CHAPTER XV.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON.

1. The Greek word canon (originally a straight rod or pole, measuring-rod, then rule) denotes that collection of books which the churches receive as given by inspiration of God, and therefore as constituting for them a divine rule of faith and practice. To the books included in it the term canonical is applied. The Canon of the Old Testament, considered in reference to its constituent parts, was formed gradually; formed under divine superintendence by a process of growth extending through many centuries. The history of its formation may be conveniently considered under the following divisions: (1,) the Pentateuch; (2,) the historical books; (3,) the prophetical books in the stricter sense of the term; (4,) a somewhat miscellaneous collection of books which may be designated in a general way as poetical.

I. THE PENTATEUCH.

2. In the name applied to the Pentateuch—"the book of the law," and more fully, "the book of the law of Moses," "the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel"—we have from the beginning the general idea of the canon. A canonical writing is one that contains a communication from God to men, and has therefore the impress of divine authority. In its outward form it may be preceptive, historical, or meditative. But in all these different modes it still reveals to men God's character, and the duties which he requires of them. The Hebrews never admitted to the number of their sacred books a writing that was secular in its character. Even those who deny the canonical authority of certain parts of the Old Testament acknowledge that the Jews received these parts because they believed them to be of a sacred character.

3. In Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 17:18, 19, we read: "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: and that their children which have not known anything, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it:" "and it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side" (that is, not within, but by the side. Compare Josh. 12:9; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 20:25; Psa. 91:7; where the same word is used in the original) "of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee;" "and it shall be when he"—the king whom the Israelites in some future age shall set over themselves—"sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and the statutes, to do them." These passages are of the weightiest import; for they teach us how the nucleus of the canon of the Old Testament was formed, and give us all the particulars that enter into the idea of a canonical writing. It is given by God as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; it is committed to the custody of his people through their recognized officers, and that for all future time; it is to be published to the people at large, and diligently studied by the rulers, that they and the people together may know and do the will of God. It is not necessary to decide the question how much is included in the words "this book of the law," Deut. 31:26, whether the whole Pentateuch, or only the book of Deuteronomy. The arguments to show that the four preceding books came, in all essential respects, from the pen of Moses have been already given (Ch. 9, Nos. 7-9), and need not be here repeated. We only add that even if the reference is to Deuteronomy alone, as some suppose, the rule for this book would naturally be the rule for all the previous writings. They also would be laid up by the side of the ark; for it is plain that the priests and Levites, who had charge of the sanctuary, were made the keepers of the sacred writings generally.

As a matter of simple convenience the book of Deuteronomy was written on a separate roll ("in a book," Deut. 31:24). But if this book, when finished, was laid up with the earlier portions of the law at the side of the ark, so as to constitute with them a single collection, and if, as we may reasonably suppose, Moses, in writing the book of Deuteronomy, contemplated such a collection of all the parts of the law into one whole; then, when the law is mentioned, whether in Deuteronomy or in the later books, we are to understand the whole law, unless there be something in the context to limit its meaning, as there is, for example, in Joshua 8:32 compared with Deut. 27:1-8. The command to "read this law before all Israel in their hearing," "at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles," was understood in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah of the whole law, and not of Deuteronomy alone (Ch. 9, No. 4); and so Josephus plainly understood it: "But when the multitude is assembled in the holy city at the septennial sacrifices on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles, let the high priest, standing on a lofty stage whence he can be plainly heard, read the laws to all." Antiq. 4.8, 12. "The laws," in the usage of Josephus, naturally mean the whole collection of laws.

II. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

4. The history of these is involved in obscurity. In respect to most of them we know not the authors, nor the exact date of their composition. There are, however, two notices that shed much light on the general history of the earlier historical books. In the last chapter of the book of Joshua, after an account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem, it is added: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord." Josh. 24:26. Again, upon the occasion of the establishment of the kingdom under Saul, we are told that "Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord." 1 Sam. 10:25. From the first of these passages we learn that a theocratic man after Moses, who had the spirit of prophecy, connected his writings (or at least one portion of them) with the law. This addition by Joshua, though never formally regarded as a part of the law, virtually belonged to it, since it contained a renewal of the covenant between God and his people. From the second passage we learn that the place for other important documents pertaining to the theocracy was "before the Lord," where the law was deposited. Hence we infer with much probability that, besides the addition made to "the book of the law of God," important historical writings, proceeding from prophetical men, like Joshua and Samuel, were in process of collection at the sanctuary all the time from Moses to Samuel.

5. If now we examine the books of Joshua and Judges, we must be satisfied that the men who compiled them made use of such materials. In the book of Joshua is recorded, with much detail, the allotment of the land of Canaan among the several tribes. A document of this nature must have been written at the time, and by Joshua himself, or under his immediate direction. The same may be reasonably supposed of other portions of the book. If then it was put into its present form after the death of Joshua, as some suppose, the materials must still have been furnished by him to a great extent. The book of Judges covers a period of more than three centuries. Who composed it we do not know, but the materials employed by him must have existed, in part at least, in a written form. The book of Ruth may be regarded as an appendix to that of the Judges.

6. The two books of Samuel (which originally constituted one whole) bring down the history of the Theocracy from the birth of Samuel to the close of David's reign—a period of about a century and a half. The author, therefore, can have been, upon any supposition, only in part contemporary with the events which he records. Yet if we examine the biographical sketches of Saul, Samuel, and David contained in these books, the conviction forces itself upon us that they must have been written by contemporaries. Their freshness, minute accuracy of detail, and graphic vividness of style mark them as coming from eye-witnesses, or from writers who had received their accounts from eye-witnesses. Who were authors of these original documents we cannot determine. It is certain that Samuel was one of them. 1 Chron. 29:29. Who composed the books, again, is a question that we are unable to answer. It was probably a prophet living not very long after the separation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From the days of Samuel and onward there was a flourishing school of the prophets at hand which could furnish, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the writers of the original materials and the author of the books in their present form.

The attempt has been made to set aside the evidence that the writer of the books of Samuel made use of earlier documents, from the example of such men as Swift and Defoe, who composed works of fiction with all the simplicity and circumstantial detail of those who write authentic history as eye-witnesses. But, unless the design be to class the books of Samuel with "Gulliver's Travels" and "Robinson Crusoe," the argument is wholly irrelevant. With Swift and Defoe simplicity and minuteness of detail were a matter of conscious effort—a work of art, for which they naturally chose the region of fiction; and here they, and other men of genius, have been eminently successful. Shakespeare has portrayed ideal scenes in the life of Julius Caesar with more vividness and circumstantiality than any authentic historian of Caesar's age. But real history, written simply in the interest of truth, never has the graphic character, artless simplicity, and circumstantiality of detail which belong to these inimitable narratives, unless the writer be either an eye-witness, or draw his materials from eye-witnesses.

7. We come next to the books of Kings and Chronicles, the writers of which confessedly employed previously existing materials. In the two books of Kings (which, like the two of Samuel and of Chronicles, originally constituted one work) reference is made to the following sources: For the reign of Solomon, "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41); for the kingdom of Judah after the revolt of the twelve tribes from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah;" for the kingdom of Israel, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel." In the books of Chronicles we have: For the reign of David, "the book" (history) "of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. 29:29); for the reign of Solomon, "the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite," and "the vision of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2 Chron. 9:29); for the reign of Rehoboam, "the book of Shemaiah the prophet," and "of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies," that is, in the manner of a genealogical record (2 Chron. 12:15); for the reign of Abijah, "the story" (commentary) "of the prophet Iddo" (2 Chron. 13:22); for the reign of Jehoshaphat, "the book of Jehu the son of Hanani," who is mentioned (rather, who is inserted, i.e., as an author) in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. 20:34); for the reign of Uzziah, "the prophet Isaiah" (2 Chron. 26:22); for the reign of Hezekiah in part, "the vision of Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chron. 32:32); for the reign of Manasseh in part, "the sayings of the seers," or, as many prefer to render, "the words of Hosai" (2 Chron. 33:18). Besides the above, reference is made to "the book of the kings of Judah and Israel," "the book of the kings of Israel and Judah," "the story of the book of the kings;" "the book of the kings of Israel." These last are probably only different titles of the same collection of annals, embracing in its contents the history of both kingdoms; since the references to the book of the kings of Israel are for the affairs of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18).

