~P35

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

SBWtl

A GUIDE TO BIBLICAL STUDY

A GUIDE TO BIBLICAL
STUDY

BY
A. S. PEAKE M.A.
FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE OXFORD

WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
A. M. FAIRBAIRN D.D.
PRINCIPAL OF MANSFIELD
COLLEGE OXFORD

SECOND EDITION

%rY sc^^^V

LONDON
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27 PATERNOSTER ROW
1S97

Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frome, and London.

3 ¦a
I-

DEDICATED TO
MY FATHER
WITH GRATEFUL AFFECTION

INTRODUCTION
T CONTRIBUTE with pleasure an Introduc
tory Note to this volume. Its limitations
are obvious. It is too brief for its subject,
though without brevity it could not have ful
filled its purpose. It discusses nothing fully,
for to have attempted an independent discussion
on any single critical or exegetical problem
would have been to write a work on a Biblical
subject, and not an introduction to Biblical
Study. Then it omits all reference to some
radical and raany interesting questions, and is
full of provisional judgments, for it deals with
a multitude of questions on which only pro-

viii BIBLICAL STUDY
visional judgments are possible, — and it is
crowded with details, which are yet not the care
fully reasoned and tested details, all worked into
an organic whole, jsuch as must have found
a place in a dissertation on the Bible written
by a scholar for scholars. The book has, there
fore, the incompleteness and even inconclusive
ness of a work which may be described as an
exposition of many minds expressed in many
books, rather than of the author's own mind
and conclusions. But it is no paradox to say
that when its end is contemplated its very
defects become virtues. If it had been exhaus-
tive, erudite, critical, constructive, and final, it
would not have been what it purposes to be —
an introduction to Biblical study ; nor 'would
it have been able to accomplish the work it
desires to do — place men who, while not
specialists, are yet interested students of the
Bible or are about to begin the special study
of it, in relation to modern methods of sacred
criticism, its principles, and its determinations.

INTRODUCTiON ix
And it attempts to do this in order that the
student may personally and intelligently work
out his own conclusions. The book thus does
not address itself to scholars, to men acquainted
with the history and achievements of Biblical
criticism ; but to the many — happily, a grow
ing multitude, — who either have begun, or wish
to begin, the careful and critical study of the
Bible as it has become in the hands of the
scholar and theologian.
It is evident that a book of this kind has
a very distinct function of its own. The work
done in connection with the sacred Scriptures
during the lifetime of the present generation
has been remarkable alike as regards the
method pursued and the results achieved. It
is not too much to say that for the first time
since the collection of our sacred books was
formed, a serious, and on the whole progres
sively successful, attempt has been made to
analyse the process of its formation, to pursue
a search into what may be termed the evidences

X BIBLICAL STUDY
within the Bible as to how the books of the
Bible came to be, how they stand related to
their contemporary history, and what special
message each several part brought to its own
age, and has preserved for all time. The
analysis of the documents has been carried far,
has often appeared gratuitous and even violent,
and has proceeded on grounds and according
to evidences that to those who did not follow
patiently in the path of the explorer must have
seemed now arbitrary and now profane. The
break up of old ideas is never an agreeable
process, and nowhere has the work of the
pioneer been so hard, so ungrateful, so liable
to misapprehension and misjudgment as in the
field of sacred criticism. The mistakes of the
critics have been innumerable ; but it is by the
mistakes of the discoverer that the truth is
ultimately served. There is no process that
has so little that is reasonable and conclusive
in it as the process that would discredit ex
ploration by magnifying the discordances of

INTRODUCTION xi
the explorers. Were this method had recourse
to in other things as it has been pursued by
many of the more ofificious apologists for tradi
tional beliefs, we should never have had satisfac
tory results in any single science, abstract or
concrete, natural or historical, or in any single
line of investigation whether geographical or
antiquarian. There is, therefore, real promise
of good in the attempt to initiate the serious
reader or the ingenuous beginner into the best
way of understanding what scholars who have
been as reverent in their search after truth as
the great majority of those who have been most
forward in the field of Biblical scholarship and
research, have come to think in their respective
provinces concerning that most marvellous of
all sacred literatures which ancient love and
reverence gathered into the volume we so fe
licitously name the Bible. The book that
attempts to do this seems to have undertaken
a much-needed piece of work.
The book, of course, is expository, not positive

xii BIBLICAL STUDY
or constructive; it has no dogmatic character,
does not seek to frame any theory of inspira
tion or revelation, of the mode in which these
doctrines have been affected by modern criti
cism or the methods of modern scholarship ;
but only to exhibit in a general way what the
outcome has been of the extraordinary critical
activity in the field of Biblical knowledge. Its
purpose is in a measure popular, but its end is
to lead from more general impressions to the
detailed knowledge that conducts to reasoned
and intelligible conclusions. The time has come
when certain matters ought to be made entirely
apparent. First, what is the present state of
our knowledge touching the origin, authorship,
authenticity and contents of the sacred Books.
The present state of knowledge does not mean
the stage of final conclusions, but rather of
tentative enquiry. On some points — indeed, on
many — fixed conclusions have been reached —
conclusions that enquiry may illustrate and con
firm, but can hardly change. On other points

INTRODUCTION xiii
no final conclusion has been reached, nor is likaly
to be. As regards many others the process of
determination still goes on, and we may hope
that what is still dark may yet be illumined,
and what is still uncertain made finally sure.
It is a matter of immense consequence that the
student should see what has been proved, what
cannot be proved, and what he may yet hope
either to see proved or to find the proof of
himself. In this work the specialist does well
when he invites the assistance of the student
and the student does no less well when he seeks
the assistance of the scholar ; and when they
both co-operate to the common end of ascertain
ing the truth concerning the most sacred things
in history and in literature.
Secondly. The method by which results
have been obtained can now be made intellig
ible. The more analysis discloses the process of
formation the more can the value of the forma
tive process be determined, the worth of its
results appraised, and the need for a reforma-

xiv BIBLICAL STUDY
tive process be made evident. Much of the
misunderstanding which has existed in this
field has been due to ignorance of the method
pursued, and so inability to appreciate both
the validity of the process and the value of
its results.
Thirdly. Knowledge of the literary method
will also help to shew the organic connection
between literature and history, and greatly help
the student to see into the process by which
truth has come, religion been developed, and
Divine Providence fulfilled its purpose in and
through the life of man.
Fourthly. The value of Biblical study con
ducted according to the methods of scholarship
for those who teach the younger mind in school
or church is becoming every day more manifest.
The conclusions of sacred scholarship have long
ceased to be the exclusive possession of scholars ;
they have become part and parcel of the com
mon consciousness of the age, distilled in every
possible form through the press, in conversation.

INTRODUCTION xv
and in those subtle modes of common thought
and speech that are distinctive of our time.
It is necessary, therefore, that the earthly
vessel which holds the heavenly treasure should
be adapted to the treasure it holds rather than
the treasure to the vessel. In other words, it
will not do for the teacher in the school or the
church to proceed on assumptions which have
ceased to be granted, to follow methods that are
no longer recognised, and to maintain positions
that have in provinces of thought other than
religious been discredited or abandoned. The
new teacher must speak to the new mind in the
terms it has come to understand and in the
methods it has learned to follow.
To all such I would commend this book, but
would ask them to use it with intelligence, with
independence of judgment, with the desire, by
following the lines it indicates, to find out' how
to study the Bible, how to get at its meaning,
and how to communicate the meaning once
it has been got at. The writer has had in view

xvi BIBLICAL STUDY
the serious learner who is looking out for a
fuller equipment than he yet possesses, and to
such a learner, though only to such, this book
will prove both stimulating and helpful.
A. M. Fairbairn.

PREFACE
'"T^HIS book is intended for those who wish
to make a systematic study of the Bible,
and its purpose is to indicate the methods
that should be employed, and the problems
to which attention should be directed. As
it is not designed for scholars, it is untechnical
in character ; and although it contemplates a
long course of study, it will, I hope, meet the
needs of beginners.
In so brief a work, many things had to be
omitted, and nothing could be fully discussed.
I have tried to give prominence to the most
important matters, though I have probably
not always made the best selection of points
to be mentioned, or observed due proportion
in the treatment of them.

xviii preface
In my account of the literature, I have been
guided by considerations of practical utility.
Books have not been included for their histori
cal importance, but for their relevance to the
present state of Biblical science. I have also
omitted all books not accessible to the English
reader. It gives me great pleasure to thank my
friend and former colleague Mr. G. B. Gray,
of Mansfield College, for the excellent chapter
he has so kindly contributed on Lainguage
and Biblical Study, and for the appendix he
has added to it. I have also had the advantage
of discussing with him most of the questions
referred to in the chapters dealing with the
Old Testament. '
I have lastly to acknowledge my deep debt
to Dr. Fairbairn, and thank him for the kindly
interest he has displayed in the book. He
made several valuable suggestions, a few of
which I was able to accept. I very much regret
that it was impracticable to carry out his
suggestion that a bibliographical appendix should
be substituted for the chapter on books. I wish

preface xix
to thank him especially for the Introduction,
by which he has greatly enriched the work.
It is only one of the many tokens of kindness
that I have received from him.
Arthur S. Peake.

Contents

PAGE
Introduction . . .... vii

Preface

• •

CHAPTER I
Introductory . . . .

CHAPTER II
Division of the Subject and Order of
Study  lo

CHAPTER III
Language and Biblical Study ... 20

xxii contents PAGE
CHAPTER IV
Books  28
CHAPTER V
Old Testament Introduction . , . , 67
CHAPTER VI
Old Testament Exegesis and History . .113
CHAPTER VII
Old Testament Theology  124
CHAPTER VIII
New Testament Introduction . . . .154
CHAPTER IX
New Testament History  179

contents xxiii

PAGE
CHAPTER X

New Testament Theology . . . .194
Bibliographical Appendix .... 255
Addenda  261

Chapter I
INTRODUCTORY
"VTOTHING is more characteristic of the
¦*' intellectual temper of our age than ' its
emphasis on the need, in all our studies, of a
return to the sources. Only as we trace the
river from the spring where it first rises to our
view, and follow it through all its course, mark
ing the land through which it runs and the
streams by which it is fed, can we be truly said
to know it. The study of religion can claim
no exemption from this law. If we find its
origin elude us because it has been wrought by
the Father of spirits into the texture of the
race, yet in study of the many forms through
which it has sought expression we shall come
to understand what in its inmost essence it is,
I

5 BIBLICAL STUDY
And what is true of religion in general, is true
of Christianity. It exists and has existed in
numberless forms, for in no two men is it pre
cisely the same ; and even if we reduce these to
comparatively few fundamental types, yet each
is complex in a remarkable degree. Foreign
elements of unsuspected ancestry have blended
with those that are native, and if we are to
understand the product, it can only be by
knowledge of the factors that have gone to its
making. How wide such knowledge should be
will be realized only by those who know how
inextricably all parts of human life are knit to
gether. But if we restrict ourselves to that
which is purely religious, we must include the
study of Comparative Religion, of the Bible,
and of the History of Doctrine. Even for this
purpose the study of the Bible is most im
portant. But it is not the most vital thing to
know the theologies of our own day in this
manner. It is our duty, by comparing them
with their sources, to regenerate them so far as
we can do so, and make them more truly
Christian. And from this point of view Biblical

INTRODUCTORY 3
study is of supreme moment. For the New
Testament is not merely the chief source of our
religion. It presents Christianity in its purest
form, and therefore supplies us with a standard
by which all the historical forms of Christianity
ought to be judged. The regeneration of re
ligion can be best attained by a return to the
sources, in proof of which it is needless to say
more than that the greatest religious revivals
have sprung from a deeper study of, the New
Testament. And this means that students of
theology should devote themselves earnestly to
Biblical study, as the department of their
science in which the most fruitful results are to
be won. Even those who read the Bible simply
for devotional uses would find that much would
be gained by studying it in a historical spirit.
The Word comes home to ourselves most when
we realize how aptly it came to those who first
heard it. And this we can do only if we
steadily reconstruct their life and its conditions
by an effort of historical imagination. As our
theology is healthiest whem its contact with
Scripture is closest, so we find refreshment of

4 BIBLICAL STUDY
spirit in that river whose streams make glad the
city of God.
It should be said very emphatically, that
nothing can compensate for a lack of familiarity
with the actual contents of the Bible itself This
is a truism, but it is frequently overlooked by
those who diligently read the literature that has
grown up around the Bible, but neglect to give
patient attention to the text of the Bible itself
In the first instance, indeed, it is best to work
at the text without assistance from those who
have worked at it before. In this way a better
grasp of the book is got, and there is a deeper
sense of its difficulties. A commentator may
make a thing so clear that we are scarcely con
scious that there is any difficulty at all. We
are in danger in such cases of slipping into too
easy acquiescence, and perhaps missing the true
interpretation. Of course the converse is true,
and the book must be carefully studied again
in the light of the best criticism and interpre
tation, when unsuspected difficulties will be
revealed. Much of the student's own work may
need correction or amplification, and he will

introductory 5
find many points that he has overlooked. But
much will remain, a possession all the more
truly his because it is the fruit of his own labour ;
and he may even advance the knowledge of the
subject through this independent work.
In carrying out this independent study of a
book the first thing to do is to read it through
and get a general impression. A fairly full
analysis of its contents should then be made, in
which the general sense of each section should
be given. Difficult questions of interpretation
will often emerge and prevent any more precise
treatment. The detailed exegesis may follow.
Much will often be quite clear ; but all diffi
culties should be carefully marked, and, if pos
sible, a provisional interpretation be given and
written down ; for what seems quite clear in the
head may prove to be very hazy when it is put
down on paper. The interpretation should be
tested by its suitability to the context, and by
the general probability that the idea is likely to
have been expressed by the writer of the book.
The student should then set himself to recon
struct the historical situation presupposed in the

6 BIBLICAL STUDY
book, to discover the purpose of the author in
writing it, his theological views, and so forth.
One caution is specially needed. It is just the
points that seem obvious that demand the most
careful investigation. Most of our old theo
logical ideas were new some time, and we should
be scrupulous in our refusal to read them into a
book that knows nothing of them. The familiar
terms are even more of a snare. When we meet
with such words as holiness, righteousness,
atonement, law, and so forth, we naturally think
we know all about them, and neglect to examine
them. Now the danger is perhaps less in the
New than in the Old Testament ; yet it is a
large assumption that the meaning the words
have now in our current theological language is
precisely the same as the sense they bore before
they passed through centuries of controversy
and use. They may have passed through it all
unchanged, with nothing lost and nothing gained,
but it is, at any rate, unscientific to assume
that they have. In the Old Testament in par
ticular must the student be on his guard. The
gospel has taken old terms for us and lifted

introductory 7
them to higher uses, and filled them with a new
content. And thus they mean much more to
us than they meant to the Old Testament
writers. To understand what they meant to
them we must examine them where they stand,
divest ourselves of all the associations they have
for us, and by carefully noting what is said
about them where they occur, and comparing
the use jn one place with that in another, come
to some tentative conclusion about them. In
this work the concordance is necessary, only it
must be either a Hebrew or Greek concordance,
or a concordance which discriminates between
the different Hebrew or Greek words which are
represented indiscriminately by the same English
word, and exhibits the various English words
used to translate the same Hebrew or Greek
word. The ordinary concordance is worse than
useless for this purpose, from its failure to attend
to this precaution. It is well also to collect and
classify all the theological statements in the
book, and construct, as far as possible, a sketch
of the author's theological views. This should
be compared with that of those expressed by

8 BIBLICAL STUDY
the writers who have preceded him, and points
of agreement or difference noted, and especially
any advance that is made. A feeling for the
progressive character of revelation will thus be
created and developed. When the plan indi
cated has been followed out, with reference to
any book, before proceeding to another the
book should be studied over again with the help
of the best authorities on it. As to these one
thing may be mentioned here. The references
they give to parallel passages should be con
sulted. The reference Bibles have brought
parallels into disrepute ; but there are several
writers who could be named whose references
are almost invariably worth turning up for the
light they throw upon a passage.
It is perhaps necessary to add that the only
study with which we have to do is critical and
scientific. The Bible is to be studied just like
any other book. We can come to it with no
prepossessions, but simply with an open mind.
We cannot let ourselves be intimidated by an
appeal to tradition or authority, confident that
we stand in a far more favourable position for

introductory 9
knowing the truth than those who have handed
on to us the guesses of an uncritical past. We
can bow only to the argument of facts. It is
this study which has restored the Bible to us
and made it once more intelligible. And the
greatest service that scholarship can render to
the Church is to interpret for it the fundamental
documents in which its faith has received its
classical expression. These documents are
primarily those contained in the New Testa
ment. But the Old Testament also demands
attention, since it contains the history of the
revelation which led to Christ, and sets us at
the right point of view for understanding Him,
and the religion He came to found.

Chapter II
DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT AND ORDER
OF STUDY
T N studying the contents of the Bible the
-*¦ work might conveniently be arranged under
the headings of Introduction, Exegesis, History,
and Theology. This is not an exhaustive, but
merely a convenient division, and it is not
always possible to keep them apart, especially
in the account given of the literature of the
subject. Introduction deals with the literary
history of the several books, and their collec
tion into a Canon. Exegesis is concerned with
the interpretation of the books. History is
in this case confined to political and social
history, the history of the religion falling under
the head of Biblical Theology. This branch

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT u
of the subject embraces, beside the history of
the religion, the theology of the individual
writers and the history of the particular doc
trines. Archaeology is so important that it
might seem to demand a place of its own, but
it is more convenient to treat it under the
History and Theology. This is so, because
much of the most important material in each
of these subjects is derived from Archaeology,
especially in the case of Biblical Theology.
Thus all the religious institutions of Israel are
matters of Archaeology ; yet it is imperative
that they should be discussed in connection
with Theology, since in them the religious con
sciousness of the Israelites found expression.
These various divisions of the subject cannot
be kept altogether apart, since the conclusions
reached in one will often determine the con
clusions as to particular problems in another.
Introduction is sometimes of importance in
settling questions of Exegesis. For example,
in the disputed question whether the higher
view of the future life is taught in the Psalms,
the exegesis of the passages is, to some extent,

12 BIBLICAL STUDY
dependent on the dates to which the Psalms
in question are assigned. Similarly the general
view as to the development of the Hebrew
religion, derived from Old Testament Theology,
is important, not simply for this and similar
questions of Exegesis, but also for difficult
questions of Introduction — such as the dates of
the Psalms. The moral of this is that the
different departments of Biblical Science should
be studied simultaneously, and also that the
results of each should be regarded as provisional
till they have been tested by the results reached
in the others.
In accordance with the scientific method it
is important to begin with those books that
are contemporary with the events to which
they refer ; or, to be more precise, that are
generally admitted to be contemporary. We
find far more vivid pictures of the state of
religion and society in contemporary writers
than in the historical books, where the latter
deal with past periods. In the histories the
movement of actual 4ife is gone, near and distant
are not so sharply separated. But the con-

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT 13
temporary writers paint society for us as it
lived before their eyes, their figures are sketched
from the life, and as we read them we breathe
their atmosphere and think their thoughts after
them. We grapple with their problems and feel
their pressure upon us, we rejoice in their vic
tory as they wrest from them their solution.
We learn how men thought of God, and of their
duty to Him and to one another, of the relations
that He sustained to them, of the way in which
He had come to stand to them as He did, and
of the path by which He had led His people.
And thus, with our feet planted on the rock
of scientific certainty, we can look before and
behind, and feel that we have gained a point
of vantage from which we may trace the march
of events in the past and future.
The practical inference from this is that the
study of the Old Testament should begin with
the prophets. They deal with their own times,
and are besides among our earliest authorities
for the ancient history of the Hebrews. It is
needless to say that they should be studied in
chronological order, so far as that may be de-

14 BIBLICAL STUDY
termined. Amos will come first, then Hosea,
and in both cases the study given should be
as exhaustive as possible, and especial attention
paid to the question of the course of religious
development that such writings irpply. Isaiah
comes next. Here, only those prophecies fall
for consideration which are written from the
standpoint of Isaiah's own time. This will ex
clude chaps, xiii., xiv. 1-23 ; xxi. i-io ; xxiv.-
xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv., xl.-lxvi. Considerable
doubt is felt by several critics as to some other
passages. This raises a difficulty as to method
which cannot be satisfactorily met. Should the
prophecies about which this uncertainty is felt
be passed by for the present, or provisionally
treated as Isaiah's ? For the former course it
may be urged that to take into account as
evidence for the religion of the eighth century
B.C. documents which are really post-exilic
is to vitiate from the outset our reconstruction
of the religious history of Israel. On the other
hand it may be said, that if they really are his,
our conception of his theological ideas will be
greatly impoverished by such neglect. If it is

division of THE SUBJECT 15
borne in mind that the acceptance of them as
Isaiah's is only provisional, perhaps it will be
safest to use them as his, and leave the detailed
examination for a later stage. The question
could only be settled after a very thorough
treatment of much of the rest of Hebrew
literature. Similarly with Micah, while the two
last chapters may perhaps be left out of ac
count, it is not certain whether chaps, iv. and
V. are his. The same difficulty occurs in other
prophets. It is hard to say how far the study
of the prophets should be pursued at this stage.
Good reasons might be given for stopping with
the prophets of the eighth century, and passing
to the historical books. But there are also
arguments for including all down to the time
of Ezekiel. In either case the Books of Judges,
Samuel, and Kings should come next. Here,
of course, the earlier and later elements must
be distinguished, and special attention given
to those contemporary documents, or documents
almost contemporary, incorporated in the Books,
such as the Song of Deborah, which is of im
mense historical importance, or the Court

1 6 BIBLICAL STUDY
History of David (2 Sam. ix.-xx. ; i Kings
i., ii.). The student will then be in a position
to proceed to the study of the Hexateuch. So
far as the literary criticism goes the study
might have been taken first, without the pre
liminary work at the prophets and the historical
books. But the chief aim of the study of the
Old Testament is not to analyse the Hexateuch
into its component parts, but to understand
the course which was taken in the education
of Israel to prepare for the coming of Christ ;
and for the right comprehension of this the
course indicated is best. It is also unsatis
factory to stop short with the literary criticism,
for the analysis at once raises the question of
the dates of the respective documents. And
as wide a knowledge of the religious develop
ment of the Israelites as can be gained from
borough study of the prophets and the histories
will prove most important in settling this ques
tion. The prophets that remain may then be
taken. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah might
come next, though the autobiographical por
tions of the two latter ought perhaps to have

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT 17
been taken with the earlier historical books.
The dates of many of the books that still remain
are very uncertain, and matters of considerable
controversy. The Book of Lamentations has
a fairly definite historical situation. So, too,
Daniel, which is not a prophetic, but an apoca
lyptic book, is fixed down to a date within
very narrow limits. But the dates of Proverbs,
Job, Ruth, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther are very uncertain. The Psalms should
be left till last. The problem they present is
probably the most difficult and obscure of all
which we find in the literature of the Old
Testament, and will tax all the resources of
knowledge that can be brought to it. Since
much of the Old Testament literature belongs
to the post-exilic period, such knowledge of this
period as may be conveniently gained should
be added to that of the earlier history, that
the dates of various pieces of literature may
be more precisely determined. The more im
portant of the Apocryphal Books should be
read, as, quite apart from their intrinsic merit,
they are of great importance for the study of
2

1 8 BIBLICAL STUDY
the Old Testament, and perhaps even more
for the New. The publication of the Revised
Version, and of Mr. Ball's edition in the
Variorum Bible, together with the " Speaker's
Commentary'' on the Apocrypha, has placed
the student in a very favourable position for
this work.
In the New Testament the point of departure
is the Pauline Epistles. Strictly, perhaps, not
more than the four great Epistles, whose
genuineness was admitted by Baur, should be
assumed as authentic. But there seems no valid
reason why the other three epistles, now gener
ally recognised by critics as genuine, should not
be included — i Thessalonians, Philippians, and
Philemon. A genuine Pauhne nucleus is often
recognised in 2 Thessalonians and Colossians,
with fragments in 2 Timothy. That this posi
tion will be finally accepted is not probable,
but at first it is best to start from what is
generally admitted, and find in it the sure basis
for investigation of the things left in dispute.
James and Hebrews might be taken next, then
I Peter. The attention might next be turned

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT 19
to the Synoptic Gospels, and the Synoptic
Problem will first fall for examination. It will
be a fruitful source of profit to compare the
impression of the personality and teaching of
Jesus already derived from the study of the
Epistles with that we gain from the study of
the first three Gospels. At a later stage the
comparison should extend to the material de
rived from the Fourth Gospel. After the
Synoptic Gospels the Acts of the Apostles and
the remaining Epistles may be taken. Jude
and 2 Peter should be studied side by side.
It may be convenient to take the Apocalypse
here rather than at an earlier stage, since it is
well to keep it in connection with the Gospel
and Epistles of John, which should, in any case,
come last of all.

Chapter III
LANGUAGE AND BIBLICAL STUDY
BY G. BUCHANAN GRAY, M.A.
THE original languages of the Bible are
three — Hebrew, Aramaic (Jer. x. ii ;
Dan. ii. 4-vii. 28 ; Ezra iv. 8-vi. 18), and Greek.
For thorough Biblical study, a knowledge of
these languages is of primary importance.
Possessed of this, the student may become
master of his subject; without it he must remain
to a large extent dependent on others.
The great importance of this linguistic study
may be understood by considering how large a
part it played in the Reformation. By publish
ing the New Testament in Greek, and thus
re-introducing the study of the original text
which had been neglected for centuries, Erasmus
became one of the main factors in that move-

LANGUAGE AND BIBLICAL STUDY 21
ment. As the publication of the Bible in the
vulgar tongue made the Scriptures once again
the possession of the whole Church, quickening
the spirits of those who had been deprived of
them, so the publication of the original text
enabled religious thinkers and teachers to
obtain a more adequate understanding of the
Book on which their instruction had to be
based. Of the three languages, Greek is the most
important, and its value is little likely to be
ignored. On the other hand the value of
Hebrew is almost certain to be at first sight
underestimated, and by the Hebrew student
himself is only gradually appreciated. In the
interests of both it is well to realize, what has
only of late years been gaining due recog
nition, the inter-relation between the Biblical
languages ; for this indicates at once the
method of studying Biblical (as distinct from
classical) Greek, and an important element in
the value of Hebrew, The New Testament
was, indeed, written in Greek, but by men
familiar with, and accustomed to use, if not

2 2 BIBLICAL STUDY
Hebrew, yet the closely related Aramaic
language. Not only this, but the Greek which
these men knew and wrote, was not that of
Plato and Xenophon and the other strictly
classical writers, but that of the LXX trans
lators of the Old Testament. Now this trans
lation frequently retained Hebrew idioms, and
compelled many a Greek word to carry mean
ings and suggestions which had hitherto
belonged only to the Hebrew of which the
Greek word chosen by the translator was per
haps the nearest possible and yet often a remote
equivalent. Hence some of the constructions
of the New Testament are unintelligible in the
light of classical Greek, and only explicable by
Hebrew usage. And the history of numerous
words, especially the more important theological
terms, must be traced in the Hebrew, and by
it many of the most significant New Testament
figures must be explained. All this has been
fully illustrated by the late Professor Hatch in
his " Essays in Biblical Greek," which will long
remain one of the most illuminating: and susr-
gestive discussions of the Biblical languages and

LANGUAGE AND BIBLICAL STUDY 23
their inter-relation. Thus the language of the
New Testament must be approached through
Hebrew and Aramaic as well as through
classical Greek ; and the study of it will be
illuminated by Greek, translations from the
Hebrew, especially the LXX and the writings
of Jews (in particular philo) originally com
posed in Greek.
The place of Hebrew and Aramaic in New
Testament study generally is thus clear. The
peculiar importance of these languages in deal
ing with the important problem of the original
Semitic basis of the Gospels, and in interpreting
the sayings of Jesus, which were originally
spoken in Aramaic, must be obvious. But it is,
of course, for an adequate study of the Old
Testament that Hebrew is mainly requisite.
Like Greek, Hebrew also was revived among
Christian scholars at the Reformation. The
revival was in the first place due to John
Reuchlin, and had an important effect on the
interpretation of the Old Testament. But the
greatest revolution in this department falls
much later, and is scarcely yet complete. It

24 BIBLICAL STUDY
was due to the comparative study of the
Semitic languages, which has profoundly modi
fied the traditional interpretations borrowed by
the earlier Christian scholars from the Jews.
The result is in part seen in the differences
between the A.V. and R.V. ; but in part only,
for the R.V. is naturally the result of com
promise, and frequently retains the traditional
interpretations of words, sometimes solely, some
times as alternatives (in text or margin) to the
correct interpretations. The student may thus
realize both the need for his own study of the
original and the ideal equipment for that pur
pose. Beyond acquaintance with Hebrew and
Aramaic, some familiarity with the principles of
comparative Semitic grammar is most desirable.
Another great cause of difference between
quite modern and earlier methods of interpre
tation is due to the exacter study and more
critical use of the versions. In this respect
the R.V. altogether inadequately represents
the advance of scholarship. Only, therefore,
by an accurate linguistic knowledge can the
student hope to deal satisfactorily v/ith the in-

LANGUAGE AND BIBLICAL STUDY 25
numerable passages where the alternative lies
between an extremely artificial and often an
impossible exegesis, or a reconstruction of the
existing Hebrew text. He must remember that
a modern printed copy of the Hebrew Bible
represents three easily distinguishable texts of
different ages. As it stands, provided with
vowel and other points, it represents a text not
earlier than the fourth century A.D. Conse
quently when a scholar departs in his inter
pretation from the traditional Jewish in favour
of another vocalization, he is merely abandoning
a tradition which cannot be traced further back
than several centuries after the composition of
the book. The Hebrew text as it existed down
to about the fourth century A.D. will therefore
be found (approximately) not in the ordinary
pointed Hebrew Bibles, but in the more rarely
published unpointed editions. At a yet earlier
period the text was still briefer and more am
biguous, for it was written without the so-called
vowel letters (the consonants wawCl), he(n), jodC"),
used to represent the related vowel sounds).
The relative antiquity, and consequently the

26 BIBLICAL STUDY
relative authority, of these three texts ought to
be constantly borne in mind, and also that
the R.V. follows with almost unquestioning
obedience the latest and least authoritative of
the three. If the earliest and most authoritative
appear at first sight exceedingly ambiguous,
this is only the greater reason for the study of
the original. Only so can the relative prob
abilities of various possible renderings be rightly
estimated. And, again, only so will the student
regain confidence as he finds the frequency of
ambiguity and the range of possibility less than
at first sight seems inevitable from the nature of
the case.
Enough has perhaps been said in this neces
sarily very inadequate sketch to show that in
studying the Bible in the original much more
is requisite than a mere consultation of the
dictionary and off-hand acceptance of the first
meaning it offers. That is useless. For what
is true of all is particularly true of the Biblical
languages — that corresponding words in dif
ferent languages are never exact and actual
equivalents. To take a single instance, Amos

LANGUAGE AND BIBLICAL STUDY 27
says of Jehovah that he utters his voice out of
Jerusalem. The Hebrew here suggests, what
the English does not, the roll of thunder. The
difference between reading the Bible in the
original and in English is that English gives
the bald and direct statement of the writer,
whereas through the writer's own words, with
their innumerable secondary suggestions and
associations, we reach in large part the world of
thought and feeling out of which his statement
sprang. But the object of the Biblical student
is just this — to think and feel when he interprets
a passage as the writer thought and felt when
he wrote it. And this he will only attain by
study of the usage of the words and (especially
in the Semitic languages) of the roots to which
they belong in other passages.

