·lºpaeºsººf，*TT ± …， ¿.* ¿?*·،* º ae. ÞÝ， cºſae;· 3. -， ， |（w × （* ººº..º ： -- Yae （w e － ºt ） { ∞j- • • • • • → ， ：.： ：§ 9 ae … -~ 0 „ ）， é º :， ！e º sº ： * * *： §. ！ ■ № º، -�ſº e º º، ،- ， º ſº ：،- · :：: *****， ， ， ： · ~· º º ، ſą.ſł„ ',¿? A.4. g.， ， ،·：- ****ſº ： （ ） '.ſ.ſº ſº º |-، ، ،-， Š . -， ， , ， ， ،· - ſaevº， |- -t. t.：· ·„…s ： » , ， ; **v* - „ ， ， ， ， ， ， . ' m. s ≡ 2 * * * * * |-- 3 （pº ~$$$ （rºſ. ： ، • ： ： • …， ºvaetae« ·： -： ： ：ș .8 %ſ* * · · · · · • ¶ • ¡ſ - % 7« , , º ¿x-iº:№. !， sººſ §:ssae?！！（. .~ ¿¿.* * * * *-. ， " ！" · ● ſº ’ ’. ‘... • • • • • • • ،►، ، ، 8 ► · * ،, ， : „º sºº :） - w:eº： ∞ √°. ،·ş ， ºſsºs ∞∞∞ſae ，.…. . a, º * * * ſºſ， --- «~~~~..., ¿essº • ... ſº º 4 ***· s- m ， ，ſae … ） praeeººººººººoº！ | intº g ". *Sºme itnivtſºn OFMICHICAN Sºund H}} * A. º Ng N i º § # g READING *Fi . s! . . º. tº: (3;" «ſ, , , x 3. f". Eº - ~~~~ s * #: iſDITIIIHITIIMIITIIIlſill|||III Eººls -- see eº as ºccº - Finºliºſitºri % 'B'S (, & O ..Bg54 | 3a* B I B L ICA L S T U D Y. DR. BRIGGS' WORKS AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM. Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of which have recently been dis- covered. Cr. 8vo, with maps, . º ſº . $3.oo MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Prediction of the Fulfil- ment of Redemption through the Messiah. A critical study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their development. Cr. 8vo, . $2.5c BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and History of its Branches. Fourth edition. Cr. 8vo, . $2.5o WHITHER A Theological Question for the Times. Third edition. Cr. 8vo, . e e º . $1.75 THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. An Inaugural Address. Fourth edition. Cr. 8vo, paper, . 5octs. THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON. The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority. Second edition. Cr. 8vo, e º o o e . $1.75 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS Cr. 8vo, paper. Net, . © e © & º • 50 Cts. THE CASE AGAINST PROFESSOR BRIGGS. Part I. Cr. 8vo, paper, • e § g º • 50 CtS. THE CASE AGAINST PROFESSOR BRIGGS, Part II. Cr. 8vo, paper. Net, . º e tº • 5o Cts. THE CASE AGAINST PROFESSOR BRIGGS. Part III. Cr. 8vo, paper, º e tº tº e • 75 cts. BIBLICAL STUDY ITS PRINCIPLES METHODS AND HISTORY ***-*. ... . . ...- : Łſ ~ * &- ; : ! … * ..., ... ºf v After this preliminary labor, the exegete is prepared for his work in detail. The immensity of these details is at once overpowering and discouraging. The extent, the richness, the variety of the sacred writings, poetry, history, and prophecy, extending through so many cent- uries, and from such a great number of authors, known and unknown, the inherent difficulty of interpreting the sacred mysteries, the things of God—who is sufficient for these things? who would venture upon this holy ground without a quick sense of his incapacity to grasp the divine ideas, and an absolute dependence upon the Holy Spirit to show them unto him 2 (John xvi. 15). Truly, here is a work for multitudes, for ages, for the most profound and devout study of all mankind, for here we have to do with the whole word of God to man. The exegete is like the miner. He must free himself as º * Compare especially Diestel, Gesch, d. A. T. in der Christ. Kirche. Jena, 1869, $ + EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 29. far as possible from all traditionalism and dogmatic prej. udice, must leave the haunts of human opinion, and bury himself in the Word of God. He must descend beneath the surface of the Word into its depths. The letter must be broken through to get at the precious idea. The dry rubbish of misconception must be thrown out, and a shaft forced through every obstacle to get at the truth. And while faithful in the employment of all these powers of the human intellect and will, the true exegete fears the Lord, and only thereby hopes through his intimacy with Him for the revelation of wisdom.* I. The exegete begins his work with Grammatical Eacegesis. Here he has to do with the form, the dress of the revelation, which is not to be disregarded or under- valued, for it is the form in which God has chosen to convey His truth, the dress in which alone we can ap- proach her and know her. Hebrew grammar must therefore be mastered in its etymology and syntax, or grammatical exegesis will be impossible. Here patience, exactness, sound judgment, and keen discernment are required, for every word is to be examined by itself, ety- mologically and historically, not etymologically alone, for Greek and Hebrew roots have not infrequently been made to teach very false doctrines. It has been forgot- ten that a word is a living thing, and has, besides its root, the still more important stem, branches, and prod- ucts—indeed, a history of meanings. The word is then to be considered in its syntactical relations in the clause, and thus step by step the grammatical sense is to be as- certained, the false interpretations eliminated, and the various possible meanings correctly presented and classi- fied. Without this patient study of words and clauses * Job xxviii. 28; Ps. xxv. 14; Prov. viii. 17, sea. 30 BIBLICAL STUDY. no accurate translation is possible, no trustworthy expo. sition can be made.” It is true that grammatical exe. gesis leaves us in doubt between many possible con. structions of the sense, but these doubts will be solved as the work of exegesis goes on, and then, on the other hand, it eliminates many views as ungrammatical which have been hastily formed, and effectually prevents that jumping at conclusions to which the indolent and im- petuous are alike inclined. 2. The second step in exegesis is Logical and Rhetor- acal Exegesis. The words and clauses must be inter- preted in accordance with the context, the development of the author's thought and purpose ; and also in ac- cordance with the principles of rhetoric, discriminating plain language from figurative, poetry from prose, history from prophecy, and the various kinds of history, poetry, and prophecy from each other. This is to be done not after an arbitrary manner, but in accordance with the general laws of logic and rhetoric that apply to all writ- ings whatever. While the use of figurative language has led the mystic and the dogmatist to employ the most arbitrary and senseless exegesis, yet the laws of logic and rhetoric, correctly applied to the text, will clip the wings of the fanciful, and destroy the assumptions of the dogmatist, and, still further, will serve to determine many questions that grammar alone cannot decide, and, hence, more narrowly define the meaning of the text. 3. The third step in exegesis is Historical Exegesis. The author must be interpreted in accordance with his * Yes, we may say that no translation can be thoroughly understood after the generation in which it was made, without this resort to the original text, which alone can determine in many cases the meaning of the translators themselves, when we come upon obsolete terms, or words whose meanings have become modified or lost. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 31 historical surroundings. We must apply to the text the knowledge of the author's times, derived from archaeol- ogy, geography, chronology, and general history. Thus only will we be able to enter upon the scenery of the text. It is not necessary to resort to the history of exegesis; one's own observation is sufficient to show the absurdities and the outrageous errors into which a neglect of this principle leads many earnest but ignorant men. No one can present the Bible narrative in the dress of modern every-day life without making the story ridiculous. And it must be so from the very nature of the case. Historical circumstances are essential to the truthfulness and vividness of the narrative. Instead of our transporting Scripture events to our scenery, we must transport ourselves to their scenery, if we would correctly understand them and realize them. If we wish to apply Scripture truth we may, after having correctly apprehended it, eliminate it from its historical circum- stances, and then give it a new and appropriate form for practical purposes; but we can never interpret Scripture without historical exegesis; for it serves to more nar- rowly define the meaning of the text, and to eliminate the unhistorical materials from the results thus far at- tained in the exegetical process. - 4. The fourth step in exegesis is Comparative Exegesis. The results already gained with reference to any partic- ular passage are to be compared with the results attained in a like manner in other similar passages of the same author, or other authors of the period, and in some cases from other periods of divine revelation. Thus, by a comparison of scripture with scripture, additional light will be thrown upon the passage, the true conception will be distinguished from the false, and the results at. tained adequately supported. 32 ſº BIBLICAL STUDY. 5. The fifth step in. exegesis is one of vast importance which, for lack of a better name, may be called Literary AEvegesis. Great light is thrown upon the text by the study of the views of those who, through the centuries, in many lands, and from the various points of view have studied the Scriptures. Here on this battle- ground of interpretation we see almost every view assailed and defended. Multitudes of opinions have been overthrown, never to reappear; others are weak and tottering — comparatively few still maintain the field. It is among these latter that we must in the main find the true interpretation. This is the furnace into which the results thus far attained by the exegete must be thrown, that its fires may separate the dross and leave the pure gold thoroughly refined. Christian divines, Jewish rabbins, and even unbelieving writers have not studied the Word of God for so many centuries in vain. No true scholar can be so presumptuous as to neglect their labors. No interpreter can rightly claim originality or freshness of conception who has not famil iarized himself with this mass of material that others, have wrought out. On the other hand, it is the best check to presumption, to know that every view that is worth anything must pass through the furnace. Any exegete who would accomplish anything should know that he is to expose himself to the fire that centres upon any combatant that will enter upon this hotly. contested field. From the study of the Scriptures he will come into contact with human views, traditional opinions, and dogmatic prejudices. On the one side these will severely criticize and overthrow many of his results; on the other his faithful study of the Word of God will be a fresh test of the correctness of those hu. man views that have hitherto prevailed. Thus, from the EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 33 acting and reacting influences of this conflict, the truth of God will maintain itself, and it alone will prevail. We have thus far described these various steps of exegesis, in order that a clear and definite conception may be formed of its field of work—not that they are ever to be represented by themselves in any commen- tary, or even carried on independently by the exegete himself, but they should be regarded as the component parts of any thorough exegetical process; and although, as a rule, naught but the results are to be presented to the public, yet these results imply that no part of the process has been neglected, but that all have harmonized in them, if they are reliable results. In advancing now to the higher processes of exe- gesis, we observe a marked difference from the pre- vious ones, in that they have had to do with the en- tire text, these with only select portions of it. And still further we would remark, that while in these proc- esses the results are to be attained which will be most profitable to the great masses of mankind, we must severely criticize those who, without having gone through them themselves, either use the labors of the faithful exegete without acknowledgment, or else, accepting traditional views without examination, build on an unknown foundation ; for the world does not need theological castles in the air, or theories of Christian life, but a solid structure of divine truth as the home of the soul, and an infallible guide for living and dying. 6. The sixth step in exegesis is Doctrinal Exegesis, which considers the material thus far gathered in order to derive therefrom the ideas of the author respecting religion, faith, and morals. These ideas are then to be considered in their relation to each other in the section and chapter. Thus we get the doctrine that the author 2% 34 BIBLICAL STUDY. would teach, and are prepared for a comparison of it with the doctrines of other passages and authors. Here we have to contend with a false method of searching for the so-called spiritual sense, as if the doctrine could be independent of the form in which it is revealed, or, in- deed, so loosely attached to it, that the grammar and logic should teach one thing, and the spiritual sense another. There can be no spiritual sense that does not accord with the results thus far attained in the exe- getical process. The true spiritual sense comes before the inquiring soul as the product of the true exegetical methods that have been described. As the differences of material become manifest in the handling of it, the doctrine stands forth as divine and infallible in its own light. Any other spiritual sense is false to the Word of God, whether it be the conceit of Jewish cabalists or Christian mystics. . - 7. The seventh and final effort of exegesis is Practical Eacegesis, the application of the text to the faith and life of the present. And here we must eliminate not only the temporal bearings from the eternal, but also those ele- ments that apply to other persons and circumstances than those in hand. Everything depends upon the character of the work, whether it be catechetical, homiletical, evan- gelistic, or pastoral. All Scripture may be said to be prac. tical for some purpose, but not every Scripture for every purpose. Hence, practical exegesis must not only give the true meaning of the text, but also the true applica- tion of the text to the matter in hand. Here we have to deal with a false method of seeking edification and deriving pious reflections from every passage, thus constraining the text to meanings that it cannot bear, doing violence to the Word of God, which is not only not to be added to or taken from as a whole, but also as EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 35 to all its parts. This spirit of interpretation, while nom- inally most reverential, is really very irreverential. It originates from a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, and the neglect to use the proper methods of exegesis, as if the Holy Spirit would reveal the sacred mysteries to the indolent, even if they should be pious; for while He may hide the truth from the irreverent critic, He cannot be expected to reveal it except to those who not only have piety, but also search for it as for hidden treas- ures. This indolence and presumptuous reliance upon the Holy Spirit, which too often proves to be a depend- ence upon one's own conceits and fancies, has brought disgrace upon the Word of God, as if it could be mani- ſold in sense, or were able to prove anything that might be asked of it. Nay, still worse, it leads the preacher to burden his discourse with material which, however good it may be in itself, not only has no connection with the text, but no practical application to the circumstances of the hour, or the needs of the congregation. Over against this abuse of the Scriptures, the exegete learns to use it properly, and while he cannot find everywhere what he needs, yet he can find by searching for it, far more and better than he needs; yes, he will learn, as he studies the Word, that it needs no forcing, but aptly and exactly satisfies with appropriate material every phase of Christian experience, gently clears away every shadow of difficulty that may disturb the inquiring spir- it, proving itself sufficient for each and every one, and ample for all mankind. We have endeavored to consider the various proc- esses of exegesis by which results are attained of es- sential importance to all the other departments of the- ology. The work of the exegete is foundation work. It is the work of the study, and not of the pulpit, or ſº 36 BIBLICAL STUDY. the platform. It brings forth treasures new and old from the Word of God, to enrich the more prominent and public branches of theology. It finds the nugget of gold that they are to coin into the current concep. tions of the times. It brings forth ore that they are to work into the vessels or ornaments, that may minister comfort to the household and adorn the home and the person. It gains the precious gems that are to be set by these jewelers, in order that their lustre and beauty may become manifest and admired of all. Some think it strange that the Word of God does not at once reveal a system of theology, or give us a confession of faith, or catechism. But Archbishop Whately correctly explains it when he says that, “Since no one of the first promulgators of Christianity did that which they must, some of them at least, have been naturally led to do, it follows that they must have been suffernaturally withhell from it.” . . . . “Each Church, therefore, was left through the wis: foresight of Him who alone ‘knew what is in man,’ to provide for its own wants as they should arise;—to steer its own course by the chart and compass which His holy word supplies, regulating for itself the sails and rudder according to the winds and currents it may meet with.” + Indeed experience shows us that no body of divinity can answer more than its generation. Every catechism and confession of faith will in time become obsolete and powerless, remaining as historical monuments and sym- bols, as the worn and tattered banners that our veterans or honored sires have carried victoriously through the campaigns of the past—but not suited entirely for their descendants. Each age has its own peculiar work and needs, and it is not too much to say, that not even the * Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion. Fifth edi. tion, London, 1846. Essay vi., Pp. 349, 355. - - EXEGETICAL TEIEOLOGY. 37 Bible could devote itself to the entire satisfaction of the wants of any particular age, without thereby sacrificing its value as the book of all ages. It is sufficient that the Bible gives us the material for all ages, and leaves to man the noble task of shaping that material so as to suit the wants of his own time. The word of God is given to us in the Bible, as His truth is displayed in physical nature—in an immense and varied storehouse of material. We must search the Bible in order to find what we require for our soul's food, not expecting to employ the whole, but recognizing that as there is enough for us, so there is sufficient for all mankind and for all ages. Its diversities are appropriate to the vari Ous types of human character, the various phases of human experience, and no race, no generation, no man, woman, or child, need fail in finding in the Scriptures the true soul-food, for it has material of abounding wealth, surpassing all the powers of human thought and all the requirements of human life. III. The work of Exegetical Theology does not end however, with the work of Biblical Exegesis, but advances to its conclusion in BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. Exegetical Theology not only, in the department of Biblical Exege. sis, produces the material to be used in the other depart- ment of theology, but it has as its own highest problem, the thorough arrangement of that material in accord- ance with its own synthetic method. As there is a his- tory in the Bible, an unfolding of divine revelation, a unity, and a wonderful variety, so Exegetical Theology cannot stop until it has arranged the biblical material in accordance with its historical position, and its relative value in the one structure of divine revelation. And here, first, we see the culmination of the exegetical proc- 38 . BIBLICAL STUDY. ess, as all its departments pour their treasures into this basin, where they flow together and become compacted into one organic whole—for Biblical Theology rises from the exegesis of verses, sections, and chapters, to the higher exegesis of writings, authors, periods, and of the Old and New Testaments as wholes, until the Bible is discerned as an organism, complete and symmetrical, one as God is one, and yet as various as mankind is vari- ous, and thus only divine-human as the complete reve- lation of the God-man. - In this respect Biblical Theology demands its place in theological study as the highest attainment of exegesis. It is true that it has been claimed that the history of Biblical Doctrine, as a subordinate branch of Historical Theology, fully answers its purpose; and again, that Biblical Dogmatics, as the fundamental part of System- atic Theology, covers its ground. These branches of the sister grand divisions of theology deal with many of its questions and handle much of its material, for the reason. that Biblical Theology is the highest point of exegesis where the most suitable transition is made to the other departments; but it does not, it cannot, belong to either of them. As Biblical Theology was not the product of Historical or Systematic Theology, but was born in the throes of the exegetical process of the last century, so it is the child of exegesis, and can flourish only in its own home. The idea, methods, aims, and, indeed, re- sults, are entirely different from those presented in the above-mentioned parts of Historical and Systematic Theology. It does not give us a history of doctrine, al- though it uses the historical method in the unfolding of the doctrine. It does not seek the history of the doc- trine, but the formation, the organization of the doctrine. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 39 in history. It does not aim to present the systematic theology of the Bible, and thus arrange biblical doc. trine in the form that Systematic Theology must assume for the purposes of the day; but in accordance with its synthetic method of seeking the unity in the variety, it endeavors to show the biblical system of doctrine, the form assumed by theology in the Bible itself, the organ- ization of the doctrines of faith and morals in the his- torical divine revelation. It thus considers the doctrine at its first historical appearance, examines its formation and its relation to others in the structure, then traces its unfolding in history, sees it evolving by its own in- herent vitality, as well as receiving constant accretions, ever assuming fuller, richer, grander proportions, until in the revelation of the New Testament the organiza- tion has become complete and finished. It thus not only distinguishes a theology of periods, but a theology of authors and writings, and shows how they harmonize in the one complete revelation of God.” It is only from this elevated point of view that many important ques- tions can be settled, such as the Relation of the Old Tes- tament to the New Testament—a fundamental question for all departments of theology. It is only when we recognize the New Testament as not only the historical fulfilment of the Old Testament, but also as its exe- getical completion, that the unity and the harmony, all the grander for the variety and the diversity of the Scriptures, become evident. It is only from this point of view that the apparently contradictory views, as, for instance, of Paul and James, in the article of justifica- * See author's articles on Biblical Theology, in American Presbyterian Re- view, 1870, and in the Presbyterian Review, 1882, and Chapter XI. of this. volume. ** * 40 BIBLICAL STUDY. tion, may be reconciled in their difference of types. It is only here that a true doctrine of inspiration can be given, properly distinguishing the divine and human elements, and yet recognizing them in their union. It is only thereby that the weight of authority of the Scripture can be fully felt, and the consistency of the infallible canon invincibly maintained. It is only in this culminating work that the preliminary processes of exegesis are delivered from all the imperfections and errors that still cling to the most faithful work of the exegete. It is only from these hands that Historical Theology receives its true keys, Systematic Theology its indestructible pillars, and Practical Theology its all- conquering weapons. Thus Exegetical Theology is a theological discipline, which, in its various departments, presents an inexhaust- ible field of labor, where the most ambitious may work with a sure prospect of success, and where the faithful disciple of the Lord may rejoice in the most intimate fellowship with the Master, divine truths being received immediately from the divine hand, old truths being il- luminated with fresh meaning, new truths filling the soul with indescribable delight. The Bible is not a field whose treasures have been exhausted, for they are inex- haustible. As in the past, holy men have found among these treasures jewels of priceless value; as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, and Calvin, have derived therefrom new doctrines that have given shape not only to the church, but to the world; so it is not too much to expect that even greater saints than these may yet go forth from their retirement, where they have been alone in communion with God through His Word, hold. ing up before the world some new doctrine, freshly de. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 41 rived from the ancient writings, which, although hith. erto overlooked, will prove to be the necessary comple- ment of all the previous knowledge of the church, no less essential to its life, growth, and progress than the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity, the Augustinian doc. trine of sin, and the Protestant doctrine of justification through faith. CHAPTER III. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. THE languages of the Bible were prepared by Divine Providence as the most suitable ones for declaring the divine revelation to mankind. Belonging, as they do, to the two great families of speech, the Shemitic and the In- do-Germanic, which have been the bearers of civilization, culture, and the noblest products of human thought and emotion, they are themselves the highest and most per- fect developments of those families; presenting, it is true, their contrasted features, but yet combining in a higher unity, in order to give us the complete divine revelation. Having accomplished this their highest purpose, they soon afterward became stereotyped in form, or, as they are commonly called, dead languages; so that henceforth all successive generations, and indeed all the families of earth, might resort to them and find the common, divine revelation in the same fired and un- alterable forms. Language is the product of the human soul, as are thought and emotion, and, therefore, depends upon the constitution of that soul, the historical experiences of the family or race speaking it, especially the stage of development in civilization, morals, and religion. The connection between language and thought is not loose, but an essential connection. Ilanguage is not merely a (42) THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 43 dress that thought may put on or off at its pleasure; it is the body of which thought is the soul; it is the flesh and rounded form of which thought is the life and en- ergy. Hence it is that language is moulded by thought and emotion, by experience and culture; it is, as it were, the speaking face of the race employing it, and it be. comes the historical monument of the experience of that race; so that in many nations that have perished, and whose early history is lost in primeval darkness, their language gives us the key to their history and experi- ence as truly as the Parthenon tells us of the Greek mind, and the Pyramids of the Egyptian. It is not a matter of indifference, therefore, as to the languages that were to bear the divine revelation; for, although the divine revelation was designed for all races, and may be conveyed in all the languages of earth, yet, inasmuch as it was delivered in advancing historical de- velopment, certain particular languages must be em- ployed as most suitable for the purpose, and indeed those which could best become the fountains for en- riching the various languages of the earth. Hence it is that we can confidently claim that there are no lan- guages—not even the English and the German, which have drunk deepest from the classic springs of the He- brew and the Greek—that there are no languages that could so adequately convey the divine revelation in its simplicity, grandeur, fulness, variety, power and impres- siveness, as those selected by Divine Providence for the purpose. Hence it is that no translation can ever take the place of the original Scriptures; for a translation is, at the best, the work of uninspired men, who, though holy and faithful, and guided by the Spirit of God, are yet unable to do more than give us their own interpretation 44 BIBLICAL STUDY. of the sacred oracles. They must enter into the very spirit and atmosphere of the original text; they must think and feel with the original authors; their hearts must throb with the same emotion; their minds must move in the same lines of thinking; they must adapt themselves to the numerous types of character coming from various and widely different periods of divine rev- elation, in order to correctly apprehend the thought and make it their own, and then reproduce it in a foreign tongue. A mere external, grammatical, and lexico- graphical translation is worthless. Unless the spirit of the original has been not only apprehended, but con- veyed, it is no real translation. Hence it is requisite that all-sided men should be chosen for this work, or at least a body of men representing the various types and phases of human experience and character. But even then the translation can only express the theological, ethical, and practical conceptions of the holiest and most learned men of the particular age; and, inasmuch as the divine revelation was given through holy met who spake not only from their own time and for their own time, but from and for the timeless Spirit, the eter. nal ideas for all time; the advancing generations will ever need to understand the Word of God better than their fathers, and must, if they are faithful, continually improve in their knowledge of the original Scriptures, in their power of apprehending them, of appropriating them, and of reproducing them in speech and life. How important it is, therefore, if the church is to maintain a living connection with the sacred Scriptures, and enter ever deeper into their spirit and mysterious life, that it should encourage a considerable portion of its youth to pursue these studies, and at all events in- sist that its ministry, who are to train it in the things THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 45 of God, should have not merely a superficial knowledge of the Bible, such as any layman may readily attain, but a deep and thorough acquaintance with the original per- ennial fountains of truth ; otherwise, as history has al ready sufficiently shown, these uninspired versions will assume the place of the original inspired Word; and the interpretations of a particular generation will become the stereotyped dogmas of many generations, and the , life of a Christian people will be cut off from its only source of spiritual growth, and a barren scholasticism, with its stereotyped dogmas, mechanical institutions, and opera operata, will assume the place and importance of the divine word and living communion with God. The languages of the Bible being the only adequate means of conveying and perpetuating the divine revela- tion, it is important that we should learn them not mere- ly from the outside, with grammar and lexicon, but also from the inside, from a proper conception of the genius and life of these tongues as employed by the ancient saints, and especially of the historical genius of the lan- guages as the sacred channels of the Spirit's thought and life. For language is a living thing, and has its birth, its growth, its maturity, its decline, and its death. Language is born, not as a system of roots or detached words, that gradually come together by natural selection into sentences. As plants may grow from roots after they have been cut down, but do not have their birth in roots, but in the seed-germs which contain the plants in embryo; so language, although it may be analyzed into loots, yet was not born in roots and never existed in roots, but came into being as sentences,” as thought is ever a sentence, and not a word. Then as the mind de- * Sayce, Principles of Comp. Philology, p. 136, seq., 2d ed., London, 1875. 46 - BIBLICAL STUDY. velops, thought is developed with its body, language and thus the language grows with the culture of a peo. ple. All languages that have literary documents can be traced in their historical development. Especially is this the case with the languages of the Bible; they have a long history back of them; centuries of literary devel- opment were required to produce them. I. THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. The Hebrew language was long supposed to be the original language of mankind; but this view can no lon- . ger be held by any philologist, for the Hebrew language, as it appears to us in its earliest forms in the sacred Scriptures, bears upon its face the traces of a long-pre- vious literary development.* This is confirmed by com- paring it with the other languages of the same family. Thus the Shemitic family may be divided into four groups: 1. The Southern group—Arabic, Ethiopic, and Himjaric. 2. The Aramaic group — Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, and Mandaic. 3. The Hebrew group—the Phoenician and Hebrew. 4. The Assyrian and Babylo- nian. Now these languages are more closely related to one another than those of the Indo-Germanic family, the people speaking them having been confined to com- paratively narrow limits, crowded on the north by the Indo-Germanic tongues, and on the south by the Tu- ranian. These languages are grouped in sisterhoods. They all go back upon an original mother-tongue of which all traces have been lost. In general the Arabic or Southern group present the older and fuller forms of etymology and syntax, the Aramaic or Northern group º Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 3te Ausg.; Gött., 1864, s. 78, seq.; Ewald 4tteſ. Lehrö. des Heb. Sprache, 7te Ausg; Gött., 1863, s. 23. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE, 47 the later and simpler forms. The Hebrew and Assyrian groups lie in the midst of this linguistic development, where the Assyrian is nearer to the Southern group and the Hebrew to the Northern group.* The differ- ences in stage of linguistic growth from the common stock depend not so much upon the period or distance of separation as upon literary culture. The literary use of a language has the tendency to reduce the complex elements to order, and to simplify and wear away the superfluous and unnecessary forms of speech and syn- tactical construction. These languages have, for the most part, given us a considerable literature; they were spoken by cultivated nations of the ancient world, me- diating between the great centres of primitive Turanian culture—the Euphrates and the Nile. Everything seems to indicate that they all emigrated from a common cen- tre in the desert on the south of Babylonia, the Arabic group separating first, next the Aramaic, then the He- brew, while the Babylonian gained ultimately the mas- tery of the original Akkadian of Babylonia, and the As syrian founded the great empire on the Tigris. The book of Genesis (xi. 31) represents Abram as going forth from this central seat of Ur of the Chaldees, at first northward into Mesopotamia, and then emigrating to Canaan, just as we learn from other sources the Canaan ites had done before him. The monuments of Ur reveal that about this time, 2000 B.C., it was the seat of a great literary development.: The father of the faith- * See Gescnius, Heb. und Chald. Handwärterbuch, 9te Aufl. neu bearbeitet won Mülau und Volck, Leipzig, 1883. Von den Quellen, p. xx., sq. f Wide Schrader, Die Aöstammung der Chaldàer und die Ursitze der Semi- ten, Zeitschrift d. Deutsch. M. G., 1873. f Geo. Smith, The Chala'ean Account of Genesis, etc., p. 29, seq. New York, 1876. - . 48 BIBLICAL STUDY. ful, whose origin was in that primitive seat of culture, and who lived as a chieftain of military prowess (Gen. xiv.) and exalted religious and moral character among the cultivated nations of Canaan, and who was received at the court of Pharaoh (xii. I4)—that other great centre of primitive culture—on friendly terms, to some extent at least, made himself acquainted with their literature and culture. Whether Abraham adopted the language of the Canaanites, or brought the Hebrew with him from the East, is unimportant, for the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian are nearer to the Hebrew and Phoenician than they are to the other Shemitic families,” so that if the languages, as now presented to us, differ less than the Romance languages—the daughters of the Latin— in their earlier stages in the time of Abraham, their dif- ference could scarcely have been more than dialectic. The ancient Phoenician, the nearest akin to the Hebrew, was the language of commerce and intercourse between the nations in primitive times, as the Aramaic after the fall of Tyre, and the Greek after the conquest of Alex- ander. Thus the Hebrew language, as a dialect of the Canaanite and closely related to the Babylonian, had already a considerable literary development prior to ..he entrance of Abram into the Holy Land. The old idea that Egypt was the mother of Hebrew civilization and culture has been disproved ; for, though the Hebrews remained a long period in Egyptian bondage, they re- tained their Eastern civilization, culture, and language, so that at the Exodus they shook off at once all connec. tion with the Egyptian civilization and culture as alien and antagonistic to their own. For the very peculiari- ties of the Hebrew language, literature, and civilization * Sayce, Assyrian Grammar, p. 1, seg. London, 1872. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 49 are those of the Babylonian. The biblical traditions of the Creation, of the Deluge, of the Tower of Babel, are those of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The sacred rest-day, with the significance of the number seven, the months, seasons, and years, the weights and measures, coins—all are of the same origin. Still further, that most striking feature of Hebrew poetry—the parallelism of members—is already in the oldest Akkadian hymns. Yes, the very temptations of the Hebrews to the worship ºf Ashtoreth and Baal, of Chemosh and Moloch, are those that have ruined the other branches of their com- mon race.” How shall we account for these things un- less we suppose that they were brought with him by Abram in his emigration to Canaan 2 Fixing our atten- tion upon the single feature of the parallelism of mem- bers, how could the Hebrews have retained it as the es- sential feature of their poetry, if they had no poetic treasures preserved among them, and the poetic spirit had remained undeveloped with them P Without ven- turing upon an opinion with reference to the amount of literature to be attributed to these early times, but taking the Pentateuch as it is, we see therein a language admirably adapted for its purpose, the product of pre- vious literary development. Whether Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch or not, most scholars will admit a con- siderable Mosaic nucleus. This being true, the princi- ples of language seem to require either that the ancient records have been improved by later editors, or that there must have been a body of sacred literature to give the language that stable character that marks it through- out the entire sacred Scriptures; for while there is cer- tainly a development in the Hebrew language of the * Vide Schrader, Semitismus und Babylonismus. Şahrö. v. Prot. Theol., 1875. 3 50 BIBLICAL STUDY. Bible, and three periods may be readily distinguished, yet the differences between the earlier and the classic period are but slight, the chief distinguishing features being in the later writings of the Chronicler, Ecclesi. astes, and Daniel, all showing a decline from the classic models and an approximation to the Aramaic, in ety- mology and syntax. Sacred books give languages a permanence such as no other literature can give them. This is evident not only from the German Bible of Luther, and King James' English version, which have kept these great languages comparatively stationary, but also from the Koran, which has kept the Arabic so fixed to its classic style that it has taken a thousand years for the vulgar Arabic to reach that stage of linguistic develop ment presented in the earliest Hebrew of the Bible. Hence unless the language of the writings of Moses has been changed by later editors, at least a considerable portion of the Pentateuch must be assigned to his times. Moses is the father of the Hebrew language and litera- ture, as Luther is of the German. He moulded its fun- damental types, and started it in those directions that it has ever since maintained. As Abraham had gone forth. from the culture of Babylonia to enter upon the pilgrim life of believing communion with El Shaddai, so Moses went forth from the culture of Egypt to become the representative of Jahveh, and organize a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, a theocracy the vital principles of which became reverential fear and worship of the per- sonal God of the covenant. - Thus the Hebrew language became, in its essential Spirit and genius, a religious language, the holy tongue of the holy people of God, and Moses laid its founda. tions in a literature of sacred history, poetry, and proph- ecy. The histories contained in the Pentateuch are the THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE, 51 fountain of all subsequent history. The grand hymn (Exod. xv.), the prayer (Ps. xc.), the prophetic didactic poem (Deut. xxxii.), are the great boughs of lyric poetry upon which the Psalter subsequently burst forth in all its glory; and the prophetic discourses in Deuteronomy are the sources, as they give the key to all subsequent prophecy. Looking now at the language as religious according to its genius, and considering it in its fundamental types and their historical development, we observe the follow- ing as some of its most prominent characteristics: I. It is remarkably simple and natural. This is indeed a common feature of the Shemitic family. As compared with the Indo-Germanic, they represent an earlier stage in the development of mankind, the childhood of the race. Theirs is an age of perception, contemplation, and observation, not of conception, reflection, and reasoning. Things are apprehended according to their appearance as phenomena, and not according to their internal char, acter as noumena. The form, the features, the expres- sions of things are seen and most nicely distinguished, but not their inward being ; the effects are observed, but these are not traced through a series of causes, but only either to the immediate cause or else by a leap to the ultimate cause. Hence the language that expresses such thought is simple and natural. We see this in its sounds, which are simple and manifold, disliking diphthongs and compound letters; in its roots, uniformly of three con- sonants, generally accompanied by a vowel; in its in- flections, mainly by internal modifications; in its simple arrangement of clauses in the sentence, with a limited number of conjunctions. Thus the conjunction wav plays a more important part in the language than all conjunctions combined, distinguishing by a simple mod 52 - BIBLICAL STUDY. ification of vocalization, accentuation, or position, be tween clauses coördinate, circumstantial, or subordinate, and in the latter between those indicating purpose, or result. This is the most remarkable feature of the lan- guage, without a parallel in any other tongue. And so the poetry is constructed on the simple principle of the parallelism of members, these being synthetic, antithetic, or progressive; and in the latter case advancing, like the waves of the sea, in the most beautiful and varied forms. Hence it is that the Hebrew language is the easiest to render into a foreign tongue, and that Hebrew poetry can readily be made the common property of mankind. 2. We observe a striking correspondence of the lan- guage to the thought. This rests upon a radical difference between the Shemitic and Indo-Germanic family in their relative appreciation of the material and the form of lan- guage.” The form, the artistic expression, is to the Hebrew a very small affair. The idea, the thought, and emotion flow forth freely and embody themselves with- out any external restraint in the speech. This is clear from the method of inflection, which is mostly by inter- nal changes in the root, expressing the passive by chang- ing the clear vowel into the dull vowel, the intensive by doubling the second radical, the pure idea of the root by the extreme shortness of the infinitive and the segholate, the causative and the reflexive by lengthening the stem from without, and, so far as cases and moods exist, ex- pressing them harmoniously by the three radical short vowels. - How beautiful in form, as well as sense, is the abstract plural of intensity by which Elohim expresses the fulness * Wºº. Grill, ičer d. Verhältniss d. indogerm. u. d. semit. Sprachwurzeir in the Zeitschrift D. M. G. 1873. .i THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 53 of the idea of God conceived as the one to be revered; by which chayyim expresses the fulness of life, and which is employed in such passages as Eccles. v. 8, where the exaltation of God over all earthly judges would be represented, “For high over high watcheth The Highest over them.” So in the dependence of the construct relation, and the use of the suffixes. But perhaps this feature is most striking in Hebrew poetry where the absence of an ar tistic form is more apparent. We see that, with a gen- eral harmony of lines and strophes, the proportion in length and number is frequently broken through. And though the Hebrew poet uses the refrain, yet he likes to modify it, as in the lament of David Over Jonathan, 2 Sam. i. 19–27, the 80th Psalm, and the magnificent prophecy, Isaiah 40–66. Again, though the Hebrew poet uses the alphabet to give his lines or strophes a sort of regularity in order, using it as so many stairs up which to climb in praise, in pleading, in lamentation, and in advancing instruction, yet he by no means binds himself to an equal number of lines, or even measure of length ; and, apparently without necessity at times, breaks through his alphabet itself. Free as the ocean is the poet's emotion, rising like the waves in majestic strivings, heaving as an agitated sea, ebbing and flowing like the tide in solemn and measured antitheses, sporting like the wavelets upon a sandy beach. 3. The Hebrew language has a wonderful majesty and sublimity. This arises partly from its original religious genius, but chiefly from the sublime materials of its thought. God, the only true God, JAHVEH, the Holy Redeemer of His people, is the central theme of the 54 BIBLICAL STUDY. Hebrew language and literature, a God not apart from nature, and not involved in nature, no Pantheistic God, no mere Deistic God, but a God who enters into sym- pathetic relations with His creatures, who is recognized and praised, as well as ministered unto by the material creation. Hence there is a realism in the Hebrew lan- guage that can nowhere else be found to the same ex- tent. The Hebrew people were as realistic as the Greek were idealistic. Their God is not a God thought out, reasoned out as an ultimate cause, or chief of a Pan- theon, but a personal God, known by them in His asso- ciation with them by a proper name, JAHVEH. Hence the so-called anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of the Old Testament, so alien to the Indo-Germanic mind that an Occidental theology must explain them away, from an incapacity to enter into that bold and sublime realism of the Hebrews. Thus, again, man is presented to us in all his naked reality, in his weakness and sins, in his depravity and wretchedness, as well as in his bravery and beauty, his holiness and wisdom. In the Hebrew heroes we see men of like passions with ourselves, and feel that their experience is the key to the joys and sorrows of our life. So also in their con- ception of nature. Nature is to the Hebrew poet all aglow with the glory of God, and intimately associated with man in his origin, history, and destiny. There is no such thing as science ; that was for the Indo-Germanic mind; but they give us that which science never gives, that which science is from its nature unable to present us: namely, those concrete relations, those expressive jeatures of nature that declare to man their Master's mind and character, and claim human sympathy and protection as they yearn with man for the Messianic fut- ure. Now the Hebrew language manifests this realism THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 55 on its very face. Its richness in synonyms is remarka- ble. It is said that the Hebrew language has, relatively to the English, ten times as many roots and ten times fewer words;* and that while the Greek language has I,800 roots to IOO,OOO words, the Hebrew has 2,000 roots to IO,OOO words. This wealth in synonyms is appal- ling to the Indo-Germanic scholar who comes to the Hebrew from the Latin and the Greek, where the syno- nyms are more or less accurately defined. But nothing of the kind has yet been done by any Shemitic scholar, So far as we know. What will you do with a language that has fifty-five words for destroy, sixty for break, and seventy-four for take P : It is exceedingly doubtful whether this richness of synonyms can be reduced to a system and the terms sharply and clearly defined ; the differences are like those of the peculiar gutturals of the Shemitic tongues, so delicate and subtle that they can hardly be mastered by the Western tongue or ear. So these synonyms can hardly be apprehended and con- veyed into languages so poor when compared with such wealth. - This wealth of synonym is connected with a corre- sponding richness of expression in the synonymous clauses that play such an important part in Hebrew po- etry, and indeed are the reason of its wonderful richness and majesty of thought. Thus the sacred poet or prophet plays upon his theme as upon a many-stringed instrument, bringing out a great variety of tone and melody, advancing in graceful steppings or stately march- ings to the climax, or dwelling upon the theme with an * Grill, in 2. c. f Böttcher, Ausy. Lehrbuch d. Heå. Sprache, I, p. 8. Leipzig, 1866. f Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Test., p. 15. London, 1871. 56 BIBLICAL STUDY. inexhaustible variety of expression and coloring. The Hebrew language is like the rich and glorious verdure of Lebanon, or as the lovely face of the Shulamite, dark as the tents of Kedar, yet rich in color as the curtains of Solomon, or her graceful form, which is so rapturously described as she discloses its beauties in the dance of the hosts.” It is true that Hebrew literature is not as exten- sive as the Greek; it is confined to history, poetry, proph- ecy, and possibly romance; + but in these departments it presents the grandest productions of the human soul. Its history gives us the origin and destiny of our race, un- folds the story of redemption, dealing now with the in- dividual, then with the family and nation, and at times widening so as to take into its field of representation the most distant nations of earth; it is a history in which God is the great actor, in which sin and holiness are the chief factors. Its poetry stirs the heart of mankind with hymns and prayers, with sentences of wisdom ; and in the heroic struggles of a Job and the conquering virtue of a Shulamite, there is imparted strength to the soul and vigor to the character of man and woman transcend. ing the influence of the godlike Achilles or the chaste Lucretia ; while the second half of Isaiah presents the sublimest aspirations of man. Where shall we find such images of beauty, such wealth of illustration, such grand- eur of delineation, such majestic representations? It seems as if the prophet grasped in his tremendous soul the movements of the ages, and saw the very future mirrored in the mind of God. 4. The Hebrew language is remarkable for its life and fervor. This is owing to the emotional and hearty char. acter of the people. There is an artlessness, self-aban, * Song of Songs, i. 5; vii. 1-7. + See Chapters VIII. and IX. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 57 donment, and earnestness in the Hebrew tongue; it is transparent as a glass, so that we see through it as into the very souls of the people. There is none of that re- serve, that cool and calm deliberation, that self-conscious- ness that characterize the Greek.” The Hebrew language is distinguished by the strength of its consonants and the weakness of its vowels; so that the consonants give the word a stability of form in which the vowels have the greatest freedom of movement. The vowels circulate in the speech as the blood of the language. Hence the freedom in the varying expressions of the same root and the fervor of its full-toned forms. And if we can trust the Massoretic system of accentuation and vocalization, the inflection of the language depends upon the dislike of the recurrence of two vowelless consonants, and the law of the vocal sheva and the half-open syllable; and on the power of the accent over the vocalization not only of the accented syllable, but also of the entire word, and the law of the pretonic Qāmeſā. This gives the language a won- derful flexibility and elasticity. In the Hebrew tongue the emotions overpower the thoughts and carry them on in the rushing stream to the expression. Hence the lit- erature has a power over the souls of mankind. The language is as expressive of emotion as the face of a modest and untutored child, and the literature is but the speaking face of the heart of the Hebrew people. The Psalms of David touch a chord in every soul, and inter. pret the experience of all the world. The sentences of Solomon come to us as the home-truths, as the social and political maxims that sway our minds and direct our lives. The prophets present to us the objective omnipo. * Ewald, in l.c., p. 33; Böttcher, in l.c., p. 9. Bertheau, in Herzog, Real Encyclopädie, I., Auſ. Bd. v., p. 613. 