i»£^^^^^-^.>:--^^^^^:•:^^^^%%^^^^^^:•:':^!.s^^^^:^^^^^!•^!^^^^!.^ 
 
<^,!0^jme}^ 
 
 POl * 
 
 ^^ei^Llt^N*^ 
 
 
 Di' 
 
THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 MODERN POINT OF VIEW 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 MODERN POINT OF VIEW 
 
 BY y^y 
 REV. L. W. WTTEN, Ph.D. 
 
 Recior of St. Mark's Church, New York ; formerly Professor of the 
 
 Old Testament Languages and Literature in the 
 
 Philadelphia Divinity School 
 
 SECOND EDITION 
 
 New York 
 
 EDWIN S. GORHAM, PUBLISHER 
 
 Fourth Avenue and 22d Street 
 
 1 901 
 
Copyright, 1899 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES POTT & COMPANY 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 SOME typographical errors have been corrected in this edition ; 
 but I have not deemed it advisable to change the text. 
 I am glad to have this opportunity to express my gratitude for 
 the many kind words which have been said about this book, both 
 in reviews and in letters. The particular testimony which I value 
 most is that the book has been found useful to students of the 
 Bible, and that it has proved helpful to a vital faith. 
 
 L. W. B. 
 St. Mark's Church, New York, 
 January i, 1901. 
 
THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE 
 MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 EVERY age has its own way of looking at things. The things 
 themselves are the same in every age ; but they often ap- 
 pear to be different as they are seen from one or another 
 point of view. In many respects it is impossible for us to see as 
 our fathers saw. We can see as they did only as we are able to 
 get their point of view. It is doubtless best for every age to see 
 with its own eyes, because with them it can see most clearly, and 
 it is by clear vision that true progress can be made. 
 
 If we look at the Old Testament from the modern point of view, 
 we see the same collection of sacred writings which our fathers in 
 the Christian Church have long held in high veneration ; but we 
 see them as they did not and could not. We may hope that we 
 are of the same spirit as they, but we must not forego the vantage 
 point of our many centuries of progress. 
 
 The modern point of view, in Biblical science, as in other 
 sciences, is merely the point from which one endeavors to see 
 things as they are. This age is not wont to look at things from 
 the standpoint of an established theory, but from that of a deter- 
 mination to get at the actual facts. In some respects modern 
 science seems cold, irreverent, even reckless in its quest of truth. 
 Applied to the Bible, it seems to pay little heed to theories of the 
 
ii PREFACE. 
 
 date and authorship of the sacred writings — theories which have 
 been so long cherished that they have come to be regarded as 
 established facts. But after all the effort is good in its purpose. 
 For it is evident that its aim is to get back of the long prevalent 
 opinions, and to see things as they appeared to those who lived and 
 moved and had their being among the things in question. 
 
 It is undoubtedly a great gain to be able to look upon an ancient 
 writing from the point of view of the writer and of his first readers. 
 It is a great gain to stand beside the ancient prophet, and to see 
 the conditions which he saw, and by which God moved his pro- 
 phetic spirit. To do this we must look with the eyes of our own 
 age, because it is thus we are enabled to look with the eyes of the 
 prophet. The object of modern historical criticism, therefore, is to 
 get back to the view-point of those who spoke and wrote in an- 
 cient times. 
 
 The sacred literature of the Hebrews has come down to us in 
 books and collections of books. The eyes of this generation are 
 turned back to see how those books were made, and to understand 
 the controlling literary spirit of the times in which they were com- 
 posed. 
 
 There are some aspects of the Old Testament which must appear 
 essentially the same to every devout Christian student, no matter 
 to what period he belongs. In the fourth Christian century, for 
 example, the fundamental belief of the Church was thus expressed 
 in the Nicene Creed : " Who spake by the prophets." Those 
 words state clearly and admirably the faith of the present age as 
 well, and of every age intervening. 
 
 In the last chapter of the present volume I have dwelt upon the 
 effects of Biblical criticism upon the essentials of the faith, my aim 
 and desire being to show that critical investigation does not have a 
 harmful, but a helpful result. That chapter stands in its logical 
 position at the end of the book ; but nevertheless it may be well 
 
PREFACE. iii 
 
 for readers to whom the problems herein discussed are compara- 
 tively new to read that chapter first. The doctrine which is sup- 
 posed to be most seriously and harmfully affected by the results of 
 criticism is inspiration. As a theory, it is true, inspiration is looked 
 at differently to-day from what it has been in the past ; but there 
 is more than compensating gain in that the emphasis is now laid 
 upon the fact of inspiration. 
 
 The subjects discussed in this volume are chiefly the literary 
 problems which a thoughtful reading of the Old Testament inevit- 
 ably raises. In dealing with these problems I. have felt no dispo- 
 sition to be dogmatic. On the contrary, I have desired to lay 
 before the reader the evidence upon which modern results are 
 based, so that he can himself judge of their validity. It did not 
 come within the scope of my plan to take up all the problems of 
 the Old Testament ; but I have chosen typical examples from the 
 different parts into which the Hebrew Scriptures are naturally 
 divided. It seemed to me that in this way could be given the best 
 general idea of the work which has been done. 
 
 Coleridge says that " an author has three points to settle : to 
 what sort his work belongs, for what description of readers it is 
 intended, and the specific end, or object, which it is to answer." 
 
 The first of these points has already been answered, at least in 
 part. If any further statement is needed, I could not give it better 
 than in the words of the author just quoted : " It belongs to the 
 class of didactic works. Consequently, those who neither wish 
 instruction for themselves, nor assistance in instructing others 
 have no interest in its contents." The aim of this book certainly 
 is not to entertain, but to teach. If it fails in that, it is a failure 
 altogether. 
 
 With that emphatic statement, I pass on to Coleridge's second 
 point, " For whom } " The book was not written for the compar- 
 atively small body of Old Testament scholars, who are familiar 
 
fv PREFACE. 
 
 with the working out of all the problems considered here, and 
 whose knowledge would not be increased by anything I have said. 
 There has been no effort to fill these pages with original contribu- 
 tions in fields already well worked. 
 
 But there is, I am persuaded, a large class of thoughtful Chris- 
 tian people who have not leisure for scholarly investigation, but 
 who nevertheless desire to have some exact knowledge of the dis- 
 cussions which have so greatly influenced the modern view of the 
 Old Testament. They may or may not be prepared to accept the 
 conclusions reached by the specialists ; but they do wish to know 
 what those scholars hold, and the character of the evidence upon 
 which their opinions are based. They want this knowledge fur- 
 nished in a form readily intelligible to those who have no large 
 acquaintance with the books which treat of the questions at issue ; 
 and they want the information in a form sufficiently brief for the 
 busiest man in this busy age. 
 
 Whether I have succeeded in meeting the wants of this class or 
 not it is of course for them to say. But if this book does meet 
 their needs, it will, at least in the mind of the writer, justify its 
 existence. 
 
 I spoke advisedly of this class as Christian ; for this book has 
 been written, as will appear to those who read it through, from the 
 point of view of a believer, not only in the verities of the Christian 
 religion, but also in the Old Testament as an inspired record of a 
 divine revelation. However great freedom the writer may feel in 
 the investigation of the critical questions which are found in the 
 Old Testament, he desires to assert most emphatically that he 
 discovers nothing in the results of his studies at variance with the 
 Christian faith. 
 
 Coleridge's third point is, " For what?" There are some people 
 who have been seriously troubled by the new ideas of the Old 
 Testament which are now becoming so widely prevalent. But 
 
PREFACE, V 
 
 there is also a large number whose religious faith was wrecked by 
 a theory of the Old Testament which laid upon their consciences 
 a burden greater than they could bear. The modern views have 
 helped many of this class to re-accept the once discarded Scrip- 
 tures, and to get back their Christian faith. 
 
 The Old Testament, of late years, has been sadly neglected 
 among Christian believers. They could best meet its difficulties 
 by letting it alone. There are now good signs of a revival of in- 
 terest in these books, which were the sacred Scriptures of our Lord 
 and of His Apostles. That revival will be greatly helped by the 
 dissemination of truer views of the actual course of events in He- 
 brew history, and of the actual character of the Old Testament 
 records. 
 
 The writer ventures to hope also that those who are at present 
 unfriendly toward the historical criticism of the Bible will come to 
 recognize at least the fact that the animus of the critical student is 
 good. Difference of opinion, in matters of opinion, is a slight 
 thing; but the misapprehension of motive is a serious thing. If 
 this presentation of modern views of the Old Testament shall help 
 along a juster appreciation of critical investigation on the part of 
 those who now fear that it is destructive, one earnest hope of the 
 writer will be fulfilled. 
 
 No attempt has been made to make the work a compendium of 
 critical opinions ; nor have I sought to support every assertion by 
 abundant references. I have not pretended to acknowledge all my 
 indebtedness to others ; for the task would be too great. This 
 book is the fruit of ten years' study and teaching of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; but I gladly acknowledge the aid which I have received in 
 those years from all the many good books, new and old, which 
 have been written upon these subjects. 
 
 The translation of the passages cited from the Old Testament is 
 my own. I claim no especial credit for this ; but I could not satisfy 
 
vl PREFACE. 
 
 myself with following any existing version. The one merit at 
 which I have aimed is fidelity to the original. I have departed as 
 little as possible, however, from the Revised Version. 
 
 It will be noted that in the translations I have used " Jahveh " as 
 the sacred name of God, in other places "Jehovah." When one 
 remembers that the name " Jehovah " is formed by combining the 
 consonants of the sacred name JHVH with the vowels of another 
 divine name, Adonai (Lord), which the later Jews substituted for 
 JHVH in reading the Scriptures, he cannot help wishing that we 
 were rid entirely of this unfortunate form. But while "Jahveh" 
 (or, perhaps better, Yahwe), represents the probable pronunciation 
 of the name, it is not certainly so. We are likely at any day to get 
 evidence from the Babylonian inscriptions which will definitely set- 
 tle this vexed question. When we are assured of the correct form 
 of the name, v/e should be ready to abandon the form " Jehovah." 
 We are sure that no Hebrew ever called the Deity by that name; 
 but neither are we sure, in spite of the strange guesses we now 
 sometimes see in print, in what way the divine name was pro- 
 nounced. 
 
 I wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my 
 former preceptor, Dr. John P. Peters ; to my former colleague. 
 Prof. R. W. Micou, D.D.; and to my present co-worker. Prof. 
 Wm. M. Groton, who have read the manuscript or proof of this 
 book, and from all of whom I have received helpful suggestions. 
 
 L. W. Batten. 
 Philadelphia Divinity School, 
 March 8, 1899. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 flntroDuctorg. 
 
 Pp. 7-30. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ©encral Brfluments against tbe 
 DaliDitg of Critical IResuUs. 
 
 Pp. 31-52. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ^be Ibcjatcucb. 
 
 THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 Pp. 53-78- 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ebe Ibejateucb. 
 
 2. THE NARRATIVE. 
 Pp. 79-H9. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Cbc Dejateucb. 
 
 3. THE LAW. 
 Pp. 120-160. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ^be Iblstorlcal Mooke* 
 
 Pp. 161-186. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 JStbKcal 1bl0tocs. 
 
 Pp. 187-220. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ^be ipropbets. 
 
 Pp. 221-254. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ^be JBoo\{ of ipsalms. 
 
 1. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 Pp. 255-284. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Ube :fiSooft ot psalms. 
 
 2. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 Pp. 285-312. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Criticism anD tbe Supernatural. 
 
 Pp. 3 '3-34'. 
 
 INDEXES. 
 Pp- 343-354- 
 
CHAPTER L 
 
 flntrobuctorij. 
 
 THE higher criticism has ceased to be a young 
 science. Measured by time, or by the truer 
 standard of achievement, it has won its way 
 to the front rank, and is now recognized generally as 
 an indispensable handmaid in Biblical study. Many 
 people, however, speak freely of this science who do 
 not seem to have a clear knowledge of its precise 
 scope. It is especially common to find the conclu- 
 sions of a particular school of Biblical scholars iden- 
 tified with the name of the method by which their 
 results were reached. It is well to state at the be- 
 ginning just what is meant by the term Higher Criti- 
 cism, a term which will be often used in this book, 
 and which is so much used in theological discussions 
 to-day. 
 
 In spite of its seemingly arrogant name, a source 
 of offence to many, this branch of study aims to be 
 modest enough. We need not ask higher than what ? 
 (or the English comparative fills a multitude of func- 
 tions, and the term here simply marks a contrast with 
 another kind of criticism called the lower. The lower 
 criticism deals with the text, and is now in fact more 
 
8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 commonly called textual criticism. Until very recent- 
 ly lower criticism was not much applied to the Old 
 Testament, though it has long been recognized as 
 indispensable in critical New Testament study. 
 
 In the case of the New Testament there are mate- 
 rials for this science which are altogether lacking in 
 that of the Old. The oldest Hebrew manuscript does 
 not antedate the tenth century A.D. ; moreover, all 
 Hebrew manuscripts belong to the same family, and 
 therefore exhibit no important variants. In the text- 
 ual criticism of the Old Testament, therefore, reliance 
 must be placed on the ancient translations in Greek, 
 Latin and Syriac, and upon conjecture. Even with 
 such scanty materials considerable progress has been 
 made in the past few years, the Polychrome Bible (in 
 Hebrew) being the first attempt to publish a critically 
 revised text. Just because the data are so few, it is 
 but natural that, when a start was once made, conjec- 
 tural emendations of the text should occupy a promi- 
 nent place. The pendulum seems at present likely to 
 make a pretty wide arc in that direction before it set- 
 tles down to a proper centre. But a sound text is es- 
 sential as the basis for all other study. Being, there- 
 fore, the foundation of all Biblical criticism, and in this 
 sense only, it is called lower. One part of the super- 
 structure may inoffensively be called higher in a purely 
 spatial relation, without seeming to be arrogant, or to 
 disparage anything else. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. g 
 
 Higher criticism is purely literary in its character. 
 The term literary criticism is innocent enough ; yet it 
 is the same thing as the higher criticism. The latter 
 term has proved unfortunate, as it has opened the way 
 for many more or less clever gibes from those who 
 like it not. But doubtless the wits would have found 
 some other subject to ridicule, if this opening had been 
 denied them. Higher criticism is a method of study, 
 and does not imply any particular kind of results, radi- 
 cal, moderate, conservative, or traditional. 
 
 There is a single question we must ask of any writ- 
 ing which we undertake to study : What is its origin? 
 The method by which we seek to answer that question 
 scientifically is the higher criticism. The application 
 of this method by different hands produces very differ- 
 ent results. The array of evidence is marshalled by 
 this method, but the judgment which is pronounced 
 upon the evidence is beyond the sphere of this science. 
 One scholar examines the evidence — language, style, 
 thought, historical allusions, etc., and concludes that 
 a certain Psalm, let us say, is pre-exilic ; another using 
 precisely the same evidence may conclude that it is 
 Maccabean ; but both alike are higher critics, and they 
 reach their different results by the science of higher 
 criticism. 
 
 In the study of the Old Testament the higher criti- 
 cism has been applied very persistently and thor- 
 oughly, and with most important results. Its sphere 
 
lo THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 is the age, authorship and structure of the various 
 books. It is often looked upon as a new science. In 
 a sense it is. But sometimes it appears that the 
 Preacher was right, and that " there is nothing new 
 under the sun." The fact is that higher criticism was 
 appHed to the Old Testament a long while ago, as the 
 example following will show. 
 
 It would be rash to venture an opinion as to the 
 date when the heading was prefixed to the Song of 
 Deborah, one of the earliest literary monuments of the 
 Hebrew Bible. This heading (Judges v. i) reads, 
 " Now Deborah and Barak, the son of Abinoam, sang 
 
 in that day, saying ." But an examination of this 
 
 heading, or title page (for such these headings are), 
 shows that the one who placed it there was a higher 
 critic ; for he tells us (i) the character of the writing, 
 that it is a song ; (2) the age, on the day of the great 
 battle with Sisera ; (3) the authors, Debor?di and 
 Barak ; (4) the structure of the poem, reaching the 
 radical conclusion that the song was composite, as he 
 deems it the joint production of two authors."^ It ap- 
 pears that this higher critic, who lived several centuries 
 before Christ, had no more data to determine these 
 
 * The form in the Hebrew shows that the words '* and Barak, 
 the son of Abinoam," were an afterthought, probably by a second 
 editor. (See Moore's " Judges," in loc.) Literally rendered, the 
 passage runs: "And sang Deborah, and Barak, the son of Abi- 
 noam." The verb "sang" is the third feminine singular, and 
 
TTJE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. ii 
 
 questions than we have to-day. It, therefore, is not 
 surprising- that many modern higher critics have 
 reached a different result from their early Jewish pred- 
 ecessor. Those who prefixed headings to the various 
 prophecies, to the Psalms, and to other Old Testa- 
 ment writings, were likewise higher critics. In fact, 
 this science flourished for a considerable period in pre- 
 Christian times. 
 
 These critics, like their modern successors, did not 
 always agree in their conclusions ; and it sometimes 
 happens that there is preserved more than one opinion 
 as to the authorship of certain pieces. Examples of 
 this will be found in the treatment of the Psalter ; but 
 a single instance may be cited here. The title to 
 Psalm Ixxxviii. reads thus: "A song. A psalm of 
 the sons of Korah. For the liturgy. To (the tune 
 of) the sickness. To be sung. A didactic poem 
 (Maskil) of Heman the Ezrahite." The meaning of 
 some of the terms in the Psalm headings is quite un- 
 certain. I have used some of the renderings of the 
 Polychrome Bible. But it is clear that the above 
 heading is the result ot successive editings, and that 
 two different authors are credited with this poem. 
 
 The most marked achievement of modern higher 
 
 Deborah alone is its proper subject. It may be, therefore, that 
 there were two higher critics from the pre-Christian age whose 
 conclusions have survived. Early Christian criticism even essayed 
 to state which parts of the poem were due to each of the authors. 
 
12 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 criticism is the analysis of books which have hereto- 
 fore been regarded as the production of a single writer. 
 There is nothing inherently unreasonable in this critical 
 analysis, for there are many ways in which an author 
 might construct a book. He might compose it entirely 
 from his own mind ; he might use other writers freely, 
 having read and digested their ideas; or he might simply 
 extract passages from different authors, adding only 
 such notes as were necessary to connect the passages 
 borrowed. 
 
 Suppose, for example, one wanted to prepare a his- 
 tory of the United States by compilation. By a judi- 
 cious selection it would be possible to produce a very 
 useful history, probably more useful than any single 
 one now in existence. For no one can fully know 
 the history of any period who has read but a single 
 book. 
 
 Now the contenti'on of the modern critics is, that a 
 large number of the books of the Hebrew Bible were 
 put into their present form by compilation. In mod- 
 ern times literary ethics requires the use of quotation 
 marks, and generally the source quoted must be indi- 
 cated ; but in ancient Israel there was no such thing 
 as literary ethics. We should not justly appreciate 
 such a compilation as mentioned above, because of the 
 great premium which is placed upon originality ; but 
 among the ancient Hebrews, originality was so little 
 prized that books were published anonymously, or un- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 13 
 
 der a noui dc phinic, the favorite kind being the name of 
 some famous person of the past. This custom lasted 
 into the Christian centuries, too. There is a famous 
 writer of the fifth century a.d., whom we only know 
 under his noni dc pliiiiic of Dionysius the Areopagite, a 
 Greek who was converted by St. Paul at Athens, and 
 who lived therefore several centuries earlier than the 
 unknown author who borrowed his name.''^ 
 
 Among the Hebrews, as among other peoples, there 
 was an age of original literary production, and there 
 was another age when indeed ** of the making of many 
 books there was no end," but when the literary spirit 
 had changed. The genius of men was engaged in 
 compilation and codification rather than in original 
 production. Earlier literature was treated with great 
 freedom. Parallel histories were woven into one ; 
 scattered prophecies and poems were collected into 
 convenient books ; and these collections acquired a 
 position of authority previously unknown. 
 
 It is often supposed that much mischief was done in 
 this age of collecting and editing, because so many 
 original sources were lost or obscured in the process 
 of compilation. On the contrary, too much gratitude 
 can scarcely be expressed to those somewhat mechan- 
 ical bookmakers. If any where in Church history the 
 hand of God can be seen, it is there. We owe it ap- 
 parently to those worthies that any considerable body 
 * Allen," Christian Institutions," p. 495. 
 
14 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 of Hebrew sacred literature is preserved. It would be 
 indeed a great boop if we had the sources used by those 
 compilers. It is often assumed that the compilers are 
 responsible for their loss; but this assumption is utterly 
 without warrant. It is quite absurd to suppose that 
 when, for example, the two earliest sources of our 
 present Pentateuch were combined into a single his- 
 tory, the compiler immediately destroyed every extant 
 copy of the originals. 
 
 The compiler of Joshua has preserved an all too 
 brief extract from the " Book of Jashar," a collection 
 of poems celebrating the exploits of Israel's early 
 heroes, but is he therefore responsible for the loss of 
 that book ? The value of these sources would indeed 
 be inestimable ; but it is infinitely better to have 
 such extracts as the compilers have preserved than 
 none at all. It was the sacred character of these 
 compilations which saved them from destruction in 
 such perilous days for Hebrew literature as those 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes. On the doctrinal side it 
 is easy to ridicule the idea of the inspiration of the 
 various redactors or editors; it is easy also to find flaws 
 in their poor literary work; but the Church owes them 
 a debt which should cover a multitude of sins; for they, 
 under God's providence, saved the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 It is often objected to the higher criticism that its 
 results are negative and destructive. It must frankly 
 plead guilty to this indictment ; but not in the sense 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 15 
 
 too often Intended. Whenever it is necessary to cor- 
 rect a generally received error, there is necessarily a 
 negative and destructive side to the correction ; and it 
 often happens that the correction for a time goes no 
 further. But the positive and constructive stage is 
 sure to follow. Wlien, for example, Joseph Mede in 
 1632 denied that Zechariah the prophet wrote the 
 whole of the book called by his name, that result was 
 negative ; but when he said further that Jeremiah 
 wrote a part of this prophecy, his conclusion was posi- 
 tive and constructive."^ 
 
 In Biblical criticism it is often inevitable that the 
 negative stage shall be in part final. The second part 
 of Isaiah is believed to belong to the time of the 
 Babylonian exile. In removing it from the Isaianic 
 age and authorship, the result is negative. As it is im- 
 possible to tell who the exilic author was, the negative 
 result must be final, so far as authorship goes. But is 
 it a purely negative result to remove a wrong conclu- 
 sion, even if it is not possible to put the right one in 
 its place ? But criticism was not obliged to stop with 
 a negation. The prophecy is removed from an age to 
 which it does not belong, and in which it has no fit- 
 ness, to its true position, where every Hne speaks with 
 new life and meaning. Is this result not both positive 
 
 * His object wa^ to vindicate St. Matthew's reference (xxvii. 9) of 
 a quotation from Zechariah (xi. 13) to Jeremiah. See G. A. Smith's 
 " Twelve Prophets," II., 450. 
 
1 6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and constructive ? The history of the Jews in exile 
 was almost a blank until this result was reached. Now 
 we have material which enables us to draw a tolerably 
 complete picture of that interesting stage in Israel's his- 
 tory. On the whole, then, is this critical discovery loss 
 or gain ? 
 
 The critical conclusions of modern times are not the 
 result of a destructive or sceptical spirit which seeks 
 to find as many errors as possible in the Bible, or in 
 the traditional views about the Bible. They are the 
 result of an effort to explain the facts which one finds 
 in the Bible the moment one begins to study it with 
 care. Why did Mede assign a part of Zechariah to 
 Jeremiah ? He found that St. Matthew quoted a pas- 
 sage from the former, but credited it to the latter. It 
 was apparent, then, that either the statement in the 
 Gospel was an error, or else that Jeremiah wTote the 
 passage in question. Mede preferred the latter alter- 
 native, and his conclusion is the only logical one for 
 those who m.aintain that the New Testament use is de- 
 cisive in critical questions. The modern critic finds 
 insuperable difficulties against assigning this passage 
 to either Zechariah or Jeremiah ; but the difficulties 
 are not brought in from the outside ; they lie in the 
 prophecy itself. 
 
 Many other illustrations of this important aspect of 
 the higher criticism will be found in the subsequent 
 chapters. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 17 
 
 It appears, tlierefore, that the aim of the higher criti- 
 cism is to find the true solution of problems which 
 force themselves upon the attentive student. What- 
 ever one may think of its results, its motive at least is 
 good. The truth does not always seem to be pleas- 
 ant ; in fact it is often very grievous ; but nevertheless 
 we perceive that it is best as soon as our eyes are open 
 to see, and in the long run it will prevail. It may be 
 hard to give up the Davidic authorship of a particular 
 psalm ; but if David did not write it, there can be little 
 use in keeping up the illusion. 
 
 The grief which comes to many earnest minds from 
 the results of Biblical criticism is due in large measure 
 to expectations of the Old Testament revelation which 
 never should have been raised. People who find them- 
 selves troubled about these things would do well to 
 study somewhat carefully the New Testament doctrine 
 of the Old Testament." It is often said that the full 
 revelation in the Lord Jesus Christ sets aside for Chris- 
 tians only the ceremonial law of the Jews. But is this 
 really all? Let us see. 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews begins with this sug- 
 gestive utterance: *' God, having of old time spoken 
 unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions 
 and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days 
 
 * Reference may be made to such guides as Toy's " Quotations in 
 the New Testament," and to an article by Dr. J. P. Peters, " Christ's 
 Treatment of the Old Testament," J. B. L., 1896, p. S/ff. 
 
1 8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 spoken unto us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of 
 all things . . . having become so much better 
 than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent 
 name than they." Now this writer distinctly recog- 
 nizes the fact that the prophets were inspired, that is, 
 that God spoke through them; but he claims quite as 
 distinctly that the revelation through the Son was a 
 superior revelation. Hence it follows that the revela- 
 tion through the prophets was imperfect, even though 
 it was real. 
 
 But there is higher authority than this, and there is 
 no use standing on the threshold when we may go 
 fully into the house. Our Lord repeatedly sets aside 
 laws, doctrines, or morals of the Old Testament. On 
 what ground ? That they were not of God ? By no 
 means ; but because they were only temporary expe- 
 dients suitable for the conditions of the times, but not 
 on the plane of Christian righteousness. 
 
 Divorce is not a ceremonial matter, surely; and the 
 Mosaic Law contains specific regulations upon this 
 subject ; but our Lord set them aside, and gave a law 
 which has not yet been attained in any Christian 
 State. A considerable part of the Sermon on the 
 Mount consists of corrections of the Mosaic Law, even 
 of its most venerated part, the Decalogue. The pro- 
 hibitions, " Thou shalt not kill," " Thou shalt not com- 
 mit adultery," etc., do not go far enough, according to 
 the teaching of Jesus. One may keep them all and 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 19 
 
 yet be a grievous sinner. The lex talionis^ which may 
 have been a wise law for the early Hebrews, is dis- 
 tinctly set aside ; so is the law to hate one's enemy. 
 None of these are ritual matters. In fact our Lord 
 does not seem to have had much to say against the 
 ceremonial law, and was Himself somewhat scrupulous 
 in the observance of the sacred seasons. But His atti- 
 tude shows that He adjudged the old law to be imper- 
 fect. Therefore it is not for us to exalt the God- 
 inspired to a level with the God-Man, nor to expect to 
 see as clearly in the dawn as in the mid-day. It is 
 true that we shall best understand the Son if we know 
 the prophets, but the prophet cannot speak to us the 
 final word; that was reserved for the Son. 
 
 Arrogant as the higher critic is often supposed to be, 
 he does not stand forth to speak with the voice of author- 
 ity, though he may speak with conviction. But the crit- 
 ical student feels that any problem which the Scriptures 
 force upon him is a fair subject of investigation. Never- 
 theless it is often claimed that the New Testament has 
 pronounced upon the literary questions which the higher 
 critic deals with so freely, and that that pronounce- 
 ment is authoritative ; therefore to open these ques- 
 tions is impossible for the Christian. There are really 
 two questions involved in this contention. Did the 
 New Testament pronounce upon those critical prob- 
 lems? And, if so, is its judgment final? For com- 
 plete treatment we should have to examine the whole 
 
20 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 New Testament usage. But it will be sufficient to take 
 the statements of our Lord. If His voice does not 
 silence criticism, no other will. 
 
 It is well to keep in mind that such a study must be 
 undertaken with all reverence. The free way in which 
 our Lord has been dragged to the witness stand in such 
 discussions is repulsive in the extreme. Some whose 
 devotion to Jesus Christ is greater than their concern 
 about any critical question whatever repudiate such a 
 settlement, whether it makes for or against their own 
 opinions. But there are many who are sorely per- 
 plexed by this matter. The acceptance of critical 
 conclusions seems to require them to set aside the 
 authority of Jesus Christ. The evidence may be over- 
 whelming, but how can they attribute error to Him? 
 
 One's sympathy for those who feel thus cannot but 
 be strong. For myself I am free to say that if I 
 believed that Jesus Christ had deliberately and ad- 
 visedly stated that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, I 
 should accept it, and that without the nearly univer- 
 sal exception of the account of his death and burial 
 (Deut. xxxiv.). When one decides critical questions on 
 the ground of authority, he must accept the result as 
 a whole. There is no use in straining at gnats and 
 swallowing camels. But did our Lord ever pronounce 
 on these questions? One may well doubt it, and in a 
 case like this, as in a jury trial, a reasonable doubt is 
 quite sufficient to justify a negative verdict. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 21 
 
 It will strike any one who reads the Gospels with 
 such a question in his mind as singular, if our Lord 
 were concerned about settling, for instance, the Mosaic 
 authorship of the Pentateuch, that He passed by such 
 good opportunities to settle once for all a question 
 which has sorely vexed His people.^ In the Sermon 
 on the Mount, where the Law is referred to so often, 
 He does not once mention Moses, but uses the criti- 
 cally colorless phrase, " It was said." But in some 
 other cases where He refers to the Law He simply 
 uses the term Moses ; as, " The gift that Moses com- 
 manded" (Matt. viii. 4); " Moses said " (Mark vii. 10; 
 see also Matt. xix. 8 ; Mark i. 44). In Mark xii. 26, 
 Jesus asks: *' Have ye not read in the book of Moses, 
 in the bush?" But in the parallel passage, Luke xx. 
 37, we read ''that the dead are raised, even Moses 
 showed, in the bush,t when he calleth the Lord the 
 God of Abraham," etc. The point of the argument is 
 not the authorship of Moses, but the action of Moses. 
 By calling Jehovah the God of Abraham, Moses taught 
 that Abraham was alive. This is a much more forci- 
 
 * The inquiry is limited to the Synoptic Gospels, as they alone 
 provide ample material for the purpose. 
 
 t The insertion in the Revised Version, " \n the place concerning 
 the bush," is unnecessary, to say the least. " Even Moses showed 
 in the bush " is the correct rendering. " Bush " was the techni- 
 cal name of a section of the Pentateuch. (See Art. " Bible " in 
 Hastings' Bible Dictionary.) 
 
22 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 ble argument than the form in Mark," and it is fair to 
 assume that ''the book of Moses" is due to the evan- 
 gelist. Is it not likely that there are other similar 
 cases ? t 
 
 In St. Luke Christ speaks of the Old Testament 
 under the names '' Moses and the prophets " (xvi. 29), 
 and '* the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the 
 psalms" (xxiv. 44). In these cases it is evident that 
 our Lord uses the term *' Moses " as the convenient, 
 accepted, and universally understood title of the Pen- 
 tateuch, just as He applies the term "the prophets" 
 to the historical books (Joshua to Kings) and to all the 
 prophetic books. Now if the usage is to be pressed so 
 far that when He uses *' Moses " as a designation of the 
 Pentateuch, He at the same time pronounces it as His 
 judgment that Moses was the author of the books so 
 designated, then we must hold that all the books called 
 prophets are really prophetic books, so that Joshua, 
 with its long catalogue of cities assigned to the tribes, 
 is not a historical book, but a prophecy. Moreover, 
 since He applies the term ''psalms" to the collection 
 of books called the KetJmbim or Hagiographa, by the 
 same authority we shall have to hold that all the writ- 
 ings in this varied collection, even Daniel and Chron- 
 
 * The parallel passage in Matt. xxii. 31 has no reference to 
 Moses : " Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by 
 God?" 
 
 t See Sanday, " Bampton Lectures on Inspiration," p. 407. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 23 
 
 icles, are psalms."^ It appears, then, that the appeal 
 to our Lord's authority proves too much. 
 
 Only once does our Lord connect the Psalms with 
 David, and that can only be claimed to show the 
 Davidic authorship of a particular Psalm (ex.). There 
 are some who might be willing-, on evidence, to believe 
 that no other psalm was written by David. But they 
 cannot give up the Davidic authorship of this psalm. 
 The passage quoting Psalm ex. is found in all three 
 Synoptics, Matt. xxii. 43, Mark xii. 36, Luke xx. 42, 
 and in substantially the same words. If we look 
 at the passages superficially it might seem that 
 Jesus proved that Christ was not the Son of 
 David; it might also be said that He proved that 
 David did not write the Psalm ; for that is the other 
 alternative. Either David did not call Christ Lord, 
 or else Christ is not David's son; these are the two 
 horns of the dilem.ma which the critical Pharisees 
 had to grapple with. Now our Lord's argument is not 
 based upon His belief in the Davidic authorship of this 
 
 "^ It is held by many that Jesus does not apply the terms prophets 
 and psalms in a general, but only in a limited, sense. That is, by 
 " prophets," He means only the prophetic books, and by " psalms," 
 only the book of Psalms. See Ryle's " Canon of the Old Testa- 
 ment," p. i5f. There is no evidence that the Old Testament 
 canon was finally fixed in the time of Christ ; yet it is quite possi- 
 ble that by " psalms " He refers to the varied collection in the 
 third part of the Hebrew canon, whether its limits were definitely 
 fixed or not. 
 
24 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Psalm, but upon the Pharisees' behef in that opinion."^ 
 The validity of the argument requires the Pharisaic 
 assumption that David wrote the Psalm, and requires 
 nothing else whatever.f In another case our Lord 
 quotes from a Psalm, saying merely that it is **in 
 the Scriptures " (Matt. xxi. 42). 
 
 We observe, then, that our Lord uses precisely the 
 same terminology for the Scriptures as the people of 
 
 *See Peters' " Christ's Treatment of the Old Testament," J. B. 
 L., 1896, p. 103. 
 
 tThe writer does not wish to be understood here as contending 
 that David was not the author of that Psalm, but only that the ev- 
 idence for the Davidic authorship must be found elsewhere than in 
 our Lord's use. It may be added, as a matter of interest, that 
 very few modern critics ascribe the Psalm to David. Even so 
 conservative a writer as Driver expresses his view thus : " This 
 Psalm, though it may be ancient, can hardly have been composed 
 by David. If read Wxihowi praejudicium, it produces the irresist- 
 ible impression of having been written, not by a king with refer- 
 ence to an invisible, spiritual Being, standing above him as his su- 
 perior,but by a prophet with reference to the theocratic king " (see 
 L. O. T.^ p. 384, note, where the reasons for his conclusion are 
 given at length). Sanday says, "A Psalm is quoted as David's 
 which, whatever its true date, it seems difificult to believe really 
 came from him" ("Inspiration," p. 409). Orelli, like Ewald, 
 holds that the Psalm is Davidic, in the sense of belonging to the 
 Davidic age, but having David as the subject, not as the author. 
 He calls the Psalm a "prophetic message to David" (" O. T. 
 Prophecy," p. 153). Bishop Ellicott's little book, " Christus Com- 
 probatur," is a polemic against modern criticism, the base of his 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 25 
 
 His time."^' He employed terms which are in common 
 use still as being convenient. Modern critics speak oi 
 the Mosaic Law, and of the Davidic Psalms without 
 meaning that Moses was the author of the Law or 
 David of the Psalms. Our Lord might cite a passage 
 of the Pentateuch as a saying of Moses, without pro- 
 nouncing a judgment /r6' or ^^;/ on any critical ques- 
 tion. 
 
 His custom in this matter is the same as in other 
 matters. In all things connected with the physical world 
 He uses the phraseology of His time. Not one of the 
 great discoveries in any science, so important for the 
 welfare of the race, was ever hinted at by Him. He 
 rises out of His generation only when He deals with 
 things moral and spiritual, and then at once we find 
 that *' never man spake like this man." It is difficult 
 to believe that our Lord came into this world to teach 
 things man can find out himself. He came to reveal 
 truth which was beyond man's natural powers. Critical 
 and scientific questions were far removed from the 
 
 attack being the authority of Christ and His Apostles. In regard 
 to Psalm ex. he argues that if the author had not been David, some 
 of the Pharisees would have known it (p. I75f.). This argument 
 assumes that the Jews, several hundred years after the poem was 
 written, had absolute knowledge as to the author. But there is 
 no ground to justify such an assumption. 
 
 *See Matt. xix. 7; xxii. 24; Mark x. 4; xii. 19 (where the 
 Jews refer to the Law as " Moses"). 
 
26 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Sphere of His mission or of His interest. Our Lord 
 seems to have avoided questions which did not belong 
 to the sphere of His mission as the Saviour of men. In 
 regard to things indifferent, He conformed to the usage 
 and thoughts of His time. Against John Baptist's 
 protest, He insisted upon baptism (Matt. iii. Hf.)- 
 But whenever His higher work was in question, He 
 did not hesitate to take direct issue with Jewish tra- 
 ditions. 
 
 It seems strange, then, that any one should couple the 
 divinity of Christ with a particular critical conclusion. 
 Many people find it perfectly easy to believe fully in 
 the Incarnation and at the same time in the results of 
 modern criticism. To make the Incarnation depend- 
 ent upon traditional views of the Scriptures may prove 
 to be building one's house upon the sand. It is cer- 
 tain that such a dependence has often proved perilous 
 to faith. If one really feels that criticism and the In- 
 carnation are inseparably connected, he might come to 
 feel more certain of the criticism than of the Incarna- 
 tion, and so make shipwreck of his faith. The doc- 
 trine of the Incarnation should be built upon the 
 strongest grounds, not upon the weakest; upon the 
 known facts recorded in the New Testament, not upon 
 the Jewish critical conclusions in regard to the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 The undivided Catholic Church has been wise enough 
 not to confuse unrelated things. Her doctrine of the 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 27 
 
 Scriptures leaves little to be desired. The historic 
 creeds only require belief in inspiration, " who spake 
 by the prophets." The Sixth Article of Religion of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church is wholly admirable, 
 though it takes the distinctly Protestant position that 
 " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 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." It defines the limits of the canon, but does not 
 pass judgment upon a single question of the higher 
 criticism. 
 
 Now it is nowhere read in Scripture that Moses is 
 the author of the book of Genesis, nor may it in any 
 way be proved thereby; therefore the Mosaic author- 
 ship, whether true or false, is not an article of the 
 faith. It is nowhere read in Scripture, nor may it be 
 proved thereby, that Isaiah is the author of the whole 
 of the first of the ''Four Prophets the greater"; 
 therefore it is not to be required of any man as an ar- 
 ticle of the faith. Prof. Sayce, in the preface to his 
 recent " Early History of the Hebrews," says that he 
 accepts whatever the Church holds, but that he knows 
 of nothing in the Church's teaching which prevents a 
 free treatment of Jewish history; and certainly he does 
 treat it with a critical freedom that is surprising, in 
 view of his many recent assaults on the higher critics. 
 
 The Anglican Church has done more than merely 
 
28 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Stand out of the way of criticism. This Ecclesia docms 
 has spoken through the highest authority — the Epis- 
 copate of the Anglican Communion. However high 
 or low may be one's ecclesiastical views, he will highly 
 respect an utterance of the noble body of Bishops gath- 
 ered in the Lambeth Conference. This body, at its 
 session in 1897, issued this declaration /;/ re the higher 
 criticism : 
 
 *' The critical study of the Bible by competent schol- 
 ars is essential to the maintenance in the Church of a 
 healthy faith. That faith is already in serious danger 
 which refuses to face questions that may be raised 
 either on the authority or the genuineness of any part 
 of the Scriptures that have come down to us. Such 
 refusal creates painful suspicion in the minds of man}^ 
 whom v/e have to teach, and Vvill weaken the strength 
 of our own conviction of the truth that God has re- 
 vealed to us. A faith which is always or often at- 
 tended by a secret fear that we dare not inquire lest 
 inquiry should lead us to results inconsistent with what 
 we believe, is already infected with a disease which 
 may soon destroy it. But all inquiry is attended with 
 a danger on the other side unless it be protected by 
 the guard of reverence, confidence, and patience. It 
 is quite true that there have been instances where in- 
 quiry has led to doubt, and, ultimately, to infidelity. 
 But the best safeguard against such a peril lies in that 
 deep reverence whicli never fails to accompany real 
 
THE MODERX POINT OF VIE W. 29 
 
 faith. The central object of Christian faith must al- 
 ways be the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The test 
 which St. Paul gives of the possession of the Holy 
 Spirit is the being able to say that Jesus is the Lord. 
 If a man can say with his whole heart and soul that 
 Jesus is the Lord, he stands on a rock which nothing 
 can shake. Read in the light of this conviction, the 
 Bible, beginning with man made in the image of God, 
 and rising with ever-increasing clearness of revelation 
 to God taking on Him the form of man, and through- 
 out it all showing in every page the sense of the 
 Divine Presence inspiring what is said, will not fail to 
 exert its power over the souls of men till the Lord 
 comes again. This power will never really be affected 
 by any critical study whatever. The report of the 
 committee deals, in our judgment, temperately and 
 wisely with the subject, and we think all Christian 
 people will find it worthy of careful consideration." 
 
 Let the timid student read also what is said in the 
 report of the special committee on this subject in 
 the Report of Conference, page 63. As the Bishops 
 say, " If a man can say with his whole heart and 
 soul that Jesus is the Lord, he stands on a rock which 
 nothing can shake." The only question which is vital 
 in critical results is whether they are true or false ; 
 and the higher critic to-day asks no favor save a dis- 
 passionate review of the evidence. By this he is 
 quite willing that his contentions should stand or fall. 
 
30 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 In the last chapter I shall try to show that the 
 acceptance of the results of criticism does not in- 
 terfere with a full belief in the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. To those who are likely to be troubled by the 
 critical discussions in the chapters following, I would 
 suggest that they read that chapter before the others. 
 
 If one believe that the result of the higher critical 
 study of the Scriptures is an error, let him, at all 
 events, not call it a dangerous error without consid- 
 ering the force of the words of Jefferson that "error 
 is without danger so long as truth is left free to com- 
 bat it." 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 (Beneral arguments againet tbe IPali&it? of 
 Critical IResuIta. 
 
 THERE are certain considerations of a general 
 character which are sometimes supposed to 
 invalidate the results of modern criticism as 
 a whole. There are three of these which will be briefly 
 discussed. 
 
 I. It has again and again been stated that arch- 
 aeological discoveries have disproved many critical 
 conclusions, and are likely to disprove a great many 
 more. The critic is warned that the spade is his 
 greatest enemy, and told to tremble before its achieve- 
 ments. Let it be emphasized at the outset that the 
 higher critic is in quest of the truth. He has no 
 theory v/hich he is anxious to maintain. He has had 
 to abandon hosts of theories in the course of his in- 
 vestigations, and is ready to abandon more as soon 
 as the evidence requires it. All the light which 
 archaeology is able to furnish is welcome to none 
 more than to him. 
 
 One might ask then why there has been such a 
 vigorous controversy between the higher critics and 
 
32 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the archaeologists. The Engh'sh Sayce and the 
 German Hommel have been unsparing- in their attacks 
 on criticism, and the other side has not been alto- 
 gether silent, though, so far as I have observed, the 
 critics have preserved a more equable and seemly 
 temper. The critics have been entirely ready to ac- 
 cept the facts discovered by archaeologists, but they 
 have not always been willing to accept the conclusions 
 drawn from those facts by the archaeologists. 
 
 The critics are often charged with building big theo- 
 ries upon a scanty basis of fact ; but they could scarcely 
 exceed the feats of some archaeologists in this partic- 
 ular. It must not be supposed, however, that there is 
 any necessary conflict between archaeology and crit- 
 icism. These two disciplines are naturally allies, and 
 criticism must look to archaeology as an aid, and, it 
 may be, a corrective. But it must be remembered 
 that archaeological facts have to be interpreted as well 
 as critical facts, and there is inevitably considerable 
 difference of opinion in the one case as in the other. 
 
 Hommel, in the preface to his ''Ancient Hebrew 
 Tradition,"''^ thus indicates his belief in the overthrow 
 of critical conclusions : "The monuments speak with 
 
 *I quote from the English translation published by S. P. C. K., 
 1897. It has been stated in print {Expository Tz'jnes, January- 
 February, 1898; The Natwn, Ociohtr 20, 1897; see also Driver 
 L. O. T.^ p. xvii., note) that the translation is in many places inac- 
 curate, and the inaccuracies in the interest of greater conservatism. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 33 
 
 no faltering tongue, and already I seem to see signs of 
 the approach of a new era, in which men will be able 
 to brush aside the cobweb theories of the so-called 
 * higher critic' of the Pentateuch, and, leaving such 
 old-fashioned errors behind them, attain to a clearer 
 perception of the real facts " (p. viii ). I have read 
 Hommel's book through with a great deal of interest 
 and profit, but I have not seen a single fact which in 
 the least invalidates the sober conclusions of the 
 higher criticism, and not much to disprove even the 
 conclusions of the most radical scholars. On the other 
 hand, I have seen much which supports critical results. 
 
 Prof. Sayce endeavored to make his *' Higher Crit- 
 icism and the Verdict of the Monuments," pubHshed 
 in 1894, a via media between the higher critics and the 
 apologists. He repeatedly takes the former to task 
 for their arrogant assumptions, and declares that the 
 spade has set many of their theories at naught. But he 
 falls into error by failing to make proper distinctions. 
 By higher critics he means only the most radical 
 school, who base their conclusions too largely upon 
 mere conjecture. The great body of modern higher 
 critics do not belong to this class, but only go as far 
 in reconstructive theories as there are facts to warrant. 
 Sayce himself is a higher critic of this class. 
 
 One of the best known and ablest critics of this class 
 in the English-speaking world is Prof. Driver, of Oxford. 
 His " Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- 
 
34 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 ment" was first published in 1891. This work at once 
 became a classic in Old Testament study. The sixth 
 and enlarged edition appeared in 1897, The work is 
 well known to be the production of a thorough-going 
 higher critic of the modern school. Yet the writer was 
 careful not to allow his theories to run beyond his facts. 
 Now Driver reviewed Sayce's book referred to above 
 in the Contemporary Review (March, 1894, p. 408fif.), 
 and declared that if he accepted every fact alleged by 
 Sayce, it would only require him to modify three minute 
 and unimportant statements in his Introduction.* This 
 fact is cited because it is a fair specimen of the way 
 in which the monuments have demolished critical con- 
 clusions or made them old-fashioned. We can scarcely 
 rest content, however, with general conclusions, but 
 will look at some of the detailed instances in which 
 archaeology and criticism have come into contact. 
 
 * It may be well to state in Driver's own words just what 
 these three points are : " I should have to refer Gen. x.— not 
 back to Moses, but — to a later author than I had supposed to be 
 necessary; I should have to follow Prof. Cheyne in placing the 
 short prophecy of Obadiah in the post-exilic period; and instead of 
 attributing Jer. l.-li. 58 to a prophet who wrote * no very long 
 time before the fall of Babylon ' (b C. 538), I should have to assign 
 it to a prophet who wrote definitely during the reign of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, which ended B.C. 561. In no other respect is a single argu- 
 ment or conclusion in my work affected unfavorably by the facts which 
 Prof. Sayce has adduced, while in several cases they are materially 
 confirmed by them." See also L. O. T.", p. xviii., quoted below (p. 44), 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 35 
 
 The main object here is to show that archaeology 
 has not banished criticism, and is not likely to. Hence, 
 it is necessary to dwell chiefly on the cases in which 
 archaeology does not substantiate the traditional view 
 of the Scriptures. It would be much pleasanter to 
 treat the other side, to show how this science has con- 
 firmed Biblical statements. But the object in view 
 would not thereby be gained. 
 
 Yet the opportunity must be taken to say that the 
 discoveries of Oriental archaeology have been of ines- 
 timable value to Biblical study. Facts which stood 
 alone, and not always unchallenged, have been mar- 
 vellously confirmed. For example, in the twentieth 
 chapter of Isaiah we are told that Sargon, the king of 
 Assyria, sent Tartan to take Ashdod. Until the 
 cuneiform monuments were dug up and deciphered, 
 this was all that was known of Sargon. Naturally, 
 there were some who were unduly influenced by the 
 silence of such records of Assyrian history as were 
 available, and doubted whether there was any such 
 king. But we have now at hand inscriptions describ- 
 ing the campaigns of this king, and, ^mong them, a 
 description of this very campaign against Ashdod."^ 
 
 *A translation of Sargon's account of his campaign may be 
 found in Schrader's " Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa- 
 ment," II., 90 f. In his annals for his eleventh year (711 B.C.) we 
 find the brief record, "War against Azuriof Ashdod and conquest 
 of that town." 
 
36 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Such discoveries are always a boon to the critical stu- 
 dent of the Bible. 
 
 But the discoveries have often required us to correct 
 the statements in the Bible, even while in the main they 
 confirmed them. After the disaster to his army in the 
 west, B.C. 701, *' Sennacherib, the king of Assyria," we 
 read in II. Kings xix. 36f., ''returned and dwelt at 
 Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worship- 
 ping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech 
 and Sharezer smote him with the sword; and they es- 
 caped into the land of Ararat. And Esar-haddon, his 
 son, reigned in his stead." Now it is not distinctly 
 stated that the assassination of the king took place 
 immediately upon his return to Nineveh; but it is a 
 natural inference, and was generally so understood un- 
 til the monuments furnished the necessary correction — 
 in this case a correction not of the Biblical statement, 
 but of the received interpretation of the statement. 
 As a matter of fact, however, Sennacherib was not 
 murdered for at least twenty years after his campaign. 
 Moreover, there is no known Assyrian deity called 
 Nisroch, and Sayce himself has pointed out that the 
 order of events is quite reversed here, Hezekiah's sick- 
 ness (II. Kings XX.) having been ten years earlier than 
 Sennacherib's campaign (H. C. M., p. 446). 
 
 Another interesting correction which we are able to 
 make from the monuments of Assyria is in connection 
 with the fall of Samaria in 723 B.C. In 11. Kings xvii. 
 
THE MODERN" POINT OF VIEW. 37 
 
 3ff. we read that Shalmanezer invaded Israel and re- 
 duced King Hoshea to servitude. The passage goes 
 on to describe Hoshea's rebellion, and the three years' 
 siege of Samaria, which ended in the capture of the city. 
 Except in verse 3, the name of the Assyrian king is not 
 mentioned ; the title used is simply " the king of Assyria." 
 This leads naturally to the conclusion that Shalmanezer 
 was the king who reduced Samaria. As a matter of fact, 
 we now know from the monuments that Shalmanezer was 
 succeeded by Sargon during this siege, and that it was 
 the latter who led the captive Israelites to Assyria. 
 
 One of the most interesting figures in the Old Tes- 
 tament is Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed 
 Abraham after his successful campaign against Ched- 
 orlaomer and his allies, and to whom Abraham paid a 
 tithe of the booty (Gen. xiv. i8ff.) We have little 
 knowledge of this personage. He appears and disap- 
 pears very strangely and without any apparent relation 
 to the events. It will scarcely seem strange, therefore, 
 that the historicity of this personage has been often dis- 
 puted. We only know that he v/as both priest and 
 king. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains an elab- 
 orated version of the story: " being first, by interpretii- 
 tion, king of righteousness, and then also king of Sa- 
 lem, which is, king of peace; without father, without 
 mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning 
 of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of 
 God, abideth a priest continually " (vii. 2f.). 
 
38 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Now it is true that Melchizedek entered into the 
 Jewish Messianic conception (Psahn ex. 4; Heb. v. 6); 
 but it is uncertain on what material the writer of the 
 Epistle based his statements, so far as they go beyond 
 Genesis. It maybe doubted whether he does not am- 
 plify the original narrative from his conceptions of the 
 Messiah. At all events, the statement that *' he was 
 without beginning of days or end of life " could not 
 apply to the original Melchizedek any more than the 
 statement that "he was without father or mother." 
 
 But Prof. Sayce has repeatedly asserted that he has 
 vindicated the historical character of Melchizedek 
 (H. C. M., p. 177). One must indeed wish that he had 
 been able to make this matter clear ; but before ac- 
 cepting his conclusions we must examine the evidence 
 upon which his vindication is based. 
 
 In one of the famous Tell-el-Amarna letters, Abd- 
 hiba, called by Sayce Ebed-Tob, vassal king of Jerusa- 
 lem, thus writes of himself: "Behold, this country 
 Jerusalem ; neither my father nor my mother gave it 
 to me ; the strong arm of the king gave it to me." *'^ 
 The meaning of this passage is apparently plain ; the 
 prince has occasion repeatedly to protest his adher- 
 ence to his Egyptian overlord. The basis of his 
 loyalty is the fact that his throne was not inherited, 
 but (like that of the Jewish Zedekiah) the gift of the 
 
 * Letter No. 180. I quote these letters from Winckler's transla- 
 tion, "The Tell-el-Amarna Letters," New York and Berlin, 1896. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 39 
 
 king-. In other words, he had been placed on the 
 throne by the king- of Egypt ; therefore, there was the 
 best reason for his loyalt)'. He says, accordingl}^, in 
 another message to his sovereign (Letter No. i8i) : 
 " It is slander which they have heaped upon me. Be- 
 hold, I am no prince, I am a deputy of my lord, the 
 king ; behold, I am an ofHcer of the king ; I am one who 
 brings tribute to the king. Neither my father nor my 
 mother, but the strong- arm of the king established me 
 over my father s tcrritoryy (Italics here and below 
 mine.) Still again, he says : " Some one has slan- 
 dered me before my lord, the king (saying), 'Abd-hiba 
 has revolted from his lord, the king.' Behold, neither 
 my father nor my mother appointed me in this place. 
 The strong arm of the king inaugurated me in my 
 father's territory. Why (then) should I commit an 
 offence against my lord, the king?" (Letter No. 179). 
 This last passage looks quite different in Sayce's 
 translation: ''Behold, neither my father nor my 
 mother have exalted me in this place ; the prophecy 
 (or, perhaps, arm) of the mighty king- has caused me 
 to enter the house of my father." Upon such a trans- 
 lation Sayce builds his theory thus : " The mighty 
 king is distinguished from the king of Eg3'pt " : this 
 king was the king of Salem ; he was without father or 
 mother ; because the prophecy had made him a king, 
 he was a priest ; and because Abd-hiba (or Ebed-Tob) 
 was such, Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem, was 
 
40 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 a historical personage (H. C. M., p. 175). With such 
 processes as this, it would be possible to prove or dis- 
 prove anything. Winckler's translation is quite cor- 
 rect. ''Mighty" probably qualifies arm, not king; 
 there is no such word as prophecy or priest in the let- 
 ters ; and even from Sayce's rendering it is clear that 
 Abd-hiba's father had reigned in Jerusalem before him. 
 How else could he say that "the king [who is clearly 
 the king of Egypt] established me over my father's 
 territory " .'' 
 
 But even if Sayce's translation were correct, it would 
 be far from " vindicating the historical character of 
 Melchizedek." There is no reason to suppose that 
 Melchizedek did not inherit his throne ; and this poor 
 Egyptian vassal, begging piteously for troops to save 
 his city from the enemy, and perpetually pleading his 
 innocence of the intrigues with which he is charged, is 
 a very different personage from the priest-king who 
 pronounces the blessing of 'El 'Elyon .upon the vic- 
 torious Abraham. The story of Melchizedek may or 
 may not be historical ; but archaeology has not yet 
 furnished anything to aid the higher critic in deter- 
 mining the question." 
 
 * Hommel's treatment is quite different from Sayce's. The for- 
 mer holds that the narrative in Gen. xiv. I7ff. is composite, one 
 source saying that the king of Sodom came out to meet Abraham, 
 the other that it was Melchizedek, the king of Salem. The part 
 about the king of Salem is a late interpolation. Melchizedek re- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 41 
 
 This case has been dwelt upon to show how frail a 
 weapon is confidently relied upon to overthrow critical 
 results. It may seem an extreme case ; but there are 
 enough others of a like kind. The evidence relied 
 upon to prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch 
 is quite as weak. It has been denied that Moses could 
 have written the Pentateuch, because such a literary 
 production could not have come from the early age of 
 Israel, an age lacking literary culture or models. This 
 argument is indeed weak, but not weaker than that by 
 which it is controverted. 
 
 The contention is made that we have these Tell-el- 
 Amarna letters, many of them written in Canaan about 
 1400 B.C.; we know that there was a vast literature in 
 Babylonia and Egypt before this time, and that letters 
 were exchanged between the kings of these empires in 
 the fifteenth century B.C.; there was a city in Canaan 
 called Kiriath-Sepher — "Book-town" — or, probably, 
 
 fused to take any of the booty, lest Abraham should claim the 
 credit of enriching him; that is, Melchizedek, not Abraham, is the 
 speaker in v. 22f. This is quite a different story. Hommel holds 
 that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew a version of 
 the Melchizedek story which contained an added clause, such as, 
 "who had not received the kingdom from his father and mother." 
 He gives the translation, "arm of the mighty king" (not, however, 
 *' prophecy"), but holds that the mighty king was an "earthly po- 
 tentate," that is, the king of the Hittites ("Ancient Hebrew Tra- 
 ditions " p. I49ff.). But the context shows that the king, whether 
 mighty or not, was the king of Egypt, 
 
42 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Kiriath-Sopher — " City of the Scribe." Now, these 
 are facts which no higher critic for a moment doubts. 
 But how far do they go to prove the Mosaic authorship 
 of the Pentateuch ? They do not give any support 
 whatever to the behef that he did write it, and they do 
 not go very far to show that it was even possible for 
 Moses to be the author. 
 
 For how was Moses to get access to all this litera- 
 ture of Babylonia ? How were the freed slaves, living 
 as wandering nomads in the wilderness, to come into 
 contact with this culture? If Moses had any literary 
 culture at all, and the writer does not doubt that 
 he had, he got it at the Egyptian court ; and all 
 that we know about that is in the Bible. Archae- 
 ology has so far failed to add a single particle of 
 knowledge on this subject. Still, Sayce does not scru- 
 ple to say : " The archaeological facts support the tra- 
 ditional rather than the so-called ' critical ' view of the 
 age and authority of the Pentateuch, and tend to show 
 that we have in it not only a historical monument 
 whose statements can be trusted, but also what is sub- 
 stantially a work of the great Hebrew legislator him- 
 self" (" Patriarchal Palestine," p. iv.). The fact is, that 
 archaeology has not yet produced a single fact which 
 has any legitimate bearing upon the authorship of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 We may well consider the force of some words 
 spoken by the Rev. Dr. Peters at the Church Congress 
 
THE MODERX POINT OF VIEW. 43 
 
 at Norfolk in 1896. He was speaking- about the argu- 
 ment from the civihzation which must have prevailed 
 in Palestine. " The difficulty that we encounter is 
 this : that while we find a people before the Hebrews 
 that possessed a civilization ; while v/e find a people 
 in Egypt that possessed a civilization ; while we find 
 a people in Babylonia that possessed a civilization ; 
 while we find a people in the north of Syria that pos- 
 sessed a civilization ; while we find a people in Asia 
 Minor that possessed a civilization — we have, unfor- 
 tunately, no records of a similar civilization among the 
 Hebrews. It is precisely that for which we must look. 
 We are not yet in a position to say what they did 
 know, nor what they could know." It need only be 
 added, to guard against possible misconception, that 
 Dr, Peters here refers to the conditions among the 
 Hebrews. This statement is true, that so far modern 
 archaeology has not thrown a single ray of light upon 
 early Hebrew civilization. 
 
 It is a matter of great regret that archaeological light 
 on the Bible has so far all come from outside of Pales- 
 tine. There are letters, it is true, which were written 
 from Palestine to Egypt, but from a period before the 
 Conquest. The spade has accomplished wonderfully 
 great results in Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt, but 
 almost no digging has be,en undertaken in Palestine. 
 Work has been done at Jerusalem, but so far has not 
 produced results useful in critical study. Lachish was 
 
44 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 partly excavated, but the results have been disappoint- 
 ing, as in these cases no significant inscriptions have been 
 found,* or anything else which throws much light on 
 Hebrew history. Can it be that the cities of Palestine 
 did not contain such imperishable literary monuments 
 as Egypt and Babylonia? No; there mi?st be priceless 
 treasures under the soil of Palestine, which will help to 
 clear up perplexing difficulties in the Old Testament. 
 Why has so much money and labor been expended in 
 excavating in other countries, and so little in the Ploly 
 Land itself? No one more earnestly longs for the 
 light which the spade may disclose than the higher 
 critic. 
 
 This section may fittingly conclude with a statement 
 from Driver: *' The attempts to refute the conclusions 
 of criticism by means of archaeology have signally 
 failed. The archaeological discoveries of recent years 
 have indeed been of singular interest and value; they 
 have thrown a flood of light, sometimes as surprising 
 as it was unexpected, upon many a previously dark and 
 unknown region of antiquity. But, in spite of the in- 
 genious hypotheses which have been framed to prove 
 the contrary, they have revealed nothing which is in 
 conflict with the generally accepted conclusions of the 
 critics " (L. O. T.^ p. xviii.). What archaeology may 
 
 *One tablet was found by Mr. Bliss at Lachish, but it belonged, 
 strange to say, to the Tell-el-Amarna collection, and had no bear- 
 ing on the Hebrews. 
 
THE MODERN- POLVT OF VIEW. 45 
 
 discover in the future, it is idle to guess; but if that 
 noble science shall reveal anything- which makes criti- 
 cal opinions untenable, it is safe to predict that the 
 critics will be the first to acknowledge it, and the 
 warmest in their welcome of the new facts. 
 
 II. There is another general ground upon which it is 
 often claimed that the results of the higher criticism 
 are invalidated — the disagreement among the critics 
 themselves. Prof. Green, of Princeton, has for years 
 never wearied of assailing the modern criticism of the 
 Old Testament. The divergency of view of the critics 
 has been one of his favorite weapons of attack. He 
 has been followed in this course by many others. Let 
 the higher critics get together, they say, and reach a 
 unanimity of opinion; when they offer us the results 
 about which they are thus agreed, it will be time 
 enough for us to consider whether they are to be ac- 
 cepted or not. It will be well for every student of 
 Old Testament criticism to consider carefully the force 
 of this argument. 
 