Chapter IV
BOOKS
TTOR the sake of convenience, I desert the
-*- natural order and speak first of the litera
ture of Exegesis before I pass to that of Intro
duction. The reason is, that in many cases the
best introduction to a book is to be found in one
of the commentaries on it. Accordingly I shall
now refer to the subject of commentaries. The
choice of these is largely determined by com
mon-sense principles. And if my advice seems
to smack too strongly of platitude, my defence
must be that these considerations of common-
sense are frequently, so far as my observation
goes, allowed too little weight. It is clearly
important to secure the best as far as possible.
The time has gone by for commentaries on

BOOKS 29
the whole Bible by a single hand. Such works
have served a useful purpose in the past ; but
for a young student to buy Adam Clarke's
Commentary at this time of day is for him
to spend his money very foolishly. For one
thing, Adam Clarke lived before the dawn of
the critical movement, though he was not un
visited by gleams of critical insight. For
another, it is plain that no one man can write
a tolerable commentary on the whole Bible.
The great commentaries of to-day are, in most
cases, the result of many years' labour on a
few books at most ; though to this there are
exceptions. It does not fall within the province
of this book to speak of a commentary like
that of Matthew Henry, for I am dealing only
with those works which are useful to the
student, not with those which are meant
primarily for the preacher. Unless a com
mentary is modern, it should not, as a rule, be
bought. Some of the patristic commentaries
are still useful, especially, perhaps, those of
Chrysostom and Augustine, but even these it
is not worth while to buy. The same applies

30 BIBLICAL STUDY
to Calvin, whose exegetical works have a
permanent value. But Bengel's " Gnomon "
should be bought, and constantly used, in the
original Latin, if that can be read, but if not,
in an English translation. In his own special
excellences Bengel is unrivalled, and likely to
remain so. We have in him a writer whose
work extended over the whole of the New
Testament, and which yet must remain in the
first rank. A convenient and cheap edition is
the " Critical English New Testament." A
more elaborate edition is published by Messrs.
T. & T. Clark. Neither of these is Bengel
quite pure and simple, but will probably be
found satisfactory. As to commentaries in a
series, it may be said that they have their
advantages and disadvantages. They meet
the two conditions that a commentary should
be modern, and that it should not be the
work of one man. But there is a point
that must not be overlooked. It does not
follow because one or two volumes of a series
are good that the whole series should be bought.
Probably no series could be named in which

books 31
the volumes were not of very unequal merit.
This is natural, as an editor has to call in
inferior as well as highly competent writers.
In making a selection, it is often safe to be
guided by the name of the writer. It is pretty
certain that it would be right to buy any com
mentaries by Davidson or Cheyne, Westcott or
Godet. Their names are a guarantee of high-
class work. On the other hand, there are
writers whose names should act as warnings
to those who may think of buying their books.
With new writers it is well not to be in too
great a hurry, since their work is sure to be
appraised by competent critics, and for their
verdict it is best to wait. One more caution
may be given. There is a common misconcep
tion that the latest commentary on a book is
likely to be the best. It is true that the author
has had the advantage of reading the best
work already done in that field. But about
the best commentaries there is an incom
municable quality imparted by the personality
of the writer, which is to be found only in
his work, and which it would be vain for

32 BIBLICAL STUDY
another writer to attempt to transfer to his.
And a commentary which is a mere compil
ation can never compete with one which is
the outcome of years of patient investigation
and labour at the text itself
Commentaries on the whole Bible call for
notice first. The Old Testament portion of
the "Speaker's Commentary" should be avoided.
Some of the writers display a remarkable
ignorance of some of the elementary facts and
rules of the Hebrew language, which casts a
curious light on their claim that they are com
petent to deal with subjects requiring deep
knowledge. In critical matters they were not
on the level of their subject even at the time
their work was published. The case is different
with the New Testament portion. Some of
the very best English commentaries on New
Testament books are contained in it, especially
Westcott on the Gospel of John, and Evans
on I Corinthians. The chief thing against the
Pulpit Commentary is its size and its excessive
load of homiletics, which almost smothers the
puny exegesis. The publishers would confer

books 33
a great boon on students if they would reprint
the Introduction and Notes separately. It is
exasperating to one who does not want to
be bothered with Homilies and Homiletics to
feel that he must buy these ponderous volumes
if he wishes to possess Cheyne's "Jeremiah,"
or Reynolds' "Gospel of John." The "Ex
positor's Bible " has volumes that have already
become famous. Some of these should cer
tainly be bought. As it is not strictly a com
mentary, it may be bought in some cases to
supplement a commentary, where it would not
be worth while to buy it otherwise. There is.
a tendency in some quarters to disparage the
Cambridge Bible for Schools. But this is not
just. Several of the volumes contain the best
work done as yet by English scholars on the
respective books. It is true that in some cases
they do not rise above mediocrity. For Joshua
and Judges the smaller Cambridge Bible is
to be preferred.
Unfortunately, the rule that the best com
mentary should be bought on each individual
book is modified by the actual condition of
3

34 BIBLICAL STUDY
things. On many books of the Old Testament
there is no respectable commentary. This
reproach is likely soon to be rolled away.
Messrs. T & T Clark are bringing out a series
of high-class commentaries of which Driver's
" Deuteronomy," Moore's " Judges," Gould's
" Mark," and Sanday and Headlam's " Romans "
have already appeared. That this will alto
gether escape the inequalities that dog a series
is not to be expected, but we shall have some
valuable additions to our exegetical master
pieces, and several commentaries that will take
the first place on the books with which they
deal. But it is a lamentable fact that on not
a few Old Testament books there are no
English commentaries that are really worth
buying. It may be useful to indicate in detail
the best we have. I exclude volumes of the
" Pulpit Commentary " and the " Speaker," ex
cept that it might be worth while to get the
third volume of the New Testament portion
of the " Speaker," chiefly for the commentaries
on Romans and Corinthians.
On Genesis we have Delitzsch, which could

books 35
be supplemented by Dods in Bible Class Hand
books. On Deuteronomy there is Driver. On
the other books of the Pentateuch there is
nothing to mention at present, except Kalisch ;
but while his volume on Leviticus contains a
great deal of valuable matter, it is, perhaps,
a book for the discriminating specialist rather
than the general student. On Joshua and
Judges there are the little works of Sutherland
Black. On Judges there is the brilliant com
mentary of Dr. Moore in the " International
Critical Commentary." For Samuel we have
the useful but uncritical commentary of Pro
fessor Kirkpatrick. The Hebrew student will
do better to buy Driver's " Notes on the
Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel." For
Kings Professor Lumby, in the Cambridge
Bible, will be found useful. In the same
series we have an admirable Commentary on
Ezra and Nehemiah by Professor Ryle. Per
haps the gem of this series is Dr. A. B.
Davidson's "Job." A finer specimen of exe
gesis we are scarcely likely to receive, and the
only regret that need be expressed is that

36 BIBLICAL STUDY
the limitations of the series did not permit ol
the work being on a larger scale. If the
student buys only one commentary, this should
be chosen. But Ewald and Delitzsch should
be added if he wishes to pursue his studies
on that most important book. On the Psalms,
the last edition of Delitzsch, that published
by Hodder and Stoughton, is perhaps the best.
But Professor Cheyne's Commentary should
certainly not be neglected. A useful, but
much too conservative commentary, is that
by Professor Kirkpatrick in the Cambridge
Bible. On Proverbs there is Delitzsch. For
Ecclesiastes we have Plumptre in the Cam
bridge Bible, which, whether we agree with
its conclusions or not, is one of the most
fascinating volumes of exegesis which we pos
sess. To Plumptre we should add Delitzsch.
The works of Tyler and C. H. H. Wright are
also worth reading. Delitzsch's volume on
Ecclesiastes contains a commentary on the
Song of Songs, which is one of the least
satisfactory of his works. For the prophets
generally, Ewald's great Commentary, in five

books 37
volumes, might be procured, though a beginner
can hardly be advised to use it very much.
On the Minor Prophets Orelli should be
bought, for although it is not all that could
be desired, there are several of the Minor Pro
phets on whom we have no special com
mentary. Turning to individual books, there
are two Commentaries on Isaiah that should
be procured. One is Delitzsch, which is the
best and fullest on the whole. Care must be
taken to get the Fourth Edition published by
T. & T. Clark. But that of Professor Cheyne
is a masterpiece of exegesis, and ranks with
the greatest works on Isaiah. It has advanced
considerably the interpretation of the book.
It however presupposes an ordinary com
mentary, and so cannot be used entirely by
itself It is true, that since its publication the
author's critical views have greatly changed,
and it is much to be wished that the Com
mentary should be rewritten from his present
critical standpoint. At the same time it is
not at all clear that the newer views put
forward in his Introduction to Isaiah will be

38 BIBLICAL STUDY
ultimately accepted, so that the present com
mentary is not likely to be superseded for
some time yet. On Jeremiah there is Streane
in the Cambridge Bible, or Orelli. On Ezekiel,
Davidson, in the Cambridge Bible, is by far
the best. For Daniel, the commentary by
Professor Bevan is perhaps best, though its
chief value is to the Semitic student, and it
is rather brief For Hosea and Micah it will
be best to get Cheyne, in the Cambridge Bible.
I am glad to be able to add the valuable
Commentary on Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Zephaniah by Dr. Davidson, which has just
appeared in the Cambridge Bible, In the
same series Archdeacon Perowne has written
on Obadiah, Jonah, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi. Dr. C. H. H. Wright has also a large
volume on Zechariah, while Dr. Dods has
written on the Post-Exilian Prophets in the
Bible Class Handbooks. It will be seen that
in many cases there is no commentary to be
mentioned, and that in others we still need
something worthier of the subject and of
English scholarship.

books 39
The case is different with the New Testa
ment. Bengel's " Gnomon " has been already
mentioned. Meyer's " Commentary on the New
Testament," in twenty volumes, is the best
commentary on the New Testament as a whole.
Meyer did not himself write the whole of his
commentary. Liinemann wrote on Thessa
lonians and Hebrews, Huther on the Pastoral
and Catholic Epistles, and Diisterdieck on the
Apocalypse. The last is not translated. The
whole of the work should be procured if pos
sible, and not simply Meyer's portion of it. It
is valuable for three qualities in particular.
These are the ample information given as to
the various interpretations of individual pas
sages, with the reasons that have led to their
acceptance or rejection, the rigid accuracy of
the scholarship, and the general soundness of
the exegesis. The faults are perhaps these,
that the application of grammatical rules is
sometimes too rigid — " grammatical terrorism,"
Philippi called it, and that there is scarcely
sufficient sympathy with the mystical element
in the New Testament writers. But Meyer is

40 BIBLICAL STUDY
more indispensable than any other commentary,
and it is a mistake to suppose that the posses
sion even of our best English commentaries
makes it superfluous. In fact, the very ex
cellence of such commentaries as those of
Lightfoot has had a most unfortunate effect in
causing many students to rest content with
them, to the great detriment of their exegetical
work. Alford may be dispensed with without
serious loss, though it is possible now to secure
his work at so reasonable a price that it may
be worth while to get it. The " Expositor's
Greek Testament," just announced by Hodder
and Stoughton, will take the place it formerly
filled. On individual books the following com
mentaries may be mentioned. On Matthew
and Mark we have Morison ; and on Mark,
Gould in the " Critical Commentary." For
Luke there is Godet. For John, Westcott and
Godet, both if possible, but Westcott by pre
ference if only one is chosen. For the Acts
of the Apostles, perhaps the little work of
T. E. Page would be best ; but for a com
mentary of the first rank we have still to wait,

books 41
and hope that here, as elsewhere, the " Inter
national Critical Commentary " will supply the
defect. Romans is so important that more com-
nientaries than usual should be studied. There
are, besides Gifford in the " Speaker," Godet,
which is valuable for the thought of the Epistle,
as well as the exegesis ; Sanday and Headlam,
which, if in imperfect sympathy with that which
is deepest in Paulinism — that elemental force
which demands for its adequate interpretation a
Luther or a Bunyan — is yet of great value, and
especially for its use of current Jewish theology
in the elucidation of Paul's doctrines ; Liddon's
" Explanatory Analysis,'' which reproduces
Meyer's exegesis in the main, but adds much
that is good besides ; Beet, which also rests
almost entirely on Meyer for its exegesis, but
gives special attention to the theology ; and
Vaughan, which is specially good for its dis
cussion of words. Of these, at least Godet, and
Sanday and Headlam should be procured.
On I Corinthians, besides Evans in the
" Speaker," there are Godet, Edwards, and Elli-
cott. On 2 Corinthians, there is Waite in the

42 BIBLICAL STUDY
" Speaker." We have Ellicott on Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon,
Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles.
Lightfoot has complete Commentaries on Gala
tians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. A
posthumous volume has also been published
with notes on parts of Romans and Corinthians,
derived from his Cambridge lectures, and a
small portion of his projected Commentary on
Ephesians, covering the first fourteen , verses.
There is a not very satisfactory Commentary
on Ephesians by Macpherson. On Thessa
lonians there is Findlay in the Cambridge Bible.
On Hebrews the great commentary is that of
Westcott. But the student will not neglect the
small but very valuable work of Dr. Davidson.
There is also an excellent little volume by Dr.
Moulton in ElHcott's "Commentary for Schools."
On the Epistle of James we have the elaborate
commentary of Mayor ; but the little work by
Plumptre in the Cambridge Bible will, of course,
be used with it. His Commentary on Peter
and Jude in the same series should also be pro
cured. For the Epistles of John, Westcott's

books 43
Commentary is much the best. On Revelation,
perhaps, Simcox should be used, though Bleek
should be read, and the works on this book by
Dr. Milligan. The volumes of the " Expositor's
Bible " that might be best worth getting I could
hardly name with confidence. But the follow
ing may be mentioned : Genesis, Chronicles,
Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets,
the Gospel of John, i Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation.
There are others that might have been men
tioned ; but the series lies less strictly in our
province than commentaries proper.
But Exegesis is only one side of Biblical
study. I pass on to the literature of Intro
duction. For the Old Testament two books
may be- named as indispensable. One is
Driver's " Introduction to the Literature of
the Old Testament '' (fifth edition, with earlier
editions the valuable appendix should be pro
cured), the other is Robertson Smith's " Old
Testament in the Jewish Church." Care should
be taken to get the second edition of the latter.
With Driver's " Introduction " should be taken

44 BIBLICAL STUDY
the last three chapters of Cheyne's " Founders
of Old Testament Criticism." These form a
valuable supplement to the Introduction, while
the book generally gives a most interesting and
useful account of the great Old Testament
critics. Some of the most valuable work on
the Old Testament is to be found in the " Ency-
clopEedia Britannica." Among the articles that
may be specially mentioned are the following.
By Robertson Smith : Angel, Ark of the
Covenant, Bible, Canticles, Chronicles, David,
Decalogue, Haggai, Hebrew Language and
Literature, Epistle to the Hebrews, Hosea,
Jerusalem, Joel, Judges, Kings, Lamentations,
Leviticus, Malachi, Messiah, Micah, Moloch,
Nahum, Nineveh, Obadiah, Passover, Philis
tines, Priest, Prophet, Psalms, Ruth, Sabbath,
Sacrifice, Samaria, Temple, Tithes, Tobit, Vow,
Zephaniah. By Cheyne : Amos, Canaan, Cher
ubim, Cosmogony, Daniel, Deluge, Esther,
Hittites, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah. By A. B.
Davidson : Apocrypha, Job, Proverbs. By
Wellhausen : Israel, Moab, Moses, Nimrod,
Pentateuch, Septuagint, Zechariah. By Suther-

books 45
land Black : Esdras, Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehe
miah, Galatians. By Hatch : Pastoral Epistles,
Paul, Peter, Sacrifice. By Schiirer : Philo,
Epistle to the Romans, Thessalonians. Many
of the articles in the new edition of Chambers'
" Encyclopaedia," written by the best authorities,
are well worthy of attention. Such are the
articles on Bible by Davidson and Psalms by
Cheyne. For Dictionaries of the Bible we have
at present Smith, the two last volumes of which
are largely antiquated, while the first volume
has been recently rewritten. Even this is very
unequal in treatment and inconsistent in stand
point, yet with all its imperfections, and they
are neither few nor slight, several of its articles
are the best things of their kind accessible.
Fortunately two new dictionaries are in course
of preparation, which will be on a level with
the present state of knowledge. One of these
is to be edited by Rev. James Hastings, and
published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark, the other
will be edited by Professor Cheyne and Mr
Sutherland Black, and published by Messrs.
A. & C. Black. It would be better to buy one

46 BIBLICAL STUDY
of these rather than Smith. The various Helps
published by the Oxford and Cambridge
Presses, by Eyre & Spottiswoode, and other
publishers, often contain much useful matter,
but they are very unequal and far too un
critical to be of much service in matters of
Introduction. The " Cambridge Companion "
is perhaps the best. The little Introductions
by Wright and Robertson contain useful
features, and some of the sections in " Book
by Book " are very valuable.
I pass now to works on special departments
of Introduction. The great work on the
Hexateuch is Kuenen's " Hexateuch." This is
necessary to all who wish to make a special
study of the subject ; but it will be too detailed
and elaborate for the majority, who will find
Driver sufficient. There is also Briggs'
" Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch," a work
which, while strongly enforcing the literary
analysis of the Hexateuch and the critical
view of the dates of the documents, is opposed
to the historical views of Kuenen and Well
hausen. The " Prolegomena to the History of

books 47
Israel " of the latter scholar is, of course, of
primary importance for this subject, and also
contains valuable material for the criticism of
the historical books. Bacon's " Genesis of
Genesis," and his " Triple Tradition of the
Exodus," present the documents as analysed
by literary criticism, and the same may be
said of Addis's " Documents of the Hexateuch,"
though at present this is incomplete. A more
elementary but useful book is Wade's " Book
of Genesis." Kittel's " History of the Hebrews "
goes very fully into the critical problems
presented both by the Hexateuch and the
historical books. For Samuel we have Cheyne's
" Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism," which
is of value also for the criticism of the Psalter,
and for a series of fine Psalm studies, which
might have been mentioned under the head
of Exposition. For Job, Proverbs, and Eccle
siastes we have Cheyne's admirable work " Job
and Solomon," containing a wealth of material
for the criticism, exegesis and theology of
these books. They are also dealt with by
W. T. Davison in his little work, " The Wisdom

48 BIBLICAL STUDY
Literature of the Old Testament," which in
cludes also the Song of Songs. The same
author has a companion volume, " The Praises
of Israel," dealing with the Psalms. These
books are strongest in their treatment of the
ideas, weakest in their criticism. For the
Psalms the great work is Cheyne's Bampton
Lectures on the " Origin of the Psalter."
While crowded with information and criticism,
it contains much that is hotly disputed, and it
would be well for the student to leave it till
last. The last three lectures deal with the
theology of the Psalter. On the Prophets
Kuenen has an elaborate work, unfortunately
out of print, entitled " The Prophets and
Prophecy in Israel." It is packed with infor
mation, but written from a Rationalistic point
of view. Of special value is Robertson Smith's
"The Prophets of Israel." It is a book that
no student should neglect. The second edition
has been edited by Prof Cheyne, who has
added an introduction which gives a very
useful conspectus of recent critical views on
the four Prophets dealt with in the work. It

books 49
is most unfortunate that the author was un
able to fulfil his intention to rewrite the work
and add another volume on the later Prophets.
The first of three small volumes on the Pro
phets by Prof Findlay has recently appeared.
Three volumes may also be mentioned from
the " Men ot the Bible " series : Driver's
" Isaiah," Cheyne's " Jeremiah," and Farrar's
"Minor Prophets."
In the department of New Testament Intro
duction, the best work at present is that of
Weiss, in spite of some eccentricities. Salmon
is remarkably clear and interesting in style ; he
has wide knowledge of the subject ; he often
displays sound common sense. But he writes
too much as an advocate, and he seems unable
to put himself at his opponent's point of view.
His accounts of foreign critics remind one too
strongly of George Meredith's Egoist, who in
his travels through Europe was engaged in
" holding a review of his Maker's grotesques."
His criticism is thus of a rather rough-and-
ready type, and just the kind to be popular
with the plain man. When we turn from him
4

50 BIBLICAL STUDY
to a critic like Prof Sanday, we find that
happy balance of qualities which makes him
so ideal a critic. There is perfect fairness and
impartiality, a determination to let the matter
be settled by the evidence, a readiness to enter
into his opponent's views and estimate them
at their full worth, a delicacy of perception
combined with a sobriety of judgment that
makes him, in some respects, almost a court
of final appeal in criticism. His works on the
"Authorship and Authenticity of the Fourth
Gospel " and the " Gospels in the Second Cen
tury " are unhappily out of print, and likely to
remain so, but his recent papers in the Expositor
on the "Synoptic Problem" and the "Johan-
nean Question " should be read by all students,
while his Bampton Lectures supply us with a
bird's-eye view of the whole field. The brief
Introductions of Dr. Dods and Mr. M'Clymont
will be found very useful. Prof Ramsay's
" Church in the Roman Empire," and his
" St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen,"
are also of great importance. Dr. Gloag has
produced a series of works on Introduction

BOOKS 51
which cover the whole of the New Testament.
Godet is engaged on an Introduction of
which at present only the first volume, dealing
with the Pauline Epistles, has been published.
If he is spared to complete it, it will be a
most valuable addition. For the special study
of the Gospels there is Westcott's " Introduction
to the Study of the Gospels," and Rev. Arthur
Wright's "Composition of the Four Gospels."
A sounder view of the Synoptic Problem is
to be found in Sanday's article in the " Dic
tionary of the Bible," the section that deals
with this subject in " Book by Book," and his
articles in the Expositor already mentioned.
The article "Gospel" in the "Britannica"
should also be consulted, as well as Prof
Estlin Carpenter's work on the "Synoptic
Gospels." Weiss has some valuable chapters
on this in his " Life of Christ." A more
negative standpoint is occupied by Orello
Cone in his " Gospel Criticism and Historical
Christianity." For the detailed study of the
Synoptic Problem, Rushbrooke's " Synopticon "
will be found most valuable. By the ingen-

52 BIBLICAL STUDY
ious use of colours and type, this work
shows at a glance what words in the
parallel narratives are common to all, or to
two only, and to which two, or peculiar to
one. Tischendorf's " Synopsis Evangelica " is
also very useful, and in some respects more
convenient to use than Rushbrooke, though
without any of its mechanical devices. Abbott
and Rushbrooke have printed an English work
containing the common matter of the " Synoptic
Gospels." There is also Wright's " Synopsis
of the Gospels in Greek," which is perhaps
the most generally useful. Of the literature
on the Fourth Gospel, there may be men
tioned, as the case is exceptional, the Intro
ductions in the commentaries of Godet,
Westcott, and Reynolds. The external evi
dence is dealt with in a famous essay by
Ezra Abbot. This is reprinted in a convenient
form along with an article by Peabody and
another by Lightfoot. The latter is also
reprinted in the author's "Biblical Essays," a
posthumous work which contains, besides, an
elaborate discussion of the external evidence.

BOOKS S3
with lectures on problems connected with
the Pauline Epistles. An important article
was published in the Contemporary Review by
Schiirer (September, 1891), and replied to by
Sanday (October, 1891). The other works
of the latter scholar have been already men
tioned. There is a work by Luthardt, " St.
John the Author of the Fourth Gospel." A
useful Introduction to the Pauline Epistles
is furnished by Prof Findlay. Hort's " Intro
duction to the Romans and the Ephesians"
is important. For the Revelation, Milligan's
" Discussions on the Apocalypse " is useful,
if not convincing, and Bleek should also
be read. But an English work relevant to
the present state of criticism is much needed.
Briggs discusses the critical questions at some
length in his " Messiah of the Apostles." For
the textual criticism of the New Testament
it would be best to begin with Warfield's
little book, along with which Hammond's
might also be used. Hort's " Introduction "
is of the highest value, but very difficult.
Scrivener's is also very valuable, but, except

54 BIBLICAL STUDY
for those who wish to go somewhat fully into
the subject, it will be unnecessary. For the
Canon there are the works of Reuss, Char
teris, Westcott, and S. Davidson. Lightfoot's
"Essays on Supernatural Religion" cover part
of the same ground as Westcott's "Canon."
The discussions in Weiss's " Introduction "
and Harnack's " History of Doctrine " should
be read. There is still room for an English
work which shall be on a level with the
present condition of the subject, and discuss
the reasons which led to the formation of the
Canon, and the criteria by which the canoni
city was determined.
Passing on to the History, there are, unfor
tunately, not many books to recommend. The
great work is Ewald's " History of Israel." It
is a monumental work, and covers the New
Testament period as well as the Old. Its
defects are obvious — arbitrariness, dogmatism,
the tendency to build on conjecture, too implicit
a faith in his own powers of divination, too
little willingness to learn from others. He has
also far too little sense of development. Yet

BOOKS 55
with all its defects there is an array of qualities
both solid and brilliant which makes it a work
of the first importance. At the same time it
must be said that criticism has moved very
considerably since Ewald, and that the recon
struction of the history has been largely affected
by this. Stanley's " History of the Jewish
Church" rests chiefly on Ewald. Wellhausen
gave a brilliant sketch of the history in the
article " Israel " in the " Encyclopaedia Britan
nica." This was published in an enlarged
form in the English edition of the " Prole
gomena," and again with modifications as a
separate work under the title " History of Israel
and Judah." Recently this has been consider
ably expanded, and made to take the place of
the long-expected History, but it is not trans
lated. Kittel's " History of the Hebrews " will
be found most useful, although it scarcely repre
sents the most probable view on some points, or
that which the author would now hold. The
standpoint is more conservative than that of
Wellhausen. Schrader's " Cuneiform Inscrip
tions and the Old Testament" is the most

56 BIBLICAL STUDY
important work on that subject. McCurdy's
" History, Prophecy and the Monuments " is
also an excellent work, though the uncertainty
as to his critical position somewhat detracts
from its value. Many of the most important
documents have been printed in " Records of
the Past." For geography the best general book
is G. A. Smith's " The Historical Geography of
the Holy Land." Miller's "The Least of All
Lands" is excellent for its careful elucidation
of the meaning of some Biblical narratives by
an examination of the actual site.
Passing on to the New Testament History,
we have for the Gospel History the various
Lives of Christ. Keim's is the ablest from the
Rationalistic point of view, and is marked by
a fine spirit of reverence and devotion to Christ.
Weiss's is perhaps the ablest from the orthodox
side, though it has the limitations that beset
his work. Edersheim is specially valuable for
Jewish archaeology. Fairbairn's " Studies in the
Life of Christ " will be found full of insight and
stimulus. Much useful information is to be
found in Farrar's " Life of Christ," as well as in

BOOKS 57
his companion works on " Paul " and the " Early
Days of Christianity." Andrews' " Life of our
Lord" is useful for the chronology. For the
apostolic age Weizsacker's work, "The Apos
tolic Age of the Christian Church," will be found
most valuable. It is true that the views it
expresses as to the historical character of the
Acts of the Apostles seem to need correction in
a more positive sense, but it is a most brilliant
and masterly work, and is especially remarkable
for the genius with which it constructs the
history from the Epistles. Slater's " Faith and
Life of the Early Church " is very fresh and
interesting. The Lives of Paul by Cony-
beare, and Howson, and Lewin, contain much
useful matter. The two works by Prof Ram
say previously mentioned are also valuable
for the history of this period. Among the in
dispensable books must be named Schiirer's
"Jewish People in the Time of Christ." The
index is published separately, and must not be
neglected. Morison's " The Jews under Roman
Rule" is an excellent compendium based largely
on Schiirer. For one side of the New Testa-

58 BIBLICAL STUDY
ment history Hort's "Judaistic Christianity"
will be found suggestive. Fairweather's " From
the Exile to the Advent " will be found a con
venient history of that important period.
It only remains, so far as the literature of our
subject is concerned, to speak of books in the
department of Biblical Theology. Here, again,
it must be confessed with shame that English
scholarship is sadly lacking. With the excep
tion of Prof Bennett's little work, we have
no English book which aims at covering the
whole field of Old Testament theology. When
Dr. Davidson's is published, a great reproach
will be rolled away from our native theology.
Two German works have been translated, those
of Oehler and Schultz. Oehler made great
contributions to this study, and his book is still
useful. It is now, however, largely out of date,
and vitiated by the defective criticism that
underlies it. Schultz's " Old Testament Theo
logy" is the work of a thoroughly equipped
scholar, resting on a sound but not extreme
criticism, and is the best book on its subject.
Works of a more special character might be

BOOKS 59
divided into three classes, though with this
caution — that they overlap to some extent.
First, we have those books which deal with the
history of the religion of Israel. The general
histories of Israel will here have to be taken
into account. Apart from these we have first
Kuenen's great work, " The Religion of Israel."
A second edition of this would have been a
great boon, but the death of the author has
made this impossible. Our regret is lessened
by the masterly summary he has given in
his Hibbert Lectures. Another volume of
Hibbert Lectures, by Mr. Montefiore, is much
fuller, and takes account of very recent investi
gation. It is also interesting for the discussion
in the later chapters on the Life under the
Law, in which he challenges the common views
of Christian scholars upon it, a point on which
Mr. Schechter's " Studies in Judaism " may also
be consulted. The brilliant and well-balanced
sketch in Bruce's "Apologetics," Book II.,
should not be overlooked, Robertson's " Early
Religion of Israel " occupies a different stand
point, and suffers from its defective method in

6o BIBLICAL STUDY
postponing the literary to the historical criti
cism ; yet it contains important arguments
which must be allowed their weight in deter
mining the estimate of the pre-prophetic re
ligion. In the second place, we have the
literature which deals with special doctrines or
religious institutions. This is a department
where books are few. On Messianic prophecy
we have the works of Riehm, Briggs, and
Delitzsch, with the article in the " Britannica,"
and two articles by Dr. A. B. Davidson in
the Expositor, first series, vol. viii. On Sacri
fice we have, besides the older literature, in
which Spencer's chapter in his '' De Legibus
HebrEorum Ritualibus " is the most important,
some modern works. Of these Kurtz's " Sacri
ficial \yorship of the Old Testament" and
Cave's " Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice " may
be mentioned as containing useful material.
More important is the chapter in Wellhausen's
" Prolegomena." But by far the most valuable
and original contribution ever made to the sub
ject is that made by our greatest Old Testa
ment scholar, whose loss is the severest blow

BOOKS 61
that could possibly have been struck at Old
Testament research. I refer to Robertson
Smith's " Religion of the Semites." Nothing
is to be more regretted than the loss to science
caused by his inability to prepare the remaining
volumes for the press. We shall never know
how much we have missed by this. Along
with the " Religion of the Semites " should be
taken his article " Sacrifice" in the "Britannica";
and as furnishing the basis for some of his
conclusions, his article on "Animal Worship
and Animal Tribes among the Arabs and in
the Old Testament," in the Journal of Philo
logy, vol. ix., together with his " Kinship and
Marriage in Early Arabia." In these works,
especially the " Religion of the Semites,"
very valuable light is thrown on such sub
jects as the early conception of holiness
among the Semites. Readers who are in
terested in the comparative study of insti
tutions, which has already given us important
results, should at any rate read Frazer's " Golden
Bough," his little work on Totemism, and his
article on Taboo in the " Britannica." Mr.

