f- 
 
 Malcolm White 
 
 Professor Smith's Article 
 on 
 "Hebrew Language and Literature' 
 
 ^''?*».**^SP' '^?. 
 
 BSII71 
 .S663W5 
 
OF 
 
 mlc^ 
 
 . jMJG 20 195e 
 
 6 s 1/7/ 
 
A3W5 
 
 k I 
 
 Professor Smith's Article on "Hebrew 
 Language and Literature " 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. MALCOLM WHITE, M.A. 
 
 Free South Churchy Blairgowrie^ 
 Author of '* The Symbolical Numbers of Scripture,^'' ^c. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Price Fourpence. j. Maclaren & Son, Edin. 
 
Prof, W. R. Smiths Article on ''Hebrew 
 Lmzguage and Liter attire' 
 
 ELEVENTH VOLUME OE THE 
 
 ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 
 
 Rev. MALCOLM WHITE, M.A. 
 
 Free South C/nerck, Blairgowrie, 
 
 AUTHOK OF "the SVMBOI.ItAI. MMF.EKS OF SCRIl'TrRE," ETC. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 EDINBURGH: JOHN MACLAREN c\: SON. 
 
 1880. 
 
c/ 
 
^Wurtnir 0^^=^ 
 
 •/ HEC. SEP 1B8I 
 
 THSOLOGICA 
 
 'HEBREW LANGUAGE AND 
 LITERATURE." 
 
 /^^ UR Confession of Faith speaks of the "majesty of the 
 ^-^ style " of Scripture, the consent of all the parts, and 
 its " many other incomparable excellencies," as arguments 
 whereby " it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the 
 Word of God." It also speaks of the Old Testament 
 and the New as being by " God's singular care and pro- 
 vidence kept pure in all ages," so that in all controversies 
 of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. 
 
 This reveals clearly enough the old ground on which 
 our Church took its stand, while it gave to men a fair 
 measure of liberty in the matter of critical research. 
 But it immediately occurs to one, on reading the article 
 on '' Hebrew Language and Literature," to ask whether 
 the spirit of our Confessional teaching is not ignored in 
 such utterances as the foUowinsf : — 
 
 L 
 
 I. Speaking of the Song of Solomon: — "This lyric 
 drama has suffered much from interpolation, and pre- 
 sumably was not written down till a comparatively late 
 date, and from imperfect recollection, so that its original 
 shape is very much lost. 
 
2. " The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, the colour- 
 less narrative of the Chronicles, and even the Book of 
 Esther, are singularly destitute of literary merit. 
 
 3. " The Chronicler," that is, the writer, or at least the 
 last editor of the Books of Chronicles, " no longer 
 thoroughly understood the old Hebrew sources from 
 which he worked." 
 
 It may confidently be affirmed that, in the mode of 
 handling Scripture adopted in this article, there is an 
 utter and almost unaccountable contrariety in tone to 
 that which the Confession of Faith would suggest, and 
 which any Church desirous to keep in the lines of these 
 standards will demand, in the utterances of its ministers 
 and professors. 
 
 As to the so-called " Chronicler," may it not be right 
 to ask how far the view presented of his ignorance of 
 Hebrew has carried our professor in the dependence he 
 puts on any of the historical statements, or on minute 
 phrases with historical bearings, which the Chronicler 
 may employ? That this is not asked without ground 
 will be conceded by all who are familiar with recent dis- 
 cussions in our Church Courts ; but, as there may be a 
 natural wish to leave these in the past, let us pass at 
 once to the consideration of a further topic. 
 
 11. 
 
 In the second place, then, reference may be made to 
 the complete revolution which would be effected by this 
 article in the case of many of the books of the Bible. 
 
 I. To begin with Genesis. Instead of the stories of 
 
5 
 
 Joseph and Jacob coming to us confirmed by the name 
 of Moses, they were not written till after the time of 
 David. 
 