 Now difference of opinion may be parallel or succes- 
 sive, that is, the difference of opinion may be among 
 critics of successive generations, or among critics of 
 the same date. At present, only the disagreement 
 among contemporaries is to be considered. It must be 
 confessed that the value of expert testimony — and the 
 testimony in question is clearly of that character — 
 does depend in part upon unanimity of opinion, at least 
 
46 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 its value to the one who is not an expert does. If two 
 experts testify in court, and their opinions are hope- 
 lessly at variance, the value of the testimony is nil to the 
 jury, whatever it may be to others; so if it is true that 
 critical opinion is hopelessly divided against itself, that 
 kingdom cannot stand. The only question, therefore, 
 is whether the critics are so at variance as to invalidate 
 their results. 
 
 No one who has read largely in this field can for a 
 moment doubt that there is a great difference of opin- 
 ion among the higher critics. It would be easy to fill 
 a much larger volume than the present with illustra- 
 tions of this fact. But in all fairness we must admit 
 that before we draw any conclusions as to the effect 
 of these differences, we must consider their character. 
 Such a consideration seems never to have entered into 
 the calculation of those who use the divergent views to 
 bring criticism into contempt. The point to consider is 
 whether the difference is about matters that are vital 
 or not. An examination of all the vast mass of illus- 
 trations which could be gathered would show that, as 
 a rule, the differences of opinion are not about matters 
 that are of real importance. About the main conten- 
 tions of criticism the verdict is unanimous, however 
 great variety of opinion there may be in minor points. 
 A few illustrations will make this clear. The number 
 could be multiplied indefinitely. 
 
 Take the question of the Pentateuch. The burning 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 47 
 
 question (considering now only literary problems) is 
 this: Was the Pentateuch written or compiled by 
 Moses, or some other ? Any one who finds insuperable 
 difficulties in the assumption of the Mosaic authorship 
 finds himself at once in the large company of modern 
 critics. And modern criticism is absolutely unanimous 
 in its verdict that the Pentateuch in its present form 
 originated in an age long subsequent to Moses." 
 
 The agreement of the critics, indeed, goes much fur- 
 ther than this. It is held by all that the Pentateuch 
 (excluding Deuteronomy) is the result of the compila- 
 tion mainly of three documents, the earliest of which 
 was written about Soo B.C.; and in the main the critics 
 agree as to the lines of cleavage. Sometimes it is ad- 
 mitted to be difficult or impossible to make more than 
 a tentative separation, but this difficulty does not alter 
 the unanimity of opinion that a separation must be 
 made before the original form is reached. There is 
 considerable difference of view as to the date of these 
 primary documents. The Jahvistic narrative is dated 
 from 853 B.C. to 750 B c ; but the traditionalist will find 
 no more satisfaction in one of these dates than in the 
 other. It matters but little to him what the date, if the 
 writing be taken away from the age of Moses. The 
 agreement of the critics is complete on the main ques- 
 tion. 
 
 * There is, however, Mosaic material incorporated in the Penta- 
 teuch. See p. 151. 
 
48 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 If we take the analysis of the book of Isaiah, the 
 same result is reached. The vital question — again 
 considering only literary problems, as there is indeed 
 a more vital question than this, which will be consid- 
 ered later — is whether all the prophecies in that book 
 are from the pen of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, or whether 
 some of them came from other prophets. Unless one 
 holds that the book is a unit, there is little consolation 
 in considering whether the parts which belong to 
 other prophets than Isaiah are to be divided into many 
 parts or not. There is no modern critic to-day who 
 holds to the unity of this book. He may believe that 
 cc. xl-lxvi., commonly called the second Isaiah, is a 
 single prophecy or a collection of prophecies from many 
 voices, but he holds — and all his fellows agree with 
 him — that these prophecies belong to the exilic period 
 or later. The verdict of criticism is again unanimous 
 in regard to the main question. 
 
 There is yet considerable difference of opinion in re- 
 gard to the date of the so-called Priest-code, of which 
 more will be said in a subsequent chapter. Some still 
 adhere to the view of the late Prof. Dillmann that it 
 belongs to the latter part of the pre-exilic age; others, 
 and they are fast getting to be a large majority, hold 
 to the post-exilic origin of this writing. One may be 
 in great doubt which date will ultimately prevail, but 
 he may be sure that this document will never again be 
 placed in the age of Moses, 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 4^ 
 
 As a general thing the greatest difference of opinion 
 appears in the minute analysis, where confessedly the 
 data are often not sufficient for more than tentative 
 results. It often happens that there is unanimity of 
 opinion in regard to the smallest points because the 
 ground of the analysis is sufficient. Thus in the story 
 of the Flood the last few words of Gen.vii. 16, are unan- 
 imously assigned to J, the symbol for the Jahvistic 
 writer, for in the few words '* and Jahveh shut him in " 
 — only three words in Hebrew — there are two decisive 
 indications of J : the name Jahveh, and the anthropo- 
 morphic conception of God. But in other places the 
 grounds are less sure, and critical opinion consequently 
 divergent. Thus while every modern student of the Old 
 Testament recognizes Cheyne's masterful work on 
 Isaiah, many will be very slow to accept the analysis 
 he has made in his Introduction and in the Polychrome 
 Bible. Ingenious and scholarly as his conclusions 
 show him to be, he has carried his opinions far beyond 
 the reliable data, and many question marks will have 
 to be used in dealing with his work. 
 
 III. Sometimes still more hope for the fall of criti- 
 cism is found in the divergent views as one era of 
 criticism gives way to another. It is frequently stated 
 that this criticism is only a wave, which will soon pass 
 away. One generation reaches results radically differ- 
 ent from those of another, and soon the whole thing 
 will pass away, like the Tubingen criticism of the New 
 
50 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Testament. This kind of objection is not so easily 
 treated, because it appeals to the future. It leaves the 
 inquirer in the condition of the Jews of Jehoiakim's 
 time, when " Hananiah the prophet " said that the yoke 
 of Babylon would be broken within two years, and 
 Jeremiah the prophet said it would not (Jer. xxviii.). 
 There seemed to be little to do but wait for the two 
 years to expire. Still it would have been possible to 
 determine the question, if the people had considered 
 these things : With which of these prophets is the wish 
 most likely to be the father of the thought ? Which 
 has shown himself in the past the more accurate in 
 foreseeing the course of events? Upon what ground 
 is the assertion of each based ? 
 
 So perhaps the means are not lacking for the one 
 who is able to discern the signs of the times to know 
 whether Old Testament criticism is likely to be so 
 short-lived as many seem to suppose and wish. The 
 writer ventures to express the hope that the present 
 predominance of literary criticism in Old Testament 
 study may soon give way to more important matters. 
 The great object of Old Testament study for the Chris- 
 tian is the discovery of moral and spiritual truth. But 
 the literary problems must be solved before such study 
 can secure its rightful place, because it must be 
 built upon a solid foundation. The history of Israel 
 and the history of the Jewish religion must be re- 
 built on a reconstructed basis before there will be 
 
THE MODERN POWT OE VIEW, 51 
 
 a sure ground for the highest criticism of all. But 
 the prediction may be safely ventured that this recon- 
 struction will go on to completion, and to general 
 acceptance, and that we shall never drop back to the 
 basis of a half century ago. 
 
 For the present. Old Testament criticism rests upon 
 an entirely different basis from that of the New Tes- 
 tament, which quickly passed away. The New Testa- 
 ment criticism was in the main subjective, and the 
 moment acute scholars began to investigate the alle- 
 gations of the Tubingen school their hopeless weak- 
 ness appeared, and they have given place to a more 
 sober conclusion. But the Old Testament criticism rests 
 upon a solid basis of facts. Every point in its proo-res- 
 sive development has been contested by the ablest schol- 
 arship with the result that many who had entered the 
 list as assailants have come out on the other side. The 
 late Prof. Franz Delitzsch was a notable instance. For 
 years he stood against the tendency of his age. But 
 always studying as a scholar, the apologist never cret- 
 ting entirely the upper hand, in his ripe old age the 
 result of his own investigations compelled him to ac- 
 cept the main results against which he had so lon<T 
 contended. 
 
 The higher criticism of the Old Testament has been 
 a good while in the field. The first complete analysis 
 of the Pentateuch was made by Astruc in 1753, with a 
 conservative interest. There have been many changes 
 
52 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 from that day to this, but all in the direction of a pro- 
 gressive development. Very likely the pendulum will 
 now and again swing too far, but it will quickly come 
 back. There have been ample time and ample effort 
 to show that the results of criticism are invalid ; but this 
 has not yet been done. No one has changed his views 
 backwards, and the acceptance of these results has gone 
 on with notable rapidity, until to-day the number of 
 scholars who adhere to the traditional views is very 
 small. The opponents have been active, but they have 
 failed to stop the inevitable course of events. It is 
 well that we turn our attention to the basis of facts 
 upon which its conclusions rest, and see whether it 
 has sufificient to justify its verdicts. For there is no sign 
 on the horizon which the most far-sighted can see to 
 justify the belief that the higher critics of the Old 
 Testament have labored in vain. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 ^be Ibeyateucb. 
 
 I. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 THE oldest important subject of critical investi- 
 gation is the Pentateuch. In modern discus- 
 sions, 'however, we find in place of the term 
 Pentateuch, Hexateuch — meaning the first six books 
 of the Bible; for the phenomena found in the Pentateuch 
 occur also in Joshua; and the book of Joshua makes 
 a fitter ending for the first period of Hebrew history 
 than Deuteronomy. The Hexateuch will first engage 
 our attention. So much has been written on this sub- 
 ject that we cannot hope to produce anything new; but 
 for the sake of completeness this matter must be taken 
 up. The investigation is best begun with this oldest 
 problem of Old Testament criticism; for in this field 
 the results seem most assured. Taking the simplest 
 subject first, we will consider the origin of the book of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 To engage in such investigation in the right spirit, 
 we must be students, and not apologists; we may have 
 strong convictions in favor of or against the Mosaic 
 authorship, but not so held that they will not yield to 
 evidence. We are after facts, and a priori assumptions 
 
54 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 are too apt to prevent the recognition of facts when v/e 
 meet them. With minds not unduly prejudiced we 
 wish to ascertain what facts we have which bear upon 
 the origin of this great book, and then the meaning of 
 the facts we discover. Our work will not be exhaustive, 
 but will be sufficient.^ 
 
 In the eighteenth year of his reign (621 B.C.), King 
 Josiah gave directions to repair the temple so as to 
 restore it suitably for the worship of Jehovah, which 
 had been interrupted during the long period of his im- 
 mediate predecessors, Manasseh and Amon. Shaphan 
 was sent by the king with a message to Hilkiah the 
 high priest, and returned with a statement about the 
 progress of the repairs, and then added : " Hilkiah the 
 priest has delivered me a book " (II. Kings xxii. 10). 
 Hilkiah's announcement to Shaphan was, "■ I have 
 found the book of the law in the house of Jahveh " 
 {ib., V. 8). What book was this ) 
 
 It appears, in the first place, to have been a small 
 book. Shaphan was sent to the temple on an errand 
 for the king. He stopped long enough at the temple 
 to read the book (?A, v. 8); when he returned he read 
 the book aloud to the king (v. 10). Hilkiah was sum- 
 moned, and, along with others, sent to Huldah the 
 prophetess to ask her what the king should do. Now 
 
 * Reference may be made to an article by the writer on " The 
 Origin and Character of Deuteronomy," published in the Biblical 
 IVorld oi April 1898. 
 
THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW, 55 
 
 all this at least seems to have taken place in one day; 
 certainly the book was read twice in one day. 
 
 In an ordinary Hebrew Bible the Pentateuch occu- 
 pies 350 pages ; this cannot be read in less than twelve 
 hours. To read it aloud would take at least twenty 
 hours. ^ Now Shaphan would scarcely tarry on an 
 errand for the king long enough to read such a large 
 book, and it could not have been read twice in one day. 
 The book of Deuteronomy occupies sixty-three pages, 
 and could be read aloud in about three hours and a 
 half. The law proper in Deuteronomy (chaps, xii.- 
 xxvi.) occupies twenty-three pages and could be read 
 in one hour, or a little more. This part, therefore, is 
 about as large a book as the conditions warrant. 
 Driver holds that at least chaps, v.-xxvi., xxviii. must 
 have been in the book which was read to the king,t 
 though others have adhered to the strictly legal part, 
 chaps, xii.-xxvi. Even the part assumed by Driver 
 could be read in about two hours. 
 
 In the second place, we have to consider the charac- 
 ter of the book which was found. The Reformation 
 ought to show this, because it was Josiah's attempt to 
 put this law into effect. When Josiah sent to inquire 
 
 * Kittel estimates twenty-three and a half hours as the least time 
 in which it could be read " at a moderately quick rate " (" History 
 of the Hebrews," I., p. 59). 
 
 t See his " Deuteronomy," Introd., p. 65 ; so Addis, " Documents 
 of the Hexateuch," Vol. H. 
 
56 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 of Huldah, he did so because he feared the awful conse- 
 quence of the violation of the new law: "Great is the 
 wrath of Jahveh that is kindled aq-ainst us, because 
 our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this 
 book" (xxii. 13). 
 
 Now, if one asks what part of the Law declares em- 
 phatically God's punishment for disobedience to its 
 precepts, the answer Is plainly Deuteronomy. Hul- 
 dah's message to the king consists largely of Deuter- 
 onomic phrases : ''They have forsaken me, and have 
 burned incense to other gods, that they might pro- 
 voke me to anger with all the work of their hands " 
 (v. 17). The king made a covenant to keep Jehovah's 
 *' commandments, and his testimonies, and his stat- 
 utes, with all his heart, and all his soul'' (xxiii. 3): 
 these also are Deuteronomic phrases. 
 
 The first step of the Reformation was to burn the 
 vessels that were used for Baal, Asherah and the host 
 of Heaven (v. 4), and in general Josiah destroyed 
 everything pertaining to the worship of foreign deities; 
 especially he destroyed every altar, including those at 
 the high places, except that at the temple; that is, Jo- 
 siah put into effect the law that sacrifice can be offered 
 only at the temple in Jerusalem. The Law in ExodUh 
 distinctly provides for altars at such places as may be 
 convenient (xx. 24ff.); but Deuteronomy strictly pro- 
 hibits altar or sacrifice at any place save at the central 
 sanctuary (xii. 5ff). It is perfectly plain that whatever 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE IV. 57 
 
 this book of the Law was, the reformation of Josiah was 
 an attempt to put into practice the prescriptions of 
 Deuteronomy.'^ 
 
 Five years before this time Jeremiah had begun his 
 career as a prophet. Why the king- consulted Huldah, 
 who is not otherwise known, rather than Jeremiah, it 
 is not easy to say. But it is certain that this new book 
 of the Law produced a great impression upon the young 
 seer. Moved by the command of God, he travelled 
 about among the cities of Judah preaching the new 
 Law (Jer. xi. 1-8). The passage just cited, in which 
 this part of Jeremiah'^ life is described, is little more 
 than a collection of Deuteronomic phrases. If one 
 reads Jeremiah attentivel}^, he will find Deuteronomic 
 phrases and ideas scattered all through his book.f 
 
 The evidence all points to one conclusion, that the 
 book of the Law found by Hilkiah was the book of 
 Deuteronomy, in whole or in part. There follows, 
 then, this inference: In the year 621 B.C., Deuteron- 
 
 * Driver gives a list of parallel passages which show the depend- 
 ence of Josiah's reforms upon Deuteronomy. He: supposes such 
 passages as these to have chietly impressed the king (Deut. vi. 4f , 
 I4f.; xii. 2-7; xvi. 2 if.; xviii. 9-15; xxviii ; "Deuteronomy," p. 
 xlv., note. See also " Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian,' I , p. 490 
 ff., where the history of the Reformation is told in connection with 
 the laws commanding the reforms, all the laws coming from Deut- 
 eronomy. 
 
 t See the list of parallel passages in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah 
 in Driver's " Deuteronomy," p. xciii. 
 
58 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 omy was not an inseparable part of a book of the 
 Law like the Pentateuch, but was itself called " the 
 book of the law" (11. Kings xxii. 8), "the book of the 
 covenant" (xxiii. 2), ** the words of this covenant" 
 (Jer. xi. 2 ff.). This fixes the latest possible date of 
 the book,"^ the terminus ad guein. Can we also fix the 
 terminus a quo ? If we read again the account of 
 Josiah's reformation, we are struck with the evident 
 fact that he had never heard of this book before, and 
 in fact the people to whom it was read were equally 
 ignorant of it. If the book had been lost, it had disap- 
 peared so long ago that no knowledge of its contents 
 had survived. 
 
 But the book itself contains many expressions which 
 throw light upon the time of its origin. First of all is 
 the fact that the last chapter contains an account of 
 the death of Moses. It is generally conceded that this 
 passage (chap, xxxiv.) has been added by a later hand, 
 though we cannot help admiring the stricter consis- 
 tency of those Vi^ho, accepting the Mosaic authorship 
 of the Pentateuch on the basis of external authority, 
 held fast to the Mosaic authorship of this passage, too. 
 But if a whole section like this is to be placed in the 
 post-Mosaic age on purely internal evidence, why may 
 
 * If only the legal part of Deuteronomy was found by Hilkiah, 
 the narrative portions would be subsequent additions. Whether 
 the reign of Josiah is the latest date for the whole book in its 
 present form is, therefore, still a matter of doubt. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 59 
 
 not other parts, and, if need be, the whole book, be 
 assigned to the same period for like reasons ? And 
 there are reasons for doing- so which it is not easy to 
 resist. 
 
 The book opens with the statement that *' Moses 
 spoke these words unto all Israel on the other side of 
 the Jordan." As Moses is stated to have spoken 
 these words on the east of the Jordan, the writer must 
 have been in the land west of the Jordan. This could 
 not have been written, therefore, before the Conquest. 
 We find the same expression, ** on the other side of 
 Jordan," used for the east of the Jordan also in i. 5, 
 *' on the other side of Jordan, in the country of 
 Moab" ; also in iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49. In some 
 cases the explanatory *' eastward " is added. The 
 same usage is regularly found in other parts of the 
 Pentateuch, and in the following places in Joshua, 
 where the standpoint is indisputably the region west of 
 the Jordan: i. 15; ii. 10; vii. 7; ix. 10; xii. i; xiii. 8; 
 xxii. 4 ; xxiv. 8. 
 
 On the other hand, the same expression is used for 
 the west of the Jordan in these passages : Deut. iii. 20, 
 25 ; xi. 30, in speeches of Moses which are said to have 
 been spoken in the land of Moab, hence the use is ap- 
 propriate ; also in Josh. v. i ; xii. 7 (with the addition 
 " westward ") ; ix. i (where the place is further de- 
 fined, so as to avoid the natural inference that east of 
 the Jordan was meant). It would seem clear, therefore, 
 
60 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 either that Deuteronomy was not written until after 
 the Conquest, or that these passages are later inser- 
 tions. 
 
 There are several expressions in the book which 
 point clearly to the same conclusion. " The sons of 
 Esau . . . destroyed them [the Horites] from be- 
 fore them, and dwelt in their stead ; as Israel did unto 
 the land of his possession, which Jahveh gave unto 
 them " (Deut. ii. 12). ** The land of his possession " is 
 the country west of the Jordan ; hence that land was 
 in the possession of Israel when those words were 
 written. A similar statement is found in iv. 38 : 
 Jahveh brought Israel out of Egypt '' to drive out na- 
 tions from before thee greater and mightier than thou, 
 to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheri- 
 tance, as at this day." It is difficult to see how this 
 could have been said before Canaan was occupied by 
 the Hebrews. 
 
 Again, we read that *'Jair, the son of Manasseh, 
 took all the regions of Argob . . . and called 
 them, even Bashan, after his own name, Havvoth-jair, 
 unto this day" (iii. 14). This statement is presumably 
 based upon Num. xxxii. 41. But a son of Manasseh 
 could not have lived in the Mosaic age. Jair is men- 
 tioned in I. Chron. ii. 22 as the possessor of twenty- 
 three cities in the land of Gilead; he is there called the 
 son of Segub, who was a grandson of Machir, the son 
 of Manasseh. But in Judges x. 3ff., we read that Jair, 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 6l 
 
 the Gileadite, was one of the judges, and the thirty 
 cities in the land of Gilead which belonged to his sons 
 were "called Havvoth-jair unto this day." If we ad- 
 mit that Moses or a contemporary might call Jair a 
 son of Manasseh, he could not have confused Gilead 
 and Bashan.* The statement in Judges can be har- 
 monized with that in Numbers only on the hypothesis, 
 highly probable on other grounds, that the conquest 
 of Gilead was not completed until the period of the 
 Judges. Further, the expression "unto this day," which 
 occurs in this verse and elsewhere in Deuteronomy, 
 would scarcely be used by one who was contemporary 
 with the events described. 
 
 In iv. 45f., we read that Moses spoke this law before 
 the children of Israel ''when they came forth out of 
 Egypt, beyond Jordan ... in the land of Sihon, 
 whom Moses and the children of Israel smote, when 
 they came forth out of Egypt." The writer makes no 
 distinction between the time of the Exodus and the 
 time, thirty- eight years later, when the land of Sihon 
 and of Og was conquered. It is not easy to suppose 
 that Moses, or any one else in his age, could have been 
 
 * In Deuteronomy the places called Havvoth-jair, it should be 
 noted, are in Bas/ian ; in Numbers, as in Judges, these are in 
 Gilead. Furthermore, it is stated in Deuteronomy iii. 4ff. that this 
 region of Argob was taken by Moses. Driver supposes iii. 1 4 to be a 
 late interpolation designed to harmonize Deuteronomy with Num- 
 bers. 
 
62 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 SO unmindful of the perspective of time. A much later 
 writer could easily have done so. '' The phrase ' when 
 they came forth out of Egypt,' " says Driver (" Deuter- 
 onomy," p. 8i), ''must have sprung from a time when 
 the forty years ii? the wilderness had dwindled to a 
 point." 
 
 It is stated frequently in Deuteronomy that Moses is 
 addressing the very ones who came forth out of 
 Egypt, whereas we are also expressly told that all the 
 adult generation (i. 35ff ) had died during the v/ander- 
 ings in the wilderness : "Jahveh made not this cove- 
 nant [that is, that made in Horeb thirty-eight years 
 before] with our fathers, but with us, even us, who 
 are all of us here alive this day" (v. 2f.) ; "I spake 
 not with your children which have not known, and 
 which have not seen the chastisement of Jahveh, your 
 God " — going on to recite the overthrow of Pharaoh, 
 of Dathan and Abiram — **but your eyes have seen all 
 the great work of Jahveh which he did " (xi. 2ff.; xxix. 
 2ff., et passini). 
 
 The men addressed by Moses are said to be the 
 same ones who had stood under the mountain, when 
 the mountain burned with fire (iv. loff.), though this 
 event took place directly after the Exodus. It is much 
 easier to suppose that a later writer could have made 
 such an identification than that a contemporary could 
 have done so. The matter is not easily disposed of 
 by supposing that many of the people who were with 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 63 
 
 Moses in the land of Moab had been little children at 
 the time of the Exodus ; for the covenant was not 
 made with the children, but with the adults, and cer- 
 tainly the children did not stand under the burning- 
 mountain to enter into the covenant. 
 
 The law of the landmark shows clear traces of an 
 age lon^ after the settlement in Canaan : " Thou shalt 
 not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old 
 time have set, in thine inheritance" (xix. 14). The men 
 of old time who had set the landmarks were obvi- 
 ously the Israelites who had seized and settled the 
 country. We may compare Prov. xxii. 28 — 
 " Remove not the ancient landmark, 
 Which thy fathers have set." 
 
 The word rendered above '* they of old time " is used 
 in Lev. xxvi. 45, Psalm Ixxix. 8, of the ancestors of the 
 Israelites. 
 
 The post-Mosaic age is seen in many other laws,^.^., 
 " and the officers [who are mustering- the forces for 
 battle] shall say unto the people, What man is there 
 that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated 
 it 1 let him go and return to his house, lest he die in 
 the battle, and another man dedicate it" (xx. 5); 
 *' When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt 
 make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not 
 blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence " 
 (xxii. 8). These laws could not have originated during 
 Israel's nomadic life. 
 
64 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 In xix. iff. Moses directs the people to appoint three 
 cities of refuge in their land when they shall have com- 
 pletely subdued it; and in case their border is enlarged 
 they are to appoint three additional cities. But 
 in iv. 4iff. we are told that Moses himself appointed 
 three cities of refuge on the east of the Jordan. 
 Neither Moses nor a contemporary could have said 
 this; for in Num. xxxv. Qff. Moses directs that after the 
 Israelites have taken possession of Canaan, they shall 
 appoint six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jor- 
 dan. In Josh. XX. ']{. the six cities are named as ap- 
 pointed by the people under Joshua's direction, and the 
 three named for the east of the Jordan are identical with 
 those said in Deuteronomy to have been appointed by 
 Moses. It is needless to multiply instances. These 
 are enough to show that certainly many parts of 
 Deuteronomy indicate a date subsequent to the time of 
 the great law-giver. 
 
 Suppose, now, we read the book to see what impres- 
 sion it makes as to authorship. Is there any internal 
 evidence which tends to show that Moses was the 
 author ? The book is on the face of it a collection of 
 addresses delivered by Moses to the people of Israel 
 after their conquest of Transjordanic Palestine, and 
 before the crossing of the Jordan, with some historical 
 notes and introductions. Everywhere in the narrative 
 portion — thirty-six times in all — Moses is spoken of in 
 the third person. The book seems on the face of it to 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 65 
 
 be the production of one who undertook to preserve the 
 last discourses of Moses along with certain connected 
 events, including his death and burial. Thus the book 
 begins: " These are the words which Moses spoke unto 
 all Israel beyond Jordan in the wilderness"; in other 
 places we read: " This is the law which Moses set be- 
 fore the Israelites" (iv. 44); ''Moses called unto all 
 Israel, and said unto them " (v. i); "Moses, the man of 
 God, blessed the children of Israel before his death " 
 (xxxiii. i); "Moses commanded us a law " (xxxiii. 4) — 
 surely Moses could not have written these last two ex- 
 pressions. We cannot avoid the natural inference 
 from these facts by supposing that Moses, like Cassar, 
 speaks of himself in the third person ; for everywhere 
 in the speeches he uses the first person of himself and 
 the second person for the people. From v.-i toxxvii. I 
 the name of Moses is not once found. The book has 
 no more the form of a work of Moses than the Gospels 
 of a compilation by our Lord, or the Acts that of a work 
 by St. Paul or St. Peter. 
 
 In harmony v/ith this conclusion is the retrospective 
 character of the book. In some of the places cited 
 above it appears as if the author were looking back 
 through a considerable space of time to the Mosaic 
 age. There are many other expressions which show 
 a similar point of view: "We took the land at that 
 time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites 
 that were beyond Jordan" (iii. 8); but by Moses this 
 
66 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 would have been spoken of as a very recent event. 
 The bedstead, or, more probably, the sarcophagus, of 
 Og, was still preserved in Rabbah of the Ammonites 
 (iii. ii); "I commanded you at that time" (iii. i8) — 
 said to the Transjordanic tribes after they had taken 
 possession of Gilead and Bashan. The expression ''at 
 that time" is used in Hebrew for an undefined distant 
 period, either in the past or future, and we find it so 
 used frequently in this book. 
 
 But there are two or three passages which make it 
 impossible, without great violence, to hold that Moses 
 wrote the whole of Deuteronomy. For we are told 
 that he wrote certain parts of the book — a statement 
 which precludes his authorship of the whole. *' So 
 Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to 
 the Israelites " (xxxi. 22); but we are not told what the 
 song is, unless it is part of xxxii. 1-43, which, however, 
 has an introduction and superscription of its own. In 
 the latter (xxxii. 44) it is stated that Moses and Joshua 
 spoke the song in the ears of the people ; in harmony 
 with this, the command to write the song (" write ye this 
 song for you, "xxxi. 19), is in the plural. The song, more- 
 over, is a review of the history of Israel as a disobedient 
 nation. Again we read: " Moses wrote this law, and de- 
 livered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi " (xxxi. 9); 
 *' When Moses had made an end of writing the words of 
 this law in a book " (ib., 24). Elsewhere Moses, jointly 
 with the elders, directed the people to write very plainly 
 
THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 67 
 
 the Law upon great stones covered with plaster on the 
 very day they should cross the Jordan, and to set up 
 these stones upon Mount Ebal (xxvii. 1-4, 8). 
 
 Surely Josiah and those who were concerned with 
 him in the publication of this Law had no idea that they 
 were dealing with a Mosaic composition, or the name 
 of the great law-giver would have been used to give it 
 additional sanction. In all the references to the new 
 book of the Law in Kings and Jeremiah, the name of 
 Moses is not mentioned, except in a passage manifestly 
 due to the compiler of Kings (IL Kings xxiii. 25). 
 Yet Moses in this time was indisputably looked upon 
 as one of the greatest of God's saints in the past. (See 
 Jer. XV. I.) 
 
 Would that we could stop our investigation at this 
 point ! The Book of Deuteronomy might then be re- 
 garded as a composition in its present form made long 
 after Moses' time, but consisting chiefly of his 
 speeches, partly exhortations to obey the laws, and 
 partly the laws themselves. But if we resolve to fol- 
 low the evidence as far as it goes, we cannot stop at 
 this point, for the evidence does not. Some laws have 
 already been cited which are part of the work ascribed 
 to Moses, but which betray a later age. The law con- 
 cerning the king (xvii. i4fT.) is of this character. A 
 law which shows such connection with the rule of Sol- 
 omon and his successors cannot easily be assigned to 
 the Mosaic age, even making reasonable allowance for 
 
63 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 anticipatory legislation. Moreover, if this law were in 
 existence, why does Samuel, and Jehovah, too, regard 
 the request of the Israelites for a king as sinful rebel- 
 lion ? (I. Sam. viii.) In xxviii. 36, in spite of the fu- 
 ture tenses,^" an existing king seems to be presupposed. 
 But the chief law which has been with most confi- 
 dence assigned to a post-Mosaic date is that of the 
 central sanctuary. In Deuteronomy this law is em- 
 phasized again and again. It stands at the very fore- 
 front of the Deuteronomic code. The essential parts 
 are here given. " You shall completely destroy all 
 the places where the nations which you shall drive 
 out have served their gods, upon the high mountains 
 and upon the hills, and under every green tree ; and 
 you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces 
 their pillars, and burn their Asherim, . . . But 
 unto the place which Jahveh your God chooses from 
 all your tribes to put His name ; His habitation shall 
 you seek, and thither shalt thou f come : and thither 
 you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacri- 
 
 * " Jahveh will bring thee and thy king whom thou settest over 
 thee unto a nation," etc. 
 
 tOne of the unsolved puzzles of Deuteronomy is the frequent 
 change from the singular to the plural. Steuernagel has used this 
 variation as a basis for the analysis of the book, holding that the 
 " thou " sections are older than the "you" sections. Das Deuteron- 
 omium, in Nowack's " Hand Kommentar vun A. T."; see also Ad- 
 dis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," II., p. i iff. The analysis on 
 this basis is far from satisfactory. 
 
THE MODERX POI.VT OF VIE IV. 69 
 
 fices, and your tithes, and the heave offering of your 
 hand, and your vows, and your free-will offerings, and 
 the firstlings of your herd and of your flock : and there 
 you shall eat before Jahveh your God. . . . Take 
 heed to thyself lest thou offer thy burnt offerings in 
 every place that thou seest ; only in the place which 
 Jahveh chooses in one of thy tribes, there shalt thou 
 offer thy burnt offerings" (xii. 2ff., I3f.). 
 
 This law was meant to abolish the high places. But 
 the high places were not abolished until Josiah's time, 
 and there is not a single protest against their use until 
 the time of Hezekiah. We might indeed say that 
 disobedience of a law does not necessarily prove its 
 non-existence ; but we shall find but a poor refuge in 
 that negation. For we have to consider not only the 
 fact of the disobedience of a law that is central in the 
 code, but also the absolute silence concerning it. It is 
 not merely the disobedience by the mass ofthe people, 
 but by the godliest souls that existed between Moses 
 and Josiah. In the book of Kings, which obviously 
 was not compiled before the exile, and which is written 
 from the Deuteronomic point of view, we find the con- 
 stant lament that even the best lyings, who walked 
 after God like David their father, still had this blemish, 
 that they sacrificed in the high places. 
 
 Gideon offered a sacrifice under the oak which was 
 in Ophrah by direction of the messenger of Jehovah, 
 and built an altar there which was still standing at the 
 
70 HIE CLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 time the book of Judges was compiled (Judges vi. 
 iQff., 24) ; then at God's command he built another 
 altar to Jehovah on the top of the stronghold,* and 
 offered a burnt offering upon it {ib., 25). Micah the 
 Ephraimite may not be regarded as a typical saint 
 even of the early days of Israel. It may not seem 
 strange therefore that out of the refunded money he 
 had stolen he made a graven image and set up a sanc- 
 tuary of his own ; but it does seem strange that the 
 Levite who was the priest of this place was Jonathan the 
 grandson of Mosest {ib., chaps, xvii., xviii). The same 
 Levite afterwards became priest of the sanctuary in Dan. 
 That Samuel stands out among the greatest of the 
 great men of Israel's history, no one will question. 
 But Samuel, the man of God, sacrificed at such places 
 as suited his purpose. Before the second battle of 
 Ebenezer, he offered a burnt offering at Mizpah (I. 
 Sam. vii. 9), and Jehovah responded to his appeal ; 
 
 * In accordance with the ideas of the times, the altar was built 
 upon the highest point available. It may be that this is a duplicate 
 narrative, only one altar having been built. See Moore's "Judges," 
 m loc. 
 
 t R. V. has rightly placed Moses in the text, with the marginal 
 note, " another reading is Manasseh." The printed Hebrew Bibles 
 still show how this corruption came in. Moses and Manasseh 
 differ in Hebrew only by the letter "n." This letter was added 
 above the line, and has remained there to this day. The object 
 of the change is obvious. For further details see Moore's 
 •' Judges," in loc. 
 
THE MGDER:V POEVT OF V/EIV. 71 
 
 the enemy attacked even while the offering was in 
 progress, and Jehovah thundered against the Philistines 
 and discomfited them. At his home in Ramah he built 
 an altar to Jehovah i^ib ,17); when Saul came to consult 
 the seer the latter was preparing for a sacrifice in the 
 high place (ix. 12) ; he promised Saul that he would 
 join him at Gilgal to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices 
 (x. 8 ; cf. xi. 15) ; Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint 
 David as king under cover of offering a sacrifice 
 (xvi. 2) ; from which it appears that Samuel was so in 
 the habit of offering sacrifice in various places, that the 
 least suspicious errand in Bethlehem would be the 
 offering of a sacrifice. 
 
 A short time after this there was a sanctuary at Nob 
 Avith a considerable company of priests (I. Sam. xxi. f.). 
 Saul was told, as the most plausible reason for David's 
 absence, that his family were to hold their annual sac- 
 rifice at Bethlehem (xx. 6, 29). David offered sacrifices 
 as the ark was removed from the house of Obed-edom, 
 and again after it had been placed safely in the tent 
 which had been prepared for it (II. Sam. vi. 13, 17). 
 He granted permission to Absalom to go down to 
 Hebron to offer a sacrifice there {ib., xv. 7ff). The 
 erection of an altar upon the spot which afterward be- 
 came so holy was due, speaking after the manner of 
 men, to an accident {ib., xxiv. i6ff.). 
 
 Solomon's great vision was in the night after he had 
 offered great sacrifices at Gibeon, which was the chief 
 
72 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 high place (I. Kings iii. 4ff.). King Asa {ih., xv. 14) 
 tolerated the high places, though in other things he 
 was a reformer. The good king Jehoshaphat likewise 
 did not disturb the worship at the local sanctuaries 
 (xxii. 43). The like tolerance is seen in Jehoash* 
 (II. Kings xii. 3); in Amaziah (xiv. 4) ; in Uzziah 
 (xv. 4); in Jotham (xv. 35), to mention only those 
 kings who are said to have done that which was right in 
 the eyes of Jehovah. Though Hezekiah had made an 
 effort to repress the high places, it was wholly ineffec- 
 tive, and the reason probably is that he had no such sup- 
 port for his reform as Josiah had in the book of the Law.f 
 The early prophets furnish further evidence that the 
 regulations of Deuteronomy were either unknown to 
 them or indifferent to them. Hosea mentions among 
 the things Israel will be deprived of by the captivity, 
 king, prince, sacrifice, pillar, ephod and teraphim (iii 4). 
 The pillar:]: was strictly forbidden in Deuteronomy; 
 '' neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which Jahveh 
 * It is more remarkable that Jehoash tolerated the high places, 
 for he was under the influence of the high priest Jehoiada, to whom 
 he owed the throne. The conclusion seems irresistible that neither 
 king nor priest knew any law condemning the high places. It is 
 still more noteworthy that Josiah, whose reformatory measures had 
 begun before the discovery of the book in the temple, appar- 
 ently had originally had no idea of abolishing the local sanctuaries, 
 t See W. R. Smith's " Old Testament in the Jewish Church," 
 2d ed., p. 256f. 
 
 \ Properly a consecrated stone such as Jacob set up, Gen. xxxi. 45. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OE VIEW. 73 
 
 thy God hateth " (xvi. 22). Isaiah seems to have had 
 no objection to pillars or to a multiplicity of altars, as he 
 said that in converted Egypt there would be an altar 
 to Jehovah, and a pillar to Jehovah (xix. 19). Even 
 Joshua set up such a consecrated stone under the 
 sacred tree by the sanctuary of Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 
 26). The stone which Samuel set up at Ebenezer was 
 of the same character (L Sam. vii. 13). 
 
 Gathering up the results of the evidence accumulated, 
 it appears: (1) that the book of Deuteronomy was the 
 legal basis of Josiah's reformation; (2) that the book con- 
 tains many statements which reveal an age later than 
 Moses; (3) that the book has the form of a compilation 
 of Moses' last speeches with historical notes; (4) that a 
 number of the laws belong to an age long subsequent 
 to Moses, in fact some of them carry us down to the 
 age of Josiah (638-60S B.C.). There appears to be some 
 good reason to believe, therefore, that whatever may be 
 the real origin of much of the material in Deuteronomy 
 — some of it is undoubtedly early — the book as a whole 
 was never known to tlie public before 621 B.C. 
 
 It may seem that this conclusion is more radical 
 than the evidence warrants ; for the book may really 
 have been lost during the time between Moses and 
 Josiah and found again by Hilkiah. But observe 
 that Josiah plainly acknowledges that his fathers have 
 violated the fundamental principles of this code: 
 ''great is the wrath of Jahveh that is kindled against 
 
74 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 US, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the 
 words of this book, to do according unto all that which 
 is written" (II. Kings xxii. 13). He himself was 
 entirely ignorant of this law. As the Law itself pre- 
 scribes that it shall be read aloud to the people every 
 seven years at the feast of tabernacles, and that every 
 king shall possess a copy (Deut. xxxi. lof.; xvii. i8ff.), 
 there should by this time have been many copies in 
 existence, and a knowledge of the Law must have 
 gained a currency which even a half century of sup- 
 pression could not destroy. The object of the inquiry 
 of the prophetess Huldah was apparently to know 
 whether the Law should be put into effect. As soon as 
 it was confirmed by Huldah, the king assembled the 
 people and proceeded at once to make the Deutero- 
 nomic code the law of the land. The impression is very 
 strong, from a careful study of 11. Kings xxii. f, that the 
 book was new to king and people. 
 
 This is the point at which the cry of '^ pious fraud " 
 has so often been raised. Cheyne, in his excellent lit- 
 tle book on Jeremiah, asks, " fraud or needful illu- 
 sion ?" ^ According to the literary ethics of to-day, 
 the insertion of a single law which was not Mosaic in a 
 code of actual Mosaic laws would be a fraud, and not a 
 very pious one, either. But even if Hilkiah, or a com- 
 pany of priest-prophets were the author, is their work 
 
 * "Jeremiah : " His Life and Times," p. 69ff. On the question of 
 fraud see also "O. T.J. C.-," p. 363. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 75 
 
 to be judged by the standard of the dawn of the twen- 
 tieth century ? The student of the Old Testament 
 finds it necessary constantly to judge the ethics of the 
 Old Testament from the pre-Christian rather than the 
 Christian standard. It is perfectly clear that many im- 
 precatory passages in the Old Testament are at vari- 
 ance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is easy to 
 understand how such things could be. We are not so 
 much perplexed because Jeremiah, though a prophet of 
 God, hurled curses at his persecutors, as that St. Paul, 
 an Apostle of Christ, should have cried to the high 
 priest, *' God shalt smite thee, thou whited wall " 
 (Acts xxiii. 3). In passing judgment upon actions of 
 the ancient Hebrews, it is only fair that we shall qual- 
 ify ourselves by historical study to look at the matter 
 from their point of view. 
 
 It does not follow, however, that Hilkiah, or his 
 contemporaries, was guilty of a fraud, even according 
 to our standards. There may have been a genuine 
 Mosaic code which had been amplified, in subsequent 
 years, according to the needs of a more developed civ- 
 ilization.^ The one who amplified the Mosaic Law 
 would have seemed to take too much upon himself, 
 though he, too, was a man of God like his great prede- 
 cessor, if he had substituted his own name for that of 
 
 * The Deuteronomic code certainly is an amplification of the 
 so-called Code of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), which was suited to 
 an earlier stage of development. 
 
76 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Moses.* The evidence is strong that the book of Deut- 
 eronomy had never been known to the people before 
 Josiah's reformation, but it does not follow that the 
 material of the book all comes from that date. It may 
 be, further, that this law book was an actual find; it 
 may be, as some hold, that the book of Deuteronomy 
 had been written in the latter part of Hezekiah's reign, 
 or in that of Manasseh. It would have been impossi- 
 ble to publish it while the persecutor Manasseh sat 
 on the throne. Before the way was open for the book 
 to appear, its author may have become a victim of 
 Manasseh's zeal for foreign gods, and the book may 
 have been lost and forgotten. This view, which, 
 though supported by no sure evidence, is not inher- 
 ently improbable, removes all question of fraud. 
 
 Whatever conclusion we may reach about the origin 
 of the code, there can be no doubt as to the timeliness 
 of its appearance. The assassination of Amon, the son 
 of the wicked Manasseh, when it appeared that he would 
 walk in his father's footsteps, shows that the best peo- 
 ple were weary of religious persecution. Josiah began 
 the purification of the temple, but the people at large 
 could be but islowly led to a pure Jehovah worship, as 
 long as the local high places were tolerated. Those 
 shrines had doubtless served Israel well in the early 
 stages of the national life; but they had become hope- 
 lessly corrupt. They had been, for the most part, old 
 
 * See also Chap. v. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 77 
 
 Canaanite sanctuaries, and some of the Canaanite rites 
 had been preserved. The practice of these foreign 
 rites seems to have increased as time went on, and by 
 Josiah's day the high-place cult was in such a state 
 that it could be purified only by fire. 
 
 Hezekiah's attempt at the centralization of worship 
 failed because the people were not ready for such rad- 
 ical measures, and the king was not strong enough to 
 enforce his will. The misgiving on the part of the 
 people is shown in the clever address of Sennacherib's 
 ambassadors. They tried to weaken the courage of 
 the Jewish people so that they would force a surrender 
 of the city. " If ye say unto me," they cried to the 
 soldiers on the wall (II. Kings xviii 22), *' we trust in 
 Jahveh our God, is not that he, whose high places and 
 whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said 
 to Judah and Jerusalem, You shall worship before this 
 altar in Jerusalem ?" 
 
 Josiah found the people more receptive of reforms, 
 and he was wise enough to take them fully into his 
 confidence. His first step was to have the Law read 
 to his assembled people, and then he took a solemn 
 oath himself to obey the Law. It was then natural that 
 the people should follow the example of their king 
 (II. Kings xxiii. 3). Jeremiah's support had undoubt- 
 edly a great influence. 
 
 The political situation showed the ripeness of the 
 times as well. The nation had passed through a long 
 
78 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 era of bloody persecution and political decay. The 
 past misfortune was explained as due to the fact that 
 their fathers had not kept the Law as laid down in the 
 new book. The hope of the future was in a thorough- 
 going reform. The religion of Jehovah advanced 
 to a higher plane by the promulgation of the Deute- 
 ronomic code, and its rigid enforcement. Except for 
 Josiah's untimely death soon after the completion of 
 his reforms, the whole course of Israel's later history 
 might have been different. 
 
 The book of Deuteronomy made a large contribu- 
 tion toward that unification of worship which, in turn, 
 aided in the development of monotheistic ideas among 
 the masses. It is a priori improbable that such a rad- 
 ical change in religious practice, as that from many 
 sanctuaries to one, could be the work of a single gen- 
 eration. Deuteronomy fixes as law a usage for which 
 preparation had been going on ever since the erection 
 of the temple by Solomon. That temple so overshad- 
 owed the local sanctuaries in the splendor of its ap- 
 pointments that they could not hope indefinitely to 
 maintain a rival position. The acute Jeroboam .appre- 
 ciated the influence of the great temple, and feared 
 that it would wean away the hearts of his subjects; 
 therefore he built the rival sanctuaries at Dan and at 
 Bethel (I. Kings xii. 26ff.). 
 
CHAPTER IV, 
 
 dbe Ibeyateucbo 
 
 2. THE NARRATIVE. 
 
 THE narrative of the Hexateuch has been di- 
 vided by higher critics into three main strata : 
 one a product of the southern kingdom in 
 the ninth century B. C, denoted by the symbol J 
 (Jahvist) ; the other a product of the northern king- 
 dom from a somewhat later period, denoted by E (Elo- 
 hist); and the third a product of a Jewish priestly writer 
 later still, denoted by P. It is also contended that 
 just as the present Hexateuch is made up by compila- 
 tion from pre-existing sources, with a few original ad- 
 ditions, so each of these sources contains more or less 
 material that has been incorporated by the writer, 
 though those earlier sources show much less compila- 
 tion than the later. From this conclusion are derived 
 the really innocent symbols J, ]\ ]\ E, E\ E^ etc., 
 which have given occasion for so much clever wit on 
 the part of the assailants of the critical results. As 
 J stands for the writing of one particular Jahvistic 
 writer, who is the author of most of the Jahvistic sec- 
 
8o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 tions, J i'2.etc.. ^j.g used to denote parts of his work, 
 whether earlier or later, which were not composed by 
 him, but were either extracted from earlier writings, or 
 added by later hands. 
 
 On purely <^ /r/(?W grounds, there is nothing absurd 
 in such a supposition. It would not be strange if there 
 had been three histories of Israel written from three 
 different points of view. There are yet preserved two 
 such parallel histories, Chronicles on the one hand, and 
 Genesis to 11. Kings on the other. The Chronicler wrote 
 a history of his people from Adam to the end of Nehe- 
 miah's rule, and that from his own point of view. This 
 point of view is so peculiar to himself that his interpre- 
 tations of the history are not easily understood until 
 his point of view is clearly known. The point of view 
 is, as a matter of fact, so prominent in Chronicles that 
 the book — for originally both books of Chronicles, 
 along with Ezra and Nehemiah, constituted but 
 one book — is about as valuable for the light it throws 
 upon the times of the author as for that it throws upon 
 the periods treated.* The Chronicler does not hint 
 that he is largely compiling extracts from earlier docu- 
 ments ; but that is just what he does, nevertheless. 
 His style is so peculiar that it is comparatively easy to 
 separate his own contributions. This is critical analysis, 
 and doubtless the results would be discredited by skep. 
 tical minds, except that we have elsewhere in the Old 
 
 See further in Chap. VII, 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 8 1 
 
 Testament many of the passages which the Chronicler 
 has incorporated into his book. 
 
 We have four Gospels, which are all attempts to pre- 
 serve an account of the life and teaching" of our blessed 
 Lord. Each is written, however, from its own peculiar 
 point of view, and that point of view is easily discerned 
 in the Gospel. Now, if some one had conceived the 
 idea that it was better to have one Gospel than four, 
 it would have been easy to compile one by simply 
 choosing extracts from these four sources ; and, in 
 fact, just that thing was done, and has come down to 
 us in Tatian's Diatesseron. Fortunately, however, we 
 have preserved to us the original documents. In this 
 case, in fact, it was the single compilation which was 
 long lost, not the original sources, as is the case in 
 the Hexateuch. Moreover, as Sayce has pointed out 
 (H. C. M., c. ii.), compilation was the rule rather than 
 the exception among Semitic writers. 
 
 But even if our present Hexateuch is conceded to be 
 the result of a process of compilation from primary 
 sources which have been lost, many are very skeptical 
 as to the ability of any one to separate the completed 
 thread into its original strands. Literary analysis is, 
 of course, work for experts. We may not know that 
 this verse is due to J and the next one to P, because we 
 have not acquired the necessary knowledge and experi- 
 ence, though we may often perceive the justification of 
 the result when it is explained to us. People who 
 
82 THE OLD TESTAMEI^T FROM 
 
 drink the polluted water of many rivers and wells ex- 
 pose themselves to the danger of typhoid fever. Most 
 of us have never seen the germ of typhoid fever, and 
 should not know one if we did see it. But we know 
 the danger, because those who have the requisite 
 knowledge and experience tell us of it; and we have 
 this confirmation of their statement, that hundreds 
 who drink such water actually contract the disease. 
 Our knowledge is based upon the testimony of ex- 
 perts. 
 
 The writer by no means poses as a literary expert ; 
 but there is much in the results of those who are liter- 
 ary experts to convince him that their conclusions may 
 not be too lightly brushed aside, even if he is persuaded 
 that analysis is often carried beyond the possibilities of 
 satisfactory demonstration. It is quite possible, more- 
 over, for the most modest student to test the accuracy 
 of the critical judgment. 
 
 Another consideration must be given full weight. 
 The more the original narratives which have been 
 combined are alike in general conception and spirit, 
 the more difificult the separation of the compilation, 
 and conversely. The Constitution of the United States, 
 for example, is a composite document, but it is very 
 difficult to distinguish between its original contributors, 
 because they all belonged to the same age, had pre- 
 cisely the same object, and were imbued with the same 
 spirit. But if a history of the Rebellion were compiled 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 83 
 
 from two ex parte sources, the task of analysis would 
 be comparatively simple. 
 
 Of the three main sources in the Hexateuch, P is very 
 different in style and conception, if not in age, from J 
 and E, But J and E belong to the same general 
 period ; they each deal with history in the prophetic 
 spirit ; and therefore the cautious analyst confesses 
 frankly that he is sometimes unable to separate between 
 these two, even when he is sure that the passage in 
 question contains material from both. Consequently, 
 in, ^. ^., Driver's analysis, we find often JE simply, 
 to indicate the combined product of these sources, 
 though many scholars are bold enough to carry the 
 analysis to completion. In Genesis the task is easier, 
 because in that book E uses the name 'Elohim for 
 God, and J Jahveh. 
 
 A few of the more apparent cases in which the an- 
 alysis rests upon the surest foundation will now be ex- 
 amined, and the result indicated. Comparatively few 
 examples can be exhibited ; but they are enough for 
 our purpose, which is not critical analysis, but the test 
 of the general division of the Hexateuch into its pri- 
 mary sources. The reader may be referred to Dr. 
 Gibson's admirable little book"^ for further evidence of 
 
 *" Reasons for the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch." Phila- 
 delphia, 1897. For a fuller treatment, books such as Addis' " Doc- 
 uments of the Hexateuch " and Bacon's " Genesis in Genesis" may 
 profitably be consulted. 
 
84 THE OLD TESTA M EXT EROM 
 
 the comp>osite character of the Hexateuch. It \\\\\ 
 be found that I have rarely used the cases cited by 
 him. 
 
 I. One of the most striking instances of the com. 
 posite character of the Hexateuch occurs at the very 
 beginning of the Bible, in the story of creation. The 
 two versions are here placed side by side, that they 
 may be studied comparatively : 
 
 J 
 In the day when Jahveh 
 God made earth and heav- 
 en, then there was no 
 shrub of the field on the 
 earth, and no herb of the 
 field had sprouted. Yox 
 Jahveh God had not yet 
 caused rain upon the earth, 
 and there was no man to 
 till the ground. And a 
 mist went up from the 
 earth, and watered all the 
 surface of the ground. 
 And Jahveh God formed 
 the man of dust from the 
 ground, and he breathed 
 into his nostrils the breath 
 cf life ; so the man beca.iie 
 a living soul. And Jah- 
 veh God planted a garden 
 
 These are the generations of the 
 heavens and the earth, when they 
 were created (ii. 4), 
 
 1. In the beginning God created the 
 heavens and the earth. Now the 
 earth was a chaos and a waste, and 
 darkness was upon the surface of the 
 abyss ; and the Spirit of God was 
 hovering over the surface of the 
 waters. And God said, Let there *be 
 light ; and there was light : and God 
 saw the light that it was good. And 
 God made a division between the light 
 and the darkness ; and God called the 
 light day, and the darkness he called 
 night. 
 
 2. And God said. Let there be an ex- 
 panse in the midst of the waters, and 
 let there be a dividing between waters 
 and waters. And God made the ex- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 
 
 in Eden on the east, and 
 h'i placed there the man 
 whom he had formed. 
 
 And Jahveh Gnd caused 
 to sprout from the ground 
 every tree agreeable in ap- 
 pearance and good for 
 food ; and the tree of life 
 in the midst of the garden, 
 and the tree of knowing 
 good and evil. And Jah- 
 veh God took the man 
 and placed him in the gar- 
 den of Eden to till it and 
 to guard it. And Jahveh 
 God commanded the man, 
 saying. Of every tree of 
 the garden thou mayst 
 freely eat ; but of the tree 
 of knowing good and evil 
 thou mayst not eat. For 
 in the day of thy eating of 
 it thou shalt surely die. 
 
 And Jahveh God said, 
 It is not good for the man 
 to be alone ; I will make 
 for him a helpmeet. And 
 Jahveh God formed from 
 the ground every beast of 
 the field and every fowl of 
 the heavens, and brought 
 them unto the man to see 
 
 panse, and made a division between 
 the waters which were under the ex- 
 panse and the waters which were 
 above the expanse : and it became so. 
 And God called the expanse heavens. 
 
 3. And Gcd said, Let the waters 
 under the heavens be gathered onto 
 one place, and let the dryland appear; 
 and it became so. And God called 
 the dry land earth, and the gathering 
 of the waters he called seas. And 
 God saw that it was good. And God 
 said, Let the earth sprout forth grass, 
 herb producing seed, fruit trees bear- 
 ing fruit after its kind, whose seed is 
 in itself, upon the earth ; and it be- 
 came so. And the earth brought 
 forth grass, herb producing seed after 
 its kind, and trees bearing fruit whose 
 seed is in itself after its kind. And 
 God saw that it was good. 
 
 4. And God said, Let there be lumi- 
 naries in the expanse of the heavens to 
 divide between the day and the night, 
 and they shall be for signs and for 
 sea'ons and for days and years; and 
 they shall be for luminaries in the ex- 
 panse of the heavens to give light upon 
 the earth; and it became so. And 
 God made the two great luminaries — 
 the greater luminary for the ruling of 
 the day, and the lesser luminary- for 
 
86 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 what he would call them ; 
 and whatever the man 
 called them, that was 
 their name. And the man 
 called names for all the 
 cattle, and for the fowl of 
 the heavens, and for all 
 the beasts of the field. 
 But for man he did not 
 find a helpmeet. 
 
 And Jahveh God caused 
 a heavy slumber to fall 
 upon the man, and he 
 slept. And he took one 
 of his ribs, and closed the 
 flesh in its place. And 
 Jahveh God built the rib 
 which he had taken from 
 the man into a woman, 
 and brought her unto the 
 man ; and the man said. 
 This now is bone of my 
 bone, and flesh of my 
 flesh. To this shall be 
 called woman, for it was 
 taken from man. There- 
 fore a man leaves his father 
 and mother and joins to 
 his wife, and they be- 
 come one flesh. And 
 they too were naked, the 
 man and his wife, and 
 
 the ruling of the night ; also (he made) 
 the stars. And God placed them in 
 the expanse of the heavens, to give 
 light upon the earth, and to rule over 
 the day and over the night, and to di- 
 vide between the light and the dark- 
 ness : and Gcd saw that it was good. 
 
 5. And God said. Let the waters 
 swarm with swarms of living things, 
 and let fowl fly over the earth, upon 
 the surface of the expanse of the 
 heavens. And God created the great 
 sea monsters, and every living thing, 
 the creeping thing with which the 
 waters swarmed after their kind, and 
 every winged fowl after its kind : and 
 God saw that it was good. And God 
 blessed them, saying. Be fruitful and 
 multiply, and fill the waters in the 
 seas ; and let the fowl multiply on the 
 earth. 
 
 6. And God said, Let the earth bring 
 forth living things after their kind, cat- 
 tle and creeper and beast of the earth 
 after their kind : and it became so. 
 And God made the beast of the earth 
 after its kind, and the cattle after its 
 kind, and every creeper of the ground 
 after its kind : and God saw that it 
 was good. And God said, Let us make 
 man in our image, according to our 
 likeness, and let them have dominion 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 87 
 
 were not ashamed (Gen. ii. over the fish of the sea, and over the 
 4^-9, 15-25). fowl of the heavens, and over the cat- 
 
 tle, and over all (the beasts of) the 
 earth, and over every creeper which 
 creeps upon the earth. And God 
 created man in his image, in the image of God created he him, 
 male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God 
 said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue 
 it ; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
 the heavens, and over every living thing which creeps upon the 
 earth. And God said, Behold, I have given to you every herb 
 yielding seed which is upon the surface of the whole earth, and 
 every tree in which there is fruit of a tree yielding seed, it is yours 
 for food ; and to every beast of the earth, and to all the fowl of the 
 heavens, and to every creeping thing upon the earth in which is 
 soul of life, every green herb is for food : and it became so. And 
 God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. 
 
 7. And the heavens and the earth and all their host were com- 
 pleted. And God completed the work which he had done in the 
 seventh day ; and he rested in the seventh day from all his work 
 which he had done. And God blessed the seventh day, and hal- 
 lowed it, because in it he rested from all his work which he had 
 done in creation (Gen. i. i-ii. 4^). 
 
 In J's story I have omitted a short passage unneces- 
 sary for my purpose ; in P's I have placed ii. 4 where it 
 belongs as the heading, and have omitted the refrain, 
 " and it was evening, and it was morning, day first, sec- 
 ond," etc. I have divided P's account according to 
 the scheme of the seven days. 
 
 An examination of the narratives shows that each is 
 
88 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 a complete account of the creation. The heavens, the 
 earth, vegetable and animal life, including- man. were 
 the result of God's creative work. The agreement in 
 the fundamental fact that God was the creator of the 
 world is complete. But the differences of detail are so 
 numerous as to preclude either unity of authorship, or 
 attempts at harmony. It is worth while to examine 
 these differences with some degree of fulness. This is 
 the easier to do as, fortunately, each story has been 
 preserved in its integrity. The compiler, instead of at- 
 tempting to make an account of the creation by weav- 
 ing together the two versions before him, simply placed 
 one after the other, each in its complete form. 
 
 J uses the divine name, Jahveh 'Elohim *; P uses 
 only 'Elohim (God). J starts with an implication of the 
 creation of the earth and heavens, and proceeds at once 
 to the creation of life upon the earth ; V describes the 
 creation of the heavens and earth (P's order as against 
 J's, *' earth and heavens ") as fully as anything else. J's 
 principal interest is in the creation of man ; P's, in each 
 part of the whole. J describes the earth as barren at 
 
 * The original author wrote only Jahveh. The " 'Elohim " was 
 added by the compiler, perhaps to identify the Jahveh of J with the 
 'Elohim of P, whose story had been placed just before. It is very 
 probable that the compiler's purpose was to add 'Elohim as an 
 explanatory note; but as he had no diacritical devices, he had to 
 write his note in the text. In many similar cases, notes may have 
 been placed originally on the margin, and then copied into the text 
 by subsequent scribes. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW 89 
 
 the beginning, because there was no rain ; P describes 
 it as covered with water. In J, man was the first 
 object created as necessary to the production of vege- 
 table life; in P, man was created last. In J, an individ- 
 ual man was first created, and then, as the last creative 
 act, a woman from his own body as a helpmeet ; in P, 
 the genus man (including both sexes) was created to- 
 gether. In J, the animals were created for man's 
 especial benefit ; in P, though man has dominion over 
 them, he is restricted to vegetable food. P's culminat- 
 ing interest is in the divine institution of the Sabbath 
 day, of which there is no mention in J. 
 
 J's conception of God is far inferior to P's. J repre- 
 sents Jahveh making man as an artificer; P repre- 
 sents Him as accomplishing His will by a fiat. P's 
 story is orderly, precise and repetitious ; it moves 
 along with a consistent plan: first a fiat that a certain 
 thing should be done, then the statement that it was 
 done. In each case also there are the assertions, *' and it 
 became so," "and God saw that it was good." 
 
 It is difiicult to understand how a single writer could 
 be responsible for such diversity of detail. 
 
 II. Let us examine next these two passages placed 
 likewise, side by side : 
 
 J P 
 Now Esau persecuted And Rebecca said to Isaac, I am 
 Jacob because of the bless- mortally troubled because of the Kit- 
 ing with which his father tite women. If Jacob take a wife of 
 
go 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 had blessed him. And such women as these Hittites, the 
 
 Esau said to himself, The women of the country, what have I to 
 
 days of the mourning for live for ? And Isaac called Jacob and 
 
 my father are drawing blessed him, and commanded him and 
 
 near: then I will kill my said to him, Thou shalt not take a 
 
 brother Jacob. But Re- wife of the women of Canaan. Arise, 
 
 becca heard of the words goto Padan-aram, to the house of Be- 
 
 of her elder son Esau ; thuel, thy mother's father, and thence 
 
 and she sent for her take a wife, from the women of Laban, 
 
 younger son Jacob, and thy mother's brother. And may God 
 
 said to him, Behold, thy Almighty bless thee, and increase 
 
 brother Esau will have thee, and make thee many, so that 
 
 revenge upon thee, by thou shalt be an assembly of nations, 
 
 killing thee. Now, my And may he give thee the blessing of 
 
 son, listen to my voice : Abraham, to thee and thy seed with 
 
 Arise, flee thee to Haran, thee, that thou mayst possess the land 
 
 to my brother Laban, and of thy sojourning which God gave 
 
 live with him a few days, to Abraham. And Isaac sent Jacob 
 
 until thy brother's wrath away ; and he went to Padan-aram 
 
 passes away — until thy unto Laban the son of Bethuel, the 
 
 brother's anger passes Aramean, the brother of Rebecca, the 
 
 away from thee, and he mother of Jacob and Esau (Gen. xxvii. 
 
 forgets what thou hast 46-xxviii. 5.) 
 done to him. Then I will 
 
 send and bring thee from there. Why should I be bereaved of 
 you both at one time ? And Jacob departed from Beersheba, and 
 
 went to Haran (Gen. xxvii. 41-45, xxviii. 10). 
 