8. With regard to the above original sources, it should be carefully noticed that the references in the books of Kings are not to our present books of Chronicles, which did not exist when the books of Kings were written. Chap. 20, No. 21. Neither can the allusions in the books of Chronicles be restricted to our present books of Kings; for (1) they refer to matters not recorded in those books—for example, to the wars of Jotham, 2 Chron. 27:7; (2) they refer to the book of the kings of Judah and Israel for a full account of the acts of a given monarch "first and last," while the history of the same monarch in our present books of Kings refers for further information to the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. It is plain that both writers had access to a larger collection of original documents, which were in great part the same. The chief difference in outward form is that, when the books of Chronicles were written, the annals of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel seem to have constituted a single collection, whereas in the books of Kings they are always mentioned as two separate works. In making his selections from these annals, each writer proceeded independently. Hence the remarkable agreements, where both used the same materials; and the remarkable differences, where one employed documents, or parts of documents, which the other omitted to use.

9. As to the character of these original documents, it is plain that a portion of them were written by prophets. By some the books of the kings of Israel and Judah so often referred to, have been regarded as simply the public annals of the two kingdoms written by the official annalists, the "scribes" or "recorders" so often spoken of. No doubt such annals existed, and entered largely into the documents in question. But the right interpretation of 2 Chron. 20:34, shows that, in some cases at least, the writings of prophets were incorporated into these annals. The extended history of Elijah and Elisha cannot have been the work of the public scribes of the kingdom of Israel, but of prophets, writing from the prophetic point of view. The question, however, is not one of practical importance, since, whatever may have been the source or character of the materials employed, the writers of the books now under consideration, used them at their discretion under the guidance of the Spirit of God. To us, therefore, they come with the weight of prophetic authority. The further consideration of the relation between the books of Kings and Chronicles is reserved for the special introductions to these books. It may be added here that the probable date of the former is the first half of the Babylonish captivity; of the latter, the time of Ezra under the Persian rule.

10. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constitute a continuation of the books of Chronicles, and need not be particularly noticed in the present connection. For their authorship and date, as also for the book of Esther, see the particular introductions to these books.

III. THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS.

11. Under the prophetical books, in the stricter sense of the word, may be included the three Greater prophets—Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—Daniel (though largely historical), and the twelve Minor prophets. These will all come up hereafter for separate consideration. At present we view them simply with reference to the growth of the Old Testament Canon. From the settlement of the Israelities in the land of Canaan to the time of Samuel, a period of several centuries (according to the chronology followed by the apostle Paul, Acts 13:20, four hundred and fifty years), we read of several appearances of the "angel of the Lord." Judges 2:1; 6:11; 13:3. The notices of prophets during the same period are only three in number. Judges 4:4; 6:8; 1 Sam. 2:27. But with Samuel began a new era. He was himself one of the greatest of the prophets, and he established a school of the prophets over which he himself presided. 1 Sam. 10:5, 10; 19:20. From his day onward such schools seem to have flourished as a theocratic institution throughout the whole period of the kings, though more vigorously at certain times. 1 Kings 18:4; 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5; 4:1, 38, 43; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. So far as we have notices of these schools, they were under the instruction of eminent prophets; and "the sons of the prophets" assembled in them received such a training as fitted them, so far as human instrumentality is concerned, for the exercise of the prophetical office, as well as for being, in a more general sense, the religious instructors of the people. From these schools came, apparently, most of those whom God called to be his messengers to the rulers and people, though with exceptions according to his sovereign wisdom. Amos 1:1; 7:14. We find, accordingly, that from the days of Samuel and onward the prophets were recognized as a distinct order of men in the Jewish theocracy, who derived their authority immediately from God, and spoke by direct inspiration of his Spirit, as they themselves indicate by the standing formula: "Thus saith the Lord."

12. It is a remarkable fact, however, that from Samuel to about the reign of Uzziah, a period of some three centuries, we have no books of prophecy written by these men, if we except, perhaps, the book of Jonah. Their writings seem to have been mainly historical (like the historical notices incorporated into the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel); and what remains to us of them is preserved in the historical books of the Old Testament. See above, Nos. 6 and 7. But about the time of Uzziah begins a new era, that of written prophecy. During his reign appeared Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and probably Jonah, Joel, and Obadiah. Micah followed immediately afterwards, being contemporary in part with Isaiah; and then, in succession, the rest of the prophets whose writings have come down to us. When the theocracy was now on its decline, waxing old and destined to pass away for ever, they felt themselves called to put on record, for the instruction of all coming ages, their words of warning and encouragement. Thus arose gradually our present collection of prophetical books; that of Lamentations included, which is but an appendix to the writings of Jeremiah.

IV. THE POETICAL BOOKS.

13. These are a precious outgrowth of the theocratic spirit, in which the elements of meditation and reflection predominate. Concerning the date and authorship of the book of Job, which stands first in order in our arrangement, we have no certain information. Learned men vary between the ante-Mosaic age and that of Solomon. Its theme is divine providence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament. See further in the introduction to this book.

14. With the call of David to the throne of Israel began a new and glorious era in the history of public worship, that of "the service of song in the house of the Lord." 1 Chron. 6:31. As when Moses smote the rock in the wilderness the water gushed forth in refreshing streams, so the soul of David, touched by the spirit of inspiration, poured forth a rich and copious flood of divine song, which has in all ages refreshed and strengthened God's people in their journey heavenward "through this dark vale of tears." Nor was the fountain of sacred poetry confined to him alone. God opened it also in the souls of such men as Asaph, Ethan, Heman, and the sons of Korah; nor did its flow wholly cease till after the captivity. The Psalms of David and his coadjutors were from the first dedicated to the service of the sanctuary; and thus arose our canonical book of Psalms, although (as will be hereafter shown) it did not receive its present form and arrangement till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

15. After David came Solomon in the sphere of practical wisdom. This, according to the divine record, he received as a special endowment from God, though doubtless he had in a peculiar measure a natural capacity for such an endowment. In Gibeon the Lord appeared to him in a dream by night, and said: "Ask what I shall give thee." Passing by wealth, long life, and the death of his enemies, the youthful monarch besought God to give him "an understanding heart," that he might be qualified to judge the great people committed to his care. The answer was: "Behold, I have done according to thy word: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee." 1 Kings 3:5-12. Thus divinely qualified, he embodied, in a vast collection of proverbs, his observations on human life, and the course of human affairs. Our canonical book of Proverbs is a selection from these, with some additions at the end from other sources. For notices respecting the arrangement of these proverbs in their present form, as well as respecting the books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, which are also ascribed to Solomon, the reader may consult the introductions to these books.

V. THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON.

The subject thus far before us has been the growth of the materials which constitute our canonical books. The question of their preservation and final embodiment in their present form remains to be considered.

16. Respecting the preservation of the sacred books till the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, our information is very scanty. Each king was required to have at hand for his own personal use a transcript of the law of Moses (Deut. 17:18), the original writing being carefully laid up in the inner sanctuary, where Hilkiah, the high priest, found it in the reign of Josiah. 2 Kings 22:8. We cannot doubt that such kings as David, Solomon, Asa, and Hezekiah complied with this law: though after the disorders connected with the reign of Manasseh and his captivity, the good king Josiah neglected it. Jehoshaphat, we are expressly told, sent men to teach in the cities of Judah, who had "the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people." 2 Chron. 17:7-9. Of course it was a copy, and not the original autograph, which might not be removed from the sanctuary. It is a natural supposition that other transcripts of the law were made under the direction of the high priest, for the use of pious men, especially pious prophets, princes, and Levites, who needed its directions for the right discharge of their official duties, though on this point we can affirm nothing positively. As to the prophetical books, we know that Jeremiah had access to the writings of Isaiah, for in repeated instances he borrowed his language. We know again that Daniel had at hand the prophecies of Jeremiah; for he understood "by books" (literally "by the books," which may be well understood to mean that collection of sacred books of which the prophecies of Jeremiah formed a part) "the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." Dan. 9:2. The consecration of the Psalms of David and his coadjutors to the public service of the sanctuary must have insured their careful preservation by the Levites who had charge of the temple music; and, in general, the deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred writings is to us a reasonable evidence that they preserved them from loss and mutilation to the captivity, and through that calamitous period.