 2. Instead of Exodus being from the pen of Moses, " it 
 may fairly be made a question whether Moses left in 
 writing any other laws than the Commandments on the 
 Tables of Stone." 
 
 3. Leviticus must belong, as a written book, to the time 
 after Ezekiel, for the lines on which the systematization of 
 the law at le^igth pi^oceeded zvere first drazun by that 
 prophet. 
 
 4. Generally, as to the books known in our Lord's 
 time and ever since as the books of Moses : " The best 
 written and most brilliant part of the narrative of the 
 Pentateuch — the combined history of the Jehovist and 
 the non-Levitical Elohist — appears to be unquestionably 
 earlier than the rise of prophetic literature in the 8th 
 century B.C." That is, the narrative or historical portion 
 of the Pentateuch can fairly be reckoned as written down 
 earlier than the time of Hezekiah, but the rest of the 
 Pentateuch was probably much later. No part of the 
 Pentateuch, or of any other Bible history could apparently 
 be written before the time of David ; for " the story of 
 the early fortunes of the nation down to the time of 
 David often presents characteristics which point to oral 
 tradition as its original source." 
 
 5. This disposes, of course, oi Joshna din^ Judges. 
 
 6. Ruth — what is it ? A " graceful prose idyll," which 
 has a natural affinity to the Psalms zvritten after the days 
 of Ezra. 
 
6 
 
 7- It is conceded regarding the Books of Samuel that 
 the older parts must have been written not long after the 
 time of David, and " are framed in a masterly style." 
 One would gladly learn what the more modern parts of 
 these historical books are, and how they deserve to be 
 characterized ; for it is the books, as they left the hands 
 of the last inspired editor, in which the Church is 
 peculiarly interested. 
 
 8. To the period also of literary power, as it is termed, 
 between the time of David and Hosea, " may be assigned 
 the most interesting and graphic histories in the Book of 
 Kings, the splendid episode of Elijah, and other remains 
 of Ephraitic history." What the Church wants to know, 
 and may feel in duty bound to discover from the Pro- 
 fessor, is his estimate of the worth of the other parts of 
 the Books of Kings, written presumably at a later date, 
 and neither so interesting nor so graphic. It is the final 
 result, as it left the pen of the last divinely authorised 
 editor, with which the Church must concern itself ; and, in 
 this view, the praise of " the splendid episode of Elijah " 
 is by no means assuring, unless the whole book is trust- 
 worthy in points of historical detail. 
 
 9. This brings us to the Chronicles, of the inferior worth 
 of which, unless in the way of showing priestly tendencies, 
 we are not left in any great measure of doubt. 
 
 10. About Ezra, Nehemiah, and EstJier, little need be 
 said, seeing "they are singularly destitute of literary 
 merit." 
 
 But, observe, in these few sentences all the so-called 
 historical books of the Old Testament have been gone 
 
over, and one can only ask, after this riddling process, 
 what they seem to be worth ? Are any of them reliable 
 throughout ? Do they, as they were when Christ and 
 His apostles read out of them, convey the exact truth, 
 either as to Judah's history, or the history of the ten 
 tribes that revolted under Rehoboam ? So far from this, 
 there is a theory always appearing about " the political 
 and social superiority of Ephraim before the conflict with 
 Assyria," which throws discredit on the view of Israel's 
 history given by Bible writers. 
 
 It is only what is due by the Church, to ascertain all 
 that is involved under the ambiguous expression about 
 the social superiority of the ten tribes over the tribe that 
 remained faithful to David. The word seems part of a 
 system which would change altogether the verdict Scrip- 
 ture writers pronounce upon the house and kingdom of 
 Jeroboam. It belongs to a theory which makes the ten 
 tribes the noblest, and most conservative, and most truly 
 religious portion of the land. This theory it is which 
 takes the Song of Solomon to reflect the faithfulness of 
 the North to the God of truth, against the seductions of 
 the Court and the temple worship at Jerusalem. Now, 
 this utter overthrowing of the verdict of the final and 
 inspired editors of Bible books is what savours to many 
 of worse than presumption. The place assigned on this 
 theory to the Song of Songs is to them only less 
 abhorrent than the idea that there are in the poem im- 
 pure suggestions. The possibility of such a charge being 
 brought against the Song, and of such a purpose being 
 assigned to it, is what no Church which is faithful to our 
 