 Are these two independent stories ? or are they 
 rather, as modern critics assert, two varying forms of 
 the same original } These are certain facts which 
 should be carefully noted. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. qi 
 
 Tlie same place is called Haran in one version and 
 Padan-aram in the other. Each narrative distinctly 
 states that Jacob was sent away; but there arc two dis- 
 tinct reasons given for his departure : (i) to escape 
 the wrath of his enraged brother; (2) to procure a wife 
 of his own kindred. It might be said that the shrewd 
 Rebecca could not send Jacob off without Isaac's per- 
 mission, and that she conceals from Isaac her real 
 reason for desiring to get Jacob away, merely inventing 
 the getting of a suitable wife as a pretext. Esau sup- 
 poses that Jacob had gone away in order to get a wife 
 from his kindred ; for he came to the conclusion that 
 Isaac did not like theCanaanite women, and so adds to 
 his harem a wife of Abrahamic descent (Gen. xxviii. 8f., 
 also P). But when we follow Jacob to Syria in J's 
 story, his marriage is only an incident ; it does not ap- 
 pear to be the real object of his mission. The two 
 motives are therefore consistently preserved through 
 the narrative. 
 
 According to P again, Isaac blesses Jacob before his 
 departure in a way that is truly strange, in view of the 
 trick Jacob had played upon him. The source from 
 which this is taken evidently knows nothing about 
 Jacob's fraud in getting the blessing. Esau, too, is im- 
 pressed with the blessing of Jacob, as he would not 
 have been if this writer had known of the trick. A 
 bare reading of the narrative reveals unmistakable signs 
 of duplication. The natural conclusion is, therefore, 
 
92 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 that these two sources each contained an account cf 
 Jacob's departure for Syria ; but each gives a different 
 cause for that journey. 
 
 III. We will next separate a passage in which there 
 seem to be three parallel stories : 
 
 E J P 
 
 And he lighted up- And behold Jahveh And God appeared 
 
 on the place, and stood by him and unto Jacob again 
 
 spent the night there ; said, lam Jahveh, when he came from 
 
 for the sun had set. the God of Abra- Padan-aram. And 
 
 And he took one of ham thy father, and God blessed him, 
 
 the stones of the the God of Isaac, and said to him, Thy 
 
 place, and placed it The ground upon name is Jacob. Thy 
 
 by his head. And he which thou liest name shall no longer 
 
 lay down to sleep in will I give to thee be called Jacob, but 
 
 that place. And he and to thy seed. Israel shall be thy 
 
 dreamed, and he saw And thy seed shall name. And he called 
 
 a ladder set upon the be like the dust of his name Israel. And 
 
 ground, whose top the earth; and thou God said unto him, 
 
 reached the heavens, shalt spread west- I am 'El Shaddai. 
 
 And he saw the an- ward and eastward Be fruitful and in- 
 
 gels of God going up and northward and crease. A nation 
 
 and down upon it. southward. And all and an assembly of 
 
 And he was afraid, the families of the nations shall come 
 
 and said, How terrible land shall be blessed from thee, and kings 
 
 is this place ! this is in thee and in thy shall come from thy 
 
 no other than the seed. And behold loins. The land 
 
 house of God, and I am with thee, and which I gave to Abra- 
 
 this is the gate of will guard thee in ham and to Isaac, I 
 
 heaven. And Jacob every place thou go- give to thee ; and to 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 93 
 
 rose early in the est, and will bring thy seed after thee 
 
 morning, and took the thee back unto this do I give the land. 
 
 stone which he had land. For I will not And God went up 
 
 placed by his head forsake thee until I from him in the place 
 
 and set it up for a have done what I where he had spoken 
 
 sacred pillar. And have promised thee, with him. And Jacob 
 
 he poured oil upon And Jacob awoke called the name of 
 
 its top (Gen. xxviii. from his sleep, and the place where God 
 
 II, 12, 17,18). said, Surely Jahveh had spoken with him 
 
 And Jacob went is in this place, and Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 
 
 to Luz, which is in I did not know it. 9-13, 15). 
 
 the land of Canaan And he called the 
 
 (that is Bethel), he name of that place 
 
 and all the people Bethel ; but formerly 
 
 who were with him. Luz was the name 
 
 And he built there of the city (Gen. 
 
 an altar, and called xxviii. 13-16, 19). 
 
 the place El-Bethel ; And Jacob set up 
 
 for there God was re- a sacred pillar in 
 
 vealed unto him, the place where he 
 
 when he fled from his spoke unto him, a 
 
 brother (Gen. xxxv. stone pillar. And he 
 
 6, 7). poured a drink-of- 
 fering upon it, and 
 poured oil upon it 
 (Gen. xxxv. 14). 
 
 Here are surely three accounts of the theophany 
 which gave rise to the name Bethel, whether indepen- 
 dent or not. There were two theophanies at Bethel, 
 according to E and J, one before and the other after 
 Jacob's long sojourn with Laban. P knows only one, 
 
94 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and that occurred at the later time. According to J, 
 the name Bethel was given at the first visit, but the 
 consecrated stone was set up at the second. In E, 
 precisely the opposite order of events is given : the 
 consecrated stone was set up at the first visit, but the 
 name Bethel was given at the second. P agrees with E 
 in this last matter, but of course has nothing to say 
 about the sacred stone, for all such things were an 
 abomination to him. 
 
 That the narratives are parallel seems manifest. The 
 blessing in P has almost identical phraseology with 
 the blessing of Isaac in xxviii. 3f. J uses the name Jah- 
 veh, E 'Elohim, and P *E1 Shaddai in the blessing (as in 
 xxviii. 3), otherwise 'Elohim. We find here P's account 
 of the origin of the name Israel ; but this name has 
 already been accounted for in another source (J). On 
 the night before Jacob met Esau he was left alone 
 by the river Jabbok. There the wrestling angel said 
 to him, in answer to Jacob's demand for a blessing, 
 " Thy name shall not again be called"^ Jacob, but Israel, 
 for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast 
 conquered " (xxxii. 28). The giving of this name inter- 
 rupts the narrative in P's blessing, and is regarded by 
 Dillmann as an insertion by an editor. P always calls 
 the patriarch Jacob, never Israel. At all events, it 
 must be apparent that God did not change Jacob's 
 name twice and at practically the same time. 
 
 * A different word is used lor "called" in P (Gen. xxxv. 10). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 95 ' 
 
 It is to be noted, however, that the stories agree in | 
 essential matters : the name Bethel was given to the I 
 ancient Luz by Jacob ; he so named it after a the- 
 ophany, and because it appeared to him a place of pe- ; 
 culiar sanctity. It should be noticed that J anachron- < 
 ously uses the name Bethel in the history of Abraham 
 (Gen. xii. 8 ; xiii. 3). The name Luz does not ap- 
 pear before this. Luz is a different city in Judges i. 26, 
 and perhaps in Josh. xvi. 2 (JE); but P repeats the 
 identification, though he retains the older name (Josh, 
 xviii. 13; cf. Qi^w. xlviii. 3). 
 
 IV. As a minor matter, it may be noted that we have 
 two explanations of Joseph's name which are placed 
 directly after each other in our present text, with omis- 
 sions which are obvious and readily supplied. The 
 sentence in brackets was omitted by the compiler. i 
 
 E J j 
 
 And she conceived and bore And she called his name 
 
 a son, and said, God has taken Joseph (" may he add"), saying, 
 
 away (Heb., 'a^^//^) my re- May Jahveh add (Heb., j^j^/y^) 
 
 preach [and she called his name another son to me (Gen. xxx. 
 
 Joseph("hetakesaway '')] (Gen. 24). ; 
 
 xxx. 23). I 
 
 These two passages are distinguishable by the differ- 
 ent name for God, as well as by the different etymol- j 
 ogy of Joseph's name. The name Joseph in Hebrew \ 
 could come from either of these two roots. One derives ; 
 it from 'asapJi, to take away, the other from yasapJi, to ; 
 
 1 
 
96 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 add. The account of the birth of Jacob is omitted 
 ^rom J, and tlie naming from E; but there can be no 
 doubt that the compiler has preserved a duplicate deri- 
 vation. 
 
 V. If one reads the story of Joseph's sale to the cara- 
 van which took him to Egypt, he is struck with the 
 number of duplicate statements. The matter is cleared 
 up by separating the double narrative. 
 
 E J 
 And they said to each other, And Joseph went after his 
 Lo, yonder master of dreams is brothers, and found them in Do- 
 coming. Now, come, let us kill than. And they saw him afar 
 him, and cast him into one of the off, before he was near them, 
 pits, and, we will say, A wild and they formed a plot to kill 
 beast has devoured him. Then him. And Reuben heard it, 
 we will see what will become of and delivered him from their 
 his dreams. And Reuben said hand, and said. Let us not take 
 to them. Do not shed blood : his life. 
 
 cast him into this pit which is And they sat down to eat 
 
 in the wilderness ; but do not lay food. And they looked up and 
 
 a hand upon him — that he might lo, they saw a caravan of Ishma- 
 
 deliver him from their hand to elites coming from Gilead ; and 
 
 return him to his father. And their camels were carrying spi- 
 
 when Joseph came to his broth- eery and balm and myrrh, taking 
 
 ers, they stripped Joseph of his it down to Egypt. And Judah 
 
 tunic, the long- sleeved tunic, said to his brothers, What is the 
 
 which was on him ; and they gain if we kill our brother and 
 
 took him and cast him into cover up his blood ? Come, let 
 
 the pit. Now the pit was empty, us sell him to the Ishmaelites, 
 
 there was no water in it. and let not our hand be upon 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 97 
 
 And there passed by Midian- him— our brother is our ilesh. 
 
 ites, traders, and they (/. <?., the And his brothers agreed, and 
 
 Midianites) drew Joseph up out they sold Joseph to the Ishmael- 
 
 of the pit, and they brought ites for twenty pieces of silver. 
 
 Joseph to Egypt. And Reuben And Joseph was brought down 
 
 returned to the pit, and behold to Egypt, and Potiphar, an ofifi- 
 
 Joseph was not in the pit. And cer of Pharaoh, the chief of the 
 
 he rent his clothes, and went body guard, an Egyptian, bought 
 
 back to his brothers and said, him of the Ishmaelites who had 
 
 The lad is gone, and whither brought him down there (Gen. 
 
 shall I go? And the Midian- xxxvii. 17^, 18, 21, 25-27, 28^- 
 
 ites sold him in Egypt to Poti- xxxix. i). 
 phar, an officer of Pharaoh, the 
 chief of the body guard (Gen. 
 xxxvii. 19, 20, 22-24, 28-30, 36). 
 
 Each of the above narratives is complete, as will 
 easily be seen if each one is read through. They are 
 in perfect harmony as to the main facts. Joseph's 
 brothers hated him and purposed to kill him, but they 
 were dissuaded from doing this by Reuben. A cara- 
 van chanced to be passing, which took Joseph and car- 
 ried him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar. 
 
 But there are some striking differences in detail. In 
 E, the caravan was composed of Midianites, in J, of Ish- 
 maelites ; in J, Reuben seems to have been a party to 
 the sale of his brother, contenting himself with saving 
 his life. From E it would appear that the Midianites 
 took Joseph out of the pit where his brothers had aban- 
 doned him; that is, the traders did not buy Joseph, but 
 
gS THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 discovered him themselves, and took him as a captive. 
 Hence Reuben came back to the pit secretly to rescue 
 Joseph, not knowing that he had been stolen while he 
 and his brothers were away. In the same source (E), 
 consistently with this, Joseph told Pharaoh's butler 
 that he had been '' stolen away out of the land of the 
 Hebrews" (Gen. xl.15). In J, he was not put into a pit, 
 but sold directly to the Ishmaelites. There is, perhaps, 
 as much harmony as one should expect in ancient nar- 
 ratives like these. At all events, each one by itself is 
 intelligible. 
 
 But the composite story as it now stands is not very 
 clear. If we read the passage continuously as we find it, 
 we are struck with the confusion of statements. Joseph's 
 brothers resolved to kill him (v. 18); they proposed to 
 kill him and throw his body into a pit (19); Reuben 
 rescues Joseph from his brothers (21); after which we 
 read that Joseph arrived, and was placed alive in an 
 empty pit (23). The caravan comes along, and Judah 
 proposes to sell Joseph instead of killing him ; the Mid- 
 ianites take Joseph from the p't and carry him away; 
 then his brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites. Finally, 
 Reuben, who had previously had Joseph safely in his 
 hands, returns to the pit, and is surprised to find that 
 Joseph has disappeared. It is highly probable that the 
 compiler in joining together his narratives has occa- 
 sionally made such omissions that, while sometimes w^e 
 have to our gain double, or even triple, accounts of the 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 99 
 
 same events, sometimes, on the other hand, we have no 
 account at all. There is an example of peculiar inter- 
 est directly connected with the above. After Joseph's 
 brothers, at a later time, had experienced some rough 
 treatment at his hands in Egypt, " they said one to 
 another. We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in 
 that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought 
 us, and we would not hear" (Gen. xlii. 21). It is very 
 likely that the source which contains this (E) had a 
 touching account of Joseph's plea for his life, when his 
 brothers cast him into the pit and abandoned him there. 
 
 VI. We will pass to the book of Exodus and examine 
 the account of the institution of the Passover. 
 
 JE* p 
 
 And Moses summoned all the Speak unto all the congrega- 
 
 elders of Israel, and said to tion of Israel, and let them take 
 
 them, Draw away and get you for them each one a lamb for the 
 
 sheep for your families, and kill head of the house, a lamb for a 
 
 the passover. And take ye a house. And ail the assembly of 
 
 bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the congregation of Israel shall 
 
 the blood which is in the basin, kill it at dusk, and they shall 
 
 and touch the lintel and the two take of the blood and place it 
 
 *The symbol JE is used in this and other cases to denote, as 
 explained above, a passage in which it is not possible to separate 
 these two sources accurately. A passage marked JE may be from 
 either J or E entirely, or may be a combination of the two. Some 
 writers venture much further than others in their analysis of JE 
 in Exodus and Numbers, 
 
100 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 doorposts with the blood which upon the two doorposts and 
 is in the basin; and not one of upon the Hntel, upon the houses 
 you shall go out of the door of in which they shall eat it. And 
 his house until morning. And they shall eat the flesh in this 
 Jahveh will go through to smite night. And ye shall let none of 
 Egypt, and he will see the'blood it remain until morning. That 
 upon the lintel and upon the two which may be left until morning 
 doorposts, and Jahveh will pass ye shall burn in the fire. And 
 by the door, and he will not per- ye shall eat it with haste : it is a 
 mi!: the destroyer to enter your passover to Jahveh, And I will 
 houses to smite. And ye shall pass through the land of Egypt 
 observe this thing for a statute in this night, and I will smite all 
 for you and for your sons for- the first-born in the land of 
 ever. And it shall be when ye Egypt, from man to beast ; and 
 come into the land which Jahveh I will execute judgment upon all 
 gives to you, as he has promised, the gods of Egypt. And the 
 that ye shall observe this cere- blood shall be a sign for you 
 mony. And it shall be, if your upon the houses where ye are, 
 sons say unto you. What is this and I will see the blood, and will 
 ceremony to you } that ye shall pass by you, and there shall be 
 say, It is the sacrifice of the pass- no plague among you for a de- 
 over to Jahveh, who passed by stroyer when I smite the land of 
 the houses of the Israelites in Egypt. 
 
 Egypt when he smote Egypt, In the house shall it be eaten, 
 
 but saved our houses. And thou shalt not take outside of 
 
 the people bowed down and wor- the house any of the flesh (Ex. 
 
 shipped (Ex. xii. 21-27). xii- 1-13. 46, abridged). 
 
 It needs but a casual inspection of these two pas- 
 sages to see ho\V probable it is that they are parallel 
 
 narratives. The essential facts of the feast are the 
 
 same in each. There was to be a lamb for each fam- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. loi 
 
 ily — except that P makes provision for a family too 
 small to eat a whole lamb; the blood was to be placed 
 upon the doorposts and lintels as a mark by which the 
 destroyer (which P explains as a plague) would be 
 kept from that house. But there are some noteworthy 
 differences as well. The order of " lintel and door- 
 post " (JE) is reversed in P. P mentions a single 
 sheep ; JE uses the general term flock. P gives 
 numerous specific details which are not in the older 
 narrative. 
 
 VII. The account of the institution of the feast of un- 
 leavened bread affords another good instance of a dupli- 
 cate narrative. 
 
 JE p 
 
 And Moses said unto the peo- And this day shall be to you a 
 pie, Remember this day when ye memorial, and ye shall make it 
 went out from Eg>'pt, from the a feast to Jahveh for your gen- 
 house of bondage. For by erations : ye shall make it a feast 
 strength of hand Jahveh brought by an eternal statute. Seven 
 you out from thence ; and leav- days unleavened bread shall ye 
 ened bread shall not be eaten, eat. On the very first day ye 
 This day ye were going out in shall stop leaven from your 
 the month Abib. And it shall houses — for any one that eats 
 be when Jahveh shall bring thee leavened bread, that soul shall 
 unto the land of the Canaanites be cut off from Israel— from the 
 . . . which he swore to thy first day until the seventh. On 
 fathers to give to thee, a land the first day there shall be a 
 flowing with milk and honey, holy convocation, and on the 
 then thou shall observe this cer- seventh day there shall be a holy 
 
102 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 emony in this month. Seven convocation to you. No work 
 
 days shalt thou eat unleavened shall be done in them ; only that 
 
 bread, and in the seventh day is which any one must eat— that 
 
 a feast to Jahveh. Unleavened alone may be prepared for you. 
 
 bread shall be eaten for seven And ye shall keep the [feast of] 
 
 days ; and leavened bread shall unleavened bread ; for on that 
 
 not be seen of thee, nor shall very day I brought out your 
 
 leaven be seen in all thy borders, hosts from the land of Egypt; 
 
 And thou shalt inform thy son at and ye shall keep this day for 
 
 that time, saying, Jahveh en- your generations by an eternal 
 
 joined this to me when I came statute. In the first month, 
 
 out of Egypt. And it shall be to (from) the fourteenth day of the 
 
 thee for a sign upon thy head month, at evening, ye shall eat 
 
 and for a memorial between thy unleavened bread until the 
 
 eyes, that the law of Jahveh may twenty-first day of the month at 
 
 be in thy mouth ; for with a evening. For seven days leaven 
 
 strong hand Jahveh brought thee shall not be found in your houses, 
 
 out from Egypt. And thou For every one that eateth leav- 
 
 shalt keep this statute for its sea 
 son from year to year (Ex. xiii, 
 3-IO)- 
 
 ened bread, that one shall be cut 
 off from the congregation of Is- 
 rael, whether a stranger or one 
 born in the land. Ye shall eat 
 no leavened bread. In all your 
 dwellings ye shall eat unleavened 
 bread (Ex. xii. 14-20). 
 The two versions of this ordinance agree very closely. 
 The feast has the same peculiarities, lasting for seven 
 days, and being observed by eating only unleavened 
 bread. The rite was in commemoration of the exodus 
 from Egypt. The earlier narrative calls the month by 
 its old name Abib, rather than by the later Babylonian 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 103 
 
 name Nisan, but does not specify the day. The later 
 narrative adds the penalty of ex-communication for 
 eating leavened bread in this time. The closeness of 
 agreement makes it all the clearer that the narratives 
 are duplicate versions of the same thing. It is quite 
 inconceivable that one writer would repeat an account 
 of an ordinance with a few variations. 
 
 VIII. The story of the spies sent to the land of 
 Canaan affords an interesting case of duplicates. 
 
 JE P 
 
 And (Moses) said unto them, And Moses sent them from 
 Go up now into the south, and the wilderness of Paran to spy- 
 go up into the mountain, and out the land of Canaan. So 
 see what the land is, and whether they went up and spied out the 
 the people who dwell in it are land from the wilderness of Zin 
 strong or weak, few or many, into Rehob, to the entering in of 
 And they went up into the south, Hamath. And they returned 
 and they came to Hebron. And from spying out the land at the 
 there were Ahiman, Sheshai, end of forty days. And they 
 and Talmai, offspring of Anak. went and came to Moses, and to 
 And they came to the valley Aaron, and to all the congrega- 
 Eshcol, and cut down from there tion of Israel, unto the wilder- 
 a branch and a cluster of grapes ; ness of Paran. And they 
 and they carried it between two brought up an evil report of the 
 men upon a staff. (And they land which they had spied out 
 returned) to Kadesh, and brought unto the Israelites, saying, The 
 back word unto them, and land, through which we have 
 showed them the fruit of the gone to spy it out, is a land that 
 land. And they said. We went devours its inhabitants. And 
 to the land where thou didst send all the congregation lifted up 
 
104 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 us, and truly it flows with milk their voice and cried ; and the 
 and honey, and this is its fruit ; people wept that night. And 
 but the people that dwell in the all the Israelites murmured 
 land are strong, and the cities against Moses and against 
 are fortified and are very great. Aaron ; and the whole congre- 
 And moreover we saw the off- gation said unto them. Would 
 spring of Anak there. Amalek that we had died in the land of 
 dwells in the land of the south ; Egypt, or would we had died in 
 and the Hittites, and the Jebu- this wilderness, 
 sites, and the Amorites dwell in Then Moses and Aaron fell on 
 the mountain ; and the Canaan- their faces before all the assem- 
 ites dwell by the sea, and along bly of the congregation of the 
 by the Jordan. Israelites. And Joshua the son 
 
 And Caleb stilled the people of Nun, and Caleb the son of 
 for Moses, and said, Let us go up Jephunneh, who were of those 
 at once, and possess it ; for we that spied out the land, rent 
 are well able to do it. But the their clothes ; and they spake 
 men who went up with him said, unto all the congregation of the 
 We are not able to go up against Israelites, saying. The land, 
 this people ; for they are stronger which we passed through to spy 
 than we are. All the people it out, is an exceeding good 
 that we saw in it are men of land. But all the congregation 
 great stature. And there we said to stone them with stones 
 saw the Nephilim, the sons of (Num. xiii. 3^, I7^ 21, 25, 26*. 
 Anak, who are of the Nephilim ; 32*; xiv. i, 2, 5-7, 10*). 
 and we were in our own eyes as 
 grasshoppers, and so we were in 
 
 their eyes. Wherefore doth Jahveh bring us into this land to fall 
 by the sword ? Our wives and our Httle ones will be a prey : is 
 it not better for us to return to Egypt? And they said one to 
 another, Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt (Num. xiii. 
 17^ 18, 22a, 23a, 26^-31, 32^-33; xiv. 3, 4). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 105 
 
 There are many points of agreement in these narra- 
 tives which are apparent at first sight ; but there are 
 more striking differences. In P the spies start from 
 Paran and return to the same place; in JE they re- 
 turn to Kadesh and apparently started from that 
 place (see Num. xxxii. 8; Deut. i. 19). In P they 
 spy out the whole of Canaan to the far north ; in JE 
 they go only to Hebron and the region about there. 
 In Pthe report is unfavorable, the land eats up its peo- 
 ple, ^>., is not able to sustain them ; in JE the land is 
 good, but the people are too strong for the Israelites to 
 dispossess. 
 
 In both versions the people are discouraged by the 
 report of the spies, but in P Joshua and Caleb encour- 
 age the people, and, therefore, these two are excepted 
 from the penalty of dying in the wilderness (xiv. 30, 
 38); in JE Joshua is not mentioned, Caleb alone bring- 
 ing in a hopeful report, and he alone is excepted from 
 the penalty (xiv. 24). The omission of Joshua's name 
 in JE is very singular. If he had shared with Caleb the 
 hopes of an easy conquest, it is difficult to understand 
 why his name does not appear. This position of Caleb 
 is the same in other passages of JE. 
 
 IX. The story of the tribes to which the land on the 
 east of the Jordan was assigned shows an unmistakable 
 duplication. Reuben and Gad, we are told, asked for 
 the pasture lands across the Jordan, because their 
 
io6 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 tribes were possessed of much cattle. The story con- 
 tinues thus : 
 
 JE 
 
 And Moses said unto them, If 
 ye will do this thing, if ye will 
 equip yourselves before Jahveh 
 for the war, and every armed 
 one will get you over Jordan be- 
 fore Jahveh, until he has driven 
 out his enemies from before 
 him, and the land be subdued 
 before Jahveh : then afterward 
 ye may return and be innocent 
 from Jahveh, and from Israel ; 
 and this land shall become your 
 possession before Jahveh. But 
 if ye will not do so, behold, ye 
 will sin against Jahveh : and 
 know ye that your sin will 
 find you out. Build your cities 
 for your little ones, and folds for 
 your sheep ; and do that which 
 has proceeded out of your 
 mouth. 
 
 And the sons of Gad and the 
 sons of Reuben spake unto Mo- 
 ses, saying, Thy servants will do 
 as my lord commands. Our 
 little ones, our wives, our prop- 
 erty, and all our cattle, shall be 
 there in the cities of Gilead ; but 
 
 And Moses commanded con- 
 cerning them Eleazar the priest, 
 and Joshua the son of Nun, and 
 the heads of the fathers' houses 
 of the tribes of the Israelites. 
 And Moses said unto them. If 
 the sons of Gad and the sons of 
 Reuben will pass with you over 
 Jordan, every one that is armed 
 for the war, before Jahveh, and 
 the land shall be subdued before 
 you ; then ye shall give them 
 the land of Gilead for a posses- 
 sion. But if they will not pass 
 over with you armed, they shall 
 take possessions among you in 
 the land of Canaan. 
 
 And the sons of Gad and the 
 sons of Reuben answered, say- 
 ing. What Jahveh has said unto 
 thy servants, that will we do : we 
 will pass over armed before 
 Jahveh into the land of Canaan, 
 and the possession of our inheri- 
 tance shall remain with us be- 
 yond Jordan (Num. xxxii. 28- 
 32). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 107 
 
 thy servants will pass over before Jahveh for the war, every 
 armed man of the host, as my lord says (Num. xxxii. 20-27).* 
 
 The resemblance between JE and P is here so close 
 as to preclude the idea that independent events are de- 
 scribed. The passages are two very similar versions of 
 the same story. A single writer would not have in- 
 dulged in such a repetition. It maybe, as Bacon holds 
 ('' Ex " p. 242), that P is here dependent upon JE. P 
 has a different version of the penalty if the tribes of 
 Reuben and Gad failed to cross over Jordan with their 
 brethren ; but it is not easy to see how it could be 
 carried into effect after their tribes were once estab- 
 lished in fenced cities. 
 
 X. As the book of Joshua will come before us in an- 
 other connection, but a single specimen of its analysis 
 will be exhibited here. We take a case from the story 
 of the cunning trick of the Gibeonites, by which they 
 secured a treaty of peace from Joshua. 
 
 JE p 
 
 And Joshua made peace with And the princes of thecongre- 
 
 them.and made a covenant with gation took an oath unto them, 
 
 them to let them live. And it And the Israelites departed and 
 
 was at the end of three days came unto their cities or the 
 
 after they had made a covenant third day. Now their cities were 
 
 with them, and they heard that Gibeon,and Kephirah.and Beer- 
 
 they were near by them, in oth, and Kiriath-jearim. And 
 
 fact that they dwelt in their the Israelites smote them not 
 
 Prof. Bacon assigns verse 24 to E, and all the rest to J. 
 
io8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 midst. And Joshua sent for because the princes of the con- 
 
 them, and spoke unto them, say- gregation had taken an oath 
 
 ing, Why have ye deceived us, unto them by Jahveh, the God 
 
 saying, We are very far from you, of Israel. And all the congre- 
 
 when ye dwell in our midst? gation murmured against the 
 
 Now cursed are ye, and there princes. But all the princes 
 
 shall never fail to be among you said unto all the congregation, 
 
 bondmen, both hewers of wood We have taken an oath unto 
 
 and drawers of water for the them by Jahveh, the God of Is- 
 
 house of my God. rael : now we are not able to 
 
 And so did he unto them, and touch them. This we will do 
 
 delivered them out of the hand to them, and let them live, that 
 
 of the Israelites, and so they did there shall not be an outbreak 
 
 not kill them. And Joshua made upon us, because of the oath 
 
 them on that day hewers of wood which we took unto them. And 
 
 and drawers of water for the the princes said unto them, Let 
 
 congregation, and for the altar them live. ... So they be- 
 
 of Jahveh unto this day (Josh, came hewers of wood and draw- 
 
 ix 15^, 16, 22f, 26f). ers of water unto all the congre- 
 gation, as the princes spoke unto 
 them (Josh. ix. 15^ 17-21). 
 
 The reading of these passages is a sufTficient justifica- 
 tion of the separation. The part assigned to JE is 
 complete and consistent. In P's account there is but 
 one lacuna (marked by the periods) ; but the lacuna is 
 there just the same, whether we accept the analysis or 
 not. The closing statement, *'as the princes spoke 
 unto them," shows that the princes must have told the 
 Gibeonites that they were to become hewers of wood 
 and drawers of water. There are several expressions 
 
THE MODER.V POINT OF J'lEW. 
 
 log 
 
 common to the two narratives which are characteristic 
 of P rather than JE. In the final revision some of P's 
 favorite words have been placed in theearlier story ofJE. 
 
 The narratives agree in the most important points. 
 The Hebrews — Joshua in one case, the princes in the 
 other — made a treaty of peace with the Gibeonites, 
 believing them to be a distant people. When the 
 fraud was discovered, the people were resolved to visit 
 their lies upon their heads, but Joshua (or the princes) 
 insisted that the treaty should be respected, even 
 though secured by misrepresentation. The trick is 
 discovered after three days, and then the Gibeonites 
 are reduced to servitude. 
 
 The differences in detail are no less striking. In 
 JE a covenant is made by Joshua; in P an oath is 
 taken by the princes. In JE news is brought of the 
 deception after three days; in P the Hebrews discover 
 the deception themselves by coming upon the Gibeon- 
 ites in their cities after a three days' march. In P the 
 reduction to servitude was made to satisfy the people, 
 who clamored against the princes ; in J it was done by 
 Joshua of his own motion, because they had deceived 
 him. In JE a covenant or treaty was made with the 
 Gibeonites ; in P a solemn oath was taken to them in 
 the name of Jahveh. In P the princes were restrained 
 from executing the Gibeonites on account of the sanc- 
 tity of the oath of the princes; in JE we are not told 
 what impelled Joshua to save their lives. 
 
no THE OLl> TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 If the analysis of the Hexateuch is not justified by 
 a careful reading of the passages cited above, it is not 
 likely to be on any evidence. This kind of evidence 
 can be multiplied many times ; but beyond a certain 
 point the increase of cases would not affect the ver- 
 dict. There is enough here to satisfy any one that the 
 analytical results are right or wrong 
 
 There are two important questions which remain : 
 What bearing does this analysis have upon the value 
 of the documents as historical sources, and upon the 
 authorship of the Pentateuch ? I say Pentateuch 
 here, for, though the analytical study of Joshua is in- 
 cluded, the delicate question of authorship concerns 
 the books of the Pentateuch only ; for the Book of 
 Joshua could never be regarded as a work of Moses. 
 
 Sayce is very positive in regard to the former ques- 
 tion. I quote from his most recent book on the 
 ''Early History of the Hebrews," p. I03f : 
 
 '' It is clear that if the modern literary analysis of 
 the Pentateuch is justified, it is useless to look to the 
 five books of Moses for authentic history. There is 
 nothing in them which can be ascribed with certainty 
 to the age of Moses, nothing which goes back even to 
 the age of the Judges. Between the Exodus out of 
 Egypt and the composition of the earliest portion of 
 the so-called Mosaic law, there would have been a 
 dark and illiterate interval of several centuries. . . . 
 For the Mosaic age, and, st 11 more, for the age be- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. lit 
 
 fore the Exodus, all that we read in the Old Testa- 
 ment would be historically valueless." 
 
 If this assertion is a correct representation of the 
 conclusions of the critics, or the necessary consequence 
 of their conclusions, it would indeed be a serious 
 matter. But Sayce's statement is anything but an 
 accurate representation ; and his opinion of the effect 
 of criticism is utterly groundless. A very large number 
 of modern critics who hold the analytical view never- 
 theless believe the documents to be historical. Prof. 
 Bacon has gone as far as any critic in the analysis, but 
 of the historicity of the sources he speaks thus, in his 
 *' Triple Tradition of the Exodus " : 
 
 "When we consider the broadly national character 
 of J's great poems, Blessings of Noah, Isaac, Jacob, 
 Balaam, Moses ; Songs of Lamech, Moses, Joshua, 
 Deborah and Barak, David. Solomon ; and the frag- 
 ments of similar lyrics which form the nucleus of a 
 large proportion of his narratives, and compare with 
 these the general spirit of the document, it does not 
 seem an improbable supposition that the Bcok of 
 Jashar-Isracl underlies the history of J throughout its 
 whole extent, and that it suggested to its author the 
 form of his history of Israel, J impressing upon it its 
 religious character" (Introd., p. xliii.f.). J, then, in- 
 stead of drawing upon his imagination for his mate- 
 rial, uses throughout pre-existing written sources. 
 But this use of older material is not confined to J. 
 
112 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 The same writer says further : *^ E seems to have had 
 at command a collection of national lyrics to some ex- 
 tent parallel to J's " [ib., p. xliv.). 
 
 The existence of the Books of Jashar and of the 
 Wars of Jehovah show that the early history of Israel, 
 like that of the Greeks, was in the form of songs sung 
 in praise of the tribal or national heroes. These songs 
 are historical sources of the greatest importance. How 
 much we learn of Saul and David's relation to him by 
 David's song, preserved in the Book of Jashar (II. Sam. 
 i. 19-27). We have at least one instance which proves 
 clearly that such poems were used as historical 
 sources. When the compiler of the Book of Judges 
 was collecting his materials, he found two sources for 
 the rising against Sisera — one the ancient Song of 
 Deborah (Judges v.), the other a prose narrative 
 (Judges iv.) which had been written with the poem as 
 its source of information. The compiler fortunately 
 incorporated both documents in his book. 
 
 It is very true that many modern critics do not accept 
 all parts of the Pentateuch as historical. But the analy- 
 sis of the books into their component parts had nothing- 
 to do with forming their opinion. The Book of Jonah 
 is not generally regarded as historical ; but this view is 
 not based on a supposed composite structure, but upon 
 its evident didactic purpose and allegorical character. 
 Moreover, the analytical theory is applied to Joshua 
 as much as to the preceding books, and what higher 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 113 
 
 critic doubts the historicity of the Conquest ? The 
 Books of Samuel are also composite ; but they are 
 f^ood historical sources nevertheless. The Books of 
 Kings are confessedly largely extracts from the state 
 archives ; but no one regards that origin as impairing 
 their value as historical sources, even though the book 
 was not compiled for some centuries after the events 
 described in the first part. 
 
 It is difficult to see on what ground the belief in the 
 composite character of a book is connected with belief in 
 its historicity. Very few intelligent people of the pres- 
 ent day regard the story of creation as historical, even 
 though they may believe that Moses was the author of 
 both accounts. If we turn back to the Bethel story, 
 our opinion of the historicity of the event will not be 
 injuriously affected by the discovery of the fact that 
 we have three versions of the origin of that name in- 
 stead of one. On the contrary, it seems clear that 
 the independent testimony is the strongest kind of 
 confirmation. 
 
 The historicity of these ancient documents is not in 
 the least invalidated by variation in details. It is a 
 well-known fact that competent and honest eye-wit- 
 nesses to the same fact will rarely agree in regard to 
 all the particulars. Greenleaf, who was in his day a 
 great authority on the laws of evidence, says with ref- 
 erence to the varying statements in the Gospels : " If 
 these different accounts of the same transactions were 
 
1 14 THE OLD TES TA MEN T FR OM 
 
 in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argu- 
 ment against their credibility would be much stronger." 
 As evidence of the importance of such variations, he 
 says : " There is enough of discrepancy to show that 
 there could have been no previous concert among 
 them." " 
 
 The question remains as to the age to which the com- 
 position of this history is to be assigned. But a brief 
 treatment is possible here. We shall look at some of 
 the expressions in the narrative portions of the three 
 books, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, to see what 
 light they throw upon the date. 
 
 The most cursory reading of the books shows us a 
 number of expressions which betray a time later than 
 that of the great lawgiver. " The Canaanite was then 
 in the land" (Gen. xii, 6); ''the Canaanite and the 
 Perizzite dwelled then in the land " (xiii. 7) — are ex- 
 pressions which presuppose the extermination of the 
 Canaanites after the Conquest ; for the occupation of 
 the land by the Canaanites is looked upon as a thing 
 of the distant past. "Abram pursued as far as Dan " 
 (Gen. xiv. 14; cf. Deut. xxxiv. i); but the name Dan 
 was given to the city of Laish (or Leshem, as it is called 
 in Josh. xix. 47), after the capture of that city in the 
 period of the Conquest (see Judges xviii. 29). *' These 
 are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before 
 
 * " An Examination of the Testimony of the Evangelists," 
 p. 32f. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 115 
 
 there reigned any king over tlie children of Israel " 
 (Gen.xxxvi. '^\) — this statement presupposes the mon- 
 archy as already established in Israel. 
 
 In this passage, '* they were very wroth because he 
 had wrought folly in Israel " (Gen. xxxiv. 7; cf. Deut. 
 xxii. 2 1), the name Israel is applied to the land of 
 Canaan; this presupposes a later time than that of 
 Moses (see IL Sam. xiii. 12, " no such thing ought to 
 be done in Israel "). " I was stolen away out of the 
 land of the Hebrews " (Gen. xl. 1 5) — this name could not 
 have been applied to Canaan before the Conquest. The 
 words, " the children of Israel journeyed and pitched 
 in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho " 
 (Num. xxii. i), must have been written on the west of 
 the Jordan, hence after the Conquest. We find the same 
 expression in Num. xxxiv. \^, ''the two tribes and 
 the half tribe have received their inheritance beyond 
 the Jordon at Jericho eastward toward the sunrising." 
 " Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the towns 
 thereof, and called them Havvoth-jair " [ib., xxxii.41), 
 a passage already alluded to, describing an event which 
 took place during the Conquest (Judges x. 4). 
 
 In Num. xxi. 14 we have a quotation from the book 
 called " the Book of the Wars of Jehovah." It is ob- 
 vious that a book with such a title could not have been 
 in existence in Moses' time, before the Israelites had 
 waged any wars other than the unimportant struggles 
 with the desert tribes. The word regularly used for 
 
ii6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 south in Hebrew {ncgtbh) means the district in the 
 southernmost part of Palestine. But we find this word 
 used for the " south " in the Pentateuch as well as else- 
 where."^ The most common term for west {yam) means 
 seazvard. The sea was the Mediterranean, and because 
 this sea was the western boundary of Palestine, the 
 term was used for " west "; this usage could scarcely 
 have arisen before the occupation of Canaan. Never- 
 theless, this usage prevails in the Pentateuch, t in fact, 
 it is the only word used for *' west " in the Pentateuch, 
 or in any other pre-exilic writing. 
 
 There are some of these passages which may be re- 
 garded as glosses of a later date; but all of them can- 
 not be so conveniently disposed of; and there is, it 
 must be confessed, considerable evidence tending to 
 show that the origin of these books must be placed in 
 the time subsequent to the Conquest. The evidence, 
 moreover, comes from all the sources, and, therefore, 
 it is good for each of the main documents, as well as 
 for the Pentateuch as a whole. The fact that all these 
 sources are also traceable through Joshua, and even, it 
 is claimed, into Judges, Samuel and Kings,:]: confirms 
 
 *In Gen. xii. 9; xiii. i, 3, 14; xx. i ; xxiv. 62 ; xxviii. 14. Ex. 
 xxvi. 18 ; xxvii. 9; xxxvi. 23; xxxviii. 9; xl. 24. Num. xiii. 17, 22, 
 29; xxi. T ; xxxiii. 40; xxxiv. 3f ; xxx\\ 5. Deut. i. 7 ; xxxiv. 3. 
 
 \E.g., Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 14; xxviii. 14. Ex. x. 19; xxvi. 22. 
 Num. ii. 18 ; iii. 23 ; xxxiv. 6 ; xxxv. 5. Deut. iii. 27 ; xxxiii. 23. 
 
 X See Bacon's " Triple Trad.," Introd.; Moore's " Judges," Introd. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 117 
 
 this conclusion as to the date. It is generally agreed 
 that J and E were both composed before 750 B.C., and, 
 as some place one or the other as early as 950 15. c, 
 this is the period within which it is most probable that 
 these two sources were composed. 
 
 It is a grief to some to reach a conclusion which in- 
 validates the claim that Moses is the author of these 
 books. But it must be borne in mind that the books 
 nowhere claim to be productions of Moses. The titles 
 which we find in our English Bibles, " the first, second, 
 etc., Book of Moses," are not found in the Hebrew text, 
 and are productions of a time later than the Christian 
 era. The claim is not made in the books that Moses 
 is their author, in fact, statements are made which are 
 not easily reconcilable with his authorship. In the 
 narrative portions Moses is always spoken of in the 
 third person, and, as Dillmann says, ** sometimes in a 
 way in which he would not have spoken about him- 
 self."* It certainly would be strange for Moses to 
 write at the end of a genealogy, *' These are that Aaron 
 and Moses, to whom the Lord said. Bring out the 
 children of Israel from the land of Egypt. . . . 
 These are they {i.e., Moses and Aaron) which spoke to 
 Pharaoh King of Egypt. . . . These are that Moses 
 and Aaron " (Ex. vi. 26f.). No less surprising would it be 
 for him to write, "' Moreover, the man Moses was very 
 great in the land of Egypt " [ib , xi. 3); or "Now the 
 * "Num , Deut., Josh.," p. 593. 
 
ii8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 man Moses was very meek, above all men which were 
 upon the face of the earth " (Num. xii. 3). 
 
 A strong- argument already applied to Deuteronomy 
 is equally applicable here. Moses is said to have writ- 
 ten certain specific portions, so that his authorship of 
 the whole is excluded. If the heading of the Song of 
 the Sea implies authorship, then we have the same dif- 
 ficulty of explaining a joint production as in the Song 
 of Deborah — " Then sang Moses and the children of 
 Israel this song unto Jahveh, and they said" (Ex. 
 XV. i). But we have these express statements: "And 
 Moses wrote all the words of Jahveh" (2*^., xxiv. 4), 
 i.e.^ the book of the covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.; cf. xxiv. 
 7) ; '' And Moses wrote their goings out according to 
 their journeys " (Num. xxxiii. 2), i. e., a list of the sta- 
 tions in the wilderness ; '' And Jahveh said unto Moses, 
 Write this for a memorial in a book " (Ex. xvii. 14), 
 i.e., the divine purpose to destroy Amalek ; "And 
 Jahveh said unto Moses, Write thou these words "(Ex. 
 xxxiv. 27), i. e., the so-called little book of the covenant 
 (Ex. xxxiv. 12-26). 
 
 Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a state- 
 ment that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. 
 We find many references to "the law of Moses," or 
 the "book of the law of Moses,^" but all in late 
 
 * Josh. viii. 3 if.; xxiii. 6. I. Kings ii. 3 ; II. Kings xiv. 6 (fairly 
 exact quotation of Deut. xxiv. 16) ; xxiii. 25. II. Chron. xxiii. 18; 
 XXX. 16. Ezra iii. 2; vii. 6. Neh. viii. i. Dan. ix. 11, 13. Mai. iv. 4. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, ng 
 
 sources, not one of them belonging- to the pre-exilic 
 period. We also find *' book of Moses,"* and once ** the 
 book of the law of Jahveh given by Moses" (II. Chron. 
 xxxiv. 14); but these obviously refer to the same thing. 
 It is evident that in the post-exilic period there was a 
 book of laws which was ascribed to Moses ; but as 
 this is invariably referred to as laiv, and never as his- 
 tory, it is obvious that the authorship of Moses was 
 connected with the Torah, and not with the com- 
 pleted Pentateuch. t 
 
 There are portions of the Pentateuch which may be 
 ascribed to Moses without repudiating plain evidence. 
 But that the whole was the production of the great 
 lawgiver has an accumulation of evidence against it 
 which is not easily set aside. If one who studies this 
 evidence is not convinced that the modern theory is 
 correct, he must at least admit that modern critics are 
 not carried away by conjectural theories, but have 
 some good evidence upon which to base their conclu- 
 sions. 
 
 * II. Chron. xxv. 4; xxxv. 12. Ezra vi. 18. Neh. xiii. i. 
 fSee further on this distinction, Delitzsch, "Com. on Genesis." 
 Introd. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 Zhc Ibeyateucb* 
 
 3. THE LAW. 
 
 IT IS perfectly evident that there are three parts of 
 the law in the Pentateuch. The divisions are 
 quite independent of any theory of date or author- 
 ship. There are : I. The code of the covenant (Ex. xx.- 
 xxiii.), to which the little code of the covenant (Ex. 
 xxxiv. 12-26) is a parallel. 2. The Deuteronomic code 
 (Deut. xii.-xxvi., xxviii.). 3. The so-called Priest-code, 
 filling a large part of Ex.xxv.-xL, the whole of Leviti- 
 cus, and considerable portions of Numbers. 
 
 That each of these is homogeneous, and each one 
 possessed of clear features which mark it off from the 
 others, is obvious from the contents. The first is very 
 simple, dealing chiefly with the social fabric of a sim- 
 ple community living upon the produce of their lands 
 and herds ; the second deals with the same conditions 
 more elaborately, and has a larger number of regula- 
 tions in the religious sphere ; while the third, though 
 not ignoring social matters altogether, is chiefly con- 
 cerned with the sacrificial rites, and related matters; it is 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 121 
 
 the Priests' law book, containing regulations by which 
 the Priests ruled the community; hence it is called the 
 Priest-code. The questions which we wish to consider 
 are, whether all these codes are likely to have come 
 from the same person, and whether all, or any of them, 
 can reasonably be assigned to the Mosaic age. 
 
 It should be noted at the outset that the first code 
 is said to have been given to Moses at Sinai immedi- 
 ately after the Exodus from Egypt; the second is said to 
 have been spoken by Moses in the land of Moab after 
 the conquest of Gilead and Bashan, therefore some 
 forty years later ; while the third was given at various 
 times; that in Ex. xxv.ff. in the third month after the 
 Exodus (Ex. xix. if. ; xxiv. I5ff.) ; that in Leviticus 
 after the tabernacle was set up, in the first month of 
 the second year ; that in Numbers in the second month 
 of the same year. Hence the first and third were given 
 within a year directly after the Exodus, while the sec- 
 ond was the last work of Moses, shortly before his 
 death. Therefore the code of the covenant, and, on the 
 assumption of the authorship of Moses, the Priest-code, 
 should show the initial stages of the Mosaic legislation, 
 and Deuteronomy should be its most developed prod- 
 uct. 
 
 It often happens that the same subjects are dealt 
 with in all three codes. Driver has given a useful table of 
 the Deuteronomic law, with the parallels from the other 
 codes (L. O. T.^, p. 73ff. ; "Deuteronomy," p. iv.-vii.). 
 
122 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 He classifies the Deuteronomic code (D)under sixty-six 
 subjects. In twenty-six of these cases D stands alone ; in 
 eight it has parallels with the code of the covenant (J E) 
 only ; in fifteen with the Priest-code (P) only; while in 
 seventeen it has parallels with both JE and P. D has 
 therefore parallels with JE in twenty-three cases, and 
 with P in thirty-two cases. There is one part of the 
 Piiest-code (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) which has marked features 
 of its own. It has, besides, features in common with Deu- 
 teronomy, and still more with Ezekiel, though not 
 enough to destroy its individual character. It is gener- 
 ally called the *' Law of Holiness," and denoted by the 
 symbol H. A study of Driver's table justifies the state- 
 ment that most of the parallels of D with P are in this 
 small section. 
 
 Much light is thrown upon the whole question of the 
 laws by such a comparative study as this table affords 
 convenient material for. We shall offer some of the 
 results of such comparative study. 
 
 I. THE LAW OF THE TITHE. 
 
 P DP 
 
 And to the sons of Levi Thou shalt surely And the 
 
 behold I have given all the tithe all the produce tithe of the 
 
 tithes in Israel for an in- of thy seed, which land, of the 
 
 heritance, the portion for the field yields each seed of the 
 
 their service which they do year. And thou shalt earth, of the 
 
 — the service of the tent of eat it before Jahveh fruit of the 
 
 meeting. And the Israel- thy God in the place tree, is Jah- 
 
 ites shall not again ap- where he chooses to veh's; it is 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 123 
 
 proach unto the tent of 
 meeting, committing thus a 
 mortal sin. But the Le- 
 vite shall do the service of 
 the tent of meeting, and 
 they shall bear their guilt — 
 an eternal statute for your 
 generations ; and among 
 the Israelites they shall 
 have no inheritance. For 
 the tithe of the Israelites, the 
 offering which they offer 
 to Jahveh, I have given to 
 the Levites for an inheri- 
 tance ; therefore I said to 
 them, Among the Israel- 
 ites they shall have no in- 
 heritance. 
 
 And Jahveh spoke to 
 Moses, saying, And unto 
 the Levites thou shalt 
 speak, and thou shalt say 
 unto them, When ye re- 
 ceive from the Israelites 
 the tithe which I have 
 given to you from them for 
 your inheritance, then ye 
 shall offer of it an offering 
 to Jahveh, a tenth of the 
 tithe. And your offering 
 shall be reckoned for you, 
 as the corn from the 
 
 place his name ; the 
 tithe of thy corn, of 
 thy wine,ofthyoil,and 
 the firstlings of thy 
 herd and of thy flock ; 
 in order that thou 
 mayst learn to fear 
 Jahveh thy God all 
 the days. And if the 
 way be too long for 
 thee, because thou 
 art not able to carry 
 it [the tithe], since 
 the place where Jah- 
 veh thy God chooses 
 to place his name is 
 far from thee, be- 
 cause Jahveh thy God 
 has blessed thee, 
 then thou shalt ex- 
 change it for money ; 
 and thou shalt bind 
 the money in thy 
 hand, and thou shalt 
 go unto the place 
 which Jahveh thy 
 God chooses. And 
 thou shalt exchange 
 the money for any- 
 thing which thy soul 
 desires, cattle, sheep, 
 wine, strong drink, 
 
 holy to Jah- 
 veh. And if 
 a man wish 
 to redeem 
 any of his 
 tithe, he shall 
 add a fifth 
 to it. And 
 all the tithes 
 of the herd 
 and of the 
 flock, all 
 which pass by 
 under the rod, 
 a tithe shall 
 be holy to 
 Jahveh. He 
 shall not dis- 
 tinguish be- 
 tween good 
 and bad ; he 
 shall not 
 change it. 
 But if he does 
 exchange it, 
 then that 
 which is ex- 
 changed shall 
 also be holy 
 to Jahveh : it 
 may not be 
 redeemed 
 
124 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 threshing-floor, and as the 
 overflow from the wine 
 fat. So shall ye also 
 offer the offering of Jah- 
 veh from all your tithes 
 which ye receive from the 
 Israelites ; and ye shall 
 give of it Jahveh's offering 
 to Aaron the priest. From 
 all your gifts ye shall offer 
 every offering of Tahveh, 
 from all its fat, that which 
 is holy of it. And thou 
 shalt say unto them, When 
 ye offer the fat of it, then 
 it shall be reckoned to 
 the Levites, as the produce 
 of the threshing-floor and 
 as the produce of the wine 
 fat. And ye shall eat it 
 in every place, ye and 
 your households, for it is 
 your wage, the portion of 
 your service in the tent of 
 meeting. And ye will 
 not commit sin by it, if ye 
 offer the fat of it ; and the 
 holy things of the Israel- 
 ites ye shall not profane ; 
 then ye shall not die 
 (Num. xviii. 21-32). 
 
 or anything which 
 thy soul demands ; 
 and thou shalt eat it 
 there before Jahveh 
 thy God, and thou 
 shalt rejoice, thou 
 and thy household. 
 And the Levite who 
 is in thy cities thou 
 shalt not neglect : 
 for he has no portion 
 nor inheritance with 
 thee. 
 
 At the end of 
 three years thou shalt 
 bring out all the 
 tithe of thy produce 
 for that year, and 
 place it in thy city. 
 And the Levite, since 
 he has no portion nor 
 inheritance with thee, 
 and the stranger, and 
 the orphan, and the 
 widow, who are in 
 thy city, shall come 
 in and eat to the full ; 
 that Jahveh thy God 
 may bless thee in all 
 the works of thy 
 hands which thou do- 
 est (Deut. xiv. 22-29). 
 
 (Lev. 
 30-33). 
 
 XSVll. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 125 
 
 D provides that a tithe of the produce of the land, 
 such as corn, wine, and oil, along with the firstlings of 
 the herd and of the flock, shall be eaten yearly (except 
 in the third year) at the central sanctuary as a joyful 
 feast. The Levite is to be invited to share this feast. 
 Every third year, however, the tithe is to be stored up 
 for the benefit of the poor. If the sanctuary is too far 
 to carry the tithe thither, it may be sold, and the money 
 used to purchase the supplies for the feast. 
 
 P (in Leviticus) declares that the produce of the flocks, 
 as well as the produce of the land and of the tree, is to 
 be tithed by taking every tenth animal, whether good 
 or bad, as they pass in single file under the rod ; and 
 this tithe belongs to Jahveh, that is, it is to be given 
 to the priests. The tithe could only be redeemed by 
 adding one-fifth to its value. In Numbers P prescribes 
 that the tithe should be given to the Levites, who in 
 turn should give a tithe of their tithe to the priests. 
 Those tithes were a return for the service of the Le- 
 vites and of the priests at the sanctuary. 
 
 The difference here is of a most radical kind. The 
 scope of the tithe is enlarged in P to include the 
 flocks. But the important difference is that in the one 
 case the offerer is to eat the tithe himself as a joyful 
 feast, the Levite receiving a share only as a charitable 
 gift ; in the other the tithe belongs entirely to the Le- 
 vites and priests. It is to be further observed that 
 (according to the traditional arrangement) D is the 
 
126 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 later code. A full discussion of the tithe and of the at- 
 tempts to reconcile these passages may be found in 
 Driver's '* Deuteronomy," p. i68fT.* 
 
 2. THE LAW OF THE SABBATH YEAR. 
 
 This law is found in all three codes as follows : 
 
 JE D P (H) 
 
 And for six years At the end of sev- And Jahveh spoke 
 
 thou shall sow thy en years thou shalt unto Moses in Mount 
 
 land, and gather its make a release ; and Sinai, saying, Speak 
 
 produce; but the sev- this is the manner of unto the Israelites 
 
 enth(year) thou shalt the release : Every and say unto them, 
 
 let it lie fallow. Thou creditor who has "When ye come into 
 
 shalt let it rest, that made a loan to his the land which I 
 
 the poor of thy peo- neighbor shall re- shall give you, the 
 
 pie may eat ; and lease it ; he shall land shall keep a sab- 
 
 what they leave, the not exact payment bath to Jahveh. Six 
 
 beast of the field of his neighbor and years shalt thou sow 
 
 shall eat. Likewise his brother ; for Jah- thy field, and six 
 
 shalt thou do to thy veh's release is pro- years thou shalt 
 
 vineyard and to thy claimed. He may prune thy vineyard, 
 
 oliveyard (Ex. xxiii. exact payment of the and thou shalt gather 
 
 10, II). alien, but what thou its produce. But in 
 
 * The difficulty has long been felt. Tobit (i. 7) tries to explain 
 the difference in a way that has often been followed : " The tenth 
 part of all mine increase I gave to the sons of Levi, who ministered 
 at Jerusalem ; and the second tenth part I sold away, and went, 
 and spent it each year at Jerusalem ; and the third I gave unto 
 those unto whom it was meet." But there is no hint in Deuteron- 
 omy of a second tithe. Tobit's third tithe is apparently the tithe 
 of the third year of Deuteronomy. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 127 
 
 hast against thy brother, thou shalt re- 
 lease. 
 
 If there shall be among thee a poor 
 man, one of thy brethren, in one of thy 
 cities, in thy land which Jahveh thy God 
 gives thee, thou shalt not harden thy 
 heart, nor withdraw thy hand from thy poor 
 brother; but thou shalt surely open thy 
 hand to him, and shalt freely lend him 
 sufficient for his need— whatever need he 
 may have. Guard thyself, lest there be 
 an evil thought in thy heart to say, The 
 seventh year, the year of release, draws 
 near ; and thy eye be evil towards thy poor 
 brother, and thou give not to him ; he 
 will cry to Jahveh against thee, and it 
 will be sin in thee. Thou shalt freely give 
 to him, and thy heart shall not be evil 
 when thou givest to him ; for because of 
 this thing Jahveh thy God will bless thee 
 in all thy work and in all to which thou 
 puttest thy hand. Because the poor will 
 not cease from the land, therefore I com- 
 mand thee saying. Thou shalt surely open 
 thy hand to thy brother, to the low- 
 ly and to the poor in thy land (Deut. xv. 
 1-3. 7-fO. 
 
 the seventh year 
 there shall be a sab- 
 bath of sacred rest 
 for the land, a sab- 
 bath to Jahveh. Thy 
 field thou shalt not 
 sow, and thy vine- 
 yard thou shalt not 
 prune. The natural 
 growth of thy harvest 
 thou shalt not reap, 
 and the grapes of thy 
 unpruned vine thou 
 shalt not gather ; it 
 shall be a year of sa- 
 cred rest for the land. 
 And the sabbath 
 yield of the land shall 
 be food for you, for 
 thee and for thy ser- 
 vant and for thy 
 maid and for thy hire- 
 ling and for thy visi- 
 tors who sojourn with 
 thee ; and for thy cat- 
 tle and for the beast 
 which is in thy land — 
 all its produce sha 11 be 
 food (Lev. XXV. 1-7). 
 
 JE provides that the land shall lie fallow every sev- 
 enth year, the natural produce of that year being free 
 
128 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 to the poor. The produce of the vineyard and olive- 
 yard were not to be gathered in that year, but like- 
 wise were left for the poor. P is in close agreement 
 with this provision in one respect ; namely, that no 
 cultivation was to be carried on in the seventh year. 
 But the institution is given a sacred character, *' the 
 land shall keep a sabbath untojahveh"; and though 
 there was to be no harvesting in that year, the natural 
 yield might be eaten in the field by the owner of the 
 land and his dependents, and by the domestic and wild 
 animals. There is not a word about the poor.. D has 
 nothing to say about the land ; the release has to do 
 only with debts and slaves (for the latter, see below). 
 All debts from one Hebrew to another were outlawed 
 in that year, but the debts of a foreigner were not af- 
 fected. The law recognizes the practical difficulty 
 which at once arises,"^ and warns the people that they 
 must not refuse to lend to the poor because the year 
 of release was at hand. 
 
 It does not follow that D does not know any sabbath 
 year for the land, though it speaks of the year of re- 
 lease (v. I.) as a new institution. But Exodus and 
 Leviticus certainly deal with the same institution, and it 
 
 * All modern laws for outlawing debts are based upon this code. 
 Six years is the usual period during which an ordinary debt is col- 
 lectible. But the difficulty suggested above is avoided by counting 
 the year of release from the time the debt is contracted. The He- 
 brews enjoined this method of reckoning for the release of slaves. 
 
THE MODERN POIMT OF VIEW. 129 
 
 is very difficult to explain these two codes if they are the 
 work of the same man and were issued at virtually the 
 same period. 
 
 3. LAWS OF SLAVERY. 
 
 JE D P(H) 
 When thou shalt buy If thy brother, a And if thy brother 
 a Hebrew slave, he shall Hebrew man or (who is) with thee 
 serve thee for six years ; woman, be sold to become poor, and 
 and in the seventh year thee, he shall serve is sold to thee, thou 
 he shall go forth free, thee for six years ; shalt not put upon 
 without ransom. If but in the seventh him the service of a 
 with his body (/. e. , year, thou shalt let slave. Like the hire- 
 alone) he came in, with him depart from ling, like the so- 
 his body he shall go thee free. And when journer, he shall be 
 forth ; if he had a wife, thou lettest him with thee. Unto the 
 then his wife shall go depart from thee year of jubilee he 
 forth with him. If his free, thou shalt not shall serve with thee; 
 master give him a wife, let him depart emp- then he shall go 
 and she bear to him ty : thou shalt load forth from thee, he 
 sons or daughters, the him from thy flock and his children 
 wife with her children and from thy thresh- with him; and he 
 shall belong to her ing floor and from shall return to his 
 master, and he shall go thy wine fat — of family, and to the 
 forth with his body, whatever J a hv e h possession of his 
 But if the slave shall thy God has blessed fathers he shall re- 
 say, I love my master, thee, thou shalt give turn. Since they 
 and my wife and my to him. And thou are my servants 
 children; I will not go shalt remember that whom I brought 
 forth free : then shall thou wast a slave in forth from the land 
 his master bring him the land of Egypt, of Egypt, they shall 
 to the judge, and shall and JahvehthyGod not be sold as the 
 bring him to the door ransomed thee: sale of a slave. 
 
130 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 or to the doorpost, and 
 his master shall bore 
 his ear with an awl ; 
 and he shall serve him 
 for life. 
 
