5'-rs*tJ

DR. BRIGGS'S WORKS.

A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture.
Crown Svo, net ..-.,.. ^3.00
Messianic Prophecy : The Prediction of the Fulfilment of
Redemption through the Messiah, A critical study of the
Messianic passages of the Old Testament in the order of their
development. Seventh edition, crown Svo . . , :z.^o
The Messiah of the Gospels. Crown Svo , . , 2.00
The Messiah of the Apostles. Crown Svo . . 3.00
The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New edition,
revised and enlarged. Crown Svo • . . . a. 50
The Bible, the Church, and the Reason : The Three
Great Fountains of Divine Authority. Second edition, crown
8vo  1.75
American Presbyterianism : Its Origin and Early History,
together vf'ith an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of
which have recently been discovered. Crown Svo, with maps 3.00
Whither ? A Theological Question for the Times. Third
edition, crown Svo . . , . . . . i*75
The Authority of Holy Scripture. An Inaugural Ad
dress. Ninth edition, crown Svo, paper . . .50 cents
The Defense of Professor Briggs. Crown Svo, paper, net 50 cents
The Case against Professor Briggs. Three parts, crown
Svo, paper. Parts I. and II., each, 50 cents; Part III. . 75 cents

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
TO THB
STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

THE PRINCIPLES, METHODS, HISTORY, AND RESULTS
OF ITS SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS AND OF
THE WHOLE

BY

CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.
EDWARD ROBINSON PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY IN UNION
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK CITY

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1899

COPYRIGHT, 1899, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

8 39 ^f

NottaoaS W«8B
J. S, Cusliing S Co. - Berwick it Smith
Norwood Masa. U.S.A.

TO
Eljt Alumni antr StuUents
OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK CITY
WHO HAVE STUDIED WITH ME
SEJbe ?^oIg Scripture
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED IN RECOGNITION OF
THEIR FIDELITY IN TESTING TIMES
AND IN HOLY LOVE
ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
OF MY PROFESSORATE

PEEFACE
In 1883 the volume entitled Biblical Study, its Principles,
Methods, and History, together with a Catalogue of Books of
Reference was published. In the preface it was said : " This
work is the product of the author's experience as a student of
the Bible, and a teacher of theological students in Biblical
Study. From time to time, during the past fourteen years, he
has been called upon to give special attention to particular
themes in public addresses and Review articles. In this way
the ground of Biblical Study has been quite well covered.
This scattered material has been gathered, and worked over
into an organic system."
The volume has been issued from the press nine times since
that date, and there still seems to be a demand for it on the
part of the public. The author has long felt the need of a
more thorough revision of the volume, as the result of fifteen
years' additional study ; but he has been prevented by many
hindrances from doing what he so greatly desired to do, until
the present year. He has used his volume as a text-book in
the Union Theological Seminary, New York, during all this
period, and has gone over the whole subject afresh every year.
This year being the twenty -fifth anniversary of his professorate,
he felt impelled to undertake the task, and to make out of the
volume a new one, which would cover the whole ground of the
study of Holy Scripture, and the results of all that study during
the past fifteen years. Accordingly the volume has not simply

vi PREFACE
been revised, it has been made over into a new one. The
material in the old book has become the nucleus of new mate
rial, so that this volume has grown to be fully twice the size
of the original work.
The twelve chapters of Biblical Study have been worked
over and brought up to the present position of Biblical Science,
and enriched with ample illustration of every important prin
ciple and method used in the study. The chapter on the Canon
has grown into two chapters, in one of which the history of the
Canon has been traced from the earliest times to the present,
and in the other a careful statement of the criticism of the
Canon has been given with the principles for discerning it and
determining it with certainty. The chapter on the Text has
grown into four chapters. This chapter was justly criticised for
its incompleteness, as compared with other sections of the book.
I have given great pains to this department, and have traced
in successive chapters the history of the text of the Hebrew
Bible, the history of the text of the Greek Bible, and the trans
lations of the Bible, and have explained the practice of Textual
Criticism, giving illustrations of every important principle. I
have continued the history of the Higher Criticism down to
the present time. Owing to circumstances beyond my control,
I was compelled to undergo an ecclesiastical trial, and was con
demned for heresy for my views on this subject. This made
my views and my trial a necessary part of the history of Higher
Criticism, and compelled me to give these a place in the history.
I have aimed to be as objective as possible. I have greatly
enlarged my treatment of the Holy Scripture as Literature.
In the chapter on Prose Literature, I have given a very full
discussion of Biblical History, and especially of the Prose
Works of the Imagination in the Old Testament. The chapter
on Hebrew Poetry has grown into four chapters, in which I
endeavour by ample illustrations to set forth those views of

PREFACE vii
Hebrew Poetry which I have held and taught for the past
twenty-five years with increasing confidence. Illustrations
from the New Testament as well as from the Old Testament
are given here as elsewhere throughout the book. Some of
my readers may be surprised at the amount of poetry found in
the New Testament. But I think that they will see from the
illustrations given that if the views of Hebrew Poetry taken in
the volume are correct, the specimens from the New Testament
are as fine and sure specimens as those from the Old Testament.
In the preface to Biblical Study, it was said : " The ground
for Biblical Study has been covered, with the exception of
Biblical History. This department has been included in the
Reference Library because it seemed necessary for complete
ness. It has been omitted from the discussions because it is
usual to classify Biblical History with Historical Theology.
The author did not care to determine this disputed question in
a work already sufficiently extensive." In this volume I have
made up that defect ; not only because it was a defect, but
because in fact the Historical Criticism of Biblical History has
become a burning question, and it is likely to burn with in
creasing flame and heat during the present generation. These
chapters have cost me much labour. They open up the most
difficult part of this work, and it is probable that in these I
expose myself to the greatest criticism on the part of the so-
called conservatives. I have composed these chapters with
great painstaking and with a good conscience, and a deep sense
of a call to public duty in this regard. I have prepared the
way by a history of the study of Biblical History, then have
opened up the principles and methods of Historical Criticism
with ample illustrations, and finally I have endeavoured to
organize and construct the discipline of Biblical History.
Grave mistakes have been made in recent years in the dis
cussions of the Higher Criticism. Is it too much to hope that

viii PREFACE
they will not be repeated in the discussions of the Historical
Criticism ?
I have given two new chapters, one on the Credibility of
Holy Scripture, the other on the Truthfulness of Holy Script
ure. These chapters deal with burning questions also, which
I have already considered at some length during my defence
to the charges brought against me, touching the question of
"the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture." I have, in these chapters,
discussed the question from the point of view of the induction
of facts from all the ranges of the Study of Holy Scripture ;
and have then carefuUy tested the so-called " a priori argu
ment for the Inerrancy of Holy Scripture." I shall doubtless
increase my offence in the eyes of those who condemned me
before ; but I have confidence that I have so stated the case as
to give relief and help to the multitudes who have been dis
turbed and even crowded from Holy Church and Holy Scripture
by the Pharisees of our times; and it is my comfort that I
shall lead not a few, by these chapters, as I have by the grace
of God through my other writings, back to Holy Scripture and
Holy Church, with a firmer faith and a holy joy and love in
their exhibition of the grace and glory of our God and Saviour.
The Table of Contents gives a full analysis of the volume.
There are two indices. The Index of Texts may be used for
reference in the exposition of a large number of the most im
portant and difficult passages of Holy Scripture. The large-
face tjrpe shows at a glance the most important references.
The large-face type of the Index of Authors and Writings
gives the passage where citations are made, or opinions are
discussed, or titles of works are first given. The Bibliography
of each subject may be found in its appropriate place in the
volume in connection with the history of the discipline. The
index will easily guide to all the titles of the books. There is
really a much fuller bibliography in this volume proportion-

PREFACE ix
ately than in the classified list of books given as an appendix
to Biblical Study.
No one can read this book, whatever his opinion as to its
merits may be, without saying that it corresponds with its title,
and that the Bible is to the author Holy Scripture.
Biblical Study was dedicated to Roswell D. Hitchcock,
D.D., LL.D., and Isaac A. Dorner, D.D., "survivors of two
noble faculties to whom the author owes his theological train
ing." These teachers have followed all my other teachers into
the presence of our Lord. On this twenty-fifth anniversary of
my professorate it seems appropriate, having become the senior
professor in the Union Theological Seminary, that I should
dedicate this volume to my pupils. This is especially gratify
ing because of the well-known loyalty with which they stood
by me in those trying years when I was battling for truth and
righteousness against an unreasoning panic about the Bible,
and an anti-revision partisanship against those who had taken
an active part in the movement for a revision of the West
minster Confession and the preparation of a new consensus
creed ; and also in those more trying years in which I suffered
the penalties of unrighteous and illegal ecclesiastical discipline.
In the class-room they have encouraged me by their studious
attention, their confidence, and their enthusiasm ; in the minis
try they have been faithful and loyal. I feel bound to them
not only as a teacher and a friend, but in the stronger bond of
that Holy Love which Our Master taught, and which I have
endeavoured also, in so far as I was able, to teach them. One
of these pupils is my daughter, Emilie Grace Briggs, B.D.,
without whose patient, laborious, and scholarly help I could
not have finished this volume. To her my thanks are due, in
public as well as in private. C. A. BRIGGS.
January, 1899.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Biblical Study the most important of all studies, 1 , the most extensive, 1 ; the
most profound, 2 ; the most attractive, 3.
Obstacles to the study of Holy Scripture, 4 ; Bibliolatry, 5 ; Sectarian partisan
ship, 6 ; using the Bible as an obstruction to progress, 8.
CHAPTEE II
THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
General term of the department, 12 ; relation to other departments, 12.
Biblical Literature, 18 ; Biblical Canonics, 21 ; Textual Criticism, 23 ; the
Higher Criticism, 24.
Biblical Exegesis, 27 ; Biblical Hermeneutics, 27.
Biblical History, 35 ; Historical Criticism, 37 ; Biblical ArchsBology, 37.
Biblical Theology, 39 ; Biblical Religion, Faith, and Ethics, 40.
CHAPTER III
THE LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The languages of the Bible prepared by Providence for the purpose, 42.
The Shemitic family, 46 ; the Arabic group, 46 ; the Assyrian group, 47 ; the
Hebrew group, 47 ; the Aramaic group, 49.
The Hebrew language, 51 ; its origin, 51 ; simple and natural, 54 ; correspond
ence of language and thought, 55 ; majesty and sublimity, 56 ; life and
fervour, 59.
The Aramaic language, 61 ; language of commerce in Persian period, 61 ; com
mon speech of Palestine in the time of Jesus, 62.
The Greek language, 64 ; complex and artistic, 65 ; style of speech, 66 ; beauti
ful and finished, 66 ; strength and vigour, 67 ; Hebraistic colouring, 68 ;
transformed for expression of Christian ideas, 70. '

xii CONTENTS

CHAPTEE IV
HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM
Inherent necessity of criticism, 76 ; historical necessity, 77.
What is Criticism ? 78 ; a method of knowledge, 79 ; destructive and construc
tive, 79 ; requires careful training to use it, 80.
Principles of criticism, 81 ; derived from General Criticism, 81 ; from Historical.
Criticism, 82 ; from Literary Criticism, 85 ; Textual Criticism, 86 ; the
Higher Criticism, 92 ; integrity, 92 ; authenticity, 93 ; literai-y features, 94 ;
credibility, 95 ; historical position, 95 ; differences of style, 97 ; differences
of opinion, 99 ; citations, 100 ; positive testimony, 101 ; silence, 101 ; Bentley
and the Epistle of Phalaris, 107.
Criticism of Holy Scripture, 109 ; confronted by traditional theories, 109 ; un
hindered by decisions of the Church, 112 ; or Catholic tradition, 115 ;
demanded by the truth-loving spirit, 115.
CHAPTEE V
HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
History of the term Canon, 117 ; Holy Scripture and Covenant, 117.
Formation of the Old Testament Canon, 118 ; The Ten Words, 118 ; Deuter-
onomic Code, 119 ; the Law, 120; tradition of the fixing of the Canon by
Ezra, 120 ; by the Great Synagogue, 121 ; the Prophets, 123 ; the Writings,
124 ; evidence of Ben Siraoh, 124 ; of the Septuagint, 124 ; of Philo and
Josephus, 125 ; disputes of the Pharisees as to the Canon, 128 ; final determi
nation of the Canon at Jamnia, 130.
Canon of Jesus and His Apostles, 131 ; general terms do not decide, 131 ; they
abstain from using writings disputed among the Jews, 131 ; they do not
determine the Canon except as to the authority of certain writings, 132.
Formation of the Canon of the New Testament, 133; the Gospels, 133; the
Pauline Epistles, 134 ; the Catholic Epistles, 134.
The Canon of the Church, 137 ; Decisions of Synods, 137 ; two streams of
tradition, 138 ; Canon of the Codices, 138.
CHAPTEE VI
CRITICISM OF THE CANON
The Canon in the Reformation, 140 ; Luther and the Reformers, 142 ; Decision
of the Council of Trent, 143 ; the Protestant principle, 144 ; Protestant
scholasticism, 147.
The Canon of the British Reformation, 140 ; the Articles of Religion, 148 ;
the Scotch Confession, 149.
The Puritan Canon, 149 ; The Westminster Confession, 150 ; Cosin, 151 ; Herle,
152 ; Lyford, 154.

CONTENTS xiii
The Canon of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 155 ; dogmatic reac
tion, 156 ; Semler, 158.
Modern American theory of the Canon, 158 ; the Princeton School, 159 ; Canon
icity and Authenticity, 160.
Determination of the Canon, 163 ; testimony of the Church, 163 ; character of
Holy Scripture, 165 ; witness of the Holy Spirit, 166.

CHAPTEE VII
HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THB HEBREW BIBLE
The original text of the Hebrew Bible, 169 ; primitive script, 170 ; Aramaic
script, 171 ; editorial work of the early scribes, 173.
The text of the Sopherim, 174 ; the ofacial text, 175 ; the work of the Sopherim,
176.
The Massoretic text, 180 ; vowel points and accents, 181 ; work of the Massorites,
182.
Hebrew Manuscripts, 183 ; Palestinian, 183 ; Babylonian, 185 ; Samaritan Codex,
185.
Printed texts, 186 ; earliest text, 186 ; Complutensian text, 186 ; second Rab
binical Bible, 186 ; Baer and Ginsburg, 187.

CHAPTEE VIII
HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THB GREEK BIBLE
The Greek Septuagint, 188 ; translated gradually in the order, Law, Prophets,
Writings, 188.
The Greek New Testament, 190 ; at first separate writings on rolls, 190 ; no
codex till third century, 191.
Other Greek versions, 191 ; Aquila, 191 ; Theodotian, 192 ; Symmachus, 192.
Ofificial Greek texts, 192 ; Origen's Hexapla, 192 ; Hesychius, 193 ; Lucian, 193.
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 195 ; Majuscules and Minuscules, 195.
The Neutral text, 195 ; Vatican Codex, 195 ; Sinaitic Codex, 196.
The Egyptian text, 197 ; Alexandrian Codex, 197 ; Codex Ephraem, 198.
Text of the Hexapla, 200 ; recently discovered Hexapla text, 200.
Western text, 200 ; Codex Bezee, 200 ; recent discussions of Western text by
Harris and Blass, 202.
Text of Lucian, 203 ; relation to Josephus, 203.
Later Syrian text, 205 ; characteristic conflation, 205.
Printed Greek texts, 206 ; Complutensian, 206 ; Erasmus, 206 ; Aldine, 206 ;
Stephens, 206 ; Beza, 206 ; Sixtine, 207 ; Elzevir, 207 ; Mill, 207 ; Bengel,
207 ; Wetstein, 207 ; Griesbach, 207 ; Holmes and Parsons, 207 ; Lachmann,
208 ; Tischendorf, 208 ; Tregelles, 209 ; Westcott and Hort, 209 ; Lagarde,
209 ; Swete, 209.

xiv CONTENTS
CHAPTEE IX
THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE
Aramaic Targums, 210 ; Onkelos, 211 ; Jonathan, 211 ; others, 211.
The Syriac Bible, 212 ; Curetonian, 212 ; Peshitto, 212 ; Haraklean, 212.
The Latin Vulgate, 213 ; Jerome's version, 213 ; Codex Amiatinus, 213 ; Sixtine
edition, 213 ; Clementine edition, 213.
The Arabic version, 214 ; Saadia, 214 ; others, 214.
Persian version, 214 ; Tawus, 214.
English versions, 214 ; Tyndale, 214 ; Rogers, 215 ; Tavemer, 215 ; Coverdale,
215 ; Great Bible, 215 ; Genevan, 215 ; Douay, 215 ; Authorized Version,
216 ; Revised Version, 216.
Other versions, 216 ; German, 216 ; French, 217 ; Dutch, 217 ; others, 217.
CHAPTEE X
TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Textual criticism at the Reformation, 219; Ximenes, 219; Levita and Ben
Chayim, 209 ; de Rossi and Scholastics, 221.
Textual criticism in the seventeenth century, 222 ; CappeUus, Morinus, and
Buxtorf , 222 ; Walton and Owen, 224 ; Matthew Pool, 226.
Textual criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 226 ; Bentley and
MiU, 227 ; Lowth, 228 ; Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, 227 ; Tischendorf
and Gregory, 228 ; Westcott and Hort, 228 ; Keil, Green, and W. R.
Smith, 229.
Application of textual criticism to Holy Scripture, 231.
The genealogical principle, 231 ; text of Ben Asher, 231 ; the Mishna, Baraithoth,
and Gemara, 232 ; Midrashim, 234 ; Jewish rabbins, 236 ; use of ancient
versions, 236; Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 237 ; the original autographs,
238 ; illustrations of the genealogical principle, 239 ; genealogy of the Greek
Bible, 240.
Conflation and other corruptions, 242; illustrations from the Gospels, 242;
illustrations from the Old Testament, 242; corruptions of alphabetical
Psalms, 242 ; dittography, 243 ; wrong separation of words, 243 ; slips of
the eye, 244 ; an original logion of Jesus, 244.
CHAPTEE XI
HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Higher Criticism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 247 ; of the
Reformers, 247 ; of the Puritans, 248 ; of the Reformed Theologians, 249 ;
Bentley and Boyle, 250 ; how to deal with traditional theories, 251.

CONTENTS XV
The Rabbinical theories, 252 ; the Baba Bathra's statement, 252 ; the Gemara
upon it, 256.
Hellenistic and Christian theories, 256 ; Josephus and Philo, 256; Apocalypse
of Ezra, 257 ; the Fathers, 257.
The New Testament view of the Old Testament, 269 ; Jesus and criticism, 259 ;
New Testament use of the Writings, 261; of the Psalter, 262; of the
Prophets, 265 ; of the Law, 268.
Rise of the Higher Criticism, 273 ; Spinoza and Simon, 274 ; scholastic opposi
tion, 276 ; mediating theories, 276 ; Astruc's discovery, 278 ; Eichhorn's
documentary hypothesis, 279.
Higher Criticism of the nineteenth century, 282 ; Geddes, Vater, and the frag
mentary hypothesis, 282 ; De Wette and the genesis of documents, 285 ;
Reuss, Wellhausen, and the development hypothesis, 283 ; Home, 284 ;
Colenso, 284 j Samuel Davidson, 285; W. Robertson Smith, 286; Toy,
Briggs, and H. P. Smith, 286 ; more recent Higher Criticism, 289.

CHAPTEE XII
PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CEITICISM
Literary study of the Bible, 293 ; Literary training necessary, 293.
The Historical Evidence, 295 ; the Second Isaiah, 295 ; date of the Apocalypse
of John, 296.
The evidence of style, 296 ; etymological differences, 296 ; syntactical differences,
300 ; dialectic differences, 300 ; differences of style, 300 ; description of
Leviathan, 301 ; Epistle to the Hebrews, 301.
The evidence of opinion, 302 ; theophanies of the Hexateuch, 302 ; Holy Spirit
in Isaiah, 303 ; Messiah of the Apocalypse, 303.
The evidence of citation, 304 ; in the Psalter, 304 ; in Jonah's Psalm, 305 ;
Logion in the Gospels, 305.
The evidence of testimony, 306 ; Micah in Jeremiah, 306 ; Saint Paul in Second
Peter, 307.
Argument from silence, 307 ; not within the author's scope, 307 ; within his
scope, 307 ; reasons for silence, 308.
The Integrity of Scripture, 309 ; single writings, 309 ; collections of writings by
same author, 310 ; by different authors, 310 ; edited works, 310 ; inter
polations, 314.
The Authenticity of Scripture, 317 ; name of author given, 317 ; traditional
ascription, 318.
Anonymous Holy Scripture, 319 ; Histories, 319 ; Wisdom Literature, 320 ;
Psalter, 321 ; Law, 322.
Pseudonymous Holy Scripture, 323 ; not forgeries, 323 ; pseudepigrapha, 324 ;
Biblical pseudonyms, 325.
Compilations, 326 ; Kings and Chronicles, 326 ; Luke and Acts, 326 ; Matthew
and John, 327.

xvi CONTENTS
CHAPTEE XIII
BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATUEE
Poetry and Prose, 328 ; Rhetorical Prose and Poetry, 329.
Historical Prose, 329; Prophetic and Priestly History, 329; three strata of
Prophetic History, 330; the four Gospels and Acts, 330.
Historical use of the Myth, 333 ; Monotheistic myths, 333 ; Sons of God and
daughters of men, 333 ; Samson, 333.
Historical use of the Legend, 335 ; early chapters of Genesis, 335 ; legends in
the life of David, 336 ; poetic legends, 337.
Prophetic Discourse, 338 ; oratory in prophetic histories, 338 ; prophetic elo
quence, 339 ; discourses of Jesus, 339 ; of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, 339.
The Epistle, 340 ; Letters in Ezra and Nehemiah, 340 ; Epistles of the New
Testament, 340.
Prose works of the Imagination, 341 ; Haggada of Rabbins, 341 ; Parables of
Jesus, 341 ; apocryphal stories, 342 ; poetic works of the imagination, 342.
The Book of Ruth an Idyll, 342 ; scenery of the times of the Judges, 343 ;
ideal picture, 343 ; conflict with Deuteronomic law, 343 ; historic basis, 344.
The Story of Jonah, 345 ; sets forth a prophetic lesson, 345 ; the miracles are
marvels, 345 ; the ideal repentance, 346 ; the prayer figurative, 347 ; an
early Haggada, 348 ; a marvel of the love of God, 349.
The story of Esther, 349 ; historic discrepancies, 350 ; does not explain Purim,
350 ; Esther, heroine of patriotism, 350.
The stories of Daniel, 351 ; a Maccabean book, 351 ; Aramaic stories, 351 ; his
torical discrepancies, 352; historic fiction, 362.

CHAPTEE XIV
CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY
Features of Hebrew poetry, 355 ; religious poetry, 356 ; simple and natural, 357 ;
subjective, 358 ; sententious, 358 ; realistic, 359.
Ancient theories of Hebrew poetry, 361 ; compared with Arabic poetry, 361 ;
compared with classical metres, 362.
Modern theories, 363 ; Jones, 363 ; Saalchiitz, 363 ; Bickell, 364 ; Ewald, 365.
Lowth's doctrine of parallelism, 366 ; Bishop Jebb's introverted parallelism, 367 ;
the stairlike movement, 367.
Ley's theory of measures, 369 ; Briggs' early views, 370 ; primary and secondary
poetic accent, 370.
Poetic language, 371 ; full sounding forms, 371 ; archaisms, 371.

CONTENTS xvii
CHAPTEE XV
THE MEASURES OF BIBLICAL POETRY
Assonance and rhyme, 373 ; identical suffixes, 373 ; assonance, 375 ; word play,
375.
Measures by word or accent, 376 ; trimeter, 376 ; tetrameter, 379 ; pentameter,
380 ; hexameter, 382 ; varying measures, 384.
CHAPTEE XVI
THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBEEW POETRY
Parallelism of members, 385 ; the couplet, 385 ; the triplet, 388 ; the tetrastich,
390; the pentastich, 392; the hexastich, 394; the heptastich, 395; the
octastich, 397 ; the decastich, 397.
The strophe, 398 ; of two lines, 400 ; of three lilies, 401 ; of four lines, 401 ; of
five lines, 402 ; of six lines, 403 ; of seven lines, 406 ; of eight lines, 407 ; of
nine lines, 410 ; of ten lines, 411 ; of twelve lines, 411 ; of fourteen lines,
412 ; unequal strophes, 413.
CHAPTEE XVII
THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY
Lyric poetry, 415 ; the hymn, prayer, and song of Moses, 415 ; Psalter, 415 ;
Lamentations, 415.
Gnomic poetry, 416 ; fable, 416 ; riddle, 417 ; temperance poem, 418 ; gnome of
the sluggard, 418.
Composite poetry, 418 ; dramatic poetry, 419 ; Psalm xxiv. 419 ; Hosea xiv. 419 ;
Job, 420 ; Song of Songs, 420 ; Poetry of Wisdom, 422 ; Job xxxi. 422 ;
prophetic poetry, 424 ; Isaiah liii. 424.
CHAPTEE XVIII
HISTORY OF THE INTEEPEETATION OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
Oral and written Word, 427 ; general interpretation, 428 ; art of understanding
and explaining, 428.
Eabbinical interpretation, 429 ; legal or Halacha, 430 ; illustrative or Haggada,
431 ; allegorical or Sodh, 432 ; Cabala or mystic, 432 ; literal or Peshat, 433.
Hellenistic interpretation, 434 ; allegorical method of Philo, 434 ; rules of
allegory, 435.
Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New Testament, 436 ; Jesus' use of
the Halacha, 437 ; of Haggada, 438 ; of the Sodh, 438 ; Jesus' characteristic
methods, 441 ; methods of the apostles, 443.

xviii CONTENTS
Interpretation of the Fathers and of the Schoolmen, 447 ; Tertullian, 447 ;
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, 448 ; Tychonius' rules, 449 ; Augustme's
rules, 449; Antiochan school, 451; tradition and ecclesiastical authority,
453 ; Epitomes, Postiles, Glosses, 454 ; Lyra, 454 ; Council of Trent, 455.
Interpretation of the Reformers and their successors, 466 ; Erasmus and Tyn
dale, 466 ; the Protestant principle, 457 ; the scholastics, 468.
The Interpretation of the Puritan and Arminians, 469 ; Cartwright, 459 ; Ball,
460 ; Westminster Confession, 461 ; Leigh, 462 ; Francis Roberts, 464 ; Fed
eral school, 466 ; Pietism, 467 ; Grotius, Hammond, and John Taylor, 468.
Biblical interpretation of modern times, 469 ; Ernesti, 469 ; Semler, 469 ; the
grammatico-historical method, 470 ; Schleiermacher and the organic method,
471 ; the method of interpretation of Scripture as the history of redemption,
472.
CHAPTEE XIX
THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Grammatical interpretation, 474 ; philological study, 474 ; great improvement in
knowledge of Biblical languages, 475.
Logical and rhetorical interpretation, 476 ; laws of thought, 476 ; logic of Bibli
cal authors, 477 ; Biblical rhetoric, 478.
Historical interpretation, 478 ; mistakes of supernaturalism, 479 ; tradition versus
history, 479.
Comparative interpretation, 480 ; mistakes of rationalists, 480 ; unity in variety,
480.
The literature of interpretation, 481 ; magnitude of the literature, 481 ; consent
of the fathers, 481 ; bondage to the theologians, 482.
Doctrinal interpretation, 483 ; the rule of faith, 483 ; the analogy of faith in the
substance of Holy Scripture, 483.
Practical interpretation, 484 ; the Bible a book of life, 484 ; Holy Spirit the
supreme interpreter, 485.
CHAPTEE XX
HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY
The use of Biblical History prior to the sixteenth century, 487 ; Josephus, 487 ;
Tatian, Hegesippus, and Julius Africanus, 488 ; Eusebius, 489 ; Sulpicius
Severus and Augustine, 489 ; Rudolf of Saxony, 489.
Study of Biblical History in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 489 ; Har
monies, 490 ; archEeological writers, 490.
Study of Biblical History in the eighteenth century, 490 ; conflict of supernatu
ralists with Deism, Atheism, and Rationalism, 490 ; mediating efforts, 491.
Biblical History in the nineteenth century, 491 ; Herder and Eichhom, 491 ;
Deists and Thomas Payne, 492.
The mythical hypothesis, 493 ; DeWette and G. L. Baur, 493 ; Strauss, 493 ;
Ullmann, 495 ; failure of mythical hypothesis, 496.

CONTENTS xix
The legendary hypothesis, 497 ; Renan, 497 ; failure of the legendary hypothe
sis, 498.
The development hypothesis, 498 ; F. C. Baur and Vatke, 498 ; schools of Baur
and Neander, 499 ; Ritschl, 500 ; Harnack, 600 ; criticism of the school of
Ritschl, 503 ; Ewald, 504 ; Wellhausen, 504 ; Stade, Kittel, and Kent, 504 ;
Graetz and Jost, 505.
Advance in several departments of Biblical History, 605 ; the rise of contem
porary history, 505; Schneckenberger and Bertheau, 505; more recent
studies in Oriental archaeology, 506 ; unscientific methods of Sayce and
Hommel, 606 ; Robinson, the father of modern Biblical geography, 507 ;
Biblical geography since Robinson, 507.
The results of historical criticism, 608 ; defects of the older histories, 509 ; a
new Biblical History, 510.
CHAPTEE XXI
THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM
Genesis of historical material, 511 ; illustrated from Biblical chronology, 512 ;
from the history of the chronicler, 513 ; from naming of Saint Peter, 514 ;
from speaking with tongues at Pentecost, 517.
Genuineness of historical material, 519 ; illustrated in question of the historicity
of Daniel, 519 ; of erroneous historical statements, 520 ; rashness in finding
errors, 521 ; the myth, 621 ; Arabic gospel of infancy, 522 ; the virgin birth
not a myth, 522 ; legends, 527 ; used in the epistles, 527 ; in the Gospels, 627.
Reliability of historical material, 529 ; illustrated by the story of the Deluge,
529 ; Water from the Eock, 629 ; Census of Quirinius, 530.
The Aim of Historical Criticism, 531 ; removal of erroneous traditions, 531 ; the
recovery of historic truth and fact, 532.
CHAPTEE XXII
BIBLICAL HISTOEY
The Scope of Biblical History, 533 ; Biblical histories, 533 ; History contained
in other Holy Scriptures, 533.
Contemporary History, 534 ; of the ancient empires, 534 ; of New Testament
times, 534.
The History of Israel, 535 ; part of Universal History, 535 ; other nations guided
by Providence, 537.
Biblical History proper, 538 ; the types of Biblical History, 538 ; the theophanic
presence, 542 ; the kingdom of redemption, 547 ; divine fatherly discipline,
549 ; sovereignty of the Holy God, 550.
The Order of Biblical History, 553 ; History of the Old Covenant and New Cov
enant, 563 ; Moses, David, Ezra, 553 ; Forerunners of Christ, Christ, and
his Apostles, 553.
Sections of Biblical History, 554 ; Biblical chronology and geography, 554 ; Bib
lical archseology, 554.

XX CONTENTS
Sources of Biblical History, 555 ; mythical sources, 557 ; legendary sources, 568 :
poetical sources, 559 ; ancient laws, 660 ; documentary soiirces, 563.
The Historic Imagination, 564.
CHAPTEE XXIII
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
The four types of theology, 569 ; the mystic, 670 ; the scholastic, 570 ; the
speculative, 571 ; the practical, 571 ; the comprehensive catholic, 671 ;
mingling of types, 672.
Rise of Biblical Theology, 575 ; Zacharia and Ammon, 575 ; distinguished from
dogmatics, 575 ; Gabler, 576 ; De Wette and Von Coin, 578 ; the historical
principle, 576.
Development of Biblical Theology, 578 ; Strauss, 578 ; F. C. Baur, 578 ; theory
of Jewish Christian, and Pauline parties, 578 ; Neander's theory of types,
579 ; Schmid assigned Biblical Theology to Exegetical Theology, 579 ; Reuss
and Lutterbeck set Biblical Theology in the midst of the religious ideas of
the times, 683 ; Kuenen and Wellhausen, 585 ; recent investigations, 587 ;
younger Ritschlians, 589.
The Idea of Biblical Theology, 592 ; limited to canonical writings, 592 ; not a
history of religion in Biblical times, 593 ; how related to Dogmatics, 694 ;
the ethical element, 597 ; the element of religion, 597 ; the theology of the
Bible in its historic formation, 698.
The place of Biblical Theology, 599 ; not a part of Biblical History, 599 ; the
highest section of the study of the Bible, 600 ; the fundamental source of all
other divisions of Theology, 601.
Methods of Biblical Theology, 601 ; the genetic method, 601 ; the inductive
method, 602 ; the unity and variety, 602 ; blending of methods, 603.
System of Biblical Theology, 603 ; the covenant the dominant principle, 604 ;
historic divisions, 604 ; synthetic divisions, 604 ; the several types, 606.
CHAPTEE XXIV
THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Dogmatic theory of the infallibility of the Bible, 607 ; need of a reconstruction
of the doctrine of the Bible, 607.
The Bible and other sacred books, 608 ; errors in sacred books, 608 ; mistake of
depreciating them, 609 ; their excellent features not derived from the Bible,
610.
Science and the Bible, 612 ; Bible subject to the criticism of Science, 613 ; Bible
does not teach Science, 614 ; scientific errors do not destroy credibility, 614.
The Canon and Inerrancy, 615 ; the question of errors in the original autographs,
615 ; Canon is independent of the question of the autographs, 616 ; auto
graphs of authors and of editors, 618 ; autographs neglected by early Jews
and Christians, 620.

CONTENTS xxi
Textual criticism and credibility, 621 ; errors in best texts obtainable, 621 ; no
infallibility of vowel points or script, 621 ; the divine authority in transla
tions, 622 ; no stress to be laid on external letter of Scripture, 623 ; textual
form not infallible, 624.
The Higher Criticism and credibility, 627 ; traditional errors as to literature, 627 ;
inconsistencies due to variation of sources and authors, 628 ; literary form
not infallible, 629.
Historical Criticism and credibility, 631 ; discrepancies, 631 ; errors in sources,
631 ; historical form not infallible, 632 ; infallibility in substance of divine
teaching as to religion, faith, and morals, 633.

CHAPTEE XXV
THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Is the Bible the Word of God ? 634 ; it cannot be assumed but must be proved,
634 ; essential truthfulness consistent with circumstantial errors, 636 ; human
medium of revelation, 635 ; providential superintendence not inspiration,
636.
Must God speak inerrant words to men ? 637 ; argument from the Book of
nature, 637 ; from theophanies, 638 ; from psychology and pedagogy, 638 ;
from the methods of Jesus, 639 ; Bible inerrant only in its religious instruc
tion, 640.
Gradual development of the Hebrew religion, 641 ; burnt-offerings of human
beings, 641 ; sacrificial system, 642 ; laws of ceremonial sanctity, 643 ; in
stitutions of Israel elementary, 643.
Gradual development of morality, 643 ; laws sufficient for the time, 643 ; but
inadequate for a later age, 644 ; the ethics of falsehood, 644; the spirit of
revenge, 644 ; Mosaic law of divorce, 645 ; the temporary and the eternal,
645 ; ethics of Jesus, 645.
Gradualness of Biblical doctrine, 646 ; doctrine of God, 646 ; vindictiveness, 646 ;
anthropomorphisms, 647 ; doctrine of man, 647 ; doctrine of redemption,
647 ; messianic ideals, 648 ; future life, 648 ; inadequateness of form, infal
libility of substance, 649.

CHAPTEE XXVI
THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE
Redemption by the grace of God, 651; the principles of the Reformation in their
harmony, 662.
The Gospel in Holy Scripture, 662 ; relations of faith to Holy Scripture, 652 ;
relation of grace to Holy Scripture, 653 ; exaltation of the person of Christ,
654 ; organic work of the Divine Spirit in the Church, 654.

XXll CONTENTS
The Grace of God in Holy Scripture, 654 ; Scripture contains the Gospel of Sal
vation, 656 ; contains the redemption offered and applied in Christ, 656 ;
grace of regeneration, 657 ; of sanctification, 658.
The efficacy of Holy Scripture, 669 ; not ex opere operato, 660 ; dynamic in the
experience of man, 660.
The appropriation of the Grace of Holy Scripture, 660 ; attention, 661 ; faith,
665 ; practice, 668.

INDICES

Texts of Holy Scripture, 671.
Books, Authors, and Subjects, 679.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

CHAPTER I
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY OP HOLY SCRIPTURE
1. Biblical Study is the most important of all studies, for
it is the study of the Word of God, which contains a divine
revelation of redemption to the world. Nowhere else can such
a redemption be found save where it has been derived from this
fountain source or from those sacred persons, institutions, and
events presented to us in the Bible. The Bible is the chief
source of the Christian religion. Christian theology, and Chris
tian life. While other secondary and subsidiary sources may
be used to advantage in connection with this principal source,
they cannot dispense with it. For the Bible contains the reve
lation of redemption ; the Messiah and His kingdom are the,
central theme ; its varying contents lead by myriads of paths
in converging lines to the throne of the God of grace. The
Bible is the sure way of life, wisdom, and blessedness.
2. Biblical Study is the most extensive of all studies, for its
themes are the central themes which are inextricably entwined
in all knowledge. Into its channels every other study pours
its supply as all the brooks and rivers flow into the ocean. The
study of the Bible is a study for men of every class and every
occupation in life, for all the world. No profound scholar in
any department of investigation can avoid the Bible. Sooner
or later his special studies will lead him thither. The Bible
is an ocean of heavenly wisdom. The little child may sport
upon its shores and derive instruction and delight. The most
accomplished scholar finds its vast extent and mysterious
depths beyond his grasp.

2 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
We open the Bible and on its earliest pages are confronted
with the story of the origin of the world, the creation of man,
and the problem of evil. The biblical histories present, in
brief yet impressive outlines, the struggle of good and evil,
the strife of tribes and nations, and, above all, the interplay
of divine and human forces, showing that a divine plan of the
world is unfolding. The springs of human action, the secrets
of human experience and motive, are disclosed in the measures
of psalm and proverb. The character, attributes, and pur
poses of God are unveiled in the strains of holy prophets. The
union of God and man in redemption is displayed in the prog
ress of its literature. Two great covenants divide the plan
of redemption into the old covenant and the new. The former
presents us instructions which are a marvel of righteousness,
sacredness, and love ; institutions that are symmetrical and
grand, combining, as nowhere else, the real and the ideal, —
the light and guide to Israel bearing on to the new covenant.
In the latter the Messiah presents His achievements of redemp
tion in which are stored up the forces which have shaped the
Christian centuries, and the secrets of the everlasting future.
All the sciences and arts, all the literatures and histories, all
the philosophies and religions of the world, gather about the
Bible to make contribution to its study and derive help from
its instruction. A student of the Bible needs encyclopsedic
knowledge. The Bible will never be mastered in all its parts
until it is set in the midst of universal knowledge. It comes
from the Supreme Wisdom, and it can be comprehended only
by those who have attained the heights of wisdom.
3. Biblical Study is the most profound of all studies, for
it has to do with the secrets of life and death, of God and man,
of this world and other worlds. Its central contents are divine
revelations. These came from God to man because man could
not attain them otherwise. Even those contents of the Bible
that are not revealed, are colored and shaped by the revelations
with which they are connected. All study which goes beyond
the surface soon reaches the mysterious. There are many
mysteries that patient and persistent investigation has solved ;
others are in process of solution ; still others future study may

ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY 3
be able to solve. But the mysteries revealed in the Bible are
those which man had not been able to attain by inductive and
deductive investigation, and which it is improbable that he
could have attained without special divine guidance, at least at
the time that that knowledge was necessary for the progress
of mankind at the stage in his historical development when the
revelation was given. When the study of the other depart
ments of human learning has reached their uttermost limits,
there still remains a wide expanse between those limits and the
contents of divine revelation, which man cannot cross by his
own unaided powers. Divine revelation is to the other depart
ments of human knowledge what heaven is to earth. It is above
them, it encircles them, and it envelops them on every side.
Like heaven, it discloses illimitable heights and breadths.
Those things which are revealed lift the student of the Bible
to regions of knowledge that reach forth to the infinite. And
yet profound as the divine revelation is, it is simple. It is like
the sunlight bearing its own evidence in itself. It is like the
blue vault of heaven clear and bright. It is a revelation for
babes as well as men, for the simple as well as the learned.
God sendeth it as the rain on the just and the unjust, for " He
is kind unto the unthankful and the evil." ^ The most profound
study cannot master it. Any attentive study of it is rewarded
with precious knowledge.
4. Biblical Study is the most attractive of all studies. No
where else is there so great a variety in unity. The Literature
of the Bible has been carefully selected out of a vastly greater
extent of Literature by the taste of God's people in many suc
cessive generations, each one adding its approval to that of
its predecessors. This taste determined that which was given
for the permanent blessing of mankind and discriminated the
writings gathered in the Bible from others which were tempo
rary, local, and provisional in their character. The wise
guidance of the Divine Spirit on the one hand and the recogni
tion of excellence by God's people on the other hand, co-worked
to produce Holy Scripture.
In the Bible there is a wonderful variety of topic, covering
1 Mt. 5« ; Lk. 685.

4 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the whole field of Theology, that divine science which embraces
and absorbs all human knowledge. In the Bible there is a
marvellous richness of material combining in one organic whole
the sublime and the beautiful in God, in man, in nature, and
in the interrelation of God with man and nature. In the Bible
there is an extraordinary wealth of literary form and style,
representing the 'thinking and. the emotions df many genera
tions ; composed in three of the greatest languages used as
the vehicle of communion of man with man.
In the Bible there is a magnificent unity and variety in
history. Nowhere else are the generations of mankind so
linked together. In the Bible the hearts of the fathers are
turned to the children, and the hearts of the children to the
fathers.! Though the Jewish people constitute the central
nucleus of this marvellous story, they are not the whole of it.
They are the centre of a story which is as wide as humanity
and whose circumference is the creation of God.
The Bible is as various as human life is various. It is in
teresting to the child, it attracts the peasant, it charms the
prince, it absorbs the sage. It is the Book of love, salvation,
and glory for all the world.
Obstacles to the Study of Holy Scripture
The Bible is designed for the blessing of all mankind. But
all have not enjoyed its benefits ; partly because those who have
the Bible in their possession have not made it known to their
fellow-men as they were commissioned to do by our Saviour ; ^
and partly because they have made the Bible known only so
far as they understood it, or they supposed that their fellow-
men were able to receive it. If they have given it to others
at all, it has been in such bits of it as the teachers were able
to explain to their humble and obedient pupils. Even in
Christian lands, where the Bible may easil}'- be found, there
are few who experience its ideal advantages. Too many re
ligious teachers, in mistaken zeal, are so anxious to guard the
sanctity of the Bible that they refrain from opening its treas-
1 Mal. 4«. 2 jik, iQis

ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY 5
ures to the free use of the people. Other teachers in all
generations perpetuate the work of the Pharisees and obtrude
their theories and speculations upon the Bible, making the
Word of God of none effect through their traditions; they take
away the key of knowledge ; they enter not in themselves, and
them that are entering in they hinder. ^ If the Bible has been
withheld from the people by Roman priests,' obstacles to the
study of the Bible have been erected in the path of students
by Protestant ministers. It would be a happy result if each
could so expose the sin and guilt of the other as to induce both
to bring forth fruits meet for repentance and to render entire
obedience to the commission of Christ.
1. The Study of the Bible is most commonly obstructed
among Protestants by Bibliolatry.
The Bible has been hedged about with awe as if the use of
it, except in solemn circumstances and with special and pre
scribed devotional feelings, was a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Men have been kept from the Bible as from the holy sacraments
by dread of the serious consequences involved in any fault in
their use. The Bible has been made an unnatural and unreal
book, by attaching it exclusively to hours of devotion, and
detaching it from the experiences of ordinary life. The study
of the Bible will inevitably lead to holy and devout thoughts,
will surely bring the student to the presence of God and His
Christ, and will certainly secure the guidance of the Spirit of
God. But it is a sad mistake to suppose that the Bible can be
approached only in special frames of mind and with peculiar
devotional preparation. It is not to be covered as with a fune
real pall and laid away for hours of sorrow and affliction. It
is not to be placed upon an altar and its use reserved for hours
of public or private worship. It is not to be regarded with
feelings of bibliolatry.^ It is not to be used as a book of magic,
1 Mt. 158; Mk. 7"; Lk. 116=; Col. 2^.
2 It is noteworthy that the most radical Protestants, those who are most bitter
in their denunciation of the adoration of the Holy Sacrament by such of their
fellow-Christians as believe in the real substantial presence of our Lord therein,
are the very ones who are most inclined to Bibliolatry. It is certainly no easier
to think that our Saviour should dwell between the covers of a book than that
He should be resident for a time in the bread of the Holy Communion.

6 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIITURE
as if it had the mysterious power of determining all questions at
the opening of <the book.^ It is not to be used as a cabalistic
book, to determine from its words and letters, the structure of its
sentences, mysterious guidance for the initiated alone. ^ It is not
to be used as an astrologer's horoscope, to discover from its won
drous symbolism, through seeming coincidences, the fulfilment
of biblical prophecy in the events transpiring round about us or
impending over us. The Bible is no such book as this. It is
a book of life, a real book, a people's book. It is a blessed means
of grace when used in devotional hours, — it has also holy les
sons and beauties of thought and sentiment for hours of leisure
and recreation. It appeals to the sesthetic and intellectual
as well as moral and spiritual faculties, the whole man in his
whole life. Familiarity with the Bible is to be encouraged.
It will not decrease, but rather enhance the reverence with
which we ought to approach the Holy God in His Word. The
Bible takes its place among the masterpieces of the world's
literature. The use of it as such no more interferes with
devotion than the beauty and grandeur of architecture and
music prevent the adoration of God in the worship of a cathe
dral. Rather the varied forms of beauty, truth, and goodness
displayed in the Bible will conspire to bring us to Him who is
the centre and inspiration of them all.
2. The Study of the Bible is obstructed by sectarian partisan
ship. A sin against the Bible is often committed by the indis
criminate use of proof texts in dogmatic assertion and debate.
These texts are hurled against one another by zealous partisans
in controversy with such differences and inconsistency of inter
pretation as to excite the disgust of all openminded persons.
It has become a proverb that anything can be proved from the
Bible. Then again the Bible is too often used as a text-book
of abstract definitions giving absolute truth. The Protestant
Reformers threw aside the authority of the Church as the in-
1 There are many sad instances of this misuse of the Bible. Doubtless there
are cases in which there has apparently been good guidance, but there are others
in which men and women have been misled to the ruin of themselves and other
people. This method of resorting to a divine oracle is less likely to lead to faith
and holiness than to disappointment, distrust of God, and eventual unbelief.
2 See Chap. XVIII. p. 432, for this method of using the Old Testament.

ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY 7
fallible interpreter of the Bible and refused to submit to the
interpretation of the Fathers of the Church as final. They
asserted the right of private judgment for themselves and
others. But their successors established a Protestant rule of
faith which became as tyrannical over private judgment as
Roman tradition had ever been. Over against these abuses, we
maintain that the Bible was not made for ecclesiastical dogma-
ticians and lawyers, but for the people of God. It gives the
concrete in the forms and methods of literature. Its state
ments are ordinarily relative ; they depend upon the context in
which they are imbedded, the scope of the author's argument,
his peculiar point of view, his type of thought, his literary
style, his position in the unfolding of divine revelation. There
are occasional passages so pregnant with meaning that they
seem to present, as it were, the quintessence of the wliole
Bible. Such texts were called by Luther little bibles. But
ordinarily, the texts can be properly understood only in their
context. To detach them from their place and use them as if
they stood alone, and deduce from them all that the words and
sentences may be constrained to give, as absolute statements, is
an abuse of logic and the Bible. Such a use of other books
would be open to the charge of misrepresentation. Such a
use of the Bible is an adding unto the V/ord of God new mean
ings and a taking away from it the true meaning. Against
this we are warned by the Bible itself.^ Deduction, inference,
and application may be used within due bounds, but they
must always be based upon a correct apprehension of the
text and context of the passage. These processes should be
conducted with great caution, lest in transferring the thought
to new conditions and circumstances, there be an insensible
assimilation first of its form and then of its content to these
conditions and circumstances, and it become so transformed
as to lose its biblical character and become a tradition of man.
It is a melancholy feature of Biblical Study that so much
attention must be given to the removal of the rubbish of
traditional misconceptions and misinterpretations that has been
heaped upon the Word of God continually just as in the times
1 Eev. 2218- ".

8 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
of Jesus. The Bible is like an oasis in a desert. Eternal
vigilance and unceasing activity are necessary to prevent the
sands from encroaching upon it and overwhelming its fertile
soil and springs of water.
The Bible was given to us in the forms of the world's litera
ture, and its meaning is to be determined by the reader as he
determines the meaning of other literature by the same princi
ples of exegesis. It is a Protestant principle that the Word
of God should be given to the people in their own familiar
tongue with the right of private judgment in its interpretation.
It is a corollary of this principle that they be taught that
it is to be understood in a natural sense, as other writings
are understood. The right of private judgment is debased
when partisanship determines that judgment and when secta
rianism perverts it. The Bible was not given to sustain the
partisan or to uphold the sect ; but to teach the Truth of God
and to guide in the holy life. The right of private judgment
implies the right to seek the Truth in the Bible and the duty
to teach that Truth without fear or favour. Any unnatural
and artificial interpretation of the Bible bears its own condem
nation in itself. The saving truths of Scripture can be " sav
ingly understood " only through the illumination of the Spirit
of God,i but this is not for the reason that they are not
sufficiently plain and intelligible, or that some special princi
ples of interpretation are needed of a bibliolatrous, scholastic,
or cabalistic sort ; it is owing to the fact that in order to
salvation they must be applied to the soul of man by a divine
agent, and appropriated by the faith of the heart and the
practice of the life.
3. The Study of the Bible has been greatly hindered by the
use of it as an obstruction to progress in knowledge and in life.
The craving for place and power is felt by self-willed men in
all ages and in all callings. The Church has not been able to
keep itself free from such ambitions. Ecclesiastical domina
tion is the worst kind of domination, because it is so contrary
to the ideal of the Church and the example of Christ. And
yet in every generation men arise who claim to be the cham-
1 Westminster Confession, I. 6. See pp. 485 seq.

ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY 9
pions of orthodoxy and the guardians of ecclesiastical authority.
They assert the authority of the Church and hold up texts from
the Bible as the supreme test of every new thing that is pro
posed for the improvement of mankind. They presume to
oppose the discoveries of science, the researches of philosophy,
the unfolding of theology into fresher and better statements,
the improvement of religious life and work, and even the
deeper and more thorough study of the Bible, by holding
up isolated texts and insisting on antiquated interpretations.
Nearly every profound thinker, since the days of Socrates, has
been obliged to pause in his work and defend himself, like
the apostle Paul, against these "dogs" and "evil workers." ^
Galileo was silenced by the quoting of the Bible against the
Copernican theory of the revolution of the earth around the sun.^
Descartes had to defend his orthodoxy. The enemies of the
critical philosophy of Kant charged that no critic who fol
lowed out the consequences of his positions could be a good
man, a good citizen, or a good Christian.^
The results of Geology have been opposed by those who in
sist that the world was made in six days of twenty-four hours.
Biology has to fight its way against those who affirm that the
doctrine of development is against the Scriptures. Such use
of the Bible has too often the effect of driving scholars away
from it, and especially from the Old Testament, the most abused
part of it.*
Every advance in the study of the Bible has been confronted
by these enemies of the truth. The investigation of the Canon,
Textual Criticism, the Higher Criticism, Historical Criticism,
Biblical Theology, all these departments had to fight for exist-
1 Phil. 32.
^ White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.
N. Y. 1896. Vol. I. pp. 130 seq.
^ These points are discussed by Krug, Ueber das Verhaltniss der Kritischen
Philosophie zur moralischen, politischen und religiosen Kiiltur der Menschen.
Jena, 1798.
* " The fact is therefore indisputable, that theologians have handled Scripture
on such faulty principles, that they have laid down as truths indisputably divine
a number of dogmas which have brought revelation into direct collision with
some of the greatest discoveries of modern science, and that after having, on
their first enunciation, denounced them as inconsistent with the belief that
Scripture contains the record of a divine revelation, they have been compelled to

10 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
ence, and then, after they had won their right to exist, have
the still more difficult battle to wage against those hypocritical
and traitorous companions who make a show of using the prin
ciples and methods of the scientific study of the Bible, either
for the purpose of discrediting them, or else as advocates and
partisans of traditional and sectarian opinions. The history
of all these combats is the same. The theological Bourbons
never learn anything from past defeats. They repeat the same
obstructive methods, and, when defeated, make the same insin
cere apologies. The race of time-servers continues to propa
gate itself from age to age. They always take the via media
and lean to the traditional side. They always encourage the
traditionalists, and obstruct faithful biblical scholars. And so
the combat goes on.^ The Divine Spirit leads into all the truth
in spite of every obstacle erected by Christian dogmaticians
and ecclesiastical assemblies. The later theologians correct
the earlier theologians, and later ecclesiastical assemblies al
ways eventually give their voice on the side of the Truth of
God. But it is ever necessary for the friends of truth and of prog-
accept them as unquestionable verities. Moreover, the general distrust arising
from failures of this kind has been intensified by the pertinacity with which
theologians have clung to various unsound positions which they have only
abandoned when further resistance had become impossible. The history of the
confiict between Science and Revelation is full of such instances, and the con
sequences have been disastrous in the extreme." — C. A. Row, Bevelation and
Modern Theology Contrasted. London, 1883. p. 7.
1 "The newer thought moved steadily on. As already in Protestant Europe,
so now in the Protestant churches of America, it took strong hold on the fore
most minds in many of the churches known as orthodox : Toy, Briggs, Francis
Brown, Evans, Preserved Smith, Moore, Haupt, Harper, Peters, and Bacon de
veloped it, and, though most of them were opposed bitterly by synods, councils,
and other authorities of their respective churches, they were manfully supported
by the more intellectual clergy and laity. The greater universities of the coun
try ranged themselves on the side of these men ; persecution but intrenched
them more firmly in the hearts of all intelligent well-wishers of Christianity.
The triumphs won by their opponents in assemblies, synods, conventions, and
conferences were really victories for the nominally defeated, since they revealed
to the world the fact that in each of these bodies the strong and fruitful thought
of the Church, the thought which alone can have any hold on the future, was
with the new race of thinkers ; no theological triumphs more surely fatal to the
victors have been won since the Vatican defeated Copernicus and Galileo."
— White, History ofthe Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom,
Vol. II. p. 370.

ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY 11
ress in the Church to oppose and to overcome obstructionists.
It is the duty of all lovers of the Bible to break up the super
stitions that cluster about it, to expose the false polemic use of
its texts, to prevent dogmaticians from using it as an obstacle
to progress in civilization, and to show that it favours all truth
and every form of scholarly investigation. The Bible is an
honest book in all its parts, — it is the Word of God, and every
sincere disciple of wisdom will find in its pages not only the
real and the highest truth, but will be stimulated and encour
aged to press forward under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
unto all truth.^
The design of this book is to set forth the principles and
methods of the Study of Holy Scripture, to describe its depart
ments, and to give sketches of their history. It is proposed,
first of aU, to survey the whole field, and then to examine in
more detail the several departments. We shall aim to explain
the true uses of the Bible and show throughout that Biblical
Study is, as we have claimed, the most important, extensive,
profound, and attractive of all studies.
1 John 1613.

CHAPTER II
THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The general term for the various departments of the Study
of Holy Scripture as given in most Theological Encyclopsedias
is Exegetical Theology. Exegetical Theology is one of the
four grand divisions of Theological Science. It is related to
the other divisions, as the primary and fundamental discipline
upon which they depend, and from which they derive their chief
materials. Exegetical Theology is not an appropriate term for
the study of the Bible, especially as that study is now under
stood. For the exegetical study of the Bible, although an im
portant section of Biblical Study, is far from being the whole
of it. And the work of exegesis is just as important in the
study of the sources of Church History, or the sources of any
other study. No one can study the Bible thoroughly and com
pletely without the use of the historical method and without
also the systematic organization of his material, and the prac
tical use of it. We shall use for our purpose, therefore, the
simpler term Study of Holy Scripture.
This study is limited to the Holy Scripture itself and to
those auxiliary departments, which are in essential relation to
it. It has to do with the Sacred Scriptures, their origin, his
tory, character, exposition, doctrines, and guidance in life. It
is true that the other branches of theology have likewise to do
with the sacred writings, in that their chief material is derived
therefrom, but they differ from the study we now have in view,
not only in their methods of using this material, but likewise
in the fact, that they do not themselves search out and gather
this material directly from the holy writings, but depend upon
the more particular Study of Holy Scripture therefor. Church
12

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 13
History traces the development of that material as the deter
mining element in the history of the Church of God ; Dogmatic
Theology arranges that material in the form most appropriate
for systematic study, for attack and defence, in accordance with
the needs of the age ; Practical Theology directs that material
to the conversion of the people, and training them in the holy
life. Thus the whole of theology depends upon the study
of Holy Scripture, and unless this department be thoroughly
wrought out and established, the whole theological structure
will be weak and frail, and it will be found, in the critical
hour, resting on the shifting sands of human opinion and prac
tice, rather than on the immovable rock of Divine Truth.
The Study of Holy Scripture is all the more important, that
each age has its own peculiar phase or department of truth
to elaborate in the theological conception and in the life.
Unless, therefore, theology freshens its life by ever-repeated
draughts from Holy Scripture, it will be unequal to the tasks
imposed upon it. It will not solve the problems of the
thoughtful, dissolve the doubts of the cautious, or disarm the
objections of the enemies of the truth. History will not do
so with her experience, unless she grasp the torch of divine
revelation, which alone can illuminate the future and clear up
the dark places of the present and the past. Dogmatic The
ology will not satisfy the demands of the age if she appear
in the worn-out armour or antiquated costume of former gen
erations. She must beat out for herself a new suit of armour
from biblical material which is ever new ; she must weave to
herself a fresh and sacred costume of doctrine from the Scrip
tures which never disappoint the requirements of mankind ;
and thus armed and equipped with the weapons of the Living
One, she will prove them quick and powerful, convincing and
invincible, in her training of the disciple, and her conflicts with
the infidel and heretic. And so Practical Theology will never
be able to convert the world to Christ, and sanctify the Church,
without ever renewing its life from the biblical fountain. The
pure, noble, and soul-satisfying truths of God's Word must
so pervade our liturgy, hymnology, catechetical instruction,
pastoral work and preaching, as to supply the necessities of

14 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the age, for " man shall not live by bread alone, but by every
word, that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."^
The history of the Church, and Christian experience, have
shown that in so far as the other branches of theology have
separated themselves from this fundamental discipline, and in
proportion to the neglect to study Holy Scripture, the Church
has fallen into a dead orthodoxy of scholasticism, has lost its
hold upon the masses of mankind, so that, with its foundations
undermined, it has yielded but feeble resistance to the onsets
of infidelity. And it has ever been that the reformation or
revival has come through the resort to the sacred oracles, and
the reorganization of a freshly stated body of doctrine, and
fresh methods of evangelization derived therefrom. We thus
have reason to thank God that heresy and unbelief so often
drive us to our citadel, the Sacred Scriptures, and force us
back to the impregnable fortress of Divine Truth, so that,
depending no longer merely upon human weapons and defences,
we may use rather the divine. Thus we reconquer all that
may have been lost through the slackness and incompetence
of those who have been more anxious for the old ways than
for strength of position and solid truth, and by new enterprises
we advance a stage onward in our victorious progress toward
the End. Our adversaries may overthrow our systems of
theology, our confessions and catechisms, our local church
organizations and methods of work, for these are, after all,
human productions, the hastily thrown up outworks of the
truth ; but they can never contend successfully against the
Word of God that liveth and abideth,^ which, though the heavens
fall and the earth pass away, will not fail in one jot or tittle
from the most complete fulfilment,^ which will shine in new
beauty and glory as its parts are one by one searchingly ex
amined, and which will prove itself not only invincible, but
all-conquering, as point after point is most hotly contested.
We are assured that at last it will claim universal obedience as
the pure and faultless mirror of Him who is Himself the efful
gence of the Father's glory and the very image of His substance.*
1 Dent. 85 ; Mt. 4*. 2 1 Pet. l^s. 3 Mt. 518.
* 2 Cor. 318 ; Heb. l^. See Briggs, Messiah of Apostles, p. 244.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 15
It is an important characteristic of the Reformed churches
that they give the Sacred Scriptures such a fundamental posi
tion in their confessions and catechisms, and lay so much stress
upon the so-called formal principle of the Protestant Reforma
tion. Thus in both Helvetic confessions and in the Westmin
ster confession they constitute the first article,^ while in the
Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms they are placed at the
foundation — in the former as the source of our knowledge of
sin and misery and of salvation ; ^ in the latter, as dividing the
catechism into two parts, teaching " what man is to believe con
cerning God, and what duty God requires of man " ; ^ and the
English Articles of Beligion lay down the principle of the An
glican Church that : " Holy Scripture containeth all things neces
sary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation."*
The Study of Holy Scripture being thus, according to its
idea, the fundamental theological discipline, and all-important as
the fruitful source of theology, it must be thoroughly elabora
ted in all its parts according to exact and well-defined scientific
methods. The methods proper to the discipline are the syn
thetic and the historical, the relative importance of which is con
tested. The importance of the historical method is so great that
not a few have regarded the discipline, as a whole, as at once a
primary division of Historical Theology. The examination of the
biblical sources, the Sacred Writings, being of the same essential
character as the examination of other historical documents, they
should be considered simply as the sources of Biblical History,
and thus the writings themselves would be most appropriately
treated under a history of Biblical Literature, and the doctrines
under a history of Biblical Doctrine.^ But the sacred writings
are not merely sources of historical information ; they are the
1 Niemeyer, CoUectio Confess., pp. 116, 467 ; Schaff, Creeds of Christendom,
1877, III. pp. 211, 237. 2 Quest, iii. xix.
3 Larger Catechism, Quest, v. ; Shorter Catechism, Quest, iii. ^ Art. VI.
' Compare the author's articles on Biblical Theology, American Presbyterian
Beview, 1870, pp. 122 seq., and Presbyterian Seview, July, 1882, pp. 503 seq., and
Chap. XXIII. of this volume.

