PARKENNAMININDRE
11
AIR
MAGNA
La se do te da se
Made in pole vaja, da vardag, injeragat are rank a
----
Sa
ka ma va a ak ma tamaal te da se je vrte hade v man van de mag a
Shea marta sem vinna van
kan mendime marta og KAN TA ra, v kan man banggaan man farmert vapor de i
barrerako vita a un gar hans egg with no other pa
bana
va v predt Match han apranga, men de ce se ta dinte al 1 de
sana kwa jen na mah SANYO
in, Team * (*_-_vil 11. Masterly in the Hate the P
t
ada tans by a Naga
mapa Day, phangland",
a vapaa, mis ma saat, 11 Kvinn
kama mga di nude "at" valutaan die wegen wat u Markammaga ve d
ܐܐܥܕܬܗ iܫܝܠܝܢܕܝܗܘܢ ܫܘ ܘܫܝܢܐ 10
sama Palace adds a no can submarke
tar me a me to thank
potakne, hate, dig betalen. Warta- o
instalar kətan kar se s fent as a se smi
pang sa amin login to var va picha noma, munta ng -
mfort in an i
----, pat apa
tan dag te se k maturing mon, with month
nha trang và theo
- Aggregat – va – A
tak pự ng tao na pia ni me to die, maging me. My car tyre dhe
mandag
me
pa se je ne à la luna tarte vermag hade at a Yanga kar Mp4 V
bu gadi qualung saan 1 ANTAA MAN" You Angad to go yote, "ger womantis
Franskať do my hart te maak
vapaa vang vang dapat na tara, sport s karte 1 - Mag Kaplan, de van 'n ma
a in garage pan Šata vanak sa v manage Van der Matangkan tertar who met fremettent
q
van je aan van de chiama ng matanda de a se v kako t
La Plata, ka skates later as a + att
ha de
ag Park, ang kagan sa Pag ng mga kama wat haar
ng mạn tả 1 - 4 m 2 m - mis
AMA
pathan đến, was comme "pretiga olan "ja a v mn B A KONT
ná, pedig megtalalangkah mamada art and main
man, mga tan ve partie du rang vớn, dan gatang pang datan
bagaget vigilante y segura primer man, maka anat a la page my ma nuk do t
IERONTAGE THEN "AM", "San Tan Jan Van kan ha da grama, 'a'
per apron the 27, for bor.
Al Maa .* A MENTIONNA
Viņa mta, Tantrage and tar det kan Pana
Akvama, a na S
dr. delay oglalatnya. Saya menar att anvendes d
Pa
MARIA ATUTAKO TOM
Na state de a va makta
sa mga taký,
Stag Parent A
STORAGE
– Vella Tosh ) jolta al te opt to the
HAW
The
"}
AN
A 548246
1
DUPL
SIL, JA
phenom Kunkkar E SADOQM DUA
BAAAAA‹
CIRCULATING
NON
: י'
Gale
Like

Tappan Frespyterian Association
LIBRARY
Presented by
Y1J...
Rev. D H Taylor
1890
TTTTTTTT
.
i
-- ---
--.
young
.593
1135
10 Par dem, qui de p
Library,
9, Jaylor's
BS

N
ཨ་ོཊསཝཎསཧབ ལསྦ་
}
CRITICAL
HISTORY AND DEFENCE
OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT CANON.
BY
MOSES STUART,
PROFESSOR OF SAC. LITERATURE IN THE THEOL. SEMINARY,
ANDOVER, MASS.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES,
BY SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D. D.
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE.
LONDON:
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & CO., SOHO SQUARE.
1
1849.
}
}
•
•MAA
1/
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.
૬
4-17
gift
Tappan Phest, Asore,
1-9-1933
SECT.
CONTENTS.
I. Introductory Remarks
II.
1
22
29
56
124
132
168
180
199
206
227
XII. Sameness of the Jewish Canon ever since its completion 238
XIII. General Results
272
XIV. Canon of the Egyptian Jews
276
XV. How were the Scriptures estimated by the Jews?
279
290
XVI. Summary of testimony by Sirach, Philo, and Josephus
XVII. Nature and importance of New Testament testimony
XVIII. Appeals by the New Testament to the Old
291
296
XIX. Result
321
XX. Conclusion
323
XXI. Remarks on doubts respecting some of the Old Test. books 326
XXII. Use of the Old Testament
360
Definition of the word Canon
III. Commencement of the Canon
IV. State of Literature and Instruction among the Hebrews
V. Continued History of the Canon; books of known authors
VI. Continued History Books anonymous
VII. Lost books of the Hebrews
· •
·
VIII. Manner of preserving the Sacred Books
IX. Genuineness; general considerations
X. Completion of the Canon.
XI. Ancient divisions of the Canon
•
•
•
•
•
•
PAGE
•
iv
CONTENTS.
APPENDIX.
No.
I. Testimony of the Son of Sirach
II.
of Philo Judæus.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
of Josephus
of Melito
of Origen
of the Council of Laodicea
•
of Cyrill of Jerusalem
of Gregory Nazianzen
of Athanasius .
of Synopsis of Scripture
of Epiphanius
of the Council of Hippo
of the Council of Carthage
of Jerome
of Hilary
of Rufinus
•
•
·
PAGE
395
399
401
403
404
407
408
409
411
413
415
417
418
ib.
421
422
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
FEW intelligent theologians, and fewer Biblical scholars, can
entertain a doubt of the necessity of a new treatise on the
Canon of the Old Testament. If the Canon of the New
Testament demands investigation at the present day, as it
assuredly does, that of the Old Testament does so more im-
peratively. There is an obscurity about the whole subject
which needs to be dissipated as far as it may be by the aid
of the most recent light. Considerable difficulty will pro-
bably still remain to baffle the skill of the learned; but after
due allowance has been made, it will appear that much can
be done towards an explanation of the topic in question.
Four points connected with it naturally suggest themselves
to the mind. First, By what principle or principles were cer-
tain writings regarded as sacred and authoritative by the
Jewish nation at large, while others were looked on as of
mere human origin? Secondly, Are Christians bound to
follow the Jews in this respect, and so to regard the same
writings as Divine? Thirdly, When and by whom was the
Canon completed or closed? Fourthly, Were any changes
made at this time in the books, either in the way of addition,
or of rectifying errors which had crept in from the time
they were first written? A full examination of these ques-
tions would embrace all that could be said on the subject of
the Canon. A full and impartial examination I mean. But
this cannot be expected very soon. It will probably be a
long time ere such a work make its appearance in the
vi
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
English language. Not many possess the learning and judg-
ment adequate to its production. Large and varied attain-
ments, such as seldom fall to the lot of one person, are
required for its due performance. Qualifications natural
and acquired are demanded for it. A philosophical spirit,
capable of wielding and guiding multifarious learning, is
eminently needed. Calm judgment, acute discrimination,
freedom from the slavery of current opinions, fearlessness in
following out investigations to their legitimate results, and
in enunciating those results to the public-all this, combined
with a deep reverence for whatever is sacred and divine,
must belong to the right-minded and successful inquirer
into this department of theological learning. The Germans
possess some of these qualifications; but in others they are
lamentably wanting. So also with regard to English theo-
logians. The man who would write conclusively on the
whole subject, settling it as far as it is capable of such set-
tlement, should unite in himself the best qualifications of
German and English scholarship-the varied learning of the
former with the practical common sense of the latter-the
liberty of thought exemplified by the Germans with the
conservative tendency of the English mind.
The reader of the following treatise will perceive, that it
throws considerable light on the first two questions. On the
last two, especially on the fourth, little is advanced. The
work indeed is rather an apology for the present Canon,
than a full and impartial history of it. It bears the apolo-
getic air throughout. Perhaps it is too like the writing of
a man who sets out determined by all means to uphold the
existing and commonly received books. Hence, serious dif
ficulties are occasionally kept in the back-ground, or alto-
gether unmentioned. There is no complete statement of
objections to the opinions advocated by the writer. Formid-
able hinderances to his sentiments are not every where fairly
brought out. Hence the treatise is not exhaustive. It is
therefore less satisfactory. Indeed it is not fitted to afford
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
vii
entire satisfaction on many points of importance and inter-
est. The learned author has not settled every thing about
the Canon. The subject still requires a comprehensive
treatment. In particular, the separation of the so-called
apocryphal books from the inspired books of the Old Testa-
ment needs further explanation. In proof of these remarks,
the reader is requested to compare the observations made
by Mr. Stuart on Origen's testimony respecting the Canon
with the following passages in the works of that learned
father. In his treatise De Princip. ii. 1, he writes thus:
"Ut ex Scripturarum auctoritate hoc ita se habere creda-
mus, audi quoque in Maccabæorum libris." Here he speaks
of the books of the Maccabees as authoritative Scripture.
Again, in his treatise against Celsus, (viii. 50,) he refers to
Ecclesiasticus as Oɛĩos λóyos, a divine treatise; and in an-
other place the same expression is applied to the book of
Wisdom. Το Tobit he applies the distinctive term γραφὴ,
scripture. Like observations occur in Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Cyprian, and other fathers. Thus Irenæus
writes, (Adv. Hæres. v. 35,) "Significavit Jeremias pro-
pheta," where the apocryphal book of Baruch is meant.
Clement of Alexandria refers to the third chapter of Baruch
when he writes, ἡ θεία που λέγει γραφὴ, Divine Scripture
says in a certain place (Pædagog. II.). Cyprian has, "Scrip-
tura divina instruit," where Tobit is meant (De Orat. Domin.).
These few particulars will serve to justify the correctness
of our observations respecting difficulties unnoticed by Prof.
Stuart-difficulties which a comprehensive treatise could not
fail to notice.
Gated
But though the work is not an exhaustive treatise on the
Canon; though it even fails to settle in a satisfactory man-
ner various matters more or less fully introduced, yet it has
its value. The esteemed author probably did not intend it
to be a complete critical history and defence of the Canon-
so complete as to omit nothing of consequence. His work
is essentially a contribution to the history of the Old Testa-
viii
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ment Canon. And a very valuable contribution it is. It
deserves an honourable place in the Biblical literature of the
present day, and must be of great service to future inquirers.
No work in the English language occupies the same posi-
tion or possesses the same excellence in reference to the im-
portant subject of which it treats. I am persuaded, there-
fore, that it will be most welcome to many thoughtful minds.
It is pervaded by a spirit of candour not very common in
modern times. Proceeding as it does from one imbued with
reverence for the Divine oracles, who has been conversant
during a long life with the interpretation of them, and who
is well acquainted with recent theological literature, the
treatise will be acceptable to a large and happily increasing
class. It breathes a healthy spirit of investigation. The
author is not very anxious to evade difficulties when he is
aware of their existence. He is not afraid to think; and to
avow his opinions even when they may be adverse to the
great majority of the so-called orthodox. He gives due
credit to his opponents, without indulging in violent invec-
tives against them. He looks their assertions calmly in the
face, dealing in argument rather than vituperation. Hence
it is pleasant to be in company with the writer. Quite re-
freshing is it to hold communion with one, who in the midst
of an evil-speaking generation is no slave to current opinions
in theology, simply because they are current.
I have said, that the propriety of reprinting this American
work cannot be questioned for a moment; for the book of
Mr. Norton which gave rise to it has been also republished
in England. If therefore it be desirable that the antidote
should go after the poison in one country, it is equally de-
sirable in another. And it is needless to blind our eyes to
the fact, that scepticism in various forms is freely circulated
in this island, at the present day. The New Testament
history has been impugned in different ways. How then
can the Old Testament escape? It has not escaped the fiery
test. External evidence in favour of the canonical books
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ix
has been depreciated of late. Intuitions, feelings, pure rea-
son, the divine or spiritual in man, phrases which mean the
same thing, are now exalted to undue prominence—so much
so as to set aside, by their arbitrary authority, strong his-
torical testimony. A vague, mystical, spiritual something
within, sits in judgment on the sacred writings, dealing with
them in a very summary method, and rejecting whatever
does not meet its approval. This is the sort of scepticism
which the truth has to encounter. It matters little whether
it consist in reason, or philosophy, or intuitional faculties.
Names vary, but the thing itself remains the same.
I am
well aware, that the Bible in all its parts must be consonant
with right reason and sound philosophy. It addresses itself
to the understanding as well as to the heart of mankind. If
it contradict the true light which God has implanted within,
it cannot be received as a book containing messages from
Heaven. The judgment must be satisfied of its truth. But
it is quite possible, at the same time, to uphold as pure rea-
son, or right intuition, or sound philosophy, or internal con-
sciousness, that which has no good claim to the honourable
appellations in question. And not only is this possible, but
it has been exemplified in cases not a few. The thing is
notorious. The error-and it is a grievous one—is com-
mitted every day. Individuals set up their own reason as
the ultimate standard by which they try the Divine author-
ity of the Bible. This is taking a one-sided view of the
subject. It wants generalization and is therefore unphi-
losophical.
If it were necessary to adduce an additional reason for
reprinting the present treatise, I should point to the work
entitled "A History of the Hebrew Monarchy from the
Administration of Samuel to the Babylonish Captivity."
London, 8vo, 1847. Here is a book conceived and exe-
cuted in the worst spirit of German Anti-supranaturalism.
It is quite worthy of a Paulus, as the following extracts will
serve to show.
X
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
"Their [the prophets'] characteristic emblem was some
musical instrument, and their highest function to compose
and sing solemn psalms of religious worship or instruction.
The Hebrew prophets were not free from various tinges of
fanaticism, which generated also affectation. That they
often worked themselves into a religious frenzy (as in the
wild Asiatic ceremonies which the Greeks called Orgies)
may be inferred from the same verb in Hebrew meaning to
prophesy and to be mad. . . . . Even later prophets are re-
corded to have walked naked and barefoot, or to have lain
upon one side sometimes for years, like the religious mad-
men of the East; and some proceedings yet more ambiguous
are ascribed to them. . . . . Their mode of seeking for a
Divine reply was not ceremonial or superstitious, however
tinged with a high enthusiasm. The prophet either played
on the lyre himself or (oftener perhaps) called for a minstrel
to do so, and wrapt himself in pious meditation on the sub-
ject of inquiry; until, gaining an insight into its moral bear-
ings, and kindled by the melody, he delivered a response in
a high-wrought and generally poetical strain."
Such, according to the writer, is the best general idea we
can get of the position and agency of the prophets; p.
31-37.
"The book of Chronicles is not an honest and trust-
worthy narrative, and must be used with great caution as
an authority, where any thing is involved which affects
Levitical influence;" p. 146.
"To inveigh against Omri is absurd and monstrous in
writers (the compilers of the Chronicles) who cannot spare a
word of censure for Solomon's gratuitous heathen marriages
and heathen abominations;" p. 177.
"The crisis called forth two great prophets in succession,
Elijah and Elisha; whose adventures and exploits have come
down to us in such a halo of romance, not unmingled with
poetry of a high genius, that it is impossible to disentangle
the truth. The account of these occupies twice as much
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
xi
space as the history of the kings of Judah and Israel to-
gether, from the death of Solomon to the accession of Ahab ;
but as their deeds are nearly all prodigies, attested to us
only by a writing compiled three centuries after the facts,
and having no bearing that can be traced on the real course
of the history, we are forced to pass them over very slightly.
The ascription, however, of miraculous powers to these pro-
phets is a notable circumstance, as being altogether new in
Jewish history. To find any thing analogous we must run
back to the legendary days of Moses. One general inference
may be drawn,-that the danger and importance of the
struggle worked up the minds of Jehovah's worshippers into
a high enthusiasm and intense belief of his present energy to
aid his prophets. The after-tale also shows, that here, as
elsewhere, persecution made its victims bigoted, undis-
criminating, and ruthless in their turn;" p. 180.
"It is unpleasing to find the prophet Isaiah (ch. xxiii.)
exult in the dangers which came upon this noble city, (Tyre,)
while standing in the foreground for freedom, and really
shielding Jerusalem from the common oppressor. We here
see the evil element of exclusive patriotism, which, when
imbibed by those who had not Isaiah's other great qualities,
made the Jew to be regarded as a hater of mankind. In the
ode itself there is no indication that Tyre was regarded as
hostile to Jerusalem: the slave trade is not named, nor the
alliance with Philistia or Syria. But here, as elsewhere, the
Hebrew prophets show a narrow-minded abhorrence of
worldly art, skill, and science, as producing merely wealth,
pomp, luxury, and pride;" p. 286.
"We have no evidence against this king (Jehoiakim)
better than the vague words of the man whom he pursued
as a political offender;" p. 353.
"Jeremiah's memory failed of reproducing accurately the
utterances of years long past;" p. 352, note.
"The writing (of the younger Isaiah, ch. xl.—lxii.) is
obviously that of a Jew in Babylonia during the exile; and
xii
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
his great subject is, the approaching restoration to their own
land;" p. 366.
"Had the announcements of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (re-
specting the conquest of Egypt by the Babylonians) proved
true, we should inevitably have learned of it from Hero-
dotus,” p. 364.
I trust that the readers into whose hands this dangerous
book may fall, will not be seduced by its flippant statements.
I do not deny that it evinces much learning and acuteness;
but it wants the calmness and impartiality of true philoso-
phy. The writer evidently sets out with the denial of
miracles and prophecy. In this respect, he goes beyond
some of the Germans, whose learning he makes use of, and
whose conclusions he implicitly adopts wherever they serve
his purpose. It would be easy to show, that there is much
unfairness in many of his reasonings. He repeats argu-
ments which have been answered. He fathers conclu-
sions which have been successfully combated, without hint-
ing at the names of the scholars who have stood forth
in defence of the truth. Should any be unhappily led
astray by this work, the present treatise will help to set
them right, or suggest at least another view of various
questions. As an example, I refer to the observations
respecting Manasseh in both works. The anonymous
writer denies that Manasseh had been guilty of so grave an
offence as that of persecuting the sacred book, "when it has
not been charged on him." If he did so act, it is thought
he must have failed, "because numerous copies must have
been in the priests' hands;" pp. 330, 331. Here the dog-
matic must plays an important part. Compare Mr. Stuart's
observations on the same point, and a much better idea of
the matter will be obtained. So with regard to other mat-
ters. It is to be hoped, however, that comparatively few
have arrived at the height of wisdom to which this writer
has attained. There is enough of good sense, not to say
religion, in the land, to turn away with abhorrence from
T
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
xiii
the notion dogmatically propounded: "it must not be as-
sumed, that these 'false prophets' were not fully equal in
moral worth to Jeremiah, and as sincerely convinced that
Jehovah spoke by them, as he was in his own case;" p. 357.
But enough of this author, and of his "History of the
Hebrew Monarchy," which would require a much larger
book than itself to refute.
The fundamental mistake committed by Mr. Norton and
the anonymous writer in question, consists in a transference
of the full light of the Christian dispensation to the dimness
of the Jewish. They have not carefully or calmly con-
sidered the genius of the one as compared with the other.
The first was very imperfect and dark when placed by the
side of the second. It was meant to prepare
It was meant to prepare the way for
the latter, and must therefore have been inferior in many
respects. In regard to the nature of the Old Testament
dispensation itself it might be shown, that the entire ar-
rangement was adapted to the period of the world during
which it continued, the rude notions of the people whom
God singled out from among the other peoples of the earth,
the degree of civilization then existing in Asia, and the
temporary character of the dispensation itself. When it is
remembered, that the old economy was merely a shadow of
good things to come, not the substance that it typified the
sacrifice of Christ-that it was limited to one nation, not
universal like Christianity-that the revelations of Heaven
to men must be accommodated in a good degree to their
prevailing conceptions and imperfect culture-it will be
seen, that the Jews were taught in the only way in which
they could have been instructed consistently as well with
the nature of humanity and their peculiar national character
as with the design which they were chosen to answer in the
history of God's dealings with the inhabitants of the earth.
Things were permitted then, which Christianity cannot al-
low. The times of ignorance then, God winked at. Mat-
ters were commanded then, which are not commanded now,
xiv.
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
Bloodshed was far more common then than now. God
spake then in diverse ways. He speaks otherwise now.
Different agencies were employed, which could not now be
employed consistently with the purposes of Deity. The
darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. Hence a
different tuition is necessary. But there is still a pure and
elevated morality directly sanctioned by God under all
dispensations. The character and attributes of Jehovah are
the same, though presented in various aspects. Sin is ever
an object of the Divine displeasure. The character of man
and the character of God are essentially the same as de-
scribed under the two dispensations. God's dealings are
different, but his nature is one and the same. He dealt
with the Jews in a manner consistent with the great pur-
pose which that people were selected to fulfil in the history
of humanity; and it would be very difficult, if not impos-
sible, to point out any other course of proceeding which he
could have pursued towards them, equally worthy of himself
and adapted to all the circumstances in which they were
placed.
Shad
These general observations may suffice to show the un-
fairness of judging of a former economy by the light of
another which succeeded, and then condemning many things.
connected with it, because they do not come up to the full
standard of Christianity. And yet this is what is done by
Mr. Norton and others. Having their minds fully possessed
with the pure principles and exalted ideas of Christianity,
they go back to the Old Testament; and, failing to find the
same elevation there, they criticise, discredit, or discard
what appears to be unworthy of the Deity as He is revealed
by the Son.
To return to the work of Mr. Stuart. I have no in-
tention on the present occasion to review the different
parts of which it consists. While I agree with the great
majority of the statements made, I do not assent to them all.
Some topics are ably, others imperfectly discussed. In this
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
XV
respect there is considerable diversity. Thus the eighteenth
section, in which the appeals of the New Testament to the
Old are considered, does not exhibit much cogency of argu-
ment. The writer deals too much in general assertions,
even where quoting particular passages. Nor is the twenty-
first section satisfactory. Here indeed the learned author
had to grapple with serious difficulties. The books of
Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, present perplexing
anomalies which have never been cleared away. Manfully
has he endeavoured to solve them. But that he has been
successful, will scarcely be maintained by such as are fully
aware of those anomalies in all their extent and magnitude.
It will be perceived at a glance that the apologetic tone is far
too prominent in this section. On the other hand, the twenty-
second section is able and conclusive, though partaking of
the diffuse character which belongs to the entire book.
Those who know what Introduction as used by the Ger-
mans embraces will see, that many topics examined but par-
tially in the present volume belong to it. An Introduction
to the Old Testament professedly takes up by far the largest
proportion of the matters here introduced. The writer has ac-
cordingly made good use of the recent German Introductions.
In one part, however, he has unaccountably neglected that of
Hävernick. But De Wette's, with all its faults-and they
are most serious ones-is the only work of this kind whieh
is entirely up to the present state of knowledge; and with it.
the author seems fully conversant. He should have made
more use of Herbst's, which is very able in some respects,
though the work of a Roman Catholic. It is surprising that
Mr. Stuart should have overlooked some other treatises, such
as Koester's book on the prophets, which is very much su-
perior to Knobel's dull and flat production. Strange too it
is, that none of the articles in Kitto's Cyclopædia should
have been consulted. It is superfluous to specify others
which Mr. Stuart ought to have read. For this neglect,
however, I am far from blaming him. Rather am I aston-
A
xvi
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ished that he has read and consulted most of the recent Ger-
man literature bearing on his subject. At his age, and with
his very precarious state of health, it is marvellous that he
has kept pace with the rapidly accumulating materials issuing
yearly from the press. Add to this, his style, though very
diffuse and full of repetitions, has the fresh vigour of youth
about it. It betokens the sprightly temperament of a
young man.
I have subjoined a very few notes here and there, which
are distinguished by the letter D. The text itself has been
altered in no more than two or three words; but several
erroneous references to chapters and verses have been recti-
fied. The only retrenchment worth mentioning, which I
have ventured to make, is the omission of the greater part
of page 397 in the American edition, where the author
digresses into an apostrophe to the Free Church of Scotland,
that had just then seceded from the Establishment. The
apostrophe has nothing to do with a work on the Canon,
and may be well spared; especially as a periodical bearing
the name of the "Free Church," has been latterly filling its
pages with abuse of Mr. Stuart himself, and of others who
do not happen to agree with the type of orthodoxy ignor-
antly maintained by it.
Lancashire Independent College,
Manchester, June 8th, 1849.
S. D.
CRITICAL HISTORY
AND DEFENCE OF THE
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
THE time has been, when few, if any, who admitted the
Divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, deemed
it consistent or decorous to deny the sacred authority of the
Old Testament Scriptures. But that time has passed away,
and we have come to witness new developments of sceptical
feelings, at which our ancestors would have stood astounded.
I do not mean to aver, that there has not, for ages past, been
a class of men in all Christian countries, who doubted the
Divine authority of the Christian and Jewish religion, and of
course the Divine origin and authority of the sacred books in
general. But the professed reception of the Christian reli-
gion as Divine, with the admission that the New Testament
contains at least a credible and authentic account of it; the
admission at the same time, that the Jewish religion had
some proper and real claim to be considered as having been
approved and established by God, while the Old Testament
is regarded in the main as a work of sciolists and impostors;
is a phenomenon that has rarely occurred, I believe, in any
country, but which we of the present day are called upon,
perhaps for the first time, to witness.
I
Past experience and a priori reasoning from the nature of
the case would probably have led most persons to conclude,
B
2
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
that such a development would not take place on the part
of any well-informed and consistent man; yet Mr. Norton,
in a work replete in many respects with learning and
valuable matter -a work which he entitles Evidences of the
Genuineness of the Gospels-has taken the unusual position.
which I have been describing. In a Note appended to Vol.
II. of this work, extending from p. 402 to 512, in which he
has brought under review "the Jewish dispensation, the Pen-
tateuch, and the other Books of the Old Testament," he has
developed his opinions at length on these subjects, and
actually and earnestly laboured to show, that in order to
maintain the Divine origin of the Jewish religion, as founded
by Moses, it becomes necessary to show that he did not write
the Pentateuch; and in like manner, in order to show that
the Jewish prophets and others who laboured to promote the
observance of the Jewish religion, were the true disciples of
a true religion, it becomes necessary to show, that most of the
Old Testament books are filled with incredible, or trivial, or
superstitious narrations and notions, and that the best we
can do, even with the prophets, is to select here and there a
passage that accords with reason and sound judgment, to
which we may give our assent as being worthy of the ancient
dispensation, while the rest is to be placed under the same
category as the fictions and extravagant accounts of all other
nations, respecting their origin and their history in ages too
remote to have been consigned to writing.
It is not my design, in the present work, to review at
length and controvert all the positions of Mr. Norton. It
will be seen, in the brief account that I shall give of them in
the sequel, that a great proportion of them belong rather to
the department of Christian theology, especially of apologetic
and polemic theology, than to the department of sacred liter-
ature. I leave to others what properly belongs to them, not
doubting in the least that there is the ability and the will,
among some of the theologians of our country, to put on their
armour and advance to the contest, when the attempt is made
to take our citadel by storm. My intention is to confine my-
self, in the main, within the limits of a critical and histori-
cal view of the Jewish Canon of Scripture in the days of
Christ and the apostles, and to show that this Canon, as receiv-
ed by the Jews at that time, was declared by our Saviour and
SECT. I.
3
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
CO
his apostles to be of Divine origin and authority, and was
treated by them as entitled to these claims. If it can be shown
that Christ and the apostles, as the commissioned messen-
gers of God to establish Christianity, did receive, regard, and
treat the Scriptures of the Jews as obligatory and of Divine
authority, and also that these Scriptures were the same books
which belong to our present Old Testament, then two con-
sequences must follow from the establishment of these propo-
sitions. The first is, that whatever doubts or difficulties any
one may have about the critical history or origin of particu-
lar books in the Old Testament, still he must now acknow-
ledge that they have received the sanction of an authority
from which there is no appeal. Universal scepticism alone
can make exceptions to them, on the ground of credibility
and authenticity. The second is, that the man who admits
the Divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, and
that the New Testament contains a credible and authentic
account or development of it by Christ and by the apostles,
must be altogether inconsistent with himself and inconse-
quent in his reasonings, if he rejects the Divine origin and
authority of the Old Testament Scriptures.
164
ܚ
If I succeed in proving in a historico-critical way what I
design to prove, the nucleus of the question, as to the author-
ity and claims of the Old Testament, would seem to be reach-
ed. I shall not endeavour therefore to invest myself, on the
present occasion, with the panoply of the merely apologetic
and polemic theologian. Let those use it, who have long
worn it, and are semper parati for contest. The simple sling
and stone of historical criticism are all that I essay to use.
And if I miss my aim, I must leave it for others to defend
our common citadel in a more effectual manner; for defence
would seem to be needed. The contest has become one pro
aris et focis.
d
Mr Norton's work consists of three volumes, and is print-
ed in a splendid manner. The size of the work, and the con-
sequent price of it, will doubtless prevent a widely extended
circulation of the book.* On this account, and because of
what I have already said respecting it, I have thought it
It has been reprinted in London in two volumes octavo, and at less
than half the price of the American edition. The references have been
adapted accordingly to the pages of the English reprint. D.
B 2
4
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
would appear desirable to most of my readers to learn some-
thing of the nature of the attack which he has made upon
the Old Testament, through the medium of some brief com-
munication. In as summary a manner as possible, I will
therefore now present them with a coup d'oeil, or table of
contents, of that portion of his work which I have specially
in view on this occasion.
He commences with the concession, that the Jewish religion
is Divine, and that Christianity is built upon it. But this, he
says, does not make Christianity in the least degree respon-
sible for the books of the Old Testament. The Jewish reli-
gion itself, he avers, is no more responsible for the books of
the Old Testament, than Christianity is responsible for the
writings of the fathers from the second century to the elev-
enth ; p. 402, seq.
Jag
The character ascribed by most Christians to the Old Tes-
tament Scriptures, he goes on to say, brings them into colli-
sion with rational criticism in the interpretation of language,
with the moral and religious conceptions of enlightened men,
and with the progress of the physical sciences. They are
contradicted by geology; p. 404. The philosopher must re-
ject their [the scriptural] views of the Godhead; the enlight-
ened Christian and moralist must reject the cruelties which
they often enjoin, as appropriate only to a dark and barbar-
ous age; the careful inquirer will be revolted by their con-
tradictions and discrepancies. The explanations and defence
of these things have been unsatisfactory, and built on false
principles and assumed facts; so that one can hardly believe
that the men who have offered them have been sincere in so
doing; p. 405, seq.
=
Jun
In expressing these views, he says that he merely gives
form and voice to the ideas and feelings that exist in the
minds of a large portion of intelligent believers ; p. 405. To
separate all these things from Christianity, so that it shall
not be responsible for them, is the duty of every friend to
this religion; p. 406.
To maintain that Moses was a minister of God, is one
thing; to maintain that he was the author of the Pentateuch,
is another. So far is the truth of either proposition from
being involved in the other, that, in order to render it evi-
dent that the mission of Moses was from God, it may be
SECT. I.
5
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
LO
necessary to prove that the books, which profess to contain
a history of his ministry, were not written by him, and do
not afford an authentic account of it; p. 416.
The Pentateuch puts forward no claims to be considered
as the work of Moses. The fact that the Law, in the time
of Ezra, was ascribed to Moses, does not prove that the au-
thorship of the Pentateuch was at the same time ascribed to
him. In the reign of Josiah, a short time before the cap-
tivity, the Jews were ignorant of any written copy of their
national laws, as is evident from the discovery as represent-
ed of a copy of the Law in the temple. Such a book was
before unknown to Josiah, a pious king, to the secretary
Shaphan, and to the high priest Hilkiah. "The story of its
being accidentally found in the temple, may be thought to
have been what was considered a justifiable artifice, to ac-
count for the appearance of a book hitherto unknown ;” pp.
418, 428, 429.
The Canon of the Old Testament, after the captivity,
comprised all the books of the Hebrews then extant. This
Canon was formed upon no principle of selection, but com-
prised all the remains of ancient literature. There is little
doubt that compositions were ascribed to some of the pro-
phets, particularly to Isaiah, of which they were not the
authors; p. 419, seq.
The tradition that Ezra revised and re-edited the books of
the Old Testament, is obviously fabulous. There exists no
historical evidence that Moses was the author of the Penta-
teuch. In the other books of the Old Testament, there is
indeed reference to various narratives and laws now found
in the Pentateuch; but these references are in fact to tradi-
tions and national laws that existed before the Pentateuch ;
and by the aid of these the Pentateuch was afterwards com-
piled; p. 420, seq.
No such book as a Pentateuch by Moses is mentioned in
the books of Samuel, or Kings, or in those of the prophets
who were the public teachers of religion; p. 426, seq. The
Pentateuch could not have been the national code of the
Jews; for its ordinances were not observed during the long
period of the monarchies, and many things were often done
which the Pentateuch forbids; or neglected which it en-
joins; p. 431, seq.
J
6
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
The Pentateuch was not written until some time after the
return of the Jews from the captivity; and then, tradition-
ary stories, laws, customs, ritual observances, &c., were in-
serted, and all these were attributed to Moses, in order to
give greater weight and authority to the compilation; p.
436, seq.
;
The art of writing was not in use in the time of Moses
and consequently the writing of the Pentateuch by him was
impossible; p. 439, seq. The style of Moses could not pos-
sibly have been so much like the style of the later writers.
A period so long, without more change of language, is in-
credible and contrary to all experience; p. 441, seq. The
Pentateuch contains narrations of events later than the time
of Moses, and if it had been really his work interpolations
of this kind could never have taken place; p. 443, seq.
The Pentateuch does not make claim to Moses as its au-
thor. It always speaks of him in the third person, and not
in the first. Such a semblance of modesty would have
been wholly unsuitable for him in his official character;
p. 444.
The facts related in the Pentateuch show that it is full of
inaccuracies. The number of fighting men, (600,000,) when
the Israelites left Egypt, is incredible and impossible. Their
original number and time of sojourning in Egypt were utter-
ly inadequate to have brought into existence such a number.
The genealogy of Moses proves that the Israelites could not
have been in Egypt more than 215 years at the most, in-
stead of the 430 as commonly reckoned, and 215 years could
have done but little toward producing such a number; p.
446, seq.
The account of the flight from Egypt, and of the journey
through the wilderness, is replete with difficulties, incredi-
bilities, and impossibilities. How could two and a half mil-
lions of men be put in motion in one night? Whence all
their flocks, and herds, and wealth? How could they all
quench their thirst at Marah, or at Horeb? p. 449, seq.
Before the birth of Moses, Pharaoh is represented as say-
ing, that the Israelites had become stronger than the Egyp-
tians, and therefore the male children must be destroyed.
The thing is impossible. The command is incredible. How
could Pharaoh wish to lessen the number of his slaves?
T
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
7
How could he suppose it possible, that the Jews would sub-
mit to his cruel orders and obey him? p. 450, seq.
Moreover, how could such a multitude find food and
drink in the Arabian waste? The water was supplied mira-
culously but twice. What became of their flocks and herds?
They must have all perished in such circumstances; and
hence their state of starvation, i. e. by reason of losing
them. And yet, before they quitted Mount Sinai, they ap-
pear to have had an abundance of cattle for sacrifices, lambs
for the passover, and all manner of spices, flour, oil, wine,
&c.; p. 451, seq.
Whence came all their skill in the different arts? How
could brick-making slaves understand architecture, en-
graving, and the manufacture of splendid furniture and
garments? How could they transport all these through the
desert, when they had no camels? p. 452, seq.
The Israelites are forbidden to destroy all the people of
the land of Canaan, lest wild beasts should overrun the
country. Were not two and a half millions of people more
than enough to keep in due subjection the wild beasts of a
country, which was only 200 miles in length and 100 in
breadth? p. 454, seq.
On the supposition that all the wonderful events took
place which are narrated in the Pentateuch, how is it pos-
sible to believe that the Jews would have been so stupid,
ungrateful, and rebellious as their history represents them
to be; p. 455, seq. There is indeed sublimity in the de-
scription of the creation, and lofty conception as to the true
nature of religion in the precept, that men should love God
with all the heart and their neighbour as themselves. But
"in coming to the Pentateuch we have entered only the
precincts of true rcligion, while grotesque shapes are around
us, and the heavens are obscured by clouds from which the
thunder is rolling ;" p. 456, seq.
The conceptions of God, in Genesis, are very rude ones.
In Ex. iv. the account of Jehovah's meeting Moses and
seeking to slay him, is strange indeed. Ex. xxiv. is not
less so. The marvellous theophany related there, and all
its tremendous solemnity of preparation, ends in the com-
mand to the Israelites to bring silver and gold and rams'
skins and goats' hair and aromatics, &c., and make and fur-
C
8
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
nish a tabernacle for Jehovah to dwell in. Many other di-
rections in the sequel are equally trivial; p. 458, seq.
God is represented in a most unbecoming manner through-
out the Pentateuch. The command to punish the Egyptian
nation because of Pharaoh's haughtiness and cruelty; the
injunction to extirpate the Midianites, but to keep the virgin
females for their own use (which at least did but sanction
and perpetuate the barbarism of the age); the command of
utter excision in respect to the Canaanites; are inconsistent
with the justice or the mercy of God. Why should the
innocent suffer with the guilty, as an oriental despot exter-
minates a family for the offences of its head? The effect of
making the Jews executioners of the Divine indignation
against the idolatrous Canaanites, must have been to con-
vert them into a horde of ferocious and brutal barbarians;
p. 459, seq.
The distinguishing rite of the Jews was painful, and the
thought of it disgusting. Nothing can render it probable,
that the laws respecting slaves were from God. And what
shall we say of the command to destroy witches? What of
such commands as forbid the eating of particular birds and
beasts, some of which no one would ever think of eating,
except in case of actual starvation? On many laws, more-
over, which the Pentateuch contains, delicacy forbids one
even to comment; p. 461, seq.
On the whole, it is altogether evident, that the original
institutions of Moses had been greatly corrupted and
changed by superstition, and by hankering after ritual ob-
servances, before the Pentateuch could have been written
as it now is; p. 463.
મ
The spirit of the prophets is wholly different from that of
the Law, and often in opposition to it. They put no faith
in sacrifices or ritual observances; p. 464, seq. The Penta-
teuch, in declaring that God visits the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, stands in direct opposition to Ezekiel,
who declares that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, nor the father the iniquity of the son, Ezek. xviii.
This same Ezekiel is full of unseemly representations of the
Godhead. His work is repulsive for other reasons. The
last nine chapters show him to have been a stickler for mere
rites and ceremonies; p. 464, seq.
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
9
I
Malachi shows how the Jews reasoned and felt, after the
full ritual of the Pentateuch was introduced. What he says
is directly in opposition to Ps. 1.; p. 470, seq. The Son of
Sirach, Philo, Josephus, the Essenes, all thought but little
of the ritual ordinances of the Pentateuch; p. 472, seq.
Our Saviour every where shows how little he regarded
the Jewish ritual ordinances. "It is an unquestionable
fact, that his words are not always reported to us with cor-
rectness." Sometimes, also, he employed Jewish modes of
expression that were common, in order to avoid the exciting
of prejudice among his hearers. Both these things are to
be kept steadily in view, in the interpretation of what he
may seem to have said about the ancient Scriptures; and
nearly every difficulty can be removed by the aid of these
two considerations. E. g. where he is reported as saying,
"Moses wrote concerning me," it is evident that the evan-
gelist, through default of memory or want of reflection, used
the word wrote instead of the word spoke. So, instead of
receiving, in its simple and obvious sense, the declaration of
Christ as reported by John, (John v. 46,) viz. "Had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote
concerning me," we are to adopt the following substitute as
expressive of Christ's real meaning, viz. "Had ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for the books which, as
you suppose, Moses wrote, concern me;" p. 475, seq.
The Jewish Law was civil as well as ecclesiastical. It
was on this ground merely that the Saviour and his apostles
obeyed it, and required others to do so, while it continued;
p. 470, seq. Sometimes, indeed, Jesus violated it; e. g. in
order to do good on the sabbath, and to inculcate the duties
of kindness and humanity. This was intended to lead the
Jews to reflect on the folly of their attachment to ritual ob-
servances; p. 486, seq. Occasionally Christ directly taught
the vanity and groundlessness of the Jewish laws; e. g. by
what he says about eating that which is unclean (Matt. xv.);
by what he says in respect to the matter of divorces (Matt.
xix. and v.); p. 491, seq. The conversation with the Sa-
maritan woman (John iv.) shows, how little value Jesus put
upon the whole Jewish ritual; p. 496.
Thus much for the Pentateuch. Now for the other books
of the Old Testament.
Ph
10
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
In the books of Joshua and Judges there is a great mix-
ture of fabulous traditions, such as are found in the early
history of all other nations; p. 498. No one who puts aside
the notion of the Divine authority of all the Hebrew books,
can doubt that extravagant fables and false prodigies are
found in all those which relate the Jewish history antecedent
to the time of Samuel; and there seems to be no good reason
why the books of Samuel and Kings should be regarded as
exceptions to this mixture; p. 500. But still we may ad-
mit real miracles, in cases where an important and evident
moral design is in view; p. 501, seq.
The prophets were moral preachers. Some of their num-
ber may have been occasionally employed as the special
ministers of God. Jesus never appeals to them for evidence
of his Divine mission. Our Saviour did not accomplish any
express prophecy relating to him; but he came in conformity
to an expectation, which the whole tenor of God's providence
had taught the Jews to entertain; p. 503, seq.
The error committed in representing the Old Testament
as of Divine origin, has, beyond question, been a most serious
hinderance to all rational belief of the fact, that God has mi-
raculously revealed himself to man; p. 510.
•
M
I have now given a compressed view of the arguments
employed by Mr. Norton, in order to overthrow the claims
of the Old Testament to be considered as a book of Divine
origin and authority. I have in no case made, by any de-
sign or effort on my part, the representation stronger than
he has made it. It is not my wish to paint in more vivid
colours than those which he has employed. In most cases,
I have employed his own language; and where I have not,
I have changed the diction merely for the sake of abridgment,
and not from a design to employ any stronger colouring.
Mr. Norton himself declares, (p. 405,) that "in expressing
his opinions he is only giving form and voice to the ideas and
feelings that exist in the minds of a large portion of intelli-
gent believers ;" and also, that "there is nothing in them of
novelty or of boldness." It is indeed most obviously true,
that there is nothing special in them of novelty. For sub-
stance they have been before the world for some sixteen
centuries. Porphyry and Celsus knew well how to manage
SECT. I.
11
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
weapons of this sort. But as to boldness, I think his modes-
ty should not have shrunk from a claim to this. It certainly
did require some boldness for one who had been a preacher of
the gospel and a teacher in a theological seminary profess-
edly Christian, to make before the whole world declarations
such as he has made. No one indeed who knows him well,
can fail to regard him as an independent thinker and reasoner ;
and after what he has recently published to the world, he may
not very unreasonably be denominated somewhat of a free
thinker. His objections to the Old Testament are, it is true,
nearly all of a date somewhat ancient. But I do not regard
him, on this account, as merely copying and retailing the opin-
ions of others. It is manifest enough, through his whole work,
that he has thought and reasoned for himself, even when he
has employed material which others had collected and which
he found in a manner ready to his hand.
I have already said, that it is no part of my design to
examine in detail all the objections of Mr. N. to the Old
Testament. Most of them plainly belong to the province of
polemic and apologetic theology; and I shall therefore leave
them to those whose proper business it is to act in this de-
partment. Why they have not sooner begun to act in de-
fence of one of the citadels of revelation, I know not. I have
not unfrequently heard the remark made, that 'had the ques-
tion been one of metaphysical theology, which concerned
points where even evangelical Christians may and do dis-
agree, and have for centuries disagreed, there would not have
been wanting a goodly number of defenders, especially against
an attack made either by one side or the other upon points
mooted by New School and Old School. But now, (they
have the boldness to add,) the theologians stand off at wary
distance, as the camp of Israel did when Goliath came out
to bid defiance to them.' But I am reluctant to accede
to such an intimation. I know indeed full well, and I
regret, the excessive zeal that is abroad about points of
mere speculation in theology, which are never likely to be
settled; but I must still believe, that there are not many
Christian ministers in the evangelical ranks, who would not
relax, and recede from the boundaries that sect and party
names have set up, when it becomes necessary to unite in
Alem
12
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
order to defend and save the citadel of all religion. Time
will show whether I am not in the right.
I cannot resist the impression made on me by the reading
of Mr. N.'s critique on the Old Testament, that the estima-
tion in which he has for many years held it, has prevented
him from devoting much of his time to the study of it. He
tells us, (p. 412,) that his remarks on the Old Testament were
committed to writing more than ten years before he put them
to the press. If he had named a period thrice as long, I could
easily have believed his declaration to be true. He has sure-
ly made some faux pas in matters of Old Testament criti-
cism, which, had he read more widely, and kept up at all
with the times in their development of historical criticism
pertaining to the Hebrew Scriptures, he could not well have
made. I do not say this ad invidiam, nor in order to wound
his feelings. I say it from a full persuasion, that more en-
larged views would have given quite a different direction to
some parts of his critique, and spared him the labour of de-
fending some things, which he must now find, on a more ex-
tended examination, to be indefensible.
My present design forbids me to go into detail at all, in
order to justify these assertions. I can only glance at one
or two matters, as explanatory of what I mean.
Mr. N. asserts, that there is no satisfactory evidence that
alphabetical writing was known in the time of Moses. Should
he not have known, that the recent paleographic examina-
tions in Egypt, Phenicia, Persia, and Assyria, make entirely
against this, even if he sets aside the abundant evidence of
the Greek writers, that their alphabet is as old as the time of
Cadmus? Gesenius, most of his life a strenuous assertor of
the late origin of the Pentateuch, was compelled by his Phe-
nician and Egyptian investigations to say, that "alphabetic
writing must have been in use among the Egyptians at least
2000 years before the Christian era ; and that 'their neigh-
bours, the Phenicians, in all probability, must have employed
this method of writing as early as the reign of the shepherd-
kings in Egypt.' Ges. Heb. Gramm. edit. 13. Exc. I. p. 290.
The preeminent paleographer, then, from whose decision it
is not very safe to appeal as to such matters, places the art of
alphabetical writing long enough before the time of Moses, to
>>
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
13
give it a wide sweep in Egypt and Phenicia, and indeed in
the neighbouring countries. And if Moses was "learned in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words
and deeds," as the martyr Stephen asserts, (Acts vii. 22,)
cannot one venture to attribute to him the knowledge of
alphabetic writing?
Again, when Mr. N. avers, (p. 441, seq.,) that the Hebrew
of the Pentateuch and of the later Hebrew books is of the
same stamp, and that we cannot possibly suppose, that an in-
terval of 900 or 1000 years would not have made a greater
change in the Hebrew language than is developed by these
Jewish writings, I must think that he has not paid very strict
attention to the history of languages. Is it not a fact, that
the Peshito or old Syriac version of the New Testament,
made during the second century, is altogether of the same
linguistic tenor as the Syriac Chronicon of Bar Hebræus,
written about one thousand years later? Is it not a fact, that
the Arabic of the Coran, and of the Arabian writers just be-
fore and after the time of Mohammed, differs but slightly
from that of the Arabian writers from the tenth down to the
eighteenth century? And yet another fact. The late Dr.
Marshman, a missionary in Hindoostan, translated into
English the great work of Confucius, the celebrated Chinese
philosopher and teacher, who lived more than five centuries
before the Christian era. The same gentleman diligently
consulted the principal commentators on the work of Con-
fucius, and he assures us, that commentaries written 1500
and more years after the time of Confucius are altogether of
the same type of language which is exhibited in the work of
that philosopher. Facts like these, now, need no comment.
They place the matter beyond fair appeal. Indeed the na-
ture of the case speaks for itself. The Jews were neither a
literary nor a commercial people. They saw little of strangers
abroad, and very few foreigners resided among them. They
knew little of the arts and sciences, and certainly made no ad-
vances in them. What was there then to operate in the way
of producing many and important changes in their language?
There was nothing like to that which produces changes of
this nature at the present day, among the nations of the
West. Their case was, in respect to intercourse, like to that
f
14
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
of the Chinese. The effect of such a state of things upon
language, was the same in Palestine and in China.
C
Yet even in any state of a nation, however uniform, we
cannot but suppose that a long time will make some varia-
tions in language. It did so among the Hebrews. The as-
sertion of Mr. N. is by no means correct, that there are no
diversities of language between the Pentateuch and later
books of the Hebrew. Jahn, that well known and highly
respected theologian and critic at Vienna, just before his
death, published a series of Essays in Bengel's Archiv, which
demonstrate the point in question beyond appeal. Archa-
isms, or whatever Mr. N. may call them, abound to some ex-
tent in the Pentateuch; and the awag λɛyóµɛra of the Pen-
tateuch, Jahn has shown to be quite a large number.
Nata
Once more; but in respect to a case of a different tenor.
Mr. N. thinks, that the use of the third person in the narra-
tions of the Pentateuch, shows that Moses was not the au-
thor. There was no reason, he avers, for his adopting such
a method of writing. It was Moses' business to speak with
authority, and to place himself directly before the people.
The histories of Cæsar and Clarendon, which employ the
third person, are no justification, in his view, of the usage in
question. Yet Mr. N. maintains that the Gospels of Mat-
thew and of John are worthy of credit. But where, I ask,
have these writers spoken of themselves in the first person?
Mr. N. says, that the Pentateuch does not claim to be the
work of Moses, i. e. he has not affixed his name to it as the au-
thor, and therefore, there is no certainty that the work is his.
He will permit me to ask him, how he could write three
volumes to show the Genuineness of the Gospels, when not
a single one of them has the name of its author affixed to it,
or contains an explicit declaration as to who was its author?
Every sciolist in criticism knows, that the titles now affixed
to the Gospels, are the work of critics quite remote from
the times of the apostles.*
But I must withdraw my hand. I have said enough to
illustrate and confirm the representation which I have made
above; and this is all that can now be done.
* Sce Chrysostom, Homil. I. in Matt.; also IIug. Einl. ins N. Testa-
ment, § 47.
SECT. I.
15
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS,
Mr. N. appears to cherish strong feelings of disapproba-
tion toward that branch of the so-called Liberal Party, who
have discarded the authority of both the Old Testament and
the New; who doubt the personality of the Godhead; and
who flatly deny the possibility of miracles. He speaks of
their system as a "shallow philosophy," and appears to be
much in earnest when defending the miraculous power of
Christ; but rather less so, perhaps, when defending that of
the apostles. Yet most of the reasons of any considerable
weight, which Mr. N. has brought forward against the
claims of the Old Testament, either flow from, or are con-
nected with, his unwillingness to believe in the miraculous
interpositions of the Godhead as there declared. Was there
not as much need of these interpositions in the ancient times
of darkness and ignorance, as there was at a later period.
when the New Testament was written? He allows, indeed,
a few cases in which he thinks that a miracle may be deemed
probable; e. g. such a case as that of fire falling from hea-
ven to consume the sacrifice which Elijah had prepared, in
order to put to the test the claims of Jehovah and of Baal
to Divine honours. But he erases from the list of credibles
every case of alleged miraculous interposition, where he
cannot perceive the moral purpose accomplished by it. A
subjective line of separation between the true and the false,
he has probably drawn for himself. A copy of the drawing,
it may be, is impressed upon his own mind. But what the
objective rule for testing the credible and incredible is, by
which others, who are of different modes of thinking and
who view religious matters in a different light, may be
guided, and may thus possibly come to an agreement with
him, he has not told us. There are men, who at least would
be greatly offended at having either their learning, or their
logic, or their piety called in question, and who in fact re-
gard religion as a matter of very grave import, and yet have
avowed themselves unable to discover the great moral end
of converting the water at a wedding feast into a large
quantity of wine; who are not quite satisfied with the moral
bearing of Christ's permission to the demons to enter an
immense herd of swine and drown them in the sea; who
hang in suspense concerning the great moral design mani-
fested by cursing and withering the fig-tree. Now what
Ad
16
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
has Mr. N. to say, to satisfy these doubters? Whatever it
may be, it will at least be as easy to say the like things, in
order to satisfy our minds respecting many miracles related
in the Old Testament which he rejects with scorn.
Some persons, in a state of mind quite different from that
of Mr. N., or of those who are filled with doubts about the
miracles of Christ mentioned above, still hesitate to decide
at once on the matters under consideration, and therefore
inquire, and cautiously and candidly examine. It is quite
possible to suppose, that there are men who, after having
done all this, are not entirely satisfied with the reasons al-
leged for defending the reality of these miracles, (I mean so
far as their intellectual judgment is concerned,) while at the
same time, they remove all real stumbling-blocks from their
way, by the consideration, that there may have been ends
accomplished, or may be ends to be accomplished, by some
miracles, of which they are not aware. They are conscious
that their knowledge is imperfect, and that to decide with
confidence against the truth of such narrations as relate the
miracles in question, while all around is admitted to be cre-
dible and true, would be like to deciding that the black spots
which have recently appeared in such numbers upon the
face of the sun, do not in reality belong to that body, be-
cause, as they apprehend, it can be nothing but a uniform
blaze of glory.
To me this state of mind, however undesirable, presents
a much more cheering aspect than that of Mr. N., or of his
bolder liberal brethren. My experience has taught me
something in relation to such subjects. In the early part of
my biblical studies, some thirty to thirty-five years ago,
when I first began the critical investigation of the Scrip-
tures, doubts and difficulties started up on every side, like
the armed men whom Cadmus is fabled to have raised up.
Time, patience, continued study, a better acquaintance with
the original scriptural languages, and the countries where
the sacred books were written, have scattered to the winds
nearly all these doubts. I meet indeed with difficulties
still, which I cannot solve at once; with some, where even
repeated efforts have not solved them. But I quiet myself
by calling to mind, that hosts of other difficulties, once ap-
parently to me as formidable as these, have been removed,
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
17
and have disappeared from the circle of my troubled vision.
Why may I not hope, then, as to the difficulties that remain?
Every year is now casting some new light on the Bible, and
making plain some things which aforetime were either not
understood, or were misunderstood. Why may not my dif-
ficulties be reached by some future progressive increase of
light? At least, in the revolution of the sun, the dark spots
will sooner or later disappear. And, what is more than all
considerations of this kind-speedily the whole will be
known. In the light of heaven no darkness is intermingled.
Soon the anxious and devoted inquirer after truth will, if a
true Christian, enjoy the opportunity of asking the writers
themselves of the books of Scripture, what they intended,
and what they designed to teach. It is good, I do believe,
both to hope and patiently wait for the light of eternal day,
if, after all our efforts to clear up a few difficulties in Scrip-
ture that remain, we do not succeed to our utmost wishes.
Mr. N. evidently regards those who discard all revelation,
as unbelievers. He speaks apparently with much feeling
concerning them. I believe that he has given them an ap-
propriate place in the category of religious names. The
most liberal party, (who seem hardly to have acquired a dis-
tinctive name yet, but probably would not dislike that of
Rationalists,) begin with a very simple process in the way
of reasoning. I have it before me, in a letter from one of
the first philologists and antiquarians that Germany has
produced. It is this: The laws of nature are merely de-
velopments of the Godhead. God cannot contradict, or be
inconsistent with, himself. But inasmuch as a miracle is a
contradiction of the laws of nature, or at the least an incon-
sistency with them, therefore a miracle is impossible.'
Now this is very short, and simple, and intelligible. At
least we know what the writer means who says this. But
how it can be proved, that the God who constituted the laws
of nature as the usual way and method of his operations, is
not at liberty to depart from these, for the sake of ends
which he judges important; or how it can be proved that he
has not done so; is what I am not able to show or explain.
Mr. N. calls all such reasoning shallow philosophy. I as-
sent. But what is the philosophy, which leaves us to select
according to the measure of our light, our own personal feel-
C
18
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
ings, and our wishes, a part of the miracles of the Old Tes-
tament and of the New, and reject all the rest? In other
words, Is a revelation to prescribe to us, or we to the re-
velation? This is the simple question, divested of all the
drapery thrown around it in order to conceal its real form
and lineaments. Such is evidently the position of Mr. Nor-
ton. I would not speak with any disrespect or unkindness;
but I cannot help the feeling, that Mr. N. never travels on
Scripture ground without furnishing himself, like some care-
ful surgeons, with weapons adapted to probing and excision.
He is ever ready to employ them, and prepared to sever a
limb supposed to be withered, or a seeming excrescence,
from the sacred body of the Scriptures, old or new.
Does not Mr. N., moreover, give up, yea strenuously op-
pose the doctrine of future punishment, or certainly, at least,
of eternal punishment? Now if this position of his is true,
of what great consequence can he deem it, whether the New
Testament is believed or disbelieved? For, in the first
place, who, on his ground, can draw the line in all cases be-
tween what we are to believe, and what we are to reject?
Then, in the second place, if the doctrine of all future pun-
ishment of sin is rejected, no wise man can deem it of im-
portance to give himself any solicitude about religion.
W
It would surely be a curious phenomenon in the religious
world, and a matter of no small importance to the uninitiated,
should Mr. N. publish an expurgated edition of the Scrip-
tures both New and Old, and let the public know what true
and reasonable Christianity (as estimated by him) demands
and expects of us. Or if he would even republish selec-
tions from some Catechism, say the Racovian, with additions
and alterations suited to these enlightened days, might he
not do a great service to the cause of liberal Christianity?
To me, however, at present it seems, that Mr. N. has a very
brief creed, which might be expressed in a single sentence,
namely: "I do not believe what the Christian churches in
general do believe.”
Sal
As to his more liberal opponents among the class of
Liberals, I have but a word to say. I commend their honest
and open-hearted course. They openly and avowedly dis-
card all that is of a miraculous nature, and by consequence
all the books of Scripture, which either assert things of a
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
19
miraculous nature, or are built upon that foundation. As
the popular saying is, They go for the whole. For my own
part I like this. We know where they are, and where we
have to meet them. But in controversy with Mr. N., we
never know on what ground we are treading. We refer,
for example, to facts or declarations recorded in the Scrip-
ture, in order to illustrate or confirm any position that we
have taken. But Mr. N. meets us at once with the avowal,
that he does not regard that fact or those declarations, ap-
pealed to, as entitled to any credit. So, we have, in our
efforts to oppose him, all the while been merely sowing to
the wind, and at last must of course reap-no very pro-
mising harvest.
Some of the high Liberals, as it seems to me, would be
Straussites to the full extent, if they well knew what Strauss
or Hegel in all cases really maintains.* Alas! there are
few heads, among us, from which spring the prominences
appropriate to making such a discovery. Thus much, how-
ever, these Liberals seem to themselves to understand, and
thus much they maintain, viz. that God is an impersonal
being, the rò πã” of the universe; and that he developes
personality only in rational beings, and for a little season at
a time. In the mean while the argument against miracles,
which has been stated above, is fully admitted by them, and
the Scriptures are brought before its tribunal. But here I
must demur. If the Godhead is an impersonal and uncon-
scious being, as they assert, then how can it be impossible
that the laws of nature should change? If there be no mind,
and no almighty power to direct and secure the natural order
of things, what hinders these things from developing them-
selves in different ways? Why may they not assume every
shape, and go one way as well as another? What is it which
renders secure and constant the uniformity of things?
But I must desist, or I shall intrench upon the main ob-
ject of my book. I cannot conclude these introductory re-
*Here there is an awkward combination of Strauss and Hegel. The
one is a theologian; the other a philosopher merely. The one has writ-
ten on the Now Testament; the other on metaphysics. It is exceedingly
easy to understand what Strauss means and maintains. He writes most
transparently. Hegel, however, is often unintelligible because of his sha-
dowy philosophy, which is essentially Pantheistic. It is true that Strauss
holds the philosophy of Hogel; but it has not obscured his meaning. D.
c 2
20
SECT. I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
marks, however, without saying, that so far as I know, all
who sympathize with me in their theological views, feel
much better satisfied with the honest and open avowal of
the high Liberals, than with the ambiguous, reserved, non-
committal creed of the more moderate class of Liberalists.
The High Liberals or Rationalists are willing to stand be-
fore the world in the character which they really sustain.
I do not think the same can be said with truth of their
shrinking and non-committal brethren.
htt
In canvassing the subject of the ancient Jewish Canon of
Scripture, it is not my design to exhibit a mere skeleton of
the subject. It is not with the view of answering merely
what Mr. Norton has said respecting the Jewish Canon,
that I have been induced to take up my pen. I feel as one
may be naturally supposed to feel, who has spent his life in
the instruction of youth, i. e. I feel a strong desire to com-
municate something on this important subject, if it be in
my power, which may aid young theologians in forming
more satisfactory and well-grounded opinions about the ex-
tent and authority and obligation of the Old Testament
Scriptures. I desire to speak of the labours of others be-
fore me, in regard to this matter, with all proper respect
and deference; but is it too much to say, that we have in
English no book on this subject, which is sufficiently histo-
rico-critical to answer in a satisfactory manner all the pre-
sent demands on sacred literature? If there be such a one,
it is unknown to me. At least I know thus much, viz. that
for
years I wandered in the dark in relation to this matter,
not being satisfied with the evidence before me, and not
knowing where to go for better views. If I do not wholly
mistake the true state of the case, there is a great number
of pastors in our country in the same predicament. All
young students in theology must of course be somewhat in
the same predicament. It is an unpleasant one. The mind
hesitates not only as to what kind of reliance to place on
certain books, at least, of the Old Testament, but also as to
what relation the whole bears to the New Testament, in re-
gard to authority and obligation. The use which should be
made of much of the Old Testament must, in this state of the
mind, necessarily become a matter of doubt and perplexity.
My present object is, to aid, if it be within my power, in
(wal
SECT. I.
21
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
the removal of a part at least of these difficulties. I design to
produce the evidence that may be gathered from antiquity,
as to the extent of that Canon of Scripture which our Saviour
and his apostles regarded and appealed to as Divine and ob-
ligatory. If this was the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures,
as then received by the Jews in general; and if it can be
shown that this Canon was the same which is now comprised
in the Hebrew Scriptures; then the doubts and difficulties
which many entertain in regard to the Old Testament, or in
respect to some parts of it, may be removed. The authority
of Christ and his apostles to determine such a matter, should
not be called in question; I would even say, cannot be con-
sistently called in question, by any one who professes to be a
Christian.
Some things have been presented to my notice, in the
course of the reading and reflection through which I have
passed in order to prepare for writing the present treatise,
which do not seem to me to have been adequately, or in
some respects correctly, developed in the pages of the lead-
ing writers on the subject of the Old Testament Canon.
Things absolutely new, I do not promise to bring before the
reader. But there are some things, that have been noticed
by even the more thorough investigators, which ought in jus-
tice to be placed in a new attitude, in order that they should
be seen in their true light. Something of the task of doing
this, I would hope to perform. One thing at least will be
achieved by the present work, if it does not miss its mark;
and this is, the presenting in a body, and regularly disposed,
the evidence extant respecting the Old Testament Canon,
accompanied by a historico-critical examination of the same.
The reader, if this shall be done, will at least have the
material before him, out of which he can make up his own
opinion.
I shall not advance to the consideration of this subject by
taking the attitude of one who assumes the point to be prov-
ed, and then pours forth monitions or comminations upon all
who may even seem to doubt. For the present, I take my
leave not only of Calvinists and Unitarians, but of all the
sects in Christendom, yea even of theology itself, in its tech-
nical sense, and aim to act merely the part of a historical
inquirer, who applies to the appropriate sources of informa-
22
SECT. II.
DEFINITION OF CANON.
tion, and endeavours in this way to find out what he ought
to believe. This is the first step. The demands of intellect
and reason must be met, in order to satisfy a reasonable
being. Then comes, in proper order, the application of re-
sults thus won to the conscience and to the heart.
SECT. II. Definition of Canon.
THE meaning of this Greek word, (for such it is, viz.
kavwv,) as now employed by our churches in reference to the
Scriptures, hardly needs an explanation. It is employed as
designating that list or collection of books, either of the Old
Testament or of the New, which we are accustomed to re-
gard as sacred or inspired, or of Divine authority. But it
was not always so employed, in ages that are past; and the
inquirer needs to be put on his guard, with respect to the
various uses of this word in ancient times.
In classical Greek, the original meaning of kavwv is
straight stick or rod, staff, measuring-rod or pole, beam of a
balance, &c. Hence tropically, rule, norma; thence law,
prescription, fundamental or guiding principle. Among the
Alexandrine Greek grammarians, kavov was employed to
denote a list or collection of ancient Greek authors, who
would serve as models or exemplars for other writers. It
meant what we should call classical writers.
Ja
One sees very readily, how this succession of derivate
meanings sprang from the original sense of the word. The
literal idea of rod, measuring-rod, measure, was applied tro-
pically to whatever was a rule, guide, model, or exemplar, of
conduct or of actions, of art or of science. The Alexan-
drine grammarians employed the word in a sense so kindred
to that which we now give it, that the mind of every one
must be struck by the resemblance. Those books which
are the rule, measure, law, exemplar, of a moral and pious
life, are the canonical books of the Scriptures, according to
the present usage of this word.
Among the Christian fathers the word canon obtained an
enlarged and sometimes a technical sense. It was sometimes
SECT. II.
DEFINITION OF CANON,
23
used to designate a list or catalogue of the clergy or of other
persons belonging to a church; a list of psalms and hymns
appropriate for public worship; and even a list of furniture
belonging to a church, &c. Very naturally it came to be
employed to designate a list of the scriptural books which were
publicly read in the churches. It was not, however, until
the third century that these usages of the word commenced,
or at least became common.
Readers of the present day, in perusing the testimony of
many of the ancient fathers and councils respecting the canon
of Scripture, often make great mistakes as to the meaning
and force of the testimony. It is a fact which lies on the
face of ancient church history, that in the latter part of the
second century, and more in the third and fourth, other books
besides those which were regarded as properly inspired,
were read more or less in the churches. With the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament, which the Oriental and
African churches every where made use of, was early inter-
mingled more or less of the books which we now name
apocryphal, and which for the most part were written in
Greek, and not long before the commencement of the Chris-
tian era.
The leading reasons for mixing these recent pro-
ductions with the books of the Hebrews, seem to have been
the following; first, they were mostly written by Jews, as
the tenor of them demonstrates; secondly, they were of a
religious cast, and parts of them were adapted to useful in-
struction, while other parts communicated narratives of
some interest, whether considered in the light of history or
of allegory. But be this as it may, the Christian churches,
at least many of them, in the third century and onward,
admitted a number of the apocryphal books to be publicly
read along with the Jewish Scriptures. Now when the
word canonical was applied in such a sense as to designate
merely the books which were publicly read, the canonical
books of the Old Testament, for example, would mean not
only the Jewish Scriptures, but also such of the apocryphal
books as were combined with them in the Septuagint Ver-
sion, and were publicly read. But to say that a book was
canonical, and to say that it was inspired, at that period and
when this usage prevailed, was saying two very different
things. There might be (and were) inspired books which
24
SECT. II.
DEFINITION OF CANON.
were not publicly read; e. g. such as the Apocalypse of
the New Testament, and the Canticles of the Old Testa-
ment. On the other hand, several books not inspired were
included in the reading canon of the day, i. e. in the list of
books publicly readable; c. g. 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees,
Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, the Revelation of
Peter, &c. In regard to this matter, viz. the extent of the
canon or list of books to be publicly read for profit, there
was, for a long time, no fixed rule among the churches.
Each seems to have done what was right in its own eyes.
It was not until the fourth century, that councils interfered,
and limited the number of books to be read in the churches.
And these decided differently, as any one may see by read-
ing the accounts of the Council at Laodicea, at Hippo, at
Carthage, at Rome under Gelasius, and elsewhere, as given
by Mansi, in his great work Sanctorum Conciliorum nov. et
ampliss. Collectio, particularly in Tom. I. III. VIII. In-
deed, in order to read these records of ancient times intel-
ligibly, one must keep in mind what Jerome says, at the
end of his enumeration of the books of the Hebrew canon,
in his Prologus Galeatus. After naming the books in the
Hebrew Scriptures, (the same which we now reckon as be-
longing to them,) he goes on to say, "Whatever is not in-
cluded among these, is to be placed among the apocryphal
books," [i. e. in his idiom, among the uninspired books].
After particularizing various apocryphal works, he adds,
"One reads them in the church, but he does not receive
them among the canonical Scriptures. . . . They may be read
to the edification of the people, but not for the purpose of
establishing ecclesiastical doctrines." Jerome here plainly
employs canonical in the sense of inspired; contrary to the
common usage of the preceding century. And from what
he says, it is plain that books for edification were read in the
churches, for which no claims of inspiration were made, and
which could not establish any religious doctrine.
We often see quotations made from the fathers and from
the decrees of councils, in order to show, that there was no
prevailing and fixed belief in the ancient churches respect-
ing the definite number of books which are to be considered
as belonging to the Scriptures. How easy to commit im-
1
-
SECT. II.
#
25
DEFINITION OF CANON.
portant errors in relation to this subject, if one does not
know the various uses of the word canon ! To show that a
book belongs to the canon, i. e. was publicly readable, is not
to show that it was even regarded as inspired; less still will
it show that it was in fact inspired; on the other hand, to
show that any book was omitted or excluded from the canon,
i. e. was not publicly read, is showing nothing to disprove
its inspiration.
As this is a matter of high importance, I would not deal
in assertions without adequate proof. What Jerome says,
goes directly to show that many books were publicly read,
which were not at all regarded by the churches as sources of
appeal in cases where doctrines were to be established. On
the other hand, the case of Philastrius of Brixia, the inti-
mate friend of Ambrose, near the close of the fourth century,
illustrates and confirms what I have said concerning books
not publicly read, and yet admitted to be inspired. In his
book De Haresibus, c. 88, he exhibits a catalogue of canon-
ical books, i. e. books which, as he says, ought to be read in
the church, in which is found neither the Epistle to the He-
brews, nor the Apocalypse. Yet in c. 60 he says, that
"they are heretics who do not receive the Apocalypse, and
that they have no understanding of the excellence and dig-
nity of this writing." In c. 88 the same writer speaks of
Scripturæ adscondita, [i. e. Scriptures apocryphal, in his
sense of the word, viz. not to be publicly produced,]" which,"
he says, “ought to be read for moral improvement by the
perfect, [i. e. full-grown Christians,] but not to be read by
all." In the same way Gregory Nazianzen, (Opp. II. p. 44,)
says, "I heard John the evangelist enigmatically saying
to such v rokрúpaus, [q. d. in the apocryphal writings, i. e.
private ones, such as were not publicly read,] I would thou
wert either hot or cold," &c. Yet the same writer (Life of
Ephrem, III. p. 601) calls the Apocalypse reλevraiα Tñs
Xápiros ßißλos, i. e. the last book of grace, or, (in other
words,) of the New Testament dispensation. Now this same
Gregory, (Opp. II. p. 98,) in some verses reciting the books
of Scripture, omits the Apocalypse at the end, and concludes
his verses by saying, “πάσας ἔχεις· εἴ τι δὲ ταύτων ἐκτός,
oùk év yrnolois, i. e. Thou hast all; if there be any besides
these, they belong not to the genuine." There is only one
2
26
SECT. II.
DEFINITION OF CANON.
way to solve this apparent inconsistency, and that is by ap-
plying to his case the same considerations as those which
belong to that of Philastrius. Gregory, in his verses, in-
cluded the canonical, i. e. publicly readable, books only; in
the other passages he gives his private opinion respecting
the true character of the Apocalypse.
Nothing is plainer, than that the words canonical and apo-
cryphal bear quite a different sense, in the works of different
fathers and councils, in different ages and countries. Atha-
nasius distributes the so-called Scriptures into three classes
of books, viz. canonical-inspired, apocryphal―spurious
or deserving rejection, and books permitted to be read in the
churches; Epist. ad Rufin. Tom. II. p. 39, seq. Rufinus
himself, a contemporary with Jerome, follows the same clas-
sification; see in Opp. Cypriani, p. 575. After specifying
the books belonging to the present Protestant canon, which
he calls canonical-inspired, he names several of the books
belonging to our present Apocrypha together with the Shep-
herd of Hermas and the Judgment of Peter, and says of them,
that they are called ecclesiastical, and "are to be read in the
churches, (whence their name,) but not to be produced as au-
thority in matters of faith-non tamen proferri ad auctorita-
tem ex his fidei confirmandam." Other books which have
respect to religion, but are not to be read in the churches, he
names apocryphal.
Gami
Jerome makes use of phraseology a little different from
this. In the famous passage of his, in his Prologus Galea-
tus, he specifies the same Old and New Testament books
which are now in the Protestant canon, and then adds, that
'the books extra hos, i. c. not included in these, are to be
ranked among the apocryphal, and are not in the canon.'
Then, after mentioning several of the books in our present
Apocrypha, he adds, respecting some of them, "The church
indeed reads them [in public], but does not receive them
among the canonical [inspired] Scriptures. · [reads
them] for the edification of the people, not to determine
matters of faith."
•
Thus it is perfectly apparent, that no one can read the ec-
clesiastical fathers or the decrees of ancient councils, on the
subject of the canonical Scriptures, and rightly understand
and appreciate them, without narrowly watching the use of
SECT. II.
27
DEFINITION OF CANON.
the technical terms employed in describing their classifica-
tion. Canonical at one time means publicly readable; at
another, it is the equivalent of inspired. Apocryphal, at one
time, means not publicly readable; at another, it is the
equivalent of uninspired, destitute of binding authority.
Nor does this different usage belong exclusively to any
one age.
We find Origen dividing the religious books of
his day into canonical-inspired, and apocryphal-unin-
spired and (with him) unworthy of credit. Afterwards we
find Eusebius dividing religious books, in relation to the
New Testament, into (a) 'Opoλoyouμero, i. e. the genuine
and acknowledged writings of the evangelists and apostles.
(b) 'Avrileyóμevo, books whose genuineness was doubted or
was unsettled. (c) Nódo, books which were spurious, i. e.
were not written by inspired men. Besides these he men-
tions books ἄτοπα καὶ δυσσεβῆ, stolid and impious.
The result of this investigation is plain. We can under-
stand ancient writers only by watching with the closest
scrutiny how they employ the words canonical, apocryphal,
ecclesiastical, and the like, and for want of so doing, many
a glaring error has crept into the works of some even recent
writers on the subject of the canon. Another consequence
is also deducible from our premises, viz. that, if we mean to
be rightly understood, we must define and uniformly adhere
to the meaning which we give to the words canon and
canonical.
We dismiss the subject of the New Testament canon, of
course; for to canvass that, is not our present business. In
respect to the Old Testament, what meaning shall we assign
to the phrase, Canon of the Old Testament?
Shall we attach to the word canon the meaning of a list
of books that were publicly read in the Jewish synagogue,
in the time of Christ and his apostles?
Before the Babylonish exile the Jews had no synagogues.
Previous to that time, only the Law of Moses, i. e. the
Pentateuch, appears to have been read once a year in the
temple. After the return from exile, and the erection of
synagogues, the Law of Moses was read in them, being dis-
tributed into fifty-two Parashoth or sections, so that each
sabbath in the year might have its due proportion. When
Antiochus Epiphanes (171-164, B. C.) invaded Judea,
28
SECT. II.
DEFINITION OF CANON.
abolished the worship of the temple, and commanded all the
copies of Moses' Law which could be found, to be burned,
the Jewish synagogue, according to the Rabbies, made se-
lections from the prophets, corresponding to the Parashoth
of the Pentateuch, which they called Haphtaroth, (i. e. dis
missions, because when the reading of these was finished
the people were dismissed to their homes, see, to dis-
miss,) and which were read in the room of the Law.* After
the death of Antiochus, the Jews reintroduced the Law with
its Parashoth, and also continued the reading of the pro-
phetical Haphtaroth; which is still practised by them. At
the feast of Purim, once in a year, the book of Esther is
also read. If we should extend, therefore, the Jewish canon
only to the books which the Rabbies suppose to have been
publicly read, our list would comprise but a moderate por-
tion of the books which were regarded as of Divine author-
ity. Some books of Scripture, e. g. Canticles, and the first
and last eight chapters of Ezekiel, the Jews did not permit
any person to read, even in private, before he had attained
the age of thirty years. Yet they did not deny the Divine
original authority of these ȧróкpupa. We cannot use the
ἀπόκρυφα.
word canonical, then, in respect to the Old Testament books
in the apostolic age, in the sense of including only the books.
publicly or privately permitted by the Jews to be read.
And if we should resort to the Christian fathers for in-
formation, in regard to the extent of the Hebrew canon, we
should find so much variety in the use of the word canon,
and such different usages in regard to the religious books to
be publicly read, that we could receive no assistance from
this quarter.
t
I
It becomes a matter of necessity, then, that we should fix
upon a sense of the word canon which is definite and intel-
ligible; and this being done, we must uniformly adhere to
it. I mean, then, by the Canon of Jewish Scripture in the
apostolic age, that class of books which the Jews as a people
regarded and treated as sacred, i. e. of Divine origin and
*This account of the origin of making sections from the prophetical
books, which was first proposed by Elias Lovita, is now justly exploded.
If Antiochus, as is asserted, commanded all the copies of the Moses' Law
to be burned, it is very unlikely that he should have allowed the public
reading of the prophets. D.
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
29
authority. This agrees with the present general usage of
the churches, as to the words in question, and therefore will
occasion no embarrassment and no mistake in regard to
phraseology.
The word canon, I would remark at the close, seems not
to have been in use, in its technical sense as applied to the
Scriptures, until the time of Origen. No trace of it can be
found in the second century. In his Prol. ad Cant. Cantic.,
sub fine, Origen employs it; also in Schol. ad Matt. xxvii.
9; in a sense like to that which I have given to it.*
SECT. III. Commencement of the Canon.
THAT books of this character existed among the Jews,
from the time of Moses down to a period of some extent after
the return from the Babylonish captivity, few have denied;
and none have been able to show the contrary. It is well
known, however, among critics at least, that the Mosaic
origin of the Pentateuch has, since the days of Semler, been
called in question by a considerable number of German
critics. At the time when Wolf had assailed the antiquity
and genuineness of the Iliad and Odyssey, and spread far
and wide his scepticism on this subject, the antiquity and
genuineness of the Pentateuch began to be attacked on the
like grounds, and about the time of Eichhorn's death, it was
considered by the dominant neological party in Germany,
as established beyond reasonable contradiction, that the
Pentateuch was composed at a period near the captivity, or
perhaps even after the return from it. By slow degrees the
thousand years over which the Pentateuch was made to leap,
in order to find an appropriate birth-day, began to be di-
minished. By and by it was felt by some to be necessary
to assign a date for it which was antecedent to the time
Monk
*The substance of this section seems to be drawn from Suicer's Thesau-
rus. It is not very accurato, profound, or satisfactory. The reader who
is acquainted with German should consult the minute investigation of the
word canon, by Credner, in his work Zur Geshichte des Kanons, Svo,
Halle, 1847, p. 1–68. D.
30
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
G
when a copy of the Law was found by Hilkiah the priest,
in the reign of Josiah, B. c. 624. Of late, the date of the
Pentateuch, at least of a large portion of it, has receded still
more, even back to the times of Solomon or David, B. C.
1000-1040. Lately it seems, in part, to have made another
retreat, viz. to the time of the Judges, or possibly even of
Joshua. Such I take to be the view of Ewald and Tuch,
and also of some other distinguished German critics. The
next step may possibly be to a period of time which puts
the whole matter in statu quo. But be this as it may, I
must take for granted the fact now more generally acknow-
ledged, that at least some parts of the Pentateuch were
committed to writing in the time of Moses. I cannot in-
deed even conceive how the most important laws of the
Mosaic institution, how the Levitical ritual in all its minutiæ,
how the sketch of the tabernacle to be built with all its ap-
paratus, and the account of it as built and provided with
such apparatus, should have failed to be committed to writ-
ing. The ten commandments, from their importance, would
naturally be engraved on some permanent material. The
other two classes of composition just mentioned, are of such
a nature that no memory could be trusted with them. No
later age, in case these minute particulars concerning the
tabernacle had not been early designated, yea even by Moses,
could have ever dreamed of making, and palming upon the
Jews as Mosaic, such representations as these. No subse-
quent age could have admitted a ritual like that of the Jews,
provided it was introduced long after the death of Moses and
Aaron, and was attributed to them. It is not possible to
suppose, that any one age or generation after Moses' time,
could be made to believe that things which they had never
before heard of in connexion with their two leaders, and
things which they had never been taught to practise,
originated from them, and had always been obligatory on
the Jews.
After the protracted and vehement contest about the ori-
gin and antiquity of alphabetical writing, which grew out of
the Homeric Wolfian controversy, and extended itself to
sacred as well as profane books, we have at length come to
a result, and that result seems to be, that no reasonable doubt
can be entertained, that the origin of alphabetical writing
SECT. III,
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
31
among the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Greeks, dates far
back before the time of Homer. The Homeric controversy
was occasioned by the position of Wolf in his Prolegomena,
which was that the Iliad and the Odyssey are full of inter-
polations and probable abscissions, and that they owe their
present form and order and unity to the later writers of
Greece, near or during the time of Pisistratus. To make
this probable, it was necessary to show that the poems of
Homer were, for several centuries, not reduced to writing,
but only sung by chanters and rhapsodists, ἀοιδοὶ καὶ ραψῳδοί.
Of course, it became in a manner necessary to show that
the art of writing, at least among the Greeks, was not as old
as the time of Homer, i. e. did not extend back to about
1000 years before the Christian era. Every nerve has been
strained for this purpose; while, on the other side, have
recently been enlisted writers of the highest reputation.
Among the combatants are Wolf, Heyne, Herder, Voss,
Kreuser, W. Mueller, Hermann, Nitzsch, D. C. W. Crusius,
and others. Nitzsch, in his Historia Homeri, seems to have
made an end of the question, whether alphabetical writing
is as old as the time of Homer. This is now, so far as I
know, generally conceded. But whether alphabetical writ-
ing was so common at the time of Homer, that we can rea-
sonably suppose him to have been acquainted with it, and
to have availed himself of it-that is a question, in regard
to which no inconsiderable number of critics have stood and
still stand arrayed in mutual opposition.
It would be incongruous for me to turn aside for the pur-
pose of discussing at length this question. Nevertheless, it
has no unimportant bearing on the question which is now
before us, viz. At what period shall we date the commence-
ment of the Jewish canon? If the art of writing was not
in use among the Greeks until the sixth century before the
Christian era, then can it be probable, that the Hebrews, less
literary than the Greeks, practised it before that period?
It is not essential, indeed, to my main design, to show
when the Pentateuch was written, nor even by whom. It
may be a book worthy of all credit, if written by some other
hand than that of Moses, or at some later period. If Christ
and his apostles have sanctioned it as a sacred book, the
32
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
main question is settled for us.
as well as to them.
It should be sacred to us,
But to resume the subject of alphabetic writing among the
Greeks, for a moment. It is said by the advocates of the
Wolfian theory, that there is no Greek prose writer upon re-
cord before the Milesian Cadmus and Pherecydes of Scyros,
who flourished about 544, B. C.; and that there is no writer of
this class who is of any note, until the time of Hecateus of
Miletus and Pherecydes of Athens, i. e. about 50 years
later. About the same time, that is, some 350 or more years
later than the time of Homer, the laws of Draco were re-
duced to writing, and these are said to have been the first
written laws among the Greeks. Is it probable then, it is
asked, that the poetry of Homer was reduced to writing at
a period some 350 or 400 years earlier?
But on the other hand, we may well ask, Could two
poems, one of about 16,000, and the other of more than
12,000 lines or verses, be brought down through so many
centuries by mere oral and traditionary communictiaon? Ad-
mitting even that there are a few interpolations in the Iliad
and Odyssey, yet the unity and order of these poems demon-
strate an origin from the same author; as do also their dia-
lect and circle of words and imagery. How could so much
be orderly composed by any man, without some means of
consulting what had already been composed, as he advanced
in his work? In fact, does not the Iliad itself, (Z. 168—9,)
by its σήματα λυγρὰ γράψας ἐν πίνακι, advert to a letter acl-
dressed to Proteus? At any rate, this gives a more proba-
ble sense to the passage. See Trollope's Note in loc. Eu-
ripides (Hec. 856, seq.) makes Hecuba say, "Alas, no
mortal is free! For he is either the slave of money, or of
fortune; or else the mass of the city or written laws (vóµwv
Ypapal) coerce him." In Hippol. 856, seq., (ed. Barnes,)
the same Euripides represents Theseus as speaking of an
epistle or tablet (déλros) written by Phædra to him: "What
then is the meaning of this appended epistle (déλToç) from
her dear hand? What news does it communicate ?" In the
sequel he calls this δέλτος an epistle (ἐπιστολάς == literas);
and still further on he names it déλros again. The time
when Euripides represents Theseus as saying what has been
Kaak
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
33
quoted, was some 80 years before the Trojan war. In his
Iphigenia in Aulis, (1. 35, seq.,) he makes the aged messen-
ger of Agamemnon, about to be sent with a letter to Clytem-
nestra, thus address this king: "Thou writest (ypáqɛɩs) this
letter, which thou holdest in thy hands, and again thou dost
erase these letters, (ypaµµara,) and dost seal them, and then
unseal them, and cast the tablet on the ground, pouring forth
large tears." The erasing (ovyxeis, dost intermingle) of the
letters seems plainly to point to the corrections made on a
waxed tablet, which was done by smearing over or ming-
ling (ovyxéw) the wax. Here then are all the phenomena of
writing, with sealing and unsealing of the letter. And most
graphic is the description; for Agamemnon is writing to his
wife respecting their daughter Iphigenia, who was to be
sacrificed to Diana, in accordance with the direction of the
prophet Calchas. He had already sent her one letter, re-
quiring Iphigenia to be given up. Now (1. 108, seq.) he says
to the aged messenger, "I now re-write in this letter (déλrov)
what is proper to be done, which you, old man, saw me by
night sealing and unsealing. But go now, taking this letter
[Tàs έTLOTOλás, like the Latin plur. litera] to Argos. What-
ever this letter hides in its folds-I will tell thee by word of
mouth all which is written in it." Several times, in the
sequel, is the same letter adverted to; and so as to leave no
possible doubt, that Euripides describes a veritable letter,
(like the epistles of his own time,) folded and sealed in the
*
same way.
1
* In like manner, Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, is represented by
Euripides as saying to Hermione: "I came hither, ràs σàs où μévwv
μένων
érioтolás, not waiting for a letter from you;" Androm. 1. 965. This, of
course, is just at the closo of the Trojan war. In Iphig. in Aul. 1. 307,
the aged servant says to Menclaus, "Thou must not open the letter
(SEATOV) which I bear." The servant complains to his master Aga-
memnon, that Menelaus "had by violence snatched out of his hands the
epistle" (TOTOλás) of Agamemnon. In the sequel Menelaus refers to
it, and calls it déλTov. In Iphigen. in Taur., Iphigenia speaks of trans-
mitting "a letter, (déλTov,) which a captive who pitied her had written to
her friends." In the soquel sho says, that "she had no one by whom she
could send her epistle” (éπiotoλás). And again she speaks of "no mean
roward for transmitting her light letters" (rovwv yρаμμάтwv). Orestes
afterwards tells her to deliver the letter (diλTov) to a particular person;
(SEXTOV)
and sho in the soquel says, "I will go, and carry a letter (déλTov) from
the temple of the goddess;" and again, (1. 610,) "I will send to Argos,
particularly to my friends, a letter (Seλrov) which will tell them," &c.
The same epistle (SÉλTOS, ÉπIOToλaí) is again mentioned in 1. 727, 732,
D
1
34
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
The simple question now is, whether this distinguished
poet would have made out such a description as this, and
introduced Agamemnon in such a manner, if the persuasion
had not been general, and even universal, at his time, that
the art of writing was familiar to the Grecian chiefs at the
siege of Troy. One cannot well bring himself to attribute
a gross anachronism and incongruity to such a writer.
This was
In the like manner Sophocles (Trach. 157) makes Dejan-
eira speak of a δέλτον γεγραμμένην or written will of Hercu-
les, in favour of her, when he left her house.
some time before the Trojan war. In Sophocles' Antigone,
he makes her speak of the ἄγραπτα Θεῶν νόμιμα, in contrast
with the Knoúyμara of Creon. Does not the nature of the
contrast here presented allude plainly to the art of writing?
And would these two consummate poets, distinguished as
much for their knowledge as their skill and taste, commit
such an anachronism as the Wolfian theory would make them
guilty of? Suppose a poet of Boston should write a tragedy
founded on the overthrow and death of one of the native
Indian kings in this country some five centuries ago, and
should introduce him as writing letters to his wife? Would a
Boston audience endure this without hissing the play down?
I know it has been remarked, in the way of answer to
the argument seemingly deducible from this in favour of the
early discovery of alphabetic writing, that the poets have
liberty to feign what they please, in making out the fable of
T
and in 734 she calls it ypapás. A new epistle of joyous tidings to
Orestes is written by Iphigenia, after she is delivered from death by
Diana, which speaks of her erioroλaí as containing the news,
(C even the
things written ev déλTolow." Again, (1. 1446,) she requests Orestes to
ἐν δέλτοισιν.
inform himself what that is which is in her letter (¿TiσTOXás). In the Bac-
chæ, the servant of Theseus says to the captured Bacchus, "I lead theo
captive, miorolais, by the [written] mandate, of Pentheus." Pentheus,
it will be recollected, was the grandson of Cadmus, who lived, it is sup-
posed, nearly 1500 years B. C. The same word, (¿πitoλás,) in the like
sense, occurs in Hcl. 1. 1665. As to deλros, besides the instances already
adduced, seo in Hippol. 1. 877, 1057. In Iphig. in Aul., (including some
instances produced above,) wo find deλrov in 1. 35, 109, 155, 307, 322, 891,
894. In Iphig. in Taur. 584, 760, 603, 615, 635, 640, 667, 733, 756, 791.
Besides these, several instances occur in the Fragments of Euripides.
In all these cases, let it be called to mind that the writer is speaking of
persons and occurrences at or before the siege of Troy. It is impossible,
therefore, to resist the impression, that ho regarded epistolary correspond-
ence as a thing then well known and commonly practised, certainly
among persons of the higher rank.
SECT. II.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
35
w
their tragedies. But I am persuaded that this remark must be
limited to bounds which forbid absolute and palpable incon-
gruities. Very extravagantly and unaccountably the actors
of a fabulous age may be represented as demeaning them-
selves, and all is well; because extraordinary actions are ex-
pected, and extraordinary powers of performing them are
presupposed. But this is something exceedingly diverse
from evident and monstrous incongruities in circumstantial
matters, which belong not to persons, but to things. There
would not be a man or woman in a Boston audience, pre-
sent at the exhibition of such a play as has just been men-
tioned, who would not in an instant perceive the gross
incongruity of putting the wild Indian chief to the writing
of letters; and who would not feel that the author of the
play was stupidly ignorant, or else destitute of all taste, or
silly enough to believe that his audience would all be stu-
pidly ignorant. I aver, then, that the familiar and often
repeated usage of Euripides, of Sophocles, (and even of
Eschylus,) in introducing epistolary communication among
the ancients at and before the siege of Troy, implies, of
course, a like belief on the part of the Athenian public, who
were so sensitive as to even the minutest things in a player,
that they would spontaneously correct a false accent or a
wrong quantity. But if alphabetic writing began in Greece
only about the middle of the sixth century B. C., then this
public could not possibly have been brought to the general
or rather universal belief, that it was four or five centuries
older, to say the least; for in a place like Athens, there
must have been some well-grounded knowledge in respect.
to such a matter. The common usage of the great tragic
poets, in the introduction of epistolary communication among
remote ancients, shows with certainty what the public senti-
ment at Athens was, in respect to this matter. And how
can any one account for such a public sentiment, on the
ground that writing began among the Grecians only in the
sixth century? This would be far more difficult than to be-
lieve that the sentiment was grounded upon matter of fact.
But we have something perhaps more definite and certain,
than these allusions in the great poets. Plutarch, (in Ly-
curg.,) Ælian, (Var. Hist. XIII. 4,) Dio Chrysostom, (Orat.
II. p. 87,) Heraclides of Synope, (Gronov. Thesaurus Ant.
D 2
36
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
Græc. VI. p. 2823,) all testify that Lycurgus, the great law-
giver of Sparta, brought the poems of Homer from Crete,
where he met with them among the posterity of Creophy-
lus; which latter person was (as tradition says) a son-in-
law, or teacher, or guest of Homer. Plutarch and Ælian
both aver, that in the land of European Greece, previous to
this period, only an obscure tradition about Homer's poems
existed, and one and another possessed some extracts from
them. Lycurgus employed chanters and rhapsodists to re-
cite them to his people, in order to inspire them with a
martial spirit. Now Lycurgus lived almost nine centuries
before the Christian era; and if he found the complete
poems of Homer in writing, and copied them, (as is most
explicitly affirmed by the historians just mentioned,) this
would seem to settle the question as to the antiquity of the
written works of Homer. Wolf, Mueller, and others, ex-
amine this testimony adunco naso. No wonder; for it
prostrates the fanciful edifice which they have reared. But
Crusius (Præf. to his edit. of Mueller) has given the sub-
ject a fair investigation.
The appeal to the so-called Homerida, chanters, and
rhapsodists, (hoidol, palydoí,) as evidence that Homer's
poems must have been diffused and preserved for a long
time independently of writing, is not at all conclusive. The
Homerida were nothing more than an ancient and higher
class of rhapsodists. The chanters and rhapsodists differed
only in name, and perhaps in some peculiarities in the modes
of recitation or recitativo. All were the viva-voce reciters
of Homer; and, in the earlier times, they recited without
the immediate aid of manuscripts in the act of recitation.
They wandered from place to place, reciting wherever they
could find encouragement and remuneration. But to argue
from this, as many critics have done, that Homer's poetry
could not at the same time have existed in writing, betrays
but an indifferent knowledge of the customs of antiquity,
and especially of the East. The mass of Greeks, in Europe
and Asia, could not read in those times. The price of manu-
scripts ample enough to comprise the Iliad and Odyssey,
was beyond the reach of any but the rich. Yet the Grecian
people were of a romantic and poetic turn of mind. The
poems of Homer greatly delighted them. Hence the pro-
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
37
fitable employment of the rhapsodists. The brief and popu-
lar songs of times more ancient than the age of Homer,
probably were not committed to writing, but were diffused
and preserved merely by oral tradition. They were sung
or chanted of course, without the aid, and without the need,
of any written copy.
When Homer came to be sung in
like manner, and to be the popular poet of the Greeks, he
was recited without book. This gave an opportunity for
the rhapsodists to do, what their successors in office still do
in Egypt and Persia, and other countries of the East, that is,
it gave opportunity to act, as well as recite, the works of
Homer. This was a great advantage to the rhapsodists,
since they could impart a much more lively interest to their
readers, by adopting such a method of exhibition.
To my own mind, the fact that there were chanters and
rhapsodists of Homer's works, soon after they were com-
posed, and for some centuries onward, is far enough from
proving that these works were not reduced to writing. Let
us look at experience and matters of fact. The Thousand
and One Nights of the Arabians has always, from the time
of its composition, been in writing, as all agree; for it is a
production some centuries later than the era of Mohammed.
Yet in Persia and Egypt, even in recent times, very few
copies of this most entertaining and truly oriental work
exist, since neither of these nations have availed themselves
of the art of printing; at least not until these some ten years
past, and now only to a small extent. Sir John Malcolm,
in his Notes on Persia, tells us, that on festal occasions and
at levees, at the court of Persia, the chanters or rhapsodists
are a regular part of the entertainment. He speaks of them
as ready to recite, at an almost indefinite length, the Thou-
sand and One, the poems of Hafiz, and the works of other
distinguished Persian writers, and as being employed by the
nobles and the rich for this purpose.
He describes them as
not simply reciting, but acting. He tells us that no actor on
the stages of London or Paris, ever played his part more sig-
nificantly and satisfactorily. One of Sir John's attendants,
who did not understand Persian, was about to withdraw, on
one of the festal occasions, when the rhapsodist rose to com-
mence his exhibition. The latter, seeing him in the attitude
of withdrawing, inquired the reason. He was told, that it
Ja
38
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
was because he did not understand the Persian language.
The actor replied, that this was of little consequence; for
he would make himself quite intelligible to him, notwith-
standing this. The English gentleman remained, and the
actor most amply redeemed his pledge.
This gives us an instructive view of the interest which
the rhapsodists of Homer might, and probably did, impart
to their recitations; and shows that they might find full
employ, notwithstanding the existence of MSS.
Ti
J
The case is the same in Egypt. Mr. Lane, in his admir-
able work on the Modern Egyptians, has given us a full ac-
count of their rhapsodists. The most numerous class of
them is the Sho'ara, i. e. reciters of poetry, of which there
are about fifty in Cairo. These confine themselves to the
romance of Abu Zeyd, which is full of poetic passages. The
prose they recite with measured tone; the poetry with ac-
companying instrumental music. The next class (about
thirty of them in Cairo) are called Mohadditeen, i. e. Story-
tellers; who recite nothing but the Life of Zahir, a romance
founded on the story of an Egyptian prince who bore that
name. It is very voluminous and expensive; and conse-
quently, a knowledge of the work, such as it is, is mainly kept
up by the viva-voce reciters. There is, besides these, a
small class of reciters of Cairo, who are called Antereéyah,
in consequence of reciting the romance of Antar, which has
been recently translated into English. Occasionally this
class of persons extend their recitations to other works.
M
Such then are the oriental modes of entertainment in the
way of reading or recitation. Where the great mass of the
population are unable to read; where printing is not intro-
duced, and the price of MSS. is exceedingly dear; where
the indolent habits of the Turks, Arabians, and Persians,
forbid, or at least dissuade from the effort necessary to read a
book; especially where a book needs comment and explana-
tion; rhapsodists come in and find ample and profitable
employment. So it doubtless was in Greece; so, in western
Asia Minor.
But Mr. Lane states one fact in regard to these rhap-
sodists, which strikes me as of serious import, in respect to
the matter before us. He says, that a few years previous
to his sojourn in Egypt, the romance of Seyf Zul-l-Yezen,
SECT. III.
39
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
abounding in tales of wonder, and the Thousand and One
Nights, were the subject of frequent recitation. But as
these works became very scarce and very dear, the rhap-
sodists could not afford to purchase them in order to prepare
for recitation, and so they discontinued the practice. These
last-named works are far superior to the others which are
now recited, and would be preferred by the people, if they
might have them presented. But this cannot be done for
the reasons just stated.
This throws light on the recitations of the Homeric rhap-
sodists. Had they not been able to resort to some MS.
copy of Homer, to refresh their memory, or to store it,
they could never, or at least they would never, have brought
down two poems of nearly 30,000 lines, through so many
centuries. I allow that the force of memory is great, even
surprising, where a man of talent gives himself wholly to
the cultivation of it. Xenophon expressly asserts, (Sympos.
III. 6,) that there were several persons at Athens, in his time,
who could repeat memoriter the whole of the Iliad and Odys-
sey. So among the Persians and Arabians there has been
many a rhapsodist who could repeat the whole of the Thou-
sand and One Nights, or other works of equal length. But
after all, such a gift is occasional, and somewhat rare. On a
succession of such persons, so as accurately to transmit the
Iliad and Odyssey down through three or four centuries, one
can place no safe dependence. The thing is incredible. The
Egyptian and Persian rhapsodists every where intermingle,
with what they recite, so much of their own compositions,
both in poetry and in prose, as may serve to expand, embel-
lish, or explain their author. Often, men of talents among
their rhapsodists become so excited by the applause of their
audience, that they improvise, in a manner that exceeds the
originals. So it cannot have fared with Homer; for the
present state of his works—so little being in them which is
incongruous or superfluous-demonstrates that improvisation
has not wrought sensibly upon them by additions or diminu-
tions, and of course that they can never have been long sub-
jected to its sole influence.
Vi
We may get along quite well as to oral tradition, when it
is said to have preserved short songs, narrations, allegories,
or fables, independently of written records. But to think of
40
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
an Iliad and an Odyssey being preserved for centuries sub-
stantially inviolate, in this manner, requires much more cre-
dulity, than it does to believe that alphabetical writing
existed a considerable time before the era of Moses. At
least, I cannot bring my own mind to a state of doubt or hesi-
tation in regard to this whole matter.
I am fully aware of the testimony of Josephus, in relation
to the subject of ancient alphabetic writing in Greece. In
his Contra Apion. I. 2, he draws the contrast between the
antiquity of Greek and Hebrew letters, and, as might natur-
ally be expected from a Jew, greatly to the advantage of
the latter. He says that even the Greeks themselves make
their boast of learning their letters from Cadmus; that they
have no monumental inscriptions older than the siege of
Troy; and no book older than the poetry of Homer. In
respect to this, also, and whether the Grecians at the siege of
Troy were acquainted with the use of letters, he says ques-
tions have arisen, and that the better opinion is, that the
Greeks who destroyed Ilium were ignorant of letters. As to
Homer, he says: “φασὶν οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἐν γράμμασι τὴν αὐτοῦ
ποίησιν καταλιπεῖν, ἀλλὰ διαμνημονευομένην ἐκ τῶν ἁσμάτων
ὕστερον συντεθῆναι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολλὰς ἐν αὑτῇ σχεῖν τάς
diaporías i. e. they say that this one [Homer] did not leave
his poem in letters, [writing,] but that being kept in remem-
brance by chanting, it was subsequently adjusted, (composed
or put together,) and that it was because of this that so many
incongruities were found in it." Such was the impression
which Josephus received from Greeks with whom he was
conversant, and he was very ready to receive it, because it
made directly for the support of his opinion in favour of the
greater antiquity of the Hebrew literature. But we learn
from him, that it was then a contested question, whether the
Greeks who besieged Troy were acquainted with letters; so
that on the face of his testimony it appears that the point was
regarded as a doubtful one. We have seen, however, that
Euripides and Sophocles make appeals to Athenian audiences
in relation to this subject, about four centuries before the
Christian era, which leave no reasonable doubt as to what
the general opinion at Athens then was.
Josephus, by using ovvredñvaι in respect to the arrange-
ment of Homer's poems, doubtless has reference to the story
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
41
so often repeated, and from a period somewhat before the
Christian era, (Cic. de Orat. III. 34. Pausan. III. 26. Ælian.
Var. Hist. XIII. 14,) viz. that Solon, and especially Pisistratus
and his sons the Pisistratida, put together the disjointed.
and Sibylline fragments of the Iliad and Odyssey, and first
reduced them to writing, as well as to unity, regularity, and
order. All the rhapsodists, as the story goes, far and near,
were collected by Pisistratus, and from them he obtained all
the scattered fragments of the epic bard, and put them to-
gether as well as he could, summoning to his aid all the
literary corps of Athens. So much of all this is doubtless
true, namely, that Solon made an arrangement of the parts
of Homer, which were to be chanted at the Пavadýraia,
i. e. the feast of Minerva, which was held once in five years.
All could not be then sung, and Solon decided how much
should be sung, and in what order. Pisistratus, and his son,
Hipparchus, pushed criticism much further. They obtained
all accessible evidence of what belonged to Homer, and of
what quality it was, and arranged the result in the best
manner they could. To the famous Aristarchus of Samo-
thrace, (fl. B. c. 200,) is generally attributed the division of
the Iliad and Odyssey into twenty-four books each.
Such is the sum of tradition, in regard to this subject.
But that letters were not known in Greece earlier than the
time of Solon and Pisistratus, (about 550 B. C.,) no one will
now credit, since the publication of Nitzsch's Historia Ho-
meri. But how much the Diaskeuastai just mentioned, or
others after them, changed the text or the order of Homer,
it is in vain now to surmise. The internal evidence of
Homer's works is most unequivocally against any consider-
able interpolation. The unity of his poems, their dialect,
the spirit of all the parts, (with slight exceptions,) show a
unity of authorship, and a unity of purpose, combined with
a plan and a regularity which could not arise from diverse
minds. A man might as well say, that the different parts
of a watch were, in the first instance, manufactured by dif-
ferent persons without any concert; and that being acci-
dentally brought together, they all perfectly fitted each
other, and made a true time-keeper, which all succeeding
watch-makers have only imitated. Who would believe such
an account of the origin of watches? And yet it is even
p
42
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
more credible, than the fabled composition of Homer by
poets of different ages and different countries. All agree
that Homer's is the greatest poem of antiquity; most say
that it is the greatest of any or all ages.
How was such a
rare union of Homer and Co. brought about? We can find
only now and then a solitary example of poetry like his
among nations, during the whole period of their existence;
a Virgil in Rome, a Shakspeare and a Milton in England, a
Dante in Italy. How could Greece, in its barbarian ages,
between 600 and 1000 B. C., produce a whole host of ge-
niuses like to Homer, and never one afterwards?
But I am digressing. The interest of the subject has led
me away from my more direct purpose. I must simply
state the result; which is, that the use of letters was known
in Greece some time before the age of Homer; that it was
not very common, however, until the sixth century B. C.;
that the existence of chanters and rhapsodists of Homer at
a preceding period, is no proof at all against the existence
of his poems in a written form during that period; that the
unity, and diction, and dialect of his works demonstrate
unity of authorship, and a good state of preservation in re-
spect to his poems; and that the thing in itself is all but
absolutely incredible, that poems of nearly 30,000 lines
could have been so preserved for more than three centuries,
without having been reduced to writing.
Appeal then to the case of the Greeks, and confident ap-
peal such as has been made in respect to the works of
Homer, to prove the later origin of letters among the He-
brews, and, consequently, the impossibility of Moses' having
written the Pentateuch, can no longer be heard with appro-
bation or assent. It is too late to bring forward such al-
legations among us. In Germany, at the time when, through
the example of Wolf and Heyne, the recent destructive cri-
ticism (as some of our German cousins now name it) was
in the ascendant, one was famous "according to the number
of axes and hammers which he lifted up" against the an-
cient temple of the Muses, whether sacred or profane. Com-
menta opinionum delet dies. It is too late to palm upon the
literary public any longer the scheme of the Destructives.
We return to the HEBREWS. Whether Greece possessed
letters very early, or did not, would in reality affect but lit-
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
43
tle the case before us. * Moses and the Hebrews came out
of Egypt, after a long residence there. Moses was brought
up at the Egyptian court, and was skilled in all the learn-
ing of the Egyptians; and Gesenius has come, after all his
palæographical researches, and notwithstanding his former
opinion that the Pentateuch was composed near the close of
the Hebrew monarchy, fully to the conclusion, that alpha-
betical writing was known in Egypt at least 2000 years be-
fore the Christian era, and among the Phenicians at a
period but little later. Nor does he stand alone, even among
the Neologists. Ewald and von Lengerke, among the most
liberal of the Liberals, and both now engaged in publishing
a critico-religious history of the Hebrews, have avowed their
opinions in regard to the antiquity of writing among the
people of Western Asia, in a manner not to be misunder-
stood. Ewald, in his Geschichte des Volkes Israel, (Israel-
itish History, 1843,) says, (p. 64,) "In respect to the time
of Moses, suggestions from the most diverse sources, even
those of the earliest times, agree in this, viz. that writing
was already in use." Again (p. 66) he says, "That writ-
ing was practised at the time of Moses, the two tables of
the Law prove beyond contradiction; and since the art of
writing was then actually in existence, the beginnings of
historical composition must speedily appear, for the im-
portance of the Mosaic period was a sufficient excitement to
engage in it." In p. 69, speaking of the nations of Western
Asia, he says, "Writing among these nations always appears
to be more ancient than any history is able to disclose."
Again, on the same page, "So much is beyond mistake, viz.
that it [the art of writing] was a privilege enjoyed by the
Shemitish nations a long time before Moses made his ap-
pearance in history." Once more, on p. 71, he says,
then the position remains firm, that, since the time of Moses,
historical writing in Hebrew might be practised, and was
practised." He means to say, that at least it must have be-
gun as early as the time of Moses.
"So
*This is not quite consistent with what is stated in page 31, "It (i. e.
the use of alphabetic writing among the Greeks) has no unimportant
bearing on the question which is now before us. Tho statement here
is correct, and the digression commencing at page 31 might have been
omitted without detrimont. D.
در
44
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
Von Lengerke in his Canaan, or national and religious
History of the Jews, after referring to the ancient name of
Debir, viz. Qirjath Sepher, (bo np, i. e. book-town,) says,
"At all events, it seems historically to follow, from this
ancient name, that the use of writing among the inhabitants
of the land [Palestine] took its rise in very ancient times,
before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt;" p. xxxii.
Again (p. xxxiii.) he says, "Among whatever original peo-
ple of Shemitish origin the invention of writing is to be
sought, or to whatever early period it must be assigned,
still the invention must be supposed to precede Moses by a
long period of time, so far as it respects the Egyptians."
Again (p. xxxv.) he says, "Undoubtedly at Moses' time, a
commencement of historical writing among the Hebrews
had been made.”
No one who knows the sentiments of these two distinguish-
ed Hebrew scholars and critics, will think of accusing them
of any leaning towards orthodoxy. They have been forced,
by pure historical considerations, upon the acknowledgment
of these facts; and so must Mr. Norton have been, had he
paid but a moderate attention to the critical history of the
art of writing. Even De Wette, the coryphæus of doubters,
says, "With Moses, the author and lawgiver of the Hebrew
state, the introduction of the art of writing among them may
well be assumed as commencing;" Einl. ins. Alt. Test. §
12.*
Our own countryman then, Mr. Norton, who so often
speaks with not a little severity of the scepticism of the
Germans, plainly outdoes the very leaders of dubitation
among them, in the case before us.
We may then, in sketching the early history of the He-
brew Canon, assume it as a thing altogether probable, if not
quite certain, that in Moses' time the Pentateuch, or at least.
the leading parts of it, were committed to writing. If writing
was in use, the fundamental laws and regulations, civil,
social, ritual, or religious, must needs have been recorded.
*This is scarcely a correct representation of Do Wette's statement, at
least as it appears in the last edition of his Introduction. Those too who are
aware of the aberrations of the Tübingon school, and have read De Wette's
late book on Faith, will by no means assent to the truth of the assertion,
that he is the coryphæus of doubters. His words literally translated are these,
"Tho tradition of the Hebrews themselves assigns the first use of the art of
writing among them to Moses, the founder and law-giver of the Hebrew
state. We cannot ascribe to him the foundation of a Hcbrow literature, but
merely a feeble beginning of it, perhaps the penning of some laws;" §12. D.