3% 58. - BIBLICAL STUDY. tent truth, which, according to the beautiful story of Zerubbabel,” is the mightiest of all, flashing conviction like the sun and cutting to the heart as by a sharp two- edged sword. So with the history; it presents to us the simple facts of the lives of individuals and of nations in the light of the Divine countenance, speaking to our hearts and photographing upon us pictures of real life. These are some of the most striking features of the Hebrew language, which have made it the most suitable of all to give to mankind the elementary religious truths and facts of divine revelation. The great body of the Bible, four-fifths of the sum total of God’s Word, is in this tongue. It is no credit to a Christian people that the Hebrew language has no place at all in the most of our colleges and universities; that its study has been confined, for the most part, to theological seminaries and the students for the ministry. It is not strange that the Old Testament has been neglected in the pul- pit, the Sabbath-school, and the family, so that many minds, even of the ministry, have doubted whether it was any longer to be regarded as the Word of God. It is not strange that Christian scholars, prejudiced by their training in the languages and literatures of Greece and Rome, should be unable to enter into the spirit, and appreciate the peculiar features of the Hebrew language and literature, and so fail to understand the elements of a divine revelation. Separating the New Testament and the words and work of Jesus and His apostles from their foundation and their historical preparation, stu- dents have not caught the true spirit of the Gospel, nor apprehended it in its unity and variety as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets. But this is not all, for * I. Esdras iv. 33–41. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 59 we shall now attempt to show that the other languages of the Bible, the Aramaic and the Greek, have been moulded and transformed by the theological concep- tions and moral ideas that had been developing in the Hebrew Scriptures, and which, having been ripened under the potent influence of the Divine Spirit, were about to burst forth into bloom and eternal fruitfulness in these tongues prepared by Divine Providence for the purpose. The Hebrew language is, as we have seen, the language of religion, and moulded entirely by religious and moral ideas and emotions. The Greek and the Aramaic are of an entirely different character; they were not, as the Hebrew, cradled and nursed, trained from infancy to childhood, armed and equipped in their heroic youth with divine revelation, but they were moulded outside of the realm of divine revelation, and only subsequently adapted for the declaration of sacred truth. And first this was the case with the Aramaic. II. THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE goes back in its history to the most primitive times. It is the farthest developed of the Shemitic family, showing a decline, a decrepitude, in its poverty of forms and vocalization, in its brevity and abruptness, in its ple- onasm, and in its incorporation of a multitude of foreign words. It was the language of those races of Syria and Mesopotamia that warred with the Egyptians and Assyr- ians, and possibly, as Gladstone suggests, took part in the Trojan war,” who, according to Sayce, used the earliest system of writing, and were the agents through whom both the Hebrew and the Greek alphabets were * Gladstone's Homeric Synchronism, N. Y., 1876, p. 173. - f The Hamathite Inscriptions, Trans. Society of Bib. Archaeology, London, 1870, p. 30. * , - - 50 BIBLICAL STUDY. conveyed to those peoples. At all events the Aramaic became the language of commerce and intercourse be tween the nations during the Persian period,” taking the place of the Phoenician, as it was in turn supplanted by the Greek. The children of Judah having been carried into captivity and violently separated from their sacred places and the scenes of their history, gradually acquired this commercial and common language of intercourse, so that ere long it became the language of the Hebrew people, the knowledge of the ancient Hebrew being con- fined to the learned and the higher ranks of society. Hence, even in the books of Ezra and Daniel, consider- able portions were written in Aramaic. This Aramaic is called the Biblical Chaldee, to distinguish it from the Chaldee of the Targums, but really gives us an oldel type of the language. * The Aramaic continued to be the language of the Jews during the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, and was the common speech of Palestine in the times of our Lord, although it had long ceased to be the language of commerce and intercourse, the Greek having taken its place, which gradually penetrated from the commercial and official circles even to the lowest ranks of society. Thus there was a mingling of a Greek population with the Shemitic races, not only in the Greek colonies of the Decapolis and the cities of the sea-coast of Palestine, but also in the great centres of Tiberias, Samaria, and even in Jerusalem itself. Greek manners and customs were, under the influence of the Herodians and the Sad- ducees, pressing upon the older Aramaic and Hebrew, * It must also have been widely spoken in the Assyrian period, as we see from II. Kings xviii. II: See also Fried. Delitzsch, Wo Zag das Paradzes. Leipzig, w881, p. 258. . . . . . . . . - - f Schürer, AVezeźestamezzá. Zeitgesch., p. 372, Leipzig, 1874. - . . . . . . THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 61. not without the stout resistance of the Pharisees. The language of our Saviour, however, in which He delivered His discourses and instructions, was undoubtedly the Aramaic, although we could hardly deny Him the knowledge and use of the Greek. For not only do the Aramaic terms that He used, which are retained at times by the evangelists, and the proper names of His disciples, but also the very structure and style of His discourses, show the Aramaic characteristics. For Our Saviour's methods of delivery and style of instruction were essentially the same as those of the rabbins of His time. Hence we should not think it strange, that from this Aramaic literature alone we can bring forward parallels to the wise sentences and moral maxims of the Sermon on the Mount, the rich and beautiful parables, by which He illustrated His discourses, and the fiery zeal of His denunciation of hypocrisy, together with the profound depths of His esoteric instruction. Our Saviouſ used the Aramaic language and methods, in order there by to reach the people of His times, and place in the prepared Aramaic soil the precious seeds of heavenly truth. It is the providential significance of the Ara maic language that it thus prepared the body for the thought of our Saviour. It is a language admirably adapted by its simplicity, perspicuity, precision, and definiteness, with all its awkwardness, for the associa- tions of every-day life. It is the language for the lawyer and the scribe, the pedagogue and the pupil; indeed, the English language of the Shemitic family.” Thus the earlier Aramaic of the Bible gives us only official docu- ments, letters, and decrees, or else simple narrative. As moulded by the Jewish people after the return from * Volck in Herzog's Real Encyklopaedie, II. Aufl. I, p. 603. 62 |BIBLICAL STUDY. exile, it was through the giving of the sense of the original Hebrew Scriptures (Neh. viii. 8). The whole life of the Jewish people, subsequent to the exile, was in this giving the sense of the Hebrew Scriptures, both in the Halacha of the rabbinical schools, and the Haggadº of the synagogue and the social circle. It is true that the Halacha was developed in the rival schools of Sham- mai and Hillel into the most subtle questions of casu- istry, and our Saviour often severely reproved the Phar- isaic spirit for its subtlety and scholasticism; yet not infrequently He employed their methods to the discom- fiture of His opponents,” as in Matt. xxii. I 5–46, although His own spirit was rather that of the old prophets than of the scribes. The Haggada was developed by the rab- bins into a great variety of forms of ethical wisdom and legend. This we see already in the apocryphal books of Wisdom, in the stories of Zerubbabel, of Judith, of Susanna, and of Tobit." This latter method was the favorite one of our Saviour, as calculated for the com- mon people, and to it we may attribute the parables, and the sweet sentences of the Sermon on the Mount, which, though after the manner of the scribes, have yet a clearness and transparency as the atmosphere of the Holy Land itself, a richness and simplicity as the scarlet flower of the fields He loved so well, a calm majesty and profound mystery as the great deep, for He was the *Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die ev. Geschächte, p. 358, seq., Gotha, 1864. ł Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vāz-frage der ºuden, Berlin 1832, pp. 42, Ioo, 12O ; Etheridge, Antroduction to Hebrezo ſiterazzere, London, 1856, p. 102, fe?. Those who are interested in this subject may ſind a large collection of this Haggadistic literature in the Bibliotheca Račinica, Eine Sammlung Aſter Mid- raschim &es Deutsche ilbertragen von Aug. Wünsche, 20 Lief. Leipzig, 1880- 84. : - - f Hausrath, Die Zeit 9esus, Heidelberg, 1868, p. go. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 63 expositor of the Divine mind, heart, and being to man- kind (John i. 18). The office of the Aramaic language was still further to mediate between the old world and the new—the Hebrew and the Greek; for the Greek language was the chosen one to set forth the divine revelation in its com. pletion. III. THE GREEK LANGUAGE was born and grew to full maturity outside of the sphere of the divine revelation, and yet was predestined “as the most beautiful, rich, and harmonious language ever spoken or written" “to form the pictures of silver in which the golden apple of the Gospel should be pre- served for all generations.” + For, as Alexander the Great broke in pieces the Ori- ental world-monarchies that fettered the kingdom of God, and prepared a theatre for its world-wide expan- sion, so did the Greek language and literature that his veterans carried with them prove more potent weapons than their swords and spears for transforming the civili- zation of the East and preparing a language for the uni- versal Gospel. The Greek language is the beautiful flower, the elegant jewel, the most finished masterpiece of Indo-Germanic thought. In its early beginning we See a number of dialects spoken by a brave and warlike people, struggling with one another, as well as with ex- ternal foes, maintaining themselves successfully against the Oriental and African civilizations, while at the same time they appropriated those elements of culture which they could incorporate into their own original thought and life; a race of heroes such as the earth has nowhere * Schaff, Hºst. of the Apostolic Church, p. 145. New York, 1859. See also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I., p. 78. New York, 1882. 64 BIBLICAL STUDY. else produced, fighting their way upward into light and culture until they attained the towering summits of an art, a literature, and a philosophy, that has ever been the admiration and wonder of mankind. As Pallas sprang forth in full heroic stature from the head of her father Zeus, so Greek literature sprang into historical existence in the matchless Iliad. Its classic period was constituted by the heroism and genius of the Athenian republic, which worked even more mightily in language, literature, and art, than in the fields of politics and war, producing the histories of Thucydides and Xenophon, the tragedies of an AEschylus and Sophocles, the philos- ophy of a Socrates and Plato, the oratory of a Demos- thenes and AEschines. Looking at the Greek language before it became the world-language, and so the lan- guage of a divine revelation, we observe that its charac- teristic features are in strong contrast with those of the Hebrew tongue. I. The Greek language is comple+ and artistic. As the Hebrew mind perceives and contemplates, the Greek conceives and reflects. Hence the Greek ety- mology is elaborate in its development of forms from a few roots, in the declensions and cases of nouns, in the conjugations, tenses, and moods of the verb, giving the idea a great variety of modifications. Hence the syntax is exceedingly complex in the varied use of the conjunc- tions and particles, the intricate arrangement of the sen- tences as they may be combined into grand periods, which require the closest attention of a practiced mind to follow, in their nice discriminations and adjustments of the thought.” Hence the complex and delicate rules * Curtius, Greech. Gesch., Berlin, 1865, 2d Aufl., I., pp. 19, 20; History of Greece, New York, 1875, vol. i., pp. 30, 32. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE, 65 of prosody, with the great variety of metres and rhythms. The Greek mind would wrestle with the ex- ternal world, would search out and explore the reason of things, not being satisfied with the phenomena, but grasping for the noumena. Thus a rich and varied litera. ture was developed, complex in character, the epos, the drama, the philosophical treatise, and scientific discus- sion, which are purely Greek, and could have little place among the Hebrews.” 2. The Greek language is characterized by its atten. tion to the form or style of its speech, aot to limit the freedom of the movement of thought a “d emotion, but to direct them in the channels of clear, definite, logical sentences, and beautiful, elegant, and artistic rhetorical figures. The Greek was a thorough artist; and as th: palaces of his princes, the temples of his gods, the im ages of his worship, his clothing and his armor, must be perfect in form and exquisite in finished decora tion, so the language, as the palace, the dress of his thought, must be symmetrical and elegant." Henc there is no language that has such laws of euphony, in volving changes in vocalization, and the transpositior and mutation of letters; for their words must he musi. cal, their clauses harmonious, their sentences and periods symmetrical. And so they are combined in the most exquisite taste in the dialogues of the philosopher, the measures of the poet, the stately periods of the histo rian and the orator. The sentences “are intricate, com- plex, involved like an ivory cabinet, till the discovery of its nominative gives you the key for unlocking the * Donaldson, The Wew Cratylus, 3d ed., p. 153. f Curtius, Griech. Gesch., I., pp. 20, 21; History of Greece, New York, 1875 I., pp. 32–34. 66 BIBLICAL STUDY. mechanism and admiring the ingenuity and beauty of its rhetoric.” ” 3. The Greek language is thus beautiful and finished. The Greek mind was essentially ideal, not accepting the external world as its own, but transforming it to suit its genius and its taste. This was owing to its original hu- manizing genius and its central theme, man as the he- roic, man as the ideally perfect. As the language and literature of the Hebrews were inspired to describe “the righteous acts of Jahveh’s dominion in Israel and the victories of his holy arm " (Judges v. II ; Psa. xcviii. 1), and thus were majestic and sublime; so the language and literature of the Greeks were to sing the exploits of the godlike Achilles, the crafty Ulysses, and the all-conquer- ing Hercules; to paint the heroic struggles of the tribes at Thermopylae, Salamis, and Platea, to conceive a model republic and an ideal human world, and thus were beautiful, sta/e/y, and charming. The gods are ideal- ized virtues and vices and powers of nature, and con- ceived after the fashion of heroic men and women, ar- ranged in a mythology which is a marvel of taste and genius. Nature is idealized, and every plant and tree and fountain becomes a living being. Indeed, every- thing that the Greek mind touched it clothed with its own ideals of beauty. Hence the drama is the most ap- propriate literature for such a people, and the dialogue the proper method of its philosophy.f 4. The Greek language has remarkable strength and * W, Adams, Charge on occasion of the induction of Dr. Shedd as Pro- /essor of Biö. Literature, New York, 1864, p. Io. 3. + Schaff, Apostolic Church, New York, p. 145; Zezschwitz, Profangrâcitat und biblischer Sprachgebrauch, Leipzig, 1869, p. 13. † Curtius, Griech. Gesch., III., p. 508; History of Greece, New York, 1875, vol. V., pp. 169, 170. THE LANGUAHES OF THE BIBLE. 67 vigor. Its stems have been compressed, vowel and con- sonant compacted together. Its words are complete in themselves, ending only in vowels and the consonants m, r, and s : they have a singular independence, as the Greek citizen and warrior, and are protected from muti lation and change.” It is true it has a limited number of roots, yet it is capable of developing therefrom an in- definite variety of words; † so that although it cannot approach the wealth of synonym of the Hebrew, yet its words are trained as the athlete, and capable of a great variety of movements and striking effects. Its syntax is organized on the most perfect system, all its parts compacted into a solid mass, in which the individual is not lost, but gives his strength to impart to the whole the weight and invincible push of the phalamar. Hence the Greek language is peculiarly the language of Ora- tory that would sway the mind and conquer with invin- cible argument. It is the language of a Demosthenes, the model orator for the world. It wrestles with the mind, it parries and thrusts, it conquers as an armed host. - . Such was the language with which Alexander went forth to subdue the world, and which he made the com- mon speech of the nations for many generations. It is true that the Greek was required to forfeit somewhat of its elegance and refinement in its collision with so many barbarous tongues, but it lost none of its essential char- acteristics when it was adopted by the Egyptian, the Syrian, and the Jew. The Jews were scattered widely in the earth, engaged in commercial pursuits that re. * Curtius, Griech. Gesch, I., p. 18; Hist, of Greece, New York, 1875, vol. I. Q. 29. - f Jelfs, Greek Gram., 4th, ed., Oxford, 1864, p. 330. 6S BIBLICAL STUDY. quired them, above all others, to master the common speech of the nations. Hence those of Europe, Asia Minor, and Africa, easily adopted the Greek as their vernacular, and it gradually became more and more the language of Syria and Palestine. This was furthered by the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek at Alexandria, the centre of the Greek culture of the times, a translation which shows upon its face the diffi- culties of rendering for the first time foreign conceptions into a strange tongue,” but which nevertheless became of incalculable importance in preparing the way for the New Testament writers. The original productions of the Jews of Alexandria and Palestine, many of which are preserved in the apocryphal books of the Old Testa. ment, combined to produce the same result. Gradually the Jewish mind was modified by the Greek thought and culture, and the Greek language was, on the other hand, adapted to the expression of Hebrew and Ara- maic conceptions. The apostles of our Lord, if they were to carry on a work and exert an influence, world. wide and enduring, were required, from the very circum stances of the times, to use the Greek; for the Aramaic would have had but a narrow and ever-diminishing in- fluence, even if their labors had been confined to the synagogues of the dispersed Jews. Hence we are not surprised that, without an exception, so far as we know, the New Testament writers composed their works in Greek, yes, even gave us the Aramaic discourses of our Saviour in the Greek tongue. Nor was this without its providential purpose; for though our Saviour delivered His discourses in Aramaic, yet they were not taken * Reuss, Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog, Realencyklopädie, I. Aufl., p. 709, II., Auſ. p. 745. : THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 69 down by the evangelists as they heard them in that tongue, but were subsequently recalled to their minds by the Holy Spirit, who, in accordance with the promise of our Lord, brought all things to their remembrance (John xiv. 26); so that they recalled the ideas, rather than the language, and gave the ideas, therefore, the Greek embodiment; and so we have no translation of the words of Jesus, but the words of Jesus as they passed through the Hellenistic conception of the evangelists, colored by their minds and human characteristics; * for it was evi- dently the design of God that the Saviour's words, as well as acts and His glorious person, should be presented to the world through those four typical evangelists, who appropriately represent the four chief phases of human character and experience. - The New Testament writers used the common Greek of their time, yet as men who had been trained in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Aramaic methods of ex- position, but above all as holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Hence, as the Greek language had now to perform a work for which it had providentially been preparing, and yet one which it had never yet attempted, namely, to convey the divine rev- elation to mankind, so it must be remoulded and shaped by the mind of the Spirit to express ideas that were new both to the Greek and the Jew, but which had been de- veloping in the languages and literatures of both nations, for each in its way prepared for the Gospel of Christ.* Hence we are not surprised that the biblical Greek should be distinguished not only from the classic * Winer, Wezv Z'est. Gram., Thayer's edit., Andover, 1872, p. 27; Bleek's Einleit, in d. M. Z., 2d Auſl., Berlin, 1866, p. 76; Edin., 1869, p. 72, seg. f Schaff, Apostolic Church, p. 146; also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I., p. 76, seq. - - 70 BIBLICAL STUDY. models, but also from the literary Greek of the time although when compared with the Greek of the Septua, gint and the Apocrypha, it approximates more to the literary Greek, being “not the slavish idiom of a trans- lation, but a free, language-creating idiom, without, how- ever, denying its cradle.” ” It is true that much of its elegance and artistic finish has been lost, and the nicely- rounded sentences and elaborate periods, with their deli- cately-shaded conceptions, have disappeared, yet its dis- tinguishing characteristics, especially its strength and beauty, its perspicuity, and its logical and rhetorical power, have been preserved, while to these have been added the simplicity and richness, the ardor and glow of the Aramaic style; but over and above all these, the language has been employed by the Spirit of God, and transformed and transfigured, yes, glorified, with a light and sacredness that the classic literature never possessed. It is true that the writings of the New Testament are not all on the same level of style and language. The gospels of Matthew and Mark, and the epistles of Peter and James, together with the Apocalypse, have stronger Aramaic coloring, which disturbs the Greek lines of beauty, the Greek form being overpowered by the life and glow of the Aramaic emotion; yet in the writings of Luke and John, but especially of Paul and the Epis. tle to the Hebrews, the strength and excellence of the Greek unite with the peculiarities of the Aramaic and the Hebrew in striving, under the potent influence of the Holy Spirit, to convey the new religion in the most adequate and appropriate language and style. * Reuss, Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog, I. Auſl., V., p. 7Io; II. Aufl., V., p. 747.; Winer, Wezv Zesz. Gram., p. 39. ºf Immer, Hermenezzº des Wezen Testamezzºs, Wittemberg, 1873, p. Ioff, seq., Amer. ed., Andover, 1877, p. 132 ; Reuss, in 2. c., p. 747. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 71 Here the humanizing and idealistic tendencies of the Greek combine with the theological and realistic tenden. cies of the Hebrew and the Aramaic; for to these New Testament writers the person of Christ assumes the central and determining position and influence, as 9a/- zeh the one God did to the Old Testament writers. Christ became the emperor of the Scriptures, to use Luther's expression, and His person irradiated its lan- guage and literature with His own light and glory. Thus when the mind now strove to conceive no longer the simple idea of the one God 9a/veh, but the complex idea of the person of Christ and the Trinity therein in- volved, the Hebrew language was entirely inadequate; and the Greek, as the most capable, must be strained and tried to the utmost to convey the idea of the Logos, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and yet became the Word incarnate, the God-man, the interpreter in complete humanity of the fulness of the Deity dwelling in Him (John i. 1–14); for notwithstand. ing the historical preparation for this conception in the theophanies of the Hebrews, the mous of Plato, the logos of Philo, and the wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, it was yet an entirely new conception, which, notwithstanding the preparation of the Hebrew and the Greek, the world could not appropriate without the transforming and en- lightening influence of the Spirit of God.” So in an- thropology the apostle Paul combines the Hebrew and Greek conceptions in order to produce a new and perfect conception. Taking the psychology of the Greek as a system, he gave the central place to the Hebrew ruach or * Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschächte der Zehre von der Person Christ, Stuttgart, 1845, I, p. 64; Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1861, pp. 44, 45; Schaff, In, Lange, Com. on 9ohn, N. Y., p. 55. 72 BIBLICAL STUDY. spirit, finding, to use the words of Zezschwitz, its “un disturbed centralization in living union with the Spirit of God.” He then brings out the strife of the flesh (odoš) with the spirit (ſt veðua), and the false position of the psychical nature (huxi) over against the spirit... So also for the first he gives to the world the true conception of the conscience (ovvetómois) as “the remnant of the spirit in the psychical man,” “the divine voice,” the consciousness of which Socrates felt as the “summit of the knowledge of the true wisdom by the Greek spirit.” + JHence the development of the doctrine of sin with its rechnical terms, and of holiness with its new ideas and language. How infinitely deeper and higher than the Greek are these conceptions of the New Testament Janguage, as the person of Christ, presented by the cºmmipotent Spirit, convinces the world of sin, of right- cousness, and of judgment (John xvi. 8). Jesus, as “the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John i. 14), assumes the place not only of the heroic ideal man of the Greeks, but even of the unapproachable holy of meekness, patience, long-suffering, self-sacrifice; and the dethronement of the Greek virtues of strength, beauty, bravery, manhood. And so in all departments of Chris- tian thought, there was a corresponding elevation and degradation of terms and conceptions. We need only mention regeneration, redemption, reconciliation, justifi- cation, sanctification, life and death, heaven and hell, the church, the kingdom of God, repentance, faith, Christian love, baptism, the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, the advent, the judgment, the new Jerusalem, ever. * Zezschwitz, Profangrâcität, etc., p. 36, seq. tº ZezSchwitz, in l.c., pp. 55–57. THE LANGUAGES OF THE BIBLE. 73 lasting glory.” Truly a new world was disclosed by the Greek language, and the literature of the New Testa- ment, as the Hebrew and the Aramaic and the Greek combined their energies and capacities in the grasp of the Divine creating and shaping Spirit, who transformed the Greek language and created a new and holy Greek literature, as the earth heaves and subsides into new forms and shapes under the energy of the great forces. of its advancing epochs. The especial literary development of the New Testa- ment is in the sermon and the theological tract. We trace these from the first beginning on the day of Pen- tecost through the discourses of the book of Acts, and parallel therewith the epistles of Peter and Paul and John. Looking at the sermons we observe that they are no longer on the Aramaic model as are the dis- courses of our Lord, but we see the Greek orator as well as the Aramaic rabbin. So with the epistles, espe- cially of Paul, although he reminds us of the rabbinical schools in his use of the halacha and haggada methods," yet they exhibit rather the dialectic methods of the Greek philosopher. Thus the Greek orator and phi- losopher prepared the language and style of Paul the preacher and theologian no less than the Hebrew prophet and wise man gave him the fundamental prin- ciples of his wisdom and experience. And although the Greek literature of the New Testament has no De- mosthenes’ “On the crown,” or Plato's Republic, as it has no Iliad or Prometheus; yet it lays the foundation of the sermon and the tract, which have been the literary * Bleek, Einleitung, p. 71 ; Immer, Hermeneuß, p. 105; Am. ed., Ando- ver, 1877, pp. 129-131 ; Cremer, Biö. Theol. Wörterbuch der Weu-Testament. Grâcität and Trench, Wew Testament Synonyms under the respective words. f Gal. iv. 22, seg. ; Rom. iii. I, seq., etc. 74 BIBLICAL STUDY. means of a world-transforming power, as, from the pulpit and the chair, Christian ministers have stirred the hearts and minds of mankind, and lead the van of progress of the Christian world—for the sermon combines the pro- phetic message of the Hebrew with the oratorical force of the Greek, as it not only fires the heart, but strives in the council-chamber of the intellect and pleads at the bar of the conscience; while the epistle combines the sententious wisdom of the Hebrew with the dia- lectic philosophy of the Greek, in order to mould and fashion the souls of men and of nations, by great vital and comprehensive principles that constitute the invin- cible forces of Christian history. CHAPTER IV. THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. THE Bible is composed of a great variety of writings of holy men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in a long series extending through many centuries, pre- served to us in three different original languages, the Hebrew, the Chaldee, and the Greek, besides numerous versions. These languages were themselves the prod- ucts of three different civilizations, which having accom- plished their purpose passed away, the languages no longer being used as living speech, but preserved only in written documents. They present to us a great variety of literature, as the various literary styles and the various literary forms of these three languages have combined in this one sacred book of the Christian church, making it as remarkable for its literary variety as for its religious unity. The Bible is the sacred canon of the church of Christ, the infallible authority in all matters of worship, faith, and practice. From this point of view it has been stud- ied for centuries by Jew and Christian. Principles of in- terpretation have been established and employed in building up systems of religion, doctrine, and morals. The divine element, which is ever the principal thing, has been justly emphasized; and the doctrine of inspiration has been extended by many dogmatic divines so as to (75) 76 BIBLICAL STUDY. cover the external letter, the literary form and style, in the theory of verbal inspiration. The fact has been too often overlooked, that it has not seemed best to God to create a holy language for the exclusive vehicle of His Word, or to constitute peculiar literary forms and styles for the expression of His revelation, or to commit the keeping of the text of this Word to infallible guar- dians. But on the other hand, as He employed men rather than angels as the channels of His revelation, so He used three human languages with all the varieties of literature that had been developed in the various nations, using these languages in order that He might approach mankind in a more familiar way in the human forms with which they were acquainted and which they could readily understand, and He permitted the sacred text to depend for its accuracy upon the attention and care of the suc- cessive generations of His people. Hence the necessity of biblical criticism to determine the true canon, the correct text, and the position and character of the vari. ous writings. . . These sacred writings might be studied from the histor- ical point of view under the title, History of Biblical Lit- erature, or from the dogmatic point of view as Biblical Introduction ; but both of these methods of treating biblical literature, unless they depend entirely upon traditional opinions, presuppose the work of criticism. The dogmatic method of Biblical Introduction is con- trary to the genius of biblical study. The Biblical In- troductions constructed on this plan have gathered a vast amount of material in a dry, scholastic, pedantic, and ill-adjusted mass, so as to prejudice the student against the Scriptures when he should be introduced by the best methods into the sacred halls of its literature. The addition of the attributes “historical,” and “histori. THE BIBLE AND CRITICIS WI. 77 co-critical,” to “introduction ” has been accompanied by a corresponding internal improvement through the in. troduction of the critical and the historical methods, but they have been kept in too subordinate a place even in the works most characterized by freedom of criticism. Through the influence of Reuss and Hupfeld the his. torical method came into use as the dominant one.” But such a history of biblical literature can be con- structed only after criticism has accomplished its work of destruction and of construction, and it will be shaped and controlled by criticism. Hermann Strack + thinks that such a history is at present impossible on account of the great diversity of opinion among critics. It is frue that any such history will represent the subjective Opinions of the historian and his school. The works of Fürst and Reuss are built upon theoretical considera- tions rather than established facts. But a history of biblical literature might be constructed which would distinguish between facts and theories, and though it might be imperfect and not altogether satisfactory, it might prepare the way for something better, and it would certainly present the material in a most attractive form. But the dominant method in all biblical studies should be the inductive and not the historical. The construc- tion of a history of biblical literature would not dis- pense with a system of biblical literature as a part of Exegetical Theology. In the construction of this sys- tem criticism will prove the most important method. * Reuss, die Gesch. d. heal. Schrzyżen M. T., 1842, 5te Aufl., 1874; Hupfeld, Begriff und Method d, sogenam. bāb. Einleit., 1844; Fürst, Gesch. d. bib. Lit- eratur historisch und Āritzsch behandelt, 1867–70; Zahn, Einleitung in das AW. T., in Herzog, Real Encyk. ii. Aufl. iv., p. I47, 1879; Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schriften Alten Test. 1881. + Zöckler, Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften, I., 1882, p. 122. 78 - BIBLICAL STUDY. It seems best, therefore, to distinguish the three depart. ments of Biblical Literature as, Biblical Canonics, Text- ual Criticism, and Higher Criticism. The distinction between the lower and the higher criticism has long been known to scholars. These terms have been more widely used than any others to discrim- inate between the criticism of the text and the criticism of the literary forms and contents. They are not al- together satisfactory, but we shall retain them as the best terms that have been suggested and in accordance with the established technics of criticism. Hagenbach * proposes to substitute internal and external criticism for higher and lower criticism, but we have yet to learn that any critic has adopted his proposition. We propose to give in this chapter a general discus- sion of criticism itself, its idea, divisions, principles, and methods, and the propriety of its application to the : Bible; in the three following chapters to treat the three departments of biblical criticism separately, and in the two subsequent chapters to present biblical literature in its two great literary forms, as prose and poetry. I. WHAT IS CRITICISM P Biblical criticism is one of the departments of his. torical criticism, as historical criticism is one of the divisions of general criticism. Criticism is a method \/ of knowledge, and, wherever there is anything to be * known, the critical method has its place. Knowl- edge is gained by the faculties of the human mind through sense-perception, the intuitions, and the rea- soning powers. If these were infallible in their work- ing, and their results were always reliable, there would *s-- *-- * * Encyklopädie, 9te Auſl., 1874, p. 164. THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 79 be no need of criticism ; but, in fact, these faculties are used by fallible men who do not know how to use them, or employ them in various degrees of imperfection, so that human knowledge is ever a mixture of the true and false, the reliable and the unreliable; and errors of individuals are perpetuated and enhanced by trans- mission from man to man and from generation to gen- eration. Criticism is the test of the certainty of knowl- edge, the method of its verification. It examines the products of human thinking and working and tests them by the laws of thought and of history. It eliminates the false, the uncertain, the unsubstantial from the true, the certain, and the substantial. The unthinking rely upon their own crude knowledge which they have received from their fathers and friends or acquired by their narrow experience, without reflect- ing upon the uncertainty necessarily attached to it. But the reflecting mind which has experienced the un- certainty of its own acquisitions and of those things that have been transmitted to it, cannot rely upon anything as really known until it has been tested and found reli- able by criticism. For criticisſh reviews the processes of thought and the arguments and evidences by which its results have been acquired. It studies these prod- ucts in their genesis, examines them carefully in the or. der of their production, verifies and corrects them, im- proves upon them where improvement is possible, strengthens them where strength is needed, but also destroys them when they are found to be worthless, misleading, or false, as mere conceits, illusions, or fraudu- lent inventions. Criticism is thus on the one side de- structive, for its office is to detect the false, eliminate it, and destroy it. This is not infrequently a painful process to the critic himsel and to those who have allowed f 80 BIBLICAL STUDY. themselves to be deceived, and have been relying upon the unreliable; but it is indispensable to the knowledge of the truth; it is the path of safety for the intellect and the morals; it removes the obstructions to progress in knowledge. The destruction of an error opens up a vision of the truth, as a mote removed from the eye or frost brushed from the window. For criti. cism is also constructive. It tests and finds the truth It rearranges truths and facts in their proper order and harmony. In accordance with the strictness of its methods, and the thoroughness of their application will be the certainty of the results. But criticism itself, as a human method of knowledge, is also defective and needs self-criticism for its own rectification, security, and prog- ress. It must again and again verify its methods and correct its processes. Eternal vigilance is the price of truth as well as of liberty. It improves its methods with the advancement of human learning. In the infancy or growth of a nation, or of an individual, or of the world, we do not find criticism. It belongs to the manhood and maturity of a nation and the world’s civilization. Criticism requires for its exercise careful training. Only those who have learned how to use its tools and have employed them with the best masters, and have attained a mastery of the departments of knowledge to be criticised, are prepared for the delicate and difficult work of criticism; for knowledge must be attained ere it can be tested. Criticism refines the crude oil of knowledge. It cleanses and polishes the rough diamond of thought. It removes the dross from the gold of wisdorn. Criticism searches all departments of knowl- edge as a torch of fire consuming the hay, straw, and stubble, that the truth of God may shine forth it, its majesty and certainty as the imperishable and eternal THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 81 No one need fear criticism, save those who are uncer. tain in their knowledge, for criticism leads to certitude. It dissipates doubt. Fiat Lua is its watchword. We are not surprised that criticism has thus far been largely destructive, for there were many errors that had grown up and become venerable with age, and were so interwoven and embedded in systems of philosophy, of theology, of law, medicine, and science, as well as the manners and customs of men, that a long conflict was necessary to destroy them. Mankind in general are more concerned with the maintenance of established positions and systems and vested interests than they are interested in the truth of God and of nature. Scholars, when they see the venerable errors, hesitate to destroy them for fear of damaging their own interests or those of their friends, and sometimes out of anxiety for the truth, with which the error is entangled. But in the providence of God, some great doubter like Voltaire, Hume or Strauss, or some great reformer like Luther or Zwingli, arises to lay violent hands upon the systems in which truth and error are combined, raze them to the ground and trample them in the dust, that from the ruins the imperishable truth may be gathered up and arranged in its proper order and harmony. - - The modern world since the Reformation has become more and more critical, until the climax has been reached in our day. The destruction of error has been the chief duty of criticism, but its constructive work has not been neglected, and this will more and more rise into importance in the progress of knowledge. It is not with- out significance that the age of the world most charac- terized by the spirit of criticism has been the age of the most wonderful progress in all departments of human knowledge. 4* 82 BIBLICAL STUDY. Criticism divides itself into various branches in accord ance with the departments of knowledge: (1) Philosoph. ical Criticism; (2) Historical Criticism; and (3) Scientific Criticism. Limiting ourselves to historical criticism we distinguish it from other criticism, in that it has to do with the materials of the past, the sources of the his- tory of mankind; as philosophical criticism has to do with the facts of human consciousness, and Scientific criticism with the facts of external nature. Historical criticism deals with the various sources of history; liter- ary documents, monuments, laws, customs, institutions, traditions, legends, and myths. The great importance of the literary sources justifies their separation in the distinct branch of literary criticism. Biblical criticism is one of the sections of literary criticism, as it has to do with the sacred literature of the Christian Church. II. THE PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. The principles and methods of Biblical Criticism will thus embrace (I) those of Criticism in general, (2) of His- torical Criticism, (3) of Literary Criticism, and (4) of Bibli- cal Criticism. Biblical Criticism has thus the advantage of all this preliminary work in other fields to guide and illustrate its own peculiar work. - I. From General Criticism it derives the fundamental laws of thought, which must not be violated, such as the º, laws of identity, of contradiction, of exclusion, and of sufficient reason ; * also the laws of probation, which must be applied to all reasoning: There must be no begging of the question at issue, no reasoning backward and for- ward or in a circle, no jumping at conclusions, no set- * Sir Wm. Hamilton, Zogic, Boston, 1860, p. 57; also McCosh, Laws of Discursive Thought, N. Y., 1871, p. 195, seq. THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 83 ting out to prove one thing and then insensibly sub- stituting another thing in its place.* These laws of probation are the sharp tools of the critic with which he tests all the acquisitions of the human mind and all the reasonings of scholars in all departments of knowledge.t 2. From Historical Criticism Biblical Criticism derives the principles of historic genesis. The evidences of history belong to the past. They are oral, written, or monu- mental. They have passed through several stages before they reached us. They must be traced back to their origin in order to determine whether they are genuine; or whether they have been invented as interesting sto- ries for hours of idleness and recreation, or as forgeries with the intent to deceive ; or whether there is a min- gling of these various elements that need to be separated and distinguished.j: The order and processes of the development of the material must be considered in order to determine its integrity, or how far it has been modified by external influences or the struggle of internal inconsistencies, and how far the earlier and the later elements may be distin- guished and the excrescences removed from the original. The character of the material must be studied in order to determine how far it is reliable and trustworthy; whether it is in accordance with the experience of man- kind, and so natural; or contrary to that experience, and so unnatural or supernatural ; whether it is in harmony with itself and consistent with its own conditions and * Sir Wm. Hamilton, Zogic, p. 369; McCosh, Zazws of Discursive Thought, p. 183, seg. H An excellent application of these principles to Biblical Criticism is found in the article of Willis J. Beecher on the Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen, in the Presbyterian Rezzezv, 1882, III., p. 701, seg. † Gieseler, Zºext-Book of Church. History. N. Y., 1857, I., p. 23. 84 BIBLICAL STUDY. circumstances; whether there are disturbing influences that determine the material so as to warp or color it and how far these influences extend.* The value of the materials of history depends upon such considerations as these; also upon the nearness or remoteness of the material to the matters concerning which they render testimony; upon the extent and vari- ety of evidence, if that extent and variety are primitive and not derived from an original source upon which they all depend. The consistency and persistence of materials are also evidences of vitality and inherent strength of evidence. The sources of history that cannot bear this criticism are not reliable sources. The application of these sim- ple tests removes from the pages of history numberless legends, fables, and myths, and determines the residuum of truth and fact that underlies them. It is distressing to part with the sweet stories which have been told us in our early life, and which have been handed down by the romancers from the childhood and youth of our race. We may still use them as stories, as products of the imagination, but we dare not build on them as his- toric verities. As men we must know the truth. We cannot afford to deceive ourselves or others. Many of these legends and traditions have strongly intrenched themselves and lie like solid rocks in the path of historic investigation. They must be exploded to get at the truth, and this cannot be done without noise and confusion ; and outcries of alarm from the weak and timid, and those who are interested in the maintenance of error and court popularity by an ap- peal to prejudices. Sometimes these traditions may be * See Droysen, Grundzøss der Historiº, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 16-17, THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM, 85 overcome by positive evidence obtained by careful re- search in ancient documents, and by parallel lines of evi- dence. But it is not always possible to obtain sufficient external positive evidence. Sometimes we have to rely upon a long-continued and unbroken silence, and some- times we have to challenge the tradition and reject it from sheer lack of evidence and the suspicious circum- stances of its origin and growth. 3. From Literary Criticism Biblical Criticism derives its chief principles and methods. As literature it must first be considered as text. The MSS., versions, and cita- tions are studied in order to attain, as far as possible, the originals.” The laws of the transmission of books are jo be determined. The sources of error in the text are the carelessness, ignorance, or inadvertence of the copy- ists. We have to consider the mistakes which they were liable to make, such as in words of similar sound, in letters of like form, in the repetition of words in passing from line to line, in the omission or insertion of words or clauses by slips of the eye, in the transfer of explana- tory notes from the margin to the text. The errors in translation arise from lack of knowledge of the original, or inability to give adequate expression to the idea of the original, save by paraphrase, and in defective judg- ment as to the best way of rendering it. Errors in cita- tion arise from slips of the memory and the desire to use a part and not the whole of the passage, or the adaptation of it to circumstances beyond the scope of the original. There are also errors in the text because of the wear and tear of time in the destruction of MSS., ren- * A statement of the principles of Textual Criticism in relation to the New Testament may be found in the article of Prof. B. B. Warſield on 7 he Greek Testament of Westcott and Horč, Presbyterian Review, III., 1882, p. 334. 86 BIBLICATL STUDY. dering them illegible, indistinct, or mutilated, and through the efforts to restore them.* The value of the MSS. must first be considered, their interrelation and antiq- uity and history. They must be arranged in families Y. groups that their relative authority may be estab- lished. The value of the MSS. having been deter- mined, we are prepared to examine the relative value of the readings. The principles on which this is done are: (I) The reading which lies at the root of all the varia- | tions and best explains them is to be preferred. (2) The \ most difficult reading is more likely to be correct from the natural tendency of the scribe to make his text as easy and intelligible as possible, and the natural process of simplification in transmission. (3) The reading most in accordance with the context, and especially with the style and usage of the author and his times, is to be preferred. This is on the principle of consistency and “intrinsic probability.” $ 4. Having secured the best text of the writings, criti- cism devotes itself to the higher task of considering \ them as to integrity, authenticity, literary form, and re- | liability. This is appropriately called Higher Criticism. This branch of criticism has established its principles * See Cappellus, Crifica Sacra, 1650, Lib. I.; Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the Wezv 7 estament, 1874, p. 7, seq., Isaac Taylor, History of the 7×ansmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times, new edition. Liver- pool, 1879, p. 22 ; also Westcott and Hort, AVew 7 estament in the Original Greek, Vol. II., Introduction, N. Y., 1882, p. 5, seq. + See Scrivener in l. c., p. 404, seq. Westcott and Hort deserve great credit for their elaboration of this principle in 2. c.,. p. 39, seg. † These two principles are combined by Westcott and Hort in l.c., p. 22, seq., under the term “transcriptional probability.” § See Westcott and Hort in J. c., p. 20, seg. Scrivener expands these princi- ples to seven in number in l.c., p. 436, seq.; Davidson, Treatise of Biblical Criticism, Boston, 1853, p. 386, seg., gives principles of Textual Criticism for the Old Testament. • * ~~ - THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 87 and methods of work. Thus the learned Roman Cath olic, Du Pin, in the introduction to his magnificent work on ecclesiastical writers, gives an admirable state- ment of them with reference to those ecclesiastical writ- ers before the higher criticism of the Scriptures had fairly begun. We shall build largely upon him in the statement of principles.