16 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
sources of the Faith to be believed and the morals to be prac
tised by all the world ; they are of everlasting value as the sum
total of sacred doctrine and teaching for mankind, being not
only for the past, but for the present and the future, as God's
Holy Word to the human race, so that their value as historical
documents becomes entirely subordinate to their value as a
canon of Holy Scripture, the norm and rule of faith and life.
Hence the synthetic method must predominate over the histori
cal, as the proper exegetical method, and induction rule in all
departments of the work ; for it is the office of our discipline to
gather from these sacred writings, as the storehouse of Divine
Truth, the holy material, in order to arrange it by a process of
induction and generalization into the generic forms that may
best express the conceptions of the Sacred Scriptures themselves.
From this point of view it is clear that the analytic method
can have but a very subordinate place in our branch of theology.
It may be necessary in separating the material in the work of
gathering it, but this is only in order to the synthetic process
to which it leads and which must ever prevail. It is owing to
the improper application of the analytic method to exegesis,
that such sad mistakes have been made in interpreting the
Word of God, making exegesis the slave of dogmatics and tra
dition, when she can only thrive as the free-born daughter of
truth. Her word does not yield to dogmatics, and before her
voice tradition must ever give way. For exegesis cannot go to
the text with preconceived opinions and dogmatic views that
will constrain the text to accord with them, but rather with a
living faith in the perspicuity and power of the Word of God
alone, of itself, to persuade and convince ; and with reverential
fear of the voice of Him who speaks through it, which involves
assurance of the truth, and submission and prompt obedience to
His will. Thus, exegesis does not start from the unity to in
vestigate the variety, but from the variety to find the unity. It
does not seek the author's view and the divine doctrine through
an analysis of the writing, the chapter, the verse, down to the
word ; but, inversely, it starts with the word and the clause,
pursuing its way through the verse, paragraph, section, chapter,
writing, collection of writings, the entire Bible, until the whole

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 17
Word of God is displayed before the mind from the summit
that has been attained after a long and arduous climbing.
Thus the Study of Holy Scripture is altogether scientific :
its premises and materials are no less clear and tangible than
those with which any other science has to do, and its results
are vastly more important than those of all other sciences com
bined, for they concern our salvation and everlasting welfare.
Furthermore, this material, with which we have to do, is the
very Word of God to man, and we have a science that deals
with immutable facts and infallible truths, so that our science
takes its place in the circle of sciences, as the royal, yes, the
divine science. But this position will be accorded it by the
sciences only in so far as theology as a whole is true to the spirit
and character of its fundamental discipline, and just so long as
it is open-eyed for all truth, courts investigation and criticism
of its own materials and methods, and does not assume a false
position of dogmatism and traditional prejudice, or attempt to
tyrannize over the other sciences or obstruct their earnest re
searches after the truth.
The Study of Holy Scripture being thus fundamental and im
portant, having such thoroughgoing scientific methods, it must
have manifold divisions and subdivisions of its work. These,
in their order and mutual relation, are determined by a proper
adjustment of its methods and the subordination of the histori
cal to the inductive process. Thus at the outset there are im
posed upon those who would enter upon the study of the Sacred
Scriptures certain primary and fundamental questions respecting
the holy writings, such as : Which are the sacred writings ? why
do we call them sacred ? whence did they originate ? under what
historical circumstances were they written? who were their
authors ? to whom were they addressed ? what was their de
sign ? are the writings that have come down to us genuine ? is
the text reliable ? These questions may be referred to the gen
eral department of Biblical Literature. Then the Scriptures are
to be interpreted according to correct principles and methods,
with all the light that the study of centuries throws upon them.
This is Biblical Exegesis. Finally, the results of this exeget
ical process are to be gathered into organisms of Biblical His-

18 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
tory and of Biblical Theology. These then are the four grand
divisions into which our discipline naturally divides itself, each
in turn having its appropriate subordinate departments.
I. Biblical Literature
Biblical Literature has as its work to determine all those
introductory questions that may arise respecting the sacred
writings, preliminary to the work of exegesis. These questions
are various, yet may be grouped in accordance with a general
principle. But it is, first of all, necessary to limit the bounds
of our department and exclude from it all that does not properly
come within its sphere. Thus Hagenbach ^ brings into consid
eration here certain questions which he assigns to the auxiliary
disciplines of Sacred Philology, Sacred Archseology, and Sacred
Canonics. But it is difficult to see why, if these are in any
essential relation to our department, they should not be logi
cally incorporated, while if they do not stand in such close
relations why they should not be referred to their own proper
departments of study. Thus Sacred Canonics clearly belongs
to our discipline, as a necessary part of Biblical Literature.^
Sacred Archseology belongs no less certainly to Biblical His
tory .^ Sacred Philology should not be classed with Theology
at all ; for the languages of the Bible are not sacred from any
inherent virtue in them, but only for the reason that they have
been selected as the vehicle of divine revelation, and thus their
connection with the Scriptures is providential rather than nec
essary. And still further, all departments of theology are in
mutual relation to one another, and in a higher scale all the
departments of learning — such as theology, philosophy, phi
lology, and history — act and react upon one another. Hence,
that one department of study is related to another does not
imply that it should be made auxiliary thereto. Thus the lan
guages of Scripture are to be studied precisely as the other lan
guages, as a part of General Philology. The Hellenistic Greek
is a dialect of the Greek language, which is itself a prominent
member of the Indo-Germanic family ; while the Hebrew and
1 Encyldopadie, 9te Au9., s. 40. 2 ggg p 21. a gee p. 37.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 19
Aramaic are sisters with the Assyrian and Syriac, the Arabic
and Ethiopic, the Phoenician and Samaritan, of the Shemitic
family. The study of these languages, as languages, properly
belongs to the college or university course, and has no appro
priate place in the theological seminary. Valuable time is
consumed in these preparatory studies that is taken from our
study itself and never fully compensated for. One might as
truly study general history in the theological course as a prep
aration for Church History, and philosophy as a preparation
for Dogmatic Theology, and rhetoric as a preparation for Prac
tical Theology. All these alike are preparatory disciplines,
belonging to the college and not to the theological school.
The Shemitic languages are constantly rising into promi
nence, over against the Indo-Germanic family, and demand
their appropriate place in the curriculum of a liberal education.
Philologists and theologians should unitedly insist that a place
should be found for them in the college course ; ^ and that this
valuable department of knowledge, upon the pursuit of which
so much depends for the history of the Orient, the origin of
civilization and mankind, as well as for the whole subject of
the three great religions of the world, should not be neglected
in our institutions of learning. It should be made evident that
philology, history, and philosophy are essential for those who
are in their collegiate courses preparing for the Study of
Theology.^ There can be no thorough mastery of the Hebrew tongue by
1 German theology has a great advantage, in that the theological student is
already prepared in the gymnasium for the university with a knowledge of
Hebrew relatively equivalent to his Greek. The Presbyterians of Scotland
require an elementary knowledge of Hebrew, in order to entrance upon the
theological course. In the Roman theological training, the languages of the
Bible belong to the introductory philosophical course, and are not included in
the four years' course of theology proper. When my Biblical Study was issued,
in 1883, no more than three or four American universities and colleges made
provision for the study of the Hebrew language in their courses. In recent
years great progress has been made. Almost all the large colleges and universi
ties have introduced the Shemitic languages as elective. And several theologi
cal schools have special classes for students who take entrance examinations in
Hebrew. In Union Theological Seminary, New York, such classes for advanced
students in Hebrew and Biblical Greek are in successful operation.
2 See my article, "The Scope of Theology and its Place in the University,"
The American Journal of Theology, January, 1897. See also Chap. Ill

20 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
clinging reverently to the traditional methods of Hebrew study
or those in use among Jews who learn to speak and write
modern Hebrew. We might as well expect to master the
classic Latin from the language of the monks, or classic Greek
from modern Greece. The cognate languages are indispensa
ble. And it is just here that a rich treasure, prepared by
Divine Providence for these times, is pouring into our laps.
The Assyrian alone, as recently brought to light, and estab
lished in her position as one of the older sisters, is of inestima
ble value, not to speak of the Arabic and Syriac, the Ethiopic,
Phoenician, Samaritan, and the lesser languages and dialects
that the monuments are constantly revealing. Immense mate
rial is now at hand, and is still being gathered from these
sources, that has considerably modified our views of the He
brew language, and of the history and religion of the Hebrews
in relation to the other peoples of the Orient. We now know
that the Hebrew language has such a thing as a syntax, and
that it is a highly organized and wonderfully flexible and
beautiful tongue, the result of centuries of development. As
the bands of Rabbinical tradition are one after another falling
off, the inner spirit and life of the language are disclosing
themselves, the dry bones are clothing themselves with flesh,
and rich, warm blood is animating the frame, giving to the
features nobility and beauty.^ If the Church is to be renowned
for its mastery of the Bible, if the symbols and the life of the
Church are to harmonize. Christian theologians must advance
and occupy this rich and fruitful field for the Lord, and not
1 It is exceedingly gratifying that our American students are eagerly entering
upon these studies. The large classes in the cognate languages, in our semina/-
ries, promise great things for the future in this regard. Twenty-five years ago,
when I began teaching in Union Theological Seminary, New York, little atten
tion was given to the cognate languages. I organized a graded course in
Biblical Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic, to which Assyrian was soon added by
Professor Francis Brown. Since then the study of the Shemitic languages has
become common in most of our theological seminaries and universities. The
leaders in this movement have been C. H. Toy, of Harvard ; W. R. Harper,
formerly of Yale, now of Chicago ; J. P. Peters, formerly of Philadelphia ; and
George Moore, of Andover. The classes in the Shemitic languages in our Ameri
can seminaries and universities average a larger number of students than those
in the universities of Germany, and are greatly in excess of those in Great
Britain.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 21
abandon it to those whose interests are purely philological or
historical. While, therefore, I exclude the study of the Hebrew and
cognate languages from the proper range of the study of Holy
Scripture, I magnify their importance, not only to the theologi
cal student, but also to the entire field of scholarship. Other
scholars may do without them, but for the theologian these
studies are indispensable, and he must at the very beginning
strain all his energies to the mastery of the Hebrew tongue.
If it has not been done before entering upon the study of the
ology, it must be done in the very beginnings of that study,
or else he will be forever crippled.
We now have to define more closely the proper field of Bibli
cal Literature. Biblical Literature has to do with all questions
respecting the Sacred Scriptures that may be necessary to pre
pare the way for Biblical Exegesis. Looking at the Sacred
Scriptures as the sources to be investigated, three fields of
inquiry present themselves : the canon, the text, and the writ
ings. Three groups of questions arise : 1. As to the idea,
extent, character, and authority of the canon, collected as the
Sacred Scriptures of the Church. 2. As to the text of which the
canon is composed, the manuscripts in which it is preserved,
the translations of it, and the citations from it in ancient authors.
3. As to the origin, authorship, time of composition, character,
design, and destination of the writings that claim, or are
claimed, to belong to the Sacred Scriptures. These subor
dinate branches of Biblical Literature may be called Biblical
Canonics, the Lower or Textual Criticism, and the Higher
Criticism. 1. Biblical Canonics considers the canon of Holy Scripture
as to its idea, its historical formation, its extent, character,
authority, and historical influence. These inquiries are to be
made in accordance with historical and synthetic methods.
We are not to start with preconceived dogmatic views as to
the idea of the canon, but derive this idea by induction from
the Sacred Writings themselves. In the same manner we have
to decide all other questions that may rise. Thus the extent
of the canon is not to be determined by the consensus of the

22 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Church,^ or by the citation and reverent use of Scriptures in
the Fathers, or by their recognition by the earliest standard
authorities,^ for these historical evidences, so important in His
torical Theology, have no value in the Study of the Holy Scrip
ture. Canonicity is not rightly defined by the accord of a writ
ing with orthodoxy or the rule of faith,* for such a test is too
broad, in that other writings than sacred are orthodox, and
again too narrow, in that the standard is the shifting one of
subjective opinion, or external human authority, which, indeed,
presupposes the canon itself as an object of criticism. Still
less can we determine canonicity by apostolic or prophetic
authorship. It is by no means certain that all prophetic and
apostolic writings would be canonical even if they had been
preserved. And it is in fact impossible to prove prophetic
and apostolic authorship for the majority of the canonical writ
ings unless we use these terms so broadly as to give them no
definite reference to any known prophets and apostles. Such
external reasons, historical or dogmatic, may have a provi
sional and temporary authority ; but the one only permanent
and final decision of these questions comes from the internal
marks and characteristics of the Scriptures, their recognition
of one another, their harmony with the idea, character, and
development of a divine revelation, as it is derived from the
Scriptures themselves, as well as from their own well-tested and
critically examined claims to inspiration and authority, and,
above all, from the divine authority speaking by and with
them to the Church and the Christian. These reasons, and
these alone, gave them their historical position and authority
as a canon ; and these alone perpetuate their authority to
every successive generation of Christians. It is only on this
basis that the historical and dogmatic questions may be prop-
1 Indeed, there is no consensus with reference to the extent of the canon
whether it includes the Apocryphal books or not, and, still further, the opinions
of recognized ancient authorities differ in the matter of distinguishing within the
canon, between writings of primary and of secondary authority.
2 These, indeed, are not entirely agreed, and if they were, they could only
give us a human and fallible authority.
3 It was in accordance with this subjective standard that Luther rejected the
epistle of James and the book of Esther. Comp. Domer, Gesch. der Protest.
Theologie, 1868, «. 234 seq.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 23
erly considered, with reference to their recognition by Jew and
Christian, and with regard to their authority in the Church.
The writings having been determined in their limits as a
canon of Holy Scripture, we are prepared for the second step,
the examination of the text itself.
2. Textual Criticism considers the text of the Sacred Scrip
tures both as a whole and as to the several writings in detail.
The Sacred Writings have shared the fate of all human pro
ductions in their transmission from hand to hand, and in the
multiplication of copies. Hence, through the mistakes of copy
ists, the intentional corruption of the heretic, the supposed
improvement of the over-anxious orthodox, and the efforts of
Christian scribes to explain and to apply the sacred truth to
the readers, the manuscripts which have been preserved betray
differences of readings. This department has a wide field
of investigation. First of all, the peculiarities of the Bible
languages must be studied, and the idiomatic individualities
of the respective authors. Then the age of the various manu
scripts must be determined, their peculiarities and relative
importance in genealogical descent. The ancient versions
come into the field, especially the Septuagint, the Aramaic and
Samaritan Targums, the Syriac Peshitto, and the Latin Vul
gate. Each of these in turn has to go through the same sift
ing as to the critical value of its own text. Here, especially
in the Old Testament, we go back of any surviving manu
scripts and are brought face to face with differences that can
be accounted for only on the supposition of originals, whose
peculiarities have been lost. To these may be added the cita
tions of the original text in the Fathers and the Talmud and
in the numerous writings of Hebrew and Christian scholars.
Then we have the still more difficult comparison of parallel
passages, in the Sacred Scriptures themselves where differences
of text show differences reaching far back of any known manu
script or version.^ Textual criticism has to meet all these
1 Comp. Ps. 14 with Ps. 53 ; Ps. 18 with 2 Sam. 22 ; and the books of Samuel
and Kings, on the one hand, with the books of the Chronicler on the other, and,
indeed, throughout. Compare also the canonical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Daniel with the Apocryphal additions and supplements in the Septuagint ver-

24 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
difficulties, answer all the questions which emerge, and har
monize and adjust all the differences, in order that, so far as
possible, the genuine, original, pure, and uncorrupted text of
the Word of God may be gained, as it proceeded directly
from the original authors to the original readers. This depart
ment of study is all the more difficult for the Old Testament,
that the field is so immense, the writings so numerous, various,
and ancient, the languages so little understood in their histori
cal peculiarities, and, still further, in that we have to overcome
the prejudices of the Massoretic system, which, while faithful
and reliable so far as the knowledge of the times of the Masso-
retes went, yet, as resting simply on tradition, without critical
or historical investigation, and without any proper conception
of the general principles of Hebrew grammar and compara
tive Shemitic philology, cannot be accepted as final; for the
time has long since passed when the vowel points and accents
of the Massoretic text can be deemed inspired. We have to
go back of them, to the unpointed text, for all purposes of
criticism. And the unpointed text itself needs correction in
accordance with the rules of Textual Criticism.
3. The Higher Criticism is distinguished from the Lower or
Textual Criticism by presupposing the text and dealing with
individual writings and groups of writings. The Higher is
contrasted with the Lower in this usage as the second or higher
stage of a work is contrasted with the first or lower stage, or
more fundamental part of a work.^ The parts of writings
should be first investigated, the individual writings before the
collected ones. With reference to each writing, or, it may be,
part of a writing, we have to determine the historical origin
and authorship, the original readers, the design and character
sion, and finally the citation of earlier writings in the later ones, especially in
the New Testament. An interesting and delicate work of criticism is to compare
in the Gospels the different versions of the original Logia of Jesus.
1 Some ignorant people in recent discussions seemed to think that Higher
meant a pretentious and arrogant claim that this criticism was higher than the
older traditional opinion. The newer criticism is doubtless vastly higher,
nobler, and better in every way than the uncritical traditional method of hand
ling Biblical Literature ; but the term was not used historically with any such
meaning and it never has had any such meaning in the minds of biblical
scholars.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 2.5
of the composition, and its relation to other writings of its
group. These questions must be settled partly by external his
torical evidence, but chiefly by internal evidence, such as the
language, style of composition, archseological and historical
traces, the conceptions of the author respecting the various
subjects of human thought, and the like. With reference to
such questions as these, we have little help from traditional views
or dogmatic opinions which originally were mere conjectures
or hastily formed opinions without sufficient consideration of
the laws of evidence or the matter of the evidence itself. The
antiquity of such conjectures does not enhance their value any
more than it does other errors and mistakes. Whatever may
have been the prevailing views in the Church with reference
to the Pentateuch, the Psalter, or the Gospel of John, or any
other book of Holy Scripture, these will not deter the conscien
tious exegete from accepting and teaching the results of a
critical study of the Sacred Writings themselves.
It is just here that Christian theologians have greatly injured
the cause of the truth and the' Bible by dogmatizing in a de
partment where it is least of all appropriate, and, indeed, to
the highest degree improper ; as if our faith depended at all
upon these traditional opinions respecting the Word of God.
By their frequent and shameful defeats and routs tradition
alists bring disgrace not only upon themselves but upon the
cause they misrepresent. They alarm weak but pious souls who
have taken refuge in the fortress itself, and then prejudice the
sincere inquirer against the Scriptures, as if these questions
of the Higher Criticism were questions upon whose decision
depended orthodoxy or piety, or allegiance to the Word of God
or the symbols of the Church. The Westminster standards
teach that " the Word of God is the only rule of faith and obedi
ence," i and that "the authority of the Holy Scripture for
which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon
the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, the
author thereof." ^ The other Protestant symbols are in accord
with them. How unorthodox it is, therefore, to set up another
rule of prevalent opinion as to questions of the Higher Criti-
1 Larger Catechism, Quest, ui. ^ Confess, of Faith, Chap. I. 4.

26 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
cism and make it an obstacle and a stumbling-block to those
who would accept the authority of the Word of God alone.
So long as the Word of God is honoured, and its decisions re
garded as final, what matters it if a certain book be detached
from the name of one holy man and ascribed to another, or
classed among those with unknown authors ? Are the laws
of the Pentateuch any less divine, if it should be proved that
they are the product of the experience of God's people from
Moses to Josiah ? ^ Is the Psalter to be esteemed any the less
precious that the Psalms should be regarded as the product of
many poets singing through many centuries the sacred melo
dies of God-fearing souls, responding from their hearts, as from
a thousand-stringed lyre, to the touch of the Holy One of
Israel ? Is the book of Job less majestic and sublime, as it
stands before us in its solitariness, the noblest monument of
sacred poetry, with unknown author, unknown birthplace, and
from an unknown period of history ? Are the ethical teachings
of the Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, any
the less solemn and weighty, that they may not be the product
of Solomon's wisdom, but of the reflection of many holy wise
men of different epochs, gathered about Solomon as their head ?
Is the epistle to the Hebrews any less valuable for its clear
presentation of the fulfilment of the Old Testament priesthood
and sacrifice in the work of Christ, that it must be detached
from the name of Paul ? Let us not be so presumptuous, so
irreverent to the Word of God, so unbelieving with reference
to its inherent power of convincing and assuring the seekers
for the truth, as to condemn any sincere and candid inquirer
as a heretic or a rationalist, because he may differ from us on
such questions as these ! The internal evidence must be
decisive in all questions of Biblical Criticism, and the truth,
whatever it may be, will be most in accordance wibh God's
Word and for the glory of God and the interest of the Church.^
1 British and Foreign Evang. Beview, July, 1868, Art. " The Progress of
Old Testament Studies."
2 The whole of this paragraph was written and delivered before the outbreak
of the Professor W. Eobertson Smith controversy in Scotland and the discussions
respecting the Higher Criticism in the United States. I see no reason to change
a single word of it. Those majorities of ignorant and bigoted men who rejected

THE SCOPE OF THB STUDY 27
Thus Biblical Literature gives us all that can be learned
respecting the canon of Holy Scripture, its text and the vari
ous writings ; and presents the Sacred Scriptures as the holy
Word of God, all the errors and improvements of men having
been eliminated, in a text, so far as possible, as it came from
holy men who " spake being moved by the Holy Spirit," ^ so
that we are brought into the closest possible relations with the
living God through His Word, having in our hands the very
form that contains the very substance of divine revelation ; so
that with reverence and submission to His will we may enter
upon the work of interpretation, confidently expecting to be
assured of the truth in the work of Biblical Exegesis.
II. Biblical Exegesis
First of all we have to lay down certain general principles
derived from the study of the Word of God, upon which this
exegesis itself is to be conducted. These principles must be
in accord with the proper methods of our discipline and the
nature of the work to be done. The work of establishing
these principles belongs to the introductory department of
Biblical Hermeneutics. The Scriptures are human produc
tions, and yet truly divine. They must be interpreted as
other human writings, and yet their peculiarities and differ
ences from other human writings must be recognized,^ especially
the supreme determining difference of their inspiration by the
Spirit of God. In accordance with this principle they require
not only a sympathy with the human element in the sound
judgment and practical sense of the grammarian, the critical
investigation of the historian, and the sesthetic taste of the man
of letters ; but also a sympathy with the divine element, an
inquiring, reverent spirit to be enlightened by the Spirit of
the Higher Criticism in the Presbyterian General Assemblies of Scotland and
America, have been already overwhelmingly condemned by the subsequent
action of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland ; and they will
speedily be put to shame by a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America. These controversies emphasize the importance
and the correctness of the principles then stated. We shall come upon them
again in Chap. VIL, which is devoted to the subject.
^ 2 Pet. 121. 2 Comp. Immer, Hermeneutik der N. T. s. 9.

28 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
God, without which no exposition of the Scriptures as sacred,
inspired writings is possible. It is this feature that distin
guishes the discipline from the other corresponding ones, as
Sacred Hermeneutics. Thus we have to take into account the
inspiration of the Scriptures, their harmony, their unity in
variety, their sweet simplicity, and their sublime mystery ;
and all this not to override the principles of grammar, logic,
and rhetoric, but to supplement them ; yes, rather, infuse into
them a new life and vigour, making them sacred grammar,
sacred logic, and sacred rhetoric. And just here it is highly
important that the history of exegesis should come into the field
of study in order to show us the abuses of false principles of
interpretation as a warning; and the advantages of correct
principles as an encouragement.^
After this preliminary labour, the exegete is prepared for his
work in detail. The immensity of these details is at once
overpowering and discouraging. The extent, the richness,
the variety of the Sacred Writings, poetry, history, and proph
ecy, extending through so many centuries, and from such a
great number of authors, known and unknown, the inherent
difficulty of interpreting the sacred mysteries, the things of
God — who is sufficient for these things ? who would venture
upon this holy ground without a quick sense of his incapacity
to grasp the divine ideas, and an absolute dependence upon the
Holy Spirit to show them unto him?^ Truly, here is a work
for multitudes, for ages, for the most profound and devout
study of all mankind ; inasmuch as here we have to do with
the whole Word of God to man. The exegete is like the
miner. He must free himself as far as possible from all
traditionalism and dogmatic prejudice, must leave the haunts
of human opinion, and bury himself in the Word of God. He
must descend beneath the surface of the Word into its depths.
The letter must be broken through to get at the precious
idea. The dry rubbish of misconception must be thrown out,
and a shaft forced through every obstacle to get at the truth.
And while faithful in the employment of all these powers of
1 Comp. especially Diestel, Cesch. d. A. T. in der Christ. Kirche. Jena, 1869.
2 John 1616.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 29
the human intellect and will, the true exegete fears the Lord,
and only thereby hopes for the revelation of wisdom through
his intimacy with Him.i
1. The exegete begins his work with Grrammatioal Exegesis.
Here he has to do with the form, the dress of the revelation,
which is not to be disregarded or undervalued, for it is the
form in which God has chosen to convey His Truth, the dress
in whicli alone we can approach her and know her. Hebrew
grammar must therefore be mastered in its etymology and
syntax, or grammatical exegesis will be impossible. Here
patience, exactness, sound judgment, and keen discernment
are required, for every word is to be examined by itself, ety-
mologically and historically, not etymologically alone, for Greek
and Hebrews roots have not infrequently been made to teach
very false doctrines. It has been forgotten that a word is
a living thing, and has, beside its root, the still more impor
tant stem, branches, and products — indeed, a history of mean
ings. The word is then to be considered in its syntactical
relations in the clause, and thus step by step the grammatical
sense is to be ascertained, the false interpretations eliminated,
and the various possible meanings correctly presented and
classified. Without this patient study of words and clauses
no accurate translation is possible, no trustworthy exposition
can be made.^ It is true that grammatical exegesis leaves us in
doubt between many possible constructions of the sense, but
these doubts will be solved as the work of exegesis goes on.
On the other hand, it eliminates many views as ungrammatical
which have been hastily formed, and effectually prevents that
jumping at conclusions to which the indolent and impetuous
are alike inclined.
2. The second step in exegesis is Logical and Rhetorical
Exegesis. The words and .clauses must be interpreted in
accordance with the context, the development of the author's
1 Job 2828 . Ps. 25" ; Prov. 8" seq.
2 Yes, we may say that no translation can be thoroughly understood after the
generation in which it was made, without this resort to the original text, which
alone can determine in many cases the meaning of the translators themselves,
when we come upon obsolete terms, or words whose meanings have become
modified or lost.

30 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
thought and purpose ; and also in accordance with the prin
ciples of rhetoric, discriminating plain language from figura
tive, poetry from prose, history from prophecy, and the various
kinds of history, poetry, and prophecy from each other. This
is to be done not after an arbitrary manner, but in accordance
with the general laws of logic and rhetoric that apply to all
writings. While the use of figurative language has led the
mystic and the dogmatist to employ the most arbitrary and
senseless exegesis, yet the laws of logic and rhetoric, correctly
applied to the text, will clip the wings of the fanciful, and de
stroy the assumptions of the dogmatist, and, still further, will
serve to determine many questions that grammar alone cannot
decide, and hence more narrowly define the meaning of the
text. 3. The third step in exegesis is Historical Exegesis. The
author must be interpreted in accordance with his historical
surroundings. We must apply to the text the knowledge of
the author's times, derived from archseology, geography, chro
nology, and general history. Thus only will we be able to
enter upon the scenery of the text. It is not necessary to
resort to the history of exegesis ; one's own observation is
sufficient to show the absurdities and the outrageous errors
into which a neglect of this principle leads many earnest but
ignorant men. No one can present the Bible narrative in the
dress of modern every-day life without making the story ridic
ulous. And it must be so from the very nature of the case.
Historical circumstances are essential to the truthfulness and
vividness of the narrative. Instead of our transporting Script
ure events to our scenery, we must transport ourselves to their
scenery, if we would correctly understand them and realize
them. If we wish to apply Scripture truth, we may, after hav
ing correctly apprehended it, eliminate it from its historical
circumstances, and then give it a new and appropriate form for
practical purposes ; but we can never interpret Scripture with
out historical exegesis ; for it serves to more narrowly define
the meaning of the text, and to eliminate the unhistorical ma
terials from the results thus far attained in the exegetical
process.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 31
4. The fourth step in exegesis is Comparative Exegesis. The
results already gained with reference to any particular pas
sage are to be compared with the results attained in a like
manner in other similar passages of the same author, or other
authors of the period, and in some cases from other periods of
divine revelation. Thus, by a comparison of scripture with
scripture, additional light will be thrown upon the passage,
the true conception will be distinguished from the false, and
the results attained adequately supported.
5. The fifth step in exegesis may be called Literary Exegesis.
Great light is thrown upon the text by the study of the views
of those who, through the centuries, in many lands, and from
the various points of view have studied the Scriptures. Here
on this battle-ground of interpretation we see almost every
view assailed and defended. Multitudes of opinions have been
overthrown, never to reappear ; others are weak and tottering
— comparatively few still maintain the field. It is among
these latter that we must in the main find the true interpre
tation. This is the furnace into which the results thus far
attained by the exegete must be thrown, that its fires may
separate the dross and leave the pure gold thoroughly refined.
Christian divines, Jewish rabbins, and even unbelieving writers
have not studied the Word of God for so many centuries in
vain. No true scholar can be so presumptuous as to neglect
their labours. No interpreter can rightly claim originality or
freshness of conception who has not familiarized himself with
this mass of material that others have wrought out. On the
other hand, it is the best check to presumption, to know that
every view that is worth anything must pass through the fur
nace. Any exegete who would accomplish anything should
know that he is to expose himself to the fire that centres
upon any combatant that will enter upon this hotly contested
field. From the study of the Scriptures he will come into
contact with human views, traditional opinions, and dogmatic
prejudices. On the one side these will severely criticise and
overthrow many of his results ; on the other his faithful study
of the Word of God will be a fresh test of the correctness of
those human views that have hitherto prevailed. Thus, from

32 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the acting and reacting influences of this conflict, the truth of
God will maintain itself, and it alone will prevail.
We have thus far described these various steps of exegesis,
in order that a clear and definite conception may be formed of
its field of work — not that they are ever to be represented by
themselves in any commentary, or even carried on indepen
dently by the exegete himself, but they should be regarded as
the component parts of any thorough exegetical process ; and
although, as a rule, naught but the results are to be published,
yet these results imply that no part of the process has been
neglected, but that all have harmonized in them.
In advancing now to the higher processes of exegesis, we
observe a marked difference from the previous ones, in that
those have to do with the entire text, these with only select
portions of it. In these processes while results are to be
attained which wUl be most profitable to the great masses of
mankind, yet those incur the severest condemnation who, with
out having gone through these fundamental processes them
selves, either use the labours of the faithful exegete without
acknowledgment, or else, accepting traditional views without
examination, build on untested foundations. The Christian
world does not need theological castles in the air constructed
by dogmatic traditionalists, or theories of Christian life erected
by narrow-minded enthusiasts, but a solid structure of divine
truth built by Christian scholars on the solid courses of biblical
study as the temple of Divine Wisdom, the home of the soul,
and a sure stronghold for living and dying.
6. The sixth step in exegesis is Doctrinal Exegesis, which
considers the material thus far gathered in order to derive
therefrom the ideas of the author respecting religion, faith, and
morals. These ideas are then to be considered in their relation
to each other in the section and chapter of the Sacred Writing.
Thus we get the doctrine that the author would teach, and are
prepared for a comparison of it with the doctrines of other
passages and authors. Here we have to contend with a false
method of searching for the so-called spiritual sense, as if the
doctrine could be independent of the form in which it is re
vealed, or, indeed, so loosely attached to it, that the grammar

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 33
and logic should teach one thing, and the spiritual sense
another. There can be no spiritual sense that does not accord
with the results thus far attained in the exegetical process.
The true spiritual sense comes before the inquiring soul as the
product of the true exegetical methods that have been de
scribed. As the differences of material become manifest in
the handling of it, the doctrine stands forth as divine and
infallible in its own light. Any other spiritual sense is false
to the Word of God, whether it be the conceit of Jewish caba-
lists or Christian mystics.
7. The seventh and final effort of exegesis is Practical
Exegesis, the application of the text to the faith and life of
the present. And here we must eliminate not only the tempo
ral bearings from the eternal, but also those elements that
apply to other persons and circumstances than those in hand.
Everything depends upon the character of the work, whether
it be catechetical, homiletical, evangelistic, or pastoral. All
Scripture may be said to be practical for some purpose, but not
every Scripture for every purpose. Hence, practical exegesis
must not only give the true meaning of the text, but also the
true application of the text to the matter in hand. Here we
have to deal with a false method of seeking edification and de
riving pious reflections from every passage of Holy Scripture
without regard to the time, the place, or the persons to whom
it was written. This method of constraining the text to mean
ings that it cannot bear, does violence to the Word of God,
which is not only not to be added to or taken from as a whole,
but also as to all its parts. This spirit of interpretation, while
nominally most reverential, is really very ir reverential. It
originates from a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, and the
neglect to use the proper methods of exegesis. It is born of
the presumption that the Holy Spirit will reveal the sacred
mysteries of religion to the indolent, if only he is sufficiently
pious. He may indeed hide the truth from the irreverent
critic, but He will not reveal it except to those who not only
have piety, but who also search for it as for hidden treasures.
This indolence and presumptuous reliance upon the Holy
Spirit, which too often proves to be a dependence upon one's

34 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
own conceits, fancies, and self-will, has brought disgrace upon
the Word of God, as if it could be manifold in sense, or were
able to prove anything that might be asked of it. Nay, still
worse, it leads the preacher to burden his discourse with mate
rial which, however good it may be in itself, not only has no
connection with the text, but no practical application to the
circumstances of the hour, or the needs of his people. Over
against this abuse of the Scriptures, the exegete learns to use
it properly, and while he cannot find everywhere what he needs,
yet he may find, by searching for it, far more and better than
he needs ; yes, he learns, as he studies the Word of God, that
it needs no forcing, but that it aptly and exactly satisfies with
appropriate material every phase of Christian experience, gently
clears away every shadow of difficulty that may disturb the
inquiring spirit, proving itself sufficient for each and every one,
and ample for all mankind.
We have endeavoured to consider the various processes of
exegesis by which results are attained of essential importance
to all the other departments of theology. The work of the
exegete is foundation work. It is the work of the study, and
not of the pulpit, or the platform. It brings forth treasures
new and old from the Word of God, to enrich the more promi
nent and public branches of theology. It finds the nugget of
gold that they are to coin into the current conceptions of the
times. It brings forth ore that they are to work into the ves
sels or ornaments, that may minister comfort to the household
and adorn the home and the person. It gains the precious
gems that are to be set by these jewellers, in order that their
lustre and beauty may become manifest and admired of all.
Some think it strange that the Word of God does not at once
reveal a system of theology, or give us a confession of faith, or
catechism, or liturgy. But Holy Scripture withheld these with
beneficent purpose.^
1 " Since no one of the first promulgators of Christianity did that which they
must, some of them at least, have been naturally led to do, it follows that they
must have been supernaturally withheld from it. . . . Each Church, there
fore, was left through the wise foresight of Him who alone ' knew what is in
man,' to provide for its own wants as they should arise; — to steer its own
course by the chart and compass which His holy Word supplies, regulating for

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 35
For experience shows us that no body of divinity can answer
for more than its generation. Every catechism and confession
of faith will in time become obsolete and powerless. Liturgies
are more persistent, but even these are changed and adapted
in the process of their use by successive generations. All these
symbols of Christian Worship and Christian Truth remain as
historical monuments and symbols, as the worn and tattered
banners that our veterans or honoured sires have carried victo
riously through the campaigns of the past ; but they are not
suited entirely for their descendants. Each age has its own
peculiar work and needs, and it is not too much to say, that
not even the Bible could devote itself to the entire satisfaction
of the wants of any particular age, without thereby sacrificing
its value as the book of all ages. It is sufficient that the Bible
gives us the material for all ages, and leaves to man the noble
task of shaping that material so as to suit the wants of his own
time. The Word of God is given to us in the Bible, as His
truth is displayed in physical nature, in an immense and varied
storehouse of material. We must search the Bible in order
to find what we require for our soul's food, not expecting to
employ the whole, but recognizing that as there is enough for
us, so there is sufficient for all mankind and for all ages. Its
diversities are appropriate to the various types of human char
acter, the various phases of human experience ; and no race,
no generation, no man, woman, or child, need fail in finding in
the Scriptures the true soul-food, for it has material of abound
ing wealth, surpassing all the powers of human thought and
all the requirements of human life.
III. Biblical History
The work of the study of Holy Scripture does not end with
the work of Biblical Exegesis, but advances to higher stages in
Biblical History and Biblical Theology. In the department of
Biblical Exegesis our discipline produces the material to be
used in the other departments of theology, but it also has as its
itself the sails and rudder according to the winds and currents it may meet with."
— See Whately, Essays on Some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Beligion.
Fifth edition, London, 1846. Essay vi. pp. 349, 355.

36 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
own highest problem, to make a thorough arrangement of that
material in accordance with its own synthetic method in its
own departments. As there is a history in the Bible, an un
folding of divine revelation, a unity and a wonderful variety ;
so our study of Holy Scripture cannot stop until it has arranged
the biblical material in accordance with its historical position,
and its relative value in the one structure of divine revelation.
And here, first, we have to consider the field of Biblical
History. It has been the custom in many theological schools to treat
Biblical History under the head of Church History. This cus
tom is based on a theory that the Christian Church embraces the
whole historical life of the people of God, which ignores the dif
ferences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.^
Many theologians treat Biblical History as a section of Histori
cal Theology and exclude it from Exegetical Theology.^ But
the line separating Exegetical Theology from Historical Theol
ogy is not a line that divides between Exegesis and History ; for
Historical Theology cannot get on without an exegesis of the
sources of Church History, and if Exegesis is to determine what
is to belong to Exegetical Theology, then Christian Archseology,
Patristics, Christian Epigraphy and Diplomatics should all go
to Exegetical Theology as truly as Biblical History to Histori
cal Theology. But in fact the adjectives Exegetical and His-
1 The Church of Christ did not exist, in fact, before the day of Pentecost.
The people of God during the Old Testament dispensation were in the kingdom
of God as established at Mount Horeb by the Old Covenant, and there was an
Old Testament congregation, a Church of Yahweh ; but the Church of Christ
came into being first with the establishment of the New Covenant and the gift
of the Holy Spirit by the enthroned Messiah. See Briggs, Messiah of the
Apostles, pp. 21 seq. There is a continuity between the Old Testament institu
tion and the New, but the differences of dispensations should not be ignored.
2 So Hagenbach (Encyldopadie, 11 Aufl., 1884, s. 219 seq.}. He regards Bib
lical History as the transition from Exegetical to Historical Theology. But he
makes Biblical Archaeology to include Biblical Geography and Natural History,
and classes it under Exegetical Theology. This distribution of the material is
without sufficient reason, and is inconsistent. Heinrici (Theologische Encyklo
piidie, 1893, s. 25 seq.) makes the Biblical Discipline and Church History the two
parts of Historical Theology, and classifies Biblical History and Biblical Arche
ology with the Biblical Discipline. Cave (Introduction to Theology, 2d edition,
1896) uses Biblical Theology as the general title for all biblical studies, and
includes Biblical History and Biblical Archseology among them.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 37
torical do not adequately discriminate the departments. Hence
the tendency among many scholars to use Historical Theology
as the general term to cover both the Bible and the Church.
There is at present no consensus among scholars as to the best
terms to be used for the several departments ; but there is a
general agreement among more recent students that Biblical
History and all related subjects must be classed with the bibli
cal studies whatever term may be used as a general title of these
studies.^ Under the general head of Biblical History we have first to
consider Historical Criticism, the proper method of testing and
verifying the material of Biblical History. We have next to
study the auxiliary disciplines of Biblical History, namely : Bib
lical Archseology, Biblical Geography, Biblical Chronology, and
the Natural History of the Bible. Most writers include all these,
except Biblical Chronology, under the general head of Biblical
Archseology, but without sufficient reasons. ^
The third section of Biblical History will present the history
of the people of God as contained in the Bible. And here we
must distinguish Biblical History as a biblical discipline from
the History of Israel as a section of universal history. The
methods of dealing with the history contained in the Bible
from those two different points of view is very great, and they
cannot be confused without detriment to both departments.
Biblical History limits itself strictly to the biblical material
and uses the whole of that material from the biblical point of
view. Whereas General History uses so much of the biblical
material as suits its purpose, and organizes it, with all other
material it can obtain, from the point of view of the general
history of the world. It is also necessary to distinguish Bibli
cal History from the recent discipline entitled Contemporary
History of the Bible. This discipline sets the biblical material
in the light of material gathered from all other sources. Inas
much as it uses all the biblical material and gathers all other
material in the interest of the study of the Bible, it should be
1 See my article in the American Journal of Theology, Januaiy, 1897.
2 So Hagenbach, I.e., Heinrici, I.e., and especially Benzinger, Hebr. Archd-
ologie, 1894. See Chap. XXII. pp. 633 seq.

38 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
regarded as a section of Biblical History and the Study of Holy
Scripture. It may be questioned, however, whether this dis
cipline is more closely related to Biblical Archseology or to
Biblical History proper. That depends in great measure upon
the method and scope of the treatment. The discipline has not
yet been sufficiently matured to decide this question.^
Biblical History sums up the great events, institutions, and
heroic leaders in their historical origin and development. The
divine, vital, and immediate presence determines the course of
that history, and theophanic manifestations mark its great
epochs. The Old Testament history unfolds through the
centuries until it culminates in the New Testament history in
the advent of Jesus, the Messiah and Saviour of mankind, and
in His life, death, resurrection, and enthronement upon His
heavenly throne as the sovereign Lord of His Church and of
the world, and the founding of His Church through the apos
tles and prophets, commissioned by the Lord Himself.
IV. Biblical Theology
The Study of Holy Scripture culminates in Biblical Theol
ogy ; all its departments pour their treasures into this basin,
where they flow together and become compacted into one
organic whole. For Biblical Theology rises from the exegesis
of verses, sections, and chapters, to the higher exegesis of writ
ings, authors, periods, and of the Old and New Testaments as
wholes, until the Bible is discerned as an organism, complete
and symmetrical, one as God is one, and yet as various as man
kind is various, and thus only divino-human as the complete
revelation of the God-man.
In this respect Biblical Theology demands its place in theo
logical study as the highest attainment of exegesis. It is
true that it has been claimed that the history of Biblical Doc
trine, as a subordinate branch of Historical Theology, fully
answers its purpose ; and again, that Biblical Dogmatics, as the
fundamental part of Systematic Theology, covers its ground.
These branches of the sister grand divisions of theology deal
1 See Chap. XXII. pp. 544 seq.

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 39
with many of its questions and handle much of its material,
for the reason that Biblical Theology is the highest point of
exegesis where the most suitable transition is made to the
other departments ; but it does not, it cannot belong to either
of them. As Biblical Theology was not the product of His
torical or Systematic Theology, but was born in the throes
of the exegetical process of the last century, so it is the child
of exegesis, and can flourish only in its own home. The idea,
methods, aims, and indeed, results, are entirely different from
those of Church History or Dogmatic Theology. It does not
give us a history of doctrine, although it uses the historical
method in the unfolding of the doctrine. It does not seek the
history of the doctrine, but the formation, the organization of
the doctrine in history. It does not aim to present the system
of Biblical Dogma, and arrange biblical doctrine in the form
that Dogmatic Theology would have assumed even in Biblical
Times ; but in accordance with its synthetic method of seeking
the unity in the variety it endeavours to show the biblical order
of doctrine, the form assumed by theology in the Bible itself,
the organization of the doctrines of faith and morals in the
historical divine revelation. It thus considers the doctrine
at its first historical appearance, examines its formation and
its relation to others in the structure, then traces its unfolding
in history, sees it evolving by its own inherent vitality, as well
as receiving constant accretions, ever assuming fuller, richer,
grander proportions, until in the revelation of the New Testa
ment the organization has become complete and finished so
far as the Bible itself is concerned. It thus not only dis
tinguishes a theology of periods, but a theology of authors and
writings, and shows how they harmonize in the one complete
revelation of God.^ Biblical Theology is not the ideal name
for this discipline, but it is the name that has been historically
associated with it, and it is improbable that it will ever be dis
placed. But Theology in Biblical Theology is used in an
intermediate sense, — not so broadly as to cover the whole
1 See author's articles on Biblical Theology, in American Presbyterian Be
view, 1870, and in the Presbyterian Beview, 1882, and Chap. XI. of Briggs,
Biblical Study, and Chap. XXIII. of this volume.

40 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
field of theology in the Bible, for then it would be another
name for Biblical Study itself; and not so narrowly as to
embrace only doctrines of faith, for it comprehends three great
divisions : 1. Biblical Religion, dealing with the facts and insti
tutions of religion ; 2. Biblical Doctrines, which are the objects
of faith ; and 3. Biblical Ethics, the principles and laws of
biblical morals and their historical evolution in holy conduct.
From this comprehensive and elevated point of view of Bibli
cal Theology many important questions may be settled, such
as the Relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament
— a fundamental question for all departments of theology. It
is only when we recognize that the New Testament is not only
the historical fulfilment of the Old Testament, but also is its
exegetical completion, that the unity and the harmony, all the
grander for the variety and the diversity of the Scriptures,
become evident. It is only from this point of view that the
apparently contradictory views, as, for instance, of Paul and
James, in the article of justification, and of the synoptic
gospels and the gospel of John in their conceptions of the
teaching of Christ, may be reconciled in their difference of
types. It is only here that a true doctrine of inspiration can
be attained, properly distinguishing the divine and human
elements, and yet recognizing them in their union. It is only
thereby that the weight of authority of the Scripture can be
fully felt, and the consistency of the infallible canon invincibly
maintained. It is only in this culminating work that the
preliminary processes of exegesis are delivered from all the
imperfections and errors that still cling to the most faithful
work of the exegete. It is only from the hands of Biblical
Theology that Church History receives its true keys, Dogmatic
Theology its indestructible pillars, and Practical Theology its
all-conquering weapons.
Thus the Study of Holy Scripture is a theological discipline,
which, in its various departments, presents an inexhaustible
field of labour, where the most ambitious may work with a sure
prospect of success, and where the faithful disciple of the Lord
may rejoice in the most intimate fellowship with the Master,

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 41
divine truths being received immediately from His holy and
loving hand, old truths being illuminated with fresh meaning,
new truths filling the soul with indescribable delight. The
Bible is not a field whose treasures have been exhausted, for
they are inexhaustible. As in the past, holy men have found
among these treasures jewels of priceless value ; as Athanasius,
Augustine, Anselm, Luther, and Calvin, have derived there
from new doctrines that have given shape not only to the
Church, but to the world ; so it is not too much to expect that
even greater saints than these may yet go forth from their
retirement, where they have been alone in communion with
God through His Word, holding up before the world some new
doctrine, freshly derived from the ancient writings, which,
although hitherto overlooked, will prove to be the necessary
complement of all the previous knowledge of the Church, no
less essential to its life, growth, and progress than the Athana
sian doctrine of the Trinity, the Augustinian doctrine of sin,
and the Lutheran doctrine of justification through faith. A
scientific biblical study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit
will ere long remove the clouds of prejudice and bigotry which
envelop the battle of the sects and enable all men to see the
Truth, the entire Truth of God, in all its wondrous simplicity,
beauty, grandeur, and glory. Biblical science in its warfare
with error and bigotry uses smokeless powder, and all its aims
and their results are in the clear light of heaven and open to
the vision of the entire world.

CHAPTER III
THE LAiTGUAGES OP HOLY SCRIPTURE
The languages of the Bible were prepared by Divine Provi
dence as the most suitable ones for declaring the divine revela
tion to mankind. Belonging, as they do, to the two great
families of speech, the Shemitic and the Indo-Germanic, which
have been the bearers of civilization, culture, and the noblest
products of human thought and emotion, they are themselves
the highest and most perfect developments of those families ;
presenting, it is true, their contrasted features, but yet com
bining in a higher unity, in order to give us the complete divine
revelation. Having accomplished this, their highest purpose,
they soon afterward became stereotyped in form, or, as they
are commonly called, dead languages ; so that henceforth all
successive generations, and indeed all the families of earth,
might resort to them and find the common, divine revelation in
the same fixed and unalterable forms.
Language is the product of the human soul, as are thought
and emotion, and therefore it depends upon the nature of that
soul, the historical experiences of the family or race giving
birth to it, and especially upon the stage of development in
civilization, religion, and morals that may have been attained.
The connection between language and thought is not loose, but
is an essential connection. Language is not merely a dress that
thought may put on or off at its pleasure ; it is the body of
which thought is the soul ; it is the flesh and rounded form of
which thought is the life and emotion the energy. Hence it is
that language is moulded by thought and emotion, by experi
ence and culture ; it is, as it were, the speaking face of the race
employing it, and it becomes the historical body in which the
42

languages of HOLY SCRIPTURE 43
experience of that race is organized. In many nations which
have perished, and whose early history is lost in primeval dark
ness, their language gives us the key to their history and expe
rience as truly as the Parthenon tells us of the Greek mind, and
the Pyramids display Egyptian culture.
It is not a matter of indifference, therefore, as to the lan
guages that were to bear the divine revelation ; for, although
the divine revelation was designed for all races, and may be
conveyed in all the languages of earth, yet, inasmuch as it was
delivered in advancing historical development, certain particular
languages had to be employed as most suitable for the purpose,
and indeed those which could best become the streams for en
riching the various languages of the earth. There are no lan
guages, not even the English and the German, which have
drunk deepest from the classic springs of the Hebrew and the
Greek, — there are no languages which could so adequately
convey the divine revelation in its simplicity, grandeur, fulness,
variety, energy, and impressiveness as those selected by Divine
Providence for the purpose.
Hence it is that no translation can ever take the place of the
original Scriptures ; for a translation is, at the best, the work
of more or less learned men, who, though they may be holy and
faithful, and may also be guided by the Spirit of God, are yet
unable to do more than give us their own interpretation of the
Sacred Writings. If they are to make the translation accurate
and thorough and adequate to convey the original meaning, they
must enter into the very spirit and atmosphere of the original
text ; they must think and feel with the original authors ; their
hearts must throb with the same emotion; their minds must
move in the same lines of thinking; they must adapt them
selves to the numerous types of character coming from various
and widely different periods of divine revelation, in order to
correctly apprehend the thought and make it their own, and
then reproduce it in a foreign tongue. A mere external, gram
matical, and lexicographical translation is inadequate for the
purpose. Unless the spirit of the original has been not only
apprehended, but conveyed, it is no real translation. All-sided
men are necessary for this work, or at least a body of men

44 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
representing the various types and phases of human experience
and character. But even when such have been found and they
have done their best, they have only partially fulfilled their task,
for their translation only expresses their religious, ethical, and
practical conceptions which at the utmost are those of the holi
est and most learned men of the particular age in which they
live. But inasmuch as the divine revelation was given through
holy men who spake not only from their own time and for their
own time, but from and for the timeless Spirit, the eternal ideas
for all time, the advancing generations will ever need to under
stand the Word of God better than their fathers, and must, if
they are faithful, continually improve in their knowledge of
the original Scriptures, in their power of apprehending them,
of appropriating them, and of reproducing them in speech and
life. How important it is, therefore, if the Church is to maintain
a living connection with the Sacred Scriptures, and enter ever
deeper into their spirit and hidden life, that it should encour
age a considerable portion of its youth to pursue these funda
mental studies. At all events, the Church should ever insist
that its ministry, who are to train God's people in the things
of God, should have not merely a superficial knowledge of the
Bible, such as any layman may readily attain, but should enjoy
a deep and thorough acquaintance with the original perennial
fountains of truth. History has already sufficiently shown that
when this is neglected, the versions assume the place of the
original Divine Word ; and the interpretations of a particular
generation become the stereotyped dogmas of many genera
tions. When the life of a Christian people is cut off from its
primary source of spiritual growth, a barren scholasticism, with
its mechanical institutions, and perfunctory liturgies and cere
monies assume the place and importance of the Divine Word
and living communion with God.
The languages of the Bible being the only adequate means
of conveying and perpetuating the divine revelation, it is im
portant that we should learn them not merely from the out
side, with grammar and lexicon, but also from the inside, with
a proper conception of the genius and life of these tongues as

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 45
employed by the ancient saints, and especially of the historical
genius of the languages as the sacred channels of the Spirit's
thought and life. Language is a living thing, and has its
birth, its growth, its maturity, and often also its decline and
its death. Language is born, not as a system of roots or
detached words, that gradually come together by natural selec
tion into sentences. As plants may grow from roots after
they have been cut down, but do not have their birth in roots,
but in the seed-germs which contain the plants in embryo ; so
language, although it may be analyzed into roots, yet was not
born in roots and never existed in roots, but came into being
as sentences,^ as thought is ever a sentence, and not a word.
Then as the mind develops, thought is developed with its body,
language, and the language grows with the culture of a people.
All languages that have literary documents may be traced in
their historical development. Especially is this the case with
the languages of the Bible; they have a long history back of
them; centuries of literary development were required to pro
duce them.
I. The Shemitic Family op Languages
The Hebrew language was long supposed to be the original
language of mankind ; but this view can no longer be held by
philologists, for the Hebrew language, as it appears to us in
its earliest forms in the Sacred Scriptures, bears upon its face
the traces of a long previous literary development.^ This is
confirmed by comparing it with the other languages of the
same family.
The Shemitic family may be divided into four groups : ^
(1) the Southern or Arabic, (2) the Eastern or Assyrian, (3) the
Western or Hebrew, (4) the Northern or Aramaic.
1 Sayce, Principles of Comp. Philology, pp. 136 seq., 2d ed., London, 1875.
2 Ewald, aesch. des Volkes Israel, 3te Ausg. ; Gott. 1864, s. 78 seq. ; Ewald,
Ausf Lehrb. des Heb. Sprache, 7te Ausg. ; Gott. 1863, s. 23.
sZimmern (Vergleichende Qrammatik, 1898) makes five groups by separat
ing the Ethiopic from the Arabic ; but he recognizes the propriety of classing
these together as Southern Shemitic, and he does not give sufficient reasons for
the exaltation of the Ethiopic into a special group.

46 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
1. The Arabic group of Shemitic languages presents us one
of the most primitive families of human speech. The Arabic
language itself is spoken by many millions of our race at the
present time. It is the richest of the Shemitic tongues in
etymology, syntax, and literature. It has absorbed valuable
material from many other languages, but it has transformed
these foreign elements by its own genius. It is a living tongue
whose life is longer than that of any other known to history.
It is the richest of languages in its vocabulary and one of the
wealthiest in the variety and extent of its literature. It is as
fresh and vigorous as ever, with its wonderful power of en
riching itself by new formations and adaptations from other
tongues. It is to be ranked with the greatest languages such
as the Greek and the German. The Koran, the holy hook
of the Mahometans, of the seventh century of our era, is the
classic model which has kept the language to its historic mould.
Modern Arabic has approached very nearly the stage of lin
guistic development of the classic Hebrew of the Bible. Modern
Arabic is nearer the classic Hebrew than is the Hebrew of
the Mishna. 1 The Ethiopia language is a southern Arabic
spoken in ancient Abyssinia. The oldest forms of the Shemitic
family are often found in it. Its verbal system is the most
elaborate of all. The chief literature is Christian, including
translations of the Scriptures, many ancient liturgies and
pseudepigraphical writings, the most important of which are
the Book of Enoch and the Ascension of Isaiah. A modern
variety of the Ethiopic is found in the Amharic.^
The Sabean or Himyaric is preserved only in inscriptions
from the southern part of Arabia extending from the Persian
Gulf to the Red Sea. It is often helpful in explaining archaic
forms and by presenting intermediate stages and missing links
in the development of Shemitic forms of etymology and syntax.^
1 Caspari, A Orammar of the Arabic Language, translated and edited by
Wm. Wright ; 3d ed. by W. R. Smith and de Goeje, Cambridge, 1896 : Socin,
Arabische Grammatik, 3 Aufl., Berlin, 1894 ; English 2d ed., New York, 1885:
Lane, Arabic Lexicon, London, 1863-1889.
2 Dillmann, Grammatik der Aethiopischen Sprache, Leipzig, 1857 ; Chresto
mathia Aethiopica, 1866 ; Lexicon Lingua ^thiopicfe, 1865 ; Prsetorius, Aethi-
opische Grammatik, Halle, 1886 ; Amharische Sprache, Halle, 1879.
8 Hommel, Sudarabische Chrestomathie, 1893.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 47
2. The Assyrian group is next to the Arabic in its stage of
linguistic development. It embraces the Babylonian and the
Assyrian, the ancient languages of the Shemitic population of
the valleys of the Euphrates and of the Tigris. A vast number
of inscriptions in these languages have been discovered and
many libraries of clay tablets and bricks, which served in ancient
times the purpose of rolls and books, have been unearthed.
Great libraries of these ancient writings have been removed
from the ruins of ancient cities and brought to the museums
of Europe and America. A vast literature has been opened
up, full of interest, and of immense value for the early history
of mankind. It is said that this literature is so extensive that
it will take all the Assyrian scholars of the world many years
to decipher the whole of it. New discoveries increase the
amount of literature more rapidly than it can be deciphered.
This group of languages is intermediate between the Arabic
and the Hebrew groups ; and accordingly it is of great impor
tance for showing the transition from Arabic types to Hebrew
types. The Assyrian literature is nearer to the literature of
the Old Testament than any other. For biblical scholars it
is of inestimable value. A flood of light has been cast upon
the Bible by its revelations. We may expect still greater help
in the future.^
3. The Hebrew group embraces the Phoenician and a number
of dialects of the Hebrew. The Phcenician is preserved in a large
number of inscriptions discovered in ancient Phoenicia, at Car
thage, and other Phoenician colonies in North Africa and on
the coasts of France and Spain, together with a few lines in
the Poenulus of Plautus.^ Gesenius made a large collection
of these inscriptions. But a more complete collection is in
course of publication at Paris. ^ The Phoenician is helpful in
1 See E. Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, trans.
by 0. Whltehouse, 1885-1888 ; Brown, Assyrlology, its Use and Abuse in Old
Testament Study, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1885; Delitzsch, Fried., Assyrische
Grammatik, Berlin, 1889 ; Assyrisches Handworterbuch, Leipzig, 1894-1896.
2 V. 1-3.
' Gesenius, Scripturoe Linguceque Phmnicim, Lipsise, 1837 ; Corpus In-
scriptionum Semiticum, Pars I., Inscriptiones Phcenicim, Paris, 1881-1891 ;
Schroeder, Phonizische Sprache, Halle, 1869 ; Levy, Phonizisches Worterbuch,
Breslau, 1864 ; Bloch, Phoenisches Glossar, Berlin, 1890.

48 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the study of archaic Hebrew forms. It is intermediate between
the Assyrian and the Hebrew in its stage of linguistic develop
ment. The inscriptions also throw a great light upon the
religion of the inhabitants of ancient Canaan.
The Hebrew language itself is more extensive than the
Hebrew of the Bible. It was the language of the ancient
inhabitants of Canaan. This dialect is preserved only in a
few proper names, and in the glosses to the Tell-el-Amarna
Letters. 1
The Moabite dialect was unknown until 1868, when the so-
called Moabite stone was discovered at Dibon, on the east of
the Jordan. This stone is now in the Louvre at Paris. It
dates from the ninth century B.C. It is also called the Mesha
Stone from the contents of the inscription. It is valuable for
the side light it casts upon biblical history, and also upon the
modes of writing ancient Hebrew.^
The biblical Hebrew has several stages of development, and
also dialects.^ The archaic, classic, and post-classic forms may
be distinguished in the Bible. There was also an Ephraimitic
dialect, tending to the Aramaic ; a trans-Jordanic, tending to
the Arabic ; besides the Judaic, which became the classic type
of Hebrew.
The only ancient Hebrew apart from the Bible is the Siloam
inscription discovered in 1880.* This is valuable for its ex
planation of ancient methods of writing words as well as for
archseological interests.
An interesting and valuable specimen of Hebrew has recently
1 H. Winckler, The Tell-el-Amarna Letters, Berlin and New York, 1896.
2 Clermont Ganneau, La Stele de Mesa Boi de Moab, Paris, 1870 ; Smend and
Socin, Die Inschrift des Konigs Mesa, Freib., 1886.
3 Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguce Hebrxoe et Chaldmm
V.T.,3 Tom. 1835-1863; Gesenius, Hebraisches und Aramaisches Handworter
buch iiber das A. T. 12te Aufl.. von F. Buhl, 1895 ; A Hebrew and English Lexi
con of the Old Testament based on the Lexicon of Gesenius as translated by
Ed. Bobinson, edited by Francis Brown, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver
and C. A. Briggs, Parts I.- VII., 1891-1899; Konig, Historisch-kntisches Lehrge-
bdude der Hebrdischen Sprache, 3 Theile, 1881-1897 ; Gesenius, Heb. Gram.
umgearbeitet von E. Kautzsch, 26te Aufl., 1896, trans, by Collins and Cowley,
Oxford, 1898.
« Briggs, " Siloam Inscription," Presbyterian Beview, 1882. See also Driver,
Books of Samuel, 1890, pp. xv. seq.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 49
been discovered in part of the Hebrew text of the apocryphal
book of " Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Ben Sira." ^
The post-biblical Hebrew is a later development of the lan
guage in the direction of the Aramaic. It appears in the
second and third Christian centuries in the Mishna, and the
Baraithoth of the Talmud, and in commentaries on the Penta
teuch. The new Hebrew is the language of the schools, and
is no more a living tongue than the Latin of the schools is a
living Latin. 2
4. The Aramaic group may be divided into the eastern and
Avestern families. The eastern includes the primitive language
of northeastern Syria, the Syriac, the Mandaic, and the language
of the Babylonian Gemara. The western includes the Pales
tinian dialect of the Aramaic, the Samaritan language, the
language of Palmyra, and the Nabatean. The eastern Aramaic
presents the oldest and strongest forms. The chief member of
the family is the Syriac, Avhich has a very extensive Christian
literature, embracing the most important early versions of the
New Testament from the second Christian century, several
other important versions of the Bible,^ a considerable number
of early apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings, the works
of the great theologian Ephraem of the fourth century, and a
large amount of literature extending deep into the Middle Ages.
Modern Syriac is spoken at present in Kurdistan and at Tur
Abdin on the Tigris.*
A branch of eastern Aramaic is the dialect of the Mandseans,
or Sabians, or Christians of St. John, who still survive in the
neighbourhood of Basra and Wasit in lower Babylonia.^
1 Cowley, Neubauer, and Driver, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Eccle
siasticus (3915-49"), Oxford, 1897.
2 Geiger, Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mishna, Breslau, 1845; Strack, H. L.,
Lehrbuch der Neuhebraischen Sprache und Litteratur, Karlsruhe, 1884. See,
also, pp. 232 seq. " See p. 212.
* See Noeldeke, Theo., Kurzgefasste Syrische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1880 ;
Nestle, Syriac Grammar with Bibliography, Chrestomathy, and Glossary, 1889 ;
Duval, Traite de Gram. Syr., Paris, 1881 ; Brockelmann, Lex. Syr., Berlin and
Edinburgh, 1895 ; Smith, R. Payne, Thesaurus Syriacus, Oxford, 1868-1897 ;
Castell, Edm., Lexicon Syriacum, Gottingen, 1788.
* Their chief writings are the Ginza or Sidra Rabba, called the Book of Adam,
and Sidra d'Yahya, or Book of John. See -Noeldeke, Manddische Grammatik,
Halle, 1875; Petermann, Thesaurus sive Liber Magnus, 2 Bd., Berlin, 1867.

50 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Babylonian Gemara and the Rabbinical literature founded
thereon give another important dialect of the eastern Aramaic.^
The western Aramaic presents the latest stage of the lan
guage in many respects. The earliest member of this family
is the Samaritan, which is a strange mixture of Aramaic and
Hebrew, using side by side the Aramaic and the Hebrew forms
of the relative pronoun and the plural of nouns, the Aramaic
emphatic state, and the Hebrew article. But the language is
essentially Aramaic. It has reached a more advanced stage of
decay than any other of the Shemitic stock. Its literature is
important, embracing a Targum of the Pentateuch, which dates
in its written form from the second Christian century, and a
number of historical, liturgical, and- theological writings.^
The ruins of Palmyra give inscriptions in another dialect of
western Aramaic. The rocks of the peninsula of Sinai, of
Petra, and the Huaran afford many inscriptions in a dialect
that is called Nabatean.^
The Aramaic contained in the Old Testament,* the Aramaic
specimens in the New Testament,* the dialect of the Palestinian
Gemara,^ and the Rabbinical literature founded thereon are all
in the western Aramaic language.
The early Palestinian Christians seem to have used a dialect
of the western Aramaic. Some specimens of this dialect have
recently been discovered.^
All these languages are more closely related to one another
1 Levy, Jacob, Chaldaisches Worterbuch, 2 Bd., Leipzig, 1876; Neuhebra-
isches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midrashim, 4 Bd.,
Leipzig, 1876-1889 ; Dalman, Aramaisch Neuhehr&isches Worterbuch zu Tar
gum, Talmud und Midrasch, Teil I., 1897. See, also, pp.232, 233.
2 See Petermann, Brevis Linguice Samaritanae, Berlin, 1873 ; Briggs, article
on "Samaritans" in Johnson's Cyclopcedia ; Nutt, Samaritan History, Dogma,
and Literature, London, 1874.
8 See Neubauer in Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885, I. 3.
* Luzzato, Grammar of the Biblical Chaldaie Language, New York, 1876 ;
Brown, C R., Aramaic Method, New York, 1884 ; Kautzsch, Gram. d. Bibl.
Aram., Leipzig, 1884 ; Strack, Gram. d. Bibl. Aram., Leipzig, 1897.
6 Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache. Das galilaische Aramaisch in seine Bedeutung
fiir die Erklarung der Reden Jesu. Frei. 1896. See pp. 404, 405.
8 Dalman, Gram. d. judisch-paldstinischen Aramaisch, Leipzig, 1894 ; Ara-
maische Dialektproben, Leipzig, 1896.
^ Lewis, A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, Cambridge, 1897 ; Sehwally,
Idioticon des christlich-paldst. Aramaisch, Giessen, 1893.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 51
than those of the Indo-Germanic family, the people speaking
them having been confined to comparatively narrow limits,
crowded on the north by the Indo-Germanic tongues, and on
the south by the Turanian. These languages are grouped in
sisterhoods. They all go back upon an original mother-tongue
of which all traces have been lost. In general the Arabic or
Southern group presents the older and fuller forms of etymology
and syntax, the Aramaic or Northern group the later and sim
pler forms. The Hebrew and Assyrian groups lie in the midst
of this linguistic development, where the Assyrian is nearer to
the Southern group and the Hebrew to the Northern group.
The differences in stage of linguistic growth from the common
stock depend not so much upon the period or distance of sepa
ration as upon literary culture. The literary use of a lan
guage has the tendency to reduce the complex elements to
order, and to simplify and wear away the superfluous and
unnecessary forms of speech and syntactical construction.
These languages have, for the most part, given us a consider
able literature; they were spoken by the most cultivated
nations of the ancient world, mediating between the great cen
tres of primitive culture — the Euphrates and the Nile. Every
thing seems to indicate that they all emigrated from a common
centre in the desert on the south of Babylonia,^ the Arabic
group separating first, next the Aramaic, then the Hebrew,
while the Babylonian gained ultimately the mastery of the
original population of Babylonia, and the Assyrian founded the
great empire on the Tigris.
II. The Hebrew Language
We have already, in the previous section, considered the
Hebrew group of languages in general ; we have now to study
the Hebrew language more particularly, especially as it is pre
sented to us in the Sacred Scriptures. The book of Genesis ^
represents Abram as going forth from Ur in Babylonia, at first
northward into Mesopotamia, and then emigrating to Canaan,
1 Schrader, Die Abstammung der Chaldder und die Ursitze der Semiten,
Zeitschrlft d. Deutsch. M. G., 1873. 2 Gen. liai.

52 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
just as we learn from other sources the Canaanites had done
before him. The monuments of Ur reveal that about this
time, 2000 B.C., it was the seat of a great literary develop-
ment.i The father of the faithful, whose origin was in that
primitive seat of culture, and who lived as a chieftain of mili
tary prowess,^ and exalted religious and moral character among
the cultivated nations of Canaan ; and who was received at
the court of Pharaoh,^ that other great centre of primitive cul
ture, on friendly terms, to some extent at least made him
self acquainted with their literature and culture. Whether
Abraham adopted the language of the Canaanites, or brought
the Hebrew with him from the East, is unimportant, for the
ancient Assyrian and Babylonian are nearer to the Hebrew
and Phoenician than they are to the other Shemitic families.
If these languages, as now presented to us, differ less than the
Romance languages, — the daughters of the Latin ; in their
earlier stages in the time of Abraham their difference could
scarcely have been more than dialectic. The ancient Phoeni
cian, the nearest akin to the Hebrew, was the language of com
merce and intercourse between the nations in primitive times,
as the Aramaic after the fall of Tyre, and the Greek after the
conquest of Alexander. Thus the Hebrew language, as a dia
lect of the Canaanite and closely related to the Babylonian, had
already a considerable literary development prior to the en
trance of Abraham into the Holy Land. The older scholars were
naturally inclined to the opinion that Egypt was the mother
of Hebrew civilization and culture. This has been disproved ;
for, though the Hebrews remained a long period in Egyptian
bondage, they retained their Eastern civilization, culture, and
language, so that at the Exodus they shook off at once the
Egyptian culture as alien and antagonistic to their own. For
the very peculiarities of the Hebrew language, literature, and
civilization are those of the Babylonian. The biblical tradi
tions of the Creation, of the Deluge, of the Tower of Babel,
are those of the Assyrians and Babylonians. The sacred rest-
day, with the significance of the number seven, the months,
1 George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, etc., pp. 29 seq. New
York, 1876. 2 Gen. 14. s gen. 12""J-

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 53
seasons, and years, the weights and measures, coins, — all are
of the same origin. Still further, that most striking feature of
Hebrew poetry — ¦ the parallelism of members — is already in
the oldest Babylonian hymns. ^ Yes, the very temptations of
the Hebrews to the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, of Chemosh
and Moloch, are those that ruined the other branches of the
Shemitic race.^
As Abraham went forth from the culture of Babylon to enter
upon the pilgrim life in Canaan under the guidance of his cove
nant keeping God; so Moses went forth from the culture of Egypt
to organize a kingdom of priests, a sacred nation of Yahweh.
As Abraham was the father of the faithful, the great religious
ancestor of Israel, Moses became the great prophetic lawgiver,
the father of the prophetic and legal development of the king
dom of God. It is possible that traces of the influence of
Egyptian civilization may yet be found in the earliest strata
of the laws and institutions of Israel ; but little if any such
influence has yet been disclosed. The Hebrews seem to have
thrown off the culture of Egypt with its bondage. David
founded the Hebrew monarchy and breathed a spirit of song
into the national life, and Solomon became the father of
Hebrew vrisdom ; but it is altogether probable that the in
fluence of Moses, David, and Solomon upon the literary mon
uments, which have been preserved to us in Hebrew Law,
Psalmody, and Wisdom, was little, if any, more than that of
Samuel upon the literary monuments of Hebrew prophecy.
Although we have in the Old Testament little, if any, litera
ture which may in its present form be ascribed to these fathers
of the old covenant religion, yet their influence upon the lan
guage and literature was certainly creative and formative. They
gave the language and the literature their essential spirit and
genius. They made the language a religious language, and the
literature a religious literature. They were the fathers of the
great types of Law, Psalmody, and Wisdom ; and it was inevi
table that they should give their names to the great collections
of these types of literature for all time.
1 See pp. 379, 381.
2 Schrader, Semitismus und Babylonismus, Jahrb. v. Prot. Theol., 1875.

54 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
Looking now at the language as religious according to its
genius, and considering it in its fundamental types and their
historical development, we observe the following as some of its
most prominent characteristics :
1. It is remarkably simple and natural. This is indeed a com
mon feature of the Shemitic languages. As compared with the
Indo-Germanic, they represent an earlier stage in the develop
ment of mankind, the childhood of the race. Theirs is an age
of perception, contemplation, and observation, not of conception,
reflection, and reasoning. Things are apprehended according
to their appearance as phenomena, and not according to their
internal character as noumena. The form, the features, the ex
pressions of things are seen and most nicely distinguished, but
not their inward being ; the effects are observed, but these are
not traced through a series of causes, but only either to the im
mediate cause or else by a leap to the ultimate cause. Hence
the language that expresses such thought is simple and natural.
We see this in its sounds, which are simple and manifold, dis
liking diphthongs and compound letters ; in its roots, uniformly
of three consonants, generally accompanied by a vowel ; in its
inflections, mainly by internal modifications ; in its simple ar
rangements of clauses in the sentence, with a limited number of
conjunctions. Thus the conjunction waw plays a more impor
tant part in the language than all conjunctions combined, dis
tinguished by a simple modification of vocalization, accentuation,
or position, between clauses coordinate, circumstantial, and sub
ordinate, and in the latter between those indicating purpose
and result. 1 This is the most remarkable feature of the lan
guage, without a parallel in any other tongue. And so the
poetry is constructed on the simple principle of the parallel
ism of members, these being synthetic, antithetic, or pro
gressive ; and in the latter case advancing, like the waves of
the sea, in the most beautiful and varied forms.^ Hence it is
that the Hebrew language is the easiest to render into a foreign
tongue, and that Hebrew poetry can readily be made the common
property of mankind. 1 See Driver, Hebrew Tenses, 3d ed. , 1892.
2 See Chap. XVL, Parallelisms of Hebrew Poetry.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 55
2. We observe a striking correspondence of the language to
the thought. This rests upon a radical difference between the
Shemitic and Indo-Germanic family in their relative apprecia
tion of the material and the form of language. i The form, the
artistic expression, is to the Hebrew a very small affair. The
idea, the thought, and emotion flow forth freely and embody
themselves without any external restraint in the speech. This
is clear from the method of inflection, which is mostly by inter
nal changes in the root, expressing the passive by changing the
clear vowel into the dull vowel,^ the intensive by doubling the
second radical,^ the pure idea of the root by the extreme short
ness of the infinitive and the segholate,* the causative and the
reflexive by lengthening the stem from without,* and, so far
as cases and moods exist, expressing them harmoniously by the
three radical short vowels.^
How beautiful in form, as well as sense, is the abstract plural
of intensity by which the fulness of the idea of God is conceived
in such passages as these :
" Eor Yahweh your God, He is the sovereign God ' of gods, and
the sovereign Lord of lords, the great and the mighty and the awe-
inspiring God."
"An allknowing^ God is Yahweh."
" The knowledge of the All Holy " is understanding."
" For high one over high one is watching,
The Most High^" over them."
1 Grill, uber d. Verhaltniss d. indogerm. u. d. semit. Sprachwurzeln in the
Zeltsehrift D. M. (?., 1873.
2 The active of the simple form in Arabic is 3 m. s. Perf. q&tala, the passive
gutila; the active of the intensive form in Hebrew is 3 m. s. Perf. qittel, the
passive qutt&l.
= The simple form of the verb in Hebrew 3 m. s. Perf. is qat&l, the intensive
qittel. The intensive nouns are in their ground form such as qattal, qittal,
qiittal, qattil, qittil, qattul, qattol, qittul.
*The infinitive in Hebrew is q'tol; the segholate normal forms are qatl,
qitl, qutl.
* The causative stems prefix ha or sha ; the reflexive, hith and na.
8 In Arabic the moods of the imperfect are : indicative yaqtulu, subjunctive
yaqtula, jussive yaqtuli, energetic yaqtulana ; preserved by the Hebrew in part
in the indicative, jussive, and cohortative forms. In Arabic the cases are:
nominative u, genitive i, accusative a ; also preserved in part in Hebrew in the
poetic endings in i and o, and in the local accusative in a.
' D^^'?s«n ^^'?x, D^insn 'oix Dt. lo". » n^trip Prov. 9m.
8 mrn bx i sam. 2s. 10 D'naj ecc. 5'.