8 
 
 present Canon of Scripture is able to allow. Men may 
 differ in their interpretation of the Song. So long as 
 they hold it to be pure in all its suggestions, they may 
 see in it the reflection of what is divine, and may, by 
 different paths, arrive at the reverence which has been 
 entertained for the book all through the Christian cen- 
 turies, and earlier ; but, when men begin to speak of the 
 tempted bride in the Song, and to regard the book as 
 upsetting alike traditional and inspired views regarding 
 the sin of Jeroboam and his people, there is utmost 
 danger of the shipwreck of more than one book of 
 Scripture. It is not the place of Canticles in the Canon 
 which alone is jeopardized ; for, when the view which 
 the historical books of the Bible present of the position 
 of the ten tribes in regard to the law of God and His 
 worship at Jerusalem is reckoned an utterly misleading 
 and altogether false one, the claim which these books 
 make to be admitted in their present form into the 
 Canon is seriously impaired. 
 
 In reference to the other books of the Bible a few 
 notes may suffice — 
 
 1. Solomon is left without the Proverbs or any other 
 book being attributed to him. " The earliest distinct 
 trace of literary cultivation of this (proverbial) philosophy, 
 which, from its nature must at first have passed unwritten 
 from mouth to mouth, is the collection of ancient pro- 
 verbs by scholars in the service of Hezekiah." 
 
 2. Ecclesiastes was only written " at the close of the 
 Old Testament period." 
 
 Now, on the mere ground of dogmatism, exception 
 
might be taken to such sweeping assertions, which place 
 the last editors of these Bible books in a position either 
 30 foolish or so false. Why the Proverbs should be reft 
 away from the name of Israel's wise king, it might be 
 hard to tell. In regard to Ecdesiastes, till reasons are 
 assigned, it can only be said that those which hitherto have 
 been reckoned by some as conclusive, appear to others 
 singularly the reverse. Capital has lately been made out 
 of the hesitating adhesion of the late Dr. Weir to the 
 popular critical view. From his article in Fairbairn's 
 Dictionary, however, it can be seen that the then power- 
 ful influence of Hengstenberg had persuaded him, against 
 his better judgment, to yield to the critics. Turning to 
 Hengstenberg himself, it will be found that the point he 
 could not get over was the attributing to Solomon of the 
 following sentiment : — Eccl. iv. i, "So I considered all 
 the oppressions that are done under the sun : and behold 
 the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no 
 comforter ; and on the side of the oppressors there was 
 power, but they had no comforter." These words are 
 reckoned inapplicable to Israel in the glorious reign of 
 Solomon. But, might they not describe the state of the 
 world at large, seeing Solomon ruled to the Euphrates ? 
 Before such arguments, it is shameful that at home men 
 should yield, although there may be all sympathy with 
 believing theologians on the Continent, who find the 
 tide so strong against them, and must often be tempted, 
 by the very sympathy of scholarship, to make conces- 
 sions which at the moment look to be of little con- 
 sequence. 
 
