4 PRINCIPLES 
 
 BIBLICAL CRITICISM 
 
 J. J. LIAS 
 
/,/ j;;:/^' 
 
 '^ ■p'RT'Nrmj'rnOAr TVT T ^* 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Shelf.. 
 
 Division. n£y^£)C) 
 
 Section ..,...[ GoM 
 
 Number. 
 
rs 
 
 ; 
 
PRINCIPLES 
 
 OF 
 
 BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
Mochs be tbe same Butbor. 
 
 THE RECTOR AND HIS FRIENDS: Dialogues on some of 
 the Leading Religious Questions of the day. 7s. 6d. 1869. 
 G. Bell & Sons, 
 
 THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OP ST. JOHN: Considered as 
 Evidence for the Date of his Gospel. 7s. 6d. 1875. 
 G. Bell & Sons. 
 
 COMMENTARIES ON JUDGES AND 1 & 2 CORINTHIANS; 
 
 For the " Cambridge Bible for Schools." 
 
 COMMENTARIES ON 1 & 2 CORINTHIANS: For the "Cam- 
 bridge Greek Testament for Schools." 
 
 COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA (Pulpit Commentary). 12s. 6d. 
 C. Kegan Paul & Co. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN. 
 
 THE ATONEMENT VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF CER- 
 TAIN MODERN DIFFICULTIES: Being the Hulsean Lectures 
 for 1883, 1884. 4s. 6d. 
 
 NiSBET & Co. 
 
 ARE MIRACLES CREDIBLE ? A Defence of the Reality of the 
 
 Miracles of the, Bible. 3s. 6d. 
 
 HODDER & StOUGHTON. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND MODERN SOCIETY: Lectures on some 
 of the Problems of the Day. 
 
 CHURCH REFORM. A Sermon Preached in St. Edward's Church, 
 Cambridge, on Sunday Evening, November 22, 1885. Price One 
 Penny. 
 
 W. P. Spalding, 43, Sidney Street, Cambridge. 
 W. Kent & Co., 23, Paternoster Row, London. 
 
PEIIN^CIPLES 
 
 OF 
 
 BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
 Rev. J. J. LIAS, M.A., 
 
 Bector of East Bergholt ; formerly Hulsean LecUt/rer attd Precocher at the 
 Royal, Whitehall. 
 
 EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, 
 
 LONDON- GEEAT NEW STREET, FLEET STREET, E.G. 
 Edinbubqh, Glasgow, Melboubne, Sydney, & New York. 
 
 1893. 
 
P E E F A C E. 
 
 I SHOULD hardly have ventured of my own accord 
 to have undertaken what at the present moment is 
 so serious a task as the attempt to write on the criticism 
 of the Bible. But when requested by others to under- 
 take the task I did not feel that I was justified in 
 declining it. The question is a most important one in 
 itseK, and at the present moment it is supremely so. 
 The defence of the traditional belief in regard to the 
 Old Testament is at present the impopular, or as has 
 been suggested to me by a friend, the " unfashionable " 
 side of the question. I am aware that in undertaking 
 it I shall incur a great deal of hostile criticism. I have 
 no right to shrink from such criticism. I have myself 
 criticized freely, perhaps in some cases imsparingly, the 
 views to which I have felt compelled to take exception. 
 I shall therefore have no reason to complain if I am 
 criticized unsparingly myself. I have not, however, 
 I believe, treated any of those with whom it has been 
 my misfortune to differ, mth unfairness or disrespect. 
 If I have misrepresented any one, I certainly have not 
 done so intentionally. I may therefore, I trust, lay 
 claim to candid treatment in return. It must be re- 
 membered that only bj- the fullest and freest discussion 
 
lY PREFACE. 
 
 of the important topics involved, can the truth be 
 ultimately elicited. In the interests of truth, then, it is 
 our duty to subject any new views, on whatever subject, 
 and by whomsoever propounded, to the most searching 
 criticism possible. 
 
 The form of the present volume is popular. I have 
 long been of opinion that in many departments of 
 science, and more especially in theological science, the 
 great want of the day is manuals, addressed to intelli- 
 gent and thoughtful men, and dealing with the first 
 principles of the subjects on which they treat. Our 
 lives are far too busy in these days to permit us to 
 wade through large works filled with a mass of details. 
 Even the clergy themselves are often ignorant of much 
 which it is essential that they should know, because of 
 the impossibility of finding books in which the main 
 outlines of the subject are presented to them in a con- 
 venient form; while as to the laity, their ignorance of 
 the "first principles of the doctrine of Christ" and 
 of the constitution and history of His Church, can only 
 be described as phenomenal by those who have had an 
 opportunity of fathoming it. One point I have had in 
 view in this as in other works. I have endeavoured to 
 make the facts and arguments contained in it intelligible 
 to those whose acquaintance with the learned languages 
 is slender. 
 
 Manuals of the kind proposed need not be of the or- 
 dinary school-boy type. It is a mistake to suppose that 
 an exposition of first principles must of necessity be 
 superficial, or that it can be understood by none but 
 
PREFACE. T 
 
 experts. As every one acquainted with the work of 
 education knows, it is the ill-digested knowledge of de- 
 tails, not the discussion of principles, which produces 
 the barren results so often deplored.* Unless sound 
 principles are properly laid down, carefully tested and 
 firmly grasped, the mere accimiulation of minute in- 
 formation is of very little use. It is true that such 
 principles can in many cases only be arrived at by men 
 who, like the late Charles Darwin, have devoted their 
 lives to the study of details. But the mere knowledge 
 of details by no means involves a firm grasp of prin- 
 ciples. Sometimes the very opposite is the case. It is 
 possible to draw wrong conclusions from your facts. 
 Very often indeed the learner is content to draw no 
 conclusions whatever. In Biblical criticism itself it 
 might have been well if the critics had more carefully 
 tested their principles before applying them to the facts. 
 In spite of the learning and assiduity which many of 
 them have conspicuously displayed, it is a question to 
 many minds whether a great deal of the trouble which 
 they have taken will not eventually prove to be to a 
 great extent thro^vQ away — whether, to use the expres- 
 sion of the friend mentioned below, who has kindly 
 looked through some of these pages, they are not in 
 many cases in the position of men "who cannot see 
 the wood for the trees." 
 
 The object, then, of this volume is to place before 
 the reader the principles on which the criticism of the 
 Bible has been carried on, as well as the results which 
 
 See the extract from Mr. Fitch'a Lectures in note D. 
 
ri PREFACE. 
 
 are supposed to hare been obtained, and to inquire how 
 far those results may be believed to have been successful. 
 It is desired also to direct the reader to the sources 
 from which further information may be obtained, if it 
 be his desire to investigate the subject for himself. 
 
 It remains to thank the friends who have given the 
 writer their assistance — Canon Girdlestone, to whom all 
 the sheets have been submitted, and whose kind help is 
 here cordially acknowledged ; and Dr. Sinker, Librarian 
 of Trinity College, Cambridge, who has kindly read 
 through the proofs of chapters lY. and Y., and has 
 made some valuable suggestions. 
 
 East Beegholt Rectoey, 
 
 January 28th, 1893. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Intuoductiox -------_-_1 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Grounds of our acceptance of the Scriptures as the 
 
 Word of God - - - -- - - - - 4 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The Text of TifE Old Testament _--___ 24 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Inspiration of Scripture -------31 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The History of Old Testament Criticism - - - - 5i 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 The Genuineness of the Pentateuch ----- 83 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Witness of Prophecy - - - - - - -134 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Evidence of the Psalms to the Facts of Old Testament 
 
 History - - - - - - - - - -143 
 
 b 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 ■ CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Relation of the Old Testament to the New - - - 154 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Principles of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testa- 
 
 160 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Higher Criticism of the New Testament - - - - 178 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The True Principles of Biblical Criticism - - - - 210 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 On the Canonicity of the Apocrypha _ _ _ _ - 227 
 
 NOTE B. 
 The Moral and Spiritual Value of the Bible - - - 229 
 
 NOTE C. 
 The New Criticism tried by Literary and Historic Tests - 238 
 
 NOTE D. 
 The Recent Discoveries in regard to Gbnesis xiv. - - - 247 
 
CONTENTS. ix 
 
 xotp: E. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Date of the Psalter - - - - - - -2ol 
 
 NOTE F. 
 The Text of Daniel __.-_.__ 252 
 
 NOTE 0. 
 Nox-Messtaxic Prophecy - .--____ 253 
 
 NOTE H. 
 The Origin of the word Jehovah --____ 254 
 
Peinciples of Biblical Ceiticism. 
 
 INTEODUCTION. 
 rjlIIE criticism of the Scriptures may be divided into two 
 parts; the criticism of the text, and the criticism of the 
 matter. Professor Sanday has put the distinction between the 
 two kinds of criticism in other words, though his meaning is 
 substantially the same. He divides criticism into the higher, 
 " which is concerned with questions of authorship and historical 
 construction," and the lower, which has to do with " the editing 
 of texts." * The former has to do with all questions of date 
 and mode of composition. It deals with the accuracy of the 
 contents of the various books, and the signs they shew of 
 homogeneous or composite authorship, of later editing, and 
 the like. The latter endeavours to discuss varieties of read- 
 ing, and to arrive, by a comparison of the various documents 
 in existence, at the nearest possible apj)roximation to the ijosis- 
 sima verla of Holy Writ. 
 
 Investigation into these questions is now being prosecuted 
 with the utmost vivacity. It could not be otherwise. It 
 was impossible that the wave of inquiry which has flowed 
 into every other department of knowledge, should leave the 
 
 • Report of the Rhyl Church Congiess, p. 171. 
 
2 FBINCIFLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 question of the origin and character of the Scriptures un- 
 touched. Nor is there any need to deprecate such inquiry. 
 ImpHcit faith is a very beautiful and a very touching thing, 
 and produces moral qualities of a very high order. Yet it 
 is apt, side by side with these, to develope qualities of a very 
 opposite kind. And, however great may be the evils of rash 
 and presumptuous speculation, there can be little doubt that 
 the most fearless criticism, if sober and reverent, is calculated 
 on the whole to create a higher type of character than can 
 ever be produced by absolute submission to authority. There- 
 fore we shall do well to welcome the spirit of inquiry. Even 
 though for a time it may seem to unsettle men's minds, it will 
 end by establishing their opinions on a firmer basis than ever. 
 
 A few years ago the genuineness and authenticity of the 
 books of the New Testament were made the subject of the 
 most searching criticism, and for a time their authority among 
 mankind appeared to be seriously endangered. They have 
 survived the assault, and now occupy a more commanding 
 position than before. The inquiry has now shifted itself to 
 the Old Testament. The age and authorship, as well as the 
 historical accuracy of large portions of it, are now sul judice. 
 A disintegrating criticism is meeting with wider acceptance 
 than has been accorded to a similar treatment of the New 
 Testament. This is owing partly to the antiquity of the books 
 themselves, and partly to the inferior claim of the Old Tes- 
 tament, in comparison with the New, on our unconditional 
 acceptance. As the channel of an admittedly preparatory dis- 
 pensation, both its theological and moral teaching are more or 
 less imperfect. Hence one of the burning questions of the 
 day is the amount of authority to be attached to those doctrines 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 and ordinances which St. Paul himself has described as among 
 " the rudiments of the world." * 
 
 The inquiry in the present pages assumes the general prin- 
 ciples of Christianity. The evidences for religion are a subject 
 into which it is impossible for us here to enter. That these 
 should be investigated as fully and as fearlessly as any other 
 question whatever there is no wish to deny. But it will be 
 taken for granted in what follows that God has given a Reve- 
 lation to the world in His Son Jesus Christ ; that He prej^ared 
 men by a definite system of instruction for that Revelation ; 
 and that in the Scriptures we have the only authentic account 
 of the Revelation itself, and of the way in which God prepared 
 the world for it. The object of the following pages is to 
 give a general account to the student of the best means of 
 ascertaining the contents of the Scriptures, their date, the 
 circumstances of their composition, and the degree of au- 
 thority which the Christian is warranted in attributing to 
 them. The means of caiTying out more minute investigations, 
 supposing the student to have time and inclination for the task, 
 will be duly pointed out. But the present volume does not 
 pretend to be more than an account of the main principles on 
 which Biblical criticism is carried on, and of its results, so far 
 as it is possible at the present time to estimate them. 
 
 • Col. 2. 20. 
 
 A 2 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 TEE GROUNDS OF OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES 
 AS THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 THE first point to which our attention will naturally be 
 directed is the evidence on which we accept the Scriptures 
 as the Word of God. And first of all, we are confronted with 
 the fact, to which we shall afterwards refer more fully, that 
 these books have been handed down for more than 1,800 years, 
 and some of them, if the view everywhere held until the close 
 of the last century be correct, for a far longer period, as books 
 of an entirely unique character and authority. How far that 
 authority is to be supposed to extend is a question which will 
 be discussed in a future chapter. Many Christian teachers 
 have denied that Christianity can be fairly described as a 
 "book revelation," however much of late years it may have 
 come to be regarded as such. It has been much debated 
 whether the Bible can more properly be asserted to be, or to 
 contain, the revelation of God's wiU. 
 
 It cannot be denied that in this respect there is some dis- 
 tinction between Mohammedanism and Christianity. Moham- 
 med dictated the Koran, and thus constituted it the form in 
 which the revelation he claimed to have received was handed 
 down to future ages.* But the Bible was not the work of one 
 
 * The Koran may have assumed its present form after Mohammed's death. All 
 that is contended for is that its contents are supposed to be an accurate report of 
 his words. Sir W. Muir, in his Life of 3Iahomet (pp. 549-563), discusses the com- 
 position of the Koran. He believes that its contents are the actual words of 
 Mohammed. They were dictated by him to his disciples as a revelation from God, 
 and taken down by them. They were afterwards arranged, like the prophecies of 
 Jeremiah, in no fixed order. After his death Omar, to secure an accurate version, 
 had a collection made of the Prophet's sayings, " from date leaves, tablets of white 
 stone, and from the hearts of men." As even so some variations were found, Othmau, 
 after Omar's death, prepared an authorized text. 
 
GEOUXBS OF ACCEPTJXCE OF THE SCBITTURES. 5 
 
 man, but of many. Moses, it is true, until just before the 
 commencement of the present century, has been ahnost in- 
 variably believed to have written the whole of the Pentateuch, 
 with some insignificant exceptions.* But his revelation of 
 the Divine Being and Purpose once made, it was universally 
 acknowledged that its principles were extended and developed 
 by others, A continuous histoiy of the Jewish people, written 
 scrupulously from the stand-point of the Mosaic teaching, 
 enables us to trace its effect on the character of the people. f 
 A number of prophecies follow, in which the principles of the 
 Mosaic covenant are explained and applied to the needs of the 
 time when they were written. "When Christ Himself came, He 
 neither wrote nor dictated a word Himself. But not very 
 long after His Ascension, biographies of Him and reports of 
 His sayings began to appear. Four of these have been ac- 
 cepted by the Christian Church as authentic.J Beside these, 
 we have (1) a brief account of the lines on which the work 
 of the Apostles proceeded, and of the spread of the Gospel 
 among the Gentiles ; (2) a prophetic sketch of the history 
 of the future, deeply imaginative and niystical and hard to 
 be understood ; and (3) a number of letters written by 
 the Apostles to their early converts, which correspond to the 
 prophetic ^Titings at least so far as this, that in them the 
 principles of the Christian Church are explained and applied to 
 the needs of Christians in Apostolic times. 
 
 But though Christ promised to His disciples a Paraclete, Who 
 should come and guide them into all the truth, it is remarkable 
 that the Christian Church possesses no sacred wiitings occupying 
 
 • Such as the account of his death in Deut. 34. 
 
 t This is the case with the narratives as they stand. It is obvious that we cannot 
 at present enter on the question of the re-arrangements which modern criticism 
 suggests, 
 
 t We cannot suppose that no more than four were written. St. Luke speaks ot 
 "many attempts " of the kind. But only these four survive. 
 
6 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 the exact place of the historical and prophetic Scriptures of 
 the Old Covenant. That is to say, no continuous record of 
 God's dealings \vith His Church, no writings of later ages, in 
 which the truths of the Gospel are applied to the conduct of 
 Christians, have come to be regarded as inspired records of the 
 history, or infallible, or all but infallible, embodiments of the 
 teaching of the Christian Church.* How far this should be a 
 guide to us in our estimate of the authority and value of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures is a question which will be discussed 
 hereafter. No doubt there is, to some minds, a difficulty here. 
 If we accept the truth that a special Divine guidance was pro- 
 mised to the Christian Church, it is by no means easy at first to 
 see why a higher authority should be claimed for the writings 
 of the Jewish j)ropliets than for those of the great doctors of the 
 universal Church, especially when we see that Moses is repre- 
 sented in Deuteronomy as promising no special guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit to the Israelitish nation,f but as referring them to 
 a prophet like unto himself,J in whom the Christian Church 
 has always been agreed to recognize Jesus Christ, the Founder 
 of a better covenant, established on better promises than that of 
 Moses. § But, however this may be, we find no inspiration of 
 a directly authoritative character, whether continuous or even 
 occasional, in the Christian Church, corresponding to what we 
 find under the Old Dispensation. The promised guidance of 
 
 * Neither has the Christian Church its authorized book of Psalms or Hymns. 
 
 t We may, however, contend that the Jews, in the absence of such guidance, 
 needed a more special and particular authority on the part of those who were, 
 raised up to instruct them. And, indeed, the gift of proi^hecy, which many of 
 these men indisputably possessed, was a gift of a higher kind in its own particular 
 way, and more immediately suggestive of a direct and authoritative inspiration 
 from God than any vouchsafed to the Apostles. Even the Apocalypse cannot com- 
 pare, in the matter of direct and clear prophecies of future events, wi^h the pro- 
 phetic Scriptures. On the other hand, the promise, so frequently given, of an 
 Angel of the Covenant to guide and direct Israel (see Ex. 23. 20-23; 32. 34) can 
 hardly be regarded as equivalent to the gift of the Paraclete, 
 
 t Deut. IS. 15-18. 
 
 § Heb. 3. 5, 6; 7. IG, 19; 8. 7. 13 ; 9. 11-14, 23. 
 
GBOUNDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCRIP TUBES. 7 
 
 the Spirit, which was to guide Christians into all truth, was not 
 supposed to have been fully realized at once. Guidance into all 
 the tmth was not promised to the Church of any particular mo- 
 ment, no matter how critical. The notion that the Church of 
 any particular age is infallible derives no support from Scrip- 
 ture. To imagine this to be involved in the promised gift of the 
 Spirit were to confound the means with the end. As with the 
 individual, so with the Church, the growth in knowledge, as well 
 as in holiness, is gradual. The Divine teaching is sufficient for 
 our needs, but does not involve the gift either of infalhbility or 
 omniscience. As a river streams onward in its appointed course 
 until it reaches its ultimate goal, the ocean, so is the current of 
 advancing knowledge, of purified life, in the Christian Church 
 destined to flow on with ever increasing depth, volume, and 
 force, until in the end it shall lose itself in the ocean of the 
 Divine Love.* 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, in connection with these considera- 
 tions, that the Church of Christ, in her formal assemblies, did 
 not until a very late period take any particular pains to point 
 out to her members the precise volumes which constitute the 
 Christian Scriptures.f In the earlier days of her history she 
 exerted herself strenuously to maintain and defend the deposit 
 of faith which was " once for all committed to the saints." J 
 But in spite of the deep reverence with which the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, and the \vritings of Apostles and ApostoUc 
 men, were regarded from the second century of the Christian 
 era downwards, it was not till the Council " in Trullo " in 697 
 
 * Keble, Cliristian Year, " Evening Hi^ran." It is true that the Roman Church 
 claims authority to decide all controversies by an infallible voice, but the manner 
 in which that claim has been enforced, the suppression of full and free discussion, 
 the refusal to take into account the voice of the Christian conscience at large, is 
 not calculated to increase the confidence felt in the validity of her claim. 
 
 t It is even more difficult to explain why no effort was made to preserve the 
 originals of the books of the N.T., which one might suppose would have been the 
 objects of the most a3ectionate veneration. 
 
 X Jude 3. 
 
8 FBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 that any definite list of the Scriptures was recommended to the , 
 notice of the faithful, and even in this list, which in the main 
 agrees with that accepted in the English Church, the Apoca- 
 lypse is omitted.* The famous Council of Mcasa made no 
 attempt to enumerate the books of Holy Scripture, in spite of 
 the fact that throughout the Council both parties agreed in 
 regarding the Scriptures as the final authority on the point in 
 debate. I It is still more surprising that no such attempt was 
 made at the first Council of Constantinople, because one of the 
 grounds of the stubborn resistance of fifty-six years to the 
 decrees of Mccea, was that the word Homoousion was a new 
 word, and tliat the Scriptures did not contain it. J It seems 
 impossible to escape the conclusion that however deep and 
 fervent the reverence for the contents of the New Testament 
 may have been in those days, it was due rather to the fact 
 that its words were the words of men who bore a special com- 
 mission from Christ, and therefore spoke with the authority of 
 men so commissioned, than to any belief in the necessary in- 
 fallibility of every jot and tittle of a volume delivered to them 
 from the first, and called the New Testament. § Yet this last 
 
 * The second Council of Constantinople (called " in Trullo " from the chamber in 
 which it was held) has very generally been regarded as CEcumenical. It was the 
 last in which the Eastern and Western Churches were represented, and the decrees 
 of which were accepted by both. But the list of Scriptures accepted by the Council 
 was not the result of careful inquiry and deliberation. It was simply the con- 
 sequence of a policy which adopted the Canons of many preceding Councils en bloc. 
 Among these was a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in which a list of the Scrip- 
 tures had been drawn up, but not, it would seem, on any vei\v fully ascertained 
 historical or critical evidence. The loose way in which the question of the actual 
 contents of the Scriptures, in spite of its immense importance, was ti-eated in the 
 early Church, is extremely difficult to understand or explain. The Latin Chui'ch 
 at the Council of Trent, the Eastern Church in 1692, formally included the Apo- 
 crypha in its Canon. 
 
 + The historian f?ocrates quotes Eusebius as approving the sentiment that no 
 terms should be used in Ecclesiastical definition which are not to be found in 
 Scripture {Eccl. Hist. i. 8) . 
 
 t The Latin Creed of Sirmium, a.d. 351, rv^jects the term Homoousion on this 
 ground alone. See Socrates, Eccl. Hist ii. 30. 
 
 § The words >catv>> Sta^ijxy) refer invariably in the Scriptures to the Covenant 
 sealed by Christ's Blood, and not to the book -which now goes by that name. The 
 
GROUNDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES. 9 
 
 is a point on which, until within the last few years, it would 
 have been regarded among ourselves as the most audacious 
 heresy to entertain any doubt. 
 
 The question, therefore, of the constituent parts of Holy 
 Scripture resolves itself into one of testimony. AVhat evidence 
 have we, first, that the books were written by the persons 
 whose names they bear, and next, that those persons, supposing 
 them to be the authors of the books ascribed to them, were 
 worthy of credit ? In regard to the greater part of the New 
 Testament, the most important portion of the sacred volume, it 
 is very material to observe that this evidence far transcends the 
 evidence of authorship in the case of other ancient books. 
 Sometimes, in the case of the latter, we have only a casual 
 mention of the book and its contents some two or three hun- 
 dred years after its publication. In the case of the Xcav 
 Testament we not only have a chain of testimony extending 
 up to the times of men personally acquainted with the Apostles, 
 but we have evidence that they were very soon collected into 
 a volume, were read in the Christian assemblies, were made the 
 subject of sermons and commentaries, were translated into 
 other languages, and were from the first held in special vene- 
 ration by the Christian Church.* It is true that these pro- 
 positions cannot be predicated of the ichole Xew Testament as it 
 has come down to us.f But it is true of by far the greater part 
 of it. The Old Testament, however, has no such claim upon our 
 acceptance. Up to the beginning of the present century few 
 ^\Titers were bold enough to challenge the tradition of some 
 twenty-two centuries. But a long and animated controversy 
 has been carried on for about a century on the origin and date 
 
 words "Old Tostampnt" are applied to a book in 2 Cor. 3. 14. Eut it appears from 
 the next verse that it applies to the Law of Moses only, and not to the Prophets or 
 the Psalms. 
 
 • See Paley's Evidences, part i. ch. ii. 
 
 t See below, ch. x. 
 
10 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 of the Old Testament Scriptures. The received tradition of 
 their antiquity and authorship has been questioned not so much 
 on historical, as on critical grounds. We shall return to this 
 subject in a later chapter. It will be sufficient at present to 
 put the reader in possession of the Jewish tradition on the 
 subject. This is all the historical evidence we have to give, 
 and it must be confessed that it lacks the weight of contem- 
 porary, or all but contemporary evidence, and the continuous 
 catena of testimony, from the time of their composition on- 
 wards, of which the writings of the New Testament may 
 justly boast. 
 
 The earliest mention we have of the Old Testament Cano- 
 nical books * is in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, written, it 
 is supposed, about B.C. 130, but referring to the testimony of 
 the grandfather of the author, which may be regarded as carry- 
 ing that testimony back to about B.C. 200-1 In the Second 
 Book of the Maccabees, supposed to have been written 125-150 
 B.C., we read (ch. 2. 13) that Nehemiah made a collection of the 
 ancient history of Israel, and the books of the prophets, and the 
 writings of David. J About B.C. 150 the famous Septuagint 
 
 * These books were regarded as twenty-four in number. The five books of Moses, 
 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, 
 Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, the 
 four greater, and the twelve lesser Prophets, the latter being regarded as one book. 
 
 t The " Law and the Prophets and the rest of the books " are mentioned, but 
 without any definite statement concerning the estimation in which they were held. 
 
 X This is the true sense of the original. Professor Driver (Introdziction, p. xxix) 
 endeavours to attenuate the force of this evidence of the care with which the 
 ancient literature was preserved. But a distinguished critic. Bishop AVestcott, 
 writes as follows (Bible in the Church, p. 300) : " In other words, if we may trust 
 a tradition which has every mark of truth, Nehemiah completed the collection of 
 the prophets by the addition of the later historical books, and added to them a 
 collection of Hagiographa." See also Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, 
 who regards the passage as " perhaps a true reminiscence of the histoi'ical prepara- 
 tions for the canonization of the Prophets and Hagiographa," though he very pro- 
 perly adds that it is " by no means a history of the canonization itself." The Law, 
 it should be explained, consisted of the books of Moses ; the Prophets comprised all 
 the histoi^es except Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, and all the prophets 
 except Daniel. The rest of the books were called the Hagiographa. The Talmud 
 mentions the men of the Great Synagogue as having closed the Canon of the 
 
GROUNDS OF AC CEP TAN CE OF THE SCBIP TUBES, 11 
 
 Tersion was completed in Egyi^t, containing, however, some 
 books which we do not find in the Hebrew.* Our next witness 
 is Josephus, who describes the siege and capture of Jerusalem, 
 A.D. 70, as a contemporary witness of the events he records. 
 He acknowledges the authority of the twenty-two books found 
 in our present Hebrew copies,f he divides them into tlu'ee parts, 
 the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa,} and regards in- 
 spiration as ceasing with the Book of the Prophet ^lalachi, in 
 the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Our Lord Himself, as 
 reported by St. Luke, who was contemporary with Josephus, 
 mentions a similar division, § and so does another contemporary, 
 the celebrated Philo of Alexandria. || 
 
 From this time to our own two streams of tradition, the one 
 Jewish, the other Christian, flow peacefully on side by side, and 
 the Christian evidence for the contents and genuineness of the 
 Old Testament is coincident with that for the New. TTe must 
 not, however, assume that the Jews regarded all the canonical 
 
 Old Testament, Kuenen and Professors Robertson Smith and Driver reject its state- 
 ments. Professor Driver mentions one of them from the Baba Bathra (fol. lib) 
 wliich is obviously absurd. But Professor Wriirht [Book of Koheleth, p. 6) regards 
 it as by no means unreasonable to suppose that the men of the Great S\-nagogue, 
 the last of whom he supposes to be Simon II. (B.C. 292), gave a final sanction to 
 the Old Testament Canon. Professor Ryle, however (Canon of the Old Testament. 
 Appendix A.), has traced this report to its source, and finds that it is founded on a 
 misconception. Buhl [Canon and Text of the Old Testament, p. 27) says that the 
 Canon was finally settled before our Lord's time, and that the point was recon- 
 sidered and the Canon reaffirmed in the fii'st century after Christ. 
 
 * For the Apocrypha see note A. 
 
 t He most probably included Ruth and Ezia respectively with Judges and Xehe- 
 miah. See Buhl, Canon of the Old Testame/.t, p. 19. 
 
 t Contr. Apion.i.8. He here affirms his belief that these Scriptures had been 
 handed down without change, and states that no Jew would dare to alter a word of 
 them. 
 
 § Luke 24. 44. Of course it is open to discussion whether St. Luke gives the 
 ipsissima verba of our Lord liere, or merely their genei-al substance. 
 
 II In a fragment preserved in the Preparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (viii. 6), Philo 
 says that the Jews would rather die a thousand deaths than alter one word con- 
 tained in their Scriptures. He elsewhere calls Moses the "Prophet," the"hiero- 
 phanfof the sacred mysteries. He knew the Apocr^T^hal books (says Eichhorn, 
 Einleitujig, i. 88), but he cites none as authoritative, nor does he allegorize any of 
 them. 
 
12 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 
 
 books of the Old Testament with equal reverence, although thejt 
 believed them all to be inspired. It is clear from the contents 
 of the Talmud that however deep the reverence for the other 
 books of Scripture, the Jewish Rabbis attached a still higher 
 importance to the writings of Moses, and that their respect for 
 some of the later books fell considerably below the level of our 
 modern ideas of inspiration. * 
 
 Our Lord Himself quotes all the books of Moses. He attri- 
 butes them aU to Moses. He quotes several of the Psalms,! 
 and attributes Psalm 110 to David. Of the Prophets He 
 quotes Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi. He speaks of their writings as Scripture, He treats 
 them as books of high authority, and He makes no dis- 
 tinction between them. He does not quote the Apocrypha. 
 The Acts of the Apostles contains citations from Genesis, 
 Exodus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, the Psalms, Isaiah, Joel, 
 Amos, and Habakkuk, and attributes Psalm 110 to David. 
 St. Paul cites Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, 
 Kings, Job, Psahns, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, 
 Habakkuk, and Malachi. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a 
 perfect storehouse of citations, chiefly, however, taken from the 
 Psalms. We have here cited Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, 
 Joshua, Samuel, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and 
 Haggai, and the words of Psalm 95 are attributed to the Holy 
 Ghost. The short Epistle of St. James contains citations from 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Kings, Chronicles, Proverbs, and 
 Isaiah. In the first Epistle of St. Peter we find citations from 
 
 * Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, vol. ii., p. 6S6. Doubts were entertained, 
 moreover, at a very early date in regard to the canonicity of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
 the Song of Solomon, and especally of Esther, while some disrespect appears to 
 have been shewn towards the character of Nehemiah.— /6zfZ, pp. G8S, 089. See also 
 Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, p. 29. These v/riters give an account 
 of the discussions of the Rabbis whether certain books " dfiliied the hands," i.e. 
 required special care and reverence in handling. 
 
 t K^amely, Pss. 22, 35, 37, 41, 78, 110, 118. 
 
GBOUNDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCEIP TUBES. 13 
 
 Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah. There are 
 no direct citations in the second Epistle of St. Peter, nor in the 
 first of St. John, but the latter contains an aUusion to the 
 murder of Abel by Cain, and the former allusions to narratives 
 in Genesis and Numbers. St. Jude only cites the apocryphal 
 book of Enoch ; but he, too, refers to the narratives in Genesis 
 and Numbers. The Apocalypse contains citations from Genesis, 
 Numbers, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezeldel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Zepha- 
 niah, and Zechariah, and the description of the doAvnfall of 
 Babylon is modelled on the lament over Tyre in Ezekiel. 
 
 The evidence for the books of the New Testament must be 
 very briefly summarised. It will be found in a great variety of 
 works.* Our object in this chapter is simply to give the 
 student a conspectus of the nature of the evidence obtained.f 
 Our first witness is Clement of Rome. He was contemporary 
 with the Apostles, and was chief pastor of the principal Chris- 
 tian Church of his day. He quotes the Gospel narratives, as 
 we at present have them, the Epistle to the Ephesians, the First 
 
 * Details will be found in such works as those cited above. Bishop Cosin's 
 Scholastic History of the Canon, Paley's Evidences, Lardner's Credibility. ]\Iarsh's 
 Lectures on the Criticism of Holy Scrixiture, Dr. S. Davidson's Lectures on the 
 same subject. Bishop "Wordsworth's Ilulsean Lecttires, Home's Introduction, 
 Credner's History of the Canon. Lardner's Credibility quotes a vast number 
 of passages from writers of the first six centuries, and is a perfect storehouse 
 of information on the subject. But this book, as well as Bishop Cosin's treatise, 
 lack the critical knowledge of later times in regard to the documents cited. Of 
 more recent works we may mention Bishop Westcott's well-known book on the 
 Canon of the Xew Testament, and Dr. Salmon's Introdtiction to the New Testa- 
 ment. W'e must also remember that many important ancient wi'itings have lately 
 been brought to light which materially increase our knowledge on this point. See 
 notes below. 
 
 t 'We shall be able to judge better of the value of this testimony by the following 
 illustrations, taken from Dr. Salmon's Introdtiction to the Neto Testamevt, p. 5. 
 The history of Vclleius Paterculus has come down to us in a single very corrupt 
 manixscript. It is only quoted once by Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century. 
 Yet it is universally accepted as genuine. The first six books of the Annals of 
 Tacitus have been preserved in one manuscript only, and that discovered in the 
 fifteenth century. When Poggio attempted to cast a doubt on the genuineness of 
 the book on the ground that no definite allusion to it could be produced anterior to 
 the fifteenth century, only one allusion, and that by no means definite, could be pro- 
 duced, and that three hundred years after the author's day. Yet no one doubts 
 that we possess the real Annals of Tacitus. 
 
14 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Epistle to the Corinthians expressly, the Epistle of St. James 
 and the first of St. Peter, and transfers to his pages large por- 
 tions of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The recently discovered * 
 Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles^ brief though it is, contains 
 distinct allusions to the Sermon on the Mount, as reported in 
 St. Matthew and in St. Luke.* Other allusions to the Gospel 
 narratives are also found, as, for instance, the Lord's Prayer. 
 Baptism and the Eucharist also are mentioned. St. Paul's 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians appears to have been known to 
 the writer. The Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, which though 
 now admitted not to be his, could not have been written later 
 than A.D. 150, and was probably written earlier, contains one 
 distinct citation of St. ]\Iatthew's Gospel as Scripture, some 
 other citations of passages found in the Synoptic Gospels, and 
 the writer appears to have been acquainted with St. Paul's two 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, and with the Epistle of St. James. 
 Ignatius, who was martyred most probably in December 107, 
 quotes the Epistle to the Ephesians expressly in a letter of his 
 own to that Church. He also quotes St. Matthew's Gospel, and 
 shews acquaintance with the Gospel of St. John, the First 
 Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, and the Epistles 
 to the Romans, Corinthians, the first to the Thcssalonians, and 
 the first to Timothy. | The short Epistle of Polycarp, who 
 was martyred A.D. 155, and who states that he had by that time 
 been a Christian for eighty-six years, contains an extraordinary 
 number of quotations from the New Testament. He cites the 
 Synoptic Gospels, the Acts, seven Epistles of St. Paul, the first 
 of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, whose disciple, we learn, 
 
 * With some Vcariations, which may be due to oral tradition, or the writer's own 
 additions. The latter appears very probable. See Teaching, ch. 1. This work is 
 generally supposed to have been written before a.d. 100. 
 
 t The genuineness of the shorter Greek recension of the Epistles of Ignatius has 
 been disputed. But most competent English scholars, including the late Bishop 
 Lightfoot, have accepted it as genuine. 
 
GBOUNDS OF ACCEPT.UX'E OF THE SCEIFTUEES. 15 
 
 he was. Some of these are cited repeatedly.* We need not 
 multiply authorities beyond the close of the second century. 
 We Avill therefore close this list of testimonies with a reference 
 to Irenosus and Tertullian. Tlie former, who tells us that he 
 had enjoyed the privilege of listening to the exhortations of 
 Polycarp, speaks of the four Gospels as the necessary heritage of 
 the Church, quotes the Acts of the Apostles as the work of 
 St. Luke, and all the Epistles, save those to Philemon and the 
 Hebrews, St. James, St. Jade, the second of St. Peter, and the 
 third of St. John.j Tertullian not only quotes the four Gospels 
 and the Acts of the Apostles in the shape we now have them, 
 but in his treatise against Marcion he analyses the principal 
 Epistles of St. Paul in such a way as to prove that they are 
 the identical Epistles which have come down to us. He also 
 refers to all the other Epistles of St. Paul, J and quotes the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (assigning it, however, to St. Barnabas), 
 the first of St. Peter, the first and second of St. John, and 
 that of St. Jude. After his time the stream of testimony runs 
 so broad and full that it were superfluous to enter upon any 
 detailed account of it. 
 
 * The Epistle to Diognetus and the Pastor of Hennas, -writings of the first half 
 of the second century, both cite St. JIatthew, and the former quotes the Gospel 
 of St. John, 2 Corinthians, and the Epistles to the Galatians and Phihppians. 
 Justin MartjT, too, who suffered martyrdom about the same time as Polycarp, 
 quotes what he calls the "Memoirs" of the Apostles, as well as Acts, 2 Thessa- 
 lonians and Ihe Revelation of St. John. This last is expressly cited as the work of 
 St. John (Dial. c. Tnjph. SI). "The relation of these wi-iters [the Apostolic 
 Fathers] to the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament may be briefly summed 
 up as follows : (1) They assign a special and pre-eminent authority to the Apostles, 
 while distinctly disclaiming any such exceptional position for themselves. . . , 
 On the other hand there is no evidence that these Fathers recognized a Canon of 
 the New Testament as a well-defined body of wiitings."— Bishop Lightfoot, 
 Apostolic Fathers, i. 9. 
 
 t The quotations of Trenseus are most voluminous, and a great deal of the New 
 Testament could be reconstructed out of his pages had we been unfortunate enough 
 to have lost it. 
 
 t He analyses the Epistles to the Romans. Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 
 Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and Philemon. He accuses Mai-cion of 
 rejecting the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. 
 
16 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
 We come next to the Versions. The Septuagint has already 
 been mentioned. The rest are posterior to the introduction of^ 
 Christianity. The first of these, the Yetus Latina, is of un- 
 certain date, and has come down to us in various forms.* But 
 the best authorities agree to put it down as not later than the 
 second century a.d. The Peshito, or Vulgate Syriac Version, 
 is thought by some to be of the second, and by others to be of 
 the third century. But all the best modern critics agree that 
 there is an older Syi'iac version, which paved the way for the 
 more generally received Peshito.j The last version which 
 demands notice here is the Latin Vulgate, as it is called, from 
 its universal use in the Western Church.J 
 
 Our last evidence will be the catalogues of Scripture which we 
 find in early writers. As far as the four Gospels are concerned, 
 we have a harmony of them which expressly states the number 
 to he four, written during the latter part of the second century 
 by Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr. § With regard to the 
 Scriptures in general, our first witness is the " Canon of 
 Muratori," so called because first published by him after its 
 discovery at Milan. It omits 1 and 2 Peter and 1 John, 
 as well SL8 the Epistle of James and that to the Hebrews, and it 
 
 * Westcott and Hort recognize in the main three forms of this version t (1) a 
 North African text, (2) what has been called the Eui-opean text, and (3) » revision, 
 possibly of North Italian origin, intended to improve the style, and bring the ren- 
 derings into closer conformity with the Greek {Introductio7i, -p. 7S) . The habit of 
 citation from memory, which was common then, as now, renders the identification of 
 the actual text a matter of extreme diificulty. St. Augustine [Be Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) 
 says that many Latin versions existed in his time. It was the confusion arising 
 from the variety of texts which impelled Jerome to undertake a new translation. 
 
 t Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 84. They incline 
 to the later date assigned to the Peshito in the text. Dr. Scrivener {Introduction 
 to the Stxidy of the New Testament, pp. 324, 323) thinks that the superior antiquity 
 attributed by Westcott and Hort to the Version discovered by Canon Cureton, and 
 known as the Curetonian Syriac, is due to their theory of the superiority of i< and B 
 to all other MSS. 
 
 % S-'ee next Chapter. 
 
 § Tatian's Diatessaron was long supposed to have been lost. It has been lately 
 recovered, and a valuable "study" on it has lately been published in England 
 by Mr. Rendel Harris. 
 
GROUNDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCBIP TUBES. U 
 
 includes the Apocalypse of Peter. Internal evidence points 
 'o about 170 A.D. as the date of this fragment.* Origeu 
 (a.d. 200-250) gives a catalogue of all the books of the Xew 
 Testament agreeing with ours.j Athanasius, who was Patriarch 
 of Alexandria from 326 to 373, and who therefore had unusual 
 opportunities of becoming acquainted with the facts, gives a 
 list which corresponds with our own.J The Council of Lao- 
 dicea, a Semi-Arian assembly held circa a.d. 363, accepts all 
 the books received by the Church of England, with the excep-- 
 tion of the Apocalypse. Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who 
 wrote his Catechetical Lectures in a.d. 348, gives in them 
 a list precisely corresponding to that of the Council of Lao- 
 dicea.§ It is unnecessary to multiply authorities further, 
 but we may mention the testimony of Jerome, the translator 
 of the Scriptures into Latin, who may therefore be described 
 as an expert in the subject ; of Augustine, who stands without a 
 rival as a theological teacher among the Latin Fathers ; and of 
 the Council of Carthage (a.d. 397), at which he was possibly 
 present. All these give the same list of the New Testament 
 Scriptures as our own. || That list, with the exception of the Apo- 
 calypse, was formally accepted as correct by a representative as- 
 sembly of the whole Church — the Council held at Constantinople, 
 in TruUo, a.d. G97, to which reference has already been made.^ 
 
 * It has been attributed to Caius, to Papias, and to Hippolytus (the identity of 
 ■whom with Caius is asserted in Bishop Lightfoot's Apostolic Faihers, ii. 318,4%). 
 W'estoott {Introduction to the Gospels, p. 1S6) does not venture to attribute it to 
 any known author. Dr. Sahuon. in his Introduction, thinks it may be the work of 
 Ciiius, but rejects Bishop Lightfoot's theory of the identity of Caius and Hippolytus. 
 
 t In his i^eventh Homily on the Book of Joshua, translated by Pvuflinus. Here he 
 includes the Epistle to the Hebrews among the Pauline writings, unless Euffinus 
 has ventured to con-ect his author, which is by no means unlikely. 
 
 X In his ;:9thPestal Epistle, where he also ascribes the Ep. to the Hebrews to "^t. Pa v.l. 
 
 § iv. ze>. 
 
 \\ The former in Ad Patdinv.m, Ep. 53, the latter in the De Doctr. Clirist., ii. 8. 
 
 1 "We have already touched on the question of the weight to be attached to the 
 decision of this Council in regard to the question of authority and inspiration. But 
 at least that decision fitly closes the ari-ay of aut'.orities for the writings of which 
 it was held that the Scripture Canon was composed. 
 
 B 
 
18 TRINCrPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 All the books of the New Testament Canon, however, do not 
 come before us with precisely the same weight of evidpnce in 
 their favour. Eusebius, a wi'iter renowned for his researches 
 in early Church history, and who, both as a historian and as 
 attached to the court of the Emperor Constantine, had certainly 
 more than ordinary means of information at his command, tells 
 us that in his day the books claiming to be regarded as Scrip- 
 ture were divided into three classes — the oi/,o\oyovix€voi, or univer- 
 sally accepted, the dvTiXeyofjLevoi, or those whose genuineness was 
 questioned, and the voOoiy or spurious.* The avTiXcyofxevoi were 
 the Epistles to the Hebrews, those of St. James and St. Jude, 
 the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, 
 and the Apocalypse. In the last class he puts such writings 
 as the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Pastor of 
 Hermas, a remarkable book in many ways, which attracted 
 much attention in the early Church, but which differs materially 
 in tone and character from what are usu-ally regarded as the 
 Canonical Scriptures, f It will be observed that Eusebius deals 
 with the question simply as one of testimony. He appeals to 
 no authority as decisive on the point. He simply states the 
 facts, and leaves the decision to his readers.^ 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 25. He is confirmed by Cyril of Jerusalera, in his 
 Catechetical Lectures, iv. 36. See also Euseb. Hist. Heel., iii. 3, vi. 14, 26. 
 
 t The Pastor of Hermas is quoted with respect by Origen, but is fiercely assailed 
 by Tertullian as " that apocryphal Pastor of adulterers," because it gives permission 
 to contract second marriages, of which Tertullian strongly disapproved. See his 
 De Pudicitia, c. 10, 20. In the last passage he compares it with the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, much to the advantage of the latter. In the first he speaks of it as con- 
 demned " by every Council of Churches," so that local councils had by his time at 
 least taken upon themselves to reject volumes from the Sacred Canon. In his 
 De Oratione, c. 16, written, as is generally supposed, before he separated from the 
 Catholic Church, he speaks with respect of the Pastor. 
 
 t See Hist. Eccl., iii. 2.5, above cited. He appeals to general consent in regard to 
 some writings, and to difference of opinion with regard to others. He speaks of an 
 "ecclesiastical ti-adition" which has accepted some writings, decisively rejected 
 others, and of writings which the majority, but not all, have recognized as genuine. 
 See also iii. 3 and vi. 14. In none of these passages does he use the word " Canon," 
 though he uses the word "embodied" (et-Side/jpcos). 
 
GROUNDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES. 19 
 
 AYe are now in a position to discuss the question of the 
 grounds on which we receive the Scriptures as of Divine 
 authority. Of the nature and limits of that authority we shall 
 speak in the next chapter. At present let us confine ourselves 
 to the question, Why do we accept the Scriptures as authori- 
 tative ? There are three grounds on which men have been 
 asked to accept the Bible as an authority on matters Divine. 
 The first is the internal evidence, derived from the nature of 
 their contents : their teaching about God and his relation to 
 man, and about man and his relation to God, their lofty 
 morality, the sublime spirit of self-renunciation and trust in 
 God which are inculcated throughout them, their unhesitating 
 preference of duty to expediency, of right to mere shifting 
 human opinion, and above all the inimitable embodiment of 
 the perfect ideal of humanity as realized in the life and words 
 of Jesus Christ — all these have been felt by countless millions, 
 in the course of many centuries, to have been to them a voice 
 from God.* This book, with its confessedly unique power to 
 influence human character and conduct, has commended itself 
 to the conscience of mankind as no other book has done. It 
 has been handed down from parent to child as the most blessed 
 treasure it is possible to possess, and we accept it instinctively, 
 because we have been so taught, as in tnith the very Word of 
 God, until the time when what we have learned from others 
 becomes our own realized experience. 
 
 This, no doubt, is the weightiest ground on which the belief 
 in the sacredness of Holy Scripture is built, and without it, the 
 most elaborate historical arguments would fail of their effect. 
 Nevertheless it is necessary that these internal considerations, 
 strong as they are, should be reinforced by external evidence. 
 For they do not enable the individual reader to discriminate 
 with any certainty between wiitiugs which possess a special 
 
 * See note B. 
 
 B 2 
 
20 FRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
 aafcliorifcy and writings which do not. Tliey do not;, for instance, 
 enable a reader of the Bible to settle the vexed question whether 
 we are to regard the Apocrypha as on an equality with the 
 books of the Old Testament at present received among ourselves. 
 They do not enable us to decide such a question as that juot 
 touched upon, whether the dvnXeycuevoi of Eusebius are of equal 
 authority with the rest of the New Testament. On questions 
 like these a certain amount of external information is necessary 
 to assist us in coming to a right decision. We need to be sup- 
 ported by a certain consensus of authority on a point which 
 the wisest of us might confess to be beyond his powers. Two 
 views of the question are suggested to us by rival schools. The 
 first represents us as receiving the Scriptures as the Word of 
 God on the authority of the Church.* The second regards the 
 Church simply as the " witness and keeper " of the e\'idence for 
 the Scriptures. The testimony in reference to them, it teache-s, 
 is carefully preserved and handed doAvn, and each individual 
 member of the Church, if he pleases, may examine the evidence 
 for himself, or, if he pleases, he may take it upon trust. We 
 naturally seek for the best possible historical evidence for the 
 methods of training employed by God in the ages before 
 the coming of Christ. In the jealously-guarded traditions of 
 the Jews we have the strongest ground for supposing that we 
 have an authentic account of God's dealings with that favoured 
 race before Christ came. And in a set of writings contemporary 
 with the founders of the Christian Church, the evidence for 
 
 * In Mr. Gove's Essay in Lzix Mundi (p. 339), however, this extreme theory 
 appears to have been abandoned. The writers of the K'ew Testament wrote 
 "within the Church, and lor the Chnrch." It is "the judgment of the Church" 
 which "in large part enables us to draw the line between " one " Scripture " and 
 another. So far we may go with Mr. Gore. But it is difficult to follow him when 
 he tells us that the spirit of the Church " co-operated with, and in a real sense 
 limited, the spirit in which" the writers of the New Testament "spoke and wrote." 
 There is no evidence whatever of any such limitation. No Apostle describes him- 
 self as resti-ained in his utterances by the opinions others might have formed on the 
 subject on which he writes. 
 
GEOUXJDS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES. 21 
 
 which has been scrutinized over and over again, we find the 
 best guarantee that we are not deceived in regard to the teach- 
 ing of Jesus Christ. In short, we beheve the Old Testament 
 because there is evidence that it is an accurate account of God's 
 preparation of mankind for the Revelation of God in Christ; 
 the Xew, because we have grounds for accepting it as an 
 authoritative declaration of the object and scope of that Re- 
 velation itself. 
 
 In regard to the first of these two theories, we may observe 
 that it depends upon a simple question of fact. Do we receive 
 Holy Scripture as inspired, simply and solely on the authority 
 of the Church ? If so, when and where was that authority 
 exercised ? When were we authoritatively told that such and 
 such ^n'itings only were Divinely inspired, and that the Clnu'ch 
 demanded that we should accept them at her hands as the 
 Voice of the Spirit of God.? The reply is. Never. It is 
 true that the Council in Trullo gave a list of the books 
 of Holy Scripture. But the Church never on any occasion 
 undertook to deliver the Bible to her children * as an inspked 
 volume. And not only so, but, as we have already seen, the 
 Church has strangely neglected to determine the contents of 
 that volume. As re^-ards the New Testament there is little 
 
 * Or rather to herself. The word " Church," it should be remembert d, is used in 
 theological writings in a double sense. There is supposed to be an EccJesia docens 
 and an Ecclesia discens, and the former, which consists of the clergy, imposes its 
 decrees on the lattex*. But there is not the slightest evidence in Scriptiu-e of 
 such a distinction in Apostolic times. Tlie Church was a body consisting of all 
 persons united to Jesus Christ inwardly by faith and outwardly by participation 
 in the Saci-anients. Tiiis body had no doubt its proper officers, whose business it 
 was to teach and govern. But they were not regarded in the Apostles' days as con- 
 stituting a sepai-ate body by themselves. Consequently the idea of the delivery by 
 the Church to the Church of certain documents which the Church told the Church 
 were Divinely inspirc<l is not only unknown to history, but is an absolute con- 
 tradiction in terms. For the true relation of the Church to the Bible see Bishop 
 yS'estcoWs Bihle in the C/i«rc7i, Preface, p. xi. Also pp. 203, 29.'3, "Usage and not 
 criticism fixed the limits of the Christian Bible, but in this case usage is only 
 another name for a divine instinct, a providential inspiitition. a function of the 
 Christian body." " Canonicity, and not inspiration, was the point to which all the 
 chief authoritative decisions on the Bible pointed." 
 
4 
 22 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 disaorreemeiit. But even there an (Ecumenical Council has 
 omitted to give its sanction to the canonicity of the 
 Apocalypse.* And in regard to the Old Testament, the 
 Eoman Church positively asserts the canonical authority 
 of what we call the Apocrypha, the Eastern Churches 
 have tardily followed in her wake, while the Eeformed 
 Churches have sturdily denied that the Apocrypha has any 
 right to be considered part of the Word of God. Thus history 
 not only fails to indicate to us the formal act by which the 
 Church declared certain ^viitings to be inspired, and bound 
 herself and all her future members to accept that decision, but 
 it displays the various branches of the Church in actual conflict 
 as to the particular writings of which such inspiration is to 
 be predicated.! 
 
 The truth is that the Scriptures are received as inspired not 
 on the authority of the Church, but on the authority of Christ. 
 The Church confines herself to the humbler task of handing 
 down those writings in a condition of as great purity as circum- 
 stances will allow, together with the testimony which attests 
 their genuineness. As regards the Old Testament, Christ has 
 repeatedly set His seal to the contents of the Jewish Canon, as 
 embodying a true account of God's Revelation to the Jews.J 
 
 * The precise weight to be attached to the decrees of the Council in Trullo has 
 been disputed. See Gieselei-'s note, JEccles. Hist., i. 346. Pope Innocent's objection 
 to Canons passed by heretics would apply as much to those of Laodicica as to those 
 of Antioch. For the weight to be attached to the Trullau Canon, see note, p. 8. 
 
 t At the same time it is not denied (see last note but one) that there is a sense 
 in which Church authority may claim great weight. If, as we have seen, the testi- 
 mony of the individual conscience to the Divine authority of these books is a point 
 not to be neglected, the concurrent testimony of the consciences of millions upon 
 millions of men to that same Divine authority, and even the discrimination practi- 
 cally agreed on between one class of books and another, must also be taken into 
 account. But this kind of evidence is not quite the same thing as the acceptance 
 of a formal decree pronounced by the Church as a Leaching body. There is about 
 the same difference between the two as there is between an universal, or all but 
 universal, conviction, and a legal enactment enforcing that conviction. No rational 
 man would be inclined to despise the first ; nor would any reasonable person con- 
 foiuid it with the second. 
 
 t Matt. 21. 42 ; 22. 29 ; 2G. 54 ; Mark 12. 24 ; 14. 19 ; Luke 24. 2::-27 ; John 5. S9, Sec. 
 
GB0UND8 OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCBIPTUHES. 23 
 
 As regards the New, its authority is derived from the fact that 
 it contains either authentic records of the life and words of 
 Christ, written by men who had access to sources whence they 
 could obtain satisfactory information, or an account of His doc- 
 trine by men commissioned to proclaim it to the world.* If 
 there were at any time a doubt about certain of these writicgs, 
 the doubt related to the question whether the evidence for 
 the authorship were sufficient. If the Epistles of St. James and 
 St. Jude, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third 
 Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse, were not universally 
 received, it was not because the Church had not pronounced 
 them to be inspired, but because the evidence which connected 
 them with Christ's accredited agents was considered to be 
 defective. Sometimes, as in the case of the Epistle ascribed 
 to Barnabas, the subject matter was regarded as calculated 
 to bear out the suspicion engendered by the fact that the 
 evidence for genuineness was itself not satisfactory. In 
 no case, however, did the Chm'ch sit in judgment upon the 
 contents of a book and decide ex cathedra from its contents 
 whether it was inspired or no. The simple question which lay 
 before her was whether a document contained a record of the life 
 or doctrine of Christ, by one properly qualified to declare what 
 that life or doctrine was.f If that were the case, she transmitted 
 it to futm-e ages as the utterance of one commissioned to 
 proclaim and inspired to expand those fundamental principles 
 of His Gospel which alone can make us wise unto salvation. 
 
 * The Epistle to the Hebrews is the only exception to this statement. But ^^e 
 may be sure that it would never have obtained the authority in the Church which 
 has been accorded to it, had it not been very generally thought in early times that 
 there was satisfactory evidence that if it were not written by St. Paul, it Mas at 
 least pulished by his authority. See Bp. Westcott, Commentary on Ep. to Hehr. 
 Introd., pp. Ixiv-lxviii. 
 
 t As we shall see in chapter iii„ the inspiration of Christ's immediate successors 
 was declared by Him, as well as by themselves, in very distinct language. It is on 
 this ground, and not on the ground of any Church decree, that our belief in the 
 inspiration of Scripture is based. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 A BEIEF account of the means we have of approximating to 
 -^^ the true text of the Old Testament is necessary to a com- 
 plete outline of the principles of BibUcal Criticism. AYe can- 
 not, of course, cany our researches so near to the age of the 
 originals as in the case of the New Testament, unless, indeed, 
 the theories we are called upon to discuss in the next two 
 chapters should be true, or approach nearly to the truth. 
 
 If the Pentateuch were actually ^mtten at the time of Moses, 
 or shortly after his death, a period of twelve hundred years 
 must have elapsed before the Septuagint Version — the first 
 evidence we have of the character of the actual text — was made. 
 The interval between the composition of the rest of the books 
 and the Septuagint Version varies from nearly twelve hundred 
 to some two or three hundred years before the appearance of 
 the Septuagint Version. It must be candidly confessed that 
 this vast period, during which we have no evidence what- 
 ever of the state of the text, affords some scope for the conjec- 
 tures which have been so liberally resorted to concerning its 
 origin and history.* On the other hand, however, it ought not 
 to be forgotten that similar phenomena present themselves in 
 the case of every ancient book. The writings of Homer, of 
 Hesiod, and other early Greek authors, have come down to us 
 in MSS. of a very much later date than the compositions them- 
 selves. Consequently we have no right to assume any postulates 
 
 * "A thorough-going examination proves that the text preserved with such extra- 
 ordinary care is, after all, only a Textns Receptiis, the relation of which to the 
 original text still remains a question for discussion."— Buhl, Canon and Text of the 
 Old Testament, p. 233. 
 
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 in the case of the Bible which are not universally admitted in 
 the case of other writings of great antiquity. 
 
 The Septuagint Version was made in Egypt. A narrative attri- 
 buted to Aristobulus, a Jewish writer mentioned in 2 Mace. 1. 10, 
 ascribes the inception of the work to Demetrius Phalereus. and 
 states that it was undertaken at the request of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus, B.C. 177. In this statement he is corroborated by another 
 Jewish writer named Aristeas.* But the narrative of Aristeas 
 has been shewn by Hody to be a forgery.f And Demetrius 
 Phalereus did not live in the days of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but 
 of Ptolemy son of Lagus {circ. 290 B.C.). J The translation, it 
 is now supposed, was made at varying times, and is of varying 
 accuracy. The Pentateuch is the most successful portion. The 
 translation of the Prophets and the Psalms was made by men 
 with a comparatively slight acquaintance with Hebrew, and they 
 frequently fall into ludicrous blunders, some of which appear 
 in our Prayer Book Version. § In the second century of the 
 
 * Hody gives the nan-ative of Aristeas in full {see next note). Josephiis, who 
 follows Ai-isteas, states that seventy-two interpreters were shut up together in an 
 island (said by Philo to be that of Pharos), where they all agreed on a translation 
 in seventy-two days. Demetrius, in the presence of all the Jews, read over the 
 book, which was unanimously approved by all present. Philo {Be Vita 3[nsis, ii. 
 139-141, ed. Mangey) states that a certain number of interpreters were gathered 
 together, that each executed a translation, and that when these translations were 
 compared there was such an exact agreement between them as proved the trans- 
 Jatoi's to have been divinely inspired. Justin Martyr {Cohort, ad Grcec. xiii.) adds 
 that each translator occupied a separate cell, and Epiphanius still further em- 
 bellishes the narrative. Clement of Alexandria {Strom, i. '22) gives a more reason- 
 able version. See also Prideaux's Connection, pt. ii., bk. i.. ch. iii.. Buhl, Canon 
 and Text of the Old Testament, sec. 39. 
 
 t Be Bibliorum Textibus Oriyinalibus, bk. i. The only question is— and it has 
 been much debated— whether there is any substratum of truth at the bottom of the 
 story. See authorities quoted in Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, 
 pp. 115, 116. 
 
 X See an interesting article on this subject by Canon Churton in Israel's Watch- 
 }Ha?i, May 1S77. 
 
 § Thus, " high hill " (Ps. 68, 15) is translated opos leivpi^.xivov {curdled hill), and 
 in theVulg. mons coagulatus. The P.B.V. has not followed them here as in some 
 other instances. Thus, "' out of the city," in Ps. 73. 19, is due to the LXX. ec tq .-.oAei 
 (Vulg. in civitate ^Ma), where the true ti-anslation is" when thou awakest " ; and "free 
 among the dead," Ps. 8i. 5, where the proper translation is, "cast away," or 
 
26 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 Christian era, a Jew named Aqnila translated the Old Testa- 
 ment, though the whole of his work has not come down to us. 
 It is chiefly valuable from its slavish literalism, which enables 
 us to determine with a considerable approach to accuracy the 
 text he had before him. Theodotion, stated by some to be 
 an Ebionite or Judaeo-Christian, translated the Old Testament 
 at about the same time, and his version, having a more Christian 
 flavour about it, was held in greater esteem among Christians 
 than the other Greek versions. His version of the Book of 
 Daniel was used in the place of, or parallel with, that of the 
 Septuagint. Symmachus, who is said to have been a Samaritan, 
 or, according to Eusebius, an Ebionite, shortly afterwards trans- 
 lated the greater part, if not the whole, of the Old Testament 
 into Greek. But his translation is somewhat too free.* Thus, 
 between the thii'd century B.C. and the tliird century A.D., we 
 have four independent Greek witnesses for the text of the Old 
 Testament at that time. The time has not yet come for a 
 careful investigation of the bearing of these versions on the 
 determination of the true text of the Old Testament. Scholars 
 
 " cast off." The P.B.V. does not follow them ininsei'ting a negative into the difficult 
 verse Ps. 74. 6 ; on the other hand, in Ps. 42. 6 and Ps^ 68. 30, the LXX. and Vulg. 
 translate correctly," from a little hill," and "Rebuke the beast of the reeds," where 
 the P.B. renders, " the little hill of Hermon," and " the company of the spearmen." 
 Isaiah, too, is very badly translated. In ch. 9. 1, the LXX. is not only unintelligible 
 in itself, but it is an extraordinary and inexplicable rendering of the Hebrew. The 
 Vulgate does not follow the LXX., but does not seem to have understood the passage 
 properly, though it is preferable to the A.V., which has here totally misconceived 
 the passage, though it presents no difficulties whatever to the scholar, and is cor- 
 rectly rendered in R.V. Another instance of strange mis-franslation of an im- 
 portant passage is Zech. 12. 10, " They shall look upon Me Whom they have pierced." 
 The LXX. translatoi's, transposing the letters of the word HD"", render, " and they 
 shall look towards me, because they have insulted [me]." Here neither the A.V, 
 nor the Vulgate is misled by the Greek translators. The above instances, which 
 could easily be multiplied, may serve to shew that the Hebrew knowledge of some 
 of them was but small. Buhl thinks that the translation was in many cases 
 intentionally adapted to the circumstances of the time. See his valiiable remarks. 
 Canon and Text of the Old Testament, sec. 41. He regards the translation of the 
 Psalms as well executed. 
 
 ♦ This is Dr. Davidson's opinion. But Buhl {Canon and Text, v. 157) regards 
 him as of all ancient tianslators the neared to ihe modern ideal. 
 
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 are at present engaged in obtaining a true text of the versions 
 themselves.* 
 
 Our next source of information consists of translations and 
 paraphrases in the other Semitic tongues. First and foremost 
 among these are what are known as the Targums. These are 
 versions of the Scriptures in Chaldee, or as it is now more 
 frequently termed, Aramaic. They are less useful in deter- 
 mining the original Hebrew text than they might be, because 
 they are partly translation, partly paraphrase. The Targum of 
 Onkelos, which is confined to the Pentateuch, is the most 
 useful, because, as a rule, it is a faithful translation of the 
 original, though occasionally paraphrases are introduced. The 
 time when Onkelos flourished has not been exactly ascer- 
 tained, but some believe him to have been contemporary with 
 our Lord. The Targum of Jonathan contains the historical 
 books, save those which are reckoned among the Hagiographa, 
 and the prophets, except Daniel. The date of this Targum 
 is by some supposed to be earUer even than that of Onkelos. 
 It is tolerably literal where it is a ti-anslation. But there is 
 a great deal of interpolated matter | throughout. There is 
 also a Targum on Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, but it is of 
 small critical value. J 
 
 * The Prolegomena of Lagarde, of Nestle (who has completed Tischendorf's work 
 on the LXX.), and of Professor Swete, confine themselves to this last point. 
 Stroth, cited in Buhl, Canon and Text, p. 125. regards the determination of the 
 LXX. text as equivalent in difficulty to "squaring the circle." But Professor 
 Driver, Professor C. H. U. Wright, and others, have done much solid work towards 
 the establishment of a true Hebrew text in particular books. Buhl gives a very 
 full account of the various recensions of the LXX. There seems a doubt (see below, 
 ch. vi.) whether the actual LXX. text of the Book of Daniel is represented in any 
 of the texts which have come down to us. 
 
 t Thus, in the account of Deborah in Judg. 4, there is an addition stating the 
 amount and variety of Deboi-ah's estates, as well as their situation. So in Deborah's 
 song, the paraphrast introduces Tabor, Ilermon, and Carmel, as advancing their 
 claims to be the dwelling-place of God's majesty, as against Sinai. 
 
 X There are also Targums on the rest of the Scriptures, save Daniel, Ezra, and 
 Nehemiah, but they are more of the nature of commentaries than even of para- 
 phrases, and appaiently are of very late date. The same may be said of the Pseudo- 
 
28 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is of course of a far 
 higher critical value, though that value depends very much 
 upon the date which we assign to it.* There is a version of 
 it in the Samaritan dialect. As this version is mentioned by 
 the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, it must have 
 been made before that time. But there is no means of deter- 
 mining exactly its date. 
 
 To these must be added the testimony of the early Christian 
 versions, of which the most important is the celebrated Peshito 
 Syriac Version, which was mentioned in the last chapter. 
 There is also a Yetus Latina, and the Vulgate of Jerome. The 
 former, like the Vetus Latina of the New Testament, seems to 
 have come down to us in various shapes, and it is possible that 
 there were not one, but many versions.f The latter is so well- 
 known that we need only refer to it. It was undertaken by 
 Jerome in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the 
 former version or versions, and bears date A.D. 383-5. As 
 regards the Vulgate, it was found, when it was adopted by the 
 Council of Trent as the Authorized Version of the Latin 
 Church, that the actual text was somewhat difficult to deter- 
 mine. Accordingly Sixtus V. and Clement VIIL issued edi- 
 tions, each of which was declared to be authentic and final, and 
 excommunication was pronounced on any who should venture 
 to alter them. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of scholars that 
 a better edition than either is urgently required. 
 
 The next source of information in regard to the text is the 
 quotations in the Talmud. But these are of little importance, 
 
 Jonathan, and of the Jerusalem Tavgum, both paraphrases of the Pentateuch. 
 There is gi'eat need of a more critical edition of the text of the Targums. The well- 
 known scholar Lagarde has lately undertaken the work, from which, in future, may 
 flow valuable results toward the determining the text of the Old Testament itself. 
 
 * See this question discussed in the next chapter. Buhl says of this text that "it 
 has been so disfigured by errors of transcription, and by arbitrary troatirent, that its 
 critical importance is very much restricted."— Cawow and Text of the Old Testa- 
 ment, p. S9. 
 
 t See above, p. 16. 
 
THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 29 
 
 for two reasons : First, the quotations were scrupulously altered 
 in later times so as to agree with the Masoretic text, and next, 
 the Talmudists occasionally departed from the actual words of 
 Scripture, either by quotations made from memory or by in- 
 tentional departures from the original. 
 
 "\Ye come lastly to the MSS. of the Old Testament. Xot one 
 of these is certainly anterior to the tenth century a.d. Few 
 are earlier than the twelfth. And, therefore, their authority is 
 pima facie decidedly inferior to that of the latest of the versions 
 we have mentioned. There is one circumstance, however, which 
 enhances their value. After the dispersion of the Jews, the 
 Eabbis began to take especial pains to preserve a pure text. 
 They added the vowel points, so as to fix, as far as possible, 
 the pronunciation. They counted the words and letters. 
 They suggested corrections of the written text (Chefhibh) 
 by directions to the reader {Keri). They added a collec- 
 tion of various readings. They even carried this care for 
 the letter of Scripture to such an extent that they have 
 told us which is the middle word of the whole Bible. 
 This attention to the minutest details of the sacred text was 
 coming into fashion as early as the second century a.d. The 
 system was called the IMasorah or tradition,* which between the 
 sixth and eleventh century was handed do^Ti in a written form. 
 It is generally supposed, so great was the zeal for the purity of 
 the text of the scriptures, that our present copies of the Old 
 Testament, much later though they are than the Versions of 
 which we have just spoken, yet represent a decidedly more accu- 
 rate text than the Septuagint, the oldest of the Versions, or 
 even than the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which displays 
 ?o great a family likeness to the Septuagint.f There is one 
 
 * See Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament, pp. 94-101. 
 
 t Tlie labours of Kennicott and De Rossi have furnished ns with information 
 obtaineil from MSS. no lenger extant. See Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testa- 
 ment, p, 90. 
 
80 FEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM, 
 
 means of obtaining a better text, we may add, which lias not 
 at present received the attention it deserves, namely, the light 
 thrown by the later works upon the earlier. Thus, in the Book 
 of Nehemiah, a copy of Ezra 2 is extracted from the archives, 
 and variations are found in the text. So Chronicles often sup- 
 plies the true text of Samuel and Kings. We have in Ps. 53 a 
 later (or as some think an earlier) form of Ps. 14. The text of 
 Jer. 62 does not exactly correspond with 2 Kings 25.* 
 
 In this account of the means the student has at his disposal 
 for ascertaining as far as possible the original text of the Old 
 Testament, the very able and exhaustive account of Dr. 
 Samuel Davidson has in the main been followed. Published as 
 that volume was in 1852, it can hardly, perhaps, be said to 
 represent the last conclusions of critical science. But the stu- 
 dent will, on the whole, jfind in his book the fullest and most 
 impartial account of the principles of Old Testament criticism 
 which is to be met with, at least in his native tongue.f And 
 it must be remembered that the latest fashion in criticism is 
 not always the best. The present tendency of critical science is 
 unquestionably towards hazardous conjecture and daring assump- 
 tion. The volume which we have followed will long continue 
 to be useful to the scholar on account of its combination of 
 learning, critical sagacity, judgment, and honesty. J 
 
 * See Girdlestone, Foundations of the Bible, ch. 27. One of the most i-emarkable 
 cases in which Chronicles supplies the true text is 2 Sam. 21. 19. See 1 Chr. 20. 5. 
 Another instance is 2 Sam. 23. 8, where "that sat" is clearly amistranslation of the 
 first part of the word Jashobeam, and is due to the corruption of the text in 2 Sam. 
 f-ee 1 Chr. 11. 11. The case of Pss. 14 and 53 points, in the opinion of many, to an 
 intentional modification of the text, whereas the case of Ps. 71 and the latter part 
 of Ps. 40 may be explained by corruptions of the text. 
 
 t Further information will be found in Buhl's very useful book on tlie Canon 
 and Text of the Old Testament, lately translated by the Hev. J. Macplierson. 
 
 % The student cannot, of course, be recommended to follow Dr. Davidson im- 
 plicitly. His discussion of the reading " they pierced," in Ps. 22, does not seem to 
 attach sufficient weifrht to the pre-Christian and therefore unprejudiced reading of 
 the LXX. Nor does his treatment of the two versions of the Ten Commandments 
 in Exodus and Deuteronomy seem free from objection. But at least the student 
 will find true criticism in his pages, and not rash or sweeping assertions, such as are 
 too frequently to be met with elsewhere. 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 rpHE subject of this chapter is one which, at the present 
 -*- moment, should be approached with the utmost care. 
 The slightest indication of a doubt in regard to the absolute 
 infalUbilitj of Scripture as the revealed word of God, would, up 
 to a very recent date, have been sufficient to place the doubter 
 in the same category with the most pronounced opponents of 
 the Christian faith. The decisions of our Courts of Appeal in 
 the celebrated Essays and Reviews case in 1858, affirmed for 
 the first time the compatibility of the more liberal sentiments 
 contained in that volume with the formularies of the Church of 
 England. Many of us are old enough to remember the distress 
 and anxiety caused to orthodox Christians by these decisions. 
 Nevertheless, from that moment, what is called the " Broad 
 Chm'ch Party " obtained a secure footing within the pale of 
 our Church, and from that time to the present the authority 
 and influence of that school has been increasing, until it must 
 be confessed at the present time to have sensibly leavened the 
 teaching of the two other parties into which the English Church 
 is divided. We are thus exposed to the full force of a reaction 
 against what has been termed the " Bibliolatry " of popular 
 theology in this country. Many will be of opinion that this 
 reaction is being carried to a dangerous extent among us. It 
 is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the whole question 
 should be argued out afresh, and that the necessary limits of 
 orthodoxy should be, as far as possible, clearly dra^vn. 
 
 It is a misfortune that on the question of the inspiration of 
 Scripture no standard book exists which can be placed on a 
 level with works in other departments of theology, such as 
 
32 FBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Pearson on the Cre.ed, or Butler's 
 Analogy, or even Paley's Evidences. On no subject has there 
 been more loose and rhetorical language, a more conspicuous 
 absence of breadth of thought, clear definition, and careful 
 reasoning, than on this. The best known work on the subject 
 is Dr. Lee's Lectures on Inspiration, delivered before the Uni- 
 versity of Dublin in 1854. It displays great ability and re> 
 search ; but, like a great many other books T^Titten on what is 
 called the orthodox side of the question, it frequently takes too 
 much for granted. Nothing is more common in controversy 
 than for a writer to adduce arguments to prove one point, when 
 in reality they prove another. Theological controversy is no 
 exception to the rule. Accordingly a vast number of writers on 
 the subject are accustomed to quote such passages as " all Scrip- 
 ture is given by inspiration of God," and " holy men of old spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," as though they demon- 
 strated the proposition that the writers of Scripture were inca- 
 pable of error on any point. Because the Fathers of the Church, 
 again, are shewn to have regarded the Scriptures as of Divine 
 authority, or as written by men Divinely inspired, it is supposed 
 that the same conclusion is established by their language. Yery 
 frequently no notice whatever is taken of the fact that the trans- 
 lation of 2 Tim. 3. 16 given above, is not the only or even the 
 most approved rendering of the passage. And it is assumed, 
 rather than proved, that inspiration and inerrancy are con- 
 vertible terms.* But it must be obvious to all fair-miixled 
 persons that this is by no means a self-evident proposition. 
 