* The questions to be determined by higher criticism are: (1) As to the integrity of the writings. Is the writing the work of a single author or is it a collection of writ- ings of different authors P Is it in its original condition, or has it been edited or interpolated by later writers? Can the parts be discriminated, the original form of the writing determined, and the different steps in interpola. tion and editing traced P (2) As to the authenticity of the writings. Is the writ ing anonymous, pseudonymous, or does it bear the au thor's name P. If the author's name is given, is the title genuine or is it a forgery P What reliance can be placed upon tradition with regard to the authorship of anony- mous writings P (3) As to literary features. What is the style of the author, his method of composition ? What literary form does he assume, poetry or prose, and what variety of these general forms ? (4) As to the credibility of the writings. Is the writ- ing reliable? Do its statements accord with the truth, or are they colored and warped by prejudice, supersti- tion, or reliance upon insufficient or unworthy testimony ? What character does the author bear as to prudence, good judgment, fairness, integrity, and critical sagacity P * Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, Paris, 1694; New His- tory of Ecclesiastical Writers, London, 1696. - 88 BIBLICAL STUDY. These questions of the higher criticism are to be de termined by the following principles:* (1) The writing must be in accordance with its sup- posed historic position as to time and place and circum- StanceS. “Time is one of the most certain proofs; for nothing more evi- dently shows that a book cannot belong to that time wherein it is pretended to have been written, than when we find in it some marks of a later date. These marks, in the first place, are false dates; for 'tis an ordinary thing for impostors, that are generally ignorant, to date a book after the death of the author to whom they ascribe it, or of the person to whom they ascribe it, or of the person to whom it is dedicated, or written; and even when they do fix the time right, yet they often mistake in the names of the consuls, or in some other (ircumstances: All which are invincible proofs that he that dated ; his book did not live at that time. Secondly, impostors very often speak of men that lived long after the death of those persons to whom they attribute those spurious discourses, or they relate the his- tory of some passages that happened afterwards, or they speak of cities and people that were unknown at the time, when those authors wrote ’’t (2) Differences of style imply differences of expe- rience and age of the same author, or, when sufficiently great, differences of author and of period of composition. “In short, stile is a sort of touchstone, that discovers the truth or falsehood of books; because it is impossible to imitate the stile of any author so perfectly as that there will not be a great deal of dif- ference. By the stile, we are not only to understand the bare words and terms, which are easily imitated; but also the turn of the dis- course, the manner of writing, the elocution, the figures, and the # * A brief statement of these principles is presented in relation to Biblical Criti- cism by Prof. Henry P. Smith, in his article on the Critical Zheories of Şulius Wellhausen, Presbyterian Review, 1882, III., p. 370. + Du Pin, New History of Ecclesiastical Writers. 3d edition, corrected, London, 1696, p. vii. seq. - * * - - THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 89 method: All which particulars, it is a difficult matter so to counter- feit as to prevent a discovery. There are, for instance, certain au- thors, whose stile is easily known, and which it is impossible to im- itate: We ought not, however, always to reject a book upon a sligh difference of stile, without any other proofs; because it often hap. pens that authors write differently, in different times: Neither ought we immediately to receive a book as genuine, upon the bare resem- blance of stile, when there are other proofs of its being spurious ; because it may so happen, that an ingenious man may sometimes counterfeit the stile of an author, especially in discourses which are not very long. But the difference and resemblance of stile may be so remarkable sometimes, as to be a convincing proof, either of truth or falsehood" (in Z. c., p. viii.). (3) Differences of opinion and conception imply dif- ſerences of author when these are sufficiently great, and also differences of period of composition. “The opinions or things contained in a book, do likewise discover the forgery of it: (1) When we find some opinions there, that were not maintained till a long time after the author, whose name it bears. (2) When we find some terms made use of, to explain these doc- trines, which were not customary till after his death. (3) When the author opposes errors, as extant in his own time, that did not spring up till afterwards. (4) When he describes ceremonies, rites and customs that were not in use in his time. (5) When we find some opinions in these spurious discourses, that are contrary to those that are to be found in other books, which unquestionably belong to that author. (6) When he treats of matters that were never spoken of in the time when the real author was alive. (7) When he relates histories that are manifestly fabulous” (in Z. c., p. viii.). (4) Citations show the dependence of the author upon the author or authors cited, where these are definite and the identity of the author cited can be clearly estab- lished. In cases of doubt as to which author uses the other, or whether two or more authors may not depend upon an earlier author; this doubt can be resolved only by the careful determination of the exact interrelation 90 BIBLICAL STUDY. of the passages and the genesis of the one out of the other. This is the most difficult principle of the higher criticism in its application. Du Pin simply attaches it to No. (I), “ or lastly, they cite authors that wrote and lived after those whom they make to mention them.” These four principles are embraced under the internal evidence. To them we must now add two principles of external evidence. (5) Positive testimony as to the writing in other writ- ings of acknowledged authority. (6) The silence of authorities as to the writing in ques- tion. These are combined by Du Pin : “The external proofs are, in the first place, taken from ancient manuscripts; in which either we do not find the name of an author: or else we find that of another: The more ancient or correct they are, the more we ought to value them. Secondly, from the testimony or silence of ancient authors; from their testimony, I say, when they formally reject a writing as spurious, or when they attribute it to some other author; or from their silence when they do not speak of it, though they have occasion to mention it: This argument, which is commonly called a negative one, is oftentimes of very great weight. When, for example, we find, that several entire books which are attributed to one of the ancients, are unknown to all antiquity: When all those persons that have spoken of the works of an author, and besides, have made catalogues of them, never mention such a particular discourse: When a book that would have been service- able to the Catholics has never been cited by them, who both might and Ought to have cited it, as having a fair occasion to do it, 'tis ex- treamly probable that it is supposititious. It is very certain that this is enough to make any book doubtful, if it was never cited by any of the ancients; and in that case it must have very authentik char- acters of antiquity, before it ought to be received without contradic- tion. And on the other hand, if there should be never so few con- jectures of its not being genuine, yet these, together with the silence of the ancients, will be sufficient to oblige us to believe it to be a forgery" (in l.c., p. viii.). THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 91 The argument from silence has risen to so much greater importance than it was in the seventeenth cent- ury that we shall venture to define it more narrowly. (a) Silence is a lack of evidence, when it is clear that the matter in question did not come within the scope of the author's argument. (b) It is an evidence that it had certain characteristics that excluded it from the author's argument. (c) The matter in question lies fairly within the au- thor's scope, and was omitted for good and sufficient reasons that may be ascertained. The Omission was in- tentional. (d) The silence of the author as to that which was within the scope of his argument was unconscious and implies ignorance of the matter. (e) When the silence extends over a variety of writings of different authors, of different classes of writings and different periods of composition, it implies either some strong and overpowering external restraint such as divinſ: interposition, or ecclesiastical or civil power, or it im . plies a general and wide-spread public ignorance which presents a strong presumptive evidence in favor of the non-existence of the matter in question.* The internal evidence must be used with great caution and sound judgment, for an able and learned forger might imitate so as to deceive the most expert, and the author of a pseudepigraph might intentionally place his writing in an earlier age of the world and in circum- stances best suited to carry out his idea. But sooner or later a faithful and persistent application of the critical * * For an elaboration and explanation of these principles we must refer to the author's paper on the argument e silentzo, read before the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in June, I883, and published in their Žournal, for 1883. 92 BIBILICAL STUDY. tests will determine the forgeries and the pseudepigraphs and assign them their real literary position. As to the relative value of the internal and external evidence we cannot do better than use the judicious words of Sir Wm. Hamilton : “But if our criticism from the internal grounds alone be, on the one hand, impotent to estab- lish, it is, on the other hand, omnipotent to disprove.” ” The importance of this higher criticism is so well stated by Du Pin, that we will again quote him: “Criticism is a kind of torch, that lights and conducts us in the obscure tracts of antiquity, by making us to distinguish truth from falsehood, history from fable, and antiquity from novelty. 'Tis by this means, that in our times we have disengaged ourselves from an infinite number of very common errors, into which our fathers fell for want of examining things by the rules of true criticism. For 'tis a surprising thing to consider how many spurious books we find in antiquity; nay, even in the first ages of the Church " (in A. c., p. vii.). In order to illustrate these principles of the higher criticism, we shall present a few specimens of their appli- cation. * The first illustration that we shall give is with refer. ence to the question of integrity. The so-called Apos- tles' Creed is the most sacred writing exterior to the canon of Scripture. “Till the middle of the seventeenth century it was the current be- lief of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christendom that the Apos- tles' Creed was “membražum articulatumque,” composed by the apos- - ties in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or before their separation; to secure unity of teaching, each contributing an article (hence the somewhat arbitrary division into twelve articles).” The arguments adduced by Dr. Schaff to prove that this tradition is false, are: (1) The intrinsic improba * * Logic, p. 471. ~~ THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 93 bility of such a mechanical composition. (2) The silence of Scripture. (3) The silence of the apostolic fathers and all the Ante-Nicene and Nicene fathers and synods. (4) The variety in form of the creed down to the eighth century. (5) The fact that the Apostles' Creed never had any currency in the East where the Nicene creed occupies its place.” Lumby goes into the matter of the structure of the creed more fully, and shows the process of its formation and all the changes through which it passed, until it gradually, in 750 A.D., assumed its present stereotyped form.: The best illustration of the higher criticism with reference to the question of authenticity, is afforded by Bentley in his celebrated work on the epistles of Phalaris. Bentley proves these epistles to be forgeries of a sophist: I. By internal evidence. (I) They do not accord with their presumed age, but with other ages. They mention (a) Aloesa, a city which was not built till 140 years after the latest year of Phalaris; (5) Theridean cups, which were not known until 120 years after the death of Phalaris; (c) Messana, as a different city from Zaude, whereas it was a later name for the same city, and not changed till 60 years after the death of Pha- laris; (d) Taurominium, 140 years before it was ever thought of. (2) Differences of style : (a) the use of the Attic dialect instead of the Doric, the speech of Phalaris, and indeed not the old Attic, but the new Attic that was not used till centuries after Phalaris' time. * Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, I., p. 19. + Lumby, History of the Creeds, Cambridge, 1873, p. 169, seg. 1 A Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, London, 1699, a new edition edited by Wilhelm Wagner, London, 1883. 94 BIBLICAL STUDY. (3) Difference: of thought : (a) reference to tragedy be. fore tragedy came into existence; (b) use of Attic and not Sicilian talents in speaking of money; (c) use of the word 7tpovota for Divine Providence, which was not used before Plato, and ſtoo/wos for the universe, which was not so used before Pythagoras; (d) inconsistencies between the ideas and matter of the epistle, which are those of a sophist, and the historical character of Phalaris as a politician and tyrant. (4) Relation to other writers. He uses Herodotus Demosthenes, Euripides. II. The external evidences are: (5) testimony. Atossa is said to have been the first inventor of epistles. Hence those that carry the name of Phalaris two gener- ations earlier must be impostures. (6) Silence. There is a thousand years of silence as to these epistles. “For had our letter been used or transcribed during that thousand years, somebody would have spoken of it, especially since so many of the an- cients had occasion to do so; so that their silence is a direct argument that they never had heard of them.” We have dwelt at some length upon the principles and methods of the higher criticism, because of their great importance in our day with reference to the Scriptures and the lack of information concerning them that pre- vails to an astonishing degree among men who make Some pretensions to scholarship. III. THE CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE. Thus far Biblical Criticism has derived from other branches of criticism the principles and methods of its work. Has it not, however, some peculiar features of * New edition, 1883, p. 481. THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 95 its own, as it has to do with the sacred canon of the Christian Church P Does the fact that the canon of sacred Scripture is holy, inspired, and of divine author- ity, lift it above criticism, or does it give additional/ features of criticism that enable us to test the genuine- Å ness of these claims respecting it? We hold that the latter is the true and only safe position, and that it should be our effort to determine these principles and methods. We reserve this question for our following chapter. In the meanwhile we have to meet on the threshold of our work the a priori objections that would obstruct our progress in the application of the principles and methods of criticism to the Bible. - Biblical Criticism is confronted by traditional views of the Bible that do not wish to be disturbed, and by dog- matic statements respecting the Bible which decline reinvestigation and revision. The claim is put forth that these traditional views and dogmatic statements are in accordance with the Scriptures and the symbols of the Church, and that the orthodox faith is put in perii by criticism. It should be distinctly recognized at the outset that such claims as these can only influence the adherents of the church, and, at the utmost, debar them from the exercise of criticism. They cannot be more than amus- ing to the unbelieving and the sceptical, who care but little for the church and still less for theologians and their orthodoxy. They will use the tests of criticism without restraint. We cannot prevent them. The question is whether Christian scholars also shall be entitled to use them in defence of the Scriptures, or whether that defence is to be left in the hands of dog. matic theologians and scholastics. A still further re- mark is necessary just here in the interests of truth \ 96 BIBLICAL STUDY. and honesty. Why should the Scriptures fear the most searching investigation? If they are truly the Word of God they will maintain themselves and vindicate them- selves in the battle of criticism. If we are sure of this, let us rejoice in the conflict that will lead to victory; if we are in doubt of it, it is best that our doubts should be removed as soon as possible. Then let the tests be applied, and let us know in whom and what we believe.* . - It is pretended that the Church doctrine of inspira- tion is in peril, and that the authority of the Scriptures is thereby undermined. If there were one clearly de- fined orthodox doctrine of inspiration to which all evangelical men agreed, as supported by Scripture and the Protestant confessions, our task would be easier. But, in fact, there are various theories of inspiration, and several ways of stating the doctrine of inspiration that are without support in Scripture or symbol. It is necessary, therefore, to discriminate, in order to deter. mine exactly what is in peril, whether inspiration itself and the authority of the Scriptures, or some particular and false theory of inspiration,and the authority of some theologian or school of theology. The doctrine of inspiration may be constructed (I) by a careful, painstaking study of the sacred Scriptures themselves, gathering together their testimony as to their own origin, character, design, value, and authority. This gives us the biblical doctrine of the Scriptures and the doctrine of inspiration as a part of Biblical Theology. (2) The doctrine of inspiration may be constructed from a study of the symbolical books of the Church, which express the faith of the Church as attained in the great * Robert Rainy, Bible and Criticism, London, 1878, p. 33. THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 97 crises of its history, in the study of the Scriptures, in the experiences and life of men. This gives us the symbol- ical, or orthodox, or Church doctrine of inspiration. (3) The doctrine of inspiration may be constructed by a study of Scripture and symbol, and the logical unfold- ing of the results of a more extended study of the whole subject in accordance with the dominant philo- sophical and theological principles of the times. This gives us the dogmatic, or School, or traditional doctrine of inspiration as it has been established in particular schools of theology, and has become traditional in the long-continued teaching of the Church and the pulpit, in the various particular theories of inspiration that have been formulated. - - As we rise in the doctrinal process from the sim- ple biblical statements, unformulated as they lie in the sacred writings or formulated in Biblical Theology, to the more complex and abstract statements of the sym- bols expressing the formulated consensus of the leaders of the Church in the formative periods of history, and then to the more theoretical and scholastic statements of the doctrinal treatises of the theologians, while the doctrine becomes more and more complex, massive, con- sistent, and imposing, and seems, therefore, to become more authoritative and binding; in reality the authority diminishes in this relative advance in systematization, so that what is gained in extension is lost in intension ; for the construction is a construction of sacred materials by human and fallible minds, with defective logic, failing sometimes to justify premises, and leaping to conclu- sions that cannot always be defended, and in a line and direction determined by the temporary and provisional conditions and necessities of the times, neglecting modi- fying circumstances and conditions. The concrete that 5 98 BIBLICAL STUDY. the Bible gives us is for all time, as it is the living and eternal substance; though changeable, it reproduces and so perpetuates itself in a wonderful variety of forms of beauty, yet all blending and harmonizing as the colors of the clouds and skies under the painting of the sun- beams; but the abstract is the formal and the perish- able, as it is broken through and shattered by the pulsa- tions and struggles of the living and developing truth of God, ever striving for expression and adaptation to every different condition of mankind, in the different epochs and among the various races of the world. The course of religious history has clearly established the principle that there is a constant tendency in all re- ligions, and especially in the Christian religion, in the systematic or dogmatic statement to constrain the sym. bol as well as the Scriptures into the requirements of the particular formative principle and the needs of the particular epoch. The dogmatic scheme is too often the mould into which the gold of the Scriptures and the silver of the creed are poured to coin a series of defini- tions, and fashion a system of theology which not only breaks up the concrete and harmonious whole of the Scriptures into fragments, stamping them with the im- print of the particular conception of the theologian in order to their reconstruction; but not infrequently the constructed system becomes an idol of the theologian and his pupils, as if it were the orthodox, the divine truth, while a mass of valuable scriptural and symboli- cal material is cast aside in the process, and lies neg- lected in the workshop. In course of time the symbols as well as the Scriptures are overlaid with glosses and perplexing explanations, so that they become either dark, obscure, and uncertain to the ordinary reader, or else have their meanings deflected and perverted, until THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 99 they are once more grasped by a living, energetical faith in a revived state of the Church, and burst forth from their scholastic fetters, that Scripture, creed, and life may once more correspond. While traditionalism and scholasticism have not prevailed in the Protestant Church to the same extent as in the Greek and Roman churches, for the right of private judgment and the uni- versal priesthood of believers have maintained their ground with increasing vigor in Western Europe and America since the Reformation; yet it is no less true that the principle of traditionalism is ever at work in the chairs of theology and in the pulpits of the Church; So that in seeking for truth and in estimating what is binding on faith and conscience, even Protestants must distinctly separate the three things: Bible, symbol, and tradition; the Bible, the sole infal/ible norm ; the sym- bol, binding those who hold to the body of which it is the banner; while tradition demands at the most our re- spect, and reverence, and careful consideration, and the presumption in its favor; but must be tried and criti- cised by every thinking man, and every living, energetic Christian. It is of vast importance that we should make these distinctions on the threshold of the study of the critical theories; for there is no field in which tradition has been more hasty in its conclusions, more busy in their formation, more dogmatic and sensitive to criticism more reluctant and stubborn to give way to the truth, than in the sacred fields of the Divine Word. Thus criticism is confronted at the outset now as ever with two a priori objections. - 1st. There are those who maintain that their tradi. tional views of the sacred Scriptures are inseparably bound up with the church doctrine of inspiration, so 100 BIBLICAL STUDY. that even if they should be in some respects doubtful or erroneous, they must be left alone for fear of the de- struction of the doctrine of inspiration itself. This is true of those traditional theories of inspiration which in some quarters have expanded so as to cover a large part of the ground of Exegetical Theology, and commit them- selves to theories of text and author, date, style, and in- tegrity of writings, in accordance with a common, but, in our judgment, an injudicious method of discussing the whole Bible under the head of bibliology in the pro- legomena of the dogmatic system; but this is not true of the symbolical doctrine of inspiration, still less of the scriptural doctrine. The most that this objection can require of the critics is, that they should be careful and cautious of giving offence, or of needlessly shocking prej- udices; that they should be respectful and reverent of the faith of the people and of revered theologians; but it is not to be supposed that it will make them recreant to their trust of seeking earnestly, patiently, persist- ently, and prayerfully for the truth of God. It may be found that the school doctrines of inspiration have ob- truded themselves in place of the symbolical and script- ural doctrine, and it may be necessary to destroy these school doctrines in order to the safety of the biblical and symbolical doctrine. However distressing this may be to certain dogmatic divines and their adherents, it may afford gratification to all sincere lovers of the truth of God. 2d. There are those who claim that their traditional theory is the logical unfolding of the doctrine of the Symbols and the Scriptures. But this is begging the very question at issue which will not be yielded. Why should dogmatic theologians claim exemption from criti- cism ...nd the testing of the grounds of their systems? THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 101 Such an arbitrary claim for deductions and conse. quences is one that no true critic or historian Ought to concede; for, by so doing, he abandons at once the right and ground of criticism, and the inductive meth- ods of historical and scientific investigation, and sacri- fices his material to the dogmatist and scholastic, sur- rendering the concrete for the abstract. The very sensi- tiveness to criticism displayed in some quarters justifies the critics in their suspicion that the theories are weak and will not sustain investigation. Traditional theories cannot overcome critical theories with either of these a priori objections of apprehended peril to faith or logical inconsistencies, but must submit to the test of the symbol and the Scriptures to which the critics appeal as the arbiters against tradition. The characteristic principle of Puritanism is that: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free froſa the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word or beside it in matters of faith and worship; so that, to believe such doctrine, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.” + Biblical criticism bases its historic right on the princi. ples of the Reformation and of Puritanism over against the Roman Catholic principle of the supremacy of tradi- tion and dogma. On this basis the Protestant symbols have been accepted and subscribed by honest and faith- ful men for their face value for all that is fairly contained therein, and not for certain unknown and undiscovered consequences which may have a chance majority or the most authoritative teachers. Symbols of faith are the ex- * Westminster Conſ: of Faith, xx. 2; see also A. F. Mitchell, The Westmin. ster Assembly: its History and Standards, London, 1883, pp. 8, segS, 465. \ 102 BIBLICAL STUDY. pression of the faith of those who constructed them, and of those who subsequently adopted them, so far as they give expression to Christian doctrine; but, with regard to those questions not covered by their statements, which they may have held in abeyance, or purposely Omitted on account of disagreement, and in order to lib. erty, or because they were not suited for a national con- fession or a child's catechism, or because they had not yet arisen in the field of controversy, to bring these in by the plea of logical deduction, is to elaborate and en- large the creed against the judgment of those who framed it, is to usurp the constitutional methods of revision, is to dogmatize and obstruct those active, ener- getic Scholars, who, having accepted them for their face value as a genuine expression of their faith, push forth into the unexplored fields of the Bible and theology, in order, by the inductive method and the generalization of facts, rather than by deductions from symbolic or scholastic statements, to win new triumphs for their Divine Master. These preliminary observations are necessary, in order to clear the ground and make the distinction evident between the symbolical, the truly orthodox doctrine of inspiration from which true criticism has nothing to fear, and any traditional, scholastic, or professedly orthodox doctrine of inspiration, such as those that have waged war with criticism so often since the Reformation. Recent critical theories arise and work as did their pred- ecessors, in the various departments of exegetical the- ology. Here is their strength, that they antagonize scholastic dogma with the Bible itself, and appeal from school theology to biblical theology. Unless traditional theories of inspiration can vindicate themselves on Bible grounds, meet the critics, and overcome them in fair THE BIBLE AND CRITICISM. 103 conflict, in the sacred fields of the Divine Word, sooner or later traditional theories will be driven from the field. It will not do to antagonize critical theories of the Bible with traditional theories of the Bible, for the critic ap- peals to history against tradition, to an array of facts against So-called inferences, to the laws of probation against dogmatic assertion, to the Divine Spirit speaking in the Scriptures against external authority. History, facts, truth, the laws of thought, are all divine prod- ucts, and most consistent with the Divine Word, and they will surely prevail. It is significant that the great majority of professional biblical scholars in the various universities and theologi- cal halls of the world, embracing those of the greatest learning, industry, and piety, demand a revision of tradi- tional theories of the Bible, on account of a large induc- tion of new facts from the Bible and history. These critics must be met with argument and candid reasoning as to these facts and their interpretation, and cannot be overcome by mere cries of alarm for the Church and the Bible which, in their last analysis, usually amount to nothing more than peril to certain favorite views. What peril can come to the Scriptures from a more profound critical study of them P The peril is to scholastic dog- mas and to tradition. But what then are we contending for as evangelical men, for the faith of the Scriptures, the faith of Wittenberg, of Geneva, and of Westminster, or for the faith of the Reformed scholastics, and the faith of certain schools of theology and their chiefs? We must recognize in order to meet this issue, upon which every- thing depends, that biblical critics cannot afford to carry the load of the school theology into the conflicts of the nineteenth century, but must strip to the symbols for a conflict with rationalism and materialism; and we should 104 BIBLICAL STUDY. not fear as evangelical biblical scholars to accept the challenge of our adversaries and go forth from the breast. works of our symbols to meet them in fair and honor. able warfare in open field with the biblical material itself on the principles of induction.* The sword of the Spirit alone will conquer in this warfare. Are Christian men afraid to put it to the test ? For this is a conflict after all between true criticism and false criticism; be. tween the criticism which is the product of the evangel- ical spirit of the Reformation, and critical principles that are the product of deism and rationalism. Evan- gelical criticism has been marching from conquest to conquest, though far too often at a sad disadvantage, like a storming party who have sallied forth from their breast- works to attack the trenches of the enemy, finding in the hot encounter that the severest fire and gravest peril are from the misdirected batteries of their own line. Shall evangelical criticism in searching the Scriptures be per- :mitted to struggle unhindered with rationalistic criticism, or must it protect itself also from scholastic dogmatism We do not deny the right of dogmatism and the a prior. method, nor the worth of tradition, within their proper spheres; but we maintain the equal right of criticism and the inductive method, and their far greater importance in the acquisition of true and reliable knowledge. If criticism and dogmatism are harnessed together, a span of twin steeds, they will draw the car of theology rap- idly toward its highest ideal; but pulling in opposite di- rections, especially in the present crisis, they will tear it to pieces. * See author's article on the Right, Duty, and Zimits of Biblical Criticism, Presbyterian Review, II., p. 557, seq.; Willis J. Beecher, art. Logical Meth. wds of Prof. Kueneze, Presbyterian Review, III., p. 703; Francis L. Patton. art. Pentateucha! Criticism, Presbyterian Review, IV., p. 356, seq. CHAPTER V. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. BIBLICAL CRITICISM in its larger sense, embracing the several departments of biblical literature after its early activity in the Christian schools of Alexandria and Syria, and in the rabbinical schools of Tiberias and Babylon, in the study of the canon and the text of Scripture, gave place to a long Supremacy of dogma and tradition. The Septuagint version became the in- spired text to the Greek church, the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures to the Jews, and the Vulgate version to the Roman church. The canon of the Old Testament having been determined by the assembly at Jamnia toward the close of the first Christian century by rabbinical authority, became limited in the Talmud to the 24 books. These are mentioned in the order: (1) The five books of the law; (2) eight books of the prophets — Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets; (3) eleven other books—Ruth, Psalms, Job, Pro verbs, Eccle- siastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Dafi'icl, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles.” The Christian church made no official determination of the canon of Scripture save in provincial sy tods, such as the Council of Laodicea and the synod of Carthage, * Talm, Bablº, Baba Bathra, p. 14 a. 5% (105, 106 BIBLICAL STUDY. both in the fourth century, whose decisions express the differences of opinion which have always been in the church. In part the theologians have followed the stricter Hieronymian canon which corresponds with the Talmudic with reference to the Old Testament, but chiefly the fuller Hellenistic and Augustinian canon including the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, by general consent, the four gospels, the book of Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, the epistle to the Hebrews, the first epistle of Peter, and first epistle of John were recognized, while the doubts of the early church as to the epistles of James, Jude, 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and the Apocalypse became more and more feeble and infrequent.* These sacred books were interpreted by the body of tradition that had become solidified in the Talmud among the Jews, and in the fathers and schoolmen in the various Christian churches. I. THE CANON OF THE REFORMERS. The Protestant Reformation was a great critical revival, due largely to the new birth of learning in Western Europe. The emigration of the fugitive Greeks from Constantinople after its capture by the Turks, had planted a young Greek culture. A stream of thought burst forth, and poured like a quicken- ing flood strong and deep over Europe. Cardinal Ximenes, with the aid of a number of Christian and Jewish scholars, such as Alphonso de Zamora, Demetrius Ducas, and Alphonso de Alcala, issued the world—re- nowned Complutensian Polyglot, 1513–17. The Greek * Reuss, Histoire du Canon des Saintes Ecritures II. Édition, Strasbourg, "mezzt Scriptures, N. Y., 1882, p. 163, seq. .. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 107 New Testament was studied with avidity by a series of scholars, among whom Erasmus was pre-eminent. He published the first Greek Testament in 1516. Elias Levita and Jacob ben Chajim, in whom Jewish learning culminated, introduced Christians into a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. Reuchlin laid the foundation for Hebrew scholarship among Christians, by publish- ing the first Hebrew grammar and lexicon combined in 1506.” This return to the original text of the Old and New Testaments aroused the suspicions of the scholas- tics and monks, and the new learning was assailed with bitterness. Even Levita had to defend himself against the charge of heterodoxy for teaching Christians the Hebrew language, the law of Moses, and the Talmud.t JBut the reformers took their stand as one man for the critical study of the sacred Scriptures, and investigated the original texts under the lead of Erasmus, Elias Levita, and Reuchlin, and laid down what must be regarded as the fundamental principle of Biblical Criti. cism for the determination of the canon. Thus Luther in his controversy with Eck said, “The Church cannot give any more authority or power than it has of itself. A council cannot make that to be of Scripture which is not by nature of Scripture.”f Calvin says: % “But there has very generally prevailed a most pernicious error that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is conceded to them by the suffrages of the Church, as though the eternal and in- violable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of men.” . . . “For, as God alone is a sufficient witness of Himself in His own * Gesenius, Gesch. d. hebr. Sprach., p. 106, seq. f See his Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, London, 1867, p. 97 fég. - f Disputatio excel. D. theolog. 9oh. Æcci. et Lutheri, hist. III., 129, seq. - Berger, La Bôle au Sáezéeme Sæcle, Paris, 1879, p. 86, - - 108 BIBLICAL STUDY. Word, so also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. It is necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit, who spake by the mouths of the prophets, should penetrate into our hearts, to convince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which were divinely in- trusted to them.”* This principle is well expressed in the 2d Helvetic Confession, the most honored in the Reformed church: “We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets to be the very true Word of God and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men’’ (Chap. I.). “Therefore in controversies of religion or matters of faith we cannot admit any other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the holy Scriptures what is true and what is false; what is to be followed, or what is to be avoided ” (Chap. II.). : The Gallican Confession gives a similar statement: “We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books” (IV. Art.).f Thus while other testimony is valuable and important, yet, the evangelical test of the canonicity and interpre- tation of the Scriptures was, God Himself speaking in and through them to His people. This alone gave the fides divina. This was the so-called formal principle of the Reformation, no less important than the so-called material principle of justification by faith.: - The reformers applied this critical test to the tradi. * Institutes, I. 7. # See also the Belgian Confession, Article V. † Dorner, Gesch. Prot. Theo., p. 234, seq., 379, seg. Julius Müller, Das Verhältzeźss 2207 schen der W.7%samzáezž des heal. Geastes zezza! dem Gnaden- mitted des gétéléchen Wortes, in his Dogmat, 46handlungen, 1871, p. 139, see Reuss, Histoire du Canon, p. 308, seg, ** - - THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 109 tional theories of the Bible, and eliminated the apocry- phal books from the canon. They also revived the an- cient doubts as to Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Epistle of James, 2d Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse. The Reformed symbols elaborated the formal principle further than the Lutheran, and ordinarily specified the books that they regarded as canonical. In this they re- jected the traditions of the early Christian church which followed the Hellenistic rather than the Palestinian Jews, and, in its use of the Septuagint version, used also the apocryphal writings, and did not sharply separate them from the canonical ; indeed, with the exception of a few critics, such as Origen and Jerome, it cited without discrimination the many Jewish apocalypses and Sibyl- line Oracles which sprang up in the first and second cent- uries of our era, as well as in the first and second centu- ries B.C.* The church of Rome, in accordance with its reliance upon the support of tradition, determined the apocryphal books to be canonical at the Council of Trent. That the reformers accepted only the present. canon of our symbols, excluding the apocryphal books, was not due to the Jewish tradition, which they did not hesitate to dispute, as they did that of the church itself. It is doubtless true i that the reformers fell back on the authority of Jerome in their determination of the canon, as they did largely upon Augustine for the doctrine of grace; but this was in both cases for support against Rome in authority which Rome recognized, rather than as a basis on which to rest their faith and criticism. They went further back than Jerome to * Sanday, Value of the Patristic Writings for the Criticism and Exegests aſ the Bible. Expositor, Feb., 1880. Davidson, Canon, p. IoI, seq. t Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the 9ewish Church, 1881, p. 41. 110 - BIBLICAL STUDY. the evangelical Christian and genuine Hebrew principle, of the common consent of the believing children of God, which in course of time eliminated the sacred canonical books from those of a merely national and temporary character, because they approved themselves to their souls as the very word of God. As Dr. Charteris says: “The Council of Trent had formally thrown down a challenge. It recognized the canon because of the traditions of the Church, and on the same ground of tradition accepted the unwritten ideas about Christ and His apostles, of which the Church had been made the custodian. The reformers believed Scripture to be higher than the Church. But on what could they rest their acceptance of the canon of Scripture ? How did they know these books to be Holy Script- ures, the only and ultimate divine revelation ? They answered that the divine authority of Scripture is self-evidencing, that the regener- ate man needs no other evidence, and that only the regenerate can appreciate the evidence. It follows from this, if he do not feel the evidence of their contents, any man may reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture.” + - It is true this evangelical critical test did not solve all questions. It left in doubt several writings which had been regarded as doubtful for centuries. But uncer- tainty as to these does not weaken the authority of those that are recognized as divine; it only affects the extent of the canon, and not the authority of those writ. ings regarded as canonical. “Suppose we were not able to give positive proof of the divine in- spiration of every particular Book that is contained in the Sacred Records, it does not therefore follow that it was not inspired; and yet much less does it follow that our religion is without foundation. Which I therefore add, because it is well known there are some par- ticular Books in our Bible that have at some times been doubted of in the church, whether they were inspired or no. But I cannot con- * The Wew Zestament Scriptures; their Claims, History, and Authority. Croall Lectures, 1832. N. Y., 1883, p. 203. , * THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 111 ceive that doubt concerning such Books, where persons have sus- pended their assent, without casting any unbecoming reflections, have been a hindrance to their salvation, while what they have owned and acknowledged for truly divine, has had sanctifying effect upon their hearts and lives.” + This is the true Protestant position. For unless these books have given us their own testimony that they are divine and therefore canonical, we do not re- ceive them with our hearts; we do not rest our faith and life upon them as the very Word of God; we give mere intellectual assent; we receive them on authority, tacitly and without opposition, and possibly with the dogmatism which not unfrequently accompanies incipi- ent doubt, but also without true interest and true faith and assurance of their divine contents. We believe that the canon of Scripture established by the Reformed symbols can be successfully vindicated on Protestant critical principles. We are convinced that the church has not been deceived with regard to its inspiration. Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the Apoc- alypse will more and more establish themselves in the hearts of those who study them. But we claim that it is illegitimate to first attempt to prove their canonicity and then their inspiration, or to rely upon Jewish rab- binical tradition any more than Roman Catholic tradi- tion, or to anathematize all who doubt some of them in the spirit of Rabbi Akiba and the Council of Trent. The only legitimate method is that of our fathers, the Reformers and Puritans: first prove their inspiration from their own internal divine testimony, and then ac. cept them as canonical because our souls rest upon them as the veritable divine word. “For he that believes that * Ed. Calamy, Inspiration of the Holy Writings, Lond, 1710, p. 42, 112 BIBLICAL STUDY. God saith, without evidence that God saith it; doth not believe God, while he believes the thing that is from God, et eaſlem ratione, si contiguisset Alcorano Turcico cre aſzaſz'sseſ.” # The same critical priſ.ciple was applied by the re- formers to the text of Scripture. They rejected the inspiration of the ancient versions, the Greek and the Vulgate, and against the Greek and Roman churches resorted to the original text. They bat- tled against the Vulgate version, in behalf of versions for the people, and for a simple grammatical exegesis against traditional authority and the manifold sense. They laid down the hermeneutical rule that the Spirit of God, speaking in His Word, alone could decide the meaning of the text; and that difficult passages must be interpreted by plain ones. In the various departments of exegesis they went diligently to work. Hebrew and Greek grammars, lexicons, texts, versions, and commen. taries poured from the press. If the reformers were great dogmatic theologians, they were greater biblical scholars, and their theology was fresh, warm, and vigor. ous, because derived from a critical study of Scripture. The greatest dogmatic writer of the Reformation, John Calvin, was also its greatest exegete.t So long as the controversy with Rome was active and energetic, and ere the counter-reformation set in, the Protestant critical principle maintained itself; but as the internal conflicts of Protestant churches began to absorb more and more attention, and the polemic with * Whichcote, Eight Letters of Dr. A. Tuckney and Benj. Whichcote, 1753, p. III. f Tholuck (Vermischte Schriftem, II., 341) correctly describes him as distin. guished alike for dogmatic impartiality, exegetical tact, many-sided scholarship. and deep Christian spirit. THE CANON C F SURIPTURE. 113 Rome became less and less vigorous, the polemic against brethren more and more violent, the Reformed system of faith was built up by a series of scholastics over against Lutheranism, and Calvinistic orthodoxy over against Arminianism. The elaboration of the Protest- ant Reformed system by a priori deduction carried with it the pushing of the peculiar principles of Protestantism more and more into the background. The authority of the Reformed faith and tradition assumed the place of a Roman faith and tradition, and the biblical scholarship of Protestant churches, cut off from the line of Roman tra- dition, worked its way along the line of Jewish rabbini- cal tradition, and began to establish a Protestant ortho- doxy—in the Swiss schools under the influence of Bux. torf, Heidegger and Francis Turretine; and in the Dutcli Schools under the influence of Voetius. - Lutheran theology had the same essential develop. ment through internal struggles. The school of Calix tus at Helmstädt had struggled with the scholasti spirit, until the latter had sharpened itself into the most radical antagonism to the Reformed church and the Melancthon type of Lutheran theology. Carlov stated the doctrine of verbal inspiration in the same es- Sential terms as the Swiss scholastics, and was followed therein by the Lutheran scholastics generally. “It treated Holy Scripture as the revelation itself, instead of as the memorial of the originally revealed, ideal, actual truth; the con- sequence being that Holy Scripture was transformed into God's ex- clusive work, the human element was explained away, and the orig- inal living power thrust away behind the writing contained in let- ters. Faith ever draws its strength and decisive certainty from the original eternally living power to which Scripture is designed to lead. But when Scripture was regarded as the goal, and attestation was sought elsewhere than in the experience of faith through the pres- ence of truth in the Spirit, then the Reformation standpoint was 114 BIBLICAL STUDY. abandoned, its so-called material principle violated, and it became easy for Rationalism to expose the contradictions in which the in- quirers had thus involved themselves.” + II. THE PURITAN CANON. The Thirty-nine Articles take an intermediate position between the reformers and the Roman Catholic church in their doctrine of the canon : - “In the name of holy Scripture, we do understand those Canon- ical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” The 24 books of the Hieronymian canon of the Old Testament are then mentioned. It then continues: “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not ap- ply them to establish any doctrine.” It then names I4 apocryphal books, and concludes: “All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them for Canonical.” (Art. VI). - The Thirty-nine Articles thus base themselves on the Hieronymian tradition as the Roman Catholic church did on the stronger Augustinian tradition. The Scotch Confession of I560, however, maintains the position of the reformers: - “As we beleeve and confesse the Scriptures of God sufficient to instruct and make the man of God perfite, so do we affirme and avow the authoritie of the same to be of God, and nether to depend On Iſher). In Or angelis. We affirme, therefore, that sik as allege the Scripture to have na uther authoritie bot that quhilk it hes re- ceived from the Kirk, to be blasphemous against God, and injurious to the trew Kirk, quhilk alwaies heares and obeyis the voice of her awin spouse and Pastor; bot takis not upon her to be maistres over the samin.” (Art. XIX.). - Thos. Cartwright, the chief of the English Puritans, takes the same view: * * - * Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, Vol. II., p. 186, THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 115 “Q. How may these bookes be discerned to bee the word of God? “A. By these considerations following: - “First, they are perfectly holy in themselves, and by themselves: whereas all other writings are prophane, further then they draw holinesse from these ; which yet is never such, but that their holi- nesse is imperfect and defective. “Secondly, they are perfectly profitable in themselves, to instruct to salvation, and all other are utterly unprofitable thereunto, any further then they draw from them. “Thirdly, there is a perfect concord and harmonie in all these Bookes, notwithstanding the diversity of persons by whom, places where, and time when, and matters whereof, they have been written. “Fourthly, there is an admirable force in them, to incline men's hearts from vice to vertue. - “Fifthly, in great plainenesse and easinesse of stile, there shineth a great Majesty and authority. “Sixthly, there is such a gracious simplicity in the writers of these Bookes, that they neither spare their friends, nor themselves, but Imost freely, and impartially, set downe their owne faults and infirmi- ties as well as others. - “Lastly, God’s owne Spirit working in the harts of his children doth assure them, that these Scriptures are the word of God.” + . The Westminster Confession gives expression to the mature Puritan faith respecting the Scriptures: § 2. “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testa- ment, which are these ’’ (mentioning the 66 books commonly re- ceived). “All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.” § 3. “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” § 4. “The Authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself) the au- * Thos. Cartwright, Zºreatise of the Christian Religion. London, 1616, X 116 BIBLICAL STUDY. thor thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.” § 5. “We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the maj- esty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excel- lencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, not- withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” (I., § 2–5). The Westminster Confession distinguishes in its state- ments (1) the external evidence, the testimony of the church; (2) the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves; (3) the ſides divina. Here is an ascending series of evidences for the authority of the Scriptures. The ſides humama belongs strictly only to the first class of evidences. This testimony of the church is placed first in the Confession because it is weakest. The sec. ond class not only gives ſides humana, but also divina, owing to the complex character of the Scriptures them. selves; but the third class as the highest gives purely ſides divina. The Confession carefully discriminates the weight of these evidences. The authority of the church only induces “an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture.” The internal evidence of the “excel- lencies and entire perfection thereof are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God”; but our “full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof.” come only from the highest evidence, “the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 11’i in our hearts.” In accordance with this, “The authority of the Holy Scripture dependeth wholly upon God.” (§ 4). On this principle, then, the canon is determined. The books of the canon are named (§ 2), and then it is said, “All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.” The apocryphal books are no part of the canon of Scripture because they are not of divine inspiration (§ 3). It is, therefore, the authority of God himself, speaking through the Holy Spirit, by and with the word to the heart, that determines that the writings are infallible as the inspired Word of God, and it is their inspiration that determines their canonicity. Thus the Westminster divines maintained the Refor- mation point of view. They were not as a body scho- lastics, though there were scholastics among them ; but were preachers, catechists, and expositors of the Script- ures, with a true evangelical spirit. They were called from the active work of the ministry, and from stubborn resistance to dogmatic authority, to the active work of reforming the church of England into closer conformity with the Reformed churches of the continent. Among the doctrines to be reformed was the doctrine respecting the Scriptures. There was a difference between the Puritans and Prelatists on this subject, as we have seen, in placing the XXXIX Articles alongside of the Scottish Confession and the statement of Thos. Cartwright. This difference was still further developed. The Prelatical view is stated by Bishop Cosin:* “For though there be many Internal Testimonies belonging to the Holy Scriptures, whereby we may be sufficiently assured, that they are the true and lively oracles of God, . . . . yet for the par- ticular and just number of such books, whether they be more or less, * Scholastic History of the Canon. London, 1657, p. 4, seq. 118 BIBLICAL STUDY then either some private persons, or some one Žarticular church of late, have been pleased to make them, we have no better nor other external rule or testimony herein to guide us, then the constant voice of the catholic and universal church, as it hath been delivered to us upon record from one generation to another.” The Puritans in the Westminster Assembly in revis- ing Article VI. of the XXXIX Articles, erased the state- ments upon which the Prelatists built: “Of whose au- thority was never any doubt in the church "; “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” And they changed the statement: “All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them for canonical ’’; so as to ex- press the Puritan doctrine: “All which books, as they are commonly received, we do receive and acknowledge them to be given by the inspiration of God; and in that regard, to be of the most certain credit, and high. est authority.” Chas. Herle, the Prolocutor, admirably states the Protestant position over against the Romish: “They (the Papists) being asked, why they believe the Scriòture to be the Word of God 2 Answer, because the Church says 'tis so ; and being asked againe, why they beleeve the Church P They an- swer, because the Scražture saies it shal/ be guzded 2nto truth, and being asked againe, why they beleeve that very Scripture that says so P. They answer, because the Church says 'tis Scrºture, and so (with those in the Psalm xii. 8), they walk in a circle or on every side. They charge the like on us (but wrongfully) that we beleeve the Word, because it sayes it self that it is so; but we do not so re- solve our Faith, we believe unto salvaſion, not the Word barely, because it witnesses to itself, but because the Sfºrzł speaking in it to our consciences witnesses to them that it is the Word indeed ; we resolve not our Faith barely either into the Word, or Spirit as its THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 119 single ultimate principle, but into the testimony of the Sºiré: speak- ing to our consciences in the Word.”” It has been objected by a recent writer: ‘It does not tend in the slightest degree to reconcile us to these opinions to say that the reformers entertained them. It would not be strange if in their opposition to the claims of the church of Rome, they went to the opposite extreme and were in danger of falling into the errors of the mystics.”f It is true that in this matter the reformers and Pu- ritans were in radical opposition to Rome. This was the so-called formal principle, one of the essential prin- ciples of Protestantism. If they had not taken this po- sition they would have been powerless against the Roman claim of tradition. - As Reuss well says: “Nothing was more foreign to the spirit of Luther, of Calvin, and º, their illustrious fellow-laborers, nothing was more radically contrary to their principles, than to base the authority of the sacred scriptures upon that of the Church and its tradition, to go in effect, to mount guard over the fathers, and range their catalogues in line, cause their obscurities to disappear by forced interpretations and their contra. dictions by doing violence to them, as is the custom of our day. They very well knew that this would have been the highest inconsistency, indeed the ruin of their system, to attribute to the church the right of making the Bible after they had contested that of making the doc- trine; for that which can do the greater can do the less.”f It is true that the mystic element was strong among the reformers and the Puritans. This is indeed the chief feature which distinguishes them from the Swiss, Dutch, and Lutheran scholastics and their modern followers * Defur Sapienti, pp. 152-3. London, 1655. • # Francis L. Patton, article, Pentateuchal Criticism, Presbyterian Review IV., p. 346. £ Reuss, Histoire du Canon, p. 313. 