62 BIBLICAL STUDY
Andrew Lang's " Myth, Ritual and Religion,"
and his " Custom and Myth," will also be found
useful. M'Lennan's work is of high impor
tance, but is perhaps too specialist to be men
tioned here. On the Doctrine of a Future
Life we have Salmond's " Christian Doctrine of
Immortality," which also treats the New Testa
ment Doctrine, but beyond it only articles or
chapters in various books. I may mention
Cheyne's " Origin of the Psalter," Lecture viii.,
part 2, also an article of his, entitled " Possible
Zoroastrian Influence on the Religion of Israel,"
in the Expository Times, June, July, and August,
1892.; Kirkpatrick's Psalms, Introduction, pp.
lxxv. seq. ; Davidson's Job, pp. 103-4, ^nd
appendix. In the third place, we may take the
books which deal with the theology of one or
more of the writers of the Old Testament. For
the prophets we have Kirkpatrick's "Doctrine
of the Prophets." A far more important work
is Robertson Smith's " The Prophets of Israel,"
already mentioned. Dr. A. B. Davidson has
some valuable articles in the Expositor — Hosea
in series i., vol. ix. ; a study on II Isaiah in

BOOKS 63
series ii., vols, vi., vii., viii. ; on Deborah, Amos
and Joel, in series iii., vols, v., vi., vii. Also
two valuable chapters in his " Commentary on
Ezekiel." The posthumous articles of Prof
Elmslie in the fourth series of the Expositor
may also be mentioned. The Expository Times
is just now giving special attention to this
work. For the theology of the Psalter valuable
material is given by Prof Cheyne in his
Bampton Lectures, and this may be supple
mented by chapters in Dr. Davison's " Praises
of Israel."
We have no English book on New Testament
Theology as a whole, with the exception of
Prof Adeney's useful little work recently
published. We have translations of foreign
works. First, there is Weiss's "Biblical Theology
of the New Testament." Perhaps the general
opinion that this is best is right, but, personally,
I may confess I have never been enthusiastic
about it. It is not simply the unhappy bias
of which Dr. Bruce complains so justly ; but, if
I may use such words about the work of an
extremely able critic, there is a wooden and

64 BIBLICAL STUDY
prosaic quality in it that makes it most unsatis
factory as an interpretation of Christ and Paul.
At the same time his collection of facts, his
generally sound exegesis, and the exhaustive-
ness of his work, make the book almost indis
pensable, even though we feel that much of the
spirit of the New Testament has been lost in
the process. The work of Beyschlag seems to
me to be on the whole the best, when his views
on one or two points, especially the Christology,
have been allowed for. There is a volume by
Schmid, rather old now. A valuable work,
now out of print, is Reuss' " History of Christian
Theology in the Apostolic Age." The English
translation was edited by Dr. Dale, who has
frequently controverted the views of the author
in his notes. We have some important works
in special departments of this discipline. For
the Teaching of Jesus we have the important
work of Wendt, that goes by that name. Bruce's
" Kingdom of God " deals with the Teaching of
Christ as it is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.
His other works, such as " The Training of the
Twelve," " The Miraculous Element in the

BOOKS 65
Gospels," and "The Parabolic Teaching of
Christ," may also be conveniently mentioned
here. The Doctrine of the Apostles has been
treated by Neander in his " Planting and Train
ing of the Christian Church." For Paulinism,
we have Pfleiderer's brilliant and stimulating
work, which may be checked by Stevens' " The
Pauline Theology." There is a short but im
portant sketch in Weizsacker's " Apostolic
Age." Sabatier's " Apostle Paul " should also
be read, however we may dissent from some of
its conclusions. For freshness and originality,
Everett's " Gospel of Paul " should not be neg
lected, though I cannot believe many students
will accept his special views. Bruce's " St. Paul's
Conception of Christianity" is excellent, and
especially for the way in which it has caught
the Pauline spirit, and the glow with which it
has interpreted it. He has also a valuable
series of articles on the Theology of the Epistle
to the Hebrews in the third and fourth series
of the Expositor. Along with this may be taken
the somewhat too original work of Rendall on
the "Theology 01 the Hebrew Christians." 5

66 BIBLICAL STUDY
There is also a series of articles by Robertson
Smith on Christ and the Angels, in the second
series of the Expositor, vols, i., ii., iii. For the
Theology of John there is Stevens' " The Jo-
hannine Theology," which is the best. Haupt's
" First Epistle of John " may also be mentioned.
It need not be said that commentaries and
works on Systematic Theology often contain
useful material for Biblical Theology. I may
mention the discussion of the New Testament
Christologies given by Dr. Fairbairn in his
" Christ in Modern Theology."

Chapter V
OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
T N Old Testament Introduction we are deal-
-*- ing with the questions that arise as to the
text, date, authorship, literary analysis of the
individual books, and their collection into a
Canon. The first subject in the order of
scientific treatment would be Textual or
Lower Criticism. And it would be well for a
student to start with some knowledge of it,
though an elementary knowledge will in most
cases be all that is attainable. If the student
reads Buhl's "Canon an3 Text of the Old
Testament," with the introduction to Driver's
" Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel," and
the relevant parts in Robertson Smith's "Old
Testament in the Jewish Church," he will find
them helpful in giving him general principles
67

68 BIBLICAL STUDY
and destroying some of his illusions. The
application of them will come in detailed
exegetical study; and here the critical notes
in his commentaries will be very useful. The
evidence that our Hebrew text is in several
places corrupt may be thus summarised.
There are passages that cannot be translated
without violence as they stand. Further, in
some cases, we have two versions of the same
piece, with variants which point to textual
corruption. But most important is the pre
sence in translations of the Old Testament of
variants which not only presuppose a different
Hebrew text from that which we possess, but
a better one. This is especially so in the case
of the Septuagint, though it is far from true
that wherever there is such a difference the
Septuagint is probably right. The presump
tion is, as a rule, in favour of the Hebrew text.
In using the versions certain cautions have to
be borne in mind. Variants in the versions
do not always imply variants in the original
Hebrew. They may be due to the careless
ness of the scribe, or to a tendency to para-

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 69
phrase, or even to deliberate alteration. Then,
even if we can safely argue back to various
readings in the Hebrew, it remains to be seen
whether that represented in the translation is
superior to that contained in the text. Further,
the text of the versions themselves is by no
means so fixed and certain that it can be used
without more ado for the correction of the
Hebrew. But when the best has been done
with the help of the versions, many passages
remain that must be amended, if at all, by the
use of conjectural emendation. This cannot
be excluded on dogmatic grounds, for we
know that in the case of the New Testament
corruption in very bad forms attacked the text
within a century from the writing of the auto
graphs. The same may surely have happened
in the Old Testament, especially as more than
eight hundred years lie between our oldest
canonical prophets and the earliest period to
which we can trace back our present text of
their writings. In the New Testament we have
abundance of various readings, hence the pro
vince of conjecture is very small. But in the

70 BIBLICAL STUDY
case of the Old Testament we have no variants
on which to work. All our manuscripts give
us one text, and this can only mean that a
too successful attempt was made to form a
standard text. As the scribes Vi^ere completely
ignorant of the principles of Textual Criticism,
we cannot have any confidence that the text
they formed and transmitted to us is free
from error. And since some centuries elapsed
between the composition of several of our Old
Testament books and their translation into
Greek, we cannot be sure that corruption may
not have entered higher up the stream, and
be now established in the versions as well as
the Hebrew text. In that case, conjecture
alone can restore the true reading. Of course
conjectural emendations should be left to
thoroughly equipped scholars.
As to the Old Testament Canon, our infor
mation is far more meagre than we could
wish, but some conclusions are pretty gener
ally accepted by critics. The threefold divi
sion of the Old Testament into The Law,
the Prophets, and the Writings, is believed to

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 71
point to a growth in the Canon, which at first
embraced only the Law, and then later was
enlarged by the addition of the Prophets, and
finally completed by the addition of the
Hagiographa. The first Canon was formally
accepted at the assembly held by Ezra and
Nehemiah B.C. 444. When the second Canon
was completed is a more debatable question,
but criticism seems settling down to a date
between B.C. 250 and B.C. 200. The evidence
of the author of Ecclesiasticus is in favour of
supposing that the Canon of the Prophets was
already complete in his time. If Duhm were
right in some of his extreme views as to the
very late dates of some sections of Isaiah, our
judgment would have to be revised ; but of
this it need only be said that, with all recog
nition of Duhm's remarkable critical ability,
the views referred to are unlikely to secure
wide acceptance. The third Canon presents
still more difficult questions. In the Prologue
to Ecclesiasticus, written about B.C. 132, we
find the threefold division — the Law, the Pro
phets, and the Rest of the Books. From this

72 BIBLICAL STUDY
it may be inferred that besides the first and
second Canons other books already stood,
forming a third. But we cannot at once
identify the books spoken of by the writer
with the other books that we have in our
Canon. It is clear that he uses a very in
definite expression, and, in fact, it occurs in
different forms, so that he can hardly be re
ferring to a collection as clearly defined and
universally recognised as were the two former.
The actual extent would be hard to define.
It is not even certain that all the books now
included in the third collection were written
by this time ; some, at any rate, had been
only written or completed a short time earlier.
Perhaps the general view may be accepted
that the Canon was substantially complete by
100 B.C. But it must be understood that this
does not foreclose the question on which
authorities are divided — whether some books
were admitted after that date. It is well
known that discussions went on in the Jewish
schools towards the end of the first century
A.D. as to the canonicity of certain books.

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 73
Some of these had been previously recognised
as canonical, the question is whether all had.
Was Ecclesiastes, for example, striving for ad
mission or to retain a position that was
threatened? On this interesting question Ryle
and Wildeboer take opposite sides. The re
marks of the latter scholar on the reasons
which led to the formation of the Canon and
the criteria of canonicity will throw light on
a rather obscure problem, none the less ob
scure because we are so familiar with the result
that we too rarely feel it to be a problem at
all. Passing from general to special Introduc
tion, I begin with the Prophets. I have
already indicated in the case of Isaiah that
in addition to the prophecies regarded by all
critics as later than the age of Isaiah, several
more have been recently referred by some
critics to a later .period. But this is by no
means true of Isaiah alone. It applies to
several of the prophets. This newer criticism
is especially associated with the names of
Stade, Wellhausen, Duhm, and Cheyne. The

74 BIBLICAL STUDY
valuable Introduction which the last-named
scholar has prefixed to the new edition of
Robertson Smith's " Prophets of Israel " will
show the results as far as they affect Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. His Introduction
to Isaiah is very full on the criticism of
that book. Prof G. A. Smith's work on the
" Twelve Prophets " is not as yet finished, but
the first volume deals fully with the critical
questions so far as it has gone, and reveals
a sympathy with the later developments for
which I was hardly prepared. The work that
still remains to be done before the criticism
of the Prophets has reached the relative finality
that has been attained in the criticism of the
Hexateuch is very great, and I must simply
content myself with noticing the passages which
may still be said to rest in dispute without
attempting to discuss them. As to many,
results have been reached on which critics
generally are agreed.
Amos is probably the earliest of the
canonical prophets, his date is about B.C. 750,
The following passages are suspected as inter-

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 75
polations : i. 9-12, ii. 4, 5, iv. 13, v. I, 2, 8, 9,
IS, vi. 2, 14, viii. I1-13, ix. 5, 6, 8-15, and the
words " in Zion " in vi. i. Some of these
passages are important for the theology of the
book. Among these the creation passages and
the prediction of the happy future may be
especially mentioned. In Hosea, the junior
contemporary of Amos, several critical ques
tions arise. The text is in a very bad state,
but emendations of it must, of course, be left
for detailed study. There are also several
suspected passages, of which the following is
a sufficiently complete list : i. 7, i. lo-ii. i, iii. 5,
iv. 15a, V, iS-vi, 4, part of vi, ii-vii. i, viii.
14, xiv. 1-9.
The Book of Isaiah comes next, and pre
sents several important questions relating to
Introduction. First, there is the question of
the presence of portions written by later
authors. A list of those that are written from
a standpoint other than that of Isaiah's own
time has already been given. That these
portions are the work of Isaiah himself is
only credible if we accept the probability of

76 BIBLICAL STUDY
the curious view propounded by Delitzsch, but
surrendered by him before his death, and, in
deed, excluded by the law of parsimony — that
Isaiah, lived a life in the spirit among the
exiles several generations before the Return.
For the language used is explicit as to the
circumstances in which these prophecies are
spoken, and they are not the circumstances of
Isaiah's own time. The theory further requires
that in this state of trance he should exhibit
a different style, vocabulary set of theological
ideas, from what we find in his undoubted
work, and, further, that in utterances arising out
of the same circumstances similar differences
should be manifested. For it must be remem
bered that it is not only in the latter portion
of the book that the exilic standpoint is as
sumed, but in prophecies in the earlier part
too ; yet these prophecies betray internal
differences that would be naturally held to
imply divergence of authors. So many ecstatic
parts to play, and in each so different ! — the
theory sinks under the accumulation of improb
abilities. The frequent statement that the

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 77
denial of these passages to Isaiah is due to dis
belief in the possibility of prediction is untrue,
and misses the point. The reason for it is
simply deference to the actual statements of
the prophecies themselves, which do not pre
dict the exile, but speak of the people as at
the time in exile. That they were not in
exile in Isaiah's time, that Babylon was not
the great world-power, already to the eye of
faith tottering to its fall, needs no proof The
critical view has this advantage — that it pre
fers to accept the definite statement of Scripture
rather than the artificial theories devised by
human ingenuity to bolster up an untenable
tradition. It is obvious to all whose faith is
unsophisticated that the inspiration is in no
way lessened, but increased, by the perfect
adaptation of Divine teaching and comfort to
human need, which is one. of the essential
elements in Inspiration. In addition to the
passages already mentioned, there are others
doubted by critics who are not extreme, such
as Dillmann. I take the following list from
Prof Cheyne's introduction to " The Prophets

78 BIBLICAL STUDY
of Israel": iv. ^b, 6, xi. lo-xii. 6, xix. i8,
xxi. II, 12, 13, 14, xxiii., xxxii., xxxiii.
But, in addition to these, there are passages
thrown late by the leaders of the newer critical
study of the prophets, especially by Duhm
and Cheyne. I add a list of these : iv. 2-6,
X. 16-27, xix., xxii. 19-25, xxviii. 23-29, xxix.
16-24, xxx. 18-33. There are also numerous
editorial additions. Cheyne also throws out the
two highly important Messianic passages, ix.
1-7, xi. 1-9.
These questions are specially important for
the theology of Isaiah. The oracle on Moab
is generally regarded as the work of an older
prophet taken up and endorsed by Isaiah,
who fixed the date for its fulfilment. But
this is denied by Duhm, and much qualified
by Cheyne. The historical chapters, xxxvi.-
xxxix., are taken from the Book of Kings,
with the exception of the Song of Hezekiah,
which an increasing number of students are
inclined to make post-exilic. Weighty, though
not absolutely convincing, reasons have been
adduced for regarding the story of Sen-

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 79
nacherib's invasion as composite and as con
sisting of two parallel stories (xxxvi. i-xxxvii.
9^) 37) 38, and xxxvii. 9^-36). As to the
latter part of the book criticism has been very
active of late. Here Ewald and Bleek led
the way ; but Cheyne and Duhm have done
most for the analysis. Both are agreed that
the work of the Babylonian prophet stops at
chapter Iv., and Wellhausen has recently and
somewhat unexpectedly said that this seems
to him to be made out. But they are not
wholly agreed as to either of these sections.
Duhm denies the Servant passages in xl.-lv.
to the author of the rest of that section, while
Cheyne thinks they may be earlier composi
tions of the author inserted by him in his
later prophecy. As to Ivi.-lxvi., Duhm thinks
it is the work of a single author, the Trito-
Isaiah, writing in Jerusalem in the first half
of the Persian period. Cheyne regards it as
consisting of about ten compositions, which,
except Ixiii. 7-lxiv. 11, all belong to the time
of Nehemiah, the religious phenomena of which
they accurately reflect. He thinks that several

8o BIBLICAL STUDY
of these compositions may have come from
the same writer. The prophecy, Ixiii. 7-lxiv.
II, he places in the time of Artaxerxes Ochus.
On Duhm's Isaiah the reader may refer to
a brilliant and sometimes scathing criticism
by Dr. A. B. Davidson, in the Critical Review
(vol. iii., p. 12). On Hackmann's theories an
article in the Expositor, by Mr. G. Buchanan
Gray, may be consulted (series iv., vol. x.,
p. 330). I have dwelt on Isaiah at consider
able length because of the great importance
of the book, and because it is the first instance
of the emergence of critical questions on a
large scale.
In the case of Micah, Ewald pointed out
that the last two chapters seem to presuppose
the reign of Manasseh, and Wellhausen,
accepting this in the main, made vii. 7-20 a
product of ' the Exile. Stade denied to Micah
everything after the first three chapters.
Kuenen refused to go so far, and while
agreeing with Wellhausen as to chapters vi.
and vii., he accepted iv. 9, 10, except the
words " and thou shalt go to Babylon,'' v. 1-9

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 8i
and 10-15, iri its original form, as the work
of Micah, More recently, Wellhausen has
come to the conclusion that vii, 7-20 is
probably post-exilic, that vi, 1-8 may be
Micah's, and perhaps iv. 14, and v. 10-14.
Cheyne agrees, on the whole, with his views.
As to the famous oracle iv. 1-4, found also
in Isaiah, the older view that it belqngs to
an earlier prophet, and was borrowed by both
from him, is denied by Stade, Cheyne, Well
hausen, and Cornill, though the very high
authority of Kuenen may be quoted for it.
Prof G. A. Smith takes on the general subject
a somewhat conservative, but independent
line. For further details I refer the reader
to his work in the " Expositor's Bible," and
to Cheyne's introduction to " The Prophets of
Israel." Zephaniah is generally dated early
in Josiah's reign, and part of it at least must
be earlier than the Deuteronomic Reforma
tion. There is a growing consensus that iii.
14-20 is post-exilic ; but while Kautzsch dates
it between B.C. 538 and 527, Cornill brings it
down to the Greek period. The latter scholar
6

82 BIBLICAL STUDY
rejects the extreme view of Schwally, that
ii. and iii., with the exception of ii. 13-15,
are exilic or post-exilic, and regards ii. and
iii. as worked over, ii. only to an insignificant
extent. Davidson seems to occupy a similar
position. Kautzsch, however, still retains
ii.-iii. 13 for Zephaniah, but places it after
the Reformation, though still in the reign of
Josiah. The date of Nahum lies between
B.C. 664 and 607, on the whole about 624
seems most probable, though Kautzsch places
it before 660. It has been thought, though
on rather slender grounds, that i. 2-ii. 3 was
originally an alphabetical poem, now much
mutilated. Habakkuk may be conveniently
taken before, rather than after, Jeremiah.
The question of date is perplexing, and its
solution depends, in part, on the interpretation
that is given to the prophecy, and this again
is implicated with the critical questions which
are of peculiar difficulty, yet of great interest.
Stade made chapter iii. a post-exilic church
psalm taken from a liturgical collection
and inserted here by an editor. So far, his

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 83
criticism has commanded increasing consent,
and the great caution which Dr. Driver has
shown in dealing with the newer criticism of
the prophets makes his apparent acceptance
of this result very significant. Dr. Davidson
seems also to incline to this view. Stade further
made ii. 8-20 a post-exilic denunciation of a
Palestinian tyrant. This has not met with
the same acceptance, and it is doubtful if in
its original form this section can be regarded
as at all post-exilic. The first part of the
prophecy Stade's criticism left untouched.
But it is here that the most recent work has
been done. Giesebrecht pointed out that
i. 4 was most naturally connected with i. 12,
and he therefore argued that i. 5-11 should be
placed at the beginning, as the original oracle
of Habakkuk against the Chaldeans. The
rest of this section, i. 2-4 and i. 12-ii. 8, he
thought was also uttered against the Chaldeans,
but in exile. Wellhausen accepted the ana
lysis, but made the latter part pre-exilic. He
saw, however, that this left the prophecy
without any satisfactory conclusion. Mean-

84 BIBLICAL STUDY
while, Budde had worked out a new and
brilliant theory which met this difficulty. He,
too, had come to the conclusion that i. 5-1 1
was not in its original place. But instead
of placing it at the beginning he placed it
after ii. 4. His construction of the original
oracle as far as ii. 5 was as follows : i. 2-4,
12-17, "• 1-4) i- 6-I1, ii. 5. His theory was
that the prophecy of Habakkuk was not
directed against the Chaldeans at all, but
against the Assyrians, and that the Chaldeans
are regarded by him as the instruments of
Yahweh's vengeance upon the Assyrian op
pressor. The reference to the Assyrians
he regards as having been struck out by
a later editor, who made the transposition
by which i. 5-11 was placed in its present
position. The advantages of this theory are
obvious. It gets over the difficulty about
the misplaced section without the objection
that could be urged against Giesebrecht's view,
and it secures the rest of the chapter for
Habakkuk as prophecy also against the As
syrians. The transposition required is very

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 85
slight, and the omission of the mention of
the Assyrians, which it postulates, is readily
granted. On the other hand, Davidson points
out historical difficulties, which are more
serious, though in our present ignorance not
conclusive. It only remains to mention the
bold and original theory of Rothstein. The
section i. 2-ii. 5 he regarded as in its
original form a prophecy of Habakkuk about
605, directed against the sinners of Judah,
subsequently turned by an exilic editor into a
prophecy against the Chaldeans. This oracle
he regarded as consisting of the following :
i. 2-4, 12a, 13, ii. i-Sa, i. 6-10, 14, 1513;. The
oracle ii. 6-20 he regarded as originally a
prophecy against Jehoiakim, subsequently
worked up into an oracle against the king
of Babylon and his empire. For an exposition
and criticism of his theory, I am glad to be
able to refer to a valuable article by Budde
himself in the Expositor for May, 1895, where
his own view is also stated and defended.
With Jeremiah criticism has also been busy.
Many of the doubtful passages are suspected

86 BIBLICAL STUDY
on account of their absence from the LXX. ;
the book thus affords a very useful illustration
of the transition from the Lower to the Higher
Criticism. . Some passages are also rejected
as foreign to Jeremiah's circle of ideas, or as
interrupting the sequence of thought. I can
fortunately refer the reader to the Appendix
.to the fifth edition of Driver's "Introduction"
for fuller details than could be conveniently
given here. He gives a list of the passages
regarded as interpolations by Cornill, and
adds those as to which Giesebrecht and Kuenen
agree with him. Obadiah may be conveni
ently mentioned here, since the relation of
his prophecy to Jeremiah xlix. 7-22 raises
an interesting critical question. The passage
in Jeremiah is earlier than the destruction
of Jerusalem, while Obadiah seems to refer
to it as past. Since, however, Obadiah un
doubtedly preserves the original form, we
have to assume that both are borrowing from
a common source. This is probably preserved
to us in the first nine verses of Obadiah. In
its present form the book may date from the

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 87
fifth or fourth century. The date of Ezekiel
is clearly fixed. Some of his prophecies are
earlier, some later, than the destruction of
Jerusalem. Haggai is dated B.C. 520. Zech
ariah is not a unity. The first eight chapters
of the book are his, and date from the years
520 and 518. Critics have commonly assumed
tw® authors for the rest of the book, the
former being the author of ix-xi. with xiii.
7-9, the latter of xii. i-xiii. 6 with xiv. But,
perhaps, as Stade and Cornill think, the whole
of these six chapters is from a single hand.
Cornill dates it about 280, and even if, as
is often thought, the former portion dates
from the eighth century, there are features
which point to a revision in the Greek period.
As to the latter part, if it is kept distinct
from the former, its date may perhaps be as
early as the time of Nehemiah. Malachi is
also about that time, but somewhat earlier,
before 458. Jonah seems to belong to the
same period as Ezra, though Cornill thinks
it must date from the end of the Persian
period, and perhaps is as late as the Greek.

88 BIBLICAL STUDY
Joel has been made by many the earliest of
the canonical prophets, but critical opinion
is now decided in favour of a post-exilic
date, and it is, perhaps, as late as the fourth
century. From the Prophets we pass to the Historical
Books. Judges falls into three divisions : (a)
i. i-ii. S ; {b) ii. 6-xvi. ; (c) xvii.-xxi. The first
of these is parallel to the narrative of Joshua,
and it is interesting to observe that there are
a few similar fragmentary notices embedded in
Joshua, probably derived from the same source.
The historical value of these sections is very
great. The criticism of the second portion
reveals that the stories of the six chief heroes
are set in a framework from the hand of a writer
who has not written the stories themselves, and
whose phraseology is strongly influenced by
Deuteronomy. The religious standpoint is that
of Deuteronomy, and the lesson which the
writer emphasizes throughout is that there was
a recurring cycle of sin, oppression, repentance,
and deliverance. The Introduction is largely
due to the compiler, who states the theory of

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 89
the history (ii. 11-19). There are older ele
ments which may be readily disengaged. The
chief questions raised by the stories of the
heroes are these : Did the compiler collect the
stories himself, or did he find them collected
and ready to his hand, and then add the frame
work and introduction? How far are the
stories themselves composite? Can we trace
the familiar sources of the Hexateuch J and E
in this section? Budde asserts that we can,
and Moore seems inclined to agree with him
while Kuenen does not allow that we can.
Points of interest are the comparison of the
prose version of the defeat and death of Sisera
with the poetical description in the Song of
Deborah, and the double narrative of the over
throw of the Midianites by Gideon. The two
narratives in xvii.-xxi. present interesting fea
tures, especially the latter, where the chief
questions are raised by xx.-xxi. That in its
present form it is very late is clear ; but a
strong case can be made out for the view that
the groundwork of the narrative is old.
The criticism of Samuel is greatly helped by

90 BIBLICAL STUDY
the presence of duplicate narratives which can
be easily separated. A clear case is the double
account of the institution of the monarchy, the
earlier narrative consisting of ix. i-io, 15, 2'jb
(LXX.); xi. i-ii, IS; xiii. 2-14, 51; the
latter of viii., x. 17-27^, xii. ; perhaps also
xi. 12-14. With this, vii. 2-17 should be
united, since it is an integral part of the same
account. The following out of this analysis
and determination of the reasons for it will be
a most useful exercise in criticism. Another
interesting case is that of the double narrative
of David's introduction to Saul, one being
found xvi. 14-28, the other xvii. i-xviii. 5.
This is complicated by the fact that the LXX.
omits part of the second narrative ; viz.,
xvii. 13-31, and xvii. 55-xviii. 5. The worst
discrepancies thus disappear ; and Robertson
Smith thinks the LXX. text is to be preferred,
while Kuenen and Wellhausen think that the
translators found the Hebrew as we have it,
and made an attempt to remove the difficulties
without attaining complete success. This, again,
is an instructive problem in criticism. There

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 91
are other cases which cannot be dwelt on
here. The critical analysis by Kautzsch has
been given by Cheyne in his "Aids to the
Devout Study of Criticism." He also furnishes
a list of doublets with critical notes. As in
Jeremiah, so in Samuel and Kings, the transi
tion from the Lower to the Higher Criticism
is illustrated by a comparison of the text of
the LXX. with that of the Hebrew. 2 Samuel
xxi.-xxiv. forms an ..appendix which interrupts
the Court History of David (2 Sam. ix.-xx. ;
I Kings i.-ii.). It raises critical questions,
especially with reference to the two sacred
poems, which are connected with the larger
questions raised as to the Psalms. Kings, like
Judges, is set in a framework by a compiler who
has been much influenced by Deuteronomy,
and who, in addition to the framework, has
inserted comments on the history, or even long
reflections and reviews. The parts due to him
are marked by strongly defined phraseology
(see an excellent list in Driver's " Introduction,"
pp. 190-193). These portions must be dis
engaged by the student. We then have a few

92 BIBLICAL STUDY
passages which seem to be later insertions,
though there is a difference of opinion as to
some of these. What is left consists, in the
main, partly of official notices about the kings
and their acts, or the temple, partly of pro
phetical narratives. It is unnecessary to linger
here on the details of the analysis. The varia
tions of the LXX. should be studied in a good
text. I pass to the Hexateuch. The literary ana
lysis may profitably begin with the doublets,
since they raise the question as to compilation
from different documents in a very clear form.
This part of the work the student may do for
himself Some apparent doublets may be
thought to refer to different events. But others
can only be explained as giving two accounts
of the same thing, and where this is the case
a presumption is raised as to the use of more
than one source. Such a presumption, how
ever, demands verification by an attempt at
scientific literary analysis. Perhaps it would
be well for the student to place himself under
the guidance of a skilled critic here. Of course

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 93
he might previously have noticed characteristic
expressions or ideas which appeared in some
portions but not in others, and in the doublets
he has collected some of these will be present.
These provisional attempts at analysis are right,
so long as they are recognised as simply pro
visional. But before long it will be well for
him to take such an analysis as he will find in
Driver, and work carefully through it, verifying
every statement and weighing every argument.
The proofs for the analysis accumulate step by
step, and by the time the process is ended he
will be in a position for judging the validity
of the method, and testing the accuracy of the
results. It is in the nature of things that the
arguments for the main outlines of the analysis
should be stronger than those for special details.
It may be added that it is the phenomena pre
sented by the Hexateuch itself that have led
to the literary analysis. It may be readily
granted that one man may be master of several
styles ; but it is difficult to ascribe to one
writer the inconsistent codes of legislation and
the remarkable divergence in points of view,

94 BIBLICAL STUDY
especially when we remember that the stylistic
and phraseological indications of difference in
authors are so constantly associated with the
others that have been mentioned. The results
of the literary analysis are as follows. Four
main documents have been distinguished. There
is, first of all, Deuteronomy. Then there is
the work known as the Priestly Code (P), which
has taken up a small Code known as the Law
oi Holiness (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.). The other two
documents commonly known as J and E are
not capable of such clear separation from each
other as from the two documents already men
tioned ; but the composite character of J E has
been made out to the satisfaction of almost
all critics who admit the composite character
of the Pentateuch at all.
It must of course be clearly understood that
in each of these documents earlier and later
strata are present, and that they are in some
cases the product of a school rather than of an
individual writer. Not only so, but the very task
of uniting the sources involved much editorial
redaction, though, fortunately, this was not

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 95
carried so far as to obliterate all trace of their
original distinction. It will be enough, how
ever, for the ordinary student to rest content
with the main results of the analysis, without
attempting to follow the literary criticism any
further. The next question relates to the dates
of the documents thus discovered. The first
step towards this is to settle by careful com
parison with each other the probable order of
succession. The conclusions reached by this
method must be held in suspense till consider
ations drawn from other parts of Old Testament
literature have helped to determine the date.
The prophets and historical books will be of
special importance. Thus the prophets from
Amos downwards must be carefully examined
for the information they can give as to the
story of the early patriarchs and Moses. In
this way we can judge whether they had before
them any of the documents preserved in our
Pentateuch, and if so, which. Their evidence
is also important as to the laws and institutions
which they recognised, and it must be asked
how far their utterances are consistent with a

96 BIBLICAL STUDY
recognition of our Pentateuchal Codes. The
same may be said as to the historical books.
The history of Josiah's reformation should be
carefully studied, with a view to answering the
question. On what law-book was this reform
based ? There can be little or no doubt that
the Deuteronomic Code was this law-book.
Confirmation of this position may be found in
the fact of its great influence on subsequent
writers like Jeremiah, and of the complete
freedom of earlier writers from traces of such
influence, and from the knowledge of its com
mands as laws of binding force. A minor
question relates to the time when the book was
actually composed, and there is the further
problem whether our present book is identical
with that found in the temple or whether it is
not rather an enlarged edition of it. As to the
former of these points, critics are not agreed
whether the Code was actually composed in
the reign of Josiah or in that of Manasseh.
Some have even thrown it back as far as the
reign of Hezekiah. As to the latter, it is prob
able that the actual work found by Hilkiah

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 97
included little more than Deuteronomy v.-xxvi.
with xxviii. Wellhausen regards it as begin
ning with chapter xii., but there seems no
adequate reason for this limitation. Dillmann's
theory, which cannot be stated here, is so clever
and tempting that one would gladly accept it
if it were not too complicated to be probable.
Once Deuteronomy is fixed there can be little
doubt that J E is earlier, and that the two
docunients of which it is composed were used
by the author of the original Deuteronomy.
The main question is about the Priestly Code,
if the fact that some eminent critics were not
convinced by the arguments of Kuenen and
Wellhausen forbids us to treat the Grafian
theory as finally established. Of course the
arguments which have seemed to the majority
of critics conclusive must be carefully examined.
The line of proof is something as follows. A
development in Hebrew legislation can be
traced in which Deuteronomy marks an ad
vance on the Book of the Covenant contained
in J E. The Priestly Code marks a more
advanced stage in the development, and its
7

98 BIBLICAL STUDY
legislation is the outcome very largely of the
revolution caused by the Deuteronomic refor
mation. In other words, just as Deuteronomy
is based on J E, so P is based on Deuteronomy,
which is the starting-point for its peculiar
development. But there is another thing that
must be mentioned. Deuteronomy draws on
J E, but it is the outcome of the work of the
prophets of the eighth century. In the same
way while the centralisation of the cultus ex
plains the form which the developments took,
the work of Ezekiel lies between them, and he
is the father of the Priestly Code. The last
nine chapters of Ezekiel should be compared
with the Priestly legislation if the force of this
argument is to be realised. The conclusion is
supported by the fact that while P cannot be
proved to have had any influence on the earlier
historians or prophets, its influence on Chron
icles is quite unmistakable. But it is by the
comparative study of institutions, as a great
critic has said, that the question of priority is
to be settled.
The Poetical Books might next be examined.