 * Thus this ignnrntio eJenchi will be found to pervade the whole of Bp. Browne's 
 treatment of Art. VI. Similar assumptions diminish the value of such treatises as 
 Bannerman on Inspiration (see especially p. 214), Giren's RevelaUo7i,Inspiraiio)i, 
 and the Canon, Hodge's OrttUnes of Theology, Shedd's Dogmatic Theologrj, and 
 other equally well-known books. Whatever our own opinions on the subject may 
 be, we must feel that in the present temper of men's minds assumptions of this 
 kind can no longer safely be made, but the whole question of what is involved in 
 Inspiration must be fully and exhaustively discussed. 
 
THE INSPIRATION OF SCEIPTURE. £3 
 
 Therefore it is necessary to inquire very carefully indeed what 
 is, and what is not, involved in the doctrine of the inspiration 
 of Scripture. 
 
 One of the most rudimentary duties of a te;icher is to define 
 carefully the meaning of the words he uses. The word " inspi- 
 ration," when applied to Scripture, means neither less nor more 
 than this, that its writers were under Divine guidance.* But 
 it must in all fairness be admitted that the extent of that 
 Divine guidance is a legitimate subject of inquiry. It is not 
 competent to us, for instance, to assume, as some have done, 
 that though men acknowledged to be inspired have erred when 
 they acted, they could not possibly have erred when they urote. 
 It will be seen, moreover, that the inspiration of the writers of 
 Scripture was not incompatible with the presence of the human 
 element in their writings. It is, therefore, quite reasonable that 
 Christian men should inquire how far that human element may 
 be supposed to have extended — whether it was compatible with 
 error on any, and if so, on what points. It appears until lately 
 to have been tacitly assumed that such questions as these were 
 outside the limits of orthodox Christian thought. But this 
 position has of late been challenged from all sides. It is, 
 therefore, one on which it is impossible to set aside the Apos- 
 tolic rule that we must "prove all things" before we can 
 "hold fast that which is good." 
 
 Inspiration, then, is Divine guidance. This may either be 
 
 * A striking ilhistration of the -way in which ideas not originally contained in a 
 word may come to be read into it by a general consensus oi teaching, is found by com- 
 paring the definitions of " inspiration " by Johnson and Webster respectively. The 
 former defines it as an " infusion of ideas into the mind by a superior power." But 
 he quotes Dr. W^atts as defining it as " an overpowering impression of any proposi- 
 tion made upon the mind by God Himself," which gives "a convincing and indubi- 
 table evidence of the truth and Divinity of it." Dr. Watts' definition came to be 
 almost universally accepted. Hence Webster's definition is, "the supernatural 
 influence of the Spirit of God upon the human mind, by which prophets, and 
 apostles, and sacred writers were qualified to set forth Divine truth without any 
 admixture of error." It is obvious that properly inspiration means " a breathing 
 in," and Divine inspiration " a breathing in by God." 
 
 c 
 
3J: PEINCIFLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 (1) the direction of our hearts and consciences, as in our prayer 
 that by God's "holy inspiration we may think those things 
 that be good " ; * or (2) it may refer to the authoritative com- 
 munication of a Divine message, such as a prophecy, of which 
 the matter, and it may even be the words, are dictated by God 
 Himself ; or (3) it may simply refer to that general guidance 
 Avhich enables men to record facts or to impart teaching which is 
 calculated to " make men wise unto salvation." It is in the two 
 last senses that the word is used of the inspiration of Scripture. 
 We proceed then to a brief inquiry into the nature and 
 limits of inspiration, as taught in the Scriptures, and believed 
 on in the Church. It will be convenient to commence by 
 stating the rival theories which have contend*.d 1 )r the mastery 
 in our own time. AYe shall thus more clearly apprehend the 
 force of the argmnent from Scripture and antiquity. The 
 course of theological thought since the Eeformation has run in 
 two main channels. These may be described respectively as the 
 mechanical and dynamical theories. Both these theories, how- 
 ever, until very lately, maintained the absolute inf allibihty of 
 Scripture, at least so far as its direct religious teaching was 
 concerned. The modification of the second theory which has 
 permitted men to question even the infallibiUty of the theologi- 
 cal statements of Scripture, and which confines inspiration to 
 a general guidance of the main current of thought, would, 
 until lately, have been as unhesitatingly rejected by followers of 
 the Evangelical as by those of the Tractarian school. But 
 members of both these schools have at the present time shewn 
 a marked and most sm-prising disposition to come to terms 
 with it.f 
 
 * Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Easter. 
 
 t It is a question whether the utterances in Lux Mundi, or the -way in which the 
 question was treated by many wi-iters in the correspondence which appeared in the 
 columns of the Record newspaper in the early part of 1892, are more startling to 
 ordinary observers. 
 
THE IXSPIBATIOX OF SCBIPTURE. 35 
 
 The mechanical theory, which regards the sacred -uTiters as 
 mere instruments used by the Holy Spirit to convey his teach- 
 ing, like the keys of an organ, or the tools used by a workman, 
 has never received the support of any great thinker among 
 our divines. But it has laid fast hold of the popular mind^ 
 As the history of popular en'ors abundantly shews, unin- 
 structed persons are accustomed to attach more importance to 
 clearness than to correctness in definition. The case of 
 inspiration is unfortunately not the only one in which a 
 doctrine, which to thoughtful men bristles with difficulties, 
 is accepted by the unthinking because it saves the trouble of 
 thought. The theory of mechanical inspiration, as we have 
 just seen, regards the writers of Holy Scripture as mere 
 passive machines. The writer is supernaturally guided in 
 the use of his words as well as in the direction of his 
 thoughts. His individuality plays actually no part whatever 
 in the work he produces. This theory is definite and in- 
 telligible enough. But there are two rather serious objec- 
 tions to it ; first, that the facts are against it, and next, 
 that its only logical outcome is universal verbal inspiration. It 
 is true that many supporters of the mechanical theory have 
 shrunk from following it out to its natural conclusion. They 
 have held that though the writer of Holy Scripture may have 
 been left to his own choice in regard to the form of his 
 sentences, yet he was supernaturally directed in regard to their 
 matter. But this is in reality to abandon the mechanical 
 theory altogether. If the writer of Holy Scripture were a 
 mere machine, he must surely have been guided in the choice of 
 his words as weU as in the matter which those words exi^ressed. 
 Indeed the choice of words is a most important point in the 
 proper expression of the matter. On the other hand, if he be 
 allowed any choice whatever, he ceases to be a mere machine. 
 
 C 2 
 
86 PBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICI8M. 
 
 Thus the mechanical theory, either in its logical or its modified 
 form, is plainly untenable. As regards the former, the occur- 
 rence of a single various reading, or the presence of a single 
 direction to the Keri, or reader, to correct the Chethihh, or 
 ^yritten text, is practically fatal to such a theory. For such 
 variations are demonstrable evidence that the Holy Spirit of 
 God, Who made use of passive instruments for teaching man- 
 kind His Will, did not take any means to preserve to the world 
 the teaching He had given, and that thus he permitted His 
 own appointed method of instruction to become useless. The 
 conclusion, at least, cannot be contested by the advocates of 
 verbal inspiration, that if the original writers of the Old and 
 Xew Testament were verbally inspired, we have not their words 
 before us now, and the Scriptures, therefore, as we have them, 
 are no longer verbally inspired. For as every student of 
 Scripture knows, such phenomena as various readings present 
 themselves by thousands in the Hebrew and Greek texts. Thus 
 it is impossible to maintain the theory of verbal inspiration, 
 unless we further insist that the Holy Spirit, Who dictated 
 every word of Scripture to each several writer in order to com- 
 municate an infallible revelation to mankind, has not provided 
 means for the preservation of that revelation in its true and 
 necessary form, but has permitted His Church to suffer the 
 irreparable loss of that inestimable treasure. 
 
 This is not, however, the only argument against the theory 
 of a mechanical inspiration. Nothing can be clearer than the 
 fact that the writers of Holy Scripture did not altogether 
 lose their individuality by being made the channels whereby 
 God's truth was communicated to man. The peculiarities of 
 style and of individual disposition and habit of thought are so 
 distinctly marked on the very surface of Holy Writ, that it 
 were unnecessary in a brief treatise of this kind, to do more 
 
THE IKSPIjRATIOy OF SCBIPTUBE. 37 
 
 than allude to them.* And there is a yet more serious objec- 
 tion to this theory. If the Holy Spirit of God dictated the 
 matter of every sentence in Holy Scripture, then every sentence 
 must be regarded as infallible truth. " It is impossible for 
 God to lie." It is equally impossible for Him to be deceived 
 on any point whatever. And thus every portion of Scripture, 
 if we except copyists' errors, is on the same level as tlie rest. 
 It were as sinful to doubt the exact accuracy of a genealogy in 
 Chronicles, an historical detail concerning Ehud, or Jezebel, or 
 Belshazzar, as it would be to reject the Sermon on the Mount 
 or the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John. Kot only does 
 there seem some reason for regarding this theory as unreason- 
 able in itself, but we may even contend that it is derogatory to 
 Christ, as well as contrary to fact. Um'easonable in itself, 
 because inspired Scripture can hardly have been needed to 
 teach us anything that we might have learned without its aid. 
 Derogatory to Christ, because it puts the most unimportant 
 facts recorded in Holy Scripture on a level with the gospel of 
 salvation through His Xame. And contrary to fact, because it 
 is no longer possible to deny that we find in Scripture occa- 
 sional errors in points of detail not closely connected with its 
 sacred message. 
 
 "We proceed then to the consideration of what has been called 
 the dynamical theory. From this point of view the authors of 
 the various books of Holy Scripture, while permitted to become 
 the channels of a Divine communication to mankind, retained 
 nevertheless their own individuality. That is to say, while the 
 
 * Each book of the Bible has its peculiar chavneterislics. St. Jlatthe^v's Gospel, 
 for instance, is didactic, St. Mark's gi-aphic, St. Luke's sympathetic, St. John's con- 
 templative. St. Paul is argumentative and eloquent, St. Peter simple and eai-nest, 
 St. James hortatorj'and intensely practical. None can fail to recognize the majesty 
 of Isaiah, the tender individualism of Jeremiah, the simplicity and rever ty of 
 Ezekiel. Even the histories display striking contrasts. The same narrative is 
 told in a spirit of uncompromising and rigorous fidelity of light and shade in 
 Kings, and in a spirit of serene and charitable optimism in ChioniLlcs. 
 
38 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 substance of their wTitings is Divine, their form is determined 
 by the personal character and history of each particular writer. 
 This theory is obviously capable of much variety of statement, 
 according to the extent to which the doctrine of Divine com- 
 nmnication on the one hand, or individual idiosyncrasy on the 
 other, is pushed. Some writers — e.g., Dr. Lee — seem not to 
 admit of degrees of Divine Inspiration, but to contend that 
 all the writers in the Bible were equally under the direction of 
 the Holy Spirit, and therefore, at least so far as direct teaching 
 on things Divine is concerned, equally infallible. Others — e.g., 
 the late Bishop "Wilson, of Calcutta — distinguish between various 
 kinds or degrees of inspiration.* Both these classes of writers 
 regard Scripture as infallible in its utterances, so far at least 
 as actual moral or spiritual teaching is concerned. Other 
 writers have taken a different view. Thus Paley contends that 
 we need not " defend the propriety of every comparison, or the 
 validity of every argument which" an Apostle "brings into 
 a discussion."! Coleridge, while he is willing to accept as 
 " a direct communication from God " whatever the " sacred 
 penman " refers to as such,t and regards the Bible as " the ap- 
 pointed conservator, an indispensable criterion, and a continual 
 source and support of true belief," does not beHeve it to be the 
 sole, or even an infallible source of instruction in things Divine. 
 He asserts that "it contains," but does not "constitute the 
 Christian religion." It is not, in his view, " a creed, consisting 
 wholly of articles of faith." And he insists on our need of 
 " some help and guide, spiritual or historical, to teach us what 
 
 * Bishop W^ilson conceives of four degrees or stages of inspiration:— (1) Superin- 
 tendence, which simply preserves from error ; (2) Elevation, which imparts power 
 and dignity to language in which the communication is made ; (3) Direction, 
 which prescribed the channels in which the thought should flow ; (4) Suggestion, 
 which communicated the thought direct to the writer. See his Evidences of 
 Christianity, i. 506. 
 
 t Evidences, pt. iii., ch. ii. 
 
 X Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, p. 27. 
 
THE INSPIRATION OF SCEIPTURE. 89 
 
 parts are, and what parts are not, articles of faith."* This 
 view of Holy Scripture has found an increasing number of 
 supporters of late years. Dr. Arnold, in his correspondence,! 
 warmly commends it. The teaching of Schleiermacher, again, 
 has met with considerable attention in this country. He be- 
 lieves the sole object of Scripture inspiration to be the awaken- 
 ing and elevation of man's religious consciousness, the portraiture 
 of Christ, and the proclamation of His life and teaching by 
 His first followers in such a way as to bring forcibly home to 
 the human heart the practical consequences of the revelation of 
 God in Christ.J In other words inspii'ation, in his view, is not 
 so much the channel of revelation as its application. It is 
 rather an impulse than a communication. It translates the 
 appeal to the intellectual faculties into action. It is the motive 
 power which brings the truth to bear upon the life.§ The 
 majority of theologians, however, still regard the Scriptures 
 as the means whereby religious truth is communicated. Thus 
 Bishop Westcott defines inspiration as "a direct intelligible 
 communication of the Divine will to chosen messengers." || 
 This definition, though apparently clear enough, wiU how- 
 ever be found on examination to involve a good deal of 
 diflBculty. First of all, do the Scriptures constitute, or do 
 
 * Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, p. 51. 
 
 t Letter to IMr. Justice Coleridge. Arnold thinks that the result of Coleridge's 
 publication of his opinions will be " the higher exalting and more sui-e establishing 
 of Christian truth." 
 
 J Schleiermacher lays it down as a fundamental principle {Glaiibenslehre, sec. 
 12S) , that respect for the Holy Scripture cannot be a foundation of our faith, but 
 that our faith must be firmly grounded before we can feel respect for Scripture. 
 If our faith in Christ as a Saviour is founded on Scripture, on what, he asks, is our 
 behef in Scripture founded ? He looks upon the New Testament as the norm of all 
 future representations of Christian belief, and the Old Testament as owing its place 
 in the Bible partly to the respect shewn it in the New, and partly to the connection 
 between Jewish and Christian worship. But he assigns to the former an inferior 
 place to that occupied by the latter {ibid. sec. 129-132). 
 
 § This, so far as his meaning can be ascertained, seems the theory of ]\Iaurice in 
 the Essay on Inspiration found among his Theological Essays, pp. 314-347. 
 
 II Introduction to tlie Study of the Gospels, p. 10. 
 
40 TBINCIFLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM, 
 
 they only contain, this " direct intelligible communication of the 
 Divine will " ? Next, does this " direct intelligible communica- 
 tion " determine the form in which these messengers impart it 
 to others, or are we only to gather it from a general considera- 
 tion of the spirit of the passage in which it appears ? * 
 
 These, it appears to the writer, are the questions which have 
 hitherto been settled by assumption rather than by argument. 
 They are therefore the questions to which the attention of in- 
 quirers must be directed. It is not our purpose to enter upon a 
 full discussion of them in the present work. Ours is a humbler 
 function, that of briefly indicating the direction in which the 
 materials for their settlement is to be found. These are, first, 
 the statements of Scripture itself, as well as the authorized 
 formularies of the Catholic Church, next, the verdict of an- 
 tiquity, and lastly, the history of the growth and formation of 
 opinion in later times. 
 
 The teaching of Scripture on the authority of the Bible refers 
 almost exclusively to the Old Testament. It is true that St. 
 Peter, in his second Epistle, classes the Epistles of St. Paul 
 with the " other Scriptures," and therefore claims for them 
 the same authority as is ascribed to the rest.| We have 
 already referred to two other passages on whicli theories of 
 
 * It would seem from a passage in the Bishop's Commentary on the Hebrews 
 (p. 493), that this communication of the Divine Will through the medium of Holy 
 Scripture is compatible with the theory of the Pentateuch to which attention is 
 drawn in the next chapter. It is obvious, however, that on that theory we are in 
 considerable doubt on the question who were the messengers, and why and how 
 they were chosen for their task. And the nature of the "direct intelligible com- 
 munication" is rendered extremely difficult to determine by the mode in which, 
 on that theory, it was made, and the media through which it was transmitted to 
 us. The Bishop, however, rejects the legendary theory of Scripture which allows 
 of only a " residuum of truth," as well as the theory of inspiration which regards 
 it as simply an exercise of poetic fancy, " investing with a lasting form the transi- 
 tory growths of time" (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 5). He would 
 thei'efore decline to endorse a view like that of Pi'ofessor Cheyne, who looks on 
 the writer of the Elijah nari^tives as an "unconscious artist," and i-idiculea the 
 idea of such narratives being true to fact (Halloiving of Criticism, p, 5). 
 
 t 2 Pet. 3. 16. The Second Epistle of 8t. Peter, it must be remembered, was not 
 universally accepted in the early church as the work of the Apostie. 
 
THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 41 
 
 inspiration have been based.* "With regard to a fourth pas- 
 sage f it is doubtful whether in it our Lord commands the 
 study of the Scriptures, or whether he simply states the fact 
 that the Jews are accustomed to study them. He further men- 
 tions an opinion justly entertained by the Jews that eternal life 
 is to be found in their pages, and ends by declaring that they 
 testify of Him. No very definite doctrine of inspiration can 
 be based on these words. Nor is the statement that " not one 
 jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled,"! 
 sufficient to support the allegation that the Law was infallible ; 
 on the contrary, in the very same discourse we find Jesus 
 abrogating some of its provisions. § Again, Christ is reported 
 to have said "the Scriptui*e cannot be broken." || But these 
 words cannot be pressed so as to assert the infaUibiUty of every 
 sentence in the Old Testament, nor need they mean anything 
 beyond the fact that the Scriptures which the Jews revere use 
 similar language to that which His critics rebuked in Christ. 
 Old Testament prophecies, it is true, are cited by Christ as de- 
 cisive.^ But direct prophecy, as Bishop Wilson has seen, stands 
 upon a different basis to other parts of Holy Writ. On the other 
 hand we must carefully bear in mind that both our Lord and 
 His Apostles invariably cite Scripture as possessing a special 
 and paramount authority. Thus our Lord speaks of Ps. 110 as 
 spoken by the Holy Ghost.** St. Paul makes the same claim 
 for his own teaching.f | All the writers in the New Testament 
 appeal to Scripture as a final and incontrovertible authority. 
 Their example may be pleaded on behalf of an unbounded 
 reverence even for its letter, and still more for its spirit. Still, 
 the question which has now to be discussed is this : How far 
 
 • Above, p. 32. t Jolin 5. 39. J Bratt. 5. IS. 
 
 § Slatt. 5. 34, 39, 44. || Jolm 10. 35. 1 E.g. Vs. 110. and Zech. 13. 7. 
 
 *• Mark 12. 3G : cf. Acts 1. 16 ; 28. 25 ; Heb. 3. 7 ; 9. 8. 
 
 ttl Cor. 2.4. 13; 7.40; 14.37,38; 1 Thess. 1. 5 ; 4. 2; 2 Thess. 3. 12, &c. : cf, 
 Mark 13. 11; Acts 15. 28; 21. 11. 
 
42 FEINCLPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 is such reverence to extend ? Does it amount to the doctrine 
 that every statement in reference to religion throughout its 
 pages must be regarded as actually infallible ? This is the 
 question which has been revived in the present age, and which 
 demands re-investigation by the aid of the fullest light which 
 facts can throw upon it. The object of this chapter is to state 
 these facts for the reader's consideration, but not, in the present 
 stage of the inquiry, to endeavour to formulate conclusions. 
 This is strictly in accordance with the traditions of the past. 
 No definition of inspiration was ever formulated by an 
 (Ecumenical Council. The Nicene Creed, the only document 
 issued by such a council as of universal obligation, contains 
 none such.* The Catholic Church, therefore, stands com- 
 mitted to none. And it is remarkable that no early council 
 whatever has attempted to promulgate any such definition.! 
 The deepest reverence was always felt for the sacred volume. 
 It was always appealed to as the ultimate authority on any 
 controverted point. But no precise theory seems to have been 
 formed as to the nature, and limits, if any, of that inspiration 
 upon which its authority depended. 
 
 We proceed therefore to such a sketch as our limits permit 
 of the teaching of the early Church on the point. And here 
 we must remark, in limine, that the same tendency to use 
 expressions which prove one point as if it actually served to 
 establish another, will be found here, as in other branches of 
 
 * The Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds, which, though they were not issued by 
 Conciliar authority, have nevertheless been very widely received, also contain no 
 such definition. 
 
 t "If we accept the inspiration of Scripture without attempting to define it, we 
 only follow the example of the Universal Church."— Archdeacon Farrar, Bampton 
 Lectures, Preface, p. xx. He cites in a note Archbishop Tait, Archbishop Thomson, 
 Bishop Thirlwall, Bishop Ellicott, Bishop Harold Browne, Bishop CotTon (of 
 Calcutta), and Dean Burgon in support of this statement. He might also have 
 cited Bishop Harvey Goodwin, who {Hulsean Lectures, pp. 80, 81) remarks that 
 neither the Catholic Church at large, nor the Church of England in particular, has 
 laid down any theory of inspiration. And even Bishop Christopher Wordsworth (in 
 his Hulsean Lectures, p. 15) says, "inspiration is not omniscienrp." 
 
THE IXSriBATIOX OF SCRIPTURE, 43 
 
 the argument. In common faii'ness we are bound to remem- 
 ber that assertions of tlie perfection of Scripture, of its unsur- 
 passed and unsurpassable importance, of its necessity, and even 
 of its inspiration, do not amount to a logical proof of the 
 proposition that it was held to be on all points, or even on all 
 theological points, infallible. We must remember, too, that 
 the systematizing Latins very early began to use expressions 
 stronger than those to be found, as a rule, among the philo- 
 sophic and inquiring Greeks. "We refer our readers to Dr. 
 Lee's Catena for the proof of the fact, which scarcely needs 
 proof, that the Scriptures were regarded as of the highest value 
 and authority ; that they were regarded as inspired, divine, 
 spiritual, and the Uke.* There is no doctrine for which the 
 " unanimous consent of the Fathers " can be more safely 
 pleaded than for this. "VYe may admit, again, that the pre- 
 dictions of the prophets were universally regarded by the 
 Fathers as directly communicated from on high. But as 
 prophecy is a thing sui generis, this does not, as some ^Titers 
 seem to suppose, justify us in assuming that they taught that 
 the rest of Scripture is the result of an equally direct in- 
 spiration. Tertullian speaks very strongly of the paramount 
 authority of Holy Scripture ; but he regards it as founded on 
 the fact that it was written by men who dehvered to others 
 what they had received from Christ. And he adds that none 
 ought to imagine that they could understand the Scriptures 
 unless they had been previously instructed in the regidafidei, or 
 first principles of the doctrine of Christ.j Origen, as is usual 
 
 * Ex uno disce omnes. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself the 
 disciple of St. John, says {Adv. liter, ii. 2S),"We know that the Scriptures are 
 perfect, for they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit." Justin Martyr, 
 however, goes farther (Uial. c. Tryph.,c.65). He says that the Scriptures cannot 
 possibly contradict each other, and if any apparent contradiction occurs he had 
 rather confess his own ignorance than impute inconsistency to the Sacred Volume. 
 
 + See his De PrtBseriptione Hceveticorum throughout, and compare his language 
 with that of Cok'riage above, p. i;S. 
 
44 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 with him, lets drop assertions in his voluminous writings which 
 are mutually contradictory. He sometimes appears to regard 
 every letter of the Bible as inspired. But we are surely to look 
 for his more matured and carefully considered opinions in his 
 De Principiis* In the fourth book of that work he regards the 
 letter of Scripture as of comparatively little consequence. In 
 one place he even seems to suppose that it may be hurtful.j 
 Athanasius regards the Scriptures as an authority above that of 
 any synod, and quite sufficient for the proclamation of the 
 truth.J Augustine, though he places the four Gospels above 
 all the rest of the Scriptures in importance and dignity, § yet 
 cites them throughout his writings, as if every word were of 
 equal or supreme authority. Eusebius and Epiphanius, how- 
 ever, use far stronger language than this. The former 
 considers it " rash and headstrong " to believe it possible that 
 
 * Origen's position has been frequently, it might almost be said universally, mis- 
 understood until very lately. He was the Kepler, so to speak, of Christian philo- 
 sophy, the pioneer of Christian free inquiry. He continually hazards suggestions, 
 which in later times were condemned as heretical assertions. The mistake has been 
 in treating these sparks of thought, struck out in a momentary heat, as his deliberate 
 belief. A careful student of his works will find that one passage requires to be 
 considered in the light of many others, in which quite a different opinion is ex- 
 pressed or suggested. 
 
 t De Principiis, iv. Similai-ly, in his Fifth Homily on Leviticus, he imputes 
 ei-ror to the Old Testament Scriptures in regard to the Sin-offering. 
 
 X He repeats the last phrase in his De Synodis, c. 6, and in Contr. Gent,, c. 1. In 
 his Festal Letter for the year 367, he calls the Scriptures the fountains of salvation, 
 through which alone the teaching of religion is transmitted. 
 
 § De Consens. Uv., c. 1. But he also in the same passage compares the Apostles 
 to the hands which wrote that which was dictated by the Head. And while 
 (Fp. 82, c. 3) he says that he believes no error was possible in the Canonical Books, 
 and that if any should appear, it was due to the mistakes of copyists, he neverthe- 
 less, in the same letter, is regarded by Hagenbach (History of Doctrines, sec. 121) 
 as setting the authority of St. Paul above that of St. Peter. But this is scarcely 
 exact. Augustine contends that it were more reasonable to conceive that St. Peter 
 acted wrongly than that St. Paul wrote wrongly. It is to the Sacred Scripture, "in 
 summo et coelesti auctoritatis culmine collocatam," that he is to refer for a true 
 judgment on human opinion and human action (c. 5). Yet again, in the same 
 Epistle, he refers the work of Jerome not only to the guidance, but even to the 
 dicta/ion of the Holy Ghost (ibid. c. 2). At the Council of Nicaca, the four Gospels 
 only were placed on a throne in the midst of the assembly. 
 
THE INSPIEATION OF SCIilFTUBE, 45 
 
 the Psalmist could make a mistake in a name,* and the latter 
 is equally indignant with anyone who would contend that in 
 a particular passage an Apostle might be supposed to have 
 "spoken as a man."! Jerome takes the opposite view. He 
 thinks that St. Mark, in ch. 2, 26, might have written xibiathar 
 by mistake for Ahimelech.J But the Fathers everywhere cite 
 the Scriptures as an incontrovertible authority on questions of 
 theology, nor does Paley's idea appear to be anywhere enter- 
 tained that they could possibly have made mistakes even in 
 argument. Thus, though the Fathers have formulated no 
 doctrine of inspiration, they appear to have reached a practical 
 unanimity as to the infalUbity of the Scriptures in matters 
 theological. § Only Theodore of ]\Iopsuestia stands apart from 
 all others in the freedom of his opinions, and regards Job and 
 the Song of Solomon as purely human compositions. 
 
 The testimony of the wiiters of the Middle Ages runs in 
 precisely the same channel. But it is weakened by the fact 
 that the great doctors of the Church, and notably Augus- 
 tine, were cited as authorities in precisely the same way as 
 Scripture itself. It is true that Aquinas regards God as the 
 author of Scripture, and Scripture itself as capable of declaring 
 the truth without mistake. || But it is difficult to find any 
 
 • Comment, in Ps. 34. t Adv. Hcer., bk. iii. ; Hcer. 76. 
 
 t So it is frequently stated, but I have been unable to find the passage. Similarly 
 in his Commentary on Genesis 46. 27, he contends that St. Luke has deliberately 
 followed the Septuagint in its reading of the family of Jacob as seventy-fivo 
 instead of seventy, though he knew it to be wrong. It would not have been proper 
 for St. Luke, he says, to correct the text of a volume which was already diffused 
 among the Gentiles. He admits the possibility of solecisms in style in the Scrip- 
 tures. Dr. Lee, in his Lectures (p. 72), quotes Euthymius as saying that the 
 Evangelists were but men, and might occasionally forget what they had said. 
 
 § In Appendix G of Dr. Lee's Lectures a vast number of patristic quotations 
 may be found. But while all the writers with one consent express the deepest 
 reverence for Holy Scripture, not one of them, if we except the two above 
 mentioned, says a single word about the possibility or impossibility of error in 
 Scripture. 
 
 II Summa Theologice. Queest, i., art. 10. Aquinas, however, held that several senses 
 frequently lay hid under the letter of a particular passage of Scripture. 
 
46 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 practical difference in his pages between the authority of 
 Scripture and that of the Fathers. 
 
 We come to the period of the revival of learning. And here 
 we find ourselves in contact with a freer tendency in relation to 
 the Scriptures. The Reformers, and especially Luther, occa- 
 sionally protested against a hyper-literal treatment of the sacred 
 text. But the scholastic spirit was strong within them. They 
 were nothing if not systematic and polemical. And so they 
 practically threw the weight of their influence into the scale 
 of the doctrine that every sentence, if not every word, of the 
 Scripture was inspired.* The men of the New Learning, whose 
 tendency was philosophical, and who had no appetite for the 
 problems, theological and practical, which in those days were 
 urgently — perhaps too urgently — clamouring for solution, were 
 in favour of a broader and more liberal treatment of the ques- 
 tions of the day. They considered that the respect for the 
 letter of Scripture had been exaggerated, and recommended a 
 far more careful attention to its spirit. They deprecated the 
 habit of quoting texts in support of this or that theological 
 
 * Hagenbach, in his History of Doctrines, while he attributes to Luther, 
 Calvin, and Zwingle the highest reverence for the contents of Holy Scripture, finds 
 in them no definite assertion of its infallibility on all points. Calvin, however, only 
 admits that there may be a " stilus rudis et crassus." Zwingle, while he grants 
 that in external things the sacred writers may err, yet on points of impoi-tance they 
 never err (" in persona et tempore nonnunquam. in re tamen nunquam." Annot.in 
 Genes, v. 27). Luther, however, goes much farther in his Preface to the New 
 Testament of 1522. There he distinguishes between the value of one book of the 
 New Testament and another. St. John's Gospel, St. Paul's Epistles, especially 
 those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter's First Epistle, are 
 " the true marrow and kernel of all the books." " AVood, straw, and hay " may 
 be mingled with the Epistle to the Hebrews. St. James's Epistle is "right strawy 
 compared with them, for it has no character of the Gospel in it." This last obser- 
 vation was removed from subsequent editions of the preface. Kiistlin, in his 
 account of Luther's theology (i. 98), points out how his polemic with Rome forced 
 him to insist on the authority of Scripture, and how he always held the Cross of 
 Christ to be the true source of all its greatness. Karlstadt divided the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures into three groups of unequal authority. Calvin held free views as 
 to the antilegomena, saying of the Second Epistle of St. Peter that he did not find 
 in it "Peter's genuine phraseology." See Bp. Westcott, Bible in the Church, 
 pp. 2G0-273, and Tholuck on Calvin as an interpreter of Scripture. 
 
THE IXSPIIiATIOX OF SCIilPTUIiE. 47 
 
 proposition, and believed that it stood in the way of a sounder 
 and more gradual evolution of truth, in which principles, 
 rather than words, should determine the meaning of Divine 
 Revelation.* 
 
 The Confessions of the Reformed Churches did not at first 
 display the tendency to insist on the infallibility of Scripture 
 which in later days has been so marked a feature in the Re- 
 formed Communions. Thus our Thirty-nine Articles confine 
 themselves to the statement that "Holy Scripture containeth 
 all tilings necessary to salvation," and that whatsoever is not 
 read therein nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required 
 of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, 
 or be thought requisite and necessary to salvation. f The 
 Augsburg Confession, the sixty-seven conclusions put forward 
 by Zwingle in 1523, the sunmiary of his doctrine afterwards 
 presented to Charles Y., as well as his last Confession of 
 Faith, contain no article on Holy Scripture. The first Basel 
 Confession also has no article on Holy Scripture. The Confes- 
 sion of certain doctors in theology drawn up at Berne in 1528, 
 simply appeals to Scripture as the authority for the proposi- 
 tions therein set forth. The same may be said of Calvin's 
 Catechism (1538). The second Confession of Basel (1536) 
 states that Scripture was delivered by the Holy Spirit, and 
 
 * Colet's letters to Radulphus explain his view of Holy Scripture. It subor- 
 dinated the letter to the spirit. He regarded Moses as speaking in a spirit of 
 accommodation to the understanding of the people with whom he had to deal. 
 Here he seems to have followed Chrysostom in his Commentary o» Genesis. 
 He further speaks of Moses as adopting the method of a popular poet, and regards 
 his treatment of the order of the days in creation as a poetic figment adopted in 
 order to make the general plan of creation understood by those to whom he spoke. 
 So he sees in the statement of the rest of the seventh day only another poetic 
 figment to recommend the observance of the Sabbath. Erasmus at first questioned 
 these opinions, but appears to have ultimately accepted them. The best proof of 
 this is the unbroken friendship of the two men, and the eulogium passed by 
 Erasmus upon the life and work of Colet after the death of the latter. 
 
 + Art. VI. We have, however, in Art. XX. a reference to Scripture as "God's 
 word written" ; and Art. VI. itself speaks of the Canonical Scriptures as those "of 
 whose authority was never any doubt in the Church," 
 
48 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 alone contains perfectly all piety and the whole rule of life. 
 The Galilean Confession (1561) teaches that Scripture contains 
 and presents the will of God, and is " the certain rule of our 
 faith." The second Helvetic Confession (1566) goes a little 
 further. The "Canonical Scriptures," according to it, "are 
 the true Word of God." They "have sufficient authority in 
 and of themselves, and not from men." " God in them still 
 speaks to us as He did to the Fathers." "Nothing should 
 be added to, or taken from them." "All proof of dogmas 
 and refutation of errors must be sought from them."* The 
 Belgic Confession (1561), received at Dort in 1619, uses 
 stronger language. "We believe fully," it asserts,! "all 
 things contained in them," not so much on the authority of 
 the Church as because the Holy Spirit testifies in us that they 
 are from God. They "perfectly contain the will of God." 
 " Whatsoever a man ought to believe in order to be saved, is 
 sufficiently taught in them." " Their doctrine is quite perfect 
 and complete in every respect." No writings of men, however 
 holy, no custom, no voice of a great multitude, nor antiquity, 
 nor succession of times or of persons, nor councils, nor decrees, 
 nor statutes, ought to be compared with them, " for the truth 
 is above all."t This Confession goes a great deal further than 
 the earlier Confessions in the direction of Scriptural infalli- 
 bility. But the Westminster Confession goes still further. It 
 declares "the entire perfection," the "infallible truth," the 
 "Divine authority," of Holy Scripture, and declared that 
 "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture is the supreme 
 judge by which all controversies are to be determined." § 
 
 * Ch. T. The Holy Scriptures. Schafl, Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant 
 Churches, p. 237. 
 
 t Art. V. lb., p. 386. 
 
 t Art. VII. lb., p. 388. In Art. III. it is stated that God commanded His 
 servants to commit His revealed word to writing. 
 
 § Professor Briggs, in his Biblical Study, p. 145, reminds us of the controversy in 
 the l7th century between the famous John Owen and the no less famous Walton, 
 
THE IXSPIRATIOX OF SCRIPTURE. 49 
 
 The result of this survey is that while all authorities, early 
 or late, agree in attaching the utmost importance to the autho- 
 rity of Holy Scripture, their testimony to its absolute infalli- 
 bility is on the whole rather negative than positive. It may, 
 no doubt, be safely affirmed that no early or mediaeval wi'iter 
 would have thought of admitting the possibility of mistake in 
 Scripture, at least as far as religious teaching was cor.cerned. 
 Yet still no doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture was formu- 
 lated, and, as we have seen, it was not until a comparatively late 
 date that a catalogue of the Books of Holy Scripture was for- 
 mally approved. At. the Reformation a tendency towards a freer 
 view of the authority of Scripture began to shew itself, but it 
 was promptly suppressed on account of the theological con- 
 troversy which sprung up between the Reformers and Rome. 
 In the doctrinal disputes which were introduced l)y the Re- 
 formation it was absolutely necessary for its advocates to have 
 some infallible authority to which to appeal as against the 
 authority of the Church. Such an authority could only be 
 found, it was supposed, in Holy Scripture. Thus the defi- 
 nitions of the Protestant Confessions grew ever more stringent, 
 and the popular doctrine, as distinguished from the teaching 
 of competent theologians, kept on narrowing, until at last, up 
 to the latter end of the present century, it practically amounted, 
 as we have seen, to the most rigid theory of verbal inspiration 
 — an inspiration usually attributed by the people at large, and 
 even sometimes by their ministers, to the Authorized English 
 version. 
 
 It is the strength of the reaction against this popular 
 
 the author of the Polyglot. The Puritan divine had said in his Divine Original 
 Authority, and Self-evidencing Light and Purity of the Scriptures, that "every 
 tittle and iota in the Word of God nmst come under our considenition, as beinp as 
 such from God," We see here how Owen was the father of the modern doctrine of 
 verbal inspiration, as of many other doctrines which have held the field since his 
 day. For the lojric of facts had, for a time at least, to give way to the logic of 
 theological systems. 
 
 D 
 
50 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Bibliolatiy which, as has been said, constitutes the peculiar 
 danger of our age. Scientific discovery has largely restricted 
 the area of the supernatural, and popular thought, ever prone 
 to exaggerate the peculiarities of its leaders, is inclined to re- 
 strict it still further. Theological teachers, anxious to preserve 
 the essential truths of Christianity, have in unnecessary panic 
 been tempted to surrender principles which it had been wiser 
 had they boldly continued to maintain. Some of these will be 
 discussed in a subsequent chapter. But the whole question 
 of the inspiration of Scripture, which had been supposed to be 
 closed, is re-opened among us. Whether that inspiration is one 
 of kind or only of degree, whether it extends to the whole 
 of the Scriptures or only to that i>art of them which teaches 
 religious truth, whether their authority is to be still further 
 restricted, so that it shall be held permissible to question, at 
 least on some points, the religious teaching of inspired men 
 themselves — these are the first principles now openly debated, 
 and on which it is necessary that the facts of the case should 
 be examined afresh.* 
 
 Thus much, at least, we may venture to assert. The Chris 
 tian Church accepts the Scriptures because of thei?^ testi- 
 mony to Christ, and His testimony to them. They testify 
 authoritatively of Him, the Old Testament by the super- 
 natural witness of type and prophecy, the New as the voice 
 of His accredited messengers to mankind. He testifies of 
 them, by the seal He Himself has set to the Old Testan ent 
 as the Word of God, and by the commission He Himself 
 gave to His Apostles, from whose hands we receive the 
 
 * "The infallibility of every jot and tittle of the Bible has been too often asserted 
 
 by popular preachers The dogma is suicidal, because it makes the truth 
 
 of Scripture to be involved in the discussion of every point, however immaterial in 
 itself, on which Scripture may come into any collision, real or apparent, with the 
 discoveries of modern days." — Professor C. H. H. Wright in the Expositor, 
 vol. vii., p. 232. 
 
THE IXSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 51 
 
 New.* AVe may not be justified in propounding as an 
 article of faith any theory of the nature and limits of their 
 inspiration. It may be found necessary to distinguish be- 
 tween authority and infallibility, and Avhile claiming most 
 energetically the former for Scripture, we may hesitate to 
 extend it to such a degree as to amount to the latter. 
 It may also be found necessary to distinguish between some 
 parts of Scripture and others. We may find reason, for in- 
 stance, to believe that the whole of the Law ordinarily attri- 
 buted to Moses did not proceed directly from the mouth of 
 God, but only certain portions of it. Some predictions of 
 the prophets may appear to us more directly authoritative 
 than other of their utterances. The words of the Incarnate 
 Son of God may be held to stand upon a higher plane than 
 the words of the greatest of His servants, save when there is 
 reason to believe their language to have been formally dictated 
 by the Holy Spirit. We may find it necessary to distinguish, 
 even in the same Epistle, directions W'hich are to be regarded 
 as " connnandments of the Lord,"f from others which are 
 specially acknowledged not to be such, but simply the advice 
 of one who " thinks," and not without reason, that he " has 
 the Spirit of God."+ 
 
 The question, no doubt, is one of great difficulty and com- 
 plexity. Yet if we cannot frame for ourselves out of the words 
 of Scripture an exact and infallible system of theology, if we 
 find that Scripture was never designed for any such puqwse, 
 if we are not able precisely to say whether its authority has 
 
 * St. Luke's Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 were not written by men directly commissioned by Christ. But the first two are 
 histories written by one who had means of being acquainted with the facts he 
 relates, and the third is a luminous exposition of the teachina: which underlies 
 the Law, by one thoroughly imbued with the first principles of the Gospel. 
 
 t 1 Cor. 14. .36. 
 
 t 1 Cor. 7. 40. 
 
 i> 2 
 
52 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 any limits, or, supposing this to be the case, where tlie line of 
 demarcation is to be drawn, at least the most inattentive 
 person can learn from its pages the first principles of the 
 doctrine of Christ. Those first principles it enshrines. To 
 those first principles it gives a clear and unswerving witness. 
 And its testimony, on this point at least, demands onr implicit 
 submission. Nor is this all. In its exposition of those first 
 principles it has been admitted to be unriv-alled. No other 
 book applies the doctrine of Christ to the needs of the human 
 spirit with equal authority, freshness, and power. Wherever 
 the Bible is known and reverenced, there is found a greater 
 amount of moral energy, a higher moral ideil, a higher 
 conception of moral responsibility in so3ieby at large. 
 Where, on the other hand, it is comparatively unknown, we 
 find ourselves at once face to face with Christianity of an 
 inferior type, with lower conceptions of the majesty of 
 God, a less elevated idea of the rights of man, and of his 
 responsibilities to his neighbour.* It is under the influence of 
 sound Biblical teaching thnt piety becomes less bigoted and 
 more rational, less exclusive and more tolerant, less self-con- 
 centrated and more beneficent. Thus, though we may be 
 unwilling in the present age to demand submission to every 
 proposition contained in the Bible as a condition preliminary 
 to membership in the Charch of Christ, we may nevertheless 
 feel that when once the supernatural fact of salvation by 
 Christ is grasped, reverence even for the letter of Scripture 
 will be found to increase. Belief in Christ will prove a 
 master key to unlock secrets formerly unknown. What once 
 appeared unreasonable, unnatural, perhaps even repulsive, will 
 be found, when examined in the light of true Christian faith, 
 to be reasonable and even necessary, or else, perhaps, to have 
 been entirely misunderstood. The doctrine of the inspiration 
 
 * See note B. 
 
THE lySPIBATIOy OF SClilPTURE. 53 
 
 of Soripfciire, in fact, will be found only a stumbling-block to 
 those who have not yet learned to know Christ. If we lead 
 men first to Him to Whom the Scriptures testify, they will 
 soon learn to value that in which the best and truest testimony 
 is to be found. As in the case of the visitors to the Christian 
 congregations in St. Paul's day, what at first seems to them 
 strange and confused, will in the end bring them to their 
 knees, and compel them to confess that God is " among them 
 of a truth." 
 
 Thus, then, while we do not attempt to lay down exact 
 definitions on this subject unsanctioned by Scriptm-e and the 
 Church, we nevertheless would most firmly hold that these 
 "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost," and that their words are to be had in the deepest and 
 most profound reverence by all who desire to know "the 
 things that belong "unto their peace."* 
 
 * See an useful chapter on Inspiration in Professor Reclford's Authority of 
 Scripture, which the writer had not seen until this book was in print. 
 
( 5i ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 
 
 t7^TIL almost the last decade of the eighteenth century the 
 ^ field of investigation into the authenticity of the Old 
 Testament was confined within very narrow limits. The value 
 of historical evidence and ancient tradition was admitted on 
 both sides. The question, therefore, related to the acceptance or 
 rejection of the Scriptures as a whole. So far as the Old Testa- 
 ment was concerned, the unwavering testimony of the Jewish 
 Church to her Canonical Scriptures, the statements of the author 
 of Ecclesiasticus, of Philo, of Josephus, as well as the general 
 consent of Christian divines, were accepted as sufficient evidence 
 of its authenticity and Canonical authority. The catalogues 
 given by Bishop Cosin, by Lardner, by Paley, were regarded as 
 a sufficient answer to hostile criticism in relation to the New. 
 But towards the close of the eighteenth century a new departure 
 was taken in critical matters. The question of internal evi- 
 dence was raised. It was regarded as possible to estaljlish 
 results in matters of the date and authorship of a book on 
 internal grounds alone. These methods were applied both to 
 the Old Testament and to the New. The history of this new 
 species of criticism as applied to the New Testament will be 
 related in a subsequent chapter. We will at present sketch its 
 rise and progress in regard to the Old Testament. 
 
 That the Pentateuch in its present shape contained passages 
 which could not have been written in the time of Moses Avas 
 discerned at a very early period. Aben-Ezra had pointed out as 
 early as the twelfth century that certain verses were clearly of 
 
HISTORi OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 55 
 
 later date.* Hobbes, the well-known philosopher of the se\-en- 
 teenth century, dwelt on the improbability of Moses having been 
 the author of the Pentateuch, and Spinoza followed in the same 
 track.j Maes (or Masius), in the second half of the sixteenth 
 century, had already suggested the probability of a later editor- 
 ship of the whole volume,^ and Richard Simon (1G85), Huet 
 (1703), Yitringa, in the first half of the eighteenth century, 
 as well as Le Clerc (1779), accepted this view.§ But the first 
 step (1753) in the direction of a definite theory of documents 
 was the work of Astruc, a French physician, who contended 
 that Moses had used documents in the composition of Genesis. 
 He divided them into two principal ones, in which the names 
 of Elohim and Jehovah respectively were used to designate 
 God, and ten lesser ones, which he supposed to have been 
 originally placed in parallel columns, and transcribed by 
 persons under the direction of Moses. The repetitions 
 and dislocations found in the narrative were, he supposed, 
 attributable to the carelessness of the transcribers. Thus he 
 was the first to attempt the division of Genesis into Jeho- 
 vistic and Elohistic sections. || His theory attracted but 
 
 ♦ He refers to Gen. 12. 6 ; 36. 31 ; Num. 12. 6, 7 ; Deut. .34. 10. passages which are of 
 course of later date, though they may simply be notes added by a later editor, or 
 may even, as is often the case in the New Testament, have been marginal annota- 
 tions which ultimately found their way into the text. 
 
 t Hobbes, in his Leviathan, ch. 33. p. 177, says that the Pentateuch was written 
 rather abotd Moses than by him. This he regards as proved by such passages as 
 Gen. 12. 6 ; Num. 21. 11 ; Deut. .34. 6. All that Moses can be said to have written is, 
 in his opinion, Deut. 11-27. Spinoza refers to Aben-Ezra as his authority. The 
 Pentateuch {Tractat. Theol. Pol., ch. 8, p. 104), he thinks, was written, not by 
 Moses, but by some one else who lived long afterwards. He remarks on the 
 obvious continuity of the various historical books as they now stand, and "sus- 
 pects" that Ezra wrote them all (ibid., p. 112). 
 
 X At least he remarks on the evident interpolations [Crit. Sacr. Prtef., p. xlv.). 
 
 § Vitringa appears to have been the first to observe on the frequent repetition of 
 " this is the book," and " these are the generations," on which so much stress has 
 been laid since. Le Clerc (whose name is sometimes Latinized as Clericus) held 
 very broad views on the subject of inspiration. See Lee, Lectures, p. 441. 
 
 II His words are. " \\ n'est done possible que Moise ait pu savoir par lui-mPme ce 
 qu'il rapporte dans la Genese, et par consequent il faut. ou qu'il en ait etc in^truit 
 par revelation, ou qu'il Fait appris par le rapport de ceux. qui en avaient etc eux' 
 
56 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 little attention at the time. But in 1780, Eiclihorn's Intro- 
 ductmi revived Astmc's theory. With Eichhorn the era of 
 what is called the Higher Criticism — that is, the foundation of 
 conclusions in regard to the date and authorship of a document 
 on considerations drawn from internal evidence — may be said to 
 have begun.* At first, however, the theory was applied only 
 to Genesis ; but it soon spread to other books of the Pentateuch. 
 There was the fragynentary hypothesis of Moller (1798), sup- 
 ported in England by Dr. Geddes, a Roman Catholic, and 
 by Yater (1802-5)t and Hartmann (1831) in Germany. This 
 theory denied the essential unity of purpose in the books, 
 and regarded them as a number of unconnected and disjointed 
 
 niGmes les t^moins. Je ne connais personne qui ait avance la premiere opinion, 
 et je crois que personne ne s'avisera jamais de Tavancer" (Conjectures, p. 4). 
 Moses, he goes on to say, must either iiave availed himself of oral or of written 
 tradition (ibid., -p. 6). He refers to Le Clerc's 3rd Dissertation Concerning the 
 Writer of the Pentateuch, Simon's Critical History of the Old Testament, and 
 the Abbe Pleury's Traitc des Iloetirs des Israelites et des Chretiens, in support 
 of his view. But, he adds, he goes beyond his authorities. He sees signs that 
 Moses has inserted entire portions of the narratives of which he has made use. 
 This statement he bases on two facts, (1) the obvious repetitions in the narra- 
 tive, and (2) the use in different portions of Genesis of the names Elohim 
 and Jehovah respectively to designate God. He adds that herein Genesis displays 
 a marked difference to the other books of the Pentateuch, in which the word 
 Elohim rarely appears (ibid., pp. 10-14) . It seems worth while to give the reader 
 rather a fuller account of the first instance of the employment of the modern critical 
 method. 
 
 * Astruc's treatise was translated into German in 1783, a token of the interest in 
 his work re-awakened by Eichhorn. With the latter commences the linguistic 
 criticism which has now attained such dimensions. He notices the repetitions in 
 the narratives, as, for example, in the account of the Creation and the Deluge, and 
 he remarks that certain Hebrew words are characteristic of the Elohist and 
 Jehovist respectively (Einl., ii. 296-302). But he most positively asserts the 
 Mosaic authorship, and declares that it "passes the wit of man" to prove that 
 Ezra, as some had already begun to assert, could have written the Pentateuch, for 
 then he must have written all the intervening books, since they stand in so close 
 connection with each other (ii. 253) . 
 
 t Vater bases his Commentary avowedly on the work of Dr. Geddes, who, he says 
 (i.. Introduction, p. 3), died only too early for the cause of Old Testament criticism. 
 He declares (iii. 421) that no original connection appears to have existed between 
 the various fragments. And he asserts (iii. 680) that a considerable portion of Deu- 
 teronomy dates from the time of David and Solomon, while the rest of the Pentateuch 
 in its present form must be regarded as having appeared about the time of the 
 Captivity. Vater's Commentary, which is ren;arkable for its industry and inge- 
 nuity, contains most of the main features of more modern criticism. 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMEXT CRITICISM. 57 
 
 fragments loosely struiig together. It regarded Deuteronomy 
 as the older of the books, and as produced in its present 
 form about the time of David. The rest of the books, it 
 was supposed, were drawn up about the time of Josiah. Then 
 came what was known as the siqipJementary hypothesis, 
 mainly due to De Wette (1807), and supported by Stiihelin 
 (1830), Bleek (1830), and Knobel (1852).* These writers 
 assumed an Elohistic " Grundschrift,"| or primary document — 
 bearing about the same relation to Jewish history that the 
 Saxon Chronicle does to English — which formed the original 
 narrative, and supposed that a variety of other wiiters — 
 the Jehovist especially — added such details as they thought 
 fit to complete the history. Ewald is sometimes de- 
 scribed as a disciple of this school. But in truth he 
 stands apart from all other critics, in having elaborated 
 a most complicated theory of his own, in which he has 
 succeeded in finding no one to follow him, and which 
 has been condemned for its complexity by those who 
 were themselves responsible for complexities enough.J So 
 
 * Besides these, Tuch, Lengerke, Delitzsch, Vaihinger, and other critics, main- 
 tained the Supplementary hypothesis in various forms, but with the widest 
 possible differences in regard to the date and authorship of the books. See for 
 further information on this point the Bishop of Worcester's article on the Pen- 
 tateuch in Smith's Dictionarij of the Bible, and Keil's Introduction. A still fuller 
 account of the literature of the subject will be found in Hartmann's Introduction 
 of 72 pages, and a popular one in Principal Cave's Inspiration of O.T., Lect. 4. 
 
 t Documents are called "Elohistic" or "Jehovistic" according as the words 
 Elohim or Jehovah are used to designate God. The " Grundschrift," extracted with 
 the utmost ingenuity and labour from the first four books of the Pentateuch, is 
 in the main identical with what is now known as the "Priestly Code." 
 
 t Ewald's theory involved (1) a few fragments of contemporary works inserted 
 verbatim into the later histories. They consisted of (a) The Book of the Wars of 
 Jehovah, (b) The Biogrojjhii of Moses, (c) The Book of Covenants, from whence 
 most of the legal matter is derived. Then, (2) about the time of David, comes the 
 Book of Origins (from the word Tol'doth, so frequently used in the Pentateuch). 
 Then (3) we have the prophetic narratives, written by the prophets after the age 
 of David. These comprise a third, fourth, and fifth narrator. Lastly, (4) we have 
 the Deuteronomist, vho gathered the writings of his predecessors together and 
 presented them in the'r present form. This last writer, or rather editor, must 
 have been subsequent to the time of Manasseh, because Dent. 28. &•?■, which could 
 not, of course, have been a prophecy, refers to events occurring at that time. 
 
58 PBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 far the effort had been to trace out the original docu- 
 ment to which the rest of the history had been added, and 
 successive critics engaged in the task of separating the 
 bald, unadorned outline from the subsequent more pictu- 
 resque details.* But this attempt led to important discoveries. 
 It became more clear as the investigation proceeded that, as 
 Ilgen had seen as earlv as 1798, the hypothesis of one Elohist 
 could not be sustained. A second Elohistic source, if not 
 more, was demanded by the facts. For the Elohistic narrative 
 was not bald and formal throughout. It was often as pictu- 
 resque as the Jehovistic narrati\e, and very often presupposed 
 it. Thus, by degrees, the idea of a Jehovistic editor retired 
 into the background, and the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections of 
 the narrative were divided into three independent sources, which 
 were supposed to have been combined by a later editor. Hupfeld 
 (1853) busied himself with pointing out the special work of the 
 later Elohist in Genesis ; and from his time scholars like 
 Dillmann, Kuenen, AVellhauseu, Jtilicher, and others, have put 
 forth on their own authority various schemes for the division 
 of the Pentateuch between the portion originally known as the 
 " Grundschrift," the second Elohist, the Jehovist, and the final 
 editor or " redactor." | Professor Driver, in his recently pub- 
 lished Introdudwn, has, however, abandoned the attempt to 
 
 * Meanwhile, scholars like J. D. Michaelis (1787), with Hengstenberg, Hiivernick, 
 Kurtz, and KeO, during the course of the present century, maintained with ability 
 and earnestness the traditional view, only to be told with lofty infallibility by 
 writers like Ewald, that they were " outside all science " {History of Israel, i. 64). 
 Michaelis, though on the whole he maintains the Mosaic authorship, yet allows 
 some exceptions. Hengstenberg and Kail, in their eagerness to oppose the critical 
 school, have sometimes laid themselves open to animadversion by advancing 
 theories which cannot be maintained. 
 
 t Noldeke abandons the theory of a second Elohist as entirely independent of 
 the Jehovist {Untersuchungen der Kritik des A. T., p. .3). In England Di*. S. 
 Davidson, after a long and most elaborate review of the arguments on both sides, 
 regards it as certain that " tioo documents at least enter into the composition of 
 the first four books ' ' { Text of the Old Testa men t, p. 632) . He regards Deuteronomy, 
 " with the exception of its appendix or continuation," as the work of Moses him- 
 self {ibid.. i>. 616). 
 
HIS TOBY OF OLD TESTAMEXT CBITICISM. 59 
 
 separate the combined narrative of J ar^d E (the Jehovist and 
 Elohist) into their constituent parts. He is content to assert 
 his conviction that this combined narrative "is composite,"* 
 but he will not go so far as to assign the various parts of it to 
 their respective authoi-s.f Of the component parts of the 
 " Grundschrift," however, he has no doubt. He has given us 
 his theory of the portions of which it may be regarded as 
 formed, a theory which differs little from the final shape of that 
 which has been gradually elaborated by the German critics 
 mentioned above.J But we have now to mention a remarkable 
 volte face on the part of the analytic criticism. The majority 
 of the earlier critics had regarded Deuteronomy as the later, and 
 what was at first called the " Grundschrift," § and is now known 
 as the Priestly Code, to be the earlier of the documents used in 
 the compilation of the Pentateuch. || But when historic criti- 
 cism came to be added to literary,^ it was found that this view 
 
 * Driver, Introduction to the Qld Testament, p. 109. 
 
 t lb., p. 110. Thus, it will be observed, the theory which siigpested the whole 
 inquiry is definitely abandoned. It was originally supposed (see above, p. 55) that 
 research into the character of the documents of which the Pentateuch was com- 
 posed must be based on the use of the words Jehovah and Elohim respectively in 
 the Pentateuch. Now, it is not only admitted that it is impossible to distinguish 
 with accuracy the work of the Jehovist and second Elohist, but it is asserted that 
 after the first, six chapters of Exodus even the first Elohist becomes a Jehovist. 
 
 X The " Grundschrift " theory has been worked out with great care and infinite 
 pains. The object has been to group together all passages which display special 
 " stylistic " or linguistic affinities. But it is obviously impossible, in most cases, 
 to prove whether the facts have suggested the theory, or whether the theory 
 is responsible for the alleged facts. And it is quite certain that the theory leaves 
 a gi-eat many phenomena of style and language quite unaccounted for. 
 
 § This " Grundschrift " has been assigned by various critics to dates the most 
 various, from the time of David (B.C. 1056-1015) down to 400 B.C. There are some 
 critics, e.g. Dillmann, in his Commentary, and Count Baudissin, in his Geschichte 
 des Alttestamentl icken Priesterthums, who still hold to the belief that the Priestly 
 Code is anterior to Deuteronomy. But they take the curious view that it was 
 a Privatschnft circulated among the piiests, and unknown to the author of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 II It should be explained that piodem critics, recognizing the remarkable unity 
 of spirit between what has been hitherto known as the Pentateuch and the book 
 of Joshua, have of late been accustomed to group these six books together under 
 the title of the Hexateuch. 
 
 1 See Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 128. 
 
60 . FRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 could not be maintained. For there are, it is alleged, no traces 
 in Jewish history of the observance of the institutions described 
 in the Pentateuch in its present shape, except such as the zeal 
 of the priestly party — or it may be of the final redactor — may 
 have subsequently introduced. Moreover, there is, we are told, 
 a distinct growth to be observed between the regulations of 
 Deuteronomy and those of the Priestly Code.* Therefore, so 
 far from regarding this as the earliest part of the Pentateuch, 
 it must in reality be the latest. And as Deuteronomy was the 
 book which was alleged to have been found in the Temple in 
 the reign of Josiah, but which in point of fact was written 
 at the time,| what they term the " Priestly Code " could not 
 have been committed to writing until Ezra's time, that is 
 to say, about 450 B.C. Thus Yater's conjecture is once 
 more revived, and the criticism assumes an altogether new 
 aspect. Originating with Graf, the theory has been em- 
 braced by Riehm, popularised by Wellhausen and Kuenen, 
 and introduced into England by Professors Robertson 
 Smith, Cheyne, and Driver. These last, however, it is only 
 fair to say, accept it only in a modified form. Both Deuter- 
 onomy and the Priestly Code, they contend, embodied a good 
 deal of pre-existent legislation, some of which may be ascribed 
 even to Moses. But it is unfortunate, in a question of such 
 moment, that the critics of the English school are not in a 
 position to tell us what parts of these books can be rightly so 
 ascribed. And as they argue, from the silence of the historical 
 Scriptures, that a large number of the laws ascribed to Moses 
 in the Pentateuch in its present shape wxre not in existence 
 until long after his time, it follows that a very considerable 
 portion of those laws must have been wrongly ascribed to hmi. 
 
 * Driver, Introdnciion, p, 120. See also "VVellhausen, Zfjs^or^/ of Israel, p. S5, 
 and Kuenen, Religion of Israel, ii. 9. 
 
 t Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 9. 
 
HISTOnr OF OLD TESTAMEXT CRITICISM. 61 
 
 Consequently, on their principles, we have no definite means 
 whatever of ascertaining which portions of the Mosaic Law as 
 it now stands may be attributed to Moses, and which are sub- 
 sequent to him. " Pre-existing usage," it will be seen, covers 
 the whole period between 1491 B.C. and about 400 B.C. (the 
 Deuteronomic legislation, circ. Q2^ B.C., and the portions of the 
 Pentateuch admitted to be as early as 800-900 B.C. being of 
 course excepted). Thus the theory lacks the definiteness of 
 those embraced by the German critics ; and, while it is no 
 doubt less easy to combat on account of that very indefiniteness, 
 it is also more difficult to understand and to accept. Moreover, 
 though it is doubtless less shocldug to reverent minds than the 
 doctrines of TVellhausen and Kuenen, it is in some respects far 
 less satisfactory than theirs, in that it is impossible to extract 
 from it any clear concej)tions of the origin of Jewish institu- 
 tions, or of their nature previous to 900 B.C. at the earliest. 
 Thus the history of an imjDortant portion of a Divine Revela- 
 tion is practically reduced to chaos. 
 
 The German critics, however, are pretty well agreed about 
 the passages which constitute the Grundschrift, or Priestly 
 Code, though they differ so very materially as to the date. 
 They claim to have effected their analysis with such precision 
 as to be able to assign with certainty not only larger 
 sections of the Elohistic narrative, but even vei-ses and parts 
 of verses to this document. Other critics have claimed to 
 attain the same results in the case of the remaining: con- 
 tributors to the composite work now known as the Hexateuch.* 
 
 * Wellhausen and Dillmann's division of the narrative between the Jehovist and 
 second Elohist in the first four chapters of the book of Exodus is here appended. 
 The Priestly Code has aheady been separated. 
 
 Wellhausex: J— 1.6, part of 7,8-10,206,22; 2.11-22 (on the whole) ; 3.1-9 
 
 (but not without occasional traces of E), 16—4. 17, 18, 20, 24. 25, 29-31. 
 
 E— 1. 11, 12,15-20rt,21 ; 2.1-10 (on the whole) ; 3. 10 15,21,22; 4.17,19,21-23. 
 
 DiLLMAXX: J— 2. 15-22; 4. 1-16, 19, 20a, 22-29n, 30, 31. E— 1. 8-12, 15-22; 2. 
 
 11-14 ; 3. 1-3, 46-6, 8-16, 18-22 ; 4. 17, 18, 206, 21, 296, 31aa. 
 
62 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Professors Kautzsch and Sociii have published a work in 
 which, by variations in the type, they distinguish the 
 portions of Genesis which are to be assigned to various 
 authors and editors, or "redactors."* We are further intro- 
 duced to a Pi, a Pa, and even a P3 (" P " standing for the 
 " Priestly Code "). We have, moreover, a D, and a Do.f 
 Then there are "foreign elements"! in various portions of 
 P, and sometimes "two or three strata" in the narrative. § 
 The appearance (1891) of Professor Driver's Introduction to 
 the Old Testament has, for the first time, familiarized the 
 
 See Dillmann. Commentary, Ueher die Com,position des Hexateuchs, pp. 615-624', He 
 admits that the substance of the narrative in both these writings is very similar, 
 and that there must be a mutual dependence between them, and that the redactor 
 has oblitei-ated many traces of distinction. We might, perhaps, be justified in going a 
 little further, and doubting the capacity of any critic, however acute, under such cir- 
 cumstances, to come to any conclusion at all. Wellhausen, too, is here well worth a 
 perusal {CompnsUion, des Hexateuc7is,Tpp, 63-74). "Witness his elaborate discussion 
 whether, on internal evidence alone, he shall assign Exod. 4. 26 to J or E, and his as- 
 sumption that the recurrence of certain phrases must necessarily indicate a different 
 source. The Priestly Code in the first two chapters of Exodus, accoi'ding to "Well- 
 hausen, consists of 1. 1-5, 7, 13, 14 ; 2. 23, 2.5, with the exception of certain phrases, such 
 as lOVrM. 1Il"l''1. and one or two sections of verses ! JUlicher offers another solu- 
 tion, with which it is hardly necessary to trouble the reader. Let it be granted 
 never so completely that the Hebrew historians were essentially compilers—a doctrine 
 which, to say the least, lacks at present a full and satisfactory demonstration— yet 
 the question insensibly forces itself upon a critica.1 mind, Is it likely that any com- 
 piler, however slavish, would break his compilations into portions so minute? And 
 with regard to the phrases Wellhausen excepts, we are also impelled to ask. Did 
 the compiler himself introduce the variation ? If so, the strict compilation theory- 
 fails; if not, the difficulty just mentioned is indefinitely increased. A list of the 
 various ai'ran-rements of the Peniateuch will be found in Home's Introduction 
 (ed. 1860), in KeWs Introduction, and in a little volume called Higher Criticism 
 and the Bible, by the Rev. W, B, Boyce (pp. 102, 112). It will be seen how 
 utterly indefinite are the results of the Higher Criticism, save so far as the 
 Priestly Code is concerned. Mi-. Boyce denotes this by E, and calls the second 
 Elohist JE (Junior Elohist). Wellhausen calls the Priestly Code RQ, and the 
 later Elohist E, Professor Driver denotes the Priestly Code by P, and the mixed 
 narrative of the Jehovist and second Elohist by JE. It is necessary to explain this, 
 for the study of the notation of the various writers is a branch of education in 
 itself. Dillmann designates these writings by A, C, and B respectively. 
 
 * Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften. But they give up 
 Gen. 14„ which represents Abraham as a warrior. It is printed in different type to 
 all the rest. Biihmer anticipated them in this method of presenting the results 
 of criticism. Wellhausen compares it to Melchizedek, "without father, without 
 mother, without genealogy," See Robertson's Early Religion of Israel, p. 501. 
 Also note D. 
 
 t Driver, Introduction, p. 45. % Ihid. p. 43. § Ihld. pp. 35, 97, 106. 
 
histohy of old testament cbijicism. 63 
 
 Enorlish religions world with these principles and resnlts 
 of the Higher Criticism.* Bat thongh they are accepted 
 in England by many of our foremost scholars on the 
 strength of the agreement of German critics, they are not 
 accepted with absolute unanimity in Germany itself. Thus, 
 Professor Klostermann has lately commented in a caustic 
 vein on the confidence with which Professors Kautzsch and 
 So'jin have put forward their supposed results without a 
 shadow of proof, and has avowed his preference for another 
 theory. t It will be seen by the foregoing history that the 
 critics are hopelessly at variance on every jwint except the 
 passages which are supposed to constitute P ; that they differ 
 by some four or five hundred years as to the date to which 
 P is assigned ; that the dry, formal character J assigned not 
 unnaturally to P when it was supposed to be a " Grundschrift," 
 is scarcely so reasonable when it is supposed to be a supple- 
 ment ; § while as to J and E and the remaining contributors to 
 the narrative as it at present stands, we have, at least until very 
 lately, considerable variety of assertion respecting both date and 
 component parts. But at least it is an advantage that, instead 
 
 * We may take as an illustration of Professor Driver's principles of criticism the 
 passages in Gen. 8 and 'ii. In the first he assigns verses l-2fl,36-o, V.a, 14-19, in 
 the second, verses l-2a, 4, fi, 8-10, 1.3-18, 20-24, 25 (partly), 27-29, to the author of the 
 Priestly Code. The whole system of criticism to which he has given his adhesion 
 depends upon the assumptions (1) that the Hebrew historians were simply com- 
 pilers (see IntrtKluction, p. fi). and (2) that it is possible on internal grounds to 
 discover the component elements of this compilation. Professor Driver has sup- 
 poi-ted this view by a reference to the relation between Kings and Chronicles 
 {Contemporary Revieic, Feb. 1890). But a careful comparison of the two narratives 
 shows that this statement must be taken with some reserve. See this subject 
 further discussed in chap. v. 
 
 t This theory is examined by Professor Driver in the Fxpositor of May 1892. It 
 is quite as arbitrary, but a little more independent than those of his contemporaries. 
 
 % It is" juristisch,piinktlich, formelhaft."— Dillmann, Commentary. Vorbem. p. xi. 
 Adopted by Driver, Introduction, p. 122. 
 
 § It is clear that the sort of research directed to finding out ihe oi-iginal sub- 
 stratum of fact on which the whole superstructure of myth and leirend has been 
 raised is altogether misajiplied when the alleged substratum is supposed to be a 
 mo<leni addition. Even if P be in truth post-exilic, at least the whc]e theory on 
 which it has been separated from the rest of the narrative is unsound, and it re- 
 mains a fragment suspended in mid-air. 
 
'64 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 of vague assertions, English people at large have now before 
 them both the principles on which the new criticism works, 
 and the results it claims to have attained. They will be able 
 to consider both at their leisure ; and we need not fear that, by 
 the employment of their reason, enlightened by the aid of the 
 Holy Spirit, they will be guided to a right decision upon them. 
 The criticism of the remainiag books of the Old Testa- 
 ment may be more briefly dismissed, inasmuch as fewer 
 important consequences flow from it. The historical Scriptures 
 do not pretend to be the channels through which the subject- 
 matter of a revelation is conveyed to us. In the prophetical 
 Scriptures the question is not so much one of date as of the 
 fact of prophetic inspiration, and this is largely independent 
 of the question of date.* Joshua, the last book of the so- 
 called Hexateuch, has been held to have been cast into its 
 present shape by a disciple of the writer of Deuteronomy.f 
 Judges has been held to show traces of the work of a Deu- 
 teronomic redactor between chapters 2. 6 and 16.J The rest 
 of the narrative is regarded as of earlier date. Other critics 
 regard Judges as of the early kingly period. § The books of 
 
 * It is true that some of the arisiinients on which the existence of a second Isaiah 
 has been held to depend are drawn from the alhisions to Babylon in the later 
 chapters of Isaiah, which, it is assumed, cannot have been prophetical. 
 
 t Driver, Introduction, p. 97, following critics like Dillmann and Wellhausen. 
 He says that the writer " generalizes pretty freelj'," an euphemism for " is inexact 
 in his statements." 
 
 t Driver, Introduction, pp. 154—158. Cf. Wellhausen. History of Israel, pp. 229. 
 sqq. Wellhausen also rejects ch. 1, Professor Driver thinks it "very possible 
 that there was a x>^'&D^uteronomic collection of histories of Judges, which the 
 Deuteronomic compiler set in a new fi-amework, embodying his theory of the history 
 of the period." Some of these statements, e.g. ch. 8. 27-35 (assigned by Professor 
 Driver to the compiler) , are direct historical statements. But if they were a new 
 framework, embodying a theory, they must have been false, though whether de- 
 signedly so or not may perhaps be a question. It would not be fair, however, to 
 leave the subject without a reference to the exceedingly difficult words, "captivity 
 of the land, " in Judges 18. 30. Yet we can hardly suppose that Jonathan's priest- 
 hood would have survived the policy of David and Jeroboam. 
 
 § This seems almost a certain conclusion as far as regards the fragment ch. 17-21. 
 The constant allusion to the disorders as the result of the absence of kingly govern- 
 ment, fix the date of this fragment not later than the days of Jehoshaphat at the 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 65 
 
 Samuel are generally supposed to have been written about 
 or after the division of the kingdoms. But the Higher 
 Criticism sees even here the hand of the Deuteronomic editor,* 
 and Wellhausen pronounces portions of 1 Sam. 7 to be "a 
 pious make-up," because of the functions it assigns to the 
 Levites. The books of Kings are usually assigned to Jeremiah. 
 But we are told that some portions of them must have 
 been " re-cast and placed in a different light." f Chronicles, 
 Ezra, Xehemiah, and Esther, are, of course, post-exilic. Yet 
 the statement of "Wellhausen % that Chronicles was composed 
 300 years after the exile, must surely be taken with some 
 reserve. § Chronicles has been vehemently attacked by the 
 adherents of the new criticism. "W^ellhausen is especially 
 severe on it.|| The real reason of this severity, however, is 
 because its history is inconsistent with his theories. Whether 
 we are entitled to fall foul of an historical document, to 
 charge it with puerility, dishonesty, inanity, exaggeration, 
 shameless concealment of the truth, because it stands in the 
 way of our prepossessions, may be doubted.^ In spite of 
 some exaggerations in numbers, which it must be admitted 
 seem to display a desire to enhance the greatness and glory 
 
 latest, for there was a rapid declension in the character of the government in the 
 days of his successor, and the gi-ound lost never seems to have been thoroughly 
 regained. 
 
 * Driver, Introduction, p. 167. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 182. Statements like these are made without proof, and of course 
 depend entirely on the theory that Deuteronomy was written in the reign of 
 Manasseh at the earliest. 
 
 X History of Israel, p. 172. 
 
 § Professor Driver assigns it to a date shortly after 332 B.C. 
 
 II History of Israel, pp. 193, sqq. 
 
 H De Wette (cited in Keil's Introduction, ii. 81) lets us into the secret of this 
 hostility to Chronicles. " The whole Jewish history," he says, " on its most interest- 
 ing and important side, namely, that of religion and the manner of observing the 
 worship of God, assumes quite a dilferent shape ^chen the accounts in Chronicles 
 have been set aside." So also "a multitude of troublesome proofs, difficult to deal 
 with, of the existence of the Mosaic books in earlier times, vanish" altogether! It 
 is with De Wette that all these fierce attacks on Chronicles originate. And with 
 charming naivete he has told us the reason. 
 