56 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The fulness of life, of youth and of happiness for man are
similarly expressed.^
We may mention also the dependence of the construct rela
tion, and the use of the suffixes. ^ This feature is striking in
Hebrew poetry, where the absence of strictness of artistic form
is more apparent. We see that, with a general harmony of
lines and strophes, the proportion in length and number is not
infrequently broken through, and thus indeed the artistic effect
is heightened as in the Song of Deborah.^ And though the
Hebrew poet uses the refrain, yet he likes to modify it, as in
the lament of David over Jonathan,* and in the magnificent
prophecy of the great prophet of the exile.® Again, though
the Hebrew poet uses the alphabet to give his lines or strophes
a regularity in order, using it as so many stairs up which to
climb in praise, in pleading, in lamentation, and in advancing
instruction,® yet in the book of Lamentations each chapter
varies in number of lines, and in use of alphabet. Free as the
ocean is the poet's emotion, rising like the waves in majestic
strivings, heaving as an agitated sea, ebbing and flowing like
the tide in solemn and measured antitheses, sporting like the
wavelets upon a sandy beach.
3. The Hebrew language has a wonderful majesty and sub
limity. This arises partly from its original religious genius, but
chiefly from the sublime materials of its thought. God, the
only true God, Yahweh, the Holy Redeemer of His people, is
the central theme of the Hebrew language and literature, a
God not apart from nature, and not involved in nature, no
Pantheistic God, no mere Deistic God, but a God who enters
into sympathetic relations with His creatures, who is recog-
1 D^n, Dmna, nipx.
^ E.g., the Hebrew language gives the two words : Word of God, in construct
relation, and expresses the relation between them by an internal change in the
vowel of one of them, rather than by the insertion of a preposition, or the use of
a case : e.g. D'bhar ''Elohim. In late Hebrew this might be given as Dabhar le
''Elohim. The possessive pronoun is attached to the noun as a suffix : e.g. d'bharo
= his word. 3 Jd. 5. * 2 Sam. li^-^^.
6 Is. 40-66. See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 338 seq.
0 These are specimens of alphabetical poems. Pss. 9-10, 34, 37, 111, 112.
119, 145 ; Lam. 1-4.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 57
nized and praised, as well as ministered unto by the material
creation. Hence there is a realism in the Hebrew language
that can nowhere else be found to the same extent. The
Hebrew people were as realistic as the Greek were idealistic.
Their God is not a God thought out, reasoned out as an ulti
mate cause, or chief of a Pantheon, but a personal God, known
by them in His association with them by a proper name, Yahweh.
Hence the so-called anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms
of the Old Testament, so alien to the Indo-Germanic mind that
an Occidental theology must explain them away, from an in
capacity to enter into that bold and sublime realism of the
Hebrews. Thus, again, man is presented to us in all his naked
reality, in his weakness and sins, in his depravity and wretched
ness, as well as in his bravery and beauty, his holiness and wis
dom. In the Hebrew heroes we see men of like passions with
ourselves, and feel that their experience is the key to the joys
and sorrows of our life. So also in their conception of nature.
Nature is to the Hebrew poet all aglow with the glory of God,
and intimately associated with man in his origin, history, and
destiny. There is no such thing as science ; that was for the
Indo-Germanic mind ; but they give us that which science never
gives, that which science is from its nature unable to present
us : namely, those concrete relations, those expressive features of
nature that declare to man their Master's mind and character,
and claim human sympathy and protection as they yearn with
man for the Messianic future. Now the Hebrew language mani
fests this realism on its very face. Its richness in synonyms is
remarkable. It is said that the Hebrew language has, relatively
to the English, ten times as many roots and ten times fewer
words ; ^ and that while the Greek language has 1800 roots to
100,000 words, the Hebrew has 2000 roots to 10,000 words.^
This wealth in synonyms is appalling to the Indo-Germanic
scholar who comes to the Hebrew from the Latin and the Greek,
where the synonyms are more or less accurately defined. But
nothing of the kind has yet been done by any Shemitic scholar.
It is exceedingly doubtful whether this richness of synonyms
1 Grill, in I.e.
2 Bottcher, Ausf. Lehrbuch d. Heb. Sprache, I. p. 8. Leipzig, 1866.

58 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
can be reduced to a system and the terms sharply and clearly
defined ; the differences are like those of the peculiar gutturals
of the Shemitic tongues, so delicate and subtle that they can
hardly be mastered by the Western tongue or ear.
This wealth of synonym is connected with a corresponding
richness of expression in the synonymous clauses that play such
an important part in Hebrew poetry, and indeed are the reason
of its wonderful richness and majesty of thought.^ Thus the
sacred poet or prophet plays upon his theme as upon a many-
stringed instrument, bringing out a great variety of tone and
melody, advancing in graceful steppings or stately marchings
to the climax, or dwelling upon the theme with an inexhausti
ble variety of expression and colouring. The Hebrew language
is like the rich and glorious verdure of Lebanon, or as the lovely
face of the Shulamite, dark as the tents of Kedar, yet rich in
colour as the curtains of Solomon, or her graceful form, which is
so rapturously described as she discloses its beauties in the
dance of the hosts. ^ It is true that Hebrew literature is not
as extensive as the Greek ; it is confined to history, poetry,
fiction, oratory, and ethical wisdom ; ^ but in these departments
it presents the grandest productions of the human soul. Its
history gives us the origin and destiny of our race, unfolds the
story of redemption, dealing now with the individual, then with
the family and nation, and at times widening so as to take into
its field of representation the most distant nations of earth ; it
is a history in which God is the great actor, in which sin and
holiness are the chief factors. Its poetry stirs the heart of
mankind with hymns and prayers, and sentences of wisdom ;
and in the heroic struggles of a Job and the conquering virtue
•of a Shulamite, there is imparted strength to the soul and vigour
to the character of man and woman transcending the influence
of the godlike Achilles or the chaste Lucretia. The great
prophet of the exile * presents the sublimest aspirations of man.
Where shall we find such images of beauty, such wealth of
illustration, such grandeur of delineation, such majestic repre
sentations ? It seems as if the prophet grasped in his tremen-
1 See pp. 366 seq. s See Chap. XIII. and XVIL
2 Song of Songs, 1^ ; "i-^. * Is. 40-66.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 59
dons soul the movements of the ages, and saw the very future
mirrored in the mind of God.
4. The Hebrew language is remarkable for its life and fervour.
This is owing to the emotional and hearty character of the
people. There is an artlessness, self-abandonment, and earnest
ness in the Hebrew tongue ; it is transparent as a glass, so that
we see through it as into the very souls of the people. There
is none of that reserve, that cool and calm deliberation, that
self -consciousness that characterize the Greek. ^ The Hebrew
language is distinguished by the strength of its consonants and
the weakness of its vowels ; so that the consonants give the
word a stability of form in which the vowels have the greatest
freedom of movement. The vowels circulate in the speech as
the blood of the language. Hence the freedom in the varying
expressions of the same root and the fervour of its full-toned
forms. And if we can trust the .Massoretic system of accentua
tion and vocalization, the inflection of the language depends
upon the dislike of the recurrence of two vowelless consonants; ^
and on the power of the accent over the vocalization not only
of the accented syllable, but also of the entire word.^ This
gives the language a wonderful flexibility and elasticity. In
the Hebrew tongue the emotions overpower the thoughts and
carry them on in the rushing stream to the expression. Hence
the literature has a power over the souls of mankind. The
language is as expressive of emotion as the face of a modest
and untutored child, and the literature is but the speaking face
of the heart of the Hebrew people. The Psalms touch a chord
in every soul, and interpret the experience of all the world.
The sentences of wisdom come to us as the home-truths, as the
social and political maxims that sway our minds and direct our
lives. The prophets present to us the objective omnipotent
truth, which, according to the beautiful story of Zerubba-
1 Ewald, in I.e., p. 33; Bottcher, in I.e., p. 9. Bertheau, in Herzog, Beal
Encyklopddie, I. Aufl. Bd. v. p. 613.
2 Hence the remarkable use of the Shewas and the law of the half-open syl
lable. In the oldest language doubtless every consonant had a full vowel as in
Arabic. 3 Hence the use of tho pretonic Qdmetz. It is doubtful whether this belongs
to the ancient language. The principle is, however, independent of this question.

60 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
bel,i is the mightiest of all, flashing conviction like the sun and
cutting to the heart as by a sharp two-edged sword.^ The his
tory presents us the simple facts of the lives of individuals and
of nations in the light of the divine countenance, speaking to
our hearts and photographing upon us pictures of real life.
These are some of the most striking features of the Hebrew
language, which have made it the most suitable of all languages
to give to mankind the elementary religious truths and facts
of divine revelation. The great body of the Bible, four-fifths
of the sum total of God's Word, is in this tongue. It is no
credit to the American people that the Hebrew language has no
place at all in many of our colleges and universities ; that its
study has been confined to so great an extent to theological
seminaries and to the students for the ministry. It is not
strange that the Old Testament has been neglected in the pul
pit, the Sabbath school, and the family, so that many, even of
the ministry, have doubted whether it was anj"- longer to be
regarded as the Word of God. It is not strange that Christian
scholars, prejudiced by their training in the languages and
literatures of Greece and Rome, should be unable to enter into
the spirit, and appreciate the peculiar features of the Hebrew
language and literature, and so fail to understand the elements
of a divine revelation. Separating the New Testament and the
words and work of Jesus and His apostles from their founda
tion and their historical preparation, students have not caught
the true spirit of the Gospel, nor apprehended it in its unity
and variety as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets.^ But
this is not all, for we shall now attempt to show that the other
languages of the Bible, the Aramaic and the Greek, have been
moulded and transformed by the theological conceptions and
moral ideas that had been developing in the Hebrew Scriptures,
and which, having been ripened under the potent influence of
the Divine Spirit, were about to burst forth into bloom and
eternal fruitf ulness in these tongues prepared by Divine Provi-
1 L Esdras 433-<i. 2 jje^ 412,
3 It is becoming more evident now than ever tliat it is impossible rightly to
interpret the New Testament without a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew and
Aramaic languages, in which indeed the words of Jesus and the primary sources
of the New Testament writings were given. See pp. 190, 244.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 61
dence for the purpose. The Hebrew language is, as we have
seen, the language of religion, and moulded entirely by religious
and moral ideas and emotions. The Greek and the Aramaic
are of an entirely different character ; they were not, as the
Hebrew, cradled and nursed, trained from infancy to childhood,
armed and equipped in their heroic youth with divine revela
tion, but they were moulded outside of the realm of divine reve
lation, and only subsequently adapted for the declaration of
sacred truth. And first this was the case with the Aramaic.
III. The Aramaic Language
goes back in its history to the most primitive times. It is the
farthest developed of the Shemitic family, showing a decline,
a decrepitude, in its poverty of forms and vocalization, in its
brevity and abruptness, in its pleonasm, and in its incorpora
tion of a multitude of foreign words. It was the language of
those races of Syria and Mesopotamia that warred with the
Egyptians and Assyrians, and possibly, as Gladstone suggests,
took part in the Trojan War,i who were the agents through
whom both the Hebrew and the Greek alphabets were con
veyed to those peoples. At all events the Aramaic became the
language of commerce and intercourse between the nations
during the Persian period,^ taking the place of the Phoenician,
as it was in turn supplanted by the Greek. The children of
Judah having been carried into captivity and violently sepa
rated from their sacred places and the scenes of their history,
gradually acquired this commercial and common language of
intercourse, so that ere long it became the language of the
Hebrew people, the knowledge of the ancient Hebrew being
confined to the learned and the higher ranks of society. Hence,
even in the books of Ezra and Daniel, considerable portions
were written in Aramaic.^
The Aramaic continued to be the language of the Jews
during the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, and was the
1 Gladstone's Homeric Synchronism, New York, 1876, p. 173.
2 It must also have been widely spoken in the Assyrian period, as we see from
2 Kg. 1811 ; see also Fried. Delitzsch, Wo Lag das Paradies. Leipzig, 1881,
p. 268. ' See pp. 172, 351.

62 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
common speech of Palestine in the times of our Lor^,-^ although
it had long ceased to be the language of commerce and inter
course, the Greek having taken its place. And so the Greek
gradually penetrated from the commercial and official circles
even to the lowest ranks of society. Thus there was a min
gling of a Greek population with the Shemitic races, not only in
the Greek colonies of the Decapolis and the cities of the sea-
coast of Palestine, but also in the great centres of Tiberias,
Samaria, and even in Jerusalem itself. Greek manners and
customs were, under the influence of the Herodians and the
Sadducees, pressing upon the older Aramaic and Hebrew, not
without the stout resistance of the Pharisees. The language
of our Saviour, however, in which He delivered His discourses
and instructions, was undoubtedly the Aramaic. For not only
do the Aramaic terms that He used, which are retained at times
by the evangelists, and the proper names of His disciples, but
also the very structure and style of His discourses, show the
Aramaic characteristics. Our Saviour's methods of delivery
and style of instruction were also essentially the same as those
of the rabbins of His time. Hence we should not think it
strange that from the Hebrew and Aramaic literature alone we
can bring forward parallels to the wise sentences and moral
maxims of the Sermon on the Mount, the rich and beautiful
parables, by which He illustrated His discourses, and the fiery
zeal of His denunciation of hypocrisy, together with the pro
found depths of His esoteric instruction. Our Saviour used
the Aramaic language and methods, in order thereby to reach
the people of His times, and place in the prepared Aramaic
soil the precious seeds of heavenly truth. It is the providential
significance of the Aramaic language that it thus prepared
the body for the thought of our Saviour. It is a language
admirably adapted by its simplicity, perspicuity, precision, and
definiteness, with all its awkwardness, for the associations of
every-day life. It is the language for the lawyer and the
scribe, the pedagogue and the pupil ; indeed, the English
language of the Shemitic family. ^ Thus the earlier Aramaic
1 Schiirer, Neutestament. Zeitgesch., Leipzig, 1874, p. 372. See pp. 172 seq.
2 Volck in Herzog's Beal Encyklopddie, II. Aufl. 1, p. 603.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 63
of the Bible gives us only official documents, letters, and
decrees, or else simple narrative. But the language was subse
quently moulded by the Jewish people after the return from
exile, through the giving of the sense of the original Hebrew
Scriptures.^ This resulted in the production of oral targums
or popular versions of the ancient scriptures which were handed
down by oral transmission by those who officiated in the syna
gogues and were not committed to writing until after centuries
of oral use. 2 The life of the Jewish people, subsequent to the
exile, was largely devoted to this giving of the sense of the
Hebrew Scriptures, both in the Halacha of the rabbinical
schools, and in the Haggada of the synagogue and the social
circle.^ It is true that the Halacha was developed in the rival
schools of Shammai and Hillel into the most subtle questions
of casuistry, and our Saviour often severely reproved the
Pharisaic spirit for its subtlety and scholasticism ; yet not
infrequently He employed their methods to the discomfiture of
His opponents,* although His own spirit was rather that of the
old prophets than of the scribes. The Haggada was developed
by the rabbins into a great variety of forms of ethical wisdom
and legend. This we see already in the apocryphal books of
Wisdom, in the stories of Zerubbabel, of Judith, of Susanna,
and of Tobit. ^ This latter method was the favourite one of our
Saviour, as suited for the instruction of the common people,
and to it we may attribute the parables, which, though after
the manner of the scribes,^ have yet a clearness and trans
parency as the atmosphere of the Holy Land itself, a richness
and simplicity as the scarlet flower of the fields He loved so
well, a calm majesty and profound mystery as the great deep ;
for He was the expositor of the divine mind, heart, and being
to mankind.^
1 Neh. 88. 2 See pp. 210 seq. ^ See pp. 430 seq.
> * Mt. 2215-16. gee Weizsacker, Untersuchungen iiber die ev. Geschichte,
Gotha, 1864, pp. 358 seq.
5 Zunz, Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, Berlin, 1832, pp. 42, 100, 120 ;
Etheridge, Introduction to Hebrew Literature, London, 1856, pp. 102 seq. Those
who are interested in this subject may find a large collection of this Haggadistic
literature in the Bibliotheca Babbinica, Eine Sammlung Alter Midraschim ins
Deutsche ubertragen von Aug. Wtinsche, 20 Lief. Leipzig, 1880-84.
6 Hausrath, Die Zeit Jesus, Heidelberg, 1868, p. 90. ' John U^.

64 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The richest collection of the words of Jesus is the sen
tences of Wisdom, uttered originally in Aramaic, but trans
lated by the apostle Matthew in his Logia ^ into Hebrew, and
then finally in our synoptic Gospels into Greek. No one can
fully understand them until he traces them back to their
Shemitic originals and sees them in the measured lines and
well ordered strophes and varied parallelisms characteristic of
Hebrew and Aramaic gnomic poetry. ^
The office of the Aramaic language was to mediate between
the old world and the new — the Hebrew and the Greek ; for
the Greek language was the one chosen to set forth the divine
revelation in its fulness.
IV. The Greek Language
was born and grew to full maturity outside of the sphere of
the divine revelation, and yet was predestined " as the most
beautiful, rich, and harmonious language ever spoken or
written " " to form the pictures of silver in which the golden
apple of the Gospel should be preserved for all generations."^
For, as Alexander the Great broke in pieces the Oriental
world-monarchies that fettered the kingdom of God, and pre
pared a theatre for its world-wide expansion, so did the Greek
language and literature, that his veterans carried with them,
prove more potent weapons than their swords and spears for
transforming the civilization of the East and preparing a lan
guage for the universal Gospel. The Greek language is the
beautiful flower, the elegant jewel, the most finished master
piece of Indo-Germanic thought. In its early beginning we
see a number of dialects spoken by a brave and warlike people,
struggling with one another, as well as with external foes,
maintaining themselves successfully against the Oriental and
African civilizations, while at the same time they appropriated
1 See McGiffert, Eusebius, pp. 162, 153, 173, and Briggs, Messiah of the Gos
pels, pp. 41 seq., 71 seq.
2 See my articles on " The Wisdom of Jesus," in the Expository Times, June,
July. August, and November, 1897.
3 Schaff, Hist, of the Apostolic Church, p. 145. New York, 1859. See also
Schaff, liistory of the Christian Church, I. p. 78. New York, 1882.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 65
those elements of culture which they could incorporate into
their own original thought and life ; a race of heroes such as
the earth has nowhere else produced, fighting their way up
ward into light and culture until they attained the towering
summits of an art, a literature, and a philosophy, that has ever
been the admiration and wonder of mankind. As Pallas
sprang forth in full heroic stature from the head of her father
Zeus, so Greek literature sprang into historical existence in
the matchless Iliad. Its classic period was constituted by the
heroism and genius of the Athenian republic, which worked
even more mightily in language, literature, and art, than in the
fields of politics and war, producing the histories of a Thu-
cydides and a Xenophon, the tragedies of an ,3i]schylus and a
Sophocles, the philosophy of a Socrates and a Plato, the oratory
of a Demosthenes and an .^schines. Looking at the Greek
language before it became the world-language, and so the lan
guage of a divine revelation, we observe that its characteristic
features are in strong contrast with those of the Hebrew
tongue. 1. The Greek language is complex and artistic. As the
Hebrew mind perceives and contemplates, the Greek conceives
and reflects. Hence the Greek etymology is elaborate in its
development of forms from a few roots, in the declensions and
cases of nouns, in the conjugations, tenses, and moods of the
verb, giving the idea a great variety of modifications. Hence
the syntax is exceedingly complex in the varied use of the con
junctions and particles, the intricate arrangement of the sen
tences as they may be combined into grand periods, which
require the closest attention of a practised mind to follow, in
their nice discriminations and adjustments of the thought. ^
Hence the complex and delicate rules of prosody, with the
great variety of metres and rhythms. The Greek mind would
wrestle with the external world, would search out and explore
the reason of things, not being satisfied with the phenomena, but
grasping for the noumena. Thus a rich and varied literature
was developed, complex in character, for the epos, the drama,
1 Curtius, Griech. Gesch., Berlin, 1865, 2d Aufl., I. pp. 19, 20; History
of Greece, New York, 1875, Vol. I. pp. 30, 32.

66 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
the philosophical treatise, and scientific discussion are purely
Greek, and could have little place among the Hebrews, i
2. The Greek language is characterized by its attention
to the form or style of its speech, not to limit the freedom of
the movement of thought and emotion, but to direct them in
the channels of clear, definite, logical sentences, and beautiful,
elegant, and artistic rhetorical figures. The Greek was a
thorough artist ; and as the palaces of his princes, the temples
of his gods, the images of his worship, his clothing and his
armour, must be perfect in form and exquisite in finished deco
ration, so the language, as the palace, the dress of his thought,
must be symmetrical and elegant. ^ Hence there is no language
that has such laws of euphony, involving changes in vocaliza
tion, and the transposition and mutation of letters ; for their
words must be musical, their clauses harmonious, their sen
tences and periods symmetrical. And so they are combined
in the most exquisite taste in the dialogues of the philosopher,
the measures of the poet, the stately periods of the historian
and the orator. The sentences "are intricate, complex, in
volved like an ivory cabinet, till the discovery of its nomina
tive gives you the key for unlocking the mechanism and
admiring the ingenuity and beauty of its rhetoric." ^
3. The Greek language is thus beautiful and finished. The
Greek mind was essentially ideal, not accepting the external
world as its own, but transforming it to suit its genius and its
taste. This was owing to its original humanizing genius and
its central theme, man as the heroic, man as the ideally per
fect.* As the language and literature of the Hebrews were
inspired to describe the righteous acts of Yahweh's dominion
in Israel and the victories of His holy arm,^ and thus were
majestic and sublime ; so the language and literature of the
Greeks were to sing the exploits of the godlike Achilles, the
1 Donaldson, The New Cratylus, 3d ed. p. 153.
2 Curtius, Griech. Gesch. I. pp. 20, 21 ; History of Greece, New York, 1875,
L pp. 32-34.
3 W. Adams, Charge on Occasion of the Induction of Dr. Shedd as Professor
of Biblical Literature, New York, 1864, p. 10.
* Schaff, Apostolic Church, New York, p. 146 ; Zezschwitz, Profangrdcitdt
und biblischer Sprachgebrauch, Leipzig, 1869, p. 13. ^ Jd. Su ; Ps. 98i.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 67
crafty Ulysses, and the all-conquering Hercules ; to paint
the heroic struggles of the tribes at Thermopylse, Salamis, and
Platea, to conceive a model republic and an ideal human world,
and thus were beautiful, stately, and charming. The gods are
idealized virtues and vices and powers of nature, and con
ceived after the fashion of heroic men and women, arranged
in a mythology which is a marvel of taste and genius. Nature
is idealized, and every plant and tree and fountain becomes a
living being. Indeed, everything that the Greek mind touched
it clothed with its own ideals of beauty. Hence the drama is
the most appropriate literature for such a people, and the dia
logue the proper method of its philosophy.^
4. The Greek language has remarkable strength and vigour.
Its stems have been compressed, vowel and consonant com
pacted together. Its words are complete in themselves, end
ing only in vowels and the consonants n, r, and s ; they have a
singular independence, as the Greek citizen and warrior, and
are protected from mutilation and change.^ It is true it has
a limited number of roots, yet it is capable of developing there
from a great variety of words ; ^ so that although it cannot
approach the wealth of synonym of the Hebrew, yet its words
are trained as the athlete, and capable of a great variety of
movements and striking effects. Its syntax is organized on
the most perfect system, all its parts compacted into a solid
mass, in which the individual is not lost, but gives his strength
to impart to the whole the weight and invincible push of the
phalanx. Hence the Greek language is peculiarly the lan
guage of oratory that would sway the mind and conquer with
invincible argument. It is the language of a Demosthenes, the
model orator for the world. It wrestles with the mind, it
parries and thrusts, it conquers as an armed host.
Such was the language with which Alexander went forth to
subdue the world, and which he made the common speech of
the nations for many generations. It is true that the Greek
1 Curtius, Griech. Gesch. IIL p. 508 ; History of Greece, New York, 1875,
Vol. V. pp. 169, 170.
2 Curtius, Griech. Gesch. I. p. 18 ; Hist, of Greece, New York, 1876, Vol. L
p. 29. » JeU, Greek Gram. 4th ed., Oxford, 1864, p. 330.

68 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
was required to forfeit somewhat of its elegance and refinement
in its collision with so many barbarous tongues, but it lost
none of its essential characteristics when it was adopted by the
Egyptian, the Syrian, and the Jew. The Jews were scattered
widely in the earth, engaged in commercial pursuits that
required them, above all others, to master the common speech
of the nations. Hence those of Europe, Asia Minor, and
Africa, easily adopted the Greek as their vernacular, and it
gradually became more and more the language of Syria and
Palestine. This was furthered by the translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek at Alexandria, the centre of
the Greek culture of the times. This translation shows upon
its face the difficulties of rendering for the first time foreign
conceptions into a strange tongue,^ but nevertheless it became
of incalculable importance in preparing the way for the New
Testament writers. The original productions of the Jews of
Alexandria and Palestine, some of which are preserved in the
apocryphal books of the Old Testament and the Pseudepi
grapha combined to produce the same result.^ Gradually the
Jewish mind was modified by the Greek thought and culture,
and the Greek language was, on the other hand, adapted to the
expression of Hebrew and Aramaic conceptions. The apostles
of our Lord, if they were to carry on a work and exert an
infiuence, world-wide and enduring, were required, from the
very circumstances of the times, to use the Greek; for the
Aramaic would have had but a narrow and ever-diminishing
influence, even if their labours had been confined to the syna
gogues of the dispersed Jews in Palestine and Syria. Hence
we are not surprised that, without an exception, so far as we
know, our New Testament writers composed their works in
Greek, yes, even gave us the Aramaic discourses of our Saviour
in the Greek tongue. Nor was this without its providential
purpose ; for though our Saviour delivered His discourses in
Aramaic, yet they were not taken down by the apostles as they
1 Eeuss, Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog, Beal Encyklopddie, I. Aufl. p. 709,
II. Aufl. p. 745 ; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, pp. 1 seq.
2 See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 4 seq. ; and Messiah of the Apostles,
pp. 13 seq.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE 69
heard them in that tongue, but were subsequently recalled to
their minds by the Holy Spirit, who, in accordance with the
promise of our Lord, brought all things to their remembrance.^
These then transmitted them to their disciples either in
Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, as they found it most convenient
in their teaching and preaching in different lands and among
many different nations. The original Logia of St. Matthew
and the sources of the Gospel of the Infancy, and possibly the
original Gospel of St. John, were written in Hebrew. But in
whatever way the disciples of the apostles received the teach
ing of Jesus, they gave it to the world in Greek, and it remains
for the world in the Greek language alone. It is evident there
fore that we have the teaching of Jesus as it passed from the
Aramaic, in part, at least, through the Hebraic conceptions of
those who gave the primary oral and written sources, and the
whole of it through the Hellenistic conceptions of the writers
of our present Gospels. The words of Jesus have been coloured
and paraphrased by the minds and characters of those who were
guided by the Divine Spirit to report them.
This process of change may easily be traced in the use of the
original Logia by the Gospels ; e.g. there can be little doubt that
this is an original logion of Jesus :
Whoso flndeth his life shall lose it ;
But whoso loseth his life shall find it.
This is a simple antithetic couplet of the tetrameter movement,^
complete and perfect in itself. This was cited Mk. 8^ as follows :
Whosoever would save his life shall lose it ;
And whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it.
It is evident that Mark interprets in the use of " would save " and
" shall save " for " find " in the two clauses ; and that it inserts
" for my sake and the gospel's " in order to show that this loss of
life must have a Christian motive. Furthermore, this addition
destroys the measure of the line and transforms the couplet from
poetry to prose.
Matthew 16^ cites from Mark, the primary gospel, as usual ;
but it omits " and the gospel's " and restores the original " shall
find it " in the second clause instead of Mark's " shall save it."
1 John 1426. 2 See pp. 379, 386.

70 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
Luke 9^ also cites from Mark, leaving out " and the gospel's,"
but inserting the demonstrative " the same shall save it."
But Matthew and Luke in other passages cite the logion directly
from the Logia, and not mediately through Mark. Thus Mt. 10"
cites it exactly from the Logia, and makes no change except by
inserting " for my sake " in the second clause. Luke 17^, how
ever, paraphrases here so that the most of the language is new.
Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it ;
But whosoever shall lose his lite shall preserve it.
It is noteworthy, however, that no additions are made to it.
But the greatest change is found in the Gospel of John 122^ :
He that loveth Ms life shall lose it ;
And he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
The first line is simply a paraphrase, but the second line makes
a long insertion as well as a paraphrase, so that nothing of the
original is left but the substance of the thought. Furthermore,
the antitheses of love and hate, and of this world and the life
eternal, are characteristic of the author of John's gospel, and
show clearly how his mind has coloured and reconstructed the
logion of Jesus.
It was evidently the design of God that the Saviour's words,
as well as acts and His glorious person, should be presented to
the world through those four typical evangelists, who appropri
ately represent the four chief phases of human character and
experience, and that they should be stereotyped in the Greek
language. 1
The New Testament writers used the common Greek of their
time, yet as men who had been trained in the Hebrew Script
ures and in the Rabbinical methods of exposition, but above all
as holy men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Hence, as the Greek language had now to perform a work for
which it had providentially been preparing, and yet one which
it had never yet attempted, namely, to convey the divine reve
lation to mankind, so it must be remoulded and shaped by the
mind of the Spirit to express ideas that were new both to the
Greek and the Jew, but which had been developing in the lan
guages and literatures of both nations, for each in its way pre-
1 Winer, New Test. Gram., Thayer's edit., Andover, 1872, p. 27; Bleek,
Einleit. in d. N. T., II. Aufl., Berlin, 1866, p. 76 ; Edin., 1869, pp. 72 seq.

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRU^TURE 71
pared for the Gospel of Christ.^ Hence we are not surprised
that the biblical Greek should be distinguished not only from
the classic models, but also from the literary Greek of the time.
When compared with the Greek of the Septuagint and the
Apocrypha, it approximates more to the literary Greek, being
" not the slavish idiom of a translation, but a free, language-
creating idiom, without, however, denying its cradle." ^ It is
true that much of its elegance and artistic finish has been lost,
and the nicely rounded sentences and elaborate periods, with
their delicately shaded conceptions, have disappeared, yet its
distinguishing characteristics, especially its strength and
beauty, its perspicuity, and its logical and rhetorical power,
have been preserved ; while to these have been added the sim
plicity and richness, the ardour and glow of the Shemitic style ;
but over and above all these, the language has been employed
by the Spirit of God, and transformed and transfigured, yes,
glorified, with a light and sacredness that the classic literature
never possessed.^
It is true that the writings of the New Testament are not
all on the same level of style and language.* The gospels of
Matthew and Mark, and the Epistle of James, together with
the Apocalypse, have stronger Hebraic or Aramaic colouring,^
which disturbs the Greek lines of beauty, the Greek form
being overpowered by the life and glow of the Shemitic emo
tion. In the writings of Luke and John, and especially of
Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the strength and excel
lence of the Greek unite with the peculiarities of the Aramaic
and the Hebrew in striving, under the potent influence of the
Holy Spirit, to convey the new religion in the most adequate
and appropriate language and style.
1 Schaff, Apostolic Church, p. 146 ; also Schaff, History of the Christian
Church, I. pp. 76 seq.
2 Reuss, Hellenistisches Idiom, in Herzog, I. Aufl., V. p. 710 ; II. Aufl., V.
p. 747 ; Winer, New Test. Gram. , p. 39.
s Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889 ; Kennedy, Sources of New
Testament Greek, Edin., 1895; Vincent, Student's New Testament Handbook,
1893, pp. 4-10.
* Immer, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, Wittemberg, 1873, pp. 106 seq.,
Amer. ed., Andover, 1877, p. 132 ; Reuss, in I.e., p. 747.
^ This is due in large measure to their Hebraic and Aramaic sources.

72 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Here the humanizing and idealistic tendencies of the Greek
combine with the theological and realistic tendencies of the
Hebrew and the Aramaic ; for to these New Testament writers
the person of Christ assumes the central and determining posi
tion and influence, as Yahweh the one God did to the Old
Testament writers. Christ is Lord in the New Testament as
Yahweh is Lord in the Old Testament. Christ became the
emperor of the Scriptures, to use Luther's expression, and His
person irradiated its language and literature with His own
light and glory. Thus when the mind now no longer strove
to conceive the simple idea of the one God Yahweh, but the
complex idea of the person of Christ as Messiah and Lord, and
eventually as God, the Hebrew and Aramaic languages were
entirely inadequate ; and the Greek, as the most capable, must
be strained and tried to the utmost to convey the idea of the logos,
who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God, and yet
became the incarnate Word, the God-man, the interpreter in com
plete humanity of the fulness of the Deity. ^ Notwithstanding
the historical preparation for this conception in the theophanies
of the Hebrews, the nous of Plato, the logos of Philo, and the
wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, it was yet a new conception,
which the world could not appropriate without the transform
ing and enlightening influence of the Spirit of God.^ So in
anthropology the apostle Paul combines the Hebrew and Greek
conceptions in order to produce a new and perfect conception.
Taking the psychology of the Greek as a system, he gave the
central place to the Hebrew ruach or spirit, flnding, to use the
words of Zezschwitz, its " undisturbed centralization in living
union with the Spirit of God."^ He uses the psychological
conceptions of the Old Testament, but transforms them for the
higher purpose of setting forth the strife of the flesh with the
spirit, and the false position of the psychical nature over against
the spirit. So also for the first he gives to the world the true
conception of the conscience as " the remnant of the spirit in
1 John ll-" ; see Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 495 seq.
2 Dorner, Entwichlungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, Stuttgart,
1846, I. p. 64; Edin., T. & T. Clark, 1861, pp. 44, 45; Schaff, in Lange, Com.
on John, N. Y. , p. 65.
5 Zezschwitz, Profangracitdt, etc., pp. 36 seq

LANGUAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 73
the psychical man," "the divine voice," the consciousness of
which Socrates felt as the " summit of the knowledge of the
true wisdom by the Greek spirit." ^ Hence the development
of the doctrine of sin with its technical terms, and of holiness
with its new ideas and language. How infinitely deeper and
higher than the Greek are these conceptions of the New Testa
ment language, as the person of Christ, presented by the om
nipotent Spirit, convicts the world in respect of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment.^ The Word as tabernacled
among us, with glory as of an only begotten from a Father,
full of grace and faithfulness, ^ assumes the place not only of
the heroic ideal man of the Greeks, but even of the unapproach
able holy Yahweh of the Hebrews. Hence the elevation of the
graces of meekness, patience, long-suffering, self-sacrifice ; and
their union with the Greek virtues of strength, beauty, bravery,
manhood, organize a new ethical ideal. And so in all depart
ments of Christian thought there was a corresponding eleva
tion and degradation of terms and conceptions. We need only
mention regeneration, redemption, reconciliation, justification,
sanctification, life and death, heaven and hell, the Church, the
Kingdom of God, repentance, faith, Christian love, baptism,
the Lord's supper, the Lord's day, the advent, the judgment,
the new Jerusalem, everlasting glory.* Truly a new world
was disclosed by the Greek language, and the literature of the "
New Testament, as the Hebrew and the Aramaic and the
Greek combined their energies and capacities in the grasp of
the divine creating and shaping Spirit, who transformed the
Greek language and created a new and holy Greek literature
just as He makes the earth heave and subside into new forms
and shapes under the energy of the great forces of its advan
cing epochs.
The especial literary development of the New Testament is
the sermon and the theological tract. We trace these from
the first beginning on the day of Pentecost through the dis-
1 Zezschwitz, in I.e., pp. 55-67, Hatch, in I.e., pp. 94 seq.
2 John 168. 8 John 1".
* Bleek, Einleitung, p. 71 ; Immer, Hermeneutik, p. 105 ; Am. ed., Andover,
1877, pp. 129-131 ; Cremer, Bib. Theol. Worterbuch der Neu. Testament.
Grdcit&t; and Trench, New Testament Synonyms, under the respective words.

74 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
courses of the book of Acts into the epistles. Looking at
the sermons, we observe that they are no longer on the
Aramaic and Hebraic model, as are the discourses of our
Lord, but we see the Greek orator in place of the Aramaic
rabbin. So with the epistles, especially these of Saint Paul ;
although he reminds us of the rabbinical schools in his use of
the halacha and haggada methods,^ yet he exhibits also the dia
lectic methods of the Greek philosopher. Thus the Greek
orator and philosopher prepared the language and style of
Saint Paul, the preacher and theologian, no less than the
Hebrew prophet and wise man gave him the fundamental prin
ciples of his wisdom and experience. And although the Greek
literature of the New Testament has no Demosthenes' On the
Crown, or Plato's Republic, as it has no Iliad or Prome
theus, yet it lays the foundation of the sermon and the
tract, which have been the literary means of a world-transform
ing power, as, from the pulpit and the chair. Christian minis
ters have stirred the hearts and minds of mankind, and lead
the van of progress in the Christian world : for the sermon
combines the prophetic message of the Hebrew with the orator
ical force of the Greek, as it fires the heart, strives in the
council-chamber of the intellect, and pleads at the bar of the
conscience ; while the epistle combines the sententious wisdom
of the Hebrew with the dialectic philosophy of the Greek, in
order to mould and fashion the souls of men and of nations,
by the great vital and comprehensive principles which consti
tute the invincible forces of Christian history.
1 Gal. 422 seq. ; Rom. 31 seq. , etc. See pp. 444 seq.

CHAPTER IV
HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM
Holy Scripture is composed of a great variety of writings
of holy men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in a long
series extending through many centuries, preserved to us in
three different original languages, the Hebrew, the Aramaic,
and the Greek, besides numerous versions. These languages
were themselves the products of three different civilizations,
which having accomplished their purpose passed away, the lan
guages no longer being used as living speech, but preserved
only in written documents. They present to us a great variety
of literature, as the various literary styles and the various liter
ary forms of these three languages have combined in this one
sacred book of the Christian Church, making it as remarkable
for its literary variety as for its religious unity.
The Bible is the sacred canon of the Israel of God, the infal
lible authority in all matters of worship, faith, and conduct.
From this point of f iew it has been studied for centuries by
Jew and Christian. Pious men in all ages have faithfully
endeavoured to learn from it the holy will of God and to apply
it to their daily life. They have used all the resources at the
disposal of man to gather the sacred material, and employ it
in the construction of sacred institutions and the formation of
systems of doctrine and morals. The inevitable tendency has
been, not only to discern the divine authority in Holy Scripture
and to recognize the divine teaching therein, but also so to
exalt the divine element as to underrate or ignore the human
element in the Bible. The Church in its official utterance has
kept itself to the normal line of truth; but many of the theolo
gians have unduly extended their doctrine of inspiration so as
75

76 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
to cover the external letter, the literary form and style, in the
theory of verbal inspiration, and even to include the method
of the delivery of the revelation to the sacred writers by the
theories of divine dictation and the overpowering ecstatic con
trol of the Divine Spirit ; and they have so extended the infal
lible teaching as to make it include the incidental words of
weak, ignorant, and wicked men, and even of Satan himself.
The fact has been too often overlooked, that it has not seemed
best to God to create a holy language for the exclusive vehicle
of His Word, or to constitute peculiar literary forms and styles
for the expression of His revelation, or to commit the keeping
of the text of this Word to infallible guardians. But on the
other hand, as He employed men rather than angels as the
channels of His revelation, so He used three human languages
with all the varieties of literature that had been developed in
the various nations using these languages, in order that He
might approach mankind in a more familiar way in the human
forms with which they were acquainted and which they could
readily understand; and He permitted the sacred text to de
pend for its accuracy upon the attention and care of the succes
sive generations of His people. Hence the necessity of Biblical
Criticism to determine the true canon, the correct text, and the
position and character of the various writings.
Holy Scripture comes down to us through the centuries en
veloped in numberless traditional theories and interpretations
which are too often confounded with Scripture itself. Some
times these traditions are expressed in the arrangement of the
books, the titles given to them, the headings of chapters and
sections, and other similar editorial work upon the writings
themselves. But more frequently they envelop the writings
like a mist of pious sentiment, or a cloud of traditional opinion,
sometimes in current literature, but oftener in the language of
the synagogue, the church, and the school ; which is transmitted
from father to son, or from master to pupil as the genuine
orthodox opinion. In all those centuries in which religious
opinion was chiefly traditional, depending on the teaching of
the Fathers, it is a matter of congratulation that none of these
traditional theories about the Bible ever received the official

HOLY SCEIPTUEE AND CEITICISM 77
endorsement of any section of the Christian Church. And the
diversity of opinion in the several layers of the Talmud and
among ancient Jewish rabbis shows that liberty of opinion on
these matters has ever been a heritage of Israel.
At the revival of learning, when Christian scholars began to
study the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament, under
the guidance of the most learned Hebrew scholars of their age,
it became inevitable that, in course of time, if the spirit of the
Reformation was to endure, all the traditional theories about
the Bible would eventually have to be tested.
The free-born spirit of the Reformation was repressed in the
age of Protestant scholasticism, which built up the systems of
Protestant dogmatics and ecclesiasticism over against Roman
Catholic dogmatics and ecclesiasticism. But a terrible retribu
tion came upon unfaithful Protestantism in the outbreak of
free thought in Deism, Atheism, and Rationalism, which laid
violent hands upon everything that was deemed sacred in
Christianity, and forced Protestantism from a dogmatic into an
apologetic position. It was the serious conflicts in this age of
apologetics which brought to birth the age of modern scientific
criticism. Criticism sprang forth a youthful giant to solve the
problems of the modern age of the world.
All traditions must be tested. Certainty must in some way
be attained. How can it be attained in the opinion of any
man save by an intuition of God, or by an infallible decision
of the Church, or by the most exact, painstaking, comprehen
sive, and thorough-going investigation ? We cannot look for
an intuition from God in matters of traditional opinion. There
is nothing to warrant it. To those who would rest upon the
infallible authority of the Church, we may say, there has been
no decision of the Church in matters of Biblical Criticism, and,
in the divided condition of Christianity at the present time,
what church can speak with sufficient authority to decide these
questions ? If the reformers would not submit to the decision
of the Council of Trent in the all-important question of the
Canon of Scripture, what council could now speak a decisive
word as to matters of Biblical Criticism?
It is manifest, therefore, that the only pathway to certainty

78 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
in these matters, is the laborious pathway of scientific criticism.
And let us thank God for this. It removes our Bible from the
custody of ecclesiastics and scribes, and puts it in the hands of
the people of God of all nations. Here Hebrew and Christian
may work in the same workshop and with the same tools. All
the sects and divisions of Christianity and Judaism, yes, all the
religions of the world, may come to the same Bible and search
it with all the powers and resources of genuine scholarship and
find out for themselves of a certainty whether it is the Book
of God.
One would have thought that all truth-seeking men would
rejoice in an age of criticism. For what is criticism but the
quest after truth, the test of its certainty and the method of
its verification ? All honest men should rejoice in every effort
to make the truth more evident to themselves and more con
vincing to others. For the saying of that ancient Jew, Zerub
babel, is the watchword of knowledge : " Great is the truth and
stronger than all things ... it endureth and is strong forever,
and liveth and prevaileth forever and ever." ^
But, in fact, every department of criticism had to be con
quered from the ecclesiastics and scholastics, who held scholar
ship in subjection to their theories.
I. What is Criticism?
Biblical Criticism is one of the departments of Historical
Criticism as Historical Criticism is one of the divisions of Gen
eral Criticism. Criticism is a method of knowledge, and, where-
ever there is anything to be known, the critical method has its
place. Knowledge is gained by the use of the faculties of the
human mind, through sense-perception, the intuitions, and the
reasoning powers. If these were infallible in their working,
and their results were always reliable, there would be no need
of criticism ; but, in fact, these faculties are used by fallible
men who do not know how to use them, or employ them in
various degrees of imperfection, so that human knowledge is
ever a mixture of the true and the false, the reliable and the
1 1 Esdras 435-38.

HOLY SCEIPTUEE AND CEITICISM 79
unreliable ; and errors of individuals are perpetuated and en
hanced by transmission from man to man and from generation
to generation. Criticism is the test of the certainty of knowledge,
the method of its verification. It examines the products of
human thinking and working, and tests them by the laws of
thought and the rules of evidence. It eliminates the false,
the uncertain, and the unsubstantial from the true, the certain,
and the substantial.
The unthinking rely upon their own crude knowledge, which
they have received from their fathers and friends, or acquired
by their narrow experience, without reflecting upon the uncer
tainty necessarily attached to it. But the reflecting mind which
has experienced the uncertainty of its own acquisitions and of
those things that have been transmitted to it, cannot rely upon
anything as really known until it has been tested and found
reliable by criticism. For criticism reviews the processes of
thought and the arguments and evidences by which its results
have been acquired. It studies these products in their genesis,
examines them carefully in the order of their production, veri
fies and corrects them, improves upon them where improve
ment is possible, strengthens them where strength is needed,
but also destroys them when they are found to be worthless,
misleading, or false, as mere conceits, illusions, or fraudulent
inventions. Criticism is thus on the one side destructive, for its office is
to detect the false, eliminate it, and destroy it. This is not
infrequently a painful process to the critic himself, and to those
who have allowed themselves to be deceived, and who have
been relying upon" the unreliable ; but it is indispensable to
the knowledge of the truth ; it is the path of safety for the
intellect and good morals ; it removes the obstructions to prog
ress in knowledge. The destruction of an error opens up a
vision of the truth, as a mote removed from the eye or frost
brushed from the window.
Criticism is also constructive. It tests and finds the truth.
It rearranges truths and facts in their proper order and har
mony. In accordance with the strictness of its methods, and
the thoroughness of their application, will be the certainty of

80 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
the results. But criticism itself, as a human method of know
ledge, is also defective and needs self-criticism for its own recti
fication, security, and progress. It must again and again verify
its methods and correct its processes. Eternal vigilance is the
price of truth as well as of liberty. It improves its methods
with the advancement of human learning. In the infancy or
early growth of a nation, or of an individual, or of the world,
we do not find criticism. It belongs to the manhood and
maturity of a nation and the world's civilization.
Criticism requires for its exercise careful training. Only
those who have learned how to use its tools and have employed
them with the best masters, and have attained a mastery of the
departments of knowledge to be criticised, are prepared for the
delicate and difficult work of criticism ; for knowledge must be
attained ere it can be tested. Criticism refines the crude oil
of knowledge. It cleanses and polishes the rough diamond of
thought. It removes the dross from the gold of wisdom.
Criticism searches all departments of knowledge, as a torch of
fire, consuming the hay, straw, and stubble, that the truth of
God may shine forth in its majesty and certainty as the imper
ishable and eternal. No one need fear criticism, save those
who are uncertain in their knowledge ; for criticism leads to
certitude. It dissipates doubt. Fiat Lux is its watchword.
We are not surprised that criticism has thus far been largely
destructive, for there were many errors that had grown up and
become venerable with age, and were so interwoven and em
bedded in systems of philosophy, of theology, of law, of medi
cine, and of science, as well as in the manners and customs of
men, that a long conflict was necessary to destroy them. Men
in general are more concerned with the maintenance of estab
lished positions and systems and of vested interests than they
are interested in the truth of God and of nature. Scholars,
when they see the venerable errors, hesitate to destroy them
for fear of damaging their own interests or those of their
friends, and sometimes out of anxiety, for the truth, with which
the error is entangled. But in the providence of God, some
great doubter like Voltaire, or Hume, or Strauss, or some great
reformer like Luther or Zwingli, arises to lay violent hands upon

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 81
the systems in which truth and error are combined, raze them
to the ground and trample them in the dust, that from the
ruins the imperishable truth may be gathered up and arranged
in its proper order and harmony.
The modern world since the Reformation has become more
and more critical, until the climax has been reached in our day.
The destruction of error has been the chief duty of criticism,
but its constructed work has not been neglected, and this will
more and more rise into importance in the progress of know
ledge. It is not without significance that the age of the world
most characterized by the spirit of criticism has been the age
of the most wonderful progress in all departments of human
knowledge. Criticism divides itself into various branches in accordance
with the departments of knowledge : (1) Philosophical Criti
cism; (2) Historical Criticism; and (3) Scientific Criticism.
Limiting ourselves to Historical Criticism, we distinguish it from
other criticism, in that it has to do with the materials of the
past, the sources of the history of mankind ; as Philosophical
Criticism has to do with the facts of human consciousness, and
Scientific Criticism with the facts of external nature. Histori
cal Criticism deals with the various sources of history : literary
documents, monuments, laws, customs, institutions, traditions,
legends, and myths. The great importance of the literary
sources justifies their separation in the distinct branch of
Literary Criticism. Biblical Criticism is one of the sections of
Historical Criticism, as it has to do with Biblical History and
with Biblical Literature.
II. The Principles of Criticism
The principles and methods of Biblical Criticism will thus
embrace those (1) of General Criticism, (2) of Historical Criti
cism, (3) of Literary Criticism, and (4) of Biblical Criticism.
Biblical Criticism has thus the advantage of all this prelimi
nary work in other fields to guide and illustrate its own
peculiar work.
1. From Creneral Criticism it derives the fundamental laws

82 STUDY OF HOLT SCRIPTURE
of thought, which must not be violated, such as the laws of
identity, of contradiction, of exclusion, and of sufficient reason.^
The four fundamental laws of thought are these :
(1) The Law of Identity is usually expressed thus : a thing is
what it is, A is A, or A = A. This is a necessary law of self-
consistent thought. Kant makes it the principle of analytic
judgment ; Hamilton, the law of logical affirmation, or definition.
There are two kinds of identity, absolute and relative. Errors in
reasoning under this law are usually in using relative identity as
if it were absolute.
(2) The Law of Contradiction may be thus stated : a thing
cannot be and not be at the same time ; or a thing must either be
or not be ; or the same attribute cannot at the same time be af
firmed and denied of the same subject. This law is called by
Hamilton the law of non-contradiction.
(3) The Law of Excluded Middle is as follows : Everything is
either A or not A ; everything is either a given thing or some
thing which is not a given thing. There is no mean between two
contradictory propositions. If we think a judgment true, we
must abandon its contradictory ; if false, the contradictory must he
accepted. This law is a combination of the first and second laws.
(4) The Law of Sufficient Reason is that : Every judgment we
accept must rest upon a sufficient ground or reason.
It also derives from General Criticism the laws of probation,
which must be applied to all reasoning. There must be no
begging of the question at issue, no reasoning backward and
forward or in a circle, no jumping at conclusions, no setting out
to prove one thing and then insensibly substituting another
thing in its place. ^ These laws of probation are the sharp tools
of the critic with which he tests all the acquisitions of the
human mind and all the reasonings of scholars in all depart
ments of knowledge.
2. From Historical Criticism Biblical Criticism derives the
principles of historic genesis. The evidences of history belong
to the past. They are oral, written, or monumental. They
passed through several stages before they reached us. They
1 Sir Wm. Hamilton, Logic, Boston, 1860, pp. 57, 81 ; also McCosh, Laws
of Discursive Thought, N.Y. 1871, pp. 195 seq. ; Thomson, Laws of Thought,
IV. sect. 114 ; Hyslop, Elements of Logic, N.Y. 1893, pp. 291 seq.
2 Sir Wm. Hamilton, Logic, p. 369 ; McCosh, Laws of Discursive Thought,
pp. 183 seq.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 83
must be traced back to their origin in order to determine
whether they are genuine ; or whether they have been invented
as interesting stories for hours of idleness and recreation,
or as forgeries with the intent to deceive ; or whether there
is a mingling of these various elements that need to be sepa
rated and distinguished. 1
An example may be found in the story familiar to Presbyterian
pulpits that George Gillespie uttered the answer to the question
of the Shorter Catechism, " Wliat is God ? " in prayer when the
Westminster Assembly was in perplexity how to answer it. This
story was fathered by Hetherington in his history of the West
minster Assembly. And yet this writer of history states in his
preface that the records of the Westminster Assembly were said
to be in the Williams Library in London. He wrote a history of
the Westminster Assembly without taking the trouble to journey
from Scotland to London to examine the original records of that
Assembly. What basis has that story in fact ? None whatever !
(1) The official Records of the Westminster Assembly show that
George Gillespie left the Assembly and returned to Scotland
months before the Assembly began its work on the Shorter Cate
chism. He was not present at the time and therefore could not
have made such a prayer.
(2) Furthermore, the answer was not taken from any one's
prayer. The records show that this answer of the Shorter Cate
chism was condensed from the answer of the Larger Catechism,
and that the answer of the Larger Catechism was made on the
basis of the Catechism of Herbert Palmer, the chairman of the
Committee of the Westminster Assembly having this matter in
charge, with sundry improvements from other well-known Cate
chisms of the time.^
The order and processes of the development of the material
must be considered in order to determine its integrity, or how
far it has been modified by external influences or the struggle
of internal inconsistencies, and how far the earlier and the
later elements may be distinguished and the excrescences
removed from the original.
I may use Gillespie again to illustrate the growth of a legend,
in the heaping upon one man the honor due to several, and also of
1 Gieseler, Text-Book of Church History, N.Y. 1857, I. p. 23.
2 Briggs, Documentary History of the Westminster Assembly, Presbyterian
Beview, 1880, pp. 155 seq.

84 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
substituting a subordinate in place of the principal hero of an
occasion. I shall quote from the Presbyterian historian, Dr.
Mitchell. " The question of the autonomy of the Church came up first in
the Westminster Assembly when its members were preparing the
Propositions concerning Church-government, of which an account
was given in my last lecture, and it was then that that far-famed
single combat between Selden and Gillespie took place round which
later Scottish tradition has thrown such a halo. The manuscript
minutes coincide with Lightfoot's Journal in assigning Gillespie's
speech not to the session of 20th, but to that of 21st February.
In Gillespie's own notes it is introduced at the close of the ac
count of the former session with the words, 'I reply,' not 'I
replied,' and may simply embody a brief outline of the reply he
was to make on the following day. The reply made to Selden on
the spur of the moment was that of Herle, who in 1646 succeeded
Dr. Twisse as Prolocutor, and judging even from the fragmentary
jottings preserved by Byfield, one cannot doubt that it was a very
able reply. Gillespie and Young appear to have taken the evening
to arrange their thoughts, and at next session made very telling
replies, the former to the general line of argument, the latter to
the citations from Eabbinical and patristic authorities." ^
The character of the material must be studied in order to
determine how far it is reliable and trustworthy ; whether it
is in accordance with the experience of mankind, and so nat
ural; or contrary to that experience, and so unnatural or
supernatural ; whether it is in harmony with itself and consist
ent with its own conditions and circumstances ; whether there
are disturbing influences that determine the material so as to
warp or colour it and how far these influences extend.^
The value of the materials of history depends upon such
considerations as these ; also upon the nearness or remoteness
of the material to the matters concerning which they render
testimony ; upon the extent and variety of evidence, if that
extent and variety are primitive and not derived from an origi
nal source upon which they all depend. The consistency and
persistence of materials are also evidences of vitality and
inherent strength of evidence.
1 A. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, 1883, pp. 287, 288.
2 See Droysen, Grundriss der Historik, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 16, 17.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 85
The sources of history that cannot bear this criticism are
not reliable sources. The application of these simple tests
removes from the pages of history numberless legends, fables,
and myths, and determines the residuum of truth and fact that
underlies them. It is distressing to part with the sweet stories
which have been told us in our early life, and which have been
handed down by the romancers from the childhood and youth
of our race. We may still use them as stories, as products
of the imagination, but we dare not build on them as historic
verities. As men we must know the truth. We cannot afford
to deceive ourselves or others.
Many of these legends and traditions have strongly intrenched
themselves and lie like solid rocks in the path of historic investi
gation. They must be exploded to get at the truth ; and this
cannot be done without noise and confusion, and outcries of
alarm from the weak and timid, and those who are interested
in the maintenance of error and court popularity by an appeal
to prejudices. Sometimes these traditions may be overcome
by positive evidence obtained by careful research in ancient
documents, and by parallel lines of evidence. But it is not
always possible to obtain sufficient external positive evidence.
Sometimes we have to rely upon a long-continued and unbroken
silence, and sometimes we have to challenge the tradition and
reject it from sheer lack of evidence and the suspicious circum
stances of its origin and growth.
3. From Literary Criticism Biblical Criticism derives its
chief principles and methods. As literature it must first be
considered as text. The Principles of Textual Criticism have
been worked out in the study of the texts of the literature of
Greece and Rome, and of the ecclesiastical writers. Biblical
Textual Criticism has to determine the correct text of Holy
Scripture ; that is, the writings as composed of letters, words,
sentences, chapters, books, and collections of books. It has
nothing to do with their contents except so far as these may
help in its more formal work.
(a) Textual Criticism first collects all the original manu
scripts, endeavours to ascertain when they were written, in
what country and by what school of scribes. Then it arranges

86 STUDY OF HOLY SCEIPTUEE
them in families so as to determine their genealogies, and thus
it gets at the parent manuscripts, those of primary authority. ^
These are carefully compared in order to determine where
they agree and where they differ, their consensus and their
dissensus ; and when they disagree, to determine which was
the original reading.
(6) Textual Criticism next examines the ancient transla
tions of the Scriptures ; for these give evidence as to the
original readings which they translated.
(c) The textual critic next betakes himself to the citations
of the Bible in ancient writers. These are sometimes earlier
than the Versions or even than the Manuscripts. They give
important evidence as to the originals from which these cita
tions were made in the different periods of the history of
Christian literature and Rabbinical literature.
(c?) The citations of the Scriptures in the Scriptures them
selves are also of very great importance ; for although they
are often loose and paraphrastic in their character, they yet
not infrequently give evidence as to the original text which
they cite.
I shall venture to give, as an illustration, a logion of Jesus,
which exhibits very clearly the several principles given above.
The original logion in the Hebrew Logia of Saint Matthew was in
all probability DBS) rwH nnbiran
He who putteth away his wife committeth adultery :
She who putteth away her husband committeth adultery.
The couplet is a trimeter,2 and the parallelism is complete word
for word throughout.
(a) This was cited in Mk. 10""^:
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery
against her :
And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she com
mitteth adultery.
The Hebrew participle is, as not infrequently, translated into
Greek as a relative clause. In both lines of the couplet "and
1 See Scrivener in I.e., pp. 404 seq. Westcott and Hort deserve great credit
for their elaboration of this principle in I.e., pp. 39 seq. " See pp. 376 seq.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 87
marry another" is inserted. This changes the emphasis of the
prohibition from separation to remarriage. Besides, in the first
line the adultery is made more specifically a sin against the wife.
In addition the measure of the lines of gnomic poetry and the
parallelism are disturbed.
(6) Matthew 19^ cites from Mark only the first of these lines :
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery.
It omits the specification "against her," but cites in other
respects entirely. Only it gives an additional clause "except
for fornication," which limits the universal prohibition of separa
tion, of the original logion, and of remarriage, of Mark's exposi
tion, and gives an exceptional case when separation and remarriage
would not be unlawful.
(c) Matthew 6'^ cites directly from the Logia :
Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
maketh her an adulteress.
Here Matthew renders the Hebrew participle by the Greek
participle. It makes the same insertion, "saving for the cause
of fornication," as in its citation from Mark, except that it uses
TrapeKTos Xoyov for fji,rj em. But it also changes the person in the
last half of the line, so that the one who puts away his wife,
instead of committing the act of adultery himself, causes his
wife to commit adultery ; that is, by compelling her to seek refuge
with another man. It is noteworthy that Matthew here is nearer
to the" logion by its omission of the remarriage. It should also
be mentioned that in the two passages of Matthew a later hand
has added the clause " and he that marrieth her when she is put
away committeth adultery," which may be regarded as a late
ecclesiastical addition due to the influence of Lk. 16^1
(d) Luke 16^' also cites directly from the Hebrew logion :
Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery :
And he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth
adultery.
Luke thus gives the logion complete. He retains the participial
form in the Greek, but he agrees with Mark in inserting remar
riage. He knows nothing of the exceptional " fornication," which
is evidently peculiar to Matthew and due to it alone. The
peculiarity of this passage is the change of person in the second
line. This is possibly due to Luke's pointing the Hebrew original
as a passive instead of as an active participle.

88 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
(e) The apostle Saint Paul also cites this logion of the Lord
in 1 Cor. 71°-":
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife
depart not from her husband (but and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband) ; and that the husband
leave not his wife.
Saint Paul is here citing from the original Hebrew logion in the
italicized clauses, and agrees with it in laying the stress on sep
aration. He makes no reference to adultery, and inserts his own
qualifications. Furthermore, Saint Paul, like our gospel of Matthew, gives an
exception. The exception of Matthew is fornication ; the exception
of Saint Paul is wilful desertion : " Yet if the unbelieving depart-
eth, let him depart ; the brother or the sister is not under bondage
in such cases ; but God hath called us in peace" (ver.^).
There are also errors in translation which arise from lack
of knowledge of the original, or inability to give adequate
expression to the idea of the original, save by paraphrase, and
in defective judgment as to the best way of rendering it.
Errors in citation arise from slips of the memory and the
desire to use a part and not the whole of the passage, or
the adaptation of it to circumstances beyond the scope of
the original.
(e) When the biblical critic has exhausted all these external
evidences, he still confronts many questions unsolved, many
doubtful readings. Must he halt here ? By no means. Textual
Criticism is a science. There are laws which determine the
transmission of all literature. It has been determined by care
ful induction in those investigations what are the sources of
error, those mistakes which are natural to inexactness of vision,
hearing, and penmanship : such as in words of similar sound, in
letters of like form, in the repetition of words in passing from
line to line, in the omission or insertion of clauses by slips of
the eye, and in the transfer of explanatory notes from the
margin to the text. The experienced textual critic is keen to
detect these errors, and to remove them even from the earliest
manuscripts. He is aware of the tendency of scribes to uncon
sciously substitute the known for the unknown, the familiar
for the unfamiliar, or by explanatory marginal notes to make

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 89
conjectural corrections which in time exchange places with the
original text, or crowd the original readings into forgetfulness.
The trained critic well knows that pedantry, traditionalism,
and literalism — common characteristics of scribes — misled
them into errors of a different character, but no less serious
than those which arose from rapid reading and copying by
other scribes. The internal sense is often a safer guide than
the external letter, especially in manuscripts which are defec
tive and difficult to read. There are also errors in the text
due to the wear and tear of manuscripts in their use, and by
exposure to the carelessness of men and the destructive forces
of inclement nature. These render the manuscripts illegible,
indistinct, or mutilated, and great caution and experience and
often real genius are needed to restore them.^
(/) When Textual Criticism has exhausted all its processes
and has contributed all the wealth of its experience to the
solution of the difficulties of ancient readings, there still remain
problems which it cannot solve by its own unaided resources.
To the solution of these it looks up to its sisters, — the Higher
Criticism, the Historical Criticism, and Biblical Theology,
which in their higher work often throw great light upon the
dark problems of the Lower Criticism.
The value of the manuscripts having been determined, we are
prepared to examine the relative value of the readings. The
principles on which this is done are : (1) The reading which
lies at the root of all the variations and best explains them
is to be preferred. (2) The most difficult reading is more
likely to be correct from the natural tendency of the scribe
to make his text as easy and intelligible as possible, and the
natural process of simplification in transmission.^ (3) The
reading most in accordance with the context, and especially
with the style and usage of the author and his times, is to be
1 See CappeUus, Critica Sacra, 1650, Lib. I. ; Scrivener, Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, 1874, pp. 7 seq. ; Isaac Taylor, History of the
Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times, new edition, Liverpool,
1879, p. 22 ; also Westcott and Hort, New Testament in the Original Greek,
Vol. II., Introduction, N.Y. 1882, pp. 6 seq.
2 These two principles are combined by Westcott and Hort in I.e., pp. 22 seq.,
under the term " transcriptional probability."

90 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
preferred. This is on the principle of consistency and " intrin
sic probability." 1
These illustrations will suffice.
1. There are three citations of a logion of Jesus in Mt. 5^
18«', Mk. 9**^.
(a) Matthew's gospel cites from the logion thus :
And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it
from thee :
For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish ;
And not thy whole body be cast into Gehenna.
And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut if off and cast it
from thee.
For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish ;
And not thy whole body go into Gehenna. — Mt. 5^^^.
Here it is evident there are two strophes of a Hebrew logion,
of three symmetrical lines each. But some of ,the lines are too
long for the measure.
(&) Mark cites from the same Logion :
And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off :
For it is good for thee to enter into life maimed.
Rather than having thy two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable
fire.
And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off :
It is good for thee to enter into life halt.
Rather than having thy two feet to be cast into Gehenna.
And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out :
It is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye,
Rather than having two eyes to be cast into Gehenna, where their worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. — Mk. 9^*-**.
It is evident that Mark gives three strophes instead of two, of
the same number of lines. Sometimes the measures have been
destroyed by added lines, but in the main the lines have better
measures than Mt. 5^-^.
(c) The second passage in Matthew is, as the context shows, a
citation from Mark :
And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it
from thee :
It is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt,
Rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire.
And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast it from thee :
1 See Westcott and Hort, ial.c., pp. 20 seq. Scrivener expands these princi
ples to seven in number in I.e., pp. 436 seq. ; Davidson, Treatise of Biblical Criti
cism, Boston, 1853, pp. 386 seq., gives principles of Textual Criticism for the Old
Testament.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 91
It is good for thee to enter into life with one eye,
Rather than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire. — Mt. 188-9.
It is evident that Matthew has here condensed the first aud
second strophes of Mark and given the third.
We have now to determine the original logion that lies back of
these two stages of transmission.
There can be no doubt that the original was three strophes of
three lines each, and that a logion so symmetrical in lines and
strophes was also symmetrical in measures of lines.
It is easy to remove the explanatory additions. Mark adds to
Gehenna, in the first triplet, the explanatory " into the unquench
able fire " ; and to the third, " where their worm dieth not, and
the fire is not quenched." Matthew, in its second version, sub
stitutes " everlasting fire " for Gehenna, and in the third triplet
enlarges Gehenna into "Gehenna of fire." It is evident that
these changes were all made to explain the Hebrew Gehenna to
Gentile readers. They come from the evangelists, and not from
Jesus. There can be no doubt that in all these cases only Gehenna
was used in the original logion. So in the antithesis Mark sub
stitutes for life, in the third triplet, the explanatory " kingdom of
God." Furthermore, Matthew in its first version gives "right
hand " for hand, and " right eye " for eye. It is now plain what
the original logion was from which these three texts were derived :
1. If thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off :
It is better for thee maimed to enter into life.
Than to have two hands and be cast into Gehenna.
2. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off :
It is better for thee halt to enter into life.
Than to have two feet and be cast into Gehenna.
3. And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out :
It is better for thee with one eye to enter into life.
Than to have two eyes and be cast into Gehenna.
2. In the difference of reading of the Song of David, 2 Sam. 22",
Ps. 18", we have in the Psalm K"I^1, and in Samuel S"!'''). The
former is a rare word ; the latter, a common one. It would be
natural for a copyist to change J^T'I to X"l''1, but not the reverse.
Moreover, the more difficult form gives the best sense: "And
daried on the wings of the wind." The other rendering would be,
" He appeared on the wings of the wind." Moreover, Dent. 28*'
favors the Psalter.
3. 2 Samuel 22« reads nntytt where Ps. 18= reads "hnn. The
former is right, as we see by the context.

92 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
5. For breakers of death compassed me.
And the streams of Belial made me afraid.
6. The cords of Sheol were round about me :
The snares of death came upon me.
In Psalm 18 the copyist has unconsciously repeated "cords"
by slip of the eye from ver. 6.
4. Having secured the best text of the writings, criticism
devotes itself to the higher task of considering them as to
integrity, authenticity, literary form, and reliability. This is
appropriately called Higher Criticism. This branch of criti
cism has established its principles and methods of work.^
It is named the Higher Criticism because it is higher in its
order and in its work than the Lower or Textual Criticism.
This department of criticism has lived and worked under this
name for more than a century. It is not likely that it will
change its name to accommodate the prejudices of the ignorant,
or to justify the misrepresentations of the anti-critics.
The Higher Criticism devotes its attention to the literary
features of the Bible. It has four great questions to answer.
(1) As to the integrity of the writings.
Is the writing the work of a single author, as Browning's
Ring and the Book; or is it a collection of writings of different
authors, as the new Anglican Lux Mundi ? Is it in its original
condition, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism; or has it
been edited and interpolated by later writers, as the Apostles'
Creed and the Westminster Confession? May the parts be
discriminated, the original form of the writing determined, and
the different steps in interpolation and editing clearly traced ;
as the successive layers of the Talmuds and the several official
editions of the Book of Common Prayer ? Or is this a difficult
and delicate process ; as in the recently discovered Teaching
of the Apostles, or in that wonderful collection of Oriental
tales. The Thousand and One Nights? All these varieties of
literary work are common in the world's literature, why not in
1 Thus the learned Roman Catholic, Du Pin, in the introduction to his mag
nificent work on ecclesiastical writers, gave an admirable statement of them
with reference to those ecclesiastical writers before the Higher Criticism of the
Scriptures had fairly begun. Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs EccUsiastiques,
Paris, 1694 ; New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, London, 1696.