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 99
The questions raised about Job are these :
First as to its integrity. Critics are nearly
unanimous (Cornill, Budde, Wildeboer and, less
decidedly, Briggs do not admit it) in regarding
the speeches of Elihu as a later addition by
a writer who wished to protest against Job's
audacious arraignment of the righteousness of
God's government, and to insist on the good
ness of God and the disciplinary purpose of
suffering. Equally strong are the arguments
for the view that xxvii. 7-23 cannot be ascribed
to Job. The alternatives are to regard the
passage as an interpolation, or to make a re
arrangement of the text by which this passage
is assigned to Zophar, who, as the poem stands,
does not speak on the third round, and with
this would go probably a further distribution
of the preceding passages. The relevance of
chapter xxviii. to its particular place in the
poem, or indeed to the argument as a whole,
is also a matter to be considered. Questions
have also been raised with reference to the
speeches of Yahweh which must be examined,
though, with the probable exception of the

100 BIBLICAL STUDY
descriptions of behemoth and leviathan, these
speeches seem to belong to the original work.
There is no adequate reason for doubting that
the Prologue belongs to the original work, for
even though the solution of the problem given
in it is not revealed to Job at the end, it is
obviously because one of the chief lessons of the
poem is that the sufferer must trust God when
he cannot understand Him, and Job is shown
to us as lifted by the manifestation of God into
a region where he finds a religious, and does
not feel the need of an intellectual, solution of
his difficulties. Nor is there any real reason
for regarding the Epilogue with its " Happy
Ending " as a later addition. The feeling which
prompts such a criticism is probably too
modern. It is a question whether we should
regard it as complete. For, apart from the
ill-founded doubt as to its congruity with the
idea which underlies the poem, there is the fact
that the scene in heaven in the Prologue would
naturally be completed by another in the Epi
logue, in which the accuser should have
admitted that there were men who served God

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION loi
disinterestedly. Still, this is not conclusive.
In the next place, there is the date of Job.
Setting aside the views that do not call for
serious discussion, the alternatives would be —
the time of Jeremiah, the period of the exile, or
the post-exilic period. The stage of reflection
implied and the comparison with other Hebrew
literature will hardly, I think, allow us to place
the original poem earlier than towards the close
of the exile. It may be later, but it cannot
well be earlier.
The Book of Proverbs also consists of
various collections which must be distin
guished, arranged as far as possible in chrono
logical order and dated. Proverbs i.-ix. is
not a collection of proverbs at all, but a
beautiful poem in praise of wisdom. The
second section, x. i.-xxii. i6, consists of 376
proverbs, mainly antithetic in form. To this
there are two appendices, xxii. 17-xxiv. 22,
which contain moral precepts on various sub
jects, chiefly of a practical character, and xxiv.
23-34. Ii^ xxv.-xxix. we have a second col
lection of proverbs, xxx, contains matter of

102 BIBLICAL STUDY
very various descriptions. The marginal ren
derings 7 and 9 in the R.V. should probably
be accepted. In xxx. 1-9 we have the Agnostic
statement 1^-4, the reply 5, 6, and a prayer to
be kept from scepticism or crime 7-9. xxx
10-33 has nine groups of proverbs, a curious
feature in several being that things are arranged
in sets of four. xxxi. 1-9 contains advice given
to Lemuel, King of Massa, by his mother;
xxxi. 10-31 gives a description of the good
housewife. The divisions in the Book are
marked by spaces in the R.V. That the
various portions do not proceed from one hand
or one time, the student can readily satisfy
himself It is needless to say that the headings
do not settle the question of authorship any
more than the headings of the Psalms. In no
case can any one of the collections come from
Solomon's own hand, and it is altogether un
certain what elements in the book, if any, can
be traced back to him. If there are any, they
are most likely to be found in xxv.-xxix., a
section which is thought by many to be the
oldest. In this case the note at the beginning

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 103
which connects the section with the literary
activities of the men of Hezekiah is not to
be set aside. But this does not guarantee the.
whole section ; there are elements even in it
wliich seem to some critics to point to the
post-exilic period, and this is even more the
case in the other sections. The date at which
any section was completed must not, of course,
be taken as the date at which all of it origi
nated, and it would not be inconsistent with a
quite early date for much in the book, if each
part of it was supposed to have been completed
in the post-exilic period, and there is a tendency
to take this view. The date of the Praise of
Wisdom is in any case post-Deuteronomic, but
while some critics place it in the quarter of a
century following the Reformation of Josiah,
others regard it as post-exilic ; and if so, it is
probably fairly late in that period. Chapters
xxx. and xxxi. are almost certainly post-
exilic. The Psadms may conveniently be taken here,
though kept till last in actual study. The ques
tions they raise are so numerous and so wide

104 BIBLICAL STUDY
that any mention of them must be dispropor
tionately brief It will be well for the student
to clear the way by an examination of the
titles. The inappropriateness of some of these
will remove any scruples he might have in
leaving them out of the question as evidence
for the authorship, though they are important
for the clues they give to the history of the
collections. It is with the study of these col
lections that the investigation should begin, for
in this way we can trace the stages by which
the Psalter has grown to its present form.
Here Robertson Smith's chapter in the " Old
Testament in the Jewish Church " will be most
helpful, and provide a firm foundation for future
study. This may be supplemented by the first
and second lectures in Prof Cheyne's " Origin
of the Psalter." When the three great collec
tions and the stages in their formation have
been discovered, so far as this is possible, then,
and not till then, should the student turn to
examine the dates of the Psalms. On this
some general remarks may be offered. The
definite results are likely to be oftener nega-

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 105
tive than positive. It may be proved that a
psalm cannot have been written at a given
time or by a given man, yet it may be impos
sible to say when or by whom it was written.
This is in the nature of things, and many
parallels might be quoted. Further, where the
criteria of date are so indefinite, as they fre
quently are, regard must be had to wider con
siderations. Of these the most important seem
to be such as are derived from the history of
the religion of Israel. Linguistic phenomena
can throw very little light at present on this
question, though they mark some psalms as
late. An obvious point often overlooked is
that it is one thing to say that psalms were
written at a certain period, or by a certain
man, and quite another thing to say that these
psalms have been included in our Psalter.
This is to be taken into account in dealing
with the interesting, though not important,
question, whether any of our Psalms were
written by David. We know that David was
a skilful musician and a highly gifted poet. It
is very probable, both from tradition and on

io6 BIBLICAL STUDY
antecedent grounds, that he wrote religious
poems. So much is admitted by advanced
critics. The questions that have to be settled
are these : How far is the David we know
from the Books of Samuel and Kings likely
to have written such psalms as those preserved
in the Psalter? What assurance can we feel
that the compilers of the first collection had
a trustworthy tradition as to psalms they
accepted as David's? or that they exercised
any critical judgment in the admission of
such psalms as his ? Such questions must be
studied patiently and without prejudice ; nor
must it be assumed beforehand that the result
will be either favourable or unfavourable to the
preservation of such psalms. Similarly the
question of psalms dating from the early pro
phetic period, or the age of Josiah, .must be
examined. The objections that have been
raised to the preservation of any pre-exilic
psalms at all (with the doubtful exception of
the eighteenth psalm) demand careful scrutiny,
and should not pass unchallenged. If they
are found to be valid, the conclusion must, of

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 107
course, be admitted. But it has certainly not
been proved to the satisfaction of several critics
that such psalms do not exist. On the other
hand, the general similarity in religious thought
and expression, the greater fitness they possess
for use in the Second Temple than in that of
the First, the passionate devotion to the Law
breathed by many of them, the deep spirituality,
the personification of the ideal Israel as the
speaker in many psalms — all point to the post-
exilic period as that in which a very large
number of psalms should most probably be
placed. Whether there are any Maccabean
psalms is disputed ; but while it is, perhaps,
improbable that there are any in the first three
books of the Psalter, it seems unreasonable to
question their presence in the last collection.
The Song of Songs is a drama in which
there seem to be three main characters — the
Shulamite, her lover, and King Solomon. Its
object is, probably, to celebrate the triumph of
love over the glittering allurements of exalted
station — the maiden who is wooed by the
magnificent king remaining faithful to her

io8 BIBLICAL STUDY
lover of humble rank. On the interpretation
of the poem Driver's " Introduction " should be
consulted, since it gives a full abstract of the
rival theories of Ewald and Delitzsch, with
Oettli's improvements on the former. The
date is disputed. Though several critics, and
perhaps the majority, believe it to be an early
North Israelite poem, perhaps dating from the
tenth century B.C., it cannot be denied that there
are very weighty reasons for regarding it as
post-exilic. Ruth is now assigned by several
critics on strong grounds to the fifth cen
tury B.C., or even later, though Prof Driver
cannot see his way, on account of the linguistic
phenomena, to place it after the exile. The
Lamentations raise two questions. Are they
by Jeremiah ? and if not, are all the five poems
by the same writer ? The opinion of critics is
against ascribing them to Jeremiah ; but there
is not such an agreement on the second ques
tion, though the arguments seem to be de
cidedly against the unity of authorship. The
date of Ecclesiastes is also a matter of con
troversy, opinion being divided between a date

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 109
towards the end of the Persian period (332 B.C.),
or about 200 B.C., the latter being the more
probable on linguistic grounds. The student
should examine the theory that it has been
worked over in the interests of orthodoxy, and
that the Epilogue, in whole or in part, is not
by the author of the rest of the book. Esther
has generally been placed in the third cen
tury B.C., though some of the ablest scholars
have assigned it to a date later than the
Maccabean war. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehe
miah should be taken together as probably
the work of the same author. Ezra and
Nehemiah, however, have preserved very valu
able extracts from the memoirs of these two
men, besides lists and documents. The narra
tive in Chronicles should be carefully compared
with the parallels in Samuel and Kings, and
in this way insight will be gained into the
motives and ideas that underlay the author's
work. The date is probably somewhat later
than 300 B.C. Daniel is by almost all critics,
even the ' most moderate, placed some time
between 168 and 164, It is thought, however,

no BIBLICAL STUDY
by some that in its present form it is part of
a larger work, but such a view calls for care
ful examination.
In mentioning the views of critics on various
points of Old Testament Introduction I have
simply wished to indicate the questions which
the student should bear in mind, and to which
he should give serious attention. No critical
dictum, and, I may add, still more no uncritical
dictum, should be accepted on authority. The
reasons for each should be examined, and only
when they are found satisfactory should the
view be ' accepted. At the same time this
should be borne in mind, that reasons which a
beginner might find slight may seem cogent
to an advanced student, because the latter,
from his general knowledge of the subject, is
better prepared to estimate the strength of
them. If, then, the beginner does not feel the
force of an argument, he should certainly not
accept the conclusion ; but neither should he
reject it, especially if there is a general con
sensus of experienced critics about it. Sus
pense of judgment is, in this case, the only

OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION in
proper course. For conclusions in one depart
ment of Introduction almost inevitably react
on those formed in another. Especially is this
true of classes of literature, such as the lyrical
or Wisdom portions of the Old Testament,
and criticism will have to study not simply
individual books, but groups of books, in the
future more than it has done in the past. I
might add further, with reference to the charge
of subjectivity so often urged, that too much
weight may easily be given to it. Criticism is
largely a matter for trained instinct combined
with comprehensive knowledge of the subject,
and a critic may often come to perfectly right
conclusions for which he can only give reasons
which seem very slender and inconclusive to
those whose training and information have not
raised them to his point of view. No doubt
there is a temptation to base too much on
minute details, and so far the student should
be on his guard. But the fear that is some
times expressed by those who are not opposed
to progress that criticjsm is getting top-heavy
seems quite groundless. The recent criticism

112 BIBLICAL STUDY
of the Prophets seems revolutionary to some
who have assented to the Grafian view of the
Hexateuch. There is no valid reason for this ;
the former is no more revolutionary than the
latter. The only question that can even be
entertained is. Does it rest on valid argument?
It was not the Law only that needed to
undergo development as conditions changed.
Psalm and prophecy, too, had to be adapted
to new needs, so that the living word might
soothe and inspire as it had done of old. And
if criticism shows to us that the prophetic spirit
moved men in times which have been too often
thought barren of prophecy or psalm, who does
not feel that he has gained a larger view of
the unwearied activity of the Spirit of God ?
We must, indeed, be on our guard against de
preciating the pre-exilic that we may glorify
the post-exilic period. But we shall probably
have to make up our minds to the view that
the prophetic literature of Israel received con
siderable additions in the post-exilic period, and
that the very process of making them canonical
implied some working over of the writings of
the older prophets.

Chapter VI
OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND
HISTORY
TT will be plain that the problems raised
-*¦ in the detailed exegesis of the Old Testa
ment cannot be spoken of here. This being
so, I will simply say that the sole object of
exegesis is to discover the actual meaning
of the words of Scripture. It is an axiom
that these are to be taken in their plain
grammatical sense, without any reading into
them of ideas that are not there, and without
any wish to support favourite theories of our
own. The single aim of the interpreter is to
put himself at his author's point of view, and
discover what he himself meant by his words.
It is, of course, important to remember that
there is a distinction between the obvious
"3 8

114 BIBLICAL STUDY
sense and the real sense. To discover the
latter is often very difficult, and demands a
familiarity with the writer's times, the re
ligious ideas that were familiar to him, and
the current sense of the phraseology he em
ployed. Words which bear one meaning to
us may have meant something altogether
different to the writer and his readers. And
a warning should be given in connection with
the much-praised practice of interpreting Scrip
ture by Scripture. This has its uses, but it
has its dangers. The most vicious form of
it is that which treats Scripture as if it were
the homogeneous work of a single author.
Leviticus has too long been the happy hunt
ing ground of theologians who have aspired
to interpret the gospel, and doctrines have
been drawn from it with as little hesitation
as from the Epistles of Paul. It has been
assumed that the gospel was really there,
and that nothing was needed but to draw it
out. It is true that the Old Testament does
supply principles that find their highest
expression in the teaching of Christ and the

OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS 1x5
Apostles, but it is an unhistorical exegesis
which reads the New Testament into the Old.
We cannot venture to argue unreservedly even
from one author to another. Nothing is more
necessary than to observe how each writer
employs his terms, and this can only be
determined by careful study of them in their
context, wherever they occur. It is almost
unnecessary to say that no quarter must be
given to allegorical interpretation which leaves
the Bible at the mercy of every fad and
caprice of the exegete. And the student
must carefully avoid the prophetic school of
interpreters, which affords a melancholy ex
ample of the fantastic follies to which such
crotchets as Anglo-Israelism and Millennium
dating will carry their deluded victims. It
is a golden rule in the study of the Prophets
to start from the principle that the Prophet's
main interest is with his own time, and only
when this rule is observed do the Prophets
become intelligible. If we are bent on seeking
after a sign, we may look for prosaic fulfil
ments of the prophetic visions. But it is

II 6 BIBLICAL STUDY
only the incurable conceit of human nature
to imagine that the Prophets had a peculiar
interest in the closing years of the nineteenth
century or the fortunes of the British Empire.
Their concern was almost wholly with their
own people, and even their happy future is
closely linked with the present. But on this
no more need be said.
In studying the history of Israel it will
be well, for reasons already given, to begin
with the early Prophets. The first thing is
to gain from them as clear and full a con
ception as possible of the actual condition of
things at the time they wrote. The eighth
century Prophets supply an admirable picture
of the social, religious, and political condition
of Israel in their time. The next thing is
to work backwards along two lines. There
is, first, the examination of what they tell us
as to the earlier fortunes of the people. And
secondly, there is the more difficult question
as to the course of previous development
implied by the state of things described by
the Prophets. But, fortunately, we are not

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 117
confined to these sources of information. The
historical books give us much help. It is
true that they often leave whole periods un
touched save for the briefest summaries, and
that the religious aim of the writers has caused
them to pay less attention to political and
social history than we could have wished.
But they supply invaluable material for the
reconstruction of the history. Some of the
most important sources are to be found in
the historical books. The Song of Deborah
is a most precious relic of Hebrew antiquity,
and as a contemporary document sets the
political condition of the period before us in
a most vivid way. David's lament for Saul
and Jonathan is similarly, though in a less
degree, important. The early narratives of the
Hexateuch have also valuable light to shed
on the condition of Old Israel. Chronicles
has a special value for the student of the
post-exilic period. The secular history of the
nations with which Israel came in contact
is also important, and the inscriptions which
have come to light in this century have illu-

1x8 BIBLICAL STUDY
minated many of the dark places of history,
while much is still expected from those as yet
undiscovered or undeciphered. But without
enlarging on the sources, I may touch briefly
on the various points that demand attention.
Beginning with the Exodus, it would be
necessary to examine the previous condition
of the Hebrews in Egypt, in order that the
work of Moses might be adequately appre
ciated. The character of Moses and his
achievements, the laws that he imposed, the
national spirit he created, through stimulating
the consciousness that they were the people
of Yahweh, will all have to be estimated
in their influence on the national develop
ment. And with this must be taken the
impression created by their deliverance from
bondage and the wandering in the wilderness.
From this we pass to the history of the
Conquest. It is most important to avoid the
blunder often made of deriving the history
of this exclusively from the narrative in
Joshua. The first chapter of Judges must
be taken with it, or a one-sided impression

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 1x9
will be produced. The student will then
see that so far from exterminating the
Canaanites, the Hebrews settled down with
them, not always gaining the upper hand.
Some knowledge of the Canaanites should
be obtained, so that an estimate may be
formed of their influence on the Israelites.
And there should be added a clear general
knowledge of Palestine, the physical features
of the country, and the situation of the most
important places. A knowledge of the poli
tical geography is necessary to make the his-
tory* intelligible, and the physical geography
will throw light on it too. But the physical
geography is also important for the estimate
of the influence of the climate and physical
conditions of the country on the Israelites.^
For the period of the Judges the main thing
to notice is the weakness of the bond between
tribe and tribe. There was little national
sentiment. Deborah's Song is most instruc
tive on this point. Only a few tribes, com
paratively, help against Sisera, the others
stand aloof Judah is not even mentioned,

120 BIBLICAL STUDY
as if it were not counted part of Israel
Judges also informs us that the detailed con
quest had to be undertaken by the tribes
independently. The whole period, then, is
one of weakness and disunion, and the tribes
fall a prey to various oppressors. The Philis
tines bring matters to a crisis, and Samuel
creates the monarchy, the symbol of national
unity. The work of Saul and David in
welding the kingdom together and crushing
the formidable enemies of Israel requires
careful study, and Solomon's disintegrating
domestic policy as preparing the way for
the separation of Judah from Israel, to which
it had always been somewhat loosely attached.
His foreign trade and too indolent foreign
policy will be judged by their effects on
the social life of the Israelites and their
future foreign relations. The course of the
two kingdoms must then be followed. The
materials are often very slight, and the char
acter of some of the kings, such as Omri
and Ahab, is apt to prevent us from realising
the great political ability they displayed.

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 121
This history of the Northern kingdom is
largely a record of wars with Syria and
smaller powers, till at last the onward march
of Assyria reconciled the two in vain against
their common foe. The history of Judah is
that of a poorer and a pettier State, and
scarcely comes before us in much detail till
the time of Isaiah. Many of the reigns are
almost a blank to us. Still, it was much more
free than the northern kingdom from intes
tine feud and frequent change of dynasty.
With the Prophets we lay our finger on the
pulse of the nation's life. From the time
of Ahaz till the captivity, the history of Judah
is largely implicated with that of the great
empires of Assyria and Babylon. The foreign
policy advocated by Isaiah and Jeremiah
should be examined, and the reason for it
discovered. The case of these two Prophets
is one of real agreement masked by formal
divergence, and is on that account peculiarly
instructive. The effect of the Exile on the
people may be determined by a comparison
of the character of those who went into cap-

122 BIBLICAL STUDY
tivity with that of those who returned from
it, making allowance for the fact that many
of them simply surrendered their national
faith altogether. A new and startling theory
has recently been propounded by Kosters to
the effect that the temple was really rebuilt,
not by returned exiles, the first return taking
place under Ezra, but by those who had been
Ifeft, when the greater part of the people had
been . carried into exile, or by their children.
This theory has been accepted by Wilde
boer and Cheyne, but with the modification
that some did return from captivity in the
reign of Cyrus. The theory, no doubt, avoids
difficulties that beset the common view, yet
it is not clear that it is not itself encumbered
with greater difficulties. The memoirs of Ezra
and Nehemiah are of the highest importance
for the history of their times, and as showing
to us the origin of Judaism. Much of the
subsequent history is all but unknown to us.
So far as criticism has succeeded in referring
documents to this period, we are the gainers
of new sources of information. But the fact

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 123
that these results are in many cases uncertain
makes it impossible to use them with any
great confidence,
I am afraid that I have spoken of the study
of the history in a very imperfect way, but
there is this excuse — the Old Testament writers
are so engrossed with the religious side of
the history, which falls for mention under the
head of Old Testament Theology, that the
materials for the general history are often
very slight.

Chapter VII
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
T HAVE first to speak of the History of the
"*- Religion of Israel, It will be well here,
also, to begin with the Prophets of the eighth
century B.C. A careful study, though at this
stage not necessarily an exhaustive one, will
give a view of the popular and prophetic faith
as they are there delineated. The question
that then arises is this : What does this
imply in the way of previous development?
The lines on which such an investigation
would be pursued would be these : A com
parison of the prophetic with the popular
theology would show what elements they had
in common, and this would go a long way
towards determining the conception formed
of the previous history. Account would, of

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 125
course, be taken of the direct statements of
the Prophets on the religious development of
Israel. It should be remembered, and this
caution is important, that different judgments
are passed on these matters by different writers.
I do not say that these are inconsistent, but
it is clear that in such cases the student must
allow, if not for a personal, for a chronological
equation, and remember that the standard of
ethics varies according as an act in an early
age is judged from the point of view of that
age or of the age of a later historian. Further,
there must have been some preparation for
the Prophets of the eighth century. On this
Prof Robertson has made some note
worthy contributions in his " Early Religion
of Israel," following lines already indicated by
Prof A. B. Davidson. That he has pushed
his views too far is probable, and his literary
does not seem to control sufficiently his
historical criticism ; but such arguments as
these — that the phraseology of Amos and Ho
sea implies a long previous development, that
written prophecies imply a reading public, and

126 BIBLICAL STUDY
that the constant appeals of the Prophets to
the better knowledge of the people testify
that their views were by no means so novel
as is often assumed — deserve serious attention.
Along with the early Prophets might be taken
the earlier documents of the Hexateuch and
the historical books. When some conception
has been formed of the probable course of the
pre-prophetic religious history, it will be well
to work over the ground again from the time
of Moses to the eighth century with the help
of the historical books that cover this period.
The subject may also be attacked from a
third side — that of Semitic religion generally.
It must never be forgotten that the religion
of Revelation strikes its roots into a soil with
which the idea of revelation is not commonly
associated. Whether such a limitation of the
work of the Spirit of God is right or wrong
I do not stay to enquire. I call attention to
the fact, since it is not possible to understand
the religion of Israel aright without reference
to the earlier group of religious ideas and
practices from which, in the providence of

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 127
God, it sprang. These three lines of re
search will secure, as far as is possible, accurate
results much better than if one line alone were
to be followed. Results reached by one method
may be checked or confirmed by those reached
by other methods. When we come to the eighth
century, the documents are more abundant and
more serviceable for the rest of the history.
The main points to which attention should
be directed in the history of the religion
may be briefly summarised. The study of
Semitic society and religion will show the
kind of material on which revelation had
to work. Here the constitution of the tribe,
and especially the laws of kinship, the influ
ence of the desert, the alleged monotheism
of the Semitic race, the religious usages,
will demand special study. For while on this
much of the accurate knowledge of the re
ligion of Israel depends, it is an apologetic
argument of high value if it is made probable
that we cannot account for that religion apart
from the direct action of God. The work of
Moses must then be estimated. His great

128 BIBLICAL STUDY
merit is that he created the national conscious
ness of Israel, and placed it on the religious
basis of the choice of Yahweh, so that it was
His people and He was its God. It is dis
puted whether the ethical monotheism of the
Prophets is to be found in Mosesj and while
we may shrink from a decided answer, it
must be remembered that a great religious
genius like Moses may well have been cen
turies ahead of his time. That the mass of
the people fell far below this is beyond dis
pute, though it is not clear that they were, to
any great extent, worshippers of foreign deities.
The settlement in Canaan had several results.
It shattered the national unity, with all the
disaster that meant to the religion, and it
brought the hardy Israelites under the ener
vating influence of the Palestinian climate
and of the deadlier Canaanitisli worship. The
pressure of external oppression hammered
them into cohesion, and their victories en
hanced their estimate of their national Deity.
Morality received a religious sanction through
the judicial functions of the priests. The Pro-

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 129
phets arose shortly before the establishment
of the monarchy, very different, it is true,
from Hosea or Isaiah. The origin and early
characteristics and functions of both priest and
prophet demand careful study. The materials
for writing the general religious history of the
pre-prophetic periods are rather slight, but a
serious attempt should be made to form some
idea of it. The greatness of Elijah consists
in two things — his emphatic assertion that the
worship of Yahweh and the worship of the
Tyrian Eaal (Melkart) were mutually exclusive,
and not, as king and people thought, perfectly
compatible with each other, and his equally
emphatic stress on morality, as shown in his
denunciation of Ahab for the judicial murder
of Naboth. Elijah may, or may not, have
been a monotheist — that is unimportant. What
was wanted just then was not speculative
monotheism, but practical monolatry.
We next come to the canonical Prophets.
With Amos monotheism becomes explicit,
and with it we have a stern righteousness to
which oppression of the poor is especially 9

130 BIBLICAL STUDY
hateful, and a doctrine of extermination of the
wicked from which only a remnant, if that,
shall escape. The well-known saying, that
Amos is the prophet of morality, and Hosea
the prophet of religion, is too epigrammatic to
be quite accurate, but it hits off the main char
acteristic of each. Hosea is the great prophet
of Yahweh's patient, inexhaustible love for
Israel. In the dark tragedy of his own life,
which wrecked his home, he saw mirrored only
too plainly the sin of Israel. And in the love
which, though thus sorely bruised, would not
give the offender up, but strove for her reform,
and reunion when purity had been regained,
he saw faintly shadowed forth Yahweh's love
for His faithless Israel, which would take no
rebuff and acknowledge no defeat, but went
forward steadily to its goal — the reformation
of the nation, and the restoration of the old
relations. To understand Isaiah, we must
start with his vision, which, as chronology
shows, precedes the whole of his prophecies.
The truths he learnt in it — the majesty and
holiness of Yahweh, the uncleanness of the

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 131
people, their destruction and the salvation of
a righteous remnant, the inviolability of Zion
because it was Yahweh's seat — are all to be
traced back to his vision of God, and dominate
the whole of his prophetic work. The reform
under Hezekiah is his work, and the overthrow
of Sennacherib at once vindicated him, and
saved for the world the religion of Israel, as
yet unable to bear the rude shock of trans
plantation. In the case of the northern king
dom exile had meant the destruction of the
faith the exiles carried with them into cap
tivity, and we can hardly doubt that a like
fate would at that time have befallen the
southern kingdom. In Micah, Isaiah had one
who joined in his denunciations of tyranny
and injustice, which, as one of the oppressed,
he resented even more keenly. Nor had he
any of Isaiah's sense of the inviolability of
Zion, which he predicts shall be ploughed as
a field. With Manasseh came a long and
fanatical reaction, in which the prophetic cause
seemed to be hopelessly lost. But with Josiah
the wave of progress that had receded so far

132 BIBLICAL STUDY
returned with mightier force, and went be
yond the point it had touched before. A
drastic reform was carried out on the lines of
the Deuteronomic Law. The local sanctuaries,
or high places, were forcibly abolished, and
thus one of the chief obstacles in the way of
the purification of the religion was removed
when they with their abuses were swept away.
The centralisation of the cultus is the turn
ing point in its history, for while it left the
details of ritual comparatively unaltered, it
yet carried with it, as its logical consequence,
changes of a far-reaching kind. The untimely
death of the righteous Josiah, and the tri
umphant career of the Babylonians, raised for
Habakkuk the problem of suffering that was
to engage the attention of Israel's profoundest
thinkers for a long time to come. Judah had
reformed, yet the promised prosperity had not
come, while the ungodly Chaldeans were
sweeping all into their net.^
But Jeremiah was not misled by the fair
' This would have to be modified if Budde's view of
the prophecy is correct.

