point  of  view  of  sacri- 
fice nothing  could  be  more  acceptable  than  the  best-beloved 
son,  except  the  offerer  himself.  The  higher  revelation  teaches 
the  offering  of  the  whole  body  and  soul  to  God  in  the  spiritual 
sacrifice  of  an  everlasting  ministry.^  But  it  required  cen- 
turies of  training  before  that  divine  lesson  could  be  taught  and 
learned.  The  Hebrews  were  taught  the  principle  of  sacrifice 
as  they  were  able  to  learn  it.  .God  accepted  the  sacrifice  of 
Jephthah's  daughter.  He  graciously  accepted  the  ram  instead 
of  Isaac,  though  He  stated  His  rightful  claim  upon  the  beloved 
son.  He  provided  a  sacrificial  system  which  gradually  grew 
in  wealth  of  symbolism  through  the  ages  of  Jewish  history ; 
and  animal  and  grain  sacrifices  were  made  the  normal  form  of 
worship. 

But  the  prophets,  with  great  difficidty  and  increasing  oppo- 
sition from  priests  and  people,  gradually  taught  them  that  the 
sacrifices  must  be  of  broken  and  contrite  hearts,  and  of  humble, 
cheerful  spirits.  But  what  pleasure  can  God  take  in  the  blood 
of  animals  or  in  smoking  altars  ?  How  could  the  true  God 
ever  prescribe  snch  puerilities?  This  is  the  inquiry  of  the 
higher  religion  of  our  day.  We  can  only  say  tliat  God  was 
training  Israel  to  understand  the  meaning  of  a  higher  sacrifice; 
even  the  obedience  of  the  Christ  in  a  holy  life  and  a  martyr 
death  in  the  ser^^ce  of  God  and  of  humanity,  and  of  the  similar 
sacrifice  that  every  child  of  God  is  called  upon  to  make. 

The  offering  up  of  children  and  of  domestic  animals  and 
grains  was  all  a  preparatorj'  discipline  for  the  religion  of 
Christ.  The  training  was  true  and  faithful  for  the  time.  But 
it  was  provisional  and  temporal,  to  be  displaced  by  that  which 
is  complete  and  eternal.  Did  the  sacrifice  of  children  express 
the  inerrant  will  of  God  for  all  men?     Did  the  sacrifice  of 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS   OF   HOLY   SCIIII'TURE  643 

animals  express  the  inerrant  word  of  God  for  all  time  ?  By 
no  means.  These  were  the  forms  in  which  it  was  necessary  to 
clothe  the  divine  law  of  sacrifice  in  its  earlier  stages  of  revela- 
tion. These  partial  forms  were  the  object  lessons  by  which 
the  little  children  of  the  ancient  world  could  be  trained  to 
understand  the  final  law  of  sacrifice  for  men. 

On  the  same  principle  we  would  explain  the  law  of  circum- 
cision, the  law  which  prohibits  the  eating  of  swine  and  shell- 
fish, the  laws  of  ceremonial  uncleanness  and  purification,  the 
laws  of  mixtures  and  the  exclusion  of  eunuchs,  bastards,  and 
descendants  of  certain  nations  from  the  holy  precincts.  These 
religious  laws  doubtless  were  of  immense  benefit  to  Israel  in 
his  religious  development.  But  they  do  not  reflect  truly  and 
accurately  and  inerrantly  the  mind  of  God  as  to  the  way  in 
which  He  would  be  everlastingly  worshipped.  He  taught  them 
to  worship  Him  in  the  forms  of  which  they  were  capable,  in  order 
to  train  them  for  the  use  of  the  highest  forms  when  the  proper 
time  should  arrive.  The  institutions  of  Israel  were  appropriate 
for  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  not  for  the  Christian  age. 
They  have  their  propriety  as  elementary  forms,  but  they  err 
from  the  ideal  of  religion  as  it  lies  eternally  in  the  mind  and 
will  of  God.  Saint  Paul  calls  them  weak  and  beggarly  rudi- 
ments,^ a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come.^ 

IV.    Gradual  DEVELOPirENT  in  Morality 

We  cannot  defend  the  morals  of  the  Old  Testament  at  all 
points.  It  is  not  in  accord  with  the  morals  of  our  day  that  a 
man  who  was  a  slaveholder,  a  polygamist,  and  who  showed  such 
little  respect  for  truth  as  Abraham,  should  be  called  the  friend 
of  God.  It  is  not  to  be  reconciled  with  modern  morality  that 
a  man  who  committed  so  much  injustice  and  crime  as  David 
should  be  called  the  man  after  God's  own  heart.  It  would  be 
impossible  for  modern  writers  to  make  such  statements;  and  yet 
we  should  not  judge  too  harshly.  We  should  consider  the  men 
in  the  light  of  their  times.  Nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament 
are  polygamy  and  slavery  condemned.     The  time  had  not  come 

1  Gal.  4».  2  Col.  21'. 


644  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

in  the  histon"  of  the  world  when  they  could  be  condemned. 
Is  God  responsible  for  the  "  twin  relics  of  barbarism "'  because 
He  did  not  condemn  them,  but  on  the  contrary  recognized  them 
and  restrained  them  in  the  Old  Testament?  These  laws  could 
hardly  be  inerrant.  They  err  from  the  divine  ideal  in  their 
morals.  But  the  errors  in  moral  precept  were  such  as  were 
necessary  in  order  to  educate  Israel  for  a  nobler  time  when 
Israel,  as  well  as  the  Christian  Church,  would  abhor  slavery 
and  polygam)-  as  sins  and  crimes. 

The  patriarchs  were  not  truthful  :  their  age  seems  to  have 
had  little  apprehension  of  the  principles  of  truth ;  ^  and  yet 
Abraham  was  faithful  to  God,  and  so  faithful  under  tempta- 
tion and  trial  that  he  became  the  father  of  the  faithful,  and 
from  that  point  of  view  the  friend  of  God.  David  was  a  sinner ; 
but  he  was  a  penitent  sinner,  and  showed  such  a  devout  attach- 
ment to  the  worship  of  God  that  his  sins,  though  many,  were 
all  forgiven  him.  And  his  life  as  a  whole  exhibits  such  gener- 
osity, courage,  variet}'  of  human  affection  and  benevolence, 
such  heroism  and  patience  in  suffering,  such  self-restraint  and 
meekness  in  prosperity,  such  nobility  and  grandeur  of  charac- 
ter, that  we  must  admire  him  and  love  him  as  one  of  the  best 
of  men  ;  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  the  heart  of  God  went 
out  to  him  also.  He  must  be  regarded  as  a  model  of  excellence 
when  compared  with  other  monarchs  of  his  age. 

The  commendation  of  Jael  by  the  theophanic  angel  for  the 
treacherous  slaj-iug  of  Sisera  could  not  be  condoned  in  our  age, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  God  could  have  com- 
mended it  in  any  age.  And  yet  it  is  only  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  revenge  which  breathes  in  the  command  to  exterminate 
the  Canaanites,  which  animates  the  imprecatory  psalms,  which 
is  threaded  into  the  story  of  Esther,  and  which  stirred  Xehe- 
miah  in  his  arbitrary  government  of  Jerusalem.  Jesus  Christ, 
praying  for  His  enemies,  lifts  us  into  a  different  ethical  world 
from  that  familiar  to  us  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  cannot 
regard  these  things  in  the  Old  Testament  as  inerrant  in  the 
light  of  the  moral  character  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  character 
of  God  as  He  reveals  Him.     And  j'et  we  may  well  understand 

1  See  p.  .008. 


THE   TRUTHPULXESS   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  645 

that  the  Old  Testament  times  were  not  ripe  for  the  higher 
revelation,  and  that  God  condescended  to  a  partial  revelation 
of  His  word  and  will,  such  as  would  guide  His  people  in  the 
right  direction,  with  as  steady  and  rapid  a  pace  as  they  were 
capable  of  making. 

Jesus  Christ  teaches  us  the  true  principle  by  which  we  may 
judge  the  ethics  of  the  Old  Testament,  when  He  repealed  the 
Mosaic  law  of  divorce,  and  said  :  "  Moses  for  your  hardness 
of  heart  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives  :  but  from  the 
beginning  it  hath  not  been  so."'^ 

In  other  words,  the  Mosaic  law  of  divorce  was  not  in  accord 
with  the  original  institution  of  marriage,  or  with  the  real  mind 
and  will  of  God.  In  that  law  God  condescended  for  a  season 
to  the  hardness  of  heart  of  His  people,  and  exacted  of  them 
only  that  which  they  were  able  to  perform.  The  law  was 
imperfect,  temporary,  to  be  repealed  forever  by  the  Messiah. 
So  through  all  the  stages  of  divine  revelation  laws  were  given, 
which  were  but  the  scaffolding  of  the  temple  of  holiness,  which 
were  to  serve  their  purpose  in  the  preparatory  discipline,  but 
were  to  disappear  forever  when  they  had  accomplished  their 
purpose.  The  codes  of  law  of  the  Old  Testament  have  all 
been  cast  down  by  the  Christian  Church  as  the  scaffolding  of 
the  old  dispensation,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Ten 
Words  ;  and  with  reference  to  the  fourth  of  these,  the  words 
of  Jesus  are  our  guide  :  "  The  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  sabbath.  "^  For  the  eternal  principles  of 
morals  we  turn  in  the  Old  Testament  rather  to  the  psalmists, 
the  sages,  and  the  prophets  ;  we  think  of  the  true  citizens  of 
Zion  of  the  Psalter  ;  ^  of  the  guest  in  the  temple  of  wisdom 
of  the  book  of  Proverbs ;  *  of  the  righteous  sufferer  of  the 
Psalms  of  humiliation,^  and  of  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile  ;  ^ 
of  the  saintly  Job  triumphantly  challenging  and  destroying 
every  slander  of  his  pharisaic  accusers,  and  vindicating  his 
integrity  in  a  magnificent  unfolding  of  ethical  experience,' 
which  has  no  equal  save  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

1  Mt.  19'.  See  pp.  440  seq.      -  Mk.  22'.     a  Ps.  15,  24.     *  Prov.  9. 
5  Ps.  22,  09.  «  Is.  40-66.       '  Job  31.  See  pp.  422  seq. 


646  STUDY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


V.    Gradualness  of  Biblical  Doctrine 

When,  now.  we  come  to  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  Old 
Testament  we  find  less  difficulty.  Some  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  inadequate  and  provisional.  All  of 
them  are  partial  and  incomplete. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is  magnifi- 
cent. The  individuality  of  God  is  emphasized  in  the  personal 
name  Yahweh,  which  probably  means  "  the  One  ever  with  His 
people."  1  The  doctrine  of  the  living  God  is  so  strongly 
asserted  that  it  is  far  in  advance  of  the  faith  of  the  Christian 
Church  at  the  present  day,  which  has  been  misled  by  scholastic 
dogmaticians  into  abstract  conceptions  of  God.  The  attributes 
are  so  richly  unfolded  and  comprehensively  stated  that  there 
is  little  to  be  added  to  them  in  the  New  Testament.  The  doc- 
trine of  creation  is  set  forth  in  a  great  variety  of  beautiful 
poetical  representations,  which  give  in  the  aggregate  a  simpler 
and  a  fuller  conception  of  creation  than  the  ordinary  doctrine 
of  the  theologians,  who  build  on  a  prosaic  and  forced  interpre- 
tation of  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis.  The  doc- 
trine of  providence  is  illustrated  in  a  wonderful  variety  of 
historical  incidents,  lyric  prayers,  thanksgivings  and  medita- 
tions, sentences  of  proverbial  experience,  and  prophetic  teach- 
ing. The  God  of  the  Old  Testament  is  commonly  conceived 
as  king  and  lord ;  He  was  conceived  as  the  father  of  nations 
and  kings  and  His  love  as  the  love  of  Israel  and  the  Davidic 
dynasty  :  but  the  "  our  Father "  of  the  conuuon  people  was 
not  known  until  Jesus  Christ ;  the  profound  depths  of  the 
mere}'  of  God  in  Jesus  Clirist  was  not  yet  manifest;  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Trinity  was  not  yet  ripe.  There  is  an  advance  in 
God's  revelation  of  Himself  through  the  successive  layers  of 
the  Old  Testament  writings  which  is  like  the.  march  of  an 
invincible  king. 

It  is  true  that  there  are  at  times  representations  of  vindic- 
tiveness  in  God,  a  jealousy  of  other  gods,  a  cruel  disregard  of 

1  See  Robinson,  Oesenius'  Ileb.  Lex.,  new  edition  by  Brown,  Driver,  and 
Uripgs,  article  .TTI". 


THE  TRUTHFtTLNESS  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTUKE  647 

human  siiifering  and  human  life,  an  occasional  vacillation  and 
change  of  purpose,  the  passion  of  anger  and  arbitrary  prefer- 
ences, which  betray  the  inadequacy  of  ancient  Israel  to  under- 
stand their  God,  and  the  errancy  of  their  conceptions  and 
representations.  But  we  all  know  that  the  true  God  does  not 
accord  with  these  representations.  We  may  call  them  anthro- 
pomorpliisms  and  anthropopathisms ;  but  whatever  we  may 
name  them  they  are  errant  representations.  They  do  not, 
however,  mar  the  grandeur  of  the  true  God  as  we  see  Him  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  truthfulness  of  the  teaching  of  the 
doctrine  of  God  is  not  destroyed  by  occasional  inaccuracies  of 
the  teachers. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  man  in  the  Old  Testament  is  a  noble 
doctrine.  The  unity  and  brotherhood  of  the  race  in  origin  and  in 
destiny  is  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  as  nowhere  else.  The 
origin  and  development  of  sin  are  traced  with  a  vi\'idness  and 
an  accuracy  of  delineation  that  find  a  response  in  the  experi- 
ences of  mankind.  The  ideal  of  righteousness  as  the  original 
plan  of  God  for  man  and  the  ultimate  destiny  for  man  is  held 
up  as  a  banner  throughout  the  Old  Testament.  Surely  these 
are  true  instructions  ;  they  are  faithful,  they  are  divine.  There 
are  doubtless  dark  strands  of  national  prejudice,  of  pharisaical 
particularism,  of  faulty  ps}'chology,  and  of  occasional  exaggera- 
tion of  the  more  external  forms  of  ceremonial  sin  ;  but  these 
do  not  mar,  they  rather  serve  to  magnify  the  golden  strands 
which  constitute  the  major  part  of  the  cord  that  binds  our  race 
into  an  organism  created  and  governed  by  a  holy  God  in  the 
interests  of  a  perfect  and  glorified  humanity. 

3.  The  most  characteristic  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  well  as  the  New  Testament  are  the  doctrines  of  redemption. 
These  are  so  striking  that  the}'^  entitle  us  to  regard  Biblical 
History  as  essentially  a  history  of  redemption,  and  Biblical 
Literature  as  the  literature  of  redemption.^ 

The  redemption  of  the  Bible  embraces  the  whole  man,  body 

and  soul,  in  this  world  and  in  the  future  state,  the  individual 

man  and  the  race  of  man,  the  earth  and  the  heavens.     The 

biblical  scheme  of  redemption  is  so  vast,  so  comprehensive,  so 

'  See  pp.  647  seq. 


648  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURK 

far-reacliing  that  the  Christian  Church  has  thus  far  failed  in 
apprehending  it.  The  doctrine  of  redemption  unfokls  from 
simple  germs  into  magnificent  fruitage.  The  central  nucleus 
of  this  redemption  is  the  Messianic  idea.  This  comprehends 
not  only  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  but  also  a  kingdom  of 
redemption  and  the  redemption  itself.  Man  is  to  pursue  the 
course  of  divine  discipline  until  he  attains  the  holiness  of  God. 
Israel  is  to  be  a  kingdom  of  priests,  a  holy  nation.  All  the 
world  is  to  be  incorporated  as  citizens  of  Zion.  Zion  is  the 
light  and  joy  of  the  entire  earth.  A  Messianic  king  is  to  reign 
over  all  nations.  A  Messianic  prophet  is  to  be  the  redeemer 
of  all.  A  priestly  king  is  to  rule  in  peace  and  righteousness 
a  kingdom  of  priests.  All  evil  is  to  be  banished  from  nature 
and  from  man.  The  animal  kingdom  is  to  share  in  the  uni- 
versal peace.  The  vegetable  world  is  to  respond  in  glad  song 
to  the  call  of  man.  There  are  to  be  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth  as  well  as  a  new  Jerusalem  from  which  all  the  evil  wiU. 
be  excluded.  Such  ideals  of  redemption  are  divine  ideals  wliich 
the  human  race  has  not  yet  attained.  But  in  the  course  of 
training  for  these  ideals,  the  pro\'isional  redemption  enjoyed 
in  the  experience  of  God's  people  is  rich  and  full.  Study  the 
psalms  of  penitence,  the  psalms  of  faith  and  confidence  in  God, 
the  thanksgivings  and  the  Hallels,  and  where  else  will  you  find 
religious  poeti-y  which  so  ajDtly  expresses  the  redemptive  experi- 
ence of  all  the  children  of  God  ? 

It  is  quite  true  that  forgiveness  of  sins  was  appropriated 
without  any  explanation  of  its  grounds.  The  sacrifice  of  Cal- 
vary was  unknown  to  the  Old  Testament  as  a  ground  of  salva- 
tion. The  mercj"  of  God  was  the  ultimate  source  of  forgiveness. 
There  is  a  lack  of  apprehension  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  It  was  Jesus  Christ  who  first  gave 
faith  its  unique  place  in  the  order  of  salvation.  The  doctrine 
of  holy  love,  which  is  urged  in  Deuteronomy,  Jeremiah,  and 
the  great  prophet  of  the  exile,  is  only  a  faint  aspiration  when 
compared  with  the  breathings  of  the  love  of  God  to  man,  and 
man  to  God,  as  taught  by  Jesus  and  Saint  Paul. 

The  doctrine  of  the  future  life  in  the  Old  Testament  is  often 
obscured  by  questioning  and  doubts.     It  is  only  in  the  later 


THE   TRUTHFULNESS   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  649 

stages  that  there  is  a  joyous  confidence  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
favour  of  God  after  death,  and  not  till  Daniel  do  we  have  a 
faith  in  a  resurrection  of  some  of  the  dead.  "Jesus  Christ 
abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  incorruptiou  to  light 
through  the  Gospel."  ^ 

Tlius  in  every  department  of  doctrine  the  Old  Testament  is 
seen  advancing  through  tlie  centuries  in  the  several  periods  of 
Biblical  Literature,  in  the  unfolding  of  all  the  doctrines,  pre- 
paring the  way  for  the  full  revelation  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  imperfections,  incompleteness,  inadequacj'  of  some  of  the 
statements  of  the  Old  Testament  as  to  religion,  morals,  and 
doctrine  necessarily  inhere  in  the  gradualness  of  the  divine 
revelation.  That  revelation  which  looked  only  at  the  end,  at 
the  highest  ideals,  at  what  could  be  accomplished  in  the  last 
century  of  human  time,  would  not  be  a  revelation  for  all  men. 
It  would  be  of  no  use  to  any  other  century  but  the  last.  A 
divine  word  for  man  must  be  appropriate  for  the  present  aa 
well  as  the  future;  must  have  something  to  guide  men  in  every 
stage  of  religious  advancement ;  must  have  something  for  every 
century  of  history, —  for  the  barbarian  as  well  as  the  Greek,  the 
Gentile  as  well  as  the  Jew,  the  dark-minded  African  as  well  as 
the  open-minded  European,  the  dull  Islander  as  well  as  the 
subtile  Asiatic,  the  child  and  the  peasant  as  well  as  the  man 
and  the  sage.  It  is  just  in  this  respect  that  the  Holy  Script- 
ures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  so  preeminent.  They 
have  in  them  religious  instruction  for  all  the  world.  They 
trained  Israel  in  every  stage  of  his  advancement,  and  so  they 
will  train  all  men  in  every  step  of  their  advancement. 

It  does  not  harm  the  advanced  student  to  look  back  upon  the 
inadequate  knowledge  of  his  youthful  days.  It  does  not  harm 
the  Christian  to  see  the  many  imperfections,  crudities,  and 
errors  of  the  more  elementary  instruction  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Nor  does  it  destroy  his  faith  in  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Divine  Word  in  these  elementary  stages.  He  sees  its  appropri- 
ateness, its  truthfvdness,  its  adaptation,  its  propriety ;  and  he 
learns  that  an  unerring  eye  and  inerrant  mind  and  infallible 
will  has  all  the  time  been  at  work  using  the  imperfect  media, 
1 2  Tim.  11°. 