17. To Ezra and his coadjutors, the men of the Great Synagogue, the Jews ascribe the completion of the canon of the Old Testament. Their traditions concerning him are embellished with extravagant fictions; yet we cannot reasonably deny that they are underlaid by a basis of truth. All the scriptural notices of Ezra attest both his zeal and his ability as "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel," a man who "had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." Ezra 7:10, 11. The work in which he and his associates were engaged was the reestablishment of the Theocracy on its old foundation, the law of Moses, with the ordinances pertaining to the sanctuary-service afterwards added by David; and that too in the vivid consciousness of the fact that disobedience to the divine law had brought upon the nation the calamities of the captivity. In such circumstances their first solicitude must have been that the people might have the inspired oracles given to their fathers, and be thoroughly instructed in them. The work, therefore, which Jewish tradition ascribes to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue was altogether appropriate to their situation, nor do we know of any man or body of men afterwards so well qualified for its performance, or upon whom it would so naturally have devolved.

That they arranged the inspired volume in substantially its present form, we have no good reason for doubting. But we should not, perhaps, be warranted in saying that they brought the canon of the Old Testament absolutely and formally to a close. Josephus (against Apion 1. 8) affirms that no book belongs to the sacred writings of his nation "which are justly believed to be divine," that had its origin after the reign of Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son (Artaxerxes Longimanus, under whom Ezra led forth his colony, Ezra, chap. 7); and that on the ground that from this time onward "the exact succession of the prophets" was wanting. This declaration of the Jewish historian is in all essential respects worthy of full credence. We cannot, however, affirm with confidence that all the later historical books were put by Ezra and his contemporaries into the exact form in which we now have them. The book of Nehemiah, for example, contains some genealogical notices (chap. 12:11, 22) which, according to any fair interpretation, are of a later date. We are at liberty to suppose that these were afterwards added officially and in good faith, as matters of public interest; or, as some think, that the book itself is an arrangement by a later hand of writings left by Nehemiah, perhaps also by Ezra; so that while its contents belong, in every essential respect, to them, it received its present form after their death. Respecting the question when the canon of the Old Testament received its finishing stroke, a question which the wisdom of God has left in obscurity, we must speak with diffidence. We know with certainty that our present Hebrew canon is identical with that collection of sacred writings to which our Saviour and his apostles constantly appealed as invested throughout with divine authority, and this is a firm basis for our faith.

The attempt has been made, but without success, to show that a portion of the Psalms belongs to the Maccabean age. The words of the Psalmist (Psa. 74:8) rendered in our version: "They have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land," have no reference to the synagogues of a later age, as is now generally admitted. The Hebrew word denotes places of assembly, and was never applied by the later Jews to their synagogues. The Psalmist wrote, moreover, in immediate connection with the burning of the temple—"they have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name to the ground"—and this fixes the date of the Psalm to the Chaldean invasion (2 Kings 25:9); for the temple was not burned, but only profaned, in the days of the Maccabees. By "the assemblies of God," we are probably to understand the ancient sacred places, such as Ramah, Bethel, and Gilgal, where the people were accustomed to meet, though in a somewhat irregular way, for the worship of God. But whether this interpretation be correct or not, the words have no reference to the buildings of a later age called synagogues.

Some of the apocryphal writings, as, for example, the book of Wisdom, the book of Ecclesiasticus, the first book of Maccabees, were highly valued by the ancient Jews. But they were never received into the Hebrew canon, because their authors lived after "the exact succession of the prophets," which ended with Malachi. They knew how to make the just distinction between books of human wisdom and books written "by inspiration of God."

18. The earliest notice of the contents of the Hebrew Canon is that contained in the prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, where it is described as "the law, the prophets, and the other national books," "the law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books," according to the three-fold division already considered. Chap. 18, No. 4. Josephus, in the passage already referred to (against Apion, 1. 8), says: "We have not among us innumerable books discordant and contrary to each other, but only two-and-twenty, containing the history of all time, which are justly believed to be divine. And of these five belong to Moses, which contain the laws and the transmission of human genealogy to the time of his death. This period of time wants but little of three thousand years" (the longer chronology followed by him). "But from the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of their times in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts for human life. From Artaxerxes to our time various books have been written; but they have not been esteemed worthy of credence like that given to the books before them, because the exact succession of the prophets has been wanting." In this list the books of the Old Testament are artificially arranged to agree with the number two-and-twenty, that of the Hebrew alphabet. The four that contain "hymns to God and precepts for human life" are, in all probability: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; and the thirteen prophetical books (see below) are: (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) the two books of Samuel, (4) the two books of Kings, (5) the two books of Chronicles, (6) Ezra and Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10) Ezekiel, (11) Daniel, (12) the book of the twelve Minor Prophets, (13) Job. See Oehler in Hertzog's Encyclopaedia, Art. Canon of the Old Testament. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.25), and Jerome (both of whom drew their information concerning the Hebrew Canon immediately from Jewish scholars, and may, therefore, be regarded as in a certain sense the expositors of the above list of Josephus) make mention of the same number, twenty-two. Origen's list unites Ruth with Judges, puts together the first and second of Samuel, the first and second of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (under the names of the first and second of Ezra), and Jeremiah and Lamentations (with the addition of the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah—an inconsistency, or rather oversight, to be explained from his constant habit of using the Septuagint version). In the present text of Eusebius, the book of the twelve Minor Prophets is wanting. But this is simply an old error of the scribe, since it is necessary to complete the number of twenty-two. Jerome's list (Prologus galeatus) is the same, only that he gives the contents of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa in accordance with the Hebrew arrangement, placing Daniel in the last class, and adding that whatever is without the number of these must be placed among the Apocryphal writings. Smith's Dict. of the Bible, Art. Canon. The catalogue of these two distinguished Christian scholars—Origen of the Eastern church, and Jerome of the Western, both of whom drew their information immediately from Hebrew scholars—is decisive, and we need add nothing further.

19. The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament were incorporated into the Alexandrine version called the Septuagint; but they were never received by the Jews of Palestine as a part of the sacred volume. Concerning them and their history, see further in the Appendix to this part.



CHAPTER XVI.

ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

In the present chapter only those versions of the Old Testament are noticed which were made independently of the New. Versions of the whole Bible, made in the interest of Christianity, are considered in the following part.

I. THE GREEK VERSION CALLED THE SEPTUAGINT.

1. This is worthy of special notice as the oldest existing version of the holy Scriptures, or any part of them, in any language; and also as the version which exerted a very large influence on the language and style of the New Testament; for it was extensively used in our Lord's day not only in Egypt, where it originated, and in the Roman provinces generally, but also in Palestine; and the quotations in the New Testament are made more commonly from it than from the Hebrew.

2. The Jewish account of its origin, first noticed briefly by Aristobulus, a Jew (as quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius), then given at great length in a letter which professes to have been written by one Aristeas, a heathen and a special friend of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and the main part of which Josephus has copied (Antiq. 12. 2), is for substance as follows: Ptolemy Philadelphus (who reigned from B.C. 285 to 247), at the suggestion of his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, after having first liberated all the Jewish captives found in his kingdom, sent an embassy with costly gifts to Eleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting that he would send him chosen men, six from each of the twelve tribes, with a copy of the Jewish law, that it might be interpreted from the Hebrew into the Greek and laid up in the royal library at Alexandria. Eleazar accordingly sent the seventy-two elders with a copy of the laws written on parchments in letters of gold, who were received by the king with high honors, sumptuously feasted, and afterwards lodged in a palace on an island (apparently Pharos in the harbor of Alexandria), where they completed their work in seventy-two days, and were then sent home with munificent gifts. The story that they were shut up in seventy-two separate cells (according to another legend two by two in thirty-six cells), where they had no communication with each other and yet produced as many versions agreeing with each other word for word, was a later embellishment designed (as indeed were all the legends respecting the origin of this version) to exalt its character in the apprehension of the people, and to gain for it an authority equal to that of the inspired original.