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 133
appearance. With keener insight he saw
how shallow the reform really was. The
time had come for a sharper remedy to be
tried. Exile alone can cut the cancer from
the nation's life, and he looks forward to
the time when temple and ark shall be no
longer needed, when a new covenant shall be
made, written on the heart. In other words,
he made the immeasurable advance from the
view which regarded religion as a matter
of the State and of ritual and obedience
to a code, to the view of it as personal and
individual — a matter of the heart and inward
impulse. And thus, while he could wish
that his head were waters and his eyes a
fountain of tears, that he might weep day
and night for the slain of the daughter of
his people, he could behold with composure
the downfall of the State, and welcome it as
the birth of spiritual religion. For in his own
experience he had solved the problem, in
fellowship with God he had found rest for his
soul. He thus became the father of the faith
ful, the founder of the invisible Church. And

134 BIBLICAL STUDY
so when the supports on which the religion
had rested had been cut away, and the
cherished illusions of his people shattered
against the hard realities of a temple in ashes,
and the chosen race in captivity, it had al
ready been made independent of these things
and was able to survive them. From the
doomed city he had turned to the New Jeru
salem, and had found a refuge in the secret
place of the Most High. And though his
followers were for a time comparatively few,
yet his work was of the highest importance
for the future of religion. The Exile stripped
away half-hearted adherents of the prophetic
faith : it was well with them, they said, while
they served the Queen of Heaven, but mis
fortune had followed them since they had
renounced her service. But others admitted
that Jeremiah, who had foreseen the overthrow
of the kingdom, was right in his teaching,
and set themselves to carry it out.
With Ezekiel we seem to fall away from the
splendour of the prophetic ideal. He is the
father of Judaism, with its transcendental con-

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 135
ception of God, Whose chief concern is for His
own glory, its elaborate ritual, its exclusiveness
and rigour. But perhaps the time had come
when the higher religion needed for its pre
servation to form a hard protecting shell ; and
if so, Ezekiel has his place in the economy
of Revelation. Nor can we forget that Ezekiel
has his evangelic moments, in which he pens
utterances that remind us strikingly of Paul.
And his emphasis on the doctrine of individual
responsibility, and his passionate denial that
the sins of the fathers were visited on the
children, should not be forgotten. A more
attractive personality is that of the Second
Isaiah, who rivals Isaiah in loftiness, and Hosea
in gracious sweetness, and surpasses both in
depth of spiritual insight by his delineation
of Israel as the smitten Servant of Yahweh
and his solution of the problem of suffering,
that the righteous may suffer vicariously for
the guilty. It is to this problem, too, that we
owe the Book of Job. The writer is attacking
the common view that we can argue back
invariably from suffering to guilt. Even the

136 BIBLICAL STUDY
best may suffer, and affliction may be sent
as a test of character. The sufferer, who is
conscious of his own integrity, must leave
himself and his perplexities in the hands of
God, and none must venture to vindicate the
ways of God to man • by a dogmatism that
ignores the facts of life and makes even the
demands of charity yield to it. The narratives
of the Return, both of Zerubbabel and, sixty
years later, of Ezra, show us the exclusive
spirit of Judaism already at work, and it is
probable that Jonah, possible that Ruth, are
protests, the former a very powerful one, against
the harsh intolerance that prevailed. Jonah is
indeed one of the greatest books of the Bible.
Nothing is more astonishing than such uni
versalism in a Jew, so deep an insight into
the Divine pity ; it is a true miracle of grace.
The year 444, in which the code of our Penta
teuch was accepted as binding law, marks the
birth of Judaism, the firstfruits of Ezekiel's
work. From this time forward the nation be
came a people of the Law, more and more
controlled by the spirit of legalism. A sad

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 137
descent it may seem from the Prophets ; yet
it had its good side. Many of the loveliest
lyrics in the Psalter were written in this period,
and reveal an inwardness and a spirituality,
an intensity of zeal for God and a passion for
fellowship with Him, that can perhaps be
matched only in the greatest names that the
history of religion has to show. What is more
surprising to us, who can hardly understand
that the Law could excite any enthusiasm, is
the fact that some of the Psalmists reveal the
most ardent love for the Law, and speak of it
as the chief joy of their lives. Yet even the
Psalms have their limitations. And if we
must admit that all this mass of external ritual
is a poor substitute for the prophetic flame of
vital religion, we will not forget that, though
the Law came in beside, it was still the ap
pointed servant to guard the heir till he came
of age. It did not become an anachronism
till the time of tutelage was past, ahd the
religion of the Prophets came once more to
its own. Alongside of the life under the Law
there were other influences at work, especially

138 BIBLICAL STUDY
such as found expression in the composition
of new prophecies or the editing of old ones,
and the writing of Apocalyptic works. These
served to keep the religion from the stagnation
that legalism tends to bring with it.
Passing to special doctrines and institutions,
the student would investigate the doctrines of
God and His attributes, the Angels, Man, Sin,
the Messiah, the Servant of Yahweh, the Future
Life, and such institutions as Sacrifice, Circum
cision, Prophecy, the Priesthood, Sacred Seasons
and Feasts, the Ark, the Temple, and the local
sanctuaries. Some of these will have already
received attention in the study of the history
of the religion. The examination of the doc
trine of God may conveniently begin with the
Divine names and their meaning, and their
distribution in early and late documents. The
Divine attributes should next be studied — His
lovingkindness, righteousness, spirituality, eter
nity, omniscience, omnipresence. Here, again,
attention should be fastened on the distribution
of these ideas in documents of different dates ;
and, as far as possible, their history should be

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 139
traced. The doctrines of the Divine holiness
and unity may be singled out for special men
tion. Holiness is one of those ideas which have
to be traced back to their general Semitic usage.
Originally it seems to have been equivalent to
taboo in one of its senses, while uncleanness
corresponds to the other. A thing is taboo in
virtue either of the choice or use of it by a god
or chief, in which case it would later have been
spoken of as holy ; or of some quality which
resided in itself and made it dangerous, so that
it would be taboo in its own right, in which
case it would have been spoken of at a later
time as unclean. Traces of this early meaning
of the word " holy " are to be found in the ritual
legislation of the Priestly Code. A holy thing
has the property of communicating holiness
to anything with which it comes in contact ;
thus a garment or a vessel may by contact with
a holy thing become holy, and the holiness may
be washed out of it. This materialistic con
ception of a contagious holiness shows that
the word has in such cases no moral, but only
a ritual, meaning. On all this, " The Religion

140 BIBLICAL STUDY
of the Semites " is the great authority ; it may
be supplemented by Frazer's article on Taboo
in the " Britannica," and his discussion in the
" Golden Bough." The holiness of God prob
ably implies generally His separation from
all creaturely weakness and infirmity, and so
it comes to mean all that goes to constitute
His divinity. By the time of Isaiah the idea
has come to be moral ; though in the earlier
period we find traces of the older physical idea,
as we see from i Samuel vi. 20, where, after
the slaughter of some of the men of Beth-
shemesh for looking into the ark, the survivors
ask, " Who is able to stand before Yahweh,
this holy God ? " A doctrine which calls for
remark is that of Yahweh as the Holy One
of Israel, which seems to mean set apart for
Israel. The doctrine of the unity of God
must also be studied historically, and to a great
extent this will already have been done in the
investigation of the religion, where the progress
towards monotheism has had to be continually
. estimated. It might be well to observe any
tendency to break up the abstract unity in God

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 141
in the direction of Trinitarianism, such as the
doctrine of the Angel of Yahweh, or the de
scription of the Divine Wisdom in Proverbs
viii. It is needless to say that the Old Testa
ment does not contain the doctrine of the
Trinity. In angelology I need only indicate
as objects of special study the Angel of
Yahweh, the gods, the sons of God, the
cherubim and seraphim. The connection of
these with the powers of nature should be care
fully traced, such as that of the sons of God
with the stars, the cherubim with the thunder
cloud, and the seraphim with the lightning.
The evil spirits also demand study. It is not
unnecessary to say that from want of a true
historic method the demonology of the New
Testament has been read into the Old Testa
ment. Otherwise we should hardly have had
the Satan of the Book of Job, with the definite
article in Hebrew, and regarded as one of the
sons of God, identified with Satan in the New
Testament. The identity of the name does
not imply the identity of the thing, which is
precluded by the difference in status and

142 BIBLICAL STUDY
function alike, though there is a malicious zest
in his work about the Satan of Job which
makes it easy to see why the name should have
become attached to the devil. The Old Testa
ment use may be traced in Job, Zechariah, and
Chronicles. Azazel seems also to be an evil
spirit. An interesting question is raised as to
the influence ot Babylonian, and especially
Persian, ideas on Jewish demonology; of the
latter, Asmodeus, in the Book of Tobit, seems
to be a clear example. On the doctrine of
man and human nature not much need be
said ; the Old Testament does not treat it very
elaborately. The psychological terms, such as
flesh and spirit, call for investigation, and the
doctrine that man was created in the image of
God. With the doctrine of Man, that of Sin
is closely associated. When the origin of sin
is in question, it is well to keep the documents
in Genesis distinct. The doctrine of Original
Sin in the Old Testament must be gathered
from the Old Testament alone ; it is an ana
chronism to read into it the Pauline doctrine,
which has taken up elements from other sources.

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 143
The doctrine of the Messianic Hope must
be similarly treated. It must be studied from
the Old Testament point of view, and from
that alone. Nothing but confusion can result
from interpreting the Old Testament prophecies
through the New Testament fulfilment. The
word Messiah does not occur in the Old Tes
tament as a technical term. Moreover, the
technical use should strictly be confined to the
hope of a personal Ruler, the Anointed King
who rules in righteousness and prosperity. This
does not occur at any rate before Isaiah. But
it has come to be used in a wider sense of the
hope of the happy future, even where, as often
happens, the figure of a personal Messiah is not
present, and in this sense it is found somewhat
earlier. The descriptions given by the various
prophets should be collected and compared.
The student should be quite sure that he in
cludes none but genuinely Messianic prophecies
in his collection, for popular exegesis has been
here strangely undiscriminating. Nowhere is
careful exegesis more requisite. It is also
necessary to remember that the Prophets rarely

144 BIBLICAL STUDY
look beyond their own age. The Servant of
Yahweh in II. Isaiah is Israel, viewed as God's
prophet and the teacher of the world. It is a
question on which interpreters are divided,
whether in Isaiah lii. 13-liii. the Servant is an
individual. It is true that individual features
are strongly marked in the description of the
suffering Servant, and it has been conjectured
that it has been written with some historical
character to form the basis for the idealized
portrait. As to the New Testament fulfilment,
perhaps one or two things ought to be said. It
is well known that many Old Testament pas
sages are referred to in the New Testament as
fulfilled in the life of Christ, where it is quite
evident that the original writer had no Messianic
thought in his mind. Some of these may be no
more than literary allusions, justified by the
fact that the writers read the Old Testament
through the life and death of Christ. But in
other cases we can see a principle underlying
their usage. Passages relating to the ideal
Israel, and even to the historical Israel, are
referred to Christ. Of the latter, we may take

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 145
such a case as " When Israel was a child, then
I loved him and called my son out of Egypt."
This is applied to the return of Jesus from
Egypt after the death of Herod. If, in the case
of Isaiah lii. 13-liii., we had to decide against
the individual reference, the identification of the
Servant with Christ may still be justified in so
far as we say that He is Israel, in the sense
that he sums up Israel in Himself, and takes
up and perfectly fulfils the functions of Israel
as the revealer of God to the world and the
vicarious sufferer for sin. In other words, while
the ideal Israel is in the prophet's mind when
he speaks of the Servant of Yahweh, it was
only in an individual Israelite, in Christ Himself,
that the ideal Israel became actual. But how
ever willingly we admit that this prophecy finds
its fulfilment in Christ and Him alone, we
cannot, if we have either a critical or an exe
getical conscience, read back this fulfilment
into the prophet's mind. It may also be said
that the figure of the Servant of Yahweh is
not Messianic, since He is regarded as a prophet,
and not as a king. Both ideas coalesce in
10

146 BIBLICAL STUDY
Christ, but they are not on that account to be
identified. Of the Messianic prophecies several
have to be spiritually interpreted before they
can be said to be fulfilled in Christ. This is
only to say that Jesus did not realise the pro
phetic ideal because He immeasurably tran
scended it. The Messianic expectations of His
contemporaries had been much influenced by
the Apocalyptic literature.
On the Future Life I need say but little.
The early view of the Hebrews was that
Sheol was the dim underworld to which all
men went, and where they lived a shadowy
life not worthy of being called life, since all
that made life worth living had passed away.
Any higher doctrine falls very late. So much
is generally admitted. It is a question for
exegesis whether certain passages do or do
not contain the higher view, though the
question of date has also to be taken into
account. So far as it is to be found, it seems
to be a postulate of the religious instinct,
which cares nothing for continuance of life,
except for the continuance of fellowship with

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 147
God that it brings with it. It is indeed
wonderful how completely these writers have
risen above the lower motives for desiring
a future existence other than that of Sheol,
where there was no longer any remembrance
of God or possibility of communion with
Him. That the higher doctrine is not bor
rowed from Persian sources, as is sometimes
asserted, is almost certain ; but we need not
deny that Persian influence may have stimu
lated the Israelites to develop the doctrine
which was implicit in their religion.
Of the institutions mentioned the most
important is that of Sacrifice. The student
should first collect the notices of sacrifice in
the prophets and historical books. Next he
should pass to the legislation in the various
Codes. Even if the late date for the Priestly
Code be right, it remains our most valuable
source, not simply for the ritual of the Second
Temple, but for the early practice. " The
conservatism of the religious instinct," and
the difficulty of accounting for the origin of
many of the customs in a stage of advanced

148 BIBLICAL STUDY
religious reflection, guarantee their extreme
antiquity, and this conclusion is confirmed
by the parallels we find in Semitic religions.
For the origin and purpose of sacrifice we
must go back to these religions, and test our
results by the materials afforded by Com
parative Religion. The method of survivals
is of great value. If we find an institution
quite out of harmony with the religious ideas
of the people among whom we find it, it is
probable that it is a relic of some earlier
state of things in which it was in perfect
harmony with the thought and practice of the
time. And it often happens that we can
discover the same practice existing elsewhere,
and quite of a piece with the other in
stitutions with which it is associated. Of
course it does not do to argue from a single
instance, but the wider the induction the
more likely for error to be eliminated. Ac
cordingly, when we find a survival, we should
try to work back to the condition of things
when it was homogeneous with the rest of
the ritual, and in harmony with the preva-

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 149
lent theological ideas. In this way we can
trace back these customs into the pre-historic
period, and form some conception of the
society and beliefs in which they took their
rise, A principle on which Robertson Smith
has rightly laid great stress is that we can
not treat the ritual as growing out of the
myths we find told to account for it. It is
the ritual, on the other hand, that gives rise
to the myth. When the custom springs
quite naturally out of the popular beliefs, no
need for an explanation is felt. It is only
when those who practise it have outgrown
it, and the dread of change and force of
custom keep it alive, that a myth has to be
invented to account for it. Many myths are
told in various parts of the world to explain
the same custom. Further, beliefs and cus
toms are profoundly influenced by the society
in which they originate. Thus, to return to
the subject of Sacrifice, it will make a con
siderable difference to our theory^ if we believe
that the Semites passed through the Totem
stage, and that Sacrifice took its rise then.

ISO BIBLICAL STUDY
If, again, it was connected with the hunting,
or pastoral, or agricultural state, our theory
of its origin and character will be modified
in each case. The problems as to its ori
ginal meaning and the development through
which it has passed are as follows : Was it
meant to appease the anger of the gods, or
to win their favour by gifts, or was its pur
pose to furnish a clan feast at which the
deity and his worshippers might strengthen
the bond of fellowship with each other?
How was the victim regarded — as a substi
tute for the offerer, or as a choice gift to the
deity, or as itself divine and dying to bless
its people ? Such questions need for their
answer a true understanding of the Semitic
beliefs as to God and man and the relations
that existed between them. Further, if, as
is most likely, propitiation was not present
in the original idea, at what period did it
enter, and to what causes was it due? What
was the development of sacrifice in Israel
itself? What was the significance ascribed to
the imposition of hands, did it identify the

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 151
offerer with the victim, or symbolize the
transference of guilt? Does the essence of
the sacrifice lie in the slaughter of the victim
or in the use made of the blood, or, in those
cases' where the victim was eaten, in the
sacred meal ? What importance was attached
to the blood and the fat, and why? Why
was the victim burned in certain cases? Was
it to dispose of the holy flesh safely, or to
convey the offering to God? What was the
meaning of the ritual details of the Day of
Atonement, and especially of the sending of
the goat to Azazel ? These are perhaps the
chief, though not all the questions that are
raised by the Hebrew sacrifices, and on their
correct answer much depends, — something even
for Christian doctrine.
The other institutions can only be spoken
of briefly. Circumcision is a rite that has had
a wide diffusion among peoples who certainly
did not borrow it from Israel. On its pur
pose light may be sought from comparative
sociology and religion. Prophecy has already
been spoken of Here, too, the comparative

152 BIBLICAL STUDY
method will be profitable. It is instructive
to see how in the course of development
the heathenish elements were worked out,
and Hebrew prophecy grew to be altogether
unique. When we think of the bands of
prophets, whose contagious ecstasy stamps
them as essentially of the same type as the
prophets of neighbouring peoples, and then of
such Prophets as Amos or Jeremiah, we can
estimate better the heights which Israelite pro
phecy attained, and how mighty must have been
the spiritual impulse that from so lowly an
origin raised it to the pinnacle on which it
stands. The history of the priesthood is more
obscure than could be wished, though the main
points stand out clearly enough. The process
should be traced by which from the universal
right to sacrifice preference was given to the
Levites, then the exclusive right, and finally this
was confined to the Zadokite priests at Jeru
salem, while the Levites were degraded from
the priestly functions on account of their wor
ship at the high places in the days of the
kingdom. This will have already been ex-

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 153
amined to some extent in order to determine
the date of the Priestly Code. I emphasize the
great importance for the morality of the re
ligion of the exercise by the priests of judicial
functions, of which I have already spoken.
The ethical is the universal, and to bring the
administration of justice into such close con
nection with the religion favoured the progress
towards universalism. The subject of local
sanctuaries has been touched on already in the
discussion of the Deuteronomic Reformation.
The facts should be carefully collected from
the Prophets and Historical Books. The sacred
feasts are of importance, especially in their re
lation to agriculture and to Canaanite festivities.
It is not possible to speak of the theology of the
individual books, and perhaps sufficient has
been already said in the sketch of the history
of the religion. On the other points of interest,
and they are very many, I must say no more
here.

Chapter VIII
NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
T N studying New Testament Introduction we
¦^ may begin with the Pauline Epistles. In
addition to those accepted as genuine by Baur
(Galatians, Corinthians, Romans i.-xiv.), critics
are now almost unanimous in accepting
I Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon,
with Romans xv. and xvi. I need not stay
to speak of the hypercriticism which rejects
the whole of Paul's Epistles, since the majority
of critics who may be counted as radical have
strenuously opposed it. Those who are curious
on the subject may consult the excellent work
of Mr. Knowling, " The Witness of the Epistles,"
where a very full account is given. Yet we
need not be unjust to this hypercriticism. So

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 155
far as it calls attention to phenomena which
have been overlooked it deserves our thanks,
however far we may be from accepting its con
clusions. Harnack has said: "It requires a
deep knowledge of the problems which the
first two centuries of the Christian Church
present in order not to thrust aside as simply
absurd these attempts, which, as yet, have failed,
to deal with the subject in a connected way.
They have their strength in the difficulties and
riddles which are contained in the history of
the formation of the Catholic tradition in the
second century. But the single circumstance
that we are asked to regard as a forgery such
a document as the first Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians appears to me, of itself, to be an
unanswerable argument against the new hypo
theses." In addition to the seven Epistles
already mentioned, some scholars have ac
cepted portions of Epistles which, as a whole,
they reject as spurious ; this is the case especi
ally with Colossians and 2 Timothy, We
might place the more suspected Epistles in
three classes, according to the degree of suspi-

xs6 BIBLICAL STUDY
cion with which they are regarded. Colossians
and 2 Thessalonians are rejected by several ;
more reject Ephesians, still more the Pastoral
Epistles. The great stumbling - block in
2 Thessalonians is the eschatological passage
in the second chapter, which is difficult both
in itself and in its relation to the teaching in
the first Epistle. The difficulty seems to be a
real one, but I think it may be explained away
in a reasonable manner. Little theological
importance attaches to the question of genuine
ness. It is very different with Colossians. In
this case the course of criticism has been
curiously interesting. The old Tiibingen school
rejected it entirely. But later, Holtzmann and
Pfleiderer, while not regarding the Epistle as
Paul's in its present state, both believed it to
contain a Pauline nucleus. Holtzmann's theory
is so ingenious that it deserves to be men
tioned. He held that Paul wrote an Epistle
to the Colossians, that on the basis of it a
subsequent writer wrote our Epistle to the
Ephesians, and was so charmed with his work
that he decided to give the original Epistle the

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 157
benefit of it, and by interpolating extracts from
it in Paul's letter, and adding polemical pas
sages against Gnosticism, produced our Epistle
to the Colossians. Although the theory is
much too complicated to be probable, Holtz
mann's work is most valuable, and, as his
argument may be made to cut more ways than
one, it is not surprising that defenders of the
traditional view of the authorship of Colossians
and Ephesians have used his investigations to
support their position. Von Soden examined
his discussion, and came to the conclusion that
the reconstruction of the original Epistle broke
down when it was tested in detail, and for his
own part accepted it as Paul's, with the ex<fep-
tion of a few important passages. But, quite
recently, he has come to the conclusion that
even this reservation is untenable, and now
accepts the whole Epistle as genuine. The
difficulties urged against the genuineness are
mainly these : that the Christology is too de
veloped, though here the acceptance of Philip
pians cuts the ground away ; that the style and
phraseology are unlike what we find in the

iS8 BIBLICAL STUDY
accepted Epistles, which is true, but not suffi
ciently strong to bear much weight ; and that
the heresies spoken of belong to a later age
than that of Paul, though this is . by no means
made out. Whatever the Colossian heresy may
be, it is, at any rate, not second-century Gnosti
cism : it is not even certain that it is Gnosticism
at all. Ephesians is rejected with much more
decision. There is, first of all, the style, which
perhaps constitutes the weightiest objection.
Even Godet confesses that it has frequently
excited doubts in his own mind. Still, if
Colossians be accepted, the difficulty is miti
gated. It is also urged that the conception of
the universal Church is later than Paul. This
is pure assumption ; so great a conception is
more likely to be Paul's than any one else's,
and similar phraseology may be quoted from
the earlier letters. Nor do I find anything
inconsistent with Pauline authorship in the
theology, though objections have been urged
on this score also. It is no doubt strange that
Paul should speak of the holy apostles ; and his
association of the others with himself as the

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 159
recipients of the revelation that the Gentiles
were to be admitted to the blessings of the
Gospel has also been regarded as suspicious.
Quite early in the critical period its relation
to Colossians was counted against the genuine
ness ; it was thought to be a diffuse expan
sion of the latter. But Holtzmann's researches
into the relation of these Epistles have brought
out that if the Epistles are by different authors,
the borrowing has been mutual. If there
are phenomena which point to indebtedness
to Colossians on the part of Ephesians, there
are indications that point the other way,
and make Colossians indebted to Ephesians.
Hence the theory of Holtzmann, already men
tioned. But the more improbable that theory is
the more we are driven to the other interpreta
tion of the facts — that the two Epistles have pro
ceeded from the same hand, and that the hand
of Paul. And while the difficulties are real, if
we strike the balance, the evidence seems to
favour the authenticity. And we may add
that the external testimony is excellent, and
that so great an Epistle may be more credibly

i6o BIBLICAL STUDY
believed to be the work of Paul than of another
writer. The Pastoral Epistles have been rejected
as spurious by practically all advanced and
several conservative critics. Some of the latter,
such as Meyer, rejected all three ; others, as
Neander, only i Timothy. It is interesting
that Delitzsch thought the phenomena sug
gested that they were written by a Paulinist
on a Pauline basis. I have already said that
some advanced critics find Pauline passages in
2 Timothy. English critics generally accept
the Pauline authorship. Of the objections
urged, some appear to me to be untenable, but
others to be very weighty. I cannot attach
much importance to the fact that they belong
to a period of Paul's life otherwise unknown
to us. If Paul was not released from the im
prisonment recorded in Acts, they cannot be
genuine ; if he was, they may or may not be.
It seems more probable that he was released.
Nor does the character of the heresy attacked
necessarily prove a late date any more than
in the case of Colossians. But even if these
and some minor difficulties be set aside, the

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION x6i
objections that remain are very serious. The
style of the letters is quite unique ; and even
if we lay no stress on the many words found
nowhere else in Paul, yet the structure of
the sentences, and the other phenomena which
go to make up what we call style, do' not
impress us as Pauline. Again, as to organisa
tion, even if we have not passed into the stage
of the three orders, yet we find much stress
laid on ecclesiastical organisation, little on the
spiritual gifts. And if we admit that one who
combined the practical with the speculative as
Paul did would have felt that the ecclesiastical
organisation was worthy of great attention, yet
it is not what we expect in Paul to find him so
occupied with details of this kind. As to the
theology, even if we ignore the specific differ
ences that have been pointed out, it is hard to
deny that the great emphasis on the importance
of sound doctrine, and the use of faith in the
sense of orthodoxy, are strange in Paul. And
though the evangelical element is not absent,
yet .the tone of the letters is distinctly moralistic
rather than evangelical. Further, it is strange
II

i62 BIBLICAL STUDY
that Paul should have felt it necessary, after
leaving Timothy and Titus, to write such
elaborate instructions to them, which it might
have been supposed he would have given them
when he was with them. Nor is it easy to
understand why, in a letter to Timothy, Paul
should assure him so strongly that he was a
preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the
Gentiles. And if Timothy was fit to be en
trusted with a mission so responsible as that
on which we find him, it seems unlikely that
Paul should have felt it necessary to warn
him to keep clear of heretical teaching. And,
besides these difficulties, there is another. It
is hard to read these Epistles, especially
I Timothy, and Titus in a less degree, without
feeling that the Pauline ring is strangely absent.
This is a matter of impression, but to those
who are impressed by it, it is among the most
cogent arguments against the authenticity. I
would not say as Beyschlag does with reference
to I Timothy : " The man who is now able to
ascribe it to the author of the Epistles to the
Romans and Galatians has never comprehended

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 163
the literary peculiarity and greatness of the
apostle." Yet what he puts in this extreme
way is a real and not imaginary difference.
On the other hand, the external evidence is
good, and the numerous personal details and
trivial matters, such as the cloak left at Troas,
are not likely to have been inserted by a writer
who was personating the apostle, whereas in
Paul's own writings they are quite natural.
These details occur almost entirely in two
sections, in 2 Timothy i. 15-18, and iv. 9-21.
And these sections are thought to be genuine
by some critics who reject the authenticity.
Of course this is open to objections ; yet, if
the Epistles have to be surrendered, there is
no reason for refusing to rescue any Pauline
fragments. No doubt the presence of such
fragments constitutes a presumption of the
genuineness of the letter in which they are
found, but only a presumption, which has to
be balanced against the arguments on the
other side. As to the weight of authority, it
can hardly be denied that it is decidedly against
the authenticity, if we leave aside the names of

x64 BIBLICAL STUDY
those who first accept the genuineness and then
find reasons for doing so. But, even so, the fact
that critics of such eminence, impartiality, and
freedom from a tendency to let their criticism
be controlled by deference to tradition, as Dr.
Hort and Dr. Sanday — to name the two whose
verdict weighs most with me on that side — still
believe the letters to be genuine, makes me very
distrustful of my own impressions. In any case
the suspicion which hangs over them is so great
that it would be unwise to use them with any
confidence as sources of knowledge of Paul and
his work.
Some other points raised by the Pauline
Epistles may be briefly mentioned. Some of
these might come equally well under the head
of history, but it will be convenient to take
them here. In the Epistles of the second
group, should Galatians come before or after
Corinthians ? and, similarly, in the third group,
should Philippians come before or after Ephe
sians and Colossians ? Then, to what Churches
was the Epistle to the Galatians written ? Are
we to understand by the Churches of Galatia

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 165
those founded by Paul in South Galatia on his
first journey, or churches in North Galatia pos
sibly founded by him on the second ? What
letters passed between Paul and the Corinthian
Church ? and have we any of those supposed to
be lost still embedded in our Second Epistle ?
If so the letter referred to in i Corinthians v. 9
would probably be preserved in 2 Corinthians
vi. 1 4-vii. I ; and the letter supposed to have
been written between our first and second
Epistles might be partially preserved in
2 Corinthians x.-xii. Was the Epistle to the
Ephesians written to that Church or to some
other, or is it a circular letter addressed to
several Churches ?
The Epistle to the Hebrews, it may be said
dogmatically, is not the work of Paul. This is
proved by style, language, method of quotation,
method of argument and theological point of
view. The actual author is, of course, uncertain.
Luther conjectured Apollos, and many critics
have accepted this, the most serious objection
being that he is nowhere mentioned as the
author by ancient writers. Barnabas is men-

i66 BIBLICAL STUDY
tioned as the author by Tertullian, and this is
possible. But since in the case of all that have
been mentioned, including Luke, Silas, and
Clement, the arguments are not strong, it
seems wisest to rest content in ignorance. It
is also disputed to what readers it was sent.
The Hebrew Christians ol Jerusalem, Alex
andria, and Rome have been suggested, though
it is quite possible that it was none of these.
Its date is generally placed shortly before the
destruction of Jerusalem, and this is probably
right, though some have dated it later in the
century. The Epistle of James is by some
critics made the earliest book of the New
Testament. It is more probable, however, that
it should be dated somewhere in the sixties. Its
genuineness has been denied by many, but
on rather slender grounds, i Peter has been
placed by Weiss earlier than any of Paul's
Epistles, an eccentricity in which few have
followed him. The view is bound up with a
historical theory, as to which I will quote the
refreshingly frank words of Beyschlag : '' I
have long been convinced of the untenableness

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 167
of Weiss's conception of the Epistles, and re
gard the existence of a pre- Pauline Jewish
Christian Church, stretching from Pontus to
Bithynia and Asia, as a historical absurdity.''
The Epistle presents marked coincidences with
Romans, Ephesians, and James, and the general
view, which is much the more probable, regards
I Peter as indebted to these. The date is
controverted. Some critics still place it in the
reign of Trajan ; but in face of our better
knowledge of the relations between the Roman
government and the Church such a view seems
no longer tenable. Ramsay dates it about
75-80 A.D. ; but the grounds on which he does
so are not allowed by Mommsen, so that if
the latter scholar is right it is not necessary
to throw the date so late. If it is as late as
this, it is not probable that it is the work of
Peter. That 2 Peter is not genuine is the
opinion of most critics, though Spitta has
recently made an attempt to rehabilitate it,
and several English scholars still regard it as
authentic. The state of things presupposed,
the literary dependence on Jude, the reference