 If a man shall sell his 
 daughter for a slave, 
 she shall not go forth 
 as the men slaves do. 
 If she is evil in the 
 eyes of her master, who 
 has espoused her to 
 himself, then he shall 
 let her be ransomed ; 
 he shall have no right 
 to sell her to a foreign 
 people, in that he has 
 deceived her. And if 
 he shall espouse her to 
 his son, according to 
 the custom of daugh- 
 ters shall he do to her. 
 If he take to him an- 
 other wife, her food, 
 her clothing, and her 
 marital rights he shall 
 not decrease. And if he 
 does not provide these 
 three things for her, 
 then she shall go forth 
 ransom - free, without 
 money (Ex. xxi. 2-1 1). 
 
 therefore I com- 
 mand thee this thing 
 to-day. And it shall 
 be if he says to thee, 
 I will not go forth 
 from thee, because 
 he loves thee and 
 thy household, hav- 
 ing found it well to 
 be with thee, then 
 thou shalt take an 
 awl, and place it in 
 his ear and in the 
 door, and he shall 
 be thy slave for life. 
 And thus thou shalt 
 do also to thy maid- 
 servant. It shall not 
 be hard in thy eyes, 
 when thou lettest 
 him depart from 
 thee free ; for with 
 double the hire of a 
 hireling he has 
 served thee six 
 years, and Jahveh 
 thy God will bless 
 thee in all thou 
 doest (Deut. xv. 
 12-18). 
 
 And thy slaves, 
 male and female 
 which thou hast of 
 the nations, who are 
 round about you, of 
 them shall ye buy 
 slaves. And also 
 of the sojourners 
 who abide with you, 
 of them and of their 
 family which is with 
 you, which they have 
 borne in your land, 
 shall ye buy, and 
 they shall be a pos- 
 session for you. 
 And ye may be- 
 queath them to your 
 sons after you, to 
 get a possession, for 
 life ye shall get 
 service of them. 
 But your brethren 
 the Israelites, each 
 one with his brother, 
 thou shalt not rule 
 over him with rigor 
 (Lev. XXV. 39-46). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 131 
 
 D connects with the year of release of debts the manu- 
 mission of Hebrew slaves. But there is this important 
 distinction, that the year of release came for each slave 
 at a different time; that is, he was set free after he had 
 served six years. Perpetual slavery for debt was not 
 to be permitted except it was voluntary. When the 
 slave was freed the law required that he be furnished 
 with such things as would be necessary for the re-es- 
 tablishment of an independent life. 
 
 This is a great restriction upon the earlier code 
 which released only Hebrew men in the seventh year. 
 The woman who was sold as a slave could only be 
 released in case her master had married her,^ and then 
 failed either in respect to food, clothing, or duties of 
 marriage. There is a further provision that if a master 
 gives a wife to a slave who is single, the wife and 
 children are not released in the seventh year. 
 
 The Levitical law is markedly different. The mas- 
 ter is forbidden to exact bond service of Hebrews. 
 This law aims virtually to abolish the slavery of He- 
 brews. They are to be dealt with as hired servants. 
 Contrary to Exodus, the children are to be released 
 with their fathers, but the release is in the year of jubi- 
 lee, the fiftieth year instead of the seventh. It is not 
 easy to see by what harmonistic ingenuity these codes 
 
 * This passage (Ex. xxi. 8) is very obscure ; I have given thie 
 generally received reading, which seems to me most probably 
 right. 
 
:32 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 can be assigned to the same author, and to the same 
 era. 
 
 4. THE FIRST-BORN OF ANIMALS. 
 
 JE D P 
 
 So shalt thou do Every firstling which But the firstling 
 
 with thy oxen and is born in thy herd and of thy oxen, or the 
 
 with thy sheep; in thy flock, the males, firstlingof thy sheep, 
 
 seven days it (/.(?., thou shalt dedicate to or the firstling of thy 
 
 thefirst-born)shall Jahveh thy God. Thou goats, thou shalt not 
 
 be with its dam : shalt not work the first- redeem ; they are 
 
 on the eighth ling of thy oxen, nor holy. Their blood 
 
 day thou shalt shear the firstling of thy thou shalt sprinkle 
 
 give it to me sheep. Before Jahveh upon the altar, and 
 
 (Ex. xxii. 30 ; cf. thy God thou shalt eat their fat thou shalt 
 
 xiii. iif., xxxiv. 19 it, thou and thy house- burn — a fire offering 
 
 — both in JE). hold, year by year, in for a sweet savor to 
 
 the place which Jahveh Jahveh. But their 
 
 chooses. But if there be in it any blemish, flesh shall be thine, 
 
 lameness or blindness, any evil blemish, thou Hke the wave breast 
 
 shalt not sacrifice it to Jahveh thy God ; in thy and like the 1 ight 
 
 city thou shalt eat it, the unclean and the thigh it shall be 
 
 clean alike (may eat), as (thou eatest) the roe- thine (N u m. xviii. 
 
 buck and the gazelle. Only its blood thou 17, 18). 
 shalt not eat; upon the ground thou shalt 
 pour it like water (Deut. xv. 19-23). 
 
 The first male born to every cow or sheep was to be 
 taken from its dam on the eighth day and given to the 
 Lord, according to JE. D is more explicit, and adapted 
 to a more advanced social order. As the sacrifice 
 could only be eaten at the central sanctuary, the regu- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 133 
 
 lation about seven days is abolished ; but the animal 
 was not to be used as a source of profit. D expressly 
 states that these firstlings are to be eaten as a sacri- 
 ficial feast at the central sanctuary. Only in case the 
 animal had a blemish, and so was unfit to serve as a 
 sacrifice, was it permitted to be eaten at home. 
 
 P forbids the redemption of these firstlings, and pro- 
 vides that their blood must be sprinkled upon the altar, 
 the fat burned for a fire offering — all this by priests ; 
 but the flesh belonged to the priests. That the lay- 
 man was to have nothing to do with the firstling it 
 made clear in Lev. xxvii. 26, "• Only the firstling among 
 beasts, which is made a firstling to Jahveh, no man 
 shall dedicate it ; whether it be ox or sheep, it is Jah- 
 veh's." This distinctly contradicts D, which says that 
 each man shall dedicate his own firstlings. 
 
 5. THE PILGRIM FEASTS. 
 
 JE D. P 
 
 Three times in Observe the month These are the 
 the year thou shalt Abib, and prepare a feasts of Jahveh, holy 
 keep a feast to me. passover to Jahveh thy convocations which ye 
 The feast of un- God ; for in the month shall convoke in their 
 leavened bread Abib Jahveh thy God season. In the first 
 thou shalt observe, brought thee out of month, on the four- 
 Seven days shalt Egypt by night. And teenth day of the 
 thou eat unleav- thou shalt sacrifice for month, between the 
 ened bread as I the passover of Jahveh evenings, is Jahveh 's 
 have commanded thy God sheep and cat- passover. And on the 
 thee, at the fixed tie in the place where fifteenth day of that 
 
134 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 time of the month 
 of Abib ; for in it 
 thou earnest out 
 of Egypt. None 
 shall see my face 
 empty. And the 
 feast of the har- 
 vest,the first-fruits 
 of thy labor, which 
 thou sowest in the 
 field. And the 
 feast of the in- 
 gathering, at the 
 end of the year, 
 when thou gather- 
 est thy labor from 
 the field. Three 
 times in the year 
 all thy males shall 
 appear before the 
 Lord Jahveh (Ex. 
 xxiii. 14-17). 
 
 Jahveh thy God 
 chooses to place his 
 name. With it thou 
 shalt not eat leav- 
 ened bread ; seven days 
 thou shalt eat with it 
 unleavened bread, the 
 bread of affliction — 
 for in haste thou went- 
 est out of the land of 
 Egypt — that thou may- 
 est remember the day 
 of thy going forth from 
 Egypt all the days of 
 thy life. And leaven 
 shall not be seen to 
 thee in all thy borders 
 for seven days. There 
 shall not remain till 
 morning any of the 
 flesh which thou sac- 
 rificest in the evening 
 of the first day. Thou 
 shalt not be allowed to 
 sacrifice the passover 
 in one of thy cities 
 which Jahveh thy God 
 gives thee; but at 
 the place where Jah- 
 veh thy God chooses 
 to place his name, 
 there shalt thou sac- 
 
 month is Jahveh's 
 feast of unleavened 
 bread ; seven days ye 
 shall eat unleavened 
 bread. On the first 
 day ye shall have a 
 holy convocation, ye 
 shall do no kind of 
 work. And ye shall 
 bring near Jahveh's 
 fire offerings seven 
 days ; on the seventh 
 day is a holy convoca- 
 tion, ye shall do no 
 kind of work. 
 
 When ye come into 
 the land which I give 
 you, and reap its har- 
 vests, then shall ye 
 bring in the first sheaf 
 of your harvest to the 
 priest; and he shall 
 wave the sheaf before 
 Jahveh for your wel- 
 fare ; the day after the 
 Sabbath the priest 
 shall wave it. 
 
 And ye shall reckon 
 you from the day after 
 the Sabbath, from the 
 day of your bringing 
 the wave sheaf, seven 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 135 
 
 rifice the passover 
 at evening, about sun- 
 set, the time of thy 
 going out of Egypt. 
 And thou shalt cook 
 and eat in the place 
 which Jahveh thy God 
 chooses. And in the 
 morning thou shalt re- 
 turn to thy home. Six 
 days shalt thou eat un- 
 leavened bread ; and 
 on the seventh day is 
 a holy assembly to Jah- 
 veh— thou shalt do no 
 work. 
 
 Seven weeks shalt 
 thou reckon— from the 
 beginning of cutting 
 the corn thou shalt be- 
 gin to reckon seven 
 weeks. And thou shalt 
 prepare a feast of 
 weeks to Jahveh thy 
 God ; after the measure 
 of the free-will offering 
 of thy hand, which 
 thou shalt give, as Jah- 
 veh thy God blesses 
 thee. And thou shalt 
 rejoice before Jahveh 
 thy God, thou and thy 
 
 Sabbaths in full num- 
 ber, until the day after 
 the seventh Sabbath 
 ye shall reckon fifty 
 days ; and ye shall 
 bring near a fresh veg- 
 etable offering to Jah- 
 V e h. From your 
 dwelling ye shall bring 
 two wave loaves — two 
 tenths of an ephah 
 of fine meal they shall 
 be— t hey shall be 
 baked with leaven as 
 first-fruits to Jahveh. 
 [With this were to be 
 sacrificed seven lambs, 
 one bullock, and two 
 rams, as a burnt offer- 
 ing to Jahveh ; also a 
 goat and two lambs as 
 a peace offering.] 
 
 But on the tenth of 
 this seventh month is 
 the day of atonement ; 
 it shall be a holy con- 
 vocation to you ; ye 
 shall humble your- 
 selves, and bring near 
 a fire offering to Jah- 
 veh. 
 
 On the fifteenth day 
 
136 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 son and thy daughter, 
 and thy manservant 
 and thy maidservant, 
 and the Levite who is 
 in thy city, and the 
 stranger and the or- 
 phan and the widow, 
 who are among thee — 
 in the place where Jah- 
 veh thy God chooses 
 to place his name. And 
 thou shalt remember 
 that thou wast a ser- 
 vant in Egypt, and 
 thou shalt observe to 
 do these statutes. 
 
 The feast of booths 
 thou shalt prepare for 
 thee seven days, when 
 thou gatherest from thy 
 threshing -floor and 
 from thy wine fat. And 
 thou shalt rejoice in 
 thy feast, thou and thy 
 son and thy daughter, 
 and thy manservant 
 and thy maidservant, 
 and the Levite and the 
 stranger, and the or- 
 phan and the widow, 
 who are in thy city. 
 Seven days thou shalt 
 
 of this seventh month 
 is the seven days' feast 
 of booths to Jahveh. 
 On the first day is a 
 holy convocation, ye 
 shall not do any kind 
 of work. Seven days 
 ye shall bring near a 
 fire offering to Jah- 
 veh ; on the eighth 
 day ye shall have a 
 holy convocation : ye 
 shall bring near a fire 
 offering to Jahveh. It 
 is a holy festival, ye 
 shall not do any kind 
 of work. 
 
 But on the fifteenth 
 day of the seventh 
 month, when ye have 
 gathered the produce 
 of the land, ye shall 
 keep a feast to Jah- 
 veh seven days. On 
 the first day shall be 
 a sacred rest, and on 
 the eighth day a sa- 
 cred rest. And on the 
 first day ye shall take 
 you the fruit of good 
 trees, branches of 
 palms, and boughs of 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW 
 
 137 
 
 keep a feast to Jahveh thickly- foliaged trees, 
 thy God in the place and of brook willows, 
 which Jahveh chooses ; and ye shall rejoice 
 
 for Jahveh thy God 
 will bless thee in all 
 thy produce and in all 
 the labor of thy hands, 
 and thou shalt be joy- 
 ful. Three times in the 
 year shall all thy males 
 
 before Jahveh your 
 God seven days. And 
 ye shall keep it as a 
 feast to Jahveh seven 
 days in the year— an 
 eternal statute for 
 your generations — in 
 
 which he shall choose 
 — in the feast of un- 
 leavened bread, and in 
 the feast of weeks, and 
 in the feast of booths ; 
 
 see the face of Jahveh the seventh month ye 
 thy God in the place shall keep it. 
 
 In the booths ye 
 shall live for seven 
 days— every native in 
 Israel shall live in the 
 booths, that your de- 
 and he shall not see scendants may know 
 the face of Jahveh emp- that I made the Israel- 
 ty; each one accord- ites live in booths 
 ing to the gift of his when I brought them 
 hand, according to the from the land of Egypt 
 blessing of Jahveh thy —I Jahveh your God 
 God which he gave (Lev.xxiii.4^11, 15-17^ 
 thee (Deut. xvi. 1-17). 27, 34-36, 39-43). 
 
 In JE, the three annual pilgrim feasts* are the 
 feast of unleavened bread, the harvest festival — when 
 the first-fruits were offered — and the feast of ingather- 
 
 * Yi^Q.yhag, a festival for whose celebration the people went on 
 pilgrimages to sanctuaries. 
 
138 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 ing. All the males were to keep these feasts before 
 Jahveh, i. c, at any sanctuary that might be conven- 
 ient. In Ex. xxxiv. 22, we find the feast of weeks 
 named instead of the harvest festival; but it is evident 
 that the same thing is meant, as it is connected in both 
 cases with the first-fruits. The identity of phraseology 
 in the two sections of JE (Ex. xxiii. 14-17 ; xxxiv. 
 18, 20, 22-25) offers material for reflection to the ob- 
 servant student. 
 
 D calls the feast of unleavened bread the Passover, 
 and gives much more detailed regulations for its ob- 
 servance. The Passover festival must be kept at the 
 central sanctuary. This law is evidently dependent 
 upon JE's account of the institution of the two fes- 
 tivals. The harvest festival, or that of the first-fruits, 
 is in D the feast of weeks. The time is fixed by the 
 ripening of the corn ; but the feast is kept seven weeks 
 after the corn is ripe. And this reference to the ripen- 
 ing of the corn is the only hint of first-fruits in this 
 code. In place of the feast of the ingathering we have 
 the feast of booths or tabernacles. The time is fixed 
 but vaguely, after the harvest is gathered. There is 
 no explanation of the booths. Both these festivals are 
 to be joyous occasions, and are to be characterized by 
 liberality toward the widow, the fatherless, and other 
 poor. The Deuteronomic code does not precisely fix 
 the date of any of the festivals ; even the Passover 
 is left with no more definite date than the month 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 139 
 
 Abib.'^' All the festivals were to be observed at the 
 central sanctuary. 
 
 P (in Leviticus) makes a distinction between the feasts 
 of the Passover and unleavened cakes, and prescribes 
 the exact day for each. The date of the feast of 
 weeks is more exactly determined than in D. The 
 first sheaf of the harvest was to be given to the priest 
 to be waved before Jehovah on the day after the Sab- 
 bath. Seven weeks after this day is the feast of weeks. 
 The name feast of weeks is indeed not used here ; but 
 the details are given as to the offerings, which are 
 both animal and vegetable. The feast of weeks is fixed 
 by P upon the fifteenth day of the seventh month. 
 There is an appendix to the feast regulations which 
 gives still another version of the law for the feast of 
 booths : fruits, boughs and branches were to be used 
 as symbols of joy, and the people were to dwell in 
 booths for seven days. There the feast is given an 
 historical connection, being derived from the Exodus. 
 
 * In the early codes the feasts were movable, because they were 
 connected with the harvests, and the time of observance was de- 
 pendent upon the ripening of the harvest. In P they have become 
 fixed (see Addis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," II., p. 176). Our 
 Thanksgiving Day is left to the civil authorities to fix according to 
 the time the harvests are ripe, and this would be different in differ- 
 ent years and in different parts of the country. But in actual 
 practice the date has become fixed at a time when the harvests of 
 the whole land have been gathered. 
 
I40 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 In Num. xxviii , xxix.,"^ P is chiefly occupied with the 
 regulations for the sacrifices to be offered on each day 
 of the feasts. JE and D have no regulations about 
 these. Leviticus prescribes only that a fire offering be 
 made each day for the feasts of unleavened bread and 
 of booths ; but for the feast of weeks, two loaves of 
 bread, seven lambs, one bullock, two rams, one goat 
 and two lambs (a peace offering) are to be offered. 
 Numbers requires two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, 
 and one goat, for each of the seven days of the feast of 
 unleavened cakes, besides the regular daily offering of 
 the morning: for the festival of the first-fruits, two bul- 
 locks, one ram, seven lambs, one goat, are prescribed; 
 while during the feast of tabernacles there was a total 
 of seventy-one bullocks, fifteen rams, one hundred and 
 five lambs, and eight goats. This law is concerned 
 with the priestly celebration, and has little concern 
 with the people's use of the festival. 
 
 It is very difficult to explain how one individual, at 
 one time, could be responsible for such a varying ec- 
 clesiastical year as that prescribed in these various 
 codes. The variations are perfectly natural if we sup- 
 pose the three codes to be products either of three 
 different periods in Hebrew history, each code adapted 
 to the peculiar conditions of its period, or of different 
 
 * I have not deemed it necessary to quote this elaborate, repe- 
 titious passage ; the summary of its contents given here is quite 
 sufftcient for my purpose. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 141 
 
 schools within the Jewish Church. It is especially 
 
 difficult to understand, in this and other cases, how 
 
 Deuteronomy could have been a later law than the 
 Priest-code. 
 
 6. PRIESTLY REVENUES. 
 
 D P 
 
 There shall be no portion nor And the right shoulder from 
 inheritance for the priests, the the sacrifice of your peace offer- 
 Levites, the whole tribe of Levi ; ings ye shall give to the priest as 
 the fire offerings of Jahveh and a heave offering. Whoever of 
 his inheritance they shall eat. the sons of Aaron shall offer the 
 But lie shall have no inheritance blood and the fat of the peace 
 among his brothers ; Jahveh is offering, to him shall belong the 
 his inheritance as he spoke to right shoulder for a share. For 
 him. And this shall be the due the wave breast and the heave 
 of the priests from the people, shoulder I have taken from the 
 from those offering sacrifices, Israelites, for the sacrifice of 
 whether cattle or sheep : he their peace offerings, and I have 
 shall give to the priest the given them to Aaron the priest 
 shoulder and the cheeks and the and to his sons from the Israel- 
 maw ; the first of thy corn, thy ites by an eternal statute (Lev. 
 wine, and thy oil, and the first vii. 32-34). 
 fleece of thy flocks, thou shalt And Jahveh said to Aaron, 
 give to him. For Jahveh thy Thou and thy sons and thy 
 God has chosen him from all thy father's house with thee shall 
 tribes to stand to minister in the bear the guilt of the sanctuary ; 
 name of Jahveh, he and his sons and thou and thy sons with thee 
 all the days. shall bear the guilt of your 
 And if the Levite shall come priesthood. And also thy breth- 
 from one of thy cities, from any ren the tribe of Levi, the tribe of 
 part of Israel where he sojourns, thy father, bring thou near with 
 
142 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and shall come in all the desire thee, that they may attach them- 
 of his soul to the place which selves to thee and minister to 
 Jahveh chooses, then he shall thee; but thou and thy sons 
 minister in the name of Jahveh, with thee shall be before the 
 as the rest of his brethren the tent of testimony. 
 Levites who stand there before And Jahveh said to Aaron, 
 Jahveh ; like portions shall they Behold, I have given thee the 
 eat, besides his sellings (Deut. charge of my heave offering, all 
 xviii. 1-8). the holy things of the Israelites, 
 
 to thee and to thy sons have I 
 given them as a holy due by an 
 eternal statute. This shall be 
 thine from the holiest things from the fire : every holy gift, every 
 vegetable offering, every sin offering, and every guilt offering, which 
 they shall render to me— the holiest things shall be for thee and 
 thy sons. Of the holiest things thou shalt eat, every male shall eat 
 it, it is holy to thee. And this is for thee : their heave gift, all the 
 wave offerings of the Israelites; to thee and to thy sons and to thy 
 daughters with thee have I given them by an eternal statute ; every 
 clean one in thy house may eat it. All the best oil, and all the best 
 wine and corn, their first-fruits which they give to Jahveh, to thee 
 have I given them. The first-born of everything which is in their 
 land, which they bring to Jahveh, is thine ; every clean one in thy 
 house may eat it. Every devoted thing in Israel is thine. Every 
 first-born of all flesh, of man or beast, which they bring near to 
 Jahveh is thine ; but the first-born of man thou must redeem, and 
 the first-born of unclean cattle thou s'halt redeem. And their re- 
 demption — thou shalt redeem from a month old — at thy valuation 
 shall be five shekels of silver— the holy shekel which is twenty 
 gerahs. But the first-born of oxen, or the first-born of sheep, or the 
 first-born of goats, thou shalt not redeem: they are holy; their 
 blood thou shalt sprinkle upon the altar, and their fat thou shalt 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 143 
 
 burn, a fire offering, a sweet savor to Jahveh. And their flesh 
 shall be thine : like the wave breast and the right shoulder, it shall 
 be thine. All the holy wave offerings which the Israelites offer to 
 Jahveh, I have given them to thee and to thy sons and to thy 
 daughters with thee by an eternal statute, an eternal covenant of 
 salt it is before Jahveh, to thee and to thy seed with thee. 
 
 And Jahveh said to Aaron, In their land thou shalt not inherit ; 
 and thou shalt have no portion among them : I am thy portion and 
 thy inheritance among the Israelites (Num. xviii. if., 8-20). 
 
 In D, priest and Levite are synonymous, that is, every 
 Levite is ipso facto a priest, and he is not to be denied 
 priestly duties and revenues if he comes from the coun- 
 try districts to the sanctuary at Jerusalem. The shoul- 
 der, the two cheeks and the maw of all animals offered 
 in sacrifice, the first-fruits of all vegetable produce, 
 and the first fleece of the sheep shall be given to him. 
 The Levite who came from the country districts, who 
 had been serving presumably at the local sanctuaries, 
 was to have a full share of the priestly dues in addition 
 to whatever else he might possess. The expression, 
 "besides his sellings," is hopelessly obscure. We 
 cannot tell what is referred to precisely; but the term 
 must cover some property of the Levite apart from that 
 coming from the temple service. 
 
 In Numbers we find a still more developed condition. 
 The sons of Aaron only are the priests, and the other 
 Levites are subordinates, restricted in their service at 
 the sanctuary. The revenues of the priests are now 
 the whole of the offerings, the heave offerings, the veg- 
 
144 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 etable ofiferings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, besides 
 the best of the oil, of the vintage, of the corn, and all 
 the first-fruits. All the first-born belong to the priests, 
 and the people were required to pay redemption money 
 for the first-born of man and of unclean animals. 
 
 It is noteworthy that in the earliest code (JE), though 
 priests are mentioned, there is not a word about any 
 priestly revenues. 
 
 7. A most instructive case, which shows very clearly 
 the independent origin of the two earlier codes, is found 
 in the Decalogue. Every one knows that we have two 
 recensions of the Ten Words, but every one does not 
 appear to appreciate the significance of the fact. If in 
 any part of the Old Testament we should expect a 
 standard and unvarying text, reaching back to the days 
 of its origin, it would be in the case of the Decalogue. 
 It is said of both codes that they were written di- 
 rectly by God (Ex. xxxi. 18; xxxiv. i, 4, 2Z\ Deut. x. 
 4). While it is presumably true that no one interprets 
 this expression literally, still it cannot be denied that 
 the statement shows the high reverence in which these 
 tables of the law were held. Yet we find that the au- 
 thors or editors of the different books did not scruple 
 to put forth versions which do not agree. 
 
 The most radical difference is in the law of the Sab- 
 bath, but there is considerable variation also in the law 
 against covetousness. The two versions of these two 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 145 
 
 laws are placed side by side, the more notable differ- 
 ences being put in italics in the Deuteronomic version. 
 
 Ex. XX. Deut. v. 
 
 Remember the Sabbath day Keep the Sabbath day to sanc- 
 
 to make it holy. Six days thou tify it, as /ahveh thy God com- 
 
 shak labor and do all thy work. ma7ided thee. Six days thou 
 
 But the seventh day is the Sab- shalt labor and do all thy work, 
 
 bath of Jahveh thy God. Thou But the seventh day is the Sab- 
 
 shalt do no work, thou and thy bath of Jahveh thy God. Thou 
 
 son and thy daughter, thy man- shalt do no work, thou and thy 
 
 servant and thy maidservant, son and thy daughter, a7id thy 
 
 and thy cattle, and thy guest manservant and thy maidser- 
 
 who is in thy gates. For in six vant, and thy ox a7td thy ass 
 
 days Jahveh made the heavens aiid all thy cattle, and thy guest 
 
 and the earth and the sea, and who is in thy gates ; in order 
 
 all that is in them ; and he that thy majiservant and thy 
 
 rested on the seventh day. 
 Therefore Jahveh blessed the 
 Sabbath day to make it holy. 
 
 Thou shalt not covet thy 
 neighbor's house. Thou shalt 
 not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
 nor his manservant nor his 
 
 maidservant may rest as well 
 as thou. And remefnber that 
 thou wast a servant iri the land 
 of Egypt, a?id that Jahveh thy 
 Godbrot4ght thee out from there 
 by a strong hand and by an out- 
 stretched arjn. Therefore Jah- 
 veh thy God commanded thee to 
 
 maidservant, nor his ox nor his 
 
 ass, nor anything which is thy make the Sabbath day. 
 
 neighbor's (Vs. 8-1 1, 17). Thou shalt not covet thy 
 
 neighbor's wife. Thou shalt 
 not desire thy neighbor's house, 
 
 his field, nor his manservant nor his maidservant, nor his ox nor 
 
 his ass, nor anything which is thy neighbor's (Vs. 12-15, 21). 
 There is a radical difference here in that the divine 
 
146 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 institution of the Sabbath is placed on different 
 grounds : in the one case man is to do no labor because 
 God rested from His creative work on the seventh day, 
 in the other that the servants might have rest as well 
 as their masters. Both of these might indeed be rea- 
 sons for observing the Sabbath ; but they could not 
 both be the ground of its divine institution. It is cer- 
 tainly quite inconceivable that Moses should have been 
 responsible for both of these versions. 
 
 If one examines the peculiarities of the Deuteronomic 
 version it will be seen that the additions are quite in 
 the spirit of the Deuteronomic writer. His interest is 
 always on the side of the weak as against the strong. 
 It is but natural, therefore, that he should place the in- 
 stitution of the Sabbath on humanitarian grounds. 
 The version in Exodus is connected with the earliest 
 code of law. But the institution of the Sabbath is 
 based on the account of the creation in six days; and 
 this account is the later version of the creation story — 
 that ascribed to the priestly writer. It may seem at 
 first sight as if this is a case in which modern criticism 
 comes to grief. In fact, however, it shows the manner 
 in which these variations originated. 
 
 Let us suppose that the original form of this law was 
 simply, " Keep the Sabbath day to make it holy." 
 The author of Deuteronomy not only states what the 
 laws are, but delights also to make appeals for their 
 observance, and to give reasons for doing so. The 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 147 
 
 most common reason for observing the laws was to him 
 the divine deliverance from Egypt. This deliverance 
 would therefore be brought into connection with the 
 Sabbath law. There had already grown around the 
 ancient law some details of its application. The Deu- 
 teronomist makes his characteristic addition. 
 
 The later writer who told the story of the creation 
 connected the institution of the Sabbath with that 
 event (Gen.i. i-ii. 4^). To him the Sabbath was older 
 than Moses, as old, in fact, as man himself. He there- 
 fore added to the earlier code of the law a reason for 
 its institution in agreement with his conception of the 
 creation of the world. This may seem to be a mere 
 supposition; but it has this value, that it explains the 
 facts before us. Indeed, there is good reason to believe 
 that all of the commandments in their original form were 
 terse prohibitions and injunctions, and the promises 
 and detailed explanations were additions made later 
 for their better understanding. The student of New 
 Testament times knows that such additions to the law 
 continued up to that period, though, of course, these 
 did not get a place in the canon. 
 
 Our Lord's statement that the Sabbath was made 
 for man, and not man for the Sabbath, would seem to 
 have its basis in the Deuteronomic version; and it is a 
 great pity that it is not that version which is in com- 
 mon use in the Christian Church. If God did not 
 create the world in six days and rest on the seventh, 
 
148 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the ground of the institution as given in Exodus disap- < 
 pears. No discovery, and no criticism, can ever inval- I 
 idate the ground given in Deuteronomy, because it is , 
 based on that eternally valid law, '' Thou shalt love 
 thy neighbor as thyself." 
 
 Enough cases have now been cited to make it evi- j 
 dent that the theory that the whole body of law in the \ 
 Pentateuch is the work of one man, in one age, is be- | 
 set with the most perplexing difficulties." The diffi- ■ 
 culties would not be much less if we were to enlarge our ' 
 investigation and consider the many cases in which the \. 
 laws in the parallel codes are in close agreement. The \ 
 facts which a comparative study of these laws reveals 
 are the more perplexing to the student who is disposed \ 
 to accept the verdict of the Anglican bishops, that ex- 
 ternal evidence is to be given due weight; for there is \ 
 no doubt that the laws were generally ascribed to 
 Moses. We have already seen that while the Penta- 
 teuch as a whole cannot be regarded as a Mosaic work, 
 even on the ground of the Hebrew tradition, yet that 
 same tradition does ascribe the law to Moses. The 
 difficulty is therefore of a disagreement of the contents , 
 of the laws with the opinion as to their origin held by i 
 
 those who incorporated the laws into their narratives. | 
 
 I 
 
 * Prof. G. L. Robinson has published an article in The Expositor, \ 
 Am. Ed., November, 1898, in which he seeks to show that there are \ 
 no serious discrepancies or contradictions in these codes. It cannot 
 be said, however, that he has made out a very strong case. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 149 
 
 The laws in JE (Ex. xx.-xxiii.,xxxiv.) are the simplest 
 and the earliest. It may be well to examine them to 
 see what aid we can get from their contents to fix the 
 date of this particular code. It is desirable to keep in 
 mind the fact that these laws are said to have been 
 given directly after the successful flight from Egypt. 
 There was then gathered at the mountain a large com- 
 pany of nomads, many of whom had been engaged in 
 slave service but a few weeks before. 
 
 Now, there are many features in these laws which 
 disclose a very different situation. The slave who 
 elects to stay with his master was to stand up against 
 the djor or doorpost to have his ear pierced (Ex. xxi. 
 6). Manifestly, this expression presupposes houses as 
 dwellings, not tents. The appointment of a place of 
 refuge (xxi. 13) presupposes a life with a fixed habitat. 
 The laws concerning the compensation for a destroyed 
 field or vineyard, or standing corn (xxii. 5,6) presuppose 
 agricultural life as an existing institution. So also do 
 the offering of the first-fruits and of the liquors (xxii. 
 29; xxiii. 19), and the Sabbath year in which the land 
 is to lie fallow (xxiii. loff.), the feasts of harvest and 
 of ingathering {ib., v. 16). 
 
 Not only do such details as these indicate that these 
 laws were put into their present form for a people who 
 had already passed from the purely nomadic to the ag- 
 ricultural stage of life, but the whole tenor of the laws 
 suggests that the people for whom they were formu- 
 
150 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 lated were in a settled state of life in a fixed place of 
 abode. The state of bondage in Egypt is looked upon 
 as a condition of the distant past. The attempt to ex- 
 plain these facts on the ground that the laws were 
 given by Moses, not for the present condition, but for 
 the future condition, when the Israelites should be es- 
 tablished in Canaan, and are therefore anticipatory, 
 breaks down at the start. For it has been pointed out 
 that the laws presuppose agricultural life as already 
 existing. 
 
 But there is a still more serious difficulty. The an- 
 ticipatory theory applies with much more reason to the 
 Deuteronomic and priestly codes, where, in fact, we 
 frequently read that such and such is to be the law 
 when the people shall have entered into their land. 
 Now one anticipatory code we could readily understand, 
 coming from a man with the foresight and forethought 
 of Moses; but three anticipatory codes, often at vari- 
 ance with each other, only remove the difficulty to an- 
 other sphere; and certainly such an explanation does 
 not testify to the fulness of Moses' inspiration. The 
 establishment of a new law without repeal of an exist- 
 ing law, or even a reference to it, is difficult to con- 
 ceive ; and in the canon all these laws stand on the 
 same plane, though it is not possible that all should 
 have been put into effect at the same time. 
 
 Are we then reduced to the alternatives of holding to 
 the Mosaic authorship of these laws in spite of the great 
 
rHE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 151 
 
 difficulties involved, or else of holding that their ascrip- 
 tion to Moses by the compiler is either an inexcusable 
 error or a deliberate misrepresentation of facts ? By 
 no means. The Jewish tradition which represents 
 Moses as the author of all Hebrew law has unquestion- 
 ably a solid basis of fact. Moses appears at the outset 
 as the great judge. Before the reputed delivery of the 
 law to Moses, we find Jethro visiting his son-in-law, 
 and finding him so engrossed with the adjustment of 
 the disputes of the Hebrews that he was likely to break 
 down (Ex. xviii.). Now it is well known that the first 
 and highest form of law is the decision of the chief 
 judge. In the United States, a decision of the Su- 
 preme Court has a greater legal authority than an Act 
 of Congress. In fact this Court has often set a legis- 
 lative act aside, and frequently there is great uncer- 
 tainty about an ordinance ; for until this court has 
 passed upon an Act of Congress no one knows whether 
 it will stand as law or not. 
 
 There is preserved in the Bible an illustration of 
 the manner in which the laws of Moses probably 
 first originated. Zelophehad, a Manassite, had died 
 leaving daughters, but no sons. His daughters de- 
 manded that a possession be given to them. Moses 
 took the case before Jehovah and decided that their 
 claim was just, and from that established the law of 
 inheritance (Num. xxvii. i-ii): with this further re- 
 striction, that daughters who inherited property un- 
 
152 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 der this law should forfeit the property if they married 
 outside of their tribe (Num. xxxvi.). 
 
 The history of David furnishes us with a similar case. 
 He decided that the two hundred who had been too 
 exhausted to go to the end of the pursuit after the 
 Amalekites should have as full a share of the booty as 
 the others : " And it was so from that day forward, that 
 he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel, unto 
 this day" (I. Sam. xxx. 25). 
 
 The decisions of Moses, sitting as the supreme judge, 
 were the basis of Hebrew law ; but there must have 
 been a continual development, as further decisions of 
 new cases came up before the successors of the first 
 and greatest judge. If a code of laws had been formu- 
 lated soon after the Hebrews were settled in their pos- 
 sessions in Canaan, the groundwork of that law must 
 have been Mosaic, however it was developed to meet 
 new conditions. The basis of the code of the cove- 
 nant may therefore be Mosaic, even though it did not 
 take its present form until long after Moses' time. 
 
 When the Jahvist was writing his history of Israel, 
 how could he do otherwise than ascribe the existing 
 code of laws to the great law-giver? 
 
 The laws of Deuteronomy are based upon the code 
 of the covenant. They are at many points more elab- 
 orate and definite, and new laws to meet the new re- 
 quirements of a more developed life find their place. 
 These additions are the result of a long accumulation 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 
 
 153 
 
 of judicial decisions ; but the final codifier would have 
 seemed intolerably arrogant to his contemporaries if 
 he had associated any other name than Moses with 
 those laws. 
 
 The student of Hebrew uses to-day the twenty-sixth 
 edition of Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar. It has been 
 rhany years since the book received its last revision at 
 the hand of its author. The present grammar contains 
 a large amount of material of which Gesenius knew 
 nothing. These additions and changes have been 
 necessary to keep the book abreast of the times. But 
 one reading the book has no means of knowing what 
 belongs to the original author, and what is the result 
 of successive editings. Nevertheless, he feels that he 
 is committing no sin when he calls the book Gesenius's 
 Grammar ; and that is, as a matter of fact^ its usual 
 designation. 
 
 The Priest-code offers much more serious difficulties. 
 It not only is not consistent with the other codes, but, 
 as we have seen, is not always consistent with itself. 
 These inconsistencies are, however, easily explained 
 on the probable hypothesis that the Priest-code, like 
 the civil code, was the result of a long growth, there 
 being no pains to reconcile the earlier and the later por- 
 tions. Some portions of P may be as early as Moses. 
 But the date of the completed code, as we now have 
 it, is not so easily ascertainable, and it is not easy to 
 find a satisfactory Mosaic basis for it. While it is true 
 
154 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 that a large number of critics at the present day regard 
 this code in its present form as a post-exilic product, 
 there are some who adhere to the view of Diilmann 
 that it is pre-exilic. It does not fall to us to attempt 
 to decide this question ; but it is desirable to set forth 
 some of the facts which anyone must reckon with who 
 attempts to settle the date of this code. 
 
 The attitude of the greatest of the pre-exilic proph- 
 ets is extremely hard to reconcile with the theory of 
 the Mosaic origin of the Priest-code. On the face of 
 it there seems to be a strong antipathy toward the 
 ceremonial law as such. The following passages will 
 repay careful consideration : 
 
 " I hate, I scorn your feasts, and I delight not in your sacred as- 
 semblies. If ye offer to me burnt offerings and your vegetable 
 offerings, I will not favor them, and your fat peace offerings I will 
 not regard. Take away from me the noise of thy songs, and the 
 melody of thy viols let me not hear " (Amos v. 21-23). 
 
 " For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice : knowledge of God, rather 
 than burnt offerings" (Hosea vi. 6; cf. I. Sam. xv. 22; Matt, vii. 2iff.; 
 ix. 13; xii. 3ff.). 
 
 " With what shall I come before Jahveh } With what shall I 
 bow down to the high God } Shall I come before him with burnt 
 offerings, with calves a year old ? Will Jahveh be pleased with 
 thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil.^ Shall I give my 
 first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of 
 my soul ? O man, he has made known to thee what is good : and 
 what does Jahveh demand of thee but to do justice, and to love 
 mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Mich. vi. 6-8). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 155 
 
 "Why is there to me the multitude of your sacrifices, saith Jah- 
 veh ? I am satiated with burnt offerings, rams, and fat beasts : 
 and I Hke not the blood of bullocks and rams and goats. When 
 ye come to see my face, who has asked this of your hands — to 
 trample my courts ? Bring me no more empty offerings ; incense 
 is an abomination to me ; new moon and sabbath, the convoking of 
 assemblies — I cannot endure sin and sacred assembly. Your new 
 moons and your fixed feasts my soul hates ; they have become a 
 burden upon me, which I am weary of bearing" (Isa. i. 11-14). 
 
 " Why now does incense from Sheba come to me ? and sweet 
 cane from a distant land ? Your burnt offerings are no delight, 
 and your sacrifices are not agreeable to me" (Jer. vi. 20), 
 
 It is true that these passages are often explained as 
 referring to the abuse of the sacrificial system. Un- 
 doubtedly it was abused in the time of the prophets, as 
 in the time of our Lord. But if the Priest-code had 
 been known by these prophets to be a work of Moses, 
 a work of divine sanction and authority; would they 
 have spoken in such a way as to leave in doubt, to say 
 the least, their meaning? There are, however, two 
 passages which are not susceptible of such an easy ex- 
 planation. 
 
 " Did ye bring me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the 
 wilderness, O house of Israel ? ' (Amos v. 25) — evidently implying a 
 negative answer. " Thus saith Jahveh Sabaoth the God of Israel : 
 Add to your sacrifices and eat flesh ; for I did not speak to your 
 fathers, nor did I command them, in the day of my bringing them 
 from the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice " 
 (Jer. vii. 2 if.). 
 
156 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 These statements are quite at variance with the 
 priestly conception of the law as originating at the 
 very dawn of the sojourn in the wilderness. 
 
 It must be remembered that the substance of the 
 priestly code is fairly summed up in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, "without shedding of blood there is no re- 
 mission of sins." It is quite impossible to ascribe such 
 a doctrine to the prophets quoted above. This is a 
 case, and by no means the only one, where Jewish 
 tradition has put an unnecessary burden upon the 
 Christian conscience, in that it represents the prophets 
 as assailing the institutions of Moses. If the Priest-code 
 is a product of the post-exilic age, the difficulty at once 
 disappears of itself. The voice of prophecy died out in 
 that period. In Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the 
 voice is feeble as compared with Isaiah and Amos. In 
 the age of the Maccabees the people lament that there 
 is no prophet to tell them what to do with the stones 
 they had pulled down from the altar (I. Mac. iv. 46 ; 
 cf. ix. 27). But their conception of the prophet shows 
 how little they understood the greatness of their own 
 prophets of the past. Prophecy as a divine institution 
 belongs to the pre-exilic and the exilic age. The re- 
 ligion of the Jews in the post-exilic age became from 
 the start sacerdotal. The Priest-code got a hold then, 
 and kept its hold, and was in full force at the advent 
 of our Lord. 
 
 There is no reason to doubt that the sacerdotal sys- 
 
THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 157 
 
 tem of the Jews was of divine origin. But the priestly 
 and prophetic find no reconciliation in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; whether they waged war in the same period, as 
 Jewish tradition requires us to hold, or were the prod- 
 ucts of successive ages, as modern criticism holds, the 
 two systems find a harmonious place side by side only 
 in Christianity. It certainly is easier to believe that 
 God gave to each age what was best for it — so the 
 prophets to one age, and the priests to another — than 
 that He at one time raised up both prophets and priests 
 at warfare with each other. 
 
 The nearest approach in the Old Testament to a 
 reconciliation between these two religious institutions 
 is in the prophet Ezekiel. He was priest and prophet 
 both. He belonged to the highest family of priests, 
 that of Zadok. Jeremiah v/as a priest, too, but the 
 prophet in him buries the priest entirely out of sight. 
 But in Ezekiel, while he was a real prophet, though not 
 a great one, the priest, too, is always in evidence. If 
 therefore any prophet would have had a veneration for 
 a priestly law dating back to Moses, Ezekiel would 
 have been that one. But the fact is that this prophet 
 by the Chebar drew up a priestly law of his own, and 
 that quite different from the Priest-code. This is not 
 less remarkable when we recall the circumstances 
 under which this prophet formulated his law. 
 
 After the fall of Jerusalem, Ezekiel, in confident ex- 
 pectation that the exiles would be restored to their 
 
158 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 own land, drew up a constitution for the new state. 
 His interest was largely in the ceremonial fabric. 
 Ezekiel marks a transition from the prophetic code of 
 Deuteronomy to the Priest-code. We have already 
 seen that in the former every Levite is at least poten- 
 tially a priest, while in the latter, only the family of 
 Aaron are priests, the mass of the Levites doing the 
 common service at the sanctuary. Ezekiel explains 
 the transition. The Levites had served as priests at 
 the local shrines, the high places, and for this offence 
 they are reduced, having oversight at the gates of the 
 house, and ministering in the house : " They shall slay 
 the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people" 
 (Ezek. xHv. ii). 
 
 The offering for the day of atonement in Ezekiel 
 (xlv. i8ff.), is a young bullock, whose blood is to be 
 placed upon the doorposts of the temple, upon the 
 four corners of the ledges of the altar, and upon the 
 posts of the gate of the inner court. Moreover, in 
 Ezekiel, this day of atonement comes twice a year : 
 on New Year's day, and on the first day of the seventh 
 month.^ 
 
 In Lev. xvi. we find a very elaborate ritual for this 
 day, which is the tenth day of the seventh month. 
 Besides the bullock there were two goats, one the 
 scapegoat, the other a burnt offering. The blood of 
 
 * Adopiing in Ezek. xlv. 20 the more probable text of the LXX.: 
 see Davidson, " Camb. Bib.," /« loc. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 159 
 
 the bullock and of the goat was to be sprinkled upon 
 the mercy-seat and upon the horns of the altar. 
 
 Ezekiel forbids a priest to marry any divorced 
 woman, or any widow save that of a priest (xliv. 22). 
 He makes no allusion anywhere to a high priest. In 
 Leviticus the priests are forbidden to marry a harlot 
 or any one divorced ; but they are permitted to marry 
 widows (xxi. 7) ; the high priest, however, is permitted 
 to marry no one but a Jewish virgin- (v. 14). 
 
 Many other indications point to the late date of this 
 law. There is no evidence in the pre-exilic history or 
 literature of the existence of this code, while there are 
 many things done which are at variance with its regu- 
 lations. Kings offer sacrifice ; many served as priests 
 who were not even of the Levitical stock ; both Joshua 
 (Ex. xxxiii. 11) and Samuel (I. Sam. iii. 3ff.) performed 
 functions in the sanctuary which this code permits only 
 the Levites to do ; the Ark was taken into battle, and 
 when it was carried back, Uzzah, who was neither 
 priest nor Levite, was its guardian. -'- 
 
 On the other hand, when we come into the age after 
 Ezra we find the regulations of this code coming to 
 the front ; and it made its way until the hierarchy be- 
 came predominant ; and in the time of our Lord this 
 code was the norm of religious practice. 
 
 The caution cannot be too often expressed that a 
 
 * See further Davidson, " Camb. Bib.," p. liii. 
 t See further on the date of P, L. O. T.^ p. issff. 
 
i6o THE OLD TESTA ME N'T. 
 
 careful distinction must be made between the date of 
 priestly institutions and the date of the completed form 
 of the priestly law. The latter only has been the sub- 
 ject of our investigation. A system of sacrifices can 
 be clearly traced from the beginning of Hebrew his- 
 tory. At times, also, it appears that there were clearly 
 understood regulations, as, for example, in I. Sam. ii. 
 I2ff.; but it is not certain that the system was at this 
 time governed by a written law. Certain parts of the 
 priestly law, even in its written form, may go back to 
 an early date ; but this admission does not settle the 
 question as to when the present law took its final shape. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 ^be Ibietoiical ffioofte. 
 
 THE analysis of the books of the Old Testament 
 goes much beyond the Hexateuch. It is and 
 must be carried to the historical books as well. 
 In fact, some of them, notably Judges and Kings, are, 
 on their face, compilations for a distinct purpose. It 
 is apparent that we shall be unable to understand the 
 real facts of the history without analyzing the books 
 as far as possible into their original parts, and inter- 
 preting the facts accordingly. There are some parts 
 of the historical books which are peculiarly illuminated 
 by this analysis. The first case to be considered is, 
 however, not one involving so much the analysis of a 
 book as the comparison of stories which have been 
 preserved for the most part in different books. 
 
 The story of the Conquest of Canaan begins in 
 Joshua, and ends properl}^ in Samuel. But for our pur- 
 pose we need at present to consider only the books 
 of Joshua and Judges. There is similar evidence for 
 the analysis of Joshua as for the other books already 
 considered. But that analysis is not material for the 
 purpose in view, which is to consider the Conquest in 
 a general review. The book of Joshua falls into two 
 
i62 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 parts, chaps, i.-xii., containing the story of the Con- 
 quest, and chaps, xiii.-xxiv., the assignment of the 
 land among the tribes, with Joshua's farewell dis- 
 courses. The story told in chaps, i.-xii., in the 
 main, moves along consistently. We must follow 
 briefly the fortunes of Israel as there outlined. 
 
 After many years of the hard discipline of the wilder- 
 ness, Joshua is called upon to move forward across the 
 Jordan. The tribes to whom land had been assigned 
 on the east of the Jordan were summoned to join the 
 forces of Israel. Like a prudent general, Joshua sent 
 spies within the enemy's fortifications, so as to know 
 accurately their strength. The spies barely escaped 
 capture, but were enabled to report that the Canaanites 
 were in gr^at alarm at the approach of the Hebrews. 
 With this encouraging news, Joshua led his forces 
 across the Jordan, Reuben and Gad in the van, and went 
 into camp at Gilgal. At this place the rite of circum- 
 cision was reinstituted and the Passover celebrated. 
 
 Joshua had realized in advance that Jericho was the 
 necessary base of operations in Canaan, and he soon 
 turned his attention to that city. At first he appears 
 to have tried a siege, but soon made a successful as- 
 sault."^ 
 
 With this advantageous point gained, Joshua pro- 
 
 * The capture of this city Sayce does not attempt to explain ; he 
 says simply that it was " invested and captured in spite of its 
 strong walls " (" Early History of the Hebrews," p. 250). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 163 
 
 ceeded to Ai. But the first success had made the 
 people too confident. Acting on the advice of the 
 spies who had investigated the place, but a small force 
 was sent to the attack, and it was easily repulsed 
 with considerable loss. Realizing the disastrous effects 
 of a defeat at this time, in that it would depress his 
 own forces and encourage the enemy, Joshua hastened 
 to repair the damage. By a clever ambush the men 
 of Ai were drawn out of the city, to a point where the 
 divided Israelites attacked their front and rear. The 
 inevitable victory was soon gained. 
 
 The cities of Canaan, like the cities of ancient 
 Greece or mediaeval Germany, were independent. 
 But as they came to realize the grave danger from the 
 invading hosts, there were two confederacies formed, 
 one in the north and the other in the south. 
 
 There was one people among the tribes of Canaan 
 who preferred diplomacy to war. The Gibeonites re- 
 fused to fight, and in fact put themselves under 
 Joshua's protection. Joshua learned of the siege of 
 Gibeon by the confederates, who were determined to 
 punish this tribe for their surrender, and made a forced 
 night march to the rescue. The battle was long and 
 bloody, but a hailstorm at a timely moment spread 
 confusion among the allies, and the whole of Southern 
 Palestine was opened to the invaders by the crushing 
 of these armies and the slaughter of the five kings. 
 The cities of Libnah, Lachish, Hebron, Debir, and 
 
i64 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 others, fell into Joshua's hands. The story of the cam- 
 paig-n ends with this summary statement : '*So Joshua 
 smote all the land, the hill country and the south, and 
 the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings ; he 
 left none remaining. And Joshua smote them from 
 Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of 
 Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and 
 their land did Joshua take at one time, because Jahveh, 
 the God of Israel, fought for Israel. And Joshua re- 
 turned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp at Gil- 
 gal" (Josh. X. 4of.'). 
 
 The northern alliance which confronted Joshua on his 
 second campaign was trery formidable. **The kings 
 went out, they and all their host with them, much peo- 
 ple, even as the sand that is upon the seashore in mul- 
 titude, with horses and chariots very many " (Josh. xi. 4). 
 With his usual clever generalship, Joshua succeeded 
 in taking this vast army by surprise, and routed them 
 completely before they could recover. 
 
 The brief account of this campaign closes with a 
 summary of the victories, saying that it extended now 
 on the north as far as Hermon. Moreover, it was a 
 war of extermination, the inhabitants being invariably 
 put to the sword. At the end it is said that "Joshua 
 took the whole land, according to all that Jahveh 
 spake unto Moses : and Joshua gave it for an inheri- 
 tance unto Israel according to the divisions by their 
 tribes. And the land had rest from war " (Josh. xi. 23). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 165 
 
 Thirty-one kings, including the King- of Jerusalem, 
 who is not before mentioned, fell a prey to the sword 
 of Joshua. 
 
 The enemies remaining were the Philistines on the 
 west, and various other tribes far to the north and to the 
 south. But all the main part of Canaan was cleared of 
 the enemy. As Joshua was now advanced in years, he 
 assigned the conquered land to the various tribes, and 
 they proceeded to occupy their several allotments. 
 
 The material in the narrative on which the above 
 sketch is based is, as has already been said, of varying 
 date, some being early and some late. But the early 
 narrative has been in large part so edited that the story 
 in its general outHne is consistent and straightforward. 
 It should be added, however, that most of the sweeping 
 statements about Joshua's great successes are due to a 
 later editor. There are two obvious features of the cam- 
 paign as thus described. (l) The whole body of Israel, 
 including the trans-Jordanic tribes, fought in one body 
 under Joshua, and (2) the sword was not sheathed until 
 the conquest of the land afterwards occupied by the 
 Hebrews was absolutely complete. In the second part 
 of the book, chaps, xiii.-xxiv., in the midst of lists of 
 cities, etc., we find frequent notices not easy to recon- 
 cile with the situation above described.* 
 
 *Thus in Josh. xv. 14 it is staled that Caleb took Hebron, where- 
 as it is stated in Josh. x. 36 that Joshua took it, and in Judges i. 10, 
 that Judah took it (cf. i. 20). In Josh. xv. 63 we have a statement 
 
i66 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 When we turn to the first chapter of the book of 
 Judges, we find a complete, though brief, account of 
 the Conquest, which no human ingenuity has ever been 
 able to reconcile with the above story. It is there 
 stated that, after the death of Joshua, the Israelites in- 
 quired of Jehovah who of them should first go up 
 against the Canaanites, and the reply was, Judah. This 
 is evidently a very different situation. Though the time 
 is given as after the death of Joshua, the conquest of 
 Canaan has not yet been begun; the Israelites are still 
 at Jericho (Judges i. i6). Instead of a campaign of united 
 Israel, Judah is the first tribe to attempt to get a foot- 
 hold in Canaan. Simeon was induced to go with 
 Judah, and it is stated that in the course of the cam- 
 that the children of Judah could not drive the Jebusites from Jeru- 
 salem (cf. Judges i. 2i) ; but Jerusalem was one of the places said to 
 have been subdued by Joshua (Josh. x. iff., xii. lo). We read 
 that the Ephraimites did not drive the Canaanites out of Gezer, but 
 that they remain " to this day,'' having been reduced to taskwork 
 (Josh. xvi. lo; cf. Judges i. 29) ; but we are told that Horam, King 
 of Gezer, came to the help of Lachish, " and Joshua smote him and 
 his people until he had left him none remaining" (Josh. x. 33). 
 We learn that the Manassites could not drive the inhabitants from 
 the towns of Bethshean, Ibleam and Dor, but in later years reduced 
 them to servitude (Josh. xvii. 11-13) ; while, according to Josh. xii. 
 23, Dor had been conquered by Joshua. 
 
 It will appear from an examination of these passages that many 
 of the scattered statements in the second part of Joshua are identi- 
 cal with those in Judges i. 
 
THE MODERN PO/iVT OF VIE IV. 167 
 
 pai^n these tribes took Jerusalem, Hebron and Debir, 
 cities which were said to have been taken under Joshua. 
 But in verse 21 we are told that *' the Benjamites coulci 
 not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem : but the 
 Jebusites dwelt with the Benjamites in Jerusalem, unto 
 this day." The story g-oes on to relate the conquest 
 of Bethel by the tribe of Joseph ; but most of the other 
 tribes are said to have been too weak to take towns. 
 They secured a foothold in the retreats in the moun- 
 tains, from which they gradually advanced against the 
 Canaanites, though ^t'e are expressly told that the 
 original inhabitants were not e:?cterminated, but reduced 
 to servitude. 
 
 It appears clearly, therefore, that there are two sepa- 
 rate accounts of the conquest of Canaan. According 
 to one (Josh, i.-x.i.) Joshua led the combined forces to 
 victory after victory until the possession was made 
 complete by the capture of the important cities, and 
 the extermination of the inhabitants. According to 
 the other (fragments in Josh, xiii.fif, and Judges i.), the 
 conquest was effected by the various tribes operating 
 for the most part independently ; the struggle lasted a 
 long time, and in the end the Canaanites were not ex- 
 terminated, but reduced to servitude. 
 
 The true history of the conquest can be written only 
 by a diligent study of these two sources. That in 
 Judges is the earlier, but the other, though later, must 
 ahvays be considered. An important characteristic of 
 
i68 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the later source is the disregard of perspective. Look- 
 ing back through a long period of time, events which 
 covered several generations are all placed in the age 
 of Joshua. It is manifest that some of the events de- 
 scribed in Judges i. took place before the death of 
 Joshua. In the Book of Joshua, as we have seen, many 
 of these events are connected with the great leader's 
 career. 
 
 But if Joshua did not lead the forces of Israel through 
 a long, almost unbroken series of victories,"^ his part in 
 the conquest was by no means small. He was a great 
 general, making the most of the opportunity he had. 
 Doubtless the tribes moved to their tasks under his di- 
 rection, and the great tribe of Ephraim, perhaps at 
 times vvith others associated with it, was led by him in 
 the great struggle for a central position in the land. 
 
 Another passage in the early history of Israel which 
 is obscure and difficult until the sources are subjected 
 to a critical analysis, is the account oi Saul's accession 
 to the throne of Israel. As the narrative now stands, 
 there are passages not easily brought into harmony. 
 In one case we read that the people ask for a king, 
 
 * " Joshua was not the conqueror of Canaan in any exact sense 
 of the term. ... In Canaan itself the amount of territory won 
 by Joshua was practically confined to the passage over the Jordan 
 and the mountainous region of the centre. Few of the Canaan- 
 itish cities were captured by him " (Sayce, " Early Hist.," p. 248). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 169 
 
 I 
 much to the displeasure both of Samuel and of Jehovah 1 
 
 (I. Sam. viii. 4ff.) ; in another, that Jehovah was gra- 
 ciously moved to raise up a king to deliver His people 
 from the Philistines, because He had heard their cry of 
 distress. According to one account, Samuel tried to 
 dissuade the people from their purpose, while in the 
 other he enters heartily into the divine purpose, and 
 aids Saul to secure the sovereignty over the people. 
 Even after Samuel had anointed Saul by divine com- i 
 mandment (x. i), he accused the people of rejecting | 
 God by their request for a king (xii. 12). In one case \ 
 Jehovah points out Saul to Samuel privately as the 
 destined king (ix. 16); in the other case he was selected \ 
 by lot in a great assembly at Mizpah (x. 2off.). After ' 
 Saul had been thus publicly elevated to the throne, 1 
 and had retired with the army (x. 26), we find him ' 
 quietly plowing in the field (xi. 5). 
 
 If now there had been a king on the throne of Israel j 
 the men of Jabesh-Gilead would naturally have gone 
 directly to him, instead of sending through all the I 
 borders of Israel for such succor as they could find. ; 
 Even when the message telling of the straits of their I 
 kinsmen was known in Saul's city, no one went to him; 
 he learned of the situation by inquiry. Saul does not 
 then send out orders as an accredited king, but sends 
 a threat as an individual. I 
 
 We read further in Samuel's address to the people 
 that an invasion of Nahash the king of Ammon was 
 
I70 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 tbe occasion of the people's demand for a king- (xii. 12), 
 whereas the king in another place is said to have been 
 publicl}^ proclaimed before this invasion (x. i/ff.). As 
 the story stands, moreover, Saul was first anointed 
 privately, then chosen by lot at Mizpah and declared 
 to be the king chosen of Jehovah, and then again at 
 Gilgal " they made Saul king before Jahveh, with sacri- 
 fices and great rejoicings " (xi. I4f.). 
 
 It must be evident from these considerations that 
 this event, as it now stands, is by no means free from 
 serious difficulties. The faculties of the harmonist have 
 been tried at this passage repeatedly, but not with a 
 success that has won confidence. The discovery that 
 there are here two parallel accounts, enables us at all 
 events to understand the course of events. The older 
 account is found in ix. i-x. 16 ; xi. i-ii, 14, 15 ; the 
 later version is in viii., x. 17-27, xii. These are each 
 preserved with considerable completeness, as will read- 
 ily be seen by any one who will take the trouble to 
 read the two groups of passages separately. The old- 
 est story of the establishment of the monarchy may 
 be briefly told. 
 
 Israel had long been under the heel of the dreaded 
 Philistines. As in the tim.e of the Judges, so now their 
 distressful cry reached the ears of Jehovah. Instead of 
 raising up now, as in the past, a temporary deliverer, 
 Jehovah reveals to His prophet His purpose to raise 
 up a permanent king for His suffering people. In the 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 171 
 
 giant Benjamite, who comes to ask the seer about the 
 strayed asses, Samuel perceives the one whom Jehovah 
 had chosen. After showing Saul high honor at a pub- 
 lic sacrifice, Samuel detains him for the night at Ramah, 
 doubtless to lay before him the matters of which his 
 heart was full. In the morning he anointed Saul, and 
 declared him to be the king of Israel, giving him signs 
 to prove that his choice was of God's will, and parting 
 from him with the injunction to do as occasion served 
 him — a veiled statement meaning that Saul was to 
 seize an opportunity to get possession of the throne. 
 
 A suitable occasion for the showing of his hand soon 
 arose. As he came from the field one evening he 
 heard a wail in his city. Upon inquiry, he learned that 
 messengers had arrived imploring aid for Jabesh-Gil- 
 ead, a city across the Jordan, whose people had agreed 
 to surrender to Nahash, and allow him to put out their 
 right eyes, unless they found succor within seven days. 
 When he heard of the plight of his kinsmen '' the Spirit 
 of God came mightily upon Saul, and his anger was 
 kindled greatly," He sent a message to all the Israel- 
 ites threatening them with punishment unless they ral- 
 lied to the rescue. Three hundred and thirty thousand 
 men quickly responded to his call. This force marched 
 to Jabesh in three divisions, and at dawn attacked the 
 besieging Amm.onites on all sides. The besiegers 
 were taken completely by surprise, and were quickly 
 put to rout. 
 
172 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Saul had won the right to be the head of the nation, 
 Samuel, who had apparently accompanied the host, 
 seizes the favorable opportunity, and musters the peo- 
 ple at the old centre at Gilgal, where Saul is crowned 
 as the king- of Israel. 
 
 This story is complete and consistent. The first 
 king of Israel could scarcely have secured the throne 
 excf;pt by such an exhibition of leadership. The 
 judges of an earlier age won the right to temporary 
 rule by their prowess in war. After Gideon had ex- 
 pelled the Midianites the crown was offered to him. 
 David himself was finally received as the king of the 
 North because he had been the real deliverer from 
 Philistine oppression (II. Sam. v. 2). Saul won the 
 crovv'n by showing his ability to be the head of the 
 people. 
 