lO 
 
 3. The latter portion of Isaiah, as was to be expected, 
 is attributed to another pen from that which wrote the 
 first part. Not only so, but we are left in utter uncertainty 
 as to the consistency of the first part in the form in 
 which it has come down through the ages. For it is 
 said : " There are other short prophecies of the Baby- 
 lonian age, as Isaiah xiii. and xiv., which seem to have 
 been first published as anonymous broadsides." How 
 many more such broadsides may be incorporated in 
 the so-called writings of Isaiah is not said. Only, the 
 Professor has already proclaimed the principle which 
 must guide us in all such cases, even this, that the 
 prophet spoke directly to his own time. This, however, 
 does not help, as it is capable of a double meaning, and 
 on this point it is of vital importance that the Church 
 should satisfy itself as to what is really maintained. Is 
 the foresight of prophecy, or the utterance specifically 
 of what reflects to the future, impossible, except in 
 regard to what reflects general Messianic hopes .? It 
 has of late been maintained that the question of the 
 unity of Isaiah is one merely of fact, not of faith. At 
 any moment it may become a question of faith. If the 
 partition of Isaiah is grounded on a special theory of 
 prophecy which is to dominate the Word of God, then 
 at once the domain of faith is assailed. 
 
 The question is. Could Isaiah, in Hezekiah's time, 
 utter the predictions found in his book as to Babylon } 
 Two answers, neither of them complete without the 
 other, may be returned, (i.) The position of Babylon in 
 Hezekiah's days, as evidenced by Scripture and profane 
 
II 
 
 history, may well have been such as to render the 
 denunciations of the prophet quite intelligible to the 
 men of his own generation, and applicable to their 
 spiritual wants. (2.) Such parts of these denunciations 
 as are predictive are quite covered by Old Testament 
 and New Testament views as to the possibility of God, 
 through His prophets, revealing the future. 
 
 The former answer may admit of fair controversy 
 among believing men. Is the second at liberty to be 
 denied in our Evangelical Churches .'' 
 
 4. Daniel is assigned to the time of the Maccabees. 
 In this case it is hard to enter into controversy without 
 uttering what may give offence. How can the form of 
 Daniel's prophecies be justified, if they were all written 
 after the event? What worth attaches to that book, 
 which yet our Lord quotes in circumstances of such 
 solemnity, as the prophet Daniel } Our Lord's testimony 
 and the testimony of His apostles, is that about which 
 men are really concerned, in the midst of the ruins 
 created by present Hebrew criticism. Did St. John base 
 his Apocalypse on a book which ought rather to have 
 been discredited, if he knew the false conceptions it had 
 tended to create t Did our Redeemer refer to guidance 
 which might be derived from the study of Daniel's pre- 
 dictions, when a fuller knowledge of critical opinions 
 would have led Him to question whether any predictions 
 proper had ever been uttered by the sage } Or, was our 
 Lord merely conforming to the prejudices abroad in His 
 time 1 Such questions as these imperatively demand 
 an answer, before we can have confidence in minister or 
 
12 
 
 professor who seems willing to raise them. The divine 
 knowledge of Christ as our Teacher is involved. 
 
 5. Even in the matter of Ezekiel, no church which is 
 aware of all underlying the hypothesis, will lend itself to 
 the supposition that the prophet merely presented a pro- 
 gramme of what the returning exiles should carry out in 
 Jerusalem. The River of Life of which he speaks is no 
 earthly Siloam, and the divisions of the good land on 
 which his eye rests are hardly meant for mere engineers 
 and surveyors. The spiritual aspects of Ezekiel's writ- 
 ings, which Dr. Fairbairn taught us to conserve, will not 
 lightly be laid aside in favour of another Free Church 
 writer in the Encydopcedia Britannica^ who makes the 
 prophet discover, in seventeen years, that his predictions 
 had not been verified in the way he anticipated, so that 
 he had to amend their form and change their primary 
 significance. 
 
 6. It would seem absolutely necessary still further, 
 before allowing the professor to continue his work in the 
 Church, that his own view about Jonah should be ascer- 
 tained. The following is what he chooses to throw 
 out : — 
 
 " Along with this (the Midrash, or sermonizing treat- 
 ment of the old history) came the beginnings of Hag- 
 gada, the formation of parables and tales attached to 
 historical names, of which the Book of Jonah is generally 
 taken as an early example, and which attains much 
 greater dimensions in the apocryphal additions to the 
 Hagiographa." 
 