SECT. III.
45
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
Such parts of the Pentateuch as the last part of Exodus,
which have respect to the sketching of a plan for the taber-
nacle, and the corresponding detail of the completion of it
in accordance with this plan, it could never have entered
into the mind of an impostor in after ages to draw out in
writing, at least in such a way. That there are a few para-
graphs and some occasional glosses of an ancient word, added
by a later hand to the Pentateuch, one may very readily con-
cede; e. g. the later succession of the dukes of Edom in Gen.
xxxvi.; the account of Moses' death and burial, Deut.
xxxiv.; and here and there the more recent names of
several towns appended to the ancient appellations. But
the very
fact that these stand out so prominently from the
rest of the composition, is a good argument in favour of the
antiquity and genuineness of the book at large.
It does not comport with my design to examine, with any
minuteness and in particular, the arguments against the early
composition of the Pentateuch, which are alleged to be drawn
from the internal state of its various books, and especially
from those parts of the several books which wear the appear-
ance of distinct composition, if not the marks of a foreign
hand. Nor can I here produce the many arguments drawn
from the internal state and character of the Pentateuch, in
order to establish its Mosaic origin. In my own private
judgment, I must regard the latter as far outweighing the
former. But all the detail of these matters belongs only to
a critico-exegetical Introduction to the Old Testament, on an
extended plan, like that of Hengstenberg, of Hävernick, and
others. Enough for my purpose, that the Pentateuch is re-
cognised as the work of Moses, by all the historians and pro-
phets of the Old Testament; by the Apocryphal writers,
by Philo, Josephus, and all the New Testament writers, and
expressly and repeatedly by Christ himself; as will be seen
when we come to produce the evidence collected from all
these various sources. Enough that this matter rests on the
universal tradition and belief of the Jews in all ages; in
the same manner as the authorship of the Iliad, or the
Odyssey, or of the Eneid, or of the Commentarii de Bello
Gallico, or the work de Bello Peloponnesiaco, and the like,
rests on the traditionary and universal belief of the nations
to whom these works respectively belong. What is con-
46
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
N
cerned with the general critical history of the Pentateuch
has already been touched upon. It is clear that it might have
been written (some small portions of it and some later ex-
planations of ancient names excepted) by the great Hebrew
legislator. If we may put any faith in united and constant
and invariable ancient testimony, IT WAS WRITTEN BY HIM.
At all events, it was in the Jewish Canon before our Sa-
viour's time, and was spoken of frequently by him, and by
his apostles, as the work of Moses. This is enough for my
main purpose, as I am now more concerned with its author-
ity and its right to a place in the Canon, than I am with
the detail that is connected with a critical dissection of the
work, and a discussion of its parts collectively and indi-
vidually.
I must not, however, dismiss it here, without adverting
for a few moments to the fiery trials through which this
portion of the Hebrew Scriptures has had to pass.
Soon after the era introduced by Semler, doubts began to
be raised concerning the early composition of the Pentateuch.
Almost every marked period from Joshua down to the return
from the Babylonish exile, has been fixed upon by different
writers, as a period appropriate to the production of this
work. To Ezra some have assigned the task of producing
it; in which, if we may hearken to them, he engaged in or-
der that he might confirm and perpetuate the ritual intro-
duced by him. To Hilkiah the priest, with the connivance
of Josiah, Mr. N. and others have felt inclined to attribute
it, at the period when a copy of the Law is said to have been
discovered in the temple. Some where near this period, Ge-
senius and De Wette once placed it; but both of them, in
later times, have been rather inclined to recede from this,
and to look to an earlier period. The subject has been
through almost boundless discussion, and a great variety of
opinions have been broached respecting the matter, until re-
cently it has taken a turn somewhat new. The haut ton
of criticism in Germany now compounds between the old
opinions and the new theories. Ewald and Lengerke, in
the works cited above, both admit a ground-work of the
Pentateuch (including Joshua). But as to the extent of this
they differ, each one deciding according to his subjective
feelings. The leading laws and ordinances of the Penta-
SECT. III.
47
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
Ewald
Then
teuch are admitted to belong to the time of Moses.
supposes that they were written down at that period.
we have, secondly, historical portions of the Pentateuch,
written, as Ewald judges, not by prophets, but before this
order of men appeared among the Hebrews-compositions
"not earlier than the second half of the Judges' period, and
certainly not later than this;" Ewald Volkes Geschich., p.
79. Then come next, according to him, a prophetic order
of historical writers, about the time of Solomon, or not long
after his reign. Next comes a Narrator, distinguished for
his talents and his religious zeal, who is to be placed some
where near the period of Elijah and Joel (about 900 B. C.).
His compositions are of a marked character and style, and
easily distinguished from the rest of the Pentateuch. Then
comes a fourth Narrator, different from all the others, whose
compositions exhibit references to events so late, that we
cannot place him earlier than about the middle of the eighth
century B. C., not far from the time of Isaiah and Micah.
He was followed by the Deuteronomist, i. e. the writer of
Deuteronomy, who, as Ewald thinks, lived some time during
the latter half of Manasseh's reign, and in Egypt; p. 160.
Besides all these original authors, and collectors, and re-
dactors, and supplementarists, there are many pieces of com-
position in the book of Genesis, and several in other books
of the Pentateuch, which belong to writers not specified in
this statement, and which were selected from all quarters,
domestic and foreign. Thus, just before the Babylonish
exile, the great Collectaneum, or Corpus Auctorum Om-
nium, was brought to a close.
Lengerke, whose work is later, (1844,) admits a ground-
work; but, with the exception of some laws, &c., it was not
composed until the time of Solomon; p. xci. Next comes
a Supplementarist, who must have lived some time in the
eighth century; p. cii. Then comes the Deuteronomist, as
in Ewald; but he is assigned by Lengerke to the time of
Josiah, about 624, B. C. The book of Joshua has only a
ground-work and a Supplementarist.
Each of these writers is so confident in his critical power
of discrimination, that he proceeds boldly to point out all
the respective portions of the Pentateuch assignable to each
author or supplementarist; not doubting in the least, that
48
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON
the internal indicia exhibited by the style and matter are
plain and decisive in regard to their respective theories.
But here arises a difficulty. Let us admit, (as we must,)
that both of these critics are fine Hebrew scholars, and very
well read in all matters pertaining to the history or philology
of the Hebrews; still the question comes up, How can
these writers, each being sure that he sees every thing so
clearly, differ so widely from each other? Ewald finds in-
ternal evidence of a Ground-work, four Narrators, a Deu-
teronomist, and of many miscellaneous compositions of others
that have been introduced by them into the Pentateuch.
Lengerke supposes a Ground-work, a Supplementarist, and
a Deuteronomist. The respective periods of each (some
laws, &c. excepted) are different. And yet each judges.
from internal evidence and subjective feeling. Each is sure
that he can appreciate all the niceties and slight diversities
of style and diction, and therefore cannot be mistaken. Each
knows (in his own view with certainty) how many authors
of the Pentateuch there are; while still one reckons six and
the other three. And all this-
And all this-ex cathedra, like a simple
avròç on, or dixit Magister.
I will not ask now, "Who shall decide, when Doctors
disagree?" But I may, with all becoming deference, be
permitted to say, that two representations so widely differ-
ent cannot be both true. This needs no proof. I do most
sincerely believe, that neither of them is true. In some
things, however, they both agree; e. g. that writing was
known and practised in the time of Moses; and that some
of the laws and the ground-work of the system must have
come from him (although these critics differ as to the extent
of this ground-work). They also agree that the Pentateuch
is made up by a nameless multiplicity of compositions ;
"here a little and there a little;" "line upon line," after
long intervals of time; and that it was not completed until
the latter part of the Jewish monarchy. This Collectaneum
(I had almost said Ollapodrida) is every where dismembered,
dissected, separated, and descriptively distinguished, in a
measure by the niceties of style and diction. But here is
another great principle which is summoned to the aid of the
critical analyzers, which is common to both, and heartily
sanctioned by both, viz. that prophecy or prediction, in the
SECT. III.
49
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON,
strict sense of these words, is an impossibility, and therefore
is out of the question. All the references, then, in the so-
called prophetic parts of the Pentateuch, whether to nations,
or events, or characteristics of either, must have been writ-
ten post eventum, i. e. after the nations arose, and after the
events took place, &c. This is at least very simple; it is
also very effectual for the purposes of neological criticism.
It makes the assignment of dates to the ancient scriptural
writings comparatively quite easy and obvious.
It is out of question for me here separately to canvass
the particular allegations of these critics. I can only make
a few remarks of a general nature, and must then pass on.
That the five books of the Pentateuch were not written
in one continuous succession, like an epic poem, or a con-
tinuous piece of history, or an argumentative discussion, is
sufficiently obvious to any one who reads with discrimina-
tion. To me the Pentateuch from the commencement of
Moses' active public life onwards through the whole, wears
the air of a (historic) journal, as well as a record of legis-
lation which was engaged in as often as circumstances called
for it. Every thing is more or less minutely recorded, ac-
cording to its relative importance at the time when it was
written down. It looks exactly like the journal of a man,
who was often interrupted in writing by the pressure of his
other engagements. If Moses was actually the responsible
leader of two and a half millions of people for forty years,
through the Arabian desert, he most assuredly must have
been a very busy man, and have had but little time for writ-
ing. His laws were made, from time to time, as circum-
stances required, and as the people could bear them. Some
of them were modified or changed during the journey. All
this appears in his journal. It bears the marks of being a
series of brief compositions, written in a manner independ-
ently of each other; for they were doubtless written at very
different times and places, and some of them quite remotely
from each other. Deuteronomy, which is set so low by
some of the critics, and attributed to a foreign hand by
most of the Neologists, appears to my mind, as it did to that
of Eichhorn and Herder, as the earnest outpourings and ad-
monitions of a heart, which felt the deepest interest in the
welfare of the Jewish nation, and which realized that it
E
Judi
drag
50
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
must soon bid farewell to them. The repetition of laws is
to mould them more into a popular shape, so as to be more
easily comprehended and remembered. Instead of bearing
upon its face, as is alleged by some, evidences of another
authorship than that of Moses, I must regard this book as
being so deeply fraught with holy and patriotic feeling, as
to convince any unprejudiced reader, who is competent to
judge of its style, that it cannot, with any tolerable degree
of probability, be attributed to any pretender to legislation,
or to any mere imitator of the great legislator. Such a glow
as runs through all this book, it is in vain to seek for in any
artificial or supposititious composition.
As to the book of Genesis, it of course must have been
matter of immediate revelation to Moses, or else of tradition
either oral or written. Now as Luke tells us, that when he
was preparing to write his Gospel, he investigated all the
things which it contains even up to their original sources,
so it may have been, and probably was, with Moses. It was
for him to judge, as the traditions were examined by him,
what among them was true, and what was false. If we sup-
pose him to have been under Divine influence, (as I do sup-
pose,) then the difficulty as to his judging would surely not
be very great. The accounts of former times, then, he has
brought together. I have no hesitation in believing that he
has combined different ones; and occasionally, where the
subject was one of deep interest, he extracted from two or
more sources at the same time; e. g. in his history of the
flood; of the creation of man and woman; and so of other
particulars. For nearly fifty years, all Germany has re-
sounded with reports concerning this matter, which have
been greatly diversified. The most general theory is, that
two different writers are the main sources of the book, viz.
the Elohist, i. e. the one who uses Elohim to designate the
Godhead, in his narrations, and the Jehovist, (proh pudor!
to form such a sacrilegious appellation,) i. e. the one who
employs Jehovah for the same purpose. Germany is full of
books proclaiming the certainty and the importance of this
discovery. After all, metes and bounds can be drawn with
no certainty between these two sources; and evidently there
are compositions in Genesis which belong to neither, and
which are of a mixed character. It matters not to us who
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
51
wrote these pieces or when they were written. They have
passed, as I believe, through Moses' hands, and are authenti-
cated by him. Nothing, moreover, can be more natural
than the composition of such a book as Genesis, in order to
constitute a kind of introduction to the remaining four books
of the Pentateuch.
It
The account of the creation cannot, indeed, be considered
in the light of a historical composition of the ordinary cast;
for no man was a witness of the events which it records.
must, therefore, be regarded in the light of a composition.
that depended on Divine teaching or illumination entirely.
At least I look on it in that light. To call it a creation-song,
with recent critics; or to regard it as a mere poetic philoso-
phem, or philosophical speculation on the origin of things.
in a poetic way; I cannot. The sublime and awful matter
and manner of the composition forbid me to attribute it to
mere fanciful conceptions of the mind.
In some such way would I explain the various phenomena
of the compositions which make up the Pentateuch. That
a book of such claims as it puts forth, viz. as being a work
of Moses the great lawgiver, should be composed at six dif-
ferent periods, as Ewald supposes, or at three or four, as
Lengerke maintains, and yet admitted each time, by the
whole Jewish nation, by prophets, priests, and kings, as a
genuine work of Moses, requires much more credulity than
the commonly received scheme of belief. Scepticism and
credulity are, after all, more nearly allied than most persons
are ready to suppose. That king of Prussia, who had Vol-
taire at his elbow to aid and abet him in his attacks upon
Christianity, and to foster his scorn of it, was the victim of
superstitious deliraments such as are rarely found in the in-
mates of a hamlet or a cottage.
Still, the critics now before us are entirely free, as one
who reads them must suppose, from any doubts as to their
power to discriminate between all the various portions of the
Pentateuch, and to separate them one from another. Each
moves on, as though no impediment or obstacle could be
thrown in his way. Lengerke has perhaps even outstripped
his compeer, in his march through the province of the
destructives. He tells us that the promise to Abraham and
Jacob, that kings should arise from their posterity, could
E 2
52
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
have been written only after kings arose in Israel; p. xci.
Among other things he says, that there is no satisfactory
evidence that David composed one single Psalm, in the book
which bears his name; p. lxiv. And (which I think to be
a rare discovery indeed) he has found out, that the 45th
Psalm is an epithalamium on the marriage of Ahab and
Jezebel! p. lxvii. The tyrant and apostate son of Omri
and the Sidonian idolatrous heathen devotee, Jezebel, hardly
claimed for themselves, as I wot, such an honour as this.
Each of our critics, as I have said, appears confident that
he is in the right; although one makes out six redactions for
the Pentateuch, and the other three. But if we inquire of
some other critics, even of the Liberal School, about the
matter of style and tone in the Pentateuch, on which all the
discerptive process depends, they give us a very different
account of the matter. Eichhorn, no mean judge by the
way in matters of taste or aesthetics, finds, as he avers,
(Einleit.,) most palpably one and the same tone and tenor of
diction, from the time when Moses came upon the stage
until he quits it. Deuteronomy he regards as the outpour-
ings of a heart ready to burst with interest and solicitude
for the Hebrew nation-such outpourings as could come
from none but Moses. Herder is of the same opinion; and
his taste and discrimination in oriental matters have not
often been surpassed. Rosenmueller has avowed the same
convictions, after writing a commentary on the whole Pen-
tateuch. Others might be named, to say nothing of the
English and other European critics. What are we to say,
then, to assumptions such as those of Ewald and Lengerke?
Are we, as a matter of course, to give them our assent?
And by what process shall we prove their judgment to be
so much superior to that of Eichhorn and Herder, in such
a matter?
If it were worth our while, it would be easy to show that
men, even the best scholars, are liable to mistake in judg-
ments of this nature, which depend on the style and tone of
writings. Two or three notable instances, that are recent,
may serve to illustrate and to defend this position.
Öf Sir Walter Scott's talents and discrimination nothing
needs to be said. Especially was he au fait in all matters
pertaining to Scotch Ballads and Border Stories. Mr. J. II.
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
53
Dixon, a literary antiquarian, has recently published some
remains of Mr. R. Surtees, a poet of no mean rank; and
among the rest a morsel of five pages, entitled the Raid of
Featherstonehaugh, a mere jeu d'esprit of the poet, in which
he aimed to imitate the older ballad-makers. Sir Walter not
only believed in the antiquity of the Raid, but quoted a
whole verse from it in his Marmion, (Cant. I. v. 13, seq.,)
and gave the poem at length in his Notes to this work, with
a grave comment upon this work, pointing out its dis-
tinctive antiquarian traits. Surtees, of course, was con-
vulsed with laughter, and thought it good pay for what Sir
Walter had so often done to the public, by imposing on
them in the way of pretending to quote old Ballads, and
particularly that famous author Mr. Anonymous.
A more recent affair of a like nature has just come before
the public. Dr. Reinhold of Germany, being revolted by
such claims as Strauss, Ewald, Bauer, Lengerke, and other
Liberals make, to the power of discrimination in all cases be-
tween what is ancient and modern, or earlier and later, in
writing, in order to put these pretensions and boasts to the
test, composed and published the story of the Amber Witch,
as a "tale of olden time." It was of course furnished with
the due apparatus, in the introduction, for carrying on the
hoax with success. No sooner had the book been published,
than the prevailing opinion appeared to pronounce it to be a
genuine production of antiquity, and not a few criticised, and
explained, and praised, all in the due and usual order. In
particular, the Tübingen Reviewers-the compeers and
friends of Strauss, pronounced their infallible sentence,
grounded on their unerring skill in discriminating the char-
acter of any composition, in favour of the book as a genuine
ancient chronicle. When the matter had gone so far that
there was no retreat, Dr. Reinhold comes out with an avow-
al, that the whole thing was a mere fiction, got up and car-
ried through solely by himself. Angry and lacerated critics
pretended not to believe him. The evidences of its an-
tiquity, they averred, were sooner to be believed than his
declarations. Recent report states, that Reinhold has ac-
tually been obliged to resort to the testimony of his neigh-
bours and townsmen, who were cognizant of his undertaking
in the time of it, in order to confront the assurance of the
New
54
SECT. II.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
infallible critics of the New School. So much for this.
What shall we say, then, in respect to the power of making
out all the different authorships of a book more than 3000
years old, and written in an oriental tongue ?
I have a graver matter still to relate. About 1824, a
fac-simile of an inscription on a stone was sent from Malta
to the French Academy, with a bilingual writing purporting
to be Greek and Phenician, accompanied by some emblem-
atic pictures or outlines of them, at the commencement and
the close. The learned Raoul Rochette was then keeper of
the Cabinet of Antiquities, and professor of Archæology at
Paris. He sent copies to different literati in Europe, and
asked assistance to decipher the inscriptions. These were
dated in the 85th Olympiad, i. e. some 436 years B. C.
Raoul Rochette believed in their antiquity. Creutzer doubt-
ed; Boeckh at Berlin also doubted. But Gesenius of Halle
and Hamaker of Leyden, two of the best orientalists and anti-
quarians in all Europe, not only sided with the French pro-
fessor, but published comments on the inscriptions, which
were submitted to the European public. In respect to the
Greek part of the inscription, it was written βουστροφηδόν,
in order to imitate the most ancient Greek; still, there was
no difficulty for an antiquarian in reading it. But the so-
called Phenician part was a matter of serious difficulty.
Each antiquarian made out his own scheme of interpretation.
Finally, however, Raoul Rochette induced the celebrated
Kopp, the author of the Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit,
to undertake the deciphering of these inscriptions. This he
did with the most complete and triumphant success, and ex-
posed the folly of the claims made for them to all Europe,
even to their entire satisfaction. His letter is in vol. vi.
of the Studien und Kritiken; and it has lulled the Maltese
inscriptions of the 86th Olympiad into a sleep, from which
they will never more wake. Not even the powerful voice
of a Gesenius or of a Hamaker could summon them back
from the regions of Morpheus, or (whither perhaps they
may have emigrated) from the banks of the Lethe in a dark-
er domain.
V
p
So much for infallibity in these antique matters.
How
can Ewald and Lengerke expect from us implicit faith in
their claims, while facts like these are before us?
SECT. III.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON.
55
To sum up my critical creed respecting the Pentateuch in
a few words; I believe that the last four books of the Pen-
tateuch contain a record or journal kept by Moses, during
the period of forty years spent in the Arabian waste; that
this journal is a mixed composition of laws and ordinances
and history, written at periods and under circumstances so
diverse, that parts of it not unfrequently wear the air of a
different authorship; and finally, that the book of Genesis
is composed, in a good measure, of different traditions re-
specting preceding times, either oral or written, all of which
passed under the revising eye and hand of Moses. The ac-
count of the creation may have been derived from some of
the patriarchs, such as Enoch, Noah, or Abraham, whose
minds were enlightened in regard to this matter; or it may
have come from Moses himself, enlightened in the same
manner. Enough that all is now authentic. Why should
I be called upon, then, to believe in the discretive and dis-
criminating power of an Ewald or a Lengerke, when these
powers are exercised, as they have plainly been, in separat-
ing what God and Moses and the Saviour of the world
have joined together?
tang
Such was the commencement of the Hebrew Canon. The
foundation of the ancient Dispensation was laid by it. How
the Pentateuch was diffused and preserved among the Jews
remains to be shown. When and in what manner the other
parts of the Hebrew Scriptures took their rise, still remains
for consideration. In order to place this whole subject in
an adequate and appropriate light, it will be necessary to
take a survey of the state and means of literature, and par-
ticularly of religious writing and instruction, from the time
of Moses down to the period when the Canon was closed.
When all this is before us, it will be easy to appreciate what
is said, respecting the composition and preservation of the
sacred books; and without some adequate and proper know-
ledge of these matters, no just and solid judgment can be
formed in relation to the critical history of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
56
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
SECT. IV. State of Literature and means of Instruction
among the Hebrews.
In order to present any thing satisfactory in relation to
these topics, it will be necessary to take a distinct view of
several matters, which stand intimately connected with them.
I. It hardly needs to be said, that the art of printing was
unknown at this period, not only among the Jews, but in all
hither Asia and Europe. The Chinese, indeed, boast of
knowing something of it for a considerable period before the
Christian era. But this, as well as many other Chinese
boasts, remains to be further examined.
The diffusion of books, even sacred ones, among any
people who can employ nothing but manuscripts all written
out by hand, must every where and at all times be very
limited. The expense of material on which writing could
be performed, was somewhat considerable; yet this would
not compare at all with the expense of hiring a copyist. It
does not appear certain, what the WRITING-MATERIAL was,
in the earlier times of the Hebrew commonwealth. The
large tablet (a) on which Isaiah (ch. viii.) is required to
write, not improbably was a tablet of light wood smeared
with wax.
But in the time of Jeremiah, we find that the
roll on which Baruch had written his communications, was
cut in pieces with a knife, and burned in the fire by Je-
hoiakim, Jer. xxxvi. 23. Possibly this was a linen roll, or
it might more probably be leather or parchment? At a
very early period the Egyptians began to write on linen and
cotton cloth, smeared over, after the writing, with some
diaphanous substance so as to preserve it. They also wrote
on what we may name paper, i. e. stuff manufactured from
the bark of the papyrus. The skins of animals, tanned and
made smooth, and adapted to the purpose of receiving im-
pressions from ink of different kinds, were early employed
among nations where writing was practised. One cannot
well suppose the Jews to be ignorant of any of these ma-
terials, who had lived so long in Egypt; and when once
known, the use of them can hardly be supposed to be dis-
continued at any subsequent period. The best kind of
parchment was, to be sure, only a late invention, i. e. in the
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
57
time of Attalus the king of Pergamus. But tolerably good.
writing material may be made from prepared cloth, or soft
and smooth skins of animals that have a thin and delicate
cuticle. The roll which Ezekiel saw, (iii. 9, 10,) and the
flying roll of Zechariah, disclose to us that either linen cloth
or skins prepared must have constituted the then usual
material of writing. Psalm xl. 7, speaks of a 50 Mbp, a
roll of the book, in which something was written that had
respect to the Messiah; see Heb. x. 5, seq. The title of
this Psalm ascribes it to David. In his time, then, books
were written in such a manner, i. e. on such material, that
they were rolled up. Cloth or prepared leather they must
have been, unless indeed the product of the Egyptian papy-
rus may be supposed to have been transported to Palestine.
To make this roll of a book only a decree in the Divine
mind, because every thing stands as it were recorded in
that mind, (so Mr. Norton has explained it,) is an applica-
tion of the by-gone doctrine of accommodation, about as ex-
travagant as any thing among the German critics with whom
he finds fault.
Sea
A moment's consideration of the nature of the climate in
Palestine, will serve to show how perishable the material of
books must have been, unless guarded with extraordinary
care. The severe heat during one part of the year, and the
extreme moisture during another part, must have both been
unfavourable to the cloth and skin material on which books
were written. It is easy to see, how the original autograph
copies would soon disappear, in such circumstances, and
especially such volumes as were exposed to constant use and
to the open atmosphere. The original Pentateuch might
reach, perhaps, the time of Samuel, or of David; but we can
scarcely suppose it to have been extant in the time of Ezra.
II. We can make no thorough comparison of the present
state of the Christian world with that of the ancient He-
brews, in respect to education and knowledge, without at
once perceiving the almost unappreciable difference that
exists between them. Brought up as we are, in a land
where from our very infancy the knowledge of letters is im-
pressed upon us, and where it is a rare thing to find an in-
dividual who cannot read and write, and rare even to find
any one who is not habitually a reader of some kind of book
58
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
or periodical, or at least of some weekly or daily journal, it
is very difficult for us fully to realize the condition of a
people, among whom books never circulated, or could circu-
late, to any great extent, and of whom only a few priests and
prophets, or some of the noblemen or of the rich, could even
read a book. Yet such was the state of the ancient Hebrews.
If there be any one thing which strikes us with astonish-
ment in regard to the Mosaic legislation, it is, that no pro-
vision is made by the great Jewish law-giver for the
thorough education and enlightening of the Hebrew nation
at large. When viewed in contrast with the present legis-
lation of most Christian countries in respect to the subject
of education, the Mosaic dispensation would indeed seem to
be one of types and shadows, in comparison with that of the
gospel. It was only once in seven years, viz. when the
whole population of the country were required to assemble
in Jerusalem, at the feast of tabernacles, that the Law was
to be read in the hearing of them all, Deut. xxxi. 10, 11.
The usual period of this feast was seven days; and diligent
must readers and hearers have been, if all the Law was read
during that period. This is all the direct provision made
by Moses, for the instruction of the people. Three times
in a year, it is true, all the males were to appear before
God in Jerusalem, viz. at the feast of unleavened bread or
the passover, at the feast of weeks, and at the feast of ta-
bernacles, Deut. xvi. 16; Ex. xxiii. 14, 17; xxxiv. 23.*
Doubtless there were some selections from the Pentateuch
read on these occasions; but this is not expressly ordered
by Moses; nor could the reading have been very extensive,
because of other duties to be performed.
G
* I cannot refrain from noticing here an important circumstance, added
in the way of encouragement or assurance, in order to show the Hebrews
the practicability of complying with the injunction to assemble thrico
each year at Jerusalem. What I refer to, follows immediately the in-
junction in Ex. xxxiv. 23, to "appear thrice in the year before the Lord,"
and it runs thus: "For I will cast out the nations before thee, and on-
large thy borders, neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt
go up to appear before the Lord thrice in the year." Mr. Norton and
others, who speak with undissembled horror of the command to extirpato
idolators from the land of Palestine, probably may not have turned their
thoughts to this necessary precaution for the safety of the Jowish people,
when celebrating their national feasts during so many days of the year.
The withdrawing of the great mass of the malo population from their
homes, must of course have left the country defenceless.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
59
Besides these means of instruction, judges and officers of
the tribe of Levi were to be appointed in all the Hebrew
cities; whose business it was to judge in cases of dispute
between man and man, to solve cases of conscience, and in-
struct those who consulted them as to the mode of perform-
ing ritual and ceremonial observances, Deut. xvi. 18; comp.
1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 4. Of this more will be said in the
sequel, when we come to inquire what part the priests took
in the instruction of the people.
The very statute of Moses, which orders all the popula-
tion of the land to assemble once in seven years in order to
hear the Law read, does in itself imply, that this was the
only means provided generally for such a purpose. If each
family possessed a copy of the Law, and could read it, of
what possible consequence would be all the trouble and ex-
pense and risk of assembling at Jerusalem in order to hear
it merely? The defenceless state of the country, and the
heavy expenses of travelling with one's whole family on
these occasions, even from the remotest borders of the coun-
try, shows that other more facile and more economical means
of enlightening the people, and of giving them full views of
their religious and civil obligations, were no part of the
Mosaic institution. Had they been employed, the general
assembling of the whole mass, so onerous and expensive,
must have been superseded.
Jan
Sk
We know indeed that in the times of Samuel, and of
Elijah and Elisha, that there were something like schools of
the prophets, in which young men were trained up for pro-
phetic service. But the number of them could not have
been very great. Omitting these, we hear or know nothing
of schools for the education of the mass of the people. They
seem never to have existed. Hence the mass could neither
read nor write. Hence too the revolting fickleness and mu-
tability of the Jews, in regard to the worship of the true
God. A well-informed population must have viewed with
disgust the abominations of the heathen worship. But ignor-
ance is always prone to superstition, and is ready to believe
any thing and every thing which superstition will inculcate.
The morals of the heathen were of course low; those of the
Mosaic system were sound and stern, and as to some features
perhaps even rigid. Heathen rites, we may suppose, were
60
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
me
naturally revolting to most Jews, so far as bloody human
sacrifices were demanded. Yet even Moloch was, at times,
worshipped by many of the Hebrews with zeal. But what at-
tracted the ignorant and unthinking was, the loose rein that
was held over the passions. Impurity was even a part of the
heathen religious rites. In the journey of the Hebrews to-
ward Palestine, while under the guidance of Moses himself,
the people joined themselves to Baal-peor, the god of the
Moabites; and all this because they were allured to “commit
whoredom with the daughters of Moab;" Num. xxv.
Num. xxv. 1, seq.
So down through the whole time of the Judges, and, with few
exceptions, down to the Babylonish exile itself, the Jews
were continually prone to turn aside from their more rigid
and pure and elevated worship, to the rites and ordinances
of the heathen. Nothing but the gross ignorance in which
they lived, can adequately account for such a phenomenon.
It is indeed true, that Moses commands Jewish parents to
"teach his statutes diligently to their children, and to talk
of them when they sit in the house, and when they walk by
the way, and when they lie down, and when they rise up,
Deut. vi. 6, 7. But the instruction is all oral. No refer-
ence is made to letters or books. What the parents could
retain in memory from hearing the Law read once in seven
years, they were to inculcate upon their children. But how
much the mass of the people, ignorant of letters, would re-
tain and teach, was but too manifest in the subsequent ignor-
ance and proneness to idolatry in all ages of the Jewish
commonwealth, down to the time of the return from the
Babylonish exile.
ور
Such is the remarkable difference between the effects of
the Gospel dispensation, and that of the ancient Law. The
votaries of Romish superstition would fain bring the mass of
Christians back to the condition of the ancient Hebrews.
With them it is at least a practical maxim, that ignorance is
the mother of devotion; but above all, that ignorance of the
Scriptures is the mother of devotion. Hence the Bible
itself is not to be put into the hands of the common people.
Religion, therefore, with them must practically mean, a
readiness to submit to all which the pope and the priesthood
prescribe. But here even the times of Moses were far in
advance. All the people were required to hear the whole
SECT. IV.
61
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Law once in seven years; and parents were also strictly
enjoined to urge upon their children all the precepts which
they could retain in memory. Moses, of course, did not leave
the whole population to be managed only by the priests.
I have only to subjoin under this head, that we must not
judge of the policy or skill of Moses, in legislating for the
Hebrews, by a comparison of the ancient Jews with our own
population of the present day. The Hebrews as a nation
were illiterate; and they long continued to be so. A com-
mand to set up schools among them, in the then state of
things, and to furnish all their children with books, would
at least have been deemed by them to be a practical impossi-
bility. We, who purchase elementary books enough at the
price of from two pence up to fifty, can scarcely feel what a
burden the general provision of books for all the children,
and for grown-up readers, would have been in the Mosaic
age. It is one of the things that the great legislator felt
himself obliged to leave untouched, on account of the cir-
cumstances of the Hebrews, and of the times in which he
lived. Book-making or reading, and the possession of books,
could at that time belong only to a few.
III. Let us now look at this subject in another point of
light. I refer to the subject of religious instruction.
We who have enjoyed the privileges of the Christian
sabbath and of the sanctuary, are but ill prepared for the
due estimation of the ancient laws of Moses, in respect to
these matters. The Jewish people were forbidden, on the
penalty of excision, to kindle a fire in their dwellings on
the sabbath, Ex. xxxv. 3. They were even prohibited
from leaving their habitations on that day (Ex. xvi. 29);
although the spirit of this precept would not seem to ex-
tend to leaving their dwellings for the purpose of religious
worship. But all idea of religious social instruction on the
sabbath is entirely lacking here, and is to be excluded. We
shall soon see that there was no provision for social wor-
ship among the Hebrews on the sabbath, and no order of
men whose business it was regularly to superintend their
habitual religious instruction. Parents are the only per-
sons required by Moses to perform this office; and how well
it would be performed by those who could neither read nor
write, and had no books, it is not difficult to perceive.
>>
62
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Nothing is plainer, than that the very arrangement of the
tabernacle, its ritual, its priesthood, (and so in respect to the
temple,) presupposes and takes for granted that there is only
one lawfully constituted place of public ritual worship.
Three times in each year are all the males among the He-
brews to repair to the tabernacle or temple, and spend, on
two of these occasions, a week each time, (at the passover
and also at the feast of tabernacles,) and at least one day
as sacred time at the feast of weeks or Pentecost. The
reason why no more time was demanded on this last occa-
sion, which occurred just seven weeks after the feast of the
passover, is obvious. It was the beginning of harvest time,
and the absence for even a few days of the great mass of
the population from their homes, would occasion the loss of
their main sustenance.
The sacrifices appropriate to these occasions could be
offered "only in the place which the Lord Jehovah had
chosen." Specially was this true of the passover lamb. It
must be killed and dressed in the outer court of the taber-
nacle or temple, while its blood was carried within, and
sprinkled upon the altar. Of course there could have been
no other lawful places of worship, i. e. of ritual worship,
which would have rivalled the tabernacle or temple.
But still, may there not have been houses built in at least
the larger towns for public, social, devotional worship? May
not the Hebrews from Joshua down to the Babylonish exile
have had their synagogues, i. e. places of social religious
meeting, in order to read and expound the Scriptures, to
sing hymns, to communicate instruction, and to give utter-
ance to exhortations? Nothing is easier, I answer, than
for us, brought up as we have been, to suppose this. Indeed
it is even difficult for us to suppose the contrary.
We can scarcely credit it, that Moses should have over-
looked or failed to make an arrangement so obviously im-
portant and useful. But still, when we make the most
strict and thorough scrutiny of the Hebrew Scriptures, both
in the history which they contain and in the prophecies, we
cannot find a trace of any such thing as public social wor-
ship, either on the sabbath or on any other day of the week,
from the time of Moses down to that of Ezra. There is not
a word in all the Pentateuch of command to the Hebrews to
m
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
63
keep the sabbath, by attendance on public worship. There
is no intimation of even voluntary associations of indi-
viduals in any part of Palestine, to hold any stated pub-
lic and social worship, or to procure religious instruction for
such occasions.
K
In the book of Judges, (the brief history of a period of
about 300 years,) there is little else but a record of Jewish
propensities to idolatry, and of the chastisement which en-
sued, upon the indulgence of these propensities. There is,
however, one notable woman, Deborah, who is called a
prophetess, whose history is given; but apparently more
on account of her political than her religious achievements,
Judg. iv., seq. She, as it would seem, was the civil head
of the Hebrew nation, during a period of some length. Her
triumphal song on account of the victory achieved over
Sisera and his army, is on record, Judg. v.; but we hear
nothing of any religious instruction that she gave. After
this period, when the Midianites invaded Palestine, overran
it, and greatly oppressed the Hebrews for seven years, we
are told of a prophet, whose name is not given, (Judg. vii.
8—10,) who was sent to administer reproof to his country-
men. This is all respecting religious instruction which the
history of 300 years presents. Can we suppose synagogues
to have been extant, and regular worship to have been car-
ried on during all this time? Nothing is more unlikely, or
more foreign to the demeanour of the Jewish nation, at that
period. Scarcely did they rise up and free themselves from
one neighbouring heathen nation, who had been commis-
sioned to chastise them for their idolatry, before they re-
lapsed again into the commission of the same crime, and
again were obliged to undergo the like punishment. Nothing
can, to all appearance, be more true than the last verse of
the book of Judges, in reference to those times: "In those
days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which
was right in his own eyes."
This verse, moreover, seems to show that the book of
Judges must itself have been written after kings arose in
Israel. Whether, as the Talmudists suppose, it was written
by Samuel, or whether more probably by some other and
later personage, we cannot now stop to inquire. But if the
whole book, as it now is, was always the same from its
64.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
origin, it might seem to have been written at quite a late
period of the Jewish kings; for chap. xviii. 30, mentions
"the captivity of the land," i. e. seemingly of the ten tribes,
which was at the commencement of Hezekiah's reign. But
I do not, with De Wette, regard this as decisive of the age
of the whole book, any more than I look upon the late pro-
tracted account of the dukes of Edom, (Gen. xxxvi.,) or the
account of the death of Moses, (Deut. xxxiv.,) as decisive
of the age of the Pentateuch in general. Some of the
documents, (for several are plainly combined in the book of
Judges,) beyond reasonable doubt, are of the more ancient
stamp, and might have been written soon after the events
which they describe had taken place.
In respect to the book of Joshua, which also is made up
of several ancient documents, this could not well have been
completed until the reign of David, inasmuch as we have
repeated references to Jerusalem in it, (Josh. x. 1; xv.
xv. 63 ;
xviii. 28,) which was, before the time of David, called Jebus,
(Judg. xix. 11,) and was subdued by David and made his
capital, 2 Sam. v. 1-9. But the registers of the division
of the country among the twelve tribes of Israel, and some
other matters in the book, it is quite probable are of a date
contemporaneous with that of the conquest by Joshua.
Thus it seems to be plain, that for a period of about three
centuries after the death of Moses, (B. C. 1451,) there could
have been no other Scriptures extant among the Jews, than
the Pentateuch, probably some parts of the book of Joshua,
and some portion, it may be, of the book of Judges. These
Scriptures, instead of being in the hands of the great mass of
the people, or of being read every sabbatlı, could have been
possessed by very few, even among the priests and rulers.
Indeed it is difficult to find any recognition at all of priests,
during the period covered by the book of Judges. Mention
is made, Judges xx. 28, of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar
and grandson of Aaron, at the time when the Benjamites
But after this
were nearly destroyed by the other tribes.
we hear no more of priests or prophets, (with the excep-
tions above noted as to the latter,) until the time of Eli and
Samuel. It does not follow, indeed, that there were no
persons of these respective orders among the Hebrews.
But that they performed no conspicuous part, that they
SECT. IV,
65
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
were not numerous or active enough to have much influence
on the nation at large, seems to be nearly certain from the
manner and tenor of the history in the two books before us.
In such a state of things, how was the Pentateuch pre-
served? By whom was it watched over and guarded, and
how much was it diffused among the Hebrews? These
questions very naturally arise; but we cannot stop to
answer them now, without interrupting the history of re-
ligious instruction among the Hebrews. We shall revert
to these inquiries as soon as the course of our discussion
will permit.
Let us pursue the inquiry respecting social synagogue
worship from the era of Samuel down to the Babylonish
exile.
Not one word in regard to this subject can I find in the
histories comprised in the books of Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles, or in the Psalms, Proverbs, or works of the pro-
phets who lived during this period. When Jeremiah pours
forth his pathetic Lamentations over the fallen city and
country of the Hebrews, he describes the ruins of the tem-
ple, the metropolis, the strongholds, and the villages; he
weeps over the multitudes of the slain, the famishing, and
the exiled; but not a word respecting the destruction of
any synagogues of the land, or places of public social wor-
ship. The comminations of the prophets in regard to
judgments about to be inflicted, all have respect to the
objects first mentioned, and not to synagogues. It is af-
firmed of no invading enemy, whether Babylonian or other
foe, that he assaulted or destroyed any such buildings or
places of worship.
The great public fasts, on extraordinary occasions of dis-
tress and danger, are always proclaimed and spoken of as
celebrated in Jerusalem. Thus Joel, in a time of famine
threatened by the incursion of locusts, proclaims a fast in
Zion, and the summoning of the solemn assembly there; Joel
ii. 15, seq. When several enemies had combined, and were
on their march to invade Judea, the pious Jehoshaphat pro-
claimed and celebrated a fast of the whole nation at Jerusa-
lem; 2 Chron. xx. 3, seq. When Jehoiakim, stricken with
terror at the approach of Nebuchadnezzar's army, proclaimed
a fast to all the realm, this fast was to be held at Jerusalem;
F
66
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Jer. xxxvi. 9. Now as the Law of Moses had made no pre-
scriptions in regard to any temple-ritual for such fasts on
extraordinary occasions, what necessity could there be of
assembling at Jerusalem for services merely devotional, in
case there were synagogues dispersed through all the land?
The nature of the arrangement, on the very face of it, im-
ports that there were no such places of public and social wor-
ship, where the people were accustomed to perform their de-
votions. And this is plainly confirmed by the fact, that when
Jehoshaphat sent princes and Levites through all Judea, in
order to give the people religious instruction, they carried a
copy of the Law with them, which they obtained at Jerusa-
lem, in order to aid and confirm their instructions; 2 Chron.
xvii. 7, seq. This was surely a needless precaution in case
there were synagogues in all parts of the land, and of
course copies of the Law in them.
<<
I am aware that it has been alleged by some advocates of
the early existence of synagogues, that there is a plain refer-
ence to them in Ps. lxxiv. 8, which contains a lamentation
over the wasting of Judea-probably its desolation by the
Babylonish army. Of the enemy the Psalmist says, "They
have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land." So
runs our English version. The original Hebrew runs thus,
,here rendered tabernacles מוער The word .כל מועדי אל בארץ
means, first of all, a fixed appointed time or season; then,
very naturally, the assembling or convention of men at such
appointed seasons; then, thirdly, (like our word church, which
means assembly, and then the place of assembling,) it stands
for temple or place of assembling. So Lam. ii. 6, "[The
Lord] hath destroyed yp, his temple." But in Ps. lxxiv. 8,
the plural number of this word is employed, 8-y. On
this account Gesenius says, in his lexicon, "It is difficult to
say what this means ;" and on the whole he thinks it may
refer to the high places at Rama, Bethel, Gilgal, &c.
Rosenmueller cuts the knot, which he cannot untic. He
says, that the Psalm was doubtless composed in the time
of the Maccabees, and refers to the destruction of syna-
gogues by Antiochus. More recent criticism seems to have
laid aside the idea of Maccabæan psalms, and we are thrown
again upon the difficulty which the case appears to present.
But it seems to me much less formidable than it did to
Juni
SECT. IV.
67
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Vitringa, or to the critics just named. Let us compare
the synonymous word jv, dwelling-place, temple, (synony-
mous with y when this means temple,) and see what the
usage of the Hebrew is. In Ps. xlvi. 5; cxxxii. 5, the
word (1) is in the plural number, with the sense of
the singular; in Ps. lxxiv. 7; Ex. xxv. 9; Ezek. xxxvii.
27, the same word with the same meaning is employed
in the singular number. What difficulty then in inter-
preting after the analogy of town, in cases where
both words have the same sense? The simple truth of the
matter seems to be, that the use of the singular or plural, as
to a considerable circle of words, was a matter left to the
choice of the writer. Thus he might say, or 18, or
and so in the New Testament cd33aroy ; אֲדֹנִי or אֲדֹנִי ; אלהים
and σάββατα, οὐρανός and οὐρανοί, ἀνατολή and ἀνατολαί,
and the like in many other cases. Substantially there is no
difference of meaning between the singular and plural forms,
where such a usage prevails. The plural may indeed, al-
most at any time, be used instead of the singular, whenever
a writer conceives of an object as composite, i. e. as consist-
ing of various parts, and he has reference to this circum-
stance in the language which he employs; or, when he
means to designate intensity. When simple unity is de-
signated, the singular number only is of course employed.
Finally, inasmuch as the temple, with all its courts, was a
large mass of buildings, the plural of ¬y might very appro-
priately be employed to designate it, as thus conceived of.
How much more easy and simple this philological explan-
ation is, than those of the critics just named, every one may
easily perceive. If it be said that stands in the way of
this and requires the real plural, my reply would be, that
the plural form of the noun may well admit 2, while the
sense of the whole is not substantially affected by it.*
اسعد
* Wo regard this interpretation of the Hebrew word in question as
wholly unsatisfactory. The all does stand in the way of it, and still
more the succeeding word, in the land. It is very improbable that
the plural should be used in this case for the singular. Professor Lec, in
his Hebrew Lexicon, assigns to it without scruple the signification of syna-
gogue, but there aro gravo reasons for doubting the accuracy of such a
meaning. Parhaps it moans places of meeting, i, c. places in different
parts of the land where the people of the neighbourhood met occasionally
for prayer. In this manner we have the first notice of proseucha, in the
Old Testament. D.
F 2
68
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
If there be any passage besides this in the Old Testament
which has even a seeming reference to synagogues properly
so called, it has escaped my notice. I am aware, indeed,
that some have supposed that certain other passages might
refer to them; but the probability that they do so refer, is
so small, that I do not deem it proper to occupy my own or
the reader's time with the consideration of them.
In whatever way, then, the Law of Moses, or any other
ancient books of the Jewish Canon were preserved, before
the Babylonish exile, it could not have been by the aid of
synagogues.
When these arose; and what was done in them
with reference to the Jewish Scriptures; are questions that
must be touched upon in the sequel.
babag
One other circumstance of a seemingly extraordinary na-
ture in regard to the Law of Moses, deserves some special
attention. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah
(about 624 B. c.) the high priest Hilkiah, on occasion of
making a thorough repair and expurgation of the temple,
"found the book of the Law of the Lord by Moses ;" 2 Chron.
xxxiv. 14, seq.; 2 Kings xxii. 8, seq. This he announced
immediately to the king's scribe, who took the book and
read it before the king. The surprise and agitation which
this occurrence occasioned in all quarters, are represented
as being very great. Josiah immediately convoked the
whole realm, and in person read the book of the Law to
them, and exacted from them a promise to obey it. What
is to be deduced from a circumstance so peculiar and extra-
ordinary as this ?
We know what Mr. Norton has deduced from this narra-
tion. On p. 430, he says, "The story of its being acci-
dentally found in the Temple, may be thought to have been
what was considered a justifiable artifice, to account for the
appearance of a book hitherto unknown." Not a few of the
German critics have, in like manner, traced the origin of the
Pentateuch to the transaction in question. If the Penta-
teuch was before in existence, it was impossible, they allege,
that Josiah and the high priest Hilkiah should have been
ignorant of it or destitute of it.
First of all, then, as to the probability of such a forgery
on this occasion. What kind of persons were concerned in
it? Josiah was the most pious king that ever sat upon the
p
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
69
throne of Judah, from the time of David down to the cap-
tivity. He entered upon his office at the age of only eight
years, and before he had arrived at his eighteenth year, he
had cut off and destroyed all the idols of the land, with
their temples, groves and monuments of every kind, and in
the way of disgrace he had burned the bones of idolatrous
priests upon the altars where they had ministered. Not only
so in Judea, but he went beyond his own specific boundaries,
and destroyed all the insignia of idolatry to be found in the
land of Israel; 2 Chron. xxiv. 3-7. Having accomplished
this work, he immediately set about repairing the ruins of
the temple, which had been occasioned by the fifty-seven
years of idolatry under his predecessors. Most zealously
did he engage in this work; in which he was seconded by
the pious and distinguished high priest Hilkiah, who was
probably the father of the prophet Jeremiah. In the pro-
secution of these repairs, the copy of the Law in question
was found. That there was no concert between the high
priest and the pious Josiah, to introduce a new system of
law among the Jews, is quite clear. When the scribe or
secretary of state, Shaphan, read the Law to that king, the
latter rent his clothes in token of grief and distress; un-
questionably because of the heavy denunciations in that Law
against idolatry and such sins as were common among his
people. Immediately he sent to inquire of a prophetess,
what was to be done to propitiate the anger of the Lord,
which had been kindled because of the breaches of his Law
that had so long taken place. The answer returned was,
that 'God would visit upon Jerusalem all the evil that had
been done there, but would be propitious to him, on account
of his humility and penitence.' Immediately Josiah assem-
bled all Judah; read to them in person all the words of the
Law; solemnly engaged to obey its precepts with all his
heart; and obliged all the people to enter into the same
covenant; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 20-32. He extended the re-
formation to Israel also; and all his days he departed not
from following the Lord, the God of his fathers; 2 Chron.
xxxiv. 33. This, moreover, was the king who renewed the
passover-rites which had fallen into desuetude, and kept
such a passover "as had not been kept from the days of
Samuel the prophet, nor by any of the kings of Israel;"
Al
70
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE IIEBREWS.
2 Chron. xxxv. 18. And as to Hilkiah, the record of his
life and actions is brief, but full of significance. To him
were committed all monies for repairing the house of the
Lord, even without being required to account for them.
The work of repairing was carried on with great zeal and
complete success, under the same high priest.
Were these men, now, and others their associates who
were evidently of the like character, persons who would un-
dertake to commit a forgery in the name of Moses, and to
palm it off as the genuine production of that great law-giver
upon the whole Jewish people? Then, moreover, were the
people so stupid and tame, as to receive such a book as
coming from the hand of Moses, and to swear fealty to all
its statutes and ordinances accordingly? Did they not know
whether such a book had been received or known by their
ancestors, not to speak of themselves aforetime? In short,
whatever may be the position in which such a forgery may
be placed or argued for, it is a manifest and utter impro-
bability. It scarcely deserves a serious notice. Indeed,
such a thing was all but impossible.
But then all difficulties are not removed, by removing
this obstacle from our path. How could the pious Josiah,
and above all the high priest Hilkiah, have lived and acted
so long, (some eighteen years,) without possessing any copy
of the Law of Moses?
j
That all the ordinary routine of temple-rites was well
known and familiar to the priests who ministered at the
altar, must be quite certain. To suppose these to have been
regularly performed by virtue of traditional knowledge, is
doing no violence to probability. It is only what has hap-
pened in all ages and in many countries; I mean not the
performance of the same identical rites, but of others of the
like nature, as it respected the religion of the heathen. It
is true, that nearly the time of two generations preceding
the reign of Josiah had passed away, while idolatry in its
grossest forms had pervaded the land under Manasseh and
Amon, whose reigns lasted fifty-seven years. Manasseh
not only "walked in the ways of Ahab," but he built altars
and set up carved images for his idols in the very temple of
the true God; he offered up his own children to Moloch,
and "did even more wickedly than the Amorites them-
J
SECT. IV.
71
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
selves had done." Besides this, "he shed much innocent
blood in Jerusalem from one end to the other." To him,
Jewish tradition (with much probability) attributes the
massacre of Isaiah. He was succeeded by Amon, who trod
in his steps, and withal was so tyrannical, that his own
courtiers formed a conspiracy against him, and put him to
death when he had reigned only two years.
htt
In this history, now, as it seems plain to me, lies the so-
lution of the problem, arising from the fact that a copy of
the Law of Moses was found, after so long a time, by Hil-
kiah. Nearly sixty years of undisguised and most thorough-
going idolatry, carried out even to the most bitter and bloody
persecution of the true worshippers of God, had obliterated
nearly every trace or monument of proper religious worship.
The number of copies of the Pentateuch had probably never
been great, at any one time, among the Hebrews. Those,
moreover, which had been in existence, were written upon
perishable materials. Such devoted idolatry as that of Ma-
nasseh, it is probable, would not permit any copy of the
Pentateuch to remain safe, which could be destroyed. An-
tiochus Epiphanes, when he wished to extirpate the Jewish
worship and introduce the rites of the heathen into Judea,
ordered all the copies of the Law to be burned. It was an
obvious measure for Manasseh, in order to carry through
his designs. The story of finding the copy of the Law in
the temple, which created so great a sensation in the court
and among the people, is a good voucher for the fact, that
Manasseh aimed at building heathenism upon the ruins of
Mosaism and all its monuments, so far as it lay within his
power. In some secret recess of the temple, it is altogether
probable, had some pious priest hidden the copy of the Law
found by Hilkiah, in order to prevent its destruction by
Manasseh. That priest had probably died, or been mar-
tyred, during Manasseh's impious reign, and the secret died
with him, as to the place where the Law was deposited. In
making extensive repairs of the temple, the secreted volume
was discovered, to the astonishment and great joy of the
king, the high priest, and the mass of the Jewish people,
who seem to have been thoroughly disgusted with the reigns
of Manasseh and Amon.
If any one should regard it as quite improbable, that the
72
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
copies of the Law could be reduced to a single one at this
period, let him read the religious history of France during
the reign of terror and of atheism. In less than an eighth
part of the time in which idolatry prevailed under Manasseh
and Amon, France had succeeded so entirely in obliterating
all traces of the Scriptures, in and about Paris, numerous as
Bibles were in that city at a period preceding the reign of
terror, that for many weeks the Committee of the Bible
Society could not find a single copy from which they might
print a new edition. How much easier to produce a like
effect in the time of Manasseh, when the copies of the
Scriptures were so very few, and when almost every indi-
vidual who possessed them must be publicly known as the
possessor!
It is true, indeed, that, according to the book of Chroni-
cles, (chap. xxxiii.,) Manasseh was taken captive and car-
ried to Babylon in chains, and after a while, being released,
he returned to his kingdom penitent and humbled, and en-
deavoured to repair the mischief he had done to the true re-
ligion, by building up the altars of the Lord, and removing
and destroying the images of false gods. Of all this, it is
true, the book of Kings says nothing; but still, the history
is not the less credible on this account. Even the book of
Chronicles, however, does not give us any data by which we
can estimate with certainty at what time in the reign of Ma-
nasseh his exile took place. But the probability seems to
be, that it was in the latter part of his very long reign, (55
years,) and that he had not then either the time or the means
necessary to repair the mischief he had done. He could not
restore the copies of the Law which had been destroyed, if
it was a matter of fact that he had destroyed them; and it
is altogether probable that he knew nothing of the fact or
circumstance, that the Pentateuch roll had been secreted in
some part of the temple. Then his son, Amon, walked in
the wandering steps of his father, and matters remained as
they were until Josiah came to occupy the throne. Mere
child as the latter was, he appears to have been deeply im-
bued with the spirit of piety, and to have commenced the
work of reformation as soon as his government was fairly
established. The sequel of his history has already been pre-
sented to view.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
73
On the whole, strange as the finding of a copy of the Law
of Moses after an eighteen years' reign of Josiah appears at
first view to be, and much as has been made of it by inter-
ested critics against the antiquity of the Pentateuch, it turns
out, upon more careful examination, to be nothing incredi-
ble, nor even very strange. But thus much at least may
be gathered from it which is appropriate to our present
purpose, viz. that there were at that time no synagogues in
the land which were depositories of the Law of Moses, and
that few persons indeed, in a time of general idolatry and
heathenism, possessed copies of the Pentateuch. We cannot
conclude, for certainty, that no copy was extant in Judea
at that time, except the hidden one in the temple. There
were pious men, beyond all reasonable doubt, among the
idolatrous mass of the people; and some of these might have
a copy of the Law. When Elijah, in the time of Ahab and
Jezebel, complained to God, that he alone of all his true
worshipppers was left in the land of Israel, he was told by
him who is the searcher of hearts, that 7000 were yet left,
who had not bowed the knee to Baal. And so it might be, at
least in some measure, under the reign of Manasseh and
Amon. But still, the fact that Josiah reigned eighteen
years before the book of the Law was found, seems to import,
that no other copy of this book was then procurable in his
dominions.
-
The fact, then, that before the Babylonish exile there were
no synagogues, and no public, social, devotional worship,
lies upon the very face of the whole Jewish history. An
extraordinary fact, I am ready to confess, it seems to us to
be, so different is it from a state in which a Christian edu-
cation and weekly devotional worship are general, and are
regarded as indispensable. On what ground the great Jew-
ish legislator omitted to make provision for the general edu-
cation of the Jewish people, and above all for their religious.
education and for their social devotional worship, we do not
know. But at all events, such a matter goes fully to illus-
trate the truth of what the apostle says, when he declares
that "the Law was the shadow of good things to come,
and not the very image of those things," IIeb. x. 1. It
seems also to illustrate the declarations, that "the Law made
nothing perfect," (Heb. vii. 19,) and that "the first covenant
d
C
Ch
74
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
CC
was not faultless" (Heb. viii. 7, 8); yea, in view of these
matters, one may even venture to say, with Paul, that the
Jews, who had only a public ritual with all its external
pomp and show, instead of a religious education and stated,
social, devotional worship and instruction, were under
bondage to the elements of the world," Gal. iv. 3. Or one
may express the feelings which spontaneously arise in his
bosom, after such a survey of the religious state of the
ancient Hebrews, by saying, with Paul, "Even that which
was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason
of the glory [of the gospel] which excelleth," 2 Cor. iii. 10.
That the Jews had no regular places of public and social
worship, and no religious services appropriate to these,
while in a state of exile and servitude in Babylonia, need
not be shown. "How could they sing the Lord's song in a
foreign land?" No; "by the rivers of Babylon they sat
down and wept; they hanged their harps upon the willows,"
Ps. cxxxvii.
One might naturally expect an altered state of things,
after the Hebrews had returned from a seventy years' exile.
The better portion of the people would naturally be the por-
tion who went back to their native land. Some time (about
seventy years) after permission to return and rebuild the
temple, Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as religious and po-
litical reformers among the Jews living in and around their
metropolis. The services of these distinguished men were
great and important. Indeed, I think we can hardly look
upon Ezra in any other light, than as a kind of second Moses
among his countrymen.
Yet in all the accounts of what these two reformers did,
there is nothing which expressly recognises the institution.
of synagogues. Still, the public reading and exposition of
the Law, so circumstantially related in Neh. viii. 1, seq.,
might very naturally lead the people and their governors to
see and feel the importance of providing the means for em-
ploying the like method of instruction-means that would
insure its being often and statedly given. But of this, ex-
press mention is not made in the books of Ezra and Nehe-
miah; and after these, we have no Jewish historical writings
on which we can rely, until near the time of the Maccabees,
about 170-160, B. c. Nor does even the first book of the
Sa
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
75
Maccabees (one of the oldest and most credible of all the
apocryphal books) say a word of synagogues. But it says of
Antiochus Epiphanes, that he burned up rà ßißλía Tov ró-
μου, and also intimates that copies of the Law, in the hands
of individuals, were not unfrequent; 1 Macc. i. 56, 57. This
imports a very different state of things from that which ex-
isted, as we have seen, in the time of Josiah.
The Jews themselves have nothing more than mere float-
ing traditions, about the origin and introduction of syna-
gogues. In 1 Macc. iii. 45, 46, mention is made of the
Jews, after the sanctuary was laid waste, as assembling for
prayer at Massepha, (Mizpeh,) because it was formerly a
TÓπOS πρоσEUXñs, i. e. a place for prayer. But this merely
refers to the occasional worship at Mizpeh, in the time of
Samuel, and afterwards, 1 Sam. vii. 5, seq. In the eighth
chapter of Nehemiah, we have a history of the reading and
explanation of the Law, which might well serve as a model
for synagogue worship; but still nothing is said of the in-
stitution of synagogues. It is only the Jews of a late
period, who refer to Ezra the institution and modelling of
synagogue worship. So does Maimonides fully and with-
out scruple'; but yet he supports himself merely by appeal-
ing to tradition; see in Vitr. De Vet. Synag. p. 414, seq.
Josephus speaks repeatedly of synagogues, in the time of
Claudius; e. g. in Antiq. Jud. XIX. c. 5. c. 6. Bell. Jud.
VII. c. 21, edit. Colon. Philo speaks of synagogues be-
yond the Tiber, at Alexandria, and in other large cities;
De Legat. ad Caium. Of the fact that these were common
and numerous, there is no doubt; for the New Testament
is full of references to synagogues, both in and out of Pales-
tine. But all this does not give us any thing to depend on,
as to the first origin of synagogues.
This is lost in anti-
quity. No Jewish author has given us any express and
credible history respecting this point.
The Rabbinic tradition about the Parashoth, or sabbatical
lections of the Law, viz. about ceasing to read these in the
time of persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and putting
the Haphtaroth or prophetical lections in their stead, seems
not improbable, at first view; and if this was matter of fact,
then synagogues would seem to have been in existence in
the time of Antiochus; for the Parashoth and Haphtaroth
176
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
SECT. IV.
are adapted to synagogue worship, and not to the ritual of
the temple.
Ma
We are left, then, to conjecture as to what time after the
return from the Babylonish exile, the public and social wor-
ship of the synagogues commenced. That it began soon
after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, if not in their day,
would seem to be indicated by the declaration of the apostle
James, (Acts xv. 21,) that "Moses of old time (ek yevɛwv
ἀρχαίων) hath in every city (κατὰ πόλιν) them that preach
him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day;
comp. Acts xiii. 15, 27. I will not say that such a phrase
aς ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων might not be employed in reference to
a custom which originated even after the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, i. e. B. C. 170. But such is not the natural im-
port of the phrase in question, in the mouth of a Jew. One
can hardly satisfy himself with a period much short, to say
the least, of that in which Ezra, Nehemiah, or Malachi
lived. The nature of the case appears very much to favour
this more extended latitude of meaning. From the time of
Joshua down to that of the Babylonislı exile, the Jews had
been ever prone to fall into idolatry, and to practise all the
rites of the neighbouring nations. What could be plainer,
than that the want of an adequate religious education was
one of the principal causes of their defections? Men of such
learning and skill as Ezra, could not help discerning this.
What more rational and probable, than to suppose that he
and Nehemiah concerted and carried into execution some
plan for the general instruction of the Jewish people, espe-
cially as to the nature of their religious
I am aware that we should examine with caution the
Rabbinic stories respecting Ezra and his colleagues, who
are said to be the members of what is called the Great
Synagogue. But while I would lend no willing ear to the
or romantic conceits of the Jewish doctors, I cannot
persuade myself, as many of the recent Liberalists in cri-
ticism have done, that there is no proper historical basis on
which we may repose confidence, in respect to the existence
or achievements of the Great Synagogue. All Rabbinic
antiquity takes for granted, that in the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah there was a select body of men in Judea, who
were named the Great Synagogue, and who had much to
""
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
77
do with arranging the Jewish Scriptures, making provision
for their circulation, furnishing the best text to be had, and,
in a word, performing the part which was afterwards per-
formed by the well-known Jewish Sanhedrim. Rau, (De
Synagoga Magna,) and Aurivillius of Upsala, (Diss. Sac.,
edit. J. D. Michaelis, p. 139, seq.,) have endeavoured to
undermine the whole of this tradition, and to show that it
is unworthy of credit. But after all, nothing but the con-
ceits which the Rabbins have connected with the tradition,
seem to demand rejection. If these were a good reason for
rejecting the tradition itself, then many, or rather most of
the narrations in the Old Testament Scriptures must be re-
jected in the like manner; for what is there to which the
Rabbins have not attached some fantasies not unfrequently
bordering upon the ridiculous?
On the other hand; nothing can be more probable, than
that two such patriots and men of ardent piety, and sound un-
derstanding, and great zeal, as Ezra and Nehemiah, would
call into council and active coöperation some of the wisest
and best and most influential men among their Hebrew con-
temporaries and countrymen? The Jews have ever and
always believed this, so far as we know. I do not aver,
that Josephus has expressly said any thing of the Great
Synagogue; and the plain reason seems to be, that he has
merely followed the sacred records in his account of those
times. Philo had no occasion to speak of the formation of
the Hebrew Canon, in those of his writings now extant; and
the Son of Sirach, in his catalogue of Jewish worthies, (Sir.
xlv.-xlix.,) has even omitted Ezra himself, probably be-
cause of his lack of political eminence. No certain conclu-
sion can be drawn from such omission on the part of these
writers, against the fact that there was a Great Synagogue.
The Mishna (Pirqe Aboth, c. 1) expressly appeals to it;
and so do the train of Rabbinical writings in after times.
One striking fact, of a historical nature, will serve to ren-
der probable the supposition, that synagogue instruction
and worship must have been somewhat early instituted after
the return of the Jews from their long exile. We have no
knowledge, that the mass of that nation have, at any period
since that, become the devotees of heathen and idol worship.
Antiochus Epiphanes did his best to corrupt them, both by
78
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
SECT. IV.
persuasion and force. He even bestowed the office of high
priest on such persons as seconded his views. But all in
vain, as to the mass of the people. Only the refuse of the
Jewish community hearkened to him. Judas Maccabæus and
his companions made opposition, roused the Hebrew nation,
and finally expelled all traces of heathen worship from their
borders.
What now was it which kept the Jews, for more than five
centuries before the Christian era, from becoming idolaters,
as they had so constantly been (short intervals excepted)
during almost a thousand years before the Babylonish exile?
Something must not only have operated, but operated power-
fully. Their temptations to embrace idol worship were not
stronger or more frequent before this exile, than after it;
especially under the Syrian kings, the Seleucida. Yet they
remained firm and unwavering, with the small exception
mentioned that took place during the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes. I cannot imagine any cause adequate to produce
such an effect, excepting that of religious instruction. Nor
can I see any way in which this could be accomplished,
excepting in that of reading and preaching in synagogues.
The Mosaic institute, that the Law should be read once in
seven years to the assembled mass of the Hebrew nation, had
been tried for almost a thousand years, and had been found
quite inefficacious, particularly as this reading was often neg-
lected. What more probable, than that the enlightened
and patriotic and pious Ezra and Nehemiah devised and
established the social worship of the synagogues, as a pre-
servative from all inclination to future apostacy and idolatry?
-
Since we have no express and certain history in regard to
this point; since, moreover, we know that synagogues were in
being a long time (ἀπ᾿ ἀρχαίων γενεῶν) before the Christian
era; since the Jews were actually preserved from idolatry
and heathen rites, and no means but efficient religious in-
struction which is general are adequate to produce such an
effect; I see no good reason why we may not regard it as
altogether probable, that synagogue worship was devised and
commenced under the superintendence of Ezra, Nehemiah,
and the men of the
or Great Synagogue.
But there is another branch of this topic respecting reli-
gious instruction, to which I have hitherto but merely ad-
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
79
verted, but which, standing intimately connected as it does
with the topic just discussed, should here be brought more
distinctly into view. I refer to the priests and Levites of
the Mosaic dispensation.
Whoever borrows his views of the offices of these from
the functions of a Christian pastor, and regards them as
having a similar employment among the ancient Hebrews,
will find, on examination, that he is radically mistaken.
The fact that there were no synagogues before the Baby-
lonish exile, i. e. no places for public reading of the Scrip-
tures and for preaching, of itself shows, that there could
have been no regular order of men among the Jews, who
performed a public part in social and devotional worship.
Had Moses made provision for such an order of men, he
would have made provision for the means of performing
their proper duties.
A glance at the Mosaic institutes serves to show at once,
that the sum of duties attached to the priestly office, was the
performance of those services which were appropriate to the
ritual worship of the tabernacle and temple. These duties
required so much bodily vigour and activity, that they were
limited to those who were between the age of thirty and
fifty, Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47. To the office of
PRIEST, only Aaron and his posterity were consecrated; Ex.
xxviii. 1; xxx. 30; xxix. 5, seq. All the rest of the Le-
vites were given to Aaron and his sons, as mere subsidiaries
in the performance of their duties; Num. iii. 9; viii. 19;
comp. Num. iv. viii. throughout. In the time of David, the
priests had become so numerous, that they were divided by
him into twenty-four courses or divisions, each of which in
turn served a definite period of time in the temple; 1 Chron.
xxiii. 3, 6; xxiv. 3, seq.; comp. Luke i. 5. As to the
Levites, it appears that there were, at one and the same
time, 38,000 males, who were of the age of thirty and up-
wards. To these were assigned by that pious king, duties
appropriate to their condition in accordance with the insti-
tutions of Moses; 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 4; comp. xxvi. 29.
The greater part, at that time, were employed in aiding to
build the temple to be erected by Solomon. But still, 6000
were appointed to be "ov, magistrates and judges.
Inasmuch as the verb w signifies to write or inscribe, it
80
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
would seem quite probable that the Shoterim were magis-
trates who kept records for their own use and for the public
weal. In a literal sense, be would seem to be equivalent
to ypaμμarεvs; but it is evidently of wider usage in the
Hebrew Scriptures, and designates magistrates, probably
those whose business was connected with records. In
Deut. xvi. 18, the very same officers are named, and Moses
gives commandment that they shall be appointed in all the
gates of the Hebrews. Moses does not say that these re-
spective offices shall be limited to the Levites only; but it
is quite evident, that since they were the most enlightened
part of the Jewish community, on this account they would
most naturally receive such appointments.
The manner in which the Levites were disposed of by
Moses and Joshua, shows that they were not, and were not
designed to be, teachers among the people in the capacity of
schoolmasters. God gave commandment to Aaron, that
neither he nor his posterity, the priests, should have any in-
heritance in the land of Palestine or any part among their
brethren; Num. xviii. 20. At the same time, provision was
made for the maintenance and accommodation of priests and
Levites. Unto Moses it was said, that he should command
the children of Israel to assign unto the Levites cities to
dwell in, and the suburbs around them; Num. xxxv. 2.
Accordingly, after the conquest of Canaan we find Joshua
assigning to them forty-eight cities with their suburbs, scat-
tered over all the country. As they were restrained from
the ownership and cultivation of lands for agriculture, (the
suburbs of their cities being assigned to them merely for
gardens,) their fellow citizens were bound to provide for
them by tithes, first-fruit offerings, and parts of beasts sa-
crificed; Deut. xviii. 3—5; comp. xxvi. 12. Special liber-
ality and charity to the Levites are strongly enjoined by
Moses; Deut. xii. 19; xiv. 27-29. In return for all these
contributions, the Levites were to be the judges and magis-
trates of the land, in both an ecclesiastical and civil respect.
Indeed the one was inseparably connected with the other.
It was predicted by the dying Jacob, that the posterity of
Levi should be scattered in Israel; Gen. xlvii. 7. This was
necessary, indeed, according to the arrangement made by
Moses. The Levites and priests were the appropriate juris-
SECT. IV.
81
LITERATURE OF TIIE HEBREWS.
consults of the nation. They did not go round, and preach
and teach in a public capacity; but it was their business to
settle and adjudicate all controversies between man and
man; to declare the law in all cases of trespass or injury; to
decide all dubious cases of conscience about rites and cere-
monies; to give counsel, whenever asked, about any thing
which pertained to duty; and, in a word, to perform the of-
fice of judges and of religious and civil monitors. In this light
Ezekiel places the matter, xliv. 23, seq. So Malachi, ii. 7.
Thus did Jehoshaphat regard their office, especially the priest-
ly office; 2 Chron. xix. 8, seq. In the same light Moses
has placed the whole matter; Deut. xvii. 8—10; xxiv. 9;
Lev. x. 10, 11. Ordinarily, to say the least, and at any rate ac-
cording to strict rule, the Levites were to abide in the cities
assigned to them, and not go elsewhere to reside. And if
this be so, how could they be religious teachers in synagogues
(if such there had been) in all the villages of Palestine?
In Judg. xvii. 7, seq. is an account of a wandering Levite,
who, at the invitation of Micah at Mount Ephraim, took up
his abode with him, and became his priest. But Micah was
an idolater (Judg. xvii. 4, 5); and the Levite of course
must have apostatized from the worship of Jehovah, in order
to become a priest of Micah. This therefore is no example
in point, to prove that the Levites ordinarily wandered
through the land, taking up their residence wherever it might
suit their convenience. We have also an account of Jeho-
shaphat's sending a special deputation of princes and Levites
"to teach in the cities of Judah,” (2 Chron. xvii. 7, seq.,)
who carried with them a copy of the Law. But this was an
extraordinary, not an ordinary, measure. Indeed, there is
nothing in the Old Testament which shows that the priests
or Levites were travelling preachers or teachers; nothing
which shows that they were teachers in their own limited cir-
cle, in the ordinary sense of that word. As judges and ju-
risconsults, and expounders of the Law in doubtful cases, and
helpers in matters of religious doubts or scruples, they were
indeed teachers. But this duty they performed only when
required to do it. They were passive in the business of
teaching, not active and aggressive. It was their business
to give an opinion when asked, but not to persuade others.
to assemble and learn their duty from them.
G
82
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
We must, in justice to the case before us, proceed one step
further still. I know of no passage in the Old Testament
which enjoins upon priests or Levites, as their ordinary duty,
to pray with and for the people, and to give them religious
instruction by sermons or by reading the Scriptures. If
there is any passage in the Old Testament which even hints.
at prayer for the people being a duty of the priests in the
temple itself, yea, of even the high priest, it has escaped my
repeated and attentive search. I doubt not that all pious
priests did pray in the temple. I cannot doubt that every
pious high priest especially would intercede for the people,
on the great day of atonement, and on other like occasions.
But where is this enjoined? What part of the Mosaic in-
stitutes made it their duty?
In Luke i. 10, seq. we have an account of Zacharias in
the act of his official duty. And what did he? He burned
incense in the temple, while all the multitude of the people
If it be said that the an-
were praying in the outer court.
gel who appears to him, promises the birth of a child in
answer to his prayers, (Luke i. 13,) yet we cannot suppose
these prayers to have been then and there uttered. They
would have been unseemly, unbecoming. And besides this,
it appears from ver. 18, that Zacharias had for a long time
utterly despaired of offspring, and therefore we cannot sup-
pose him to have been then and there praying for what he
plainly deemed impossible. Of course his prayer, to which
the angel refers, must have been on some former occasion,
and probably in a place more appropriate to such a request,
than that of the temple of God, where he had an important
public part to act.
Let the intelligent and considerate reader, now, put all
these things together, and ask himself, whether there were
any regular and stated means of instruction or active instruct-
ors for the Jewish' nation, before their exile. He cannot
find them. But he can find, on extraordinary occasions, fast-
ing, prayers, reading of the Scriptures, a renewal of the co-
venant, and other religious transactions. But all this is no-
thing to the purpose of establishing the position, that before
the Babylonish exile there were synagogues and regular and
stated religious teachers of the people.
One remark here forces itself upon me.
To argue from a
+
Bader
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
83
Levitical priesthood to a Christian ministry, and to prove the
validity of the latter institution by an appeal to the former,
and especially to compare the official duties of the two respec-
tive classes with an assumption that they are parallel—is out
of all question. The ancient ritual is abolished. The whole
of the sacrifices and offerings, and of course the whole of the
rites and forms belonging to them, is for ever done away by
the death of Christ, if any credit is to be given to Paul, par-
ticularly in his Epistle to the Hebrews. And as to the main
official duty of a Christian minister, viz. the communication
of religious instruction, it stands as it were even in direct
contrast with that of the priest and Levite, so far as all its
active aggressive functions are concerned. If Christian
ministers are to find any parallel under the Mosaic dis-
pensation, it must be in its PROPHETS, not in its priests.
To complete the course which we have pursued, in making
inquiry respecting the state of literature and education and
religious instruction among the Hebrews, it is necessary that
we should take a brief view of the PROPHETIC ORDER belong-
ing to that nation ; and particularly ought we to do this, because
of the relation which the prophets sustained to the Holy Scrip-
tures, whose critical history we are endeavouring to pursue.
M
The word prophet has had a variety of meanings attached
to it by various critics. The biblical idea, as it seems to
me, is fully unfolded and designated in the definition which
Knobel has given: "A prophet is a person gifted with su-
perior intelligence, and filled with religious inspiration, who
stands in an intimate relation to God, and as the servant of
God is active in the promotion of religious purposes, espe-
cially those which concern the Divine authority and govern-
ment;" Knobel, Prophetismus, I. p. 113. The most usual
name of prophet in the Old Testament Scriptures is **.*
*The verb Na, employed only in Niphal and Hithpael, Knobel re-
gards, (and rightly in my apprehension,) as related to the Hebrew verbs
ya), 7a), Ħa), 51, all of which mean to pour forth, to pour out, to cry out,
i. e. to pour forth words or sounds, to shoot or stream forth, &c.; and kin-
dred to these are the Chaldee
the Arabic
نبج رنبغ ونبع
M
y
>
1, 3, 122; the Syriac Vas, mas;
all kindred in meaning to the Hebrew
verbs named above. Honce sa seems to mean, to pour forth, or pour
out, i, e. to utter one's internal excitement or inspiration. It is not diffi-
V
G 2
84
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Other not unfrequent names of prophets are in a seer, and
787 a beholder. Of course the meaning is one par excel-
lence, denoting a person who sees or beholds what others do
not, such as secret things, future events, and the like. In
a number of cases prophets are called D'br, i. e. those who
espy, explore, &c. This refers to the appropriate duty of
prophets as the moral guardians and observers of the peo-
ple. In the same way is the designation v, watchman,
employed, and for the like reason. In reference also to
spiritual care for the people and for their proper religious
nurture, the prophets are occasionally named "y, shep-
herds. In regard to the proper work which a prophet has
to perform, he is also occasionally named man of God, serv-
ant of Jehovah, and now and then angel or messenger of
Jehovah. Among these appellations, man of God and seer
are the more ancient (see 1 Sam. ix. 9); 81, an inspired
man, is more general after the time of Samuel; and spy,
watchman, and servant of Jehovah, appear more frequently
in the later Hebrew writers.
If the reader will cast his eye, for a moment, over the
various appellations of the prophets now placed before him,
he will gather at once, with a good degree of certainty, what
the proper office and duty of a Hebrew prophet was. In-
stead of being a mere µávτis, i. e. a superintendent of ritual
observances, a soothsayer, an oracle-monger, or the like, he
May
cult, perhaps, to assign a good philological reason, why the verb Nainm,
, is used only in the reflexive conjugations; for the generic mean-
ing of these verbs thus employed seems to be, to exhibit one's self as ex-
ciled or inspired. Hence the manifold application of the words in ques-
tion; for they apply not only to uttering predictions, but to commination,
reproof, condemnation, warning, exhorting, consoling, exciting, promising,
and the like. In a word, to prophesy embraces every thing which a re-
ligious and moral teacher may say or utter by tho aid of inspiration. Of
course it applies to sacred music, i. c. to psalms or hymns sung cither
with or without instrumental music; see 1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chron. xxv. 1,
2; 1 Sam. xix. 20: comp. 1 Kings xviii. 28, 29, whore the verb is applied
to the shouting and cantillation of the priests of Baal, who attempted an
imitation of tlie true prophets. The Jews, as every reader of the Hebrew
Bible knows, have designated the books of Joshua, Judges, Sumuel, and
Kings as prophetical books, probably from the persuasion that they were
composed by prophets. According to the broad meaning given to sa above,
any book composed by an inspired writer might be named prophecy. And
in a similar latitude are the words προφητεία all προφητεύω employed
in the New Testament. In the language of the Bible, the uttering of
predictions, in the appropriato sense of this word, is only a species under
the genus prophesying.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
85
was the moral teacher and preacher of his nation. His duty
was not like to that of the priests; although occasionally
some of the prophets superintended sacrifices and other parts
of the ritual, e. g. Samuel, Elijah, and some others. All that
was ritual, however, if resorted to on any occasion by a pro-
phet, was merely subordinate and subsidiary, and not his
main or appropriate business.
The Old Testament is full of the history, doings, and say-
ings of the prophets. Nearly one half of it consists of their
peculiar discourses or prophetic compositions; of which only
a small part is prediction in the proper sense of that word.
Prophets were the principal instruments in keeping alive the
Mosaic religion at all times, whether one looks to the spirit
or to the ritual of it. Inasmuch as the Jewish common-
wealth was ecclesiastico-political, prophets were politicians.
as well as preachers. Nothing is more common, than the
history of their interposition in matters that concern the
political weal of the Jewish state. To give counsel to
magistrates, on occasion of exigency, was regarded as one of
their appropriate duties.
It is singular that, after Moses and Miriam, no prophet or
prophetess is mentioned until the time of Deborah, which
was more than a century after the conquest of Canaan. And
even she seems rather to be called a prophetess on account of
her song of triumph (Judges v.) than on account of her mode
of life. It is clear that she was a remarkable woman; for
she was at the head of the nation, a nose, when she led on
the Hebrew army to battle against Sisera; Judges iv. 4. An
anonymous prophet is presented to view in Judges vi. 8,
seq., who administers severe rebuke. Besides these, we meet
with no prophetic personages until we come down to the
time of Samuel, which, counting from the death of Moses,
makes a period of more than 300 years. If there were no
more prophets than appear on the face of the sacred records
during this long period, it is no wonder that the Jews, who
had been partially idolaters in Egypt, relapsed very often, as
the book of Judges tells us they did, into the idolatry of the
heathen. This had its attractions. It put no restraint on
the passions. It might bc, (although it does not seem proba-
ble,) that priests and Levites urged the ritual of the Law,
and exacted all its ceremonial observances; but if they did,
86
SECT IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
these would have had but little efficacy in preserving the
nation from corruption, so long as prophets, the preachers
of righteousness, were wanting.
With Samuel opens a new and splendid era, both as to the
civil and religious concerns of the Jews. This distinguished
servant of God acted not only as prophet, but was also a
judge (v); and not unfrequently did he act as a priest;
see 1 Samuel vii. 9, seq.; ix. 22, seq.; x. 8; xi. 15; xvi. 1,
seq. He commenced his duties about 1100 B. C., and the
prophetic order, founded (if one may use the expression) by
him, continued, with little interruption, down to the time of
Malachi, i. e. about 400 B. C. Thus, for some 700 years,
was the Jewish nation provided with religious teachers, by
special Divine interposition, and therefore they had much
less apology for departure during this time from the institu-
tions of Moses, than they had in former days, during the
administration of the judges.
Samuel began his career very young, and nobly did he
maintain it during a period of some forty years. It was
during his life, that prophetic institutions or schools of the
prophets first made their appearance. Doubtless this il-
lustrious reformer saw and felt the necessity of more effi-
cient and more widely diffused religious instruction, than
had previously been given. The young men educated at
those schools seem plainly to have been designed for the
prophetic office. Hence they are frequently named prophets,
(e. g. 1 Sam. x. 5, 10-12; xix. 20, 24; 1 Kings xviii. 4,
13; xix. 14; xxii. 6, seq.,) in relation to the office for
which they were being qualified. At other times, their dis-
cipleship or relation to their prophetic masters is pointed
out by the appellation sons of the prophets; e. g. 1 Kings
xx. 35; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5, 7, 15; iv. 1, 38; v. 22; vi. 1; ix.
1, 4.
The Hebrews often called a teacher father (18); and
of course the pupil or learner was a son. So in the New
Testament, viós, tékvov, and tɛkvíov, are employed to desig-
nate disciples or learners.
A
The notices of these schools, in sacred history, are con-
fined to the time of Samuel, and to that of Elijah and Elisha.
We find nothing concerning them at other periods. If such
schools existed after the last-named period, it would seem at
least that they could not have had any considerable notoriety.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
87
In Samuel's time there were large companies of prophetic
pupils in several places; 1 Sam. x. 5, 10; xix. 20. Ahab
could, in his day, muster 400 prophets of Baal at a time; 1
Kings xxii. 6. Obadiah, one of his pious officers, concealed
100 of the prophets of Jehovah, from Jezebel's bloody per-
secution; 1 Kings xviii. 4, 13. Fifty of the prophets at
Bethel attended on Elijah and Elisha; 2 Kings ii. 3, 7.
Those at Jericho, at the same time, appear to have been
still more numerous, 2 Kings ii. 16, seq. In Elisha's time,
we find 100 of the prophets at Gilgal; 2 Kings iv. 38—43.
Various places also are named as the abode of the sons of the
prophets, viz. Rama, Bethel, Gibeah, Jericho, Gilgal, and
mount Ephraim. They appear, moreover, to have lived
together in the manner of Cœnobites, and to have been su-
perintended and instructed by some aged prophet. But sacred
history gives us no minute particulars as to the manner of
their education. Yet doubtless, as there were to be moral
and religious teachers, the Law of Moses must have been
the subject of their special study. Even Knobel, who
maintains the later composition of the Pentateuch, asserts
that they must have been orally instructed in the theocratical
Law (as he names it) that was traditionally current at that
period; Proph. II. p. 46. That sacred music, with the voice
and with instruments, was in part an object of special at-
tention, is clear from 1 Sam. x. 5; xix. 20. Saul, who
meets with a company of these prophetic musicians, is said,
by the sacred historian, to have prophesied along with them,
because he united in their music; 1 Sam. x. 6, 10—12.* It
does not follow, however, that all who attended the schools
of the prophets, did actually assume the prophetic office
after quitting the schools; but it is altogether probable, that
most of the religious teachers among the Jews, from the
time of Samuel down to the death of Elisha, (a period of
about 200 years,) were first learners in the schools of the
prophets.
w
That the notable age of sacred lyric poetry among the
Hebrews, during which David, Asaph, Heman, Ethan, the
It is clear that Saul united in their music, but that this is all that is
meant when it is said, he prophesied, is not correct. The Spirit of God
came upon him, and he gave utterance to religious sentiments. He was
under à peculiar divine afflatus. D.
88
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
sons of Korah, Solomon, and others, were so conspicuous as
poets, connects itself with the instructions given in the
schools of the prophets, one cannot well doubt. During the
period, moreover, between Samuel and Elisha, we find a
considerable number of distinguished prophets as well as
poets; e. g. Gad, (2 Sam. xxiv. 11-13,) Nathan, (2 Sam.
xii. 15,) Ahijah, (1 Kings xi. 29, seq.,) Shemaiah, (1 Kings
xii. 22,) several prophets whose names are not given, (1
Kings xiii. 1-3, 11,) Iddo, (2 Chron. ix. 29,) Oded, (2
Chron. xv. 1,) Hanani, (2 Chron. xvi. 7,) Jehu, (2 Chron.
xix. 2,) Jahaziel, (2 Chron. xx. 14,) Eliezer, (2 Chron. xx.
37,) Elijah, (2 Chron. xxi. 12,) and Elisha (1 Kings xix.
16). During the lives of these two last-named prophets,
we find repeated mention of hundreds more of prophets,
many or most of whom had probably been connected as
pupils with the schools which they taught.
As to all the prophets now in view, however, although
some of them were most highly distinguished by talents, ac-
tivity, and usefulness, we have no remains of works written
by them, but only a brief account by others of their sayings
or doings on particular occasions, which is contained in the
historical books of our present Scriptures. It is an asser-
tion of the Talmudic Rabbins, (Baba Bathra fol. 14. c. 4.
comp. fol. 15. c. 1,) that "Samuel wrote the books which
bear his name, and also the books of Judges and Ruth." The
two latter, i. e. the substance of them, it is possible that he
wrote. But as to the two books of Samuel, they are out of
the question. The death of Samuel is related in 1 Sam. xxv.
Consequently he could not have written the remainder. Nor
is it probable that he wrote what precedes chap. xxv. The
great era of prophetic composition commences with Joel,
Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, about 800-730 в. C.
From the more circumstantial history of Samuel, Elijah,
and Elisha, it appears that they continued in their office
down to the time of their decease. In other words, the
prophetic office, as then held and exercised, seems to have
been a business of life. Was this so with all the prophets
who have been named or adverted to above? Or did they
assume the office merely for a temporary exigency, and lay
it aside when that exigency had passed by?
With entire certainty we cannot answer these questions,
SECT. IV.
89
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
As to most of the prophets, it seems to me more probable
that they held their office permanently; for the moral ne-
cessities of the people, which called the office into being,
seem to have been such as to render the continuance of it
highly important and useful. We meet with aged prophets;
and the tenor of the narrations respecting this order of men,
favours the idea that the office was one which was regular
and long continued, so far as it respected the duty of moral
and religious teaching. It is unnecessary to assume that
all prophets were endowed with miraculous powers. Such
was not the case even with Christian prophets, if we may
credit the declarations of Paul in his account of their gifts,
in his First Epistle to the Corinthians; and I know of no
testimony more authentic than his. But the fact that the
prophets (D'8']) were inspired persons, would seem of course
to indicate, that they addressed the people under the special
aid and guidance of the Spirit of God. It need not, and
should not, be supposed, that at all times, and on all occa-
sions, these prophets spoke and acted under such a special
guidance. So much was not true of even the apostles of
Christ. Enough that at due times, and in appropriate cir-
cumstances, they were specially guided and aided by the
Spirit of God.
-M
Their sermons or addresses to the people they did not, as
it would seem, commit to writing at the period in question.
We have therefore, at the present time, only some fragments
of what they uttered, which were collected and recorded by
others. It is natural to conclude from this, that they re-
garded themselves as ministers of God and servants of the
theocracy, only for their own day and generation. The
permanent monuments of the prophetic class are of a later
date, and commence with Joel, Hosea, and Isaiah.
A glance at facts such as these, especially if we view them
as they stand connected with and related to each other,
would seem to admonish us quite plainly, that in the pro-
phetic order, if we except Moses the distinguished founder
of the Jewish commonwealth, a gradual advance to higher
degrees of culture and usefulness is perceptible. Who, ex-
cept Moses, can compete with those prophets, whose im-
mortal works are still so conspicuous in the Jewish Scrip-
tures? We do truly revere and honour such men as Samuel,
-
90
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Elijah, and others of the like spirit; but we do more than
homage or honour to such men as Isaiah, Joel, Nahum, and
their compeers.
To the canon of Scripture some considerable accession
was made as early as the time of David and Solomon.
There might have been a part of the books of Joshua and
Judges extant at that period; and if so, these, with the Law
of Moses, constituted the then Jewish Canon. David and
his contemporary sacred poets made very valuable acces-
sions to the Jewish Scriptures; especially to the devotional
part of them. Down to the present hour, the compositions
of these men are regarded as excelling those of any or all
others, in respect to their adaptedness to be the medium of
praise and of devout meditation. I will not say, that these
compositions introduced a new element into the Jewish re-
ligion and worship; but I may safely affirm, that at least
they made a new development of the Mosaic religion, and
gave to all ages then to come some of the most exquisite
models of expressing devout, grateful, humble, and pious
feeling. They will go down to the end of the world with
unabated, yea, with increasing honour. The greater part
of the book of Psalms was composed by David and his con-
temporaries; and the few Psalms that have been since added,
show that sacred lyrics among the Hebrews had its golden
age, and also its silver one, and that the golden age com-
menced, and attained its highest elevation, under David and
his contemporaries. Only now and then did some peculiar
occasion afterwards call into exercise talents of a lyric na-
ture, in the composition of devotional psalms and hymns.
The book of Proverbs, moreover, must have been a sub-
stantial aid to the prophetic teachers of morals. It would
seem, however, that from the 25th chapter onward, the
composition lay in an uncopied MS. until the time of
Hezekiah; Prov. xxv. 1. But be this as
But be this as it may, the pre-
ceding portion of the book is exceedingly weighty, particu-
larly on the score of morals and circumspect and prudential
behaviour. Prophets who lived after the writing of this,
certainly had a somewhat ample store of choice texts, for
discourses on the subject of morality and sober demeanour.
I have distinguished David and his colleagues, the devo-
tional poets, from the prophets, who were the subject of our
J
SECT. IV.
91
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
preceding consideration. But in so doing, I have rather
followed our own common usus loquendi than that which is
appropriate to the Scriptures. Whatever is written or ut-
tered by the aid of inspiration, the scriptural writers name
prophecy. The ground of employing the word in this exten-
sive sense, has already been presented in the preceding pages.
. Let us now pass to the next and most splendid period of
the Hebrew prophetic development. It begins with Joel,
in the reign of Uzziah, about 800 B. C., and continues down
to the end of the Assyrian dominion, not far from 700 B. C.
It has been named the ASSYRIAN PERIOD by Knobel, because
most of the prophets during this period have reference more
or less, in their discourses, to the Assyrian invasions of
Palestine, or to those of the neighbouring countries of the
heathen who were under the dominion of Assyria, or were
associated with it.
It would not be consistent with my main design, to discuss
such questions respecting each prophetic book, as belong
only to the specialities of an ample and scientific introduc-
tion to the Old Testament. I shall not therefore enter into
any minute discussions, the particular object of which would
be to vindicate the genuineness of those prophetical books
which bear the names of their authors. Nor will the plan
of my work permit me to canvass at length the question,
whether particular parts of Isaiah, for example, or of Zecha-
riah, or of Daniel, are superstitious; which two last works,
however, belong to a later period than the one with which I
am now concerned, unless indeed (with Knobel and some
others) we attribute Zech. ix.-xi. to the Zechariah the son
of Berechiah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2. Enough for my pur-
pose, that the Old Testament books which bear the names
of their authors, were extant, and were acknowledged by
the Jewish nation as genuine works, before and at the
period in which Malachi, the last of the Hebrew prophets,
lived; that they were regarded as inspired and authoritative;
and that Christ and his apostles have sanctioned them as
such. On the general subject of the genuineness of the
Hebrew Scriptures, I shall produce, in the sequel, a striking
passage from Eichhorn. Their authority or sanction does
not depend on the fact, whether this prophet or that one
wrote a particular book, or parts of it, but on the fact that a
92
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
prophet wrote them. Of course, this is my main point.
And since I am not now writing a critico-exegetical intro-
duction to the Hebrew Scriptures, I may dispense in general
with all questions which belong merely to minute and special
criticism. My object leads me to bring to view the Jewish
sacred books as regarded in a general way; and I may be
permitted to treat them, when they are not anonymous, as
proceeding from the persons whose names they bear.
When I mention then, as belonging to the period in ques-
tion, the works of Joel, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, Micah, and
Nahum, (and perhaps Jonah,) I need say nothing more to
characterize this golden age of the prophets in the capacity
of writers. Isaiah is surely without a parallel; and as for
Joel and Nahum, all effort to commend them to readers of
taste would be useless. In the other prophets just named,
there are passages of great splendour; and in all of them
there is such a lofty tone of piety, and zeal for God and his
honour, with such inflexible morality, as almost transports
the reader into New Testament times. Indeed one may
well compare the spiritual and elevated views of these
writers, with the leading principles of the gospel dispensa-
tion as developed by our Saviour in his conversation with
the woman of Samaria; John iv. 19, seq. Let us listen for
a moment to Isaiah:
"What is the multitude of your sacrifices to me, saith Jehovah ?
I am satiated with the offerings of rams and of fatted beasts;
The blood of bullocks and of lambs and of he-goats I do not desire.
When ye come to exhibit yourselves before me,
Who hath required this at your hands-the treading of my courts ?
Bring no more worthless offerings;
Incense !-it is an abomination to me.
As to your new moons and sabbaths and summoning of assemblies,
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn meeting.
Your monthly festivals and appointed feasts my soul hateth;
They are a burden to me, I cannot bear with them.
And when ye spread out your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you,
Yea, when ye multiply prayer, I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood.
Wash ye; make yo clean;
Put away your evil deeds from before mine eyes;
Ccase to do evil; learn to do well;
Seek after justice; console the afflicted;
Vindicate the orphan; plead the cause of the widow."
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
93
Who cannot easily imagine himself to be listening to the
Great Teacher, the Light of the world, when he hears such
a passage as this? And many such, i. e. of the like tenor with
this, are there in the works of the prophets now before us.
In respect to the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah and Jonah, placed
by recent critics among the works of the second or Chaldee
period of prophecy, I shall notice them in my remarks on
that period.
The last king of Assyria, of whom any mention is made
in the sacred records, was Esar-haddon, who sent colonists
from his dominions into the land of the ten tribes, about
678 B. c.; Ez. iv. 2. He was the last of the Assyrian kings,
who appears to have possessed any great degree of energy
and activity. At all events, we hear no more of incursions
into Judea, after his reign; and it was but some fifty years
afterwards, that Nabopolassar, a tributary king of the Ba-
bylonian province, threw off the yoke of Assyria, and made
Babylon an independent kingdom. His son Nebuchadnez-
zar enlarged its borders, and became master of the greater
part of Asia west of the Euphrates. To Babylon then are
we to look, from the latter part of the reign of Josiah on-
ward, for most of the annoyances which the Hebrew com-
monwealth experienced during its last period before the
exile; and most of the prophets who lived from the time of
Josiah onward to the end of the captivity, in their writings
still extant, refer principally to Babylon, or the land of the
Chaldees, (which is the same,) or to some of its tributaries
or allies, as the enemies whom the Hebrews have most reason
to dread. Hence, in classifying the prophets with refer-
ence to a predominating element in their discourses, we may
name this latter period, in which the prophetic order were
somewhat conspicuous, the CHALDEAN PERIOD.
W
It is remarkable, that from the year 710 B. C. down to
640 B. c., i. e. for seventy years, scarcely a vestige of any
Hebrew prophet is to be found in the Jewish history. No
wonder at this. The fifty-seven years of unrelenting per-
secution of the true worshippers of God, and the rank and
zealous idolatry even of the grossest kind which made up
the reigns of Manasseh and of Amon, must needs have cast
off or driven away all the true prophets of God. At first
there seem to have been some who warned Manassch, (2
"
94
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
:
Chron. xxxiii. 10,) but he would not hearken to them. And
so entirely does the Holy Land appear to have been destitute
of prophets, in consequence of persecution and idolatry, that
they did not make their appearance again, so far as we know,
until some time during the reign of Josiah ; 2 Chron. xxxiv.
8, 22. Under him we find Zephaniah predicting the de-
struction of Assyria and its capital, Nineveh, ii. 13—15,
which took place about that time. Moreover Huldah, a
prophetess, is consulted by Josiah and Hilkiah, on the occa-
sion of finding a copy of the Law in the temple; 2 Chron.
xxxiv. 22. Jeremiah began his prophetic duties in the
thirteenth year of Josiah, i. e. 629 B. c. If Zech. xii.-xiv.
belongs to an older prophet than the Zechariah who lived
after the return from exile, it should probably be assigned
to the period about 607—604 B. C. (See Knobel, Proph. II.
p. 280, seq.) At the same period the prophecy of Habakkuk
may most probably be placed. Ezekiel, who was carried
into exile about 600 B. C., began his prophetic work about
595 B. C., and continued it until 573. The greater part of
his prophecies relate to his countrymen who still remained
in Palestine, after the deportation to Mesopotamia in the
reign of Jehoiachin. But some of them relate to his fellow
countrymen in exile with himself. The brief work of Oba-
diah seems, by the historical circumstances to which it re-
fers, plainly to belong to the period of the exile. His pro-
phecy is directed against the Edomites; and one may
compare with it Jer. xlix. 7-22; Ezek. xxv. 12-14; xxxv.
1-15. Those who maintain the late composition of Isa.
xl.-lxvi., also compare Isa. Ixiii. 1-6 with the prophecy
of Obadiah; and it seems to tally well with this and with the
other prophecies just named.
The turn which recent criticism has taken, among a
large class of commentators and writers on subjects of sacred
literature in Germany, with respect to various and exten-
sive portions of the book of Isaiah, must be well known to
all who are acquainted with the recent history of sacred
literature. As I have already said, it comports not with
my present object minutely to discuss the questions in re-
gard to this matter, which have recently sprung up. But I
must at least touch upon this topic, although as summarily
as may be.
SECT. IV.
95
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
No allegations are made at present with more confidence
by many, than that Isa. xl.-lxvi. belongs to a writer near
the close of the exile, to whom Cyrus was known by name,
and whose intentions he well understood. To the same
period, but (as most of these critics suppose) to a different
author, is to be assigned Isa. xiii., xiv. In their opinion, to
the author of the latter, perhaps, belongs Isa. xxi. 1-10; at
any rate, it must be assigned, as they aver, to the close of
the exile. Isa. xxiv.-xxvii. belongs, as some of the latest
critics say, (e. g. Knobel,) to a prophet who lived near the
beginning of the exile. Isa. xxxiv., xxxv. is to be assigned
to the middle of the exile. Thus we have, if we may be-
lieve these critics, no less than five or six works of so many
different prophets, in our present book of Isaiah.
A few hints I may be permitted to suggest, in relation to
this critical theory. It seems to me to be pressed with
some serious difficulties, from which no adequate relief has
yet been found.
(1.) All ancient Jewish and Christian tradition is against
it. So far back as Sirachides, we have express testimony
of the Jewish views. He calls Isaiah "the great prophet,
and faithful (or, worthy of credit, TOTÓS) in his vision."
He speaks of him as comforting Zion, and showing "the
things that would happen ews Tou alwros, for ever, and hid-
den things before they take place;" xlviii. 22—25. Does
not this specially refer to the latter part of Isaiah? So
Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament in very many
places from the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah, (indeed altogether
most frequently is this part of the book referred to in the
New Testament,) which are ascribed to Isaiah; and so the
Christian Fathers and the Talmud. The discovery of di-
verse authors is one that is acknowledged to have been made
but a few years since.
(2.) The discrepancy of diction, which is even confidently
alleged to be a satisfactory proof of different authorship in
the various parts of the book, in my apprehension has no
solid basis adequate to support this allegation. The several
parts of the book which are conceded to Isaiah, between
chap. xiii. and xxxix., are in general more discrepant from
the first twelve chapters, (acknowledged to be genuine,)
than some of those genuine chapters are from the alleged
96
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
interpolated portions of the book. In other words; Isaiah
differs more from himself than he does from others. These
portions, moreover, which are said to be interpolated, are so
widely distant from the idiom of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
other Hebrew prophets during and after the exile; they
have so little of the later so-called degenerate Hebrew idiom
in them; that to my mind they present a very serious diffi-
culty in the way of believing that they could have been
written near the close of the exile, or even at the middle, or
the beginning of it. So very different from the work be-
fore us are the productions of this period, in regard to dic-
tion and style, that even the Liberalists feel compelled to
confess, that the Pseudo-Isaiah was a writer of rare talents
at imitation of the ancients, and they even allege, that he
has copied from the true Isaiah. I cannot here exemplify
and confirm the position, that the resemblance between the
confessedly genuine parts of Isaiah and the suspected parts
of his book, are so many and so striking, that even De
Wette confesses that "they must arise from imitation or
sonstwie, i. e. in some other way!" Einl. p. 288. To the
some other way in which these resemblances arose, we may
assent; but not to the assertion that the writer in question
was an imitator. I can only refer the reader, for an ample
statement, to Kleinert's Aechtheit des Esaias, p. 220—279,
and to Hävernick's Spezielle Einleit. Esai. p. 192, seq.
Every discriminating reader well versed in the Hebrew
must feel, as I think, that there is indeed, in some respects,
a notable difference between the last twenty-seven chapters
of Isaiah and the first part of his work. It seems to me
that candour will not-need not deny this. But, as I have
intimated above, this difference is not so great, in my ap-
prehension, as the difference between the first twelve chap-
ters of Isaiah and other acknowledged parts of his work
between chap. xiii. and xxxix. Let any one compare the
circle of imagery, the sources of metaphor and comparison,
the historical examples of ancient times appealed to in both
parts of the book, the absence of particular visions and sym-
bolical actions in both, the insertion of triumphant lyrical
songs, and the like, and he cannot refuse to recognise most
striking similarities; see Hävernick ut sup. p. 191. They
that be for the antiquity of the alleged adscititious portions.
T
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
97
of the book, are more than they that be against it.' I am
persuaded, that the Neologists have evidently the worst of
the argument on this ground; and this is a ground which
they are prone to consider as one of their choice positions
for defence.
(3.) What example is there, among all the prophets, of a
book so patched up by putting together six different authors,
five of them without any names? Who did this? Where,
when, was it done? If parts of the book are so late as
is alleged, why have we no hint about its compilation, no
certain internal evidence of it? How can we account for it
that all the minor prophets, even Obadiah with his one chap-
ter, should be kept separate and distinct, and this even down
to the end of the prophetic period, and yet Isaiah be made
up by undistinguished fragments and amalgamations? These
surely are serious difficulties; and they have not yet been
satisfactorily met.
(4.) In numerous places of chap. xli.-xlviii., the prophet
appeals to his own predictions concerning Babylon's fall, as ut-
tered long before the time of fulfilment. Even Rosenmueller
confesses, (iii. p. 5, 6,) that 'the writer, who lived near the
close of the Babylonish exile, has assumed the personage of
some ancient prophet.' This same prophet adverts to local-
ities and nations, to which it would be very strange for a Jew
in exile to advert to. E. g. xli. 9, where he speaks of Israel
as being "taken from the ends of the earth," i. e. Ur of the
Chaldees; which would do well in case he was in Palestine,
but be quite incongruous if he were in Chaldæa. As to na-
tions; Egypt, the land of Sinim, (xlix. 12,) i. e. probably the
Pelusiotes, the appeal to offerings of swine, (lxv. 4,) which
were made in Egypt, but not in Babylon, the frequent appeals
and addresses to Jerusalem and the towns of Palestine, all
seem to betoken the presence of the writer in the Holy Land,
and his familiarity with objects there and in the neighbour-
hood. Then the historical relations are to be added to these.
Egypt and Ethiopia are joined, and also the Sabaans ;
xlv. 14. In xli. 11, 12, the active and assailing enemies of
those addressed are mentioned; but who were they, during
the exile? In lii. 4, the writer adverts to the past captivi-
ties of the Jews, and mentions only those of Egypt and As-
syria. How could he omit that of Babylon, if it had taken
St
11
98
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
place? In Isa. Ixvi. 19, the Jewish exiles are represented
as being gathered only from countries connected with Egyp-
tian or Assyrian sway. These things have not been satis-
factorily explained by the recent liberal critics. I am not
aware how they can be.
(5.) In chap. xl.-xlvii., are very many passages which are
addressed to a people under the influence of idols, and who
practise heathen rites; and they are reproved for not pre-
senting the offerings due to God. How could this be, while
the Jews were in exile? They served no idols then and
there; and how could they be reproved for not presenting
offerings there, which could lawfully be presented no where
but at the temple in Jerusalem? Besides, the people ad-
dressed are represented as seeking foreign alliances. Could
the Jews in exile do this? Chap. Ixvi. 3, 4, describes the
Jews as presenting hypocritical oblations and sacrifices. How,
where, when,—in the land of Chaldæa? Even Ewald feels
obliged to concede (in Es. II. p. 409, seq.) that he finds no
marks of the author's being in Babylonia, but the contrary.
(6.) It seems to be evident, that the latter part of Isaiah is
quoted or imitated by prophets who lived before the exile;
comp. Nah. i. 15 and Isa. lii. 1, 7. See also Nab. iii. 7 and
Isa. li. 19; Nah. iii. 4, 5 and Isa. xlvii. 5, 9. So Habakkuk
in ii. 18, 19, comp. with Isa. xliv. 9—20. In Zephaniah are
several passages of the same tenor. Jeremiah has strowed
passages through his whole book, which lean upon the latter
part of Isaiah; particularly in chap. 1., li., which, one might
almost say, are made up of extracts from this prophet; see
Hävern. Einl. p. 180. Finally, 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, not
merely refers for authority, as to the history of Hezekiah, to
the Vision of Isaiah, (chap. xxxvi.-xxxix.,) but also to an
old book, the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which
had drawn from the same source; see Häv. II. 1. p. 198, seq.
At all events, when the author of Chronicles wrote, the
book of Isaiah was a definite and well-known book.
ܒ
It were easy to add to these evidences of earlier composi-
tion-and of composition in the Holy Land. But my limits.
forbid. I would merely repeat, in the way of comment,
what I said at the outset, viz. that the recent opinions re-
specting adscititious parts of Isaiah, are embarrassed by very
serious difficulties, which have not yet been satisfactorily met.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
99
As to all the objections made to the early composition of
the alleged Pseudo-Isaiah, on the ground that prediction, so
long beforehand as the time of Isaiah the son of Amoz, is
an impossibility, I have only to say, that this is assumption
and not argument-it is simply petitio principii. Even if,
with most of the neological critics, we put off the composi-
tion of that portion of the book to a period little before the
exile, it is still prediction; for how could any one foresee
what Cyrus would do, either as to the destruction of Baby-
Ion, or the liberation of the Jews? But when the composi-
tion of these parts of Isaiah is brought down very near to
the time of the events described, our sharp-sighted critics
say, that a shrewd political observer might easily conjecture
what would take place; as Burke foretold what would fol-
low in the train of the French Revolution. It happened, as
they suggest, that he had made a lucky guess. But what if
it had turned out, that the Babylonians had been victors, in
the contest with Cyrus? Why then (as they intimate) the
Pseudo-Isaiah would have stood in no repute, and his work
would never have come down to us.'
(
In respect to this, and all that is like it, I have only to
say, that it is not critical argument, but a mere result of the
a priori assumption, that prediction is an impossibility.
An impartial view of the subject before us, however,
obliges us to say, that the recent critics who contend for a
Pseudo-Isaiah, are not wholly destitute of reasons, some of
which, to say the least, are quite specious. They allege,
(1.) That the later writer does not so much describe an
exile which is to be, as one which is. In this state, he
thinks, and feels, and speaks. He describes desolations in
Judea and in Edom, which had already taken place; e. g.
in chap. lxiii., lxiv., and elsewhere. He dwells on these
things; repeats them; goes into minute particulars which
savour of the historical rather than of the prophetical. All
this is contrary to the genius of any prophecy, which for a
long time precedes the events described.
(2.) The mention by name of Cyrus (xliv. 28; xlv. 1) is
without parallel. The fact of such a mention shows, that
Cyrus was already on the throne.
(3.) Predictions so long beforehand as the time of Isaiah,
when Babylon was a mere provincial and tributary kingdom
I 2
100
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
belonging to the Assyrian domain, could be of no interest to
the then living generation. Neither Isaiah nor they knew
or cared any thing about Babylon. It looks like mere sooth-
saying or fortune-telling, to utter such predictions at such a
period. And above all, how could Isaiah himself say so
much about deliverance from exile, and dwell so long and
minutely upon it, when he has said nothing of the Jews
being carried away into captivity, nor uttered any threats of
this nature?
(4.) The whole strain is hortatory, and addressed (in this
shape) to those then living in exile. The writer addresses
them as having present duties to do; prays for them as al-
ready in distress and danger; and in fact adjusts his whole
discourse as if it were an epistle to the exiles.
(5.) The writer, in chap. xl.-xlvii., appeals to ancient
prophecy respecting the Babylonish exile. In Isaiah's time,
who was there that had already written such predictions?