 This earlier story is probably the more correct ver- 
 sion, though the other may preserve some true details. 
 The analysis is based very largely upon the clear indica- 
 tions of a double narrative ; but the differences of style 
 arc very marked, and the separation of the composite 
 structure very easy. It is apparent that while the two 
 versions differ in various details of more or less impor- 
 tance, they agree in all that can be regarded as funda- 
 mental. In both the prophet Samuel selects the king ; 
 Saul is the divine choice ; he is gladly accepted by the 
 people because of his great power as a leader in war.* 
 
 * In the earlier version this is shown by his relief of Jabesh ; in 
 
THE MODERiY POINT OF VIEW. 173 
 
 Another case of a similar kind is found also in I. Sam- 
 uel, the story of David and Goliath. It must be apparent 
 to any one who reads this story that as it now stands 
 it presents difficulties of a most perplexing kind. Thus 
 when Samuel goes down to anoint a son of Jesse as 
 king to take the place of the rejected Saul, David is 
 said to be the youngest son, and so was left in charge 
 of the sheep, while his older and more stalwart broth- 
 ers went to Samuel's sacrifice. Further it is said that 
 "he was ruddy, and, withal, of a beautiful countenance, 
 and goodly to look upon" (I. Sam. xvi. iif.). David 
 had nothing in his outward appearance to commend 
 him as a king. Samuel expected to find the right one 
 among the older sons, but he was admonished that the 
 decision was not to be based upon external appear- 
 ances, or the height of the stature, '*for man looks 
 on the outward appearance, but Jahveh looks on the 
 heart" (xvi. 7). 
 
 Directly afterward we read that Saul's counsellors 
 advise the king to secure a cunning player on the harp 
 as a cure for the king's mental aberration, and they 
 recommend David as "cunning in playing, and a 
 mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent 
 in speech, and a comely person" (xvi. 18). David was 
 taken to Saul's court, and his military ability seems soon 
 to have overshadowed everything else, and he was by 
 
 the later he is said to be " higher than any of the people from his 
 shoulders and upward " (x. 23). 
 
174 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 arrangement with Jesse permanently attached to Saul's 
 court in the high j^osition of royal armor-bearer. 
 
 We next hear of David as a shepherd going to and 
 fro to feed his father's flock at Bethlehem (xvii. 15). 
 He is sent by his father to carry supplies to his three 
 brothers "' who were in Saul's army. His oldest 
 brother reproves him because he has left the sheep 
 and come down, with natural boyish curiosity, to 
 see a battle. When David proposed to do battle 
 with Goliath, Saul discourages him: "Thou art but 
 a youth." David admits this, but says that during 
 his shepherd life he has rescued sheep from lions and 
 bears. Saul puts his armor upon David ; but a shep- 
 herd lad knows nothing about the use of armor, and 
 David realizes that it will be only an impediment. As 
 a matter of fact he goes out against the mighty Philis- 
 tine equipped only with his shepherd's staff and his 
 sling. The giant disdained him because *'he was only 
 
 * The original form of this narrative only knows of four sons of 
 Jesse. The three eldest are with Saul, and David, the youngest, is 
 the only one left (xvii. 14); for when he goes to the scene of battle 
 he leaves the flocks with a keeper (xvii. 20). So his brother asks in 
 surprise, " With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilder- 
 ness ? " (xvii. 28) — a question without occasion, if there were yet 
 four brothers at home. The statement, " and he had eight sons " 
 (xvii. 12), is a gloss, based on xvi. 10; it is out of place where it 
 stands, besides being in disagreement with the narrative following; 
 so too is verse 1 5. 
 
THE MODERN" POINT OF VIEW. 175 
 
 a youth, and ruddy, and, withal, of a fair countenance" 
 (xvii. 42; cf. xvi. 12). After the battle, Saul took 
 David and would let him go no more to his own home, 
 "and Saul set him over the men of war " (xviii. 2, 5). 
 David's fame as a soldier soon became so great that he 
 was praised more than Saul, and so the demented 
 king's jealousy was aroused. 
 
 It is evident that we have two Davids in this narra- 
 tive. One is the ruddy shepherd lad, ignorant of war 
 and warlike implements, although with a brave heart 
 and a deep religious spirit. In the other, David is a 
 man of war and a man of proved valor. It is true that 
 the ruddy shepherd lad might become a man of war ; 
 but this is not the order of the narrative. After he 
 wins a position at Saul's court as a man of war, he 
 again is represented over and over again as the youth. 
 Moreover, when called to the court of Saul he had 
 already achieved a wide reputation as a man of war; 
 for his fame was known among the men of the North, 
 though he belonged to a poor family in an obscure vil- 
 lage of Judah. 
 
 We notice another serious stumbling block in the 
 story. Though David had been attached to Saul's 
 court as minstrel and armor-bearer, later, when he 
 came into the presence of the king, it appears that they 
 are entire strangers to each other (xvii. 33f.). Saul 
 afterwards inquired of Abner whose son the youth was, 
 andAbner did not know. Abner was bidden to in- 
 
176 ^ THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 quire, but does not appear to have succeeded, as the 
 king only learns who David was by asking him upon 
 his return from his victorious combat (xvii. 55ff.). The 
 too easy harmonistic devices will not clear up this 
 difficulty. Thus one may say that Saul did not recog- 
 nize David because of his mental malady. But Abner, 
 whose head was all right, did not know David either. 
 Besides this is only one of several discrepancies. 
 
 The story contains abundant other evidence of its 
 composite character. In xvii. I2ff. we have an intro- 
 duction to Jesse and his family which is entirely super- 
 fluous after chapter xvi. This introduction shows that 
 originally this narrative at least did not follow chapter 
 xvi. ; for Jesse and his sons are here assumed to be entire- 
 ly unknown. The compiler, orsome subsequent scribe, 
 realized that there was lack of harmony between the 
 statement that David was attached to Saul's court, 
 and that he was a shepherd lad in Bethlehem, and 
 adds a parenthetic note (verse 15) to explain the dif- 
 ficulty. But it does not after all clear up the situation. 
 Moreover, in xvii. 21, the two armies are about to 
 engage in a general conflict ; while in xvii. 4, the 
 Philistines proposed to settle the matter by single 
 combat, a method much in vogue among ancient peo- 
 ples. 
 
 The Greek version throws welcome light upon this 
 matter, light which is peculiarly welcome to those who 
 are distrustful of internal evidence. The best MSS, of 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 177 
 
 the Septuagint lack two large sections of this story, 
 xvii. 12-31,41, 50; xvii. 55-xviii. 5. 
 
 This removes the chief redundancies and discrepan- 
 cies. The joining of verse 32 with verse 11 makes a 
 clear connection. Goliath challenges Israel to settle 
 the war by single combat, and David, who is with the 
 army as an attache of Saul's court, promptly accepts 
 the challenge. The questions about David's identity 
 are removed also. But this text does not remove the 
 chief difficulty; for the two Davids remain. 
 
 The question now demands consideration how we 
 are to explain the shorter recension of the LXX. 
 Did the Greek translators omit these passages because 
 they saw the hopeless discrepancies } or did the 
 Hebrew text from which they translated lack these | 
 passages ? The translators of the Greek version have 
 left no statement about the principles which guided 
 them, and yet we are not left altogether without wit- i 
 ness for the answer to this question. If on critical ' 
 grounds the translators attempted by the simple de- j 
 vice of omission to harmonize conflicting stories, it j 
 would be strange that they had done this only in one i 
 case. As we have already seen, there are other cases 
 to which the pruning knife might have been applied as 
 well as here ; but this is the only case of the kind found 
 in the Old Testament. It is clear, therefore, that the , 
 Hebrew text used by these translators also lacked the ' 
 
 passage. There is abundant evidence that the Hebrew 
 
1 78 THE OLD TES TA MEN T FR OM 
 
 Bible from which the Greek version was made differed 
 in many important respects from that which the Jews 
 finally adopted as the standard. In this case the Jews 
 adopted the larger recension. It is entirely possible 
 that additions were inserted in this narrative after the 
 Greek version was made. It may be well to remem- 
 ber in this connection that the Greek version was that 
 used by our Lord and His Apostles. 
 
 But let us now see what light critical analysis has to 
 throw on this passage. The Jews themselves appear 
 to have had two versions of the story of David's intro- 
 duction to Saul. In one he came as a minstrel, and 
 won his way rapidly to higher rank ; in the other he 
 came by chance into the army at a lucky moment, and 
 won a place in Saul's court by his slaughter of the 
 Philistine giant. 
 
 Now we must not lose sight of the fact that the 
 Hebrew records are not in accord, even in crediting 
 David with the victory over Goliath. The following pas- 
 sages furnish material which may not be disregarded: 
 
 I. Sam. XVII. 4, 7. II. Sam. xxi. 19^. I. Chron. xx. 5^. 
 And there came out And Elhanan the And Elhanan the 
 a champion from the son of Jaare-oregim son of Jair slew- 
 camp of the Philis- the Bethlehemite Lahmi, the brother 
 tines, named Goliath, slew Goliath the of Goliath the Git- 
 of Gath, . . . and Gittite, the staff of tite, the staff of 
 the sta^ of his spear whose spear was like whose spear was 
 was like a weaver's a weaver's beam. like a weaver's 
 beam. beam. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 179 
 
 There is good reason for identifying the Goliaths in 
 the first two passages. The second story is told in an 
 appendix to the history of D.ivid which consists of 
 events scattered all through his reign. In both cases, 
 the name is the same, the city is the same, and the de- 
 scription of the spear is the same. The passage in 
 Chronicles looks very much like a harmonistic device. 
 A comparison of the two passages in Hebrew shows 
 that they are more nearly alike than appears in Eng- 
 lish." 
 
 The Books of Samuel therefore leave the matter in 
 uncertainty whether David or Elhanan slew Goliath, 
 and between these two statements it is not easy to 
 choose. The records in II. Sam. xxi.-xxiii. seem to 
 be taken from old archives, while I Sam. xvii. does not 
 show the marks of an early record. On the other hand, 
 there are references to David's victory over Goliath in 
 other parts of I. Samuel (xix. 5; xxi. 9). 
 
 *The Hebrew reads as follows (the upper line is from II. Sam.): 
 
 in^:n ;*yi ^r\yr\ n^i?j ^ns ^y:)rh nx "I'rp 's^Th"^ y^ 
 
 D^:nx -n:?03 
 
 The first D"'JnN is an error of the text creeping in from the 
 end. Chronicles contains the correct name of Elhanan's father, 
 Jair ; the consonants are the same, a single letter being trans- 
 posed. Chronicles has made n5< out of T\^1 and n{«5 out of nx. 
 Chronicles may have had some justification for its error in an ob- 
 scure text. 
 
i8o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 The oldest part of this narrative is xvi. 14-23, 
 David's attachment to Saul as minstrel and armor- 
 bearer. The sequel to this narrative is found in xviii. 
 6fTf. The connection is obscured in the Hebrew unless we 
 read in xviii. 6, as Revised Version (margin), " When 
 David came from the slaughter of the Philistines." But 
 the LXX. probably has the true text of this verse, "And 
 the singing wom.en came out to meet David from all the 
 cities of Israel." Between these two parts there must 
 originally have been a section describing David's cam- 
 paign against the Philistines, unless, indeed, xviii. 5 
 contains the necessary information, xviii. 5ff. being 
 the direct continuation of xvi. 14-23. 
 
 The account of Samuel's anointing David belongs to 
 the later stratum of the books. Though David is said 
 to have been anointed as king in the presence of his 
 father and brothers, there is no reference to this in the 
 subsequent history. Eliab would scarcely have chided 
 David as he did if David had been king. David refuses 
 to stretch forth his hand against Jehovah's anointed 
 (I. Sam. xxiv. 6) ; would he have felt thus if he had 
 been anointed to succeed Saul ? David in fact recog- 
 nizes Saul's right as king everywhere, and puts to death 
 the lying messenger who brought the tidings of 
 slaughter, because he had stretched forth his hand 
 against Jehovah's anointed (II. Sam. i. 14). 
 
 The place of xvii. i-xviii. 5 (or 4) is not so easy to fix. 
 I have stated grounds above for doubting that this was 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. i8i 
 
 originally a unit, as the combat in xvii. i-ii is not the 
 same as that in verse 19 fif.,"^' though it finds its continu- 
 ation in verse 32^. The settlement of the place of this 
 narrative depends upon our conclusion as to whether 
 David or Elhanan was the champion who slew Goliath. 
 It is not easy to explain either story as a historical 
 error. We may, perhaps, rest the case with Kent's 
 conclusion : " It is by no means impossible that in 
 some one of the many forays of the Philistines into Ju- 
 dah, the youthful David slew the champion of the Philis- 
 tines. The memory of the act was preserved among 
 David's kinsmen, the Judaeans, until at last it found a 
 place in the prophetic history which is our great source 
 for the period. Certainly 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. This subsequent record confirms this 
 conclusion. "t 
 
 The books of Samuel show their composite character 
 in many other places. There is one instance of a some- 
 what different character, in which we seem to have two 
 different versions of the same story, though the two 
 accounts are separated in our present books. If one 
 reads chaps, xxiv. and xxvi. of I. Samuel, he is struck 
 
 *Note that verse 19 contains a statement that is entirely super- 
 fluous after verse 2; in fact is almost a verbal repetition of it. Verse 
 24 is also a repetition of verse 11. 
 
 t " A History of the Hebrew People," I , 105. 
 
l82 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 with the remarkable similarity of the two stories. At 
 the same time, the variations are so numerous that it 
 may seem difficult to decide whether they are two ac- 
 counts of the same event, or two independent occur- 
 rences. The question can only be decided by taking 
 into consideration, not only the several points of agree- 
 ment and disagreement, but also the character of these 
 points. 
 
 The argument or plot of the event described in chap. 
 xxiv. may be thus stated : Saul is informed of David's hid- 
 ing place in the wilderness of Judah ; he gathers three 
 thousand picked men and goes to seek David and his 
 band. David surprises Saul, and has the opportunity 
 to kill him, and is urged to permit his men to take 
 Saul's life ; but he refuses on the ground that he dare 
 not lift his hand against Jehovah's anointed, and that 
 Jehovah would accomplish Saul's downfall. He takes 
 some of Saul's belongings as evidence that he had 
 spared the king's life when it was in his power, and 
 afterwards, from a safe point, calls to Saul, exhibits the 
 proof of his mercy, appeals to Saul against the cal- 
 umnies which have aroused the king's hostility, pro- 
 fesses the unworthiness of the object of the king's pur- 
 suit, he being but a flea. To this Saul replied : " Is this 
 thy voice, my son David?" (xxiv. i6 ; cf. xxvi. 17) 
 and professed his regret at his own folly and his 
 appreciation of David's magnanimity; he further ex- 
 pressed his conviction of David's future greatness, 
 
THE MODE RAT POINT OF VIE IV, 
 
 183 
 
 and departed homeward with his forces. David and 
 his men returned to their camp in the hold. 
 
 It appears now that this framework of the one 
 story is equally good for the other. Every detail 
 stated above is equally found in the other story in 
 chap. xxvi. It must be acknowledged, also, that this 
 outline contains all the essential points in the nar- 
 rative. The important details in which the narratives 
 are not in agreement can be best shown by reverting 
 again to the method of parallel columns. 
 
 Chap. xxiv. Chap. xxvi. 
 
 David, Saul was told, was in The Ziphites told Saul that 
 
 the wilderness of Engedi.* Saul David was in the hill of Hachi- 
 
 went into a cave, in the recesses lab, before the desert. David 
 
 of which David and his men sent spies from the wilderness, 
 
 were hidden ; thus David dis- and learned that Saul had come 
 
 covered that Saul was in pursuit, in pursuit of him. 
 
 David came forward, and, with- David and Abishai went 
 
 out Saul's knowledge, cut off the down to the camp of Saul at 
 
 skirt of his robe. night ; the latter, by David's 
 
 David followed Saul out of the direction, takes Saul's spear and 
 
 cave and cried out to him, show- the cruse of water, and they re- 
 
 ing him the skirt of his robe. turn to their camp unobserved, 
 
 David took an oath not to cut because Jehovah had sent a deep 
 
 off Saul's seed after him. sleep upon Saul and his host. 
 
 David goes to the top of a moun- 
 tain not far from Saul's camp 
 
 * Engedi and Hachilah are near each other in the wilderness 
 along the western coast of the Dead Sea. 
 
i84 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and calls to Abner, reproaching him for his failure properly to 
 guard his master, and showing the spear and water cruse. Saul 
 recognizes David's voice and bids him return, assuring him that he 
 will do him no harm. 
 
 Besides the differences indicated in this bare outline, 
 there is the great difference of phraseology, which can 
 only be fully appreciated by reading the chapters 
 throughout. 
 
 In favor of the view that these are but different ver- 
 sions of the same event, there is this further consider- 
 ation. The second story makes no reference whatever 
 to the first. This silence would be very singular if 
 David had twice had Saul's life within his power. At 
 the beginning we should confidently have looked for 
 some reference to a similar occurrence which had 
 happened previously. David would scarcely have 
 lost such a forceful argument in his effort to show 
 his good intentions toward the king. And at the 
 close of the story some reference to the former event 
 would greatly have strengthened the position of 
 David. 
 
 But it may be asked how it is possible to explain the 
 numerous variations in the two stories if they are du- 
 plicates. The answer is found in a fact which every 
 observant person knows. There is a tendency for 
 stories which are handed from person to person to vary 
 greatly in local coloring and other details. Before the 
 David stories were reduced to writing, they may have 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 185 
 
 assumed such divergent forms that in a case like this 
 the compiler was led to incorporate both versions. 
 
 But little need be said as to the priority of one or the 
 other version. Without stating^ any reason, Driver holds 
 that chap. xxvi. contains '* the more original version."* 
 But before there can be any final pronouncement on 
 this question, further attention needs to be given to the 
 possible relation of chap, xxiii. I9ff. to these two 
 stories. The details of this latter passage are singu- 
 larly like those of chap. xxvi. The same Ziphites carry 
 information to Saul at Gibeah about David's hiding 
 place, and the same place is mentioned, namely, Hach- 
 ilah. In this case Saul is drawn away from his hostile 
 purpose by news of a Philistine invasion. This story 
 fits in much better with chap. xxiv. than with chap, 
 xxvi. After the Philistine invasion Saul learned 
 that David had sought a new asylum, and went in pur- 
 suit. It may be that many of the details of chap, 
 xxvi. are the more correct. But, however this may be, 
 the duplicate version gives us peculiar assurance as to 
 the main facts which are contained in the argument 
 above. 
 
 These specimens are sufficient to show how the stu- 
 dent who attempts a thorough study of Hebrew his- 
 tory is dependent upon the results of the higher criti- 
 cism. This science furnishes him with the basis for all 
 
 * '' Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel," p. 158. 
 
1 86 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 his work. He may not be an expert critic himself, but 
 he cannot afford to disregard the results achieved by the 
 labors of other competent scholars in this field. The 
 principles of historical criticism, which have done so 
 much to make the history of other nations intelligible, 
 must be applied also to the history of Israel. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Biblical Ibistor^* 
 
 BEFORE we can fully comprehend the facts of 
 Hebrew history there is another important 
 consideration which demands our attention. 
 In order properly to understand any historical writ- 
 ing it is necessary to know the writer's point of view. 
 A history which merely narrated facts would be intol- 
 erably dry. Many school histories have been a weari- 
 ness to the flesh of school children because they con- 
 sisted of but the dry bones of history, dates, and other 
 like matter. The demand made of the modern histor- 
 ian is that he shall not only state the facts, but also 
 that he shall place them in their proper relations. In 
 other words, philosophy must be introduced into his- 
 torical study. The essential thing is not merely the 
 facts, but the meaning of the facts. Indeed, the ac- 
 complished historian seeks rather to conceal his facts 
 in the interest of his philosophy. Even the daily 
 newspaper responds in a measure to this demand. The 
 news columns not only state the facts, but attempt to 
 interpret their significance. The editorial columns are 
 simply philosophical adjuncts to give a more intelligent 
 
i88 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and sober interpretation of the facts of the news col- 
 umns. 
 
 The amount of interpretation which enters into a 
 historical writing varies greatly, according to circum- 
 stances. In some cases we find just enough interpre- 
 tation to make the facts intelligible ; in others, inter- 
 pretation is so predominant that facts are suppressed, 
 or sometimes even invented, in the interest of theories* 
 A judicial temperament is, therefore, an essential ele- 
 ment for the historian. Above all, he must be free 
 from partisan bias, so as to include all the facts, before 
 he attempts to make deductions from them. 
 
 The truth is, however, that comparatively few his- 
 torians have this perfect judicial temperament. Inev- 
 itably the personal equation enters in ; and allowance 
 has to be made for this by the careful reader. The 
 more this personal equation appears, the less trust- 
 worthy the result as a source of historical facts. Yet 
 one might easily go too far in discrediting partisan 
 history. In courts of law it is found that the best way 
 to get at the actual facts is to give both prosecution 
 and defence the widest liberty to present their case 
 from their own widely divergent assumptions. 
 
 A partisan history is sometimes the best place to 
 learn the real truth; provided, of course, one is able to 
 read with sufficient discernment. There are many peo- 
 ple in the North who have no correct conception of 
 the true motive of the South in the great Civil War, 
 
THE MODERN POINT OE VIEW, 189 
 
 because they have never read what has been written 
 from the Southern point of view, and have not dis- 
 cerned the bias in the books they have read. It is 
 profitable for the Bibh'cal student to read Prof. Green's 
 books as well as Prof. Cheyne's. We should have 
 both sides of a case before a final conclusion is at- 
 tempted. One who has read only one history of any 
 period is but poorly furnished ; for he may have only a 
 one-sided presentation. Often, however, we may have 
 enough independent knowledge to enable us to estimate 
 the true facts from a single interpretative presenta- 
 tion. 
 
 This interpretative character of history has come into 
 great prominence in modern times, as a sound judicial 
 spirit has become more common ; but this character is 
 found in ancient history as well as in modern. The 
 question which concerns us now is whether this char- 
 acteristic is found in Biblical history, and how far it 
 must be considered by the student of the Bible. There 
 may be difference of opinion as to its extent, but there 
 can be none as to its existence. In fact, there are 
 many perplexing problems which virtually solve them- 
 selves by the recognition of this fact. Some of these 
 will be considered in the present chapter. 
 
 The extent to which interpretation has entered into 
 the Biblical history varies greatly in different parts. In 
 some cases it is very slight ; in others it is so predom- 
 inant that it is diflficult to determine what the true facts 
 
igo THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 are. In some cases the interpretation is found in the 
 introductory statements; in others it is part of the warp 
 and woof of the narrative. Modern criticism has done 
 nothing which is more helpful to a reasonable faith 
 than the making clear the distinction between facts 
 and theories in Biblical history. 
 
 The Book of Judges shows us plainly the interpreta- 
 tive character of Biblical history. That book consists, 
 in the main, of a collection of stories of the heroes of 
 the age between the death of Joshua and the rise of 
 the monarchy. But the stories are told with a religious 
 purpose. That purpose is shown in the general intro- 
 duction in chap, ii., as well as in the special introduc- 
 tions to the various stories. In the former we read 
 thus : '* The Israelites did that which was evil in the 
 sight of Jahveh, and served the Baalim: and they 
 abandoned Jahveh, the God of their fathers; . . . and 
 they provoked Jahveh to anger; . . . and the anger 
 of Jahveh was kindled against Israel, and he gave them 
 into the hand of spoilers, and they spoiled them; and 
 he sold them into the hands of their enemies round 
 about, so that they were no longer able to stand be- 
 fore their enemies; . . . and they Avere sore dis- 
 tressed. . . . And Jahveh raised up judges and 
 they rescued them from the hand of their spoilers. 
 . . . And when Jahveh raised them up judges, then 
 Jahveh was with the judge, and rescued them from 
 the hands of their enemies all the days of the judge; 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. iqi 
 
 for Jahveh repented because of their groaning by rea- 
 son of their oppressors and their troublers. But it came 
 to pass when the judge was dead, that they turned 
 back and dealt more corruptly than their fathers. 
 . . And the anger of Jahveh was kindled against 
 Israel" (ii. iiff.). 
 
 One specimen of the special introductions to the sev- 
 eral narratives will suffice for all: " The Israelites again 
 did that which was evil in the sight of Jahveh ; and 
 Jahveh strengthened Eglon, the king of Moab, against 
 Israel. . . . And he went and smote Israel. 
 . . And the Israelites served Eglon king of Moab 
 eighteen years. And the Israehtes cried unto Jahveh, 
 and Jahveh raised them up a deliverer, Ehud, the son 
 of Gera. . . . And Moab was subdued that day 
 under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest eighty 
 years " (iii. 12-15, 30)- 
 
 These statements, which are due to the compiler, 
 show the purpose of the book, and they reveal its in- 
 terpretative character. The bare facts are that in the 
 early days, when the tribes were struggling to main- 
 tain themselves in their newly conquered land, their 
 possession was disputed at different times by the va- 
 rious nations about them.* These nations invaded the 
 land while the tribes were disorganized, while they 
 were without tribal federation or strong leaders, and 
 
 *0n the character of the age of the Judges, see a chapter by the 
 writer in " The Bible as Literature." T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1896. 
 
192 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 held the tribes in oppressive subjugation until a hero 
 arose who led the people of Israel in successful revolt. 
 
 But these facts seemed to the historian to require ex- 
 planation. God had promised the peaceful possession 
 of the land and the promise did not seem to be fulfilled. 
 Gideon doubtless voices a common sentiment when he 
 said to .the angel of Jehovah : " If Jahveh be with us, 
 why, then, has all this befallen us? and where be all his 
 wondrous works which our fathers told us of?" (vi. 
 13).^ The compiler of the book connects every period 
 of oppression with a period of apostasy on the part of 
 Israel. As soon as they come to Jehovah with peni- 
 tent prayers, He raises up one to succor them. The 
 period of Israel's fidelity is coterminous with the life 
 of the divinely sent hero. 
 
 It is implied, for example, in the compiler's state- 
 ment f that Israel served Jehovah all the days of Gid- 
 eon, that is, for forty years; whereas we are told dis- 
 tinctly that Gideon, at the end of his campaign, made 
 an ephod of the spoil, after which all Israel went a 
 whoring (viii. 27). It is sufficiently evident now that the 
 
 *It is worthy of note that the angel does not explain the fact 
 which troubled Gideon as the compiler does. His reply means that 
 God will even now show a continuation of His mighty works. He 
 does not attribute Israel's plight to their sins. 
 
 t " And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the Is- 
 raelites turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made 
 Baal-berith their God " (viii. 33). 
 
THE MODERN POINl^ OF VIEW. 193 
 
 stories of the heroes are one thing, and the interpreta- 
 tion which is placed upon this age is quite another 
 thing. The interpretation may be right. The theolog- 
 ical explanation of the defeats and victories of this age, 
 for such it is, may be true; it certainly does contain el- 
 ements of profound truth; but the facts of the history 
 do not stand or fall with the correctness of the com- 
 piler's point of view. So it would be possible that the 
 theology might be correct, even though the supposed 
 facts were the work of the imagination. The doctrine 
 in our Lord's parables does not depend upon facts in 
 the narrative. The facts are freely invented to serve 
 as a vehicle for the great truths conveyed. 
 
 Moreover, the question of the correctness of the 
 facts and of the interpretation belong to different 
 spheres of science. The determination of the former 
 belongs to historical criticism, that of the latter to 
 dogmatics. If the critic feels that he has a grievance 
 against the theologian because he judges his results 
 from the point of view of his theological opinions, the 
 theologian in turn may well feel a grievance against 
 the critic because he has attempted to solve theologi- 
 cal problems with a purely critical apparatus. The 
 question whether the narratives in the Book of Judges 
 are historical or not must be answered by the expert 
 in historical criticism; but the question whether the in- 
 terpretation is sound or not rests with the theologian. 
 Historical criticism has scrutinized and analyzed these 
 
194 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 narratives most searchingly, and the verdict is that the 
 matter is historical. The question as- to the interpre- 
 tation may well be left for the theologian to determine. 
 
 It may be stated here, however, that the theology 
 by which the compiler explains the varying fortunes of 
 Israel is found also in many other parts of the Old 
 Testament, and belongs to the very difficult subject of 
 *' Special Providence." All that is contended for here 
 is that a distinction must be drawn between the histori- 
 cal facts and the writer's interpretation of facts, as both 
 are found in Old Testament history, and that they do 
 not stand or fall together. It would not be strange if an 
 ancient Hebrew author did not say the last word about 
 a deep subject of theology, although he has laid his hand 
 on a great truth; but his failure to do that would not 
 vitiate the historic facts which he uses to illustrate his 
 theory. 
 
 A passage which has caused the greatest perplexity 
 to many devout readers is that describing the execu- 
 tion by command of David of seven descendants of the 
 house of Saul. The story briefly is as follows : The 
 land of Israel was visited by a severe famine, which 
 lasted for three years. David inquired of Jehovah the 
 cause of the trouble, and was told that it was a 
 punishment because Saul had put Gibeonites to death 
 in contravention of the oath of Joshua."^ David sum- 
 
 * Or perhaps of the people ; see Josh. ix. 15, 18 ; II. Sam. xxi. 
 2, and p. lo/ff. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 195 
 
 moned the Gibconites and asked what atonement 
 would satisfy them so that they would " bless the in- 
 heritance of Jehovah." They refused any terms ex- 
 cept blood for blood. Seven '* sons of Saul " were 
 handed over to the Gibeonites, *' and they hanged 
 them in the mountain before Jahveh." Rizpah, Saul's 
 concubine, whose two sons were among those exe- 
 cuted, stood guard over the bodies all the long time 
 they were hanging exposed to birds and beasts of prey. 
 David was so moved by her devotion that he had the 
 bones of those who had been hung buried along with 
 the bones of Saul and Jonathan.'^ Then we read that 
 " after that God was entreated for the land " (II. Sam. 
 xxi. 1-14). 
 
 It appears from another statement in the passage that 
 the famine was broken by the fall of rain at the usual 
 time in the autumn. The narrative is by no means 
 
 * The LXX. has several readings which are different from the 
 Hebrew. To verse 11 it adds this very obscure statement: "And 
 they loosed them, and Dan the son of Joa seized them from the 
 descendants of the giants." The Hebrew^ does not say that the 
 bones of those who were hung were buried with the bones of Saul 
 and Jonathan, but the LXX. does. The Hebrew and the best 
 MS. of the LXX. say that the men of Jabesh-Gilead had stolen 
 the bones of Saul and Jonathan (Cod. Alex, says instead that they 
 buried \kit.m). But in L Sam. xxxi. 12 we read that the Jabesh- 
 Gileadites valiantly recovered the bodies of Saul and his sons from 
 Bethshan to stop the shame of exposure, and burnt them in Jabesh, 
 afterwards burying their bones. 
 
196 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 clear of textual difficulties, as has been shown in the 
 critical note. But the meaning of the story as it now 
 stands is clear. God punished Israel because Saul had 
 slain the Gibeonites. He was appeased by the execu- 
 tion of Saul's sons, and sent the rain which ended the 
 famine. 
 
 It is evident that there is a good deal of interpreta- 
 tion in this passage. The facts are easily determina- 
 ble. There is no doubt that there was a famine ; that 
 Saul had put some Gibeonites to death ; that David 
 permitted the execution of Saul's sons ; that Rizpah 
 
 kept her faithful watch; and that rain finally came to 
 
 • 
 the relief of the famished land. But whether the his- 
 torian has traced correctly the relation of cause and 
 effect in this matter may be open to very grave doubt. 
 That Saul's execution of unoffending Gibeonites was a 
 sin in the eyes of God, is beyond question. But that 
 God sent a famine to the people who had been no party 
 to the wrong as an express punishment for this sin, and 
 still more that He should be appeased by the execu- 
 tion of the innocent descendants of the perpetrator of 
 the wrong, is not easily reconcilable with the Christian 
 conception of the character of God. It should be noted 
 that according to the narrative the rain which re- 
 lieved the famine came six months after the execution, 
 and that at the usual wet season of the autumn. 
 
 It was natural, however, that the Jews should have 
 interpreted the events as they did. The act of Saul in 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 197 
 
 putting to death those who were protected by the oath 
 of the people was regarded as peculiarly heinous. 
 The Jews looked upon every misfortune as the special 
 punishment of God for some specific sin. The famine 
 year after year was a fact which could be explained 
 easily by their beliefs. There must be some sin resting 
 upon the nation. Saul's great crime, though com- 
 mitted several years before, was the most prominent 
 one in the people's consciousness. The principle of 
 blood revenge, which has always been so prominent 
 among Semitic peoples, suggested the remedy. Even 
 though the rains were delayed for six months after the 
 act of atonement, the Hebrews could not but believe 
 that their course was justified by the event. 
 
 This is in accord with the ideas of the time. If it is 
 not in harmony with the higher truths taught by the Lord 
 Jesus, it is not surprising. The student of the Biblical 
 history must discriminate between the facts and the in- 
 terpretation. The facts are not discredited, even though 
 the interpretation of them is imperfect. It is true that 
 many attempts have been made to explain the difificulty 
 so as to give greater value to the interpretative element ; 
 but they do not afford relief to the real trouble.* 
 
 Christian faith has often been sorely perplexed by 
 what have been called the moral difificulties of the Old 
 Testament. Some of them are indeed serious ; for 
 
 * A brief view of these attempts may be found in the Cambridge 
 Bible, on II. Sam., p. 234f. 
 
igS THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 they compel us to choose between a perfect record and 
 a perfect God. The Bible is the product of the labors of 
 inspired men. Whatever view we may hold of inspira- 
 tion, we must recognize a human element. Man has a 
 faculty of leaving the marks of his mortality upon every- 
 thing he touches. The '* immortal works " of man is all 
 right as a rhetorical expression, but it does not express 
 a literal truth. But in God we must assume infallibility 
 in character as well as in knowledge. The Christian 
 conception of God leaves no room for the slightest im- 
 perfection. The Christian runs no risk in unhesitatingly 
 rejecting anything which militates against his idea of 
 God. He does not have to worship the sacred Book ; 
 but he must worship God, and the more he recognizes 
 his own frailty, the more insistent he is that the Being 
 to whom he bows down must be without blemish. 
 
 There are passages in the Old Testament that are 
 scarcely consistent with this idea of God. We find 
 one in the history of Moses. ** And the Israelites did 
 according to the word of Moses ; and they asked from 
 the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and 
 clothing. And Jahveh placed the favor of the people 
 in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they complied 
 with their request ; and they spoiled the Egyptians " 
 (Ex. xii. 35f). If this spoiling^ of the Egyptians were 
 
 * This spoiling or plundering shows how impossible is the 
 apologetic explanation that the Hebrews demanded and received 
 the jewelry and clothing as due in lieu of wages. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 199 
 
 the work of Moses alone, it would not be a serious 
 matter ; but we must look a little further. In Ex. 
 iii. 2 if. we read : " And I will place the favor of this 
 people in the eyes of the Egyptians; and it shall be 
 when you go out you shall not go put empty ; but 
 each one shall ask of her friend and of the visitor in 
 her house jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and cloth- 
 ing, and you shall put them upon your sons and upon 
 your daughters, and you shall spoil the Egyptians." 
 In xi. if. we find this similar statement : " And Jahveh 
 spoke to Moses. . . . Speak now in the ears of the 
 people, that they ask each man of his neighbor, and 
 each woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and 
 jewels of gold." 
 
 It appears therefore that Moses was acting, accord- 
 ing to this narrative, by the command of God. Is this 
 a fact, or the interpretation of a fact ? If the former, 
 then on one occasion God directed His servant to vio- 
 late the eighth commandment ; if the latter is the true 
 explanation, we have only to perceive that the writer 
 supposed every act of the man of God was by express 
 commandment of God. 
 
 A similar case is found in the history of Samuel, 
 though in one of the later sources of that history : 
 *' And Jahveh said to Samuel, How long wilt thou 
 grieve about Saul, when I have rejected him from ruling 
 over Israel? Fill thy horn with oil, and come, I will 
 send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite ; for I have seen 
 
200 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 among his sons a king for me. And Samuel said, How 
 can I go ? Saul will hear of it, and put me to death. 
 And Jahveh said, Take a young calf with thee and say, 
 I have come to sacrifice to Jahveh " (I. Sam. xvi. iff.). 
 Did Jehovah actually direct Samuel to accomplish by 
 a subterfuge what he dare not do openly } Or is this, 
 too, an interpretation of Samuel's course due to the 
 writer ? I have heard the incident justified by saying 
 that our Lord, too, dissembled. Such an explanation 
 is intolerable. We might be forced to believe that 
 even an inspired writer had interpreted wrongly ; we 
 cannot be forced to believe that God has acted 
 wrongly. 
 
 Another example of the relief which a recognition of 
 the interpretative character of Hebrew history offers 
 may be found in connection with the campaign against 
 Ai already referred to. The first attack on this city 
 by a small force was unsuccessful. The cause of the 
 disaster was found in the sin of Achan, who had pur- 
 loined some of the booty which had been put under 
 the ban. After the sin was detected and the criminal 
 put to death, another attack was made, and this second 
 assault was successful. There is a double thread of in- 
 terpretation in the narrative, due probably to its com- 
 posite character. We have, in fact, two explanations 
 of the defeat. We are told that for the first assault but 
 three thousand men (Josh. vii. 4) were sent, and they 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 201 
 
 were easily repulsed. On the second assault thirty 
 thousand^ men were placed in ambush, while Joshua 
 led the rest of the army in a direct attack. Then, 
 again, we are told that the first repulsj was due to the 
 sin of Achan. 
 
 It is easy here, as elsewhere, to separate the actual 
 historic facts from the interpretation, and to judge each 
 by itself. The historic facts are not to be mixed up 
 with the theology of the narrator. The two explana- 
 tions of the failure to take the city at the first attempt 
 show the difference between looking at the matter 
 from the military and from the religious point of view. 
 
 The theological explanation of the writer is not free 
 from difificulties for the earnest student. It was cer- 
 tainly a severe penalty for the sin of a single individual, 
 who was not representative, that the whole people 
 should suffer a serious defeat, involving doubtless the 
 lives of many brave Israelites. The fact that Achan 
 was the only offender bears strong testimony to the 
 righteousness of the people as a whole. Booty was a 
 
 * According to Josh. viii. 3f., thirty thousand men were placed in 
 ambush behind the city, while, according to verse 12, five thousand 
 men were sent to the ambush. Verse 1 3 clears up the discrepancy by 
 explaining that there were two ambushes, contrary to the rest of the 
 narrative. The LXX. lacks verse 13 entirely, and all of verse 12 
 except the words, *' and the ambush of the city was on the west," 
 and so is consistent. Verse 13 may be explained as the compiler's 
 reconciliation of the discrepant numbers. 
 
202 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 chief object in war. Joshua's strict command that no 
 plunder be taken, even supported by the religious sanc- 
 tion of the ban, was not easy to carry out ; for it would 
 seem very foolish to the conquerors to destroy so much 
 stuff which would be useful to a poorly equipped peo- 
 ple. Nevertheless, God may punish innocent nations 
 for the sin of guilty individuals. The social fabric is a 
 unity in some sense, and when one member sins all 
 parts are affected more or less. 
 
 But God's punishments are not usually of an arbi- 
 trary character. God lets His people bear the natural 
 consequences of their sins ; as St. Paul so happily ex- 
 pressed it, *' whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he 
 also reap " (Gal. vi. 7). But the serious question is one 
 that belongs to theology, and may be left with theo- 
 logians. The higher criticism, however, must not be 
 charged with the responsibility for its determination, 
 as it is a question with which this science has nothing 
 whatever to do. 
 
 Such interpretations have little value for the student 
 of history ; but they have a very great value for the stu- 
 dent of the history of theology. If the bare facts had 
 been told, if we had only the military explanation of the 
 defeat at Ai, we should never be able to determine the 
 religious point of view of the Hebrew historian. As it 
 is, we know from such narratives as the above, not only 
 the Hebrew conception of God's providence in history, 
 but also the intense religious spirit of the Hebrew peo- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 203 
 
 pie. There were no phenomena, even in the material for- 
 tunes of these people, which did not seem to have their 
 direct causes in God. If they were right in their funda- 
 mental proposition, they may easily be excused for mis- 
 taking sometimes the direct causes of their misfortunes. 
 The true cause of the failure at Ai is clearly enough in- 
 dicated in the sacred story. The over-confidence of 
 the people, resulting from the easy conquest of Jer- 
 icho, as already stated, led the Hebrews to exaggerate 
 their own powers, and to underestimate the strength 
 of the enemy. This was the sin which God punished 
 with its natural and so corrective penalty. 
 
 In cases like those just discussed, the interpretative 
 element, though troublesome enough to the thoughtful 
 reader, is, nevertheless, a comparatively small matter, 
 and the true historical narrative is easily separated 
 from it. There are other cases in which the interpre- 
 tation occupies so prominent a place that it in fact 
 constitutes the raison iVelre of the writing. This is 
 notably the case with the Book of Chronicles, and 
 therefore that book constitutes a very serious problem 
 to the devout student who desires to know the facts. 
 It is true that many do not find any trouble with this 
 book ; but the reason is not that the troublesome 
 problems are not there, but that they have never made 
 a thorough study of the book. To know just what the 
 Book of Chronicles is, it must be studied comparatively. 
 It is a version of the history of Israel from Adam to 
 
204 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the Restoration. It is therefore parallel to the histor- 
 ical portions of the books from Genesis to Kings inclu- 
 sive. It deals with the same events, but in a vastly 
 different way. It is significant by its omissions, its 
 additions, and its parallels. No extensive treatment 
 of the book will be attempted here ; but some of 
 its phenomena will be presented under each of 
 these three divisions. The peculiar material of the 
 book and its peculiar character will thus be clearly 
 seen."^ 
 
 One important fact should first be noted. The 
 place of Chronicles in the Hebrew canon is very differ- 
 ent from that in the English canon. In the latter it 
 is placed after Kings, at the end of the section of his- 
 torical books, and before the poetical books and the 
 prophets ; in the Hebrew canon it is the very last book 
 of all. This has a meaning. The book was one of the 
 latest to obtain canonical recognition. There is abun- 
 dant evidence that its composition was late. It could 
 not possibly be earlier than 400 B C, and was probably 
 a century later. Its tardiness in finding a place in the 
 Hebrew canon can only be satisfactorily attributed to its 
 
 * A convenient source for the comparative study of Chronicles is 
 found in "The Hebrew Monarchy," by Andrew Wood, M.A. (Lon- 
 don, 1896). The notes are, however, of minor value. The prob- 
 lems of the Book of Chronicles are ably discussed in " Inspiration 
 and Inerrancy," by H. P. Smith. A useful synopsis will be found in 
 Driver's "Introduction," p. Sipff. 
 
. THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 205 
 
 peculiar character, that is, to its marked divergence 
 from the earlier history in Genesis to Kings. 
 
 I. Omissions. The first section of the book (i. i-ix. 
 34) consists, for the most part, of genealogical matter. 
 These tables are based mainly on the genealogical 
 material in the earlier books.* 
 
 The history proper begins with I. Chron. x. We find no 
 account of the establishment of the monarch}-, though 
 the genealogy of Saul's house is twice given (ix. 35ff.; 
 viii. 29ff.). Chronicles lacks the history of David's crown- 
 ing in Hebron, and the steps by which the kingdom of 
 the house of Saul was overthrown; it states that Saul 
 and all his house were slain in the battle of Gilboa, and 
 so the whole kingdom was at oncef turned over to 
 David (x. I3f.). As the Chronicler's assumption is that 
 the house of Saul was extinct, all reference to David's 
 dealings with Mephibosheth, or Meribaal, is omitted. 
 The infliction of childlessness on David's wife, Michal, 
 is omitted ; David's cruelty to the Moabites, his sin 
 with Bathsheba and all the events connected with it 
 
 ■•■ There are many significant omissions in this part. The tribe 
 of Judah occupies a foremost place ; in giving the families of other 
 tribes, the tribe of Levi takes the most prominent place. But these 
 need not be considered here. 
 
 t In spite of this we find in I. Chron. xxix. 27 an excerpt from 
 I. Kings ii. 11, stating that David reigned seven years in Hebron 
 and thirty-three years in Jerusalem ; but this passage implies that 
 in Hebron he ruled over all Israel. The fuller details are given 
 in II. Sam. v. 4f. 
 
2o6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 are lacking. So, also, are the rebellion of Absalom 
 and all the circumstances leading up to it, Amnon's in- 
 cest, his murder, the exile of Absalom ; so, also, is the 
 minor rebellion of Sheba, and the more important one 
 of Adonijah. There is no mention of the execution of 
 Saul's sons to appease the Gibeonites; of David's narrow 
 escape from death at the hands of a Philistine giant 
 (II. Sam. xxi. 1 5-17); of the vengeance upon his personal 
 enemies which he bequeathed to Solomon; and of the 
 infirmity of his old age which led to the introduction of 
 Abishag to the court. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that the David of Chronicles 
 is quite different from the David of Samuel. Nearly 
 everything is omitted which is derogatory to David's 
 character or to the glory of his reign. So one reading 
 the history of David from Chronicles only will have no 
 difificulty about reconciling the king after God's own 
 heart with the facts of this king's life. 
 
 In the history of Solomon's reign we find a number of 
 omissions. The story of his marriage with the Egyp- 
 tian princess is lacking, though there is allusion to her 
 as the king's wife (II. Chron. viii. 11); Chronicles is 
 generally silent about his polygamy and idolatry. 
 There is no record of his wisdom in judgment, as 
 shown in the case of the two women claiming the 
 same child. Chronicles lacks also the long account of 
 the organization of the kingdom and the king's wise 
 sayings (I. Kings iv.) ; also the account of the con- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 207 
 
 struction of his palace and other buildings. Chronicles 
 contains no record of the anger of God at Solomon, 
 His declaration that He would rend the kingdom from 
 the hands of his son, and the series of revolts by which 
 the empire was stripped of much of the territory which 
 David had acquired by conquest (ib.^ xi. 9-40). 
 
 In the history of the period following the reign of 
 Solomon we come to the most striking omissions. 
 Chronicles contains no history of the northern king- 
 dom, except in those cases where it is indissolubly bound 
 up with the history of Judah, such as Jehoshaphat's 
 joining Ahab in the campaign against Ramoth. For 
 his part in this affair, however, he was, according to the 
 Chronicler, sharply rebuked by Jehu the seer (H. Chron. 
 xix. 2). As a consequence of this principle of ignoring 
 the kingdom of Israel, we find nothing in Chronicles of 
 the stories of Elijah and Elisha, which occupy so large 
 a place in the book of Kings. Elisha is not mentioned 
 at all, and Elijah only once [ib., xxi. 12), where it is said 
 that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram the king, teUing 
 him that, because of his departing from the ways of 
 Jehoshaphat his father, a great plague would fall on 
 him and on his people. 
 
 In the history of Judah there are some minor omis- 
 sions, and some of important matters. There is no 
 mention of the altar which Ahaz had made at Jerusa- 
 lem after a pattern he saw at Damascus (II. Kings xvi. 
 lOff.j; nor is there any account of Hezekiah's sickness, 
 
2o8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 and the consequent visit of the embassy from Mero- 
 dach-Baladan, the king of Babylon, except the barest 
 mention (II. xxxii. 24, 31). 
 
 The purpose of the Chronicler may be clearly seen 
 from these facts. He had no concern with the king- 
 dom of Israel, because in the post-exilic period it was 
 not existent, and the present and future of his people 
 centred in Judah alone. The Chronicler desires to 
 make the history of Judah appear to the best advan- 
 tage, so that a veil is drawn over some of the worst 
 vices of the great heroes. 
 
 2. Additions. These are very numerous and very 
 considerable in extent ; and they deal with subjects of 
 several kinds. Only a partial list of additions can be 
 given here. Enough will be given, however, to show 
 that there is much original matter in Chronicles, and 
 to indicate the character of that material. Chronicles 
 gives a religious reason for Saul's death* (I. x. isf.); it 
 contains a long list of warriors who are said to have 
 joined David at Ziklag, and of those said to have joined 
 him at Hebron to turn over to him the kingdom of 
 Saul (I. xii.); we find there also a list of Levites, some 
 nine hundred in all, whom David gathered to carry the 
 ark to Jerusalem ; an account of the ceremony and a 
 Psalm which was sung on the occasion (I. xv., xvi.). 
 There is one large section in I. Chronicles which has 
 
 *His failing to keep the word of the Lord, and his consulting a 
 woman with a familiar spirit. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 209 
 
 no parallel in Samuel, viz., chaps, xxii.-xxix. There 
 we find David's preparations for the building of the tem- 
 ple, the charge to Solomon, the duties of the Levites, 
 who are said to have numbered thirty-eight thousand, 
 the courses of the priests, the singers, the gate-keepers, 
 the temple treasurers, the divisions of the army, the 
 princes of the tribes (except those of Gad and Reuben); 
 David's ministers, his last message to the princes, officers, 
 ct al.y a list of offerings for the temple made by David 
 and by his officers ; his prayer before all the people, 
 and the crowning of Solomon as king. 
 
 In 11. Chronicles the additions are less numerous, 
 and usually consist of but short passages. There is 
 a list of the cities which Rehoboam built to strengthen 
 his kingdom ; an account of the immigration of the 
 Levites and others who were led to Judah on c^ccount 
 of the temple; of Rehoboam's family, and of his de- 
 cline (xi. 5-23). The Chronicler tells us how the king 
 and princes humbled themselves when Shishak the 
 king of Egypt invaded the land, and gives the prom- 
 ise of deliverance (xii. 2ff.). There is an account of 
 a battle between Abijah of Judah with 400,000 chosen 
 men, and Jeroboam of Israel with 800,000 men ; Abi- 
 jah addresses the Israelites, denouncing their rebellion, 
 and appeals to them not to fight against Jehovah, the 
 God of their fathers. Jeroboam had placed a 
 part of his army in Abijah s rear, and began to attack 
 him ; but God smote Jeroboam, and the people of 
 
2 1 o THE OLD TES TA MEN T FR OM 
 
 Israel fled, Abijah and his men pursuing until they had 
 slain 300,000 men of Israel (xiii.). 
 
 In the reign of the good king Asa the Chronicler 
 places an otherwise unknown battle with the Ethio- 
 pians. Asa, with 300,000 Judeans and 280,000 Ben- 
 jamites, all mighty men of valor, met Zerah with 1,000,- 
 000 Ethiopians and 300 chariots ; again Jehovah struck 
 a decisive blov/ in aid of Judah so that the Ethiopian 
 force was annihilated. There follows a message of a 
 prophet who is called Azariah the son of Oded [also 
 Oded alone], commending the king for his fidelity to 
 Jehovah, and assuring him of success if he continued 
 in the right way (xv. 1-8). Then Asa assembled 
 the people of his kingdom, with many refugees from 
 the north, renewed the altar of Jehovah, and offered 
 in sacrifice 700 oxen and 7,000 sheep, entering into 
 a covenant to put to death those who did not serve 
 Jehovah (xiv. 6-xv. 15). The Chronicler relates that 
 Hanani the seer rebuked Asa for making an alliance 
 with Syria against Baasha, king of Israel ; that Asa 
 in anger put the seer in prison and " oppressed some 
 of the people" (xvi. 7-10). 
 
 There are some notable additions to the history of 
 Jehoshaphat, especially of such matters as tended to 
 magnify his greatness. We are told that his army num- 
 bered 1,160,000 men under four commanders (xvii.); 
 that his land was invaded by a great host which was 
 destroyed by Jehovah in answer to the king's fervent 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 211 
 
 prayer (xx,). There is also an account of Jehosha- 
 phat's legal reforms, his institution of teachers and 
 judges under the general direction of Amariah the 
 chief priest (xvii., xix.). 
 
 In Chronicles alone we find an account of the apos- 
 tasy of Judah after the death of the priest Jehoiada ; 
 the prophecy of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada that Je- 
 hovah had forsaken the wicked people ; the stoning 
 of this prophet by the command of king Joash (xxiv. 
 15-22). We find also a notice of Amaziah's hiring 
 100,000 mercenaries from Israel for a hundred talents 
 of silver, who were sent back, however, by the urgent 
 counsel of a man of God (xxv. 5-10). There is an ac- 
 count of the victories of Uzziah, by which the kingdom 
 was greatly strengthened, and also of the great mili- 
 tary preparations inaugurated in his reign. There we 
 have the memorable account of Uzziah's conflict with 
 the priests. The king went into the temple to burn 
 incense. The eighty priests under Azariah withstood 
 him, declaring that priests alone were competent to 
 burn incense, and ordering the king out of the sanctuary. 
 The king was very angry, but was helpless, because Je- 
 hovah had smitten him with leprosy (xxvi. 5-20). In 
 the history of Manasseh's reign there is an important 
 addition. According to the Chronicler, Manasseh was 
 carried in chains to Babylon. The king cried to Je- 
 hovah, and he was delivered and restored to his king- 
 dom. Then he strengthened the fortifications of Je- 
 
212 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 rusalem, and suppressed the idolatrous worship which 
 had been the cause of his ruin (xxxiii. Tiff.)- 
 
 In these additions we notice the tendency to magnify 
 the kingdom of Judah, the prominence of the priests 
 and Levites, the frequency with which prophets are 
 introduced to commend kings when they are faithful to 
 Jehovah, and to condem.n them when they are apos- 
 tate. The victories of Judah are due to the power of 
 Jehovah, and are given as an answer to the kings' 
 prayers. We note, also, the extraordinarily large 
 numbers of the men of war in these additions. 
 
 3. Parallel Passages. It is not easy to give in a short 
 space an adequate idea of the difference of treatment 
 between Chronicles and the earlier history upon which 
 it is in part based. Many sections of the earlier history 
 are incorporated bodily into Chronicles; but it is not 
 often that we find a verbatim agreement. Many of the 
 minor differences may be due to textual corruption; but 
 many are certainly intentional. As we follow the par- 
 allel passages we find that the Chronicler frequently 
 makes small omissions and additions, besides stating 
 things differently from the earlier historians. 
 
 The Book of Kings gives invariably as its sources 
 of information two records : " The chronicles of the 
 Kmgs of Israel," always quoted for the history of Is- 
 rael, and "the chronicles of the Kings of Judah," 
 always quoted for the history of Judah. "^ 
 
 *The only exception that I have noted is I. Kings xi. 41, where 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 213 
 
 In Chronicles the sources are never distinguished in 
 this way. Once there is *' the commentary [or midrash] 
 of the book of the Kings " (II. xxiv. 27; cf. II. Kings 
 xii. 19); most frequently the source is called " the 
 book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," or ** Israel and 
 Judah," e.g.^ II. xvi. 11 ; xxv. 26; xxvii. 7. Then 
 we have several sources not mentioned elsewhere, the 
 parallel to which in Kings is the books named above. 
 I. Chron. xxix. 29, " The acts of David the king . . . 
 are written in the history (literally ' words ') of Sam- 
 uel the seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet, 
 and in the history of Gad the seer." II. Chron. ix. 
 29, ''The acts of Solomon . . . are they not writ- 
 ten in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
 prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of 
 Iddo the seer?" (cf. I. Kings xi. 41). /<^., xii. 15, ''The 
 acts of Rehoboam . . . are they not written in the 
 histories of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, 
 after the manner of the genealogies." xiii. 22, " The 
 acts of Abijah . . . are written in the commen- 
 tary of the prophet Iddo." xx. 34, ''The acts of Jehosha- 
 phat . . . are written in the history of Jehu the son 
 of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the Kings 
 of Israel." xxvi. 22, " The acts of Uzziah . . . did 
 Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write." xxxii. 
 32, " The acts of Hezekiah . . . are written in the 
 
 the unwritten part of Solomon's history is said to be contained in 
 " the book of the acts of Solomon "; cf. II. Chron. ix. 29. 
 
214 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the 
 book of the Kings of Judah and Israel." lb., xxxiii. i8f., 
 '* The acts of Manasseh and his prayer unto his God 
 . . . are written among the acts of the Kings of 
 Israel. His prayer, also, and how God was entreated 
 of him, and all his sins and his trespass . . . are 
 written in the history of Hozai.""^ 
 
 Some cases of parallelism may be best shown by 
 again resorting to parallel columns. 
 
 And the king went And Solomon and all the assembly 
 to Gibeon to sacrifice with him went to the high place which was 
 there ; for that was at Gibeon ; for there was God's tent of 
 the great high place meeting, which Moses the servant of 
 (I. Kings iii. 4). Jahveh had made in the wilderness (II. 
 
 Chron. i. 3). 
 
 The Chronicler says indeed that Solomon worship- 
 ped at the high place in Gibeon ; but the odium of 
 worshipping at such a place is removed by his ex- 
 planation that the tabernacle was there. 
 
 * It might seem at first sight that the Chronicler had sources of 
 information which were unknown to the author of Kings, or, at 
 all events, unnamed by him. There is this difficulty in the theory 
 of the genuineness of these sources : the additional material in 
 Chronicles is always in a peculiar style, whereas the excerpted 
 portions are quoted in their original form, and have a style easily 
 distinguished from the Chronicler's. For a critical discussion of 
 these sources reference may be made to Driver, L. O. T.*, p. 527 
 ff., and to the other Introductions. 
 
THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 215 
 
 And again the anger of Jahveh And Satan stood up against 
 was kindled against Israel, and Israel, and moved David to 
 he moved David against them, number Israel (I. Chron. xxi. 1). 
 saying. Go, number Israel and 
 Judah (II. Sam. xxiv. i). 
 
 This passage shows the theological development in 
 the time of the Chronicler, the idea of Satan being of 
 late origin. There are some other interesting differ- 
 ences in this story. The Israelites, according to Chron- 
 icles, number 1,100,000, against 800,000 in Samuel ; 
 the Judeans 470,000, against 500,000; in Chronicles 
 David is offered three years' famine, in Samuel seven 
 years' ; according to Chronicles David paid six hun- 
 dred shekels of gold (about $6,cco) for the threshing 
 floor of Araunah, but according to Samuel fifty shekels 
 of silver ($30). The Chronicler explains that David 
 sacrificed at the newly erected altar because he could 
 not go to Gibeon, where the tent of meeting was, be- 
 cause he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the 
 Lord. 
 
 Hiram king of Tyre aided The cities which Huram had 
 Solomon with timbers of cedar restored to Solomon, Solomon 
 and with timbers of cypress and built them up, and caused the 
 with gold, according to his full Israelites to dwell there (II. 
 desire. Then king Solomon Chron. viii. 2). 
 gave to Hiram twenty cities in 
 the land of Galilee (I. Kings ix. 11). 
 
 It must be noted here that according to Chronicles 
 the cities were given by Huram to Solomon. *' The 
 
2l6 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Chronicler follows later and erroneous tradition, which 
 would not permit the immeasurably rich Solomon to 
 cede any cities."* 
 
 But when Ahaziah the king of Now the destruction of Aha- 
 Judah saw this, he fled by the ziah was of God, in that he 
 way of the garden house. And went unto Joram ; for when he 
 Jehu followed after him, and was come, he went out with Je- 
 said, Him also. They smote horam unto Jehu the son of 
 him in the chariot at the ascent Nimshi, whom Jahveh had 
 of Cxur, which is by Ibleam. anointed to cut off the house of 
 And he fled to Megiddo, and Ahab. And it came to pass 
 died there. And his servants when Jehu was executing judg- 
 carried him in a chariot to Jeru- ment upon the house of Ahab, 
 salem, and buried him in his that he found the princes of 
 sepulchre with his fathers in the Judah, and the sons of the 
 city of David (II. Kings ix. I'ji.). brethren of Ahaziah, and he 
 
 slew them. And he sought 
 Ahaziah, and they caught him 
 (now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, 
 and slew him ; and they buried him, for they said, He is the son 
 of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jahveh with all his heart (II. Chron. 
 xxii. 7-9). 
 
 The radical difference between these two narratives 
 is obvious. The variations are partly to be explained 
 as due to different traditions, partly to the peculiar 
 ideas of the Chronicler. The visit to the northern 
 king was, in the eyes of the Chronicler, so grave a sin 
 that its proper punishment was death. 
 
 *Oettli, " Com. on Chronicles," in loc. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 217 
 
 And his servants arose, and And when they were departed 
 made a conspiracy, and smote from him (for they abandoned 
 Joash at Beth-Millo, which goes him in great diseases), his own 
 down to Silla. And Jozacar the servants conspired against him 
 son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad for the blood of the sons of Je- 
 the son of Shomer, his servants, hoiada the priest, and they slew 
 smote him, and he died ; and him on his bed, and he died ; 
 they buried him with his fathers and they buried him in the city 
 in the city of David (II. Kings of David; but they buried him 
 xii. 2of.). not in the sepulchre of the kings. 
 
 And these are they that con- 
 spired against him : Zabad the son of Shimeath an Ammonitess, 
 and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess (II. Chron. 
 xxiv. 25!.). 
 
 The Chronicler finds the moral cause of Joash's as- 
 sassination, and because of his sin denies the statement 
 of Kings that he was buried with his fathers. Or the 
 reason for his burial apart from his fathers may be that 
 he died of a contagious disease. Chronicles contra- 
 dicts Kings also in regard to Uzziah, who died a leper, 
 saying that he was buried " with his fathers in the field 
 of burial which belonged to the kings " (II. Chron. 
 xxvi. 23; cf. II. Kings xv. 7). This is one of the many 
 places where the Chronicler reads into earlier history 
 the ideas of his own day. 
 
 There are some cases in which the Chronicler places 
 events in a different sequence from Kings. Thus he 
 places Josiah's destruction of the Asherahs, images, al- 
 tars of Baal, etc., in the early part of his reign, six years 
 
21 8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 before the discovery of the book of the Law. Substan- 
 tially the same thing is placed in Kings after the 
 book of the Law is found, and the reformation is de- 
 scribed as an attempt to put the new law into execu- 
 tion. 
 
 The facts in regard to the Book of Chronicles have 
 been sufHciently exhibited, although the incomplete- 
 ness of the exhibit is freely ackno\vledged. But a 
 fuller showing would only strengthen the evidence that 
 the Book of Chronicles Is written with a purpose other 
 than purely historical. As a historian, the defect of 
 the Chronicler is his lack of perspective. The institu- 
 tions of his own day are by him supposed to have 
 existed all through the history. He depreciates the 
 Northern Kingdom, judging it purely by its final re- 
 sults, and on the other hand idealizes the kingdom of 
 Judah. Hence we notice the uniformity of the im- 
 mense numbers of men mustered, the magnificent vic- 
 tories gained by the pious kings of Judah, the absence 
 of such a humiliation of a righteous king as Hezekiah's 
 surrender to Sennacherib. 
 
 The interpretative element is so prominent in Chron- 
 icles that it is not a first class historical source, espe- 
 cially with respect to the origin of institutions. But if 
 it offers little aid in determining the religious institu- 
 tions of the age, say, of David, it is of the greatest im- 
 portance in determining those of the Chronicler's own 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 219 
 
 time. Hence the book is of great value to the Biblical 
 student; but its value depends upon his knowing the 
 point of view of the author, and using it accordingly. 
 Harsh judgments on Chronicles have often been made, 
 but the ground of the condemnation shows its injus- 
 tice. The Chronicler has been condemned for not be- 
 ing other than he was. As soon as his work is per- 
 ceived to be apologetic rather than historic, the ground 
 of the unfavorable criticism is taken away. 
 