3. The letter ascribed to Aristeas is now generally admitted to be spurious. It purports to have been written by a heathen scholar, yet it bears throughout marks of a Jewish origin. It represents the translators as Jewish elders sent by the high priest from Jerusalem. Yet the version is acknowledged to be in the Alexandrine Greek dialect. For these and other reasons learned men ascribe its authorship to a Jew whose object was to exalt the merits of the Alexandrine version in the estimation of his nation. But we are not, for this reason, warranted to pronounce the whole account a pure fable, as many have done. We may well believe that the work was executed under the auspices of Ptolemy, and for the purpose of enriching his library. But we must believe that it was executed by Jews born in Egypt to whom the Greek language was vernacular, and probably from manuscripts of Egyptian origin. Thus much is manifest from the face of the version, that it was made by different men, and with different degrees of ability and fidelity.

The name Septuagint (Latin, Septuaginta), seventy, a round number for the more exact seventy-two, probably arose from this tradition of the execution of the work by seventy-two elders in seventy-two days. The story of the parchments sent from Jerusalem for the use of the translators (with the request that they might be returned with them) has been rejected on the ground that the text used by them differs too widely from the Palestinian text. See further on this subject in No. 5, below. It has been further affirmed that Demetrius Phalereus did not belong to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but to that of his father Ptolemy Soter, the son having banished him from court in the beginning of his reign. For this reason some have proposed to assign the founding of the Alexandrian library to the father and not the son. But whatever be our judgment in respect to Demetrius and his relation to the two Ptolemies, the voice of history is decisive in favor of the son and not the father, as the patron of learning.

4. It has been a question whether the Hebrew Scriptures were translated at one time, or in successive portions. The tradition above considered speaks only of the law, or, in the plural, the laws. These might, perhaps, be understood as comprehensive terms for the whole Old Testament, but they probably mean the Pentateuch alone, in which both the Egyptian king and the Jews of his realm would feel a special interest. It is probable that the Pentateuch—the Law in the proper sense of the term—was first translated, and afterwards the remaining books. But how long a period of time was thus occupied cannot be determined. Respecting the incorporation into this version of the apocryphal book, see in the appendix to this Part, No. 2.

When the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), says in his prologue, in immediate connection with his residence and labors in Egypt, that "the law itself and the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference [as to force] when read in their own tongue," he plainly refers to the Septuagint version as complete in his day. He visited Egypt "under Euergetes." But to which of the two monarchs who bore that title he refers is uncertain. If to the former, it was between 246-221 B.C.; if to the latter, between 145-116 B.C.

5. The version varies so much in its different parts that it is not easy to give its character as a whole. It is agreed among biblical scholars that the translators of the Pentateuch excelled in ability and fidelity, according to the well-known judgment of Jerome—"which [the books of Moses] we also acknowledge to agree more than the others with the Hebrew." Among the historical books the translations of Samuel and Kings are the most faulty. Those of the prophets are in general poor, especially that of Isaiah. That of Daniel was so faulty that the Christians in later times substituted for it the translation of Theodotion. See below, No. 10. Among the poetical books that of Proverbs is the best. As a whole the Septuagint version cannot for a moment enter into competition with the Hebrew original. Yet, as the most ancient of versions and one which also represents a text much older than the Masoretic, its use is indispensable to every scholar who would study the Old Testament in the original language.

6. Independently of its critical value, the Septuagint must be regarded with deep interest from its close connection with the New Testament. In the days of Christ and his apostles it was known and read throughout the whole Roman empire by the Hellenists; that is, by those Jews and Jewish proselytes who had the Greek civilization and spoke the Greek language. As the Alexandrine Greek, in which this version was made, was itself pervaded throughout with the Hebrew spirit, and to a great extent also with Hebrew idioms and forms of thought, so was the language of the New Testament, in turn, moulded and shaped by the dialect of the Septuagint, nor can the former be successfully studied except in connection with the latter. Then again the greatest number of quotations in the New Testament from the Old is made from the Septuagint. According to Mr. Greenfield (quoted in Smith's Bible Dict., art. Septuagint) "the number of direct quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, may be estimated at three hundred and fifty, of which not more than fifty materially differ from the seventy. But the indirect verbal allusions would swell the number to a far greater amount." The discussion of the principles upon which the writers of the New Testament quote from the Old belongs to another part of this work. It may be briefly remarked here that they quote in a free spirit, not in that of servile adherence to the letter, aiming to give the substance of the sacred writers' thoughts, rather than an exactly literal rendering of the original word for word.

The prophecy of Isaiah, for example (6:9, 10), is six times quoted in the New Testament, wholly or in part, with very free variations of language. Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28: 26, 27; Rom. 11:8. From neither of these quotations, nor from all of them combined, could we draw a critical argument respecting either the Hebrew or Greek text of the passage quoted. Neither can we argue from the exact agreement of a quotation in the New Testament with the Septuagint where that differs from the Hebrew, that the Hebrew text has been corrupted. The New Testament writers are occupied with the spirit of the passages to which they refer, rather than with the letter.

7. The Hebrew text from which the Septuagint version was executed was unpointed and much older than the Masoretic text. Were the version more literal and faithful, and had its text come down to us in a purer form (see below, Chap. 17, No. 2), it would be of great service in settling the exact text of the original Hebrew. With its present character, and in the present condition of its text, it is of but comparatively small value in this respect. Yet its striking agreement with the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Ch. 13, No. 8) is a phenomenon worthy of special notice. Biblical scholars affirm that the two agree in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Hebrew. For the probable explanation of this see above, Ch. 14, No. 9.

The reader must be on his guard against the error of supposing that these more than a thousand variations from the Hebrew text are of such a nature as to affect seriously the system of doctrines and duties taught in the Pentateuch. They are rather of a critical and grammatical character, changes which leave the substance of revelation untouched. See on this point Ch. 3. There is one striking agreement between the Samaritan text and that of the Septuagint in which many biblical scholars think that the true ancient reading has been preserved. It is that of Gen. 4:8: "And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the field. And it came to pass when they were in the field." etc.

II. OTHER GREEK VERSIONS.

8. In the beginning of Christianity the Septuagint enjoyed, as we have seen, a high reputation among the Jews; and as a natural consequence, among the Jewish converts also, as well as the Gentile Christians. To the great body of Gentile believers it was for the Old Testament the only source of knowledge, as they were ignorant of the Hebrew original. They studied it diligently, and used it efficiently against the unbelieving Jews. Hence there naturally arose in the minds of the latter a feeling of opposition to this version which became very bitter. They began to disparage its authority, and to accuse it of misrepresenting the Hebrew. The next step was to oppose to it another version made by Aquila, which was soon followed by two others, those of Theodotion and Symmachus.

9. Aquila is represented to have been a Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and to have lived in the second century. His version was slavishly literal, following the Hebrew idiom even where it is contrary to that of the Greek. For this very reason, not withstanding all the barbarisms thus introduced, the Jews highly valued it, calling it the Hebrew verity. All that remains of it to us is contained in the fragments of Origen's Hexapla. See below, No. 12. Had we the whole work, its extremely literal character would give it great value in a critical point of view, as it would shed much light on the state of the Hebrew text when it was executed.

10. Theodotion was, according to Irenaeus, an Ephesian. Jerome calls him and Symmachus Ebionites, Judaizing heretics, and semi-Christians. He is supposed to have made his version in the last half of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancients, it had a close resemblance in character to the Septuagint. He seems to have had this version before him, and to have made a free use of it. Of the three later versions, that of Theodotion was most esteemed by the Christians, and they substituted his translation of the book of Daniel for that of the Seventy.

11. Symmachus, called by the church fathers an Ebionite, but by some a Samaritan, seems to have flourished not far from the close of the second century. His version was free, aiming to give the sense rather than the words. His idiom was Hellenistic, and in this respect resembled the Septuagint, from the author's familiarity with which, indeed, it probably took its complexion.

Of other ancient Greek versions discovered by Origen in his Eastern travels and made by unknown authors it is not necessary to speak.

12. The text of the Septuagint was never preserved so carefully as that of the Hebrew, and in the days of Origen it had fallen into great confusion. To meet the objections of the Jews, as well as to help believers in their study of the Old Testament, Origen undertook first the work called the Tetrapla (Greek, fourfold), which was followed by the Hexapla (Greek, sixfold). To prepare himself he spent twenty-eight years, travelling extensively and collecting materials. In the Tetrapla, the text of the Septuagint (corrected by manuscripts of itself), and those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were arranged side by side in four parallel columns. In the Hexapla there were six columns—(1) the Hebrew in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew expressed in Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6) Theodotion. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., 1, p. 203; Smith's Bib. Diet., 2, p. 1202. In some books he used two other Greek versions, and occasionally even a third, giving in the first case eight, in the second, nine columns.