1 68 BIBLICAL STUDY
to a Pauline collection of Epistles which are
treated as Scripture and have already been
the objects of considerable misinterpretation,
with other minor reasons, make the genuineness
improbable. Passing to the Gospels, the student is first
confronted with the Synoptic Problem. There
are two main theories — the oral and the docu
mentary. The oral theory accounts for the
remarkable coincidences in our first three
Gospels by ascribing them to the fixed form
assumed by the oral instruction as to the life
of Christ given in the early Church at Jeru
salem, and independently remembered by the
authors. This theory accounts for the vari
ations easily by failure of memory as to the
exact phraseology. But it is open to serious
objections. It is improbable that the oral
tradition should have become so stereotyped, as
we often find passages in our Gospels indicating
that it must have been. Further, even if the
phraseology had become thus fixed, it is not
likely that it should have been remembered so
faithfully by three independent writers, with all

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 169
allowance for the retentiveness of the Oriental
memory, especially as the memory has been so
capricious in this case, sometimes retaining and
sometimes varying the language of the oral
tradition. Next there are frequent touches of
so light a character that their preservation in
oral tradition is most unlikely. There is also
a definite order of incidents to be traced, and
as this order is not chronological, but practically
the order of Mark, it is very unlikely that it
was formed in oral tradition, both because this
is in itself improbable, and because Papias lays
stress on the unsystematic character of Peter's
preaching, which lies at the basis of Mark's
Gospel. Then these Gospels deal almost ex
clusively with the ministry of Christ in Galilee,
and this is strange if they represent a cycle of
oral teaching formed in Jerusalem. The coin
cidences are also such that we must postulate a
Greek source, whereas we should naturally have
expected the oral tradition to have been in
Aramaic. And if we carry back the parts com
mon to Matthew, Mark, and Luke to a common
oral tradition, how are we to account for the

170 BIBLICAL STUDY
still greater coincidences between Matthew and
Luke where Mark has nothing? If these pas
sages were all in the oral tradition, why have
they been left out by Mark, whose narrative is
generally allowed to come closest to that tra
dition ? These difficulties seem so strong that
most critics now account for the phenomena by
a documentary hypothesis. This is open to
the objection that the numerous divergences
between the Gospels in the common sections is
not what we should expect if they were writing
with documents before them. This may be
largely accounted for by the freedom with
which each writer manipulated his materials.
And it is free from the criticisms which can
be urged with fatal force against the oral theory.
There is also a positive argument that should
be mentioned. In both Matthew and Mark,
after the mention of " the abomination of deso
lation," the words occur, " let him that readeth
understand." There is no probable explanation
of this except that both are here copying a
document, or that one is copying from the
other. If both were independently reproducing

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 171
an oral tradition, the reference would have been
to the hearer, not to the reader. If then we
accept the documentary hypothesis, it seems
ilievitable that two documents should be as
sumed — one to account for the parts common
to all three Gospels, the other to account for
the parts common to Matthew and Luke. The
former document may be identified with Mark
on cogent grounds. Matthew and Luke have
nothing in common outside the limits of Mark.
Their agreement begins and ends at the points
where he begins and ends. Then Mark's order
is almost invariably the order of either Matthew
or Luke, when it is not that of all three. But
rarely if ever do Matthew and Luke agree
against Mark. Further, Mark has more in
common with Matthew and Luke than they
have with each other. ^ If we admit that Mark
is the earliest, there is the question whether
any document lies behind it. Holtzmann, who
formerly thought so, has now abandoned this
view, rightly, as it seems. The double tradition
of Matthew and Luke is best connected with
the Logia of Matthew, mentioned by Papias,

172 BIBLICAL STUDY
a collection of discourses with brief historical
notices. This cannot be identified with our
present Matthew for various reasons. It was
written in Hebrew or Aramaic, while our Mat
thew was certainly written in Greek originally.
Tradition also places it earlier than Mark,
whereas our Matthew was later. Nor would
an apostle be likely to have used the work of
Mark, who was not an eye-witness. The fact
that the double tradition consists almost en
tirely of discourses makes the connection with
the Logia probable, and this is confirmed by the
fact that our First Gospel still retains the name
of Matthew, though it can hardly be his in any
other sense than that it has incorporated his
work. It is a long step from connecting the
Logia with the double tradition to its recon
struction. The chief outstanding question re
lates to a possible use of the Logia by Mark.
In favour of it we have the fact that in a few
cases Luke and Matthew agree against Mark,
where their version seems preferable. This may
be accounted for on the view that all three drew
from the Logia, and that Mark altered the

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 173
words. Or it may be explained on the hypo
thesis, recently adopted by some of our ablest
critics, that Luke had a certain knowledge of
Matthew. The objection to Mark's use of the
Logia would be his strange omission of such
passages as the Sermon on the Mount, and
many other discourses, though we have to set
against Luke's knowledge of our Matthew his
omission of several of Matthew's passages, most
congenial to his own spirit. The parts peculiar
to either of the Gospels also constitute a diffi
cult problem. As to the dates, the Logia,
Mark, and Matthew may all be earlier than
the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke may come
about 80 A.D. On the interesting questions
raised by Resell and Prof Marshall as to the
Semitic sources of our Gospels, I do not venture
to speak.
The Acts of the Apostles presents interest
ing problems. The chief relates to the unity
of authorship. Many critics regard the "we-
sections," as they are called, as the genuine
work of a companion of Paul, incorporated
by a later writer, the author of Acts. Against

174 BIBLICAL STUDY
this view these arguments may be urged. It
is improbable that a writer of such literary
skill should have allowed these sections to
stand unaltered, so as to give the impression
that he wrote them himself Then the style
is identical, and the explanation that this is
due to a working over of the sections by the
author is rendered improbable by the fact that
he has not altered the first person plural, which
would be the first thing to be altered. There
are also cross-references from them to other
parts of the book assumed by the hypothesis to
have been later. The correctness of the author
in his use of political terms points to an early
date, even for the parts that do not belong to
these sections ; and he shows knowledge of a
state of things that existed in the first century,
but had passed away by the second. The unity
of authorship and the first century date seem
then to be probable. There still remains the
question : What sources has the author used ?
It can scarcely be said as yet that this has
been adequately discussed. Theories have been
sketched by Spitta and Feine, which will have

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 175
to be thoroughly tested before it would be wise
to give an opinion. In a recent important work
on Acts by Blass, the view has been put forward
that Luke himself issued two recensions of his
work, one being represented by our critical
texts, the other by the Western text, which
exhibits what seem very strange variations.
This theory also requires much more discussion
than it has yet received before it would be safe
to pronounce an opinion upon it.
The Johannine writings would come for re
view last. It will be convenient to take the First
Epistle with the Gospel, as the author of one
was almost certainly the author of the other.
The student will have to deal with the following
problems. Do the Apocalypse and the Gospel
proceed from the same or different authors ? If
from the same, was John the author ? If from
different authors, did John write the Apocalypse
or the Gospel, or neither ? Then taking up the
Apocalypse, is it a unity, or is it of composite
authorship? If of composite authorship, how
much of it, if any, is of Jewish origin, and how
much of Christian ? what are the dates of 'the

176 BIBLICAL STUDY
various documents and of the final redaction?
and by what stages has the book reached its
present form ? These questions as to the Apo
calypse are now engaging the attention of
critics, and so far definite results can scarcely
be said to have emerged. As to the Gospel,
various positions are taken up. Many critics
regard it as in no sense the work of John,
others regard it as altogether his. There are
several gradations between these views. Some,
as Renan, think the history is derived from
John ; others, as Matthew Arnold, think that
the speeches are composed out of genuine
sayings of Jesus. Others recognise a Johan
nine nucleus of tradition worked up by a
later writer. The arguments against the genu
ineness are based on the wide differences
between it and the Synoptists, on the improb
ability that an unlearned Galilean fisherman
could have written so artistic and so deeply
speculative a work, on various expressions that
he uses, such as " high priest that year," " the
Jew's passover," and the like. The first two
difficulties are the more serious. Yet, on the

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 177
other hand, it may be said that the divergence
between John and the Synoptists may tell
rather in favour of Johannine authorship than
against it. For, in many respects, the Fourth
Gospel gives what must be regarded as an
intrinsically more probable account. This
applies to the duration of the ministry, the
visits to Jerusalem, even, it may be fairly
held, to the discourses of Christ ; nor are there
hints wanting in the Synoptists themselves
of the course of events delineated by John.
No doubt what weighs most with many
critics is the reason to which Weizsacker de
clares all the rest to be subordinate — that
it is inconceivable that a primitive apostle
"should have come to regard and represent
his whole former experience as a life with
the incarnate Logos of God." He adds : " The
question is decided here, and finally here."
But here we pass from the domain of criticism
to that of dogma, and in this work such an
argument does not even fall to be considered,
though it has to be discussed by writers on
Apologetics or Systematic Theology. So far
12

178 BIBLICAL STUDY
as the question is a critical one, it must be
settled by purely critical methods. The in
ternal evidence for the authenticity is strong, as
may be seen by reference to the works I have
named. The external evidence is also good,
and has been much strengthened by recent
discoveries. Many critics who do not accept
the Johannine authorship have shown a tend
ency to come nearer to the traditional view than
was the case with the Tiibingen school. It is
not necessary to linger on the Second and
Third Epistles of John, the main question
relates to the authorship, and to the reader or
readers addressed in the former letter.

Chapter IX
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
T T is unnecessary to speak of New Testament
-'- exegesis, since it is not possible to say any
thing of its problems in detail ; and as to prin
ciples, I have nothing to add to what I said
with reference to the Old Testament. I will
therefore pass on at once to speak of New
Testament history. The foundation for this
special study should be laid in the wider study
of the general state of society into which Chris
tianity was born. This need not extend beyond
the boundaries of the Roman Empire. Some
knowledge should be gained of the political
conditions and of the Roman government.
Then some idea should be formed of the
religious condition of the empire, both in
Greece and Rome, and in the more barbarous
179

i8o BIBLICAL STUDY
countries. Some acquaintance should be made
with current philosophy. The investigation
should be more thorough when it touches the
Jewish people. The political conditions will
have to be examined, especially the adjustment
of the Roman and native jurisdictions. Then
the religious schools and the contemporary
religious literature should receive some atten
tion. It must be understood that this is not
to be confined to Palestinian Judaism, but take
in the Judaism of the Dispersion. The impor
tance of all this preliminary study is very great.
For one thing, it lends significance to the state
ment that Christ came in the fulness of time.
For another, it helps us to realise how far
Christianity was indebted to its environment
for the form it took. Whether Paul owed any
thing to Greek philosophy, whether the theology
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is Palestinian or
Alexandrian in some important features, are
questions of moment, which need a knowledge
of Greek and Jewish thought for their solution.
Then the problems connected with the spread
of the Gospel are nearer a solution if we know

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY i8i
the part played by the Jews of the Dispersion
in preparing for Christianity by diffusing among
the Gentiles a monotheistic faith, free in a great
measure from the narrower features of Judaism.
And generally it is true, here as elsewhere, that
no history can be understood apart from the
contemporary history to which it is related.
In studying the life of Christ the student
may begin with the Pauline Epistles, and then
pass to the Gospels. It will be wise to keep
the history in the Synoptists distinct from that
in John, and when both have been indepen
dently examined, they may be brought into
connexion. No doubt we touch here on one
of the most critical of all the questions raised
in this subject. It will obviously make a great
difference if we accept or reject the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Yet even
this is not decisive for the question of its
historical value. Some who fully accept it
would be ready to admit that through lapse
of time recollection had become less keen, and
that the development had not b|een so accur
ately marked, earlier being blended with later

i82 BIBLICAL STUDY
stages. And, on the other hand, some who can
not accept the authenticity would admit that
much historical matter had been preserved for
us in the Gospel. It is not the fact that the
Johannine tradition stands absolutely alone.
There are traces of an independent tradition
which corroborates John's account of the
history. There are significant hints in the
Synoptists themselves that the ministry was by
no means so exclusively Galilean as we might
gather, if we were confined for our knowledge
simply to them. In fact, it may be questioned
whether any view is not fundamentally wrong
which does not start from the principle that,
looked at as histories, the Synoptic Gospels are
very one-sided and incomplete. In those cases
where John gives us the most decidedly dif
ferent impression from that which the other
Gospels give us, it is the case that his narrative
is sometimes intrinsically more probable. So
far, then, as the history goes, it is not altogether
true that the authorship settles everything.
Even if the writer were not John, he may have
had access to an excellent tradition, and that

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 183
this was so is, I think, made probable by the
considerations already adduced. Such a view
seems more truly critical than one which regards
the history as a mere allegory, or as setting
forth the early history of the Church under the
guise of a life of Christ. That the history is an
allegory may be admitted, but it may be fairly
held that it is allegory because it is history.
In the life of Christ we have the revelation
of the eternal under the conditions of space and
time, and how could such a history be other
than an allegory ? And to the author of this
Gospel, be he John or another, belongs the
glory of making the inner significance of the
history plain, while yet it remains history. As
I accept the authenticity, I have no difficulty in
using it as a source for the history; but for those
who do not occupy the same standpoint I
would still suggest that much valuable historical
material may be derived from it, though ob
viously they would use it with more reserve.
The use of the Synoptists as sources will also
have to be critical, for we cannot refuse to
distinguish between primary and secondary

i84 BIBLICAL STUDY
sources, and for this the various strata in the
Gospels have to be discovered by criticism.
Here the conclusions reached in the study of
the Synoptic Problem will have to be applied.
Coming then to the actual history, there will
be chronological questions that will demand
attention. Among those of special importance
may be mentioned the date of the birth of
Christ, the duration of His ministry, the date of
the Last Supper and of His death. Then, as
to the history itself, it should begin with a study
of the work of John the Baptist. This leads on
naturally to the Baptism of Jesus, and the con
sciousness of His Divine Sonship then attained.
It is this which gives significance to the
Temptation which immediately follows. The
retirement into the wilderness is that He may
think out what was involved in His position of
Sonship, and might by thorough testing become
sure of Himself and His mission. Accordingly
the first two temptations, following the order of
Matthew, are temptations to doubt His Son-
ship, the third is a temptation to take the lower
road to a swifter but superficial success. And

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 185
thus unshaken in His conviction, and faithful
to His high ideal. He is ready to begin His
ministry. At this stage it is necessary to
examine the Messianic consciousness of Jesus,
and compare it with the expectations current at
the time. In this way the course of the history
will be much plainer and more easily under
stood. On another matter it is well to form
some opinion on the question how far Jesus had
a plan, and how far Pie from the outset of His
ministry contemplated His rejection and violent
death. The innumerable points of detail can
not be touched on here; to do so one would
need to analyse the Gospels and reproduce
the aftalysis. But attention should be kept
throughout on the salient points of the history,
the relations with the people, with the Phari
sees, with the Sadducees, who interfere much
later, the falling away of the more lightly im
pressed through offence at His teaching, or
through the growing hostility that menaced
Him, with the increasing devotion shown by
the dwindling band of followers, who had found
in His teaching words of eternal life. And

i86 BIBLICAL STUDY
so the process culminates on one side in His
death, and on the other in the creation of the
Church. The history of the apostolic age may be
sought first in the Epistles of Paul, then in
the Acts of the Apostles. In connexion with
the Jerusalem Church these points should be
noticed — its growth, its communism, its organi
sation, the relation of the various elements in
it, the type of piety, the conflict with the
authorities. Then the significance of Stephen
and his views as pointing to a liberal tendency
at work. This seems to me often much exag
gerated, especially with reference to Paul.
There is no hint in Stephen's speech that he
thought of the Law as obsolete. The sanctity
of the temple is quite another matter. Then
there is the effect of the persecution in the
diffusion of the Gospel among Samaritans and
Gentiles. In this connexion it is important
to remember that while Paul did the chief work
in founding Gentile Churches, yet important
Churches were founded by others ; of this the
Church of Rome is the most conspicuous

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 187
example. The hints as to the progress of the
Church apart from Paul's work, which are
scattered up and down in the New Testament,
should be carefully traced. Indications of the
social rank of converts, of their numbers, of the
opposition or favour of the Government or the
people, should also be brought together. Of
course the chief interest attaches to Paul.
There is first his persecution of the Christians,
then his conversion, his retirement, his quiet
foundation work before he is sent on his mis
sion. Then the first journey should be followed,
after which comes the dispute about circum
cision and the Apostolic Conference. It is
generally thought that here Galatians ii. and
Acts XV. supplement each other. A few, and
notably Prof Ramsay, have objected to this
identification, and referred the visit recorded
in Galatians to the time of the famine men
tioned in Acts xi. Then the second journey,
in connexion with which arises the vexed ques
tion already mentioned in speaking of New
Testament Introduction as to the identity of
the Churches of Galatia. Is the term used in

i88 BIBLICAL STUDY
the wider sense to include the districts visited
by Paul on the first journey, or is it used in
the narrower sense, in which case the Acts gives
no hint of the formation of Churches in that
district? There is no need to dwell here on
the rest of his missionary activity till the time
of his imprisonment. But it will be necessary
to follow his relations with his Churches, as
revealed to us in his Epistles. It goes without
saying that his great controversy with the
Judaisers for freedom against legalism must be
steadily kept in view throughout. His treat
ment of other questions, such as those dealt
with in I Corinthians, is also instructive for the
light it throws on the state of the Churches.
Whether Paul was released from the imprison
ment recorded in Acts is a question that
calls for attention here, and in connexion with
it the Roman Law or judicial administration of
that period is to be taken into account. Turn
ing to other matters, the most important is un
doubtedly the destruction of Jerusalem. This
catastrophe brought matters to a crisis with
Jewish Christianity, so that it was compelled

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 189
to go forwards or backwards, and it was further
of great historical moment, since it transferred
prestige from Jerusalem to other centres, such
as Ephesus and Rome. The last stage of the
history is connected with the settlement of
John at Ephesus, which, however little we may
really know about it, rests on tradition much
too good to be set aside.
It will be convenient at this point to say
something of the Tiibingen construction of
the history. Starting from the principle that
thought moves through thesis and antithesis
to synthesis, it developed the theory that over
aigainst Jewish Christianity, Paulinism arose as
its antithesis, and that these opposites were
blended in a higher unity in the Catholic
Church. A sharp antagonism was supposed
to exist between the two sections, and the
older apostles were supposed to have been
hostile to Paul. The process of reconciliation
was gradual, and has left its mark on the litera
ture, every piece of which should be dated
according to the place it filled in the dialectical
movement. The Ebionites and Marcion stood

190 BIBLICAL STUDY
as uncompromising representatives of primitive
Jewish Christianity and Paulinism respectively,
and were branded as heretics for their pains.
The Catholic Church was formed by accepting
the legalism of Jewish Christianity and the
universalism of Paul, while abandoning the
particularism of the former and the antino-
mianism of the latter. The theory necessi
tated the denial of the greater number of
the New Testament books to the authors whose
names they bear. The grounds on which this
view was based may be thus summarised.
The Epistles to the Galatians and the Corinth
ians show the hostility felt by the Judaisers,
including the primitive apostles, to the person,
teaching, and work of Paul. In the Apocalypse
we find John fiercely attacking the doctrines
and apostolic pretensions of Paul. Then in
the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions we
have a trustworthy indication of the Jewish-
Christian feeling on this subject, Simon Magus,
the opponent of Peter, being simply an Ebionite
pseudonym for Paul. Further in the ' other
New Testament writings we find traces of the

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 191
controversy and a gradual drawing together
of the two parties. Then we have the neglect
into which Paul and Paulinism fell through
the greater part of the second century, a neg
lect which testifies to the rejection of his most
characteristic teaching. Lastly, we have in the
Acts a history of the apostolic age, written
with the intention of hushing up the scandal
of the division between Paul and the Apostles
and of proving their essential harmony, and
for this purpose the author suppressed, invented,
or distorted facts as best suited the conditions
under which he wrote. This was supposed to
be made out by a comparison of the book with
the history as told in the Epistles, and by the
studied parallel between Peter and Paul. We
owe very much to the Tiibingen school. Baur
made scholars feel that the origin of the Catho
lic Church was a problem for the historian, and
by no means a thing that explained itself
And by insisting on the fact that each piece
of early Christian literature must be regarded
as having a definite place relevant to the rest
of the literature and the ecclesiastical move-

192 BIBLICAL STUDY
ment as a whole, he lifted criticism from the
habit of treating individual books in an isolated
way. And he did bring to light a great fact in
the early history, though it had not the all-
important place assigned to it. But we have
moved very far from his positions. The priority
of Mark, the historical existence of Simon
Magus, the proof that Marcion's Gospel was
a mutilated Luke, the certainly earlier date
proved for the Fourth Gospel, — all these and
other results of criticism have modified pro
foundly the Tiibingen construction of the his
tory. Nor is this all. It made Paul more
important than Christ, though not to the extent
sometimes thought, whereas criticism tends to
make plainer and plainer the supreme impor
tance of Jesus for the development of the
Church. And it was too narrow. It saw
nothing in the history but this conflict ending
with compromise by the surrender of extremes,
whereas the early history of the Church was
far more complex, with many factors of which
Baur made nothing at all. Too much was
made of the logical process, too little of the

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY 193
living men. Nor can we now treat the neglect
of Paul in the second century as due to hos
tility to him. It was rather the sheer inability
of the Gentile Christians to understand the
Hebrew Paul. They came to the interpreta
tion of the Gospel with all the presuppositions
derived from their very different training, and
as a matter of course their solutions were
widely different. Yet with all the divergence
between the reconstruction of the history which
Baur gave and that which is probably true,
let us never forget how immense is the debt
we owe to him for setting us our problems
and the stimulus he has given to critical in
vestigation. And indeed I am not sure if, in
the rebound from his views, we have not been
carried too far in the opposite direction.

13

Chapter X
NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
T N New Testament Theology we begin, as
¦*- elsewhere, with Paul. We can only put
ourselves at the right point of view for under
standing his theology by study of the man
and his life before his conversion. On its
external side we have his birth into a family
of Pharisees, and his training under Gamaliel ;
his life in Tarsus, a famous city of Greek
culture ; his Roman citizenship. But what was
of supreme importance for his subsequent work
was his experience of life under the Law. This
is sketched for us with the subtlest analysis,
yet with the most vivid and masterly strokes,
in Romans vii., a truly wonderful piece of
psychological insight. Here at any rate we
may find a preparation for Christianity in his

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 195
vain pursuit of righteousness through the Law
culminating in despair. Whether he had been
troubled with misgivings before his conversion
is a question on which the best authorities are
divided. Even though we admit, as we prob
ably should, that the goads against which it
was so hard for him to kick were not con
scientious scruples, but the will of Christ, yet
the expression points to conscious resistance
on the part of Paul. It is surely probable
that a man like Paul would reason with the
Christians ; and, if so, he would learn the chief
points of their case. He can hardly have
helped being impressed by their testimony to
the resurrection, which, if true, would remove
the offence of the accursed death of the cross.
And he was only too conscious that with all
his efforts he had himself failed to win right
eousness, and he may have wondered if Jesus
really was the Servant of Yahweh, whose death
was to make many righteous. If so, the vision
on the road to Damascus, which convinced
him that Jesus was risen, was the fact required
to bring him to decision. On the other hand,

196 BIBLICAL STUDY
it may be urged, as by Weizsacker, that there
is no hint of any hesitation on Paul's part, or
sign of misgiving as to the truth of his posi
tion and the rightness of his conduct. Even
more important is the question if his univer
salism was reached at the time of his conver
sion, or if it was a later growth. The evidence
usually quoted to prove the latter alternative
seems to me quite inconclusive. The absence
of the distinctive tenets of Paulinism in the
speeches in the Acts and in the Epistles to
the Thessalonians is irrelevant, for we know
that before Paul set foot in Europe at all he
had fought the battle of liberty at Jerusalem.
If then he passes by these questions in Epistles
written subsequently to converts who had had
the benefit of his teaching, how could we expect
to find them discussed in his missionary ser
mons, where he had to start from what he
had in common with his hearers? And, on
the other hand, the mere fact that for his
salvation privilege had counted for nothing,
and that he had been saved by faith, which
could be exercised by Gentile as well as Jew,

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 197
must have had its significance for him. Not
only so, but he connects so closely the inner
revelation of God's Son with his mission to the
Gentiles that it seems most probable that they
were associated in his experience. Nor should
we depreciate the revolutionary character of
his conversion. In this experience he knew
himself to be one with Christ. And as one
with Him he was lifted to a new point of
view, to new sympathy with the universal
grace of God. From the barren island of
sectarian prejudice, on which he had so long
been stranded, he had been plucked by a
miracle of mercy and swept into the strong
current of God's eternal purpose and eternal
love, which bore along the whole universe to
the summing up of all things in Christ. In
his own experience that grace was all and that
privilege was less than nothing he had realised
the universal nature of his faith. The ques
tion is part of the wider one whether develop
ment can be traced in the Pauline doctrine.
No doubt reflection and controversy served to
bring out into explicit affirmation — perhaps, in

198 BIBLICAL STUDY
some cases, even into explicit consciousness —
some features of his system ; the whole doc
trine was present, I believe, in germ from the
first, and consciously held before he wrote our
earliest Epistle.
It must be kept in mind that the relative
importance of the various parts of Paul's theo
logical system cannot be determined by the
prominence given to them in his Epistles, since
this was often due to the fact that they are
much occupied with the defence of doctrines
attacked. Where there was no controversy
doctrines are often taken for granted, and some
of the most important statements occur quite
incidentally. The arrangement cannot be de
termined beforehand by a scheme borrowed
from Dogmatics, it must be reached through a
constructive interpretation which will exhibit
that theology as a living whole. It is the
product of experience, and in his experience
the key to his theological development is to be
sought. His doctrine of sin, flesh, and the Law
rests on the experience of his pre-Christian
state, his doctrine of salvation on his Christian

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 199
experience. It follows from this that in our
construction of his doctrine we must be guided
in the main by the glimpses he gives us of his
spiritual development. From the happy state
of childish innocence he had been rudely
awakened by learning of the Law, which
brought with it the knowledge of his own sin
fulness. Not only of this, but with it a feeling
of rebellion against it Not wholly of rebellion,
however, for there was an assent to the ex
cellence of the Law, and a desire for conformity
with it. He was, in fact, torn two ways. The
flesh fought against the Law, the mind or inner
man fought to fulfil it. It was the Law which
had plunged him into this strife, and since its
issue was the victory of the flesh, it was through
the Law that he had become the slave of sin.
Yet the Law was not to blame for this, it was
sin that perverted the Law to its own base uses,
and thus by turning the holy Law of God into
its instrument revealed its own character. But
how was it possible for sin thus to abuse the
Law? It was on account of the flesh. The
flesh was the home of sin, yet sin was dead

200 BIBLICAL STUDY
till the Law came. But when it was brought
into contact with the flesh, the slumbering sin
leapt ts consciousness and revolt. Apart from
the Law sin was dead, apart from the flesh it
had no foothold in man. Now this brings us
face to face with difficult yet important prob
lems. What did Paul mean by the flesh in
the specific sense in which he uses it here, and
what was his doctrine of the flesh? Holsten
held that Paul's doctrine shows marks of Greek
philosophy. Flesh and body are the same
thing under the categories of matter and form
respectively. Flesh is the finite and perishable,
in contrast to spirit, the divine, infinite, and
eternal. But it is in the sphere of the will
that this contrast is especially prominent. So
all sin resides in the flesh, and the flesh is
essentially sinful. Man is essentially nothing
but flesh. Against this the following objections
must be urged. First, it is a question whether
Paul exhibits any trace of Greek philosophy.
Beyschlag points out that, in his discussion of
the resurrection, Paul treats the resurrection of
the body or extinction as the two alternatives.