 There are other cases where needless controversy 
 has raged because the interpretative character of a 
 sacred writing was not recognized. Take the account 
 of creation in Gen. i. i-ii. 4*. For centuries that was 
 interpreted as a historical document pure and sim- 
 ple. Scientific researches showed the impossibility 
 of statements there made, and there was a tendency 
 on the one side to a hasty condemnation of the docu- 
 ment as worthless; in its downfall was involved a de- 
 preciation of the value of the Scriptures generally, and 
 indeed of the Christian religion as well. On the other 
 side there was an unreasoning, passionate defence of 
 the indefensible. 
 
 It is evident now that the interest of the author of 
 that story was not in the facts of creation, but in the 
 divine obligation of the Sabbath Day. The purpose is 
 didactic, not historical. The story of creation is ideal- 
 ized so as to fit in with the facts of the divine institu- 
 tion of the holy Sabbath. The modern scientific spirit 
 
220 THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 does not favor such compositions; but that story of the 
 creation was not written from the modern point of view, 
 nor under the guidance of modern literary canons. The 
 writer was consumed with his zeal for the religious in- 
 stitutions which God had established for His people. 
 
 The evidence everywhere shows that the inspired 
 writers of the Old Testament had other interests than 
 the mere recital of facts. The author of Kings signifi- 
 cantly refers to places where facts may be found. This 
 implies that he has another purpose in view; if any one 
 wants mere facts, let him go to the dry records in the 
 book of the chronicles of the Kings of Judah and of Is- 
 rael. The writer's purpose is higher; he desires to show 
 the religious meaning of Israel's history, so that the 
 present generation may learn the lessons of the past. 
 If one reads his book merely as history, he cannot hope 
 to understand it, or to be religiously helped by it. To 
 derive full benefit from the sacred writers we must 
 meet them on their own ground, not try to force them 
 to meet us on ours. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Z\)c propbcte. 
 
 THE largest contribution to the development of 
 a higher spiritual religion among the Jews 
 was made by the prophets. The number of 
 these was very large. From the time of Samuel, who 
 established prophetic schools or guilds, until the fall of 
 Jerusalem, the prophets were a large and influential 
 class, contributing much to the development of the 
 State and of the Church. But those who did most for 
 the nation were the solitary voices crying in the wilder- 
 ness. The great mass of prophets were not moved by 
 the disinterested purpose which constrained Amos to 
 continue his God-given message, even when enjoined 
 to silence by priest and king, and Jeremiah to persist 
 in his pleas for righteousness in the face of hard pun- 
 ishment and at the risk of his life ; yes, even when his 
 own desires prompted him to silence. The spirit of 
 these great prophets is a sufficient guarantee that they 
 were not deluded in their belief that they were sent by 
 God. 
 
 But they were ever in a minority. There was only 
 one Micaiah to protest against the false utterances of 
 four hundred prophets of Baal. Jeremiah stood alone, 
 
222 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 when the prophets and priests, vigilantly watching an 
 opportunity, dragged him before a court demanding 
 his death on the charge that he had spoken blasphemy. 
 The effect that these prophets produced upon their 
 own age was, therefore, but slight. They could not 
 save their country from ruin, because their warning went 
 unheeded. In the age of the restoration prophecy 
 passed away, and the priesthood became the predomi- 
 nant religious factor. But the great prophets lived in 
 the literary age of Israel. For one reason or another"^ 
 many of their messages were put into written form, 
 and so have become the heritage of the Christian 
 Church. 
 
 But what use has the Church made of these prophe- 
 cies ? Has it taken account of that which was the chief 
 thing with their authors, the establishment of righteous- 
 ness in the nation ? Or has it rather laid chief stress 
 upon the apologetic aspect of prophecy, especially in 
 connection with the Messianic element ? The pre- 
 
 * We are not often given the reason for the writing of a 
 prophecy. We have, however, most important testimony in the 
 case of Jeremiah. Some twenty years after he had begun to 
 prophesy, when he was apparently constrained from speaking 
 orally to the people, he dictated his past utterances to Baruch, his 
 secretary, hoping that in this more enduring form they would move 
 the people to righteousness. King Jehoiakim ruthlessly destroyed 
 this whole work, but Jeremiah immediately set about the prepara- 
 tion of a second edition. (See Jer. xxxvi.) 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 223 
 
 dictive part of prophecy is that which has chiefly 
 infli^enced the Christian Church. Now that the apolo- 
 getic value of prophecy is seen to be quite different 
 from what was formerly supposed, the prophetic writ- 
 ings are to many Christians books without purpose 
 or meaning, at least for this day. 
 
 To recover the prophets, it is only necessary to go 
 back to their own age, and read them in the light 
 of their times. The historical setting is absolutely 
 essential for the right and full understanding of 
 these God-sent preachers of righteousness. Modern 
 criticism has been engaged in the task of determin- 
 ing both the particular age to which each prophecy 
 belongs, and also the true historical conditions of that 
 time. Its work has, therefore, been chiefly construc- 
 tive and conservative. It takes prophecies from false 
 positions to true ones, and preserves the canonical 
 prophets as a vital part of the Christian heritage. 
 This would seem to be no mean service to the Chris- 
 tian religion. It is possible now to read the prophets 
 in the full light of their times, and with a clear under- 
 standing of the prophetic motive. The object of the 
 present chapter is to show some of the results of this 
 criticism, and especially the ground upon which the 
 results are based. No attempt will be made to cover 
 the whole field of prophecy, as such a treatment would 
 require a volume by itself ; but enough will be presented 
 to show the method of literary criticism, to enable the 
 
224 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 reader to judge of the validity of the results, and to 
 appreciate their value to the Christian student. 
 
 No other prophetic book has been subjected to such 
 searching criticism as the Book of Isaiah. There was 
 a time when the whole sixty-six chapters were gener- 
 ally regarded as the product of Isaiah, the son of 
 Amoz, who prophesied in Jerusalem 740-701 B.C. 
 First, the long excerpt from the Book of Kings, 
 chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix.; then the larger section, chaps. 
 xl.-Ixvi., commonly called II. Isaiah, were taken away 
 from this author; finally other passages of greater or 
 less extent went too, until the question could fairly 
 be asked whether we should not soon have such a host 
 of Isaiahs, that in reality we should have none at all. 
 
 The greatest English critic, if not the greatest living 
 critic, of Isaiah is Canon Cheyne, of Oxford. For 
 many years he has patiently studied this great book, 
 publishing his results from time to time in monu- 
 mental volumes ; but always finding, or, at all events, 
 publishing, a more radical result, until we have the 
 culmination in his recent '' Introduction," and in the 
 still later " Polychrome Bible." From this latter it 
 will be interesting to note what prophecies are still 
 assigned to the son of Amoz. These are, in the order 
 given by Cheyne : ii. 6Mv. i *; v.,t ix. 8-x. 4 X\ vi. 
 
 * Except ii. 9 ; iii. 2, 3, 6, 7. 
 t Except verses 15, 16, 25a, 30. 
 t Except ix. 15, 16; X. 4a. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 225 
 
 I-13''*; vii. 2-viii. 22,'^ xvii.f xxviii. 1-4; i. 29-31 ; xiv. 
 29-32; X. 5-9, 13-15; xiv. 24-27; X. 28-32; XX. I, 
 3-6; xxviii. 7-22; xxix. 1-4,6,9, lo, 13-15; xxx. 
 1-17; xxxi. 1-4; xxii. 15-18; xviii. 1-6; i. 2-26; 
 xxii. 1-14 ; xvi. 14; xxi. 16, 17. There are some 
 omissions of parts of verses which it is not deemed 
 necessary to specify. To gather up these results in 
 a more convenient form, and disregarding small 
 omissions, Cheyne ascribes to Isaiah the following 
 chapters: i -iii., v.-x., xiv. (vs. 24-32), xvii., xx., 
 xxviii. In other words, chaps, iv., xi.-xvi., xviii., 
 xix., xxi.-xxvii., xxix.-lxvi., are, with the exception 
 of a few verses, non-Isaianic. That is, less than one- 
 fifth of the Book of Isaiah was actually written by the 
 son of Amoz. 
 
 Cheyne is not alone in his main contentions. Duhm, 
 e.g., is in virtual agreement with him ; and their re- 
 sults are those of the extreme radical critics of the 
 present day. Driver is a good representative of the 
 more modern criticism, which is, at the same time, 
 scientific. He holds that the following chapters are 
 Isaianic : % i.-xii., xiv. 24-32 ; xv., xvi., xvii -xx., 
 
 ^Except vii. 8^ 15, 17, 21-25; viii. 19, 20. 
 
 t Except 7, 8. 
 
 \ Driver expresses the general doubt as to the Isaianic authorship 
 of chap, xii., and also of xv.-xvi. 12, which may have been written 
 by Isaiah at an earlier time, or may be quoted from some earlier 
 prophet. 
 
226 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 xxi. ii-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxii., comprising about one- 
 third of the whole book.'^" Driver's position is regarded 
 as the most conservative that is critically tenable, while 
 Cheyne's may certainly be looked upon as going as far 
 as criticism can, and considerably further, in the 
 writer's opinion, than the known or present knowable 
 facts warrant. 
 
 That many of the prophecies in this book do not 
 belong to Isaiah is clearly demonstrable ; that others 
 do not may be made highly probable; but critical 
 analysis has not yet advanced to the point to make 
 Cheyne's results more than an important suggestion 
 of possibilities. There are four sections of the Book 
 of Isaiah, besides the historical section, xxxvi.-xxxix,, 
 which belong to another age than Isaiah, viz.: xiii. 
 i-xiv. 23; xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv.-xxxv. ; xl.-lxvi. Mod- 
 ern critics are absolutely unanimous in regard to these. 
 The most apparent evidence for this conclusion is easily 
 presented. 
 
 Before considering this evidence, however, atten- 
 tion must be called to a fundamental principle — the 
 relation of the prophet to his times. It is almost an 
 axiom in criticism now, that an allusion to a known 
 
 * These proportions take on a truer look if we remember that 
 chaps, xxxvi.-lxvi., or more than half of the whole book, are pro- 
 nounced non-Isaianic by all modern critics, even by many con- 
 servatives. Driver accepts as Isaianic nearly twice as much as 
 Cheyne. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 227 
 
 historical event fixes the tcTDiinus a quo of a given 
 prophecy. But this is not based on an a priori as- 
 sumption. It is a clear deduction from the known 
 phenomena of prophecy. The prophet, though a man 
 raised up of God to lead his people to righteousness, 
 was pre-eminently a man of his tim.es. This is clearly 
 seen in all the cases in which the prophecies have 
 been correctly dated by tradition. We can read the 
 history of Jeremiah's age much better in his book than 
 in Kings. The subjects of which the prophets spoke 
 were those which vitally concerned the people of their 
 day. Why did Amos leave his flocks and go to Bethel 
 and deliver a message most unwelcome to the people 
 there? Because he could "discern the signs of the 
 times." He saw the danger which loomed up on the 
 horizon, and the moral decadence of the people which 
 was making them unfit to meet it. God had opened 
 his eyes and made him the instrument to open the 
 eyes of the people. 
 
 It is of course possible that there might be a phe- 
 nomenon in prophecy very different from that stated 
 above. A prophet might care little for the affairs of 
 his own day, and concentrate his interest wholly on 
 the future. In fact, almost all of them do this, althougli 
 only to a very limited extent.^ But when they do 
 
 * This is one of the points at issue to-day between the extreme and 
 the conservative critics. Many regard such pictures of the future as 
 Amos ix. 11-15; Isa. ii. 2-4; ix. 1-7, xi., as later interpolations. 
 
228 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 transport -themselves into the future, the identity of 
 authorship is seen in part from the likeness of style ; in 
 part from the fact that a prophet transporting himself 
 into the future, as a historian burying himself in the 
 past, is almost certain incidentally to betray his own 
 age by unmistakable allusions. 
 
 Formerly Isa. xl.-lxvi. was regarded as an Isaianic 
 composition. It was never contended that it had any 
 bearing upon the age of Isaiah ; it was freely admitted 
 that the subject was the exile in Babylon. But it was 
 held, as Delitzsch once put it, that the prophet lived 
 *' a pneumatic life among the exiles."^ There would 
 be nothing /^r^^ impossible in this, though it would be 
 improbable. But there are other facts which have to be 
 considered. These prophecies do not show even by 
 any chance allusion the earlier age of the supposed 
 writer. In other cases of prediction, the agreement in 
 detail with the future condition is rarely close, and in 
 fact is often quite remote. Finally, the style is usually 
 quite different from that of the writer to whom they 
 are credited. There is therefore good ground for -giv- 
 ing great weight to the historical allusions. We may 
 now take up these sections of the book of Isaiah in 
 detail. 
 
 Criticism has, in my judgment, been too sweeping in dealing with 
 passages of this character. 
 
 * This is found in the early editions of his work on Isaiah. In 
 his last edition he accepted the critical view. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 229 
 
 I. xiii. i-xiv. 23. The evidence in favor of the 
 Isaianic authorship of this passage is the fact that 
 it is found in the book of Isaiah, with genuine Isaianic 
 prophecies before and after it ; and that it has the head- 
 ing, "The oracle on Babylon which Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz saw." But the value of this evidence is not very 
 great, because it rests on a late Jewish tradition. The 
 historical section, xxxvi.-xxxix., taken from the Book 
 of Kings, was inserted in the book at least as late as the 
 exilic period, * and therefore other parts might have 
 been added. It is impossible to go into the question 
 of the titles to prophecies here. The subject will be 
 discussed more fully in the chapters on the Psalter. 
 They are, however, surely the addition of the editors 
 who arranged the prophecies, and were much later than 
 the prophecies themselves. This is not an assumption, 
 but may be surely proved. The evidence then is sim- 
 ply that a post-exiHc editor regarded this prophecy as 
 Isaiah's; but it must be remembered that his opinion 
 was expressed at least two centuries later than Isaiah. f 
 
 On the other hand, there is a good deal to be said 
 for the contrary view. The prophecy deals with the 
 downfall of Babylon. But Babylon was not a power 
 formidable to the Jews in Isaiah's day. His utter- 
 
 * As the Book of Kings carries the history down to the exilic 
 period, it evidently could not have been composed before that 
 time. 
 
 t See Cheyne's note in Polychrome Bible, p. 173. 
 
230 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 ances were directed toward the overthrow of Assyria ; 
 and this even was not accomplished till a century after 
 his time. Babylon was to be overthrown by the 
 Medes (xiii. 17). This people did not become an effec- 
 tive force till long after Isaiah's age ; the Median em- 
 pire was conquered by Cyrus in 549 B.C., before he 
 moved against Babylon. This prophecy assumes the 
 exile as an existing fact. Not only the Jews but 
 other nations are held under the oppressive tyranny 
 (xiv. 2, 6, 12, i6f.). Lebanon had already been devas- 
 tated by the Babylonians (xiv. 8). Jacob and Israel 
 are the national names (xiv. i) ; but in Isaiah's time 
 these terms would mean the northern kingdom, and 
 the exiles from the north cannot be the ones intended 
 here, for their exile was in Assyria, not in Babylonia. 
 The deliverance of the Jews from exile as a result of 
 the fall of Babylon is the real subject of interest to 
 the writer, and the release is looked upon as near at 
 hand. The bitter spirit against Babylon, the exulta- 
 tion over her downfall, are in harmony with other 
 passages which belong to the period of the exile. 
 There are some ideas and expressions quite unlike 
 Isaiah. In regard to these, Cheyne says: "" The bal- 
 ance of the evidence from ideas, phraseology and 
 style is in favor of a late date (even if a number of 
 facts be set aside as doubtful, on the ground of their 
 dependence on critical decisions as to the date of other 
 disputed writings), and very decidedly opposed to the 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 231 
 
 traditional theory of Isaiah's authorship" (Polychrome 
 Bible, p. 1/3). 
 
 The above considerations require us to remove the 
 prophecy from the ag-e of Isaiah ; but they also furnish 
 the data for fixing the true date within very small limits. 
 Cheyne holds that it is impossible to decide whether 
 it should be placed before or after Cyrus' conquest of 
 Media, 549 B.C. He gives the date 550-545. Driver 
 assigns it to the period "shortly before 549 B.C." (L. 
 O.T.^p. 212). 
 
 There is not the slightest reference in the prophecy 
 to the events of Isaiah's own day ; and a prophecy 
 dealing with events a century and a half in the future 
 could have no meaning for the men of that time. Up 
 to almost the last hour the Jews were confident that 
 they would not be called upon to endure exile in Baby- 
 lon. The promise of deliverance from the deplorable 
 condition still more than a century away, a condition 
 which no one expected, would make no impression upon 
 the people of that early age. 
 
 How different the prophecy reads when we place it 
 in its true position. The tyrant who has so long held 
 down the Jews with his oppressive hand is about to 
 fall before the irresistible forces which are mustering 
 for the attack. The zealous Jews, who had sat down 
 and wept by the waters of Babylon as they thought of 
 the holy city, perceived from the message of the clear- 
 sighted prophet that the prisoners of Babylon would 
 
232 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 soon be set free, that they would soon sing again the 
 Lord's song in the Lord's land. The bitterness against 
 Babylon would be strange from Isaiah ; but a prophet 
 of the exile, who had tasted of the bitter cup, might 
 well declare the realization of the hope cherished in 
 that pathetic exilic Psalm (cxxxvii.) : * *' Their in- 
 fants also shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes; 
 their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives dishon- 
 ored " (xiii. 6; cf. Psa. cxxxvii. 9). 
 
 2. xxiv.-xxvii. This prophecy does not contain 
 such sure and simple indications of date as the one just 
 considered. It is apocalyptic in character and not al- 
 ways easy of interpretation. It is desirable to have in 
 mind a clear idea of the contents of the prophecy. 
 
 An overwhelming calamity is coming upon the 
 whole earth, a calamity which will involve every class, 
 and which will cause the earth to melt and pass away, 
 being profaned by the touch of the wicked inhabitants. 
 The transgressors will be engulfed in ruin until {q\n are 
 left. The sound of music will cease ; and a sound of 
 distress will take its place. The city is a desolation, 
 and its gates are ruined. 
 
 Though shouts arise in praise of Jahveh's majesty and 
 songs of glory to the righteous, yet there is naught for 
 Israel but misery, because of robbers and snares. For 
 the world is turned upside down. The high ones of 
 
 * This Psalm may have been written later than assumed above ; 
 but it reflects the condition and feelings of the exiles. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 233 
 
 the earth shall be swept away. The sun and moon 
 shall be confused, but Jahveh shall be king in Mount 
 . Zion and in Jerusalem. 
 
 A song of praise is sung because of the wonderful 
 things done by Jahveh, in bringing a city to ruin, 
 and in being a shelter for the poor and needy. On 
 holy Zion will Jahveh make a feast to all peoples, de- 
 stroying the veils which are spread over the nations: 
 that is. He will wipe away the tears and remove the 
 reproach of His people. The people (Israel) will then 
 clearly recognize their God for whom they have 
 waited ; His hand shall rest on Mount Zion ; and con- 
 fusion will come to their enemies. 
 
 A song will be sung in praise of the strong city 
 whose walls are the salvation of Jahveh, for He is 
 the Rock of Ages. But the lofty city He has brought 
 low; it is trodden down with the feet. Jahveh's peo- 
 ple have long waited for this day. The wicked have 
 taken no warning from the uplifted hand. But the 
 righteous have passed from the dominion of other 
 gods, and now praise only the name of Jahveh. 
 
 In the time of trouble the suffering looked to Jah- 
 veh, and poured out their prayer to Him. The earth 
 shall give back the shades to life. But for the present 
 the faithful must withdraw into their chambers until 
 the storm of the Lord's wrath shall pass by. In future 
 days Israel shall take root under Jahveh's protection, 
 and fill the surface of the world with fruit. 
 
234 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Israel's punishment was not like that of his op- 
 pressors. The deliverance will come with the removal 
 of the false worship which caused the ruin. The Lord 
 will beat out the ears of wheat from Egypt to the 
 Euphrates, and one by one shall the scattered sons 
 of Israel return from the uttermost parts of the earth. 
 
 This outline shows the general character of the 
 prophecy. Jahveh is to bring a judgment upon the 
 whole world. Israel has been in the deepest suffering 
 and misery. He has long waited for an expected de- 
 liverance which the overthrow of the world powers 
 will bring about. Surely there was nothing in Isaiah's 
 time to suggest such a picture as this. 
 
 On the other hand, there are clear indications of the 
 post-exilic age. The people are re-established in Je- 
 rusalem, but in so poor an estate that, as in Zechariah, 
 Jahveh's abode on Mount Zion is looked upon as still 
 future (xxiv. 23). The people still suffer the reproach 
 of the exile, " Where is now thy God ?" (xxv. 8). The 
 experience of those who had struggled to rebuild the 
 fallen state had been bitterly disappointing (xxvi. i/f.). 
 The return of the Jews, who are looked upon as still 
 widely scattered, was yet future (xxvii. I2f.). The peo- 
 ple had had experience of the dominion of foreign gods 
 over them (xxvi. 13). The walls were either in ruins, 
 or were at best an inefficient protection (xxvi. i). The 
 national names, as in the preceding prophecy, were 
 Jacob and Israel (xxvii. 6). " The imagery," says 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 235 
 
 Chcyne, "is that of the later prophecies and of apoca- 
 lyptic writing-s " (Polychrome Bible, p. 203). "The 
 ideal, or symbolic, element, is much larger than in the 
 pre-exilic prophecies generally; and the closest parallels 
 are Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.; Joel iii. 9-2 1 ; Zcch. xii.-xiv " 
 (Driver, L. O. T/', 221). 
 
 If there is no appropriate place in the age of Isaiah 
 for this prophecy, where shall we look for its origin ? 
 Opinions differ as to whether it belongs to the early 
 part of the Persian age (538-332 B.C.) or to the late 
 part. This is a very considerable range; but our knowl- 
 edge of the period is not sufficiently exact to make a 
 close determination of the date possible, especially as 
 the prophecy alludes to temporal conditions but ob- 
 scurely. 
 
 There is, for instance, no mention of the name of 
 the ''city of confusion," whose destruction is of such 
 momentous consequence to Israel, nor is there any in- 
 ference by which the city meant can be surely deter- 
 mined. It is certain that in the post-exilic period 
 there was great discouragement among the people, 
 and the hardships which they endured were very trying 
 to patience and faith. The splendid anticipations of 
 the great prophet (II. Isaiah) were proving to be small 
 realizations. The community had been cheered on by 
 Haggai and Zechariah to the great task of rebuilding 
 the temple. They were told that there was no cure for 
 their woes as long as the house of God was in ruins. 
 
.236 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Then the temple was rebuilt, and the sacrifices were 
 re-established, but later, in Nehemiah's time, the con- 
 dition of the Jews was still deplorable. Nehemiah at- 
 tempted to remove the reproach of the people by re- 
 building the walls, so that the nations surrounding 
 could no longer harass them; but, even with both tem- 
 ple and walls, the condition of the Jews was not much 
 improved. The peoples around them were inveterate 
 in their hostility, and there seemed no cure for their 
 woes but such a world-judgment as that pictured in 
 this prophecy. 
 
 If we could be certain of the meaning of the ob- 
 scure reference to the walls in xxvi. i, it would enable 
 us to fix the date more precisely — " Salvation will he 
 appoint as walls and defences"; if this means that the 
 salvation of God shall take the place of walls, then the 
 prophecy would belong to the time shortly before 
 Nehemiah, 444 B.C. If, as Duhm holds, the passage 
 should be rendered, " He produces walls and bulwarks 
 for deliverance," then the passage would refer to the 
 restoration of the walls by Nehemiah, or, at a later 
 time, by Hyrcanus. It is, perhaps, necessary to rest 
 content with the general post-exilic period. It may be 
 said, finally, in favor of the later part of this period that 
 such an expectation as this prophecy reveals would be 
 most natural after other things had failed. 
 
 3. xxxiv.,xxxv. The nations are called upon to wit- 
 ness Jehovah's wrath against the armed hosts of the 
 
THE MODERiV POINT OF VIEW. i^i 
 
 world. These forces will be devoted to destruction, the 
 mountains being- dissolved with the blood of the slain. 
 The destructive forces shall reach even to the heav- 
 ens. Edom especially, the most hated of the hostile 
 peoples, shall feel the sword of the Lord; the Edom- 
 ites will serve as a great sacrifice to Jehovah. 
 
 Zion in her struggles came at last to the time of 
 recompense. The desolation of Edom will be terrible; 
 streams and land will be flaming pitch and limestone, 
 which shall burn forever. The waste land shall become 
 the abode of the animals of the desert. The palaces 
 and fortresses shall be overgrown with briars and net- 
 tles. 
 
 The wilderness will rejoice as the glory of Jehovah is 
 revealed. The hands of the weak will be strengthened 
 by hope, because God is coming to the rescue of His 
 people. Those who have been blind will be able to 
 see; the lame will walk; for water shall issue forth even 
 in the desert, and grass shall grow there. A highway, 
 the way of holiness, will be there, over which the res- 
 cued will pass, safe from the attacks of lions or other 
 beasts of prey. Jehovah's redeemed will come back to 
 Zion with joyful songs. 
 
 It is evident from this outline that the thing which 
 the prophet contemplates as future is the return of the 
 exiles to Zion ; the thing which is a present fact is the 
 exile itself The hands of the Jewish exiles are now 
 feeble, their knees are weak and their hearts are failing 
 
238 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 them through fear; the people are blind, deaf, dumb, 
 and lame. The bad plight of the people will be changed 
 when they see a divine judgment coming upon the na- 
 tions, and realize the meaning of that judgment. The 
 meaning is that Zion's struggles are over, that her chil- 
 dren will soon come back overflowing with joy. They 
 will not take the long journey by way of the north, but 
 on the highway which God shall raise up: they will 
 come straight across the Syrian desert, trom Babylon 
 to Jerusalem. 
 
 The vengeance of the Lord will be visited chiefly 
 upon Edom. The prophet- poet depicts exhaustively 
 the utter desolation which is coming upon that hated 
 land. No other nation is mentioned, either expressly 
 or impliedly. In the earlier days of the exile, indigna- 
 tion against the mighty power of Babylon was almost 
 lost in the intense bitterness toward the descendants 
 of Esau. The affliction from the hands of the great 
 world power was tolerable because inevitable; but that 
 Edomites should have picked up Jewish refugees in 
 the wilderness and handed them over to Babylon, that 
 they should have exulted in the fall of Jerusalem's 
 walls, and defiled the sacred soil of Zion, was almost 
 more than the Jew could bear. 
 
 This prophecy, like the others, has no fitness in the 
 times of Isaiah. It would be utterly unintelligible in 
 that time. It would have had no meaning for that 
 generation. But in the first part of the exilic period 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 239 
 
 it expresses admirably the feelings of despair and of 
 hope which alternately moved the hearts of those who 
 were chafing under the restraints of the bondage in 
 Bab3^1onia. 
 
 Cheyne, it is true, dates this prophecy 400 B.C. or 
 later. He thinks that the two chapters are connected, 
 and may have come from the same author. He says 
 further that " both were evidently written in Judah, 
 and are late post-exilic works " ( Polychrome Bible, 
 p. 201). 
 
 That there are expressions which point to a later 
 date than the exile cannot be denied; that it ''evi- 
 dently was written in Judah" does not by any means 
 seem so clear. There is much likeness between chap. 
 XXXV. and H. Isaiah, but it is not certain that the for- 
 mer is dependent upon the latter, as Cheyne holds, still 
 less that chap, xxxiv. is '' mainly based on the oracle 
 on Babylon!' chap, xiii.f , as he further alleges. 
 
 While the bitterness toward Edom was felt at a much 
 later time than the exile, as we know from Malachi, 
 there is most reason, on the whole, to place this proph- 
 ecy in the exilic period. Driver and Dillman assigned 
 it to the closing years of the exile. But that would 
 make it contemporary with H. Isaiah, and make diffi- 
 cult of explanation the silence in regard to Babylon and 
 Cyrus. The writer does not seem to have a clear idea 
 of the source from which Jehovah's deliverance will 
 come ; but contents himself with the assurance that it 
 
240 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 will come, and that it will be the hour of doom for 
 Edom. 
 
 Before passing on to consider the last section of the 
 book of Isaiah, a brief digression may be permitted, as 
 it is suggested by a query likely to rise in the reader's 
 mind. It appears from the consideration of the above 
 prophecies that all modern critics are agreed that they 
 belong to an age much later than Isaiah, but at that 
 point disagreement begins. One school of critics 
 places them much later than others. All agree that 
 they could not have been written before the exile ; but 
 the difterence of date assigned by different critics is in 
 one case as much as two centuries. 
 
 This is a good illustration of the subject discussed in 
 an earlier chapter as to the invalidation of the results 
 of criticism by the difference of opinion among the 
 critics."^ The people want positive results. If they 
 are constrained to take these chapters out of the cate- 
 gory of Isaianic writings, they do not want to leave 
 them suspended in mid-air, but want a reasonably sure 
 date to which they may be assigned. It is only by reach- 
 ing such a result that constructive work can be done. 
 Some may feel that it is better to hold on to a discred- 
 ited theory at least until another theory is securely 
 established in its place. 
 
 * It may be remarked that this argument is a two-edged sword, 
 and cuts both ways. There is also great difference of opinion 
 among the upholders of traditional views. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 241 
 
 Much sympathy must be felt for such a feeling. But 
 it will be recognized that there are two things to con- 
 sider: the invalidation of critical results by the failure 
 of critics to agree, and the unwillingness to abandon 
 one theory until a better and unanimously accepted 
 theory takes its place. The essential question in these 
 cases is not between one precise date and another. 
 Even in regard to the undisputed prophecies of Isaiah 
 there is much difference of opinion among all classes 
 of critics, from the most ultra-conservative to the most 
 radical, as to the exact date. Chap, i., for example, is 
 regarded by some as the earliest of Isaiah's prophecies, 
 and by others as the latest. It is variously dated within 
 the whole forty years of the prophet's career. The es- 
 sential question is always, at first, whether the prophecy 
 is Isaianic or not. There is absolute unanimity of opin- 
 ion among modern critics in the answer to this ques- 
 tion. But it is not essential to the validity of this result 
 that the agreement should go so far as to fix the exact 
 year of composition. 
 
 Some critics show a marked tendency to date all 
 such prophecies at the latest period possible, others at 
 the earliest period that will meet the facts. It is not a 
 vital matter whether early or late ; but it often must hap- 
 pen that there is not sufificient evidence in the proph- 
 ecy to determine its period more than approximately, 
 and external evidence fails us entirely. The lack of 
 full knowledge of the post-exilic period greatly ham- 
 
242 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 pers the critic in fixing the date of obscure prophecies. 
 It will appear, it is hoped, from the consideration of 
 the prophecies treated above, that criticism has accom- 
 plished enough to show a real though not a final work 
 of construction. It is satisfactory, at any rate, to turn 
 to a great prophecy, or collection of prophecies, in 
 regard to which there is more accord on the posi- 
 tive side. 
 
 4. xl.-lxvi. On the religious side there are no finer 
 prophecies than those in this collection. There are 
 none which better repay an exhaustive study. The 
 constructive study has been foremost from the begin- 
 ning of the criticism of this collection. For it was the 
 clear perception of the actual period to which the 
 prophecies belong that led irresistibly to their separa- 
 tion from the age of Isaiah. 
 
 The question of the unity of the Book of Isaiah is 
 now obsolete; but the question of the unity of II. Isaiah 
 is still under discussion. No one can easily doubt that 
 more than one hand has been at work here; but the 
 question is whether the alien parts were incorporated 
 by the author of the major part of this great work, or 
 whether the present book is the result of a compilation 
 of several different prophecies belonging to different 
 periods. 
 
 A glance through the Polychrome Bible shows 
 Cheyne's conclusions. The original prophecies of the 
 '* second Isaiah " are colored dark red. These are 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 
 
 243 
 
 chaps, xl.-xlviii. — except xlii. 1-7, xliv. 9-20, xlvi. 6- 
 8, and parts of xlviii. The passages which deal with 
 the *' servant of Jehovah " are marked by dark purple. 
 Light blue marks passages written or inserted by an 
 editor. These are in the main xliv. 9-20 ; xlvi. 6-Z\ 
 xlviii. I, 2, 4, 5^ 7^, 8^-10, 17-19, 22; Ivii. 13^-21. 
 Light red marks passages which belong to various 
 other sources', these are in the main xlix. 13-I. 3; 
 li. i-lii. 2, 7-12 ; liv. i-lvii. 13''; Iviii.-lxvi. There are 
 also minor passages in dark blue. There were, there- 
 fore, several different hands in the composition of this 
 work, of which the " great unknown " was the basis. 
 The dates assigned by Cheyne extend from 550-545 
 B.C. (the second Isaiah) to 350 B.C. 
 
 That the whole of this great work does not belong 
 to one brief period has been shown long ago.* The 
 prophecy begins with the period when the discerning 
 eye of a God-illumined prophet can clearly see that 
 great event which is still veiled from the people — the 
 fall of Babylon. We can see as we read on the doom 
 of the great city drawing nearer and nearer; we see the 
 blow fall which breaks the fetters of the exiled Jews; 
 we can follow the latter on the weary road back toZion, 
 and see their hard struggles in their attempt to bring 
 order out of that chaos. But it is not so certain that 
 
 ♦The present writer some years ago published an essay on this 
 subject, "The Historical Movement Traceable in Isaiah xl.- 
 Ixvi." — Andover Review, August, 1891. 
 
244 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 in this collection we can go onto the age of Nehemiah, 
 and even much further. 
 
 It is clear, further, that the ^' servant " passages have 
 marked points in common as well as in contrast. It is 
 probable that the "second Isaiah " was not the author 
 of that queen of Messianic prophecies, Hi. 13-liii.; but 
 it is not clear that this gem was not incorporated by 
 the author of this book. It is true that some of the 
 later chapters, especially Ixiii.-lxvi , may well be as- 
 signed to a later writer ; but there does not seem to 
 be sufBcient ground for such a radical dissection as 
 Cheyne's. But all this is incidental to our main pur- 
 pose, which is to show that this prophetic work belongs 
 to the period of the exile, and that its religious and de- 
 votional value is greatly enhanced by reading it in its 
 true connection. 
 
 God has not left Himself without witness among 
 the sons of men in any age, least of all in that which 
 was the most disheartening in all the history of Israel. 
 Jeremiah declares that there will be a time when men 
 will no longer say, the " God who brought us out of 
 Egypt," but **the God who brought us out of Baby- 
 lon." The exile in Babylonia was of greater moment 
 than the bondage in Egypt. Then the nation's life had 
 not yet begun ; Israel consisted of wandering tribes of 
 nomads. But after six centuries of national life in 
 Canaan, the nation was swept away, and held in a bond- 
 age that was none the less galling that it was light. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 245 
 
 The exiles were not compelled to make bricks without 
 straw ; but they were denied recourse to the holy soil, 
 and even Zion could have meant little to the pious at 
 that time, because it was a scene of desolation, and 
 the temple was no more. 
 
 The time-serving prophets had deluded the exiles 
 with false hopes of a speedy return before Jerusalem 
 actually fell. After that there was the inevitable re- 
 action, and hope soon died. The pious might indeed 
 say: 
 
 *• If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, 
 Let my right hand forget. 
 Let my tongue cleave to my mouth, 
 If I remember thee not ; 
 If I prefer not Jerusalem 
 Above my chief joy."— PSA. cxxxvii. 5f. 
 
 But for the mass of the people there was nothing to 
 do but build houses, plant vineyards, marry wives and 
 beget children, as Jeremiah had advised. That the 
 exile would be long was becoming only too plain. 
 Those who had been born in the holy land, and had 
 made the long march to Babylon as captives, were fast 
 dying off. A new generation, born on foreign soil, was 
 growing up, to whom the knowledge of the national 
 life in Judah came only from the diligent instruction of 
 the fathers. They had been faithfully taught that they 
 were citizens of another country. But time does its 
 work, however difficult the task may be. Jewish homes 
 
246 THE OLD TESTAMENT PROM 
 
 and interests in Babylonia had taken on a stable char- 
 acter. The zeal for the Judaean life cooled among 
 the masses, and must be rekindled if the people were 
 to be ready to take advantage of the liberty which was 
 to come. 
 
 The second Isaiah was mainly the fire which re- 
 kindled the zeal that made the restoration possible. 
 Was that ''second Isaiah" an old esoteric prophecy 
 cherished for a century and a half until its unintelligible 
 riddles should take on meaning ? Or was it a living 
 voice raised up of God to meet the occasion when it 
 came? On a priori grounds, the latter would be far 
 more probable, and it is the only hypothesis which is in 
 harmony with the phenomena of the prophecy itself. 
 This prophet was pecuHarly a man of his time. He 
 breathes the air of the exile, though his hopes are so 
 steadfastly built upon the new Jerusalem which he saw 
 rising in the distance. 
 
 The convincing evidence that this book belongs to 
 the exile and not to the time of Isaiah is found in the 
 book itself. Let any one read chapter after chapter 
 from the point of view of the exilic period, and he will 
 be persuaded that the theory that it originated in any 
 other age bristles with difficulties not easy to meet. 
 The only evidence of Isaianic authorship is that this 
 prophecy constitutes a part of the Book of Isaiah. But 
 even this argument has less cogency here than for 
 earher chapters ; because this collection is separated 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 247 
 
 from the other prophecies of the Book of Isaiah by a 
 long historical passage which, as already shown, could 
 not have been added before the exile. The name of 
 Isaiah is not found in the collection anywhere ; there 
 is no allusion to him or to his times ; and when the 
 author does revert to himself, or use the first person, 
 we see a very different personage from the Isaiah we 
 know. 
 
 There is no vagueness in the description of the Jews* 
 condition, nor in the manner of their release. That 
 the Jews are represented as in actual captivity in Baby- 
 lon is clear from every page. The prophet sees the 
 conquering career of Cyrus, and perceives that Baby- 
 lon is the goal of his campaigns. He knows that the 
 hard policy of Babylon, which *' releases not his pris- 
 oners,'' is contrary to the milder policy of Cyrus, who 
 hopes to rule subject peoples by gaining their good- 
 will — the only method in the whole history of the 
 world which has proved permanently effective. On 
 Cyrus, therefore, the prophet's hopes are built. Cyrus 
 is the instrument of his God — not an instrument of 
 wrath, as the Assyrians and Chaldeans had been, to 
 be used, and then broken and cast away — but an in- 
 strument of love. 
 
 Therefore, Cyrus is praised above any foreign ruler 
 known in the Old Testament. Cyrus' present con- 
 quests are due to Jehovah's favor : *' He gives nations 
 before him, and causes him to subdue kings ; He gives 
 
248 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 them to his sword like the dust, as the driven stubble 
 to his bow" (xli. 2). Jehovah is the One that says of 
 Cyrus : '' He is my shepherd, and shall complete all 
 viy pleasure'' (xliv. 28). But there is greater honor 
 than this ; for the prophet goes on to say : ** Thus 
 saith Jahveh to his anointed {i,e., to His Messiah), to 
 Cyrus, of whose right hand I have taken hold. . . . 
 I will go before thee, and make the rugged places 
 plain. Doors of brass I v/ill break to pieces, and bars 
 of iron I will cut asunder, that thou mayest know that 
 I Jahveh, who am calling thee by thy name, am the 
 God of Israel " (xlv. 1-3). But Cyrus was not conscious 
 of the power by which his conquests were so easily ac- 
 complished, nor was that power conferred for any favor 
 to him : " For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel 
 my chosen, though thou knowest me not. I will gird 
 thee, though thou knowest me not " {ib., 4f.). 
 
 It appears that the idea of owing their release to a 
 foreign conqueror was not agreeable to the patriotic 
 Jews. They would prefer to owe their freedom to a 
 hero whom God had raised up from among themselves, 
 as Moses was raised up to take their fathers out of Egypt, 
 and as the native "judges " were raised up to expel the 
 enemy from their land ; or they would prefer that God 
 should directly intervene, as the Chronicler was so fond 
 of representing Him as doing. The prophet rebukes 
 the spirit that ventures to question the mysterious ways 
 of Providence : " Woe to him that striveth with the one 
 
THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W. 249 i 
 
 that formed him, a potsherd among- the potsherds of | 
 the ground ! Shall the clay say to him that formed \ 
 it, What makest thou ? or, Thy work has no hands ? \ 
 Woe unto him who says to a father. What begettest 
 thou? or to a woman, With what travailest thou? ' 
 . . . I have made the earth, and man upon it have : 
 I created. My own hands have stretched out the 
 heavens, and all their host have I commanded [or are 1 
 under my orders]. I have raised him [Cyrus] up in 
 righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways. 
 He shall build my city, and he shall let my exiles go 
 free, without price and without reward, saith Jahveh 
 of hosts" (xlv. 9-13). 
 
 There is a brief passage which shows very clearly | 
 the manner in which Nabonidus, the last king of Baby- 
 lon, tried to save the city. " Bel bows down, Nebo 
 stoops ; their idols are upon the beasts, and upon the 
 cattle ; your portable things are a load, a burden to 
 the weary beast. They stoop, they bow down to- 
 gether ; they are not able to deliver the burden, but 
 are themselves going into captivity " (xlvi. if). Naboni- 
 dus saw that the city was ill prepared to withstand | 
 the conqueror. He, therefore, brought into Babylon \ 
 the deities from many sacred places.^'" Cyrus cites to ^ 
 his own credit the fact that he restored these deities to 
 
 their ancient shrines. 
 
 _ I 
 
 *Sayce holds that this was done in an attempt at the centrali- 
 zation and unification of religion. i 
 
250 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 That the prophet should exult in the downfall of 
 the tyrant was natural. He had experienced the hard- 
 ships of the exilic life. So he cries with contempt : 
 " Get thee down and sit upon dust, O virgin daughter 
 of Babylon, sit on the earth without a throne, O 
 daughter of the Chaldeans : for they shall no more 
 call thee tender and delicate. Take millstones, and 
 grind meal: remove thy veil, strip off the train, lay bare 
 the leg, pass through the river " (xlvii. if.). When Bab}^- 
 lon experienced the humiliation which it had inflicted 
 upon so many other peoples, the prophet recognizes 
 the hour of Israel's deliverance, and closes the first 
 section of his prophecy with the cry : " Go forth from 
 Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans, with a voice of sing- 
 ing make known, tell this, spread it forth unto the 
 end of the earth : say Jahveh has redeemed his servant 
 Jacob" (xlviii. 20). 
 
 As before stated, the most adequate presentation of 
 the evidence for the exilic date of this prophecy is its 
 reading entire in the light of the true historical situa- 
 tion. A few passages have been quoted which show 
 this situation clearly. Further" investigation may be 
 left to the reader, while we turn to another problem. 
 
 It may seem difficult to account for the Book of 
 Isaiah in its present form, if it actually contains writ- 
 ings from several authors, the prophecies ranging from 
 the year 740 B.C., the year of Isaiah's call, to 400 B.C., 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 251 
 
 or perhaps even later. But it is not impossible to 
 show that the arrangement of the book does not create 
 any serious difficulty. That the present distribution 
 of the prophecies in the various prophetic books is late 
 may be pretty conclusively demonstrated. In the Book 
 of Jeremiah, for example, the order of the prophecies 
 in the LXX. is very different from that in the He- 
 brew. This shows that at about the year 200 B.C. the 
 prophecies had not yet assumed a final order, in other 
 words, the process of editing went on after that time. 
 
 Further, it is clear that the present Book of Isaiah, 
 like the present Book of Psalms, was made up by com- 
 bining already existing smaller collections. To take 
 a former example, we know that Jeremiah made the 
 first collection of his prophecies twenty years after he 
 began his prophetic career. We have the history of 
 his writing in chap, xxxvi. But in the earlier chap- 
 ters are many prophecies which belong to a later date 
 than the fourth year of Jehoiakin. This shows that 
 Jeremiah's prophecies were edited after he had made 
 his first collection.* 
 
 We have the evidence for these smaller collections 
 of Isaiah in the book itself — in the headings and in the 
 
 * The year when Jeremiah wrote his prophecies was 604 B.C. 
 But chap. xiii. belongs to 597 B.C.; xxi. i-io belongs to the last 
 days of Zedekiah, who reigned 596-586 B.C.; xxiv. 27-29 belongs 
 to the early part of the same reign ; xxx.-xxxiv. belongs to the days 
 of the siege of Jerusalem, shortly before 586, 
 
252 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 arrangement. The heading- to chap. i. states that this 
 is the vision which Isaiah saw in the reigns of Uzziah, 
 Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. This covers the whole 
 range of Isaiah's prophetic Hfe, but it was originally used 
 as a heading for the collection, chaps, i.-xii., in which 
 there are prophecies from all these years. The reign of 
 Uzziah is deduced from vi. i, but incorrectly, because 
 Isaiah was called in the year in which he died. But 
 in ii. I we have another heading, briefer, and without 
 date, which was originally the heading to a small col- 
 lection of Isaiah's prophecies, probably ii.-v., a head- 
 ing which was not disturbed when chap. i. was 
 prefixed. The heading to chap. vi. is suited only for 
 that chapter ; but the chapter itself shows that it can- 
 not be here in its original place. Very likely it was 
 intended, as Cheyne says, for a suitable prologue to the 
 prophecies uttered during the Syro-Ephraimitish war. 
 At that time Isaiah had his first decided experience 
 of the refusal of the people to hear. This experience 
 impressed upon him the force of the inaugural vision 
 which had been designed to teach him, among other 
 things, that his message would not fall upon willing 
 ears; but would, on the contrary, fix the rebellious 
 purposes of a disobedient people. 
 
 In chaps, xiii.-xxiii. there is a collection of prophe- 
 cies which originally existed separately. The basis of 
 the collection is the subject matter. Except chap, 
 xxii., they all deal with foreign nations. The name of 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 253 
 
 Isaiah, which we find in xiii. i, may have been intended 
 by the late editor to cover the whole collection. 
 Probably the original collection was a group of genu- 
 ine Isaianic prophecies against foreign nations, to which 
 additions of anonymous prophecies were made without 
 an attempt to indicate which were actually Isaiah's. 
 In this collection most of the sub-titles merely give the 
 subject; as, " The oracle on Moab." But we find also 
 the date ; as, ** In the year that King Ahaz died" (xiv. 
 28). 
 
 Another collection was xxiv.-xxxv., made up partly 
 of Isaianic prophecies. There is a similarity of subject 
 matter which is sufficient to explain the addition of 
 later prophecies. Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii. all deal with the 
 overthrow of Assyria by Jehovah in the land of Judah. 
 The other two sections, which have already been con- 
 sidered at some length, xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv.-xxxv., 
 may have found a place here, because they, too, relate 
 to the overthrow of the powers which were oppressive 
 to God's people. The first large division of the Book 
 of Isaiah, chaps, i.-xxxv., consists, therefore, of three 
 smaller collections, each of which gradually grew into 
 its present form. 
 
 We may infer from this (as well as from other cases) 
 that the prophecies of Isaiah were originally written 
 and issued either separately or in very small collec- 
 tions, and issued without the name of the author, be- 
 cause the name would be unnecessary. To insure the 
 
254 THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 preservation of these prophecies, they began to be 
 collected in groups, with titles. There seems to have 
 been no idea of incongruity in adding prophecies 
 from other authors. The author was regarded as of little 
 importance compared with the matter of the prophecy. 
 Prophecies which promised the overthrow of Judah's 
 enemies would naturally be brought together without 
 much regard to authorship. So prophecies which 
 promised the downfall of the mighty empires which 
 threatened the very existence of Judah, namely, As- 
 syria and Babylonia, would be placed side by side, even 
 though their authors lived two centuries apart. 
 
 If our interests were the same as the Jewish editors, 
 we should find no embarrassment in this mixing of 
 the products of quite different ages ; that is, if we 
 were reading with a single eye to the future destiny 
 of Israel, the origin of the oracle would signify com- 
 paratively little. But if we read with a historical in- 
 terest, the actual occasion of each prophecy becomes 
 of great moment. We then require, as the basis of a 
 proper understanding of the words, a comprehensive 
 knowledge of the circumstances amidst which the 
 prophet spoke. This is the great gain which modern 
 criticism has made for the student of prophecy. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ^be Booft of psalme. 
 
 I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 THERE is no part of the Old Testament which 
 has so deeply influenced the Christian heart 
 as the Psalter. The great majority of people 
 have read the Psalms simply for their spiritual nour- 
 ishment. There is probably no critical student who be- 
 comes so absorbed in the literary criticism of the Psalter 
 as to be insensible to the revelation of spiritual truth 
 contained therein. Many of the priceless gems lie on 
 the surface ; others appear only as one enters into the 
 life and soul of the writer. The greatest contribution 
 which the Psalms can make to any age is the divine 
 truths they reveal, the disclosures of the divinely 
 enlightened human soul. This element of the Psalm 
 Book is beyond the pale of literary criticism. No mat- 
 ter what radical results may be attained or claimed, the 
 spiritual truths cannot be touched by criticism. It is 
 well to preface any critical study of the Psalter with 
 this assurance. It sets the mind at ease to know 
 that the soul's food cannot be disturbed. 
 
256 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 But why, then, study the Psalms critically ? Because 
 critical study is the handmaid (but not the master) of 
 devotional study; because the spiritual truths stand 
 out more clearly as we comprehend the circumstances 
 which gave rise to these outbreathings of earnest 
 human souls. Some Hebrew poet sang his song, 
 *'The Lord is my Shepherd." Whether this poet was 
 David or some other, we are sure he was one who 
 understood Hebrew shepherd life, and saw in that the 
 relation of God to man. If we hope to grasp the 
 force of the poet's metaphor, we, too, must under- 
 stand the meaning of the life of a faithful Hebrew 
 shepherd. 
 
 The critical questions which are at present to the 
 fore in the study of the Psalms are not those of 
 analysis, but those of date. The extreme position on 
 one side may be seen from a statement of Wellhausen 
 that "' it is not a question whether there be any post- 
 exilic Psalms, but, rather, whether the Psalms contain 
 any poems written before the exile.""^ 
 
 In his Bampton Lectures of 1889 (published in 1891) 
 Cheyne said that ''putting aside Psa. xviii., and possi- 
 bly lines or verses imbedded here and there in later 
 Psalms, the Psalter as a whole is post-exilic" (p. xxxi.). 
 In his lectures delivered in America during the winter 
 
 * Polychrome Bible, p. 163. Wellhausen held the same view at 
 least as early as 1878, when he published his edition of Bleek's 
 " Einleitung." 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 257 
 
 of 1897-98,'^ this distinguished scholar accepted the 
 view that there are no Psahns of pre- exiHc origin. 
 
 Not many years ago Ewald was the greatest, and, 
 at the time, among the most radical, of modern critics. 
 But he assigned some fifty-seven Psalms to the pre- 
 exilic period. Conservative as Driver usually is, he is 
 surprisingly cautious in claiming a pre-exilic origin for 
 anyof the Psalms. The sixth edition of his Introduction 
 (1897) shows few changes in the dating of the Psalms 
 from the first (1891). He regards some fifteen as pre- 
 sumably pre-exilic. He asserts, however, that ** it 
 may be affirmed with tolerable confidence that very 
 few of the Psalms are earlier than the seventh century 
 B.C." Sanday is not much less guarded in his opinion ; 
 he says: *' I cannot think that it has been at all proved 
 that there was no psalmody in the first temple, . . . 
 The plain inference that the Psalms addressed to a 
 king belong to the times of the monarchy should not, 
 I think, be resisted." f We find a more conservative 
 opinion in one of the most recent works on the Psalter 
 pubUshed in Germany by Prof. Baethgen, of Greif- 
 swald (second edition, 1897). His opinion, as shown 
 in his summary of his results, is that *' of the 150 songs 
 of our Psalter, some thirty to forty would have origi- 
 nated in the time of the monarchy." 
 
 The earliest Hebrew critics, a few centuries before 
 
 * " Jewish Religious Life after the Exile," 1898, p. 124. 
 t '• Inspiration": Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 251. 
 
258 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the Christian era, assigned seventy-three Psalms to 
 David. The general tendency for a number of centu- 
 ries after this was to increase this allotment. Rab- 
 binic tradition assigned all the Psalms to David, and 
 this theory was adopted largely in the Christian 
 Church, so that *' the Psalms of David " became a 
 common title of the Psalter. 
 
 The purpose of the student should be, not to 
 attempt to prove or disprove any particular theory of 
 the origin of the Psalter, but to use whatever means 
 are at hand for ascertaining the real date of the vari-. 
 ous Psalms. As the object of this book is rather to 
 show methods than results, first we shall consider the 
 means at our disposal for the determination of the 
 date of the Psalms, and then apply those means to a 
 few Psalms to show their practical application. 
 
 The evidence which is available is both internal and 
 external. The latter includes the evidence of the 
 superscriptions or headings, and the growth of the 
 Psalter in its parts and as a whole. ^ The internal 
 evidence includes here, as elsewere, historical allusions, 
 language, style, and ideas. The external evidence was 
 once a controlling factor. But the headings have 
 come to be generally discredited, and this evidence 
 has fallen into disuse, if not into disrepute. Of late, 
 however, one form of the external evidence has been 
 
 * The evidence from New Testament usage has been considered 
 in Chapter I., p. ipff. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 259 
 
 revived again, chiefly by the more radical scholars. In 
 our treatment the external evidence will be consid- 
 ered first. 
 
 The Psalter is now frequently denominated *' the 
 hymn-book of the second temple." Reuss strangely 
 calls it " the hymn-book of the synagogue."* Those 
 critics who regard all the Psalms as the product of the 
 exilic or post-exilic period lay considerable stress upon 
 the fact that the collection was made for the temple of 
 Zerubbabel. Thus Wellhausen, speaking of Psa. xx., 
 says : '* It would seem that this Psalm (and, on the 
 same grounds, the following) belongs to the days of the 
 kingdom of Judah. This, however, would remove the 
 two Psalms out of the sphere to which the Psalms, as 
 a whole, belong" (Polychrome Bible, p. 171). This 
 method of determining the date of individual Psalms 
 does not seem to me wholly justifiable. No matter 
 when the final collection was made, no matter to what 
 sphere the Psalm Book, as a whole, belongs, it may 
 contain portions whose origin antedated the collection 
 by many centuries. Moreover, no one knows better 
 than the eminent scholar quoted above, that the pres- 
 ent collection of Psalms was the result of a growth 
 which must have continued a long time.f 
 
 * His title is " Der Psalter, oder das Gesangbuch der Syna- 
 goge." 
 
 t " Smend has accepted as an axiom, that the Psalter was the 
 hymn-book of the second temple. But I venture to place beside 
 
26o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 That the present collection is made up of a number 
 of smaller collections is an important part of the evi- 
 dence for the late date of the whole, and this evidence 
 must be briefly reviewed here. The Psalms are di- 
 vided in the Hebrew Bible into five books. The basis 
 of the division is not wholly scientific, but it shows 
 that the Hebrew editors realized that the completed 
 book was made up of previous smaller collections. 
 The surest and simplest evidence of these minor col- 
 lections is in the presence of duplicates. It will be 
 sufficient to exhibit a single case of duplication. For 
 convenience of comparison the two Psalms are placed 
 side by side. The points of difference are indicated in 
 Psa. liii. by the use of italics. 
 
 PSA. XIV. PSA. LIII. 
 
 For the liturgy. Of David: For the liturgy. To the sickness, 
 
 Maskil of David : 
 The fool says in his heart, The fool says in his heart, 
 
 There is no God. There is no God. 
 
 They have done a corrupt, They have done a corrupt and 
 an abominable deed ; an abominable thing ; 
 
 that, as a second axiom, that the Psalms had been made ready for 
 the use of the community" (Steckhoven, quoted by Staerk, "Zeit- 
 schrift fur die A. T. Wissenschaft," 1892, I., 147). Sanday says 
 forcibly: "If we admit, as we may certainly admit, that the 
 Psalter as we have it was ' the song book of the second temple,' 
 it by no means follows that the individual Psalms were all composed 
 in the period of the second temple " (Bampton Lectures, p. 25 1). See 
 also Robertson, " The Poetry and the Religion of the Psalms." 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 
 
 261 
 
 There is none doing good. 
 
 Jahveh looked from heaven 
 upon the sons of men, 
 
 To see if any does wisely, 
 
 If any one is seeking God. 
 
 All have turned aside, are 
 wholly depraved ; 
 
 There is none doing good, not 
 even one. 
 
 Do not all the doers of evil 
 know — 
 
 Eating my people as they eat 
 bread, 
 
 And upon Jahveh they do not 
 call? 
 
 There were they in great dis- 
 may; 
 
 For God is in the righteous 
 generation. 
 
 Ye bring to shame the pur- 
 pose of the lowly, 
 
 That Jahveh shall be his 
 refuge. 
 
 Would that Israel's rescue 
 were come from Zion. 
 
 When Jahveh brings back the 
 captivity of his people, 
 
 Then should Jacob rejoice and 
 Israel be glad. 
 
 There is none doing good. 
 
 G^^^ looked from heaven upon 
 the sons of men. 
 
 To see if any does wisely. 
 
 If any one is seeking God. 
 
 All of ihetn have gofie astray, 
 are wholly depraved ; 
 
 There is none doing good, not 
 even one. 
 
 Do not all the doers of evil 
 know — 
 
 Eating my people as they eat 
 bread. 
 
 And upon God they do not 
 call ? 
 
 There were they in great dis- 
 may, 
 
 Where there was no dismay. 
 
 For God scattered the bones of 
 thy besiegers. 
 
 Thou broughtest to shame, 
 
 For God has cast them off. 
 
 Would that Israel's rescue 
 were come from Zion. 
 
 When God brings back the 
 captivity of his people. 
 
 Then should Jacob rejoice and 
 Israel be glad. 
 
 No one can reasonably doubt that these are but two 
 versions of the same original poem. But some of the 
 
262 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 variations are striking and suggestive. One heading 
 has the additional information of the tune"'^ to which 
 the Psalm was to be sung, and of the character of the 
 poem, a maskil, or wisdom song. In Psa. xiv. we find 
 Jahveh four times, and God ('Elohim) three times ; 
 in Psa. liii. we have God seven times, and Jahveh not 
 at all. If we look more closely we shall see that in 
 Psa. xiv. Jahveh is used whenever the personal name 
 of the Deity is required. We perceive then in these 
 variations the work of two different editors, one of 
 whom uses Jahveh as the name of the Deity, the other 
 God ; and one of whom gives fuller information in his 
 prefatory note than the other.t 
 
 There is but one explanation of these facts. Just as 
 we find " Rock of Ages" in every collection of Chris- 
 tian hymns, and as we often find variant texts accord- 
 ing to the ideas of the editors, so this popular Hebrew 
 song was gathered into two different collections, each 
 made by an editor who did not scruple to modify the 
 original song according to his own taste and sense of 
 
 * This is at all events a highly probable explanation of the 'al 
 mahalaih. 
 
 t Of the other variations, some are due to textual corruption, 
 others to editorial intention. These are not material for the pur- 
 pose in hand, and are therefore passed by. It may be well, how- 
 ever, to emphasize the fact that wherever there are duplicates in 
 the Old Testament — and the cases are numerous— there are many 
 variants, and the two causes named above both have to be pre- 
 supposed ; see further below. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 263 
 
 propriety. There is another fact which strengthens 
 this conclusion. If we examine the collections to 
 which each of these Psalms belongs, we find that Psa. 
 xiv. is among poems in which Jahveh is habitually used 
 for God ; while Psa. liii. is among those in which 
 'Elohim is employed.* There were, therefore, Jah- 
 vistic and Elohistic editors whose labors are still in 
 evidence in the completed Psalm Book.f 
 
 There are several other instances of duplication. Psa. 
 xl. 13-17 (Book I.), reappears as a complete Psalm (Psa. 
 Ixx., Book II.), with a heading quite different from 
 that of Psa. xl. Three times in Psa. Ixx. we find 'Elo- 
 him corresponding to Jahveh in Psa. xl. Also Psa. 
 xxxi. 1-3, is the same as Psa. Ixxi. 1-3. Psa. cviii. 
 (Book V.) is made up of portions of two Psalms of 
 Book III., Ivii. 7-1 1, and Ix. 5-12. Each of these 
 Psalms has an elaborate heading ; but the editor, who 
 made a new Psalm by joining two choice bits from 
 other poems, gave his production a heading of its own, 
 though a very simple one, viz. : "A Song. A Psalm 
 
 * Let the reader take the trouble to glance over (if indeed he 
 have not already done so), the Psalms of Book I. (i.-xli.) to note 
 the prevalence of Jahveh (Lord in the English versions), and then 
 over Books IL and III. (xlii.-lxxxix.) to see how 'Elohim (God in 
 the English versions) predominates. One might read the Psalms 
 a long time without discovering the meaning of this fact. 
 
 t In many of these Psalms the divine name, whether Jahveh or 
 'Elohim, may represent the preference of the author rather than 
 of the editor. 
 
264 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 of David." It is plain from the evidence now produced 
 that these headings are the work of editors, and that 
 each editor exercised a good deal of latitude in the 
 performance of his task. The headings are no part of 
 the sacred text, but are introductory notes, and cer- 
 tainly there could be no valid objection to the liberty 
 exercised by the collectors. 
 
 When these various original collections were joined 
 together to make our present book, the Psalms must 
 already have become too fixed to permit much further 
 editing ; otherwise it is not likely that duplicates 
 would have been retained. It seems highly probable, 
 therefore, that the Book of Psalms took on its present 
 form at a comparatively late day, and long after the 
 separate collections had been made. This belief is 
 strengthened by the fact that the Jahvistic and Elohis- 
 tic editors, whose hand is so clearly traceable as collec- 
 tors of Psalms, belonged to different schools of thought 
 in the Jewish Church.* The bringing their productions 
 together, therefore, indicates a step toward unity. 
 
 The comparison of the duplicates throws much light 
 on the state of the text. There are upwards of a hun- 
 dred variations between the Hebrew texts of the du- 
 plicate versions, Psa. xviii. and II. Sam. xxii., and many 
 more in the Greek texts. If there are so many vari- 
 
 *The meaning of the use of these names is discussed by Dr. J. 
 P. Peters, in " The Development of the Psalter " New World, 
 June, 1893. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 265 
 
 ants where the text could be controlled by duplicates, 
 all pointing to departures from the original in one or 
 the other version, or both, then it is manifestly prob- 
 able that there are still more departures from the 
 original text where there was no check at all. 
 