 E 
 
66 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 of Israel, ifc may be regarded as certain that Chronicles is, 
 in the main, veracious history, describing events, however, 
 from an ecclesiastical rather than a civil point of view. And 
 the facts already mentioned, of the considerable manipulation 
 of the contents of the previous books which is found neces- 
 sary before the modern theory of the origin of the Pentateuch 
 can be established, would naturally induce the candid inquirer 
 to pause before accepting unreservedly this modern depreciation 
 of Chronicles. With regard to Ezra and Nehemiah, it appears 
 most probable that they proceeded from the persons whose 
 names they bear. But, unquestionably, additions have been 
 made, e.g. in Neh. 13, where the history is brought down to 
 the time of Jaddua (b.c. 330). But this addition is scarcely 
 of sufficient importance to require us to postulate an editor, or 
 redactor. The theory that these books were compiled at a later 
 date rests upon supposed internal evidence of the usual fanciful 
 and arbitrary kind. The Book of Esther has been variously 
 regarded. Some have looked on it as veracious history, others 
 have treated it as a romance. But the observance of the 
 Feast of Purim from that time onwards stamps it as being 
 real history. It has been remarked that it displays no directly 
 religious character. The name of God is not once mentioned 
 in it. But indirectly it displays the same religious tone as 
 the rest of the Old Testament. The establishment of the 
 feast is a recognition of Divine Providence. Tlie history of 
 Haman and of Mordecai is strongly marked by a belief in 
 the Divine government. And the book has apparently been 
 embodied in the Canon simply because it contains a record of 
 a Divine interposition to save the Jewish race from a terrible 
 calamity.* When we come to Job we are in the presence 
 
 * We should remember that the Jewish Canon was formed by a process of 
 selection. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, the BooTc of Gad the 
 Seer, and the Book ofJasher (or rather Jashar), as well as other writings of which 
 we find the names, were none of them embodied in the Canon. 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMEXT CBITICISM. 67 
 
 of a problem of a different kind. There seems very great 
 reason to believe that the whole Ehhii episode is by a different 
 hand to the earlier portion of the book. The charges against 
 this episode of inferiority in literary skill may be thought by 
 some not capable of being sustained. That its style is un- 
 usual is the opinion of modern scholars, though occasional 
 instances of obscurity may be explained by the suggestion 
 that they are the mistakes of a copyist. It is difficult to 
 explain the presence of the sentence ''the words of Job are 
 ended," except on the ground that some addition to the book 
 has afterwards been made.* And the whole drift of these 
 chapters seems to support the hypothesis that they were added 
 by someone who thought the argument of the book incomplete 
 without them. The date of the book has been variously 
 assigned. The more modern critics attribute it to the 
 period of the Captivity, though some would place it as early 
 as the reign of Solomon. j TVe cannot pretend to decide 
 the point whether the book is real history or a romantic 
 setting of the discussion of great problems which it con- 
 tains. There can be no reason, however, for raising any 
 protest against the opinion of most modern scholar, that 
 it was either a poetical invention, or at least a poetical 
 embellishment of a legend which had in it a substratum of 
 truth. 
 
 * See a similar phrase at the end of Ps. 72. It is right to add, however, that 
 many competent critics do not think that these words can be thus explained, 
 
 + See Professor Driver's Introduction and Dr. A. B. Davidson's Commentary 
 on Job in the Cambridge Bible for Schools. Professor Driver's criticism of the 
 Book of Job is conservative and moderate, and does not present those features 
 of arbitrary reconstruction of documents which is so marked a feature of his 
 treatment of the Pentateuch. Even the passage ch. 27. 7-23 and ch. 2S, whicli pre- 
 sents some inconsistencies with the sentiments expressed by Job elsewhere, is 
 not regarded by him as by another hand, but as explainable by the fluctua- 
 tions in Job's mind, distracted as it is represented to be by calamity. But 
 ch. 27. 13 — end of 28 has been ascribed by some critics, not to Job, but to Zophar, 
 who otherwise has no third speech. Dr. Davidson's Introduction to his Commen- 
 tary is admirable in its combined fulness and compression. 
 
 E 2 
 
68 PBIKCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 When we come to the Psahns we are confronted with a 
 problem of far greater complexity, into which it is impossible 
 in a volume like this to enter at any length. The five books 
 into which the Psalms have been divided have been imagined 
 by most English critics to be capable of being arranged 
 chronologically as follows : — The first two books, consisting 
 of Pss. 1 — 72, have been supposed on the w^hole to be of the 
 time of David;* the third book (Pss. 73 — 89) has been regarded 
 as of later date, and as having been the work of the sons 
 of Asaph and Korah,f the leaders of two out of the three 
 divisions of singers stated in the Book of Chronicles to have 
 been established by David. { In this book some Psalms 
 have been supposed to have been of Maccabean origin, and 
 many of them have been assigned to the reign of Hezekiah.§ 
 Some few Psalms of David have been imagined to have been 
 included in this book which, for some reason or other, had 
 not found a place in the earlier collection. The last two 
 books are supposed to have been post-exilic, || and they pre- 
 sent, as a rule, marked differences of style, visible even to 
 the English reader, from those in the earlier books. It has 
 been thought, however, and not altogether without reason, 
 that Pss. 101 & 110 may have been the work of David. 
 But recently Professor Cheyne, in his Bampton Lectures, has 
 ventured on the sweeping course of denying that any of the 
 
 * See Bishop Perowne on the Psalms, p. 74 ; Jennings and Lowe on the Psalms, 
 Prolegomena, I. p. xxii. ; Professor Kirkpatrick on the Psalms, p. xxxiii. 
 
 t Bishop Perowne on the Psalms, p. 74. 
 
 X 1 Chron. 15. 17. 
 
 § Bishop Perowne, pp. 13, 19, 77. Jennings and Lowe, Prolegomena, I. xxii,, 
 II. 18, 22. Ps. 76 has been regarded by many commentatoi's as referring to the de- 
 struction of Sennacherib's anny, and curiously enough it shows some striking 
 resemblances to Lord Byron's poem on the same subject. Pss. 74 and 79 have been 
 supposed to be Maccabean Psalms. But some commentators will not allow that 
 any Psalms of so late a date as this could have been received into the Canon of 
 Scripture. 
 
 II Bishop Perowne, p. 79. Jennings and Lowe, Prolegomena, I. xxiii. 
 
HIS TOUT OF OLD TESTAMEXT CRITICISM. 60 
 
 Psalms can be she\^^l to have been written before the Captivity. 
 It is, of course, impossible to say how far this may be a 
 necessity of his position. The Psalms bear very distinct and 
 unequivocal witness to the existence of the Mosaic institu- 
 tions when they were written,* and the earlier the date to 
 which they are assigned, the more difficult it is to maintain 
 the post-exilic origin of a considerable portion of the Penta- 
 teuch. In some of them the narrative of the Pentateuch 
 is referred to ;f in some the very words of the narrative in 
 its present shape are indisputably quoted. J Therefore, unless 
 the Psalms can be assigned to a later date than the Exile, 
 after which the Pentateuch in its present shape is said to 
 have appeared, the post-exilic date for the composition of the 
 Pentateuch must be abandoned. Of Proverbs very little need 
 be said. The earlier portion of the book, chaps. 1 — 9, consists 
 of a general eulogium on Wisdom. The second part, chaps. 10 
 — 22. 16, is made up of detached proverbs, attributed to 
 Solomon. They are followed by a more detailed exhortation 
 (22. 17 — 24. 34), enforcing some of their more important 
 lessons. A fourth part (25 — 29) consists of proverbs attri- 
 buted to Solomon, but copied out by " the men of Hezekiah." 
 A brief conclusion follows, consisting of the words of Agur, 
 the advice given by a mother to king Lemuel, and the 
 
 ♦ E.g. Ps. 44. 1-3 ; 68. 1-8 ; 78. 5, 12-54 ; 99. 6, 7 ; 105 ; J 06, &c. 
 
 + See Pss. 105, 106, where the narrative in its present shape is clearly before 
 the Psalmist. In Ps. lfK5 the narrative in Xum. 25 is followed exactly as it stands, 
 though, according to Professor Driver, "verses 1-5 belong to JE, verses 6-18 to P." 
 
 t As in Pss. 78 and 105, where not only does the writer follow the nan-ative as 
 it at present stands, but is quoting it, as the use of the peculiar word 211! 
 (translated in A.V, " swarm of flies ") plainly shews. Professor Driver, it is triie, 
 assigns the verses in which the word occurs to JE. But this, of course, is perfectly 
 arbitrary. He assigns the passage conc-erning the plague of lice in an equally 
 arbitrary way to P. The narrative as it at present stands was, however, clearly 
 before the writer of Ps. 105. Therefore, say the critics, Ps. 105 must be considerably 
 later than the leturn from the Captivity. The writer of Ps. 78 mentions the frogs, 
 but not the lice, of both of which P makes mention. Have we here two " strata " 
 of P, the one composed before, the other after Ps. 78, but both before Ps. 105 ? See 
 also note E. 
 
70 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 
 
 description of a virtuous woman (30, 31). At one time the 
 whole of these were ascribed to Solomon or his mother. 
 The names Agur and Lemuel were supposed to be names 
 by which he was called. The natural reaction from this 
 somewhat slavish literalism has issued in the denial of 
 Solomon's authorship altogether. But this seems to be 
 going too far in the opposite direction. The historic re- 
 putation of Solomon (see 1 Kings 4. 32) fully justifies the 
 belief that he composed a considerable number of the pro- 
 verbs.* It is entirely unknown who Agur, Jakeh, Ithiel, 
 Ucal, and Lemuel, were, and unprofitable to conjecture. We 
 come next to Ecclesiastes, or Koheleth, to give it its proper 
 Hebrew title. This was in early times religiously believed to 
 be the work of Solomon. It is now supposed to have been 
 composed in his name| at a considerably later period. 
 Eosenmiiller, De Wette, Ewald, Knobel, Ginsburg, and Heng- 
 stenberg, commentators most widely opposed in principles and 
 character, regard it as written under the Persian rule in Pales- 
 tine, i.e. about 400 B.C. Hitzig and Tyler, however, though 
 working on altogether different lines, assign it to a date later 
 than 240 B.C. The one finds distinct allusions in it to the 
 Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, the other to the political 
 condition of Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Epiphanes 
 (B.C. 181). But this last datef is ahnost certainly too late, 
 
 * Davidson, Text of the Old Testament. Dr. Davidson thinks that the repetition 
 of some of them in slightly different forms is evidence that " they did not proceed 
 directly from the author himself" (p. 772). It is extremely improbable that he 
 collected them himself. But there is nothing in the book to make it improbable 
 that the earlier portion of the book was drawn up by his direction. 
 
 t See Eccles. 1. 1, 12. 
 
 t Davidson, Text of the Old Testament. Dean Plumptre, Cambridge Bible for 
 Schools, Introduction, c, ii. C. H. H. Wright, Book of Koheleth. The latter 
 rejects the notion of the authov being influenced by Greek thought (Preface, p. ix.), 
 regards Dean Plumptre's attempted biography of the writer as a creation of pure 
 imagination, and finally fixes the date as certainly not later than B.C. 250, and 
 probably as between B.C. 444 and 328, if it were admitted into the Canon by the men 
 of the Great Synagogue. 
 
HI8T0BY OF OLD TESTAMENT CEITICISM. 71 
 
 and Halin has replied with some force to Hitzig's objections 
 to the Persian period. The word Koheleth has usually been 
 translated "Preacher," though what its real meaning is has 
 never been exactly ascertained.* The Song of Solomon has 
 been the occasion of much controversy. The earlier com- 
 mentators had no difficulty in seeing in it a prophetic and 
 spiritual description of the relations between Christ and His 
 Church. The later commentators, who lean almost invariably 
 to the human and natural view of the origin of the Scriptures, 
 see in it simply a love-song, either of a bride in honour of 
 her husband, or of a betrothed woman to one who was to 
 become her husband. We are not called upon to decide 
 what the poem may have been originally, for we have no 
 information on the subject. Our business is with its admis- 
 sion into the Sacred Canon. And this, we may safely say, 
 is because the purity and beauty of its description of the 
 relations between the sexes rendered it suitable, in the eyes 
 of men of piety, to symbolize the relations between God and 
 the Church, which were constantly described in the prophets 
 under this figure.f Nor, unless we regard prophecy as im- 
 possible — a proposition, surely, which requires a good deal of 
 proof — need we exclude the supposition that some prevision 
 of the future Messiah, and His relations to those whom He 
 was expected to call, may have inspired those who admitted 
 this Song into the number of the Canonical books. Its date 
 has been supposed to be later than Solomon on account of 
 chaps. 4. 4 and 8. 11, but how much later it is imjDossible to say. 
 
 • The literal meaning of the word " she that calleth " seems to indicate "Wisdom, 
 as calling men to repentance and amendment. See Prov. 1. 20, sqq. But male 
 proper names have occasionally the female termination. See Gftsenius, Lexicon 
 in Inc. 
 
 t As in Isa. 50. 1; 5-i. 5 (though the literal translation is "thy ?orc?," not "thine 
 husband"), Jer. 2. 2; 3. 4; Ezek. 16 and 23 (throughout) ; Hos. 2. 1-16, &c. We 
 can scarcely explain the admission of Ps. 45 into the Psalter on any other ground 
 than that it symbolized the mystical union between God and the Jewish Church. 
 
72 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 Like almost every other book in the Old Testament, it has 
 been divided into various fragments. But there is no 
 conclusive evidence that it does not form a consistent 
 whole. 
 
 We now turn to the Prophets. As usual, the disintegrating 
 criticism has been at work here. Various portions of the 
 earlier part of Isaiah have been declared to be from another 
 hand, and this from internal evidence only. But these 
 theories rest, as usual, upon mere assertion. Nothing which 
 even nearly approaches to a proof has been offered.* But 
 the question whether the last twenty-seven chapters of the 
 
 * The reasons for regarding chaps. 13. 1—14. 23 ; 24—27 as not being Isaiah's will be 
 found in Professor Driver's pages. As regards the first section, the critics assume 
 the impossibility of prophecy. It cannot be Isaiah's, because "the Jews are not 
 warned, as Isaiah (39. 6) might warn them, against the folly of concluding an 
 alliance with Babylon .... they are represented as in exile, and as about to be 
 delivered from it" (p. 201). But on the theory that these are the prophetic visions 
 of an inspired messenger of the Most High, these objections have no force whatever. 
 Moreover, Isa. 39 represents Isaiah as having prophesied the captivity at Babylon. 
 The reasons for rejecting the second of these two sections is equally arbitrary. 
 " It lacks a suitable occasion in Isaiah's age." It differs in structure and point of 
 view from the prophecies uttered during the Assyrian crisis of B.C. 701, 702. Isaiah 
 speaks elsewhere of the Assyrian forces as "broken upon the mountains," while 
 here he speaks of the " eai-th " (sui-ely we should here translate " land ") as " dis- 
 solved." The "literary treatment (in spite of certain phraseological points of 
 contact with Isaiah) is in many respects unlike Isaiah's." And " there are features 
 in the representation and contents of the prophecy which seem to spring from a 
 different (and later) vein of thought than Isaiah's" (pp. 208, 209). There will 
 be many who will take exception in limine to this treatment of an author. 
 There are only thirty-one chapters at most ascribed to Isaiah on the hypothesis 
 of the second Isaiah— no very wide area from which to draw conclusions as to 
 what an author may possibly have written. In regard to chaps. 24-27 the reader 
 may consult a monograph by the Rev. W. E. Barnes, of St. Peter's College, 
 Cambridge. See also Professor Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, i. 232, ii. 201. At 
 that stage of his critical development he doubts even the existence of the 
 second Isaiah. His words are, "Adhuc sub judice lis est." The Rev. G. A. 
 Smith, in his able Commentary on Isaiah in the Expositor's Bible, is too much 
 disposed to assume that what may have been a prophecy must have been 
 written at a later period. The number and force, too, of the local allusions to 
 Babylon have been exaggerated. Ewald (see Cheyne, Commentary, ii. 208) thought 
 that the "second Isaiah" was written in Egypt. Some commentators have re- 
 garded it as established that Isa. 7 and 8 cannot be by the same hand, because in 
 the one chapter Isaiah speaks of himself in the third, in the other in the first 
 person. But, as an acute coi'respondent of the Guardian has lately discovered, the 
 same phenomenon is found in a recent work by Dr. Schaff . It may be hoped that 
 for the present at least, that learned writer's personality may be allowed to remain 
 undivided. 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CBITICTSM. 73 
 
 book are by another hand is a more serious one. In the 
 first place, separated as they are from the former part of 
 the prophecy by an historical section (ch. 36 — 39), they have, 
 it must be confessed, rather the look of a supplement. Yet 
 of course they might have been added to the remainder of 
 the book because they were delivered at a considerably later 
 time than the rest. The idea of a second Isaiah was first 
 broached as far back as Eichhorn, and commentators as able 
 as Ewald, Knobel, De Wette, Gesenius, Hitzig, have con- 
 tended for it. The most weighty grounds on which this 
 view is supported is the fact that the writer seems to regard 
 the Exile as a jjresent fact, and deliverance from it as the 
 object of his prophecy, whereas had Isaiah been the author, 
 the Exile itself would have been predicted. This may have 
 been because he throws his prophecy into the form of a 
 vision. His familiarity with Babylon, again, might possibly 
 be accounted for on supernatural grounds. But his calling 
 Cyinis by name is certainly contrary to the usual custom of 
 the prophets.* And his expressions in chaps. 63. 18 ; 64. 10 are 
 certainly almost too strong to warrant the theory of a vision. 
 Considerations of difference of style or views are too uncertain 
 to be reUed upon unless supported by other evidence, f The 
 use of new words, as we see for instance in the Epistles of 
 St. Paul, may be the result of a different sul}ject or altered 
 circimistances.J And there are also many resemblances in style 
 between the two portions of the book, which of course afford 
 us as strong a presumption in favour of unity of authorship as 
 the use of different words and turns of expression do of diver- 
 sity. A formidable argument in favour of the pre-exilic origin 
 
 * Yet a similar prophecy is recorded in 1 Kings 13. 2, where Josi^h's name is thus 
 mentioned beforehand. 
 
 t Expressions peculiar to Isaiah are, however, found in the earlier which are not 
 found in the later chapters, 
 
 t What, on modern principles of criticism, would critics 2500 years hence say to 
 Tennyson's " Northern Farmer," or even to his " Amphion " 'r " A jackass hee-haws 
 from the rick" is assuredly not in Tennyson's usual style. 
 
74 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM, 
 
 of this part of Isaiah has been drawn from the statement in 
 Ezra 1. 2, that Cyrus, in his decree for the rebuilding of the 
 Temple, says that God charged him to perform that work. This 
 is a direct reference to Is. 44. 28.* Moreover, it was not the 
 custom of the Jews to allow their prophets to remain anony- 
 mous. There is, therefore, strong reason to suppose that if 
 these magnificent prophecies had been by another hand, the 
 name of the author would have been handed down to posterity. 
 The question is not, however, like that of the origin of the 
 Pentateuch, a vital one. Nevertheless, as the critics propose to 
 settle it on grounds of purely internal, as distinct from histo- 
 rical evidence, we shall be justified in reserving our judgment 
 on the point until something more like rigid demonstration has 
 been adduced. f 
 
 The genuineness of the book of Jeremiah, with the exception 
 of the last three chapters, has not been seriously contested. 
 With regard to ch. 52., those who attribute to him the author- 
 ship of the books of Kings will accept it as his. In regard 
 to the other two we have nothing but the usual fine-drawn 
 distinctions in regard to the manner in which the prophecy 
 is uttered, and the prophet's known attitude at the time.t 
 With regard, however, to the arrangement of the text, very 
 considerable confusion prevails. The most superficial observer 
 cannot fail to see that the prophecies of Jeremiah are not ar- 
 ranged according to date. In the Septuagint the arrangement 
 
 * The statement (Davidson, Text of the Old Testament, p. 860) that Jeremiah 
 quotes from Isa. 40—66 is very ill sustained. 
 
 t See the arguments for and against the " second Isaiah " fairly marshalled in 
 Dr. S. Davidson's Text of the Old Testament. Later criticism, in Germany and 
 England at least, has run very much in a direction opposed to unity of authorship. 
 See Professor Cheyne's Commentaries. But it is possible that a re-action may again 
 set in. Professor Driver's statement of the evidence, though marked by his usual 
 tendency to exaggerate the force of purely critical considerations, is clear and 
 able, and presents the case for the "second Isaiah" with remarkable force. But 
 we must not look to him, as we may to Dr. Davidson, for the statement of the 
 opposite view. 
 
 X Driver, Introductio7i, p. 250. 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 75 
 
 is altogether different.* And the Septuagint, moreover, omits 
 a considerable portion of the Hebrew text, as much, Pro- 
 fessor Driver tells us, as one eighth of the entire book.f 
 It is permissible to speculate whether the hasty removal of 
 the prophet into Egypt, recorded in ch. 43. 7, may have been 
 the cause of this confusion which meets us in loth texts. 
 The various utterances of the prophet, like modern sermons, 
 may have been published separately, and their subsequent 
 arrangement, or rather rZ/.sarrangement, in Judgea and in 
 Egypt, was doubtless a matter as nearly approaching pure 
 chance as anything of the kind could be.J The majority of the 
 commentators, until lately, have been in favour of Jeremiah's 
 authorship of the Lamentations. Recent critics, however, 
 have inclined the other way.§ 
 
 Ezekiel has been on the whole remarkably free from the 
 destructive criticism. Of course some few are to be found 
 who have called the genuineness of his prophecies in question. 
 
 * Dr. Davidson gives the following table :— 
 
 Heh. Text. Greek Text. Heb. Text. Greek Text. Heh. Text. Greek Text. 
 
 49. ^-39 25. 34-39. 
 
 25. 15-38 
 
 32. 
 
 47. 1-7 
 
 29. 
 
 1-7 
 
 26-45. 
 
 33—51. 
 
 48. 
 
 31. 
 
 
 46. 2-12 
 
 26. 1-11 
 
 49. 1-6 
 
 30. 
 
 1-5 
 
 13-28 
 
 12-26 
 
 7-22 
 
 29. 
 
 7-22 
 
 50,51 
 
 27, 28 
 
 23-27 
 28-33 
 
 30. 
 
 12-16 
 6-11 
 
 + Introduction, 
 
 . p. 253. 
 
 Most of these oi 
 
 nissioi 
 
 observes, are of slight importance. 
 
 X It is interesting to observe that in ch. 36. 28-32 we have an account of the way 
 in which some portion of the Book of Jeremiah was written down. Xo doubt this 
 autograph of Baruch would be preserved entire in both recensions. The remaining 
 prophecies would be arranged at will. Critics are divided as to the relative 
 superiority of the Hebrew and Greek text. On the whole the palm seems to be 
 given to the Hebrew, though thei-e appear to be not a few instances in which the 
 Greek is to be preferred. See Davidson, Text, p. 883 ; Driver, Introduction, p. 254 ; 
 Streane. Cambridge Bible for Schools, pp. xxxv.-xxxvii. ; and Workman, The Text 
 of Jeremiah : a Critical Investigation into tlie Greek and Hebrew Text. 
 
 § Driver, Infrodtiction, pp. 432-435, who enlarges (1) on the artificial character 
 of the composition (p. 4.30) ; (2) on the comparatively few correspondences in style 
 between this book and the prophecies of Jeremiah ; and (3) on some divergencies 
 in point of view. Dr. Davidson here minimizes the consensus of later critics 
 against the identity of authorship. 
 
76 PEINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CELTIC ISM. 
 
 But these critics have been neither numerous nor weighty.* 
 The question of the date of the prophecies has also given 
 rise to some discussion. But there seems no reason to doubt 
 that they were delivered between 592 and 570 B.C. The inter- 
 pretation of chaps. 40—48 has given rise to much controversy. 
 But there can be little doubt that it is a spiritualization of 
 the Jewish institutions, in view of an event which all the 
 prophets appear to have had in view— the advent of a successor 
 to Moses, who should possess a still higher authority, who 
 should introduce a new and worthier covenant, and should 
 extend its provisions to all nations on the earth. 
 
 The Book of Daniel, on the other hand, has been the " battle 
 ground of the Old Testament." Not only is it partly written 
 in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic, not only is it not placed 
 in the Hebrew Scriptures among the prophets, but among 
 the Hagiographa, which, as many have thought, were at 
 least originally regarded as writings of lesser authority ; 
 but it has come down to us in at least three forms — the 
 mixed Hebrew and Aramaic text ; the Septuagint trans- 
 lation, which has in places remodelled the original, and has 
 introduced much additional matter ; and the version of Theo- 
 dotion, in which the additional matter is also found, but 
 without the variations in the text. Then, again, words are 
 introduced which are said to be of Greek origin, pointing 
 to a later date than that of Daniel. On the other hand it 
 must be admitted that Daniel was an historical character of 
 o-reat renown among the Jews. The mention of him by a 
 
 * See Dr. A. B. Davidson, Commentary on Ezekiel {Cambridge Bible for 
 Schools) , p. XXX. It is a pleasant surprise to find Professor Driver writing, " No 
 critical question arises in connexion with the authorship of the book, the whole, 
 from beginning to end, bearing unmistakably the stamp of a single mind " (Intro- 
 duction, v-'^Ql)- Dr- A. B.Davidson's Introduction to Ezekiel in the Cambridge 
 Bible for Schools may also be consulted. But he makes the strange statement (in 
 the face of Ezek. 16. 6-14) that the prophet " recognizes no good time in Israel's 
 history" (p. xliv.). 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CIUTICISM. 77 
 
 wi'iter the genuineness of whose works is so universally re- 
 cognized as those of Ezekiel, may be taken as sufficient 
 evidence of this.* Yet the very fact that . Daniel was so well- 
 known and so deeply reverenced by the Jews of his own day 
 introduces a new element of difficulty into the problem. On 
 the one hand it is by no means uncommon to find a number 
 of legends gather gradually round well-known names. The 
 heroes of the Trojan war, the romances founded on the history 
 of Clement, and the stories told alx)ut our own Alfred, may 
 be taken as a few instances among a vast number. On the other 
 it is difficult to understand the free treatment of their author by 
 the Septuagint translator, if the prophecies were felt to be 
 the actual utterances of a man bearing so high a reputation. 
 Some of the prophecies, moreover, such as those in ch. 11, ai-e 
 of a character altogether unlike all other prophecies in Holy 
 Writ, by reason of their minute detail. This, it is true, does 
 not negative the possibility of their being authentic prophecies 
 by Daniel himself, but it at least suggests the necessity of 
 a closer scrutiny of the history of the text than would be 
 necessary elsewhere. The whole question is one of gi-eat com- 
 plexity and difficulty. But we may remark that even on the 
 hypothesis of the Maccabean origin of Daniel, which has 
 been a favourite doctrine among German commentators, the 
 prophetic element is by no means eliminated. It remains as 
 much a difficulty as ever to those who desire to disprove the 
 prophetic character of the Old Testament, how the Maccabean 
 patriot, who wrote to encourage the fainting spirits of his country- 
 men, could have hit upon something so very like the precise num- 
 ber of years which divided the age of Daniel from the birth of 
 Christ, or how he could, even at that time, have foreseen not only 
 the growth, but the decay and disruption of the Roman Empire, 
 and the substitution of another power of secret and mysterious 
 
 • Ezek. 14 ; 28. 3. 
 
JPBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 origin and growth in its place. This latter prophecy could 
 only prefigure the rise and progress of the Christian Church — 
 a fact not only entirely outside the range of ordinary fore- 
 sight, but, as the sequel showed, actually contrary to the 
 hopes and wishes of Hebrew patriots.* Yet, though destructive 
 criticism may find it impossible to extirpate prophecy, we 
 should find in this no reason for accepting its results as a 
 matter of course. Criticism, though it cannot destroy, may 
 do a good deal to lower the credit of Holy Scripture. Not 
 even in the case of the Book of Daniel, though we are bound 
 to admit that serious difficulties exist, should we be too ready 
 to minimize its prophetic character, and assign it as a whole 
 to a period as late as that of the Maccabees. 
 
 We proceed to the Minor Prophets. In Hosea the only 
 portion the authenticity of which is doubted is the title.f 
 The date of Joel has been variously assigned. Some writers 
 place it as early as 800 B.C., others as late as 689. Yatke 
 supposes it to be post-exilic. But if Amos quotes Joel (Am. 1. 2, 
 Joel 3. 16) we have, supposing the date of Amos to be about 
 790, a terminus ad quern which fixes the earlier date as the 
 correct one. Dr. Davidson J believes that he must have written 
 before Amaziah's victory over the Edomites (1 Kings 14. 7), 
 and, therefore, not later than 877. Professor Driver argues, 
 from the reference to the Captivity in Joel 3. 2, that the book 
 is post-exilic. He regards the resemblances between Joel and 
 Amos as simply shewing that one of the prophets quotes the 
 other. Amos he regards as " the earliest of the prophets," and 
 
 * The figure of the stone made without hands precisely indicates the absence 
 of the ordinary human methods of growth and progress which characterized the 
 spread of the Christian Church. But see ch. vi. for a fuller discussion of this, 
 question. Al-o see note F. 
 
 t "It is hardly likely that Hosea, writing in and for the Northern Kingdom, 
 would date his book by reigns of the kings of Jiidali."—'Qv\\^x, Introchiction, p. 282. 
 Ewald and Hitzig contend against its authenticity. Professor Sayce defends it 
 with some reservations. It is significant that while Hosea prophecies the destruc- 
 tion of Israel, there is no reference in his pages to it as an historic fact. 
 
 X Text of the Old Testament, p. 947. 
 
HISTORY OF OLD TESTAMENT CBITICISM. 79 
 
 his wiitiiigs " of undisputed date."* Even Baur seems to have 
 recognised his influence in the development of the religious 
 ideas of Israel. Here first, he says, we find the distinction 
 drawn between Israel after the flesh, and Israel after the spirit.f 
 Professor Driver regards the date of his ministrations as be- 
 tween B.C. 760 and 746. He was called from among the herds- 
 men of Tekoa (ch. 1. 1), but appears to have carried his boldness 
 so far as to denounce Jeroboam II. in the neigh])ourhood of 
 his own palace (ch. 7. 10-17). Obadiah either quotes, or is 
 quoted, by Jeremiah. Some commentators, it is true, imagine 
 that both wi'iters quote some earlier prophet whose wiitings 
 have not come down to us. But this is pure hypothesis. The 
 probability is that Jeremiah quotes Obadiah, but we liave not 
 sufficient information before us to go further than this.j 
 
 The Book of Jonah has been the subject of considerable dis- 
 cussion. It appears most probable that it is of a date much 
 later than the prophet. § The contents of the book are ap- 
 parently not mi/th but legend. That is to say, they are not the 
 casting of moral or spiritual truth into the form of a story, but 
 accretions which in process of time gathered round an historical 
 personage. That Jonah 2cas an historical personage is proved 
 by 2 Kings 14. 25. It is further probable that he was en- 
 trusted with a message to AssjTia, its king and j^eople ; that 
 he shrunk from the delivery of that message, and that some 
 catastrophe occurred to him in consequence. But while strenu- 
 ously upholding the general historic accuracy of the books of 
 Scripture, there can be no ground for insisting on the literal 
 
 * Introduction, p. 296. 
 
 t Davidson, Text of the Old Testament, p. 952. 
 
 t It afTorcIs a good test of the amount of certainty afforded by the critical 
 methods now in use, that five different dates have been assisned from internal 
 evidence, by various critics of note, to this one chapter. The dates vary from 889 
 to 312 B.C. See Davidson. Introduction to the Old Testament, iii. 2t)3. 
 
 § Professor Driver thinks that some "date in the 5th century B.C. will probably 
 not be wide of the truth" (p. 301). 
 
80 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 exactness of every detail. Here, as in the Book of Job, while 
 no one would wish to disturb the s-imple faith which receives 
 their contents as literal fact, we should be doing an injustice to 
 many ardent believers in Christ if we placed belief in the literal 
 truth of these narratives on a level with a belief in the genuine- 
 ness and authority of the Gospel record. That God could have 
 performed the jwrtents described in the Book of Jonah no in- 
 structed Christian — nor, it may be, even a scientific thinker 
 like Professor Huxley * — would be disposed to deny. What 
 we need is evidence that He did do so. That the miracle of the 
 swallowing of Jonah by the sea-monster is as fully attested as 
 the miracles recorded in the Gospels is a position few would 
 care to maintain. As we have seen, not only the character of 
 the narrative, but even the date of the book, is open to ques- 
 tion. And the reference to the story by our Lord (Matt. 12. 39, 
 16. 4 ; Luke 11. 29), though it should f)reclude all contemp- 
 tuous rejection of the book or its contents, does not commit 
 Him to the actual historical accuracy of all the details of the 
 narrative.! 
 
 We proceed to Micah. He was obviously a contemporary 
 of Isaiah.J But while Isaiah was a kind of Court chaplain, 
 Micah's ministrations seem to have been of a more popular kind. 
 Tlie genuineness of chaps. 6, 7, has been disputed. Ewald assigns 
 them to the time of Manasseh, and AVellhausen, on the ground 
 of a sharp contrast which he imagines to exist between ch. 6. 
 1-7 and 7. 7-20, sup}X)ses the latter passage to have been 
 
 * See his Essay on Hume, p. 136. 
 
 t There is a considerable difference between an allusion, such as this, to the iype 
 contained in a passage in one of the Canonical Scriptures of the Jews, and an argu- 
 ment drawn from important matters of historical fact, such as the origin and contents 
 of the Law of Moses. See this question further discussed in the next chapter. 
 
 t It has been questioned whether Isaiah, in ch. 2. 2-4, quotes Micah 4. 1-4, or 
 whether Micah quotes Isaiah, The fact that Isaiah begins the whole passage with 
 the conjunction "and" ( ITll) is decisive for the former, unless (which is most 
 improbable) both are to be regarded as quoting some former author. See Delitzsch 
 in loc. 
 
HISTOBY OF OLD TESTAMENT CBITICISM. 81 
 
 added during the Balivlonish Captivity.* As Micali prophecies 
 the destruction of Samaria (ch. 1. 6), he must have wi'itten 
 before B.C. 722. Xahum's prophecy does not admit of the 
 attachment of any exact date to it. The allusion to the 
 destruction of Thebes in B.C. ^^^ is thought by Knobel to 
 fix it as subsequent to that event. But G-esenius contests 
 this. Dr. Davidson therefore fixes the date at about 713. 
 We come next to Habakkuk. Eichhorn and others regard 
 him as writing after the events he described. But Ewald, 
 Knobel, De Wette, Ussher, and Driver, fix the date in the reign 
 of Jehoiakim (608-598). j Zephaniah wrote, it is supposed, 
 about 627. The Hizkiah from whom he is stated to have 
 been descended is very probably king Hezekiah.J The date 
 of Haggai is fixed by the contents to be about B.C. 520. 
 Zechariah has been divided into two parts, chaps. 1 — 8, which 
 have been generally supposed to be the work of the prophet 
 himself, and which is of the same date as the Book of Haggai, 
 and chaps. 9^14, which have been attributed by many critics, 
 including some English writers of high reputation for ortho- 
 doxy, to another hand. Whether the second portion of the 
 prophecy is pre-exilic or post-exilic has also been keenly 
 debated. Passages in favour of each view have been alleged. 
 On behalf of the former it has been contended (1) that the 
 mention of a king does not accord with the post-exilic con- 
 dition of Judah;§ (2) that the allusions to the teraphim 
 and diviners (10. 2), and the idols (13. 2) are equally in- 
 consistent with that condition ; (3) that Egypt and Assyria 
 are mentioned as in the time of Hosea. The arguments for 
 a post-exilic origin are such as will only have weight with 
 
 * Driver, Introduction, pp. 305-312. 
 
 t Dr. Sinker, however, contends that the incredulity displayed in ch. 1. 5, would 
 have been impossible after the battle of Carchemish, B.C. 605. 
 
 X "Hizkiah" is the proper transliteration of the Hebrew name. The form 
 "Hezekiah" comes from the Septuagint and Vulgate Ezekias. 
 
 § But it seems most probable that the king of a neighboui-iug nation is meant. 
 
 F 
 
82 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 those who are inclined to minimize the prophetic element in 
 Scripture. Thus, Greece is spoken of in ch. 9. 13 as being 
 in a relation to Palestine, which did not actually exist until 
 long afterwards. Considerations like these induced men like 
 Mede to attribute these chapters to Jeremiah, on the strength 
 of the fact that in Matt. 27. 9, 10 the words of Zech. 11. 12, 13 
 are attributed to that prophet.* Nothing is known of Malachi. 
 But the fact that he attacks the same evils as were complained 
 of by Ezra and Nehemiah marks him out as a contemporary of 
 theirs. Thus, he complains of the marriages with the heathen 
 {cf. ch. 2. 10-16 with Ezra 9. 2, :N'eh. 13. 23), that tithes are 
 withheld (3. 8 with Neh. 13. 10), and that the priests neglect 
 their duty (2. 8 with Ezra 10. 18, Neh. 13. 4-8, 28, 29). We 
 may therefore look upon him as an active and effective assistant 
 in their reformino" work. 
 
 * See his Collected Works, pp. 963, 1022. He thinks also that the contents of 
 chaps. 9—11 suit the times of Jeremiah better than those of Zechariah. Dr. Pusey, in 
 his Commentary on the Ifinor Prophets, pp. 511, 512, has given a table of the 
 variety of opinions entertained by critics as to the date of the various portions 
 of Zechariah. We vpill not encumber our pages with them. But there are about 
 eighteen different theories concerning the date of chaps. 9-11, and fourteen concern- 
 ing the date of chaps. 12-14. In the case of the former chapters the dates suggested 
 range from 772 to 303 B.C. From this the reader may be able to form some con- 
 clusion as to the claim of pure criticism to a place as yet among the exact sciences. 
 The Rev. C. H. H. W^right, in his Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, refers to the sin- 
 gular tendency among the supporters of free criticism to bovr at least as humbly to 
 authority as those who maintain the conservative position {Zechariah and his 
 JProphccies, pp. 26, 27) . 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE GENUrSTENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 rPHE limits to which this vokime is confined preckicle any 
 -*- extended investigation of the principles of Pentatenchal 
 criticism mentioned in the last chapter. A brief summary of 
 the reasons which may induce the student to hesitate before 
 adopting them, w^ith however much confidence they may be 
 pressed on him, is all that can be attempted. We must, how- 
 ever, commence with one or two admissions. 
 
 1. We have already seen that the Christian Church, as a 
 whole, has committed herself to no theory of Inspiration. 
 Therefore, we are unable to lay down any canon, a iiriori^ 
 regarding the impossibility that any error or mistake should 
 be found in the Scriptures. All that we are entitled to postu- 
 late as a consequence of a belief in Inspiration is (1) the 
 Divine origin of their religious and moral teaching, (2) the 
 general accuracy of their historical statements, (3) the pre- 
 sence within them of prophecy, or the Divinely inspired pre- 
 diction of events to come, and (4) their unique value in 
 guiding and controlling the spiritual aspirations of man toward 
 God. If then modern investigation should claim to have 
 discovered some discrepancies in their pages, or even if the 
 contents of the Old Testament should be found on some points 
 to display a moral or spiritual inferiority to those of the 
 New, the beUever in Christ need in no way be staggered in his 
 faith. The first discovery will be regarded in the light of the 
 fact that God, though He gave the writers of the Bible a 
 formal commission to teach religious truth, has nowhere ex- 
 pressly declared that such commission shall give them an entire 
 immunity from error on every point. The second will cease to 
 
 F 2 
 
8J: PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 disturb our minds when we remember that the Divine scheme 
 for the training of man was essentially progressive, and that 
 the words which were said " to them of old time " were ampli- 
 fied or abrogated at the " I say unto you " of the Incarnate 
 Word of God. 
 
 2. We must also admit that Christians are in no way com- 
 mitted by their belief in Divine revelation to any particular 
 theory of the origin or date of the books of the Old Testament 
 in their present shape, but only to the general accuracy of their 
 contents.* There seems not only no reason to doubt, but over- 
 whelming reasons for believing, for instance, that documents 
 must have been used in the compilation of Genesis. It is 
 difficult to conceive in what other way the writer could have 
 come by the information he hands down. Oral tradition, 
 though it is a possible, would have been a comparatively mosi 
 untrustworthy, source of that information. It is historically 
 certain that writing was known before the time of x\braham.| 
 There is, therefore, a strong presumption in favour of the sup- 
 position that the patriarchs themselves could write, and a high 
 degree of probability in consequence that memoirs were pre- 
 served among their descendants which were used in the narrative 
 in Genesis. It is more than probable that some of these were 
 inserted in extenso. Genealogies would naturally be copied with 
 
 * " We must not presumptuously stake the inspiration and the Divine authority 
 of the Old Testament on any foregone conclusion as to the method and shape in 
 which the records have come down to us."— Bp. Westcott, Commentary on Ep. to 
 Hebrews, p. 493. 
 
 t Professor Robertson {Early Religion of Israel, p. 77) remarks on the signifi- 
 cance of the discovery, at Tel-el-Amarna, in Egypt, of a nvimber of clay tablets in 
 the Babylonian language, which he attributes to a date a century previous to the 
 Exodus, as proving (1) that the art of writing, and the culture it presupposes, was 
 widely diffused at that era, and (2) that there was then considerable intercom- 
 munication between Asia and Africa. The Rev. H. G. Tomkins, in his Studies on 
 the Times of Abraham, ?;\ye^ much useful information on the employment of writ- 
 ing, and the general condition of civilisation among the Hittites in the Abrahamic 
 period. Inscriptions, moreover, have been discovered at Ur of the Chaldees, dating 
 from an earlier period than that of Abraham. Major Conder regards the Tel-el- 
 Amarna tablets as subsequent to the Exodus. 
 
THE GEXriXEXESS OF THE PEXTATEUCH. 85 
 
 as much exactness as possible, though it is also possible that 
 some of these may have been inserted from pubHc records by 
 some later editor. "Whether documents were also used in the 
 other books of the Pentateuch it is impossible to say. The 
 assertions of the critics, though by no means destitute of all 
 foundation, fall many degrees short of actual demonstration. 
 Yet it is nowhere said that Moses himself wrote the remaining 
 books, though portions of them are unquestionably ascribed to 
 him.* We certainly, therefore, are not entitled to insist on the 
 Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch as an article of faith. 
 3. ^Ye may add that it is no doubt theoretically possible that 
 the development of reUgion may have taken place in the way 
 in which it is contended by some wTiters that il took place. 
 That is to say, it is quite conceivable that there might have 
 been a gradual evolution of the idea of God from primitive 
 fetichism, through polytheism, to the pure monotheistic form 
 to which it eventually attained. The institutions of the Jews, 
 too, might no doubt have been gradually evolved in the course 
 of the ages, until they assimied their final shape after the 
 return from the Captivity. There is nothing impossible in 
 such a sup]3osition, and it is in entire harmony with recent 
 scientific investigation into the origin and development of 
 species. Moreover, if our critical researches compelled us to 
 substitute evolution for revelation in the history of Israel, it 
 must be confessed that such a course could not be regarded 
 as absolutely fatal to Christian belief. There is only one 
 question we are entitled to ask before accepting it, and that is, 
 how far the theory can be reconciled with the historic records 
 which have come down to us. 
 
 * Dout. 31. 9,24-26: cf. 17. 18. What portion of the Book of Deuteronomy the 
 words "this law" refer to has been disputed. But it seems reasonable to suppose 
 that it includes the greater part, if not the whole, of the book. Kleinert {Das 
 Deuteronomuim, p. 38) supposes chaps. 5-26 to have been meant, and this is a very 
 general opinion, though some have supposed that the Ten Commandments only 
 were referred to. 
 
8G PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 4. We must also thankfully admit that the English school of 
 Biblical research is free from the coarse irreverence and pre- 
 sumptuous dogmatism of its Continental progenitors. We may 
 lament a certain marked deference to principles of criticism 
 which do not commend themselves to investigators in other 
 fields of historical and Hterary research. We may see, or think 
 we see, that the concessions made by English critics of re23ute 
 at the suggestions of men more advanced than themselves, 
 are sure to be ultimately fatal to any real belief in the 
 inspiration of the Old Testament, and that the practical 
 surrender of the inspiration of the Old Testament must 
 be a serious injury to our belief in the New. Yet we 
 readily grant that writers like Professors Driver, Eobertson 
 Smith, and others who have accepted their methods, are 
 not only devout believers in Christianity, and firm upholders 
 of the inspiration of Scripture, but that, while strenuously 
 maintaining the late date and composite character of the Pen- 
 tateuch in its present shape, they are, nevertheless, by no means 
 inclined to deny the " great antiquity " of the " chief ceremonial 
 institutions of Israel in their origin."* 
 
 Nevertheless, while we readily make these admissions, we 
 must not be supposed to commit ourselves to the conclusions 
 which many have dra^m from them. It does not in the least 
 follow that because the Pentateuch may, in its present shape, 
 be of far later date than has usually been supposed — because it 
 is conceivable that God might have revealed Himself in the 
 way the negative criticism presents Him as having done — and 
 because the EngUsh critics who have accepted its principles are 
 devout believers in Christ and in the inspiration of the Holy 
 Scriptures — we may regard those principles as demonstrated facts, 
 or as having no dangerous consequences. This appears to 
 have been too readily assumed by some who have prematurely 
 
 * Professor Driver, Introduction, p. 135. See also pp. 118, 1^8. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 87 
 
 accepted the conclusions of the new school. In their anxiety to 
 be rid of certain very pressing difficulties in the Old Testament, 
 they have not inquired sufficiently whether they may not in- 
 volve themselves in far more serious difficulties by accepting 
 the new theories. The late Dr. Pusey used very frequently to 
 remark that English people were very prone to make admissions 
 without seeing how far they would lead them. It is very 
 necessary, on a point of such importance as the history of the 
 Jewish people, that we should understand precisely what con- 
 sequences may follow from our admissions, and what is involved 
 in the theories even of the new English schoo of Biblical 
 criticism.* 
 
 1. It has been admitted that the date and authorship of the 
 Pentateuch, as it has come down to us, is a matter of compara- 
 tively little importance. But it does not foUow in the least 
 that we can accept theories, for instance, like those of Professor 
 Driver. The question which to us is of vital importance is the 
 historical accuracy of the contents of the narrative. But for 
 this, on Professor Driver's theory, we have no guarantee what- 
 ever. We accept as accurate a book like Professor Freeman's 
 History of the Norman Conquest^ though written eight centuries 
 after the events recorded, because we know that he had access 
 to contemporary authorities, and that he has treated them fairly. 
 But on Professor Driver's theory of Hebrew history there are 
 no contemporary authors to consult, and what authorities there 
 are have been subjected to a thorough revision by men domi- 
 nated by a preconceived idea. The compiler of the Pentateuch, 
 we are told, drawing up his narrative at some undefined period 
 after the Exile, made use of an almost contemporary narrative 
 by a priestly author,! ^^^ of two other writers, whose works 
 
 * Professor Robei*tson [Early Religion of Israel, Preface, p. xii.) asks whether 
 " the historical value of Christianity would remain just what it is " on the principles 
 on which Old Testament history has lately been dealt with. 
 
 t Introduction, p. 135. 
 
88 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 were subsequently combined, who wrote in the days of the 
 later kings, i.e., about B.C. 800 or 900.* All beyond this is lost 
 in the dim cloudland of tradition. Moses, it is true, looms 
 forth through the mist as the " ultimate founder " of Jewish 
 institutions.! But of the nature of those institutions at the 
 outset, beyond the " original form " of the Ten Commandments, 
 we have no information which will warrant us in expressing 
 any opinion. Thus, unless we adopt a very narrow mechanical 
 view of Inspiration, and imagine the facts of Israelite history 
 to have been miraculously revealed to the Jehovist, the Elohist, 
 the author of the Priestly Code, and the redactor or redactors 
 who combined the contents, we have no means of ascertaining 
 how much of the narrative is fact, and how much is a mere 
 product of the imagination.J 
 
 2. The admission that it is antecedently possible that God 
 might have taught His people in the way which the recon- 
 structed scheme of the Pentateuch demands, must also be care- 
 fully scrutinized. No doubt the contents of the Scriptures, so 
 far as ethical and theological teaching is concerned, are equally 
 sublime and profitable, upon any theory whatever of their 
 origin. But revealed religion is not merely a system of en- 
 lightened teaching on moral and spiritual subjects. It has 
 
 * Introduction, p. 116. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 144. 
 
 % " It is but fair to M. Vernes [a critic more advanced than Wellhausenor Kuenen] 
 to say that his chief objection to the prevailing school is that their method is 
 instifficient. He professes to carry out to their legitimate conclusion the principles 
 on which they proceed ; and if, as it seems to me, the critical ' circles ' to which 
 Wellhausen refers {History, p. 9) are concentric, we are entitled to look at the 
 operation of central principles. It may not be agreeable to the prevailing school 
 to be called traditionalists ; yet M. Vernes has some right to ask, if the recollection 
 of the period immediately preceding Savxl and David has almost completely dis- 
 appeared, how any one can be justified in going back centuries beyond that dim 
 period, and talking about migrations of pre-Abrahamic peoples and suchlike matters 
 which are shrouded in impenetrable darkness {Besultats, &c., p. 42 f) ."—Robertson, 
 Early Eeligion of Israel, p. 519. Thus the critics are vulnerable, not only from 
 the orthodox side, but on that of critics whose methods are more thorough than 
 their own. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 89 
 
 also a historical basis.* The Scriptures do not simply inform us 
 on spiritual things, they communicate spiritual facts through 
 the medium of human history. They tell us of a Divine i^lan 
 for the education of the world, culminating in the life and 
 teaching of a historical Person. They tell us of the selection, 
 first, of a patriarchal family commissioned to hand down to 
 future ages the doctrine of the Unity of God.j They tell us 
 how a law was given by God to Moses for the benefit of that 
 family when it had become a nation, and they profess to state 
 its provisions. And the remaining books with one consent 
 declare that the Israelites had disobeyed that law, and attri- 
 bute all the subsequent misfortunes of Israel to that disobedi- 
 ence. Taking Professor Driver as the type of om- English 
 reconstructionists, we find (1) that all we know is that the 
 law as it stands was not given by Moses,J (2) that we do not 
 know how much of it is to be attributed to him,§ and that 
 (3) the statements regarding God's punishment of the Israelites 
 for their disobedience of its provisions must be regarded as 
 later inventions. || Into the question of the morality of this 
 
 * " They (the Scriptures) do not deliver a mere code of morals or of legislation, 
 but their character is pre-eminently historical, -while they purport to disclose a 
 close and continuing superintendence from on high over human affairs."— Gladstone, 
 Impregnable Rock of Holy ScrijHure, p. 86. "For as Christianity is historical, so 
 too almost eveiy part of the Bible is historical."— Bp. ^yestcott, Bible in the Church, 
 p. 2. '• I have a strong conviction that it is their connection with a Divinely guided 
 history, more even than their high tone of teaching, which gives to the Old Testa- 
 ment books their special authority."— Robertson, JJar??/ Religion of Israel, Tvelace, 
 p. xii. 
 
 t " This choice of a particular family, or race, may be advantageously conti-asted 
 with the heathen method of selection, or preference, by the deification of indi- 
 viduals" (Gladstone, Impregnable Rock, -p. 97). It should be observed that the 
 former is represented as God's work, whereas the latter is the work of man. 
 
 t Introduction, pp. 128, sqq. 
 
 § lb., pp. 135, 144. " He provided his people . . . with at least the nucleus 
 of a system of civil ordinances," as well a^ "with some system of ceremonial 
 observances." 
 
 II Professor Driver, here following Wellhausen, Kuenen, and other foreign critics, 
 regards the histories in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, as having been re- 
 modelled in accordance with Deuteronomist views (Introduction, pp. 97, 154, 167, 
 175). Chi'onicles has been drawn up under the influence of the religious ideai 
 
90 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 treatment of history we will not yet enter. We shall inquire 
 presently how far the author of Deuteronomy was justified 
 in not only putting speeches into the mouth of Moses which 
 he never uttered, but ascribing to him laws of which he was 
 not, and could not have been, the author. But the ques- 
 tion before us at present is one of another kind. As Pro- 
 fessor Eobertson says, " Questions are involved that lie much 
 deeper than those of the verbal inspiration, or the so-called 
 'inerrancy,' of Scripture. It seems to me vain to talk of the 
 inspiration and authority of books till we are sure that they 
 are credible and honest compositions giving us a firm histori- 
 cal basis on which to rest."* If all that we know of the early 
 history of Israel is that in the dim twilight of a mythical 
 age, there is some reason for believing that a person named 
 Moses escaped from Egypt with a company of outlaws ; that 
 these guerilla bands contrived in some unknown way f to effect 
 a lodgment in the hill country of Palestine ; that some ele- 
 mentary principles of morality, some unknown germ of cere- 
 monial observance, was imparted to them in their passage 
 thither ; and that this was ultimately expanded into the 
 Jewish theology, the Jewish moral and ceremonial Law in 
 the shape in which it has come down to us ; — if this be the 
 
 entertained by the author of the Priestly Code {ib., p, 500) . As to the prophets, 
 who distinctly support the express statements of the historical Scriptures, three 
 courses are open to us. We may either gently correct them, as Professor Driver 
 chides Ezekiel, for their misapprehension of the true history of their country, and 
 for "transferring to the past the associations of the present " {ib., p. 261), or we may 
 boldly assert that they wrote after the Exile (as in the case of Joel) , or we may 
 strike out, with W^ellhausen, any passages that may conflict with our theory. See 
 Robertson, Ua7-Iy Religion of Israel, pp. 466, 467. " The historical and prophetical 
 books . . . are admissible as testimony only after they have been expurgated or 
 adjusted on the principles of the underlying theory . . . The further one follows 
 the processes the more apparent it becomes that the endeavour is not so much to 
 find out by fair interpretation what the writer says, as to discover his motive for 
 saying it, or what he wishes to conceal." 
 
 * Early Religion of Israel, p. 489. 
 
 t This is all Professor Robertson Smith can tell us in his Old Testament in the 
 Jeivish Chtirch, p. 130. 
 
THE GEXUiyEXESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 91 
 
 trae account of Israelitish history^ then it is tolerably clear 
 that the Bible as it stands is an exceedingly untrustworthy 
 book. But this is only one set of results which the analytical 
 criticism has obtained for us. Critics of a more advanced 
 school tell us, as we have seen, that the Jewish religion was 
 originally fetichism ; that this gradually developed into a 
 polytheism undistinguishable from that of the surrounding 
 nations ; that, by degrees, some of the earUer prophets 
 obtained a glimmering of the monotheistic idea, which 
 ultimately shaped itself into a definite form of religious 
 and ceremonial teaching ; and that the true chronological 
 order of the development of Israelite institutions is the Pro- 
 phets and the Law, not the Law and the Prophets. This 
 view has also found supporters in England.* If this last view 
 of the history be accepted, then the Scriptures in their present 
 form are not merely tinged with inaccuracy, but plainly and 
 distinctly false— and it must be added to a considerable 
 extent intentionally false — from one end to the other. If 
 such results can be demonstrated by criticism, by all means 
 let us accept them. But at least let us understand whither 
 such principles will lead us. Let us consider how far it is 
 possible to retain a belief in the inspiration of a volume 
 which so fundamentally misrepresents the facts. And if our 
 belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures rests upon a solid 
 basis apart from these theories, we shall have an excellent 
 reason for refusing to accept them on grounds which at best 
 are no more than probable.! 
 
 * See the speech of the Rev. G. A. Cooke at the Rhyl Congress. For a full dis- 
 cussion of this question the reader is referred to Robertson's EarJij Religion of 
 Israel. It is true that, as Mr. Gladstone remarks {Impregnable Rock, p. 172), it is 
 for the legislation, rather than the history, that the claim of direct revelation is 
 made. But an inspired book should surely be accurate in its main facts. 
 
 t " It is altogether inadequate to reply to such a question " [whether Christianity, 
 as a historically developed religion, would be of equal value to us on the supposi- 
 tion combated above] "that 'criticism in the hands of Christian scholars does not 
 banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament, it presupposes it ' (Driver, 
 
92 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM, 
 
 3. Yet an undecided logical attitude, which admits premisses 
 while it shrinks from following them to their legitimate con- 
 clusion, would seem to be characteristic of a good deal of 
 the thought of the day in regard to Holy Scripture. Not 
 only do many persons allow themselves to suppose that the 
 controversy only affects the date and authorship of the Mosaic 
 books, and certain a priori conceptions of the mode in which 
 inspiration may be supposed to have operated on the human 
 mind, instead of involving, as it does, the credibiUty of the 
 Old Testament as a whole, — but even the English critics 
 tliemselves seem hardly to have comprehended the true cha- 
 racter of their own teaching. Thus they do not hold Abraham, 
 with Wellhausen, to be " a free creation of unconscious art,"* 
 and the latest portrait of the patriarchs. They would hesitate 
 to describe the narrative in 1 Sam. 6 as "a pious make up."* 
 They would not say of any portion of the history that there 
 is "not a particle of truth" in it.j They have not gone 
 so far as to represent Aaron as introduced into the narrative 
 ot the Exodus by the writer who combined J with E. % 
 They would not hazard the paradox that the " striking agree- 
 ment which exists between the books of the Hexateuch makes 
 the office of criticism not less, but more necessary." § But 
 they admit the premisses which lead to conclusions like these. 
 They regard the history as full of mistakes and inaccuracies 
 throughout, and it is from the continual incoherency and in- 
 consistency of the narrative that they are able to detect the 
 sources from which it has been compiled. They go so far as to 
 
 Introduction, p, xix) . I can well understand the position of one who would say it 
 does not matter whether the Old Testament story is true or not, provided we can 
 draw from it good religious instruction. So, in a certain sense, we may call the 
 religious novel inspired Scripture. But the Christian scholar must be prepared 
 to meet the objector who insists on meting out the same measure to the Xew 
 Testament writers."— Robertson, JEarly Religion of Israel, Preface, p. xi. 
 
 * "Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 230. 
 
 t Ihid. p. 12S. X Ibid. p. U-2. § Ibid. p. 298. 
 
THE GEXUIXEXESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 93 
 
 impute downright inventions to the author of the Priestly Code.* 
 Thus, though beUevers in inspiration, they have no confidence 
 in the trustworthiness of the Scripture naiTative. It becomes 
 simply a question of detail, how much of it to accept and how 
 much to reject. And on one point they revei-se their usual 
 process : they admit conclusions, but deny the premisses which 
 have led to them. For German criticism, as a rule, denies the 
 possibility of miracles and prophecy, and it is from the pre- 
 sence of the miraculous and the prophetical element in a book 
 that the lateness of its origin can be inferred. It is plain 
 that when this criterion is abandoned, and when we have 
 nothing but internal criticism to rely upon, the whole basis 
 on which the modern theories have been founded is removed, 
 and nothing is left but guesses of more or less probability. 
 
 4. While we thus reject the development theory of inspi- 
 ration, it is not denied that there was any development 
 at all. Xo student of the Scriptures could fail — it might 
 be said, ever has failed — to recognize the evident growth of 
 the religious idea from Abraham to Closes, from Moses to 
 the Prophets. As Professor Robertson has remarked, "the 
 Biblical theory is more conspicuous by a theory of develop- 
 ment than the modern one.^f For it traces the unfolding 
 
 * See Driver, Introduction, p. 34. Exocl. 2S, which is supposed to form a part of 
 the Priestly Code, distinctly attributes the appointment of the priesthood, and the 
 reservation of it to the family of Aaron. This statement is confirmed in Exod. 40 
 and in Xura. 17 ; IS, which are both included in the Priestly Code. It may be said 
 that the wi-iter did but attribute to Moses the institutions which had been handed 
 down for ages. But Exod. 40 and Xum. 17 contain direct historical statements, 
 which are either true or false. The same may be said of the naiTutive of the altar 
 Ed in Josh. 2'i, which could not have happened as related, if the worship at a 
 central sanctuary was first promulgated in the reign of Manasseh. " The h^-pothesis 
 of Graf " (which is the foundation of all Professor Driver's criticism, though he does 
 not always follow it out to its legitimate conclusions : see his Introduction, p. 2) 
 "carries with it the assumption that the narratives accompanying the laws of the 
 Pentateuch are not history in the proper sense of the word at all, but the product 
 of late imaginative writers, and, in short, fictitious " (Robertson, Early Religion of 
 Israel, p. 466). 
 
 t Early Beligioti of Israel, p. 480. 
 
94 PEIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 of a germ originally implanted, rather than the introduction 
 of new conceptions which have no relation to those which 
 had previously been entertained. And it is in harmony with 
 the later religious history of the world. The history of Israel, 
 like that of the Christian Church, is the history of men 
 struggling to reach an ideal which is too high for them, 
 and can only be attained through the discipline of repeated 
 failures. 
 
 Thus, whether we accept the Grcrman or the English version 
 of the analytical criticism, we find oui*selves face to face with 
 a problem of a most momentous character. That problem is 
 the substantial accuracy or inaccuracy, on vital points, of the 
 Old Testament as it stands. The question is not simply whether 
 it is a venerable document, or whether it is a valuable con- 
 tribution to the moral or religious development of mankind, 
 but whether it is to be accepted as a trustworthy record of 
 God's moral and spiritual education of the world. And, there- 
 fore, we are all bound to examine the question, as far as possible, 
 for ourselves. We cannot leave its settlement entirely to ex- 
 perts. Each one of us must do his best to form a conclusion 
 on the evidence before us. And, happily, that evidence is by 
 no means confined to points on which only eminent Hebrew 
 scholars can form an opinion, but it has to do with questions 
 of probability and fact, such as ordinary Englishmen are called 
 upon to pronounce a decision day by day.* 
 
 * See Gladstone, Impregnable Bock of Holy Scripture, ch. 1. In the study of 
 Homer, he adds, " I have had the opportunity of perceiving how, among speciahsts 
 as with other men, there may be fashions of the time and school, which Lord Bacon 
 called idols of the market-place, and currents of prejudice below the surface, such 
 as to detract somewhat from the authority which each inquirer might justly claim in 
 his own field" (p. 4). And again (p. 176), he remarks that the theory of the gi-adual 
 evolution of Jewish institutions " reaches far beyond the province of specialism, and 
 requires to be tested at a number of points by considerations more broadly his- 
 torical." So Robertson, Uarly Religion of Israel, pp. 6, 7, " The essential and 
 fundamental matters in dispute . . . are not questions of ' scholarship ' at all, in the 
 proper sense of the term . . . Specialists are very prone to become theorists, and a 
 specialist with a theory is a very unsafe guide when questions of evidence have to 
 
THE GEXCIXEXESS OF THE PEXTATEUCH. 95 
 
 I. The first point of the inquiry on Avhich a few words are 
 necessary, is the e^■itlence njDon which we are called upon to 
 dismiss our belief in the antiquity and unity of authorship of 
 the Pentateuch. This evidence is as follows : — First, it is 
 supposed to be incontrovertibly proved that documents were 
 used in the composition of the Pentateuch. Kext, we are 
 confronted with certain serious discrepancies between the in- 
 stitutions of Deuteronomy and those of the Priestly Code. 
 Next, there is the presence in various parts of the Pentateuch 
 of certain elements of distinctly later date. Xext, there is 
 the silence of the historical writers in regard to the obser^'ance 
 of the provisions of the law as it at present stands, and the 
 clear proof of the non-observance of some of them. Lastly — 
 and on this argument very great stress is laid — there is the 
 general agreement of the critics in regard to the severance 
 from the rest of the naiTative of what is known as the Priestly 
 Code. TVe will briefly consider each of these points. 
 
 1. It cannot be denied that there are portions of Genesis in 
 which the word Jehovah, and others in which the word Elohim, 
 is exclusively used to denote God, and that these may be thought, 
 not only for that reason alone, but for other reasons, to point 
 to the fact that the historian has embodied older docimients 
 in his narrative. But it is obvious that this would only 
 apply to that portion of the Pentateuchal uan-ative which is 
 anterior to the time of Moses, and therefore would not 
 in the least impugn the Mosaic authorship of Genesis. After 
 Exod. 6. 3, the author of the Priestly Code himself becomes 
 a Jehovist. This is a fact a little curious in itself, for there 
 
 be settled ... A little sense of humour might enable them to perceive the ridiculous- 
 ness of many of the processes carried on in all seriousness in the name of criticism." 
 Professor Cheyne himself {Hampton Lectures, Preface, p. xxi.) has admitted that 
 special Hebrew knowledge is an insignificant factor in the problem to be solved. 
 His words are, " The linguistic argument is unfortunately not often of primary im- 
 portance in the higher criticism of the Old Testament." Wellhausen makes a similar 
 admission {History of Israel, p. 390). 
 
96 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 exists no reason why, in common with authors supposed to have 
 written before him, he should not have projected the name 
 Jehovah into the history of the events before God revealed 
 Himself to Israel hj that name. Great stress is laid in relation 
 to this point on the continual repetition throughout the Pen- 
 tateuch, in a somewhat different shape and in a drier and more 
 precise form, of statements previously made. Yet it is quite 
 possible that a very early writer, unversed in the arts of the 
 more polished literary composition of later times, adopted this 
 course in order to emphasize the statements to which he desires 
 to call particular attention. In that case the argument from 
 these repetitions loses much of its force.* And the straits to 
 which the disintegrating critic is often driven to support his 
 conclusions would suggest to the uncritical reader the propriety 
 at least of suspending his judgment. f 
 
 2. The discrepancies between Deuteronomy and the Priestly 
 Code which are at all of a formidable character, reduce them- 
 selves to two— the differences between the regulations in regard 
 to tithe in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the apparent 
 absence in the latter of any distinction between the Levites 
 and the Priests. As regards the former it must frankly be 
 admitted that no satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy 
 
 * All the histories in the Old Testament, it should be observed, are regarded as 
 having been compiled in a similar way. How is it that we do not find, as a rule, 
 similar repetitions in the other books, as deeply imbedded in the ordinary course of 
 the narrative as in the first five books ? If modern discoveries be indeed facts, they 
 must be capable of explanation. 
 
 t U.g., The repeated admissions that there are different "strata" and "foreign 
 elements" in the narratives ascribed to a particular writer— the suggestion so 
 frequently resorted to of a Px and a P2 as well as the original P, and the thrusting 
 by the critics, of a verse or half a verse of one Avriter into the midst of a coherent 
 narrative by another, without any apparent reason save the necessities of the 
 theory. Such suspension would seem all the more necessary in the light thrown 
 upon the matter in an Introduction to the Old Testament, by Dr. Cornill, of 
 Konigsberg. The unity he finds in the Priestly Code is only an " unityof spirit." 
 It is by no means a " literary unity." So many " later additions " have " gathered " 
 round the original " kernel " that the completed work can only receive " the general 
 designation of Px." See p. 56 of his work. Surely this is, at least, proof enough 
 that the argument from style can no longer be pressed. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 97 
 
 has been found. But it does not in the least follow that had 
 we more information no such explanation could be found. Still 
 less does it follow that on such a ground alone we are compelled 
 to yield to the very large demands made upon our faith by 
 the advocates of the new criticism, involving, as we have seen, 
 the complete abandomnent of the Old Testament account of 
 the Divine system of preparation for Christ.* As regards the 
 second, it may be sufficient to remark that though in Deut- 
 eronomy all priests are termed Levites, it does not follow thence 
 that all Levites are regarded as priests, and that in one par- 
 ticular passage, Deut. 18. 1-8, it appears perfectly clear that 
 the Deuteronomic code recognizes a difference between priests 
 and Levites. As Deuteronomy may be regarded as the edition of 
 the Law issued for the sake of the people at large, the minute 
 details required elsewhere would not, of course, be expected in it. 
 And, possibly, the fact that " Levi had no part nor inheritance 
 with his brethren," and the consequent duty incumbent on all 
 Israel to support that tribe, may have weighed with the writer 
 of Deuteronomy in insisting in a book with such an object 
 in view on the quasi -priestly character of the Levites generally. 
 As to other discrepancies pointed out, they are either due to 
 a lively imagination, such as has too frequently run riot among 
 the sacred pages, or they refer to points in which we have to 
 lament the lack of further information.! 
 
 * If Deuteronomy were the last, not the first, of the Pentuteuchal series ; if it were 
 written as early as the reign of David, not as late as the reign of Manasseh, as many 
 German critics of note {e.g. Ewald) have believed— it would still be possible to 
 imagine that some modification of the law of tithe had been found nec^ssaiy in 
 practice, without any of the sweeping conclusions which have been built upon such 
 modification, 
 
 t Thus Professor Driver {Introduction, p. 78) imagines that he sees a contradic- 
 tion between the appointment of cities for the Levites to dwell in, and the regu- 
 lation in Deut. 18. 6, to me^t the case of a Levite who comes to the central 
 sanctuary to discharge his duties. The passage in Deuteronomy seems, he thinks, 
 to represent the Levite as simply a sojourner in the Levitical cities. But this is 
 precisely what Biihr, in his Symbolik, supposed to be tlie true interpretation of 
 the regulations in Leviticus. See my note on Joshua xxi. 12 in the Pulpit Com- 
 mentary. 
 
98 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICI8M. 
 
 3. The argument from the presence in the Pentateuch of 
 passages which are clearly of later date is of two kinds. First 
 there is the argument which distinctly excludes all prophecy.* 
 This, of course, involves an assumption which cannot possibly 
 be granted. The second, which deals with passages such as 
 Oen. 36. 31 ; Deut. 2. 34 ; 3. 4, 8 ; &c., is simply met by the 
 counter-argument that they may be later interpolations. In 
 some cases it may be plausibly contended that not merely the 
 particular allusion, but the whole comj)lexion of the passage 
 in which it is found, stamps the passage as obviously the work 
 of a later hand. To this it may be rejoined that though in 
 some instances a probable case may have been made out, in none 
 is the argument so strong as to compel adhesion ; while the 
 dexterous interweaving of the two classes of argument above 
 referred to, will often suggest a semblance of probability to 
 the unwary reader, which a more careful attention to the 
 assumptions involved will effectually dispel. 
 
 4. The argument from silence is proverbially a dangerous 
 one, and the least familiarity with genuine historical criticism 
 would be sufficient to deter any wise man from resorting to 
 it.f The logic which would infer that the Law was unknown 
 
 * E.g., Ewald argues from Deut, 28. 68, that Deuteronomy must have been 
 written after the reign of Manasseh. Similarly, Dillmann contends that Gen. 17. 6, 
 16. and Gen. 35. 11, must have been written after the commencement of the 
 kingly period, because it is prophesied that kings shall descend from Abraham and 
 Jacob. Gen. 36. 31 must of course have been a later insertion. But the dates oif 
 these genealogical lists are of no historical importance whatever. They may easily 
 have been of the character of foot-notes, and have been afterwards embodied in the 
 text. 
 
 t Tor a remarkable instance of silence in regard to recent facts of first-rate 
 importance, the reader may consult Professor Freeman's masterly summary, in 
 the 5th volume of his Norman Conquest, of the contents of the Domesday Survey. 
 Only incidental notices of "Comes Heraldus," and incidental hints at an inter- 
 regnum, indicate to us the occurence of a great struggle, followed by a great victory. 
 A true historical critic, like Professor Freeman, can read between the lines, and 
 show that the silence of the great Survey points distinctly to the accession of Harold 
 and his overthrow at Senlac, But a critic of the German school, if he desired to 
 prove Hai'old a myth and the battle of Senlac a fable, would dismiss all the allusions 
 to "Comes Heraldus" in the Survey as indications of a " new framework," "embody- 
 ing" the later theory — the creation, perhaps, of English national vanity— of au 
 
THE GENUINEyESS -QF THE PENTATETTCH. 99 
 
 in the days of the Judges because little or no alltision is made 
 to it, and because it does not appear to have been generally 
 known, would produce some striking results if applied to the 
 history of Christian countries. On such a theoiy Wiclif or 
 Luther must have been the authors of a great part of the 
 Bible. The statute d^ hmretico comlmrenclo must either be 
 dismissed as unhistoric, or it must have preceded the com- 
 position of the New Testament. The second commandment, 
 on this hypothesis, must have been an invention of the Lollards, 
 the party of progress and purity of worship. The institutions 
 of Archbishop Theodore must be assigned to a date later than 
 Alfred, for the incursions of the Danes were certainly not 
 more likely to prevent their observance than the ravages of 
 Mesopotamians, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, Philistines, 
 and others, were likely to prevent the observance of the Law 
 of Moses. And if we are confronted with the historical 
 statement that Alfred restored disused customs, we have, on 
 the principles of the new criticism, a ready answer. The 
 nan-ative has been " expanded in different ways " by a WTiter 
 who is "strongly imbued with the spirit of later ecclesias- 
 ticism," and who " generalizes with some freedom."* Moreover, 
 the principle is self-contradictory. The Ten Conomandments in 
 their " original form " involved the observance of the Sabbath. 
 Yet we find no allusion to that observance in the subsequent 
 
 English hero, a gallant defence, and an unexpected and undesen^ed overthrow. 
 Wellhausen regards this argument from silence as the "universally valid method 
 of historical investigation" (p. 365). There is nothing like confident assertion. 
 But Robertson {Early Religion of Israel, p. 395) suggests that its validity 
 may depend " not a little on the manner and extent to which the process is car- 
 ried out," and refers in a note to the absence of any mention, in the Parisian 
 journals of the day, of the entrance of the Allied troops into Paris in 1814, as 
 well as the absence, in the monastic annals of the period, of any mention of 
 the battle of Poitiers (or Tours), which effectually checked the Mohammedan 
 advance in Western Europe. 
 
 * See Professor Driver's estimate of the first twelve chapters of Joshua (Intro- 
 duction, p. 97). 
 
 G 2 
 
100 PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 history until 2 Kings 4. 23.* Nor does it seem that those 
 who adduce this argument are disposed to place much reliance 
 upon it, or it would not have been necessary to resort to those 
 violent methods of reconstructing the narrative as it stands, 
 of which mention has already been made. As regards the 
 instances of non-observance of the law, such as the offering 
 of sacrifice elsew^here than at the appointed place, they seem 
 to fall under four heads. Either they were acts of direct 
 disobedience, such as the sacrifice at the high places, which 
 is everywhere in the Old Testament represented as a contra- 
 vention of the Law of Moses ; or they were done in ignorance 
 of that Law, as may have well been the case with men like 
 Joash and Gideon, in the then unsettled state of the Israelite 
 community ; or they were done under circumstances in which 
 it was impossible to keep the strict letter of the law, which 
 appears to have been the fact in the case of Samuel, David, 
 Solomon, Elijah ; | or they referred to entirely exceptional 
 circumstances, to which the strict letter of the Law did not 
 apply, as in Dent. 21. 4, J and possibly in the case just referred 
 to, of Elijah's sacrifice. Beside these, the chief objection 
 raised to the existence of Deuteronomy before Isaiah's time 
 seems to have been drawn from the prohibition to erect a pillar 
 (Deut. 7. 5, 12. 3, 16. 2'2) compared with such passages as 
 Josh. 4. 9, 20, and the prophecy in Isaiah 19. 19, that a pillar 
 shall be erected in Egypt. It is argued from this last passage 
 that the passages above quoted from Deuteronomy, could not 
 have been in existence when Isaiah's prophecy was written. 
 This argument is an admirable illustration of the way in 
 
 * As the date at whicli the books of Kings were written is supposed to be not 
 anterior to Jeremiah, we may take the reign of Ahaz as the earhest in which, on 
 modern critical principles, we have any mention of the Sabbath. See 2 Kings 
 16. 18 ; Is. 1. 13. 
 
 t See Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, p. 407. 
 
 t It is extremely questionable whether the slaying of the heifer here can be 
 regarded as in any sense a sacrificial act. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 101 
 
 which contradictions between various portions of Scripture 
 are first invented, and then the most startling results deduced 
 from them with unhesitating confidence. In the passages in 
 Deuteronomy the Israelites are commanded to break in pieces 
 the piUars which had been used for the idolatrous and most 
 probably impure worship of the inhabitants of Palestine, and 
 not to erect pillars of such a character for themselves. But 
 they are not surely thereby forbidden to erect monumental 
 pillars simply to commemorate events of importance, and for no 
 religious purpose whatsoever.* Such objections as these must 
 take rank with those remarkable instances of artificially invented 
 discrepancies of which mention has already been made, and 
 cannot be regarded as in any way worthy of serious attention. 
 