(6.) Why does not Jeremiah, when he predicts the return
from exile, (xxix., xxx., al.,) appeal to the predictions of
Isaiah, in the way of confirmation, in case they already
existed?
These are the main arguments on which they rely, with
the exception of those drawn from the impossibility of mira-
cles, and from the style and manner of the alleged adsciti-
tious parts. A few remarks only can be made here re-
specting them.
As to No. 2, which respects the mention of Cyrus by
name, the passage in 1 Kings xiii. 2 is a parallel case.
Agag, in Num. xxiv. 7, seems to be another. Besides, the
name Cyrus is, in all probability, like that of Pharaoh, a
mere nomen dignitatis, applicable to more than one king.
The proper name of Cyrus appears to have been Agradates.
In case the matter is so understood, nothing more particular
than a reference to a Persian king is contained in the pre-
diction. In respect to No. 3, it cannot be said with truth,
that Isaiah and his contemporaries knew nothing of Baby-
lon, and felt no interest to know any thing about it, after
one reads Isa. xxxix., which contains an explicit prediction,
that the descendants of Hezekiah should be carried to
Babylon and be eunuchs in the palace there. In Micah iv.
9, 10, is a prediction of the same tenor. Of course this in-
Just
SECT. IV.
101
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
volves the destiny of the nation, (Micah expressly applies it
to the nation,) as well as of its king. Is not this "saying
something" about being carried into exile? And does not
the deliverance which follows come in its proper place?
The hortatory strain, objected to the early composition
in No. 4, would be convincing, if we could show that the
spirit of prophecy could not anticipate future circumstances.
Most of the exhortations are of such a nature as to consti-
tute preaching applicable to any or all periods, in those an-
cient times. The appeal to ancient prophecy (No. 5) does
not necessarily involve any thing more ancient than what
Isaiah himself had uttered, or at any rate Micah. In Mi-
cah iv. 9, 10, the Babylonish captivity is very plainly and
expressly predicted; and Micah was a contemporary of
Isaiah. In respect to No. 6, Jeremiah no more appeals to
Micah than he does to Isaiah. The argumentum ex silentio
has little force indeed, in a case of this nature.
Gadg
Finally, I deem it proper to add, that the whole dispute
in respect to the Pseudo-Isaiah, is after all a matter of less
importance, in a theological point of view, than many have
deemed it to be. If real prophets are allowed to have writ-
ten the alleged adscititious parts of the book, then the au-
thority of the book is not impinged, at any rate is not im-
pugned. But most of the recent critics refuse to admit the
existence of such men, i. e. to admit them as being properly
inspired men. But such as do admit of the real prophetic
origin of the adscititious part (so called) may ask, If other
prophetic works are of Divine authority, why are not these
also? It is not pretended, even by the better class of neo-
logical critics, that these parts of Isaiah were written post
eventum. If written before, they are predictions. Merely
as a theologian, then, I should have little to object to the
compound nature of the book before us. It is in fact of lit-
tle or no theological or doctrinal importance which way this
question is decided. But as a critic, I have serious doubts
whether recent criticism has yet made its way clear. There
are obstacles in its path, which it seems rather to leap over
than to remove.
M
In the mean time, it must be confessed that there are some
obstacles in the way of other and the older critics. The
graphic description of desolations in Edom and Judea, which
102
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
not
is contained in chap. lxiii., lxiv., seems to plead strongly in
favour of the idea, that those desolations had actually taken
place. Above all, the difficulty of supposing a deep and
present interest, which the Isaiah of Hezekiah's reign had,
or could well have, in the return from the Babylonish exile,
when he has not any where dwelt at length upon the occur-
rence of being carried into exile; and the unparalleled length
and particularity of the descriptions or predictions respecting
this return; do constitute difficulties, it must be confessed,
in the way of the older exegesis, which are entitled to seri-
ous consideration. Such, it must be conceded also,
the manner of most prophets, in regard to mere civil or po-
litical events. Things of present interest and of impending
danger, are for the most part before them, and are the sub-
jects of prophecy. And if Isa. xl.-lxvi. can be viewed as
coming from the pen of a prophet in exile, not long before
the return from it, its graphic descriptions and its many de-
velopments of deep feeling seem to be more naturally and
Is it not possible that another pro-
easily accounted for.
phet, who also bore the name of Isaiah, lived and wrote at
this period? I must confess that I have sometimes sus-
pected this to be the case. Most knots which we must now
cut, would easily be untied by such a solution. The prin-
cipal objection to it is, that history has not said any thing of
such a man; and it is difficult even to suppose that the
name of such a writer, at so late a period, could be covered
with entire darkness. Did we know that such a person
lived and wrote, we might call him Deutero-Isaiah, but
surely not (as recent critics do) Pseudo-Isaiah. The mistake
of redactors in later ages, (in case there were two prophets
who both bore the name of Isaiah,) in arranging and com-
bining their works together, and placing them under one
category, might be very easily accounted for, in such a case.
I should feel some inclination to admit this theory, as the
most easy and ready solution of the difficulties, if it could
only be rendered probable, that such a person as the Deutero-
Isaiah could have lived, and written such a piece of compo-
sition as Isa. xl.-lxvi., and yet not have been conspicuous in
Jewish history. The lack of any notice of such a writer, is
certainly one of the unaccountable things.
One general remark, which in my own view is of great
•
g
(4
| ON
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
103
importance in regard to the whole matter before us, I must
make before I quit the subject. It is only when chaps. xl.—
lxvi. are viewed in the light of a great Messianic develop-
ment-a series of predictions respecting the person, the work,
and the kingdom of Christ-that the earnestness, the pro-
tracted length, the fulness, the deep feeling, the holy enthu-
siasm, the glowing metaphors and similes, and the rich and
varied exhibitions of peace and prosperity, can well be ac-
counted for. The writer, in taking such a stand-point, uses
the exile and the return from it as the basis of his compari-
sons and analogies. It was a rich and deeply interesting
source, from which he might draw them. Any other solu-
tion of the whole phenomena is, to my mind at least, meagre
and unsatisfactory. On no other ground can I account for
it, that Isaiah so long beforehand should have dwelt on an
exile and a return from it, which were more than a century
distant from him and his contemporaries.
In regard to the book of JONAH, it purports to be the
work of Jonah the son of Amittai (Jonah i. 1); and in
2 Kings xiv. 25, we have an account of Jonah the prophet,
of Gath-Hepher, a town in the district of Zebulun (comp.
Josh. xix. 13). Of this latter personage it appears, that he
lived and prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II., king
of Israel (825-784, B. C.); of course, at the time when the
Assyrian power was just beginning to show its strength in
western Asia, and might be dreaded by the Israelites. To
him is attributed, by Hitzig and others, the prophecy against
Moab in Isa. xv., xvi. And inasmuch as Isaiah himself
appears to assign this portion of his book to some other and
older prophet than himself, (Isa. xvi. 14,) no very urgent
objections against this view of the subject seem to press.
upon us; although I do not deem it necessary.
As to the prophecy contained in the book entitled JONAH,
(but little indeed of the book is prediction,) there has been
an endless diversity of opinion among modern and recent
commentators in regard to the matter and manner of this
work. It is clear from Tobit xiv. 8; 3 Macc. vi. 8, and
from Josephus' Antiq. IX. 10. 2, that the ancient Jews re-
garded the whole book as a narrative of facts. It seems,
moreover, very much as if the Saviour had given his sanc-
tion to it as such; Matt. xii. 40, seq.; xvi. 4; Luke xi. 30.
104
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Most of the Christian Fathers have done the same; and the
great body of the older modern commentators have inclined
to follow in the same path. But not so with all. In re-
cent times, the Liberals, almost to a man, reject the simple
historical exposition of the book at large; and not a few,
even of those who are more strict in sentiment, have felt
compelled to regard it as an allegory or parable.
The difficulties alleged to be connected with the book are
very numerous. First, the mission itself to a very distant
barbarian city, the mistress of the eastern world, buried in
luxury and idolatry, and looking contemptuously on all
foreigners-a mission totally destitute of any thing analogous
among all the Hebrew prophets-is thought to be a serious
obstacle to the historical exposition. Then comes a host of
other difficulties. The sudden and unexpected penitence of
the Ninevites, it is said, is incredible. More credible would
the story have been, if it had represented them as taking
Jonah for a raving maniac. The book of Kings, (2 Kings
xiv. 25, seq.,) which gives us some notices of Jonah, takes
no notice of such an event. Jonah, a prophet too, is repre-
sented as expecting to fly from the presence of the Lord, by
going in a ship to Tarshish! When the lot falls upon Jo-
nah, as the cause of the tempest which threatened the safety
of all embarked, with the same indifference which before
had made him sleep quietly in the hold of the ship amidst
the agitations of the storm, he proposes to be cast overboard.
He is swallowed by a whale; and after being three days in
his belly, he is vomited up upon the dry land. The second
admonition to go to Nineveh is obeyed. The consequences
of this mission have already been adverted to. Then comes
the repining indignation of the prophet, because Nineveh
was not actually destroyed. A gourd comes up in a single
night, and grows to such a size as to shelter Jonah from the
burning heat, to which he was exposed in his watch-station.
But the next day a worm eats it at the root, and it imme-
diately withers. Jonah then wishes to die, rather than to
see his prophecy unfulfilled. These circumstances, it is
averred with the greatest confidence, are all of them either
very improbable or actually impossible.
So they must have been regarded, it would seem, by many
interpreters of the book; for all manner of devices have
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
105
been resorted to, in order to make out some meaning for it
that would comport with facts which the interpreter deemed
probable or possible.
The principal difficulty is with the matter of being swal-
lowed up by the fish or whale. A whale, it is said, has not
a gullet large enough to receive a man. Then, it is asked,
how could Jonah live in his interior? How could such a
monster approach the land near enough to throw him upon
it? These and the like questions have been discussed, until
it would seem that not much more remains to be said, or
even invented.
Of the Rabbinical conceits about Jonah, I need say no
more than to mention, that one of them is, that the whale
swam round the whole continent of Africa in the three days
during which Jonah was within him; that he came back by
the way of the Red Sea; and that he went through the sub-
terranean passage from that sea to the Mediterranean, and
thus brought Jonah safe to his home again. According to
some of the Rabbies, Jonah had a not uncomfortable bertli
for such a long and rapid voyage; and, looking through the
whale's eyes, he saw a great many wonders of the deep. Be-
sides this, he performed many devotional exercises. Even
Josephus (Antiq. IX. 10. 2) makes the whale to throw up
the prophet upon the shores of the Euxine. Others have
invented a more facile solution of the whole difficulty. The
whale (17, lit. fish) is turned into a boat with a whale paint-
ed on its stern or bow; or it may be a boat of the whalers,
as we speak of a whale boat. Even Godfrey Less has broach-
ed such an exegesis; Verin. Schrift. p. 161. So Jonahı, af-
ter three days' tossing, is represented as being driven to the
land, and thrown upon it by the waves. But the difficulty
here is, that the account of Jonah (i. 17) states, that the
Lord had prepared 171 17, a great fish, to swallow up the
prophet; where the epithet great has of course a very appro-
priate meaning. But how is it with a great boat? Then
again, the vomiting (sp") upon the land-appropriate enough
to the great fish, but how the boat vomited out Jonah, looks
rather problematical. Others, therefore, not liking these
explanations of the narration, say, that Jonah, when thrown
overboard, found a dead fish, on which he got a station, and
was thrown, at last, upon the land unharmed. But still, the
106
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
swallowing up of Jonah, and the vomiting of him out, are lost
sight of even in this exegesis. To remedy this, ingenuity
has contrived to make Jonah cut a hole in the fish, so that
he could lodge in his interior; and from this he came out,
when cast upon the land. But even here, Jonah seems ra-
ther to manage the fish, than to be managed by him. The
view attributed to the famous Von der Hardt, who wrote
several volumes upon Jonah, viz. that Jonah put up a tavern
which had the sign of a whale, is closely allied to this.
Futile, not to say ridiculous, attempts are all these and the
like, to do away the force of a narration, which plainly sa-
vours of the miraculous. Not but that the whole matter, in
respect to the fish, might be shown to be a natural possibility.
The Canis Carcharias, common in the Mediterranean, can
surely swallow a man, for it has done so ; and so can some
other fishes. That a man should preserve life for a while in
the stomach of a fish, under certain circumstances, is no im-
possibility. Living reptiles often spend years in the human
stomach ; some of them, moreover, are such as need air
for respiration, (as indeed what living and breathing crea-
ture does not?) As to throwing up Jonah upon the land,
there are places enough of deep water up to the very edge
of the sea-shore, where this might be done by a large fish.
The objection that the stomach of the fish must have dissolv-
ed and digested Jonah, is of no weight; for every one ac-
quainted with physiology knows, that living flesh does not
digest in the least in the stomach. The gastric juice has no
power over it. And last, but not least-the God who meant
to punish, but not to destroy, Jonah, could arrange all these
circumstances, and also preserve his life, in such a way as is
stated in the narration. The same God could cause the fish
to throw him out of his stomach; the Bible affirms that he
did; Jon. ii. 10.
HOM
So would I say, moreover, of the gourd, and its withering,
although the latter circumstance is pressed by no special dif-
ficulty. Its growth, however, must be supernatural. The
panic, the fast, and the penitence of the Ninevites, are doubt-
less all circumstances extraordinary and without a parallel in
sacred history. Yet surely they cannot be deemed impos-
sibilities. The mission of Jonah to a distant heathen coun-
try, in his day scarcely known among the Jews, and not yet
-
SECT. IV.
107
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
having made any incursion upon Palestine, is undoubtedly
one of the most serious difficulties that the book presents.
The mission of a man who had such a temper as Jonah, to
execute a commission so grave, stands next to this. And
then-what was the object? What was achieved? What
had the Jews to do, at that time, with the Ninevites? It is
easy to ask many questions of this kind; but it is not so
easy to answer them satisfactorily. The book itself pre-
sents us with no key to unlock these mysteries.
I cannot much wonder, therefore, that allegory or parable
has been resorted to by so many interpreters, (and of differ-
ent sentiments too in theology,) in order to explain the book.
Jonah, they say, designed to teach the Hebrew nation to
feel more liberally towards the heathen; to show them that
even the latter were more susceptible of moral impression
than hardened Jews; and to impress them with the idea
that God was the common Father of all men-of the Gen-
tiles as well as of the Jews. He wrote this allegory, as they
aver, in order to accomplish this end; just as the Saviour
uttered the parable of the good Samaritan, and of the rich
man and Lazarus, or of the sower, in order to illustrate and
confirm certain moral truths. In itself this exhibits nothing
impossible, or even improbable. Yet the want of all inti-
mations of this nature in the book itself, is somewhat of an
objection against this mode of exegesis; although it has
been adopted, for substance, by such men as J. D. Michaelis,
Herder, Eichhorn, Staudlin, Meyer, Mueller, Niemeyer,
and others. In the Gospels, and generally in the prophets,
the context gives us a key to the allegory or the parable. I
am constrained also to ask: Can what the Saviour says
about Jonah and the Ninevites, be reconciled with the idea
that the book is only an allegory? The first spontaneous
prompting of the mind seems to be an answer in the nega-
tive. Yet it is asked, Do we not every day refer to the
Good Samaritan, and to the Prodigal Son, in the same way
as if they were real historical personages? And in fact one
cannot deny this; but still there is this difference between
the two cases, viz. that in the Gospels the nature of the
allegory is palpable. However, at all events, this method
of interpretation is much preferable to one lately come in
vogue, through Goldhorn, Gesenius, De Wette, and Kno-
108
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
રી
bel, viz. that the book has only a few facts at the basis, sim-
ple and credible; while all the rest is a mythic romance—a
narrative made out of floating popular stories. Jonah, they
say, was a prophet. He uttered oracular threats against
Nineveh. He made a voyage to sea; was shipwrecked ;
narrowly escaped the sharks; returned to his prophetic
duty; but was indignant that his first predictions had not
been fulfilled, and therefore wished for death, through fear
of disgrace. So much they allow to be fact.. Then as to
the mythic part, it comes, as they think, from the story
among the Greeks, that Hercules, at Sigeum, rescued He-
sione, the daughter of Laomedon king of Troy, from the
jaws of the sea-monster to which she was devoted. In order
to do this, he sprang himself into the monster's jaws, was
swallowed down, and there he fought three days and nights
in his belly, destroyed him, and came out alive with only
the loss of his hair, which had been burned up by the heat
within; Diod. Sic. VI. 42. Ovid Met. XI. 211, seq. Tzetzes
ad Lycoph. Cassand. 33. This myth, as some of the recent
critics suppose, was combined with another, the scene of
which is at the shore of Joppa. There Perseus rescued
from a sea-monster Andromeda, the daughter of king Ce-
pheus; and Pliny (Hist. Nat. V. 14) and Jerome (Comm.
in Jon. i. 3) tell us, that the people of that place were ac-
customed to show to strangers the rock where Andromeda
was chained, and the huge bones of the sea-monster [whales'
bones no doubt]. Both of these fables are united, and forth-
with out comes the myth of Jonah. So even Rosenmueller.
To this I have only to say:
"Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas
Undique collatis membris; ut turpiter atrum
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne;
Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici ?
""*
What others may do, who have more power over their
But for myself, I can-
risibles than I, is not for me to say.
not do otherwise than Horace supposes his friends would
Kateg
* In English thus: "If a painter should undertake to join a horse's
neck to a human head, and to cover with variegated feathers the limbs
collected from all quarters; so that a woman beautiful in the upper part
should disgustingly end in a black fish; if admitted to such a sight, my
friends, could you keep yourselves from laughing?"-Ars Poct. 1-5.
109
do, when looking at the strange production of the painter
whom he describes. Winer (not restrained most surely by
any orthodox notions from admitting neological exegesis)
says, in respect to this mythical explanation, "It always
must appear very improbable, that a Hebrew writer would
have found any occasion of working over the materials of a
Philistine Myth;" Bib. Lex. art. Jonas. It is even worse
than Horace's supposed picture; and so we may emphati-
cally ask, Risum teneatis, amici? How it is possible thus to
overlook the very genius of the Hebrews, and the nature
and design of the sacred books, and to suppose that the book
of Jonah was written with such views, and admitted to a
place in the sacred canon-I leave for those to explain, who
have done the deed of making up the monstrous compound.
I wash my hands of such high treason against the funda-
mental laws of sacred criticism.
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
Doubtless the question will be put by the reader: And
what then, after such remarks on the exegesis of others-
what do you yourself regard as the object of the book of
Jonah? What estimate do you put on the narration? So
far as I am able, I am willing to give an answer; but it must
be brief, after dwelling so long upon this book.
66
When the scribes and Pharisees said to Christ, "Mas-
ter, we would see a sign from thee," he told them that "the
men of Nineveh should rise in judgment with that genera-
tion, and condemn it, because they repented at the preach-
ing of Jonah," and then immediately added that a greater
than Jonah" was before them; Matt. xii. 41; Luke xi. 32.
Did he not mean now to compare one historical person and
transaction with another? If the Ninevites had been known
and regarded only as an imaginary people-the offspring of
allegory or romance-there would be no difficulty in the
case. The comparison might then be placed on the same
ground, on which we now place the conduct and person of
any one actually living, when we compare him and his de-
meanour with the prodigal son, or with the rich man and
Lazarus. But the Ninevites are surely historical and verit-
able personages; as much so as the queen of the South, who
is joined with them in Matt. xii. 42; and the force of the
Saviour's appeal is greatly strengthened by the supposition
that they are real personages. Not a word from Jesus to
J
110
make us suspect that he regarded the matter of the Ninevites
in any
other light than that of a real historical fact. Again,
when Jesus says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were
seeking a sign from heaven and tempting him, that "no
sign should be given them but the sign of the prophet
Jonah," (Matt. xii. 39, 40; xvi. 4,) does he not compare
the abode of Jonah for three days in the belly of the fish,
with his own abode in the grave during the same period?
Matt. xii. 40. In other words, Does he not compare one
historical fact with another? It seems so. I know not how
to throw off the impression which these passages make upon
my mind. When Paul tells us, in Gal. iv. 24, that the nar-
rative in Genesis concerning the son of Hagar and also of
Sarah is allegorized, we know where we are and what to
expect. But is there any thing in the passages just cited
in respect to Jonah, which is adapted to make an impression
that the story of Jonah and of the Ninevites is an allegory?
If there be, it has escaped my notice.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
SECT. IV.
The authority of Christ, then, seems to bind me to admit
the facts as they are stated in the narrative of Jonah. They
are indeed strange facts apparently; but not therefore un-
true. They plainly are not impossibilities; although I ac-
knowledge, very readily, that they are improbabilities, when
compared with the common course of things. But are not
all miracles of this character? Or, putting aside (as I would)
absolute miracles in regard to the things recognised by
Christ with respect to Jonah, do they not border upon the
marvellous? Certainly they do; but is all that the Old and
New Testament contains, which is of the like character, to
be therefore rejected? Neologists say, Yes. But the be-
liever in Divine revelation has no need to join in this
answer. He may rank the occurrences in the book of
Jonah with other occurrences related in the Scriptures,
which are of a similar, i. e. of a miraculous character.
So much for facts. Now for the object of the book. This
is indeed a problem of difficult solution. What can it be,
unless it is to inculcate on the narrow-minded and bigoted
Jews, (there were many such,) the great truth, that God
regards the humble and penitent every where with favour;
and that even the haughty, cruel, idolatrous, and domineering
heathen, in case they repent and humble themselves, become
SECT. IV.
111
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
the subjects of his compassion and clemency, and are more
acceptable than the haughty Jew, claiming descent from
Abraham, but still the devoted slave of ritual observances
and of his own evil passions?
So much lies on the face of the book. There is no strange
doctrine in it, therefore, but a plain and simple truth is
illustrated and impressively taught by it. No difficulty, in-
deed, of a doctrinal nature attends the work. Whatever
difficulty there is, it lies in the tenor of the narration.
The only question over which darkness seems to a be-
liever in miracles to hover, is, how Jonah alone, of all the
Hebrew prophets, should be a missionary to the heathen?
And, (as connected with this,) why was he sent, in the reign
of Jeroboam II., to perform such a service? My ignorance
as to those things which would make out a satisfactory answer
to these questions, can prove nothing against the facts them-
selves. The time when he was sent, is indeed of no great
importance. These facts, moreover, are in themselves so
far from being impossibilities, that, if admitted, they actually
help to commend the prophetic dispensation to our feelings.
We are heartily glad, to see in what manner the Divine
Being recognises the relation of all parts of our race to him-
self, and how willing he is to pardon the penitent. The
unusual occurrence of such an event as the mission of Jonah,
and the apparent strangeness of the whole matter, are about
the only things, in the end, that afford any serious doubts
or difficulties to the believing mind. But I do not think
these to be satisfactory or valid reasons for rejecting the
book, or for turning it into an allegory or an ethnico-Judaic
Myth.
T
But I must not pursue any further the examination of
these particular works. I return to our Chaldean period of
prophecy, which extends down to the end of the exile; I
have only to add here, in regard to the prophetic order, that
we have no history of any other than those prophets before
mentioned. If there were men capable of writing such
compositions as the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah, then why, as
has already been suggested, is no mention made of them, no
hint given respecting them? Could men capable of writing
in that manner, have lived in entire obscurity, while Ze-
phaniah, Obadiah, Haggai, and Malachi, not far from the
112
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE IIEBREWS.
same period, are all distinctly recognised and well known?
At least this is something, which those, who feel so free on
all occasions to doubt, may allow us the privilege of doubt-
ing, until the matter is better cleared up.
In addition to the anonymous prophets already adverted
to, (who are brought into being by recent criticism,) another
prophet, it seems, must be reckoned. Jer. 1., li. is thought
by some critics of name, to have been composed about the
middle of the exile, and therefore not by Jeremiah the well-
known prophet, who most probably must have been dead
before that time. But the arguments drawn from the diction,
in this case, surely make against this, if the whole of the
resemblances to Jeremiah are set over against the alleged
discrepancies; and there is no historical or critical neces-
sity of supposing the chapters in question to be an interpo-
lation.
If we turn now from this brief survey of the prophets who
lived and acted during the Chaldean period, to a moment's
consideration of their characteristics of style, we shall be
struck with the greatly altered tone of their compositions.
The brevity, simplicity, majesty, and beauty of the golden
age have in a large measure passed by. The dialect, though
still Hebrew in all its substantial elements, differs much from
that of Isaiah, Joel, and Nahum. Allegory, figure, symbol,
and parable, are frequent almost every where; and in fact
they make up almost the whole of Ezekiel. Jeremiah has a
great deal of historic matter, and is less inclined than his
contemporary to allegory and symbol; but still the tenor of
his style differs so exceedingly from that of the previous
writers already named, that one can hardly persuade him-
self, that more time than is usually allowed did not elapse
between the Assyrian and the Chaldean periods of prophetic
composition. As to pathos, tenderness, deep-felt grief on
account of the desolations of Judea, and still more on ac-
count of its wickedness, there is nothing in the writers of
any age which exceeds some parts of Jeremiah.
Another circumstance should be noted. Instead of em-
ploying poetry as the vehicle of instruction, which for the
most part the prophets of the golden age did, the composi-
tions during the period in question were generally in prose;
but not unfrequently in a kind of measured prose. IIa-
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
113
bakkuk is indeed an exception to this, as well as to the style
in general of his times. How now shall we class Isa. xl.—
lxvi. with the poetry of this Chaldean period, when the
former consists of some of the most symmetrical poetry to
be found in all the Hebrew Scriptures? If the so-called
Pseudo-Isaiah be indeed of later composition, it stands out
as a singular phenomenon amidst the other prophetic re-
mains of that age. A writer of that day, on a theme so
interesting as that which is presented in Isa. xl.-lxvi., who
could with such wonderful success transport himself into
the midst of the golden age and adopt its general manner,
imagery, and diction, one would be prone to think must
have had some memorial left of him.
•
Knobel alleges, that the prophets of the Chaldean period
exhibit more attachment to the ritual Law, than those of
the preceding era. What little foundation there is for this
remark, seems to me to rest merely on the fact, that Jere-
miah and Ezekiel were both priests as well as prophets.
How natural then that they should look somewhat more to
the violated ritual, as well as to the moral law!
We have no history of the Jews during their exile, ex-
cepting the hints in Jeremiah and Ezekiel respecting them.
But these do not disclose to us any particulars respecting
any true prophets of the Lord, if such there were among
them. In Jer. xxix. we have an account of several false
prophets among the exiles, by the name of Ahab, Zedekiah,
and Shemaiah, The two former were roasted by the king
of Babylon in the fire, (Jer. xxix. 22,) probably because
they excited their countrymen to uneasiness in their exile,
by false promises made to them. Jeremiah strongly de-
nounces these false prophets; and in a similar manner does
Ezekiel denounce men of the same class, who were flatter-
ing the exiles with deceitful promises; Ezek. xiii. 1-16.
In like manner the false shepherds of Israel, (probably false
prophets, see on p. 84, above,) are severely rebuked in Ezek.
xxxiv. May we not, then, in the absence of direct testi-
mony, assume as altogether probable the continued exist-
ence of true prophets among the Hebrews in their exile?
False coin does not usually make its appearance where there
is no true coin. The analogy of former and of subsequent
periods would seem to plead in favour of the position, that
2
I
→
SECT. IV.
114
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
among the exiles in Babylon were more or less of true pro-
phetical teachers. The people were humbled by this exile.
They grew better under their chastisements. Many of them
sighed for a return to Palestine, and a renewal of their re-
ligious state and privileges. And when they did return
from exile, in consequence of the proclamation by Cyrus
who gave them liberty, they had such men for leaders as
Zerubbabel and Jeshua the high priest; also the prophets
Zechariah and Haggai; Ezra v. 1. These, and in the se-
quel Malachi, contributed important aid in re-establishing
the Jewish commonwealth and worship. We can hardly
suppose, therefore, that the Jews were at any time during
their exile entirely destitute of true prophets, although we
have no explicit account of such persons among them.
In 536 B. C. Cyrus attained to the sole regency of the
Medo-Persian empire, and during the same year he pub-
lished his edict, permitting and even exhorting the Jews to
go up to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. About 70,000
persons returned to Palestine, (Ez. ii. 66; Neh. vii. 66,
seq.,) the same year, in consequence of this edict, having
Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, as their civil head, and
Jeshua as their high priest. Great trouble and hinderance
were soon given to the Jews, by their heathen and envious
neighbours; so that the rebuilding of the temple and city
was often interrupted and long delayed. For the following
seventy-five years we have no particular account of their
religious state, and only a few notices of their civil condi-
tion. Who were their prophets, if prophets they had, ex-
cepting Haggai and Zechariah, (Ezra v. 1,) we know not.
After Darius Hystaspes had come to the throne of Persia,
(521 B. C.,) i. e. some fifteen or more years after the edict
of Cyrus, those prophets contributed much in stirring up
the Jews to go on with their temple-building. In the sixth
year of Darius (516 B. c.) was this great undertaking
finished. From that time down to the seventh year of the
reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, (457 B. C.-or as some
maintain, 460,) we have no historic notices in the Jewish
Scriptures of the state of the nation. In the year just named,
Ezra, "a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord
God had given," came up to Jerusalem from Babylon, by
leave of the Persian king, and brought with him between
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
115
two and three thousand of the exiles; Ezra vii., viii. Here
Ezra employed himself for several years in the accomplish-
ment of a reformation both in worship and in morals; for
both of these had greatly degenerated after the death of Ze-
rubbabel and Jeshua. In about ten years, Nehemiah, the
cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, by leave of this king, paid a
visit to Palestine, and found the walls of Jerusalem in a
ruinous state. These he repaired, and being made governor
(Tirshatha) of the place, he resided there some twelve years,
(Neh. vi. 14,) and not only did he fortify the city, but con-
tributed greatly to bring every thing both civil and religious
into a state of order and regularity. In this he was much
assisted by Ezra, (Neh. viii.,) who took the lead in all re-
ligious matters. After twelve years he returned to Persia,
according to agreement, but within a few days he obtained
leave to go back to Palestine; Neh. xiii. 6. There he spent
the rest of his life. But of his further actions, excepting
for a short period after his return, we have no account, and
the history of the Jews after the Babylonish exile ends
with the doings of Nehemiah, i. e. about 434 B. C.
It is said of Nehemiah, (Neh. vi. 7,) that he had appoint-
ed prophets to preach in Jerusalem. Who these were is
not said, in the passage to which reference has been made.
But that Malachi was among them, scarcely admits of a
doubt. That he was later than Haggai and Zechariah, and
lived after the building of the temple was completed, is
quite manifest to any one who will take pains to consult and
compare the following passages; viz. as to completion of
the temple, Mal. i. 10; iii. 1, 10; as to duties neglected by
priests and Levites, comp. Mal. i. 6; ii. 1, 8, 9, with Neh.
xiii. 10, 11, 28-30; as to the people's withholding gifts
for the temple, comp. Mal. iii. 8-10 with Neh. xiii. 10,
12, 41; as to marriage with foreigners, comp. Mal. ii. 10—
16 with Neh. xiii. 23, seq.; as to oppression of the poor,
comp. Mal. iii. 5 with Neh. v. It would seem, then, that
Malachi flourished about 440 B. C. When he died, we
know not; but it is conceded on all hands, that he closed
the series of that very extraordinary class of men, the He-
brew prophets.
We have, then, after the return from exile, only three
prophets whose names and works are known to us. These
I 2
116
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
are Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. But we find kindred
spirits in Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah; and
especially does it seem to me that Ezra had much to do with
the republication, arrangement, and completion of the Jew-
ish Canon. But of this, more in the sequel.
I have as yet made no mention of Daniel, because he was
not a prophet among the people of Palestine, although born
in that land. He was very young at the time when Nebu-
chadnezzar came up against Jerusalem, (606 B. C.,) and was
carried away to Babylon as a hostage, by the king; Dan. i.
1-6. Most probably he was the son of a nobleman, or
perhaps of the royal family. We have an account of him
in the third year of Cyrus, (534 B. C.,) so that he must have
lived to the age of eighty or ninety years; Dan. x. 1. He
might be placed among the prophets of the third or Chal-
dean period; for some of his visions were before the close of
the Babylonish monarchy; yet some of them, also, were
after the edict of liberation to the Jews was issued by Cyrus.
Recent criticism has ascribed his book to some writer in
the time of the Maccabees; and some have even denied that
any such distinguished person as Daniel lived at the Baby-
lonish court and held an office there. The writer of the book,
it is averred, has merely feigned such a character, in order
that he might compose a work suited to console the Jews
who were suffering under the persecution of Antiochus Epi-
phanes, as the more ancient Jews had done under their
Babylonish oppressors. Of course, the book of Daniel is
ranked, by critics of this class, as last of all in the prophetic
Scriptures.
It would be inconsistent with my present object, to turn
aside here, in order to vindicate the genuineness of the book
of Daniel. It has found an able advocate in the work of
Hengstenberg on its authenticity, Authentie des Daniel,
1831; and also in Hävernick's recent Einleit. ins Alt. Testa-
ment. Nearly all the arguments employed to disprove its
genuineness, have their basis more or less directly in the
assumption, that miraculous events are impossibilities. Of
course, all the extraordinary occurrences related in the book
of Daniel, and all the graphic predictions of events, are,
under the guidance of this assumption, stricken from the
list of probabilities, and even of possibilities. All that is
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
117
said of Antiochus Epiphanes and other Syrian and Grecian
kings, is prophetia post eventum, i. e. real narration of events
past, rather than prediction of events to come. Beyond the
objections which are founded entirely on these assumptions,
there is little, as it seems to me, to convince an enlightened
and well-balanced critical reader, that the book is suppositi-
tious. After examining the subject with much attention, I
must confess myself to be far from believing that the objec-
tions to the authenticity of the book can maintain their stand,
before the bar of enlightened and truly liberal criticism.
But be this as it may, it matters but little to the main ob-
ject of my present work. All agree, that the book of Daniel
was written a considerable time before the Christian era;
and,none can well deny that our Saviour has expressly re-
cognised it, in Mark xiii. 14; Matt. xxiv. 15, as a book of
prophecy. Josephus bestows upon it more commendations
than upon any book of the Old Testament; Antiq. lib. x.
I am aware how much has been said, on account of the Jew-
ish classification of the book in question among the Hagi-
This indicates, it is averred, that the
book was composed very late, i. e. a very considerable time af-
ter the other prophetic books, and that the Jews did not deem
it worthy of a place among their prophetic books in general.
The questions to which these allegations give rise, are of
importance; and some of them will be resumed and ex-
amined in the sequel. But nothing more can be said respect-
ing them at present, inasmuch as we are bound now to pur-
sue the interesting theme that has so long occupied our
attention. We must not take our leave of the Hebrew pro-
phets without subjoining a few remarks in respect to the
character of these extraordinary men.
The mental endowments of many of them are sufficiently
disclosed by the works which they have left behind them.
There is indeed among them, as among the writers of the
New Testament, a great diversity of style, and evidently
also of taste and capacity. The Spirit of God, when he
speaks by men, does not create new mental and psychological
powers, but employs those already existing, and acts by en-
lightening and sanctifying and guiding them, still leaving
each individual to develop his own peculiar characteristics
of taste and mental endowments. But if there be any com-
. כתובים ography or
118
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
positions which in their kind exceed many of the Psalms,
much of Isaiah, Joel, Habakkuk, Nahum, and not a few por-
tions of Jeremiah; if there ever have been any of any age
or nation down to the present hour, which exceed them, I
have no knowledge of such compositions, and do not ex-
pect to attain to such a knowledge. The prophets need
only to be read with intelligence, with candour, and with
some good measure of oriental taste, (I believe this to be in-
dispensable,) to take, in one's estimation, an exalted, I would
say the most exalted, place among the literary productions
of any or of all ages.
Other works of the Old Testament, indeed, besides those
which we of the present day usually name prophecy, most
probably came from the pen of the prophets. But of these,
as they are anonymous, I do not speak at present. I shall
come to the consideration of them, when we have dismissed
our present theme. Let us now, at the close of this view of
the Hebrew writers, teachers, and means of instruction, bring
distinctly before us the question:
What was the moral and religious character of the Hebrew
prophets? My answer must be brief; but I cannot forego
it, as their character stands in so intimate a connexion with
the rise of the Old Test. Scriptures. I must say, then, from
both a general and particular survey of their history, that as
a body they stand on a lofty preeminence above all their con-
temporaries, whether judges, kings, priests, Levites, or the
common people of the Hebrews. I speak, of course, of true
prophets, not of pretenders, soothsayers, and fortune-tellers.
Not a few of these, from time to time, arose and had a bale-
ful influence. But the Mosaic Law condemns them, and the
true prophets of God denounce them in unmeasured terms.
From the first appearance of Hebrew prophets on the
stage of action, down to Malachi the last of the series, promi-
nent traits of character mark them as a distinct class of men.
One sees in them, at all times and places, an animated zeal
for the worship of the only living and true God, and a corre-
spondent, inextinguishable, irreconcilable, stedfast hatred
and contempt of all idols and false gods, of their worship,
their worshippers, their rites and ceremonies. Conscious of
the integrity and uprightness of their own designs, the pro-
phets never shrink from urging their views upon all around
J
SECT. IV.
119
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
them. Do threats of violence, persecution, or even martyr-
dom, ensue, they never shrink back from their undertaking.
It matters not with them whom they are addressing, be they
kings, princes, nobles, priests, Levites, or common people.
They have but one and the same message for all, and that is the
necessity of sincere and hearty obedience to the laws of God.
Their courage and resolution never fail, or even seem to
abate. Whether Nathan appears before David to accuso
him of adultery and murder; or Elijah before Ahab to re-
monstrate against his oppression and idolatry; or Jeremiah
before Jehoiakim or Zedekiah to admonish them and their
corrupt courtiers; or Urijah before Jehoiakim, who perse-
cuted even unto death; it matters not as to the fidelity,
boldness, zeal, and constancy of the prophet. They do not
appear even to have asked themselves whether they might
not avoid persecution, or danger, or death, by withholding
their message. Enough that they felt commissioned to say,
Thus saith Jehovah. With them it seems to have made no
practical difference, whether the message connected with
their commission was to be addressed to the king on the
throne, or to the beggar on the dunghill.
On the side of right, justice, humanity, uprightness, sin-
cerity, true kindness, we are always sure to find them. The
widow, the orphan, and the oppressed they are ever ready to
succour. They spare none who violate the sacred princi-
ples of the moral virtues; surely not those who hanker after
idols. On the side of law, order, decorum, peaceful de-
meanour, we never fail to meet with them. Their zeal for
the only living and true God, his honour, his worship, his
ordinances, never cools, and never permits them to tem-
porize or hesitate, when any of these are in jeopardy. We
always find them, moreover, to possess rational and spiritual
views of religion. Rites and ceremonies they regard as only
subordinate means to an ultimate and higher end. Bigotry
and superstition form no ingredients of their character. The
Mosaic rites with them are but rites, and nothing more.
That these were only the shadow of good things to come, is
the sum of all they ever said, or would say, respecting them.
With all this, they were unflinching, undeviating patriots,
having the prosperity of their country most deeply at heart.
When kings and counsellors erred, and formed dangerous
120
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
alliances, they always remonstrated boldly. They did not
even wait to be sent for and consulted, on such occasions.
Urged on by the fear of God and the love of country, they
spake with entire freedom on subjects pertaining to the weal
of the commonwealth, to the king on his throne even when
his menacing executioners were around him, or to the raging
multitude who were ready to tear them in pieces.
With all this boldness, yea, indomitable courage, they do
not appear to have been rash, or impetuous, or foolishly pro-
digal of life by exposing themselves unnecessarily to danger
which they might anticipate. Elijah, after delivering his
prophetic message, fled from the face of Ahab and Jezebel,
who meant to take his life; 1 Kings xvii. 1-6. The good
Obadiah concealed a hundred prophets in caves, and sup-
plied them with nutriment, when Jezebel persecuted them
with relentless fury; 1 Kings xviii. 4. Elisha bars his
door against the approach of an assassin; 2 Kings vi. 31,
32. Jeremiah hid himself from the rage of his persecutors ;
Jer. xxxvi. 26. The like was done in other cases; and so
was it afterwards done by the Saviour, and by his apostles.
Yet when duty called, suffering and death were met with
equanimity and unshrinking boldness by these faithful
ministers of virtue and piety. In all this, they differed
widely from the raving fanatics, who now and then, in every
age, make their appearance, and rush on death with a fool-
hardiness which makes no distinction between the claims of
conscience and duty and those of mere enthusiasm and mo-
mentary excitement.
und
To have maintained such a character, and this through,
it may be, a long life, required an unshaken confidence in
God. This the prophets did doubtless possess. They were
conscious of something within, to which the world were
strangers, and which, therefore, the world did not well ap-
preciate. Look at the demeanour of Isaiah, after having se-
verely reproved Ahaz for his league with the Assyrian king,
and predicted the overrunning of the kingdom by the As-
syrian forces; he seals up the prophecy, and suspending his
reputation and not improbably his life on the issue, he waits
quietly the fulfilment of what he had predicted; Isa. viii.
16-18. A most vivid picture is drawn in Jer. xv. 10—
21; xx. 7-18, of the agonies which this prophet endured
SECT. IV.
CARTER SET
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
121
in the execution of his office, and also of the fidelity and
confidence which he still exhibited. It would be easy to
enlarge this portion of our sketch, by adding many instances
of the like nature; but our present limits forbid.
It has been brought as a matter of accusation against the
prophets, that they were rigid and severe, not only against
the heathen in general, but against their own fellow country-
men whenever they betrayed any symptoms of idolatrous in-
clinations. This charge I do not feel much interested to re-
pel. If the Mosaic law can stand before the tribunal of
criticism in respect to matters of this nature, sure I am that
the prophets may maintain their position. Their prophe-
cies against the heathen are to be regarded in a two-fold
light, viz. in that of religion and in that of politics. The
heathen were all idolaters. They were of course naturally
enemies to the Jews, who despised their idol-gods. The
heathen aimed to destroy both the religion and the national
independence of the Hebrews. With the prophets, it was
a question whether religion and the people of God should
become extinct or not, when they contemplated the invasion
of Judea by the heathen. How could they speak on such
occasions, either as patriots or as worshippers of the true
God, without strong feeling and much excitement? And
with respect to the vicious and idolatrous among their own
people, were not such far more guilty than the foreign hea-
then? I know well, indeed, after all this, that the times in
which the prophets lived stand chargeable with no small por-
tion of the alleged severity of this order of men. The all
but universal persuasion was, that strenuousness in urging
the claims of justice, and in humbling enemies, was by no
means a trait in the rulers of a nation which could be dis-
approved of or condemned. The oriental world retain that
characteristic down to the present hour. In Persia they
are even now wont to say, that such a Shah as Mohammed
Aga Khan was the kind of king that Persia needed. In
their view he was the model of a great prince. Yet this
same Mohammed Aga fairly outdid Nero in atrocities. I
do not say this in order to justify undue severity, at any
time or in any age. But it is ever to be remembered, that
Judaism is not Christianity. LAW and JUSTICE were in-
scribed on the standards of the Mosaic institutions. We
w
122
SECT. IV
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
""
find there "the mount that burned with fire, and blackness,
and darkness, and tempest; we hear the trumpet pro-
claiming the law with a sound that shakes the earth, fills
the people with awful terror, and makes even Moses him-
self to tremble; Heb. xii. 18-21. On the other hand, the
first proclamation of Christianity is the greeting of the joy-
ful angels: "Peace on earth; good will to men." How
can it be, that the principal ministers of the Old Testament
dispensation, i. e. the prophets, should not conform to the
tenor of the dispensation itself?
And now, let the intelligent and honest reader compare
the order of prophets among the Hebrews with any other
class of men, not of that nation only, but among all the na-
tions of the ancient world. With the priests and Levites
among the Jews one may most naturally compare them.
The offices of both orders were important to the purposes
of the Mosaic dispensation. But after all, the priests were
the ministers of form and ritual, the prophets of substantial
morality and piety. How little do we hear of the priests in
the Old Testament records, excepting now and then in the
way of reproof by the prophets for their malversation. Now
and then a high priest, a man of superior intellect, piety,
and patriotism, meets our view. Yet these instances are
few and far between. How could the Jewish people take
the same interest in them as they did in their substantial
and active religious instructers and advisers? Occasionally,
yet quite seldom, a priest is also a prophet; and then, of
course, we may expect from him a prominent part. But
otherwise we find that all the Jewish kings go to the pro-
phets for advice in their exigencies; and that no affairs of
state are regarded by considerate men as promising good,
which have not the concurrence and co-operation of the pro-
phets. Certainly it was on these that all sober and pious
people among the Hebrews relied, far more than they did
upon kings and princes with their counsellors, or upon the
priests and Levites.
Mil
I would, moreover, solicit a comparison of the prophets,
with the men of an alleged similar office among the heathen.
What are the μάντεις, the προφῆται, θεσπισταί, χρησμολόγοι,
ὀνειρομάντεις, ὀνειροπόλοι, ὀνειροσκόποι, and the ἱεροσκόποι, of
the Greeks, and those of corresponding names among the
SECT. IV.
LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS.
123
Romans, in comparison with the Hebrew prophets? The
heathen prophets (if we may so name them) made an art
of soothsaying. They played all manner of tricks, and re-
sorted to all manner of devices, in order to support the reput-
ation of themselves and their pretended oracles. Cicero tells
us, that two diviners could never look each other in the face
without laughing; evidently because both were conscious of
the frauds which they practised, and the success of their
impositions. And where, in all antiquity, are they pre-
sented to us as the zealous defenders of real piety and good
morals? Where are their missions to guide and instruct the
people in matters of morality and real religion? Supersti-
tious they were, indeed, to great excess. The persecution
and death of all who were opposed to their views, not un-
frequently followed any active opposition. But neither
their office, their lives, their favourite objects, or even their
influence, at least their influence for good, will bear any
comparison with those of the Hebrew prophets.
To this extraordinary class of men, now, we owe most, if
not all, of the Old Test. Scriptures. What one among them
all, if Ezra and perhaps Nehemiah be excepted, came with
any certainty from the hands of a priest, who was not also a
prophet? Hence in tracing the history of the rise and pro-
gress of the Hebrew Canon, it was necessary to bring before
the mind a somewhat full picture of the class of men who were
active in its composition. They stand on a lofty eminence
above all their contemporaries. They bear a character which
the tongue even of slander cannot assail with any success.
Perfect men we need not and do not suppose them to have
been. But it would be difficult perhaps to find, under the
Christian dispensation itself and among its ministers, men of
more unblemished and exalted character. From the prevail-
ing vices of their times they plainly stood aloof. It would
seem that in some respects they even went beyond the let-
ter (yet not beyond the true spirit) of the Mosaic Law. I
cannot call to mind a single instance of polygamy or concu-
binage among them; although the Law of Moses allowed at
least the former, or at any rate did not forbid it. The al-
leged case of the polygamy of Isaiah (chap. vii., viii.) turns.
out to be wholly without proof or foundation, when the
meaning of the prophet is strictly examined. The virgin
Kh
124
SECT. V.
HISTORY OF CANON.
who was to conceive and bear a son, in case we insist on her
marriage antecedent to his birth, is not spoken of still as the
wife of the prophet, or as about to become his wife. I can-
not doubt that the great law of monogamy, which the God
of nature has impressed upon our race by dividing it into
halves between the sexes, was practically recognised and
complied with by the prophets as a body.
Such are the men, then, from whom come the books of
the Old Testament. God has put an honour upon them far
above that which belonged to priests and Levites. How
could this have taken place, if the ritual was, in his eyes,
entitled to the most conspicuous place under the Jewish dis-
pensation?
It would be a most interesting topic of discussion, were
we to pursue inquiries respecting the times, places, and
manner of prophesying or preaching among the Hebrews.
The characteristics of prophetic discourse, its tropical lan-
guage, its symbol, its allegory, the manner of delivering it
and of preserving it, the impression which it made, the
topics which were the most usual themes of it-all these and
other matters in relation to the subject it would be delight-
ful to discuss. But these belong to an appropriate treatise
on the Hebrew prophets, and must, for the sake of brevity
and unity of design, be excluded from our present con-
sideration.
Kel
SECT. V. Continued history of the Cunon; books supposed
to bear the names of their authors.
Ir is time to inquire in what position we now stand in re-
spect to the Canon of the Old Test. Scriptures. Beginning,
as we have done, with Moses, the greatest prophet of all in
ancient days, and following the books down whose authors
are known, we have, according to the representations made
above, the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
(for I cannot regard this work as supposititious,) and the
twelve Minor Prophets. If there be any exceptions to
these, they must be some parts of Isaiah and of Zechariah,
which, as we have already seen, are thought, by most of the
recent critics in Germany, to belong to anonymous writers ;
SECT. V.
BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS.
125
and possibly the book of Jonah may have been written by a
person different from the prophet himself. Whether this be
so or not, is a question which belongs to the special criticism
of the Old Testament, and does not affect at all the nature
and design of my present undertaking; for it is conceded on
all hands, that even the anonymous compositions among
these, (if such there are,) must have sprung from so-called
prophets; and, with scarcely any exceptions, if any at all,
from prophets before the termination of the Babylonish ex-
ile. With us the question at present is not, what specific.
individual wrote this or that book of Scripture, or this or
that part of any book, but whether it was written by such
men as gave to the composition a right to be placed among
the sacred books of the Hebrews.
In our historical sketch of the prophets, we have passed
in brief review the works which bear their names, and in
respect to which we do not think there is any reasonable
ground of doubt as to their genuineness. We now come to
a second class of books, which, without bearing the name of
their authors, seem to ascribe their composition to particular
individuals, in the inscriptions affixed to them. In conse-
quence of this, I forbear to put them among the books which
all confess to be anonymous. Of the books now before us,
some appear to be properly assigned, as to most of their
contents, to particular individuals; while the inscriptions
prefixed to others are of a doubtful character.
We begin with the first class of these. And to this class
belongs the book of PSALMS. That this was principally
composed by David, has been generally acknowledged. (I
have found no one but Lengerke who seems to doubt or
deny this.) But there were several coadjutors, some con-
temporary and others not, in this work. Thirty-four Psalms
only are without any inscription; but the inscription does
not always give the name of the author, for sometimes it
merely refers to then existing outward circumstances, some-
times to the music to be employed, and then to some special
use of the Psalm. A part of the inscriptions is probably
from the hand of redactors, and is not always trust-worthy.
About one hundred Psalms are usually assigned to David;
some of which perhaps are of doubtful authorship, and some
most probably did not come from his pen. To Moses is as-
126
SECT. V.
HISTORY OF CANON.
wh
signed Ps. xc.; to Solomon, Ps. lxxii., cxxvii.; to Asaph,
Ps. 1., lxxiv. lxxxiii., making eleven; to Heman, Ps.
lxxxviii.; to Ethan, Ps. lxxxix. De Wette himself con-
cedes, that a number of the anonymous Psalms may not im-
probably be assigned to David and his contemporaries.
Ten Psalms, i. e. Ps. xlii.-xlvii., lxxxiv., lxxxv., lxxxvii.,
lxxxviii., are usually supposed to be assigned, by the titles,
to the sons of Korah, i. e. to Korahites, who were priests
and sons of Levi. The usual title is, To the chief musician,
for the sons of Korah; but p may also designate the
authorship of the Psalms, inasmuch as often, and even
usually, stands before an author's name, as indicating the
source whence the composition sprang. What inclines one
to doubt that sense of the expression here, is the plurality
or partnership which it would make in the authorship; a
thing literally impossible in compositions so brief, and of
such a marked character. Moreover, one might almost say
of the Psalms in question, A greater than David is here.
From one pen and one heart they must have come; and
that the authorship should be assigned in such an indefinite
way as the expression sons of Korah would indicate, that a
partnership in the composition of such pieces should be
deemed feasible, are serious difficulties in the way of sup-
posing that authorship is indicated by the title.
For our present purpose, indeed, it matters not who was
the particular author of this or that Psalm. The authors
named, almost without exception, lived at or near the time
of David. A few Psalms are unquestionably of later origin;
some of them were composed at the period of the captivity,
and even after the exile; e. g. Ps. lxxxv., cvi., probably
cvii., cxxvi., cxxix., cxxxvii., cxlvii. De Wette himself
confesses it to be doubtful, whether any of the Psalms (e. g.
xliv., lx., lxxiv., lxxvi., lxxix., lxxxiii., cxix., reckoned by
some as of Maccabean times) are to be assigned to the pe-
riod of the Maccabees; Einleit. § 270, 3rd ed.
That ques-
tion I take to be now generally regarded as settled by
Hassler, in his Comm. Crit. de Psalmis Maccab. 1827.
Eichhorn and Gesenius, moreover, doubt so late an origin.
Rosenmueller unequivocally abandons such a position, in
the preface to his compendious Comm. in Psalmos, 1833;
while, in explaining Ps. lxxiv. 8, he again adopts it. The
SECT. V.
127
BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS.
fact, that the book of Psalms was long in the process of
formation, (if we begin with David, about 1050 B. C., and go
down to 536-457, the time at and after the return from
the captivity in which some scriptural books were written,
we must make more than 500 years for the period of forma-
tion,) occasioned it to be compiled in five various books.
Thus we have in the first book, Ps. i.-xli.; in the second
book, Ps. xlii.-lxxii. ; in the third, Ps. lxxiii.-lxxxix. ;
in the fourth, Ps. xc.-cvi.; in the fifth, Ps. cvii.-cl. At
what particular time these various portions or books were
collected and published, we do not know for certainty. But
it is quite manifest, that in general the older Psalms, i. e.
those of David's time, were first collected; and so in succes-
sion, as Psalms worthy of introduction were composed.
Now and then some more ancient compositions make their
appearance in the later books of the Psalms, viz. in the
fourth and fifth, which had been overlooked in the former
compilations. If any Psalms were added in the time of the
Maccabees, it would seem then to be nearly or quite certain,
that they would be found in the fifth and last book. But as
the alleged Maccabean Psalms mostly belong to the earlier
rather than the later portions of the book, the improbability
of their late composition becomes too great to support a cri-
tical belief. The early establishment of such musical choirs
as belonged to the temple-service, both old and new, would
cause all psalms and hymns fitted for that service to be
early and earnestly sought for. We may therefore, without
any danger of erring, place the completion of the book of
Psalms at a period antecedent to the death of Malachi, for
it will not be seriously contended that any thing in them
obliges us to assume that they are later. On the question,
whether the anonymous Psalms were properly included
among the contents of the sacred books, we are not competent
to pass a judgment which is grounded on historical and
minute information, since we have not such information,
and cannot obtain it. But it is enough for our present pur-
pose, if we can show that the book of Psalms, as it now is,
comes down from a period near the death of Malachi. The
contrary of this we may challenge any criticism to establish.
The book of PROVERBS may well be referred to Solomon
as its principal author. The Hebrew is of the golden age,
T
128
SECT. V.
HISTORY OF CANON.
and speaks most decidedly against a late composition. The
titles which we find in Prov. i. 1; x. 1, ascribe the work to
Solomon. Possibly xxii. 17-xxiv. 34, may have originated
from another hand, and been incorporated by Solomon.
Chap. xxv. 1 gives an entirely new and singular title:
"These are the Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of
Hezekiah, king of Judah, transcribed," or copied out, pinyn.
I understand this of transcription from some MS. of Solo-
mon, which had not before (so to speak) been published.
The verb p'ny cannot possibly be understood of original
composition, for an would be the word to designate that. De
Wette understands Prov. xxv. 1, as asserting, that the men
of Hezekiah reduced to writing proverbs that were orally
circulated before, and ascribed to Solomon. But this too
Be this matter however as it may, it
makes nothing to our present purpose. That the composi-
tion is not late, is agreed on all hands. Prov. xxx. is
ascribed to Agur; Prov. xxxi. to king Lemuel, as taught by
his mother. The time of their composition we know not.
But De Wette himself (always inclined to make the origin
of books as late as possible) fully concedes that they could
not have been written after the Babylonish exile; Einl.
§ 281.
.כתבו would require
ECCLESIASTES was regarded by all the ancients as a pro-
duction of Solomon. But doubts respecting such an origin
have recently been brought forward, and seem to be of such
a nature as cannot easily be solved. The title (Ecc. i. 1)
seems to appropriate the work to Solomon. Yet the like
language might be employed by a later writer, whose plan
was to repeat the sayings and detail the experience of Solo-
mon. Peculiarly impressive does the book become, in re-
spect to the subject of the emptiness and vanity of all earthly
objects and pursuits, when presented as derived from the
experience and reflections of such a king, who was at the very
summit of human greatness. That this, however, belongs
rather to the plan of the book than to the category of reali-
ties, seems to be made probable by arguments drawn from
the matter and manner of the book. The complaints, in many
parts of the book, of crushing oppression (Ecc. iv. 1); of
the exactions of provincial rulers (v. 7); of the exaltation
of low men to high offices (x. 5-7); of the present as in-
SECT. V.
BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS.
129
ferior to the past (vii. 10); of the frequent changes of re-
gents and their unsuitable behaviour-all seem to betoken a
book written at a very different time from that of Solomon.
How singular it sounds, moreover, when we hear Solomon
say, "I was king over Israel at Jerusalem" (i. 12); sin-
gular, I mean, on the supposition that Solomon was the
actual author. Did any one need to be told this? How
singular for Solomon himself to say, that 'he was wiser and
richer than all the kings in Jerusalem before him,' ( i. 16;
ii. 7, 9,) when David his father was the only king who had
reigned there. The diction, moreover, of this book differs
so widely from that of Solomon in the book of Proverbs, that
it is difficult to believe that both came from the same pen.
Chaucer does not differ more from Pope, than Ecclesiastes
from Proverbs. It seems to me, when I read Coheleth, that
it presents one of those cases which leave no room for doubt,
so striking and prominent is the discrepancy. In our Eng-
lish translation this is in some good measure lost, by run-
ning both books in the same English mould. There is only
a single trait of resemblance, which any one would consider
as marked or noticeable; and this is, the sententious or
apothegmatic turn of the book. In this respect one is often
led to direct his thoughts toward the book of Proverbs,
which abounds in, and almost wholly consists of, sayings of
such a sententious nature. Yet how very different is the
diction and style of each book, in the original Hebrew! And
then the general circle of thought is still more discrepant.
The philosophic doubts and puzzles of Ecclesiastes, and the
manner of discussing them, have no parallel either in Pro-
verbs, or in any other part of the Hebrew Scriptures.
They remind one of many things discussed by Socrates, in
the Dialogues of Plato. I cannot help thinking that the
writer must have been a Hebrew who had resided abroad,
where he had formed some acquaintance with the philoso-
phic discussions of the Greeks. So unique is the tenor of
his book, and so widely different from the usual circle of
Hebrew thinking, that no very probable account can be
given of these matters, without such a supposition.
As to the age of Ecclesiastes, critics have widely dis-
agreed, ranging from Solomon down to the time of the
Maccabees. But the appeal usually made to the language
K
130
SECT. V.
HISTORY OF CANON.
or diction of the book, in proof of a very late age, will hardly
stand the test. Knobel, in his recent and much praised
commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes, asserts, and has
endeavoured to show, that the book is deeply tinctured with
Chaldaisms, and words of the later Hebrew.
He even
thinks that it savours strongly of the diction of the Rabbins
and Talmudists. But the scores of his Chaldaisms have
been reduced by a later writer, better acquainted with this
idiom, (Herzfeld, a German Jew, in his notable work, Cohe-
leth translated and explained, 1838,) to some eight or ten;
and his later Hebrew, words (some scores more,) to some
eleven to fifteen. The investigation of Herzfeld is so thorough,
that appeal from it seems to be nearly out of question. And
besides the fact, that the quantity of later Hebrew diction
and Chaldaism is so small, we must take into view the ad-
ditional consideration, that the Phenician language, unques-
tionably of the same character as the Hebrew in its basis,
resembles more what is called the younger Hebrew, than it
does the ancient. The young Hebrew, therefore, may in
fact be very old. So Gesenius, after all his investigations
of the Phenician; Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1837. No. 81.
There is nothing, either in the matter or diction of the
book, absolutely and exactly to settle its age. But the
course of thought seems to indicate an acquaintance with
philosophical disputes; and the complaints of oppression,
of frequent change of rulers, of the exactions of provincial
satraps, and of the toils and dangers of life-all seem to in-
dicate some period of its composition under the Persian go-
verninent. If the opinion of Josephus is to be relied upon,
(Contra Apion. I. § 8, which will be hereafter adduced and
examined,) Ecclesiastes must have been composed at some
period before the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i. e. an-
tecedent to 424 B. C. De Wette and Knobel think, that
the end of the Persian period, or the beginning of the Ma-
cedonian one, was the time. But there are many and
weighty objections against such a supposition, as we shall
see in due time.
Hand
I
The CANTICLES present a difficulty somewhat like to that
which we have just been considering. The title purports
that the book came from Solomon; at least if now is to be
regarded as indicative of authorship; which is usually the
SECT. V.
BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS.
131
fact. That it may be regarded in this light, so far as the
language is concerned, there is no doubt. But if the idiom
of the book, which differs not a little from that of the book
of Proverbs, is to be taken into consideration; if, moreover,
such passages as Cant. i. 4, 5, 12; iii. 6—11; vii. 5; viii.
11, 12, be attentively examined, the difficulty regarding So-
lomon as the proper author of the book will not be incon-
siderable. That Solomon is the subject of the book, there
can be no doubt. That some writer contemporary with him
may have composed it is quite possible, notwithstanding its
idiom. The freshness of all its scenery seems to betoken
much in favour of such a view. The diction is neither
Chaldaic nor Aramaan in such a degree as to render this
either impossible or improbable. Herder and Döpke stre-
nuously maintain the early date of the book. De Wette
thinks the composition of the poem may have been early,
and that it may have been only orally preserved for a long
time; which, moreover, he supposes may account for the
want of regular order and unity in the present arrangement
of the book. But I cannot deem this probable, considering
that the book obtained a place in the sacred Canon. It is
enough for my present purpose, however, that the book was,
beyond any reasonable critical doubt, included in the Canon
whenever the same was completed. Josephus, at any rate,
appears most plainly to include it; for without it we cannot
make out the number of sacred books which he specifies.
-
The theological scruples which have raised, or at any rate
sought for, objections against the Canticles, stand on the
basis of its contents. How, it is asked, can an amatory
poem be a part of Scripture? This question brings into
view the main objection which is felt against the book. On
this question I hope to say something in the sequel; but in
order to avoid repetition, I must omit remarks pertaining to
this part of the subject for the present. One thing seems
to be quite clear, viz. that whoever they were that inserted
this book in the Canon of Scripture, they must have re-
garded the work as of a religious cast. There is no other
example in all the Old Testament of any work of a different
tenor. If Ruth or Esther should be appealed to as excep-
tions to this remark, it would be easy to show, that both of
these books have an important bearing on points of conse-
K 2
132
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
quence in the politico-ecclesiastical history of the Jewish
nation.
SECT. VI. Continued History of the Canon; Books which
are Anonymous.
THUS far of books supposed to be inscribed with the names
of their author, with the exception of a few Psalms. We
come now to those which are anonymous.
Among these the book of JOB stands the most conspicu-
ous, whether we have respect to the splendid poetry which
it exhibits, or to the nature of the discussion with which it
is occupied. Who wrote it? When was it written? When
annexed to the Canon? These are questions about which
there has been and still is endless dispute. The main diffi-
culty is, first, the want of any proper historical evidence
respecting its authorship; then, secondly, the want of in-
ternal evidence of a definite and decisive character, as to the
age in which it was written. It abounds in references to
natural scenery, and to Idumæan and Egyptian localities
and objects; but this does not help to decide whether it
was written earlier or later. Its idiom, which abounds in
Aramaan diction, and often approaches the Arabic, seems to
betoken an author who lived out of Palestine, or at least in
a border country: But its Aramæan idioms are not suffi-
cient to settle the question in favour of a later age for the
book. Very much in this book closely resembles the diction
of most of the Psalms and of Proverbs. And besides this,
it is an acknowledged fact, that nearly all the poetry of the
Old Testament verges towards the dialect in question. The
Aramaan hue is to Hebrew poetry, something like what the
Doric one is to the choruses of Greek tragedy. Nothing
decisive, therefore, can be made out from this quarter, as to
the age of the book.
Jak
ܚܪ
It is beyond a question, that the author of this book was
acquainted with many of the Hebrew notions of things, with
their opinions, their formulas of speech, and the like. With
events in general before and after the flood, the book mani-
fests an acquaintance. But all this docs not decide any
SECT. VI.
133
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
thing for certainty, as to the time in which it was written.
Carpzov, Eichhorn, Jahn, Stuhlmann, Berthholdt, and the
great mass of English critics, give to the book a date anterior
to the time of Moses. A number of writers have referred
it to Solomon, or to some person of his time. More re-
cently, Gesenius, Bernstein, De Wette, (first two editions of
his Introduction,) Umbreit, and others have set the work
down to the Chaldee period, i. e. to some period after 610
B. C. De Wette now dates it earlier, (as well he may,) be-
cause of Ezekiel's express recognition of Job, in chap. xiv.
14, 16, 20.* Rosenmueller (Proleg. p. 20) places it before
the time of Hezekiah. Thus the whole matter is in a float-
ing state; but still, the only question really important to us
at present is, whether it was composed either before, or
during, the time of the Babylonish exile. If so, it then
was undoubtedly a part of the Jewish Canon at the close
of that exile.
It is singular to see with what warm zeal the question
about the age of this poem has been and still is discussed.
Not a few writers set about the work of discussion, as if
the matter were one stantis vel cadentis ecclesiæ. How can
it be so to us? Of what consequence is it whether the book
is older or younger, if it belong to the Canon, and did be-
long to it before it was formally closed? Not a few, more-
over, appeal to the speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar,
and Elihu, in support of doctrinal propositions; just as if
these angry disputants, who contradict each other, and most
of whom God himself has declared to be in the wrong, (Job
xlii. 7-9,) were inspired when they disputed! The man
who wrote the book, and gave an account of this dispute,
might be (I believe he was) inspired; he had a great moral
purpose in view; but how Job is to be appealed to for a
sample of doctrine, who curses the day of his birth, and says
many things under great excitement, I am not able to un-
derstand. Are we indeed to follow him in the sentiment of
chap. xiv. 7, 10, 12? "There is hope of a tree," says he,
'if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the
46
*Another reason assigned by Do Wette for placing it earlier than the
Chaldean period is, that Jeremiah had probably read the book. Comp.
Jeremiah xx. 14-18, with Job iii. 3-10; x. 18; xvii. 1, with Job xix.
24; xxxi. 29, &c., with Job xxi. 19. See Einleit. § 291. D.
134
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
tender branch thereof will not cease.... But man dieth, and
wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is
he?... Man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be
no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their
sleep." And are we to appeal to his angry friends, who are
in the wrong as to the main point in question, for confirma-
tion of a doctrinal sentiment of the gospel? The practical
amount of the matter is, that those who refer in such a way
to this book, merely select what they like, and leave the
rest. They complain, however, in other cases, of doings
like to this. They accuse the Unitarians and the Rational-
ists of very unfair and unscriptural practices, in so doing
with other parts of the Bible. After all, it seems to be
quite plain, that one might as well appeal to what is said by
all manner of persons who are brought to view in the Gos-
pels, as authoritative in matters of doctrine, because what
they said stands in an inspired book, as appeal to the
speeches of Job and his friends for a like purpose. When
will it be understood, that the disputants themselves were
not inspired? Did they, moreover, all speak in poetry, and
all in the same cast of poetry, exhibiting such a unity of
style? A rare faculty of improvisation those five men must
have had, if we assume such a ground as this.
But I am indulging in digression. I return to our imme-
diate object. To my own mind, the strongest objection
against the great age of the book of Job is, that it is no
where referred to in all the Hebrew Scriptures, except in
the case of Ezekiel; and it appears to have produced no
influence upon the manner and tenor of the Hebrew sacred
writings. I am not able to conceive how such a book should
have existed so long, and have produced no more effect; for
there is not even a single quotation of it or a reference to
it in the other Old Test. Scriptures. Not so with the Pen-
tateuch. I must therefore believe, on the whole, that the
book of Job was composed during the troublous times of the
Jews, in the later periods of their kingly government. Yet
the fact, that there is not in all the book a distinct and cer-
tain reference to any thing belonging and peculiar to the
Mosaic institutions, rites, sacrifices, and feasts, or to Hebrew
personages, or history, is almost astounding, and seems to
stand in our way when we assign to the book a later origin
SECT. VI.
135
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
Especially is this so, when we consider that it was a Hebrew
who wrote this book; which beyond all reasonable question
must have been the case. Yet it is quite possible, that the
writer's plan definitely precluded references of the nature in
question. It was a part of his deliberate plan to compose a
book independent of Jewish peculiarities, and based upon
the more general views of the patriarchal religion. It is
certainly easier to believe this than to suppose the book to
be very ancient, and yet not be able to find a trace of its
existence or influence, until the time of Ezekiel.
To allege,
as some have done, that the reference in Ezekiel (xiv. 14,
16, 20) is only to an allegorical personage, and therefore
proves nothing-is not alleging what seems to be very
probable. Were Noah and Daniel, who are joined with
Job, mere fictitious personages in Ezekiel's view? If not, it
hardly seems probable that this prophet has united real and
allegorical personages, and placed them both in the same
predicament. Besides this, the Job to whom Ezekiel refers,
seems plainly to be such a personage as the book of Job
presents to our view.*
If, as has been alleged by some critics, the book of Job
was composed by a foreigner, an Aramaan or an Arabian,
how came he by such a knowledge of Hebrew diction and
rhythm? It would be next to an impossibility. Above all,
how came the Jews to admit the book of a foreigner into
their sacred Canon?
Who composed the book, whether Job himself or some of
his friends, we have no means of determining. Exactly
when it was composed, we cannot decide for want of data.
I suppose, however, that no one well acquainted with the
book, will doubt its claims to a place in the Jewish Canon,
although, before Ezekiel's time, we can find no certain
traces of it.
It makes nothing against this, that the genuineness of the
*The time to which the composition of the book is here assigned is that
given by Do Wetto, who places it in the declining stato of the kingdom
of Judah. I have no doubt of its being posterior to the Pentatouch and
Joshua;
and the period assigned to it is perhaps as nearly correct as we are
able to make out at the present timo. Hirzel, ono of the ablest comment-
ators on Job, thinks that the author was a Hebrew who was carried away
by Pharaoh Necho into Egypt. This servos to explain the references and
allusions to Egypt which Stickel in vain denies. See Hirzel's Hiob. p. 12.
-D.
136
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
prologue and epilogue to the book, and also of the speech.
of Elihu, has of late been often called in question. The
criticism of the Destructives, as I am inclined to believe,
reached its highest point of culmination some time since.
Its sun is now descending. Whenever it sets, I hope and
trust it will set to rise no more. The same spirit which
makes up the Iliad and Odyssey of fragments from a multi-
tude of singing beggars brought accidentally together, has
made up the book of Job in the same way, and with reasons
equally good. The most recent criticism, however, seems
verging back again toward the opinion of all ages and na-
tions, which knew any thing of the book in question, viz.
the opinion that the whole of this book belongs to one
author, and is one, and but one work. The numerosity of
the book, i. e. the divisions throughout into groups of three,
strongly favours the genuineness of the whole book. More-
over, the poem, without the prologue and epilogue, if not
absolutely unintelligible, would at least lie in every reader's
mind in a dark, confused, and unsatisfactory state. De
Wette, as usual, not only doubts the genuineness of Elihu's
speech, (ch. xxxii.-xxxviii.,) but also of xxvii. 11-xxviii.
28. Doubting seems to be an essential element of this
critic's literary life; and he appears to derive more pleasure
from it, than he does from believing.
Janja
Upon the whole, I am disposed to think that few persons
who are familiar with the course of the human mind in an-
cient times, as to doubts and reasonings on difficult problems.
of morals or of the Divine government of the world, will
yield their assent to the probability of the very early origin
of the book of Job. The main question of the book,
whether the Divine Being constantly and adequately re-
wards virtue and piety, and punishes sin in the present
world, is one that seems to spring from an investigation and
a spirit of philosophizing, which is rarely to be met with.
among the most ancient Hebrews. Ecclesiastes is full of
a similar spirit; but as this book is manifestly among the
later ones, I am inclined to place the book of Job in the
same age, i. e. in the Chaldean period of the prophets, or not
long before. The diction decides nothing certain for any
particular age. The almost unequalled sublimity of the
composition, the rhythmical perfection of its parallelisms,
Jul
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
137
and in general the whole contour of the style, would seem
to mark it as a production of the golden age of Hebrew; as
also do its many resemblances of idiom to the idiom of the
Psalms and Proverbs. But if the German critics are in the
right as to Pseudo-Isaiah, we have an eminent example in a
late age of the like graceful and lofty diction and sentiment.
At all events, Habakkuk belongs to the Chaldean period;
and he has few equals even in the golden age of prophecy.
So it may be with the book of Job. Great talents, en-
lightened and guided by the Spirit of God, will overcome
every obstacle, and present us with portraits that breathe,
and move, and speak.
>
The book of LAMENTATIONS is without an inscription.
But from the most ancient times it has been attributed to
Jeremiah. The contents, tone, spirit, diction, and style of
the book, accord entirely with tradition. The Septuagint
version has prefixed an inscription that attributes it to Je-
remiah; which at least shows what tradition taught some
130 or more years before the Christian era. Josephus
(Antiq. X. 5. 1) also attributes the book to Jeremiah; but
he avers, that it was written on the occasion of Josiah's
being slain by Pharaoh Necho. This seems to accord with,
and most probably was deduced from, the declaration in 2
Chron. xxxv. 25, viz. that “Jeremiah lamented for Josiah,
and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah
in their lamentations to this day." Similar compositions, on
like occasions, we find in 2 Sam. i. 17-27; iii. 33, 34.
Critics, therefore, have been divided in opinion respecting
the question, whether the book of Lamentations was written
before or after the capture of Jerusalem. I cannot bring
my own mind, however, to a doubt respecting this question.
That Jeremiah composed an elegiac song on the occasion of
Josiah's death, as the book of Chronicles states, I have no
doubt. It was altogether a subject suited to the taste and
genius of this writer. But that our present book of La-
mentations exhibits this elegiac ode, I must greatly doubt.
What is there in it about Josiah? It is the holy city, its
solemnities, its feasts, its people gone into captivity, the hor-
rors of the siege, the famine and pestilence that ensued, and
the like, on which the book dwells, and which constitute the
138
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
whole burden of the elegies. What concern has all this
with the death of Josiah ?
But be this matter as it may, there can be no question
that the Lamentations is a book which existed before the
return from the captivity; and it takes a place in the
Canon of the Old Test. Scriptures, because it contains mat-
ter so deeply interesting both to the ancient church and
people of God, Neological criticism has little to say about
the book, seemingly because it contains no accounts of mi-
raculous events, which are sure to provoke an attack.
We have yet a considerable class of HISTORICAL BOOKS,
which bear no name of their authors, but receive a name
from the leading subject of them, viz. Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles,
Esther, perhaps Nehemiah and Ezra. Of several of these I
have already spoken.
The book of JOSHUA is naturally divided into two parts.
The first part, chap. i.—xii., contains the history of the con-
quest of Canaan; the second, chap. xiii.-xxiv., contains the
history of the division of the land, and of subsequent ar-
rangements to provide for obedience to the laws. Accord-
ing to the account of the neological critics, it is full of myths,
[i. e. stories of miracles,] of contradictions, and of a Leviti-
cal spirit. It is also pronounced to be a mere book of frag-
ments, made up of Elohistic and Jehovistic [?] documents,
and other scraps and traditions which had floated down to
the writer on the surface of time. Van Herwerden divides
it into ten separate documents; but Koenig, in a recent
work, maintains the unity of the book. This same writer
also maintains, that it was written at or near the time, when
the events which it records took place. Others place its
origin at the time of Saul, others of David, of Josiah, and
even of the exile. If we can place any dependence on in-
ternal evidence, (and why not?) then would Josh. xv. 63,
which speaks of "the Jebusites, i. e. the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, as not driven out, but dwelling with the children
of Judah unto this day," compared with 2 Sam. v. 6—9,
which shows that David thoroughly subdued them, seem to
render it very probable that the book was composed before
the reign of David, or at least before his conquest of Jeru-
G
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
139
salem. Nothing can be more natural than to suppose that
a record would be made of the conquest and the division
of Palestine, soon after those events. How could the divi-
sion and apportionment of it be rendered authoritative and
permanent, unless by some record of the same? That it
was written after the death of Joshua and of his contempo-
rary elders, seems to be certain from Josh. xxiv. 31, where
Israel is spoken of as serving the Lord until after the death
of these persons. So the death of Eleazar, the son of Aaron,
is recorded, (Josh. xxiv. 33,) but not of his successor Phi-
nehas. But if the book be so fragmentary as is alleged,
then such declarations would only go to show the age of the
fragment in which they are contained.
Mr. Parker (in his additions to De Wette, II. p. 188, seq.)
has exhibited a graphic specimen of the usual neological
reasoning. "The book of Joshua," he suggests, "makes
frequent appeals to the Law of Moses; but this Law could
not have been written until after the time of Josiah; ergo,
the book of Joshua could not have been written until after
the same time.” The main proposition is plainly a mere
petitio principii. But no matter: Delenda est Carthago.
The Samaritans, along with the Pentateuch, have also a
book of Joshua, containing much of what is in the Hebrew
book of the same name, with additional fabulous matter of
their own. Was there not, then, a book of Joshua, when
the ten tribes separated from the two, in the reign of Reho-
boam? Appearances seem to favour this supposition. Those
tribes retained the Scriptures then extant, but never added
any more. I would not deny the probability, that docu-
ments of several kinds are contained in the book of Joshua ;
but that they passed through the hands and under the re-
visal of some one compiler, whose office or name gave au-
thority to the book, I cannot well doubt. Many of the
alleged contradictions and discrepancies are easily removed,
on such a ground; but it comports not with my present ob-
ject to enter into the discussion of these matters.
Conta
The book of JUDGES is also anonymous. The main his-
torical elements of the book end with the biography of Sam-
son, Judg. xvi. 31. Chap. xvii.—xxi. contain an appendix,
showing how anarchy and licentiousness were introduced,
after the death of Joshua, among the men of the following
140
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
generation. There is nothing in the diction or style of the
book, which would serve at all to prove a late origin. But
such passages as those in Judg. xvii. 6; xviii. 1; xix. 1;
xxi. 25, which attribute certain evils to the times, because
there was no king in the land, seem strongly to savour of
being written after there was some example of an efficient
and orderly monarchical government.
The book is strongly marked with several peculiarities.
Except reference in the song of Deborah (v. 4, 5) to the
appearance of Jehovah on Mount Sinai, there is nothing in
the book of Judges that refers to the Law of Moses, to the
priesthood, to the Levitical rites, nor to any prophets, ex-
cepting in one case, (vii. 8,) and the instance of Deborah, iv.
The truth plainly is, that the writer did not design to give
any thing like a regular and connected series of history,
during the 300 years which are covered by the book of
Judges. (De Wette makes them above 400.) The pecu-
liar sins of the people, their exemplary sufferings in con-
sequence of them, and the signal deliverances which they
experienced under this heroic leader and that, occupy the
whole book, with the exception of the appendix before
mentioned; and this stands in connexion with the general
subject. As to the chronology of the book itself, I question
if any regular and certain series can be satisfactorily made
out from it.
pont
The most natural origin of such a book would be, during
the prevalence of idolatry in Judah or in Israel. A true
prophet would seize such an occasion in order to hold up to
view past experiences, as a warning to the idolatrous people
of the danger which they were encountering. That he pos-
sessed notices, probably written ones, of the past, seems
highly probable. Even oral tradition would preserve a
knowledge of many things related in the book of Judges,
which were of an extraordinary and wonderful nature. The
tone of piety and zeal for the honour of God as manifest in
the book, is elevated and pure. Ritual services are plainly
quite secondary in the writer's view. But idolatry, and
oppression, and other vices he censures with unsparing se-
verity. A spirit kindred to that of David and Samuel
must have animated his bosom.
JA
The so-called myths (µõdo) of the book are numerous.
SECT. VI.
141
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
In other words, (not to speak with the neological critics,)
the extraordinary and even miraculous occurrences related
in it are not a few. The stories of Gideon and Samson, in
particular, elicit a tempest of objections from recent criti-
cism. Among all, however, who accuse the book of anile
attachment to fables and myths, I find none who goes so far
as Dr. Palfrey, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the
Theol. Seminary at Cambridge, in the tone and manner of
criticism. In his Academical Lectures, (II. p. 194, seq.,)
speaking of Samson, he says, "The character of Samson is
but a wild compound of the buffoon, the profligate, and the
bravo. With a sort of childish cunning, and such physical
faculties as a fantastic invention has ascribed to the ogre,
he is without a common measure of capacity to provide for
his own protection," &c. Dr. Palfrey, if I am rightly in-
formed, has a great and unconquerable aversion to such free-
thinkers as Mr. Parker, the translator of De Wette on the
Old Testament. Yet I recollect nothing in what I have
read of Mr. Parker, nothing in Strauss, nothing in any of
the neological critics of Germany which I have consulted,
(and they are not a few,) which compares with this scornful
caricature. Bruno Bauer, (whom I have not read,) if the
reviewers fairly represent him, may, under the maddening
influence of the potions which he is reported to love too
well, have said some things more indecorous than this.* I
would hope, however, that such is not the case. How Dr.
Palfrey can be so displeased with Mr. Parker and his asso-
ciates for thorough rejection of the Divine authority of the
Scriptures, after writing such a passage as this, is more
than I am able to explain. The writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, who classes Samson with such worthies as Barak,
and Jephtha, and David, and Samuel, (Heb. xi. 32,) must
have viewed the character of Samson, taken as a whole, in
a very different light from that in which the Cambridge
Professor has placed him. Samson was not without great
faults; can it be proved that he had not some conspicuous
*This sentence should not have been penned. No cause can be served
by vague references to the private habits of an individual, especially if
such references bo founded on reports. We should deal with what a man
writes, and nothing else, in a work like the present. D.
142
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
virtues? His zeal against heathenism and idolatry, at least,
will not be called in question.
The book of Judges, however, depends not, for its credit,
on the judgment of Dr. Palfrey respecting the character of
Samson. It was, beyond all doubt, among those books which
Christ and the apostles spoke of as being holy Scriptures.
The First and Second Books of SAMUEL are but one work,
severed into two parts. The ancient Hebrews always reck-
oned them but as one book; and so of Kings and Chronicles.
They contain the history of Samuel's administration, who
was the last of the Judges, 1 Sam. i.-xxv.; the partly con-
temporaneous history of Saul, an account of whose death
terminates the so-called First Book of Samuel; while the
Second exhibits the history of David's government.
K
It is generally conceded, that there is nothing in the idiom
of these books which indicates with any certainty a late
origin. In 1 Chron. xxix. 29, it is said, that "the acts of
David, first and last, are written in the book of Samuel the
seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the
book of Gad the seer." From this passage, many in an-
cient and in modern times have drawn the conclusion, that
the so-called books of Samuel were the work of these three
different individuals, 1 Sam. i.—xxiv. being from the hand
of Samuel, and the rest, (containing history after his death,)
by the other prophets just named. The fact that David's
death is not mentioned at the close of 2 Samuel, would seem
to import that these books were written before that event.
But I can hardly bring myself to believe, that the author-
ship of these books belongs to three different persons.
Much more probable does it seem to me, that the author
made use of the three works in question, in compiling his
book; while the conception of the plan of the books, and
the selection and association of the parts, are the work of
one and the same mind.
M
De Wette ventures to bestow some faint praise upon these
books, on the ground that they have so little of the mythical
in them, and little or nothing of the ritual and Levitical
spirit; Einl. § 178, seq. The story of the witch of Endor,
however, he thinks is an instance of "ideal pragmatism,
i. e. a representation in which the author labours to account
**
SECT. VI.
143
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
for certain phenomena, the real history of which remains
doubtful. The apparent predictions in the book, he says,
were written post eventum. Withal, too, he says there is
much disturbance and confusion in these books; but still,
that there is much of genuine history in them, and that the
narrations are lively and true to nature, § 178. The
chronology, moreover, he pronounces to be imperfect and
legendary; and he avers, also, that there are some contra-
dictions. But Mr. Parker, his translator and commentator,
goes still further in his critical remarks.
'Some passages
savour of anthropomorphitic and mean conceptions of God;
unworthy actions are attributed to him; there is a sacer-
dotal spirit in the books; and a few miraculous legends are
mingled in the story;' Add. to § 178.
That different sources from which the writer drew, have
occasioned some appearances of discrepancy, the attentive
critical reader will not perhaps deny. Let him compare
1 Sam. xvi. 14—23; xvii. 31—40, with xvii. 55—xviii. 5,
and he will perceive what I mean. The passage in xviii. 54
wears every appearance of a late and very unskilful in-
terpolation. How could David carry the head of Goliath to
Jerusalem, which came not into possession of the Hebrews
for many years after this period? See 2 Sam. v. 6, seq. A fair
investigation and candid judgment of the books in question,
as it seems to me, will however remove most of the alleged
objections against them. I except, of course, those objections.
which lie against all accounts of miraculous events. But it
is not a man's critical judgment or skill, which leads him to
make objections of this nature; it is his a priori reasonings
and his theology which move him to object on such a ground.
At all events, no doubt can remain that these books were
written long before the Babylonish exile. And this is
enough for our present purpose.
The 1 and 2 KINGS (one book in two parts) contain the
history of the Jewish kings from the reign of Solomon down
to the exile; and with this is incorporated the history of the
ten tribes, from the time of their separation down to that of
their deportation by the king of Assyria.
G
De Wette allows to these books a prophetic origin. He
says that "the chief object aimed at, is to set forth the effi-
cacy of the prophets." It is admitted, that there is a uni-
144
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
formity of style and a general unity of design. But the neo-
logical critics, of course, are full of objections against the
myths of these compositions. Some think the accounts are
from mere oral and traditional sources; others, that written
documents were employed by the redactor as the basis of his
work. This latter opinion is rendered more probable by the
fact, that the book of Kings refers by name to several other
books, as containing a more ample account of particular
things, than that which the author of the books in question
has given; e. g. the Book of the Acts of Solomon, 1 Kings
xi. 41; the Book of the Kings of Israel, 1 Kings xiv. 19;
xvi. 5, 20, 27; xxii. 39; and the Book of the Chronicles of
the Kings of Judah, 1 Kings xv. 7. From the manner in
which the writer refers to these, it would seem plain that he
considered them of the same credibility and authenticity as
his own book.
As to the time in which the books before us were written
-the close, at any rate, must have been written late down
in the exile; for 2 Kings xxv. 27-30 brings the history
down to the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin.
In addition to this, the remark in 2 Kings xxiii. 25 respect-
ing Josiah, viz. that "there was no king before him like to
him . . . neither after him arose any like him,” shows, that
when the books were written several kings after Josiah had
arisen. On the whole, there can be no good reason to doubt,
that the compilation, as it now is, must have been made near
the close of the exile. The arguments mainly employed by
De Wette, however, to prove this, amount to nothing in the
view of any one who believes in the reality of prophetic
foresight. He says, that the return from exile is mentioned
in 1 Kings viii. 47; the destruction of the temple, in ix. 7,
8; the dispersion of the people, in xiv. 15; and the Baby-
lonish exile, in 2 Kings xx. 17. All these passages, how-
ever, I must regard as merely prophetic anticipations of the
events in question. But as he rejects every thing of this
nature, so he interprets the passages just adverted to as being
written post eventum.
Who the author was, is not known.
not known. The Talmud attri-
butes the authorship to Jeremiah. But Jeremiah cannot
well be supposed to have lived and been active in the pro-
phetic office in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's exile,
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
145
although Hävernick adopts this view; for he must then be
at least some 110 years old. Movers supposes, that Jere-
miah wrote an older book of Kings, from which most of the
present one was taken; De utriusque Vet. Jer. Indole, &c.
There can be little doubt that, whoever was the author, his
work was completed before the return from the Babylonish
exile.
The books of CHRONICLES, as we might naturally expect,
have been more vigorously assailed than any other historical
book of the Old Testament. De Wette made his debut upon
the stage of historic criticism by an attack upon them, in his
Kritik der Israel. Geschichte. He has bestowed particular
labour upon them in his Introduction, occupying some ten
pages; which his translator and commentator, Mr. Parker,
has, with a special purpose, spread out into sixty-four pages.
The contents of the Chronicles are genealogies and Jewish
history, from David downward to the exile.
The history
of David (1 Chron. x.-xxix.) is of course a repetition, in
the main, of that in the books of Samuel, but diversified
particularly by minute accounts of Levitical arrangements.
The history of Solomon occupies 2 Chron. i.-ix., which
stands related in the like manner to that in 1 Kings. The
remainder is the theocratic history of the kings of Judah,
rarely glancing at that of the ten tribes. It is evidently the
writer's design to make an appropriate history of only the
legitimate kings of Judah, and of them in particular as they
stood related to matters of religion and the priesthood. He
brings it down to the period of liberation from exile by the
proclamation of Cyrus; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, seq. In
1 Chron. iii. 19-24, is a passage of genealogy, which
brings us down to the grandchildren of Zerubbabel, who
was the leader of the returning exiles. If this passage be
genuine, it will bring the book down to a period near that
in which Nehemiah and Malachi lived. The orthography
(scriptio plena) and the idiom of these books also con-
tribute to render probable their very late origin. De Wette
(§ 189) reckons the union of the Chronicles with the Hagio-
graphy an evidence of late origin. But are the Psalms
shown to be all of late origin, by the circumstance that they
are classed with the Hagiography?
The gravest objections which are brought against these
L
146
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
books, are 'founded in their departures from Samuel and
Kings, in matters of a historical nature. E. g. when Joab
numbered the people, i. e. the military force of Israel, at the
command of David, it is said in 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, that there
were 800,000 soldiers in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah ;
while 1 Chron. xxi. 5 says that the number in Israel was
1,100,000, and in Judah 470,000. In 1 Kings xxiv. 24,
David is said to have bought of Araunah a threshing-floor
and a pair of oxen for sacrifice, at the price of fifty shekels
of silver; in 1 Chron. xxi. 25, David is said to have given
600 shekels of gold for the same. In 2 Kings viii. 26,
Ahaziah the son of Jehoram begins to reign at the age of
twenty-two; according to 2 Chron. xxii. 2, he begins at the
age of forty-two, this book thus making him two years older
than his father, who died at the age of forty, 2 Chron. xxi.
20. In 1 Kings v. 16, the overseers of temple-work are
said to be 3300; in 2 Chron. ii. 2, they are estimated at
3600. In 1 Kings xv. 32, it is said that "there was war
between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days;" in
2 Chron. xiv. 1, it is said that under the same king Asa
"the land had rest ten years;" and after the invasion by
Zerah the Ethiopian, that "there was no more war unto the
thirty-fifth year of his [Asa's] reign." In 2 Chron. xiv. 2,
3, it is said of Asa, that "he did that which was good and
right in the eyes of the Lord; for he took away the altars of
the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the
images, and cut down the groves" (comp. 6. 5); in 2 Chron.
xv. 17, it is said, that "the high places were not taken away
out of Israel." Possibly the latter may mean 'out of the
land of the ten tribes;' but I cannot think this is pro-
bable, for Asa had no control over that land. In 1 Kings
vii. 15, the two pillars of brass for the temple are said to be
eighteen cubits in height; in 2 Chron. iii. 15, they are repre-
sented as thirty-five cubits high; and the like in some
other cases.*
4
Besides these and similar discrepancies, the statement of
numbers occasionally wears the air of something very extra-
ordinary. E. g. in 2 Chron. xxviii. 5, seq., which gives an ac-
D
*Sec Davidson's Sacrod Hermeneutics, p. 544, et seq., and the article
on Chronicles in Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, where some of
these contradictions, and others not mentioned, are reconciled. D.
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
147
count of the invasion of Judah by Pekah king of Israel, and
Rezin king of Syria, it is stated that " Pekah slew 120,000
men of Judah in one day, all valiant men." In this connexion
we may also note, that Ahaz was twenty years old when he
began to reign (2 Chron. xxviii. 1); that in the next year of
his reign the invasion of Pekah took place, in which (as is said
in 2 Chron. xxviii. 7) a "mighty man of Ephraim [one of
Pekah's captains] slew Maaseiah the king's son." How could
Ahaz, then twenty-one years of age, have a son old enough
to bear arms? The implication seems to be such; and yet the
meaning may simply be, that Pekah's captain destroyed one
of the royal progeny (not in arms); and this is quite pos-
sible, as marriages often take place in the East when the hus-
band is only some fifteen or sixteen years old. In 2 Chron.
xiii. 17, it is stated, that Abijah, king of Judah, smote of
the children of Israel who were led on by Jeroboam,
“500,000 chosen men," in one rencontre. Could the ten tribes
have possibly furnished such an army as this, from their
population and limits at that time? The army of Asa with
which he went out to battle against Zerah the Ethiopian, is
said (2 Chron. xiv. 8) to be "300,000 men out of Judah,
and 280,000 out of Benjamin, mighty men of valour," i. e.
five hundred and eighty thousand soldiers from only the
tribes of Judah and Benjamin. This would require the
population of these tribes, at that time, to consist of two and
a half or three millions at least. Could one half of this
number have been supported in the small tract of land-
small at any rate as to fertile land-within the borders of
Judah and Benjamin? 1 Chron. xxii. 14 represents David
as having collected for the use of the temple, 100,000 talents
of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver; which, according
to the generally accredited reckoning of Richard, the bishop
of Peterborough, are equivalent, the gold to 500,000,000
pounds sterling, and the silver to 353 millions; the whole
sum amounts to 853 millions of pounds sterling, i. e. about
4,265,000,000 dollars. The precious metals must have
been more plentiful at that time, than they ever have been
since, to render it possible for the king of a country some
150 (possibly at that time some 200) miles in length and
from 70 to 90 in breadth, to have amassed such an unex-
ampled sum as this. The conquests of David, although
Sale
L 2
148
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
App
somewhat extensive, were still limited to countries not rich
in the precious metals.
Such are some of the difficulties that meet us in the books
of Chronicles. But even these are not all. There seems,
at least at first view, to be a design, on the part of the com-
piler of these books, to cast into the shade, or to keep out of
view, some things which would detract from the character of
the persons who are concerned with them. In the account
of David's domestic relations, (1 Chron. xiv. 3,) no mention
is made of his concubines; which last are mentioned in 2
Sam. v. 13. In 2 Sam. viii. 2, David is represented, after
conquering Moab, as "measuring with two lines to put to
death, and with one full line to keep alive,” i. e. as putting
to a violent death two thirds of its inhabitants; in 1 Chron.
xviii. 3, this circumstance is altogether omitted. The Chro-
nicles make no mention of David's adultery and murder, in
the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, so particularly related
in 2 Sam. xi. 2-xii. 26. Little or nothing is said in the
Chronicles respecting David's troubles on account of Am-
mon, Absalom, and the rebellious Ahithophel and others.
Nothing is said in the Chronicles of Solomon's 700 wives
and 300 concubines, nor of their causing him to aposta-
tize; nothing of his building temples for them around Jeru-
salem to Chemosh and Moloch; nothing of all the disturb-
ances that ensued, caused by Hadad, Jeroboam, and others;
all of which are so fully related in 1 Kings xi. In respect
to the impious and tyrannical Manasseh, the book of Kings
(2 Kings xxi. 16; xxiv. 4) twice mentions his "shedding
very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from
one end to the other;" all of which the book of Chronicles
omits (2 Chron. xxiii.); and moreover, it gives an account of
Manasseh's penitence, and of his efforts to restore the wor-
ship of the true God, (2 Chron. xxiv. 11—17,) all of which
is omitted in the book of Kings. Like to these traits are
many other things in the Chronicles; and circumstances
such as these serve to show the peculiar texture of these
books.
-
And
B
It
The genealogics in 1 Chron. i.-ix. present a variety of
difficulties, being quite incomplete in many cases, and ap-
parently at variance with some other portions of the Scrip-
tures in others. Indeed it is very difficult to discover the
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
149
specific object of these genealogies, unless indeed it was to
show the descent of some leading families who had return-
ed from the exile.
We need not wonder, under these circumstances, that
those who speak so freely about other historical books of the
Old Testament, here find occasion to utter much of disap-
probation, and sometimes even to say what is lacking in
decorum. E. g. Mr. Parker, in his edition of De Wette, in-
timates (II. p. 294) that the historian who could omit so many
notable offences of kings, as the author of the Chronicles has
done, "must write with some other design than that of tell-
ing the whole truth." He even makes himself merry with
some of the alleged mistakes of the Chronicler (as he calls
the author). "An amusing mistake occurs," says he, (II.
p. 268,) "in 1 Chron. xi. 23, as compared with 2 Šam. xxiii.
21." The cream of the jest is, that in the book of Samuel
it is said of Benaiah, that "he slew an Egyptian, a man of
remarkable appearance," ( 8,) while the passage in
Chronicles says, that "he slew an Egyptian, a man of great
stature, five cubits high." Now what part of this it is which
Mr. Parker pronounces amusing, I do not readily perceive.
I can easily see that five cubits=7 feet, is an uncommon
height for a man; yet this is not without a parallel, or
rather it is even surpassed, e. g. by the Kentucky giant, in
our own day. That a man of this height might be called a
man of aspect, (18¬p w's, for w's is plainly implied here,) as
the writer of the Kings has called him, in a military respect,
(which is what the passage clearly has in view,) there is no
good reason to deny. The Latin aspectabilis would give
the exact meaning; while Mr. Parker has translated it re-
spectable man! That the writer of the Chronicles might
choose to state with particularity the height of the Egyp-
tian, rather than to say (as in the book of Kings) that he was
a man of aspect, conveys to my mind no impression which
is specially amusing. I cannot even suppose a mistake on
the part of the Chronicler, as to the import of 78 in Kings.
I can only see that one writer meant to characterize the
Egyptian as a man of remarkable appearance, while the
other gives us the specific quality which made him remark-
able. After all, there is something to amuse us in respect to
this matter; and that is, that Mr. Parker has translated the
ה
150
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
+
passage which means aspectabilis as if it meant venerandus.
And this is the criticism, then, which looks at the book of
Chronicles with scorn!
To be brief: De Wette and most of the Neologists in
criticism who sympathize with him, consider and treat the
books of the Chronicles as a mere farrago of scraps, made
up partly from written records, partly from tradition, partly
by a superstitious reverence for the priesthood and the
ritual law, and partly by the vain-glorious boastings of a
Jew in respect to the royal race of David and the tribes
which adhered to the Davidic dynasty. Hence they give
little credit indeed to the testimony of these books.
The devout and reverential reader of the Old Testament
has, it must be confessed, some difficulties of a serious na-
ture to encounter, in regard to such things in the Chronicles
as have been pointed out. The tyro in matters of sacred
criticism must certainly feel that he has a somewhat for-
midable task before him; especially if he adopts the theory of
plenary verbal inspiration. I will state in a few words what
my own impressions are; for I have already dwelt so long
on these books, that I must not say much more.
I cannot well doubt, that the Chronicles are the last of all
the historical books, possibly with the exception of Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther. That they were written by some
Jew, for the use of the renewed Israelitish commonwealth,
and that the author was a priest or Levite, seem to me, all
things considered, to be nearly certain.* Let any one
peruse the prophecy of Malachi, written about the same
period as the Chronicles, and he will find it filled with
grievous complaints of the neglect and contempt of the
Mosaic ritual, exhibited by the Jews. The prophet com-
plains that they offer the lame, the blind, and the sick, in
sacrifice; that they have snuffed at the offerings to the
Lord; that they have robbed God in tithes and offer-
ings, besides being guilty of many other sins. It was not
unnatural that some pious priest, or Levite, or prophet,
should essay to remedy these evils, by giving a particular
history of past well-known and renowned kings, as to the
*The opinion of the Jews is that they were written by Ezra, and for
this many considerations might bo adduced. See the article in Kitto's Cy-
clopædia already referred to. D.
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS,
151
efforts which they made to carry the Mosaic institutions into
practice. Hence the enlarged account of all David's ar-
rangements in respect to the ark of God, the sacrifices, the
priests and Levites, the singers and porters of the temple,
and the like; 1 Chron. xv.--xxvii. The same is true in
regard to Solomon, 2 Chron. i.-ix.; in regard to Abijah,
2 Chron. xiii.; Asa, ch. xv.; Jehoshaphat, ch. xvii., seq. ;
Joash, ch. xxiv.; Uzziah, ch. xxvi.; Hezekiah, ch. xxix.,
seq.; and Josiah, ch. xxxiv. A prominence is consequently
given to things of this nature, which is wanting in the books
of Kings, for this was written earlier and in different cir-
cumstances. The sacred writers of the Old Testament and
the New adapt their works to the wants of the times in
which they live. Why should they not?
It lies then upon the face of the books of Chronicles, that
they were composed with special reference to the state of
the time, as to the Mosaic worship and rites. This will
account for a great portion of the differences in the narra-
tions between this and the books of Kings. It is equally
plain, that the history of the ten tribes, the anti-Davidic
government, is purposely omitted. The writer found so
little to his purpose in the examples of the kings of Israel,
with respect to the Mosaic religion, that he chose wholly to
omit them. Moreover, as it respects the kings of Judah, it
is plain that the writer did not purpose to give a full his-
tory. His work is rather what the Sept. Version names it,
viz. Пapaλεióμɛva, i. e. Supplement, or things that remain,
that is, remain to be recorded. The frame-work of his his-
tory is of course the same as that of Judah in the books of
Kings; but for a particular purpose he has given to it a
different finishing or costume. It is no more true of Kings
and Chronicles, that what one of them omits is to be con-
sidered as fabulous or unworthy of credit, than it is of the
Gospels. Silence proves nothing, unless in peculiar cases.
There is even nothing particularly improbable in all the ac-
counts which the Chronicles give us, of the arrangements in re-
spect to religious matters made by many of the kings of Judah.
With these considerations in view, we can easily account
for the often varying narrations in the Kings and Chronicles.
It ought no more to offend us, than it offends a believer of
the Gospels, when he finds such a wonderful variety as
152
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
there is in the style of John and of Luke. Beyond this,
however, we have seen that there are apparent contradic-
tions between the Kings and Chronicles, and some ap-
parent inaccuracies in the latter. We cannot refuse to
acknowledge this; for we see with our own eyes. It is
simply a question of fact, not of theological opinion or the-
ory. Facts which are presented to us in a record, cannot
be altered by any doctrinal theory which we may devise or
maintain.
Sand
That the present book of Chronicles is in a somewhat im-
perfect state, I must regard as true. Otherwise, how could
Amaziah, the youngest son of Jehoram, be made two years
older than his father? 2 Chron. xxi. 5; xxii. 2. I am in-
clined to believe that some of the excessive numbers of men,
and of the astonishing amount of treasures, have suffered in
transcription, or from marginal addenda. Almost all the
discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles, and almost all
of the seeming excesses in statements, have respect to pro-
per names or numbers. These are plainly the most liable
of all things to error on the part of copyists. If it could be
shown that the old Hebrew MSS. designated numbers by
alphabetical letters, as the later Hebrew does, it would be
very easy to make out the probability of error in transcrip-
tion, and to account for it. But inasmuch as this, though
often assumed, has never been rendered very probable, we
must content ourselves with the not improbable supposition,
that at least some of the apparent errors in question have
arisen from transcription or unskilful redaction.
We can-
not prove this, indeed, by appeal to direct testimony; and
the contrary of this, moreover, is not capable of satisfactory
proof. But in such a case as that of the age of Amaziah
just mentioned, it would be preposterous to suppose that the
error came from the pen of the author, for it would prove
him to be destitute of common sense; a position which the
rest of the book would not permit us to maintain. The like
to this might be said of several other apparent errors of
these books.
I regard it as more probable, that the statements in Kings
are in general the more accurate of the two, when there is a
discrepancy between that work and the book of Chronicles.
One good reason is, that the book of Kings rarely developes
1
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
153
an excess in point of numbers. Internal probability is there-
fore in its favour.
How far the books of Chronicles, in our Saviour's time,
were identical with our present books of the same name, it
would be difficult to show. That these books have in some
way been tampered with, or in some degree negligently
transcribed, since that period, appears to be not improbable,
when we look at the history of the Canon. In Josephus'
time, the Chronicles were arranged or classed with the
other historical books, (as we shall hereafter see,) instead of
being where they are now, i. e. at the close of the Kethubim,
and therefore at the end of the Old Testament. What else
was done in re-editing them, besides changing their place
of arrangement, we know not. But as they now are, there
are certainly, as we have seen above, several passages which
disagree with other parts of the Old Testament, and some
which disagree with other parts of the Chronicles themselves.
It does not strike me, that the omissions in detailing the
sins and weaknesses of David, Solomon, and others, are to
be much accounted of in the way of objection to these books.
If the design of the writer, or a promise on his part, had been
to give the lives of the Jewish kings complete, I see not how
we could then exempt him from the charge of having per-
formed his task in an unsatisfactory way, at least of having
left it very incomplete. But this is evidently not his plan.
The theocratic policy and efforts of the Jewish kings are his
main object. And so far as this is concerned, I am not
aware that his narrative is open to any serious and well-
grounded objections. The few particulars of incongruity
that we have found, amount at the most to nothing which
is very important.
p
As to the rest, I have examined the almost innumerable
difficulties and incongruities, suggested by De Wette, and
presented in English and augmented by Mr. Parker. Very
many of them, I am fully persuaded, will not stand the test
of a candid critical scrutiny. Others are more apparent at
first view, than real. De Wette has made capital for himself
out of every thing, even out of a change or variation in the
diction, phraseology, &c. So we cannot, or should not, do
with the Gospels; so we must not do with the book of Chroni-
cles, if we mean to preserve the reputation of being truly
154
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
candid and liberal-minded. I will only add, that after all
which Keil has said in his Versuch über die Bücher der
Chronik, 1833; Dahler, de Lib. Paralip. Auctoritate, 1819;
and Movers, Ueber die Chronik, 1834; in defence of the
books in question, there is still need of some other labourer
in this field, who will do the work more thoroughly. Häver-
nick is reported to have performed this task; but it has not
yet been in my power to examine what he has written.*
The book of RUTH has plainly for its object, to trace the
genealogy of David to a source which is honourable. The
probability seems to be, that it was written during the reign
of David, or soon after. The variations of the language
from the usual Hebrew of that period, are not remarkable
enough to afford any ground of argument for the late age of
the book. The history which it gives, belongs to the period
of the Judges; as is expressly stated in Ruth i. 1. More-
over, "the days when the Judges ruled," is spoken of as a
period already passed by. Earlier than the time of David,
therefore, it could not have been written; and as the special
reason for writing it seems to be, to do honour to David in
respect to his descent, he must have been a king before it was
written; for this was the particular inducement to do him.
honour. The character of Boaz and of Ruth is truly noble
and ingenuous. It is easy to see, moreover, that the poverty
of Ruth was not regarded as a matter of any reproach.
Riches, in those days, at least in the author's view, consti-
tuted no part of true nobility. The whole picture is a de-
lightful one. The simplicity, integrity, and kind feelings
of the principal persons exhibited by this book, are altogether
remarkable in any age or country. David had at least some
ancestors who were nature's noblemen, if not decked with
stars and garters. That Ruth was a foreigner by birth, is
no objection to the place assigned her. There can scarcely
be a doubt that she became a proselyte to Judaism.
The genealogy, at the close of the book, ends with David.
The writer of the Chronicles has made use of it in his gene-
alogy, 1 Chron. ii. 11, 12. This shows that the book was
A
*This is a strango confession, as tho part of Hävernick's Introduction
discussing the Books of Chronicles was published in 1839, five years be-
foro Mr. Stuart wrote. Hävernick, however, has not dono much more
than Movers and Keil, on whom he has chiefly relicd. See Einleit. Zwey-
ter Thoil. Erste Abtheilung. p. 174, et scq. D.
SECT. VI.
155
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
extant in his time, and that is sufficient for our present
purpose.
On account of the period to which the book of Ruth re-
lates, it is placed in modern times, and probably in more an-
cient ones, next to the book of Judges; for we shall see in
due time, that in the ancient division of the Scriptures, in
and before Josephus' age, this book was appended to that of
the Judges. The Talmudic arrangement, which tore it away
from this connexion and placed it among the Kethubim, was
the result of a later and merely artificial disposition of the
sacred books.
The books of EZRA and NEHEMIAH contain the history of
the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth, after the exile.
In classifying the sacred books, they were usually joined to-
gether, in ancient times, as one book in two parts; because
they both have a relation to the same subject, viz. the re-
establishment of law and order, after the return from the
exile. I shall, however, consider them separately here.
The various matters of which the book of EZRA treats,
and the Hebrew and Chaldee languages which are employed,
have led to a great variety of opinion among critics, as to
the authorship of the book. Chap. i.-vi. contain the his-
tory of the return of the first colony from the exile, and
connect closely with the end of 2 Chronicles. The decree
of Cyrus, (536 B. C.,) a register of the returning exiles, the
hinderances to the building of the temple, and the completion
of this work in the sixth year of Darius the king, (515 B. C.,)
form the first part of the book of EZRA. The principal
Chaldee portion of the work comprises iv. 8-vi. 18. The
second part of the book gives an account of the immigration
of the new colony under Ezra, in the seventh year of Arta-
xerxes, 457 B. C. ; and of course about 79 years after the first
company of exiles returned under Zerubbabel and Jeshua.
The decree of Artaxerxes, permitting Ezra's immigration
with a colony of Jews, is also written in Chaldee, vii. 12-
26.
The rest of the book details the efforts and arrange-
ments of Ezra, in reforming the people and the priesthood.