 The partial loss of acrostic forms is another evi- 
 dence of the changes which have been made. Such 
 changes may have been partly due to corruption, some 
 clearly are explicable in only this way ; but others are 
 just as certainly the work of the editors, who did not 
 scruple to adapt a song so as in their judgment to 
 make it more suited to the purpose in view. Sanday 
 has stated clearly his idea of this adaptation : *' The 
 fact that the Psalter was used in the temple services 
 would naturally lead to a certain amount of adapta- 
 tion. Many of the Psalms, we may be sure, were not 
 originally written with this object. Some modification 
 would be needed in order to fit the expression of pri- 
 vate feeling for public worship; and we can also well 
 believe that ideas and allusions which sounded archaic 
 and out of date would be modernized. Just as in our 
 own hymn-books the form in which the hymn is act- 
 ually sung often differs considerably from the original, 
 so also in the Jewish Church the same thing would 
 take place, but probably on a larger scale, because, as 
 we have already said, all idea of literary property and 
 of the obligations entailed by it was absent " (" Inspira- 
 tion," p. 195). 
 
266 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 In oraer to study the headings most profitably we 
 must take up the Psalms by groups. The division into 
 five books, as already indicated, is partly artificial. It 
 is easy, however, to separate the Psalms into three 
 parts, so that the division has a more logical basis, in 
 that each once existed independently. These are : I., 
 i.-xli. ; II., xlii.-lxxxix. ; III., xc.-cl. In these parts 
 there are undoubtedly minor collections which existed 
 as such before they became part of a larger collection. 
 But for our purpose it is not necessary to go into the 
 discussion of the smaller sub-divisions, the three main 
 parts being the most convenient divisions. It is pro- 
 posed both to state the facts, and to attempt briefly to 
 show their meaning. 
 
 Part I. Psalms i.-xli. In the Hebrew text there are 
 but four anonymous Psalms in this part, i., ii., x., xxxiii. 
 Psa. i, is introductory to the whole book, Psa. ii. is 
 closely allied to it in date ; its Aramaic words betray 
 its lateness, and its Messianic character is so all-per- 
 vading that its apparent historical background might 
 easily mislead ; at all events, the final editor did not 
 regard it as part of the Davidic collection, of which 
 this part is mainly composed. Psas. ix. and x. were 
 originally one* ; hence the absence of a title from x, 
 
 * The evidence of this is conclusive. In the LXX. these two 
 constitute a single poem. The Psalm v^^as originally an acrostic. 
 Put it requires the two Psalms to get all the letters. It is true 
 that some of the acrostic letters are lacking, especially in the latter 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 267 
 
 The lack of a heading- in Psa. xxxiii. is attributed by 
 Wellhausen to its late introduction in this collection. 
 Others have held that this song was originally a part 
 of Psa. xxxii.* Baethgen says that "very likely 'to 
 David ' has fallen out [of the title] by accident " ('' Die 
 Psalmen," p. 92). The LXX. has the title '' to David," 
 the Hexaplar text adding, " without inscription by 
 the Hebrews, and by the three." 
 
 All the other Psalms of Part I. have the heading " to 
 David,'' t so that this is essentially a Davidic collection. 
 
 part. Enough survive, however, to show clearly the original form. 
 Wellhausen's translation in the Polychrome Bible shows which let- 
 ters are preserved. In that part in which the acrostic arrangement 
 is lost, there are clear traces of textual corruption. I have found 
 by experience that the elementary student finds no difficulty in 
 reading this Psalm until he comes to the corrupt portion. 
 
 *See Cheyne, Bampton Lectures, p. 214; Peters, New World, 
 June, 1893, p. 294. 
 
 f There is at least reasonable doubt whether the heading 
 /e davidh indicates authorship or not. It is rendered in the Eng- 
 lish versions " of David " ; but it means strictly to qx for David, and 
 would most appropriately indicate the dedication of songs to the 
 poet-king. But the Hebrew particle may indicate possession, and the 
 fair critic will give to the conservative view the benefit of every doubt. 
 
 Nevertheless, the preposition cannot indicate authorship in all 
 the titles, as, for instance, in those " to the sons of Korah." A 
 certain doubt must, therefore, remain as to the actual intention of 
 the editors. On this Vauctoris, see further, Baethgen, " Die 
 Psalmen," p. vii.; Driver, L. O. T.^ p. 381 ; Zeitschrift f. d. A. T. 
 Wissenschaft 1885, p. 66 f.; 1886, p. 267. 
 
268 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 There are, besides, in the headings, other notes of vari- 
 ous kinds. Some are of a musical character, and thereby 
 reveal their late date ; others indicate the supposed his- 
 torical occasion of the Psalm," the words often bein^ 
 taken from the historical books. The earliest Jewish 
 higher critics deserve credit at least for perceiving the 
 importance of knowing the historical setting of a Psalm, 
 even if they were not very acute in determining it. 
 
 If we turn now to the Greek Psalter, we find some 
 interesting variants in the headings. They are, in fact, 
 pretty numerous, but many are not important in this 
 place. In one Greek manuscript Psa. ii. has the head- 
 ing *' to David"; several Psalms which have only '* to 
 David " in the Hebrew text, have '' Psalm to David " 
 in the Greek. In some cases the Hexaplar text, or the 
 Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, 
 lack the note " to David." In other cases the Greek 
 text gives the occasion of the poem where it is want- 
 ing in the Hebrew. Thus Psa. xxiv. is " for the Sab- 
 bath day"; Psa. xxvii. was to be said "before anoint- 
 ing oneself," indicating a ritual use; Psa. xxix., which 
 is in reality a song whose motive is a thunder-storm, 
 was to be sung ''on going out of the tabernacle"; in 
 Psa. xxxi. we find "of a trance"; in Psa. xxxviii. the 
 purpose is ^' for a recollection of the Sabbath. "f 
 
 * There are such historical notes to Pss. iii., vii., xviii., xxx., 
 xxxiv. 
 t The Hebrew title, " a Psalm to David, to remember," breaks off 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 269 
 
 From the above survey of the superscriptions in the 
 first collection we observe that the headings were not 
 definitely fixed by authority, but that the editors used 
 a good deal of freedom. When the Greek version was 
 made, not later than 100 B.C., there were still various 
 texts of the Psalms differing in the titles as well as in 
 the text ; for it is not likely that the Greek trans- 
 lators did any editing ; they translated, sometimes 
 with slavish literalness, sometimes with great free- 
 dom, whatever was in the Hebrew text they used 
 (see p. i/^f). The Hebrew text, which was ulti- 
 mately adopted as the standard, and which alone 
 has come down to us, was more conservative in its 
 higher criticism than the one employed by the Alex- 
 andrian translators. This latter text contained many 
 additions of late origin. We shall find additional 
 evidence for these conclusions in the further examina- 
 tion of headings. 
 
 Part n. Psalms xlii.-lxxxix. In this part, as in the 
 preceding, there are four anonymous Psalms, according 
 to the Hebrew text, xliii., Ixvi., Ixvii., Ixxi. Of these 
 xUii. belongs to xlii., the two being originally one 
 
 abruptly, and is manifestly a fragment. The Greek title completes 
 the sense, but is far from assigning an appropriate occasion, ac- 
 cording to the contents of the poem. It may be, as Baethgen, 
 among others, seems to hold, that the Hebrew title is complete, the 
 reference being to the offering of the askara. The askara was a 
 part of the vegetable offering called the itiinchah. 
 
270 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Psalm.* Pss. Ixvi. and Ixvii. have headingsf from \vhich 
 the name of the author has dropped out. Psa. Ixxi. has 
 no heading at all in Hebrew, but in the LXX. has 
 this: **To David. Of the sons of Jonadab, and of 
 the first that were taken captive." Nineteen Psalms 
 are assigned to David, the two small groups, li.-lxv., 
 Ixviii.-lxx., and the dislocated Ixxxvi. To the sons of 
 KorahJ are ascribed eleven, viz.: xlii. (xliii.), xliv.-xlix., 
 Ixxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii. To Asaph twelve 
 are credited, viz.: 1., Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. Solomon is cred- 
 ited with one, Ixxii., and Ethan the Ezrahite with 
 one, Ixxxix. 
 
 There are, therefore, three minor collections which 
 make up this part, a Davidic, a Korahitic, and an 
 Asaphic. When these were combined, the original 
 
 * Psa. xliii. , in the present arrangement, is the third strophe of the 
 poem, Psa. xlii. containing the first two strophes. Each of these 
 three strophes ends with the same refrain (see xlii. 5, ii; xliii. 5). 
 The subject, language and style show the unity of the Psalm, as 
 well as the form. Dr. Peters supposes xliii. to be a later addition 
 to the original Psalm {New lVor/d,]une, 1893). 
 
 t"For the liturgy. A song. A Psalm '' (Ixvi). "For the lit- 
 urgy. With stringed instruments. A Psalm. A song " (Ixvii.). 
 
 :}:"Korah and Asaph are not Psalmists, but families or guilds of the 
 temple-singers. Hence the Psalms may have been attributed to 
 them originally in just the same way that many German hymns 
 are attributed to the Moravian Brethren : they belonged origi- 
 nally to a private collection, and subsequently found their way into 
 the common Hymn Book " (Wellhausen, Polychrome Bible, p. 182). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 271 
 
 collections were somewhat broken up ; a Davidic 
 Psalm (Ixxxvi.) was placed in the midst of a Korah- 
 itic collection, and one Asaphic Psalm became dis- 
 joined and was placed between Korahitic and Davidic 
 groups. It is very likely that the two groups of Ko- 
 rahitic and of Davidic Psalms which we find here once 
 constituted independent collections, the present mix- 
 ing up being due to the editor who joined the three 
 collections into one. That the original collections 
 had little meaning for the later Jewish editors is 
 clearly seen from the fact that some Greek manu- 
 scripts ascribe several of the Korahitic Psalms to 
 David.* The desire of the late Jews to make David 
 the author of as many Psalms as possible is clearly 
 seen in the Greek headings. 
 
 Another important fact to be noted here is the sub- 
 scription or colophon to Psa. Ixxii., *' the prayers of 
 David the son of Jesse are ended." In Part II, there 
 is but one Davidic Psalm following this (Ixxxvi.); but 
 of the two immediately preceding, one is assigned to 
 Solomon and the other is anonymous. It is manifest 
 that this subscription must originally have stood at 
 the end of an exclusive Davidic collection, which must 
 have existed independently before incorporation with 
 others. Why then were these words transferred to 
 tlie end of a Psalm attributed to Solomon? Cheyne 
 
 * Codex Alex, ascribes xlii., xliii , xlv.-xlvii., 1. to David; Codex 
 Sin. ascribes Ixxix. to David. 
 
272 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 explains it as a clerical error, " Psa. Ixxii. being a late 
 appendix to the Davidic hymn book " ('* Bampton Lec- 
 tures," p. 8). Whether this explanation is sufficient or 
 not, it is not easy to say ; but the fact shows conclu- 
 sively that editors, or it may be scribes, were careless 
 about consistency. 
 
 A historical occasion is given for an unusual number 
 of Psalms in this part, viz., li., Hi., liv., Ivi., Ivii., lix., 
 Ix., Ixiii. The Greek version used in Origen's " Hex- 
 apla " lacks these historical notes. The LXX., on the 
 other hand, adds to the title of Ixxvi. and Ixxx. " con- 
 cerning the Assyrians," and presents a number of other 
 variants of more or less importance. Psa. Ixxxviii., as 
 already stated (p. 1 1), preserves even in the Hebrew 
 text a double line of tradition, assigning the Psalm 
 both to the sons of Korah and to Heman the Ezrahite. 
 In like manner Psa. xxxix. has, along with the Davidic 
 title, **to Jeduthun.*' Jeduthun was the head of a guild 
 of singers'^, and he appears to be the same person as 
 Ethan, t who is named as the author of Psa. Ixxxix. 
 
 Part III. Psalms xc.-cl. The third part is character- 
 ized by the large number of anonymous Psalms. In 
 the more conservative Hebrew text the following are 
 " orphaned," as the Jews called those which have no 
 author assigned to them : Pss. xci.-c, cii., civ.-cvii., 
 
 *See I. Chron. xvi. 42 ; xxv. i, 3 ; II. Chron, xxxv. 15. 
 t See Baethgen, " Die Psalmen," p. ix. ; Bertheau on I, Chron., 
 vi. 29. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 273 
 
 cxi.-cxxi., cxxiii.,cxxv.,cxxvi., cxxviii.-cxxx.,cxxxii., 
 cxxxiv.-cxxxvii., cxlvi.-cl., forty-two in all. Authors 
 are assigned to several of these in the more venture- 
 some Greek text, as we shall see below. The Hebrew 
 text ascribes these seventeen to David : Pss. ci., ciii., 
 cviii.-cx., cxxii.,"^ cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii., cxxxviii.- 
 cxlv. The Greek text adds ten to the Davidic Psalms: 
 Pss. xci., xciii.-xcix., civ., cxxxvii. This version as- 
 signs cxlvi.-cxlviii. to Haggai and Zechariah.f In the 
 Codex Alexandrinus and in the Hexaplar text, and 
 in some MSS. of the LXX., Psa. cxxxviii. is ascribed 
 to Zechariah as well as to David, and the Hexaplar 
 text ascribes cxxxvii. to Jeremiah as well as to David. 
 The Hebrew text assigns Psa. xc. to Moses, and Psa. 
 cxxvii. to Solomon. J 
 
 There are two groups of Psalms in this part which 
 require mention. Psas. cxx.-cxxxiv. all have the head- 
 ing '' song of the goings up." Various explanations 
 of the " goings up" have been given, the most probable 
 referring the term to the pilgrimages to the holy city. 
 If this is the right explanation, the pilgrim Psalter 
 could not possibly be the production of David or of 
 
 * Several Greek MSS, lack the title "to David " in cxxii., cxxiv., 
 cxxxi., cxxxiii. 
 
 t Psa. cxlvii. is divided into two Psalms in the LXX., and each part 
 is assigned to the joint authorship of these two post-exilic prophets. 
 Conversely Pss. cxiv. and cxv. are combined into one in the LXX. 
 
 X The name of Solomon is lacking in the chief Greek MSS. 
 
274 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Solomon. The correct title of a single poem would be 
 **a song of the going up." The plural suggests that 
 the original title was "songs of the goings up." This 
 would apply to the whole collection, and would be 
 used as a single title for the whole. When the collec- 
 tion of the songs of the pilgrimages was incorporated 
 in the larger collection, the title of the whole was af- 
 fixed to each Psalms to preserve its identity. This would 
 explain the preservation of the plural "goings."* 
 
 There is another group made up of hallelujah songs, 
 cvi., cxi,-cxiii., cxxxv., cxlvi.-cL; to these the LXX, 
 adds, cv., cvii., cxiv,-cxix. These are, for the most 
 part, songs of praise in a high strain. But the title is, 
 to say the least, not equally applicable to all of them 
 (see Cheyne, ** Hampton Lectures," p. 49fTf.), 
 
 We note further the general absence of historical 
 notes to the Psalms in this part. The Hebrew text 
 contains such a note only for Psa. cxlii.; the Greek text 
 also for xcvi., xcvii., cxliii., cxliv. The hturgical 
 direction is given for Psa. xcii., ** for the Sabbath 
 day"; Psa. c. is called "a Psalm of thanksgiving," 
 and Psa. cii. ** a prayer for the afflicted when he is 
 helpless." The LXX, informs us that Psa. xciii. was to 
 be sung " on the day before the Sabbath," and Psa. 
 xciv, " for the fourth day of the week." 
 
 *See O. T. J. C.^ p. 203; Sanday, "Inspiration," p. 194; 
 Cheyne, " Bampton Lectures," p. 59; Baethgen, "Die Psalmen," 
 p. XX. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 275 
 
 In this part more than in the second, as in the second 
 more than in the first, the original groups were broken 
 up by the compiler, making it easily possible for late 
 Psalms to be interspersed with earlier ones. There is 
 in this part still more divergence between the Hebrew 
 and the various Greek texts, a fact which shows that 
 we have not only to consider the history of the Psalm 
 Book, but of the various parts of which it is composed. 
 The LXX. having, as we have seen, a slightly different 
 arrangement of the numbers, comes to the end of the 
 Psalter lacking one of the requisite 150. To supply 
 this deficiency it was compelled to add a Psalm of un- 
 certain origin, and of little value, to which the heading 
 is prefixed: " This is an idiographic Psalm to David 
 (and it is beyond the number), when he fought in sin- 
 gle combat with Goliath." The Septuagint text, es- 
 pecially in some of the MSS., claims several Psalms 
 for David beyond those ascribed to him in the Hebrew. 
 The Jews did not reach an agreement about this mat- 
 ter in the pre-Christian period, the Greek-speaking 
 Jews adhering to the Greek version, others to the He- 
 brew. If, therefore, one is disposed to accept the 
 headings on the ground of the authority of our Lord 
 and of His Apostles, he should not be content, as is 
 usually the case, with the more conservative Hebrew 
 text, but should claim for David all those given by the 
 Greek,* since this was the version generally supposed to 
 
 * Some idea of the value of these titles may be had from noting 
 
276 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 have been used by Christ and His Apostles. There is 
 no unanimously received tradition of the early criti- 
 cism of the Psalter. The headings represent the criti- 
 cal conjectures of the Jews of the post-exilic period, 
 the conjectures becoming more extravagant up to a 
 certain point, and then becoming more conservative ; 
 therefore, it is impossible to claim any authority for 
 them. Their worth must be tested in every case by 
 determining the actual value of the opinion therein 
 expressed. 
 
 The array of facts given above must at least par- 
 tially answer the question what these opinions are 
 worth. There is further evidence that the titles in 
 many cases are a growth, the result of successive edit- 
 ing. This is readily seen from the variety of expres- 
 sion. The ordinary order is Psalm, maskil, or viiktam, 
 to David. The order often changes to to David, a 
 Psalm. Often we find the duplicates a Psalm, a song ; 
 or reversed, a song, a Psalm. In such cases the second 
 part is plainly an addition to the simple original title. 
 The varying order may sometimes be due to the fact 
 that the title of a whole group was given to each 
 Psalm when it was broken up and placed in the larger 
 collection. This title would naturally be placed at 
 the end of such notes as already constituted headings. 
 Still others might be subsequently added. 
 
 the inconsistency in the Greek heading to Psa. xcvi. : " When the 
 house was built after the captivity. A song of David." 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 277 
 
 But to determine conclusively the value of the Jew- 
 ish criticism preserved in these titles, there are two 
 questions which need to be answered: Upon what 
 ground are these opinions based ? and, How far do they 
 agree with the contents of the Psalms? It is quite 
 possible to find the answers to these questions in the 
 headings themselves. The principle of one's work is 
 usually traceable in the work itself. 
 
 It is sometimes clear that the opinion expressed in 
 the title is based purely upon the internal evidence, 
 that is, upon the contents of the Psalms. Now it is 
 clear that it is not possible to lay much stress upon 
 external evidence, however ancient from our stand- 
 point, if it in turn is based solely upon internal evidence. 
 For we have the same internal evidence ourselves, and 
 are much better qualified to use it scientifically than 
 the post-exilic Jews. It is, for example, particularly 
 easy to see why the two Psalms are ascribed to Solo- 
 mon. 
 
 Psalm Ixxii. begins : 
 
 *• O God, give thy justice to the king, 
 
 And thy righteousness to the king's son. 
 
 He will judge thy people with righteousness, 
 
 And thy afflicted with justice." 
 
 Who was the King's Son par excellence but the son 
 of the great David? Who was the famous judge upon 
 the throne of Israel but Solomon the wise } There is 
 little else in the poem that is appropriate to Solomon. 
 
27^ THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 It is Messianic throughout. The ideal king is the real 
 subject of the poet's thought. Moreover, the king is not 
 the speaker, but the subject of the poem, and so it could 
 not have been written by any king. The most that can 
 be claimed is that the Psalm was dedicated to Solomon. 
 Psalm cxxvii. begins : 
 
 " If Jahveh build not the house, 
 
 Its builders labor thereon in vain. 
 
 If Jahveh watch not the city, 
 
 Its watchman is awake in vain." 
 
 There seemed to the Jewish editor no one who could 
 be this builder but Solomon. But the rest of the Psalm 
 shows us clearly the post-exilic Jerusalem, and there- 
 fore *' the house " is the second temple. 
 
 A good test of the worth of the superscriptions may be 
 had by the examination of those which have historical 
 notes purporting to give their occasion. A few specimens 
 of these will be considered. The occasion of Psa. iii. is 
 said to be "' when he fled from Absalom his son." But 
 the enemies who are smitten by Jehovah are foreigners, 
 and the singer rejoices in their downfall ; whereas 
 David mourned so over Absalom's loss that Joab 
 sharply rebuked him (II. Sam. xviii. SSfif.)- The subject 
 of Psa. vii. is " concerning the words of Cush a Benja- 
 mite."* We do not know anything about this Cush, 
 
 * The Targum substitutes for Cush the Benjamite " Saul the 
 son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin." The Greek texts and the 
 Vulgate read, '* Cushi the son of Jemeni." 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 279 
 
 and therefore cannot control the statement. This, 
 however, does not prove that it is correct. Psa. xviii. 
 is said to have been sung *' on the day when Jahveh 
 delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and 
 from the hand of Saul."'^ If one reads this Psalm care- 
 fully, it will be perfectly clear that the deliverance for 
 which Jehovah is praised happened in one particular 
 battle, where the hero was hard pressed, and where 
 Jehovah came to his rescue in a storm. The heading 
 implies that the song was a general one, commemora- 
 tive of dehverance in a long series of wars. One feels 
 such an incongruity in coupling Saul with** all his 
 enemies," that, all the more if he held to the Davidic 
 authorship, he would believe that the clause, '* and 
 from the hand of Saul," must be a later addition. The 
 last verse, moreover, shows that David could not have 
 been the author ; for the poet ends his song: 
 " Making great deliverance for his king, 
 
 And showing mercy to his anointed ; 
 
 To David and to his seed forever." 
 A descendant ot the Davidic house must be the sub- 
 ject of this poem. Nor is the evidence for the Davidic 
 authorship materially strengthened by the presence of 
 this song in the history of David (II. Sam. xxii.) ; for 
 the last chapters of II. Samuel are appendices added 
 long after the history of David's times was composed. 
 
 * This historical note is wanting in the Hexaplar text, and in 
 the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. 
 
28o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Psalm xxxiv. commemorates the time when David 
 ** distorted his sense before Abimelech, and he drove 
 him out, and he went away." This statement is bor- 
 rowed from I. Sam. xxi. 12, where, alone, we find the 
 unusual words, literally rendered, ** distorted his sense." 
 But the Gittite king who drove David away was Achish, 
 not Abimelech.* There is nothing whatever in the 
 Psalm suitable to this occasion. The poem dwells 
 upon the favor which Jehovah shows to the right- 
 eous, and the sure downfall of the wicked. The poem 
 is, further, an acrostic, each verse beginning with 
 a letter of the Hebrew alphabet; that fact, as well as 
 the theology, suggests that the Psalm is a late one. 
 
 The reader has now before him, at all events, full 
 specimens of the evidence which has caused all modern 
 critics to discredit the testimony furnished in these 
 headings. Those who prefixed them to the Psalms do 
 not appear to have had any good evidence on which to 
 base conclusions. If one still adheres to them as an 
 authority, to be held at least until another is found, he 
 must, nevertheless, respect the position of those who 
 hold that they have no value save as specimens of the 
 critical conjectures of an uncritical age. Nor must he 
 charge modern critics with seeking out destructive 
 
 *It is held by some that "Abimelech" is a title of Philistine 
 kings, like Pharaoh or Cassar. But, as Baethgen has pointed out, 
 "Abimelech" (Melech or Moloch is my father) is "a pure proper 
 
 name." 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 281 
 
 conclusions without regard to evidence, whereas evi- 
 dence is just the thing, even if almost the only thing, 
 which the modern critic is ready to heed. The estima- 
 tion of the Psalm titles by modern scholars may be seen 
 from a very few extracts. Wellhausen says: " It is now 
 commonly recognized that the historicil notices given 
 in the titles do not contain genuine traditions" (Poly- 
 chrome Bible, p. 163). *' It is clear that [the historical 
 notices] are the fruit of the learned study of a younger 
 age, which turned its industry upon the old national 
 literature. . . . These historical notices in the super- 
 scriptions are very untrustworthy."* " But if the state- 
 ments concerning the authors are so late, then in that 
 case they have no critical value" (Baethgen). *' It is 
 now generally agreed that the headings which have 
 come down to us are of very little direct value. But 
 indirectly their value may be considerable. In con- 
 junction with other data they may enable us to deter- 
 mine the succession of the different parts of the Psalter. 
 They may give us a clue to the date of the editorial 
 processes to which both whole and parts have been 
 subject " (Sanday, " Inspiration," p. 194). " The strong- 
 est reasons exist for supposing that the historical 
 notices are of late origin likewise, and though they 
 may embody trustworthy information respecting the 
 source or collection whence the Psalms w^ere derived 
 by one of the compilers of the book, that they contain 
 * Reuss, " Das Alte Testament," v. 39, 41. 
 
282 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 no authentic tradition respecting the authorship of the 
 Psalms, or the occasion on which they were composed" 
 (Driver, L. O. T.^, p. 374). 
 
 Before taking up the internal evidence formally it 
 may be well to remark briefly on a delicate question 
 which will not yet down for the mass of Christian peo- 
 ple, even if it has for the critical student — Are there any 
 Davidic Psalms ? I can only say frankly that I am un- 
 able to answer Yes, and am not, with my present light, 
 willing to answer No. My reluctance is not due to 
 hesitation to accept the demonstrated results of criti- 
 cism, but to my uncertainty whether there may not be 
 Davidic Psalms, or at all events fragments of Davidic 
 Psalms, in the collection which the later ages looked 
 upon as so surely a production of the Bethlehemite king. 
 
 There are several points that must be taken into 
 account in the forming of an opinion. The earliest 
 germane testimony that we have is in Amos vi. 5, 
 '* Like David they devise for themselves instruments 
 of music." This shows that David was famed as an in- 
 ventor of musical instruments ; but it is secular music, 
 and not music of a godly kind, which is referred to by the 
 prophet.* Moreover, the devising of these instruments 
 
 * Robertson calls this interpretation the result of "a strangely 
 perverted ingenuity of exegesis" ("Poetry and Religion of the 
 Psalms," p. 108). I have read his book while my own was going 
 through the press ; but I cannot see anything in his argument to 
 justify a change in the statement above. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 283 
 
 is mentioned as a reproach for the idle and luxurious 
 Samaritans. Further, ancient testimony shows that 
 David was a skilled player, but says nothing" about his 
 singing or composing (I. Sam. xvi. 18). Saul's evil 
 spirit was charmed away, not by David's songs, but by 
 his playing on the harp {ib.^ v. 23). Nevertheless, 
 David was a poet. There are preserved in the books 
 of Samuel two poems which are, beyond reasonable 
 doubt, Davidic. These are the lament over Saul and 
 Jonathan (II. Sam. i. 19-27), taken from the Book of 
 Jashar, and the brief lament over Abner (ib., iii. 33f.). 
 There is another which may be David's, *' the last 
 words of David" (zA, xxiii. 1-7), though the evidence 
 is not so good for a poem contained in a late appendix. 
 We have, therefore, early testimony to the fact that 
 David was (i) an inventor of musical instruments, (2) 
 a skilful player on the harp, (3) and a poet ; why then 
 not a Psalmist? Certainly there are a priori prohsihili' 
 ties that this famous king was the author of at least 
 some of the splendid lyrics which the post-exilic age so 
 freely credited to him. 
 
 But there are two chief obstacles which stand firmly 
 in the way of the hopes these facts may raise. The Da- 
 vidic poetry in Samuel is altogether unlike the poetry 
 in the Psalms."^ The lament over Saul and Jona- 
 
 * No stress need here be laid upon the fact that the " Davidic " 
 poems in the Psalter are of every variety of subject, style, lan- 
 guage, theology, etc. 
 
284 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 than offered a fine opportunity for the expression of 
 religious emotion, but the poem expresses only human 
 feelings. The assured Davidic poetry corresponds to 
 his musical instruments in its secular character. This 
 is the more remarkable because David was intensely 
 religious. It is true that David is called in II. Sam. 
 xxiii. i: ** The sweet Psalmist of Israel " ; but the pas- 
 sage is more obscure in the original than appears in the 
 English. The above rendering (R. V.) is scarcely 
 possible; we might translate, "Lovely in the praise- 
 songs of Israel," or " Lovely playing of Israel." The 
 LXX renders, "The goodly Psalms of Israel." These 
 words, by the way, testify against the Davidicauthor- 
 ship of this poem. 
 
 Then, again, it is difficult, with any degree of confi- 
 dence, to assign the individual Psalms to David ; for 
 the internal evidence rarely agrees with his date or his 
 Hfe. Ewald assigned about a dozen Psalms, or parts 
 of Psalms, to David ; but since his day the tendency of 
 critical opinion has steadily been growing less favora- 
 ble to the theory of Davidic authorship. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 Z\)c l&ooU of pealme. 
 
 2. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 WE have seen that the external evidence for 
 the determination of the date of the Psalms 
 does not offer much effective help. The 
 view of some critical scholars, that since the Psalter 
 was the hymn book of the second temple, the Psalms 
 cannot belong to an earlier period than the exile, has 
 not seemed justified. On the other hand, there do not 
 seem to be good grounds for placing much confidence 
 in the late traditions or conjectures found in the super- 
 scriptions. There is left, therefore, only the internal 
 evidence as our main reHance. 
 
 But it must be confessed that the internal evidence 
 is a delicate instrument, and, in incompetent or rash 
 hands, it is liable to great abuse. In the hands of the 
 judicious expert, however, a great deal of solid work 
 may be accomplished with it. 
 
 In this book but little use can be made of the evi- 
 dence from language and style. Knowledge of the 
 Hebrew tongue is essential to judge competently of that 
 
286 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 evidence. The linguistic expert must decide whether 
 words and idioms are early or late ; for they all look 
 alike in a translation. Style is not altogether lost in 
 translating ; but it is so seriously modified that its 
 evidential value is greatly impaired. To furnish evi- 
 dence appreciable to the reader who is not a Hebrew 
 scholar, dependence must be placed chiefly upon his- 
 torical allusions and theology ; and these, in fact, con- 
 stitute the most important evidence for any one. 
 
 In the case of the prophets, historical allusions are 
 helps which rarely fail ; for the prophets were greatly 
 concerned with the state of the nation in their day. In 
 some Psalms also we find a connection with the times 
 which solves the problem of date. In many cases, 
 however, the Psalms are of a lyric character, and the 
 writer makes no allusion to his times, at least none 
 which helps us. So often the sacred poem is the out- 
 pouring of the deep emotions of a struggling human 
 soul, and the words are equally applicable to almost 
 any period. This quality of the Psalms greatly hinders 
 the critical determination of dates, but it has made the 
 Psalm book the inexhaustible source of comfort for 
 all souls in all ages. No matter what our need or our 
 mood, it is not difficult to find a voice for its expres- 
 sion in this priceless collection of religious poetry. 
 
 The religious ideas, in which the Psalms so richly 
 abound, must always be reckoned with. But God has 
 not always put ideas into the souls of men in an or- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 287 
 
 derly development, and it is easy to be over-confident 
 in dating on such a basis. Ideas belong to eternity, 
 not to time. On the other hand, every age is char- 
 acterized by the peculiar way in which it expresses 
 its ideas, by the effect which certain ideas produce, 
 or by the emphasis which it lays upon those ideas 
 which appeal to it most strongly. 
 
 Enough has been said to show the value of the in- 
 ternal evidence, and the necessary caution in employ- 
 ing it. The mistake which some famous Biblical 
 scholars are making to-day appears to be due to press- 
 ing unduly the meagre evidence derived from the 
 contents of the sacred writings. The internal evidence 
 utterly fails to support the Davidic authorship of the 
 Psalms, but this may be due to the defective charac- 
 ter of the evidence.* The aim of the present chapter 
 is, however, positive results. It is proposed to exam- 
 ine the internal evidence by which certain Psalms may 
 reasonably be assigned to the pre-exilic period, some 
 to the Maccabean period, and others to the period 
 between these wide limits. No attempt can be made 
 to examine all the Psalms which presumably belong 
 to any of these periods. For the pre-exilic period, 
 we shall study two small groups of Psalms, in one of 
 which the evidence is chiefly historical conditions, in 
 the other religious ideas. 
 
 * There may be Davidic Psalms which have been worked over, 
 or added to, so that the evidence in the original is lost . 
 
288 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 I. The first group will be Psas. xx., xxi., and xlv., 
 all referring to a king.* We must bear in mind that 
 reference to a king is not a sure indication of the 
 pre-exilic origin of a Psalm. The "anointed" may be 
 the people viewed as the holy nation of Jehovah, or it 
 may be the individual Messiah, and therefore does not 
 presuppose the monarchy as an existing institution. In 
 every case we must decide whether the king is one 
 actually sitting on the throne when the Psalm was 
 written, or whether the poet idealizes from conditions 
 of the past. The king seems to be real in the three 
 Psalms we have chosen for investigation. 
 
 I. Psalm XX. The Psalmist begins his prayer : 
 
 '* May Jahveh answer thee in the day of distress, 
 May the name of Jacob's God support thee ; 
 May he send thee aid from his sanctuary, 
 And from Zion may he give thee relief " (vs. i, 2). 
 
 This is evidently a prayer addressed to the person 
 for whom divine aid is sought. That the person prayed 
 for is a king appears from the following lines : 
 " Now I know that Jahveh saves his anointed ; 
 He will answer from his holy heavens. 
 O Jahveh, save thou the king ; 
 Yea. answer us on the day we call " f (vs. 6, 9). 
 
 *The others referring to the monarchy are ii., xviii., xxviii., Ixi., 
 Ixiii., and Ixxii., and most of these are probably pre-exilic. The 
 evidence is much stronger, however, in some cases than in others. 
 
 \ This verse is rendered according to the LXX., which involves 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 289 
 
 The king- addressed could not possibly be the au- 
 thor. The occasion is clear. The king is about to 
 send his forces to the wars. Appropriate sacrifices 
 and prayers have been offered. 
 
 " May he remember all thy offerings, 
 May he esteem fat thy burnt sacrifice. 
 May he fulfil all thy requests " (vs. 3, 5). 
 
 Jehovah is asked to send help from His sanctuary on 
 Zion ; hence the Psalm could not be earlier than Solo- 
 mon. But the king is a real one ; he offers sacrifices, 
 and wins victories through Jehovah's support. It is 
 certainly unnecessary, if not impossible, to idealize 
 this poem. The natural inference is the true one, that 
 it belongs to the time of the monarchy. It is not pos- 
 sible to date it more closely. It may fall almost any- 
 where between the age of Solomon and the Baby- 
 lonian exile. 
 
 There is nothing to indicate accurately the charac- 
 ter of the enemies the Jewish king was to meet. Yet 
 these lines — 
 
 •' Some by chariots, and some by horses, 
 
 But we are exalted by the name of Jahveh our God " (v. 7) 
 
 suggest that it was one of the great powers like Egypt 
 or Assyria which Judah was to meet on unequal terms. 
 
 a very slight emendation of the Hebrew text. This reading is 
 adopted by Perowne, Cheyne, Baethgen, Wcllhausen, Reuss, et al. 
 " Save " is used here, as Cheyne says, in the sense of "give vic- 
 tory to.'' 
 
^90 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 The Hebrews evidently had no armament to match 
 that of their foes ; but they had a sublime confidence 
 in a support which the enemy could not withstand. It 
 is very probable that this king was one of those who 
 rehed upon prophetic advice and divine aid, rather than 
 upon intrigues and alliances. 
 
 So far as the ideas of this deeply religious poet are 
 concerned, while they are not sufficient to fix the date 
 in the pre-exilic period, they are at all events not in- 
 consistent with that date. 
 
 2. Psalm xxi. This poem expresses the religious 
 feehngs and hopes of the king, and the favor which 
 God has shown him ; it is therefore not probable that 
 it was composed by a king. The monarch's chief joy 
 is in the aid he receives from on high. 
 
 " O Jahveh. the king rejoices in thy strength ; 
 And in thy succor how he exults ! " (v. i). 
 
 The poet pictures the prosperous career upon which 
 Jehovah has started His anointed : 
 
 " The desire of his heart thou hast granted him, 
 The prayer of his lips thou hast not denied. 
 Thou placest before him blessings of good, 
 Thou settest for his head a crown of gold " (v. 2f.). 
 
 The crown suggests that this may be a coronation 
 hymn ; some have thought that the poem was com- 
 posed for the annual coronation festival. That the 
 crown was of fine gold creates no real difficulty ; the 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 2qI 
 
 LXX., however, reads, ''crown of precious stones"; 
 but even if the Hebrew text is correct, the expression 
 does not go beyond the proper bounds of poetic 
 license. As Perowne suggests, the golden crown may 
 be a figure for the prosperity described in the preced- 
 ing line. 
 
 There are two expressions in the following lines 
 which have made many think a Messianic king to be 
 intended : 
 
 " He asked of thee life : thou hast given to him 
 Length of days for ever and ever. 
 Thou enduest him with blessings for ever, 
 Thou exaltest him with joy in thy presence " (vs. 4, 6). 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia saw in the answer to this 
 prayer a plain reference to Hezekiah's lengthened life 
 after his severe illness. It would be almost as difficult 
 to explain the words "for ever and ever " in the Jewish 
 conception of the Messianic king as to regard them as 
 a poetical expression for long life. The Hebrew saw 
 himself perpetuated as long as his seed survived (cf. 
 Psa. xviii. 50) ; hence to die childless, or to have one's 
 posterity cut off, was the greatest of calamities. David's 
 joy was unbounded because of the promise that his 
 seed should sit upon the throne of Israel for ever (II. 
 Sam. vii. 13). These words, therefore, afford no rea- 
 son for resisting the clear inference that the poet is 
 describing a real king. 
 
 Moreover, the hope of the people does not centre 
 
292 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 in the king, as it would if he were the Messiah, but 
 in Jehovah Himself. 
 
 " For the king trusts in Jahveh, 
 And by the mercy of the Most High he feels secure " (v. 7). 
 
 It is Jehovah who will overthrow the foes that, in 
 harassing His people, purpose evil against Him. 
 
 *' Thy hand will find all thy enemies, 
 Thy right hand will find thy haters. 
 Thou wilt make them turn the back ; 
 With thy bow thou wilt aim at their face " (vs. 8, 12). 
 
 It is not to be doubted that an actual king is the 
 subject of the poet's hopes and prayers ; but it is not 
 possible to name the king, or the precise period to 
 which he belongs. There is no hint as to the char- 
 acter of the enemies whom God will overthrow. We 
 can fix the date in the pre-exilic period, but must rest 
 content with that. The various conjectures which 
 have been made as to who this king actually was are 
 largely fanciful. It is useless to try to go beyond the 
 evidence. 
 
 3. Psalm xlv. This is a royal marriage hymn, and, as 
 Dr. Peters has said, '* the only secular poem in the 
 Psalter." Cheyne, whose carefully wrought conclu- 
 sions are never to be too lightly regarded, said in his 
 "Bampton Lectures" (p. 166) that " the royal subject of 
 the song is by no means King Messiah, as the Targum 
 and most Jewish and early Christian interpreters sup- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 293 
 
 posed, but some contemporary monarch." This mon- 
 arch was in his opinion Ptolemy Philadelphus (285- 
 247 B.C.). Later he has apparently accepted the in- 
 terpretation of the Targum, and now regards the 
 Psalm as purely Messianic The problems for the stu- 
 dent are to determine whether the king is real or ideal, 
 and whether he is Jewish or foreign. Let us 
 look at some of the expressions of the Korahite song, 
 which Cheyne happily calls a prelude to the Song of 
 Songs, to see what they most naturally mean. 
 
 The poet feels powerfully moved by the splendor of 
 his subject. 
 
 " My heart is stirred with a goodly theme ; 
 I am speaking now a work on the king " (v. i). 
 
 Like all court poets, however much he may be 
 moved by the spirit of God, he must sing the praises of 
 the king. Let us hope that the author was no mere 
 flatterer, but that his sovereign deserved this adulation. 
 At all events, it is not unworthy that a patriot's love 
 for his king should lead him to magnify his graces. 
 
 " Thou art beautiful beyond the sons of men, 
 Grace is poured forth from thy lips. 
 Therefore God blesses thee for ever. 
 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O hero, 
 Majesty and splendor are thine. 
 Thy throne, O divinity,* is for ever and ever, 
 The sceptre of thy rule is a sceptre of right " (vs. 2f., 6). 
 
 * Some modern interpreters emend the text, reading "will 
 
294 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Exalted as the picture is in these and in the follow, 
 ing verses describing the fragrant garments, handsome 
 palaces, and charming music, it fits so perfectly an act- 
 ually reigning king, that it seems quite impossible that 
 the picture should be an ideal one. The literal sense 
 is always to be assumed as the right one, whenever it 
 may be accepted without violence. 
 
 The Psalmist introduces the bride, not for herself, 
 but for the further glorification of the king. 
 
 " Daughters of kings are among thy dear ones ; 
 On thy right hand stands the bride in gold of Ophir " (v. 9). 
 
 The picture becomes very realistic as the poet thinks 
 of the natural sadness of a maiden taken from her 
 home, and called upon to endure the lonely seclusion 
 of an Oriental palace. 
 
 *' Hear, daughter, yea, see and incline thy ear. 
 Forget thy nation and thy father's household : 
 That the king may long for thy beauty ; 
 Since he is thy lord, submit thyself to him " (v. lof.). 
 
 We learn now that the bride was a Phoenician prin- 
 cess, though the text is not beyond question. The 
 bridal procession indicates a real marriage. 
 
 stand"; it is simpler to take 'Elohim as the title of the king. There 
 are -innumerable parallels for this title applied to absolute mon- 
 archs. 'Elohim is sometimes used of a judge. (See Brown-Driver, 
 •• Hebrew Lexicon.") 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 295 
 
 " O daughter of Tyre, 
 The rich of the nation flatter thee with gifts. 
 All glorious is the king's daughter, 
 Her clothing is pearls* set in gold. 
 In gaily colored robes she is brought to the king 
 Virgins following her are her attendants ; 
 Into thy presence they are ushered. 
 They are led in with joy and gladness, 
 They enter the palace of a king" (vs. 127-15). 
 
 The closing lines are addressed to the king, not, as 
 is often erroneously supposed, to the bride. From this 
 union with the princess the poet looks for sons who 
 shall uphold the dignity of the royal estate. 
 
 " In the place of thy fathers there will be thy sons, 
 Whom thou wilt make princes all through the land. 
 I will make thy name famous in all ages, 
 So nations will glorify thee forever" (v. i6f.). 
 
 It strains language unnecessarily to interpret all 
 these realistic details in a figurative way. There is 
 certainly good ground for the beHef that the poet is 
 celebrating the nuptials of an actual king. But it is 
 not so obvious, one must confess, that the king is Jew- 
 ish, and hence of the pre-exilic period. The Psalm 
 contains words which are of foreign origin, and unusual 
 in Hebrew. They are not decisive, however, in favor 
 of a late date. They might have been used in the 
 northern kingdom at almost any time; and in Judah 
 
 ♦Following a slightly emended text accepted by most scholars. 
 
296 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 foreign words became quite common before the exile. 
 There is one expression which points pretty clearly to 
 an Israelite king, though Wellhausen does not admit 
 the inference. In verse 7 the words ** God thy God" 
 must have been originally '* Jahveh thy God," the 
 change being due to an Elohistic revision. This ex- 
 pression could not, it seems to me, be used of a foreign 
 king. Many suggestions have been made as to the 
 precise person whose marriage inspired this song. 
 Ahab, Jeroboam II., Joram, and in fact about every one 
 known to have contracted a Phoenician marriage, have 
 been named ; whence Baethgen says truly : ** This 
 enumeration sufificiently shows that the Psalm offers no 
 grounds for a certain dating" ('* Die Psalmen," p. 129). 
 
 II. The group of Psalms, which may be referred to 
 the pre-exilic period on the ground of their religious 
 ideas, need not be discussed at much length. These are 
 the anti-sacrificial Psalms, xl., 1., and li. The poets 
 who sang these songs had learned the great truth that 
 God's favor may be secured without the mediation of 
 priest or sacrifice — a truth incessantly preached by the 
 great prophets, but which the Hebrews as a people 
 never fully grasped. 
 
 We can look only at a few expressions, but these are 
 so convincing that they are by many deemed sufificient. 
 
 " With sacrifice and offering thou art not pleased, 
 The ears hast thou opened for me, 
 Burnt and sin offering thou dost not demand " (xl. 6). 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 297 
 
 According to their favorite fashion, the people have 
 entered into a covenant with Jehovah by solemn sac- 
 rifices. 
 
 •' Gather to me my loved ones, 
 Who made a covenant with sacrifice" (1. 5). 
 
 But necessary as this seemed to the people, it was a 
 matter of more than indifference to God. A spiritual 
 offering was acceptable to Him. Obedience was better 
 than sacrifice. 
 
 " I rebuke thee not because of sacrifices : 
 Thy burnt- offerings are ever before me. 
 I will take no bullock from thy house, 
 Nor he-goat from thy folds ; 
 For all the beasts of the forest are mine, 
 The cattle on a thousand hills. 
 I know every bird of the mountains. 
 The animals of the field are with me. 
 Were I hungry, I need not tell thee ; 
 For mine is the world and all therein. 
 Can I eat the flesh of bulls ? 
 Or drink the blood of goats ? 
 Sacrifice to God a thanksgiving. 
 And to the Most High pay thy vows. 
 Yea, call on me in the day of distress, 
 I will save thee, that thou hold me in honor" (1. 8-15). 
 
 Psalm H. contains such profound conceptions of sin, 
 that it could scarcely belong to early Hebrew thought, 
 as Cheyne justly holds. But the Psalmist's conception 
 of spiritual communion with God belongs peculiarly 
 
298 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 to the prophetic age. The great thing in this poem is 
 the consciousness of sin. The Psalmist feels deeply 
 that peace for his guilty soul can come only from God. 
 How easy it would be to offer an appropriate sacrifice, 
 and then persuade oneself that the debt were paid and 
 the sin removed ! But this sin is not so lightly purged. 
 The sufferer knows too well the harder requirements 
 of a moral and spiritual God. 
 
 " O Lord, open thou my lips. 
 And my mouth shall show forth thy praise. 
 For thou likest not sacrifice, or I would give it ; 
 Burnt offerings give thee no pleasure. 
 God's sacrifices are a broken spirit ; 
 A heart broken and crushed God scorns not " (vs. 15-17). 
 
 The closing verses of the Psalm are relied upon to 
 place it in the exilic period. They are altogether out 
 of harmony with the ideas above quoted. 
 
 '' Do good in thy pleasure to Zion, 
 Build the walls of Jerusalem. 
 Then thou canst delight in the appointed sacrifices, in the 
 
 whole burnt- offerings ; 
 Then will they sacrifice bullocks upon thy altar " (v. r8f.). 
 
 These words unmistakably betray the exilic or post- 
 exilic period. But did so spiritual a poet reach at the 
 end so poor a conclusion } It is much more likely that 
 these verses are an addition, or two additions, perhaps: 
 first, the bitter cry of the patriotic soul who, like Ne- 
 hemiah, bewailed the poor estate of the holy city, and 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 299 
 
 earnestly prayed for its restoration ; and then the 
 promise of sacrifices, the natural consequence of the 
 re-established altar, added by one who thought to make 
 this favorite poem more orthodox from his own point 
 of view. 
 
 One need not deny that such spiritual conceptions 
 were held by a saving- remnant in the more ritual post- 
 exilic age (cf. Zech. vii.,viii. and Malachi); but there is 
 no place in which these ideas found such expression as 
 in the prophets Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as has 
 already been shown at length in chap. v. There is, at 
 least, therefore, reasonable ground for assigning these 
 Psalms to the pre-exilic age, even if we cannot date 
 them more precisely. 
 
 III. So many Psalms have been assigned to the 
 Maccabean age by recent critics, that it may seem un- 
 necessarily sceptical to raise the question whether any 
 can fairly be placed in so late a period,* or rather, 
 whether any must be placed so late. Driver, in his 
 revised '* Introduction" (p. sS/fif.) does not hesitate to 
 ask that question, and is not very positive in his an- 
 swer. But even conservative scholars, as Delitzch and 
 Perowne,t hold that some belong to this age. If we 
 believe that some critics have made this age too prolific 
 of sacred poetry, it is still not necessary to deny to it al- 
 
 *The Maccabean period begins at 168 B.C. 
 t See their notes on Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., and Ixxix. Calvin also as- 
 signed *hese Psalms to the Maccabean period. 
 
300 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 together a voice for its religious emotions. It must be 
 simply a question of evidence. 
 
 On historical grounds, Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., and Ixxix., as 
 we shall presently see, fit the Maccabean age very well. 
 But Robertson Smith (O. T. J. C, p. 20ifif ) raised the 
 objection that if these Psalms belonged to so late a 
 period they could not have found a place in Books II. 
 and III. of the Psalter. Sanday is so much impressed 
 with this argument, that he doubts whether any Psalms 
 are of Maccabean origin. The point on which he lays 
 stress is that the Greek version of the Psalter was 
 made not later than i00B.C.,and that *' the number of 
 steps implied between it and the original composition 
 of the Hebrew Psalms is so great as to make it diffi- 
 cult to get them all into the interval."" But our in- 
 formation is not yet sufficient to reject a Maccabean 
 date on a priori %xo\ix\<^s. Each case must be consid- 
 ered on its merits, to determine which we are obliged 
 to fall back again upon the internal evidence. Our 
 limits will not permit us to do more than make a 
 cursory examination of the three Psalms named 
 
 * " Inspiration," p. 257. See also, especially, his note on " The In- 
 ferior Limits for the Date of the Psalter," p. 27off., where this able 
 scholar traces the nine steps presupposed between the composition 
 of a Psalm and the Greek translation. It does not follow, however, 
 that all the steps were successive ; and it is very difficult to tell 
 how long a time would be required to complete the various stages 
 by which the Psalter reached its completed form. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 301 
 
 above, and our purpose does not require more than 
 this. 
 
 1. Psahn xliv. The pathetic note of this Psalm moves 
 the dullest soul. The contrast between God's active 
 aid to Israel in the olden days, and His seeming indif- 
 ference now, is a riddle which this troubled poet can- 
 not solve, except by that great power which for some 
 happily solves all the problems of human life — faith in 
 God. Let us quote a few lines to see how great the 
 contrast is. The impression will be very strong that 
 the poet looks back to the Conquest as if it were in the 
 distant past. 
 
 '• We have heard with our ears, O God, 
 Our fathers have told unto us, 
 The deeds thou wroughtest in their days, 
 In the days of yore. 
 
 Thy own hand drove the nations out, and plantedst them ; 
 Thou didst cut off the peoples, and send them away" (v. if.). 
 
 The hopes such a history would naturally raise are 
 dashed to pieces by facts. The pitiable condition of 
 the present shows the low estate of the much tried 
 people. 
 
 " Now thou hast cast us off and brought us to shame ; 
 Thou goest forth with our armies no more. 
 Thou makest us turn the back to the foe, 
 And those that hate us make us their plunder. 
 Thou settest us a butt among the nations, 
 A wagging of the head among the peoples " (vs. pf., 14). 
 
302 THE OLD TESTAMEJSTT FROM 
 
 God's displeasure, and the withholding of His help- 
 ing hand, had been easily interpretable to the prophets, 
 because Israel was a disobedient people. Now, how- 
 ever, this explanation will not serve : for the nation as- 
 serts righteousness of itself. 
 
 " All this has befallen us, though we forgot thee not, 
 Nor have we been false to thy covenant. 
 Our heart did not turn away backward. 
 Nor have our steps bc:it from thy way. 
 For because of thee we are slain every day ; 
 We are regarded as a flock to be killed " (vs. lyf., 22). 
 
 When were the Jews in such a condition ? When 
 did they sufTer martyrdom for their religion ? So far 
 as we know — and we have to confess much ignorance 
 of the post-exilic period — there is no time so suitable 
 as the Maccabean age. The persecutions which the 
 Jews endured at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes 
 (II. Mace. v. I iff.), form the best background for 
 the due appreciation of this touching poem. 
 
 2. Psalm Ixxiv. The condition of the Jews when 
 this Psalm was written was bad in the extreme. It 
 seemed as if God had given the enemy a free hand to 
 work their evil will against His people. Let us read 
 carefully this considerable extract, that the true condi- 
 tion may be fully disclosed. 
 
 " O God, why castest thou off forever ? 
 Why burns thy wrath in the flock of thy feeding ? 
 Remember thy congregation : thou gottest it of old : 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 303 
 
 Thou didst redeem it as the tribe of thy inheritance, 
 
 Mount Zion here, in which thou abidest. 
 
 Set thy steps towards the eternal ruins — * 
 
 Ail the enemy's harm in the sanctuary. 
 
 Thy foes roared in thy very meeting-place; 
 
 They have set up their standards for signs, t 
 
 They seemed like those swinging aloft 
 
 Axes in the thickets of a forest. 
 
 And now the whole of its carved wood X 
 
 They smash with axes and hammers. 
 
 They have set fire to thy sanctuary ; 
 
 They desecrated to earth the abode of thy name. 
 
 They said in their heart, Let us suppress them altogether; |} 
 
 They burned all the synagogues § in the land. 
 
 " We see no signs, for we have no prophet, 
 We have none that knows how long. IF 
 
 * The LXX. reads, "Lift thy hands against their eternal contempt." 
 
 t Codices Vat. and Alex, lack this line. 
 
 \ 5a, 6^ are rendered in the LXX., " As in a thick wood, they 
 have cut down its doors with axes." Wellhausen regards the text 
 of vs. 5 and 6 as " hopelessly corrupt and quite untranslatable." 
 
 11 1 have given Cheyne's rendering, involving a change of text vir- 
 tually the same as Wellhausen's. The Hebrew has "their race 
 altogether"; though supported by the LXX,, this has to be re- 
 jected, as it does not m-;ke sense. It is certain tliat the passage 
 must state what the enemy says. 
 
 § Literally, " All of God's meeting-places." This can only refer 
 to the synagogues ; for, except the temple, God had no other meet- 
 ing-place. 
 
 1" The LXX., by omitting one Hebrew word, gives a good read- 
 ing: " There is yet no one to make us know." 
 
304 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 O God, how long shall the foe scoff ? 
 
 Shall the enemy scorn thy name forever? 
 
 Why holdest thou back thy hand ? 
 
 Why keep thy right hand in thy bosom ? " * (vs. i-ii). 
 
 The holy temple on Mount Zion is not burned to 
 the ground, as it was by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C.; 
 but its adornments have been violently broken, it has 
 been profaned, and fire has contributed its part to 
 make the place seem like an eternal ruin. The syna- 
 gogues everywhere have been completely destroyed by 
 fire. The foe exulted in the violence they did to the 
 sajcred things of the God of Israel, and there was no 
 ominous handwriting on the wall to stay them. The 
 suffering Jews saw no " signs ^' indicative of God's in- 
 tervention ; there was no longer a prophet to tell them 
 when the end would be. They knew what God had 
 done in the past, and what He was doing in the natural 
 world at present (vs. 17-23) ; but it was hard to 
 understand why He endured the contempt of the ruth- 
 less foes, and why He permitted His people to bear such 
 shame (18-23). The Jews were persecuted for their 
 religion, not punished as rebellious subjects. 
 
 * The LXX. renders this line, " And thy right hand from thy 
 bosom forever ?" The Hebrew text contains a slight error. The 
 parallelism shows that " consume,'* as Revised Version translates, 
 is wrong. The generally accepted rendering given above emends 
 the text by changing a single letter, an emendation often required 
 elsewhere. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 305 
 
 This poet evidently was no idealist. He did not at- 
 tempt to represent things according- to his preconcep- 
 tions. He sets forth a " condition, not a theory." The 
 facts are painfully real to him, and for their explanation 
 he knows he must wait. He indulges in no imaginative 
 exaltation of the weak Jews over their mighty enemies. 
 The latter have the upper hand too completely for that ; 
 and this Psalmist is too truthful to facts for that. 
 
 Where are we to look for the scenes which prompted 
 this sad picture ? Let us glance at the conditions in 
 the Maccabean period, at least at a few of its features. 
 The pious were then much perplexed because there 
 was no prophet to guide them (I. Mace. iv. 46, ix. 
 27, xiv. 41). Their sacred treasures were then vio- 
 lated : '' And the king [Antiochus Epiphanes] sent 
 letters by messengers to Jerusalem and to the cities 
 of Judah, that they should proceed after the customs 
 foreign to the land, and should prevent burnt offerings, 
 and sacrifices, and drink offerings at the sanctuary ; 
 and should profane the Sabbath and sacred festivals, 
 and defile the holy place and holy persons ; that they 
 should rebuild high places, and sacred precincts, and 
 images, and should sacrifice swine and unclean ani- 
 mals, and should cause their sons to go uncircum- 
 cised " {ib./\. 44ff.). Much mischief was done to the 
 temple: "Behold our sanctuary was laid waste, and 
 the altar defiled ; and the gates were burned, and in 
 the courts trees were grown as in a wood, or as in one 
 
306 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 of the mountains, and the priests' chambers were torn 
 down."* There were no synagogues until the post- 
 exilic period ; but we surely find them mentioned in I. 
 Mace. iii. 46: '' We assembled and went to Mizpeh, over 
 against Jerusalem, for a place of prayer was at Miz- 
 peh." 
 
 The correspondence is certainly close. There is no 
 other known period which this Psalm fits. If histori- 
 cal allusions are to be given their due weight, we can- 
 not hesitate to refer this Psalm to the period of the 
 persecutions of Antiochus. 
 
 3. Psalm Ixxix. This is so much like Psa. Ixxiv. that 
 we shall not be in error in assigning it to the same 
 period, whatever that may be. We need do no more, 
 then, than point out the conditions which prompted 
 this poem. 
 
 The heathen enemies had defiled the temple and dev- 
 astated Jerusalem ; they had slain the Jews and left 
 their bodies unburied (vs. I, 2). The people of God 
 had become the scorn of the heathen (v. 4); the nation 
 was sadly reduced, and the means of living few (v./f.). 
 Prisoners sighed in the dungeons, awaiting the time of 
 their execution (v. 11). 
 
 IV. But three more Psalms can be examined. We 
 will look at those which point to the exile in Babylon 
 
 * I. Mace. iv. 38 ; cf. the Greek rendering of v. 6. of the 
 Psalm, note J, p. 303. See also II. Mace. i. 18, viii. 33. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 307 
 
 or later. It needs no critical training to see that such 
 a song as Psa. cxxxvii. sprang from the conditions of 
 the exile. That this pathetic poem was written out of 
 the experiences of one who had but lately endured the 
 sorrows of exile from the holy land, is obvious from 
 the most cursory reading. But in the case of others 
 the date is not so evident. The cases are selected ac- 
 cording to the general purpose to show method rather 
 than results. 
 
 I. Psalm iv. The subject of this poem is either the 
 righteous nation or the righteous Israelite. He speaks 
 in a time when one could base his expectation of suc- 
 cor on his belief in his own righteousness (v. 3). His 
 righteousness is of the law, the only kind which it is pos- 
 sible for any discerning man to credit himself with. The 
 standard of the pre-exilic age was that of the prophets, 
 a moral standard, going back in its fundamental concep- 
 tions to the Decalogue and to Moses. In that period 
 there is no " righteous nation." The prophets judge Is- 
 rael to be a sinful people, not because they have failed to 
 offer sacrifice, but because they have stolen, murdered, 
 and committed adultery ; and the stain of these is not 
 removable with the blood ot bulls and of goats. The 
 post-exilic ideal, on the other hand, was the ceremo- 
 nial law.* The Israelite was to present offerings at the 
 
 *One cannot be too careful to guard against confusing the origin 
 ot priestly institutions with their ascendancy as the national ideal. 
 Priest and sacrifice belong to early Israel as truly as to late ; but 
 
3o8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 temple according to a carefully drawn system. Incom- 
 pliance with the code he was to find his righteousness. 
 Sin was now atoned for by the blood of bulls and of 
 goats. The prescribed rites, elaborate as they were, 
 could easily be kept, and the keeping implanted in the 
 people a sense of righteousness which had never before 
 been possible. There is no surer indication of the post- 
 exilic age of a Psalm than the assertion of righteous- 
 ness. 
 
 When this poem (Psa. iv^) was written the temple 
 was in full use, and the people are called upon " to sac- 
 rifice the prescribed sacrifices."* It is an age when 
 scepticism is common (v. 6); against this the pious au- 
 thor protests in faith and hope. 
 
 The Psalm cannot be placed in the pre-exilic age. 
 The reference to the temple and sacrifice, and the idea 
 of righteousness, all point to the post-exilic period, but 
 give no more precise indication of date.f 
 
 the ritual system became the national religion only in the post-ex- 
 ilic age, when the voice of prophecy was faint or silent. This may, 
 indeed, be a return to conditions which prevailed in the pre- Mo- 
 saic age. It is likely that sacrifice was at all times a large element 
 in the popular religion. 
 
 * V. 5. The rendering of the English versions, " the sacrifice of 
 righteousness, " is misleading ; this poet had no conception of spir- 
 itual sacrifice. The word rendered, "of righteousness" (sedeq), 
 has elsewhere the sense of right or prescribed, e.g., Psa. li. 19, 
 where I have translated appoiiited (p. 298). 
 
 t Cheyne assigns this Psalm to " the period when faithful Israel- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 309 
 
 2. Psalm xxii. This Is a Messianic Psalm pre-emi- 
 nently ; but we may nevertheless seek to understand 
 the conditions out of which the picture of the Messiah 
 grew. The Christian approaches the study of the 
 Psalm with peculiar reverence ; for it contains the 
 words that fell to the lips of our blessed Lord to ex- 
 press His emotions at the dark hour of His Passion. 
 Could anything else more convincingly show its truly 
 Messianic character? The ground on which the critic 
 may seek to find a date for this Psalm is the obvious 
 one that every writing has a date which is of interest to 
 mankind, and that God opens the eyes of His servants, 
 in chief part it may well be by the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, but also in no inconsiderable measure by 
 the circumstances amidst which their life is cast. How 
 could any Jew have ever conceived the vicarious suf- 
 fering of the Messiah except he had known the martyr 
 life and death which gave the suggestion for Isa. liii.? 
 It required both the vision on the housetop and the 
 falling of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius to open St. 
 Peter's eyes to the fact that ** God was no respecter of 
 persons " (Acts x.). 
 