"The great work," says Davidson, "consisting of nearly fifty volumes; on which he had spent the best years of his life, does not seem to have been transcribed—probably in consequence of its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a transcript. It lay unused as a whole fifty years after it was finished, till Eusebius and Pamphilus drew it forth from its concealment in Tyre, and placed it in the library of the latter in Caesarea. It is thought to have perished there when Caesarea was taken and plundered by the Saracens, A.D. 653." Bib. Criticism, 1, p. 206. Well did Origen merit by his vast researches and labors the epithet Adamantinus [Adamantine] bestowed on him by the ancients. Fragments of the Hexapla, consisting of extracts made from it by the ancients, have been collected and published in two folio volumes by Montfaucon, Paris, 1713, and reprinted by Bahrdt in two volumes octavo, Leipzig and Lubeck, 1769, 1770. It is the hope of biblical scholars that these may be enriched from the Nitrian manuscripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.

For the four "Standard Text Editions" of the Septuagint Greek version, with the principal editions founded on them, the reader may consult the Bibliographical List appended to the fourth volume of Home's Introduction, edition of 1860.

III. THE CHALDEE TARGUMS.

13. The Chaldee word Targum means interpretation, and is applied to the translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament in the Chaldee language. When, after the captivity, the Chaldee had supplanted the Hebrew as the language of common life, it was natural that the Jews should desire to have their sacred writings in the language which was to them vernacular. Thus we account, in a natural way, for the origin of these Targums, of which there is a considerable number now extant differing widely in age as well as character. No one of them extends to the whole Old Testament.

The question has been raised whether the Targums have for their authors single individuals, or are the embodiment of traditional interpretations collected and revised by one or more persons. Many biblical scholars of the present day incline strongly to the latter view, which is not in itself improbable. But the decision of the question, in the case of each Targum, rests not on theory, but on the character of its contents, as ascertained by careful examination.

14. The first place in worth, and probably in time also, belongs to the Targum on the Pentateuch which bears the name of Onkelos. It is a literal and, upon the whole, an able and faithful version (not paraphrase) of the Hebrew text, written in good Aramaean, and approaching in style to the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Ezra. In those passages which describe God in language borrowed from human attributes (anthropomorphic, describing God in human forms, as having eyes, hands, etc.; anthropopathic, ascribing to God human affections, as repenting, grieving, etc.), the author is inclined to use paraphrases; thus: "And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor" (Gen. 8:21) becomes in this Targum: "And Jehovah received the sacrifice with favor;" and "Jehovah went down to see" (Gen. 11:5), "Jehovah revealed himself." So also strong expressions discreditable to the ancient patriarchs are softened, as: "Rachel took" instead of "Rachel stole." Gen. 31:19. In the poetical passages, moreover, the Targum allows itself more liberty, and is consequently less satisfactory.

According to a Jewish tradition, Onkelos was a proselyte and nephew of the emperor Titus, so that he must have flourished about the time of the destruction of the second temple. But all the notices we have of his person are very uncertain. There is even ground for the suspicion that the above tradition respecting Onkelos relates, by a confusion of persons, to Aquila (Chaldee Akilas), the author of the Greek version already considered. In this case the real author of the Targum is unknown, and we can only say that it should not probably be assigned to a later date than the close of the second century.

15. Next in age and value is the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Prophets; that is, according to the Jewish classification (Chap. 13, No. 4), Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets. In the historical books, this Targum is in the main literal; but in the prophets (in the stricter sense of the term) paraphrastic and allegorical.

The Jewish tradition represents that Jonathan wrote the paraphrase of the prophets from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; a mere fable. Who was the real author cannot be determined with certainty, only that he lived after the so-called Onkelos.

16. There are two other Targums on the Pentateuch, one of them commonly known as the Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan (because falsely ascribed to the author of the preceding Targum) and the Jerusalem Targum. The latter is of a fragmentary character; and its agreement with the corresponding passages of the former is so remarkable that it is generally considered as consisting of extracts taken from it with free variations. But according to Davidson (in Alexander's Kitto): "The Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of that of Jonathan; and its own basis was that of Onkelos. Jonathan used both his predecessors' paraphrases; the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone." The style of Pseudo-Jonathan is barbarous, abounding in foreign words, with the introduction of many legends, fables, and ideas of a later age. He is assigned to the seventh century. Keil, Introduc. to Old Testament, Sec. 189.

17. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of late date. There is one on Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, the last tolerably accurate and free from legendary and paraphrastic additions; one on the five rolls—Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; which is not a translation, but rather a commentary in the Talmudic style; two on Esther, one on Chronicles.

In the present connection, though not belonging properly to the Targums, may be named the Samaritan version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, printed with the originals in the Paris and London Polyglotts. It is a literal translation executed in the spirit of the Targum of Onkelos, and admitting the same class of variations from the letter of the original.

IV. THE SYRIAC PESHITO.

18. This is the oldest version made by Christians from the original Hebrew. The word Peshito signifies simple, indicating that it gives the simple meaning of the original, without paraphrastic and allegorical additions. It is upon the whole an able and faithful version. It often exhibits a resemblance to the Alexandrine version. We may readily suppose that the translator, though rendering from the original Hebrew, was familiar with the Septuagint, and that this exerted upon his work a certain degree of influence. The Peshito was the standard version for the Syriac Christians, being used alike by all parties; a fact which is naturally explained by its high antiquity. If it be of the same date as the New Testament Peshito, it may be placed not far from the close of the second century.

The Old Latin, and in connection with this, the Vulgate of Jerome, with some other ancient versions of the Old Testament, will be considered in connection with the New Testament.



CHAPTER XVII.

CRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT.

1. The only legitimate criticism of the sacred text is that which has for its object to restore it, as far as possible, to its primitive form. Had we the autograph of Moses in the exact form in which he deposited it in the sanctuary (Deut. 31:26), this would be a perfect text; and so of any other book of the Old Testament. In the absence of the autographs, which have all perished, we are still able to establish the form of their text with a reasonable degree of certainty for all purposes of faith and practice. The means of accomplishing this are now to be considered.

2. Here ancient manuscripts hold the first place. It is obvious, however, that in settling the true reading of a given passage we cannot look simply to the number of manuscript testimonies. The quality of the manuscripts must also be taken into account. Here age is of primary importance. Other things being equal, the oldest are the most worthy of credence, as being nearest to the original sources. But, in estimating the testimony of a manuscript, there are other qualities besides age that must be carefully considered—the care of the transcriber; its freedom from interpolations by later hands (which can, however, as a general rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that is, its independence as compared with other manuscripts. We may have a group of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come from a single source. Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only for the text of their source. The authority of a single independent manuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony. Then, again, the character of the different readings must be considered. The easiest reading—that which most naturally suggests itself to the scribe—has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading; and that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should have been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse. There are many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for biblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief hints are sufficient.

The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its critical authority is of small account.

3. Next in order come ancient versions, the value of which for critical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and also upon the state of their text as we possess it. Other things being equal, the authority of a version is manifestly inferior to that of a manuscript of the original. But a version may have been made from a more ancient form of the original text than any which we have in existing manuscripts; and thus it may be indirectly a witness of great value. The extremely literal version of Aquila (Chap. 16, No. 9) was made in the second century. Could we recover it, its testimony to the Hebrew text, as it then existed, would be of great value. The Septuagint version was made (at least begun) in the third century before Christ. But its free character diminishes, and the impure state of its text greatly injures its critical authority. Of the Targums, those of Onkelos and Jonathan alone are capable of rendering any service in the line of sacred criticism, and this is not of much account.

4. We have also primary-printed editions of the Hebrew Bible—those printed from Hebrew manuscripts, which the reader may see noticed in Horne's Bibliographical List, Appendix to vol. 4. The critical authority of these depends on that of the manuscripts used, which were all of the Masoretic recension.