120 BIBLIUAL STUDY. But their mystic was not mysticism. There never have been times in the history of the church when mys- ticism prevailed in such a variety of forms and persist- ence of energy as in the times of the Reformation and of the Westminster divines. They had to guard their doctrines at every point against mysticism. It is strange reading of history to represent either the re- formers or the Puritans as going too far in the direction of mysticism. - The statements of the Westminster divines were made ju the face of the strongest force of mysticism that has ever manifested itself. Thus, in 1647, the London min- 15ters (many of whom were members of the Westminster Assembly) issued their testimony against this false mys- ticism and the heresies of their time. They mention as * Errors agaznst the ZJøvåne Authority of the Hoày Scripture, That tºle Scripture, whether true Manuscript or no, whether Hebrew, (*reek, or English, it is but human; so not able to discover a divine (*od. Then where is your command to make that your rule or disci- p line, that cannot reveal you God, nor give you power to walk with (Pod P Zhat, it is no foundation of Christian Religion, to believe that the English Scriptures, or that book, or rather volume of books called the Bible, translated out of the originall Hebrew and Greek copies, into the English tongue are the Word of God. Thai, ques- tionless no writing whatsoever, whether translations or originalls, are the foundation of Christian Religion.”” Wm. Lyford, an esteemed Presbyterian divine, invited to sit in the Westminster Assembly, but preferring his pastoral work, wrote a commentary on this testimony of the London ministers.t * A 7'estimony fo the Zºrzeżh of Şesus Christ and to our solemn League and Covenazez. Subscribed by the ministers of Christ within the Province of Lon- don, Dec. I4, 1647. London, 1648. - # The Plain man's sense exercised to discern good and evil, or A Discovery THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 121 In his chapter on the Divine Authority of Scripture, he says: - - . - “I shall not trouble you with the Popish controversies concerning the Scripture, but apply myself to the errors of the present age.” He then quotes the language from the Tesłżmony given above. He then goes on to give the properties of Scripture, and after brief men- tion of the error of making “ the Church the judge over Scriptures’ (p. 7), he says: “But the error I am now to deale with, is that of the blasphemous Azazz-Scripturzst, under which name I comprehend all such as either deny them to be divinely inspired and given of God, or else allowing their divine authority, yet refuse to submit to Script- ure as the supreme and all-sufficient Judge, pretending to other divine revelations, besides and beyond the written word, unto which upon all occasions they appeal, as if the Scriptures were not able to ac- quaint the soul with the highest discoveries of God’s truth and mind. Jf they be urged with any proof out of the Old Testament, they re- ject it, as if the Old Testament were antiquated, and out of date: if they be pressed with a place in the New Testament, then they say, that is not the meaning, which we produce because (say they) you have not the spirit, the spirit teacheth us otherwise. And thus under pretence of Inspirations of the Holy Ghost, and improvements beyond and above all Scripture, they strike at the root, and blow up the very foundations of all faith and religion, of all our hopes and comforts; these are the devill's engineers—.”(p. 17). Our author knows how to steer between the Scylla of Romanism and the Charybdis of mysticism. The re- formers and Puritans knew their work better than some of our modern theologians. “It is one thing to say the Spirit teacheth us by Scripture, and another thing to pretend the Spirit's teaching besides or beyond, or contrary to the Scripture; the one is a divine truth, the other is vile montanz'sme” (p. 20). After controverting the “foure fold error: (1) of them of the Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies of these Zºmes, and the Zoleration of them, as they are collected and festified agains; by the ministers of London, in their 7 estimony to the Truth of Şesus Christ. London, 1655. 6 1 22 - BIBTICAL STUDY. that would place this authority (of scripture) in the Church; (2) of them who appeale from scripture to the spirit; (3) of them that make reason the supreme Judge; (4) of them that expound scripture according to Provi- dences,” he goes on to expound the position of our Protestant symbols: “The authority and truth of God speaking in the Scripture, is that upon which our faith is built, and doth finally stay itselfe: The min- istry of the Church, the illumination of the Spirit, the right use of reason are the choicest helps, by which we believe, by which we see the law and will of God; but they are not the law itself; the divine truth and authority of God's word, is that which doth secure our consciences. . . . . If you ask what it is that I believe? I answer, I believe the blessed doctrines of salvation by Jesus Christ; if you ask, why I believe all this, and why I will venture my soul to all eter- nity on that doctrine P I answer, because it is the revealed will of God concerning us. If you ask further, How I know that God hath revealed them P I answer, by a two-fold certainty; one of faith, the other of experience; (1) I do infallibly by faith believe the Revela- tion, not upon the credit of any other Revelation, but for itselfe, the Lord giving testimony thereunto, not only by the constant Testimony of the Church, which cannot universally deceive, nor only by miracles from heaven, bearing witness to the Apostle's doctrine, but chiefly by its own proper divine light, which shines therein. The truth contained in Scripture is a light, and is discerned by the sons of light: It doth by its own light, persuade us, and in all cases, doubts, and questions, it doth clearly testifie with us or against us; which light is of that nature, that it giveth Testimony to itself, and receiv- eth authority from no other, as the Sun is not seene by any light but his own, and we discerne sweet from soure by its own taste. . . . . (2) Whereunto add, that other certainty of experience, which is a certainty in respect of the Affections and of the spiritual man. This is the Spirit's seal set to God's truth (namely), the light of the word ; when it is thus shewnen unto us, it doth work such strange and su- pernatural effects upon the soul; . . . . It persuades us of the truth and goodness of the will of God; and of the things revealed ; and all this by way of spiritual taste and feeling, so that the things ap- prehended by us in divine knowledge, are more certainly discerned THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 123 in the certainty of experience, than anything is discerned in the light of naturall understanding ” (p. 39). - . “They that are thus taught, doe know assuredly that they have heard God himselfe: In the former way, the light of Divine Rea- son causeth approbation of the things they believe. In the later, the Purity and power of Divine Knowledge, causeth a taste and feel- ing of the things they heare And they that are thus established in the Faith, doe so plainly see God present with them in his Word, that if all the world should be turned into Miracles, it could not re- move them from the certainty of their perswasion; you cannot un- perswade a Christian of the truth of his Religion, you cannot make him thinke meanly of Christ, nor the Doctrine of Redemption, noi of duties of Sanctification, his heart is fixed trusting in the Lord. So then we conclude, that the true reason of our Faith, and ground, on which it finally stayeth itself, is the Authority of God himself, whom we doe most certainly discerne, and feele to speake in the word of faith, which is preached unto us.” (p. 39.) This is the true doctrine of the Reformation and of the Westminster divines, in which they know no antago- nism between the human reason, the religious feeling, and the Divine Spirit in the Word of God. It is a mer- ciful Providence that they were guided to this position, for, if they had gone with the Swiss scholastics in basing themselves on rabbinical tradition as to the Old Testa- ment, they would have committed the churches of the Reformation to errors that have long since been ex- ploded by scholars. This is the true Puritan mystic in conflict with mysticism and its best antidote. It is the mystic element that needs above all things to be revived in the British and American churches. It brings the people face to face with the Bible and with the Divine Spirit working in and with it, so that they need no mediat- ing priesthood of theologians, no help of apologetics or of polemics to convince them of the authority of the Bible and enable them to maintain it against all cavilling. It is also objected that this resting upon the fides divina 124 BIBLICAL STUDY. for the proof of the inspiration and canonicity of the Script ure implies that “every Christian makes his own Bible.” True, but this right of private judgment is the Protestant position. Are we prepared to abandon it? Shall it be maintained with reference to other doctrines and aban- doned with reference to the source of these doctrines? This would be a fatal inconsistency to Protestantism. The right of private judgment must apply to the authority, in- spiration, and canonicity of Scripture, as well as to the doc- trines of atonement, justification by faith, and original sin. It is no more difficult of application in the one case than the others. It may be an unfamiliar practice to those who rest on the authority of the church for the authority of Scripture. But it is no more unfamiliar to them than the right of private judgment itself is unfa- miliar to those who rest upon the authority of an infal- lible church for all doctrines. The right of private judgment with reference to the authority of a book of Scripture no more prevents the consensus of individuals in a confession of faith on this subject than on any other. It is important that the individual Christian should have his own convictions on all of these sub- jects. The consensus of such Christians who know what they believe is much stronger than the consensus of those who rest merely upon the external authority of the testimony of the church. We accept the doc- trine of the Westminster Confession with reference to the Bible, because it coincides with our convictions and experience with reference to the Bible. We would not subscribe to it otherwise. Our faith in divine things rests upon divine and not on human authority. It is still further objected that, “If, however, canon. * F. L. Patton it '. c., p. 350. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 125 icity be, as we believe it is, a purely historical question, it is only in a very limited way that subjective tests can be employed in determining it.” ” If canonicity be a purely historical question, then the reformers and the Westminster Confession and the other reformed creeds were in error when they made it purely a question of inspiration and of the internal divine au- thority of the Scriptures themselves. To abandon this position is to accept essentially the Roman Catholic position. The difference then amounts to this: At what historic point shall we stand, or on what historic names shall we base our faith in the canon 2 Shall we go with Rome and base the canon on the authority of the living church as the heir of Catholic tradition, or shall we go with the XXXIX Articles and rely on the authority of Jerome and the Jewish assembly at Jamnia, or shall. we accept the consensus of the Ante-Nicene church and share their doubts as well as their certainties? Which- ever of these positions we may take, we still build on uncertain and fallible authority, and dishonor the suffi. ciency and authority of the Scriptures themselves. We violate one of the Reformation principles upon which our Protestantism depends, and the most consistent course would be to follow Cardinal Newman in his path- way to Rome. III. CRITICISM OF THE CANON. It is all the more necessary to apply to the canon the critical test established by the reformers, now that we are much better informed as to the relation of the Jews to the canon than they were. The New Testament writers and the fathers generally depended upon the Septuagint * F. L. Patton in l.c., p. 349. 126 B BLICAL STUDY. version of the Old Testament. The story of its transla. tion by means of seventy-two accomplished scholars chosen from the twelve tribes of Israel, with the co-oper. ation of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and the Jewish high-priest of Jerusalem, and inspired to do their work by the Divine Spirit, which prevailed for many centuries in the Eastern and Western churches, has been traced to its simpler form in Josephus * and Philo, and from these to the original letter of Aris- teas, and that has been proved to be a forgery f and its statements wide of the truth. For an internal examina- tion of the translation itself proves it to have been made by different men on different principles and at different times. - . . . Frankel is followed by a large number of scholars in the opinion that it was a sort of Greek Targum which grew up gradually at first from the needs of the syna- gogue worship, and then from the desire of the Hellen- istic Jews to collect together the religious literature of their nation, as the Palestinian and Babylonian Targums were subsequently made for the Jews speaking Aramaic.; Some of the sacred books—such as Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah—have additional matter not found in the Hebrew Massoretic text. The apocryphal writings are mingled with those taken into the Hebrew canon with- out discrimination. As Deane || says: “If we judge from the MSS. that have come down to us, it would be impossible for any one, looking merely to the Septuagint version and * Antig. XII. 2. - + Vita Mosis, II., § 5–7. ºf The original text of the letter is best given in Merx., Archiv für Wissen. ichaftliche Eºforschung des Alten Testaments, I., p. 242, seg. Halle, 1870. § Frankel, Vorstudien 2. d. Sepčuaginia, Leipzig, 1841 ; Scholtz, Alexand, Uebersetz. d. Buch ſesazas, 1880, p. 7, seg. | Book of Wisdom, Oxford, 1881, p. 37, seg. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 127 its allied works, to distinguish any of the books in the collection as of less authority than others. There is nothing whatever to mark of the canonical writings from what have been called the deuterocanon- ical. They are all presented as of equal standing and authority, and, if we must make distinctions between them, and place Some on a higher platform than others, this separation must be made on grounds which are not afforded by the arrangement of the various documents themselves.” The scholastics depend upon the tradition that the Old Testament canon was determined by the so- called men of the great synagogue. They rely for this upon Elias Levita” and the long Jewish tradition that goes back to a slender support in the Misnaic tract, A both (I. I–2). But back of this there is no historical evidence whatever. The silence of all the writings from the first century A.D. backwards is absolute. They could not have omitted to mention such a body as this if it ever had an existence, and determined the canon and everything else upon which the Jewish religion depended. The Apocryphal Literature, in its wide and varied extent, knows of no such body. The numerous pseu- depigraphical writers are also silent. Philo and Josephus know of nothing of the kind. The New Testament writers do not recognize it. On the other hand, the apocalypse of Ezra, from the first century A.D., repre- sents the whole canon as determined by Ezra, who com- mitted the whole to writing by divine inspiration.} How could it do so in the face of the great synagogue? There are well-established disputes as to the canon among the Jews in the first Christian century which * Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, 1867, p. II2, seg. f Strack, Die Spriicher der Vâter; Ein ethischer Mischna-Traktat, Karls. ruhe, 1882. Taylor, Sayings of the 9ewish Fathers, Cambridge, 1877. { XIV. 19, seg. - i28 - BIBLICAL STUDY. could not have taken place if a venerable body like the supposed men of the great synagogue had determined everything. This tradition must go with the letter of Aristeas out of the field of history into the realm of shadowy and unsupported legends. - Another evidence for the fixture of the Old Testament canon has been found in a supposed writing of Philo of the first Christian century.” This work speaks of the law, the prophets, hymns, and other writings, making either three or four classes, but without specification of partic- ular books. But this writing has recently been proved to have been written in the third century A.D., and wrongly attributed to Philo. The position has been accepted by scholars, t and is invincibly established. The testi- mony of Philo is therefore reduced to the books that he quotes, as of divine authority. He omits to mention Nehe- miah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. § He uses Proverbs and Job. This we would expect from Philo's type of thought and the subject-matter of his writings. But his omission of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Song; is surprising. These writings belong to the same clasſ; of wisdom-literature as Job and Proverbs. They would have given him the very best field for his peculiar method of allegory. The omission in this case weighs against them. Ezekiel and Daniel, the symbolical proph- ets, we would expect him to make use of. Josephus mentions 22 books as making up his canon—5 of the law, I3 of the prophets, and 4 of poems and precepts, but * De Vºža Contemp., s. III. t Lucius, Die Zherapeuten und ihre Szel/ung in der Ashese, Strassburg, 1880. # Strack, art. Kanon in Herzog, II. Aufl., vii., p. 425. § Eichhorn, Einleitung, 3te, Ausgabe, 1803, I., p. 98. | Cozzzzza Apion, I., 8. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 129 does not define which they are. He uses all of the Talmudic canon except Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job.” The silence of Josephus as to these cannot be pressed, because they did not clearly come within his scope. Various efforts have been made to determine his books, but without conclusive. results. The lists of subsequent writers have been used. Here, if on the one hand the lists of Origen and Jerome favor the Talmudic, the list of Junilius Africanus favors the exclusion of Chronicles, Ezra, Job, Song of Songs, and Esther." Graetz seems to us to come nearer the mark in excluding the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes from the list of Josephus. He falls, then, by his 22, just these two short of the Talmudic list of 24. We are left by Josephus in uncertainty as to certain Old Testament books. Moreover, the state. ments of Josephus do not carry with them our confi. dence as to the views of the men of his time; for wº: know that several books were in dispute among the Pharisees, such as Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. They were generally, but not unanimously acknowledged. The Sadducees are said by some of the fathers to have agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Pentateuch. This must be a mistake. But we can hardly believe that they accepted Ezekiel and Daniel in view of their denial of angels and the resurrec- tion. The Essenes and the Zelots agreed in extending the canon to esoteric writings. The apocalypse of Ezra mentions 70 of these as given to Ezra to interpret the 24, and so of even greater authority. These parties * Eichhorn in 2. c., I., p. 123. ºf See Prof. Kihn, Theodore von Mopsuestia and Şulius Africanus als fºxegeten Frei., 1880, p. 86. t Gesch. d. 9 uden, III., p. 501, Leipsig, 1863. 6% t30 BIBLICAL STUDY. differ from the Pharisees only in that they committed the esoteric wisdom to writing, whereas the Pharisees handed it down as an infallible tradition, and prohibited the committing it to writing, until at last it found em- bodiment in the Mismayoth and the Talmuds. The eminent Jewish scholar, Zunz, is correct in his statement: “Neither Philo nor Josephus impart to us an authentic list of the sacred writings.”” It seems clear that the Jewish canon was not definitely settled until the assembly at Jamnia, during the Jewish war with Titus (about 70 A.D.), and the decisions were car- ried through by a majority of votes, accompanied with acts of violence toward the dissenting parties. We doubt not that the canon of the Palestinian Jews re- ceived its latest addition by common consent not later than the time of Judas Maccabeus, and no books of later composition were added afterward; yet the schools of the Pharisees continued the debate with reference to some of these writings until the assembly at Jamnia, and the Hellenistic Jews had a wider and freer conception of the canon. We cannot rely upon the determination of the canon of the Old Testament by the authority of the Pharisees, who, after the rejec- tion of the true Messiah, brought on the ruin of their nation in the Jewish war. We cannot yield to the authority of Rabbi Akiba, the supporter of Bar Khokóa, the false messiah, and his coadjutors, any more on this * Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Şuden, 1832, p. 18. + Gräetz, Gesch. d. 9 uden, 1863, III., p. 496, seg. ; Robertson Smith, Tha Old Testament in the Şewish Church, N. Y., 1881, p. 172, seq., and 412 seq.; S. Ives Curtiss in Current Dzscussions 272 Theology, p. 63; see also the Misnaic tract, 3adazm, III. 5. - . . . . . ... : : t Strack, Herzog, Real Encyk., II. Aufl., vii., p. 426; Ewald, Lehre d. Böe. von Gołł, I., p. 363. • * * - § Fwald in Z. c., p. 364. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE 131 subject of the canon than we can accept their dicta with regard to Jesus Christ, the observance of the Sabbath, or the faith of ancient Israel. Nor does the New Testament determine the canon of the Old. Jesus gives His authority to the law, the proph- ets, and the psalms (Luke xxiv. 44), which alone were used in the synagogue in His times; but the psalms only of the Hagiographa are mentioned. There are no suffi- cient reasons for concluding that by the psalms Jesus meant all the other books besides law and prophets. The New Testament uses for the Old Testament the following general terms: (1) the term scriptures for the whole (Acts xvii. 2; xvii. 11; xviii. 24; xviii. 28); or sacred 7&mitings (2 Tim. iii. I5); (2) law (John x. 34 referring to the Psalter; xii. 34 referring to several passages of the prophets; xv. 25 to the Psalter; I Cor. xiv. 21 to Isa- iah); (3) prophets (Luke xxiv. 25; Acts xiii. 27); (4) law and prophets (Matt. v. 17; Acts xiii. I5), Moses and prophets (Luke xvi. 29, 3 I ; xxiv. 27; Acts xxvi. 22); law of Moses and the prophets (Acts xxviii. 23); (5) law of Moses and prophets and psalms (Luke xxiv. 44). This fluctuation shows that in the minds of the writers of the New Testament there was no definite division known as law, prophets, and other writings.” Indeed the New Testament carefully abstains from using the writings disputed among the Jews. It does not use at all Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah ; * The statement of the prologue of Æcclesiasziczes or the Wisdom of Sãrach as to the three classes: “Law, Prophets, and other books of our fathers,” does not prove that the last was a technical term of a special class. How could Jose- phus have given such a different arrangement of the writings from that found anywhere else, if that had been the case ? How could he have given up the technical “other writings,” and used hymzzes, etc. 2 The term, other writings, to Sirach means nothing more than an indefinite number which did not belong to the classes law and prophets, - 132 BIBLICAL STUDY. and only incidentally Ezekiel and Chronicles in the same way as apocryphal books and the pseudepigraphical are used. Was this silence discretionary, in order to build only on books recognized by all, or does it rule from the canon those books so ignored P* Prof. Charterist says: “It may be a mere coincidence, but it is at least noteworthy, that the only books of the Old Testament not quoted in the New are the three books of the writings of Solomon, Esther and Ezra and Nehe- miah. Ezra and Nehemiah are historical books, which there was probably no occasion to quote: but the other four unquoted books— Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles—are those books which were not accepted by all at the time of our Lord.” / We shall confine ourselves to the same competent au- thority for a summary as to the canon of the New Tes. tament: : “We see that there were other books accepted by most, but not with the same heartiness by all ; and the notes we have made on ear. lier lists have prepared us to learn what these books were. Theſ are James and Jude, 2d Peter, and 2d and 3d John. Some add the Apocalypse of John. All these books, save James, were wanting in the New Testament of the Syriac Church, which being the earliest collection of Christian Scriptures for the East, had great influence on the views of all the Oriental Churches for which Eusebius was specially qualified to speak. When we turn to the Western or Latin Church, we find that James was probably omitted in the old Italic collection current in Africa, and that 2d Peter certainly was. What Eusebius, therefore, tells us with his usual candid trustfulness, is what we should have known from those other sources; and it may be regarded as established beyond dispute.” The criticism of the canon has thus determined a gen- * Eichhorn in l.c., I., p. 104. + The New Zestament Scriptures : Their Claims, History, and Authority Croall Lectures for 1882, New York, 1882, p. 88., 4 In 1. c., p. 169, - - THE CANON OF SCRAPTURE. 133 eral consent to the most of the books defined as canon- ical in the Reformed creeds, and that with regard to those others about which there has always been dispute, the preponderance of testimony is in their favor. The books of primary and secondary authority have kept the same relative position. Those doubted among the Jews were doubted by Christians. Those doubted in the early church were doubted by the reformers, and are doubted by some critics now. In giving our testimony to the canonicity of all the books specified in the Reformed creeds, we do it on the principles of criticism laid down by the reformers and tested by the fires of modern in- vestigation. But we recognize that the evidence for some is less than for others. - The conflicts of conformists and non-conformists, and the struggle between evangelical faith and deism in Great Britain, and of scholasticism with pietism on the continent, caused the scholastics to antagonize more and more the human element in the Scriptures, and to assert the external authority of traditional opinions and Protestant orthodoxy, over the reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling; while the apologists, following the deists into the field of the external arguments for and against the religion and doctrines of the Bible, built up a series of external evidences which are strong and powerful, and which did, in fact, overcome the deists intellectually, or rather drive them into atheism and pantheism; but at the expense of vital piety in the Church—the true Puritan inheritance; for the stronger internal evidence was neglected. The dogmatists for. got the caution of Calvin; “Those persons betray great folly who wish it to be demonstrated to infidels, that the Scripture is the Word of God, which cannot be known 134 BIBLICAL STUDY. without faith ”* and exposed the church to the severe criticism of Dodwell: “To give all men Liberty to judge for themselves and to expect at the same time that they shall be of the preacher's mind, is such a Scheme for unanimity as one would scarce imagine any one would be weak enough to devise in speculation, and much less that any could ever prove hardy enough to avow and propose to practice,” t and led some to the conclusion that there was an “ir. reconcilable repugnance in their natures betwixt reason and belief.”f - - . The efforts of the more evangelical type of thought which passed over from the Puritans into the Cambridge men, and the Presbyterians of the type of Baxter and Calamy, to construct an evangelical doctrine of the rea- son and the religious feeling in accordance with Protestant principles, failed for the time, and the movement died away, or passed over into the merely liberal and compre- hensive scheme, or assumed an attitude of indifference between the contending parties. The Protestant rule of faith was sharpened more and more, especially among the Independents, and the separating Presbyterian churches of Scotland, after the fashion of John Owen, rather than of the Westminster divines; whilst the apolo- gists pressed more and more the dogmatic method of demonstration over against criticism.S. The Reformed faith and evangelical religion were about to be extinguished when, in the Providence of God, the Puritan vital and experimental religion was revived in Methodism which devoted itself to Christian life, and so proved the saving element in modern British and Amer. ican Christianity. The churches of the continent of $ Institutes, VIII., 13. t Religion not ſounded on Argument, p. 90, seq. 1. In 2. c., p. 80. § Lechler, Gesch, d. Deismus, 1841, p. 4II, seq. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. - 135 Europe were allowed, in the Providence of God, to meet the full force of rationalism and pay the penalty of the criminal blunders of the scholastics. Schleiermacher was raised up to be the father of modern evangelical German theology. He began to recover the lost ground. and to build the structure of modern theology in the true mystic spirit on the religious feeling apprehending Jesus Christ as Saviour. A series of intellectual giants have carried on his work, such as Neander, Tholuck, Rothe, Müller, and Dorner. - It is not safe to follow these foreign divines in all their methods and statements. These depend upon the cent- ury of conflict which lies back of them and through which we have not passed. British and American theology has its own peculiar principles, methods, and work to perform. It is rapidly approaching the crisis of its his- tory, the same essentially that German theology had to meet at the close of the eighteenth century. The tide of thought has ebbed and flowed between Great Britain and the continent several times since the Reformation. The tide has set strongly now in our direction. It is perilous to follow the blind guides of British and Amer- ican scholasticism, and fall in the ditch that lies in their path (Matt. xv. 14). It is wise to learn from the expe- rience of those who have passed through the conflict and achieved the victory. It is prudent to do all that is pos sible to prevent the ruin to American Christianity that is sure to come if we commit the old blurders over again. It is our conviction that the revival of true evangelical religion, and the successful progress of the theology of our Reformed churches, in the working out of the princi- ples inherited from the Reformation, depend upon a speedy reaction from the scholastic theology of the Zu- rich Consensus and the Puritanism of John Owen, and 136 BIBLICAL STUDY. an immediate renewal of the evangelical life and unfet. tered thought of the Reformation and the Puritans of the first half of the seventeenth century. It has become more and more evident since Semler” reopened the question of the canon of Scripture, that the only safe position for evangelical men is to build on the rock of the Reformation principle of the Scriptures. This principle has been enriched in two directions—first by the study of the unity and harmony of the Scriptures as an organic whole, and second by the apprehension of the relation of the faith of the individual to the consen- sus of the churches. The principles on which the canon of Scripture is to be determined are, therefore, these : (1) The testimony of the church, going back by tradition and written documents to primitive times, presents prob- able evidence to all men that the Scriptures, recognized as of divine authority and canonical by such general con. sent, are indeed what they are claimed to be. (2) The Scriptures themselves, in their pure and holy character, satisfying the conscience; their beauty, har- mony, and majesty satisfying the aesthetic taste; their simplicity and fidelity to truth, together with their ex- alted conceptions of man, of God, and of history, satis- fying the reason and the intellect; their piety and devo- tion to the one God, and their revelation of redemption, satisfying the religious feelings and deepest needs of mankind—all conspire to more and more convince that they are indeed sacred and divine books. (3) The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the particular writing, or part of writing, in the heart of the believer, removing every doubt and assuring the soul of its possession of the truth of God, the rule and guide of the life. • # Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanon. 4 Bde. I?71–1775, THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE, 137 (4) The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the several writings in such a manner as to assure the be: liever in the study of them that they are the several parts of one complete divine revelation, each writing having its own appropriate and indispensable place and importance in the organism of the canon. (5) The Spirit of God bears witness to the church as an organized body of such believers, through their free consent in various communities and countries and Cent- uries, to this unity and variety of the Scriptures as the one complete and perfect canon of the divine word to the church. - And thus the human testimony, the external evidence, attains its furthest possible limit as probable evidence, bringing the inquirer to the Scriptures with a high and reverent estsem of them, when the internal evi- dence exerts its powerful influence upon his soul, and at length the divine testimony lays hold of his entire nature and convinces and assures him of the truth of God and causes him to share in the consensus of the Christian church. “Thus the Canon explains and judges itself; it needs no foreign standard. Just so the Holy Spirit evokes in believers a judgment, or criticism, which is not subjective, but in which freedom and fidelity are combined. The criticism and interpretation, which faith exercises, See its object not from without, as foreign, or as traditional, or as in bondage, but from within, and abiding in its native element becomes more and more at home while it ascribes to every product of apostolic men its place and proper canonical worth.” “True faith sees in the letter of the documents of Revelation the religious content brought to an immutable objectivity which is able to attest itself as truth by the divine Spirit, which can at once warm and quicken the letter in order to place the living God-man before the eyes of the believer.” + * Dorner, System der Christlichen Glaubenslehre, Berlin, 1879, I., pp. 667 seg. : System of Christian Doctrine, Edin., 1881, II., p. 229, seq. 138 BIBLICAL STUlry. The reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling, all of which have arisen during these discussions of the last century into a light and vigor unknown and unantic- ipated at the Reformation, should not be antagonized the one with the other, or with the Spirit of God, but will all be included in that act and habit of faith by which we apprehend the Word of God. These cannot be satis- fied with the external authority of scholars or schools, of Church or State, of tradition or human testimony, however extensive, but only by a divine authority on which they can rest with certainty. Men will recognize the canonical writings as their Bible, only in so far as they may be able to rise through them as external media to the presence of their divine Master, who reigns in and by the Word, which is holy and divine, in so far and to that extent that it evidently sets Him forth. - CHAPTER VI. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. BIBLICAL Criticism suffered an eclipse in the 17th century among the reformed scholastics of Switzerland and Holland, but maintained itself in France and among the Puritans of Great Britain, where the conflict with Rome continued as a life and death struggle. The re- formed scholastics and the Lutheran scholastics alike fell back upon Jewish rabbinical tradition and formu- lated that tradition in Protestant forms of scholasticism and with hair-splitting results. The reformers had given their chief attention to the criticism of the canon, the establishment of the sole authority of the Scripture, and to its proper interpretation, but they had not overlooked the criticism of the text. With reference to the Old Testament, they had been chiefly influenced by two Jew- ish scholars, the one Elias Levita, who lived and died in the Jewish faith, the other Jacob ben Chajim, who be- came a Christian. Chajim edited the second edition of Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible and issued an elaborate in- troduction to it. He also edited, for the first time, the Massora. It was a common opinion among the Jews that the vowel points and accents of the Hebrew Script- ures came down from Ezra, and even Moses and Adam. Levita explodes these traditions by the following simple line of argument: (139) 140 BIBLICAL STUDY. “The vowel points and the accents did not exist either before Ezra or in the time of Ezra or after Ezra till the close of the Talmud. And I shall prove this with clear and conclusive evidence (1) In all the writings of our Rabbins of blessed memory, whether the Talmud, or the Hagadah, or the Midrash, there is not to be found any men- tion whatever of, or any allusion to the vowel points or accents.” (2) and (3) The Talmud in its use of the Bible discusses how the words should be read and how divided. This is inconsistent with an accented official text. (4) “Almost all the names of both the vowel points and the accents are not Hebrew, but Aramean and Babylonian.” + I. TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. The reformers rejected the inspiration of the Mas- soretic traditional pointing and only accepted the un- pointed text. Luther does not hesitate to speak of the points as new human inventions about which he does not trouble himself, and says, “I often utter words which strongly oppose these points,” and “they are most assuredly not to be preferred to the simple, correct, and grammatical sense.” + He goes to work with the best text he can find to give the Word of God to the people. So Calvin f acknowledged that they were the result of great diligence and sound tradition, yet to be used with care and selection. Zwingli gave great value to the LXX and the version of Jerome, and disputed the Massoretic signs.S Though searching for the nearest grammatical and logical sense, they were not anxious as to the inspiration of the grammar or the logic of the au- thors. Luther does not hesitate to dispute the validity of Paul's argument in Galatians iv. 22, seq.; Calvin does * Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, p. 127, seg. London, 1867. + Com. on Gen. xlvii. 31 ; on Isaiah ix. 6. t Com. on Zech. xi. 7. § Opera ed. Schult., V., p. 556, seq. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE, 141 not meet the objection that Paul violently and inaptly wrested the words of Moses and David, by showing that he gives the meaning, syllable by syllable, but represents the apostle as polishing and embellishing and applying the words to his own purposes.” He is not anxious about the error of Matthew xxvii. 9, in the citation of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. So Luther points out two errors or slips of memory in the discourse of Stephen, Acts vii. The reformers laid down no theory of inspiration, such as would cover accent and letter, word, logic, and grammar. They regarded the external word as the instrument; they sought the sense, the infal- lible Divine Word contained in the Scriptures, applie by the Holy Spirit to their souls.” - It is astonishing how far the Swiss Protestant divines had allowed themselves to drift away from this position of liberty, and how greatly they had entangled them- selves once more in the bonds of traditionalism. This was chiefly due to another Jewish scholar, Azzariah de Rossi, who claims, to use the concise statement of Dr. Ginsburg: § “That as to the origin and development of the vowels their force and virtue were invented by, or communicated to, Adam, in Para- dise; transmitted to and by Moses; that they had been partially forgotten, and their pronunciation vitiated during the Babylonian captivity; that they had been restored by Ezra, but that they had been forgotten again in the wars and struggles during and after the destruction of the second temple; and that the Massorites, after the close of the Talmud, revised the system, and permanently fixed the pronunciation by the contrivance of the present signs. This accounts * Com. on Rom. x. 6; Heb. iv. 4. t Compare Tholuck, art. Inspiration in Herzog Ency., I. Aufl., VI., 696, seq. † The Light of the Eyes, ºnly ºn TSYD III. 59, 1574-5. § Life of Elias Levita, in connection with his edition of Levita's Massoreth Ha-Massereth, London, 1867, p. 53. . . . . I 42 BIBLICAL STUDY. for the fact that the present vowel points are not mentioned in the Talmud. The reason why Moses did not punctuate the copy of the law which he wrote, is that its import should not be understood without oral tradition. Besides, as the law has seventy different meanings, the writing of it, without points, greatly aids to obtain these various interpretations; whereas the affixing of the vowel signs would preclude all permutations and transpositions, and greatly restrict the sense by fixing the pronunciation.” His principal reliance was upon some passages of the book Zohar and other cabalistic writings, which he claimed to be older than the Mishna, but which have since been shown to be greatly interpolated and of ques- tionable antiquity.” - - Relying upon these the elder Buxtorf with his great authority misled a large number of the most prominent of the Reformed divines of the continent to maintain the opinion of the divine origin and authority of the Mas. Soretic vowel points and accents. In England, Fulke,f Broughton, Š and Lightfoot || adopted the same opinion, These rabbinical scholars exerted, in this respect, a dis. astrous influence upon the study of the Old Testament. II. TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. The Protestant critical principle reasserted itself mightily through Ludwig Cappellus, of the French school of Saumur, where a freer type of theology had maintained itself. A new impulse to Hebrew scholar- ship had been given by Amira, Gabriel Sionita, and * Ginsburg in l.c., p. 52; Wogue, Histoire de la Bible, Paris, 1881, p. 121. + 7?berius size Commentarius Masorethicus, Basle, 1620. - t A defence of the sincere and true translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, etc., I583; Parker Society edition, I843, pp. 55 and 578. § Daniel : his Chaldee visions and his Hebrew, London, 1597, on chap. ix. 26. | Chorographical Century, c. 81; Works, Pitman's edition, 1823. Vol. IX., p. I5o, Ség. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 143 other Maronites who brought a wealth of Oriental learning to the attention of Christian scholars. PO. cock journeyed to the East, and returned with rich spoils of Arabic literature. France, Holland, and Eng- land vied with one another in their use of these literary treasures, and pushed them for the study of the Hebrew Scriptures over against the rabbinical tradition. Erpen- ius in Holland, the great Arabist, was the teacher of Cappellus, and first introduced his work to the public. Cappellus fell back on the views of Elias Levita, the teacher of the reformers, and the reformers themselves, and denied the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points and accents, and the common Massoretic text, and in- sisted upon its revision, through the comparison of MSS. and ancient versions.” Cappellus was sustained by the French theologians generally, even by Rivetus, also by Cocceius, the father of the Federal school in Holland, who first gave the author's name to the pub. lic, and the body of English critics.i. . In this connection a series of great Polyglots ap peared, beginning with the Antwerp of the Jesuit Arias Montanus, assisted by And. Masius, Fabricus Boderianus, and Franz Rapheleng; t followed by the Paris Polyglot of Michael de Jay, edited by Morinus and Gabriel Sionita; and culminating in the London Polyglot of Brian Walton, in which he was aided by Ed. Castle, Ed. Pococke, Thos. Hyde, and others ||— the greatest critical achievement of the 17th century, * His work was published anonymously in 1624 at Leyden under the title Ar. canum functuationis revelatum, though completed in 1621. + Comp. Schnedermann, Die Controverse des Zud. Cappellus mit den Bux. forfen, Leipzig, 1879. - f Biblia Regia, 8 vols. folio, I569–72. § 1629–45, Io vols. folio. i 6 vols. folio, 1657. 144 BIBLlCAL STUDY. which remains as the classic basis for the comparative study of versions until the present day. - The work of Cappellus remained unanswered, and worked powerfully until 1648. In the meantime the Roman Catholic Frenchman, Morinus, taking the same position as Cappellus, pressed it in order to show the need of Church authority and tradition.* This greatly complicated the discussion by making the view a basis for an attack on the Protestant position. The younger Buxtorf was stirred up to maintain the scho- lastic position against Cappellus. The three universities of Sedan, Geneva, and Leyden were so aroused against Cappellus that they refused to allow the publication of his great work, Critica Sacra, which, however, appeared in 1650; the first of a series of corresponding produc- tions. Heidegger and Turretine rallied the universities of Zurich, Geneva, and Basle to the Zurich Consensus, which was adopted in 1675, against all the distinguish- ing doctrines of the school of Saumur, and the more liberal type of Calvinism, asserting for the first and only time in the symbols of the church the doctrine of verbal inspiration, together with the inspiration of accents and points. - Thus the formal principle of Protestantism was strait- ened, and its vital power destroyed by the erection of dogmatic barriers against biblical criticism. “They for- got that they by this standpoint again made Christian faith entirely dependent on church tradition: yes, with respect to the Old Testament, on the synagogue.” $ The controversy between Brian Walton and John * Exercitationes biblica, 1633. * * f 7?-act. de punct. vocal. et accent. in libr. V., T., heb. origine antiq., 1648. ºf See Tholuck, Akadem. Leben, II., p. 332. - § Dorner, Gesch. Prof. Theologie, p. 451. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 145 Owen is instructive just here. John Owen had pre- pared a tract,” in which he takes the scholastic ground, “Nor is it enough to satisfy us that the doctrines men- tioned are preserved entire; every tittle and iota in the Word of God must come under our consideration, as be- ing as such from God.” + - Before the tract was issued he was confronted by the Prolegomena to Walton's Biblia Polyglotta, which, he perceived, undermined his theory of inspiration, and, therefore, added an appendix, in which he maintains. that: “The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immedi- ately and entirely given out by God himself, His mind being in them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable.” Brian Walton admirably replies to him : “For when at the beginning of the Reformation, divers questions arose about the Scriptures and the Church; the Romanists observ- ing that the punctuation of the Hebrew text was an invention of the Masorites, they thereupon inferred that the text without the points 1night be taken in divers senses, and that none was tyed to the read- ing of the Rabbins, and therefore concluded that the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtful without the interpretation and testimony of the Church, so that all must flee to the authority of the Church and depend upon her for the true sense and meaning of the Script- ures. On the other side, some Protestants, fearing that some ad- vantage might be given to the Roman?sts by this concession, and not considering how the certainty of the Scriptures might well be main- tained though the Text were unpoznáed, instead of denying the con- * The Divine Original, Authority, and Self-evidencing Light and Purity of the Scriptures. t Works, xvi. p. 303. f Qy the integrity and purity of the Hebrew Text of the Scriptures, with considerations of the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late “Biblia Poly. glotta,” Oxford, 1659. * - 7 146 BIBLICAT, STUDY. sequence, which they might well have done, thought fit rather to deny the assumption, and to maintain that the Žoznús were of Di. zºne original, whereby they involved themselves in extreme laby. rinths, engaging themselves in defence of that which might be easily proved to be false, and thereby wronged the cause which they seemed to defend. Others, therefore, of more learning and judg- ment knowing that this position of the divine original of the Žognts could not be made good; and that the truth needed not the patron- age of an untruth, would not engage themselves therein, but granted it to be true, that the Žognäs were invented by the Rabbins, yet de- nied the consequence, maintaining, notwithstanding, that the reading and sense of the text might be certazzº without functuazzon, and that therefore the Scrºtures did not at all depend upon the authority of the Church ; and of this judgment were the chief Protestant D2- zºnes, and greatest Zºngzzzsás that then were, or have been since in the Christian world, such as I named before; Luther, Zwinglius Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Brentius, Pellicane, Oecolampadius, Mercer Piscator, P. Phagius, Drusius, Schindler, Martinius, Scaliger, De Dieu, Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixt. Amana, Jac. and Ludov. Capellus, Grotius, etc.