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 201
without considering the third possibility of the
immortality of the disembodied soul, and this
as showing how false it is to seek for traces
of Greek influence in his theology. Further, it
is improbable that the view, which Holsten
shares with other writers, that flesh and body
are at bottom identical will stand. Among
the works of the flesh Paul includes sins that
are not physical. Again, I do not think that
Holsten's conception of the Pauline doctrine
of the flesh would yield the Pauline doctrine
of sin, but something much less ethical. Nor
is it true that Paul's conception of human
nature is so Manichaean ; there is a higher
element in it than flesh, — there is the mind.
Pfleiderer, in the first edition of his " Paulinism,"
accepted the view that the flesh was essentially
sinful, but rejected the Manichaean elements in
the theory, and presented it in a more reason
able light. On the other hand, Wendt and
Dickson argued that Paul throughout adheres
to the Old Testament point of view, according
to which the flesh is a synonym for creaturely
weakness and infirmity. It is not essentially

202 BIBLICAL STUDY
sinful. But against this must be urged the
difficulty that it is hard to account for the
strength of Paul's language about the flesh if
he meant nothing more than this. It must be
remembered that it is not the mere passive
tool of sin. It is actively hostile to God. In
it dwdls no good thing, with it he serves the
law of sin, the flesh lusts against the spirit,
and has works of its own and a mind which
leads to death. It is the flesh which makes
the Law weak, because it is the flesh of sin.
The mind of the flesh is enmity against God,
and they who are in the flesh cannot please
Him. Could mere creaturely weakness have
justified such an indictment, especially in an
apostle who adhered to the Old Testament
usage, and therefore did not forget how the
very fact that mankind is flesh is there urged
as an apology for human weakness? Fur
ther, I believe it is a mistake to lay stress on
the Old Testament in this connexion. For
one thing the doctrine is not prominent in the
Old Testament, for another I think that Paulin
ism, meaning by this what is most character-

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 203
istically Pauline, is much less influenced by
the Old Testament than could naturally have
been expected. For example, Paul's doctrine
of the Law as the strength of sin is as unlike
what we find in the Psalms as we can well
imagine. It was the product of his own ex
perience, and this, I believe, was decisive for
his doctrine of the flesh. Why he chose the
term flesh to express this side of his nature,
which stood in such antagonism to the law of
God, is not clear. It may have started from
the physical sense of flesh as practically equiva
lent to body, and by a natural extension from
a connexion with physical sins have come to
be used for the seat of sin in general. Only in
the case of Paul, whose temptations seem not
to have been to coarse physical indulgence,
this seems improbable. Or it may start from
the Old Testament use, and from the antithesis
between man as flesh and God as spirit come
to express the sinful element in man as opposed
to the holiness of God. Yet there is this differ
ence. As the Old Testament uses the word^
man is merely flesh. Paul regards man as

204 BIBLICAL STUDY
consisting of flesh and mind. The precise
origin of the term is of less importance than
the Pauline use of it, and what I am chiefly
concerned to insist on is, that the flesh is not
the body nor a synonym for mere creaturely
weakness, but all that in human nature which
is hostile to God and righteousness. In all
men the flesh is present ; in other words, all are
sinners. This throws us back on the further
question : How are we to account for this uni
versal sinfulness? Historically Paul goes back
to the act of Adam, by which sin entered into
the world. In him all sinned, so, I think with
Meyer, Romans v. 12 must be taken. But how
could this be possible ? By the fact of the
solidarity of the race. Adam is the natural
head, and his acts are valid for the race. But
why should he hold this position of such tre
mendous importance that he should involve
the whole race in the consequences of his sin ?
Everything would be clear if we could assume
that Adam's act is valid for mankind because
it simply expresses a tendency universal in the
race. If we could assume that " the flesh "

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 205
was present in Adam, and that under the
stimulus of the commandment " sin revived "
and he died, we should understand why his
transgression was virtually the transgression of
the race. This would be to assume that " the
flesh " was inherent in human nature from the
start, and against this it may be urged that
Paul regards Adam's act as the entrance of
sin into the world, not the emergence into
activity of a principle present, though latent,
from the first. Yet this may not be conclusive.
The entrance could be interpreted of the first
overt manifestation of sin. And it is to be
noticed that Paul lays stress on what Adam
had in common with humanity, not on that in
which he stood distinguished from it. As is the
earthy such are they also that are earthy. And
the very fact of headship may be thought
to imply this. This, I should add, is not the
prevalent interpretation. The sin of Adam
brought death on all, but it did not involve
any in guilt. This is clear from the parallel
instituted between the work of Adam and that
of Christ. Christ undoes the work of Adam ;

2o6 BIBLICAL STUDY
that is, physical death is met by the resurrection
of the body. But the gaining of righteousness
is made conditional on acceptance of the work
of Christ by' the individual. Similarly the
guilt of Adam's sin can only attach to those
who by actual transgression make it their
own. As to the Law, Paul not only held that it
was the strength of sin, but that it had been
given in order that the trespass might abound.
This startling doctrine is quite original, and
could only have been suggested through his
experience of his own life under the Law, and
that as interpreted by the keenest religious in
sight. It was not indeed given that sin might
be increased, but that the sin already latent
might be brought out in its true colours.
As with his doctrine of the pre-Christian
state, so also with his doctrine of salvation, — it
is a product of experience. In that uniquely
important passage, Galatians i. 15, 16, lie as in
a nutshell some of his most important doctrines.
Here we have salvation traced to its source in
the gracious will of God, and the life-mission of

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 207
Paul predestined by it : the revelation of Jesus
as God's Son, which carried with it the Divinity
of Christ, and so a new doctrine of the God
head : that revelation within Paul, in which we
may well see his fundamental doctrine of sal
vation through union with Christ : and the
universalism which caught both Jew and Gen
tile in its all-embracing sweep. Other doctrines
are there by implication. Thus the death of
Jesus was a fact of history ; but when this was
seen to be the death of God's own Son, a
doctrine of the significance of this was already
a problem for solution. Then God's attitude
to the sinner, as gracious yet hating sin, was
shown by the death of His Son, and this death,
naturally interpreted by a Jew as sacrificial,
gave the grace full scope. And in his joyful
feeling that he was one with Christ Paul
realised that God pronounced him justified.
This justification had been by faith, which
meant for Paul that adoring self-abandonment
with which he had cast himself on Christ and
knew that he was one spirit with Him. The
Law and its works were passed away, salvation

2o8 BIBLICAL STUDY
was all of grace, and as one with Christ he
had attained the righteousness of God.
I must, however, speak a little more in detail
of some of these doctrines. Christ is the pre-
existent Son, who was the Agent in the work of
creation. Though in the form of God and on
an equality with Him, He emptied Himself
and became Man. He was sent by God in the
likeness of sinful flesh ; that is, according to the
common view, in flesh like the flesh of men,
except that it was not sinful flesh. The other
view that the flesh of Christ was flesh in which,
as in all others, sin was latent, but in which it
never passed over into actual trangression, must,
like every other view, be examined. It may be
held apart from the theory of redemption, to
which Dr. Bruce has given the name of redemp
tion by sample, though it has been associated
with it. As to Christ's work, we have to start
from His position as Second Adam, as the new
spiritual Head of the race. He reverses, and
much more than reverses, all the consequences
of Adam's sin. Just as all share in the act of
Adam, so all die in the death of Christ. In

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 209
both cases effects follow independent of the
will of those affected. But other effects are
realised through the concurrence of the indi
vidual will. This distinction it is important to
keep in mind. I may also add that the parallel
instituted by Paul between Christ and Adam is
of great value in that we are able to check the
interpretation of obscure details in one by the
clearer presentation in the other. Now in Paul
there are two sets of passages which speak of
death with Christ, and these must be carefully
distinguished. In one he speaks of all as dying
with Christ when He dies : this corresponds to
the sin of all when Adam sinned. The other
speaks of the death of the believer with Christ
through union with Him by faith : this corre
sponds to the individual act of sin by which the
sinner makes Adam's act his own ; if these are
not kept apart, confusion will result In the latter
case there enters the element of personal choice.
If I may venture to construct his doctrine
of salvation here, I should present it in this
way. To Paul the external facts of Christ's
passion and resurrection were outward and
14

2X0 BIBLICAL STUDY
visible symbols of great inward and spiritual
facts. The death of Christ was not simply on
behalf of our sins, it was a death to sin (Rom.
vi. lo). The crucifixion of the body symbolised
the condemnation of sin in the flesh, through
putting of the sinful flesh to death. For Christ
as Second Adam summed up in Himself the
whole of humanity, and thus all died in Him,
since the death of His flesh involved the de-
-struction of the sinful flesh in men. But His
death does not exhaust His redeeming work.
The resurrection is as indispensable to the com
plete salvation of man as the death of Christ
Just as Plis death was a death to sin, so His
resurrection inaugurates a new life unto God.
We might almost say that, on this side at any
rate, Paul attributes more efficacy to the resur
rection of Christ than He does to His death.
But how was this death to sin and resurrection
to a new life made effective in the experience of
the individual ? It was by means of the repro
duction in him of the same phenomena, accom
plished in the vital and mystic union of the
believer with Christ. But let it be noted that

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 211
this death of the believer with Christ to sin does
not take place in Christ's death on the cross.
It is connected with baptism, which pre-sup-
poses the personal acceptance of Christ. It is
also connected with the believer's personal faith.
Faith is with Paul a very rich idea. It is that
act of personal trust, that loving movement of
the whole soul to Christ, in which the spirit of
the believer blends with the spirit of His Lord.
And as one with Him, the experiences of Christ
become those of the believer ; not by any
fiction, but in the most literal way. We have
here a new personality. Christ and not self is
now his " ego." But if he has died with Christ,
he has received the penalty for sin. Nor is this
view fanciful, for it was supplemented by a
theory which extended the sufferings of Christ
through all time. It is true that on Calvary
not Christ alone but all humanity is held to
have died. But it is true also that not on Cal
vary alone was Christ crucified, but everywhere
and always. He suffered in His body on the
tree. He suffers in His members at all times.
Paul's own sufferings are a filling up of that

212 BIBLICAL STUDY
which is lacking of the sufferings of Christ ; he
bears branded on his body the stigmata of
Jesus. His great ambition is to know Him and
the power of His resurrection and the fellowship
of His sufferings, becoming conformed to His
death. He bears about with Him daily the
dying of Jesus. The value of our suffering is
due to this, that we are Christ's, and so our
sufferings become His sufferings too. We were
not simply one with Him on Calvary ; we are
one with Him now. It may be true that this
very view of our death with Christ is an exten
sion backward in a forensic way of our death
with Christ in personal experience, but it can by
no means be substituted for it. It is only when
seen in the light of this doctrine of union with
Christ that the Apostle's forensic teaching is
transfigured and softened, made radiant and
complete. We cannot, indeed, get rid of the
forensic character of his doctrine of Justification
by faith. And it may be asked. Is it right for
God to declare the sinner innocent on the
ground that he believes on Christ ? The an
swer is clear. It is right, for the very act of

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 213
faith makes him one with Christ But if a man
is in Christ, he is a new creature, the subject of
the old life is dead. In virtue of this complete
change, God is able to declare him innocent.
But no man is justified apart from union with
Christ ; so Paul can speak of being justified in
Christ. There is, so to speak, a snapping of the
thread of continuity which binds the past to
the present He is dead to that in which he
was holden, whether law or sin ; he has broken
for ever with the guilty past. The individual
who had incurred the guilt was, as it were, dead,
and in his place there was the indwelling Christ
And thus we have the guarantee for morality.
The believer is not only severed from his past
with all its guilt, but his life is one with that of
the risen Christ, and so a life unto holiness, a
new life unto God. The flesh, too, is crucified,
and thus the home of sin is destroyed. And
with sin and the flesh the Law was also done
away. Not simply the ritual, but also the moral
law, for Paul knows no distinction between the
two. A legal basis for ethics had been tried
and proved a failure. And so the moral law

214 BIBLICAL STUDY
was abolished in the interests of morality, which
ceased to be conformity to an external code,
that it might be the instinctive expression of the
Christ who lived within. The only law for the
man who has died with Christ, and whose life
is hid with Him in God, is the law of the spirit
of life in Christ Jesus.
I have in some measure deserted the strict
order of the subject, because I was anxious to
start in my exposition of his doctrine of salva
tion with his experience of union with Christ,
in which he had been crucified and raised with
Him ; and for the sake of keeping together
elements which cannot be separated without
loss I have followed it out into the conse
quences that flow from it — ^justification and the
new life. But there are other elements which
have only lightly been touched on, that require
more extended treatment. The most import
ant relates to the death of Christ in reference to
sin. Christ died for our sins. God set Him
forth as propitiatory. He became a curse for us
— became sin for us. The precise meaning of
these phrases is much disputed. If God had

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 2x5
dealt with sins apart from Christ, He must have
dealt with them by way of punishment But
the death of Christ has made it possible for God
to forgive the sinner and treat him with favour.
It is commonly thought that Christ endured the
punishment that should have been inflicted on
the guilty. Paul nowhere asserts this, and I
think it is not quite adequate as an interpreta
tion of his meaning. It is not so much that the
substitution of Christ for the sinner is wrong as
that it is incomplete. It suggests the view that
He suffered and died instead of the guilty race.
Looked at as a fact of external history, this is
true, but from the point of view of theology it is
more correct to say that in Him the guilty race
suffered and died. So far, that is, as the events
in Gethsemane and Calvary exhaust the work
of redemption, that suffering and death are, in
deed, concentrated on one man, but have their
efficacy not simply in the fact that He is an
individual, though the Son of God, but that He
is also the Second Adam, whose acts are valid
for the race of which He is Head. - But if it be
asked whether these great historical events ex-

2x6 BIBLICAL STUDY
haust what we should understand by the suffer
ings of Christ, what has already been said as to
Paul's doctrine of the extension of Christ's suf
fering through all time must not be forgotten.
It is on Calvary that God set forth His Son as
propitiatory ; but this was the climax and the
open manifestation of the suffering, in which He
bears the pains of the humanity He has united
with Himself We have no warrant for reading
into Paul's doctrine the notion of penalty. If it
is asserted that Paul interpreted His death as
sacrificial, and that in the Hebrew sacrifices the
death was of the nature of a penalty, this latter
statement must simply be denied. As to the
reconciliation effected by the Cross, it is first a
reconciliation of man to God, then probably in
some sense a reconciliation of God to man, and
lastly a reconciliation of man to man, especially
of Jew to Gentile.
I must barely mention the other doctrines
that call for notice. His doctrine of God is
the Old Testament doctrine, modified by the
new conception of Godhead that Christianity
brought with it The Jewish side of it comes

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 2x7
out in his treatment of such a question as that
of the election of Israel, where the sovereignty
of God is insisted on in a very Semitic way.
The doctrine of the Fatherhood of God has
not the central place it has in the teaching of
Christ, though, of course, it is present Yet
it is true that the influence of Christianity had
profoundly modified his conception of God.
The gift of His Son is an irresistible proof of
God's love, who will freely give all with Him.
The doctrine of the Church is most elaborately
drawn out in Ephesians, where it is described
as the body of Christ which has in Him its
Head, and therefore the centre of unity, so
that all who are united to Christ are members
of His body, and members one of another.
The Church is also described as the bride of
Christ. The ministry was of two kinds. There
were first the Apostles and Prophets, whose
ministry was exercised in virtue of a special
spiritual gift; then there were local officers of
less importance, such as overseers and deacons,
who also had a " gift," but of a more normal
type. As to his eschatology, which is the

2x8 BIBLICAL STUDY
only other point on which I must touch, he
unquestionably expected the speedy Second
Coming, though, perhaps, less confidently in the
latter than the earlier part of his ministry.
His doctrine of the Antichrist is generally in
terpreted of a movement in Judaism, held in
check for the time by the Roman power.
Serious difficulties encumber this view, and it
seems more probable that the apostasy is re
garded as taking place in the Church, while
both the man of sin and he that restraineth
belong to the sphere of heathenism. The
features of the man of sin seem to have been
modelled on Caligula, now some years dead,
and Paul seems to have anticipated that the
impious forces already manifested in him, and
then restrained for a time by Claudius, would,
when the latter was taken out of the way,
come to a head again, and be embodied in a
personal Antichrist, who should be destroyed
at the Second Coming. For another view,
which brings it into connexion with an earlier
Antichrist legend, Bousset's work on that
subject may be consulted. It is doubted by

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 219
some whether Paul taught a general resurrec
tion. I think with Meyer that i Corinthians
XV. 22 most naturally implies this, and it is
demanded by the parallel of Christ and Adam,
The view that the Epistle to the Hebrews
is the work of Paul has been surrendered by
all whose opinion need be taken into account,
but its evil effect lives on in the too frequent
assertion that the theology of the Epistle is
Pauline. Surely this is quite incorrect It
may be disputed whether it is Palestinian or
Alexandrian, but it can only be described as
Pauline in the loosest sense. The author, it is
true, has to face much the same problem as
Paul — that of saving his readers from falling
away to Judaism, but he treats it in an al
together different way, though he too reaches
the same result as Paul — that the Law has
been abolished for those who are Christians,
Not only, indeed, does his argument proceed
on different lines, but he starts from an alto
gether different point of view. To Paul the
Law came in beside, it was interpolated be
tween promise and fulfilment, stood in marked

220 BIBLICAL STUDY
contrast to Christianity, and lent sin all its
strength. In Hebrews the Law is viewed as
imf)erfect Christianity, the shadow of good
things to come, superseded when the perfect
religion has been revealed. The doctrine rests
on the principle that the heavenly archetypes
have their copies on earth. Judaism is the
pale copy of Christianity. The tabernacle is
made after the pattern shown to Moses in the
mount. Judaism belongs to the present age,
Christianity to the age to come. Yet this age
to come, while later than the present in
historical manifestation, exists in heaven within
the veil, and from it powers come forth to
be experienced by Christians, and they are,
even while on earth, united to it by the
anchor of hope which is cast within the veil.
The note of Judaism is imperfection, and there
fore transitoriness ; that of Christianity is per
fection, and therefore finality. It is not enough,
however, for the author to state his position, —
he must prove it. This he does in a very
elaborate way. Of his many-sided proof an
outline only can be given. Viewed as a re-

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 221
ligion of revelation, Judaism was inferior to
Christianity. For in the Prophets God had
been able only to speak in fragmentary utter
ances, but now He has spoken in a Son who,
as the perfect expression of His nature, has
given a complete and therefore final revelation
of His Father. Further, the Son is superior
to the angels who delivered the Law ; He is
Divine, the Creator of the universe, and His
reign will never cease. They are creatures
with personality so impermanent that they
are reduced by God to the condition of un
conscious forces of nature. Not only are they
inferior to the Son, but they are sent as
attendants to His followers. Therefore the
revelation and salvation brought by the Son
far surpass the Law given by angels. Nor
is the Messianic age subject to the angels.
All things have been made subject to man,
and though this is not seen as yet, it is al
ready visibly realised in Jesus, Who, while for
a time lower than the angels, has now been
crowned with glory and honour. We must
not be staggered by His humiliation and suffer-

222 BIBLICAL STUDY
ing, for only thus could He become one with
men, and so be qualified to be the Author of
their salvation. As Son, Christ is also superior
to Moses, who was only a servant. And as
Leader He is also superior to him and to
Joshua, for Moses did not even lead the Israel
ites into Canaan ; and though Joshua did this,
yet he did not thus bring them into the rest
of God ; but Christ has led His followers into
the rest that remained for the people of God.
He now passes on to prove that the priest
hood of Christ is superior to the Levitical.
This he shows by a threefold argument. It
is superior in itself, the sanctuary in which it
is exercised is superior, and the victim that
is offered is superior also. The priesthood of
Christ satisfies the conditions of a true priest
hood because He has been called to it of God,
and He is, through sympathy with men, gained
by knowledge of their life and its temptations
from the inside, able to represent them. His
chief argument for the superiority of Christ's
priesthood is that it is a priesthood after the
order of Melchizedek. Like him, Christ was

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 223
a king-priest, whose office did not depend on
His priestly lineage, but on His own intrinsic
worth. Abraham, by paying tithes to Mel
chizedek and receiving his blessing, confessed
his own inferiority, and implicitly that of Levi.
So the priesthood of Levi was inferior to that
of Melchizedek, and therefore to that of Christ.
Other . arguments adduced are — that the very
prediction of a new priesthood declared the
imperfection of the old ; that such a change of
priesthood, involving something so serious as
the change of the Law, implied serious defect ;
that, unlike the Levitical, the priesthood of
Christ has been proclaimed with an oath ; that
the Jewish high priests were subject to death,
and therefore the priesthood was subject to
change, while that of Christ, who abides for
ever, remains unchanged. The superiority of
His sanctuary is thus proved. He offers not
on earth, for He is not a Levite, but in heaven,
in the sanctuary pitched by God and not
man, which was the model for the earthly
tabernacle. Jeremiah had predicted a spiritual
covenant, which meant that the old covenant

2 24 BIBLICAL STUDY
and its sanctuary would be superseded. For
a covenant is to secure fellowship with God,
and the sanctuary is the means of its realisa
tion. But in thi^ the earthly tabernacle
failed. Its Holy of Holies remained inacces
sible, except to the High Priest on the Day
of Atonement, and only to him with blood.
And we thus come to the third point, the
superiority of the sacrifice. The coarse, animal
sacrifices of Judaism could in the nature of
things secure no more than ritual purification,
but the sacrifice of Christ, which was con
scious and voluntary and therefore moral, and
moreover the sacrifice of the Son of God,
cleansed the conscience. And His death was
needed that the new covenant might be ratified
with His blood, and that the heavenly inherit
ance might be ours. Unlike the yearly sacri
fice of the Day of Atonement, or the daily
but ineffectual sacrifices of the priests, the
single sacrifice of Christ is so efficacious that
it needs no repetition, but perfects for ever
them that are sanctified. And by His death,
which is the removal of the veil of flesh. He

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 225
has entered into the very presence of God,
and by His blood consecrated a new and living
way. Thus He has succeeded in bringing
men into open communion with God. But
only ideally, for while they remain on earth
the veil is not removed; Jesus has entered as
Forerunner, and this gives His followers the
joyful confidence that they will enter too.
But as yet they have not entered, otherv/ise
there would be no need of the hope which is
cast as an anchor within the veil. Now the
author was not unconscious of this schism
between the ideal and the real. Hence after
his argument for the superiority of Christianity
is complete, he adds a chapter on faith, partly,
no doubt, to encourage his readers to hold
fast, but also because of its importance for his
argument Faith is the flying bridge between
the actual and the ideal. It lifts us from the
present into the enjoyment of the future. It
carries us within the veil, since it gives the
power of realising that which we do not possess,
but for which we hope. And thus while we
have to wait with patience for the time when
15

226 BIBLICAL STUDY
the veil shall actually drop away, and we pass
after our Forerunner into the immediate
presence of God, this unhindered fellowship
with Him is already possible to us through
faith. There are many points of interest in this
Epistle. There is first the developed Christo
logy. This is not a matter of merely specula
tive interest to the author, but is vital for his
argument. Only the Son can be the perfect
revelation of God. Only a Son can reveal to
mankind the true filial attitude which men
should adopt towards God. But while Son of
God, He must also become man subject to all
human infirmities except sin, that He might
gain the sympathy which alone could qualify
Him to represent man to God as his High
Priest. Then, as to the work of Christ, it is
interpreted as a sacrifice, and in symbolism
borrowed in the main from the ritual of the
Day of Atonement Hence the sacrifice cul
minates not in the death of Christ, but in His
entrance through the veil into the immediate
presence of God, to Whom He presents Him-

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 227
self as our High Priest. Whether we should
think that He takes in His blood (of course,
not in a physical sense) and presents it to God
is not clear. The main idea that underlies his
statements is that by His sacrifice Christ has
removed from the conscience the sense of guilt,
and has thus taken out of the way the great
barrier that kept man from fellowship with
God. Why the sacrifice of Christ should have
this effect he does not explain, but he obviously
holds that it is to be explained on the analogy
of the Jewish sacrifices. The principle that
acted ineffectually in them acted with efficacy
in the sacrifice of Christ, but we are not told
what that principle was. Probably he held that
it was a matter of Divine appointment that the
remission of sin required the shedding of blood,
and did not feel that any reason for this need
be sought. The emphasis he lays on the suffer
ing of Christ is important, but it is not regarded
as part of His sacrifice, but as part of His
training for His office of High Priest The
absence of the mystical element, so prominent
in Paul's doctrine of union with Christ, and the

2j8 biblical study
different use of faith in the two writers, should
also be noticed. Christ is our Forerunner or
Leader whom we follow, or He is our Brother
Who is not ashamed to claim kinship with us,
but He is never spoken of as uniting us to Him
self so that we share His death and resurrec
tion. Nor, as with Paul, has the resurrection of
Christ any theological importance. The differ
ence between the two writers is, in fact, so great
that on the ground of the theology alone it is
certain that the Epistle to the Hebrews is in no
sense the work of Paul.
Of the theology of James Httle need be said.
It has a historical interest, since it represents
a Jewish Christianity which was more Jewish
than Christian. So much is this the case that
it has been possible for some to put forward the
view that it is fundamentally a Jewish writing
worked over by a Christian hand. This is not
probable, but the very fact that such a view can
be urged speaks for the strongly Jewish cha
racter of the Epistle. There is no reference to
the death and resurrection of Christ, which gives
it a somewhat unevangelical aspect This is

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 229
intensified by the legalistic way in which
Christianity is conceived. It is, perhaps, here
that the divergence from Paul comes out in the
most marked way. The dispute whether James
teaches justification by works as opposed to
Paul's doctrine of justification by faith has
concentrated attention on an apparent rather
than a real discrepancy, with the result that
the marked difference of the two men in
mental and spiritual atmosphere has scarcely
been emphasized enough. The Epistle should
be dear to an age which insists on an ethical
gospel that is not rooted in theology, for it is
as marked by the prominence of the one as by
the poverty of the other. It has many remin
iscences of the Sermon on the Mount Among
points of interest these may be mentioned :
What is the actual relation of James's doctrine
of justification to that of Paul ? Has he Paul
in his mind or a perversion of Paul's teaching,
or does he write without reference to him ?
Can the two doctrines be reconciled ; and if so,
how ? Shall we speak of a difference in the
sense attached to justification, whether of dif-

230 BIBLICAL STUDY
ferent stages, for which we have no warrant, or
a difference of time — Paul speaking of justifica
tion at conversion, James of justification at the
judgment ? If a reconciliation is to be sought,
this seems the most hopeful line on which to
seek it. The view that has found favour with
many, that James means by faith a dead
orthodoxy, is plausible at first sight, and sup
ported by the reference to the confession of
monotheism, but the sense will hardly stand
throughout the passage, and, if substantiated,
would not effect a reconciliation. For, as
Wieseler says, " It is one thing to say that a
man is justified by faith which is proved by
works, and another thing to say that a man is
justified by works in which faith is proved."
His doctrine of regeneration is not very clear ;
it is traced to its source in the will of God, and
the means by which it is effected is the word
of truth. But the gospel message has to be
taken into the heart, and there as an inward
principle of life secure conduct in conformity
with the Law, and final salvation. The Law
which is to be the standard of life is indeed

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 231
spoken of as the Law of liberty, which seems
to mean the Law which gives freedom from sin.
But this must not be identified with the Pauline
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which
makes us free from the law of sin and death.
It is the Jewish Law which he regards as bind
ing on his readers ; and from his principle of
the solidarity of the Law we gather that he
regards the ceremonial as well as the moral
law as binding. The doctrine of regeneration
through the implanted word perhaps owes its
origin to Jeremiah's prophecy of the new
covenant to be written on the heart
The First Epistle of Peter, I have already
said, is dated by Weiss earlier than the Epistles
of Paul. For my own part, I find it hard to
interpret without assuming the Pauline theo
logy as present to the writer. It is not only
that there are marked literary coincidences be
tween it and the Epistles to the Romans and
Ephesians, but there are striking theological
parallels. And what helps to determine the
priority is this, that in i Peter the doctrines are
isolated, and cannot be worked into a system

232 BIBLICAL STUDY
without conjecture. The most probable recon
struction gives an essentially Pauline type of
doctrine. Even if we did not know that Paul's
doctrine was original with him, it would still be
clear that it is more probable that the complete
system should be earlier and the isolated doc
trines borrowed from it, than that one writer
should throw out fragmentary hints without any
indication of the relation between them, and
then another writer work up these fragments into
a well-organised system. There are also note
worthy parallels to James, though not specially
theological, and some interesting affinities with
the Epistle to the Hebrews. At the same time
the author has an independent point of view.
He insists on the sufferings of Christ more than
Paul does, and one of his most important doc
trines is that the theocratic privileges of the
Old Covenant are transferred to the members
of the New. Among points of interest in the
theology of the Epistle the following may be
mentioned. The pre-existence of Christ seems
not to have been merely in the Divine foreknow
ledge, but to have been real, since His Spirit

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 233
was in the Prophets. The phrase " bore our sins
in His own body to the tree" can hardly be
interpreted " bore the punishment of our sins on
the tree." The idea rather is that He took our
sins into His body, and carried them up with
Him to the cross, apparently that they might be
put to death on it. Intimately connected with
this is the doctrine of the flesh. It is peculiarly
difficult, all the more so that Peter argues
apparently sometimes from the physical to the
ethical sense, these senses readily slipping into
each other. The death of Christ is more closely
defined by the phrases that He suffered in the
flesh and was put to death in the flesh. Further,
suffering in the flesh is intimately connected
with cessation from sin. Combining these facts,
we must interpret the death of Christ as such
a putting of the flesh to death as effects the
destruction of the sins that have been united
with it In the case of the individual Christian,
too, suffering in the flesh means release from
sin. And this, surely, not in the mere physical
sense ; for with all that may be said as to the
disciplinary value of suffering, it is surely too

234 BIBLICAL STUDY
much to say that it, even if carried to the point
of death, really involves release from sin. The
fact is, we are on thoroughly familiar Pauline
ground here, and Peter just means that those
who have crucified the flesh, to use Pauline
phraseology, have destroyed the seat of sin.
The Rabbinical parallels mean something quite
different Are we to go a step further, and say
that we have here not only Paul's doctrine that
the death of Christ is the putting to death of
the flesh and therefore a death to sin, and his
corresponding doctrine that Christians die to
sin by the crucifixion of the flesh, but the link
between these two — the doctrine of union with
Christ ? I think we may, and that not simply
on the ground that it is unlikely that, having
understood so much, Peter should have missed
the very heart of Paulinism, but on the actual
language he employs. He says, " Ye have
fellowship with the sufferings of Christ" It is
also to be observed that release from sin is
ascribed both to the bearing of our sins by
Christ in His body to the tree, and to our own
suffering in the flesh. The former statement

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 235
refers to our union with Christ on Calvary, the
latter to our experience of suffering in union
with Him now. And here, too, we are on
Pauline ground. This brings us naturally to
the other passages in which death in the flesh
is referred to. They are the famous passages
which speak of the preaching by Christ to the
spirits fn prison, and the preaching of the
gospel to the dead. Setting aside the attractive
but probably wrong view that the spirits in
prison are to be explained as the angelic sons
of God who wedded the daughters of men, and
assuming that the antediluvians destroyed in
the Deluge are the spirits in prison, two views
are possible. The former is that the preaching
of Christ was before the Deluge, and that He
spoke through Noah, a view adopted in modern
times by Schweizer and Hofmann, and more
recently by Profs. Salmond and Bovon. The
other is that taken by the vast majority of
modern commentators, and the only one that
seems strictly compatible with- the language
that he uses — that the scene of the ministry is
Hades, and that Christ there, after His death.

236 BIBLICAL STUDY
preached to those who had perished in the
Flood. The time of the preaching is probably
to be fixed between the Death and the Resur
rection. " Quickened in the spirit " should not,
I think, be explained as referring to the Resur
rection, for which it would be a very strange
expression, but as just the other side of the
death in the flesh. That is, the death in the
flesh was itself the quickening in the spirit
The very difficult passage, " for to this end was
the gospel preached even to the dead, that they
might be judged according to men in the flesh,
but might live according to God in the spirit,"
seems to me to express both in the judgment
and in the life according to God the effect of
Christ's preaching to the dead in Hades. This,
it is true, will not appear to be a possible inter
pretation to many, on the ground that it in
volves the apparently strange view that the
flesh can survive death. I can only say in reply
to this that it is no more strange in itself that
a man should be in the flesh after he is dead
than that he should not be in the flesh while
he is still alive. Yet the latter is one of the

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 237
commonplaces of Paulinism, Once the flesh
is identified with the sinful principle, it will
seem natural enough that it should survive
death in those who remain unrepentant I need
not point out that though this is not the
usual way of taking the passage, it is the
natural way of interpreting the Greek. And
in a writer who has assimilated so much of
the Pauline anthropology, this view, that the
unrepentant dead needed before they could
live according to God in the spirit to be judged
in the flesh, is not at all so strange as it appears
at first sight At the same time, it is only
because wc can assume a knowledge of Paul
inism in the author, that such an interpretation
of the flesh becomes even possible. If it still
seems improbable, it will be necessary to fall
back on the sense which does less justice to
the terms of the passage— that the judgment is
prior to the preaching, and must be interpreted
of their destruction in the Deluge.
It is unnecessary here to speak of the theo
logy of Jude and 2 Peter, or of that of the first
three Evangelists or the Acts of the Apostles.

238 BIBLICAL STUDY
I will only say that some conception may be
formed of the theological position of the Synop
tists from their selection of incidents, and still
more from their own contributions. At the same
time, so much depends here on criticism, and,
in our ignorance of what documentary or other
sources were used, on criticism working in the
dark, that not very considerable results can be
reached in this way. Tendencies, however, do
reveal themselves, so that in a general way we
can speak of their theological point of view.
Special study should be given to the speeches
of Peter, Stephen, James, and Paul in the Acts,
and the probability of their historical character
estimated. If genuine representations of the
theology of the men to whom they are attributed,
they are of great value for determining the
standpoint of the early Jewish Christians, and
for their exhibition of the missionary preaching
of Paul. As to the theology of the Apocalypse,
I prefer not to speak in the present state of the
critical question. It is certainly a work of great
historical importance, but till we are clearer on
the literary history it is of little use to speak

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 239
of its theology. If its unity were certain, the
case would be quite different, for then the main
lines of the interpretation would be sufficiently
assured to make the general theological position
of the writer evident And it is quite possible
that criticism will come back to the older view,
which several critics have not deserted. Still
so many eminent critics now regard the work
as composite, though they are far from agreed
as to its sources, that it is not safe to assume
the unity. The divergence of view among those
who regard it as composite is too great to make
it wise to linger over the theology, even if the
unity were rejected. Bousset's " The Antichrist
Legend " may here again be consulted.
The teaching of Jesus is so occasional and
unsystematic, that it is natural to shrink from
speaking of it as we can of the theology of
Paul or Peter or John. Yet something must be
said, at ieast in outline. It will be necessary
to keep distinct the representations in the Syn
optists and the Fourth Gospel, and when they
have been independently treated they may be
compared. The fundamental doctrine is the

240 BIBLICAL STUDY
Fatherhood of God. Yet even this is variously
interpreted. Some deny that the Fatherhood
is universal, and say that it is limited to the re
generate ; others, such as Wendt, hold a limited
Sonship along with a universal Fatherhood. God
is the Father of all men, but men have to become
His sons. Others hold that the Sonship is as
unlimited as the Fatherhood ; God is the Father
of all men, and all men are the children of God.
Between the two latter the difference is perhaps
not so great as it seems at first sight. Those
who say that men must become sons of God
would admit that they are potentially sons of
God ; while those who insist that they are sons
would still say that they must realize their
sonship. As to which of these views is right,
it may be asserted with confidence that the
whole trend of the teaching of Jesus is that
God is the Father of all men. And the
parable of the Prodigal Son seems to carry
with it the universal Sonship as well as the
universal Fatherhood. He remains a son,
though in the depths of his penitence and self-
despising he feels unworthy of this position.