 The sufferer feels that God has abandoned him ; he 
 cries night and day to Heaven, but there is no answer. 
 In time past prayer always brought a response, need 
 always brought help. But how can God be expected 
 
 ites were so sorely oppressed, both by traitors in their midst and 
 by their Persian tyrants " (" Bampton Lectures," p. 227). 
 
3IO THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 to help one who is '* a worm, and not a man," re- 
 proached, despised, laughed at, and ridiculed ? (v. 6f.). 
 But there is no other help than the God " upon whom 
 he had been cast from the womb " (v. lo). As this dis- 
 tressed soul feels that God alone could help, so he 
 knows no God but Jehovah. And help is sorely 
 needed. Like bulls of Bashan, like raging lions, the 
 enemy besets him. The sufferer is reduced in body and 
 soul ; his bones may be counted ; his garments even 
 are taken by his persecutors. 
 
 Then a more triumphant note is sounded. Can we 
 ever forget that the same suffering Saviour who said, 
 " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " said 
 also, " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit "? 
 This Psalm could not be so truly Messianic if it had 
 ended in the gloom with which it began. The tone of 
 exaltation and triumph is a necessary part of the com- 
 plete picture. God ** has not despised nor abhorred 
 the distress of the lowly, nor hid his face from him " 
 (v. 24). 
 
 Driver says this Psalm belongs '* to the exile or 
 later " (L. O. T.\ p. 386). Ewald assigns it to the 
 early part of the exilic period. Cheyne refers it to the 
 time just before Nehemiah, when "the remnant of the 
 captivity there in the province are in great affliction 
 and reproach " ('' Bampton Lectures," p. 231). The dis- 
 appointed hopes, the-broken hearts of the pious, in the 
 early years of the Restoration, form the most suitable 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 311 
 
 background for this Psalm. The ideas are in good 
 accord with this date, and that was the time when 
 Israel was taught the great lesson that suffering was 
 not a mark of God's disfavor. Would that they had 
 made better use of that lesson ! 
 
 3. Psalm xlii.(-xliii.). That these were originally one 
 has already been shown (chap. ix.). Ewald put these 
 words into the mouth of Jehoiachin when he was car- 
 ried away to Babylon. If we cannot be so exact in 
 assigning a date, we may still be sure that Ewald was 
 not far wrong. The opening words — 
 
 " As the hart pants for the water brooks, 
 So, O God, pants my soul for thee " — 
 
 reveal clearly one who felt like David, that to be away 
 from the holy land was to be away from God. "When 
 may I come and behold the face of God ? "^ is a ques- 
 tion meaning the same thing as, ''When may I again 
 visit the holy city?" The captors taunted their vic- 
 tim with his vain hope of help from his God. The 
 captive recalls, with mingled pleasure and pain, the 
 days when he had gone with the happy throng of 
 worshippers. He hopes surely to return to the altar, 
 there again to offer his praises to God. Therefore, 
 the Psalm must belong to the first Judean captivity 
 
 * The later Jews, to whom the idea of seeing God was intolera- 
 ble, changed the meaning of the word rendered " behold " by 
 pointing the text to read, " When may I come and appear before 
 God ? " 
 
312 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 (597-586 B.C.), or else to the period after the rebuild- 
 ing of the temple by Zerubbabel (515 B.C.). It is not 
 easy to decide between these dates, though the earlier 
 seems to me the more probable. 
 
 Whatever opinion one may hold as to the reasona- 
 bleness of the conclusions here reached, he must not 
 forget that the religious value of the Psalms is not 
 lessened by literary criticism. Psa. xxii. has precisely 
 the same Messianic significance, and carries to the soul 
 the same lessons, whether it was written by David, as 
 the Jewish critics asserted, or by one who had a deeper 
 experience of life, and a profounder conception of re- 
 ligion than was possible for the king, whose reign was 
 too full of wars and blood to make it seemly that he 
 should be the builder of the temple. Only a larger 
 knowledge and a sounder faith can come to one who 
 studies the Psalter critically, in order that he and others 
 may have its spiritual lessons set in clearer light. 
 And that is the purpose of the critical study of the 
 Psalms. Prof. Frants Buhl, of Denmark, has well 
 said: ''There [in regard to the Psalms] the Church 
 has every reason to be thankful for recent researches, 
 for they have made the religious content of those songs 
 much more clear, and have made it much more easy 
 for us to apply them to ourselves devotionally than 
 was the case before " {^American Journal of Theology^ 
 October, 1898, p. 764). 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Criticism anb tbc Supernatural. 
 
 IT is hoped that it has been made clear in the course 
 of the critical discussions in the preceding chap- 
 ters that such investigation does not and can not 
 impair the religious value and influence of the Old 
 Testament. It remains to consider the effect of criti- 
 cal results on the presence of the supernatural gener- 
 ally. For the most serious indictment of modern crit- 
 icism is that it robs the Old Testament of the super- 
 natural. If a conviction could be had on this count, it 
 Avould be a grave matter; but a conviction has not yet 
 been secured, and never can be, for criticism does not 
 attempt such a disastrous result, and would fail if it 
 did. The criticism which has laid its hands on the 
 supernatural is not the literary or higher, but the sci- 
 entific. With this we have here no concern. It is left 
 where it belongs, in the able and willing hands of the 
 theologians. 
 
 What do we mean by the supernatural in the Old 
 Testament? To some this means miracles, the signs 
 and wonders in which the Israelites delighted when 
 they were given as proofs that the one who wrought 
 
314 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 them spoke as the messenger of Jehovah. The Nile 
 turned into blood, the sweeping of the waters from the 
 Sea and from the Jordan, the ascent of the angel of 
 Jehovah in the fire, the standing still of the sun and 
 moon, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the turning 
 back of the sun-dial, Jonah's living in the belly of the 
 great fish, the speaking of Jehovah and of His angels 
 to men, the ability of prophets to foretell future events 
 — it is in such phenomena as these that the Christian 
 world, like the Jewish, has been wont to see the pres- 
 ence of God. 
 
 But this conception of the supernatural is not the 
 teaching of the Church Catholic, nor of that branch of 
 the same to which it is my privilege to belong. The 
 faith of the Church is expressed in those simple but 
 comprehensive words of the Nicene Creed, "Who spake 
 by the prophets." We must remember that prophets, 
 in the sense of the term in the Creed, were back of the 
 law, the history, the wisdom, and the poetry of the 
 Scriptures, as well as of the prophets in the narrower 
 sense. This doctrine is not a lax one, framed so that 
 anybody can hold it; it admits of a larger belief in in- 
 spiration than the elaborate definitions which have been 
 much in vogue. Any further definition of this state- 
 ment is apt to limit the possible area of belief. The 
 Church has wisely given to her children the liberty to 
 believe largely, and it is wrong to interpret this into a 
 liberty to deny. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 315 
 
 If we wish to keep in strict harmony with the Creed, 
 therefore, as I for one most certainly do, and still de- 
 sire to find the supernatural in the Old Testament, as 
 I again surely do, it is not the signs and wonders upon 
 which we shall fix our faith. The doctrine of the Creed 
 is that in the voice of prophecy we have the voice of a 
 man truly, but we have also the voice of the Holy 
 Ghost. I have given ten years to the study of the Old 
 Testament ; I have read many critical works; I have in- 
 vestigated many problems myself; I may have earned 
 the — to many — odious title of higher critic; but I have 
 never yet seen any reason to doubt that in the many 
 voices which are heard throughout the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, all the way from Genesis to Malachi, it was pos- 
 sible to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit; or, I should 
 rather say, it was impossible not to hear it. 
 
 Likewise, if we wish to keep in harmony with the 
 teaching of Jesus Christ, it is not by the signs and won- 
 ders that we shall attempt to live. The parable of 
 Dives and Lazarus teaches some wholesome lessons on 
 this subject. The craving of the human soul for a 
 ground of certitude which God has not seen fit to give 
 is shown in Dives, in that he feels so confident that his 
 five brothers, who had rejected Moses and the prophets, 
 or at least found them insufficient, could not help be- 
 lieving and reforming if one went to them from the 
 dead. Just so, many seem to hold that one cannot be- 
 lieve that the Lord is his shepherd unless he holds 
 
3i6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 David to be the author of the words ; or that Christ 
 died for him, unless he believes that Jonah lived three 
 days in the belly of the great fish. But the teaching- 
 of Jesus is plain: "If they hear not Moses and the 
 prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from 
 the dead" (St. Luke xvi. 31). If the moral and spir- 
 itual truths of the Bible, which surely are of God, do 
 not take vital hold of the human soul, there is no use 
 in trying to bolster up a weak faith by signs and won- 
 ders. Jesus steadily refused to meet the demand for 
 signs. When His persecutors said they would believe 
 in Him if He came down from the cross. He knew how 
 weak was the faith built upon such a foundation. He 
 preferred the faith of those who could believe even 
 though He remained on the cross to the bitter end. 
 
 Few peoples have ever laid more stress upon the 
 value of signs and wonders than the Hebrews. In the 
 days of the Maccabees we have seen how they deplored 
 the lack of the signs which to them clearly indicated the 
 presence of God. The Jews of a later day demanded 
 signs of Jesus as proof that He was the Christ. But 
 there were Hebrews who saw how easily one could be 
 led astray if he relied upon signs and wonders. Here 
 is a passage which should be carefully considered in con- 
 nection with the apologetic value of signs: " If there 
 arise in thy midst a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and 
 he give unto thee a sign or a wonder ; and if the sign 
 and the wonder shall happen which he foretold [literally 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 317 
 
 " said "] to thee when he said, Let us g-o after other o-ods 
 (whom thou knowest not) and serve them; thou shalt 
 not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer 
 of dreams ; for Jahveh your Goalis testing- you, to know 
 whether you love Jahveh your God with all your heart 
 and with all your soul " (Deut. xiii. iff.). 
 
 Little comment is needed on so clear a statement. 
 The Israelite was not to accept the evidence of a sign 
 or wonder, even if worked by a prophet of God, when it 
 would lead away from his religious duty. There was a 
 higher evidence than any sign. There were some 
 things so fundamental that signs and wonders could 
 not affect them. Then signs and wonders can have 
 little, if any, apologetic value; for if one is accepted, all 
 must be. It is illogical to call those valid which lead 
 in the direction we would take anyway, and to call 
 others snares of the devil. The fact is, a sign is of lit- 
 tle use unless supported by the higher evidence of the 
 moral sense. 
 
 In my opinion, too hard a line has been drawn be- 
 tween what are called the natural and the supernatural. 
 For millions of years God has made the sun appear to 
 revolve around the earth ; can we withhold admiration 
 of those who, knowing no other God, worshipped the 
 sun ? But this is called natural by us, and it goes as a 
 matter of course. Once the sun appeared to halt for 
 a season, and this is called supernatural, a stupendous 
 miracle which must compel faith in the one who be- 
 
3t8 the old testament FROM 
 
 holds it. For myself, the evidence of God is infinitely 
 stronger in the wonderful regular motions of the heav- 
 enly bodies than in the temporary alteration of any 
 part of the system. For I do not believe the earth 
 could run its course in the heavens for a single day 
 without God, any more than I could live, move and 
 have my being except in Him. The part such gems 
 as Psalms viii. and xix. have had in the development 
 of this faith is not, I think, inconsiderable. The blade 
 of grass shoots from the earth, the flower buds and 
 blooms, the leaf bursts forth on the tree ; but not 
 without the ever acting power of God. What saith 
 the Scriptures? 
 
 " He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, 
 And herb for the service of man, 
 O Lord, how manifold are thy works ! 
 In wisdom hast thou made them all ; 
 The earth is full of thy riches " (Psa. civ. 14, 24). 
 
 Shall we not lay the foundations for a richer faith if 
 we substitute for this term supernatural the term 
 God ? Then we may consider whether it is possible to 
 accept the results of the critical investigation of the Old 
 Testament and at the same time believe that we find 
 God in that book. As long as we find the presence of 
 God, we find all that the Creed has ventured to assert 
 as fact, and we shall find all that is essential to a liv- 
 ing faith. Moreover, our house will be founded upon 
 a rock. The storm of criticism may rage, whether it 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 319 
 
 be higher or lower, scientific or philosophical, but it 
 cannot harm our faith. The destructive forces which 
 God is ever letting loose in the world have this benef- 
 icent effect ; they destroy the structures which are 
 built upon the sand. The weak are perpetually going 
 to the wall. It is not pleasant for the weak, but God 
 destines us to be strong, and so hardly do we learn our 
 lessons, that many sacrifices are necessary to teach us 
 the difference between the rocks and the sand. 
 
 We shall see that modern criticism has been destruc- 
 tive of some of the signs of the supernatural in the 
 Old Testament ; but I think we shall as clearly see 
 that it has not been destructive of the supernatural 
 itself, that is in the sense of the Creed. It has caused 
 a change of opinion in regard to the presence of signs 
 and wonders, but not in the presence of God, even in 
 the very places from which the signs and wonders have 
 been taken away. Four phases of the supernatu- 
 ral may now each be briefly considered under the cap- 
 tions of miracles, prophecy, revelation and inspiration. 
 
 I. Miracles. No literary critic of the Old Testa- 
 ment begins his work on the basis of the agnostic 
 dictum that miracles do not happen. Per sc miracles 
 in the Old Testament are not a stumbling block ; if 
 they are historically attested, as the miracles of our 
 Lord are, they are readily accepted. The difficulty 
 about many of them is that they lack historical attes- 
 
320 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 tation. Even when they have this they are not always 
 free from other grounds of difficulty. 
 
 The sign which was given to Moses as an assurance 
 that he was sent of God to redeem Israel from the 
 Egyptian bondage was the rod which turned into a 
 serpent ; but the magicians of Egypt also cast down 
 their rods and they too became serpents (Ex. vii. 12). 
 Likewise these magicians turned the water into blood 
 (vii. 22), brought frogs over the land of Egypt (viii. 7), 
 and according to the correct text, they brought lice 
 upon Egypt (viii. 18).* 
 
 But whether these signs of Moses transcend the 
 powers of man or not, the fact remains that God was 
 v/orking through Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt. 
 We should be careful not to confuse the presence of 
 God in this redemptive work with the supernatural 
 character of the signs employed by His agent. 
 
 Sometimes miracles are assumed where a strict 
 exegesis does not admit them. Nowhere did Israel 
 see more plainly the helping hand of God than in the 
 passage of the Red Sea ; and they were not mistaken. 
 But it is well to realize the exact character of that de- 
 liverance. There are two accounts of the drying up 
 
 * The words " but they could not " are probably an interpola- 
 tion. It is a striking fact that the performance of these signs by 
 the magicians is described only in the latest Pentateuchal source. 
 There would probably be more of it but that this source fails us 
 for the later signs. 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 321 
 
 of the sea. We will satisfy ourselves with the oldest 
 one, though the later is not seriously inconsistent with 
 it. '' And Jahveh caused the sea to go all the night 
 by a mighty east wind, and he made the sea into dry 
 land" (Ex. xiv. 21). Though God moved the waters 
 from the sea by what we call a natural agency, rather 
 than by a simple fiat, it was none the less God to 
 whom the sons of Israel owed their preservation. 
 
 Criticism comes into conflict with the signs and 
 wonders chiefly in the consideration of the character 
 of the literature in which they are recorded. The 
 question about the miracles of Elijah and Elisha 
 should be considered chiefly on the ground of the 
 character of the literature. It is generally held now 
 that the stories of these prophets are not historical, 
 but legendary, containing much historical matter, but 
 still not pure history. Driver says of the Elisha stories: 
 " These narratives no doubt exhibit the traditions re- 
 specting Elisha as they were current in prophetic cir- 
 cles in the ninth to eighth century B.C.; their imme- 
 diate source may have been a work narrating anecdotes 
 from the life of Elisha (and perhaps from the lives of 
 other prophets as well)" (L. O. T.'', p. 196). In these 
 traditions we may believe a large admixture of legend 
 to survive, but the stories contain their rich lessons 
 just the same, and we cannot doubt that these proph- 
 ets conveyed God's message to the people of their age. 
 Elijah's steadfastness to Jehovah in the face of bitter, 
 
322 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 unrelenting persecution, even in the time when he mis- 
 takenly seemed to be the only Jehovah worshipper left, 
 was the great lesson for Israel and for us. 
 
 The story of Joshua's great battle at Beth-horon is 
 a good illustration of the way in which the higher 
 criticism may correct long prevalent ideas of the pres- 
 ence of the supernatural. Much has been written about 
 this famous incident, a large amount dealing with 
 the conflict between science and a long received inter- 
 pretation of a passage of Scripture. Let our purpose 
 be to find first the actual statement of the Scriptures, 
 neither putting in nor taking out, and then the true 
 exegesis of the passage. 
 
 The unexpected surrender of the Gibeonites was 
 followed by a formidable alliance of the five kings of 
 Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. 
 Their immediate purpose was to chastise the Gibeon- 
 ites for their surrender, or to force them to stand out 
 against the invaders. Joshua heard of the plight of 
 his subjects, and by a hard, all night march was ready 
 to attack the confederates at dawn. Very few of the 
 details of the battle have been preserved. But it ap- 
 pears that the intrepid leader was anxious to crush the 
 alliance at one blow. He pressed them hard in pur- 
 suit, and the forces of nature worked on his side in the 
 conflict; for we are told that '' Jahveh cast upon them 
 great stones from heaven," and then, lest succeeding 
 ages should put a fanciful interpretation upon the writ- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 323 
 
 er's words, he explains : " Those who died by the hail- 
 stones were more than those whom the Israelites slew 
 with the sword " (Josh. x. ii). 
 
 In the earliest source, from which the account of 
 this battle is mainly derived, there is quoted a frag- 
 ment of an ancient poem which is taken from the Book 
 of Jashar. There is only this little in the way of intro- 
 duction in the early source, "and he said in the eyes 
 of Israel." Joshua is the speaker, and the little poem 
 which follows appears to be a prayer : 
 
 " Sun, stand still on Gibeon ! 
 And moon in the vale of Aijalon ! 
 And still was the sun and standing the moon, 
 Till a nation took vengeance on its foes " (Josh. x. 12^, 13a). 
 
 We should have no difficulty in understanding this if 
 we read poetry as poetry, and not as prose. But, un- 
 fortunately, there is a pretty ancient example of the 
 turning of this poetic flight into sober prose. For the 
 passage continues: " And the sun stood in the midst 
 of the heavens, and hasted not to set about a whole 
 day. And there was not the like of that day before or 
 after, for Jahveh's hearing the voice of a man " (v. I3f.). 
 The latter passage is the writer's comment on the 
 poem he has quoted.* Though his sense of poetical 
 language may not have been acute, he has put his fin- 
 
 * This is Sayce's view : " The prose historian seems to have taken 
 them [the words of the poem] literally " (" Early History of the He- 
 brews," p. 257). 
 
324 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 g-er upon the real thing that made that day greater 
 than any before or since, God's hearing the cry of a 
 man, and giving a prompt and effective response. 
 Joshua's fear was that darkness would come upon him 
 before the rout of his enemies was complete. If the 
 day would only hold out, the allies would be disposed 
 of utterly. This situation explains his prayer. God's 
 answer was the hailstorm which wrought such havoc 
 among the enemy. The day was made long by inten- 
 sion rather than by extension. In the Song of Debo- 
 rah we read that " the stars in their courses fought 
 against Sisera." Put into prose, this means that the 
 forces of the natural world, in God's providence, aided 
 Israel in the combat. No one has thought of intro- 
 ducing a miracle to explain this. Why should we in 
 the other case ? 
 
 The Book of Jonah affords a good example of a sim- 
 ilar kind. Of late years this little book has been much 
 discussed. But undue attention has been given to 
 the question whether the prophet was swallowed by 
 the great fish or not. This has tended to obscure the 
 great lessons of the book. The consideration of this 
 book should begin with the question whether it is his- 
 tory or a story told for the lesson it contains, like the 
 parables of our Lord. The aim of the author might 
 have been to record certain historical facts; to teach 
 certain truths in the form of a story with a moral; or 
 to relate such historic facts as would illustrate or em- 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 325 
 
 body the lesson he has in mind. The Hebrew histo- 
 rians, as has already been shown, were not wont to 
 write history for itself, but for the lessons it taught; 
 and so they wrote it in such a way as best to teach the 
 lessons. 
 
 The first alternative is the least probable. The his- 
 toric facts of themselves would be of little value. There 
 are some statements which are against all probability, 
 as the statement respecting the size of Nineveh, the 
 inappropriateness of the prayer spoken in the belly of 
 the fish; and the didactic purpose is too obvious to be 
 only incidental. The second alternative is probable 
 enough inherently. Jesus Christ certainly invented 
 stories to embody the truths He could best teach in 
 that way. A distinguishing characteristic of His para- 
 bles is, indeed, their naturalness, their conformity to 
 probability. Yet in the parable of Dives and Lazarus 
 we can hardly suppose Him to be giving an exact de- 
 scription of the conditions of life in Heaven. It would 
 be hard to lie in torments and see our acquaint- 
 ance in the bosom of Abraham, and it would be 
 infinitely harder to repose in that bosom and see our 
 friends in torments, it being impossible for us to mois- 
 ten their burning lips with cool water. These things 
 are apart from the lesson our Lord was teaching, 
 which was not the conditions of life in the future 
 world, but the terms on which we may attain the bosom 
 of Abraham. Yet Jesus does not in so many words 
 
326 THE OLD TESTA MEN'T FROM 
 
 inform us that His parables are but the clothing made 
 for His purpose. Such a disclosure was not necessary; 
 one can easily perceive this for himself. There were 
 parables in the Old Testament, too. Might not the 
 story of Jonah be such on a larger scale than usual? 
 
 The third alternative appears to me the most plaus- 
 ible. There is probably some historical background 
 for the story which the writer has used freely as best fit- 
 ted his purpose. It is not easy to separate the history 
 from the legend; and it is not necessary here, because 
 that is apart from the purpose of the book. If a 
 Avriter elaborates a few historic facts into a didactic 
 story, it is evident that he has little concern with a 
 distinction between the original and the borrowed. 
 The facts to him are of a different character. 
 
 The book of Jonah was written to teach two great 
 truths ; that when God commands one of His prophets 
 to prophesy, he must do it whether he will or not; and 
 that God had a message for Assyria as well as for 
 Israel. The story is necessary to convey these truths, 
 but it is not a part of them. They are just as true, no 
 matter what the character of the literature in which 
 they are found. Amos said that he preached to Israel, 
 not because he was a prophet, but because God com- 
 manded him to leave his herd and carry the message to 
 the doomed people. Jeremiah determined to quit his 
 office ; he was weary of crying disaster and ruin to 
 people who persecuted him for his pains. But he dis- 
 
 " i 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 327 
 
 covered that he could not stop. God had put a mes- 
 sage in his soul, and it would come out, if it had to burn 
 its way. Jonah was commanded to proclaim in Nine- 
 veh that it would be destroyed in forty days. He would 
 have been eager enough to be the bearer of this tid- 
 ings, if he could expect his prophecy to be fulfilled. But 
 he knew that God was gracious, full of compassion, 
 slow to anger, plenteous in mercy, and repentant of 
 the evil (Jon. iv. 2). Look at the startling fact. The 
 message which God gave to Jonah was inconsistent 
 with God's character. Therefore, the prophet knew it 
 would not be fulfilled, and he would not deliver it. He 
 wanted Nineveh destroyed, as what Jew did not? — and 
 would be no party to its salvation. 
 
 As if to put himself out of the way of temptation to 
 obey, he is represented as taking ship for the furthest 
 known point in the opposite direction to Nineveh. But 
 not so could he escape God. A mighty storm raged on 
 the Mediterranean. The sailors worked bravely; they 
 cast the cargo into the sea ; they rowed hard to get 
 back to land ; but the storm only raged the more, in 
 defiance of their vain efforts. Then they cast out the 
 one who had been quietly sleeping in the innermost 
 part of the ship, who had been quick enough to 
 see that the storm was on his account. The big fish 
 (there is no mention of a whale) was the means de- 
 vised to bring Jonah back to his home port. Jonah 
 obeyed the divine command the second time it was 
 
328 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 given, though not with the best of grace, and his dis- 
 appointment was great as he perceived that God was 
 true to His merciful character rather than to the exact 
 tenor of the prophet's words. 
 
 There is a miracle in this book, but it is not in the 
 swallowing of the prophet by the fish and his preser- 
 vation in its belly. In f ict, a defender of the historical 
 character of the book has given a purely naturalistic 
 interpretation to this event. Perowne, in the Cambridge 
 Bible, states that there is a species of shark in the 
 Mediterranean which has a gullet large enough to 
 swallow a man (the whale has not); that, in fact, a man 
 was once swallowed by one of these creatures ; that 
 he was rescued from his perilous position ; and that he 
 afterward travelled about exhibiting the carcass of the 
 shark. If this is so, the supernatural character of this 
 story must be sought elsewhere. And it is not difificult 
 to find. 
 
 Jonah, it is true, shows very little sympathy for the 
 gracious purposes of God ; but the writer of the book 
 has grasped the comprehensive character of God's 
 grace. That God should have put such an idea into 
 the mind of a Jew so effectively is a greater miracle 
 than any conceivable in the natural world. The author 
 of this book was himself a prophet in the truest sense, 
 and we cannot doubt that the Holy Ghost spake by 
 him. The implanting of this truth in the soul of a 
 Jew is all the more remarkable in view of the late date 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 329 
 
 at which this book was most probably written. For the 
 composition of the book is assigned to the fourth cen- 
 tury B.C. ; in an age when the exclusive spirit of the 
 Jews so fostered by Ezra and Nehemiah was pre- 
 dominant, and when the Jews were such severe suf- 
 ferers from the tyranny of foreigners that they could 
 scarcely be expected to be very solicitous for their 
 welfare. The late date of the book makes all the more 
 forcible the truth it contains. The solitary voice 
 lifted in protest against the narrow national spirit 
 of the age is another case of a '' root out of a dry 
 ground" (Isa. liii. 2). It is well to emphasize the gain 
 en the religious side which comes from the modern 
 view of a late authorship ; for there is a very persist- 
 ent notion abroad that to refer a sacred writing to a 
 late date is to lessen, if not to destroy, its religious 
 importance. We have already seen the gain from the 
 assignment of the Priest-code to a post-exilic date 
 (p. 156). 
 
 II. Prophecy. So much has been well written about 
 the apologetic value of prophecy from the modern 
 point of view that the subject may be briefly treated 
 here. The negative conclusions that prediction was 
 not the purpose of Hebrew prophecy, and that many 
 predictions have not been fulfilled at all, and others 
 only in part, are easily established by any one with a 
 moderate amount of investigation. The function of 
 
330 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 the prophet was not that of a wizard, to foretell the 
 future, but that of a God-sent preacher of righteous- 
 ness, whose mission was to turn the people from their 
 sins. The book of Jonah affords a good illustration. 
 Jonah was apparently directed simply to make a spe- 
 cific prediction to the Ninevites. But he saw that the 
 very purpose of his prediction was that its fulfilment 
 should not be necessary. God's object was, by threat 
 of punishment, to turn those people from their wicked- 
 ness. The fulfilment or non-fulfilment was in their 
 0\vn hands. The same is true everywhere in prophecy. 
 The same gracious object is everywhere visible. The 
 future is pictured as full of disaster that the people 
 may repent, and the realization of the picture there- 
 fore impossible. Or it is pictured with glowing colors 
 that the people may be stimulated to a life that will 
 make the fulfilment possible. As the people were never 
 as good as the prophetic ideals, there never were such 
 eras as the prophets depicted. The people were as bad 
 as the prophets represented them, perhaps worse, and 
 so the greatest calamity on the prophetic horizon, the 
 Babylonian captivity, became an accomplished fact. 
 
 The delicate question connected with this subject is, 
 however. Messianic prophecy. In the older apolo- 
 getics the fulfilment of prophecies in the life of Jesus 
 Christ was one of the strong proofs of His divinity. 
 But this proof had always its weak side, and it is well 
 that modern apologetics approaches the subject in a 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 331 
 
 different way. Not that Messianic prophecy does not 
 have an apolog^etic value; for this is not lessened, if it is 
 of a different kind. But we must believe in Jesus Christ 
 on the ground of His life, His teaching, and the impres- 
 sion He has produced upon the world as the only One 
 through whom man may receive salvation from sin, not 
 on the ground that prophets foresaw and foretold certain 
 things about Him some centuries before His advent. 
 
 We may illustrate from a classic prophecy. The 
 deepest study of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah leaves 
 it still very hard to answer the searching question of 
 Candace's eunuch, " Of whom speaketh the prophet 
 this ? of himself, or of some other ? " (Acts viii. 34) ; 
 but it makes it easy for us, like Philip, to begin from 
 this Scripture and preach Jesus. One may find it diffi- 
 cult to tell whether that prophecy is written purely 
 with reference to one who is to come in the future, or 
 whether it is based on the experience of one who, like 
 Hosea, has learned priceless lessons from the sad ex- 
 perience of his life ; but he should not find it difficult 
 to see that it is Messianic above almost any other 
 prophecy, because it portrays the very spirit of the life 
 of the Messiah. The apologetic value is not in the 
 prediction, for it is possible that there is no prediction 
 here ; but it is in the preparing by the Spirit of God 
 for the coming of a vicarious Sufferer whose mission in 
 the world would be accomplished even though the 
 world crucified Him. 
 
332 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 Many features in the Messianic conception of the 
 prophets are not found in the life of Jesus Christ. 
 From this we may draw the simple inference that the 
 prophets were not wholly enlightened as to the future. 
 The veil which a merciful Providence has drawn in front 
 of us was only partly lifted to the inspired prophet. 
 But, as Sanday has well said, ** As in other parts of 
 prophecy, the fulfilment surpassed the anticipation " 
 (''Inspiration", p. 219). We may apply this statement 
 widely. If the prophets failed to portray adequately 
 the Messiah, it is because their conception is far below 
 the reality. The person of Christ stands far above any 
 Old Testament forecast. If there is anything which 
 makes Messianic prophecy seem poor and meagre, it is 
 the comparison with the Messiah Himself. 
 
 III. Revelation. It is necessary to distinguish care- 
 fully between revelation and inspiration. One might 
 be a channel of revelation without being inspired, or 
 be inspired without being a channel of revelation. 
 Revelation and literary criticism have little relation to 
 each other, except as the former may be connected 
 with the character of Biblical literature. But reve- 
 lation does not always stand or fall with the character 
 of an ancient writing. If the story of Abraham's offer- 
 ing of Isaac is historical in the strictest sense, there 
 was an objective revelation. It was first revealed to 
 Abraham that he should offer his son and then that he 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 333 
 
 should not, and the purpose of the event was the prov- 
 ing of the patriarch's obedience. But modern thought 
 finds great difficulties in supposing that the clearest 
 revelation came at the beginning and then became 
 more obscure. But it is not doubted that Abraham 
 had a real revelation of God's will. The patriarch, in 
 accord with the ideas of his time, might well have be- 
 lieved that human sacrifice was the most acceptable 
 offering to God. But his only son bound upon a pile 
 opened his eyes not only to see the ram caught in the 
 thicket by his horns, but also to perceive that God 
 would not have a man give his " firstborn for his trans- 
 gression, the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul." 
 That was the revelation to Abraham, and criticism, so 
 far from attempting to take it away, has only made it 
 the more clear. 
 
 The greatest revelation came through the prophets 
 of the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The more 
 one studies the religion which fhey taught the people 
 in comparison with the popular cult, the more he will 
 feel pressing upon him the question, ** Whence came 
 the ideas which they gave to the world V The ques- 
 tion presses the more for answer as we realize that the 
 prophets did not voice the common sentiments of their 
 time. Jeremiah was persecuted as a heretic ; the mass 
 of the prophets and priests tried to silence his voice. 
 As Bruce has put it, '* They were men whose back was 
 at the wall fighting against heavy odds, . . . They 
 
334 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 were in a hopeless minority" ("Apologetics," p. 190). 
 They were not fanatics, delighting to run counter to 
 the cherished conceptions of their time, and loving the 
 glory of martyrdom. Elijah prayed that he might die 
 and give up the useless struggle ; but he wanted to die 
 alone in the wilderness, not at the public stake. 
 
 Renan has attempted to explain the high prophetic 
 ideal as due to the Semitic genius for religion, espe- 
 cially in the tendency of this race toward monotheism. 
 But this explanation may easily exaggerate the Semitic 
 tendency; and it leaves unexplained why this full de- 
 velopment was left for a small body of Hebrew proph- 
 ets late in Semitic life — for recent researches have 
 shown that the eighth century B.C. was late in common 
 Semitic history. The facts which all will admit can 
 only be explained on the assumption that the Nicene 
 Creed speaks correctly. The Spirit of God spoke by 
 these prophets ; they had a genuine revelation to com- 
 municate to the world. 
 
 If God must be assumed as the source of the pro- 
 phetic message, it must be evident that this explana- 
 tion is absolutely independent of any results of the 
 higher criticism. Isa. xl.-lxvi. was written by a proph- 
 et, or by prophets, of the exilic period. Isaiah, the 
 son of Amos, was not the only channel of prophetic 
 revelation. There is no reason to suppose that every 
 utterance, even of this greatest of the prophets, con- 
 tained a revelation from Heaven. In the exile God 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 335 
 
 found souls through whom His will could be made 
 known to the world. There is a great truth revealed 
 in the fifty- third chapter of that book. The servant of 
 God may suffer for the sins of others, his life may be 
 lived in obscurity and affliction, he may be misunder- 
 stood and martyred ; this truth is just the same whether 
 it was revealed through the son of Amoz or through 
 the unknown evangelical prophet who bore with his 
 fellows the pains of enforced residence on foreign soil. 
 The fact is, revelation is a subject which belongs to the- 
 ology. The character of the revelation depends in 
 some cases upon the character of the literature. The 
 latter is a question for the literary critic ; the other is 
 a question for the theologian. But the results of criti- 
 cism can never make it impossible or improbable that 
 the revelation in the Old Testament is genuine. It 
 will often, on the contrary, make it more intelligi- 
 ble, and, therefore, more probable. 
 
 IV. Inspiration. Finally, we come to the funda- 
 mental fact that God put it into the hearts of the 
 prophets to speak to Israel. To what particular age 
 any Old Testament writing belongs, to what particular 
 author, whether it is a unit or composite, whether it is 
 history, poetry, or parable, are matters to which the 
 Christian faith is rightly indifferent, because these 
 things are not vital. But that these writings are not 
 the productions of man unaided by the Holy Spirit, is 
 
335 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 justly regarded as essential to the faith. So far the 
 higher criticism of the Old Testament has not attempted 
 even to call in question the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures ; nor is there any sign on the distant horizon even 
 that it has any purpose to do so. In fact, inspiration is 
 entirely out of the range of higher critical investi- 
 gation. If a higher critic question a doctrine, in- 
 spiration, or any other, he must do so by coming 
 out of the sphere of criticism and entering that of 
 theology. 
 
 The proper attitude of the critic is stated by Ott- 
 ley in his recent Bampton Lectures: "I proceed to 
 mention another truth presupposed in these lectures, 
 namely, the fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures."* 
 Driver speaks in the same spirit : " Criticism in the 
 hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy 
 the inspiration of the Old Testament ; \\. presupposes it; 
 it seeks only to determine the conditions under which it 
 operates, and the literary forms through which it man- 
 ifests itself, and it thus helps us to frame truer concep- 
 tions of the methods which it has pleased God to em- 
 ploy in revealing Himself to His ancient people of 
 Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller manifes- 
 tation of Himself in Christ Jesus" (L.O.T.^ p. xiii.). 
 Briggs has said somewhere that if he knew anything 
 about criticism, the Pentateuch was not written by 
 
 ♦ " Aspects of the Old Testament," p. 22, 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 337 
 
 Moses ; but that if he knew anything about inspiration, 
 the Pentateuch was inspired. 
 
 Prof. Sanday has done a valuable service by 
 treating of the doctrine of inspiration from the point of 
 view of a conservative modern critic. It will not be 
 amiss to quote a passage which shows what his idea of 
 inspiration is : "Just as one particular branch of one 
 particular stock was chosen to be in a general sense 
 the recipient of a clearer revelation than was vouch- 
 safed to others, so within that branch certain individ- 
 uals were chosen to have their hearts and minds 
 moved in a manner more penetrating and more effec- 
 tive than their fellows, with the result that their writ- 
 ten words convey to us truths about the nature of God 
 and His dealings with man which other writings do 
 not convey with equal fulness, power, and purity. 
 We say that this special moving is due to the action 
 upon those hearts and minds of the Holy Spirit. And we 
 call that action Inspiration " (" Bampton Lectures," p. 
 127). Evidently the author has not found any difficulty 
 in holding to inspiration and criticism at the same time. 
 
 Ottley has recently uttered some wise words on this 
 subject. A few passages may be quoted : " Inspira- 
 tion means a divine action on man's faculties by which 
 his intellect is continually trained to more intelligent 
 apprehension of divine purposes, his conscience to 
 deeper knowledge of moral requirement, his heart to 
 worthier love, his will to more exact response. 
 
33B THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 " Let us inquire wherein the inspiration of the Bibli- 
 cal writers consists ? Chiefly, it would seem, in a gift 
 of special moral and religious insight. The inspired 
 writer is one who is spiritually enlightened. . . . 
 Next we should bear in mind that inspiration in its 
 primary sense does not properly describe the character 
 of a sacred book, but rather denotes the living action 
 of God on the faculties of men. ... It would be 
 perilous to attempt any formal definition [of inspira- 
 tion], . . . We should certainly define at the expense 
 of overlooking some vital element of divine truth" 
 (" Bampton Lectures," p. 23ff.). Many in all the Chris- 
 tian ages have attempted elaborate definitions of in- 
 spiration ; but their definitions, even when given the 
 authority of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, have rarely out- 
 lived the age in which they were produced. The Creed 
 which has survived, and is vital to-day, contents itself 
 with the assertion of the fact of inspiration. 
 
 Christians who have accepted the results of modern 
 criticism then, still believe in inspiration, and they do 
 not see any inconsistency in their position. If they 
 believe that Psa. xiv. was written by an unknown poet 
 in the period of the exile, they cannot see that that belief 
 affects the question of its inspiration. Inspiration, it is 
 true, must be found in the author, not in his book ; 
 just as the Hfe is in the tree, and not in the fruit, 
 though the fruit is the raison d' itre of the tree. But 
 the tree must nevertheless be judged by its fruit ; and 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 339 
 
 the inspiration of the author can only be known to us 
 by his book. The evidence of the inspiration of that 
 Psahn then is not to be found in its supposed Davidic 
 authorship, as if everything that he might have writ- 
 ten must have been inspired ; it must rather be found 
 in the rehgious quaHty of the Psalm, its power, as Col- 
 eridge put it, to find the human soul at the greatest 
 depth of its being. The bitter curses in Psa. cix. are 
 no more appropriate on Christian lips, and no more in 
 harmony with the higher revelation in Christ, on the 
 theory of the Jewish editors that David was the author, 
 than on the more probable theory that this is the out- 
 pouring of a soul, deeply moved of God indeed, but 
 who had endured persecutions of which David did not 
 dream. 
 
 Moses was doubtless inspired to act, to speak, to 
 judge, yes, and to write. But the fruit by which we 
 must judge cannot be changed by assuming that Moses 
 was the stock on which it grew. The inspiration of the 
 Priest-code is to be seen in its contribution to the re- 
 ligious life of Israel — and that was not small — and this 
 is not greater on the supposition that it came from the 
 hand of the great lawgiver, than on the view that it 
 was the growth of many years, culminating in its fin- 
 ished form in the post-exilic era. 
 
 There are two elements disclosed in the Old Testa- 
 ment, the human and the divine. Some theories of its 
 origin have laid undue stress upon the one, and some 
 
340 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 
 
 upon the other. We cannot get along very well without 
 allowing a large influence to both factors. If some- 
 tinnes the human element seems so conspicuous that we 
 feel, like the troubled Psalmist, that God has aban- 
 doned His saints, at other times we hear so pure a voice 
 from Heaven that God seems to have chosen a peculiar- 
 ly transparent soul through which to send His light, or 
 even, to use an Old Testament figure, to have written 
 with His own finger. 
 
 The Old Testament must be studied scientifically. 
 The literary critic, the historical critic, the historian of 
 religion, the archaeologist, the grammarian and the lexi- 
 cographer, must contribute all the light they have to 
 the solution of its many hard problems. We shall but 
 delude ourselves if we ever say their work is finished, 
 they can go no further; we are willing to accept what 
 they have at present achieved if they will rest content. 
 It can never be said to these investigators. So far you 
 shall go and no farther, so long as they keep to their 
 proper sphere, which is largely the human element in 
 the Scriptures. But if they ever attempt to go further, 
 and say that God was not behind Israel in their history, 
 in their institutions, in their religion, and in their litera- 
 ture, then we may point out the great gulf which the 
 literary critics may not cross. 
 
 I can find no satisfactory concluding words for this 
 book except some words of St. Paul, who knew the 
 Scriptures so well and loved them so dearly, and an 
 
THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 34I 
 
 Advent Collect which is based upon St. Paul. They are 
 so suitable because they express the higher purpose of 
 the Scriptures to which all scientific investigation must 
 be subordinate. 
 
 *' Whatsoever things were written aforetime were 
 written for our learning, that we through patience and 
 comfort of the Scriptures might have hope " (Rom. xv. 
 
 4). 
 
 " Blessed Lord, who hast caused all Holy Scriptures 
 to be written for our learning ; Grant that we may in 
 such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly 
 digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy 
 Word we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed 
 hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen " 
 
INDEXES. 
 
 I. Abreviations. 
 
 E. E.^ etc. Elohist, etc See p. 79 
 
 H. C. M. The " Higher Criticism " and the Verdict 
 
 of the Monuments, by the Rev, A. H. 
 
 Sayce. New York: 1894. 
 
 J. J. \ etc. Jahvist, etc See p. yg 
 
 J. B. L. Journal of the Society of BibHcal Litera- 
 ture and Exegesis. 
 
 JE See pp. 8t„ 100 
 
 L. O. T.'' An Introduction to the Literature of the 
 
 Old Testament, by S. R. Driver, D.D. 
 
 Sixth edition. New York : 1897. 
 O. T. J. C.2 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 
 
 by W. Robertson Smith. Second edition. 
 
 New York: 1892. 
 P. Priestly writer 5^^ p. 79 
 
 II. Names and Subjects. 
 
 Abd-hiba, or Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem 38 
 
 Abib 102 
 
 Abijah's war with Jeroboam 209f. 
 
 Abimelech, king of Gath 280 
 
 Abraham's offering of Isaac 332f. 
 
 Achan , sin of „ 2ooff . 
 
 Acrostic Psalms 265 
 
 Adaptation of Psalms 265 
 
344 INDEXES. 
 
 Ai, campaign against 163, 2ooff. 
 
 Analysis of books, reasonableness of 80 
 
 Analysis of Historical books 161 
 
 Anonymous Psalms : 66, 269, 272 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes 302 
 
 Apologetic gain of post- exilic date for Priest-code 1 56 
 
 Archaeology and criticism 3iff . 
 
 Asa's war with the Ethiopians 2iof. 
 
 Asaphic Psalms 27of . 
 
 Babylon's fall 243 
 
 Beth-horon, battle of , 72, 322ff. 
 
 Bethel, stories of the origin of the name 92fT. 
 
 Blood revenge 197 
 
 Book of the Law found in the Temple 54f . 
 
 Book of the " Wars of Jehovah " 1 1 2, 1 1 5 
 
 Booths or Tabernacles, feast of 138 
 
 Caleb and Joshua 105 
 
 Cheyne's analysis of Isaiah 49 
 
 '• work on Isaiah 224f. 
 
 Christ's verdict in questions of criticism 2 iff. 
 
 Chronicles, additions 2o8ff. 
 
 " character of 80, 203ff., 218 
 
 " date of 204 
 
 " omissions 205ff . 
 
 " place in the Canon 204 
 
 value of 2i8f. 
 
 Cities of refuge 64 
 
 Codes of the law 1 20 
 
 " " " their origin 121 
 
 " " " their parallels 122 
 
 Colophon to Psalm Ixxii 271 
 
 Comparative study of the laws, result of I48f. 
 
 Compilation, a method of bookmaking 12 
 
 Conquest of Canaan i6iff. 
 
 Covenant, date of the code of I49f. 
 
LVDEXES, 345 
 
 Creation, comparison of the two stories of 84ff. 
 
 Criticism does not affect religious value 3 1 2f. 
 
 Higher, explained 7ff. 
 
 of the Old Testament not short-lived 49ff. 
 
 of the Old Testament and New Testament con- 
 trasted 51 
 
 " negative character of I4f. 
 
 textual, of the Old Testament 8 
 
 Cyrus 247 
 
 Dan, City of 114 
 
 Date of the Hexateuchal narrative i i4ff. 
 
 David at Saul's court 1 73f. 
 
 " executes the sons of Saul i94ff. 
 
 " in Chronicles 205f . 
 
 " and Goliath i73ff. 
 
 " spares Saul's life iSiff. 
 
 " Of David " in Psalm headings 267n. 
 
 Davidic Psalms, Are there any ? 282fif. 
 
 Debts, release of 1 28 
 
 Decalogue, two versions of I44ff. 
 
 Delitzsch's acceptance of Modern Criticism 51 
 
 Delitzsch on Isaiah 228 
 
 Deuteronomy, authorship of 64ff, 
 
 " date of rjjff 
 
 Deutero- Isaiah, analysis of 242f. 
 
 " " character of 242 
 
 " " influence of 246 
 
 Diatesseron of Tatian 81 
 
 Disagreement of critics 45ff, 24off. 
 
 Discouragement in post-exilic age 23 5f. 
 
 Dives and Lazarus, Parable of 31 5f. 
 
 Driver's Introduction n^{^ 
 
 " position as a critic ^-^f, 
 
 review of Sayce's " Criticism and the Monuments." 34 
 
 Edom's devastation 237f. 
 
 Egyptians spoiled by the Hebrews i98f. 
 
346 INDEXES. 
 
 Elijah and Elisha, stories of 321 
 
 Elohtm applied to king and judge 293f. 
 
 Evidence, cautious use of internal 285, 287 
 
 " internal and external 258 
 
 Excavations in Palestine, importance of 43^- 
 
 Exile, conditions in 237f,, 244f 
 
 Ezekiel, priest and prophet 1 57 
 
 First-born of animals ... 1 32f. 
 
 Gesenius's Grammar, successive editings of 1 53 
 
 Gibeonites, cunning trick of . . 163 
 
 " slain by Saul 194 
 
 " treaty with Joshua io7ff. 
 
 Gideon 192 
 
 Greenleaf on evidence 11 3ff- 
 
 Greek Psalter 26S, 273f., 274, 275 
 
 Goliath, slain by David, or by Elhanan } i78ff. 
 
 Hallelujah Psalms 274 
 
 Harvest Festival 1 38!. 
 
 Havvoth- jair 6of., 1 1 5 
 
 Headings in the Book of Isaiah 252 
 
 Headings of prophecies 229 
 
 Headings of the Psalms 266ff., 275f. , 277ff. 
 
 Hexateuch 53 
 
 " analysis of 79 
 
 Hezekiah's attempt to centralize worship 77 
 
 High places forbidden in Deuteronomy 69 
 
 Hiram and Solomon 2i5f. 
 
 Historicity not affected by analysis i loff. 
 
 Historical notes in the headings 272, 274, 278, 281 
 
 History and Philosophy i87f. 
 
 Holiness, the Law of 122 
 
 Hommel's "Ancient Hebrew Tradition " 32f. 
 
 Human and divine in Scripture 339f. 
 
 Incarnation and Criticism 26 
 
INDEXES. 347 
 
 Inspiration 335^. 
 
 " Sanday's definition of 337 
 
 Interpretative character of history 1 88ff. 
 
 Isaiah, criticism of 224ff. 
 
 " formation of the Book of 25off . 
 
 Isaianic prophecies, according to Cheyne 224f. 
 
 " Driver 225f. 
 
 J. and E. narratives based on written sources inf. 
 
 Jabesh-Gilead seeks succor in Israel 171 
 
 Jacob named " Israel " 92, 94 
 
 " sent to Syria 89!!. 
 
 Jashar, Book of 14,112, 283 
 
 Jeduthun 272 
 
 Jeremiah, formation of the Book of 251 
 
 " and the book of the Law 57 
 
 Jericho, capture of 162 
 
 Joash's assassination 217 
 
 Jonah, Book of 324ff . 
 
 its character 325 
 
 " its lessons 326 
 
 Jonathan the grandson of Moses 70 
 
 Joseph, derivation of the name 95 
 
 sold into Egypt 96fTf. 
 
 Joshua's part in the Conquest 168 
 
 Josiah's reformation 54, 73 
 
 . " " based en Deuteronomy 55ff. 
 
 Judges, character of the Book of i9of. 
 
 King, law of the, in Deuteronomy 67 
 
 Kiriath-Sepher 4 if. 
 
 Korahitic Psalms 27of. 
 
 Lachish 43!, 
 
 Lambeth Conference, its utterance on Criticism 28f. 
 
 Landmark, law of 63 
 
348 INDEXES. 
 
 Levites, their relation to priests I43f., 1 58 
 
 " their revenues , 143^ 
 
 Literary analysis work for the expert , 8 if. 
 
 Maccabean Psalms 293 
 
 Manasseh's Babylonian captivity 2 1 1 f. 
 
 Melchizedek 37ff. 
 
 Messianic Prophecy 33of . 
 
 " Psalms 293 
 
 Miracles 3i9ff. 
 
 Mosaic authorship of the Law 1 5 if. 
 
 " " " Pentateuch 4if., iiyf. 
 
 " elements in Deuteronomy 7-,f. 
 
 Moses works signs 320 
 
 Moral difficulties of the Old Testament i97f. 
 
 Nabonidus . 249 
 
 Natural and the supernatural 31 7f. 
 
 Nehemiah 236 
 
 New Testament use of the Old Testament I7ff. 
 
 Nicene Creed and the Scriptures 26f., 314, 315 
 
 Nisan , 1 03 
 
 Northern Kingdom in Chronicles 207 
 
 •' On the other side of Jordan " 59f. 
 
 Partisan history i88f. 
 
 Passage of the Red Sea 32of. 
 
 Passover 1 38f. 
 
 " Institution of ... . 99ff. 
 
 Pentateuch, a compilation 47 
 
 Peters, Dr. J. P., speech at Church Congress 42f. 
 
 Pilgrim feasts 1 330". 
 
 Pillars forbidden in Deuteronomy o . . . . 72f. 
 
 Pious fraud hi re the finding of the Law 74ff. 
 
 Predictive Prophecy , . 227f. 
 
INDEXES. 349 
 
 Priest- code 1 53f. 
 
 date of 48 
 
 Priestly institutions earlier than priestly law i 59f. 
 
 revenues 14 ff. 
 
 Prophecy, apologetic value of 222f., 329^ 
 
 " basis for its dating 2 26f. 
 
 Prophets ignorant of Deuteronomy 72ff . 
 
 Prophetic office 227f. 
 
 Prophets, revelation by 333f. 
 
 " studied historically 223 
 
 Psalms of David 258 
 
 " Pilgrim , 273f. 
 
 " referring to a king 288ff. 
 
 Psalter, divisions of . . 26off ., 266 
 
 " duplicates in 26off. 
 
 " Elohistic and Jahvistic 263 
 
 " hymn book of the second temple 259 
 
 " influence of 255 
 
 " Jewish criticism of 257f. 
 
 " why studied critically 256 
 
 " Baethgen's view of the date 257 
 
 " Cheyne's " " " 256f. 
 
 " Driver's " " " 257 
 
 *' Ewald's " " " 257 
 
 " Wellhausen's " *' " 256 
 
 Religious ideas as evidence of date 286f. 
 
 Reuben and Gad on the east of the Jordan io5ff. 
 
 Righteousness by the law 307f. 
 
 Rizpah watches the bodies of her sons 195, 196 
 
 Revelation 332ff. 
 
 Sabbath 89 
 
 " day, reasons for its institution 1 45f. 
 
 " law, original form of I46f. 
 
 " year, the laws of 1 26ff. 
 
 Sacrifice at many altars 69ff . 
 
350 INDEXES. 
 
 Samuel . 70 
 
 " anoints David 180,199!. 
 
 Sanctuary, but one allowed in Deuteronomy 68ff. 
 
 Sanday's argument against Maccabean Psalms 300 
 
 Sargon's campaign against Ashdod 35 
 
 Satan tempts David 215 
 
 Saul's accession to the throne i68ff. 
 
 Sayce's " Higher Criticism and the Monuments " 33 
 
 " Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian " 57n. 
 
 Sennacherib's conquest of Samaria and assassination 36, 37 
 
 Septuagint version of the story of David and Goliath 17 ff. 
 
 Signs and wonders 3 ' 3ff- 
 
 Slaves, release of 131 
 
 Slavery, laws of 1 29ff. 
 
 Spies sent to Canaan i03fT. 
 
 Spirit for critical investigation 53f. 
 
 Solomon in Chronicles 2o6f . 
 
 Solomonic Psalms 277!. 
 
 Sources of the Book of Kings 212 
 
 " " " Chronicles 2i3f. 
 
 Supernatural in Old Testament 31 3ff . 
 
 Sun and moon standing still 323f. 
 
 Synagogues 303, 306 
 
 Tell-el- Amarna Letters : 38, 41 
 
 The Law and the Prophets 1 54ff. 
 
 Theology and History 193 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia 21 
 
 Timeliness of Josiah's reforms 76ff. 
 
 Tithe, the laws of the 1 22f¥. 
 
 Unleavened Bread, Feast of loiff. 
 
 Uzziah's conflict with the priests 211 
 
 Variation in text c . 262, 264f. 
 
 W. R. Smith's argument against Maccabean Psalms 300 
 
INDEXES. 
 
 351 
 
 Genesis. 
 
 i., ii 
 
 i. i-ii. 4 
 
 III. Scriptural Passages. 
 Leviticus. 
 
 84ff. 
 
 , 2l9f. 
 
 vii. 16 49 
 
 xxvii. 41-45, xxviii. 10 89ff. 
 
 xxvii. 46-xxviii. 5.. .. 89ff. 
 
 xxviii. 35 92ff. 
 
 XXX. 23f 93f. 
 
 xxxii. 28 94 
 
 xxxvi. 31 ii4f. 
 
 xxxvii 96ff. 
 
 xl. 15 98 
 
 xlii. 21 99 
 
 XXV. 39-46 i29fT. 
 
 xxvii. 26 133 
 
 xxvii. 30-33 I22ff. 
 
 Numbers. 
 
 xiii. 14 I03ff. 
 
 xviii. 1-20 I4iff. 
 
 xviii. 17! i32f. 
 
 xviii. 21-32 I22ff. 
 
 xxii. i-ii I5if. 
 
 xxviii., xxix 140 
 
 xxxii. 20-32 io6f. 
 
 xxxii. 41 115 
 
 Exodus. 
 
 iii. 2 if 199 
 
 viii. ]8 320 
 
 xi. if 199 
 
 xii. I -xiii. 27 99ff. 
 
 xii. 14-20 loiff. 
 
 xii. 35f 198 
 
 xiii. 3-10 loiff. 
 
 xiv. 21 321 
 
 xviii 151 
 
 XX. 8 II, 17 145 
 
 XX. 24ff 56 
 
 xxi. 2-1 1 I29ff. 
 
 xxii. 30 I32f. 
 
 xxiii. lof . . 1 26ff. 
 
 xxiii. 14-17. ^33^' 
 
 Leviticus. 
 
 xvi. .. I58f. 
 
 xxi. 7. 14 159 
 
 xxiii. 4ff i33ff. 
 
 XXV. 1-7 I26ff. 
 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 ii. 1 2 60 
 
 iii. 14 60, 61 
 
 iv. 45f 61 
 
 V. 12-15, 21 145 
 
 xii. 5ff 56 
 
 xiii. iff 3i6f. 
 
 xiv. 22-29 122ff. 
 
 XV. Iff I26ff. 
 
 XV. 12-18, I29ff. 
 
 XV. 19-23 I32f. 
 
 XVI. 1-17. .. 
 xvii. I4ff.. . 
 xviii. 1-8. . . 
 xix. 14. . . .. 
 
 XX. 5 
 
 xxii. 8 
 
 xxvii. 1-4, 8, 
 
 I33ff. 
 
 67 
 
 I4iff. 
 
 63 
 63 
 63 
 66 
 
 Joshua. 
 
 i.-xii i62ff. 
 
 vii. 4 200 
 
352 
 
 INDEXES. 
 
 Joshua viii. 3f., 13 201 n. 
 
 ix. 15-27 io7ff. 
 
 X. II 323 
 
 X. 12, 13 323 
 
 X. 4of 164 
 
 xi. 4 164 
 
 xi. 23 164 
 
 Judges. 
 
 i i66f. 
 
 ii. iiff i9of. 
 
 iii. 12-15, 30 191 
 
 V. 1 10 
 
 vi. 13 192 
 
 xvii., xviii 70 
 
 I. Samuel. 
 
 viii.-xii 170 
 
 viii. 4ff 169 
 
 xvi. iff ... I99f. 
 
 xvi. iiff 173 
 
 xvi. 18, 23 283 
 
 xvii. I -xviii. 5 . , . . i8of. 
 
 xvii. 4, 7. . 178 
 
 xvii. 12 i''4n. 
 
 xvii. I2ff 176 
 
 xvii. 33f 175 
 
 xviii. 6 1 80 
 
 xxi 71 
 
 xxi. 12 280 
 
 xxi. 19 178 
 
 xxiv., xxvi i8iff. 
 
 XXX. 25 152 
 
 II. Samuel. 
 
 i. 19-27 283 
 
 iii. 33ff 283 
 
 V. 2 172 
 
 II. Samuel vii. 13 291 
 
 xxi -xxiii 179, 279 
 
 xxi. 1-14 I94ff. 
 
 xxiii. I 284 
 
 xxiii. 1-7 283 
 
 xxiv. I. 215 
 
 I. Kings. 
 
 iii. 14 214 
 
 ix. II 21$ 
 
 II. Kings. 
 
 ix. 27f 216 
 
 xii. 2off 217 
 
 xvii. 3ff 36f. 
 
 xix. 36ff 36 
 
 xxii. 10 54 
 
 xxii. 13 56 
 
 I. Chronicles. 
 
 XX. 5 178 
 
 xxi. 1 215 
 
 II. Chronicles. 
 
 i. 3 214 
 
 viii. 2 215 
 
 xxii. 7-9 216 
 
 xxiv. 2 5f 217 
 
 Psalms. 
 
 i.-xli 266ff. 
 
 ii 266 
 
 iii 278f. 
 
 iv 307f- 
 
 ix., X 266f. 
 
 xiv 338f. 
 
 xiv., liii 26of. 
 
 xviii 279 
 
INDEXES. 
 
 353 
 
 Psalms XX 259, 288ff. 
 
 29off. 
 
 , 309ff. 
 
 268 
 
 268 
 
 268 
 
 XXI 
 
 xxii 
 
 xxiv 
 
 xxvii 
 
 xxix 
 
 xxxiii 267 
 
 xxxiv 280 
 
 xxxviii 268f. 
 
 xl, 1. li 296ff. 
 
 xl. 6 296 
 
 xlii.-xliii 269!., 31 if. 
 
 xlii.-lxxxix 296ff, 
 
 xliv 30if. 
 
 xlv 292ff , 
 
 1. 5 297 
 
 1. 8-15 297 
 
 li 297f. 
 
 li. i8f 298f. 
 
 Ixvi., Ixvii 270 
 
 Ixxi 270 
 
 Ixxii 271!., 277 
 
 Ixxiv 302ff. 
 
 Ixxix 306 
 
 Ixxxvi 27 1 
 
 Ixxxviii II, 272 
 
 xc.-cl . . 272ff. 
 
 xcvi ... 27511. 
 
 civ. 14, 24 318 
 
 cix 339 
 
 ex 23f. 
 
 cxx.-cxxxiv 273f. 
 
 cxxvii 278 
 
 cxxxvii 232, 245, 307 
 
 cli. (Ixx.) 275 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 i.-xii 252 
 
 i. 11-14 155 
 
 xiii.-xxiii 252f. 
 
 xiii. i-xiv. 23 229ff. 
 
 xix. 19 72 
 
 XX 35 
 
 xxiv.-xxvii 232ff . 
 
 xxiv.-xxxv 253 
 
 xxvi. I 236 
 
 xxxiv., XXXV 236ff. 
 
 xxxvi.-xxxix 224, 229 
 
 xl.-lxvi 228, 242ff. , 334 
 
 xlv. I ff 248 
 
 xlv. 9-13 248f. 
 
 xlvi. if 249 
 
 xlvii. if 250 
 
 xlviii. 20 250 
 
 li» 244,331, 335 
 
 liii. 2 329 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 vi. 20 155 
 
 vii. 21 155 
 
 xi. 1-8 57 
 
 xxxvi 222n. 
 
 Ezekiel. 
 
 xliv. II 158 
 
 xliv. 22 159 
 
 xlv. i8fT 158 
 
 Hosea. 
 vi. 6. 
 
 Proverbs, 
 xxii. 28, 
 
 63 
 
 Amos. 
 
 V. 21-23. 
 V. 25 
 
 154 
 
 154 
 155 
 
354 
 
 INDEXES. 
 
 Micah. St. Matthew, 
 
 vi, 6-8 o,. 154 xxvii. 9. 
 
 Jonah, 
 iv. 2 
 
 327 
 
 St. Luke. 
 
 xvi. 31.. 
 XX. 37.. 
 xxiv. 44. 
 
 316 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 Zechariah. 
 xi. 13. 
 
 15 
 
 Acts. 
 
 viii. 34 
 
 331 
 309 
 
 I. Maccabees, 
 i. 44ff.... 
 iii. 46. . , . 
 
 305 
 306 
 
 Romans. 
 
 XV. 4 
 
 iv. 38 . . . 305!. Hebrews. 
 
 iv. 46 , 305 i. I. . 
 
 341 
 
 I7f. 
 
BS1171.B335 
 
 The Old Testament from the modern point 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00011 8051