650  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTtJKE 

and  straining  them  to  their  utmost  capacity  to  guide  men,  to 
raise  them,  and  advance  them  in  the  true  religion.  The  sacred 
books  are  always  pointing  forward  and  upward ;  they  are 
always  expanding  in  aU  directions;  they  are  now,  as  they 
always  have  been,  true  and  faithful  guides  to  God  and  a  holy 
life.  They  are  now,  as  they  always  have  been,  trustworthy 
and  reliable  in  their  religious  instruction.  They  are  now,  as 
they  always  have  been,  altogether  truthful  in  their  testimony 
to  the  heart  and  experience  of  mankind.  And  this  we  may 
say  with  confidence,  whUe  at  the  same  time  with  the  apostle  we 
exclaim  standing  on  the  heights  of  the  New  Testament  Revela- 
tion in  Jesus  Christ:  "Now  we  see  in  a  mirror  darkly;  but 
then  face  to  face :  now  I  know  in  part ;  but  then  shall  I  know 
fully  even  as  also  I  have  been  fully  known." ^ 


CHAPTER   XXVI 

TECE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AS   JIEANS   OF   GRACE 

The  essential  principle  of  the  Reformed  system  of  theol- 
ogy is  redemption  by  the  divine  grace  alone.  The  Reformed 
churches  have  ever  been  distinguished  for  their  intense  in- 
terest in  the  covenant  of  grace.  Sometimes  the  divine  grace 
has  been  hardened  by  an  undue  stress  upon  the  sovereignty 
of  it,  so  that  sovereignty  has  taken  the  jjlace  of  the  divine 
grace  as  the  central  principle  of  theology  in  some  of  the 
scholastic  systems  ;  and  sometimes  the  divine  grace  has  been 
softened  by  an  undue  emphasis  upon  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 
But  even  in  these  more  extreme  tendencies  of  Calvinism  the 
essential  principle  of  the  divine  grace  alone  has  not  been  aban- 
doned, however  little  any  of  the  systems  have  comi:)rehended 
the  richness  and  the  fulness  of  the  "  grace  of  God  that  bringeth 
salvation."^ 

Redemption  by  the  divine  grace  alone  is  the  banner  prin- 
ciple of  the  Reformed  churches,  designed  to  exclude  the  uncer- 
tainty and  arbitrariness  attached  to  all  human  instrumentalities 
and  external  agencies.  As  the  banner  principle  of  the  Lu- 
theran Reformation  was  justification  by  faith  alone  excluding 
any  merit  or  agency  of  human  works,  so  the  Calvinistic  prin- 
ciple excluded  any  inherent  efficacy,  in  human  nature  or  in 
external  remedies,  for  overcoming  the  guilt  of  sin  and  working 
redemption.  In  these  two  principles  lie  the  chief  merits  and 
the  chief  defects  of  the  two  great  churches  of  the  Reformation. 
Intermediate  between  these  principles  of  faith  alone  and  grace 
alone,  lies  a  third  principle,  which  is  the  Divine  Word  alone. 
This  principle  has  been  emphasized  in  the  Reformation  of  Great 
Britain  and  especially  in  the  Puritan  churches.     The  Word  of 

1  Titus  2". 
651 


652  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

God  has  been  called  the  formal  principle  of  Protestantism  over 
against  faith  alone,  the  material  principle,  and  it  has  been  said 
that  the  Reformed  churches  have  laid  more  stress  ujion  the 
formal  princij^le,  while  the  Lutheran  churches  have  laid  more 
stress  upon  the  material  principle.  This  does  not,  in  our  judg- 
ment, correspond  with  the  facts  of  the  case.  Rather  is  it  true 
that  in  the  three  great  churches  of  the  Reformation,  the  three 
principles,  faith,  grace,  and  the  Divine  Word,  were  empha- 
sized ;  but  these  churches  differed  in  the  relative  importance 
they  ascribed  to  one  of  these  three  principles  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  its  relation  to  the  other  two.  The  Word  of  God  is  the 
intermediate  principle  where  faith  and  grace  meet.  The  Word 
of  God  gives  faith  its  appropriate  object.  The  Word  of  God 
is  the  appointed  instrument  or  means  of  grace. 

I.    The  Gospel  in  Holy  Scrlptuee 

The  Word  of  God  as  a  means  of  grace,  as  a  principle  of  the 
Reformation,  has,  however,  its  technical  meaning.  It  is  not 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  their  entirety, 
but  rather  the  Gospel  contained  in  the  Scrijjtures  : 

"  The  Holy  Gospel  which  God  Himself  first  revealed  in  Para- 
dise, afterwards  proclaimed  by  the  Holy  Patriarchs  and  Prophets, 
and  foreshadowed  by  the  sacrifices  and  other  ceremonies  of  the 
law  and  finally  fulfilled  by  His  well-beloved  Son." ' 

The  merit  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  was  that  it  so  dis- 
tinctly set  forth  the  means  by  which  man  appropriates  the 
grace  of  the  Gospel  —  by  faith  alone.  Faith  is  the  sole  appro- 
priating instrument,  and  it  becomes  a  test  of  the  Word  of  God 
itself  ;  for  faitli  having  appropriated  the  gospel  of  the  grace 
of  God  is  enabled  to  determine  therefrom  wliat  is  the  Word  of 
God  and  what  is  not  the  Word  of  God.     As  Luther  said  : 

"  All  right  holy  books  agree  in  this  that  tliey  altogether  preach 
and  urge  Christ.  This  also  is  the  true  touchstone  to  test  all  books, 
when  one  sees  whether  they  so  xu-ge  Christ  or  not,  since  every 
scripture  shews  Christ  (Kom.  3-'),  and  Saint  Paul  will  know  noth- 
ing but  Christ  (1  Cor.  2^) ;  what  does  not  teach  Christ  that  is  not 

'  Heidelb.  Cat.,  Quest.  19. 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AS   MEAXS  OF   GRACE  653 

yet  apostolical,  even  if  Saint  Paiil  or  Saint  Peter  taught  it ;  on  the 
other  hand,  what  preaches  Christ  would  be  apostolical,  even  if 
Judas,  Annas,  Pilate,  and  Herod  did  it." ' 

The  merit  of  the  Calviuistic  Reformation  is  that  it  so  dis- 
tinctly set  forth  the  means  by  which  God  accomplishes  human 
redemption  —  bj'  the  divine  grace  of  the  Gospel.  The  divine 
grace  is  the  sole  efficacious  instrument  of  redemption,  and  this 
grace  becomes  itself  a  test  of  the  true  Word  of  God.  The 
divine  grace  in  the  Scriptures  gives  its  witness  for  the  Script- 
ures, discriminating  the  true  Canon  from  all  other  books. 

"  We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical,  and  the  sure  rule  of  our 
faith  not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the  Church, 
as  by  the  testimony  and  inward  illumination  of  the  H0I3'  Spirit, 
which  enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from  other  ecclesiastical 
books,  upon  which,  however  useful,  we  cannot  foimd  any  article 
of  faith." 2 

It  was  the  merit  of  the  British  Reformation  from  the  begin- 
ning that  it  laid  such  stress  on  the  Divine  Word  alone,  and 
it  was  especially  in  the  British  churches  that  this  principle 
received  its  fullest  statement  and  development.  Thus  it  was  a 
cardinal  principle  of  the  Church  of  England  that : 

"The  Holy  Scripture  eonteyneth  all  things  necessary  to  salvar 
tion ;  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it  should  be  believed 
as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  as  necessary  to 
salvation. " ' 

And  the  Westminster  Confession  states  : 

"  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to  be 
believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any 
man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God  (who  is  truth  itself),  the 
Author  thereof ;  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the 
word  of  God."* 

Thus  the  three  principles  of  the  Reformation  were  emjjlia- 
sized  variously  in  the  three  great  branches  of  the  Reformation. 
The  most  serious  defect  was  in  the  failure  of  the  respective 

>  Vorred.  zu  Epist.  Jacobus;  Walch,  XIV.  p.  149. 

2  French  Confession,  Art.  IV.  »  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  Art.  VI. 

*  West.  Conf.,  I.  4. 


654  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

churches  properly  to  combine  these  principles,  and  especially  in 
the  neglect  to  define  with  sufficient  care  the  relation  of  the 
divine  grace  and  human  faith  to  the  Word  of  God.  Hence 
the  common  error  into  which  the  churches  of  the  Reformation 
soon  fell,  notwithstanding  their  symbols  of  faith,  namely,  the 
undue  emphasis  of  the  external  Word  of  God  over  against  the 
internal  Word  of  God.^  The  solution  of  this  problem  has  been 
prepared  for  (a)  by  the  exaltation  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  Chi-ist 
more  and  more  during  the  last  century,  as  the  central  principle 
of  theology.  He  is  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Word  of  God,  the 
eternal  Logos.  He  is  the  veritable  grace  of  the  Gospel  in 
whose  person  grace  concentrates  itself  for  the  redemption  of 
mankind.  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  He  gave  His 
only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  Him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."^ 

(J)  Another  preparation  is  in  the  deeper  understanding  of 
the  work  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  the  individual  and  in  the 
Church.  It  is  just  in  these  two  respects  that  the  venerable 
mother  of  churches,  the  Roman  Catholic  communion,  has  its 
share  in  so  great  a  work.  For  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has 
ever  emphasized  the  real  presence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  and  of 
the  Christ  in  the  organism  of  the  Chui'ch,  and  in  all  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  Church.  The  Protestant  churches  in  their  zeal 
against  limiting  the  work  of  Christ  and  His  Spirit  to  the  oper- 
ations of  the  Church,  and  in  their  efforts  to  maintain  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Christ  and  His  Spirit  of  anj'  and  everj^  means 
of  grace,  have  tended  to  depreciate  the  Church  and  its  institu- 
tions, and  so  to  lose  sight  of  the  real  i^resence  of  the  living, 
reigning  Christ,  and  of  the  real  presence  of  His  Spirit  in  the 
Church  and  its  institutions.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  and 
the  Protestant  Church  have  each  their  part  to  do  in  the 
reconciliation  of  all  in  a  higher  divine  unity. 

II.    The  Grace  of  God  in  Holy  Scripture 

The  grace  of  God  is  the  free,  unmerited  favour  of  God  in 
redemption.     That  grace  is  bestowed  upon  men  in  Jesus  Christ 

'  See  pp.  621  seq.  ^  John  3". 


THE   HOLY   SCRU'TURE  AS   MEANS  OF   GRACE  655 

the  Saviour.  That  grace  is  presented  to  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  applied  by  Him  to  our  persons  and  lives.  This  application 
is  made  in  the  use  of  certain  external  media  which  are  called 
the  meaus  of  grace.  "The  Holy  Ghost  works  faith  in  our 
hearts  by  the  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel,  and  confirms  it  by 
the  use  of  the  holy  sacraments."^  Thus  the  chief  of  these 
means  of  grace,  according  to  the  Reformed  churches,  is  the 
Word  of  God,  or  the  holy  Gospel  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

1.  In  what  sense  are  the  Scriptures  means  of  grace  ?  The 
Scriptures  are  means  of  grace  in  that  they  contain  the  Gospel 
of  Christ  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  The 
Word  of  God  is  called  the  sword  of  the  Spirit.  For  it  "is 
living,  and  active,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  and 
piercing  even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints 
and  marrow,  and  quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of 
the  heart. "2  It  is  the  lamp  of  God.  "Thy  word  is  a  lamp 
unto  my  feet  and  a  light  unto  my  path."^  It  is  the  seed  of 
regeneration.  For  Christians  have  "been  begotten  again,  not 
of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  through  the  Word  of 
God,  which  liveth  and  abideth."*  It  is  the  power  of  God. 
"  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel ;  for  it  is  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation,"'  ^  says  Saint  Paul  to  the  Romans ;  and  he 
reminds  his  disciple,  Timothy,  that  "  from  a  babe  thou  hast 
knowTi  the  sacred  writings,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise 
unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. "  ®  These 
attributes  of  the  Word  of  God  cannot  be  brought  under  the 
category  of  inspiration.  The  inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God 
is  a  highly  important  doctrine,  but  it  must  not  be  so  greatly 
emphasized  as  to  lead  us  to  neglect  other  and  still  more  im- 
portant aspects  of  the  Bible.  Inspiration  has  to  do  vrith  the 
truthfulness,  reliability,  accuracy,  and  authority  of  the  Word  of 
God;  the  assurance  that  we  have  that  the  instruction  contained 
therein  comes  from  God.  But  these  attributes  of  the  Divine 
Word  that  we  have  just  mentioned  in  biblical  terms  are  deeper 
and  more  important  than  inspiration.     They  lie  at  the  root  of 

J  Heidelb.  Cat.,  Quest.  65.  -  Heb.  4".  3  pg.  ngios. 

*  1  Pet.  1*8.  6  Rom.  116-  8  2  Tim.  3>5., 


656  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

inspiration,  as  among  its  strongest  evidences.  Tliey  stand  out 
as  the  most  prominent  features  of  the  Gospel,  independent  of 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  They  are  features  shared  by  the 
Bible  with  the  Church  and  the  sacraments,  which  are  not 
inspired  and  are  not  infallible.  They  are  those  attributes  that 
make  the  Bible  what  it  is  in  the  life  of  the  people  and  the 
faith  of  the  Church  without  raising  the  question  of  inspiration. 
They  ascribe  to  the  Word  of  God  a  divine  power  such  as  is 
contained  in  a  seed  of  life,  the  movement  of  the  light,  the 
activity  of  a  sword,  a  power  that  works  redemption,  the 
supreme  means  of  grace.     As  Robert  Boyle  well  says  :  ^ 

"  Certainly  then,  if  we  consider  God  as  the  Creator  of  our 
souls,  and  so  likeliest  to  know  the  frame  and  springs  and  nature 
of  his  own  workmanship,  we  shall  make  but  little  difficulty  to 
believe  that  in  the  books  written  for  and  addressed  to  men,  he 
hath  employed  very  powerful  and  appropriated  means  to  work 
upon  them.  And  in  effect,  there  is  a  strange  mo^dngness,  and,  if 
the  epithet  be  not  too  bold,  a  kind  of  heavenly  magic  to  be  found 
in  some  passages  of  Scripture,  which  is  to  be  found  nowhere  else." 

2.  What,  then,  is  this  power  of  grace  contained  in  the  Script- 
ures ?  The  power  of  grace  contained  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  re- 
demption made  known  to  us,  freely  offered  to  us,  and  effectually 
applied  to  us  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour.  It  is  the  holy  Gospel 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  Word  of  God  written,  presenting  as  in  a 
mirror  of  wonderful  combinations  from  so  many  different  points 
of  view,  the  glorious  person,  character,  life,  and  achievements 
of  the  Word  of  God  incarnate,  the  eternal  Logos.  Thus  the 
Scriptui'es  give  us  not  merely  the  history  of  Israel,  but  the  his- 
tory of  redemption  from  its  earliest  protevangelium  to  its 
fruition  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Messiah  of  history  and  prophecy. 
They  give  us  not  ordinary  biography,  but  the  experience  of 
redeemed  men,  telling  us  of  their  faith,  repentance,  spiritual 
conflicts,  and  the  victories  of  grace.  Tlie}'  give-  us  the  grand- 
est poetry  of  the  world  and  the  most  sublime  moral  precepts;* 
but  this  poetry  is  composed  of  the  songs  of  the  redeemed,  and 
these  precepts  are  the  lessons  of  those  wlio  are  wise  in  the  fear 

'  Some  Considerations  touching  the  Style  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  London, 
1661,  p.  24  L  ^  See  pp.  355  seg. 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  AS   MEANS   OF   GRACE  657 

of  God.  The}-  give  us  oratory  ;i  but  the  orations  are  pro- 
phetic, impassioned  utterances  of  ^Ya^ning  and  comfort  in  view 
of  the  conflicts  of  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  its  ultimate  tri- 
umph, and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  a  risen  and  glorified 
Saviour.  They  give  us  essays  and  epistles  ;^  but  these  are  not 
to  enlighten  us  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  the  speculations  of 
philosophy,  and  the  maxims  of  commerce,  that  we  may  be 
students  in  any  of  the  departments  of  human  learning.  They 
set  forth  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.*  Redemption  is  written 
all  over  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The 
grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  is  the  one  all-pervading 
influence.  This  is  the  holy  substance  of  the  Bible  to  which  all 
else  is  the  human  form  in  which  it  is  enveloped.  Hence  the 
two  great  divisions  of  the  Bible  are  called  Testaments  or  Cov- 
enants, for  they  are  covenants  of  grace,  the  great  storehouses 
in  which  God  has  treasured  up  for  all  time  and  for  all  the 
world  the  riches  of  His  grace  of  redemption.  This  grace  of 
redemption  contained  in  Jesus  Christ  and  conveyed  by  the 
Scriptures  is  redemption  from  sin  to  holiness,  from  death  in 
guilt  to  life  in  blessedness;  it  is  a  grace  of  regeneration  and  a 
grace  of  sanctification. 

(a)  It  is  a  grace  of  regeneration.  Christians  are  begotten 
again,  not  of  corruptible  seed  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the 
Word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever.*  Jesus  repre- 
sents His  word  as  a  seed  of  grain  which  He  Himself  plants  in 
the  human  heart.  It  springs  up  in  the  good  soil,  first  the 
blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the  full  grain  in  the  ear,  and  grows 
to  maturity  amidst  all  kinds  of  difficulties  and  dangers.*  It 
is  a  germ  of  life  that  imparts  itself  to  man's  heart  and  finds 
therein  the  prepared  ground  of  its  growth.  The  words  of 
Jesus  are  spirit  and  life  ;  ^  they  bear  in  them  the  regenerating 
force  of  the  Divine  Sjjirit  to  quicken  the  human  spirit.  The 
Gospel  is  no  dead  letter,  it  is  a  living  organism ;  for  Christ 
Jesus  is  in  it,  in  it  all,  and  in  every  part  of  it,  and  the  energy 
of  the  Divine  Spirit  pervades  it,  so  that  its  words  are  endowed 

1  See  pp.  .338  seq.  »  See  pp.  340  seq.  '  Col.  2'. 

*  1  Pet  v.  5  Mk.  4.  6  John  6««. 

2u 


658  STUDY  OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

with  the  omnipotence  of  divine  love  and  the  irresistibleness  of 
divine  grace.  Those  brief,  terse,  mysterious,  yet  simple  texts, 
spread  all  over  the  Bible,  the  inexhaustible  supply  for  preachers 
and  teachers,  those  little  Bibles,  that  contain  the  quintessence 
of  the  whole  —  like  the  mountain  lakes,  clear  yet  reaching  to 
vast  depths,  like  the  blue  of  the  sky,  charming  yet  leading  to 
infinite  heights  —  they  lay  hold  of  the  sinner  with  the  irresisti- 
ble conviction  of  his  sin ;  they  persuade  the  penitent  of  the 
divine  forgiveness ;  they  constrain  faith  by  the  energy  of  re- 
deeming love  ;  they  assure  the  repenting  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Heavenly  Father.  There  are  no  other  words  like  the  words  of 
God  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  in  which  the  grace  of 
God  appropriates,  moulds,  and  energizes  the  forms  of  human 
speech  with  creative,  generative  power. 

(6)  The  grace  of  redemption  contained  in  the  Scriptures  is 
also  sanctifying  grace.  Our  Saviour  prays  the  Father  for  His 
disciples:  " Sanctify  them  in  the  truth;  thy  word  is  truth." ^ 
He  tells  His  disciples,  "Already  ye  are  clean  because  of  the 
word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you."^  The  word  of  the 
Gospel  is  thus  a  cleansing,  sanctifying  word :  for  it  is  not  bare 
truth  appealing  to  the  intellect  with  logical  power,  it  is  not 
truth  clothed  with  beauty  aud  charming  the  esthetic  nature 
of  man  ;  but  it  is  truth  which  is  essentially  ethical,  having 
moral  power,  and  above  all  energized  by  the  religious  forces, 
which  lay  hold  of  the  religious  instincts  of  man,  and  it  leads 
him  to  God.  This  could  not  be  accomplished  by  the  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances,  but  only  by  the  Gospel 
of  the  grace  of  God,  the  soul-transforming  words  of  our  holy 
religion.  For  the  Gospel  sets  forth  God,  the  Holy  Redeemer, 
the  Father,  and  the  Preserver.  The  Gospel  sets  forth  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  crucified,  risen,  and  glorified  Saviour ;  presents 
us  His  blood  and  righteousness,  throws  over  our  nakedness  the 
robe  of  His  justification,  and  commands  us  and'  transforms  us 
by  the  vision  of  His  graces  and  perfections.  The  Word  of 
God  is  a  purifying  and  sanctifying  word ;  because  it  contains 
the  words  of  holy  men,  of  a  sinless  and  entirely  sanctified 
Saviour,  of  a  perfect  God,  tlie  Holy  One  of  Israel. 
1  John  1717.  3  John  16». 


THE   HOLT  SCRIPTURE  AS   MEANS  OF   GRACE  659 

Human  speech  is  a  most  wonderful  endowment  of  man. 
It  is  the  tower  of  strength  in  little  children,  who  as  babes  and 
sucklings  are  enabled  to  praise  their  God.i  It  is  the  means  of 
communication  between  intelligent  beings.  It  is  the  means  of 
communication  between  God  and  man.  Human  speech  finds 
its  noblest  employment  by  man  in  prayer,  praise,  adoration, 
and  preaching  of  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  Human 
speech  finds  its  highest  employment  by  God  in  being  made  the 
instrument  of  His  divine  power.  It  enwraps  and  conveys  to 
sinful  man  the  divine  grace  of  regeneration  and  sanctification ; 
it  presents  the  Divine  Trinity  to  man  in  all  their  redemptive 
offices ;  and  it  is  the  channel  of  communication,  of  attachment, 
of  communion,  of  organic  union,  and  everlasting  blessedness. 