—among ourselves, Archbishop Ussher, Bishop Pri- deaux, Mr. Mead, Mr. Selden, and innumerable others, whom I for- bear to name, who conceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause, to yield that proposition, for that they could still make it good, that the Scripture was in itself a sufficzemż and certain rule for faith and life, not depending upon any human authority to sup- port it.” + We have quoted this extract at length for the light it casts upon the struggle of criticism at the time. John Owen, honored as a preacher and dogmatic writer, but certainly no exegete, had spun a theory of inspiration after the a priori scholastic method, and with it did bat- tle against the great Polyglot. It was a Quixotic at- tempt, and resulted in ridiculous failure. His dogma is crushed as a shell in the grasp of a giant. The indigna- tion of Walton burns hot against this wanton and un- reasoning attack. But he consoles himself with the * Zhe Cons?derator Cozzsidered, London, 1659, p. 220, seg. THE TEX T OF THE BIBLE. 147 opening reflection that Origen's Hexapla; Jerome's Vulgate; the Complutensian Polyglot; Erasmus' Greek Testament; the Antwerp and Paris Polyglots have all in turn been assailed by those whose theories and dog- mas have been threatened or overturned by a scholarly induction of facts. * - The theory of the scholastics prevailed but for a brief period in Switzerland, where it was overthrown by the reaction under the leadership of the younger Turretine. The theory of John Owen did not influence the West- minster men : “In fact, it was not till several years after the Confession was completed, and the star of Owen was in the ascendant, that under the spell of a genius and learning only second to Calvin, English Puritanism so generally identified itself with what is termed his less liberal vicw.” + Owen's scholastic type of theology worked in the doc- trine of inspiration, as well as in other dogmas, to the detriment of the simpler and more evangelical West- minster theology; and in the latter part of the seven- teenth century gave Puritan theology a scholastic type which it did not possess before. But it did not prevent such representative Presbyterians as Matthew Poole, Edmund Calamy, and the Cambridge men, with Baxter, from taking the more evangelical Westminster position. The critics of the Reformed church produced master- pieces of biblical learning, which have been the pride and boast of the churches to the present. Like Cappel- lus, they delighted in the name critical, and were not afraid of it. The Critici Sacri of John Pearson, Anton Scattergood, Henry Gouldman, and Rich. Pearson, fol- lowed up Walton's Polyglot in 1660 (9 vols. folio), and * Mitchell, Minzeſſes of Westminster Assembly, p. xx. 148 BíBLICAL STUDY. this was succeeded by Matthew Poole's Synopsis Criti corum in 1669 (5 vols. folio). - - - III. TEXTUAL CRITICISM IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES. Biblical criticism continued in England till the midst of the eighteenth century. Mill issued his critical New Testament in 1707, the fruit of great industry, and was assailed by unthinking men who preferred pious igno- rance to a correct New Testament.” But Richard Bent- ley espoused the cause of his friend with invincible arguments, and he himself spent many years in the collection of manuscripts, but died leaving his magnifi- cent work incomplete, and his plans to be carried out by foreign scholars. For “now original research in the science of Biblical Criticism, so far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the shores of England to return no more for upwards of a century; and we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further progress of investigations which our countrymen had so auspiciously begun.” t Bishop Lowth did for the Old Testament what Bent- ley did for the New. In his works the called the atten- . tion of scholars to the necessity of emendation of the Massoretic text, and encouraged Kennicott to collate the manuscripts of the Old Testament, which he did and published the result in a monumental work in 1776– I78O.S This was preceded by an introductory work in 1753–59. * Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., 2d edit. 1874, p. 4oo. + Scrivener in J. c., p. 402. - # De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, 1753, and Isaiah : A Wew Translation, with s Pretzmánary Dissertation and Wotes, 1778, 2d edition, 1779. § Vetus Test. Heó. cum var. lectionibus, 2 tom., Oxford. | The state of the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament considered. a vols., 8vo. Oxford. - - THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 149 After this splendid beginning, Old Testament criti- cism followed its New Testament sister to the conti- nent of Europe and remained absent until our own day. On the continent the work of Mill was carried on by J. A. Bengel” J. C. Wetstein, J. J. Gries- bach, J. M. A. Scholz,S C. Lachmann, culminating in Const. Tischendorf, who edited the chief uncial authori- ties, discovered and edited the Codex Sinaiticus," and issued numerous editions of the New Testament, the earliest in 1841. He crowned his work with the eighth critical edition of the New Testament, which he lived to complete, but had to leave the Prolegomena to another.” Tischendorf is the greatest textual critic the world has yet produced. In the Old Testament, De Rossi carried on the work of Kennicott.ht Little has been done since his day until recent times, when Baer united with Delitzsch in issuing in parts a revised Massoretic text, 1869–1882; Hermann Strack examined the recently-discovered Ori- ental manuscripts, the chief of which is the St. Petersburg codex of the Prophets of the year 916 A.D, it and Frens- dorf undertook the production of the Massora Magna. §§ * Prodromus, M. T. Gr., I725. Mozam Test., I734. + Wezv Test. Gr. cum lectionzöus warzantzózs Codicum, etc. Amst. I'751–2. t Symbolae Criticae, II. tom., 1785-93. § Biö. Åråt. Reise Zeipzig, 1823; AV. T. Graece, 2 Bde. Leipzig, 1830–36. | Wovum Test. Graece et Latine, 2 Bde., Berlin, 1842–50. T Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, St. Petersburg, 1862; Die Sinaibibel, Ihre Entdecázºng, Herausgabe und Erzwerözczeg, Leipzig, 1871. *% Wozum Testamentum Graece. Editio octava. Critica Major, Lipsiae, 1869–72. The Prolegomena is in the hands of an American scholar, Dr. C. R. Gregory. ++ Variae lectiones Vet. Test., 4 tom., Parm., 1784–1788. If Prophetarum Posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, Petropoli, 1876. $$ Die Massora Magna; Erster Theil, Massoretisches Wörterbuch, Hanover und Leipzig, 1876. 150 BIBLICAL STUDY. Within recent times textual criticism has taken strong hold again in England. S. P. Tregelles,” F. H. Scrivener," B. F. Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort f have advanced the textual criticism of the New Testament beyond the mark reached by continental scholars. In Old Testa- ment criticism England is advancing to the front rank The work of Ginsburg on the Massora Ś is the greatest achievement since the unpublished work of Elias Levita, But the Massoretic text is only the beginning toward a correct text of the Old Testament. The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament is at least half a century behind the New Testament. And the reason of it is, that scholars have hesitated to go back of the Massoretic text. Few have given their at- tention to the literary features of the Bible and espec- ially its poetic structure. But it is just here that the eyes of the student are opened to the necessity of emen- dation of the text where we can receive no help from the Massorites, who seem to have been profoundly igno- rant of the structure of Hebrew poetry. Prof. Grätz, the Jewish scholar, has recently said that we ought not to speak of a Massoretic text that has been made sure to us, but rather of different schools of Massorites, and follow their example and remove impossible readings from the text." * The Greek Wew Testament edited from ancient authorities, etc., 4to, 1857- 1872, pp. 1017. + Plain ſmøroduction to the Criticism of the Wew Testament, 3d edition, 1883. f The AVezv Testamenz in the Original Greek. Vol. II. Introduction and Appendix. N. Y., 1882. § 7%e Massorah compiled /rom Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically arranged, Vol. I. and II. Aleph—Tav, London, 1880–83. | Davidson, Treatise of Bälzcal Cº. #2cism, Boston, 1853, I., p. 160, seg. T Krit. Com. zu den Psalmen nebst Text and Uebersetzung, Breslau, I., 1882, p. II8, seq. - THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 151 Bishop Lowth, with his fine asthetic sense and in. sight into the principles of Hebrew poetry, saw and stated the truth : - “If it be asked, what then is the real condition of the present He- brew Text; and of what sort, and in what number, are the mistakes which we must acknowledge to be found in it: it is answered, that the condition of the Hebrew Text is such, as from the nature of the thing, the antiquity of the writings themselves, the want of due care, or critical skill (in which latter at least the Jews have been exceed- ingly deficient), might in all reason have been expected, that the mis- takes are frequent, and of various kinds; of letters, words, and sen- tences; by variation, omission, transposition; such as often injure the beauty and elegance, embarrass the construction, alter or obscure the sense, and sometimes render it quite unintelligible. If it be ob- jected, that a concession, so large as this is, tends to invalidate the authority of Scripture; that it gives up in effect the certainty and authenticity of the doctrines contained in it, and exposes our religion naked and defenceless to the assaults of its enemies: this, I think, is a vain and groundless apprehension. . . . . Important and funda- mental doctrines do not wholly depend on single passages; and uni- versal harmony runs through the Holy Scriptures; the parts mutually support each other, and supply one another's deficiencies and obscu- rities. Superficial damages and partial defects may greatly diminish the beauty of the edifice, without injuring its strength, and bringing on utter ruin and destruction.” + - The views of the critics prevailed over those of the scholastics, and no one would now venture to dispute their conclusions. IV. THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. It has become more and more evident that the He- brew vowel points and accents were not attached to the original MSS. of their authors, but that they have been the product of a long historical development. The Arabic Koran gives us doubtless the simplest sys. * Lowth, Isaiah, 2d ed., London, 779, pp. lix., lx. 152 BIBLICAL STUDY. tem. The Syriac gives us a double system, the Greek and the Syrian prioper, standing between the Arabic and the Hebrew. The Hebrew has also two systems, the Pales. tinian and the Babylonian, the latter preserved in the Codex Petrºpol., 916 A.D., which was unknown until re- cent times. These two evidently developed side by side and go back on an earlier, simpler system, somewhat like the Arabic, which has been lost.* The origin of the system of pointing the Shemitic languages was proba- bly in the Syrian school at Edessa, and from thence it passed over from the Syriac text at first to the Arabic and afterward to the Hebrew texts. The movement be- gan with diacritical signs to distinguish certain letters and forms, such as we find in the Syriac. This gave place to a system of vowel points. Among the Hebrews the Babylonian is the earlier, and is characterized by placing the vowel points above the letters; the Tiberian is the later and more perfect system, and has therefort: prevailed. The system did not reach its present condi tion until the seventh century at Babylon and the mid. dle of the eighth century of our era, in Palestine, al- though Ginsburg attributes the origin of the Babylonian system to Acha, about 550, and the Tiberian to Mocha, about 570. It was the work of the Massoretic Jewish critics. The accents went through a similar course of development. They serve for a guide in the cantillation of the synagogues even more than for division of the sentences and the determination of the tone. These also were modelled after the musical notation of the Syrian Church.Ş Hence the double tradition as to the place of * Gesenius, Hebr. Gram., ed. Rödiger and Kautzsch, 22 Aufl., p. 31. f Dillmann, Bzóeltext. A. Z., in Herzog, Ency. II., pp. 394-6. 1. Life of Elias Levita, in 2. c., p. 61, seg. § Wickes, 77-eatise on the Accentuation of the Three so-called Poetic Book. of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1881. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE, 153 the accent, the German and Polish Jews placing it after the Aramaic on the penult, whereas the Spanish and Italian Jews followed by Christians place it on the ulti- mate. Bickell has recently decided against the present accepted method.” Still further the square Aramaic characters used in Our Bible were exchanged for earlier Hebrew letters such as we see upon ancient coins, in the Samaritan MS of the Pentateuch, the Siloam Inscription, and on the Mesha stone. This change was made not earlier than the fourth century B.C., and upon it the Massoretic pointing depends. It is true that the present consonant text was fixed before the Talmudic era by the Jewish school of Tiberias, and the differences in reading since that time are few and comparatively unimportant in the MSS. thus far collated, but the ancient Syriac version, and especially the LXX, and the Samaritan copy, go back of the labors of the Massoretic period and the work of the schools of Tiberias and Babylon, and give testimony to an earlier text than that presented to us in the pres- ent Hebrew text. It is characteristic of scholastics that they underrate these versions. Even Keil, in his anxiety to maintain the present Massoretic text, charges the LXX version with the carelessness and caprice of transcribers and an uncritical and wanton passion for emendation. But this is in the face of the fact that the LXX version was the authorized text of the ancient church, that the New Testament citations are generally supposed to be large- * Carmina Veteris 7 estament? Metrice, Oeniponte, 1882, p. 219, seq. + See author's article on the Siloam Inscription in Presbyterian Review III. P. 4OI, Ség. † Dillmann, Bibeltext. d. A. T. Herzog, JI., p. 384. § Strack, Proleg. Critica, Leip., 1873, p 66 y. 7+ 154 - BIBLICAL • STUDY. ly from it, and that its testimony is centuries earlier than that of the Jewish school of Tiberias. The Phar isaical authority was directed to destroy the confidence of the Hellenistic Jews in it, and the version of Aquila was made to supplant it and rally the Jews of the world around an official and universally received text.” But whether a deliberate attempt was made to suppress and destroy all varying copies, as W. Robertson Smith fol- lowing Noeldeke supposes, is questionable. We doubt not that those zealots, who under the lead of Rabbi Akiba brought about the destruction of their country and the universal hatred of their race, were capable of this wickedness, but we have not learned that there is sufficient historical evidence to sustain this opinion. There can be no doubt, moreover, as Robertson Smith states: “It has gradually become clear to the vast ma- jority of conscientious students that the Septuagint is really of the greatest value as a witness to the early state of the text.”f Bishop Lowth already $ calls the Massoretic text “The Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament.” “We do not deny the usefulness of this interpretation, nor would we be thought to detract from its merits by setting it in this light; it is perhaps, upon the whole, preferable to any one of the ancient versions; it has probably the great advantage of having been formed upon a tradi- tionary explanation of the text and of being generally agreeable to that sense of Scripture which passed current and was commonly re- ceived by the Jewish nation in ancient times: and it has certainly been of great service to the moderns in leading them into the knowl- edge of the Hebrew tongue. But they would have made a much * Graetz, Gesch. der 9’uden, 1866, IV., p. 437; Joël, Blºcke in die Religions geschächte zum Anſang des zweiten Christlichen }ahrhunderts, I., 1880, p. 43, Ség. + Old Test. in Şezvāsh Church, p. 74. # In 2. c., p. 86. . § In his Preliminary Dissert, to Isaiah, 2d edit., London, 1779, p. lv. TEIE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 155 better use of it, and a greater progress in the explication of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, had they consulted it, without ab- solutely submitting to its authority; had they considered it as an as- sistant, not as an infallible guide.” Probably few scholars would go so far as this, yet there is a strong tendency in that direction. It is a most sig- nificant fact that the New Testament does not base its citations upon the original Hebrew text in literal quota- tion, but uses ordinarily the LXX and sometimes the Hebrew and possibly ancient Aramaic Targums with the utmost freedom. This question of citation has ever given trouble to the apologist. Richard Baxter meets it in this way: “But one instance I more doubt of myself, which is, when Christ and his apostles do oft use the Septuagint in their citations out of the Old Testament, whether it be alwaies their meaning to justifie each translatzon and particle of sense, as the Word of God and rightly done; or only to use that as tolerable and containing the main truth intended which was then in use among the Jews, and therefore understood by them ; and so best to the auditors. And also whether every citation of number or genealogies from the Sep- tuagint, intended an approbation of it in the very points it differeth from the Hebrew copies.” + Professor Böhl, of Vienna, has recently advanced the theory that these citations are all from a Targum used in the synagogues of Palestine in the first Christian cent- ury, which has been lost. The book of Jubilees of the first Christian century and other pseudepigraphs of the time testify with the Samaritan text and Targum to differences of text not represented in the Massoretic system.: * More Reasons, 1672, p. 49; see also p. 45. f Forschungen nach einer Volásázóel zur Zeit 9'esu, Wien, 1873; Alttestament. lichen Citate 272 AVeuez Zest., Wien, 1878. ºf Nöldeke, Alttestamentliche Zâteratur, 1868, p. 241 ; Dillmann, Beiträge aus dem Buch der Şubiläen zur Križ des Pentažeach Z extes, 1883. 156 BIBLICAL STUDY. But we must go still further back than the versions and citations to the parallel passages and duplicate psalms, prophecies, and narratives of the Old Testament in our study of the original text. No one can study at- tentively the texts of Pss. xiv. and liii., Ps. xviii. and I Chron. xvi., Micah iv. and Isa. ii., not to speak of the many other parallel passages, without being impressed with the liberty that has been taken, in the most ancient times, in making intentional changes, showing: “With what freedom later authors worked over ancient docu- ments, and also that they were not accustomed to regard the preser- vation of every word and letter as necessary.” + V. TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND INSPIRATION. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, the the . ory of Buxtorf, Heidegger, Turretine, Voetius, Owen. and the Zurich Consensus, as to vowel points and ac. cents, has been so utterly disproved that no biblical scholar of the present day would venture to defend them. But can their theory of Verbal Inspiration stand without these supports? Looking at the doc. trine of inspiration from the point of view of textual criticism, we see at once that there can be no inspira- tion of the written letters or uttered sounds of our pres- ent Hebrew text, for these are transliterations of the originals which have been lost, and the sounds are uncer- tain, and while there is a general correspondence of these letters and sounds so that they give us essentially the original, they do not give us exactly the original. The inspiration must therefore lie back of the written letters and the uttered sounds and be sought in that which is common to the old characters and the new * Dillmann, Biêeltext, A, 7, Herzog, II, Auſl., II, p. 383, THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 157 the utterance of the voice and the constructions of the pen, namely, in the concepts, the sense and meaning that they convey: “All language or writing is but the vessel, the symbol, or declara- tion of the rule, not the rule itself. It is a certain form or means by which the divine truth cometh unto us, as things are contained in words, and because the doctrine and matter of the text is not made unto one but by words and a language which I understand; there- fore I say, the Scripture in English is the rule and ground of my faith, and whereupon I relying have not a humane, but a divine authority for my faith.”* For the divine Word was not meant for the Hebrew and Greek nations alone, or for Hebrew and Greek scholars, but for all nations and the people of Goč. It is given to the world in a great variety of languages with a great variety of letters and sounds, so that the sacred truth approaches each one in his native tongue: in an appropriate relation to his understanding, just as at Pentecost the same Divine Spirit distributed Himself in cloven tongues of fire upon a large number of differ. ent persons. Thus every faithful translation as an in- strument conveys the divine Word to those who read or hear it: “For it is not the shell of the words, but the kernel of the matter which commends itself to the consciences of men, and that is the same in all languages. The Scriptures in English, no less than in Hebrew or Greek, display its lustre and exert its power and discover the character of its divine original.” + This is shown by the process of translation itself The translator does not transliterate the letters and syl- lables, transmute sounds, give word for word, transfer *- * Lyford, Plain Man's Sense Exercised, etc., p. 49. f Matthew Poole, Blow at the Root, London, 1679, p. 234. 158 BIBLICAL STUDY. foreign words and idioms, but he ascertains the sense the idea, and then gives expression to the idea, the sense, in the most appropriate way. It is admitted that close, literal translations are bad, misleading, worse than para. phrases. The Midrash method of Ezra is far preferable, to give the sense to the people without the pedantry. and subtilties of scholarship. As another Puritan says: “Now, what shall a poor unlearned Christian do, if he hath noth- ing to rest his poore soul on ? The originals he understands not; if he did, the first copies are not to be had; he cannot tell whether the Hebrew or Greek copies be the right Hebrew or the right Greek, or that which is said to be the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek, but as men tell us, who are not prophets and may mistake. Besides, the transcribers were men and might err. These considerations let in Atheisme like a flood.” + It is a merciful providence that divine inspiration is not confined to particular words and phrases and gram- matical, logical, or rhetorical constructions; and that the same divine truth may be presented in a variety of synonymous words and phrases and sentences. It is the method of divine revelation to give the same laws, doctrines, narratives, expressions of emotion, and proph- ecies in great variety of forms, none of which are ade- quate to convey the divine idea, but in their combination it is presented from all those varied points of view that a rich, natural language affords, in order that the mind and heart may grasp the idea itself, appropriate and reproduce it in other forms of language, and in the motives, principles, and habits of every-day life. The external word, written or spoken, is purely instrumental, conveying divine truth to the soul of man, as the eye and the ear are instrumental senses for its appropriation * Rich. Capel, Remains, London, 1658, THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 159 by the soul. It does not work ea opere operato by any mechanical or magical power. As the Lutherans tend to lay the stress upon the Sacraments, in their external operation, and the Angli- cans upon the external organization of the church, so the Reformed church has ever been in peril of laying the stress on the letter, the external operation of the Word of God. The Protestant principle struggles against this confounding of the means of grace with the divine grace itself, this identification of the instru- ment and the divine agent, in order therefore to their proper discrimination. This is the problem left unsolved by the Reformation, in which the separate churches of Protestantism have been working, and which demands a solution from the church of the nineteenth century. Here the most radical question is, that of the divine Word and its relation to the work of the Holy Spirit. This solved, all the other questions will be solved. Herein the churches of the Reformation may be har- monized. The Reformed churches have a peculiar call to grapple bravely with the problem. Its solution can come only from a further working out of the critical principles of the Reformation and Puritanism, not by logical deduction from the creeds and scholastic dogmas alone, but by a careful induction of the facts from the Scriptures themselves, a comparison of these results with those obtained by the dogmatic process, in order that the dogmatic and critical methods may act and react upon one another, to that most desired conclusion. But both must maintain the fundamental distinction be- tween the external and the internal word, so well stated by John Wallis, one of the clerks of the Westminster Assembly: “The Scriptures in themselves are a Lanthorn rather than a Light; 160 BIBLICAL STUDY. they shine, indeed, but it is a/Zeno lumine ; it is not their own, but a borrowed light. It is God which is the true light that shines to us in the Scriptures; and they have no other light in them, but as they represent to us somewhat of God, and as they exhibit and hold forth God to us, who is the true light that “enlighteneth every man that comes into the world.’ It is a light, then, as it represents God unto us, who is the original light. It transmits some rays; some beams of the divine nature; but they are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold them. They lose much of their original lustre by passing through this medium, and appear not so glorious to us as they are in themselves. They represent God's simplicity obliquated and refracted, by reason of many inadequate conceptions; God con- descending to the weakness of our capacity to speak to us in our own dialect.” + - The Scriptures are lamps, vessels of the most holy character, but no less vessels of the divine grace than were the apostles and prophets who spake and wrote them. As vessels they have come into material contact with the forces of this world, with human weakness, ig- norance, prejudice, and folly; their forms have been modified in the course of the generations, but their divine contents remain unchanged. We will never be able to attain the sacred writings in the original letters and sounds and forms in which they gladdened the eyes of those who first saw them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first heard them. If the external words of these originals were inspired, it does not profit us. We are cut off from them forever. Interposed between us and them is the tradition of centuries and even millen- niums. Doubtless by God’s “singular care and provi. dence they have been kept pure in all ages, and are therefore authentical.” + Doubtless throughout the whole work of the authors “the Holy Spirit was pres. ent, causing His energies to flow into the spontaneous *g * Sermons, Lond., 1791, pp. 127-8. * - t Conf. of Faith, I., viii. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 161 sxercises of the writers' faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the thought designed by God”; * but we cannot in the symbolical or historical use of the term call this providential care of His Word or superintendence over its external production—inspira- tion. Such providential care and superintendence is not different in kind with regard to the Word of God, the visible church of God, or the forms of the sacraments. Inspiration lies back of the external letter—it is that which gives the word its efficacy, it is the divine afflatus which enlightened and guided holy men to apprehend the truth of God in its appropriate forms; assured them of their possession of it; and called and enabled them to make it known to the church by voice and pen This made their persons holy, their utterances holy, their writings holy, but only as the instruments, not as the holy thing itself. The divine Logos—that is the sum and substance of the Scripture, the holy of holies, whence the Spirit of God goes forth through the holy, place of the circumstantial sense of type and symbol. and literary representation, into the outer court of the words and sentences, through them to enter by the ear and eye into the hearts of men with enlightening, sanc, tifying, and Saving power: “Inspiration is more than superintending guidance, for that ex presses but an external relation between the Spirit and writer. But Inspiration is an influence within the soul, divine and supernatural, working through all the writers in one organizing method, making of the many one, by all one book, the Book of God, the Book for man, divine and human in all its parts; having the same relation to all other books that the Person of the Son of God has to all other * A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, art. Inspiration, Presbyterian Review, II. 23.I. 162 BIBLICAL STUDY. men and that the church of the living God has to all other institu. tions.” + True criticism never disregards the letter, but rever, ently and tenderly handles every letter and syllable of the Word of God, striving to purify it from all dross, brushing away the dust of tradition and guarding it from the ignorant and profane. But it is with no supersti- tious dread of magical virtue or virus in it, or anxious fears lest it should dissolve in the hands, but with an assured trust that it is the tabernacle of God, through whose external courts there is an approach to the Lord Jesus himself. “Bibliolatry clings to the letter; spirit- uality in the letter finds the spirit and does not disown the letter which guided to the spirit.” + Such criticism has accomplished great things for the New Testament text. It will do even more for the Old Testament so soon as the old superstitious reverence for Massoretic tradition and servitude to the Jews has been laid aside by Christian scholars. Critical theories first come into conflict with the church doctrine of inspira- tion when they deny the inspiration of the truth and facts of Scripture; when they superadd another author- itative and predominant test, whether as the reason, the conscience, or the religious feeling. But this is to go beyond the sphere of evangelical criticism and enter into the fields of rationalistic, ethical, or mystical criticism. Evangelical criticism conflicts only with false views of inspiration. It disturbs the inspiration of versions, the inspiration of the Massoretic text, the inspiration of particular letters, syllables, and external words and ex- pressions; and truly all those who rest upon these exter. nal things ought to be disturbed and driven from the * H. B. Smith, Sermon on Inspiration, 1855, p. 27. f In l. c., p. 36. THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE. 163 letter to the spirit, from clinging to the outer walls, to seek Him who is the sum and substance, the Master and the King of the Scriptures. - Here the people and critics are agreed, who can doubt it P “As if the vast multitude of Christian souls who really used it did not believe in a Bible, which in its parts is vital and saving as well as in the whole, which is superior in its central lessons to all the errors of editors and translators, and which can even convey eternal life by its reproduction in sermons, however weak, that are faithful to its spirit, though they do not literally give back one of its sen- tences.” + As Tyndale, our great English reformer, says: “The Scriptures spring out of God and flow unto Christ, and were given to lead us to Christ. Thou must therefore go along by the Scripture, as by a line, until thou come to Christ who is the ways end and resting-place.” + “For though the Scripture be an outward instrument and the preacher also to move men to believe. Yet the chief and principal cause why a man believeth, or believeth not, is within ; that is, the Spirit of God leadeth His children to believe.” I * Prin. Cairns, Unbelief in 18th Century, p. 152. ł Works, Parker Series, I., p. 317. 1 Works, III., p. 139. CHAPTER VII. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. WE have shown in our previous chapters that the Ref. ormation was a great critical revival; that evangelical biblical criticism was based on the formal principle of Protestantism, the divine authority of the Scriptures over against ecclesiastical tradition; that the voice of God Himself, speaking to His people through His Word, is the great evangelical critical test; that the reformers applied this test to the traditional theory of the canon and eliminated the apocryphal books therefrom ; that they applied it to the received versions, and, rejecting the inspiration and authority of the Septuagint and Vul. gate versions, resorted to the original Greek and Hebrew texts; that they applied it to the Massoretic traditional pointing of the Hebrew Scriptures, and, rejecting it as unir spired, resorted to the divine original unpointed text; that they applied it to the traditional manifold sense and allegorical method of interpretation, and, re- jecting these, followed the plain grammatical sense, in- terpreting difficult and obscure passages by the mind of the Spirit in passages that are plain and undisputed. We have also described the second critical revival under the lead of Cappellus and Walton, and their conflict with the Protestant scholastics who had reacted from the crit- ical principles of the Reformation into a reliance upon (164) THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 165 rabbinical tradition. We have shown that the Puritan divines still held the position of the reformers, and were not in accord with the scholastics. We have now to trace a third critical revival which began toward the close of the eighteenth century in the investigations of the poetic and literary features of the Old Testament by Bishop Lowth in England and the poet Herder in Ger. many, and of the structure of Genesis by the Roman Catholic physician Astruc. The first critical revival had been mainly devoted to the canon of Scripture, its au- thority and interpretation. The second critical revival had been chiefly with regard to the original texts and versions. The third critical revival now gave attention to the investigation of the sacred Scriptures as literature. I. THE HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES. Little attention had been given to the literary features of the Bible in the sixteenth century. How the reformers would have met these questions we may infer from their freedom with regard to traditional views in the few cases in which they expressed themselves. Luther denied the Apocalypse to John and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. He maintained that the epistle of James was not an apostolic writing. He regarded Jude as an extract from 20 Peter, and said, What matters it if Moses should not himself have written the Pentateuch P” He thought the epistle to the Hebrews was written by a disciple of the apostle Paul, who was a learned man, and made the epistle as a sort of a composite piece in which there are some things hard to be reconciled with the Gospel. Calvin denied the * See Diestel, Gesch. des Alien Test. in der christlichen K.Żrche, 1869, p. 250, sey.; and Vorreden in Walch edit. of Luther's Werken, XIV., pp. 35, 146–153 7tschreden, I., p. 28. 166 BIBLICAT, STUDY. Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews and doubted the Petrine authorship of 2d Peter. He taught that Ezra or some one else edited the Psalter and made the first Psalm an introduction to the collection, not hes- itating to oppose the traditional view that David was the author or editor of the entire Psalter. He also re- garded Ezra as the author of the prophecy of Malachi —Malachi being his surname. He furthermore con- structed, after the model of a harmony of the gospels, a harmony of the pentateuchal legislation about the Ten Commandments as a centre, holding that all the rest of the commandments were mere “appendages, which add not the smallest completeness to the Law.” ” tº Zwingli, CE.colampadius, and other reformers took similar positions. These questions of authorship and date troubled the reformers but little; they had to bat- tle against the Vulgate for the original text and popular versions, and for a simple grammatical exegesis over against traditional authority and the manifold sense. Hence it is that on these literary questions the symbols of the Reformation take no position whatever, except to lay stress upon the sublimity of the style, the unity and harmony of Scripture, and the internal evidence of its inspiration and authority. Calvin sets the example in * “Therefore, God protests that He never enjoined anything with respect to sacrifices; and He pronounces all external rites but vain and trifling if the very least value be assigned to them apart from the Ten Commandments. Whence we more certainly arrive at the conclusion to which I have adverted, viz.: that they are not, to speak correctly, of the substance of the law, nor avail of them- selves in the worship of God, nor are required by the Lawgiver himself as nec- essary, or even as useful, unless they sink into this inferior position. In fine, they are appendages which add not the Smallest completeness to the Law, but whose object is to retain the pious in the spiritual worship of God, which con- sists of Faith and Repentance, of Praises whereby their gratitude is proclaimed, and even of the endurance of the cross” (Pre/ace to Harmony of the Aour Zast Books of the Pentateuch). THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 16 / this particular in his Institutes, and is followed by Thomas Cartwright, Archbishop Usher, and other Cal. vinists. - The Westminster Confession is in entire accord with the other Reformed confessions and the faith of the Reformation. It expresses a devout admiration and profound reverence for the holy majestic character and style of the Divine Word, but does not define the human authors and dates of the various writings. As Prof. A. F. Mitchell, of St. Andrew's, well states : “Any one who will take the trouble to compare their list of the canonical books with that given in the Belgian Confession or the Irish articles, may satisfy himself that they held with Dr. Jameson that the authority of these books does not depend on the fact whether this prophet or that wrote a particular book or parts of a book whether a certain portion was derived from the Elohist or the Jeho- vist, whether Moses wrote the close of Deuteronomy, Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or Paul of the Epistle to the Hebrews. but in the fact that a prophet, an inspired man, wrote them, and tha they bear the stamp and impress of a divine origin.” + And Matthew Poole, the great Presbyterian critic of the seventeenth century, quotes with approval the fol- lowing from Melchior Canus: “It is not much material to the Catholick Faith that any book was written by this or that author, so long as the Spirit of God is be- lieved to be the author of it; which Gregory delivers and explains : For it matters not with what pen the King writes his letter, if it be true that he writ it.” + Andrew Rivetus, one of the chief Reformed divines * Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, Nov., 1644–Mch., 1649, edited by A. F. Mitchell and J. Struthers. Edin., 1874, p xlix. f Blow at the Root, 4th ed., 1671, p. 228. 168 - BIBLICAL STUDY. of the continent,” after discussing the various views of the authorship of the Psalms, says: “This only is to be held as certain, whether David or Moses or any other composed the psalms, they themselves were as pens, but the Holy Spirit wrote through them : But it is not necessary to trouble ourselves about the pen when the true author is established.” In his Introduction to the sacred Scriptures, he en- ters into no discussion of the literary questions. This Omission makes it clear that these questions did not concern the men of his times. Until toward the close of the seventeenth century, those who, in the brief pre- liminary words to their commentaries on the different books of Scripture, took the trouble to mention the au- thors and dates of writings, either followed the tradition- al views without criticism or deviated from them in en- tire unconsciousness of giving offence to the orthodox faith. This faith was firmly fixed on the divine author of Scripture, and they felt little concern for the human authors employed. One looks in vain in the commen- taries of this period for a critical discussion of literary questions.# * In his Prolog. to his Com. on the Psalms. f Isagoge sea ſnetroduczzo generalis ad scripturam sacram, 1627. £ As specimens we would present the following from the Assembly's Azzzzofa- tions. (1) Francis Taylor on Şob : “Though most excellent and glorious things be contained in it, yet they seem to partake the same portion with their subject; being (as his prosperity was) clouded often with much darkness and ob- Scurity, and that not only in those things which are of lesse moment and edifica- tion (viz.: the Time and Place and Penman, etc.), but in points of higher doc- trine and concernment. The Book is observed to be a sort of holy poem, but yet not a Fable ; and, though we cannot expressly conclude when or by whom it was written, though our maps cannot show us what Uz was, or where situate, yet cannot this Scripture of Job be rejected until Atheisme grow as desperate as his wife was, and resolve with her to curse God and dye.” The traditional view that Moses wrote Job is simply abandoned and the authorship left unknown. (2) Casaubon, Preface to the Psalms : “The author of this book (the immedi- TEIE EIIGHER CRITICISM. 169 The literary questions opened by Lowth, Herder, and Astruc were essentially new questions. The revived at- tention to classical and oriental history and literature carried with it a fresh study of Hebrew history and literature. The battle of the books waged between Bentley and Boyle, which was decided in the interests of literary criticism by the masterpiece of Bentley,” was the prelude of a struggle over all the literary monu- ments of antiquity, in which the spurious was to be sep- arated from the genuine. It was indispensable that the whole Greek and Latin and Hebrew literatures should pass through the fires of this literary and historical crit- icism, which soon received the name of Higher Criticism. As Eichhorn says: * ate and Secondary, we mean, besides the original and general of all true Script- ture, the Holy Ghost . . . . ), though-named in some other places of Scripture })avid, as Luke xx. 42, and elsewhere, is not here in the title of the book ex- pressed. The truth is, they are not all David's Psalms, some having been made before and some long after him, as shall be shown in due place.” The tradi- tional view as to the Davidic authorship of the Psalter is abandoned without hes- itation or apology. (3) Francis Taylor, Preſace to the Proverbs: “That Solo- Inon is the author of this book of Proverbs in general is generally acknowledged ; hut the author, as David of the Psalms, not because all made by him, but be- cause either the maker of a good part, or collector and approver of the rest. It is not to be doubted but that many of these Proverbs and sentences were known and used long before Solomon. . . . . Of them that were collected by others as Solomon's, but long since his death, from chap. xxv.—xxx., and then of those that bear Agur's name, xxx., and Lemuel's Xxxi. . . . . If not all Solomon's, then, but partly his and partly collected by him and partly by others at several times, no wonder if diverse things, with little or no alteration, be often repeated.” Joseph Mede (Works, II., pp. 963, IO22, London, 1664), Henry Hammond (Paraphrase and Annotations upon the Wezv 7 estament, London, 1871, p. 135), Kidder (Demonstration of the Messias, London, 1726, II., p. 76), and others denied the integrity of Zechariah, and, on the ground of Matthew xxvii. 9, as- cribed the last six chapters to Jeremiah. The Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch was questioned by Carlstadt (De Script. Canon, 1521, $85), who left the author undetermined. The Roman Catholic scholar, Masius (Com. in Şosh., I574, Prizeſ., p. 2, and chap. x. I3; xix. 47; Critica Sacr., II., p. 1892, London, 1660) and the British philosopher, Hobbes (Zezzazhan, 1651 ; part iii., c. xxxiii.), distinguished between Mosaic originals and our present Pentateuch. * Epistles of Phalarz's and Fables of Æsoſ, 1699 ; see Chap. IV., p. 93. 8 170 BIBLICAL STUDY. “Already long ago Scholars have sought to determine the age of anonymous Greek and Roman writings now from their contents, and then since these are often insufficient for an investigat on of this kind, from their language. They have also by the same means sep- arated from ancient works pieces of later origin, which, by accidental circumstances, have become mingled with the ancient pieces. And not until the writings of the Old Testament have been subjected to the same test can any one assert with confidence that the sections of a book all belong in reality to the author whose name is prefixed.” + II. CRITICISM OF THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES." The traditional views of the Old Testament literature, as fixed in the Talmud and stated in the Christian fathers, came down as a body of lore to be investigated and tested by the principles of this Higher Criticism. There were four ways of meeting the issue: (1) By at- tacking the traditional theories with the weapons of the higher criticism and testing them at all points, dealing with the Scriptures as with all other writings of antiqui. ty. (2) By defending the traditional theories as the es: tablished faith of the Church on the ground of the au- thority of tradition, as Buxtorf and Owen had defended the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points against Cap- pellus and Walton. (3) By ignoring these questions as matters of scholarship and not of faith, and resting on the divine authority of the writings themselves. In point of fact, these three methods were pursued, and three parties ranged themselves in line to meet the issues; the deistic or rationalistic, the traditional or scholastic, the pietistic or mystical, and the battle of the ages between these tendencies was renewed on this line, There was a fourth and better way which few pursued. The evangelical spirit would work in the line of the * Einleit, iii., p. 67. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 171 Reformation and apply the critical test established by the reformers and (I) inquire what the Scriptures teach about themselves, and separate this divine authority from all other authority; (2) apply the principles of the higher criticism to decide questions not decided by divine authority; (3) use tradition, in order to determine as far as possible questions not settled by the previous methods. We are not surprised that this method of criticism * has been objected to from the three points of view indi- cated above. We shall notice only the objection that it “begs the whole question.”—“It is the divine author. ity of Scripture that constitutes the question in de. bate.”f This objection arises from a misapprehension of the real state of the question. The questions of the higher criticism are questions of integrity, au. thenticity, credibility, and literary form of the vari. ous writings that constitute the Bible. The inspira. tion and authority of Scripture may be concerned with the results of the higher criticism, but they are ques. tions with which higher criticism itself has nothing to do. The authority and inspiration of the Scriptures are properly considered in connection with biblical ca- nonics, where they were discussed by the reformers and have been discussed by us... If the higher criticism should result in showing that any of the sacred books have characteristics that are inconsistent with the doc- trine of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, we should have to inquire first whether the conflict is with certain theories of inspiration or the biblical and * See author's article A Critical Study of the History of the Higher Crit:- rism, with Special Reference to the Penſateuch, in Presbyterian Review, IV., p. 74, SéQ. f F. L. Patton, article Pentateucha! Criticism, in Presbyterian Review, IV. P. 353, Sé4. £ In Chap. V [72 BîBLICAL STUDY. symbolical doctrines of inspiration. We have found that the results of the textual criticism are in conflict with verbal inspiration,” but not with the symbolica. doctrine of inspiration. If it should be found that the results of the higher criticism are in conflict with other school doctrines of inspiration, it is important that these doctrines should be changed as soon as possible to accord with these results. If it should be found that they are in conflict with the biblical or symbolical doctrine, it would place the critic in an embarrassing situation, where he would be obliged either to reject the authority of the Scriptures or his critical results. Rationalistic critics have chosen the former alternative. This has been due, in our judgment, to the rationalism with which they began and carried on their criticism and not to the re- sults of criticism itself. The critic, as, indeed, every thinker, must confront this dread alternative. It is one of the perils of scholarship. We can only express our own convictions that while the traditional teachings of the schools will have to be modified to a considerable extent in the several departments of biblical study, there has nothing been established by modern critical work that will at all disturb the statements of the symbols of the Reformation with reference to the authority of the Word of God. The method we have given is a method of evangelical criticism and not a method of proving inspiration. When, therefore, we state that the evangelical critic must first “inquire what the Scriptures teach about them- selves and separate this divine authority from all other authority,” we might omit the adjectives “divine” and “evangelical” and then the statement would apply * Chap. VI., p, 156, seg. THE HIGHER CR. TICISM. 173 equally well to all critics. They set out by finding what the biblical writings have to say about themselves. Evan- gelical critics are satisfied with this. Rationalistic critics are not. Here, after ascertaining what the Scriptures teach, the critics divide in accordance with their precon- ceptions. In the conflict of opinion, evangelical critics will waive their opinions as to the divine authority of this testimony, but in their own convictions, critical work, and teachings they will not waive them. The second step of the evangelical critic is to “apply the principles of the higher criticism to determine questions not decided by divine authority.” As an evangelical critic this will be his method. In conflict with the ra- tionalistic critics he will not hesitate to test the state- ments of the Scripture about themselves, but in doing this it is not necessary, nor is it possible for him to di- vest himself of the conviction that they are statements carrying with them divine authority. III. THE RABBINICAL THEORIES. In order to present the subject in its historical order we shall state the traditional views as they came down to the critics at the close of the 17th century. The orthodox rabbinical theory of the Old Testament literature is contained in the tract Baba Bathra of the Talmud. This tract is of the order AVegåån, and is found in part in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. These Talmuds differ from one another in the particular tracts that they contain and in the matter in the tracts, so that the Babylonian Talmud is four times greater than that of Jerusalem. Both Talmuds in the treatises and tracts are composed of various elements or layers which are discriminated from one another by certain formulas of citation, The best known of these is the 174 - BIBLICAL STUDY. Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda.” But there are also Be raitha and Toseptha and Gemara in the Talmud. If the Talmud be divided into Mishna and Gemara, it is more proper technically to attach the Beraitha and Toseptha to the Mishna section, for the Gemara is a commentary not on the Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda alone, but also on the Beražthoth, which it cites.i. The relation of the Beraitha and the Toseptha to the Mishna of the Rabbi Jehuda is not of inferior authority or of more recent origin. Some of them represent a more ancient tradition of the school of R. Akiba. They are all Mishnayoth. But the collection of Rabbi Jehuda is the Mishna, by eminence as the first collection, and the Beraithoth give other Mishnayoth not embraced in his collection, but collected by others, such as R. Jan- nai, R. Chija, Bar Cappara, etc.: The Mishna has re- * This has been published apart in various editions, e.g., I v. folio, Naples, } 492; Surenhusius, 6 v. folio, Amsterdam, 1698–1703; }ost, 6 thie, Berlin, - 832–34; Sztten/eld, 6 thie, Berlin, 1863, and others. + To distinguish between the Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda and all the other ele- ments as Gemara, is incorrect and misleading unless we use these terms in a purely formal sense, and distinguish in the Gemara the Mishnazc elements from the commentary of the Gemara upon them. Thus Emanuel Deutsch in his Ziter- ary Remains (p. 40) : “Jehuda the ‘Redactor' had excluded all but the best authenticated traditions as well as all discussion and exegesis, unless where par- ticularly necessary. The vast mass of these materials was now also collected as a sort of Apocryphal oral code. We have dating a few generations after the Redaction of the official Mishna, a so-called external Mishna (Beraitka); further the discussions and additions belonging by rights to the Mishna called Toseftha (Supplement); and finally, the exegesis and methodology of the Halacha (Siſºri, Sºſra, Mechilta), much of which was afterwards introduced into the Talmud.” So Levy in his -, ez Zebrai sches zºned Chaldaisches Wörterózech (I. 260), defines: “Nºhn” in as properly that which is outside of the Canon (we must supply Nºn-jºnº to Sºnn-i-A), that is, every Mishna (or Halacha, doctrine) which was not taken up into the collection of the Mishna by R. Jehuda Hanasi, and many of which collected separately by his later contemporaries are contained in different compendiums.” -- - f See Grätz, Geschächte der ºudem, iv. 232 / ; Wogue, Histoire de "Exégèse Biblique, 1881, p. 185. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. - 175 mained fixed and definite since the immediate disciples of Rabbi Jehuda completed it, although it was probably not committed to writing until the middle of the sixth century as Luzzato and Grätz show,” when the entire Talmuds were written out together. The Toseptha gives other Mishnayotſ, added as an appendix. The Gemara is then a commentary on these Mishnayoth. In the passage on the books of the Old Testament of the Babylonian Talmud we have only to distinguish the Aeraitha from the Ge/tara. The Berazž/ha is introduced regularly by “Our rabbins teach,” “It is taught.”f We present in translation a section of the tract Baba Aaſhra, fol. I4 a., containing the most important refer- ences to the Old Testament writings. - BERAITHA.—The Rabbins have taught that the classification of the Prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve (minor prophets). GEMARA.—(Question): How is it? Hosea is first because it is written, “In the beginning the Lord spake to Hosea.” But how did he speak in the beginning with Hosea P Have there not been so many prophets from Moses unto Hosea P Rabbi Johanan said that he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied in the * Grätz, Gesch. d. 9ºzdenz, iv., p. 494. f Chiarini, Ze Talmud de Babylone, 1831, p. 19, go so far as to say: “Jes Mełż'ozh, les Tosapho’ſ, et les Berazzožh on: auss: Žoržá /e litre de ºn Tººn ou de this Tº thmºtº, parce gu'elies jouissarent de la méme auctorite gue la Mischna de Juda Že Sainz, et gu’elles étaient plus réputées encore gue cette dermière des cºté de l'ordre et de la clarté.” But they are regarded as apocryphal Mishnayoth by some. But this does not decide their intrinsic value. See also Pressel, in Herzog Real Ency., I Auſl., xv., p. 661 ; Gelbhaus, AEaböz Şehzada Hamassi, Wien, 1876, p. 92. Schürer, Lehrö. d. W. T. Zeitge- schächte, p. 42 ; Zunz, Gołżesdiensälächen Vorträge der Şuden, Berlin, 1832, P. 49, Sé47. £ We follow the editio princeps, I2 vols. folio, Venitia, Bomberg, 1520, but have also consulted the edition published at Berlin and Frankfort-on-the-Oder by Jablonsky, T736, which follows the Basle edition in expurgating the anti-Chris- tian passages. Both of these are in the library of the Union Theol. Sem., N. Y. #76 BIBLICAL STUDY. same period, and these are: Hosea, Isaiah, An is, and Micah, Should then Hosea be placed before at the head P (Reft/y): No, since his prophecies had been written alongside of Haggai, Zecha- riah, and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, it was counted with them. (Question): Ought it to have been written apart and ought it to have been placed be. fore ? (Reply): No ; since it was little and might be easily lost. (Queszzon): How is it 2 Isaiah was before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Ought Isaiah to be placed before at the head P (Reply): Since the book of Kings ends in ruin and Jeremiah is, all of it, ruin, and Ezekiel has its beginning ruin and its end comfort, and Isaiah is all of it comfort; we join ruin to ruin and comfort to comfort. BERAITHA.—The classification of the Hagiographa, is Ruth and the book of Psalms, and Job, and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Lamentations, Daniel and the roll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. GEMARA.—(Question): But according to the Tanaite who said Job was in the days of Moses, ought Job to be placed before at the head P (Refly): We begin not with afflictions. (Question): Ruth has also afflictions 2 (Æeſ/y): But afflictions which have an end. As Rabbi Johanan says, Why was her name called Ruth P Because David went forth from her who refreshed the Holy One, blessed be He with songs and praises. - BERAITHA.—And who wrote them P Moses wrote his book, the chapter of Balaam and Job; Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the law ; Samuel wrote his book and Judges and Ruth ; David wrote the book of Psalms with the aid of the ten ancients, with the aid of Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, the three sons of Korah; Jeremiah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations; Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, whose sign is pººn; the men of the great synagogue wrote Ezekiel and the twelve (minor prophets), Daniel and the roll of Esther, whose sign is hºp; Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles until himself. GEMARA.—This will support Rab, for Rab Jehuda told that Rab said: Ezra went not up from Babylon until he had registered his own genealogy, then he went up. (Question : And who finished it (his book) P (Refly): Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah. The author THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 177 (of the Beraitha) said Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of the law; this is taught according to him who says of he eight verses of the law, Joshua wrote them. For it is taught: And Moses the servant of the Lord died there. How is it possible that Moses died and wrote: and Moses died there? It is only unto this pas- Sage Moses wrote, afterwards Joshua wrote the rest. These are the words of Rabbi Jehuda, others say of Rabbi Nehemiah, but Rabbi Simeon said to him : Is it possible that the book of the law could lack one letter, since it is written: Take this book of the law P It is only unto this the Holy One, blessed be He said, and Moses said and wrote. From this place and onwards the Holy One, blessed be He, said and Moses wrote with weeping. . . . . (Question): Joshua wrote his book P But it is written there: And Joshua died. (Refºy): Eleazar finished it. (Question): But yet it is written there: And Eleazar the son of Aaron died. (Reply): Phineas finished it. (Queszzon): Samuel wrote his book P But it is written there : And Samuel died, and they buried him in Rama. (Repſy): Gad the seer and Nathan the Prophet finished it. We have to distinguish the view of the Tanaim in the Beraitha and the view of the Amoraim in the Gemara, The Tanaim do not go beyond the scope of giving (1) the order of the sacred writings, (2) their editors. (I) In the order of the writings we observe several singular features, which lead us to ask whether the orde, is topical, chronological, liturgical, or accidental. The Amoraim explain the order generally as topical, although other explanations are given, but their reasons are in- consistent and unsatisfactory. Is there a chronological reason at the bottom P. This is clear in the order of the three classes—law, prophets, and other writings. But will it apply to the order of the books in the classes 2 There seems to be a general observance of the chrono- logical order if we consider the subject matter as the determining factor, and not the time of composition. In the order of the prophets Jeremiah precedes Eze- kiel properly. But why does Isaiah follow 2 Is it out 8% 178 BIBLICAL STUDY. of a consciousness that Isaiah was a collection of severa, writings besides those of the great Isaiah,” or from the feeling that Isaiah's prophecies had more to do with the restoration than the exile, and so naturally followed Eze- kiel? The minor prophets are arranged in three groups, and these groups are chronological in order. Hosea was placed first out of a mistaken interpretation of his introductory words. Malachi appropriately comes last. But this order of the prophets in the Beraitha is aban- doned by the Massorites, who arrange Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. In the other writings there is a sort of chrono- logical order if we consider the subject matter, but the Massoretic text differs from the Beraitha entirely, and indeed the Spanish and German manuscripts from one another. We cannot escape the conviction that there was a liturgical reason at the basis of the arrangement; which has not yet been determined. At all events, its authority has little weight for purposes of higher criticism. . - (2) As to their editorship. The verb kathabh=“wrote,” cannot imply composition in the sense of authorship in several cases of its use ; but must be used in the sense of editorship or redaction. Thus it is said that the men of the great synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the minor proph- ets, Daniel, and the roll of Esther. This cannot mean that they were the original authors, but that they were editors of these books. It is not stated whether they edited them by copy from originals or from oral tradi- tion. Rashi takes the latter alternative, and thinks that holy books could not be written outside of Palestine.t. An insuperable objection to this editing of Daniel and * Strack in Herzog, Real Encyk., vii., p. 43. f Strack in Herzog, Real Encyk., vii., p. 418; Wright, Koheleth, p. 454, seq. Wogue, Histoire de la Böle, p. 19, seq. - - THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 179 Esther at the same time as Ezekiel and the twelve, is their exclusion from the order of the prophets, where they would have naturally gone if introduced into the canon at that time; Esther with the prophetic histories, and Daniel with Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. Again, when it is said Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, this can only mean editorship, and not authorship. The Tosaphoth on the Beraitha says: “Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah ; because Hezekiah caused them to busy themselves with the law, the matter was called after his name. But he (Hezekiah) did not write it him- self, because he died before Isaiah, since Manasseh, his successor, killed . Isaiah.” The redaction of Proverbs, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes by Hezekiah's company, is probably a conjecture based upon Proverbs xxv. 1. But the whole story is incredible. It carries with it a canon of Hezekiah, and would be inconsistent with the subse- quent positions of these books in the canon. | David is represented as editing the Psalter with the aid of ten ancients—that is, he used the psalms of the ten worthies and united them with his own in the collec- tion. Moses is represented as writing his book, the chap- ter of Balaam and Job. The chapter of Balaam is distin- guished probably as edited and not composed by Moses. In view of the usage of the rest of this Beraitha, we cannot be sure whether it means that Moses edited the law and Job, or whether here “wrote ’’ means author- ship. The same uncertainty hangs over the references to Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezra. The statements of the Beraitha, therefore, seem rather to concern official editorship than authorship, and it dis- tinguishes no less than eight stages of redaction of the Cld Testament Scriptures: (1) By Moses, (2) Joshua, 180 BIBLICAL STUDY. (3) Samuel, (4) David, (5) Hezekiah and his college, (6) Jeremiah, (7) the men of the great synagogue, (8) Ezra. The Gemara in its commentary upon this passage en- larges this work of redaction so as to give a number of additional prophets a hand in it. Joshua, completes the work of Moses, Eleazar the work of Joshua, and Phineas his work; Gad and Nathan finish the work of Samuel, then come David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, the men of the great synagogue; and Nehemiah finishes the work of Ezra. It is easy to see that all this is pure conjecture, and of little value for purposes of criticism. - IV. HELLENISTIC AND CHRISTIAN THEORIES. Having considered the Rabbinical Tradition, we are now prepared to examine that of the Jewish historian, Josephus. His general statement is: “We have not myriads of books among us disagreeing and con tradicting one another, but only twenty-two, comprising the history of all past time, justly worthy of belief. And five of them are thost: of Moses, which comprise the law and the tradition of the genera tion of mankind until his death. This time extends to a little les: than three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Arta- xerxes, the king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses composed that which transpired in their times in thirteen books. The other four books present hymns to God and rules of life for men.” + “And now David, being freed from wars and dangers, and enjoy- ing a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God of several sorts of metre : some of those which he made were trimeters, and some were pentameters.” + Josephus’ views as to Hebrew literature vary some. what from the Talmud. He strives to exalt the Hebrew Scriptures in every way as to style, antiquity, and variety * Contra Apion, i., § 8, f Antig., vii. 12, THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 181 above the classic literature of Greece. He represents Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, even the last eight verses describing his own death.” We do not hesitate to reject his views of the number and arrange- ment of the books in the canon, or his statements as to the metres of Hebrew poetry; we certainly cannot ac- cept his authority, without criticism, in questions of authorship. Philo agrees with Josephus in making Moses the author of the narrative of his own death,'f but has little to say about matters that concern the higher criticism. A still more ancient and higher authority in some respects than the Talmud or Josephus is the apocalypse of Ezra, from the first Christian century, printed among the apocryphal books in the English Bible, and pre. served in five versions, and used not infrequently by the fathers as if it were inspired Scripture. This tradi. tion represents that the law and all the holy books were burned at the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad. nezzar and lost; that Ezra under divine inspiration restored them all, and also composed seventy others to be delivered to the wise as the esoteric wisdom for the interpretation of the twenty-four.; - * Antiq., iv. 8, 48. t Z2/e of Moses, III. 39. | Ezra saith : “For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the works that shall begin. But if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost unto me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world since the beginning which were written in thy law, that men may find thy path,” etc. . . . . “Come hither, (Saith God), and I shall light a candle of understanding in thine heart which shall not be put out till the things be performed which thou shalt begin to write. And when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou show secretly to the wise. . . . . The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and the unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver ther's only to such as be wise among the people, for in them is the spring of under. standing, the fountain of wisdom and the stream of knowledge” (xiv. 19–46). 182 BIBLIC AL STUDY, This view of the restoration of the Old Testament writings by Ezra was advocated by some of the fathers. Clement of Alexandria” says: “Since the Scriptures perished in the captivity of Nebuchadnezzar, Esdras the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, having become inspired, in the exercise of prophecy re- stored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures.” So, also, Tertullian, Chrysostom, an ancient writing attributed to Augustine, $ the heretical Clementine hom- ilies.| Another common opinion of the fathers is repre- sented by Irenaeus: “I “During the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the ſews had returned to their own land, then in the time of Artaxerxes, King of the Persians, [God] inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of former prophets, and to re-estab- lish with the people the Mosaic legislation.” So, also, Theodoret” and Basil.ht Jerome++ says with reference to this tradition: “Whether you wish to say that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, or that Ezra restored it, is indifferent to me.” Bellarmin §§ is of the opinion that the books of the Jews were not entirely lost, but that Ezra corrected those that had become cor- rupted, and improved the copies he restored. Jerome, in the fourth century, relied largely upon * Stromata, i. 22. f De cultu foeminarum, c. 3. £ Home. viii., 2n Epist. Hebraeos, Migne's edition, xvii. p. 74. § De miračilibus sacrae scripturae, II.33, printed with Augustine's works, but not genuine. i Hom. iii. c. 47. T Adv. Hareses, iii. 21, 2, * Arae/. 2n Psalmos. tº Epist. ad Chilonem, Migne's edition, IV., p. 358, See Simon, Hist. Crit. de Vieux Z est., Amsterd. 1685, and Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraph. Ham. burg, 1722, p. II56, seg. iſ .4dv. He/vt'dium. - §§ De verão Dei., lib. 2. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 183 Jewish rabbinical authority, and gave his great influence toward bringing the fluctuating traditions in the church into more accordance with the rabbinical traditions, but he could not entirely succeed. He held that the orphan Psalms belonged as a rule to the previous ones, and in general followed the rabbins in associating the sacred writings with the familiar names—Moses, David, Solo- mon, Jeremiah, Ezra, and so on. There is, however, no consensus of the fathers on these topics. Junilius, in the midst of the sixth century, author of the first extant Introduction,” a reproduction of a lost work of his instructor, Paul of Nisibis, of the Antiochian school of Exegesis, presents a view which may be re- garded as representing very largely the Oriental and Western churches. He divides the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments into 17 histories, 17 prophe- cies, 2 proverbial, and 17 doctrinal writings. Under authorship, he makes the wise discrimination between those having their authors indicated in their titles and introductions, and those whose authorship rested purely on tradition, including in the latter the Pentateuch and Joshua.” . - This work of Junilius held its own as an authority in the Western church until the Reformation. It would * Institutio regularis Divānae Zegis. + “Scriptores divinorum librorum qua ratione cognoscimus? Tribus modis : aut ex titulis et proemiis ut propheticos libros et apostoli epistolas, aut ex titulis tantum ut evangelistas, aut ex traditione veterum ut Moyses traditur Scripsisse quinque primos libros historiae, cum non dicat hoc titulus nec ipse referat ‘dixit dominus ad me,’ sed quasi de alio ‘dixit. dominus ad Moysen.” Similiter et Jesu Nave liber ab eo quo nuncupatur traditur scriptus, et primum regum librum Samuel Scripsisse perhibetur. Sciendum praeterea quod quorundam librorum penitus ignorantur auctores ut Judicum et Ruth et Regum iii. ultimi et cetera similia, quod ideo credendum est divinitus dispensatum, ut alii quoque divini libri non auctorum merito, sed sancti spiritus gratia tantum culmen auctoritatis obtinuisse noscantur.” (§ viii. 2; see Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und 7un- fººtes 4/7 acazezes als. AExegezere, pp. 319-330). 184. BIBLICAL STUDY. be difficult to define a consensus of the first Christian century or of the fathers in regard to the authorship of the historical books of the Old Testament or other ques- tions of the higher criticism. The variant traditions, unfixed and fluctuating, came down to the men of the eighteenth century to be tested by the Scriptures, and by the principles of the higher criticism, and they found no consensus patrum and no orthodox symbolical doctrines in their way. V. THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE. It is claimed, however, that Jesus and His apostles have determined these questions for us, and that their divine authority relieves us of any obligation to investi. gate further, as their testimony is final. This does not seem to have been the view of Junilius or the fathers. So far as we can ascertain, this argument was first urged in opposition to Peyrerius by Maresius,” and pressed by Heidegger, the Swiss scholastic, who sided with Buxtorf and Owen against Cappellus and Walton. But the argu- ment having been advanced by these divines, and forti- fied by the Lutheran scholastic Carpzov, and maintained by Hengstenberg, Keil, and Horne, and by a large num- ber of scholars who lean on these authoritiés, it is neces- sary for us to test it. Clericus went too far when he said that Jesus Christ and His apostles did not come into the world to preach criticism to the Jews. The * Maresius, Refutatio Æaðula Preadamita, 1656; Heidegger, Exercit. Biö- lºcat, I700; Dissert. ix., p. 250, seg. f In Sentimens de Quelques Theologiens de Holland sur l’ Histoire Critique, p. 126, Amst., 1685, Clericus says: “Jesus Christ et ses Apôtres n'etant pas venus au monde, pour enségner la Critique au Juifs, il ne faut pass'étonner, s'ils parlent Selon l'opinion commune.” THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 185 response of Hermann Witsius, that Jesus came to teach the truth, and could not be imposed upon by common ignorance, or be induced to favor vulgar errors, is just.* And yet we cannot altogether deny the principle of accommodation in the life and teachings of Jesus. The principle of accommodation is a part of the wonderful condescension of the divine grace to human weakness, ignorance, and sinfulness. Jesus teaches that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, suffered ancient Israel to divorce their wives for reasons which the higher dispensation will not admit as valid (Matt. xix. 8). The divine revelation is a training-school for the disciple, ever reserving from him what he is unable to bear, and holding forth the promise of greater light to those using the light they have. “It is not required in a religious or inspired teacher, nor indeeſ would it be prudent or right, to shock the prejudices of his unin. formed hearers, by inculcating truths which they are unprepared to receive. If he would reap a harvest, he must prepare the groun, before he attempts to sow the seed. Neither is it required of such an one to persist in inculcating religious instruction after such evi. dence of its rejection as is sufficient to prove incurable obstinacy. Now it must be granted that in most of these cases there is accom- modation. The teacher omits, either altogether or in part, certain religious truths, and, perhaps, truths of great importance, in accom- modation to the incompetency and weakness of those whom he has to instruct. . . . . It appears, then, that accommodation may be allowed in matters which have no connection with religion, and in these, too, so far as regards the degree and the form of instruction. * “Enim vero non fuere Christus et Apostoli Critices doctores, quales se naberi postulant, qui hodie sibi regnum litterarum in quavis vindicant scientia; fuerunt tamen doctores veritatis, neque passi sunt sibi per communem ignoran- tiam aut procerum astum imponi. Non certe in mundum venere ut vulgares arrores foverunt, Suaque auctoritate munirent, nec per Judaeos solum sed et popu- los unice, a se pendentes longe latedue spargerent.”—Misc, Sacra, I., p. 117. 186 BIBLICAL STUDY. But positive accommodation to religious error is not to be found in Scripture, neither is it justifiable in moral principle.” + Jesus withheld from the twelve apostles many things of vast importance which they could not know then, but should know hereafter (John xiii. 7). Jesus did not enter into any further conflict with the errors of His time than was necessary for His purposes of grace in the Gospel. He exercised a wise prudence and a majestic reserve in matters of indifference and minor importance, and was never premature in declaring Himself and the principles of His Gospel. There were no sufficient reasons why He should correct the prevailing views as to the Old Testa- ment books, and by His authority determine these liter- ary questions. He could not teach error, but he could and did constantly forbear with reference to errors. Polygamy and slavery have been defended from the New Testament because Jesus and His apostles did not declare against them. If all the views of the men of the time of Christ are to be pronounced valid which He did not pronounce against, we shall be involved in a labyrinth of difficulties. The authority of Jesus Christ, to all who know Him to be their divine Saviour, outweighs all other authority whatever. A Christian man must follow His teachings in all things as the guide into all truth. The authority of Jesus Christ is involved in that of the apostles. What, then, do Jesus and His apostles teach as to the questions of higher criticism 2 If they used the lan- guage of the day in speaking of the Old Testament books, it does not follow that they adopted any of the various views of authorship and editorship that went * * Dr. S. H. Turner, in his edition of Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philol. ºgy. Edin., 1834, pp. 275-277. New York, 1834, p. 280, 4 g. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 187 with these terms in the Talmud, or in Josephus, or in the apocalypse of Ezra, for we are not to interpret their words on this or on any other subject by Josephus, or the Mishna, or the apocalypse of Ezra, or any such ex- ternal authorities, but by the plain grammatical and contextual sense of their words themselves. From the various New Testament passages we present the follow- ing Summary of what is taught on these subjects: I. Of the Hagiographa the only ones used in the New Testament in connection with names of persons are the Psalter and Daniel. With reference to Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Ruth, the New Testament gives no evi- clence whatever in questions of the higher criticism.” (1) With reference to the Psalter, citations are made from Ps. lxix. 26; ciz. 8 (in Acts i. 16–20); ii. 1, seq. (in Acts iv. 25); as “by the mouth of David’’; from xxxii. I, seq. (in Rom. iv. 6); lxix. 23 (in Rom. xi. 9); xvi. 8–II (in Acts i. 25–29); cz. I (in Acts ii. 34), as “David Saith ”; and cz. I (in Matt. xxii. 43–45; Mark xii. 36, 37; Luke xx. 42–44); under various terms in the parallel passages as, “David in the Spirit calls him Lord ”; “David himself said in the Holy Spirit”; “Da- vid himself saith in the book of Psalms.” The maxi- mum of evidence here is as to the Davidic authorship of PSS. ii., xvi., xxxii., lxix., Cix., and cx., in all six psalms out of the I5o contained in the Psalter. As to the rest, there is no use of them in connection with the name of an author. There is, however, a passage upon which the Davidic authorship of the entire Psalter has * For a fuller discussion of this subject, we would refer to the exhaustive paper of Prof. Francis Brown, The AVezv Testament Wºźness to the Authorship of old Testament Books in the Şournal of the Society of Bābācal Literature ana £xegesis, 1882, p. 95, seg. 188 BIBLICAL STUDY. been based, e. g., Heb. iv. 7; * where a citation from Ps * Thus, William Gouge, one of the most honored Puritan divines, in his Commentary on Hebrews, in discussing this passage, says: - “From the mention of David in reference to the Psalm, we may probably con- clude that David was the penman of the whole Book of Psalms, especially from this phrase, ‘David himself saith in the Book of Psalms’ (Luke xx. 42). Some exceptions are made against this conclusion, but such as may readily be an- swered. “Oājection I.—Sundry psalms have not the title of David prefixed before them ; they have no title at all, as the first, second, and others. Ans.—If they have no title, why should they not be ascribed to David, rather then to any other, con- sidering that the Book of Psalms is indefinitely attributed to him (as we heard out of the forementioned place, Luke xx. 42), which is the title prefixed before all the Psalms, as comprising them all under it 2 Besides, such testimonies as are taken out of Psalms that have no title are applied to David, as Acts iv. 25, and this testimony that is here taken out of Psalm xcv. 7. “Objection 2.-Some titles are ascribed to other authors; as Psalms bºxii., cxxvii. to Solomon. Ans.—The Hebrew Servile lamed is variously taken and translated; as sometimes, of Psalm iii. 1, “A Psalm of David.' Then it signi- fieth the author: Thus it is used in most titles, especially when they are applied to David. Other time this is translated /or, as Psalm BKxii. I and crxvii. In these it implieth that the Psalm was penned /or Solomon's use or for his in- struction. It may also be thus translated, concerzzzzeg Solomon. That the bºxii. Psalm was penned by David is evident by the close thereof, in these words: ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended.” “Objection 3.—Some titles ascribe the Psalm to this or that Levite, as Psalm lxxxviii. to Heman, and lxxxix. to Ethan. Yea, twelve Psalms to Asaph and eleven to the sons of Korah. Ans.—All these were very skillful, not only in singing, but also in setting tunes to Psalms. They were musick masters. Therefore, Da- vid, having penned the Psalms, committed them to the foresaid Levites to be fitly tuned. . . . It will not follow that any of them were enditers of any of the Psalms, because their name is set in the title of some of them. “Objection 4.—The xcth Psalm carrieth this title: “A Prayer of Moses the Man of God.” Ans.—It is said to be the prayer of Moses in regard of the sub- stance and general matter of it; but, as a Psalm, it was penned by David. He brought it into that form. David, as a prophet, knew that Moses had uttered such a prayer in the substance of it; therefore, he preſixeth that title before it. “Objection 5.—The cºxxviith Psalm doth set down the disposition and car- riage of the Israelites in the Babylonish Captivity, which was six hundred fourty years after David's time, and the cKxvith Psalm sets out their return from that Captivity. Ans.—To grant these to be so, yet might David pen those Psalms; for, by a prophetical spirit, he might foresee what would fall out and answerably pen Psalms fit thereunto. Moses did the like (Deut. xxix. 22, etc., and xxxi. 21, 22, etc.). A man of God expressly set down distinct acts of Jo- siah 330 years before they fell out (1 Kings xiii. 2). Isaiah did the like of Cyrus (Is, xliv. 28; xlv. 1), which was about two hundred years beforehand,” THE HIGHER CRITICISM, 1.89. xcv. 7–8 is given “as the Holy Spirit saith in David, & Aaveið.” This only means that David was the name of the Psalter and this title was used interchangeably with the book of Psalms, or Psalms. The question of integrity is raised by the citation of our Psalm ii. as Psalm i., according to the best manuscripts in Acts xiii. 33.” Were these two Psalms combined in one at the time, or was the first Psalm regarded as introductory and not counted P. Both views are supported by MSS. and citations. - (2) Daniel xi. 31 or xii. II is used in Matt. xxiv. 15 ander the formula, “that which was spoken by Daniel the prophet.” With reference to this, we will simply quote the judicious words of Prof. Brown : - . “It will be remembered that the passage cited in Matt. xxiv. 15 is rrom the second division of the book, a division which, with the ex- ception of certain brief introductory notes, contains prophecies exclu- sively, and that this division is distinctly marked off from the pre- ceding by the nature of its contents, and by the brief introduction, ſ)an. vii. I. Now, suppose evidence were to be presented from other quarters to show that while the book as a whole was not written by Daniel, the last six chapters contained prophecies of Daniel, which the later author had incorporated in his book. On that supposition, the words of Jesus taken in their most rigid, literal meaning would be perfectly satisfied. We may go yet further. If other evidence should be adduced tending to show that ‘Daniel, the prophet,’ was a pseudonym, still there would be nothing in Jesus’ use of the ex- pression to commit Him to any other view. For the words were certainly written, and written in the form of a prophecy, and were a prophecy, and the book containing them was an inspired, canonical, and authoritative book; the citation was, therefore, suitable and forcible for Jesus’ purposes, whoever the author may have been, and the use of a current pseudonym to designate the author no more committed Jesus to a declaration that that was the author's real name, than our use of the expression “Junius Says' would com- * So Tischendorf, Critica Major, Editio Octava. 190 BIBLICAL STUDY. mit us to a declaration that the ‘Letters of Junius were composed by a person of that name; or than, on the supposition already dis- cussed, that “Enoch’ was regarded as a pseudonym, Jude I4. would indicate the belief of the author that Enoch himself actually uttered the words which he quotes.” + II. The Prophets. (1) The only one of the prophetic historical books mentioned in connection with a name is Samuel, in Acts iii. 24: “All the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days.” The reference here is to the book of Samuel, for the reason that there is no Mes- sianic prophecy ascribed to Samuel in the Old Testa- ment. The context forces us to think of such an one. We find it in the prophecy of Nathan in the book of Samuel. These historical books then bore the name of Samuel, and their contents are referred to as Samuel's. As to Joshua, Judges, and Kings we have no use of them in such a way as to raise questions of higher criti- cism. (2) Of the prophetic writings in particular the New Testament refers only to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Joel in connection with names. Ezekiel and ten of the minor prophets are not used in such a way as to raise ques- tions of higher criticism except Jonah, who is referred to as a prophet in connection with his preaching to the Ninevites and to his abode in the belly of the great fish (Matt. xii. 39–41), but no reference as such is made to the book that bears his name in connection with his name. The question whether Jonah is history or fiction is not decided by Jesus' use of it—for as a parable it answered His purpose no less than if it were history. (3) Hosea i. Io; ii. 23 are quoted Rom. ix. 25, as “in * In l, c., pp. IC6, Ioz. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 191 Hosea.” This is probably nothing more than the name of the writing used. Joel ii. 28–32 is quoted in Acts ii. 16 as, “This is that which was said through the prophet Joel.” (4) Jeremiah is cited in Matt. ii. 17; xxvii. 9, under the formula, “ that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet saying.” The former citation is from Jeremiah (xxxi. 15), the latter from Zechariah (xi. 12–13). This raises the question of the integrity of Zechariah. On the basis of this passage chaps. ix.-xi. of Zechariah were as- cribed to Jeremiah by Mede, Hammond, and Kidder (see p. 169). But it is now generally conceded that the evangelist has made a mistake, and this raises the ques- tion how far errors of this character affect the credibility of a writing. | (5) Isaiah is frequently used in the formula, “through Isaiah the prophet saying ”: Is. xl. 3 (in Matt. iii. 3); Is. ix. I seq. (Matt. iv. I4); Is. liii. 4 (in Matt. viii. I7); Is xlii. I–4 (in Matt. xii. I7); Is. vi. 9 seq. (Acts xxviii. 25); so with the formula “Isaiah said,” Is. xl. 3 (John i. 23); Is. vi. 9 seq. (in John xii. 39–41); Is. liii. I (in Rom. x. I6); Is. lxv. I seq. (Rom. x. 20); Is. xi. IO (Rom. xv. 12); “the book of the prophet Isaiah,” Is. xl. 3-5 (Luke iii. 4); Is. lxi. 1–2 (Luke iv. 17); “word of Isaiah the prophet,” Is. liii. 1 (John xii. 38); “reading the prophet Isaiah,” Is. liii. 7 (Acts viii. 28–30); “Isaiah cries out,” Is. x. 22 seq. (Rom. ix. 27); “Isaiah foretold,” IS. i. 9 (Rom. ix. 29); “the prophecy of Isaiah,” Is. vi. 9 (Matt. xiii. 14); “Isaiah prophesied,” Is. xxix. 13 (Matt. xv. 7); Is. xxix. 13 (Mark vii. 6). Besides these there is a passage of more difficulty in Mark i. 2, where, with the formula, “written in Isaiah the proph- et,” are cited Mal. iii. I and Is... xl. 3. This seems to be a clear case in which the evangelist has overlooked 192 BIBLICAL STUDY. the fact that orie of his citations is from Malachi. This raises the question how far a slip like this is consist- ent with credibility. The various formulas of citation seem on the surface to imply the authorship of our book of Isaiah by the prophet Isaiah, and also its essen- tial integrity, inasmuch as the citations are from all parts of the book. But we have found that Samuel is repre- sented as prophesying, when the prophecy is by Nathan in the book that bore the name of Samuel. How can we be sure that this is not the case with Isaiah, likewise in the phrases, “through Isaiah the prophet, saying,” “Isaiah said,” “words of Isaiah the prophet,” “Isaiah tries out,” “Isaiah foretold,” “Isaiah prophesied " ? The phrases, “book of the prophet Isaiah,” “reading the prophet Isaiah,” “prophecy of Isaiah,” certainly imply nothing more than naming the book. The presumption of the New Testament is in favor of the authorship of Isaiah, but, in the face of other decisive evidence to the contrary, does not force us to any other conclusion than what the book as a whole bore the name of Isaiah. III. Of the Pentateuch. (I) Jesus speaks of the law of Moses (John vii. 23) and the book of Moses (Mark xii. 26). The evangelist uses Moses for the Pentateuch (Luke xxiv. 27). So the apostles refer to the law of Moses (Acts xxviii. 23), and use Moses for the Penta- teuch (Acts xv. 2 I ; 2 Cor. iii. I5). These are all cases of naming books cited. They have as their parallel David as the name of the Psalter in Heb. iv. 7; Acts iv. 25 ; Samuel, also of the book of Samuel, Acts ili. 24. It is certainly reasonable to interpret Moses in these passages in the same way as the name of the work con- taining his legislation, and the history in which he is the central figure. (2) Jesus represents Moses as a lawgiver, giving the THE EIIGHER CRITICISM. 193 Ten Commandments (Mark vii. Io), the law of the lepers' offering (Mark i. 44, etc.), the law of divorce (Matt. xix. 7), the law in general (John vii. 19). The epistle to the Hebrews represents Moses as giving the law of priest- hood (Heb. vii. I4), and as a lawgiver whose law when is- sued at the time could not be disobeyed with impunity (Heb. x. 28). These passages all represent Moses to be the lawgiver that he appears to be in the narratives of the Pentateuch, but do not, by any means, imply the authorship of those narratives that contain these laws, any more than the reference in I Cor. ix. 14, to the com- mand of Christ in Luke x. 7, and the institution of the Lord's supper by Jesus (I Cor. xi. 23 seq.), imply that Jesus was the author of the gospels containing His words. (3) Jesus represents Moses as a prophet who wrote of Him (John v. 46, 47); so Philip (John i. 45); Peter (Acts iii. 22–24); Stephen (Acts vii. 37); Paul (Acts xxvi. 22), and in Rom. x. 5, 19 the apostle refers to the address in Deut. xxx. and the song Deut. xxxii. These passages maintain that certain prophecies came from Moses, but do not maintain that the Pentateuch, as a whole, or the narratives in which these prophecies occur, were written by Moses. - - (4) Certain historical events narrated in the Penta- teuch in which Moses takes the lead, are mentioned (in Heb. viii. 5, ix. Ig, xii. 21, etc.), but these simply teach the historical character of the transactions, not the ex- clusive Mosaic authorship of the writings containing these historical incidents. ... • (5) In the passage, Acts ii. 22, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you, etc. . . . . Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have 9 194 BIBLICAL STUDY. y spoken, have likewise foretold of these days,” it is nec. essary to interpret “Samuel ” of the book of Samuel, and think of the prophecy of Nathan ; and if this be so, is it not most natural to interpret “Moses” here as also re- ferring to the book of Deuteronomy rather than the person of Moses 2 If that be true in this case, it may also be true of other cases classed under (2) and (3). Samuel cannot, it is now generally admitted, be regarded as the author of the book that bears his name; why, then, are we forced to conclude from these passages that Moses is the author of the books that bear his name? It has been objected that this method of determining what the words of Jesus and His apostles may mean in detail does not show what they must mean when taken together. It has, however, been forgotten by the ob- jectors that the proper exegetical method is inductive and that the path of exegesis is to rise from the partic- ulars to the general. The dogmatic method is in the habit of saying a passage must mean thus and so from dogmatic presuppositions. The exegete prefers the may until he is forced to the must. He has learned to place little confidence in the “must mean’’ of tradition and dogmatism ; for he has so often been obliged to lay it aside as impossible from exegetical considerations. Who, then, is to say must in the interpretation of the New Testament exterior to itself? Is the Talmud to say must to the words of our Lord Jesus? Is the traitor Josephus, or the pseudepigraph IV. Ezra to say must in an interpretation of the apostles? Nay. We let them speak for themselves, and if we are to choose between a variety of possible interpretations of their words we prefer to let higher criticism decide. For higher criti- cism is exact and thorough in its methods and prefers the internal evidence of the Old Testament books them. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 195 selves to any external evidence. This may bring Jesus into conflict with Josephus and the rabbins and with traditional theories; but it is more likely to bring Him into harmony with Moses and the prophets. Prof. B. Weiss has well said in another connection: “However certainly, therefore, the religious ideas of later Judaism, as well as the doctrines of Jewish Theology, had an influence upon the forming of the religious consciousness as it is exhibited in the writings of the New Testament, our knowledge of the extent in which these ideas and doctrines lay within the field of vision of the writers of the New Testament is far from being precise enough to permit us to start from them in ascertaining that religious conscious- ness. It is only in the rarest cases that biblical theology will be able to make use of them with certainty for the purpose of eluciº dation.” & + No one could emphasize the importance of historical exegesis more than we are disposed to do; but we can. not allow traditionalists—who are the last to use this method except when, for the time being, it serves their purposes—by the improper use of it, to force upon crit. icism interpretations that are possible but not necessary, and which are excluded by other and higher considera- tions presented by the word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It has been a common literary usage for centuries to represent a book as speaking by the name by which it is known, whether that be a pseudonyme, or indicate the subject matter or the author. To insist that it must al- ways in the New Testament indicate authorship is to go in the face of the literary usage of the world, and against the usage of the New Testament itself, certainly in the cases of Samuel and David and, therefore, possibly in other cases also, such as Moses and Isaiah. * Biblical Theology of the Wezv Testament, T., & T. Clark's edition. Edin. 1882, I., p. I4. 196 BIBLICAL STUDY. We have shown that the questions of higher criticism have not been determined for us by the ecclesiastical au. thority of creeds or the consensus of tradition. And it is a merciful Providence that this has not been the case. For it would have committed the church and Christians to many errors which have been exposed by a century of progress in the higher criticism. Those who still insist upon opposing higher criticism with traditional views and with the supposed authority of Jesus Christ and His apos- tles, do not realize the perils of the situation. Are they ready to risk the divinity of Christ, the authority of the Bible, and the existence of the church, upon their in- terpretation of the words of Jesus and His apostles? Do they not see that they throw up a wall that will pre- vent any critic who is an unbeliever from ever becoming a believer in Christ and the Bible P They would force evangelical critics to choose between truth and scholarly research on the one side, and Christ and tradition on the other. The issue is plain, the result is not doubtful -—the obstructionists will give way in this matter as they have already in so many other matters. The Bible will vindicate itself against those who, like the friends of Job, have not spoken right concerning God (Job xlii. 7), in presuming to defend Him. VI. THE RISE OF HIGHER CRITICISM. The current critical theories are the resultants of forces at work in the church since the Reformation. These forces have advanced steadily and constantly. In each successive epoch scholars have investigated afresh the sacred records and brought forth treasures new as well as old. Various theories have been proposed from time to time to account for the new facts that have been brought to light. Biblical science has shared the fortune THE EIIGHER CRITICISM. 197 of the entire circle of the sciences. The theories have been modified or discarded under the influence of addi- tional investigations and the discovery of new facts for which they could not account. The facts have remained in every case as a permanent acquisition of biblical criti- cism, and these facts have gradually accumulated in mass and importance until they now command the services of a large body of enthusiastic investigators. They have gained the ear of the literary world and enlist the inter- est of all intelligent persons. The questions of biblical criticism have arisen to a position among the great issues of our time, and no one can any longer ignore them. All great movements of human thought have their preliminary and initial stages, and are preceded by Spas- modic efforts. Even the enemies of the true faith not in- frequently become the providential agents for calling the church to a fresh investigation of the sacred oracles. Thus Spinoza, the apostate Jew and pantheistic philos- opher, applied historical criticism to the Old Testament books,” and concluded that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, and that the historical books from Gen esis through the books of Kings constitute one great historical work, a conglomeration of many different orig- inals by one editor, probably Ezra, who does not suc- ceed in a reconciliation of differences, and a complete and harmonious arrangement. The books of Chronicles he places in the Maccabean period. The Psalms were collected and divided into five books in the time of the second temple. The book of Proverbs was collected at the earliest in the time of Josiah. The prophetical books are collections of different fragments without regard to their original order. Daniel, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah are # 7 ract. Theo. Polzł., I67o, c. 8. 198 BIBLICAL STUDY. from the same author, who would continue the great his torical work of Israel from the captivity onwards, writ- ten in the Maccabean period. Job was probably, as Aben Ezra conjectured, translated into Hebrew from a foreign tongue.* This criticism was shrewd, but chiefly conjectural. It paved the way for future systematic in- vestigations. . Soon after Spinoza, Richard Simon," a Roman Cath- olic, began to apply historical criticism in a systematic manner to the study of the books of the Old Testament. He represented the historical books as made up of the ancient writings of the prophets, who were public scribes, and wrote down the history in official documents on the spot, from the time of Moses onward, so that the Penta- teuch in its present shape is not by Moses. Simon dis- tinguished in the Pentateuch between that which was written by Moses, e. g., the commands and ordinances; and that written by the prophetical scribes, the greater part of the history. As the books of Kings and Chron- icles were made up by abridgments and summaries of the ancient acts preserved in the archives of the nation, so was the Pentateuch (p. 17, seq.). The later prophets edited the works of the earlier prophets and added ex- planatory statements. Simon presents as evidences that Moses did not write the Pentateuch : (1) The double ac- count of the deluge. (2) The lack of order in the ar- rangement of the narratives and laws. (3) The diversity of the style. The Roman Catholic scholar goes deeper into the subject than the Pantheist Spinoza has gone. He presents another class of evidences. These three lines were not sufficiently worked by Simon. He fell * See Siegfried, Spinoza als Križišer und Ausleger des Alten Testament. Berlin, 1867. f Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, 1678. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 199 tº into the easy temptation of expending his strength on the elaboration and justification of his theory. The facts he discovered have proved of permanent value, and have been worked as a rich mine by later scholars, but his theory was at once attacked and destroyed. The Arminian Clericus, in an anonymous work,” assailed Si- mon for his abuse of Protestant writers, but really went to greater lengths than Simon. He distinguishes in the Pentateuch three classes of facts, those before Moses, those during his time, and those subsequent to his death; and represents the Pentateuch in its present form as composed by the priest sent from Babylon to instruct the inhabitants of Samaria in the religion of the land, 2 Kings xvii. Afterward he gave up this wild theory and took the more tenable ground t of interpolations by a later editor. Anton Van Daleş distinguishes be- tween the Mosaic code and the Bentateuch, which latter Ezra composed from other writings, historical and pro- phetical, inserting the Mosaic code as a whole in his work. This is also essentially the view of Semler.| These various writers brought to light a most valuabke collection of facts that demanded the attention of bibli- cal scholars of all creeds and phases of thought. They all made the mistake of proposing untenable theories of various kinds to account for the facts, instead of working upon the facts and rising from them by induction and generalization to permanent results. Some of them, * Sentimens de Quelques theologiens de Holland sur l’Histoire Critique, Amst., I685. - - + In 2. c., pp. IO7, 129. f Com. on Genesis, introd. de Scriptore Pent., § 11. Simon replied to Cler. Reus in Réponse au Zzzyre antitatle Sentimens, etc. Par Le Prieur de Bolleville, Rotterdam, 1686. § De origine et progressee idol., 1696, p. 71, and effist. ad Morāzz., p. 686. | Apparatus ad liberalem Peć. Test, Interp., 1773, p. 67. 200 - BIBLICAL STUDY. like Spinoza, were animated by a spirit more or less hos. tile to the evangelical faith. Others, like Clericus, were heterodox in other matters. The most important inves. tigations were those of the Roman Catholics. Over against these critical attacks on the traditional theories, we note the scholastic defence of them by Huet, a Jesuit; * Heidegger, and Carpzov. These scholastic divines, instead of seeking to account for the facts brought to light by the critics, proceeded to defend tra- ditional views and explain away the facts. . There were, however, other divines who looked the facts in the face and took a better way. Thus Du Pin § Wit- sius, Spanheim," Prideaux,” Vitringa, it and Calmet,ff sought to explain the passages objected to either as im- properly interpreted or as interpolations, recognizing the use of several documents and a later editorship by Ezra and others. They laid the foundations for evan- gelical criticism, which was about to begin and run a long and successful course. It is instructive just here to pause by Du Pin, who lays down such admirable rules of literary criticism Š with reference to ecclesiastical books. When Simon raises the question why he does not apply these rules to the Pentateuch, he replies by saying: “A man may say, that all these rules which I have laid down, are convincing and probable in different degrees, but that the sovereign * In his Demonstratio Evangelica, 1679, IV., cap. xiv. f Exercitiones Biblicae, 1700, Dissert. ix. 7. f /ntroduction ad Zööros Canonicos B23. Vet. Test. Edit. ii., Lipsiae, 1731. § Dessert. Zºrelim. Biö. des auteurs eccl., Paris, 1688. A new History of Ec- tles?astical Writers, 3d edition, London, 1696, p. 1, seq. | Mºsc. Sacra, 1692, p. 103. * Historia ecclesiast. V. T., I., p. 260 * Old and Wew Testaments connected, 1716–18, I., 5 (3). tf Observa. Sacra., c. IV., 2, 1722. £f Com. lºtterale, 1722, I., p. xiii. §§ See Chap. IV., p. 88 seq., of this book. - - - THE EIGHER CRITICISM. 