 Will it be said that a minister or professor can with 
 
13 
 
 impunity declare that the Book of Jonah is a parable or 
 tale attached to a historical name ? This view of Jonah 
 is, we are told, the general opinion, without a word to 
 guard against the supposition that it is Professor Smith's 
 own opinion. And this, after all that had come and 
 gone before October 1879! One need not speak of the 
 apparent unfairness to the Church which might be dis- 
 covered here ; but surely no one will deny that now, at 
 all events, the Church is entitled to know what the Pro- 
 fessor maintains, before Presbyteries be required to ex- 
 press their confidence, by allowing students to attend the 
 Aberdeen Hall. 
 
 III. 
 
 For, in the third place, it is necessary to speak more 
 definitely about the bearing of these speculations on the 
 Gospels, and the general authority of New Testament 
 Scripture. 
 
 I. That our Lord, as man, did believe in the Book of 
 Jonah as a veritable history, few who would deal honestly 
 with Scripture will be prepared to deny. Such, I under- 
 stand, is the position even of Dr. Samuel Davidson. He 
 holds that the version given of our Lord's words in 
 Matthew makes Jesus responsible for the view that there 
 was the miraculous in Jonah's history, and that there 
 was a real and historical repentance occasioned by his 
 preaching in Nineveh. Only, since common sense ap- 
 parently would question the strange story as found in the 
 page of Old Testament Scripture, so common sense 
 should lead us to the conclusion that the error is in 
 
Matthew's report of our Lord's words. If we knew 
 exactly what Jesus said, it might be found that He ex- 
 pressed no belief in the actuality of the marvellous inci- 
 dents, which, indeed, have given but little trouble to those 
 who have firmly held by the miraculous in the " episode 
 of Elijah," and the other histories on which our Lord 
 based His whole teaching. 
 
 Is it an improper question to ask whether this, or some 
 similar view, is adopted by the Professor, in relation to 
 the words of Jesus ? Does he regard the report of 
 Matthew, in the form of the gospel possessed by us, as 
 final and authoritative ? If so, does he reckon the words 
 of Jesus as binding us to believe that the Book of Jonah 
 is no mere tale or parable ? Will it be said in this case, 
 as in that of Moses, that the words of our Lord do not 
 fairly bear the stress laid on them when brought into 
 opposition with a certain drift and current of modern 
 criticism. We may be warned that this involves the sub- 
 ject of the Incarnation. Our answer is, that the divinity 
 of our Lord seems to be necessarily involved in these dis- 
 cussions ; and, so long as this is the case, conscience can- 
 not be at rest, and confidence cannot be yielded. It is 
 impossible to hold that the authority of New Testament 
 Scripture is independent of these forms of criticism. 
 
 The boldness of the question put may be pardoned, if 
 not justified, by what Professor Smith has himself 
 written. When warding off attacks on his well-known 
 view regarding a section of Deuteronomy, in his " Addi- 
 tional Answer to the Libel," p. SS, he says — " The last 
 main argument which is used against the critical view is 
 
15 
 
 that derived from the testimony of our Lord. In Matt, 
 xix. 8, and Mark x. 5, the Old Testament law of divorce 
 is called Mosaic. The words, ' Moses ivrote this precept ' 
 occur in Mark, but not in Matthew ; which shows that 
 the evangelists are not reporting our Lord's words ver- 
 bally, and that nothing can be based on mere verbal 
 points." This, it must be acknowledged, is one of those 
 unsatisfactory sentences which may mean much or little, 
 and which, occurring so frequently in Professor Smith's 
 writings, have not fostered the confidence his friends so 
 lavishly express, and with which strangers find it hard 
 fully to sympathise. Are the references to Jonah such 
 as to show that the evangelist is 7iot reporting our Lord's 
 zvords verbally^ and that 7iotJiing can be based o?i mere ver- 
 bal poiiits ? Without apprehending for a moment that 
 such an answer will be returned, it is surely not beyond 
 the province of the Church Courts, in the whole circum- 
 stances of our Free Church at present, to insist on some 
 account being rendered of the apparent ease with which 
 the history of Jonah can be sacrificed. 
 