"  For  the  grace  of  God  hath  appeared,  bringing  salvation  to  all 
men,  instructing  us,  to  the  intent  that,  denying  migodliness  and 
worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly  and  righteously  and  godly  in 
this  present  world :  looking  for  the  blessed  hope  and  appearing  of 
the  glory  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  who  gave 
himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and 
purify  unto  himself  a  people  for  his  own  possession,  zealous  of 
good  works.'" 

III.  The  Efficacy  of  Holy  Scriptfee 

The  Holy  Scriptures  are  means  of  grace,  because  they  have 
in  them  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  grace  of  regen- 
eration and  sanctification.  In  what,  then,  lies  the  efficacy  of 
this  grace?  How  are  we  regenerated  and  sanctified  by  the 
word  of  redemption  in  Christ? 

"The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading,  but  especially  the 
preaching  of  the  Word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening,  con- 
vincing, and  humbling  sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of  themselves, 
and  drawing  them  unto  Christ ;  of  conforming  them  to  His  image, 
and  subduing  them  to  His  ^-ill;  of  strengthening  them  against 
temptations  and  corruptions ;  of  building  them  up  in  grace,  and 
establishing  their  hearts  in  holiness  and  comfort  through  faith 
unto  salvation." ' 

These  are  faithful  and  noble  words.     They  ought  to  become 
1  Ps.  82.  2  Titus  2"-'«.  «  West.  Larger  Cat.,  Quest.  155. 


660  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

more  real  to  the  experience  of  the  men  of  this  generation, 
where  the  peril,  on  the  one  hand,  is  in  laj'ing'  too  much  st"ess 
on  doctrines  of  faith,  and,  on  the  other,  in  overrating  maxims 
of  morals.  Religion,  the  experience  of  the  divine  grace  and 
growth  therein,  is  the  chief  thing  in  the  use  of  the  Bible  and 
in  Christian  life.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  means  of  grace,  but 
means  that  have  to  be  applied  by  a  diAdne  force  to  make  them 
efificacious.  There  must  be  an  immediate  contact  and  energetic 
working  upon  the  readers  and  hearers  and  students  of  the 
Word  by  a  divine  power.  The  Word  of  God  does  not  work 
ex  opere  operato,  that  is,  b}-  its  mere  use.  It  is  not  the  mere 
reading,  the  mere  study  of  the  Bible,  that  is  eiScacious.  It  is 
not  the  Bible  in  the  house  or  in  the  hands.  It  is  not  the  Bible 
read  by  the  eyes  and  heard  by  the  ears.  It  is  not  the  Bible 
committed  to  memory  and  recited  word  for  word.  It  is  not  the 
Bible  expounded  by  the  teacher  and  apprehended  by  the  mind 
of  the  scholar.  All  these  are  but  external  forms  of  the  Word 
which  enwrap  the  spiritual  substance,  the  grace  of  redemption. 
The  casket  contains  the  precious  jewels.  It  must  be  opened 
that  their  lustre  and  beauty  may  charm  us.  The  shell  contains 
the  nut.  It  must  be  cracked  or  we  cannot  eat  it.  The  pitcher 
contains  the  water.  But  it  must  be  poured  out  and  drunk  to 
satisfy  thirst.  The  Word  of  God  is  effectual  only  when  it  has 
become  dynamic,  and  has  wrought  vital  and  organic  changes, 
entering  into  the  depths  of  the  heart,  assimilating  itself  to  the 
spiritual  necessities  of  our  nature,  transforming  life  and  char- 
acter. This  is  the  purpose  of  the  grace  which  the  Bible  con- 
tains. This  is  the  power  of  grace  that  the  Bible  exhibits,  in 
holding  forth  to  us.  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour.  This  can  be 
accomplished  in  us  only  by  the  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
working  in  and  through  the  Scriptures  in  their  use. 

IV.    The  Appropriation  of  the  Grace  of  Holy 

SCRIPTUKE 

How,  then,  are  we  to  obtain  the  grace  of  God  contained  in 
the  Scriptures  and  effectually  applied  unto  us  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  regenerating  and  sanctifying  grace?     The  universal 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE   AS   MEANS  OF   GRACE  661 

Protestant  answer  to  this  question  would  be,  the  grace  of  the 
Scriptures  is  received  by  faith.  Faith  is  the  hand  of  the  soul 
A  hich  grasps  and  takes  to  itself  the  grace  of  God.  But  the 
nature  of  this  appropriation  by  faith  needs  unfolding.  The 
Westminster  Shorter  Catechism^  gives  a  good  answer  to  the 
question  : 

"That  the  Word  may  become  effectual  to  salvation,  we  must 
attend  thereunto  with  diligence,  preparation  and  prayer ;  receive 
it  with  faith  and  love,  lay  it  up  in  our  hearts,  and  practise  it  in 
our  lives." 

1.  The  first  thing  we  have  to  do  in  our  study  of  the  Word 
of  God  is  to  give  it  our  attention.  Indeed  attention  is  the  first 
requisite  of  all  study  and  of  all  work.  Diligence  and  prepara- 
tion are  necessary  for  all  undertakings.  No  one  can  fulfil  his 
calling  in  life  without  these  qualifications.  But  there  is  an 
attention  to  be  given  to  the  Word  of  God  which  is  peculiar, 
and  vastly  higher  than  the  attention  given  to  ordinary  avoca- 
tions of  life.  It  is  an  attention  that  is  distinguished  by  pi-ayer ; 
for  the  study  of  the  Bible  is  a  study  of  redemption,  a  search 
for  the  power  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  a  quest  for  the  grace  of 
salvation.  Such  study  must  be  pointed  with  prayer,  for  prayer 
is  the  soul's  quest  after  God.  Prayer  directs  the  student  of 
the  Bible  to  God  in  the  Bible.  It  withdraws  the  attention 
from  all  other  things  that  might  absorb  and  attract  it,  and 
concentrates  it  on  God.  Praj^er  is  the  arrow-head  that  bears 
the  arrow  of  attention  to  its  mark  —  God.  If  the  grace  of 
God  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  the  prevenient  grace,  —  always 
preceding  and  anticipating  the  quest  of  man,  ready  to  be  found, 
waiting  to  impart  itself  to  us,  —  be  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
then  the  attention  of  the  Bible  student,  directed  by  prayer, 
comes  in  immediate  contact  with  this  Spirit  of  grace  and 
receives  the  power  of  salvation  in  personal  union  with  Him. 
Hence  it  is  that  prayer  is  associated  with  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  sacraments  as  a  means  of  grace.  It  is  not  a  means 
of  grace  in  the  same  way  as  the  Word  of  God,  but  it  is  a  means 
of  grace  of  no  less  importance  ;  for  if  the  Word  of  God  is  the 

» Ques.  90. 


662  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE 

instrument,  tlie  means  by  which  the  grace  of  God  is  given  to 
us  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  j^rayer  is  the  instrument  or  means  of 
grace  whereby  we  are  able  to  receive  and  use  the  grace  of  God. 
It  is  of  prime  importance,  therefore,  that  the  student  of  the 
Bible  should  be  bathed  in  prayer,  and  that  the  spirit  of  prayer 
should  be  the  animating  influence  in  all  our  investigations 
of  the  Scriptures.  Prayerful  attention  seeks  and  finds  God, 
appropriates  His  grace  and  the  redemptive  influence  of  His 
Word. 

Robert  Boyle  well  says  : 

"And  surely  this  consideration  of  the  Bible's  being  one  of  the 
conduit  pipes,  through  which  God  hath  appointed  to  conveigh  his 
Truth,  as  well  as  graces  to  his  children,  should  methiuks  both 
largely  animate  us  to  the  searching  of  the  Scriptures,  and  equally 
refresh  us  in  it.  For  as  no  Instrument  is  weak  in  an  omnipotent 
hand:  so  ought  no  means  to  be  looked  upon  as  more  promising 
than  that  which  is  like  to  be  prospered  by  Grace,  as  'tis  devised  by 
Omniscience.  We  may  confidently  expect  God's  blessing  upon  his 
own  institutions,  since  we  know  that  whatsoever  we  ask  according 
to  the  will  of  God,  he  will  give  it  us,  and  we  can  scarce  ask  any- 
thing more  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  than  the  competent  under- 
standing of  that  book  wherein  his  will  is  contained." ' 

In  order  to  emphasize  this  all-important  point  and  give  it  its 
proper  position  in  biblical  studj%  it  will  l)e  necessary  for  us  to 
make  some  discriminations. 

(a)  The  first  work  in  the  scientific  and  systematic  study  of 
the  Scriptm-es  is  called  Textual  Criticism,  or  the  Lower  Criti- 
cism. It  is,  first  of  all,  necessary  to  know  the  text  in  which 
the  Scrijjtures  are  contained.  Hence  the  candidates  for  the 
ministry  devote  a  large  portion  of  their  time  to  a  study  of  the 
sacred  languages,  in  order  that  they  may  undertake  the  work 
of  Textual  Criticism  and  study  the  various  versions  and  manu- 
scripts of  the  Word  of  God.  All  translations  must  be  derived 
from  a  faithful  study  of  the  originals.  It' is  indispensable  that 
a  living  Church  should  have  a  ministry  who  are  brought  into 
immediate  contact  with  the  divine  originals.  The  Bible  in  un- 
known tongues  is  a  Paradise  fenced  and  barred.^     The  acquisi- 

1  Some  Considerations  touching  the  Style  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  London, 
lOGl,  p.  50.  ^  See  Chaps.  III.,  XI.X. 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  AS  MEANS  OF  GRACE  663 

tion  of  the  original  text  removes  the  barrier ;  the  translation 
into  the  tongue  of  the  people  opens  the  gates,  that  all  who  will 
may  enter  in.  Hence  Protestant  churches  have  made  it  an 
article  of  faith  that  the  Bible  must  be  given  to  the  people  in 
their  own  tongue,  and  continually  interpreted  to  the  people  by 
ministers,  who  know  themselves  the  origmals,  and  are  able  to 
remove  misapprehensions  that  will  always  arise,  to  some  extent, 
in  connection  with  all  translations  and  reproductions.  But  this 
first  step  of  the  master}*  of  the  divine  original  text  may  be  ac- 
complished, and  yet  the  grace  of  God  that  is  in  the  Scriptures 
remain  entirely  unknown.  It  is  as  if  a  man  should  enter  the 
king's  garden  and  devote  his  entire  attention  to  the  study  of 
the  gates  and  walls. 

(6)  The  second  step  in  biblical  study  is  literary  criticism  or 
Higher  Criticism. i  The  sacred  Scriptures  are  composed  of  a 
great  variety  of  writings  of  different  authors  in  different  periods 
of  history,  writing  in  many  different  styles,  such  as  poetrj-  and 
prose,  history  and  story,  epistle  and  prophecy.  Some  of  this 
literature  is  exceedingly  choice  from  a  purely  literary  point  of 
view.  An  anthology  of  the  choicest  pieces  of  biblical  litera- 
ture would  certainly  be  a  very  profitable  study  for  many  of 
God's  people.  Their  eyes  would  be  opened  to  the  wondrous 
forms  of  beautj-  in  which  God  has  chosen  to  reveal  His  grace 
of  redemption.  But  to  study  the  Bible  as  sacred  literature  is 
not  to  study  it  as  a  means  of  grace.  Exclusive  devotion  to 
that  theme  is  as  if  we  should  enter  the  king's  garden,  and 
instead  of  going  at  once  to  his  gracious  presence,  in  accordance 
with  his  invitation,  we  should  devote  ourselves  to  the  beautiful 
trees  and  flowers  and  ornamental  shrubs  and  landscape. 

(c)  The  third  work  of  biblical  study  is  biblical  exegesis. ^ 
In  this  department  the  student  in  every  way  endeavours  to  get 
at  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  The  particular  passage 
and  the  entire  writing  under  consideration  must  be  studied 
with  the  most  minute  accuracy,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
most  comprehensive  summation  of  evidence.  But  even  this 
may  be  carried  on  in  a  most  thorough  and  successfid  manner 
in  all  its  stages,  except  the  last  and  highest,^  without  finding 

1  See  Chaps.  XI.-XVIL    ^  See  Chaps.  III.,  XIX.,  pp.  474  seq.    «  See  pp.  484  seq. 


664  STUDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

God  in  Jesus  Christ.  Some  of  the  best  exegetes  have  not  been 
true  Christians.  The  peril  in  exegesis  is,  the  becoming  absorbed 
in  details,  and  in  giving  ourselves  to  the  quest  after  truth  and 
scholarly  accuracy.  It  is  as  if  one  entered  the  king's  garden 
and  devoted  himself  at  once  to  a  scientific  examination  and 
classification  of  its  contents,  the  survey  and  mapping  out  of 
its  sections. 

((i)  The  fourth  work  of  biblical  study  is  the  study  of  the 
history  and  theology  of  the  Bible,  ^ — its  history,  its  religion,  its 
doctrines,  and  its  morals.  This  is  the  highest  attainment  of 
biblical  scholarship,  but  it  is  not  the  study-  of  the  Bible  as  a 
means  of  grace.  It  is  as  if  we  entered  the  king's  palace  and 
devoted  our  attention  to  the  principles  and  maxims  of  his 
administration,  the  rules  of  his  household,  while  the  king  him- 
self was  graciousl}'  waiting  to  receive  us  into  his  own  presence 
and  give  us  the  kiss  of  fatherly  salutation. 

All  of  these  various  subjects  of  biblical  study  are  vastly 
important.  The  Chirrch  has  not  yet  awakened  to  the  vast 
possibilities  and  the  wonderful  fruitage  to  be  derived  from 
biblical  study.  No  one  could  exalt  these  departments,  each 
and  all  of  them,  more  highly  than  I  am  disposed  to  do  ;  but 
notwithstanding,  it  must  be  said  that  if  all  these  studies  were 
to  be  accomplished  in  a  most  scholarly  manner,  the  chief  thing, 
the  one  supreme  thing,  might  still  remain  unaccomplished  — 
namely,  the  study  of  the  Bible  as  a  means  of  grace.  This  is 
the  highest  achievement  of  biblical  studj*.  For  praj'er  will 
seek  first  the  presence  and  the  person  of  God.  It  will  not  be 
detained  bj'  anything  in  the  Bible.  It  will  press  on  through  the 
text,  the  literature,  the  exegesis,  the  history,  and  the  theology, 
giving  them  but  slight  attention,  a  mere  passing  glance,  firmly 
advancing  into  the  presence-chamber  of  God.  It  will  I'un  in  the 
footsteps  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  until  the  man  is  ushered  into 
the  presence  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  and  bows  in  adoration 
and  love  to  the  dear  Saviour,  and  has  the  adoption  and  recogni- 
tion of  sonship.  Then  first  will  he  be  assured  that  the  Bible 
is  indeed  the  Word  of  God,  the  inspired  Canon,  when  he  has 
found  God  in  the  Bible  ;  ^   then  first  will  he  understand  the 

1  See  Chaps.  XX.-XXIII.  "   See  Chap.  VI.  pp.  166  seq. 


THE   HOLY  SCRIPTUKE  AS  MEANS  OF  GRACE  665 

Scriptures  at  their  centre,  in  their  very  heart,  when  he  has 
recognized  his  Saviour  in  them  ;  *  then  in  the  light  of  the 
Redeemer's  countenance,  the  student  may  go  forth  to  the 
enjoyment  of  all  the  beauties  and  glories  and  wondrous  mani- 
festations of  truth  and  love  in  the  Scriptures,  and  find  them 
radiant  with  the  love  of  Christ,  and  pervaded  throughout  with 
the  effectual  grace  of  God.  As  an  ancient  Puritan  divine  has 
said  : 

"  Thus  in  the  Scriptures  ye  find  life,  because  the  Word  is  so 
effectual  to  doe  you  good,  to  convert  your  soul,  to  pull  down 
Satan's  throne,  and  to  build  up  the  soul  in  grace.  It  is  a  hammer 
to  break  the  hard  heart,  a  fire  to  purge  the  drossie  heart,  a  light 
to  shine  into  the  darke  heart,  an  oyle  to  revive  the  broken  heart, 
armour  of  proof  to  stablish  the  weake  and  tempted  heart.  If 
these  precious  things  be  matters  of  Christian  religion ;  then  surely 
the  written  word  is  the  foundation  of  it.  Eternal  life  is  in  the 
Scriptures,  because  they  testify  of  Christ,  they  set  forth  Christ 
who  is  the  way,  the  tr\ith  and  the  life;  in  them  ye  find  life, 
because  in  them  ye  find  Christ.  So  far  as  by  Scripture  we  get 
acquaintance  with  Christ ;  so  far  we  are  acquainted  with  salvation 
and  no  farther.  For  if  you  knew  all  Histories  and  all  the  prophe- 
cies, if  ye  had  the  whole  Bible  by  heart,  if  by  it  you  could  judge 
of  all  disputes,  yet  until  j^ou  find  Christ  there,  you  cannot  find 
life;  the  Scriptures  are  to  us  salvificall  because  they  bring  us 
unto  Christ."  ■ 

2.  Faith  in  the  form  of  prayerful  attention  and  investiga- 
tion is  followed  by  appropriatim/  faith.  The  attention  becomes 
more  and  more  absorbed  in  its  object.  Prayer  having  attained 
its  quest  is  satisfied  and  grateful.  The  gi-ace  of  God,  so  evi- 
dently set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour, 
is  appropriated  in  this  personal  contact.  The  affections  are 
generated,  and  impart  to  faith  new  vigour.  The  Holy  Spirit 
grasps  the  hand  of  prayer,  and  pours  into  it  the  treasures  of 
grace,  and  they  are  clasped  as  infinitely  precious  to  believing 
and  loving  hearts.     As  a  distinguished  modern  divine  says  : 

"Holy  Scripture  gives  faith  its  object.  It  puts  Christianity  in 
its  purity  and  attractiveness  before  our  eyes  as  an  object  which  is 

»  See  p.  485. 

^  Lyford,  Plain  MarCs  Senses  exercised.  1655,  pp.  69,  60. 


666  STUDY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTtlRE 

itself  a  challenge  and  inducement  to  enter  into  union  with  it  by 
faith."  ...  "  The  Holy  Spirit  perpetually  glorifies  Christ  as  He 
is  set  forth  in  Scripture,  makes  Him  emerge,  so  to  speak,  from 
the  letter  and  stand  out  in  living  form  before  us.  He  thus 
brings  us  through  the  medium  of  Holy  Scripture  into  communion 
with  the  living  Christ." ' 

Thus  faith  and  love  are  the  two  eyes  of  the  soul  that  see  the 
living  Christ  present  in  His  Word.  They  are  the  spiritual 
appetites  by  which  we  partake  of  the  bread  of  heaven  and 
living  water.  Such  a  receiving  is  an  ever-increasing  enjoy- 
ment of  the  infinite  riches  of  divine  grace,  the  inexhaustible 
treasures  of  redemptive  love.  The  supply  of  grace  in  the 
Scriptures  is  iiiexhaustible.  The  possibilities  of  the  growth 
of  the  affections  of  faith  and  love  are  onlj'  limited  by  the  pos- 
sibilities of  grace  itself.  This  system  of  grace  is  compared  by 
the  prophet  Zechariah  to  a  vast,  self-feeding  lamp-stand  with 
its  seven  branches  and  lighted  lamps,  supplied  by  the  ever- 
living,  growing,  and  oil-producing  olive-trees  that  stand  by  its 
sides  and  overshadow  it.^  The  oil  of  grace  is  ever  fresh  and 
new  —  the  light  is  ever  bright  and  brilliant.  Faith's  eye  sees 
and  understands  it  more  and  more. 

But  just  here  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against  a  too  common 
error.  It  is  true  that  the  grace  of  God  pervades  the  Scriptures, 
and  Christ  is  the  master  of  the  Scriptures,  but  it  is  not  equally 
easy  for  faith  to  see  and  appreciate  the  grace  of  God  in  every 
passage.  The  Bible  contains  supplies  of  grace  for  all  the  world, 
and  for  all  time,  for  the  weak  and  baby  Christians,  for  the 
strong  and  manly  Christians,  for  the  immature  Christian  centu- 
ries, and  for  the  Church  in  its  highest  development  as  the 
Bride  of  the  Lamb.  Training  in  the  school  of  grace  is  indis- 
pensable for  the  appropriation  of  the  grace  of  the  Scriptures. 
There  are  but  few  who  are  able  to  appropriate  more  than  the 
grace  that  lies  on  the  surface  of  the  plainest  passa-ges  of  Script- 
ure. The  Church  is  constantly  learning  new  lessons  of  grace 
from  the  Scriptures.  We  have  a  right  to  expect  still  greater 
light  to  break  forth  from  the  Scriptures  when  the  Church  has 

1  Domer,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  IV.  pp.  260,  261. 
a  Zech.  4. 


THE   HOLY  SCRIPTURE   AS   MEANS   OF  GRACE  667 

been  prepared  to  receive  it.  The  Church  did  not  attain  its 
maturity  at  the  Nicene  Council.  Augustine  was  not  the  high- 
est achievement  of  Chi-istian  faith  and  experience.  The  Prot- 
estant Reformation  did  not  introduce  the  golden  age.  A 
church  that  is  not  growing  in  grace  is  a  lukewarm,  if  not  a 
dead,  church.  A  theology  that  is  not  progressive  is  a  bed- 
ridden, if  not  a  dead,  theology.  The  Church  needs  a  greater 
Reformation  than  it  has  ever  yet  enjoyed  —  a  more  extensive 
living  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  deeper  quickening,  a  more  intense 
devotion  in  love  and  service  to  our  Saviour  and  the  interests 
of  His  kingdom.  We  are  convinced  that  the  seeds  of  such 
a  Reformation  are  embedded  in  the  Bible,  only  waiting  a  new 
springtime  of  the  world  to  shoot  forth.  The  grace  of  God 
will  reveal  itself  to  another  Luther  and  another  Calvin  at 
no  very  distant  day,  in  vastly  greater  richness  and  fulness,  for 
the  sanctification  of  the  Church  and  the  preparation  of  the 
Bride  for  her  Bridegroom.  In  the  meantime  it  behooves  us 
all  to  turn  away  from  the  abnormal,  immature,  and  defective 
experiences  and  systems  of  very  poor  Christians,  so  often  held 
up  to  us  as  models  for  our  attainment,  and  to  set  our  faces  as 
a  flint  against  every  vn-esting  of  Scripture  in  the  interest  of 
any  dogma,  new  or  old,  and  to  fix  our  faith  and  love  upon  the 
image  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  crucified,  risen, 
and  glorified  Redeemer.  He  is  the  one  object  that  concentrates 
the  grace  of  God — the  fountain  source  of  supply  for  all  be- 
lievers. Into  His  image  as  the  divine  likeness  we  are  to  be 
transformed,  and  we  ought  to  think  of  no  other. 