HOLY SCRIPTUKE AND CRITICISM 93
the Bible? How can we know until we have examined the
question whether the book of Isaiah is the work of a single
author in the reign of Hezekiah, or whether it is a collection of
writings of different prophets gathered about the prophecies of
Isaiah as the most important nucleus ? It is necessary for the
critic to determine whether the Psalter is in its original condi
tion or whether we may not trace a series of minor psalters
going through the hands of many different editors until at
length the present Psalter was produced as the crown of many
centuries of prayer and praise in Israel.
(2) As to the authenticity of the writings.
Is the writing anonymous like most of the editorials in our
newspapers and so much of the epistolary advice of our self-
constituted friends and counsellors? Is it pseudonymous,
where the author wishes to disguise his hand from fear of per
secution, as in the Martin Marprelate tracts ; or to instruct as a
prophet in the guise of antiquity, as in the Apocalypse of
Baruch ; or to gain an unbiassed hearing to unpalatable truths,
as in the Letters of Junius ; or to speak slanderous words with
out the peril of detection, as in the pamphlet literature of poli
tical and ecclesiastical controversies; or to hide the blushes of
modest beginners in literature ?
Or does the writing bear the author's name ; and if so, is it
genuine ? Did it come from the author himself ? Or is it the
conjecture of a later editor, as in the assignment to Gerson of
the De Imitatione Christi? Is it a forgery, as the Epistles of
Phalaris ? Or does the writing bear a name which has been
suggested by its contents ? May not the proper name attached
to the book be the name of the hero or the heroine of the story,
or the name which the author has chosen to honor by the pro
duction of his pen ? All these methods of attaching names to
writings are common in the world's literature. We must ask
these questions of the writings contained in the Bible. How
did the name of Moses become attached to the Pentateuch? Is
there any valid ground for it in the Pentateuch itself, or in any
original title ; or has it come from a late, and unreliable con
jecture ? Is Malachi the name of the prophet, or a pseudonym,
as Calvin supposed? Are the books of Daniel and Ecclesiastes

94 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
pseudonymous, as modern critics suppose, or were these writings
really written by Daniel and Solomon ? Did Ruth and Esther
write these books, or are they simply the heroines of these
stories ? What is the meaning of the proper names in the titles
of the Psalms ? Such are the numerous questions which arise
under the head of authenticity in the study of the Hebrew
Scriptures. (3) As to literary features.
What is the style of the author and his method of compo
sition? Does he write in poetry or in prose? What kind
of poetry does he produce ; lyric, gnomic, dramatic, or epic
poetry ? What is the measurement of his lines ? How does he
arrange his strophes ? Or if he writes prose, is it history, ora
tory, the epistle, or the treatise ? Is he easy and graceful, or
rapid and brilliant, or steady and forceful, or slow and dull, or
stiff and pedantic ? What are the characteristics which distin
guish him from other authors ? These questions are familiar to
students of the world's literature. Literary critics have to
answer them. The biblical critic cannot escape them simply
because the biblical writers are said to be Moses and David,
Solomon and Isaiah ; or because we believe that the Divine
Spirit Himself speaks to us in these vrritings ; for they contain
different varieties of prose and poetical style. The discovery
of the principles of Hebrew poetry by Bishop Lowth made a
revolution in our knowledge of the psalmists, the wise men, and
the prophets. It makes an immense difference whether the
early chapters of Genesis are poetry or prose. A comparison
of the styles of the chronicler and the prophetic historians
enables us to form a far better judgment upon the value of
their history and its lessons than we otherwise could. The
whole interpretation of Job, Esther, Ruth, and Jonah depends
upon whether we regard them as historical narratives, or as
essentially works of the imagination. All of these literary
questions will be asked of the biblical books whether we wish
it or not. That man is not a biblical scholar who hesitates to
ask them, out of fear lest his traditional opinions may be im
perilled. Such a man, though he may be studying the Bible,
so far as it is possible through the coloured glasses set in the

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 95
rigid frames he has imposed upon his eyes, is yet not a sincere
biblical student, for he declines to open his eyes in the sunlight
of divine truth.
(4) As to the credibility of the writings.
We are obliged as biblical critics after we have determined
all these preliminary questions of the Higher Criticism to face
the most serious question of credibility. Literary critics are
compelled to ask these questions in their study of the world's
literature. Is the writing reliable ? Do its statements accord
with the truth, or are they coloured and warped by prejudice,
superstition, or reliance upon insufficient or unworthy testi
mony? What character does the author bear as to prudence,
good judgment, fairness, integrity, and critical sagacity ? Bib
lical critics cannot shut their eyes to these questions of criti
cism. Whatever may be their reverence of Holy Scripture
they must ask these questions of it. The reverent critics will
ask these questions reverently. Rationalistic critics will ask
them soberly and impartially. Critics whose aim it is to dis
pute the divine authority of Holy Scripture will be irreverent
and unfair. The spirit of the investigation is determined by
the temper and character of the investigators, not by its princi
ples and methods, which are the same to all scientific students
of the Bible. The investigation must go on. It matters little
how many oppose it. Opposition may delay the end ; it can
not prevent it. It may make the investigation a holy war and
the establishment of its results a catastrophe to the faith and
life of its opponents. But the normal development of the
investigation is the calm, steady, invincible march of science.
The Higher Criticism has its scientific principles by which
it determines all these questions.'
(1) The writing must be in accordance with its supposed his
toric position as to time and place and circumstances.
A writing is the product of the experience of the author or
editor. It could not be produced without that experience.
The historic writings of the world are born, not made. They
1 A brief statement of these principles is presented in relation to Biblical
Criticism by Professor Henry P. Smith, in his article on the " Critical Theories
of Julius Wellhausen," Presbyterian Beview, 1882, III. p. 370.

96 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
could not be born before the time. When born they show the
marks of their parentage and the times of their birth.
" Time is one of the most certain proofs ; for nothing more evi
dently shows that a book cannot belong to that time wherein
it is pretended to have been written, than when we find in it
some marks of a later date. These marks, in the first place, are
false dates; for 'tis' an ordinary thing for impostors, that are
generally ignorant, to date a book after the death of the author
to whom they ascribe it, or of the person to whom it is dedicated,
or written ; and even when they do fix the time right, yet they often
mistake the names of the consuls, or in some other circumstances :
All which are invincible proofs that he that dated this book did not
live at that time. Secondly, impostors very often speak of men that
lived long after the death of those persons to whom they attribute
those spurious discourses, or they relate the history of some pas
sages that happened afterwards, or they speak of cities and people
that were unknown at the time, when those authors wrote." '
Dr. Henry M. Dexter has recently shown that the records pub
lished a few years ago in England as the records of the Baptist
Church of Crowle, 1599-1620, were forgeries, by the heaping up
of references in these records to men and events long subsequent
to those times.^
But this principle may be used in a positive argument. A few
years ago I discovered a letter in the Hunterian Museum, Glas
gow, giving the names of all the magistrates, churches, and min
isters of New England, when the letter was written. The letter
was a copy and not the original. It was unsigned ; it had no
address ; there was no external evidence except the fact that it
had been in this collection of American books, tracts, and manu
scripts for a long time, and came from a reliable source, making
its genuineness altogether probable. By a careful study of the
names of persons and places, and of the events described in this
letter, I was able to determine that the letter was written by John
Eliot, the apostle to the American Indians, not earlier than May
22nd, 1660, nor later than June Sth, 1650, that is within the narrow
limits of two weeks. No one has ever questioned these results
of my higher criticism of this document.'
This principle when applied to the writings of Holy Script
ure leads to sure results. As surely as the different geological
1 Du Pin, New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, 3d edit,, corrected, London,
1696, pp. vii. seq. 2 jgji^ Smythe, the Se Baptist, Boston, 1887.
5 Briggs, American Presbyterianism, Appendix, xxix. -xxxvi, N.Y., 1885.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 97
epochs leave their traces on the strata of the rocks, and the
astronomical epochs are disclosed in the revolutions of the heav
enly bodies, so surely literature reflects the history of the times
which gave it birth. A biblical writing could not be born
before its time any more than any other writing. Holy Script
ure bears upon it the traces of its historic origin as truly as
any other scripture. Higher Criticism may determine the his
toric origin and development of the writings of Holy Scripture
by these traces as surely as in any other department of the
world's literature. We may not always be able to detect the
historic origin of the book, but to find it is like the dawn of
the sun after a cloudy night.
(2) Differences of style imply differences of experience and
age of the same author; or, when sufficiently great, differences of
author and of period of composition.
" In short, stile is a sort of touch stone, that discovers the truth
or falsehood of books ; because it is impossible to imitate the stile
of any author so perfectly as that there will not be a great deal
of difference. By the stile, we are not only to understand the
bare words and terms, which are easily imitated; but also the
turn of the discourse, the manner of writing, the elocution,
the figures, and the method : All which particulars, it is a diffi
cult matter so to counterfeit as to prevent a discovery. There
are, for instance, certain authors, whose stile is easily known, and
which it is impossible to imitate : We ought not, however, always
to reject a book upon a slight difference of stile, without any
other proofs ; because it often happens that authors write differ
ently, in different times : Neither ought we immediately to re
ceive a book as genuine, upon the bare resemblance of stile, when
there are other proofs of its being spurious ; because it may so
happen, that an ingenious man may sometimes counterfeit the
stile of an author, especially in discourses which are not very
long. But the difference and resemblance of stile may be so
remarkable sometimes, as to be a convincing proof, either of truth
or falsehood." ^
This principle has been so firmly established that no one can
intelligently deny it. Style is the dress of thought, or rather
the expressions of its face and the graceful movement of its
form. Every human being has his individuality of face and
1 I.e., p. viii.

98 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
form, his characteristic movements and expression by which he
is distinguished and known from others. Every vrriter has his
handwriting. Even the typewriter does not destroy these dif
ferences. Every writer has his stock of words, his favourite ex
pressions, the phrases of his family, or his school, or his party,
his attitude of mind, his pose of statement, his characteristic
utterances ; and if in his quest of truth he has gained such an
advancement as to be a writer of documents which live through
the centuries, his powers of speech and writing have expanded
to the work required of them and they have expressed these
advanced conceptions in language which would not be appro
priate if it were not in a true sense original, and as peculiar to
the man as his thinking and acting. It is quite true that the
style of writers grows as they grow in knowledge and experi
ence, and the earlier writings of an author may be readily dis
tinguished from his later writings. But throughout his entire
literary development there will be a unity and an identity of
character in his style which will mark him off from aU other
writers as truly as his face and its expressions are different from
every other face and ever remain characteristic from infancy to
old age.
It is quite true that it is more difficult to detect difference of
style than difference of face. Experience in criticism as well
as accuracy and careful investigation are required for such
criticism. Not every tyro is capable of it. And if an un
trained critic or an amateur fail in the necessary discrimina
tions, that is no test of their reality, or of their accuracy when
seen by the experienced eye and traced by the expert hand.
Mistakes are made in faces and forms even by detectives. Mis
takes are more likely to occur in the delicate traceries of lit
erature. But mistakes do not disprove the importance of a
detective agency. Still less do they disprove the value of lit
erary criticism. They teach that those who enter upon such
investigations should get the training that is necessary, acquire
by experience the talents of experts, and use their delicate
tools with refinement and taste, scientific accuracy, and thorough
ness, and with a confidence in the truth they are seeking to
determine.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 99
Any one familiar with literature knows how difficult it is for
a well-known writer to disguise his hand. It will often be recog
nized through all disguises even by those who are not experts.
This principle has been successfully applied in many genera
tions of criticism to all departments of the world's literature.
It has also been applied to the writings of Holy Scripture with
the most fruitful results. It needs no training to see that each
one of the evangelists has a different style. It needs no ex
pert's knowledge to distinguish that the Chronicler writes dif
ferently from the prophetic historians. But it does need the
professional critic to tell you what those differences are, to
tabulate them and use them as evidences for the determination
of questions of the integrity, authorship, style, and credibility
of these writings.
(3) Differences of opinion and conception imply differences
of author when these are sufficiently great, and also differences of
period of composition.
"The opinions or things contained in a book, do likewise discover
the forgery of it: (1) When we find some opinions there, that
were not maintained till a long time after the author, whose name
it bears. (2) When we find some terms made use of, to explain
these doctrines, which were not customary till after his death.
(3) When the author opposes errors, as extant in his own time, that
did not spring up till afterwards. (4) When he describes cere
monies, rites, and customs that were not in use in his time. (6)
When we find some opinions in these spurious discourses, that
are contrary to those that are to be found in other books, which
unquestionably belong to that author. (6) When he treats of
matters that were never spoken of in the time when the real
author was alive. (7) When he relates histories that are mani
festly fabulous." ^
This is a principle of great simplicity and of far-reaching con
sequences. There is a gradual development of thought in this
world of ours. Each age has its opinions, each writer his po^nt
of view. The views of the relation of Church and State which
are embedded in the American official copy of the Westminster
Confession could not have been written before the American
Revolution. Even if the history of the revision of the Confes-
1 I.e., p. viii.

100 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
sion had been lost and long forgotten, the fact of the revision
would lie in the language of the document itself. The Augs
burg Confession could not have been composed before the birth
of the great Reformation. If the external history of its compo
sition had been lost, the internal evidence would be sufficient
to show it. The Emancipation Proclamation was born of the
crisis of the American Civil War. When else could it have
been composed ?
It is true that tradition is always at work fathering anonymous
writings with ancient venerated names. An interesting example
is found in the paradoxes of Herbert Palmer, which have been
attributed to Lord Bacon and are found in many editions of
his printed works. The finding of several editions of a little
book containing these paradoxes under the name of Herbert Palmer
was sufficient external evidence to enable Dr. Grossart to re
move them from Bacon's works. But the external evidence is not
always attainable. Take for example the famous sentence fathered
so long on Augustine : " In necessary things unity, in unnecessary
tilings liberty, in all things charity." A little reflection ought to
have convinced any student of the history of opinion that Augus
tine could not in his age of the world either have expressed or
understood such a sentence. Critical scholars long refused it to
Augustine on that account. But it was not until recent times that
the full evidence of the origin of this word of peace was found in
a tract of Eupertus Meldenius in the early days of the irenic
movement in the first half of the seventeenth century.
Having determined the characteristic doctrine of a period and
the leading features of an author, it is not easy for an expert
critic to mistake in his judgment as to any other writing of that
author or period. This is a more difficult line of investigation
at the present time because few scholars have worked at it in
the Hebrew Scriptures, but it is the most convincing when the
facts have been tabulated and their lessons learned.
(4) Citations show the dependence of the author upon the
author or authors cited, where these are definite and the identity
of the author cited can he clearly established.
Sometimes these citations are clear and strong evidence and
so decide our question beyond reason of a doubt. At other
times there is grave difficulty.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 101
An illustration of this principle and its difficulties may be given
in the story of tracing the maxim of peace to Rupertus Meldenius.
A distinguished German, Lucke,^ found this word of peace in a
tract of great rarity which bore the name of Rupertus Meldenius.
He refers to its use by Richard Baxter, but affirms that Baxter no
where mentions the source from which he derived it. However,
he traces it from Baxter backward to this early tract of the seven
teenth century and makes it probable that Eupertus Meldenius
wrote it. But soon after another German scholar discovered an
other rare tract of the same period by George Franc, in which the
same thought is expressed in similar terms,^ and this somewhat
weakens the argument for the origin of the phrase in Eupertus
Meldenius. It was my good fortune to make this probable evi
dence certain by finding accidentally in a rare tract of Richard
Baxter a passage which had been overlooked by all previous schol
ars, in which Baxter attributes the phrase to Eupertus Meldenius
and in which he states that he derived it from a citation in a work
of Conrad Berg. This work of Conrad Berg is so rare that only
one copy of it is known to be in existence. But after some diffi
culty I found this copy in the Eoyal Library at Berlin, saw the
passage from which Baxter derived it, saw that it was part of a
long citation from Rupertus Meldenius, compared the citation
with the original tract, and so made the evidence complete.^
These four principles are embraced under the internal evi
dence. To them we must now add two principles of external
evidence. (5) Positive testimony as to the writing in other writings of
acknowledged authority ;
(6) The silence of authorities as to the writing in question.
These are combined by Du Pin :
"The external proofs are, in the first place, taken from ancient
manuscripts; in which either we do not find the name of an
author: or else we find that of another: The more ancient or
correct they are, the more we ought to value them. Secondly,
from the testimony or silence of ancient authors ; from their testi
mony, I say, when they formally reject a writing as spurious, or
1 Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die ursprungliche Form und den wahren
Sinn des Friedenspruches, 1850.
2 Karl Bertheau, in Herzog, Beal Encyklopddie, 1881, IX., s. 531.
'Briggs, "Origin of the Phrase ^ in necessarlis unitas,' etc.," Presbyterian
Beview, 1887, pp. 496 seq. ; also ' ' Rupertus Meldenius and his Word of Peace,"
Presbyterian Beview, 1887, pp. 743 seq.

102 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
when they attribute it to some other author ; or from their silence
when they do not speak of it, though they have occasion to men
tion it: This argument, which is commonly called a negative one,
is oftentimes of very great weight. When, for example, we find,
that several entire books which are attributed to one of the
ancients, are unknown to all antiquity: When all those persons
that have spoken of the works of an author, and besides, have
made catalogues of them, never mention such a particular dis
course: When a book that would have been serviceable to the
Catholics has. never been cited by them, who both might and
ought to have cited it, as having a fair occasion to do it, 'tis ex-
treamly probable that it is supposititious. It is very certain that
this is enough to make any book doubtful, if it was never cited
by any of the ancients ; aud in that case it must have very authen-
tik characters of antiquity, before it ought to be received without
contradiction. And on the other hand, if there should be never
so few conjectures of its not being genuine, yet these, together
with the silence of the ancients, will be sufficient to oblige us to
believe it to be a forgery." ¦"
The argument from silence has risen to so much greater
importance since the seventeenth century that we shall venture
to define it more narrowly.^
(a) Silence is a lack of evidence when it is clear that the matter
in question did not come within the scope of the author^ s plans and
purposes. In the book of Esther, there is no mention of the Divine Name,
and no conception of Divine Providence. This seems, at the first
glance, very strange. The history of Esther would be as fitting to
illustrate Divine Providence as the story of Joseph. We should
expect that the Divine Name would have been frequently in the
mouths of the heroes of the story. And yet, on closer examinar
tion, it appears that the book of Esther was written with a very
different purpose from the story of Joseph. It was the work of
a patriotic Jew who wished to enforce fidelity to Jewish national
ity. The author's scope was patriotic and ethical, rather than reli
gious or doctrinal. Hence, while the name of the Persian monarch
appears 187 times, the name of God does not occur. Persian
decrees, and the fidelity of Esther to her nation, and skill in over-
1 In I.e., p. viii.
2 For an elaboration and explanation of these principles we must refer to the
author's paper on the argument e silentio, read before the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis in June, 1883, and published in their Journal for 1883.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 103
coming the intrigues of its enemies, take the place of the Divine
Providence. The same is true in the Song of Songs. Its scope
is essentially ethical, to show the victory of marital love over all
the seductions that may be employed to constrain it toward others
than the rightful object of it. The author had no occasion to use
the Divine Name or to speak of religious themes.
(b) Silence is an evidence that the matter in question had cer
tain characteristics which excluded it from the author's argument.
This argument is on the well-known popular principle that
silence gives consent. If there were evidence to the contrary,
it would certainly have been produced.
A fine example of this argument is given by Bishop Lightfoot
in his review of the author of " Supernatural Eeligion " ^ in treat
ing of the silence of Eusebius. He quotes from Eusebius, H. E.,
III. 3, to the effect that the design of Eusebius was to give (1) the
references or testimonies in case of disputed writings of the
Canon only; (2) the records of anecdotes in case of the acknow
ledged and disputed writings alike. If the Gospel of John had
been a disputed writing, Eusebius would have given references
and testimonies according to his first principle. He does not do
this, therefore " the silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses
to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favour. Its apostolic
authorship had never been questioned by any church writer from
the beginning so far as Eusebius was aware, and therefore it was
superfluous to call witnesses."
(c) The matter in question lies fairly within the author's scope,
and it was omitted for good and sufficient reasons which may be
ascertained. This phase of the argument from silence was used in the re
nowned argument of Warburton.2 He argues : If religion be neces
sary to civil government, and if religion cannot subsist under the
common dispensation of Providence without a future state of re
wards and punishments, so consummate a lawgiver [Moses] would
never have neglected to inculcate the belief of such a state, had
he not been well assured that an extraordinary Providence was
indeed to be administered over his people. This argument has
been often disputed. Both premises have been called in question.
There can be no doubt that the idea that " religion cannot subsist
under the common dispensation of Providence, without a future
1 Contemporary Beviexo, XXV., pp. 183 seq.
2 Divine Legation of Moses Vindicated, London, 1837, Vol. IL pp. 531 seq.

104 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
state of rewards and punishments," rests on too narrow an induc
tion of the religions of the world. There can be no doubt that
Warburton is disposed to minimize the Old Testament statements
as to the future life ; and yet it seems that he is certainly correct
in his statement that the Pentateuchal codes are silent as to a
future state of rewards and punishments, and that this silence
was designed. Warburton calls attention justly to Moses' famil
iarity with the Egyptian religion and its highly developed es
chatology. We have now abundant evidence to show that the
Babylonian and other Shemitic religions, with which the patri
archal ancestors were first brought in contact, were full and
elaborate on this subject. The Hebrews throughout their history
were in communication with nations which had the most elabo
rate eschatologies. The silence of these codes was designed. We
are not convinced that this silence is to be explained altogether
on the principle that the Hebrew government was a theocracy of
extraordinary Providence; yet we are sure that it was the design
of the codes to emphasize the duties and the life in the Holy Land
under the divine instruction, and of the blessings in store for
such a life, and to ignore the future state of rewards and punish
ments on that account. The essential thing was the divine bless
ing in life, and the most dreaded thing was the divine curse in
life. This was a healthy ethical position. Only an unhealthy
religion will depreciate the moral character of life in this world,
in the interest of the future life.
(d) The silence of the author as to that which was within the
scope of his argument ivas unconscious and therefore ignorance is
implied. Where there is silence in authors, we may assume ignorance
as to the matter in question, and even find positive disproof of
the story. An event or an opinion might not be known to a
particular person, or might be known to but a few, and these
might perish. But it is to be presumed that those to whom
the event or knowledge was known, would make it known if
it were within the scope of their argument. We prove the
growth of knowledge from the silence of early writers and the
statements of later writers. The statement of opinions gives
us the basis for the history of opinions. Silence is an evidence
of ignorance as to them.
A tradition handed down from Fox, and apparently supported
by the Colophon of Tyndale's first edition of his translation of

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 105
Genesis, " emprinted at Marlborow in the land of Hesse, by me
Hans Luft, &c.," pretends that Tyndale was a student at Marburg,
and that he went from thence to Hamburg by way of Antwerp,
to meet Coverdale in 1629; Mombert^ disproves this tradition by
showing that (1) there is no record at Marburg of Hans Luft ever
having set up a printing press there, and (2) that the Album of
the University does not contain Tyndale's name among the matric
ulates, as it would have done if he had matriculated, inasmuch
as it gives Patrick Hamilton and others : and (3) there is an
absence of historic evidence as to Coverdale's going to Hamburg.
(e) When the silence extends over a variety of writings of
different authors, of different classes of writings and different
periods of composition, it implies either some strong and over
powering external restraint such as divine interposition, or eccle
siastical or civil power; or it implies a general and wide-spread
public ignorance which presents a strong presumptive evidence
regarding the reality and truthfulness of the matter in question.
Many examples of this line of argument might be adduced.
Archbishop Whately proves from the silence of Scripture as to
Confessions of Faith, Liturgies, Rubrics, and the like, that the
authors were supernaturally withheld from giving them in
order to give liberty to the Church.^ This is the phase of the
argument from silence which is used with so much effect to
prove that the Deuteronomic code originated in the time of
Josiah and the priest-code in the exile. The history previous
to these times presents an ignorance of these codes and unre-
buked violation of them. The literature previous to these
times is unconscious of their existence.^
The argument from silence is therefore an argument of great
importance, all the more convincing from its delicacy and the
indirect and roundabout paths by which it reaches its end.
Sometimes it shoots like a comet to a surprising result, but
usually it traces its way in every variety of beautiful curves.
The Higher Criticism of Holy Scripture is a study, which
has its well-defined principles, its accurate methods, its clearly
expressed questions ; and its results are as sure as those of any
other science.
1 Handbook of the English Versions of the Bible, New York, 1883, pp. 107 seq.
2 Essays, Kingdom of God. = See pp. 307, 323.

106 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The internal evidence must be used with great caution and
sound judgment, for an able and learned forger might imitate
so as to deceive the most expert, and the author of a pseud-
epigraph might intentionally place his writing in an earlier age
of the world and in circumstances best suited to carry out his
idea. But sooner or later a faithful and persistent application
of the critical tests will determine the forgeries and the pseud-
epigraphs and assign them their real literary position. As to
the relative value of the internal and external evidence we
cannot do better than use the judicious words of Sir William
Hamilton : " But if our criticism from the internal grounds
alone be, on the one hand, impotent to establish, it is, on the
other hand, omnipotent to disprove."^
The importance of this higher criticism is well stated by
Du Pin :
" Criticism is a kind of torch, that lights and conducts us in the
obscure tracts of antiquity, by making us to distinguish truth from
falsehood, history from fable, and antiquity from novelty. 'Tis
by this means, that in our times we have disengaged ourselves
from an infinite number of very common errors, into which our
fathers fell for want of examining things by the rules of true
criticism. For 'tis a surprising thing to consider how many
spurious books we find in antiquity; nay, even in the first ages
of the Church." 2
In order to illustrate these principles of the Higher Criticism
we shall present a few additional specimens of their applica
tion from eminent divines.
The first illustration that we shall give is with reference to
the question of integrity. The so-called Apostles' Creed is the
most sacred writing exterior to the canon of Scripture.
Till the middle of the seventeenth century it was the current
belief of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christendom that the
Apostles' Creed was "membratum articulatumque," composed by
the apostles in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or before their
separation, to secure unity of teaching, each contributing an arti
cle (hence the somewhat arbitrary division into twelve articles).
The arguments adduced by Dr. Schaff to prove that this
tradition is false, are : (1) The intrinsic improbability of such
1 Logic, p. 471. 2 i.c., p. vii.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 107
a mechanical composition. (2) The silence of Scripture.
(3) The silence of the apostolic fathers and of all the Ante-
Nicene and Nicene fathers and synods. (4) The variety in
form of the creed down to the eighth century. (5) The
fact that the Apostles' Creed never had any currency in the
East, where the Nicene Creed occupies its place. ^
Many scholars have studied the structure of the Creed more
fully, and have shown the process of its formation and all the
changes through which it passed, until it gradually, in 750 A.D.,
assumed its present stereotyped form.^
One of the best illustrations of the effective work of the Higher
Criticism with reference to the question of authenticity, is afforded
by Bentley in his celebrated work on the epistles of Phalaris.^
Bentley proves these epistles to be forgeries of a sophist : I. By
internal evidence. (1) They do not accord with their presumed
age, but with other ages. They mention (a) Aloesa, a city which
was not built till 140 years after the latest year of Phalaris;
(6) Theridean cups, which were not known until 120 years after the
death of Phalaris ; (c) Messana, as a different city from Zaude,
whereas it was a later name for the same city, which was not
changed till 60 years after the death of Phalaris; (d) Tauro-
minium, 140 years before it was ever thought of.
(2) Differences of style : (a) the use of the Attic dialect instead
of the Doric, the speech of Phalaris, and indeed not of the old
Attic, but the new Attic that was not used till centuries after
Phalaris' time.
(3) Differences of thought : (a) reference to tragedy before
tragedy came into existence ; (&) use of Attic and not Sicilian
talents in speaking of money; (c) use of the word irpovola for
Divine Providence, which was not used before Plato, and of Koa-p-o^
for the universe, which was not so used before Pythagoras;
(d) inponsistencies between the ideas and matter of the epistle,
which are those of a sophist, and the historical character of Phala
ris as a politician and tyrant.
(4) Relation to other writers. He uses Herodotus, Demosthenes,
Euripides. II. The external evidences are : (5) testimony. Atossa is said
1 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, L p. 19.
2 Lumby, History of the Creeds, Cambridge, 1873, pp. 169 seq. See more
fully Kattenbush, Das apostolische Symbol, Leipzig, 1894.
' A Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris, London, 1699, a new edition
edited by Wilhelm Wagner, London, 1883.

108 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
to have been the first inventor of epistles. Hence those that carry
the name of Phalaris two generations earlier must be impostures.
(6) Silence. There is a thousand years of silence as to these
epistles. "For had our letter been used or transcribed during
that thousand years, somebody would have spoken of it, especially
since so many of the ancients had occasion to do so ; so that their
silence is a direct argument that they never had heard of them." ^
We have dwelt at some length upon the principles and
methods of the Higher Criticism, because of their great impor
tance in our day with reference to the Sacred Scriptures and
the lack of information concerning them that still prevails to
an astonishing degree among men who make some pretensions
to scholarship.
The Higher Criticism has vindicated its rights in the field
of biblical study as well as in all other kinds of literature. It
matters little who may oppose its course, what combinations may
be made against it, it will advance steadily and irresistibly to its
results ; it vdll flow on over every obstacle like a mighty river
and bury every obstruction beneath its waves. In time it will
give a final decision to all the literary problems of Holy Script
ure. No other voice can decide them. Men may for a time
refuse to listen to its voice, they may try to deaden it by a chorus
of outcries and shoutings of opposition. But Higher Criticism
is in no haste, she can wait. She does not seek the favour of
ecclesiastics, or the applause of the populace. She seeks the
truth, and having won the truth she is sure of the everlasting
future. It is true that critics have made serious mistakes in the past.
And it is quite probable that they are making mistakes at the
present time. But what department of scholarly investigation
is free from mistakes ? Holy Scripture is in the hands of every
one, and almost every one thinks he is a competent critic, and
therefore it is more exposed to blunders than any other litera
ture. It is quite true that some able and honest men are
opposed to the principles and methods of the Higher Criticism.
But every one of these is opposed to criticism on dogmatic
grounds, because it imperils the dogmas of his school and party.
1 New edition, 1883, p. 481.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 109
The same set of men have opposed every advance of modern
science and modern philosophy. Such men are not true bibli
cal scholars. What kind of a detective would he make, who
should maintain that there was no sure way of detecting crimi
nals ? What sort of a chemist would he make, who spent his
strength in opposing and ridiculing the principles and results
of chemistry ? One sees what sort of scholars those are, who
exhaust their energies in discrediting the principles of the
Higher Criticism and in battling against its sure results. The
Higher Criticism of the tiebrew Scriptures has an array of
able scholars who would adorn any profession and grace any
science, and they are in as close agreement in their results as
any other body of scholars in any other science, or in any other
profession. III. The Criticism op Holy Scripture
Thus far Biblical Criticism has derived from other branches
of criticism the principles and methods of its work. Has it
not, however, some peculiar features of its own, as it has to do
with the sacred canon of the Christian Church ? Does the
fact that the canon of Sacred Scripture is holy, inspired, and
of divine authority, lift it above criticism, or does it give
additional features of criticism that enable us to test the genu
ineness of these' claims respecting it ? The latter is the true
and only safe position, and it is evident that our effort should
be to determine these principles and methods. We reserve
this question for our following chapter.
In the meanwhile we have to meet on the threshold of our
work a priori objections that would obstruct our progress in
the application of the principles and methods of criticism to
the Bible.
Biblical Criticism is confronted by traditional views of the
Bible that do not wish to be disturbed, and by dogmatic state
ments respecting the Bible which decline reinvestigation and
revision. The claim is put forth that these traditional views
and dogmatic statements are in accordance with the Scriptures
and the symbols of the Church, and that the orthodox faith is
put in peril by criticism.

110 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Such claims as these can only influence the adherents of the
Church, and, at the utmost, debar them from the exercise of
criticism. They cannot be more than amusing to the unbe
lieving and the sceptical, who care but little for the Church
and still less for theologians and their orthodoxy. They will
use the tests of criticism without restraint. We cannot pre-
. vent them. The question is whether Christian scholars also
shall be entitled to use them in the study of the Scriptures, or
whether Holy Scripture is to be intrusted solely to the hands
of dogmatic theologians and scholastics who usually have little
if any technical knowledge of Holy Scripture itself. And we
are entitled to ask: Why should the Scriptures fear the most
searching investigation ? If they are truly the Word of God
they will maintain themselves and vindicate themselves in the
battle of criticism. If we are sure of this, let us rejoice in the
conflict that will lead to victory; if we are in doubt of it, it is
best that our doubts should be removed as soon as possible.
Then let the tests be applied, and let us know in whom we
trust and what we believe.^
It is pretended that the Church doctrine of inspiration is in
peril, and that the authority of the Scriptures is thereby under
mined. If there were one clearly defined orthodox doctrine of
inspiration to which all Christians agreed, as supported by
Holy Scripture and the creeds of the Church, our task would
be easier. But, in fact, there are many various theories of in
spiration, and several ways of stating the doctrine of inspira
tion that are without support in Scripture or symbol. It is
necessary, therefore, to discriminate, in order to determine ex
actly what is in peril, whether inspiration itself and the author
ity of the Sacred Scriptures, or some particular and false theory
of inspiration and the authority of some theologian or school
of theology.
The doctrine of inspiration may be constructed (1) by a
careful, painstaking study of the Sacred Scriptures themselves,
gathering together their testimony as to their own origin,
character, design, value, and authority. This gives ns the
biblical doctrine of the Scriptures and the doctrine of inspira-
1 Robert Rainy, Bible and Criticism, London, 1878, p. 33.

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 111
tion as a part of Biblical Theology. Any one who has at
tempted this task will admit that Holy Scripture is extremely
modest in its claims and that the biblical doctrine of inspira
tion and scriptural authority is much more simple and much
less definite and exacting than any of the theories of the theo
logians. (2) The doctrine of inspiration may be constructed
from a study of the symbolical books of the Church, which
express the faith of the Church as attained in the great crises
of its history, in the study of the Scriptures, in the experiences
and life of men. This gives us the symbolical, or orthodox, or
Church doctrine of inspiration. The Church doctrine does not,
in fact, obstruct the pathway of criticism. (3) The doctrine
of inspiration may be constructed by a study of Scripture and
symbol, and the logical unfolding of the results of a more
extended study of the whole subject in accordance with the
dominant philosophical and theological principles of the times.
This gives us the dogmatic, or school, or traditional doctrine of
inspiration as it has been established in particular schools of
theology, and has become traditional in the teaching of certain
chairs and pulpits, in the various particular theories of inspira
tion that have been formulated. It is with these theories and
with these alone that Biblical Criticism has to battle.
As we rise in the doctrinal process from the simple biblical
statements, unformulated as they lie in the sacred writings or
formulated in Biblical Theology, to the more complex and
abstract statements of the symbols expressing the formulated
consensus of the leaders of the Church in the formative
periods of history, and then to the more theoretical and scho
lastic statements of the doctrinal treatises of the theologians ;
while the doctrine becomes more and more complex, massive,
consistent, and imposing, and seems, therefore, to become more
authoritative and binding ; in reality the authority diminishes
in this relative advance in systematization, so that what is
gained in extension is lost in intension : for the construction
is a construction of sacred materials by human and fallible
minds, with defective logic, failing sometimes to justify prem
ises, and leaping to conclusions that cannot always be defended,
and in a line and direction determined by the temporary and

112 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
provisional conditions and necessities of the times, neglecting
modifying circumstances and conditions. The concrete that
the Bible gives us is for all time, as it is the living and eternal
substance ; though changeable, it reproduces and so perpetu
ates itself in a wonderful variety of forms of beauty, yet all
blending and harmonizing as the colours of the clouds and skies
under the painting of the sunbeams ; but the abstract is the
formal and the perishable, as it is broken through and shat
tered by the pulsations and struggles of the living and devel
oping truth of God, ever striving for expression and adaptation
to every different condition of mankind, in the different epochs
and among the various races of the world.
The course of religious history has clearly established the
principle that there is a constant tendency in all religions, and
especially in the Christian religion, in the systematic or dog
matic statement to constrain the symbol as well as the Script
ures into the requirements of the particular formative principle
and the needs of the particular epoch. The dogmatic scheme is
too often the mould into which the gold of the Scriptures and
the silver of the creed are poured to coin a series of definitions,
and fashion a system of theology which not only breaks up the
concrete and harmonious whole of the Scriptures into frag
ments, stamping them with the imprint of the particular con
ception of the theologian in order to their reconstruction; but
not infrequently the constructed system becomes an idol of
the theologian and his pupils, as if it were the orthodox, the
divine truth, while a mass of valuable scriptural and symbolical
material is cast aside in the process, and lies neglected in the
workshop. In course of time the symbols as well as the Script
ures are overlaid with glosses and perplexing explanations, so
that they become either dark, obscure, and uncertain to the
ordinary reader, or else have their meanings deflected and per
verted, until they are once more grasped by a living, energet
ical faith in a revived state of the Church, and burst forth
from their scholastic fetters, that Holy Scripture, the Church's
creed, and Christian life may once more correspond. While
traditionalism and scholasticism have not prevailed in the
Protestant churches to the same extent as in the Greek and

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 113
Roman churches ; for the right of private judgment and the
universal priesthood of believers have maintained their ground
with increasing vigour in Western Europe and America since
the Reformation ; yet it is no less true that the principle of
traditionalism is ever at work in the chairs of theology and in
the pulpits of the Church : so that in seeking for truth and in
estimating what is binding on faith and conscience, even Prot
estants must distinctly separate the three things : Bible, sym
bol, and tradition ; the Bible, the sole infallible norm ; the
symbol, binding those who hold to the body of which it is the
banner ; the tradition of any sect or school which demands at
the most the respect, reverence, careful consideration, and the
presumption in its favour on the part of the adherents of that
sect or school. It is assumption for it to claim the same
authority as Bible, Church, or Catholic tradition. It will be
tested and tried, if worthy of consideration, and it must take
its chances in the crucible.
It is of vast importance that we should make these dis
tinctions on the threshold of the study of the critical theories ;
for there is no field in which modern, local, and provincial
tradition has been more hasty in its conclusions, more busy in
their formation, more dogmatic and sensitive to criticism, more
reluctant and stubborn to give way to the truth, than in
the sacred fields of the Divine Word. Thus criticism is con
fronted at the outset now as ever with two a priori objections.
1st. There are those who maintain that their traditional
views of the Sacred Scriptures are inseparably bound up with
their doctrine of inspiration ; so that even if they should be in
some respects doubtful or erroneous, they must be left alone
for fear of the destruction of the doctrine of inspiration itself.
This is true of those traditional theories of inspiration which
in some quarters have expanded so as to cover a large part of
the ground, and commit themselves to theories of text, and
author, date, style, and integrity of writings, in accordance
with a common, but, in our judgment, an injudicious method
of discussing the whole Bible under the head of Bibliology in
the prolegomena of the dogmatic system ; but this is not true
of the symbolical doctrine of inspiration, still less of the script-

114 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ural doctrine. The most that this objection can require of the
critics is, that they should be careful and cautious of giving
offence, or of needlessly shocking prejudice ; that they should
be respectful and reverent of the faith of the people and of
revered theologians ; but it is not to be supposed that it
will make them recreant to their trust of seeking earnestly,
patiently, persistently, and prayerfully for the truth of God.
In fact, these school doctrines of inspiration have obtruded
themselves in place of the symbolical and scriptural doctrine,
and it is necessary to destroy these school doctrines in order to
the safety of the biblical doctrine and the symbolical doctrine.
However distressing this may be to certain dogmatic divines
and their adherents, it affords gratification to all sincere lovers
of the truth of God.
2d. There are those who claim that their traditional theory
is the logical unfolding of the doctrine of the Symbols and the
Scriptures. But this is begging the very question at issue,
which will not be yielded. Why should dogmatic theologians
claim exemption from criticism and the testing of the grounds
of their systems ? Such an arbitrary claim for deductions and
consequences is one that no true critic or historian ought to
concede : for, by so doing, he abandons at once the right and
ground of criticism, and the inductive methods of historical
and scientific investigation ; and sacrifices his material to the
dogmatist and scholastic, surrendering the concrete for the
abstract. The very sensitiveness to criticism displayed in
some quarters justifies suspicion that the theories are weak
and will not sustain investigation.
Traditional theories cannot overcome critical theories with
either of these a priori objections of apprehended peril to faith
or pretended logical inconsistencies with dogma, but must sub
mit to the test of criticism. One of the most characteristic prin
ciples of Puritanism is that :
" God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from
the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything
contrary to His Word or beside it in matters of faith and worship ;
so that, to believe such doctrine, or to obey such commandments
out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the

HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CRITICISM 115
requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is
to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." ^
Biblical Criticism bases its historic right on the principles of
the Reformation and of Puritanism, and it finds no hindrance in
the Catholic principle of the supremacy of Church tradition, for
thus far these present no obstacles to criticism. It is the un-
churchly, undefined, and unlearned tradition which presumes to
obstruct the work of Biblical Criticism.
Recent critical theories arise and work as did their prede
cessors, in the various departments of the study of Holy
Scripture. Here is their strength, that they antagonize modern
traditional dogma with the Bible itself, and appeal from pro
vincial school theology to Catholic credal theology. Unless
traditional theories of inspiration can vindicate themselves on
biblical grounds, meet the critics, and overcome them in fair
conflict, in the sacred fields of the Divine Word, sooner or
later traditional theories will be driven from the field. It will
not do to antagonize critical theories of the Bible with tra
ditional theories of the Bible ; for the critic appeals to history
against tradition, to an array of facts against so-called infer
ences, to the laws of probation against dogmatic assertion, to
the Divine Spirit speaking in the Scriptures against external
authority. History, facts, truth, the laws of thought, are all
divine products, and most consistent with the Divine Word,
and they will surely prevail.
The great majority of professional biblical scholars in the
various universities and theological halls of the world, embra
cing those of the greatest learning, industry, and piety, demand
a revision of traditional theories of the Bible, on account of
a large induction of new facts from the Bible and history.
These critics must be met with argument and candid reasoning
as to these facts and their interpretation, and cannot be over
come by mere cries of alarm for the Church and the Bible,
which, in their last analysis, usually amount to nothing more
than peril to certain favourite views. What peril can come
to the Holy Scriptures from a more profound critical study
1 Westminster Conf. of Faith, XX. 2 ; see also A. F. Mitchell, The West
minster Assembly : its History and Standards, London, 1883, pp. 8 seq., 465.

116 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
of them ? The sword of the Spirit alone will conquer in this
warfare. Are Christian men afraid to put it to the test ? For
this is a conflict after all between true criticism and false criti
cism ; between the criticism which is the product of the evan
gelical spirit of the Reformation, and critical principles that
are the product of deism and rationalism. Biblical criticism
has been marching from conquest to conquest, though far too
often at a sad disadvantage, like a storming party who have
sallied forth from their breastworks to attack the trenches of
the enemies of the Bible, finding in the hot encounter that the
severest fire and gravest peril are from the misdirected bat
teries of their own line. We do not deny the right of dog
matism and the a priori method, within their proper spheres ;
but we maintain the greater right of criticism and the induc
tive method in the field of the study of Holy Scripture and
their far greater importance in the acquisition of true and
reliable knowledge of Holy Scripture. If criticism and dog
matism are harnessed together, a span of twin steeds, they will
draw the car of theology rapidly towards its highest ideal;
but pulling in opposite directions they tear it to pieces.

CHAPTER V
HISTORY OP THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The first work of Biblical Criticism is to investigate the
Canon of the Bible and to determine, so far as possible, the
entire extent and the exact limits of Holy Scripture. This
investigation is first of all an historical study. It is first neces
sary for us to know what writings have in fact been officially
recognized as canonical in the different epochs in the history
of Israel and the Christian Church. When we have all the
historical facts before us, then we may by induction establish
principles and rules for the critical investigation of the Canon
and apply those rules for its final testing and verification.
The term Canon was first applied to Holy Scripture by the
Greek Fathers of the fourth Christian century. ^ But the
underlying conception of a sacred collection of literature, or
books of divine authority, as the norm of religion, faith, and
morals, is much more ancient. This conception is in some
respects more fully expressed in the terms, " the Holy Script
ures," 2 and " the Scriptures," ^ which, though most ancient,
have continued to the present day as the most common and
appropriate titles of the Bible. Still more ancient are the
terms the Book or Books of the Law, the Law of Yahweh, the
Law of God, the Law ; * and the Book of the Covenant, the Cove-
1 Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alt. Test., Leipzig, 1891, s. 1 ; Holtzmann,
Einleitung in d. Neue Test., 2te Aufl., 1886, s. 162 seq.
2 ¦ypo.!\>a\ &ymi, Rom. 12; (ri) hpa ypdfi/xaTa, 2 Tim. 3^^ ; Josephus, Antiq. Jud.,
Procem 3 ; Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 29, II. 574 ; al Upa.i Hi^xoi, Josephus, Antiq.
Jud., Procem 4 ; 21", 202", etc. ; Philo, De Vita Mos., lib. 3, t. 2, p. 163 ; rk ^i^Kia
rh ayia, 1 Macc. 12'.
« al ypoi<pai, Mt. 2229 . John 539 ; Acts 172- " ; D'-ISDH, Dan. 92.
4 Ti 0,0kU tov v4^iov, 1 Macc. 156 ; the Book of the Law, Neh. 8^ ; 2 Chr. 34^ ;
the Law of Yahweh, Ezr. 7" ; 1 Chr. 16« ; 2 Chr. 3526; the Law of God, Neh.
1029. 30 . i ^^^„^ John 1034 ; 1 Cor. 1421 ; minn, Neh. lO^^- 8? ; cf. my article on
niin in Robinson's Gesenius Hebr. Lexicon, new edition, B.D.B.
117

118 STUDY OF HOLY SCRUPTURE
nant^ that is, the covenant between God and His people. The
two ancient divisions of the Bible persist to the present time
as the Old Covenant or Testament, and the New Covenant
or Testament.
I. The Formation of the Old Testament Canon
It is necessary to go much further back in the history of
the formation of the Canon than biblical scholars usually do.
It is the common opinion that the formation of the Canon
began with Ezra.^ Others think that it began with the official
adoption of the Deuteronomic code.^ But if we are to go back
to the adoption of the code of the Law by Ezra, or further
back to the code of Deuteronomy, why should we not go still
further back to the code of the Covenant and to the primary
code of the Ten Words ? These earlier codes were something
more than " preparations for a Canon " ; they were recognized
as of divine authority, no less truly by the earlier generations,
than were the Deuteronomic code in the reign of Josiah and
the Priest code in the time of Ezra.
1. Accordingly the formation of the Canon began with the
promulgation of the Ten Words as the fundamental divine Law
to Israel. These Ten Words were given in their original form
as brief, terse words or sentences. The specifications and
reasons were added in the several different documents of the
Hexateuch, and these were eventually compacted tog^ether in
the two versions, Ex. 20 and Deut. 5.* These Ten Words were
given by the theophanic voice of God to Israel on Mount
Horeb. They were taken up into all the original documents
of the Hexateuch. They lie at the basis of the entire legisla
tion. They have the authority of God, and public recognition
and adoption. They were kept, on the two tables of stone, in
1 pi&Kos SiaeiiKns, Eccl. 2423 . 3,5x(ov SiaSiinns, 1 Macc. l^' ; cf. M if ^i-b-
yudoffei TTJs iraKaias Siafl^Kijs, 2 Cor. 31*.
2 Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alt. Test., s. 8.
3 Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament, London, 1892, pp. 47 seq. See also
Cornill, Einleitung, 1891, s. 277.
* See " Genesis of the Ten Words," in my Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch,
new edition, New York, 1897, pp. 181 seq.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 119
the holy ark in the most Holy Place of the tabernacle and the
temple. If any document fulfils all the tests of canonicity the
Tables of the Law certainly do.
The promulgation of the Ten Words was soon followed by
the giving of the Book of the Covenant. On the basis of this
Book of the Covenant, the covenant of Horeb was established by
a covenant sacrifice in which the people solemnly pledged them
selves to obedience, and' thej'- were sprinkled with the blood of
the covenant in order to consecrate them in this covenant rela
tion. Their representatives then partook of the sacrificial feast
of the covenant in the presence of the Theophany.^
This covenant is the one upon which the entire subsequent
religion of Israel depends. It is the old covenant to which
the new covenant established by Jesus, in connection with the
institution of the sacramental feast of the Lord's Supper, is the
antithesis. No book that ever was written fulfils so entirely
the tests of canonicity as this fundamental Book of the Cove
nant upon which all subsequent Hebrew law is built. The
Book of the Covenant appears in one form in the Judaic narra
tive,^ in another in the Ephraimitic narrative,^ and has also
been taken up into the Deuteronomic code.* There can be
little doubt that the original Book of the Covenant contained
only the brief terse Words ; and that the other types of Hebrew
law, such as statutes, judgments, and commands, contained in
the Greater Book of the Covenant and in the Deuteronomic
code, are later additions from varied sources, in the development
of Hebrew Law in the northern and southern kingdoms.
2. There is no evidence of any canonical advance until the
reign of Josiah, when the Deuteronomic code was brought to
light and received canonical recognition.^
1 Ex. 241-u. See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition,
1897, pp. 6 seq.
2 Ex. 34. See " The Decalogue of J and its Parallels in the other Codes," in
my Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, pp. 189 seq.
3 Ex. 2022-23. See "The Greater Book of the Covenant and its Parallels in
the later Codes," I.e. pp. 211 seq.
* See I.e., pp. 243 seq.
' 2 Kings 22-23 = 2 Chr. 34-35. See Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, for
an admirable exposition of this event. See also my Higher Criticism of the
Hexateuch, pp. 15 seq. , 81 seq.

120 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
3. It is agreed among scholars that the first layer of the
present Hebrew Canon, Tlie Law (embracing the five books,
Genesis to Deuteronomy), was constituted and officially adopted
through the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah,^ and the nation
was solemnly engaged, by covenant and by oath, to obey it.
4. It has been very commonly held among the Jews and the
Christians that the entire Canon of the Old Testament was
fixed in the time of Ezra.
(a) But there is nothing in the story of Nehemiah to justify
such an opinion. Nevertheless Nehemiah 8-10 has been inter
preted as referring to the entire Canon on the basis of a legend,
in the Apocalypse of Ezra,^ a pseudepigraphical writing dating
from the close of the first century of our era. The story is
that the whole Canon was recalled to the memory of Ezra by
divine inspiration and recorded by him with the help of five of
his disciples.
(a) On the face of it the story is a legend, but it doubtless
had an older tradition at its basis. It is probable that the
whole legend is a gradual evolution of the story given in
Nehemiah. (/3) It is unknown to Josephus and Philo, and there are no
traces of it in any previous writer, or any contemporary writer.
(7) It is inconsistent with the fact that the Samaritan Canon
is confined to the Pentateuch, which could not have been the
case if the separation of the Samaritans from the Jews had
taken place subsequent to the establishment of the entire Canon
of the Old Testament.
(S) It is also opposed by the fact that a considerable portion
of the Prophets, and a large part of the other writings, were
composed subsequent to Ezra.
(e) Furthermore, the threefold division of the Hebrew
Canon bears on its face the evidence that the Canon was
formed in three successive layers.^
(h) Another legend is the story that the whole Canon of the
1 Neh. 8-10.
2 Chap. I41' seq. This is 2 Esdras of the Greek Apocrypha and 4 Ezra of the
English Apocrypha. See Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 11 seq., see p. 257.
3 See Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, pp. 239 seq., for a thorough discus
sion of this passage of the Apocalypse of Ezra and its historical influence.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 121
Old Testament was fixed by the men of the Great Synagogue.
There can be no doubt that modern Protestant opinion as to
the Great Synagogue is based upon the statements of Elias
Levita ^ and Buxtorf .^ But these statements are simply the use,
without critical examination, of Jewish legends which unfolded
during the centuries of Rabbinical literature from a slender
support in the Mishnaic tract Pirqe Aboth^ and a Baraitha
of the Talmud.*
The Pirqe Aboth states that : " Moses received the Torah from
Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and
the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the
Great Synagogue. They said three things: Be deliberate in
judgment, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence to the
Torah. Simon the Just was of the remnants of the Great
Synagogue." (Chap. I.)
The Baraitha of the Baba Bathra says : " The men of the Great
Synagogue wrote Ezekiel and the Twelve, Daniel and the Roll of
Esther, whose sign is 21ip."
These passages represent that the men of the Great Syna
gogue wrote, that is, collected and edited, Ezekiel, the twelve
Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther ; and that they received
and transmitted the Torah. Nothing is said in either passage
of their having anything to do with the organization of a Canon
of Holy Scripture, or of their addition of any writing to the
Canon. The legend of the establishment of the Canon of the
Old Testament by the men of the Great Synagogue is thus a
later evolution of the story of the editing of certain Old Testa
ment writings by them, and of their part in the transmission
of the Torah. But even this primitive story of the Mishna
and Baraitha is unhistorical, for the simple reason that it makes
Simon the Just, of the time of Alexander the Great, a member
of a synagogue which the tradition elsewhere assigns to the
age of Ezra and Nehemiah. In fact, this legend is more unsub
stantial than the other.
1 Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, 1867, pp. 112 seq.
2 Tiberias sive Commentarius Masorethicus, 1620.
3 Strack, Die Sprilche der Vater, Karlsruhe, 1882 ; Taylor, Sayings of the
Jewish Fathers, Cambridge, 1877.
* See pp. 252 seq.

122 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
(a) Back of these Rabbinical sayings of the second and third
Christian centuries, there is no historical evidence whatever of
the existence of any such body of men as the Great Synagogue.
The silence of all writings from the first century backwards is
absolute. They could not have omitted to mention such a
body as this if it ever had an existence, because it came within
their scope to do so if so important a thing as the final deter
mination of the Canon of the Old Testament had been under
taken by such a body of men. The apocryphal literature in its
wide and varied extent knows nothing of such a body. The
numerous pseudepigraphical writings maintain unbroken silence.
Philo and Josephus are unconscious of anything of the kind.
The New Testament writers ignore it and write as if it never
existed. (/S) The legend of the determination of the Canon by Ezra
and his disciples, already considered, is inconsistent with the
fixing of the Canon by the men of the Great Synagogue, even
if Ezra were at their head. The legend of Ezra's activity is
much earlier than that of the activity of the men of the Great
Synagogue. It is unlikely that it would have originated, if
there had ever been any such legend of the work of the men
of the Great Synagogue prior to it.
(7) It is opposed by the fact that a considerable number of
the writings of the Old Testament were composed subsequently
to the supposed times of the Great Synagogue.
(S) The well-known disputes as to the Canon among the
Jews in the first Christian century could hardly have taken
place, if such a venerable body as the men of the Great Syna
gogue had determined everything relating to the Canon.
(e) It is improbable that the Greek version would have
added anything to the Sacred Writings, if they had been fixed
so long before by the men of the Great Synagogue.
This legend must be dismissed as nothing more than a pure
invention made by the early rabbins to establish an unbroken
continuity of sacred teachers of the Law, who might transmit
it as so many links in the chain of authority.^
1 See Kuenen, Ueber die Manner der grossen Synagoge, in Gesammelte Ab
handlungen, Freib. 1894, s. 125 seq. ; also Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament,

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 123
(c) The Hebrew Scriptures have a second division which
bears the name Prophets. In the earliest Hebrew list known
to us, they are arranged as follows : Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve.' This repre
sents a second layer of canonical formation. It does not
embrace the book of Daniel, and therefore must have been
fixed before Daniel gained canonical recognition. It includes
the prophecy Is. 24-26, which probably belongs to the time of
Alexander the Great. Therefore this Canon cannot be earlier
than the Greek period subsequent to Alexander in the third
century B. c. This is confirmed by the testimony of Jesus ben
Sirach from the early part of the second century B.C. In
Ecclesiasticus,'^ in the praise of the fathers, he goes over the
heroes of the books of the Law, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings, and the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
the Twelve,, especially mentioning the latter by the technical
name of the Twelve.^ It is evident that the collection of the
Twelve had then been closed, and all the Prophets were used
as sacred books. That seems to carry with it the entire pro
phetic collection as we now have it. Furthermore, Daniel cites
Jeremiah as belonging to the books,* which implies a collection
of prophetic books of recognized divine authority.
In the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, written by the grandson of
the author in the last half of the second century B.C., it is
said that : " Many and great things have been delivered unto
us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have fol
lowed their steps " ; and the author speaks of his grandfather,
Jesus ben Sirach, as having " given himself to the reading of
the Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers."
These passages clearly recognize the division of the Prophets
as next in the Canon to the division of the Law.
It is also probable that this second formation of the Canon,
composed of the Law and the Prophets, is reflected in tbe
phrase "the Law and the Prophets " of New Testament times. ^
Excursus A, pp. 250 seq. Both of these are valuable discussions of the subject.
They make it perfectly evident that no such body as the Great Synagogue ever
existed. i See pp. 252 seq. 2 Chapters 44-50.
3 Eccius. 491°. D'^'ajn iwi: Q'iv on.
" Dan. 92. 5 Mt. 5" ; Acts 13i6.

124 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The second Canon of the Old Testament seems to have been
established in the high-priesthood of Simon, whose character
and administration are so highly praised by Ben Sirach.^
(5) The third layer of the Hebrew Canon is composed of the
Writings. These in the oldest lists are, Ruth, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel,
Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles.
(a) It is still held by some scholars that the testimony of
the grandson of Ben Sirach in his prologue to Ecclesiasticus is
in favour of the opinion, that the third division of the Canon had
been fixed before his time. But the terms that are used do not
make this evident. In the one passage he says : " by the Law
and the Prophets, and by others that have followed their
steps." In the other passage he says: "the reading of the
Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers." The
Law and the Prophets are technical terms, but the other
expressions differ so greatly in the two passages from one
another, and also from the later technical term, that they evi
dently are not technical terms. It is quite true that none of
the writings contained in the third division of the Hebrew
Canon were composed subsequently to the second half of the
second century B.C., but that does not prove that they had
been collected into a canon in the third century B.C., or
included by this prologue in its reference to the other writers
or other books.
(5) It is improbable that the Greek Septuagint version
would have added to this third division of the Canon and
rearranged the books composing it, if it had been fixed before
the translations were made.
The Septuagint gives a much larger collection of writings.
The story prevailed for many centuries in the Eastern and
Western churches that this translation was made by seventy-
two accomplished scholars chosen from the twelve tribes of
Israel, with the cooperation of Ptolemseus Philadelphus,
king of Egypt, and the Jewish high-priest of Jerusalem, and
that they were inspired to do their work by the Divine Spirit.
This story has been traced to its simpler form in Josephus ^
1 Eccius. 50. 2 Antiq. XII. 2.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 125
and Philo,^ and back of these to the original letter of Aristeas,
and that has been proved to be a forgery ^ and its statements
have been shown to be wide of the truth. An internal exami
nation of the Septuagint version shows it to have been made
by different men on different principles and at different times.
Frankel is followed by a large number of scholars in the
opinion that the Septuagint was a Greek Targum which grew
up gradually at first from the needs of the synagogue worship
in Egypt and then from the desire of the Hellenistic Jews to
collect together the religious literature of their nation, just as
the Palestinian and Babylonian Targums were subsequently
made for the Jews of Palestine and Syria who spoke Aramaic.^
Some of the sacred books, such as Daniel and Esther, have
additional matter not found in the Hebrew Massoretic text.
The apocryphal writings are mingled with those of the Hebrew
Canon without discrimination.* As Deane ^ says :
"If we judge from the MSS. that have come down to us, it
would be impossible for any one, looking merely to the Septuagint
version and its allied works, to distinguish any of the books in the
collection as of less authority than others. There is nothing what
ever to mark off the canonical writings from what have been called
the deuterocanonical. They are all presented as of equal standing
and authority, and, if we must make distinctions between them,
and place some on a higher platform than others, this separation
must be made on grounds which are not afforded by the arrange
ment of the various documents themselves."
(c) Another evidence for the fixture of the Old Testament
Canon has been found in a supposed writing of Philo of the first
Christian century.^ This work speaks of the Law, the Proph
ets, hymns, and other writings, making either three or four
classes, but without specification of particular books. But this
writing has recently been proved to have been written in the
1 Vita Mosis, II. §§ 5-7.
2 The original text of the letter is best given in Merx, Archivfur Wissen-
sohaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, I. pp. 242 seq. Halle, 1870. See
also pp. 188 seq.
3 Frankel, Vorstudien z. d. Septuaginta, Leipzig, 1841; Scholtz, Alexand.
Uebersetz. d. Buch lesaias, 1880, pp. 7 seq.
* See p. 138 for the order of the books in the several codices of the Septuagint.
" Book of Wisdom, Oxford, 1881, pp. 37 seq. « De Vita Contemp. S. IIL

126 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
third century A.D., and wrongly attributed to Philo. ^ The
testimony of Philo is therefore reduced to the books that he
quotes as of divine authority. He uses all of the Rabbinical
Canon except Ruth, Esther, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Daniel,
Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. ^ He uses Proverbs and
Job. This we would expect from Philo's type of thought and
the subject-matter of his writings. But his omission of Ecclesi
astes and the Song of Songs is surprising. These writings be
long to the same class of Wisdom Literature as Job and Proverbs.
They would have given him the very best field for his peculiar
method of allegory. Ezekiel and Daniel, the symbolical proph
ets, we would expect him to make use of. Under these cir
cumstances it is not valid to argue against the canonicity of
the apocryphal books because Philo does not quote them as
authoritative. The books of the Palestinian Canon which he
omitted came within his scope more than the apocryphal writ
ings. If silence is to be used against the Apocrypha, it is still
more telling against those writings of the third Canon which he
omits. " It is abundantly clear that to Philo the Pentateuch was a bible
within a bible, and that he only occasionally referred to other
books whose sanctity he acknowledged, as opportunity chanced to
present itself. There are two reasons which, whether considered
separately or in conjunction, may be said in a measure to account
for Philo's silence in respect of these four books. (1) In the 1st
century a.d. some of the books of the Hagiographa were probably
not yet accepted by all Jews as worthy to be ranked among the
Holy Scriptures. (2) Some of the books of the Hebrew Script
ures were translated into Greek much later than others ; and the
problems of the Greek text in, e.g. Daniel and Esther, show that
there was often a considerable difference between the text of rival
Greek versions, which fact must be considered to be incompatible
with the early recognition of their sacred authority among the
Jews of the Dispersion.
1 Lucius, Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Askese, Strassburg, 1880 ;
Strack, art. Kanon, in Herzog, 2te Aufl., vii. p. 425 ; Einleitung, 5te Aufl., 1898,
s. 174 ; Massebieau, Le Traite de la Vie Contemplative, Paris, 1888, maintains
its genuineness ; and Sanday, Inspiration, 1893, p. 99, says : " the tide of opinion
seems to have turned in its favour." I cannot agree with him.
2 Eichhom, Einleitung, 3te Ausg. 1803, I. p. 98.'

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 127
" It must be remembered that the mere citation of a book is not
the same as the recognition of its Divine Inspiration. In the case
of the books of Judges and Job, Philo quotes from them, but it is
not strictly accurate to say that he definitely acknowledges their
position as inspired Scripture. The evidence does not permit us
to go so far. At the same time it is practically impossible that a
book like Judges, included as it was among the " Prophets " of
the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, should have been rejected by
Philo ; aud exceedingly unlikely that Job, one of the most impor
tant of the poetical Hagiographa, should not have ranked in his
estimation as Scripture. While we may feel convinced that these
books were in Philo's Scripture, the evidence does not amount
to actual demonstration.
"The case is different with Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,
and Daniel, which have been among the latest books to be received
into the sacred Canon. It may indeed be said of any one of them,
as might, perhaps, be said of the book of Ezekiel, that they did
not furnish Philo with suitable material for quotation, or that
Philo was, for some reason, not so close a student of these books.
"But another explanation is possible. In the case of all four of
these books, there is good ground for supposing that their Canon
icity had not been fully recognized in Egypt in the lifetime of
Philo. And while, in view of other evidence, we may claim that
the Canonicity of Daniel was probably generally established in
Palestine in the 1st century b.o., and possibly also that of Eccle
siastes, we have not the right to make the same plea for the
recognition of Esther and the Song of Songs." ^
(c?) Josephus 2 mentions 22 books as making up his Canon
— five of the Law, thirteen of the Prophets, and four of the
poems and precepts. He uses all of the Talmudic Canon except
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job.^ The silence
of Josephus as to these cannot be pressed, because they did not
clearly come within his scope. Various efforts have been made
to determine his books, but without conclusive results. If on
the one hand the lists of Origen and Jerome favour the Talmudic
Canon, the list of Junilius Africanus favours the exclusion of
Chronicles, Ezra, Job, Song of Songs, and Esther.* Graetz ^
excludes the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes from the list of
1 Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, 1895, pp. xxxii, xxxiii.
2 Contra Apion, 1. 8. 3 Eichhorn, in I.e., L p. 123.
* See Kihn, Theodore von Mopsuestia und Julius Africanus als Exegeten,
Freib. 1880, p. 86. « Gesch. d. Juden, III. p. 501, Leipzig, 1863.

128 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Josephus. He falls, then, by his 22, just these two short of the
Talmudic list of 24. This neglect of these two writings by
Josephus would coincide with their neglect by Philo and the
New Testament, and with the strong opposition to them on the
part of many Palestinian Jews in the first Christian century.
It seems to me unwarranted to suppose that Josephus attached
Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah without counting
them. It is a conjecture without sufficient evidence to sustain
it. We are left by Josephus in uncertainty as to certain Old
Testament books. Moreover, the statements of Josephus do
not carry with them our confidence as to the views of the men
of his time. Zunz is correct in his statement : " Neither Philo nor
Josephus impart to us an authentic list of the sacred writings."^
(e) We know that several books were in dispute among
the Pharisees, such as Ezekiel, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther. They were generally, but not unanimously, acknow
ledged. The Sadducees are said by some of the Fathers to have
agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all but the Pentateuch.
This must be a mistake. But we can hardly believe that they
accepted Ezekiel and Daniel in view of their denial of angels
and the resurrection. The Essenes and the Zealots agreed in
extending the Canon to esoteric writings. The Apocalypse of
Ezra mentions 70 of these as given to Ezra to interpret the 24,
and so of even greater authority. These parties differ from the
Pharisees only in that they committed the esoteric wisdom to
writing, whereas the Pharisees handed it down as tradition,
and prohibited the committing it to writing, until at last it
found embodiment in the several layers of the Talmuds.
There is little doubt that the Canon of the Palestinian Jews
received its latest addition by common consent not later than
the time of Judas Maccabeus,^ and no books of later composi
tion were added afterward ; yet the schools of the Pharisees
continued the debate with reference to some of these writings
until the assembly of rabbins decided it at Jamnia. The Hel
lenistic Jews had a wider and freer conception of the Canon.^
1 Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, 1832, p. 18.
2 Strack, in Herzog, Beal-Encyk. 2te Aufl., vii. p. 426 : Ewald, Lehre d. Bibel
von Gott, I. p. 363. a Ewald, in I.e., p. 364.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 129
The order of the formation of the third layer of the Canon
may be conceived as follows. The first of the Writings to
gain recognition was the book of Psalms. The earlier minor
Psalters were collected in the Persian period ; but the composi
tion of psalms continued during the Greek period deep into
the Maccabean age. The Psalter of Solomon, collected in the
middle of the first century B.c.,^ gives us the limit beyond
which we cannot go. Its use in the temple worship, and above
all in the synagogue, and at the great feasts, at festival meals,
in pilgrimages, and in processions, gave it popular authority as
Holy Scripture. It is probable that the phrase " the Law of
Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms"^ represents the syna
gogue use of the term and the popular opinion. The earliest
writing which quotes the Psalter as Scripture is the first book
of Maccabees at the close of the second century .^ The gen
eral recognition of the Psalter must have preceded this date,
and accordingly not be later than the middle of the second
century B.C.
The next writings to receive recognition were doubtless Job
and Proverbs, the chief monuments of the Wisdom Literature.
This Wisdom Literature exercised a great influence among the
Jews in the first and second centuries B.C., as we learn from
the Wisdom of Ben Sirach, which also gained in later times
canonical recognition by not a few Hebrew rabbins; and in
the New Testament times, as we learn from the apocryphal
Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth as con
tained in the Logia of Matthew and cited in our Synoptic
Gospels,* and in the Pirqe Aboth or Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers. The books of Ruth and Lamentations received early
recognition ; but were assigned different places in the Pales
tinian and Alexandrinian Canons. The book of Daniel also
was early recognized as the parent of the later favourite apoca
lyptic literature, as represented especially in the Book of Enoch
and the Apocalypse of Ezra, which also in their turn received
1 Ryle and James, Psalms of Solomon, 1891 ; Briggs, Messiah ofthe Gospels,
1894, pp. 31 seq.
2 Lk. 24". ^ X Macc. 7", quotes from Ps. 792. 3.
* See my articles on the " Wisdom of Jesus the Messiah," in the Expository
Times, June, July, August, and November, 1897.