5. Parallel passages—parallel in a critical and not simply in a historical respect—are passages which profess not merely to give an account of the same transaction, but to repeat the same text. Well known examples are: the song of David recorded in the twenty-second chapter of the second book of Samuel, and repeated as the eighteenth psalm; the fourteenth and fifty-third psalms, etc. Such repetitions possess for every biblical student a high interest. But in the critical use of them great caution is necessary. It must be ascertained, first of all, whether they proceed from the same, or from a different writer. In the latter case they are only historical imitations. If, as in the case of the above-named passages, they manifestly have the same author, the inquiry still remains how the differences arose. They may be different recensions of the same writer (in this case, of David himself), or of another inspired writer, who thus sought to adapt them more perfectly—the fifty-third psalm, for example—to the circumstances of his own day. The gift of inspiration made the later writer, in this respect, cooerdinate in authority with the earlier.

Historical parallelism, such as those in the books of Chronicles, as compared with the earlier historical books, do not properly belong here. Yet these also sometimes furnish critical help, especially in respect to names and dates.

6. The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have for every believer the highest authority; more, however, in a hermeneutical than a critical respect. For, as already remarked (Chap. 16, No. 6), the New Testament writers quote mostly from the Septuagint, and in a very free way. The whole subject of these quotations will come up hereafter under the head of Biblical Interpretation.

7. Quotations from the Old Testament in the Talmud and later rabbinical writers are another source of sacred criticism. The Talmud, embodying the ecclesiastical and civil law of the Jews according to their traditions, consists of two parts, the Mishna, or text, generally referred to the last half of the second century, and the Gemara, or commentary on the Mishna. The Mishna is one; but connected with this are two Gemaras of later origin; the more copious Babylonian, and the briefer Jerusalem Gemara; whence the distinction of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Whether because the Hebrew text was rigidly settled in its present form in the days of the Talmudists, or because their quotations have been made to agree with the Masorah, an examination of the Talmud furnishes few various readings that are of any importance. Most of them relate to trifling particulars. The quotations of later rabbinical writers are of small account in a critical respect.

8. It remains to speak of critical conjecture. Of this a wise and reverent scholar will make a very cautious use. He will content himself with offering to the public his suggestions, without venturing to incorporate them into the text itself. The recklessness of some modern critics, who make an abundance of conjectural emendations, and then embody them in their versions, with only a brief note, deserves severe condemnation. Had the ancient critics generally adopted this uncritical method, the sacred text would long ago have fallen into irretrievable confusion.

We add an example where critical conjecture is in place, though it may not venture to alter the established reading. In Psalm 42, the last clause of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7, written continuously without a division of words (Chap. 13, No. 5), would read thus:

[Hebrew: ky'od'odnu'sho'tpnyu'lhy'lynpshytshtvhh]

With the present division of words:

[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pnyu 'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]

the clauses are to be translated, as in our version:

For I shall yet praise him [for] the salvation of his countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down within me.

Divided as follows (by the transfer of a single letter to the following word).

[Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pny u'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]

the rendering would be:

For I shall yet praise him, [who is] the salvation of my countenance and my God. My soul is cast down within me.

Thus the refrain would agree exactly with the two that follow (ver. 11 and 43:5). Yet this conjecture, however plausible, is uncertain, since we do not know that the sacred writer sought exact uniformity in the three refrains.

9. General remark on the various readings of the sacred text. As a general rule, the various readings with which textual criticism is occupied have respect to minor points—for the most part points of a trivial nature; and even where the variations are of more importance, they are not of such a character as to obscure, much less change, the truths of revelation in any essential respect. Biblical critics tell us, for example, that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint version in more than a thousand places where they differ from the Masoretic Hebrew text. Chap. 16, No. 7. Yet these three texts all exhibit the same God, and the same system of doctrines and duties. Revelation does not lie in letters and syllables and grammatical forms, but in the deep and pure and strong and broad current of truth "given by inspiration of God." Reverence for the inspired word makes us anxious to possess the sacred text in all possible purity. Yet if we cannot attain to absolute perfection in this respect, we have reasonable assurance that God, who gave the revelation contained in the Old Testament, has preserved it to us unchanged in any essential particular. The point on which most obscurity and uncertainty rests is that of scriptural chronology; and this is not one that affects Christian faith or practice.



SECOND DIVISION: PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.

1. The province of Particular Introduction is to consider the books of the Bible separately, in respect to their authorship, date, contents, and the place which each of them holds in the system of divine truth. Here it is above all things important that we begin with the idea of the unity of divine revelation—that all the parts of the Bible constitute a gloriously perfect whole, of which God and not man is the author. No amount of study devoted to a given book or section of the Old Testament, with all the help that modern scholarship can furnish, will give a true comprehension of it, until we understand it in its relations to the rest of Scripture, We cannot, for example, understand the book of Genesis out of connection with the four books that follow, nor the book of Deuteronomy separated from the four that precede. Nor can we fully understand the Pentateuch as a whole except in the light of the historical and prophetical books which follow; for these unfold the divine purpose in the establishment of the Theocracy as recorded in the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch itself gives us only the constitution of the Theocracy. The books that follow, taken in connection with, the New Testament, reveal its office in the plan of redemption; and not till we know this can we be said to have an intelligent comprehension of the theocratic system. The same is true of every other part of revelation.

The words of the apostle: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), apply to many learned commentaries. Their authors have brought to them much accurate scholarship and research; but they have not seen the unity of divine truth. They have written mainly in an antiquarian spirit and interest, regarding the work under consideration simply as an ancient and venerable record. They have diligently sought for connections in philology, in antiquities, and in history. In these respects they have thrown much light on the sacred text. But they have never once thought of inquiring what place the book which they have undertaken to interpret holds in the divine system of revelation—perhaps have had no faith in such a system. Consequently they cannot unfold to others that which they do not themselves apprehend. On a hundred particulars they may give valuable information, but that which constitutes the very life and substance of the book remains hidden from their view.

2. It is necessary that we understand, first of all, the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the system of revealed truth. It is a preparatory revelation introductory to one that is final. This the New Testament teaches in explicit terms. "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son." Gal. 4:4. Christ could not have come in the days of Enoch before the flood, nor of Abraham after the flood, because "the fulness of the time" had not yet arrived. Nor was the way for his advent prepared in the age of Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or Ezra. The gospel everywhere assumes that when the Saviour appeared, men had attained to a state of comparative maturity in respect to both the knowledge of God and the progress of human society. The attentive reader of the New Testament cannot fail to notice how fully its writers avail themselves of all the revelations which God had made in the Old Testament of himself, of the course of his providence, and of his purposes towards the human family. The unity of God, especially, is assumed as a truth so firmly established in the national faith of the Jews, that the doctrine of our Lord's deity, and that of the Holy Spirit, can be taught without the danger of its being misunderstood in a polytheistic sense—as if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were three gods. It is certain that this could not have been done any time before the Babylonish captivity. The idea of vicarious sacrifice, moreover—that great fundamental idea of the gospel that "without shedding of blood there is no remission"—the writers of the New Testament found ready at hand, and in its light they interpreted the mission of Christ. Upon his very first appearance, John the Baptist, his forerunner, exclaimed to the assembled multitudes: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." To the Jew, with his training under the Mosaic system of sacrifices, how significant were these words! Without such a previous training, how meaningless to him and to the world for which Christ died! Then again the gospel, in strong contrast with the Mosaic law, deals in general principles. Herein it assumes a comparative maturity of human thought—a capacity to include many particulars under one general idea. A beautiful illustration of this is our Lord's summary of social duties; "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7:12. We may add (what is indeed implied in the preceding remark) that the gospel required for its introduction a well-developed state of civilization and culture, as contrasted with one of rude barbarism. Now the Hebrews were introduced, in the beginning of their national existence, to the civilization of Egypt; which, with all its defects, was perhaps as good a type as then existed in the world. Afterwards they were brought successively into intimate connection with Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman civilization; particularly with the last two. This was, moreover, at a time when their national training under the Mosaic institutions had given them such maturity of religious character that they were not in danger of being seduced into the idolatrous worship of these nations. Dispersed throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, they still maintained firmly the religion of their fathers; and their synagogues everywhere constituted central points for the introduction of the gospel, and its diffusion through the Gentile world. Such are some of the many ways in which the world was prepared for the Redeemer's advent. This is a vast theme, on which volumes could be written. The plan of the present work will only admit of the above brief hints.