 2. This, however, leads to another point, which crowns 
 the difficulty many formerly felt about the relation of 
 New Testament Scripture to the writings of Moses. It 
 was with the utmost difficulty many accepted the most 
 modified of all Professor Smith's statements about the 
 legislative part of Deuteronomy. Such men are staggered 
 now to find that their decision reads as if it covered the 
 whole of the Professor's critical opinions, and they are 
 quite as much confounded to discover that, instead of a 
 few notes in a few chapters of Deuteronomy being the 
 
whole subject in debate, which might leave our Lord's 
 references to Moses untouched, " it may fairly be made 
 a question whether Moses left in writing any other laws 
 than the Commandments on the Tables of Stone." As 
 these were written, according to the narrative, by the 
 special finger of God, it follows that it may fairly be 
 questioned whether Moses ever wrote one single word of 
 the books which, with marvellous uniformity, have been 
 attributed to him. The books are one great misnomer. 
 
 Even this, however, does not affect faith so directly as 
 the words which immediately follow : — 
 
 " Even Ex. xxiv. 4, and xxxiv. 27, may in the original 
 context have referred to the ten words alone." 
 
 Implicitly it is allowed that these verses in their present 
 context do attribute to Moses' pen more than the words 
 on the two Tables of Stone. This may have been an 
 error which crept in with the change of the context, but, 
 if so, the last divinely inspired editor knew nothing of 
 the mistake, and left all men afterwards under a delusion 
 till certain parties arose who were abler than he to sift 
 the true from the false. 
 
 Admittedly the context in these two places is the 
 same as it was in Jesus' days; and probably it will be 
 admitted that the final editor of the Pentateuchal laws 
 left the context in the state we find it, conveying thus a 
 false impression, though conveying the impression he 
 himself had. 
 
 Hitherto controversy within our Church on the subject 
 has taken very much the following form : — 
 
 It has been argued that no consequence attaches to the 
 
17 
 
 authorship of the Pentateuch. If the last editor of the 
 collection of floating traditions and of Israelitish common 
 law was divinely inspired, everything must be reckoned 
 safe which the Church accounts dear. That divinely 
 guided man would be kept, according to the usual 
 thought of inspiration, from error. Here, however, a 
 test case is brought under our notice by Professor Smith; 
 and it appears that inspiration, according to the new 
 view, does not preserve from error, or, at least, from such 
 error as that Moses did not write certain things which 
 are attributed to him in Scripture. The possibility of 
 error in the page of Scripture as it left the very pens of 
 inspired men, is the true subject of controversy. Have 
 we a Canon of Scripture on which we can rely; and was 
 there ever an inspiration on whose product we are able 
 implicitly to depend ? 
 
 That our Lord accepted the commonly received 
 opinion about Moses having had some hand personally 
 in the books bearing his name, is what an impartial 
 reader of the gospels will readily admit. Did our Lord 
 deem the matter to be of no great importance, and there- 
 fore a point not to be raised by Him as a moral teacher ; 
 or did He lay aside divine knowledge when He became 
 man, so that His Word, or the indications He has given, 
 are of no authority on these critical questions ? Such 
 matters press for solution ; for few indeed will be 
 satisfied with the assertion that, in every case where 
 Isaiah is mentioned in Scripture, the mere book known 
 by that name is to be thought of, and when Moses is 
 appealed to, the man is invariably sunk out of view, and 
 
the strange compilation known as the Pentateuch is 
 meant. 
 