The  Scriptures  are  indeed  means,  not  ends.  They  are  to 
bring  us  to  God,  to  assimilate  us  to  Christ,  to  unite  us  in 
organic  union  with  Him.  If  this  has  not  been  accomplished, 
there  has  been  very  great  failure,  however  much  we  may  have 
accomplished  in  biblical  scholarship  or  Dogmatic  Theology, 
in  the  history  and  polity  of  the  Church,  in  devotional  read- 
ing and  preaching,  in  the  application  of  particular  passages 
to  our  souls.  But  those  who  have  become  personally  attached 
to  Jesus  Christ  have  found  the  Master  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
is  the  key  to  its  treasures,  the  clue  to  its  labyrinths.  Under 
His  instruction  and  guidance  believers  search  the  Scriptures 


668  STtTDY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

with  ever-increasing  pleasure  and  profit.  They  ever  find  treas- 
ures new  and  old.  They  understand  the  secret  of  grace. 
They  know  how  to  extract  it  from  the  varied  forms  in  which 
it  is  enveloped.  They  explore  the  deepest  mines  and  bring 
forth  lustrous  gems  of  truth.  They  climb  the  highest  peaks 
and  rapturously  gaze  on  the  vast  territories  of  their  Lord. 
With  the  Psalmist  they  exclaim  : 

0  how  I  love  thy  instruction  !  —  it  is  my  meditation  all  the  day. 

How  sweet  are  thy  words  unto  my  taste  !  —  sweeter  than  honey  to  my  mouth  ! 

1  lore  thy  commandments  above  gold,  — yea  above  fine  gold. 

The  sum  of  thy  word  is  truth,  —  and  everlasting  all  thy  righteous  judgments,  i 

3.  The  grace  of  God  in  Holj-  Scripture  can  be  fully  appro- 
priated only  bj'  practising  faith.  Our  Saviour  taught  His  dis- 
ciples :  "  If  any  man  willeth  to  do  His  wQl,  he  shall  know  of 
the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  from 
myself." 2  Experiment  is  ever  the  victor  of  doubt.  Faith  is 
tested  by  practice.  Abraham's  faith  was  proved  by  his  will- 
ingness to  sacrifice  his  well-beloved  son.  Mere  faith  is  seem- 
ing faith,  a  shadow,  a  dead  vanity.  A  real,  genuine,  living 
faith  apprehends  and  uses  divine  grace.  The  grace  of  God  is 
effectual.  It  is  dynamic  in  its  application  of  redemption.  It 
is  no  less  dynamic  after  it  has  been  appropriated  by  man.  The 
light  of  the  world  lights  up  Christian  lamps.  The  water  of  life 
becomes  in  the  believer  a  fountain,  from  wliich  shall  flow  rivers 
of  living  water. 3  The  grace  of  God  is  made  effectual  by  "  lay- 
ing it  up  in  our  hearts  and  practising  it  in  our  lives."  The 
grace  of  God  becomes  a  grace  of  experience.  Unless  the  divine 
grace  continue  to  flow  forth  from  a  man  in  his  life  and  conduct, 
the  source  of  supply  is  stopped.  A  reservoir  which  has  no  out- 
let will  have  no  incoming  waters.  A  lamp  that  does  not  burn 
will  not  be  able  to  receive  fresh  supplies  of  oil. 

From  this  two  things  follow  : 

(a)  If  a  Christian  man  would  use  the  Scriptures  as  a  means 
of  grace,  he  must  continually  put  them  in  practice  in  his  heart 
and  life.  If  the  Church  would  apprehend  more  and  more  the 
riches  of  the  grace  of  Jesus  Christ  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 

1  Ps.  1  \y"-  »<»•  ^- 1».  »  John  7".  3  John  T". 


THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  AS   MEANS  OF   GRACE  669 

it  must  become  a  more  practical,  earnest,  Christ-like  Church. 
The  source  of  supply  from  the  reservoir  Scripture  is  feeble 
because  the  outflowing  of  grace  from  Christian  men  and  women 
is  feeble. 

(6)  Christians  become  secondary  sources  of  suppl}-.  The 
Word  of  God,  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  when  appropriated 
by  the  Christian,  assimilated  to  his  needs,  transformed  into  his 
life,  does  not  cease  to  be  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  The 
external  form  has  been  changed,  but  the  internal  substance  of 
grace  is  the  same.  The  Word  of  God  does  not  cease  to  be  the 
Word  of  God  wdien  wrapped  in  other  than  Scripture  language. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  Christian  becomes  a  li\4ng  epistle  of  God,i 
and  the  Church,  as  a  body  of  such  epistles,  a  means  of  grace, 
conveying  the  divine  grace  in  another  form  to  the  world.  It 
is  ever  the  grace  of  God  that  is  the  effectual  divine  force,  and 
not  the  form  in  which  for  the  time  it  may  be  enveloped. 
Happy  the  Church  when  its  ministers  have  become  more  really 
such  living  epistles,  written  with  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God  ! 
Blessed  will  that  time  be,  when  the  entire  membership  of  the 
Church  shall  become  such  epistles,  when  Christ,  who  so  loved 
the  Church  and  gave  Himself  for  it,  shall  have  sanctified  it, 
having  cleansed  it  by  the  wasliing  of  water  with  the  Word  !  ^ 
Then  wUl  the  ancient  prophecy  be  realised. ^ 

Lo,  days  are  coming,  is  the  utterance  of  Yahweh, 

When  I  will  conclude  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah, 
a  new  covenant ; 

Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  concluded  with  their  fathers 

In  the  day  of  my  strengthening  their  hand  to  bring  them  forth  from  the  land 
of  Egypt ; 

Which  covenant  with  me  they  did  break,  although  I  was  lord  over  them,  is 
the  utterance  of  Yahweh. 

For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  conclude  with  the  house  of  Israel  after 
those  days,  is  the  utterance  of  Yahweh  : 

I  do  put  my  instruction  within  them,  and  upon  their  heart  will  I  write  it ; 

And  I  will  become  a  God  for  them,  and  they  will  become  a  people  for  me  ; 

And  they  will  not  teach  any  more,  each  his  friend,  and  each  his  brother,  say- 
ing, "  Know  Yahweh  "  ; 

For  all  of  them  will  know  me,  from  the  least  even  to  the  greatest  of  them,  is 
the  utterance  of  Yahweh. 

For  I  will  pardon  their  iniquity,  and  their  sins  I  will  not  remember  any 
more.  * 

■  2  Cor.  3».  2  Eph.  525-26.  s  Heb.  Si"-".  ^  Jer.  Sl^'-M. 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS 

The  large-faced  type  indicates  the  most  important  references,  especially  where  there 
is  criticism  of  the  text  or  exposition. 


Pentateuch 

:   ISi 

.211,  234, 

Genesis : 

Leviticus : 

2:«,  247. 

252. 

253,  257- 

xlii28 

298 

ixi 

174 

2.-i.S,  269 

271 

274,  27.5, 

xliii28 

182 

xiiS 

269 

277,  282. 

283 

287,  290, 

xlivi8-84 

838 

xiv 

269 

31'J,  322-323, 

32U 

Xlv26 

2!W 

xviiisi 

174 

Xlviiil5-16 

394 

559 

xixi8 

444 

Genesis : 

2.34.  278 

xlviii" 

390 

559 

XX'-!-" 

174 

j 

650-551.560 

xlix2-2- 

559 

xxiv^^ 

562 

18 

551 

xlixW 

238  ^v  7. 

iiMv 

547,:.,-.!! 

121 

298 

Numbers : 

234 

ii8«. 

445 

iii39 

177 

ii'24 

441 

Exodus : 

234 

Vi24-26 

338,  403,  560 

iy23 

a56 

iii 

174 

ixio 

177 

V 

512 

iii* 

439 

ixis 

■     525 

Til-' 

333 

ivio 

528 

xss 

174 

■ii-%-iii 

560 

iv-i 

298 

x35-36 

177,  387,  559 

jx2S-2r 

396 

iV-2J 

356 

xil5 

178 

xis 

182 

iv26 

269 

xii*-8 

559 

xiii-8 

559 

Vii23 

298 

Xiil2 

178 

xii" 

53 

x27 

298 

XX 

529 

xiv 

52 

Xii44-48 

269 

xxi 

356 

xivi9 

391 

xiv5 

298 

xxi" 

355 

xivI9-20 

5lK) 

XV    298,   356, 

362, 

879- 

vvji^is 

559 

XA-« 

444 

380,  415,  559 

xxi" 

3.'J6 

XTi* 

177 

xv-i 

.■i21 

xxiir-18 

390,  5.59 

xviii" 

177 

xvii 

529 

xxisr-ao 

413,  559 

xviiis 

177 

xviiis 

559 

xxi8» 

177 

xviii22 

178 

xix 

44(i 

xxiii7««- 

378 

xix^ 

439 

xix5 

356 

xxiii?-i» 

559 

Xix33 

177 

xix" 

559 

xxiiiis-i" 

378,  .159 

Xx5-6 

298 

XX 

118 

Xxiv8-9 

559 

xxi«-" 

393,  559 

XX12 

268 

xxivi8 

298 

xxii 

443.  1)41 

xxi8-n 

444 

Xxivl5-24 

559 

xxiii* 

297 

xx-i^-xxiii 

119 

xxix's 

177 

xxivM 

177 

xxii" 

21  i8 

xxxi^ 

177 

xxiv«) 

387.  rc'.t 

xxi^'-xxii' 

562 

XXV28 

390. 559 

Xxiii20-28 

302 

Deuteronomy :  231, 303, 324 

xxvii2 

I.S2 

xxiyS 

176 

i8 

440 

IXvii2--ffl 

559 

xxiv'' 

444 

ivii 

298 

XXvii89-40 

394.  559 

xxxiv 

119 

ivl6-19 

638 

xxviiii-< 

560 

XXxiv2»« 

444 

V 

118 

xxxi^o 

21)8 

Xl85 

524-525 

■riii* 

14 

xxxi^o 

298 

x" 

ss 

xxxiii'* 

177 

Leviticvis : 

2.34 

xii' 

562 

ixxviin 

177 

vii2' 

561 

xiii 

542 

INDEX  OF    TEXIS 


Deuteronomy : 

Ruth: 

1  Kings: 

xviiii8-i9 

270 

iiu 

177 

xviii*? 

S46 

TfilC 

561 

iil2 

304-305.  343 

xviii«9 

546 

Tiriiii 

344 

iii^ 

177 

xix 

174 

xxiii* 

343 

iU" 

177 

xix8 

521 

xxivi-* 

269 

iiiir 

177 

XXV* 

444 

ivir-a 

314 

2  Kings: 

xxv^ 

439 

Vl8 

177 

XXViii2' 

178 

1  .Samuel: 

173, 

189,  252, 

vi25 

178 

xxviiiso 

ITS 

256,  297 

319,330 

X2- 

178 

xxviii^ 

298 

ii 

29S 

xiv" 

345 

xxixs 

298 

iii-io 

569 

xviiiu 

61 

xxixS 

297 

iis 

55 

xviii^' 

178 

xxix'* 

298 

iiilB 

178 

xix2i-s4 

560 

xxix"* 

177 

v6 

178 

xixss 

520 

xxxii  297,  362-363,  ays, 

vi* 

ITS 

xxii-xxiii 

119 

400,  415,  559 

xii8 

559 

xiiii'" 

174 

xxxiis-9 

534 

sv 

338 

xxxii^i 

305 

Xv22-23,  22 

.32 

559 

1  Chronicles 

:  127,130 

132, 

XXXii«.62 

297 

Xyjl-lS 

558 

137,   138, 

164,   173, 

211, 

xxxiii 

559 

xvi' 

559 

252,  253 

261.  274 

275, 

xxxiii2? 

176 

XviU-23 

336 

287,  297. 

298,  319, 

326, 

xvii'-xv 

iiS 

336.558 

327,  329,  813 

Joshua:    189,    252,    253, 

xvii" 

,1.18 

ii34-41 

514 

282,  319,  330. 

Xviil»-36. 

45-47 

559 

iv31-41 

514 

ii 

443 

xviii" 

385.  559 

viii-'«-*) 

514 

x"-" 

337 

xxiv'S 

559 

xiis 

391 

,5(>0 

xls-H           356, 

392,  560 

xxivis 

560 

xiiis 

356,393 

,  .560 

xis 

355 

Xvi8-36 

560 

xi2» 

298 

2  Samuel : 

xvi*" 

117 

xiv' 

298 

il8 

355.356 

xriii 

S97 

xxiv 

338 

ii»-sr 

56,380 

,  413,  560 

xxS 

558 

ixiv23 

298 

iii33-84 

356 

,  390, 560 

xxiv-xxviii 

514 

■iii2 

297 

xxvii26-«i 

514 

Judges:  127,252 

297,  319, 

viiU-l6 

560 

330 

viii^ 

177 

2  Chronicles: 

V    56,297,298 

356,  380, 

xi2i 

173 

Xl6 

178 

398,  659. 

xii" 

178 

XXXIT-XXXT 

119 

vll 

66,  366 

xviia 

178 

xxxivis 

117 

yl6-16 

376 

xvi2> 

177 

XXXV26 

117 

v23-27 

368 

xixi" 

177 

ix 

338 

xxi 

178 

Ezra:    127, 

130,  131, 

137, 

1x7-16            416-417, 559 

XXiW 

558 

138.  164, 

173,  212, 

262, 

liM 

356 

xxii        23,  412-413,  560 

255,  261 

274,  287 

29S, 

liv 

334,  356 

xxiis 

91 

319,  327,  329,  340 

xivU 

356 

xxiiii 

91 

vii9 

653 

Xiv".  18 

416,  5-.9 

xxiiii-' 

402,  5(iO 

vijio 

117 

xvi-s« 

,334 

xxiii* 

173 

viii" 

563 

xv8b-w 

.334 

XV>8 

416,  559 

1    Kiiips: 

252-263,   274, 

Xeheraiah : 

131.  137. 

138, 

xvi 

3;i4 

275,   287 

297, 

319,    326, 

IW,  173, 

274,  287, 

298, 

xviM 

559 

3.30 

319,  327,  329,  340 

xviii*> 

177 

iv81-38 

355 

i8 

297 

xxi" 

356 

viiiio-u 

525 

ii«.  18 

653 

Viiil3-18 

560 

viii-x 

120 

Ruth:    126,    128, 

1,31,    164, 

X 

a'-.6 

viii8 

63,  m 

,436 

IT.t,  2:u,  252, 

262,  298, 

Xi2 

174 

z»-«i 

117 

."ilO,  319,  342,  343 

xii'e 

178 

X86-S7 

117 

i" 

343 

xviii 

338 

XiiiSS-2S 

344 

INDEX  OF   TEXTS 

673 

Esther :  102, 126, 127 

,128, 

Psalms: 

Psalms : 

130,  131 

137, 

138 

139, 

xiv^-s 

444 

xei 

297 

141,    143. 

HA, 

liC> 

212, 

XV 

643 

xci< 

306 

234,  252, 

253, 

254. 

255, 

xvi 

380 

XCV'-8 

263 

261,  -'74 

2yT, 

2ys 

310, 

xvi8-u 

262 

xcviiii 

66 

3111,  349  seq. 

xviii    23, 

363-363,  412- 

civ        297 

,298 

411,551 

413.  560 

cv 

373-374 

Job:  126,127,129,138 

,160, 

xviii» 

91 

cvi2» 

178 

164,  173, 

211, 

249, 

252, 

xviiis-? 

;i05 

Cvii23-» 

177 

2SS.  261 

274 

2S7 

298, 

xviiiu 

91 

cix8 

262.  443 

300,  301 

310 

3iy 

362, 

xxi>--' 

366 

ex 

264 

,  303,  375 

363 

xxii 

297,  (>45 

cxi 

262 

i6 

308 

xxiiw 

240 

cxi 

56.  377 

iii8 

557 

xxiii 

384 

cxii 

r.(i,  378 

iii» 

557 

xxiv 

645 

cxviii 

406-407 

VuM 

178 

xxiv"-i» 

419 

cxviiii2, 15 

243 

ix» 

557 

XXV 

242 

cx\-iii2S-23 

439 

ixn 

557 

XXV" 

29 

cxix 

56 

,  381,  382 

xviii" 

557 

xxxi^ 

243 

cxix97. 103. 

105,  U7 

.19)      668 

XXiM 

556 

IXxi23 

■.m 

cxixios 

605 

IXV» 

556 

xxxiii-2 

262,  444 

cxx-<!  xxxiv 

367 

xxvi^ 

557 

xxxiii 

551 

cxxi 

368 

IXVi" 

557 

xxxiv 

56,400 

exxxix 

303 

xxTiii*2 

557 

XXXV26-28 

304 

cxxxix'-JO 

348 

iiviUM 

29 

xxxvii 

444 

0X18 

444 

xxxiis 

178 

XXXVl' 

177 

cxi" 

243 

zzzvii 

422-424 

xixvii 

B6,  383,  400 

cxli 

297 

xxxviii 

551 

XXX  ixl' 

297 

cxliii^ 

243 

xxxviii-xxxix 

;!0i 

xlH-18 

304 

cxliv^ 

243 

xxxviiii8. 

15 

177 

xlii-xliii 

410-411 

cxlv 

56,  383 

xxxriiii" 

557 

lliiS 

:i95 

cxlviii'-8 

366 

xxxviiiSl 

557 

xlv 

380,  413 

xUa_xii84 

301 

xlW      297 

.WO,  403-404 

Proverbs : 

126, 

127,    129, 

xljis 

557 

1 

2117 

it;o,  i(«, 

173, 

189.    212, 

xliP 

273 

U 

308 

252-253, 

1274, 

277,    287, 

liis 

303 

297,  298,  320,  321 

Psalms :  160,  164 

173 

211, 

mi 

23 

i-ix 

307.  398,  417 

247,  250,  252, 

253, 

261, 

Iviii 

380 

vjio 

418 

262,  274, 

277, 

287, 

298, 

Ixrii 

402-403 

viii 

551 

312.313 

316, 

319, 

321, 

IxviiS 

24:! 

viiii- 

29 

322 

Ixviii 

510 

ix 

411,645 

i 

380 

Ixviiiis 

243 

ixi 

174 

ii 

303 

lxviii2« 

177 

ix" 

55 

iii-i 

262 

Ixix 

645 

x-xxiil8 

388 

iU 

401 

Ixix2 

305 

xi 

366 

iv 

380 

lxix22-23 

262 

xis 

386 

T» 

444 

lxix25 

443 

Xi25 

385 

yi 

374 

lxix26 

262 

XiiiM 

386 

vu 

:',so 

Ixx 

304 

xivi» 

385 

viii 

407-408 

Ixxi'^ 

243 

xiv2- 

387 

viua 

659 

IxxiS 

240 

xv8 

387 

iz 

377 

Ixxiii? 

239 

xv-^ 

385 

ix-i 

56 

Ixxriii 

298 

xvi9 

386 

x« 

178 

lxx%-iii''-2» 

34 

XxiiI7-M 

391 

ir 

444 

lxiix8-« 

129 

xxii22-23 

391 

lii 

243 

Ixxx 

413 

Ixii2<-25 

391 

xu 

380 

Ixxx" 

177 

xxii»'-2' 

.391 

xili 

380 

bcsxvii 

538 

xxii29 

388,  389 

liv 

23 

xc 

298,  415 

xxiiii-3 

,      395 

674 


INDEX   OF   TEXTS 


Proverbs : 

Song  of  Songs 

126, 

127, 

Isaiah: 

xxiii+-5 

393 

12S.  130.  i.n 

.  141. 

143, 

Ixi 

438 

xxiii^-s 

396 

IW,  j;y.  252. 