130 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
canonical recognition by many Jews and Christians. But
the books of Ecclesiastes, Songs of Songs, Esther, Ezra, and
Chronicles only gradually won their way, and did not finally
gain their place in universal recognition until the assembly of
Jamnia. The third layer of the Canon of the Old Testament was not
definitely limited among the Jews until the close of the first
Christian century. After the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 A.D., the Jewish rabbins established themselves at Jamnia.
Two assemblies seem to have been held there ; one about 90
A.D., the other in 118 A.D. At these assemblies, under the
presidency of Eleazar ben Azariah, the canonicity of the Song
of Songs and Ecclesiastes was discussed. They were finally
decided to be canonical, and so the third Canon of the Old
Testament was closed ^ for the Hebrews.
"All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands : the Song of Solomon
and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Judah says, The Song of
Solomon defiles the hands, but Ecclesiastes is disputed. R. Jose
says, Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, but the Song of Solo
mon is disputed. R. Simeon says, Ecclesiastes belongs to the
light things of the school of Shammai, and the heavy things of
the school of Hillel. R. Simeon, son of Azai, says, I received it
from the seventy-two elders on the day when they enthroned E.
Eleazer, son of Azariah in the council, that the Song of Solomon
and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Akiba said, God forbid that
a man of Israel should ever deny that the Song of Solomon defiles
the hands. For no day in the history of the world is worth the
day when the Song of Solomon was given to Israel. For all the
writings are holy, but the Song of Solomon is holy of holies.
And if there has been any dispute, it referred only to Ecclesiastes,
R. Johanan, son of Joshua said, the companions of R. Akiba
according to the son of Azar so they disputed, and so they
decided.2 "In the Talm. Babli. Meg. 7% 'Rabbi Meir saith: The book
Koheleth defileth not the hands, and with respect to the Song
of Songs there is difference of opinion. Rabbi Joshua saith:
1 Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, 1863, III. pp. 496 seq. ; W. Robertson Smith, The
Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2d ed., London, 1892, p. 185; Cheyne,
Job and Solomon, London, 1887, pp. 280 seq.
2 Mishna, Tract Yadaim, iii. See Robertson Smith in The Old Testament
in the Jewish Church, p. 186, note.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 131
The Song of Songs defileth the hands, and with respect to
Koheleth there is difference of opinion. Rabbi Simeon saith:
Koheleth belongeth to the things which the school of Shammai
maketh easy and the school of Hillel maketh difiicult ; but Ruth,
the Song of Songs, and Esther defile the hands. Rabbi Simeon
ben Menasiah saith: Koheleth defileth not the hands, because
it containeth the Wisdom of Solomon.' " ^
II. The Canon of Jesus and His Apostles
The New Testament does not determine the extent and
limits of the Canon of the Old Testament. Jesus gives His
authority to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,^ which
alone were used in the synagogue in His times ; but the Psalms
only of the Writings are mentioned. There are no sufficient
reasons for concluding that by the Psalms Jesus meant all the
other books besides Law and Prophets. If the term " Writ
ings " had become a technical term for the third division of the
Canon, it is improbable that the Gospel of Luke would sub
stitute Psalms for it ; all the less that Psalms has a definite
historical sense.
The New Testament uses for the Old Testament the follow
ing general terms : (1) the term Scriptures for the whole ; * or
Sacred Writings;^ (2) Law, referring to the Psalter ; ^ referring
to several passages of the Prophets ; ® and to Isaiah ; ^ (3)
Prophets;^ (4) Law and Prophets;^ Moses and Prophets;'^''
Law of Moses and the Prophets ; " (6) Law of Moses and
Prophets and Psalms.^ This fluctuation shows that in the
minds of the writers of the New Testament there was no
definite threefold division known as Law, Prophets, and
Writings. Indeed the New Testament carefully abstains from using the
writings disputed among the Jews. It does not quote at all
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah ; and
1 See Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, 1892, pp. 198 seq.
2 Lk. 24*1. 8 Lk. 2425 ; Acts 132'.
3 Acts 172- 11 ; 182<- 28. ^ Mt. 5" ; Acts 13i6.
* 2 Tim. 316. 10 Lk. 1629- si ; 242" ; Acts 2622.
s John 1034 ; 1526. 11 Acts 282s.
6 John 123*. 12 Lk. 24**.
¦^ 1 Cor. 1421.

132 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
only incidentally Ezekiel and Chronicles in the same way as
apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books are used. Was this
silence discretionary, in order to build only on books recog
nized by all, or does it rule from the Canon those books so
ignored ? ^
Thus the book of Jude cites the Apocalypse of Enoch and
the Assumption of Moses,^ both belonging to the pseudepigra
pha, which did not receive recognition in the Hebrew Canon.
So also the earliest Christian writing outside of the New Testa
ment, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, cites twice from
the Old Testament ^ and thrice from the Apocrypha.*
We may not be able to answer this question positively. But
these things are plain. («) The New Testament gives its
authority only to the books of the Old Testament which it
cites as Scripture. (6) There seems to be no good reason
why the New Testament writers should not have cited these
other books, and therefore we cannot certainly say that their
silence is of no consequence. On the other hand, we cannot
say that these Old Testament writings fairly came within the
scope of the New Testament writings, and that therefore the
omission of them condemns them. The most that we can say,
is that the New Testament neither condemns them nor confirms
them. It is evident that Charles Hodge is in serious error
when he says, " Protestants answer it (the question as to can
onicity) by saying, so far as the Old Testament is concerned,
that those books, and those only, which Christ and His apostles
recognized as the written Word of God, are entitled to be
regarded as canonical." ^ In fact, Jesus and His apostles no
where undertake to define the Canon of the Old Testament,
and their incidental use of the Old Testament, when summed
up, leaves several books undefined as to their canonicity.
" The controversies as to the date of the formation of the Jewish
Canon seem really to turn upon the ambiguity in the meaning of
the word 'canon' itself. If by 'canon' we mean the estimate of
1 Eichhorn, I.e., I. s. 104. 2 j^je 9-14.
3 Lines 273 seq. from Mal. l"- " ; lines 315 seq. from Zee. 146.
* Lines 91 seq. from Eccius. 46 ; lines 86 seq. from Eccius. 43i ; lines 7 seq. from
Tobit 416.
6 Systematic Theology, Vol. I. p. 152.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 133
certain books as sacred and inspired, then we have proof that the
Canon of the Old Testament existed from the time of Hillel,
Philo, and the New Testament, if not from the time of the books
of Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus. But if by the Canon we mean
that this estimate was formally and authoritatively recognized and
that a list of books was drawn up to which the estimate applied,
then we cannot say that the Canon of the Old Testament was
formed before the transactions at Jamnia at the end of the first
and beginning of the second centuries."*
This is quite true, as we shall see later on. We have to dis
tinguish between individual recognition, recognition by common
consent, and official recognition. In fact, these are three dif
ferent stages in the historical formation of the Canon.
III. The Formation of the Canon of the New
Testament
The Canon of the New Testament began very much as the
Canon of the Old Testament began, and it unfolded and enlarged
itself gradually in the growth of the Christian Church.
1. The earliest effort among the disciples of Jesus was to
collect the words of the Lord. This was done by St. Matthew
in his Logia.2 This collection was used in our Gospels of
Mark, Matthew, and Luke, as a primary authority, very much
as the Book of the Covenant was used in the several docu
ments of the Hexateuch. The use that was made of such logia
by Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and especially Papias, makes
it clear that the Christians of their time regarded all such
logia of the Lord as of normal divine authority.^
The story of Our Lord's life early received attention. Mark
gives the most primitive conception- of the life of Jesus. The
gospel of Mark was used by our Matthew and Luke. Our
1 Sanday, Inspiration, 1893, p. 123.
2 Other collections were made, as is evident from the recently discovered
fragment of a collection of Logia of Jesus. See facsimile, translation, and notes
in Logia Jesu, Sayings of Our Lord, from an early Greek papyrus, discovered
and edited, with translation and commentary, by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt.
London, 1897 ; Two Lectures on the Sayings of Jesus recently discovered at
Oxyrhynchus, by Walter Lock and William Sanday, Oxford, 1897.
3 Holtzmann, Einleitung, 2te Aufl., Freib. 1886, s. 110 seq.

134 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
gospel of John is probably based upon an original gospel of the
apostle John, very much as our gospel of Matthew is based on
the primitive Matthew. The four gospels constitute the first
layer of the New Testament Canon. The four gospels gained
the consensus of recognition in the Church by the middle of
the second century, prior to Justin,^ who cites them as authori
tative, and represents that they were read in the churches
alongside of the Old Testament prophets ; and to Tatian, who
compacted them together in his Diatessaron to be the official
gospel of the Syrian Church for several generations.^
2. The next layer of the Canon was the thirteen epistles of
Paul (Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1, 2 Thessalonians,
Philippians, Philemon, Ephesians, Colossians, 1, 2 Timothy,
Titus) and Acts. To these the epistle to the Hebrews was
generally attached in the East but not in the West. This
layer of the Canon had certainly gained universal recognition
by the close of the second century.
The first and the second layer of the Canon are alone
recognized in the Doctrine of Addai, which gives us the primi
tive usage of the Church of Edessa.^
Zahn * says that " the two chief groups of which the New
Testament of the Catholic Church consisted, the fourfold
gospel and the thirteen Pauline epistles, were present as col
lections, and quite widely circulated, at the latest about 125.
They must have originated, to use a round number, before the
year 120." This is, however, an extreme position, not firmly
supported by the evidence.^
3. A third layer of the Canon only gained gradual recog
nition. This layer eventually received the name of the Catho
lic Epistles. Of these, 1 Peter and 1 John were recognized
by common consent in the second century ; but all the others,
James, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, were disputed. The Reve-
1 Apol. I. 66, 67 ; Dial. 49, 100.
2 Jiilicher, Einleitung, 1894, s. 292 seq.
3 Doct. Addai, p. 46. See Zahn, Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanon, I. s. 373 ; San
day, Studia Biblica, III. p. 245.
* Geschichte des Neutest. Kanon, I. s. 797.
6 Harnack, Das Neue Testament um das Jahr SOO, 1889 ; Jtilicher, Einleitung,
1894, s. 292 seq.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 135
lation was also doubted or denied. All of these except James
were lacking in the earliest SjTiac New Testament, and there
is not a trace of any of them in Syriac Christian literature
before 350 a.d.^ There was a large number of other writings
besides, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Epistles of Clement, accepted by some as canoni
cal and by others rejected.
The Muratorian fragment from the last years of the second
century, representing the common opinion of Rome at the time,
includes in its list the Gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul,
1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelations of John and Peter ; but
it says that 2 John and Jude have as little right to their names
as Wisdom to that of Solomon, and that the Revelations of
John and Peter were not for public reading. It also states
that the Shepherd of Hermas was only for private reading.
Excluded from the list are Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and
3 John. The Cheltenham list agrees with this position in
part by omitting Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and Jude.
" Hebrews was saved by the value set upon it by the scholars
of Alexandria ; the Apocalypse by the loyalty of the West ; and
the Epistle of St. James by the attachment of certain churches in
the East, especiaUy as we may believe that of Jerusalem." ^ And
again, " What a number of works circulated among the churches
of the second century, all enjoying a greater or less degree of
authority, only to lose it ! In the way of Gospels, those accord
ing to the Hebrews, according to the Egyptians, according to
Peter; in the way of Acts, the so-called 'Travels' (irepCoSoi) of
Apostles, ascribed by Photius to Leucius Charinus, the Preaching
of Peter, the Acts of Paul and Thecla ; in the way of Epistles,
1 and 2 Clement, Barnabas; an allegory like the Shepherd of
Hermas; a manual like the DidacM; an Apocalypse like that
of Peter. Truly it may be said that here, too, the last was first
and the first last. Several of these works had a circulation and
popularity considerably in excess of that of some of the books
now included in the Canon. It is certainly a wonderful feat on
the part of the early Church to have by degrees sifted out this
mass of literature; and still more wonderful that it should not
have discarded, at least so far as the New Testament is concerned,
1 See Jiilicher, Einleitung, s. 337 seq.
2 Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 24, 25.

136 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
one single work which after generations have found cause to look
back upon with any regret. Most valuable, no doubt, many of
them may be for enabling us to reconstruct the history of the
times, but there is not one which at this moment we should say
possessed a real claim to be invested with the authority of the
Canon." *
The New Testament writings were critically examined by
Origen early in the third century. He divided them into
three classes : (1) those universally accepted, the four Gospels,
Acts, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John,
and the Apocalypse (the first and second Canons) ; (2) those
that were to be rejected; (3) the doubtful writings, James,
Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.
Influenced by Origen, Eusebius in his Church History makes
essentially the same classification. In the first class he includes
all of Origen's list except Revelation, of which he says : " After
them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse
of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions
at the proper time." In the second class he mentions: Acts
of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas,
and the Teaching of the Apostles. He seems inclined to class
here also the Revelation, with the Gospel to the Hebrews, for
he says : " And besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it
seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others
class with the accepted books. And among these some have
placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially
delighted." 2
Thus there is the same fluctuation of opinion in the third
layer of the Canon of the New Testament that we have seen
in the third layer of the Canon of the Old Testament, and
outside of this layer, apocryphal and pseudepigraphical New
Testament writings corresponding with the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical Old Testament writings. The many Jew
ish apocalypses and Sibylline oracles and Christian pseud
epigrapha which were written during the first and second
1 I.e., pp. 27, 28.
2 III. 25. See edition of McGiffert, pp. 155 seq.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 137
centuries B.C. and in the first and second centuries a.d. were
cited without discrimination, excepting by a few critics such
as Origen and Jerome.^
IV. The Canon op the Church
The Christian Church made no official determination of the
Canon of Holy Scripture at any of the great oecumenical coun
cils. The only definitions of the Canon that were officially
made were by a provincial council at Laodicea in the East ;
and by provincial synods in the West, at Hippo and Carthage ;
and then all confirmed by the Greek Trullan council in 692 a.d.
Their definitions represent a difference of opinion in the Catho
lic Church of the fourth century which persisted until the
Reformation. The Council of Laodicea, composed of Bishops of Phrygia
and Lydia in the middle of the fourth century (between 343
and 381 a.d.), prohibited the public use of any other than
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments.^
There is a list of the canonical books in the Sixtieth Canon
of this council, but this seems to have been a later addition.^
The list excludes the apocryphal books of the Old Testa
ment except Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and in other
respects limits itself to the Canon of the Palestinian Jews. It
gives all of the present New Testament Canon except the
Apocalypse. This represents the critical tendencies of the
Eastern Church. The Syrian Christians were still more criti
cal. The book of Chronicles is not in the ancient Syriac
version, and is neglected by Ephraem in his commentaries.
Theodore of Mopsuestia also excludes Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
1 Sanday, " Value of Patristic Writings for the Criticism and Exegesis of the
Bible," Expositor, February, 1880 ; Davidson, Canon, pp. 101 seq.
2 Mansi, Concill. nov. coll., II. 574, Canon 59, Sti oi> Set iSiwriKois yf/oKiiois
\iyea8ai h rrj iKK\v(rl(f, oiSi &Kav6purTa j3i;3X£a, aWi. nbva ra KavoviKb. t^s /caiv^s
Koi Tra'hjuas dia8-^Kris.
3 Its authenticity is attacked by Spittler, Krit. Untersuchung des 60 Laodic.
Kanons, 1777 ; but defended by Bickell, ^^iM^. und Krit. 1830, III. s. 591 seq. ;
Hefele, Conciliengesch., I. s. 750 ; and others. Sanday, Inspiration, p. 60, says :
"It is generally agreed that the list appended as Can. LX. to the Council of
Laodicea is not original."

138 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and Job. The Nestorian Canon excludes Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Esther.^ The Apocalypse of John is ignored
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many others. Jerome gives
his sanction to the Palestinian Canon of the Old Testament and
excludes the Apocrypha. He^ recognizes that the second
Epistle of Peter and James were deemed by some to belong to
those authors ; that Jude was rejected by some ; that 2 and 3
John were ascribed to the Presbyter John by some. He also
mentions doubts as to the five Catholic epistles, Hebrews, and
the Apocalypse.3 The Synod of Hippo in 393 a.d. and of
Carthage in 397 a.d., under the influence of Augustine, decided
for the larger Canon, including the apocryphal books of the
Old Testament and the full Canon of the New Testament. This
opinion is sustained by the oldest Greek Uncials.*
The Vatican Codex includes in the Old Testament the Greek
Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Greek Esther,
Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, and Theodotian's
Daniel. The Sinaitic Codex has Tobit, Judith, 1 and 4 Macca
bees, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, the entire New
Testament, and the Epistle of Barnabas. The Alexandrian
Codex has Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Theodotian's Daniel,
Greek Esther, Tobit, Judith, Greek Esdras, 1, 2, 3, 4 Maccabees,
Prayer of Manasseh, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach,
and in addition to the New Testament three epistles of
Clement. The Cheltenham list (359 a.d.?) mentions,^ besides the
Palestinian Canon, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, and Judith. In
the New Testament it omits Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and
Jude. The Ethiopic Version gives a still more extensive Canon of
the Old Testament, including the apocalypses of Ezra and
Enoch, the martyrdom of Isaiah, and the book of Jubilee.
1 Buhl, Kanon, s. 52.
2 De Viris illustribus, 1, 2, 4, 9.
3 Epistola 129 ad Dardanum.
* See Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 346, 355 ; Swete, The Old Testament in
Greek according to the Septuagint, I. pp. xvii, xx, xxii. See also pp. 195 seq.
6 See Sanday, " Cheltenham List of the Canonical Books," in Studia Biblica,
III. 1891, pp. 217 seq., where many valuable tables are given.

HISTORY OF THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 139
The opinion of Augustine prevailed in the Western Church,
and the limits of the Canon were by general consent the larger
Augustinian Canon, including the Apocrypha with the Old
Testament, and the full New Testament Canon. Jerome, how
ever, had influence upon a few scholars. Fewer entertained
doubts as to such a book as Esther in the Old Testament, and
the Apocalypse of John in the New Testament.

CHAPTER VI
CRITICISM OF THE CANON
We have traced the History of the Canon of the Old and
New Testament Scriptures and have seen its gradual forma
tion, at first by the recognition of the writings one after
another by individuals, then by common consent, and at last
by official action in the Synagogue and in the Church. The
limits of the Canon of the Old Testament were defined by the
official action of the Synagogue at Jamnia ; but the limits of
the Canon were never officially defined by the Church except
in provincial synods of limited influence and authority. This
was the situation at the Protestant Reformation, when for the
first time the limits of the Canon became a burning question
in the Church.
I. The Canon in the Reformation
The Reformation was a great critical revival, due largely to
the new birth of learning in Western Europe. The emigra
tion of the fugitive Greeks from Constantinople, after its capt
ure by the Turks, had planted a young Greek culture. A
stream of thought burst forth, and poured like a quickening
flood strong and deep over Europe. Cardinal Ximenes, with
the aid of a number of Christian and Jewish scholars, such
as Alphouso de Zamora, Demetrius Ducas, and Alphonso de
Alcala, issued the world-renowned Complutensian Polyglot,
1513-17. The Greek New Testament was studied with avidity
by a series of scholars, among whom Erasmus was preeminent.
He published the first Greek Testament in 1516. Elias Levita
and Jacob ben Chayim introduced Christians into a knowledge
of the Hebrew Scriptures. Reuchlin laid the foundation for
140

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 141
Hebrew scholarship among Christians, by publishing the first
Hebrew grammar and lexicon combined in 1506. ^ This return
to the original text of the Old and New Testaments aroused
the suspicions of the scholastics and monks, and the new learn
ing was assailed with bitterness. Even Levita had to defend
himself against the charge of heterodoxy for teaching Chris
tians the Hebrew language, the law of Moses, and the Talmud.^
But the Reformers took their stand as one man for the critical
study of the Sacred Scriptures, and investigated the original
texts under the lead of Erasmus, Elias Levita, and Reuchlin.
This critical study of Holy Scripture raised many questions
which had been long sleeping or whose feeble voice had been
easily suppressed by ecclesiastical authority. It soon became
evident to all that many doctrines and practices resting
upon traditional custom were imperilled ; and the authority of
the Church, especially as expressed through the papal adminis
tration, began to be seriously questioned. Several of the
apocryphal books seemed to sustain doctrines and practices
which some of the Reformers found to be opposed to the
teachings of the New Testament. Esther, Ecclesiastes, and
the Song of Songs were difficult to reconcile with Christianity.
The book of James and the Apocalypse did not seem easily to
reconcile with the epistles of Paul. And so the canonicity of
the apocryphal books of the Old Testament and several of the
writings of the stricter Canon of the Old Testament and even
of the Canon of the New Testament were suspected, doubted,
or denied. The Protestant Reformers appealed from the tradi
tions of the Church and its customs, and the authority of the
prelates and the pope, to Christ and the Holy Scriptures. This
raised necessarily the question, which are the Holy Scriptures?
What writings are to be regarded as canonical? The hie
rarchy maintained that it was the province of the Church to
determine by its authority, as expressed through the papal ad
ministration, not only the interpretation of Holy Scripture, but
also the limits of Holy Scripture, and so forced for the first
1 Gesenius, Gesch. d. hebr. Sprache, pp. 106 seq.
2 See his Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, London, 1867, pp. 97

142 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
time in Christian history an official determination of the extent
and limits of the Canon by the authority of the Church. The
Protestant Reformers declined to recognize the authority of
the Church in these particulars.
Luther in his controversy with Eck said, " The Chui'ch
cannot give any more authority or power than it has of itself.
A council cannot make that to be of Scripture which is not by
nature of Scripture." ^ Calvin says :
" But there has very generally prevailed a most pernicious error
that the Scriptures have only so much weight as is conceded to
them by the suffrages of the Church, as though the eternal and
inviolable truth of God depended on the arbitrary will of men."
... " For, as God alone is a sufB,cient witness of Himself in His
own Word, so also the Word will never gain credit in the hearts
of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit.
It is necessary, therefore, that the same Spirit, who spake by the
mouths of the prophets, should penetrate into our hearts, to con
vince us that they faithfully delivered the oracles which were
divinely intrusted to them." 2
This principle is well expressed in the 2d Helvetic Confes
sion, the most honoured in the Reformed Church :
"We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy
prophets to be the very true Word of God and to have sufBcient
authority of themselves, not of men " (Chap. I.). " Therefore in
controversies of religion or matters of faith we cannot admit any
other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the holy Scriptures
what is true and what is false ; what is to be followed, or what is
to be avoided " (Chap. IL).
The Galilean Confession gives a similar statement :
"We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of
our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the
Church, as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy
Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesi
astical books " (IV. Art.).^
Thus while other testimony is valuable and important, yet,
the decisive test of the canonicity and interpretation of the
1 Disputatio excel. D. theoiog. Joh. Eccii. et Lutheri, hist.. III. pp. 129 seq. ;
Berger, La Bible au Seizieme Siecle, Paris, 1879, p. 86.
2 Institutes, I. 7. s gee also the Belgian Confession, Art. V.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 143
Scriptures is God Himself speaking in and through them to
His people. This alone gives the fides divina. This is the
so-called formal principle of the Reformation, no less impor
tant than the so-called material principle of justification by
faith. 1
The Reformers applied this critical test to the traditional
theories of the Bible, and eliminated the apocryphal books from
the Canon. They also revived the ancient doubts as to Esther,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Epistle of James, 2 Peter, Jude,
and the Apocalypse. The Reformed symbols elaborated the
formal principle further than the Lutheran, and ordinarily
specified the books that they regarded as canonical. In this
they rejected the traditions of the early Christian Church.
The Church of Rome, in accordance with its principle of
church authority and tradition, determined the apocryphal
books to be canonical at the Council of Trent, and defined
officially the extent and limits of the Canon, and excluded all
doubts and questionings on the Canon from the realm of ortho
doxy. The Protestant Reformers accepted the Canon of their
symbols, excluding the apocryphal books, not because of the
Jewish tradition, which they did not hesitate to dispute, as they
did that of the Church itself, but for higher internal reasons.
It is doubtless true ^ that the Reformers fell back on the author
ity of Jerome in their determination of the Canon, as they did
largely upon Augustine for the doctrine of grace ; but this
was in both cases for support against Rome in authority which
Rome recognized, rather than as a basis on which to rest their
faith and criticism. They went further back than Jerome to
the more fundamental principle of the common consent of the
believing children of God, which in course of time eliminated
the sacred canonical books from those of a merely national and
temporary character, because these books approved themselves
to their souls as the very Word of God. As Dr. Charteris
says :
1 Dorner, Gesch. Prot. Theo., pp. 234 seq., 379 seq.; Julius Miiller, "Das
Verhaltniss zwischen der Wirksamkeit des helligen Geistes und dem Gnaden-
mittel des gottlichen Wortes," in his Dogmat. Abhandlungen, 1871, pp. 139 seq. ;
Reuss, Histoire du Canon, pp. 308 seq.
2 W. Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1881, p. 41.

144 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" The Council of Trent had formally thrown down a challenge.
It recognized the canon because of the traditions of the Church,
and on the same ground of tradition accepted the unwritten ideas
about Christ and His apostles, of which the Church had been made
the custodian. The reformers believed Scripture to be higher than
the Church. But on what could they rest their acceptance of the
canon of Scripture ? How did they know these books to be Holy
Scriptures, the only and ultimate divine revelation ? They an
swered that the divine authority of Scripture is self-evidencing,
that the regenerate man needs no other evidence, and that only
the regenerate can appreciate the evidence. It follows from this,
if he do not feel the evidence of their contents, any man may
reject books claiming to be Holy Scripture." ^
It is true this test did not solve all questions. It left in
doubt several writings which had been regarded as doubtful
for centuries. But uncertainty as to these does not weaken
the authority of those that are recognized as divine ; it only
affects the extent of the Canon, and not the authority of those
writings regarded as canonical.
" Suppose we were not able to give positive proof of the divine
inspiration of every particular Book that is contained in the Sacred
Records, it does not therefore follow that it was not inspired ; and
yet much less does it follow that our religion is without founda
tion. Which I therefore add, because it is well known there are
some particular Books in our Bible that have at some times been
doubted of in the Church, whether they were inspired or no. But
I cannot conceive that doubt concerning such Books, where persons
have suspended their assent, without casting any unbecoming re
flections, have been a hindrance to their salvation, while what they
have owned and acknowledged for truly divine, has had sanctifying
effect upon their hearts and lives." ^
This is the Protestant position. Unless these books have
given us their own testimony that they are divine and therefore
canonical, we do not receive them with our hearts ; we do not
rest our faith and life upon them as the very Word of God ;
we give mere intellectual assent ; we receive them on authority,
tacitly and without opposition, and possibly with the dogma-
1 " The New Testament Scriptures : their Claims, History, and Authority,"
Croall Lectures, 1882, 1883, p. 203.
2 Ed. Calamy, Inspiration of the Holy Writings, London, 1710, p. 42.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 145
tism which not unfrequently accompanies incipient doubt, but
also without true interest in them, and true faith in their divine
authority, and the certainty of their divine contents. The
Canon of Holy Scripture as defined by the Reformed symbols
may be successfully vindicated on Protestant principles. The
Church has not been deceived with regard to it. Esther,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and the Apocalypse will verify
themselves in the hearts of those who study them. But it is
illegitimate to first attempt to prove their canonicity and then
their inspiration, or to rely upon Jewish Rabbinical tradition
any more than upon Roman Catholic tradition, or to anathe
matize all who doubt some of them, in the spirit of Rabbi Akiba
and the Council of Trent. The only legitimate Protestant
method is that of the Reformers : first prove their canonicity
from their own internal divine testimony, and accept them as
canonical because the Christian soul rests upon them as the
veritable divine Word. " For he that believes what God saith,
without evidence that God saith it; doth not believe God, while
he believes the thing that is from God, et eadem ratione, si eon-
tigisset Alcorano Turcica credidisset." ^ •
The fault with the Reformers was not in their use of this
sure test, but in their neglect to use it with sufficient thor
oughness. Unfortunately they allowed themselves to be influ
enced by other subjective tests and dogmatic considerations.
Thus Luther, by his exaggeration of his interpretation of the
Pauline doctrine of justification, was unable to understand the
Epistle of James, and spoke of it as "an epistle of straw."
There can be no doubt that the rejection of 2 Maccabees was
due in great measure to its support of the Roman Catholic
doctrine of sacrifices for the dead ; ^ and that the Wisdom of
Sirach was rejected partly, at least, because of its supposed
countenance of the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by
works. Such dogmatic objections influenced greatly the Re
formers in their views as to the entire Apocrypha. They did
not apply their principle in its simplicity and in its purity, but
allowed themselves to confuse it with other less valid considera-
1 Whichcote, Eight Letters of Dr. A. Tuckney and Benj. Whichcote, 1753,
p. 111. 2 2 Macc. 1239-«.

146 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
tions. This set a bad example to their successors, who were
more subjective and dogmatic in their principles, and less
evangelical and vital.
Furthermore, the Protestant Reformers, in the matter of the
Canon, were simply claiming a liberty of opinion with regard
to the limits of the Canon which had been freely exercised by
the early Christian Fathers, and which, indeed, had never been
seriously questioned in the Christian Church. It was not
necessary for them to battle against Catholic tradition, which
indeed was undoubtedly on their side, if only they traced the
tradition far enough backwards in the historic development of
the Catholic Church.
In fact, the Roman Catholics, on the one side, were claiming
the right of the Church to define the doctrine of the Canon of
Holy Scripture, and they exercised that right for the first time
in Christian history. The Church had the same right to define
the Canon of Holy Scripture as to define other Christian doc
trines. Unfortunately the Council of Trent was not a truly
oecumenical council. It represented only a portion of the
Christian Church, and therefore its definitions are the defini
tions of the Roman Catholic party in the Church. They do
not represent the Greek, Oriental, and Protestant communions.
On the other hand, the Protestant Reformers were not simply
exercising the right of private opinion with reference to certain
books, whether they belonged to the Canon or not ; but they
set up a new test of canonicity, which, however true and reU-
able it may be in itself, had not the consent of antiquity, and
ought not to have been imposed upon Christians as a new
dogma. When the Reformed symbols undertook to rule the
apocrypha out from the Canon of Holy Scripture, they were
officially limiting the Canon of Holy Scripture, no less truly
than the Council of Trent, only they represented a much smaller
constituency and a lesser section of the Church of Christ.
The practical result was that the Council of Trent defined a
larger Canon, the Reformed synods a smaller Canon.
So long as the controversy with Rome was active and ener
getic, and ere the counter-reformation set in, the Protestant
principle maintained itself ; but as the internal conflicts of

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 147
Protestant churches began to absorb more attention, and the
polemic with Rome became less vigorous, the polemic against
brethren more violent, the Reformed system of faith was built
up by a series of scholastics over against Lutheranism, and
Calvinistic scholastics contended against Arminianism. The
elaboration of the Protestant Reformed system by a priori
deduction carried with it the pushing of the principles of Prot
estantism more and more into the background. The authority
of the Reformed Faith and Tradition assumed the place of the
Roman Faith and Tradition ; and the biblical scholarship of
Protestant churches, cut off from the line of Roman Tradition,
sought historical continuity and worked its way back along the
line of Hieronymian Tradition to the earlier Jewish Rabbini
cal Tradition ; and so began to establish a Protestant tradi
tional orthodoxy in the Swiss schools under the influence of
Buxtorf, Heidegger, and Francis Turretine ; and in the Dutch
schools under the influence of Voetius.
Lutheran theology had the same essential development
through internal struggles. The irenical school of Calixtus
at Helmstadt had struggled with the scholastic spirit, until the
latter had sharpened itself into the most radical antagonism to
the Reformed Church and the Melanchthon type of Lutheran
theology. Carlov stated the doctrine of verbal inspiration in
the same essential terms as the Swiss scholastics, and was
followed therein by the Lutheran scholastics generally.
"It treated Holy Scripture as the revelation itself, instead of as
the memorial of the originally revealed, ideal, actual truth ; the
consequence being that Holy Scripture was transformed into God's
exclusive work, the human element was explained away, and the
original living power thrust away behind the writing contained in
letters. Faith ever draws its strength and decisive certauity from
the original eternally living power to which Scripture is designed
to lead. But when Scripture was regarded as the goal, and attes
tation was sought elsewhere than in the experience of faith through
the presence of truth in the Spirit, then the Reformation stand
point was abandoned, its so-called material principle violated, and
it becariie easy for Rationalism to expose the contradictions in
which the inquirers had thus involved themselves." ^
1 Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, Vol. II. p. 186.

148 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

II. The Canon of the British Reformation
The Church of England was, at the Reformation,, composed
of varied elements. The Reformation in England was born of
the native British stock of Christianity ; and yet, owing to the
oft-repeated persecutions by Church and State, the English
Reformers were banished to the continent, and when they
returned, after the persecution had relaxed, they brought with
them, — some, influences from Wittenburg ; others, influences
from Strassburg, Basel, Zurich, and Geneva. The English
Reformation was thus enriched by the mingling together of
all the influences of the Reformation ; but it was also forced
to confront the very serious problem of welding together all
these influences. That which could not be accomplished on
the continent could hardly be accomplished under still greater
difficulties in Great Britain.
Three parties came into conflict in the British churches, —
the more conservative Anglo-Catholic party, the more radical
Puritan party, and the mediating or comprehensive party.
The mediating party expressed its views on the Canon of Holy
Scripture in the Articles of Religion. They take an inter
mediate position between the Protestant Reformers and the
Roman Catholics in their doctrine of the Canon :
" In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those
Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose author
ity was never any doubt in the Church." The twenty-four books
of the Hieronymian Canon of the Old Testament are then men
tioned. It then continues : " And the other books (as Hierome
saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of
manners : but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
It then names fourteen apocryphal books, and concludes : " All the
books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we
do receive and account them for Canonical." (Art. VI.)
The Articles thus base themselves on the Hieronymian tra
dition as the Roman Catholic Church did on the stronger
Augustinian tradition ; but they do not claim the authority of
the Church to define the Canon, and they do not set up any
test of canonicity.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 149
The Scotch Confession of 1560, however, maintains the
position of the Protestant Reformers :
" As we beleeve and confesse the Scriptures of God sufficient
to instruct and make the man of God perfite, so do we afBrme and
avow the authoritie of the same to be of God, and nether to depend
on men nor angelis. We affirme, therefore, that sik as allege the
Scripture to have na uther authoritie hot that quhilk it lies received
from the Kirk, to be blasphemous against God, and injurious to
the trew Kirk, quhilk alwaies heares and obeyis the voice of her
awin spouse and Pastor ; hot takis not upon her to be maistres
over the samin." (Art. XIX.)
Thomas Cartwright, the chief of the English Puritans,
takes the same view:
" Q. How may these bookes be discerned to bee the word of
God? " A. By these considerations following :
"First, they are perfectly holy in themselves, and by them
selves : whereas all other writings are prophane, further then
they draw holinesse from these; which yet is never such, but
that their holinesse is imperfect and defective.
" Secondly, they are perfectly profitable in themselves, to
instruct to salvation, and all other are utterly unprofitable there
unto, any further then they draw from them.
" Thirdly, there is a perfect concord and harmonie in all these
Bookes, notwithstanding the diversity of persons by whom, places
where, and time when, and matters whereof, they have been
written. " Fourthly, there is an admirable force in them, to incline men's
hearts from vice to vertue.
"Fifthly, in great plainenesse and easinesse of stile, there
shineth a great Majesty and authority.
" Sixthly, there is such a gracious simplicity in the writers of
these Bookes, that they neither spare their friends, nor them
selves, but most freely, and impartially, set downe their owne
faults and infirmities as well as others.
" Lastly, God's owne Spirit working in the harts of his children
doth assure them, that these Scriptures are the word of God." ^
III. The Puritan Canon
The Westminster Confession gives expression to the mature
Puritan faith respecting the Scriptures :
1 Thos. Cartwright, Treatise ofthe Christian Beligion, London, 1616.

150 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
§ 2. " Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God
written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New
Testament, which are these " (mentioning the 66 books commonly
received). "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the
rule of faith and life."
§ 3. " The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of di
vine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture ; and
therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any
otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."
§ 4. " The Authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought
to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of
any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,)
the author thereof ; and therefore it is to be received, because it
is the word of God."
§ 5. " We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture;
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope
of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery
it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are
arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the
word of God ; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assur
ance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from
the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with
the word in our hearts." (I. § 2-6.)
The Westminster Confession distinguishes in its statements
(1) the external evidence, the testimony of the Church ; (2)
the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves ; (3) the
fides divina. Here is an ascending series of evidences for the
authority of the Scriptures. The fides humana belongs strictly
only to the first class of evidences. This testimony of the
Church is placed first in the Confession because it is weakest.
The second class not only gives fides humana, but also divina,
owing to the complex character of the Scriptures themselves ;
but the third class, as the highest, gives purely fides divina.
The Confession carefully discriminates the weight of these
evidences. The authority of the Church only induces "an
high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture." The
internal evidence of the "excellencies and entire perfection
thereof are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 151
itself to be the word of God " ; but our " full persuasion and
assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof "
come only from the highest evidence, "the inward work of
the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our
hearts." In accordance with this, "The authority of the Holy
Scripture dependeth wholly upon God." i On this principle,
then, the Canon is determined. The books of the Canon are
named,2 and then it is said, "All which are given by inspira
tion of God to be the rule of faith and life." The apocryphal
books are no part of the Canon of Scripture, because they are
not of divine inspiration. ^ It is, therefore, the authority of
God Himself, speaking through the Holy Spirit, by and with
the Word to the heart, that determines that the writings are
infallible as the inspired Word of God, and it is their inspira
tion that determines their canonicity.
Thus the Westminster Confession stated the point of view
of the Protestant Reformers. The members of this assembly
of divines were not as a body scholastics, though there were
scholastics among them ; but were preachers, catechists, and
expositors of the Scriptures, with a true evangelical spirit.
They were called from the active work of the ministry, and
from stubborn resistance to Prelatical authority, to the active
work of reforming the Church of England into closer con
formity with the Reformed Churches of the continent. Among
the doctrines to be reformed was the doctrine respecting the
Holy Scripture. The Puritans were not content with the
statement of the Articles as to the Canon. They were deter
mined to take an advanced Reformed position. Accordingly
they state the three tests of canonicity and give each its
proper place and order in the argument. In this respect they
made an important dogmatic advance, but it was an advance
only of a single party in the Church of England. The Pre
latical view is stated by Bishop Cosin : *
" For though there be many Internal Testimonies belonging to
the Holy Scriptures, whereby we may be suf6,ciently assured, that
they are the true and lively oracles of God, . . . yet for the par-
1 § 4. 2 § 2. 3 § 3.
* Scholastic History of the Canon, London, 1657, pp. 4 seq.

152 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ticular and just number of such books, whether they be more or
less, than either some private persons, or some one particular church
of late, have been pleased to make them, we have no better nor
other external rule or testimony herein to guide us, than the con
stant voice of the catholic and universal Cliurch, as it hath been
delivered to us upon record from one generation to another."
This view not only antagonizes the views of the Puritans
and continental Reformers, but it is a reaction from the mod
erate intermediate statement of the Articles towards the Roman
Catholic position.
The Puritans in the Westminster Assembly in revising
Article VI. of the Articles of Religion erased the statements :
" Of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church " ;
"And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth
read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet
doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." And they
changed the statement : " All the books of the New Testament,
as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them
for canonical " ; so as to read : " All which books, as they are
commonly received, we do receive and acknowledge them to
be given by the inspiration of God ; and in that regard, to be
of the most certain credit, and highest authority."
Charles Herle, the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly,
states the Protestant position over against the Roman :
" They (the Papists) being asked, why they believe the Scripture
to be the Word of God ? Answer, because the Churcli says 'tis so ;
and being asked againe, why they beleeve the Church? They
answer, because the Scripture sales it shall he guided into truth;
and being asked againe, why they beleeve that very Scripture that
says so? They answer, because the Church says 'tis Scripture,
and so (with those in the Psalm xii. 8), they walk in a circle or
on every side. They charge the like on us (but wrongfully) that
we beleeve the Word, because it sayes it self that it is so ; but we
do not so resolve our Faith; we believe unto salvation, not the
Word barely, because it witnesses to itself, but because the Spirit
speaking in it to our consciences witnesses to them that it is the
Word indeed; we resolve not our Faith barely either into the
Word, or Spirit as its single ultimate principle, but into the testi
mony of the Spirit speaking to our consciences in the Word." *
1 Detur Sapienti, London, 1655, pp. 152, 153.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 153
The Puritans were in radical opposition to Rome. They
were maintaining the formal principle of Protestantism. If
they had not taken this position, they would have been
powerless. As Reuss says :
" Nothing was more foreign to the spirit of Luther, of Calvin, and
their illustrious fellow-laborers, nothing was more radically con
trary to their principles, than to base the authority of the Sacred
Scriptures upon that of the Church and its tradition, to go in
effect, to mount guard over the fathers, and range their catalogues
in line, cause their obscurities to disappear by forced interpretations
and their contradictions by doing violence to them, as is the custom
of our day. They very well knew that this would have been the
highest inconsistency, indeed the ruin of their system, to attribute
to the Church the right of making the Bible after they had con
tested that of making the doctrine; for that which can do the
greater can do the less." ^
There never had been a period in which the authority of
Holy Scripture was more hotly discussed than in the times of
the English Commonwealth. In 1647 the London ministers
(many of whom were members of the Westminster Assembly)
issued their testimony against false views of Holy Scripture as
well as of other matters. They mention as
" Errors against the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture, That
the Scripture, whether true Manuscript or no, whether Hebrew,
Greek, or English, it is but human; so not able to discover a
divine God. Then where is your command to make that your
rule or discipline, that cannot reveal you God, nor give you power
to walk with God ? That, it is no foundation of Christian Religion,
to believe that the English Scriptures, or that book, or rather vol
ume of books called the Bible, translated out of the originall
Hebrew and Greek copies, into the English tongue are the Word
of God. That, questionless no writing whatsoever, whether
translations or originalls, are the foundation of Christian Re
ligion." ^
1 Reuss, Histoire du Canon, p. 313.
2 A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ and to our Solemn League and
Covenant. Subscribed by the ministers of Christ within the Province of London ,
Dec. 14, 1647. London, 1648. Similar testimonies were signed in many of the
English' counties during the same year. In the McAlpin collection of the library
of the Union Theological Seminary, N.Y., there are ten of them.

154 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
William Lyford, an esteemed Puritan divine, wrote a com
mentary on this testimony of the London ministers.^
After controverting the " foure fold error : (1) of them that
would place this authority (of Scripture) in the Church ; (2) of
them who appeale from scripture to the spirit; (3) of them
that make reason the supreme Judge ; (4) of them that ex
pound scripture according to Providences," he goes on to
expound the position of the Puritans.
" The authority and truth of God speaking in the Scripture,
is that upon which our faith is built, and doth finally stay itselfe :
The ministry of the Church, the illumination of the Spirit, the
right use of reason are the choicest helps, by which we believe,
by which we see the law and will of God; but they are not the
law itself ; the divine truth and authority of God's word, is that
which doth secure our consciences. ... If you ask what it is
that I believe ? I answer, I believe the blessed doctrines of salva
tion by Jesus Christ ; if you ask, why I believe all this, and why
I will venture my soul to all eternity on that doctrine ? I answer,
because it is the revealed will of God concerning us. If you ask
further. How I know that God hath revealed them ? I answer, by
a two-fold certainty ; one of faith, the other of experience ; (1) I
do infallibly by faith believe the Revelation, not upon the credit of
any other Revelation, but for itselfe, the Lord giving testimony
thereunto, not only by the constant Testimony of the Church, which
cannot universally deceive, nor only by miracles from heaven, bear
ing witness to the Apostle's doctrine, but chiefly by its own proper
divine light, which shines therein. The truth contained in Script
ure is a light, and is discerned by the sons of light : It doth by
its own light, persuade us, and in all cases, doubts, and questions,
it doth clearly testifie with us or against us ; which light is of
that nature, that it giveth Testimony to itself, and receiveth
authority from no other, as the Sun is not seene by any light but
his own, and we discerne sweet from soure by its own taste. . . .
(2) Whereunto add, that other certainty of experience, which is a
certainty in respect of the Affections and of the spiritual man.
This is the Spirit's seal set to God's truth (namely), the light of
the word; when it is thus shewen unto us, it doth work such
strange and supernatural effects upon the soul ; ... It persuades
1 The Plain Man''s sense exercised to discern good and evil, or A Discovery
.of the Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies of these Times, and the Toleration
of them, as they are collected and testified against by the ministers of London,
in their Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ. London, 1655.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 155
us of the truth and goodness of the will of God ; and of the things
revealed; and all this by way of spiritual taste and feeling, so
that the things apprehended by us in divine knowledge, are more
certainly discerned in the certainty of experience, than anything
is discerned in the light of naturall understanding."
" They that are thus taught, doe know assuredly that they have
heard God himselfe : In the former way, the light of Divine Rea
son causeth approbation of the things they believe. In the later,
the Purity and power of Divine Knowledge, causeth a taste and
feeling of the things they heare : And they that are thus estab
lished in the Faith, doe so plainly see God present with them in
his Word, that if all the world should be turned into Miracles, it
could not remove them from the certainty of their perswasion ;
you cannot unperswade a Christian of the truth of his Religion,
you cannot make him thinke meanly of Christ, nor the Doctrine
of Redemption, nor of duties of Sanctification, his heart is fixed
trusting in the Lord. So then we conclude, that the true reason
of our Faith, and ground, on which it finally stayeth itself, is the
Authority of God himself, whom we doe most certainly discerne,
and feele to speake in the word of faith, which is preached unto us."^
This is the true doctrine of the Puritans, in which they
know no antagonism between the human reason, the religious
feeling, and the Divine Spirit in the Word of God. It is a
merciful Providence that they were guided to this position,
for, if they had gone with the Svnss scholastics in basing
themselves on Rabbinical tradition as to the Old Testament,
they would have committed the British churches to errors that
have long since been exploded by scholars.
IV. Discussion op the Canon in the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Centuries
British Christianity had to struggle with the Friends (or
Quakers), who exalted the authority of the inner light above
the letter of Scripture, as well as with the Roman Catholics,
who subjected the Canon to the authority of the Church. But
there was also the contention between the Puritan doctrine as
stated in the Westminster Confession and the doctrine as stated
by Bishop Cosin. Few were willing to abide by the simple
and indefinite statement of the English Articles of Religion.
^ I.e., pp. 39 seq.

156 study of holy scripture
Bishop Cosin misled Anglicans, and even later Presbyterians,
into a false position. How can we ascertain the voice of the
Church as to the Canon, and how determine the genuine
Christian traditions? There is no voice of the universal
Church. As we have seen, prior to the Reformation, only
provincial synods spoke, and these differed, — one following
the Hebrew Canon and another the Greek Canon, — and thus
exposed the differences which have always been in the Church.
At the Reformation the Roman Catholic Council of Trent
decided for one Canon, the Protestant synods for another Canon.
We must wait for a reunited Christendom before the Church
can give its authority to fix the Canon, even if it has in itself
the divine authority to do so. The Protestant Confessions
deny the right of the Church so to do. It remains to be seen
whether Protestantism will ever consent to an ultimate defini
tion of the Canon even by the Reunited Church.
It will hardly be claimed that we should submit the ques
tion of the Canon to a majority vote of the Fathers. Even
if we were willing to do this, we could not secure the voice of
the majority, because the writings of the majority have perished.
It will hardly be claimed that we should follow the maximum
of the writings regarded as canonical. If we should do this,
we would have to enlarge the extent of the Canon beyond that
of the Council of Trent. If we should follow the minimum, we
would limit still more than the Protestant Canon. Shall we
pursue the via media ? But who shall define the width of even
the middle way ? There is no pathway to certainty in any of
these directions.
The conflicts of conformists and non-conformists, and the
struggle between evangelical faith and deism in Great Britain,
and of scholasticism with pietism on the continent, caused the
scholastics to antagonize the human element in the sacred
Scriptures, and to assert the external authority of traditional
opinions and of Protestant orthodoxy over the reason, the con
science, and the religious feeling ; while the apologists, follow
ing the deists into the field of the external arguments for and
against the religion and doctrines of the Bible, built up a series
of external evidences which were sufficiently strong to over-

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 157
come the deists intellectually, and to drive them into atheism
and pantheism. All this was at the expense of vital piety in
the Church ; for the stronger internal evidence was neglected.
The dogmatists forgot the caution of Calvin : " Those persons
betray great folly who wish it to be demonstrated to infidels,
that the Scripture is the Word of God, which cannot be known
without faith "1 and they exposed the Church to the severe
criticism of Dodwell :
" To give all men Liberty to judge for themselves and to expect
at the same time that they shall be of the preacher's mind, is such
a scheme for unanimity as one would scarce imagine any one
would be weak enough to devise in speculation, and much less
that any could ever prove hardy enough to avow and propose to
practice," ^
and led some to the conclusion that there was an " irreconcil
able repugnance in their natures betwixt reason and belief." ^
The efforts of the more evangelical type of thought which
passed over from the Puritans into the Cambridge school, and
the Presbyterians of the type of Baxter and Calamy, to construct
an evangelical doctrine of the reason and the religious feeling
in accordance with Protestant principles, failed for the time,
and the movement died away, or passed over into the merely
liberal and comprehensive scheme, or assumed an attitude of
indifference between the contending parties. The Protestant
rule of faith was sharpened more and more, especially among
the Independents, and the separating Presbyterian churches of
Scotland, after the fashion of John Owen, rather than of the
Westminster divines ; whilst the apologists pressed more and
more the dogmatic method of demonstration over against
criticism.* The Reformed faith and evangelical religion were about to
be extinguished when, in the Providence of God, the Puritan
vital and experimental religion was revived in Methodism,
which devoted itself to Christian life, and so proved the saving
element in modern British and American Christianity.
The Churches of the continent of Europe were allowed, in
1 Institutes, VIII. 13. * Religion not founded on Argument, pp. 90 seq.
3 In I.e., p. 80. '' Lechler, Gesch. d. Deismus, 1841, pp. 411 seq.

158 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the Providence of God, to meet the full force of Rationalism
and pay the penalty of the sinful blunders of the scholastics
of the previous century. The Canon was criticised by Sem
ler and his school, and canonicity became a purely historical
question. Schleiermacher was raised up to be the father of
modern evangelical German theology. He began to recover
the lost ground and to build the structure of modern theology
in the true mystic spirit on the religious feeling apprehending
Jesus Christ as Saviour. A series of intellectual giants have
carried on his work, such as Neander, Tholuck, Rothe, Muller,
and Dorner. These led German Theology back to the position
of the Protestant Reformers and the principle of the divine
evidence. It is not safe to follow the German divines in all their
methods and statements. These depend upon the century of
conflict which lies back of them and through which we have
not passed. British and American theology has its own pecul
iar principles, methods, and work to perform. It is now in
the crisis of its history, the same essentially that German
theology had to meet at the close of the eighteenth century.
The tide of thought has ebbed and flowed between Great
Britain and the continent several times since the Reformation.
The tide has set strongly now in our direction.
V. A Modern American Theory of Canonicity
In recent times another method of determining canonicity
has been proposed. It does not have the stamp of antiquity
upon it, it has no ecclesiastical authority behind it, and yet it
makes loud claims of orthodoxy for itself. It has. been taught
by some modern Presbyterians that the Canon is fixed by the
authority of the prophets who wrote the books.
Dr. A. A. Hodge states:
" We determine what books have a place in this Canon or divine
rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of
.them, severally, was written by the inspired prophet or apostle
whose name it bears, or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark
and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 159
the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the
sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical
proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genu
ineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as
the odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this
evidence is (a) Internal, — such as language, style, and the char
acter of the matter they contain; (b) External, — such as the
testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of
contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from
independent credible sources." ^
It is just this theory of the Canon taught by the Princeton
school of theology and their numerous adherents, and also by
Dr. Shedd and other theologians of other schools, that forced
American Presbyterianism into such a serious and unreasona
ble war against the Higher Criticism. Dr. Shedd goes so far
as to say: "If, as one asserts [referring to my words], 'the
great mass of the Old Testament was written by authors
whose names are lost in oblivion,' it was written by uninspired
men. . . . This would be the inspiration of indefinite persons,
like Tom, Dick, and Harry, whom nobody knows, and not of
definite historical persons, like Moses and David, Matthew
and John, chosen by God by name and known to men."^
This theory is shattered on the fact that the writings of the
Canon do not, as a rule, give the names of their prophetic
authors. The only reference to authors in connection with
most of the writings of the Old Testament is in traditions
which are not found in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts and
authorities. Therefore, we cannot be sure of these authors.
We cannot safely build the authority of the Canon of Holy
Scriptures on such questionable authority as there may be in
the names of authors whose only connection with the writings
rests upon the uncertainties of tradition. We cannot build
certainty on uncertainty. We cannot find divine authority
in fluctuating human traditions.
The five books of the Law, — the entire first Canon ; the
four prophetic histories, — the entire first division of the sec
ond Canon ; are anonymous in the original Hebrew text. A
1 Commentary on the Confession of Faith, pp. 51, 52.
2 See my Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 93, 94.

160 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
very considerable portion of the four latter prophets consists
of anonymous prophecies which have been attached to the
prophecies which bear names. Thus all of the first Canon and
the major part of the second Canon are anonymous. Of the
third Canon the three former writings. Psalms, Proverbs, and
Job, are anonymous ; of the five Rolls all are anonymous ; of
the latter writings all three are anonymous. Thus of the entire
Old Testament Canon the only writings which can be said to
gain authority from the names of the authors are the four latter
Prophets ; and with regard to these it is necessary to consider
how little we know of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and
Zechariah apart from their own writings. And as for the
minor prophets, what, apart from their writings, are Hosea,
Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, to us? And as
for Joel and Obadiah, we cannot tell, apart from a critical study
of their writings, when they lived, and the results of that in
vestigation are uncertain. And the book of Jonah is a post-
exilic work of the imagination using the name of Jonah as a
convenient hero for the story. Consider for a moment, in the
light of the Higher Criticism, the absurdity of this theory of
building the authority of the Canon on the authority of authors.
How can they prove the canonicity of the Psalms, unless they
build on the old traditional theory that David wrote them ?
Some of the choicest Psalms are not fathered by any titles.
Will they cut these out of the Psalter ? Even if all the names
mentioned in the traditional psalms were the authors of the
psalms which bear their names, they can only vouch for por
tions of the psalms as they were originally written. But who
shall vouch for those psalms as edited and adapted to syna
gogue worship in our Psalter ? To establish the authority of
our Canon, it is of at least as much importance that the editor
should be inspired as the original author. The final editor is
responsible for our Psalter. Here is a case where an inerrant
original autograph is of little value. The autograph of the
final editor is needed, and no one proposes to name him.
But some will say Jesus and the apostles vouch for the divine
authority of the Psalter. True ; but was there no sufficient
evidence that the Psalter was canonical prior to the testimony

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 161
of Jesus Christ? Did the Old Testament wait for His au
thority to make it canonical ? The Hebrews did not think so
when they put it in their third Canon. And Jesus did not
think so, for He did not make it canonical ; He recognized it
as already a part of the Canon.
The scientific work of the Higher Criticism destroys this
modern theory of the authority of the Canon and forces us
back either upon the Roman Catholic doctrine of the authority
of the Church, or else the opinion of the Protestant Reformers,
as elaborated and improved and best stated in the Westminster
Confession :
"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to
be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any
man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the
author thereof ; and, therefore, it is to be received, because it is
the word of God." ^
This principle of establishing the Canon lifts it above mere
ecclesiastical authority, far above the speculations of dogma
ticians and fluctuating traditions, and builds it on the rock
summit of the authority of God Himself.
It was ever the internal divine evidence and the holy char
acter of Holy Scriptures that persuaded the ancients of their
canonicity, and these evidences have persuaded devout souls
in all times.
But some say : you are giving every man the right to make
his own Bible. Not so ; criticism takes from every denomina
tion of Christians and from tradition and from the theologians
their spurious claims to determine the Canon of Holy Scripture
for all men ; but it does not give that authority to any indi
vidual man. It puts the authority to determine His Holy
Word in God Himself. It teaches us to look for the divine
evidence in the Holy Scriptures themselves. It tells us to
open our minds and hearts and submit ourselves to the mes
sage of the Divine Spirit and accept the Bible God has made
for us. But it does tell every man to make up his own mind
as to the authority of the writings which are said to belong to
Holy Scripture. It endorses the right of private judgment in
iL 4.

162 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
this matter as in all others. It makes the divine authority of
the Canon, and of every writing in the Canon, a question
between every man and his God.
The Princeton school of theology has misled the Presbyterian
Church into a false position, which is neither that of the Roman
Catholic Church, nor that of the Protestant Reformers or
British Puritans, nor the intermediate and cautious position
of the Anglican divines. They have incautiously risked the
Canon of Holy Scripture with the traditional theories of
authorship and the results of the Higher Criticism. They
have induced a recent Presbyterian General Assembly to de
cide against an orthodox opinion and in favour of heterodoxy.
It is perilous to follow these blind guides of British and
American scholasticism and fall into the ditch that lies in their
path.i It is wise to learn from the experience of those who
have passed through the conflict and achieved the victory. It
is prudent to do all that is possible to prevent the ruin to
American Christianity that is sure to come if ecclesiastical
leaders continue to commit the old blunders over again. The
revival of true vital religion, and the successful progress of
theology in the working out of the principles inherited from
the Protestant Reformation, depend upon a speedy reaction
from the scholastic theology of the Zurich Consensus and the
exaggerated Puritanism of John Owen and the provincial
types of theology, and a renewal of the life and unfettered
thought of the Reformation and of British Christianity in the
first half of the seventeenth century.
It is the inevitable result of research into the Canon of Holy
Scripture that the last word should be spoken by Holy Script
ure itself. It is the Divine Spirit alone who gave the divine
evidence in the past and upon whom we must rest for our
evidence in the present and the future. We cannot be certain
that anything comes from God unless it bring us personally
something evidently divine. If the Divine Spirit has left some
of the ancient writings in doubt in the minds of some of the
ancients, and some with less internal and external evidence
than others, this is not to question the divine voice, which gives
1 Mt. 151*.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 163
certaintj'- to those who are capable and willing to receive it.
It should stir us up to a more thorough study of these Holy
Scriptures, lest in some way we should not have discerned that
divine evidence which has been graciously imparted to students
who may have been more faithful or more devoted than our
selves. We should maintain our own freedom to question and
to reject from the Canon such writings as do not justify them
selves in the arena of criticism ; and at the same time we
should respect the opinion of those who think that they have
evidence that we have thus far been unable to receive, .and
above all we should be extremely reluctant to dissent from the
historic consensus of the Christian Church in this matter, and
especially the official deliverances of Holy Church.
VI. The Determination of the Canon
It has become more and more evident, since Semler ^ reopened
the question of the Canon of Holy Scripture, that the only safe
position is to build on the rock of the Reformation principle of
the Sacred Scriptures. This principle has been enriched in
two directions, — first, by the study of the unity and harmony
of the Sacred Scriptures as an organic whole, and, second, by
the apprehension of the relation of the faith of the individual
to the consensus of the Church.
The principles on which the Canon of Holy Scripture is to
be determined are, therefore, these :
(1) The testimony of the Church, going back by tradition
and written documents to primitive times, presents probable
evidence to all men that the Scriptures, recognized as of divine
authority and canonical by such general consent, are indeed
what they are claimed to be.
This testimony is quite unanimous as to the entire Protestant
Canon. The Roman Catholic Church testifies to the apocry
phal Books of the Old Testament in addition. The testimony
of the Church from the fourth until the sixteenth century is
overwhelmingly in favour of the apocryphal books likewise.
In the Canon of the Church the historic testimony of its
1 Abhandlung vonfreier Untersuchung des Kanon, 4 Bde. 1771-1775.

164 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
formation is strongest as to the Law in the Old Testament and
the Gospels in the New Testament, next strongest as to the
Prophets in the Old Testament and the book of Acts and the
Pauline epistles in the New Testament. In the third layer of
the Canon of the Old Testament the Psalter, Proverbs, Job,
and Daniel, have the authority of the New Testament, and
Ruth and Lamentations have never been doubted ; in the third
layer of the Canon of the New Testament, 1 Peter and 1 John
seem to have remained undoubted from the second century.
As regards all of these books the historical evidence is so
strong that it could hardly be stronger. As regards the books
of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles, these have all had to battle for recognition in the
Canon from the most ancient times, and doubts and denials
have arisen in modern times. The same may be said of James,
2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation in the New Testa
ment. These may with propriety be regarded as having a
lower grade of evidence ; and men may be permitted to doubt
their canonicity without censure now as they were in ancient
times. The historical evidence for all of these is very strong.
They have all won their way into the Canon after a stout and
long-continued struggle, and they have all maintained their
place and resisted every subsequent attack upon them. We
may also be permitted to say that it is doubtful whether the
ultra-Protestant hostility can be maintained against all the
apocryphal books. The Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom
of Solomon are in the Roman Catholic Canon, and are used in
the liturgy of the Church of England. They impress many
minds more favourably than Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.
1 Maccabees is also in the Roman Catholic Canon, and seems
to be in itself an important if not an essential book in the
development of Biblical History. There are many who derive
more religious benefit from it than from Esther. The Bene
dicite of the three children, inserted in the Greek Version of
Daniel, has been used from the earliest times in Christian wor
ship, and has indeed exerted a more sacred influence than the
whole of the Hebrew Daniel. The tendency among thoughtful
Protestants is to restore these writings to the Canon.

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 165
(2) The Scriptures themselves, in their pure and holy
character, satisfying the conscience ; their beauty, harmony,
and majesty, satisfying the sesthetic taste ; their simplicity and
fidelity to truth, together with their exalted conceptions of
man, of God, and of history, satisfying the reason and the
intellect ; their piety and devotion to the one God, and their
revelation of redemption, satisfying the religious feelings and
deepest needs of mankind, — all conspire to convince that they
are indeed sacred and divine books.
This argument will appeal to different men in different
ways. It will depend partly upon the Higher Criticism of the
Scriptures, partly upon their interpretation, and upon Biblical
History and Biblical Theology. The books of Jonah, Esther,
and Daniel will appeal to some minds much more powerfully
if they are seen to be historical fiction than if they appear to
be historical books full of legends and mistakes. The Song
of Songs will commend itself as canonical to a man who dis
cerns it to be a drama of marital love, when he could not accept
it if it were supposed to be merely an allegory of the love of
Christ to His Church, or a collection of love songs. Ecclesi
astes might be rejected by a man, if all its sayings were
regarded as equally authoritative, but accepted if he were
able to distinguish the God-fearing words from the sceptical
words. It depends in great measure upon the kind of history,
religion, and morals one finds in the biblical writings how far
he will be convinced that they are divine books. Many men
have been driven away from the Bible by the false science,
gloomy religion, and immoral theology that Christian teachers
have too often obtruded upon it. If the Bible is to exert the
influence of its own character upon men, it must be stripped
entirely free from all the false characteristics that have been
attributed to it. If men are not won by the holy character
of the biblical books, it must be because for some reason their
eyes have been withheld from seeing it.
(3) The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the par
ticular writing, or part of writing, in the heart of the believer,
removing every doubt and assuring the soul of its possession
of the truth of God, the rule and guide of the life. This argu-

166 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ment is of no value except to a believer, to a devout Christian.
But to such an one it is the invincible divine argument.
(4) The Spirit of God bears witness by and with the sev
eral writings in such a manner as to assure the believer in the
study of them that they are the several parts of one complete
divine revelation, each writing having its own appropriate and
indispensable place and importance in the organism of the
Canon. This is a cumulative argument. The certainty that one
writing in the Bible is divine, makes it easier to recognize
another writing. If the character of one canonical book has
been discerned, it is easier to recognize another book having
that same character. As the number of books increases about
which there is certainty, the difficulties as regards the others
decrease. Practically there is little if any doubt in the minds
of Christians as regards the great majority of the biblical
books. Only a few of them are doubted now by any Chris
tians. Only a few have ever been doubted. The path of
certainty is from the known to the unknown. Furthermore,
the structure of the Canon is of immense importance. We
have seen its historic importance. It has also an inductive
importance. The books of the Bible constitute an organic
whole under the two Covenants. When the mind has studied
them thus organically, the Divine Spirit guides in their organic
study and sp gives what may be regarded as organic certainty ;
that is, the certainty that the books have their essential place
in the organism of the Divine Word.
(5) The Spirit of God bears witness to the Church as an
organized body of such believers, through their free consent in
various communities and countries and centuries, to this unity
and variety of the Sacred Scriptures as the one complete and
perfect Canon of the divine word to the Church.
This argument is really the old historic argument fortified
by the vital argument of the divine evidence. The testimony
of the Church as an external human historical organization
cannot give certainty. But when we come to know that the
Church has been guided by the Divine Spirit in all the centuries,
first in the formation of the Canon of Holy Scripture, and then

CRITICISM OF THE CANON 167
in its recognition of the Canon in the three stages, — individual
recognition, consensus, and official determination; that the
same Holy Spirit who gives certainty to-day has given cer
tainty to the Church in all the ages of the past, working in
the individual and also in the entire organism, — then we may
know that the testimony of the Church is the testimony of the
Divine Spirit speaking in the Church and through the Church.
We recognize the same voice in the Bible and in the Church
and in our own Reason. The argument is complete, because
the Divine Spirit has spoken to us with the same voice and to
the same effect through the three media in which alone He
speaks to man. The official fixing of the Canon by the Church
varies as to the apocryphal books alone. The tendency among
Protestants is back to the Apocrypha. It is altogether proba
ble that if we could have a reunited Church, the Church would
define a Canon with unanimous consent.
The logical order of the testimony is this : the human testi
mony, the external evidence, attains its furthest possible limit
as probable evidence, bringing the inquirer to the Scriptures
with a high and reverent esteem of them. Then the internal
evidence exerts its powerful influence upon his soul, and at
length the divine testimony lays hold of his entire nature and
convinces and assures him of the truth of God and causes him
to share in the consensus of the Christian Church.
" Thus the Canon explains and judges itself ; it needs no foreign
standard. Just so the Holy Spirit evokes in believers a judg
ment, or criticism, which is not subjective, but in which freedom
and fidelity are combined. The criticism and interpretation, which
faith exercises, see its object not from without, as foreign, or as
traditional, or as in bondage, but from within, and abiding in its
native element becomes more and more at home while it ascribes
to every product of apostolic men its place and proper canon
ical worth.'" " True faith sees in the letter of the documents of
Revelation the religious content brought to an immutable objec
tivity which is able to attest itself as truth by the divine Spirit,
which can at once warm and quicken the letter in order to place
the living God-man before the eyes of the believer." ^
1 Dorner, System der Christlichen Glaubenslehre, Berlin, 1879, I. pp. 667
seq. ; System of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1881, II. pp. 229 seq.

168 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The reason, the conscience, and the religious feeling, all of
which have arisen during these discussions of the last century
into a light and vigour unknown and unanticipated at the
Reformation, should not be antagonized the one with the other,
or with the Spirit of God, but should all be included in that
act and habit of faith by which we apprehend the Word of God.
These cannot b|e satisfied by the external authority of scholars
or schools, of Church or State, of tradition or human testimony,
however extensive, but only by a divine authority on which
they can rest with certainty. Men will recognize the canon
ical writings as their Holy Scripture, only in so far as they
may be able to rise through them as external media to the
presence of their Divine Master, who reigns in and by the
Word which is holy and divine, in so far and to that extent
that it evidently sets Him forth.
As I have elsewhere said : " It is the testimony of human
experience in all ages that God manifests Himself to men and
gives certainty of His presence and authority. There are
historically three great fountains of divine authority — the
Bible, the Church, and the Reason. " i
Men will recognize the Divine Voice whenever and wherever
it speaks to them. Some men are convinced as to the truth by
the Divine Voice speaking through the Church alone, others
by the Divine Spirit speaking through the Bible, and still
others only through the witness in their own Reason. Blessed
be he who knows the voice of the Spirit equally well in the
three relations.
1 See Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture, An Inaugural Address, 9th edition,
1896, pp. 25 seq. ; Briggs, The Bible, the Church, and the Beason, 2d editiou,
1894, pp. 57 seq.