 II. We proceed to summarize briefly considerations critical, 
 historical, philosophical, and psychological, which should induce 
 us to pause before giving in our adhesion to the disintegration 
 and subsequent reconstruction of the materials for Israelite 
 history, which we are now asked to accejDt. 
 
 * The most rigid precisian never imagined that the Second Commandment or the 
 Old Testament forbad ns to raise such monuments as Nelson's or the Duke of 
 York's column in London, It should be remembered, too, that the word used in 
 Deuteronomy simply means oi-iginally anything made to stand upright, and that 
 thus it comes to mean the idolatrous pillars of the heathen. It is true that, as 
 Professor Driver tells us {Introduction, p. 83), the Israelites are forbidden to "set 
 up a pillar, which the Lord thy God hateth." But so are they forbidden to "make 
 to themselves any graven image," and yet there were figures of "cherubim over- 
 shadowing the mercy seat," of oxen, of pomegranates, and other objects, in Taber- 
 nacle or Temple, or both. Surely the purposes these representarions were intended 
 to serve must not be left out of accoimt when we inquire into the reasons of this 
 apparent inconsistency. And surely, too, the context of a passage may be held to 
 throw some light upon it. But our critics are entirely indifferent to context when 
 they are engaged in establishing a foregone conclusion. Otherwise the context in 
 Deut. xvi. 22, which forbids the erecting of an Asherah near God's altar, would 
 have been consulted, and the words '" which the Lord thy God hateth " would have 
 been held to indicate the particular kind of pillar forbidden. It need hardly be 
 added that in the Hebrew no semicolon separates these last words from those that 
 precede them. The Masorites, it is true, have placed an athnach after the word 
 JIatzebah. But this no more affects the sense than the colon affects it in the 
 Prayer Book version of the Psalms. See also Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 
 p. 237. It may be asked, moreover, whether the Deuteronomic reviser of Joshua 
 would not have taken care to expunge Josh. 4. 9, 20, if the Deuteronomist intended 
 to forbid a/Z pillars. 
 
i02 PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 1. First of all, we may take Dean Milman's ground, who, 
 as. a writer of historical and general literary eminence, may be 
 regarded as competent to give an opinion on the correctness 
 of the assertion that the " application of the canons of evidence 
 a^nd probability universally employed in historical and literary 
 investigation" support the conclusions of the new criticism. 
 No evidence whatever is given for this bold assertion, and it 
 may be confroated with the equally distinct assertion, made 
 by a scholar, a, divine, a historian, a poet, and a man of^ pro- 
 nounced liberal opinions on theological questions, that no 
 amount of acquaintance with Hebrew and the kindred Semitic 
 tongues would justify a critic in atiempting to impose such 
 an arbitrary reconstruction of documents upon other men. 
 Nor is this all. It can be shewn that when such attempts 
 have been made in secular history or literature, they have been 
 rejected, at least by all English critics of reputation.* 
 
 2. The next consideration is the absence of anything in the 
 shape of direct proof of the theories so confidently pressed upon 
 us. Dean Milman, in the work to which allusion has already 
 been made, complains of the dogmatism of the destructive 
 school, which he describes as far exceeding that too often to 
 be found on the orthodox side.f Those who are familiar with 
 German literature on this subject will have remarked the con- 
 tinual substitution of assertion in the place of proof. " It is 
 
 * See note at end of volume. 
 
 t Kuenen is, perhaps, the foreign critic who condescends most to argument, and 
 who is even known occasionally to admit the force of counter-arguments in favour 
 of the traditional view. Wellhausen, on the other hand, must carry away the 
 palm for reckless and defiant self-assertion, unless Stade should be held to equal or 
 surpass him. Critics of the stamp of Vernes and Renan may safely be left out of 
 the .account. Trenchmen, though clear and acute when writing on rational lines, 
 altogether lose their balance when they exchange historical investigation for critical 
 invention. It would not be fair, however, not to add that Professor Robertson 
 Smith is an honourable exception to the rest of the critics, English and foreign, who 
 have taken upon themselves the task of reconstructing the history, and fixing the 
 dates of the literature of the Old Testament. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 103 
 
 admitted," " I refuse to believe,"* " the critics are agreed," " such 
 a one has proved," and similar phrases, are to be found broadcast 
 in German authors. When one critic's views fall in with those 
 of another, nothing can be more touching than the docility with 
 which they are accepted. If, however, they do not happen to 
 please, refutation is quite unnecessary. A flat contradiction saves 
 a good deal of trouble, and is usually considered sufficient. 
 One who is not a scholar may well be a little daunted by 
 the array of German names, extending over at least a century, 
 which can be marshalled in favour of the negative conclu- 
 sions. But the force of such an array is considerably diminished 
 when it is discovered that, as has already been observed, these 
 critics invariably start with the assumption that miracles and 
 prophecy are an nnpossibility, and that their conclusions are 
 accepted or rejected by those who follow them, not as a rale 
 in consequence of independent investigation, but according as 
 they happen to fall in with or to contradict the particular 
 theories an individual wiiter may be inclined to maintain. 
 Moreover, criticism cannot be regarded as one of the exact 
 sciences. It depends largely upon the idiosyncrasy of the critic 
 or school of critics. There is a fashion in criticism, just as 
 there is in the method of teaching grammar, or mathematics, 
 or any other science. But fashion is proverbially fleeting. 
 What security have we that the next wave of fashion may 
 not sweep away the disintegrating criticism as completely as 
 if it had never existed ? When ingenuity has done its utmost 
 in accounting for the phenomena of the Scriptures on the 
 principle of Jehovists, Elohists, Deuteronomists, and post- 
 exilic redactors, a reaction in a more matter-of-fact direction 
 may be assuredly looked for, and Old Testament criticism 
 will flow calmly and peacefully in the channels in which New 
 
 * This phrase is happily described by Robertson {Early EeJigion of Israel, 
 p. 368) as "one of Wellhausen's modes of reasoning," 
 
104 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
 Testament criticism has long been running. Xo ideal re- 
 constructions of the text, no "psychological criticism," no 
 hazardous conjectures or bold assertions, are for a moment 
 permitted in the latter. There the daring flights of imagi- 
 nation are rigidly proscribed, and sound and sober inference 
 from incontrovertible fact is alone regarded as deserving of 
 notice. When Old Testament criticism is placed on a similarly 
 solid and rational basis it will be time enough to give serious 
 attention to it. Until this is the case sensible men will be 
 content, at least, to suspend their judgment.* 
 
 3. The universal and undeviating tradition of the Jews is 
 another serious difficulty in the way of our acceptance of 
 modern theories. A great deal of confusion has arisen from 
 the loose way in which the word "tradition" has been used. 
 It ought not to be forgotten that almost every tradition has a 
 substratum of fact. And the more important the fact, and the 
 more general the tradition concerning it, the more impossible 
 it is for us to set aside the evidence supplied by such tradition. 
 Thus the critics are fond of speaking of the " traditions " of 
 the Deluge contained in the Pentateuch. But similar "tra- 
 ditions " are to be found in the annals of almost every race in 
 the world. The "ordinary canons of historical investigation" 
 
 * Some specimens are here appended of the kind of criticism on which the dis- 
 integration of the narrative into its supposed component portions is based. They 
 are chiefly taken from Professor Driver's work. The story of Korah, Dathan, and 
 Abii'am is " composite," because the motives of the priestly and lay conspirators are 
 not the same, and they sometimes act independently of one another. On such 
 grounds we must consider the "composite character" of the intelligence in our 
 daily newspapers to be established, since they tell us of pohtical coalitions of an 
 exactly similar kind. The story of Joseph's treatment by his brethren is "com- 
 posite," because two of his brethren are recorded in different parts of the narrative 
 to have been touched with compassion. The narrative in 1 Sam. 2. 18, 19 is un- 
 historic, because the me'il and ephod stated to have been worn by the child Samuel 
 were priestly vestments (Wellhausen, History of Israel, p, 43) . We must there- 
 fore, it would seem, reject every report in the Church press which describes choir 
 boys as vested in cassock and surplice. It must be remembered, too, that a great 
 deal, though not of course all, of the linguistic criticism on which such stress is 
 laid, may be elaborated without much difficulty by the aid of a Hebrew Concord- 
 ance. See also below, p. US. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 105 
 
 would therefore lead us to consider the Deluge as an esta- 
 blished historical fact, but for the theological or critical pre- 
 possessions which induce men to treat it as fabulous. Nor 
 is this all. The Chaldttan records give us an account of the 
 Deluge which is unquestionably of vast antiquity. This ac- 
 count con-esponds in many important points with that found 
 in the Pentateuch. The comparative absence of mythological 
 details in the latter version of the story would, on ordinary 
 principles, lead us to look upon it as in substance the earlier 
 version of the two. Thus we are supplied with at least a 
 presumption against the theory which would regard it as a 
 compilation of heterogeneous and inconsistent elements, some 
 of them extracted from a document itself post-exilic, fused, 
 or rather pieced, together at a still later period of Jewish 
 history. Similarly in the case of Moses. As Mr. Gladstone 
 has told us, the documents in which the history of Lycm-gus 
 and Solon has been handed down to us are separated from the 
 time of the persons to whom they refer by a period at least 
 as long as the Elohistic and Jehovistic portions of the books 
 ascribed to Moses are, on modern principles, separated from 
 the time of Moses.* Yet we do not regard Lycurgus and 
 Solon as myths, or reject the accounts given us of their 
 institutions. In the case of Lycurgus, moreover, the peculiar 
 characteristics of the Spartan people are supposed to have 
 been largely owing to the character of the regulations they 
 received from him. Now if this be so in the case of Lycurgus 
 and Sparta, it is a fortiori so in the case of Moses and the 
 Jews.f Never w^as there a people so entirely unique in their 
 
 * Gladstone, Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture, p, 181. 
 
 + " At all times of history, and specially in those primitive times when the men 
 made the governments, not the governments the men [here reference is made to 
 Montesquieu], these great independent historic facts absolutely carry with them 
 the assumption of a leader, a governor, a legislator. All this simply means a 
 INIoses, and a Moses such as we know him from the 'Pent&tench.."— Impregnable 
 Rock of Holy Scripture, p. 182. 
 
106 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 history, character, and institutions as the Jews. Never was 
 there a case, therefore, where, on ordinary principles of historic 
 investigation, we are more absolntely compelled to postulate 
 a lawgiver of a profoundly original and commanding per- 
 sonality than in theirs. Never was there a case in which 
 the wholesale and contemptuous rejection of the only account 
 handed down to us can be described as more entkely un- 
 warranted.* Yet instead of eager attempts to estimate the 
 principles of Mosaic history and jurisprudence from the con- 
 fessedly ancient and uncontradicted histories which have come 
 down to us, we find an eagerness, absolutely unparalleled in 
 historical investigation, to undermine the character of those 
 records, and to resolve them into a vapourised compound of 
 fact and fable.f 
 
 4. Nor is this all. We find, however far we trace it back, 
 an unwavering tradition of the homogeneity as well as of 
 the authenticity of the Mosaic books. The authors of the 
 books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus had the 
 same narrative before them as we tave before us. It is 
 clearly for those who allege that it was drawn up after the 
 Exile to explain the circumstances under which it was able 
 so soon to supplant earher and more authentic records. Philo 
 and Josephus drop not a hint of the composite character of 
 
 * Professor I>river and other English adherents of the new criticism admit that 
 Moses was the ultiisate founder of Israelite institutions. But not only do they 
 deprive us of all real historical evidence for his existence, but they leave us in entire 
 ignorance of the nature of that " germ " of religious and civil polity which is to be 
 attributed to him. In other words, they leave the historic fact of the uniqueness 
 of the Jewish character entirely imaccounted for. 
 
 t Tradition, when connected with national or ecclesiastical customs, is a far more 
 stubborn thing than modern criticism has any idea of. Thus in the Eastern Conn- 
 ties the Old Style is still, after nearly two centuries, maintained in the date oi 
 agreements and payments ; and an old woman is now living in Suffolk who stoutly 
 and almost fiercely refuses to keep the Festival of the Nativity on any but Old 
 Christmas Day. How is it that the Jews developed no Conservative party to 
 cling to old usages instead of the radical reforms of the Deuteronomist and his 
 successors ? 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH 107 
 
 tlic Pentateuch. The latter repeatedly declares that the 
 canonical books of the Old Testament have been handed 
 do^^^l Avithout change for a long period of years.* We 
 find that not a suspicion of the composite character of any 
 part of the history seems to have crossed the mind of our 
 Lord, or any of His Apostles, nor even of the writer of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, who subjects the provisions of 
 the Law to so thorough and striking an analysis. No 
 hint of any such comjwsite character is found in the tra- 
 ditions handed down from pre-Christian times in the Tal- 
 mud. No divergent texts, such as meet us in the Book 
 of Daniel, of this singular rifacciamento of the post-exilic 
 period have found their way down to us, in spite of the fact 
 that this version of ancient history was not and could not 
 have been handed down by any authority recognised as 
 paramount by the Jews after the Exile. f The text of the 
 Pentateuch as contained in the LXX. differs in no important 
 particular from the Hebrew text, although the one must have 
 followed Egyptian, the other Palestinian copies. This last 
 
 * Contr. Apion., i. He remarks on the succession of the priests, which, he adds, 
 had been handed down for 2,000 years (a manifest exaggeration however), as a 
 guarantee for the accuracy of the information contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 t There is a serious difficulty here, of which the German school of criticism has 
 never taken the least notice. The Priestly Code, in its present shape, is said to be 
 post -exilic. There are, according to Professor Driver, " secondary and posterior" 
 strata even of the Priestly Code itself, " representing a later phase of ceremonial 
 usage " (Introduction, p. 35) . Then the extracts from the Priestly Code narrator 
 were made by a still later " redactor," and incorporated, with the addition of othe^ 
 extracts, from the Jehovist and Elohist, into the Pentateuch as we at present 
 have it. Now, beside the improbability of the universal reception of this recent 
 narrative as the sacred and inviolable record of the origin of the Jewish polity, we 
 have the further difficulty that some considerable time must have elapsed before 
 the Priestly Code itself could have secured recognition as a repertory of traditions 
 of Divine, or all but Divine, authority, such as to justify its embodiment into a 
 sacred Canon. We can therefore hardly assign the Scriptures in their present 
 form to a period less than 100 years after the time of Nehemiah at the earliest. 
 Such a date not only requires their immediate reception by the Jews as their 
 Oanonical Scriptures, but presupposes the entire disappearance of all the earlier 
 narratives. It is by no means easy to determine a priori what is impossible in 
 history. But it may safely be affirmed that few historical facts so nearly approach 
 the impossible as this account of the origin of our present Old Testament Canon. 
 
108 PBINCIFLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 fact alone must, on all ordinary critical grounds, throw back 
 the composition of the Pentateuch to at least 300 B.C., if not 
 earlier, and as we have no evidence that the new account of 
 Israelitish laws and history was ever formally put forth by 
 any unquestioned authority, it would seem impossible, from 
 the absence of any important variation in the copies, that it 
 could have been issued later than the time of Ezra.* But 
 there is nothing in the history of the period to point to either 
 him or Nehemiah as having put forth any such compilation 
 as that which now lies before us. They are represented as 
 singularly careful and conservative. Their reverence for the 
 law of Moses, which they evidently considered as Divine, was 
 both intense and scrupulous. They caused it to be read in 
 the ears of the people. They closely conformed to its pre- 
 cepts, and they quote the Book of Leviticus more than once 
 as the law of Jehovah.f Ezekiel, too, quotes that law, and 
 though of course he 7nay simply be quoting from an earlier 
 book which has been embodied in the more recent treatise, 
 yet it should at least be remembered that on all ordinary 
 principles of history and criticism he must be held to be 
 quoting the book as it stands, at least until it is conclusively 
 shewn, on evidence which cannot be controverted, that the 
 book in its present shape was not in existence in his time. J 
 
 * It is extremely difficult to account for the reception in Egypt of the com- 
 pilation postulated by German criticism, if, as there seems ground for supposing, 
 there had been a continuous Jewish settlement in Egypt from the days of Jeremiah. 
 At the latest the Jewish colony in Egypt cannot be placed later than the death of 
 Alexander the Great, a.d. 323. 
 
 t See, for instance. Neh. 8. ]4 ; 11. 34. 
 
 X We are told that we must not assume that the Priestly Code was in existence 
 if we find it quoted by the Prophets, because it is, ex Tiypothesi, only a " codification 
 of pre-existing Temple usage." It is quite impossible to deal argumentatively with 
 a theory which is shaped to fit all emergencies. If " P " is quoted by any author, 
 then it is not " P " which is quoted, but the enactments from which " P " is com- 
 piled. If any portions of " P " do not happen to be mentioned by any author, it is 
 because those regulations were not yet in existence. There is no historical fact 
 which may not be disproved, no hypothesis, however extraordinary, which cannot be 
 proved, by methods such as these. Professor Robertson, it is true, refuses to avail 
 
THE GEXUINEXESS OF THE PEXTATEUCH. 109 
 
 No such evidence has been adduced. There is no justification 
 whatever for representing it as certain that Leviticus consists 
 to a large extent of a codification of pre-existing Temple usage 
 draAvn up after the return of the Israelites from captivity. And 
 there is, moreover, a still stronger argument against the new 
 theories, and that is to be found in the existence of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch. It cannot be p'oved that this text of 
 the Pentateuch, which corresponds in all essential particulars 
 with the Hebrew, was later than the time of the separation 
 of the ten tribes. On the other hand it cannot, of course, 
 be proved that it is older than the time of Manasseh, the 
 apostate priest mentioned in Neh. 13. 20, who eventually 
 transferred his services to the Samaritans.* This independent 
 edition of the books of Moses is most characteristically ignored 
 by the new criticism. It adduces as conclusive evidence the 
 agreement of critics of a certain stamp. Yet it entirely passes 
 over the fact that a text of the Pentateuch exists which has 
 been transmitted since 430 B.C. through an altogether differ- 
 ent channel from that in which the present Hebrew text has 
 been transmitted, and which may possibly have been handed 
 down from a considerably earlier period still.f For the rela- 
 tions between Jews and Samaritans after the Exile were 
 such that no narrative drawn up by the former after the 
 events mentioned in Neh. 13, which occurred in a.d. 434, 
 would have had any chance of being accepted by the latter. 
 
 himself of this argument. It must be admitted that it is not conclusive positively, 
 that is to say, it does not prove the impossibilify of the theory it controverts. But 
 it is conclusive negatively, in so far as it shews that the line of argument followed 
 is not based on the" ordinary principles of historical and literary investigation." 
 
 * Circ. 375 B.C., according to Wellhausen. But see next note. 
 
 t As an example of the way in which the critical school are accustomed to ignore 
 inconvenient facts, it will be found that not a single reference is made to the 
 existence of the Samaritan Pentateuch in Professor Driver's Introduction. Pro- 
 fessor Robertson Smith, in his new edition of The Old Testament in the Jewish 
 Church, p. 61, regards it as " received from the Jews about 430 B.C." But in his 
 able chapter on the literary sources of the Hexateuch he never once refers to the 
 bearing of this fact on the question of date. 
 
iiO PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 5, We have already referred to the fact that the negati\'« 
 criticism is driven to deny the accuracy, not only of the 
 Pentateuch, but of the whole history of the Jews in the shape 
 in which it has come down to us, except perhaps the Books 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah.^'*' But this is not all. In order to 
 maintain its positions it is compelled to deny the genuineness 
 of the many direct allusions which are made throughout the 
 historical books to the laws contained in our present copies 
 of the Pentateuch as actually in operation. Thus, in Josh. 
 8. 29 ; 10. 27, the law contained in Dent. 21. 23 is scrupulously 
 observed, though without any reference to that passage — a 
 fact which shews that the agreement was undesigned. In 
 1 Sam. 1 we have an instance of the observance of the law 
 in regard to festivals by a pious Levite, and in 1 Sam. 2 a 
 detailed description of the manner in which the sons of Eli 
 " kicked at the sacrifice and offering which Jehovah com- 
 manded in His habitation," with a special reference to or- 
 dinances contained in the Book of Leviticus. In 1 Sam. 6 
 we find the Levites taking the part assigned to them in 
 Leviticus. We are required to believe that these passages, 
 and others similar to them, are interpolations, not because 
 there is any evidence of interpolation in the style of the 
 passage itself, or in its relation to the context, but solely and 
 simply because they conflict with the assumption that these 
 particular provisions of the Law were not in existence at 
 that time. Thus, all references to the Law are first carefully 
 removed, and then it is contended, from the absence of any 
 reference to it in these earlier narratives, that it must have 
 been of later date.f Such a rejection of statements found 
 
 * It does not appear that even the historical statements in these books can be 
 accepted without considerable revision at the hands of the critics. See Driver, 
 Introduction, pp. 613, sqq. 
 
 t Wellhausen's mode of dealing with the appearance of the Levites in the 
 narrative in 1 Sam. 6 is characteristic and summary. It is a "pious make up" 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. Ill 
 
 repeatedly, not merely in one, but in many authors, simply on 
 the ground that they conflict with a preconceived theory, is 
 not an accepted principle of historical or literary criticism, 
 unless we are to except the single case of the books of the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 6. Nor do the theories of the origin of Deuteronomy and 
 its acceptance by the Jews as a part of their religious system 
 appear to fit in too well with the actual history of Judaea. 
 We find, for instance, that there were very marked religious 
 divisions in Israel in the time of Jeremiah. The prophet 
 himself, the head of the Deuteronomic party, was confronted 
 by a fierce opposition, headed by the monarch himself, sup- 
 ported by courtiers like Pashur, and prophets like Hananiah. 
 If we add to this the fact that between the prophets and 
 the priests considerable jealousy existed,"* we shall be able, to 
 some extent, to estimate the difficulty of pabning off upon the 
 Jews as the work of their renowned prophet and leader a 
 document composed not more than fifty years previously, 
 whether we regard it as forged, or as compiled for the most 
 part out of previously existing materials. Yet we do not 
 find one single hint in the pages of Jeremiah of the slightest 
 doubt, on the part of any one whatever, of the genuineness of 
 the contents of Deuteronomy. It is incredible that men with 
 minds sharpened by bitter hostility, in an age of some general 
 culture and refinement of thought, should have greedily 
 
 {History of Israel, p. 128). Professor Driver regards the passages in Joshua, with 
 a good many others in the same book, as " Deuteronomic additions," made " to 
 illustrate and emphasize the zeal shown by Joshua in fulfilling Mosaic ordinances " 
 {Introduction, p. 97). In regard to the honesty of such a proceeding he offers 
 no opinion. 1 Sam. 2. 27 37, with its account of the priesthood as confined to one 
 tribe, the offering, and the tabernacle, he naturally regards as among " relatively 
 the latest passages " of the book, but he does not assign a date to them, nor give 
 any reason for his opinion. It is curious that both Elkanah (1 Sam. 1. 3) and 
 Joseph and Mary (Luke 2. 4) are described as going to the tabernacle or templ« 
 once each year. 
 * See Gladstone, Impregnable Bock of Holy Scripture, pp. 188, 189. 
 
112 PSINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 swallowed what was practically an imposture, in whatever 
 spirit it was conceived and carried out, especially when that 
 imposture was, ex hypothesis contrived by their most hated 
 antagonists. 
 
 7. The contents of Deuteronomy itself add force to this 
 argument. Whether we apply the strong term *' forgery " to it 
 or not, there can be little doubt, on the part of any high-minded 
 man in any age, that if it were composed in the reigns of 
 Manasseh or Josiah, its method was most dishonest. If Moses 
 did give Israel " statutes and judgments " resembling those 
 which the writer desires to impress on his readers, it would 
 have been more natural, as well as fairer, to take the course 
 adopted by the prophets, of appealing to the actual precepts of 
 Moses, and shewing how they had been infringed. If Moses 
 had not given such " statutes and judgments," then an ele- 
 mentary conception of truth, such as is not, we are informed, 
 utterly lost even among the most degraded races, should have 
 preserved the writer from ascribing to him directions that he 
 never gave.* It is one thing to compose a speech for him, as 
 is done in many Latin and Greek histories. It is quite another 
 to put forth " commandments, statutes, and judgments " in 
 his name, of which he never dreamed, t It had been far better 
 
 * Kleinert [JDas Deuteronomium, published in 1872) decides from internal evi- 
 dence (1) that Deuteronomy cannot have been written in the reign of Josiah, (2) nor 
 in that of Manasseh, (3) nor of Hezekiah, (4) nor in that of Moses, but (5) that it 
 must have been written at the close of the period of the Judges. 
 
 t Professor Robertson {Early Hist., p. 515) regards Deuteronomy as possibly 
 being " the final expression, in the light of history, of views that had been germi- 
 nating in the minds of good men," which they "in all sincerity regarded as 
 Mosaic." But at the same time he rejects the theory that " Deuteronomy speaks as 
 its authors supposed Moses would have spoken had he been alive, and that it 
 abolished things which Moses might have tolerated in his own day, but would have 
 condemned had he lived later." The distinction is not easy to grasp. But it 
 should be remembered that Professor Robertson believes the Jewish institutions, as 
 we have them, to have been on the whole Mosaic. The repetition of them at a later 
 date, with the incorporation of some few details which were not Mosaic, is altogether 
 a different thing to the supposition that a development of sacerdotalism and theo- 
 logy had taken place for which the supporters of that development desired to obtain 
 
THE GEyUINE^^ESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. ]13 
 
 had the priests and prophets of that day put forth honestly in 
 their own name the principles they desired to inculcate. More- 
 over it is difficult, on any sound basis of morality, to defend 
 the artifice of putting the exhortations of Deuteronomy into a 
 predictive fonn, and representing them as uttered solemnly by 
 Moses himself eight hundred years before, when as a matter of 
 fact they were written after the event.* Nor is it easy to believe 
 that the majestic eloquence of the book, its pathetic appeals, 
 the rising and falling cadences of its encouragements and warn- 
 ings, could have been the product of earnest, well-meaning, but 
 intriguing and not over honest, ecclesiastics, in an age of 
 national decay and collapse.! ^o\^ and outspoken denuncia- 
 tions of a people for their neglect of a Divine law already in 
 existence have frequently been the precursors of a salutary 
 reform. But neither great institutions nor great thoughts are 
 ordinarily the product of times of national declension. It is a 
 rule to which there are few if any exceptions, that there is an 
 inseparable connection between the greatness of a nation and 
 the creative genius of its people. Therefore it is most unlikely 
 
 the sanction of an honoured name. This last is the theory dominant in Germany. 
 It is necessary that the distinction between the two views should be very carefully 
 noted. 
 
 * An attempt has been made to justify modern Deuteronomic theories by con- 
 tending that there could be nothing dishonest in combining into a manual laws 
 much earlier than the time of the author himself, and providing them with suitable 
 hortatory matter. Such a statement of the case is extremely misleading to the 
 unwary reader. There could of course be no harm whatever in doing what has 
 been suggested. But the author, on the critical hypothesis, has done something 
 very dilferent. He has attributed his words, and the laws which he mentions, to 
 Moses. And the German critics say with one voice that he did this in order 
 to obtain authority for them. This is simple dishonesty. If the English critics 
 do not believe that the laws were attributed to Moses for such reasons, they are 
 bound to tell us what, in their opinion, were the reasons which dictated such a 
 course. And let it not be forgotten that the worship at the one sanctuary is 
 generally represented as introduced for the first time by the Deuteronomist. 
 + " Under these circumstances does it not appear like a paradox, and even rather a 
 wanton paradox, to refer the production of these sacred Mosaic Books .... to the 
 epochs of a lowered and decaying spiritual life? .... They could only spring from 
 a plant fidl of vigorous life, not from one comparatively sickly and exhausted." — 
 Gladstone, Impregnable Bock, p. ISS. 
 
 H 
 
114 TBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM, 
 
 that the literature and institntions of Israel were the product of 
 the age of Mauasseh or Josiali, and that the crown and com- 
 pletion of that magnificent system of ritual and type, the 
 significance of which is so admirably unfolded in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, was the w^ork of a handful of dispirited fugitives 
 who were permitted to re-build their once famous city by 
 permission of a foreign lord. This much at least is certain, 
 that if it were so, the Jewish history does not cease to 
 be unique. The creation of a volume such as the Old Testa- 
 ment becomes almost as great a miracle on the new hypo- 
 thesis, as on that of a revelation by supernatural means. 
 For in order to have development, there must be something 
 to develop. Evolution is wont to proceed in accordance 
 with some definite laws. It has yet to be explained what, 
 on the critical theory, was the original germ out of which the 
 religious and sacrificial system of Judsea was finally evolved, 
 or by what laws an indefinite polytheism, in no way distinct 
 from that of surrounding nations, without ceremonial, without 
 priests, and it would seem without even any defined system of 
 sacrifice,* developed at the most unlikely period possible into 
 the confessedly inspired creations of Jewish rehgious thought. | 
 Yet the hypothesis which regards Judaism as originally on a 
 level with heathenism is at least intelligible. J What is in no 
 sense intelligible is the hypothesis which, while it predicates 
 inspiration of the books of the Old Testament, gives us no 
 rational account of the origin of the system with which 
 this inspiration was so closely connected, or of the circum- 
 stances which called it into active exercise. Life and motion 
 do not spontaneously spring out of dead material. Neither 
 physical nor moral forces act apart from their exciting cause. 
 
 * See Mr. Cooke's paper at the Rhyl Congress. 
 
 t See Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, on this point, 
 
 X So Kuenen, Religion of Israel, I., pp. 233-236. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 115 
 
 Whence, we may therefore inquire, did the supernatural in- 
 fluence of inspiration originate, if the course of Jewish history 
 were purely natural throughout, and if all supernatural phe- 
 nomena are to he rigidly excluded from it ? Is it too much 
 to ask of scientific criticism that it should conform to the 
 ordinary laws of science, and give a rational explanation of 
 the facts which it professes to have discovered ? 
 
 8. Our next point is that the historical and prophetic Scrip- 
 tures alike postulate some authorized high standard of morality, 
 which, while it demanded the obedience of all, actually received 
 that obedience from some. How, we may ask, could such 
 noble ideals as those of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, have 
 been created in an age like that of Josiah, or how, when 
 invented, could they have attracted admiration ? A degraded 
 age sets up for itself degraded types of character, or substitutes 
 stage effects for lofty conceptions. One does not expect to find 
 Shakespere's tyjDe of heroine in the age of Charles II., or in 
 a French novel. We may weU believe that nothing but a 
 Divine revelation could have produced such men as come be- 
 fore us in sacred story. Whence comes the conception of 
 exquisite unselfishness and self-control as displayed in the 
 history of Moses, who never dreams of making himself a 
 king, and who is recorded to have been rebuked for an act 
 of self-assertion which would be regarded as venial even in 
 Christian England in the nineteenth century ? Ko attempt 
 to seize the kingly authority, or to found a family, appears 
 ever to have occurred to him, though it is recognized as 
 an object of legitimate ambition to this day among the 
 disciples of Christ. Joshua is equally pure from all taint of 
 self-seeking. Samuel, at the close of a long and useful life, 
 successfully challenges the closest inquiry into his career as a 
 ruler. If the life of David is stained by one act of cowardice, 
 it is prompted by that " conscience " which makes " cowards of 
 
 H 2 
 
116 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 US all." And we may safely ask what other Oriental despot 
 is represented to have lived a life like his, to have confessed 
 and repented so nobly of the sin which brought disgrace, 
 not only on himself, but the cause of which he was the 
 representative. The prophets, too, must have had some stan- 
 dard by which to arraign the people of God. We find them 
 continually appealing to a neglected law.* But we are 
 told that this is not the Law, or Torah, as it has become the 
 fashion to call it, contained in our present Scriptures, but some 
 other — containing perhaps the germ of the Law as we have it 
 at present, but by no means in all respects identical with it. 
 We are at least entitled to call upon those who make this 
 assertion to state explicitly in what this Torah consisted, for 
 which another was afterwards substituted. We have already 
 dealt with the argument which finds in the action of Samuel, 
 Elijah, and others, as well as in the acts which are spoken 
 of in Scripture as acts of direct disobedience, a proof that 
 the commands and prohibitions contained in our present Pen- 
 tateuch were not in existence in their day. But we may re- 
 mark that the whole struggle between men like Hosea, Amos, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the party of irreligion, hinges upon the 
 presence of precepts admitted on both sides to be authorita- 
 tive, which the one party desired to enforce, and the other to 
 ignore. The whole history of revealed rel'gion is the history of 
 sucli a struggle. God has revealed certain principles and duties 
 from heaven ; the corrupt heart of man endeavours to evade 
 them. It is not the least among the shortcomings of the new 
 criticism that it utterly fails to recognize the practical identity 
 of the history of man's religious instincts under the two 
 covenants — the continual struggle between nature and revela- 
 tion, and, in the history of Israel at least, substitutes for it a 
 
 * JE.g., Hos. 2 ; 4. 6 ; 6. 5 ; 10. 12, 13 ; 11. 4 ; 14, 9 ; Amos 2. 4, 11, 12, &c. See also 
 Robertson, Early Religion, cli. iii. 
 
THE GEXUIXEXESS OF THE PEXTATEUCH, 117 
 
 struggle of quite a different kind —a struggle which rather re- 
 sembles the resistance of an obstinate and sluggish conservatism 
 against innovations which were the fruit of discovery and pro- 
 gress. The fact that in the nineteenth century of the Christian 
 era the natural, or rather ^^sz/r/^/r, man still rebels against obliga- 
 tions imposed on him in the first, surely requires some analogue 
 in the ages of previous preparation. Otherwise the conditions 
 under which religious development took place would have been 
 altogether changed by the advent of the Gospel. On the theory 
 of the Scriptures in their present shape there is no such meta- 
 morphosis. The history is one of the development of principles 
 already given, not of the evolution of new ones. As in the 
 Gospel, so in the Law, there is no advance in enlightenment or 
 holiness which is not built upon the original revelation from God. 
 9. A few remarks on the form in which the history has come 
 do\vn to us cannot be omitted. The critical school believes it- 
 self to have discovered a marked divergence between the style of 
 P and the rest of the Pentateuch. How far this is fact and how 
 much is due to hypothesis must be left to experts. But this 
 much is certain. It is as possible to construct a theory out of 
 an ingenious manipulation of facts, as to use facts to lead you 
 to a theory.* The argument from the presence or absence of 
 
 * Professor Driver {Int., p. 76) draws an "important conclusion" from the "fact" 
 that " in our existing Pentateuch JE and P continually cross one another," and yet 
 that there is a "constant absence of any reference to P in Deuteronomy." This 
 conclusion is that "when Dt. was composed JE and P were not yet united into a 
 single tcork," [the italics are his] " and JE ah me formed the basis ofDt." This argu- 
 ment would be absolutely conclusive were it not for one trifling circumstance which 
 Professor Driver has failed to take into account. How far has the delimitation of 
 P by the critics been affected by the desire to use the aryument on which he relies? 
 Those who have followed the successive stages of the analysis in various authors 
 which has ended in the separation of P from the rest of the nan-ative, will find that 
 the presence of certain statements in Deuteronomy has constituted the criterion 
 which decides whether other passages which refer to them are or are not to be included 
 in P. Professor Driver, be it carefully noted, excludes from tlie Priestly Code a 
 great deal which icas formerly included in it by the school of critics which 
 regarded it as anterior to Deuteronomy. Thus Knobel includes Exod. 25-31 in 
 the Grundschrift. But Professor Driver stops at Exod. 31. 18 «, and then bases 
 an argument on the correspondence of 31. 18 6, with Deut. 9. 10 a— a remarkable 
 
118 PRmCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 certain characteristic words is at best a hazardous one. It is 
 possible to attain to the semblance of a discovery by assigning 
 passages in which those words recur to a particular author, 
 evolved, it may be, from the moral consciousness of the critic. 
 The process has a fascination for some minds, and is very much 
 in fashion just at present. But it may be carried on almost 
 ad infinitum.* The presence of " two, if not more, strata " in 
 P's narrative here, of " foreign elements " there, the suggestion 
 by some critics of a Pi, a Pg, and a Pg, or, as we have seen, even 
 a Px,t will to ordinary minds appear a reductio ad alsurdum 
 of the whole method. Beside, the style of the Pentateuch 
 presents no marked differences, such as exist between that of 
 the age of Elizabeth and of our own. No modernisms such as 
 we find in Ezra and Nehemiah, no post-exilic allusions, are 
 to be found in its pages. { Professor Driver again, therein 
 following Noldeke, has given up the attempt to separate autho- 
 ritatively J from E.§ We are therefore justified, so far as he 
 
 instance of the well-known " vicious circle." His division, again, of Num. 14 differs 
 considerably from Knobel's. In Num. 16 he assigns 1 6 to JE (whereas Knobel 
 assigns it to P) and once more bases an argument on its absence from P. Yet 
 its absence from P rests simply on the authority of the critics who maintain 
 the priority of Deuteronomy. Moreover, he includes vv. 24, 27 a in P, and then 
 declares that P only mentions Korah, and not Dathan and Abiram (7w^., p. 60). 
 Surely these things deserve to be recorded among the curiosities of criticism ! 
 Moreover, the px-actiee of attributing half a verse to P in the middle of a narra- 
 tive supposed to be by another hand, looks suspiciously like the manufacture of 
 facts. It is most improbable (1) that minute insertions like these could be detected 
 by considerations of style alone, and (2) that such trilling insertions would ever 
 have been made in the process of compilation attributed to the redactor ; while (3) 
 the temptation is very great to a critic, where he finds some of his characteristic 
 phrases in what he supposes to be another narrative, to assume (he of course can 
 never prove it) that the passage in question has been inserted by the redactor. In 
 short, while the signs of compilation in a general way may reasonably be supposed 
 to be discoverable, the attempt at accurate division into parts so minute must 
 in any case remain more or less uncertain. 
 
 * An ingenious writer in the Thinker for May 1892 has shewn how the Epistle to 
 the Romans, on these principles, becomes the work of four authors, holding diver- 
 gent views of Christian doctrine. 
 
 t See above, pp. 62, 96. 
 
 X Thus money is often mentioned, but the coinage of Darius, more than once 
 referred to in post-exilic literature, never for a moment slips in. 
 
 § Introduction, p. 109. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 119 
 
 is concerned, in believing that the parts of the Pentateuch 
 assigned to the Jehovist and the Elohist may, after all that 
 has been said, have been the work of one writer. Once more, 
 the existence of the discrepancies on which so much of the 
 new criticism has been founded, would very fairly suggest 
 some other explanation than the insertion en Hoc by a redactor 
 of the most heterogeneous materials into his work. Common 
 sense is the monopoly of no particular age. There is abun- 
 dant evidence of its presence in Israel in early times. We 
 may be sure, therefore, that a redactor who displayed, as 
 we are told, considerable skill in adapting his narrative to 
 his purposes, would have carried it still further, and have 
 removed the discrepancies in fact and in general tone and 
 spirit, which we are assured he has permitted to remain. * 
 Neither does Chronicles, though it is to a certain extent a com- 
 pilation, supply evidence of that piecing together of inconsistent 
 narratives which is invariably assumed by the critical methods. 
 The chief fault of Chronicles, in the eyes of the critics, is that 
 it is too consistent. Moreover, the simplicity and natm'alness 
 of the narrative in the Pentateuch, in spite of its rej^etitions 
 and slight apparent contradictious, is witnessed to, even by 
 the Balaams who desire to deprive it of all its historic credit. 
 Thus Wellhausen declares Abraham to be ''a fi-ee creation 
 of unconscious art," f in spite of the incongruous and mis- 
 shapen blocks of which the exquisite mosaic is declared 
 
 * A good muny of these alleged discrepancies are the product of a lively imagina- 
 tion. Sometimes the quality of common sense is conspicuous by its absence, as 
 when Professor Driver sees divergent sources in the fact that Rebekah very wisely 
 refrains from telling her aged and failing husband the true reason for wishing to 
 send Jacob away from home, or when he resorts to them to explain discrepancies of 
 his own invention in a narrative which represents an intending bridegroom as 
 desiring to possess the lady, while his father, on the other hand, is simply anxious 
 for the honour and advantage of the alliance {Introduction, pp. 8, 15) . It would be 
 rather dilficult, surely, to find an account of any wedding which must not, on this 
 method, be referred to separate " sources." 
 
 t History of Israel, p. 320. 
 
120 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 to have been constructed. Generation after generation of 
 men have been fascinated by the touches of natural simpUcity 
 we find in the Scripture naiTative, a.nd in Genesis above all. 
 Their power to touch us is far more reasonably accounted for 
 on the hypothesis that they are the truth, than on the most 
 ingenious theory of compilation which was ever evolved from 
 the brain of a German commentator.* 
 
 10. Summing up the question of literary criticism, we find 
 that though the critics are represented as being agreed, as a 
 matter of fact their case has broken down upon some of its 
 important points. For (1) it originated, as we have seen, 
 with the theory that the use of the names Jehovah and 
 Elohim respectively were the marks whereby the sources of 
 the narrative in Genesis were to be discerned. Now it is 
 admitted {a) that there is not only a " first " but a " second " 
 Elohist, and {h) that the second Elohist cannot be success- 
 fully separated from the Jehovist. In other words, the use 
 of the words Jehovah and Elohim are no longer regarded 
 as the distinctive signs of separate authorship. In fact 
 the first and second Elohist are far more distinct from 
 one another than the latter from the Jehovist. Thus the 
 foundation on which the whole inquiry was based is given up. 
 And (2) it is still argued that the writers of Jewish history 
 were not authors, but compilers, and that this involves the fact 
 that they copied out extracts from original authors, and did not, 
 as a rule, rewrite them. But it is admitted that the Jehovist 
 and second Elohist are not easily distinguished from one another, 
 and that in all probability they were combined by some later 
 writer. If so, the principles of the disintegration theory are 
 practically abandoned, for it is confessed to be an absolute 
 impossibihty to decide positively what portion of the history 
 thus ex hypothesi combined was written by either of the 
 
 * See Robex'tson, Early Religion, pp. 126, 127. Also note D. 
 
THE GEXUIXEXESS OF THE PEXTATEUCH. 121 
 
 two authors whose existence has been postulated. Then 
 again (3) the whole of the researches of the earUer critics 
 were devoted to the discovery of a Grundschrift, or original 
 substratum, of sober fact on which the superstructure of 
 myth and legend was erected. As soon as this Grundschrift 
 had, with great labour and pains, been worked out, or all 
 but worked out, the kaleidoscope was shifted, and the 
 Grundschrift discovered on the principles above stated was 
 authoritatively stated not to have been the original source of 
 the history, but to have been a dry and formal sketch of it 
 drawn up a thousand years after the events recorded. But 
 the Grundschrift was supposed to have been made out on the 
 well-known principle that the " simple co-ordination of facts, 
 and the barest and most jejune statement of them, is all 
 that appears necessary to the first generations of prose writers, 
 and for this the chronicle is the natural vehicle."* The 
 principle has been altogether abandoned, and yet its results 
 are still presented as certain. If processes like these claim 
 to be scientific research, it must at least be admitted that 
 such research has little in common with the investigations in 
 other departments of science. It would be wiser therefore, 
 perhaps, on the whole, to exercise a Uttle judicious scep- 
 ticism even in regard to the residuum on which "the critics 
 are agreed."! 
 
 * Church Quarterly Review for Oct. 1892. p. 117 (article on the Early Chronicles 
 of the Western Church). 
 
 t One other argument should not be passed over. In the Book of Daniel various 
 forms of the text have como down to us, implying some uncertainty as to the 
 genuineness of the book in its present shape. The absolute identity of all existing 
 copies of the Pentateuch throws very grave doubt on the theoiy that it was a com- 
 pilation of so late a date and so intricate a character as the critical school would 
 have us believe, so that this remarkable compilation altogether superseded all earlier 
 and belter histories. It is morally impossible, on their theory, that other versions 
 of the history would have failed to reach us, just as we have the priestly and secular 
 version of the history handed down to us in Chronicles and Kings. It is true that 
 Professor Robertson {Early Religion, p. as.3) admits that the literary sources of 
 the Pentateuch have been determined with some approach to precision. But in 
 
1^2 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 11. To turn to historical considerations. It has been asserted 
 that the early religious creed of Israel must needs have been 
 polytheism, and that such a high and pure stage of sacrificial 
 development as that contained in the Pentateuch could only 
 have been reached by a very slow and gradual process. But 
 the doctrine that fetichism was the original form of religious 
 belief, that by degrees it improved into polytheism, and ulti- 
 mately was sublimated into monotheism, is not accepted by some 
 of the best modern authorities.* Nor does the early history of 
 mankind tend to confirm this impression. One of the weak 
 points of the negative criticism is its grasp of the comparative 
 method of treatment. Thus it entirely ignores, as a matter of 
 course, the religious history of early Egypt and Babylonia. 
 Not only was there a very highly developed sacrificial and 
 ceremonial system in Egypt in the palmiest days of Egyptian 
 history, long anterior to the time of Moses, but many high 
 authorities incline to the belief that the earliest form of religion, 
 in Egypt and Babylonia alike, was monotheistic.j We cannot, 
 
 pp, 477, 513, 516, he very much modifies this statement. And it is part of his method 
 to minimize the purely literary aspect of the question. His admission too is a very 
 guarded one, and he utterly rejects the historic conclusions of its chief supporters. 
 On the whole it must be written down Not Proven. Since these words were written 
 Dr. Watson's most valuable book on Genesis has reached the wi'iter. Its indepen- 
 dent corroboration of Professor Robertson's conclusions is remarkable. But, like 
 Professor Robertson, Dr. Watson is disposed to concede the whole question of the 
 Priestly Code. The present writer must continue to maintain the opinion that 
 though doubtless Genesis was constructed from documents, the present principle on 
 which those documents are supposed to be ascertained will ultimately have to be 
 abandoned. 
 
 * See Robertson, Early Religion, p. 210. 
 
 + See Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, i., p. 110. He speaks of an "esoteric 
 doctrine," though he is not prepared to say whether it is monotheism or atheism. 
 But this is at least decisive against the assumption that in all cases fetichism 
 developed into polytheism. Pox Talbot {Trans. Soc. Bihl. Arch., ii., 35) and 
 Lenormant {Anc. Hist, of the East, i., 452) declare for an original monotheism. 
 Sayce admits that there was a " primitive Accadian monotheistic school," and 
 regards the worship of Ana as being pantheistic, if not monotheistic {By-paths of 
 Bible Knotvledge, "Assyria," pp. 58, 126). Tomkins, author of Studies in the Life of 
 Abraham, says in a paper read before the Victoria Institute (vol. xii. p. 135) that it 
 '•is clear" that "the basis of faith was monotheistic" in Egypt. Mr. Coopex-, in 
 another paper in the same vol. (p. 105), expresses a similar belief. See also 
 Rawiinson on The Early Prevalence of Monotheistic Beliefs, 
 
THE GENUINEyESS OF THE PENTATEUCH 123 
 
 of course, exj^ect from the critics any respect for the " tradition " 
 that Moses was educated at the court of Pharaoh and was 
 " learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." But at least the 
 theory that they emerged from Egypt a horde of ignorant 
 barbarians, utterly uninfluenced by the religious and philo- 
 sophical culture of the land of their sojourn, may not unfairly 
 be described as a large and unwarranted assumption.* Another 
 historical argument is worthy of attention. During the two 
 hundred and fifty years which elapsed between the foundation 
 and the overthrow of the Xorthern Kingdom nme successive 
 dynasties reigned over Israel, while the sceptre peacefully 
 descended from father to son in the kingdom of Judah until 
 the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Is it unreason- 
 able to draw two inferences from this remarkable fact ? — 
 first that the Scriptures have in no wise exaggerated the 
 prestige of David's name and reign ; and next, that some 
 religious institutions of special excellence and value were the 
 sources of the comparatively satisfactory political and social 
 order enjoyed in the kingdom of Judah. That these institu- 
 tions were but ill observed does not materially weaken the 
 force of the argument. The marked contrast found in the 
 history of the two kingdoms presupposes an equally marked 
 contrast in their religious condition.! 
 
 12. The critics who have taken upon themselves to recon- 
 struct history in the way to which the reader's attention has 
 been directed appear very frequently to be mere critical 
 specialists, with more or less knowledge of Hebrew, and 
 sometimes of the kindred languages, but without any well- 
 authenticated claim to a competent acquaintance with the 
 laws of historical investigation. The student, for instance, of 
 
 • See Robertson, Early Religion, p. 510, " It is time that an extreme criticism, 
 which will persist in representing Israel as groping its way out of the most primitive 
 ideas, while civilization prevailed around them, should bend to the force of facts 
 which are multiplying every day." t See note D. 
 
12-4 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBIIICISM. 
 
 the best works on English history is not accustomed to see 
 documents analysed and separated into different portions, on 
 some preconceived theory such as that which we have been dis- 
 cussing. Even obvious forgeries, such as that of the false 
 Ingulf, are carefully examined to see what testimony they yield 
 to the belief of the age in which they may fairly be supposed to 
 have appeared, and even to the facts of ages preceding it.* In 
 Roman history the theories of Niebuhr, which closely resemble 
 those of our Old Testament critics, have been examined by 
 English scholars, and emphatically rejected.! In fact genuine 
 historical criticism is constructive, that of Old Testament critics 
 destructive. The first is occupied with the endeavour to ascer- 
 tain what are the facts. The second is chiefly concerned with 
 ascertaining what may reasonably or unreasonably be contended 
 7iot to have been the facts. And when it has strewn the floor 
 with the ruins of its authorities, the attempts it makes at recon- 
 struction are lamentably unsatisfactory. We are left with a 
 mighty leader and legislator lost in the far distance of innu- 
 merable ages. The growth of a great people — for, revelation 
 
 * See Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv., 600, " It is not at all unlikely that the 
 false Ingulf may be reporting the genuine tradition of his hovise when he says," &c. 
 
 t Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in his Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early 
 Roman History, writes as follows (pp. 13, 14) : — The main cause of the great multi- 
 plicity and wide divergence of opinions which characterize the recent researches 
 into early Roman history, is the defective method which not only Niebuhr and his 
 followers, but most of his opponents, have adopted. Instead of employing those 
 tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, they attempt to 
 guide their judgment by internal evidence, and assume that the truth can be dis- 
 covered by the occult faculty of historical divination .... It is an attempt to 
 solve a problem for the solution of which no sufficient data exist. The consequence 
 is that ingenuity and labour can prodvice nothing but hypotheses and conjectures, 
 which may be supported by analogies, and may sometimes appear specious and 
 attractive, but can never rest on the solid foundation of proof. There will therefore 
 be a series of such conjectural histories : each successive writer will reject all or 
 some of the guesses of his pi'edecessors, and will propose some new hypothesis of his 
 own." Sir G. C. Lewis is here writing the history of the Old Testament criticism as 
 described in our last chapter. And we may apply to the case of the Old Testament 
 the words which follow :— " But the treatment of the eai-ly Roman history, though it 
 will be constantly moving, will not advance ; it will not be stationary, but neither 
 will it be progressive ; it will be unfixed and changeable, but without receiving any 
 improvement; and it will perpetually revolve in the same hopeless circle." See 
 also note C. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 125 
 
 and inspiration apart, the Jews, from their influence on the 
 world's history, must have been a great people— is presented to 
 us shrouded in a mystery which none can penetrate, ^\e are 
 told that this great people was for six hundred years at least 
 without a history, without a literature. The literature which 
 has come down to us, moreover, is riddled with gaps, which 
 have been most clumsily, inaccurately, and inartistically filled. 
 The origin of the great ideas which stare us in the face is not 
 even indicated ; the circumstances which brought them to the 
 birth remain entirely unexplained. And it was only, we are 
 told, when Israel had ceased to be great, Avhen, in fact, it had 
 ceased in the proper sense of the word to be a nation at all, 
 that the magnificent outburst of patriotic and religious emotion 
 oocuiTcd to which the pages of the Old Testament bear witness, 
 and the religious system elaborated which has rendered the 
 Jewish name famous throughout the world. "What would be- 
 come of history, we may ask, if the annals of Egypt and 
 Babylon, of Greece and Rome, had been handled in such a 
 fashion as this ? * "We cannot, however, attempt to discuss 
 
 * It may be well to contrast the methods of the Bishop of Oxford, who has no 
 rival as an authority in English history, with the methods of VV'ellhausen and 
 Kuenen, who are recommended to us as authorities by Hebrew specialists. Com- 
 pare the passasre iConstitutirmal History, i. 514) in which a speech of Hubert 
 ■\Valter at the coronation of King John is treated with tlie manner in which the 
 destructive criticism deals with speeches ascribed to Moses. "A speech is preserved 
 by Matthew Paris, which, whether or no the words are genuine, seems to shew that 
 there was something exceptional in the proceedings ; some attempt on the Arch- 
 bishop's part to give to the formality of the election a real validity, which perhaps 
 might be useful if the claims of Arthur should ever be revived." Here we find the 
 endeavour to discover the svbstration of fact which may underlie a fiction, instead 
 of the habit of denying distinct and repeated historical statements, because in 
 the documents in which they are handed down they are supposed to have become 
 involved with fiction. Or take the following account of the character of Richard II. 
 (ii. 499), and compare it with the wholesale endeavour to discover "sources" in 
 inconsistencies, real or fancied, in the course of a narrative. " His personal 
 character is throughout a problem ; in the earlier years because it is almost 
 impossible to detect his independent action, and in the later ones because of its sur- 
 prising inconsistencies ; and both earlier and later because, where we can read it, it 
 seems so hard to reconcile with the recorded impressions of his own contemporaries." 
 Such inconsistencies and diliiculties are held by the crit ics in the case of the Old Testa- 
 ment to shew that the narrative in which they appear is not to be regarded as histori- 
 cal, or to afford us material for determining the " sources " whence it was drawn. 
 
126 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 fully the destructive criticism on the historical side. And 
 this is the less necessary, in that the task has been success- 
 fully undertaken by Professor Robertson in his Early Religion 
 of Israel, a volume to which reference has already been made. 
 Professor Robertson adds to a sound conception of the true 
 methods of historical inquiry, a competent knowledge of Hebrew 
 and the kindred languages, a familiarity with Oriental thought 
 engendered by a long residence in Palestine, and a wide 
 acquaintance with German criticism in its latest forms — an 
 accomplishment not a little overrated at the present moment, 
 yet without which it is hopeless to attempt to gain an attentive 
 hearing among scholars at the i)resent day. A sketch of his 
 analysis of Jewish history may be useful, and it is therefore 
 appended. He begins by remarking on the peculiar religious 
 character impressed on it throughout — a character which, as 
 much in itself as in its undeniable results, differentiates it from 
 the history of any other people in the world. He then con- 
 trasts the two theories which at present stand in sharp anta- 
 gonism — the modern theory to which reference has already been 
 made, which regards the religion of Israel as developing from 
 the lowest stages of animistic worship up to ethic monotheism, 
 and the traditional theory, which believes that religion to have 
 started with the belief in a moral Deity, and a Law received 
 from His hands. He next reviews the teaching of the earliest 
 undisputed prophets, Amos and Hosea, and points out that the 
 way in which they refer to the subject shews the traditional be- 
 lief to have been traditional even in their time, and that this fact 
 carries its existence back to a period long before that in which 
 they flourished. He then proceeds to comment on the arbitrary 
 methods of the new criticism. He asks for proofs, as distinct 
 from assertions, in regard to the propositions : (1) that before 
 Amos and Hosea the Israelites were not, in their religious con- 
 ceptions, in advance of their neighbours ; (2) that Israel was 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 127 
 
 marked off from other nations in her earlier days by some other 
 distinction than that produced by a sjxicial national religion ; 
 and (3) he requires definite information, in the place of vague 
 conjecture, as to the precise stages of this alleged development 
 of Israel's religion from animism to ethic monotheism. In 
 other words he asks for history in the place of theory. He then 
 proceeds to discuss the various theories of Wellhausen, Kuenen, 
 Stade, Daumer, and others, concerning the names of Jehovah, or 
 Yahweh, the calf or bull-worship, the Moloch worship, and 
 other hypotheses of the critical school concerning the original 
 creed of Israel. He disputes the inference that Jehovah was a 
 term applied originally to a tribal God, and shows that the 
 suggestion that the Israelites were monolaters rather than 
 monotheists is due to a mistaken view of the sense in which 
 they conceived of gods other than Jehovah. Dismissing all 
 questions in regard to the date of the books in their present 
 shape, he goes on to shew that histoiy. Prophets, and Psahns 
 alike point to a Xorm of legal enactment as in existence in Israel 
 from a very early period. Once more dismissing the question 
 whether the Law has come down to us in its original shape 
 or not, he criticizes the two assertions (1) that the three codes 
 alleged to exist are separated by long tracts of time, and (2) that 
 they are inconsistent with one another. He points out how the 
 assumption that the history as it stands is fictitious leaves no 
 historical basis whatever to build upon. He next examines the 
 proposition that we must reverse the order in which history 
 places Israel's institutions — that we must put the Prophets 
 before the Law, not the Law before the Prophets. He shews 
 that it is not borne out by the wi'itings of the prophets them- 
 selves. He insists that their wi'itings establish the truth that 
 the Law was authoritatively imposed, not struck out as the 
 result of a conflict between opposing parties. On these grounds 
 he concludes that the theory is utterly inadequate to deal with 
 
128 PBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 the facts. It is incapable, he declares, of explaining the great 
 crises of the nation's history. It rejects the supernatural, but 
 accepts the unnatural in its place. And finally he asks, as many 
 others have asked, whether those who are ready to accept these 
 principles of interpretation in the case of the Old Testament, 
 are prepared to see them applied to the New— a question which 
 it had been well if many of our theologians had well considered 
 before they so eagerly expressed their readiness to adopt them. 
 The question we have to settle is whether the account given to 
 us in the Old Testament is credible history or not— whether we 
 are to accept that account as it has been handed down to us, or 
 to construct one for ourselves. "It is not impossible," he 
 quotes M. Renan as saying, " that wearied with the repeated 
 bankruptcies of liberalism the world may yet again become 
 Jewish and Christian." Few candid persons, it may safely be 
 affirmed, will rise from the perusal of Profes:or Robertson's 
 book without feeling that M. Renan's vaticinations are likely to 
 be fulfilled, and that the latest " liberal " theories on the con- 
 struction and reconstruction of Old Testament history are 
 destined soon to be as " bankrupt " as their predecessors.* 
 
 14. One word may be permitted on the question of the 
 philosophy of the Old Testament. Every philosophical inquirer 
 is aware how widely the theory that matter was essentially evil 
 was diffused among the philosophical schools both of East and 
 West. It is hardly too much to say that all religions but 
 Judaism and Christianity have either made matter the source 
 of all evil, or have fallen into gross materialism and sensualism. 
 Even the Christian Church herself, though she originally re- 
 jected the conception of the essential impurity of matter, 
 allowed the doctrine to filter into her pale through Greek 
 
 * It is perhaps fair to myself to say that a considerable portion of this chapter had 
 been already written before Professor Robertson's treatise came into my hands, and 
 that there are many coincidences of thought and even of language which are per- 
 fectly independent. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH 129 
 
 Philosophy, Gnosticism, and Manicheism. Now the Old Testa- 
 ment from the Ix^ginning to the end asserts the Divine 
 origin of all things. The conception of matter as evil in 
 its essential nature finds absolutely no support in its pages, 
 while yet the sensualism of the naturalistic creeds with which 
 the Israelites were suiTounded is continually and unsparingly 
 rebuked. Is it more probable that a post-exilic writer happily 
 summarized this universal tendency of the whole of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, at whatever period of the supposed de- 
 ^•elopment through fetichism and animism to a pure ethic 
 monotheism they may be supposed to have been wi'itten, or that 
 the founder of Judaism himself summed up his doctrine of the 
 origin and true character of nature in the pregnant and majestic 
 words, "And God saw everything that He had made, and 
 behold, it was very good" ?* 
 
 15. It is impossible to leave the subject without a reference 
 to the ethical and spiritual bearing of the destructive criticism. 
 What, under the view of Old Testament history we are asked 
 to embrace, will become of the examples of manliness, fortitude, 
 courage, faith, patience, integrity, to which we have been 
 wont to point in the lives and characters of Old Testament 
 heroes ? The touch of criticism has resolved them into 
 air. From facts they have shrunk into mere ideals, as frail I 
 and unsubstantial as the wailing shadows Ulysses met in 
 liis descent to Hades. Abraham, as we have seen, becomes a \ 
 " free creation of unconscious art." Joseph is an incoherent I 
 concoction from various authorities. The venerable figure of 
 Israel's leader and lawgiver, the man "exceeding meek" (or 
 rather humble) " above all that are in the earth," he who spake 
 to God face to face, and was punished by exclusion from the 
 earthly Canaan on account of a momentary lapse from the deep 
 
 • It is worthy of remark in passing that it is curious that modem criticism sees 
 nothing but what is precise, legal, and formal in the account of Creation, which has 
 been regarded for ages as one of the sublimest passages ever penned. 
 
 I 
 
i'30 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 kiimility which had marked his whole life, vanishes in the dim 
 distance of antiquity. The captain who led Israel into the 
 promised land, relying on the instructions given him in the 
 " book of the Law " which was " not to depart " from him, but 
 in which he was to " meditate day and night," shrinks up into 
 I a fierce and daring guerilla chieftain. The story of the return 
 of the ark, with the due observance of Levitical precepts, is 
 dismissed with a " there is not a word of truth in the whole 
 narrative."* Samuel becomes the chief of a troop of dancing 
 dervishes. I David, the sweet singer of Israel, the bold and 
 successful soldier who laid the foundation of Israel's greatness, 
 the " man after God's own heart " by reason of his piety, sub- 
 mission, and faith, subsides into a mere Oriental despot, cultured 
 indeed, and endowed — if even so much as this is admitted — 
 with literary tastes^ but lustful, cowardly, subtle, cruel, mali- 
 cious ; who while his soldiers fight for him, sits ingloriously at 
 home corrupting their wives. The splendid ceremonial which he 
 devised for the worship of the Temple is dismissed as an absurd 
 invention of the priests of Ezra's day. Solomon, the wise, the 
 successful, and the peaceful, is put aside as another figment of 
 the Oriental imagination. The dark figure of " Jeroboam the 
 son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin," which stands forth in 
 the books of the Kings as a warning of the peril of idolatry, 
 vanishes into space at the touch- of the critic's wand. Isaiah 
 becomes the possible writer of a few of the splendid chapters 
 which go by his name ; Daniel is the mere lay-figure of a 
 legend ; and even Ezekiel is rebuked for dealing too harshly 
 with the antecedents of Israel, and with mistaking the history 
 the meaning of which it was his duty to interpret. What is 
 the value to us of the blurred and formless outlines that remain 
 when most of the colour has thus been washed out of them ? 
 That many excellent religious and ethical sentiments are 
 
 * Wellhausen, History of Israel, p. 249. 
 
 + Ibid., pp. 268, 449 ; Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 476, ff. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 1^1 
 
 to be found in the Scriptures as thus dealt with is not 
 denied. But how did they get there ? And on what 
 authority do they rest ? Is their inspiration that of revela- 
 tion, or merely what we might fairly claim for a religious 
 novel ? * If truth compels us to reduce the Old Testament 
 Scriptures to this level, it must of course be done. The most 
 glorious ideals must give place to the overwhelming force of 
 rigorous demonstration. But to nothing short of this can we 
 yield. WiU the boldest supporter of the critical school point out 
 to us where such demonstration is to be found ? 
 
 16. Lastly, we come to the authority of the writers of the 
 New Testament, and of our Blessed Lord. With regard to the 
 former, we may be content with the remark that setting all 
 questions of inspiration aside, they were at least in as favourable 
 a position for judging as the modern critic. Granting that the 
 age was to a certain extent an uncritical age, in the sense in 
 which the word criticism is now understood, yet many sources 
 of information were open to them which are no longer at our 
 disposal. And with regard to the inconsistencies and dis- 
 crepancies which are now alleged to exist, if they be indeed 
 such as they are represented, they must have been as visible 
 to the writers of the New Testament as to us. Into the 
 question of the limitation of our Lord's human knowledge 
 it is impossible to enter in the present volume. It has been 
 fully and ably discussed in the Bishop of Gloucester's Christus 
 Comprohafor and elsewhere. But it may be well for the inquirer 
 to bear in mind that it is one thing to assert the limitation of 
 our Lord's human knowledge, and another to impute to him 
 downright error. The former may or may not be compatible 
 with a belief in our Lord's Divinity, and in the Unity of His 
 Person. The latter seems incompatible with either. And the 
 more numerous and obvious the discrepancies and blunders in 
 
 ♦ Robertson, Harly Religion, Preface, p. xi. 
 
 I 2 
 
132 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 the Bible narrative on points connected with the special objects 
 for which it was written, the more impossible it becomes to 
 believe that One Who failed to detect them was indeed Yery 
 God as well as very man. Thus the teaching which begins 
 with the practical abandonment of the supernatural and of the 
 fact of a Divine revelation under the old dispensation, ends by 
 reducing the authority of our Lord Himself, on an important 
 matter of fact connected with the history of God's dealings 
 with man, to a level below that of a modern critic. We are 
 ■assured, it is true, that the methods of the so-called scientific 
 criticism will not diminish but enhance the authority of 
 Christianity and of Christ. We may be excused for venturing 
 to doubt the assertion. It will be found in the end that the 
 'evidence for Christianity will hardly be strengthened by 
 proving that the Old Testament is full of serious inaccuracies 
 and inconsistencies, that it gravely misrepresents God's actual 
 methods of teaching mankind, and that God manifest in the 
 flesh, the herald, interpreter, and agent of the Divine Purpose, 
 failed to discover these almost self-evident ' facts. Destroy 
 the credibility of the Old Testament as a genuine record of 
 God's dealings with the world, and you will ultimately bring 
 down revelation with it in its fall. 
 
 We conclude then that the theory now accepted by the 
 critical school that there are "four main streams of tradition," 
 the Jehovistic, the Elohistic, the Deuteronomistic, and that of the 
 author of the Priestly Code, must be dismissed as "not proven." 
 There is ground for the belief that after all that has been said, 
 there is but one "main stream" of tradition, and that is em- 
 bodied in the Pentateuch as it stands. It is not denied that 
 there may possibly have been four separate and independent 
 accounts of the events from which the narrative as we at present 
 have it was compiled. Such a denial is no more necessary to a 
 belief in the historical character of the Pentateuch than it is 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 133 
 
 necessary to the Christian position to hold that the four Gospels 
 had a common origin in some one document. All we contend for 
 is that whensoever and by whomsoever that volume as we now 
 have it was written, there is abundant ground for the belief that 
 the wi'iter or writers compiled it from ancient authentic docu- 
 ments to which they had access when they wi'ote, in precisely 
 the same way in which modern historians are wont to compose 
 their histories, and that the historical statements contained in- 
 it may, in all their main features, be depended on. As Professor 
 Robertson has shewn, there is no reason whatever to suppose 
 that down to the year 900 B.C. no record but a bare and un^ 
 certain tradition of Israelite history and institutions existed. 
 Neither has sufficient evidence been produced to support the 
 conclusion that the so-called Three Codes * were separated from 
 one another by any very wide tract of tiincf Still less are we 
 entitled to conclude that Deuteronomy embodies a considerable 
 amount of legislation unknown in the time of Hezekiah, and 
 that many extremely important regulations in the Priestly Code 
 had not been formulated even in the time of Ezekiel.J These 
 notions, we are persuaded, repose rather on the lively imagina- 
 tions of German critics than on any more solid foundation, 
 and they have been adopted by distinguished English Biblical 
 teachers with more haste than discretion. The conclusion of 
 sober reason on the question, it may be confidently affirmed, will 
 eventually be this, that while we know not precisely who wrote 
 the Pentateuch, nor when, nor how it was written, it contains 
 what must be regarded as in all essential respects an accurate 
 historical record of the provisions of the Law given by Moses, and 
 of the circumstances under which that Law was promulgated. 
 
 * The first is contained in Exod, 20-22, with the addition of chap. 34 ; the next in 
 Deuteronomy ; the third in the so-called Priestly Code. 
 
 + Robertson, Early Eel., p. 404, " it will not then necessarily follow that the 
 Codes are far distant in time." 
 
 X It must be remembered that, however many qualifications it contains. Professor 
 Driver's Introduction stands committed to at least as much as this. 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 I 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 THE WITNESS OP PROPHECY. 
 
 T has been before stated that the authors of the new criticism 
 were men who disbelieved in the possibility of miracles 
 and prophecy, and that it was on this disbelief that they 
 grounded their view of the later origin of many books of the 
 Bible. It is the object of this chapter to point out that the 
 evidence for prophecy is altogether independent of any theory 
 of the date of the books of the Old Testament. It would, as 
 will already have been seen, be going too far to assert, with 
 some critics, that our beUef in the insj^iration of the Old Testa- 
 ment as a whole can be entirely separated from the opinion we 
 may form of the date of the original sources of its narrative. 
 But with prophecy the case is different. If the prophecies in 
 the Old Testament could all be proved to be contemporaneous 
 with the birth of Christ, the extraordinary fulfilment of them in 
 Him would be hardly less a sign of supernatural prescience 
 than if we assign them to the date at which ecclesiastical tra- 
 dition has been accustomed to place them. All that we should 
 lose — though that would doubtless be much — would be the 
 historical witness through a long course of ages, to the expecta- 
 tion in Israel of a Redeemer and Saviour to be revealed in 
 God's good time. Thus, though many supposed prophecies 
 would cease to be such if we accept the theory of a second 
 Isaiah, or of the Maccabean origin of Daniel, yet the witness of 
 prophecy on the whole to Christ would be only infinitesimally 
 less astonishing than on the traditional view. This will become 
 more clear as we proceed with th^ argument. Let us briefly 
 
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY. 13o 
 
 examine the subject of prophecy from this point of view. First 
 of all we meet with the account of the temptation, * in which 
 the prophecy, " the seed of the woman shall bruise thy head, 
 and thou shalt bruise his heel," appears. It is difficult 
 to give a satisfactory explanation of the passage without a 
 reference to the Person and Work of Christ, or to understand 
 how, apart from His Person and AYork, the conditions of history 
 can fail to require the language to be reversed. In what other 
 sense mankind can be said to have " bruised the head " of the 
 tempter it is quite impossible to explain. Then we have the 
 repeated prophecy to Abraham that in him aU families of the 
 earth shall be blessed, f It is only in Christ that this pro- 
 phecy can possibly have received its fulfilment. There are 
 few in these days who will be found to deny that Christ has 
 been a benefactor to mankind, that His doctrine is spreading, 
 and that the increase in the sum of human happiness will be 
 in proportion to their conformity to His example. This pro- 
 phecy was repeated to Isaac. % Neither Ishmael nor any other 
 of Abraham's descendants have any share in the promise. It 
 was again repeated to Jacob, to the exclusion of Esau,§ and to 
 Jacob only was the promise fulfilled. Moses, again, prophesied 
 in Deuteronomy — though, according to the critics, the words 
 are not those of Moses, but are simply ascribed to him by 
 a later writer — "the Lord thy God will raise up unto thee 
 a prophet like unto me." || No prophet ever arose after 
 Moses in Israel claiming to be a lawgiver and the founder 
 of a religion until Christ came. The Psidms as well as the 
 books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, speak of God as 
 promising that the throne of David shall be a lasting one.^ 
 
 ♦ Gen. 3. t Gen. 12. 2 ; 18. 18 ; 22. 18. | Gen. 17. 19 ; 26. A. 
 
 § Gen. 28. 14. |I Deut. 18. 15. 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. 7. 13 ; 1 Kinps 2. 45 ; 1 Chr. 22. 10 ; Ps. 89. 4 ; &c. See this line of arpn- 
 ment expanded in Professor Stanley Leathes' Bampton Lectures, Lect. 2. The 
 words above were written before Professor Leathes' volume had been consulted. 
 
1]3S, PBI^CIPlEa OF BmUGAL CRITICISM. 
 
 In any temporal sense the prophecy is an utter failure. But in 
 a spiritual sense it has been fulfilled to the letter. Christ is 
 tlie descendant of David, and He is acknowledged as King by 
 hundreds of millions of men, nor is there any sign that His 
 kingdom is drawing to a close. If we turn to the Psalms we 
 shall find similar forecasts of the future, which are equally 
 striking whatever date we may assign to the Psalter. It may, of 
 course, be argued that the references to Pss. 22 and 69, to the 
 w^ords uttered on the Cross, the garments parted, the vesture for 
 which lots were cast, the vinegar and the gaU, are after-thoughts 
 on the part of the writers of the Gospels. But those who bear 
 in mind the candour and simplicity of their narratives will 
 not be too ready to adopt such an explanation. An objection 
 may be raised to the translation in Ps. 22. 16, "They pierced 
 my hands and my feet," that another reading is found in the 
 Masoretic text. But the translation is found in the Septuagint, 
 a translation made before the Christian era. And in spite of 
 the general fidelity of the Masoretic text, it is not altogether 
 free from the suspicion of an anti-Christian bias. To shorten a 
 Yau into a Jod, and thus get rid of a remarkable prophetic 
 testimony to Christ, might not impossibly have appeared to the 
 Masorites as a pious fraud of a very venial kind,* or they might 
 very naturally have regarded such a slight change in the text 
 to have been a self-evident necessity. But even apart from 
 coincidences so remarkable and so minute as these, there are 
 broad features of Messianic prophecy in the Psalms which no 
 minimizing criticism can efface. The references to David in 
 Ps. 89, to which allusion has already been made, point to a 
 future and not a past event. Ps. 132 bears witness to the 
 same truth. Ps. 2 speaks of one begotten of God in a special 
 manner, to whom the heathen should be given for an inherit- 
 
 * See Buhl, Canon and Text of fhe Old Testament, p. 248, on this point, and also 
 Bp. Pearson's note. On the Creed, p. 201, folio ed. 
 