253. 

255, 

Ixji 

303 

ixiiiio-u 

391 

261.  -JTs,  js: 

-•■<7. 

298, 

lxii-2 

267 

xxiiii3-i8 

391 

310,  321,32tJ, 

420-422 

bdiii-* 

420 

xiiii>3-i6 

367 

i5 

58 

Ixiii'o 

303 

XXiiil^21 

395 

viii-7 

58 

Ixvi  •««• 

267 

xxiii25-^ 

397 

Ixyi'  ««• 

445 

xxiii*-^ 

395 

Isaiah:   91,  160 

252-288, 

Xxiii-.-9-33 

397 

,417,418 

279,    282-283, 

287, 

298, 

Jeremiah : 

160, 

189, 

252- 

xxivi-« 

391 

303,  313,  338, 

339 

254,  287, 

298,  310, 

339 

xxivU-12 

395 

i9 

267 

ii" 

178 

xxiri^" 

3i6 

iio 

267 

ii28 

173 

Xxivl5-2i 

391 

ii2-! 

313 

iii2 

178 

Xxiv2»-25 

393 

Vl2 

356 

vi2 

«7 

ixiv3««2 

396 

Yi9«s. 

267 

vii9 

173 

xxiv30-s« 

418 

TilO 

298 

xiw.  17 

173 

XXV 

312 

viii* 

523 

x^iis 

239 

xxv« 

367,  391 

ijlMJ. 

267 

xix^ 

173 

xxv^-io 

391 

is* 

403 

xxviis 

306-807 

xxv«>- 

39:5 

X22"»- 

267 

xxx-i'5 

266,443 

xxvs 

388,389 

Xl2 

303 

xxxi3i-»« 

669 

xsyihu 

388 

xii 

313 

xxxi^s 

177 

XXV13 

388,389 

xiii-xiv23 

298 

313 

xxxii" 

177 

XXV20 

388,389 

xiiii^ 

ITS 

xxxii^s 

174 

XXV'*-'".  21-2S 

391 

xiv 

407 

xxxvi^ 

170 

xxv-a 

388 

XV 

298 

1-li 

298 

xxv-xxix 

388,  391 

xv-xvii2 

313 

1» 

177 

xxvi+^ 

391 

xxii-io 

297 

US 

177 

xxiia>-2i 

367 

xxxiiiii  ««»• 

356 

XXvi2<-26 

395 

xxiv-xxvii 

123, 

298, 

Lamentations :  56, 126, 128, 

xxviii» 

388 

313,  375-376, 3»i 

164.  173, 

234, 

252, 

253, 

xx\-iii'' 

389 

xxvs 

443 

261,  287 

297 

298 

310, 

xxrii--^ 

;i»8 

xxviiii'-i-' 

444 

319 

xx\ni23-27 

397,  417 

xxix's 

267 

298 

il6 

239 

xxviiiio 

388 

xsxi 

303 

iii 

381 

,  382,  401 

IXx2-< 

3<I7 

xxxii-xxxT 

313 

iii» 

178 

IXx5-« 

391 

xxxii'^ 

303 

iii« 

298 

XXX--9 

397 

XXXIV-XXXV 

298 

iixU-u 

397 

xxxvii- 

178 

Ezekiel :  126.  12 

•.  12.S 

.132, 

XXX'5-16 

395,  417 

xxxvii---"''' 

560 

ICO.  252-255, 

297 

298, 

xxx'" 

391 

xl-lxvi    r<G,  aS,  295 

298, 

300. 310 

.339 

XXx'S-19 

3!<.-) 

300.  303,  313,  (^5 

viii'" 

178 

xxx-"" 

38.S 

Xl3 

266,267 

xivi*-20 

351 

IXX=l-23 

■.m 

XIW 

267 

XXi32 

240 

IXx2<-23 

398 

417-418 

Xll2'»»- 

rci 

xxviii' 

351 

xxx^ws 

395 

xliii 

303 

xxxiii-xxxviii 

445 

xxxi'<«i 

383,  417 

xliii-« 
xHv3 

267 
303 

xxxvi^s 
xli^o 

297 

177 

Ecdesiastes 

:  12f 

,  127,  128, 

xliv9 

177 

Xlvi22    ■ 

177 

130,   131, 

141, 

143,  145, 

xliv2< 

551 

xlviii" 

177 

li;4.  2.-M, 

247. 

248,   262. 

xlviiiis 

303 

253.  255 

261 

277,  287, 

liiiMiii 

424-425 

Daniel:  12 

1.  126 

127 

128, 

•.':i7,  i!;is. 

300, 

310,    320, 

liiii 

267 

12!i.  164, 

212, 

252. 

863, 

321,  324 

liii* 

239,267 

254.  258 

.  261 

.  274 

297, 

v" 

65 

liii-^ 

267 

298.  :;oi. 

324. 

327. 

342, 

ix» 

298 

hi« 

344 

351  ."nj.. 

519 

Ift-U 

397 

lix--« 

444 

vii> 

2C5 

be 

384 

535 

vii»  "«• 

445 

INDEX   OF  TEXTS 


675 


Daniel: 

Zechariah 

:    160, 

250, 

252, 

Matthew: 

ix2 

117, 123 

297,  310-311 

xv6 

5 

xi 

297 

i-viii 

298 

XV'' 

267 

XJSl 

265 

iii2 

178 

xvis 

299 

zii 

445 

iT 

666 

xvil--19 

515 

xiil 

2a-) 

Tiil2 

ix-xi 

298 

2i« 

xviis 

XVi-25 

299 
69 

Hosea:  100, 

a«2, 

254,  298, 

Xil2.  13 

•-'i;ti 

xvi^' 

299 

310,  338 

xii-xiv 

298 

310 

xviis 

524 

iio 

aio 

xiv2 

178 

xviii8-9 

90 

ijio 

173 

Xiv6  seq. 

132,  426 

xviiii? 

299 

1,20 

403 

xviiiss 

299 

ii2S 

26(i 

Malachi : 

247, 252, 254, 297, 

xixs 

200 

iv^ 

178 

298,  309 

311 

xixS»"«- 

440 

xii 

443 

jIl-U 

132 

xix--8 

269 

xiii' 

1T3 

jia 

178 

xix"* 

645 

xiii" 

347 

iiii 

267 

xixll-12 

394 

xiT=-W 

419-420 

iii-^ 

297 

4 

xsi*2-» 

201 
439 

Joel:    160, 

297, 

298,  309, 

xxiii5-»8 

iVi 

311,338 

Matthew : 

133,135,136,2t)0, 

XXii-!M2 

439 

ii2S-32 

206 

327,  330 

XXii29 

117 

iiii  "I- 

44U 

ia)-:i 

i22-23 

523 

523 

xxii«-« 
xxiii8-l2 

262 

437 
401 

Amos:  160, 

252, 

297,  298, 

ii" 

266 

xxiiiia 

387 

310,  311 

iii' 

207 

xxivis 

265 

iv6 

297 

iiilS-I8 

443 

xxivia-2< 

543 

VJo 

33(i 

iv* 

14 

xxivso 

299 

ix2-3 

348 

iv4-io 

437 

xxv» 

387 

ix' 

535 

Ivu 
v-vii 

207 
."iv_> 

xxvsus 
xxvisa 

404 

405 

■J'.  19 

Obadiah : 

160,  298 

Vl7 

123 

,131 

387 

xxvi" 

387 

Vl8 

14 

387 

xxviis     250, 

266. 

310, 

Jonah:   lf>0 

298 

309,  311, 

V"-l  eeq. 

440 

320 

310,  345  seq. 

v2*^ 

90 

xxviiia 

527 

ii2-9 

305 

v« 

xxvii-'4-25 

5l'7 

vii-6 

408-409 

Micah:  160 

252, 

310,  311, 

VJH-IS 

2;  19 

392 

Mark:    133,  13c 

,   136 

310, 

338 

Vil<!-18 

408-409 

327,  330 

iiiii 

307 

y\l'J-n 

396 
392 

i« 

207 
2f;9 

Nahum : 

160 

,  309,  311 

viio 

392 

iii' 

388 

iis 

298 

vii--« 

389 

ii3-28 

438,  (i4.-> 

iiii 

298 

vii24-27 

■riiii' 

404 

2(i7 

iilis 

514 
305 

Habakkuk : 

160 

297,   310 

Tiii'^ 

389 

iii33-35 

306 

311 

ix'2 

388 

iv 

657 

il2 

178 

x2 

514 

iv25 

387 

iii 

314 

xa> 

Xi25-2r 

70 

299 

Vi4 

vii' 

244 

267 

Zephaniah : 

100, 

297,  309, 

xii<-8 

438 

viiio 

268 

311 

xiii- 

267 

viiis 

5 

il2 

298 

xiiM-s: 

392 

viii* 

269 

iil5 

298 

xii3!Ml 

200 

viiiS* 

69 

iii" 

298 

305 
306 

Yiijss 
ix? 

299 

524 

Haggai :  160,  252 

297,  298, 

xiii" 

207 

ix4»M8 

90 

309,311 

xiiisr 
xr» 

244 

268 

ix« 

x3-i 

242 
269 

676 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS 


Mark: 

Luke: 

AcU: 

xll-12 

86 

XX27-33 

439 

vili»^» 

267 

Xi2ii-il6 

299.  392 

xx« 

250 

3[44-l7 

518 

xiiio-u 

439 

xx<2-" 

262 

xiiiis 

123,  131,  179 

xJiW-27 

439 

xxi^o 

265 

xiiii" 

131,  179 

XiiM 

174.  2r,8 

xxii.» 

299 

xiii"" 

264 

Xii36-37 

262 

xxii*! 

299 

XV 

447 

Xiii" 

265 

XXiT27 

268 

xv^i            , 

268 

Xiiift! 

299 

xxiyss 

131 

Xvii2.  11 

117,  131 

Xiv88 

387 

xxir" 

129,  131 

xviii:4,28 

131 

Xvi9-!» 

314 

xxiv«  "5 

441 

xix6 

518 

xviis 

4 

xxix« 

299 

XX2S 

XXvi22 

241.  300 
270 

Luke:    133,  135 

13G,  190, 

John:    103,   133, 

135,    136, 

xxiiii^^ 

131,  268 

2(K),  326,  330 

325,  327,  330 

xxviii^s 

131,  268 

il3-lT 

560 

jl4 

73,  525 

130^ 

560 

iI-14 

72 

Romans  :  134 

136,136,300, 

i35-37 

524,  560 

jlS 

63 

310 

i42-U 

560 

{33 

257 

iS 

5-26 

il6-5J> 

560 

140-12 

515 

116 

655 

{68-79 

560 

145 

270 

iiii 

74 

ii''' 

930 

iiiis 

523 

1119-18 

444 

iilO-12 

560 

iiiis 

654 

iil2i 

652 

ii».« 

560 

lv44 

244 

iv 

446 

iii* 

2ti7 

v3-4 

527 

lv3..j. 

444 

iiis 

2;)9 

Vl8 

299 

IvW 

262 

ivi6 

179 

V89 

117 

lvi9 

201 

ivl6-2S 

438 

v46-47 

270 

Vl4 

201 

ivi- 

2G7 

■V-168 

657 

viii' 

625-526 

iv23-M 

244 

tiii? 

428,  IW8 

ix25 

266 

vl4 

269 

viil9-23 

269 

ix"-' 

267 

v3I-32 

388 

Vil23 

21 « 

ix29 

267 

viSJ 

438 

yll33 

668 

x6-10 

444 

Vil4 

514 

Vll53_vilill 

314,  527 

Xl6 

267 

,i35 

3 

X34 

117,  I.il 

Xl8 

444 

vi4r-(9 

404 

X34^ 

437 

X20-21 

267 

viiiis 

387 

xii25 

70 

xi2 

174 

Vliil9-20 

306 

xii3< 

131 

xi4 

173 

viii^i 

306 

xiiss 

267 

Xi9-10 

262 

ix" 

70 

xiiSMl 

267 

xiii 

642 

ixM 

299 

XV8 

668 

XV12 

267 

ixM 

524 

XV26 

131 

X\il-2S 

316 

Ixw 

389 

xvis 

73 

x' 

270 

xriii' 

(^58 

1   Corinthians:    134,    135, 

X21-22 

299 

xxi- 

299 

1.36,300 

Xi48 

201 

ill 

315 

Xi52 

5 

Acts:    134,   135, 

136,  290, 

ii2 

652 

xiiSJ 

299 

327,  330,  331 

iii 

447 

xiii"  •«»• 

438 

pij-aj 

262 

vliio-u 

88 

xiv" 

387 

120 

44 :( 

ix9'«f- 

444 

XV 

438 

ii 

517-518 

1x14 

270 

xvii» 

392 

1116 

266 

x't-t 

646 

xvi" 

387 

1116  ,„. 

446 

x< 

444 

xviis 

87 

1125-29,  34 

262 

Xi8 

525 

x\i29-3i 

131 

11122-24 

270-271 

Xl23.^. 

270 

xriiKJ 

439 

iiiM 

266.  2<;8 

xiii» 

617 

xviii" 

387 

iv« 

262 

xiiin 

650 

xixM 

387 

v»r 

5.30 

xiv" 

117,  131,  444 

„17-18 

439 

viisr 

270 

xiv" 

617 

ES'DEX  OF  TEXTS 


677 


1  Corinthians : 

1 

Hebrews : 

xv-*-'-^ 

5i3 

i' 

525 

XV"*'"'" 

524 

iiH-is 

301 

xvi'j  "I- 

315 

iv 
iv- 

445 

268 

2    Corinthians 

:    134,   135, 

ivu 

60,  65.5 

13fi,  300. 

vu 

445 

iiis 

669 

Tii» 

270 

iii' 

Hi 

Vii26-2S 

301 

iii" 

118 

viii^ 

271,  631 

iiiis 

268 

yiijio-u 

669 

Tiii^ 

525 

ixw 
xi 

271 
446,6;il 

Galatians: 

154,135,136,300 

xM 

270 

ii 

447 

xi 

444 

iis 

201 

xi«> 

6;!i 

iv^ 

525-526 

Xul8-2« 

301 

i^-3 

M3 

xii2i 

271 

iv2! 

74 

i\--* 

444 

James:  134, 

135, 

136,  138, 

V8 

201 

141,143,145,164 

,190,247, 

340 

Ephesians 

134,  135,  136 

" 

447 

ii-""-— 

516 

iiW3 

444 

vi^K 

669 

ii21  If,. 

443 

Philippians :    134,  135, 136 
ii6-3  525 


Colossians:  134,135,136 

ji5  525 

iiS  657 

ijs  5 

iiir  63,  446,  643 

1  Thessalonians  :  134,  135, 
136 

2  Thessalonians :  134,  135, 
136 

1  Timothy  :  134,  135,  136, 
310 

i  447 

iiiJ  300 

iijis  300 

2  Timothy :  134, 135, 136 
jio  525 
iiis  348,  444,  527 
iijis  131,655 


Titus : 
iiii 


134, 135,  136 
651,659 


Philemon :        134, 145, 136 

Hebrews:  134, 135. 1.36, 138. 
247,248,  301,  319 
ii-4  301 


vll  444 

vH  299 

vl-  444 

1  Peter:  134,135,136,  164, 
299 

i2S  14,  655,  657 

ii9se?.  446 

ji4  seq.  516 

iiiis  240  seq. 

2  Peter :  135,  136,  138, 143, 
247 

121  27 

ii4  $eq.  444 

iiiis  307 

1  John :  134, 135, 136, 164 
v?  314 
xIt^s  69 

2  John:  134,  135,  136,  138, 
164 

3  John:  134,  135,  136,  138, 
164,299 

Jude:   134,  135,  136,  138, 
143, 164,  247,  299 
9  348 

9-14  132, 444 

14  265 

Revelation:  135,  136,  137, 
138,   139,   141,   143,   164, 


190,  247,  291,  299,  803, 
32(i,  327 

ii-iii-  299 

ii  447 

xiii  •««■  445 

xiis  445 

xiii*  445 

xiiii8  44o 

xvii2  44i 

xviis  44.^1 

xvii  296 

xvii'  4iri 

xviii''  445 

xxi-xxil  445 

xxiii«  299 

Xxii  18-19  7 

Old    Testament    Apoc- 
rypha 

Esdras :  138, 195,  19S 

iv  342 


vSS-ll 


60,  78 


Tobit :  63, 138, 195, 198,  342 
iv'-ll  398 

ivl5  132 

Judith:  63,  138,  195,  196, 
19S,  342 

Wisdom  of  Solomon:  129, 
138,  ItU,  195,  197,  198, 
301,  320 

138, 
197, 


Ecclesiasticus :     123, 
145,   164,    189,   195, 
198,  352 
iv5 


Vll' 


ii3-2-S5 


v28 


XXIV- 

xxvi»-i5 

XXvi23 

xliv-1 
xlixi» 

1 


132 
1.32 
397 
118 
39.5 
385 
123 
123 
124 

138. 1'.iS 


Epistle  of  Jeremiah:  138, 
198 

Prayer  o£  Manasseh:  138, 
195 

Books  of  Maccabees :    138, 
195, 196,  198 
i  and  ii  138 


1  Maccabees : 


164 
117 


678 


INDEX   OF  TEXTS 


1  Maccabees : 

i57  118 

iiM  352 

yii"  129 

xii9  117 

2  Maccabees :  145 
iiH  172 

4  Maccabees :  342 

PSECDEPIGRAPHA 

Apoc.  Enoch:  129,131,132, 
138,  304,  324,  353 


Apoc.  Baruch : 
Apoc.  Ezra;  128,  129, 

138,  257 

xivi9 
Assumption  of  Moses : 

312 
Ascension  of  Isaiah : 
Testament  of  Twelve 

triarchs: 
Martyrdom  of  Isaiah : 
Book" of  Jubilees:   138 
Psalter  of  Solomon : 

322,  324 


33i 
134, 

120 
132, 

324 
Pa- 

324 
138 
,175 
320, 


New   Testament   Apoc- 
rypha 
Didache :  132,  135,  136 

Hermas :  135.  136, 197 

Clement :  135,  138,  198 

Barnabas:    135,    136,    138, 

197 
Gospel  to  the  Hebrews :  136 
Acts  of  Paul:  135,136 

Apocalypse  of  Peter:  135, 

136 
Preaching  of  Peter :       l.'W 


INDEX   OF   NAMES  AND   SUBJECTS 


Abbot,  Ezra,  206,  '241 
A.  B.  C.  of  women,  312 
Abeii  Ezra,  274 
Abraham,  52,  53 
Abraham   ben  Meir,  235, 

236 
Accents,  59,  181,  220,  358, 

:Ki>seq.,S.n  seq. 
Accommodation,  principle 

of,  2<)0 
Adams.  Wra.,  66 
Addai,  IM 
Adeney,  W.  F.,  589 
Adonay,  173 
Adultery,  Jesus  views  of, 

81)  seq. 
Aglen,  A.  S.,  359 
Ainsworth,    Henry,    462, 

467 
Akiba,  130.  145.  175,  I'Jl, 

232 
Aldine  Text,  206 
Alexander,  Add.,  2St 
Alexandrian  Codex,  138 
Alexander  the   Great,  64, 

121,  122. 172 
Allegory,  434  seq.,  444,  448 

seq. 
Alphabetical    poems,    56, 

377,  382,  383,  400 
Alphonso  de  Alcala,  140 
Alphonso  de  Zamora,  140 
Amana,  Sixtus,  225 
Ambrose,  3I«,  449 
Ames,  Wm.,  400,  477,574 
Amira,  222 
Amnion,  C.  F.,  575 
Amoraim,  253  xeq. 
Anagogical  sense,  453 
Analogy   of    Faith,    461, 

483 
Analogy  of  Prophecy,  2!»5 
Angel,  theopbanic,  302 
Angels,  evil,  .^33 
Anglo-American  Revision, 

216 


Anglo-Catholic  party.  14S 
Ani;lo-Saxon  Versions.  214 
Auonymes,  319  seq. 
Anselm,  41 
Anthropomorphisms,      57, 

178 
Antiochan  school,  258, 457 

seq. 
Antwerp    Polyglot,     187, 

206 
Aphraates,  2.39 
Apocalypse,  143,  145,  296 
Apostles'  Creed,  92, 106, 143, 

145,  483 
A  priori  method,  115,  116 
Appropriation    of    Grace, 

060  seq. 
Aquila,  191 
Aquinas,  Tliomas,  454 
Arabic  Gospel  of  the  In- 
famy, 522 
Arabic  language,  46 
Arabic  Version,  214 
Aramaic  language,  49,  61 

seq. 
Aramaic  script,  189 
Aramaic  Versions,  210  seq. 
ArchiBology,  Biblical,  490, 

554 
Archseology,  Oriental,  506 
Arias  Montanus,  187,  222. 
Aristeas,  189 
Ari.stion,  447 
Armenian  Ver.sion,  195 
Arminians,  4.'J9 
Arnaud,  507 
Articles    of    Religion,    15, 

148,  653 
Asarias.  '.Mid 
Ashe,  Simeon,  405 
Assimilation.  201 
Assonance,  373  .^eq. 
Assyrian  language,  47 
Astruc,  240,  250,  2^S  .■<eq. 
Atheism,  77,  574 
Attention  in  prayer,  601 
079 


Attersol,  Wni.,  407 
Augustine,    41,    100,    139, 

143,  449,  450,  489 
Augustiuian  tradition,  147 
Authenticity,  93  seq. 
Authority  of  Christ,  261 
Authority  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. 0:!0 
Authorized  Version,  216 
Autographs,  I'JO,  616  seq. 