CHAPTER VII
HISTORY OP THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
Textual Criticism has to determine the Text of the Bible.
It is necessary to study the history of the Text, and then apply
the principles of Textual Criticism to manuscripts, versions, and
citations, and so endeavour to ascertain the original text upon
which they all depend. The Text of the Bible has passed
through similar changes to those that are manifest in all other
kinds of literature. The citations of the Bible have the same
indefiniteness and the same variations from the original as cita
tions from other writings. The Versions have the same diffi
culties and departures from the original as other translations.
The manuscripts have gone through the same experiences of
wear and tear as other manuscripts. The same mistakes of
copyists have been made, — by omission, insertion, transposition,
haste, and indistinctness of vision or utterance. The same use
of conjecture has been made by scribes to remove difficulties
and errors.
I. The Original Text of the Hebrew Bible
The history of the Text of the Old Testament begins with
the history of the Canon. The earliest Canon was written
upon tables of stone, — the Ten Words upon two tables, the
Words of the Book of the Covenant in pentades and decalogues
upon several tables.^ The Deuteronomic code of law was
written on a roll, probably of skin. Jeremiah's collection of
prophecies was written on a similar roll, and so were all the
1 See Briggs' Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 6
seq., 181 seq., 189 seq., 211 seq. Cf. Dt. 272-^; Jos. 832.
169

170 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
sacred writings of the Old Testament from that time onward.
It is probable that papyrus was used for private manuscripts ;
but for public manuscripts it is improbable that anything else
than skin was used.^ In ancient times each sacred writing
was written upon a separate roll. The first layer of the
Hebrew Canon, the Law, was probably written on several
skins, eventually on five, corresponding with the five books
which gave their name to the Pentateuch. The second layer
of the Canon was written on eight rolls. The twelve minor
Prophets were written sometimes on separate rolls, as is
evident from the differences of arrangement in the earliest
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts ; but usually on the same roll,
after their number was definitely fixed in the Canon. The
third layer of the Canon was for a long time as indefinite in
the number of rolls as in the number of writings which were
supposed to constitute it.^
The first Canon was certainly written in the ancient Hebrew
alphabet, which was a variety of the Phcenician script, such
as that used on ancient Maccabean coins, in the Siloam in
scription, and on the Mesha Stone. ^ The Samaritan codex of
the Pentateuch is still preserved in characters of the same
essential type. That was the sacred alphabet of the Canon,
when the Samaritans separated from the Jews of Jerusalem.*
According to the Talmud, on the authority of Mar Zutra of the
fourth century, or Mar Ukba of the third century, " The Law was
at first given to Israel in Hebrew writing and in the sacred lan
guage ; but in the time of Ezra, the Law was given a second time
in Assyrian writing and in the Aramaic language. Then they
chose for Israel the Assyrian writing and the sacred language,
and they left to the Idiots the Hebrew writing and the Aramaic
language." There can be no doubt from the context that by "the
Idiots " was meant the Samaritans, and that the Assyrian writing
is that of the square Aramaic character.^ This statement con-
1 Jer. 362 ,eq. See Loisy, Histoire Critique du Texte et des Versions de la
Bible, 1892, Tom. l^', pp. 95 seq.
2 See pp. 124 seq. 3 gee p. 48. * See pp. 121, 185.
6 Talm. Bab. Sanh., 22 a. See Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the
Books of Samuel, 1890, pp. ix. seq. ; Neubauer, Studia Biblica, III., 1891,
pp. 9 seq. ; and Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 1897, pp. 288 seq.,
— all of whom give the original and translation.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 171
firms what is plain from other sources of information : that the
Samaritans had retained the Law in the old Hebrew writing, and
that the Jews had adopted the Aramaic writing in its stead. In
other respects this statement is either false or purely conjectural.
It is not true that the Samaritans used the Aramaic language for
the Law. The Samaritan codex is in the Hebrew language as
well as the Hebrew writing. The Samaritans made a Targum, or
popular translation of the Law, in the Samaritan language ; but
the Jews did precisely the same, making an Aramaic Targum for
Palestine and the East, and a Greek Targum for Egypt and the
West. There is no historic evidence that the Jews abandoned the
old Hebrew writing because of any influence from the Samaritans.
There is no historic evidence for the opinion that Ezra introduced
the Aramaic writing. It is altogether improbable that he gave
the Law in the Aramaic language, and that subsequently the
scribes returned to the original Hebrew text of it. Neubauer
defends the tradition so far as the writing is concerned,^ princi
pally on the ground that, if the Hebrew characters had once
impressed their sanctity " on the mind of the nation through their
use in transcribing Scripture," they would never have been aban
doned. He thinks, therefore, that the two kinds of writing
existed side by side from the time of Ezra until the Maccabean
age. But this argument, if sound, is equally valid as regards the
statement of these Sopherim that the Law was given by Ezra
in the Aramaic language. If the Law had been given by Ezra in
the Aramaic language and the Aramaic script, the writing would
have sustained the language and the language the writing, and
neither would have been abandoned. But the Samaritans would
not have retained the Hebrew writing and the Hebrew language
of the Law under these circumstances, especially as we now know
that the law code of the present Pentateuch did not exist for the
Jews until Ezra brought it to them.^ The statement that Ezra
gave the Law in the Aramaic language is not at present defended
by any one. The opinion that Ezra gave the Law in Aramaic
characters is in the same sentence of the Talmud. The discredit
ing of the one clause discredits likewise the other. It is not
worthy of any more consideration in itself, and there is no
historic evidence whatever to sustain it.
We have at present no means of determining when the
Aramaic characters were introduced for the canonical writings.
It seems probable that this change took place at first among
1 2.C., p. 13. 2 See pp. S22 seq.

172 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the Jews of Mesopotamia and Babylon, especially in the private
manuscripts, and then extended over the Aramaic-speaking
world even into Egypt, where the Jews were under Aramaic
influence until the Greek conquest under Alexander. The
irresistible tendency was to use the Aramaic writing with the
Aramaic language, and to transliterate the old Hebrew char
acters, which were constantly growing unfamiliar even to
scholars. The only restraining influence would be in Palestine,
and especially at Jerusalem, the centre and capital of the Jews'
religion. During the earlier Maccabean wars most of the copies of
the Law were destroyed by the Syrian oppressors. The pious
Jews of Palestine had to resort to their Eastern or their Egyp
tian brethren for manuscripts. These manuscripts were prob
ably written in Aramaic characters. Few manuscripts written
in the old Hebrew characters were now left, and these were
gradually crowded out of use.^ It is probable, therefore, that
it was first in the Maccabean age that the authoritative codices
of the Law were written in the Aramaic characters. And it
may be that the collection of sacred books made by Judas Mac
cabeus was in this writing.^
The second layer of the Canon, the Prophets, was not only
originally written in the Hebrew writing, but it is also ex
tremely probable that the Prophets were collected into the
Canon in Hebrew writing. They were all composed and col
lected before the Maccabean age. This is evident from the
fact that there are many errors in transmission, which can be
explained only from a confusion of letters which were dissimilar
in the Aramaic alphabet, and only similar in the old Hebrew
alphabet.^ The writings of the third Canon extend into the Maccabean
age. It is probable that all those written before this time
were written in the old Hebrew letters. But the book of
Daniel gives us several chapters in the Aramaic language.
This was doubtless vrritten in the Aramaic writing, and it is
1 See Neubauer, Studia Biblica, III. p. 14. 2 2 Macc. 2".
3 Graetz (Krit. Com. z. d. Psalmen, s. 130 seq.) and Ginsburg (Introduction,
pp. 291-295) give examples from Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 173
probable that the Hebrew which incorporated it was also writ
ten in Aramaic characters. It may well be that Esther and
Ecclesiastes were originally written in Aramaic characters, as
well as many of the Apocrypha. There can be little doubt
that the Psalter,^ Proverbs,^ Job, and Lamentations were origi
nally written with the ancient letters. It is also probable in
the case of Ezra,^ Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Ruth. It is
doubtful with the other writings.
During this period of the formation of the official Canon,
and of the substitution of the Aramaic characters for the
Hebrew, there were certain changes in the text which have left
their permanent traces.
(a) Emendations were made chiefly for religious reasons.
The substitution of the word Lord, "'JIK, for the divine name
Yalmeh, ^^^^ was certainly prior to the earliest layer of the
Septuagint Version; for Kvptos is constantly substituted for it.
There are traces of such substitution in the Hebrew text itself.
The substitution of Bosheth, !1V)'2, shame, for Baal, h'S'Z, the god
of the Canaanites, and also for Baal in proper names compounded
with Baal, was made before the Septuagint translation of the
Prophets, but was not thoroughly carried out in all the texts.*
The change in proper names is usual in Samuel, where the
Chronicler preserves the original form.* This seems to indicate
that this change was made by the scribes chiefly in the time
before the final admission of Chronicles into the Canon. The
1 Perles (Analekten, 1895, pp. 50 seq.) gives examples of errors in the Psalter
and Job, which can only come from the ancient Hebrew letters.
2 Baumgartner (iStude critique sur VStat du Texte du Livre des Proverbes,
Leipzig, 1890) makes it plain that, while the larger proportion of the errors of
transliteration in the text of Proverbs is due to mistakes in the distinguishing
of shnilar letters of the Egyptian Aramaic alphabet, and a smaller number to
mistakes in the older Aramaic alphabet, there is still a limited number that can
be explained only by the ancient Hebrew alphabet.
3 Ginsburg (Introduction, p. 293) gives Ezra 6* as an example of a mistake
oi Aleph for Tav in the old Hebrew alphabet. But Baumgartner (I.e., s. 279)
thinks that such mistakes miglit be as well explained from the ancient Aramaic
alphabet also.
* Cf. i) p&a\, Jer. 223, 79^ iii3.i7^ 195. Hos. 21°, 131 . Rom. 11* ; which implies
the reading of alaxivn for jSiiaX. See Dillmann, Baal mit d. weibl. Artikel. in
the Monatsberichte d. K'onigl. Acad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1881.
' However, in 2 Sam. I121 the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate versions all
read buaT, and in 2 Sam. 233 Lucian's text of the Septuagint preserves 'UarfidaX.

174 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
same is true of the reading of Shame, Bosheth, Dt2?3, for King,
Melekh, "^btt, when applied to the god of the Ammonites.*
(J) The earlier scribes also acted as editors. They divided
first the Law and then the Psalter into five books. These
divisions are not logical divisions. The natural divisions in
both cases would be into three books. The divisions are me
chanical, and they were doubtless made for liturgical reasons.
Another ancient division for both the Law and the Psalter,
into seven books, is mentioned in the Talmud.^ These divi
sions all may have reference to the use of the Law and the
Psalter at the feasts of the Jews.
(c) The scribes also divided the sacred books into sections.
These sections do not correspond altogether with the later sec
tions of the Talmudic and Massoretic periods, but they were
doubtless arranged for public reading in the synagogues. Two
such sections are mentioned in the New Testament.^
(cZ) No verses are known so far as prose writings are con
cerned ; but the ancient poems in the historical books, and the
poetical books of Psalms, Lamentations, and the Wisdom
Literature, were certainly written in distich, tristich, tetrastich,
and the like. It is probable that the greater portion of the
poetry in other books was written in this way also. This
enabled Josephus and even Jerome to speak of trimeters, tetram
eters, and hexameters. But this method of writing poetry
was subsequently lost, except for the ancient poems in the
Pentateuch, because of the Massoretic system of accentuation
for cantilation in the synagogue.*
II. The Text of the Canon of the Sopherim
There is no evidence of any attempt to establish an official
Hebrew text until after the destruction of Jerusalem by the
iLev. 1821 (Sept. B Spx""); 202-« (Sept. S,px<iy); 1 K. 11' (Sept. pairiXeis);
2 K. 231° (Sept. M(5\ox) ; Jer. 3236 (Sept. MoXAx PaaiKeis).
2 Talm. Shabboth, 116 b, 116 a; Midrash Bereshith Babba, LXIV. fol. 71 d,
Num. 1036 J Vayyikra Babba, Lev. 9i ; Rashi on Prov. 9'.
3 The section of the Bush ivl toB iSdrou Mk. 1228, referring to Ex. 3, and iv
'HXeffRom. I12, referring to the story of Elijah, 1 K. 19, are the only two known
to the New Testament.
* See Chap. XIV. pp. 362, 363.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 175
Romans in 70 a.d. There was indeed a codex of the Law in
the temple, which was taken by Titus to Rome among the
spoils.-^ But the ancient Greek Version, the ancient Syriac
Version, the earliest Aramaic Targums, and the citations in the
New Testament, the Book of Jubilees,^ and other writings of
the first and second centuries B.C. and the first century A.D.,
make it evident that there was no official Hebrew text until the
second century A.D.
After the destruction of Jerusalem the scribes made a rally
at Jamnia, where they established a school and held several
assemblies.^ They determined the extent of the Canon and
occupied themselves with fixing the text of the manuscripts
which had been saved from the wreck of war. There can be
no doubt that Rabbi Akiba and his associates at Jamnia not
only fixed the Canon of the Old Testament, but also established
the first official Hebrew text of the Canon.* There is a fixture
in the consonantal text of Hebrew manuscripts from the second
century onwards, which can be accounted for only by the
establishment at that time of such an official text.^ This text
was established in troublous times, when it was impossible to
give the time and painstaking required for such an undertak
ing. There was no leisure to correct even the plainest mis
takes.^ It was made by the comparison of a few manuscripts.
Tradition speaks of three, in cases of disagreement the majority
of two always determining the correct reading.
1 Josephus, B. J., VII. 5, § 5. This is said to have been given by the Em
peror Severus, about 220 a.d., to a synagogue built by him at Rome. Ginsburg,
(I.e., pp. 410 seq.) gives a list of thirty -two readings said to have been taken
from this codex.
2 The Book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis, as it is sometimes called, testiiies to
a text somewhat different from that of the Sopherim. See Dillmann, Beitrage
aus. d. Buch d. Jubilden z. Kritik. d. Pentateuch-Textes, Sitzungsberichte d.
Konig. Preus. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1883. The same is true with reference
to other pseudepigrapha.
3 See pp. 130, 131.
* See Bacher, Hebr. Sprachwissenschaft, 1892, «. 2.
6 Olshausen, Psalmen, s. 18 ; Lagarde, Anm. z. Griech. Uebersetzung d. Pro-
verbien, 1863, s. 444 seq. ; Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1894, s. 83 seq.
This is denied by Hermann Strack, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut,
1897, p. 571, on the ground that he has found in ancient manuscripts a very
great number of various readings which are unknown to scholars.
6 Cornill, Ezechiel, 1886, s. 10.

176 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Sopherim found in the court of the temple the codex "'31S&,
and the codex "'tSIISST, and the codex XIH. In one they found
written Dip ^"l'?K pV'tt (Deut. 33^), and in two written mVtl
Cnp TlbS; and they accepted two, and rejected one. In one
they found written SxitT'' ^33 ''tSltSSI nX nStyi (Ex. 24«), and
in two written ^^"Itr'' ''3D ^1V: FIX HSwi; and they accepted
two, and rejected one. In one they found written nine times KM
instead of {411, and in two written eleven times J<^'^; and they
accepted the two, and rejected the one.^
Some scholars think that all manuscripts varying from the
official text were ruthlessly destroyed.^ Whether this was so
or not, it is altogether probable that the destruction of manu
scripts during the war of Hadrian (132-135 A.D.) would so
reduce the number of competing manuscripts, that the official
manuscripts of the scribes would gain the supremacy.
The official text of the Hebrew Bible in the second Christian
century was composed of consonantal letters alone. Even the
quiescent letters,^ which were used in ancient times, before the
invention of vowel points, to indicate the vowel in difficult
words, were not used with any precision ; * and later scribes
were free to exercise their own judgment in the use of them.
And so the Massoretic text perpetuates a great lack of uni
formity and even inaccuracy of usage. The text used by the
translators of the Septuagint was without separation of words
and without the final letters, and also with occasional abbrevia
tions ; but the Sopherim of the second and third centuries
made the separation of words, introduced the five final letters,
and removed all abbreviations.^ The work of the Sopherim
continued until the sixth century, when the Massorites began
their labours. The work of the Sopherim, as described in the
Talmud and early Rabbinical commentaries, was :
(1) the fixing of the pronunciation of certain words;
(2) the removal of certain superfluous particles from the text;
1 Jerusalem Taanith, IV. 2 ; Sopherim, VI. 4. See Ginsburg, Introduction
to Hebr. Bible, pp. 408, 409, who gives text and translation.
2 Noldeke, Hilgenfeld's Zeltsehrift, 1873, s. 444 seq. ; W. R. Smith, Old Testa
ment in the Jewish Church, 2d ed., pp. 62 seq.
* Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 137 seq. ; Perles, Analekten, s. 36.
6 Ginsburg, Introduction, pp. 297 seq.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 177
(3) the mention of words which, though not written, yet
ought to be read, and the designation of words which, though
written, ought not to be read.
The Babylonian Talmud gives these three under the technical
terms: (1) D^ISID X^ptt ; (2) D^SID mtS'^S; (3) ifh) p"lp
p^nS, pnp X'71 pTiai. As examples of the first are, pX
when alone or preceded by the article, D*'tttl>, D''"I^S2. The second
gives five instances in which the conjunction Waiv, and, is to be
omitted (Gen. 18^ 24=«; Nu. 31^; Pss. 36^ 68''). The third men
tions that nia, Euphrates, is to be inserted (2 Sam. 8^) ; ]S''H, man
(2 Sam. 16^0 5 ^''^^, they are coming (Jer. 313«) ; rh, to her (Jer.
60^); m (Ruth 2'i); ''bx, to me (Ruth3«'iO; and the following
words are not to be read : «! (2 K. 6'^) ; MXI (Jer. 32") ; "T]n'^^ let
him bend (Jer. 51=) ; irt^n,fve (Ezek. 481") ; and £D«, if (Ruth 3^2).
Nedarim, 37 &-38 a. These are only specimens of a larger number
of instances in these departments which are given in later times.
(4) Extraordinary points were placed above letters or words
to indicate that they were spurious.
The Siphri, the earliest Midrash, or commentary on Numbers,
gives ten of these, — Nu. 9^°; Ge. 16', IS^, 1933, 33S 37^^ Nu. 213",
3^, 29'=; Deut. 29^, — all in the Pentateuch. They were subse
quently increased to fifteen by adding four from the Prophets, —
2 Sam. 19^ ; Is. 449 . j^zek. 412", 46^^ , — and one from the Writings,
Ps. 27^.1
(5) Letters were suspended in order to express doubt as to
their propriety.
3, in Jud. IS*", changes Moses to Manasseh in order to remove
reproach from the name of Moses. V, in Ps. 80", indicates a
doubtful reading, as between "IK'', the Nile, and ^'2'', forest ; and
a preference for the latter with possibly a reference to Rome
instead of the original reference to Egypt. The other two
instances (Job 38 "'•") indicate a preference for ffSU^I over W''^^,
in order not to offend the dignity of David and of Nehemiah.^
(6) The letter Nun was inverted before and after a clause,
in order to indicate bracketed material, which was, in the
opinion of the scribes, out of place. ^
1 See Ginsburg, I.e., pp. 319 seq., who gives the original, a translation, and
comments on the fifteen examples. 2 Sanhedrin, 10, 3 6.
3 Numbers 1035. 36 ; pg. 10728, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ; go Siphri on Nu. 1036, Talm. Sab
bath, 115 6-116 a ; Sopherim, VI. 1.

178 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
(7) There are also certain corrections or emendations of the
scribes. D'''1S1D ppn. A list of eleven of these is given in the Me-
chiltha on Ex. 15' (of the second century) : Zee. 2^ ; Mal. 1^ ; 1 Sam.
3^3; Job 7^°; Hab. 1''; Jer. 2"; Ps. 106=»; Nu. 11'=; 2 Sam. 20';
Ezek. 8'"; Nu. 12^^. These were subsequently increased to eigh
teen by seven additional ones : Ge. 18^^ ; 2 Sam. 16^^ ; 1 K. 12'' ;
2 Ch. 10'«; Hos. 4J; Job 323; ^^m. S^"
Nu. 11'= was changed from "[nSHD, Thy evil, the evil sent by
God upon Israel, to TIS^S, my evil, in order to avoid the refer
ence to God and a possible imputation of moral evil to Him.
Hab. l'^ was changed from mttn is?, Thou diest not, to S7
ni?i3, we shall not die, because it was supposed that the very
thought of God as dying was unworthy of Him. A full discus
sion of all these passages is given by Ginsburg.^
(8) The scribes also strove to remove from the text indel
icate expressions, anthropomorphisms, and other statements
unworthy of their religion.
The Talmud 2 gives the rule: In every passage where the text
has an indelicate expression a euphemism is to be substituted for
it, as for instance, for T\i?yW', ravish, violate, outrage (Deut. 283°;
Is. 13'"; Jer. 3% Zech. 142), .-ij^^^yi^ to lie with, is to be substi
tuted ; for Wht>'^, posteriors (Deut. 28^ ; 1 Sam. 5", 6^) read
D^lintO, emerods; for D''3V"in, dung, excrements, or ff3V ''^H, doves'
dung (2 K. 6^), read D'^IVDI, decayed leaves ; for QrT'K'nn or Dn''"in,
excrement (2 K. 182'; jg_ 3512^ substitute nxilt, deposit; for DiT'rir,
urine (2 K. 18^'; Is. 36'^), read ur^'h'Ti ¦'DSi, water of their feet; for
mi^intt7, middens, privies (2 K. 10^), substitute mSi£1S27, sewers,
retreats.^ (9) They removed expressions which seemed blasphemous.
Ginsburg* gives as a specimen of this 2 Sam. 12'*, where it is
said of David : " Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast greatly
blasphemed Yahweh." The scribes have inserted " enemies," so
as to make them, rather than David, guilty of the blasphemy.
He also mentions Ps. 10', where "|'n2, bless, has been inserted as a
gloss to VK3, blaspheme, and calls attention to other substitutions
of -[-a for hbp.
^Introduction, pp. 347 seq. * See Ginsburg, I.e., p. 346.
2 Megilla, 25 6 ; Jerusalem Megilla IV. * L.c, pp. 363 seq.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 179
(10) The Sopherim also made divisions in the sacred text.
The earliest of these were the sections called Farashiyoth. In
the first century there were similar divisions, but the present
ones belong to the Sopherim. ^ There are two kinds, the open
and the closed, the one indicating a greater division than the
other. 2
The Sopherim also arranged the Pentateuch for liturgical
purposes. The Palestinian Jews divided it into 154 sections,
called Sedarim, for a triennial course of Sabbath readings.
The Babylonian Jews had a division of fifty-four Sedarim for
an annual course of Sabbath readings.^ Besides these there
were verses called Fesukim, already mentioned in the Mishna.*
The Prophets and the Writings have also Parashiyoth and
Sedarim. Some of these come from the most ancient times,
others from the Sopherim. But it is probable that the present
Sedarim date from the Massoretic period. There are, however,
selections for Sabbath reading called Haphtaroth, twenty-seven
in the former Prophets, and fifty-two in the latter Prophets.
Such selections were made in the first centurj^, but the selection
then seems to have been made by the reader at the time.^ But
they were fixed by the Sopherim, as they are referred to in the
Mishna.^ There were, moreover, differences of reading which came
down in the two great schools of the Sopherim, — ^the Palestinian
and the Babylonian, — which are mentioned in the Talmu.d.
These, and all other matters connected with the text, were
more precisely indicated in the work of the Massorites.
^Megilla, III., 5; Shabb., f. 1036; Menach., t 30/; Hupfeld, Stud, und
Krit., 1837, s. 837 Anm.
2 There are 290 open Parashiyoth in the Pentateuch and 379 closed Parash
iyoth. In some manuscripts and in printed texts these are indicated by S and D
in the spaces.
3 The numbers 54, 154, were for the extra month which was introduced every
five or six years to make up for the inexactness of the ancient year. Accord
ing to Ginsburg (i.e., pp. 33 seq.) there are really 167 Sedarim in the Pentateuch.
* Megilla, IV. 4.
3Lk. 416; Acts 1315,27.
" But the order of the Talmud does not agree with the order of the later manu
scripts, and there is a difference in usage between the German and the Spanish
Jews.

180 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
III. The Massoretic Text of the Old Testament
The difference between the work of the Sopherim and of the
Massorites is thus stated by Ginsburg : ^
" Henceforth the Massorites became the authoritative custodians
of the traditionally transmitted text. Their functions were entirely
different from those of their predecessors, the Sopherim. The
Sopherim, as we have seen, were the authorised revisers and
redactors of the text according to certain principles, the Masso
rites were precluded from developing the principles and altering
the text in harmony with these Canons. Their province was to
safeguard the text delivered to them by ' building a hedge around
it,' to protect it against alterations, or the adoption of any readings
which still survived in manuscripts or were exhibited in the ancient
Versions. Eor this reason, they marked in the margin of every
page in the Codices every unique form, every peculiarity in the
orthography, every variation in ordinary phraseologies, every
deviation in dittographs, etc."
The principal work of the Massorites was in fixing the tradi
tional pronunciation of the words and sentences of the Sacred
Writings and the traditional method of reading the sacred
books in the synagogue. This was accomplished by the sys
tems of vowel points and accents which they added to the
sacred unpointed text, and the diacritical signs which they
established. The simplest, and probably the earliest, addition
to the text was the point in the bosom of the letter,^ which
indicates sometimes that the letter is doubled ; ^ sometimes that
it is unaspirated and hard ; * and sometimes that a quiescent
letter has its full consonantal power ; ^ and the stroke above
the letter indicating the soft or aspirated letter ® and the qui
escence of the letter.^
The Syriac language uses a point for the discrimination of
the hard and soft letters, distinguishing by putting it above or
below the letter. So also the point beneath a word indicates
the simple form of noun or verb, the point above the less sim
ple form. The Syriac also uses two points to indicate the
i?.c., p. 421. 5 Mappiq, n = aA, not a.
2 ViSl, a point. « nS";, soft, 3 = 6^.
3 Dagesh forte, S = 66. ' H = 5.
^ Dagesh lene, 3 = 6, and not bh.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 181
plural number. The Arabic uses the point to discriminate a
larger number of letters than the Hebrew ; but for a sign of
doubling a different sign, called Teshdid, and also a different
sign for the Mappiq, called Hemza.
The Hebrew vowel points, as they now exist, have a long
historical development back of them. The simplest system of
vowel points is the Arabic, which distinguishes only the three
simple vowels a, i, w, and the absence of a vowel.
The Syriac gives us a double system, the Greek and the
Syrian proper, standing between the Arabic and the Hebrew.
The Hebrew has also two systems, the ordinary system and the
superlinear system, the latter commonly but incorrectly named
the Babylonian. These go back on an earlier, simpler sys
tem, somewhat like the Arabic, which has been lost.^ The
origin of the system of pointing the Shemitic languages was
probably in the Syrian school at Edessa,^ and from thence it
passed over from Syriac texts at first to Arabic texts and
afterward to Hebrew texts. The movement began with dia
critical signs, such as we find in the Syriac, to distinguish
certain letters and forms. This gave place to a system of
vowel points. Among the Hebrews there was a gradual evo
lution of the present elaborate system. It did not reach its
present condition until the , seventh century, at Babylon, and
the middle of the eighth century of our era, in Palestine.^
The accents went through a similar course of development.
They serve for a guide in the cantilation of the synagogues,
the division of the sentences, and the determination of the
tone. These also were modelled after the musical notation of
the Syrian Church.*
They were not written in Hebrew manuscripts until the
close of the seventh century. ^ The earliest effort to divide
1 Gesenius, Hebr. Gram., ed. Rodiger and Kautzsch, 26 Aufl. p. 31. Trans.
Collins and Cowley, 1898, p. 33.
2 Bacher, Hebr. Sprachwissenschaft, 1892, s. 6 ; Harris, Jewish Quarterly Be
view, 1889, p. 235. This is denied by Gwilliam in Studia Biblica, III. p. 64.
He thinks that the Syrian Massora was derived from the Hebrews.
3 Dillmann, Bibeltext. A. T., in Herzog, Ency., II. pp. 394-396.
* Wickes, Treatise on the Accentxiation of the Three So-called Poetic Books
of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1881 ; G. F. Moore, Proc. Am. Oriental Society,
1888, p. xxxvii. ^ Wickes, I.e., p. 8.

182 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the sentences was doubtless the double point at the close of
the verse, and the single point in the middle. This may have
been made by the Sopherim. There must have been a long
development before the present elaborate systems were devised.
There are three systems of accents, the so-called Babylonian,
the Palestinian prose system, and the Palestinian poetic system.^
The poetic system is used only in the Psalter, Proverbs, and
Job. The Massorites strove to distinguish between the ordi
nary cantilation of the Law and the Prophets, and a more melo
dious rendering for the three great poetical books, just as the
Christian Church has one rhythmical form for the Gospels and
Epistles, and another for the chanting of the Psalms. It is
probable that the Massorites were influenced by Christian
usage to make the service of the synagogue more ornate and
worthy of their religion.
The work of the Massorites was extended to the use of a
number of signs to indicate peculiarities in the text. A little
circle above the letter was used to indicate the extraordinary
forms of letters,^ the extraordinary points,^ the Readings.* A
little star was used to indicate errors that they would not cor
rect.^ On the margins and at the end of the manuscripts the
Massorites noted the emendations of the scribes, the removal of
the conjunction and, the differences of readings between the
Babylonian and Palestinian authorities, and also between the
principal Western authorities. They numbered the sections,
verses, words, and letters of the Sacred Writings, and even
counted the number of times certain words were used. All of
this work is of great value for the history of the Text.
The Massorites did not hesitate to change the order of the
1 Wickes, Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one So-called Prose
Books of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1887, pp. 142 seq., shows that the so-
called Babylonian systems of vowel points and accents is Babylonian only in
the sense that they are found in Babylonian manuscripts ; and he claims that
these systems were later modifications of the earlier system, which is now, and
has always been, the only official one for the Babylonian as well as for the
Palestinian Jews.
2 Final Mem in middle of word, Is. 9« ; large Beth at the beginning of Gene
sis ; large Waw in Lev. 11*2 ; little Aleph, Lev. li ; suspended letters, Jer. 183",
Ps. 80". 8 See p; 177. i See p. 177.
^ Aleph with Dagesh, Gen. 4326 ; neglect of rules of pause, Gen. Il*, 27«.

HISTORY OF THB TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 183
sacred books. They have transmitted the Prophets in a dif
ferent order from that given in the Talmud. They arranged
the five Rolls for use at the five great feasts of Judaism, and
also rearranged the Writings.
The work of the western Massorites reached its culmination
in the tenth century, in the text of Ben Asher, and the work
of the Orientals about the same time in the text of Ben
Naphtali. The text of Ben Asher became the standard text
upon which all subsequent manuscripts in the West and all
printed editions have been based.^
IV. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament
The Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are divided
into three classes : the Palestinian, the Babylonian, and the
Samaritan. 1. The Palestinian Manuscripts
The most of the manuscripts that have been preserved are of
this class. Here we have to distinguish between synagogue
rolls and private manuscripts. The former were prepared with
so much care that mistakes became difficult. The Mishna^
prescribes the rules for their preparation with the greatest pre
cision. Hence it is that in manuscripts of the Law thus far
collated, of both the Babylonian and the Palestinian groups,
the differences in the consonantal text are few and unimpor
tant. The synagogue rolls, however, present only the Law,
the pericopes of the Prophets,^ and the five Rolls ; * and these
are without the Massoretic apparatus and are as a rule not
ancient. They are written on rolls of parchment and of
leather. The private manuscripts, written also on paper alone,
contain the Massoretic apparatus. None of these reach back
into the pre-Massoretic period. None of those collated by
Kennicott and De Rossi reach back of the eleventh century. ^
1 Bacher, Hebr. Sprachwissenschaft, s. 10. 2 Sopherim, VI. 4.
3 The Haptaroth, see p. 179. * Ruth, Lam., Esther, Eccl., Song of Songs.
5 Kennicott, Vet. Test. Hebr., 2 vols., Oxford, 1776, 1780, compares 615
manuscripts, 52 editions and Talmud ; De Rossi, Varice lection. Vet. Testamenti,
4 vols., Parma, 1784-1788, compares 731 manuscripts, 300 editions and the
ancient versions.

184 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Several manuscripts at Aleppo, Cairo, in the British Museum,
and in the library of the University of Cambridge, are in dis
pute. Some claim that they belong to the ninth century, but
the general opinion is that they are not earlier than the eleventh
century. 1
There are a number of lost manuscripts of the Palestinian
school that are renowned.
(a) The Codex Mugar is often cited in the earliest exist
ing Hebrew manuscripts, and is regarded by Ginsburg as the
oldest of those cited. ^
(6) The Codex Hillel, not earlier than the seventh century
A.D., was consulted by Jacob ben Eleazar in the twelfth
century. 8
(c) The Codex Ben Asher is of the first half of the tenth
century. The entire Massoretic text of the Occidental Jews
rests upon this. This manuscript was at first at Jerusalem;
afterwards it was removed to Egypt.
(i) The Codex Sanbuki probably belonged to a Hungarian
family of that name. It is of unknown date. It is cited
occasionally on the margin of manuscripts.
(e) The Massora also refers to a Jericho codex of the Law,
and a Sinai codex of the Prophets.*
1 A codex ascribed to Aaron ben Asher, or Ben Asher the Younger, aud pre
served in Aleppo, is thought by many to be very ancient. Its antiquity and
genuineness is defended by Ginsburg (Introduction, pp. 242 seq.) as of the date
earlier than 980, a copy of which, of about 1009 a.d., being now in the Imperial
Public Library at St. Petersburg. So great an antiquity is denied by Wickes
(I.e., 1887, pp. vii-ix) and Lagarde (N. G. G. W., 1890, 16). Strack (Semitic
Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, p. 563) withholds his decision until the manu
script can be more carefully examined. Schiller-Szinessy claims that a Hebrew
manuscript numbered No. 12, at the University of Cambridge, England, was of
the date of 856, but Neubauer (Academy, 1887, p. 321, Studia Biblica, III. pp. 28
seq.) has disproved it. Ginsburg (I.e., pp. 241 seq.) claims that the codex of Ben
Asher the Elder, in the synagogue of the Karaite Jews at Cairo, is genuine and of
the date of 890-895, and that a copy of it was purchased in the year 1530 and is
in the synagogue at Cracow. This is disputed by S. Baer, Wickes, and Neubauer
(see Stud. Bibl., III. pp. 25 seq.); but Herman Strack (Semitic Studies in Mem
ory of A. Kohut, s. 563) thinks that their reasons are insufficient. Ginsburg (he,
pp. 469 seq. ) describes a manuscript 4445 of the British Museum Library, which
he claims to be of the date of 820-850 a.d.
2 See Ginsburg, l.c. , pp. 429 seq.
3 So David Kimchi testifies (Michlol, fol. 78 6, col. 2).
* Ginsburg, I.e., pp. 434 seq.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 185
2. The Babylonian Manuscripts
The earliest known to scholars is the St. Petersburg codex
of the Prophets,! 916 a.d. The oldest of the entire Bible is
a codex at St. Petersburg supposed to be of 1009 A.D.^ A
lost manuscript of the Babylonian school is the Codex Ben
Naphtali, which is referred to in the Massora as a standard
authority, of the first half of the tenth century A.D. Many
of its readings are also preserved by Kimchi in his grammar
and lexicon. No copy of this manuscript is known to exist.
3. The Samaritan Codex
An ancient manuscript of this codex is preserved in the
Samaritan synagogue at Nablous, in Samaria. It is claimed by
the Samaritans that it has been handed down from Abisha, the
great-grandson of Aaron, whose name is inscribed upon it. It
is mentioned by Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome, and
Procopius of Gaza among the Fathers, but was lost sight of
subsequently until 1616 a.d., when Pietro della Valle pro
cured a copy of it at Damascus. It was published in the Paris
Polyglot of 1645 and in the London Polyglot of 1657. At
once a hot dispute arose as to its value, which continued for
two centuries, Morinus, Houbigant, and Hassencamp exalting
it above the Massoretic text; Hottinger, J. D. Michaelis, and
Tychsen advocating the superiority of the latter. Gesenius^
was the first to thoroughly compare the texts. His view was
that while the text was an independent one in its origin, it has
yet been improved by the Samaritans in order to avoid ob
scurities, and in the interests of their own religion, at times
betraying ignorance of Hebrew grammar and syntax. It has
many features of resemblance to the Septuagint Version. Ge
senius calculates them at more than one thousand. These facts
^ Published by Herman Strack in photo-lithograph, Prophetarum posteriorum
Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, St. Petersburg, 1876.
2 Wickes gives reasons for the opinion that this manuscript is of much later
date (Accents, IX.). But Harkavy and Strack, 263-274, Katalog. d. Hebr.
Bibelhandschriften, in St. Petersburg, 1875, and Baer and Slrack, Dikduke ha-
teamim, XXIV. seq., accept the date. Ginsburg also thinks that this codex does
not really represent the Babylonian text, although it has the so-called Baby
lonian system of vowel points and accents (I.e., pp. 215 seq.).
3 De Pentateuci Samaritani Origine, 1815.

186 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
attracted the attention of scholars, so that on the one side
Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhorn, and Kohn contended that
the Septuagint was translated from the Samaritan text, and on
the other side Grotius, Usher, and others urged that the Samar
itan was made from the Septuagint. Both these views have
been shown to be impossible and have been abandoned by
recent scholars, who give the text an independent authority.
It was, then, either with the Septuagint derived from a com
mon older manuscript of Jerusalem, as Gesenius, Nutt, and
others ; or, as the differences between them are quite numerous,
they are based on independent original manuscripts, the origi
nal of the Samaritan text having been brought from Jerusalem
by Manasseh when he introduced the Samaritan schism. The
text was published again by Blayney, Oxford, 1790, in square
characters. The variations from the Massoretic text have been
noted by Petermann.^
The influence of Gesenius led many of the older scholars to
too unfavourable views of this text. Recent scholars show an
increasing confidence in its readings.
V. Printed Texts of the Hebrew Bible
1. The earliest printed editions of the Hebrew text were the
Psalter at Bologna, 1477, and the Law, 1482. The whole Bible
was first printed at Soncino, Lombardy, in 1488 ; then at Naples,
1491-1493. Another edition was printed at Brescia in 1494.
This was used by Luther in making his version. The same
text is used in Bomberg's first Rabbinical Bible, 1516-1517,
edited by Felix Pratensis, and in his manual editions, 1517 seq. ;
and also by Stephens, 1539 seq., and Sebastian Munster.
2. The second independent text was issued in the Complu
tensian Polyglot, 1614^1517, of Cardinal Ximenes, with vowel
points but without accents.
3. The third independent text was edited by Jacob ben
¦Chayim in the second Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg, 1524r-1526.
This was carefully revised after the Massora.
1 Versuch einer hebrdischen Formenlehre nach der Aussprache der heutigen
JSamaritaner, Leipzig, 1868.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE 187
All the printed texts from that time until recent times are
mixtures of these three texts.
(a) The Antwerp Polyglot, 1569-1572, under the manage
ment of Arias Montanus.
(6) The manual editions of Hutter, 1587 seq.
(e) Buxtorfs Rabbinical Bible, 1618-1619, and his manual
editions. ((i) The Paris Polyglot, 1629-1645.
(e) The London Polyglot, 1654-1657.
(/) A number of manual editions with mixed texts follow :
Leusden, 1667 ; Jablonski, 1699 ; Baer, 1701 ; Michaelis, 1720 ;
Van der Hooght, 1705 ; Opitius, 1709 ; Hahn, 1831 ; Theile,
1849. 4. Baer and Delitzsch undertook a fourth independent text
by the use of the entire Massoretic apparatus accessible. The
several books of the Hebrew text were published apart, 1869-
1895, when Baer and Delitzsch having both died, their work
remained unfinished.
5. A fifth independent text has just been published by Gins
burg, 1894, which will doubtless for some time be the standard
edition of the Massoretic text. It is essentially "based upon
the first edition of Jacob ben Chajim's Massoretic recension. "^
1 Ginsburg, Introduction, Preface.

CHAPTER VIII
HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE
The Jews in Egypt during the Persian supremacy doubtless
used the Egyptian dialect of the Aramaic, which has been pre
served to us in certain inscriptions. But soon after the Greek
conquest of Egypt, they changed their language to an Egyptian
dialect of the Greek. The Jews flourished in Egypt, especially
in the new city of Alexandria, and became rich and powerful
so that they built many fine synagogues. They soon felt the
need in their worship of a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
into the tongue of the people. This began, as in Palestine, by
oral translations in the synagogue, but it was not long before
it became more important than in Palestine to commit these
translations to writing. Accordingly a Greek translation of
the Law was first made, then of the Prophets and the Psalms.
The other Writings were not used in the synagogue, and there
fore they were only translated for private reading at a later
date. The legend that the Greek Old Testament was trans
lated all at once by seventy select men, who used a manu
script sent to them from Jerusalem, has no historic basis. ^
I. The Greek Septuagint
The Greek translation of the Pentateuch was probably made
early in the third century B.C., the Prophets and the most of
the Writings were translated before the middle of the second
century, but the whole of them and the Apocrypha not until
the first century.2 It is quite possible that the Pentateuch
1 See pp. 124 seq.
2 Gratz (Gesch. Juden., III. pp. 428 seq.) holds that the translation was not
made under Ptolemasus Philadelphus at the beginning of the third century b.c,
but under Ptolemseus Philometer, middle of the second century b.c, and that
188

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 189
was translated by Palestinian Jews under royal sanction ^ ac
cording to the tradition ; but the translators of the Prophets
and the Writings must have been Egyptian Jews. The books
of Samuel and Jeremiah differ in the Greek so very greatly
from the Hebrew traditional text that we must conclude that
they were translated from manuscripts which were at an early
date independent of Palestinian manuscripts ; especially as
they are free from a considerable number of Midrashim, which
must have made their way into the Hebrew text after the
Egyptian manuscripts were written, and at a time when
scribes felt at liberty to make such considerable additions to
the text. Baumgartner has shown that the book of Proverbs
was translated from a Hebrew text, written in the Egyptian
Aramaic character, and that it shows traces also of having been
written in older Aramaic characters after it had been translit
erated from the ancient Hebrew characters. ^ HoUenberg
makes the same statement for the book of Joshua ^ and Vollers
for the twelve minor prophets.* Workman makes a similar
statement as to Jeremiah, but does not give sufficient evidence
of it.6
The book of Sirach was translated into Greek about 130
B.C., and added to the sacred books of the Egyptian Canon ;
and others of the apocryphal books and writings were added,
the Jewish peripatetic Aristobulus played the chief part in its accomplishment ;
but most scholars agree with Wellhausen that the translation of the Pentateuch
was made under Ptolemseus Philadelphus. That is all the letter of Aristeas
really refers to. It was quite natural that later tradition should extend it to the
whole Old Testament. Besides, the Prologue of the Greek Ecclesiasticus knows,
about 130 B.C., of a Greek translation of the Law, the Prophets, and other books.
1 Buhl (I.e., s. 124) calls attention to the fact that the three accounts of the
translation of the Law in the letter of Aristeas, the addition to Esther, and the
book of Sirach, all agree in representing the translators as being Palestinian,
and remarks that the Palestinian Jews really, in most cases, understood Greek
better than the Egyptian Jews understood Hebrew, and that the translators
would naturally be Palestinian Jews who had recently migrated to Egypt.
Freudenthal (Hellenistische Studien, 1875, s. 185) has shown that Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles, Job, and probably Joshua, had been translated by the middle
of the second century. Strack (I.e., s. 192) agrees to it.
2 ^tude critique sur Petal du texte du livre des Proverbes, 1890, pp. 247 seq.
3 Der Charakter d. Alexand. Uebersetzung d. Buches Josua, 1876, s. 12.
* Z. A. T. W., 1883, s. 231.
6 The Text of Jeremiah, 1889, pp. 233 seq.

190 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
until by the close of the first century B.C. the entire Greek Old
Testament had been completed in the Greek language. This
was the Bible of the early Christians, not only in Alexandria,
but all over the Roman world. The writers of the epistles of
the New Testament quote from it, and they are followed by
all the sub-apostolic Fathers and Christian writers of the earlier
Christian centuries.
II. The Greek New Testament
In the second Christian century the Greek New Testament
was added to the Old Testament. The most of the New Tes
tament was originally written in Greek for Greek readers.
The Logia of Matthew was written in Hebrew, in order that it
might be added to the Holy Scripture for Jewish Christians.
The earlier apocalypses of the book of Revelation were also
written in Hebrew.^ The Epistle of James was probably
written in Hebrew also, as well as the Canticles of the early
chapters of Luke.^ But these were aU translated into Greek,
or taken up into larger Greek writings, and their Hebrew
originals perished. Accordingly the New Testament became
in fact a Greek New Testament.
All of the writings of the Canon of the New Testament were
in circulation early in the second century ; but they were not
collected into a Canon before the latter part of the second
century. They were in private manuscripts, and for the most
part at least written on papyrus.^
" No autograph of any book of the New Testament is known or
believed to be still in existence. The originals must have been
early lost, for they are mentioned by no ecclesiastical writer,
although there were many motives for appealing to them, had
they been forthcoming, in the second and third centuries." . . .
" We know little about the external features of the MSS. of the
ages of persecution: but what little we do know suggests that
they were usually small, containing only single books or groups of
books, and not seldom, there is reason to suspect, of compara
tively coarse material." *
1 See Briggs, Messiah ofthe Apostles, p. 301.
2 See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 42. s gee pp. 133 seq.
^ Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, Introduction, pp. 4, 9-10.

history of the text of the greek bible 191
The separate writings were often copied before they were
gathered into the groups which constitute the present Canon,
and scattered widely over the world. But in the times of per
secution large numbers of them were destroyed, especially dur
ing the persecution of Diocletian.
The roll of papyrus was the book of the early Christians.
For public reading in the churches, rolls of skin were probably
used among the Christians, as among the Jews, whenever the
community was able to bear the expense. But the entire
library of Origen and Pamphilus at Csesarea consisted of papy
rus rolls. ^
The sacred books of the Old and New Testaments consti-
tiited quite a library of these rolls ; the rolls ordinarily con
tained only a single writing. Even the Gospels appear in
several different orders on the monuments of the fourth and
fifth centuries, showing that each was usually on a separate
roll. No monumental evidence of the existence of a codex of
parchment appears before the close of the third century ; no
literary evidence before the middle of the third century.
These codices were at first very expensive, and so the papyrus
rolls continued in private use deep into the fifth century. ^
III. Other Greek Versions
The use of the Greek version of the Old Testament by the
Christians and its many differences from the Hebrew official
text as established by the Sopherim of the school of Rabbi
Akiba, excited the hostility of the Jewish scribes, and every
effort was made to discredit it. In the first half of the second
century A.D. a Greek version was made by Aquila, a pupil of
Rabbi Akiba, on the basis of the official Hebrew text.^ It
is extremely literal and endeavours conscientiously to follow
the official text.*
1 Birt, Das antike Buohwesen, 1882, s. 109.
2 Schultze, Bolle und Codex, in Greifswalder Studien, 1895, s. 150 seq.
3 Megilla, I. 9 ; Qidduschin, I. 1.
* The sign of the definite accusative HK is translated by ffif, the local n by di,
"llasb by Tl? 'Kiyeiv. These are striking examples of an extreme literalism which
goes so far as to impair the real meaning of the passage. This Aquila is men
tioned by Irenseus, Adv. Hceres, III. 24 ; Eusebius, Hist, eccl, V. 8, 10 ; Jerome

192 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The greater part of this version has been lost, only frag
ments having been preserved. At the same time the influence
of Aquila may be seen in the revision of the Septuagint text
of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes, into which elements from Aquila
have been taken up.^ Another Greek version was made about
the same time by Theodotion. He revised the Septuagint to
make it conform to the official text.^ His translation has only
been preserved in fragments, apart from the book of Daniel,
which supplanted the Septuagint Version of Daniel in the
usage of the Church, and other elements which have been
taken up into the Greek Bibles. Symmachus undertook about
the same time ^ to make a better Greek version of the Old Testa
ment from a Christian point of view* and in more elegant Greek.
There are fragments of three other independent Greek ver
sions of the old Testament which have been preserved, known
as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima, of unknown origin.^ These are
chiefly of the poetical books. All these make it evident that
there was a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the Septuagint
at the close of the. second and the beginning of the third cen
tury, not only on the part of the Jews but also of the Chris
tians. It is probable that the zealous polemic of the Jewish
scribes on the basis of the official Hebrew text brought about
this serious situation.
IV. The Official Texts op the Greek Bible
Origen during his abode at Csesarea (232-254 a.d.) made a
gigantic effort to remove this dissatisfaction and establish a
on Is. 81'', Epist. 57 ad Pammachium, c. 11 ; Origen, ad Afric (I. 14, Delarue).
Cf. Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jud., II. 311. Cornill (Ezek., s. 64, 104) mentions Codex
62 of Holmes, which shows the influence of Aquila. The Septuagint of Kohe
leth and the Song of Songs also show his influence, not only in the Greek, but
also in the Syriac translation. See Buhl, I.e., s. 155.
1 Cornill, Ezekiel, s. 104 seq. ; Dillmann, Ueber d. Griech. Uebersetzung der
Koheleth, in Sitzungsberichte d. Konig. Preus. Akad. d. Wiss., 1892.
2 Theodotion is mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Hxr. ) as a proselyte of Ephesus.
Jerome calls him an Ebionite (Comm., Hab. 3i'-i3. Cf. Prcef. Comm. in Dan.).
3 He is usually assigned to the beginning of the third century. But Epipha
nius puts him in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Mercati has recently come to the
same conclusion (see Strack, I.e., s. 201).
* Eusebius (H. E., VI. 17) and Jerome (l.c.) both call him an Ebionite.
5 Eusebius, I.e.. VL 16.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 193
reliable Greek text of the Old Testament. He gathered in his
Hexapla the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated into
Greek characters, the three versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and
Symmachus, and a revised Septuagint text.^
Where the Septuagint was missing he used Theodotion with
an asterisk. There can be little doubt that this revision of the
text of the Old Testament was accompanied by a similar move
ment for the collection of the New Testament writings and a
revision of their text. But there is no evidence that Origen
had a hand in it.^
The text of the Septuagint fixed by Origen in the Hexapla
was issued by Eusebius and Pamphilus at Csesarea, and proba
bly also a revision of the Greek New Testament was made
at about the same time under similar influences, and these
became the official Greek Bible for the Church of Palestine.
Soon afterwards, Hesychius revised the text of the entire Bible
in Alexandria, and it became the official text of the Church of
Egypt. About the same time Lucian the Martyr (311 -|-)
made another independent revision of the entire Greek Bible
at Antioch. Thus at the beginning of the fourth century there
were three rival texts of the Greek Bible in use.
Jerome refers to the work of Lucian and Hesychius in his
Prcef. in Paralip., thus, "Alexandria et ^gyptus in Septuaginta
suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antio-
chiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat." Cf. also his Epist.
106, ad Sunniam et Fretelam, and P7-cef. in Evang., " I pass over
those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian
and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maiti-
1 The Greek fragments of the Hexapla were gathered by Field (Origenis
Hexaplorum quce supersunt, 2 vols.), Oxford, 1867-1875. A Syriac translation
of the Septuagint text of the Hexapla was made by Paul of Telia in 616 a.d.
A manuscript of this translation of the eighth century was discovered in the
Ambrosian Library of Milan and issued by Ceriani in 1874. Still more recently
a fragment of the entire Hexapla of a number of the Psalms has been discovered
in the Ambrosian Library by Giov. Mercati, who has given a brief account of it
in 1896, and who will soon publish it. It embraces Ps. 45 and parts of 17, 27-31,
34, 35, 48, 88 (of the numbers of the Septuagint). Cf. Giov. Mercati, Un
Palimpsesto Ambrosiano dei Salmi Esapli, Turin, 1898.
2 See Holtzmann, Einleitung, s. 47, who quotes from Origen: "In exempla-
ribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum posse facere sine periculo non putavi "
(m Mt. XV. 14). See, however, Jerome on Mt. 24=6 and Gal. 3i.

194 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
tained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that
these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament
after the labours of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct
the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the
languages of many nations show that their additions are false." '¦
Cf. with reference to Hesychius further Jerome's Comm. on
Is. 58". Nestle, in Z. D. M. G., XXXII. s. 481 seq., quotes from
a scholion of Jacob of Edessa, the statement that Lucian when
he saw ''HK in the text and xuptos on the margin he combined
the two, 'ASumt Kvpio?. A similar conflation is indeed found in
the earliest Hebrew text of the Old Testament in the phrase
mn''''3"Ii< (see Cornill, Ezekiel, pp. 172 seq.). Nestle (Marginalien,
Tiibingen, 1893, s. 45) suggested that Lucian had used the Peshitto
version. This was confirmed by Stockmayer in his investigation
of the books of Samuel, and is agreed to by Strack (I.e., s. 194).
Eield (Hexapla, LXXXVIII.) calls attention to the fact that the
formula miT' ''JIX, so common in Ezekiel, is given by Ed. Bom.
Kvpio?, in Comp. Aid. Codd., IIL, XII., 26, 42, 49, etc., Kvpios Kvpios ;
but in Codd., 22, 36, 48, etc., dStorai Kijpio';.
When Christianity ascended the throne of the Caesars great
efforts were made for the transcribing and distribution of manu
scripts to supply the place of those that had been destroyed in
the last persecution. Finally the Emperor Constantine, about
332 A.D., ordered Eusebius to prepare "fifty copies of the
Sacred Scriptures ... to be written on prepared parchment
in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by
professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art."
These were " magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a
threefold and fourfold form." 2 None of these have been pre
served, but we may justly suppose that they were at least as
large and stately as the Uncial codices of the fourth century
from other cities, which have been preserved. These codices
doubtless tended to establish official texts for a large part of the
eastern Roman Empire, and it may be that the conflate Syriac
text, which became the dominant text from the fourth century
onward, dates from these codices.
Many ancient versions were made from the Greek Bible. The
1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d series. Vol. VI. , St. Jerome, p. 488.
2 Eusebius, Vit. Constan., IV. 36-37 ; Richardson's edition, Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, 2d series. Vol. I., 1890, p. 549.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THB GREEK BIBLE 195
early Latin versions of North Africa and North Italy ; the
Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and Thebaic, were made
in the second century; the Gothic in the fourth century; the
Ethiopic in the fourth or fifth centuries, and the Armenian in
the fifth century. These represent several stages in the de
velopment of the text of the Greek Bible.
V. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible
The earlier manuscripts of the Greek Bible are called Uncials,
or Majuscules, because they are written in capital letters with
out accents ; the later are called Minuscules, because they are
written in a smaller hand. A careful study of the manu
scripts of the Greek Bible on the genealogical principle en
ables scholars to arrange them in the following groups :
VI. The So-called Neutral Text
The earliest uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible is the Vati
can codex, of the fourth Christian century, catalogued as B.
"Written in an uncial hand of the fourth century on leaves of
the finest vellum made up in quires of five ; the lines, which are
of sixteen to eighteen letters, being arranged in three columns con
taining forty-two lines each, excepting the poetical books, where
the lines being stichometrical, the columns are only two. There
are no initial letters, although the first letter of a section occa
sionally projects into the margin ; no breathings or accents occur
prima manu, the punctuation if by the first hand is rare and sim
ple. Of the 759 leaves which compose the present quarto volume,
617 belong to the Old Testament. The first twenty leaves of the
original codex have been torn away, and there are lacunae, also at
f. 178 (part of a leaf) and at f. 348 (ten leaves of the original
missing) ; these gaps involve the loss of G-en. 1M6^, 2 K. 2^''' '""'^^
Ps. 106^-137* ; the missing passages in Genesis and Psalms have
been supplied by a recent hand. The Prayer of Manasses and
the Books of the Maccabees were never included in this codex.
The other books are in the following order : Genesis to 2 Chron.,
Esdras 1, 2, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Wis
dom of Solomon, Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith,
Tobit, Hosea, and the other Minor Prophets to Malachi, Isaiah,

196 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, and epistle of Jeremiah, Eze
kiel, Daniel (the version ascribed to Theodotion)." ^
It seems best to use Swete's descriptions so far as they go, for
this and the other great codices, because they are concise, accurate,
and technical ; and it is better for scholars to rest upon a common
ground in such technical matters. He does not specify the New
Testament part of the codices ; and these I must add. Codex B
has all the New Testament except Heb. 9"-13% the Pastorals,
Philemon, and the Apocalypse.
The Codex Vaticanus represents a text earlier than any of
the revisions of the third century, and it belongs to a family
which was used by Origen when he made his Hexapla.^ It gives
what Westcott and Hort term the Neutral Text, that is, a text
which is free from the corruptions which came in in all the sub
sequent revisions, although it still has early corruptions of its
own.^ This text is now accessible to scholars in the facsimile
Roman edition, and also in a convenient and reliable form in
Swete's edition of the Septuagint, published by the University
Press of Cambridge, England, which follows the Vatican codex,
and only uses the Alexandrian and Sinaitic where the Vatican
text is missing.
The next earliest manuscript is the Sinaitic, discovered by
Constantinus Tischendorf in 1844-1859.* It also is an Uncial
of the fourth century.
" Written in an uncial hand, ascribed to the middle of the fourth
century, and in lines which, when complete, contain from twelve
to fourteen letters, and which are arranged in four columns on
unusually large leaves of a very fine vellum, made from the skin
of the ass or of the antelope. The leaves are gathered into quires
of four, excepting two which contain five. There are no breath
ings or accents ; a simple point is occasionally used. In the New
Testament the MS. is complete ; of the Old Testament the follow
ing portions remain : fragments of Gen. 23, 24, and of Numbers
5, 6, 7, 1 Chron. 9^-19^^ 2 Esdras 9, to end, Nehemiah, Esther,
Tobit, Judith, 1 Macc, 4 Macc, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lam. l'-22<', Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecha
riah, Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
1 Swete, Old Testament in Gi-eek, Vol. I. p. xvii.
2 Strack, Einleitung, s. 194 ; Silberstein, Z. A. T. W., 1893, s. 14.
3 See Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, Introduction, p. 150.
* Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 345 seq.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 197
Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, Job." ' This
codex not only contains the whole of the present Canon of the
New Testament, but also the Epistle of Barnabas and fragments
of the Shepherd of Hermas.^
This manuscript, usually known as S, but also by others as
S, is the nearest in text to the Vatican Codex B; but it con
tains readings, especially in John, Luke, and the Apocalypse,
of the two distinct types which are known as Western and
Alexandrian readings.^
The differences between these two great Uncials of the
fourth century are such as to imply several stages of trans
mission between them and the time when they departed from a
common parent. German scholars, after Tischendorf, value X
more highly than British scholars do. The parent manuscript
is placed by Hort not later than the early part of the second
Christian century.* This parent must have been therefore a
collection of rolls, a little library of the different writings.
VII. The Egyptian Text
The third great Uncial manuscript is the Alexandrian A,
of the British Museum, dating from the fifth century.
" Written in an uncial hand of the middle of the fifth century,
on vellum of fine texture originally arranged in quires of eight
leaves, occasionally (but chiefly at the end of a Book) of less than
eight ; three or four and twenty letters go to a line ; fifty or fifty-
one lines usually compose a column, and there are two columns
on a page. Large initial letters, standing in the margin, announce
the commencement of a paragraph or section, excepting in Vol.
IIL, which appears to be the work of another scribe. There are
no breathings or accents added by the first hand ; the punctuation,
more frequent than in B, is still confined to a single point. The
three volumes, which contain the Old Testament, now consist of
630 leaves. Of these volumes only nine leaves are lost and five
mutilated. The portions of the Septuagint, which are thus defi
cient in A, contained Gen. 14^*-", 15'^'''-'', 16'^^ 1 K. 12«-14^
1 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, p. xx.
2 For a full description of this codex and a history of its discovery by Tisch
endorf, see Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 345 seq.
3 Gregory, I.e., p. 346.
* New Testament in Greek, Introduction, pp. 222 seq.

198 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Ps. 49^^-791°. The codex opens (1, f. 3) with a table of the books
written in uncial letters somewhat later than the body of the MS.
The first volume contains the Octateuch with Kings and Chronicles
(op.ov /8t;8Ata s). The books of Chronicles are followed (Vol. II.) by
the Prophets (Trpo^iyrat is) Minor and Major, Jeremiah, including
Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle ; Daniel (Theodotion' s ver
sion) is succeeded by Esther, Tobit, Judith, Esdras 1, 2, and the
four books of Maccabees. The third volume contains the Psalter,
with Ps. CLL, and the Canticles, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the
Song of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of the
Son of Sirach. The table shews that the Psalms of Solomon once
occupied a place at the end of the fourth volume which contains
the New Testament." ^ This codex contains all of the present
Canon of the New Testament except Mt. 1^-25^; John 6™-8^2.
2 Cor. 4^-12'. It also has the two epistles of Clement except
i s8-8a 013-20 2
This manuscript was in the possession of the Patriarch of
Alexandria for many centuries before it was presented to
Charles I. of England in 1628. Swete says : ^
" It seems probable that A, which, as far back as the furthest
period to which we can trace its history, was preserved in Egypt,
had been originally written there ; and, as Mr. E. M. Thompson
has pointed out, the occurrence of Egyptian forms of the Greek
letters in the superscriptions and colophons of the books proves
that ' the MS., if not absolutely written in Egypt, must have been
immediately afterwards removed thither.' "
To the same family belongs the Codex Ephraem C, also of
the fifth century, now in the National Library at Paris. It
is a bundle of fragments, preserving three-fifths of the whole
original manuscript in the uncial character. But it is a
palimpsest; that is, the original letters have faded or been
washed out, and the manuscript has been written over by selec
tions from Ephraem the Syrian.*
The Codex Vaticanus 452 of the Prophets,^ of the eleventh
century, was also originally in the possession of the Patriarch
of Alexandria, and presents a text of the same general char-
1 Swete, l.c. , p. xxii. * See Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 366 seq.
2 See Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 355.
8 I.e., p. xxiii, note. « H. & P., 91.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 199
acter as A.i So also does the Codex Ambrosianus of the Law,
assigned to the fifth century by Ceriani.''^
To these may be added the Codex Bodleianus of Genesis of
the eighth century. ^ These represent an Alexandrian official
text, but probably later than the revision of Hesychius.
E. Klostermann* thinks that the recension of Hesychius is
represented by Codex Vaticanus, gr. 556. ^ Ceriani claims the
text of Codex Marchalianus for Hesychius.^
So far as the New Testament is concerned, Hort thinks that
the text of A is mixed with both Syrian and Western readings.
Silberstein has made a careful examination of the text of 3
Kings (1 Kings of our Bible), and finds that of the 259 Hexa
pla additions as indicated by the asterisk, nine-tenths appear
in A, and that there can be no doubt of the dependence of this
text upon the recension of Origen.^
Similar detailed work on all the books of the Old and New
Testaments is necessary before the exact relation of A to Origen
and Hesychius and the earlier Alexandrian text can be fully
determined. " The text of A stands in broad contrast to those of either B
or K, though the interval of years is probably small. The con
trast is greatest in the Gospels, where A has a fundamentally
Syrian text, mixed occasionally with pre-Syrian readings, chiefly
Western. In the other books the Syrian base disappears, though
a Syrian occurs among the other elements. In the Acts and
Epistles the Alexandrian outnumber the Western readings. All
books except the Gospels, and especially the Apocalypse, have
many pre-Syrian readings not belonging to either of the aberrant
types ; in the Gospels these readings are of rare occurrence. By
a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence the text of A in
several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar
readings devoid of Old Latin attestation as to leave little doubt
that a Greek MS. largely employed by Jerome in this revision of
1 Cornill, Ezekiel, s. 71.
^ Monumenta Sacra et Profana, IIL, Mediol., 1864. See also Swete, I.e.,
p. xxvi, for a full description.
3 See Swete, i.e., p. xxvi. ^ Analecta, s. 10. ^ H. & P., 26.
' Ceriani, de Codice Marchaliano. See Nestle in Urtext und Uebersetzungen,
s. 73. ' Z. A. T. W., 1893, s. 68, 69; 1894, s. 26.

200 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common
original with A." ^
Hort thinks that " Not a single Greek MS. of any age . . .
has transmitted to us an Alexandrian text of any part of the
New Testament free from large mixture with other texts." ^
VIII. The Text of the Hexapla
The uncial manuscript Marchalianus of the Prophets, dating
from the sixth or seventh century, represents the Greek text
of Origen's Hexapla on the margin. ^ The chief authority
for this text, however, is the Codex Sarravianus in Lej^den,
containing the Heptateuch.* Codex Venetus, gr. 1, may be
added on the authority of Lagarde, Ceriani, and Giesebrecht.^
Cornill adds also the cursives. Codex Chisianus of the Prophets,^
the Codex Barberinus of the Prophets.^ The Codex Coislini-
anus,^ containing the Octateuch, also has the text of the Hex
apla. The recently discovered Hexapla of a section of the
Psalms gives us the exact copy of the work of Origen. The
other manuscripts need careful comparison with this so soon as
it may be published.
There is no evidence that Origen or Eusebius or Pamphilus
issued a revised text of the New Testament.
IX. The So-called Western Text
The Codex Bezse, D,^ of the Gospels and Acts, from the sixth
century, contains "substantially a Western text of Cent. II.,
with occasional readings probably due to Cent. IV. . . .
Western texts of the Pauline Epistles are preserved in two
1 Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, Introduction, 1882, p. 152.
'¦i I.e., p. 150.
» This is XIL of H. & P. See Cornill, Ezekiel, s. 15 ; Nestle, I.e., s. 73.
^ H. & P., IV. and V. ; published in phototype by Omont, Leyden, 1897. See
Strack, I.e., s. 196 ; Nestle, Urtext und Uebersetzung, s. 72.
^ H. & P., 23. E. Klostermann, Analecta, s. 9-10, 34, shows that it belongs
with H. & P., XL, Vat. gr. 2106, making up a complete Old Testament.
6 This manuscript alone gives the old Greek translation of Daniel; all others
£ive Theodotion.
'' H. & P., 86, contains the Prophets except Daniel.
8 H. & P., X. See Buhl, I.e., s. 138 ; Nestle, I.e., s. 72.
9 See Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 369 seq.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 201
independent uncials, Dj and Gg."^ This Western text is thus
described by Hort:
"The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western
readings is a love of paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole
sentences, were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonishing
freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought
out with greater force and definiteness. They often exhibit a cer
tain rapid vigour and fluency which can hardly be called a rebellion
against the calm and reticent strength of the apostolic speech, for
it is deeply influenced by it, but which, not less than a tamer spirit
of textual correction, is apt to ignore pregnancy and balance of
sense, and especially those meanings which are conveyed by
exceptional choice or collocation of words. . . .
"Another equally important characteristic is a disposition to
enrich the text at the cost of its purity by alterations or additions
taken from traditional and perhaps from apocryphal or other non-
biblical sources. . . .
" Besides these two marked characteristics, the Western read
ings exhibit the ordinary tendencies of scribes whose changes are
not limited to wholly or partially mechanical corruptions. . . .
" As illustrations may be mentioned the insertion and multipli
cation of genitive pronouns, but occasionally their suppression
where they appeared cumbrous ; the insertion of objects, genitive,
dative, or accusative, after verbs used absolutely ; the insertion of
conjunctions in sentences which had none, but occasionally their
excision where their force was not perceived, and the form of the
sentence or context seemed to commend abruptness; free inter
change of conjunctions; free interchange of the formulae intro
ductory to spoken words ; free interchange of participle and finite
verb with two finite verbs connected by a conjunction; substitu
tion of compound verbs for simple as a rule, but conversely where
the compound verb of the true text was difiicult or unusual ; and
substitution of aorists for imperfects as a rule, but with a few
examples of the converse, in which either a misunderstanding of
the context or an outbreak of untimely vigour has introduced the
imperfect. A bolder form of correction is the insertion of a nega
tive particle, as in Mt. 21^^ (oi being favoured, it is true, by the
preceding tov), Lk. 11^^ and Rom. 4''; or its omission, as in
Rom. 5", Gal. 2', 51
" Another impulse of scribes abundantly exemplified in Western
readings is the fondness for assimilation. In its most obvious
1 Westcott and Hort, I.e., pp. 148, 149. D2 = Codex Claromontanus ;
G3 = Codex Bornerianus.