Evidently the first portion of the book is constituted in
part by two documents, different from the main narrative of
the writer of the book. Chap. ii. is a register of those who
first returned from exile; which Nehemiah found in a docu-
bện
156
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
ment by itself, and from which he took his copy; see Neh.
vii. 5, and comp. Neh. vii. 6-73 with Ez. ii. The Chaldee
(iv. 8—vi. 18) seems to have been from another hand than
that of the principal author of the book in general; and not
only the letter to Artaxerxes written by the enemies of the
Jews, and his answer to the same (iv. 11—22) are in Chal-
dee, but also the narrative that follows on as far as vi. 18.
In the sequel of the book, Ezra speaks sometimes in the first
person, vii. 27—ix. 15; while chap. vii. 1-26 and x. speak
of him in the third person.
The last part of the book is occupied with the narration
of Ezra's efforts to bring about a reformation in various re-
spects, among the Jews; although its chronology is not dis-
tinctly marked. For aught that appears, these efforts might
all have been made in 457 B. C.; for Ezra came to Jerusa-
lem in the fifth month of that year; Ez. vii. 8. Twelve
years after this, when Nehemiah came up to Jerusalem from
the Persian court, we find Ezra sedulously engaged in the
appropriate duties of his office as priest and scribe; Neh. viii.
1-6, 9, 13. But the history in the book of Ezra seems to
comprise only the first portion of these 12 years.
Whoever
wrote the book, then, he seems to have written it soon after
Ezra had taken up his abode in Jerusalem; for otherwise
we should expect from the author a further account of Ezra.
I think we may set it down as nearly certain, that the book
was written not far from 456 B. C.
.
That Ezra himself wrote vii. 27-ix. 15, is plain from the
fact that he constantly employs the first person in his nar-
rative. Whether he wrote vii. 1-11 and x. 1-44, where
the third person is constantly employed, is more doubtful;
and especially so from the circumstance, that in xi. 6 it is
said of him, that he was a ready or expert scribe in the
law of Moses." It seems altogether probable to me, that
some of Ezra's friends, probably of the prophetic order,
compiled the book in question from the various documents
named above; and that he did this by prefacing and inter-
weaving remarks and narrations of his own. The book has
every appearance of authenticity, and of course of credibility.
No reasonable doubt can be critically entertained, of its
being joined with the Jewish Canon about the period above
named.
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
157
The book of NEHEMIAH purports to be from one and the
same person. The inscription presents us with the follow-
ing title: "The words of Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah."
But the Heb. 37 may mean matters, affairs, or concerns,
as it does in the title to the book of Chronicles. It may be
regarded then as somewhat uncertain, so far as the inscrip-
tion is concerned, whether this book is one of those whose
names designate the author. Still, as all the narration, down
to chap. vii. 5, employs the first person, so far it is plain
that all comes from Nehemiah. Then follows the register
of the names of those who came up with the first colony to
Jerusalem; plainly a repetition for substance of that which
we find in Ezra ii. Yet the discrepancies between these
two registers, as to numbers in particular cases, is striking.
Let the reader compare the following names and associated
numbers in the two registers, viz. Arah, Pahath-Moab,
Zattu, Bani (Binnui, Neh.), Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam,
Bigvai, Adin, Hashum, Bezai, Jorah (Hariph), Bethlehem
and Netophah, Bethel and Ai, Lod, &c., Senaah, Asaph,
Shallum, &c., Delaiah, &c.,—in the whole, nineteen cases in
this single register, in which the numbers are discrepant in
the two copies of it. Yet in Ezra ii. 64 and Neh. vii. 66, the
sum of the whole is said to be 42,360—a signal proof that
the numbers in one or in both copies have, in this case as
in many others, suffered as to accuracy by transcription.
The sums of gold and silver given, on the occasion of colo-
nizing, by the chiefs of the fathers, are stated very diversely
in Ezra ii. 68, 69 and Nehemiah vii. 70-73. Some other
and slighter discrepancies occur, in the insertion of names.
in the one, which are omitted in the other; and some still
slighter in the mode of writing and pronouncing the names.
The sequel (viii. 1-x. 39) seems plainly to be from ano-
ther hand, and speaks of Nehemiah in the third person as
Tirshatha or governor. The register of names, in chap. xi.,
of those who lived at Jerusalem; and in chap xii., of those
priests who came up from the captivity with Zerubbabel;
seems to me to be from one and the same hand; at all events,
xii. 31, 38, 40, shows that the writer again is Nehemiah
himself, who uses the first person. It may be, however,
that the two registers, in xi. 1–xii. 26, are merely copied
by him.
Of the same tenor is chap. xiii., which gives an
158
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
account, in the first person, of what Nehemiah did after
his return a second time from Persia. His first journey to
Jerusalem was in 446 B. C., when he had obtained liberty
of absence for twelve years from Artaxerxes, in the twen-
tieth year of his reign; Neh. v. 14. In the thirty-second
year of the same king (434 r. c.) Nehemiah returned to
Persia, and in a few days obtained leave again to go to Je-
rusalem and preside there; Neh. xiii. 6. During his ab-
sence there had been a great falling off among the Jews, as
to the observance of the law; and the book ends with a de-
scription of his efforts to produce a general reformation.
There is no difficulty in the way of supposing that all the
matter of this book passed under the eye of Nehemiah, or
was compiled by him, even if we admit that other composi-
tions than his own are inserted. It amounts therefore to
the same thing as his own composition, so far as the credit
of the book is concerned. The history contained in the
book closes with 434 B. C., or about that period, and it was
therefore probably written as early as the book of Malachi,
if not somewhat before it.
N
There is indeed one serious difficulty in the genealogy of
the high priests, xii. 10, 11, 22, which is that (including
Jeshua, who was of Zerubbabel's time, 536 B. C.) there are.
six generations registered. Excluding Jeshua, however, ast
we should do in this case, the remaining five generations
must occupy a period of some 160 to 170 years, extending
to some 376 or 366 years B. C., i. e. nearly to the time when
Alexander the Great came upon the stage of action. The
Jaddua of Neh. xii. 11, 22, is supposed by many to be the
same high priest who went out to meet Alexander, on his
approach to Jerusalem; and in fact, the time is so near to
that period, that one can hardly believe that it is a different
person, inasmuch as it may easily be supposed that he lived
at that period. But I could not set down the composition
of the book in general to so late a period, any more than I
should be disposed to regard the book of Genesis as of late
composition, merely because of the late genealogy of the
dukes of Edom in Gen. xxxvi. The tenor of the book, and
the time down to which it brings the narration; the fact
that Nehemiah's own hand is visible in so much of it, and
that there is nothing else besides the genealogy in question.
1
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
159
which betokens a later origin-all combine to persuade me,
that the protracted genealogy of the high priests comes from
a subsequent and marginal interpolation, or from something
of the like kind, at a later period. Why should a later
writer not have continued the history of Nehemiah down to
the time of his death? It is against all probability, that he
would not have done so.
One book remains, viz. that of ESTHER. Of this book
De Wette, in his usual manner, says, "It violates all his-
torical probability, and contains the most striking difficul-
ties, and many errors in regard to Persian manners," § 198.
a. One of the main difficulties is, that there are no certain
data in the book, by which we can settle its chronology, or
(in other words) that determine which of the Persian kings
was called Ahasuerus by the writer. That he could not
have lived before the time of Darius Hystaspes seems to be
evident from the fact, that it was not until his reign that
the Persian empire was extended from India to Ethiopia;
to which the statement in Esther i. 1 alludes. That Darius
himself was not the Persian king, who issued such an edict
against the Jews as that described by this book, seems pro-
bable from his character as known in history, and from his
very favourable regard for the Jews, as developed in Ezra
v. 6; vi. 15.
The objections raised against the book are various, and
some of them, as the text of it now stands, not easily dis-
posed of. "(1.) Ahasuerus gives to all of his high officers
a feast of half a year; how could they leave their provinces
for so long a time? (2.) His command to Vashti, the queen,
to appear unveiled before the whole company, at a drinking
bout, is incredible. (3.) That Esther is of Jewish descent
seems entirely unknown to Ahasuerus, until after the time
when Haman's bloody decree was sanctioned; and still
Mordecai is represented as a daily attendant at the court, in
order to carry on some correspondence with Esther. (4.)
Haman himself is a foreigner; and such could not be prime
ministers. (5.) Mordecai obstinately refuses all courteous
respect for him. (6.) Haman designs to destroy a whole
nation of some two millions of people, and this merely be-
cause of an affront from Mordecai. (7.) He offers the king
160
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
10,000 talents of silver to sign the decree, which is equal to
about 17,650,000 dollars; a thing incredible," &c.
I cannot enter into any discussion here of these and the
like objections to the book; most of which Eichhorn (§ 509,
seq.) has satisfactorily answered. In the sequel this sub-
ject will receive more attention. I merely observe here.
that there are two or three circumstances related by the
book, which one finds it difficult to explain in a satisfactory
manner. The decree of Haman for the destruction of the
Jews was issued on the thirteenth day of the first month in
the year, (Esth. iii. 12,) and this decree is not to be exe-
cuted until the thirteenth day of the twelfth month; Esth.
iii. 13. It would seem that Haman betook himself to the
lot, in order to fix upon the proper day; Esth. iii. 7. The
difficulty in this case is, to account for it that Haman should
advertise the whole empire of the massacre, eleven months
before it was to be perpetrated. "What could be the use,'
it is asked, "of putting the Jews on their guard so long be-
forehand? The Sicilian Vespers and the massacre of St.
Bartholomew were not conducted thus; and Haman must
have been as weak as he was wicked, to do this." One
might suggest in answer to this, that Haman probably in-
dulged the hope, that the Jews, through fear, would exile
themselves from the kingdom. Perhaps this may be repre-
senting him as more humane than he was; but even a
murderous tyrant must be supposed to be apprehensive of
trouble, from destroying a whole nation that amounted to
several millions of men, and above all, when he had given
the intended victims nearly a year's notice of what he was
about to do. If the decrees of the Persian monarch had
not been irreversible, I should be quite disposed to believe
that the whole measure, on the part of Haman, was designed
mainly to terrify and vex the Jews. But the true solution
seems plainly to be, that Haman having cast lots for a lucky
day, could not change it when it was once fixed by the lot.
Superstition did not permit a change.
Ma
The decree which Mordecai obtained from the king,
amounted to merely a licence that the Jews should arm
themselves on the massacre-day, and make defence against
any assailants. It is said in the book before us, that when
pala
ور
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
161
the day came, the higher officers of the king befriended the
Jews (Esth. ix. 3); which is not improbable, considering
that Mordecai was prime minister. According to the nar-
ration in Esther, the Jews, on that day, destroyed 500 men
in the palace itself at Shushan, (Esth. ix. 6,) and 75,000 in
the provinces; Esth. ix. 16. On the fourteenth day of
Adar, (the twelfth month,) they also slew 300 more in the
palace; Esth. ix. 18. Yet in all these rencounters, we
have no information that a single Jew lost his life, or was
even wounded. Could a massacre of 75,000 Persians take
place, without any mutual slaughter? And would it be ne-
cessary for the Jews to destroy so many, when the people
of the empire at large seem to have been so favourably dis-
posed toward them, as the book represents them to be? It
would seem, moreover, that "many of the people of the land
became Jews," while Mordecai was prime minister or grand
vizier (Esth. viii. 17); a circumstance, moreover, not at all
improbable, considering the influence which Mordecai had
at court. But that 75,000 Persians were slaughtered in
this rencounter, after eleven months' warning and prepara-
tion of the parties, and none of the Jews destroyed, (the
book does not assert the latter, but some have supposed it to
be implied,) is one of those facts which can only with diffi-
culty be admitted, unless some miraculous interposition on
the part of heaven should prevent the harming of the Jews.
But of this the writer has taken no notice.
Some other difficulties press upon the book.
There is not
even once the name of God to be found in it, or any special
recognition of his holy providence in the whole affair. This
is altogether the more singular, inasmuch as it has no par-
allel in any part of the Old Testament, unless in the book of
Canticles. All the other sacred writings of the Jews re-
present God not only as the theoretical, but as the practical,
Sovereign of the universe, dispensing both good and ill,
prosperity and adversity. Not so apparently with the book
of Esther. Even the days of Purim, set apart in comme-
moration of the deliverance of the Jews, as related in the
book, are to be kept as "days of feasting and joy, and of
sending portions one to another, and of gifts to the poor;"
Esth. ix. 22. This narration, omitting as it does all refer-
ence to an overruling providence, shows how transformed as
M
162
SECT. VI
HISTORY OF CANON.
to his style of thinking and writing the writer had become,
by living in a foreign country (for I take the author to be
a foreign Jew). The fasting and weeping (ch. iv.) betoken,
indeed, a sense of religious dependence; and in iv. 14 there
is an evident allusion to the promises of preserving the
Jewish nation, let the danger be what it might. But what-
ever the writer's reasons were for a uniform silence on the
subject of religion and of Divine interposition, he has not
given them to us. It is certainly with no small difficulty
that we can make out reasons satisfactory to our own minds.
That
On the supposition that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus named
in the book of Esther, there is still further difficulty.
the same Xerxes, who scourged the sea for carrying away
his bridge over the Hellespont; who ordered the heads of
the builders of the bridge to be cut off, because their struc-
ture could not resist the irresistible tide and storm in the
straits there; who slew the eldest son of his friend and
generous benefactor, Pythias, before his eyes, because he
asked for his release from the army of Xerxes in which he
had five sons; who suspended the headless body of Leonidas
on a cross, because that with a mere handful of Grecians he
had withstood many myriads of Persians; who offered by
proclamation a great reward to any one who would invent
a new pleasure;-that such a man should sanction such
a decree as that of Haman, is to be sure not very strange.
But if, with the great mass of modern and recent critics, we
admit Ahasuerus to have been Xerxes, what shall we do
with Esth. ii. 5-7, which tells us that Mordecai was carried
away captive from Judea with Jehoiachin, in 599 B. C., and
that Esther was his cousin? Now Xerxes did not begin his
reign until 485 B. C., and the third year of that reign, when
Vashti the queen was rejected, must bring Mordecai to the
age of 117, even if his exile took place in his infancy. His
cousin Esther, moreover, must at this time have been nearly
a century old; while the book of Esther represents her as a
young maiden.
How then can we admit, with Scaliger,
Drusius, Carpzov, Eichhorn, Jahn, Bertholdt, Gesenius,
Hävernick, Baumgarten, and others, that Xerxes is the
Ahasuerus of the book of Esther? If we go back to Cam-
byses, and even to Cyrus, we shall, after all, still find Mor-
decai to be some seventy to sixty years old-an age hardly
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
163
congruous with the part which he acts in the book before
us. If we go still further back, we must seek for Ahasuerus
among the separate kings of Media or of Persia. But we
are forbidden to go back, for then we could find neither the
127 provinces of the empire, (Esth. i. 1,) nor were the Jews
under the dominion of any Persian or Median king before
the time of Cyrus.
All these difficulties, however, are the result of interpret-
ing the text in Esth. ii. 5-7, in such a way as seems, at first
view, to be the most natural and facile. The Hebrew runs
thus: "There was a Jew in Shushan the palace, and his
name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the
son of Kish, a Benjamite, who was carried captive from Je-
rusalem with the company of captives who were carried into
exile with Jechoniah king of Judah, who was carried away
captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. And he
brought up Hadassah, (the same is Esther,) who was the
daughter of his uncle," &c. The question which we may
naturally raise, is, whether Mordecai is asserted by this text
to be among the exiles that accompanied Jechoniah, (599 B.
c.,) or whether this exile is affirmed of Kish the Benjamite.
The interpretation which adopts the former meaning, is per-
haps the most facile and natural, in case there is no obstacle
in the way; but plainly it is not a necessary one. The who
(s) at the beginning of ver. 6, may refer to the noun im-
mediately antecedent, (Kish,) and then we are at liberty to
place the period of Mordecai just where the genealogy de-
mands. The time, reckoned from the exile of Jechoniah in
599 B. C. to the seventh year of Xerxes, is about 120 years;
and this would correspond right well with the four genera-
tions mentioned in Esth. ii. 5. Why then are we not at
liberty to adopt this exegesis? I would not do so merely
in order to avoid a difficulty; for we cannot satisfy our own
minds in that way. But the Hebrew is fairly open to either
construction; and when the question comes up: Which
shall we prefer? what hinders our adopting that which best
agrees with the time and circumstances presented in the
book? Even if the book of Esther be supposititious, it is
still a book belonging to the period that soon followed the
return from exile, and its anonymous author can scarcely
be supposed to have made Mordecai and Esther contem-
M 2
164
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
porary with Jechoniah's exile, and at the same time with
the seventh year of Xerxes' reign, or indeed with the reign.
of any Persian prince from the time that Cyrus began to be
sole regent of Middle Asia. The parachronism is too palp-
able to be attributed to any one, who could write as the
author of the book of Esther has done.
Some of the most serious difficulties, then, are removed
by the interpretation which I have now suggested. In re-
spect to the early publication of Haman's decree, command-
ing the excision of the Jews, I have already made some
suggestions. And as to the passiveness of the Persians
when the day of slaughter arrives, and the numbers said
to be slain by the Jews, while they apparently remained
unhurt; there may be facts, unknown to us, which would
render these matters altogether credible. Clearly there is
nothing impossible in the case. But it is better to confess
our ignorance, than merely to guess at a ground of explana-
tion, and then proffer it as something substantial.
The reader will perceive that I have dwelt much longer
upon the books of Chronicles and that of Esther, than on
the other books of the Old Testament. I have done so be-
cause I deemed it to be necessary. Few readers investigate
difficulties of such a nature as these books bring to view;
and when they are brought forward by those who doubt or
deny the claims of the Old Testament to authenticity and
genuineness, most readers feel astounded by them. In pre-
senting these and the like matters to the reader, I hope to
satisfy his mind, that my object is not to carry a point per
fas aut nefas. Truth needs no pious fraud to support and
commend it. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, it cer-
tainly does not shun investigation, but demands it. The
example of the noble Bereans, who searched the Scriptures
daily in order to ascertain whether what an apostle had preach-
ed was true or not, is one which is commended in the word of
God, and worthy to be commended to all who reverence his
word. Much as my own mind has been sometimes rendered
anxious by critical doubts and difficulties thrust upon it, yet
I have never for a moment deemed it best to conceal these
difficulties, or to look away from them merely to get rid of
the trouble of studying and examining. On the same
ground I do not think it expedient merely to glance at dif-
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
165
ficulties, sufficiently to show that one is not altogether ig-
norant of them, and then to dispose of them by a general
condemnation of every thing which approaches minute or
doubting inquiry. It may be dexterous management in a
pleader before a court and jury, to conceal the weak parts
of his cause, and to keep out of sight whatever can be said
against his client's interest; but how long will the same jury
continue to confide in such a pleader's declarations, or in his
management of causes, if he is wont to do this? If we, who
profess to believe in the Divine authority of the Old Test.
Scriptures, decline to examine and consider the difficulties
which attend a minute and critical inquiry into their condition
and contents, how can we expect to convince those who differ
from us and reject them? I do not indeed think it to be the
dictate of prudence and sound judgment to anticipate the
time and circumstances in which we live, and publish to the
world doubts and difficulties that have not yet come before
the minds of the community who surround us. But when
they do come, it is not sound policy to aim at winking them
out of sight, nor to treat them as altogether unworthy of
notice, especially when they are apparently founded upon
what the sacred text itself seems to disclose. But doubts
and difficulties have already been published to our religious
community, by the works of De Wette and of Mr. Norton ;
and no silence on our part will help this matter. I accede,
in my own judgment, to what the celebrated Dr. Bellamy of
Connecticut used to say to his theological students, in his
parting Lecture, "Gentlemen, on the subject of polemics I
have one piece of advice to give you; and this is, that you
should never raise Satan unless you can lay him.' But in
the present case, I have not raised him; that has been the
work of others. Whether I can lay him, is indeed a serious
question, and one which it is not for me to decide.
But to return to our subject; that the book of Esther re-
lates a story which is substantially true, there is no good
reason to doubt. The feast of Purim, celebrated as a me-
morial of the deliverance of the Hebrews from massacre,
has confessedly been celebrated among the Jews ever since
the times of the Persian monarchy. Now this is the same
evidence that some signal deliverance took place, as our
celebration of the fourth of July is evidence, that our inde-
166
SECT. VI.
HISTORY OF CANON.
pendence as a nation was proclaimed on that day. The
great numbers of Jews in Persia, in the time of Xerxes;
the hatred which foreigners have nearly always borne to-
wards them, on the ground of their peculiar observances;
and the envy and jealousy that would exist among the Per-
sian nobility, when any of them were promoted or treated
with special favour-are all circumstances which serve to
show the possibility, not to say the probability, of the things
related in the book of Esther. There can be no good ground
for doubt, that the book has truth for its basis. But the
number of Persians slain by the Jews, and the amount of
money promised to the king by Haman, wears an appear-
ance like to that which sometimes belongs to numbers in
the books of Chronicles. Yet so far as the amount of money
is concerned, it is not very difficult to believe that Haman
may have promised so much to the king, on the ground that
he had liberty to appropriate all the property of the Jews,
when slain, to his own use; Esth. iii. 11. Nor is the amount
so strange a thing. The prime minister of the late emperor
of China is said to have amassed more than £25,000,000
sterling, in jewels, money, and costly furniture and array.
For myself, if I may be allowed to speak in my own be-
half on this occasion, I confess that the faith which once
has come to admit miraculous events, in carlier and in later
times, is not seriously staggered by the extraordinary or
even apparently improbable events related in the book of
Esther. To any one who has become well acquainted with
the history of Persian tyrants, it will be no matter of sur-
prise, that an intoxicated Xerxes should order his queen to
appear unveiled before a banqueting company, nor that he
should, in a like condition, stimulated by favouritism and
the love of gain, have signed the decree of Haman. The
surprise which Ahasuerus manifests, when told by Esther
of this decree, (Esth. vii. 1-6,) wears very much the air of
his having signed it in a state when he was unconscious of
what he did. Whoever has read the history of the late
Mohammed Aga Khan, Shah of Persia, will readily see,
that Persian tyrants who could sign such a decree are no
impossibility.
The most serious difficulty to a mind which is religiously
disposed, is the omission, throughout the book of Esther, of
SECT. VI.
BOOKS ANONYMOUS.
167
all mention of God or of his providence. And yet it seems
to be plain from iv. 14, that Mordecai is acquainted with
and fully believes in the special promises made in the Old
Test. Scriptures to the Jewish nation. Nor is there room
for reasonable doubt, that the writer of the book means to
present the Jews in the light of a people specially favoured
and protected by Heaven. But he has confined himself to
mere simple narration of facts, and does not undertake to be
argumentative or parænetic.
So far as the aesthetics of the book are concerned, it has
no small claim to merit. There is no narration so long, in
any part of the Old Testament, which preserves a unity so
compact and unbroken. There is no bombast, no affected
pomp of diction. All must admit, that the writer has told
his story with much skill, and made it such as to excite a
deep interest in the reader. The impression made by the
whole is, that the Jews, even in their exile, were under the
guardian care of Heaven, and that in the most adverse and
threatening circumstances, they had abundant reason to trust
in God. Such an impression, moreover, stood intimately
connected with the Jewish religion.
There are, however, some circumstances brought to view
in the book, which at first sight appear somewhat revolting
to the feelings of those who live under the light of the gos-
pel; e. g. Esther's being brought, consentingly as it would
seem, into the royal harem, (ii. 8, seq.,) and her vengeance
in hanging Haman's ten dead sons upon the gallows erected
for Mordecai (ix. 15). But are not these easily accounted
for, by the state of manners and the low degree of civilization
in Persia? We indeed, with our feelings and views, can-
not praise, nor even approve of, any thing like to either of
these transactions; but we can see, if we read the ancient
work before us in the spirit of antiquity, that queen Esther
did nothing which she believed to be wrong, or judged to
be inconsistent with justice or decorum. The book, more-
over, does not commend such things as those in question ;
it simply relates them. In Persia, the king has a sovereign
right to any woman in his kingdom; and in theory, even the
sacredness of the harem cannot guard it from his entrance.
Of the importance of the book of Esther, and also of some
others in the Old Testament, to us at the present time, I in-
k
1.68
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
tend to say something hereafter. But for the present, we
must dismiss the critical history of particular books, in order
to turn our attention to other circumstances important to the
accomplishment of the main object in view.
SECT. VII. Lost books of the Hebrews, some of which appear
to have been canonical.
ACCORDING to the views which have been taken of the com-
position of the canonical books of the Old Testament, they
were all in existence as early as 400 years before the Chris-
tian era.
But the question when the Jewish Canon was ac-
tually completed, has become, in recent criticism, a question
of great importance, and therefore it must receive a separate
and distinct investigation. I must solicit the reader's atten-
tion, for the present, however, to some things necessary in
order to render more complete our view of the ancient He-
brew literature, whether sacred or common.
The point cannot be decided with certainty as to several
of the books alluded to or quoted in the Old Testament,
whether they were considered as sacred or not. Some, e. g.
the works of prophets, it seems to be quite plain, were re-
garded as sacred and authoritative. Others again, e. g. So-
lomon's works on botany and zoology, and his one thousand
and five songs, (1 Kings iv. 32, 33,) we are not bound to re-
gard as sacred. But there is a third class, the character of
which, as we shall soon see, is somewhat doubtful. My de-
sign is, briefly to mention the works to which the Old Tes-
tament refers, and this in the order in which they occur to
the reader of our English Version.
(1.) In Num. xxi. 14, the writer appeals, for confirmation
of his narrative, to the Book of the Wars of the Lord. The
title itself seems to import, that the book was of a religious
cast, and it is not unlikely that it was regarded as sacred in
the time of Moses. Still, a reference might be made to it in
the manner of the Pentateuch, without rendering the point
of its sacredness certain. It is clear, that it was regarded
as a book of grave authority.
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
169
(2.) The Book of Jasher, i. e. of the upright, seems to have
been a book of poetical eulogies, written respecting distin-
guished men, actors in distinguished events. The writer of
Josh. x. 12, 13, appeals to it as confirming his narration in
respect to the standing still of the sun and moon, at the com-
mand of Joshua. Again, it is appealed to in 2 Sam. i. 18,
as exhibiting evidence respecting David's lamentations over
Saul and Jonathan. The credit of the book must of course
have been good; for otherwise the sacred writers had no in-
ducement to appeal to it. But whether the book was sacred
or canonical at that time, is not decided satisfactorily by
these appeals.
(3.) When Samuel had anointed Saul as king, it is said
that "he wrote the manner of the kingdom in a book, and
laid it up before the Lord," 1 Sam. x. 25. Undoubtedly
this was authoritative; but of the book itself we have no
further notice or knowledge. It has been called, The Book
of the Constitution of the Kingdom; but no name is given
to it in Scripture.
(4.) Solomon's three thousand Proverbs, his thousand and
five songs, and his works on natural history, (2 Kings iv.
32, 33,) may have in part been sacred. E. g. the present
book of Proverbs may not improbably contain some of the
3000 which he spoke. Possibly some of the songs may
have been sacred ones; but if they were, we should natur-
ally suppose that some of them would have been preserved,
with his name attached to them. I suppose no one will con-
tend, that Solomon's works on natural history belonged to
the Canon. If the Canticles could be shown to be a work
of Solomon, with any good degree of probability, they might
be regarded, perhaps, as a part of his Songs. That no more
of his poems (if any) have been preserved, may not impro-
bably be the result of that distinction, which the Jews early
made between books of a sacred nature and those on other
topics. Yet all-destroying time has taken from us not a
few books once undoubtedly regarded as sacred.
(5.) The book of the Acts of Solomon appears to have
been a copious history of his reign and achievements; to
which reference is made by the sacred writer in 1 Kings xi.
41, as a standard and authentic work on this subject.
(6.) The book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is
K
T
170
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
appealed to in 1 Kings xiv. 19; xvi. 5, 20, 27; xxii. 39, as
containing copious accounts of five several Israelitish kings,
in distinction from those of Judah.
(7.) The book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is
indicated, in 1 Kings xv. 7, as a more copious source of the
history of Abijam, a king of Judah.
(8.) The acts of David, first and last, are said in 1 Chron.
xxix. 29, to be written in the Book of Samuel the seer, in
the Book of Nathan the prophet, and in the Book of Gad
the seer.
Such a king as David would naturally have many
biographers. In this case, three contemporary prophets, it
seems, wrote an account of this extraordinary ruler. Possi-
bly our present book of Samuel may be one of these, or a
combination of more than one.
(9.) A copious life of Solomon was also written by Nathan
the prophet, and Ahijah the Shilonite, and Iddo the seer.
The two last books are entitled, respectively, prophecy and
visions; 2 Chron. ix. 29.
(10.) The acts of Rehoboam were also written by Shemaiah
the prophet, and by Iddo the seer in a work concerning
genealogies; 2 Chron. xii. 15.
(11.) A copious Life of Uzziah was written by Isaiah the
son of Amoz; 2 Chron. xxvi. 22.
(12.) The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, ap-
pealed to in 2 Chron. xxviii. 26; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8, may
possibly be our present book of Kings. Yet I do not think
this to be certain.
(13.) The Book of Jehu the son of Hanani (see 1 Kings
xvi. 1, 7) contained the history of Jehoshaphat; 2 Chron.
xx. 34.
(14.) A special Life of Hezekiah, written by Isaiah the
prophet, is mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 32; which is
perhaps that portion of our present Isaiah contained in chap.
xxxvi.—xxxix. Also the Book of the Kings of Israel and
Judah is mentioned; which may be our present book of
Kings.
(15.) The biography of Manasseh, that wicked king of
Judah, is said, in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18, to be written in the
Book of the Kings of Israel. The 37 in the same
passage may mean, and probably does mean, the words of
Hozai, (a prophet,) who spake to Manasseh in the name of
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
171
the Lord. What he said is also recorded in the same book
of Kings. Mr. Parker (I. p. 411) represents these words of
Hozai as being of themselves a book.
M
(16.) The Lamentations of Jeremiah over Josiah's un-
timely death, 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, seems plainly to be a dif-
ferent book from that which we now have under the like
title, and which says nothing of Josiah.
Besides these, mention is made of a book in Ex. xvii. 14;
xxiv. 7; in either case it is probably one of the compositions
of Moses, which are now embodied in the Pentateuch, to
which reference is made. In Isa. xxxiv. 16, the Book of
the Lord seems most naturally to mean, the Scriptures then
extant, and which reveals the certainty that what God had
promised he would perform. As to the passages in Isa.
xxix. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 22, no particular book is meant, but
a book in a genuine sense.
In the last case, perhaps, no
book at all is meant, for 'piny o may, and probably
does, mean ancient matters.
From this brief sketch of ancient Hebrew writings, no
longer extant, it appears that many books containing more
ample histories of all the leading kings of Judah and Israel,
and more ample biographies of their distinguished men,
have perished. It is in vain to argue against this; as Hot-
tinger (Thes. Philol. p. 534, seq.) does, and many other
strenuous Protestants have done. Hottinger assumes the
position, that God in his providence would not permit a
canonical book to be lost; and that the church, the faithful
depositary of the Divine records, cannot possibly have been
so deficient in its duty, as to suffer the loss to take place.
But what has become of Paul's (really first) epistle which
he wrote to the Corinthians, and to which he appeals in
1 Cor. v. 9? What has become of John's letter to the
church with which Diotrephes was connected? 3 John 9.
I know of no a priori reasoning, on such a question, that
can satisfy us. The loss of a writing is a possible thing;
in a long series of exile and misfortune even a probable
thing; and at all events the question concerning it is one
merely of fact. As such, in the present case, it is easily
decided. Are the books above named now extant? If they
are, nothing is known of them, either among Jews or Chris-
tians. It will not do to say, as Hottinger and others have
172
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
said, that the very fact of the loss proves that the books in
question were never a part of the Jewish Canon. As to
the technical sense of the word canon, it was introduced
only after the Christian era had advanced a considerable
period. But the main thing aimed at by employing this
word, can, as it seems to me, be well predicated of many,
yea of most, of the lost books in question. What were
these books? Prophecies, or prophetico-historical works,
the religious annals of the Jewish nation, both as to his-
torical and biographical matters. Plainly the writers, as a
body, were of the order of the prophets. And were not
books written by Nathan the prophet, and Gad the prophet,
and Iddo the seer, and Isaiah the prophet, and by others of
the same office, counted sacred by the Hebrews? We can
hardly imagine the contrary. But if any one should hesitate
to acknowledge this, on the ground that prophets might write
other books than those which were inspired, still the manner
of appeal to the works in question which are now lost, both in
Kings and Chronicles, shows beyond all reasonable doubt
that they were regarded as authoritative and sacred. For
how could a writer remit his readers for fuller authentic
information, to those books which he did not regard as
standing on the same basis as his own work, in respect to
being worthy of credit? Had we now those fuller narra-
tives which are so frequently appealed to in the present books
of Kings and Chronicles, who can well doubt that many a
seeming difficulty, in these abridgments of Jewish history,
would be solved to our entire satisfaction?
I have called these last-named works abridgments. In
truth all the historical books of the Hebrews that we pos-
sess wear the appearance of abridgments, if we except per-
haps the books of Samuel, Ruth, and Esther. It is impos-
sible to read, with a critical eye, the historical books of the
Old Testament, without being struck with the palpable
difference between them and the leading historical works of
the Greeks, Romans, and modern nations of Europe.
As to
chronology, there is no general era to which all events are
referred, in order to mark the time when they took place.
The localities are every where supposed to be within the
knowledge of the reader, with the exception that sometimes
the older and the more recent names of places are both
SECT. VII.
173
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
given. Then as to general plan, the exhaustive or all-com-
prehensive method of modern history is a total stranger to
the Scriptures. It plainly is not the design of the sacred
writers to chronicle civil events because they are civil events,
and relate to the civil and social state of the Hebrew nation,
but because they are events connected with the theocracy,
and are more or less connected with the religious develop-
ments of that nation. The book of Chronicles, so much
decried of late, has above all others this aspect; which per-
haps is one of the reasons why so much critical displeasure
has been shown toward it. Were it not that the name
would sound as a novel thing, and be considered by some
perhaps as a little derogatory to the sacred histories, we
might name nearly all of them Anecdota Sacra, i. e. brief
sketches of historical events, which have a connexion with
sacred things. This is their character throughout; with
perhaps the few exceptions already named. The tribunal
of modern historical criticism would doubtless have many a
fault to find with them, in respect to historical æsthetics.
But this tribunal is one that has been erected by science,
and rhetoric, and the strict method which a logical con-
nexion demands. The Hebrew compositions cannot fairly be
tried by this. The Hebrews never had schools of science,
of rhetoric, or of philosophy. To the technical demands of
these they do not respond. All their compositions have a
higher end in view, than that of answering the demands of
science or philosophy. The all-pervading element in them
is that of religion and morality. To be eloquent, to be at-
tractive, to be graceful or amusing in narration, seem never
to have been objects distinctly before the minds of the He-
brew writers. To record what concerned the worship of
God, the religious state of his people, their chastisements
and their blessings, and not unfrequently what concerned
distinguished individuals among them; to say or to sing
what would make the people wiser and better-these are the
objects always before the minds of these peculiar writers.
They have followed no models of writing among other nations.
All that they have produced is of spontaneous growth. But
is it not a vigorous one? Has it not borne much wholesome
fruit? Has science, philosophy, rhetoric, the art of criticism
-all scientific means and cultivation united-produced
174
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
compositions of more power, and of higher perfection in
their kind, than those of the Hebrews? I know of none. I
know of no narrations that surpass in interest some of the
scriptural ones; no epics that make a deeper impression than
the book of Job and the Apocalypse; no lyrics that exceed
those of David and the sons of Korah; no preaching, no
moral painting, more elevated, graphic, sublime, soul-stirring,
than that which can be found in the prophets.
In passing such a judgment on these books, I do not and
would not summon them before the tribunal of occidental
criticism. Asia is one world, Europe and America another.
Let an Asiatic be tried before his own tribunal.
To pass
just sentence upon him we must enter into his feelings,
views, methods of reasoning and thinking, and place our-
selves in the midst of the circumstances which surrounded
him. Then we must summon the books of the Hebrews before
us; and if, on a fair trial, they are not found to exceed, in
the sterling qualities of good writing, those produced by any
other nation, I can only say that my partiality for them has
misled me.
In the mean time, this matter proffers to the mind of a
reflecting person some considerations of serious moment.
How came a people, who never had schools of art, science,
rhetoric, or philosophy, to write in such a manner, and to
attain to such excellence? This is a problem for the Natur-
alists or Rationalists, who doubt or deny all inspiration; a
problem which they have not hitherto satisfactorily solved;
one which we may, without any great degree of presumption,
believe they will not be able to solve.
But to resume our present theme; it is not difficult to ac-
count for the abridged histories of the Hebrews being pre-
served, while the more copious ones, which have been
brought to view above, have perished. During the long
exile of the Jews in Babylonia, they must have been in cir-
cumstances very unfavourable to the cultivation of letters,
or to the preservation of their former literature, either sacred
or common. Manuscripts were costly; the men who could
copy them, in their state of slavery, must have been few.
Under such circumstances, the books already written, being
extant in only a few copies, and these written upon perish-
able material, and especially the more copious and, therefore
SECT. VII.
175
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
the more costly books, might easily be lost. More particu-
larly may we suppose this to have been the case, after the
abridged works of Kings and Chronicles were compiled. It
strikes me that both of these works were mainly compiled
during the exile, for the very purpose of preserving, in a
brief and compact form, the memorabilia of the Jewish
history. Such abridgments could be copied, and purchased,
at a much easier rate than the original and more ample
works to which they continually refer. The very fact that
references to ampler sources are so frequent, shows the
honest and bona fide design of the compilers. They were
not satisfied themselves that they composed a faithful narra-
tion, but they were willing that others should go to the ori-
ginals and see for themselves whether such was the case.
If any one is disquieted still with the idea that many of
the original and more copious sacred books have been lost,
he would perhaps do well to ask the question, "How large
would the Scriptures now be, if all the sacred books had
been preserved? The apostle John, in apologizing as it
were for the briefness of his narrative, tells us that he has
omitted many things which Jesus said and did, because the
world would not contain (xwpñσai) the books that must be
written, if all should be narrated. I do not understand
Xwoñoaι here in the physical sense, i. e. to afford place for,
to afford physical room for, but in the tropical sense, viz.
that the times would not bear with such copiousness, and
that therefore it would be inexpedient. So of the Jewish
historical books. We possess abridgments of them-such
as are worthy of credit. We have before us the main points
of their history that stand connected with the development
of religion and of moral character. We possess that por-
tion of it which is adapted to make religious impressions.
Curiosity would relish more; but religious exigency calls
for no more. The more copious histories now lost, once
had their day of usefulness. They were not written in
vain, for the ancient people of God. But to make the
Scriptures a volume portable, procurable for all, and one
which may be read by all, may have been one design of an
overruling providence in permitting so many of the more
copious books to perish.
If this be still deemed improbable or impossible by any
pha
176
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
one, we may ask him to explain how or why such errors in
the book of Chronicles, and in the book of Ezra and Nehe-
miah, (e. g. in regard to the numbers in the register which
they have respectively recorded, Ez. chap. ii., Neh. chap.
vii.,) have been permitted to creep in and thus deform the
sacred text. Why have heresies been permitted to come
into the church? Why has the church general, and almost
without exception, been suffered to wander far away from
the simple and spiritual truths of the gospel, and to substi-
tute rites and forms for penitence and faith? Would it not
be easy to show by a priori reasoning, (at least as good as
that employed to show that no sacred books can have been
lost,) that errors in the sacred text or in the church cannot
be deemed probable or even possible? Where, it may be
asked, are the promises of God to his children, and to his
church? What shall be said of his assurance that he will
teach and guide them in the way of his testimonies, and
make his church always a pillar and ground of the truth?
These and the like questions are very obvious ones, and are
much more easily asked than answered. The truth seems
to be, that some, perhaps many, expect too much of a reve-
lation made in ancient times. It must be absolutely per-
fect, in all respects, and, moreover, be immutably preserved.
And although they have read in Paul's epistles that "the
Law made nothing perfect," yet they seem not to recognise
the truth of this in any one particular, save in respect to
Levitical rites and ceremonies. It is my belief, that the
gospel has a high preeminence above the Law; but also,
that the Law was as really from God as the gospel. Why
should not the Mosaic institution be viewed as being what
it actually was, a mere introductory dispensation in respect
to the gospel? As such it had its time and place, its means,
its regulations, rites, laws, revelations-all adapted to ac-
complish the subordinate objects to which they had respect.
Viewed in this light, the institutions of Moses will bear a
thorough examination. The fair question in respect to any
thing belonging to it always is, Is that thing adapted to an-
swer the end proposed, in a dispensation which is merely
prefatory or introductory to a higher and more perfect dis-
pensation? The lost books of the Hebrews may have been
subservient to the purpose for which they were composed;
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
177
they doubtless were. But if Heaven had judged them to be
essential to the prosperity and well-being of Christianity, we
may well suppose they would have been preserved. They
were not judged to be necessary; at least, if events may
explain the designs of Providence, this would seem to have
been the case. There are even some parts of our Old Test.
Canon, as it now is, which, if they had been lost, would not
have changed the face of a single doctrine or duty of Chris-
tianity. Yet, while I readily accede to this view of our
subject, I should be far from saying that any of the books
which we have are useless. But on this part of the sub-
ject I hope to say something in the sequel, when our inves-
tigations shall have come to a close.
I do not pretend that there is nothing mysterious in the
dispensations of Providence, which have permitted some of
the sacred books to perish, and others to have been in some
slight respects marred, in the course of transcription. I am
well aware that a perpetual miracle in order to preserve the
Scriptures has not unfrequently been assumed, and zealously
maintained. But facts contradict this. It is of no use to
close our eyes against these. We shall neither convince
ourselves, nor any one else, by such a process. But if I
reject the Scriptures as a revelation from God on this ac-
count, I must reject the church as a Divine institution on
the like account. There is not a church on earth, there
never has been one, in which some of its members did not
entertain erroneous or imperfect views of some truth with
which religion has a more intimate or more remote con-
nexion. Yet after all this is conceded, it remains a truth,
that there is, and always has been, a real and spiritual church
on earth, a spiritual kingdom of God among men. There is
nothing which is dependent on the agency and management
of erring man, but what will sooner or later, in one way or
another, receive some stain from the hands through which
it passes, or be in some respect marred by human manage-
ment. It has been so with Christianity itself. It has been
and is so in respect to the rational and moral powers of man.
The Bible, in the long and difficult and in some cases even
perilous transition of it from one age to another, has come
to bear some traces of having been subjected to a like, i. e.
to human, care and management. But shall it be urged as
N
178
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
a valid objection against the god-like nature of reason, that
men abuse and pervert this faculty? Is there no evidence
that conscience is heaven-born, because there are perverted
consciences and seared consciences? And by virtue of a
similar process of reasoning, we may also ask, Does it fol-
low that the Bible, in its origin, is not a Divine book, an
authoritative book, because, in transmitting some parts of
its records for a period of more than 3000 years, and in
transmitting all of it, even the latest books in the New Tes-
tament, for a period of some 1800 years, (most of this time,
be it remembered, by mere chirography in MSS., before the
art of printing was known,) some things of comparatively
small moment have been disturbed, or by mistake in tran-
scribers and redactors subjected to error? Not one doc-
trine is changed by all this; not one duty affected; not even
the relation of any one historic event has been so disturbed,
that the moral impression which it was designed to make
is in any important degree subverted. There is surely no-
thing short of a perpetual miracle which could have prevent-
ed some mistakes. But is there any evidence of such a
miracle? I know of no satisfactory evidence, to say the
least. I am well aware that the time has been, when lead-
ing men in the Protestant church maintained the absolute
inviolability of the Scriptures. The Buxtorfs, and men of
that class, gigantic scholars too in their way, did not scru-
ple to maintain, that not only all the Hebrew letters were
the same in all the MSS. the world over, but that even the
vowel-points and accents were, and always had been, iden-
tically the same from the time of Moses down to the then pre-
sent hour. Investigation has dissipated this pleasant dream.
In the Hebrew MSS. that have been examined, some 800,000
various readings actually occur, as to the Hebrew conso-
nants. How many as to the vowel-points and accents, no
man knows. And the like to this is true of the New Testa-
ment. But at the same time it is equally true, that all these
taken together do not change or materially affect any im-
portant point of doctrine, precept, or even history. A great
proportion, indeed the mass, of variations in IIebrew MSS.,
when minutely scanned, amount to nothing more than the
difference in spelling a multitude of English words. What
matters it as to the meaning, whether one writes honour or
Kateg
Band
SECT. VII.
LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS,
179
honor, whether he writes centre or center? And what mat-
קר or קיר קול or קל ters it in Hebrew, whether one writes
Indeed one may travel through the immense ? ימלוך or ימלך
desert (so I can hardly help naming it) of Kennicott and De
Rossi, and (if I may venture to speak in homely phrase) not
find game enough to be worth the hunting. So completely
is this chase given up by recent critics on the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, that a reference to either of these famous collators of
MSS., who once created a great sensation among philologers
through all Europe and America, is rarely to be found. So
true, cogent, and applicable to the case in hand is the old
maxim of critical jurisprudence, De minimis non curat lex.
But still, the ground taken by most of the older Protest-
ant writers, in regard to the inviolability of the sacred text,
has been shown to be altogether untenable. Facts contra-
dict their theory; and there is no arguing against facts.
Why, moreover, should the advocates of this antiquated
view of the subject before us, (for there are not a few of
them even at the present time, although they are rare among
the more enlightened part of the religious community,)—
why should they be so strenuous in regard to a thing which
is not only disproved by fact, but altogether unnecessary to
an enlightened belief in the Divine authority of the Scrip-
tures, or to the well-grounded advocacy of this authority? I
am ready to say, that their fears about concession here are
vain; their hopes of convincing others, who examine criti-
cally into matters of this kind, are vain; and, I would add,
the confident expectations of those who disclaim and oppose
the Divine authority of the Scriptures, so far as objections.
of this nature are concerned, are also vain. We freely yield
our assent to the allegation, that in our present copies of the
Scriptures there are some discrepancies between different
portions of them which no learning or ingenuity can recon-
cile. Humanum est errare. The Bible has passed through
the hands of erring men for a series of ages; and even the
most sacred waters, flowing through a channel that has
some impurities in it, must contract some stain, or undergo
some depreciation.
-
But what then? As I have said once and again, not
a doctrine is changed, not a duty altered or obscured,
not an important historical fact perverted. If so, we
N 2
180
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
have no special interest in labouring with the Buxtorfs and
others to establish views of the sacred text, which are con-
tradicted by facts that lie upon the very face of the Scrip-
tures. The honesty of their purpose, and even the warmth
of piety which gave birth to it, I readily acknowledge and
approve. But zeal without adequate knowledge does not
always propose the best ends, nor choose the best means to
accomplish those ends. In the case before us, we may con-
fidently take the position, that their theory, or at any rate
their mode of maintaining it, is destitute of solid support.
On the other hand, when Mr. Norton, De Wette, or his
translator, and a large portion of the German critics, assail
the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, on the
ground of discrepancies and contradictions, (and they habit-
ually do this,) we need not say, in reply to them, that abso-
lutely no discrepancies and no contradictions exist in our
present scriptural text; but we may say truly, at least such
is the view which I feel constrained to take of the subject,
that these are so easily accounted for, they amount in the
whole to so few, they are in fact of so little importance, that
they make nothing of serious import against the claims
which the matter, the manner, and the character of the
Scriptures prefer as the stable ground of our belief and con-
fidence and obedience. One thing is absolutely certain.
There is not in the world-there never has been-any such
book as the Bible. There is none which looks to ends so
lofty, so worthy of our highest interest and regard. If the
Bible be not true, the destiny of man still remains enveloped
in more than Egyptian night.
Gadg
SECT. VIII. Manner of preserving the sacred Books.
SINCE the art of printing was discovered in Europe, there
has been little or no difficulty as to the preservation of
valuable or interesting books. Copies being multiplied by
thousands at a time, and this being repeated at intervals of
time, such an occurrence as the absolute loss of a valuable
book has hardly been possible. It is difficult for us who
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
181
live amidst the doings of the printing press, of Bible So-
cieties, and Tract Societies, to make a correct estimate of
the state of the ancient Hebrews in regard to the diffusion
and preservation of written compositions.
Nothing is clearer, than that the art of writing, and even
of reading, in the time of Moses, and indeed for centuries
afterwards, was very limited among the Hebrews. The
Shoterim, (,) however, a class of officers or magistrates
among them, one must naturally suppose, were acquainted
with the art of writing, and of course with reading; for the
verb v, of which the above word is a regular participle,
means, both in Hebrew and Arabic, to write. The literal
translation of ow is scriba, ypaµuarεus, scribe. We find
this class of men among the people in Egypt, Ex. v. 6—19,
and in the desert, Num. xi. 16. We trace them down to the
latest period of the Jewish commonwealth; see in 1 Chron.
xxiii. 4; xxvi. 29; 2 Chron. xix. 11; xxxiv. 13.
We are
not, however, to understand that this class of men were
mere copyists or chirographers, but magistrates, probably of
different gradations, who kept written records of the things
which they transacted. Besides these, the priests, at least
some of them, and probably some of the Levites, were ac-
quainted with reading and writing; for being the juriscon-
sults of the nation, one cannot well divine how intelligent
men among them would think of discharging their duties
well, without being able to read the Law of Moses.
There must be still less doubt as to the prophets among the
Hebrews. They were the preachers of the Mosaic religion.
The office which they performed was, as we have seen in the
preceding pages, altogether analogous to that of ministers of
the gospel. Priests neither preached nor prayed, i. e. as pub-
lic teachers and in their official capacity; but they gave ad-
vice, when consulted, as to matters of law, of duty, and of
conscience. Ministers of religion, in the sense of being its
public teachers and defenders, they were not. Above all
the men in the Jewish community, it behoved the prophets
to be acquainted with the Mosaic Law, and, from time to
time, with such other Scriptures as were added to it. The
very essence of their official duty as preachers of righteous-
ness, consisted in inculcating the doctrines which their sa-
cred books and their holy men had taught.
P
182
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
Still, plain as all this seems to be, there is no very definite
and certain evidence that priests and prophets themselves
always, or even in general, were actually possessed of copies
of the Mosaic Law; and so, after the time of David and
Solomon, in respect to other portions of Scripture written.
during their reigns. Had the Mosaic Law been obeyed by
all the kings of Judah and Israel, each king must have writ-
ten out a copy of the Law for himself; for so Deut. xvii. 18
enjoins. That David, whose delight was "to meditate on
the Law of the Lord by day and by night," complied with
this requisition, there can be no room for rational doubt.
Perhaps as little doubt can be entertained respecting Solo-
mon, who, in the former part of his reign, was much devoted
to study and to the promotion of the interests of religion.
The like was doubtless done by other kings, who were dis-
tinguished for their piety and the spirit of obedience to
the Law.
It will be recollected that from Moses to Samuel, (about
300 years,) we scarcely find mention of a prophet. Only
one makes a momentary appearance in the book of Judges;
Judg. vi. 8, seq. Almost as little, also, seems to be said con-
cerning priests, during the same period, as concerning pro-
phets. But from the time of Samuel down to Malachi, there
was a succession of prophets in all probability unbroken, and
priests are not unfrequently brought to view. Were the
Old Test. Scriptures in their hands? Were the copies of the
Law, and other Scriptures, as they arose, so multiplied that
all who wished could have access to them?
A question not devoid of interest; but one which can
scarcely be decided by any direct testimony within our reach.
We can reason quite conclusively in respect to the subject, if
we assume that all classes of the Hebrews, the Shoterim, the
priests, the Levites, kings and other high officers of state,
did their duty in regard to seeking the information requisite
to discharge well and faithfully the functions of their office,
under the Mosaic constitution. But it lies upon the very
face of the Jewish history, that all of these classes of officers
did not usually perform the duty of making themselves far
miliar with the Mosaic institutes, except as they gathered
them from common and traditional report. The frequent
lapses of the nation into idolatry, which are every where re-
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
183
corded, are satisfactory proof that the Hebrews were not well
instructed in the Mosaic laws, and that oftentimes the ma-
gistrates who governed them must have been ignorant as
well as themselves. It is impossible to suppose with any
degree of probability, that the nation would have so often
attached themselves to idol-worship, had the light of the then
existing Scriptures been generally diffused among them.
Moses did not make provision for schools, nor for early and
efficient instruction in the Scriptures. Hence, when there
were no prophets, (as seems to have been the case in the
time of the Judges,) or afterwards when there were but few
in comparison with the wants of the people, it is no wonder
that the mass of the nation fell into a state of the grossest
ignorance. The Mosaic provision for reading the Law only
once in seven years to the whole population, (Deut. xxxi.
10—13,) could not possibly be efficient enough to prevent
this. Besides, in times of general declension from the spirit
of piety, and above all in times of devotedness to the wor-
ship of idols, it was a matter of course that this public
reading should be neglected. The history of circumcision,
of the passover, and of other public feasts, shows that such
was the case in regard to these institutions. In times of
idolatry, the people would not be duly summoned by the
magistracy or the Levites to hear the Law; and if they
were, they would not listen to the summons. The very fact
that Moses provided for such a public reading and ordered
it, shows that he did not expect his written laws to be cir-
culated in manuscript among the mass of the people. In
times of alienation from the worship of the true God, when
the leaders of the people were themselves their misleaders,
is it rational to suppose, that they would have subjected
themselves to the trouble and very serious expense of pro-
curing for themselves copies of the Pentateuch? Few in-
deed of the kings either of Judah or Israel (probably none
of the latter) ever took pains to copy the Law; at least, the
history of them gives us reason to believe that such was the
B
case.
A few occasional notices of arrangements made by some
of the pious kings of Judah, serve to show that the state-
ments just made are in all probability correct.
The pious
Jehoshaphat, in the third year of his reign, sent out, as
184
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
teaching missionaries among his people, some of the princes,
Levites, and priests, and they went round among all the
cities of Judah, and carried the book of the law of the Lord
with them; 2 Chron. xvii. 7-9. Now clearly if these
princes, Levites, and priests, had each a copy of the Law,
which was their own property, and if this were a common
thing among them, it never could have occurred to the his-
torian to make mention of such a circumstance. In giving
the history of missionaries now, docs any one ever think of
specifying the fact, that they carry a Bible with them in their
journeys? If not, then does it seem altogether probable,
that in the case before us, the missionaries were required to
take the copy of the Law from the temple where it was de-
posited, in order that they might appeal to it in all their
public instructions? Could other copies of the Law have
been accessible among the Jews, at that time, when this copy
in the temple was permitted to be taken? It seems, at least,
to be very improbable. Who should have such copies, if
not princes and Levites and priests who attended on the
court, and who were sent on this mission?
In the great reformation under Hezekiah, we find an ex-
press recognition of celebrating a famous passover "accord-
ing to the law of Moses" (2 Chron. xxx. 16); but there is
nothing mentioned in this connexion which would cast
light on the subject before us, excepting the fact, that many
came to the passover unsanctified, and of course unprepared
to celebrate it in a legal manner; 2 Chron. xxx. 17-20.
Must not this have been in consequence of ignorance re-
specting the Mosaic law? It seems probable, at least; and
the more so, inasmuch as Hezekiah admitted them to the
passover, and prayed the Lord to forgive their sin of ignor-
ance, which prayer was granted. A circumstance this, I
may add, which is replete with instruction to those who
place too much stress upon the rites and forms and externals
of religion.
In Josiah's time, it seems nearly certain that the copies of
the Law were reduced to one; at least that no more could
be found or were accessible. The astonishment of the king
and his court, yea, of the high priest Hilkiah himself, who
found a copy in the temple, is such as to show, that none of
these persons possessed a copy of their own; 2 Chron. xxxiv.
SECT. VIII.
185
THE SACRED BOOKS.
14, seq.
We have already seen, that the fifty-seven years
of idolatry under the reign of Manasseh and Amon had
probably occasioned this dearth of copies; and also that
the bitter and bloody persecution of that time was probably
the cause why the copy had been hid which was found by
Josiah. But be this as it may, it is clear enough that the
supposition of a general circulation of the Scriptures in
MSS. among the Hebrews before the exile, is out of all
question. It seems to be almost equally clear, moreover,
that kings, princes, priests, and Levites, did not ordinarily
take any pains to possess themselves of a copy of the Scrip-
tures. Individuals among all these classes there might be,
and more probably still among the prophets, and some also
even in private life, who did possess copies of the Law; I
mean that such might be, and occasionally was, in all pro-
bability the case. But the perishable materials on which
these copies were written, and the little interest that would
be felt in them in times of deep and general declension from
the spirit of true religion, sufficiently account for the speedy
loss or destruction of most codices once (as we express it)
in circulation.
That the fear of an entire and utter loss of the Penta-
teuch, after the occurrence already spoken of in the time of
Josiah, would probably lead to a considerable multiplication
of copies, there can be no good room to doubt. That the
brief reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zede-
kiah, (only some twenty-two years in the whole,) before the
exile, would destroy all, or even most, of these codices, can-
not be deemed very probable. These kings did not perse-
cute in such a furious manner as Manasseh had done. When
the king of Babylon "burnt the house of God, and all the
palaces thereof, and slew the young men with the sword in
the house of the sanctuary," (2 Chron. xxxvi. 19, 17,) it is
not probable that he destroyed the sacred books in the tem-
ple; for as the city of Jerusalem had sustained a siege of
about two years' continuance, sufficient warning must have
been given to priests and prophets to take care of those
books.
The story in 2 Macc. ii. 1, seq., respecting the part which
Jeremiah acted, when the temple was burnt, is very curi-
ous; and although mixed with a spicing of fable, in all pro-
186
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
Sant
bability has some truth for its basis. The substance of it
is, that this prophet took some of the holy fire and the book
of the Law, and committed them to the charge of some of
the exiles, with strict injunction to keep them safely and
never neglect them. At the same time, (which is the fabu-
lous part of the story,) the prophet, moved by a special re-
velation, commanded the tabernacle and the ark of the cove-
nant to follow him to Mount Sinai, where he hid them, with
the altar of incense, in a cave, until the time of restoration
and prosperity should return. The writer appeals to ἀπο-
ypapai and to ypaph as containing this account, verses 1, 4.
He relates, moreover, what Nehemiah did in collecting sa-
cred books for the renewed commonwealth of the Jews;
but this belongs to a subsequent part of our subject. In
respect to this whole matter, it seems altogether probable,
that such a man as Jeremiah, himself a priest and having
ready access to the temple, would preserve the sacred re-
cords deposited there, and secure them against destruction.
However this may be, it is at least certain, that Zerubbabel
and Jeshua arranged the ritual of Jewish worship accord-
ing to the Law of Moses, when they came up with the first
colony of the returning exiles; Ezra iii. 2. Afterwards,
when it is related that Ezra came up with a second colony,
(Ez. vii. 1, seq.,) he is spoken of as a ready scribe in the
Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given;"
Ez. vii. 6. That the Law, therefore, and probably other
scriptural books, were in the hands of the Jews, i. e. of the
literary part of them, during the exile, seems quite certain.
Private individuals doubtless possessed some copies; and
surely such a man as Ezra must have had it in his power
to be a diligent student of them, while he was yet in exile.
66
Let us advert, for a moment, to the account which is
given in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, of the pre-
servation of at least some of the sacred books, as they came
from the hands of their authors. In Deut. xvii. 18, Moses
speaks of a copy of this Law in a book, to be made by each
king with his own hand, and then speaks of that book as
being before the priests the Levites, i. e. under their in-
spection or guardianship, and of course in the temple. In
Deut. xxxi. 9, it is said that "Moses wrote this law, and
delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi," i. e. he com-
-
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
187
mitted it to them for safe keeping. In Deut. xxxi. 26,
Moses is said to have commanded the priests who bore the
ark of the covenant, to "take the book of the Law and put
it in the side of the ark of the covenant," there to be kept
as a permanent witness against the Israelites, in case they
should break the covenant. It is not essential to our pre-
sent purpose, whether the whole of the Pent., or of Deuter-
onomy, or only a portion of the latter, is here designated by
the phrase
; although no one can give a sa-
tisfactory reason why one portion of Deuteronomy should
be so preserved and not another. But still, the word is
employed to designate a writing which is complete in it-
self, whether longer or shorter, and it can hardly mean
merely extracts from the Law, or a certain small portion of
it. That there was a book in Moses' time, a record in
which were written important laws, arrangements, and oc-
currences, and which was deposited by the ark, seems to be
nearly certain from the manner in which it is so often advert-
ed to; e. g. Moses is commanded (Ex. xvii. 14) to write an
account of the contest with Amalek D, in the book, (not
in a book,) and of course in some noted or well-known book;
in Ex. xxiv. 7 it is said, that "he took the book of the cove-
nant and read in the audience of the people,” which doubt-
less means the laws in Ex. xx.—xxiv. ; in Deut. xxviii. 58,
Moses speaks of the words of this Law written no, lit.
in this here book (which is the most exact translation that
we can make of the phrase in English); and in Deut. xxviii.
61, he speaks of the book of this Law; and in these two lat-
ter cases, what he says was in an address to the people. To
be intelligible, he must have referred to a well-known book,
probably to one which was held up before them while he
was addressing them. This same book, called the book of
the Law in Deut. xxxi. 26, was the one which Moses com-
manded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant, to take
and put by the side, or at the side, or on the side, (7, ▷ being
often used in Hebrew to denote proximate or dependent lo-
calities,) of the ark of the covenant. There is nothing in-
consistent with the supposition that the book of the Law,
i. e. the Pentateuch as a whole, was kept in that place, in the
assertion made in 1 Kings viii. 9, and 2 Chron. v. 10, viz.
that "there was nothing in the ark [when it was transferred
188
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
to the sanctuary of the newly built temple] save the two
tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb." The
Hebrew here is 18, in the ark, which is quite a different
phrase from the 1873, on the side of the ark, in Deut.
xxxi. 26; although De Wette in his Introduction has con-
founded them, and endeavoured to make some capital out
of this circumstance for his purpose of destructive criticism.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 4) speaks in the same way
of only the tables of the covenant, i. e. the stone tablets on
which the ten commandments were engraved, as being in the
ark; see Ex. xxxi. 18; xxxii. 15, 16; xxxiv. 1, 28; Deut.
ix. 10, and particularly x. 1-5. Josephus repeats the same.
idea, Antiq. VIII. 4. 1, “The ark contained nothing else
except the two tablets of stone, which preserved the ten
commandments spoken by the Lord to Moses, and written
upon them at Mount Sinai."
t
Traces of the fact that the Law of Moses was deposited
in the sanctuary along with the ark of the covenant, for safe
keeping, may be found in subsequent parts of the Old Tes-
tament. In Josh. xxiv. 26 it is said, that "he wrote these
words [which most naturally means the two addresses that
he made to the people near the close of his life, Josh. xxiii.,
xxiv.] in the book of the Law of God; and he took a great
stone and set it up there [as witness between him and the
people] under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the
Lord;" in other words, he wrote down his solemn addresses
and joined them to the Pentateuch or words of Moses kept
in the sanctuary.
Again, in I Sam. x. 25 it is said, that this prophet "told
the people the manner of the kingdom [of Saul], and wrote
it 50, in the book;" which of course must mean a well-
known book; and what other one could this be than "the
Law of the Lord," to which Joshua had annexed his admo-
nitions? The solemnity and importance of the occasion de-
manded such an authentication as would be made by this
circumstance, and perpetuity, moreover, would thus be
secured to the written constitution of the kingdom.
G
Of course we are prepared by occurrences like these, to
expect what is related of the Pentateuch in the time of Jo-
siah, viz. that it was found in the temple; although in this
case surely not in its usual place by the side of the ark. It
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
189
had been withdrawn and hidden by some pious hand, to save
it from the desolating fury of Manasseh.
Does not, moreover, the passage in Isa. xxxiv. 16 refer to
the holy bibliotheca in the temple, surnamed the book of the
Lord? After predicting various evils to Edom, the prophet
says, "Seek ye out of the book (50 hyp) of the Lord, and
read; no one of these shall fail." That this expression does
not refer to what the prophet had himself just uttered,
Knobel has clearly shown in his Commentary on this book;
although Rosenmueller and others have defended this mode
of interpretation. Gesenius supposes him to advert to a col-
lection of sacred books, with which his own was to be as-
sociated. That he refers to some prophecy or predictions
in other and sacred books, seems to be quite certain from the
tenor of the passage and the nature of the reasoning. But
whether these books were a part of our present Canon or
not, it would be more difficult to say. Still, the phrase
book of the Lord, and the certainty of the writer that what
was contained therein would take place, show that the book
in question was a well-known and definite one, and one also
of sacred authority. There was therefore, at the period
when this was written, a collection of sacred writings; and
the expression, book of the Lord, may refer either to the
Divine origin of the book, or to the fact that it was kept
where God was supposed to dwell, viz. in the inner sanc-
tuary. It is quite possible, moreover, that the prophecy
referred to may be virtually contained in the declarations of
Isaac respecting Esau in Gen. xxvii. 37, seq., so that the
Pentateuch itself is the book of the Lord to which reference
is made.
"That
That what was done in ancient times, in respect to the
sacred books of the Hebrews, was done at a later period,
after the second temple was built, seems to be manifest from
various passages in Josephus. Speaking of Moses' bring-
ing water from the rock, (Antiq. III. 1. 7,) he says,
God had foretold this to Moses, δηλοῖ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀνακειμένη
Ypaph, the Scripture laid up in the temple shows." Speaking
of the day being prolonged during the battle of Joshua with
the five kings, (Antiq. V. 1. 17,) he says, "This is shown
by the writings laid up in the temple, διὰ τῶν ἀνακειμένων ἐν
Tieρ yраμμáтwr." This last quotation shows, that the
190
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
deposit of books in the temple was not confined to the Pen-
tateuch, for it has reference to the book of Joshua.
Again, Josephus, in describing the triumphal procession
of Vespasian and Titus at Rome, when the Jewish war had
been completed, says, that the spoils of the temple were
made conspicuous above all the other things carried in the
procession, and that "last" [and consequently most eminent]
"among these spoils was borne the Law of the Jews, ¿
νόμος ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐφέρετο τῶν λαφύρων τελευταῖ·
oç," Bell. Jud. VII. 5. 5. Again (§ 7. ib.) he says, that Ves-
pasian erected a temple to Peace, and there he deposited the
furniture of the temple at Jerusalem, while "he commanded
to keep laid up in the palace their Law, [viz. the Law of the
Jews,] and the purple veil of the temple, ròv dè vóµov avtív
καὶ τὰ πορφυρᾶ τοῦ σηκοῦ καταπετάσματα προσέταξεν ἐν τοῖς
βασιλείοις ἀποθεμένους φυλάττειν.” I can scarcely doubt
that in both of these cases the word vópos (law) comprises,
as it sometimes does in the usage of other writers of that
period, the whole of the Jewish Scriptures recognised by
Josephus as such.
νόμος in
such a sense, is well known to all Hebrew scholars; see
Buxt. Lex. Talmud. and Hottinger Thes. Philol. p. 94. If
there be any doubt of this, it would seem to be dissipated by
Josephi Vita, § 75, where he says, that Titus, at his request,
"made him a present of the sacred books, ßißλíwv iepūv
ἔλαβον χαρισαμένου Τίτου.” It does not appear with cer-
tainty from the context, whether this copy of the Scriptures
was one taken from the temple or not; but on the whole
this is the impression made upon my mind by reading § 75
throughout. If I am not in an error, there was then, at that
time, more than one copy of the sacred books laid up in the
temple; for the copy given to Josephus and retained by
him, must be different from that which was carried in pro-
cession by Vespasian and laid up in the temple of Peace.
""
It would seem to be a matter of course, that the Jewish
high priest and Sanhedrim, who were the supreme judges of
the nation in all matters pertaining to religion and morality,
should have kept a copy of the sacred books near at hand,
i. e. near to the place where they usually held their meet-
ings; which was either in a part of the temple, or in
the house of the high priest in its neighbourhood. If so,
- תורה The Rabbinical use of
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
191
what place could be so appropriate for those books as the
temple?
There is other evidence also, of an indirect nature, in re-
gard to the keeping of the Scriptures, after the return of the
Jews from exile. We have already seen (p. 81, seq. above)
that synagogues, in which the Jewish Scriptures were read,
in all probability originated soon after that return. In these
it would seem, if we are to credit Jewish tradition, that
only the Law of Moses or Pentateuch was at first read, and
that this custom continued down to the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes. That tyrant, in his persecution of the Jews,
compelled them to destroy all the copies of the Law which
could be found; in particular he commanded, that the public
reading of the Law of Moses in the synagogue, on the sab-
bath, should be entirely abolished. The reading of the Law
in the synagogues being thus prohibited on pain of death,
the Jews chose an adequate number of selections or extracts
from the prophetical books of the Scriptures, as substitutes
for them, and thus continued their scriptural readings.
Such is the usual account given of the origin of the Haph-
taroth, or prophetical lections, which are designated in the
margin of all the better Hebrew Bibles. Van der Hooght
has given a catalogue of them at the close of his edition of
the Hebrew Bible; marked the corresponding Parashoth or
sabbatical lections of the Pentateuch, for which the pro-
phetical lections, as said above, were substituted; and finally
pointed out at the same time the difference in the prophetical
selections, in twelve cases, between the Jews of southern
and those of middle and northern Europe. The tradition
about the origin of these, as stated above, is vouched for
and fully stated by Elias Levita, (Thisbi, ad h. vocem,) and
admitted by the great mass of biblical critics; among whom
are Eichhorn and Bertholdt. The latter makes defence of
Elias. Still the story about the origin of the Haphtaroth
is doubted by De Wette, (Einl. § 80,) for doubt falls in
with his usual style of criticism; but it is also called in
question by Vitringa, Vet. Synag. p. 1007, seq., and some-
what doubted by Carpzov, Crit. Sac. p. 148. The ground
of doubt as to the origin of the Haplitaroth, is the lack of
historical testimony. In 1 Macc. i. 56, 57, the writer, in
recounting the persecuting measures of Antiochus Epi-
192
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
phanes, says that "he burned rà ßißλla roũ vóμov,” and that
"wherever ßißλiov dialýкns was found with any one, or any
showed pleasure in the Law, the judgment of the king
[Antiochus] condemned him to death." Carpzov remarks
on this, that the object of the tyrant was not merely to
destroy the Pentateuch, or to stop the sabbatical readings in
the synagogue, but to heathenize the Jews, and to prohibit
all exercises of their religion; and of course he must have
laboured to destroy the Prophets as well as the Law. Jose-
phus, in his narration respecting Antiochus, says that "he
destroyed all those with whom was found βίβλος ἱερὰ καὶ
vóμos" (Antiq. XII. 5. 4); which seems to favour the view
of Carpzov and Vitringa.*
But however or whatever the origin or the occasion of
reading the Haphtaroth on the sabbath in the synagogue
may have been, it matters not as to our present object. In
the apostles' time the custom of reading them was usual, or
rather, as we may well suppose, universal among the Jews.
Thus in Acts xiii. 15, "after the reading of the Law and
the Prophets," (a frequent designation of the Old Test.
Scriptures in general,) the rulers of the synagogue asked
Paul and his companions to address the assembly." In ver. 27
of the same chapter, it is said of the persecuting people of
Jerusalem, that "they knew not the voices of the Prophets
which are read every sabbath day." This puts the matter
beyond a question as to the prophetical books being kept in
the synagogues for use; and if they were there, they
would of course be in the temple. But these passages do
not settle the question, how long the prophets had been so
read. Yet the apostle James, in Acts xv. 21, has decided
that the custom of reading the Scriptures in this way, at
least of reading the Law, was in his time quite an ancient
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that
preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath
day." That he names only Moses here, results merely, as I
apprehend, from the nature of the appeal which he makes
in the passage. The preceding passages which have just
been quoted, (Acts xiii. 15, 27,) show the exact state of the
one:
* I have already remarked, that this account of the origin of sections
from the prophets given by Elias Lovita, is now abandoned by the best
biblical critics. D.
A
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
193
whole matter at that period. Now how long a period may
be comprised under the Ek yevεwv apxaiwr of James, it
would be difficult to say with exactness. But that a period
farther back than that of Antiochus (175–164 D. c.) is
meant, seems to me altogether probable. I must therefore,
with Vitringa and Carpzov, believe it probable that the re-
ligious zeal of the Jews, at or soon after the time of Ezra
and Nehemiah, gave birth to the reading of both the Law
and the Prophets in the synagogues.
This being conceded, or even so large a period as that
which reaches back to the time of Antiochus being con-
ceded, for the reading of the Prophets in all the synagogues,
it will be seen at once what effectual provision had been
made for the preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures, after
the return from Babylon. Such an accident as occurred in
regard to the Law of Moses in the time of Josiah, was no
longer possible. In confirmation of the fact, that the Pro-
phets were read in the synagogues, (James says, Acts xv.
21, in every wóλe-town or village,) we may appeal to Luke
iv. 17-19. Jesus being in the synagogue at Nazareth is
invited to read the Scriptures, and the volume of Isaiah is
given him, which he opens at chap. Ixi. and commences
reading in it. The suggestion that he did this. in an extra-
ordinary manner, i. e. merely by virtue of his own peculiar
authority, is favoured by nothing in the narration of Luke.
On the contrary, he is requested to read; is directed where,
i. e. in what book, he shall read; and no one expresses any
offence at the manner, but at the matter of his discourse.
I understand the evangelist as saying, that Jesus had been
accustomed to read in the synagogue antecedently to this
occasion: "he entered according to his custom into the syna-
gogue on the day of the sabbath, and stood up to read;
where karà rò ɛiwoòç avr@ may naturally, and I doubt not
that it does, qualify both clauses. If the action of reading
had been an unusual one, would the volume of Isaiah have
been given to him, and all in the synagogue have peaceably
and attentively waited for his subsequent discourse?* It is
garden
>>
*It is very unlikely that the phrase according to his custom refers to
more than the first clause, he entered into the synagogue. The volume
would have been given to him though he had not been accustomed to read
in the synagogue; for the reading was not thon confined to any one. D.
0
194
SECT. VIII.
true, indeed, that the portion of Isaiah which he read, (lxi.
1, 2,) is not at present included in the Haphtaroth; for one
of them ends with the preceding chapter. But this is not
an argument of any weight to show that the reading of the
passage in question must be regarded as something singular
or extraordinary; for as the Haphtaroth differ (this we have
seen above) among the Jews of southern and of northern
and middle Europe, so, in ancient times, Isa. Ixi. 1, 2 may
have been included in them.
PRESERVATION OF
It follows from all the preceding considerations, that the
Law and the Prophets had been read on the sabbath day,
in every town in Judea, for a long period, έk yevɛwv
apxaíwv; and of course, that there must have been some
established Scriptures from which the selection for reading
was made. The destruction or even material change of the
Scriptures, after such a custom had commenced, was put out
of all question. The destruction of one copy would only
be the loss of one out of a great number; interpolations or
alterations in one copy, would not affect the others which
remained unmutilated. Indeed any one who has read the
Tractatus Sopherim may well believe, that Jewish super-
stition, if nothing better, would have prevented any consider-
able change in the text of the Scriptures at this period.
It is unnecessary to dwell here on the inquiry, how much,
or what portion, of the Scriptures were called prophetic.
We have seen above, that the idea of a prophet, among the
Hebrews, was not confined to those who predicted future
events, but was extended to all who preached, wrote, or
taught by Divine inspiration. Hence in the division of the
Hebrew Scriptures, made we know not how long before the
Christian era, the historical books, as well as those which
we now call prophetic, were assigned to the prophets. Jo-
shua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings are called
'N D'N', the first or early prophets. This is a Tal-
mudic arrangement. We shall see, in the sequel, that Jo-
sephus, and probably Philo and Jesus Sirachides, include
the other historical books, viz. 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther, Ruth, and probably Job, among the pro-
phets; and these books, with the others now usually named
prophetic among us, and by the Hebrews called the later
prophets, were all comprised under the general appellation
SECT. VIIL.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
195
of Prophets. The Haphtaroth or prophetical lections ex-
tend, therefore, to the historical books, as well as to the
books now called prophetic by us. And when it is said, (as
it has often been of late,) that the Kethubim or Hagiography
was a late collection, so late that no lections were made
from it, the more ancient division of the sacred books is not
only overlooked, but the fact that the book of Esther has
always been publicly read in the synagogues, since the events
which it commemorates took place, at the feast of Purim in
the twelfth month, (which book is one of the Hagiography,
according to the Talmudic division of the Scriptures,) is ig-
nored or very conveniently forgotten. Whatever might
have been the reason, on account of which the Talmudic
Rabbins classed the last-named historical books with the
Kethubim, it was not that they regarded them as uninspired.
Nor was the latest composition the criterion of what belong-
ed to the Hagiography, as classified by them; for most of
the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Can-
ticles, (the two last with the Proverbs, according to them,
from the pen of Solomon, the book of Ruth from that of
Samuel, and most of the Psalms from that of David,) were
regarded of course as being older than a number of the
books among both the former and latter prophets, e. g. Kings,
Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and (I may add) Jeremiah,
Lamentations, and Ezekiel.
A
According to the later Rabbinical division of the Scrip-
tures, then, portions of all the three great divisions of the
sacred books were publicly read in the synagogues, long be-
fore the Christian era. We can have no doubt, therefore,
that each and every part of the Jewish Scriptures was de-
posited in the synagogues respectively, and of course in the
temple.
As to the more ancient Hagiography, viz. Psalms, Pro-
verbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, (such we shall see is the
classification of Josephus,) I will not undertake to say with
certainty what was the reason that no lections for the syna-
gogues were taken from them. But as there is a correspond-
ence, real or supposed, between the lections from the Pen-
tateuch and those from the Prophets, it would seem probable
that those who selected those lections did not find a satis-
factory correspondence in the books just named, and so they
0 2
196
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF
I
omitted to select from them; at least this may be regarded
as probable in respect to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Can-
ticles. In regard to the Psalms, many correspondences as
to matter might indeed be easily found; but it should be
remembered, that the Psalms were very extensively em-
ployed in the public singing at the synagogue, and needed
not to be read in the lections.
•
If tradition has any weight in this matter, it would seem
to be quite plain and certain, that all three parts of the Jew-
ish Scriptures were used, as the basis of selection, in the
Jewish synagogues, long before the Christian era. This
usage, we cannot reasonably doubt, originated not long after
the complete arrangement of religious matters at Jerusalem,
under Ezra and Nehemiah. The facility of perpetuating
the Hebrew code in this way is very obvious. For more
than 1800 years now past, it has been perpetuated in the
synagogues, in the same way; and, moreover, by private
copies. The custom of individuals having these in posses-
sion, so far back as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is
clearly adverted to in 1 Macc. i. 57, "And whenever the
book of the covenant was found with any one (rapá Tivi)
the sentence of the king inflicted death upon him."
The deplorable experience of former ages, as to turning
away from the true God to the worship of idols, had taught
the Jewish nation, that "to be without knowledge was not
good for the soul." Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have
entertained very enlightened views in regard to this subject.
Hence the pains taken to read, circulate among the people,
and inculcate the Scriptures, since the second establishment
of the Jews in Palestine. Hence the departure from the
ancient custom of remaining at home all day upon the sab-
bath, and the resort of worshippers and learners to the
synagogue. And the consequence of all this was, that the
Jews never have relapsed again into idolatry; a few rene-
gades only excepted in the time of Antiochus, or when under
the yoke of some other foreign tyrant.
•
To bring our present topic, viz. the preservation of the
Scriptures, to a close; I cannot help remarking, that the
wisdom of Providence seems to be conspicuous, in directing
matters so that the Jewish Scriptures were laid up or de-
posited in the temple. There, constant guardians of them
SECT. VIII.
THE SACRED BOOKS.
197
were always found, by day and by night. There, of course,
the mutilation or interpolation of them would be a difficult,
if not an impossible thing. Well has Abarbanel (on Deut.
xxxi. 26) said, "God deposited there [in the sanctuary]
the book of the Law, that it might remain as a testimony faith-
fully preserved, and that no one might vitiate or mar it [the
Scriptures]; for no one could act thus basely toward writ-
ings which were surrounded by the family of priests." The
absolute impossibility of corrupting the sacred books, indeed,
need not be assumed, and could not well be maintained; for
the priests, the keepers of them, were not all of them at all
times good men and true. But the improbability that such
a thing was done in a place so public and sacred, may well
be maintained.
not.
B
One other remark is naturally suggested by the topic be-
fore us.
This is, that the introduction into such a place of
books as sacred and as worthy of being kept there, must
usually be a thing of more than ordinary deliberation and
solemnity. I cannot well conceive, since the prophets were
wont to be consulted on all the graver matters of church or
state, that a book could have been placed there which was
not sanctioned by their judgment. It matters not whether
the writer of the book were professionally a prophet or
There might be occasional inspiration, in some cases,
where the subject of it was not, or at least had not been, a
prophet. But if the advice of a prophet was in fact fol-
lowed, in depositing any book as sacred in the temple, then
that book has as much of the authentic in it, as the work of
the prophet himself would have. That this was so, viz.
that the authority of prophets was needed and resorted to,
in order to give any book a claim to be considered as scrip-
tural, would seem to be almost conclusively shown by the
fact, that when the succession of prophets failed, the recep-
tion of any more books into the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment ceased. Indeed, I can hardly imagine a case, while
the order of prophets continued, in which I should deem
it probable that any effort could be made to add suppositi-
tious books, or parts of books, to the holy bibliotheca, with-
out detection and exposure by some of the prophets, whose
special duty it was in all things to watch over the interests
and preserve the purity of the Mosaic religion.
198
SECT. VIII.
PRESERVATION OF SACRED BOOKS.
If I were disposed to bring the usages of other countries,
in respect to books that were deemed sacred or specially im-
portant, into comparison with that of the Hebrews, I might
show the probability of the Hebrew usage from analogy,
even if no special reference be had to the fact of their sup-
posed inspiration. It is well known, that among the ancient
Egyptians and Babylonians, the priesthood was the literary
or learned class; and to them were confided the safe keeping
of books regarded as holy or very valuable. Most of these
were composed by persons belonging to the priesthood. It
was a matter of course that such books, being their own
productions, should be laid up in the temple where they
ministered, for safe keeping, and also as a testimonial of
honour to them. The Greeks called these literary priests
of foreign countries, iɛpoypaμpares, i. e. sacred scribes.
Among themselves, moreover, the Greeks had men of the
like class, whom they named γραμματεῖς ἱεροί or ἱερομνήμονες ;
El. Hist. An. XI. 10. Aristot. Pol. VI. 8. Demosth. pro
Cor. c. 27. Among the Romans, also, the most ancient li-
terature, viz. songs and annals, was the production of
priests; Niebuhr Röm. Geschichte, I. p. 247, ed. II. Bähr,
Gesch. d. Rom. Lit., pp. 53, seq., 250, seq. It is no matter
of surprise, then, that Strabo (Lib. XIV. p. 734, ed. Xyl.)
calls temples Tivaкooñkaι, i. e. tablet or book depositories.
In accordance with this is the account given of Sanchonia-
thon, the Phenician historian, who, about the time of the
Trojan war, or perhaps earlier, compiled a work out of
temple-archives-a work which was translated into Greek
by Philo Biblius (c. a. d. 100,) in nine books, and then was
quoted largely by Porphyry, and also by Eusebius (Prop.
Evang. I. 9). Sanchoniathon himself quotes older writers ;
all of which, by the way, has a decisive bearing on the ques-
tion about the antiquity of alphabetical writing. Berosus,
in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, (c. 280 B. C.,) wrote,
in three books, the Antiquities of Chaldea and Babylonia,
the materials of which he drew from the archives of the
temple of Belus, where he was a priest. The kings of Sparta,
who were also priests, kept prophetic writings in the tem-
ple, which had respect to their country; Herod. VI. 57.
At Athens, oracles, and secret compacts important to the
welfare of the city, were kept in the Acropolis, in order to
pad
SECT. IX.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
199
prevent all falsification; Dinarch. Orat. cont. Demosth. 91.
20. Heraclitus deposited his Work upon Nature in the
sanctuary of Diana at Ephesus, in order to withdraw it from
the eyes of the profane; Diog. Laert. IX. 6. So also the
Romans kept their Libri Fulgurales in the temple of Apollo
(Serv. ad n. VI. 72); their Libri Lintei, in the temple
of Juno Moneta (Liv. IV. 8. IX. 18); the Sibyls, priestesses
of Apollo, kept their Carmina in the Capitol; Niebuhr,
Röm. Geschichte, I. p. 256, seq.
A practice of this kind could hardly have become so ge-
neral, without some obvious reasons for it. In all cases of this
nature it is quite plain, that the sacredness of the place was
relied on as likely to secure the inviolability of the books;
and the permanent structure of the building was also relied
on, as affording good assurance of preservation. In the case
of the Hebrews, many reasons combined to induce them to
institute and keep up such a usage. The priests were the
masters of the ritual, which was exceedingly minute and cir-
cumstantial; and they were also the jurisconsults and eccle-
siastical judges of the nation. The necessity of having the
code of laws always at hand, would compel them to have
temple-archives. That they did so admits of no reasonable
doubt.
SECT. IX. General Considerations respecting the Genuine-
ness of the books in the Old Testament Canon.
I HAVE now gone through with some account of the books
comprised in the Canon of the Old Testament, in regard to
their origin and authorship, and also in respect to the man-
ner in which they were preserved in the early ages. It may
not be improper to introduce, at this juncture, a few consi-
derations of a general nature, in regard to the collection of
books which we name the OLD TESTAMENT.
Whoever is acquainted with the works of the late J. G.
Eichhorn of Göttingen, knows full well, that for some thirty
years he was the sun of the neological firmament. Doubt-
less his writings, many of them being at the same time both
popular and learned, did more than those of any other per-
son of his time to bring forward and consummate the great
200
SECT IX.
GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT.
revolution in theology and criticism, which has taken place
in Germany and the bordering countries. Such a man no
one will suspect of orthodox prejudice. All his feelings and
his writings were alien enough from this. Still, on mere
subjects of critique and of æsthetics, he was usually a can-
did and fair-minded man. At all events he rarely says any
thing that is not worth listening to, and he may put in a just
claim at least to a respectful attention.
In his Introduction to the Old Testament, (3rd edit. § 12,
seq.,) he has given his views of the GENUINENESS of the sa-
cred books in general; and he has expressed them in such a
way, that I have thought it on the whole better to employ
his words than my own, in reference to the topic under con-
sideration. If I am suspected of being juratus in verba
magistri, as doubtless I may be by some who do not know
me, he at least is removed far enough from all possible sus-
picion of this sort. If the Destructives will not listen to
my suggestions because, as they say, I must talk orthodoxly,
at least they ought to listen to him, who claims so near a re-
lationship to them.
Having described the general nature, names, and order of
the Old Testament books, Eichhorn proceeds as follows:
I. They do not arise from the forgery of any ONE individual.
Whoever is endowed with adequate knowledge, and investigates with
impartiality the question, whether the writings of the Old Testament are
GENUINE, must surely answer it in the affirmative. No one deceiver
can have forged them all-this every page of the Old Testament pro-
claims. What a variety in language and expression! Isaiah does not
write like Moscs; nor Jeremiah like Ezekiel; and between these and
every one of the Minor Prophets a great gulf of style is fixed. The gram-
matical edifice of language in Moses has much that is peculiar; in the
book of Judges occur provincialisms and barbarisms. Isaiah pours
forth words already formed in a new shape; Jeremiah and Ezekiel are
full of Chaldaisms. In a word, when one proceeds from writers who
are to be assigned to carly periods of time to those which are later, he
finds in the language a gradual decline, until at last it sinks down into
mere Chaldaic turns of expression.
Then come next the discrepancies in the circle of ideas and of
images. The stringed instruments sound aloud when touched by Moses
and Isaiah; soft is the tone when David handles them. Solomon's
Musc shines forth in all the splendour of a most luxurious court; but
her sister in simple attire wanders, with David, by the brooks and the
river banks, in the fields and among the herds. One poct is original,
liko Isaiah, Joel, Habakkuk; another copies, like Ezekiel. One roams
in the untrodden path of genius; another glides along the way which
SECT. IX.
201
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
his predecessors have trodden. From one issue rays of learning ;
whilst his neighbour has not been caught by one spark of literature. In
the oldest writers strong Egyptian colours glimmer through and through;
in their successors they become fainter and fainter, until at last they en-
tirely disappear.
Finally, there is in manners and customs the finest gradation. At
first, all is simple and natural, like to what we see in Homer, and
among the Bedouin Arabs even at the present time; but this noble
simplicity gradually loses itself in luxury and effeminacy, and vanishes
at last in the splendid court of Solomon.
No where is there a sudden leap; every where the progress is gradual.
None but ignorant or thoughtless doubters can suppose the Old Testament
to have been forged by ONE deceiver.
+
The colouring which the painter has here employed is
vivid, but the objects are true and real, and are not formed
by his fancy. It is impossible to read the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, with the exercise of any discriminating judgment and
æsthetical feeling, without acceding in the main to what
Eichhorn has stated. Thousands of nice touches and dashes
of light and shade, in the original objects, are lost in our
English version, where all are mingled together, and melted
so as to become one mass in the Anglo-Saxon crucible.
But as to the critical reader of the Hebrew-if he has one
spark of æsthetical fire in him, or if he carries along with
him even the feeblest torch of discrimination, he must ac-
cede to the truthfulness and the sound judgment of Eichhorn,
as to this matter in general. A forgery of all these books by
one person, would be a greater miracle than any which the
books have related. But let us join again the company of
the Göttingen Professor:
II. They are not the forgery of MANY deceivers.
"But perhaps," some one may reply, "perhaps many forgers have
made common cause, and at the same time, in some later period, have
got up the books in question."-But how could they forge in a way so
entirely conformed to the progress of the human understanding? And
was it possible in later times to create the language of Moses? This
surpasses all human powers. Finally, one writer always supposes the
existence of another. They could not then all have arisen at the same
time; they must have existed successively.
Co
Perhaps then," it may be further said, "such forgers arose at dif-
ferent times, who continued onward, in the introduction of supposi-
titious writings, from the place where their deceitful predecessors had
stopped. In this way may all the references to preceding writers be
explained; in this way may we explain the striking gradation that exists
in all its parts."
202
SECT. IX.
GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT.
But, (1.) How was it possible that no one should have discovered the
trick, exposed it, and put a brand upon the deceiver, in order that pos-
terity might be secured against injury? How could a whole nation be
often deceived, and at different periods? (2.) What design could such
a deceiver have had in view? Did he aim at culogizing the Hebrew
nation? Then are his eulogies the severest satires; for according to the
Old Testament, the Hebrew nation have acted a very degrading part.
Or, did he mean to degrade them? In this case, how could ho force
his books upon the very people whom they defamed, and the story of
whose being trodden under foot by foreign nations is told in plain blunt
words?
These remarks seem to me to be equally just with the
preceding ones. A series of forgers, in such a succession
of ages, all developing an intimate acquaintance with pre-
decessors, and still true to their own particular age in all
their characteristic features! And a nation distinguished
above all others for activity and shrewdness, tamely receiv-
ing and submitting to all these impositions! The thing is
unheard of; it is improbable; nay, it is absolutely impossi-
ble, in the common course of things. Impostors and forgers
write Isaiah, and Joel, and Habakkuk, and Nahum, and Job,
and the Psalms! It
It is impossible. It is altogether more
incredible than any so-called myth in all the Old Testament.
The story of Jonah and of Samson, which have set in mo-
tion the whole circle of obstreperous and vituperative criti-
cism, is a matter quite within the reach of ordinary faith, in
comparison with such a figment as this.
Toda
I must solicit the attention of the reader to one point in
particular, to which Eichhorn has adverted, and which is
peculiarly characteristic of the writers of the Old Testament.
It is this, viz. that they disclose the faults as well as the
virtues of men whom they hold up to view, and of the peo-
ple to whom they belong. What shall we say of Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses even, David, Solomon,
Asa, and others, in every way so conspicuous as ancestors
or as kings of the Jewish nation? Is there one whose
faults are not unveiled? One even whose weaknesses are
not revealed? And what can we say of the whole history?
-the history of God's chosen people, distinguished from all
the nations of the earth-the posterity of Abraham-the
nation "to whom belongs the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service
of God, and the promises ?" Is there a history on earth of
SECT. IX.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
203
any people, (unless it be some caricature sketched by the
hand of an enemy,) which is half so full of narrations that
respect their perverseness, and disobedience, and rebellion,
and gross idolatry and immorality? Where is there such a
history? Who wrote it? Or if such a one exists, where is
there an account of its being received by the very people
whom it characterizes, and regarded as a book replete with
truths that are Divine? The challenge to produce it may
be fearlessly made. The result is beyond a question.
Will any one explain to me, now, how such a matter as
the reception of the Jewish Scriptures as sacred was brought
about, in the natural course of things? The historians and
the prophets, one and all, charging the nation with ingra-
titude and rebellion, and threatening them with subjuga-
tion and exile, with sword and famine and pestilence-and
yet these historians and prophets admitted as counsellors
and guides, and their works canonized! There is some-
thing of the extraordinary in all this, which is no myth, to
say the least. Naturalists are bound to untie the knot; we
cannot permit them to cut it.
But when one adds to all this the consideration of the
matter as connected with forgery and imposture, it becomes
quite unendurable. Forgers and impostors so elevated and
honoured for characterizing a people in such a way, as must
cause the cheek of every ingenuous Hebrew to blush for
his nation! Is there nothing mythic in this? Men too of
such a stamp as forgers and impostors, filled with over-
flowing zeal on all occasions for the worship and honour
and glory of the true God, and for the holiness and benevo-
lence and justice and integrity of the Hebrew nation? Is
this the character of men of such a stamp? It is a down-
right contradiction of all that belongs to the history of our
race. It is neither more nor less than a moral impossibi-
lity. "Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi."
St
Romancers have in view the exaltation of their hero.
Even the gravest and most tasteful of them scarcely glance
at a fault. How has Xenophon presented his Cyrus; Ho-
mer his Achilles; Virgil his Æneas? Whatever we, judg-
ing by our standards, may find in them which is faulty, it
was not the intention of these respective writers to hold up
any faults to view. Is it so with the picture of David, in
204
SECT. IX.
GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT.
66
the
the book of Kings? So with the picture of even
wisest of men ?" And if it be said that the books of Chron-
icles have kept the faults of these distinguished personages
out of view, the reply is easy: The story was already told
in the book of Kings, and the chronicler had in view prin-
cipally what these Jewish monarchs did to accommodate,
arrange, and complete the worship of God in the manner
prescribed by Moses.
No; the histories of the Jews are unlike those of all
other nations. God and his honour and worship and ordin-
ances are the nucleus of them all. Men-the whole nation
are but secondary actors in this great drama. A David
and a Solomon come before the tribunal of the historian, at
his bidding, laying aside their crowns and their heroism and
their wisdom, and standing there to be judged for their vices
as impartially as the meanest subject in their kingdom. Is
this so elsewhere, and in respect to men whose virtues are
preeminent? I cannot find it.
How then was all this brought about? Not by forgers
and impostors; not by the ordinary tactics of national his-
torians and the writers of memoirs. There is an honesty,
an integrity, a boldness, an independence, a love of truth,
and a hatred of sin in every form, which stands out to view
so prominently in all the historians and prophets of the He-
brews, that I feel compelled to say, The hand of the Lord
is here; his Spirit breathed into these writers the breath
of a piety which could not die; it kindled a flame in their
breasts, whose light all the surrounding darkness could not
extinguish.
htt
But I must desist. Once more then let us listen to the
former Coryphæus of Neology. He gives us some diagnos-
tics by which we may judge in respect to the genuineness
of the books in question, § 13.
The Old Testament bears all the marks of genuineness enstamped
upon it. (1.) The very same grounds which are available in a contest
for Homer, establish the genuineness of all and particular the books
of the Old Testament. Why should one deny to these the equity
which he extends to heathen writers? If a profane writer plants him-
self in some particular age and country, and if all the external and
internal circumstances of his book accord with this, no impartial in-
quirer refuses to acknowledge him. Yea, one does not hesitate at all
to determine the uncertain age of any writer, by internal arguments
-
SECT. IX.
205
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
drawn from his works. Why should not the critical inquirer respect-
ing the Bible, walk in the same path?
(2.) No one has yet, with any good grounds, been able to overthrow
the integrity and credibility of the Old Testament. On the contrary,
every discovery in ancient literature has hitherto only served for the
confirmation of the Hebrew Scriptures. No one has shown that any
writer of the Old Testament has exhibited a style, or knowledge, or
introduced circumstantial matters, which are not appropriate to the
age assigned to him.
(3.) In brief, all the books of the Old Testament, which bear the
names of their authors, are marked with the stamp of integrity on the
part of these authors. And with respect to the books that are anonym-
ous, internal grounds demonstrate that we must regard them as ge-
nuine. The book of Joshua, for example, whose author is unknown,
gocs so deep into the detail of the most ancient geography, that a forger
must have wrought miracle upon miracle, in order to put himself in a
condition so as to compose it.
Let one examine this matter in a discriminating way and without
prejudice, and I am certain that he must convince himself of the inte-
grity of the Old Testament.
Eichhorn goes on, in the sequel, to show, that even on
the ground that new accessions have been made to some of
the books, and that several of them are compounded of va-
rious authors, no argument of any force can be drawn from
this source to confront the allegation of integrity. Such
things have happened to most of the early writers among
other nations. Not a few books of the Scriptures are pro-
fessedly drawn from other sources; and others, not profess-
edly so, exhibit internal marks of the fact. But a book
compounded in this way may be as genuine and worthy of
credit as any other book.
Thus thought and wrote the great leader of the new
array, in the war against the Divine authority and obligation
of the Scriptures. With him, when writing here, the ques-
tion was one merely of critical judgment and feeling. No-
bly has he managed the cause of what I believe to be sound
criticism, and justly has he decided it. With all his free-
thinking and independence of mind, he is left, in the race of
neological criticism, immeasurably behind De Wette, Ewald,
Lengerke, Mr. Norton, and their compeers.
Leaving all theological bearings of our matter out of ques-
tion for the present, I do not see how, as fair-minded critics
and exegetes, we can refuse to adopt the sentiments of Eich-
horn, as exhibited above. I would not undertake to prove,
206
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
that all which this writer has published will harmonize with
these views. But I am gratified to have it in my power to
express, in language borrowed from him, the views which
I entertain in respect to this very important subject.
SECT. X. Time when the Canon of the Old Testament
was completed.
THIS has, in recent times, become a much contested ques-
tion. The criticism that has been moving on in the wake
of Wolf, Heyne, and their compeers, (who discovered that
Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are nothing but a mere farrago
of many songs composed in different ages and countries, and
that the art of alphabetic writing was unknown in the time
of Homer, and of course in the time of Moses,) has made
the like discoveries in regard to almost all the books of the
Old Testament. According to recent critics, every book of
the Old Testament, with the exception of Ruth, Esther,
possibly Canticles, (but here they differ,) Ezekiel, and some
of the minor prophets, is a patch-work of cloth and colours
of all textures and all varieties. The time in which most
of these books were composed, was, according to them, at
or after, in some cases long after, the Babylonish exile. In
particular, the book of Daniel is placed deep down, even
into the time of the Maccabees, i. e. about 160—140 B. C. ;
as also some of the Psalms, and not improbably various
other portions of books the body of which may be older.
The question in respect to this matter is one of deep inter-
cst to sacred criticism; although it would not be very im-
portant to my present main purpose, which is to show what
that canon of Old Testament books consisted of, which was
sanctioned by Christ and his apostles. Even the most
loose of the so-called liberal critics do not pretend that any
of the Old Testament books have been added to the Canon
since the commencement of the Christian era; so that, come
into being when or how they may, if they existed before the
Christian era, and were sanctioned as of Divine authority
by the author himself of Christianity, and by his apostles, it
www
Al
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
207
would be enough for my special purpose. But, as I said at
commencement of this treatise, I have a more general object
in view, as well as the particular one just named; and this
is, to give the outlines of the critical history of the Old
Testament Canon in general. To do this, it is indispensable
to investigate, with some particularity, the point which is
brought before us by the heading to the present section.
Pa
I begin with the testimony of Josephus in relation to the
matter in question, because, although it is not the most an-
cient, it is still the most definite and particular that can be
found in any writer of the more remote antiquity. It is
found in his work Contra Apionem, against whom he is de-
fending the credibility and authenticity of the Hebrew
Scriptures. After appealing to the agreement between pro-
fane and Old Testament history as to many important facts
related in the Hebrew Scriptures, he then goes on to ex-
press himself as follows:
We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed
against each other; but only two and twenty books, containing the his-
tory of every age, which are justly accredited as Divine [old editions of
Josephus read merely, "which are justly accredited "—Jɛĩa comes
θεῖα
from Eusebius' transcript of Josephus in Ecc. Hist. III. 10]; and of
these, five belong to Moses, which contain both the laws and the history
of the generations of men until his death. This period lacks but little of
3000 years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of
Artaxerxes, [Euseb.-'from the death of Moses to that of Artaxerxes'
-and so most of the Codices, omitting doxis, reign,] king of the Per-
sians after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have described
the things which were done during the age of each one respectively, in
thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God, and rules
of life for men. From the time of Artaxerxes, moreover, until our
present period, all occurrences have been written down; but they are
not regarded as entitled to the like credit with those which precede them,
because there was no certain succession of prophets. Fact has shown
what confidence we place in our own writings. For although so many
ages have passed away, no one has dared to add to them, nor to tako
any thing from them, nor to make alterations. In all Jews it is im-
planted, even from their birth, to regard them as being the instructions
of God, and to abide stedfastly by them, and if it be necessary, to die
gladly for them." (For the original Greek, see Appendix, No. III.)
Of the historian from whom this passage is taken, it is not
necessary to say much. Josephus was perhaps more distin-
guished and learned than any other man of his time belong-
ing to the Jewish nation. His father was a priest in the
Wand
208
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
regular order of the twenty-four courses ordained by David;
and his mother was a lineal descendant of the Maccabæan
kings, who also were priests. His father, Matthias, was a
man distinguished not only for his noble birth, but for his
praiseworthy deeds. To his son Joseph, or Josephus, born
about A. D. 37, he gave the best education in his power; and
so effectual were the means employed, that at the age of
fourteen this boy was consulted by the chief priests and
leaders of the city respecting difficult passages of the Law.
So Josephus himself has told us; and this seems to render
altogether improbable the allegations made here and there
not unfrequently, that Josephus had no tolerable acquaint-
ance with the Hebrew. At the age of sixteen he began his
inquiries respecting the several Jewish sects, and actually
spent three years in solitude with Banus, one of the Essenes,
in order to become thoroughly acquainted with the principles
of that sect. At the age of nineteen he joined the sect of
the Pharisees, which was altogether predominant at that
period. At the age of twenty-six he went to Rome as ad-
vocate before Nero Cæsar for some falsely accused Jewish
priests, and procured their liberation. Not long after this
the Jewish war broke out, and Josephus, espousing the part
of his countrymen, was put in command, and made a most
gallant defence of Jotapata against Vespasian. But there,
at length, he was taken prisoner, was subsequently kept by
Vespasian and Titus as a medium of communication between
them and the Jews, and finally, when the conquest of Judea
had been completed, he was taken by Titus to Rome, where
Vespasian assigned him a dwelling in a part of the palace,
with honorary maintenance. There he wrote his great
works, the Antiquities and the History of the Jewish War.
Later in life he wrote his Treatise against Apion, in defence
of the Jewish religion and their sacred books. Apion was a
grammarian of Alexandria, who, under Caligula's reign,
wrote a violent attack upon Philo Judæus and upon the
Jewish nation. Near the close of the first century, Josephus
wrote the Treatise in question; so that it is to be regarded
as the fruit of his most mature reflections and studies.
His knowledge of Greek literature is spoken of by Jerome
with astonishment. There is abundant evidence of it in
his Contra Apionem. His knowledge of the history of hist
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
209
own nation is sufficiently testified, by his two great works
in relation to this subject. It has been thought that he was
but moderately skilled in Hebrew, because he usually ap-
peals to the Sept. Version. But for this, two good reasons
can be assigned; the one, that he fully believed in the
miraculous rise of the Septuagint, as is shown by his ac-
count of this matter; the other, that the Romans, for whom
he wrote the history, could read the Septuagint but not the
Hebrew Scriptures.
That of all the men of his time among the Jews, he was
best qualified to give an account of Jewish affairs and Jew-
ish opinions, there can be no reasonable doubt. I can see
nothing that could sway him to give a wrong account of
what his countrymen and himself believed, in regard to the
history of the Jewish Canon. What that belief was, his
rank in life, his office as a priest, and, above all, his great
learning, must have rendered him able to know. Can any
good ground be assigned for the supposition, that he has
not given a true account of this matter?
The sect of the Pharisees, among whom he formed his
religious opinions, were of all men the most tenacious of
traditions and of the customs of former days; and when he
assures us of this and that opinion among the Jews of his
time, I do not know of any writer among the ancients, the
sacred writers excepted, who is more trust-worthy than he.
Thus much that the reader may understandingly appre-
ciate the testimony which we have before us. I return to
the consideration of that testimony.
My first remark is, that there is no ground to suppose
that Josephus gives us any other than the general and set-
tled opinion of the great mass of the Jewish nation. To the
party of the Pharisees this mass assuredly belonged. The
Sadducees were powerful only by virtue of wealth, and per-
haps learning. They were but a small party. The Essenes
lived mostly abroad, in desert or lonely places, and avoided
mixing with the world. Josephus then gives us not a pecu-
liar opinion of his own merely, but speaks evidently in be-
half of the great mass of the Jewish people. Finally, if
there were any thing merely sectarian in the views of the
Pharisees respecting the Hebrew Canon, Josephus would
not have been likely to embrace that in the latter part of his
་
P
210
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
life, inasmuch as he evidently lost, in later life, his early
zeal for Pharisaism, as appears from many passages in his
Antiquities. On the whole, we can hardly conceive of any
one in a better condition to give a clear and impartial ac-
count of the light in which the Hebrew Scriptures were
viewed by the Jews of that period.
Secondly, we might be in some doubt what king of Per-
sia was meant by the Artaxerxes of Josephus, (inasmuch as
this same name is given by some to several Persian kings,)
had not the historian been so explicit as to dispel all doubt
on this point, by saying, that the Artaxerxes in question
was the follower of Xerxes upon the throne of Persia. This
Artaxerxes (Longimanus) began his reign in 464 B. C., and
died in 424 B. c. Of course he reigned forty years. Later
than 424 B. C., then, no part of the Hebrew Canon can be,
if the testimony of Josephus is well grounded.
Thirdly, Josephus assigns all the historical books of the
Canon to prophets: "The prophets, after Moses, described
the events which took place in their respective periods, in
thirteen books." The word prophets, therefore, is plainly
used by him, in the sense in which I have defined and em-
ployed it in the preceding pages. What books are included
in this enumeration of thirteen, is an inquiry that will be
made in the sequel.
K
αστ
Fourthly, he states in the most plain and unequivocal
manner, that since the reign of Artaxerxes down to the time
in which he himself lived, passing events had been fully
noted—yέyρаπтαι μèv čkαorα-but "credit was not attached
to these histories, in like manner as to the earlier ones, [the
canonical books,] because there was no certain succession of
prophets" during that period. Here then are two facts on
which he rests the opinion that he gives; the first, that the
sacred books were completed in the reign of Artaxerxes;
the second, that other books, continuing the history of the
Jews, were composed by those who were not prophets, and
therefore could not claim that credit which belonged to the
former.
baka
How well this view of Josephus accords with what I have
stated in the preceding pages, viz. that books were not ad-
mitted to the Jewish Canon unless regarded as of prophetic
origin, must be obvious to every reader. Had Josephus
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
211
been an ignorant or unlearned person, who had no know-
ledge of other books than the Jewish Scriptures, we should
attribute less weight to his opinion. Such a'man could
have examined only one side of the question. But here is a
witness who, as we may reasonably say, has read all the
books which pertain to Jewish affairs, and who still draws
a distinction wide and broad, between those that are sacred
and fully credible, and those which can be regarded only as
the works of erring men. No reasonable advocate for the
claims of inspiration at the present day could ask for
stronger or more definite and intelligible expressions, than
those of Josephus.
I know not how language can make it more certain than
that of Josephus has made it, that he knew well, and
made definitely, the distinction between the now called apo-
cryphal books and those of the Canon. It is beyond a doubt
that he was acquainted with both; for he has drawn from
both in his Antiquities.
In order that we may have no doubts left as to the exact
meaning of Josephus, we must advert to the order which he
has followed in the historical narrations of his Antiquities.
In Lib. XI. he presents us with the history of the Jews from
the time when the decree of Cyrus for their liberation was
issued (536 B. C.) down to the time when Palestine was
overrun by Alexander the Great (331 B. C.). In chap. v.
of this book he has presented us with an account of events
recorded in the book of Ezra, in respect to this distinguished
priest and leader of the new colony of Jewish immigrants;
and he places all these events under the reign of Xerxes I.,
taking him to be the king which, in Ezra viii. 1, seq., of our
Scriptures, is named Artaxerxes. The journey of Nehemiah
and his friends to Jerusalem, he assigns to the twenty-fifth
year of the same king's reign, (Antiq. XI. 5, 7,) while the
Bible assigns it to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Neh. ii.
1, (comp. v. 14,) i. e. about twelve years after the immigration
of Ezra. Whether the error lies in the reading of the codi-
ces of Josephus, or in his oversight, in this case, it would be
difficult to decide, and it is not of any importance to my pre-
sent object to make a decision. Xerxes' reign lasted but twen-
ty-one years. There are, moreover, other small discrepancies
of the like nature between Josephus and the Scriptures; e. g.