Baba    Bathra,   121,    252, 

312,  313,  318 
Baeher,  W.,  175, 181,  183 
Bacon,  B.  W.,  10 
Bacon,  Lord.  100 
Baer,   S.,   184,    185,    187, 

231 
Baethgen,  F.  R.,  506,  588 
Ball,  .I.)hn,  460,  40.i.  4(i6 
Baraithoth,  232,  252,  320, 

351,  430 
Barbier.  A.  A.,  323 
Bar  Kappara.  232 
Barnabas,  133,  448 
Basil,  258 
Basnage,491 
Baudissin,  W.,  506 
Kaumgartuer,    Ant.,    173, 

189 
Baur,  Bruno,  502 
Baur,  F.  ('.,  498  seq.,  578 

seq.,  581  seq.,  .''lilT 
Baur,  O.  L.,  493 
Baur,  Lorenzo,  576 
Bayne,  Paul,  407 
Baxter.  Richard.  101,  157, 

220,  230,  629.  630 
Beck.  C.  D.,  L'lJ,  469 
Beda.  454 
Beecher,  W.  J.,  287 
Belgian  Confession,  142 
Bellarmin,  213 
Benedictus,  500 
Bongel.    .T.    A.,    207,    227, 

491, 574 


680 


INDEX   OF   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


Bensly,  R.  L.,  212 
Bentley,  Rich.,  107,  226, 

250 
Benzinger,  J.,  37 
Berg,  Conrad,  101 
Berber,  Sara.,  142 
Berliner,  211 
Bernard,  584 
Bertheau,    Karl,    59,    101, 

279,  506 
Bevau,  A.  A.,  353,  354 
Beza,  Theo.,  206,  217,  2^4, 

459 
BevscUIag,  W.,  498,  500, 

589 
Bible  Educator,  359 
Bible  for  Learners,  285 
Bibles,  Little,  7 
Biblical    Dogmatics,    577, 

5'Jl 
Biblical  Ethics,  597 
Biblical  Religion,  598 
Bibliology,  113 
Bibliolatry,  5,  62G 
Bickell,  G.,  137,  364,  365, 

381,  382 
Biddle,  574 
Bilson,  T.,  216 
Birt,  T.,  191 
Bishops'  Bible,  215 
Bi.ssel,  E.  C.  287 
Blake,  F.,  465 
Blasphemous,  17.S 
Blas.s,  F.,  203,  209 
Blayney,  Beuj.,  186 
Bleek,  F.,  70,  2S3,  472 
Block,  Ph.,  47 
Bochart.  490 
Boderianus,  Fabr.,  222 
Bobl,  Edw.,  210 
Book  of  Adam,  49 
Book  of  Common  Prayer, 

92 
Book  of  John,  49 
Book  of  Jubilees.  237 
Book  of  Sohar,  432 
Book  of  Yashar.  355 
Book  of  Wars  of  Yah  web, 

355 
Bosheth,  173 
Biittcber,  F.,  67.  59 
Bousset,  Wm.,  590 
Boyle,  Robert,  666,  662 
Brentius,  224 
Brightman,  Thos.,  466 
Brockelmann,  C,  49 
BroHghton,  Hugh,  221,  467 
Brown.  C.  R.,  60 
Brown,  Francis,  10,  20, 47, 


48.   262,  265.  2.S7,  381, 

475,  506.  512.  513 
Browning,  Robt.,  92 
Bruce,   A.   B.,   339,    588, 

590 
Buber,  Sol.,  234 
Budde,  Karl,  381 
Buddeus,  491 
Bubl.F..48. 117,118, 138, 

189,   192,  2U0,  204,  211, 

212,  475 
BuUinger,  H.,457 
Bunsen,  2<s5 
Buxtorf.  121,147,221,  235, 

259,  475,  490,  (',21 
Bytield,  Nich.,  84,  4G7 

Cahala,  432 

Calamy,    Ed.,     144,     157, 

220 
Calmet,  A.,27r.,  491 
Calvetus,  147,  574 
Calvin.    41.    !i3,    142,    217, 

220,  224,  247,  24S,  457, 

45S,  482,  490 
Cambridge  Platonists,  575 
Cambridge  School,  157,  226 
Cantilation,  181 
Canus,  Melch..  249 
Capel,  Rich..  623 
Cappellus,  Jae.,  225 
Cappellus,   Lud.,  89,  222 

scq.,   225,   246,  259,  459. 
Carlov,  A.  C,  147 
Carl.stadt,  A.,  2.10 
C.Trpzov,   J.    (i.,   259,   276, 

428,  458,  4ii7 
Cartwrigbt,    Thos.,     149, 

248    459.  Hr,,  4<)7 
Caryl,  Joseph,  467 
Casaubon,  Isaac.  225,  250 
Caspari,  C.  E.,46 
Casteil,  Edw.,  49,222,475 
Catholic  Church,  501 
Catholic  .spirit,  571 
Cave,  A.,  36 
Census  of  Quirinius,  530 
Ceriani,  A.  M.,  193,  198, 

199,  202,  203 
Chains,  4.54 
Charles,  R.  H..  237 
Charteris,  A.  H.,  143,  144 
Chase,  F.  H.,  203 
Cheltenliani  list,  i:r.,  KW 
Cheyne,   T.  K.,    130,  290. 

313,490,509,556.557 
Chiarini.l..  A..  233.  430,433 
Chiya,  232 
Christophany,  515 


Chronology,  4<K),  512,  554 

Chrysostom,  138,  257,  452, 
454 

Church.  241,  299 

Church  of  England,  148 

Cicero,  340 

Circumcision,  269 

Citations,  100, 210, 266, 304 

Clapp.  Sam.,  Hi' 

Clarke,  Adam.  278 

Clean  and  unclean,  law  of, 
64;) 

Clement     of     Alexandria, 
257,448 

Clement  of  Rome,  133,  448 

Clementine  Homilies,  257 

Clemeuline    Recognitions, 
447 

Clementine  Text,  213 

Clericus,  J.,  259,  275 

Cocceius,  J.,  222,  465,  472, 
574 

Codex,  191,  I'M;  Alexan- 
drinus,  197,  198,  207 
Ambrosianus,  199 ;  Am 
iatinus,  213 ;  Baby- 
lonicus,  Pctr.,  185 
Barberiuus,  200;  Ben 
Asher,  184;  Beza;,  200 
Bodleianus,  199 ;  Borne- 
rianus,  201 ;  Chisianus, 
200 ;  Claromontanus 
201;  CoislinLanus,  200 
Ephraem,  198;  Fulden- 
sis,  213;  Hillel,  184 
Jericho,  184 ;  Leon,  203 
Marcbalianus,  199.  200 
Mugar,  184;  Samaritan 
185;  Sanbuki.  184:Sar- 
ravianus,  200 ;  Sinai 
184:  Sinaiticus,  196 
197 ;  Toletanus.  213 
Vaticanus,  195,  196 
VaticanusSS",  204 ;  Vati 
canus"-,  198 ;  Vati 
canusS5«,  199 ;  Venetus, 
200 

Cohn,  237 

Coins,  Maccabean,  170 
Colenson,  J.  W.,  284,  285 
Collections     of     writings, 

310 se?. 
Ciiln.  Daniel  von,  677, 578, 

593 
Commandments   of    Law, 

660.  561 
Compilations,  326 
Complutensian      Polyglot, 
140,    186,  206 


INDEX  OF   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


681 


Concatenation   in  Poetry, 

399 
Coudation    in    Text,    191, 

205,  342 
Ck)nsisteucy  in  Text,  flO 
Coustantiiie,  194 
Construct  state,  36 
Contemporary       History, 

SOS 
Contradiction,  law  of,  82 
Cornill.   C.  H.,  118,  175, 

1'.I2,  IW.  l'.»!>.  20(1,  204,  2<K) 
Corpus  Inscriptionum 

Semit..  47 
Corrections  of  Scribes,  178 
Cosin..!.,  151.  156 
Council  of  LaoUicea,  137 
Council  of  Trent,  77,  143, 

144,  14S,  14(1,  156 
Covenant,  5.>>,  Ii04 
Covenant,    new   and   old, 

119 
Covenant,     principle     of, 

466 
Coverdale.  Miles.  10r>,  214, 

215 
Cowley,  49 

Creation,  story  of,  551 
Credibility,  95 
Cremer.  H.,  73 
Cross.  J.  A..  313 
Crusius,  L.  F.  O.  B.,  577 
Cureton.  212 
Curtis,  E.  L..  514 
Curtis.  S.  I..  2S7.  311 
Curtius.  E..  65,  W,  Ii7 
Cyprian,  448 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  185 

D,  297 

Da!;esfa,  180 

Daiuie,  588 

Dalraan,  G.  H.,  50,  211 

Daniel.  94 

Davenant,  J.,  4(57 

David,  .53,  .50,  9J,  33f. 

Davidic  Psalter.  ."W 

Davidson,  A.  B..  286.  301 

Davidson.  S.-iml.,  90.  i:;7, 

229.  2&4,  285,  447.  4.yi, 

454 
Deborah,  HG 
De  Dieu  L.,  225,  459 
D'Etaples,  Lefevre.  217 
De  imitatione  Chrlsti,  93 
DeR-issi,  Az..  221,  228 
De  Rossi,  J.  B..  183 
De  Sanlcy,  F..  507 
De  vita  contempl.,  125 


De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.^  241, 

283.  28.^,  472,  493,  497, 

576,  .^.77,  578,  .">!« 
Delile  the  hands,  130 
Deism,  77,  .'174 
Deissmann,  6.  A.,  591, 593 
Deists,  492 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  187,  2;!1, 

312.  31.3,  321.  391.472 
Delitzsch,  Fried.,  47,  61 
Delude  story,  529 
Demetrius  Ducas,  140 
Demosthenes,  74,  340 
Descartes,  9 
Deuteronomic  code,  119 
Deuteronomic  history,  540 
Deuteronomic  writers,  301 
Deutsch,  Eman.,  232 
Development    bvpothesis, 

28;{  scq. 
Dexter,  11.  M.,  96 
Dialectic  differences,  300 
Dickson,  W.  P.,  590 
Dietenberger's       version, 

217 
Diestel,  Lud.,  28,  247,  451, 

452 
Dillmann,  Auff.,  47.  173, 

175,  181,  192,  237,  330, 

587 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  452 
Director's  psalter,  243 
Dii-sje.  381 
Ditiojrrapby,  243 
Divorce.  2(i9,  645 
Documentary    hypothesis, 

2S0  seq. 
Documentary  sources,  5()3 

seq. 
Doddridge,  Philip,  467 
Dodwell.  H..  157 
Donaldson.  .J.  W.,  66 
Dorner.  Aug.,  451 
Domer.  Is.-i.no,  22.  72, 167, 

143.   147.  158.  279,   442, 

499.  665.  mr, 
Douav  version.  215  j 

Driver.  ,s.  R..  48.  49.  54. 

170.  203.  -rv.i.  21  0.  295. 

296.297.336.351.475     1 
Droysen,  ■}.  G.,  84  1 

Drummond,  -James,  590 
Drusins,  J..  224.  459 
Du  Bose,  W.  P..  .590 
Du  Pin.  I..  E.,  96.  97.  99 

101,  102.  100,  27r..  277 

278 
Duff,  Arch.,  588 
Duhm,  B.,  290 


Dury,  ,Tohn.  573 
Dutch  version,  217 
Duval,  49 

E,  297 

Ebers,  G.,  506 

Eck. .;..  142 

Eck's  version,  217 

Edersheim,  506 

Efficacy  of  Holy  Script- 
ure, (>59. 

Egyptian  text,  197 

Egyptian  version,  195 

Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  126,  127, 
1.32,  18ii.  250,  251.  278, 
279  .sc(?.,  2.^2,  471,  491, 
492.  493,  497,  r.7(! 

Eleazer  ben  .Azariah,  130 

Elicser,  235,  431 

Eliot,  John,  'M> 

Eloquence,  359 

Elzevir  editions,  207 

Emancipation  proclama- 
tion, 100 

Emendations  of  the  scribes, 
173 

Emser's  version,  217 

English  version,  214  seq. 

Ephraem,  the  Syrian,  137, 
239,  452 

Ephraimitic  writers,  119. 
KOO,  545,  559 

Epic  of  Istar,  380 

Epiphanius,  192 

Epitomes,  454 

Erasmus,  141,  206,  219, 
468 

Erman,  A.,  378.  506 

Ernesti,  .J.  A..  428.  469 

Erpenius,  214,  222.  225 

Errors  in  Scripture.  520, 
608, 614, 627  seq..  (»4  seq. 

Essays  and  Reviews,  285 

Essenes,  128 

Etheridge,  J.  W.,  63,  211, 
433 

Ethiopic  language,  46- 

Etymological  differences, 
296.  297 

Euclierius  of  Lyons,  449 

EuphcmLsms.  178 

Eu.sebius,  64.  103,  136,  185, 
191,  192,  194,  362.  447, 
488,  489 

Euthvmius,  zigabenus,  454 

Evans.  L.  J..  10 

Everett,  C.  C.  590 

Everling,  590 

Ewald,   H.,   45,   ,VJ,   128, 


682 


INUKX   OF   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


2&3.  284,  313.  XMl  357, 

365.  473,  S04.  584,  3t>7 

Excluded  Sliddle,  Law  of, 

S2 
Extermination  of  Cauaan- 

ites.  644. 
External  evidence,  101  seq. 
Extraordinary  points,  177 

Fables,  416 
Fabricius,  J.  A.,  258 
Fairbairn,  A.  M.,  493,  494 
Faith,  665  seq.,  668 
Fall  of  Man,  547 
Father,  used  of  God,  299 
Fathers,  Christian,  156, 190 
Feasts,  183,  350 
Federal  school,  466 
Fides  divlna,  143,  150,  281. 

282 
Fides  humana,  150 
Field,  Fred.,  193,  194,  204 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  500 
Five  Rolls,  181 
Flacius,  Matth.,  457 
Flatt,  C.  C.,471 
Fleui-y,  278 

Forgery,  96,  319,  323,  519 
Formal  principle,  223 
Fox,  John,  467 
Fragmentary    hypotheses, 

2S2  6:e<7.,290 
Franc.  Geo.,  101 
Francois,  Laurent,  278 
Franke,  A.  H.,  467 
Frankel,  Z.,  125 
French  Confession.  653 
French  versions.  217 
Frensdorff,  Sam..  228 
Freudenthal.  189 
Friedlander.  2-35 
Friedmann,  234 
Friends,  155 
Fiilke,  Wm.,  221 
Future  Life,  648 

Gabler,  J.  P.,  470,  491,  576, 

591 
Galileo,  9 

Galilean  Confession,  142 
Ganneau,  Cler.,  48 
Gast,  F.  A.,  287 
Gataker,  Thos.,  467 
Gamier,  L.,  508 
Gcliliardl.    O.     von.    202, 

207,  208 
Gebhardt.  II  .  589 
Geddes,  .Mcx.,  282 
Gehenna,  91 


Geiger,  A..  49 
Gelbhaus,  233 
Gem.ira,  233,  252 
Genevan  versii>n.  215 
Geography,   Biblical,  507, 

554 
Gerhard,  J.,  458 
Germau  versions,  216  seq. 
Germar,  F.  H  ,  470 
Gerson,  J.  C,  '.i.'. 
Gesenius.  47,  48, 117, 141, 

ISl,  185,  186,  283,  475, 

646 
Giesebrecht,  F.,  200 
Gieseler,  J.  C,  83 
Gilby,  Ant.,  215 
Gillespie,  Geo.,  S3,  84 
Gillett,  E.  H.,  455 
Ginsburg,  C.  D.,  170,  172, 

173,    175,    176.    177,    178. 

179,  1.S4.  187,  221,  228. 

231,  432,  433 
Ginza,  49 
Gladstone,  61 
Gloiil,  J.,  590 
Glosses,  454 
God,  doctrine  of,  646 
Godwin,  Thomas.  490 
Gopje,  M.  J.  de,  46 
Gold.sraidt.  L.  233 
Goodwin.  John,  574 
Gospel  according  to  Peter, 

527 
Gospel  in  Holy  Scripture, 

r>.->2 

Gothic  Version.  195 
Gouge  Wm.,  262.  4<;7 
Gouldman,  Henry,  236 
Gr.ihe,  207. 
Grace  of  God,  624  seq.,  651 

seq. 
Gradnalness    of    develop- 
ment in  Bib.  Theo.,  611 

seq. 
Graf.  K.  H.,  585 
Granimatico-historical 

method,  470 
Griitz.  H..  127,  130,  172, 

188,  229.  313.  505 
Gray,  G.  K..  514 
Great  Bible,  215,  2.39 
Great  .Synagogue,  121  seq. 
Green.  \v.  H.,  229,  286, 

287,  289 
Greenhill,  Wm.,  467 
Gregory,  C.  R.,  138,  19t>, 

197,  198,  200,  207 
Gregory  the  Great.  451 
Grenfeil,  B.  P.,  i:!3 


Griesbach,  J.  J.,  207.  227 
Grill,  J.,  54,  57 
Grosart,  A.  B..  100.  31S 
Grolius,  186,  225.  468 
Guerin,  Victor.  507 
Guieysse.  Paul,  378 
Gunkel,  Herm.,  556 
Gwilliam,  C.  H.,  181 

Hadrian,  176 

Haggada,  63,  74,  235,  341 , 

seq.,  347,   348,   430,  438, 

443 
Hagenbach,  K.  C,  36,  37 
Hahn.  G.  L.,  187.  583 
Halacha,  (i3,  74,  430  seq.. 

437  seq.,  444 
Hamilton,  Patrick,  105 
Hamilton,    Sir   Wm.,    82, 

106.  428 
Hammond,     Henry,     250, 

4<)S 
Hampton     Court     confer- 
ence. 216 
Haphtareth.  179 
Harkavy.  A.,  185 
Harmonies  of  Gospels,  247, 

490 
Harmonistic      corruption, 

202 
Harnack,     Adolph,     134, 

296.500.  501.  502 
Harper,  W.  R..  10.  20.  287 
Harris.  Rendel,   ISl,  202, 

203.212 
Hase,  Karl.  .iOO 
Hassencamp,  IX'i,  ]8(i 
Hatch.  E..68,  71.  502 
Haupt.  Paul.  10 
Hausrath,  63.  506 
Hiivernick.  H.  A.  C..581 
Havet.  E..  602 
Hebrew  Law,  '.''-'.\ 
Hefele.  C.  J.  von,  137 
Hegesippus,  488 
Heidegger,  J.  H.,  147,  223, 

259,  276,  621 
Heidelberg  Catechism,  652, 

(B5 
Heiurici,  C.  F.,  36.  ;!7 
Heiusius,  Dan.,  4.^9 
Helvetic  confession,    142, 

457 
Henderson,  E..  469 
Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  259, 

339,  .504 
Ilcnry,  Matthew.  407 
Herder.  246,  2.'>0,  279,  471, 

491..^76 


INDEX   01"   NAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


683 


Heresy  charges,  2S8  seq. 