202 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
form it is merely local, abolishing diversities of diction where the
same subject-matter recurs as part of two or more neighbouring
clauses or verses, or correcting apparent defects of symmetry.
But its most dangerous work is ' harmonistic ' corruption ; that is,
the partial or total obliteration of differences in passages other
wise more or less resembling each other. Sometimes the assimi
lation is between single sentences that happen to have some matter
in common ; more usually, however, between parallel passages of
greater length, such especially as have in some sense a common
origin. To this head belong not only quotations from the Old
Testament, but parts of Ephesians and Colossians, and again of
Jude and 2 Peter, and, above all, the parallel records in the first
three Gospels, and to a certain extent in all four." '
There are great differences of opinion as to the value of this
Western text, especially between British and German scholars.^
Rendel Harris, in his recent study of this text, makes the
following statements :
" So extensively has the Greek text of Codex Bezae been modi
fied by the process of Latinization that we can no longer regard D
as a distinct authority apart from it. In the first instance it may
have been such; or, on the other hand, it may have been the ori
ginal from which the first Latin translation was made. But it is
probably safe to regard D -f d as representing a single bilingual
tradition. . . .
" It is the Bezan Latin that is of prime importance, while the
Greek has no certain value except ivhere it differs from its own
Latin, and must not any longer be regarded as an independent
authority. . . .
" The coincidences between D and Irenseus take us again to a
primitive translation that cannot be as late as the end of the
second century. And finally, an examination of the relicts of
Tatian's Harmony, and of the Syriac Versions shows reason for
1 Westcott and Hort, I.e., pp. 122-125.
2 " Eine ratselhafte Handschrift, iiber deren Wert die Meinungen weit ausei-
nander gehen. Wahrend die einen in ihr das einzigartige Denkmal einer zwar
verwilderten, aber sicherlich manches Ursprungliche enthaltenden Textesgestalt
erblicken, wie sie vor der endlichen Konstituierung des Kanons verbreitet
gewesen, gilt sie anderen als der Hauptreprasentant des durch willkiirliche
Aenderungen und Interpolationen entstellten sogen. Occidentalischen (west
ern) Textes, und dazwischen stehen eine Anzahl Sonderauffassungen, welche
ihrerseits der Eigenart der unter alien Umstanden hochbedeutsamen Urkunde
Rechnungzutragensuchen." Von Gebhardt in Urtext und Uebersetzungen der
Bibel, s. 31.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 203
believing that the bilingual at least as concerns the Gospels is
older than Tatian." ^
Harris thinks that the Western text is Roman of the second
century and that Tatian, who studied and taught at Rome, used
it in his Diatessaron.^
Still more recently Resch advanced the theory that the
differences in the great original Texts are due to independent
translations of a Hebrew original.^ Chase endeavours to show
a strong Syrian influence.* Blass has given strong reasons for
the opinion that the Western text of Acts rests upon another
edition of the original than that used by the other ancient
family of manuscripts.^ Harris in consideration of these theo
ries adheres to his opinion, yet recognizes the force of Blass'
arguments.
X. The So-called Text op Lucian
The Western text of the New Testament has apparently
nothing exactly to correspond with it in the Greek text of the
Old Testament. This is due to the defects of the Greek manu
scripts of this text, in that they contain parts of the New Tes
tament alone. It cannot escape attention, however, that whilst
this text is sustained by the most ancient Latin and Syriac
texts of the New Testament, these same ancient Latin and
Syriac texts in the Old Testament sustain the so-called text of
Lucian. Driver and Mez ^ both call attention to this and sum
up the evidence. Mez calls attention to the facts that Ceriani'^
saw the agreement of the old Latin with Lucian in Lamenta
tions ; Vercellone ^ for the codex of Leon, Wellhausen for
Samuel, Jacob for the book of Esther, Silberstein ^ for the first
book of Kings. Driver says : ^"
1 Codex Bezce in Texts and Studies, Cambridge, IL 1, pp. 114, 161, 192.
2 i.e., p. 234.
3 Resch, Agrapha, 1892, pp. 350, 351 ; Die Logia Jesu nach dem Griechischen
und Hebrdischen Text wiederhergestellt, 1898.
* Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Cod. Bezx, 1893.
5 Blass, Studien und Krit., 1894, s. 86-120; Acta Apost., 1896; Evangelium
secundum Lucam secundum formam quae videtur Bomanam, 1897.
3 Driver, Samuel, p. Ixxvii ; Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus, 1895, s. 81.
' Ceriani, Mon. Sacr. et Prof an., 1861, L 1, p. xvi. (Addenda).
3 Vercellone, Varies Lectiones, II. 436.
^ Z. A. T. W., 1893, s. 20. i" Samuel, 1890, pp. Ixxvii, Ixxviii.

204 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" The conclusion which the facts observed authorize is thus that
the Old Latin is a version made, or revised, on the basis of MSS.
agreeing closely with those which were followed by Lucian in
framing his recension. The Old Latin must date from the second
century a.d.; hence it cannot be based upon the recension of
Lucian as such : its peculiar interest lies in the fact that it affords
independent evidence of the existence of MSS. containing Lu
cian's characteristic readings (or renderings), considerably before
the time of Lucian himself."
Mez carefully examines the citations from the Old Testament
in Josephus, Antiq., Books V.-VIL, and reaches the conclusion
that the so-called text of Lucian is older than Josephus, and
that Theodotion made a revision of it.
The Codex Vaticanus 330 was recognized by Field and then
by Lagarde as giving essentially the text of Lucian. This
manuscript was the chief authority for the text of the Com
plutensian Polyglot.^
In the New Testament the recension of Lucian is not known
to exist in any manuscript. This is just as striking as the
absence of Western readings from manuscripts of the Old
Testament.
XI. The Later Syrian Text
Westcott and Hort distinguish between an earlier and later
Syriac revision, and are willing to ascribe the earlier to Lucian.
But all the manuscripts except those of the families thus far
specified, and consequently the vast majority of all existing
manuscripts, belong to the later Syriac revision. Westcott and
Hort do not distinguish the earlier Syrian readings and make
no effort to ascertain the text of Lucian. Here they are weak.
This is their view of Syrian readings :
"The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally
is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian
or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century.
The community of text implies on genealogical grounds a com
munity of parentage: the Antiochian Fathers and the bulk of
1 Field, Origenis Hexapl., I., Prol., p. bcxxviii; Cornill, Ezekiel, s. 65; Buhl,
I.e., s. 140. Lagarde also used for Lucian, H.&P., 19, 44, 82, 93, 108, 118, and
Cornill, II. & P., 22, 23, 36, 48, 51, 231.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 205
extant MSS. written from about three or four to ten or eleven
centuries later must have had in the greater number of extant
variations a common original either contemporary with or older
than our oldest extant MSS., which thus lose at once whatever
presumption of exceptional purity they might have derived from
their exceptional antiquity alone." '
This text presupposes the work of Lucian and other rival texts.
" The guiding motives of their criticism are transparently dis
played in its effects. It was probably initiated by the distracting
and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting texts in the
same region. The alternate borrowing from all implies that no
selection of one was made, — indeed it is difficult to see how under
the circumstances it could have been made — as entitled to su
premacy by manifest superiority of pedigree. Each text may
perhaps have found a patron in some leading personage or see,
and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims." ^
The general characteristics of these texts are as follows :
" Both in matter and in diction the Syrian text is conspicuously
a full text. It delights in pronouns, conjunctions, and expletives,
and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable
additions. As distinguished from the bold vigour of the ' West
ern ' scribes, and the refined scholarship of the Alexandrians, the
spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. En
tirely blameless on either literary or religious grounds as regards
vulgarised or unworthy diction, yet shewing no marks of either
critical or spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a
form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense
and force, more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for
repeated and diligent study." ^
Great progress has been made in recent years in the classi
fication of the manuscripts ; but much still remains to be done.
It seems to be evident that B, K, and their group represent a text
earlier than any of the revisions of the third century. We
are in the way of determining the text of the Old Testament
as revised by Origen and Lucian. The general character and
antiquity of the so-called Western text of the New Testament
has been established, and the tendency is to an increasing esti
mate of its value as compared with B. The relation of that
1 Westcott and Hort, I.e., p. 92. ' Westcott and Hort, I.e., pp. 133, 134.
3 Westcott and Hort, I.e., p. 135.

206 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
text to the New Testament revision of Lucian and to the Old
Testament Lucian has still to be determined. The school of
Westcott and Hort halt in their study of the Syrian text. It
is necessary to distinguish between the late Syrian and the
earlier Syrian text. They seem altogether uncertain as regards
the earlier Syrian text. It is probable that these questions of
Textual Criticism will have to be determined by the special
study of all the different writings of the Old Testament.
Back of the codices of the third century lie libraries of rolls,
and in these libraries each roll had a history of its own. The
future work of the Textual Criticism of the Greek Bible is
largely in the second century B.C.
XII. Printed Texts of the Greek Bible
1. The first printed text of the Greek Bible is in the Com
plutensian Polyglot, 1514-1517.1 This text was revised in the
Antwerp Polyglot, 1569-1572, and the Paris Polyglot, 1645.
2. Erasmus published his Greek New Testament in five
editions, 1516-1535. Luther translated from the second edition
of 1519.2
3. The Aldine edition ^ of the Old Testament was published
at Venice, 1518.
4. Robert Stephens issued four editions of the Greek New
Testament, 1546-1551. He used in addition to Erasmus and
the Complutensian, fifteen manuscripts,* and for the first time
in 1551 divided the Greek text into verses.
5. Theodore Beza issued four editions of the Greek New
Testament, in folio, 1565-1598, and five octavo editions, 1565-
1604. He knew of D of the Epistles, but seems to have made
little use of it.^
1 This text was based on the Vatican codices 330, 346 (H. & P., 108, 248),
and a few manuscripts of minor importance in Madrid, such as Venet. V. (H.
*P.,68). 2 Erasmus used several manuscripts of Basle, Evv. 1, 2 ; Acts 2 ; Apoo. 1,
and for the third edition Ev. 61.
3 It was based on H. & P., 29, 68, 121 ; Lagarde, Mitt. 2, 57 ; Sept. St. 1,
2 ; Nestle, in Urtext und Uebersetzungen, s. 65.
* He used but slightly D and L of the Gospels.
5 Ezra Abbot, Critical Essays, 1888, p. 210.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 207
6. Ill 1586 there was published at Rome the Sixtine edition
of the Greek Old Testament. This was based on B, but the
parts lacking in B were supplied from other manuscripts, which
Avere not indicated. This text was also given in the London
Polyglot, 1657, with a critical apparatus and various readings.^
7. The Elzevirs of Leyden issued a series of editions of the
Greek New Testament from 1624 onward. The second edition
of the year 1633 claimed to give the received text of the New
Testament. But there was no intrinsic merit in these editions
based on manuscript authority to justify this reputation.
In the eighteenth century numerous efforts were made to
give better texts.
8. Mill issued his New Testament at Oxford in 1707, the
text of Stephens of 1550 Avith a rich critical apparatus.
9. The Codex Alexandrinus was published by Grabe, Lee,
and Wigan at Oxford in 1707-1720 with prolegomena.
10. Bengel issued his critical text of the New Testament in
1734. He arranged the manuscripts in two families, the Afri
can and the Asiatic.
11. Wetstein published his New Testament in 1751-1752 at
Amsterdam, with prolegomena and critical apparatus from the
manuscripts. He was the first to designate the manuscripts
with letters and numbers.
12. Semler and his pupil Griesbach in their New Testament
Criticism divided the manuscripts into three classes : the West
ern, the Alexandrian, and the Byzantine. Griesbach sums up
the characteristics of the two older texts in the phrase " gram-
maticum egit alexandrinus censor, interpretem occidentalis."^
His New Testament appeared in several editions from 1774-
1806 ; see especially small edition of 1805.
13. Holmes and Parsons issued their Greek Old Testament
at Oxford 1798-1827, citing a mass of manuscripts which they
arranged in families in accordance with the great historical
editions of the third century, Lucian, Hesychius and Origen.
They used,20 Uncials and 277 Minuscules.^
1 These are from A, D ; also, according to Nestle, I.e., p. 66 ; H. & P., IV.,
XIL, 60, 75, 86. 3 See Nestle, I.e., s. 66, 67.
2 Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 187, 188 ; see 0. von Gebhardt, I.e., s. 44.

208 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
14. Lachmann's New Testament appeared in two editions,
1831 and 1850. He disregarded printed texts and limited his
text so far as possible to the text^ of the Eastern family of
manuscripts. Schaff compiles a number of testimonies to Lachmann, and
endorses them as follows :
Tregelles says (p. 99) : " Lachmann led the way in casting aside
the so-called textus receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa
ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority." Reuss
calls him (Biblioth., p. 239) "vir doctissimus et KpiTtKUTaros." The
conservative Dr. Scrivener (p. 422 seq.) depreciates his merits,
for he defends, as far as possible, the traditional text. But Dr.
Hort (Gr. Test, II. 23) does full justice to his memory : " A new
period began in 1831, when, for the first time, a text was construed
directly from the ancient documents without the intervention of
any printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt was
made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the
discrimination of various readings. In both respects the editor,
Lachmann, rejoiced to declare that he was carrying out the prin
ciples and unfulfilled intentions of Bentley, as set forth in 1716
and 1720." Abbot says of Lachmann (in Schaff's Belig. Encycl,
I. 275) : " He was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evi
dence ; and his editions, to which his eminent reputation as a
critic gave wide currency, especially in Germany, did much toward
breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus."^
15. Tischendorf laboured for thirty years on the text of the
Greek Bible. His first edition of the New Testament appeared
in 1840, of the Old Testament in 1850. His last edition of the
Old Testament was issued in 1860, of the New Testament in
1864-1872. He died before completing the prolegomena. The
prolegomena to the New Testament was prepared by Gregory
after consulting about a thousand manuscripts, and published
in 1884-1894. Tischendorf discovered the Sinaitic codex and
many other valuable manuscripts and has done more for the
Greek Bible than any one since Origen.
^ He used manuscripts A, B, C, and P, Q, T, Z of the Gospels, and H of the
Epistles. He called in the Western text of D, E, for Acts and G for Epistles, to
decide when there was difference between the Orientals. See von Gebhardt,
I.e., 46.
2 Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, 1883, pp. 256, 257.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE GREEK BIBLE 209
16. Tregelles also devoted his life to the New Testament
text and published his works from 1844-1879.
17. The last and in some respects the most solid work on
the text of the New Testament is the New Testament of West
cott and Hort, 1881, with an introduction which is the most
valuable contribution to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament that has yet appeared ; their text was prepared in
accordance with the genealogical principle and on the basis of
the distinction of four families of manuscripts, the preference
as to age belonging to the neutral text of B.
18. The Cambridge school have also given us the best text of
the Greek Old Testament in Swete's edition, 1887-1894, based
on the correct text of B, which is the earliest and most im
portant authority, with various readings from the other chief
authorities. This is preparatory to a much larger work in
course of preparation for the University Press by Swete,
Brooke, and McLean, with a complete critical apparatus.
19. The plan of Lagarde to edit the chief ancient texts of
the Old Testament was begun with his edition of the text of
Lucian, but he died after completing the first volume, 1883. The
more recent work in textual criticism has been in the detailed
labour upon particular books, in which many scholars have
done distinguished work. A most important work on the
New Testament has been the editing of a number of the writ
ings of the New Testament by Weiss, and of the Acts and
Luke by Blass.

CHAPTER IX
THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE
A NUMBER of early versions were made from the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New
Testament. I. The Aramaic Versions
The Aramaic versions began in the synagogues of Palestine,
Syria, and the Orient, among the Aramaic-speaking Jews, as
a necessity of worship in the synagogue, not later than the
second century B.C. But the translations were oral, by scribes
who had a competent knowledge of both the Hebrew and the
Aramaic. Such Aramaic translations were in use in the times
of Jesus and His apostles, and were doubtless used by Jesus
and His apostles in their public ministry. The citations from
the Old Testament in the primitive Gospels were from these
Aramaic popular translations.
It is the opinion of many modern critics ^ that the citations
from the Old Testament in the New Testament were never
made from the Hebrew text, but always from the Greek Tar
gum or the Aramaic Targum. These Targums were modified
and improved by paraphrase and explanation from time to
time before they were committed to writing. Those that have
1 Bbhl, Forschungen nach eine Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu, Wien, 1873 ;
Alttest. Citate in Neuen Test., Wien, 1878 ; Toy, Quotations in the New Test.,
1884 ; Neubauer, Studia Biblica., I. 3. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New,
1868, pp. 266 seq., classifies the 278 citations as follows : 53 agree with both the
Septuagint and the Massoretic text, 10 agree with the Massoretic text alone, 37
agree with the Septuagint, 175 agree with neither, 3 have nothing to corre
spond with them in the Old Testament. This is strongly in favour of the use of
an Aramaic Targum by the New Testament writers.
210

the translations of the BIBLE 211
been preserved are in the western dialect of the Aramaic,
although they were modified in their subsequent use in the
synagogues of the Orientals by the introduction of an eastern
Aramaic colouring. These Targums do not in all respects
conform to the official text of the Sopherim. They represent
in some respects an earlier text. The earliest of these Tar
gums, called the Targum of Onkelos, is limited to the Law.^
It is written in the Judaic dialect. It exhibits the character
istics of the Sopherim in its effort to avoid anthropomorphisms,
obscene allusions, and everything unworthy of God in the Jew
ish religion. But it paraphrases and endeavours to explain the
original.^ A later Targum on the Law not earlier than the
seventh century, called the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, by
mistake for Yerushalmi, paraphrases still more largely. It is
in a later dialect of Aramaic. Another Targum Yerushalmi
has been preserved only in fragments.
An early Targum on the Prophets, called the Targum
of Jonathan ben Uzziel, written in the Judaic dialect has been
preserved. The Talmud ^ alludes to him as a pupil of Hillel
and as writing a paraphrase of the Prophets. This translation
has been much changed by oral transmission. It is thought
by Schurer and Buhl that Joseph the Blind revised it ; but
Dalman and Nestle deny it. Certainly it preserves much
earlier material, which is not in accord with the HebreAV text
of the Sopherim or their interpretation.*
These Targums represent the oral translations of the Law
and the Prophets, as used in the worship of the synagogue.
The Targums on the other books are all much later and for
private use. The Targums on Psalms and Job are in the

1 It seems probable that the traditional Onkelos and Aquila are really the
same persons, the pupil of Akiba. But there is evidently a mistake of tradi
tional ascription. There is no similarity between the Greek version of Aquila
and this Aramaic version. Its method and principles are wide apart.
2 It was first printed in 1482 at Bologna with Hebrew text and commentary
of Rashi, and frequently in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The best
edition is Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 1884. It was translated with other Tar
gums by Etheridge, 1862-1865.
3 Baba Bathra. VIII. 134 a ; Megilla, f. 3 a.
* The name of Jonathan is thought by some to be a variation of Theodotion.
This Targum is printed in the Rabbinical Bibles and great Polyglots.

212 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
manner of Jonathan, and probably by the same author. The
Targum of the Proverbs is nearer to the Hebrew text.
The Targum on the five Rolls is ascribed to Joseph the Blind
by tradition, but really is not earlier than the eleventh cen
tury.^ There are two Targums on Esther,^ and a Targum on
Daniel of the twelfth century.^ A Targum on Chronicles
of the ninth century * resembles closely the Syriac translation
in the Syriac Old Testament and may have been made from it.
All of the Writings have Targums except Ezra and Nehemiah ;
but these Targums were private and not official.®

II. The Syriac Bible
The earliest translation of the Greek Ncaa' Testament into
Syriac, known to us, is the Diatessaron of Tatian. Next to
this in antiquity is apparently the text recently discovered in
1893 by Mrs. Lewis, and published by Bensly, Harris, BurkiU,
and Mrs. Lewis herself, 1894-1896. Still later is the Cureton
ian Syriac Gospels, discovered by Cureton in 1858.® The Old
Testament was translated from the Hebrew into the Syriac for
the most part in the second Christian century, and the other
books of the New Testament from the Greek so far as the
Syrian Church recognized the Sacred Writings as canonical.
The official Syriac Bible, called the Peshitto or Peshitta,'' was
of gradual origin on the basis of these older translations.
The Syriac Bible was revised under the influence of Lucian
and assimilated to his text of the Septuagint as well as the
Greek New Testament. Another version was made in 508 by
Philoxenis from the Greek, and this was revised by Thomas of
Haraklea in 616 A.D.
1 These Targums are in the Rabbinical Bibles and great Polyglots.
2 The earliest of these is in Walton's Polyglot ; the other was printed by
Francis Taylor, London, 1655.
3 It is in manuscript in the National Library at Paris.
* It was published by Beck, Augsburg, 1680-1683.
6 Buhl, I.e., s. 183.
* Cureton, Bemains of a very Ancient Becension ofthe Four Gospels in Syriac,
London, 1858.
' Peshitto is the western Syriac, Peshitta the eastern Syriac, pronunciation.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE 213
III. The Latin Vulgate
Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of ancient times, devoted
a large portion of his life to the revision of the Latin Bible.
At first he made a revision of the Italian Latin version used
in Rome. He revised the Psalter, and it was used in the
Roman churches in Venice until recent times. It is still used
in Milan as the Roman Psalter. He made a second revision,
which has been used in the Church of France as the Galilean
Psalter. He finally undertook to make a new translation from
the Hebrew text under the help of Bar Anina, a learned Jew.
The Greek versions, especially that of Symmachus, were kept
in view. The Hebrew text used by him was the text of the
Sopherim. The version Avas begun in 390 and completed in
405 A.D. The version of Jerome supplanted the older Latin
versions ; but not without mixture with them in the ecclesias
tical manuscripts which have come doAvn to us in the uses of
the Latin Church. He did not translate the Apocrypha.
These came from the old versions.
The earliest manuscript of the Vulgate is the Codex Amia
tinus, prepared shortly before 716 A.D.,^ in the Laurentian
Library, Florence. The Codex Toletanus at Toledo is said to
belong to the eighth century. The Codex Fuldensis of the
New Testament, in the abbey of Fuldo, dates from 546.^ The
Vulgate was first printed in 1450 at Mainz, and in many sub
sequent incunabula editions, said to be more than two hundred
in number, before 1517 A.D. The first critical edition is in the
Complutensian Polyglot, 1517. Protestant editions were issued
by Andreas Osiander in 1522, and by Robert Stephens at Paris,
1523 seq., and much improved in 1540. The Tridentine Coun
cil, in 1546, declared the Vulgate to be the official text of the
Bible. Efforts were then made to prepare an official text.
The Sixtine edition was issued in 1590, under the patronage
of Pope Sixtus v., as the official edition. This was withdrawn
after the death of the pope, and a new text undertaken under
the advice of Bellarmin, and issued in 1592 as the Clementine
1 See Studia Biblica, II. pp. 273, 324.
2 Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, p. 151.

214 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
text under Clement VIIL, and again in 1593, and finally in a
more correct form in 1598.
A modern edition of the Vulgate was published in 1822 by
Leander Van Ess, who devoted many years to a critical study
of it.i
IV. The Arabic Version
The Arabic version was made in the tenth century from the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament by Rabbi Saadia ha Gaon
(942f). The author was a fine Hebrew and Arabic scholar,
and his translation is excellent. At times it paraphrases after
the manner of the Targums.^
V. A Persian Version
A Persian version of the Law was made from the Massoretic
Hebrew text in the first half of the sixteenth century by Rabbi
Jacob TaAvus. It is literal and foUows closely the revisions of
Aquila and Saadia. It is in the London Polyglot.
VI. English Versions
The Anglo-Saxon versions and the early English versions of
Wicklif and the Poor Friars were made from the Latin Vul
gate ; but during the period of the Reformation, the English
Protestant Reformer, William Tyndale, translated from the
Massoretic Hebrew text and the Greek New Testament. He
translated the New Testament in 1524-1525. He then translated
the Law, which was published in 1530, and the book of Joshua
in 1531. He probably translated other portions of the Old
Testament also before his death, but they were not published.
Miles Coverdale translated the whole Bible from the Latin,
1 Van Ess, Pragm. Krit. Gesch. d. Vulg., Tiibingen, 1824 ; Kaulen, Gesch.
der Vulg. , Mainz, 1868.
2 Another Arabic version was made in the eleventh century, but it has been
interpolated from the Syriac by a Christian hand. It has been preserved only in
the book of Joshua and 1 K. 12 to 2 K. 12", and Neh. 1-92'. How much more
of it there was we know not. There is also a translation of the Law by an Afri
can Jew of the thirteenth century, published by Erpenius in 1622.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE 215
the German of Luther, and the Zurich Bible, under the au
thority of Cromwell, and it was published in 1535.
John Rogers (pseudo-Thomas Matthew) was the literary
executor of Tyndale. He published a folio edition of the
Bible in 1537. He used Tyndale for the Pentateuch, and
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and 1 Chronicles, and for the
New Testament ; but the rest of the Bible was Coverdale's.
Richard Taverner, under the advice of Cromwell, undertook
to revise the English Bible, Avhich he did in 1539. He returns
to the Vulgate in the Old Testament, but in the New Testa
ment he is more faithful to the original Greek.
Coverdale, under the instruction of Cromwell, undertook an
other revision and produced Avhat is known as the Great Bible,
which was published in 1539. The second edition, 1540, had a
preface by Cranmer. This became the authorized version and
remained such for twenty-eight years. The larger part of the
Scriptures in the Prayer Book of 1549-1552 are from this
Bible. The English exiles at Geneva, William Whittingham, Thomas
Sampson, Anthony Gilby, and others, made the so-called Geneva
Version. The New Testament was translated from the original
Greek by Whittingham in 1557. It is a revision of Tyndale
under the influence of Beza. The Old Testament was trans
lated from the Hebrew by Sampson, Gilby, and others, and was
published in 1560. This became the standard Bible for the
Puritan ministers of England until the version of King James
took its place.
Archbishop Parker undertook a new revision, and the work
was distributed among a number of bishops, deans, and
scholars. It was at last finished and published in 1568. It
was revised again in 1572, and became known as the Bishops'
Bible. The Roman Catholics undertook an English version based
on the Vulgate but keeping the other versions in view. The
New Testament appeared in 1582 at Rheims, the Old Testa
ment in 1609 at Douay.
And so three great parties in England were represented by
three English versions of the Bible.

216 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
King James, in accordance with the petition of the Puritans
at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, authorized a new
version. Fifty-four scholars were appointed, divided into six
companies, to do the work. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and
Dr. Miles Smith were the final revisers. It was published in
1611, and eventually drove all the Protestant versions from
the field. They used Beza's Greek Testament of 1589. It
remains the common version of the English-speaking Protes
tants until the present time.^
An Anglo-American revision was made by a large companj'-
of scholars representing the different Protestant religious bodies
of Great Britain and America. It was completed and published,
the New Testament in 1881, the Old Testament in 1884. The
New Testament revision was based on the use of all the re
sources of modern Textual Criticism. The Old Testament revi
sion was based on the currently used Massoretic text, without
any attempt to use the resources of the modern Textual Criti
cism of the Old Testament. It is satisfying neither to the
people, who are attached to the common version and see no
sufficient reason for abandoning it, nor to scholars, who are
displeased with the excessive conservatism and pedantry which
characterize it, especially in the Old Testament. It is very
desirable that, when the next revision takes place, Roman
Catholics and Protestants may unite in it.
VII. Other Versions
(1) The German Bible.
German Bibles were among the first books to appear from
the press after the invention of printing. Fourteen editions of
the High German Bible appeared between 1466 and 1518, be
sides four editions of the Low German Bible. These were all
translations from the Latin Vulgate. Martin Luther made
the Bible used by the German people since the Reformation.
He issued the New Testament in 1522, the Pentateuch in 1523,
and finally completed the Bible in 1534. Many subsequent edi
tions were revised by him, until the tenth, 1544-1545. Luther
1 Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, pp. 312 seq.

the translations of the bible 217
translated from the Hebrew Old Testament, using the text of
Brescia, and from the Greek New Testament, using the edition
of Erasmus of 1519.^ The Roman Catholics issued several
rival German Bibles : Emser, in 1527 ; Eck, in 1537 ; and the
Dominican, Dietenberger, in 1534. This edition was subse
quently revised by Ulenberg, in 1630, and at Mainz in 1662,
and became the German Catholic Bible. In 1863, at Eisenach,
the Evangelical Church Diet appointed a Commission for the
revision of Luther's Bible. The New Testament appeared at
Halle in 1867, the revised edition in 1870. The Frobebibel
Avas published in 1883, the revision was finished in 1892. The
best German translation of the New Testament is that of
Weizsacker. Kautzsch has recently issued an excellent trans
lation of the Old Testament with critical notes, 2te Aufl., 1896.
(2) French Versions.
Lefevre d'Etaples made a French Protestant version of the
Bible, which was published at Antwerp in 1530 ; but the ver
sion of Olivetan, published in 1535 at NeufchS,tel and corrected
by Calvin, obtained wider recognition. Under the influence of
Calvin, the pastors of Geneva undertook a revision under the
leadership of Beza, and in 1588 issued a version which main
tained its place until the present day. But it is well-nigh sup
planted now by a new translation from the original Greek and
Hebrew bv Dr. Louis Segond. The Old Testament was pub
lished in 1874, the New Testament in 1879.
(3) Dutch Versions.
A Dutch translation from Luther and the Cologne Bible was
issued in 1526 by Jacob van Liesveldt. Van Uttenhove made
a new translation from Luther's Bible with the help of Olive-
tan's, and published it in 1556. The States- General of Holland
authorized a new translation in 1624, which was completed and
published in 1637. It was called the States Bible, and has held
its place until the present time. The new translation author
ized by the General Synod in 1854, and published so far as the
New Testament is concerned in 1867, has not displaced it.
(4) Other Translations.
The Bible was also translated into Italian, Danish, Swedish,
1 See pp. 186, 206.

218 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and other modern languages before the Reformation. In the
era of the Reformation it was translated into all the European
languages. In more recent years, through the labours of
foreign missions, it has been translated into the greater part
of the known languages of the world. But none of these trans
lations have any value for the purposes of the criticism of the
text of Holy Scripture.

CHAPTER X
textual CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
We should not hesitate to recognize that a certain kind of
Textual Criticism was used in the most ancient times by the
Sopherim and Massorites, who have transmitted to us the tra
ditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The work of
Origen, Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome, upon the Greek Bible
was also Textual Criticism, so far as they earnestly and indus
triously sought to get the best text of Holy Scripture. But all
this work was carried on in a crude fashion, and without defi
nite principles of Textual Criticism. Biblical Textual Criti
cism began its work in the era of the Reformation.
I. Textual Criticism at the Reformation
Erasmus led the movement, so far as the Greek Bible is con
cerned. In 1505 he edited Valla's Annotations to the New Tes
tament, in the preface of which he urges a return to the original
Greek text and its grammatical exposition. In 1516 he issued
his Greek New Testament. This passed through many editions
and became the basis for the study of the Greek New Tes
tament among Protestants. An impulse to sound criticism
among Roman Catholics had also been given by the Compluten
sian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes.
The Protestant Reformers had given their chief attention to
the criticism of the Canon, the establishment of the sole au
thority of the Scripture, and to its proper interpretation, but
they had not altogether overlooked the criticism of the text.
With reference to the Old Testament, they had been chiefly
influenced by two Jewish scholars, the one Elias Levita, who
lived and died in the JcAvish faith, the other Jacob ben Chayim,
219

220 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
who became a Christian. Chayim edited the second edition of
Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible and issued an elaborate introduc
tion to it. He also edited, for the flrst time, the Massora. It
was a common opinion among the Jews that the vowel points
and accents of the Hebrew Scriptures came down from Ezra,
and even Moses and Adam. Levita explodes these traditions
by the following simple line of argument :
" The vowel points and the accents did not exist either before
Ezra or in the time of Ezra or after Ezra till the close of the
Talmud. And I shall prove this with clear and conclusive evi
dence. (1) In all the writings of our Rabbins of blessed memory
whether the Talmud, or the Hagadah, or the Midrash, there is
not to be found any mention whatever of or any allusion to the
vowel points or accents." (2) and (3) The Talmud in its use of
the Bible discusses how the words should be read and how divided.
This is inconsistent with an accented ofi&cial text. (4) " Almost
all the names of both the vowel points and the accents are not
Hebrew, but Aramean and Babylonian." ^
The Reformers rejected the inspiration of the Massoretic
traditional pointing and only accepted the unpointed text.
Luther does not hesitate to speak of the points as new human
inventions about which he does not trouble himself, and says,
" I often utter words which strongly oppose these points," and
"they are most assuredly not to be preferred to the simple,
correct, and grammatical sense." ^ He goes to work with the
best text he can find to give the Word of God to the people.
So Calvin 3 acknowledged that they were the result of great
diligence and sound tradition, yet to be used with care and
selection. Zwingli gave great value to the Greek and Latin
versions and disputed the Massoretic signs.*
It is astonishing how far post Reformation Swiss Protestant
divines allowed themselves to drift away from this position,
and how greatly they entangled themselves once more in the
bonds of Rabbinical traditionalism. This was chiefly due to
1 Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, pp. 127 seq. London,
1867. 2 Com. on Gen. 4721 ; on Is. 9^.
3 Com. on. Zech. IV. 4 Opera ed. Schult., V. pp. 556 seq.

textual CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 221
another Jewish scholar, Azzariah de Rossi,^ who claims, to use
the concise statement of Dr. Ginsbursr : ^
"That as to the origin and development of the vowels their
force and virtue were invented by, or communicated to, Adam, in
Paradise ; transmitted to and by Moses ; that they had been par
tially forgotten, and their pronunciation vitiated during the Baby
lonian captivity ; that they had been restored by Ezra, but that
they had been forgotten again in the wars and struggles during
and after the destruction of the second temple ; and that the
Massorites, after the close of the Talmud, revised the system,
and permanently fixed the pronunciation by the contrivance of
the present signs. This accounts for the fact that the present
vowel points are not mentioned in the Talmud. The reason why
Moses did not punctuate the copy of the law which he wrote, is
that its import should not be understood without oral tradition.
Besides, as the law has seventy different meanings, the writing of
it, without points, greatly aids to obtain these various interpreta
tions; whereas the affixing of the vowel signs would preclude all
permutations and transpositions, and greatly restrict the sense by
fixing the pronunciation."
His principal reliance was upon some passages of the book
Zohar and other cabalistic writings, which he claimed to be
older than the Mishna, but which have since been shown to be
greatly interpolated and of questionable antiquity .^
Relying upon these, the elder Buxtorf, with his great author
ity, misled a large number of the most prominent of the Re
formed divines of the continent to maintain the opinion of the
divine origin and authority of the Massoretic vowel points and
accents.* In England, Fulke,® Broughton,® and Lightfoot ''
adopted the same opinion. These Rabbinical scholars exerted,
in this respect, a disastrous influence upon the study of the
Old Testament.
1 Tlie Light ofthe Eyes, O^ySJ IlKa, 1574-1575, III. 59.
2 Life of Elias Levita, in connection with his edition of Levita's Massoreth
Ha-Massoreth, London, 1867, p. 53.
3 Ginsburg in I.e., p. 52 ; Wogue, Histoire de la Bible, Paris, 1881, p. 121.
* Tiberius sive Commentarius Masorethicus, Basle, 1620.
^ A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into
the English Tongue, etc., 1583 ; Parker Society edition, 1843, pp. 55, 578.
^ Daniel: his Chaldee Visions and his Hebrew, London, 1597, on Chap. 925.
' Chorographical Century, a. 81 ; Works, Pitman's edition, 1823, Vol. IX.
pp. 150 seq.

222 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
II. Textual Criticism in the Seventeenth Century
The critical principle reasserted itself mightily through Lud
wig CappeUus, of the French school of Saumur, where a freer
type of theology had maintained itself. A new impulse to
Hebrew scholarship had been given by Amira, Gabriel Sionita,
and other Maronites, who brought a Avealth of Oriental learning
to the attention of Christian scholars. Pocock journeyed to
the East, and returned with rich spoils of Arabic literature.
France, Holland, and England vied with one another in their
use of these literary treasures, and urged them for the study
of the Hebrew Scriptures over against the Rabbinical tradition.
Erpenius in Holland, the great Arabist, was the teacher of
CappeUus, and flrst introduced his work to the public. Cap
peUus fell back on the views of Elias Levita, the teacher of the
Protestant Reformers, and of these Reformers themselves ; and
denied the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points and accents,
and the common Massoretic text ; and insisted upon its revision,
through the comparison of ancient versions.^ CappeUus was
sustained by the French theologians generally, even by Rivetus,
also by Cocceius, the father of the Federal school in Holland,
who first gave the author's name to the public, and by the body
of English critics.^
In this connection a series of great Polyglots appeared,
beginning with the Antwerp of the Jesuit, Arias Montanus,
assisted by And. Masius, Fabricus Boderianus, and Franz
Rapheleng;3 followed by the Paris Polyglot of Michael de
Jay,* edited by Morinus and Gabriel Sionita ; and culminating
in the London Polyglot of Brian Walton, in which he was
aided by Ed. Castle, Ed. Pocock, Thos. Hyde, and others;^
the greatest critical achievement of the seventeenth century,
which remains as the classic basis for the comparative study of
versions until the present day.
1 His work was published anonymously in 1624 at Leyden under the title
Arcanum punctuationis revelatum, though completed in 1621.
2 Comp. Schnedermann, Die Controverse des Lud. CappeUus mit den Bux-
torfen, Leipzig, 1879.
3 Biblia Begia, 8 vols, folio, 1569-1572. * 1629-1646, 10 vols. foUo.
' 6 vols, folio, 1657.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 223
The work of CappeUus remained unanswered, and worked
powerfully until 1648. In the meantime the Roman Catholic
Frenchman, Morinus, taking the same position as CappeUus,
pressed it in order to show the need of Church authority and
tradition. 1 This greatly complicated the discussion by making
the view a basis for an attack on the Protestant position. The
younger Buxtorf was stirred up to maintain the traditional
Rabbinical position against CappeUus.^ The three universities
of Sedan, Geneva, and Leyden were so aroused against Cap
peUus that they refused to allow the publication of his great
work, Critica Sacra, which, however, appeared in 1650, the
first of a series of corresponding productions.^ Heidegger and
Turretine rallied the universities of Zurich, Geneva, and Basle
to the Zurich Consensus, which was adopted in 1675, against
all the distinguishing doctrines of the school of Saumur, and
the more liberal type of Calvinism, asserting for the first and
only time in the symbols of any Christian communion the doc
trine of verbal inspiration, together with the inspiration of
accents and points.
Thus the formal principle of Protestantism was straitened,
and its vital power destroyed by the erection of dogmatic
barriers against Biblical Criticism. "They forgot that they
by this standpoint again made Christian faith entirely depend
ent on tradition; yes, with respect to the Old Testament, on
the synagogue."*
The controversy between Brian Walton and John Owen is
instructive just here. John Owen had 'prepared a tract* in
which he takes this position: "Nor is it enough to satisfy us
that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire ; every tittle
and iota in the Word of God must come under our considera
tion, as being as such from God."^
Before the tract was issued he was confronted by the prol
egomena to Walton's Biblia Polyglotta, Avhich, he perceived,
1 Exereitationes biblicce, 1633.
2 Tract, depunet. vocal, et accent, in libr. V., T., heb. origine antiq., 1648.
3 See Tholuck, Akadem. Leben, II. p. 332.
* Dorner, Gesch. Prot. Theologie, p. 451.
^ The Divine Original, Authority, and Self-evidencing Light and Purity of
the Scriptures. ** Works, XVL p. 303.

224 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
undermined his theory of inspiration ; and he therefore added
an appendix, in which he maintains that :
" The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immedi
ately and entirely given out by God himself. His mind being in
them represented unto us without the least interveniency of such
mediums and ways as were capable of giving change or alteration
to the least iota or syllable." ^
Brian Walton replies to him :
" Eor when at the beginning of the Reformation, divers ques
tions arose about the Scriptures and the Church ; the Romanists
observing that the punctuation of the Hebrew text was an inven
tion of the Masorites, they thereupon inferred that the text with
out the points might be taken in divers senses, and that none was
tyed to the reading of the Rabbins, and therefore concluded that
the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtful without the interpretation
and testimony of the Church, so that all must flee to the authority
of the Church and depend upon her for the true sense and meaning
of the Scriptures. On the other side, some Protestants, fearing
that some advantage might be given to the Romanists by this con
cession, and not considering how the certainty of the Scriptures
might well be maintained though the Text were unpointed, instead
of denying the consequence, which they might Avell have done,
thought fit rather to deny the assumption, and to maintain that the
points were of Divine original, whereby they involved themselves
in extreme labyrinths, engaging themselves in defence of that
which might be easily proved to be false, and thereby wronged
the cause which they seemed to defend. Others, therefore, of
more learning and Jwdgiment knowing that this position ofthe divine
original of the points could not be made good ; and that the truth
needed not the patronage of an untruth, would not engage them
selves therein, but granted it to be true, that the points were in
vented by the Rabbins, yet denied the consequence, maintaining,
notwithstanding, that the reading and sense of the text might be
certain without ijunctuation, and that therefore the Scriptures did
not at all depend upon the authority of the Churcli : and of this
judgment were the chief Protestant Divines, and greatest linguists
that then were, or have been since in the Christian World, such as
I named before; Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Bren-
tius, Pellicane, Oecolampadius, Mercer, Piscator, P. Phagius, Dru-
1 Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebreio Text of the Scriptures, with Con
siderations of the Prolegomena and Appendix to the Late " Biblia Polyglotta,"
Oxford, 1659.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 225
sius, Schindler, Martinius, Scaliger, De Dieu, Casaubon, Erpenius,
Sixt. Amana, Jac. and Ludov. Capellus, Grotius, etc. — among our
selves. Archbishop Ussher, Bishop Prideaux, Mr. Mead, Mr. Selden,
and innumerable others, whom I forbear to name, who conceived
it Avould nothing disadvantage the cause, to yield that proposition,
for that they could still make it good, that the Scripture was in
itself a sufficient and certain rule for faith and life, not depending
upon any human authority to support it." ^
We have quoted this extract at length for the light it casts
upon the struggle of criticism at the time. John Owen, honoured
as a preacher and dogmatic writer, but certainly no exegete,
had spun a theory of inspiration after the a priori scholastic
method, and with it did battle against the great Polyglot. It
was a Quixotic attempt, and resulted in ridiculous failure. His
dogma is crushed as a shell in the grasp of a giant. The in
dignation of Walton burns hot against this wanton and un
reasoning attack. But he consoled himself with the opening
reflection that Origen's Hexapla, Jerome's Vulgate, the Com
plutensian Polyglot, Erasmus' Greek Testament, the Antwerp
and Paris Polyglots, had all in turn been assailed by those
whose theories and dogmas had been threatened or overturned
by a scholarly induction of facts.
The theory of the scholastics prevailed but for a brief period
in Switzerland, where it was overthrown by the reaction under
the leadership of the younger Turretine. The theory of John
OAven did not influence the divines who under the authority
of the British Parliament constructed the Westminster Con
fession of Faith :
" In fact, it was not till several years after the Confession was
completed, and the star of Owen was in the ascendant, that under
the spell of a genius and learning only second to Calvin, English
Puritanism so generally identified itself with what is termed his
less liberal view." °
Owen's type of theology worked in the doctrine of inspira
tion, as well as in other dogmas, to the detriment of the simpler
and more evangelical Westminster theology ; and in the latter
1 The Considerator Considered, London, 1659, pp. 220 seq.
2 Mitchell, Minutes of Westminster Assembly, p. xx.
Q

226 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
part of the seventeenth century gave Puritan theology a scho
lastic type which it did not possess before. But it did not
prevent such representative Presbyterians as Matthew Poole,
Edmund Calamy, and the Cambridge men, with Baxter, from
taking the more scholarly position. The critics of the Re
formed Church produced masterpieces of biblical learning,
which have been the pride and boast of the Reformed Churches
to the present. Like CappeUus, they delighted in the name
critical, and were not afraid of it. John Pearson, Anton Scat-
tergood, Henry Gouldman, and Richard Pearson,^ and above all
Matthew Poole, published critical works of great and abiding
merit.^
III. Textual Criticism in the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries
Biblical Criticism continued in England till the midst
of the eighteenth century. Mill issued his critical New Tes
tament in 1707, the fruit of great industry, and was assailed
by unthinking men who preferred pious ignorance to a correct
New Testament.^ But Richard Bentley espoused the cause
of his friend with invincible arguments, and he himself spent
many years in the collection of manuscripts. He died leaving
his magnificent work incomplete, and his plans to be carried
out by foreign scholars.
For " now original research in the science of Biblical Criticism,
so far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the
shores of England to return no more for upwards of a century;
and we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further
progress of investigations which our countrymen had so auspi
ciously begun." *
Bishop Lowth did for the Old Testament what Bentley did
for the New. In his works* he called the attention of scholars
to the necessity of emendation of the Massoretic text, and
1 Critici Sacri, 9 vols, folio, 1660.
2 Synopsis Critlcorum, 5 vols, folio, 1669.
3 Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism ofthe N. T.,2i ed. 1874, p. 400.
* Scrivener in I.e., p. 402.
s De Sacra Poesi Hebrmorum, 1753, and Isaiah: A New Translation, with
a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, 1778, 2d ed., 1779.

textual criticism of holy scripture 227
encouraged Kennicott to collate the manuscripts of the Old
Testament, which he did, publishing the result in a monu
mental work in 1776-1780. ^ This was preceded by an intro
ductory work in 1753-1759.2
Bishop Lowth, with his fine sesthetic sense and insight into
the principles of Hebrew poetry, saw and stated the truth :
" If it be asked, what then is the real condition of the present
Hebrew Text; and of what sort, and in what number, are the
mistakes which we must acknowledge to be found in it: it is
answered, that the condition of the Hebrew Text is such, as from
the nature of the thing, the antiquity of the writings themselves,
the want of due care, or critical skill (in which latter at least the
Jews have been exceedingly deficient), might in all reason have
been expected, that the mistakes are frequent, and of various
kinds; of letters, words, and sentences; by variation, omission,
transposition; such as often injure the beauty and elegance,
embarrass the construction, alter or obscure the sense, and some
times render it quite unintelligible. If it be objected that a
concession so large as this is, tends to invalidate the authority
of Scripture; that it gives up in effect the certainty and authen
ticity of the doctrines contained in it, and exposes our religion
naked and defenceless to the assaults of its enemies: this, I think,
is a vain and groundless apprehension. . . . Important and fun
damental doctrines do not wholly depend on single passages; and
universal harmony runs through the Holy Scriptures; the parts
mutually support each other, and supply one another's deficiencies
and obscurities. Superficial damages and partial defects may
greatly diminish the beauty of the edifice, without injuring its
strength and bringing on utter ruin and destruction.'
After this splendid beginning, Old Testament criticism fol
lowed its New Testament sister to the continent of Europe and
remained absent until our own day.
On the continent the work of MUl was carried on by J. A.
Bengel,* J. C. Wetstein,* J. J. Griesbach,« J. M. A. Scholz,'
' Vetus Test. Heb. cum var. lectionibus, 2 Tom., Oxford.
2 The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament considered,
2 vols. 8vo, Oxford.
3 Lowth, Isaiah, 2d ed., London, 1779, pp. lix., Ix.
* Prodromus, NT. Gr., 1725. Novum Test., 1734.
° New Test. Gr. cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum, etc., Amst., 1751-1752.
« Symbolce Criticoe, 2 Tom., 1785-1793.
' Bib. krit. Beise Leipzig, 1823 ; N.T. Greece, 2 Bd., Leipzig, 1830-1836.

228 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
C. Lachmann,! culminating in Const. Tischendorf, who edited
the chief uncial authorities, discovered and edited the Codex
Sinaiticus,^ and issued numerous editions of the New Testa
ment, the earliest in 1841. He crowned his work with the
eighth critical edition of the New Testament,^ which he lived
to complete, but had to leave the prolegomena to an American
scholar, who succeeded him in his chair at Leipzig and com
pleted his work in 1884-1894.
In the Old Testament, De Rossi carried on the work of
Kennicott.* Little has been done since his day until recent
times, when Baer united with Delitzsch in issuing in parts a
revised Massoretic text, 1869-1895 ; Hermann Strack exam
ined the recently discovered Oriental manuscripts, the chief
of Avliich is the St. Petersburg codex of the Prophets,* and
Frensdorf undertook the production of the Massora Magna.^
Within recent times Textual Criticism has taken strong hold
again in England. S. P. Tregelles,'' F. H. Scrivener,^ B. F.
Westcott, and F. J. A. Hort^ have advanced the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament beyond the mark reached
by continental scholars. The text of Westcott and Hort has
become the standard text of the Greek Testament for Great
Britain and America, and the principles of the Textual Criti
cism of the New Testament, as stated by them, are regarded
as the basis for further advance by most English-speaking
scholars. In Old Testament criticism England is advancing
to the front rank. The work of Ginsburg on the Massora i" is
1 Novum Test. Greece et Latine, 2 Bd., Berlin, 1842-1850.
2 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, St. Petersburg, 1862 ; Die
Sinaibibel, Ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe und Enoerbung, Leipzig, 1871.
3 Novum Testamentum Greece. Editio octava : Critica Major, Lipsiae,
1869-1872. * VaricB lectiones Vet. Test., 4 Tom., Parm., 1784-1788.
^ Prophetarum Posteriorum Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, Petropoli,
1876. ^ Die Massora Magna ; Erster Theil, Massoretisches Worterbuch, Hanover
und Leipzig, 1876.
' The Greek New Testament edited from Ancient Authorities, etc., 4to, 1857-
1872, pp. 1017.
3 Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 3d ed., 1883.
^ JVie New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. II. Introduction and
Appendix. N.Y., 1882.
1° The Massorah compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 229
the greatest achievement since the unpublished work of Elias
Levita. And his edition of the Massoretic text of the Old
Testament Avill probably ere long supplant all others.
The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament lagged behind
the New Testament.^ And the reason of it is, that scholars
long hesitated to go back of the Massoretic text.
Keil in Germany for a long time resisted the advance of Text
ual Criticism, and in his anxiety to maintain the present Mas
soretic text did not hesitate to charge the Septuagint version
with the carelessness and caprice of transcribers and an uncriti
cal and wanton passion for emendation. W. H. Green of
Princeton and his school represent the same spirit of hostility
to Textual Criticism in the United States of America. The
English revisers of the Old Testament placed the results of
Textual Criticism in the margin of their revision, but the
American revisers, under the headship of W. H. Green, ob
jected to all Textual Criticism whatever, and remonstrated
against any, even in the margin. More recently Old Testa
ment scholars have urged more strongly the application of
Textual Criticism to the Old Testament. Gratz, the Jewish
scholar, rightly says that we ought not to speak of a Masso
retic text that has been made sure to us, but rather of dif
ferent schools of Massorites, and follow their example and
remove impossible readings from the text.^
There can be no doubt, as Robertson Smith states : " It has
gradually become clear to the vast majority of conscientious
students that the Septuagint is really of the greatest value as a
witness to the early state of the text." ^ Bishop Lowth already *
calls the Massoretic text
"The Jews' interpretation of the Old Testament." "We do
not deny the usefulness of this interpretation, nor would we be
thought to detract from its merits by setting it in this light ; it is
arranged, Yols. I. and II. , Aleph-Tav, London, 1880-1883; Vol. IIL, supple
mentary 1885; Vol. IV., promised soon.
1 Davidson, Treatise of Biblical Criticism, Boston, 1853, I. pp. 160 seq.
2 Krit. Com. zu den Psalmen nebst Text und Uebersetzung, Breslau, I., 1882,
pp. 118 seq.
3 Old Test, in Jewish Church, p. 86.
* In his Preliminary Dissert, to Isaiah, 2d ed., London, 1779, p. Iv.

230 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
perhaps, upon the whole, preferable to any one of the ancient ver
sions ; it has probably the great advantage of having been formed
upon a traditionary explanation of the text and of being generally
agreeable to that sense of Scripture which passed current and was
commonly received by the Jewish nation in ancient times : and it
has certainly been of great service to the moderns in leading them
into the knowledge of the Hebrew tongue. But they would have
made a much better use of it, and a greater progress in the expli
cation of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, had they consulted
it, without absolutely submitting to its authority ; had they con
sidered it as an assistant, not as an infallible guide."
Probably few scholars would go so far as this, yet there is a
strong tendency in that direction. The fact that the New Tes
tament does not base its citations upon the original Hebrew
text in literal quotation, but uses ordinarily the Septuagint
and sometimes Aramaic Targums with the utmost freedom,
has ever given trouble to the apologist. Richard Baxter meets
it in this way :
"But one instance I more doubt of myself, which is, when
Christ and his apostles do oft use the Septuagint in their citations
out of the Old Testament, whether it be alwaies their meaning to
justifie each translation and particle of sense, as the Word of God
and rightly done ; or only to use that as tolerable and containing
the main truth intended which was then in use among the Jews,
and therefore understood by them ; and so best to the auditors.
And also whether every citation of number or genealogies from
the Septuagint, intended an approbation of it in the very points it
differeth from the Hebrew copies." '
The study of the text of the Old Testament has been ad
vanced in recent years by a great number of scholars in Ger
many, France, Switzerland, Holland, Austria, Italy, Great
Britain, and America; scholars of all faiths, Jew and Chris
tian, Roman Catholic and Protestant. They have vied with
one another in this fundamental work of biblical study. It
has now become practically impossible for any scholarly work
to be done on the Old Testament without the use of all the
resources of Textual Criticism for a sure foundation.
1 More Beasons, 1672, p. 49; see also p. 45.

textual criticism of holy scripture 231
IV. The Application of Textual Criticism to Holy
Scripture
Biblical Textual Criticism derives from general Textual
Criticism its principles and methods of work. These differ in
their application to the Bible only as there are special circum
stances connected with the biblical writings that difier from
those of other writings. As Hort says :
" The leading principles of textual criticism are identical for all
writings whatever. Differences in application arise only from
differences in the amount, variety, and quality of evidence: no
method is ever inapplicable except through defectiveness of evi
dence." ^
V. The Genealogical Principle
The application of the genealogical principle to the text of
the Bible results in the following outline of work, so far as
the Hebrew Bible is concerned.
1. The first effort must be to ascertain the text of Ben
Asher of the tenth Christian century. All the Palestinian
manuscripts known to us, and all the citations in Jewish writers
since that date, guide to this result. The recent printed texts
of Baer and Delitzsch and of Ginsburg, although rivals, agree
in the main in giving this text in a reliable form.
2. We next have to determine the official text of the
Sopherim of the second Christian century. Starting with the
text of Ben Asher, which is the main stock, we have to bring
into consideration the three streams of Massoretic tradition,
the Palestinian, the Babylonian, and the Karaite, and trace
them all back to their common parent. We may thus classify
the Rabbinical writings from the second to the tenth century
and arrange them in families and by age, in order to use their
citations. The most important works to be considered are the
Talmuds and the Midrashim.
The most important of the Rabbinical writings are the
Talmuds, — the Babylonian and the Palestinian. These contain
1 Westcott and Hort, New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction,
1882, p. 19.

232 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the traditional interpretation of the Pentateuch in several
layers. (a) The most important of these is the Mishna,'^ codified by
Rabbi Jehuda, but completed by his immediate disciples. It
was handed down as a compact body of tradition from the
close of the second century a.d. but was not committed to
writing until the rest of the Talmud was completed, in the
sixth century.2
(6) The next in importance are the Baraithoth.^ These are
external Mishnayoth other than those contained in the code of
Rabbi Jehuda. These are of uncertain date ; some of them
older than the Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda, some of them contem
porary, some more recent, probably none later than the third
century. These are cited in the Talmud by the formulas
"Our Rabbins teach," "It is taught."* These Baraithoth come
from private rabbins such as R. Yanai, R. Chiya, Bar Kappara.
The rabbins Hillel, Shammai, and Akiba made earlier coUec-
1 nsiya = Seuripuins, repetition of the Law.
2 This has been published apart in various editions ; e.g. 1 vol. folio, Naples,
1492 ; Surenhusius, 6 vols, folio, Amsterdam, 1698-1703 ; Jost, 6 thle, Berlin,
1832-1834 ; Sittenfeld, 6 thle, Berlin, 1863, and others. It is composed of six
amD, which are subdivided into 11 -|- 12 -)- 7 -f 10 + 11 -|- 12 = 63 tracts. The
most famous of these is the Pirqe Aboth, a collection of sentences or sayings
of the Fathers from the second century b.c. to the second century a.d,
3 xrina, pi. nW'ia. To distinguish between the Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda
and all the other elements as Gemara, is incorrect and misleading unless we use
these terms in a purely formal sense, and distinguish in the Gemara the Mishnaic
elements from the commentary of the Gemara upon them. Thus Emanuel
Deutsch, in his Literary Bemains (p. 40) : " Jehuda the ' Redactor ' had excluded
all but the best authenticated traditions, as well as all discussion and exegesis,
unless where particularly necessary. The vast mass of these materials was now
also collected as a sort of apocryphal oral code. We have, dating a few genera
tions after the Redaction of the official Mishna, a so-called external Mishna
(^Baraitha) ; further, the discussions and additions belonging by rights to the
Mishna called Tosephta (Supplement) ; and finally, the exegesis and methodology
of the Halacha (Sifri, Sifra, Mechilta), much of which was afterwards intro
duced into the Talmud." So Levy in his Neu Hebraisches und Chaldaisches
Worterbuch (I. 260) defines: "«nna as properly that which is outside of the
Canon (we must supply Sn'jna to Knna) ; that is, every Mishna (or Halacha,
doctrine) which was not taken up into the collection of the Mishna by R. Jehuda
Hanasi, and many of which collected separately by his later contemporaries are
contained in different compendiums." See Gratz, Geschichte der Juden, IV.
232/ ; Wogue, Histoire de I'Exegese Biblique, 1881, p. 185.
* One of the most valuable of these is the Knna with reference to the order
of the books of the Old Testament. (See p. 252.)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 233
tions, but these passed over into the Mishna of Rabbi Jehuda
and the Baraithoth. The language of the Mishna and Baraitha
is late Hebrew.
(c) The third in importance in the Talmuds is the Toseph-
toth} or additions. There are fifty-two of these sections, whose
redaction is also referred to the third century. The language
of these is Hebrew, but more coloured with Aramaic.^
(d^ The Gemara^ is a commentary on the earlier elements
of the Talmud.* There are two of these which make up the
two Talmuds, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem Gemara is the product of the Rabbinical
school of Tiberias and was codified about 350 a.d. It treats
of thirty-nine only of the sixty-three tracts of the Mishna.
The Babylonian Gemara is four times as large as the Jeru
salem. It extends over thirty-six and one-half tracts of the
Mishna, of which eight and one-half are different from those
treated in the Jerusalem Gemara. It comes from the Rabbini
cal school at Sura on the Euphrates, the founder of which was
Rab (Abba Areka), a scholar of Rabbi Jehuda. Its compila
tion extended from the fifth to the eighth century.^
The Gemaras are in Aramaic of the eastern and western
dialects. Portions of the Babylonian is in Med. Hebrew.
1 mnsDin.
2 Thirty-one of these are contained in Ugolino's Thesaurus, translated into
Latin. 3 s-ia:. T T :
* Chiarini, Le Talmud de Babylone, 1831, p. 19, go so far as to say : " Les
Mekiltoth, les Tosaphoth et les Beraitoth ont aussi porte le litre de nVJTO ou de
fi'h'li nVJtt'a, parce qu'elles jouissarent de la meme autorite que la Mischna de
Juda le Saint, et qu'elles etaient plus reputees encore que cette derniere des
cote de Vordre et de la clarte." But they are regarded as apocryphal Mishna
yoth by some. But this does not decide their intrinsic value. See also Pressel,
in Herzog, Beal Ency., 1 Aufl., XV. p. 661 ; Gelbhaus, Babbi Jehuda Hanassi,
Wien, 1876, p. 92 ; Schurer, Lehrb. d. N. T. Zeitgeschichte, p. 42 ; Zunz, Got
tesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, Berlin, 1832, pp. 49 seq.
* The Jerusalem Talmud was first printed by Bomberg at Venice, folio
(1522-1523) ; the Babylonian by Bomberg at Venice, 12 vols, folio, in 1520. These
are scarce and valuable, but are both in the library of the Union Theological
Seminary, New York. Nineteen tracts of the Jerusalem Gemara and three tracts
of the Babylonian are in Ugolino. Chiarini began to translate the Talmud into
French in 1831, but did not get beyond the Berakoth. M. Schwab has trans
lated into French the Jerusalem Talmud, 11 vols., Paris, 1871-1890. A German
translation of the Babylonian Talmud by L. Goldschmidt is now iii progress.

234 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
(e) The Tosaphoth are additional glosses to the Talmud from
the school of Rashi of the twelfth century.
The Talmuds contain numerous citations from the Old Tes
tament Scriptures. Of earlier date than the Massoretic text,
they are of great service for purposes of criticism. But criti
cal editions of the Talmud are still a desideratum.
The Midrashim''- are expository commentaries on Holy Script
ure. The earliest of these belong to the time of the Mishna,
and are quoted in the Gemaras. They are in Hebrew. The
later are in Aramaic of different centuries.
These are : (1) the Mekliilta,^ upon a portion of Exodus ; (2) the
Sifra,^ upon Leviticus ; (3) the Sifri,* upon Numbers and Deuter
onomy. Their language is Hebrew ; (4) the Rdbboth,^ a large col
lection on the Pentateuch and Megilloth.
(a) One on Genesis from the sixth century called Bereshith
Rabba, also Wayehi Rabba of the twelfth century.
(b) Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus, eleventh to twelfth century.
(c) Wayyiqra Rabba, on Leviticus, from middle of seventh cen
tury. (d) Bemidbar Rabba, on Numbers, from the twelfth century.
(e) Debarim Rabba, on Deuteronomy, 900 a.d.
(/) Shir Hashshirim Rabba, on Song of Songs, late in the Middle
Ages. (g) Midrash Ruth, of the late Middle Age.
(h) Midrash Echa, on Lamentations, of seventh century.
(i) Midrash Koheleth, of the late Middle Age.
(.;¦) Midrash Esther, 940 a.d.«
(5) The Pesikta.^
(a) Pesikta of Rab Kahana. These are expositions of the lec
tionaries or readings for the synagogue year. They are not ear
lier than the latter part of the seventh century a.d.'
(6) Pesikta Rabbathi, second half of the ninth century.
(c) Pesikta Zutarta of R. Tobia, twelfth century.
1 Viyia : tt>"n, to study, inquire.
2 sn^'Sb. Published by J. H. Weiss, Vienna, 1865 ; best edition, Friedmann,
Vienna, 1870. Latin translation in Ugolino, XIV.
3 KnSD. Published by Weiss, Vienna, 1862. Latin translation in Ugolino,
XIV. * nSB. Published by Friedmann, Vienna, 1864. Latin translation in Ugolino,
XV. 6 nia-i irnna.
« These have been translated into German by Wflnsche in his Bibliotheca
Babbinica. ' «np'Da. s Edition by Solomon Buber, Lyck, 1868.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 235
(6) Pirke ' R. Elieser,^ a haggadistic work in fifty-four chapters,
of the eighth century, upon Pentateuchal history. 3
(7) Tanchuma : * Midrash of the Pentateuch of the ninth cen
tury. (8) Yalqut Shimoni : ' Midrash of the whole Bible of the first
half of thirteenth century.^
Three early historical works are of some importance :
(a) The Megillath Taanith,'' or Roll of Fasts. It is mentioned
in the Mishna,^ and belongs to the beginning of the second
century. It is Aramaic in the language of text, but the later
commentary is in HebrcAV of eighth century.
(6) Seder Olam Rabba,^ explanation of biblical history from
Adam to the rebellion of Bat Cochba. It is cited in the Tal
mud, and ascribed to R. Jose ben Chalafta of 160 a.d. It is
full of later interpolations.^"
(c) The Seder Olam Zutta,^'^ is a genealogical work of the
eighth century.
In this body of ancient literature, much of which precedes
the Massoretic text, we have a mass of citations which are of
value for the criticism of the old biblical text of the Sopherim.
Besides these there were a large number of distinguished
rabbins of the Middle Ages, such as Saadia of the tenth cen
tury in Egypt, and his pupil, Isaac Israeli, in North Africa; in
the eleventh century Chasdai Ibn Shaprut and Samuel ha-
Nagid, Menahem ben Saruk and Dunash Ibn Labrat, in
Spain ; in the twelfth century Moses Ibn Ezra, Juda ha-Levi,
Abraham ben Meir, Ibn Ezra, and, chief of all, Maimonides,
1135, the most distinguished Jew since Rabbi Jehuda. He
wrote commentaries on the Mishna in Arabic. ^^ His influence
extended throughout the Jewish and Christian world.
1 'pis. 2 Baraitha derabbi Elieser. » Edition, Warsaw, 1874.
« xainDH. s taipb'.
« An edition published at Wilna, 1876. The Midrash on Zechariah has re
cently been translated and published by King, Cambridge, 1882.
' n'jun rb:a. » xaamth, ii. 8. » sai abir nno.
i" An early edition was published at Basel, 1580. The best edition is in
Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic series, Vol. L part VI. , 1895. " NDV nbiU niD.
12 The Introductions have been published, namely, the Porta Mosis, trans, by
Pocock, Oxford, 1655 ; Moreh-Nebhtikhim, a treatise of theology and religious
philosophy, by Buxtorf, Basel, 1629, trans, into English by Friedlander, Lon
don, 1885.

236 study of HOLY SCRIPTURE
In Germany was the celebrated Simeon Kara, the author of
the Yalqut ; in France, Rashi, 1040-1105, contemporary of God
frey of Bouillon, wrote a commentary on the Bible ; Samuel
ben Meir, 1085 ; Joseph Kimchi, at the close of the twelfth
century, and his most distinguished son, David Kimchi, about
1200, who wrote commentaries on the Bible, a lexicon, gram
mar, etc.
In the fifteenth century Jewish learning found expression in
Abravanel, 1437, born at Lisbon, who wrote commentaries on
the Pentateuch, Proverbs, and Daniel ; Elias Levita, born in
1471, in Bavaria; Abraham ben Meir, at Lucca, employed by
Bomberg. The rabbins of the Middle Ages are important
authorities for determining the Massoretic text. The com
mentaries of Rashi and Aben Ezra are printed in the Rabbin
ical Bibles on either side of the Massoretic text and Targums.
In these citations we have help, in the latest to determine
the correct Massoretic text, and in the earlier to determine
the correct Taanite text. These citations need a more careful
examination and comparison than has yet been given to them.
But the agreement of scholars thus far is to the effect that the
consonantal text used in the Mishna is essentially our conso
nantal text. It was fixed in its present form at the close of the
second century A.D.
The versions now come into line. The Arabic version of
Saadia of the tenth century is valuable for the first step back of
the text of Ben Asher. The Vulgate version of Jerome gives
evidence of the text of the Sopherim of the second century.
3. The next step backwards is to ascertain the Maccabean
text. The main stock is the official text of the Sopherim of
the second century. The Aramaic Targums of Onkelos on
the Law and of Jonathan on the Prophets give evidence in part
for the text of the first century of the Christian era and possi
bly earlier; The Syriac version gives evidence of a Hebrew
text of the first Christian century. The citations in the New
Testament from the Aramaic Targums on the Old Testament
carry us back into the early part of the first century of our
era. The citations in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, so
far as they cite from the Hebrew text or Aramaic Targums,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 237
give evidence to texts of the first century of our era, and of the
first and second centuries B.C., according to their dates. The
most valuable of these is the book of Jubilees, Avhich gives im
portant independent evidence as to the Hebrew text of the
first century B.C. The book of JubUees has been studied with
great care by DUlmann and Charles. The latter ^ gives twenty-
five passages in the book of Genesis, where the Massoretic text
should be corrected by the book of JubUees, which in these
instances is sustained by the Samaritan codex or the ancient
versions. There is a large Jewish literature from the first Christian
century backwards, whose citations are important for the
determination of the pre-Rabbinical and pre-Christian text.
(a) The writings of the Hellenists. Josephus was a volumi
nous writer.2 He gives evidence of an early text of the Septu
agint, corresponding in the main with the so-called Lucian
Recension. This has been shown recently by Mez.^
Philo, born in 20 B.C., lived till the middle of the first cen
tury A.D., and wrote a large number of treatises.* Ryle has
recently shown the critical value of his citations.^
(6) The apocryphal books. ^
Esdras (of the first century B.C.) ; Tobit, Judith, and Wis
dom of Solomon (of the second century B.C.) ; Ecclesiasticus
(of the early second century) ; Baruch (of the first century
a.d) ; Epistle of Jeremy (ancient). Song of the Three Chil
dren, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon ; the four books of Mac
cabees (the first from the middle of the first century B.C.,
the second from the early part of the first century A.D., the
1 Anecdota Oxoniensia. The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of
Jubilees, 1895, p. xxiv.
2 Jewish Antiquities (93-94 a.d.), containing Jewish history from the begin
ning; Jevnsh War (70-80 ? a.d.); Autobiography (100 a.d.); Contra Apionem.
The best edition of Josephus is Niese, Berlin, 1887-1895, Whiston's translation
of Ayitiquities, Traill's of Jewish War.
3 See p. 203.
* Mangey, 2 vols, folio, London, 1742. Hand-edition by Richter, 8 vols.
Leipzig, 1828-1830, translated into English, Bohn's Library. New Greek edi
tion by Cohn, Berlin, 1896.
^ Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, 1895.
« See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 4 seq.