THE WITNESS OF PBOPHECY. 137 
 
 auce, and the utmost parts of the earth for His possession. 
 Ps. 16 has been regarded by St. Peter and St. Paul as fulfilled 
 only in Jesus Christ, although now it is argued that by Sheol 
 nothing but the grave is meant.* "We will not press Ps. 40, in 
 spite of the use made of it in Heb. 10. 5-7. For there are 
 some difficulties, no doubt, in v. 12, though they disappear 
 in the case of those who look on Jesus Christ as bearing the 
 sins of others as though they were His own. As has before 
 been said, the only possible ground for the reception of Ps. 45 
 into the Canon is the relation it describes as existing between 
 God and His Church. St. Paul and St. John both speak 
 of the relation of Christ to His Chm'ch in the same manner,f 
 and thus the prophetic force of the Psalm at once becomes 
 apparent. We come next to Ps. 110. The deep meaning 
 involved in these words is made clear in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (chap. 5. 6-7. 17), and the exact correspondence of 
 fact to prophecy is one which it is impossible for the utmost 
 ingenuity to explain away. 
 
 We turn to the prophets. And here we are met by phe- 
 nomena of a precisely similar chai'acter. Fii-st of all David is 
 referred to as a historical character, not in the past, but in 
 the future. J Sometimes, as in Hos. 3. 5, he is regarded as 
 having been restored. Sometimes a Branch is to grow from 
 the roots of his family.§ Sometimes, as in Amos 9. 11, the 
 tabernacle of David is to be re-built. Endless peace is to 
 be upon his throne. || His "sure mercies" are promised to 
 Israel when God shall make an everlasting covenant with His 
 people.^ Then there are the prophecies, continually repeated, 
 
 * The parallelism, it must be confessed, supports this view, if, with most modem 
 commentators, we render " pit " instead of " corruption." But the LXX. has 3ia00opa 
 here. 
 
 t John .3. 29 ; 2 Cor. 11. 2 ; Eph. 5. 25, 27 ; Rev. 21. 9. See also Matt. 22. 2. 
 
 t Jer. 30. 9 ; Ezek. .34. 2.3, 24 ; 37. 24, 25. 
 
 § Is. 11. 1 ; Jer. 23. 5 ; 33. 15 ; Zech. 3. 8 ; 6. 12, 13. 
 
 II Is. 9. 7. t Is. 55. 3. 
 
138 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITIGI8M. 
 
 of an age of perpetual peace, in which " the mountain of the 
 Lord's House shall be exalted above the hills," " all nations 
 shall flow unto it," " swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, 
 and spears into pruning hoolis," and ^' the earth shall be filled 
 with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."* 
 And this is to be the consequence of a " law " which has 
 "gone forth from Zion," and a "word of the Lord from 
 Jerusalem." There certainly seemed very little to make these 
 predictions probable before the coming of Christ, or even after 
 His birth, but the most sceptical must confess that at the present 
 moment there is an infinitely better prospect of their being 
 fulfilled, and that a " law " which has " gone forth out of Zion," 
 and a " word of the Lord " which has proceeded " from Jeru- 
 salem," has had a very great deal to do with this happy result. 
 It is impossible in a volume like this to do more than refer 
 to the salient points of prophecy. But among these must be 
 counted as worthy of notice the prophecy of Jeremiah, echoed 
 by Ezekiel, of a day that was coming when a new covenant 
 would be made by God with His people, a covenant whose 
 special characteristic should be that it concerned itself not 
 with outward enactments, but with the spirit in which God 
 was served — a covenant, the aim of which should be the eleva- 
 tion of man to the level of the law, and not the condemnation 
 of him who failed to fulfil it.f It is impossible to read the 
 Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians, and the Second Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, and not see that this prophecy has been 
 fulfilled in the most exact manner possible, and that the 
 undeniable moral and spiritual growth of mankind since it was 
 made has been largely owing to the predicted substitution 
 of the spirit for the letter under the Christian covenant. 
 Closely connected with these are the repeated prophecies of the 
 
 * Is. 2. 2, 4 ; 11. 9 ; Jer. 31. 34 ; Mic. 4. 1 ; Hab. 2. 14 ; Zech. 9. 10 : ef. also Is. 35. 10. 
 t Jer. 31. 31-34 ; 34. 40 ; Ezek. 34. 25 ; 36. 25-33 ; 37. 20-28. 
 
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY. 139' 
 
 extension of the covenant to the Gentiles* — ^prophecies of which 
 the fulfilment was not only not expected among the Jews, but, 
 when proclaimed, was energetically denounced by them. Other 
 prophecies again are more connected with the glory of the 
 personal presence of Jesus, such as the prophecy of Haggai 
 that the glory of the second Temple should be greater than that 
 of the first, and the reference to the " lowly " king entering his 
 capital " riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an 
 ass."t We need not press such passages as Zech. 12. 10 and 
 13. 7, which refer to One Who is spoken of as "pierced," 
 or of the "awakening" of a sword against One that is the 
 " fellow " of the Lord of Hosts, because the interpretation may 
 be disputed, and the word rendered " fellow " should rather be 
 rendered " companion " or " associate." Yet at least we may con- 
 tend that in connection with other prophecies, which no candid 
 person can deny to be such, they are entitled to some attention. 
 In conclusion, there are two passages of a very remarkable and 
 significant kind, which are equally remarkable whether we refer 
 them to the times of Hezekiah and the Captivity, or to any other 
 period before the actual public commencement of the ministry 
 of Christ. J The one is the famous fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. 
 It is true that the " servant of Jehovah " spoken of in connection 
 with this chapter has been variously identified. Some have 
 regarded him as Jeremiah, others as Cyrus. But one thing is 
 quite clear, that the only person who can be said in any way to 
 con-espond to the portraiture as a whole is Jesus Christ. He 
 only, at least, can be held to have been represented by one 
 who " bare our griefs," " carried our soitows," was " wounded 
 for our transgressions," "bruised for our iniquities," had the 
 "chastisement of our peace," the " iniquity of us all laid on 
 
 * Is. 49. 6, 22. 23 ; GO. 1-19 ; 65. 1. See also Deut. 32. 21. 
 t Hag. 2. 9 ; Zech. 9. 9. 
 
 X The prophecies in Is. 40. 3 and Mai. 3. 1 ; 4. 5, which have been explained of 
 St. John Baptist, are passed over, though they are not witliout signilicance. 
 
140 PBmCIJPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 him," and " % whose stripes we are healed." He only, of all who 
 ever trod this earth, can be said emphatically to be the "man of 
 sorrows, and acquainted with grief." No other can be described 
 as having' his soul made "an offering for sin," and to have 
 " borne the sin of many." Is it a mere coincidence that though 
 no one else can possibly exhaust their meaning, the words in 
 question exactly fit the character and history of Jesus Christ ? 
 
 The other prophecy is of course the prophecy of Daniel 9. 
 And here the striking fact is that whatever the difficulties pre- 
 sented by the text of Daniel in general, or by the contents of 
 the eleventh chapter in particular, the prophecy tliat four 
 hundred and ninety years should elapse between the decree to 
 re-build Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem was ful- 
 filled to the letter,* and the sacrifice of Christ has since been 
 universally regarded in the Christian Church as having " finish- 
 ed transgression, made an en^ of sins, made reconciliation for 
 iniquity, and, brought in everlasting righteousness." With the 
 single exception of the Apocalypse, which might possibly be 
 regarded as within the period included in the prophecy, vision 
 and prophecy have come to an end. The most holy has been 
 anointed.. The ministry of Christ lasted about three years, 
 and within fifty years from that date the "sacrifice and 
 oblation ceased," the "city and sanctuary were destroyed," 
 and the whole Jewish polity came to an end. Yerily there 
 is something more than ordinary in a coincidence like this. 
 
 "We conclude with a brief notice of the typical character 
 of the Jewish ceremonial. The Passover unquestionably pre- 
 figures One Who was sacrificed to preserve the people of God 
 from the Destroying Angel, and Whose flesh, eaten by His 
 disciples, is given for the life of the world. The ceremonial of 
 
 * See Pusey on Daniel, pp. 164-233. He points out how commentator after com- 
 mentator in Gtermany has striven to get rid of the prophecy, but how in the end. 
 each theory has been abandoned for another equally ingenious and equally unsound. 
 
THE WITNESS OF PROTHECY. 141 
 
 the Great Day of Atoiiement, including the provision which 
 directed one goat to be slain for the iniquity of the people, 
 and another to be sent out into the wilderness to bear th^ 
 curse of sin, refers to the various aspects of Christ's 
 redeeming work.* The WTiter of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 has pointed out how the various ceremonies imposed on the 
 High Priest in the Jewish Law prefigured the Atonement 
 made by Christ. f The regulations for the burnt offering, 
 the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin and trespass 
 offering, are types of the various aspects of the One Sacrifice 
 of Christ.J The burnt offering implies the absolute surrender 
 of His Will to God. The meal offering represents Him as 
 the Bread of Life.§ The peace offering emphasizes the unity 
 of beUevers with one another and with their Lord, and is 
 therefore in a special sense the type of the Eucharist. The 
 sin offering indicates the power of the Sacrifice of Christ to 
 take away sin, to destroy it utterly, and thus, by a necessary 
 inference, to raise up the offender unto newness of life.|| 
 
 Thus it is impossible on any theory w^hatever of its date or 
 origin to divest the Old Testament of its supernatural cha- 
 racter. On any view whatever of its contents it contains 
 predictions which no human sagacity could have enabled men 
 to make beforehand, a ceremonial system which corresponded 
 most marvellously with the "principles of the doctrine of 
 Christ," as set forth by those whom He commissioned to 
 teach in His Name. Whether there were one Isaiah, or two, 
 whether the Book of Daniel in its present shape were exilic 
 or post-Maccabean, whether part of Zechariah were or were 
 not by another hand, whether we are to regard the great 
 majority of the minor prophets as post-exilic or not, nay, even 
 
 • Lev. 16. t Heb. 9. % Lev. 1—7. § John 6. 35. 
 
 II A good deal of information on the typical character of these sacrifices will be 
 found in Jukes' Law of the Offerings. 
 
142 PEmCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 whether or no we regard the legislation of " P " as subsequent 
 to the Exile,, prophecy of a distinctlj supernatural character 
 still remains an essential feature of the Old Testament.* And, 
 as we have already remarked, were we to bring down the date 
 of the books in which it. is contained to the period of the 
 commencement of Christ's ministry, our argument would only 
 be affected most infinitesimally. For down to the hour of 
 the Crucifixion of Jesus, nay, even to the very moment of 
 His. Eesurrection, there was^ the highest degree of impro- 
 bability that any of these prophecies or types should have 
 been fulfilled at all — an improbability amounting, humanly 
 speaking, to absolute impossibility that they should all of 
 them have found their fulfilment in one Person. And yet 
 it cannot be denied that on the view of Christ consis- 
 tently held and taught in His Church, they have all been 
 fulfilled to the very letter in Him, and in no one else. 
 The most determined unbeliever in Christ, if he is candid, 
 cannot fail to admit that this is a most extraordinary fact, 
 and that no reasonable man can fairly deny the existence of 
 so772e ground, at least, for recognizing a supernatural element in 
 the writings of the Old Testament, at what time soever they 
 were written. Yet while this should mitigate our alarm at 
 the possible results of the criticism which has been considered 
 in the last two chapters, it may also serve to shew the futility of 
 attempting to get rid of the supernatural by any efforts what- 
 ever to minimize it. As this was unquestionably the original 
 object of the endeavour to bring down the greater part of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures to as late a date as possible, we are 
 justified in subjecting the critical theories to the most rigid 
 critical tests, and requiring the clearest demonstration of con- 
 clusions originally presented for our acceptance on principles 
 hostile to the supernatural character of the sacred volume. 
 
 * See also note F. 
 
( H3 ) 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSALMS TO THE FACTS OF 
 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. 
 
 IT has ali-eady been remarked that recent criticism has 
 assigned the Psalter, as a whole, to the post-exilic, if 
 not to the ]\Iaccabean, period. But this is quite a new de- 
 parture on the part of the critics. The older authorities, 
 though they were inclined to diminish considerably the number 
 of Psalms attributed to David, and to sift very closely the 
 evidence for the Davidic origin of each, were nevertheless by 
 no means inclined to deny that David wrote any of them. 
 Even those whose Davidic origin was disputed were regarded 
 by the vast majority of critics as pre-exilic* But as the 
 views of Graf gradually grew into favour in Germany, we 
 find a corresponding tendency on the increase to discourage 
 a belief in the Davidic authorship of any of the Psalms. 
 AVellhausen can manage to construct a History of Israel with- 
 out the Psalms. Professor Robertson Smith, f after carefully 
 minimizing the evidence for David's authorship, comes to the 
 conclusion that "there is no Psalm which we can assign to 
 him with absolute certaijity, and use to throw light on his 
 character, or any special event of his life." Professor Cheyne, 
 grown bolder still, denies that any Psalm can be proved to 
 
 * Among the critics who hold to the pre-exilic origin of the earlier books of the 
 Psalms may be cited Bleek, Delitzsch, Ewald. and Hitzig, as well as Bishop 
 Perowne — none of them writers who belong to the traditional school. 
 
 t The Old Testament in the Jeicish Church, Lect. VII. We can imagine how- 
 he would deal with Shakespeare's sonnets if they happened to come in the way 
 of any theory of his. 
 
144 PEmCIPZES OF BIBLICAL CMITICISM. 
 
 be of pre-exilic origin.* The reason of this is obvious. The 
 Psalms directly and strongly contradict the theory of the post- 
 exilic origin of the Priestly Code. Not only, as we have seen,f 
 do they quote from the books as they stand, but with one 
 consent they plainly assert that which modern criticism denies. 
 The post-exilic historic Psalms J go through the whole history 
 of the Pentateuch — the covenant with Abraham, the oath to 
 Isaac, the sojourning in Canaan, the story of Joseph, the 
 captivity in Egypt, the deliverance by Moses and Aaron, the 
 plagues, the pillar of fire and cloud, the drying up of the Red 
 Sea, the "lust" in the desert, the catastrophe of Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram, the golden calf, the intercession of 
 Moses, the vengeance executed by Phinehas, the rebellion and 
 idolatry of Israel. It is, of course, essential to the estab- 
 lishment of G-raf's theory that such Psalms as these should 
 be brought down as late as possible. This fact, if it stood 
 alone, might teach us to scrutinize very closely assertions 
 which are rendered necessary by the position of those who 
 make them. But it does not stand alone. The allusions 
 to the history of Israel, as we now have it, are inter- 
 woven into the whole structure of the Psalms. Psalm 78, 
 for instance — a Psalm generally believed, and not without 
 grounds, to be of older date — tells the same story. " He 
 established," it says, "a testimony in Jacob, and appointed 
 a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to 
 make known to their children," and to hand on to the 
 
 * " Take, for instance, the treatment of the Book of Psalms now in vogue in the 
 higher circles of criticism. One would have thought that if anywhere the inquirer 
 into the history of religious thought would find valuable * sources,' it would be in 
 this collection of the sacred and national songs of Israel. But . ... it is able to 
 
 dispense with them as materials for a history of the older religion of Israel 
 
 It is now the fashion to speak of the Psalter as the psalm-book of the second 
 Temple .... Thus, by one stroke, the tongue of ancient Israel is struck dumb, 
 as the pen is dashed from its hand."— Robertson, Uarly Religion of Israel, p. 474. 
 
 t Above, p. 69. 
 
 X Pss. 105 and 106. 
 
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSALMS. 145 
 
 latest generations. This Psalm, from its general tone of 
 triumph, the strong emphasis laid on the preference of 
 Judah over Ephraim, and its apparent allusion to a defeat 
 lately sustained by Ephraim, has with much probability been 
 assigned to the reign of Asa. And it once more gives us 
 the whole history of the Exodus, in yet minuter detail than 
 the Psalms to which we have already referred. A thorough 
 investigation leads us to the absolute impossibility of a post- 
 exilic date to this Psalm. For the object of the reHgious rulers 
 of Israel on their return from exile would naturally be to blot 
 out the remembrance of all past disputes, and to weld the " rem- 
 nant of Israel," of whatever tribe, into one homogeneous body. 
 Nothing could be worse adapted to this end than the language 
 of Ps. 78. Moreover, the nature of its references to David 
 are strongly suggestive of a period when his memory was 
 fresh in the nation's mind. Beside this, we find an allusion 
 to the tabernacle in Shiloh, the " tent of Joseph," as captured 
 by the Philistines — that very tabernacle which Wellhausen 
 regards as a fable of the post-exilic period, invested with an 
 apparent verisimilitude by the skilful pen of the author of 
 the Priestly Code.* Again, in Ps. 44, we have a similar, 
 though In'iefer, allusion to the history. In Ps. 2 we hear of a 
 " king set upon the holy hiU of Zion," an utterance which must 
 either have been pre-exilic, or prophetic, or post-Maccabean. 
 Then we have Psalms of triumph, such as Ps. 18, where 
 God is represented as executing vengeance and subduing 
 peoples — a condition of things contrasting strangely with the 
 condition of Israel after the Exile, and with the tone of 
 the post-exilic Psalms, which look back to past glories, and 
 praise God, not for pre-eminence among the nations, but for 
 deliverance from oppression.! Ps. 68, again, fits in with the 
 bringing up of the ark to Jerusalem recorded in 2 Sam. 6, 
 
 ♦ History of Israel, p. 9. t See also Pss. 24, 48, 66, 68, 
 
146 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 and in 1 Chron. 15, and with no other time. The spirit of 
 irrepressible exultation which breathes through the whole 
 of it can be explained by no theory of historical reminiscence, 
 but can only coincide with a period of national greatness 
 and glory. 
 
 Nor are these the only signs of the pre-exilic authorship 
 of the earlier Psalms. The way in which the words " Israel " 
 and " Judah " are used must also be held to be of some sig- 
 nificance.* It is a remarkable fact that the " new criticism," 
 while it never scruples to build the vastest possible structure 
 of theory upon the minutest possible basis of fact, is accus- 
 tomed entirely to ignore all arguments from internal evidence 
 tending in any way to support an opposite view to its own. 
 Thus, the argument from undesigned coincidences — an argu- 
 ment sometimes of considerable weight — is invariably ignored. 
 Nor is it considered worth while to reply to any considera- 
 tions based on the use of the words " Judah " and " Israel " in the 
 Psalms. But if there be anything whatever in such use — 
 and the history of Israel certainly seems to make it probable — 
 we should be prepared to find something of this kind ; — that 
 in compositions written before the separation between Judah 
 and Israel the nation would be denoted by the latter name ; 
 that after the separation great emphasis would be laid on 
 the position of Judah, as alone faithful to the Covenant; 
 and that after the Exile, when those who had returned from 
 the Captivity were a remnant representing the whole nation, the 
 Psalmists would once more recur to the earlier form of expres- 
 sion. Allusions to Zion, as denoting the capital, would of course 
 be found throughout. But in view of the jealousy of Ephraim 
 when deprived of the hegemony of which it had been accus- 
 tomed to boast (Judges 8. 1 ; 12. 1) — a jealousy plainly 
 
 * See Gladstone, Impregnable Bock of Holy Scripture, p. 185. The same idea 
 had occurred independently to the writer. 
 
' THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSALMS. 147 
 
 indicated in the murmurings of which we read in 2 Sam. 
 19. 41-43, as well as in the revolt of Israel under Jeroboam 
 the Ephraimite — it is most improbable that any Psalm written 
 by David would contain any boast about the supremacy of 
 Judah. So able a statesman would most certainly have been 
 on his guard against fomenting a dissatisfaction which he 
 must have known to have been secretly at work.* What, 
 then, do we find ? In the Psalms which, by universal con- 
 sent until lately, have been supposed to be the earhest, the 
 term " Israel," or its equivalent " Jacob," is employed. This 
 is the case in Pss. 22, 44, 46, 47, 63, 59, 68. In Pss. 
 60 and 68 Israel is plainly referred to as an united 
 kingdom. " Judah " in the first of these Psalms is the 
 " law-giver," but " Gilead and Manasseh " are part of the 
 kingdom, and Ephraim is referred to in complimentary 
 phrase as the "strength of Jehovah's head," while Edom 
 is as yet unconquered, though an expedition thither is 
 immediately contemplated {v, 9 : cf, 2 Sam. 8. 14). In the 
 second we find the twelve tribes again forming one united 
 nation, and the recent hegemony of Benjamin under Saul is 
 not obscurely mentioned. Judah is simply treated as on-e 
 among the rest, and the allusion to the " temple " (Heb. 
 hecaV) may either refer to the tabernacle, or to David's fixed 
 purpose to build God a house. In fact, the only patriotic 
 allusions to Judah apart from the rest of the tribes to be 
 found in the first two books of the Psalter are in Ps. 48, 
 ascribed to the sons of Korah, and in Ps. 69, which Hitzig 
 has with great probability ascribed to Jeremiah, with whose 
 character and era the psalm has much in common. But 
 
 * It is an undesigned coincidence, and one which makes stroni^ly for the homo- 
 geneity of the historical books as a whole, that Judah held herself entirely aloof 
 from the struggles of Israel under the Judges. This fact, and no other, will account 
 for the readiness the remaining tribes displayed to range themselves under the 
 banner of Ephraim, as well as the distinction between Judah and the rest of Israel 
 aheady obsenable in the reign of David. 
 
 K2 
 
148 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 when we come to the third book, though there is an occa- 
 sional but very general use of the word "Israel," special 
 reference to Judah and the founder of her monarchy becomes 
 more frequent. Thus we find it in Pss. 74. 2 ; 76. 1, 2 ; 
 79. 1, 3 ; 84. 1-7 ; 87. 5 ; 89. 20-37.* In Ps. 78 there is, 
 as has been already observed, a distinct polemical reference 
 to Ephraim {v. 9), and a boast of Jehovah's preference of 
 J-adah over the rival tribe {vv. 67-70). Ps. 81, the contents 
 of which suggest no particular date, is the only exception to 
 this rule. But in the fifth book of the Psalms, universally 
 admitted to be post -exilic, we find no longer any tendency to 
 exalt Judah. There is no mention of that tribe in Pss. 105 
 and 106. Ps. 108, so far as it is historical, is simply a copy 
 of Ps. 60. Ps. 114 returns to the mode of mention of the 
 tribes we find in the first two books. We find " Israel " in 
 Pss. 121, 124, 135, 136, 147, 149. And though in some 
 of these, and in many of the other Psalms in this book, we 
 find frequent reference to Jerusalem, Zion, and the Temple, 
 and those references breathing a spirit of deep and patriotic 
 affection, we find no attempt to separate Judah from the 
 other tribes, or to exalt that tribe into a pre-eminence over 
 the rest. Thus the internal evidence of the Psalms, on the 
 hypothesis of the traditional theory, precisely bears out the 
 expectations we should have formed from the history. It 
 is not pretended that this argument is in itself conclusive. 
 But no candid person can deny that it is entitled to some 
 weight, and that it is, at least, as well worthy of considera- 
 tion as the attempts to fix the Psalter to the Maccabean 
 period, and to prove Ps. 45 to have been an epithalamium 
 to Ptolemy Philadelphus., 
 
 The linguistic features of the Psalms also tend in the 
 
 * Pss. 74 and 79 are considered as possibly Maccabean. by many who are firm 
 believers in the Davidic authorship of many of the earlier Psalms. 
 
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSALMS. 149 
 
 same direction. The first two books are difficult to follow 
 in their connection of thought, and some phrases are almost 
 unintelligible. Professor Cheyne himself is constrained to give 
 up some passages as corrupt. But in the later Psalms no 
 such difficulty is to be found. Even the English reader can 
 discern the difference. We have here clear marks that the 
 literary phenomena of the Psalms follow the laws of poetical 
 development all the w^orld over. The earlier ones, written 
 before literary composition had become an art, are the un- 
 studied outpourings of a powerful but comparatively uncul- 
 tured mind. They are neglectful of form, because no laws 
 of form had as yet been prescribed. They are, therefore, in 
 themselves difficult to follow. And their difficulty is increased 
 whenever the transcriber failed to understand his MS., and 
 especially the archaic expressions contained in it. The later 
 Psalms are composed by men of less original genius, but fully 
 acquainted with the laws of literary composition. They are, 
 therefore, flowing and harmonious, but as the product of an 
 inferior age are destitute of brilliancy or depth, and suggest 
 no problems to the understanding. This is one of the most 
 universally admitted facts of Uterary history, and it points, 
 in the case of the Psalms, exactly in the same direction as 
 the internal evidence has done. 
 
 We come next to the pet'sonal element in the Psalms. And 
 here, of course, a very large number of them are at once 
 ehminated. We have no clue whatever, as a rule, to the authors 
 of the last two books. Many of those in the second and third 
 books are ascribed to the sons of Korah and of Asaph. Many 
 of the remainder, by the prominence which they give to the tribe 
 of Judah, cannot possibly have been written by David. Other 
 Psalms, again, like Psalms 22 and 69, seem, from internal 
 evidence, to point to Jeremiah rather than to David. Several 
 others, it must be admitted, among those ascribed to David 
 
150 FBINCIFLES OF BXBLICAL CBITI€mM. 
 
 are extremely difficult to fit in with any epoch of his life. Yet 
 the universal tradition which makes David the father of 
 Israelite poetry must have had some foundation. And it is 
 practically certain that, if there be any truth in the history as 
 it stands, the nation would have taken care to preserve the 
 compositions of the renowned warrior, statesman, and poet, the 
 true founder of the monarchy, the pious hero who gave form to 
 what had previously been the disappointed aspirations after a 
 worthy national and religious life. We might as well expect 
 to find a Wesleyan Hymn-book with no hymns by Wesley in 
 it, as a national collection of the Psalms of David of which 
 David wrote none. A paradox so strange as that which admits 
 the existence of an ancient tradition ascribing to David the 
 character of the Psalmist of Israel par excellence, while it 
 nevertheless declares that none of his compositions have 
 been preserved, is no doubt original, and may, like other 
 paradoxes, be defended by much learning and more in- 
 genuity. But it comes before us weighted by such a load 
 of antecedent difiiculty that it is extremely unlikely ever 
 to become the accepted belief. It is of course useless 
 to urge that the critical theory deprives us of one of 
 the most remarkable and interesting figures in history. 
 The critics, it is true, are addicted to "psychological con- 
 siderations" when it pleases them. But the psychological 
 argument which is built on the impossibility of so original and 
 daring a conception as the character of David being nothing 
 more than a myth, is in their eyes unworthy of attention. Yet 
 the singular resemblance between the portrait drawn of David 
 in the books of Samuel and Chronicles, and the self-revela- 
 tions which meet us in Psalms 42, 43, 51, and 63, to say 
 nothing of other of the Psalms attributed to David, is too 
 obvious not to suggest very grave suspicions of the soundness 
 of the so-called critical conclusions. The picture of a man of 
 
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSALMS. 151 
 
 importance and influence, such as the writer of three out of 
 four of these Psalms was — a king apparently,* a leader of 
 men certainly | — whose heart was devoted to songs of praise, 
 and who cared for nothing so much as the worship of the 
 sanctuary, not only coincides precisely with the portraiture of 
 David in the historical books, but is unique in itself. And 
 if Psalm 51 were not written by David, but by some later 
 writer in his name, that writer must have been, to use the 
 expression of Bishop Westcott in relation to the Gospel of 
 St. John, " an unknown Shakspere," though living in days 
 when the drama was as yet undeveloped. And it also coincides 
 precisely with the character of David as drawn in the Second 
 Book of Samuel. Only such a man as is described in Psalm 51 
 would have been capable of the flash of sudden conviction ex- 
 pressed in the remarkable words, " I have sinned against the 
 Lord." Only such a man could have been the hero of the 
 touching episode where the father fasts and weeps for his dying 
 child, and then anoints his head and washes his face when he 
 is told that the child is dead, and meets the remonstrances of 
 his servants with the memorable reply, " Can I bring him back 
 again ? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." It 
 is almost too absurd when we find people gravely arguing that 
 the expression " against thee only have I sinned " is inadmis- 
 sible in the mouth of David, inasmuch as he had also sinned 
 deeply against Uriah. Such arguments may satisfy men 
 who are utterly without experience in the deeper human emo- 
 tions, but they will most certainly have no weight with any 
 one who is conversant with the religious history of souls. 
 Independently of the fact — sufficiently plain, one would have 
 thought — that to the Hebrew sin against Jehovah and wrong 
 done to an individual were not exactly on a level, there is a 
 strong tendency in the repentant sinner to minimize the wrong 
 
 * Ps. 63. 11. t Ps. 42. 4. 
 
152 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 done by him to man, when placed in contrast with the offence 
 he has committed against the Majesty of God. There is 
 scarcely a saint of God who has experienced the bitterness 
 of the conviction of sin, who has not found in the language of 
 the fifty-first Psalm the only adequate expression of his feelings. 
 
 So, too, we may dismiss almost without comment the dis- 
 cussion which has been raised on the words, " For thou desirest 
 no sacrifice, else would I give it Thee, but Thou delightest not 
 in burnt offerings." There is nothing in these words incon- 
 sistent, either with the authenticity of the Scripture account of 
 the contents of the Mosaic Law, or with the position and 
 character of David. There is nothing more remarkable than 
 the insight which was early displayed by men of deeply religious 
 character into the true spiritual nature of obedience to the 
 Mosaic precepts. Even before the days of David, Samuel had 
 already discerned that " to obey was better than sacrifice, and to 
 hearken than the fat of rams." And the strong antithetic way 
 of putting things which we find here and in other passages * 
 is due to the genius of th« Hebrew language, and not to any 
 opposition to the doctrines set forth in the Pentateuch in its 
 present form. 
 
 In a discussion of principles, which is the only object of the 
 present book, it is of course impossible to enter into a full 
 analysis of the Psalms, and to bring out the correspondence 
 between the David of history and the David of the Psalter. f 
 Enough, however, has been said to shew that there is abundant 
 material in the contents of the Psalter to suggest hesitation before 
 relegating it to Maccabean times. And when we add to the 
 internal evidence both of language and of fact the universal 
 tradition among the Jews that David was the creator of their 
 
 • For instance. Is. 1. 11—16 ; Hos. 6. 6 ; Mic. 6. 8. 
 
 t This work has been done in a measure by Canon Fausset in his Studies in the 
 Fsalms, 
 
THE EVIDENCE OF TEE PSALMS. 153 
 
 national psalmody, and the distinct assertions to that effect 
 in the historical books, it would seem both unusual and un- 
 reasonable to reject these plain statements, supported by 
 such cogent evidence derived from the documents themselves, 
 as well as from the consistency of each of these sources of 
 information with the other, simply because able and ingenious 
 men have been able to start a number of difficulties to which 
 it is not always easy to find a ready answer.* 
 
 * For some striking remarks on the character of David see an article on 
 "ChejTie's Bampton Lectures and the Date of the Psalter" in the Church 
 Quarterly Review for October 1892. 
 
( 154 ) 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. 
 
 RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW. 
 
 WE have now briefly considered the principles on which 
 the criticism of the Old Testament must proceed. 
 With regard to the text we have estimated the character of 
 the information before us, and we have seen that a closer 
 examination of authorities is likely soon to put us in pos- 
 session of more. In fact, the textual criticism of the Old 
 Testament must be pronounced to be in its infancy, and it 
 may be confidently expected that in the next half century 
 large strides will be made in the direction of a satisfactory 
 settlement of the text. As far as the Higher Criticism is 
 concerned, we are rather in the position the late Sir G-. C. 
 Lewis described when characterising certain theories of Roman 
 history. "We are advancing indeed, but advancing in a circle. 
 A series of ingenious suggestions have been made, each of 
 which is destructive of its predecessor. And what has been 
 regarded as the definite outcome of all this theorizing, the 
 discovery of the three Codes, viz., the Book of the Covenant, 
 the Deuteronomic Code, and the Priestly Code, will unquestion- 
 ably be felt by many to rest on a very insecure basis. All 
 that can be said to be ascertained is that a Christian 
 is not necessarily pledged to every detail in the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures ; that some parts of the prophets, until 
 recently supposed to be predictions, were very possibly written 
 after the events to which they refer; and that it is quite 
 possible that many of the books, or portions of the books, 
 were written at a later date than has hitherto been 
 
BELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW. 155 
 
 supposed. But that the revelation of God ascribed in the 
 Pentateuch to Moses, or the existence of clear and distinct 
 prophecy, has in any sense been disproved, there is no reason 
 whatever for admitting. 
 
 One remark may here be permitted us, which is of immense 
 importance to a true view of the principles of Biblical Criticism. 
 It is generally supposed that to assume such facts as Inspira- 
 tion and Revelation as the basis of our inquiry is to make such 
 inquiry one-sided. This is by no means the case. Absolute 
 impartiality is of course entirely impossible. The critic must 
 approach the question of Biblical Criticism with a bias either 
 in favour of, or against the supernatural. The only thing that 
 can be required of him is that he shall deal honestly with the 
 facts before Mm. But this is not all. It is of course the duty 
 of every one to enter, so far as he is able, into the evidence for 
 revealed rehgion. This will involve the study of those evi- 
 dences in general, and of the origin and contents of the Bible 
 in particular. But when the student is once satisfied on other 
 grounds of the fact that a Eevelation has been made to man, 
 and that this Revelation is enshrined in an inspired volume, 
 there needs no further inquiry in this direction. In his future 
 investigations into the contents of the Scriptures he will take 
 these facts for granted. Nor is there anything unscientific in 
 «o doing. In Xewton's Principia we find inquiries into the 
 laws of force which will cause a body to move in a circle, or an 
 equiangular spiral. Investigation has proved that projectiles 
 describe a parabola. Some of the comets have been beUeved 
 to move in hyperboHc orbits. But our astronomic observers 
 do not now enter into elaborate investigations whether 
 the planets move in these orbits or not. They regard it 
 as scientifically established that they move in eUipses, and 
 all investigations are based on this assumption. It is 
 equally open to the student of Scripture who believes on 
 
156 TRINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 sufficient grounds in the possibility of the supernatural, in 
 a revelation made and attested by prophecy and miracle, 
 and handed down in writings of acknowledged authority 
 and antiquity, to take these principles for granted in the 
 examination of their contents. There is a Christian and there 
 is a non-Christian examination of the phenomena. Both are 
 equally fair and reasonable, and from the Christian view at 
 least both are equally necessary. There is no wish to disguise 
 the fact that the present volume takes the main principles of 
 the Christian religion for granted, and seeks to employ them as 
 a factor in the determination of the truth. 
 
 Before proceeding to a survey of the criticism of the New 
 Testament, it is necessary to observe that on the testimony of 
 its oracles, Christianity regards the Old and New Testament as 
 forming one consistent whole. You cannot destroy the credit 
 of the former without undermining the authority of the latter. 
 The former contains an authoritative account of the preparation 
 of the world for the coming of Christ : so the books of the New 
 Testament uniformly maintain. Our Lord Himself appeals 
 to the books of the older Covenant as witnessing to Himself.* 
 The Law is our nai^ayayoqj our "schoolmaster," to bring us 
 to Christ. t The ordinances of the Mosaic Law were an 
 authoritative prefigurement, in ceremonial and type, of " Him 
 Who should come" : so we learn in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. We may fearlessly declare it to be unreasonable 
 and uncritical for any one professing to be a believer in the 
 Christian revelation to ignore these facts, as has so often been 
 done of late, or to refuse to employ the New Testament to 
 throw light on the -character and contents of the Old. 
 
 Thus we are bound, from the Christian point of view, 
 to regard the principles which underlie the Scriptures as 
 identical throughout, though manifesting themselves with 
 
 * John 5. 39, 46. t Gal. 3. 24. 
 
RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW. 157 
 
 increasing clearness as the ages roll on. It appears to have 
 been the purpose of God under the old dispensation to promote 
 the sanctification of the individual through the purification 
 of the community. First of all, He selects a single family 
 into which to inspire the knowledge of Himself. The family 
 grew into a tribe, the tribe, when disciplined by ages 
 of suffering and conflict, into a nation. In this nation the 
 recognition of God was expanded according to its needs. 
 The simple worship of the patriarchal period passed into 
 a more fixed and stable form. "Commandments, statutes, 
 and judgments," partly legal, partly ceremonial, and partly 
 moral, constituted a code divinely given to the nation on 
 the eve of its entrance into its destined territory. Still 
 the main object of these regulations was to guide the com- 
 munity ; but some of the ceremonial precepts appear to point 
 not obscurely to a time when the sanctification of the indi- 
 vidual will assume a more prominent position, and to fore- 
 shadow some newer and fuller application of the principles of 
 the Mosaic Law in a wider and freer covenant. These prin- 
 ciples are developed as time goes on, and the character of the 
 anticipated newer Covenant grows ever clearer to the eyes of 
 those who have meditated aright on that which has preceded 
 it. But this development is not one out of nothing into 
 something — out of fetichism and animism into polytheism, and 
 thence into the worship of One Only God. Our histories "know 
 nothing " of such a development. It has been evolved out of 
 the brains of theorists to account for phenomena, the historic 
 explanation of which they reject. The development postu- 
 lated by Christianity is the development of a germ implanted 
 by a revelation given by the same Almighty Hand Which 
 completed it by the mission of the Eternal Word. And this 
 development follows consistently the same course throughout. 
 A standard is set up, too high for those for whom it is given, 
 
158 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITIVISM. 
 
 but ever tending to produce conformity to itself. There is a 
 continual parallel between the history of the Jewish nation and 
 the history of the Christian Church. Each is the history of 
 a covenant disobeyed, and yet of the continual progress of the 
 community in spite of, nay even in consequence of that dis- 
 obedience. The prophets of Jehovah hold up the Majesty 
 of His Law before a faithless and stubborn generation, and 
 point out unceasingly the fearful consequence of disobedience. 
 The rebukes strike home ; offenders are dismayed ; the con- 
 sequences are individual and general repentance. Periods of 
 awakening occur from time to time ; great reformations are 
 undertaken, and with success, and so step by step the com- 
 munity " reaches forward unto the things that are before," and 
 " presses on towards the mark " that is set before it. 
 
 There is yet another point to be observed. The morality 
 of Christianity rests upon the basis of the morality which has 
 preceded it. Christ came. He tells us, "not to destroy the 
 Law, but to fulfil " it. If this be forgotten — and it has very 
 frequently been forgotten — Christianity subsides into mere 
 quietism and pietism ; it quenches the ardour of a regenerating 
 zeal in the feebleness of a merely inoffensive life. But the 
 God Whom we are taught to worship is " a God of truth and 
 without iniquity ; just and right is He." And so justice and 
 uprightness are the basis of the society He came to found. 
 These principles are to spread throughout the earth. All the 
 mutual obligations which bind man to man are to be respected, 
 and on them are all family, social, national, and political life 
 to be founded. It has been the neglect of these truths, the 
 dissociation of the New Testament from the Old, which has 
 tended to degrade Christianity into a mere individualism, and 
 so to obscure its witness for Christ. 
 
 But it is from the individual that the purification of so- 
 ciety must ultimately proceed. And this is the truth which 
 
BELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO THE NEW. 159 
 
 Christianity alone has made quite clear. The union of the life 
 of the believer by a living faith with the life of his Head, and 
 through that union with the lives of all his brethren, is the 
 central truth of the "health-giving doctrine" which the 
 Apostles were directed to proclaim. It is this truth which 
 the Bible as a whole was written to teach. Old Testament 
 and New alike witness to the fact that "God was in Christ 
 reconciling the world unto Himself." And the Old Testament 
 records those struggles of the soul, those searchings of heart, 
 that deep conviction of a Father's law outraged, which led men 
 to Him, so long foretold. Who came at last " to make an end 
 of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in 
 everlasting righteousness."* 
 
 * Dan. 9. 24. 
 
( 160 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OP TEXTUAL CRITICISM, AS APPLIED TO THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE principles of New Testament textual criticism at pre- 
 sent accepted were the result of much patient labour, 
 extending over a long period. The best way of understanding 
 them is to trace their gradual historical development. Even 
 now it cannot be affirmed that we have arrived at absolute 
 certainty in regard even to the principles themselves, much 
 less in regard to their application. Indeed, as far as their 
 application is concerned, it is impossible to hope ever to arrive 
 at exact conclusions. The utmost that can be done, in this 
 as in other sciences, is to discover the nearest practical ap- 
 proximation to the facts. 
 
 In the criticism of the New Testament we have to deal with 
 a different set of circumstances to those which confront us in 
 the case of the Old Testament. There the Versions are of far 
 greater antiquity than the MSS., and the weight of the MSS. 
 simply depends upon the fact that they are the representatives 
 of a tradition very much older than themselves. It may be 
 remarked in passing that it is curious to find it generally 
 admitted that tradition has succeeded in preserving the best 
 text of the Old Testament, when modern criticism attaches 
 so little value to tradition relating to the historical fact of 
 the age and composition of the books which compose it. But 
 this by the way. Tradition has been respected by the scribes 
 of the Old Testament ; and, as we have seen, many competent 
 critics believe the text of MSS. which were written between 
 
XEIV TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 161 
 
 thirteen and fourteen hundred years at least after tlie books 
 themselves were compiled, to be purer than that of a version 
 not three hundred years subsequent to the completion of the 
 Canon. But in the case of the New Testament we have MSS. 
 almost, or quite, as ancient as the most important versions. The 
 best MSS. we possess date from the fourth centuiT. Xo version 
 is supposed to have been earlier than the latter end, or, as some 
 hold, the middle of the second. And we have evidence, which 
 will be given hereafter, that textual corruption preceded the 
 earliest version of the Xew Testament which has come down to us. 
 The date of the principal versions of the Xew Testament 
 has been already discussed in dealing with the Old.* TVe 
 will therefore proceed to mention the principal MSS. And 
 here, as we are dealing with principles rather than details, 
 we will confine our attention to the five which bear the 
 highest reputation. Of these, the most valuable have for 
 some time been supposed to be the Codex Sinaiticus, usually 
 denoted by J^, and the Codex Yaticanus, usually known as B. 
 After these come the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the Codex 
 Ephraemi (C), and the Codex Bezas (D). Of these, 5^ was 
 discovered by Tischendorf in 1844 and 1859. t It contains 
 the whole of the Xew Testament, beside a considerable portion 
 of the LXX. translation of the Old. It contains also the 
 Epistle of Barnabas entire, and a considerable portion of the 
 Shepherd of Hermas. It is now at St. Petersburg. Its date 
 is supposed to be about the middle of the fourth century. 
 B is in the Vatican Library. How it got there we have 
 no information. It contains the X'ew Testament with the 
 exception of the Pastoral Epistles, a part of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. It is also supposed to belong to 
 the middle of the fourth century. It corresponds very closely 
 
 • Above, p. 16. 
 
 t He found the first portion of it which he discovered in a waste paper basket 
 containinj? materials for lighting fires ! 
 
 L 
 
162 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 in its main features to K. This has given rise to a supposition 
 that both of them were among the fifty MSS. of the New 
 Testament which Eusebius was directed by Constantine to 
 procure for the Churches in his newly-built capital of Con- 
 stantinople.* The fact that ^^ and B differ in some important 
 particulars in no way detracts from the possibility that this 
 was the case. For it is obviously quite impossible that these 
 copies could all have been made by the same hand, or even in 
 the same place, or from the same exemplar. 
 
 A is in the British Museum. It Avas the gift of the un- 
 fortunate Cyrillus Lucaris, once patriarch of Alexandria and 
 afterwards translated to Constantinople, to our own equally 
 unfortunate Charles I. It contains the New Testament except 
 the first twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew, two leaves of 
 St. John's Gospel, and three leaves of 2 Corinthians. It also 
 contains the LXX. Version, and a large part of the First and 
 of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 
 It is supposed to be of the fifth century. C contains about 
 three-fifths of the New Testament, but leaves are missing from 
 nearly every quire. It is in the National Library, in Paris, 
 and is of about the same date as A. D is in the University 
 Library at Cambridge, and has been supposed to be of 
 the sixth century. It contains the Gospels and the Acts, 
 though not in a complete state. Its Greek text is defective, 
 and appears to have been in many instances supplied 
 from a Latin version, and it contains many singular interpola- 
 tions, from whence derived no one has any idea.f These 
 MSS. are all what are called uncial, that is to say, they 
 are written in Greek capital letters. Beside these five principal 
 uncials there are catalogued 102 others, containing various 
 
 * Eusebius, Vit. Const., iv. 36, 37. 
 
 t One relates to our Lord having seen a man working on the Sabbath day, and 
 having said to him, " Man, if thou knowest vphat thou doest, blessed art thou ; but 
 
 thou knowest not, cursed art thou and a transgressor of the law." Mr. Rendel 
 Bari-is has recently published an interesting^ monograph on this MS. 
 
NEW TESTAMEXT TEXTUAL CBITICTSM. 163 
 
 portions of the Scriptures. There are also about 3,000 cursives, 
 or MSS. written in the ordinary Greek character to which we 
 are accustomed, and for the most part of later date than the 
 uncials. Some uncials, however, belong to the tenth cent my, 
 and some cursives were written as early as the ninth. 
 
 There are also more than 400 lectionaries, or books of lessons 
 and other extracts from Scripture appointed to be read in 
 Churches. A further source of information are the quotations 
 of Scripture to be found in the writings of the Fathers. 
 These are copious enough for us to be enabled to restore the 
 whole, or nearly the whole, of the Xew Testament from them, 
 should it have happened to have been lost. But at present 
 this source of information has not been adequately consulted, 
 and it is vitiated by one serious defect, namely, that the 
 quotations have frequently been assimilated to the copies of 
 the New Testament existing at the time when the writings 
 of the Father in question were transcribed.* Moreover, not 
 only are the copies of the Fathers usually of much later 
 date than the best MSS. of the Xew Testament, but the 
 Fathers frequently quoted the Scriptures from memory. 
 Therefore their express statements in regard to a reading 
 are the only ones which, as a rtile, can be relied on with 
 any degree of safety. A great deal of solid work, however, 
 has been done in this direction, as a glance at Tischendorf's 
 New Testament will shew. 
 
 Our next point will be to explain how these materials have 
 been utilized. The best way to do this will be by means of 
 a brief history of the progress of modern critical research. 
 Of modem editions of the Xew Testament the first is the 
 celebrated Complutensian Edition, prepared at Alcala, in Spain, 
 under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, and ptiblished for 
 
 * Sometimes this is quite clear, because the Commentary is obviously on another 
 reading than that given in the text commented on. This appears to have been the 
 case, for instance, with Chrysostom, in 2 Cor. x. 12. See my note in loc. 
 
 L 2 
 
1G4 PEINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 the most part between the years 1514 and 1522. We have 
 no specific information concerning the MS. authority on which 
 it relied, but we may be sure that it was of late origin, and that 
 the Vulgate was unduly venerated as being the Textus Bece^tus 
 of the Latin Church. While this edition was in course of 
 preparation, Erasmus, whose attention had been turned in the 
 direction of Scripture studies, issued an edition of his own 
 in 1516.* Five editions of this work appeared during his 
 life-time, the fourth of which, published in 1527, was revised 
 by the aid of the Complutensian, which by that time had been 
 pubhshed. He used only four MSS., and the best of these he 
 seems to have regarded with suspicion, on account of its de- 
 viation from the others, which contained a text of a late type. 
 He retranslated some few passages from the Latin where his 
 MSS. were deficient, and the edition known as the Textus 
 Receptus (see below) has followed him in this. It is worthy 
 of note that he did not insert the passage relating to the Three 
 Witnesses (1 John 5. 7) till his third edition. The Aldine 
 Edition, which followed that of Erasmus after a short interval, 
 is practically a reprint of his. Then Stephens followed with 
 the first attempt at anything like a critical edition of the New 
 Testament.f He issued four editions between 1546 and 1551, 
 of which the third, published at Paris in 1550, makes use of 
 the Codex Bez^e and fourteen other MSS. But though he 
 gives the results of his collation, his text follows those of the 
 Complutensian and Erasmus. Beza followed with five editions 
 between 1556 and 1598. But in his text there is no evidence 
 of independent research, though where his theological predi- 
 lections come into play he ventures sometimes on a variation of 
 
 * " In his haste to be the first editor, Erasmus allowed himself to be guilty of 
 strange carelessness, but neither he nor any other scholar then living could have 
 produced a materially better text without enormous labour, the need of which was 
 not yet apparent."— J»^rod«c^io» to Westcott and Hort's text, p. 11. 
 
 t He is usually called Stephens, but he was in reality a French printer, and his 
 name was Estienne. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 165 
 
 reading. The Elzevirs, Bp. Walton (the author of the famous 
 Polyglot), and Mill, issued editions between 1624 and 1707, 
 but the basis of them was the text of Stephens, which, as 
 followed in the Elzevir Edition, is described in it as Text us ah 
 omnibus Receptus^ whence the name by which it is now 
 generally known. 
 
 It was from the appearance of Bengel's work in 1734-5 that 
 modern textual criticism must be held to be dated. He first 
 suggested the idea oi families of MSS., or, in other words, the 
 dependence of the later MSS. upon some more ancient ex- 
 emplar, from which the later MSS. had derived their special 
 characteristics.* He did little to apply his theory to the 
 increasing number of MSS. which had by his time been col- 
 lected. But the conception that MSS. were not to be counted^ 
 but tveighed, began from his time to find acceptance, and its 
 truth is now universally acknowledged. Wetstein (1751) 
 followed with a more careful summary of results appended 
 in the margin, but the Textus Receptus still continued to be 
 the accepted text. Griesbach, who published his editions 
 between 1774 and 1806, was the first who dared to print a 
 text of his own. He advances on the lines of Bengel, and 
 divides the families of MSS. into three — Alexandrian, Byzantine, 
 and Western. I He is foUowed (1830) by Scholz, the results 
 of whose labours are marred by want of critical judgment.^ 
 
 * Mill, however, who had collected and examined a great many MSS., had already 
 remarked on the correspondences of the Latin evidence with the text of the Codex 
 Alexandrinus. Bentley, too, previously to Bengel, had desired to restore the text of 
 the Xew Testament upon the principle of Latin and Greek consent. See Westeott 
 and Hort, Introduction, p. 180. Bengel had roughly divided the MSS. into Asiatic 
 and African, and had sub-divided the latter into Alexandrian (represented by A) 
 and Old Latin. The Old Latin Version, it will be remembered, is supposed to have 
 originated in Africa. 
 
 t Griesbach's ability as a critic is highly esteemed by Westcott and Hort, and his 
 main historical principles are accepted by them. But in the applieation of those 
 principles, his results are regarded by them as seriously impaired (1) by the com- 
 paratively slender amount of information at his disposal, (2) by his supposition that 
 all Alexandrian MSS. were of the same type, (.3) by his taking the Textus Receptus 
 as the basis for cx^rrection of other texts. 
 
 t Tischendorf, in his Preface to his eighth edition, complains of the " levity and 
 sloth" which Scholz has displayed in the use of his authorities. 
 
1G6 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Lachmann (1842-50) is remarkable for a new departure. He 
 contends that the superior antiquity of the uncials makes 
 them far more trustworthy than any number of MSS. of later 
 date. He also attaches considerable importance to the readings 
 in the Yetus liatina and Vulgate.* Tischendorf follows on 
 the same lines. But his eighth edition is a great event in the 
 history of New Testament criticism, with its copious Apparatus 
 Oriiicus, on which each reader can use his own judgment, and 
 the collation of the invaluable MS. X, the discovery of which 
 between 1844 and 1859 has been already mentioned. It is 
 true that Dr. Scrivener regards Tischendorf as "lacking in 
 stability of judgment."t But nevertheless the above-men- 
 tioned edition will always remain a marvel of critical research. 
 The immense labour involved, the extraordinary accuracy of 
 the details, and the patient investigation by which the con- 
 clusions are reached, will render his name for ever famous in 
 the history of the study of the New Testament.^ It should be 
 added that Tischendorf acknowledges four families of MSS., 
 the Alexandrian, the Latin, the Byzantine, and the Asiatic. 
 But these he places in pairs — " non tam quattuor singula 
 quam duo paria." Tregehes followed with an edition in 1844 
 and subsequent years, which he has compiled from the uncials 
 
 * Up to the time of Lachmann, no critic dared to take any text but that of the 
 Textus Receptus as a basis for criticism, and even now any other course has been 
 fiercely denounced by some. But the short history which has been given above 
 will serve to shew that the Textus Receptus has not only no authority superior to 
 any other text, but rather perhaps the contrary. It was the proclamation of this 
 fact, and the resolution displayed in acting on it, which makes the work of Lach- 
 mann a revolution in the principles of New Testament textual criticism. But 
 Lachmann (see Westcott and Hort's Introduction, p. 13) used too few documents, 
 employed them in too "artificially rigid" a manner, and did not possess full infor- 
 mation of the actual text of the MSS. he professed to follow. 
 
 t Introduction to the Study of the Netc Testament, p. 258. If this accusation is 
 based upon the fact that Tischendorf's views were considerably modified by the dis- 
 covery of «, he might very fairly reply, " Is there not a cause ? " 
 
 X It may give some idea of the vast amount of research involved in the prepa- 
 ration of this edition if it is stated that the reading of every MS. at present 
 catalogued, of every Version, and of a vast number of Fathers, is placed at the 
 foot of the page. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 167 
 
 only. Such an edition has no doubt a great value for the 
 scholar, but it cannot of course compare with the wealth of 
 resources which has been collected for us by the diligence and 
 activity of Tischendorf,* 
 
 The recent work of Westcott and Hort demands a new para- 
 graph. It is a work perhaps of less vast research than that of 
 Tischendorf, the facts collected by whom are utilized. f But 
 it is nevertheless a work of profound and varied learning, and 
 it is in many ways a new departure. The facts have been once 
 more subjected to rigid analysis, and new and most interesting 
 conclusions are based upon them. Its principal characteristic 
 is the extraordinary diligence with which the vast store of 
 materials collected by others has been analysed and classified 
 afresh, and the skill with which new and important re- 
 sults are attained by a masterly handling of the details. A 
 brief statement of the conclusions at which the authors have 
 arrived is necessary for those who desire to understand the 
 present position of New Testament criticism. In an Intro- 
 duction, in which the minutest acquaintance with the wide 
 range of facts involved is combined with a very unusual power 
 of generalization. Professor Hort J examines the phenomena 
 anew. He accepts the conclusion that the MSS. are to be 
 divided into the three families mentioned by Griesbach, but he 
 contends that the facts point to an authoritative revision of 
 the Syrian text " between a.d. 250 and 350, possibly made or 
 promoted by Lucianus of Antioch in the latter part of the 
 third century." § This text, though later and less pure than 
 
 * This account is based upon Scrivener's Introduction, Tischendorf's Proleijo- 
 mena to his eighth edition, and a very useful work by the Rev. C. E. Hammond, 
 called Outlines of Textual Criticisyn Applied to the Xeiv Testament. 
 
 t This they freely admit. " The indefatigable labours [of Tischendorf and 
 Tregelles] in the discovery and exhibition of fresh evidence, aided by similar 
 researches on the part of otliers, provide all who come after them with invaluable 
 resources not available half a century afto."— Introduction, p. 14, 
 
 t The irreparable loss of such a scholar as Dr. Hort, which has befallen us while 
 these jMipeg were passing through the press, is lamented by all. 
 § Introduction, p. 1.37. 
 
168 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICI8M. 
 
 those preserved in such uncials as ^^ and B, eventually pre- 
 vailed over them, owing to the confusions which disturbed the 
 East and to the adoption of the revised Syrian text at Con- 
 stantinople. It is understood that these conclusions have met 
 with the unqualified acceptance of Bishop Westcott.* 
 
 It was not Hkely that such conclusions as these would be 
 received without protest. Not only did they depreciate the 
 value of the Textus Receptus, to which scholars of the more 
 conservative type are still very strongly attached ; not only 
 did they seem to attribute an undue weight to the read- 
 ings of 5^ and B — but they went so far as to infer from an 
 examination of the phenomena the occurrence of a historical 
 event of which we have no historical evidence whatever. 
 Their principles were therefore energetically attacked in some 
 quarters.f Dr. Scrivener "doubts the stability of the im- 
 posing structure " raised by the editors. J He complains that 
 " no historical evidence " has been adduced in support of their 
 " speculative conjecture," and yet it is regarded as " indu- 
 bitably true" by those who have proclaimed it.§ No doubt 
 the phenomena of the Hebrew text, based upon the well-known 
 principle of the " survival of the fittest," supplies a strong 
 argument in favour of the general accuracy of the Textus 
 Recefptus. Nevertheless it cannot be regarded as scientifically 
 impossible that historical facts may be discovered by the 
 analytical method. Such an event as the discovery not only 
 
 * By the acknowledgment of a Pre-Syrian and purer text, previous to the sup- 
 posed Lucianic revision, the number of families of texts has been raised to four. 
 N and B, according to their view, are representatives of this Pre-Syrian text, a fact 
 attested by the absence from their pages of distinctive Syrian readings {Introduc- 
 tion, V-'i^^). 
 
 t As for instance in the Quarterly Review of April 1882, in an article written 
 by the late Dean Burgon ; by Canon Cook in his Revised Version of the First 
 Three Gospels; by the Rev. S. C. Malan, a well-known Syriac scholar; and by 
 Mr. McClellan. Bu the "Golden Canon" of the latter, which he thinks "must 
 be invested with supremacy," savours too much of the a priori method. 
 
 X P. 531. § P. 534. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 1G9 
 
 of the planet Neptune, but of its size and actual position in 
 the heavens, by Professors Adams and LeveiTier, and that 
 solely by analytical investigations based on the perturbations of 
 Uranus, would prevent any well-instructed person from taking 
 up such a position as this. But of course, on the other 
 hand, it must be admitted that obsen^ation has not as yet 
 verified the theory of the revision of the Syrian text at the 
 end of the third century, and that until observation has 
 so verified it, we are not entitled to look upon it as incon- 
 trovertibly established. We must therefore be content to regard 
 the theories of scholars as successive approximations to a truth 
 which, like a mathematical series extending to infinity, it is 
 beyond our power exactly to estimate. 
 
 The difficulty of ascertaining the true text is enormously 
 increased by the extremely early date at which various readings 
 commenced. One would have thought that the utmost care 
 would have been taken to preserve the autographs of the various 
 writers. It is surprising, but none the less true, that no attempt 
 whatever appears to have been made to do anything of the kind. 
 So far was this from being the case, that, as we shall see here- 
 after, it has been suggested as explanatory of the state of the 
 text of Mark 16 that the last leaf of the original MS. was torn 
 off, and its contents conjecturally replaced. Jerome frequently 
 mentions variations in the copies which he consulted. And we 
 find proof that such variations were in existence as early as the 
 second century. Thus Irenaaus, speaking of the number of 
 the beast in the Apocalypse, speaks of the most accurate and 
 ancient copies of that work, and mentions that some have 
 altered the number 666 into 616.* TertuUian accused the 
 heretics of his day with con-upting the text of the Scrip- 
 tures, "f So did a writer of the second or beginning of the 
 
 * Adv. Hcer., v. 30. 
 
 t De Prcescr. Hcer. xvii. xxxix. 
 
170 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICI8M. 
 
 tliird century, quoted by Eusebius.* And the Latin Version 
 used by Tertullian differs in some particulars from the Greek 
 text used by Clement of Alexandria at the same time. The 
 well-known passage in Origen's Commentary on John 1. 28 
 will also occur to many, where he refers to the reading 
 " Bethany " instead of " Bethabara," the former of which he 
 found in the great majority of MSS. 
 
 One result of all the investigations which have been men- 
 tioned has been the classification of the causes of various 
 readings, and the formulating of certain rules, or canons, to aid 
 us in determining which of two or more such readings is to be 
 preferred. The causes of various readings may be divided into 
 unintentional and intentional. The first includes (1) errors of 
 sight, (2) of hearing (for then as often now in the case of 
 printing, the MS. to be copied was read by one person to 
 another who wrote at his dictation),! and (3) errors of memory. 
 The second embraces (1) the incorporation of marginal notes 
 or glosses into the text, (2) what are known as conflate read- 
 ings, that is, the combining two readings into one, (3) the 
 alteration of one passage so as to correspond with another (a 
 practice extremely common in the Gosj^els, as an examination 
 of Alford's or Tischendorf's cqiparatus criticus will shew), (4) 
 alterations to c^ear up a supposed difficulty, (5) alterations on 
 account of unusual style or spelUng, (6) alterations for dogmatic 
 purposes, and (7) insertions from the liturgies, and especially 
 of words necessarily supplied in selections for public reading.J 
 Sometimes the scribe undertook on his own responsibility to 
 improve the text. 
 
 • Hist. Eccl., V. 28. He points out that their copies contained the most divergent 
 texts ; that of Asclepiodotus diilering from that of Theodotus, that of Hermophilus 
 from that of Apollonius. This last is accused of issuing inconsistent texts of his own. 
 
 t Mistakes of this sort are said to be due to itacism. 
 
 t As, for instance, we find in many Prayer Books " God " substituted for " He " 
 in the last sentence at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer. Instances 
 of all thes3 will be found in Mr, Hammond's volume akeady mentioned. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CBITICISM. 171 
 
 The canons of criticism generally accepted are the fol- 
 lowing : First, in regard to external evidence, we have two 
 rules considered as essential — 1. The agreement of the earliest 
 MSS. with the earliest versions and quotations in the earliest 
 Fathers, may be regarded as decisive in favour of a reading. 
 2. As we have already seen, the character^ not the number, of 
 the MSS. containing a reading constitutes the criterion by 
 which the evidence is to be decided. This involves a question 
 not merely of the antiquity of MSS., but of the familf/ to which 
 they belong.* The comparative weight of the above-men- 
 tioned canons naturally differs for different sorts of eiTors. 
 Thus, for instance, errors due to itacism might crop up in any 
 direction, at any time. Of canons relating to internal evidence 
 we have the following : 1. The shorter reading is usually pre- 
 ferable to the longer. See the case of " conflate " readings 
 mentioned above. This rule, however, is obviously by no means 
 an universal one. 2. A difficult reading is prima facie pre- 
 ferable to an easier one — the probability being in favour of the 
 copyist having altered the text because he failed to understand 
 it. 3. The reading is to be preferred which explains a mul- 
 titude of variations — such variations often existing to a great 
 extent in certain passages. 4. What appear to have been 
 intentional corrections are doubtful. Other niles which are 
 given by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort have already 
 been classed above under the causes of various readings. 
 
 For instances of the application of the above rules the 
 student is referred to the works on the criticism of the Xew 
 Testament which have been mentioned above. One or two 
 various readings which are doctrinally important will, however, 
 be briefly discussed. The first is the celebrated passage relating 
 to the Three Witnesses (1 John 6. 7). It cannot be too 
 strongly impressed on all readers of the Scriptures that this 
 
 • See above, p. 165. 
 
172 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 passage forms no part of Holy Scripture, and has of necessity 
 been omitted from the Revised Version. As we have ah-eady 
 seen, it was not until his third edition that Erasmus intro- 
 duced it into his text — very properly, no doubt, in the then 
 condition of critical science, but only on the authority of a 
 single MS. No G-reek MS. previous to the fifteenth century con- 
 tains it. No Greek Father quotes it, even when discussing the 
 doctrine of the Holy Trinity.* It is found only in some copies 
 of the Latin Versions. The words contained in the passage may 
 be traced as far back as Tertullian and Cyprian, both Latin 
 Fathers of an early date. But they do not cite them from 
 Scripture, though the passage is found entire in the works of 
 Priscillian, who died in a.d. 385, and in a profession of faith 
 presented by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, to Hunneric, King 
 of the Vandals, in the fifth century. Thus there is no evidence 
 worth considering in favour of the passage in question being 
 an integral portion of the Word of Grod. 
 
 We next come to Acts 20. 28, in which we have the alternative 
 readings 0eoy, Kvpiov, and Xpia-rov, and three other " conflate " 
 readings, combining ©eov and Kvptov. The conflate readings 
 are ill supported, and are in themselves suspicious. They may 
 therefore be dismissed, as may also Xpia-Tov, which is found in 
 no MS. There remain therefore the readings 0eov and Kvpiov. 
 In favour of @€ov we have 5^ and B, whose agreement on most 
 important points has already been mentioned. In favour of 
 KvpiQv we have A, C, D, and E. The Vulgate is in favour of Seov. 
 The copies of the Peshito in the British Museum examined by 
 Dr. Wright have Qeov (Aloho), whereas the Nestorian MSS. 
 are in favour of Xpio-Tov. Of the Fathers, we have Chrysostom, 
 Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and Ibas among the 
 Greeks, and Ambrose among the Latins, in favour of ©eou ; and 
 
 * Ambrose, a Latin Father, in his treatise De Sancto Spiritu, comments carefully 
 on 1 John 5. 8, but betrays not the slightest sign of acquaintance with v. 7. 
 
NEIV TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 173 
 
 Irenceus and the Apostolical Constitutions among the Greeks, 
 and Jerome and Augustine, as well as Lucifer of Cagliari, 
 contemporary with Athanasius, among the Latins, in favour of 
 Kvpiw. Beside this we have the express assertion of Atha- 
 nasius himself that nowhere in Holy Writ do we find the Blood 
 of God mentioned without His Flesh. This is an admirable 
 instance of the dil!iculty which sometimes attends the determi- 
 nation of the true text. For here the authority of MSS. and 
 Versions is, on the whole, in favour of 0€ou. The Patristic 
 evidence points the other way. Not only have we the 
 express testimony of Athanasius, to which great importance 
 must be attached, but the testimony of Iren^us, a father of 
 the second century, though it has only come down to us in a 
 version made early in the third, is also of great weight, as 
 is also that of the Apostolical Constitutions, which, to whatever 
 date we may assign them, are clearly Ante-Nicene. If we ask 
 whether the text was likely to be falsified for doctrinal reasons, 
 there is equal probability on either side. The Nestoi'ians were 
 as likely to alter 0eou into Kvplov as the Eutychians were to 
 take the opposite course. But it is unquestionable that 0e&C 
 is antecedently the less probable reading. Yet it is not sur- 
 prising that while Tischendorf and Tregelles prefer Kvplov^ 
 Westcott and Hort, in virtue of the high authority they are in- 
 clined to attach to N and B, have adopted 0eou into their text.* 
 The next case is 1 Tim. 3. 16. Here the question is between 
 066?, oV, and 0— between " God manifest in the flesh," or " Who'' 
 (or " which'') " was manifest in the flesh," or " in flesh." The 
 question between o? and % {''Who" or ''ivhich") may be easily 
 
 • Professor Hort thinks it possible that viov has dropped out of some early copy 
 after toO tStov. The similarity of termination makes this possible, especially in 
 uncial MSS., and as Professor Hort says, this would remove all difficulty. The 
 words would then read, "which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own 
 Son." But of course, though it may be suggested as an extremely probable solution 
 of the difficulty, no conjectural emendation of this kind can be actually introduced 
 into the text. 
 
174 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 dismissed. Not only is the MS. evidence slight, but the 
 probability that U would be altered into o for grammatical 
 reasons (the word in apposition to it being the neuter y.v<TTripm) 
 is overwhelming. There remain therefore 0eo? and U. For 
 the former we have the vast majority of MSS., uncial and 
 cursive (it should be mentioned that the passage is missing 
 in B), no important versions, and Didymus, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, and Theodoret, in the fourth and fifth centuries. For tq 
 we have N*, C, Gr,* and three cursives. A has the mark in it 
 which distinguishes from O, but it is supposed (as well as 
 the signs of contraction above, converting o? into ©fo?), by most 
 persons Avho have examined it, to have been placed there by 
 a later hand. All the Latin Fathers support o?, together with 
 the Latin translation of Origen, as well as Epiphanius, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia in the fourth, and Cyril of Alexandria in 
 the fifth century. D and the Vulgate read o, and this (see 
 above) tends to support o?. The Old Latin and the Peshito 
 favour the relative. It has also been remarked that many 
 Fathers are silent on the subject, who Avould unquestionably 
 have adduced this passage as a conclusive proof of the 
 Divinity of Christ had they known of its existence. There is 
 one corroboration of the reading tq which does not seem to 
 have occurred to the critics. It is that the term {xva-T^pioy is 
 elsewhere applied to Christ (Col. 1. 27, 28). 
 
 The two next passages to which we shall refer have no 
 doctrinal bearing. But they are important as being passages 
 of considerable length. The first is the closing words of 
 St. Mark's G-ospel (chap. 16. 9-20), the other is the story of the 
 woman taken in adultery (St. John 7. 53 — 8. 2). In regard 
 to the first of these, it is contained in all the MSS. which have 
 come down to us (save those which will be presently mentioned), 
 in all the Lectionaries, in the Yetus Latina (with the exception 
 
 * This statement, however, has been questioned. 
 
NEW TESTAMEXT TEXTUAL CBITICISM. 175 
 
 mentioned below), the Yulgate and Peshito Syriac Versions, 
 and in a large nnmber of Fathers, beginning with Justin 
 Martyr. On the other hand X omits it altogether. B omits 
 it, but leaves a blank space as though something were Avanting.* 
 The writing, too, in N is spread out, as though to conceal the 
 omission. L gives two endings to the Gospel, the one the ending 
 known to us, the other an ending clearly apocryphal. ^ gives 
 the shorter ending as the genuine one, and then adds the other. 
 The copy of the Yetus Latina known as k gives the shorter 
 ending in place of the usual one. Eusebius says that in his 
 day it was absent from some copies. Dean Burgon has replied 
 with some force to the argument which is drawn from the 
 supposed dissimilarity of style between the passage in question 
 and the rest of the Gospel, and he has practically disposed of 
 the supposed testimony of Gregory of Xyssa, Severus, and 
 Hesychius. Still, it must be admitted that the passage looks 
 remarkably like an addition by another hand, though of course 
 the Gospel could not have concluded with the words ep- 
 ^ovvro yap ; and it must also be admitted that the passage in 
 question is unquestionably of very great antiquity. It is sug- 
 gested that the last leaf of a very early copy of the Gospel 
 was torn off, and its place supplied from the other Gospels by a 
 
 * A most interesting fact, however, has here been brought to light by Tischendorf. 
 The particular portion of the MSS. in which the passage in question should be 
 found was, in his opinion, written in both >< and B by the sattie person. Thus 
 the testimony of these two important MSS. is reduced to a single testimony. 
 Dr. Salmon {Introduction, chap. 9) gives forcible reasons for the supposition 
 that the scribe of this portion of K and B found the passage in his MS. or MSS. 
 and deliherately cancelled it. AVas this under the influence of Eusebius himself, 
 by whose orders, as we have seen, the whole work was carried out, and who 
 doubted the genuineness of the passage? It should be added that Irenteus, no 
 mean authority, as we have seen, and whose testimony derives additional force from 
 his having been born in Asia Minor, and having resided for years at Lyons, not only 
 quotes the last verse but one of this Gospel as it stands in our ver-sion {Adv. Hcer. 
 iii. 10), but quotes it as St. Mark's. AVe should add that he is citing the /o?<r 
 Gospels consecutively in proof of his assertions, and that it is at the conclusion of 
 this part of his argument that he makes his celebrated assertion that the Gospels 
 could be neither less nor more than four. Thus it is impossible to contend that he 
 had any doubt of the passage, and cited it unguardedly. And the context forbids 
 any suspicion of interpolation, ^ 
 
176 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 scribe of very early date indeed. Tlie probability of such a 
 solution must be left to the reader's own discretion. 
 
 As regards the other passage the best uncials, K B (A and 
 C happen to be deficient here), are unquestionably against it. 
 Several others of less authority mark it as doubtful. Sixty 
 cursives omit it, and about as many mark it as doubtful. 
 Eleven of these place it at the end of the Grospel. Four only 
 add a portion of it there. One places it after chap. 7. 36, and 
 four insert it in the Gospel of St. Luke. Many copies of the 
 Vetus Latina omit it. So do the best Syriac Versions. It is 
 apparently unknown to Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia, and Cyril of Alexandria. It breaks the 
 thread of the narrative ; it contains great variations in read- 
 ing ; and its style presents many marks of difference from the 
 usual style of the Apostle. On the other hand, D, F, G-, and 
 other uncials of less authority, contain it. It is found without 
 any indication that the passage is doubtful in the vast majority 
 of cursives. It is found in some copies of the Vetus Latina, as 
 also in the Vulgate. It is mentioned in the Apostolical Con- 
 stitutions.* St. Jerome states that he found it in many copies, 
 and St. Augustine supports it. It is probably a fragment of 
 some narrative no longer extant, which has been added to the 
 text of St. John's Gospel in very early times because there were 
 strong grounds for believing it to be a genuine portion of the 
 biography of Christ. One other important passage may be 
 mentioned, which is bracketed by Westcott and Hort, and by 
 them considered as probably spurious. It is the account of 
 the Bloody Sweat of Christ, and of the appearance of the Angel 
 
 * Book 2, sec. 4. The Apostolical Constitutions appears to be a compilation of 
 various dates. But the passage in question, by its tone on penitential discipline, 
 appears to have been of decidedly early date, and the citation was certainly not 
 interpolated. Thus we have a witness at least as early as the middle of the third 
 century. But it is not stated in which Gospel, or in what part of that Gospel, the 
 words are found. 
 
KEJV TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM. 177 
 
 to strengthen Him, which is found in Luke 22. 43, 44. It has 
 very strong documentary and patristic evidence in its favour, 
 including that of Justin Martyr (circ. 150), * and all the best 
 versions contain it. But the student of Scripture should 
 at least know that its authenticity has been called in question. 
 Two points may be mentioned in conclusion. The first is, 
 that though Westcott and Hort permit what they call the 
 intrinsic and transcriptional probability of readings to be 
 regarded as evidence, they regard " conjectural emendation " 
 of passages as occupying a very "inconsiderable place" in 
 the textual criticism of the New Testament.f If there be 
 any similarity between the two cases, it should surely make us 
 a little doubtful of hypothetical considerations when applied 
 to the Old. The other is the very slight doctrinal or practical 
 significance of most of the disputed readings. We cannot 
 conclude this branch of our subject better than in the well- 
 known words of Bentley : " Make your thirty thousand 
 (various readings) as many more, if numbers of copies can 
 ever reach that sum : all the better to a knowing and serious 
 reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he 
 sees genuine. But even put them into the h^nds of a knave or 
 a fool, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, 
 nor so disguise the truth of Christianity but that every feature 
 of it shall be still the same." 
 
 * Dial, with Trypho, chap. 103. The passage is a remarkable one for many 
 reasons. First of all the passage is cited from the "memoirs" (iTrojutvrjuoi'ev/LtaTa) of 
 the " Apostles and those who followed them." Jfext, it occurs in such a connection 
 as to preclude any possibility of the text having been altered in later days. For not 
 only is Justin's mode of mentioning the Gospels peculiar to himself, but he uses the 
 passage to support an argument in favour of the prophetic character of Ps. 22. 
 
 t Introdtiction, p. 72, Yet in cases such as the variations between r\ixoiv and vixHiv, 
 exofjiev and ex<o/oi€v, due almost entirely to the ear, we may fairly be guided chiefly 
 by the context. ". 
 