P 2
212
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
as to the time (fifty-two days) in which the walls of Jerusalem
were completed under Nehemiah, (see Neh. vi. 15,) while Jo-
sephus assigns two years and four months as the period of
completion; Antiq. XI. 5, 8. But still, nothing is plainer
than that this historian abridges and copies the whole book
of Nehemiah, for substance, into his own, and he represents
the death of this distinguished leader as taking place under
the reign of Xerxes I. In XI. 1, seq. he gives, in like man-
ner, a sketch of the events related in the book of Esther; or
rather, we might say, an account more copious even than that
which is contained in the Scriptures. All these events he
assigns to the reign of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), who reign-
ed more than forty years (464-424 B. C.). The Persian
king of the book of Esther is uniformly called Ahasuerus.*
At what time during the reign of this king the deliverance
of the Jews, as recorded in Esther, took place, Josephus does
not say. I must believe, however, that if one reads carefully
the passage from him which is printed on page 207 above, he
will perceive on the whole that it makes for the position, that
it was at a late period of his reign. If we read the clause,
ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς Μωϋσέως τελευτῆς μέχρι τῆς ᾿Αρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ
Ξέρξην Περσῶν βασιλέως ἀρχῆς, with an omission of the final
word aρxñs, (which is omitted in Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III. 10,
and in most of the manuscripts of Josephus,) then it is clear
that Josephus intends to fix his limit at the death of Arta-
xerxes, (424 B. C.,) beyond or since which no book that has
been written has any just claim to be considered as a part of
the Hebrew Canon. The manner in which he has drawn up
his account of these times, proves beyond a doubt that he re-
garded the book of Esther as the last in the Canon of Scrip-
ture, as well as that he considered it a sacred book. Beyond
this and further on he draws indeed from other histories of
the Jews; and so in all the latter part of his Antiquities;
but
he compiles here much more loosely than before, and evidently
proceeds as considering himself more at liberty to depart from
his sources, as we may learn by comparing his history, e. g.
*Josophus scoms to have considered Ahasuerus as tho proper name of
only one Persian king; whereas it is plainly an appellative, (like Pharaoh,
tho czar, &c.,) and belongs to Cambyses, Ez. iv. 6, and to Astyages the
fathor of Darius the Mede, Dan. ix. I. The meaning of the name, as de-
voloped by the cuneiform writing recently deciphered, is lion-king
hero; see in Ges. Lex.
S
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
213
""
of Antiochus Epiphanes, with that in 1 Macc. It is to be
deeply regretted that he has not given us a particular account
of his sources, as he had the fairest opportunity for doing it
at the close of his Antiquities, XX. 11. 2, where he has made
a statement of the object which he had in view in the compo-
sition of his work, and of his qualifications to accomplish it.
But he goes no further in mentioning his sources than to say
that he has given an account of ancient historical events, “¿s
αἱ ἱεραὶ βίβλοι περὶ πάντων ἔχουσι τὴν ἀναγραφήν, i. e. in ac-
cordance with the description of them in the sacred books
ib. 11. 2. Of the estimation in which he held books subse-
quent to the time of Esther, he has given us an account in
his Cont. Apion. § 8, as stated above. After having said
that the twenty-two books of the Jews were τὰ δικαίως θεῖα
TETLOTEVμÉva, deservedly regarded as divine, he says of the
others, written after the time of Artaxerxes, that Tíorews de
οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τῆς πρὸ αὐτῶν, i. e. that they are not
worthy of the like credit with those before them. In respect
to his qualifications for writing his Antiquities, he says, in a
modest way, (XX. 11. 2,) that "he was acknowledged by
most of his countrymen as excelling in a knowledge of what
belonged to their country, and that he had given himself to
Greek literature, until every thing but the niceties of pro-
nunciation was familiar to him." He says, moreover, that
the study of Greek literature was disreputable among his
countrymen; and for this reason, not more than some two or
three besides himself had attained to any eminence in it. Of
his knowledge of Hebrew, the fact that he was employed as
interpreter by Vespasian and Titus, and the fact that he
first wrote his Jewish Wars in Hebrew, are sufficient
evidence. That he was a highly intelligent Jewish priest,
would of itself be a sufficient pledge.
We will suppose now that the opinion of Josephus was
merely the result of his private judgment in regard to the
order of the book of Esther. Let it be that Chronicles,
Nehemiah, and Malachi are later; all this will not affect the
question now before us. Josephus does not specificate any
particular time during the long reign of Artaxerxes, when
the events related in Esther took place, nor when the book
was written. There might be sufficient time, for aught we
know to the contrary, for writing those several books after
bated
214
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
Esther was written, and yet before the death of Artaxerxes.
On the other hand, the book of Esther may have been written
after them, and therefore the last of all, even in case the
events which it commemorates had happened some time be-
fore they were written down. The probability as to matter
of fact seems to be, that the events commemorated in Esther
happened during the reign of Xerxes I., inasmuch as he was.
a king whose character well fitted him for such actions as
are ascribed to the Persian monarch in the book of Esther.
In this respect Josephus may have formed an erroneous
judgment. Still, there is nothing in the book of Esther,
which of itself will determine the date of the work. The
events which it commemorates commenced indeed, in the
third year of Ahasuerus, whoever he was; but how long
they were in progress, if we include the whole of them, is
not quite certain; and of course we cannot decide exactly
as to the age of the book itself. But in respect to Nehemiah,
we know that he went a second time from Persia to Pales-
tine, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes; Neh. xiii. 6.
Josephus must have read this book, therefore, without due
regard to the notations of time, since he represents the death
of Nehemiah as taking place under Xerxes I., Antiq. XI. 5.
8, whose reign lasted only 21 years. But anachronisms in
Josephus are no strange thing.
But be it that Josephus has erred, as to the reign under
which the events recorded in the book of Esther took place,
it does not at all affect the statement which he has made, in
a manner so explicit and ample, that the certain succession
of prophets ceased with the reign of Artaxerxes. Much dis-
pute there has been about the meaning of úкρißñ in the
phrase μὴ . . . ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν as applied to the prophets.
To me it seems, that the simple meaning of Josephus is,
that the succession of any prophet, after the reign of Arta-
xerxes, to the series of earlier prophets, who wrote the
sacred books, is uncertain, i. e. it was a thing which, al-
though some might regard it as true, in his judgment and
in that of his countrymen (for he speaks their views) could
not be established or rendered certain. Of course, as he
regarded those books only as canonical which were com-
posed by prophets, or men of a prophetic spirit, there could
be no good ground for admitting any book, after the period
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
215
just named, as canonical. Aladoxý does not mean series
or ordo, as it has often been translated, but the succession of
one thing or person after another of the like kind. 'Akpıßhs
(from aкpos, pointed, sharp, and this from άký, point sharp-
ness,) literally means pointed, sharp, but, figuratively, (as in
the case before us,) exact, certain. This view of the words
accords entirely with the explanation given above.
It has been said by those who feel an interest in fixing
upon a later period for the closing of the Old Test. Canon,
that Josephus cannot mean to assert what is here attributed
to him, because he himself attributes to John Hyrcanus
(prince and high priest, 135-107 B. C.) the gift of pro-
phecy. Josephus, who is loud in the praises of Hyrcanus,
does say of him, indeed, that "he alone obtained the three
most excellent things, viz. the principality of the nation, the
high priesthood, kaì πρopητeíar, and the gift of prophecy.”
In order to confirm the last declaration he adds, "For the
Divinity (rò dapóvior) was conversant with him, so that he
was ignorant of nothing which was to come;" Jos. Bell.
Jud. I. 2. 8. But let the reader observe, that Josephus says
of John Hyrcanus, that he alone attained to such a union
of gifts as he mentions, and that the stress of this affirmation
falls on prophecy is plain enough from the fact, that many
others united in their persons the office of ruler and high
priest, and from the immediate explanation which Josephus
himself gives of what he had meant specially to assert. Be-
sides, although Josephus admits of dream-interpreters, (e. g.
Simon of the Essenes, Antiq. XVII. 13. 3,) and various prog-
nosticators,* especially during the period near the destruc-
*In Antiq. XV. 10. 5, Josephus introduces one Menahem, of the Es-
senes, as prognosticating the future dominion and fortunes of Herod, and
says of him that “ πρόγνωσιν ἐκ θεοῦ τῶν μελλόντων ἔχων,” i. c. he had
from God a forcknowledge of future things. Again (ib.) he says of the
Essenes, that "many of them, on account of their good and honest life,
were honoured with skill in Divine things." In Bell. Jud. II. 8. 12, he
says of the Essenes, "There are among them those who profess to foretell
future things;" and in the sequel he subjoins, "Seldom do they err in
their prognostications." In Bell. Jud. I. 3. 5, he relates a prediction of
Judas, one of the Essenes, "who never lapsed or spoke falsely in his pre-
dictions. In Bell. Jud. II. 7. 3, one Simon, of the same sect, is intro-
duced as a prognosticator. All theso cases are of the same character.
The Essones, who wero of a contemplative and enthusiastic turn of mind,
gavo their attention to prognostication, and obtained uncommon skill in
it. Many cases of the like nature aro to be found among most nations,
}}
216
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
די
tion of Jerusalem, yet it is plain enough, that after the reign
of Artaxerxes he never introduces any one in the character
of an Old Test. prophet. It is plain, too, in respect to the
case of Hyrcanus, that the gift of prophecy is ascribed to
him rather in a way of post mortem eulogy, than of accurate
and earnest historical narration. At all events, Josephus
makes no allusion to any written prophecies of Hyrcanus,
so that there is nothing in the case of this individual which
can come in competition with the claims of the earlier He-
brew prophets; nothing indeed which contradicts or is op-
posed to the true spirit and meaning of what he says in
Cont. Apion. I. 8. What he there declares is, that there
was no proof of the existence of any prophet (after the reign
of Artaxerxes) who was the author of a canonical or holy
book-that no pretended succession of such a nature to the
former prophets was certain, aкpißñ. What he says of
John Hyrcanus, or of any other individuals as prognosti-
cators or the like, does not contradict this, and is not incon-
sistent with it.
MA
Thus much for the testimony of Josephus, in regard to
the terminus ad quem of the Hebrew prophets. But as this
is a point of great importance, (at least it strikes me in this
light,) we must see what others have said and thought, as
well as Josephus, in relation to this matter.
The author of the First Book of the Maccabees, (written
not long after the death of Simon, about 135 B. C.,) when
describing the calamities that came upon Judea, in conse-
quence of the death of Judas Maccabæus, says, (ix. 27,) that
"there was great affliction in Israel, such as was not ap' is
ἡμέρας οὐκ ὤφθη προφήτης ἐν αὐτοῖς, from the time since no
prophet made his appearance among them." Comp. Jos. An-
tiq. XIII. 1, where, in describing the same events, he says,
"The Jews had not experienced so great calamity μerà T
Baßvλ@vos éπúvodov, since the return from Babylon." That
the author of Maccabees means as much as to say for a very
long time, is altogether plain and evident. In his day, then,
and in every age. Josephus, no doubt, was a believer in their occasional
extraordinary gift of forcsight; but still it is easy to see, that, with all his
wonder at their attainments in "second sight," he neither thinks nor
speaks of them as being prophets in the sense in which the ancient He-
brew prophets were. [Sco Koester's work, entitled, Die Propheten des
Alten und neuen Testaments, u, s. w. Leipzig, 1838. D.]
SECT. X.
217
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
it was counted a long time since any prophet had appeared
among the Jews. From the time of this author back to the
time of Artaxerxes, is about 300 years.
..
In 1 Macc. iv. 46, the Jews, who had been removing the
stones of the altar in the temple which had been profaned
by Antiochus Epiphanes, are represented as laying them
aside, “ μέχρι τοῦ παραγενηθῆναι προφήτην τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι
TEρì avrov, until the coming of some prophet to decide re-
specting them," viz. to decide what should be done with
them. In 1 Macc. xiv. 41, it is said, that "Simon was con-
stituted leader and high priest for ever, until roũ ávaorñvai
πρоÓýτην πɩσTÓν, some faithful prophet should arise;" thus
intimating plainly, that they knew of no such one at that
time, but expected one in future; i. e. (as I apprehend)
the Messiah.
"*
That Malachi, (fl. 430—424,) in the reign of Artaxerxes,
was the last of the Hebrew prophets, at all events the last
who bore any comparison with the old Hebrew prophets, is
a point that has been almost universally conceded by such as
had no particular purpose to accomplish by making out a
different representation. "With this prophet," says Knobel
in his recent Prophetismus, (II. p. 365,) "the Old Testa-
ment prophetic office expires. The author of the famous
Rabbinical book Cosri, (Pars III. § 65,) speaking of the
series of prophets, says, that "Those which remained of
them, after the return to the temple [from Babylon], were
Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, &c. In Seder Olam Zuther, fol.
35, col. 2, the writer says, In the fifty-second year of the
Medes and Persians, died Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi ;
at the same time prophecy ceased from Israel." The Rab-
binic author of this book, with most of the earlier Jewish
chronologists, supposes the Persian empire to have lasted
only fifty-two years, instead of more than 200, which is the
real state of the case. The rest of his affirmation is in
unison with the general voice. Jerome (Comm. on Isa.
xlix. 21) says, in a metaphrase which he puts into the mouth
of the Jewish church: "Quis mihi istos genuit? . . . Post
Aggæum, Zachariam, et Malachiam, nullos alios prophetas
usque ad Johannem Baptistam videram ;" i. e. "Who hath
begotten me these? . . . Since Haggai, Zechariah, and Ma-
So also a much abler writer than Knobel, viz. Kocstor, p. 119. D.
218
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
lachi, I have seen no other prophets down to John the
Baptist." So Augustine: "During all that period since
they [the Jews] returned from Babylon, after Malachi,
Haggai, and Zechariah, non habuerunt Prophetas usque ad
Salvatoris adventum, i. e. they had no prophets until the
advent of the Saviour;" De Civ. Dei, XVII. 24. That
the agreement of the ancients is all but universal, in respect
to this matter, no one acquainted with critical history will
pretend to question.
If there be any uncertainty, after all, as to the time when
Malachi lived, it may be removed to any one's satisfaction
who will take the pains to compare this writer with Ezra
and Nehemiah. (a) As to breaches of the Law by priests
and Levites in taking foreign wives; Mal. iii. 10, comp. Ez.
ix. 1; Neh. xiii. 23-29. (6) Withholding tithes from Le-
vites; Mal. iii. 10, comp. Neh. xiii. 10—12. (c) Neglect
of Divine worship; Mal. i. 13; ii. 8, comp. Neh. xiii. 15,
seq. (d) The application of 5, præfect, to Nehemiah the
then present governor of Jerusalem, shows that Malachi
could not have lived after Nehemiah; for he was the last
ruler there who bore the title in question; [775 the
modern Pasha]. That Malachi lived after the temple was
completed, and of course after the time of Haggai and Ze-
chariah, is shown by Mal. i. 10; iii. 1, 10.
That he was
regarded as the last of the Hebrew prophets, is shown by
the place assigned to his book, which closes the series of the
prophets.
I cannot refrain here from reminding the reader how very
inconsistent this historical development, in regard to the
cessation of the prophetic gift during the reign of Arta-
xerxes Longimanus, is with the favourite theory of De Wette
and most of the so-called liberal critics, viz. that the book
of Daniel was written during the Maccabean times of trou-
ble, and after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose
history it gives.* How could the writer of 1 Macc. say, at
the close of these distressing times, that there was no prophet
in Israel, in case a new prophetical book had then just made
* Sce Von Lengorke on the liberal side, and IIongstenberg on the
other. Compare also Hävernick on Daniel, whose Neue kritische Unter-
suchungen ueber das Buch Danicl, (Hamburg, 1838,) are particularly ap-
propriate and valuable. D.
SECT. X.
219
COMPLETION OF THE CANon.
its appearance, and been received by the Jews as authentic?
Or was it, that the Jews, in order to admit the claims of
the newly written book, were persuaded by the writer to
believe, that the true work of Daniel, which had lain in con-
cealment some three and a half centuries, was now first
brought into the light and edited by him? One or the
other of these positions must be true, viz. either that there
was a prophet at the period, (contrary to the book of Macca-
bees, inconsistent with the representations of Jesus the son
of Sirach, and at variance with the declarations of Josephus
and the voice of all antiquity,) whose authority could give
authenticity to the book, or else the forgery must have been
accomplished with so much dexterity as to mislead the whole
of the Jewish people. These considerations are serious
drawbacks from the capital of all the Liberals, in regard to
the time when the book of Daniel was written.
But to return to our theme; it seems to me, that the
dealings of Providence with the Jews, in regard to the mat-
ter of religious instruction, are worthy of particular consi-
deration. When the Hebrews had no synagogues, and
scarcely any copies of the Scriptures that were current
among them, then were commissioned that distinguished
.רואים and the נביאים order of religious teachers, the
The
only copy extant of the Law of Moses might indeed be hid-
den in the temple, (as in the time of Josiah,) and yet
there must have remained adequate or competent teachers
of true religion, guided by the Spirit of all wisdom and
knowledge. The Jews, after their exile, were so well
satisfied of the sin and folly of idolatry, that they used
efficient means to guard in future against it; and these
were, the multiplication of the copies of the Scriptures, and
the erection of synagogues, where the holy books were
read every sabbath day. When this custom was fully estab-
lished, the order of prophets ceased. I cannot doubt that
the institution of synagogues was introduced, either in the
latter period of the life of Ezra and Nehemiah, or very soon
after their death. The Scriptures themselves, which were
thus read every sabbath, occupied the place of the earlier
prophets. It would seem, since the Law made nothing
perfect, and was only a dawning toward the gospel day,
that Providence withheld one of the modes of instruction,
220
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
to which I have adverted, during the time that the other
was in full force; while under the gospel both methods are
employed in combination, and with much greater success.
Let me be indulged in one remark more before I dismiss
the present topic. How came it about, that the Jewish na-
tion, among whom were prophets from the time of Moses
down to that of Malachi, (about a thousand years,) should
all at once cease to have them at this latter period? It is
a conceded point, that whatever one or another might say
of this or that fortune-teller or prognosticator, at the later
period, yet no such persons as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, and the like, appeared among the Hebrews for about
four centuries before the Christian era. Had the Jews
become so enlightened at this period as no longer to give
ear to the pretensions of prophets? as Neology often and
not obscurely intimates. Or was there no true zeal for the
Mosaic institutions, and for the customs of the fathers, and
no longer any desire to obtain a knowledge of future events?
What had become of the pride and glorying of the Jews in
the order of prophets, as showing their superiority over all
other nations? These and the like questions may be urged
with the more force, inasmuch as there is no pretence that
the Jews, after returning from their exile, ever relapsed
into their love of heathen idolatry. Unless it were matter
of fact, that the order of prophets ceased with Malachi, I
see no way of accounting for the universal impression among
the Jews that such was the case. How could they be
brought to disclaim a matter of so much precedence and
honour to their nation, in any way excepting by the impos-
sibility of establishing any valid claims to an order of pro-
phets beyond the period of Malachi? I must regard it,
therefore, as one of the best established facts in their an-
cient religious history, that the order of prophets ceased at,
or very near, the close of the reign of Artaxerxes Longi-
manus, i. e. near to 424 B. C.
At all events this cannot be gainsayed, viz. that we
have no credible testimony to the contrary. It cannot be
controverted, that Josephus, the most enlightened man at
that time of the Hebrew nation, as to its antiquities and his-
tory, gives it as the established opinion of that nation, that
for some four hundred years they had had no prophets who
SECT. X.
221
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
wrote Scriptures, or who could properly have the credit of
being sacred writers. All the writers subsequent to the
reign of Artaxerxes he explicitly distinguishes, as to the
credit due to them, from the prophets who preceded ; πíσTεws
δὲ οὐκ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τῆς πρὸ αὐτῶν. Nor is this all. He
says, in the same connexion, that "although so great a
length of time has elapsed, [since the days of the ancient
prophets,] no one has dared to add any thing to them, or to
take any thing from them, nor to alter any thing." How
could this be, if many Psalms, and the book of Daniel, not
to mention smaller portions of many other books, have been
added, as the liberal critics aver, in the time of the Macca-
bees, or even later? A matter so recent as the events of
the Maccabean times, and especially a matter of so great
importance as that of augmenting the Holy Scriptures-how
could it have failed to be known to Josephus, so thoroughly
versed as he was in the history of his nation? But not a
word of this nature from him. And yet he was under
strong temptation, in writing his history, to show that the
importance and precedence of the Jews had not suffered any
degradation or decrease in later periods. Still, in spite of
this feeling so natural to the human breast, in spite of all
his patriotic ardour, he most amply asserts that the end of
Artaxerxes' reign was the close of the prophetic order of
his countrymen. The impartiality of the testimony adds.
much to the regard which is due to it. If the witness be
interested, it is that he should say things to the honour of
his nation which he does not say. And how should the
proud and vain-glorious and boasting Jews of his time be-
lieve en masse, that no prophets had, for centuries, risen
among them? It is very difficult, at least, to answer these
questions on any ground, except that which admits the truth
of Josephus' asseverations.
We may also ask other questions, in respect to the intro-
duction and reception of new books during this period. Of
all the nations of whom history has given any account, the
Jews have been the most conservative and immutable. Sub-
dued and nearly destroyed by Vespasian and Titus, the
remnant were, and from that time have continued to be,
scattered over the face of the whole earth. Never have
they had a dominion or government or country of their own.
222
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
But after 1800 years have past, what are they now? The
mass is just what they were in the days of the apostles, bi-
goted fanatics who are zealous in "tithing mint, anise, and
cummin," and excessively attached to all the rites and forms
that have come down to them by tradition, standing alone
amidst all the nations of the earth, unmingled and incapable
of being mingled with the people among whom they live.
No nation on earth ever exhibited such a uniformity of cha-
racter, and such a tenacity of traditions. Indeed, their
separate and distinct existence, without any approach to
amalgamation with other nations, is in itself a standing mi-
racle, an exception to all analogies among the human race.
Have they added to, or diminished from, their Scriptures
during all this period of 1800 years? Not in the least.
Their Rabbies have indeed introduced the Mishna and the
Talmud, and commended them to the study of all. But they
have never essayed to join these to their Canon of Scripture,
or to mingle them therewith. Their BIBLE has remained
inviolate.
J
Is this the people, then, who, a short time before the Chris-
tian era, stood on the alert to admit new and unheard of
books into their sacred Canon? After enduring all the per-
secutions of Antiochus on account of their religion, just at
the close of such a period would they have admitted a new
book among those for which they were ready to die even
joyfully-a book purporting to have been written by a man
at the head of the court, when the decree of liberation from
exile went forth, and which still had never made its appear-
ance before, during nearly four centuries? How any one
can be so yielding as to give a ready assent to historical
statements so utterly improbable, and yet, on account of a
few critical difficulties, become so entirely sceptical and in-
credulous as to the claims of this book-is a phenomenon that
even Neology would find it difficult to account for, although
its disciples in general take such a position.
*
Nor is even this all that may be said about the later ad-
mission of books into the Canon of Hebrew Scriptures.
When did the rigid, and punctilious, and unchanging sect of
the Pharisees take its rise? Was it not between the time
of Artaxerxes and the Christian era? On what ground did
this sect stand? On the ground of inflexible adherence to
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
223
ph
the traditions of the fathers. And is it not one of those
traditions, as Josephus has stated it, not to add to, diminish
from, or alter, the sacred books? In Antiq. XVIII. 1. 2,
Josephus says of the three sects among the Jews, viz. Pha-
risees, Sadducees, and Essenes, that they had existed έk toũ
πάνυ ἀρχαίου τῶν πατρίων, i. e. from the very ancient times
of the fathers. Under Jonathan, a Maccabean prince, (159
-144 B. C.,) he speaks of this sect as being in full vigour;
Antiq. XIII. 5. 9. That their origin lies so much in ob-
scurity, is in itself a circumstance which shows their anti-
quity. The famous John Hyrcanus, so much extolled by
Josephus, being traduced by one of the Pharisees, abandon-
ed this sect to which he had belonged, and went over to the
Sadducees; as Josephus relates in Antiq. XIII. 10. 5, 6. On
this occasion the historian says of the Pharisees, that "they
had so much influence with the people, as to be credited
even when they spoke any thing against the king or the
high priest." Did this sect, then, admit a new book among
their Scriptures? Or if they had done so, would they not
have been opposed and exposed by the Sadducees, who were
strict Scripturists, i. e. strenuous advocates of the sentiment,
that we must abide by the Scriptures only, without any of
the traditions of men superadded? Plainly it was as much
impossible to introduce a new book, (e. g. Daniel,) or new
Psalms, at such a period of sectarian jealousy and dispute,
as it would now be to introduce an addition to the New Tes-
tament, among the contending sects of Christians. What-
ever may be said by critics about their difficulties in respect
to the earlier composition of the book of Daniel, they can
never meet and overcome the insuperable obstacles which
the history of the religious state of things in the Maccabæan
times throws in their way. And if the sects of Jews de-
scribed by Josephus, and apparent throughout the New Tes-
tament, were, as he avers, ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου τῶν πατρίων,
then is the probability of new books being introduced into
the sacred Canon after the time of Malachi, a matter utterly
incapable of being made out.
*
If indeed we are still urged by critics to admit the later
addition of books to the sacred Canon, why, I would ask, was
not Jesus Sirachides admitted? In Sirach. 1. 27 he says,
"I have written the instruction of understanding and know-
Nadal
224
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
ledge in this book, I Jesus, the son of Sirach, of Jerusalem,
who poured forth wisdom from his heart." Nor is this his
only claim; for he goes on to say, "Blessed is he who shall
occupy himself with these things, and whosoever lays them
up in his mind shall become wise. For if he shall do these
things, he shall become all-powerful, for his footsteps shall be
in the light of the Lord." This is a high claim. Few of
the biblical writers have made a higher one. But this is not
all. In xxiv. 32-34 he says, "I will radiate forth instruc-
tion as the morning light, and disclose those things far away.
I will pour forth instruction as prophecy, I will leave it to
future generations. Behold, I have not laboured for my-
self only, but for all those who seek for it" [instruction]
In xxxiii. 16-18, he represents himself as gleaning after
others, (Solomon,) and goes on to say, "Consider that I have
not laboured for myself, but for all those who receive instruc-
tion. Hear me, ye chieftains of the people, and ye who lead
in the assemblies, give ear." Now, as we know from the
preface to this work that it was written in Hebrew, and by
a Jew of Jerusalem peculiarly devoted to sacred studies, and
written before the time of the Maccabees, to say the least,
what should have prevented the reception of such a book
into the Jewish Canon, in case the Hebrews were not adverse
to making any additions of this nature? The book exhibits a
morality that is pure and elevated; the style has a strong
resemblance to parts of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes; and it
is evident that great regard was entertained for the work
by the Jews in Egypt, where the grandson of Jesus found
it and translated it. The Romanists extol it much, and assign
good reasons, as they think, for the reception of it into their
deutero-canon. To me it seems, that if the Jews were in
such a state, in the Maccabean times, as to admit a forged
Daniel and recently composed Psalms into their Canon; and,
in a word, if they had no more religious zeal and no more
knowledge than all this implies; the Book of the Son of
Sirach must have taken the place which the above passages
quoted from it seem plainly to claim. No Romanist or Neo-
logist can give a satisfactory reason why the Jews did not
admit it. On the other hand, admitting the truth of Jose-
phus' statement, viz. that since the order of prophets had
ceased, no book was admitted into the Jewish Canon, then
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
225
all becomes plain and easy. The Jews could not admit the
claims of Jesus the Son of Sirach, because he was no pro-
phet. On the like ground they could not admit the 1 Macc.
into their Canon, although a very credible history and
gravely written, and composed indeed only a short time after
the book of Sirachides. Scarcely any thing in the Hebrew
Old Testament history is a matter of more interest to one
who seeks after a historical knowledge of the Jewish nation,
than the 1 Maccabees. It covers a period of forty of the
most eventful years that the Jews ever experienced, and
exhibits this nation in the most interesting of all attitudes
-contending against a force vastly superior, for their God,
their religion, their country, and their homes. Yet 1 Mace.
never had any place in the Palestine Jewish Canon, as all
agree. I regard it as equally certain, that it had in reality
no place in the Canon proper of the Egyptian Jews, at least
in the time of Philo and of Christ and the apostles, notwith-
standing it was originally written in the Hebrew language.
Practically the Jews followed out the principle which Jo-
sephus states. They included in the Canon those prophetic
or inspired writers, whom they knew, or supposed that they
knew, to have lived before the close of Artaxerxes' reign.
All other writers they left to stand merely upon the footing
to which the aesthetical or historic worth of their works
entitled them.
ving
Mr. Norton has suggested, that all the writings of the
Hebrews, which were extant at the time of return from the
Babylonish captivity, were collected by the Jews, and com-
bined in their so-called Scriptures. This has often been as-
serted by Neologists. But the proof of this has not yet been
produced. I doubt not that literature among the Jews,
during the exile, must have been generally in a low state.
But as it will not be contended that the Jews were unac-
quainted with the art of writing at that time, so I cannot
but deem it quite improbable, that nothing was written
during the seventy years' captivity, except what appears in
the Old Testament. Is it probable that such men as Sha-
drach, Meshech, and Abednego, brought up at the court of
Babylon, and educated in all the Chaldean discipline, never
wrote any thing? Is it probable that such men as Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Mordecai, at the court of Persia, never wrote
Q
226
SECT. X.
COMPLETION OF THE CANON.
any thing, except the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther,
(if these are to be attributed to them,) on any of the subjects
which must be of interest to themselves and their nation ?
And Ezekiel among the exiles on the Chebar-was he the
only one of them who could or would employ his pen? I
must deem this to be quite improbable. But if these men,
and other persons in a similar condition as to information,
did engage in the composition of various works-what has
become of them, it may be asked? And if it should be, the
answer is not very difficult. What has become of the great
mass of Greek and Roman writings, at a later period than
this? What has become of many, and some very distinguish-
ed, works of early Christians? All-devouring time has ac-
complished their destruction. And should the question
be asked still further, how some of the Hebrew books came
to survive, while others perished, the answer is not unlike
that which might be given in regard to Greek and Roman
works, viz. the most important, with few exceptions, have
survived. In the case of the Hebrews, such an answer may
be given a fortiori. They distinguished between books
sacred and those which were not so. The relative im-
portance of the former to a people attached to their ancient
religion, will not be denied. This consideration is sufficient,
without entering upon any comparison of an æsthetical
nature, between sacred and other writings. Indeed we
cannot do this, for the character in this respect of books
that are lost, is of course unknown to us. If it be asked,
Who made the selection of books that are preserved? My
answer would be—prophets, i. e. inspired men. If this be
not a well-grounded answer, how comes it about that the
reception of books as sacred ceased when the order of pro-
phets ceased? So Josephus directly asserts; and the history
of the Canon, so far as we can trace it, corresponds with this
assertion.
Th
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
227
SECT. XI. Evidence that the Canon of the Old Testament
was early completed, arising from the ancient divisions of
it which bore specific appellations.
EVERY reader of Hebrew knows familiarly that the Old
Testament Scriptures as presented to us, (and so in the He-
brew MSS. and in the printed editions ever since the art of
printing was discovered,) are divided into three parts, viz.
the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography. The last is
only a Greek name which we have borrowed; for the He-
brew name is D'ın, i. e. writings, or (which is equally
literal) Scriptures. That writings par excellence or sacred
writings, are meant by this appellation is clear; and hence
the Greek name Hagiography, which has this signification.
How long has such a division of the Jewish Scriptures been
made? A question of no small importance; for these tech-
nical appellations of course imply a well-ascertained and
definite number of books which are comprised under them.
Such names could have no tolerable significancy, on the
ground that each or either division was left in a floating or
uncertain condition. Discrepancies of opinion there might
be, in time, about the question, whether this or that book
belonged to this class or that; but what books were com-
prised within this Corpus, could hardly have been a ques-
tion, at a time when the names before us were definitely
applied. Civilians have no difficulty in believing that the
Pandects of Justinian comprise a definite collection of an-
cient Roman laws, nor that the Novella of the same com-
prise the more modern laws of that empire; although it is
quite possible that the claims of one and another section to
stand under the former or latter category might be doubtful.
Lland
sing
We begin with the testimony of Jesus Sirachides, be-
cause it is the oldest to which we have access.
The con-
troversy about the age of the Wisdom of Sirach has never
been fully settled. The main difficulty lies in the fact, that
we cannot ascertain with entire certainty two personages
mentioned in the book. In chap. i. Simon the high priest,
the son of Onias, is highly extolled; and in the preface to
the book by the translator, who was the grandson of the
author, he says that he performed his work of translation in
Q 2
228
ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. SECT. XI.
Mat
the reign of [Ptolemy] Euergetes. Now it so happens, that
there were two Simons, both high priests, and both sons of
Onias; also two Ptolemies with the surname of Euergetes.
About a century elapsed between the first high priest and
king and the second; so that only the circumstances ad-
verted to in the book can settle the question of its age with
probability. The current seems recently to run in favour
of the latest date, which would assign the composition of
the book to about 170 B. C. Its translation by the grand-
son of the author, must then be assigned to about 130 B. C.
I will admit, for the present, the probability of the later
dates; for I cannot now turn aside to discuss the question;
and I do not wish, in fixing on the time, to go beyond what
critics in general will admit, viz. that the book must have
been originally composed before the time of the Maccabees.
It is impossible to believe, had it been otherwise, that the
Maccabees would have been omitted in the eulogy of He-
brew patriots and prophets, contained in chap. xliv.-l., and
more especially since Simon the high priest is there lauded
beyond measure.
In respect to the third division of the Jewish Scriptures
which has been named bypapai, it is plain that only
by the use of the article with such a name, whether in
Greek, Hebrew, or English, could it have been made spe-
cific. In itself the word is generic, and may be applied to
any kind of writings. But when it is employed in con-
nexion with the Law and the Prophets, and has also the
definite article before it, the import of the word cannot well
be misunderstood.
Thus much for the name Kethubim, since it has been in-
troduced. But this was not very early. We first meet
with it in Epiphanius, who translates it literally by ypapeĩa ;
in Panario, p. 58. A strictly technical name the third por-
tion of the Hebrew Scriptures does not appear to have had,
before the Christian era, or during the early part of it. We
shall see, that while the other two names are very ancient,
the ancient designation of the now-named Kethubim or Ha-
giography was very various.
In the preface to Sirach, the translator states, that many
and signal had been the benefits conferred on the Hebrew
nation "by the Law, and the Prophets, and the other [books]
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
229
""
which follow in the same spirit, τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς
ἠκολουθηκότων.” Such is the designation of the triplex parts
of the Scriptures. It lacks a proper name for the third divi-
sion. See the whole of the Preface in Appendix, No. I.
Again, in the same preface, the writer says, that "his
grandfather Jesus applied himself trì Tλetov, for a long
time, or very much, to the reading of the Law, the Pro-
phets, and of the other patrical books, rwv äλdwv πatρlwv
Bißliwr." I have made a new adjective here which rather
transfers than translates the Greek, because there may be
some doubt, perhaps, whether the writer means books be-
longing to the fathers, i. e. books which they received, or
books of which the fathers were the authors. In either case
the meaning indeed is for substance about the same, or
nearly so; but at all events and plainly a third division of
the Scriptures, not comprehended in the two preceding ones,
is here designated, although not by a technical name.
Once more, speaking of a variety as to modes of expres-
sion in different languages, he says, that "there is no small
difference, also, among the books belonging to the Law, the
Prophets, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων, and the rest or remainder
of the books." Here is still another designation of the third
division of the Hebrew Scriptures. THE REST of the books
must of course be some definite or well-known remainder
of them; else the readers of the Preface could have no definite
idea of what the writer meant. Indeed rà λotná is suscep-
tible of no other certain and definite meaning, than such an
one as I have just assigned to it. It was not the object of
the translator to assert that his grandfather gave himself
to the diligent and long-continued reading of all books with-
out distinction, but only to those sacred books which would
particularly aid him in the composition of his work. More-
over, if the Law in this case designates a definite and well-
known portion of the Scriptures, and the Prophets another,
(as surely they do,) the rà λorá rar Bißliwr, in the position
and relation in which it stands, must also be equally definite
in the view of the writer and reader of that day. Bißliwr,
Βιβλίων,
then, i. e. the plural of ßißior, is here used just as we
employ the word Scriptures, viz. the plural form of the
word is used to designate the idea, that the book as a
whole is made up of many separate parts. Both Greeks
230
ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. SECT. XI.
and Latins, at a subsequent period, employed ßißría and
biblia to denote the volume of the Scriptures. It is like
employing the Latin litera, to designate a single epistle,
because it consists of many literæ united together. Of
course, when the grandson of Jesus Sirachides employs rà
λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων, he uses it just as we should use the phrase
the rest of the Scriptures, immediately after mentioning the
Law and the Prophets. Of necessity this has a definite
meaning; and if so, the Bible, at that time, was a well-
known and definite book.
I will not affirm, that what the grandson says for the pur-
pose of designating the Hebrew Scriptures, renders it cer-
tain that these designations already existed in the time of
the grandfather. Yet I am persuaded that his words imply
thus much. At all events, so much must be plain, viz. that
the grandson means to tell his readers what and how many
books his grandfather diligently studied. If the names which
he employs in order to describe them were not in use in the
time of Jesus Sirachides, yet there must have been some
circumscription to the limits of the original author's study,
and some expressions which would mark it as a well-known
and definite circle of reading. Such being the case, in the
days of Sirachides the Hebrew Bible must have already at-
tained to a definite whole or corpus.
S
Đền
But is there not something in the book itself, as it came
from the pen of Sirachides, which speaks to the like pur-
pose? In the proem to his warépwv üµvos, or Eulogy of the
Fathers, (chap. xliv. seq.,) he speaks generally of what had
been done by the Hebrew worthies. Among other things
he says, "They gave counsel by their understanding, they
preached-made public declarations, άπηyуEλкÓTεs-by their
prophecies;" xliv. 3. Again, of some others among them
(ver. 5,) he says, "They sought out the melody of music,
they composed poems in writing, διηγούμενοι ἔπη ἐν γραφῇ.
This latter clause De Wette translates, Dichteten Lieder
schriftlich (with the same meaning as above); and in its
connexion, this seems to me plainly to be the only true
meaning. Here, then, are the two latter divisions of the
Bible; for, according to Josephus, (cont. Apion. I. 8,) the
third part consisted principally of poetry. In chap. xlv.,
when the writer comes to speak of Moses, he says, that God
1
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
231
46 gave him commandments by personal intercourse, the Law
of life and knowledge, to teach Jacob his covenant, and
Israel his judgments." Here, then, according to the view of
Sirachides himself, are virtually the same triplex divisions
or portions of the Scriptures, which are mentioned by the
grandson and translator in his preface to the book. To
make this language intelligible, there must have been a
known and recognised distinction among the Hebrew sacred
books at that time, to which the mind of the reader would of
course advert, when these different portions were named.
PHILO JUDEUS (flor. 40 B. C.) is our next witness, in
regard to the point before us. In his book De Vita con-
templativa (Opp. II. p. 475, ed. Mang.) he is speaking of the
Essenes as peculiarly devoted to such a life, and as with-
drawing into their secret apartments, from which every thing
pertaining to the refreshment of the body was excluded, and
there, says he, "they receive only the laws and the oracles
uttered by the prophets, and the hymns and other [books], by
which knowledge and piety are augmented and perfected.”*
In other words, they admit to their meditation-closets no-
thing but the Holy Scriptures. That this is his meaning, is
plain from that which he immediately subjoins: "For ad-
dressing themselves to the Holy Scriptures, (évrVyXÁVOVTES
γὰρ τοῖς ἱέροις γράμμασι,) they philosophize after the manner
of their country," &c. Immediately after this he says,
They have, moreover, the writings of ancient men, the
leaders of their sect, who have left many memorials of their
views, in regard to allegorical matters."
Here the express
separation of their sectarian books from the Scriptures be-
fore mentioned, leaves no room to doubt what the meaning
of Philo is; see Append. ut supra. Such, then, in Egypt, as
well as in Palestine, was the well-known division of the
Hebrew Scriptures before the Christian era. How ex-
actly it coincides with the division in the apostolic age, we
shall soon see.
t
>>
In the NEW TESTAMENT we find the most explicit testi-
mony to the same purpose. Jesus says to his wondering
and doubting disciples, after his death and resurrection, in
order to calm and satisfy their minds with regard to these
*Sco Appendix, No. II., for the whole passage.
232
ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. SECT. XI.
1
events, "All things must be fulfilled which are written in
the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, con-
cerning me;" Luke xxiv. 44. In the 27th verse of the
same chapter it is said of Jesus, that "beginning from Moses
and from the prophets, he explained to them [to his disci-
ples] in all the Scriptures the things which concerned him-
self." This passage is virtually the same with that above.
Two divisions of Scripture are here alluded to by name, and
the third is separated from them by a phraseology which ne-
cessarily imports, that there were other portions of Scrip-
ture besides the two named, which Jesus interpreted for the
disciples, as he first had done in respect to the Law and the
Prophets. That the third portion has not a specific appel-
lation, is the same phenomenon that we have already seen in
Sirachides and in Philo. Philo, however, adverts to the
third division under the general designation of hymns (vμvoi);
and Luke, or rather the Saviour himself, refers to it in the
same way, only he calls it aλuoí, which is altogether equi-
valent to the µvo of Philo. The obvious reason of this
designation seems to be, either that the Hagiography began
(as now) with the book of Psalms, and then the maxim, a
potiori nomen fit, guided the choice of a designation ; or else
the third class of books was called Psalms, because it con-
sisted principally, if not altogether, of poetry.* That the
Scriptures in a specific form are here meant, there can be no
doubt; for after speaking of the things written in the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms, concerning Christ, it is said
of Jesus, that "he opened the mind [of the disciples] to un-
derstand ràs ypapás, the Scriptures," viz. those Scriptures
which he had quoted and explained.
w
We have already seen, that Josephus, after naming the
Law and the Prophets as constituting the first two parts of
the Jewish Scriptures, says of the other books, "Ai dè λowaì
τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ
Bíov Teρiéxovoi, i. e. the other four books contain hymns to
God, and maxims of life for men;" Cont. Ap. I. 8. See
Append. No. III. Here, again, is plainly the same thing
which we have found in Philo and in the New Testament,
with only this difference, that Josephus, in adding maxims of
*The latter opinion is the more probablo. Seo Hävernick's Einleit.
P. 78. D.
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
233
life for men, has definitely alluded to the books of Proverbs
and Ecclesiastes, while the other writers have merely com-
prised them under generic names.
In the later catalogues of the Old Testament books among
Christians, viz. that of Melito in the second century, and of
Origen in the first part of the third, the names of the books
are merely given, without mention of the general triplex
division adverted to by all the preceding writers who have
been quoted above. Melito, however, adverts in the con-
text to the Old Test. Scriptures, (see in Euseb. Hist. Ecc.
IV. 26,) under the designation of the Law and the Pro-
phets, in the same manner as is sometimes done in the New
Testament. But in Jerome, incomparably the best Hebrew
scholar and critic among all the ancient Christian fathers,
(indeed we may say, the only really thorough Hebraist
among them all,) who spent some twenty years in Palestine,
and made himself familiar with every thing pertaining to
the Hebrews in Jerome's Prologus Galeatus, the same
triplex division reappears: "Ita fiunt pariter Veteris Legis
libri viginti duo, id est, Mosis quinque, et Prophetarum octo,
Hagiographorum novem; i. e. thus at the same time are
made twenty-two books of the Old Testament, that is, of
Moses five, of the Prophets eight, of the Hagiography nine."
Down, then, to the time of Jerome this ancient division of
the Jewish Scriptures was in full use, although, as we shall
hereafter see, the books assigned to the second and third
divisions had suffered some change of location respectively
since the time of Josephus, who reckons the Prophets as
comprising more books than Jerome assigns to them, and
the Hagiography of course as comprising fewer.
w
Lastly, the Talmud, in the fifth or sixth century, put the
final seal upon this usage, so far as the Jews and the Hebrew
Bible are concerned. This compilation by learned Baby-
lonish Jews of all the traditions among their Rabbies in re-
spect to the Scriptures and to the subject of religious rites
and ceremonies, was probably made in the latter part of the
fifth and the beginning of the sixth centuries (some portions
of it possibly carlier, and some still later). In the Gemara
of it, Tract. Baba Bathra, fol. 13. c. 2, we find the following
declaration: "Our wise men say, that the whole is one, and
cach part is one by itself; and they have transmitted to us
234
SECT. XI.
ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubim, united together
After
this, the passage goes on to recite the order in which the
books are arranged, and to specificate those which belong
to the three divisions respectively. The Law is of course
the same in all the arrangements of the ancients; the Pro-
phets contains, as usual, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel,
1 and 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve
Minor Prophets, thus making eight books for the second
division, as in our common Hebrew Bibles, and as in Je-
rome quoted above. In the Kethubim or Hagiography, the
Talmudists reckon eleven books, while Jerome makes but
nine. The difference consists merely in the mode of com-
bination. Jerome joins Ruth to Judges as one book, and
thus brings the former into the circle of the Prophets; he
also joins Lamentations with Jeremiah, and arranges it of
course in the same way; while the Talmudists separate
these two small books, and throw them both into the third
division. Jerome's division is more in conformity with the
ancient number of the scriptural books. That of the Tal-
mud depends on a new mode of numbering these books; of
which more in due time.
.והביאו לפנינו תורה נביאים וכתובים מדובקים כאחד,as orie
"2
What the Talmud thus sanctioned, has come down to the
present hour, among the Jews, substantially the same. The
only exception is in the order of some of the books; which
has always been a matter that admitted of change, and has
indeed been very various in different countries and in dif-
ferent ages.
The Talmudists have one arrangement; the
Masorites another; the German MSS. follow the former,
while the Spanish MSS. exhibit the order of the latter; and
thus with the editions of the Hebrew Bible that are re-
spectively copied after each.
From a remote time, then, even before the Christian era,
a triplex division of the Jewish Scriptures has been made,
which necessarily involved a special relation of each part to
the other, and of course rendered it necessary, that the ex-
tent of each part should be definitely and well known. If
the Law was definite, if the Prophets was definite, then the
Kethubim also was definite. For when Sirachides (in his
preface) speaks of "the Law itself, and the Prophecies, kal
Tà λoiπà Twν ßißllwr," if the two first parts are circum-
Mad
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
235
scribed, definite, and intelligible, then the third division
must be equally so; for otherwise it would mean simply all
other books. To suppose this last to be the meaning, would
be an absurdity.
This brings us, then, again to the position, that for a long
time antecedently to the Christian era, the Old Testament
was a definite, well-known, accredited collection of writings,
regarded by the Jews as their sacred Code of Laws, and dis-
tinguished by them from all other books. But of the estim-
ation in which these books were held, it will become ne-
cessary hereafter again to speak.
In order to render this view of the manner in which the
Old Test. Scriptures were designated, even in very ancient
times, more complete, I must not omit to mention, that as
all names of things of which frequent use must be made in
common parlance, become, in case they are long, almost with-
out exception abridged for the sake of convenience, so it fared.
with the triplex and full designation of the Holy Scriptures.
Oftentimes the Old Testament was spoken of merely as one
book, or one code of religious laws and history, and then a
single name of a generic nature was applied-the very same
that was technically employed, at a later period, to designate
the third division of the Scriptures, viz. ypapai —D'ınɔ,
exactly in the sense of our word Scriptures. Examples of
this are easily found in the New Testament; e. g. Matt. xxi.
42; xxii. 29; xxvi. 54, 56; Luke xxiv. 32, 45; John v.
39; Acts xvii. 2, 11; xviii. 24, 28; Rom. xv. 4; xvi. 26;
2 Pet. iii. 16. In Rom. i. 2, Paul names the Old Testament
γραφαὶ ἅγιαι, in reference to their inspiration by the Holy
Spirit, and to the same purpose iɛpà yрáµµara in 2 Tim. iii.
15. When the speaker wished to appeal to Scripture in a
still more generic way, (leaving out of view its various com-
ponent parts,) he employed the singular number of the noun
ypapú, especially when he cited a passage from Scripture
without stopping to designate the particular place whence
he took it; e. g. Mark xii. 10; xv. 28; Luke iv. 21; John
vii. 38; x. 35; xiii. 18; xvii. 12; xix. 28, 37; xx. 9;
Acts i. 16; viii. 32, 35; Rom. iv. 3; ix. 17; x. 11; xi.
2; Gal. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 18; James ii. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 6. In
a way a little different from this usage, and in the mere ge-
neric sense of Scripture generally, we find ypapń employed
Ale
K
236
ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
SECT. XI.
John ii. 22; Gal. iii. 22; 2 Pet. i. 20. In 2 Tim. iii. 16,
Paul speaks of πãσa ypaýý, i. e. every component part or
portion of Scripture, (πãoa ǹ yρaph would mean the whole
of Scripture as a totality, Winer, N. Test. Gramm. § 17.
10,) and avers that it, i. e. each part or portion of Scripture,
is Geóπvevotos, divinely inspired.
The Law, as being the leading and preeminent part of the
Old Testament, is not unfrequently employed to designate
comprehensively the Scriptures in general. Nothing is more
common than such a metonymy or synecdoche, where the
name of a part stands for the whole, and especially of a pre-
eminent or leading part. The old maxim, A potiori nomen
fit, also explains this. In such a generic sense does the word
seem plainly to be employed in Luke xvi. 17; John x. 34;
xii. 34; xv. 25, for the Law (to which the speakers in these
cases refer) is not any passage in the Pentateuch, but in other
parts of Scripture. So is it, also, with 1 Cor. xiv. 21, where
a quotation from Isaiah xxviii. 11, 12, is named the Law.
In John i. 17, however, we have a plain recognition of the
word Law as employed in the limited and technical sense:
"The Law was given by Moses." Rabbinic usage agrees
with the custom of the New Test. writers in the employment
of the word law in a general sense; and so does the usage
of our own theological dialect at the present day, e. g. in such
cases as 'the Law and the Gospel,' 'the Divine Law has
forbidden or sanctioned this or that,' &c. Comp. 2 Macc.
ii. 18.
'
It will be no matter of surprise, after this view of the man-
ner in which appellations are bestowed on the Old Test.
Scriptures, to find that the second portion of them, i. e. the
Prophets, as well as the first and third, sometimes lends its
name to designate the whole collection. Examples of such
a usage may be found in Mark i. 2; Matt. xxvi. 56; Luke
xviii. 31; xxiv. 25; John vi. 45; Acts iii. 21; xiii. 27, 40;
xv. 15; xxvi. 27; 2 Pet. iii. 2. This accounts for the use
of the plural number, popra, in some cases where merely
one single prophet is quoted; e. g. Matt. ii. 23, and many
of the passages to which reference is made in the preceding
sentence,
The reverse of this, viz. the use of the singular number,
προφήτης, to designate the whole of Scripture, (like γραφή
SECT. XI. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON.
237
instead of ypapaí,) I believe cannot be found in the New
Testament. There is an obvious reason for this. All the
writers of the Old Testament, in the language of the Jews,
were called Prophets; so that all were virtually placed on the
same basis or in the same rank. No one of these (the sin-
gular number would indicate only a single individual) was so
preeminently or exclusively the author of the Scriptures, as
to cause them to be named from him. Between yрaph and
ypapai there is no such contrast, because neither of the
words are indicative of persons.
We cannot solve the
difficulty then in Mark i. 2, seq., where passages in two
prophets are quoted, while they are introduced by the
formula, "As it is written in the prophet," by saying that
the singular number, #popýrns, stands for the whole collec-
tion. The solution lies in another quarter. Griesbach,
and those who follow him, employ the singular number here,
Tроphтn. But Hahn, the Vulgate text, and the earlier
critical editions, read Tрopýrais; Lachmann himself con-
fessing that the authority of it is equal to that which adopts
the singular number. In such a case to prefer the more
difficult reading, as it is called, to the one which is congru-
ous with the context and with good sense, is what I must
name an abuse of a good thing-a real perversion of the ra-
tional laws of criticism. But we cannot dwell on such
matters.
Finally, the two leading appellations of the triplex divi-
sion of the Scriptures are not unfrequently joined together,
in order to make the name somewhat more complete than
one appellation only could make it. Thus the Law and the
Prophets in Matt. xi. 13; xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16; John
i. 45; Acts xiii. 15; xxiv. 14; Rom. iii. 21. Exactly in
the same sense, and for the same purpose, Moses and the
Prophets is used in various passages; e. g. Luke xvi. 29, 31 ;
xxiv. 27; Acts xxviii. 23.
I would merely remark, at the close of this exposition of
Scriptural usage as to names, that the New Test. writers
could never have employed all these different appellations,
and so often interchanged them without superadding any
explanations, if the definite import of each and all had not
been well understood by themselves and by those whom they
addressed. The Old Testament must have been as definite
238
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
then as it is now, and its limits as well known. Every Jew
that could read, must have known what books belonged to
it, when copies of the Scriptures had become common.
SECT. XII. Sameness of the Jewish Canon in early times
shown by the Number and Names of the Books.
WE have seen that Jesus Sirachides adverts only to the
triplex division of the Holy Scriptures in his time, but does
not give us either the names or the number of the books
contained in them. This division is brought to view so
frequently in the Wisdom of Sirach, (including the Preface,)
that there can be no reasonable doubt of its designating a
limited and definite collection of books; and by comparison
of the same triplex division brought to view also by subse-
quent writers in early times, and this in connexion with the
number and names of the books, we learn what estimate we
should put upon the designations by Sirachides of the
various portions of the Scriptures. We argue from the na-
ture of the case, that his designations must imply a definite
and ascertained number or circle of books; but we must go
to other writers to learn with exactness the dimensions of
this circle.
Josephus has testified (in the passage cont. Apion. I. § 8, as
fully quoted above, p. 207, see Append. No. III.) in the
following manner: "We have TWENTY-TWO books, compris-
ing the history of every age, which are justly credited as
Divine." Five of these he assigns to Moses; thirteen to the
prophets; and of course four to the Hagiography. Would
that he had given us the names of each, and of those to be
classed under each division! But as he has not, we must
I
supply this deficiency in the best manner that we can.
believe it may be done to the entire satisfaction of every
reasonable reader.
The earliest writer after Josephus, who has given us an
account of the sacred books of the Jews, is Melito, bishop of
Sardis (fl. 170 A. D.). He travelled from Sardis to Pales-
tine, mainly, as it would seem by his own statement, for the
S
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
239
purpose of ascertaining the exact names, number, and order
of the Jewish Scriptures. The result of his visit he com-
municates to his brother Onesimus, in 'the following letter,
preserved by Eusebius in Hist. Ecc. IV. 26. See the ori-
ginal in App. No. IV.)
"Melito to Onesimus his brother, greeting. Since you
have often requested, through the earnest desire that you
cherish for the word [of God], that you might have a selec-
tion made for you from the Law and the Prophets,* which
has respect to our Saviour and the whole of our faith; and
since, moreover, you have been desirous to obtain an accurate
account of the ancient books, both as to their number and
their order; I have taken pains to accomplish this, knowing
your earnestness in respect to the faith, and your desire for
instruction in regard to the word; and most of all, that you,
while striving after eternal salvation, through desires after
God, give a preference to these things. Making a journey
therefore into the east, [Palestine,] and having arrived at the
place where these things [i. e. scriptural events] were pro-
claimed and transacted, I there learned accurately the books
of the Old Testament, which I here arrange and transmit
to you. The names are as follows: The five books of Moses,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Then
Joshua of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of
Chronicles. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solo-
mon, (also called Wisdom,) Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs,
Job. Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one book,
Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. From these I have made selections,
distributing them into six books."
It will not be pretended, I presume, by any considerate
man, that the Jews in Palestine had altered their Scriptures
between the time of Josephus (born A. D. 37) and that of
Melito. The thing was impossible; first on the ground of
their own opposing parties, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes; secondly, on the ground of rivalship between Jews
and Christians. I might add a third consideration, pecu-
liarly applicable to those times, and this is the sectarian zeal
with which the Pharisces guarded all the traditions and cus-
toms of their forefathers.
*These plainly stand for tho whole Scriptures, according to New Test.
usage pointed out on page 237 above.
240
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
(1.) My first remark on this testimony of Melito is, that
it comes from a very distinguished and enlightened man.
Cave says justly of him, "Vir pietate non minus quam
doctrinâ clarus ;" and Tertullian (a contemporary) testifies
of him, that most Christians called him a prophet; in Hieron.
de Script. c. 2. 4. His knowledge was acquired, moreover,
by a special effort and much caution; for he was not con-
tent with what he learned at Sardis, but must needs go to
Palestine itself, in order that he might know the dкpißelav,
the exact truth of the whole matter respecting the Jew-
ish Scriptures.
Th
kad
(2.) It seems quite probable, if not altogether certain,
from the names of the books, as given by Melito, and from
their order, that he learned them by consulting a Greek
copy or copies of the Scriptures, and not a Hebrew one.
Neither the names, in some cases, nor the order, nor the
classification, compares altogether with the Hebrew, but
rather with the Version of the Seventy; yet in some re-
spects, not even with the Septuagint as we now have it in
our printed copies. But in making the four books of Samuel
and Kings into one book with one and the same designation,
viz. Kings, he plainly follows the Septuagint; in placing
Chronicles next to them, he does the same, but here it is far
from certain that the Hebrew at that time differed in respect
to this from the Septuagint. The sequel of his catalogue
differs, as to order, both from the Jewish and Septuagint
lists of the books of the Old Testament which have come
down to us; as also from the order of these books as given
by Origen, Jerome, and others. But, as I have already re-
marked, the order of classification has always been subject
to variation in the second and third classes of the Hebrew
books; and that of Melito helps to confirm this view of the
subject.
Bu
(3.) As the copy or copies of the Greek Scriptures, from
which Melito took his list, contained none of the apocryphal
books, (so called,) so it is plain and quite certain, that near
the close of the second century the Greek Scriptures, as cir-
culated and used in Palestine, contained none of the so-called
deutero-canonical books, i. e. apocryphal books. Whatever
may have been the condition of the Old Testament Greek
Scriptures at Alexandria, at the period in question, the
SECT. XII.
241
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
CC
"books written after the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus
were not included in the Scriptures which Melito consulted.
The Romish church will find, therefore, in this almost pri-
mitive father, but a very slender support, (indeed none at
all, but the contrary,) for their deutero-canon. If it be said,
(as it has been,) that the clause in Melito, Zaλoµwvos τa-
ροιμίαι ἢ καὶ σοφία means the Proverbs of Solomon and also
Wisdom, (i. e. the Wisdom of Solomon, one of the apocry-
phal books,) the reply to this suggestion is easy. Nearly
all the ancients,” remarks Valesius on this passage, “called
the Proverbs of Solomon Wisdom, and sometimes copiar
TavaiρETOV." Accordingly Dionysius of Alexandria calls
the book of Proverbs oop ßißλos; Cap. 28, Catena in
Jobum. The author of the Jerusalem Itinerary, speaking
of a certain chamber in Jerusalem, says that "Solomon sat
there, and there he wrote Sapientiam," i. e. the book of
Proverbs. Melito means, then, merely to say, that the work
of Solomon called παροιμίαι, had also the name of σοφία.
The pronoun also imports this. We cannot alter the ac-
centuation and make it an article; for to a title of a book
the article does not in such a case belong.
(4.) Counting the books as arranged by Melito, we find
them twenty-one in number; which lacks one of the num-
ber as given by Josephus. As the list of the bishop now
stands, the books of Nehemiah and Esther seem to be omit-
ted. The solution of the difficulty in respect to Nehemiah
is easy.
Both Jews and Greeks, at that time, reckoned the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah as being but one; for so it
appears by the lists of the sacred books among the ancients,
Origen, Jerome, Concilium Laod., Canones Apost., Hilary,
&c. Only one book, then, is lacking in Melito, and this is
the book of Esther. How the problem which this omission
raises is to be solved, critics have not been agreed. Eich-
horn supposes Esther to be included by Melito under the
denomination "Eodpas; but the like to this is not found else-
where among the ancient modes of reckoning the sacred
books. Herbst, in his recent Einleitung, supposes Melito
to have had access to a Greek Manuscript which contained
the apocryphal additions to Esther, and which, as he was
told by the Jews that they did not admit the authenticity
of the book in that interpolated state, he rejected from his
F
""
242
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
Canon. I deem it more satisfactory to suppose, with others,
an omission here of the name of Esther by Eusebius, in
copying the document. Precisely such an one occurs in his
copy of Origen's Canon, Ecc. Hist. VI. 25. Origen says,
even as copied by Eusebius, that twenty-two books belong
to the Canon, and he then proceeds to name them. But in
doing this, the twelve Minor Prophets (in one book) are
omitted by Eusebius, so that, as represented by this his-
torian, Origen makes only twenty-one books. Besides this,
Ruffinus' translation of Origen gives us the missing book,
and restores the Minor Prophets to their proper place.
Herbst thinks that Melito himself must have omitted Esther,
because, as he avers, Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen
reject it. But Gregory remarks in respect to it, “Tourous
[i. e. to or with the other books of the Old Test.] poσεy-
κρίνουσι τὴν Ἐσθὴρ τινές, i. e. with these some reckon
Esther;" Carm. XXXIII. Tom. II.. It would seem pro-
bable that he himself doubted of the book. Athanasius also
omits it, probably on a similar ground; but Origen, the
Council of Laodicea, (about 360-364,) Can. 59, Canones
Apostol. LXXXV., Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. IV. No. 33—
36, Epiphanius de Mens. et Ponder., c. 22, 23, Opp. II.,
Jerome in Prol. Gal., in their respective lists, all expressly
insert it. It must be admitted, I think, that either Gregory
and Athanasius both had doubts about the canonical author-
ity of Esther; or that in their lists of sacred books, they
have merely copied from Eusebius, who, it seems plain, had
accidentally omitted it. The whole current of Christian
antiquity is evidently in favour of such a view. And as to
the Jews, the very copious extracts which Josephus has
made from the book of Esther, as also the time in which he
supposes it to have been written, render it altogether cer-
tain that it was in his Canon of the Jewish Scriptures.
Thus much for Melito. A most important witness, more-
over, he is, because he is so carly, and withal so intelligent
and candid. We have then the books which Josephus' num-
ber twenty-two comprised. We cannot omit Esther at all
events, so far as Josephus is concerned; and our next ob-
ject is to inquire how these books in question came to be
reckoned at twenty-two.
In whatever way we regard the number of the sacred
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
243
books of the Old Testament, as reckoned by the ancient
Jews or Christians, we are obliged to confess that there is
something of the arbitrary and the fanciful in it. Still, it
is a circumstance in itself so immaterial, that we need not
take any alarm at the phantasies which have controlled this
matter. Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine in
studying the Hebrew language, customs, and opinions, and
who, as I have said, was by far the best critic and exegete
of all the ancient Fathers, has doubtless given us the true
secret of the number twenty-two, as applied to the Hebrew
Scriptures. Let us hear him, as he speaks in his Prologus
Galeatus: "Viginti et duas literas esse apud Hebræos, Sy-
rorumque quoque lingua et Chaldæorum testatur quæ He-
brææ magna ex parte confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti
duo elementa habent, eodem sono et diversis characteribus.
. . Quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per quæ
scribimus Hebraice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis
vox humana comprehenditur ; ita viginti duo volumina sup-
putantur, quibus, quasi literis et exordiis, in Dei doctrinâ
tenera adhuc et lactens viri justi eruditur infantia ; i. e.
that there are twenty-two letters among the Hebrews, the
Syriac and Chaldee languages testify, which for the most
part are kindred with the Hebrew. For they have twenty-
two letters, the same [as the Hebrew] in sound, but dif-
fering in form... As then there are twenty-two letters by
which we write in Hebrew every thing that we utter, and
the human voice is comprised within their constituent initial
elements so twenty-two volumes are reckoned, by which
the tender and as yet unwearied infancy of the just man is
instructed, as by elementary letters, in the doctrine of God."
T
It is in vain to ask what could have directed the minds
of those who arranged the Scriptures to such a fanciful
comparison. But to say the least, it is certainly not an un-
natural mode of reckoning. 'Letters instruct, and there
are twenty-two of them; the Scriptures instruct, and there
are twenty-two of them.' Such was the analogical rea-
soning. I do not know that critics have taxed Aristar-
chus with folly or weakness, because he divided the
Ilind and Odyssey into twenty-four books each, accord-
ing to the number of letters in the Greek alphabet. It
was an easy way of designating and distinguishing the
244
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT, XII.
different parts of those poems. Why should it be thought
strange, that not far from the same time some zealous stu-
dent of the Jewish Scriptures divided them in a similar
manner? Even if you reply, and say that unnatural com-
binations of different books into one were resorted to, in
order to make the number twenty-two; still this has no
solid foundation. Aristarchus has combined the poems of
Homer, in some cases, in the like manner, where the matter
would have pointed to a division different from that which
he has made. Yet his division is without any serious incon-
venience. So the Jews in several cases combined books
together as one which seem to be two, and are so reckoned
in our present Bibles. The ancient lists of the scriptural
books show, that at first this combination was made thus:
Judges and Ruth were united as one; 1 and 2 Samuel as
one; 1 and 2 Kings as one; 1 and 2 Chronicles as one;
Ezra and Nehemiah as one; Jeremiah and the Lamenta-
tions as one; the twelve prophets as one. The reason of
the combination of the first five cases is very plain. The
historical matter of the books is continuous and successive.
In the sixth case, it is very plain that Jeremiah is reckoned
as including the Lamentations, because both are the work
of one author, and the latter is an appendix which shows the
fulfilment of his prophecy. As to the twelve Minor Pro-
phets, it would seem that they were comprised in one, i. e.
in one roll or volume, on account of their brevity. Jerome
(ut sup.) speaks of the Hebrews as usually counting five of
the books as double, because they have the same number
of letters in the alphabet which have two forms, viz. 73, D¤,
12, 5, ; and, corresponding with these, they reckon
Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah, as being
double, or consisting of two parts.* But this is somewhat
more fanciful or arbitrary than the numbering of the books
in general according to the letters of the alphabet; inas-
much as it does not reach or account for all the cases of
combination. The union of Judges and Ruth, and also of the
twelve Minor Prophets, still remains to be accounted for.
With the light which we obtain from Jerome, we may
now go back to Josephus, and ask how he must have made
out his triplex division, viz. the Law, the Prophets, the
* See the passage of Jerome in the Appendix, No. XIV.
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
245
Hymns and Maxims of Life, and at the same time have
made only twenty-two books in the whole.
(11.)
The matter is easy and obvious. (1.) The five books of
the Pentateuch, in the order in which they have always
stood and still stand. (2.) We must call to mind, that pro-
phets is a designation, among the Hebrews, of any writer
who is, or is believed to be, inspired; and that of course it
may, and does, comprehend the historians as well as those
who uttered predictions. According to Josephus, then,
Prophets comprises all the books which are historical or
predictive. Of course his second division which, as he tells
us, is comprised ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις, i. e. “ in thirteen
books," must include, (1.) Joshua. (2.) Judges and Ruth.
(3.) 1 and 2 Samuel. (4.) 1 and 2 Kings. (5.) 1 and 2 Chro-
nicles. (6.) Ezra and Nehemiah. (7.) Esther. (8.) Isaiah.
(9.) Jeremiah and Lamentations. (10.) Ezekiel.
Daniel. (12.) The twelve Minor Prophets. (13.) Job.
All these are historical or predictive. The book of Job is
not an exception; because Josephus doubtless regarded it
in the light of a real history of Job, and as much a history
as the book of Ruth, or Esther, although written poetically.
That he did so reckon is plain, because the αἱ λοιπαὶ τέσσα-
ρες, i. e. the other remaining four books, he describes as con-
sisting of ὕμνοι καὶ ὑποθῆκαι τοῦ βίου, i. e. hymns and maxims
of life. I suppose it will not be contended that µvoɩ does
not characterize the Psalms; and the other books must of
course be the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. And
although the designation, hymns or maxims of life, will
not strictly apply to Canticles, yet here, as is common in
other cases, a potiori nomen fit, the name is given to four
books from the altogether predominant part of them. Can-
ticles is neither predictive nor historical, and so it would
not class with the Prophets or second division of the Scrip-
tures. The conclusion seems to be a necessary one, there-
fore, that Josephus arranged his twenty-two books in the
manner that has now been specified.
This conclusion seems to amount to satisfactory certainty,
when we examine all the early lists of the Old Testament
books, which other writers have transmitted to us. The list
of Melito combines the books of the Old Testament in the
same manner as that which we have attributed to Josephus,
246
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
with the single exception, that Judges is separated from
Ruth, and 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings are combined
into one book in four parts, as they were in the Septuagint,
and are still, even down to the present time. Origen, who
was familiar with the Hebrew MSS. of his day, gives the
combination of books in just the same way as that which has
been attributed to Josephus. The Council of Laodicea, (360
-364,) in Can. 59, follow the same track, making twenty-
two books, in the same way as Josephus does.
The only
departure is in the case of Jeremiah, where they join Baruch
and the epistles in the same book with that prophet, as well
as the Lamentations. It has been supposed, that the apo-
cryphal Baruch was the one here designated, and so that it
was anciently included in the book of Jeremiah. But of
this I must doubt. Whoever reads Jer. xxxvi., xlv., will be
satisfied, especially if he reflects on the disjointed condition
in which the writings of this prophet formerly were, that
the portions of Jeremiah's words which were written down
by Baruch, and on a separate roll, might occasion the mis-
take here supposed to be made in the enumeration.
In the same manner as Origen, Cyrill of Jerusalem reckons
in his Catech. IV., thus making expressly twenty-two books.
Gregory of Nazianzen (Carm. XXXIII.) follows in the
same steps. Athanasius (Epist. fest. Opp. I. 961) has the
same reckoning as Cyrill, only that Ruth is separated from
Judges, and Esther is omitted, still making the number of
books to be twenty-two, as usual.
If we go to the Latin church, we find Jerome, the real
head of that church and of all the Fathers, as to criticism,
making, (in Prolog. Gal.,) as has already been stated, twenty-
two books, and coupling and combining several of them in
the same manner as Origen. It is true, indeed, that he
makes a somewhat different division of the books in so far as
they belong respectively to the Prophets or to the Kethubim;
but this division exhibited by Jerome was a more recent
affair among the IIebrews; for so I think we shall, in the
sequel, see reason to believe; just as the practice of count-
ing twenty-four books (instead of twenty-two) had recently
begun in the time of Jerome. This last usage, sanctioned
by the Talmud, occasioned of course a separation of some of
the books which had been combined together, in order to
SECT. XII.
247
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
make out the number twenty-two. Important consequences
are connected with the establishment of these suggestions,
and on this account they must, in due time, occupy some of
our attention.
What is wanting in Josephus, in respect to specification
of particulars, (and also in Sirachides and Philo,) is fully
and adequately supplied by writers who lived shortly after-
wards, and by some who had an undoubted acquaintance
with the Jewish language and literature, viz. Origen and
Jerome. There is, as we have seen, such a uniformity in
ancient testimony, as to the books which were combined
and thus counted as one, that no reasonable doubt can re-
main in respect to this point; above all, it would seem that
none could remain, when nearly all the ancient writers, who
have given us lists of the sacred books of the Old Testa-
ment, have, in the same manner as Josephus, made out
twenty-two books as belonging to it, and told us what several
books were combined in order to count respectively as one.
One consequence, of no small importance in criticism, may
be drawn from the result of this investigation. This is, that
the so-called Hagiography, or third portion of the Hebrew
Scriptures, was not, very anciently, what it is now, or what
it was reckoned to be about the time of Jerome, and of the
origin of the Babylonish Talmud which was not long after.
If this can be established, then the leading argument em-
ployed by the Liberalists to show the lateness of the com-
position—a lateness extending even down to the Maccabean
times, of Daniel, Chronicles, many of the Psalms, and per-
haps some other scriptural books, or parts of books-is de-
prived at once of all its force. The argument runs thus,
"No reason can be assigned, except the lateness of the com-
position, why Daniel and the Chronicles should be placed
among the Kethubim or Hagiography, since the first belongs
to the class of the latter proplets, and the second, like Samuel,
Kings, &c., to the class of the former prophets. The fact,
then, that Daniel and Chronicles are joined with the Kethu-
bim, shows that they were written after the second class of
the scriptural books, viz. the Prophets, was fully defined and
completed. Now as this class comprises Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi, so we have conclusive evidence that Daniel
and Chronicles must have been composed, or at all events
t
248
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
introduced into the Canon, at a period subsequent to that of
Nehemiah and Malachi, which was about 430—420 b. c.”
This is specious, to say the least, at first view. But then
it takes for granted some things which cannot be proved;
nay, I will venture to say, the contrary of which can be
proved, or at least rendered highly probable. It takes for
granted, that the Hieronymean and Talmudic limits of the
Prophets and the Hagiography are the ancient and original
limits; which is far enough from being capable of proof. It
takes for granted, that the main reason for inserting books
among the class called the Hagiography, was the recent
origin of the books, which must have been written, as they
say, after the Prophets had become a definite and completed
class. But, not to speak of the doubtful age of the book of
Job, what shall be said of the great body of the Psalms,
and of the book of Proverbs? David and Solomon surely
were not Maccabean writers; not to mention that the Jews,
so far back as we know any thing of their opinions, have
always held the books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles to be the
work of Solomon. Why were these, then, put into the
Hagiography? for there they have been ever since the
triplex division of the Jewish Scriptures was made. Such
an argument, therefore, hits wide of the mark. Lateness of
composition is not essential to a classification with the Hagio-
graphy. Moreover, the Neologists take for granted, that the
Prophets and the Kethubim have been, since their comple-
tion, fixed and uniform as to the number of books in each,
and these always the same as they were at first; so that one
may even build an argument on this assumption. But the
sequel will show how little foundation there is, on which
any one can erect such a superstructure.
I am fully aware to what extent the Talmudic apportion-
ment of the IIagiography has been admitted and sanctioned.
Even Buxtorf, when he quotes the words of Josephus, de-
scriptive of the third division of the sacred books, viz. "ai
δὲ λοιποὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑπο-
Thкas Tov Blov TEPLEXOvour, i. e. the remaining four [books]
contain hymns to God, and maxims of life for men," feels
compelled to add, "Obscure hoc, nec satis distincte," Comm.
Mas. p. 28. He takes it for granted, that the Talmudic ar-
rangement and partition of the books, is the genuine and
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
249
most ancient one. So have the great mass of writers done;
as it would seem, without investigating the subject de novo.
Josephus, it has been said, makes a classification peculiar to
himself, and one which he constituted merely by having
respect to the contents or matters discussed in the several
books. But when the proof of this is demanded, we are
merely referred to Jerome and to the Talmud. To such a
reference, however, I must beg leave to take some exceptions.
It is clear at all events from Josephus, since he has af-
firmed that the Hebrews have only twenty-two books, and
also that five of these belong to the Pentateuch and thirteen
to the Prophets, that of course only four books can be left
for the Hagiography. These he says consist of hymns and
and practical maxims. This limitation of the number and
description of the contents obliges us to resort to and fix
upon the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, as
the constituent elements of the ancient Hagiography. This
classification comes from a man, let it be remembered, who
had a more intimate knowledge of Hebrew opinions and
history, than any other man of his time. He had no tempt-
ation, in this case, to represent the matter different from
what it was. Nothing in regard to the interests of himself,
or of his nation, depended on his mode of representing the
Hagiography. He must have been acquainted with the
custom of his nation, in regard to the matter of making the
appointment or division of the sacred books. There was
no inducement that we can conceive of to depart, in his re-
presentation, from the usual opinion-usual among the
priests-in respect to the whole affair. A competent, an
enlightened, an impartial, an honest, a disinterested witness,
has always a fair claim to be heard, and to be believed too,
so long as what he testifies is neither impossible nor impro-
bable. Josephus was all this as a witness in the present
case, and the thing testified looks altogether more probable
and more inviting to confidence, than the Talmudic division
of the Prophets and Kethubim. The division of Josephus
(the word Prophets being understood in the sense which the
Hebrews attached to it) is founded on a rational ground,
viz. on the ground of the respectively different materials or
contents of the several classes of the sacred books. Hymns
and Maxims of life are neither history nor prediction, and
G
250
SAMENESS OF TIIE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
so they are classed by themselves, according to Josephus.
But the Talmudic division of the sacred books depends on
some conceits about the different gradations of inspiration,
which are not only incapable of any satisfactory proof, but
are in themselves quite improbable. The story of the Jew-
ish doctors is, that the books of Moses take the precedence
above all others, because God spake with him mouth to
mouth; that the Prophets who came after him, were such
as, whether sleeping or waking when they received reve-
lations, were deprived of all the use of their senses, and
were spoken to by a voice, and saw prophetic visions in
ecstasy; that the third and lowest class of the sacred writers
were those, who, preserving the use of their senses, spake
like other men, and yet in such a way that, although not
favoured with dreams or visions in ecstasy, they still per-
ceived a Divine influence resting upon them, at whose sug-
gestion they spoke or wrote what they made public. Of
this last class, according to the Rabbins, were the authors of
the Kethubim; see Carpzov. Introd. ad Lib. Bib. V. Test.
c. II. § 4; Abarbanel, Præf. Comm. in Job.; D. Kimchi,
Præf. in Psalm.; Maimon. Moreh Neb. II. c. 45.
-
M
mak
Now that Moses, as the founder of the Jewish religion
and leader of the nation when achieving its independence,
whose laws were to be their statute book in all future gener-
ations until the coming of Christ—that such a distinguished
personage is entitled, from these considerations, to be placed
at the head of all the Jewish teachers and leaders of ancient
times, no one will doubt. That extraordinary revelations
of God were made to him in a peculiar way, we need not
call in question. Certainly, if we take the Pentateuch as
our guide in such a matter, this must be conceded. But
still, although the manner of communication with him was
peculiar, it does not follow that what he uttered was more
worthy of credit, than that which was uttered by other
scriptural writers. Truth is truth, and cannot be any more
than this. If the Hagiographal writers uttered what was
true, (and the Jewish doctors all with one voice affirm that
they did,) then the Hagiography stands on the same level
with the Pentateuch, in regard to its authenticity, and of
course in regard to the credence which we should give to it
and the respect that is due to it. I am far enough from as-
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
251
serting, that the contents of any and every book in the Old
Testament are all of equal interest and importance. This
is not and cannot be the case. In a great temple, built by
one and the same architect, there are many parts of the edi-
fice that retreat from notice, and are scarcely thought of by
the beholder, and yet they are essential to the completeness
of the building, and were as really the result of the archi-
tect's skill and plan, as the more prominent portions which
throw themselves into the notice of all. So is it with God's
ancient edifice. The Pentateuch constitutes, if you please,
the portico, the pillars, the façade, and the main apartment;
but there is many and many a subordinate portion of such a
building, presenting itself scarcely at all to our notice,
which is as really necessary to its full completeness, as the
most conspicuous parts of the same.
Even granting, then, that the Hagiography was written
by men who, according to the Rabbins, used their senses,
and were only occasionally inspired, it would not follow,
that any derogation from its authenticity or credibility can
be made out from this circumstance. Indeed they do not
even pretend to say this. But still it is difficult, after ad-
mitting their grounds of classifying the Scriptures, to avoid
the idea of a difference in the authority of each class, and in
the credence due to each. Yet if the subject-matter of the
scriptural books is really to be taken into account, and at
the same time if it be conceded (as it is by them) that all
the books are inspired, then we have a right to call on them
to show us, how and why the book of Psalms and that of the
Proverbs (each included in the Hagiography) are, or are
deemed to be, of inferior station or consequence. Nay, so
far is the true state of the case from this, that we may safely
say, that these two books are of more practical avail under
the Christian dispensation-more to the purposes of devo-
tional piety and a well-regulated life, than any other portion,
I had almost said, more than all the rest of the Old Tes-
tament.
Thus much for this renowned Rabbinical division of the
Scriptures, as to this point of view. But there are other
difficulties with it. The prophets, forsooth, were men who
were deprived of all use of their senses, when in an ecstatic
state, and report to us only what they saw in visions and
252
SECT. XII.
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
heard addressed to them!" And is this so? What, then, is
the seeing or the hearing, in this case? But passing by this,
I would ask, Had they no use of their senses when they
wrote down the revelations made to them? Besides, Paul
taxes the Corinthian prophets with the abuse of their mi-
raculous powers or gifts; how could they abuse them, if
they were not free agents when possessing them? Paul says,
too, that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the pro-
phets" (1 Cor. xiv. 32); which could not be true of such
prophets as the Rabbies imagine. Besides, what evidence
is there to show, that such extraordinary and peculiar re-
velations were made to the writers of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, while the Divine influence was alto-
gether of a lower kind, which rested upon the writers of the
Psalms, the Chronicles, Ezra, and the other books of the
Jewish Kethubim?
In fact, the lowest gradation of inspiration, ascribed by
the Rabbies to the authors of the Kethubim, is as high as
Christianity demands, or, one may say, even permits us to
ascribe to men. No man, not even Moses or Isaiah, was
uniformly and always inspired. Of all God's messengers,
only one received the gift of the Spirit without measure;
and he was the only one who never erred and never sinned.
Others were inspired for a particular purpose, and (it may
be) remained so, until that purpose was accomplished. Then
they returned to their usual state. So it was with even
Moses; and so with all the other prophets or priests con-
cerned with the writing of the Old Test. Scriptures. How
is the higher inspiration of the authors of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, to be proved, when no one can even
tell who wrote these books? Or in what respect as to the
credence due to them, do these compositions differ from
those of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Chronicles?
In fact, the whole affair is a mere Rabbinical conceit,
hatched out during the dark ages of Rabbinism that preceded
the composition of the Babylonish Talmud.
Nor is the fact that there is no justifiable ground for the
position of the Jewish doctors in respect to the Prophets and
the Kethubim, the only thing to be considered. Such a di-
vision, I acknowledge, might exist at an earlier period, al-
though founded on phantasy or on caprice; for there is
SECT. XII.
253
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
enough of both these in the Mishna itself to show us, that a
talent for the production of such things abounded among the
Rabbies of earlier times. The question recurs, after we
have seen the division which Josephus made of the sacred
books, Whether others of the more ancient authorities agreed
with him? If they did, then has Josephus given us the
usual division of the Scriptures at his time.
The grandson of Jesus Sirachides, in describing the third
class of Scriptures, or the Hagiography, calls them "the
other [books] which follow Kar' aurous, in accordance with
them [the Prophets] or of a like spirit;" also “the other
patrical (Tarpiw) books ;" and finally, "the rest of the
Bible, rà λoñã τwv fißliwv ;” see p. 229 above.
λοιπᾶ τῶν βιβλίων
Sirachi-
des himself describes the third division, by saying of the
ancient Hebrew worthies, "They sought out the melody of
music, they composed poems in writing;" Sirach. xliv. 5.
Philo says of the Essenes, that they read not only the Law
and the Prophets, but “hymns and other [books], by which
knowledge and piety are augmented and perfected;" see p.
231 above. In the New Testament, Jesus himself speaks
of "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms ;" Luke xxiv.
44, comp. xxiv. 27. The Psalms was in the same manner
the leading book in the Hagiography of Josephus.
In Melito, who comes next after Josephus, we find no
express designation of the triplex portions of the Old Tes-
tament; for we find him following in all probability the
arrangement of the Greek copy which he consulted, and
which may or may not have agreed with some Hebrew
copies of that time. Still he makes only twenty-two books,
even if we include Esther, (which is now omitted in his list
as represented in the extract from Eusebius, but) which
was in all probability originally included by Melito himself;
see p. 239 above. In fact he makes, as we may say, a
quadruplex division, the Law, the Historical Books, (in-
cluding Chronicles, but excluding Ezra,) the Hagiography,
(which he arranges in one continuous body, Psalms, Pro-
verbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles,) and the Prophets. But
he has evidently gone in the steps of Josephus as to the
number of the books, and the combinations of them in order
to make twenty-two. See App. No. IV.
So is it too with Origen, who expressly declares there
254
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
are twenty-two books, and who arranges the historical books
in like manner as Melito, i. e. after the tenor of the order
in the Sept. Notable is it, that he places Job and Esther
last of all. He also brings the Hagiography of Josephus
into immediate and local connexion and consecution. In his
list, moreover, which is cited by Eusebius, (as in the case of
Melito above,) one link in the chain of twenty-two is omit-
ted, viz. the twelve Minor Prophets; doubtless by mere mis-
take in transcribing; see p. 242 above. There can be no
reasonable doubt that the canon of Josephus is the Canon
of Origen, although he has yielded some deference to the
Septuagint as to the arrangement of some particular books.
See the original in Appendix, No. V.
Exactly in the same way are the books of the Old Testa-
ment reckoned in the fifty-ninth Canon of the Council of
Laodicea. These books are expressly said to be twenty-two;
and, moreover, the Chronicles immediately follow the Kings,
and are followed themselves by Ezra, just as they are in
the list of Origen; i. e. here also the arrangement is partly
in conformity with that of the Septuagint. In the same
manner the Canon of the Council ranges together the books
of the Hagiography, in conformity with what is indicated
by Josephus. See Appendix, No. VI., for the original.
Cyrill of Jerusalem (Cat. IV.) presents another list, in
which he says expressly that there are but twenty-two books.
His arrangement also is Septuagintal, and is the same as
that of Origen, save that he assigns an earlier place to the
book of Esther, along with the other historical books; see
App. No. VII. So is it with Gregory Nazianzen, II. Carm.
XXXIII.; see Appendix, No. VIII. The like is true of
Athanasius; who (in his Epist. Fest. I. p. 961) makes in
general the same number and order of books as Cyrill of
Jerusalem, i. e. twenty-two books arranged generally in the
manner of the Septuagint. But there is this difference be-
tween them, viz. Athanasius counts Ruth by itself, and
omits Esther; which seems to favour the supposition that
he meant to omit Esther, inasmuch as he makes twenty-two
without it. Indeed in the sequel, he expressly mentions
Esther among the books “ ού κανονιζόμενα μέν . . . ἀναγινω-
okóμeva dé, not canonical, but permitted to be read," viz. by
the catechumens, and these books, he tells us, were such as
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
255
the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and
Tobit. See Appendix, No. IX. In the Synopsis Script.
Sac. in Athanas. Opp. II. p. 126, seq., the very same thing
is said respecting Esther and the apocryphal books, with
the declaration that "they are read only by catechumens,”
i. e. they are not publicly read with the proper Scriptures.
See Appendix, No. X.
CC
Epiphanius (De Mens. et Ponder., c. 22, 23) avers, that the
Hebrews numbered only twenty-two books, so as to corre-
spond with their alphabet, making five of the books double,
'just as five letters of the alphabet are double,” i. e. have
two forms. He includes Esther in his list; but he makes a
different division of the books from that of any other an-
cient writer. Job is placed after Joshua, the Psalms after
Judges and Ruth, the Chronicles before Samuel and Kings,
the Twelve Prophets before the others, &c.; evidently an
attempt at a kind of chronological arrangement in conform-
ity with the views of the author. See App. No. XI.
The Council of Hippo, (A. D. 393,) in Can. XXXVI.,
admit indeed several of the apocryphal books into their
Canon; but they preserve all the Jewish ones, and put
Daniel between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Chronicles next
after Kings; thus showing that no regard was paid by them
to such an order as the Talmudic; see Appendix, No. XII.
With this agrees cap. 47 of the third Council of Carthage
(A. D. 397); Mansi, Concil. Coll. III. 891. See in App.
No. XIII.
fot
Jerome, (Prol. Gal.,) as we have seen p. 233 above,
makes twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and ar-
ranges the Law, the Prophets, and Hagiography mostly in
like manner with the Talmud; but still he comprises only
nine books in the Kethubim, while the Talmudists make
eleven. He then goes on to say, that "some [so did the
Rabbins of that day] enrol Ruth and Lamentations among
the Hagiography, [instead of uniting them with Judges and
Jeremiah, as he does,] and think that they should be reckon-
ed among their number, and thus the books of the Old Tes-
tament would amount to twenty-four." Here, then, is the
very first notice of this novel method of making out twenty-
four books; and at the same time it is the first express in-
formation which we have of a triplex division of the Scrip-
G
256
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISII CANON. SECT. XII.
tures differing, as to the particular books comprised, from
that of Josephus. The Rabbins of his day, with whom he
studied so long in Palestine, had, as it would seem, already
made this innovation upon the ancient arrangement both as
to order and as to number, and from them he learned it.
See the whole passage in Appendix, No. XIV.
Hilary (Prol. in Psalm.) states the books of the Old Tes-
tament to be twenty-two; but he adds, that "to some it
seemed good, by adding Tobit and Judith, to make out
twenty-four books, according to the number of letters in the
Greek alphabet." The some here spoken of must of course
have been found among Christians; for that the Jews ad-
mitted the books in question to their Palestine Canon, there
is not one spark of evidence. Every thing shows the con-
trary. See App. No. XV.
Rufinus, (Expos. in Symb. Apost.,) a contemporary of
Jerome and Hilary, reckons twenty-two books, following in
the main the order of the Septuagint. In his Canon all our
present scriptural Hebrew books are included; Daniel is
placed where we place him, and Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes, and Canticles, come last; the very copy, in this re-
spect, of Josephus' Canon. See App. No. XVI.
From this somewhat extensive range of investigation, it
seems perfectly evident that the Hagiographal division of
the Scriptures, as taught by Rabbies to Jerome, and after-
wards sanctioned by the Talmud, belonged at this period
only to some of the Jewish schools, and had no concern
with the usual and general classification. I can find nothing
in all antiquity that hints at such a classification as theirs,
before the notice which Jerome takes of it; although it has
so often been talked about, and reasoned from, as if it had
long preceded the Christian era.
The question I take to be now finally settled, that the
Babylonish Talmud itself was not originated until after or
about the time of Jerome, i. e. at the close of the fourth and
the beginning of the fifth century, and not completed at
least until the sixth century. The traditional authors, who
commenced the work, were Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Jose.
The huge mish-mash which this work contains, must have
been the production of many heads and many hands. But
the authority, which it has ever retained among the super-
填
​SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
257
stitious and Pharisaic Jews, is almost without limits. In
fact, like the Romish traditions, it has been placed above
the Scriptures themselves. The Rabbins are accustomed
to say, "The Scripture is water, but the Talmud is wine."
Hence it is easy to see why it has had so much influence on
the arrangement of the Hebrew Scriptures, for some 1200
years. The passage which has settled this matter for the
Jews is in the Tract. Baba Bathra, fol. 14. col. 2, and runs as
פורן של נביאים יהושע ושופטים שמואל ומלכים ירמיה ויחזקאל :follows
ישעיה ושנים עשר ... סדרן של כתובים רות תהלים ואיוב ומשלי וקהלת
i. e. the order of the שיר השירים וקנות דניאל אסתר ודברי הימים :
<<
Prophets is thus: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings,
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve [minor pro-
phets] . . . The order of the Kethubim is thus: Ruth,
Psalms and Job, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, the Song
of Songs and Lamentations, Daniel, Esther and the Chro-
nicles."
I have omitted the Pentateuch, because the order of that
is every where and always one and the same. I would fur-
ther remark, that as to the order of the books in the Prophets
and Kethubim, and even the number of them respectively,
there is no uniformity among the highest Jewish authori-
ties. The Talmudists make twenty-four books, and arrange
them as above. But the Masorites, whom I should regard
as of higher authority, arrange the leading prophets thus:
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve; while the Kethubim
are thus arranged: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles,
Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles.
Both make twenty-four books, but in quite a diverse order.
The Spanish MSS., and all the Hebrew Bibles printed
from them, follow the Masorites with some slight variations
under the Kethubim; the German MSS. and printed edi-
tions mostly follow the Talmud, but also with variations of
the like kind. In making out twenty-four books, Ruth is
separated from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah;
which, on the contrary, Jerome unites respectively in one
book, and so makes twenty-two of the whole. Nearly all
antiquity counted 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2
Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, respectively, as one
book; the Septuagint count the four first of these as four
parts of one and the same book, which they name Kings.
S
258
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
Different from the order both of the Talmud and the
Masorites, is that of Origen and Jerome. Both of them
make only twenty-two books. But Origen places Chronicles
and Ezra immediately after Kings; Jerome, near the end of
the Kethubim (for with him the closing part of the Canon
stands thus Chronicles, Ezra, Esther). Origen places
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, next after
Ezra (including Nehemiah): Jerome's arrangement after the
book of Kings is thus: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the
Twelve. Origen arranges after Job thus: the Twelve,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel: Jerome puts Daniel among
the Hagiography, and next before Chronicles. As the ex-
tract from Origen in Eusebius omits the Twelve, we should
not know how Origen arranged them, had not Rufinus
given us a version of him. In this the Twelve stands next
after Canticles and before Job. Comp. the lists of Origen
and Jerome, in App. Nos. V. XIV.
I have now given the reader a fair specimen of the lead-
ing arrangements of the Hebrew Scriptures in ancient times,
as it respects the Prophets and the Kethubim. No two are
alike. Even the Masorites and the Talmudists differ from
each other; Jerome differs from both, and Origen from him.
And so, if we compare Melito, the Laodicean Council, the
Apostolic Canons, Cyrill, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius,
Hilary, Epiphanius, the Council of Hippo, Jerome, Rufinus,
&c., scarcely any two of them are alike throughout. And
this is almost the case even with MSS. and editions in later
times.
As to the conceit of twenty-four books, instead of twenty-
two, it must have been a late affair, as has already been
suggested. The Talmud made this out by separating
Judges and Ruth, Jeremiah and Lamentations. Sixtus
Senensis, in his Biblioth. Sanct. I. p. 2, has given us the
alleged reasons of the Jews for such an arrangement. These
are a fit accompaniment of the arrangement itself. The sub-
stance is, that the ancient Jews wrote the unpronounceable
name of Jehovah thus ", i. e. with three Yodhs, (which of
course comprise great mysteries,) and so they added two
more books to the number 22, in order to correspond with
the Yodh thrice repeated in honour of the name of Jehovah.
The Greek Versions would naturally and easily adopt the
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
259
number twenty-four, because it corresponded with the Greek
alphabet.
The Christians had another reason, according to
Sixtus, for admitting twenty-four books; which was, that
John, in the Apocalypse, has introduced twenty-four elders
as adoring him who was about to open the sealed book!
Trifling and futile as all this is, yet from the authority
and example of the Talmud, the Twenty-Four has even be-
come a technical name of the Hebrew Scriptures; and it
stands on the first page as a title (ny wy) to the ma-
jority of MSS. and editions. All antiquity however made,
as we have seen, but twenty-two; and in this respect the
assertion of Josephus, that the Jews have twenty-two sa-
cred books, stands most amply sustained and justified.
Z
Important consequences flow from these investigations.
and conclusions. I can mention only a few of them, which
have respect to views often presented by some recent critics,
and which have a slender support indeed in the history of
the Canon.
(1.) It has become general to speak of Chronicles as the
last book in the Hebrew Canon, and to draw important con-
clusions as to the authenticity of this composition from this
source. Eichhorn, (Einl. § 7,) De Wette, (Einl. § 10, and
Comm. in Matt. xxiii. 35,) and many others, appeal to
Matt. xxiii. 35 as certain evidence, that the book of Chro-
nicles was the last in the Old Testament in our Saviour's
day. The words in question are, "That on you [the Jews]
may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from
the blood of the righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar." Here, says Eichhorn and others after him, is an
example taken from the first and the last part of the Jewish
Scriptures, and the design of Jesus evidently is, to say that
on the Jews should come the consummation of punishment
for all the martyrdoms related from first to last in their
Scriptures. Consequently the book of Chronicles must have
stood last in their sacred volume.
Notwithstanding the all but universal assent to this me-
thod of reasoning, I must still believe that it has not any
solid basis. How does it follow, that the book of Chronicles
is the last in the whole volume, when the Kethubim of Jose-
phus, viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, yea all the
$ 2
260
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
books that we commonly name prophets, might have stood
after the Chronicles, and yet the reasoning have still been
the same as most critics now suppose it to be? The rea-
soning is founded on the historical part, and that only, of the
Old Testament; and it is enough of course to answer all its
demands, that the book of Chronicles was the last in the
historical series. It is mere gratuitous assumption to sup-
pose any more; for the present arrangement in our English
Bibles would support the reasoning in question, just as well
as the present Jewish arrangement of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures.
C
But there are several things, on the other hand, to show
that the whole process of the reasoning here, as well as the
assumed historical basis of it, is altogether incapable of any
adequate defence. (1.) The Zechariah of 2 Chron. xxiv. 19
-22, to which the critics in question appeal, was the son of
Jehoiada, and not of Barachias, as Christ declares. The
conciliation of the two passages, by supposing that Zecha-
riah's father bore both the names of Jehoiada and Barachias,
is unsatisfactory in this case; for why should we suppose
that the Saviour appealed to any other name of Zechariah's
father than that which is mentioned in the Old Testament,
in case he really meant to designate the Zechariah of 2
Chron.? But the Neologists have a shorter method, The
evangelist's recollection was faulty, and he wrote Barachias
where Jesus had named Jehoiada.' I am not prepared,
however, to admit this solution. I cannot bring myself to
believe, that Jesus would have made such an appeal as is
here supposed. Examine for a moment the chronology of
this martyrdom; for its date must at least be some 840
years before Christ. And are eight centuries and a half to
be leaped over, in such a representation, because no martyr-
doms, no persecutions by the Jews, could be found in all
that period? This is contrary to probability, and contrary
to fact. I affirm the latter, because Jeremiahı (xxvi. 23)
tells us, that Jehoiakim (about 600 B. c.) brought Urijah
the prophet out of Egypt, whither he had fled, and slew him
with the sword. Here, then, is a martyr-murder 200 years
and more after that of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. What
is to be said also of Manassch's murders, who "filled Jeru-
salem with innocent blood," more than a century after the
H
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
261
murder of Zechariah? And besides all this, did not the
partisans of Antiochus Epiphanes, such men as Jason and
his compeers, persecute and destroy pious persons living in
their days? The denial of all this would be in part a denial
of what is certain, and in part of what in all respects is pro-
bable. Jews who could sell themselves to Antiochus in
order to introduce the heathen rites, must needs persecute
those who stood in the way of their nefarious designs. In a
word, to terminate the history of Jewish persecutions at a
period of 800 and more years before the Christian era, in
an indignant charge of accumulated guilt upon the nation,
is in itself incredible; I must say-to my mind it is prepos-
terous. Yet such is the reasoning of the critics in question.
(2.) It is not at all essential or capable of proof, that the
histories which we have of the Jews after their return and
down to the Christian era, altogether imperfect and few as
they are, should have preserved an account of the murder of
Zechariah, as mentioned by the Saviour. A comparatively
recent murder of such a man might have taken place, and
yet not have been related at all by Josephus; for we well
know that his silence is not any proof that certain things did
not take place, e. g. the massacre by Herod at Bethlehem,
the Saviour's appearance, claims, miracles, &c.*
That we
lack the history of the son of Barachias, is no evidence that
there was no such person. A prophet he is not said to be
in Matt. xxiv. 35; it is only said that his blood was that of
the righteous. And if in Luke xi. 51 he seems to be called
a prophet, yet it is plainly in that sense in which dis-
tinguished pious men in general are sometimes called pro-
phets in the Old Testament; (e. g. in 1 Chron. xvi. 22 ;* Ps.
cv. 15;) for here Abel is also named as a prophet, in the
same sense as Zechariah. No good reason can be given,
then, why Jesus should not, or did not, refer to some recent
event in the way of murderous persecution. The very
nature of the case renders this highly probable. Particularly
does the mention of the minute circumstance, that "Zacha-
rias was slain between the temple and the altar," savour of
an event which was fresh in the recollection of the Jews who
*After all the defences that have been made of the passage in Josc-
phus respecting Christ, I focl constrained to say of it, Sapit emendatorem.
To me it seems that Josephus must have said more, if he said any thing.
262
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
were addressed. And then the charge implied in épovεvoare,
YE slew, has all the appearance of imputing personal guilt.
In fact it must involve it.
(3.) But if any one insists that we must needs have some
other historical account of the murder of a later or recent
Zacharias, than that apparently contained in the evangelist;
why may we not give credit to Origen, who (in Tract XXVI.
in Matt.) states that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist,
was murdered by the Jews in the temple? He again asserts
this in Tom. XI. in Matt. p. 225, ed. Huet. Basil, Gregory of
Nyssa, Cyrill of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Theophy-
lact, and others, agree with Origen in this statement; Thilo,
Cod. Apoc. N. Test. I. Prol. LXIV. In the Protevangelium
Jacobi, the most respectable and perhaps the oldest of all
the apocryphal Gospels, (Origen makes mention of it,) the
murder of the same Zacharias is circumstantially related,
cap. XXIII., seq. It is plain, then, that a very general tra-
dition existed in ancient times, as to the murder of Zacha-
rias the father of John, by the Jews, and probably by
Herod's instigation. It is no objection to the truth of this,
that the father of Zacharias is not mentioned in Luke i. 5.
Barachias was a very common name among the Jews,
and might well have been the name of Zacharias' father.
The probability that the opinion of Origen and other ancients
is correct here, is even strengthened by that exegesis of
Luke xi. 51, which would make Zacharias a prophet in the
usual sense of that word; for Luke i. 67-79 plainly repre-
sents him as uttering prophecy."
*
Why may we not conclude now, that neither the evange-
lists have made a mistake about the son of Barachias; nor
the Saviour charged on the Jews the commission of a deed
done more than eight centuries before? And above all, why
may we not say, that the whole of the conclusions about the
book of Chronicles and its location, which are built on assum-
ing for it the last place in the Hebrew Scriptures, is "such
stuff as dreams are made of ?" Nay, I venture to say, that
the assumption in question is historically and demonstrably
ཀ
* Plausiblo as this reasoning may appear, and forcibly as it is presented,
its correctness may still be doubted. We cannot but think that the Zecha-
riah of 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21 is referred to. Seo Davidson's Introduction to
the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 134, 135. D.
SECT. XII.
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
263
false. Josephus so represents the Kethubim, that the Chro-
nicles are excluded, and must have been united with the divi-
sion of the Prophets; as Philo had done before him, and also
the New Testament. The first list of the successive and par-
ticular books of the Hebrew Scriptures which we have, is
that of Melito, (about 170 A. D.,) which places Chronicles
next after Kings; the same does Origen in his list; the same
does the Council of Laodicea, the Canones Apostol., Cyrill
of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, the Synopsis
Scripturæ in Athanas. Opp., Epiphanius, (who even puts it
before Kings,) the Council of Hippo, (A. D. 393,) Hilary,
and Rufinus. Jerome, who drank in Rabbinical lore for
twenty years, is the only Father among all of any name, who
puts Chronicles among the Kethubim; and he puts after it
Ezra (including Nehemiah) and Esther. Besides all this,
the very fact that the Septuagintal arrangement preserves
the same order as all the early Fathers, in regard to the
book of Chronicles, shows that the Hebrew MSS. from
which they translated did not exhibit the Talmudical ar-
rangement, but plainly that of Josephus. Most of the lists.
of books, to which I have now referred, specifically declare,
that they give the books as they are arranged by the Jews.
ala
It is out of all critical question, then, to admit that Chroni-
cles was the last book of Scripture in our Saviour's time;
and out of all question to admit those views in criticism,
which are built merely on the assumption of such a fact.
The Liberalists must give us some reasons better than such
ones, in order to induce us to walk in the paths that they
pursue.
In this connexion, let us return once more, for a moment,
to the book of Daniel. As I have already stated, the main
argument against the genuineness of the book, independently
of its account of miraculous or strange events, is that which
is drawn from the alleged fact, that the work has been assign-
ed to the division of the Kethubim; and so, as the process
of reasoning is, it must have been composed long after the
time when Daniel is said to have lived, and after the division
embracing the Prophets was brought to a close and com-
pleted. But what says fact? Josephus' arrangement neces-
sarily, as we have seen, includes Daniel among the Prophets.
Of course when this is settled, it follows with almost absolute
G
<
264
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
1
certainty, that the son of Sirach, Philo, and the New Testa-
ment writers, do the same, inasmuch as they classify the
sacred books in the same manner as he does. We know for
certainty this fact in respect to the book of Daniel, as it con-
cerns the later writers; for we have their lists both of the
names and the order of all the books. Melito places Daniel
among the Prophets and before Ezekiel. The same does
Origen. The Council of Laodicea place Daniel next after
Ezekiel, and of course among the Prophets. The same do
the Canones Apostol., Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazian-
zen, Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturæ in Athanas.
Opp. (in
Epiphanius, de Mens. et Ponder., the book is by some mis-
take omitted). The Council of Hippo, like Melito and Ori-
gen, place it before Ezekiel, as also does Hilary; and Rufinus
places it next after Ezekiel. Like Josephus, too, this last
writer puts at the close of the sacred volume the Hagio-
graphal books, viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles.
Jerome alone, in giving an account of the Rabbinical usage
in his day, puts Daniel among the IIagiography; and after
it he puts Chronicles, Ezra, (with Nehemiah,) and Esther.
G
The Talmud then stands alone in placing the book of
Daniel among the Hagiography, with the exception that Je-
rome makes the like arrangement, in giving an account of
what was customary in his time among the Rabbins who had
taught him. But even he does not accord with the Talmud,
either as to the number or the order of the books in the Pro-
phets and Kethubim. All this proves, beyond a question,
what a variety there was in the arrangement of particular
books of the Scriptures, and how little of significance was
originally attached to this circumstance. The Septuagint
Version, it must surely be admitted, was made from Hebrew
MSS.; and how comes it to pass that the arrangement is so
different here from that of the Talmud? The proof that
Daniel, among the ancients universally, was regarded as one
of the prophets, is above all exception. The fact that Jose-
phus extracts so copiously from him, and speaks of him as
one of the greatest of all the prophets, cannot be disguised.
Near the close of Antiq. X. he says, "Daniel was distin-
guished and illustrious because of the glory of being the
friend of God. . . . He was wonderfully fortunate as one of
the greatest prophets; and during his life-time he had much
Th
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
265
honour and fame from kings and from the multitude, and
now when dead he has an everlasting remembrance." Our
Saviour too has said of a certain prediction, that it was
"uttered by Daniel the prophet;" Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark
xiii. 14.
We have now had opportunity to see, how utterly incon-
gruous the Talmudic arrangement of the Scriptures is with
all the other ancient testimony respecting this matter-testi-
mony, by the way, which is all of it older than that of the
Talmud. Even the Masorites of Tiberias, although they
agree with the Talmudists as to the twenty-four books of
Scripture, and as to the number of books respectively be-
longing to the Hagiography and to the Prophets, do still re-
fuse to accede to the preposterous arrangement of placing
the greater Prophets in the order of the Talmud, viz. Jere-
miah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. The Masorites and every ancient
authority, one and all, unanimously declare the order to be
thus: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. It is worth our while to
listen for a moment to the reason of the Talmudists for
their peculiar arrangement, in order that we may learn how
-
כיון דמלכים סיפיה : to appreciate their decision in such matters
חורבנא וירמיה כוליה חורבנא ויחזקאל רישאה חורבנא וסיפיה נחמתא
.i. e ; וישעיה כוליה נחמתא סמכונן חורבנא לחורבנא ונחמתא לנחמתא
'since the book of Kings ends in desolation, and all of Je-
remiah is desolation; and Ezekiel in the commencement
is desolation, and at the close, consolation; and Isaiah is
all consolation, they [the men of the Great Synagogue]
joined desolation to desolation, [Jeremiah to the close of the
book of Kings,] and consolation to consolation [Isaiah to
the last part of Ezekiel].' Yet so incongruous is this, that
Abarbanel (Pref. in Comm. in Is.) does not hesitate to say,
Truly our predecessors, the sons of the captivity, did not
arrange the books thus, [viz. as the Talmud does,] but they
placed Isaiah at the head."
ሰር
Enough for this topic. Clear as the light is it, that if
any regard is to be paid to all the testimony of antiquity
which precedes the Talmud, the decisions of the latter as to
the number or order of the books in the Prophets and Ha-
giography, are entitled to little or no authority. All the
reasoning and conclusions about certain books in the Bible,
which are built on the Talmudic arrangement of particulars,
266
SECT. XII.
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
must of course be without any good foundation. In fact,
as already remarked, the Septuagintal arrangement of the
Scriptural books, which at all events preceded the Christian
era, does of itself demonstrate, that when it was made, the
Hebrew originals did not follow the Talmudic order.
If the reader has still any scruples whether he is not to
be bound by the decisions of the Talmudic doctors, in rela-
tion to critical matters of this kind, it is proper that he
should turn his attention for a moment to their decision in
regard to the authorship of the Old Testament books. It
runs thus: “And who wrote them? [the Old Testament
books]. Moses wrote his book, and the section of Balaam,
and Job. Joshua wrote his book, and eight verses in the
Law. Samuel wrote his book, Judges, and Ruth. David
wrote the book of Psalms, with the assistance of ten of the
elders, by the aid of Adam the first man, of Melchizedek,
of Abraham, of Moses, of Heman, of Jeduthun, of Asaph, of
the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his book, and the
book of Kings and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his assistants
wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Coheleth [Ecc.];
the symbol of which is p'on. The men of the Great Syna-
gogue wrote Ezekiel and the Twelve, Daniel and the volume
of Esther; the symbol of which is "7p. Ezra wrote his
book and the genealogy of the book of Chronicles down to
himself.* Talm. Bab. Megil. fol. 10. c. 2.