Herle,  Clias..8i,  152 

Ueriuas,  133 

Hess,  4!il 

Hesyehiiis.  193,  199,  219 

HexLipla,  200 

Hieronymian  tradition, 

147,  UM 
Hilary,  WO 
Hilgenfeld,  17ii,  499 
Hillel,  130,  131,  133,232 
Himyarie  language,  4(3 
Historic  errors,  5(i(> 
Historic  fiction,  5(>7 
Hitzig,  F.,  585 
Hoblies,  Tlios.,  250,  574 
Hodgf,  A.  A.,  158, 2>S7, 320, 

609,  625 
H>"i.s;e,  Clias.,  132 
Hofuiann,   J.    C.    K.,   2S4, 

472 
Hollazius,  M.  P.,  458 
HoUenberg,  189 
Holmes  and  Parsons,  192, 

1!«,   199,   200,  204,    200, 

207 
Holsten,  C.,499,  588 
Holtzniann,H..I.,  117,  133, 

193,  503,  525.  589,  590 
Holtzmann,  O.,  506 
Holy  Spirit,  :MXi,  G:!5,  (i54 
Holzinger,  297 
Homniel,  F..  46,  507 
Home.  T.  H.,  2.59,  284 
Hort,  F.  J.  A.,  .S(i,  89,  90 
Hottinger,  J.  J.,  185,  186 
Houbigant,  185 
Huet.  P.  D.,  270 
Humanists,  456,  468 
Hume,  David,  80 
Hunt,  A.  S.,  1.3.J 
Hupfeld,  H.,  179,  283 
Huss,  John,  455,  456 
Hutter,  187 
Hyde,  Thos.,  222 
Hymns,  415 

Hymn  to  Amen  Ra.  399 
Hymn  to  the  Nile,  400 
Hyslop,  J.  H.,  82 

Ibeu  Ezra,  2;i5 
Identity,  Law  of,  178 
Idyll,  .•H2  seq. 
Ignatius,  241 
Immer,  A.,  27.  71.  7".,  428, 

453,  472,  588 
Imperfect  morality,  609 
Incarnation,  .523  s''q. 
Inclusion  in  poetry,  399 


Indelicate  expressions,  178 
Infrrani'y,l>13, 615,61U«<'5,, 

()32  seq,,  637  nfq. 
Inspiration,  110  seq.,  331 
Integrity,  92  seq.,  106 
Intensive  forms,  .55 
Internal  evidence, 101, 157 
Interpretations,  314 
Intrinsic  prol)ability,  90 
Inverted  nuns,  177 
Irenoeus,    191,    192,    257, 

448,  451 
Irons,  AV.  .1.,  590 
Ismael.  430 
Israeli.  Isaac,  235 
Issel,  590 

J,  297 

Jablonsky.  P.  E.,  187,  2,52 

Jacob,  203 

Jacob    hen    Cbayim,    140, 

186,  187,  219,  220 
Jacobus  de  Voragine,  332 
Jacob  of  Edessa,  194 
Jael,  CAi 

J.imes,  M.  R.,  129 
Jameson,  Wni.,  248 
Jamnia,  Synod  of,  128, 130, 

rsi,  141,  175 
Jay,  Mich,  de,  222 
Jebb,J.,367 
Jehuda,  K,abbi,  232,  253 
Jelf,  W.  E.,  67 
Jerome,  127,  137,  138, 139, 

143,    152,   174,    185,    191, 

192,  193,  I'.H,  213,  219, 

258,  362,453.489 
Jerome  of  Prague,  455 
Jerusalem,  278 
Jochanan, 130,  252 
Johannine  type,  602 
John,  the   Presbyter,  138, 

447 
Jonathan, 56 
Jones.  Wm.,  363 
Jose,  i:50 

Joseph  the  Blind,  211 
Josephus,  117,  127,128,174, 

175,  2(M,  237,  256,  318, 

362.  4.15,  487,  488 
Jost,  J.  M.,232,  505 
Juda  ha  Levi.  235 
Judaic    writers,    119,   300, 

301,547,559 
Judas  Mace,  128, 
Judgments    of    law,    560, 

562 
.Julicher,  A.,  134.  13.5 
Julius  Africanus,  488 


.Tunilius     Africanus,     127, 

258.452 
Junius,  Letters  of,  93 
Justin  Martyr.  134 

Kabisi-h.  590 
Kahaiia,  234 
Kahle,  .\..  588 
Kaiser.  P.  C.  470.  576 
Kant,  9.  82.47(1 
Katteubusch.  106 
Kaulen.  F..  214 
Kautzsch,  48,  50,  181,  475 
Keil,  C.  A.  G..  470 
Keil,  C.  F.,  229.  2.59,  504, 

536.  558,  559,  565 
Keiui,  Til.,  498 
Kennicolt,  B.,  LSo,  228 
Kidder,  K.,  250 
Kihn,  H.,   127,  449,  451, 

452,  453 
Kimchi,  David,  184,  236 
Kimchi,  Joseph,  236 
Kina  measure,  381 
Kindred  of  Jesus,  .305,306 
King  .James's  Version.  216 
Kirkpatrick,  A.  F.,  588 
Kittel,  R.,  504 
KlaiLsen,  H.  N.,  428.  447, 

448.  450,  451,  456,  457, 

458,  472 
Klostermann,  E.,  199,  200 
Kuapp,  G.  C,  471 
Knight,  C,  318 
Knobel,  A.,  283 
Knox,  John,  482 
Kiihler,  505 
Kohn,  S.,  186 
Kohut,  A.,  175 
Kunig,  F.  E.,  48,  475 
Koppe,  279,  282,  313 
Koran,  46 

Kdstlin,  K.  R.,  499,  589 
Krug,  W.  T.,  9 
Kuenen,  A.,  122, 175,  285, 

385  seq. 

Labrat,  2.35 
Lachman,  C.  208.  228 
Lagarde,  P..  175.  184,  200, 

214,  209.  240 
Lane,  E.  W..  46 
Langp,  J.  P.,  72,  312,  429, 

476,  480 
Latinization,  202 
Law,  Ancient,  .560 
Lechler,  G.  V.,  157,  455, 

499 
Lee,  W.,  207 


684 


IXDEX   OF   NAMES  AXD   SUBJECTS 


Legend,  332,  335  seq.,  497 

seq.,  527 
Legenda  Aurea,  332 
Lesreudary  sources,  557 
Leigh,    Edw.,    462,    463. 

464,  ■M)7 
Lenormaut,  332,  506 
Letters,  3i0 
Leueius  Charinus.  135 
Leusden,  187 
Leviathan,  331 
Levita.    Elias,    121,    140, 

1+1,  219,  220,  2.!i;,  475 
Le\T.  Jacob.  47,  50,232 
Lewis,  Mrs..  50.  212 
Ley,  Julius,  369,  370 
Liberty  of  couscieuce,  114, 

115 
Liberty  of  opinion,  146 
Liffhtfnot,    John,  Si,  221, 

4.i7,  490 
Lightfoot,  J.  B.,103,  445 
Liuguistie  differences,  29C 
Literal  sense,  453 
Literary  study  of  the  Bible, 

29i  seq. 
Lock,  Walter,  133 
Locke,  John,  4G9 
Logia  Jesu,  1.33 
L<'gos,  (i25,  654 
Loisy,  A..  170 
Londou  Polyglot,  185,  207 
Lord,  applied  to  Christ,  241 
Love  of  God.  349.  S46 
Lowth,  94,  226,  227,  229, 

230,  246,  250,  278,  366, 

367,  468,  471 
Lucian.  173,  193,  204,  205, 

219,  451 
Lucian 's  text,  203 SC7. 
Lucius,  P.  E..  126 
Lucke,  F..  101.471,472 
Lumby,  J.  R.,  106 
Luther,  Martin,  41.  SO.  142, 

2tRi,  216,  224.  247.  342, 

4.-.-.  456,  45S,  4S2,  662. 

6o3 
Lutierbeck,  J.  A.  B.,  589 
Lutz.  J.  L.  S.,  472,  479, 

480 
Lux  Mundi,  92 
Luzzato,  .S.  D..  50 
Lyford,  154.  622.  665 

Maccabeus,  Judas,  172 
Madden,  F.  W.,  664 
Magnificat,  .'>6fl 
Maimonides,  235 
Slau,  Doctrine  of,  647 


Mandeans,  49 
Mangey,  237 
Manifold  sense,  461 
Mansi.  J.  D.,  137 
Mappiq.  ISO 
Mar  Ukba,  170 
Mar  Zutra,  170 
Marcus  Aurelius,  192 
Maresius.  259 
Marsh,  G.  P..  332 
Martin  Jlarprelate  tracts, 

93 
Martinius,  M.,  225 
Masius,  250 
Massebieau,  126 
Massorites,  IHO  seq. 
Matthew,  Thos..  215 
McClelland,  A..  477 
McCosh,  J..  82 
McCnrdv,  J.  F..  506 
McGifT^n.  A.  C,  64,  1.36, 

310.  315,  316.  4SS,  489, 

500.617,618 
Sfeans  of  Grace.  6.")1  seq. 
Mechilta,  178,  234 
Jlede.  Joseph.  225,  250 
Megillath  Taanith.  236 
Meier,  Ernst,  369 
Melancthon,  457 
Memphitic  version,  195 
Me'ne'goz,  E.,  690 
Mercer,  J.,  224 
Mercati,  G.,  192,  193 
Merrill,  Sel.ah,  807 
Merx,  A.,  128 
Mesha  stone,  48,  170 
.Alessianic  idea,  303, 304, 648 
Messner.  H.,  881 
Metaphors,  359 
Metres,  361 
Methi'disni,  157 
Meyer,  A.,  .50 
Meyer.  H.  A.  W.,  241,  472 
Meyer,  L.,  470 
Michaelis,  J.  D.,  185,  187, 

279,  491 
Midrashim,   174.   177,  189, 

234.235 
Mielziner,  M..  253.  431 
Mill's  text.  207,  226 
Minusi'idcs,  195 
Miracles.  :U5«e?.,  543 
Mishna,  i:t(i.  232,  429,  431 
Mitchell.   A.   F.,   84,  115, 

225,  248.  466 
Mitchell,  H.  G.,  620 
Moabite  stone.  48 
Mombert,  J.  I.,  105 
Moore,  Geo.  F.,  10,  20,  181, 


287,  290.  333.  334.  335, 

376 
Moore,  Henry,  575 
Moral  sense,  453 
Morals  of  O.  T.,  643 
Morinus.  J.,  185,  222,  223 
Morns,  S.  F.,  428,  469 
Moses,  53,  >.H 
Moses  ibn  Ezra,  235 
Jlozley,  T.,  281 
MSS.,  private.  1.S.3,  190 
Muller,  Ma.x.  611.  612 
MuUer,  D.  H..  399 
Miiller,  Julius,  143,  158 
Miinster,  Sebast.,  18(i,  239 
Mur.atorian  fragment,  135 
Murray,  T.  C,  313,  319 
Musculus,  224.  457 
Mystic  spirit ,  570 
Mystical  sense,  453 
Myth,    331  seq.,    33S  seq., 

493 seq.,  522 
Mythical  sources,  555  seq. 

Nabatean  language,  50 
Natural    History    of    the 

Bible,   .5.54 
Neale.  J.  M.,  318 
Neander,  1,5S. 284.  472.  499, 

878«e7.,582.  .5.S7.  591 
Nestle,   E.,  49,  194,  199, 

200,  20(i.  207,  211 
Nestorian  Canon,  138 
Nestorius,  452 
Xeubauer,  A..  49.  .50,  170, 

172,  184,  210 
Neutral  Text,  196.240 
Niceue  Cree.i.  HXi 
Nicolausde  Lyra.  464, 455 
Niemeyer,  -\.  H.,  16 
Niese,  B.,  237 
Noldeke,  Theo.,  49,    176, 

325,  326 
Nunc  Dimittis,  560 
Nutt,  J.  W.,  60,  186 

CEcolampadius,    224,    248, 

457.  458 
CEcumcnius,  241,  464 
CEhler,G.F.,472,577,580, 

.587,  897 
Olivetan,  217 
Olshausen,  J.,  175 
Opinion,  differences  of,  99 

seq, 
Opitius,  1S7 
Opitz,  H.,  688 
Oratory  in  the  Bible,  338 

seq. 


INDEX   OF   XAMES   AND   SUBJECTS 


685 


Orelli,  C.  von,  588 
Organic  method,  471 
Origen,  127,  13ti,  lo7,  192, 

Hl3,  199,  219,  302,  449 
Osgood,  H.,  287 
Osiander,  And.,  213,  490 
Ottlev,   R.  L.,  556,  566, 

567 
Owen,  .John,  157,  162,  223, 

224,  259,  621 

P,  2517 

Palestine  Exploration 

Fnnd,  SOS 

Paley,  W.,  491 

Palmer,  Herb.,  83,  100,  318 

Palmer,  E.  H.,  507 

Palmyra,  50 

Papias,  4i7 

Papyrus,  170,  190,  191 

Parables  of  Jesus,  341 

Parallelism,  oOti  seq.,  385 
seq.;  antithetical,  3S6, 
389,  392,  395,  3;i6,  404 
emblematical,  388,  389 
introverted,  392,  394 
progressive,  387,  389 
syuouymous,  385  seq., 
388,  408 

Paraphrase,  201 

Parashiyoth,  179 

Paris  Polyglot,  206 

Parker,  Matth.,  215 

Patriotism  of  Esther,  350, 
:«1 

Patton,  F.  L.,  287 

Paul  of  Xisibis,  258,  452 

Paul  of  Telia,  )93 

Pauline  Christianity,  502 

Payne,  Thos.,  492 

Pearson,  John,  226 

Pearson,  Rich.,  2.'!6 

Pellicane.  224 

Perkins,  Wm.,  575 

Perles,  F.,  173,  176 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S.,  313,  316 

Persian  version,  214 

Peshat,  433 

Pesliitto  version,  23,  173, 
212 

Pesikta,  234 

Pesukim,  179 

Peter,  naming  of,  514  seq. 

Peter  Lombard,  454 

Petermann,  J.  H.,  49,  50, 
186 

Peters,  J.  P.,  10,  20.  287 

PHeiderer,  O.,  499,  500, 
501. 588 


Phagius,  P.,  224 
Phaiaris,  epistle  of,  93, 107 
Pharisees,  128 
Philo,    117,    125,    126,    127, 

128,  133.  237,  257,  318, 

434,  435,  448.  488 
Philoxenus,  212 
Phoenician  language,  47 
Photius,  1.'55 
Piepenbring,  Ch.,  587 
Pietro  della  Valle,  185 
Piper.  F.,  554 
Pietism.  470.  ."■74 
Pirque  Aboth.  121. 129, 232, 

388,  389.  393,  394,  395, 

396 
Piseator,  224 
Planck,  G.J. ,260.  474 
Plato,  74 

Plummer,  Alf.,  264,  530 
Plural,  abstract,  55 
Pneumatophany,  545 
Pocoek,    Edw.,'   222,    2.35, 

468 
Poetry,  Arabic,  361 ;  Baby- 
lonian,  380;   composite, 

418 ;      dramatic,       419 ; 

Egyptian,       378,       399 ; 

gnomic,  416;   lyric,  415 

seq.;      prophetic,     424; 

Syriac,  364 
Poetical  sources,  559 
Point  of  view,  565 
Polyglots,  187 
Poole,    Matth.,   226,    249, 

467.  622 
Postilles,  4.54 
Practical  divinity,  573 
Pr.ictical  spirit,  571 
Pr.-etorius,  47 
Prayer,  415 
Pratensis,  Felix,  186 
Prelatical  authority,  151 
Presbyterians,  156,  226 
Presbytery  of  New  York, 

288,  2S9 
Prideaux,  H.,  225,  276,491 
Priestly  writers,  550,  560 
Princeton  school,  162,  229 
Probebibel,  217 
Procopius,  185 
Pronunciation  in  Hebrew, 

176 
Prophecy,  544 
Prophets  without  honour, 

244,245 
Protestant  Reformers,  141, 

145,   146,    151,    219,    246, 

281,  282,  457 


Providence,  102,  103 
Pseudonymes,  323  seq. 
Ptolomieus,   Philadelphus, 

124 
Puritans,  149  seq.,  162,  573 
Pusey,  E.  B.,  454 

Qarites,  433 
Qeris,  177 
Quakers,  155 

Rab,  252,  333 
Rabbinical     Bible,    Bam- 
berg's,   186;    Buxtorf's, 

187 
Rabboth.  234 
Rahab.  ;!.U 
Rainy,  Robt.,  110 
Rambach,  J.  J.,  428,  467 
Ramsay,  W.  M.,  331 
Raphe.  It^O 

Rapheleng,  Franz,  222 
Rashi,  174,  211.  236,454 
Rationalism,  77,  158,  480, 

492,  574 
Redemption,   doctrine   of, 

647  seq. 
Reformation,  77,  141,  219, 

241),  489,  652  seq. 
Refrains,  403,  408, 410, 413, 

414 
Regeneration,  f>57 
Reland.  491.  507 
Remoteness,  56;i 
Remov.al  of  particles,  176 
Renan,  E.,  497,  498,  537 
Repentance  of  Nineveh,  346 
Reseh.  A.,  203 
Respousion  in  ]ioetry,  399 
Reuchlin,  J..  140,  141,  475 
Reu-ss,  Edw.,  68,  71,  143, 

153,  283,  356,  449,  471, 

582,  583,  585,  .589 
Revelation    in    Jesus,   639 

seq.;  in  Nature, 637  sei/,; 

in  Reason,  639;   In  The- 

ophanies,  ti'.iS 
Reynolds,  John,  467 
Rhabanus  Maurus,  454 
Rheims  version,  215 
Rhyme,  3(il,  373  seq. 
Richter,  237 
Riddles,  416,  417,  418 
Riehm,  Edw.,  324,  445,  587 
Right  of  private  judgment, 

161 
Ritschl,  Albr.,  500,  507, 

591 
Rivetus,  And.,222,  249,457 


686 


rXDEX   OF   NAMES   A^D   SUBJECTS 


Roberts,  Fraucis,464.465, 
466.  467,  473,  482.  484 

Robertsou,  J.,  334,  335, 
S64 

Robinson  and  James,  587 

Robinson,  Edw.,  48,  2«4, 
507,  532,  (>46 

Rodgers,  John,  215 

Rildiger,  Emil,  475 

Rolls,  169  seq.,  191 

Roman  tradition,  147 

RosenmuUer,  C.  F.  K.,  447 

Rothe.  158 

Rous,  Fr.,  491 

Row,  C.  A.,  10 

Rudolph  of  Saxony,  489 

Rupeiius  Meldenius,   100, 

iin 

Rvle,  H.  E.,  118,  119,  120, 
122,  1-27,  129,  131,  237, 
335.  336,  513,  529 

Saadia,  214,  235,  454 
Saalschiitz,  J.  L.,  363 
Sabatier,  A.,  5S8 
Sabbath,  269 
Sabeau  language,  46 
Sabians,  49 

Sacritices,  308,  641  seq. 
Sacrifices  for  the  dead,  145 
Sadducees,  128 
Salvation  by  works,  145 
Samaritans,  128 
Samaritan  canon,  120 
Samaritan  coder,  170 
Samaritan  language,  50 
Sampson,  Tb.os.,  215 
Samson  and  Hercviles,  333 

seq. 
Sanctification,  fio8 
Sandy,  Wm.,  126, 133, 135, 

137,  l."8 
Savce.  45.  352.  513,  520, 

521.528,558 
Scaliger,  J.  J.,  2-2.-J,  4;)0 
Scatiergood.  226 
SchafT,  Ph.,  15.  64.  66,  71, 

72,    106,   208,  213,  216, 

318,  32(j,  500 
Schick,  Conrad,  555 
Schiller,  Szinissy,  184 
Schindler.  22."i 
Schleiermacher.  471.  472 
Schmid.  C.  ¥..  580.  587, 

591.597.  598 
Schmidt,  \V.,  589 
Schmiedel.  V.  W.,  525 
Schneckeuburger,  M.,  505 
Schnedermann,  G.,  222 


Scholastic  spirit,  570 
Scholasticism,  112  seq.,  141, 

575 
Scholastics,  Lutheran,  147, 

259,458 
Scholastics,     Protestants, 

480 
Scholastics,  Reformed,  147, 

225 
Scholastics,  Swiss,  259 
Scholtz,  J.  M.  A.,  125,  227 
School  of  Calixtus,  147 
School  of  Reuss,  587 
School  of  Saumur,  122 
Schottgen,  .3()6 
Schrader,  E.,  47,51,  368, 

506 
Schroeder.  P..  47 
Schuckford,491 
Schultens.  A.,  475 
Schultz,  Herm.,  584,  597 
Schultze,  191 
Schurer.  E..  62,  192,  211, 

233,  430.  506 
Schwab.  M..  233 
Schwally.  Fr..  50 
SchwartzkoptT.  590 
Schwegler.  499.  600 
Science  and  Bible,  612 
Scotch  Confession,  149 
Scott,  Thos..467 
Script,  Aramaic,  170  seq. 
Script,  Phffiuician,  170 
Scrivener,    F.  H.  A.,    86, 

89,  <H),  226,  228,  241 
Sectarianism,  li 
Sedar    olam    zutta,    235, 

488 
Sedar    olam    rabba,   235, 

488 
Sedarim,  179 
Segond,  Louis.  217 
Seller.  G.  F..  471 
Seidell.  J.., H4.  22.1.  490 
Semler.J.S..  163.207,276, 

469. 470 
Separation  of  words,  343 
Sepp,  .">07 

Septuagint.  23. 125, 173, 175 
Shairp.  369.  360 
Shakespeare.  318 
Shamm.-ii,  130,  232 
.Shedd,  W.  G.  T.,  169 
Shemitic  languages,  19,  20 
Shewa,  .19 
Shilo,  238 
Shulamite,  .W 
Sidra  d'  Yahya,  49 
Sidra  rabba,  49 


Siegfried,   K.,   274,   432, 

433,  435,  436,  449,  454 
Sif  ra,  234 
Sifri,  177,  234 
Silberstein,  199,  203 
Silence,    argument    from, 

101  seq. 
Siloam  inscription,  48,  170 
Simeon  ben  A  2.11,  130 
Simeon  ben  Menasiah,  131 
Simeon  Kara,  23(i 
Simon  the  Just,  121 
Simon  Magus,  447 
Simon,  Richard,  274,  275 
Sinaitic  Codex,  138 
Sionita,  Gabr.,  222 
Sittenfeld,  232 
Sixtine  text.  207,  213 
Slaying  of  Goliath,  558 
Smeud,  R.,  48,  587 
Smith,  Geo.,  52.  506 
Smith,    Geo.   Adam.  286, 

508 
Smith.  H.  B..  624.  626 
Smith,  H.  P..  10,  95.  289 

seq.,  2ilO.  536 
Smith.  Miles,  216 
Smith.  R.  P.,  49 
Smith.  W.  R.,  26.  47.  130. 