 M 
 
( 178 ) 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THEEE is no need to enter into the theories of critics in 
 regard to the New Testament so fully as has been done 
 in the case of the Old Testament. A great deal of criticism 
 of a similar kind to that which has now attained such 
 popularity in the case of the latter, has been applied to the 
 former. But its success has not been conspicuous, and it is 
 interesting now more as a matter of history than as a 
 practical problem awaiting solution.* 
 
 The destructive criticism of the New Testament, like that 
 of the Old, originated with those who desired to destroy the 
 credit of narratives based upon a recognition of the super- 
 natural.! No doubt all histories so based will have a certain 
 amount of antecedent prejudice to face. The belief in the 
 supernatural is of necessity energetically combated by those 
 who would account for everything by natural causes. Such 
 men will of course approach a narrative which records super- 
 natural events with suspicion, if not with a feeling of hostility. 
 But it is most important to remember that this attitude of mind 
 involves a prejudice quite as much as, if not more than, that 
 which accepts the supernatural. For the natural meets us day 
 by day. Supernatural occurrences are rare in the external his- 
 tory of the world, though of course they are daily and hourly 
 events in the inner experiences of the human spirit. In all 
 
 * "We cannot now stop to express sympathy with the difficulties now experienced 
 by liberal [German] critics in search of a reputation, who are unable to find a book 
 of the New Testament on whose authority they can make an original assault."— 
 Mr. Cooper, in Foreign Church Chronicle, Dec. 1891. 
 
 + See Dr. Salmon, cited in next chapter, p. 213. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE XEW TESTAMEXT. 179 
 
 -cases, if the Apostles of Christ are to be trusted, they require 
 a special instinct to apprehend them.* But the greater part 
 of mankind appear to lack this instinct. And therefore 
 the prejudice against the supernatural is Hkely to be far 
 stronger than the prejudice in its favour. This is the expla- 
 nation of the popularity with which attacks on Christianity 
 in general, and endeavours to lower the credit of the Scrip- 
 tures in particular, are invariably received. It cannot always, 
 as is sometimes supposed, be attributed to the depravity of 
 the human heart, which desires to disencumber itself of the 
 yoke of Christ, so abhorrent to the natural man. It is rather 
 that in the case of most persons -the faculty of apprehending 
 spiritual facts can hardly be said to exist, and even many of 
 those in whom it exists possess it in so slight a degree that they 
 are strongly tempted to shrink from the exertion of will which 
 the employment of this faculty demands. Thus it is alto- 
 gether false to assume, as is often done, that it is the 
 religious man who approaches the question with a rooted 
 prejudice, the sceptic alone who can be trusted to deal with 
 it in a spirit of impartiality. The exact opposite of this is 
 nearer the truth. The religious man has often very obstinate 
 prepossessions of his own to overcome before he can recognise 
 the supernatural at all. It is the sceptic who is indisposed 
 to view the case fairly on account of his native incapacity to 
 conceive of the possibility of the supernatural in any form 
 whatever. 
 
 The destructive criticism of the Xew Testament as a whole, 
 as distinguished from the infidel schools of thought in earlier 
 times, may be said to have commenced with Paulus.f He 
 
 * 1 Cor. 2. 14. 
 
 t Paulus was bom in 1761 and died in 1851. He was Professor, first at Jena and 
 afterwards at Heidelberg. His Commentary on the Xew Testament appeared 
 between 1800 and 1804, and his Life of Christ in 1828. 
 
 M 2 
 
1-80 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 was the founder of the so-called naturalistic school of New 
 Testament criticism. He accepts the genuineness and authen- 
 ticity of the Scri23ture narratives. That is to say, he believes 
 them to have been written at the period and by the persons 
 whose names they bear. But he '* disables the judgment" 
 of their authors. He thinks that they imported the super- 
 natural element into their histories. The Incarnation was a 
 legend founded on the fact of some stranger having told the 
 Yirgin Mary that she should be the mother of a remarkable 
 child. The story of the miracle of the five thousand is due 
 to the multitude having followed the example of Christ, who, 
 so far as He could, shared His scanty store of provisions 
 with the rest. Thus grew up a story about the miraculous 
 multiplication of the loaves and fishes. So Christ appeared 
 to the Apostles to have walked on the water, but they were 
 nnder a delusion in supposing that he had actually done so. 
 The belief in the Eesurrection is dne to the fact that Christ 
 survived His Crucifixion, and really appeared to His disciples 
 after he had been supposed to be dead:» 
 
 But these attempts at explaining the Gospel were pre- 
 destined to failure. And, like many other theories affecting 
 the Old and New Testament, they received the coup de grace, 
 not from their opponents, but from their friends. It was 
 the celebrated David Friedrich Strauss who, in his Le'ben 
 Jesu, published in 1835, most effectively pointed out the 
 absurdity of the naturalistic position. Rejecting the idea 
 that God could embody Himself in the pereon of a single 
 human being, he nevertheless saw that it was unsatisfactory 
 either to assume the impossibility of the supernatural, as 
 Paulus had done, or to explain away historic narratives ac- 
 cording to the method Paulus and his followers had adopted.. 
 An ardent votary of Hegel'a theory of the identity of being 
 and non-being, he regarded the idea as; everything, and utterly 
 
HIGHEB CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181 
 
 disregarded objective facts, such as the personality of Jesus 
 Christ, and the historical value of the biographies of Him. 
 Thus his theory was not so much legendary, like that of 
 Paulus, as mythical ; that is to say, he acknowledged no proper 
 historic substratum of fact in the Gospel history, but believed 
 that no such person as the Christ of the Gospels ever existed, 
 but that ardent Jews invented a history from their medita- 
 tions on the Old Testament, which gradually assumed shape 
 and fonn, and eventually culminated in the formation of a 
 society founded on their conceptions of the life and career 
 of Jesus Christ.* But Strauss was at once confronted by two 
 material facts which, unless they could be disposed of, were 
 fatal to his theory. The one was the contemporary, or almost 
 contemporary, biographies of Christ. The other was the 
 existence, during the first century, of the Christian Church. 
 In the face of these there was only one course open to him, 
 and that course he naturally took. He boldly denied the 
 authenticity, genuineness, and credibility of the whole Xew 
 Testament. He was not very consistent in his criticism ; 
 but then, as in the case of many other German critics, it 
 was his theory which produced his criticism, not his criti- 
 cism his theory. He maintained, with many other critics, 
 that the idea of Christianity was totally unaffected by 
 his view of the facts. He even made some concessions 
 in his second edition, but, irritated by the bitterness and 
 violence with which his undeniably calm and philosophic 
 investigations were received, he ultimately, in his fourth 
 edition, withdrew his concessions, and suppressed the chap^ 
 ter in which he had spoken respectfully of the character 
 of our Lord. How far he was able to say with truth that 
 
 ♦ Strauss' view of Christ is legendary in one sense. He allows a historicsd 
 existence to Jesus, of whose ability and insipht he expressed a high opinion. But 
 the myth had grown around His person without any historic substratum of fect 
 whatsoever, save His actual existence as a religious teacher. 
 
182 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 the idea of Christ ianity remained unaffected by his specula- 
 tions will appear in the sequeL In 1872 a new work appeared 
 from his pen, Avhich, hke his Lelen Jesu, created a great 
 sensation. It was called Der alte unci der neiie Glauhe. In 
 it he confesses that, having given up the whole of even the 
 Apostles' Creed, he and his disciples have surrendered the 
 su,bstance of Christianity, and that the name ought not, in 
 common honesty, to be allowed to survive among them. His 
 reply to the question whether his creed can properly be called 
 a religion is equally unsatisfactory. Man can only strive to 
 develop himself according to the law of his being, and if 
 refining and elevating influences be wanting in such a creed, 
 culture is recommended as a substitute for Christianity. 
 
 Strauss' theory received its death-blow from a man more 
 learned than himself, whose pupil he had formerly been. 
 F. C. Baur was the author of the famous Tendency theory. 
 This he first sketched in the TuUngen Zeitschrift for 1831, 
 where he endeavoured to give a substantial existence to the 
 four "parties" he imagined himself to have discovered in 
 1 Cor. 1, from the allusions on St. Paul's part to those who 
 attached themselves to Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ 
 Himself. In 1845 he gave his finished researches to the 
 world. In these he denied the genuineness of all St. Paul's 
 Epistles save those to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. 
 The Apocalypse he regarded as the work of a narrow-minded 
 Judaeo-Christian, who looked with dismay on the rationalizing 
 tendencies of St. Paul. The Synoptic Gospels (i.e. the first 
 three) are relegated to about a.d. 130 to 140. The remaining 
 Epistles, save those of St. John, arose as occasion demanded 
 during the ensuing twenty-five years. Finally, the Gospel and 
 Epistles of St. John concluded the series between 160 and 170. 
 Baur was a writer and teacher of extraordinary skill and power, 
 and the Tubingen school of criticism, founded by him, is not 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE KEW TESTAMENT. 183 
 
 yet extinct.* Its main principle is the doctrine that various 
 parties existed in the Apostolic Church, and that each party 
 put forth a literature in order to support its own views. In 
 particular there was a Judaizing and an anti-Judaizing party. 
 The facts of Christ's history were distorted, and His teaching 
 was misrepresented, in order to give colour to the opinions 
 entertained by the members of each party, and the only method 
 of arriving at a true view of the actual character and teaching 
 of Jesus Christ is the boldest and most unsparing criticism. 
 It will not fail to strike the reader that Baur's attitude towards 
 the New Testament is precisely identical with that of Kuenen, 
 WeUhausen, and others toward the Old. And in spite of all 
 efforts to represent the two cases as entirely dissimilar, it is 
 impossible not to entertain a suspicion that the ultimate fate 
 of both schools of criticism will be the same.j 
 
 The Tubingen school maintained their position with great 
 learning, industry, and acuteness. One effect of it was the 
 overthrow of Strauss' mythical theory. This was confessed by 
 Strauss himself. Schwegier and Zeller carried on the investi- 
 gations which Baur had begun, and their labours produced 
 a profound effect. No German scholar was able to cope with 
 them, and it appeared for the moment as if the Gospel history 
 must be given up. But if Strauss had thrown that history 
 aside in consequence of his theory of Christ, it was soon found 
 that Baur had thrown aside Christ in consequence of his theory 
 
 * He died in 183:). 
 
 t Baur found a great support in his theory from the Clementine Recoamitions 
 and Homilies, two forms of an Ebionite romance which appeared during the course 
 of the second and third centuries. In the Recognitions St. Paul is mentioned with 
 a slight shade of suspicion, which in the Homilies deepens into downright hostility. 
 Baur imagines, and many orthodox writers have accepted his theory, that St. Paul 
 is covertly assailed in both of these romances under the character of Simon Magus. 
 It is certain that in "the Homilies some of St. Paul's words are placed in Simcn 
 Magus' mouth. But it seems to the writer (as to Dr. Salmon, Introduction to the 
 Sttidy of the Xeiv Tesfament, p. 20) that it is altogether an exaggeration to suppose 
 St. Paul to be throughout represented under the ligiu-e of Simon Magus. So gross a 
 caricature would be sure to defeat its own purpose. 
 
184 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 of the Gospels and of the early history of Christ's Church. 
 The place of Christ in history was supplied by Pauhne, Petrine, 
 and Johannine " tendencies." He evaded the question of the 
 Resurrection of Christ by saying that on the belief in it, not on 
 the event itself, must the Christian Church be supposed to be 
 founded. But it is obvious that this theory provides us with 
 no satisfactory account of the origin of that belief. And here 
 again his system presents a remarkable similarity to the 
 theories of the Old Testament to which we have already 
 referred. They profess to give us an account of the origin 
 of the Jewish institutions. But they can give no explanation 
 whatever of the fact that these institutions in ancient times 
 were universally ascribed to Moses, nor of the origin of the 
 exalted conceptions of Jehovah entertained by the earliest 
 prophets, nor of the fact that these represent the traditional 
 belief as the admitted belief of their day. 
 
 But not only was the Tiibingen school thus reduced to 
 silence in regard to the fundamental fact on which Christianity 
 was founded, but it was found to be extremely vulnerable on 
 the side of the theory itself. It was confronted by the a priori 
 difficulty that divergent conceptions tend to multiply divisions, 
 and the more irreconcilable they are, the more do such divi- 
 sions tend to increase. The humanitarian conception of Christ, 
 it is true, did finally embody itself in the Ebionite sect. But 
 if, as Baur contended, it was the original conception of the 
 rehgion which Christ founded, it becomes somewhat remark- 
 able that it can produce none of the earliest literature in its 
 own support,* and that instead of successfully maintaining its 
 ground as the representative of the only genuine Christian 
 
 * Some endeavour has been made to enlist the Epistle of St. James and the 
 Apocalypse in its favour. But as Canon Liddon and others have shewn, St. James's 
 doctrine of the engrafted word refutes this notion. And no one could maintain 
 it in regard to the Apocalypse in the face of such passages as Rev. 1. 5, 13-18; 
 19. 11-16. 
 
HIGHER CEITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185 
 
 tradition, it was everywhere condemned by the Church. Then 
 with regard to the divergent tendencies of the Pauline, Pe- 
 trine, and Johannine parties, it is making a strong demand 
 upon our creduUty to assert that these tendencies were soon 
 and easily reconciled, that the Christian Church meekly and 
 unintelligently received the three conflicting theories and 
 embodied them in her Canon of Scripture, and that this 
 Canon, with all its obvious inconsistencies and contrarieties, 
 has been obediently accepted by the Christian Church ever 
 since, without the slightest idea that such inconsistencies or 
 contrarieties ever existed.* Then, again, it has been abun- 
 dantly shewn that no such inconsistencies or contrarieties do 
 exist in our present Scriptures. Their account of the Person, 
 history, and doctrine of Christ, though differing in mode of 
 presentation, is fundamentally the same in all. Lastly, there is 
 the historical evidence for the genuineness of the books of the 
 New Testament. This has been given already. And the only 
 answer to it which has been found possible by the Tiibingen 
 school is the bold impeachment of the genuineness of every 
 early document which witnesses to them. Here we have a 
 third parallel to the new analytic criticism of the Old Testa- 
 mant, and a very significant one. For it has been conclusively 
 demonstrated by the logic of facts that every school of criticism 
 which resorts to such violent methods is in extremis, and that 
 its dissolution is only a question of time. 
 
 Naturally, therefore, the Tiibingen school, which, though 
 strong in learning, in acuteness, and, it must be added, cer- 
 tainly not deficient in courag'e, was nevertheless weak in its 
 fundamental facts, soon shewed divergent " tendencies " of its 
 own. Yolkmar denied the genuineness of the four Epistles 
 
 • It is true that some of the books of the New Testament are regarded by the 
 Tubingen school as having been written in order to reconcile these divergent ten- 
 dencies. But they have been utterly unable to shew in what this supposed recon- 
 ciliation consists. 
 
186 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 attributed to St. Paul by Baur, while Hilgenfeld and Kostlin 
 approximated to- the traditional view. Ritschl also broke loose 
 from the traditions of his master, and has elaborated a system 
 of his own. Harnack and Pfleiderer are well known in 
 England, and their critical position differs little from that 
 of Hilgenfeld.* 
 
 These views of the Tubingen school have met with a 
 modified acceptance both in France and England. The late 
 M. Renan, in his Vie de Jesus, published a view of his own, 
 which, though he differs in details, is in many respects not 
 dissimilar to that put foi'th by Baur. Mr. Stuart Mill, as well 
 as Mr. Matthew Arnold, were never weary of informing their 
 readers how " it had now been conclusively proved " that many 
 of the writings of the New Testament were not genuine, and 
 that the Gospel of St. John, in particular, had been shewn to 
 be a forgery of the latter half of the second century. At last 
 an anonymous work appeared, bearing the title of Supernatural 
 Religion, in which, with a considerable shew of learning, the 
 conclusions of the Tubingen School were presented to the 
 English reader in an English dress. The history of this work 
 is well worth remembering. It created an immense sensation. 
 The array of authorities with which the Aviiter had enriched 
 his pages, his bold assertions, his clear and specious reasoning, 
 were supposed to herald the downfall of the traditional view of 
 the Gospel history. But the late Bishop Lightfoot, in a series 
 of masterly papers in the Contemporary Review, in which vast 
 learning, unanswerable logic, and the most rigid accuracy, were 
 combined, shewed that the display of learning on the part of 
 the author of Siq^ernatural Religion was a simple fraud upon 
 
 * Holzmann, moreover, a recent German critic of the free- thought school, has 
 been compelled by the logic of facts to assign a date to the Gospels approaching 
 very nearly indeed to the traditional one. I have been much indebted, in the above 
 sketch, to a valuable series of papers on German theology by Mr. Cooper in the 
 Foreign Church Chronicle for 1891, forming a review of the woi-ks of Lichtenberger 
 and Pfleiderer on this subject. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMEXT. 187 
 
 the public. His scholarship was unequal tx) the translation 
 of a simple Greek sentence. His authorities were alleged in a 
 way which proved that he had never consulted them. A 
 writer's name was frequently quoted in support of views which 
 he had spent a life-time in refuting. The ex^jose was a glaring 
 one. The author of Supernatural Religion made an attempt at 
 defence. But the appearance of a new edition of his work 
 in which the names of many of his supposed authorities were 
 withdrawn, and many bold assertions most seriously qualified, 
 deprived his work of all moral weight. Since his time no 
 attempt worth mentioning has been made in England to dis- 
 parage the credit of the Xew Testament as a whole.* 
 
 The fact that the attack on the genuineness of the Xew 
 Testament has been successfully repulsed will make it needless 
 to enter at any length on the doubts which have been ex- 
 pressed in regard to the genuineness of particular books. It 
 would, however, be impossible to leave the subject without 
 some notice of the literature relating to the G-ospel of St. John. 
 The marked difference between the character and contents of 
 this Gospel and those of the other three has long attracted the 
 notice of critics, and has led some to a belief that it is not the 
 work of St. John. Not only is it clear that the contents of the 
 Synoptic Gospels were well known to the writer, and that he 
 designedly refrains, save in special instances, and for special 
 purposes, from going over the ground which they had tra- 
 versed, but his report of the Saviour's discourses differs 
 entii'ely from those of his predecessors, and his conception, 
 it has been contended, of Jesus Himself is not identical 
 with theirs. Accordingly, in 1792, Evanson, an English- 
 
 • These articles of Bishop Lightfoot's have since been reprinted. Their title is 
 Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion. Bishop Westcott has also 
 published an able refutation of Supernatural Religion in the later editions of his 
 work on the Canon of the New Testament. For further details on Xew Testament 
 criticism see that work, as also Dr. Salmon's invaluable ItUroduction to the Study 
 of the New Testament. 
 
188 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 man, published a volume in which he expresses doubts in 
 regard to the genuineness of the Gospel.* Herder followed 
 him in Germany. After some interval Bretschneider revived 
 these doubts in his " Probabilia," but he afterwards ad- 
 mitted his error. Strauss and the Tiibingen school of 
 course adopted this view. The former complained that the 
 interlocutors in this Gospel do not speak in conformity 
 with their character and position,| and Baur's disciples resort 
 to a similar description of analytic criticism. They, as well 
 as Schenkel {and Eeville,§ have argued from the allusions 
 to Life, Light, Truth, Grace, Arche, Pleroma, that the author 
 of this Gospel borrowed his expressions from the heretic 
 Yalentinus. But the attack has been successfully repelled. 
 Dr. Sanday, in his work on the authenticity of this Gospel, || 
 has shewn from internal evidence that its author was (1) a 
 Jew, (2) a Jew of Palestine, (3) a Jew of Palestine of the 
 first century, (4) an eye-witness of the events recorded. Thus 
 the contents of the Gospel supply the strongest possible con- 
 firmatory evidence of the continuous tradition that the Gospel 
 in question is the work of John the Apostle. The idea that 
 its portraiture of the Saviour differs from the portraiture 
 of the other Gospels is absolutely devoid of truth, as any 
 reader of the four can see for himself. It is true that the 
 writer ascribes Divinity to Jesus Christ, and that His 
 Divinity is not explicitly affirmed by the Synoptists. But 
 so far from this having led him to deny or ignore the 
 true Manhood of Christ, the very contrary is the case. 
 Nowhere in the Synoptists is the Humanity of Christ 
 
 * Similar doubts had been entertained and expressed by an anonymous writer 
 about a century earlier. It is remarkable that Evanson was answered by the 
 Socinian Dr. Priestley. 
 
 t Lehen Jesu, part II., ch. vii., sec. 83. 
 
 X Sketch of the Character of Jesus. 
 
 § Revue des Deux Mondes, May 1866. 
 
 II Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel. 
 
HIGHEB CBITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 189 
 
 more emphatically asserted than here. He eats and drinks 
 Avith his disciples both before and after His resurrection.* 
 He is wearied with His journey.f He " groans in spirit 
 and is troubled." J He weeps. § He is capable of special 
 relations of friendshipi|| An Apostle was invited to thrust 
 his hand into the side of Christ's Risen Body. And even 
 during the consummation of His great redeeming work on 
 the Cross, He so far acknowledges the ties of human relation- 
 ship as to provide for His bereaved mother.^ Nor is this all. 
 AVe recognize at once in the pages of this Evangelist the traits 
 of St. John the Baptist and Peter the Apostle as they are de- 
 scribed in the three other narratives, though a critical spirit may, 
 perhaps, find some grounds for the assertion that the character 
 of the Apostle John is presented in a different, though not 
 certainly in an irreconcilable light. As to the idea that 
 St. John boiTowed from Valentinus and other Gnostics, not only 
 is it equally possible apiori that they boiTowed from St. John, 
 but St. John is expressly quoted by Basilides, Yalentinus, 
 and the Ophites.** The expressions alleged to have been 
 borrowed from Valentinus are found, though not with equal 
 frequency, in the writings of St. Paul, and their origin, as 
 I have shewn elsewhere, is unquestionably the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, ff Further information will be found on this point in 
 Dr. Salmon's Tntroduction, and in Archdeacon Watkins' 
 
 • John 2. 1, 2 ; 13. 2 ; 21. K. 
 
 t John 4. 6. 
 
 % John 11. 33 : cf. 12. 27 ; 13. 21. 
 
 § John 11. 35. 
 
 II John 13. 23. 
 
 ^ John 19. 26. I have dealt with this question more fully in my own Doctrinal 
 System of St. John, part i., ch. ii. 
 
 ** The Ophites, thought by some to be the earliest of the Gnostics, quote 
 St. John 1. 1-4, repeatedly. Basilides quotes John 1. 9. Valentinus quotes John 10. 8. 
 These quotations are given by Hippolytus in his account of their heresies. It is 
 obvious that if they quote St. John's Gospel, that Gospel could not have been 
 faljricated out of their writings. 
 
 tt Doctrinal System of St. John, Appendix iv. See also pt. ii„ ch. 1. 
 
190 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Bamj)ton Lectures. None of these writers, however, have 
 laid much stress on a line of argument which is certainly not 
 without importance. I express it in the words of Tholuck, 
 in his Introduction to his Commentary on St. John's Gospel, 
 that "for all the doctrinal matter characteristic of St. John, 
 some parallels, at least, can be found in the Synoptic Gospels 
 and the Epistles." "On this argument," he thinks, "the 
 greatest stress should be laid." But had he examined the 
 matter carefully, he would have found reason to express him- 
 self yet more strongly. Not only can "some parallels" be 
 found between the Epistles and the " doctrinal matter charac- 
 teristic of St. John," but the materials contained in the latter 
 are the source whence the doctrinal statements of the former 
 were drawn. If the Gospel of St. John be not a genuine 
 record of Christ's theological teaching, then it is impossible 
 to account for the doctrinal teaching, not only of St. John 
 himself, in his Epistles, but for that of St. Paul, St. Peter, 
 and even St. James.* Their fundamental principle that the 
 life of Christ is imparted through faith to all the members of 
 His Body, has no support whatever from the discourses of 
 Christ reported in the Synoptic Gospels. We find, however, 
 that it is the very essence of Christ's teaching as recorded 
 by St. John. And the agreement of the Apostles in 
 such a doctrine is little short of miraculous, unless it was 
 well understood in the Church, though not as yet committed 
 to writing, that Jesus Christ Himself had supplied the 
 materials for this teaching.! Thus the defence of St. 
 John's Gospel is complete at all points. A discussion 
 
 * Liddon^ in his Bampton Lectures (p. 431), remarks on the significance of 
 St. James's reference to the " engrafted," or implanted, " word." 
 
 t I have worked this idea out with some fulness in my Doctrinal System of 
 St. John. Mr. Murphy had already anticipated me in his Scientific Basis of Faith, 
 which, however, I have never seen. Dr. Salmon summarizes Mr. Murphy's argu- 
 ment in his Introduction, p. 223. 
 
HIGHEB CRITICISM OF THE XEW TESTAMENT. 191 
 
 has lately taken place on the subject between Professor 
 Schiirer and Dr. Sanday in the Contemporary Review. Its 
 chief feature is the fact that the old airs of superiority seem 
 to have deserted the assailants, who advance to the attack 
 with much the same confidence as Prussians or Austrians 
 were wont to encounter Xapoleon, or the French in Spain to 
 march against Wellington. For all practical purposes the 
 controversy may be regarded as closed. 
 
 There is very little need to enter into details concerning the 
 " higher criticism " of the other books of Scripture — the anti- 
 legomena excepted — save so far as they serve to throw light on 
 the controversies of the present day. The Acts of the Apostles 
 has been regarded by Baur as an apology for the Apostle Paul, 
 and has been rejected by him on that ground. There can be no 
 doubt that the form of that treatise was determined by the 
 desire of the author to shew, as St. Paul does in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, that St. Paul's teaching was in all essential 
 points identical with that of the other Apostles. But this 
 fact, so far from disproving St. Luke's authorship, is obviously 
 the strongest confirmation of it. Xo task would be more 
 congenial to the friend and companion of the great Apostle, 
 than to prove that he had "not run in vain," but that it was 
 the same Lord Who had "wrought effectually in Peter to 
 the Apostleship of the Circumcision " Who " was mighty " 
 in St. Paul towards the G-entiles.* And it is difficult to 
 imagine who else would have been likely to undertake it. 
 
 The Epistle to the Eomans has been dissected by the critics, 
 German and French, into several Epistles, but their theories 
 have met with very little acceptance, and need not be dis- 
 cussed. The two Epistles to the Corinthians have scarcely 
 been disputed, in consequence of the multiplicity of allusions 
 which would render it impossible for any one to have forged 
 
 * Gal. 2. 2, 8. 
 
192 PEmCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 them. The same may be said of the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 The authenticity of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colos- 
 sians, however, has been stoutly denied. Not only Baur, 
 whose grounds for rejecting some of St. Paul's Epistles have 
 already been given, but the able commentator De Wette, have 
 come to a conclusion unfavourable to the former. He does 
 not, like Baur, find in it the Gnostic and Montanistic ideas of 
 the second century, but its diction and ideas, he thinks, are 
 not those of St. Paul. He, however, defends the Epistle to the 
 Colossians against Baur, who finds in it also Gnostic ideas. A 
 sufficient answer has been already given to this accusation in 
 the account of St. John's Gospel. It obviously rests upon the 
 pure assumption that Gnostic phrases were the invention of the 
 Gnostics themselves, whereas the very raiso?i (Tetre of Gnosti- 
 cism was the endeavour to bring about a compromise between 
 Christianity and heathen philosophy, an endeavour which 
 necessitated a large employment of ideas and phrases already 
 familiar to the members of the Christian Church. And as to 
 the ideas and expressions in the Epistle to the Ephesians being 
 un-Pauline, the fact of unusual words and ideas being found in 
 it admits of the simple explanation in the case of St. Paul, as 
 in that of any other author, that new words and ideas are 
 employed when the writer pursues a line of thought which he 
 has not entered on before. Let De Wette's canon be applied 
 to five or six sermons of Canon Liddon, or Mr. Spurgeon, 
 or indeed any other preacher whatever, and it will be found 
 wanting. The language, and even very often the style, will be 
 found to vary with the subject. It should be observed, how- 
 ever, that it is very doubtful indeed whether the Epistle was 
 originally addressed to the Church of Ephesus. K and B omit 
 the words " in Ephesus" in v. 1, and it has been conjectured 
 that the Epistle was a circular one to Ephesus and the 
 neighbourhood, and that each Church filled in its own name 
 
"higher cbiticism of the new testament. 193 
 
 after to?? ouo-iv, before reading its copy in public. Thus it 
 has also been supposed that it is the Epistle which the 
 Colossians were to receive from Laodicea (Col. 4. 16). Its 
 contents display a marked similarity to those of the Epistle to 
 the Colossians. But Avhereas the latter Epistle is written 
 expressly to warn the Church of Colossae against certain 
 heretical tendencies which were displaying themselves in its 
 midst, the encyclical Epistle is uncontroversial in character, as 
 is natural in the case of a writing not intended to meet any 
 special needs. These Epistles, together with the Epistle to 
 Philemon, an individual member of the Church at Colossae, 
 were "written and sent at the same time, as the mention of 
 Tychicus in the first two, and of Onesimus and Archippus in 
 the last two, plainly shews. The Epistle to the PhiHppians 
 has also been rejected by some. It has been regarded as 
 interpolated from chap. 3. 1 to 4. 9. Baur, once more, finds in 
 it Gnostic ideas. But Baur's criticism has been happily hit off 
 by Dean Alford in his Prolegomena to the Epistle. " Accord- 
 ing to him, all usual expressions prove its spuriousness, as 
 being taken from other Epistles ; all unusual expressions prove 
 the same, as being from another than St. Paul. Poverty of 
 thought and want of point are charged against it in one page ; 
 in another, excess of point and undue vigour of expression.'^ 
 Those acquainted with German authors will not be surprised at 
 such criticism as this. The absence of certain ideas and 
 phrases is constantly urged as a proof that the author " knew 
 nothing" of them; their presence is an equally clear proof that 
 the passage is by a later hand. Holzmann has dealt with the 
 Epistle to the Colossians in the same arbitrary manner. There 
 is a nucleus of genuine matter in this Epistle, but the rest has 
 been supplied from the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is needless 
 to discuss Baur's objections to the Epistles to the Thessalonians ; 
 they are of the same character, and are entitled to no more 
 
 N 
 
194 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 attention. In his attack on the Pastoral Epistles, however, 
 he is reinforced by weighty support. At the beginning of the 
 century Schleiermacher, a scholar and profound thinker, dis- 
 puted the genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy. He 
 was followed by Eichhorn and De Wette, who applied to the 
 Second Epistle and to that addressed to Titus the arguments 
 which Schleiermacher had confined to the First, it being seen 
 to be impossible to separate any one of these Epistles from the 
 rest. It is needless to enter again upon a discussion in regard 
 to the presence of Gnostic ideas and words in them, though it 
 is certain that the heresies combated were of a more pro- 
 nounced and developed type than those previously denounced 
 by the Apostle.* But De Wette's accusation of the presence 
 in them of " hierarchical tendencies " is not one whit more 
 conclusive than the other objections. For it remains to be 
 proved whether the " hierarchical tendencies " did not exist 
 in the mind of the Apostle himself, and whether in their 
 expression, so far as they actually exist in these Epistles, he 
 was not actuated by a desire to secure order and stability in 
 the Church after his removal hence — a removal which he him- 
 self declares to be at hand.t Allusions to certain institutions, 
 such as the order of widows, as then existing in the Church, 
 are declared on the usual principles of German criticism, to be 
 anachronisms ; whereas it is perfectly clear that all allusions to 
 any customs whatever as existing in a certain age can be 
 proved to be anachronisms, if we are at liberty to assign the 
 date of the works in which we find them mentioned to any 
 age we please.J 
 
 * Except in the Epistle to the Colossians, in which, however, as addressed to a 
 Church, the Apostle enters less into detail than when addressing the president of 
 a Church. 
 
 t 2 Tim. 4. 6, 7. 
 
 t Further information on these points will be found in the Speaker's Com- 
 mentary ; in Bishop Westcott on St. John's Gospel, Dean Vaughan on the Romans, 
 Bishop Lightfoot on the Galatians, Philippians, and Colossians, Bishop EUicott on 
 St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
HIGHBin CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 195 
 
 We come next to the Epistle to the Hebrews. Criticism 
 has certaiulj shewn coiickisively here that we do not know for 
 certain who the author was. Clement of Alexandria believed 
 it to be by St. Paul, and imagined that his name was not 
 published because of the prejudice it would excite among the 
 Judaizing Christians.* In the "West it was not believed to be 
 by St. Paul, and was not therefore at first received as canonical. 
 But Clement of Rome, writing in the first century of the 
 Christian era, evidently knew it well, and used it freely, though 
 without mentioning the author's name. It gradually found its 
 way into the Canon, less, however, by external evidence than 
 by its intrinsic merits. For if any book of the New Testament 
 has internal marks of authority and genuine inspiration, this 
 one, with its deep spiritual insight into the inner ideas of the 
 Mosaic Law, and its thorough accord with, and most invaluable 
 expansion of, the first principles of the Grospel proclaimed else- 
 where, must be admitted to possess them. Later criticism has 
 assigned the Epistle to various authors. Clement, Barnabas, 
 Luke, have all found supporters. Luther boldly attributed it 
 to Apollos, and among modern supporters of his theory we find 
 Dean Alford and Archdeacon Farrar. But it is difficult to 
 imagine, to whomsoever the actual composition may be owing, 
 that the ideas themselves can be due to any one but St. Paul. 
 By far the most probable idea is that St. Lulie composed the 
 Epistle on lines laid down for him by St. Paul. The ideas are 
 almost certainly Pauline ; the language and arrangement almost 
 as certainly not so. " The likeness of this Epistle in style to that 
 of St. Luke," writes Bishop Westcott in his Introduction to 
 the Epistle, " is unquestionably remarkable. No one can work 
 independently at the Epistle without observing it." St. Paul 
 was no doubt a prisoner at Rome when the mam portion of it 
 was written. Instead of following his usual plan of dictating it, 
 
 ♦ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 14. 
 
 N 2 
 
19 Q FBINGIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CELTICISM. 
 
 various circumstances may have rendered it more convenient and 
 desirable that St. Luke should give literary form to the ideas 
 which the Apostle had suggested to him. His close familiarity 
 with the Apostle would mark him out as eminently fitted for the 
 task. The last eight verses were probably dictated subsequently 
 by the Apostle himself. It is difficult to imagine who else could 
 have done so. And it would add an additional charm to the read- 
 ing of this great Epistle if we might believe that the " genuine 
 yokefellow,"* the " beloved physician," and the faithful friend 
 even to death, was chosen to give careful and fitting expression 
 to the thoughts which burned in the Apostle's spirit. 
 
 We may pass over the First Epistle of St. Peter. In regard 
 to that of St. James we may remark that whether the writer 
 were identical with James the Less or not — a point which 
 has been much disputed — he was certainly the person men- 
 tioned in Scripture as " the Lord's brother," and the president, 
 or bishop, of the Church at Jerusalem.^ His Epistle, together 
 with the Second Epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Jude, 
 were among the antilegomena of the early Church, and 
 naturally enough many modern writers have denied the gen- 
 uineness of all three. In regard to the Epistle of St. James, 
 it is contained in the Peshito (which, as we shall hereafter 
 
 * The writer cannot help believing that St. Luke himself was the person addressed. 
 as yv:^(Tie crv^vye in Phil. 4. 3. For (1) no other person mentioned in the New 
 Testament answers equally well to the description, (2) as no salutation is sent from 
 him to the Church he knew so well he must have been away from the Apostle when 
 the Epistle to the Philippians was written, and (3) , if away, what more probable 
 than that he had been sent on a mission to Philippi ? Additional information on 
 the subject of the aiithorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews will be found in 
 Bishop Westcott's Introduction, and in Archdeacon Earrar's Introduction to the 
 Epistle in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, where the case for Apollos is fully and 
 ably stated. 
 
 t Eor the brethren of our Lord, see " Introduction to St. James," by Dean Plumptre, 
 in the Cambridge Bible for Schools. Dr. Salmon, in his Introduction to the Study 
 of the New Testament, p. 504, thinks that we have to choose between the hypothesis 
 that they were the children of Joseph by a former wife, and that they were near 
 kinsmen, thus excluding the theory that they were the children of Joseph and Mary. 
 I cannot help inclining to the view that James was the son of Alphseus, and there- 
 fore an Apostle. This is the view of Eusebius. See his Commentary on Ps. 56. 
 
HIGHEB CEITICI8M OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 197 
 
 see, rejects some other books of the New Testament), as well 
 as in the Vulgate. We will briefly review the evidence. 
 Eusebius accepts the Epistle as the work of St. James the 
 Less, the son of Alphseus, though he mentions that others 
 doubted this.* Jerome bears witness to the doubts, but from 
 his time onward these doubts seem to have vanished. Dr. 
 Salmon observes on the fact that the Shepherd of Hermas, 
 a work written about a.d. 170, is much indebted to this 
 Epistle.f There is a possible quotation from James 1. 8 in 
 the Epistle attributed to Barnabas. Clement of Rome seems 
 to have been acquainted with it — he almost certainly cites 
 James 2. 21 and 23 — and Iren^us also.J Ignatius seems to 
 use a phrase from it. But this is by no means certain. Origen 
 quotes it as the work of St. James. Then it is clear that the 
 Epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians. Its author was 
 familiar with Jewish literature. § He, moreover, seems speci- 
 ally acquainted with the discourses of Jesus Christ. || His 
 Epistle displays an acquaintance with what, from other sources, 
 we know to have been the state of Jerusalem a short time 
 before its destruction. Thus we infer that it was written 
 by one of Christ's personal followers who was living at 
 
 * Hist. Eccl., ii. 23 ; iii. 25, In the first passage he says that few of the " ancients " 
 have mentioned it. 
 
 t Introduction, p. 475. There is a curious similarity in tone about the " Shep- 
 herd " and the Epistle of St. James. Both of them are severelj' practical, and 
 though the docti-ine of the "engrafted word " is accepted by both, yet it is little 
 insisted upon by either. The contrast between St. James and the other Epistle- 
 writers in the New Testament is very marked in this respect, and there is a similar 
 contrast between the " Shepherd " and other early ecclesiastical wi-itings. 
 
 X He certainly quotes James 2. 23, where Abraham is called " the friend of God." 
 He appears also to quote 2. 23 in Adv. Heer. v. x. 1, but as we have not the original 
 we caimot be sure about it. 
 
 § See the parallels Dean Plumptre gives {Introdnction, p. 33) between this Epistle, 
 the "Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, Some few parallels have been found 
 between this Epistle and that of the author's friend and companion Peter. 
 
 II See Dr. Salmon's Introduction, p. 481, for the evidence for this statement. It 
 will be observed that St, James does not always quote the Gospels, but gives in 
 many cases their substance in other words. This is an indication that the writer 
 was one of Christ's disciples. 
 
198 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CSITICISM. 
 
 Jerusalem. It is obvious how closely the internal evidence 
 corresponds with the conclusion the Church has adopted. 
 
 In regard to the Second Epistle of St. Peter, though found 
 in the Yulgate, it is excluded from the Peshito. Eusebius 
 and Jerome regard it with less favour than that of St. James.* 
 Origen mentions that it is controverted, but quotes it as the 
 work of the Apostle.f It has been questioned whether the 
 Epistle was known to Irenaeus, but Dr. Salmon thinks it 
 probable that an allusion to it is found in the Clementine 
 Recognitions. It was included in the Yulgate, and from 
 that time forward it was received by the, Church. Turning 
 to internal evidence, we find that it is unquestionably written 
 in the name of St. Peter.J Therefore we are called upon to 
 decide whether the Church was or was not imposed upon by 
 a forgery. We are not entitled to take it for granted that 
 this was 7iot the case. But on the other hand we are bound 
 to remember that the early Church, though represented by 
 some as destitute of the critical faculty, did nevertheless make 
 careful inquiry into the history of a book before accepting 
 it as genuine, and that much of the evidence then to be had 
 has since been lost. The objection that the allusions to 
 St. Peter's history (it may be remarked in passing that if 
 this Epistle be genuine it involves also the genuineness of 
 the Gospel of St. John, since John 21 is referred to) were 
 made in order to secure the acceptance by the Church of the 
 forgery, is met by the rejoinder that these allusions are per- 
 fectly simple and natural for a man in St. Peter's position, 
 and that a forger would, in all probability, have felt compelled 
 to go a great deal farther in that direction. § The contents of 
 
 * Eusebius (Hist. Uccl. iii. 3) says that he has not understood it to be embodied 
 (eyStd^TjKGi/) among the sacred books. 
 
 t Hom. iv. on Leviticus, and iv. on Joshua. 
 
 t- See chaps. 1. 1, 14, 18 ; 3. 1, 15. 
 
 § ©ean Plumptre points out that these personal reminiscences are characteristic 
 also of the First Epistle (see 1 Pet. 2. 21-24; 5. 1, 2). And it is further most 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 199 
 
 the Epistle, again, are quite in harmony with the writings of 
 the Apostolic period, and display a strong contrast with the 
 manner even of the earliest Apostolic Fathers. If it be argued 
 that words are used in one Epistle which are not foimd in 
 the other, it is an obvious reply that the same phenomenon 
 will undoubtedly be found in the several chapters of the pre- 
 sent work. But Professor Lumby, in the SpeaJcer^s Commen- 
 tar I/, has pointed out several coincidences in style — a fact which 
 in so short an Epistle must be regarded as far outweighing 
 the evidence in the contrary direction.* Dr. Abbott, it is 
 true, has recently endeavoured to shew that 2 Peter is written 
 in a Greek style corresponding to what is known as " Baboo 
 English." But Dr. Salmon has conclusively replied that 
 (1) this statement is doubtful, and (2) that if it were proved, 
 it would be an argument for, not agcdnst, the Petrine author- 
 ship. For as " Baboo English " is to pure EngUsh, so, we may 
 very fairly contend, would be the style of a Galilean Jew to that 
 of the educated Greek in the Eoman Empire. Thus, while we 
 are not entitled to place the Second Epistle of St. Peter on 
 a level with the undisputed books of the New Testament, 
 we are at least entitled to say that the evidence for it 
 preponderates.! 
 
 remarkable that in 1 Pet. 5. 2 the same chapter of St, John's Gospel is referred to as 
 in 2 Pet. 1. 14. Nevertheless Dean Plumptre admits that at first sight the general 
 character of the Epistle seems to contrast with that of the First. Yet the 
 " agitation " of which he speaks, in regard to the condition of the Church, might 
 be explained by the fact (see 2 Pet. 1. 14) that the Apostle felt his end to be near. 
 Compare St. Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders, whose face he never expected to 
 see again. Also his language to Timothy in 1 Tim. 4. 1-7 ; 6. 5-10 ; 2 Tim. 3. 1-13. 
 
 * One curious fact has occurred to the present wi-iter. It is the use of the Pauline 
 word cTriyvwo-is four times in the Second Epistle. The word does not occur else- 
 where in the New Testament, except in St. Paul's Epistles, and once in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. This fact, at first sight, seems to mitigate against the Petrine 
 authorship. But the writer seems (ch. 3. 15) to have just risen from a study of 
 St. Paul's Epistles, and has evidently fallen under the spell of St. Paul's style. The 
 same may be said of evo-e'/Seia. 
 
 t The student is referred for further information to Professor Lumby's Commen- 
 tary, mentioned ahove.and to the Commentary by Dean Plumptre in the Cambridge 
 Bible for Schools. 
 
200 PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 We next come to the Epistle of St. Jiide. With regard 
 to the authorship it claims, we are left in no doubt. It is 
 Jude the brother of James, mentioned in the catalogue of 
 the Apostles, and once referred to as " Judas, not Iscariot."* 
 This Epistle, though it is not found in the Peshito, is more 
 strongly attested elsewhere than either of the two antilegomena 
 we have already discussed. Clement of Alexandria and Origen 
 quote it. It is mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, which 
 omits all mention of the Epistles of James and Peter. 
 Tertullian cites it as the work of an Apostle, to establish 
 the genuineness of the Book of Enoch.f In the Latin Church 
 it is warmly received by Lucifer of Cagliari, and Jerome as- 
 cribes its rejection by many to its quotation from the apocry- 
 phal Book of Enoch, but clearly implies that his view of its 
 genuineness is not influenced by that fact. Its stern lan- 
 guage about the conduct of professing Christians in his day 
 is re-echoed in the Second Epistle of St. Peter. This has 
 given rise to a discussion to which of these Epistles priority 
 in point of time is to be ascribed. Professor Lumby regards 
 the latter as the earlier. Dr. Salmon is for the former. J The 
 question of the genuineness or otherwise of a short Epistle 
 like this is not of first-rate importance. Yet most readers 
 of Scripture will feel that there is at least a strong defence 
 to be offered for the instinct which has received this book 
 into the Canon. 
 
 The question of the Epistles of St. John may be briefly dis- 
 missed. For the First Epistle the evidence is of a remarkable 
 character. Not only does Papias, a writer personally acquainted 
 
 * John 14. 22. 
 
 t Be Habit. Mulier. i. 3. 
 
 % It must be confessed that Dr. Salmon has the best of the argument in dealing 
 with 2 Pet. 2. 11. A vague allusion of this sort can hardly have been the germ out of 
 which St. Jude's specific reference to certain circumstances mentioned by him were 
 developed. But St. Peter may well have been alluding to the fuller statement in 
 St. Jude's Ej)istle. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 201 
 
 with the Apostles (a hearer of St. John, according to Irenseus), 
 make use of this Epistle,* but Polycarp, himself a disciple of 
 St. John, expressly quotes it, and his disciple, Irenaeus,| quotes 
 it expressly as the work of St. John. It is mentioned in the 
 Canon of Muratori. The Peshito and the Latin Yei-sions 
 contain it. It is quoted by Tertullian and Clement of Alex- 
 andria. And Eusebius and Jerome regard it as universally 
 received. This testimony, and the overwhelming evidence 
 contained in the undeniable similarity of style, has not been 
 sufficient to prevent some persons from regarding it as by a 
 different hand to the Gospel. But as Bishop Westcott says 
 in the Introduction to his Commentary, " every paragraph of 
 the Epistle reveals to the student its underlying dependence on 
 the Gospel." J And Dr. Salmon declares that " a man must be 
 devoid of all faculty of critical perception who cannot discern 
 the proofs of common authorship." § The common sense of 
 the Christian world will endorse this view, and we may dis- 
 miss the statements to the contrary as instances of learned 
 trifling or barren paradox. |1 When we come to the relations 
 between the Epistle and the Gospel, it is difficult to decide 
 whether, as some have thought, the Epistle was written before 
 or after the Gospel.l" Its contents certainly presuppose a 
 familiarity on the part of those who read it with the contents 
 of the Gospel.** But this familiarity may have been due to 
 
 * Eusebius, Hist. JEccl. iii. 39. 
 
 t Adv. Hcer. iii. 16. In ch. 17 he also speaks of Chi-ist as our Advocate. 
 
 % P. XXX. 
 
 § Introduction, p. 211. 
 
 II Those who wish to acquaint themselves with the arguments may consult Dean 
 Alford's Greek Testament, or the Introductioyi of Dr. Davidson, 
 
 •; Hug regarded it as an encycUcal Epistle written as an introduction to the 
 Gospel. See also Dr. Plummer's " Introduction." Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
 p. xlv. 
 
 ♦• " The substance of the Gospel is a commentary on the Epistle: the Epistle is, 
 so to speak, the condensed moral and practical application of the Grospel."— West- 
 cott, Epistle of St. John. 
 
202 PEINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 the oral teaching of St. John before the Gospel was published. 
 On the whole, however, it would seem that the evidence for the 
 priority of the Gospel predominates. The Epistle is certainly 
 not a formal introduction to the Gospel. It as certainly is 
 an attempt to press practically home the lessons of which the 
 Gospel is full. Whether it originally accompanied the Gospel 
 in its circulation, or was written independently afterwards, it is 
 impossible to say. But it is clearly based on that conception 
 of Christ which is presented to us in all its fulness by the 
 Gospel, of St. John alone among the four. > 
 
 In regard to the Second and Third Epistles, they are absent 
 from the Peshito. But they appear to be recognized in the 
 Muratorian Canon.* Clement of Alexandria is stated by 
 Eusebius to have commented upon them. The Second Epistle 
 is quoted by a bishop named Aurelius as the work of St. John 
 in the Acts of the seventh Council of Carthage, a.d. 256. And 
 Dionysius of Alexandria about the same time recognizes their 
 genuineness. Some, however, have been inclined, from the 
 opening words, to contend that these two Epistles were written 
 by John the Elder, of whom Papias and others have spoken. 
 This is the view of Jerome. But it is now very generally 
 believed that John the Elder was the Apostle himself. There 
 is no particular point of importance involved in this recogni- 
 tion, unless it be the light thrown upon Church government 
 by the Third Epistle. We find a person named Diotrephes 
 already taking upon himself an Episcopal authority, to which 
 we might have supposed the first century to have been a 
 stranger. And we find the writer endowed with a still higher 
 authority, and declaring, in words similar to those of St. Paul, 
 that he will " not only know the speech, but the power " of 
 such a disturber of the Church's peace. Such a passage may al- 
 most be regarded as itself proof positive in favour of St. John's 
 
 * So Bishop Westoott and Dr. Plummer interpret its language. 
 
HIGEER CBITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 203 
 
 anthorship. For it i-s impossible that anv other person than 
 an Apostle could have exercised such an authority as that 
 which the writer calmly arrogates to himself. And no forger 
 of later times would ever have imagined the Apostle as under 
 the necessity of vindicating his authority in the manner the 
 writer contemplates. Even if we were to regard the Second 
 Epistle as a mere cento of Johannine phrases, which the early 
 external evidence forbids, we must at least confess that the 
 Third Epistle, beside external testimony, contains the strongest 
 internal evidence of genuineness. 
 
 Lastly, there is the case of the Apocalypse. This, it should 
 be remembered, is also mentioned by Eusebius as among the 
 antilegomejia* It is not to be found in the Peshito. It was 
 rejected by Caius.f That the second century heretics known 
 as Alogi should also have rejected it is a strong argument for 
 its being the work of the Apostle. For they rejected all the 
 ■\mtings attributed to St. John in consequence of the perver- 
 sion by Montanus, whom they opposed, of the term Paraclete. 
 Thus they must have known that it was ascribed to the 
 Apostle in their time. Caius, too, seems to have rejected it 
 chiefly because it gave a colour to the Chiliasm, perhaps of 
 Cerinthus, and certainly of later heretics. This Chihasm led, 
 in many cases, to gross sensual indulgence. In his opposition 
 to this, it appears probable that Caius was led to ascribe the 
 Apocalypse to Cerinthus, because it taught the millenariaji 
 doctrines which Cerinthus and others had grossly perverted. 
 Thus, as in the case of the Alogi, an authentic work is rejected, 
 not on the evidence, but in consequence of its appearing to 
 support views believed to be unsound. The most influential 
 opponent of the Johannine authorship is Dionysius, Bishop of 
 Alexandria from a.d. 238 to 287. In a most valuable frag- 
 ment preserved by Eusebius, J he discusses the whole question, 
 
 • Eist. Eccl., 3. 25. t See above, p. 17. % Hist. Uccl.^xu. 1. 
 
204 PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 and his utterances are remarkable as affording the most striking 
 instance known of what is now called the "higher criticism" 
 in ancient times. After referring to the strong opinions enter- 
 tained against the book by those who regarded it as the work 
 of Cerinthus, and therefore as a mere pretended revelation, he 
 declares that he will not venture to set the book aside, though 
 he cannot comprehend it. But he puts forth the suggestion 
 that it is not the work of the Apostle, but of another man of 
 the same name. He proceeds to give reasons for his opinion, 
 drawn from the difference in character ' and style between the 
 Apocalypse and the other writings ascribed to St. John. The 
 Gospel and Epistle, he remarks, begin with the mention of 
 the Word of God. The words " life," " light," " darkness," 
 occur frequently in both. Forgiveness of sins, the love of 
 God to us, the mention of antichrist, and the like, are also to 
 be found there. All these are conspicuous by their absence 
 from the Apocalypse. The Epistle and Gospel are written in 
 elegant Greek. But that of the Apocalypse is inaccurate, 
 barbarous, and ungrammatical. 
 
 After the time of Dionysius we have no more of such objec- 
 tions until modern times. On the other hand Papias of Hiera- 
 polis gives us almost contemporary testimony to it.* It is 
 quoted expressly as the work of the Apostle by Justin Martyr, 
 about the middle of the second century. The well-known 
 Epistle from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, in regard to 
 the persecution which took place there in a.d. 177, displays 
 familiarity with this book, and quotes it as Scripture.f 
 Tertullian, who flourished in North Africa at the end of the 
 second and beginning of the third century, entertains no doubt 
 
 * We have this, however, only on the testimony of Andrew, a bishop in Cappa- 
 docia, of unknown date. Eusebius does not mention Papias' testimony. But as 
 Eusebius only professes to take special note of testimony to the disputed books, 
 his silence in regard to Papias is significant. 
 
 t See Eusebius, Hist. JSccl., v. 1, 2, 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 205 
 
 about ifc. The same may be said of Clement of Alexandria. 
 It is contained in the Muratorian Canon. It is true that the 
 Apocalypse of Peter is also included in this writing, but the 
 author mentions that doubts are entertained in regard to 
 the latter.* Hippolytus, writing in or near Rome about the 
 same time as Tertullian, defends the Apocalypse of John from 
 attacks, and quotes large portions of it repeatedly, f We need 
 not carry the evidence further, save to admit that in later 
 times the judgment of the Church — not, however, proclaimed 
 in decree or canon — took the place in men's minds of the 
 evidence for Apostolic authorship. 
 
 We proceed to discuss the internal evidence. And, in 
 spite of the difference of style, this evidence is far less 
 strong against the Apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse 
 than appears at first sight. For some of the ruggedness 
 and of the apparent false concords are designed. Next, the 
 Apocalypse was certainly written some time before the Gos- 
 pel and Epistles, when St. John might be presumed to have 
 become more familiar with Greek. Then the subject 
 matter of the books is as different as possible. The Apoca- 
 lypse is historic and descriptive ; the Gospel deals with sub- 
 jects capable of being communicated in simple sentences, 
 which generally assume the form of weighty apophthegms. 
 As the late Mr. Simcox says, " His Greek [;i.e. in the Gospel] 
 is correct, because he never ventures on constructions compli- 
 cated enough to risk a blunder."J In regard to the absence of 
 some characteristic expressions of the Apostle, their absence is 
 
 * This has just been rediscovered.while these sheets were passing through the press. 
 
 t The fact that Caius was an opponent of the genuineness of the Apocalypse would 
 seem conclusive against his having been the author of the Mvimtorian Canon, as has 
 been suggested, and also against his identification with Hippolytus, as suggested in 
 a learned dissertation by the late Bishop Lightfoot, at the end of his edition of 
 Clement of Rome. See, however, p. 388, in which the Bishop admits the existence of 
 a dilficulty in regard to the identification, 
 
 X Cambridge Bible for Schools, "Revelation." 
 
206 PBmCIPLES OF BIBIICAL CRITICISM, 
 
 certainly compensated for by the presence of others. Christ is 
 constantly represented as a Lamb in the Apocalypse. Can 
 this be other than a reminiscence of an event likely to be 
 stamped for ever on the mind of the Apostle — the occasion 
 when his master, the forerunner, pointed out to him " the 
 Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world" ?* Then 
 the word dXfiBivot; is found frequently in the writings attri- 
 buted to St. John, and only very occasionally elsewhere. The 
 same may be said of (/.ocpTvpla. Uktt'k;, it is true, does not 
 occur in the Gospel, but the principle of faith is recognised by 
 St. John at least as emphatically as by St. Paul. The verb 
 'jtltTTevu}, it seems to have escaped most persons, occurs far 
 more often in the writings of St. John than of St. Paul. Then 
 there is the reference to the piercing of the Saviour's side, so 
 emphatically remarked upon in the Gospel, and noticed no- 
 where else except in the Revelation. f Thus, while the exter- 
 nal evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of its genuineness, and 
 largely preponderates moreover in favour of its authenticity, { 
 the internal evidence points decidedly in the same direction, 
 while the opposition to it may fairly be set down as due to no 
 defect in testimony, but to a prejudice against its contents. 
 
 Before we leave the higher criticism of the New Testament, 
 it will be well to say a few words on a question which has 
 aroused much interest — that of the origin of the Synoptic 
 Gospels. A large portion of the contents of each of them has 
 been derived from a common source. Yet it is clear that none 
 
 * John 1. 29, 36. There seems every reason to believe that the Apostle was one of 
 those present, at least on the first occasion. The fact that apvLov, not a/avos, is used 
 in the Apocalypse only slightly attenuates the force of this consideration. On the 
 other hand it is noteworthy that our Lord is never elsewhere mentioned as a Lamb 
 in the New Testament, save in one instance by St. Peter, whose brother Andrew 
 was present on the occasion just referred to. 
 
 t Ch. 1. 7. 
 
 % I.e. that it is not merely a genuine writing of the Apostolic period, but that it 
 was actually composed by St. John the Apostle. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 207 
 
 of them was copied from the other. Every possible hypothesis 
 has been suggested in regard to the priority of one or other of 
 the narratives, but none has proved satisfactory. At first it 
 was supposed that St. Mark's was the original narrative, and 
 that the other two Evangelists supplemented it. But this was 
 soon found to be impossible. St. Mark's, though the shortest, 
 is in some respects the fullest of the Gospels. In his narrative 
 he constantly supplements the details found in the others by 
 some picturesque and graphic touch of his own. As it is 
 clear, upon investigation, that the Gospels of St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke were written independently of one another, some 
 writers have resorted to the conjecture that the other Evan- 
 gelists abridged St. Mark's narrative, and added other details 
 of their own. But this hypothesis also has its diificulties. 
 St. Luke sometimes adds details peculiar to himself, while 
 omitting details found in St. Mark. And even St. Matthew 
 gives occasionally a turn to the narrative which demonstrates 
 his independence. Some writers suppose that oral tradition 
 accounts for the remarkable coincidence in form and order, as 
 well as language, which are to be found in the three Synoptic 
 narratives. Some resort to the expedient of several documents 
 which have disappeared. But neither of these theories would 
 give the fixed and definite form to the portions of the narrative 
 which are common to three (or in some cases two) of the writers, 
 unless, indeed, the oral tradition had become stereotyped by 
 repetition. The hypothesis therefore has found favour with 
 some that St. Peter was in the habit of relating the incidents 
 of our Lord's life so frequently, that the story had practically 
 crystalHsed into a document ; that the substance of this preach- 
 ing of Peter had become generally current in the Church, and 
 that St. Mark gives it in its fullest form, with the graphic 
 touches of detail which he had derived from his close connec- 
 tion with the Apostle. There is another hypothesis, which has 
 
208 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 met with comparatively little favour, but which deserves atten- 
 tion. It is that a brief summary of the chief events of the 
 Gospel history, together with a collection of our Lord's prin- 
 cipal sayings, had become current in the Apostolic age ; that 
 St. Matthew gives this story in the nearest approach to its 
 original form, and adds to it a collection of such of our Lord's 
 discourses as he supposed would have a special interest for the 
 Jews ; and that the same narrative was amplified by St. Mark 
 and St. Luke, according to the information at their disposal. 
 It is impossible to decide the question, but of all solutions the 
 least admissible is that which would arrive at the "original 
 tradition " by striking out all that is not common to all three 
 narratives. As well might you attempt to arrive at a true 
 report of a speech by a modern statesman by striking out all 
 passages which do not appear in the report of the Times, the 
 Telegraph, and the Standard, or at the actual history of the 
 Peninsular war by rejecting as unhistorical all that is not con- 
 tained in the history of that war by Napier and by Alison, and 
 also in the French military memoirs, which both these writers 
 have consulted.* 
 
 One remark more may fitly conclude this part of the subject. 
 It has been remarked in a previous chapter that no (Ecu- 
 menical Council ever directly took upon itself the task of fixing 
 the Canon of Scripture, and that if the Scriptures (with the 
 exception of the Apocalypse) can be said in any way to have 
 Conciliar authority, it is by a side wind, so to speak, and not 
 by any definite attempt to settle the question. It is still more 
 remarkable that the Church has never even made any formal 
 attempt to decide between the Four Gospels and the various 
 
 * There is a difference, it must be allowed, between rejecting as unhistorical all 
 that is not found in all three Evangelists, and assigning to some original document 
 only such matter as is common to all. But it is pure assumption to argue that the 
 whole of such document, supposing it to have existed, must necessarily have been 
 used by each EvangeUst. 
 
HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE XEW TESTAME2s^T. 209 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels which are extant or which have perished. 
 The Apocryphal Gospels which have survived, it is true, carry 
 their own condemnation upon the face of them.* It is possible 
 that the " attempts " to which St. Luke refers failed to obtain 
 circulation because they were either inaccurate, meagre, or 
 incomplete — possibly all three. But still, as Dr. Salmon has 
 observed,! "I^ is a remarkable fact that we have no early inter- 
 ference of Church authority in the making of a Canon ; no 
 council discussed the subject ; J no formal decisions were made. 
 The Canon seems to have shaped itself ; and if, when we 
 come further on, you are disposed to complain of this, because 
 of the vagueness of the testimony of antiquity to one or two 
 disputed books, let us remember that this non-interference of 
 authority is a valuable topic of evidence to the genuineness of 
 our Gospels ; for it thus appears that it was owing to no adven- 
 titious authority, but by their own weight, that they crushed 
 all rivals out of existence. Whence could they have had this 
 weight except from its being known that the framers of these 
 Gospels were men of superior authority to the othei-s, or with 
 access to fuller information ? " 
 
 * For the character of the Apocryphal Gospels see Dr. Salmon's Iti troditction, ch. 11, 
 or, better still, the translation in the Library of Ante-Xicene Fathers, if the 
 originals be inaccessible. There is also an edition of them by 3Ir. B. Harris Cowper. 
 But while these sheets were passing through the press, the intelligence has arrived 
 of the discovery of an important fragment of the Apoci'yphal Gospel of St. Peter. 
 This fragment is far more interesting, and, if a passing glance at it may justify the 
 remark, of quite a different type to, and therefore no doubt considerably earlier in 
 date than, the remainder of the Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 t Introduction, p. 121. 
 
 X There must have been something approaching to a discussion at the Council of 
 Laodicea, but we have no report of it. 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 CHAPTER XT. 
 
 THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 WE are now, it may be hoped, in a position to take a 
 general review of the subject, and to point out the main 
 principles which should guide the Christian student in forming 
 a judgment on the questions with which the criticism of the 
 Bible brings him into contact. These are, as we have seen, 
 questions relating to the actual contents of the sacred volume, 
 to the date of the composition of the various books, their 
 authenticity, the circumstances of their composition, and the 
 degree of authority to be attributed to them. 
 
 With regard to the question of the text, the settlement of 
 which determines their contents, there is very little to be said. 
 As yet, in the case of the Text of the Old Testament, there is 
 not much to guide us but the received Hebrew Text, which, 
 though the MSS. containing it were written at a vast interval 
 after the actual composition of the books, was nevertheless 
 preserved with great care, and presents a very considerable 
 approach to accuracy. The efforts to obtain materials for the 
 correction of that text where it presents difficulties are at pre- 
 sent in their infancy. But competent scholars are actively at 
 work upon materials which are multiplying around them, and 
 the next generation, it may safely be asserted, will be in posses- 
 sion of far fuller information than we have at present. In the 
 caee of the New Testament, we find a constantly increasing 
 store of valuable materials, which it may reasonably be hoped 
 will be still further augmented, and a gradual growth of com- 
 prehension of the best way of dealing with those materials. 
 This has been supplemented by the last memorable attempt 
 
THE TBUE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 211 
 
 by Bishop Westcotfc and Dr. Hort to arrange the vast amount 
 of information we have at our disposal, and to point out a sys- 
 tem of classification of authorities by which the treatment of a 
 very complicated problem may be simplified. If, on the one 
 hand, we are forced to confess that the labours of scholars pre- 
 sent us only with successive approximations to a result the 
 absolute attainment of which is impossible, on the other we 
 may congratulate ourselves on the fact, on which all competent 
 scholars are agreed, that in our incapacity to construct an abso- 
 lutely perfect text our loss is practically infinitesimal, for that 
 no important principle of the Christian religion is compromised 
 or perilled thereby. 
 
 We turn, then, to the Higher Criticism, which deals with the 
 date of composition, authenticity, and authority of the Sacred 
 Books. And here we must repeat once more what has already 
 been said, that our inquiry proceeds on Christian principles. 
 With questions whether there be a God or not, whether, if there 
 be a God, He is capable of personal relations with His creatures, 
 or of overruling, for sufiicient purposes, the laws which he has 
 laid down as the ordinary ones for the government of the 
 visible universe, we do not profess to deal. Neither do we 
 touch on the question whether it were possible for God to 
 reveal Himself or not, nor whether, if he were disposed so 
 to reveal Himself, He could or would make use of miracles 
 in doing so. Neither, again, do we enter upon any discussion 
 whether Jesus Christ can or cannot be believed to be the 
 Eternal AVord of God, of one substance with the Father, 
 but " for us men and for our salvation " coming " down 
 from heaven," being "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the 
 Virgin Mary," and thus " becoming Man." These questions 
 do not properly belong to the domain of Christian Biblical 
 Criticism. They come under the head of Christian Evidences. 
 The Christian Church does not for a moment shrink from the 
 
 2 
 
212 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 mosfc thorough investigation of her credentials. On the con- 
 trary, she challenges the fullest and freest inquiry into them. 
 Of such inquiry a thorough examination of the contents of the 
 Holy Scriptures forms a necessary part. But it should be re- 
 membered that this examination is only a part of a far larger 
 question, in which considerations natural, scientific, historical, 
 philosophical, psychological, and spiritual, have their place. 
 On various natures different parts of this large argument will 
 produce various effects. Some persons will be more influenced 
 by one class of considerations, some by others, and the cumula- 
 tive force of all combined must not be left out of the account. 
 But when conviction is once arrived at, the Scriptures at once 
 present themselves in quite a different light. They are no 
 longer purely human compositions, they are the authorized 
 channels through which the Divine Eevelation which we have 
 accepted as God's work is communicated to us. They may pos- 
 sibly not be in all respects infallible ; the human element un- 
 questionably co-exists in them with the Divine. But this much is 
 certain, that revelation once admitted, the only possible channel 
 through which the principles of such revelation can be imparted 
 is the Holy Scriptures. We cannot, as has been wisely re- 
 marked, approach this question without prepossessions of some 
 kind. We are either inclined or disinclined by nature or habit 
 of mind to accept revelation and the supernatural.* The pre- 
 possession, then, with which the Christian approaches the study 
 of Holy Scriptures is this : he regards them with the deepest 
 reverence as at least containing, if we are not entitled to say as 
 heing, the revelation of God's Will and Purpose to mankind. 
 Having previously become convinced that this revelation was 
 effected by supernatural methods, the fact that miracles and 
 prophecy are presupposed in the pages of Scripture does not 
 create the slightest doubt in the devout student's mind. The 
 
 Di\ Wace, in the Churchman for August 1892. 
 
THE TBUE PBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 213 
 
 question of authorship or date is to him entirely unaffected 
 by such considerations. He approaches the question entirely 
 free from prepossessions on this score, such as are felt by the 
 adversaries of the supernatural. He is content with the same 
 amount of evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of a 
 book of Scripture as he is for that of any other book. 
 
 "With the opponents of the supernatural the very opposite is 
 the case.* There is a certain tendency to subordinate fact to 
 theory in Germany and Holland ; to imagination in France.j 
 But beside tliis, a rooted disbelief in the possibility of miracles 
 is at the bottom of all, or nearly all, of the Continental criticism 
 of Scripture. This has been pointed out in a former chapter, 
 and needs no demonstration in the case of those who have 
 devoted the slightest amount of time to its study. But the 
 case is otherwise with the English School of negative criti- 
 cism. It would be unfair, and even dishonest, to refuse to 
 accept their disclaimer. Professor Eobertson Smith has 
 challenged any one to prove that he has based a single argu- 
 ment on the assumption of the impossibility of either miracles 
 or prophecy, and similar disclaimers on the part of other 
 men are certainly equally genuine. But it is none the 
 less true that they have accepted without hesitation, as the 
 verdict of critical science, the conclusions of men who do 
 start with this assumption; whereas the Christian scholar 
 
 * " If mii-acle and prophecy be impossible, there is an end of the whole matter. 
 Your faith is vain, and our teaching is vain .... The reason is that the author 
 starts with the denial of the supernatural as his fixed principle. If that principle 
 be, in his eyes, once threatened, all ordinary laws of probability must give way. It 
 is necessary at the outset to call your attention to this fundamental principle of our 
 opponents, because it explains their seeming want of candour .... I wish to 
 examine the evidence for the date of the Christian books on the same principles on 
 which I would act if they were ordinary profane histories, without allowing myself 
 to be prejudiced for or against them by a knowledge of their contents, or by fear of 
 consequences which I shall be forced to admit if I own these works to be genuine."— 
 Salmon, Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, pp. 8, 9, 13. See also the 
 -Preface. 
 
 t As instances of French tendencies we may refer to Kenan and Maurice Verneg. 
 See above, p. 88. 
 
214 PBINC1PLE8 OF BIBLICAL CELTIC ISM, 
 
 should surely approach those conclusions with considerable 
 suspicion, vitiated as they are from his point of view by 
 an assumption which to him is entirely inadmissible. And 
 it is also true that the English supporters of the negative 
 criticism are apt to treat the supernatural and prophetic 
 portions of Scripture in an altogether different manner 
 to that in which an ordinary narrative is treated, and 
 to display an altogether unnecessary amount of relief when 
 they have succeeded, or think they have succeeded, in 
 ehminating any incident of this character. What, then, 
 is the feeling with which they may fairly be represented 
 as approaching the question ? The explanation — and it ex- 
 plains also the very unexpected amount of popularity their 
 views have obtained among thinkers generally regarded as 
 orthodox — appears to be this. There is a very considerable 
 amount of scepticism abroad in regard to the supernatural 
 portions of the Old Testament narrative, and sincere and 
 earnest Christians have been inclined to yield to the tempta- 
 tion of throwing those portions of Scripture story overboard 
 as a tub to the whale, so that they may thereby be better able 
 to concentrate a wavering faith on the Person and Work of 
 Jesus Christ. And so the supernatural, if not entirely denied, 
 is minimized, and as far as the Old Testament is concerned, 
 it is almost altogether abandoned. As many prophecies as 
 possible are represented as having been written after the events 
 to which they refer ; narratives strongly coloured with the 
 miraculous are supposed to have been comjDosed long after the 
 events they profess to record ; and there appears to be a strong 
 desire to escape from the idea that any revelation whatever 
 was given before Jesus Christ.* The supposed necessities of 
 
 * This statement will be denied. But it is hoped that, if so, some answer will be 
 given to the question so anxiously asked by those who have learned to believe in 
 God's earlier Revelations of Himself. How much was contained in the "certain 
 
THE TRUE PRIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 215 
 
 Christianity have compelled a reconstruction of the Jewish 
 histories, and the date of other writings which bear testimony 
 to them has been brought down to as late a i:>eriod as possible.* 
 But whether the supernatural be boldly denied or timidly 
 thrust into the background, this much may be regarded as 
 certain — the methods employed are not the ordinary methods 
 of historic or literary criticism. The evidence for the Old 
 Testament, when approached in this manner, is not " examined 
 on the same principles on which we should act if they were 
 ordinary profane histories." On the contrary, it is treated 
 in a way which has repeatedly roused the scorn of the com- 
 mon-sense critic in regard to ordinary literature, and which 
 in every instance has ultimately been laughed out of court.f 
 It is cheerfully admitted that nothing could be more reverent, 
 and in better taste, than Professor Driver's utterances on 
 the moral teaching of the Old Testament at the recent 
 Folkestone Congress. And no one would desire for a moment 
 to doubt that he fully felt what he said. But we are 
 entitled to ask whether respect for the morality of the Old 
 Testament is likely to be maintained in the community at 
 large if its credit is shaken as the authentic history of the 
 Divine methods of training the world for the revelation of 
 God in Christ. That the Old Testament contains beautiful 
 moral sentiments can hardly be disputed. But the question 
 at issue is, on what authority do they rest ? Are they the 
 development, under Divine guidance, of an acknowledged 
 Divine communication to man, or are they the unassisted 
 
 germ " of moral and ceremonial enactment revealed by God to Moses on Momit 
 Sinai? And was any "germ" whatever of the ultimate truth revealed concerning 
 God's Unity and attributes known to the patriarchs ? 
 
 * It is not denied that Professor Robertson Smith, in his recent edition of The 
 Old Testament in the Jeicish Church, does appear at first sipht to make out a case 
 against the historical accuracy of the Old Testament narrative as a whole. But on 
 examination, his criticism is foiuid to be very one-sided. 
 
 t See note C. 
 
216 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 strivings of the human intellect toward a higher light ? 
 Upon the decision to which we come on this point the au- 
 thority of the Old Testament Avith the world in general 
 will very materially depend.* 
 
 Thus, with every respect for the motive which has dictated 
 a course adopted by many devout believers in revelation 
 here in England, we may venture to entertain a doubt 
 whether the interests of Christianity demand such a sur- 
 render as they have made, and whether, in point of fact, 
 those interests will not prove to be very seriously compro- 
 mised by it. For Christianity necessarily involves the super- 
 natural. And all Christians, whatever their view of the 
 course of Jewish history, admit that Judaism was a Divinely 
 guided preparation for the Gospel. But to abandon the 
 supernatural entirely, or almost entirely, in the preparation 
 for a dispensation which is admitted to be essentially super- 
 natural in its character, is to leave Christianity dangerously 
 isolated. Moreover it tends to invite scepticism in regard to 
 the fundamental principles of the Gospel. And as Professor 
 
 * What the effect of Gevnian criticism has been upon German religious Hfe we 
 may learn from a speech delivered at Stuttgart by Herr Wui'm, to the members of 
 the Evangelical League, in 1887. He complained of the self-willed way in which the 
 knife of criticism {das Messer der Kritik) was used by members of the "liberal"' 
 school in Germany, and the "Word of God regarded as of no more authority than the 
 religious books of the heathen. The results he described as saddening in the ex- 
 treme;— the laity estranged from the Church, the belief prevalent that the only 
 advantage of Protestantism over Romanism was the freedom to believe nothing, 
 and the plausible excuse thus atToi'ded for taking no interest whatever in religion. 
 Meanwhile Rome, with her disciplined organization, was pushing her way to 
 political supremacy, aided by the indifference of some, and the mutual dissensions 
 of others. " Nothing can be done," he adds, "by mere negations." The only bright 
 spot in the whole picture is where he relates how sometimes the younger clergy, 
 and men of experience and feeling among the laity, are apt to fling aside their 
 academic prejudices when they are brought face to face with the stern realities of 
 life, and their souls begin to thn*st for truth, and for its fountain, the Living God. 
 Is there no warning here for us to take to heart ? It should be added that a state- 
 ment has been widely circulated in the public press of this country, and never 
 denied, that the number of persons in Germany who this year declared themselves 
 to be of no religion is fourteen times as great as in 1871. Is there no connection 
 between this fact and the manner in which German criticism has treated the Bible ? 
 