Much comment on this would be unseemly here. The
assertion that Moses wrote Job, will hardly stand before the
tribunal of criticism. That Samuel wrote his book, (which of
course includes 1 and 2 Sam.,) which continues the Jewish
history down to more than forty years after his death, it
would require strong faith to believe. What Psalms Adam,
Melchizedek, and Abraham wrote, the Talmudists might
find it somewhat difficult to show. That Jeremiah wrote
the book of Kings, which carries the history down to the
* ומי כתבן משה כתב ספרו ופרשת בלעם ואיוב: יהושע כתב ספרו ושמונה פסוקין
שבתורה : שמואל כתב ספרו ושופטים ורות : דוד כתב ספר תהלים על ידי עשרה
זקנים על ידי אדם הראשון על יד מלכיצדק ועל ידי אברהם ועל ידי משה ועל ידי הימן
ועל ידי ידותון ועל ידי אסף ועל ידי שלשה בני קרח: ירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכי
וקנות : חזקיה וסיעתו כתבו ומש"ק סימן ישעיה משלי שיר השירים וקהלת: אנשי
כנסת הגדולה כתבו קנד"ג סימן יהזקאל ושנים עשר דניאל ומגילת אסתר : עזרא כתב
ספרו ויחס של דברי הימים עד לו :
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
267
thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's captivity, is very impro-
bable. He must, at any rate, have been more than a cen-
tury old by that time. That Hezekiah and his helpers wrote
Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, is downright
folly to assert, in any other sense than that they made a copy
of these books, or (as we say) copied them out. It is sin-
gular, that the word an, which the Talmudists have here em-
ployed, should have been so much controverted. Bertholdt,
and after him Hävernick and others, insist upon its being
rendered introduced, as if it were the equivalent of an;
which seems to me little short of a monstrosity in philology.
Others have supposed to mean, as often elsewhere,
wrote in the sense of composing; which would be attributing
more absurdity to the Talmudists than they were probably
guilty of.
The truth of the matter seems to be very simple.
nin Hebrew, like the verb write in English, may mean either
the composition of a book, including the act of writing it
down, or it may mean merely the act of an amanuensis
or copyist which reduces it to writing. There can be
no reasonable doubt, that the Talmudists borrowed the
sentiment respecting the doings of Hezekiah and his assist-
ants from Prov. xxv. 1, where it is said, "These are the
Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of
Judah puny, copied out.” So our English Version; and
it seems to have hit the mark exactly. The verb pry, in
conj. Hiphil, means to transfer; hence to transfer from one
book into another, i. e. to copy out; see Ges. Lex. The
Talmud, instead of saying the men of Hezekiah, (as the
Bible does,) says Hezekiah and his assistants ('♫y'D); and
instead of pny, they employ an as its equivalent. But
as the part of Proverbs thus copied out comprises only five
chapters, where they obtained ground for naming the whole
book as copied out, and for adding Canticles and Ecclesiastes
to this, i. e. adding all the supposed works of Solomon ;
above all, whence they obtained the information that Isaiah
was also copied out by Hezekiah and his assistants; is more
than I can conjecture. Not improbably the interest which
that good king took in this renowned prophet, and the de-
ference that he paid to him, may have occasioned the guess.
in question; for more than guess it does not seem to be.
:
The men of the Great Synagogue are said to have copied
We
268
SECT. XII.
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
out [for public use?] Ezekiel, the Twelve, Daniel, and the
volume of Esther.' Here anɔ is employed in the same way
as before, beyond all reasonable doubt. So De Wette, Einl.
§ 14; and to the same purpose Rashi, i. e. Rabbi Solomon
Jarchi, († 1105,) who undertakes to explain and to vindicate
this passage of the Talmud in his Comm. in Baba Bathra.
His words are worth quoting, in order to display the genius
of Rabbinic commentators: "The men of the Great Syna-
gogue wrote out (or copied) Ezekiel, who prophesied in exile.
And I know not why Ezekiel did not write it [the book] out
himself, except that prophecy is not given for any one to
write it in a foreign country. They [the Great Synagogue]
wrote it out after they returned to the Holy Land. And so,
in respect to the book of Daniel, who lived in exile; and so,
in regard to the volume of Esther. And as to the Twelve
Prophets, because their prophecies were brief, the prophets
did not themselves write them down, each one his own book.
But when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi came [to the Holy
Land], and saw that the Holy Spirit was about to depart,
inasmuch as they were the last prophets, then they rose up
and wrote down their prophecies, and joined those of the
minor prophets with them, and thus made one large book,
so that they might not be destroyed (or lost) on account of
their smallness."*
/
It is with great difficulty that one can be brought to be-
lieve, that a man of so much intelligence as Jarchi was
really serious in giving such an account of this matter. Men,
forsooth, according to him, could be inspired as prophets,
when in exile, but it was unlawful to write down their com-
positions while in that state! And then nine prophets of
the twelve did not write down their own compositions, be-
cause they were short! Were the Psalms, then, which are
shorter still, not written down by their authors? And
could not the nine prophets who composed without writing,
G
אנשי כנסת הגדולה כתבו יחזקאל שנתנבא בגולה ואינו יודע למה לא כתבו
יחזקאל בעצמו אם לא מפני שלא נתנה נבואה ליכתב חוצה לארץ וכתבו אלו לאחר
שבאו לארץ וכן ספר דניאל שהיה בגולה וכן מגילת אסתר ושנים עשר מתוך שהיו
נבואותיה קטנות לא כתבו הנביאים עצמם איש איש ספרו ובאו חגי זכריה ומלאכי
וראו רוח הקודש מסתלק שהיו הם נביאים אחרונים ועמדו וכתבו נבואותיהם וצירפו
נבואות קטנות עמם ועשאום ספר גדול שלא יאבדו מחמת קטנס :
1
SECT. XII. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
269
foresee the danger of their works being lost or perverted,
while committed to the keeping of merely oral tradition, as
well as the three who provided against such a catastrophe?
But it is useless to reason against the putid conceits of
Rabbins devoted to the Talmud. And besides all that has
been now said, I would merely ask the question, Is it not
plain, that, even on Talmudic ground, the real authorship of
many of the Old Testament books, and parts of books, re-
mains undisclosed? The information given is neither ex-
tensive enough to cover the ground which it professes to
cover, nor in any measure satisfactory as to that which it
does cover.
Such are the authorities, then, for the ancient division of
the Hebrew Scriptures into twenty-four books; such for
arranging Isaiah after Jeremiah and Ezekiel; such for
mixing together prophecy, history, and lyric poetry and
proverbs, all under one category, the Kethubim, when the
nature of the case and the voice of antiquity were against
it.
It is in vain to inquire now what conceits led them in
such a direction. No one can fathom the depths of Tal-
mudic criticism. The only possible way to receive it, is to
take it upon credit and without examination.
Is there not abundant reason, then, to say, that arguments
against the genuineness of Daniel, of Chronicles, or of any
other book in the Hagiography, on the ground of its pre-
sent arrangement, are utterly futile; inasmuch as they have
no solid basis? Indeed this is one of those cases, in
which we may say, that the negative is capable of critical
demonstration.
After a minute investigation of this whole matter of the
classification and order of the sacred books, one may well
be surprised at finding such an intelligent critic as Heng-
stenberg, in his Authentie des Daniel, (p. 23, seq.,) admitting,
as it would seem, without any question, the antiquity of the
Talmudic arrangement, and striving to explain the location
of Daniel among the Hagiography, on the ground that the
book was not written in Palestine, and was not from the
hand of one who was a prophet by office, or who could claim
the highest degree of inspiration. Certain it is from all the
authorities before Jerome and the Talmud, that Daniel was
never classified in this manner by the more ancient Jews
vai
270
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. SECT. XII.
This is the shortest and best answer to all arguments against
the genuineness of that book, on the ground of its location.
In fact this matter is so plain, that I am strongly tempted to
believe, that in the disputes between Christians and the
Jews about the Messiah, and the time of his coming, during
the first three and a half centuries, the Jews felt themselves
to be so pressed by the apparent prediction in Dan. ix. re-
specting the seventy weeks before his coming, that they
sought to give the book a lower place than it had occupied.
before, and thus to remove it somewhat from an associa-
tion with the other prophets. It was too late to exclude it
from the Canon.
Hävernick, in his recent Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment, has made the same admission of the antiquity of the
Talmudic arrangement in respect to the Kethubim. And
he has not only done this, and in addition to it maintained
that the Talmudists made distinctions in the order of the pro-
phets, which were founded on the degree of their inspira-
tion and the continuance of it, but he has laboured at length
(p. 54, seq.) to show, that even the Scriptures themselves
make a distinction-a palpable one-between 1 a prophet,
and or nin a seer. Labour surely bestowed in vain ;
and, on account of the fundamental error which it involves,
having a tendency only to make his readers distrustful in
regard to statements of this nature when made by him.
How easy to have prevented such a mistake as he has made,
by duly consulting a Hebrew Concordance! Had he done
SAN
-are undistin חזה or ראה and נביא this, he must have seen that
guishingly used to designate the very same individuals:
e. g. Samuel is in 1 Sam. iii. 20; 2 Chron. xxxv. 18,
and 8 in 1 Sam. ix. 11, 18, 19; 1 Chron. ix. 22; xxvi. 28;
xxix. 29; Gad is 8 in 1 Sam. xxii. 5; 2 Sam. xxiv. 11,
and in 1 Chron. xxix. 29; Iddo is prophet in 2 Chron.
xiii. 22, and seer in ix. 29; Jehu is prophet in 1 Kings
xvi. 7, 12, and seer in 2 Chron. xix. 2. So Amos is called
a л in Amos vii. 12, and the whole body of the prophets
collectively appear to be called seers in 2 Kings xvii. 13; 2
Chron. xxxiii. 18; Isa. xxix. 10; xxx. 10; Mic. iii. 7. In 1
Sam. ix. 9 it is expressly stated that 8 and 787 are equi-
valent by usage, the latter being the more ancient word,
and the former being then but recently employed. Both
SECT. XII.
271
SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON.
designate the same class of persons, although etymologically
considered the words bear diverse shades of meaning. D)
marks one as an inspired person uttering the thoughts which
his inspiration suggests; 7 or 8 designate a person as
seeing things concealed from others, whether by being fu-
ture, or because they are difficult to find out. Pity that a
writer of so much learning and vigour as Hävernick should
take such a false position, especially when it was so easy to
fanta
shun it!
It is true, indeed, that neither Hengstenberg nor Häver-
nick appears to lay any stress upon the Rabbinic conceit of
different gradations of inspiration, as being matter of fact.
They introduce this view of the Talmudists, in order to ac-
count for the arrangement of so many books among the class
of Kethubim. Yet even this will hardly be accomplished
by it; for how came Lamentations to be put among the
Kethubim, and Jeremiah among the Prophets? What sort
of inspiration was that which was given to David, in his
Messianic views as exhibited by the Psalms? Or what, in
respect to devotional feeling and instruction? There is no
view that we can take of this subject which does not show
its futility. And when the question is once asked, By what
diagnostics could the Rabbies discern and decide the grada-
tions of inspiration? all the answer is made to this whole
matter that needs to be made, or which it deserves. It is
like a thousand thousand other conceits with which the
Talmudic writers abound, and which even the later Jewish
writers virtually acknowledge, by calling them Haggadoth,
i. e. tales or stories, meaning pleasant or entertaining stories.
With good reason, then, do we take the position, that the
son of Sirach, Philo, the New Testament, Josephus, and all
the earlier Christian writers, down to the middle of the fourth
century, testify in favour of an arrangement of the Hebrew
Scriptures, which classes FOUR BOOKS together that are of
like composition and matter in some important respects, and
regards ONLY THESE as belonging to the Hagiography. All
that differs from this is later, and is the invention of those
who have sought for or made distinctions that are only
imaginary, and show more of the ingenuity of romancers
than of the sound judgment and discretion of sober critics.
272
SECT. XIII.
GENERAL RESULTS.
SECT. XIII. General Results of preceding Investigations.
THERE are some results, which are so plain, and lie as it
were so much on the very surface of what has been exhi-
bited, that they cannot well escape the notice of the reader,
even such a reader as may be unskilled in criticism. These
are, that the books, which for ages past have belonged to
the Hebrew Canon, and which now belong to it, are the
very same books which belonged to it in the time of Christ
and the apostles, and for several centuries before this pe-
riod. There are some particulars in the history of them
which has now been traced, that place this position beyond
all reasonable contradiction. The Son of Sirach refers to
them, at least 180 years (perhaps 280) before the Christian
era, precisely in the same manner, and by substantially the
same names or designations, as does Philo, (fl. 40 B. C.,)
the writers of the New Testament, and Josephus. The
manner of the reference implies of necessity a defined and
well-known collection of books, intelligible to every educated
reader, and no more liable to be mistaken than our word
Scripture or Bible now is among us. The Christian Fathers
who follow, down to the fifth century, have made the limits
of the Jewish Canon entirely definite by specifying, in dif-
ferent countries and by many distinguished persons, the
identical books which belong to the Jewish Scriptures. No
room is left for mistake on this important point. Such is
the state of facts.
In the next place, we argue that such must necessarily
have been the case, from the circumtances of the Jews, their
views and feelings in relation to religious matters, and the
opposing party-divisions which existed, first among them-
selves, and then between the Jews and Christians. To be-
gin with the Jews; it is certain, from the repeated testimony
of Josephus, and indirectly of Philo, that the sect of Phari-
sees and Sadducees existed long before the birth of Christ.
The Saviour and his disciples found these sects in full
vigour, and in strong action, at the time of their ministry.
When we go further back, we find ourselves unable to trace
their history to its origin. Josephus first mentions them in
Antiq. XIII. 5. 9, under the high priest Jonathan (159-
SECT. XIII.
GENERAL RESULTS.
273
144 B. C.); but he mentions them (together with the Es-
senes) as sects already fully and definitely formed. Winer
thinks, and with good reason, that the spirit of Judaism,
soon after the return of the Jews from their Babylonish ex-
ile, gave rise to a feeling which led to the formation of the
Pharisaic party; and that this very naturally called forth
an opposition, which embodied itself in the Sadducæan
party; art. Pharisäer, in Bib. Lex. In the time of John
Hyrcanus, nephew of Judas Maccabæus, Josephus speaks
of the Pharisees as having such influence with the common
people, that "they would be believed even in case they ut-
tered any thing against the king or high priest." To them
were opposed the Sadducees; and the main subject of division
between them, was not the denial of angel or spirit, or the
Sadducæan rejection of the Pharisaic doctrine of predes-
tination, (as has been often alleged,) but the cardo rei was
that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice.
In opposition to the Pharisees, the Sadducees rejected all
traditions and ordinances of men, not expressly sanctioned
by the Scriptures. So Josephus most explicitly: "Their
custom was, to regard nothing except the Laws [i. e. the
written Laws the Bible]; for they reckon it as a virtue to
dispute against the doctors in favour of the wisdom (ropías)
which they follow;" Antiq. XVIII. 1. 4. Again, in Antiq.
XIII. 10. 6, he says, "The Pharisees inculcated many rules
upon the people, received from the Fathers, which are not
written in the Law of Moses; and on this account the sect of
the Sadducees reject them, alleging that those things are to
be regarded as rules which are written [in the Scriptures],"
but that the traditions of the Fathers are not to be observed.
In a word; the Sadducees of old were Scripturists; and in
respect to this point they occupied the same ground in op-
position to the Pharisees, which Protestants now occupy in
relation to the Roman Catholic traditions. That sect has
long been defunct among the Jews; but it has notoriously
been succeeded by the so-called Karaites (psp, Scriptur-
ists); sec Triglandius, Syntagma de Sectis Judeorum, &c.
The idea that has been broached and defended by some, that
the Sadducees admitted the authority of only the Pentateuch,
is entirely without foundation. How could they have been,
as they often were, members of the Sanhedrim, and high
T
274
SECT. XIII.
GENERAL RESULTS..
priests, and no objection of this nature have been brought
against them by the Pharisees? That their speculations led
them to reject the existence of angels and unembodied spirits,
is true indeed; but, as I have already said, the cardo rei,
in respect to the dispute between them and the Pharisees,
was what has just been stated; see Winer, Bib. Lex. art.
Sadducäer, who has taken considerable pains in the investi-
gation of these matters.
Back, then, to a time which preceded the Maccabees, at all
adventures, we must put the rise of the Pharisees and Sad-
ducees. From the moment that the parties were fully form-
ed, the extent of the Jewish Scriptures was of course a
matter fully and permanently decided. It is impossible to
suppose, that the Sadducees would concede to their an-
tagonists the right or the power to introduce new books into
the Canon. This would be giving up the very essence of
the matter in dispute. No one but a prophet divinely com-
missioned, and so endowed as to be acknowledged by both
parties, would or could be intrusted with the introduction
of a new sacred book. But no such prophet, as is conceded
by all, made his appearance at that time. Of course we
cannot listen to the affirmations of Neologists, however con-
fident and often repeated, that Daniel, Chronicles, Jonah,
many of the Psalms, and what not, first made their appear-
ance at the Maccabaan period. It was impossible to pro-
cure admittance for them to the Canon, if such were the
case. The very essence of the dispute between the two
great parties among the Jews, turning as it did on the spe-
cific point of adherence to the Scriptures only, must of course
have rendered it impossible for either party newly to intro-
duce a sacred book, which would be acknowledged by the
other. Yet we have not a whisper in all antiquity, that
tells us of any dispute in relation to the rejection of any
book now in the Jewish Canon, or of any doubt about its
authenticity by either party. Even the Pharisees never
attempted to add their traditions to the Scriptures, in the
way of incorporating them together. They produced them
at first as oral law, brought down merely by oral tradition.
They formed, at last, their Mishna, and their Talmud, in.
order to embody them and make thein permanent; but in
all this they meddled not with the integrity of the Scrip-
bha
wha
K
SECT. XIII.
GENERAL RESULTS.
275
tures. In forbidding the young to read Canticles and the
first and last part of Ezekiel, they did not pretend to under-
value these books, but merely manifested their opinion that
they were not adapted, by reason of their peculiar style and
matter, to the capacity, comprehension, and profit of youth-
ful readers.
We may in a moment realize the validity of the argument
under consideration, by asking the question, Whether any
one of the sects of Christians, at present, could introduce
another book into the New Testament, which would be ac-
knowledged by all? Has it yet ever been possible to make
Protestants receive Judith and Tobit, and the Apocrypha
in general, since the beginning of the Reformation? The
Council of Trent did their best to effect this; and in what
has it resulted?
We have seen how matters stood before the Christian
era; let us now inquire into the state of them since the
commencement of that era. Two parties existed among the
Jews. Many of the Jews became Christians, and were not
only opposed and controverted by the others, but persecuted
even to death. The Scriptures were in the hands of both.
Which party could add to or diminish from them, and yet
persuade the other to accede? Surely neither. When the
Alexandrine Christians, (whether Jewish or Gentile Chris-
tians we cannot perhaps decide with certainty,) after the
lapse of some time, introduced slowly and gradually the
Apocryphal books into their churches, did the Jews ever
receive or admit them as Scripture? Not in the least.
Melito, Origen, and others tell us specifically what the
Jewish Canon was, at an early period; Hilary, Epiphanius,
Jerome, Rufinus, the Talmud, tell us what it continued to
be at a later period. No one will even pretend to say that
it has been changed since. Jews and Christians have always
been too sharply opposed to admit of any change in the
Scriptural documents, since the fifth century. It would be
useless to attempt any proof of a matter so obvious, certain,
and acknowledged by all. Whatever a part or a party of
Christians have done, in the way of foisting in the Apo-
crypha, has never produced the least influence upon the
Jews, nor upon the limits of their Canon. The books
which we now have as theirs, and which are appealed to and
T 2
276
SECT. XIV.
CANON OF EGYPTIAN JEWS.
quoted in the New Testament, still remain as documents
which are quoted and referred to by Christians, and by all
the Jews the world over. If there ever was a people on
the face of the earth, whose superstitions even, to mention
nothing better, would have put it out of all question either
to add to or take from their sacred books, that people was
the Jews. With what unbending obstinacy have they ad-
hered, for more than a thousand years, even to all the con-
ceits and egregious trifling of much that is in the Talmud!
Have they been less superstitious in regard to their Scrip-
tures ?
Whatever may be the difficulties existing in the minds of
some, and even of some conscientious persons, about a part
of the Old Testament books, they have no bearing on the
historico-critical question before us. Our inquiry respects a
matter of fact, not of doctrine. And this fact stands before
us, not in the obscurity of night, nor in the doubtful glim-
merings of twilight, but in the full blaze of a noon-day sun.
The question how much AUTHORITY is to be attributed
to the Old Testament, or to any part of it, has not yet been
distinctly considered. It remains for more particular discus-
sion; and to this we shall proceed, as soon as one more in-
quiry has been made. This is:
SECT. XIV. Did the Egyptian Jews admit the same Canon
as the Jews of Palestine?
In order rightly to appreciate the importance of this ques-
tion, it will be necessary to glance at the condition and the
number of the Jews in Egypt, at the period of about 820
B. C., and thence downwards to the Christian era.
To Ptolemy Lagus, one of the military officers of Alexan-
der the Great, was assigned, after the death of that king,
the government of Egypt. In the contests which followed,
among the ethnarchs of Alexander's empire, Ptolemy overran
and took possession of Judea, Samaria, Phenicia, and Colo-
syria. Josephus relates that Ptolemy came in person to
Jerusalem, and offered sacrifices in the temple there. In
➡
SECT. XIV.
277
CANON OF EGYPTIAN JEWS.
order to secure the tranquillity of the newly conquered
countries, he took with him a great number of hostages to
Egypt, and among these were many thousand Jews. Some
of the latter were sent to Cyrene, (then under Ptolemy,)
but the body of them settled in the newly built city of
Alexandria.
From time to time, after this, great accessions were made
to their numbers; for they were treated with special favour
by most of the Egyptian kings, in order to secure their
fidelity and their aid. Finally, about 153 B. C., Onias, a son
of the high priest Onias III., who was massacred at Daphne
under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, fled to Egypt; and
not long after this, he so gained the favour of Ptolemy Phi-
lometer, then king of that country, that he was made com-
mander-in-chief of the Egyptian army, and governor of the
Nome of Heliopolis; while the second in command was Do-
sitheus, another Jew. Onias, on account of the great num-
ber of Jews in Egypt and its dependencies, conceived the
idea of having a temple built in that country, in order to
accommodate Hebrew worshippers, and save the expense
and trouble of journeying to Palestine, in order to pay their
devotions there. The king consented, and a temple was
built at Leontopolis, in the Nome of Heliopolis, in which
Onias became high priest, and subordinate priests and Le-
vites were gathered around him. The temple itself was
built after the model of that at Jerusalem; and the whole
routine of worship in it was simply copied from that at Je-
rusalem. This state of things continued, until the temple of
Leontopolis was destroyed by Vespasian, during his war
with the Jews.
Now there is not the least intimation from any quarter,
that either any new books or new ritual of worship were
ever introduced here. The whole arrangement bespeaks the
contrary. Even so late as the time of Philo Judæus, (40
B. C.,) the attachment to the religion of the father-land was
not diminished among the Jews of Egypt. They sent Philo
to Jerusalem, there to make offerings in the name of the
people, i. e. of the Egyptian Jews. Philo himself was
descended from a family of the priesthood. He was a Phari-
see, and zealous for the religion of his fathers. Yet, in all
his voluminous works, he never once refers to any of the
278
SECT. XIV.
CANON OF EGYPTIAN JEWS.
apocryphal books as Scripture, nor ever makes them the
basis of any of his allegorizing; and all this, when at the
same time it is manifest from numerous hints, and occasion-
ally from his diction, that he was familiarly acquainted with
the apocryphal writings. Of this indeed there can be no
doubt, considering his station and his literary ardour. How
is it possible, that neither he, nor Josephus, ever intimates a
word of any difference of views about the Jewish Scriptures
between the Jews of Palestine and Alexandria, if any such
difference really existed? The fact that Philo has quoted
most of the Jewish books as authoritative and Divine, is a
pledge that he recognised the Jewish Scriptures in their
usual extent.* The fact that Josephus never intimates any
departure from Jewish views on the part of Egyptian Jews,
proves, beyond any fair contradiction, that he was not aware
of any such departure. After the minute account he gives
of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, should we
not of course expect him, when he describes the building of
the temple at Leontopolis and its ritual, to take notice of
any peculiarities in the views of his Egyptian brethren in
regard to the Scriptures?
It seems probable, indeed, that most of the books which
we now name Apocrypha, first came into being, or at least
into circulation, in Egypt. Alexandria was, for a long
period, the great literary workshop of the times. Such of
them as were written before the Christian era, (which seems
to have been the case with most,) must of course have been
written by Jews. But they were nearly all written in
Greek; and no Jew ever thought of uniting a Greek book
with the Hebrew ones. Hence, although some of the
apocryphal books made their way to an association with the
Septuagint version, yet they were never joined to the He-
*This assertion is scarcely correct. Many of the canonical books are
not quoted by Philo. Still it is remarkable that he never quotes the
apocryphal books as authoritative, although he always used the Septuagint
version, with which they were incorporatod, and which version too he
looked upon as inspired. On the unity of the Alexandrian and Palestinian
Canon, seo Movers' Loci quidam hist. Canon. Vet. Test., (Vratislaviæ, 1842,)
who, however, has made several rash statements and hasty inferences. The
connexion between the Jows in both countries, and the manner in which
those in Egypt looked to Palestine, favour the view that both had the
same canonical writings. Nor has any good argumont been adduced to
prove diversity of opinion between them in this particular. D.
SECT. XV.
SIRACHIDES.
279
brew Scriptures. Even the production of Jesus the Son of
Sirach, who was a Jew of Jerusalem and wrote in Hebrew,
made no claim, at least none which was admitted, to scriptural
authority. Much less could the books written originally in
Greek prefer such a claim. Vulgar and uneducated readers,
who had no discriminating taste or judgment, and who knew
only the Greek Scriptures, might unwittingly unite the
apocryphal books with them, because of their religious tone.
Yet it would be difficult to prove that this was done before
the Christian era. At all events, such men as Philo, al-
though he quotes only the Greek Scriptures, never once
thought of doing any such thing.
We may safely come to the conclusion, then, that the Ca-
non of the Hebrew Scriptures was the same among the Jews
both of Egypt and Palestine. Our next step is the inquiry:
SECT. XV. In what estimation were the Hebrew Scriptures
held by the Jews, at, before, and soon after the commence-
ment of the Christian era?
WE begin with the testimony of the Son of Sirach. In
the proem to the Greek version of his book, his grandson
has told us respecting him, that "he gave himself έñì πdet̃ov,
for the greater part of the time, or very much, to the study
of the Law, the Prophets, and the other patrical books," in
order to prepare for writing his own book. At the outset
the translator speaks of the “ πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων, many
and important things which were imparted to the Jews by
the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of like tenor."
The estimation put upon the Scriptures, by Sirachides and
his grandson, is very plainly disclosed by these declarations.
The Bible, for the first, was the highest source of all true
wisdom and knowledge; in the view of the second, it was
the efficient cause of procuring the distinguished blessings.
and privileges enjoyed by the Hebrews.
Every where does Sirachides refer to the Scriptures,
either by borrowing their phraseology, or by appealing to
them, mostly in an indirect way, as the source of all true
280
SECT. XV.
ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE.
wisdom, virtue, piety, and happiness. The Law is often the
subject of reference, and is regarded as an authority in all
matters. In the eulogy of Wisdom, (ch. xxiv.,) there is a
manifest and designed imitation of Prov. viii. In the πατέ
pwr vµvos, i. e. Eulogy of the Fathers, (xliv.—1.,) there is
every where the most plain and manifest recognition of the
authority, credibility, and excellence of the scriptural re-
presentations. The writer begins with Enoch, and follows
the train of biblical history, down to Nehemiah. He quotes
the promises to Abraham. Moses was beloved of God, and
to him commandment was given in respect to his people.
Joshua was a follower of Moses in the prophetic office,
Most of the kings of Judah sinned by forsaking the Law.
Jeremiah was consecrated, while in his mother's womb, to
the prophetic office. Ezekiel saw visions of glory, which
were shown to him by him who rode upon the cherubim.
All the offerings and rites of the Levitical ritual are excel-
lent and deserving of veneration; strong attachment to
them, and particularity in the observance of them, is wor-
thy of high commendation. This and the like matter in
the book of Sirachides show beyond the possibility of doubt,
that with him the sacred books were rò πávu, the all in all.
Philo and Josephus have designated their views much
oftener by the use of significant attributives applied to the
Scriptures (as we shall soon see); but they have shown no
deeper reverence for the authority and excellence of the
Scriptures, than the Son of Sirach. 'He that runneth
may read" this, in every part of his work.
We come next to PHILO. He has been more explicit in
stating his view of the matters under consideration. Nothing
can be more certain than his belief in the Divine inspiration
and authority of the Scriptures, in the very highest sense
that can be affixed to these words. The edition to which I
refer in the view subjoined, is that of Mangey, 2 vol. fol.
૯ ×
I. Philo's view of the prophetic office and of inspiration.
In Opp. I. p. 222, speaking of Moses as a prophet, he sub-
joins, “Ἑρμηνεῖς γάρ εἰσιν οἱ προφῆταί Θεοῦ, καταχρωμένοι
τοῖς ἐκείνων ὀργάνοις πρὸς δήλωσιν ὧν ἂν ἐθήλησε, i. e. Pro-
phets are the interpreters of God, he employing their organs
for the disclosure of whatever he pleases." In his De Legi-
bus Special., II. p. 343, he comes out most fully and ex-
ν
T
SECT. XV.
PHILO.
281
plicitly with his views: "IIpopýrns dè µèv yàp ovdèv idior
ἀποφαίνεται τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἑρμηνεύς, ὑποβάλλοντος
ἑτέρου πανθ᾽ ὅσα προφέρει, καὶ καθ᾿ ὃν χρόνον ἐνθουσίᾳ γεγονὼς
ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ, μετανισταμένου μὲν τοῦ λογισμοῦ καὶ παρακεχωρη-
κότος τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκρόπολιν· ἐπιπεφοιτηκότος δὲ καὶ ἐνοικη-
κότος τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, καὶ πάσαν τῆς φωνῆς ὀργάνοποιΐαν
κρούοντος, δὲ καὶ ἐνηχοῦντος εἰς ἐναργή δήλωσιν ὧν προσθεσ
πílɛɩ, i. e. a prophet exhibits nothing at all which is his
own, but is an interpreter, another suggesting whatever he
utters; and so long as he is inspired, he remains uncon-
scious, his reason departing and quitting the citadel of the
soul, and the Divine Spirit entering and inhabiting it, and
giving impulse to all the organism of the voice, and utter-
ing sounds for the clear discourse of those things which he
prophesies. Here, then, is a representation that will sa-
tisfy even the warmest stickler for passivity in persons in-
spired. I regret to add, that down to the present hour there
have been and are not a few, who have laboured to support
the like extreme view of this matter. Even Hengstenberg
tells us, that "when the Spirit of God comes in, the spirit
of man goes out;" the mere echo of what Philo said more
than 1800 years ago. It is not my present business to ex-
amine theologically this view of inspiration. How the
weight or authority of what is communicated, is augmented
by the supposition that the organ of communication ceases
to be a rational and conscious being, is what no one has yet
shown. At all events Paul did not believe in such a view of
this matter, when he declared, (for the purpose of enforcing
obedience to his injunctions among the Corinthian prophets,
and of showing their obligation and ability to obey,) that
"the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets."
Philo such a suggestion, it seems, would have appeared little
less than blasphemy. My view of it is indeed very differ-
ent. It appears to me to be simple Christian rationality
and truth. But enough of this.
To
Al
No one will deny, then, that whatever books Philo con-
sidered as Scripture, or as revealed, they, in his view, bore
the stamp of the highest possible authority and credibility.
He often repeats this sentiment. In his Quis Rer. divin.
Hæres sit, (Opp. I. 510,) he says, "A prophet utters no-
282
SECT. XV.
ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE.
thing of his own, but all things are from a foreign source,
another giving them utterance." And again in II. p. 417,
"A prophet is an interpreter, uttering from within the
things that are spoken by God." Whoever then is called a
prophet by him, is of course regarded as an instrument of
Divine and authoritative communication. Whatever books
were ranked by him as Scripture, were also of course, in his
view, entitled to all the authority and reverence which such
a character of their authors could claim. It remains for us
to see how he characterizes, in particular, both the sacred
writers and their books.
II. Philo's particular view of sacred authors, and of their
books. The most general designation of the authors is pro-
phets, πрорñται. With this word, and for the sake of variety
in his diction, he not unfrequently exchanges other names,
which, as he employs them, are altogether equivalent. For
example, we find frequently in him, popýrns arýp, prophetic
man, iɛpopárrns, hierophant, i. e. exhibitor of sacred things,
θεσπέσιος ἀνήρ, oracular man, Μωϋσέως ἑταῖρος, disciple or
companion of Moses, Mwüréws Jiaowrns, a follower of Moses,
(lit. a thiasos, associate,) rìs Tŵr poiтηtwv Mwoέws, one of the
followers or frequenters of Moses, τοῦ προφητικοῦ θιασώτης
Xopou, a companion of the prophetic choir; all of which
names are applied to various sacred writers, and which an
artificial eloquence led Philo thus to vary, while his mean-
ing is ever the same. Moses is referred to in some of the
cases above, as the perfection of the prophetic character, the
ideal of an inspired person.
The books written by such men he calls ἱεράς γραφάς,
sacred Scriptures, ἱερὰς βίβλους, sacred books, ἱερώτατον
vpáμμa, most holy writing, iepoparтnévra, sacred disclosures,
προφητικὸν λόγον, prophetic word, προφητικὰ ῥήματα, pro-
phetic sayings, sometimes λóylor, oracle, XóyLOν TOй ОεOυ,
oracle of God, and sometimes xpnopóv, oracular response, or
Tò Xρnodév, what is uttered oracularly. Like the preceding
designations of prophets, all these, as employed by him,
are entirely synonymous, and the variety belongs merely to
his rhetoric.
Any of these names bestowed on writers, or on their books,
indicate, of course, the fullest belief on the part of Philo,
SECT. XV.
283
PHILO.
that they were divinely inspired, and therefore of paramount
authority. Our next object then will be, to inquire in what
manner he has bestowed these appellations.
III. Books and persons designated by Philo as inspired.
Moses he almost every where names popýrns, prophet, or
iepopávτns, hierophant. His inspiration is of the highest
stamp; his books are the prophetic word or sacred books.
Genesis he calls iepàs ypapás, sacred Scriptures (De Mundi
Opif. I. p. 18); Exodus is iepà ßißλos, sacred book (De Mi-
grat. Abrah. I. p. 438); Leviticus is iepòs λóyos, sacred word
(Allegor. III. Tom. I. p. 85); Numbers he calls iepúτator
yρáµµa, most sacred writing (Deus sit immut. I. 273); and
Deuteronomy χρησμιόν and ἱερὸν λόγον, oracle and sacred
word (De Migrat. Abraham. I. 454, and De Somn. I. 657).
Joshua he cites as λόγιον τοῦ ἱλέου Θεοῦ, the oracle of the
merciful God (De Confus. Ling. I. 430).
1 Samuel (which, following the designation of the Sep-
tuagint, he calls 1 Kings) is cited as iɛpòs λóyos (De Temu-
lent. I. 379).
Ezra is cited as containing τὰ ἐν βασιλικαῖς βίβλοις ἱερο-
pavrnévra, things sacredly revealed in the royal books (De
Confus. Ling. I. 427).
Isaiah he names τὸν πάλαι προφήτην, the ancient prophet
(De Somn. I. 681). His prophecies are rроpηrukà phμarα,
προφητικὰ ῥήματα,
prophetic sayings (De Mutat. Nom. I. 604).
Jeremiah he calls prophet, hierophant, and púoτns, one
initiated in sacred mysteries; and his work is xpnoμós, oracle
χρησμός,
(De Cherub. I. 147, 148). Again he says of this prophet,
that he was τοῦ προφητικοῦ θιασώτης χοροῦ, ὃς καταπνευσθεὶς
ἐνθουσιῶν ἀνεφθέγξατο, i. e. an associate of the prophetic
choir, who being animated by the Spirit spake in ecstasy
(De Confus. Ling. I. 44). In another place he says, "The
Father of the universe predicted by the prophetic mouth of
Jeremiah (De Prof. I. 575).
In respect to the Minor Prophets, (always one book in
ancient times,) he refers to two of them, viz. Hosea and
Zechariah. A passage in Hos. xiv. 8 he names Xonodèv
παρά τινι τῶν προφήτων, spoken oracularly by one of the
prophets (De Plant. Noe, I. 350). Again, he calls Hos. xiv.
24 "a glowing oracle predicted by a prophetic mouth" (De
Mutat. Nom. I. 350). Zechariah he calls the companion of
284
SECT. XV.
ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE.
Moses, Mwürέws traïpos (De Confus. Ling. I. 414). Of
course, in referring to these two prophecies, or to either of
them, he recognises the whole book of the Twelve, which
was always counted as one book, so far back as we can
trace the history of the Canon.
The Psalms are often quoted by Philo as Scripture; and
David, whom he regarded as the principal author of them,
is called by him wρopirns, prophet (De Agric. I. 308);
πроþýτηs ȧvýę, prophetic man (Quis Rer. div. Hæres, I.
515); Jεonéσlos árýp, oracular man (De Plant. Noe, I. 344;
comp. De Mund. Opp. I. 362); Mwürέws Jiaowτns ös ovxì
τῶν ἠμελημένων ἦν, an associate of Moses, who was not of
those that are lightly regarded (De Plant. Noe, p. 219, edit.
Francof.); and sometimes raipos Mwoéws, the friend of
Moses (Quod a Deo mitt. Somnia, I. 691).
ק
In like manner he speaks of Solomon, whom the Jews of
that day regarded as the author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
and Canticles. He says that he is ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ, off the
Divine choir (De Ebriet. I. 362); and he names him rɩvà
Twν porηTwv Mwoéws, one of the disciples of Moses (De Cong.
quær. erud. Grat. I. 544).
The book of Judges, viii. 9, he quotes in De Confus.
Ling. I. 424. Job xiv. 4 is quoted in De Mutat. Nom. I.
584. Our First Book of Kings (Philo names it as in the
Sept., the third) is quoted in De Gigant. I. 274, and in six
other places. The book of Psalms, already mentioned as
quoted by him, he quotes in all the five parts or divisions
of the books, so as to show that it was the same in his day
as in ours; see in Eichh. Einl. I. p. 97, edit. III.
Quotations are not found in him from Ruth, Esther,
Chronicles, Daniel, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Canti-
ticles. But the two latter are doubtless acknowledged by
the reference to Solomon as "of the Divine choir." Of the
others it is sufficient to say, that he did not find occasion to
quote them. It is no argument against their existence and
canonical rank, that they are not quoted by him, when he
no where undertakes to gives us a list of the Scriptures, but
only to refer to such passages in them as are to his purpose.
Would any man think of drawing the conclusion in these
days, that certain books of the Old Testament were not ac-
knowledged by this theologian and that, because they have.
SECT. XV.
285
PHILO.
not quoted them in their publications? Nothing could be
more weak and false in reasoning than this. And equally
so is it, when applied to Philo.
After all, in fact the books not quoted by him are almost
none, if we reckon the universal manner of the ancients in
distributing the books. E. g. Judges and Ruth were by
them regarded as one book, and he quotes Judges; Jere-
miah and Lamentations were one book, and he quotes Jere-
miah; the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were one, and he
quotes Ezra. There is left then only Chronicles, Daniel,
and Esther, which he has not quoted. The wonder is, not
that so many remain unquoted, but that so many have been
quoted.
Moreover, as the grandson of Sirachides had, long before
Philo's time, repeatedly adverted to the triplex division of
the Jewish Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Other
Books; and as Philo acknowledges the same division, in
speaking of "the studies of the Essenes (Opp. II. 475); we
may conclude that he has virtually referred to every part of
Scripture, inasmuch as this triplex division must have con-
sisted of books whose number and order were well defined
and well known at that time. Philo was a Pharisee, and of
priestly origin. He was zealous, also, in matters pertaining
to the Jewish religion. His embassy to Palestine shows
this; and his works every where bear ample testimony to it.
In fact, it seems impossible rationally to doubt, that the
Canon of Philo was the same as that of Josephus and the
New Testament writers, considering how near he lived to
the times in which they lived, and in what manner he has
described the contents of the Scriptures which he regarded
as Divine.*
That Philo was, as has already been said, acquainted with
the apocryphal books, there can be no doubt. YET HE
NEVER QUOTES THEM, NOT EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF AL-
LEGORIZING. No imaginable reason can be given for this,
excepting that, like Josephus, he made a distinction wide aud
broad between inspired and other books. This account of
Philo's practice in regard to the apocryphal books may be
*These two paragraphs respecting Philo approach to the character of
special pleading. The argument is sufficiently good without them, and it
is mattor of regrot that they should have beon added. D.
286
SECT. XV.
ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE.
relied on, for Hornemann (Observatt. ad illustr. Doctrinæ
de Canone Vet. Test. ex Philone) assures us of this; and
he read through the whole works of Philo, as he states, in
order to ascertain this very point. His competency and his
candour as a witness will not be called in question. Eich-
horn gives him full credit; Einl. I. § 26. In fact, Philo
shows his contempt of the apocryphal books, (for which
some in his day doubtless began to entertain a high regard,
so as to treat them as a kind of Scripture,) by treating them
with more neglect than he has even the heathen productions ;
for he often quotes Plato, Philolaus, Solon, Hippocrates,
Heraclites, and others, while he never does this honour to
the Apocrypha.
Such, then, was the state of this matter respecting the
Canon in Egypt, the very hot-bed of apocryphal Scriptures,
at a period antecedent to the Christian era. The most dis-
tinguished philosopher and writer of the Jewish nation, at
that time, takes no cognizance of apocryphal Scriptures,
when, if he regarded them as other Alexandrians afterwards
did, even Christian writers, he must have found very
numerous occasions for quoting them, or referring to them.
But this is an honour which he utterly withholds.
Next, as to the OPINION OF JOSEPHUS. We have already
examined the testimony of Josephus, as to the number and
nature of the sacred books, (pp. 207-216 above,) and but
little more seems necessary to be here said, under the present
category. My particular object now is, to render more
prominent the distinction which he makes between the
books of Scripture and other works.
The famous passage in Cont. Apion. I. § 8, (see p. 207
above,) presents this distinction to us in a very clear and
commanding light. After enumerating the various portions
of Scripture and reckoning the number of the sacred books,
he says, "From Artaxerxes until the present time, every
occurrence is recorded; but these [narrations] are not re-
garded as worthy of the credit due to those which preceded
them, because there was no certain succession of prophets.
By our conduct we show what credit we give to the proper
Scriptures; for although so long a period of time has passed.
away, no one has ventured to add any thing to them, or to
take any thing from them. It is implanted in every Jew,
SECT. XV.
JOSEPHUS.
287
from his birth, to regard them [the Scriptures] as the statutes
of God, to abide by them, and (if necessary) gladly to die
for them." See App. No. III.
See App. No. III. A broader and more palp-
able distinction no Protestant pen could now sketch.
Elsewhere he testifies the same feelings and views. He
calls the Scriptures ἱερὰς βίβλους, sacred books ; τὰς τῶν ἱε
ρῶν γραφῶν βίβλους, the books of the sacred Scriptures; ἱερὰ
γράμματα, sacred writings ; τὰ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ ἀνακείμενα γράμ-
ματα, the writings laid up in the temple; and also βίβλους
Tроonreías. Besides these appellations, he names the Scrip-
tures ἀρχαῖα βιβλία, ancient books; βίβλοι Ἑβραίων and
βίβλοι Ἑβραϊκαί, Hebrew bools.
If now there be any suspicion (arising from the fact that
the books of Daniel and Esther are not quoted by Philo)
that those books did not belong to the Jewish Canon at that
period, it is entirely dissipated by the course which Josephus
pursues. Of no books in the Old Testament has he given
more copious extracts, in proportion to their length, than he
has from these. In all respects he credits the accounts
which they give. And as he unquestionably assigns these
writings to a period antecedent to the close of Artaxerxes'
reign, so no doubt can remain that they were a part of what
he recognises as Scripture. The same is true of the book of
Jonah, to which so many exceptions have recently been
taken. In Antiq. IX. 10. 2, he gives an account of Jonah
at length, and says that "he tells the story of this prophet
just as he finds it written ἐν Ἑβραϊκαῖς βίβλοις, in the He
brew books;" and at the close he repeats the declaration, that
"he has gone through the narration as he found it in
writing."
kade
The manner in which Josephus expresses himself in re-
gard to books before and after the close of Artaxerxes' reign,
shows that all the Hebrew books which were within the
circle of his acquaintance, and were written before the death
of Artaxerxes, were included within his Canon. It is in-
deed doubtful, whether any of the more ancient Hebrew
writings, the sacred books excepted, were really extant in
the time of Josephus. But be this as it may, it seems evi-
dent that none of the more ancient Hebrew books, the Scrip-
tures excepted, were known to him.
The Pentateuch he often speaks of in the highest terms,
288
SECT. XV.
ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE.
and bestows upon it appellations like those employed by
Philo; e. g. he calls it iɛpàs ßißλovs, Antiq. I. end of Pref. ;
III. 5. 2 ; ÏV. 8. 48; IX. 2. 2; X. 4. 2. Another appellation
is ai Tur iepur yрapur ßißroi, cont. Ap. II. 4. Comp. with
these the various declarations of a similar tenor respecting
the sacred nature of the Pentateuch, in Antiq. I. p. 4; XX.
5. 4; III. 6. 5; IV. 8. 44; X. 4. 2; XVI. 6. 2.
""
Of Isaiah Josephus says, "Cyrus read the book of the
prophecy of Isaiah, which he composed 210 years before;
Antiq. XI. 1. 2. Elsewhere he calls Isaiah #popýrns, a pro-
phet; X. 2. 2. Speaking of Hezekiah he says, that "he
learned accurately of the prophet [Isaiah] the things that
were to come;" XI. 13. 3.
He calls Jeremiah "a prophet, who predicted terrible events
which were to take place in respect to the city;" X. 5. 1.
Of Ezekiel he says, "Not only did he [Jeremiah] foretell
these things to the multitude, but also the prophet Ezekiel ;"
X. 5. 1.
The book of Daniel he classes among the ἱερὰ γράμματα,
i. e. the sacred writings; X. 10. 4. He speaks of his πρo-
onreíav, prophecy, as being "uttered 408 years before;"
XII. 7. 6. In X. 11. 7, he says, "All these things he
[Daniel] left in writing, God exhibiting them to him; so
that those who read, observant of the events, must needs
look on Daniel with wonder, on account of the honour done
to him by God." Besides, Josephus has made copious ex-
tracts from all the historical parts of Daniel, with some
comments of his own. He makes this prophet a leading
character among the men of the prophetic order; see Antiq.
X. 10 and 11.
Jay
The twelve Minor Prophets Josephus regards as one
book, and places them by the side of Isaiah. In Antiq. X.
2. 2, he says, "Not only this prophet, [Isaiah,] but the other
Twelve as to number did the same thing. Every thing,
whether good or evil, that has taken place among us, has
happened according to their prediction, #popnτelar.'
""
ㅠ
​Of Jonah we have already spoken above. He places his
book among the βίβλους Εβραϊκάς, the Hebrew bools, ΙΧ.
Nahum is called πроphτns, a prophet, and the fulfil-
ment of his predictions is lauded; IX. 11. 3. Haggai and
Zechariah are called two prophets, dúo πрорñтαι; XI. 4. 5.
10. 1.
SECT. XV.
JOSEPHUS.
289
Of Joshua, he says, that it is "among the books laid up
in the temple;" V. 1. 17.
The history of Elijah contained in the book of Kings, he
couples with the history of Enoch; and says that these his-
tories"
are written in the sacred books;" IX. 2. 2.
The Psalms he calls vμrovs els tòv Oɛóv; Cont. Ap. I. 8.
He speaks of them as "the songs of David," because David
was the principal author; VII. 12. 3.
In Antiq. X. 5. 1, he speaks of Jeremiah as the author
of the Lamentations. And as to all the historical books,
Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, he every where
extracts from them at great length in his Antiquities, fol-
lowing them step by step in their narrations, and only here
and there intermingling something of his own, occasionally,
but rarely, a wonderful story, and sometimes glosses of the
Hebrew narrations. He appeals to them as of the highest
and most undoubted authority.
Josephus' historical office did not lead him to quote all of
the ancient Hagiography. He has not made excerpts from
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or Canticles. But he speaks of
Solomon as having composed βιβλία ᾠδῶν καὶ μελῶν, bookis
of songs and chants, and as having "written 3000 books of
parables and similitudes." No doubt can remain, that he re-
garded him as the author of several of the sacred books.
The book of Job, being foreign to the objects of his his-
tory, is not at all mentioned by him. But there can be no
doubt that this book was included in his Canon. Ezekiel
makes recognition of this book, xiv. 20. Philo quotes from
the book of Job; De Mutat. Nom. I. p. 584. It is neces-
sary to include it, in order to make out the thirteen books
which Josephus includes under the second class, viz. the
Prophets. It is recognised in the New Testament; James
v. 11. It is reason enough that Josephus does not speak
of the book, that the history of Job is that of a foreigner,
probably an Arabian, who, if a Jew by descent, (as seems
not improbable,) has not once in all his work adverted to
Jews or Judaism. The silence of Josephus, in such a case,
makes nothing against the book. The positive testimony
of Ezekiel, Philo, and the New Testament, makes the point.
altogether clear, that the book was written before Arta-
U
290
SECT. XVI.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY.
xerxes' time, and was therefore regarded as one of the sa-
cred books by Josephus, according to the rule which he
lays down in Cont. Apion. I. 8.
SECT. XVI. Summary of the testimony of Sirachides, Philo,
and Josephus.
Ir needs but a brief space to exhibit this. The book of
Sirach presents to our view a then (at least 180 B. C.) well-
known and definite triplex division of the Jewish Scrip-
tures, in which all the books deemed sacred were included.
Philo has presented us with the like divisions of the same
books, in his notice of books which were studied by the
Essenes. Josephus has also presented us with Scriptures
which exhibit the same division, viz. the Law, the Prophets,
and the other Books.
S
Sirachides has furnished us with no adequate means of
ascertaining what, or how many, the sacred books of each
division were. Philo has not told us of the number; but
he has referred to the books themselves as being parts of
Scripture, and in such a way, that, if we reckon in the an-
cient manner of combining, in several cases, two or more
books and naming them as one, we make out in him a dis-
tinct recognition of all the books excepting Esther, Daniel,
and Chronicles. The want of a reference in him to these
books, however, proves nothing against their canonical
credit. The only case in which it could do this would be,
where he should undertake to make out a list which in his
view would be complete, and still omit the books in question.
But this he has no where undertaken.
Josephus has told us the number of books in the whole
collection, viz. twenty-two. Of these, five belong, according
to his statement, to the Law; four to the Hagiography; and
the rest (of course thirteen) to the Prophets. His descrip-
tion of the Hagiography of necessity limits it to Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, with which agree all
the most ancient lists of books among the Christian Fathers,
down to Jerome. The same Josephus has revealed to us,
SECT. XVII.
NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY.
291
The
in another way, what books he regarded as sacred.
Pentateuch and all the historical books he quotes, and makes
excerpts from them at large. The only books which he
does not quote, are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and
Job. But what he says of Solomon as an author, in Antiq.
VIII. 2. 5, seems plainly to show, that he regarded him as
the author of the first three of these books; for so he has
been generally regarded by the Jews in all ages since the
beginning of the Christian era. Job, then, is the only book
left; but this is vouched for by Ezekiel, by Philo, and by
the New Testament.
Our Old Test. Canon, then, is complete, if we rest the
question respecting it upon Jewish testimony. The wit-
nesses before us can neither be impeached for incompetence,
partiality, or a proneness to state what is false.
What rea-
son is there, that they should not be believed? Their testi-
mony is disinterested. They have no party ends to accom-
plish by it, in this case. They were all Jews; and none
could so well understand the matter in question as Jews.
Moreover, they were all priests, or the descendants of priestly
families. At most, only Sirachides can be excepted from
this; and I doubt seriously whether we should be justified
in excepting him. Intelligent priests, one would naturally
suppose, must know what books were deemed sacred.
SECT. XVII. Nature and importance of the testimony of the
New Testament, in respect to the Old Testament.
WE come now to the consummation of our work-to the
great point toward which all else that has been examined
converges. Of a considerable number of books in the Old
Testament, we do not even know who the author was. Re-
specting others no explanatory declaration is made by each.
particular book itself, or by other sacred writers, and we
find no special assertion that their origin is Divine. Who
tells us expressly, that Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles, are of Divine authority? Who has told
us the secret of the authorship? In what light have any of
U 2
292
SECT. XVII.
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE
the Old Testament writers placed Esther, Ecclesiastes, or
Canticles? Or what do these books say respecting them-
selves? It seems, indeed, at first view, as if the authorship
of Canticles and Ecclesiastes was assigned to Solomon; yet
a nicer critical examination shows, that this conclusion is
probably not well grounded. The books have respect to
him-he is the leading personage in them-but this seems
to be all that we can necessarily make out from the inscrip-
tions and the tenor of the books themselves. And besides
all this, the three books last mentioned seem to present not
a few serious difficulties, from various sources, to the mind
of even a grave and impartial inquirer. What then has
given sanction to them? What obliges us to receive and
admit them as Divine? Not one new doctrine in morals or
theology is added to the general stock by them. If they
were dropped from the Scriptures, our systems of divinity
and morals would remain the same as they are now. Why
then perplex our minds with these books, which present
problems and paradoxes, some of which have never yet been
satisfactorily solved? Why not leave them to the Jews, to
be put with the Mishna and the Gemara, and to augment
the Rabbinical store-house of wonders? Even the New Tes-
tament writers (as we shall see) have not once adverted to
them; and if they did not pay any more regard to them,
why should we consider and treat them as sacred?
In this manner many minds have thought and argued;
and even some which are honest and upright, and to all ap-
pearance earnestly desirous of knowing the truth. For the
scruples of such men I must always have respect. Even if
I cannot regard their scruples as indicative of much know-
ledge concerning the matter that excites them, still, a con-
scientious pursuit of truth, and a readiness to receive it
whenever good sound reasons for believing it are proffered,
is a disposition of mind always entitled to respect, and has
a claim to be treated with much Christian courtesy. There
is a sentiment of Paul, which I would were oftener remem-
bered and respected; this is, that we ought "to receive him
that is weak in the faith, but not to doubtful disputations."
I can easily suppose a sincere and earnest Christian, whose
mind has never been duly enlightened in regard to the
Canon of Scripture, to be in a doubting state with respect
SECT. XVII. OF NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY.
293
to some of the anonymous Old Testament books, while he
heartily admits that the rest belong to a Divine revelation.
So it was with Luther in regard to some books of the New
Testament. His dispute with the Romanists about justifi-
cation by faith alone, led him to regard the Epistle of James
as spurious, yea, as even an epistola straminea, i. e. a strawy
epistle. The Apocalypse he could not receive, because he
thought there was "no Christ in it." So he threw these
books into an apocryphal appendix. Yet, mistaken as he
was, and poorly as he reasoned in this case, he was still a
most hearty believer in the Divine word of God. The
Scriptures were to him the supreme, the all-sufficient, the
only rule of faith and practice.
So, with minds scantily informed in respect to the true
basis of credibility in the Old Testament Canon, I can easily
suppose other good men may act, in regard to some of the
books in our Old Testament Canon; some which are never
expressly quoted in the New Testament as Scripture, and
which therefore may possibly be regarded, by one class of
inquirers, as having never been duly authenticated. I know
of some persons in this attitude of mind, for whom I cherish
a high regard, and whose piety I should not think of calling
in question. To them I would hope to be useful in the
present investigation. I cannot agree with them in their
views respecting the Old Testament; but I can look on
them with fraternal feelings, and say in the most brotherly
manner to them, Permit me, in this little work, åλŋdɛvei
ἐν ἀγάπῃ.
Very different is the position of those who abjure the Old
Testament en masse; who even cast it away with contumely,
and will listen neither to Moses nor the Prophets. I must
regard this as substantial unbelief. I apprehend it may be
shown, that what they do is virtually to set aside the authority
and express declarations of the Saviour and of his apostles.
There are even some who would not consider this as in-
fidelity. But while I am not fond of applying harsh and
ungrateful epithets to any man or body of men whatever, I
know not how to call the denying, or the designed evading,
of the authority or the decision of Christ and of his apostles
respecting the books of the Old Testament, any thing less
than unbelief. It is not for me to examine and characterize
294
SECT. XVII.
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE
the motives which lead to such an unbelief. In my opinion
they belong to the cognizance of the Supreme, the Searcher
of all hearts. Nor am I desirous of finding or believing
grounds of making criminal charges against any one. This
whole province I would leave, and most gladly do leave, to
the prerogative of the supreme Judge. So much of the
guilt of unbelief, where unbelief in reality exists, or where
I may think it to exist, depends on the tone and temper
and motives of the mind and heart, and on the light and
means of information respectively possessed and enjoyed by
different individuals, that I do not see how a human tri-
bunal can take any adequate cognizance of such a matter,
even if it possessed a right of cognizance. For one, I do
not claim the right; nor do I concede it to others.
(
But when all this is said, and even conceded, there still
remains a most formidable evil, fairly attached to and charge-
able upon unbelief. If the Saviour and his apostles, for ex-
ample, regarded and have treated the books of the Old Tes-
tament as of Divine authority and obligation, then it is an
affair of the gravest nature to decide against them. Those
who do not profess to be Christians, and who regard neither
the Old Testament nor the New as of Divine authority, act
consistently, to say the least, in rejecting the Old Testament
as a revelation from God. For unbelief they too are ac-
countable. If they are in the right as to their views and
opinions, of course they will escape both guilt and punish-
ment. But if they are verily in the wrong, and voluntarily
shut their eyes against the true light which Heaven has
kindled up to illuminate our darkened path, he who has said
that unbelief is in his estimation a crime of the darkest hue
in the catalogue of our sins, cannot be expected to omit a
due cognizance of it, in his own proper time..
kay
Having presented this matter in such a light it becomes
me now to make the inquiry, Whether the writers of the
New Testament do acknowledge and inculcate the authority
and obligation of the Old Testament Scriptures? In other
words, Whether Christ and the apostles did appeal to the
Scriptures as of Divine authority and obligation; and whether
those Scriptures consisted of the same books which are now
exhibited in our Old Testament Canon? The way will then
be prepared for coming to our final conclusion.
Jag
SECT. XVII. OF NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY.
295
All early testimony, Jewish and Christian, exhibited in-
dependently of the New Testament, is accordant in regard to
the nature and number of the Jewish sacred books. No one
acquainted in any tolerable measure with the subject, will
think of denying, that both Jews and Christians, at and
after the earliest part of the Christian era, fully believed in
the Divine authority and obligation of those books which
belonged to the Jewish Canon. None will deny, that before
this period the same belief pervaded the Jewish nation. We
have only to ask then, at present, whether the highest court
of appeal sanctions this decision; in other words, whether
Christ and the apostles, the authors of our religion, have
sanctioned the Jewish views of the Hebrew Scriptures ?
In canvassing the testimony of Jewish and Christian wit-
nesses, we have found occasion to look at the subject in a
twofold light; first, as having respect to the Scriptures as a
whole or one composite body of writings; and secondly, as
having respect to individual and particular works which go
to constitute the mass. The same method I shall still pur-
sue, in the present investigation.
I ask the reader for no special deference, on the present
occasion, to the lists of books contained in the creeds and
confessions of Christian churches or Jewish synagogues, in
later ages. These lists may indeed be correct. In the main
I believe that they are. But we do not here defer to them
as an authority. We make inquiry after the substantial
grounds or reasons by which these lists of sacred books are
supported, and their claims to confidence vindicated.
Our main object, moreover, is to inquire after a matter of
fact. That matter is, What did Jesus and his apostles
say respecting the Old Testament? What constituted the
Old Testament of their day, and in what manner have they
appealed to it?
It is needless to say, that the usual process of ascertain-
ing facts in ancient times, must be resorted to on this occa-
sion. We take nothing for granted, but what all reasonable
men feel obliged to concede. We take for granted, after
the preceding investigations, that there were Jewish Scrip-
tures at the period in question; that they were united toge-
ther in a collection of books well known and defined; that
the Jews, one and all, (sceptics or heathenish persons ex-
matkaj
296
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
cepted,) regarded these books as of Divine authority in all
matters of faith and practice, spoke of them as such, ap-
pealed to them as such, and remained, and have con-
tinued down to the present hour (with the exceptions just
noted) to remain, stedfast in the belief that such is the
character of the books in question. So much will not be
denied.
Did Christ, then, and his apostles, agree with the Jewish
nation in regard to the matter before us? If not, have
they ever taught us the contrary? Did they establish a
new Hebrew Canon? Or did they select one part of the
Jewish Canon, and reject the rest? Is there any conclu-
sion to be drawn from their teaching and example, as to the
duty of Christians in this matter?
If now we wish to pursue our inquiries, with regard to
these points, in a satisfactory way, we must do no violence
to the laws of exegesis. We must search after evidence, in
the same candid and dispassionate manner which we would
approve of in the investigation of any and all matters of
fact in ancient times. We are neither to force our own
views upon the New Test. writers, nor do any violence to
their representations in order to make them speak in our be-
half, or in order that they should not testify against us.
There is need of this caution. The principles by which it
is justified, have so often been forgotten or violated, that
there is great need of our keeping a watchful eye upon the
whole process of investigation.
And now to the work.
SECT. XVIII. Appeals of a general nature, which are made
to the Old Testament in the New.
I NAME all those general, which refer to the body of Scrip-
ture, or to the Scripture as a whole considered in its collec-
tive capacity. A reference of such a nature may be made
in a variety of ways, as the sequel will show.
I have only
to remark here, that throughout the appeals to testimony,
the twofold object of the authority of the Scriptures and of
the books of which it consists, go hand in hand, and need
not, and should not, be separated from each other.
D
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD,
297
(1.) Let us examine the Scriptures, as arranged by the
Jews under the usual triplex division. The Saviour says
(Luke xxiv. 44) to his doubting disciples, "All things must
be fulfilled concerning me, which are written in the Law of
Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms." Now here is a
distinct recognition of the threefold division of the Hebrew
Scriptures, which is so expressly recognised in Sirach, by
Philo, and by Josephus. It is impossible to entertain any
reasonable doubt of this, considering the time and circum-
stances in which the words were uttered. And as we have
already ascertained what books were included in this divi-
sion, we of course must regard this as an appeal to the Jewish
Canon, such as it now is. On any other ground than a
definite and well-known collection of sacred books, the dis-
ciples could not have understood their Master, nor the Mas-
ter have spoken with simplicity and in good faith.
There is one other thing directly and positively declared
here, which most of the Neologists call in question, and in
which Mr. Norton has expressed his unbelief; see p. 10
above. This is, that each of these divisions or parts of the
Scripture is affirmed to contain predictions respecting the
Messiah. Those who call in question the existence of pro-
phecy, in the sense of prediction, and those who limit it to
some few passages in one, or at most in two, of the Jewish
divisions of Scripture, are placed by this passage in direct
opposition to the Saviour. To suppose him to have said this
merely in the way of accommodation to Jewish prejudices
about the meaning of the Old Testament, is neither more
nor less than to suppose him guilty of fraud. If we should
call it pious fraud, this would not better the case, in the
view of any ingenious and truth-loving mind. Or, as the
only alternative, they must suppose the Saviour, like the
Jews in general, to have either trifled with the meaning of
the Scriptures, or to have been really ignorant of their true
import. The responsibility of either or any of these as-
sertions or suppositions, is what I would not desire to incur ;
and above all at the time when he, who is thus virtually
accused of fraud or of ignorance, shall sit as my Judge, in
a trial whose results are to last for eternity.
There is indeed one other way of escape; which is, by
denying that Luke has correctly reported the words of Christ.
298
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
But as the New Testament is full of the same kind of
words, from beginning to end, either the credibility of it
throughout, in regard to this subject, must be rejected; or
else it must come simply to this, that we are to believe only
such parts and so much of it, as we may a priori judge to be
probable and credible. This appears to be the exact position
of Mr. Norton and many others. But I regard the entire
rejection of it as more creditable to the understanding, and
even to the heart, than this position; for it virtually abjures
faith in the testimony of past ages to such an extent, as
must render all the past but a dark and troubled sea of
elements eternally fluctuating, on which no one can ever
launch with any good ground of hope that he may reach a
safe and peaceful harbour. The unbelief that consistently
sets aside the whole, shows a more manly and energetic atti-
tude of mind; and in my opinion, it is much more likely
to be convinced at last of error, than he is who thinks that
he is already a believer and is safe, while he virtually rejects
from the Gospel all which makes it a Gospel, in distinction
from the teachings of Socrates, of Plato, of Plutarch, of
Cicero, and of Seneca.
I add only one remark, which is but a repetition of what
has already been said. The names here given to the various
divisions of the sacred books, (and which have already been
explained,) must, from their very nature, indicate a definite
and well-known collection of books ranked under each class;
for otherwise they could have no real significance to the dis-
ciples. When the civilian says, that the Pandects and No-
vellæ of Justinian have decided a certain point so or so, does
any other civilian, or any body else who knows any thing
of the works in question, entertain any doubt as to what and
how many books or treatises are meant? When I speak of
the works of Virgil at one time, and at another speak of the
Bucolics, the Georgics, and the Eneid, am I not well and
definitely understood by classical readers in both cases?
The decision, however, of questions so easy and obvious as
these, does not call for any enlargement on this topic.
(2.) Another mode of general reference to the Scriptures
as a body, or as a collection of books fixed and definite, is by
giving to the whole in union a general name, which usage
has appropriated to them in order to distinguish them;
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
299
which name of course comprises within its import all the
books that are thus united.
Such in particular is the wordypaph, or its plural ai
ypapal, corresponding exactly to our word Scripture and
Scriptures, i. e. the writing, the writings. Every one sees
what part the article plays here. It specificates and dis-
tinguishes the meaning of the word to which it applies from
its common or generic signification, viz. a writing, i. e. any
writing. THE writing is one which stands distinguished
from other writings. The same also may be said of ai ypapaí,
(plur.) the Scriptures, i. e. the writings which are distin-
guished from all others. In the same manner the Moslem
calls his Koran the Scripture (S); indeed the word
Koran itself has virtually the same meaning, viz. the read-
ing, or that which is to be read. As to the singular γραφή,
or the plural ypapai, there is no appreciable difference in
the meaning. The singular is employed merely with refer-
ence to the whole collection in its unity; the plural, in re-
ference to the same, but as being made up of many parts.
In like manner the Latins might and did say of a letter, for
example, that it was epistola or litera. Of course, in my
references to the New Testament passages, I shall pay no
regard to the number, whether singular or plural, of the
noun which designates the Scriptures. In English we
have to all intents and purposes the same idiom; for we say
the Scripture, and the Scriptures, without any other dis-
tinction of meaning than the one already pointed out. Let
us follow the New Testament in order.
(الكتاب)
Matt. xxii. 29, Jesus says to the Sadducees, "Ye do err,
not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." In
other words, a knowledge of the Scriptures would save you
from error, viz. in regard to the things of a future state.
The same in Mark xii. 24.
Matt. xxvi. 54, Jesus had just said, that he could pray to
his Father, and obtain more than twelve legions of angels to
deliver him from the sufferings which were at hand; he
then adds, “But how then could the Scriptures be fulfilled,
that this must so be?" i. e. that he must so suffer. Of course
this is a declaration, that what is predicted in the Old Tes-
300
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
tament respecting his sufferings and death, must of neces-
sity have a fulfilment.
Matt. xxvi. 56, the writer is speaking of the apprehension
of Jesus by the enraged multitude, and the violence done to
him; he then adds, "Now all this took place, that the Scrip-
tures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Prophets, in the
language of the Jews, were, as we have seen, all the writers
of the Old Testament, i. e. they supposed them all to be in-
spired, which is the true original idea of a prophet. Here,
by the prophets is meant, those writers in the Bible who had
predicted the sufferings of Christ. The same in Mark
xiv. 49.
Mark xii. 10, "Have ye not read this Scripture? The
stone which the builders rejected," &c., where Jesus quotes
from the body of Scripture a particular passage (which he
names Scripture, just as we now name such a quotation).
The object is to show that the Scriptures had predicted
what must be fulfilled.
Mark xv. 28, “The Scripture was fulfilled which says,
He shall be numbered with the transgressors." If the ful-
filment here is not predicated of a direct prediction, but the
happening of an event of the like nature with one recorded
in Scripture, still the reference to the authority of Scripture
stands substantially on the same ground as if the prediction
were more direct.
Luke iv. 21, Jesus, in the synagogue at Nazareth, had
read a passage from Isa. lxi. 1, seq., which he applies (as a
prediction) to himself, and then adds, "To-day, in your hear-
ing, is this Scripture fulfilled." In other words, the pre-
dictions in the Old Testament have respect to him, and he it
is who fulfils them. Of course, they are acknowledged as
Divinę.
Sh
Luke xxiv. 27, Jesus is addressing his wondering and
incredulous disciples, after his resurrection: "Beginning
from Moses and from all the Prophets, he explained to them
the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures." Here
are two recognisances of Scripture which are worthy of at-
tention: (1.) Moses and all the Prophets. (2.) There are
things respecting Christ in all the Scriptures.
Luke xxiv. 45, "Then opened he their minds to under-
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
301
stand the Scriptures." The preceding verse speaks of the
Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. These, then, constitute
the Scriptures, which appellation of course means in such a
case the whole of them; for nothing short of this is de-
signated by τάς γραφάς here.
John ii. 22, the disciples are said, after his resurrection,
to have remembered the words of Jesus, (Destroy this tem-
ple, and in three days I will raise it up,) and then "they
believed the Scripture" viz. the Scripture which predicts
his death and resurrection.
John v. 39, Jesus bids the Jews to "Search the Scrip-
tures, because in them they think they have eternal life,
and these very Scriptures are those which testify of him."
In other words, the Scriptures, i. e. the Old Testament, is
the authority, which is to decide between him and the Jews
in respect to his claims.
John x. 35, Jesus says to the Jews, "If it [the Law,
which however is here used to designate the Scriptures in
general] called them gods to whom the word of God came,
and the Scripture cannot be broken," &c. Why cannot the
Scripture be broken? Plainly because it is the word of
God. Is not this then of paramount and Divine authority?
And here Scripture stands for the whole Hebrew Bible, be-
cause the proposition plainly amounts to this, viz. that no
part or portion of the Scripture can be broken.
John xiii. 18, “But [this takes place] that the Scripture
might be fulfilled, He who eateth bread with me," &c. In
other words, whatever is directly or indirectly foretold or
prefigured in the Scripture, must needs be fulfilled.
John xvii. 12, None of the true disciples are to perish, but
the son of perdition must perish, "that the Scripture might
be fulfilled." That is, all the predictions of the Old Testa-
ment must have a completion.
John xix. 24, "That the Scripture might be fulfilled
which saith, They divided my garments among themselves,"
&c. To the same purpose as the preceding quotation.
John xix. 36, The soldiers broke not the limbs of Jesus,
"that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, Not a
bone of him shall be broken." The Scripture here is the
injunction respecting the paschal lamb, the prototype of
Jesus, Ex. xii. 46. But the reference to its authority is
302
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
not the less, because the fulfilment appertains to a typical
prediction. Nay, the case is even stronger than that of a
direct prediction. It stands thus: Not only direct predic-
tions must be fulfilled, but even indirect or typical ones. In
other words, Nothing of the Old Testament Scriptures can
fail.
John xix. 37, "Again another Scripture saith, They shall
look on him whom they have pierced." The piercing of
Jesus' side by one of the soldiers, is the occasion of this
quotation. It is regarded as being a prediction of the Scrip-
ture, and therefore it must needs be fulfilled.
John xx. 9, “As yet they [the disciples] knew not the
Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Whatever the
Scripture has determined must of course take place, is the
tenor of the sentiment.
CC
Acts i. 16, Peter says, in his address to the apostles,
Brethren, the Scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the
Holy Ghost foretold by the mouth of David." This involves
the necessity that the predictions should be accomplished,
and the express idea of the inspiration of the writer of it by
the Holy Spirit.
Acts viii. 35, Philip, beginning "with this Scripture,
[Isa. liii. 7, seq.,] preached to him Jesus." That is, Philip
showed to the eunuch that Christ is the subject of descrip-
tion in Isa. liii.
Acts xvii. 2, seq., Paul "as his custom was discoursed
to them from the Scriptures, explaining [them], and setting
forth that Christ must needs suffer and rise from the dead."
In other words, the Messianic predictions in the Old Testa-
ment must be fulfilled.
·
Acts xvii. 11, the apostle praises the Beraans, not only
because "
they received the word with all readiness, but in-
vestigated the Scriptures daily, whether these things were
so;" i. e. they put the preaching of Paul to the test of the
Old Test. Scriptures; and they are called by him more noble
for so doing.
Acts xviii. 24, Apollos is commended as an eloquent
preacher, because he was mighty in the Scriptures." If
the Old Testament, as Mr. Norton avers, is a book utterly
inconsistent with Christianity, how could Apollos be an ex-
cellent preacher from the circumstance of being uncommonly
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
303
versed in it? Moreover it is said of him again, in ver. 28,
that "he showed from the Scriptures that Jesus is the
Christ."
Rom i. 2, Paul asserts that "the Gospel was before an-
nounced by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures."
In Rom. iv. 3, the same apostle appeals to "what the
Scripture saith," in order to establish the doctrine of justi-
fication by faith. In Rom. ix. 17, he does the same thing
in order to establish the Divine sovereignty: "For the Scrip-
ture saith to Pharaoh," &c. In Rom. x. 11, he makes the
same appeal, "for the Scripture saith;" this he does in
order to establish the certainty that the believer shall be re-
warded. In Rom. xv. 4, he speaks of our possessing hope,
through the consolation of the Scripture." In Rom. xvi.
26, he speaks of the gospel as being made known to the
Gentiles "by the prophetic Scriptures, according to the
commandment of the eternal God unto obedience of the
faith." And are these the books, then, which we are at
liberty to pronounce inconsistent with the gospel?
In 1 Cor. xv. 3, Paul says that "Christ died for our
sins, according to the Scriptures." And in ver. 4, that “He
was buried, and rose again on the third day, according to
the Scriptures." In Gal. iii. 8, he says, that "the Scrip-
ture.... before announced the gospel to Abraham, that in
him all the nations should be blessed." In 1 Tim. v. 18,
he appeals to Scripture as confirming the sentiment, that
"the labourer is worthy of his hire."
tr
James, in ii. 8, speaks of "the royal law," (Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself,) as being obligatory, because
it is contained "in the Scripture." In ii. 23, he appeals to
Scripture as confirming his doctrine of justification by faith.
In iv. 5, he reproves those who think that the Scripture
speaks kεrus, i. e. to no purpose.
Peter refers to the Scripture as containing the revelation
of a Saviour precious and all-sufficient, 1 Pet. ii. 6. In
2 Pet. iii. 16, he speaks of those who pervert the words of
Paul to their own destruction, as they do the other Scrip-
tures;" i. e. the Old Test. Scriptures are put beside the
writings of Paul, and are ranked with them.
Thus much under the single category of appeal to the Old
Test. Scriptures by naming them as a whole, or as a collec-
ľ
304
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
tion of sacred writings under the distinctive appellation of
ἡ γραφή οι αἱ γραφαί, the Scripture or the Scriptures. In
several of the passages, their inspiration is expressly de-
clared; in all of them their paramount authority is openly
and plainly assumed or avowed. It is impossible to call
this in question, when the matter and manner of the appeal
are fully taken into view.
(3.) Passages which directly declare, or plainly imply,
the inspiration of the Old Test. writers.
2 Tim. iii. 14-17, "Do thou continue in the things that
thou hast learned and believed: knowing from whom thou
hast learned them, and that from childhood thou hast known
the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto
salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus. Πᾶσα γραφὴ
JEÓTVEVOTOS, every Scripture is inspired of God, and is pro-
fitable for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for in-
struction in righteousness; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."
On this notable passage but few remarks are needed.
(1.) Every Scripture, Taoã yрapí, i. e. every constituent
part or portion of the Scriptures, as the omission of the
article of course implies, (not πãσa ǹ yρapń, all the Scrip-
ture, spoken of as merely a collective unity,) is inspired of
God. OEÓTVEVOros cannot mean less than this. If we might
coin a new English word, to meet the Greek one here em-
ployed, we might render it God-inspirited, which would be
altogether literal and exact. All attempts to fritter away
this plain meaning are but vain. To appeal to the inspira-
tion of heathen poets, and to the loose meaning of inspired
among some of the Christian Fathers, is nothing to the pur-
pose. What did Paul mean? is the question. And of this
there can be no philological doubt. Even De Wette, with
all his predominating incredulity, says of Jeóπvevotos, that
"it is an expression and idea which stands connected with
πvεũμa, lit. breath, since one regarded the energy of the
Divine Spirit as causing the breath of life; and here it
means inspired, durchgeistet, i. e. animated through and
through by the Spirit, geistvoll, i. e. full of the Spirit." The
manner in which the Spirit operated, is not here described
by Paul, and must be learned, if learned at all, from other
passages of Scripture. (2.) These Scriptures are not only
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
305
iɛpal, holy, sacred, but "they are able to make wise unto
salvation," even that salvation which is "by faith in Christ
Jesus." And is such a book, then, in opposition to Chris-
tianity? And must it be proscribed and rejected by an
"enlightened Christian?" So Mr. Norton says; but Paul
has presented the matter in a very different light.
(3.) "Every Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for con-
viction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
How all this can be, in case the Old Testament is even con-
trary to the Gospel, and unworthy of our regard, is for
those to explain who maintain the latter position. Then,
again, "the man of God becomes perfect, and thoroughly
furnished for every good work," by the use of these same
Scriptures.*
-
No one who is acquainted with ancient critical and reli-
gious history, will venture to maintain that any other Scrip-
tures than those of the Jews were then in general circula-
tion, when Paul wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy. Of
course, Paul has said all this of the Old Testament. More
cannot be said by any one, and more need not be said.
The only alternative is to deny the genuineness of the
epistle, or to reject the authority of Paul. Objections, I am
aware, have of late often been made against the genuineness
of the epistle; but they cannot stand before the tribunal of
criticism. And as to rejecting the authority of Paul, I have
only to say, that he who does this, raises the simple standard
of infidelity, and enlists under it. It
It is not my present
object to dispute with such.
2 Pet. i. 20, 21, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy is
of one's own power of disclosure; for prophecy in time past
was not introduced by the will of man, but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." I have
translated idías éπiλúσews by one's power of disclosure. This
*The most important point connected with this passage is here taken
for granted, though it is a matter still in dispute, viz. whether the trans-
lation should be "overy Scripture inspired by God is profitable," &c., or
"all Scripturo is inspired of God." The substantive verb is must be
supplied some where; and the difficulty is in ascertaining its precise place
in the sentence. It would be impossible in the compass of a note to pre-
sent even the most meagre outline of the considerations advanced by the
advocates of the rival interpretations. On the one sido we refer to Dr.
Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah; on the other, to a writer
in the Congregational Magazine for 1838, p. 29, et seq. D.
X
306
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
locus vexatissimus, I am well aware, has been moulded into
almost every shape, and made to mean a great variety of
things. Among the rest, it has been made to patronize the
doctrine, that no prophet understood or could explain what
he himself, or at least his own words, meant! Of such an
absurdity I say nothing. The plain sense is, that prophecy
comes, not by the prophet's own power of disclosure, or of
removing the veil from the future, but by the inspiration of
the Holy Ghost. Let it be noted, that Peter employs the
generic appellation popηreía, (without the article,) prophecy
in general, all that is prophetic in the Old Testament; and
in the Jewish sense, every thing there is the work of pro-
phets. The prophets were ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι,
borne along, moved, influenced, by the Holy Ghost. Thus
does Peter exactly correspond with the SEÓTVEVOTOs of Paul.
In the preceding context Peter speaks of the prophetic
word, i. e. the Old Test. Scriptures, as a "light shining in
a dark place," and as something ßeßaubrepov, more stedfast,
sure, more to be depended on, than what the three disciples
had seen and heard in the mount of transfiguration; at least
such seems to be his sentiment, in the connexion in which
his words stand. This is a very striking passage, and must
be quite revolting to the feelings of Mr. Norton and those
who sympathize with him.
In Heb. iii. 7, Paul cites a text of Scripture and says con-
cerning it, "As the Holy Spirit saith." He does the same
in Heb. x. 15, and introduces it by saying, "The Holy
Spirit testifies to us."
In 1 Pet. i. 10-12 is a passage, which affirms that "re-
specting [gospel] salvation, the prophets have sought out
and made diligent scrutiny, who prophesied respecting the
grace that was to be revealed. . . To whom it was revealed,
that not unto themselves, but unto us, they ministered the
things which," &c. The idea of a revelation supernaturally
made lies upon the very face of this representation.
Heb. i. 1 declares, that "God at sundry times and in di-
vers manners spake to the fathers by the prophets." If GoD
spake by them, then who shall be absolved from listening to
what he said? If God spake by them, then they have not
said what is contradictory to Christianity, or subversive
of it.
2
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
307
In 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, Paul, after quoting a passage from
the Mosaic Law, forbidding to muzzle the ox which tread-
eth out the corn, adds, "Doth God care for oxen? Or
does he say this truly for our sakes? On our account it
was written, that he who plougheth should plough in hope,
and he who reapeth should be a partaker in hope." On
this I remark that the apostle says, (1.) That God says
what is here quoted. (2.) That he says it mainly on our
account; and of course it follows that we are to read and
profit by it.
In Rom. i. 1, Paul says, that "God before declared the
gospel, by his prophets, in the Holy Scriptures." The
authority of these Scriptures then consists in this, viz. that
they contain the declarations of God.
But enough on the topic of inspiration. It is impossible,
after acquiring a proper knowledge of what Philo and Jose-
phus have unequivocally taught us in regard to the belief
of the Jews in the inspiration of their Scriptures, to read
the New Testament and overlook the fact, that every where
and always the supreme authority of the sacred books is
either directly asserted, or conceded by implication. Scrip-
ture is the supreme arbiter, in all cases where a decision is
required. The validity of the Redeemer's mission, and his
claims, are tried by it; the doctrines which the apostles
preached are tried by it; every virtue either of morality or
piety is sanctioned by it. It is impossible to doubt what
the apostles and evangelists have taught, in respect to this
subject, without at the same time assuming, that our own
subjective views are to be the paramount authority, in all
cases where authority is needed.
(4.) Under the head of miscellaneous recognitions of the
authority of the Old Test. Scriptures, it were easy to pro-
duce texts almost without number. I must content myself,
however, with a general exhibition of them, thus putting
the reader in a condition easily to pursue this investiga-
tion in its minuter particulars, by giving him an index to
the passages of the Old Testament which are cited or al-
luded to in the New.
THE S
and
make
x 2
308
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
MATTHEW.
i. 23-Isa. vii. 14.
ii. 6-Mic. v. 1.
ii. 15-Hos. xi. 1.
ii. 18-Jer. xxxi. 15.
iii. 3-Isa. xl. 3—5.
iv. 4-Deut. viii. 3.
iv. 6-Ps. xci. 11.
xxi. 42-Ps. cxviii. 22.
xxi. 44-Isa. viii. 14, seq.
xxii. 24-Deut. xxv. 5.
xxii. 32-Ex. iii. 6.
iv. 7-Deut. vi. 16.
iv. 10-Deut. vi. 13.
iv. 15, seq.-Isa. viii. 23; xxii. 37-Deut. vi. 5.
ix. 1.
v. 5-Ps. xxxvii. 11.
v. 21-Ex. xx. 13.
xxii. 39-Lev. xix. 18.
xxii. 44-Ps. cx. 1.
xxiii. 35-Gen. iv. 8.
xxiii. 39-Ps. cxviii. 26.
xxiv. 15-Dan. ix. 27.
xxiv. 29-Isa. xiii. 10.
v. 27—Ex. xx. 14.
v. 31-Deut. xxiv. 1.
v. 33-Ex. xx. 7.
v. 38—Ex. xxi. 24; Lev. xxiv. 37, seq.-Gen. vii. 4,
xxiv. 20.
v. 43-Lev. xix. 18.
viii. 4-Lev. xiv. 2, seq.
viii. 17-Isa. liii. 4.
ix. 13-Hos. vi. 6.
x. 35, 36-Mic. vii. 6.
xi. 5-Isa. xxix. 18, seq. ;
lxi. 1.
xix. 5-Gen. ii. 24.
xix. 7, 8-Deut. xxiv. 1.
xix. 18, seq.-Ex. xx. 12,
seq.; Lev. xix.
xxi. 5-Zech. ix. 9.
xxi. 13-Isa. lvi. 7; Jer. vii.
xxi. 16-Ps. viii. 2.
seq.
xxvi. 31-Zech. xiii. 7.
xxvii. 9-Zech. xi. 12, seq.
xxvii. 35-Ps. xxii. 18.
xxvii. 43-Ps. xxii. 8.
xxvii. 46-Ps. xxii. 1.
MARK.
i. 2-Mal. iii. 1.
i. 3-Isa. xl. 3.
i. 44—Lev. xiv. 2, seq.
ii. 25, 26-1 Sam. xxi. 6.
iv. 12-Isa. vi. 9.
xii. 18, seq.-Isa. xlii. 1, seq. vii. 6, 7-Isa. xxix. 13.
xii. 40-Jon. i. 17.
xii. 41-Jon. iii. 5, seq.
xii. 42-1 Kings x. 1.
xiii. 14, seq.—Isa. vi. 9, seq.
xiii. 35-Ps. lxxviii. 2.
xv. 4—Ex. xx. 12; Deut. v.
16.
vii. 10-Ex. xx. 12.
ix. 14-Isa. lxvi. 44.
x. 4-Deut. xxiv. 1.
x. 7-Gen. ii. 24.
xi. 17-Isa. lvi. 7; Jer. vii. 11.
xii. 10, 11-Ps. cxviii. 22.
xii. 19-Deut. xxv. 5.
xii. 26-Ex. iii. 6.
xv. 8, 9-Isa. xxix. 13.
xi. 10-Mal. iii. 1.
xi. 14-Mal. iv. 5.
xii. 3-1 Sam. xxi. 6.
xii. 5-Num. xxviii. 9.
xii. 7-Hos. vi. 6.
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
309
xii. 29, seq.-Deut. vi. 4, seq. | xx. 37—Ex. iii. 6.
xii. 31-Lev. xix. 18.
xii. 36-Ps. cx, 1.
xx. 42, 43-Ps. cx. 1.
xxii. 37-Isa. liii. 12.
xxiii. 30-Hos. x. 8.
JOHN.
i. 23-Isa. xl. 3.
i. 51-Gen. xxviii. 12.
ii. 17-Ps. lxix. 9.
iii. 14-Num. xxi. 8, 9.
vi. 31-Ps. lxxviii. 24.
vi. 45-Isa. liv. 13.
vii. 22-Lev. xii. 3.
vii. 38-Isa. lviii. 11.
vii. 42-Ps. lxxxix. 4; Mic.
v. 1.
viii. 5-Lev. xx. 10.
viii. 17-Deut. xvii. 6.
x. 34-Ps. lxxxii. 6.
xii. 13-Ps. cxviii. 25, 26.
xii. 15-Zech. ix. 9.
xii. 34-Ps. cx. 4.
xii. 38-Isa. liii. 1.
xii. 40-Isa. vi. 9, 10.
xiii. 18-Ps. xli. 9.
xv. 25-Ps. xxxv. 19.
xvii. 12-Ps. cix. 8, 17.
x. 27-Deut. vi. 5; Lev. xix. | xix. 24—Ps. xxii. 18.
18.
xix. 28-Ps. Ixix. 21.
xix. 36-Ex. xii. 46.
xix. 37-Zech. xii. 10.
x. 28-Lev. xviii. 5.
xi. 31-1 Kings x. 1.
xi. 51-Gen. iv. 8.
xiii. 35-Ps. cxviii. 26.
xvii. 27-Gen. vii. 7.
xvii. 29-Gen. xix. 15.
xvii. 32-Gen. xix. 26.
xviii. 20-Ex. xx. 12, seq.
xix. 46-Isa. lvi. 7: Jer, vii.
11.
xiii. 14-Dan. ix. 27.
xiii. 24-Isa. xiii. 9, seq.
xiv. 27-Zech. xiii. 7.
xv. 28-Isa. liii. 12.
xv. 34-Ps. xxii. 1.
LUKE.
i. 33-Dan. ii. 44.
i. 55-Gen. xvii. 19.
i. 73-Gen. xxii. 16.
ii. 21, 22—Lev. xii. 3, 4.
ii. 23-Ex. xiii. 2.
ii. 24-Lev. xii. 6.
iii. 4, seq.—Isa. xl. 3, seq.
iv. 4-Deut. viii. 3.
iv. 8-Deut. vi. 13.
iv. 10, 11-Ps. xci. 11.
iv. 12-Deut. vi. 16.
iv. 18, 19-Isa. Ixi. 1, seq.
iv. 25, 26—1 Kings xvii. 1,9.
iv. 27-2 Kings v. 14.
v. 14-Lev. xiv. 2—4.
vi. 3, 4-1 Sam. xxi. 6.
vii. 27-Mal. iii. 1.
xx. 17—Ps. cxviii. 22.
xx. 28-Deut. xxv. 5.
ACTS.
i. 16, 20-Ps. lxix. 25; cix. 8.
ii. 16, seq.—Joel ii. 28, seq.
ii. 25-Ps. xvi. 8.
ii. 31-Ps. xvi. 10.
ii. 34-Ps. cx. 1.
iii. 22-Deut. xviii. 15.
iii. 25-Gen. xii. 3.
iv. 11-Ps. cxviii. 22.
310
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
iii. 14-Ps. x. 7.
iii. 15-17-Isa. lix. 7, 8.
iii. 18-Ps. xxxvi. 1.
iv. 3-Gen. xv. 6.
iv. 25-Ps. ii. 1.
vii. 2-Gen. xii. 1.
vii. 6, 7—Gen. xv. 13, seq.
vii. 8-Gen. xvii. 10.
vii. 9-Gen. xxxvii. 28.
vii. 17-Ex. i. 7.
vii. 20-Ex. ii. 2.
vii. 24-Ex. ii. 11.
vii. 30-Ex. iii. 2.
vii. 37-Deut. xviii. 15.
vii. 38-Ex. xix. 3.
vii. 39-Ex. xxxii. 1.
vii. 42-Amos v. 25.
vii. 45-Josh. iii. 14.
vii. 46-2 Sam. vii. 1, seq.
vii. 48-Isa. lxvi. 1.
iv. 6, seq.-Ps. xxxii. 1, seq.
iv. 11-Gen. xvii. 10.
iv. 17-Gen. xvii. 5.
iv. 18-Gen. xv. 5.
vii. 7-Ex. xx. 17.
viii. 36-Ps. xliv. 22.
ix. 7-Gen. xxi. 12.
ix. 9-Gen. xviii. 10.
ix. 12-Gen. xxv. 23.
ix. 13-Mal. i. 2, 3.
ix. 15-Ex. xxxiii. 19.
ix. 17-Ex. ix. 16.
viii. 32-Isa. liii. 7.
x. 34-Deut. x. 17.
ix. 20-Isa. xlv. 9.
ix. 21-Jer. xviii. 6.
xiii. 17-Ex. i. 7; xii. 37, ix. 25-Hos. ii. 23.
ix. 26-Hos. i. 10.
seq.
xiii. 18-Deut. i. 31.
xiii. 22-1 Sam. xvi. 13; ix. 29-Isa. i. 9.
Ps. lxxxix. 20.
xiii. 33-Ps. ii. 7.
xiii. 34-Isa. lv. 3.
xiii. 35-Ps. xvi. 10.
xii. 36-1 Kings ii. 10.
xii. 41-Hab. i. 5.
xii. 47-Isa. xlix. 6.
xv. 16-Amos ix. 11.
xxiii. 5-Ex. xxii. 28.
xxviii. 26-Isa. vi. 9, seq.
ROMANS.
i. 17-Hab. ii. 4.
ii. 6.-Prov. xxiv. 12.
ii. 11-Deut. x. 17.
ii. 24-Isa. lii. 5.
iii. 4-Ps. li. 4.
iii. 10-Ps. xiv. 1, seq.
iii. 13-Ps. v. 9; cxl. 3.
ix. 27, seq.-Isa. x. 22, seq.
ix. 33-Isa. viii. 14; xxviii.
16.
x. 5-Lev. xviii. 5.
x. 6, seq.-Deut. xxx. 12, seq.
x. 11-Isa. xxviii. 16.
x. 13-Joel ii. 32.
x. 15-Isa. lii. 7.
x. 16-Isa. liii. 1.
x. 18-Ps. xix. 4.
x. 19-Deut. xxxii. 21.
x. 20, seq.—Isa. lxv. 1, seq.
xi. 3-1 Kings xix. 10, 14.
xi. 3—1 Kings xix. 18.
xi. 8-Isa. xxix. 10; vi. 9.
xi. 9, seq.-Ps. Ixix. 22, seq.
xi. 26-Isa. lix. 20.
xi. 27-Jer. xxxi. 33, seq..
xi. 34-Isa. xl. 13.
xi. 35-Job xli. 11.
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
311
xii. 9-Amos v. 15.
xii. 19-Deut. xxxii. 35.
xii. 20 · Prov. xxv. 21,
xv. 45-Gen. ii. 7.
xv. 54, 55—Is. xxv. 8; Hos.
xiii. 14.
2 CORINTHIANS.
iv. 13-Ps. cxvi. 10.
vi. 2-Isa. xlix. 8.
vi. 16-Lev. xxvi. 12.
vi. 17-Isa. lii. 11.
vi. 18-Jer. xxxi. 1, 9.
viii. 15-Ex. xvi. 18.
ix. 7—Ex. xxxv. 5.
ix. 9-Ps. cxii. 9.
ix. 10-Isa. lv. 10.
xi. 3-Gen. iii. 4.
GALATIANS.
ii. 16-Ps. cxliii. 2.
iii. 6-Gen. xv. 6.
iii. 8-Gen. xii. 3.
iii. 10-Deut. xxvii. 26.
iii. 11-Hab. ii. 4.
iii. 12-Lev. xviii. 5.
iii. 13-Deut. xxi. 23.
iii. 16-Gen. xvii. 7.
iii. 17—Ex. xii. 40, seq.
iv. 22-Gen. xxi. 2, 9.
iv. 27-Isa. liv. 1.
iv. 30-Gen. x. 12.
v. 14—Lev. xix. 18.
EPHESIANS.
xiv. 21-Isa. xxviii. 11.
xiv. 34-Gen. iii. 16.
ii. 17-Isa. lvii. 19.
iv. 8-Ps. lxviii. 18.
iv. 26-Ps. iv. 4.
xv. 3-Isa. liii. 8, 9; Ps. iv. 30-Gen. ii. 23, seq.
xxii.
vi. 2.-Ex. xx. 12.
vi. 9-Job xxxiv. 19.
xv. 4-Ps. xvi. 10.
xv. 25-Ps. cx. 1.
xv. 27-Ps. viii. 6.
xv. 32-Isa. xxii. 13.
M
seq.
xiii. 9-Ex. xx. 13, seq.
xiv. 11-Isa. xlv. 23.
xv. 3-Ps. lxix. 9.
xv. 9-Ps. xviii. 49.
xv. 10-Deut. xxxii. 43.
xv. 11-Ps. cxvii. 1.
xv. 12-Isa. xi. 10.
xv. 21-Isa. lii. 15.
1 CORINTHIANS.
i. 19-Isa. xxix. 14.
i. 20-Isa. xliv. 25.
i. 21-Jer. ix. 23.
ii. 9-Isa. lxiv. 4.
ii. 15-Isa. xl. 13.
iii. 19-Job v. 13.
iii. 20-Ps. xciv. 11.
v. 13-Deut. xvii. 7.
vi. 16-Gen. ii. 24.
ix. 9-Deut. xxv. 4.
ix. 13-Deut. xviii. 1.
x. 1-Ex. xiii. 21 ; xiv. 22.
x. 3, 4—Ex. xvi. 15; xvii. 6.
x. 7-Ex. xxxii. 6.
x. 8-Num. xxv. 1, 9.
x. 9-Ex. xvii. 2, 7; Num.
xxi. 6.
x. 10-Num. xiv. 2, 27, 29.
x. 26-Ps. xxiv. 1.
PHILIPPIANS.
ii. 10-Isa. xlv. 23.
312
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
COLOSSIANS.
ii. 11-Deut. xxx. 6.
iii. 25-Job xxxiv. 19.
2 THESALONIANS.
ii. 4-Dan. xi. 36.
ii. 8-Isa. xi. 4.
1 TIMOTHY.
ii. 13-Gen. i. 27; ii. 18.
ii. 14-Gen. iii. 6.
ii. 18-Deut. xxv. 4; Lev.
xix. 13.
vi. 7-Ps. xlix. 17.
2 TIMOTHY.
ii. 19-Num. xvi. 5.
iii. 8-Ex. vii. 11, 22.
HEBREWS.
i. 5-Ps. ii. 7.
i. 6-Ps. xcvii. 7.
i. 7-Ps. civ. 4.
i. 8-Ps. xlv. 6, seq.
ii. 13-Ps. xviii. 2.
ii. 13-Isa. viii. 18.
iii. 2-Num. xii. 7.
iii. 7-Ps. xcv. 7.
iii. 17-Num. xiv. 32-37.
iv. 3-Ps. xcv. 11.
iv. 4-Gen. ii. 2.
iv. 7-Ps. xcv. 7.
v. 4-1 Chron. xxiii. 13.
v. 5-Ps. ii. 7.
v. 6-Ps. cx. 4.
vi. 14-Gen. xxii. 16.
vii. 1-Gen. xiv. 18.
vii. 17, 21-Ps, cx. 4.
viii. 5-Ex. xxv. 40.
viii. 8, seq.-Jer. xxxi. 31,
seq.
ix. 13-Lev. xvi. 14.
ix. 20-Ex. xxiv. 8.
x. 5, seq.-Ps. xl. 7, seq.
x. 12, 13-Ps. cx. 1.
x. 16, seq.-Jer. xxxi. 33,seq.
x. 28-Deut. xvii. 6.
x. 30-Deut. xxxii. 35.
x. 37, seq.-Hab. ii. 3, seq.
xi. 3-Gen. i. 1; Ps. xxxiii. 6.
xi. 4-Gen. iv. 4.
xi. 5-Gen. v. 24.
xi. 7-Gen. vi. 14-22.
xi. 8-Gen. xii. 1, 4.
xi. 13-Gen. xlvii. 9.
xi. 17-Gen. xxii. 1, seq.
xi. 18-Gen. xxi. 12.
i. 10, seq.-Is. xxxiv. 4; li. 6. xi. 22-Gen. 1. 24.
i. 13-Ps. cx. 1.
ii. 2-Deut. xxvii. 26.
ii. 6, seq.—Ps. viii. 4, seq.
ii. 12-Ps. xxii. 22.
xi. 20—Gen. xxvii. 27, seq.
xi. 21-Gen. xlviii. 16;
xlvii. 31.
xi. 23-Ex. ii. 2.
xi. 28-Ex. xii. 11, seq.
xi. 29-Ex. xiv. 22.
xi. 30Josh, vi, 20,
xi. 31-Josh. ii. 1.
xi. 32—Judg. vi. 11, seq. ; iv.
14; xiv. 1, seq. ; xi. 1, seq. ;
1 Sam. vi. 13, seq.; 1 Sam.
iii. 19, seq.; Judg. xiv. 5,
seq.; Dan. vi. 16, seq.
xi. 34-Dan. iii. 20, seq.
xi. 35—2 Kings iv. 20.
xii. 5, seq.—Prov. iii. 11, seq.
xii. 9-Num. xxvii. 16.
xii. 12, seq.-Isa, xxxv. 3.
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE old.
313
xii. 15-Deut. xxix. 18.
xii. 16-Gen. xxv. 31, seq.
xii. 18-Ex. xix. 12, seq.
xii. 20-Ex. xix. 13.
xii. 21-Deut. ix. 19.
xii. 26-Hag. ii. 6.
xii. 29-Deut. iv. 24.
2 PETER.
xiii. 5-Josh. i, 5.
xiii. 6-Ps. cxviii. 6.
ii. 5-Gen. vii. 23.
ii. 6-Gen. xix. 24, seq.
ii. 15, seq.—Num. xxii.
xiii. 11—Lev. iv. 11, seq.; ii. 22—Prov. xxvi. 11.
xvi. 27.
xiii. 14-Mic. ii. 10.
JAMES.
1 PETER.
i. 16-Lev. xi. 44.
i. 24, seq.-Isa. xl. 6, seq.
ii. 3-Ps. xxxiv. 8.
iv. 8-Prov. x. 12.
iv. 18-Prov. xi. 31.
v. 5-Prov. iii. 34.
v. 7-Ps. lv. 22.
ii. 4-Ps. cxviii. 22.
ii. 6-Isa. xxviii. 16.
ii. 7-Ps. cxviii. 22.
ii. 9-Ex. xix. 5, seq.
ii. 10-Hos. ii. 23.
ii. 17-Prov. xxiv. 21.
ii. 22-Isa. liii. 4, seq.
iii. 16-Gen. xviii. 12.
iii. 10, seq.-Ps. xxxiv. 12,
seq.
i. 19-Prov. xvii. 27.
ii. 1-Lev. xix. 15.
ii. 8-Lev. xix. 18.
ii. 11-Ex. xx. 13, seq.
ii. 21-Gen. xxii. 9, seq.
ii. 23-Gen. xv. 6.
JUDE.
ii. 25-Josh. ii. 1.
iv. 6-Prov. iii. 34.
5—Num. xiv. 35, seq.
7-Gen. xix.
v. 11—Job i. 20, seq.
v. 17, seq.—1 Ki. xvii. 1, seq. | 11—Gen. iv. 5, seq.; Num.
xvi. 1, seq.
iii. 14, seq.-Isa. viii. 12, seq.
iii. 20—Gen. vi. 13, seq.
iii. 4-Ezek. xii. 21, seq.
iii. 5, 6—Gen. ii. 6; vii. 21.
iii. 8-Ps. xc. 4.
iii. 10-Ps. cii. 26, seq.
1 JOHN.
i. 8-Prov. xx. 9.
iii. 5-Isa. liii. 4.
iii. 12-Gen. iv. 8.
APOCALYPSE.
i. 6-Ex. xix. 6.
i. 7-Zech. xii. 10.
i. 14, 15-Dan. x. 5, 6; vii.
9; Ezek. i. 27; viii. 2.
ii. 14-Num. xxv. 1,2; xxxi.
16.
ii. 20-1 Kings xvi. 31; 2
Kings ix. 7.
ii. 27--Ps. ii. 8, 9.
iii. 7-Isa. xxii. 22.
iii. 9-Isa. xlv. 14.
iii. 19-Prov. iii.; xi. 12.
Chap. iv., v.- Ezek. i., ii.;
Isa. vi.
314
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
iv. 6-Ezek. i. 22; Ex. xxiv. xiv. 15-Joel iii. 13.
10.
v. 11-Dan. vii. 10.
21.
vi. 8-Ezek. xiv. 21.
vi. 12-Isa. xxiv. 18-23;
xxxiv. 4; Joel ii. 31.
vi. 14-Isa. xxxiv. 4.
vi. 15-Isa. ii. 19
vi. 16-Hos. x. 8.
vii. 3-Ezek. ix. 4.
viii. 3-Lev. xvi. 12, 13.
ix. 3-Joel i. 6, seq. ; ii. 4, seq.
ix. 14-comp. Dan. x. 13, 20.
ix. 20-Ps. cxv. 4; cxxxv. 15.
x. 2-Ezek. ii. 9, 10.
x. 3—Isa. xxi. 8.
|
x. 4-Dan. viii. 26; xii. 4–9.
x. 9-11-Ezek. ii. 8; iii. 3.
xi. 4, seq.-Zech. iv. 2—14. |
xi. 5-2 Kings i. 9—12.
xi. 6-1 Kings xvii. 1; Ez.
vii. 19, 20.
xi. 7-Dan. vii. 7, 8.
xi. 10-Esth. ix. 19, 22.
xi. 15, seq.-Dan. ii. 44 ; vii.
27.
xiv. 19, 20-Isa. lxiii. 1, seq.
xv. 3—Ex. xv. 1, seq.
xv. 4-Jer. x. 7; Isa. lxvi.
23.
xv. 8-Ex. xl. 34, seq.; 1
Kings viii. 11; Isa. vi. 4.
xvi. 2, seq.—Ex. ix. 8, seq.
xvi. 9-Dan. v. 22, seq.
xvi. 12-Isa. xi. 15, 16.
xvi. 19-Isa. li. 22; Jer.
xxv. 15, 16.
xvii. 1-Jer. li. 13.
xvii. 3—Ezek. viii. 3.
xvii. 4-Jer. li. 7.
xvii. 12-Dan. vii. 20.
xvii. 15-Isa. viii. 7; Jer.
xlvii. 2.
xii. 14-Dan. vii. 25; xii. 7.
xiii. 1, seq.-Dan. vii. 3, seq.
xiii. 10-Gen. ix. 6.
xiii. 14-Dan. iii. 1, seq.
xiv. 8-Isa. li. 9; Jer. li. 8.
xiv. 10-Ps. lxxv. 8; Isa. li.
xviii. 2, seq.-Isa. xxi. 1–10 ;
xiii. 21; xxxiv. 14, seq.;
Jer. 1. 39; li. 8.
xviii. 7, 8-Isa. xlvii. 7—9.
xii. 1, seq.-Mic. iv. 9, 10; xviii. 11, seq.-Ezek. xxvii. ;
|
v. 2, 3.
Isa. xxiii.
22; Jer. xxv. 15.
xiv. 14-Dan. vii. 13.
xviii. 4-Isa. xlviii. 20; Jer.
1. 8; li. 6, 45.
xviii. 6-Jer. 1. 15, 29; Ps.
cxxvii. 8.
xii. 5-Ps. ii. 9.
xviii. 18-Isa. xxxiv. 10.
xii. 7—Dan. x. 13, 21; xi. 1; | xviii. 20-Isa. xliv. 23; xlix.
xii. 1.
13; Jer. li. 48.
xii. 10—Job i. 6, seq.; ii. 4, | xviii. 21-Jer. li. 63, 64.
seq.; Zech. iii. 1.
xviii. 22-Isa. xxiv. 8; Jer.
vii. 34; xxv. 10.
xviii. 23-Isa. xxiii. 8.
xix. 2-Deut. xxxii. 43.
xix. 3-Isa. xxxiv. 10.
xix. 4-1 Chron. xvi. 36;
Neh. v. 13.
xix. 6-Dan. ii. 44; vii. 27.
xix. 13-Isa. lxiii. 1, seq.
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
315
xix. 15-Ps. ii. 9; Isa. lxiii. 3. | xxi. 11, seq.- Ezek. xlviii.
xix. 17, 18-Ezek. xxxix.
31, seq.
17, 18.
xxi. 15-Ezek. xl. 3.
xix. 20—Isa. xxx. 33; Dan. | xxi. 19, seq.-Isa. liv. 11, 12.
vii. 11, 26.
xxi. 23-Isa. xxiv. 23 ; lx. 19.
xxi. 24-Isa. lx. 3, seq. ; lxvi.
12.
xx. 4—Dan. vii. 9, 22, 27.
xx. 8, seq.-Ezek. xxxviii.
1, seq.
|
xx. 11, 12-Dan. vii. 9, 10.
xxi. 1-Isa. lxv.17; lxvi. 22.
xxi. 2, seq.-Ezek. xl.-xlviii.
xxi. 3-Ezek. xxxvii. 27.
xxi. 4-Isa. xxv. 8; xxxv.
10.
xxi. 5-Isa. xliii. 19.
xxi. 10-Ezek. xl. 2.
ba
xxii. 1, seq.—Ezek. xlvii. 1,
12; Zech. xiv. 8.
xxii. 3-Zech. xiv. 11.
xxii. 5-Isa. xxiv. 23; lx. 19.
xxii. 10-Dan. viii. 26; xii. 4.
| xxii. 16-Isa. xi. 1, 10.
xxii. 17-Isa. lv. 1.
xxii. 19-Deut. iv. 2; xii.
32.*
Large as this list is of passages from the Old Testament
which are cited or alluded to in the New, it is far from com-
prehending all of this nature, which the New Testament
contains. The truth is, that there is not a page, nor even
a paragraph of any considerable length, belonging to the
New Testament, which does not bear the impress of the
Old Testament upon it. What else is the so-called idiom
of the Hebrew Greek of the New Testament, but an im-
pression of this kind? It is indeed true, that some few pe-
culiarities in the forms and grammatical structure of the
Hebrew Greek, led in part to the bestowment of this ap-
pellation upon it. But after all, the grammatical departures
from common Greek are now known and acknowledged to
be but few; while the lexical ones arise mostly from the
necessity of the case, (new things demanding either new
names, or new meanings of old words, to designate them,)
or else from the manner in which the kindred Hebrew
verbs, &c. are employed in the Old Testament. In the lat-
ter case they help to exhibit the influence which the Old
Testament has had upon the New throughout.
No one who has an intimate acquaintance with both Tes-
*For a list of quotations from the Old Testamont in the New, and a
full discussion of evory point connected with them, the reader is referred
to Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, chap. xi. pp. 334-515. D.
316
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THE
taments, in their original languages, can possibly fail to re-
cognise the numberless transfers of the spirit and the modes.
of expression from the Old to the New. It is a thing to be
felt, and not to be adequately described. It occurs so often,
every where, and in respect to every thing, that one would
not know where to begin, or where to end, such a descrip-
tion. No one must imagine, that the list of quotations or
cases of allusion above conveys to him any really adequate
view of the subject. The truth is, that it is no more than
the mere beginning of such a view. But it presents to
every reader, whether learned or unlearned, what is palpa-
ble and undeniable, and what must serve to convince a
candid mind, that the New Testament writers every where
lean upon, or stand closely connected with, the writers of
the Old Testament.