Our Lord's command is: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The history of missions shows that the gospel can be preached with success to the most degraded tribes—to the Hottentots of South Africa and the cannibals of the South sea islands, and that this is the only remedy for their barbarism. But the gospel did not begin among savages, nor does it have its centres of power and influence among them. Christ came at the culminating point of ancient civilization and culture; not that he might conform his gospel to existing institutions and ideas, but that he might through his gospel infuse into them (as far as they contained elements of truth) the purifying and transforming leaven of divine truth. As the gospel began in the midst of civilization, so does its introduction among barbarous tribes always bring civilization in its train.

3. When we have learned to regard the revelation of which we have a record in the Old Testament as preparatory to the gospel, we see it in its true light. This view furnishes both the key to its character and the answer to the objections commonly urged against it. It is not a revelation of abstract truths. These would neither have excited the interest of the people, nor have been apprehended by them. God made known to the covenant people his character and the duties which he required of them by a series of mighty acts and a system of positive laws. The Old Testament, is, therefore, in an eminent degree documentary—a record not simply of opinions, but rather of actions and institutions. Of these actions and institutions we are to judge from the character of the people and the age in connection with the great end proposed by God. This end was not the material prosperity of Israel, but the preparation of the nation for its high office as the medium through which the gospel should afterwards be given to the world. The people were rebellious and stiff-necked, and surrounded by polytheism and idolatry. Their training required severity, and all the severity employed by God brought forth at last its appropriate fruits. The laws imposed upon them were stern and burdensome from their multiplicity. But no one can show that in either of these respects they could have been wisely modified; for the nation was then in its childhood and pupilage (Gal. 4:1-3), and needed to be treated accordingly.

An objection much insisted on by some is the exclusive character of the Mosaic institutions—a religion, it is alleged, for only one nation, while all the other nations were left in ignorance. To this a summary answer can be given. In selecting Israel as his covenant people, God had in view the salvation of the whole world: "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)—such was the tenor of the covenant from the beginning. His plan was to bring one nation into special relation to himself, establish in it the true religion, prepare it for the advent of Christ, and then propagate the gospel from it as a centre throughout all nations. If men are to be dealt with in a moral way, as free, responsible subjects of law (and this is the only way in which God deals with men under a system of either natural or revealed religion), can the objector propose any better way? He might as well object to the procedure of a military commander that, instead of spreading his army over a whole province, he concentrates it on one strong point. Let him wait patiently, and he will find that in gaining this point the commander gains the whole country.

4. Having seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the system of divine revelation, we are now prepared to consider the place occupied by its several divisions.

(1.) To prepare the way for our Lord's advent, one nation was to be selected and trained up under a system of divine laws and ordinances—the theocracy established under Moses. The Pentateuch records the establishment of the theocracy, with the previous steps that led to it, and the historical events immediately connected with. it. Hence the five books of Moses are called emphatically the Law; and as such, their province in the Old Testament is clear and well defined.

(2.) The end of the Mosaic law being the preparation of the Israelitish people, and through them the world, for Christ's advent, it was not the purpose of God that it should be hidden as a dead letter beside the ark in the inner sanctuary. It was a code for practice, not for theory. It contained the constitution of the state, civil as well as religious; and God's almighty power and faithfulness were pledged that it should accomplish in a thorough way the office assigned to it. The theocracy must therefore have a history; and with the record of this the historical books are occupied.

(3.) God did not leave the development of this history to itself. He watched over it from the beginning, and directed its course, interposing from time to time, not only in a providential way, but also by direct revelation. Sometimes, for specific ends, he revealed himself immediately to particular individuals, as to Gideon, and Manoah and his wife. But more commonly his revelations were made to the rulers or people at large through persons selected as the organs of his Spirit; that is, through prophets. The prophet held his commission immediately from God. Since God is the author, not of confusion, but of order, he came to the people under the Law, not above it; and his messages were to be tried by the Law. Deut. 13:1-5. No prophet after Moses enjoyed the same fulness of access to God which was vouchsafed to him, or received the same extent of revelation. Numb. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10-12. Nevertheless, the prophet came to rulers and people, like Moses, with an authority derived immediately from God, introducing his messages with the words: "Thus saith the Lord." In God's name he rebuked the people for their sins; explained to them the true cause of the calamities that befell them; recalled them to God's service as ordained in the Law, unfolding to them at the same time its true nature as consisting in the spirit, and not in the letter only—1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11-20; 57:15; 66:2; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 18:31; Hosea 10:12; 14:2; Joel 2:12, 13; Amos 5: 21-24; Micah 6: 6-8—denounced upon them the awful judgments of God as the punishment of continued disobedience; and promised them the restoration of his favor upon condition of hearty repentance. In the decline of the Theocracy, it was the special province of the prophets to comfort the pious remnant of God's people by unfolding to them the future glory of Zion—the true "Israel of God," and her dominion over all the earth. From about the reign of Uzziah and onward, as already remarked (ch. 15. 12), the prophets began, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reduce their prophecies to writing, and thus arose the series of prophetical books that form a prominent part of the Old Testament canon. Their office is at once recognized by every reader as distinct from that of either the Pentateuch or the historical books; although these latter were, as a general rule, written by prophets also.

(4.) There is a class, more miscellaneous in character, that may be described in general terms as the poetical books, in which the elements of meditation and reflection predominate. It includes the book of Job, which has for its theme divine providence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament; the book of Psalms, that wonderful treasury of holy thought and feeling embodied in sacred song for the use of God's people in all ages; the book of Proverbs, with its inexhaustible treasures of practical wisdom; the book of Ecclesiastes, having for its theme the vanity of this world when sought as a satisfying good; and the book of Canticles, which the church has always regarded as a mystical song having for its ground-idea, under the Old Testament, that God is the husband of Zion, and under the New, that the church is the bride of Christ. How high a place this division of the canon holds in the system of divine revelation every pious heart feels instinctively. Without it, the revelation of the Old Testament could not have been complete for the work assigned to it.

5. We have seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the entire system of revelation, and also the place occupied by its several divisions. It will further appear, as we proceed, that each particular book in these divisions contributes its share to the perfection of the whole.

6. Although the revelation contained in the Old Testament was preparatory to the fuller revelation of the New, we must guard against the error of supposing that it had not a proper significance and use for the men of its own time. "Unto us," says the apostle, "was the gospel preached, as well as unto them." Heb. 4:2. And again: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better tiling for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Heb. 11:13, 39, 40. They had a part of the truth, but not its fulness; and the measure of revelation vouchsafed to them was given for their personal salvation, as well as to prepare the way for further revelations. The promise made to Abraham—"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"—was fulfilled in Christ. In this respect Abraham "received not the promise." Nevertheless, it was a promise made for his benefit, as well as for that of future ages. Into the bosom of the patriarch it brought light and joy and salvation. "Your father Abraham," said Jesus, "rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56. "He believed in the Lord," says the inspired record, "and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt typified the redemption of Christ; and it was, moreover, one of the grand movements that prepared the way for his advent. But it was neither all type nor all preparation. To the covenant people of that day it was a true deliverance; and to the believing portion of them, a deliverance of soul as well as of body. "The law," says Paul, "was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. But while it had this preparatory office, it was to the Israelitish nation a true rule of life; and under it many, through faith, anticipated its end. The prophets prophesied for the men of their own age, as well as for distant generations. The sweet psalmist of Israel, while he foreshadowed the Messiah's reign, sung for the comfort and edification of himself and his contemporaries; and Solomon gave rules of practical wisdom as valid for his day as for ours. The revelation of the Old Testament was not complete, like that which we now possess; but it was sufficient for the salvation of every sincere inquirer after truth. When the rich man in hell besought Abraham that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five brethren on the ground that, if one went to them from the dead they would repent, Abraham answered: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

7. There is another practical error against which Christians of the present day need to be warned. It is the idea that the full revelation of the New Testament supersedes in a great measure the necessity of studying the previous revelation contained in the Old Testament. Few will openly avow this, but too many inwardly cherish the delusion in a vague and undefined form; and it exerts a pernicious influence upon them, leading them to undervalue and neglect the Old Testament Scriptures. Even if the idea under consideration were in accordance with truth, it would still be to every earnest Christian a matter of deep historical interest to study the way by which God prepared the world for the full light of the gospel. But it is not true. It rests on a foundation of error and delusion. For, (1.) The system of divine revelation constitutes a whole, all the parts of which are connected, from beginning to end, so that no single part can be truly understood without a knowledge of all the rest. The impenetrable darkness that rests on some portions of Scripture has its ground in the fact that the plan of redemption is not yet completed. The mighty disclosures of the future can alone dissipate this darkness.