THE TEUE PRIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 217 
 
 Robertson has remarked,* the principles on which the super- 
 natural element is excliuled from Judaism admit of so easy and 
 natural an apph'cation to Christianity that the danger to which 
 the negative criticism exposes Christianity becomes very serious 
 indeed. It is quite true that there are dangers in an opposite 
 direction. To demand as a condition precedent to the accept- 
 ance of Christianity that men shall first of all accept all the 
 most startling miracles related in the Scriptures of the Old 
 Covenant, is, it may be granted, even a more dangerous course 
 than that taken by those who are tempted to make something 
 like a clean sweep of them. But this is not the only alter- 
 native. We may ask all believers in Christ to reserve their 
 judgment on such matters till they have learned fully what is 
 involved in their belief in Him. They will then find them- 
 selves provided with a solution of the difficulties which press 
 on those who have not thoroughly accepted the Gospel facts. 
 The supernatural in history centres in Christ. This fact, when 
 once firmly grasped, enables us to explain the difficulties in the 
 Old Testament which to the unbeliever are insuperable. The 
 Christian can see how the Divine intei-position and guidance 
 are involved in events which are supposed by those not thus 
 enlightened to be purely natural, in histories which those who 
 deny the supernatural are constrained to reject. Even if we 
 attempt to explain the miracles of the Old Covenant by natural 
 causes, or imagine them to be in some cases merely the forms 
 in which spiritual mysteries are presented to the untutored 
 understanding, at least we need not shrink from the assertion 
 that the Finger of God is plainly manifested in the series of mar- 
 vellous events related in the Old Testament. And the more fully 
 we realize the supernatural in Christ, the less difficulty we shall 
 feel if we meet with its presence in the Divinely appointed pre- 
 paration for Him. "We shall therefore, as our knowledge of 
 Christ increases, find it continually less necessary to abandon 
 
 ♦ Early Religion of Israel, p. 489. 
 
218 PBIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 histories permeated with miracle, to reject all prophecies not 
 directly Messianic, and above all to shrink from the belief that 
 the conception of God as the eternally Self-existent One was 
 revealed to Moses in the wilderness, and by him communicated, 
 amid supernatural surroundings, to the chosen people. 
 
 Another consideration may be brought forward before we 
 quit the subject. We have seen that the methods of criticism 
 in fashion just now as applied to the Old Testament, though 
 abandoned in the case of the New, are not those usually 
 employed in historic or literary criticism. We have seen that 
 the only justification for the adoption of such canons of 
 criticism is the antecedent incredibility of the supernatural, and 
 the necessity that a narrative which postulates the supernatural 
 should be supported by historical testimony infinitely stronger 
 than that which would be required to substantiate events in 
 no way contrary to the ordinary experience of mankind. We 
 have, w^e may contend, a sufficient answer to this demand. In 
 the case of the New Testament it cannot be denied that we 
 possess such testimony. The historical evidence in favour of 
 the facts recorded in the New Testament is simply overwhelm- 
 ing. Not only have four independent contemporary biographies 
 of Christ come down to us ; not only are they supported by a 
 catena of testimony in the period immediately following the 
 Apostolic age — but a society was formed at the time, and has 
 remained in existence ever since, for the special purpose of 
 attesting and proclaiming the historical events in question. 
 It may be safely said that no event in history comes to us on 
 a greater weight of evidence than the Resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. And if we are bound to admit that the Old Testament 
 narrative is less strongly attested, yet we have a right to 
 contend that the evidence for the supernatural in the New 
 Testament, combined with the universally acknowledged fact 
 of the close connection between the Jewish and Christian dis- 
 pensations, tends very materially to support the claims of the 
 
THE TRUE PFIKCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 219 
 
 Old Testament history on our acceptance. Apart from the 
 supernatural character of many of the events related, there is no 
 more difficulty in accepting the JeAvish history than that of any 
 other people. Not that there are no difiBculties of other kinds 
 to be found in it. But so there are in the histories of every 
 other people which have come down to us, and yet no reason- 
 able man now accepts the attempts to re-construct the history 
 of the Greeks and Romans, or any other people whatever, 
 on purely critical principles.* Yet this is precisely what 
 we are asked to do in the case of the Jews. Why, ex- 
 cept upon theological grounds, this peculiar treatment should 
 be meted out to them, it is by no means easy to under- 
 stand. There is no nation which has taken more care 
 to hand down its history with strict accuracy. Many 
 ancient authors mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures 
 have perished, but in their place has come down a set of 
 documents, avowedly moulded on these former histories, and 
 carefully compiled and perhaps in some instances transcribed 
 from them. I These documents, we find, have, since the Eeturn 
 from the Captivity, been guarded with a scrupulous care un- 
 known in the case of any other people whatsoever. Their 
 accuracy on points of detail has been repeatedly confirmed by 
 recent discoveries. Their historical statements are supported 
 by a collection of national religious poetry which has been 
 invariably represented as having in large measure origi- 
 nated with King David, the Jewish national hero. Yet 
 we are asked to believe that these venerated records are 
 fundamentally in error in their representation of the religious 
 
 • See note C, at end, 
 
 t It is not contended that the Hexateuch cannot be a compilation later than the 
 events recorded in it. What is disputed is that this compilation was made so many 
 hundreds of years afterwards. And it is also contended (1) that the possibility of 
 its having been compiled at so late a period has been magnified into a certainty, and 
 (2) that it has been asserted with an amount of confidence unwarranted by the facts 
 that the component parts of the compilation have been successfully pointed out. 
 
220 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 history they profess to depict. What they represent as the 
 foundation, is in reahty the pinnacle of the spiritual temple. 
 And together with this very serious misconception of the real 
 character of the religious development of Israel, we find bound 
 up a mass of Chauvinistic fictions, depicting an ideal religious 
 and material glory, which never had a real existence, and where- 
 in a number of isolated historical facts are more or less con- 
 fusedly set in a " framework," which deliberately misrepresents 
 the truth in accordance with the party views, or, if the phrase 
 be preferred, the religious instincts of the editors.* We demand 
 some proof of these — to an ordinary mind— wildly improbable 
 assertions. And we find them in the most extraordinary recon- 
 struction, on purely critical principles, of a coherent historical 
 narrative that the world has ever seen.f When we demur to the 
 proposal that we should adopt this reconstruction en bloc, on the 
 ground that the results of analytic criticism cannot be fairly 
 represented as certain, we are taunte'd with the accusation that 
 we insist on the traditional theory of the Mosaic authorship of 
 the Pentateuch, and the utter impossibility that any error 
 whatsoever, in the minutest detail, can be laid to the charge of 
 the Scripture history. We do nothing of the kind. We are 
 
 * The latest form of the theory on this point is to be found in the paper of a Swiss 
 contributor to the Thinker for October J892. There the fourfold narrative of J, E, 
 D, and P, is compared to the tiarmonies of the Tour Gospels, composed by various 
 Christian authors. When a not particularly successful or skilful harmony of the 
 Gospels (such as the Hexateuch stands confessed to be in regard to the facts of 
 Jewish history on the critical theory) is accepted by the Christian Church in the 
 place of its four renowned biographies of Christ— when those biogi-aphies are 
 abandoned for a cento of narratives composed between the sixth and the tenth 
 century, we may find it necessary to discuss this comparison. Till then, we may 
 fairly hold ourselves excused. 
 
 t " I am free to confess I do not acknowledge criticism in the sense in which it is 
 sometimes spoken of, as if it were some infallible science. But I plead for criticism 
 of a saner sort, such as we should employ in the ordinary intercourse of life, or apply 
 to a modern author; a criticism that shall start by admitting that the writer 
 possesses ordinary intelligence, and knows fairly well what he is writing about ; 
 that shall then interpret his words in a fair and common-sense fashion, and be bold 
 enough, when neces:^ary, to confess its own ignorance."-'Robertson, Early Religion 
 of Israel, Preface, p. 8. 
 
THE TRUE PRIXCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 221 
 
 ready to attach their full weight to any considerations drawn 
 from the difficulties that may be found in the sacred page. 
 But we reject, and must continue to reject, all attempts to re- 
 present ingenious theories as ascertained facts. Thoughtful men 
 may be disposed to suspend their judgment until the question 
 has been further investigated. "We shall not blame them. But 
 until far stronger evidence, and evidence of a far different kind 
 to any that is as yet forthcoming, they will continue to doubt 
 the soundness of critical theories which invert the rehgious 
 history of Israel, bring down Deuteronomy to the age of Josiah, 
 and would assign that noble creation, the Ceremonial Law, to 
 the period when a handful of dispirited fugitives emerged from 
 a depressing captivity into a condition of humiliating vassalage. 
 If we are told that the arguments by which the historical 
 documents of Israel are disintegrated and reconstructed are 
 cumulative,* we reply that the rebutting considerations are 
 cumulative also. We do not care to discuss the question where 
 and how the histories were compiled, though the exquisite 
 beauty of the details transmitted — a beauty felt in every age 
 and by every race — w^ould make any man with a true literary 
 instinct shudder at the cruel anatomy to which the narrative 
 has been submitted. But we contend that the earlier narra- 
 tives of Israel are reasonable in themselves, true and life-like 
 pictures of nature, and replete with local colouring. They are 
 attested by the continual testimony of the later books — a tes- 
 timony which the anatomists are compelled to remove before 
 they can hope to establish their theories. We contend that 
 the Law of Moses is supported by direct quotations, and that 
 its existence for a long period is presupposed in the writings 
 of the earliest prophets which have come down to us.f We 
 
 * Driver, Introduction, Preface, p. i. 
 
 t "We cannot enter into detailed proofs of these assertions. But that the Law as it 
 stands is distinctly quoted in other books, presumably of earlier date, has been 
 shewn in chap. v. For further proof we must refer to Professor Leathes' Law in the 
 
222 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 further ask how the idea of Grod as Yahweh, the Eternally Pre- 
 existent One, which the Scriptures tell us was specially revealed 
 to one specially selected to teach it, was thought out before the 
 ninth century B.C. ; and what peculiar circumstances there were 
 in the then condition of Israel which rendered so vast a stride 
 in religious development possible. For Israel, according to 
 some of the most trusted authorities of the critical school, had 
 at that time but just emerged from fetichism into polytheism. 
 Criticism has, after its manner, a great deal to say about J, E, 
 D, and P, about the improbability of this portion of the story, 
 and the inconsistency of that, about the probable " sources " of 
 a narrative represented as obviously composite, which appears 
 to many to be more straightforward, sensible, and rational by 
 a good deal than some of its critics.* But it stands absolutely 
 dumb before a great religious revolution which has few paral- 
 lels in history.! There have, no doubt, been attempts to deal 
 with the character of the Yahweh worship. But our complaint 
 is that all such attempts entirely ignore the plain meaning of 
 the word. Yahwism (or Jahvism, as it is often called) is, we 
 are told, undistinguishable from the Baal worship of the 
 Canaanites. Yahweh was located by Jewish religious concep- 
 tions at Sinai. He was worshipped under the form of a calf 
 or of a young bull. He was originally a sun-god, the same as 
 Moloch, and worshipped by fire and human sacrifices. But all 
 
 Prophets. Complaint has been made that he refers to the Pentateuch as a whole, 
 and not to the parts known as " P." But he has not failed to shew that " P " is 
 quoted by the prophets, and though it may be to some extent an answer, it is by no 
 means a conclusive answer to him, to say that P is a " codification of pre-existing 
 temple usage." Por proof of the second assertion, that the earlier prophets pre- 
 supposed the existence of the Law, the reader is referred to Professor Robertson's 
 Early Religion of Israel, the conclusions of which are summarised in chap. v. 
 
 * See some of the curiosities of criticism mentioned above, pp. 104, 118, 119. 
 
 + " The modern theory is strong in minute analysis, but weak in face of great con- 
 trolling facts. It will laboriously strain out a gnat in the critical process of deter- 
 mining the respective authors of a complex passage, but when it comes to a real 
 difficulty in history it boldly swallows the camel, and wipes its mouth, saying, ' I 
 have eaten nothing.' "—Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, p. 471. 
 
THE TRUE PlilNCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 223 
 
 these theories ignore the simple fact that Yahweh is the third 
 person singular iro perfect of the verb to be, and thus that 
 while the verb signifies existence, the tense implies that this 
 existence is from everlasting to everlasting.* This sublime con- 
 ception of God is to be found nowhere else. It affords the only 
 reasonable explanation of the uniqueness of Jewish rehgious 
 history. It disposes of all the attempts to regard the early 
 Jews as merely monolaters and not monotheists because, with 
 St. Paul, they supposed the gods of the heathen to have a real 
 existence. The critics who have " conclusively demonstrated " 
 that the combined Elohist and Jehovist is the " oldest book of 
 Hebrew history," and that it appeared about the eighth cen- 
 tury B.C., are bound to go further, and explain for us the cir- 
 cumstances in the religious history of Israel which brought 
 this sublime, this unique conception of God into being.f "We 
 further contend that the development admitted on all sides in 
 the religious life of Israel is more natural and rational on the 
 traditional theory than on that postulated by the critical school. 
 For whereas the traditional theory assumes a definite germ 
 of truth which developed itself, if supernaturally, yet also 
 quite rationally and intelHgibly, the critical theory either 
 declares that there was no germ at all, or, if there were, 
 that no one can tell us in what it consisted. That is to say, 
 Jewish religious life developed from notliing or anything into 
 something, or, according to the German school of criticism, 
 from one set of conceptions into others directly opposed to 
 them ; from a childish superstition, through a sensual, cruel. 
 
 * See note H. 
 
 t It is true that an endeavour has been made to attenuate the force of this argu- 
 ment by deriving Yahweh from a verb signifying to cast down, and converting him 
 into a kind of Jupiter Tonans. But this involves the rather violent conclusion that 
 the Jews did not understand their own religion. At whatever date the Hexateuch 
 in its present shape was compiled, at least it states with sufficient distinctness in 
 Exodus 3. 14 & 6. 3, that Yahweh is derived from the verb to be. God Himself 
 says " I am continually being Who I am continually being." 
 
224 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 revolting polytheism, into a pure, exalted, and ennobling belief 
 in the one true God. We add that whereas in the history 
 of Israel the development it depicts is seen to be intelli- 
 gible and reasonable, that which criticism would substitute 
 for it finds no support in facts, and rests only upon theories 
 which have no historical foundation. And we finally point to 
 the unqualified acceptance by Christ Himself of the tradi- 
 tional view that the true idea of God was present to Abra- 
 ham, and that the Law was given by Moses, not developed by 
 some unknown process in the religious consciousness of Israel. 
 We need enter into no discussion about the limitations of 
 Christ's human knowledge, or the nature of the Hypostatic 
 Union. It is sufficient to observe that Christ, as the Mediator 
 of the New Covenant, gave His official recognition to the older 
 dispensations, which had paved the way for His, and thus 
 stamped with His authority the patriarchal and the Mosaic 
 covenants as part of that great Divine system of human educa- 
 tion which culminated in the Mission of the Eternal Word. It 
 is characteristic of the surrender which we have deprecated 
 that it dissolves the continuity by which the Divine dispensa- 
 tions are held together. Instead of recognizing Christ as the 
 sum of aU humanity,* as gathering together in Himself all that 
 preceded Him and all that was to foUow, we are treated to dis- 
 quisitions on Christ's two natures, and the nature and degree 
 of the communicatio idiomatum^ as though these were mere 
 scholastic propositions, which may be discussed abstractedly, 
 apart from their connection with the great scheme of man's 
 redemption. Surely He "by Whom all things were made," 
 Whose spirit inspired the prophets, Who is not only " before 
 all things, and by Him all things consist," but is also " the 
 Head of the Body, the Church, the beginning, the First-born 
 from the dead,"! Who was Himself not only Perfect Man, 
 
 * Eph. 1. 10. + Col. 1. 17, 18. 
 
THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 22b 
 
 knowing all the thoughts of men before they were uttered, but 
 at the root of the life and work of Abraham and Moses, and 
 of all other His messengers to mankind — might be supposed, 
 even as Man, to understand His own work. " As IMoses lifted 
 up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
 be lifted up."* " Did not Moses give you the Law, yet none 
 of you keepeth the Law ? "f " Had ye believed Moses ye 
 would have believed Me, for he wrote of jV[e."J "Before 
 Abraham was, I am."§ "Beginning at Moses and all the 
 prophets. He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the 
 things concerning Himself." || 
 
 We conclude, then, that the negative criticism is arbitrary, 
 as resting largely on conjecture instead of on proof ; that 
 it is unsatisfactory, in that it is to a great extent built upon 
 apparent difficulties in the naiTatives as they stand, concern- 
 ing which we have not sufficient information to be able to 
 ascertain whether they have any real foundation ; that it is 
 not only unproved, but from the very nature of things in- 
 capable of being proved ; and that it is in direct contradiction 
 to the historic information at our disposal, and can only be 
 maintained by wholesale accusations of fabrication, euphemis- 
 tically veiled under milder phrases. In addition to this we 
 complain that it is vitiated by an antecedent objection of a 
 very formidable kind, namely, that it originated in the assump- 
 tion that the supernatural is impossible. Xoav this assumption, 
 as we saw in the last chapter, has been applied also to the 
 Xew Testament and has there been triumphantly proved to 
 be false. We are therefore entitled to regard it with something 
 more than suspicion when applied to the Old. Thus we may 
 venture to assert that the critical dissection of the Pentateuch 
 has not as yet been successfully achieved ; that Moses has not 
 
 * John 3. 14. t John 7. 19. X John 5. 46. 
 
 § John 8. 58. 1| Luke 24. 27. 
 
2:26 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Tjeen dethroned from his position as the author of the Jewish 
 ecclesiastical and civil polity ; that the history of Israel forms 
 a coherent whole, instead of being a thing of shreds and patches, 
 artificially pieced together by men possessed by a fixed idea ; 
 ■that David's was the inspiring mind which created the Psalter ; 
 that Isaiah maij have written all the prophecies ascribed to 
 him, and that at least the earlier portion of his book cannot 
 satisfactorily be resolved into the work of various authors ; that 
 the Book of Daniel has not yet been effectually disposed of : in 
 short, that the Old Testament has so far successfully withstood 
 the persevering and energetic assaults on its historic accuracy 
 and its literary form, and is likely to survive them all. Criticism 
 may do much to point out to us the circumstances under which 
 the books were written ; it may modify to some extent precon- 
 ceived opinions as to date and authorship ; it may correct our 
 impressions as to the relative proportions of the Divine and 
 human element in the Bible. But it only brings into greater 
 prominence the fact that from the first page to the last it 
 stands before us as a consistent whole, the product of One 
 Divine Mind, inspired by One Spirit, teaching one and the 
 same truth throughout, though with ever-increasing clearness 
 as the years roll on. In the severe discipline that followed the 
 Fall ; in the choice of a single family to be the depositary 
 of the belief in the One True God ; in the establishment of 
 the laws which were necessary for a community organized on 
 •that belief ; in the moral education of the people of Israel by 
 blessings and by chastisements ; in the development of the 
 inward spirit of the Law by means of the prophetic writings, 
 until the Purpose of God stood revealed in all its clearness in 
 the Person and Life of Jesus Christ ; — we see One Mind mani- 
 fest throughout, using means natural and supernatural as it 
 seemed best, bi" t in all working to one end — the manifestation 
 of God as infinite Power, infinite Wisdom, and infinite Love. 
 
( ^27 ) 
 
 A-PFE:t^i3i:s:. 
 
 NOTE A (page 11). 
 
 A BEIEF resume of the arguments against the canonicity of the 
 Apocrypha may be fomid useful. 
 
 1. The Apocryphal books are not found in the Hebrew 
 text, but only in the Septuagint Version, a brief account of the 
 origin of which will be found in chap. ii. 
 
 2. The modern Jews accept only the Hebrew text. 
 
 3. The celebrated Philo, a contemporary of the Apostles, 
 never quotes the Apocryphal books as Scripture, but he gives 
 distinct testimony to the existence of a Canon in his day, and 
 attaches the greatest weight to the writings comprised in it.* 
 
 4. Josephus, a priest of royal descent by the mother's side, 
 as he tells us with pride at the commencement of his auto- 
 biography, and a man, moreover, of high position and con- 
 siderable erudition, f gives the same catalogue of the Scriptures 
 as ours.J He was also contemporary with the Apostles, and 
 was present at the siege of Jerusalem. 
 
 5. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, about the middle of the second 
 century, writes to his " brother Onesimus," and gives the saroe 
 list as ours. 
 
 * See above, p. 11. 
 
 t He boasts that the chief priests and rulers were in the habit of consulting him 
 at a very early age on questions connected with the Jewish law. 
 
 t Josephus includes more books among the Prophets and fewer among the Hagio- 
 grapha, than became the custom at a later period. 
 
 P 2 
 
228 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICI8M. 
 
 6. Origen, who lived through the first half of the third 
 century (though he was born m the second), gives the same 
 list as ours, but includes nine books, including Daniel, in the 
 Hagiographa,* 
 
 7. Jerome, though he includes the Apocrypha in his transla- 
 tion, yet testifies that the Jews only recognized twenty-two 
 books. The number is apparently made up by classing Judges 
 and Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and the 
 twelve minor prophets, each as one book. 
 
 8. The Babylonian Talmud, which was composed about the 
 middle of the sixth century, gives the same catalogue as ours. 
 
 9. The Targums only comment on the books now recognized 
 by the Jews. 
 
 10. These authorities are supported by the testimony of 
 Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of 
 Nazianzus, and Ruffinus. And the Council of Laodicea also 
 gives the same list as they do. 
 
 On the other hand, Augustine, in the fourth and fifth 
 century, accepts the Apocrypha, and so does the third Council 
 of Carthage, a.d. 397, at which he is believed to have been 
 present. Jerome, following the LXX., has admitted the 
 Apocrypha into the Yulgate, as we have seen. And thus 
 the Apocrypha gradually grew into favour in the Christian 
 Church, until it was accepted by the Church of Rome at the 
 Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, and by the Eastern 
 Church in 1692. 
 
 The Apocrypha, as such, is never quoted in the New Testa- 
 ment, though an apocryphal book attributed to Enoch is 
 quoted in the Epistle of Jude.f 
 
 * See Eusebius, Hist, Eccl.yQ. 25. He adds that " there are also " the books of the 
 Maccabees. 
 t See above p. 200* 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 NOTE B (PAGE 19). 
 
 It is impossible to do more than touch very briefly on the 
 testimony of the human conscience to the moral and spiritual 
 value of Scripture. AVith regard to the Old Testament, 
 though some portions of it have been regarded as open to 
 animadversion, yet of its general character there can be no 
 question. Few have ventm*ed to deny that its conceptions of 
 the Being of God and of the relations of man, as His creature, 
 to Him, tend in a very high degree to raise the moral tone of 
 those who come mider their influence. And just now, when it 
 is found necessary to protest against a certain tendency in 
 criticism to lower the respect due to the Old Testament, it is 
 gi-atifying to be able to point to the utterances, at the recent 
 Folkestone Congress, of men who have been freely criticized in 
 these pages. "Whatever their belief as to its origin and the 
 accuracy of its historic statements, and whatever the effect* 
 such belief may be likely to produce on the general estimation 
 in which it is held, nothing, it must be gratefully confessed, 
 could be more satisfactory so far as it goes than their warm 
 appreciation of the moral beauty and spii'itual elevation of its 
 contents. 
 
 The testimonies of early wi'itei-s to the majesty and worth 
 of the Scriptures have been given in the text, and may be 
 found in vast numbei-s in Dr. Lee's Lectures on Inspiration. 
 We know how, in the persecutions of Decius and Diocletian, 
 an attempt was made to destroy Christianity by the destruction 
 of the Christian Scriptures. We know, too, that so dear were 
 they to the Christian conscience that many persons of every 
 station of life preferred torture, and even death, to surrendering 
 a single copy of the sacred volume. The student of ecclesi- 
 astical biogi-aphy will rememl>er how the words " Tolle, lege," 
 in a child's lips, were the determining influence which effected 
 
280 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 the consecration of the valuable life of Augustine, according to 
 the ideas of his day, to the work of Christ. It is also recorded 
 ot him. that on his death-bed he caused the seven Penitential 
 Psalms to be recited in his presence, and then desired that they 
 should be fixed up before him, after which he read them con- 
 tinually with many tears. Few persons can have read the 
 passage unmoved which tells us how Bede ended his loving 
 and holy life by dictating the last words of the Grospel of 
 St. John, that others might enjoy the light which had guided 
 hiin upon his course. In the Middle Ages the use of the 
 Scriptures was confined to the few, but those who enjoyed the 
 privilege of reading them have not failed to hand down to 
 future ages their sense of the blessing contained in them. 
 Anselm found the practice of the precepts of Scripture the 
 best means of satisfying the cravings of the mind for know- 
 ledge. Our great Bishop Grosseteste found the Scriptures the 
 mainstay of his faith. Bernard and a Kempis both recommend 
 frequent meditation on the Scriptures. Even Innocent the 
 Third, though he deprecated the study of the Bible for the 
 laity in general, lest they should be puffed up with spiritual 
 pride, and imagine themselves fit to be teachers, yet believed 
 that study to be the best means of nourishment for the soul, 
 and the surest remedy of all its disorders. At the time of the 
 Reformation the deepest interest was awakened in the Scrip- 
 tures. We all know what an epoch it was in the great life 
 of Luther when he came upon a Latin Bible, and was able to 
 substitute the study of it for the comparatively meagre extracts 
 on which, up to that time, his spirit had been fed. It was about 
 the same time that Colet's enthusiastic love for the sacred 
 oracles gave a new impulse to the moral and religious life of 
 our own country. So vast was the importance of their study 
 felt to be, that Tyndale lived in constant danger of his life, 
 and finally sacrificed it, that other men might drink of those 
 
APPENDIX. 2B1 
 
 perennial fountains so long kept back from the thirsting flock 
 of Chi'ist. Few incidents are more touching in the religious 
 history of England than that of Anthony Dalaber on his knees 
 before William Clark, at Oxford, begging to be allowed to tak^ 
 part in a private reading of the G-ospels, which exposed those 
 who shared in it to the penalty of burning. In the Nether- 
 lands and in France the study of the oracles of God lightened 
 the burden of the bonds and imprisonment to which the 
 pioneers of religious freedom were doomed. All students of 
 the Reformation period will remember Ridley's touching fare- 
 well to his college, Pembroke, where he had " learned without 
 book almost all Paul's Epistles, and the canonical Epistles too, 
 save only the Apocalypse, of which study," he adds, "although 
 in time a great part did depart from me, yet the sweet smell 
 thereof I trust I shall carry with me into heaven, for the profit 
 thereof I think I have felt in all my life-time ever after." 
 Hooker's view of the value of Scripture may be added at 
 length : — " Wherefore the word of life hath been always a 
 treasure, though precious, yet easy, as well to attain, as to 
 find ; lest any man desirous of life should perish tln-ough the 
 difficulty of the way. To this end the word of God no other- 
 wise serveth than only in the nature of a doctrinal instrument. 
 It saveth because it maketh 'wise to salvation.' Wherefore 
 the ignorant it saveth not ; they which live by the word must 
 know it. And being itself the instrument which God hath 
 purposely framed, thereby to work the knowledge of salvation 
 in the hearts of men, what cause is there wherefore it should 
 not of itself be acknowledged a most apt and a likely mean to 
 leave an apprehension of things divine in our understanding^ 
 and in the mind an assent thereunto. For touching the one, 
 sith God, who knoweth and discloseth best the rich treasures 
 of his own wisdom, hath by delivering his word made choioe 
 of the Scriptures as the most effectual means whereby those 
 
232 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CEITICISM. 
 
 treasures might be imparted unto the world, it followeth that 
 to man's understanding the Scripture must needs be even 
 of itself intended as a full and perfect discovery, sufficient to 
 imprint in us the lively character of all things necessarily 
 required for the attainment of eternal life."* 
 
 " By Scripture it hath in the wisdom of God seemed meet 
 to deliver unto the world much but personally expedient to be 
 practised of certain men ; many deep and profound points of 
 doctrine, as being the main original ground whereupon the 
 precepts of duty depend ; many prophecies, the clear perform- 
 ance whereof might confirm the world in belief of things 
 unseen ; many histories to serve as looking-glasses to behold 
 the mercy, the truth, the righteousness of God towards all 
 that faithfully serve, obey and honour him : yea, many entire 
 meditations of piety, to be as patterns and precedents in cases 
 of like nature ; many things needful for explication, many for 
 application unto particular occasions, such as the providence of 
 God from time to time hath taken to have the several books of 
 his holy ordinance wTitten. Be it then that together with the 
 principal necessary laws of God there are sundry other things 
 written, whereof we might haply be ignorant, and yet be saved : 
 what ? shall we hereupon think them needless ? Shall we 
 esteem them as riotous branches wherewith we sometimes be- 
 hold most pleasant vines overgrown ? Surely no more than we 
 judge our hands or our eyes superfluous, or what part soever, 
 which if our bodies did want we might notwithstanding any 
 such defect retain still the being of men. As therefore a com- 
 plete man is neither destitute of any part necessary, and hath 
 some parts whereof though the want could not deprive him of 
 his essence, yet to have them standeth him in singular stead in 
 respect of the special uses for which they serve ; in like sort, all 
 
 those writings which contain in them the Law of God, all 
 
 — -^ ■ . _ . __ — __ 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Polity, v. 21. 
 
APPENDIX. 233 
 
 those venerable books of Scripture, all those sacred tomes and 
 volumes of Holy Writ ; they are with such absolute perfection 
 framed, that in them there neither wanteth anything the lack 
 whereof might deprive us of life, nor anything in such wise 
 aboundeth, that as being supei*fluous, unfruitful, and altogether 
 needless, we should thmk it no loss or danger at all if we did 
 want it."* 
 
 Coming down to a later period, and a different aspect of the 
 question, we may lament that the zeal of Cromwell's Ironsides 
 was not altogether according to knowledge, but we must ad- 
 mit that their courage and discipline was the result of a faith 
 of which the study of Holy Scripture was the foundation. 
 Similarly on the Continent, it was the study of the Scriptures 
 which produced that gTeat hero, Gustavus Adolphus, whose 
 camp, in those days of licence, was a striking example of so- 
 briety and purity. The reason is explained to us by Milton, in 
 those famous words in his treatise on Eeformation in England, 
 which cannot be too often quoted : " Then was the Sacred 
 Bible sought out of the dusty corners where profane falsehood 
 and neglect had thrown it ; the schools opened. Divine and 
 human learning raked out of the embers of forgotten tongues, 
 the princes and cities trooping apace to the new erected banner 
 of salvation ; the martyrs, with the miresistible might of 
 weakness, shaking the powers of darkness, and scorning the 
 fiery rage of the old red Dragon." 
 
 Since that time as well as before, it were impossible to 
 enumerate the number of saints of God whose lives have been 
 animated and their death-beds sweetened by the counsels and 
 comforts of God's holy "Word ; to recount how religious revivals 
 have been stimulated, and moral refonuation supported by its 
 teaching. Vice has been compelled to lurk in foul comers 
 instead of flaunting in the face of day. Slavery has been 
 
 • Ecclesiastical Polity, i. 13. 
 
334 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 abolishedydueHing has been put down, "by its influence. Drank- 
 enness has been banished from all decent society, profane swear- 
 ing is no longer considered a mark of manliness, a savage penal 
 code has been swept away, and a gentler, more humane spirit 
 permeates the administration of our laws, and regulates our 
 mutual intercourse. Philosophers like Newton in one age, 
 lawyers like Lord Hatherley, and statesmen like Gladstone in 
 another, devote themselves to elucidating its contents. It is 
 touching to think that "Walter Scott on his death-bed, when he 
 asked to be read to, replied to the question what book it should 
 be, " Need you ask ? I should like the Bible." Burns, who in 
 his life paid so little heed to its contents, though in his 
 " Cotter's Saturday Night " he testifies that it was the backbone 
 of the life of his country, was fain, when near his end, to peruse 
 the pages of a tattered New Testament ; and Sterling, after 
 his lapse into infidelity, found at last his best solace in the pages 
 of a New Testament which had been given him when a boy. 
 
 Coleridge, in his Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter L, 
 says : — " I take up this work {i.e., the Bible) with the purpose 
 to read it for the first time as I should read any other work, — 
 as far, at least, as I can or dare. For I neither can, nor dare, 
 throw off a strong and awful prepossession in its favour — 
 certain as I am that a large part of the light and life, in and 
 by which I see, love, and embrace the truths and the strengths 
 co-organised into a living body of faith and knowledge in the 
 four preceding classes,* has been directly or indirectly derived 
 to me from this sacred volume, — and unable to determine what 
 I do not owe to its influences. But even on this account, and 
 because it has these inalienable claims on my reverence and 
 gratitude, I will not leave it in the power of unbelievers to 
 say that the Bible is for me only what the Koran is for the 
 deaf Turk, and the Yedas for the feeble and acquiescent 
 
 • He is referring to a confession of faith which he is making. 
 
APPENDIX, 235 
 
 Hindoo. Ko,. I will retire up into the mountain^ and hold 
 secret communion with my Bible, above the contagious blast- 
 ments of prejudice, and the fog-blight of selfish superetition. 
 For fear hath torment. And what though my reason be to 
 the power and splendour of Scripture but as the reflected and 
 secondary shine of the moon compared with the solar radiance ; — 
 yet the sun eudm'es the occasional co-presence of the unsteady 
 orb, and leaving it visible seems to sanction the comparison. 
 There is a Light higher than all, even the Word that was in 
 the heginning ; — the Light, of which light itself is but the she- 
 diinah and cloudy tabernacle ; — the Word that is light for 
 every man, and life for as many as give heed to it. Lf between 
 this Word and the written Letter I shall anywhere seem to 
 myself to find a discrepance, I will not conclude that such 
 there actually is ; nor on the other hand will I fall under the 
 condemnation of them that would lie far God, but seek as I 
 may, be thankful for what I have, and wait. With such pur- 
 poses, with such feelings, have I perused the books of the Old 
 and Xew Testaments, — each book as a whole, and also as an 
 integral part. And need I say that I have met everywhere 
 ' more or less copious sources of truth, and power, and purify- 
 ing impulses'; — that I have found words for my inmost 
 thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances for my hidden grief, 
 and pleadings for my shame and my feebleness ? In short, 
 whatever finds me, bears witness for itself that it has pror 
 ceeded from a Holy Sphit, even from the same spirit, which 
 remaineth in itself, yet regenerateth all other powers, and in 
 all ages entering into holy souls maketh them friends of God 
 and prrojjhets (Wisd. vii.)." 
 
 A speech of Signer Bonghi, the well-known deputy in the 
 Italian Parliament, the author of the Life of Jesus which 
 has incurred the censure of the Vatican, contains these re- 
 markable words : — " The honourable member, Signer Gallo 
 
236 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 I know, would say, * Banish the Bible and all priests from 
 every institution connected with the State.' Does not Signor 
 Gallo perceive that were he Professor of Experimental Science, 
 instead of being Professor of Philosophy, his proposal would 
 very soon come into conflict with a fact for which he would 
 certainly have to account ? How is it that, if the Bible is 
 so sure a means for corrupting the mind, and its influence 
 so certain to debase it — how is it, I ask, that in Germany 
 and in England, two countries where it is most read, the 
 character of the people is the most highly developed, and 
 the most stable and most robust ? How does it come to pass 
 that theological science, which speaks to the country about 
 God, if its tendency is to fetter the mind and cramp all 
 intellectual activity — how is it that in England and Germany, 
 where theological studies are to the fore, all intellectual activity 
 is carried on on the most extensive scale, and pushed forward 
 into vast fields of knowledge of all kinds ? The honourable 
 Gallo should pause and ponder these questions, and not be 
 so sweepmg in the counsel which he puts forward. Such 
 advice appears to me to be most undesirable. I am willing 
 to make allowance for what modern criticism claims with 
 regard to the Bible. People who are apt to go from one 
 extreme to another, after having mamtained that there is not 
 one single word but what was inspired by God, have now 
 asserted that there cannot be imagined a worse piece of com- 
 position in the whole world. For myself, I do not hesitate 
 to say that — wliether well or ill done (and I draw my con- 
 clusions from the effect which I see the Bible produces on 
 those who heed it) — it is a book which, at least, is calculated to 
 inspire men with an enthusiastic love for their country .... 
 It is a fact that the contents of this book are such as to pro- 
 <iuce a striking impression on the young, on the minds of 
 children even ; and, therefore, the high ideal of which they 
 
APPENDIX. 29j1 
 
 receive the impress in their childhood and youth infallibly gives 
 a colour to the character of riper years, and affects through 
 their manner of thought and action the times in which they 
 live, and even those that follow. One so trained believes that 
 whatever happened, and whatever is done, goes to make up 
 that grand moral and ideal totality which embraces all human 
 thoughts and actions .... In different Christian Churches 
 in proportion as it has been desired that character should be 
 fully foiTQed, be stable, and give the impetus to the moral and 
 the just in human things — and the more these grounds for this 
 justice and morality have been sought out by each individual 
 for himself — just in such proportion it is found, I say, that 
 the Bible has been placed in the hands of the great majority 
 of the people for the bringing about of these ends. In these 
 Churches the Bible, which, according to some, confuses the 
 mind and debases the heart, produces exactly the contrary 
 effect, awakening a desire for inquiry and knowledge." 
 
 See also Professor Rogers on The Superhuman Origin of the 
 Bible inferred from itself Also a valuable chapter entitled " The 
 Bible and Man," in Professor Bedford's Authority of Scripture. 
 
 It may be added that a sceptical bookseller in Italy has lately 
 published a cheap illustrated edition of the Bible, because he 
 felt that no other book was so likely to raise the moral tone of 
 his country. The heathen, too, have given their testimony to 
 the value of its contents. Keshub Chunder Sen has spoken far 
 more eloquently than most Chi'istians of the beauty of the 
 character of Jesus Cln-ist as depicted in the four Gospels.* 
 
 • The late James Gilman, the heroic missionary to the ^lonsrols, writes thtia 
 from his dreary and solitary hut: "How full the Psalms are! These days I am 
 going through them in Chinese, as I said ; I take one each morning and commit 
 some vwses of it carefully. Then during the day, as time permits, I read a few 
 more. How one the soul of man is ! When dull and cold and dead, and feeling as 
 if I could not pray, I turn to the Psalms. When most in the spirit, the Psalms meet 
 almost all the needs of expression. And yet deluded men talk of the Bible as the 
 outcome of the Jewish mind I The greatest proof of the Divine source of the book 
 
238 PniKCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 The Bible, moreover, is the palladium of national prospetity. 
 Those peoples which have used it freely have risen to empire 
 and to glory ; those in which it has been neglected or proscribed 
 have sunk in the scale of nations. The Word of G-od has of 
 very truth proved a lantern to men's feet and a light unto their 
 paths. That Word which we are told " endureth for ever in 
 heaven," has, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gone forth 
 to the uttermost parts of the earth. " For as the rain cometh 
 down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but 
 watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and 
 giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater ; so shall My 
 Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth : it shall not return 
 unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and 
 it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."* 
 
 NOTE C (page 102). 
 
 Dean Milman, in the Preface to the Third Edition of his 
 History of the Jeivs, writes as follows : — " I must acknowledge, 
 as regards the modem German school of criticism, profane 
 as well as sacred, that my difficulty is more often with their 
 dogmatism than with their daring criticism. If they destroy 
 dominant theories they rarely do not endeavour to compensate 
 for this by constructing theories of their own — I must say 
 in general, on the most arbitrary conjecture — and assert these 
 conjectm^es with as much certitude, and even intolerance — 
 
 is that it fits the soul as well as a Chubb's key fits the lock it was made for, . . ." 
 " About myself I have lots to be thankful for. I am mostly in the light, sometimes 
 very sweetly. Sometimes, though, it is cold and dark ; but I just hold on, and it is 
 all right. Rom. 8 I find good reading in dull spiritxml weather, and the Psalms 
 too are useful. When I feel I cannot make headway in devotion, I open at the 
 Psalms and push out in my canoe, and let myself be carried along in the stream of 
 devotion which flows through the whole book. The current always sets towards 
 God, and in most places is strong and deep." 
 * Is. 55. 10, 11. 
 
APPENDIX. 239 
 
 contemptuous intolerance — as the most orthodox and con- 
 servative wi'iters." After paying a tribute to Ewald's learn- 
 ing, industry, and acumen, and lamenting the "dogmatism," 
 "contemptuous arrogance," and "autocracy" with which it 
 was allied, he goes on to admit that inquiry into the age 
 and composition of the Hebrew records is a legitimate subject 
 of inquiry. He admits, too, that there may be occasionally 
 " discernible marks and signs of diiference in age and author- 
 ship." "But," he adds, in words that deserve to be re- 
 membered, "that any critical microscope in the nineteenth 
 century can be so exquisite and so powerful as to dissect the 
 whole with perfect nicety, to decompose it, and to assign each 
 separate paragraph to its separate origin in three, four, or 
 five, or more, independent documents, each of which has con- 
 tributed its part — this seems to me a task which no mastery 
 of the Hebrew language, with all its kindred tongues, no 
 discernment, however fine and discriminating, can achieve." 
 
 Professor Jebb, in his Introduction to Homer, deals as follows 
 with the destructive criticism in regard to the Homeric poems : 
 " Thus, while the primary Iliad was Thessalian, the enlarged 
 Iliad would have been known, from a high antiquity, as Ionian. 
 In books II. to vii. (excluding the catalogue) at least two poets 
 have wi'ought. In book iii. it is proposed to decide the war 
 by a combat of two heroes, which takes place, but is indecisive : 
 book vii. repeats the incident, only with different persons. 
 Both episodes cannot be due to the same hand, and that in 
 book vii. is probably the original. Can the earlier poet of these 
 books be the original poet of the primary Iliad, working under 
 the influence of a new home in Ionia ? It is possible ; and the 
 possibility must be estimated from an ancient point of view : 
 the ancient epic poet composed with a view to recitation ; only 
 limited portions of his work could be heard at a time ; and he 
 would feel free to add new episodes, so long as they did not 
 
240 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 mar his general design. But, though possible, it seems very 
 improbable if the primary Iliad were indeed a product of 
 Northern Grreece. A poet who had migrated thence would 
 have been unlikely to shew such sympathy with. Ionian life 
 and tradition as can be traced in the allusions and persons 
 of these books. 
 
 " With regard to books xii. to XV., many features of their 
 economy, as well as the pervading style and spirit, seem to 
 warrant the opinion that their author or authors, though highly 
 gifted, had no hand in the primary Iliad. Whether he, or they, 
 bore any part in the composition of books ii. to vii., there is 
 nothing to shew. Judging by the evidence of style and tone, 
 I should say probably not. We have seen that books viii. and 
 IX. may be assigned to a distinct author, who probably com- 
 posed also the older parts of xxiv., and perhaps of xxiii. 
 
 "If, however, the primary Iliad is rightly ascribed to one 
 poet, the attempt to define the partnership of different hands 
 in the enlargement has only a diminished interest ; as it can 
 have, at best, only a very indecisive result. However eminent 
 were the gifts of the enlargers, it is to the poet of the primary 
 Iliad, if to any one, that the name of Homer belongs, so far as . 
 that epic is concerned. It seems vain to conjecture what rela- 
 tions existed between this first poet and the enlargers of his 
 work. There is no real evidence for a clan or guild of 
 ' Homeridae,' whom many critics (including Dr. Christ) have 
 conceived as poets standing in some peculiarly near relationship 
 to Homer, and as in a manner the direct inheritors of his 
 art, in contradistinction to later and alien poets, or rhapsodes, 
 who also contributed to the Iliad. As to the original 
 'rhapsodies,' or cantos, in which the poem was composed, 
 every attempt to determine their precise limits is (in my belief) 
 foredoomed to failure. In some particular instances the result 
 may be accurate, or nearly so. But a complete dissection of 
 
APPENDIX. 241 
 
 the Iliad into cantos must always be largely guess-work." — 
 Page 169. 
 
 Again, in p. 133, he says, in regard to German theories on 
 the Nihelungenlied : " As the Homeric poems give an artistic 
 form to older legends, so the German romantic epic is only the 
 final shape of a Teutonic saga which had appeared in many 
 earlier forms. So far, Lachmann's view (1816) was plausible, 
 that it had been put together about 1210 a.d. from twenty old 
 ballads. But the view now generally received is that of 
 Prof. K. Bartsch. The Nihelungenlied was written by one man 
 about 1140 — the lines ending in assonances, not in rhymes. 
 About 1170 another poet partially introduced rhyme instead of 
 assonance : and between 1190 and 1200 this process was com- 
 pleted, in two distinct recensions by two different hands. One 
 of these has preserved the original form more closely than the 
 other." 
 
 His final summary of results is as follows : — 
 " In the foregoing pages the endeavour has been to present 
 a connected view of the probabilities concerning the Homeric 
 question, as they appear to me. That view diffei*s, as a whole, 
 from any which (so far as I know) has yet been stated, but 
 harmonises several elements which have been regarded as 
 essential by others. Care has been taken to distinguish at 
 each step (as far as possible) between what is reasonably 
 certain and what is only a matter of conjecture, recommended 
 by a greater or less degree of likelihood. The limits within 
 which any definite solution of the Homeric problem is pos- 
 sible have been more clearly marked — as we have seen — by 
 the labours of successive scholars ;. and, with regard to these 
 general limits, there is now comparatively little divergence of 
 opinion. But the details of a question in which the indi- 
 vidual literary sense has so large a scope must continue to 
 wear different aspects for different minds. There is little 
 
 Q 
 
24^ PBINCIFLE8 OF BIBLICAL CEITICI8M. 
 
 prospect of any general agreement as to what is exactly the 
 best mode of co-ordinating the generally accepted facts or 
 probabilities. Where certainty is rynattainable, caution might 
 prescribe a merely negative attitude ; but an explicit hypo- 
 thesis, duly guarded, has at least the advantage of providing 
 a basis for discussion. The reader is induced to consider 
 how far he agrees, or dissents, and so to think for himself. 
 It is possible that the progress of Homeric study may yet 
 throw some further light on matters which are now obscure. 
 The best hope of such a gain depends on the continued 
 examination of the Homeric text itself, in regard to contents, 
 language, and style." 
 
 It will be observed that with regard to the larger indications 
 of compilation, Professor Jebb's view of the Iliad might fairly 
 be quoted in favour of a theory of such compilation in the 
 case of the Pentateuch. But in his capacity of literary critic 
 he pronounces strongly against the kind of criticism which 
 professes to be able to disentangle with certainty a portion 
 of the composition from the rest in the manner in which the 
 Priestly Code is supposed to be detennined, while arguments 
 of the kind referred to in p. 117, based on the contents of 
 the documents supposed to have been thus separated, would 
 be regarded by him as quite inadmissible. 
 
 One more authority may be quoted. Mr. Henry Morley, 
 in his English Writers, I. 347, writes as follows, speaking 
 of the German critic Miillenhoff : — " He is the author also of 
 the boldest attempt at a literary criticism that shall resolve 
 the authorship of the work into various constituent elements. 
 There is a delusive air of accuracy in this kind of criticism 
 that has helped to bring it into favour. Courage is all that 
 is wanted to make anyone great as an analyst in the new specu- 
 lative chemistry applied to books. There are two separate 
 main stories in Beowulf ..... the fight with Grendel and 
 
the Dragon. Say then they were originally separate. That 
 is the first piece of discrimination. In the Grendel story 
 they are two parts .... Say they were originally separate : 
 that is a second piece of discrimination. Now look to 
 the poem and fix Imes of demarcation. The fii-st old song, 
 say, of the fight with Grendel, extends from line 194-836 — 
 call that (I.). Somebody added to (I.) the lines from 837- 
 1628, the second old song— call that (II.). As the introduction 
 is not part of the direct story Grendel, and now lies outside 
 the analysis, say that somebody added that. As there is con- 
 necting matter between the Grendel story (1) and the Dragon 
 story (2) ascribe that to somebody else, and call him Eevisor A. 
 Say that he put poetical touches to the whole .... Ascribe 
 to him conspicuous little passages here and there, always know- 
 ing precisely to a line or word where a touch of Interpolator A 
 is to be found, since nobody has any du-ect evidence to prove 
 you wrong. There remains then the Dragon story (II.) ; give 
 this to another man whom you call Interpolator B. He revises 
 everything that has been done before, is the monk who puts in 
 the Christian touches, edits the whole vigorously (shew exactly 
 where and how, never doubt that you know all about it), and 
 he mtroduces the little historical episodes. This describes, 
 exactly enough, the theory of Karl Mtillenhoff, one of the 
 ablest .... and may serve as a key to the last new method 
 of criticism in our earliest literature. The method is not of 
 itself so exceptionable as the delusive air of exactness with 
 which it is applied. This gives to mere guesses an air of 
 positiveness mifavom-able to the growth of that sound critical 
 judgment which never forgets the boundaries between known, 
 probable, and possible." 
 
 The following extracts are from a valuable paper in the 
 Indian Church Quarterly Review, by J. D. Tremlett, M.A., late 
 Judge of the Chief Court, Punjab : '' The acceptance of the 
 
 Q 2 
 
2U PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM-. 
 
 Pentateuch by the Samaritans also tells strongly against the 
 theory of its being a work only brought into its present shape in, 
 or after, the Exile ; for from the days of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 onwards the enmity between the two peoples was such that 
 the Samaritans, we may feel assured, would have been most 
 unlikely to have accepted as genuine a work which, when the 
 enmity sprang up, was as yet incomplete. Owing to the loss 
 of nearly all other Jewish writings anterior to the Christian 
 era, in great part due doubtless to the way in which, after 
 the return from Babylon, the Sacred Writings engrossed the 
 regard and veneration of the learned classes of the nation, 
 we have by no means that ample external evidence to the 
 ©anon, which we might perhaps desire ; but if the Deut- 
 eronomist and Priester Codex theories and the like had a 
 shadow of foundation in fact, it is, to say the least, unlikely 
 that all traces of it should have vanished so completely from 
 the horizon of the writers of the Samaritan Text, of the 
 Septuagint, and of the son of Sirach, or of Josephus. The 
 right view, therefore, to take of the external evidence is that 
 the authenticity of the Old Testament books, which the 
 "Higher Criticism" impugns, was unquestioned as far back 
 as the knowledge of the son of Sirach and of the translation 
 of the Septuagint extended, and that no tradition or rumour 
 survived of the manufacture of the Law in its existing form, 
 in exilic or early post-exilic days ; and that consequently very 
 strong internal proof is needed to justify any cautious mind in 
 believing that the whole Jewish nation, not merely those in 
 Palestme, but those scattered abroad throughout Western Asia 
 and the Levant,* should all have been deceived as to the very 
 recent date of what they, without a dissentient voice, received 
 
 * Note bt Author. I have recently seen a communication from the Jews of 
 Yemen, in Arabia, to those of Jerusalem, in which the former state that their 
 ancestors never returned to Judsea after the Captivity. Yet their version of the 
 Scriptures is precisely identical with that of their brethren.. 
 
APPENDIX. 2i5 
 
 as the production of the Mosaic epoch. It is quite useless to 
 urge that this was a pre-scientific age. Possibly the art of 
 attracting attention by boldly claiming to reverse the accepted 
 belief of ages had then not been struck out ; but the question 
 really is whether the religious teachers of a nation, who were 
 in possession of a literature, would suddenly accept as a work 
 of one of their heroes, who had lived about a thousand years 
 earlier, a book composed of extracts from two existing histories, 
 each of which must have been in existence some four hmidred 
 years, imbedded in a new work wi'itten to give a sanction to 
 recent and modem usages, although not an allusion to this 
 most astonishing of all literary miracles is to be found any- 
 where ? "—Pp. 502, 503. 
 
 "The next step towards the creation of the Law is placed 
 in, or about, the time of Manasseh, when a fourth Unknown 
 composed the work, or a large part of the work, known as 
 Deuteronomy ; and in thus framing discourses appropriate to 
 Moses' situation, we are informed he did " nothing inconsistent 
 with the literary usages of his age and people." We have 
 already shown, by suggesting a parallel instance from modem 
 life, what a very lax standard of honesty the Hebrews must 
 have had if this were so. The reader will perhaps hear with 
 satisfaction that although the speeches, with their constant 
 reference to what God had spoken to Moses, are thus evolved 
 out of the imagination of some Jew towards the close of the 
 monarchy, and therefore are about as deserving of being 
 regarded as God's words, as the talk of the Black Knight 
 in Ivanhoe is that of the historic Richard Coeur de Lion, it 
 is altogether a false view of the laws to regard th^m as 'the 
 author's inventions." — Pp. 505, 506. 
 
 "The best way to test the soundness of such an argument 
 as that we are now considering, is to see whether it will hold 
 firood in instances where the facts are known. Let us take 
 
246 PBINCIPLE8 OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 tlie famous passage in Chapter xxviii. of Gibbon's Decline and 
 Fall, in which the writer depicts the state of public worship 
 in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian era, where he 
 describes how a Tertullian or a Lactantius, if raised from the 
 dead and allowed to take part at the festival of some popular 
 saint or mai-tjr, would have gazed with astonishment and 
 indignation on the profane spectacle which had succeeded to 
 the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation, 
 at the smoke of the incense, the perfume of flowers, and the 
 glare of lamps and tapers, at the prostrate crowd of pilgrims 
 before the balustrade of the altar imprinting kisses on the walls 
 and pavements of the sacred edifice, the walls of which were 
 hung round with symbols of the favours which the worshippers 
 believed they had received from their martyr patrons. Now it 
 would be more reasonable to infer that the fourth Gospel, with 
 its repeated assertions that the woi-ship God requires was to be 
 a spiritual one, could not have been in existence when Christian 
 Churches exhibited this meretricious parody of Christian de- 
 votion, and Christian Bishops approved and upheld it, than 
 to conclude that the Levitical Law was not given because the 
 practice of Israel in the days of the Judges in many things 
 departed from it : and yet, unfortunately for Dr. Driver's 
 theory, the Gospel of St. John was extant and acknowledged 
 to be binding on Christians. But we need' not go back to the 
 corrupt Christianity of the dark ages : the state of society now 
 existing among the Pathan tribes on the north-west frontier of 
 British India, the Afridis, Waziris, and- others, and among the 
 half nomadic, half stationary tribes of central Arabia, is won- 
 derfully like that of Israel in the days of the Judges ; and 
 it would be as reasonable to gather from their lax and irregular 
 observation of Mahom m adanism that large parts of the Koran 
 and Hadis are not genuine as to make that inference in regard 
 to the Pentateuch."— P. 517. 
 
APFENDIX. 247 
 
 These words, coming from one who is not onlj well aocns- 
 tomed to weigh evidence, but who has a wide acquaintance 
 with history and of mankind under the most various conditions 
 of language, race, and religion, are deserving of deep attention. 
 In fact the whole article will abundantly repay a perusal. It 
 contains some serious misprints, but no one who has had 
 experience of the native compositor in India would for a 
 moment think of making the author responsible for them. 
 
 Books are now appearing rapidly one after another which 
 deal with these questions ably, and on the whole in a con- 
 servative spirit. Such are the volume of the Bishop of Bath 
 and Wells on Chronicles, Boole ly Booh, a series of studies on 
 the Canon by the Bishops of Ripon and Worcester, Professors 
 James Robertson, Sanday, Dr. A. B. Davidson, Dr. Salmon, 
 Archdeacon Farrar, and others, and Mr. Spencer's unequal but 
 most suggestive volume — Did Moses ivrite the Pentateuch 
 after all? 
 
 NOTE D (Page 123). 
 The aspect of questions connected with Jewish history changes 
 almost day by day. It was only last month [these words were 
 ^vritten in November 1892] that it was reported that aChaldsean 
 account of the Fall had been recovered. And Professor Sayce's 
 paper, an abstract of which is given below, came into the 
 present writer's hands after the note on p. 62 was ^vritten. 
 It will be seen that the historical accuracy of Genesis 14 is 
 verified to the letter ; and, so far, the theory in regard to the 
 supposed sources of the Pentateuch has been proved to be 
 false, and another illustration given of the untiiistworthiness 
 of the " results " which have been represented as " ascertained." 
 
-248 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 
 
 The following abstract of Professor Sayce's paper is extracted 
 from the Thinker of November 1892 : — 
 
 " Melchisedek. — In the Expository Times for October there 
 is a most interesting and valuable article by Professor Sayce on 
 some of the recent discoveries of Oriental archaeology, as bearing 
 upon the narrative in Genesis 14. One of the results of these 
 discoveries has been to establish the strictly historical character 
 of the account of Chedorlaomer and his allies against Palestine, 
 which had been hastily decided by some critics to be a 
 projection into the distant part of the western campaigns of the 
 Assyrian kings. The account of Melchisedek, king of Salem, 
 which the critics were unanimous in pronouncing to be mythi- 
 cal, has also received an unexpected confirmation from the 
 same source. The new light has come from the decipherment 
 of the Tel-el- Amarna tablets, to which several references have 
 been made in these pages. * Among the correspondents of the 
 Egyptian Pharaohs, whose letters have been found at Tel-el- 
 Amarna, is a veritable successor of the priest-king Melchisedek. 
 Ebed-Tob, the king of Uru-Salim, or Jerusalem, was indeed a 
 vassal of Egypt ; but he was a vassal who boasts that, unlike 
 the other Egyptian governors in Canaan, he did not owe his 
 position to the Egyptian monarch, nor was his royal dignity 
 inherited ; it was neither his father, nor his mother, but an 
 oracle of God — "the mighty King" — whom he worshipped, 
 that had conferred it upon him. This God bore the name of 
 Salim, the God of "peace." The royal priest, accordingly, who 
 ruled in Uru-Salim, " the city of Salim," might be called " the 
 king of Salim" with even more truth than "king of Jeru- 
 salem." Like the descendant of David whom Isaiah beheld 
 in prophetic vision (7. 6), he was a " Prince of Peace." 
 Here, then, we have an explanation of the meeting between 
 Melchisedek and " Abram the Hebrew." Abram had defeated 
 the invading host which had come from the banks of the 
 
APPENDIX, 249 
 
 Euphrates, and he had driven the conqueror from the soil of 
 Canaan. He had restored peace to a country of which, as the 
 Tel-el-Amama tablets assure us, Jerusalem was already an 
 important capital and a sacred sanctuary. Its king, the priest 
 of the God of Peace, actually went forth to greet him on his 
 retm-n from the overthrow of the foreigner, and to bless him in 
 the name of the Deity whose priest he was. It was equally 
 natural that Abram should dedicate a portion of the spoils he 
 had won to a GoD in whose presence wars and enmities had an 
 end. But the description given of himself by Ebed-Tob, in 
 his letters to the Egyptian monarch, also explains the sudden- 
 ness, as it were, with which Melchisedek is introduced upon 
 the scene. His father is unmentioned. As the author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews says (7. 3), he comes before us "with- 
 out father, without mother, without descent." Like Ebed-Tob, 
 it was not from his father or his mother that he inherited his 
 royal office — he had been appointed to it by the Deity whom 
 he worshipped, and he was king because he was also priest.' 
 Professor Sayce gives reasons for believing that the account of 
 Chedorlaomer's campaign has been derived from a cuneiform 
 document, and that of Melchisedek from a written Canaanitish 
 source. * The letters written by Ebed-Tob make it clear that 
 there were books and archives, readers and writers, in Jeru- 
 salem before the time of Exodus, and we have no reason for 
 thinking that the clay books were destroyed, or the literary 
 continuity of the city interrupted. Jerusalem was never over- 
 thrown by the Israelites, and when it was at last captured by 
 David, its own population was allowed to remain undisturbed 
 (Josh. 15. 63 ; Judg. 1. 21 ; 2 Sam. 24. 18, 23). Why, then, 
 may we not believe that its ancient annals were still accessible 
 when the materials of the Book of Oenesis were compiled, and 
 that not in the case of Jerusalem only, but also in that of 
 other Canaanitish cities, the Biblical ^vTiter or writers had 
 
250 PBINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 ancient documentary anthority for the history which has been 
 handed down ? ' " 
 
 Professor Sayce, however, seems to. have forgotten that in 
 Judg. 1. 8, the Israelites are said to have taken and burnt 
 Jerusalem, though they afterwards failed to hold it. 
 
 The following extract is from Mr. Fitch's Lectures on 
 TeacMng * : — " Has it ever occurred to you to ask how it 
 is that so many of us have a much clearer knowledge of the 
 history of the Jews than of our own annals ? Is it not 
 because the Bible is in one respect the model of all history ? 
 Look at it without reference to its higher claims, simply as a 
 piece of narrative. Consider how it is that it conveys to its 
 readers so clear and full a knowledge of Jewish history during 
 many centuries. There is, for example, a period of about one 
 thousand years, from Abraham to Rehoboam, and how is the 
 history of the time told ? We have first the story of the 
 patriarch's personal career. We are led to understand his 
 character and his motives ; we see him as the centre of a scene 
 in which pastoral life is attractively portrayed, and which 
 affords us glimpses of the patriarchal government, of life and 
 manners, and of the social and domestic conditions of the time. 
 In like manner we see Isaac and Jacob with their families and 
 their environments ; and then the narrative, disdainmg to go 
 into details about lesser matters, expands into a copious bio- 
 graphy of Joseph, whose personal history and fortunes make 
 us incidentally acquainted with the state of Egypt, its govern- 
 ment, its political economy, and many facts of great interest, 
 which had they been tabulated in a book of outlines, we should 
 not have cared to learn. The history then passes over a long 
 uneventful period of nearly 400 years with scarcely a sentence, 
 and again becomes full and graphic about the Exodus and 
 the journey in the wilderness, investing even the details of 
 
 * Published at Cambridge in 1890. 
 
appendix: 251 
 
 liegislation with a special interest, by connecting them with the 
 person and character and the private life of the lawgiver Moses. 
 And thus the story is continued, sometimes passing over a long 
 interval of inaction or obscurity with a few words of generaJ 
 description, or a list of names; but fastening here and there 
 on the name of Joshua, of Gideon, of Samuel, of Saul, or of 
 David, and narrating the history of the time in connection 
 with the circumstances of his life. Who does not see that 
 such a narrative precisely coiTesponds to the real picture of a 
 nation's history ? In the life of a people there are always 
 great epochs of change and activity occun-ing at irregular 
 intervals, and so marked and characteristic, that if they be 
 once undei-stood, all the lesser details and the intermediate 
 events become intelligible through thek means. Moreover the 
 scriptural story of the people of Israel curiously resembles the 
 actual knowledge which even the most a.ccomplished historical 
 scholar possesses. That it is adapted to the needs and con- 
 ditions of the human understanding will be evident to any 
 one who will take the trouble to recall his own experience, and 
 will remember how he has secm-ed one after another certain 
 fixed points of interest, has grouped round them little by little 
 the facts which he has subsequently acquired, filled up the 
 intervals of time between them by slow degrees, but to the 
 last has continued to retain his hold on these fixed points, 
 and to refer every new acquisition to some one or other of 
 them." 
 
 NOTE E (Page 69). 
 For the Davidic origin of many of the earliest Psalms see an 
 able review of Professor Cheyne's Bampton Lectures in the 
 Church Quarterly Review for October 1892. Professor Baethgen, 
 
252 PUmCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 
 
 too, in Germany, a commentator as much opposed to the 
 traditional view as Professor Cheyne himself, differs materially 
 from him on the question of the authorship and date of the 
 Psalms. Mr. Shai*pe's monograph on Ps. 110 should also be con- 
 sulted. It is only when such paradoxes as those put forward 
 by the critical school come before us as positive propositions 
 that their naked absurdity becomes manifest. It is well for 
 the traditional view that it has not to sustain such remarkable 
 propositions as that the pious Jews, unquestionably, by that time 
 at least, traiued in the morality and religion taught by the Old 
 Testament as a whole, solenmly included in their catalogue of 
 hymns addi-essed to Him Whose name they dare not pronounce 
 an epithalamium addressed to a monarch stained with the vices 
 of a Ptolemy Epiphanes, or that they were so filled with 
 patriotic fervour on their appoiatment of Simon the Maccabee 
 to the high priesthood that they hailed him as "my Lord," 
 imagined him to be elevated to Jehovah's right hand, and 
 saluted him as an " high priest for ever," not after the order of 
 Aaron, but " after the order of Melchizedek." * Which is the 
 more probable, that David, inspired by the Holy Ghost, composed 
 a Psalm which referred prophetically to Christ, and Him alone, 
 or that the Maccabean Jews, so tenacious of theii* religious 
 institutions, so confident of the Divine origin of those institu- 
 tions, should have inserted in their book of God's praises an ode, 
 addressed to one who, strictly speaking, was an intruder into 
 their sacred High Priesthood, and under the patronage of a 
 stranger to their race and faith ? Such theories as these are 
 practically destructive of the moral and spiritual value of the 
 Old Testament. And though, of course, the consideration may 
 
 * It may be observed that Josephvis, to use a favourite phrase of the new 
 criticism, " knows nothing " of this supposed extraordinary outburst of political and 
 religious enthusiasm. It is a wonder that Simon the son of Onias, whose praises 
 are so enthusiastically sung by Jesus the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 50), has not been 
 selected instead of Simon the Maccabee as the hero of Ps. 110. 
 
APPENDIX,. 253 
 
 be described as a sentimental one, it is obvious how much we 
 lose, in dealing with the lay mind, by conceding that the Psalms 
 were not, to a considerable extent, the work of a warrior and 
 a statesman, but confined entirely to the priestly caste. 
 
 NOTE F (Page 78). 
 There appears to be some doubt whether we have the actual 
 text of the Septuagint or not in the fragment of Origen's 
 Tetrapla, which was published by Cardinal Chigi in 1722. 
 The whole question of the early vei-sions of Daniel appears 
 to be involved in some obscurity. See Salmon, Litroduction 
 to the New Testament, pp. 590, sqq. As to the assertion that 
 Greek names of musical instruments are found in Daniel, and 
 that this proves the book to be of later origin, Mr. Flinders 
 Petrie's excavations in Egypt shew that long before the Exile 
 Greeks and Jews must have come into contact at Tahpanhes, 
 and that " the Greek names of musical instruments may have 
 been heard in the courts of Solomon's Temple" {Ten Years 
 Digging in Egiji^t, p. 54). So many of the impossibilities of 
 criticism have turned out to be the facts of history, that it 
 were well to pause before admitting the force of any argument 
 built on what is after all the basis of our (often very profound) 
 ignorance of the conditions of life in early times. 
 
 NOTE G (Page 142). 
 
 There has been no attempt in Chap. vi. to deal with the 
 question of non-Messianic prophecy. But no one can read such 
 a book as Porter's Giant Cities of Bashan without seeing that 
 the prophecies of events of a more ordinary character contained 
 
254 PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL CBITICISM. 
 
 in the Old Testament cannot be explained on tlie theory that 
 the prophets were simply men possessing unusual political 
 sagacity. The prophecies that the region described by Mr. Porter 
 should be desolate were not fulfilled until some time after the 
 establishment of the Roman Empire, that is, from eight hundred 
 to a thousand years after they were uttered. At the time of 
 their utterance, then, there was not the slightest ground for 
 supposing that they would ever come true. And yet they have 
 been fulfilled to the letter. There is something more in this 
 than mere coincidence. 
 
 NOTE H (Page 223). 
 
 Exception has been taken to this statement as somewhat 
 too strong. It is true that other meanings have been assigned 
 to Yahweh. But in favour of the interpretation in the text there 
 are the four strong reasons following : — 1. Hawah is kindred 
 to hayah, and the former is occasionally found for the latter 
 in poetic Hebrew ; 2. Hayah and haivah have the sense to 
 live, to exist; 3. It is unquestionable that the Jews <^»^ regard 
 their Jehovah as an eternally existing being ; and, 4, this 
 meaning seems distinctly attached to the word in Exod. 3. 14. 
 
( 255 ) 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Aaron " introduced into the 
 
 narrative of the Exodus " - 92 
 Abbott, Dr. - - - - 199 
 Aben-Ezra - - - 54, 55 
 Abraham, "a free creation of 
 
 unconscious art" - 92, 129 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, why 
 
 written - - - - 191 
 Adams, Professor - - - 1-69 
 Adultery, genuineness of the 
 narrative of the woman 
 _^ taken in - - - 174, 176 
 A Kempis - - - - 230 
 Aldine Edition of N. T. - - 164 
 Alford, Dean - 170, 193, 194 
 
 Ambrose - - - - 172 
 Amos - - - - 78, 126 
 Analytic methods, not incap- 
 able of arriving at facts - 169 
 Anselm - - - - 230 
 
 Antilegomena - 18, 20, 23 
 
 Apocalypse, style of - 204-206 
 
 of Peter - - - 205 
 
 Apocrypha, acceptance of by 
 Council of Trent - 8, 22 
 
 by the Eastern Church - ib. 
 
 view taken of by Jews 
 
 and Reformed Churches 11, 22 
 
 Canonicity of 
 
 Apocryphal books of 
 
 Christian era - 18, 
 Apostolical Constitutions 
 Aquila _ _ _ 
 Aquinas _ ^ _ 
 Aristeas _ - _ 
 Aristobulus - - - 
 Arnold, Dr. - - _ 
 Mr. Matthew 
 
 227, 
 the 
 205, 
 
 228 
 
 209 
 176 
 26 
 45 
 25 
 25 
 39 
 186 
 
 Asherah 
 Astruc - 
 Athanasius 
 Augustine 
 
 PAGE 
 
 - 101 
 
 55, 56 
 
 17, 44, 173 
 
 17, 44,231 
 
 Baethgen, Professor - - 251 
 Bahr ----- 97 
 Barnabas, Epistle of - 14,18 
 Barnes, Rev. W. E. - - 72 
 
 Bartsch - - - - 241 
 
 Basilides - - - - 189 
 Baudissin, Count - - - 59 
 Baur -79,182,183,188,191-193 
 Bede - - - - . - 230 
 Bengel ----- 165 
 Bentley - - - 165, 177 
 
 Beowulf - - - - 242 
 Bernard - - - - 230 
 
 Bible, characteristics of the 
 contents of 37, 52, 229-237 
 
 See also Scriptures. 
 Bleek - - - - 57, 143 
 Bonghi, Signor - _ - 235 
 Bretschneider - - - 188 
 
 Briggs, Professor - - - 48 
 Browne, Bishop Harold - 32, 42 
 Buhl, Dr. 
 
 11, 12,24,25, 26,27,28,29,30 
 Burgon, Dean - - 42, 168 
 
 Burns, Robert - - - 234 
 
 Caius - - - - 17, 203 
 Calvin ----- 46 
 Canon, Jewish, formed by a 
 
 process of selection - - 66 
 Carthage, Third Council of 17, 228 
 
256 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cerintlius - - - - 203 
 Chedorlaomer - - - 247 
 Chethibh - - - 29, 36 
 Cheyne, Professor 
 
 40,69,68,72,95,143 
 Chigi, Cardinal, his Text of 
 
 Daniel - - - - 252 
 Christ, Q-enuine Humanity of 189 
 — *— mission of - - - 224 
 might be expected to 
 
 understand His own Work - ib. 
 Christian attitude towards the 
 
 Bible - - - - 212 
 
 Christianity, Aims at the Sancti- 
 
 fication of the individual - 158 
 
 Involves the Supernatural 216 
 
 Chronicles - - - 65, 66 
 Chrysostom - - - - 47 
 Church, did not draw up a List 
 
 of the Books of the Bible 
 
 78, 208, 209 
 Infallibility on all points 
 
 not promised to - - 7 
 Churton, Canon - - - 25 
 Clark, William, of Oxford - 231 
 Clement of Kome - - 13,18 
 his acquaintance with the 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 of Alexandria 
 
 Clementine Homilies 
 — — Recognitions 
 Codes, the Three 127, 
 
 Codex Alexandrinus 
 
 Bezge - - - _ 
 
 Ephraemi - - _ 
 
 Sinaiticus - - _ 
 
 Vaticanus - _ _ 
 
 Coincidence, Prophecy not to 
 
 be accounted for as - 
 Coleridge - - - 39, 
 Colet - - - - 47, 
 Complutensian Edition of N. T. 
 Confessions of Faith, Reformed 
 Conflate Readings - - 170, 
 Conjectural Emendation, how 
 
 far to be encouraged - 
 Contradictions in Scripture, 
 
 sometimes manufactured 100, 101 
 Controversy,Theological,method. 
 
 of conducting - - - 32 
 Cook, Canon - - - - 168 
 
 25, 
 
 195 
 
 190 
 
 - 183 
 
 - ib. 
 133, 154 
 161, 162 
 
 - ih. 
 
 - ib. 
 
 - ih. 
 
 - ib. 
 
 140 
 234 
 230 
 164 
 47 
 172 
 
 177 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cooke, Rev. G. A. - - 91, 114 
 Cornill, Dr. - - - - 96 
 Cotton, Bishop - - - 42 
 Council of Nicaea - - - 8 
 
 of Constantinople I. - ib. 
 
 of Constantinople II. - 6, 8 
 
 of Laodicea - - 8, 17 
 
 Covenant, the New, Prophesied 138 
 Cowper, Mr. B. Harris - - 209 
 Criticism, Higher and Lower - 1 
 
 uses of - - - - 2 
 
 authority of in regard to 
 
 Scripture - - - - 21 
 
 function of in dealing with 
 
 Scripture - - - 22, 206 
 — — English School of 
 
 86, 92, 93, 106 
 
 German, Characteristics of 
 
 93, 104, 106, 108, 110,238 
 
 — uncertain historical 
 
 results of - - 89, 90, 154 
 
 effects of in Germany 216 
 
 breaks down on im- 
 portant points - - - 120 
 
 Historical, how usually 
 
 conducted - - - 124, 125 
 
 ethical tendencies of - 128 
 
 considered as a branch of 
 
 Christian Evidence - - 212 
 
 unusual methods of 
 
 110,124, 125,218,219, 220 
 
 modern, Objections to - 225 
 
 amount of certainty to be 
 
 attained through - 79, 103 
 
 of N. T., Canons of - l7l 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, his " Iron- 
 sides " - - - - 233 
 Cyril of Jerusalem - - 1 7 
 
 Cyrillus Lucaris - - - 162 
 
 Dalaber - - - - 231 
 
 Daniel - - - - 76-78 
 
 an historical personage - 76 
 
 prophecies of - - 77, 140 
 
 different Texts of 107, 121, 252 
 
 ' Greek words found in 142, 253 
 
 David, typical use of his name - 137 
 
 declared not to have 
 
 written any of the Psalms - 143 
 — — Psalms ascribed to him - 130 
 
INDEX. 
 