It may be proper to remark, in order to prevent any mis-
understanding on the part of the reader, that oftentimes he
will find only some particular part of a verse in the New
Testament which is referred to some expression in that
verse-the object of comparison between the New Testa-
ment and the Old: and so in respect to verses in the Old
Testament which I have taken as being related to expres-
sions in the New. If he does not at once see the point of
comparison, (which may sometimes happen,) let him not
forthwith conclude that there is none. Some mistakes I
may have made, in recording so many quotations; for in a
work so laborious as such a comparison, and trying to the
patience, who might not make mistakes? It may be, that
in some cases where I have supposed a reference to the Old
Testament, it might not have been so in the mind of the
writer. There is room, in a few cases, for difference of
opinion with regard to such a matter. But, on the whole,
I hope and trust the list will be found to be as accurate as
could be reasonably demanded. Possibly there are a few
instances, that should be struck from it; but should this be
done, I have only to say, that there are hundreds of expres-
sions and thoughts, in the New Testament, modelled after
the Old Testament, to which I have made no reference. I
have even stricken out not a few of Knapp's list of quota-
tions, at the end of his Greek Testament, because I wished
to retain none which did not seem to be palpable.
SECT. XVIII. NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
317
Among the several writers of the Gospels, the reader
will perceive that there is not much difference in regard to
the frequency of resort to the Old Testament, if one takes
into view the comparative length of their productions. The
book of Acts, the Epistles to the Romans and to the He-
brews, 1 Peter, and the Apocalypse, abound most in refer-
ences to the Old Testament. Above all is the Apocalypse
the most remarkable for this. While John has not made,
in this book, a single quotation in the usual way of express
appeal, he has, in more than one hundred cases, beyond all
doubt, drawn his modes of expression and thought from the
Old Test. Scriptures, using every part of them indiscrimin-
ately, but mostly the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and
Zechariah. Nearly one fifth part of all the references in
the New Testament to the ancient Scriptures, belong to the
Apocalypse. Thus much in the way of explanation.
After this general view of the subject, I proceed to make
a few special remarks on the list above exhibited.
(1.) Many of the passages here noted, in the same manner
as those before cited at length, have respect to Old Testa-
ment prophecies which are declared to have been fulfilled.
An intelligent reader will easily perceive that this state-
ment covers much ground. The New Testament writers
make use of the formula iva Tλnpwdŋ, (that it might be ful-
filled, or so that it was fulfilled,) to a wide extent.* Not only
predictions, in the proper and limited sense of the word, are
said to be fulfilled, but also in cases where the type is an-
swered by the appearance of the antitype (e. g. Christ our
passover-lamb); and also in cases where the event related in
the New Testament corresponds closely to the leading fea-
tures of similar events related in the Old Testament. For
an example of the last, we may appeal to Matt. ii. 15, where
the statement is, that Jesus was carried away to Egypt, for
the sake of avoiding the massacre at Bethlehem, in order
that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith, "Out of
Egypt have I called my Son." Now if we turn to Hosea
*The Grock phrase in question never appears to have the meaning,
so that it was fulfilled, but always, that it might be fulfilled. In other
words, va has not the ecbatic sense attributed to it by Mr. Stuart after
Tittmann, but tho telic sense. Comparo Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 473, et
seq., where the topic is fully canvassed. D.
318
SECT. XVIII.
APPEALS OF THIE
xi. 1, (the passage here cited,) we find it to run thus,
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my
son out of Egypt." Now here is a mere historical declara-
tion respecting a past event, and nothing at all of prediction
in the proper sense. The Tλhowσis, in this case, consists in
the striking points of resemblance between the exile in
Egypt and the deliverance from it, as it respects both of the
parties in view. And so, of many other texts referred to in
the New Testament.*
It is deeply to be regretted, that more narrow and con-
fined views of this subject, (by which every fulfilment, πλh-
pwois, was made to correspond with some real and direct
prediction,) should have given occasion to boundless allegor-
izing, and to the making out of a double sense for the words
of the ancient Scriptures, and to helping out the construction
of supposed predictions, contained in simple historical nar-
ration, by inventing a iróvoa or occult sense for the words
of the narration. More enlarged views of the habitude of
the Jews, in regard to the use which they made of the Old
Testament, especially in respect to what they called a ful-
filment of it, might have prevented all this. But now it
will be a long time (so deep has the infection taken root)
before the malady can be cured. But on this I cannot
dwell.†
sa
(2.) In every part of the New Testament, facts related in
the Old Testament history are appealed to; not common and
civil occurrences only, but miraculous ones. Such are the
flood, the destruction of Sodom, the passage of the Red Sea,
the manna of the desert, the feats of Samson, the miracles
of Elijah and Elisha and others, the swallowing up of Jonah
by the whale, the deliverance of Shadrach and Meshach and
Abednego from the fiery furnace, the safety of Daniel in the
lions' den, and other things of the like extraordinary nature.
In a word, the whole of the Old Testament history, with all
its extraordinary narrations, and all the miraculous events
*We have serious objections to Mr. Stuart's view of the passage quoted
in Matt. ii. 15, and of similar quotations. Seo Sacred Hormenoutics, p.
488, ct seq. D.
The view takon by the writer of the verb λnpów used in quotations
from the Old Testament, and of a single and double sense connected with
it, appears to be imperfect and incorrect. Comparo Sacred Hermeneutics,
p. 486, et seq. D.
SECT. XVIII.
NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
319
which many of them imply, are every where appealed to,
and are regarded by the Saviour and his apostles as absolute
verities.
(3.) Principles and precepts inculcated by the gospel are
every where established, or enforced, or illustrated, by an
appeal to the Old Testament. There is a great variety here
in the method of appeal, according to the object which the
writer has in view. Sometimes it is made simply on the
ground of the authority which is conceded to the Old Testa-
ment. Sometimes merely to compare ancient with recent
things, and repel any accusation of novelty. Sometimes
merely to cast light on any thing which may seem to be ob-
scure. But in whatever way the appeal is made, there is
still at the basis of it the idea of a standard authority—a tri-
bunal before which causes are to be judged-in the Scrip-
tures of the Old Testament. "All Scripture is inspired of
God," is not a sentiment of Paul only, but it rules and reigns
in every part and parcel of the New Testament.
(4.) In regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, notwithstand-
ing the writer has undertaken to show the superiority of the
Gospel over the Law, the Divine origin of the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures and institutions is as fully acknowledged as
in other parts of the New Testament, and the writer builds
as much upon it. He has laboured every where to show,
that the Jewish law and ritual were ordained, on the part of
Heaven, as introductory to the Christian dispensation. The
significance and importance of the ritual is confined mainly
to this. "The Law was a shadow of good things to come.
So that, whether the author was Paul, or some other person,
it is certain that here may be found the same opinion which
Paul expressed, when he said, "The Law is our school-
master, to bring us to Christ." Why should it be any more
inconsistent for the Godhead to make arrangements for the
introduction of the gospel, by a series of preparatory mea-
sures, than it is to bring about many other things, and even
extraordinary ones, in the like way? Our present life it-
self is but a preparatory arrangement for another.
(5.) There is something in the closing scene of Jesus'
life, which is adapted strongly to impress our minds with
the idea, that he gave the fullest credence and sanction to
the Old Testament Scriptures. All the prominent circum-
17
B
G
320
APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO OLD. SECT. XVIII.
་
stances of his sufferings and death are so arranged, that
every one of them is the fulfilment of some portions of the
ancient Scriptures. When he was disrobed, and the soldiers
disputed about the possession of his garments, they cast lots
to determine to whom the seamless coat should belong; and
all this in fulfilment, as the evangelist declares, (John xix.
24,) of the Scripture in Ps. xxii. 18. When his agony on
the cross created an intense thirst, he disclosed this to the
bystanders in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled
(Ps. lxix. 21) which saith, "They gave me gall for my meat,
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink ;" John xix.
28, seq. The vinegar that was given him was mingled with
gall, Matt. xxvii. 34. The demeanour of the populace and
the priests, wagging their heads and saying, "He trusted
in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him," is
all specifically described in Ps. xxii. 7, 8. When agony
beyond endurance forced from the expiring Saviour the
bitter cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
the words were chosen from the twenty-second Psalm, (ver.
1,) which contains a prophecy respecting his sufferings and
death so strikingly descriptive and historical. His last
dying breath came forth with the voice of prayer, “Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit ;" words taken from
Ps. xxxi. 5. The soldiers, who brake the limbs of the
malefactors that were crucified with Jesus, refrained from
breaking his, seeing that he was already dead; and all this
(John xix. 36) in accordance with the symbolic and pro-
phetic passover-lamb, not a bone of which was to be broken,
Ex. xii. 46. One of the soldiers pierced his side with a
spear, (John xix, 34, seq.,) and this was in fulfilment of a
passage of Scripture in Zechariah, (xii. 10,) which says,
They shall look on him whom they have pierced." And
can the evangelists and the Saviour thus appeal to the
Scripture in confirmation and illustration of all these cir-
cumstances, and yet the Scripture contain no predictions re-
specting Christ, and no declarations on which we can rely?
Can the Saviour himself, in his highest agony, and with his
expiring breath, have expressed his feelings by quoting the
language of a book unworthy of our credence and our con-
fidence ?-But I desist, lest I should be thought to appeal
more to feeling than to argument. Certain it is, that no
፡፡
SECT. XIX.
321
RESULT.
book could be thus honoured by Jesus, in which he had not
the highest and most entire confidence.
SECT. XIX. Result.
AND now, what shall we say to these things? The New
Testament not only appeals to the Old in the way of illus-
tration, and for the sake of comparison, but every where
appeals to it as the word of God, as the testimony of his
Holy Spirit, as the oracles of his prophets, as the rule of
life, as the foundation of the spiritual building which Christ
came to erect. Its predictions, its precepts, its narrations,
are interwoven with every part of what apostles and evan-
gelists have written. It is incorporated with the very ma-
terial of religious thought, in the minds of all the New Test.
writers. Even when they do not quote, and do not seem,
as the hasty reader might suppose, at all to allude to the Old
Testament, its ideas and its idioms are incorporated with all
their productions. In the Apocalypse, John has not made
one formal quotation of Scripture; yet no book of the New
Testament, as has already been remarked, so abounds in and
overflows with the spirit of the Old Testament, as this book.
The writer had, if I may be allowed the expression, steeped
himself in the ancient Scriptures, until he was thoroughly
imbued with them. I know not how I can better express
my views of the style of his production, than in this way.
And so it is, indeed, with all the evangelists, with Paul,
with Peter, and with James. It is impossible to conceal
this, or withdraw it from sight. It is in vain to deny it be-
fore any candid reader. The most sophisticated reasoning
cannot even make out an ingenious case to the contrary.
What shall we say, then? What can we say less than what
the Saviour himself said to the Jews? "Had ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his WRITINGS, how shall ye believe my
words?" John v. 46, 47. It is in vain to make the effort
to avoid this. The expedient to which Mr. Norton re-
sorts, in substituting spoke for wrote, and words for writ-
Τ
322
SECT. XIX.
RESULT.
ings, is one which shows the desperate nature of the
cause which he is labouring to defend. On this ground,
no declaration of Scripture any where, in any passage, on
any subject, is exempt from arbitrary alteration, at the will
and pleasure of every reader. Of course, the Scripture is
not the rule of our faith, but our faith is the rule of Scrip-
ture. Much more ingenuous are those who come out at
once and say, "The light within us is more perfect than the
light without us, and much easier seen and apprehended;
we know of no other supreme rule but this. Scripture it-
self must be tried by this test; and we accord to it our
respect and regard only so far as we deem that its decisions
agree with our own. They say this openly; while Mr.
Norton only acts it, but will not venture to say it.
">
"On
Why may we not ask, then, in the words of Jesus, “If
ye believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe the
words of him concerning whom Moses wrote ?" He has de-
cided that this cannot be. The authority of this decision
rests not on my reasonings, but on his own words. He has
said of the Old Testament Scriptures, that the sum of the
whole is, that we should "love God with all the heart, and
our neighbour as ourselves," Matt. xxii. 37, seq.
these two commandments," moreover, for such are his words,
"hang all the Law and the Prophets;" Matt. xxii. 40.
That is, this is the very sum and substance of the Old Tes-
tament. And are these commands, then, to be regarded as
nullities? Are these in their nature repealable? Can they
be set aside? If not, then Jesus has sanctioned the books
which contain them. If you deny this, then you charge him
with prevarication, or with ignorance. I cannot believe
him to be impeachable on either ground.
Did Jesus suspect or call in question the moral efficacy or
influence of these writings? Let us listen to him, in the pa-
rable of Lazarus. The rich man in hell requests father
Abraham that he would send Lazarus to his five brethren
yet living, to warn them, so that they might not come into
that place of torment. Abraham's reply is, "They have
Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." The rich
man still urges his request: "Nay," says he, "but if one
went unto them from the dead, they would repent." And
what does the father of the faithful, amid the glories of the
SECT. XX.
CONCLUSION.
323
upper world where no darkness is, answer? He says, "If
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded, though one rose from the dead;" Luke xvi. 23,
seq. The Old Test. Scriptures, in the estimation of Jesus,
(for surely he does not put words into Abraham's mouth
which he would not adopt as his own,) were more efficient
in the moral instruction and conviction and conversion of
men, than the rising of one from the dead would be, who
should lay before them all the joys of the blessed and the
torments of the damned.
Th
Shall this book, then, be spurned away, and treated as a
collection of fables, of barbarous maxims, and of trifling
ritual ordinances? This is the question. It is this very
question which lies between the declarations of the Saviour
and his apostles on the one hand, and the scepticism of so-
called Rationalists on the other. Whom shall we believe?
There is no compromise in this case. He that is not for
Christ is assuredly against him. He who rejects his au-
thority on this point, virtually rejects it on all others. Christ
was either in the right or in the wrong, as to the estimate
which he put upon the Old Testament. It is impossible to
doubt what that estimate was, after the evidence which has
come before us. If he was in the right, then is the Old
Testament a book of Divine authority-the ancient revela-
tion of God. If he was in the wrong, then we can put no
confidence in his teaching. He might be in the wrong,
with respect to every command and opinion which he gave;
and of consequence the whole system of Christianity is no-
thing more than an airy figure moving in the mirage, or one
which floats along upon the splendid mists which sur-
round it.
SECT. XX. Conclusion.
THE history of the Canon, from its inceptive state down
to its completion, has been traced. We have seen, that
when testimony and historical circumstances are fully taken
into view, there is no good reason to doubt, that the scrip-
tural Canon was completed during the reign of Artaxerxes,
1 2
324
SECT. XX.
CONCLUSION.
i. e. during the time of Malachi, the last of the prophets.
Somewhat more than 400 years old, then, were all the
books of the Jewish Scriptures, in the time of Christ and of
his apostles. The division of those books, with appropriate
names for each portion, we can trace to nearly 200 years
B. C., if not still higher. That division must have been
definite and well known. No new books could be added,
after it was completed, without the knowledge and concur-
rence of at least the priesthood among the Jews. That
state of parties-Pharisee and Sadducee-who differed on
the very point of exclusive Scripture authority, rendered it
impossible for either party to augment or diminish the books
of Scripture. The state of party can be traced back to a
time beyond the period of the Maccabees, and probably the
origin of it should be dated at a period not long after the
closing of the Canon. We are of necessity compelled to
admit, that the sacred books among the Jews have been un-
changeable since that period. Sirachides, Philo, Josephus,
the New Test. writers, know of no other scriptural books
than those which we now have. The appeal to such books,
in all their writings, is limited to these; for when Josephus
comes to later history than what they contain, he tells us
expressly, that the other books to which he appeals are en-
tirely of a different character and credit from those which
belong to the Old Test. Scriptures.
Besides, Josephus has told us how many books there were
in the Hebrew Canon. We have traced these in quotations
made by him, and Philo, and Sirachides, and the New Test.
writers; and with still more certainty in the lists of indivi-
dual books, by Melito, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary,
Athanasius, Jerome, Rufinus, the Talmud, and others. We
find them to accord with our present Old Testament. There
cannot be any doubt left, then, that the Jews of our Saviour's
time did receive and regard these books as of Divine origin.
And inasmuch as Christ and his apostles have never inti-
mated, directly or indirectly, that the Jews were in an error
with regard to this subject, what grounds have we for sup-
posing that they were? Christ and his apostles every where
quote, appeal to, and use the Jewish Scriptures, as of Di-
vine and paramount authority and obligation.
What then of him who rejects them as a part of our pre-
SECT. XX.
325
CONCLUSION.
sent Scriptures? He follows not the example of Christ, or
of his apostles. Nay, more; he acts in direct opposition
to their authority and example. In so doing, as far as in
him lies, he repeals or abrogates the decisions of the Gos-
pel. Mr. Norton has averred, that no enlightened per-
son can be a Christian, and admit the claims made in be-
half of the Jewish Scriptures. He has given his reasons
for such an opinion. I have come to a very different
conclusion, viz. that no enlightened person can well be
deemed a Christian, who rejects the claims made in be-
half of the Old Testament. I have given my reasons for
it. If obedience and submission to the decisions of Christ
and his apostles be an essential ingredient of Christianity,
then is my conclusion inevitable, in case I have duly shown
that Christ and his apostles did receive the Old Testament
Scriptures as Divine and authoritative. If this be not fully
shown, then must I despair of ever seeing any point estab-
lished in sacred criticism, either in respect to facts or opinions.
There is not a circumstance in all the history of true religion,
appertaining to ancient times, that is capable of more abso-
lute demonstration than this.
I have now done this part of my work, and must commit
the whole to the judgment of the reader. I ask neither
more nor less of him, than to scan the whole process of
proof with a scrutinizing eye; to weigh well the historical
evidence, which we must receive, or else reject all ancient tes-
timony; and then to decide with candour, and without pre-
judice or partiality. I have a right to ask for so much, in
respect to such a cause. It is no light matter what judg-
ment we form on a subject of such high and holy import as
this. It is a case in which direct demand is made upon us
for submission and deference to Christ and his apostles;
and we cannot thrust it aside. The simple and ultimate
question is, Are we to admit their authority and example,
or to gainsay the one, and shun an imitation of the other?
326
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
SECT. XXI. Remarks in regard to the conscientious scruples
of those who have doubts and difficulties as to the authen-
ticity of some Old Testament Books.
It is one thing to reject the Old Testament en masse,
without paying any deference to the declarations and opin-
ions of Christ and the apostles; it is another and very dif-
ferent one merely to doubt whether some two or three books
of our present Old Testament belong properly to the Canon,
or did belong to it in the time of our Saviour. The first
class reject it on account of the many and (as they allege)
incredible miracles which it relates; on account of the im-
perfection and contradictions and incongruities to be found
in its history; because of the burdensome and trivial rites
and ceremonies which it enjoins; because of the very im-
perfect morality in respect to some important matters which
it inculcates; and because of the violations of the law of
love which it commands, and of the cruelty and spirit of re-
venge which it breathes forth. They find no other evidence
of prediction, even in the leading prophets, than the shrewd
conjectures of sagacious men about the future, or the pa-
triotic hopes and expectations which are breathed forth in
the language of impassioned poetry. The Old Testament
is, with them, merely an undistinguishing Collectaneum
of the remains of Jewish literature down to the time of An-
tiochus Epiphanes, styled sacred or holy because the sub-
ject of holy things so often comes into view, and because
the pragmatism* of the writers so often introduces the pro-
vidence and decrees of the Godhead, in order to account for
this and that event. And as to Christ and his apostles, they
allege that every thing was done in the way of accommoda-
tion to Jewish views and feelings. These teachers did not
mean to excite the jealousy or hatred of the Jews, by con-
tradicting or opposing any of their capricious notions or
superstitious conceits. Hence they often acted and spoke
Kaτà σνуKATÁρaou, or in the way of accommodation or con-
Ga
T
T
*I use this word in the usual German critical sense. Pragmatism, in a
historian, would be any undertaking to account for cortain facts. His
simplo business as a historian is to relate facts; and so pragmatism and
pragmatic, thus employed, become very significant.
SECT. XXI.
A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
327
descension to their countrymen. And the notions of the
latter about the Scriptures were of the extreme kind, so
that the former felt obliged to spare the mention of those
things respecting these books, which would wound the feel-
ings of the Jews.
To this class principally the preceding pages have been
devoted. I cannot quit my subject, however, without say-
ing a few things to the second class, i. e. to those who only
doubt of some two or three books of the Old Testament, but
believe in the canonical authority of the rest, and rely upon
the ordinary considerations that are alleged in favour of it.
It seems hardly necessary to say, that this latter class
may consist not only of sincere and earnest inquirers, but,
as I would hope and trust, of sincere Christians. En-
lightened ones they may also be, in respect to most other
subjects of a religious nature; but in regard to this, I
must think that they have taken but partial views of the
matter.
If the Old Testament stands justly chargeable with all
the things which are objected to it, by the first class above
named, then indeed we might safely conclude that it is not
a Divine book. If Christ and the apostles looked on the
Hebrew Scriptures in that light in which some recent cri-
tics place them, how could they possibly refrain from adver-
tising the Jews of the great error and superstition which they
fostered? As public teachers, bound to be faithful and
thorough, how could they acquiesce in such views of a book
that contains, if we may trust Mr. Norton and others, many
things unworthy of God, and subversive of his justice, his
equity, and his compassion, not to speak of incongruities,
and trifling rites and ceremonies. Above all, how could
Jesus, and Paul, and Peter, and John, leave the Christian
church to feel under obligation to hold such a book as the
Old Testament sacred, even after they had renounced all
allegiance to the rites and forms of the Mosaic Law? Cer-
tain it is, that Christ and his apostles combated and refuted
many of the Jewish notions, both of a doctrinal and a prac-
tical nature. How came they to spare this substantial and
fundamental error, (if it be an error,) not only without a
word of correction and admonition, but even to do as the
Jews did in respect to their Scriptures, i. e. to appeal to
328
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
them as Divine and authoritative, and thus to encour-
age and persuade all their disciples to follow their ex-
ample?
For myself I see no satisfactory way in which these ques-
tions can be answered. I must put them to the minds and
consciences of all who profess to reverence Christianity as
a religion from God, and I must leave them to make out an
answer as best they may.
But to the scruples of some minds about this or that par-
ticular book-to doubts whether this or that was a part of
the Canon sanctioned by Christ and the apostles-while, at
the same time, there is a ready deference to their authority
in all cases where persons in this state can see it to be
clearly shown, it would be unreasonable and disrespectful
not to pay some ready and cheerful attention. Luther re-
jected the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse from his
Canon, as we have seen above; but Luther had no doubt of
the Divine authority of the New Testament as a whole,
with this exception. He also admitted the Old Testament
to the same rank. Now some other Christian, in the like
spirit, may admit the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms;
but he might possibly reject Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Can-
ticles; or at least he might deem it doubtful whether these
books ought to be ranked with those. Of such an one I
could easily say that I regarded him as a Christian, if his
demeanour and his principles in other respects were such as
become this character. If he had no dark spirit of scepticism
as to the books of Scripture in general, or as to revelation
in general, but accorded to it a sincere and hearty belief,
then I could easily suppose, that his head was rather in
fault than his heart, (if indeed he be in fault,) and I should
feel it my duty rather to labour to enlighten his mind, than
to reprove the state of his feelings.
With such I suppose myself, at present, to be concerned;
and to them I must take the liberty to address a few con-
siderations.
wh
J
That there are peculiar difficulties in respect to the books
just named, I confess myself often to have felt, as well as
they. It is difficult to account for it, how the book of
Esther could be written even by a pious Jew who was un-
inspired, and yet this book relates events of a most sur-
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
329
-
prising nature-deliverances of the most extraordinary kind
-without one recognition of the hand of Providence here,
or even once mentioning the name of God. This is almost
the only book in the Old Testament, which has completely
escaped the charge by the Neologists of pragmatism on the
part of the writer. And besides this, some of the circum-
stances related in it are certainly peculiar. I have al-
ready mentioned them, (p. 159, seq.,) but I must beg leave
again to bring some of them into view, in the present con-
nexion. That 75,000 Persians should have been killed by
the Jews in one day, apparently without any loss of life on
their part (Esth. ix. 16); that Haman should, by proclama-
tion diffused all over the kingdom, give them nearly a year's
notice of the attack to be made upon them (Esth. iii. 7,
seq.); appears, I acknowledge, to present some historical
paradoxes of no easy and ready solution. And in view of
such matters, it would be natural for the doubters to whom
I now refer, to put back the question upon me, How do
you satisfy your own mind, that these things do not entitle
us to reject the book as not canonical?
I feel bound to meet this question, and am ready to do it,
so far as I may be able.
Let me say, then, first of all, that I do not regard the ques-
tion respecting the canonical authority of this book, in the
same light, in all respects, as I should the question whether
the Pentateuch, the Psalms, or Isaiah, is canonical. The
book of Esther teaches us no doctrine, in a direct way; it
gives us expressly no moral precepts. If it were struck out
of the Canon to-day, not a single doctrine or ethical principle
would be changed, or be found lacking. It is in vain to say,
that all the books of Scripture are alike, or are alike profit-
able to us, although they may all be inspired. The exegesis
that can draw from 1 Chron. i.-ix.—which is a register of
names in a series of genealogies; or from Ezra ii. and Neh.
vii. (lists of those who returned from the captivity); as much
instruction and edification as from the ten commandments,
or from the history of the creation, or from many of the
Psalms, or the Proverbs, or the prophecies, may be consist-
ent with piety, and sometimes may even spring from ex-
cessive notions about the inspiration of the Bible and of the
peculiarly holy nature of all its books. But intellect and
AL
330
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
reason never can find any satisfaction in such interpretation
of the Scriptures; if indeed it may be called interpretation,
and not caricature. The Bible is a book that, we may take
it for granted, was made to satisfy the intellect and en-
lightened reason, as well as devotional feeling. It is only
when we misconceive of the design and object of any par-
ticular part of it, that it fails to satisfy the intellectual and
rational demands of our nature.
I set it down as certain, that inasmuch as the Jewish dis-
pensation itself was one of types and shadows-a prepara-
tion for good things to come-a schoolmaster to lead us unto
Christ-and inasmuch as all that was in its nature cere-
monial, ritual, temporary, appropriate only to the Jews as
one and a peculiar nation, was to be superseded and abolish-
ed when Christ should come, so there might be parts, even
many parts of the Old Testament, which would cease to have
any more immediate importance and value, whenever a
Christian revelation, by which the will of God is perfectly
made known, should supervene. It has supervened; and
that which once was perfectly adapted to the exigencies of
the Jewish nation, and (although " a ministration of con-
demnation") was still glorious, (2 Cor. iii. 9,) "has now no
glory by reason of the glory that excelleth,” (ver. 10,) i. e. by
reason of the Gospel.
MA
But be it so, that this glory is now comparatively like
that of the stars after the sun has made his appearance; yet
in the twilight of Judaism the stars did shine, and the same
stars still radiate light, although we may not easily discern
it when we undertake to look for it by sun-light. There is
not even a genealogy in the Old Testament which did not
once possess importance. It settled all questions of inherit-
ances; it marked the bounds of property; it designated the
right to this or that privilege. There is not a narration in
the Old Testament which had not once its use. Examine
the story of Er and Onan, and of Judah's connexion with
his daughter-in-law, Tamar; which surely is among the nar-
rations that at first sight we should be inclined to spare, and
even be prone to wonder, perhaps, how it came there. Yet
in Matt. i. 3, we find the fruit of that unlawful connexion,
Pharez and Zara, in the genealogical register of the_evan-
gelist. It is one link in counting the genealogy of Joseph
P
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
331
from Abraham downwards. So it is, also, as to the story of
the Levite and his concubine 'in Judg. xix. The minute
account given of the journey of this couple, seems, at first,
to be somewhat strange, and perhaps even revolting to our
feelings, considering how we are taught by the gospel to re-
gard concubinage. But still, the horrid murder committed
upon the poor woman by forcing her to gratify the lusts of
a multitude of men successively, was the direct cause of a
civil war, in which the Benjamites, who had committed the
crime in question, became nearly extinct. And so I might
go on with all the narrations of particular occurrences-the
family histories-contained in the Old Testament. A deep
interest they once had to many. Admonition, too, may be
drawn from most of them. It is with most or all of them,
as Paul says it is with the ancient history of the Israelites in
the desert, "These things were our ensamples, and they
were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the
world have come;" 1 Cor. x. 11.
Who now will venture to say, that the histories of the Old
Testament are not of a different tenor from any other that
were ever written by any of the heathen nations? First of
all, they are throughout of a religious cast. The Hebrews,
whoever administers the government, are always under a
theocracy. Providence guides, admonishes, rewards, and
punishes. God is the all and in all. Then, secondly, the
Hebrew historians have no favourite heroes, about whom
romance throws its gorgeous vestments. The faults and
follies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses even, Saul, David,
Solomon, Asa, Joash, Hezekiah, Josiah-and all whose his-
tory is minutely written, are not concealed. Here are no
mythic and romantic personages-not any one even like the
Cyrus of Xenophon. David and Solomon, at the very zenith
of all that was splendid and commanding in royalty, in tri-
umphs, in wisdom, in riches, in honours, are placed, at times,
in attitudes that cover them with darkness and subject them
to degradation. And is there nothing in all this practical.
acknowledgment of God's providence and retributive justice
exhibited by the history of the Hebrews, nothing in the ex-
posure of the crimes and vices of the most renowned kings
and ethical philosophers, which is adapted to our instruc-
332
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
tion? Well may we say with Paul, "They serve for our
admonition."*
When I read the Old Testament, then, and there meet
with genealogies which have no concern with the Gentiles,
and family histories that must have been particularly in-
teresting only to family relatives; when I peruse all the de-
tail of the Levitical rites and ceremonies, and all the archi-
tectural details of the tabernacle and the temple; or when I
read predictions respecting Edom, and Moab, and the Am-
monites, and the Philistines; if I am tempted to ask, for
what purpose were these things recorded in a book of pub-
lic and permanent instruction, I then ask myself how the
Bible would have appeared to us, in regard to the matter of
credibility, in case all such things had been omitted? The
only answer I can make is, that it would have assumed a
mythic appearance-like a selection and dressing up of
per-
sons and things in the way of romance. If all actors are
paragons of piety or of wickedness; if all historical circum-
stances pertain only to choice events of a thrilling nature;
if all prediction be only Messianic or eulogistic of the church;
then would such a book wear the air of having been written
by designing men, who meant to invest all personages and
events with a costume splendid and attractive. As it is
now, all looks like veritable reality. Human nature is, and
continues to be, human. In some cases great virtues are
conspicuous, not unmingled with faults; in others great
M
*Most instructive is it to compare the biographies written by moderns
with those contained in the Old Testament. If a man be distinguished for
great abilities that are mainly directed towards the good of his country, he
is extravagantly praised as a hero, and his crimes are palliated or omitted.
Ho is held up to admiration as a marvellous horo throughout. Of this we
have a notable example in D'Aubigne's vindication of Oliver Cromwell,
to say nothing of Carlyle's extravagant, undiscriminating culogics. When
a religious author and historian can say, as D'Aubigne does of tho Pro-
tector's conduct in Ireland "Should he employ a few weeks with the
sacrifico of 5000 mon, or several years, with the loss of perhaps 20,000?
Having weighed overy thing, he decided for the hand of iron. That hand
is never amiable; but yet there are cases in which it is salutary. In
further apologizing for crucl butcheries perpetrated by the hero, tho his-
torian says that Cromwell " followed the most skilful course to arrive at a
prompt and universal pacification." So then it is right to do ovil that good
may come. It is the most skilful course to massacro thousands of human
beings in order to arrive at a prompt pacification. It is high time that
such one-sided biographies bo eschewed. D.
""
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
333
vices, with occasional touches of alleviation by reason of
social or patriotic qualities. In a word, the lawgiver com-
mands; the historian relates circumstances interesting to
himself, or to the times in which he lived, or useful to all,
according to the nature of the case; the prophet predicts
things near, first and principally, then things far distant, such
as pertained to the Messianic times; the genealogist gives in
his register: the Psalmist pours out the language of devotion
in the sweetest and most engaging manner; the lover of
ethical proverbs records his discriminating thoughts ;—and
all this makes up a HEBREW BIBLE. There is something in it
to interest all, to allure all, to do good to all; at least this was
so at the time when it was written. How can I doubt that all
this is a reality? No farce is acted here. There is not a
fictitious personage upon the stage. All is reality; and
such reality as early ages and the state of society would
seem to have afforded. I become impressed more and more
with the idea, that here is no imposture. If it were a de-
scription merely of the fortunate or blessed islands, of an
Elysium, of the garden of the Hesperides, of some El Do-
rado ever hoped and wished for but never actually found-
then my suspicions would be instinctively awakened. But
now, as it actually is—how exceedingly different is the Old
Testament from every thing of this kind!
d
If I allow, then, as I readily do, that many parts of the
Old Testament have now but a very small and subordinate
interest to me, in a doctrinal or ethical respect, yet am I far
from saying, that those facts are of no value, much less that
they have never been valuable. I have pointed out their
value. They aid in the authentication of the book. They
lead me to the persuasion, that what it describes is a reality.
and not romance. They show how God's chosen people
lived, and thought, and acted, in public and in private life.
They present human nature as it has been and is, and not
simply draw a picture of what it would be in a state of
per-
fection. Why may I not conclude, with the apostle Paul,
that even now "all Scripture is profitable"?
But the Jewish dispensation has passed away, and all
that was ritual, and ceremonial, and merely external, and
temporary, and peculiar to one nation only, has gone with
it. All Old Test. Scripture which is exclusively occupied
334
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
with things of this nature, has ceased to have any other
interest for us, than that which I have stated above. In
this light we may and ought to regard it. Its day has gone
by. But it has had its day, and its usefulness, and its inter-
est. Be it that I must now look upon it as I do upon the
burning of incense, and the sacrifice of goats and bullocks,
and the washings and purifications of old; yet even all
these had their use and significancy. Nay, are they not
still symbolic, even to us, of the great atoning sacrifice, and
of that purification of our minds which is required by the
gospel?
In such a light would I place those parts of the Old Tes-
tament toward which the scorn of some, the severe satire of
others, and the wonder and perplexity of many, are directed.
Enough that they once had their usefulness and their inter-
est in the then existing church; enough that they are still
far from being altogether useless to us. I honour them as
connected with a dispensation that was a type and shadow
of the present.
And while their light is now hardly seen,
by reason of the sun which pours its flood of glory upon us,
I call to mind, that when the ancient twilight was, they
shone and twinkled in the sky, and gave sufficient light to
guide the traveller on his way.
But let us return to the book of Esther. We have diffi-
culties here; but are they invincible?
The fact that the feast of Purim has come down to us,
from time almost immemorial, (clearly it was an ancient
custom in the days of Philo and Josephus,) proves as cer-
tainly that the main events related in the book of Esther
happened, as the declaration of Independence and the cele-
bration of the fourth of July prove that we separated from
Great Britain, and became an independent nation. And if
such events, in the main, as the book of Esther relates, did
actually happen, they were of the deepest interest to the
Jewish nation. The book of Esther was an essential docu-
ment to explain the feast of Purim. Hence the Jews have
always had it read when that feast is kept. In this light,
no one can well regard it as unimportant.
As to most of the circumstances respecting Ahasuerus's
extravagancies and follies, there will be nothing improbable
in the story, to any one who will read the history of Mo-
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
335
hammed Aga Khan, not long since on a throne in the same
country.
As to the fact, that Haman gave the Jews eleven months'
warning of his assault, I have already discussed the subject
in part, p. 160, seq., above. The thing looks improbable,
at first. Yet when we read Esther iii., we see that Haman,
like others of his time, was the slave of superstition, as well
as cruelty. He must needs cast lots, in so great an affair,
in order to hit upon the lucky day. In this way, an appeal
to his gods must of course be made.
"He who disposes of
the lot" ordered it, that it should fall as late in the year as
it could well be. Thus the Jews had time to prepare for
the assault, or to remove from the country, at their option.
Haman, although doubtless dissatisfied with the falling out
of the lot, could not venture to change a matter thus so-
lemnly determined by an appeal to his gods.
The number slain by the Jews remains-75,000. Ex-
traordinary it doubtless is, and it must still appear to be so.
But it is not impossible. Improbable, I would concede, it
might appear to be, at first view; but, as I have stated be-
fore, if one calls to mind, that the Persian court was under
the control of Mordecai and Esther; that the Jews were
widely diffused at that time over the Persian empire; that
the Persian magistracy aided them; and that a bitter hatred
existed between the Jews and many of their neighbours,
the improbability of the thing is greatly diminished. And
with respect to the allegation that no Jews were killed or
wounded in this terrible rencontre, it is true that no mention
is made of any harm on the part of the Jews. But I do
not deem this circumstance at all conclusive to prove that
none was done. Luke, so circumstantial in his narrative of
Christ's infancy, says not a word of the massacre at Beth-
lehem; nor does Josephus record it. The author of the
book of Esther is wholly intent upon the victory and the
deliverance of the Jews. The result of the encounter he
relates, viz. the great loss and humiliation of Persian ene-
mies. But how much it cost to achieve this victory, he
does not relate. Had he been simply a historian professing
to give a full account of matters, he would have told this
part of the story. But as he is only showing why the feast
of Purim is kept as a day of joy and gladness, it was hardly
336
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
}
+4
to his purpose to tell the story of Jews who might have
been wounded or destroyed on this occasion. It is the main
result only which he throws into prominent notice. And
here he leaves the matter. We can scarcely doubt that many
Jews were killed or wounded. But why need we discredit
the historian as to what he has communicated, because he
has not told this part of the story?
That the writer has said nothing of the providence of
God, in the whole matter of deliverance from dangers so
imminent, all, as I have acknowledged, will concede to be
extraordinary, who are conversant with the Hebrew Scrip-
tures. But it is almost as extraordinary, in case we suppose
the writer to be uninspired, as it is if we regard him as
inspired. It is without any parallel among the writings of
the ancient Jews, whether sacred or not, Canticles only ex-
cepted. The confidence which Mordecai shows, (Esth. iv.
14,) that the Jews will experience "enlargement and de-
liverance" in some other way, if Esther should refuse her
interposition, plainly shows, either that he had had some Di-
vine monition of this, or else that he relied on God's pro-
mises to the fathers respecting their posterity. But why the
writer does not plainly and openly recognise the hand of
God, in all that happens, is still a difficulty that we know
not well how to remove. Was the author a foreigner, I
mean a Jew born and dwelling in a foreign land; then why,
in case he wrote a book which he wished his heathen neigh-
bours to read, did he not bring the doctrine of a special
providence to view? Was he a native and an inhabitant of
Palestine, how could he so depart from the manner of all
the historians of his country? But as this difficulty presses
almost as hardly upon the book, when considered as unin-
spired, as it does when we consider it as inspired, we do
not seem to obtain any serious relief from our perplexity
by denying the canonical authority of the book. There
cannot be a moment's question, whether the author is a Jew,
sympathizing in the highest degree with his nation, and
fully believing in their title to precedence over heathen na-
tions. These things lie upon the face of the whole narra-
tion. The impression of a special providence, which is made
by the book, is a thing that admits of no doubt.
mains of difficulty is, a departure so marked from the usual
What re-
Kay
*
.
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
337
style and manner of the Hebrew histories. We might con-
jecture various reasons for this; but what security could we
give, that our conjectures would be well founded? Better
to let the matter remain where it is, better to confess the
difficulty and not make any attempt to conceal it, than to
indulge in mere idle conjectures. Why can we not rest a
matter about which we are in doubt, upon the authority of
Christ and of the apostles, as to admitting the claims of the
book before us to a place in the Canon? It was most
surely in the Canon which they have sanctioned.
I cannot conclude my remarks on the book of Esther with-
out saying, that nothing can be plainer than that, had the
work been supposititious, the writer would beyond all doubt
have been pragmatic in a more than usual degree, in order
to deceive his readers by the guise of piety. The present
character of the book proves, beyond all reasonable suspicion,
that it is not supposititious.
M
Jud
We come next to COHELETH, or, as we name it after the
fashion of the Greeks, ECCLESIASTES.
The ancient Jews doubted somewhat about admitting this
book among those which might be indiscriminately read by
all classes. Several of the later Jewish writers confess this,
and variously state the reasons. In Vayyikra Rabba, § 28,
f. 161, c. 2, it is said, "Our wise men were desirous to keep
back (or conceal, b) the book of Coheleth, because they
found in it words which might lead to heresy." The Tal-
mud speaks of some "who found contradictions in it" D
♫s 11, inclining this way and that). Other Jewish writers
have objected, that "it teaches the eternity of the world."
But still, the party who admitted the book without scruple,
have always been predominant, because, as the Talmud
(Shabbath, fol. 30, c. 2) asserts,
111 nban, i. e. the
beginning and end of it are the words of the Law. In other
words, its main doctrine is accordant with the other Scrip-
On this basis the Jews have always remained, with
the exception of individuals sceptically inclined. Some such
have I seen among them, who maintained that the book
teaches the doctrines of Epicurus.
tures.
:
Not exactly this, but not very unlike it, is the prevailing
opinion of Neologists. The book was written, they say, by
a sceptic; at least, by one who doubted or denied the im-
Z
338
SECT. XXI.
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO
mortality of the soul and a future retribution. By "the
spirit's returning to God who gave it," (xii. 7,) they say, is
meant only that God, who gave the natural breath or spirit,
withdraws it and our death ensues. And all the declarations
about retribution, they limit of course to the present world.
West
Of the justness and correctness of such an exegesis I am
not persuaded. The book begins with the most emphatic
declarations concerning the vanity and brevity of human
life, and the unsatisfying nature of all earthly good. It ex-
hibits the truth of this in the most vivid manner. It ends
with the declaration, that the whole sum and conclusion of
the matters discussed is this, viz. "Fear God, and keep his
commandments; for this is the whole of man ;" i. e. it is that
for which man was created, and is his all for which he lives,
or ought to live; Ecc. xii. 13, 14. This, which is the
literal meaning of the Hebrew, is much stronger and more
expressive than our common English version, "This is the
whole duty of man. But why should men fear God and
keep his commandments? The writer gives us the reason
in the next and last verse of the book, "For God shall bring
into judgment every work, with every secret thing, whether
it be good, or whether it be evil." What can this mean, if
it do not mean a future judgment? The writer often avers,
in the body of his work, that in the present world the dis-
tinctions between virtue and vice oftentimes are not made, or
are not discernible by us; and of course, that the retributions
of virtue and vice are not made here. If not-where are
they to be made? I do not see but one answer to this
question; and that answer bids me to believe, that the
writer had a pious intention in writing the book.
Herder, Eichhorn, and others, have supposed the book to
be dialogistic, and that one of the colloquists is a sceptic.
In this way they solve the apparently sceptical sentiments
found in it. Others have supposed that Koheleth (mmp)
means assembly, and that the book is written as a representa-
tion of what passed in a company of ethical literati, in re-
gard to the summum bonum of life. They compare it to the
Arabic Mecamath, i. e. literary society. But with all this
we may dispense. A dialogue cannot be carried through,
without the greatest incongruity, in many cases; and the con-
flicting opinions of an assemblage of men is encumbered with
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
339
the same difficulty. There is a more obvious and natural
solution. The writer is one who had been through all
stages of doubt in respect to the chief good, and the end of
human life, and the doctrine of an overruling providence,
and of retributive justice. He tells us in the most frank
and impressive manner, the tenor and the drift of his cogi-
tations on these various subjects, while he was in doubt.
He tells us what he thought and said, in regard to them.
In so doing, he has disclosed many a sceptical thought which
passed through his mind. In all this, he has his eye upon
those who are in that doubting state. He sympathizes with
them, and lets himself down to their condition, so as to in-
terest them and get their ear. Then he tells them in serious
earnest of the vanity of human life, of the impossibility of
escaping retribution, and distinctly lets them know, that the
sum of all his thoughts and reflections, after passing through
all the stages of doubt and perplexity, is, that "the whole
of man [all in which he has any deep and lasting interest]
is to fear God and keep his commandments;" and the ground
of this conclusion is, that "all their actions, good or evil,
will assuredly be brought into judgment.
""
I need not stop here to say how much this book has been
misinterpreted by those, who had no true discernment of its
real tenor and design. Perhaps no book in the Bible, if we
except the Apocalypse, has suffered so much violence. All
its sceptical declarations have been tortured, until they
would confess thorough orthodoxy. Even the question
which the doubter asks, (iii. 21,) in order to impress the
idea that we have no certain knowledge of the future, viz.
"Who knoweth whether the spirit of a man goeth upward,
and the spirit of a beast downward?" (which assuredly
must be the meaning of the original Hebrew)-this question
has been turned into an argument to prove, that the spirit
of a man does go upward! So our translators seem to have
understood it; but so did not Luther and many others.
There is nothing, in short, which stands in the way of this
spiritualizing and analogical exegesis. It can make strenu-
ous orthodoxy even out of Koheleth's doubts and sceptical
musings. It can convert all the words of Job's occasional
impatience and excitement into meekness and unqualified
submission. In its crucible all ores are melted together,
z 2
340
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
and seemingly sublimated so as to form but one purified and
valuable substance.
When all is done and said, however, the understanding
and the reason remain to be satisfied. Nothing will stand
that does not compose these to peace. And why may we
not be satisfied, that Koheleth has given us a picture of all
the doubts and difficulties through which his mind had
passed, and then subjoined the final result? In these times,
we count those books very interesting and useful, in which
writers give us faithful pictures of their former infidelity or
scepticism, and then tell us that it was followed by an en-
tire conviction of the truth and the power of the gospel.
Two things are taught by this; the one, that scepticism
never satisfies and quiets the mind; the other, that deliver-
ance from it is the greatest of all good, as well as the high-
est duty. What forbade Koheleth to enter upon the like
method of instruction? There is, and always has been,
among reflecting and inquiring men, a class of minds to
which such a book is admirably adapted. It enters into all
their sympathies and views; it shows a familiar acquaint-
ance with them all, and ability to appreciate them in a feel-
ing manner; and finally it presents, in a strong and powerful
light, the necessity and the duty of "fearing God and keep-
ing his commandments." Had not this book been so much
abused, as to its exegesis, by commentators and preachers
who did not understand its plan, it might have been vastly
more useful to the church. As matters now are, the vio-
lence done to it by interpreters revolts the candid and in-
genuous mind, and turns many away from the book, because
they are led to despair of obtaining any thing satisfactory
from it. I would hope that the time is not far distant, when
we shall have some more enlightened views of this produc-
tion laid before our religious public, than have yet been
presented. When this shall be done, I think the doubts of
conscientious inquirers will be removed, and they will cheer-
fully accord to Koheleth a place in the Canon. Certain it
is that the book had such a place in the time of Christ and
the apostles. Whenever it shall be naturally interpreted,
and the plan of it fully understood, objections to it must
cease, except on the part of those who reject all revelation.
-
Last, but not least in point of difficulty, comes the book
T
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
341
of CANTICLES, or, as the Hebrews name it, the Song of
Songs, i. e. the Most Excellent Song.
A
The history of what has befallen this book, and how it
has been treated, would of itself occupy a volume of no in-
considerable extent. With one class, it is a book of a sym-
bolic and mysterious nature, full of real spirituality under
the images of fervent conjugal love. With another it is
altogether aphrodisiac or amatory, like some of Horace's
Odes, or Anacreon, or Tibullus, or Ovid's Art of Love.
Others choose a kind of middle path, supposing the design
is to commend chaste conjugal love, and to hold up in an at-
tractive light the advantages of monogamy in distinction
from polygamy.
Each of these classes have much to say,
in defence of their respective opinions. To canvass the
subject at length, is out of question here. Only a few things
that seem to be among the more important ones, can be dis-
cussed on the present occasion.
Amatory nearly all the German Neologists suppose it to
be. And considered as such, the book, I suspect, has had
more than its equal share of attention, in the way of illus-
trating its language and of unfolding its supposed amatory
scenes. Young adventurers are very apt to choose this
book as their theme. Ewald, Umbreit, Doepke, and others,
put their hands to it while young; and they seem to have
become rather shy of it since, as the book, on further con-
sideration, seems not altogether so plain and obvious as they
had once supposed. Those who regard it as a picture of
chaste monogamic affection, are fewer, and are less able to
make out, from the language of the book, the probability of
such a meaning, than the preceding class.
The scenery is
oriental. One must do violence to his own mind to get
away from the impression, that, if it is amatory at all, love
is the subject as it exists in a harem, rather than in con-
nexion with a single wife,
K
G
But, notwithstanding the confidence of not a few critics
of late, I would ask, Is it, was it originally, designed to be
regarded as amatory?
Herder, who seems rather to have taken the lead among
the recent critics in Germany that favour the amatory ex-
egesis, has boldly avowed his sentiments respecting it. "The
whole book," he says, "is love, love. It begins with a kiss,
342
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
and ends with a tender sigh." And so Eichhorn and many
others, who have followed on in this train. Even in an-
cient times, the Jews had some difficulty with the contents
of Canticles. Origen (Prol. ad Cant.) and Jerome (Præf.
ad Ezech.) inform us, that the Jews of their time withheld
this book, and also the beginning and ending of Ezekiel, and
the first part of Genesis, from persons under thirty years of
age, lest they should abuse them. Theodoret mentions, that
in his day there were some who denied its spiritual meaning.
Theodorus of Mopsuesta was condemned by the second
Synod of Constantinople for saying, that "he was ashamed
to read through the Canticles." In modern times, Clericus
and Grotius avowed sentiments not unlike to those of
Herder; and now this kind of exegesis has become the
reigning fashion.
Were one to come to the reading of this book, without
any previous knowledge of the habitudes of the Jews in con-
necting the conjugal relation and conjugal affection with
religious subjects, and without any knowledge of the extent
to which this is carried in the Eastern countries, I should
doubt whether he would ever suspect the poem before us of
being a religious one. The name of God, or any reference
to him, does not once occur in the whole book. From be-
ginning to end is apparently the language of love; and this
without any explanation. Yet, after all, there is ground to
doubt whether an interpretation that would convert the book
into an Idyll, or an amatory Eclogue, is well grounded.
(1.) First of all-in what part of the Hebrew Bible can
we find any composition of an analogous nature? All-every
Psalm, every piece of history, every part of prophecy-has a
religious aspect, and (the book of Esther perhaps excepted)
is filled with theocratic views of things. How came there
here to be such a solitary exception, so contrary to the genius
and nature of the whole Hebrew Bible? It is passing
strange, if real amatory Idylls are mingled with so much, all
of which is of a serious and religious nature. If the author
viewed his composition as being of an amatory nature, would
he have sought a place for it among the sacred books? And
subsequent redactors or editors-would they have ranked
it here, in case they had regarded it in the same light? I
can scarcely deem this credible. So different was the re-
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
343
verence of the Jews for their Scriptures from any mere ap-
probation of an amatory poem as such, that I must believe
that the insertion of Canticles among the canonical books,
was the result of a full persuasion of its spiritual import.
Had the case stood otherwise, why did they not introduce
other secular works, as well as this, into the Canon? Nor is
this estimate of the book a figment of allegorical exegesis,
introduced by Philo, and spread far and wide by Origen.
The book had a place in the Canon, at all events before the
time of the Maccabees; so that the judgment of very ancient
times, in the Jewish church, must have coincided with the
judgment in later times, of a large portion of Christian in-
terpreters.
(2.) It is now generally agreed, as Rosenmueller concedes,
(Proem. ad Comm. II.,) that all the parts of this book are
coherent and have a mutual relation, and that the same per-
sonages are introduced and continued as speakers through
the whole. The tone of the language, the style, the idiom,
the special formulas of expression, (such as adjuring by the
does and the goats, &c.,) are of the same tenor throughout.
From the same hand and mind the whole composition doubt-
less came, whoever the author was.
If now it is an amatory Eclogue, methinks there must be
some plan, some progress, some denouement, that is not only
appreciable by a critical reader, but discernible by an
ordinary reader. Yet such a plan has never been developed,
at least to any general satisfaction. One set of interpreters
(even such men as Velthusen, C. F. Ammon, Lindemann,
Umbreit, Michaelis, Jacobi) have endeavoured to make out
from the book, that it consists of amatory epistles addressed
by Solomon to a shepherd's beautiful wife; who retains,
however, her fidelity and remains true to her husband. But
how is this any less than to say, that Solomon's amatory
effusions, designed for seduction, are incorporated with the
Holy Scriptures? No refutation of this is needed. Others
make the book a series of epithalamia on the marriage of
Solomon with Pharaoh's daughter; which, as it was an open
and palpable transgression of the law of Moses, does not
much mend the matter. This seems to be kindred with the
view which some recent critics (e. g. Lengerke) take of the
45th Psalm, viz. that it is an epithalamium on the marriage.
344
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI,
of Ahab with Jezebel, or (e. g. De Wette) of Xerxes with
some Jewess! Ewald finds in the book a beautiful country
girl, wandering in the pleasant fields of Engedi, seen, and
forcibly carried off, by king Solomon, who attempts to se-
duce her by his amatory poetry.. But what then are all the
tender expressions of affection on the part of the woman, in
i. 9—11; ii. 10—15; iii. 1-5, et al.? Bossuet found in
the book a pastoral drama of seven acts. And these are not
a tithe of the conceits which have been thrown out before
the public, in regard to the work before us.
How difficult it is to make out any plan of an Eclogue,
these perpetual changes and variations of opinion may serve
to show. But let us go, for a moment, to the book itself.
At the outset we find the fair one in the harem of the king's
palace, exulting in the love of Solomon. Then (i. 7, seq.)
we find her in the country tending flocks, and her lover a
shepherd. But this shepherd has a domicile, whose beams
are cedar, and the rafters fir (i. 17). Next, we find the lover
leaping among the mountains, and skipping among the hills
ii. 8. Then the fair one has lost her lover, and she goes
forth to seek him by night, and brings him back to the house
of her mother; iii. 1, seq. Next Solomon is coming out of
the wilderness, on a palankeen with sixty bearers; iii. 6, seq.
Next he is with his beloved on Lebanon; iv. 8. Again she
loses him, and goes out to seek him in the city, and is mal-
treated by the watch; v. 1, seq. Then we find him in the
garden of spices, (vi. 1, seq.,) where she meets him, and they
go to the harem, where are threescore queens, and fourscore
concubines, and virgins without number, all of whom she
excels, and they praise her beauty; vi. 8, &c. Throughout
the whole, there is a mutual interchange of the language of
passionate affection, rarely interrupted by any other speakers.
A drama surely it is not, (although it has often been called
so,) unless a colloquy in which there is no change of speakers
is a drama. Besides, there is no plot, no denouement, no
crisis. The whole book is neither more nor less than the
seeming exchange of expressions of endearment, with locali-
ties and shifting of scenery adapted to call forth new and
lively emotions.
Is it the custom, now, of any nation to write amatory
eclogues in such a manner as this? If literally interpreted,
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
345
the whole book, while it has some beauties of description, is
still nothing less than a mass of incongruities, without plan,
and without the accomplishment of any thing saving the
outpourings of amorous desire.
It was on this ground, that Rosenmueller abandoned the
literal exegesis, although he was nearly alone in doing so
among the Neologists; Proem. III. I must confess for my-
self, that the words of the celebrated Rabbi, Aben Ezra, in
the Pref. to his Comm. on this book, appear to me very just
חלילה הלילה להיות שיר השירים בדברי חשק כי אם על : and striking
דרך משל ולולי גדל מעלותו לא נכתב בסוד כתבי הקדש ואין עליו מחלקת :
i. e. "Profanation! profanation! to place the Canticles
among amatory compositions; but every thing is said in
the way of allegory. And unless the dignity of it [the
book] had been great, it had not been incorporated with the
holy books. Nor is there any controversy respecting it."
He means to say, that this was not, and could not be, fairly
called in question. And why is he not in the right? "The
universal genius and method of the sacred books," says
Rosenmueller, "exclude the idea of admitting among them
songs about the ordinary love of man and woman."
<
But is there any example in the other Scriptures of al-
legorizing as to spiritual things, by employing such lan-
guage and such conceptions as are to be found in Canticles?
I answer yes, without hesitation. This sort of imagery is
frequent in the Old Testament, and in the New. Fre-
quently are the Jews charged with "going a whoring after
other gods;" Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6; Num. xv.
39; Deut. xxxi. 16; 2 Chron. xxi. 13; Ps. lxxiii. 27;
Ezek. vi. 9. Here the idea is, that they were affianced to
the true God, and could not seek after idols without incur-
ring the guilt of adultery. So God calls himself the hus-
band of the Jews; Isa. liv. 5. The nation of Israel is his
bride; Isa. Ixii. 4, 5. In Isa. 1. 1, Jehovah asks where is
the bill of divorcement on his part, that Israel have de-
parted from him. Jeremiah speaks of the espousals of Is-
rael, when young, in the wilderness. In Jer. iii. 1—11,
the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot and com-
mitting adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, two
long chapters (xvi., xxiii.) are occupied with carrying through
the imagery drawn from such a connexion. Hosca (i.—iii.)
346
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
recognises the same principle, and carries out the imagery
into much detail. These are merely specimens. Ps. xlv.
presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in the attitude of
a husband to the church, and celebrates the union between
the former and the latter. So in the New Testament this
imagery is very familiar; see Matt. ix. 15; John iii. 29;
Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2. Especially consult 2 Cor. xi. 2, and
Eph. v. 22-32, where the apostle has gone into much par-
ticularity as to the duties of the marriage relation, and then
avows, that he "speaks concerning Christ and the church."
Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the
apostles. If now this imagery is so often employed, in all
parts of the Bible, what forbids the idea, that there may be
one short book in which it occupies an exclusive place, and
is designed to symbolize the love that existed between God
and his ancient people or the church, or rather, which ought
to have existed on their part between God and his spirit-
ually regenerated people, who have become one (in a spirit-
ual sense) with him, and are for ever united to him? It
cannot be shown, a priori, that this is even improbable.
Yet I would not wish to represent the case, in regard to
Canticles, as different from what it really is. In other
books these conjugal allusions and relations are only occa-
sional and local, like other comparisons or similes intro-
duced merely for the sake of illustration or of vivid repre-
sentation; in Canticles they are sole and exclusive—the all
in all. Nor is there even a single reference to simple spi-
ritual things expressly given in the whole book. The reader
finds not a hint, that he is to interpret the book in this way.
It is this which constitutes the main strength of those who
assert the book to be altogether amatory in its character.
I should feel more pressed by this circumstance, did I not
know, that extensive usage of a similar nature exists, and
has for a long period existed, in the oriental countries, e. g.
among the Persians, the Turks, the Arabians, and the Hin-
doos. In the Musnavi of Jellaleddin, the poems of Jami,
and above all in the odes of Hafiz, are many productions
apparently of an amatory nature, which the Persians (there
are some dissenters) regard as expressive of the intercourse
of the soul with God. Hafiz, whose odes, as has been re-
marked, are sung to excite youth to pleasure, and chanted
t
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
347
to remind the aged of the raptures of Divine love, was a Sufi
devotee of the most strenuous cast. Hence his poetry is
regarded as expressive of the longings of the soul after God,
and of the enjoyment that results from communion with
him. The loves of Megnoun and Leilah have been cele-
brated in the Arabic, the Persian, and the Turkish lan-
guages; yet with the understanding, in all cases, that these
personages are mere allegorical characters-i. e. mere per-
sonifications of religious affection.
Mr. Lane, in his admirable work on the Modern Egyptians,
has given us an opportunity of presenting this subject a
little more in extenso, than I have yet done. While in Cairo
he attended the religious exercises of the Dervishes of the
highest order, on the birth-day of the prophet (Mohammed).
Of course the devotional exercises of that day were design-
ed to be of the very highest cast. A company of the leading
Dervishes met, by moonlight, and after a variety of chants
out of the Koran, they proceeded to the exercises thus de-
scribed by Mr. Lane.
"I shall here give a translation of one of these Moowesh'-shahhs,
which are very numerous, as a specimen of their style, from a book
containing a number of these poems, which I have purchased during
the present Moo'lid, from a durwee'sh who presides at many zikrs.
He pointed out the following pocm as one of those most common at
zikrs, and as one which was sung at the zikr which I have begun to
describe. I translate it verse for verse; and imitate the measure and
system of rhyme of the original, with this difference only, that the
first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with each other in the
original, but not in my translation.
With love my heart is troubled;
And mine cyc-lid hind'reth sleep:
My vitals are dissever'd;
While with streaming tears I weep.
My union seems far distant :
Will my love c'er meet mine eye?
Alas! Did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
By dreary nights I'm wasted:
Absence makes my hope expire:
My tears, like pearls, are dropping;
And my heart is wrapt in fire.
Whose is like my condition?
Scarcely know I remedy.
Alas! Did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh
348
SECT. XXL
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO
O turtle-dove! acquaint me
Wherefore thus dost thou lament ?
Art thou so stung by absence?
Of thy wings deprived, and pent?
He saith, 'Our griefs are equal :
Worn away with love, I lie.'
Alas! Did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
O First and Everlasting!
Show thy favour yet to me;
Thy slave, Ahh' mad El-Bek'ree,*
Hath no Lord excepting Thec.
By Ta'-Ha', the great Prophet!
Do thou not his wish deny.
Alas! Did not estrangement
Draw my tears, I would not sigh.
:
I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the simi-
larity of these songs to that of Solomon and lest it should be thought
that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to translate them.
into versc. In the same collection of poems sung at zikrs is one which
begins with these lines;
O gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Ycm'en!
I am thy slave without cost:
O thou small of age, and fresh of skin!
O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk!
ረ
In the first of these verses, we have a comparison exactly agreeing
with that in the concluding verse of Solomon's Song; for the word
which, in our Bible, is translated a 'roe,' is used in Arabic as synonym-
ous with ghazal (or a gazelle); and the mountains of El-Yem'en arc
'the mountains of spices.'-This poem ends with the following lines
P
The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber:
I said, 'O phantom of slumber! who sent thee?'
He said, 'He sent me whom thou knowest;
He whose love occupies thee.'
The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night:
I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down.
I said, 'O thou my petition, and all my desire!
Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen?'
He said to me, 'I feared; but, however, love
Had taken from me my soul and my breath.'
Compare the above with the second and five following verses of the
fifth chapter of Solomon's Song.-Finding that songs of this description
are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung at zikrs;
that they are composed for this purpose, and intended only to have a
*The author of the poem. The singer sometimes puts his own name
in the place of this.
+ Ta-Ha' (as I have mentioned on a former occasion) is a name of the
Arabian Prophet.
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
349
spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a sense by the
generality of the vulgar*); I cannot entertain any doubt as to the de-
sign of Solomon's Song. The specimens which I have just given of
the religious love-songs of the Moos'lims have not been selected in pre-
ference to others as most agreeing with that of Solomon; but as being
in frequent use; and the former of the two, as having been sung at the
zikr which I have begun to describe."
Such, then, is the custom of the Arabians, in their most
sublimated devotions, and on occasions the most solemn.
Who will deny that Mr. Lane has some good reason for
saying, as he does, that "he cannot entertain any doubt of
Solomon's Song."
Was it impossible, now, for the neighbours of the Arabians
to have a similar custom, in their flights of highest devotion?
From some of the deepest affections of our nature they drew
their colouring, in order to portray the longings and the
enjoyments of the soul. It will be allowed, on all hands,
that no material for colouring could be of a more vivid nature.
The moral tendency is the only draw-back in regard to the
whole matter. On this I must say a few words more, and
then leave the matter to the reader.
For one I feel obliged to say, that the state of feeling in
our western world, which has been consequent on elevating
the rank of women in society, and giving them a place among
assemblages either for instruction or entertainment, stands
in some measure opposed to the tenor of such a book as
Canticles. As a book of amatory odes we might praise and
admire it; for, in the original, it is much more delicate than
our English version represents it to be. But we shrink
instinctively from connecting amatory ideas and feelings
with a devotional frame of mind. We find the temptation
to dwell on the carnal imagery sometimes, perhaps often,
leading us away from pure and spiritual devotion. This I
believe to be the general-the all but universal feeling among
us. I do not, I cannot disapprove of this feeling. I commend
it. It shows what progress Christianity has made, in in-
spiring the mind with quick and powerful sensitiveness, in
regard to a matter which is always fraught with danger, and
*As a proof of this, I may mention, that, since the above was written,
I havo found tho last six of the lines here translated, with some slight
alterations, inserted as a common love-song in a portion of the Thousand
and One Niglits, printed at Calcutta (vol. i. p. 425).
350
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
particularly to the young. Where promiscuous assemblage
of the two sexes is so frequent as it is among us, nothing
but a quick and high sense of delicacy could prevent the
multiplied evils that might easily grow out of it. Our state
of manners, our usages in regard to female privileges and
companionship, render that kind of cautious feeling on the
subject of amatory descriptions and allusions, necessary to
us as a safeguard.
I take it for granted, that such a book as the Canticles pre-
supposes a state of society which is far from the highest
Christian refinement of manners. In the New Testament,
such a book, i. e. one exclusively of such a tenor, would be
an utter stranger. It could hardly be recognised as one of
this collection. But when all this
But when all this is said and conceded, it
does not follow, that such a book as Canticles might not have
found a place in the ancient Canon.
Different-very
different-was the state of the Jews in ancient times.
Language that we could not now tolerate, above all could
not tolerate in any company composed of both sexes, gave no
offence to delicacy in the times of general simplicity and rude
cultivation. It might be employed, then, much more unexcep-
tionably among the ancient Hebrews than it can be among
us. Certain it is, that the Old Test. Scriptures abundantly
illustrate this position, by the not unfrequent expressions found
in them, which we feel obliged to mollify in translating, but
which, when first uttered, needed no such process. Every thing
almost of this nature depends on the state and habitudes of
a nation or people. Some things there are, which must al-
ways be indecent, at all times, and among all nations. But
other things, e. g. phraseology, manner of dress, and all that
may be classed under the ádiápopa of morals, is mutable,
and may be proper or improper pro re nata. Nor is this
peculiar to the Old Testament. In 1 Cor. xi. 13, seq., Paul
says that it is a shame for a man to wear long hair; that a
woman must not pray unveiled in public assemblies; that
women must wear their hair long in the way of ornament
and covering; and the like. Is so much of this, now, as
pertains merely to costume, or manner of wearing the hair,
matter of perpetual obligation to all churches? Certainly
And why? Because the things commanded or for-
bidden are among the ádiácopa, i. e. things in themselves
Best
not.
SECT. XXI.
A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
351
neither good nor evil, but still things that may be indecor-
ous, if practised under certain circumstances and among a
people of such usages as the Greeks. In public no woman
could decently appear unveiled; a usage widely extant even
now in Asia. For men to wear long hair, was an indica-
tion among the Greeks of an effeminate, imbecile character,
who courted adornment like a female, and was probably one
of the wadıkol. But in our country, the state of manners
and customs is so different, that so far as decency of appear-
ance is concerned, the matters of which the apostle here
treats are things indifferent. In respect, however, to the
public praying of females, the apostle, in the same epistle,
becomes so impressed with the subject, when he comes to
treat of the exercise of the gift of speaking with tongues in
public, that he positively and plainly forbids the whole
thing. "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for
it is not permitted them to speak ;" 1 Cor. xiv. 34. And
so again in 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12, "Let the women learn silence
with all subjection; but I suffer not a woman to teach, [i. e.
in public, or to preach,] nor to usurp authority over the man,
but to be in silence." Some have thought that these two
passages are opposed or contradictory to the preceding. I
do not understand them so. In the first passage, Paul is
merely correcting abuses; and he so limits the public speak-
ing of women, that, if done at all, it should be done with
entire decorum. In the last two, he gives his opinion what
ought to be and should be the established principle of the
church, in regard to the matter of public female addresses.
Of course, he must be understood as speaking in reference
to mixed assemblies.
-
There are several things to be learned from cases of such
a nature as this. First of all, that even Christianity, which
is always watchful over the τὸ καλόν ad τὸ πρέπον, may
forbid things in certain circumstances, which are matters of
perfect indifference in others. The like was the eating of
meats that had been presented in the temple of idols; the
circumcision of Christians standing in a peculiar relation to
the Jews, e. g. of Timothy, &c. So there may be, and there
are, some things which are local and temporary in the Gos-
pel, as well as in the Law. Secondly, that which is not
malum in se may be tolerated for a while, and regulated,
352
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
even in cases where, in the sequel, it may be judged neces-
sary or best entirely to forbid it. Such was the temporary
toleration of the public addresses or prayers of women at
Corinth, in promiscuous assemblies. The precept forbid-
ding this, is of course not to be regarded as extending to ex-
ercises of this nature in assemblies exclusively female; but
that it is designed to be a general and permanent precept,
in regard to mixed assemblies, would seem to be plain from
the reasoning of Paul when giving his grounds for such a
precept; see 1 Tim. ii. 13, seq. The reasoning in this case
is founded on a permanent state of things.
If now we find in the New Testament things about which
certain directions are given, but which are plainly and evi-
dently obligatory no longer than while certain circumstances
exist; why may there not be some books in the Old Testa→
ment, once well adapted to the state of the Jews and useful
to them, but which have now become obsolete by reason of
the great changes which Christianity has wrought? All
concede, that the Levitical rites and ceremonies are done
away; that circumcision, and the passover, and sacrifices
and oblations of every kind, are no longer obligatory. Of
course all that part of the Old Testament which prescribes
and regulates these things, is no longer a matter of practical
moment to us, but only a portion of the history of God's
former dealings with his church. We have no hesitation in
adopting all this; especially after reading the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the principal object of which is to show, that a
new and better covenant than the old has been introduced,
and one established on better promises and of a more liberal
nature. But when we have gone thus far, is there any ob-
stacle in the way of taking one more step? May there not
have been some books, neither ritual nor politico-ecclesi-
astical, written for the time being and the circumstances
then existing, and which were wisely adapted to do good
in this state of things-which books, by the introduction of
a better and more perfect system of religion, have become in
a good measure obsolete, or no longer useful to us, because
our circumstances, habits, manners, and modes of thinking,
are so different from those of the Jews in their partially
civilized state? I do not see how this question can be con-
fidently answered in the negative.
M
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
353
Why may it not be, then, that the Canticles were written
for Jewish pietists of a contemplative order, and somewhat
of the temperament of the Essenes, i. e. able to control and
keep in a state of entire subjection their animal passions?
There were doubtless some Baxters and Thomas à Kempises
among the Hebrews; we know that there were such men as
could write the most devotional Psalms. Might it not have
been customary among the Hebrews, so to speak of the mar-
riage relation and its endearments, as not to excite in them
the same feeling that it is apt to do among us, or at least not
the same in degree? I must take it for granted that such
was the case, when I call to mind how often Jehovah em-
ploys language of this kind, when addressing the Israelites.
Nay more, I find the same thing, to some extent, even in the
New Testament, on the part of Jesus and his apostles. It
is clear that no indecency is intended; and equally clear, as
it seems to me, that no improper feelings were excited by
the language in question, in the minds of those who were
originally addressed. But that time, those circumstances,
that state of manners, and those usages, all of which con-
tributed to render imagery of the kind in question harmless,
and even useful-have all passed away.
Orientals may
read Hafiz's Odes, and the Loves of Megnoun and Leilah, or
may sing as the Dervishes did when Mr. Lane heard them,
and through the force of education appropriate to themselves
religious nourishment from these elements. Why, then,
should they be forbidden to them? Why might not the
Jewish sacred writers provide for that class of devotees, who
could be profited by this style of writing? The thing is
neither impossible nor improbable. Every thing in this
matter depends on education and custom. Is not the Bible
so written as to offer something attractive to all classes of
readers, to all kinds of taste that are not in themselves vi-
cious? If so, why may not provision have been made to
allure the class of the contemplative, the devotees in the
East, and to attract the attention of even the Sufi and the
Dervish?
Thus much, I think, may fairly be said in regard to the
existence and canonical rank of such a work as the Canti-
cles. But now as to the Occidentals-the western world
who have been Christianized, and brought to a totally differ-
has
2 A
354
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
ent state of manners. Mixed society in the East, is a thing
that time out of mind has never been allowed and practised.
Hence their freedom of language, in speaking of delicate
matters. The restraints of the female sex were not felt, of
course. Language assumed a fuller tone without offence,
where only one sex was present. But among us, where
both are present, (a matter which Christianity has brought
about, unspeakably to the advantage of both sexes,) we can-
not read or sing the Canticles with the same freedom as a
company of monks or nuns could do. It is well. For one,
I rejoice in this triumph of Christianity in prohibiting every
thing, that may even seem to the unlearned or the passion-
ate as adapted to excite unhallowed feelings. Innocent in
themselves, with all the needful restraints and decorous
limitations, some of these feelings may in themselves be.
But we need no excitement, additional to what by nature we
possess, to rouse them. It is not best to tamper with even a
dubious matter. I have often heard it said by the friends of
President Edwards, that he was peculiarly fond of the book
of Canticles, and read and meditated much upon it. His
character for piety was such, as entirely forbids the suppo-
sition that he was secretly nourishing his animal passions by
this. Nay, I must believe that if he had found such to be
the effect of his reading Canticles, he would at once have
desisted. His example shows, then, what is possible, and
what may be achieved by purified and exalted feeling. But
as such men are not very rife in these days, and are not
likely to be so, it is better for those who have not attained
an elevated state of piety like his, to abstain, for the most
part, from the book before us. The reason lies in our ex-
citability, in consequence of our manners and our education.
There is the same reason, for substance, why we should de-
sist from this book, as there is why we should cease to hold
obligatory the local and temporal in the New Testament.
The book has had its day. I venture to believe, that many
rejoiced in it and were made glad by it. But it was only
twilight when it was written; it is now broad daylight.
We who know and feel this, need not go back to the twi-
light, in order that we may see.
Still, there is yet an oriental world, and one that is to be
converted to Christianity. Let the book stand for those,
-
G
S
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
355
who have been trained to read Hafiz, and Megnoun and
Leilah, and to sing the odes of the Dervishes, with nothing
but a spiritualized state of feeling, enjoy the pleasure of
finding such a book in the Canon of Scripture. For us, men
of occidental taste and habits, and of only ordinary growth
in piety, (to say the best we well can,)-for us, (excepting
the few that have reached the lofty heights of a Baxter or
an Edwards,) who have a task difficult enough to keep our
passions in due subjection even when we shun all the tempt-
ation and excitements that we can-it is the safer and bet-
ter course to place the Canticles, as the Jews did, among
the or books withdrawn from ordinary use, and be-
take ourselves rather to the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and
the Prophets, and the New Testament. Canticles, as a
means of devotion-doctrinal it surely is not-is superseded
for us by better means. This is reason enough, independ-
ently of the danger of being excited in an undue way, to
prefer other parts of the Scripture. And all this brings no
just reproach on Canticles, any more than the argument of
Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews, against all the rites and
forms of the old dispensation, brings reproach on them while
they lasted.
wid
I am aware, that those Christians (and some such there
are) who, because all the Bible was written by inspiration,
hold it to be all alike valuable to us and obligatory upon
us, and who read it in course, even through and through, in
their families, (and perhaps in the pulpit,) with the best of
intentions, will probably not receive these remarks with
much approbation. Still, while I doubt not that they may
mean right, I am fully persuaded that their practice is alto-
gether wrong, or at least injudicious. What have we to do,
in the way of Christian edification, with the details of build-
ing the tabernacle and temple; with the genealogies and
lists of returning exiles; with all the prescriptions about
offerings, libations, purifications, priests, &c., in the Levitical
law; and with many a piece of family or individual history
which developes nothing special of a religious nature? Even
the prophecies against Egypt, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre,
Babylon, and Assyria, have but a subordinate interest for
us. Why occupy our public or our family devotions with
such parts of the Old Test. Scriptures? What moral and
Lo
2 A 2
356
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
practical ideas would a family or a church obtain, from
having Ezek. xl.-xlviii. read in course? General usage
has decided all these questions, among the more intelligent
Christians, and decided them rightly. I do not wish the
decision to be revoked.
Nor is all this saying one word against the Canticles, or
the other parts of Scripture to which reference has been
made. I have already pointed out what use is to be made
of such parts of Scripture, and what estimate is to be put
upon them. I need not repeat here what I have already
said. The whole thing lies in a very small compass. There
was an ancient preparatory dispensation-a shadow of good
things to come-many things were necessary to arrange and
give it a successful trial; that dispensation has passed away,
and has now comparatively no glory by reason of the
glory that excelleth;" and along with it have passed away
all such parts of the Old Testament as were local and tem-
porary-all which belonged merely to Judaism. Why can
we not receive the simple truth, that the hand of God was
in all these movements, and that the same hand has now
introduced us to a much higher and better state, furnished
us with better means of understanding truth, and of pro-
moting our own personal piety?
C4
Considerations such as these, and like to these, I would
most heartily commend to those who are halting and doubt-
ing in regard to the book of Canticles. I do not perceive
the need of such a state of mind. Certain it is, that the
Canticles were a part of the Canon sanctioned by Christ and
the apostles. Nothing as matter of fact in ancient criticism
is more certain. It is of no use to deny this, or to make
efforts to evade it. Better is it to meet it directly, and can-
vass the whole matter with an open and liberal and candid
mind. If the Orientals still want such a book, let them use
it, as the ancient Jews did. If the Occidentals can do bet-
ter, on the whole, without making the use of it public and
common, let them have the liberty of the Gospel. Our
preachers, in general, have long since ceased to make it a
text-book; families do not gencrally read it in their devo-
tions; and if the remarks which I have made above are well
founded, they are to be commended rather than blamed for
this. The book has had its day in the East, or (if you in-
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
357
sist upon it) is to have it there; in the West, it seems to me
that it must continue to hold much the same place which
general practice has assigned to it.
I cannot conclude these remarks without adding, as I have
already hinted, that the perusal of the original makes much
less impression on me of an exceptionable kind, than the
perusal of our version. It is far more delicate, at least to
my apprehension. It were easy to exhibit particulars, which
would justify this statement. But I refrain because of the
nature of the case. That there are many passages in this
pastoral, if any must needs so call it, which are highly beau-
tiful and tender and delicate, is quite certain. A heathen
poet who had sung carnal love in like manner, would have
doubtless been immortal among the Cythereans. But other
passages, which are minutely descriptive of the person of
the bride, oblige us to look well to the mastery of our feel-
ings. It needs something of the tone of mind which a Sufi
or a Dervish attains to by long and exclusive spiritualizing
and meditation, or (which is much better) the elevation above
all that is carnal of an Edwards or a Baxter or an Owen, in
order to make any spiritual gain by the exercise. Something
might be done to give the book a better dress than it has in
our English version; but the general state of the case will
remain as developed above. While I would say, with Aben
Ezra, nn nn, to all profane rejection of the book, I think
we may say with Virgil, on a somewhat different occasion,
Procul, O procul, este profani!
Is it not strange that the mere Elenchus Interpretum, or
list of commentators on this book, occupies more than twenty
octavo pages in Rosenmueller's Commentary? And I pre-
sume he has not recorded any thing like the one half of them.
Jews, Christian Fathers, Romanists, and Protestants, have
all rushed upon this little book, by virtue, as it would seem,
of some mysterious attraction. Yet the mystery does not
probably lie very deep. Origen, as we might expect from
his allegorical inclinations, wrote ten volumes of Comm. on
Canticles. "As in other works of his," says Jerome, "he
has surpassed all other expositors, in this he has outdone
himself." CC
Here," says he on another occasion respecting
Origen in this work, "here he sails cum pleno velo." We
have also among these expositors an Ambrose, Gregory of
358
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO SECT. XXI.
Nyssa, Theodoret, Cassiodorus, and many others. Among
the Romanists there is no end of expositors. Poor monks!
This book was converted into nectar and ambrosia to re-
fresh and strengthen them in their mental revellings,
and to compensate in some measure for the loss of real-
ities. So they rushed by troops to the prey. Germans,
(as we should expect,) Frenchmen not a few, (as we should
spontaneously conjecture,) even Englishmen, although with
some good degree of sobriety in most cases, and last of all
the very Dutchmen, have revelled in this book; for what
else shall I say of the matter of many of the commentaries
that have been produced? There are, not improbably, a
class of occasional readers of the Bible, who would sooner
give up any book belonging to it than this. Their real rea-
sons for this preference, they would not perhaps be fond of
proclaiming.
Christianity, then, with that state of manners and society
which it has introduced, has changed our relation to many
things belonging to the Old Testament dispensation. All
concede this, as to rites and forms and peculiarities of the
Levitical worship and purifications. We have no temple at
Jerusalem; no assemblages there to kill the passover, to ce-
lebrate sacred feasts, and to hear the Law once in seven
years. We have it every sabbath, we may read it every
day. It costs but a pittance to put it in our possession-the
fruit of a single day's labour, at most, will accomplish this,
for the poorer classes; while a pious Jew, to obtain the same
privileges, must almost have expended a handsome little
fortune. The consequence of all this is, a state of things
and of manners exceedingly different from that of ancient
times. It does not follow, that all which was permissible,
or available, or useful then, is of course so now. Even some
books, which are not conversant with Hebrew rites and
forms, are not of course profitable to us, as they were, or at
any rate might have been, to them. Why should we lay
stress on these, and urge them into present usage, when
little or no moral gain, comparatively, is to be made from
them? I hesitate not for a moment to say, that we should not.
Let them be-especially let the Canticles be-for oriental
Christians, brought up very differently from us. I doubt
not that many of them might find spiritual food, instead of
SECT. XXI. A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
359
poison, in them. At all events, we may consent to let a book
stand where Christ and his apostles found it and left it, and
against which they have no where testified, but, on the con-
trary, sanctioned it in connexion with other Old Testament
books. It is safe for the doubting and wavering at least to
let it alone. If they find that they cannot safely read it,
they are bound to let it alone; at least I should not hesitate
in my own case.
All things considered, we may settle down, as it seems to
me, in the conclusion, that the Canticles is a book rather to
be regarded in the light of a local one, and adapted to par-
tial usage, than as a book now, under the full light of the
gospel, specially adapted to our use. It had its day. That
its use was religious, I cannot doubt, from the company in
which it is found, and the ordeal through which it has
passed among the founders of Christianity. It may have
still another day of usefulness among the Asiatics. Let us
not disown it, or set it aside. But persons of timid consci-
ences, who have an idea, that, since all parts of Scripture
are inspired, they all must of course be equally useful, may
be set free from this bondage. Are we to hold that the
sketches of tabernacle and temple buildings, of ritual ordi-
nances and customs, and catalogues of names and places, are
as edifying as the Epistle to the Romans, or the Gospels, or
the Psalms? If we answer in the negative, then I would ask,
whether, in other compositions, once adapted to the state of
things then existing, there may not be a lack of former use-
fulness, since the light of the Gospel has become fully dif-
fused? As I have once said, I would say again, May not a
star, that once shone brightly in the dim twilight, become
no longer visible when the sun is shining in his strength?
But why should we deny that it has once shone, and that it
is still a star?
I have not undertaken to decide, exactly of what tenor
the spiritual exegesis of Canticles should be. It is a ques-
tion of no small difficulty. Does it refer to the church as a
body? Or is it to be applied to the converse of the soul
with God, and the delight of communing with him? If
oriental analogy may speak, on this occasion, it would lift
up its voice in favour of the latter. This I also prefer, be-
cause I can hardly regard the book of Canticles in the light
360
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SECT. XXII.
of a series of predictions respecting a future Christian church.
As far as what pertains to individuals, who are pious, is
common to the church, whether Jewish or Christian, so far
Canticles may be applied to the characteristics of the church,
ancient or modern. But to me it seems better and firmer
ground, to regard the Canticles as expressing the warm
and earnest desire of the soul after God, in language bor-
rowed from that which characterizes chaste affection be-
tween the sexes. But this is not the place to vindicate an
opinion of this nature.*
SECT. XXII. Use of the Old Testament under the Gospel
Dispensation.
THE most difficult and delicate part of my task remains.
In many respects this is also the most important; for it is
the practical result of all which has been hitherto laid be-
fore the reader and defended.
Where shall a Christian teacher or reader draw the line
between what IS ABROGATED in the Old Testament, by the
coming of Christ and by the revelation of his will in the New
Testament, and that which REMAINS IN FULL FORCE, and to
which appeal may be made as being at the present time of
Divine authority and obligation?
If by this question is meant, a requisition to draw a bound-
ary line between the two, which is always practically palpa-
ble, and always visible and plain even to the weakest eye,
no intelligent and considerate man would undertake the task.
The New Testament has passed sentence of abrogation on
no specific book, or part of a book, as such, which is con-
tained in the Old Testament. To its decision, viewed as
designating this or that particular portion or book of the
Old Testament as no longer having authority to decide
matters pertaining to religion for us, we cannot appeal. All
*For a dissertation on the Song of Solomon unfriendly to its canonical
position, and of courso to its inspired authority, the reader may consult
Dr. Pyo Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, third edition, vol.
i. p. 44, ot seq., and Dr. Bonnott's reply in the Congregational Maga-
zine for 1838. D.
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
361
which it has done is to lay down and establish general
principles, by the aid of which we must decide what still
remains obligatory, and what is virtually repealed.
The ultimate appeal, then, is to understanding and reason;
not in order to establish the principles in question, for Christ
and his apostles have established them, but to make a dis-
criminating and judicious use of these principles, in deter-
mining what still remains in full force. So does the Bible
in respect to its interpretation. It narrates, it commands,
it threatens, it promises, it encourages, it consoles, it holds
out views of a future state of reward and punishment; but
the language in which all this is done, is addressed to men
in the usual way, and they are expected to give it a rational
interpretation. The Bible teaches no system of hermeneu-
tics;
it instructs no one in the principles of rhetoric; it
never descants on the use of figurative language; it never
lays down any theory of exegesis which may serve as a cer-
tain guide to those who become acquainted with it. All these
are presupposed to be understood or felt by the readers;
and then it is expected of them, that by their discrimination
and judgment, they should give a sound interpretation.
Exactly like to this is the case before us. The new dis-
pensation is fully set forth in the New Testament. Its de-
partures from the peculiarities of the Jewish religion, its
true spiritual nature, its universality, its freedom from all
pomp and rites and ceremonies, and (if the word had not
been abused I might say, in a good sense) its cosmopolitism,
stand in high relief upon the portico of the new temple
which has been erected. On the very foundation stones of
this temple are inscribed, in letters so plain that he who
runneth may read: GOD IS A SPIRIT, AND THEY THAT
WORSHIP HIM, MUST WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
On the next tier of foundation stones stands inscribed, in
letters equally plain and prominent: THE FATHER SEEKETH
SUCH WORSHIPPERS. On the third stands the inscription:
THE NOUR IS COME WHEN NEITHER ON THE MOUNTAIN OF
SAMARIA, NOR OF JERUSALEM, ARE MEN REQUIRED TO
Ja
-
WORSHIP.
This last inscription contains the germ of all that I have
or wish to say. The two former inscriptions were virtually
engraved of old on the Jewish temple. But they were in
362
SECT. XXII,
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the Sanctum Sanctorum, and common worshippers rather
heard indistinctly of them, than saw them. On the temple
of the new Jerusalem they stand, as I have said, in relief
so high and prominent, that no worshipper who approaches
can fail to see them, unless he shuts his eyes.
It is the third inscription which we are now called to read
and interpret. Let us address ourselves to this grave and
interesting task with becoming seriousness and candour.
All social religion, under the Mosaic code, centred in the
temple at Jerusalem and its ordinances. The claims of the
Samaritans to make their mountain the central point of all
religious rites and services, was settled by the Saviour him-
self, in his conversation with the Samaritan woman, "Ye
worship ye know not... for salvation is of the Jews." We
may therefore dismiss Mount Gerizim, and all its pretended
services, from any further consideration.
To declare that men should no longer worship the Father
at Jerusalem, is to declare that the whole system of Jewish
social worship, with all its pomp, its rites and ceremonies,
its sacrifices and oblations, is abrogated. What made the
Jewish religion peculiar and appropriate only to one nation,
was its locality and its externals. From its very nature the
Jewish religion could belong only to one nation. Three
times in each year were all the males of the nation to appear
before God in Jerusalem. Once in seven years the whole
population, men, women, and children, were to go up thither
to hear the Law. How could Judaism be a practicable reli-
gion, except to a small nation within very circumscribed
limits? It was plainly impossible.
This solves the great problem contained in the question,
Why was not the Jewish religion aggressive? Why did
not the pious part of the Hebrew community send mission-
aries to the heathen, and endeavour to convert them? Jonah
once preached abroad with signal success; why did not the
Jewish prophets repeat the experiment?
Without attempting to assign all the reasons which they
had for abstaining from attempts of this nature, I merely
remark, that the prophets could not fail of seeing, that
an extensive prevalence of the Jewish religion would
involve impossibilities. How could the Hindoos and the
Chinese repair thrice in a year to Jerusalem? How could
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
363
the population of a world assemble in one small city, which
never could have contained much over one hundred thou-
sand inhabitants, if indeed so many can be supposed? The
prophets knew, by circumstances such as these, that God
did not design Judaism for a universal religion. Con-
sequently they engaged in no foreign missionary enterprises,
and never exhibited any special zeal for the conversion of
the heathen.
We come, then, to the great question, which is the nucleus
of the whole matter: What is there in the Old Testament,
which belongs to JUDAISM as such; and what is there which
belongs to THE NATURE OF TRUE RELIGION, at all times,
among all nations, and in all places?
(
That which belongs merely to Judaism as such, is wholly
abolished by the Gospel. WHAT BELONGS TO ALL NA-
TIONS IS FULLY RETAINED. The proper application of these
two simple principles is all that is necessary to a right un-
derstanding of this whole subject. The task needs, indeed,
some good measure of discrimination and judgment. In
some few cases it needs a more than ordinary knowledge of
both the Jewish and the Christian religion. But in the
main, the thing can be made intelligible to all; and it may
fairly be considered as feasible for the mass of Christians
even tolerably well instructed, to draw the lines of separation
in most of the important cases.
The Jewish dispensation was introductory. To use the
expressive language of Paul, "The Law was the shadow of
good things to come, and was not the very image of those
things." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the substance of
all that I aim at saying is fully exhibited.
There we are
most explicitly taught, that all the rites and ceremonies and
sacrifices of the Jewish dispensation were utterly inefficient
in themselves to remove the burden of sin from the con-
science, or to cancel the guilt of the offender. It is not pos-
sible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away
sin. And again, "Sacrifice and the burnt-offerings and
sin-offerings thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure
therein." So even the prophets of old said to the formalists
and the ritualists among the Jews. But there lay at the
basis of all the rites and sacrifices of the old dispensation,
an important principle, a prefiguration of the great and
364
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
leading truth of the Gospel, viz. that without the shedding
of blood there is no remission of sin. But that blood "which
taketh away the sin of the world," was not the blood of
bullocks and of goats, but "the blood of Christ, who, through
the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, that
he might purge our consciences from dead works, to serve
the living God." Of this great atoning
Of this great atoning "sacrifice," all the
victims slain at the altar of the Jewish dispensation were
only symbols or types. The pious Jew, who presented the
sacrifices in question, if he presented them with a penitent
and believing mind, might obtain remission of his sins, even
spiritual remission. Yet not by virtue merely of his sacri-
fices, but only by virtue of that which they symbolized.
Even the impenitent Jew, who complied with the letter of
the Mosaic law, might and did obtain civil and ecclesiastical
remission. And this was all that any rites, ceremonies, or
sacrifices could ever procure in themselves for any one.
That all this scheme of the Jewish ritual was, and was
designed to be, symbolic and typical of a new and better
state or dispensation, must be conceded, as it seems to me,
by every candid mind. The utter inefficacy of all sacrifices
of beasts to lighten the burdened conscience or to atone for
sin, is a matter past all question. Then for what purpose
did the Divine Being institute such a religion as that of
Moses? No answer can be given to this question, which is
reasonable and satisfactory, except it be, that God designed
all these things to be preparatory to another and better dis-
pensation. It is then, and only then, when we admit this,
that any significancy or importance is attached to the Jew-
ish religion, so far as all its externals are concerned. In
every other point of view, it would be little more than
solemn trifling. Mr. Norton, who denies the atonement of
Christ, and all the prophetic anticipations of him and his
sacrifice, must of course think very meanly of the Jewish
religion. The contemptuous manner in which he repeat-
edly adverts to the Levitical ritual, shows clearly that such
is the state of his feelings. Believing, as he undoubtedly
does and should do, that no blood of bulls or of goats can
take away sin, and acknowledging no symbolic and typical
design in the Jewish offerings and sacrifices-what remains
but to draw the conclusion, that the whole fabric was one
4
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
365
reared merely by superstition? How different from this is
the view of the thorough believer in God's ancient revela-
tion! He sees in all the rites and forms of the temple, and
all the purifications of temple-worshippers, the symbols of
the all-important and distinguishing truths of the Gospel.
The way seems now to be prepared for further progress.
Tabernacle and temple are no more.
Jerusalem is no longer
our spiritual metropolis. God's temple is every where, on
the land and on the sea. The whole earth is its area, and
its vaulted roof is the arch of heaven lighted up with its
suns and stars. The sacrifices and oblations now accepted
and required, are only a broken, contrite, grateful heart.
No hyssop branch nor sprinkling priest has any office of
lustration to perform. No priest is needed to sprinkle the
altar with blood; no high priest to remove the veil and
enter the most holy place. Christians are all kings and are
all priests unto God, as to privileges and as to rank; whilst
the peculiar offices of ancient kings and priests are no more
connected with the church.
Mak
The high road, therefore, in which we are to travel, while
searching out Old Test. ground, is plain and straight and
broad. All in the Jewish Scriptures that pertains to rites
and forms of worship, to sacrifices and oblations, to washings
and purifications, to meats clean and unclean, to feasts an-
nual or monthly, to circumcision and to the passover-all
which is comprised within these, and all which are accidents
or things attached to them or dependent upon them-all of
this is abrogated, is repealed. It remains now only as the
history of what is past, not the rule of action for the present
or the future. And in this point of view, it will always be
interesting to the pious reader. It will unfold to him, in
what manner Divine Providence has been educating the
human race; by what slow and cautious steps religion has
advanced, and how utterly impossible it is for a religion that
abounds in rites and forms to make much effectual progress
any where, either among Jews or Gentiles; still more im-
possible that it should be a religion to convert the world.
God had reserved that work for his own dear Son.
It is easy for us, in view of what we may see from our
present stand-point, to account for it, that Paul rebuked so
sharply the Galatian Judaizers. The whole system of Le-
366
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
CC
vitical rites and ordinances, compared with the truly Chris-
tian and spiritual service, he names a bondage under the ele-
ments of the world. That Christians, having once tasted
the sweets of gospel-liberty, should turn back to these ele-
ments, rouses even his indignation. How," says he in
the strength of his displeasure--"how turn ye again to the
weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in
bondage?" The law, he tells them, was only "a school-
master to bring them unto Christ." And when they are
introduced to him, he is the only master by whom they are
to be guided.
All, then, which is merely external in religion, every thing
pertaining to mere manner of worship, either as to prepara-
tion for it by ritual observances, or as to the costume in
which it is offered, or the place where, or the manner in
which it is offered, is all repealed. Along with this, too,
must be classed all the statutes and ordinances of the Old
Testament, which pertain merely to the form of the Jewish
ecclesiastical and civil state. The substantial relations of
individuals to the church of God and to the civil govern-
ment, have indeed suffered no change, and never can be
changed while the nature of man continues to be what it is.
But the manner in which these relations are to be indicated
or developed, is for the most part greatly changed by the
Gospel.
We are not obliged to arrange our civil government after
the model of the Jewish; and as to priesthood, in its dis-
tinctive character as offering sacrifices and prescribing ex-
ternal purifications, it is for ever done away. It is surpris-
ing to see how frequent mistakes are among writers even of
the present day, in relation to this matter. A priesthood, in
the literal sense, under the Christian dispensation, is out of
all question. It is only in the figurative sense that Chris-
tians are priests, as well as kings; and, let it be noted well
-they are all priests. There is no distinct order among
them. A priest's business was to prepare and present offer-
ings and sacrifices; to solve doubts and difficulties about
ritual observances and concerning clean and unclean; but
he was no religious teacher in the higher sense, no preacher,
no public guide or exemplar in prayer, no minister of in-
struction with regard to the spiritual duties of devotion and
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION,
367
piety in general. What has been said in the former part of
this work in relation to priest and prophet, abundantly
establishes all this. The PROPHETS were the only order of
men, in ancient times, who can be compared with the minis-
ters of the gospel. In all the New Testament, often as the
various classes of officers in the church are mentioned or
alluded to, such a class as literal priests never once occurs.
The great High Priest has made an end for ever of all the
rites of the priesthood, by offering up a sacrifice, in which
all of this nature that could be needed, was consummated
and fulfilled. All reasoning from the Levitical priesthood,
then, to the Christian ministry, is out of question. It is with-
out any foundation; and mistake and error are inevitable,
where it is carried to any considerable extent.
us.
All the arrangements in the Old Testament, which re-
spect the investitures and forms of office, civil or ecclesi-
astical, among the Hebrews, are of no binding force upon
All in their statutes and ordinances which respected
merely the earthly Canaan as their land of promise, which
related to their inheritances, their modes of acquiring or
parting with property; all that pertained to dress, manners,
customs, (not of an ethical nature,) houses, furniture, arts,
occupations, and the like; in one word, all that belongs to
the external and physical, whether of convenience or incon-
venience; all this is done away, i. e. it is no longer binding
on us. It has now become the history of what God's an-
cient people did, and how they demeaned themselves, and
what were their outward circumstances; but not a rule of
action for us, or an exemplar of the condition in which we
must place ourselves.
I am aware that some difficult questions may be raised,
in respect to the metes and bounds of political, civil, and
ecclesiastical laws, ordinances, or arrangements. For ex-
ample: Shall we have a monarchy, because the Jews had
one? My answer to this would be, that Moses wished for
no such thing; he merely made provision to regulate it, in
case it should be established. Samuel opposed a monarchy;
God himself severely reproved the Jews for desiring it;
1 Sam. viii. On the other hand; we cannot deny that Da-
vid was set over the Jews as king, with special Divine ap-
probation. But is a republic on this account unlawful?
t
368
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
One method of arguing, in this case, seems on the whole to
be equally good with the other. In fact it is so; but then,
neither mode exhibits the least force of argument. What
the Jews did, or did not, in their civil and social capacity,
is nothing to us, except as a matter of history. It may be
very useful to us in the way of teaching us what conse-
quences are connected with certain modes of government, or
of administration, so that we may learn to imitate or avoid,
as the case may require. Our obligation to follow them
politically, amounts to nothing.
If this be correct, (as plainly it is,) can any more obliga-
tion, then, be shown to follow them ecclesiastically? I should
answer this question almost as readily as the other. Their
ecclesiastical state was so implicated and connected with
their civil ordinances, that they could not be separated.
Their government, whether under Judges, Kings, or Priests,
was theocratical. The State was the Church, and the
Church the State. All persons initiated into their civil
community were initiated into their ecclesiastical one at the
same time. Circumcision was the seal of admission to both.
Hence all the males that were circumcised, were Jewish
church-members, and at the same time Jewish citizens. (I
do not take into view the slaves or servants, in this case.)
As a matter of course, all citizens were church-members.
But can we carry over the analogy into Christian com-
munities? It has been done. The Romish church virtually
acknowledges the principle as obligatory. So does the
English national church; so do the Lutheran churches
generally in Europe. But would not the argument be
equally valid, in respect to all the fasts, and feasts, and
holidays, and sacrifices, and oblations, and purifications of
the Hebrews? Surely it would; and so the Judaizers of
Paul's day actually argued. But what was his reply? The
Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, answer
this question.
Must we say, that all children are to be baptized, because
the Jewish children were all circumcised? How then shall
we make out the all, in this latter case? None but male
children were circumcised. Then, again, all servants, i. e.
slaves, were also to be circumcised. What becomes of the
analogy then? It is out of question to maintain it; at least
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
369
in any tolerably strict sense. Besides; what is plainer,
than that the Jewish males and servants were all to be cir-
cumcised, in order that all might be ingrafted into the po-
litico-ecclesiastical community? Every citizen was bound
by religious as well as civil ordinances; and circumcision.
subjected him to both. But Christianity, adapted to all
countries, times, and nations, of necessity gives up the idea
of regulating the forms of government, and all that pertains
to customs and manners in regard to things indifferent, or
not of a moral nature. "The kingdom of Christ is NOT OF
THIS WORLD." A body politic, in its view, is not of course
a body ecclesiastic. Above all, we may say, the New Testa-
ment commits no power over the church as such, to the
body politic. How could it? If it had so done, then Nero
must have been Pontifex Maximus for the Christian church,
in Paul's day. And not unlike to this, so far as principle
is concerned, is the doctrine that kings and potentates are
now the head of the church in Christian countries.
Were
even Jewish kings the head of the Jewish church, and be-
cause they were kings? I trust not. Where, then, is the pre-
sent right of kings to such a place? They do not obtain any
patent for this from the Jewish institutions. Most surely
they do not find it in the New Testament. They obtain it
only by virtue of papal example. Henry VIII. usurped
the pope's place, and his heirs have inherited what he
usurped. And what is the necessary consequence? It is
that a Charles II. and a George IV. have been the supreme
head of the national church of Great Britain. A conse-
quence fitly joined with the arguments by which the whole
matter is supported.
How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending
for infant baptism, on the ground of the Jewish analogy of
circumcision Are females not proper subjects of baptism?
And again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized because he
is? Are they church-members of course when they are so
baptized? Is there no difference between ingrafting into a
politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is
said, that "it is not of this world?" In short, numberless
difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we
begin to argue in such a manner as this.
The doctrine that a civil power is of course in some good
?
20
370
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
V
measure an ecclesiastical one, is merely an Old Testament
and Jewish doctrine, not one which belongs to the New. It
may, it does, suit well the ambitious and aggrandizing views
of kings and potentates, to be placed at the head of the
churches, to manage all their concerns, to have at their dis-
posal all ecclesiastical places of profit and honour, and to
direct matters in such a way, that all the measures of the
churches shall tend to establish and secure their power and
influence. Hence the eagerness with which they cleave to
this arrangement, and their aversion to any interference with
claims on their part of this nature. But the will and wishes
of kings and princes and popes is one thing; the precepts and
doctrines of the Great Head of the church are quite another.
Of all the analogical reasoning from the ancient dispens-
ation to the new, that which respects the rights of kings
and priests has been the most mischievous, and is the most
fallacious. Constantine paved the way for all that has been
assumed by civil potentates, since his time.
The dark ages
concentrated all power, civil and ecclesiastical, in the Roman
pontiff Luther, that morning-star of the Reformation, dis-
solved the spell of false doctrine, which laid to sleep the
spiritual energies of all the churches. The political rela-
tions of the church, however, he never touched. He left
her with as many popes as there were kings and petty
princes in Germany, or elsewhere. Zuingli, and Calvin,
and Knox understood this matter much better, but were
able only partially to effect what they wished. Another
Luther is needed in Europe; not merely to free the church
from the spirit of rites and ceremonies, and penances and
pilgrimages, and self-righteousness and formality, but to
free it from all that domination which has no right to con-
trol it. Am I reproached with being republican in these
views, and with proclaiming my own particular politics
rather than the New Testament? My answer is, that I be-
long to a commonwealth, where "all are kings and priests;"
to one also, "where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond
nor free, Barbarian nor Scythian," but where "all are one
in Christ Jesus." I belong to a republic, one of whose
fundamental laws is, that I "should call no man Master on
earth." We are not forbidden to do this in a civil sense;
such is no part of the Saviour's meaning. It is in a religious
gand
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
371
t
sense, that we are to acknowledge no supreme head of the
church, except him who redeemed it.
It is true, I am a republican even in matters of civil
government. But I am no bigot to this or to any other
particular form of civil government. All governments can-
not be alike in all respects, so long as nations differ so much
from each other in cultivation, habits, and manners. I be-
lieve, too, that in general the best government is that which
is best administered. I speak disparagingly of no monarchist,
provided he is not a sycophant to those in power. But I
do not envy him his opinions, and cannot gratulate him on
the ground of his political relations.
But to my immediate object. All claims on the Old
Testament for the support of civil domination over the
spiritual kingdom of Christ, are futile. How can the king
of one country be king over the Christian church, since this
church belongs to all countries? The claim is groundless;
it is utterly without any good support. God speed, then,
to the noble advocates of "the glorious liberty of the chil-
dren of God," wherever they are or may be !
But I am losing myself in this interesting theme.
Let
us return, and see if there be not some additional consider-
ations, that will help us to decide, in all cases of import-
ance, what in the Old Testament is binding on us, and
what is not.
Thus far we have gone upon the ground of specifying
particulars, which are exempted from the category of per-
petual obligation. Let us shift our position, and look at the
matter from another point of view.
It is not difficult to lay down some simple and general
principles; and the application of them, in the main, is very
easy. But in some cases, it requires indeed a nice discrimi-
nation, and an extensive acquaintance with both the old and
new dispensation, in order to decide with any good degree
of certainty. But these cases are not numerous, and will
occasion no serious embarrassment to those who are intent.
upon their actual and practical duties.
I would lay it down, then, as a plain and palpable prin-
ciple or maxim, in regard to the binding authority of the
Old Testament, that all in it of the nature of precept or
doctrine, which concerns the PERMANENT relations of men to
2 B 2
372
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
their God, their fellow beings, or themselves, stands unalter-
ed and unrepealed by the Gospel.
In view of such a principle the Saviour declared, that
"heaven and earth should sooner pass away, than one jot or
one tittle should pass from the Law, until all be fulfilled."
True religion has always been, and always will be, the love
of God and man. True religion always demanded, then,
and always must demand, those duties which stand neces-
sarily connected with the exhibition of love. To love God
with all the heart, demands of us to reverence and obey him.
To love our neighbour as ourselves, demands the perform-
ance of many duties connected with our relation to him.
Now as to some of these duties, it is true that the manner of
performing them may in some respects vary; but that man-
ner, when not necessarily connected with the substance of
the duty, is not a subject of prescription. The Jew, in order
to pay
his highest devotions and homage to God, must pre-
sent his paschal lamb in the temple, and cause its blood to
be sprinkled at the altar. But all that was external and
ceremonial, in a word, all that pertained to the manner of
paying his devotions and his homage, is now done away.
And the same of every thing that concerns the manifestation
of religious feeling, or of love to our neighbour. Whatever
in the manner of any or all of the duties required of us, was
Jewish, local, temporary, or dependent on, or modified by,
time and place and external circumstances-all of this nature
is no longer obligatory. We have only to inquire in every
case, either of a doctrine or of a precept, what there is in it
which pertained to time and place and external circum-
stances; and if we can find what that is, then so much of
that precept or doctrine as pertains to the local or the tem-
porary, is to be abstracted, when we appropriate either of
these to our own use. The principle is plain; it is sound;
it is beyond fair question. We are no more bound to look
toward Jerusalem when we pray, as Daniel did, (vi. 10,) than
we are to present our sacrifices and oblations there. The
duty of prayer remains obligatory, because it depends on
the permanent and unchanging relations of man to God;
but the manner of it is not prescribed by any thing which the
Old Testament (or even the New) contains.
How futile, then, are all appeals to Jewish altars and in-
P
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
373
cense and priestly vestments, and pomp of worship, in order
to justify and even to insist upon corresponding things in a
Christian church! God has lighted up and adorned his
own magnificent temple-even the whole earth. His altar
is on every spot, where the sacrifice of a broken and con-
trite heart is offered. The sweet incense that he accepts is
"the prayers of all the saints." How little do the advo-
cates of all these externals seem to consider the true nature
of that Being "who is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in
spirit and in truth!"
manda
Almost every where, through the Old Testament, lie scat-
tered principles and precepts which are of a permanent and
enduring nature. On the other hand, seldom can we find
any extensive portions of these Scriptures which do not
contain something that is merely local and temporary.
kad
It is important to illustrate this; but it must be briefly
done. I will select, as a specimen from the prophets, the
brief work of Obadiah, consisting of only twenty-one verses.
These are occupied with threatening evil to Edom, the old
and bitter enemy of Israel. As the nation of the Edomites
has been extinguished for more than 2000 years, it would
seem that we had very little interest in such a book as this.
Still, an attentive perusal of it will enable us to correct such
a judgment. In that little book stands portrayed, in glow-
ing colours, the doctrine of retribution for enmity and in-
jury done to others. There stands too, in high relief, the
sentiment that God is King of nations; that they are in his
hands as clay in the hands of the potter; and that although
he may delay, he will not remit, the claims of a just retribu-
tion. There, too, may comfort be found. The poor oppressed
and injured Jews, who had been attacked with fury by the
Edomites, when broken down and crushed to the dust by the
Chaldean power, are cheered with the certain promise of
deliverance from the Edomitish aggression, and with the
assurance that Edom shall be trodden down and utterly un-
able to rise up any more against them. In short, God is
King of nations; God will vindicate the cause of the oppress-
ed; and "God is angry with the wicked every day. Το
attack and oppress the suffering and the humbled, is matter
of high treason in his sight. We cannot exult over the ca-
>>
374
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
lamities of others, without exposing ourselves to the right-
eous indignation of the supreme Judge of all.
Many other deductions might be made from this brief
prophecy, which seems at first to promise so little that is
interesting to us; but I have purposely confined myself
only to those things which lie upon the very surface of the
composition.
Once more; let us select a portion of Scripture, which is
seemingly, or at first view, one of the most unpromising of
all which the Old Testament exhibits. The last fifteen
chapters of Exodus are occupied almost entirely with a sketch
or plan of the tabernacle, its apparatus, and its appurtenances,
and with an account of the manner in which the whole of
this plan was carried into execution. A great portion is
simple detail of architectural designs, and of the materials
with which various things were to be constructed. What
possible interest now can we have in all this?
If I may be permitted to answer this question, I would
say, There are several points of view in which we may look
at this with some interest. Does the architect take any in-
terest in the history of his art? Here is rich material; and
this in respect to things some 1500 years before the Chris-
tian era.
Let him compare the whole with the remains of
ancient art in Egypt. Does the historian, who relates the
progress of invention in the arts, manufactures, luxuries,
and conveniences of life, wish for a view of what existed at
a most remote period, in each of these respects? Here he
has ample material, in this sketch by Moses. Does the his-
torian of the Hebrew nation wish to trace the progress of its
improvements in the arts, and conveniences, and the luxuries
of life? Here he has an important document. If there were
no other uses than these of the document in question, they
would be enough to make it very welcome to all the lovers
of antiquity. But there are other important considerations
still remaining.