 The full force of this argument is not felt when the 
 mere quotations are treated which mention the authors 
 of Old Testament Scripture by name. It must further 
 be considered that the different writers of the New 
 Testament deal with the Old as veracious in the most 
 minute particulars. They accept historical names and 
 incidents exactly as they lie before us in the sacred page. 
 It is not simply on matters affecting faith or morals this 
 holds good, but on points to which conscience can 
 hardly be said to bear any very direct testimony. The 
 story found in the Old Testament books is never treated 
 as if allied to myth or fiction. Literary forms and 
 devices seem to have no allowance made for them in the 
 teaching of the apostles. What is in these days of ours 
 turned upside down lay out square and straight before 
 them. Hence at innumerable points they expose them- 
 selves to the risk of being found in collision with what 
 is termed the higher criticism. One instance may 
 suggest many : — 
 
 In Heb. vii. 28, it is incidentally asserted, that the 
 " Word of the Oath " was aftei' (meta ton nomon) " the 
 Law." The context makes it plain that by the Word 
 of the Oath the i loth Psalm is meant : " The Lord hath 
 swo7'n, Thou art a Priest for ever." Further, the special 
 law in view of the writer to the Hebrews at the moment, 
 is the law pertaining to the full-orbed ritual of the day 
 of atonement, in Lev. xvi. According to the obvious 
 reading of Scripture history, the statement in Hebrews 
 
19 
 
 is exactly as it should be. The Word of the Oath came 
 long after the law. David was after Moses, and the 
 iioth Psalm, a Psalm of David's, was after the develop- 
 ment of the Levitical laws in the wilderness. But these 
 are precisely the kind of topics which certain critics 
 think they can handle as they list. Even the testimony 
 of our Lord to the Davidic authorship of the iioth 
 Psalm is most reluctantly acknowledged. Then, as to 
 the day of atonement, whose services were the very acme 
 of the priestly rites in Israel, or, if you will, marked the 
 most advanced point of the development of Levitical 
 ordinances, its various offerings, we are told, could not 
 have been instituted till after the time of Ezekiel. How 
 then could it be said that David's Psalm was after the 
 legislation of the day of atonement? It was, in all 
 likelihood, long centuries before; or, at least, the matter is 
 one of utmost doubt in the self-styled school of European 
 criticism. Both the date of the Psalm and the date of 
 the Levitical legislation are to them matters of consider- 
 able uncertainty. May not the Church leave both points, 
 or at least the one about the law, for the future calmly 
 to determine } Meanwhile, however, the writer to the 
 Hebrews dogmatizes in a way which modern criticism 
 would hardly justify. Perhaps it may be said that, on 
 historical themes, he adopts the language of the vulgar, 
 or that the point in question does not affect faith, and 
 may have been one on which he himself had no infor- 
 mation above his fellows. Yet the author of the 
 Hebrews chooses to bring the relation between the law 
 and the oath thereafter to David, right into the heart of 
 
20 
 
 his great argument ; and the force of the inspired argu- 
 ment, and, consequently, the virtue of our Christian as 
 opposed to the Jewish position is seriously imperilled, if 
 the writer had no warrant for saying that the ritual of 
 Israel came first, and that its abolition and the setting 
 up of a higher, even an eternal priesthood, were denoted 
 by the oath of God afterwards. 
 
 What the Church must for its own safety accept, and 
 demand from its accredited teachers, is the acknowledg- 
 ment continually of the words of Jesus and His inspired 
 ambassadors as of divine authority. Where these take 
 to do with the domain of biblical criticism, there must 
 be no neutrality of tone adopted, to serve any interest 
 whatever. To leave such points open questions appears 
 to be impossible. Faith will ever accept the words of 
 Scripture as the very words of the God of truth. 
 
 Printed by Fraxk Murray, U Yoiing Street, Edinbvrgh. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 tlJM-4^- 
 
 ^^^^^L 
 
 ^T^^^^^^ 
 
 
 
 jyiH ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 PRINTED INU.S. A. 
 
BS1171.S663W5 
 
 Prof. W.R. Smith's article on '^Hebrew 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00047 7630 
 
 .1.^1/^,