 257 
 
 PAGE 
 
 David,coincidence of the Psalter 
 with History as to his 
 character - - -151, 152 
 
 traditional author of the 
 
 Psalter - - - 150, 219 
 Davidson, Dr. S. 
 
 26,30,58,70,74,75,78,81 
 
 Dr. A. B. - - - 67 
 
 Decius - - . _ 229 
 
 Delitzsch - - - 57, 141 
 Demetrius Phalereus - - 25 
 Deuteronomy, discrepancies be- 
 tween the Priestly Code and 96 
 
 addressed to the Laity - 97 
 
 origin of 60, 100, 111, 113 
 
 some portions of, attri- 
 buted to Moses - - - 85 
 Deuteronomic Edition of the 
 
 Jewish History - 64, 65, 89, 111 
 Development, Historical or 
 
 Critical - - 93, 157, 22S 
 DeWette 57,65,73.81,192,194 
 Dillmann - - 58, 59, 63, 98 
 Diocletian - _ - _ 229 
 Diognetus, Epistle to - - 15 
 Dionysius of Alexandria - 203-4 
 Diotrephes - - - _ 202 
 Driver, Professor 
 
 10, 11, 27, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 
 66, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81, 86, 87, 89. 
 90, 93,96, 99,101, 104, 106, 107, 
 109, 111, 117, 133, 215, 221,246 
 
 Ebionites - - _ ' _ 184 
 Ecclesiastes - - - - 70 
 Ecclesiasticus, author of - 10 
 
 Edersheim, Dr. - - - 12 
 Eichhorn - - 56, 81, 194 
 Ellicott, Bishop - - 42, 131 
 Elohist, the 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 95, 223 
 Elzevirs, the - - - 165 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the, 
 
 whether rightly so called - 192 
 Epiphanius - - - 25, 44 
 Erasmus - - - - 164 
 Essays and Fc views - - 31 
 
 Esther - - - - 66 
 
 Eugenius of Carthage - - 172 
 Eusebius 18, 44, 162, 170, 196, 197 
 Evanson - - - - 187 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ewald 57, 72, 73, 79, 97. 98, 143,239 
 Ezekiel - - - - 75 
 
 Ezra - - - - - 66 
 
 Farrar, Archdeacon 42, 195, 196 
 Fathers, views of, on Inspira- 
 tion - - - - 42-45 
 
 value of their testimony 
 
 to disputed readings - - 163 
 Fitch, Dr. - - - - 249 
 Folkestone Congress - - 229 
 Freeman, Professor 87, 98, 124 
 
 Geddes, Dr. - - - - 56 
 Grentiles,Covenant to be extend- 
 ed to the - - - - 139 
 Gesenius - - - 73, 81 
 Gieseler - - - - 22 
 
 Gilman, James _ - _ 237 
 Girdlestone, Canon - iv, 30 
 
 Gladstone, Et. Hon. W. E. 
 89,91,94,105, 111 
 Goodwin, Bishop Harvey 
 Gore, Eev. C. 
 
 113, 234 
 
 - 42 
 
 - 20 
 
 Gospels, Synoptic, origin of 206-209 
 
 Apocryphal - - - 209 
 
 Graf - - - - 59 
 
 Griesbach - - - - 165 
 Grosseteste - - - - 230 
 Grundschrift 
 
 57,59,61,62,63,69,109,121 
 
 different strata in - 96,107 
 
 theory of abandoned - 121 
 
 Gustavus AdolphuE - - 233 
 
 Habakkuk 
 
 Haggai 
 
 Hagiographa 
 
 Harnack 
 
 Harris, Mr. Rendel 
 
 Hartmann 
 
 Hatherley, Lord 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to 
 
 authorship of - 
 
 Hegel - 
 Hengstenberg 
 Hermas, Pastor of 
 Hexateuch 
 
 15, 1 
 
 - 81 
 
 - 81 
 
 - 10 
 
 - 186 
 6, 162 
 
 - 56 
 
 - 234 
 23, 51 
 
 - 195 
 
 - 180 
 
 - 58 
 8, 197 
 
 - 61 
 
 E 
 
258 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hexateuch, when composed - 219 
 Hilgenfeld - - - - 186 
 Hippolytus - - - - 17 
 Hitzig - - 70, 71, 73, 143 
 
 Hobbes - - - -65 
 
 Hody - - - - 25 
 
 Holzmann - - - 186, 193 
 Hooker - . - 231-233 
 
 Hort, Professor 
 
 167,168,171, 173,211 
 Hosea ----- 78 
 
 Huet 65 
 
 Humanitarian view of Christ - 184 
 Hunnerie - - - - 172 
 Hupfeld - ... 58 
 
 Huxley, Professor - - - 80 
 
 Ignatius - - - - 14 
 
 Hgen 58 
 
 Impartiality, absolute, unat- 
 tainable - - - 155, 212 
 
 not to be predicated only 
 
 of " liberal " thinkers - - 171 
 Innocent I., Pope - - - 22 
 Innocent III. - - - 230 
 
 Inquiry, conditions of an im- 
 partial - - - - 155 
 Inspiration - - . 31-53 
 
 liberal view of - - 31 
 
 lack of first-class Books on 32 
 
 Its relation to inerrancy 
 
 32, 34, 83 
 
 definitions of 33, 39, 40 
 
 mechanical - - 35-37 
 
 dynamical - - 37, 40 
 
 Bishop Wilson's view of - 38 
 
 Coleridge on - 38, 39 
 
 • ■ Schleiermacher on - - 39 
 
 • Teaching of Scripture on 40-42 
 
 of the Fathers on 43-45 
 
 of the Middle Ages on 45 
 
 in theReformationPeriod 46-18 
 
 modern views on - 49-53 
 
 Christian Church com- 
 mitted to no theory of 42, 83 
 
 Professor Wright on - 50 
 
 What is involved in - 83 
 
 What is not involved in - 84 
 
 Irenseus - 15, 43, 169, 175 
 
 Isaiah, Criticism of - - 72 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Isaiah, the second - - - 73 
 
 Ch, 53, of whom spoken 139 
 
 Israel and Judah contrasted - 123 
 Itacism - - 170, 171, 177 
 
 James, Authenticity of his 
 
 Epistle - - - - 197 
 Jebb, Professor - - - 239 
 Jehovah, arrival at idea in- 
 volved in the word 222, 223, 253 
 Jehovist 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 95, 223 
 
 inseparable fromtheElohist 119 
 
 Jeremiah - - - - 74 
 
 supposed to have Written 
 
 Books of Kings - - - 65 
 
 arrangement of his Text - 75 
 
 Jerome - - 17, 45, 169 
 
 Jesus Christ, Limitation of 
 
 human knowledge of - - 131 
 Jewish History, uniqueness of 
 
 114, 126 
 
 fact or fable? - 129, 130 
 
 Job, Book of - - - 67 
 
 Joel - - ... 78 
 John, St., genuineness of his 
 Gospel - - - 187-191 
 
 of his Epistles - 200-202 
 
 Revelation of, its genuine- 
 ness and authenticity - 203-206 
 John the Elder - - - 202 
 Josephus 11, 25, 107, 227, 252 
 Joshua, Book of - - - 64 
 Jude, St., Authenticity of his 
 
 Epistle 
 
 - 200 
 
 Judges, Book of - 
 
 - 64 
 
 Jiilicher 
 
 - 58 
 
 Justin Martyr 15, 
 
 43, 177, 204 
 
 Karlstadt 
 
 - 46 
 
 Kautzseh and Socin 
 
 62, 63 
 
 Keil - - - 
 
 58, 62 
 
 Kennicott 
 
 - 29 
 
 Keri _ - - 
 
 29, 36 
 
 Keshub Chunder Sen 
 
 - 237 
 
 Kleinert 
 
 - 85, 112 
 
 Klostermann - 
 
 - 63 
 
 Knobel 
 
 57, 73, 81 
 
 Koheleth 
 
 - 71 
 
 Koran, composed by Mohammed 4 
 
INDEX. 
 
 259 
 
 Kostlin 
 Kuenen 
 
 PAGE 
 
 - 46, 186 
 - 11, 58, 59, 102 
 
 Lachmann - - - 166, 241 
 Lagarde - - - 27, 28 
 
 Laodicea, Council of 8, 17, 209, 228 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to the - 193 
 Law, whether anterior to the 
 
 Prophets - - - - 127 
 Leathes, Professor Stanley 135, 221 
 Le Clerc - - - -55 
 Lectionaries - - - - 163 
 Lee on Inspiration 32, 38, 43, 45, 229 
 Leverrier - - - - 169 
 Levitical cities, arrangements of 97 
 Lewis, Sir G. C. - - - 124 
 Liddon, Canon - - 184, 190 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, on the 
 genuineness of the Ignatian 
 Epistles - - - - 14 
 
 on the identity of Caius 
 
 and Hippol}i:us - - - 17 
 
 his controversy with the 
 
 author of Supernatural 
 Beligion - - - - 186 
 Luke, St., the "true yokefellow " 
 of the Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians - - - - 196 
 
 Lumby, Professor - - 199,200 
 Luther - - 46, 195, 230 
 
 Lux Mundi - - - 20, 34 
 Lyons and Vienne, Epistle 
 from the Churches of - - 204 
 
 Malachi, etc. - - - 82 
 
 Mark, St., concluding portion 
 
 of Gospel - - - 168, 175 
 
 Masius - - - - 55 
 
 Masorah - - - - 29 
 
 Masorites - - - - 101 
 
 Maurice, Rev. F. D. - - 39 
 
 McClellan, Rev. J. B. - - 168 
 Melchizedek, recent discoveries 
 
 regarding - - - - 247 
 Melito - - - _ 227 
 Micah - - - - 80 
 Michaelis - - - - 58 
 Mill, his Edition of the N. T. - 165 
 Mr. John Stuart - - 186 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Milman, Dean - - - 238 
 Milton, on Reformation in 
 
 England - - - - 233 
 Moller - - - - 56 
 
 Monolatry - - -127, 223 
 Monotheism, Antiquity of 
 
 122, 127, 157, 223 
 Morley, Professor Henry - 242 
 
 Mosaic Law, presupposed by 
 
 the earliest Prophets - - 126 
 MSS., Uncial - - 161-163 
 
 Cursive - - - 163 
 
 Families of - 165,166,168 
 
 Muratori, so-called Canon of - 16 
 Murphy, 3Ir. J. J. - - 190 
 
 Myth, how distinguished from 
 
 legend - - - - 79 
 
 Nahum - - - - 81 
 
 Naturalistic School of Inter- 
 pretation - - - - 180 
 Nehemiah - - - - 66 
 Nestle - - - - 27 
 
 New Testament, attack on 
 Authenticity of repulsed - 2 
 
 no historic or prophetic 
 
 portions of corresponding to 
 those of O.T. - - - 6 
 
 Evidence on behalf of 9, 218 
 
 comparative sobriety of 
 
 Criticism of - - - 104 
 
 Text of - See ch. ix. 
 
 Newton, Sir Isaac - - - 234 
 Nibeliingenlied - - - 241 
 Noldeke - - - - 58 
 
 Obadiah - - - - 79 
 Old Testament, imperfection of 2, 83 
 
 evidence for - - 9-13, 221 
 
 Number of the Books of - 10 
 
 Jewish opinion in regard 
 
 to - - - - 11, 12 
 
 MSS. of - - - 29 
 
 Text of - - 30, 210 
 
 Credibility of 90, 94, 215 
 
 Ideals of character found 
 
 in, how reached - - 115 
 Philosophy of - - 128 
 
260 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Old Testament, character of its 
 
 Inspiration - - 131, 141 
 
 — T — its connection with the 
 N. T. ... 156, 158 
 
 as represented by Critics 220 
 
 History of Criticism of 54-82 
 
 unreasonableness of modern 
 
 methods of dealing with 243-246 
 Credibility of its narra- 
 tive - - - 249-251 
 Ophites - - - - 189 
 Origen - - 17, 18, 44, 170 
 
 his Tetrapla - - - 252 
 
 Owen, John - - - 48 
 
 Papias - - - 200,204 
 
 Patriarchs, their function in 
 
 the world's history - - 89 
 Paul, St., Influence of his style 
 
 on St. Peter - - - 199 
 Paulus - - - - 179 
 
 Peace, perpetual, prophesied - 139 
 Pentateuch, History, of Criticism 
 
 of - - - - 54-64 
 division of into its sup- 
 posed component parts 62, 63 
 
 i not necessarily the Work 
 
 of Moses -. - - 85, 87 
 
 Documents used in the 
 
 Composition of - - 84, 95 
 
 origin of - - - 87 
 
 repetitions in - - 96 
 
 earliest possible date of 
 
 on the critical theory - - 107 
 
 naturalness of - - 119 
 
 accuracy of - - - 133 
 
 Perowne, Bishop - - - 143 
 Peshito - - - - 16 
 
 Peter, St., Second Epistle of, 
 not universally received - 40 
 
 arguments for and 
 
 against genuineness of 197-199 
 -- — Apocryphal Gospel of - 209 
 Petrie, Mr. Flinders, his excava- 
 tions _ _ - - 252 
 Pfleiderer - - - - 186 
 Philo - - 11, 25, 106 
 Pillars, prohibition against 
 erecting- - -■ -. - 101 
 
 PACK 
 
 Plan, Divine, for the education 
 
 of mankind - - - 89 
 
 Plummer, Dr. - - - 201 
 
 Plumptre, Dean 70, 196, 197, 198,199 
 Poly carp - - - - 14 
 Porter's Giant Cities of Bashan 253 
 Prideaux, Dean - - - 25 
 Priestley, Dr. - - - 188 
 
 Priestly Code. See Grrundschrift. 
 Priscillian - - - - 172 
 Probability, Transcriptional 
 
 and Intrinsic - - - 177 
 Prophecy, assumed to be im- 
 possible - - - - 98 
 
 impossible to be got rid of see c.vi. 
 
 Prophets, antagonism between 
 Priests and - - - 111 
 
 Non-Messianic - - 253 
 
 Proverbs - - - - 69 
 Psalms - - - - 68 
 
 See also ch. vii. 
 Psalm 45, why received into 
 
 the Canon - - - 71, 137 
 Psalter, Maccabean Origin of - 143 
 accepts the Jewish his- 
 tory as it stands 144, 147, 148 
 
 literary characteristics of 149 
 
 personal element in 148-151 
 
 date of - - - 251 
 
 Ptolemy Epiphanes - - 251 
 Purim, Feast of - - - 66 
 Pusey, Dr. - - 82, 87 
 
 Readings, Disputed - 171-176 
 
 Bedford, Professor - - 237 
 
 Religion of Israel, whether 
 evolved naturalistically 
 
 85, 91, 114, 126, 157 
 whether originally poly- 
 theistic - 85, 122, 127, 157 
 
 aims at the individual 
 
 through the community - 158 
 
 its chief provisions of 
 
 great antiquity - - - 86 
 
 Moses the ultimate founder of 88 
 
 Renan - - 102, 128, 186, 213 
 Revelation educates man by 
 providing him with a standard 
 
 106, 158 
 Reville 188 
 
INDEX. 
 
 261 
 
 29, 
 
 109 
 
 , 188, 
 
 191 
 
 - 
 
 247 
 
 _ 
 
 188 
 
 39, 
 
 194 
 
 _ 
 
 165 
 
 - 
 
 191 
 
 - 
 
 185 
 
 - 
 
 234 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ridley, Bishop - - - 231 
 
 Robertson, Professor 
 
 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 
 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 112, 121, 
 123, 126-128, 133, 217, 222 
 
 Rogers, Professor - - - 237 
 
 Rome, the only gainer by Ger- 
 man Criticism - - - 216 
 
 Rossi, De - - - - 29 
 
 Salmon, Dr. 
 
 13, 183, 187, 189, 190, 196, 
 197, 200, 206, 209, 213, 252 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch 
 
 Sanday, Professor - 
 
 Sayce, Professor 
 
 Schenkel 
 
 Schleiermacher 
 
 Scholz 
 
 Schurer, Dr. 
 
 Sch-vregler 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter - 
 
 Scriptures, the grounds of our 
 acceptance of - - 19-23 
 
 Teaching of, its character 19 
 
 External evidence for - 20 
 
 received on evidence ra- 
 ther than on authority - 23 
 
 principles which underlie 157 
 
 consistency of - - 226 
 
 See Bible, Old Testament, 
 New Testament. 
 
 Scrivener, Dr. - 166, 167, 168 
 
 Septuagint - 11, 24, 25 
 
 influence of on Vulgate 
 
 25, 26 
 
 Servant of Jehovah 
 
 Sharpe, Dr. - - - 
 
 Silence, argument from - 
 
 Simcox, Rev. W. H. 
 
 Simon, Richard 
 
 Simon Magus 
 
 Simon the Maccabee 
 
 son of Onias - 
 
 Sinker, Dr. - - - 
 
 Sirmium, Latin Creed of 
 
 Smith, G. A. 
 
 Professor Robertson 
 
 11, 59, 86, 102, 109, 143, 213, 215 
 
 Socrates - - - . 8 
 
 - 139 
 
 - 251 
 98-100 
 
 - 205 
 
 - 55 
 
 - 183 
 
 - 252 
 
 - 252 
 vi, 81 
 
 - 8 
 
 - 72 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Song of Solomon, reason for 
 
 its reception into the Canon 71 
 Specialists, authority to be 
 
 ascribed to - - - 94 
 
 Spinoza - - - -55 
 
 Stade - - - - - 130 
 Stephens - - - - 164 
 Sterling - - - - 234 
 
 Strauss - - 180-184, 188 
 
 his Mythical Theory of 
 
 Christ - - - - 181 
 Stubbs, Bishop - - - 125 
 Supernatural, the, prejudice 
 
 against 155, 178, 179, 213, 214 
 assumed in this investiga- 
 tion - - 3, 155, 156, 211 
 
 Tendency to minimise in 
 
 some quarters - - - 214 
 Supernatural Religion, anony- 
 mous ^York called - 186, 187 
 Swete, Professor - - - 27 
 Symmachus - - - 26 
 
 Synagogue, The Great - - 11 
 Synoptic Gospels, Origin of 206-208 
 Syriao, Curetonian - - 16 
 
 Syrian Revision of the Text of 
 the N. T. - - - 168, 169 
 
 Tabernacle - - - - 145 
 
 I Tait, Archbishop - - - 42 
 
 I Talmud - - - 28, 228 
 
 1 Targums - - - 27, 228 
 
 i Tatian's Diatessaron - - 16 
 
 Tel-el- Amarna - - 84, 247 
 
 "Tendency" Theory - - 184 
 
 Tertullian 15, 18, 43, 169, 200, 204 
 
 Text us Receptus - - - 164 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia - - 45 
 
 Theodotion - - - - 26 
 
 Theories, how arrived at - 1 1 7 
 
 Beductio ad absurd um of 118 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop - - - 42 
 Thomson, Archbishop - - 42 
 Tischendorf - 161, 163, 166, 171 
 Tomkins, Rev. H. G. - - 84 
 Tradition, loose way of using 
 the word - - - - 104 
 
 importance of - - 106 
 
 supposed " four main 
 
 streams "of - - - 132 
 
262 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Training of Mankind, Divine - 157 
 Tregelles, Dr. - - - 167 
 
 Tremlett, Judge - - - 243 
 Trent, Council of - - 8, 228 
 Trullo. See Constantinople, 
 
 Second Council of. 
 Tubingen School - - 182-188 
 resemblance of its prin- 
 ciples to later 0. T. Criti- 
 cism - - - 183-185 
 Twelve Apostles, " Doctrine of " 14 
 Tyndale - - - - 230 
 Typical Character of 0. T. - 141 
 
 Valentinus - - - 188, 
 Various Headings, significance 
 
 of - - - - - 
 ■— — early Origin of - - 
 
 causes of - - - 
 
 doctrinal unimportance 
 
 of 
 
 Vater - - - - - 
 Velleius Paterculus 
 Vernes - - 88, 102, 
 
 Vetus Latina - - - 16, 
 Vitringa . _ _ - 
 
 189 
 
 36 
 169 
 170 
 
 177 
 
 56 
 
 13 
 
 213 
 
 ,28 
 
 55 
 
 Volkmar 
 Vulgate 
 
 PAGE 
 
 - 185 
 16, 28 
 
 Walton, Bishop - - 49, 165 
 
 Watkins, Archdeacon - - 189 
 
 Watson, Dr. - - - - 122 
 
 Wellhausen - 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 
 
 66, 80, 90, 92, 95, 99, 102, 
 
 103, 104, 110, 119, 130, 143 
 
 Westcott, Bishop 10, 13, 16, 17, 
 
 21, 23, 39, 89, 167, 168, 171, 
 
 187, 195, 196, 197, 201, 211 
 
 Witnesses, The Three - - 171 
 
 Wright, Professor C. H. H. 
 
 27, 70, 82 
 Writing, art of, known in 
 Abraham's time - - 84 
 
 Yahweh. See Jehovah. 
 
 Zechariah 
 Zephaniah 
 Zeller 
 
 - 81 
 
 - 81 
 
 - 183 
 
PRINTED BY EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE, 
 
 Her Majesty's Printers, 
 
 DOWNS PARK HOAD, HACKNEY, N.E. 
 
EYRE & SP0TTI8W00DE, 
 
 GOVERNMENT and GENERAL PRINTERS, 
 
 PUBLISHERS & BOOKSELLERS, 
 
 ^ole Agents for tf)c ^^k of (Kobeiumcut 
 IBulilications, 
 
 LITHOGRAPHERS & BOOKBINDERS, 8cC. 
 
 L/ST OF RECENT PUBLI CATIONS. 
 
 EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE, 
 
 LONDON — GREAT NEW STREET, FLEET STREET, E.G. 
 
 EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, MELBOURNE, SYDNEY, AND NEW YORK. 
 
 East Habding Street, Lokdon, e.c. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 The Bible Student's Library : — 
 
 Vol. I. The Fouxdatioxs of the Bible _ _ . 5 
 
 Vol. n. The Law in the Prophets _ _ _ - 6 
 
 The Queen's Printers' Teacher's Bibles - - - - - 7, 8 
 
 The Queen's Printers' Variorum Bible, New Large Type 
 
 Edition -----------9 
 
 The Variorum Apocrypha - - - - - - - -10 
 
 The Vabiorum Teacher's Bible - - - - - - -11 
 
 The Ql-een's Printers' Teacher's Prayer Book - - - 12, 13 
 
 The Ann-exed Prayer Book - - - - - - - -14 
 
 The Psalter with Commentary -------14 
 
 A Select Glossary of Bible AVords - - - - - -15 
 
 The Historical Prayer Book - - - - - - -15 
 
 The Battle of the Standpoints : the Old Testament ant) the 
 
 Higher Criticism - - - - - - - - -16 
 
 Old Bibles : an Account of the Various Versions of the 
 
 English Bible ____-. ---16 
 
 Government .\nd General Publications _ _ - - 17-23 
 
 S 2 
 
Eyre & Spottiswoode's Publications. 
 
 THE BIBLE STUDENT'S LIBRARY. 
 
 Cloth Boards, Bed Edges, Demy 8vo. Price 3s. 6d. 
 Volumes I.-III. Others in preparation. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION, REVISED. 
 ^Voli;i.]me X. 
 
 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE BIBLE; 
 
 STUDIES IN OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 
 
 BY 
 
 R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A., 
 
 Hon. Canon of Christ Church; late Principal of WycUffe Hall, Oxford. 
 
 som:e opiin-ioiks. 
 
 " Any one who takes up the book will be lecl, we think, to peiiise and ponder till 
 he arrives at a sound conclusion on what is, and must remain, one of the most 
 important matters within human ken." — Theological Moxihlt. 
 
 " An invaluable work."— S WORD a^'d Trowel. So Church Retiew. 
 
 *^ " Canon Girdlestone as an expert gives us the results of his own personal research. 
 We are taken into the very workshop and shown the methods and processes by which 
 the final results have been attained."— Rock. 
 
 " It is worthy to become a text-book in a theological assembly." — CnirECHMAJf. 
 
 " Written in a reverent spirit."— Guardian. 
 
 " Will assist many to gain a firm foothold with regard to the verity of Holy Writ." 
 
 Christia>'. 
 
 " This is a book of exceeding breadth of learning, and quite exceptional value. 
 We desire to give an unusually emphatic recommendation to this valual^le treatise." 
 
 Literary Churchmaj^. 
 
 " The style throughout is clear, elevated, and forcible."— Lizerary Opixiox. 
 
 " A mine of strength to the holders of the ancient faith." — Globe, 
 
 " We can heartily commend it."— Quiter. 
 
 " Canon Girdlestone's arguments will command general respect."— Baptist. 
 
 " This is precisely the kind of work wanted in these critical times." 
 
 National Church. 
 
 " A perfect armoury of argument and scholarship."— Eyexixg News. 
 
 " Shows results as interesting as they are valuable."— Yorkshire Post. 
 
 " The various topics involved are put in a very interesting way."— Church Bells. 
 
 " It has a calm and dignified style — beauty itself, with a splendid courtesy to oppo- 
 nents, and altogether it is a pleasant book to read."— British Weekly. 
 
 RETAIL OP ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
EYBE Sc SPOTTISWOOBE'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE BIBLE STUDENT'S \.\BRkRy— continued. 
 ITolixnae II. 
 
 THE LAW IN THE PROPHETS. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. STANLEY LEATHES, U.U., 
 
 Professor of Hebrew, King's College, London ; Prebendary of St. Paul's ; 
 
 AutJior of " The Structure of the Old Testament " ; 
 
 " The Religion of the Christ " {Bampton Lecture) ; " Christ and the Bible," &c., &c. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE. 
 
 The late Dr. Liddon wrote : " How I wish you could see your 
 " way to writing a book on, say, * The Law and the Prophets,' 
 " putting the Law back into the chronological and authoritative 
 " place from which the new criticism would depose it, and so 
 " incidentally reasserting in the main, and with the necessary 
 " reservations, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch." 
 
 This book is partly the result of that suggestion. 
 
 SOIVXE OI'INIONS. 
 
 " A careful work."— Church Quarterly Review. 
 
 " A collection of the quotations from, and references to, the law of Moses and the 
 earlier historical books, which are to be found in the writings of the Prophets of the 
 Old Testament. It was an excellent idea thus to collect these allusions." -Guardian. 
 
 " Most valuable."— Church Times. 
 
 " This is an argument on the conservative side in Biblical criticism. Dr. Loathes' 
 object is to prove the antiquity of the Mosaic Law, by the references that are made to 
 it in the books of the Prophets, books that are conceded on all hands to have at least a 
 considerable relative antiquity. The contention of the extremists, that the whole legal 
 ritual is post-exilian, certainly lays itself open to hostile criticism. The appeal of the 
 Prophets to the Hebrew people seems founded on the fact that there was a covenant 
 which the people had broken." — Spectator. 
 
 •' Dr. Loathes has set an example which all who are opposed to the method and 
 result of modern Biblical criticism would do well to follow. He brings the question to 
 a sound and religious test."— Baptist Magazine. 
 
 KETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
EYBU ^ SP0TTISW00DK8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 A BIBLE for PREACHERS, TEACHERS, and STUDEKTS. 
 
 TEACHER'S BIBLES 
 
 Are issued in twelve convenient sizes and fifteen editions, including the 
 well-known facsimile series (reading page for page). 
 
 The leading sizes are printed upon the Queen's Printers' NEW INDIA PAPER, 
 MANUFACTURED EXPRESSLY FOR THESE EDITIONS. These books are 
 extremely thin and light to handle, -weighing from 12^- oz. upwards. 
 
 The other sizes are printed upon the best rag-made paper. 
 
 The Sale of tlie LONDON TEACHER'S BIBLE now exceeds 
 ONE MILLION COPIES. 
 
 The Origrinal. The most Complete. The Cheapest. The Best. 
 
 It is necessary to point out, that this work was originally issued at least 16 months before 
 any other Teacher's Bible, and that because later works, which had the advantage of follow- 
 ing it, are sometimes regarded as contemporaries, or even as predecessors, of the Queen's 
 Printers' work. The "AIDS" appended to the Queen's Printers' Teacher's Bible will be 
 found to have been constantly revised and kept up to date. 
 
 The Late Archbishop op York (Dr. Thomson) :— 
 " The names of the authors guarantee its excellence. A miniature library of illustra- 
 tive matter. If such a book is carefully and genemlly used, there must be a great im- 
 provement in Bible knowledge in this generation. I heartily wish it success." 
 The Late Rev. C. H. Spurgeox:— 
 " It is a singularly useful edition." 
 
 Dr. Barry (late Bishop op Stdxet) :— 
 " For study of the Text it is invaluable." 
 
 The Bishop of Gloucester-.— 
 " A very valuable work, well suited for those for whom it is designed, and for all 
 earnest students." 
 
 The Deax of LiNCOLy (Dr. Blakeslet) :— 
 " The work will be extremely useful." 
 
 The Deax of Lichfield (Dr. Bickersteth) :— 
 " I am both surprised and delighted at the fulness and accuracy of the information 
 to be found in it. 
 
 " I will gladly mention it with the approbation which it so well deserves." 
 
 The DEAJf of Rochester:— 
 " A gi-eat achievement of toil and thought." 
 
 The Bishop op Wakefield (Dr. Walsham How) :— 
 "I have carefully examined the Teacher's Bible published by Messrs. Eyre and 
 Spottiswoode, and I consider it a most valuable work. Believing that the Bible is its 
 own best interpreter, I am sure that the Aids to an intelligent understanding of the 
 text itself, together with the assistance given to Students who desire to have an accurate 
 conception oi the purest form of the Text, will prove of inestimable service to all Bible 
 readers." 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
EYBE 
 
 SPOTTISWOODWS PUBLICATION'S. 
 
 TEACHER'S B\BLES~-coN//m^ed. 
 
 The " Church Review " :— 
 " A library in itself, complete in admirably small compass ; not only a teacher's but 
 a preacher's Bible, capitally adapted for being taken into the pulpit." 
 The " Church Quarterly " :— 
 "■ Never, we think, has so much useful matter been condensed into so wonderfully 
 small a space. A monument of well-intentioned zeal and well-directed skill." 
 The " Guardian " :— 
 " The edition published by the Queen's Printers well covers the ground." 
 
 The "Academy":— 
 " The Queen's Px'inters have gone the right way to produce a valuable book. They 
 have selected for treatment important subjects, and then entrusted them to the hands 
 of always trustworthy and eminent specialists. Thus we have admirable papers. The 
 price of the book brings it within the reach of all persons." 
 
 SPECIMENS OP TYPES. 
 
 PEARL 24mo. SPECIMEN OF TYPE. 
 
 II Oi.righteoui- 
 
 Deut. 24. 13. 
 P». 112 9. 
 Dan. 4. 27. 
 2Cor.9.M,10. 
 
 I Or, witk. 
 
 a Rom. 12. 8. 
 
 II Or, cause not 
 
 trumpet to 
 
 e Bounded, 
 
 TAKE heed that ye do not your 
 II alms before men, to be seen of 
 them : otherwise ye have no reward 
 II of your Father which is in heaven. 
 2 Therefore " when thou doest 
 thine alms, II do not sound a trum- 
 pet before thee, as the hypocrites 
 do in the synagogues and in the 
 streets, that they may have glory 
 of men. Verily I say unto you, 
 They have their reward. 
 
 2 Or, right- 
 
 (SiZE, 5% X 4^ X if inches.) 
 
 RUBY 8vo. SPECIMEN OF TYPE. 
 
 II Or,. 
 
 righUoua- 
 
 ness. 
 
 Deut. 24. 
 
 13. 
 
 Ps. 112. 9. 
 
 Dan. 4. 27. 
 
 2 Cor. 9. 9, 
 
 10. 
 
 II Or, leith. 
 a Kom. 12. 
 
 TAKE heed that ye do not your ; 
 II alms before men, to be seen of 
 them : otherwise ye have no reward 
 II of your Father which is in heaven. ! 
 2 Therefore " when thou doest , 
 thine alms, II do not sound a trum- ' 
 pet before thee, as the hypocrites i 
 do in the synagogues and in the ] 
 i streets, that they may have glory | 
 of men. Verily I say unto you, < 
 I They have their reward. 
 
 (Size, 6| x sf x if ijicJies.) 
 
 Deut. 24. 
 
 13. 
 
 Ps. 112. 9. 
 
 Dan. 4. 27. 
 
 2 Cor. 9. 9, 
 
 10. 
 
 8 Or, with. 
 
 a Rom. 12. 
 
 8. 
 
 4 Or, cause 
 
 not a 
 
 ANNO 
 I DOMINI 
 
 1 31. 
 
 i dEccle8.6.2. 
 elKingslS. 
 
 " 1, 29. 
 
 MINION 8vo. SPECIMEN OF TYPE. 
 
 TAKE heed that ye do not your 
 2 alms before men, to be seen of 
 them : otherwise ye have no reward 3 of 
 your Father which is in heaven. 
 
 2 Therefore " when thou doest thine 
 alms, 4 do not sound a trumpet before 
 thee, as the hypocrites do in the syna- 
 gogues and in the streets, that they 
 may have glory of men. Verily I say 
 unto you, They have their reward. 
 
 (Size, jI x st x liincui'.^.: 
 
 BREVIER 8vo. SPECIMEN OF TYPE. 
 Father which seeth in secret shaU 
 reward thee openly. 
 
 7 But when ye pray, ^use not vain 
 repetitions^ as the heathen do: *for 
 they think that they shall be heard 
 for their much speaking. 
 
 8 Be not ye therefore like unto 
 them : for your Father knoweth 
 
 (Size, 8f x 6 x 2 inches.) 
 
 ABRIDGED PRICE LIST. 
 
 DESCRirrioN. 
 Pearl 24nio. 
 
 Cloth. 
 
 2/6 
 
 Leather. 
 
 4/6 
 
 Turkey 
 Morocco. 
 
 7/- 
 
 Turkey 
 Morocco, 
 Circuit. 
 
 9/- 
 
 Levant 
 
 Morocco, 
 
 lined Calf. 
 
 with flaps. 
 
 11/3 
 
 Best Levant, 
 
 lined Calf, with 
 
 flaps and Pocket 
 
 for MSS. 
 
 17/3 
 
 Buby 8vo. ... 
 
 — 
 
 6/- 
 
 9/- 
 
 12/- 
 
 15/0 
 
 22/6 
 
 Minion 8vo. 
 
 — 
 
 9/6 
 
 15/- 
 
 18/- 
 
 19/6 
 
 30/0 
 
 Brevier 8vo. 
 
 — 
 
 16/6 
 
 22/- 
 
 27/- 
 
 27/- 
 
 37/0 
 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
EYBE ^ SPOTTISWOOBWS PUBLICATIONS. 9 
 
 The Queen's Printers' Variorum BlWe. 
 
 NEW LARGE TYPE EDITION. 
 
 mDi-roi^s. 
 
 Rev. T. K. CHEYXE. M.A.. D.D., Oriel Professor of Interpretation r) ^^^t^t^ 
 
 Oxford ; Canon of Rochester. ( Old Testament 
 
 Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Reyiiis Professor of Hebreiv, Oxford; Canon C Revision 
 
 of Christ Church. J Committee. 
 
 Rev. R. L. CLARKE, M.A., late FelJoiv of Queen's College, Oxford. 
 A. GOODWIN, M.A.,/()rwier?i/ Fellow ofBalliol College, Oxford; Professor of Greek, 
 
 University College, London. 
 Rev. W. SANDAY, M.A.. D.D., LLD., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford; 
 
 Felloio of Exeter College. 
 
 The New Volume has the following special advantages :— 
 l.— Tlie Type is Larger than that of any portable Reference Bible hitherto published, 
 
 yet the volume does not exceed H inches in thickness. 
 2. — All the best Critical Editions and 2'ranslafio)is, inclnding the Revised Version, 
 
 are, in the Variorum notes, collated to date. 
 3. — Tlie brief explanatory notes are increased. 
 4.— The lioetical portions of the text are set out as in a Paragi-aph Bible, while the 
 
 familiar and coavenient arrangement of verses is otherwise preserved. 
 
 Froin the " CHTJRCI-I REIVIE^^^." 
 
 THE VARIORUM AND THE REVISED VERSIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Sir,— The manifold efforts, happily unsuccessful, made to force the Revised Version 
 upon the Church of England, and thus displace the far more beautiful and rhythmical 
 Authorised Version, have suggested much inquiry into the alleged superiority of the 
 former. The well-known result, upsetting this asserted advantage, needs now no 
 comment. It is claimed for the Revised Version that it best represents the latest 
 Hebrew and Greek scholarship. But is this so absolutely ? Xow, all such requirements 
 are met in Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode's scholarly Variorum Version, without the 
 grievous and very numerous defects of the Revised. It is helpful where the latter fails 
 us. Take a crucial example — viz., Malachi ii. 15, "Y'et had he the residue of the 
 spirit." "\i\Tiat does this mean ? We look in vain to the Revised Version for light. It 
 entirely fails us. On the other hand, the Variorum Bible exactly explains what other- 
 wise would prove a hopeless difficulty— viz., "No one hath done this who hath a 
 remnant of understanding (lit., spirit— cf. note in loco)." 
 
 I venture, with all diffidence, to claim for the Variorum Version the highest place in 
 scholarship and critical value of any edition yet published of Holv Scripture in the 
 English tongue. FREDERICK A. II. VIXON. 
 
 Cloth, sewn upon tapes, gilt edges (Scholastic Edition) 12 6 
 
 Leather, gilt edges 18y 6 
 
 Morocco, limp or boards, gilt edges 22/6 
 
 Morocco, circuit, gilt edges 30/- 
 
 Levant Yapp, lined Calf panels, round corners, gilt edges, silk sewn . . . . 35/- 
 Levant Yapp, lined Calf all over, solid red under gold edges, round corners, 
 
 with Calf pocket for MSS., silk sewn .. ' 42/- 
 
 May also be had with the VARIORUM APOCRYPHA (see next page), at 
 6/- additional upon above prices. 
 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, EC. 
 
10 EYBE Sr SPOTTISWOOBE'S PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 THE VARIOKUM APOCRYPHA: 
 
 EDITED WITH VARIOUS RENDERINGS AND READINGS FROM 
 THE BEST AUTHORITIES, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn. 
 
 Cloth, bevelled boards, red edges 6/6 
 
 Leather, gilt edges 7/6 
 
 Leather, round corners, red under gold edges, gold roll inside cover . . . . 8/6 
 
 Morocco, boards or limp, gilt edges, gold roll inside cover 13/6 
 
 Morocco, limp, round corners, red under gold edges, gold roll inside cover . . 16/- 
 
 Levant Yapp, round corners, gilt edges, lined Calf panels 24/- 
 
 On the completion of " THE VAEIORUM REFERENCE BIBLE " 
 
 b2/ the ioiclusion of " THE APOCRYPHA," « number of unsolicited 
 
 Testimonials have been received from the Archbishops, Bishops, and others. We 
 
 print a selection below : — 
 
 The Right Eev. Bishop of Bath and Wells writes :— 
 " It is a gratifying feature in the present day that everything connected with the 
 sacred literature attracts more and more attention." 
 
 The Right Rev. Bishop of Chichester writes :— 
 " Its interest and usefulness will be nuich increased by the addition of the 
 Apocrypha." 
 
 The Right Rev. Bishop of Worcester writes :— 
 " I never lose an opportunity of recommending your Bible as most valuable and 
 helpful." 
 
 The Right Rev. Bishop of Hereford writes:— 
 " I intend to use it regularly." 
 
 The Right Rev. Bishop of Lichfield writes :— 
 '•' For convenience of size, clearness of type, and completeness of detail is, I should 
 think, unequalled." 
 
 The Very Rev. Dean of St. Paul's writes :— 
 " I prize it very much." 
 
 Professor Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London, writes :— 
 *' It is a work of incalculable usefulness, for which the warmest gi*atitude is due alike 
 to the editors and yourselves." 
 
 The Ven. Archdeacon Hessey writes :— 
 " A wonderful specimen both of learning and typography.'* 
 
 Canon Blackley, M.A., writes :— 
 " Of very great help and value to many." 
 
 Canon W. J. Knox-Little, M.A., writes :— 
 " It is a beautiful and valuable work. I think it the most satisfactory copy I have 
 ever had. I like it more, the more I make use of it." 
 
 BETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NJEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
£JYBE ^ SPOTTISWOODE'S PUBLICATIONS. 11 
 
 THE BIBLE READER'S VADE MECUM. 
 
 THE VARIORUM TEACHER'S BIBLE. 
 
 Nonpareil 8vo. (7f x 5^ x 1^ inches). 1250 jmc/es. 
 
 This novel and comprehensive Edition of the Authorised Version — the climax 
 towards which the Queen's Printers consistently developed their Series of 
 Teacher's Bibles during several years — combines — 
 
 I.— The Queen's' Printers' VARIORUM "^efevexxcc ^iWe, 
 
 II.— The Queen's Printers' " AIDS ta tiyc ^tw^e^tt jcrf tlje ^oiy ^tWe." 
 
 To the Variorum Edition of the familiar Reference Bible, the appended 
 " Aids to the Bible Student " adds a compendium of Biblical information 
 admitted to be not only the largest and fullest work of the kind, but also the 
 best. The most competent judges have drawn attention to the compass and 
 thoroughness of the " Aids " — none of which are anonymous, — and to the 
 eminence and authority of the contributors to the volume. 
 
 Special Subjects. 
 
 3LUSIC. 
 
 POETRY. 
 
 MONEY. 
 
 ETHNOLOGY. 
 
 BIBLE d: MONUMENTS. 
 
 Special Subjects. 
 
 LEATHES. 
 
 LUMBY. 
 
 MAYHEW. 
 
 SAYCE. 
 
 GRUGGEN. 
 
 HOOKER. 
 
 &c. 
 
 HOLE. 
 SANDAY. 
 MADDEN. 
 GREEN. 
 STAINER. 
 TRISTRAM. 
 &c. 
 
 PLANTS. 
 
 ANIMAL CREATION. 
 
 PROPER NAMES. 
 
 CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 HISTORICAL EPITOME. 
 
 ' Including four Members of the Old Testament ReTlsion Committee. 
 
 p f( I c e: s. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 SCHOLASTIC EDITION: Cloth, leather grain, boards, red edges - 7 6 
 
 Leather, limp, gilt edges 10 6 
 
 Morocco, limp or boards, gilt edges .... from 16 6 
 
 Levant Morocco Yapp (Divinity Circuit) , Calf lined, silk sewn - 2:j 
 
 Do. Do. with Calf Pocket for MS. 35 
 
 India 
 Paper. 
 s. d. 
 
 13 6 
 18 
 25 6 
 
 RETAIL OP ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET. LONDON, E.G. 
 
12 :EYBI] ^ 8P0TTI3W00DW8 PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 TSlS 
 
 Queen's Printers' Teacher's Prayer Bool: 
 
 BEING THE BOOK OF COMMON PBAYEB, toith INTBODUCTIONS, 
 ANALYSES, NOTES, and a COMMENTABY UPON THE PSALTEB. 
 
 Right Rev. ALFRED BARRY, I>.Yy., 
 
 Late Bishop of Sydney and Metropolitan Primate of Australia and Tasmania ; 
 
 GLOSSARY by the Rev. A. L MAYHEW, M.A. 
 
 This forms the New Edition of the ** ®ertci;ev'st %^v\X}xsv ^iJOk," 
 now so well known, and is the only work of the kind published in a popular 
 form at popular prices. It is issued in two sizes, and in various bindings. 
 
 In the arrangement of the work the most simple plan has been adopted, 
 the Prayer Book and its explanation being interpaged throughout ; and the 
 name of Dr. Barry as Editor will make it of such standard value as to entitle 
 it to rank as a companion volume to our " Teacher's Bibles," which possess 
 a world-wide reputation. 
 
 The work was so highly appreciated that it passed through several Editions 
 in a few months after its publication. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM OPINIONS. 
 
 The Bishop of Bath and Wells (Lord A. C. Hervey, D.D.) :— 
 " It is a valuable addition to our Prayer Book literature, in a form useful to all 
 teachers in Church schools. I shall have pleasure in making it known." 
 
 The Bishop of Chichester (Br. Durnford) :— 
 "... the ability with which it has been executed by Canon Barry ; perhaps he was, 
 of all others, the most fitted and best qualilied for such a task." 
 
 GBUAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
EYBE ^ 8P0TTISW00DW8 PUBLICATIONS. 13 
 
 TEACHER'S PRAYER ^OOK— con/. :nucd. 
 
 The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (De. Ellicott) :— 
 " Well done, and likely to be extremely useful." 
 
 The late Bishop of Lincoln (I>R. Wordsworth) :— 
 "Of gi'eat service, and a vali;able companion to the Teacher's Bible." 
 
 The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. J. Hughes) :— 
 " The idea is very good, and judging from the known ability of Canon Barry, will 
 prove very useful." 
 
 The late Bishop of Salishury (Dr. Mobeelt) :— 
 "It is a beautiful work." 
 
 The late Bishop of Durham (Dr. Lightfoot) :— 
 "The work has been placed in highly competent hands." 
 
 The late Bishop of Chester (Dr. Jacobsox) :— 
 " I am very glad to possess it." 
 
 The Bishop of Wakefield (Dr. Walsham How) :— 
 " Hopes to have an opportunity of making it known." 
 
 Also recommended by 
 
 The Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Saint David's, the Bishop of Down, 
 
 the Bishop of Meath, &c., &c. 
 
 Cloth boards, red edges 
 
 Leathei-, limp, gilt edges 
 
 Leather, round corners, red under gold edges, gold roll inside 
 
 cover 
 
 Polished Persian Calf, limp, round corners, red under gold 
 
 edges, and gold roll inside cover 
 
 Morocco, limp, gilt edges 
 
 Morocco, boards, gilt edges 
 
 Morocco, circuit 
 
 Morocco, limp, round corners, red under gold edges, and gold 
 
 roll inside cover 8 . . 12 
 
 SCHOOL EDITION (without Commentary on Psalter and Glossary), price 2/6. 
 
 24mo. 
 
 EDITIOy. 
 
 16mo. 
 edition. 
 
 .3 6 . 
 4 G . 
 
 6 
 
 7 G 
 
 5 G . 
 
 8 4 
 
 G 6 . 
 
 9 
 
 6 6 . 
 
 9 
 
 7 . 
 
 9 6 
 
 8 . 
 
 . 12 
 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
14 EYBE 8r SPOTTISWOODU'S FUBLIGATIONS. 
 
 THE ASNEXED PRAYER BOOK. 
 
 TTT'E have mucli pleasure in announcing the issue of an exact copy, in type, 
 of the Book of Common Prayer which was annexed, as the authorita- 
 tive record, to the Act of Uniformity of 1662. 
 
 In 1891, by special permission of the House of Lords (now the custodians 
 of the MS.), we issued an edition in facsimile of this " Annexed Book," but 
 as the number issued was limited to 750, necessarily the majority of Church- 
 men have been unable to possess themselves of copies. 
 
 IN PREPARATION.— A List of Erasures and Corrections in the MS. 
 Book, and a Collation thereof with " the Convocation Copy." 
 
 Royal 8vo., Cloth, bevelled boards, red burnished 
 edges, price 7s. 6d. 
 
 THE PSALTER with COMMESTARY, 
 
 BY 
 
 Tlie Hig-lit Hev. ALFRED BAm^Y, D.T). 
 
 Size, 8^ X 7 X 1 inches. 
 
 Feinted in / Xiie IPsalter in. Bnglisli Type. 
 Large Type l^Tlie Comixientary in. Longpriixiex' Type. 
 
 I^The Introduction to the Psalter is included, the main purpose of which 
 — as prefatory to the special annotations on each Psalm — is to examine the 
 general character, style, and structure of the Psalter, especially in relation to 
 its use in the service of the Church in all ages. 
 
 Cloth boards, red edges, burnished 3/6 
 
 Leather, round corners, red under gold edges 7/6 
 
 Turkey Morocco, limp, ditto, ditto, gold roll inside cover - - - 12/6 
 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW 8TBEET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
JSTBE Sr SP0TTI8W00DWS PUBLICATIONS. 15 
 
 glossary" oF bibYe words, 
 
 IXCLrDIXG A 
 
 ©lossarg of important MorDs anD ipbrases \\\ tbc ipra^cc JSook 
 
 With References to the Text and Illustrative Passages from English 
 
 Classica,! Authors, containing obsolete expressions, especially 
 
 in Psalms, as well as Theological, Ecclesiastical, 
 
 and Liturgical Terms, with Explanations 
 
 and Etymologies, 
 
 By Rev. A. L. MAYHEW, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain of Wadham College, Oxford. 
 
 Cloth, gilt edges 21- 
 
 Paste Grain Roan, gilt edge^ - 3/- 
 
 Morocco, limp, gilt edges 7/6 
 
 THE HISTORICAL PRAYER BOOK: 
 
 BEING THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER WITH THE SOURCE OF EACH COMPONENT 
 
 PART AND THE DATE AT WHICH IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE 
 
 BOOK STATED IN THE MARGIN. 
 
 Edited by the Rev. JAMES CORNFORD, M.A., 
 
 Lecturer at the London College of Divinity. 
 
 SPECIALIiY PREPARED FOR THE USE OP STUDENTS AND ALL 
 MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. 
 
 Clotli, Hed Edg-es, 5/-^ 
 
 soivie; opin-ioin-s. 
 
 " This volume may be commended."— TiiiES. 
 "The system adopted is excellent."— Globe. 
 " The work has been done most carefully."— Guarpiax. 
 
 "Welcome to the student of the Prayer Book, or to the average Churchman."— 
 Record. 
 
 " The edition will be of great use."— Leeds Meecukt. 
 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 GREAT NEW STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
16 1:YBE Sf SPOTTISWOOBE'S PUBLICATION'S. 
 
 TELE 
 
 BATTLE OF THE STANDPOINTS: 
 
 (SECOND EDITION) 
 
 Ube ©lb Testament anb tbe ITDtabei: Criticism* 
 
 ALFRED CAVE, B.A., U,I>,, 
 
 Principal and Prnftssov of Systematic Theology of Hackney College; 
 
 Author of "The Inspiration of the Old Testament Inductively Considered"; "The 
 
 Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonemeyit"; "An Introduction to 
 
 Theology, its Principles, its Branches, its Restdts, and its 
 
 Literattire " ; d'c. 
 
 price:s. 
 
 Paper Covers / 6 
 
 Cloth Boards, red edges 1/- 
 
 OLD BIBLES: 
 
 Bn Bccouiit of tbe IDarious Dersions of tbe Bnglisb :ffiible, 
 By J. :r. dor.e. 
 
 This is a most interesting volume, and should be welcome to all Bible 
 Readers and Students. It contains many historical facts relating to the 
 different versions of the Holy Scriptures, and gives an entertaining account 
 of the slow and gradual steps by which they have reached their present 
 development. 
 
 AX INTERESTIXG AND VALUABLE VOLUME."— The Bishop op Lixcolx. 
 
 Half Bound, Vellum Cloth, Red Burnished Edges, 5s. 
 RETAIL OF ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 ETBE AND SPOTTISWOOBE : 
 
Sole Agents for the Publications of Her Majesty's Government. 
 
 EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE, 
 
 EAST HARDING STREET, LONDON, E.C. 
 
 AGENTS TO THB NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL SERIES. 
 
 GARDENER, MY (Illustrated). By H. W. Ward, F.R.H.S., Head C4ardener to the 
 Right Hon. the Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle, Salisbury, The Culture of 
 Vegetables, short Chapters on Cultural "VTork in the Kitchen Garden and Allot- 
 ments, the Culture of Fruit, the Culture of Flowers, Window Boxes. 25. 6c?. 
 
 " Clear, sensible, and full of instruction. We know of no better book to put into the 
 hands of the owners of small gardens who are anxious to make the best of their 
 opportunities, whether in the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, or fruit." — Times. 
 
 " As a practical handbook for the million it has no superior on the subject." 
 
 Bell's Weekly MEssEyoER. 
 
 " This is the best work on gardening which we have come across for a long period 
 .... and certainly deserves a place in every gardener's library or bookcase." 
 
 Rural World. 
 
 " The instructions given, while concisely set forth, are so clear and explicit that 
 Mr. Ward must be congratulated on the success that has attended his en- 
 deavours."— Salisbury AND Winchester Journal. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL ADVISER TO THE LORDS OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL 
 FOR AGRICULTURE: First Annual Report of the. By post 4(Z. 
 Second Annual Report. By post 4,\d. 
 Third „ „ „ od. 
 
 Fourth „ „ „ ^\d. 
 
 Contain valuable information with reference to Insects and Fungi injimous to 
 the Crops of the Farm, the Orchard, and the Garden. 
 
 INSECTS INJURIOUS TO CROPS, &c. By C. Whitehead, Esq., F.L.S., F.G.S. 
 Part I. Hop Plants. 2\d. 
 „ II. Corn, Grass, Pea, Bean, and Clover Crops. Qd. 
 „ III. Fruit Crops. Q\d. 
 
 „ IV. Root and certain other Crops (Celery, Onions, &c.). Id. 
 The life history of the farmers' diminutive but deadly foes is carefully ti'aced, and 
 the best modes of destroying them are explained. 
 
 KEW BULLETIN: A Monthly Record issued by the Director of the Royal Gardens 
 Kew, containing valuable Notes on Economic Produce and Plants. Largely 
 increasing circulation. Volume for 1SS7, in boards, by post, 2*. Id. ; 1888, 2s. Sc?. ; 
 1S89, 2s. 8(f. ; 1S90, 3s. 2d. ; 1891, 3s. 4d. ; 1892, :3s. 4rf. 
 
 ALLOTMENTS ACT, 1887, 2\d.', 1890, \d. 
 
 SMALL HOLDINGS ACT, 1892, 2^cZ. ; Rules under, 2^(?. : Order as to Fees, 1^. 
 
 TITHE ACT, 1891, 2c?. ; Rules, i\d. 
 
 EAST HARDING STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
 T 
 
18 SOLE AGENTS FOB 
 
 Popular Manuals. 
 
 ENSILAGE (STACKS AND SILOS). Issued by the Ensilage Society. Together with 
 reprint of Professor "Wrightson's " Hints on Ensilage." Gd. 
 
 "Contains a great deal of usefulinformation."— Agricultural Gazette. 
 " Contains as reliable information as anything we have read." 
 
 Bell's Weekly Messenger. 
 
 OUR HARDY FRUITS: A Practical Guide to their Cultivation, for Landowners, 
 Tenant Farmers, Cottagers, and Allotment Holders. By Brian "Wynne, F.R.H.S., 
 Editor of the " Gardening World." Paper Covers, 6d. ; Cloth, Is. 
 
 " Should have a good effect in extending the fruit areas of the country."— Timbs. 
 "A really practical treatise."— Farm. 
 
 " The contents have been carefully compiled, and evidently out of genuine experience." 
 
 Field. 
 
 POTATO CULTURE FOR THE MILLION. By H. W. Ward, F.R.H.S., Head 
 
 Gardener to the Right Hon. the Earl of Radnor, Longford Castle, Salisbury. 3d. 
 By post 4d. 
 
 " Should have a good effect in improving the system adopted by small gardeners and 
 
 cottagers.' ' — Times. 
 " We may safely say that the pamphlet will be found most useful to potato growers, 
 
 whether in field or in garden." — Farmers' Gazette. 
 " The book is eminently practical, thoroughly trustworthy, and will be found of much 
 value for distribution amongst cottagers and allotment holders, the cheap rate 
 at which it can be obtained admirably adapting it for that purpose." 
 
 Gardeners' Magazine. 
 
 *** These manuals being eminently suitable for distribution amongst Cottagers and 
 Allotment Holders, Messrs. E. & S. are allowing a liberal discount to purchasers of 
 quantities for that purpose. 
 
 CHALLENGER " : Reports on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of. This Series is 
 now rapidly drawing to a close, and attention is particularly drawn to the fact that 
 these volumes will probably soon become scarce. Lists on application. 
 
 ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 
 
 ACTS OF PARLIAMENT: 
 
 54&55Vict.c.56 (Sir W. Hart-Dyke). \\d. 
 (Scotland) .35 & 36 Vict. c. 62. Is. 2\d. 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 78. Qkd. 
 
 46 & 47 Vict. c. 57. Zhd. 
 
 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75 ( W. E. Forster) . Is. Id. 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86 ( „ ).Q\d. 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 79 (Lord Sandon). Is.ld. 
 
 43 & 44 Vict. c. 23 (Mr. Mundella). 2d. 
 EDUCATION BLUE BOOK, 1891-92. Zs.Qd. Report of the Committee of Council on 
 
 Education (England and Wales) ; with Appendix containing Tables showing Results 
 
 of Inspection for the year ending 31st August 1891. 
 EDUCATION CODE, 1893. By post 6id. 
 
 EDUCATION IN HUNGARY: Consular Report on. [M.S. 163.] 2d. 
 MUSICAL EDUCATION ABROAD : Report of John Hullah, Esq., LL.D., on. Z\d. 
 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES : List of. with the Standards fixed 
 
 by the Byelaws of each District. 1$. lO^c?. 
 
 EYBB AND 8P0TTISW00DE : 
 
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 19 
 
 HYGIENE AND DEMOGRAPHY 
 
 Tramadions of the Seventh International Congress of 
 Hygiene and Demography, 1891. 
 
 13 Volumes. Paper, 2b. 6cl. ; Cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 The Opening Meeting of the Congress. 
 
 Proceedings of Section I.— Preventive 
 
 Medicine. 
 
 VOLUME II. 
 
 SeCTIOX II.— Bacteriology. 
 
 VOLUME III. 
 Sectiox III.— The Relation of the Dis- 
 eases of Animals to those of Man. 
 
 VOLUME IV. 
 Sectios" IV.— Infancy, Childhood^ and 
 
 School 
 
 jy, ■^\ 
 life. 
 
 VOLUME V. 
 
 Sbctiok v.— Chemistry and Physics in 
 relation to Hygiene. 
 
 VOLUME VI. 
 
 Section YI.— Architectiu-e in relation 
 to Hygiene. 
 
 VOLUME VII. 
 
 Section VII.— Engineering in relation 
 to Hygiene. 
 
 VOLUME Vill. 
 
 Section VIII.— Naval and Military 
 Hygiene. 
 
 VOLUME IX. 
 
 Section IX.— State Hygiene. 
 
 VOLUME X. 
 Division II.— Demography. 
 
 VOLUME XI. 
 
 Indian Hygiene and Demography. 
 
 VOLUME XII. 
 
 Municipal Hygiene and Demography. 
 
 VOLUME XIII. 
 
 (MiSCELLiJfEA.) 
 
 LE&AL SEEIES. 
 
 ACTS OF PARLIAMENT are sold separately in sheets, as soon as possible after receiving 
 the Royal Assent. 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE AND INDEX OF STATUTES. 12th Edition in the 
 Press. Price 105. Invaluable for reference. 
 
 PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS. (Cheap Edition.) Published by Authority. Red cloth, 
 price 3*. ; by post, 3s. 6d. This Volume contains all the Public Acts passed during 
 the Session, with Index to same ; also Tables showing the effect of the Legislation, 
 together with complete and classified Lists of the Titles of all the Local and Private 
 Acts passed during the Session. 
 
 REVISED STATUTES (Second Revised Edition). Royal 8vo. Prepared under the 
 direction of the Statute Law Revision Committee, and Edited by G. A. R. Fitz- 
 gerald, Esq. Vols. I. to V. now ready, price Is. 6d. each. [Customers can be 
 advised of future issues, or copies sent on day of publication.] 
 
 STATE TRIALS : New Series of Reports of State Trials, published under the direction 
 of the State Trials Committee, and edited by John Macdonell, Esq., M.A., Bar- 
 rister-at-Law. Vols. I. to IV. now ready, price 10«. each. 
 
 EAST HARDING STREET, LONDON, E.G. 
 
20 SOLE AGENTS FOB 
 
 NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 AORANGI; OR, THE HEART OF THE SOUTHERN ALPS, NEW ZEALAND. 
 
 By Malcolm Ross. Is. 
 NEW ZEALAND'S LONE LANDS. Being Brief Notes of a Visit to the Outlying 
 
 Islands of the Colony. By Ro. Carrick. Is. 
 A ROMANCE OF LAKE WAKATIPU : A LEGEND OF THE LAKES. Being 
 
 Episodes of Early Goldfields Life in New Zealand; with Itinerant, Statistical, 
 
 Historical, and other Notes. By Ro. Carrick. Is. 
 FOREST FLORA OF NEW ZEALAND. By T. KiRK, E.L.S., late Chief Conservator 
 
 of State Forests, N.Z., &c. Numerous Plates, Fcp. folio, cloth, 12s. Qd. 
 HANDBOOK OF NEW ZEALAND FISHES. By R. A. A. Sherrin. Demy Svo., 
 
 cloth, 2s. 
 INDIGENOUS GRASSES OF NEW ZEALAND. By JoHlf BuCHANAlf. Full page 
 
 Illustrations. Imp. 4to., half morocco, 15s. ; Royal 8vo., 5s. 
 MANUAL OF BIRDS OF NEW ZEALAND. By WALTER L. BuLLER, C.M.G., Sc.D., 
 
 F.R.S. Numerous Plates. Royal 8vo., 10s, 
 NEW ZEALAND: HER COMMERCE AND RESOURCES. By G. W. GRIFFIN, Consul 
 
 U.S.A. Royal 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 POLYNESIAN MYTHOLOGY AND ANCIENT TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE 
 
 NEW ZEALAND RACE. By Sir GEORGE Gret, K.C.B. Illustrated. Royal 8vo., 
 
 cloth, 5s. 
 THE LITERATURE RELATING TO NEW ZEALAND. A Bibliography. Royal Svo. 
 
 cloth, 2s. 6d. 
 TROUT IN NEW ZEALAND : WHERE TO GO AND HOW TO CATCH THEM. 
 
 By W. H. Spackman, B.A., President of the Canterbury Anglers' Society. 2s. 6d. 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. 
 
 CHURCHES AND CATHEDRALS. Return showing the Number of Churches (in- 
 cluding Cathedrals) in England which have been Built or Restored at a Cost 
 exceeding £500, since the Year 1873, giving also Expenditui'e, and Sources, as far as 
 possible, from which the required Funds were derived. 2s. Id. 
 
 HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION — Complete List of the Reports and 
 Appendices of the, with Alphabetical Index. 4rf. 
 
 RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR). Report from the Select Committee 
 on. 6d. 
 
 REDEMPTION OF TITHE RENTCHARGE. Minutes of Evidence taken before the 
 Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the. Is. Qd. 
 
 METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS. Third Report from the Select Committee of the 
 House of Lords on. 3s. Id. 
 
 WESTMINSTER ABBEY. Final Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire 
 into the present want of space for monuments in Westminster Abbey. With 
 Appendices. 9d. 
 
 BYBE AND SPOTTISWOODE : 
 
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 21 
 
 SELECTION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. 
 
 
 Archdeaconries Acts. 
 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 6 & 7 "Will. 4. c. 77 - 
 
 ■ 5 
 
 13 &]4 Vict. 0.94 - 
 
 • 5 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113 
 
 • lU 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 114 - 
 
 - 3* 
 
 4 & 5 Vict. c. 39 
 
 . 6^ 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 63 - - 
 
 - 21 
 
 Provisions as to Archdeaconries in certain Dioceses 
 LoxDO\, Winchester, Rochester, 
 and St. Alban's : 
 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 34 - 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 68 - 
 
 Exeter and Truro ; 
 
 39 & 40 Vict. c. 54 - 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 44 - 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113 
 
 4 & 5 Vict. c. 39 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 77 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 26 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 124 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 3^ 
 3^ 
 
 Chester, Durham, Lichfield, 
 Lincoln, Liverpool, Man- 
 chester, Newcastle, Ripon, 
 Southwell, Wakefield, and 
 York : 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 68 - 
 Wales (Annexation of certain 
 Canonries to Archdeaconries) : 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 77 - 
 
 Cathedral Acts. 
 
 - 11^ I 31 & 32 Vict. c. 114 
 
 - 61 I 41 & 42 Vict. c. 6S 
 
 Bishopric Acts. 
 
 - 5 26 & 27 Vict, c 
 
 - 3: 
 
 - 5 
 
 - 8 
 
 36 
 
 Special Bishopric Acts. 
 
 SoDOR AND Man— 1 & 2 Vict. c. 30 
 
 Manchester— 10 & 11 Vict. c. ]08 - 
 
 St. Alban's— 38 & 39 Vict, c. 34 - 
 
 TRURO-39&40Vict. c. 54 - - 
 
 50 & 51 Vict. c. 12 • - 
 
 2 Liverpool, Newcastle, South- 
 2 WELL, & Wakefield— 41 & 42 
 
 Vict. c. 68 
 
 "* Newcastle (Dean and Chapter) — 
 35 47 & 48 Vict. c. 33 ... 
 
 li Bristol- 47 & 48 Vict. c. 66 - 
 
 Burial Acts 
 
 Cemeteries Clauses Act— 10 & 11 
 Vict. c. 65 . 
 
 Burial (Metropolis)— 15 & 16 Vict. 
 c. 85 - 
 (General)— 16 & 17 Vict. 
 
 c. 134 - 
 (Boroughs)— 17 & 18 Vict 
 c.87 
 
 (General)— 18 & 19 Vict. 
 
 c. 128 - 
 
 20&2lVict.c.81 
 
 • ., 23&24Vict.c.64 
 
 34&35Vict.c.33 
 
 Burial Grounds— 59 Geo. 3. c. 134 
 
 5 
 
 • 3i 
 - 5 
 
 - 2 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. Ill - - - -05 
 51 & 52 Vict. c. 56 (Suffragan's Nomi- 
 nation) 1 
 
 5 
 
 (England and Wales). 
 
 Burial Grounds (Sites)— 36 i 37 
 - 6^ Vict. c. 50 - 2 
 
 « „ (Open Spaces)— 
 
 10 44 & 45 Vict. c. 34 5 
 
 „ Nonconformists— 43 & 44 
 2 Vict. c. 41 3h 
 
 44 & 45 
 . 3i Vict. c. 2 2 
 
 Disused Burial Grounds (Erec- 
 tion of Buildings)— 47 & 48 Vict. 
 
 c. 72 2 
 
 ! Public Health (Interment) Act 
 
 i 42 & 43 Vict. c. 31 - - - 2 
 
 I Interments (Felo de se)— 45 & 46 
 
 Vict. c. 19 2 
 
 EAST HARDING STREET, LONDON, E.C, 
 
22 
 
 SOLE AGENTS FOB 
 
 
 Church Building Acts. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 *. d. 
 
 68 Geo. 3. c. 45 - 
 
 ■ - 1 1 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 60 
 
 
 
 - 6 
 
 59 Geo. 3. c. 134 
 
 - - 8 
 
 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37 
 
 
 
 - 6 
 
 3 Geo. 4. c. 72 - 
 
 - 10 
 
 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 70 
 
 
 
 - 64 
 
 5 Geo. 4. c. 103 - 
 
 - 3^ 
 
 11 & 12 Vict. c. 37 
 
 
 
 - 2 
 
 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 72 - 
 
 - 2 
 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 97 
 
 
 
 - 61 
 
 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 38 - 
 
 - 61 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 65 
 
 
 
 . 2 
 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 107 - - 
 
 - 5 
 
 19&20Vict.c.l04(LordBlandforcl's) 6 
 
 2 & 3 Vict. c. 49 - - 
 
 - 5 
 
 32 & 33 Vict. c. 94 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 31 
 
 *** These Acts set forth the powers of the Commissioners for building and enlarging 
 chm-ches; and for the formation of distinct and separate parishes, district parishes, 
 district chapelries, and consolidated chapelries. They also relate to Patronage, Endow- 
 ments, &c. By the Act of 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 65) their powers are transferred to the 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners. 
 
 Church Estates Commission Acts. 
 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94 - - - - 
 22 & 23 Vict. c. 46 - - - ■ 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 124 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. Ill 
 
 Annual Reports are made by the Church Estates Commissioners, average cost 
 Id. post free. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commissioners Acts. 
 
 6 & 7 VTill. 4. c. 77 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 94 
 29 & 30 Vict. c. Ill 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 64 - . - - 
 38 & 39 Vict. c. 71 - - - . 
 47 & 48 Vict. c. 65(Church Building) 
 
 Annual Reports are made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at an average 
 cost of 9d. post free. 
 
 3i 
 
 4 Geo. 4. c. 76 - 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 85 - 
 
 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 22 
 
 Marriage Acts. 
 
 - 5 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119 . . . . o 
 
 - Qh 49 & 50 Vict. c. 14 (Extension of Hours) 
 
 - 5 51 & 52 Vict, c. 28 (VaUdation) - • 
 
 Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Acts. 
 
 1836— 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 86 - - - 8 1874— 37 & 38 Vict. c. 88 - - ■ 1 
 1337-7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 22 - - 5 1 
 
 Tithe Eentcharge, 
 
 Commut 
 
 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 71 ■ 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 1 21 
 
 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 69 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 34 
 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 64 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 2 
 
 2 & 3 Vict. c. 62 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 64 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 15 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 64 
 
 5 & 6 Vict. c. 64 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 - 5 
 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 73 
 
 
 . 
 
 - 5 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. c. 104 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 2 
 
 Commutation, and Redemption Acts. 
 
 14 & 15 Vict. c. 53 - ■ - - 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 93 - - • - 
 
 31 & 32 Vict. c. 89 - . . . 
 
 36 & 37 Vict. c. 42 . - ^ - 
 
 41 & 42 Vict. c. 42 - . - - 
 
 45 & 46 Vict. c. 37 (Com. Returns) - 
 
 48 & 49 Vict. c. 32 - - - - 
 
 49 & 60 Vict. c. 54 . - . . 
 
 Reports by Tithe Commissioners are contained in-Annual Report of Land 
 Commission, average price 3d, post free. 
 
 EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE. 
 
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 23 
 
 Sundry Acts relating to Ecclesiastical Matters, &c. 
 -J 
 
 
 d. 
 
 Bbxeficbs Rbsigitatiox— 34 & 35 
 
 s. 
 
 «. 
 
 Clergy Discipline- 55 & 56 Vict. 
 
 s. 
 
 Vict. c. 44 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 c. ,32 - 
 
 
 
 2i 
 
 „ 1887—50 & 51 
 
 
 
 ., Resignation— 34 & 35 Vict. 
 
 
 
 Vict. c. 23 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c. 44- 
 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 Chapel (Certifying)-18 & 19 Vict. 
 0.81 
 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 „ „ of Holy Orders— 
 33&34\'ict.c.91 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 „ Sequestration — 34 & 35 
 Vict. c. 45 
 
 
 
 Church, Breaking into-24 & 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Vict. c. 96 - 
 
 1 
 
 5-i 
 
 Fees on Induction— 30 & 31 
 
 
 
 Brawling in — 23 & 24 
 
 
 
 Vict. c. 135 - 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Vict. c. 32 - - - 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 „ Sale of Livings by Lord 
 
 
 
 Setting fire to, or riotous 
 
 
 
 Chancellor-26 Vict.c.l20 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 demolition of— 24 & 25 
 
 
 
 Ecclesiastical Dilapidations— 3^4 
 
 
 
 Vict. c. 97 - 
 
 lU 
 
 & 35 Vict. c. 43 
 
 
 
 9i 
 
 CnrRCH DisciPLiiTE— 3 & 4Vict.c.86 
 
 
 
 3^ 
 
 „ 35 & 36 Vict. c. 96 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Churchyards, Consecration of— 
 
 
 
 Glebe Lands 51 & 52 Vict. c. 20 - 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 30 & 31 Vict. 
 
 
 
 Incumbents in certain cases to be 
 
 
 
 c. 133 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 Vicars— 31 & 32 Vict. c. 117 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 „ 30 & 31 Vict. 
 
 
 
 Pluralities Act, 1838—1 & 2 Vict, 
 
 
 
 0. 135 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 c, 106 - - 
 
 1 101 
 
 Churchwardens' Act— 8 & 9 Vict. 
 C.70 
 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 „ 1885 — 48 & 49 
 
 Vict, c, 54 - 
 
 „ 1887 — 50 & 51 
 
 
 
 3i 
 
 Clergy Discipline- 55 & 56 Vict. 
 
 
 
 Vict. c. 68 - 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 0. 32 - - 
 
 
 
 2i 
 
 Pritate Chapels- 34 & 35 Vict. 
 
 
 
 Curate, Fees on Induction— 30 & 
 
 
 
 C.66 - - - - 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 31 Vict. c. 135 . ■ 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Patronage-1 & 2 Will. 4, 
 
 
 
 „ Stipend during Sequestra- 
 
 
 
 C.38 - - - - 
 
 
 
 C^ 
 
 tion of Living— 1 & 2Vict. 
 
 
 
 Public Worship Regulation— 
 
 
 
 C.106 
 
 1 m 
 
 37 & 38 Vict. c. 85 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 Compulsory Church Rates Abo- 
 
 
 
 Sermons not to be copied without 
 
 
 
 lition -31 & 32 Vict. c. 109 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 consent— 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 65 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Clerical Disabilities— 33 & 34 Vict. 
 
 
 
 1 Tniformty Act— 1 Eliz. c. 2 
 
 
 
 3i 
 
 c.91 ■ 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 „ 14 Car. II. c. 14 
 
 
 
 6i 
 
 „ Subscription — 28 & 29 
 
 
 
 Uniformity Amendment— 35 & -36 
 
 
 
 Vict. 0. 122 - 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 Vict. c. 35 
 
 
 
 3i 
 
 BILLS UNDER DISCUSSION in both Houses of Parliament are on Sale to the Public, 
 The attention of the Clergy is respectfully drawn to our Deposit Account system. 
 
 DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS opened for large or small amounts, and Books or Papers sent 
 on day of publication. A deposit of 10s. or 5s. made at the commencement of each 
 Session of Parliament will ensure copies of any particular class of Bill under dis- 
 cussion being forwarded as issued. Accounts rectified at the close of the Session. 
 
 Miscellaneous List upon application. 
 
 Monthly Lists of Parliamentary Papers upon application. 
 
 Quarterly List, with Index, post free, 2d. 
 
 Every assistance given to Correspondents ; and Books not kept in stock 
 
 obtained without delay. Remittance should accompany order. 
 
 EYRE & SPOTTISWOODE, 
 
 EAST HARDING STREET, LONDON, E.C. 
 
Date Due | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 mmmi 
 
 ilkK. 
 
 
 
 .i^^ 
 
 msu 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (i 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
BS500 .L69 
 
 Principles of biblical criticism. 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 ■'"fm^ 
 
 
 1 1012 00043 7378 
 
 
 ij«.;J 
 
 
 ;»« 
 
 '.■-£'.^/'i 
 
 t f'