201 and principal rule is the judgment of equity and prudence, which in- structs us to ballance the reasons of this and t'other side, in distinct- ly considering the conjectures that are made of both sides. Now this is the general rule of Rational Criticism, and we abuse all the . . rest if we don't chiefly make use of this" (in Z.c., p. 18). In this way the difference between Simon and himself was easily reduced to good sense and nonsense. This method of settling difficult questions certainly stops de- bate between the parties for the moment, but is far from convincing. - Before passing over to the higher criticism of the Scriptures we shall present the views of this master of the literary criticism of his time, respecting the biblical books: . “Moses was the author of the first five books of the Pentateuch" (except Sundry interpolations). . . . . “We can't so certainly tell who are the authors of the other books of the Bible: some of 'em. we only know by conjecture, and others there are of which we have no manner of knowledge.” . . . . “The time wherein Job lived, is yet more difficult to discover ; and the author of the book, who has compiled his history, is no less unknown.” . . . . “Though the Psalms are commonly called the Psalms of Dazzd, or rather the Book of the Psalms of ZJavād, yet ’tis certain, as St. Jerom has ob- served in many places, that they are not all of 'em his, and that there are some of them written long after his death. 'Tis therefore a col- lection of songs that was made by Ezrah.” . . . . “The Proverbs o Parables belong to Solomon, whose name is written in the beginning of that book. . . . . We ought therefore to conclude, . . . . that the 24 first chapters are Solomon's originally, that the five following ones are extracts or collections of his proverbs, and that the two last chapters were added afterwards. . . . . The book of Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Solomon by all antiquity: And yet the Talmudists have made Hezekiah the author of the book, and Grotius, upon some slight conjectures, pretends it was composed by Zerubabel. It be- gins with these words, The Words of the Prezcher, the Son of Da- vid, King of Jerusalem , which may be applied to Hezekiah as well as to Solomon: . . . . we ought rather to understand it of Solomon. 202 4-d BIBLICAL STUDY. . . . . The Song of Songs, . . . . is allowed to be Solomon's by the consent of the synagogue and the church. The Talmudists attribute it to Ezrah, but without grounds. The books of the Prophets carry the names of their authors undisputed ” (in A. c., pp. 1–5). About the same time several Roman Catholic divines, as well as Vitringa, took ground independently in favor of the theory of the use of written documents by Moses in the composition of Genesis. So Abbé Fleury,” and Abbé Laurent François; + but it was chiefly Astruc, a R. C. physician, who in 1753 + made it evident that Genesis was composed of several documents. He pre- sented to the learned world, with some hesitation and timidity, his discovery that the use of the divine names, Flohim and Jehovah, divided the book of Genesis into two great memoirs and nine lesser ones. - This was a real discovery, which, after a hundred years of debate, has at last won the consent of the vast major- ity of biblical scholars. His analysis is in some respects too mechanical, and, in not a few instances, is defective and needed rectification, but as a whole it has been main- tained. He relies also too much upon the different use of the divine names, and too little upon variations in style, language, and narrative. The attention of Ger- man scholars was called to this discovery by Jerusalem.S Eichhorn was independently led to the same conclu- sion. But still more important than the work of As- * Moeurs des Israelites, p. 6, Bruxelles, 1701. This was translated into Eng- lish and enlarged by Adam Clarke. 3d edition, 1809. - t Prezzves de la Religion de Jesus Christ, contra les Spinosistes et les De- istes, I75I, I. 2, c. 3, art. 7. - £ In his Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux d'ont 27 paroit gue Moysa g'est serve pozer le livre de la Genèse. § In his Briefe über d. Mosaischen Schriften, 1762, 3te Aufl., 1783, p. ro4, Seg. - - - - | Urgeschächte in the Repertorium, T. iv., 1779, especially T. v., 1779. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. - 203 truc was that of Bishop Lowth,” who unfolded the prin- ciples of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, and made it pos. sible to study the Old Testament as literature, discrim- inating poetry from prose, and showing that the greater part of prophecy is poetical. His work on Hebrew po- etry was issued in Germany by Michaelis, and his trans- lation of Isaiah by Koppe, who took the position that this prophetical book was made up of a number of docu- ments loosely put together from different authors and different periods. Lowth himself did not realize the importance of this discovery for the literary criticism of the Scriptures, but thought that it would prove of great service to tea-tual criticism in the suggesting of emendations of the text in accordance with the parallel- jsm of members. The poet Herder: first caught the Oriental spirit and life and brought to the attention of the learned the va- ried literary beauties of the Bible, § and “reconquered, so to say, the Old Testament for German literature.” | But these writers were all preparatory to the work of J. G. Eichhorn, in 1780." Eichhorn combined in one * In De Sacra Poes? Hebræorum, 1753, and 1779 in Prelim. Diss. and Trans- Jazzon of the Prophecies of Isaiah. f Koppe, Robert Zozváh's 9°saias new ičersetzi meðst einer Æinleitung. . . . . mit Zusātze und Anmerkungen, 4 Bde., Leipzig, 1779–80. 1 In 1780 he published his Briefe über das Studium der Theologie, and in I782 his Geist der Heb. Poesie. § Herder in his Ist Brief says: “Richard Simon is the Father of the Criticism of the Old and New Testaments in recent times.”—“A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, as it ought to be, we have not yet.” I780. In 20 Auf., I785. It is said on the margin, “We have it now in Eichhorn's valuable Fºre- leit. 2ns Alt. Test., 1780–83.” - | Dorner in Şohnson's Encyclopædia, II., p. 528. T Einleit. 2ns Alt. Test. As Bertheau remarks in Herzog's Real Ency., I. Auſl., iv., II5: “In Eichhorn's writings the apologetic interest is everywhere manifest, to explain, as he expresses it, the Bible according to the ideas and Imethods of thought of the ancient world, and to defend it against the scorn of the enemies of the Bible, He recognized the exact problem of his times clearer 204. BIBLICAL STUDY. lf the results of Simon and Astruc, Lowth and Herder, embracing the various elements in an organic method which he called the Higher Criticism. In the preface to his second edition, 1787, he says: “I am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely un- worked field, the investigation of the internal condition of the par- ticular writings of the Old Testament by help of the Higher Criti- cism (a new name to no Humanist). Let any one think what they will of these efforts, my own consciousness tells me that they are the result of very careful investigation, although no one can be less wrapt up in them than I their author. The powers of one man hardly suf- fice to complete such investigations so entirely at once. They de- mand a healthful and ever-cheerful spirit, and how long can any one maintain it in such toilsome investigations? They demand the keen- est insight into the internal condition of every book; and who will not be dulled after a while P” He begins his investigation of the books of Moses, with the wise statement: “Whether early or late P That can be learned only from the writ ings themselves. And if they are not by their own contents or othe, internal characteristic traces put down into a later century than they ascribe to themselves or Tradition assigns them, then a critical in- vestigator must not presume to doubt their own testimony—else he is a contemptible Råsonneur, a doubter in the camp, and no longer an historical investigator. According to this plan I shall test the most ancient Hebrew writings, not troubling myself what the result of this investigation may be. And if therewith learning, shrewdness, and other qualifications which I desire for this work should fail me, yet, certainly no one will find lacking love of the truth and strict in- vestigation.” than most of his contemporaries; he worked with unwearied diligence over the whole field of Biblical literature with his own independent powers; he paved the way to difficult investigations; he undertook many enterprises with good success, and conducted not a few of them to safe results. With Herder in common he has the credit of having awakened in wide circles love to the Bible, and especially the Old Testament writings, and excited enthusiasm carefully to investigate them,” THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 205 These are the principles and methods of a true and manly scholar, the father of higher criticism. It is a sad reflection that they have been so greatly and generally ignored on the scholastic and rationalistic sides. Eich- horn separates the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents in Genesis with great pains, and with such success that his analysis has been the basis of all critical investiga- tion since his day. Its great advantages are admirably stated : - “For this discovery of the internal condition of the first books of Moses, party spirit will perhaps for a pair of decennials snort at the Higher Criticism instead of rewarding it with the full thanks that are due it, for (1) the credibility of the book gains by such a use of more ancient documents. (2) The harmony of the two narratives at the same time with their slight deviations proves their independence and mutual reliability. (3) Interpreters will be relieved of difficulty by this Higher Criticism which separates document from document. (4) Finally the gain of Criticism is also great. If the Higher Criti- cism has now for the first distinguished author from author, and in general characterized each according to his own ways, diction, fav- orite expressions, and other peculiarities, then her lower sister who busies herself only with words, and spies out false readings, has rules and principles by which she must test particular readings.” “ Eichhorn carried his methods of higher criticism into the entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid the foundation of views that have been main- tained ever since with increasing determination. He did not always grasp the truth. He sometimes chased shadows, and framed visionary theories both in relation * In 2. c., II., p. 329; see also Urgeschichte in Reperforzazme, 1770, V., p. 187. We cannot help calling attention to the ſine literary sense of Eichhorn as manifest in the following extract: “Read it (Genesis) as two historical works of antiquity, and breathe thereby the atmosphere of its age and country. Forget then the century in which thou livest and the knowledge it affords thee; and if. thou canst not do this, dream not that thou wilt be able to enjoy the book: in the spirit of its origin.” * * *. . . . . 206 BIBLICAL STUDY. to the Old and New Testaments, like others who have preceded him and followed him. He could not trari. scend the limits of his age, and adapt himself to future discoveries. The labors of a large number of scholars, and the work of a century and more, were still needed, as Eichhorn modestly anticipated. - These discussions produced little impression upon Great Britain. The conflict with deism had forced the majority of her divines into a false position. If they had maintained the ſides divina and the critical position of the reformers and Westminster divines, they would not have hesitated to look the facts in the face, and strive to account for them ; they would not have com- mitted the grave mistakes by which biblical learning was almost paralyzed in Great Britain for half a century.* Eager for the defence of traditional views, they, for the most part, fell back again on Jewish rabbinical authority and external evidence, contending with painful anxiety for authors and dates, and so antagonized higher criti- cism itself as deistic criticism and rationalistic criticism, not discriminating between those who were attacking the Scriptures in order to destroy them, and those who were searching the Scriptures in order to defend them. It is true that the humanist and the purely literary in- terest prevailed in Eichhorn and his school; they failed to apply the fides divina of the reformers, but this was lacking to the scholastics also, and so unhappily tradi- tional dogmatism and rationalistic criticism combined to crush evangelical criticism. * Mozley in his Reminiscences, 1882, Am. edit., Vol. II., p. 41, says: “There was hardly such a thing as Biblical Criticism in this country at the beginning of this century. Poole's Synopsis contained all that an ordinary clergyman could wish to know. Arnold is described as in all his glory at Rugby, with Poole's Synopsis on One side, and Facciolation the other.” - . THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 20? viſ. CHE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. There is a notable exception to the absence of the critical spirit in Great Britain, and that exception proves the rule. In 1792 Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic divine, proposed what has been called the frag- mentary hypothesis to account for the structure of the Pentateuch and Joshua.” But this radical theory found no hospitality in Great Britain. It passed over into Germany through Vater, and there entered into conflict with the documentary hypothesis of the school of Eich- Jorn. Koppe had proposed the fragmentary hypothesis to account for the literary features of the book of Isaiah (see p. 203), and so it was extended to other books of the J3ible. Eichhorn had applied the documentary hypoth- esis to the gospels, Isaiah, and other parts of Scripture. The first stadium of the higher criticism is characterized by the conflict of the documentary and fragmentary hy- potheses along the whole line. The result of this dis- cussion was that the great variety of the elements that constitute our Bible became more and more manifest, and the problem was forced upon the critics to account for their combination. De Wette f introduced the second stadium of the higher criticism by calling the attention of the critics to * 7 he Hóly Bible; or, the books accounted sacred by Şezws and Christians, etc. London, I., p. xviii., seg. a' f Commentar fiber den Pentažeuch m2t Einleitungen zze den einzelmen Aë. schmitten der eangeschalteten von Dr. Alex. Geddes' merkzvärdigeren Åritischen und exegetzschen Ammerhungen, etc. Halle, 1805. f Kritză der 2sraelitzschen Geschichte, Halle, 1807; Beiträge zur Einleit 1806–7; Zehrö. d, hist. Æræf, Einleit. 2n d. Bibel Alten uſed AWeuen Testaments Berlin, 1817–26. . - * 208 BIBLICAM, STUDY. the genesis of the documents.” Gesenius, supported him, and sharply opposed the fragmentary hypothesis of Koppe, and strove to account for the genesis of the documents of Isaiah and their combination. Other crit- ics in great numbers worked in the same direction, such as Bleek, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, and produced a great mass of historical and critical work upon all parts of the Old Testament. The same problems were discussed in the New Testament, especially with reference to the gospels, the order of their production, and their inter. relation. A great number of different theories were advanced to account for the genesis of the different books of the Bible. The result of the conflict has been the conviction on the part of most critics that the unity of the writings in the midst of the variety of docu- ments, has been accomplished by careful and skilful editing at different periods of biblical history. It became more and more evident that the problems were assuming larger dimensions and that they could not be solved until the several edited writings were compared with one another and considered in their relation to the development of the biblical religion. The higher criti. cism thus entered upon a third stadium of its history. This stadium was opened for the New Testament by the Tübingen school, and for the Old Testament by the school of Reuss. These entered into conflict with the older views and soon showed their insufficiency to ac- count for the larger problems. They reconstructed the biblical writings upon purely naturalistic principles, so * See author's article A Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criti- rism, with special reference to the Pentateuch, Presbyterian Revečw, IV., p. 94, Ség. - - t Com. ii. d. 9esaia, Leipzig, 1821. # See Weiss, Leben 9eszz, I., p. 30, seq. TEIE HIGHER CRITICISM. 209 emphasizing differences as to make them irreconcilable. and explaining the development in biblical history and religion and literature, by the theory of antagonistic forces struggling for the mastery. These critics were successfully opposed by the schools of Neander, Hof. mann, and Ewald, and have been overcome in the New Testament by the principle of diversity of views com- bining in a higher unity. The same principle will over- come them in the Old Testament likewise, so soon as evangelical critics learn to apply it.” The higher criticism during the first and second stadia of its development in Germany made little impres- sion upon Great Britain and America. In 1818 T. Hart. well Horne issued his Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which has been highly esteemed for its many excellent qualities by several generations of students. His statement in the preface to the second edition of his work shows how far Great Britain was behind the continent at that time: “It (the work) originated in the author's own, wants many years since . . . . when he stood in need of a guide to the reading of the Holy Scriptures. . . . . At this time the author had no friend to assist his studies, or remove his doubts, -nor any means of pro- curing critical works. At length a list of the more emi- nent foreign Biblical critics fell into his hands, and di- rected him to some of the sources of information which he was seeking ; he then resolved to procure such of them as his limited means would permit, with the design in the first instance of satisfying his own mind on those * See author's article Critical Study of the Higher Criticism, etc., Presby. terzazz Rezniezw, IV., p. 106, seg. ; also Chap. VIII., p. 225; Chap. XI., p. 387 of this book. # It passed through many editions, 4th, 1823; Ioth, 1856. 210 BIBLICAL STUDY. topics which had perplexed him, and ultimately of laying before the Public the results of his inquiries, should no treatise appear that might supersede such a publication.” This dependence of Great Britain and America on the biblical scholarship of the continent continued until the second half of our century. Most students of the Bible contented themselves with more or less modified forms of traditional theories. Some few scholars made occa- sional and cautious use of German criticism. Moses Stuart, Edward Robinson, S. H. Turner, Addison Alex- ander, Samuel Davidson, and others depended chiefly upon German works which they translated or reproduced. At last the Anglo-Saxon world was roused from its un- critical condition by the attacks of Bishop Colenso, on the historical character of the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, and by a number of scholars representing free thought in the “Essays and Reviews.”” These writers fell back on the older deistic objections to the Pentateuch as history, and as containing a supernatural religion, and mingled therewith a reproduction of German thought, chiefly through Bunsen. They magnified the discrep ancies in the narratives and legislation, and attacked the supernatural element, but added nothing to the sober higher criticism of the Scriptures. So far as they took position on this subject they fell into line with the more radical element of the school of De Wette. They called the attention of British and American scholars away from the literary study of the Bible and the true work of the higher criticism, to a defence of the supernatural, and the inspiration of the Bible. They were successfully attacked by several divines in Great Britain and Amer. * The Penzateuch and Book of Şoshua critically examined, Part i.-vii., 1862 79; Recent Inquiries in Theology by eminent English Churchmen, being Essayſ and Reviews, 4th Am. edition from 2d London, 1862. •. THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 21] ica.” The work of Colenso had little support in Great Britain or America at the time, but it made a great im. pression upon the Dutch scholar, Kuenen, who had al- ready advanced to the most radical positions. Through Kuenen's influence it has, however, again come into no- tice.* - - It is only within a few years that any general interest in matters of the higher criticism has been shown in Great Britain or America. This has been due chiefly in Great Britain to the influence of Bishop Lightfoot + and Dr. W. Robertson Smith,; and in the United States to the discussions of the higher criticism in the Presbyterian Review, Bibliotheca Sacra, journal of the Society of Biö. lical Literature and Exegesis, and other periodicals. . The ground had, in part, been prepared for these discus- sions by the translation of many of the most important foreign works of criticism, and their publication, especial- ly by T. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh, the Foreign Transla- tion Fund Society, and others. Starting in the churches of England and France, the higher criticism was not de- veloped in the lands of its birth, but passed over into Lutheran Germany and Reformed Switzerland to the headwaters of the Reformation, to attach itself to the * Among these we may mention the authors of Aids to Faith, being a reply to “Assays and Reviews,” American edition, 1862; W. H. Green, 7%e Penta- teach vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, N. Y., 1863. f Godsdienst van Israel, 1869–70, the English edition, Religion of J.srael, 1874; De viff Boeken van Moges, 1872; De Proſetem en de proſetie on der Israel, 1875, translated into English, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877, and numerous articles in Zheologisch. Tºjdschrift since that time, and last of all, Hibbert Lectures, Mational Religions and Universal Religions, 1882. Kuen- en's views are presented in a popular form in the Bible for Learners, 3 vols., I88o. - f Articles in the Contemporary Review, against the author of Supernatural A'eligion, xxv. and xxvi. § 77:e Old Testament in the Şewish Church, 1881; The Prophets of Israel 1882, 212 BIBLICAL STUDY. principles of the Reformation after a hard and long struggle with rationalism, atheism, and pantheism. In its historic unfolding in Germany and Switzerland in the nineteenth century, we observe that biblical crit- icism is represented by three antagonistic parties: scho. lastic critics, evangelical critics, and rationalistic critics. That the discussion has until recently been chiefly con- fined to the continent of Europe and foreign tongues, may account for the prejudice against it in Great Brit- ain and America during the long neglect of biblical studies and the almost exclusive attention to the discussion of dogmas and the practical work of the church. But the renewed attention to biblical studies in Great Britain and America has brought us face to face with the critical theories of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, and the question arises how to meet them. Shall it be with dog- matic opposition to criticism altogether ? This would be unreasonable, unhistoric, and unprotestant. Or shall we not rather take our stand with the evangelical critics of Europe against the rationalistic critics, and conquer the latter by a more profound critical interpretation of the literature, the history, and the religion of the Bible 2 We should not allow ourselves to be influenced by the circumstance that the majority of the scholars who have been engaged in these researches have been rationalistic or semi-rationalistic in their religious opinions; and that they have employed the methods and styles peculiar to the German scholarship of our century. Whatever may have been the motives and influences that led to these investigations, the questions we have to determine are: (I) what are the facts of the case? and (2) do the theo- ries account for the facts? We have thus far been, at the best, spectators of the battle that has raged on the continent of Europe over THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 213 the biblical books. The Providence of God now calls us to take part in the conflict. Our Anglo-American schol. ars are but poorly equipped for the struggle. We should prepare ourselves at once. We should give our imme- diate attention to the history of this great movement, the stadia through which it has passed, and the present state of the question, in order that as soon as possible our scholars may attain the highest marks reached by our foreign brethren and advance to still greater achieve. ments. - - CHAPTER VIII. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. THE sacred Scriptures are composed of a great variety of literary products, the results of the thinking, feelingy and acting of God’s people in many generations. Thougl guided by the Divine Spirit so as to give one divine rev- elation in continuous historical development, they yet, as literary productions, assume various literary styles in accordance with the culture, taste, and capacity of their authors in the different periods of their composition. Especially is this true of the Old Testament, which contains the sacred literature of the Hebrews through a long period of literary development. For their proper interpretation, therefore, we need not only the relig. ious spirit that can enter into sympathetic relations with the authors, and through vital union with the Divine Spirit interpret them from their inmost soul; we need not only training in grammar and logic to understand the true contents of their language and the drift of their discourse; we need not only a knowledge of the archae- ology, geography, and history of the people, that we may enter into the atmosphere and scenery of their life and its expression; we need not only a knowledge of the laws, doctrines, and institutions in which the authors were reared, and which constituted the necessary grooves of their religious culture but in addition to all these (214) LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE, 215 we need also a literary training, an asthetic culture, in order that by a true literary sense, and a sensitive and refined aesthetic taste, we may discriminate poetry from prose, fact from fiction, the bare truth from its artistic dress and decoration, the fruit of reasoning from the products of the imagination and fancy. Every race and nation has its peculiarities of literary culture and style, so that while the study of the best lit- erary models of the Greeks and Romans, and modern European languages, may be necessary to develop the best literary taste; yet in entering upon the study of Hebrew literature we come into a field that was not in- fluenced at all by any of these, to the literature of a race radically different from all the families of the Indo- Germanic race—one which declines to be judged by the standards of strangers and foreigners, but requires an independent study in connection with the literature of its own sisters, especially the Arabic, Syriac, and Assyr- ian. A special training in these literatures is, therefore, necessary in order to the proper estimation of the He- brew literature; and criticism from the point of view of our ordinary classic literary culture alone is unfair and misleading. And it is safe to say that no one can thor- oughly understand the Greek New Testament who has not made himself familiar with the Old Testament liter- ature, upon which it is based. The student must enter into sympathetic relations with the spirit and life of the Orient that pervades it. The literary study of the Bible is essentially the higher criticism of the Bible. A reader may enjoy the literary features of Shakespeare, Milton, and Homer without him- self taking part in critical work, but consciously or un- consciously he is dependent upon the literary criticism of experts, who have given him the results of their la 216 BIBLICAL STUDY. bors upon these authors. So is it with the Bible: the ordinary reader may enjoy it as literature without being a critic—but the labors of critics are necessary in order that the Bible may be presented to him in its proper literary character and forms. Biblical literature has the same problems to solve, and the same methods and prin- ciples for their solution, as have been employed in other departments of the world's literature (p. 87 seq.) It has to determine the integrity, authenticity, literary form, and credibility of the writings. I. THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. The first questions with reference to a writing are : ſ'; it the product of one mind as an organic whole or composed of several pieces of the same author; or 18 it a collection of writings by different authors? Has it retained its original integrity or has it been interpola- ted 2 May the interpolations be discriminated from the criginal?% - The twelve minor prophets are regarded as one book in most of the ancient Jewish and Christian catalogues. the Baba Bathra represents them as edited by the men of the great synagogue after the exile (p. 176). This is a conjecture without historical evidence. These proph- ets in modern times have ordinarily been treated sepa- rately and their original combination to a great extent forgotten. Each one of them may be tested as to its integrity. The only one about which there has been any general questioning, is Zechariah. The earlier doubts were based upon Matt. xxvii. 9, which ascribes Zech. xi. * For general statements of the problems of higher criticism in our time, see Hermann Strack and L. Schulze, in Zöckler, Handbuch d. theologischen Wis- sensch&/?ent, I., 1882, pp. 135, seq., 382 seq.; also, S. I. Curtiss and H. M. Scott, in Current Discussions in Theology, Chicago, 1883, p. 26 seq. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 217 12–13 to Jeremiah (p. 169). If that passage be free from error, the section of Zechariah in which the citation is contained must be separated from that prophet and at. tached to the prophecies of Jeremiah. It is now gener. ally conceded that this cannot be done, and that the evangelist has made a slip of memory in citation. The integrity of Zechariah has been disputed in recent times from literary grounds. Many scholars of the present day attribute the second half to one or more pre-exilic prophets. Others, as Wright” and Delitzsch,+ still maintain the integrity of the book. The book of Proverbs is represented by the Baba Bathra (p. 176) as edited by the college of Hezekiah. This is based upon a conjecture founded on Proverbs xxv. 1. It has also been held that it was edited by Solomon himself, and, indeed, that Solomon was the author of the whole. It is now generally agreed that the book is made up of Several collections, and that it has passed through the hands of a number of editors at different times. The Psalter is composed of 150 Psalms in 5 Books. The Baba Bathra (p. 176) makes David the editor, and states that he used with his own Psalms those of ten ancient worthies. It has been held by some that David wrott all the Psalms (p. 188). Calvin, Du Pin, and others make Ezra the editor (p. 201). It is now generally agreed that the psalm-book is made up of a number of collections, and, like the book of Proverbs, has passed through a number of editings. Some have thought it to be the psalm-book of the first temple. Others, and indeed most * Zechariah and his Prophecies, considered in relation to Modern Criticism, Bampton Lectures, 1878, London, 1879, p. xxxv. # Messianic Prophecies, translated by S. I. Curtiss, Edinburgh, 1881. t Delitzsch, Biö. Com. on the Proverbs, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1874; Zöckler in Lange, Biblework, Com. on the Proverbs, N. Y., 1870. I () 218 BIBLICAL STUDY. moderns, think that it was edited in its present form for the second temple.* Grätz thinks that the Psalter was finally edited for the worship of the synagogue. Isaiah is represented by the Bača Bathra as edited by the col- lege of Hezekiah (p. 176). Its integrity was disputed by Koppe (p. 203), who maintained that it was a collection of pieces of various prophets loosely associated. It is generally held by foreign scholars that the first half of Isaiah is composed of groups of prophecies gathered about those of Isaiah as a nucleus, and that the second half (xl.-lxvi.) is by an unknown prophet of the exile.f The integrity of Isaiah has recently been defended by W. H. Cobb.S There are interpolations in the Septuagint version in connection with Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther. They are also found in the New Testament by the general consent of scholars—in Mark xvi. 9–20;| in the gospel of John viii. I–II ; * in the famous passage of the heav. enly witnesses, the first epistle of John v. 7, and elsewhere. We have seen that many scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found such interpolations in the Pentateuch (p. 200). They are found by scholars in other books of the Bible. It will be sufficient to give the judicious remarks of Perowne on the Psalter: * Perowne, Book of Psalms, 2d edition, London, 1870, p. 78; 3d edition, Andover, 1876, p. 63; Murray, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, N. Y., 1880. 1 Com. zu. d. Psalmen, I., p. 62, seg, - £ Ewald, Dže Prozhezen, Göttingen, 1868, 2te Ausg., III., p. 20, seq.; De- litzsch, Messianic Pro/hecies, 1881, p. 84; Cheyne, Prophecies of Zsaiah, 1881, II., p 20I seg. ; Cross, Jazzroductory Hºnzº to English Readers of Żhe Old Testa- ment, London, 1882, p. 238. - - § Scveral articles in the Båå/zozheca Sacra, April and October, 1881, Jan. and July, 1882. - I See the marginal note of the revisers in the Revised Version of 1881. * Bracketed in the Revised Version of 1881. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 219 “It is plain that these ancient Hebrew Songs and hymi S must have suffered a variety of changes in the course of time, similar to those which may be traced in the older religious poetry of the Chris- tian Church, where this has been adapted by any means to the object of Some later compiler. Thus, hymns once intended for private use became adapted to public. Words and expressions applicable to the original circumstances of the writer, but not applicable to the new purpose to which the hymn was to be put, were omitted or altered. It is only in a critical age that any anxiety is manifested to ascertain the original form in which a poem appeared. The practical use of hymns in the Christian Church, and of the Psalms in the Jewish, far outweighed all considerations of a critical kind, or rather these last never occurred. Hence it has become a more difficult task than it otherwise would have been to ascertain the historical circumstances under which certain Psalms were written. Some traces we find leading us to one period of Jewish history; others which lead to another. Often there is a want of cohesion between the parts of a Psalm; often an abruptness of transition which we can hardly account for, except on the hypothesis that we no longer read the Psalm in its original form.” : All these questions are to be determined by the prin- ciples of the higher criticism. The authority of the Bible does not depend upon the integrity of particular writings. If the editing and interpolating were done under the influence of the Divine Spirit, this carries with it the same authority as the original document. If the interpolations are of a different character, such as are found to be the case in the apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther, they should be removed from the Bible. If the authority of the Bible depended upon our first finding who wrote these interpolations and who edited the books, and whether these interpolators and editors were inspired men, we could never reach convic- tion as to many of them. But inasmuch as the author. ity of the Bible depends not upon this literary question * In l.c., p. 82. 220 BÍBiſCAL STUDY. of integrity of writing, but upon the Word of God recognized in the writing; and we prove the inspiration of the authors from the authority of the writings rather than the authority of the writings from the inspiration of the authors; the authority of the Bible is not dis- turbed by any changes in traditional opinion as to these writings. The only question of integrity with which inspiration has to do is the integrity of the canon, whether the interpolations, the separate parts, the writings as a whole are real and necessary parts of the system of divine revelation—whether they contain the Divine Word. This can never be determined by the higher criticism, which has to do only with literary in- tegrity and not with canonical integrity. We doubt not the canonicity of Mark xvi. 9–2O, although it seems necessary to separate it from the original gospel of Mark. - II. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. Several questions arise under this head. Is the author's name given in connection with the writing 2 Is it anonymous P Can it be pseudonymous? Is it a compilation ? All these are ordinary features of the world’s literature. Is there any sound reason why they should not all be found in the Bible? There has ever been a tendency in the synagogue and the church to ascribe the biblical books to certain well-known holy men and prophets. Tradition has been busy here. There is no book of the Bible that has not one or more traditional authors. And so in all departments of liter- ature there is scarcely a great name which has not been compelled to father writings that do not belong to it. The genuine writings of Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 221 and Ambrose have to be separated by careful criticism from the spurious; for example: +. “Of the thirty to a hundred so-called Ambrosian hymns, however, only twelve in the view of the Benedictine editor of his works are genuine, the rest being more or less successful imitations by un- known authors. Neale reduces the number of the genuine Am- brosian hymns to ten.” + It is well known that Shakespeare's genuine plays have to be discriminated from the large number of others that have been attributed to him. Shakespearian criticism is of so great importance as to constitute a literature of its own. Sometimes the writings of a well. known author have been, in the process of time, attrib. uted to another. We have an example of this in the Paradores of Herbert Palmer, which have been regarded as Lord Bacon's...}. - To question the traditional opinion as to authorship of a writing is not to contest the authenticity of the writing. Authenticity has properly to do only with the claims of the writing itself, and not with the claims of traditional theories. The Baba Bathra does not dis- criminate between editorship and authorship (p. 178). It is evident that to the Tanaim of the second century the principal thing was official committing to writing and not the original production of the writing. The Tal- mudic statements as to authorship are many of them absurd conjectures. Josephus and Philo, when they make Moses the author of the narrative of his own death, go beyond the Baba Bathra and indulge in folly. The titles found in connection with the biblical books * Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III., 1868, p. 591. ł Knight's Shakespeare, Supplemental Volume. - f See Grosart, Lord Bacon not the author of the “Chistian Paradoxes.” Printed for private circulation, 1865. *=º 222 BIBLICAL STUDY. cannot always be relied upon, for the reason that we have first to determine whether they came from the original authors, or have been appended by inspired editors, or have been attached in the rabbinical or Chris- tian schools. Thus the difference in the titles of the several psalms between the Septuagint version and the Massoretic text are so great as to force the conclusion that many of the titles are of late and uncertain origin, and that most, if not all, are of doubtful authority.” In considering the question of authenticity, we have first to examine the writing itself. If the writing claims to be by a certain author, to doubt it is to doubt the credibility and authority of the writing. If these claims are found to be unreliable, the credibility of the writing is gone, and its inspiration is involved. But if the credi- bility of the writing is not impeached, its inspiration has nothing to do with the question of its human author- ship. The higher criticism has been compelled by Deism and Rationalism to meet this question of forgery of biblical writings. This phase of the subject has now been settled so far that no reputable critics venture to write of any of our canonical writings as forgeries. (I) There are large numbers of the biblical books that are anonymous: e. g., the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Jonah, Ruth, many of the Psalms, Lamentations, and the epistle to the Hebrews. - Tradition has assigned authors for all of these. It is also maintained that the internal statements of some of these books point to their authorship by certain persons. * Murray, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, 1880, p. 79, seg. ; Perowne in l.c., p. 94, Seg. . - - LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 223 These latter are questions of interpretation. The vast weight of the biblical scholarship of the present day is, however, with reference to the books mentioned above, against any such interpretation of them as discovers authorship in their statements. Such interpretation is forced, and is regarded as based on preconceptions and dogmatic considerations. (2) Are there pseudonymous books in the Bible? This is a well-known and universally recognized literary style which no one should think of identifying with forgery or deceit of any kind. Ancient and modern literature is full of pseudonymes as well as anonymes. One need only look over the bibliographical works devoted to this subject,” or have a little familiarity with the history of literature, or examine any public library, to settle this question. There is great variety in the use of the pseu (lonyme. Sometimes the author uses a surname rather than his own proper name, either by it to conceal him- self from the public or to introduce himself by a title of honor. Thus Calvin follows the opinion of some of the ancients that the prophecy of Malachi was written by Ezra, who assumed the surname Malachi in connection with it. Then again some descriptive term is used as by the authors of the celebrated Martin Marprelate tracts. Then a fictitious name is constructed as in the title of the famous tracts vindicating Presbyterianism against Episcopacy; the authors Stephen Marshall, Ed- mund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcommen, and William Spurstow coined the name Smectymnuus from the initial letters of their names. Among the ancients it was more common to assume the names of -*-m-mº * - * Barbier, Dictionnaire des Ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes, 4 tom., Paris, t872–78; Halkett and Lang, Dictionary of the Azzonymous and Pseudonymous Literature of Great Britain, 1882, seq., Vol. I., A-E, II. F-N. 224 BIBLICAL STUDY. ancient worthies. There is an enormous number of these pseudonymes in the Puritan literature of the 16th and 17th centuries. The descendants of the Puritans are the last ones who should think of any dishonesty or impropriety connected with their use. . Why should the pseudonyme be banished from the Bible? Among the Greeks and Romans they existed in great numbers. Among the Jews we have a long list in extra canonical books, e. g.: The apocalypses of Enoch, Baruch, Ezra, Assumption of Moses, Ascen- sion of Isaiah, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalter of Solomon, covering several kinds of literature. Why should there not be some of these in the Old Tes. tament P It is now conceded by most scholars, ever, Keil and Delitzsch, that Ecclesiastes is such a pseudo. nyme, using Solomon's name.” It is claimed by some that Daniel + and Deuteronomy + are also pseudonymes. If no a priori objection can be taken to the pseudonyme * This is invincibly established by Wright, Book of Koheleth, London, 1883, p. 79, seg. : “Solomon is introduced as the speaker throughout the work in the same way as Cicero in his treatise on “Old Age,’ and on ‘Friendship,' selects Cato the elder as the exponent of his views, or as Plato in his Dialogues brings forward Socrates.” See Presbyterian Reviezv, IV., p. 649, seq. # See Strack in 2. c., p. 164, seq., and p. 189 of this vol. † So Riehm, Gesetzgeózeng. Mosz's 2m Zande Moab, 1854, p. II.2. represents the Deuteronomic code as a literary fiction. The author lets Moses appear as a prophetic popular orator, and as the ſirst priestly reader of the law. It is a liter- ary fiction as Ecclesiastes is a literary fiction. The latter uses the person of Solo- mon as the master of wisdom to set forth the lessons of wisdom. The former uses Moses as the great lawgiver, to promulgate divine laws. This is also the view of Nöldeke, Alttest. Literatur, 1868, p. 30 ; and W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Şewish Church, N. Y., 1881, p. 384, seq., who uses the term legal fiction as a variety of literary fiction. We cannot go with those who regard this as an absurdity, or as involving literary dishonesty. Drs. Riehm and Smith, and others who hold this view, repudiate such a thought with abhorrence. The style of literary fiction was a familiar and favorite one of the later Jews. And there can be no a priori reason why they should not have used it in Bible times. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 225 as inconsistent with divine revelation,--if one pseudonyme, e. g., Ecclesiastes, be admitted in the Bible, then the question whether Daniel and Deuteronomy are pseudo- nymes must be determined by the higher criticism, and it does not touch the question of their inspiration or authority as a part of the Scriptures at all. All would admit that no forger or forgery could be inspired. But that every one who writes a pseudonyme is a deceiver or forger is absurd. The usage of literature ancient and modern has established its propriety. If it claims to be by a particular author, and is said by a critic to be a pseudonyme, then its credibility is attacked, and the question of its inspiration is raised. In the New Tes- tament the gospel of John is thought by some to be a pseudonyme of the second Christian century. The gos- pel of John has been the centre of the conflict of the higher criticism in the New Testament. Here the lines of battle were sharply drawn by the schools of Baur and Neander. The vindication of the Johanaic authorship is the grandest critical achievement of our century, for which all men ought to be grateful to the principles and methods of the higher criticism. Traditionalists have contributed nothing of value to this discussion, but have only impeded the evangelical critics in their struggles with the rationalistic critics.” We shall give an extract from Weiss as it not only bears on the authenticity of John, but also on the general question of the pseu- donyme: - “There was certainly in antiquity a pseudonymous literature, which cannot be criticized from the standpoint of the literrry cus- * See Godet, Com. on the Gospel of Şohn, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1876, I., p. 8, seg. Luthardt, St. John's Gospel, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1876, I., pp. 21.I. feq.; Ezra Abbot, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Boston, 1880; Weiss, £eben Jesu, 1882, I., p. 88, seq. - * * * 10% 226 toms of our day, or judged as forgery. A For it is just the naïveté with which the author strives to find a higher authority for his words by laying them in the mouth of one of º celebrated men of the past, in whose spirit he desires to speak, which justifies this literary form. Quite otherwise is it in this case; the author mentions no name; he only gives it to be understood that it is the unnamed dis- ciple so repeatedly introduced who is writing here from his own per- sonal knowledge; he leaves ºt to be inferred from the comparison of one passage with anothe t this eye-witness cannot be any one but John. It was Renan) who iſ; the face of modern criticism, said that it was not a case of pseuddhymous authorship such as was known to antiquity, it was either truth or refined forgery—plain de- ception.” + The authenticity of the Pauline epistles of the im- prisonment, and the pastoral epistles has been contested in a similar way. The higher criticism has shown that the differences in the Pauline epistles represent three stages of growth in the experiences and doctrinal teach- ing of the apostle Paul himself. And it is not neces- sary to think of his disciples as their authors, or to de- scend into the second century. The Apocalypse has been disputed from ancient times. It has been assigned by some of the ancients to a presbyter John. Recent criticism is more and more decided in favor of the au- thorship of the apostle John and against placing it with the pseudonymous apocalypses of Peter and Paul. The differences, which are recognized to be very great in language and style, and in doctrine, are best explained by regarding the Apocalypse as an earlier writing, and the gospel as the most mature writing of the apostle. (3) Compilations. The historical books of Kings and * Weiss, Life of Şesus, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1883, I., p. 94. t See Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1882, p. 784, seq. ; Weiss, Biö. tical Zheology of the New Zestament, Edinburgh, 1882, I., p. 285. t Schaff, Aistory of the Christian Church, N. Y., 1882, pp. 716, seg. ; 834. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 227 Chronicles,” and the gospel of Luke (i. 1–4) represent themselves as compilations. They use older documents which are sometimes mentioned by name. The ques- tion then is, how far this compilation has extended, and whether it has been once for all, or has passed through a number of stages. Thus the books of Kings refer to books of Chronicles which are not our books of Chronicles, and our books of Chronicles refer to books of Kings which are not our books of Kings. Both of these historical writers seem to depend upon an an- cient book of Chronicles—only our book of Chronicles has used it in its citation in another book of Kings than the one presented to us in the canon, for it gives material not found therein. The question arises whether the other historical books are not also ompilations. In the New Testament the chief dis- putes have been as to Matthew and Mark; t in the Old Testament as to the Pentateuch. It is now con- ceded by most critics that the Pentateuch is composed of four separate historical narratives, each with its code of legislation, and that these have been compacted into their present form by one or more editors. The Baba Bathra makes Moses the editor or author of the Penta- teuch. If the inspiration of the Pentateuch depends upon the sole Mosaic authorship, then criticism has come into irreconcilable conflict with its inspiration. But this is only a presumption of tradition. The inspiration and authority of the Pentateuch are as safe, yes, safer, * 1 Kings xi. 41 ; xiv. 19, 29; xvi. 5; 2 Kings i. 18; viii. 23; xx. 20; I Chron. Kxix. 29 ; 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; xii. I5; xiii. 22 ; xvi. 11 ; xxiv. 27; xxvi. 22, etc. : xxxiii. 18, 19; xxxv. 27; Neh. xi. 23. f Nöldeke, Alttest. Ziteratur, Leipzig, 1868, p. 57, seq. f Weiss, Leóen 9asu, I., 1882, p. 24, seq., gives the latest and best statement of this discussion and its results, t - 228 BIBLICAL STUDY. the other historical books of the Old Testament.