"God is his own interpreter, And he will make it plain."

(2.) We know that the writers of the New Testament constantly refer to the Old for arguments and illustrations. A knowledge of the Old Testament is necessary, therefore, for a full comprehension of their meaning. How can the reader, for example, understand the epistles to the Romans and Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, without a thorough acquaintance with "Moses and the prophets," to which these epistles have such constant reference? (3.) The Old Testament is occupied with the record of God's dealings with men. Such a record must be a perpetual revelation of God's infinite attributes, and of human character also, and the course of human society, every part of which is luminous with instruction. (4.) Although the old theocracy, with its particular laws and forms of worship, has passed away, yet the principles on which it rested, which interpenetrated it in every part, and which shone forth with a clear light throughout its whole history—these principles are eternal verities, as valid for us as for the ancient patriarchs. Some of these principles—for example, God's unity, personality, and infinite perfections; his universal providence; his supremacy over all nations; the tendency of nations to degeneracy, and the stern judgments employed by God to reclaim them—are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that they needed no repetition in the New. There they became axioms rather than doctrines. (5.) "The manifold wisdom of God" in adapting his dealings with men to the different stages of human progress cannot be seen without a diligent study of the Old Testament as well as the New. Whoever neglects the former, will want breadth and comprehensiveness of Christian culture. All profound Christian writers have been well versed in "the whole instrument of each Testament," as Tertullian calls the two parts of revelation. Chap. 13, No. 2.

Modern skepticism begins with disparaging the Old Testament, and ends with denying the divine authority of both the Old and the New. In this work it often unites a vast amount of learning in regard to particulars with principles that are superficial and false.



CHAPTER XIX.

THE PENTATEUCH.

1. The unity of the Pentateuch has already been considered (Ch. 9, No. 12), and will appear more fully as we proceed with the examination of the separate books included in it. Even if we leave out of view the authority of the New Testament, this unity is too deep and fundamental to allow of the idea that it is a patchwork of later ages. Under divine guidance the writer goes steadily forward from beginning to end, and his work when finished is a symmetrical whole. Even its apparent incongruities, like the interweaving of historical notices with the laws, are marks of its genuineness; for they prove that, in those parts at least, events were recorded as they transpired. Such a blending of history with revelation does not impair the unity of the work; for it is a unity which has its ground not in severe logical arrangement and classification, but in a divine plan historically developed. Whether the division of the Pentateuch into five books (whence its Greek name Pentateuchos, fivefold book) was original, proceeding from the author himself, or the work of a later age, is a question on which biblical scholars are not agreed. It is admitted by all that the division is natural and appropriate. The Hebrew titles of the several books are taken from prominent words standing at or near the beginning of each. The Greek names are expressive of their prominent contents; and these are followed in the Latin Vulgate and in our English version, only that the name of the fourth book is translated.

I. GENESIS.

2. The Hebrews name this book Bereshith, in the beginning, from the first word. Its Greek name Genesis signifies generation, genealogy. As the genealogical records with which the book abounds contain historical notices, and are, in truth, the earliest form of history, the word is applied to the history of the creation, and of the ancient patriarchs, as well as to the genealogical lists of their families. Gen. 2:4; 25:19; 37:2 etc. In the same wide sense is it applied to the book itself.

3. Genesis is the introductory book to the Pentateuch, without which our understanding of the following books would be incomplete. Let us suppose for a moment that we had not this book. We open the book of Exodus and read of "the children of Israel which came into Egypt;" that "Joseph was in Egypt already," and that "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Who were these children of Israel? we at once ask; and how did they come to be in Egypt? Who was Joseph? and what is the meaning of the notice that the new king knew not Joseph? All these particulars are explained in the book of Genesis, and without them we must remain in darkness. But the connection of this book with the following is not simply explanatory; it is organic also, entering into the very substance of the Pentateuch. We are told (Ex. 2:24, 25) that God heard the groaning of his people in Egypt, and "God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." The remembrance of his covenant with their fathers is specified as the ground of his interposition. Now the covenant made with Abraham, and afterwards renewed to Isaac and Jacob, was not a mere incidental event in the history of the patriarchs and their posterity. It constituted the very essence of God's peculiar relation to Israel; and, as such, it was the platform on which the whole theocracy was afterwards erected. The nation received the law at Sinai in pursuance of the original covenant made with their fathers; and unless we understand the nature of this covenant, we fail to understand the meaning and end of the law itself. The very information which we need is contained in Genesis; for from the twelfth chapter onward this book is occupied with an account of this covenant, and of God's dealings with the patriarchs in connection with it. The story of Joseph, which unites such perfect simplicity with such deep pathos, is not thrown in as a pleasing episode. Its end is to show how God accomplished his purpose, long before announced to Abraham (ch. 15:13), that the Israelites should be "a stranger in a land not theirs."

But the Abrahamic covenant itself finds its explanation in the previous history. For two thousand years God had administered the government of the world without a visible church. And what was the result? Before the flood the degeneracy of the human family was universal. God, therefore, swept them all away, and began anew with Noah and his family. But the terrible judgment of the deluge was not efficacious to prevent the new world from following the example of the old. In the days of Abraham the worship of God had been corrupted through polytheism and idolatry, and ignorance and wickedness were again universal. The time had manifestly come for the adoption of a new economy, in which God should, for the time being, concentrate his special labors upon a single nation but with ultimate reference to the salvation of the whole world. Thus we have in the book of Genesis in a certain measure (for we may not presume to speak of God's counsels as fully apprehended by us) an explanation of the Abrahamic covenant, and, in this, of the Mosaic economy also.

4. In accordance with the above view, the book of Genesis falls into two unequal, but natural divisions. The first part extends through eleven chapters, and is occupied with the history of the human family as a whole. It is the oldest record in existence, and its contents are perfectly unique. It describes in brief terms: the order of creation; the institution of the Sabbath and marriage; the probation to which man was subjected, with its disastrous result in his fall and expulsion from Eden; the murder of Abel by Cain, and, in connection with this, the division of mankind into two families; man's universal degeneracy; the deluge; the covenant made by God with the earth through Noah, and the law of murder; the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent dispersion of the different families of men, a particular account of which is given by way of anticipation in the tenth chapter. In addition to these notices there are two genealogical tables; the first from Adam to Noah (ch. 5), the second from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11).

The second part comprises the remainder of the book. In this we have no longer a history of the whole race, but of Abraham's family, with only incidental notices of the nations into connection with whom Abraham and his posterity were brought. It opens with an account of the call of Abraham and the covenant made with him; notices the repeated renewal of this covenant to Abraham, with the institution of the rite of circumcision; its subsequent renewal to Isaac and Jacob; and the exclusion, first of Ishmael and afterwards of Esau, from a share in its privileges. In immediate connection with the covenant relation into which God took Abraham and his family, we have the history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sometimes with much detail, but always with reference to the peculiar prerogative conferred upon them. The book closes with an account of the wonderful train of providences by which Israel was brought into Egypt.

Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet, apparently in consequence of their near relation to the patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael, ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.

5. The Mosaic authorship of Genesis has already been considered; and, in connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and especially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11. Some, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such clauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were afterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men. We are at liberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence before us. On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written documents, see Ch. 9, No. 11.

The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially into the texture of the book. They are just such extraneous remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example, Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35. On the last of these, Graves, who considers it "plainly a passage inserted by a later hand," says: "I contend that the insertion of such notes rather confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative. If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records" (according to the false assumption of some respecting the origin of the Pentateuch), "such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original." On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1, No. 13.

6. The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar. It is not strange, therefore, that we should encounter difficulties in the attempt to interpret them. To consider these difficulties in detail would be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters. Only some general remarks can here be offered. Some difficulties are imaginary, the inventions of special pleading. In these the commentaries of modern rationalists abound. They are to be set aside by fair interpretation. But other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by the honest expositor. If he can give a valid explanation of them, well and good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the calm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a foundation that cannot be shaken. To deny a well-authenticated narrative of facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is to build on a foundation of error.