143,  176,  229,  286.  325, 

368,  588 
Sociu,  A..  48.  608 
Socrates,  9,  73 
Sodh,  432.  438.  439 
Solomon,  53,  94 
Sopherim,  176  seq. 
Sources  of  history,  .331 
Spanheim,  F.,  276,  491 
Speaking    with     tongues, 

617  seq. 
Speculative  spirit.  571 
Spinoza,  B..  274 
Spittler,  137 

Spurgeon.  C.  H..  468.  481 
Stackhiuise.  491 
Stade,  B..  47.i.  504,  591 
Stanley,  A.  P..  507 
Stanton,  V.  H..  590 
Statutes  of  L;iw,  WtO.  XI 
Stark,  C.L.  AV..  470 
States  Bihle.  217 
Sliiudlein.  C.  F.,  470 
Stephens,  Kobt.,  ISC,  206. 

213 
Stern,  470 

Steudcl,  J.  C.  F.,  471.677 
Stevens,  Geo.  B.,  590 
Strabo,  Walafrid.  4.11 
Strack,  Ilerui  ,49..'-)0, 121. 


IXDEX   OF   NAMES   ANH   SUBJECTS 


687 


128,  175,  184,  185,  189, 

228,  251,  255,  324.  351, 

471 
Strauss.   D.   F..   80.   494, 

495,  496.  498.  578 
Strophes,  3i\S  «<■./. 
Stuart,    Moses,    2S4,    428, 

4611,  470 
Style,  97  seq.,  3.W 
Style   of    Epistle   to   the 

Hebrews,  301,  302 
Style  of  Job,  301 
Style  of  prophets,  338  seq. 
SufiicicQt  reason,  law  of, 

82 
Suffixes,  56 

Sulpicius,  Severns,  489 
Supernatural,  490,  537 
Supernaturalists,  492 
Sureiihusius,  232 
Survey  of  Western  Pales- 
tine, 508 
Susanna,  63 
Suspended  letters.  177 
Swete,  U.   B.,   138,    196, 

197,  198,  IWi.  209 
Symbols  of  faith,  114 
Symmachus'  version,  191 
Svnod  of   Carthage,   137, 

"l38 
Synod  of  Hippo,  137,  138 
Synagogues,  188 
Synagogue  rolls.  183 
Synagogue  worship,  125 
Synonyms  in  Hebrew,  57, 

58 
Syntactical  differences,  300 
Syriac  language.  49 
Syriac  versions.  212 
Syrian  text,  204  seq. 

Tables  of  stone,  169 
Talmud,  23,  121,  141,  170, 

174,   176,    177,   178,   179, 

183,   191,  211,  232  seq., 

429 
Talmud,  Jerusalem,  233 
Tanaim,  253«C9.,  334 
Tanchuma,  235 
Targum,  23,  125,  175,  210 

seq. 
Targum,   Jonathan,    211, 

236 
Targum,  Onkelos,  211.  236 
Targum.  YerHshalmi,2H 
Tatran,  134.  212.  488 
Taverner,  Rich.,  215 
Tawus,  Jacob,  214 
Taylor,  Cbas.,  121 


Taylor.  Francis,  212,  249, 
250,  462,  467 

Taylor,  Isaac.  89 

Taylor.  John,  468,  469, 
470,  475 

Temperaments,  569 

Ten  Words,  118,  169 

Terry,  M.  S.,  447 

Tertullian,  257,  447,  451 

Testimony  of  Loudon  min- 
isters, l."i3 

Text  of  Ben  Asher,  231 

Thayer,  J.  H.,  70 

Thebaic  version,  195 

Theile,  E.  G.  W..  187 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
137,  i;!S,  258,  449,  452, 
4.T4 

Theodoret,  1.38 

Theodotian,  191,200 

Theophanies,  337,  542  seq. 

Theophylact,  241 

Tholuck,  A.,  223,  443, 575 

Thomson,  W.  M.,  507 

Thousand  and  One  Nights, 
92 

Tiele,  C.P.,  506 

Tischendorf,  Const..  196, 
197,  228.  241.  2W 

Tischendorf 's  text,  208 

Titus,  175 

Tobia,  2;U 

Tobler,  T.,  507 

Tosaphoth,  234 

Tosephtoth,  233 

Toy,  C.  H.,  10,  20,  210, 
286,  290.  350,  587 

Traditional  opinion,  109 
seq. 

Traditional  sense,  453 

Transcriptional  probabil- 
ity, 265 

Translations  and  inspira- 
tion, 622 

Trapp,  John,  467 

Tregelles,  S.  P.,  228 

Tregelles'  text,  209 

Trench,  R.  C,  73 

Tristram,  H.  B.,  507 

TruUan  council,  137 

Trumbull,  H.  C,  507 

Tiibingen  school,  499 

Tuckney,  Ant.,  145 

Turner,  S.  H.,  260,  284, 
474 

Turpie.  D.  M.,  211 

Tiirretiue,  J.  Alp.,  225,  470 

Turretine,  Fr,,  147,  223, 
621 


I  Tychonius,  449 
Tychsen,  185 
Tvnd.ilc,    Wm.,    ia">,    106, 

214,  456,  457 
Twisse,  Wm.,  84 
Types  of  Biblical  History, 

539  seq. 

Ugolino,  233,  2.34,  490 

Ulenberg,  217 

Ullmaun,  Karl,  495,  496, 
498 

Uncials,  194  seq. 

Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, 288  seq. 

Unity  and  Variety,  606 

Usher,  J.,  186,  225,  248, 
460,461,466,490 

Usteri,  L.,  588 

Valla,  219 

Van  Dale,  Anton,  275 
Van  der  Hooght,  187 
Van  Ess,  Leander,  214 
Van  Liesveldt,  Jacob,  217 
Van  Oosterzee,  J.  J.,  584, 

597 
Van  Uttenhove,  217 
Vater,  J  S.,  282 
Vatican  coiiex,  138 
Vatke.   Wm.,    499,    504, 

577,  585 
Verbal  inspiration,  223 
Vercellone,  203 
Via  media,  l,'i6 
Vigouroux,  F.,  507 
Vincent.  M.  R.,  71.  299 
Vindictiveness,  (J4(; 
Virgin-birth,  522  seq. 
Vischer,  Eberh.,  296 
Vitringa,  276.  490 
Voetius,  147.  621 
Volkmar,  G.,  499 
Vollers,  189 
Voltaire,  80 
Vowel  points,  59,  181,  220 

seq. 
Vulgate   version,   23,   173, 

213  seq. 

Waehner.  430,  491 
Walch,  J.  G..  247 
Walton,   Brian,   222,  223, 

224,  24<>,  259 
Warfield,  B.  B.,  320,  609, 

625 
Watson,  Thos.,  462 
Weber,  F.,  429 
Weiss,    B.,    209,   272,  283, 


INDEX   OF  NAMES  AND   SUBJECTS 


325,  326,  327, .!.»,  498, 
500,583,  589,5<)» 

Weiss,  J.  H.,  234 

■Weizsiicker,  Carl,  63, 499 . 
591 

Wellhausen,  Julius,  203, 
290,  504.  505,  585 

Weudt,  H.  H.,498,  589 

Wenrich,  363 

Wesley.  Jolm,  482 

Westcott,  B.  F.,  86,  89.  90 

Westcott  and  Hnrt,  190, 
19ii,  197,  200.  201.  202- 
206,209.228,231,240, 
242.264.  299.  301,  302 

Wtstcm  text,  201-203, 
240 

Westminster  Assembly,  83, 
84,  152,  248 

Westminster  Confession,  8, 
15,  25,  92,  99,  115,  150, 
461,  625,  653 

AVestminster  Larger  Cate- 
chism, 659 

Westminster  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, 15,  83,  92,  661 


Wetzstein  text,  207 
Wctzstein,  J.  C,  227,  507 
Whately,  R.,  35,  105 
What  is  God  ?  83 
Whiehcote,  Beuj.,  145 
Whiston,  Wm.,  237 
Whitby,  Dan.,  468,470 
AVhite,  A.  D.,  9,  10 
Whitehousc,  O..  47 
Whittingham,  Wm.,  215 
Wickes,'w.,  181,182,  184, 

18,5 
Wicklif,  214,  455,  456 
Winckler,  Hugo,  48 
Winer,  Ci.  B.,  70,  71 
Witne.ss    of    Holy    Spirit, 

165  seq. 
Witsius,  Herm.,  259,  276 
Wogne,  221,  232,  430,  431, 

4.^3 
Word  of  God,  6.34 
Word  of  Peace,  100,  101 
Words  in  Law,  560.  561 
Workman,  G.  C.  189 
AVrede,   Wm.,    591,    594, 

605 


Wright,  C.  H.  H.,  255,  311, 

324 
Wright,  Wm.,  46,  361,362, 

470 
Wiinsche,  Aug.,  68,  234, 

338,  417 

Ximeues,  140,  186,  219 

Yalqut  Shimeoni,  2SS 
Yanai,  232 

Zacharia,  G.  T.,  469,  575 
Zahn,  Theo.,  134 
Zealots,  12.S 
Zeller,  Edw..499 
Zerubbabel.  59,  63 
Zezschwitz,  66,  72,  73 
Zimmern.  H.,  45 
Ziickler.  O..  312 
Zohar,  221 
Zschokke.  589 
Zunz,  L.,  63,  128,  233 
Zurich  consensus.  621 
Zwingli,  80,  220,  224,  248, 
457 


BY  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S    SONS,   Publishers, 

153-157  Fifth  Avexue,  New  York. 


Crown  8vo 

A  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture.    A'et    .    $3.00 
Messianic  Prophecy :  The  Prediction  of  the  Fulfilment  of  Redemp- 
tion through  tlie  Messiah.     Sez>eni/i  Eiiilion      ....     $2.50 

The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels $2.00 

The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles $3.00 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.    New  Edition.     Revised 

and  enlarged        ..........     $2.50 

The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason :  The  Three  Great  Foun- 
tains of  Divine  .Authority.     Second  Edition        ....     $1.75 

American  Presbyterianism :  Its  Origin  and  Early  History,  together 
with  an  Appendix  of  Letters  and  Documents,  many  of  which 
have  recently  been  discovered.     With  maps      ....     $3.00 

Whither?  A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times.      Third  Edition    fl.75 
The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture :  An  Inaugural  Address.    Ninth 

Edition,  paper     ..........  .50 

The  Defense  of  Professor  Briggs.    Paper,  nd 50 

The  Case  against  Professor  Briggs.      In  three  parts,  paper.     Parts 

I.  and  II.,  each,  50  cents;  Part  III 75 


A  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   STUDY 
OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

The  Principles,  Methods,  History,  and  Results  of  its  Several  Depart- 
ments, and  of  the  Whole.    Crown  8vo.    $3.00  net. 

Dr.  Briggs's  new  book  covers  the  whole  ground  of  Biblical  Study, 
gives  a  history  of  every  department,  with  ample  illustrations  from  the 
New  Testament  as  well  as  from  the  Old,  and  states  the  results  thus  far 
attained,  the  present  problems,  and  the  aims  for  the  future.  It  is 
written  so  that  any  intelligent  person  can  read  it  with  enjoyment  and 
profit.  The  work  takes  the  place  of  the  author's. 5/MVa/  Study,  which 
has  been  extraordinarily  successful,  and  which  has  been  here  revised, 
enlarged  to  double  its  former  size,  and  entirely  reset,  so  that  it  is  essen- 
tially a  new  book. 


2  By  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

MESSIANIC  PROPHECY:    The  Prediction  of  the 
Fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the  Messiah. 

A  Critical  Study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  order  of  their  development. 

Seventh  Edition.    Crown  8vo.    $2.50. 


"  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  subject  of  no  common  interest,  and  this  book  is  no  or- 
dinary book.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  work  of  the  very  first  order,  the  ripe  product 
of  years  of  study  upon  the  highest  themes.     It  is  exegesis  in  master-hand,  about  its 

noblest  business It  has  been  worth  while  to  commend  this  book  at  some 

length  to  the  attention  of  Bible  students,  because  both  the  subject  and  the  treatment 
entitle  it  to  rank  among  the  very  foremost  works  of  the  generation  in  the  department 
of  Exegetical  Theology.  Union  Seminary  is  to  be  congratulated  that  it  is  one  of  her 
professors  who,  in  a  noble  line  of  succession  has  produced  it.  The  American  Church 
is  to  be  congratulated  that  the  author  is  an  American,  and  Presbyterians  that  he  is  a 
Presbyterian.  A  Church  that  can  yield  such  books  has  large  possibilities."  —  New 
York  Ez'angclist. 

"  It  is  second  in  importance  to  no  theological  work  which  has  appeared  in  this 
country  during  the  present  century."  —  The  Critic. 

"  His  arduous  labor  has  been  well  expended,  for  he  has  finally  produced  a  book 
which  will  give  great  pleasure  to  Christians  of  all  denominations The  pro- 
found learning  displayed  in  the  book  commends  it  to  the  purchase  of  all  clergymen 
who  wish  for  the  most  critical  and  exact  ex-position  of  a  difficult  theme;  while  its 
earnestness  and  eloquence  will  win  for  it  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  devout  lay- 
man." —  New  York /ouriia/  of  Commerce. 

"  It  is  rich  with  the  fruits  of  years  of  zealous  and  unwearied  study,  and  of  an  ample 
learning.  In  it  we  have  the  first  English  work  on  Messianic  Prophecy  which  stands 
on  the  level  of  modern  Biblical  studies.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  valuable 
contributions  of  American  scholarship  to  those  studies.  It  is  always  more  than  in- 
structive :  it  is  spiritually  helpful.  We  commend  the  work  not  only  to  ministers,  but 
to  intelligent  laymen." —  The  Independent. 

"  On  the  pervading  and  multiform  character  of  this  promise,  see  a  recent,  as  well 
as  valuable  authority,  in  the  volume  of  Dr.  Briggs,  of  the  New  York  Theological 
Seminary,  on  'Messianic  Prophecy.'"  —  W.  E.  Gladstone. 

"  Professor  Briggs's  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  most  excellent  book,  in  which  I 
greatly  rejoice."  —  Professor  Franz  Delitzsch. 

"  All  scholars  will  join  in  recognizing  its  singular  usefulness  as  a  text-book.  It  has 
been  much  wanted."  —  Rev.  Canon  Chevne. 

"  It  is  a  book  that  will  be  consulted  and  prized  by  the  learned,  and  that  will  add 
to  the  author's  deservedly  high  reputation  for  scholarship.  Evidences  of  the  ability, 
learning,  and  patient  research  of  the  author  are  apparent  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  volume,  while  the  style  is  remarkably  fine."  —  Philadelphia  Presbyterian. 

"  Mis  new  liook  on  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  worthy  companion  to  his  inihspen- 
sable  text-book  on  Biblical  study.  .  .  .  What  is  most  of  all  required  to  insure  the 
future  of  Old  Testament  studies  in  this  country  is  that  those  who  teach  should  satisfy 
their  .students  of  their  historic  connection  with  the  religion  and  theology  of  the  past. 
Professor  Briggs  has  the  consciousness  of  such  a  connection  in  a  very  full  degree,  and 
yet  he  combines  this  with  a  frank  and  unreserved  adhesion  to  the  principles  of  modern 
criticism.  ...  lie  has  produced  the  first  English  text-book  on  the  subject  of  Mes- 
sianic Prophecy  which  a  modern  teacher  can  use."  —  London  .-tcademy. 


By  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 
THE  MESSIAH  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

Crown  8vo.    $2.00. 


THE  MESSIAH  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

Crown  8vo.    $3.00. 

Professor  Briggs  in  these  two  volumes  takes  up  the  ideas  presented 
in  the  author's  Messianic  Prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  traces 
their  development  in  New  Testament  prophecy.  The  method  and 
scope  of  the  work  are  entirely  original ;  and  it  is  full  of  fresh  statements 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  as  the  result  of  the 
new  point  of  view  that  is  taken. 

"  It  is  learned,  sound,  evangelical,  and  is  a  useful  contribution  to  the  Christologi- 
cal  literature  of  the  day."  —  Xew  York  Tribune. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  is  to  be  congratulated  on  having  brought  to  a  successful  termination 
this  truly  remarkable  series  of  volumes  on  one  of  the  most  important  themes  of  Bibli- 
cal study.  The  Christology  of  the  New  Testament  is  likely  to  wait  long  for  a  more 
competent  and  more  successful  expositor."  —  The  Christian  Register. 

"  As  we  lay  the  book  down,  we  have  a  renewed  sense  of  the  courage,  independ- 
ence, and  erudition  of  the  author."  —  The  Churchman. 


THE  BIBLE,  THE  CHURCH,  AND  THE  REASON: 
The  Three  Great  Fountains  of  Divine  Authority. 

Second  Edition.    Crown  8vo.    $1.75. 

*'  An  impartial  judgment  will  not  fail  to  give  full  credit  for  purity  of  motive  and 
loftiness  of  purpose  to  a  man  who  writes  like  this."  —  The  Evangelist. 

"  It  consists  of  lectures  delivered  at  different  limes  since  the  recent  assault  upon 
him.  .  .  .  He  simply  elaborates  and  substantiates  the  positions  in  his  inaugural  which 
have  subjected  him  to  public  criticism."  —  The  Christian  Union. 

"  The  problems  which  are  discussed  with  masterly  power  in  this  volume  are  not 
those  of  Presb)'terianism,  or  of  Protestantism,  but  of  Christianity,  and,  indeed,  of  all 
Biblical  religion.  To  any  man  for  whom  the  question  of  God  and  revelation  has  an 
endlessly  fascinating  interest,  the  book  will  prove  suggestive  and  stimulating.  We 
cannot  see  why  even  the  Israelite  and  the  Roman  Catholic  should  not  desire  to  taste 
—  despite  the  traditions  of  sjTiagogue  ani  Mother  Church  —  this  latest  forbidden 
fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge."  —  7.4c  Literary  H'orld. 


By  Professor  Charles  A.  Bn'i^s^s,  D.  D. 


THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH. 

New  Edition,  revised  and  enlarged.    Crown  8vo.    $2.50. 

"  When  this  book  first  appeared  it  was  recognized  as  a  masterly  production.  Written 
in  a  clear  style,  and  full  of  the  largest  learning,  it  easily  took  a  foremost  place  in  dis- 
cussions of  the  subject.  ...  It  appears  again  in  a  new  and  thoroughly  revised  edition, 
with  fuller  statements  on  many  points.  We  congratulate  the  author  upon  his  sound- 
ness of  judgment  and  his  clearness  of  statement,  as  well  as  upon  the  admirable  temper 
which  his  book  has  preserved."  —  The  American  Joiiriial  of  Theology. 

"  The  pivotal  question  in  Old  Testament  study  still  remains  that  of  the  authorship 
and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch ;  and  this  work  of  Dr.  Briggs  is  an  admirable 
introduction  to  this  subject,  giving  a  history  and  abundant  illustrations  of  the  criti- 
cism."—  Edward  L.  Curtis,  Professor  of  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature  at  Yale. 


WHITHER?    A  THEOLOGICAL  QUESTION  FOR 
THE  TIMES. 

Third  Edition.    Crown  8vo.    $1.75. 

"  He  shows  that  genuine  Christianity  has  nothing  to  lose  but  much  to  gain  by 
unfettered  thought  and  by  the  ripest  modern  scholarship,  .  .  .  and  that  the  '  higher 
criticism '  of  which  timid  and  unscholarly  souls  are  so  much  afraid,  is  really  making 
the  Bible  more  manifestly  the  Book  of  God,  by  relieving  it  from  the  false  interpreta- 
tions of  men."  —  Philadelphia  Press. 

"  It  is  written  in  nervous,  virile  English  that  holds  attention.  It  has  unusual  grasp 
and  force.  The  title  and  the  chapter  headings  suggest  compression:  'Whither?' 
'Drifting,'  'Orthodoxy,'  'Changes,'  'Shifting,'  'Excesses,'  'Failures,'  'Departures,' 
'  Perplexities,'  '  Barriers,'  '  Thither.'  There  is  a  whole  history  in  some  of  these  words, 
and  a  whole  sermon  in  others."  —  The  Critic. 


AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIANISM : 

Its  Origin  and  Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters 
and  Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  discovered. 

Crown  8vo,  with  maps.    $3.00. 

"  His  vigorous,  skilful,  and  comprehensive  researches  put  all  Protestant  Christians, 
and  especially  Congregationalists,  under  obligation  to  him."  —  Boston  Congregation- 
alist. 

"  This  is  an  admirable  and  exhaustive  work,  full  of  vigorous  thinking,  clear  and 
careful  statement,  incisive  and  judicious  criticism,  minute  yet  comprehensive  research. 
It  is  such  a  Iiook  as  only  a  man  with  a  gift  for  historical  inquiry  arid  an  enthusi.ism 
for  the  history  and  principles  of  his  Church  could  have  produced.  It  represents  an 
amazing  amount  of  labor."  —  British  Quarterly  Kevie7v. 


CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  Publishers, 
153-157  FiiTH  AvKN'UF,  New  York. 


This  book  is 
due  to  be  returned  to 

Caven  Library, 

Knox  College 

on  the  date  indicated  below. 
A  fine  of  four  cents  per  day 
is  charged  on  over-due  books. 


^.* 


?  *.*t 


■^K 


-->^   "         *':-*J