* The A question as to the authenticity of the Bible is whether |ºliº whether it is inspired. This cannot be determined by the higher criticism in any way, for \the higher criticism has only to do with human author. ship, and has nothing to do with the divine authorship, which is determined on different principles, as we have seen in our study of the canon (Chapter V.). º the view that these books were compiled, as were III. THE LITERARY FORMS OF THE SCRIPTURES. The literary forms have not shared to any great extent in the revival of biblical studies. And yet these are ex- actly the things that most need consideration in our day, when biblical literature is compared with the litera. tures of the other religions of the ancient world, and the question is so often raised why we should recognize the Bible as the inspired word of God rather than the sacred books of other religions; and when the higher criticism is becoming the most important factor in biblical studies of our day. - Bishop Lowth in England, and the poet Herder in Germany, toward the close of the last century called the attention of the learned world to this neglected theme, and invited it to the study of the Scriptures as sacred literature; but little advance has been made since that day, owing, doubtless, to the fact that the conflict between the churches and rationalism has been raging about the history, the religion, and the doctrines; the original text, and the higher criticism in questions of authenticity, integrity, and credibility of writings; but • See Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism, Presbyterian Review, IV., pp. 195, 129, seg, - LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 229 the finer literary features have not entered into the con- troversies to any extent until quite recent times. De Wette, Ewald, and especially Reuss, have made valuable contributions to this subject, but even these masters of exegetical theology have given their strength to other topics. There lies open to the student of our day one of the most interesting and inviting fields for research, whence he may derive rich spoil for himself and the church. The most obvious divisions of literature are poetry and prose. These are distinguished on the surface by different modes of writing, and to the ear by different modes of reading; but underneath all this is a difference of rhythmical movement. It is indeed difficult to draw the line scientifically between poetry and prose even here, for as Lanier says: “Prose has its rhythms, its tunes and its tone-colors, like verse; and, while the ex treme forms of prose and verse are sufficiently unlike each other, there are such near grades of intermediate forms, that they may be said to run into each other, and any line claiming to be distinctive must necessarily be more or less arbitrary.” ” Hence rhetorical prose and works of the imagination in all languages approximate closely to poetry. The poetry of the Bible is written in the MSS., and is printed in the Hebrew and Greek texts, as well as the versions with few exceptions exactly as if it were prose; and the Hebrew scribes who divided the Old Testament Scriptures and pointed them with vowels and accents dealt with them as if they were prose and even obscured the poetic form by their ignorant and careless divisions of verse and sections, so that the poetic form in many cases can be restored only by a careful study of * * Science of English Verse, N.Y., 1880, p. 57. 230. BIBLICAL STUDY. the unpointed text and a neglect of the Massoretic Sections. - We reserve the subject of Hebrew Poetry for our next chapter, limiting ourselves in this chapter to the Prose Literature of the Bible. This is found in rich variety. (1) History constitutes a large portion of the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament there are two distinct kinds of history: the priestly and the prophetic. The priestly is represented by Chronicles, Ezra, and Ne- hemiah, and extends backward into the Elohistic section of the Pentateuch. It is characterized by the annalistic style, using older Sources, such as genealogical tables, letters, official documents, and entering into the minute details of the Levitical system, and the organization of the State, but destitute of imagination and of the artistic sense. The prophetic is represented by the books of Samuel and Kings and extends backward into the Jeho- vistic sections of the Pentateuch. It is characterized by the descriptive style, using ancient stories, traditions, poetic extracts, and entire poems. It is graphic in de- lineation, using the imagination freely, and with fine artistic tact.* \ - In the New Testament we have four biographical sketches of the noblest and most exalted person who has ever appeared in history, the God-Man, Jesus Christ, in their variety giving us memoirs in four distinct types, the highest in the gospel of John, where the person of Jesus is set in the halo of religious philosophical reflec- tion from the point of view of the Christophanies of Fatmos.f. The book of Acts presents the history of * Dillmann, Genesis, 4te. Aufl., Leipzig, I882, p. xi. seq.; Nöldeke. Alttest Literatur, Leipzig, 1868, p. 15, seq. f Weiss, Leben 9esu, Berlin, 1882, I., p. 103 LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 231 the planting and training of the Christian church, using various sources and personal reminiscences. All these forms of history and biography use the same variety of sources as histories in other ancient literature. Their historical material was not revealed to the authors by the Divine Spirit, but gathered by their own industry as historians from existing material and sources of information. The most that we can claim for them while distinguishing inspiration from revelation, is that they were inspired by God in their work so that they were guided into truth and thereby preserved from error—certainly as to all matters of relig- ion, faith, and morals; but to what extent further in the c'etails and external matters of their composition is still in dispute among evangelical men. It is also disputed to what extent their use of sources was limited by in- spiration, or, in other words, what kinds of sources were unworthy of the use of inspired historians. There are those who would exclude the legend and the myth which are found in all other ancient history. If the legend in it- self implies what is false, it would certainly be unworthy of divine inspiration to use it; but if it is the poetical em- bellishment of bare facts, one does not readily see why it should be excluded from the sacred historians' sources any more than snatches of poetry, bare genealogical ta- bles, and records often fragmentary and incomplete, such as are certainly found in the historical books. If the myth necessarily implies in itself polytheism or panthe- ism, or any of the elements of false religions it would be unworthy of divine inspiration. It is true that the classic myths which lie at the basis of the history of Greece and Rome, with which all students are familiar, are essential- ly polytheistic; but not more so than the religions of these peoples and all their literature. It is also true 232 - BIBLICAL STUDY. that the myths of Assyria and Babylon as recorded on their monuments are essentially polytheistic. Many scholars have found such myths in the Pentateuch. But over against this there is the striking fact that stands out in the comparison of the biblical narratives of the creation and the flood, with the Assyrian and Babylo- nian ; namely, that the biblical are monotheistic, the Assyrian polytheistic. But is there not a monotheistic myth as well as a polytheistic P. In other words, may not the poetic form of the myth be appropriate to mo- notheistic as well as to polytheistic conceptions 2 May it not be an appropriate literary form for the true bibli- cal religion as well as the other ancient religions of the World P.3% However we may answer this question a priori, it is safe to say that the term myth at least has become so associated with polytheism in later usage and in the common mind, that it is unwise, if not altogether im proper, to use it in connection with the pure monothe. ism and supernatural revelation of the Bible, if for no other reason—at least for this—to avoid misconception, and in order to make the necessary discriminations. For the discrimination of the religion of the Bible from the other religions must ever be more important than their comparison and features of resemblance. There is no such objection to the term legend,+ which in its earliest and still prevalent use, has a prevailing religious sense, and can cover without difficulty all those elements in the biblical history which we are now considering. There is certainly a resemblance to the myth of other nations ** * Lenormant, Beginnings of History, N.Y., 1882, p. 187. - f George P. Marsh, article Legend, in Johnson's Wezu Universal Cyclopaedia, 1876, II., p. 1714, and the Legenda Aurea, or Historia Zombardica, of Jacobus de Voragine, of the 13th century. - - LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 233 in the close and familiar association of the one God with the ancestors of our race, and the patriarchs of Israel, however we may explain it. Whatever names we may give to these beautiful and sacred traditions which were transmitted in the families of God's people from genera- tion to generation, and finally used by the sacred histo- rians in their holy books; whatever names we may give them in distinction from the legends and myths of other nations, none can fail to see that poetic embellishment natural and exquisitely beautiful, artless and yet most artistic, which comes from the imagination of the com- 'mon people of the most intelligent nations, in these sources that were used by divine inspiration in giving us ancient history in its most attractive form. Indeed the imagination is in greater use in Hebrew history than in any other history, with all the oriental wealth of color in the prophetic historians. - * The dialogues and discourses of the ancient worthies are simple, natural, and profound. They are not to be regarded as exact reproductions of the words originally spoken, whether preserved in the memory of the people and transmitted in stereotyped form or electrotyped on the mind of the historian, or in his writing by divine in- spiration; but they are rather reproductions of the situ- ation in a graphic and rhetorical manner, differing from the like usage in Livy and Thucydides, Herodotus and Xenophon only in that the latter used their reflection and imagination merely; the former used the same fac. ulties guided by divine inspiration into the truth and ge - -> 3-vº 28. ; - &# - restrained from error. 2% `-- *.*.*.*.*.*.*. In biblical history there is a wealth of beauty and re. tigious instruction for those students who approach it not only as a work of divine revelation from which the maximum of dogma, or of examples and maxims of prac. 234. - BIBLICAL STUDY. tical ethics are to be derived; but with the higher appreciation and insight of those who are trained to the historian's art of representation, and who learn from the art of history, and the styles and methods of his- tory, the true interpretation of historical books, where the soul enters into the enjoyment of the concrete, and is unwilling to break up the ideal of beauty, or destroy the living reality, for the sake of the analytic process, and the abstract resultant, however important these may be in other respects, and under other circum- Stances. - (2) Advancing from historical prose, we come to the Oration. The Bible is as rich in this form of literature as in its history and poetry. Indeed, the three run in- hensibly into one another in Hebrew prophecy. Rare models of eloquence are found in the historical books, such as the plea of Judah (Gen. xliv. 18–34); the charge of Joshua (Jos. xxiv.); the indignant outburst of Jotham (Judges ix.); the sentence pronounced upon Saul by Samuel (I Sam. xv.); the challenge of Elijah (I Kings xviii.). The three great discourses of Moses in Deuter- onomy are elaborate orations, combining great variety of motives and rhetorical forms, especially in the last discourse, to impress upon Israel the doctrines of God, and the blessings and curses, the life and death, involved therein. The prophetical books present us collections of in- spired eloquence, which for unction, fervor, impressive- ness, grandeur, Sublimity, and power, surpass all the elo- quence of the world, as they grasp the historical past and the ‘ideal future, and entwine them with the living present, for the comfort and warning, the guidance and the restraint of God’s people. Nowhere else do we find such depths of passion, such heights of ecstasy, such L.TERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE, 235 dreadful imprecations, such solemn warnings, such im preSSIve exhortations, and such sublime promises. Each prophet has his own peculiarities and excel- lences. “Joel's discourse is like a rapid, sprightly stream flowing into a delightful plain. Hosea's is like a waterfall plunging down over rocks and ridges; Isaiah as a mass of water rolling heavily along.”.” Micah has no superior in simplicity and originality of thought, spirituality and Sublimity of conception, clearness and precision of prophetic vision. “Isaiah is not the espec- ially lyrical prophet, or the especially elegiacal prophet, or the especially oratorical or hortatory prophet, as we would describe a Joel, a Hosea, or Micah, with whom there is a greater prevalence of some particular colors; but just as the subject requires, he has readily at com- mand every different kind of style, and every different change of delineation; and it is precisely this, that, in point of language, establishes his greatness, as well as, in general, forms one of his most towering points of ex- cellence. His only fundamental peculiarity is the lofty, majestic calmness of his style, proceeding out of the perfect command which he feels that he has over his matter.” + Jeremiah is the prophet of sorrow, and his style is heavy and monotonous, as the same story of woe must be repeated again and again in varied s.rains. Ezekiel was, as Hengstenberg represents, of a gigan- tic appearance, well adapted to struggle effectively with the spirit of the times of the Babylonian captivity—a spiritual Samson, who, with powerful hand, grasped the pillars of the temple of idolatry and dashed it to the earth, standing alone, yet worth a hundred prophetic Schools, and, during his entire appearance, a powerful * Wünsche, Weissagungen des Prophien 9oel, Leipzig, 1872, p. 38. t Ewald, Die Propheten, Göttingen, 1867, I., p. 279. 236 BIBLICAL STUDY. proof that the Lord was still among His people, although His visible temple was ground to powder.” Malachi closes the line, “Although like a late evening closing a long day, he is yet at the same time the gray of dawn, bearing a noble day in its bosom.” + In the New Testament the three great discourses of Jesus and His parabolic teaching present us oratory of the Aramaic type ; simple, quiet, transparent, yet reach- ing to unfathomable depths, and as the very blue of heaven, every word a diamond, every sentence alto- gether spirit and life, illuminating with their pure, searching light, quickening with their warm, pulsating, throbbing love. The discourse of Peter at Pentecost will vie with Cicero against Catiline in its conviction of the rulers of Israel, and in its piercing the hearts of the people. The dis- courses of Paul on Mars' Hill, and before the Jews in Je- rusalem, and the magnates of Rome at Caesarea, are not surpassed by Demosthenes on the Crown. We see the philosophers of Athens confounded, some mocking, and others convinced unto salvation. We see the Jewish mob at first silenced, and then bursting forth into a frantic yell for his blood. We see the Roman governor trembling before his prisoner's reasonings of justice and judgment to come. We do nºt compare the orations of Peter and Paul with those of Cicero and Demos- thenes for completeness, symmetry, and artistic finish ; this would be impossible, for the sermons of Peter and ºus in outline ; but, taking them aS outlines, we maintain that for skilful use of * Hengstenberg, Christology, T. &. T. Clark, Edin., 1864, Vol. II., p. 3. f Nägelsbach, article Maleachi, in Herzog, I Aufl., viii., p. 756. f See A. B. Bruce, Parabolic Zeaching of Christ, London, 1882, for a fine appreciation of the 'iterary forms of the parables. LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 237 j i | | \ circumstance, for adaptation to the occasion, for rhetor. ical organization of the theme, for rapid display of argu ment, in their grand march to the climax, and above all in the effects that they produced, the orations of Peter and Paul are pre-eminent. Nowhere else save in the Bible have the oratorical types of three distinct languages and civilizations com- bined for unity and variety of effect. These biblical models ought to enrich and fortify the sermon of our day. If we should study them as literary forms, as much as we study Cicero and Demosthenes as models of sa- cred eloquence, the pulpit would rise to new grandeur and sublimer heights and more tremendous power over the masses of mankind. - (3) The Epistle may be regarded as the third form of prose literature. This is the contribution of the Ara- tnaic language to the Old Testament in the letters con- tained in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. But it is in the New Testament that the epistle receives its mag- nificent development in the letters of James, Peter, Paul, Jude, and John—some familiar, some dogmatic, some ecclesiastical, some pastoral, some speculative and pre- dictive, and in the epistle to the Hebrews we have an elaborate essay. . How charming the letters of Cicero to his several fa. miliar friends ! What a loss to the world to be de- prived of them But who among us would exchange for them the epistles of the apostles? And yet it is to be feared that we have studied them not too much as doc- A trinal treatises, perhaps, but too little as familiar letters | to friends and to beloved churches, and stilſ less as lit- ; erary models for the letter and the essay. It might re- fresh and exalt our theological and ethical treatises, if their authors would study awhile with Paul in his style 238 BIBLICAſ, STUDY. and method. They might form a juster conception of his doctrines and principles. They certainly would un- derstand better how to use his doctrines, and how to apply his principles. r (4) Fiction is represented in the New Testament in the parables of Jesus. It is also represented in the apoc- ryphal books of Tobit and Susanna, and in the 4th book of Maccabees in the story about the seven heroic Maccabee sons, and, in I Esdras iv., in the legend about Zerubbabel and Truth. It is true these are not canonical, but they illustrate the part that fiction played in the lit- * erature of the Hebrews of the centuries between the Testaments. We might also bring into consideration the fiction of the Haggada of the Jews in the various 7,22drash?m.* - /* Many divines have thought that the books of Esther ! and Jonah should be classed as fiction. Any a prior, objection to fiction as unworthy of inspiration is de- barred by the parables of Jesus. With reference to these * books it must, therefore, be entirely a question of induc. º * * :) e .* * |tion of facts. The beautiful story of Zerubbabel and rifice of the Maccabee mother, and the patient endur- ance of the most horrible tortures by her sons, which have stirred and thrilled many a heart, and strengthened many a pious martyr to the endurance of persecution, are no less powerful as ideal than as real. So it would be with Jonah and Esther if they could be proved to be fiction. The model of patriotic devotion, the lesson of *See the great collection in Wünsche, Bibliotheca Rabbinica, Leipzig, 1880—84. + Nöldeke, Alttest. Literatur, 1868, p. 71, seq. Truth, with its sublime lesson, “Truth is mighty, and is will prevail,” loses nothing in its effect by being a story ... ------- …A-4 tº `--a i and not history. The wonderful devotion and self-sac. & LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 239 the universality of divine providence and grace, would be still as forcible, and the gain would be at least equal to the loss, if they were to be regarded as inspired ideals rather than inspired statements of the real. The sign of the prophet Jonah as a symbol of the resurrection of Je- sus Christ is as forcible, if the symbol has an ideal basis, as if it had an historical basis. Be this as it may, the element of fiction is sufficiently well represented in the Old Testament in the story of the Shulamite in the Song of Songs, and in the elaboration of the historical person and trials of Job into one of the grandest ideals of the imagination, and in the soul struggles of Kohe. leth. . . These are then the most general forms of prose litera. ture contained in the sacred Scriptures. They vie with the literary models of the best nations of ancient an modern times. They ought to receive the study of all Christian men and women. They present the greatest variety of form, the noblest themes, and the very best models. Nowhere else can we find more admirabl aesthetic as well as moral and religious culture. Chris tian people should urge that our schools and colleges should attend to this literature, and not neglect it for the sake of the Greek and Roman, which with all their rare forms and extraordinary grace and beauty, yet lack the oriental wealth of color, depths of passion, heights of rapture, holy aspirations, transcendent hopes, and transforming moral power. - Our college and university training and the drift of modern thought lead us far away from oriental thought and emotion, and the literature that expresses them. Few there are who have entered into the spirit and life of the Orient as it is presented to us in the sacred ------------~~~~~ * Scriptures. It is not remarkable that the Old Testa. --- 240 BIBLICAL STUDY. } ment has been to many a dead book, exciting no living, heartfelt interest. Here is a new and interesting field for Jhe student of our day. The young men are enter. ing into it with enthusiasm. The church of Christ will be greatly enriched by the fruits of their labors. IV. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is the most delicate and difficult question of the higher criticism with reference to all literature, but es- pecially with reference to biblical literature. That there are errors in the present text of our Bible, and inconsist- encies, it seems to us vain to deny. We have come upon some of them in the course of our investigations \. $ * .* 2°s. : ; (pp. 191, 192). There are chronological, geographical, and other circumstantial inconsistencies and errors which we should not hesitate to acknowledge. These errors arise \in the department of exegesis more than in higher criti- cism. It does not follow, however, that circumstantial, incidental errors, such as might arise from the inadver. tence or lack of information of an author, are any im- peachment of his credibility. If we distinguish between revelation and inspiration, and yet insist upon inerrancy with reference to the latter as well as the former, we vir- tually do away with the distinction ; for no mere man can escape altogether human errors unless divine revela- tion set even the most familiar things in a new and in- fallible light, and also so control him that he cannot make a slip of the eye or the hand, a fault in the imagi. nation, in conception, in reasoning, in rhetorical figure, or in grammatical expression; and indeed so raise him above his fellows that he shall see through all their errors in science and philosophy as well as theology, and anticipate the discoveries in all branches of knowl- edge by thousands of years. Errors of inadvertence in LITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. - 241 minor details, where the author's position and charac- ter are well known, do not destroy his credibility as a witness in any literature or any court of justice. It is not to be presumed that divine inspiration lifted the author above his age any more than was necessary to . convey the divine revelation and the divine instruction with infallible certainty to mankind. We have to take into account the extent of the author's human knowl- edge, his point of view and type of thought, his meth- ods of reasoning and illustration. The question of credi- bility is to be distinguished from infallibility. The form is credible, the substance alone is infallible. It is claimed by some divines that the inerrancy * of Scripture is es- sential to the inspiration of the Scriptures, and that “a proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our doc- trine, but the Scripture claims, and therefore its inspira- tion in making those claims.” But inerrancy is neither a scriptural nor a symbolical nor a historical term in connection with the subject of Inspiration. These rep- resentations of the doctrine of inspiration have no sup- port in the symbols or faith of the Reformation, or in the Westminster Confession, or in the Scriptures. We lmold with our revered instructor, the late Henry B. Smith, to plenary inspiration rather than verbal. It may be as it is stated. “It (plenary inspiration) is in itself indefinite, and its use contributes nothing, either to the precision or the emphasis of the definition”; ; but this is as far as the Scriptures or the symbols of faith war- rant us in going; it is as far as it is at all safe in the present juncture to advance in definition. Verbal inspi- ration is doubtless a more precise and emphatic defini- # F. L. Patton, Pentateuchal Criticism, Presbyterian Review, IV., p. 363. ; + Drs. Hodge and Warfield, art. Inspiration, Presbyterian Review, II., p. 245. . . . 1 Drs. Hodge and Warfield in l.c., p. 232. ' 11 242 - BIBLICAL STUDY. tion than plenary inspiration ; but this very emphasis and precision imperil the doctrine of inspiration itself by bringing it into conflict with a vast array of objec- tions along the whole line of Scripture and history, which must be met and overcome in incessant warfare, where both sides may count on doubtful victories, but where the weak, ignorant, and hesitating, stumble and fall into divers temptations, and may make shipwreck of their faith. From the point of view of biblical criticism, we are not prepared to admit errors in the Scriptures in the original autographs, until they shall be proven. Very many of those alleged have already received suffi- cient or plausible explanation; others are in dispute between truth-seeking scholars, and satisfactory explana- tions may hereafter be given. New difficulties are con- stantly arising and being overcome. It is difficult on the one side to demonstrate an error, as it is on the other side to demonstrate that the Scriptures must be absolutely errorless. It is a question of fact to which all theories and doctrines must yield. It cannot be deter- mined by a priori definitions and, statements on either side. Indeed the original autographs have been lost for ages and can never be recovered. How can we deter- mine whether they were absolutely errorless or not? To assume that it must be so, as a deduction from the theory of verbal inspiration, is to beg the whole question. In the meanwhile we confidently affirm that the doc- trine of inspiration as stated in the symbols of faith will maintain its integrity in spite of any circumstantial errors that may be admitted or proved in the Scriptures, so long as these errors do not directly or indirectly disturb the infallibility of its matters of faith or of the historic events and institutions with which they are inseparably united. f, ITERARY STUDY OF THE BIBLE. 243 We are convinced that Richard Baxter more correctly states the church doctrine when he says: “And here I must tell you a great and needful truth, which . . . . Christians fearing to confess, by overdoing tempt men to Infidelity. The Scripture is like a man's body, where some parts are but for the preservation of the rest, and may be maimed without death: The sense is the soul of the Scripture; and the letters but the body, or vehicle. The doctrine of the creed, Lord's Prayer and Decalogue, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is the vital part, and Christianity itself. The Old Testament letter (written as we have it about Ezra's time) is that vehicle which is as imperfect as the Revelation of these times was : But as after Christ’s incarnation and ascension, the Spirit was more abundantly given, and the Revelation more perfect and sealed, so the doctrine is more full and the vehicle or body, that is, the words are less imperfect and more sure to us; so that he that doubteth of the truth of some words in the Old Testament, or of some circumstances in the New, hath no reason therefore to doubt of the Christian religion, of which these writings are but the vehicle or body, sufficient to ascertain us of the truth of the History and Doctrine.” + Higher criticism comes into conflict with the authority of Scripture when it finds that its statements are not authoritative and its revelations are not credible. If the credibility of a book is impeached, its divine authority and inspiration are also impeached. But to destroy his credibility something more must be presented than trivial matters and minute details that do not affect the author's Scope of argument or his religious instructions. We hold that it is an unsafe position to assume, that we must first prove the credibility, inerrancy, and infallibil- ity of a book ere we accept its authority. If inquirers waited until all the supposed errors in our canonical books were satisfactorily explained they would never accept the Bible as a divine revelation. To press the * The Catechizing of Families, 1683, p. 36. 244 e Poeseos Heb. atgue Arabic. orig. 2ndole mutuogue consensu afque dºes. crimine, Lipsiae, 1843. § Von der Form der Hebräischen Poesie, 1825. 258 BIBLICAI, STUDY. contending that the accents do not determine the ac, cented syllable, and so pronouncing the words in accord. ance with the Aramaic, and the custom of Polish and German Jews, on the penult instead of the ultimate. More recently, Bickell” strives to explain Hebrew poetry after the analogy of Syriac poetry. His theory is that Hebrew poetry is essentially the same as Syriac, not measuring syllables, but counting them in regular order. There is a constant alternation of accented and unac- cented syllables, a continued rise and fall, so that only iambic and trochaic feet are possible. The Massoretic accentuation and vocalization are rejected and the Ara- maic put in its place. The grammatical and rhythmical accents coincide. The accent is, like the Syriac, general- ly on the penult. The parallelism of verses and thought is strictly carried out. - - Dr. Bickell, whose familiarity with Syriac literature and Hebrew scholarship are well known, has, as must be admitted, carried out his theory with a degree of mod- eration and thoroughness which must command admira- tion and respect. Not distinguishing between long and short syllables, and discarding the terminology of classic metres, he gives us specimens of metres of 5, 7, 12, 6, 8, IO syllables, and a few of varying syllables. He has ap- plied his theory to the whole of Hebrew poetry, and arranged the entire Psalter, Proverbs, Job, Lamentations, Song of Songs, most of the poems of the historical books, and much of the prophetic poetry in accordance with these principles. He has also reproduced the effect in a translation into German, with the same number of * Metrices Biblica, 1879; Carmina Veteris Testament: Metrice, 1882. t Zeitschrift d. D. M. G., 1880, p. 557; Carmina Veteris Testamente Me trice, 1882, . HEBREW POETRY. 259 syllables and strophical arrangement.* The theory is attractive and deserves fuller consideration than can be given to it here; yet it must be rejected on the ground that it does away with the difference between the He- brew and the Aramaic families of the Shemitic lan- guages; and would virtually reduce the Hebrew to a mere dialect of the Aramaic. It overthrows the tradi- tional accentuation upon which Hebrew vocalization and the explanation of Hebrew grammatical forms largely depend. Hebrew poetry, as Ewald has shown, may, on the Mas- soretic system of accentuation and vocalization, be re- garded as generally composed of verses of seven or eight syllables, with sometimes a few more or a few less, for reasons that can be assigned. This is especially true of the ancient hymns, and those Psalms having certain melodies indicated in their titles; yet even here we must regard Hebrew poetry as at an earlier stage of poetic development than the Syriac. The poet is not bound to a certain number of syllables. While in the main making the length of the verses correspond with the parallelism of the thought and emotion, he does not constrain himself to uniformity as a principle or law of his art; but increases or diminishes the length of his verses in perfect freedom in accordance with the rhythmical movements of the thought and emotion them- selves. The external form is entirely subordinated to the internal emotion, which moves on with the utmost free- dom, and assumes a poetic form merely as a thin veil which does not so much clothe and adorn as shade and color the native beauties of the idea. This movement * Dichtungen der Hebråer. J. Geschichtliche und Prophetische Lieder. II. Hiob III. Der Psa/fez". f Dichter, I., p. 108, seg. f Exod. xv., Deut. xxxii., and Judges v. 260 - - BIBLICAL STUDY. of emotion gives rise to a general harmony of expres. sion in the parallelism of structure in lines and strophes — a parallelism which affords a great variety and beauty of forms. Sometimes the movement is like the wavelets of a river flowing steadily and smoothly on, then like the ebbing and flowing of the tide in majestic antitheses, and again like the madly-tossed ocean in a storm, all uniformity and symmetry disappearing under the passionate heaving of the deepest emotions of the soul. - - The first to clearly state and unfold the essential prin- ciple of Hebrew verse was Bishop Lowth,” although older writers, such as Rabbi Asarias, and especially Schoettgen,i called attention to various forms of paral- lelism. Lowth distinguishes three kinds. (I) Synonymous. “O Jehovah, in Thy strength the king shall rejoice; And in Thy salvation how greatly shall he exult | The desire of his heart Thou hast granted unto him, And the request of his lips Thou hast not denied.” . PS. xxi. I, 2. (2) Antithetical. - “A wise son rejoiceth his father; But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.” PROV. x. I. (3) Synthetic. “Praise ye Jehovah, ye of the earth; Ye sea monsters, and all deeps: Fire and hail, Snow and vapor, Stormy wind, executing His command.” - . PS. cxlviii. 7, 8. * De Sacra Poesi Hebr. xix., 1753; also Preliminary Dissertation to his work on Isaiah, I778. - \ + Horae Heb., Diss. vi., De Exergasia Sacra. HEBREW POETRY. 261 Bishop Lowth's views have been generally accepted, although open to various objections; for the majority of the verses are synthetic, and these in such a great va- riety that it seems still more important in many cases to classify and distinguish them than to make the dis- criminations proposed by Bishop Lowth. There is a general mingling of the three kinds of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, so that seldom do the synonymous and antithetical extend beyond a couplet, triplet, or quartette of verses. The poet is as free in his use of the various kinds of parallelism as in the use of rhyme or metre, and is only bound by the principle of parallel- ism itself. Bishop Jebb " added a fourth kind, which he called the introverted parallelism, where the first line corresponds with the fourth, and the second with the third, thus: “My son, if thine heart be wise, My heart also shall rejoice; Yea, my reins shall rejoice, When thy lips speak right things.” - PROV. xxiii. 15, 16. But this is a difference in the structure of the strophe and of the arrangement of the parallelism, rather than of the parallelism itself, as Wright properly states.t Other schemes have been proposed, but none have been exhaustive and satisfactory, and none have found acceptance generally among scholars. It is sufficient for us at present to recognize in Hebrew poetry the es- sential principle of parallelism itself. This parallelism of members was until recently thought to be a peculiar- ity of Hebrew poetry, as a determining principle of po- * Sacred Literature, $ iv., 1820. - + Art, Hebrew Poetry in Smith's Dict. of the Bible 262 BIBLICAL STUDY. etic art, although it is used among other nations for cer tain momentary effects in their poetry; but recent dis. coveries have proved that the ancient Assyrian, Baby lonian, and Akkadian hymns have the same dominant feature in their poetry, so that the conjecture of Schra- der,” that the Hebrews brought it with them in their emigration from the vicinity of Babylon, is highly prob. able. Indeed, it is but natural that we should go back of the more modern Syriac and Arabic poetry to the more ancient Assyrian and Babylonian poetry for illus- trations of the poetry of the Hebrews, which was histor- ically brought into connection with the latter and not with the former. Taking these ancient Shemitic poe- tries together, we observe that they have unfolded the principle of parallelism into a most elaborate and or- nate artistic system, which among other nations has been known and used, but remained comparatively un- developed, whilst other nations have developed the prin- ciples of rhyme and metre which have been known and used, but remain undeveloped by the Hebrews, Assyr ians, and Babylonians. 2. In addition to the principle of parallelism, others have sought a principle of measurement of the verses of Hebrew poetry by the accent. Thus Lautwein, Ernst Meier, and more recently Julius Ley.S The latter has elaborated quite a thorough system, with a large number of examples. He does not interfere with the Massoretic system, except in the use of the maqqeph and metheg, and his theory of a circumflex accentuation in monosyllables at the end of * }ahrö. f. Prof. Theo., i., 122. f Versuch einer richtigen Theorie von d. bāblischen Versæunst, 1775. † Die Form der Hebr. Poesie, 1853. § Grundzüge d. Rhythmus des Vers-und Strophenbaues in d. Hebr. Poesie 1875. - HEBREW POETRY. 263 a verse; but his arrangement of Hebrew poetry into hexameters, octameters, decameters, etc., depends largely upon his views of substitution and compensation, which are to account for the irregularities of the verses; and upon the variety of the breaks or caesuras, as, for in- stance, in the octameter, which may be composed of 4 + 4 tones, or 2 + 6, 3 + 5, or 5 + 3. His theory also re- Sults in producing longer verses than seem suited to the principle of the parallelism, and the spirit of Hebrew po- etry. At the same time it seems to us evident that the accent has great power in Hebrew verse. The thought is measured by the throbbings of the soul in its emotion, and this is naturally expressed by the beat of the accent. The accent has no unimportant part to play in English verse, but in Hebrew, as the poetic accent always cor- responds with the logical accent, and that is as a ruli: on the ultimate, it falls with peculiar power. Even ill prose the accent controls the vocalization of the entire word, and in pause has double strength. How muclt more is this the case in poetry, where the emotion ex pressed by homogeneous sounds causes it to beat with exceeding power and wonderful delicacy of movement. This can hardly be reproduced or felt to any great ex- tent by those who approach the Hebrew as a dead lan- guage. We can only approximate to it by frequent practice in the utterance of its verses. The accent may be used as a principle of measurement to a very large extent in Hebrew poetry, but it is not an absolute law, for whilst many poems and strophes are uniform in this respect, the poet breaks away from it and increases or diminishes the number of accents, as well as words, to correspond with the movements of his thought and emotion. Upon these two principles of the parallelism of mem. 264. BIBLICAL STUDY. bers and the play of the accent the form of Hebrew verse depends. The ancient verse divisions have been obscured and lost, even if they were ever distinctly marked. We can recover them only by entering into the spirit of the poetry, and allowing ourselves to be carried on in the flow of emotion, marking its beats and varied parallelism. These features of Hebrew poetry make it a “universal poetry,” for the parallelism can be reproduced in the main in most languages into which Hebrew poetry may be translated, and even the same number of accents may be to a great extent preserved; only that the coloring of the words, and the varied rhythm of their utterance, and the strong beating of the accent, can only be experienced by a Hebrew scholar in the careful and practiced reading of the Hebrew text. III. THE PARALLELISM OF MEMBERS. Having considered the characteristics of Hebrew poetry and the forms of its verses in general, we have now to examine more particularly the various kinds of parallelism. - - The simplest form of the parallelism of Hebrew poetry is the distich, where two lines or verses balance one another in thought and expression, as in the earliest specimen of poetry in the Bible (Gen. iv. 23, seq.), called the sword song of Lemekh : “’Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lemekh, oh, give ear to my Song; Surely a man do I slay for wounding me, And a boy for hurting me. If sevenfold Cain be avenged, Then Lemekh seventy and seven.” We have here six lines in three couplets. In the first HEBREW POETRY. 265 couplet the parallelism is completely synonymous ; “wives of Lemekh" being synonymous with “’Adah and Zillah;” and “give ear to my song” with “hear my voice”; that is to say, the same essential idea is ex- pressed in the two lines in language which varies only as synonymous terms and expressions vary. In the second couplet the terms are also synonymous, except in one particular, where there is an emphatic progress in the descent from “man” to “boy.” In the third couplet, whilst the thought is synonymous, there is yet an emphasis in the changing of two terms, from “Cain " to “Lemekh,” and from “sevenfold" to “seventy and seven.” - A beautiful example, resembling the last couplet, is given in the chorus of the damsels in praise of the vic- tories of David (1 Sam. xviii. 7): t “Saul smote his thousands, And David his myriads.” Antithetical distichs are most numerous and varied in the book of Proverbs, thus (Prov. x. 1–5): “I. A wise son maketh glad his father; But a foolish son is the grief of his mother. “2. Treasures of wickedness profit not; But righteousness delivereth from death. • “3. Jehovah will not let the desire of the righteous famish; But the craving of the wicked He disappointeth. “4. He becometh poor that worketh with an idle hand; But the hand of the diligent maketh rich. “5. He that gathereth in fruit harvest is a wise son; But he that lies in deep sleep in grain harvest is a base son.” In the second of these couplets the antithesis is through- out: “Righteousness” to “treasures of wickedness,” and “delivereth from death '' to “profit not.” Usually, 12 - 266 BIBLICAL STUDY. make the antithesis more emphatic. In the fourth couplet “hand ’’ is a common term, and the contrast is of “idle” and “diligent,” “becometh poor” and “maketh rich.” In the third couplet “Jehovah” is a common term with “He,” and “desire” synonymous with “craving,” in order to the antithesis of “righteous” with “wicked,” and “will not let famish "with “disap- pointeth.” In the first couplet “son” is a common term ; “father” and “mother” are synonymous, in or. der to the antithesis of “wise ’’ and “foolish,” “maketh glad" and “grief.” In the fifth couplet “son” is a com. mon term, “fruit harvest” is synonymous with “grain harvest,” whereas “wise’’ has as its antithesis “base,” and “gathereth" “lies in deep sleep.” - Sometimes the antithesis is limited to a single term, as in Prov. xvi. 9 : however, there are one or more synonymous terms to “Man’s heart deviseth his way; But Jehovah directeth his steps.” Here the contrast is between “man’s heart” and “Jeho- vah,” the remaining terms are synonymous. The antithesis sometimes becomes more striking in the antithetical position of the terms themselves, as in Prov. xiii. 24: “He that spareth his rod, hateth his son; But he that loveth him seeketh him chastisement.” The common terms are “father” and “son,” the anti- thetical, “spareth his rod" with “seeketh him chastise. ment,” and “hateth '' with “loveth”; but that which closes the first line begins the second, and that which begins the first closes the second. " ; , Parallelism is ordinarily progressive in that great HEBREW PoETRY. - 267 variety of forms which such a rich and powerful language as the Hebrew renders possible. . The blessing of Abram by Meſchizedek (Gen. xiv. 19, 2O) is composed of two progressive distichs: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Founder of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, Who hath delivered thy adversaries into thy hand.” In the first of these couplets the second line advances from the idea of “God Most High '' into that of “Found- er of heaven and earth.” In the second couplet, the second line advances from “God Most High" into “who hath delivered thy adversaries into thy hand.” - The blessing of Rebekah by her brothers (Gen. xxiv. 60) is a progressive distich : 4 * * - “O thou our sister, become thousands of myriads, And may thy seed inherit the gate of those that hate them.” The second line sums up the “thousands of myriads” of the first, in order to give the climax of the wish, in the inheritance of the gate of their enemies. The words of Moses when the ark of the covenant set forward and when it rested are couplets (Num. x. 35): “Arise, Jehovah, and let Thine enemies be scattered; And let those who hate Thee flee from before Thee. Return, Jehovah, To the myriads of thousands of Israel.” The first of these couplets is synonymous throughout; the second is an example of an unfinished line, the pause in the poetical movement is to give more emphasis to the second line when its advanced idea is expressed. The tristich is developed from the distich with the 268 BIBLICAL STUDY. same variety of parallelisms. The song of Sarah (Gen. xxi. 6, 7) gives us both a distich and tristich : “Laughter hath God made for me. Whosoever heareth will laugh with me. Who could have said to Abraham, Sarah doth suckle children, For I have borne a son for his old age.” The distich is synonymous in general, although there is an advance in thought by bringing in “whosoever hear- eth " to take part in the laughter of joy. The tristich is progressive in that the second line gives the object of the saying of the first, and the third the reason of it; while at the same time, the term “borne a son" is synon- ymous with “suckle children’’ of the second line, and the term “for his old age" is synonymous with “Abra- ham ” of the first line. - The blessing of Noah (Gen. ix. 25–27) is comprised of two distichs and a tristich. “Cursed be Canaan. A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem, And let Canaan be their servant. May God spread out Japhet, And may He dwell in the tents of Shem, And let Canaan be their servant.” In the first distich we have another example of an un- finished line, the second progressive to it. In the sec- ond distich we have a simple progression in the thought. In the final tristich the progression runs on through the three lines. It is also worthy of note that the last line is in the three examples of the nature of a refrain. There are two interesting specimens of the tristich in HEBREW POETRY. 269 the blessing of the sons of Joseph by Jacob (Gen. xlviii. I 5–2O): - “The God before whom my fathers walked, Abraham and Isaac ; The God who acted as my shepherd from the first even to this day; The Malakh who redeemed me from every evil—bless the lads. - And let my name be named in them ; And the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, And let them increase to a great multitude in the midst of the land.” The first tristich is in its three lines synonymous so far as the first half of the lines, but in the second half there is a steady march to the climax. The second tristich is synonymous in its first and second lines, where the lead- ing idea of the name is varied from Jacob himself to Abraham and Isaac ; but the third line is an advance in thought. - - The priest's blessing (Num. vi. 23) is also an example of a synonymous tristich : “Jehovah bless thee and keep thee; Jehovah let His face shine upon thee and be gracious to thee; Jehovah lift up His face upon thee and give thee peace.” The tetrastich is formed from the distich, and consists generally of pairs balanced over against one another, but sometimes of three lines against one; rarely there is a steady march of thought to the end. -- The oracle respecting Jacob and Psau (Gen. xxv. 23) 's an example of balanced pairs: “Two nations are in thy womb, - And two peoples will separate themselves from thy 3xwels; And people will prevail over people, And the elder will serve the younger.” The pairs are synonymous within themselves, but pro. gressive with reference to one another. 270 BIBLICAL STUDY. The blessing of Ephraim by Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 19) is an example of antithetical pairs: - . . “He also will become a people, And he also will grow great; - But yet his younger brother will become greater than he, And his seed will become abundance of nations.” The song of the well (Num. xxi. 17–18) is an interest- ing and beautiful example of a more involved kind of parallelism, where the second and third lines constitute a synonymous pair; while at the same time, as a pair they are progressive to the first line, and are followed by a fourth line progressive to themselves: - “Spring up well I Sing to it! Well that princes have dug; The nobles of the people have bored, With sceptre, with their staves.” The dirge of David over Abner (2 Sam. iii. 33–37) presents a similar specimen, where, however, the first and fourth lines are synonymous with one another, as well as the second and third lines: “Was Abner to die as a fool dieth ! - Thy hands were not bound, • * And thy feet were not put in ſetters; As one falling before the children of wickedness, thou did'st fall.' A fine example of a tetrastich, progressive throughout, is found in the extract from an ancient ode (1 Chron. xii. 8), describing the Gadites who joined David's band: “Heroes of valor, men, a host, For battle, wielders of shield and spear; And their faces were faces of a lion, v. And like roes upon the mountains for swiftness.” The pentastich is usually a combination of the distich HEBREW POETRY. ºf and tristich. A beautiful specimen is given in Josh. x. I2, I3, probably a strophe of an ode of victory over the Canaanites at Bethhoron, which has been lost : - “Sun stand still in Gibeon, And moon in the valley of Ajalon; And the sun stood still, And the moon stood, . • . . Until the people avenged themselves on their enemies.” The first and second lines are essentially synonymous, and so the third and fourth; but the second pair is pro- gressive to the first, and the fifth line is progressive to the second pair. - - The oracle with which Amasai joined David's band (1 Chron. xii. 18) is an example of the same kind, save that the fifth line is progressive to the previous four lines: - - - . “Thine are we, David, And with thee, son of Jesse. Peace, peace to thee, And peace to thy helpers; For thy God doth help thee.” The heavastich is a combination of two tristichs, or a tetrastich and distich, and is often used in poems. The blessing of Jacob by Isaac (Gen. xxvii. 27 seq.) gives us an example of a tetrastich and hexastich : - “See the smell of my son 1 - It is like the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed. And may God give thee of the dew of heaven, - And the fulness of earth, and abundance of corn and new wine.’ “May peoples bless thee, And nations do thee homage, Be thou lord of thy brethren, - - And may the sons of thy mother do thee homage. Blessed be those who bless thee, . . . And cursed be those who curse thee,” 272 BIBLICAL STUDY. The tetrastich has its first line unfinished; its second progressive thereto; the third and fourth lines are also progressive. The hexastich is composed of three coup. lets, the first and second having their lines synonymous, the third couplet antithetical, but the pairs are progres. sive with reference to one another. - Isaac's blessing of Esau (Gen. xxvii. 39, 40) is also a hexastich : “Lo far from the fatness of the earth will thy dwelling-place be, And far from the dew of heaven above, - And by thy sword wilt thou live; And thy brother wilt thou serve. And it will come to pass when thou wilt rove about, Thou wilt break off his yoke from upon thy neck.” Longer groupings of lines are found in poems of vari- ous kinds: the description of the horse in Job xxxix. 19–25 has fourteen lines, the conclusion of the blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii.) has seventeen lines. IV. THE STROPHE. The strophe is to the poem what the lines or verses are in relation to one another in the system of parallel- ism. They are composed of a greater or lesser number of lines, sometimes equal, and sometimes unequal. Where there is a uniform flow of the emotion the strophes will be composed of the same number of lines, and will be as regular in relation to one another as the lines of which they are composed; but where the emotion is agitated by passion, or broken by figures of speech, or abrupt in transitions, they will be irregular and uneven. The strophes are subject to the same principles of parallelism as the lines themselves, and are thus either synonymous to one another, antithetical, or progressive, in those sev- HEBREW POETRY. 273 eral varieties of parallelism already mentioned. A fa- vorite arrangement is the balancing of one strophe with another on the principle of the distich, then again of two with one as a tristich. Thus the song (Deut. xxxii.) has three parts of four strophes in each part, arranged in double pairs of strophe and antistrophe, according to the scheme of 3 × 2 × 2. The song of Deborah (Judges v.) is composed of three parts, with three strophes in each part according to the scheme of 3 × 3. These divis- ions are determined by the principles of parallelism, not being indicated by any signs or marks in the Hebrew. text. One of the earliest examples of strophes is in the ode (Num. xxi. 27–30), composed of three strophes grad- ually diminishing in accordance with its dirge-like char- acter, a favorite conceit of Hebrew poets; thus of 6.5.4 lines. The ode is abrupt in style, rapid in transitions, full of rare forms and expressions, with frequent allitera. tions, and of real beauty: • . “Come to Hesbon 1 Built, yea established be the city of Sihon; : For fire went forth from Hesbon, - Flame from the city of Sihon. It consumed Ar of Moab, The lords of the high places of Arnon. “Woe to thee, Moab Thou art lost, people of Chemosh He hath given over his sons unto flight, And his daughters unto captivity, Unto the king of the Amorites, Sihon 1 “Then we shot at them.—He was lost.— Hesbon unto Dibon.— And we wasted them even to Nophah, With fire unto Medebah.” 2'54 BIBLICAL STUDY. The oracle of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 3–9) is composed of five strophes, according to the scheme; 5.6.4.5.4 lines * Oracle of Balaam, son of Beor; Oracle of the man whose eye was shut; Oracle of one hearing the words of God, Who was gazing at the vision of the Almighty, Fallen down and with eyes uncovered. - “How excellent thy tents, Jacob! Thy dwellings, Israel ! Like streams spread out, Like gardens by a river, Like aloes which Jehovah planted, Like cedars by the water. * Water flows from his buckets,