For what purpose was such a magnificent and costly
structure required? Was it that God dwells in temples
made by hands? No, nothing of this. But still, when God
reveals himself to men, and (so to speak) takes up his abode
with them, he must do this in a manner worthy of his na-
Jade
Dark
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
375
ture and of the occasion. Even idols had their magnificent
temples. The true God is not to be placed below them.
Under a dispensation where so much of the external was
necessary, in order to meet the demands of the times and
the ignorance of the people, God must be enthroned in a
palace worthy as it were of his presence. An impression of
his majesty and of his high and holy nature must be made,
by such a use of externals as will command respect and
homage. Nor is this all. God must be approached and
worshipped, by a presentation of the best gifts, the most
costly and precious offerings. The most valuable and costly
substances are therefore put in requisition for his worship.
Men are called upon to acknowledge him as the author and
the rightful lord and proprietor of all that belongs to them,
even of their most precious things. A law dispensation
called in a special manner for veneration of the Law-giver,
and sacred awe in his presence. The King and Lord
of the Jewish nation deemed it proper to appear among
them as their monarch, in his splendid and holy palace.
God designed that the Israelites should feel his claims, and
his perfect right, to the best which they could offer him.
Nothing ordinary, common, valueless, impure, could be pre-
sented as material for his tabernacle, or to constitute the ob-
lations and gifts there offered. The impression of all these
arrangements upon the simple and untutored mind was sa-
lutary in a high degree, and filled it with a deferential re-
spect which would check the spirit of disobedience. And
from all may we not draw the inference, even at the pre-
sent time, that men are bound not to withhold even their
choicest substance and gifts, when the service of God re-
quires them? Truly we may, and with good reason. God,
whose temple is every where, does indeed no longer require
us to rear magnificent edifices for his dwelling-place. But
the spirit of tabernacle and temple building admonishes us,
that churches should not be constructed so as to convey an
idea of grudging and of avarice in the builders, or so as to
inspire those who repair to them with disrespect or con-
tempt. All should be done decently, as well as in order.
Let the external not be at variance with the internal. Let
both be such as becomes the nature of the worship and of
the Being to whom it is paid. And this very consideration
376
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
forbids all that is gaudy and finical, or fraught with mere
display, and demands the simple, the chaste, the neat, the
sober, the grave, the impressive.
(a)
M
And are these instructions, now, matters of no account?
Is not the practical exhibition of them as striking and im-
pressive as the mere abstract statement of the principles ex-
hibited in them would be? Nay, is it not far more so? I
understand, indeed, what is meant, when we are forbidden
to approach our neighbour's house with hostile feelings, in
the day of his calamity, or to exult over his misfortunes.
But when Edom is held up before my eyes by Obadiah as
having rushed upon the Jews, in the day of their humilia-
tion by the power of Babylon; when the embittered enmity,
the spirit of vengeance and of rapacity, and the unspeakable
meanness of the Edomites, and their consequent punish-
ment, is embodied and made palpable and held up to open
view in this way; I am far more affected and even in-
structed by it, than I am by the abstract precept in question.
And when the splendid gifts of all who had a willing
heart among the Jews are made, and the magnificent struc-
ture of the tabernacle is reared, and God descends in a
shining cloud which fills and covers the building, and speaks
from his awful sanctuary there, who wonders that even
Moses was unable to enter in because of the excess of glory,
or that all the people should fall prostrate on their faces
and worship? And when we read all this, are we not as
deeply impressed with a sense of the majesty of God, and
of the reverence and obedience due to him, as we are with
the simple declaration, that God is great, and greatly to be
feared, and had in reverence by all who approach him?
Whoever decides, that nothing is to be learned from even
such narratives as these, decides hastily and without be-
coming consideration of the whole matter. Still, the in-
structions of the Gospel are more palpable and forcible; at
least they are so to most minds.
ちな
​May we not conclude, then, that fruit may be gathered
from all parts of the Old Testament prophecy, and history,
and even from the structure of sacred edifices? Are they
not in some respects all "ensamples, written for our ad-
monition, on whom the ends of the world have come?" I
believe them to be so. I think Paul looked upon them in
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
377
this light. And where is there now, in all the historical
books of Scripture, any narrations from which something
may not be learned? I do not say something new, but I
mean to say, that some truth is taught, illustrated, or con-
firmed, which is a truth of permanent interest, at all times
and in all places. Is not all the Jewish history theocratical?
Is not all Hebrew prophecy theocratical? It is truly so; in
prophecy and in history, God is all and in all. His provi-
dence, his retribution, his pleasure or displeasure, his hatred
of sin, his love of justice and holiness, his supremacy, his
requirements, are every where directly or indirectly taught.
Even where nothing more than simple national or individual
events are related, whether in history or in prophecy, there
still lies in this, an account of the Divine dealings with
men, or of the wickedness of the human heart, or of its
penitence and obedience and holiness. There is always
something to imitate, or something to be shunned.
the most moderate intellect cannot fail to observe this.
Even
AND
It needs, I readily concede, some skill always in a success-
ful manner to divest the kernel of its shell or its husk; more
than some of those expositors have exhibited, who have the
faculty of making one passage of Scripture just as fruitful
as another, and even of deducing a whole system of theology
from any given passage. But still, common sense and a
moderate share of taste may suffice for the matter in ques-
tion. The maxim of philosophizing civilians is, that history
is precept teaching by example. If that is true of profane
history, is it not more so of sacred? So, I must think, Paul
believed and taught; and so we may believe and teach after
him.
Then what a boundless variety is given to the themes of
a skilful preacher! Without any double sense, or occult
meaning, or forced allegory, or anagogical process, he can
go any where in the wide field of Scripture, and find some-
thing that is useful and instructive. Such a preacher would
be among the last to part with the Old Testament.
Thus far I have given merc hints; and these are all which
time and place permit. I must not quit the subject, how-
ever, without adding a few more.
I have said, that rarely will one find any considerable
portion of the Old Testament, where there is nothing in it
378
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SECT. XXII.
of the local and temporal that must be abstracted, in order
for us to reduce it to practice or present use. In the de-
votional Psalms even, there are references to places and
modes of worship, which we must separate and distinguish
from those sentiments by which we are now to be profited.
The Psalms of complaint, of thanksgiving, of imprecation,
and others, all have something which savours of time and
place and circumstances. These we must omit; excepting
that in the exegesis of the Psalm we must treat them as
essential, but not in the practical use of it.
It is so with the Mosaic laws. Many, even most of them,
have something attached to them or connected with them,
which is Jewish, and therefore local and temporary. Even
the ten commandments are not altogether an exception to
this. When we are required to honour our father and
mother, we are commanded to do what will always be a
duty at all times, among all nations. But when the pro-
mise is added, that we shall have long life in the land of
Canaan, in consequence of filial duty, this is a part which
belonged only to the Jews. The promise to us, is a higher
and a spiritual reward. The Gospel holds out no mere earthly
promises other than what virtue generally holds out, by point-
ing us to the consequences which follow the practice of it.
tr
I would say also, that " visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, to the third and fourth generation," (which
is a part of another commandment,) has an oriental shape;
for in the East, punishment for any high misdemeanor usually
involved, as it still does, the whole of one's posterity in the
What re-
same consequences which himself must suffer.
mains for us is, to regard the command as threatening
severe and unmitigated punishment.
So I might go through the whole Pentateuch, yea, through
all the historical and prophetical books, and apply the same
principles with the like results. It does indeed require some
good measure of sobriety, of discretion, and discrimination,
always to make the separation between the local and tem-
And so it
poral and the permanent, in a proper manner.
does rightly to appreciate the figurative language of Scrip-
ture, its metaphors and its allegories. The man whose mind
is adequate to this task, may surely be fitted to perform the
other. Indeed, most men of any tolerable education and of
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
379
good common sense, can perform the task in question with
little danger of erring, except in a few of the more difficult
cases. To make the distinctions in question, is a matter, I
may also remark, which really belongs to the practical com-
mentaries upon the Scriptures; and some of them have
in part performed it. But alas! how few of the authors of
these have been distinguished for a profound critical and
exegetical knowledge of the Scriptures! How few have
satisfied the claims of the reason and understanding of men!
Many of them abound in remarks full of pious feeling; and
some of them show an extensive knowledge of Christian
experience in matters of religion. But all this may be,
without shedding any new light on the path of the ignorant
and the inquiring. Pages, I had almost said volumes, of
some of them may be read without meeting with any such
light. The consequence of course is, that in many, perhaps
in most cases, reading of this sort begins, after a while, to
weary him who performs it, and he comes to it as to a task
prescribed, rather than a privilege to be desired. It cannot
be expected that such reading will be long practised. A
commentary that would give us simply what is to be fairly
learned from every part of the Old Testament, in respect to
present duty, or as to doctrine, and which would do this
throughout the Scriptures, is one of the things yet to be; for
I cannot think that it now is. God is preparing men, I
doubt not, for the accomplishment of such a work; one in
which all the results of critical and exegetical study shall be
embodied, and united with all that eminent Christian ex-
perience may suggest or teach. May such a work be hast-
ened in its time!
Many good men, in treating of Old Test. matters, and ex-
plaining the contents of these books, seem to think that they
are at liberty to pursue allegory and type and anagogical
processes, to any extent that they please. A greater mis-
take can hardly be made, in so important a concern. The
moment a reader or hearer gets possession of the idea, that
a writer or preacher is merely addressing himself to his
imagination and fancy, he ceases to give him his serious
confidence. He may be amused-greatly amused, if we
must concede it, by the ingenuity and vivid fancy of his in-
terpreter; but after all he will with difficulty be brought to
C
380
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SECT. XXII.
believe that the sacred writers addressed themselves to
readers in the way of amusement. His first feeling, after a
little of wonder or perhaps of admiration is over, is indiffer-
ence. His next is uneasiness in reading or hearing things
of this nature. It is well if the matter does not end in con-
tempt of the whole.
I would that the Old Testament were employed oftentimes
in quite a different way from that which is not uncommon in
resorting to it. What can we say of those teachers, who
find just as full and complete a revelation in the Old Testa-
ment of every Christian doctrine, as in the New? For ex-
ample; the doctrine of the Trinity is found as completely
there, as in the New Testament. Yet the Saviour, in refer-
ence even to Moses, says, that "no man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him;" John i. 18. Were the Jews
Trinitarians before the coming of Christ? I know of no
satisfactory evidence of this fact. All the efforts to prove it
have ended in mere appeals to cabbalizing Jews, who lived
long after the New Testament was written. It is the light
which the New Testament casts upon various passages of
the Old, and that only, which enables us to bring the Old
Testament to bear upon this doctrine. It remained for
Christ to make the full revelation of this. It was only by
the incarnation, that the Trinity of the Godhead was fully
developed. And when the New Testament asserts, that
this or that thing was done by Christ, or the Logos, under
the ancient dispensation, or that this or that was spoken by
him, it is only then that we come to a full knowledge of any
specific nature, as it respects the Old Testament, concerning
the persons of the Godhead. In this way, the Old Testa-
ment does indeed contribute important aid in making us ac-
quainted with the doctrine of the Trinity.
Take another instance, in respect to the immortality of
the soul and a future state. Paul says of Christ, that "he
has abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light
through the gospel ;" 2 Tim. i. 10. But if all this was re-
vealed and understood before the coming of Christ, on what
can this assertion be grounded? Not that the Hebrews
were entirely ignorant, as many have asserted, of a future
Were they inferior, in this respect, to their neigh-
state.
k
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
381
bours the Egyptians and the Greeks? Not that some such
men as Enoch, and Abraham, and David, and Isaiah, had no
proper views of future rewards and punishments. The
apostle explicitly asserts (Heb. xi.) that they had. But
still, it was reserved for the Gospel to turn Jewish twilight
into broad Christian day. It has done so. But in expound-
ing the Bible under its influence, we must attribute no more
to the Old Testament than belongs to it. The glory of the
Gospel is not to be taken away, and given to a mere intro-
ductory dispensation. The ministration of the Law had in-
deed its glory; but the apostle assures us, that "it now
has [comparatively] no glory, by reason of that which ex-
celleth."
Let these and the like great principles be always kept in
view. We need not become Judaizers, because we main-
tain the authenticity of the Old Testament. Its day has
passed. But how could a Divine religion be revealed in it,
and yet none of the principles inculcated by the Gospel be
exhibited? The thing was impossible. That we should
love God supremely, and our neighbour as ourselves, was
always taught always urged. But a thousand things in
respect to the detail of all the developments of these great
principles, are different in the Old Testament from what is
demanded by the New. Let us fully recognise this, and
thank God for our better light. But our gratitude for the
Gospel need not lead us to scepticism about the Jewish
Scriptures, nor to any undervaluing of them. Very dif-
ferent must the state of our minds be which would lead us
to do this, from that of Paul, who so often resorted to them
in order to show that Jesus was the Christ. We should
regard them in the light of a preface or of an introduction
to the Gospel. Why should the book be admitted, and the
preface, which explains the nature of it, be thrown away?
It would be endless to particularize all the wrong uses
which are made, even by many Christian ministers, of the
Old Testament, and the violence often done to it in order to
make it speak as men wish. It might be a profitable employ-
ment to present "the cry of injured texts," and plead their
cause before an impartial tribunal. But my present object
forbids me to enlarge upon this part of my subject.
I cannot well doubt, that not a few intelligent minds are
382
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
C
rendered somewhat averse to the Old Testament, on ac-
count of the many irrelevant appeals to it which are made
both in and out of the pulpit, and the irrelevant quotations
made from it. Books of such a peculiar nature as Job and
Ecclesiastes, for example, are resorted to with as much con-
fidence for proof-texts, as if they were all preceptive, and not
an account of disputes and doubts about religious matters.
Job xix. 25, seq., is constantly quoted, to show the patri-
arch's knowledge of a Messiah to come, and of the doctrine
of the resurrection, notwithstanding the context and the
tenor of the whole book are totally of a different nature.*
The Psalms that breathe forth imprecations are appealed
to by some, as justifying the spirit of vengeance under the
Gospel, instead of being regarded as the expression of a pecu-
liar state of mind in the writer, and of his imperfect know-
ledge with regard to the full spirit of forgiveness. Thanks
for national blessings, and gratitude for individual deliver-
ances from personal danger, are turned into expressions of
gratitude for blessings purely spiritual, and for deliverances.
merely spiritual. There is indeed not much if any harm in
this; but still, it is on the whole better always to let the
Bible speak just what it simply says, and no more. The
practice of straining the construction of it in any way, gives
rise to many improper liberties with it. Sceptics are always
ready to take advantage of this; and it is not best to give
them occasion to exult over the weakness or the prejudices
of its advocates.
Ma
I have hardly touched upon the subject of unlimited
licence in the matter of types and double sense and allegorical
exposition. The boundless liberties of this nature, which
have been taken in days that are past, is too well known to
need description. Every conspicuous person and thing has
been regarded as a type of Christ, or of his church, until
at last it comes to this, that all the ancient world existed
and acted only in the capacity of types or foreshadowings
of persons or events to come. All the articles of ornament
*The writer here settles the meaning of this much-canvassed passage
in too summary a way. A great deal can be and has been said for the
viow he rejects, while as much unquestionably has been advanced in fa-
vour of the view ho adopts. It would have been better, therefore, to have
spoken of the passago with more caution and less confidence. D.
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
383
or furniture for the tabernacle and temple, were mere pat-
terns of something that was to be attached to the new tem-
ple under the new dispensation. Even the trays, and bowls,
and tongs, and snuffers, and candlesticks, bore a significant
and not unimportant part, as it respected the Messianic
times; and of course all offices and duties, of priests and
Levites and servitors, must have their proper significance.
Any thing which befell Moses, or Joshua, or David, or other
conspicuous personages, the story of which is found in the
Old Testament, becomes, under such a process, and by virtue
of a vπóvoia or occult sense, full of significance under the
new order of things. Launched on a boundless ocean, and
without chart or compass, the allegorists seem intent only
upon rapid sailing; it matters little in what direction.
dadd
Public taste has, some time since, begun to correct these
extravagances. But every now and then the doubter of the
ancient Scriptures meets with them still, and curls his lip
in proud disdain. No wonder. "Si naturam furcâ expel-
las, usque recurret." Violence done to the understanding
and to sober common sense, although it may be slow-footed,
will be certain to avenge itself at last. If there is any book
in all the world addressed to the sober reason and judgment
of men, that book is the Bible. It is written by men, ad-
dressed to men, and designed for men. Of course it adopts
a human and intelligible manner of address throughout.
God has shown his paternal condescension to the weaknesses
of men, in all this. The Scriptures, written in any other
manner, could be of but little profit to us. And when we
see methods of interpretation applied to them, which no
other book will bear, and which would hold any one up to
scorn if he should adopt them in explaining a Classic, how
can it be expected, that the understanding and reason will
not distrust them, and sooner or later be sure to revolt
against them?
Among all the abuses of the Old Testament, none are
more conspicuous than those which result from sectarian
views and purposes. What a mere lump of wax does the
Bible become in the hands of a zealous defender of sect,
perfectly mouldable at his pleasure. No laws of language or
of grammar stand in his way. The original intention of
the writer of the Scripture is little or nothing to the pur-
384
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SECT. XXII.
pose. The occult meaning is summoned to his aid; and
this is always ready, at his bidding, to assume every possi-
ble form. Armed in this way, his antagonists are cut down
by whole ranks at a blow, and the standard of sect waves
speedily over that of the Bible.
Perhaps the prophecies suffer most of all from party spirit
and narrow, partial views of exegesis. A popular writer,
who is much more conspicuous for eloquence and imagin-
ation than for philology or discriminating powers of mind,
rises up and proclaims great events at hand, or not far dis-
tant. The books of Daniel and the Apocalypse, above all,
are thrown into the furnace, "heated seven times more than
it is wont to be," and there comes out from the crucible a
new and splendid metal, the result of wondrous combination
and composition. The nations, the events, the ecclesiastical
establishments, the heresies, of modern Christian countries,
are all discovered in the reflection of this shining compound.
Above all, the successor of St. Peter finds himself placed at
the head of all the indications that are prophetic. It mat-
ters not whether a book is written to instruct a church, or
to console one amidst the evils and sufferings of persecution;
nor even whether it was addressed to the Babylonian Jews
in exile; the same conspicuous personage, Peter's successor,
and his attendants, fill all the foreground of every picture.
The question as to the edification of those to whom the pro-
phecies were originally addressed, has nothing to do with
the exposition of the prophet's work. The only thing or
personage that can fill the eye of a prophet, when he takes
into view the new dispensation, must be the pope. No
other beast of “ seven heads and ten horns" ever made or
could make its appearance; no other "scarlet beast, full of
the names of blasphemy," has ever presented itself before
the eyes of a prophetic seer; none other but she whom this
beast bears, "the mother of harlots," has ever held in her
hands the " cup of abominations" and been "drunk with
the blood of saints." And then the partisan, in his over-
flowing zeal, would fain compel us to say, whether we can
suppose that Daniel, or John, or any other prophet, was not
a full-blooded Protestant? And such being the case, he
wishes to know, whether such a prophet could ever think
or prophesy concerning any other beast than the pope ?
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
385
Such a use of the prophetic writings is what we are called
to witness every day, even in these times, when the rage for
type, and allegory, and double sense, and occult meaning,
has in a very considerable measure abated. Protestants,
not well furnished with other arms against the papacy, re-
sort to this weapon, which is always ready at hand, and
kept indeed tolerably well burnished by use. Alas! the
misfortune is, that the weapon has two edges; and in its
reverberating stroke, (for it is sure to make one,) cuts the
assailant as deeply as he had wounded his antagonist. An-
other generation must pass before this battle will be over.
And then, when time has shown, beyond contradiction, that
all the calculations of prognosticators about the times de-
signated in Daniel and the Apocalypse are clearly frustrated,
confidence in such interpretations will vanish as a matter of
course. The pope seen by John, and described by him!
Then, in John's time, (i. e. about A. D. 68, when the Apoca-
lypse was written,) there had, according to Rev. xvii. 10,
already been five popes who were dead; one was then living
and reigning; and one then to come, whose time would be
short. And besides this-what a precious consolation to
the poor bleeding and disconsolate churches of that period,
to be told, that out of the bosom of that very church and re-
ligion which they so loved and honoured, would spring the
most wicked, formidable, persecuting, and permanent enemy
that the church had ever seen! Consolation, with a wit-
ness!
Y
Sed manum-There is no end to abuses of this sort,
whether of the Old Testament or of the New. Yet even
the sacred cause of true Protestantism cannot defend them,
or apologize for them. It must be true, that this cause in-
vites to the use of no false armour; it asks for no pious fraud
to support it. It regards the oracles of God as so immea-
surably elevated above all human conceits or party feeling
or effort, that it would scorn to employ means so little worthy
of confidence as those in question.
S
I must say one word, before I lay down my pen, in re-
spect to some GENERAL VIEWs of this great subject, viz. the
use of the Old Testament.
There are not a few persons, who seem to feel, that if the
Old Testament is a work of inspiration, it must stand on the
2 c
386
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
t
same level with the New, and be equally obligatory. There
is something of truth in this, and not a little of error. It is
true, that whatever God has sanctioned is of Divine au-
thority. It is true, at any rate in my apprehension it is,
that the writers of the Old Testament "spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost;" 2 Pet. i. 21. But then comes
the all-important inquiry, Did what they said have relation
to the church Jewish, or the church Christian? Did it con-
cern the Hebrew nation only for a time, and in their peculiar
circumstances; or did it relate to the immutable principles of
piety and sound morality? God may give commands re-
specting things that are temporary, as well as those which
are lasting. It is no derogation from his authority, or from
the importance of the Old Testament, that temple, and
priesthood, and sacrifices, and oblations, and purifications,
and distinctions between clean and unclean, have passed
away and are no more. And so all that was peculiar to the
Hebrew nation and their particular condition has passed
away. Our only difficulty consists in finding the bound-
aries between the local and temporal and the permanent.
But there is one simple principle that covers all this ground.
The main difficulty left is, the application of it in some of
the nicer cases. The old maxim of the civilians, in regard
to laws that are ancient, when the question arises, whether
they are still in force, is, Manente ratione, manet ipsa Lex;
i. e. So long as the reason of the Law continues, the Law itself
is in full force. This is the compass to guide us, in traversing
the whole ground from the beginning of Genesis to the end
of Malachi. ALL THAT IS FOUNDED IN TIE PERPETUAL
RELATIONS OF MEN TO GOD, TO EACH OTHER, AND TO THEM-
SELVES, AND WHICHI IS THE SUBJECT OF PRESCRIPTION, COM-
MAND, OR INSTRUCTION ON THE PART OF HEAVEN, IS PER-
MANENT.
hand
pr
But even in cases of this nature, whatever there is in any
command or instruction, which concerns merely the manner
of the thing, and not the essential nature of the duty, is no
longer obligatory on us. We have a new and a better Tes-
tament than the ancient. In itself it is a sufficient guide.
But we should thankfully accept whatever of confirmation
or illustration of our Christian duties there is in the ancient
Hebrew Scriptures. Even from the ten commandments, as
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
387
we have seen, something in respect to the manner of pro-
mised reward, or of threatened punishment, is to be abated.
If any one now should demand of me to lay down a rule
so precise and particular, that every reader of the Old Tes-
tament may judge with certainty in every possible case, what
is local and temporary, and what is permanent, I can no
more do this, than I could prescribe a rule in hermeneutics
which would exempt all men from actual error in the inter-
pretation of the figurative language of the Bible. The ge-
neral principles that I have now developed are plain, prac-
tical, and certain in their result when rightly applied. The
power to make such an application of them depends not on
me, but on the gift of Heaven and the efforts of the inquir-
ing to qualify themselves for the work. I can only speak
my good wishes for inquirers; which are, that they may
meet with desired success. Nothing but the want of skill
or tact, stands in the way of acquiring that which they seek.
Of one thing I am fully persuaded, which is, that a proper
use of the Old Testament will be made, in all cases, by no
one who cleaves to the notion, that because the Hebrew
Scriptures were inspired, they are therefore absolutely per-
fect. Such perfection belongs not to a prefatory or merely
introductory dispensation. It is only a relative perfection
that the Old Testament can claim; and this is comprised in
the fact, that it answered the end for which it was given. It
was given to the world, or to the Jewish nation, in its minority.
It was given to "the heir, when he was under tutors and
governors, and differed not from a servant, although he was
lord of all." It seems difficult for some to believe that God
has dealt with the world, as he does with each individual.
There is a state of infancy, of childhood, of youth, of ma-
turity, of old age. The same person is an actor in all these
stages. And so it has been, and will be, with the world of
mankind. The world has had its infancy, its childhood, its
youth; it is slowly approaching its maturity. As to its old
age, I trust it will be like the hoary head of him who is
found in the way of righteousness-a crown of glory. Why
now should any one insist that a revelation adapted to its
minority should be as ample and complete in its require-
ments, as a revelation intended for its most perfect state?
Divine Providence does not convert whole nations in a day
2 c 2
1
SECT. XXII.
388
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
from their sin and ignorance. Slow has always been the
process and progress. One third or more of the time that
the race of men have existed, they had no Bible. It was
not until more than a thousand years after the composition
of the Old Testament commenced, that it was completed.
Why was it not all given at once? And why was not a
revelation in writing given to the antediluvians? Why did
not Enoch, Noah, Abraham, write one? Can any one an-
swer these questions, except in the way in which I have
already answered them? The race of man, as a whole, has
all the different stages of development assigned to it.
Let us now proceed a step further. With the exception
of such sins as were highly dishonourable to God and in-
jurious to the welfare of men, the rules of duty were not in
all cases strictly drawn. So our Saviour seems to have re-
garded the matter. When he reproached the Pharisees for
the frequency of divorces which they allowed, and they
appealed to Moses as sanctioning it, Jesus replied and said,
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you
to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not
so;" Matt. xix. 8. I am well aware, that there are casuists
at the present day, who think Moses to have judged very
wrongly in this case. And so in regard to his permission
of slavery, and some other things. We cannot reason, I
allow, in all cases with entire certainty, as to what is allow-
able under the Gospel, because it was allowed under the old
dispensation. Polygamy was allowable; and if concubinage
was not, it was generally practised, and does seem to have
been regarded as not forbidden, but only regulated. Slavery
was allowed. Great latitude of divorce, at the will of the
husband, (but not of the wife,) was allowed. Does the Gos-
pel allow any of these? I know that some serious and well-
meaning men are disposed to argue, that the Gospel allows
of slavery. It is my opinion also, that where it has become
a part of the constitution of any society of men, the Gospel
does not require the whole system to be broken up and
abandoned in a single day; for this might endanger the
welfare of the whole. But I can never entertain a doubt,
that the precepts and principles of the Gospel forbid the
making of slaves. When it is required of us, that we should
love our neighbour as ourselves; and in explanation of this
CC
1
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
389
it is also required, that we should do to others whatever we
would that others should do to us; and when, with all this,
it is expressly declared that God has made of ONE BLOOD
all the nations that dwell on all the face of the earth; I
understand this as settling all questions respecting any
slavery, which is not the result of crime or a forfeiture of
liberty by evil-doing, or of voluntary compact on the part
of the slave.
Moses, then, did allow—the ancient dispensation did allow
-of some things which are no longer permitted. In this
an important principle is involved. The Old Testament
morality, in respect to some points of relative duty, is be-
hind that of the Gospel. Why, then, should we regard the
Old Testament as exhibiting an absolute model of perfec-
tion, in its precepts and its doctrines? In some cases, most
plainly this is not true. It needs discretion and judgment,
then, to know how to argue properly from the Old Testa-
ment to the New. But why should the Old Testament be
reproached for not having accomplished all which the Gos-
pel has ?
Was it designed for such an end? Certainly it
was not. Is it just matter of reproach, then, that while it
is adapted to all the purposes which it was designed to sub-
serve, it falls short of the higher mark which the Messianic
legislation has reached? I trow not.
If preachers and teachers would but remember these plain
and simple facts, they would be less troubled with that in
the Old Testament which now presents them with difficulty.
The Gospel is ever and always the ultima ratio in all mat-
ters of religion and morals. It is the supreme court, the
highest tribunal. Whatever there is in the Old Testament,
which falls short of this, or is at variance with this, is of course
not obligatory on us. With certain states of society, and cer-
tain prejudices of men in regard to matters toward which
they are naturally inclined, God has dealt more leniently in
his ancient legislation, than in the Gospel. "The times of
ignorance God winked at.” But where light and know-
ledge abound, he will no longer do this.
If you ask, then, as many will doubtless be inclined to do,
what test shall we apply in all cases to Old Testament pre-
cepts? My general answer would be, Apply to them the
rules of the New Testament. Is it not certain, that the New
390
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Testament is a more perfect rule of doctrine and of duty?
What hinders us, then, from putting the Old Testament al-
ways to such a test? And if there be cases that are not
specifically touched upon in the New Testament, which are
brought to view in the Old, yet analogy may always guide
us in inquiries of such a nature. The Spirit of New Testa-
ment doctrine, morality, modes of worship, (so far as modes
are touched upon,) is always to be applied to judging of our
obligations to the ancient Scriptures.
Will you ask me, then, 'Of what use is the Old Testa-
ment to us? If it is thus to be altogether subordinate and
secondary, why not dismiss it from the lofty eminence of an
authority?' I feel no difficulty, at least in satisfying my-
self, in relation to these questions. Is it of no advantage
to be able to appeal to the ancient revelation in all cases of
religious and moral precept or doctrine, and to find there
the immutable principles of virtue and piety sanctioned,
and thus to know that they are the same in every age? Is
it no advantage to learn how God dealt with his ancient
church for some 1500 and more years? Is there no ad-
vantage in having a religious history of the past, which is
sketched by an unerring hand? a church history which
has a Divine author? Is there no gain to the devout Chris-
tian, in seeing embodied in the Psalms and in the prophets,
the workings of piety in the distinguished minds of ancient
days? Is there no gain to the ethical teacher, in having
before him the inexhaustible store of prudential and prac-
tical maxims in the book of Proverbs? Have Christian
preachers no sympathies in common with the preachers,
i. e. the prophets, of old? The New Testament gives us a
precept, or teaches a doctrine; is it no satisfaction to find
practical exhibitions of the precept, and confirmations of the
doctrine, in the Old Testament ? The Christian church is
built upon the Jewish; not by destroying the foundations
of the latter, but only by demolishing parts of the super-
structure, in order to make the whole more perfect; and
hast thou no holy curiosity to know what the ancient found-
ations were? In a word, the Old Testament teaches that
God is all and in all, as well as the New; but from the Old
Testament we learn, in a peculiar manner, that he may de-
velope himself in a variety of ways, and that he has so done.
tid
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
391
True Christian liberality may be learned and enforced by
considerations of this nature, as well as the duty of submis-
sion and obedience.
There are imperfections in the ancient system; but they
are such as the nature of the case rendered necessary. They
are in accordance with the principle of the slow and gra-
dual amendment of the race of man. The record of our
infancy and childhood, if it could be fully placed before us,
would create a deep interest in the breast of every indivi-
dual so far as his own story is concerned. Why, then, should
the record of the church's infancy be spurned at, as though
it was not deserving of our attention?
But I have said enough. It is time to withdraw my
hand.
And this I will do, as soon as I have said a few
words on the general subject of charges made by Mr. Nor-
ton, against the morality and the spirit of the Old Testa-
ment writings.
T
It is not my object to enter at all into any discussion on
these points. I have said, at the first, that I should leave
these matters to be canvassed by others. Enough that I
have shown the fact, that the Hebrew Scriptures were ad-
mitted as Divine and authoritative by Christ and his apos-
tles. They must have had the same difficulties before their
minds that we now have. But these did not hinder their
forming an opinion in favour of the Divine origin and au-
thority of the Hebrew Scriptures. How can the Old Tes-
tament be so vile a book as Mr. Norton represents it to be?
Why have not Christians of every age been stumbled by
it? And yet they have not. In some way or other, they
have been brought to feel very differently from Mr. Norton
in respect to it. Is it that they have had no sensitive con-
sciences? no keen discernment of τὸ καλόν and τὸ πρεπόν?
I trust not. Mr. Norton has scanned Old Testament mat-
ters in the light of New Testament revelation, and then
passed sentence of condemnation upon the imperfect, be-
cause it is not perfect. Is this equitable dealing? Is it any
proof that sacrifices and offerings were not Divinely author-
ized of old, because they are abolished now? Is it any satis-
factory objection against this or that specific thing in the
Old Testament, that the New has better arranged or modi-
fied it? Is it conclusive against the history or character of
392
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
David and other potentates, that they did things in war
which were common in those days, but which the Gospel
and a better state of things now forbid?
But I have done. Others will doubtless meet Mr. Nor-
ton on grounds of this nature which he has occupied. If
they have enlightened and adequate views of the real dif-
ference between the Christian and the ancient dispensation,
they need not fear the issue of the contest.
How can we
properly claim wisdom and light so superior to that of the
founders of Christianity, as to reject the books which they
have sanctioned? This is the direct, fair, and simple ques-
tion. Let those affirm that we may make such a claim, who
have made up their minds that we are not bound by their
decision. I must believe, that the disciple is not above his
MASTER.
One thing is plain from the present state of religious dis-
pute among us; and this is, that the time has now come,
when the advocates of revelation are to be separated from
its opposers. How can two walk together unless they are
agreed? I do not say, agreed in all the minutia—the detail
of religious sentiments, but in respect to the very basis of
all which is properly called Christianity. If there be no
revelation, there is no Christianity; and if there be a New
Testament and a Christian religion, then there is an Old
Testament which is entitled to our high regard, our atten-
tive study, and a listening ear.
It has become plain, that the battle which has been going
on over most European ground for these forty or fifty years
past, has at last come even to us, and we can no longer de-
cline the contest. Unbelief in the Voltaire and the Thomas
Paine style we have coped with, and in a measure gained
the victory. But now it comes in the shape of philosophy,
literature, criticism, philology, knowledge of antiquity, and
the like. Hume's arguments against miracles, which some
had thought to be dead and buried, have been exhumed,
clothed with a new and splendid costume, and commended
to the world by many among the most learned men in
Europe. Before these, all revelation falls alike, both Old
Testament and New. And if Mr. Norton remonstrates, as
he does, against the sophistry of these arguments, yet he
leaves us, after all, just where he found us. None of the
SECT. XXII. UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.
393
The
Old Testament, according to him, can be relied on.
New can be trusted only in cases where what is said agrees
with our own view of things. This is honestly and plainly
his simple position. I prefer to meet De Wette and Mr.
Parker's views. We know where to find them. We can-
not well mistake them.
Will it be taken in good part, (as it is meant,) if I say
one word to another and different class of men? Cum pace
omnium, I would say, Let those, now, who have stood aloof
so long as to the matter of acquaintance with German pro-
ductions, ask what is to be done with the contest in hand,
in the shape that it has assumed. Have we not a right to
expect from them, at least, that they will show their faith
by their works ? What I mean is, Have we not a right to
expect that they will enter into the battle which is going
on, clad with the panoply of days of yore, which they regard
as the only trusty armour? For one, I will bid God speed to
every stroke which they may strike in this way, provided it
does any execution. It does not look well for them to shrink
from the contest, after all that they have so long and often
said to excite suspicion of others who have pursued a some-
what different course of study, and to cover their names
with a kind of reproach. The time of trial for both parties
(if they must be so named) has now come. No one will
deny this. For myself, I shall with all my heart rejoice, if
they show themselves ready and prepared to meet it. At
least they have had sufficient time to make preparation;
and the religious public have long since expected something.
to meet the allegations of Mr. Norton. In the mean while,
I have had other engagements that must be met, and waited
anxiously for some other and better advocate of revelation
to make his appearance. I hope it will not be deemed a
matter of reproach to me, that I have thought it important
for defence, to find out if possible whence the armour of our
assailants comes, and to meet them, if it may be, with arms
adapted to new times and new methods of attack. I am in-
deed slow to believe, that we of the present day are bound
to keep ourselves ignorant of the strength and resources of
our assailants. The contest has truly become one, as I
have said, PRO ARIS ET FOCIS. The question whether
Christianity is to be the predominant religion of this country,
394
SECT. XXII.
USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
or to yield to philosophic infidelity, is soon to be settled.
Bowed down in some measure under the weight of years,
and tottering under the long-continued pressure of bodily
infirmities, I have still, perhaps most rashly, thrown myself
into the arena of contest; and there I mean to remain, so
long as I can wield a weapon, however light, or lift up a
prayer to the great Head of the church for the success of his
cause. The standard under which I have enlisted waves
aloft over the battle-ground, and bears the inscription in
characters of light: CHRIST AND THE CHURCH;
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE OLD. I hope
and trust in God that I shall never-never desert it.
APPENDIX.
CONTAINING AND EXHIBITING THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, EX-
CEPTING THE NEW TESTAMENT, TO SHOW WHAT WERE THE
ANCIENT CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS.
肇
​No. I.
"
Prologue to the Wisdom of Sirach.*
Πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων δεδομένων,
ὑπὲρ ὧν δέον ἐστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ παιδείας καὶ σοφίας·
καὶ ὡς οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τούς ἀναγινώσκοντας δέον ἐστὶν ἐπισ-
τήμονας γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐκτὸς δύνασθαι τοὺς φιλομα-
θοῦντας χρησίμους εἶναι καὶ λέγοντας καὶ γράφοντας· ὁ πάπ-
πος μου Ἰησοῦς ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἑαυτὸν δοὺς εἴς τε τὴν τοῦ νόμου
καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων ἀνάγνωσιν,
καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἱκανὴν ἕξιν περιποιησάμενος, προήχθη καὶ αὐτὸς
συγγράψαι τι τῶν εἰς παιδείαν καὶ σοφίαν ἀνηκόντων, ὅπως οἱ
φιλομαθεῖς, καὶ τούτων ἔνοχοι γενόμενοι, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπι-
προσθῶσι διὰ τῆς ἐννόμου βιώσεως. Παρακέκλησθε οὖν μετ᾿
εὐνοίας καὶ προσοχῆς τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ συγγνώμην
ἔχειν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἂν δοκῶμεν τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πεφιλοπόνη-
μένον τισὶ τῶν λέξεων ἀδυναμεῖν, οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν
ἑαυτοῖς ἑβραϊστὶ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσ-
Οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα, ἀλλά καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος, καὶ αἱ προ-
φητεῖαι, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὀγδύῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ
τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως παραγενηθεὶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ συγκ
χρονίσας, εὗρον οὐ μικρᾶς παιδείας ἀφόμοιον. ᾿Αναγκαιότατον
-
σαν.
ού
Δ
* This Prologue was probably writton about 130 m. c. Tho Bool itself
probably about 180 m. c.
396
APPENDIX: SIRACH.
ἐθέμην αὐτὸς προσενέγκασθαι τινὰ σπουδὴν καὶ φιλοπονίαν τοῦ
μεθηρμονεῦσαι τήνδε τὴν βίβλον· πολλὴν γὰρ ἀγρυπνίαν καὶ
ἐπιστήμην προσενεγκάμενος ἐν τῷ διαστήματι τοῦ χρόνου πρὸς
τὸ ἐπὶ πέρας ἄγοντα τὸ βιβλίον ἐκδόσθαι, καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῇ παροι-
ίᾳ βουλομένοις φιλομαθεῖν, προκατασκευαζομένοις τὰ ἤθη ἐν
νόμῳ βιοτεύειν.
but
ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Since so many and important things have
been imparted to us by the Law, the Prophets, and other [works] of the
like kind which have followed, for which one must needs praise Israel
on account of learning and wisdom; and inasmuch as not only those
who read ought to be well-informed, but those who are devoted to
learning should be able to profit, both in the way of speaking and
writing, such as are foreigners; my grandfather, Jesus, having devoted
himself very much to the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the
other Books of his country, and having acquired a good degree of ex-
perience in these things, was himself led on to compose something per-
taining to instruction and wisdom, so that those desirous of learning,
being in possession of these things, might grow much more by a life
conformed to the Law.
Ye are invited, therefore, with good will and strict attention to make
the perusal, and to take notice whenever we may seem to lack ability,
in respect to any of the words which we have laboured to translate.
For things in themselves the same, expressed in Hebrew, have not the
same force when they are translated into another language. Not only
So,
but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the remaining Books exhi-
bit no small diversity among themselves as to the modes of expression.
When, in my thirty-eighth year, while Ptolemy Euergetes was king,
I came to Egypt and took up my residence there, I found an exemplar
of no small learning. I deemed it altogether necessary for myself to
apply some diligence and industry to the interpretation of this book;
for I expended much vigilance and study, during that interval of time,
that, bringing to an end this book, I might publish it for those in a
foreign country who wish to be learners, and so to regulate their habits
as to live in conformity with the Law.
REMARKS. It seems somewhat remarkable, that this
grandson of Sirachides, who appears not to have visited
Egypt until he was thirty-eight years of age, should not
have found a copy of his grandfather's book in Palestine;
particularly since the latter assures us (1. 27) that he was
an inhabitant or native of Jerusalem. The fact that he
wrote in Hebrew, is enough to render this altogether pro-
bable; for the Egyptian Jews, if we may judge of them by
the case of Philo, the greatest of them all, were moderate
proficients in this sacred tongue. However, the fact that
the Wisdom of Sirach had a currency, and probably some
APPENDIX: SIRACH.
397
weight of authority in Egypt, falls in well with the history
of the other apocryphal books. Egypt was the hot-bed in
which nearly all of these somewhat sickly plants sprang up
and were nurtured. This was natural. The Palestine Jews
were rigid Canonists. Even the weight of character and
learning which Sirachides possessed, could give his book no
great currency and no authority there. There the Jews all
partook of the spirit of their leaders; and so it was out of
question to add another book to the Canon. But the
Egyptian Jews were far removed from the mother country.
They had intercourse with Greek Schools, philosophers, and
literati. Their views of canonical limits were probably
less strictly defined, or at any rate less rigidly adhered to,
than those of their Palestine brethren. So, while the grand-
son of Sirachides found no apóμotov, (as he calls it,) i. e. no
copy, exemplar, or (as one might translate) fac-simile of his
grandfather's work in his native land, he found one at Alex-
andria, where was more of a literary taste, and less of the
feeling which dictated a rigid adherence to the views and
.זקנים,traditions of the elders
For the rest, the translator well appreciates the difficulty
of translating the Hebrew into Greek; confesses his fear of
occasional error, and begs for the indulgence of the reader,
as well as for the exercise of his discrimination. He does
not, therefore, lay claim to any inspiration on his part. But
how is this matter in respect to the author of the book?
The reader, by referring to p. 224 above, will see, that
while he omits making a direct claim to the office of a pro-
phet, (which he doubtless knew would be controverted and
denied,) he has still intended to be placed at the side of pro-
phets, and take rank among the favourite disciples of Solo-
mon. The whole work is an ambitious imitation of this
king's writings. Even the Tarépwv üpvoç near the close, ap-
pears to have had its origin in the eulogy of Wisdom in Prov.
viii. Moreover the book has many very fine sayings and
sentiments in it. I doubt not that it was much better writ-
ten in Hebrew, than it now appears to be in Greek; and I
fully accede to what the translator says about his inability
adequately to express the Hebrew original in the Greek
language. The Greek of his preface, at least, (which of
course is all his own,) has so near an approach to barbarism
398
APPENDIX: SİRACH.
in its idiom, in the disjointed connexion of the sentences,
and in the use of some of the particles, (e. g. yáp,) as to
show that the writer expressed himself with much difficulty,
and in the true style of a foreigner. And so it is with much
of his translation. Still, it is Hebrew-Greek, and even bet-
ter than some of the Septuagint. I have done my best to
give the ideas of the preface; but I have been compelled to
use some freedom in translating, in order to make the ver-
sion bearable. Whether I have hit the exact shade of the
original meaning in all cases, is of no importance to my pre-
sent object. That part for which the whole is translated, is
quite plain and intelligible.
I cannot refrain from asking here, If the Jews were so
facile as to the admission of new books into the Canon, (e. g.
Daniel, many of the Psalms, Jonah, &c.,) at a period so late
as the Maccabean times, how came it about, that the Wisdom
of Sirach, written at Jerusalem and before these times, and
making, as we have seen, no small claims on admission to an
elevated place, was not even to be found in Palestine some
fifty years after this, but was lighted upon only among the
distant Egyptians? Consistency is a jewel of some value;
and if so, why do not those confident neological critics, who
so often hoist the standard on which is inscribed MAC-
CABÆAN, and fight in earnest under this banner,-why
do they not show us some good and satisfactory reason for
the exclusion of such books as the Zopla Zepáx from the
Palestine Canon, (and even the Jewish Egyptian one,) while
books which they place far below this, now occupy, and for
more than 1900 years (as they concede) have occupied a
place among the sacred Scriptures of the Jews? The whole
affair makes greatly against their confident assumptions.
I have only to remark, that in the first sentence of the
Prologue, if πρoηrãy be regarded as referring to prophetical
books, (and so I have taken it,) then the aλw which follows
must also mean other books. I suppose the oλovIykótwv,
in this case, to refer to the order of arrangement in the
Canon, which had been and still continued, (the appropriate
sense of the Perf.,) rather than to the time of writing. Pro-
phets, according to the Hebrew idiom, were all the writers of
the Scriptures; so that popηrov, especially if compared with
the preceding vóμov, would seem to mean the books so called,
π
APPENDIX: PHILO,
399
in the case before us. But still the participle ἀκολουθηκότων
may appear rather to indicate persons who followed the
so-called prophets, (also considered as persons,) if we look to
the Kar' aurous by which it is accompanied. So De Wette
has taken it. I do not consider this construction, however,
as being certain; for the gender of avroús, if it refers to
books, would in this case be regulated by its antecedent πρо-
про-
onrur. In case prophets means persons, then the prophets,
who were the authors of the books belonging to the Old
Testament which bear their names, are meant, and the others
who have followed must mean other writers of the Jewish
Scriptures who lived after them. But this can be understood
only as to the greater portion of them; for Haggai, Zechariah,
and in particular Malachi, have always been regarded by the
Jews as among the latest writers in their Canon. Difficul-
ties therefore lie in the way of De Wette's interpretation.
Analogy with the passage in the second sentence-“the
Law, the Prophets, and the other patrical books"-would
rather plead for the interpretation which I have put upon
the passage, notwithstanding the difficulty in respect to the
participle ἀκαλουθηκότων.
Finally, τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων, with the definite ar-
ticle prefixed, and placed by the side of rou vóµov and 7ŵr
πро¶ητ, which must in their very nature be definite, does
beyond all reasonable doubt limit the other books in ques-
tion here, to the complement or remainder of the books
which made up the Holy Scriptures. The triplex division,
therefore, as in later times, lies on the very face of this whole
representation. The nature of the appeal takes it for grant-
ed, that this was well known, and would be universally un-
derstood. Of course, the usage of thus dividing the Scrip-
tures must have been established for a considerable period,
anterior to that in which the translator wrote, and anterior
to the age of his grandfather.
Kat
Make a
No. II.
Passages in the Vita Contemplativa of Philo Judous.-Opp. II. p. 475,
edit. Mangey. (flor. A. D. 40.)
PHILO, in praising a contemplative life and in giving va-
rious examples of it, comes at last to the Therapeuta or
400
APPENDIX: PHILO.
Essenes, (== D1DN, medici, healers,) whose devotional prac-
tices he thus describes : Ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ ἵερον, ὃ καλεῖται
σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον, ἐν ᾧ μονούμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου
μυστήρια τελοῦνται· μηδὲν εἰσκομίζοντες, μὴ ποτόν, μὴ σίτον,
μηδέν τι τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα πρὸς τὰς τοῦ σώματος χρείας ἀναγκαῖα,
ἀλλὰ νόμους, καὶ λόγια θεσπισθέντα διὰ προφητῶν, καὶ ὕμ
νους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα οἷς ἐπιστήμη καὶ εὐσέβεια συναύξονται καὶ
τελειοῦνται. . . . . . Ἐντυγχάνοντες γὰρ τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασι,
φιλοσοφοῦσι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν ἀλληγοροῦντες, ἐπειδὴ
σύμβολα τὰ τῆς ῥητῆς ἑρμηνείας νομίζουσι φύσεως ἀποκεκρυμ-
μένης, ἐν ὑπονοίαις δηλουμένης. Εστι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ συγγράμ-
ματα παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν, οἳ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγέται γενόμενοι
πόλλα μνημεῖα τῆς ἀλλεγορουμένης ἰδέας ἀπέλιπον.
Judg
Galat
TRANSLATION. In every house is a sanctuary, which is called sacred
place or monastery, in which, being alone, they perform the mysteries
of a holy life ; introducing nothing into it, ncither drink, nor bread-corn,
nor any of the other things which are necessary for the wants of the
body, but the laws, and oracles predicted by the prophets, and hymns and
other [writings] by which knowledge and picty are increased and per-
tected. . . . Addressing themselves to the sacred writings, they philoso-
phize their country's philosophy, interpreting allegorically, inasmuch as
they regard those things which admit a plain interpretation, as symbols
of something that is hidden and is indicated merely by ὑπόνοια [i. e. an
under or secondary meaning]. They have also writings of their elders,
who, being leaders of the sect, left many monuments of their allegori-
cal notions.
A doubt has been raised here, whether hymns and other
[writings] by which knowledge and piety are increased and
perfected, is meant to designate a portion of the Scriptures.
I do not see that there is good room, however, for reason-
able doubt. The intimate junction of these with the Law
and the Prophets; the manner in which their contents are
described; and above all, the express distinction between
these books and others which were peculiar to the sect of
the Essenes, and which were composed by the elders and
leaders of the sect, make it quite plain that the hymns and
other writings belonged to the Scriptures. Even if these
circumstances did not decide the case, the fact that Philo,
immediately after having mentioned these three classes of
books, speaks of them as ἱερὰ γράμματα, sacred writings, de-
cides the point. In the days of Philo, then, the Jewish
Scriptures in the hands of the Therapeut consisted of
three great divisions, in the same manner as we have seen
APPENDIX: JOSEPHUS.
401
in the book of Sirach. No intimation is any where given,
that the Essenes had a different Canon from that of the
other Jews. Indeed, all the knowledge we have of them
would lead us to reject this idea. And as the sect was
ancient, and rigidly adhered to the practices of their fathers,
we may well draw the conclusion, that the triplex division
of Scripture here described by Philo, had long existed in
the usages of the Jewish nation.
No. III.
Passage from Josephus, contra Apionem, Lib. I. § 8. (Born A. D. 37.)
Οὐ γὰρ μυριάδες βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, ἀσυμφώνων καὶ μαχο-
μένων· δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι Βιβλία, τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντα χρό-
νου τὴν ἀναγραφήν, τὰ δικαίως Θεῖα πεπιστευμένα. Καὶ τούτων
πέντε μέν ἐστι τὰ Μωϋσέως, ἃ τούς τε νόμους περιέχει, καὶ τὴν
-ῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν μέχρι τῆς αὐτοῦ τελευτῆς. Οὗτος
ὁ χρόνος ἀπολείπει τρισχιλίων ὀλίγον ἔτων. ᾿Απὸ δὲ τῆς Μωϋ-
σέως τελευτῆς μέχρι τῆς ᾿Αρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ Ξέρξην Περσῶν
βασιλέως ἀρχῆς, [ἀρχῆς is omitted in Euseb.,] οἱ μετὰ Μωϋ-
σῆν προφῆται τὰ κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ
δέκα βιβλίοις. Αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν. ᾿Απὸ δ᾽ ᾿Αρ-
ταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς χρόνου, γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα·
πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διά τὸ μὴ γένεσ-
θαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν. Δῆλον δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔργῳ
πῶς ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν, τοσούτου γὰρ αἶ-
ῶνος ἤδη παρῴχηκότος, οὔτε προσθεῖναι τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν
αὐτῶν, οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν. Πᾶσι δὲ συμφυτόν ἐστιν
εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γενέσεως Ιουδαίοις, τὸ νομίζειν αὐτὰ Θεοῦ
δόγματα, καὶ τούτοις ἐμμένειν, καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἰ δέοι θνήσκειν
ἠδέως.
Qu
-
CC
TRANSLATION. We have not a countless number of books, discord-
ant and arrayed against each other; but only two and twenty books,
containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as di-
vino [old oditions of Josophus rcad merely, “ which are justly accre-
dited"--Dela comes from Eusebius' transcript of Josephus in Ecc.
Hist. III. 10]; and of these, five belong to Moses, which contain both
the laws and the history of the generations of men until his death.
2 v
402
APPENDIX: JOSEPHUS.
This period lacks but little of 3000 years. From the death of Moses,
moreover, until the reign of Artaxerxes, [Euseb.-' from the death of
Moses to that of Artaxerxes'-and so most of the Codices, omitting
dpxñs, reign,] king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who fol-
lowed Moses have described the things which were done during the age
of cach one respectively, in thirteen books. The remaining four con-
tain hymns to God, and rules of life for men. From the time of Ar-
taxerxes, moreover, until our present period, all occurrences have been
written down; but they are not regarded as entitled to the like credit
with those which precede them, because there was no certain succession of
prophets. Fact has shown what confidence we place in our own writ-
ings. For although so many ages have passed away, no one has dared
to add to them, nor to take any thing from, nor to make alterations.
In all Jews it is implanted, even from their birth, to regard them as
being the instructions of God, and to abide stedfastly by them, and if
it be necessary, to die gladly for them.
.
Remarks on this passage are unnecessary, as they are so
fully made in the preceding pages, viz. p. 208, seq. Of all
the testimony among ancient writers about the Old Testa-
ment, this is unquestionably the most important. The intel-
ligence, the connexions, the official character, and the in-
tegrity of Josephus, all conspire to render him worthy of
the most entire credit. The matter is not one about which
he could be in doubt, when he speaks the views and feelings
of his countrymen. The latter part of his testimony makes
it quite certain, that he did so speak; for he tells us expli-
citly what the views and feelings of the Jews had always
been, in reference to their sacred books. To say as Herbst,
many other Romanists, and some of the Neologists do, that
Josephus only gives us his own private opinion, is saying
what is contradicted by his own explicit statement. The
appeal to the Talmud, rather than to him, to determine the
ancient number of the sacred books, respectively contained
in the division of the Prophets and of the Hagiography, is
altogether uncritical and inadmissible. The admission of
such an appeal by Neologists, in order to maintain their fa-
vourite views about the lateness of Daniel and the Chroni-
cles, shows fully that the spirit of party and of prejudice is
not by any means confined to the so-called Orthodox.
APPENDIX: MELITO.
403
No. IV.
Testimony of Melito, bishop of Sardis, (flor. A. D. 170,) presented by
Eusebius in his Historia Ecc. Lib. IV. c. 26.
Μελίτων Ονησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν· ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἠξ-
ίωσας σπουδῇ τῇ πρός τὸν λόγον χρώμενος γενέσθαι σοι ἐκλο-
γάς, ἔκ τε τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν περὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος καὶ
πάσης τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν· ἔτι δὲ καὶ μαθεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν
βιβλίων ἐβουλήθης ἀκρίβειαν, πόσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ ὁποῖα τῆν
τάξιν εἶεν, ἐσπούδασα τὸ τοιοῦτο πρᾶξαι, ἐπιστάμενος σου τὸ
σπουδαῖον περὶ τὴν πίστιν, καὶ φιλομαθὲς περὶ τὸν λόγον· ὅτι
τε μάλιστα πάντων πόθῳ τῷ πρὸς Θεὸν ταῦτα προκρίνεις, περὶ
τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας ἀγωνιζόμενος· ἀνελθὼν οὖν εἰς τῆν ἀνα-
τολὴν, καὶ ἕως τοῦ τύπου γενόμενος ἔνθα ἐκηρύχθη καὶ ἐπράχθη,
καὶ ἀκριβῶς μαθὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία, ὑποτάξας
ἔπεμψά σοι· ὧν ἔστι τὰ ὀνόματα· Μωϋσέως πέντε· Γένεσις, Εξο-
δος, Λευιτικὸν, ᾿Αριθμοὶ, Δευτερονόμιον. Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ, Κριταὶ,
Ρούθ, Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα, Παραλειπομένων δύο. Ψαλμῶν
Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶντος Παροιμίαι ἥ καὶ Σοφία, Εκκλησιαστής, ο Ασ-
μα Ασμάτων, Ἰώβ· Προφῃτῶν, Ἡσαΐου, Ἱερεμίου, τῶν δώδεκα
ἐν μονοβίβλῳ, Δανιὴλ, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Εσδρας· ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰς ἐκλο-
γὰς ἐποιησάμην, εἰς ἕξ βιβλία διελών.
M
TRANSLATION. Melito to Onesimus his brother, greeting. Since you
have often requested, through the earnest desire that you cherish for
the word [of God], that you might have a selection made for you from
the Law and the Prophets, which has respect to our Saviour and the
whole of our faith; and since moreover you have been desirous to ob-
tain an accurate account of the ancient books, both as to their number
and their order; I have taken pains to accomplish this, knowing your
earnestness in respect to the faith, and your desire for instruction in
regard to the word; and most of all, that you, while striving after eter-
nal salvation, through desires after God, give a preference to these things.
Making a journey therefore into the cast, [Palestine,] and having arrived
at the place where these things [i. e. scriptural events] were proclaimed
and transacted, I there learned accurately the books of the Old Testa-
ment, which I here arrange and transmit to you. The names are as
follows: The five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num-
bers, Deuteronomy. Then Joshua of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books
of Kings, two of Chronicles. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs of
Solomon, (also called Wisdom,) Ecclcsiastes, the Song of Songs, Job.
Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel,
Ezra. From these I have made selections, distributing them into six
books.
}
2 D 2
404
APPENDIX: ORIGEN.
Remarks on this passage, sufficiently copious, the reader
will find on p. 239, seq. above. As the earliest Christian
writer who has given us a list of the Old Test. books, and
as a man of much learning and distinguished piety, his
testimony deserves special consideration.
Η
No. V.
Testimony of Origen, preserved in Eusebius' Hist. Eco. Lib. IV. c. 25.
66
Τὸν μέν τοιγε πρῶτον ἐξηγούμενος Ψαλμὸν, ἔκθεσιν πεποί-
ηται (Ωριγένης) τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης
καταλόγον, ὧδέ πως γράφων κατὰ λέξιν· “οὐκ ἀγνοητέον δ᾽
εἶναι τὰς ἐνδιαθήκους βίβλους, ὡς Ἑβραῖοι παραδιδόασιν, δύο
καὶ εἴκοσι· ὅσος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν παρ' αὐτοῖς στοιχείων ἐστίν.”
Εἶτα μετά τινα ἐπιφέρει λέγων· “ εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ εἴκοσι δύο βίβλοι
καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους αἵδε· ἡ παρ' ἡμῖν Γένεσις ἐπιγεγραμμένη, πα-
ρὰ δὲ Ἑβραίοις ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς βίβλου Βρησίϑ, ὅπερ
ἐστὶν ἐν ἀρχῇ· Εξοδος, Οὐ αλεσμὼ θ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ταῦτα τὰ
ὀνόματα· τ Λευιτικὸν, Ουϊκρὰ, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· Αριθμοί,
᾿Αμμεσφεκωδεί μ' Δευτερονόμιον, ῎Ελλε ἁδδεβαρίμ,
οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι· Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ, Ἰωσοῦε βὲν Νοῦν·
Κριταὶ, Ῥούθ, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐν ἑνὶ, Σωφετίμ Βασιλειῶν
πρώτη, δευτέρα, παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἓν Σαμουήλ, ὁ θεόκλητος·
Βασιλειῶν τρίτη, τετάρτη, ἐν ἑνὶ Οὐαμμέλεχ Δαβίδ,
ὅπερ ἐστὶ βασιλείετα Δαβίδ· Παραλειπομένων πρώτη, δευτέρα,
ἐν ἑνὶ, Διβρή ᾿Αϊαμὶμ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ λόγοι ἡμερῶν· Έσδρας
πρῶτος καὶ δεύτερος ἐν ἑνὶ, Ἐζρᾶ, ὅ ἐστι βοηθός· βίβλος
Ψαλμῶν, Σέφερ θιλλίμ Σολομῶντος Παροιμίαι, Μισ-
λώθ· Εκκλησιαστής, Κωέλεθ ῏Ασμα ᾿Ασμάτων, Σὶρ
ἁσσιρίμ… Ἡσαΐας Ἱεσαϊά· Ἱερεμίας σὺν Θρήνοις καὶ
τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ, ἐν ἑνὶ, Ἱερεμία· Δανιήλ, Δανιήλ. Ἰεζε-
κιήλ, Ἰεζεκιήλ Ἰώβ, Ἰώβ· Ἐσθὴρ, Ἐσθήρ. Εξω δὲ
τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκά, ἅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται Σαρβήθ
σαρβανὲ ἔλ.
શ
(d
•
/
t
TRANSLATION. In explaining the first Psalm, ho [Origen] sets fortla
a catalogical view of the sacred books of the Old Testament; describing
them in the following manner, "One must not be ignorant, that there
are twenty-two books of the covenant, as the Hebrews reckon them;
which is the number of letters in their alphabet." Then, after some
APPENDIX: ORIGEN.
405
remarks, he adds, "Moreover the twenty-two books of the Hebrews are
these; the book entitled Genesis by us, but by the Hebrews Bresith,
from the beginning of the book, for this means in the beginning; Ex-
odus, Oualesmoth, i. c. these are the names; Leviticus, Ouikra, i. e.
and he called; Numbers, Ammesphekodim; Deuteronomy, Elle Had-
debarim, i. e. these are the words; Joshua the son of Nun, Josue ben
Noun; Judges, Ruth, with them [the Hebrews] in one, Sophetim;
Kings first and second, among them one, Samouel, the called of God;
Kings third and fourth in one, Ouammelech David, i. e. the reign of
David; Chronicles (or Supplement) first and second, in one, Dibre
Aiamim, i. e. accounts of the times; Ezra first and second, in one,
Ezra, which means helper; the book of Psalms, Sepher Thillim; the
Proverbs of Solomon, Misloth; Ecclesiastes, Koeleth; the Song of
Songs, Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jesaia; Jeremiah with Lamentations and
the epistle, in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Ieezkel; Job,
Job; Esther, Esther. Besides these, there are the Maccabees, which
are inscribed Sarbeth Sarbene El.
The names in Italic are the representatives of the He-
brew names of the books. Of the twenty-two books, said
by Origen to belong to Hebrew Scriptures, he produces (as
related by Eusebius) only twenty-one. But there can be
no doubt that this is an error either in the copy of Eusebius,
or of some of his transcribers. (See on this subject, p. 242,
above.) The fact that Rufinus, in his translation of Origen,
specifies the Twelve Minor Prophets, (in one book, as al-
ways in ancient times,) which are omitted in the catalogue
above, and also the nature of the case, (since Origen has
said that there are twenty-two books,) make it entirely clear
that Origen's catalogue originally contained, or was intended
to contain, the Prophets in question.
In respect to the MACCABEES, the Hebrew title which
Origen has given it, (the first book only is meant,) shows
that he was acquainted with the work in Hebrew ; in which,
no doubt, it was originally composed. So says Jerome:
"Maccabæorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secun-
dus Græcus est; quod ex ipsâ quoque phrasi probari potest;
i. e. The First Book of the Maccabees I found in Hebrew.
The Second is Greek; which is evident from its phrase-
ology." In Prol. Galeato. This is the reason why Origen
speaks of it as being among the books of the Hebrews. But
he expressly separates it from their canonical books: čew de
TOUTWY, K. T. λ. To count upon Origen as including the Mac-
cabees in his Canon, as Herbst does, is strange enough, after
Origen himself has separated it by an Ew, i. e. extrinsic,
ω
406
APPENDIX: ORIGEN.
abroad, foreign. In respect to the meaning of the Hebrew
title, as given in the unskilful manner of Origen, who makes
the Greek letters the representatives of it, not improbably
it may be: History of the Princes of the sons of God,
e.
-the first word being employed in its Ara שרבת שרי בני אל
mæan sense; which would be no improbability, at the time
when the book was written. Other explanations may be
seen in Eichh. Einl. IV. p. 222; but they are less probable.
The princes seem to be the Maccabæan leaders, and the sons
of God means the party of the pious who clave to these
leaders. There was another apocryphal book, also, extant
probably in Hebrew, in Origen's day, namely, the Wisdom
of Sirach. But he does not appear to have seen any thing
but the Greek copy, when he wrote the catalogue above.
L
I would merely remark at the close, that Origen, from
his long-continued critical study of the Scriptures, his en-
lightened views in relation to this subject, his integrity, and
his long residence both in Egypt and in Palestine, must
have fully known what the Jews in general, in both coun-
tries, thought in respect to their Canon. One difficulty
only remains. This is, that Origen not only includes La-
mentations with Jeremiah, but also an epistle, or rather the
epistle. What is this? Is it the so-called Epistle of Jere-
miah to the captives at Babylon, which constitutes one of
the apocryphal books, and consists of seventy-three verses?
So the Romanists affirm. But of this I must doubt; be-
cause no other ancient list of the sacred books has com-
prised this with Jeremiah and Lamentations, excepting such
as appear to be copied from him. That Jeremiah wrote
letters to the exiled Jews, is certain; see Jer. xxix. That
some of his predictions were written by Baruch separately,
is plain from Jer. xxxvi. I cannot but feel, that some of
the epistles named in the book of Jeremiah were added to
it, at least in the copy which Origen had, in the way of an
appendage, instead of being incorporated with the main
body of the work. In the time of Jerome, the apocryphal
Epistle of Jeremiah, as Herbst confesses, (Einl. p. 14,) was
incorporated with Baruch, as a sixth chapter (and so often-
times since); and yet of this Jerome says expressly, “Li-
brum Baruch, qui apud Hebræos nec legitur nec habetur,
prætermisimus, i. e. the book of Baruch, which the Hebrews
APPENDIX: COUNCIL OF LAODICEA.
407
neither read nor possess, we pass by." We must, therefore,
either attribute error to Origen in respect to the Epistle in
question, or explain it in some such way as I have done.
The Council of Laodicea, as will be seen in the sequel,
Hilary, also Cyrill of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Synopsis
Scripturæ, (in Opp. Athanas.,) all exhibit the same or the
like difficulties, in regard to the component parts of Jeremiah,
probably copying in this respect the representation of Origen.
The disjointed and as it were fragmentary state of Jeremiah
in ancient times, (witness the Septuagint Version,) is in all
probability the basis of this peculiarity in some of the an-
cient lists of the scriptural books. The matter has not yet
been fully cleared up; but the weight of testimony is
altogether against the supposition of an apocryphal book
being meant.
C
No. VI.
List of canonical Books as made out by the Council of Laodicea;
(between A. D. 360-364.)
CAN. 59. Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκ-
κλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς
καινῆς καὶ παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. Can. 60. Οσα δεῖ βιβλία ἀνα-
γινώσκεσθαι τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης· ά, Γένεσις κόσμου. β',
Εξοδος ἐξ ᾿Αιγύπτου, γ΄, Λευιτικόν. δ', ᾿Αριθμοί. έ, Δευ-
τερονόμιον. στ', Ἰησοῦς Ναυῆ. ζ΄, Κριταί. Ῥούθ. ή, Ἐσ-
θήρ. 9', Βασιλειῶν ά, β'. ί, Βασιλειῶν γʹ, δ. ιά, Παρα-
λειπόμενα ά, β'. ιβ', Έσδρας, ά, β'. ιγ, βίβλος Ψαλμῶν ρν.
ιδ', Παροιμίαι Σαλομῶντος. ιέ, Εκκλησιαστής. ιστ', ῏Ασμα
᾿Ασμάτων. ιζʹ, Ἰώβ. ιή, Δώδεκα προφῆται. ιθ, Ἡσαΐας.
κ', Ἱερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, Θρῆνοι καὶ Ἐπιστολαί. κά, Ἰεζεκιήλ.
κβʹ, Δανιήλ.
IN
TRANSLATION. Canon 59. Private Psalms must not be read in the
church, nor uncanonical books, but only the canonical ones of the New
and Old Testaments. Canon 60. The books of the Old Testament
which ought to be rcad: (1.) Genesis of the world. (2.) Exodus from
Egypt. (3.) Leviticus. (4.) Numbers. (5.) Deuteronomy. (6.)
Joshua of Nun. (7.) Judges, Ruth. (8.) Esther. 9.) 1 Kings, first
and second [1 and 2 Samucl]. (10.) 2 Kings, first and second.
(11.) Chronicles, first and second. (12.) Ezra, first and second [i. e.
Ezra and Nehemiah]. (13.) The book of Psalms, 150. (14.) Pro-
408
APPENDIX: CYRILL.
verbs of Solomon. (15.) Ecclesiastos. (16.) Song of Songs. (17.) Job.
(18.) Twelve Prophets. (19.) Isaiah. (20.) Jeremiah and Baruch,
the Lamentations and the Epistles. (21.) Ezckicl. (22.) Daniel.
The Hagiography are here all put in junction together;
Chronicles is joined with the historical books; Esther is
placed before them; Job after the Hagiography; the twelve
Prophets before the others; and Daniel along with them;
as in our Bibles. But as this Council used the Septuagint,
we cannot say with certainty that they followed any of the
usual Hebrew copies in arrangement. How near they come
to Origen, is plain from the peculiar alleged contents of the
book of Jeremiah. Baruch and the (apocryphal ?) Epistle
both are included. These were probably now joined in one
book, (as in Jerome's time,) and so they are here named.
The solution of this phenomenon which appears most pro-
bable to me, I have already given in my remarks on the list
of Origen.
No. VII.
Cyrill of Jerusalem, (flor. A. D. 350,) in Ficrosol. Catechesis, IV. No.
33-36. Opp. p. 69, edit. Touttei.
기
​᾿Αναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφάς, τάς εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς
παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνευτῶν
ἑρμηνευθείσας.
Τοῦ νόμου μὲν γὰρ εἰσιν αἱ Μωσέως
πρῶται πέντε βίβλοι. ἐξῆς δὲ, Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυῆ, καὶ τῶν
Κριτῶν μετὰ τῆς Ῥοὺθ βιβλίον ἕβδομον ἀριθμούμενον, τῶν δὲ
λοιπῶν ἱστορικῶν βιβλίων, πρῶτη καὶ δευτέρα τῶν Βασιλειῶν,
μία παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις ἐστὶ βίβλος· μία δὲ καὶ ἡ τρίτη καὶ ἡ τετάρτη·
ὁμοίως δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ τῶν Παραλειπομένων ἡ πρώτη καὶ ἡ
δευτέρα, μία τυγχάνει βίβλος, καὶ τοῦ Εσδρα ἡ πρώτη καὶ ἡ
δευτέρα, μία λελόγισται· δωδεκάτη βίβλος ἡ Ἐσθήρ. καὶ τὰ μὲν
ἱστορικὰ ταῦτα. τὰ δὲ στοιχηρὰ τυγχάνει πέντε, Ἰώβ,
καὶ βίβλος Ψαλμῶν, καὶ Παροιμίαι, καὶ Ἐκκλησιαστής, καὶ
*Ασμα ᾽Ασμάτων, ἑπτακαιδέκατον βιβλίον· ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὰ
προφητικὰ πέντε· τῶν δώδεκα προφητῶν μία βίβλος, καὶ
Ἡσαΐου μία, καὶ Ἱερεμίου μετὰ Βαροὐχ καὶ Θρήνων καὶ Ἐπισ-
τολῆς· εἶτα Ἰεζεκιήλ· καὶ ἡ τοῦ Δανιὴλ εἰκοστηδευτέρα βίβλος
τῆς παλαίας διαθήκης.
3
E
APPENDIX: GREGORY.
409
TRANSLATION. Make yourself well acquainted with the divine
Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were
translated by the seventy-two interpreters. . . . The first five books are
of Moses, which is the Law.... Then comes Joshua of Nun; Judges
with Ruth, numbered the seventh book; of the remaining historical
books, first and second of Kings [1 and 2 Sam.], one book among the
Hebrews. One also is the third and fourth of Kings; with them also
the Chronicles, first and second, arc one book; the first and second of
Ezra [Ez. Neh.] are reckoned as one; the twelfth book is Esther;
and these are the historical ones. The poetical books are five; viz.
Job, the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs,
the seventeenth book. To these must be added five prophetic ones;
the twelve Prophets, one book; one also of Isaiah; of Jeremiah with
Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle; then Ezekiel; and Daniel, the
twenty-second book of the Old Testament.
Here is a different arrangement still, which is the same
for the most part as in our present English Bibles. The
only exception is, that the Minor Prophets are placed before
the others. The books of the Hagiography, as described by
Josephus, are here all associated and called orolɣnpá, i. e.
measured, in metre, or poetic. The same difficulty also ap-
pears here, as in the Canon of the Laodicean Council, in
respect to the constituent parts of Jeremiah. I have nothing
more to say concerning this difficulty, than what I have al-
ready said. The list of books was evidently copied from
the like source with the list of the Council, i. e. it was pro-
bably made out from Origen's Catalogue.
POMĚ
No. VIII.
Gregory Nazianzen, (flor. 370,) Opp. II. Carmina, XXXIII.
In this 33d Carmen or sacred Ode, Gregory has under-
taken, in accordance with the taste and fancy of the times,
to throw the names of all the sacred books into measured
verse. He thus proceeds with the Old Testament :
Ἱστορικαὶ μὲν εἴσι βίβλοι δυοκαίδεκα πᾶσαι,
Τῆς ἀρχαιοτέρης Ἑβραϊκῆς σοφίης.
Πρωτίστη Γένεσις, εἶτ᾽ Εξοδος, Λευιτικόντε,
?!
$1
Ἔπειτ᾽ ᾿Αριθμοί, εἶτα δεύτερος Νόμος.
>/
Ἔπειτ᾽ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ Κριταί· Ροὺθ ὀγδόη·
ΙΙ δὲ ἐνάτη δεκάτη τε βίβλοι, πράξεις Βασιλήων,
Καὶ Παραλειπόμεναι· ἔσχατον ῎Εσδραν ἔχεις.
410
APPENDIX: GREGORY.
π
Αἱ δὲ στιχηραὶ πέντε, ὧν πρῶτός γε Ιώβ,
Επειτα Δαυίδ, εἶτα τρεῖς Σολομώντειαι,
*Εκκλησιαστής, ῏Ασμα, καὶ Παροιμίαι.
Καὶ πένθ' ὁμοίως πνεύματος προφητικοῦ·
Μίαν μέν εἰσιν ἐς γραφὴν οἱ δώδεκα,
Ωσηέ, καὶ ᾿Αμώς, καὶ Μιχαίας ὁ τρίτος,
Ἔπειτ' ᾿Ιωήλ, εἶτ' ᾿Ιωνᾶς, ᾿Αβδίας,
Ναούμ τε, ’Αββακούμ τε, καὶ Σοφονίας,
'Αγγαιος, εἶτα Ζαχαρίας, Μαλαχίας·
Μία μὲν οἶδε. Δευτέρα δὲ Ἡσαΐας,
Επειθ᾽ ὁ κληθεὶς Ἱερεμίας ἐκ βρέφους,
Εἶτ' ’Ιεζεκιήλ, καὶ Δανιήλου χάρις.
᾿Αρχαίας μὲν ἔθηκα δύω καὶ εἴκοσι βίβλους,
0
Τοῖς τῶν Ἑβραίων γράμμασιν ἀντιθέτους.
TRANSLATION. All the historical books are twelve, of the ancient
Hebrew wisdom. First Genesis, then Exodus, and Leviticus, then
Numbers, then Deuteronomy. Then Joshua, and Judges; Ruth is the
eighth; the ninth and tenth books are the acts of Kings; then Chro-
niclos; the last is Ezra. There are five books in metre; the first of
which is Job, then David, [Psalms,] three belong to Solomon, viz.
Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs. In like manner there are five of the
prophetic Spirit; twelve of these are comprised in one, viz. Hosca,
Amos, Micah, then Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepha-
niah, Ilaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; these make the first. The se-
cond is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, who was called from the womb, Ezekick,
and the grace of Daniel. I have exhibited twenty-two books, corre-
sponding with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews.
Aut
Mag
It will be perceived, that in making out twenty-two books,
Gregory has separated Ruth from Judges, and omitted
Esther. The same omission we find in Athanasius, and in
some other cases; but the testimony of Josephus, and of
the feast of Purim, in behalf of the antiquity of this book,
place it beyond our reach to call in question its place in the
Canon. We have found the same omission in Melito, (p.
241, seq.,) but have supposed it to belong, in that case,
merely to error in transcribing. In Melito and in Gregory,
Ezra no doubt comprehends Nehemiah; for such was the
usual custom of the ancients. But in Gregory, there is an
evident purpose of omitting Esther; for he has separated
Judges and Ruth, in order to make out the twenty-two books
which are the usual number. It is difficult to say what was
the inducement to this, unless it was, that the Greck copy
APPENDIX : ATHANASIUS.
411
S
of the Scriptures in his hands, embraced Esther with all the
Alexandrine interpolations. No wonder he (having no ac-
quaintance with the Hebrews) rejected it, if such were the
case. Not a word in Gregory about any of the apocryphai
books; and yet he entitles his Ode, περὶ τῶν γνησίων βιβλίων
τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς, i. e. concerning the genuine books
of the inspired Scriptures. Of course he regards books not
named as not belonging to this category; and therefore he
must have rejected the Apocrypha.
One other thing is worthy of note here, viz. that both
Cyrill of Jerusalem and Gregory Nazianzen make a triplex
division of the Scriptures; but not on Talmudic ground.
They divide them into twelve historical, five poetical, and
five prophetical books; for, on the ground of their ignorance
of the true nature of Hebrew poetry, they never dreamed
that the prophets were mostly poetic. Their division is not
a bad one, inasmuch as it is built on the matter and manner
of the books; with the exception of their error about the
form of prophetic composition. It is substantially adopted
in our English Bibles. Let the reader note well, in examin-
ing all these lists of the Old Testament Books, that not one
of them joins Chronicles or Daniel with the Kethubim or
Hagiography.
pos
No. IX.
Athanasius of Alexandria, (flor. A. D. 326,) in an extract from his 37th
festal Epistle, inserted in Opp. I. p. 961.
ATHANASIUS prefaces his list of Sacred Books by the fol-
lowing remarks:
CC
We fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a few of the simple
may wander away from their simplicity and purity by reason of the
craftiness of certain men, and finally may begin to take themselves to
the books called apocryphal, being deceived by their likeness to the
true books. 1 beseech you to bear with me, if I write to you remind-
ing you of things already known, on account of the necessity and the
edification of the church. Being about to do this, I shall employ, for
the support of my undertaking, the formula of Luke the evangelist,
saying as he did: Forasmuch as there are some who have undertaken
to compose for themselves books called apocryphal, and to mingle these.
with the inspired Scripture, respecting which we have been fully per-
suaded, as cye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning
412
APPENDIX: ATHANASIUS.
have delivered to the Fathers, it seemed good to me also, being exhorted
thereto by my genuine brethren, and having made myself acquainted
with the subject, to set forth from the beginning and in due order the
canonical books which have been delivered to us, and believed to be
Divine; so that every one, if he is led away by deceit, may learn well
to know those who have seduced him, while he who remains pure may
rejoice in having this admonition again repeated.
"All the books of the Old Testament, then, are twenty-two; as many,
according to report, as the alphabetic letters of the Hebrews. In order
and name they are thus: First the Genesis, then Exodus, next Levi-
ticus, after this Numbers, and finally Deuteronomy. In the sequel of
these are Joshua of Nun, and Judges, and after this Ruth; and then
follow the four books of Kings, and of these the first and second are
numbered as one, and the third and fourth likewise as one. After these
is the book of Psalms, then Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs;
then comes Job, and finally the Prophets. Twelve of these are reck-
oned as one book; then comes Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch and La-
mentations and the Epistle, after these Ezekiel, and Daniel. Thus far
are set forth the books of the Old Testament."
a
pak
I have deemed it unnecessary to transcribe the original
Greek here, as it is so exactly like the preceding lists, ex-
cept in some trifling particulars. One of these is that
Athanasius places Job after the Kethubim, and next before
the Prophets. He also omits, as has before been remarked,
the book of Esther. That it is designed in him will be clear
from the passage which follows, and which he subjoins to
his catalogue of the New Test. books that follow those of
the Old Testament as given above. The concluding part
runs thus:
"These are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts for
these oracles may be filled with them. By these only is the doctrine of
godliness taught. Let no one add to these, or take any thing from
them. By these our Lord confounded the Sadducces, saying, Yo do
err, not knowing the Scriptures. To the Jews he said, in the way of
exhortation, Search the Scriptures, for these are they which testify of
mc. But for the sake of more accuracy, I have decmed it necessary
also to set forth in this writing, that there are other books besides these,
which are not canonical, designated by the Fathers to be read by those
who have recently joined us, and are desirous to be instructed in the
doctrine of piety; viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach,
and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and (as we call it) the Apostolic
Doctrine, (didaxỳ тwv áπоσтóλwv,) and the Shepherd. Those, then,
being canonical, and these being read, let there be no mention even of
any apocryphal book. These are the inventions of heretics, who com-
pose them at their pleasure, assigning and adding to them dates, so
that they may have the semblance of ancient books, and that by this
means they may find occasion to lead the simple into error."
APPENDIX: SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURÆ SACRÆ.
413
This remarkable passage places the books which we name
apocryphal, in their position as estimated by the Fathers in
general. They might be read in order to enlarge our Chris-
tian knowledge of religious things; but they were merely
subordinate and secondary. The canonical books were
separated from them by a wide distinction.
Athanasius evidently uses apocryphal in the sense of
spurious, worthless, and not merely to designate books not
publicly read, as some of the earlier Fathers used it. I get
the impression from what he has said, in the last paragraph
quoted from him, that he intends and expects the second
class of books only to be read in private, by recent converts
desirous of acquiring more enlarged religious knowledge;
for how otherwise could he limit the reading to new con-
verts? As he has expressly named Esther among these, I
do not see how we can avoid the conclusion, that he posi-
tively rejected it from the proper Canon of the Old Testa-
ment. He makes twenty-two books, by separating Judges
and Ruth, and omitting Esther. This is a peculiar circum-
stance, both in Gregory and Athanasius; but the reasons of
it we can only conjecture, for we have no certain clue by
which we can come to a proper historical knowledge of them.
At all events, they can have no influence, (in the face of so
much other testimony to the canonical rank of Esther,) in
moving us to reject the book as they have done.
No. X.
SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURE SACRA, by an unknown writer of the times of
Athanasius, attributed by some to him, and published in his Works,
Vol. II. p. 126, soq.
THE Benedictine editors of Athanasius speak in exalted
terms of the erudition and judgment of the writer of this
Synopsis, whom they think not to be Athanasius. He has
shown an accurate acquaintance with the holy books, and
particularized each, by an extract from the commencement
of each book, which he subjoins to the name of the book.
To spare room, I omit the Greek original and the extracts,
and give here the list of books, in his own language.
414
APPENDIX: SYNOPSIS.
TRANSLATION. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy,
Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Kings [1 and 2 Samuel]
reckoned as one book, 3 and 4 Kings numbered as one book, 1 and 2
Chronicles reckoned as one book, 1 and 2 Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah]
reckoned as one book, Psalter of David having 150 Psalms, Parables
of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Twelve Prophets, viz.
Hosea, Amos, Micha, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Ze-
phaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (these are comprised in one
book,) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. The canonical books of the
Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the Hebrew letters;
for they have so many clementary signs.
Besides these are other books of the Old Testament, which are not
canonical [inspired]; and these are read only by catechumens; viz.
Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Esther,
Judith, Tobit. Thus many are the books of the Old Testament not
canonical. Some of the ancients have affirmed Esther to be canonical
among the Hebrews; and also that Ruth is joined with Judges and
reckoned as one book. In this manner they make out the complement
of twenty-two books.
The books of the Old Testament, canonical and uncanonical, are so
many, and of such a kind.
It is easy to see, that this is little else than an exact copy,
throughout, of the list of Athanasius. But the writer is
more explicit. While he omits Esther in his list, he gives
us an acccount of a different opinion, viz. in favour of in-
serting it. So he also notices the usual manner in which
Ruth was united with Judges. He also tells us that only
the catechumens read the uncanonical, i. e. uninspired books,
which had been appended to the Old Testament. This
seems of course to exclude the public reading of them, at
least in the churches within his circle of knowledge.
Having completed his list, the writer proceeds to give a
synopsis of the contents of each book; and when he has
completed his summary of the canonical books, he again
mentions that the others are not read, except in the limited
manner already described; p. 168. It seems singular that
no mention is here made of the Maccabees, Baruch, the ad-
ditions to Daniel, Ezra, &c. Nothing can be clearer, how-
ever, than that Athanasius and the author of the Synopsis
reject the idea of inspiration, in regard to what we now
name apocryphal books. But at the close of his work the
author of the Synopsis says, "The books of the Old Testa-
ment which are doubted (avriλcyóμɛva-denied) are Wis-
dom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit. With these also are
W
APPENDIX: EPIPHANIUS.
415
numbered Maccabees, four books, Ptolemaici (?), Psalms,
Canticles, Susanna. These are the books of the Old Testa-
ment which are denied (ἀντιλεγόμενα).” As this is quite
an enlargement of his previous list of uncanonical books, so
it serves to show, that the latter class just mentioned did
not attain even to the privilege of being allowed to the
catechumens. An inauspicious passage to the Romish
deutero-canon !
Catal
No. XI.
EPIPHANIUS, (flor. A. D. 368,) de Mensuris et Ponderibus, c. xxiii. Vol.
II.
p. 180, edit. Petav.
EPIPHANIUS has spoken in three different places respect-
ing the Canon of the Old Testament; viz. in the passage
named above, in Hæres. VIII., and Hæres. LXXVI. In
the first two passages he gives a catalogue of the books.
The most complete is the one here selected.
He prefaces his list with the following remarks: "The
Hebrews have twenty-two letters; according to these they
number their books, although they are in reality twenty-
seven. But since with them five letters are double, making
in fact twenty-seven, they contract them into twenty-two;
and so the books which are twenty-seven are contracted
into twenty-two." He then goes on to give a list of the
books; which I copy here, because the curiosity of the
Hebrew student will be gratified to learn how Epiphanius
pronounced Hebrew, and in what way he represented it.
Πρώτη Βρισὴθ, ἣ καλεῖται Γένεσις κόσμου· ἐλησιμὼν, ἢ
Εξοδος τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου· οὐδωϊεκρὰ, ἣ ἑρμη-
νεύεται Λευιτικόν· ἰουδαβὴρ, ἡ ἐστιν ᾿Αριθμοί· ἐλλεδεβαρεὶμ, τὸ
Δευτερονόμιον. Διησοῦ, ἡ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυῆ· διὼβ, ἡ τοῦ
Ἰώβ· διασοφθεὶμ, ἡ τῶν Κριτῶν· διαρούθ, ἡ τοῦ Ρούθ σφερτε-
λεὶμ, τὸ Ψαλτήριον δεβριϊαμεὶμ, ἡ πρώτη τῶν Παραλειπομένων·
δεβριϊαμεὶμ, Παραλειπομένων δευτέρα· δεμουέλ, Βασιλειῶν
πρώτη δαδουδεμουέλ, Βασιλειῶν δευτέρα· δμαλαχεὶ, Βασιλειῶν
τρίτη· δμαλαχεὶ, Βασιλειῶν τετάρτη· δμεαλὼθ, ἡ Παροιμιῶν·
δεκωέλες, Ἐκκλησιαστής· σιρασισεὶμ, τὸ "Λισμα τῶν ᾿Αισμάτων·
416
APPENDIX: EPIPHANIUS.
δαϑαριασαρὰ, τὸ Δωδεκαπρόφητον· δησαΐου, τοῦ προφήτου Ἡσαΐ-
ου· διερεμίου, ἡ τοῦ ῾Ιερεμίου· διεζεκιὴλ, ἡ τοῦ Ἰεζεκιήλ· διδανιὴλ,
ἡ τοῦ Δανιήλ· διδέσδρα, ἡ τοῦ Ἔσδρα πρώτη· διδέσδρα, ἡ τοῦ
*Εσδρα δευτέρα· δεσθὴρ, ἡ τῆς Ἐσθήρ.
3/
TRANSLATION. First Genesis, which is called Genesis of the world;
Exodus, i. e. departure of the sons of Israel from Egypt; Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua of Nun, Job, Judges, Ruth, the
Psalter, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Kings [1 and 2 Samuel], 3 and 4
Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jere-
miah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 1 and 2 Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah], Esther.
A
I have omitted in this version all the Hebrew names, and
such words as are connected merely with the representation
of them. Although Epiphanius was born and brought up
in Palestine, and must have had some knowledge of the He-
brew language, the Hebrew names inserted in this list are
but a sorry testimony to the accuracy of that knowledge.
However, there is no doubt that he has suffered from tran-
scribers; e. g. oipaoioeiμ, for on, where -oau in Epi-
phanius's present text stands clearly for -peu, by a mistake
of copyists. The e, here and elsewhere, represents the long
Hhirêq in Hebrew. Peculiar is his prefixing the Aramaan
name.
to most of the names, which he writes d, da, dɛ, and even
did, dia, and which means of, i. e. book of such or such a
The name of Psalms, σφερτελείμ, = In
some other cases, which I cannot here particularize, the
Hebrew names are doubtless deformed by the ignorance of
copyists; e. g. δεμουέλ = Υληρο, δαδουδεμουέλ = David-
Sxipw,
Samuel? &c. But-to my direct object.
Epiphanius adds to the list translated above, after some
remarks which we need not here repeat, "There is another
little book, named Kinoth, which means the Lamentations of
Jeremiah. The same, which exceeds the due number, is
joined and united with Jeremiah." He then goes on, in the
fashion of the day, to find corresponding twenty-twos, in a
variety of things presented in the Scriptures.
We perceive that the list of Old Test. books is here com-
plete; although the order is diverse from all others which
have been presented. Job is placed, for example, after
Joshua; but in his other list (Hares. VIII. Tom. I. p. 19)
he puts Job after Judges and Ruth. In the list above we
have Judges, Ruth, Psalter, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Kings, &c. ;
.ספר תהלים
-
M
APPENDIX: COUNCIL OF HIPPO.
417
in the other list Judges, Ruth, Job, Psalter, Proverbs, &c.
There are also other varieties. Altogether compared and
considered, this Father appears to have been probably an
honest, but yet a very hasty and blundering critic.
We must not omit what he says of the deutero-canonical
books. It runs thus, "There are two other books doubtful
among them, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solo-
mon; besides certain other books which are apocryphal.”
By this I understand Epiphanius to say, that the two books
mentioned are doubtful, and the others clearly uninspired.
It will be seen by our next document, that the reception
of the apocryphal books as deutero-canonical, had begun
about this time to make some progress among the churches.
There is no doubt that it had been gaining among the more
unlearned and undiscerning, during most of the fourth
century. Hence we are prepared for the first manifestation
of it, in a public and a kind of authoritative way, in the man-
ner announced by our next extract.
No. XII.
Extract from the Statuta of the COUNCIL OF Hippo, a .D. 393. Mansi,
Concil. Coll. III. p. 924.
THE XXXVI. Statutum runs thus: Ut præter Scrip-
turas canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divina-
rum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicæ Scripturæ, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesu Nave,
Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon
libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri
quinque, duodecim libri Prophetarum, Esaias, Jeremias,
Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Hesdras libri duo,
Macchabæorum libri duo.
This needs no translation. I have marked those books
which are additions to all the catalogues hitherto exhibited.
The five books of Solomon of course are Proverbs, Ecclesias-
tes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. Then
we have Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Here all the
books are mingled together and stand under the category of
canonical. There can be no doubt, that this Council meant
so to decide.
2 E
418
APPENDIX: JEROME.
No. XIII.
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, hold A. D. 397. Extract from Cap. XLVII. of
their decrces; Mansi III. p. 891.
THIS Council have repeated totidem verbis the list of the
Council of Hippo, in No. XII., and doubtless consisted
mostly of the same bishops. It is therefore unnecessary to
repeat their words. On these two Councils the Romish
church depend for the establishment of their deutero-canon.
And yet even these do not reach the whole of it.
No. XIV.
Testimony of Jerome, extracted from his Prologus Galcatus;
(flor. A. D. 380.)
myth
VIGINTI et duas litteras esse apud Hebræos, Syrorum
quoque lingua et Chaldæorum testatur, quæ Hebrææ magna
ex parte confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa
habent, eodem sono et diversis characteribus.—Porro quin-
que litteræ duplices apud Hebræos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun,
Pe, Sade. Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices ex-
istimantur, Samuel, Melachim, Dibre hajammim, Esdras,
Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est lamentationibus suis. Quomodo
igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per quæ scribimus hebraice
omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana compre-
henditur; ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus
quasi litteris et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera adhuc et
lactens viri justi cruditur infantia.
Primus apud eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin
dicimus. Secundus Veelle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra, id
est Leviticus. Quartus Vajedabber, quem Numeros voca-
Quintus Elle haddebarim, qui Deuteronomium præ-
notatur. Hi sunt quinque libri Mosis, quos proprie Thora,
id est Legem, appellant.
mus.
Secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt, et incipiunt ab
Jesu filio Nave, qui apud eos Josue Ben Nun dicitur. Deinde
subtexunt Sophetim, id est Judicum librum, et in eundem
compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta ejus narra-
tur historia. Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regum
Satak
APPENDIX: JEROME.
419
primum et secundum dicimus. Quartus Melachim, id est
Regum, qui tertio et quarto Regum volumine continetur.
Meliusque multo est Melachim, id est Regum, quam Mela-
choth, id est Regnorum, dicere: Non enim multarum gen-
tium describit regna, sed unius Israelitici populi, qui
tribubus duodecim continetur. Quintus est Esaias. Sextus
Jeremias. Septimus Ezechiel. Octavus liber duodecim
Prophetarum, qui apud illos vocatur Thereasar.
Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet. Et primus liber in-
cipit a Job. Secundus a David, quem quinque incisionibus
et uno Psalmorum volumine comprehendunt. Tertius est
Solomon, tres libros habens, Proverbia, quæ illi Misle, id
est Parabolas, appellant: Quartus Ecclesiastes, id est Cohe-
leth. Quintus Canticum Canticorum, quem titulo Sir
hassirim prænotant. Sextus est Daniel. Septimus Dibre
hajammim, id est Verba dierum, quod significantius Chro-
nicon totius divinæ historia possumus appellare, qui liber
apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur.
Octavus Esdras: qui et ipse similiter apud Græcos et La-
tinos in duos libros divisus est. Nonus Esther.
Atque ita fiunt pariter Veteris Legis libri viginti duo, id
est, Mosis quinque, et Prophetarum octo, Hagiographorum
novem.
Quanquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiographa
scriptitent, et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos,
ac per hoc esse prisca Legis libros viginti quatuor
Hic prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium
omnibus libris, quos de Hebræo vertimus in Latinum, con-
venire potest: ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, in-
ter apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quæ vulgo
Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Judith,
et Tobias, et Pastor, non sunt in Canone. Macchabæorum
primum librum hebraicum reperi. Secundus græcus est,
quod ex ipsa quoque phrasi probari potest.
It was my intention to subjoin a full translation of this,
for the convenience of some readers; but my limits forbid.
Indeed a translation of such plain Latin is in a good mea-
sure unnecessary. I subjoin, however, the substance of
what Jerome has here said.
(1.) Ho has given, in words that cannot be misunder-
2E2
420
APPENDIX: JEROME.
stood, a list of the canonical books, just as they are in our
present English Bibles; the Protestant canon, and not the
Romish. He has so designated the books by Hebrew
names, represented in Latin letters, (printed above in Italic,)
that there is no room for mistake. (2.) He has made the
Rabbinic division, in the main, of the Prophets and the
Hagiography; but still, he makes only twenty-two books,
and of course includes Ruth and Lamentations among the
Prophets, (as attached to Judges and Jeremiah,) which the
Talmud throws into the Kethubim, and thus makes twenty-
four books; see p. 233, seq., above, where this whole mat-
ter is discussed, and the testimony of Jerome adduced. (3.)
The passage of his, exhibited above, concerning the books
which we name apocryphal, runs thus:
This prologue may serve as an introduction to all the books of Scrip-
ture, which we have translated from Hebrew into Latin; so that we
may be able to know, that whatever is beyond (or extrinsic to) these is
to be put among the APOCRYPHIAL BOOKS. Wherefore Wisdom, com-
monly ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and
Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd, ARE NOT IN THE CANON. The
First of Maccabees I have found written in Hebrew; the Second in
Greek, which indeed is manifest from its phraseology.*
Now since we know that Jerome uses the word canonical
as equivalent to inspired; and as he avers the so-called
deutero-canonical books to be not canonical, of course he
pronounces them to be UNINSPIRED.
It is to be remem-
bered, also, that Jerome says all this, some twenty or more
years after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage had pro-
nounced their decrees in favour of the canonical rank of
most of these books. Jerome, who lived in the midst of
the bishops that constituted these Councils, (on whose de-
cision the Romish church in a great measure rely for the
credit of their Deutero-Canon,) decides fearlessly against
them, as does Rufinus also. The opinion of one such critic
as Jerome, respecting this subject, which he fully under-
pad
It was my intention to add to this Appendix a chapter, in which tho
claims of the Apocrypha (as we call it) would be critically oxamined, and
some brief view of the nature and object of the books respectively be sub-
joined. But as I understand that the publishers of this volume design,
if thoy find encouragement, to print an English edition of the Apocrypha,
for the use of such persons as have a desire to investigate these ancient
records, and in such a way as to embrace something of the literary history
of the Apocrypha, and particularly of its claims to a place in the Canon,
I have thought it best to omit the addition named above.
APPENDIX: HILARY.
421
stood, is worth more than that of scores of Hipponensian
and Carthaginian Councils, respecting a matter which they
did not understand. How can such matters be decided,
without any of the critical and philological knowledge which
is necessary to judge rightly?
·
No. XV.
HILARY of Poictiers, (flor. A. D. 254,) Prologus in Lib. Psalm.; § 15.
Opp. p. 9.
I SHALL merely give a translation of this section; as it
seems to be little more than a repetition of Origen's list.
ses.
The reason why the Hebrews make twenty-two books, is because
their alphabet has so many letters. The books, according to the tradi-
tion of the ancients, are thus designated: There are five books of Mo-
(6.) Joshua the son of Nun. (7.) Judges and Ruth. (8.)
1 and 2 Kings [1 and 2 Samuel]. (9.) 3 and 4 Kings. (10.) 1 and
2 Chronicles. (11.) Ezra. (12.) Psalms. (13.) Proverbs. (14.)
Ecclesiastes. (15.) Canticles. (16.) Twelve Prophets. Isaiah, Jerc-
miah with the Lamentation and Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther.
These complete the number of twenty-two books. To some it seems
good to add Tobit and Judith, and thus make out twenty-four books,
according to the number of the letters in the Greck alphabet.
We see how karà πóda Hilary has followed Origen, from
whom he draws most copiously, in his remarks on the Psalms.
It is unnecessary, therefore, to say any thing more than what
has already been said, respecting the testimony of Origen.
One thing, however, is worthy of note, as to the order of
books. Job and Esther are here put last of all; the twelve
Prophets before the others; and Daniel before Ezekiel. He
has also disclosed a new project for enlarging the Scriptures,
viz. taking in Tobit and Judith-the most apocryphal of all
the apocraphies. This only shows what a floating affair this
whole matter of the deutero-canonical books was, in those
times. Nothing is fixed and stable. In short, it is most
manifest that the churches had not yet been brought to a ge-
neral consent, that these books should be admitted.
422
APPENDIX: RUFINUS.
No. XVI.
RUFINUS, (flor. A. D. 390,) the distinguished friend and opponent of Je-
rome; Expos. in Symbol. Apost., ad calcem Opp. Cypriani, od. Oxon.
p. 26.
He thus commences: "Those volumes which belong to the
Old and New Testament, which are, in accordance with the
tradition of our ancestors, believed to be inspired by the Holy
Spirit, and have been handed down to the churches of Christ,
it seems appropriate to designate in this place." After this
he proceeds as follows:
Itaque Veteris Instrumenti primo omnium Moysis quinque libri sunt
traditi-post hos Jesu Nave, et Judicum, simul cum Ruth; quatuor
post hæc Regnorum libri quos Hebræi duos numerant; Paralipome-
non, qui dierum dicitur liber; et Esdræ libri duo, qui apud illos sin-
guli computantur; et Hester. Prophetarum vero Esaias, Hicremias,
Ezechiel, et Danicl; præterea XII. Prophetarum liber unus. Job
quoque, et Psalmi David, singuli sunt libri; Salomonis vero tres.
The order then in Rufinus is thus: Pentateuch; Joshua ;
Judges with Ruth; 1 and 2 Samuel in one book, viz. 1
Kings; 1 and 2 Kings in another, viz. 2 Kings; Chro-
nicles, comprising two books; Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah];
Esther; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel; Twelve Pro-
phets; Job; Psalms; Solomon, three books [viz. Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles]. Here we have the true order, as
scems plain, of Josephus' Hebrew Scriptures. After com-
pleting the list of the New Testament books he goes on to
say, "These are the books which the Fathers have included
within the Canon, by which they would establish the asser-
tions of our faith. One should know, however, that there
are other books, which are not canonical, but which our
ancestors called ecclesiastical; c. g. the Wisdom of Solomon,
of Sirach, called by the Latins Ecclesiasticus.... Of the
same order is the little book of Tobit and Judith, and the
books of the Maccabees." Nothing can be more decisive or
discriminating than this; and in this Rufinus agrees with
all the leading Fathers.
THE END.
JOHN CHILDS AND SON, BUNGAY.
CUMMING'S COMPLETE AND ACCURATE EDITION
OF THE
REV. ALBERT BARNES'S NOTES,
EXPLANATORY AND PRACTICAL,
Designed for Heads of Families, Students, Bible Classes, and Sunday Schools.
EDITED AND CAREFULLY REVISED
BY THE REV. JOHN CUMMING, D. D.,
Minister of the Scotch Church, Crown Court.
BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED,
BARNES'S NOTES ON ISAIAH, with a NEW TRANS-
LATION and an Introductory Dissertation, illustrated
with Wood-cuts and Maps by Arrowsmith, 3 vols. Price 9s.
BARNES'S NOTES ON JOB, with a NEW TRANSLA-
TION and an Introductory Dissertation, 2 vols. cloth, lett.,
price 2s. 6d. each; the 2 vols. in one, 4s. 6d.
BARNES'S NOTES on the NEW TESTAMENT, 9 vols.
THE GOSPELS, 2 vols. with Maps.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, with a Map, I vol.
ROMANS, I vol.
CORINTHIANS and GALATIANS, 2 vols.
EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS, I vol.
THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, and PHILEMON, I vol.
HEBREWS, 1 vol.
Bound in Cloth, with gilt letterings
each 2s. 6d.
Each Volume contains about 400 pages, of a Square Octavo form.
These may be had bound, in FIVE handsome volumes, for
EIGHTEEN SHILLINGS,
Being, without exception, the cheapest work ever published.
NOTICE. The numerous Subscribers to CUMMING'S EDITION, are
respectfully informed, that these Volumes comprise the whole of BARNES's
Works, hitherto published in America. When the new Volume, contain-
ing the Notes on the GENERAL EPISTLES and the REVELATION,
is issued, it will bo immediately printed uniform with the others. The
first Edition of all the Volumes of the New Testament having been rapidly
sold, the Editor has availed himself of the opportunity to render the New
Editions as perfect as possible, by carefully revising the entire Work. All
the references have been verified, the Scripture Text has been compared
with tho authorized version, and the correctness of the Greek and He-
brew Quotations has been secured.
The Public are now presented with a completed Edition of Barnes's Com-
mentary; which, free from tho typographic errors which vitiated the
American original, is, in other respects, a faithful and unmutilated reprint.
The form of this Edition is very convenient for use, and the Proprietors
have spared no expense to render it perfect in Type, Paper, and Binding.
To insure this correct Reprint, care should be taken to order
"CUMMING'S EDITION."
NEW, CHEAP, AND UNIFORM EDITIONS
OF
STANDARD RELIGIOUS WORKS.
2s.
HAWKER'S MORNING PORTION
The Poor Man's Morning Portion, being a selection of a verse of Scrip-
ture, with short observations for every day in the year, by Robert
Hawker, D. D., a new edition, cloth, lettered.
HAWKER'S EVENING PORTION
盲
​PRINTED IN LARGE TYPE.
2s.
The Poor Man's Evening Portion, being a selection of a verse of Scrip-
ture, with short observations for every day in the year, by Robert
Hawker, D. D., a new edition, cloth, lettered.
HAWKER'S DAILY PORTION
3s. 6d.
Being the above two works bound together, cloth, lettered.
BOGATSKY'S GOLDEN TREASURY
2s.
For the Children of God, consisting of Devotional and Practical Ob-
scrvations for every day in the year, 12mo, cloth, lettered.
JENKS'S PRAYERS and OFFICES of DEVOTION 2s.
For Families, and for particular persons on most occasions; a new cdi-
tion, altered and improved by the Rev. Charles Simcon, 12mo, cloth, lett.
ELIJAH THE TISHBITE
28.
Translated from the German of Dr. F. W. Krummacher, with portrait
of the Author, 12mo, cloth, lettered.
WATTS'S (DR.) WORLD TO COME
2s.
Or Discourses on the Joys or Sorrows of departed Souls at Death, and
the Glory or Terror of the Resurrection, with an Essay towards the Proof
of a Separate State of Souls after Death, a new edition, 12mo, cloth, lett.
WATTS'S (Dr.) SCRIPTURE HISTORY
2s.
With a continuation of the Jewish Affairs, from the Old Testament,
till the time of Christ, and an Account of the Chief Prophecies that re-
late to Him, &c., adorned with figures relating to their Camp, Taberna-
clo, and Worship, 12mo, cloth, lettered.
WATTS (DR.) on the IMPROVEMENT of the MIND 2s.
Containing a variety of Remarks and Rules for the Attainment and
Communication of Useful Knowledge in Religion, in the Sciences, and
in Common Life, with an Introduction and Life of the Author, 12mo,
cloth, lettered.
PAYSON'S (DR.) SERMONS
2s.
Twenty-five Sermons on the most important subjects, a new edition,
12mo, cloth, lettered.
ROMAINE'S LIFE, WALK, and TRIUMPH of FAITH 3s.
A new edition of the Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith, with the Life
of the Author, 12mo, cloth, lettered.
3s.
T
NEWTON'S CARDIPHONIA
}
Or the Utterance of the Heart, in the course of a real correspondence,
by the Rov. John Nowton, with a beautiful stoel ongraved portrait of
the Author, 12mo, cloth, lettered.
LONDON: GEO. ROUTLEDGE AND Co., 36, SoHo SQUARE.
V

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06363 0381
ARTES
LIBRARY
1817
VERITAS
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ZAPLATILDI FITTI
TCEBOK
SCIENTIA
OF THE
CIRCUMSPICE
SI QUÆRIS PENINSULAM·AMŒNAM ·
okt
CINTA ZAJAJAJA JATAVOJA LAJAPATAISJAJAJAJAJAJAJAVADA
intwis
THE GIFT OF
Tappan Presby, Assoc.
troninio
E
BURGHOTELLING PROmanag
JOMBORD

AM
DARBU
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
"FOR® pangan #upatti luckaun
arenkisebbeuzko eventi abeunruduong Ng
I
Mannequndsantunandakumadaannuskridoridaded iqni madalmai
GRABBINAR
ኮ
ZE
sabing
PROTISTAS
d
ZEDALLIONA
j!
waingie à "do vibeons. 3. diff
HÀ NƯỚC VÀ NƯỚi vàng được trang và Quốc và số động
La catalanan mina akaajajan muistis
TANG PAALD #kalaman d
Para a maternitanatyam viral agent a
Vanda mema na Malo, pattern on vari
partmana ar maze man at malamat sa dal
akve vezes da Pink
14, 1996, 104, to Asia th
sabinama latihan y
KURVAVELMANSIIRTOK Ada ka kush jan
JASON CASO DES SELAYAN
GS NG AGENTÁRIO CONGREGA
KAREN MANN quam Pala
Weberga baru NALAR Kolata tem
As the Aliens med na bata pa kayo
POENAENK FLANAGAN as a banda de migranata Santa and ma
BỘT ANH 2008 NĂM NG
ama pada para mara kad man virginiading drum White Sanders know.com goS WADE ME
SEARCH ENGINE - da mi van pala, a damn in mens je da se
" and apopitian catch, le "piespries Kneenakosten (ANGGARAN SALA
Kerala sta najmanji na maraton kafe me the 15 JAUNINGA
Banana Cakanan dan Pantanal de RAM Aulay imkana n
A
pinagkakat dan ja meement AALA MO Stl hoa, de
Sana po per camat pond asawa wa jika want je v vid na sva bila in bila
-way mo.com as me te mir and eyed, and to the
conným kandēti kapwa na kapwa, marcandida p
Chasing quae same me mud konvertamu ar maken van 20 no mane v dáciámia fam
a pa da pa je da ima tajemne alakay a quan la ca
Jeans - den
un mio je zabal balki med vivid
dong, mang na
Putting on the bar at
CARA MEN
mon
MUSENADORE
gamla styl
mas v'ye attentata,
! We are no to what to eat and
```a que haben sie tekentfuldm
maina ilmazia per animalia takas ma sta
Liem vam pomo é uma em
(sininen "washers," je po kamili ka
ma_ai" pode sales after the
compresi ya da at, what she
sancias namNGAR
FRANSADNE
manggang sa mga tamning
STARTER
Galimanyag n Langlickung je sera
{wal19824913:![ trigini1111
Bisi Julkkikurnatak
FEJLE
KUNGUUNGWANA
STRE
-
alba: Jala