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 241
It is true that before he can benefit by his
sonship he has to return to his father's house
and realize it ; but it is the fact that he is son
that saves him in extremities and gives him the
right to return, I do not think that the asser
tion made by Jesus, according to the Fourth
Gospel, that the hostile Jews were not sons of
God, but sons of the devil, really conflicts with
this, for in the context, while allowing that
they were Abraham's seed, He denies that
they were the children of Abraham, and
calls them the children of the devil. The
reference is simply to the fact that in character
and act they were like the devil rather than
God or Abraham, I may add, as to the doc
trine of the Fatherhood of God, that, while it
was not absolutely new, its emphasis was
original, Christ's doctrine of His own Person
should be examined next First, there is His
consciousness of a unique filial relation to God,
expressed in such language as My Father, or
the Son. Then there is His favourite term for
Himself, the Son of Man, of which much has
been written, Wellhausen lays down as a
16

242 BIBLICAL STUDY
critical canon that to discover the words of
Jesus in their original form we must employ
retranslation into Aramaic, Nothing can be
authentic if it will not lend itself to expression
in Aramaic, Retranslating the term Son of
Man into Aramaic, he says that it means man
simply. If so, it emphasizes His feeling of
oneness with humanity. The question is com
plicated by its use in the Book of Enoch, as to
which Wellhausen says that this is an indication
of Christian influence on the section of the
book where it occurs, Mr. Charles, the latest
editor of the book, believes that the whole work
was edited before the Christian era. From this
the student may pass on to the Messianic
consciousness of Jesus, and with this should be
taken His conception of the functions the
Messiah had to fulfil. As to the question of
the pre-existence of Christ, it is denied by
some that Jesus Himself taught this. If the
Johannine passages which speak of it do "not
report authentic sayings of Jesus, this view is
quite defensible. What is strange is that some
have accepted the sayings as authentic, and

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 243
then denied that they expressed a consciousness
of pre-existence on the part of Jesus. This
seems possible only by the most violent exe
gesis. Next might be taken His attitude to
His Death, a subject on which He speaks but
rarely in the Synoptists, so far as its theological
significance is concerned, but much oftener
according to the Johannine tradition. Then
His doctrine of Man might follow, optimistic as
to his possibilities, with the clearest recognition
of his actual sinfulness. From this, by a
natural transition, we pass to the largest sec
tion, though not the most fundamental — the
doctrine of the Kingdom of God, in which the
doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, and its
corollary, the Brotherhood of Men, found ex
pression. It is necessary at the outset to ex
amine the view that to Jesus the Kingdom was
an eschatological conception. If so, it would
involve most serious consequences. Thus
Harnack, after saying that criticism has not
altered " the main lineaments of the personality
of Christ, and the sense and true point of His
sayings," proceeds : " I admit that if historical

244 BIBLICAL STUDY
research had proved that He was an apocalyptic
enthusiast or a visionary, whose image and
utterance were advanced to the level of pure aim
and lofty thought only by the refining influence
of later times, it would be another matter."
Assuming as the result of such an inquiry that
this view will be set aside, the next question
will be. What did Jesus mean by the Kingdom ?
To answer this, a careful collection of the pas
sages in which He speaks of it will be necessary.
The blessings it conferred, and the conditions
on which they may be attained, the meaning
of the righteousness of the Kingdom, the
ethics of the Kingdom and the future that He
anticipated for it, its relation to the Church, —
all these subjects must be examined. These
are merely hints, but they may serve the pur
pose of guiding study. We may test the results
we gain from a study of the Gospels by the
Epistles, and the impression which Jesus made
on the early Church. As to the originality of
Jesus, I may quote the caustic words of Well
hausen : " The Jewish scholars say, all that
Jesus said is also to be found in the Talmud.

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 245
Yes, all and a great deal besides." He asks how
it is that no one else has found the true and
the eternal in this wilderness of legal erudition.
And he asks, further, If a saying of Jesus is
attributed in the Talmud to Hillel, can we make
sure that the Talmud is right? The relation
of the teaching of Jesus to other systems of
theology in the New Testament, especially the
Pauline, is very important. It is reasonable to
think that for some of the doctrines which are
found both in Paul and the primitive Apostles
we should seek the source in the teaching of
Jesus. That Christ died for sin is one such
doctrine. It would be unsafe to assert this in
every case ; thus Paul shared with the early
Apostles the expectation of the speedy second
coming ; but it is not probable that Jesus Himself
taught this. There is another question raised
as to the relation of Paul to Jesus. Where Paul
has put forward doctrines which are not to be
found in the teaching of Jesus, how far may
they be regarded as legitimate developments
of doctrines already present in that teaching,
or, at any rate, not contrary to it ?

246 BIBLICAL STUDY
I come lastly to the theology of John. It
is rich and deep, yet so intangible that it eludes
analysis. No one was ever less of a systematic
theologian than John, and his teaching, there
fore, does not lend itself to systematic state
ment as does that of Paul. Yet there are
leading principles in it, which may be clearly
stated, often in aphoristic form. As to the
method there is one serious difficulty. Should
the reports of the teaching of Jesus given in
the Gospel be used as sources for the theology
of John? If these discourses were invented
by the author, then they could be taken with
out more ado as sources for the author's
theology. If they were verbatim reports of
what Jesus said, it might be urged that they
should be left aside and used only as sources
for the teaching of Jesus. On the other hand,
it might be said that the author has reported
those discourses of Jesus for which he had most
affinity, and that he would certainly accept
them as authoritative, and incorporate their
theology in his own. We cannot, hawever,
assume that he had completely assimilated the

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 247
teaching of his Master. There is an inter
mediate position between acceptance of the
discourses as verbatim reports and rejection of
them as altogether invented. This covers a
variety of opinions shading from one extreme
to the other. The substance and phraseology
may be regarded as genuine, while the form
and arrangement may be assigned to the author.
Or the substance may be authentic, while the
phraseology is assigned to the author. Or even
the substance may be thought to be a free
working up of genuine sayings of Jesus. There
is also difficulty sometimes in determining
where the word of Jesus ends and the comment
of the Evangelist begins. This difficulty of
disengaging his reflections from the teaching of
Jesus shows how close is the resemblance be
tween them. This confirms the view that the
report of the words of Jesus has been modified
by passing through the mind of John. It
should be said, on the other hand, that there
are well-marked distinctions between them. It
would probably be best at first to take account
only of the Epistle and those parts of the

248 BIBLICAL STUDY
Gospel which express the mind of the author
himself Later, the teaching of Jesus, as given
in the Gospel, may be compared with that of
John himself The very plan of his Gospel is
important for the understanding of his theology.
The whole scheme which he has elaborated,
with faith growing to higher faith, and unbelief
developing to ever-deepening unbelief, shows
the lines on which he conceived the great con
test between light and darkness to be carried
on. His Gospel is, indeed, as it has been called,
the Gospel of the eternal, and starts with the
pre-existent life of the Logos. Yet his theology
is not of the kind that airily dispenses with
history. It shows us the Logos active in
creation and history, and finally becoming flesh
and manifesting His glory by this revelation of
God under the conditions of space and time.
He was the eternal Word, who, coming from
the bosom of the Father, revealed Him, since
He was the perfect expression of His nature.
The God thus revealed was Love, Light, and
Life. The Logos was His Agent in creation
and the Life of the universe. He was the Light

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 249
that lighteth every man. But He was not only
the Logos but the eternal Son, the gift of
Whom to the world was the supreme proof
of the Father's love. When He became man
He was rejected by the Jews, but received by
a few kindred spirits to whom He gave the
right to become sons of God. This reception
and rejection mirrored the subsequent history
of the faith. The world in general lies in the
evil one, and is destined to pass away, while
those who have received the Son of God have
with Him received eternal life. Yet although
the conflict is still proceeding between Christ
and the devil, between the children of God and
the children of the devil, between light and
darkness, the end is already certain, the victory
already won. But it is still necessary to be
on guard, especially against the spirit of Anti
christ, which denies the reality of the Incar
nation. The Christian life is one of fellowship
with God, whereby we walk in His light, ex
perience His love, find our home in Him, as
He finds His home in us. It begins with the
confession of sin and its forgiveness, faith in

2SO BIBLICAL STUDY
Christ and cleansing by His blood. Its moral
standard is high : fellowship with God means
a love and light in the Christian which cor
responds to His own. As it is thus tested
by its correspondence with the character of
God, that can be no true life which is marked
by hatred or darkness. Yet religion is not a
matter solely of personal rectitude, or even of
fellowship between God and the individual soul.
Wherever the love of God has been truly felt
it is answered by love of the brethren. With
all his idealism and mysticism John has the
keenest eye for practice. Nothing will con
vince him that a man really loves God unless
he loves his brother too. Among points for
special investigation the following may be men
tioned. There is first the origin of the term
Logos in the Prologue, whether it was bor
rowed by John from Alexandria, or Palestine.
Those who have denied the authenticity of the
Gospel have generally assumed an Alexandrian
origin, those who have defended it, generallj' a
Palestinian. Harnack has said that the Logos
of John and the Logos of Philo have nothing

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 251
in common but the name. Perhaps this is
intrinsically the more probable view, t|;iough
even so it would not be incompatible with an
Alexandrian origin, for the Christian facts so
profoundly modified the doctrine in any case
that a likeness between John's doctrine and a
pre-Christian one is not to be looked for. Then
there is the alleged dualism of John. It is
asserted that John divides mankind into two
classes — those who are by nature incapable of
rejecting Christ, and those who are by nature
unable to receive Him. The former are the
children of God, the latter are the children of
the devil. But against this it may' be said
that the writer insists on the universalism of
the Divine purpose of salvation, God loves the
world and has sent His Son to save it, though
it lies in the evil one. The inability is not due
to a necessity of nature, whereby, as Hase
justly says, "a moral relation is falsely trans
lated into, a metaphysical relation." Next,
there is the hostility to Judaism and the Jews,
which some have alleged. No doubt the Jews
are mentioned frequently in that attitude of

252 BIBLICAL STUDY
hostility to Jesus which they actually assumed.
But there are numerous passages which recog
nise the position of the Jews as one of privilege
or honour. The doctrine of the death of Christ
calls for careful examination. It is the great
manifestation of the love both of the Father
and the Son. The Father sent the Son, not
simply to reveal Himself, but to be the Saviour
of the world. This is further defined by the
statement that He sent Him to be the pro
pitiation for our sins. He was manifested that
He might take away sin, and destroy the work
of the devil. He came by water and blood, and
His blood cleanses from all sin. These terms,
"propitiation" and "blood," have already met
us in other New Testament writings, where also
they have needed examination. It is obvious
that the interpretation of the term " blood "
must be ruled by the Hebraic associations
which gathered round the word. It is only
by falling back on the sacrificial system of the
Old Testament, which again has to be inter
preted by its ethnic antecedents, that we can
rightly interpret it. The blood is the life, or

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 253
the life is in the blood, and when it is shed it
does not cease to be living, but it is separated
from the body in whose veins it had run, and
thus set free to be applied to the altar or to
the worshipper. Other points may be simply
mentioned : the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, of
sin as lawlessness, and of the sin unto death,
of Antichrist, and of last things.
In conclusion, I may say that I hope that
the foregoing chapters will be helpful in sug
gesting lines of study to some of those who
read them. I will ask them to take them as
they are meant, as suggestive and in no way
exhaustive, and to remember the limitation of
treatment involved in the nature of the case.
I gladly recognise that the keenest insight into
the xieep things of God is given by the Holy
Spirit, who is sent to guide us into all truth,
and to bestow the purged vision which can
alone penetrate to their inmost secret. But
obstinate prejudice that will not learn is a sure
hindrance to the Spirit's work. A humble
reverence for facts is one of the most gracious
signs of a teachable disposition. For those who

254 BIBLICAL STUDY
are without it. Biblical Study will be beset with
limitations and with errors, and the sad words
of the prophet will receive a new illustration :
" Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him alone."

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX TO
CHAPTER III
I PREFIX to the bibliographical note proper a few
practical hints for those who may be studying Hebrew
with little or no help from a teacher. At first, the easier
prose parts of the Bible should be read — such as
Genesis, with Mr. Spurrell's Notes, and Samuel, with
Dr. Driver's Notes ; the latter, read as illustrating the
principles explained in the introductory chapter of Dr.
Driver's work, will, at the same time, serve as an excel
lent introduction to the study of Old Testament textual
criticism. The prophetic style is more difficult than the
historical ; it may be approached through the Book of
Amos. In reading this, Dr. Driver's " Joel and Amos "
(Camb. Bible) will be found very useful, containing as it
does numerous notes on the Hebrew text. With Hebrew
poetry the student will have made some acquaintance in
reading Genesis and Samuel. Of the poetical books
proper, Job, which is very difficult, should not be at
tempted till a considerable mastery of the language has
been obtained. The Psalms vary much in difficulty, but
some of them may be read comparatively early.
The student cannot be too strongly recommended to
discipline himself thoroughly in the forms of the language
by punctuating unpointed passages. Several sections of
the Bible have been inexpensively published, and may
=55

2s6 BIBLICAL STUDY
be conveniently used for this purpose. In the first
instance it will be best to punctuate a passage recently
read (say after two or three days) ; but the time between
seeing the punctuated text and doing the exercise in
punctuation should be gradually extended. These exer
cises can, of course, be corrected by the student himself
by help of the pointed text ; but he ought also freely to
use his grammar so as to discover the principles violated
by his incorrect punctuation.
Another useful exercise is to translate into Hebrew
passages of the R.V. In this case, too, passages should at
first be chosen from the narrative and historical portions.
If possible, this should be supplemented by translations
of other passages of English prose under the guidance
of a teacher.
I. Old Testament.
Dictionaries. — "A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament, with an Appendix containing the
Biblical Aramaic (based on Robinson's translation of
Gesenius' Lexicon)," by Drs. Brown, Driver, and Briggs.
This is indispensable. At present the first five parts
only have appeared : the work will be complete in
about eleven. The English edition is published by the
Oxford , University Press. Davies' " Student's Hebrew
Lexicon" is small but useful The English edition of
Gesenius' " Hebrew Lexicon," by Tregelles, and the
American edition of the same work by Robinson, are
larger, but they will become entirely antiquated when
the new edition by Drs. Brown, Driver, and Briggs is
complete. On the other hand, Gesenius' " Thesaurus "
(3 vols, in Latin, 1835-1858 : completed by Rodiger) will
still be of use to the advanced student.
Concordances. — Of these, perhaps the most con
venient is B. Davidson's, but Fiirst's is also to be recom-

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX 257
mended. Neitherj however, contains the particles ; these
will be found in Noldius' " Concordantiae Particularum
Ebrseo-Chaldaicarum." The most recent, most com
plete, and most expensive Hebrew Concordance is
Mandelkern's (published by Veit, of Leipzig). This
includes the particles. All the foregoing take account
of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) text only. The English
man's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance is a con
cordance to the Hebrew text, but gives the citations in
English. Grammars. — "An Introductory Hebrew Grammar"
(with Exercises), and "A Hebrew Syntax," by Dr. A. B.
Davidson. As supplementary to the former of these,
Strack's "Hebrew Grammar" may be advantageously
used ; and Driver's " Hebrew Tenses " is invaluable and
indispensable. There is no single Grammar in English
adequately covering the whole subject. The existing
translations of Gesenius' Grammar are made from too
early an edition to be in any way satisfactory. A trans
lation of the latest much enlarged and thoroughly revised
edition by Kautzsch is understood to be in preparation.
The last part of Ewald's Hebrew Grammar has been
translated and published under the title of "Syntax of
the Hebrew Language." (T. & T. Clark.)
There is no satisfactory English Grammar of Biblical
Aramaic. "An Aramaic Method," by Charles Rufus
Brown (Chicago), takes account of other forms of
Aramaic, and the texts printed in Part I. are entirely
extra-Biblical; but Part II., containing the Grammar,
distinguishes the Biblical from other Aramaic forms.
The paradigms and brief notes (in Latin) are prefixed to
Baer and Delitzsch's edition of Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Daniel ; but the paradigms printed contain forms which
do not actually occur in the literature. Winer's " Chaldee
17

2s8 BIBLICAL STUDY
Grammar," of which an early edition was translated into
English, is fuller, but in many respects antiquated. It
also treats of the language of the Targums. None of
the recent excellent German Grammars by Kautzsch,
Strack, and Marti (the two latter containing the Biblical
texts) has yet been translated.
Texts. — The best editions of the Massoretic text are
by Baer and Delitzsch (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy are not yet issued), and by Ginsburg (pub
lished by the Trinitarian Bible Society). The best
edition of the unpointed text is Forster's ; Bagster's
unpointed Hebrew Bible is also convenient, though the
type is very small. " The Sacred Books of the Old Tes
tament," by various eminent Hebrew scholars (general
editor Prof. Haupt) is in course of publication. The
Hebrew text is here also printed without points ; it is
not, however, the traditional consonantal text, but an
attempt by means of a critical use of the versions and
other critical methods to represent the original text.
Separate sections convenient for exercises in punctuation
are Genesis (edited by Muelhau and Kautzsch, published
by J. A. Barth, Leipzig), Psalms (Clarendon Press),
Isaiah xl.-lxvi (edited by Kraetzschmar, published by
Mohr, Freiburg) ; a " Selection of Passages of unpointed
Hebrew," by W. H. Bennett (Cambridge University
Press). II. New Testament.
Dictionaries. — "A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament, being a translation enlarged and re
vised of Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti," by
Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D. This is indispensable.
Cremer's " Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek '' will be a valuable addition to the fore
going, but cannot be substituted for it.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX 259
Concordance. — " Concordance to the Greek Testa
ment," by Dr. Moulton and Mr. Geden.
Grammars. — The standard work is Winer's " Gram
mar of New Testament Greek," of which the German
edition of 1855 was translated with numerous additions
by Dr. Moulton in 1870 ; this English edition has been
several times reissued. Two volumes of the " Theolo
gical Educator " form a briefer introduction (of indepen
dent value) to the study — " The Language of the New
Testament," and " The Writers of the New Testament :
their Style and Characteristics," both by the Rev. W.
H. Simcox. Burton's " New Testament Moods and
Tenses" is important. As to Hatch's invaluable "Essays
in Biblical Greek," see Chapter III.
Texts.— Westcott and Hort's " New Testament in the
Original Greek." For many purposes the student will
also find it convenient to possess "The New Testa
ment in Greek, with the Readings adopted by the
Revisers." For the critical apparatus, Tischendorfs
"Novum Testamentum Graece" (8th edition) will be
found most complete.
In addition to the literature directly connected with
the original texts of the Bible, the following books
relating to the LXX., the study of which was shown in
Chapter III. to be so closely connected with that both
of the Old Testament and New Testament in the
original, may be mentioned : " The Old Testament in
Greek according to the Septuagint," edited by Dr. Swete.
This gives the text of the Vatican MS., and where this
is wanting clearly indicates in the margin the MS. from
which the text is printed. The variants of the chief
uncial MSS. are also given. The best Concordance is
Hatch and Redpath's " Concordance to the Septuagint
and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament."

26o BIBLICAL STUDY
Schleusner's " Lexicon in Vetus Testamentum " is still
useful, but needs to be used with great discretion.
" An Introduction to the Greek Old Testament," by Dr.
Swete, is announced as in preparation.
G. B. G.

ADDENDA
Page 37. Add Skinner, " Isaiah i.-xxxix." (Camb. Bible).
Page 38. Add Driver, " Joel and Amos " (Camb. Bible).
Page 40. Add Plummer, " St. Luke " (International
Crit. Comm.), and Rendall, "The Acts of the
Apostles."
Page 42. Add Liddon, " An Explanatory Analysis of St
Paul's First Epistle to Timothy.''
Page S3, /. 21. Add Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient
MSS." (gives useful information on the text of both
O.T. and N.T.).
P'^S^^ 55- Add Kent, "A History of the Hebrew People "
(2 vols.).
Page 60. Add Woods, "The Hope of Israel" to works
on Messianic Prophecy.
Page 62. Add Jevons, " An Introduction to the History
of Religion."
Page 64. Add Schwartzkopff, "The Prophecies of Jesus
Christ."
Page 75, /. 13. In Hosea iii. 5, the only words suspected
are : "And David their king."
Pages 85, 86. Streane's " Double Text of Jeremiah " will
be found very useful in tracing the origin of the
divergencies between the Hebrew and LXX. The
reconstruction of the text in Workman's " The Text
of Jeremiah," is vitiated by its assumption that the
261

262 BIBLICAL STUDY
variations in the LXX. are to be explained through
out by a single cause, — the presence of these varia
tions in the Hebrew text from which the LXX.
translation was made. The truth is that very many
of these variations were never present in any Hebrew
text, but are due to a variety of causes.
By far the most important of the critical questions
raised by the Book of Jeremiah is that relating to
the authenticity of the new covenant passage
(xxxi. 31 ff.). Stade and Smend have denied it, but
it is defended by Kuenen, Cornill, and others. Our
estimate of Jeremiah's importance for the history of
religion would be considerably affected by its de
letion from his writings. The references to it by
Christ in the institution of the Supper, by Paul in
2 Corinthians iii., and the great use made of it in
his argument by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, show what significance they attached to it
as a description of the essence of Christianity. The
epoch-making character of the prophecy would be
destroyed if Smend were right in denying that it
utters the doctrine of individualism in religion. But
he is probably not right, for there are other passages
in Jeremiah which look in the same direction.
Page 97, /. 4. Dillmann thinks that Deuteronomy i. 6-
iii. 29 was originally written as a historical intro
duction to the main portion of the book and by the
same author. When Deuteronomy was incorporated
in the Hexateuch, this introduction, as it could not
stand side by side with the historical parts of the
earlier books, was changed into an address by
Moses. Unfortunately this only accounts for part
of the introduction, not for iv. 1-40, which, like
chapters v.-xi. is hortatory in character, and which

ADDENDA 263
he takes to have formed part of the original work,
but to have come at the end along with parts of xxix.
and xxx. It is on his reconstruction of this closing
section that the theory breaks down (see Driver,
"Deuteronomy," pp. Ixxii.-lxxv.). The chief reason
for the view taken in the text, that Deuteronomy
i. i-iv. 40 formed no part of the original work, is
that it is unlikely that the author should have pre
fixed two introductions to his code.
Page 97, /. 12. The publication of Prof. Hommel's work
on " Ancient Hebrew Tradition " in no essential
respect affects the critical position. The writer
admits the validity of the literary analysis, but denies
that the Grafian school has correctly dated the
documents. His argument rarely intersects the line
of proof on which the School relies, and therefore,
while it may be a " protest," can hardly be called a
reply. Some of the conclusions are based on very
disputable premises ; and even if the latter were
certain, the inferences drawn often do not follow ;
nor would his conclusions, if established, have the
far-reaching results that he anticipates. It is well
known that the late codification of ritual laws by no
means precludes the great antiquity of much of the
ritual, and that many of the institutions referred to
in the Priestly Code are very ancient is certain.
And if it could be shown that the names were of an
antique formation, this could be accounted for by
allowing that the document had incorporated ancient
name-lists. But it is not probable, in the face of
Mr. Gray's investigations in his " Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names," that the antiquity of the lists can
be maintained. What is often forgotten is, that in
its main outlines the critical view rests on data found

264 BIBLICAL STUDY
in the Bible itself, and therefore no archaiological
discovery is likely to overthrow it, for these data
would remain to be accounted for. The English
reader should be warned that the translation is not
only often inaccurate, but in some instances mis
represents and even suppresses statements in the
original.
Page loo. The statement in the text in no way pre
cludes the view that the poet of Job borrowed the
prose sections from a prose book of Job. This is
the opinion of Cheyne, and of the two latest com
mentators Budde and Duhm. If such a book
existed, it was probably known to Ezekiel (xiv. 14).
The important point is not whether the author of
the poem wrote the Prologue and Epilogue himself,
but whether the poem was written with reference to
the prose portions of the book.
Page 142, /. 6. The Revised Version has substituted
the probably correct translation " goat for Azazel "
for "scape-goat," in the law for the Day of Atone
ment (Lev. xvi.). Scholars are divided on the origin
of the name " Azazel," some thinking that he is to
be regarded as the chief of the forest demons.
Prof Cheyne, dissenting from this view, thinks that
the rite was devised by the author of the legislation
in order to purify, while taking up, certain popular
"ideas. Analogous customs are widespread, not only
sin but disease being laid upon animal or human
victims, and borne away by them. (See Frazer,
" The Golden Bough," for instances.)

?utler & Tanner, Tbe Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.

HODDER & STOUGHTON'S LIST.

Third Edition. Revised, with new Preface and Index.
Svo, cloth, -with Map, los. td.
ST. PAUL THE TRAVELLER AND
THE ROMAN CITIZEN.
By W. M. Ramsay, D.C.L., LL.D., Professor of Humanity,
Aberdeen ; Author of " The Church in the Roman Empire," etc.
*' Professor Ramsay brings not only his great experience as a traveller
and archfeologist, but the resources of an ingenious mind, and a lively style.
The book is, like everything Professor Ramsay does, extraordinarily alive.
It shows everywhere personal learning, personal impression; it has the
sharp touch of the traveller and the eye-witness." — Tiines.

Fifth Edition, With Maps and Illustrations. Svo, cloth^ 12J,
THE CHURCH IN THE ROMAN EM
PIRE BEFORE A.D. 170.
By W. M. Ramsay, M.A., D.C.L., Professor of Humanity in
the University of Aberdeen.
" This volume is the most important contribution to the study of early
Church History which has been published ia this country since the great
work of Bishop Lightfoot on the Apostolic fathers. It is, too, unless our
memory fails us, without a rival in any foreign country." — Guardian.

With Six Maps, specially prepared. Eighth Thousand.
Svo, cloth, 15J.
THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF
THE HOLY LAND.
By George Adam Smith, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow.
" Professor Smith is well equipped at all points for this work. He is
abreast of the latest findings of Scripture exegesis, and of geographical
survey, and of archaeological exploration ; and he has himself travelled
widely over Palestine. The value of the work is incalculably increased by
the series of geographical maps, the first of the kind representing the whole
lift and lie of the land by gradations of colonT."—Scif£sman.

London: HODDER & STOUGHTON. 27, Paternoster Row.
18

WORKS BY THE REV. PRINCIPAL
FAIRBAIRN, D.D.
Seventh Edition. Svo, cloth, izs.
CHRIST IN MODERN THEOLOGY.
" His work is, without doubt, one of the most valuable and comprehen
sive contributions to theology that has been made during this generation," —
T/te spectator.

Sixth Edition. Svo, cloth, js. 6d.
THE CITY OF GOD.
" The author approaches the various subjects passed under review in his
striking and beautiful book, with a poetic depth and refinement of feeling
and expression, which we greatly appreciate. He frequently waxes into
eloquence which is both thrilling and impressive. His language is nearly
always as felicitous as it could be, and never lacks vigour." — Literary
World.

Eleventh Thousand. Crown Svo, cloth, y. 6d.
RELIGION IN HISTORY AND IN
MODERN LIFE.
" There is much that is good and striking in these lectures." — Church
Times. "A timely and weighty contribution to a subject which theologians but
too seldom venture to grapple with." — The Scotstnan,
" It is one of the best pieces of work which even Principal Fairbairn has
ever done." — Aberdeen Free Press.

Ninth Edition. Demy Svo, gs.
STUDIES IN LIFE OF CHRIST.
"The thoughts are subtle and incisive, and the style scholarly — glowing
ever and anon into a rare beauty." — Methodist Recorder.

London: HODDER & STOUGHTON, a/, Paternoster Row.

LITTLE BOOKS ON RELIGION.
Edited by
THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL,D.
Cloth elegant, is. 6d. each.

CHRIST AND THE FUTURE LIFE.
By the Rev. R. W. DALE, D.D., LL.D.
THE SEVEN WORDS FROM THE
CROSS.
By the Rev. W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D.
THE VISIONS OF A PROPHET.
Studies in Zechariah.
By the Rev. Professor Marcus Dods, D.D.
THE FOUR TEMPERAMENTS.
By the Rev. Alexander Whyte, D.D.
THE UPPER ROOM.
By the Rev. John Watson, M. A., D.D. , Author of " Beside the
Bonnie Brier Bush."
FOUR PSALMS.
By the Rev. Prof. G. A. Smith, D.D.
WHY BE A CHRISTIAN ?
And other Addresses to Young Men.
By the Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.
THE UNITY AND SYMMETRY OF
THE BIBLE.
By the Rev. John Monro Gibson, M.A., D.D.
GOSPEL QUESTIONS and ANSWERS.
By the Rev. James Denney, D.D., Author of " Studies in
Theology," etc.
THE HOLY FATHER AND THE
LIVING CHRIST.
By the Rev. P. T. Forsyth, D.D.
FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH.
By the Rev. J. H. Jowett, M.A.
Londok: hodder & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row.
3

THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.
Edited by
THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
Fcap. Svo, cloth, price 2s. 6d. each.

A MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
By the Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., D.D.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRI
TICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. Prof. B. B. Warfield, D.D.
A HEBREW GRAMMAR.
By the Rev. W. H. LowE, M.A., Hebrew Lecturer, Christ's
College, Cambridge.
A MANUAL OF CHURCH HISTORY.
In Two Parts. By the Rev. A. C. Jennings, M.A.
Vol. I. From the First to the Tenth Century.
Vol. II. From the Tenth to the Nineteenth Century.
AN EXPOSITION OF THE APOSTLES' CREED.
By the Rev. J. E. YONGE, M.A.
THE PRAYER BOOK.
By the Rev. Charles Hole, B.A.
AN INTRODUCTION to the NEW TESTAMENT.
By Marcus Dods, D.D.
THE LANGUAGE of THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A.
THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
Their Style and Characteristics.
By the Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A.
AN INTRODUCTION to the OLD TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. C. H. H. Wright, D.D.
OUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By the Rev. Principal Handley C. G. Moule, D.D.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. Professor W. F. Adeney, M.A.
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY.
By the Rev. Professor Iverach, D.D.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. Professor W. H. Bennett, M.A.
THE RITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY AND THE
EVANGELICAL FAITH.
By the Rev. Professor Orr, D.D.

London: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row.
4

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05047 4684