238 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
third from late in the first century A.D., the fourth also from
the first century A.D.).
(c) The Pseudepigraphs are of a very large number : The
Psalter of Solomon was originally Avritten in Hebrew in the
latter part of the first century B.C., but is preserved in Greek.
The book of Enoch, originally written in Hebrew, is pre
served entire only in J]ithiopic. The Assumption of Moses is
from the first Christian century. Fourth Ezra is from early in
the second century A.D. The Apocalypse of Baruch, recently
found in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by Ceriani, is from the
early second century A.D. The Ascension of Isaiah is from
the second half of the second century B.C. The Testament of
the Twelve Patriarchs is from the early part of the second cen
tury. The book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis, is from the first
century B.C. The Sibylline Oracles are in fourteen books, from
the second century B.C. to the close ofthe first century A.D.^
4. The next step in Textual Criticism is to ascertain the
original autographs of the Canon of the Law and the Prophets,
when they were first collected and fixed. The Septuagint
version of the Law and the Prophets, and possibly also of
some of the Writings, takes us back of the Maccabean text.
The Samaritan codex of the Law gives us on the whole the
earliest independent witness to the original text of the Canon
of the Law.
5. We have as a final step to ascertain the original text, the
autographs of the authors of the Sacred Writings. This we
can ascertain on the basis of the texts thus far established, by
bringing into consideration parallel passages, such as those of
Samuel and Kings on the one side and Chronicles on the other ;
parallel versions of the same poem, as Ps. 14=53; Ps. 18 =
2 Sam. 22 ; citations of earlier writings in later ones ; and
the rules of internal evidence.
The following examples of the application of the genealogical
principles to particular passages will suffice :
The English Authorized Version reads in Gen. 49^" "until
Shiloh come." The Revised Version retains this in the text,
1 See Briggs, Messiah ofthe Gospels, pp. 9 seq. ; and Messiah ofthe Apostles,
pp. 2 seq.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 239
but puts on the margin other renderings. The Massoretic text,
n7^^ K3^ ''3 1!;, may be translated in this way.
(a) But the first appearance of this translation known to us is
by Sebastian Munster in 1634. Through his influence it passed
over into the Great Bible in 1539, and has been retained in all
subsequent English versions. Miinster seems to have been mis
led to this interpretation by the use of ^h''^ as a name of the
Messiah in the Talmud.^ But that does not justify the trans
lation "until Shiloh come" any more than the use of Yinnon,
Ps. 72", Chaninah, Jer. 16", Menachem, Lam. 1'", and the leprous
one. Is. SS'', as names of the Messiah, would justify a translation
of all these passages in accordance therewith. In fact there is no
such translation of Gen. 49'° knoAvn to Jewish tradition, ^h'^lp is
found in the Old Testament as the name of a place, but nowhere
as the name of a person.
(b) The Massoretic pointing n7'''p really represents the tradi
tional opinion that ^'''^ was a noun with the archaic suffix, mean
ing his son. This is the interpretation of the Targum Yerushalmi
and many Jewish scholars of the tenth century. It is true that
there is no such word in Biblical HebreAV. But the Mishna uses
the form ^"h^ with the meaning embryo, and it would seem that
the ancient Jews interpreted h''^ as a cognate stem with hb'\D.
Calvin followed this opinion, but few others have adopted it since
the Reformation.
(c) The ^ is of the nature of a Massoretic interpretation, as is so
frequently the case with the quiescent letters in the Hebrew text.
The original consonantal text read n7t2>. This is evident from
the Arabic of Saadia of the tenth century, who did not foUoAv the
Massoretic pointing, but translated it as if it were pointed ii?ti> ;
that is, the relative "t2>, the preposition b, and the suffix H.
Saadia is sustained by Aquila, who testifies to the official inter
pretation of the rabbins of the second Christiau century. Sym
machus and Theodotion give the same witness. Jerome read
nSty or TlhfS, but he interpreted it as Vh'p = one sent, qui mitten-
dus est.
(d) We may now go back of the official text of the second
Christian century to the Maccabean text. The Targum of
Onkelos and the Syriac version testify to IlbtT, and translate :
the Targum, " whose is the kingdom," the Syriac, " whose it is,"
which is explained by Aphraates and Ephraem as "whose is the
kingdom." (e) We may now go back to the text of Ezra. The ancient
1 Sanh., 98 6. See Driver, Journal of Philology, 1885, in an article on rh'^.

240 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Greek version and the Samaritan codex both confirm Tw^, and
the former renders cws av iXOrj to. airoKCLixcva airiS.
(f) We may also go a step still further backward under the
guidance of an apparent citation in Ezek. 2132, where the phrase
BStTDn "h liTK SD 13? seems to be not only a reminiscence
but an interpretation of Gen. 49'°, and confirms n?'ii> with the
interpretation 17 lii'S.
Thus the genealogical principle establishes, beyond the shadow
of a doubt, that the original reading of the passage was nStl^, and
that the interpretation was either "that which belongs to him,"
or " whose it is."
Eor another example we may use Ps. 22'° '% which is translated
in our English Bible, " Thou didst make me trust (when I was)
upon my mother's breasts." This is a correct translation of the
Massoretic text Tl^tOSSi (Hiphil participle). But in the time of
Jerome the unpointed text was TllS^tt, for he takes it as the noun
"TltSDtt, my trust. So do the Syriac and ancient Greek versions,
leading us back to the Maccabean Psalter. But we may go fur
ther back still, for Ps. 22'" is quoted in paraphrase in the later
Ps. 71*, where we have TltODJi, the noun.
The genealogy of the Greek Bible is traced back in a similar
•way. Lagarde represented that in the case of the Septuagint
it was necessary to ascertain the three great official texts of the
third century, Lucian, Hesychius, and Eusebius. All the man
uscripts should be classified so far as possible to show their de
scent from these. On the basis of these three one may work
back to the common parent. Westcott and Hort hav^e shoAvn
that we have two groups of texts that are older than these re
censions ; namely (1) the Western text, represented by D, the
old Latin, the old Syrian, and sundry citations ; and (2) the
neutral text of B, X, going back to a common parent in the second
century. The translations all come into evidence in showing
the texts from which they were translated, and the Christian
Fathers of the different centuries in the use of the versions and
manuscripts from which thej'- cited. ^
An interesting example of the use of the genealogical principle
in the New Testament is in 1 Peter 3 '*. The Authorized Version
1 1 think it unnecessary to give a classification of the Fathers for the purpose
of showing the descent of citations. These are accessible easily to all students.
I have given the Jewish Literature because it is not so accessible.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 241
reads: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts." But this
reading is found only in the uncials of the ninth century, K, L, P,
and in no earlier writers than Theophylact and CEcumenius. The
great uncials, B, S and A, C, the Syriac, Sahidic, Coptic, and Armen
ian versions, — all give Xpia-rov, Christ, in place of Otov, God. The
genealogical principle therefore determines, without doubt, the
original reading, and so the Revised Version renders, " But sanc
tify in your hearts Christ as Lord." This evidence might be
fortified by the usage of the New Testament. But no further
evidence is needed.
The genealogical method does not always determine the origi
nal reading ; then we have to fall back on the internal evidence.
As an example of the failure of the genealogical method I may
cite the case of Acts 20^. I shall quote from myself :
" There is a great difference of opinion as to the reading here.
The external authority of MSS., versions, and citations is not de
cisive. Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, and the mass of German
critics read ' Church of the Lord ' ; Scrivener, Westcott, and
Hort, and the leading British scholars read ' Church of God.' If
any unprejudiced man will compare the great mass of authorities
cited on both sides, he will be convinced that there is ample room
for difference of opinion. The context favors 'Church of the
Lord.' This reading is also favored by the fact that it is a unique
reading, and therefore difficult. Nowhere else in the New Testa
ment do we find the phrase ' Church of the Lord.' The scribe in
doubt would follow the usual phrase. That the more difiicult
reading has survived is a proof of its originality. The reading
' Church of God ' gives by implication ' blood of God.' This is
found in Ignatius and other early writers, possibly on the basis of
this passage, but it involves a conception which is alien to the
New Testament. It is extremely improbable that Luke would
put into the mouth of Paul such an unexampled and extraordinary
expression under the circumstances. It involved a doctrine of
startling consequences. Such a doctrine would not come into the
language of Holy Scripture in such an incidental way. The
American Revision, therefore, is to be followed in its reading
' Church of the Lord ' rather than the A. V. or the British Revision
' Church of God.' " ^
1 Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895, p. 81. See Ezra Abbot, Critical
Essays, pp. 294 seq.

242 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

VI. Conflation and other Corruptions
It is characteristic of the late Syrian texts, and in a large
measure also of Lucian's text of the Old Testament, that they
indulge in a considerable amount of conflation. Underlying
conflation is the feeling that, as far as possible, all of the original
text should be preserved ; and that, in cases of doubt, it is
better to preserve all than to run the risk of losing anything.
Conflation is indeed found in the earliest texts both of the Old
Testament and the New Testament, and must have taken place
to a considerable extent back of any versions known to us.
Conflation arises partly from the comparison of earlier authori
ties, and partly from the insertion of ancient marginal explana
tions, or glosses. A very good example of conflation is given
in Westcott and Hort.
"Mk. 9^°.
" (a) ttSs yap Trvpl AXiaO^ireTai (») B LA 1 — 118-209 61 81 435 aP
me. codd. the arm. codd.
" (;8) TTOLcra yap Oviria aXi dXurOrjiTCTai D CU^ (a) b cff-i (k) tol holm
gig (a c tol holm gig omit d\i: a omits yap: k has words appar
ently implying the Greek original iracra Se (or yap) oviria. dvaXiaOrj-
uerai, o being read for 6, and \N\XUJ for \Al\XlC).
" (8) tSs yap TTvpi dXierd-^a-tTai, Kal ¦jra.o'a BvcTia aXt dkierOrjeriTai,
ACNXEFGHKN/lSUVm cu. omn. exe. 15 fq vg syr. vg hi me.
codd ffith arm. codd go Vict (cu'° vg. codd. opt omit aXi; X adds
it after Trvpl).
"A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 (koi vav SZpov $va-uv; vp.S)v aXl
aXurB-qeTCTai) has Created j8 out of a, TTYPIWICO being read as
0YCI \^AI\XIC0 with a natural reduplication, lost again in some
Latin copies. The change would be aided by the words that
follow here, koXov to aXas k.t.X. In S the two incongruous alterna
tives are simply added together, yap being replaced by Kal. Besides
AC NX, S has at least the Vulgate Syriac, and the Italian and Vul
gate Latin, as well as later versions." ^
Here we see the original in the neutral text, a variation by a
mistake in the Western text, and then a full conflation in the
Syrian texts.
An interesting example of corruption of an original text is pre
sented in Ps. 25. This Psalm is an alphabetical hexameter. All
1 Westcott and Hort's Neiv Testament in Greek, 1882, pp. 101, 102.

textual CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 243
the letters of the HebrCAV alphabet from X to H are represented
except D, 1, and p. But it is quite easy to restore these. The line
with D is restored by making the preceding verse close with ^'^'7X.
The measure requires this change also. The line beginning with
1 is restored by transposing ""Jiabl to the second clause before
"^mx. A prosaic copyist has combined two lines of poetry into a
single prose sentence. The line with p has been lost by a slip of
the eye causing a repetition of HS^ of the next line. Change
rUfTl to r\'^p, and the line is restored.
Examples of dittography are Ps. 67* and 118""'"'''.
In Ps. 67*, D^'^'5K 13S"12'' is a mere repetition of the first two
words of the preceding line. The Psalm is composed of three
trimeter pentastichs. This dittography destroys the measure of
the last line by just these two words.
There are two examples in Ps. 118 : verse 12 6 repeated from the
preceding line, and verse 15 & by a slip of the eye to the following
line. In both cases they destroy the measures of the lines. They
are but half lines, and, if counted, Avould destroy the symmetry of
the strophes of the Psalm, which are composed uniformly of seven
hexameters. Examples of the wrong separation of words are :
(a) Ps. 68'*: tt?1p3 ''^0 D3 should be IV^p^ TDtt N2. It is
a citation from Deut. 33^: «D '':^Df2 mn\
(6) Ps. ir : mait DDin should be "llSJi ItiD ^,1 as Sept., Aq.,
Jer., Syr., Targ.
The letter "2 has been overlooked by an ancient scribe of the
Massoretic text of Ps. 140'*, and so we have 13U>'' instead of
the correct I'Sntl?'' of the Sept.
The particle ^5 has been omitted in the Massoretic text of Ps.
143', and so the assonance with vss. 8"' ', 10" has been lost. The
''^ is preserved in on of Sept. The final D of ""O!? in Ps. 144^ has
been overlooked; hence the pointing ''SS : but D''J23J is sustained
by Aq., Jer., Sept. Targ., as well as by the original from which
the citation was made, Ps. 18** = 2 Sam. 22*«-
Ps. 31^ presents an interesting example of a tetrastich, rhyming
in ''3_, which has been obscured in the Massoretic text but can
easily be restored. It is cited in the later Psalm, 71'"^. In both
Psalms there has been a transposition of IDplStD, which begins
the second verse of Ps. 71, but which with the following ''3tS7S
closes the second verse of Ps. 31. It should begin the second
verse, and the first verse should close with ''JtsbS. Ps. 71 has
changed the imperative to a jussive, and substituted ''3b''2tn, and
then by confiation added ''JtS'^'Sm. The second line of Ps. 31

244 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
proper closes with '^ib'^^in mna. In Ps. 71 ^:TW^n^ has taken
its place by a slip of the eye to the close of the following line,
and so ''i7''2£n mUti has been left out. In the third line Ps. 31
is entirely correct. But Ps. 71 in the Massoretic text has misread
nn:ianflblSl!2 as miaianabiSa in the ancient unpointed con
tinuous text. Apart from the quiescent letters the only difference
is a mistake of 1 for 3 and a transposition of 2f and 1. But Sept.,
Sym., Targ., and some Hebrew manuscripts read 115X2 here, although
Jerome and the Syriac follow the present text. So Sept. reads eh
ToTTov oxvpov here, but Sym., Jerome, Syr., and Targum agree with
the Massoretic text. It is altogether probable, therefore, that in
the Maccabean Hebrew text Ps. 71 agreed Avith the original Ps.
31. The corruption of the text was later. In the fourth line
Ps. 31 is correct, except that a final ''jbnjm has been added by
conflation, TTli being a variation of Hni The second half of the
line is not given in Ps. 71.
The original words of Jesus in the Logia may be discerned from
the use of Textual Criticism of the several citations in the Gospels
and elsewhere. Jesus said : " A prophet is not without honour,
save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own
house." (Mk. 6\) This is given in Mt. 13 '^ "A prophet is not
without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."
Lk. 4^^* has : " Doubtless ye Avill say unto me this parable, Phy
sician, heal thyself ; whatsoever we have heard done at Caper
naum, do also here in thine own country." John l" gives it in the
form, " Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in
his own country." A study of these citations makes it plain that
the original saying of Jesus did not include " and among his own
kin, and in his own house." That is an enlargement of the ori
ginal words " in his own country," given in Luke and John. This
is confirmed by the recently discovered Logia of Jesus, from an
early Greek papyrus. The fifth of these has ovk lortv Sektos irpoc^iyTi/s
fv Tr} warptSt avTov, which is very close to Luke's oiSeU wpoi^JjTiys Sektos
acTTtv iv Trj TrarpiSi avToS.
This line has an additional line in parallelism with it in this
fifth logion, namely : owSe larpo^ ttoui ©epaTret'as eis roll's yivuxTKOvra's
avTov. This makes with the other a couplet. In all probability,
this presents the original couplet of Jesus, which is preserved
only in the single line of the Gospels, for it is contrary to the
usages of Hebrew Wisdom to use single lines, or a form of poetry
of less than a couplet. Single lines of Wisdom do not exist except
as fragments of groups of lines. Eurthermore, this second line is
suggested by the context of Luke. The original couplet is :

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 245
A prophet is not acceptable in his own country ;
Neither doth a physician work cures upon them that know him.
By a careful, accurate, and thorough-going use of the scien
tific methods and principles of Textual Criticism, the traditional
texts upon Avhich the earlier scholars relied have been purified,
and we may, with considerable confidence, determine, to a great
extent, very ancient forms of the text quite near to the original
autographs of the final editors of the biblical writings, and in
not a few cases we may determine with reasonable accuracy
the autographs of the authors themselves. We may be encour
aged by the advance in the science of Textual Criticism to look
for greater productivity and fruitfulness in the future.

CHAPTER XI
HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
We have seen in previous chapters that there was a great
critical revival at the Reformation ; that the Biblical Criticism
of the Protestant Reformers was based on the formal principle
of Protestantism, the divine authority of Holy Scripture over
against tradition ; that the voice of God Himself, speaking
to His people through His Word, was the great test ; that
the Protestant Reformers tested the traditional theory of the
Canon and eliminated the apocryphal books therefrom ; that
they rejected the Septuagint and Vulgate versions as the ulti
mate appeal, and resorted to the original Greek and Hebrew
texts ; that they tested the Massoretic traditional pointing of
the Hebrew Scriptures, and, rejecting it as merely traditional,
resorted to the original unpointed text ; that they tested the
traditional manifold sense and allegorical method of interpre
tation, and, rejecting these, followed the plain grammatical
sense, interpreting difficult and obscure passages by the mind
of the Spirit in passages that are plain and undisputed.
We have also studied the second critical revival under the
lead of CappeUus and Walton, and their conflict with the
Protestant scholastics who had reacted from the critical princi
ples of the Reformation into a reliance upon Rabbinical tra
dition. We have seen that the Puritan divines still held the
position of the Protestant Reformers, and were not in accord
with the scholastics. We have now to trace a third critical
revival, which began toward the close of the eighteenth century
in the investigations of the poetic and literary features of the
Old Testament by Bishop Lowth in England and the poet
Herder in Germany, and of the structure of Genesis by the
physician Astruc in France. The first critical revival had
246

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 247^
been mainly devoted to the Canon of Scripture, its authority
and interpretation. The second critical revival had studied
the original texts and versions. The third critical revival gave
attention to the Sacred Scriptures as literature.
I. The Higher Criticism in the Sixteenth and Seven
teenth Centuries.
Little attention had been given to the literary features of
the Bible in the sixteenth century. We may infer how the
Reformers would have met these questions from their freedom
with regard to traditional views in the few cases in which they
expressed themselves. Luther denied the Apocalypse to John
and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. He maintained that the Epistle
of James was not an apostolic writing. He regarded Jude as
an extract from 2 Peter, and said. What matters it if Moses
should not himself have written the Pentateuch ? ^ He thought
the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by a disciple of the
apostle Paul, who was a learned man, and made the epistle as
a sort of a composite piece in which there are some things hard
to be reconciled with the Gospel. Calvin denied the Pauline
authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews and doubted the
Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. He taught that Ezra or some
one else edited the Psalter and made the first Psalm an intro
duction to the collection, not hesitating to oppose the tra
ditional view that David was the author or editor of the entire
Psalter. He also regarded Ezra as the author of the prophecy
of Malachi — Malachi being his surname. He furthermore
constructed, after the model of a harmony of the Gospels, a
harmony of the pentateuchal legislation about the Ten Com
mandments as a centre, holding that all the rest of the com
mandments were mere " appendages, which add not the smallest
completeness to the Law." ^
1 See Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Test, in der christlichen Kirche, 1869, pp. 250
seq. ; and Vorreden in Walch edit, of Luther's Werken, XIV. pp. 35, 146-153 ;
Tischreden, I. p. 28.
2 "Therefore, God protests that He never enjoined anything with respect to
sacrifices ; and He pronounces all external rites but vain and trifling if the very
least value be assigned to them apart from the Ten Commandments. Whence
we more certainly arrive at the conclusion to which I have adverted, viz. that

248 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Zwingli, CEcolampadius, and other Reformers took similar
positions. These questions of authorship and date troubled
the Reformers but little ; they had to battle against the Vul
gate for the original text and popular versions, and for a
simple grammatical exegesis over against traditional authority
and the manifold sense. Hence it is that on these literary
questions the Apologies, Articles of Religion, and Confessions
of Faith in the time of the Reformation take no position what
ever, except to lay stress upon the sublimity of the style, the
unity and the harmony of Scripture, and the internal evidence
of its inspiration and authority. Calvin sets the example for
the Reformed Churches in this particular in his Institutes, and
is followed by Thomas Cartwright, Archbishop Usher, and
other eminent Calvinlsts.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is in entire accord
with the other Reformed confessions, and Avith the well-
established principles of the Reformation. It expresses a de
vout admiration and profound reverence for the holy majestic
character and style of the Divine Word, but does not define
the human authors and the dates of the various writings. As
A. F. MitcheU says :
" Any one who will take the trouble to compare their list of the
canonical books with that given in the Belgian Confession or the
Irish articles, may satisfy himself that they held with Dr. Jameson
that the authority of these books does not depend on the fact
whether this prophet or that wrote a particular book or parts of a
book, whether a certain portion was derived from the Elohist or
the Jehovist, whether Moses wrote the close of Deuteronomy,
Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or Paul of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, but the fact that a prophet, an inspired man, wrote
them, and that they bear the stamp and impress of a divine
origin." ^
they are not, to speak correctly, of the substance of the Law, nor avail of them
selves in the worship of God, nor are required by the Lawgiver himself as neces
sary, or even as useful, unless they sink into this inferior position. In fine, they
are appendages which add not the smallest completeness to the Law, but whose
object is to retain the pious in the spiritual worship of God, which consists of
Faith and Repentance, of Praises whereby their gratitude is proclaimed, and
even of the endurance of the cross." —Preface to Harmony of the Four Last
Books of the Pentateuch.
1 Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, November,

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 249
And Matthew Poole, the great Presbyterian critic of the
seventeenth century, quotes with approval the following from
the Roman Catholic, Melchior Canus :
" It is not much material to the Catholick Eaith that any book
was written by this or that author, so long as the Spirit of God is
believed to be the author of it; which Gregory delivers and
explains : For it matters not with what pen the King writes his
letter, if it be true that he writ it." '
Andrew Rivetus, one of the chief Reformed divines of the
continent,^ after discussing the various views of the authorship
of the Psalms, says :
" This only is to be held as certain, whether David or Moses or
any other composed the psalms, they themselves were as pens,
but the Holy Spirit wrote through them : But it is not necessary
to trouble ourselves about the pen when the true author is
established." In his Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures,^ he enters into
no discussion of the literary questions. This omission makes it
clear that these questions did not concern the men of his times.
Until toward the close of the seventeenth century, those who,
in the brief preliminary words to their commentaries on the
different books of Scripture, took the trouble to mention the
authors and dates of writings, either followed the traditional
views without criticism or deviated from them in entire uncon
sciousness of giving offence to the orthodox faith. This faith
was firmly fixed on the divine author of Scripture, and they
felt little concern for the human authors employed. One looks
in vain in the commentaries of this period for a critical dis
cussion of literary questions.*
1644 to March, 1649, edited by A. F. Mitchell and J. Struthers, Edin., 1874,
p. xlix. 1 Blow at the Boot, 4th ed., 1671, p. 228.
2 In his Prolog, to his Com. on the Psalms.
* Isagoge seu Introductio generalis ad scripturam sacram, 1627.
* As specimens the following from the Assembly's Annotations may suffice.
(1) Francis Taylor on Job: "Though most excellent and glorious things be
contained in it, yet they seem to partake the same portion with their subject ;
being (as his prosperity was) clouded often with much darkness and obscurity,
and that not only in those things which are of lesse moment and edification

250 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The literary questions opened by Lowth, Herder, and Astruc
were essentially new questions. The revived attention to clas
sical and Oriental history and literature carried with it a fresh
study of Hebrew history and literature. The battle of the
books waged between Bentley and Boyle, which was decided
in the interests of literary criticism by the masterpiece of
Bentley,^ was the prelude of a struggle over all the literary
monuments of antiquity, in which the spurious was to be sepa
rated from the genuine. It was indispensable that the Greek
and Latin and Hebrew literature should pass through the fires
of this literary and historical criticism, which soon received the
name of Higher Criticism. As Eichhorn says :
(viz. the Time and Place and Penman, etc.), but in points of higher doctrine
and concernment. The Book is observed to be a sort of holy poem, but yet not
a Fable ; and, though we cannot expressly conclude when or by whom it was
written, though our maps cannot show us what Uz was, or where situate, yet
cannot this Scripture of Job be rejected until Atheisme grow as desperate as
his wife was, and resolve with her to curse God and dye." The traditional
view that Moses wrote Job is simply abandoned and the authorship left unknown.
(2) Casaubon, Preface to the Psalms: "The author of this book (the immedi
ate and secondary, we mean, besides the original and general of all true Script
ure, the Holy Ghost . . .), though named in some other places of Scripture
David, as Lk. 20*^^, and elsewhere, is not here in the title of the book expressed.
The truth is, they are not all David's Psalms, some having been made before
and some long after him, as shall be shown in due place." The traditional view
as to the Davidic authorship of the Psalter is abandoned without hesitation or
apology. (3) Francis Taylor, Preface to the Proverbs: "That Solomon is the
author of this book of Proverbs in general is generally acknowledged ; but the
author, as David of the Psalms, not because all made by him, but because either
the maker of a good part, or collector and approver of the rest. It is not to be
doubted but that many of these Proverbs and sentences were known and used
long before Solomon. ... Of them that were collected by others as Solomon's,
but long since his death, from Chapters 25-30, and then of those that bear
Agur's name, 30, and Lemuel's, 31. . . . If not all Solomon's, then, but partly
bis and partly collected by him and partly by others at several times, no wonder
if diverse things, with little or no alteration, be often repeated."
Joseph Mede (Works, II. pp. 963, 1022, London, 1664), Henry Hammond
(Paraphrase and Annotations upon the New Testament, London, 1871, p. 135),
Kidder (Demonstration of the Messias, London, 1726, II. p. 76), and others
denied the integrity of Zechariah, and, on the ground of Mt. 27', ascribed the
last six chapters to Jeremiah. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was
questioned by Carlstadt (De Script. Canon, 1521, § 85), who left the author
undetermined. The Roman Catholic scholar, Masius (Com. in Josh., 1574,
Prcef, p. 2, and Chapters lOia, IO*" ; Critica Sacr., IL p. 1892, London, 1660),
and the British philosopher, Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651, part III. c. 33) distin
guished between Mosaic originals and our present Pentateuch.
1 Epistles of Phalaris and Fables of JEsop, 1699 ; see Chap. IV. p. 107.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 251
" Already long ago scholars have sought to determine the age of
anonymous Greek and Roman writings now from their contents,
and then since these are often insufficient for an investigation
of this kind, from their language. They have also by the same
means separated from ancient works pieces of later origin, which,
by accidental circumstances, have become mingled with the ancient
pieces. And not until the writings of the Old Testament have been
subjected to the same test can any one assert with confidence that
the sections of a book all belong in reality to the author whose name
is prefixed." '
The traditional views of the Old Testament literature, as
fixed in the Talmud and stated in the Christian Fathers, came
down as a body of lore to be investigated and tested by the
principles of this Higher Criticism. There were four ways of
meeting the issue : (1) By attacking the traditional theories
with the weapons of the Higher Criticism and testing them at
all points, dealing with the Scriptures as with all other writings
of antiquity. (2) By defending the traditional theories as the
established faith of the Church on the ground of the authority
of tradition, as Buxtorf and Owen had defended the inspira
tion of the Hebrew vowel points against CappeUus and Walton.
(3) By ignoring these questions as matters of scholarship and
not of faith, and resting on the divine authority of the writings
themselves. In point of fact, these three methods were pur
sued, and three parties ranged themselves in line to meet the
issues, — the deistic or rationalistic, the traditional or scholastic,
the pietistic or mystical, — and the battle of the ages between
these tendencies was renewed on this line. There was a fourth
and better way which few pursued : (1) inquire what the
Scriptures teach about themselves, and separate this divine
authority from all other authority ; (2) apply the principles of
the Higher Criticism to decide questions not decided by divine
authority ; (3) let tradition have its voice so far as possible in
questions not settled by the previous methods.
1 Einleit. III. p. 67.

252 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

II. The Rabbinical Theories
The most ancient Rabbinical theory of the Old Testament
literature known to us is contained in the tract Baba Bathra of
the Talmud. In this passage we have to distinguish the Bar
aitha from the Gemara.'^
Baraitha. — The rabbins have taught that the order of the
Prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve (minor prophets).
Gemaea. — (Question) : Hoav is it ? Hosea is first because it is
written, " In the beginning the Lord spake to Hosea." But how
did he speak in the beginning with Hosea ? Have there not been
so many prophets from Moses unto Hosea ? Rabbi Jochanan said
that he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied in the
same period, and these are : Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.
Should then Hosea be placed before at the head ? (Reply) : No,
since his prophecies had been written alongside of Haggai, Zecha
riah, and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the
last of the prophets, it was counted with them. (Question) : Ought
it to have been written apart and ought it to have been placed
before ? (Reply) : No ; since it was little and might be easily lost.
(Question) : How is it ? Isaiah was before Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Ought Isaiah to be placed before at the head ? (Reply) : Since the
book of Kings ends in ruin and Jeremiah is, all of it, ruin, and
Ezekiel has its beginning ruin and its end comfort, and Isaiah is
all of it comfort; we join ruin to ruin and comfort to comfort.
Baraitha. — •• The order of the Writings is, Ruth and the book
of Psalms, and Job, and Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and
Lamentations, Daniel and the roll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.
Gemara. — (Question) : But according to the Tanaite who said
Job was in the days of Moses, ought Job to be placed before at
the head ? (Reply) : We begin not with afflictions. (Question) :
Ruth has also afflictions ? (Reply) : But afflictions which have an
end. As Rabbi Jochanan says. Why was her name called Ruth ?
Because Daidd went forth from her who refreshed the Holy One,
blessed be He ! with songs and praises.
Baraitha. — And who wrote them? Moses wrote his book,
the section of Balaam and Job ; Joshua wrote his book and the
1 Baba Bathra, folio 14 &. See pp. 232, 233. I follow the editio prineeps,
12 vols, folio, Venitia, Bomberg, 1520, but have also consulted the edition pub
lished at Berlin and Frankfort-on-the-Oder by Jablonsky, 1736, which follows
the Basle edition in expurgating the anti-Christian passages. Both of these are
in the library of the Union Theological Seminary, N.Y.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 253
eight verses of the law ; Samuel wrote his book and Judges and
Ruth ; David wrote the book of Psalms with the aid of the ten
ancients,. with the aid of Adam the first, Melchizedek, Abraham,
Moses, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph, the three sons of Korah; Jere
miah wrote his book, the books of Kings and Lamentations ;
Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs,
and Ecclesiastes, whose sign is ptTJi'' ; ' the men of the great syna^
gogue wrote Ezekiel and the Twelve (minor prophets), Daniel and
the roll of Esther, whose sign is illp ; Ezra wrote his book and
the genealogy of Chronicles unto himself.
Gemara. — This will support Rab, for Rabbi Jehuda told that
Rab said : Ezra went not up from Babylon until he had registered
his own genealogy, then he went up. (Question) : And who finished
it (his book) ? (Reply) : Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah. The
author (of the Baraitha) said Joshua wrote his book and the eight
verses of the law ; this is taught according to him who says of the
eight verses of the law, Joshua wrote them. Eor it is taught:
And Moses the servant of the Lord died there. How is it possible
that Moses died and wrote : and Moses died there ? It is only
unto this passage Moses wrote, afterwards Joshua wrote the
rest. These are the words of Rabbi Jehuda, others say of Rabbi
Nehemiah, but Rabbi Simeon said to him : Is it possible that the
book of the Law could lack one letter, since it is written : Take
this book of the Law ? It is only unto this the Holy One, blessed
be He! said, and Moses said and wrote. Erom this place and
onwards the Holy One, blessed be He, said and Moses wrote with
weeping. . . .
(Question) : Joshua wrote his book ? But if is written there :
And Joshua died. (Reply) : Eleazar finished it. (Question) : But
yet it is written there: And Eleazar the son of Aaron died.
(Reply) : Phineas finished it. (Question) : Samuel Avrote his book ?
But it is written there : And Samuel died, and they buried him in
Rama. (Reply) : Gad the seer and Nathan the Prophet finished it.
We have to distinguish the view of the Tanaim in the
Baraitha and the view of the Amoraim in the Gemara.^ The
Tanaim do not go beyond the scope of giving (1) the order
of the Sacred Writings, (2) their editors.
(1) In the order of the writings we observe several singular
1 These are the first letters of the Hebrew names of these books.
2 The Tanaim are the authors of the Mishnayoth, the Amoraim are the
expounders of the Mishnayoth and authors of the Gemara (see Mielziner, Intro
duction to the Talmud, 1894, pp. 22 seq.).

254 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
features, which lead us to ask whether the order is topical,
chronological, liturgical, or accidental. The Amoraim ex
plain the order generally as topical, although other explana
tions are given, but their reasons are inconsistent and
unsatisfactory. Is there a chronological reason at the bottom?
This is clear in the order of three classes, — Law, Prophets, and
other Writings. But will it apply to the order of the books
in the classes ? There seems to be a general observance of the
chronological order, if .we consider the subject-matter as the
determining factor, and not the time of composition. In
the order of the Prophets, Jeremiah precedes Ezekiel properly.
But why does Isaiah follow ? Is it out of a consciousness that
Isaiah Avas a collection of several writings besides those of the
great Isaiah,^ or from the feeling that Isaiah's prophecies had
more to do with the restoration than the exile, and so naturally
followed Ezekiel ? The Minor Prophets are arranged in three
groups, and these groups are chronological in order. Hosea
was placed first out of a mistaken interpretation of his intro
ductory words. Malachi appropriately comes last. But this
order of the Prophets in the Baraitha is abandoned by the
Massorites, who arrange Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. In the
other writings there is a sort of chronological order if we con
sider the subject-matter, but the Massoretic text differs from
the Baraitha entirely, and indeed the Spanish and German
manuscripts from one another. We cannot escape the convic
tion that there was a liturgical reason at the basis of the
arrangement, which has not yet been determined. At all
events, its authority has little weight for purposes of Higher
Criticism. (2) As to their editorship. The verb " wrote," ^ cannot
imply composition in the sense of authorship in several cases
of its use, but must be used in the sense of editorship or re
daction. Thus it is said that the men of the Great Synagogue
wrote Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel, and the roll of
Esther. This cannot mean that they Avere the original authors,
but that they were editors of these books. It is not stated
whether they edited them by copy from originals or from oral
1 Strack in Herzog, Beal Ency., VII. p. 43. 2 2n3.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 255
tradition. Rashi takes the latter alternative, and thinks that
holy books could not be written outside of Palestine. ^ An
insuperable objection to this editing of Daniel and Esther
at the same time as Ezekiel and the Twelve, is their exclusion
from the order of the Prophets, where they Avould have naturally
gone if introduced into the Canon at that time ; Esther with
the prophetic histories, and Daniel with Isaiah, Ezekiel, and
Jeremiah.2 Again, when it is said Hezekiah and his company wrote
Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, this can
only mean editorship, and not authorship. The Tosaphoth on
the Baraitha says : " Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah ;
because Hezekiah caused them to busy themselves Avith the
law, the matter was called after his name. But he (Hezekiah)
did not write it himself, because he died before Isaiah, since
Manasseh, his successor, killed Isaiah." The redaction of
Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes by Hezekiah's
company, is probably a conjecture based upon Proverbs 25. ^
But the whole story is incredible. It carries Avith it a Canon
of Hezekiah, and would be inconsistent with the subsequent
positions of these books in the Canon. ^
David is represented as editing the Psalter Avith the aid of
ten ancients ; that is, he used the Psalms of the ten worthies
and united them with his own in the collection. Moses is
represented as writing his book, the section of Balaam and
Job. The section of Balaam is distinguished probably as
edited and not composed by Moses. In view of the usage
of the rest of this Baraitha, we cannot be sure whether it
means that Moses edited the Law and Job, or whether here
" Avrote " means authorship. The same uncertainty hangs over
the references to Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Ezra.
The statements of the Baraitha, therefore, seem rather to
concern official editorship than authorship, and it distinguishes
no less than eight stages of redaction of the Old Testament
Scriptures : (1) By Moses, (2) Joshua, (3) Samuel, (4) David,
1 Strack in Herzog, Beal Ency., VII. p. 418; Wright, Koheleth, pp. 454 seq. ;
Wogue, Histoire de la Bible, pp. 19 seq.
2 See pp. 123 seq. ' See pp. 124 seq.

256 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
(5) Hezekiah and his college, (6) Jeremiah, (7) the men of
the Great Synagogue, (8) Ezra.
The Gemara in its commentary upon this passage enlarges
this work of redaction so as to give a number of additional
prophets a hand in it. Joshua completes the work of Moses,
Eleazar the work of Joshua, and Phineas his work ; Gad and
Nathan finish the work of Samuel, then come David, Hezekiah,
Jeremiah, the men of the Great Synagogue; and Nehemiah
finishes the work of Ezra.
III. Hellenistic and Christian Theories
Having considered the Rabbinical tradition, we are now
prepared to examine that of the Jewish historian, Josephus.
His general statement is :
" We have not myriads of books among us disagreeing and con
tradicting one another, but only twenty-two, comprising the his
tory of all past time, justly worthy of belief. And five of them
are those of Moses, which comprise the Law and the tradition of
the generation of mankind until his death. This time extends
to a little less than three thousand years. From the death of
Moses until Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians after Xerxes,
the prophets after Moses composed that which transpired in their
times in thirteen books. The other four books present hymns to
God and rules. of life for men." ^
"And now David, being freed from Avars and dangers, and
enjoying a profound peace, composed songs and hymns to God
of several sorts of metre : some of those which he made were trim
eters, and some were pentameters." ^
Josephus' views as to Hebrew literature vary somewhat from
the Talmud. He strives to exalt the Hebrew Scriptures in
every way as to style, antiquity, and variety above the classic
literature of Greece. He represents Moses as the author of
the Pentateuch, even of the last eight verses describing his
own death.3 Scholars do not hesitate to reject his views of the
number and arrangement of the books in the Canon, or his
statements as to the metres of Hebrew poetry ; we certainly
cannot accept his authority without criticism, in questions of
^ Contra Apion. 1. % i '^ Antiq., Nil. 12. » .4n{tg., IV. 8, 48.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 257
authorship. Philo agrees with Josephus in making Moses by
prophetic inspiration the author of the narrative of his own
death,^ but has little to say about matters that concern the
Higher Criticism.
A still more ancient authority than the Talmud, and an au
thority historically to Christians higher than Josephus, is the
Apocalypse of Ezra, from the first Christian century, printed
among the apocryphal books in the English Bible, and pre
served in five versions, and used not infrequently by the
Fathers as if it were inspired Scripture. This tradition repre
sents that the Law and all the holy books were burned at the
destruction of Jerusalem by' Nebuchadnezzar and lost; that
Ezra under divine inspiration restored them all, and also com
posed seventy others to be delivered to the wise as the esoteric
wisdom for the interpretation of the twenty-four.^
This view of the restoration of the Old Testament writings
by Ezra was advocated by some of the Fathers. Clement of
Alexandria * says :
" Since the Scriptures perished in the captivity of Nebuchad
nezzar, Esdras the Levite, the priest, in the time of Artaxerxes,
king of the Persians having become inspired, in the exercise of
prophecy restored again the whole of the ancient Scriptures."
So, also, Tertullian,* Chrysostom,^ an ancient writing attrib
uted to Augustine,® the heretical Clementine homilies.'' Another
common opinion of the Fathers is represented by Irenseus : ^
1 Life of Moses, III. 39.
2 Ezra saith : "For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things
that are done of thee, or the works that shall begin. But if I have found grace
before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been
done in the world since the beginning, which were written in thy law, that men
may find thy path," etc. "Come hither (saith God), and I shall light a
candle of understanding in thine heart which shall not be put out, till the things
be performed which thou shalt begin to write. And when thou hast done, some
things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou show secretly to the wise.
. . . The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and the
unworthy may read it ; but keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them
only to such as be wise among the people ; for in them is the spring of under
standing, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge " (W^i-^^).
' Stromata, I. 22. * De eultu fceminarum, c. 3.
^ fl'oTO.' VIII. in Epist. Hebreeos, Migne's edition, XVII. p. 74.
" De mirabilibus sacrce scripturce, II. 33, printed with Augustine's works,
but not genuine. ' Horn. III. c. 47. ^ ^(j^. Heereses, III. 21, 2.

258 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" During the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the
Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the
Jews had returned to their own land, then in the time of Artax
erxes King of the Persians, [God] inspired Esdras the priest, of
the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of former prophets, and
to reestablish with the people the Mosaic legislation.''
So, also, Theodoret ^ and Basil. ^ Jerome ^ says with reference
to this tradition : " Whether you wish to say that Moses is the
author of the Pentateuch, or that Ezra restored it, is indiffer
ent to me." Bellarmin * is of the opinion that the books of the
Jews were not entirely lost, but that Ezra corrected those that
had become corrupted, and improved the copies he restored.
Jerome, in the fourth century, relied largely upon Jewish
Rabbinical authority, and gave his great influence toward bring
ing the fluctuating traditions in the Church into more accord
ance with the Rabbinical traditions, but he could not entirely
succeed. He held that the orphan Psalms belonged as a rule
to the preceding ones, and in general followed the rabbins in
associating the sacred writings with the familiar names, —
Moses, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Ezra, and so on. There is,
however, no consensus of the Fathers on these topics.
Junilius, in the midst of the sixth century, author of the first
extant Introduction,^ a reproduction of a lost work of his in
structor, Paul of Nisibis, of the Antiochian school of Exegesis,
presents a view which may be regarded as representing very
largely the Oriental and Western churches. He diAddes the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments into seventeen his
tories, seventeen prophecies, two proverbial and seventeen doc
trinal writings. Under authorship, he makes the discrimination
between those having their authors indicated in their titles and
introductions, and those whose authorship rests purely on tra
dition, including among the latter the Pentateuch and Joshua.^
1 Preef. in Psalmos.
2 Epist. ad Chilonem, Migne's edition, IV. p. 358. See Simon, Hist. Crit. de
Vieux Test., Amsterd., 1685, and Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraph., Hamburg,
1722, pp. 1156 seq. ^ Adv. Helvidium. * De verbo Dei., lib. 2.
^ Institutio Begularis Divines Legis.
° " Scriptores divinoruin librorum qua ratione cognoscimus ? Tribrus modis ;
aut ex titulis et proemiis ut propheticos libros et apostoli epistolas, aut ex titulis
tantum ut evangelistas, aut ex traditione veterum ut Moyses traditur scripsisse

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 259
This work of Junilius held its own as an authority in the West
ern Church until the Reformation. It would be difficult to define
a consensus of the first Christian century or of the Fathers in
regard to the authorship of the historical books of the Old Tes
tament or other questions of the Higher Criticism. The variant
traditions, unfixed and fluctuating, came down to the men of the
eighteenth century to be tested by the Scriptures, and by the
principles of the Higher Criticism, and they found no consensus
patrum and no orthodox doctrines in their way.
IV. The New Testament View of Old Testament
Literature
It is claimed, however, that Jesus and His apostles have de
termined these questions for us, and that their divine authority
relieves us of any obligation to investigate further, as their
testimony is final. This does not seem to have been the view
of Junilius or the Fathers. So far as we can ascertain, this
argument was first urged by Maresius,^ in opposition to Peyre-
rius and pressed by Heidegger, the Swiss scholastic, who sided
with Buxtorf and Owen against CappeUus and Walton. But
the argument having been advanced by these divines, and
fortified by the Lutheran scholastic, Carpzov, and maintained
by Hengstenberg, Keil, and Home, and by many recent
writers who lean on these authorities, it is necessary for us to
test it. Clericus went too far when he said that Jesus Christ
and His apostles did not come into the world to preach criti
cism to the Jews.2 The response of Hermann Witsius, that
quinque primes libros historise, cum non dicat hoc titulus nee ipse referat ' dixit
dominus ad me,' sed quasi de alio ' dixit dominus ad Moysen.' Similiter et Jesu
Nave liber ab eo quo nuncupatur traditur scriptus, et primum regum librum
Samuel scripsisse perhibetur. Sciendum praterea quod quorundam librorum
penitus ignorantur auctores ut Judicum et Ruth et Regum iii. ultimi et cetera
simUia, quod ideo credendum est divinitus dispensatum, ut alii quoque divini
libri non auctorum merito, sed sancti spiritus gratia tantum culmen auctoritatis
obtinuisse noscantur " (§viii. 2; see Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius
Africanus als Exegeten, pp. 319-330).
1 Maresius, Befutatio Fabulce Preadamitez, 1656 ; Heidegger, Exercit. Bib
licce, 1700 ; Dissert. IX. pp. 250 seq.
^ In Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de Holland sur V Histoire Critique,
p. 126, Amst., 1685, Clericus says: "Jesus Christ et ses ApOtres n'etant pas
Venus au monde, pour ens^gner la Critique au Juifs, il ne faut pas s'^tonner,
s'ils parlent selon 1' opinion commune."

260 study of holy scripture
Jesus came to teach the truth, and could not be imposed upon
by common ignorance, or be induced to favour vulgar errors, is
just.i And yet we cannot altogether deny the principle of accom
modation in the life and teachings of Jesus. The principle of
accommodation is a part of the wonderful condescension of the
divine grace to human weakness, ignorance, and sinfulness.
Jesus teaches that Moses, because of the hardness of their
hearts, suffered ancient Israel to divorce their wives for reasons,
which the higher dispensation will not admit as valid. ^ The
divine revelation is a training-school for the disciple, ever
reserving from him what he is unable to, bear, and holding
forth the promise of greater light to those using the light
they have.
" It is not required in a religious or inspired teacher, nor indeed
would it be prudent or right, to shock the prejudices of his unin
formed hearers, by inculcating truths which they are unprepared
to receive. If he would reap a harvest, he must prepare the
ground before he attempts to sow the seed. Neither is it re
quired of such an one to persist in inculcating religious instruc
tion after such evidence of its rejection as is sufficient to prove
incurable obstinacy. Now it must be granted that in most of
these cases there is accommodation. The teacher omits, either
altogether or in part, certain religious truths, and, perhaps, truths
of great importance, in accommodation to the incompetency and
weakness of those whom he has to instruct. ... It appears,
then, that accommodation may be allowed in matters which have
no connection with religion, and in these, too, so far as regards
the degree and the form of instruction. But positive accommoda
tion to religious error is not to be found in Scripture, neither is it
justifiable in moral principle." '
1 "Enim vero non fuere Christus et Apostoli Critices doctores, quales se
haberi postulant, qui hodie sibi regnum litterarum in quavis vindicant scientia ;
f uerunt tamen doctores veritatis, neque passi sunt sibi per communem ignoran-
tiam aut procerum astum imponi. Non certe in mundum venere ut vulgares
errores foverunt, suaque auctoritate munirent, nee per Judseos solum sed et
populos unice, a se pendentes longe lateque spargerent." — Misc. Sacra, I.
p. 117. 2 Mt. 198.
' Dr. S. H. Turner, in his edition of Planck's Introduction to Sacred Philol
ogy, Edin., 1834, pp. 275-277. New York, 1834, pp. 280 seq.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 261
Jesus withheld from the tAvelve apostles many things of vast
importance, which they could not know then, but should know
hereafter. 1 Jesus did not enter into any further conflict with
the errors of His time than was necessary for His purposes of
grace in the Gospel. He exercised a wise prudence and a
majestic reserve in matters of indifference and minor impor
tance, and was never premature in declaring Himself and the
principles of His Gospel. There were no sufficient reasons
why He should correct the prevailing views as to the Old
Testament books, and by His authority determine these liter
ary questions. He could not teach error, but He could and
did constantly forbear with reference to errors. Polygamy and
slavery have been defended from the New Testament because
Jesus and His apostles did not declare against them. If all
the views of the men of the time of Christ are to be pronounced
valid which He did not pronounce against, we shall be involved
in a labyrinth of difficulties.
The authority of Jesus Christ, to all who know Him to be
their divine Saviour, outweighs all other authority whatever.
A Christian man must follow His teachings in all things as the
guide into aU truth. The authority of Jesus Christ is involved
in that of the apostles. What, then, do Jesus and His apostles
teach as to the questions of Higher Criticism ? If they used the
language of the day in speaking of the Old Testament books,
it does not follow that they adopted any of the various views
of authorship and editorship that went with these terms in the
Talmud, or in Josephus, or in the Apocalypse of Ezra ; for we
are not to interpret their words on this or on any other subject
by Josephus, or the Mishna, or the Apocalypse of Ezra, or any
such external authorities, but by the plain grammatical and
contextual sense of their words themselves. From the various
New Testament passages we present the following summary of
what is taught on these subjects :
I. Of the Writings the only ones used in the New Testa
ment in connection with names of persons are the Psalter and
Daniel. With reference to Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Prov
erbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Lamentations,
1 John 13^.

262 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and Ruth, the New Testament gives no evidence whatever in
questions of the Higher Criticism.'
1. The Psalter.
Saint Peter cites Ps. 69^^ 109^ as "which the Holy Spirit spake
before by the mouth of David," and " For it is written in the
book of Psalms."^ The assembled Christians cite Ps. 2''^ as
"by the Holy Spirit by the mouth of our father David."*
Saint Peter cites Pss. 16"', 110' as "David saith."* Saint
Paul cites Ps. m'^^ as " David saith" ; ^ and Ps. 32i-2 as "David
also pronounceth blessing."^ Jesus cites Ps. 110' as "David
himself said in the Holy Spirit. " ^
The maximum of evidence here is as to the Davidic
authorship of Pss. 2, 16, 32, 69, 109, and 110, in all, six
Psalms out of the 150 contained in the Psalter. As to
the rest, there is no use of them in connection Avith a name.
There is, however, a passage upon which the Davidic author
ship of the entire Psalter has been based,^ where a citation
1 For a fuller discussion of this subject, we would refer to the exhaustive
paper of Prof. Francis Brown, " The New Testament Witness to the Authorship
of Old Testament Books," in the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature
and Exegesis, 1882, pp. 95 seq.
2 Acts, 118-2°. 8 Acts 425. 4 Acts 225-29, 34. 6 Rom. 119-M. « Rom. 46-s.
T Mk. 1236-37. Mt. 22*3-45 cites here from Mark, and condenses into " How then
doth David in the Spirit call him," and Lk. 20*2^* also cites from Mark, and
varies "For David himself saith in the Book of Psalms."
8 Thus, William Gouge, one of the most honoured Puritan divines, in his
Commentary on Hebrews, in discussing this passage, says :
"From the mention of David in reference to the Psalm, we may probably
conclude that David was the penman of the whole Book of Psalms, especially
from this phrase, 'David himself saith in the Book of Psalms' (Lk. 20*2).
Some exceptions are made against this conclusion, but such as may readily be
answered. " Objection 1. — Sundry psalms have not the title of David prefixed before
them ; they have no title at all, as the first, second, and others. Ans. — If they
have no title, why should they not be ascribed to David, rather than to any
other, considering that the Book of Psalms is indefinitely attributed to him (as
we heard out of the forementioned place, Lk. 20*2), which is the title prefixed
before all the Psalms, as comprising them all under it ? Besides, such testimo
nies as are taken out of Psalms that have no title are applied to David, as
Acts 425, and this testimony that is here taken out of Ps. 95'.
" Objection 2. — Some titles are ascribed to other authors ; as Ps. 72, 127, to
Solomon. Ans. — The Hebrew servile lamed is variously taken and translated ;
as sometimes, of, Ps. 31, 'A Psalm of David.' Then it signifleth the author;

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 263
from Ps. 957 8 ig given " in David, iv AavetS." ' This means
that David Avas the name of the Psalter and that this title
was used interchangeably with "the book of Psalms," or
"Psalms." Accordingly, " David " in all the examples given above, may
be nothing more than a name for the entire Psalter, and may
have no personal reference to David whatever ; for it matters
little whether a citation is made "in David," "by David," or
" as David saith " ; these all mean essentially the same thing ;
and if David is a name for the Psalter in one case, it may be in
all cases. An exception may be made in the citation of Ps.
110 by Jesus. The argument of Jesus seems to depend upon
the fact that David himself said the words, "The Lord said
unto my Lord." But this would be sufficiently considered, if
we should suppose that the author of the Psalm, in composing
it, let David appear as the speaker here.
Thus it is used in most titles, especially when they are applied to David. Other
time this is translated for, as Ps. 72i, 127i. In these it implieth that the Psalm
was penned /or Solomon's use or for his instruction. It may also be thus trans
lated, concerning Solomon. That the 72d Psalm was penned by David is evi
dent by the close thereof, in these words : ' The prayers of David the son of
Jesse are ended.'
" Objection 3. — Some titles ascribe the Psalm to this or that Levite, asPs. 88
to Heman and 89 to Ethan ; yea, twelve Psalms to Asaph and eleven to the
sons of Korah. Ans. — All these were very skillful, not only in singing, but
also in setting tunes to Psalms. They were musiok masters. Therefore, David,
having penned the Psalms, committed them to the foresaid Levites to be fitly
tuned. ... It will not follow that any of them were enditers of any of the
Psalms, because their name is set in the title of some of them.
" Objection 4. — The 90th Psalm carried this title : ' A Prayer of Moses the
Man of God.' Ans. — It is said to be the prayer of Moses in regard of the
substance and general matter of it ; but, as a Psalm, it was penned by David.
He brought it into that form. David, as a prophet, knew that Moses had
uttered such a prayer in the substance of it ; therefore, he prefixeth that title
before it.
" Objection 5. — The 137th Psalm doth set down the disposition and carriage
of the Israelites in the Babylonish Captivity, which was six hundred fourty
years after David's time, and the 126th Psalm sets out their return from that
Captivity. Ans. — To grant these to be so, yet might David pen those Psalms ;
for, by a prophetical spirit, he might foresee what would fall out and answerably
pen Psalms fit thereunto. Moses did the like (Dt. 2922, etc., and 312i>22, etc.).
A man of God expressly set down distinct acts of Josiah 330 years before they
fell out (1 K. 132). Isaiah did the like of Cyrus (Is. 442b ; 45i), which was
about two hundred years beforehand."
1 Heb. 47.

264 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Dr. Plummer may be cited for an explanation of this citation by
Jesus :
" The last word has not yet been spoken as to the authorship of
Ps. 110 ; but it is a mistake to maintain that Jesus has decided the
question. There is nothing antecedently incredible in the hypoth
esis that in such matters, as in other details of human informa
tion, He condescended not to know more than His contemporaries,
and that He therefore believed what He had been taught in the
school and in the synagogue. Nor ought we summarily to dismiss
the suggestion that, although He knew that the Psalm was not
written by David, He yet abstained from challenging beliefs re
specting matters of fact, because the premature and violent cor
rection of such beliefs would have been more harmful to His work
than their undisturbed continuance would be. In this, as in many
things, the correction of erroneous opinion might well be left to
time. But this suggestion is less satisfactory than the other
hypothesis. It should be noticed that, while Jesus afBrms both
the inspiration (Mt., Mk.) and the Messianic character (Mt., Mk.,
Lk.) of Ps. 110, yet the argumentative question with which He
concludes, need not be understood as asserting that David is the
author of it, although it seems to imply this. It may mean no
more than that the scribes have not fairly faced what their own
principles involve. Here is a problem with which they ought to
be quite familiar, and of which they ought to be able to give a solu
tion. It is their position, and not His, that is open to criticism." '
This explanation is a valid one, although it is not the one which
I prefer.
The modern Higher Criticism does not, in fact, assign a
single one of these Psalms to David. In the Hebrew text,
Pss. 16, 32, 69, 109, 110, have David in their titles, but Ps. 2
is an orphan Psalm without title. David in the titles of these
Psalms did not originally mean authorship ; it meant that these
Psalms were taken by the editor of the Psalter from a collec
tion of Psalms, which bore the name of David, in that they had
been gathered under his name as a sort of honorary title. The
earliest minor Psalter was called David, just as eventually the
ultimate Psalter was called David.
The question of integrity is raised by the citation of our
Ps. 2 as Ps. 1, according to the best manuscripts.^ Were
1 Plummer, Commentary on Luke, 1896, pp. 472, 473.
2 Acts 1388. So Tischendorf, Critica Major, Editio Octava. Westcott and

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 265
these tAvo Psalms combined in one at the time, or was the first
Psalm regarded as introductory and not counted ? Both views
are supported by manuscripts and citations.
2. Daniel ll^i = 12'' is used under the formula, " which was
spoken through Daniel the prophet."' With reference to
this, I will simply quote the judicious words of Francis
Brown :
"It will be remembered that the passage cited in Mt. 24^^^
is from the second division of the book, a division which, with the
exception of certain brief introductory notes, contains prophecies
exclusively, and that this division is distinctly marked off from
the preceding by the nature of its contents, and by the brief intro
duction, Dan. 7'. Now, suppose evidence were to be presented
from other quarters to show that while the book as a whole was
not Avritten by Daniel, the last six chapters contained prophecies
of Daniel, which the later author had incorporated in his book.
On that supposition, the words of Jesus taken in their most rigid,
literal meaning would be perfectly satisfied. We may go yet
further. If other evidence should be adduced tending to show
that ' Daniel, the prophet,' was a pseudonym, still there would be
nothing in Jesus' use of the expression to commit Him to any other
view. For the words were certainly written, and written in the
form of a prophecy, and were a prophecy, and the book containing
them was an inspired, canonical, and authoritative book ; the cita
tion was, therefore, suitable and forcible for Jesus' purposes, Avho-
ever the author may have been, and the use of a current pseudonym
to designate the author no more committed Jesus to a declaration
that that was the author's real name, than our use of the expres
sion 'Junius says' would commit us to a declaration that the
Letters of Junius were composed by a person of that name ; or
than, on the supposition already discussed, that 'Enoch' was
regarded as a pseudonym, Jude 14 would indicate the belief of
the author that Enoch himself actually uttered the words which
he quotes." ^
II. The Prophets. 1. The only one of the former prophets
or the prophetic historical books mentioned in connection with
Hort say that "Transcriptional Probability, which prima facie supports irpiiTif,
is in reality favourable or unfavourable to both readings alike " (I.e., Appendix,
p. 95). 1 Mt. 2415. But this is evidently an addition by our Matthew, and it was
not spoken by Jesus, for it is not in Mk. 13" or Lk. 2120.
2 In i.e., pp. 106, 107.

266 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
a name is Samuel : ' " All the prophets from Samuel and them
that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of
these days." The reference here is to the book of Samuel, for
the reason that there is no Messianic prophecy ascribed to
Samuel in the Old Testament. The context forces us to think
of a Messianic prophecy. We find it in the prophecy of Nathan
in the book of Samuel. These historical books then bore the
name of Samuel, and their contents are referred to as Samuel's.
Samuel cannot be regarded as the author of this book that
bears his name. Indeed, Samuel's death is described in the
twenty-fifth chapter of 1 Samuel, that is, about the middle of
the books. The book of Samuel shows the hands of three dif
ferent writers, not one of them so early as Samuel. Samuel
is used as an appropriate honorary title of the book, just as
David was of the Psalter ; and he is represented as saying
whatever is in the book, even the words of Nathan, just as
David speaks all that the psalmists speak in the Psalms.
As to Joshua, Judges, and Kings we have no use of them in
such a way as to raise questions of Higher Criticism.
2. Of the latter prophets the New Testament refers only to
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Joel in connection with names.
Ezekiel and nine of the minor prophets are not used in such a
way as to raise questions of Higher Criticism. Jonah ^ is re
ferred to as a prophet in connection with his preaching to the
Ninevites and his abode in the belly of the great fish, but no
such reference is made to the book that bears his name as to
imply his authorship of it. The question whether Jonah is his
tory or fiction is not decided by Jesus' use of it ; for as a para
ble it answered His purpose no less than if it were history.
3. Hosea l'», 223 are quoted^ as "in Hosea." This is
probably nothing more than the name of the writing used.
Joel 2*-^2 is quoted:* "This is that which hath been spoken
through the prophet Joel." No questions need to be raised as
to these passages.
4. Jeremiah is cited,^ under the formula, "that which was
spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying." The former
citation is from Jeremiah 31'^ the latter from Zechariah ll^^-'s.
1 Acts 32*. 2 Mt. l239-*i. 3 Rom. 926. * Acts 2i6. 5 Mt. 2", 279.

HIGHER CRiriCISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 267
This raises the question of the integrity of Zechariah. On the
basis of this passage Chapters 9-11 of Zechariah were ascribed
to Jeremiah by Mede, Hammond, and Kidder.' But it is now
generally conceded that the evangelist has made a mistake.
This raises the question how far errors of this character affect
the credibility of a writing.
5. Isaiah is frequently cited in the New Testament in the
formula, " through Isaiah the prophet, saying." Thus the evan
gelist Matthew cites 2 Is. 9^''^; lO^, 42'^, 53* ; and the author
of the book of Acts^ Is. Q^''^-. The formula "Isaiah said" is
used in the citation of Is. Q^"i; lO^, in the Gospel of John ; * the
citation of Is. 11'°, 53', 65i"«-, in the Epistle to the Romans.^
The formula, " the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah,"
is used by Luke ^ in citing Is. lO^"^, 61'"^. Is. 53' is cited as
the "word of Isaiah the prophet" ;'' Is. 53'^"^ as "reading the
prophet Isaiah " ; ^ Is. 10^2 «««• as " Isaiah cries out " ; ® Is. 1^ as
" Isaiah foretold" ; i" Is. e^-'o as " prophecy of Isaiah " ; " Is. 29'^
as "Isaiah prophesied." '2 Besides these there is a passage of
more difficulty,'^ where, with the formula, " written in Isaiah
the prophet," are cited Mal. 3^ and Is. 40^. This seems to be
a clear case in which the evangelist has overlooked the fact
that one of his citations is from Malachi. This raises the
question how far such a slip is consistent with credibility.
The various formulas of citation seem on the surface to imply
the authorship of our book of Isaiah by the prophet Isaiah,
and also its essential integrity, inasmuch as the citations are
from all parts of the book. But we have found that Samuel
is represented as prophesying, when the prophecy is by Nathan
in the book that bore the name of Samuel, and that David
speaks in all the Psalms. How can we be sure that this is
not the case with Isaiah, likewise, in the phrases, "through
Isaiah the prophet, saying," "Isaiah said," "words of Isaiah
the prophet," " Isaiah cries out," " Isaiah foretold," " Isaiah
prophesied"? The phrases, "book of the prophet Isaiah,"
1 See p. 310. 2 Mt. 4", S', 12", 8". « Acts 2825. * John 12S9-*i^ 123.
5 Rom. 1512, 1016. 20-21. 6 Lk. 3*, 4". ' John 1238,
8 Acts 82S-30. ° Rom. 92'. i" Rom. 929
11 Mt. 1314. ^ Mk. 75 = Mt. 15'. 18 Mk. 123.

268 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
"reading the prophet Isaiah," "prophecy of Isaiah," certainly
imply nothing more than naming the book.
They may be interpreted in several ways : either that Isaiah
wrote all the book of Isaiah, or that he wrote the earlier por
tions of it, and that the prophecies appended by the later edi
tors of the book did not change its name ; or that it came down
by tradition associated with the name of Isaiah, having been
edited under his name when the second Canon was established.
These terms no more imply authorship than the names Ruth,
Esther, Samuel, David. In fact, ten of the citations in the
New Testament given above are from Is. 40-66, which, as all
modern critics agree, was not written by Isaiah, or in the time
of Isaiah, but in the time of the exile, by a great prophet un
named and unknown. The remaining citations would be com
monly regarded as genuine prophecies of Isaiah.
III. The Law. 1. Jesus speaks of " the Law of Moses"' and
"the book of Moses." 2 The evangelist uses "Moses " for the
Law.3 So the apostles refer to " the Law of Moses," * and use
" Moses " for the Law.^ These are all cases of naming books
cited. They have as their parallel David as the name of the
Psalter ; Samuel, also, of the book of Samuel.^ It is certainly
reasonable to interpret Moses in these passages in the same
way, as the name of the work containing his legislation, and
the history in which he is the central figure.
2. (a) Jesus cites from the fifth commandment, Ex. 2012,
and from a statute of the code of the Covenant, Ex. 21^^, ac
cording to Mark as " Moses said," corrected by Matthew into
" God said." "^ The former of these was uttered by God to the
people, and was written upon one of the tables as the fifth of
the Ten Words. The other was a statute, not in the original
Book of the Covenant, but taken up into it from a pentade
of statutes, coming originally from the most ancient lawgivers
of Israel.^
(5) Jesus said to the leper, " Go thy way, shew thyself to
the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses
1 John 728. 2 Mk. 1226. s Lk. 242'. * Acts 2823.
5 Acts 1521, 2 Cor. 315. 6 Heb. 4', Acts 32*. See p. 323. ' Mk. 7i<> = Mt. 15*.
8 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New edition, 1897, p. 219.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE • 269
commanded, for a testimony unto them."' This refers to the
law for cleansing the leper in Lev. 14. It belongs to the Priest
code, the last codification of Hebrew law in the time of the
exile. (c) In discussing the question of divorce with the Pharisees,
Jesus said, " What did Moses command you ? And they said,
Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her
away. But Jesus said unto them. For your hardness of heart
he wrote you this commandment." 2 This law of divorce is in
Deut. 24'"*. It is one of the judgments from the courts of the
elders belonging to the earlier strata of the Deuteronomic code.^
(i) Jesus said, " Did not Moses give you the law, and yet
none of you doeth the law ? . . . Moses hath given you cir
cumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on
the Sabbath ye circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circum
cision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be
broken ; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every
whit whole on the Sabbath ? " * Here Jesus ascribes the whole
Law to Moses, and specifically the law of circumcision. This
latter is corrected by the editor of the original John, who here,
as so often, inserts a qualifying or explanatory statement. The
editor calls attention to the fact that circumcision Avas not
exactly of Moses, but of the Fathers. He remembers that it
was given to Abraham by God, and not first to Moses. Indeed,
there is surprisingly little in the LaAV codes with reference to
circumcision. In the Priest code, in connection with the law
for purification of women after childbirth, the circumcision of
the boy comes in incidentally.^ There is then a reference to
the circumcision of the son of Moses,^ and a law for the cir
cumcision of strangers.^ There can be little doubt that the
original John represents Jesus as stating that Moses gave the
law of circumcision, which Avas really given by God to Abra
ham. He does it because of the usage of his day. Moses and
Law were identical terms, and whatever was written in the five
books of the Law could be ascribed to Moses, just the same as
whatever was written in the Psalter was ascribed to David,
1 Mk. 1*4 = Mt. 8* = Lk. 51*. 2 Mk. 108-5; Mt. 19'-8. 8 Briggs, I.e., p. 253.
* John 719-28. 5 Lev. 128. 6 Ex. 426. 7 bx. 12**-*8.

270 • STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and whatever was spoken in the book of Samuel was ascribed
to Samuel. In fact, Jesus in these several passages ascribes to
Moses, in this larger sense, the fifth commandment, spoken
by God to Israel, the law of circumcision given by God to
Abraham, the statute of the Covenant code derived from the
primitive courts of Israel, the judgment of the Deuteronomic
code derived from the courts of the elders, and the law of the
Priest code derived from the priestly courts. They can, with
propriety, be attributed to Moses, using Moses as the name for
the books of the Law and all the legislation contained therein.
But, in fact, none of these specific laws were given to Moses
or were derived from Moses. They were either earlier or later
than Moses, except the fifth command, which was given by
God directly to all the people.
The Epistle to the Hebrews represents Moses as giving the
law of priesthood, and as a lawgiver whose law could not be
disobeyed with impunity.^ These passages represent Moses
to be the lawgiver that he appears to be in the narratives of
the Pentateuch ; but do not, by any means, imply the author
ship of the narratives that contain these laws, any more than
the reference 2 to the command of Christ in Lk. 10^, and to the
institution of the Lord's Supper by Jesus,^ imply that Jesus was
the author of the gospels containing His words.
3. Moses is frequently referred to as a prophet who Avrote of
Jesus as the Messianic prophet.* All these references are
doubtless to the prediction of Deut. 18'^"'^. There is no suffi
cient reason for doubting that Moses uttered such a prophecy,
although its present form shows the hand of the Deuteronomic
redactor.^ But the references here might still all be explained
of Moses as standing for the whole Law, and so as uttering all
the prophecies contained in the Law, just as Samuel uttered
the prophecy of Nathan. There is certainly nothing in these
statements to imply that Moses wrote the book of Deuter
onomy, or the Deuteronomic code, or the entire Law.
4. Certain historical events narrated in the Pentateuch in
1 Heb. 71*, 1028. 2 1 Cor. 9". » 1 Cor. 1123 »«?¦
* John 1«, 5*6, 47; Acts 322-24, 737^ 2622.
5 Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 7th ed., 1898, pp. 112 seq.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 271
which Moses takes the lead are mentioned,' but these simply
refer to the historical character of the transactions; they do
not imply exclusive Mosaic authorship of the writings contain
ing these historical incidents.
5. In the passage, "Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the
Lord God raise up unto you, etc. . . . Yea, and all the
prophets from Samuel, and them that foUoAved after, as many
as have spoken, they also told of these days," 2 it is necessary
to interpret " Samuel " of the book of Samuel, and think of the
prophecy of Nathan ; and if this be so, is it not most natural
to interpret " Moses " here as also referring to the book of
Deuteronomy rather than the person of Moses? If that be
true in this case, it may also be true of other cases classed
under (2) and (3) . Samuel cannot, it is admitted, be regarded
as the author of the book that bears his name ; whj^ then,
should any one suppose that Ave are forced to conclude from
these passages that Moses is the author of the books that bear
his name ?
It has been objected that this method of determining what
the words of Jesus and His apostles may mean in detaU does
not show what they must mean when taken together. It has,
however, been forgotten by the objectors that the proper exe
getical method is inductive, and that the path of exegesis is to
rise from the particulars to the general. The dogmatic method
is in the habit of saying a passage must mean thus and so from
dogmatic presuppositions. The exegete prefers the may until
he is forced to the must. He has learned to place little confi
dence in the " must mean " of tradition and dogmatism ; for
he has so often been obliged to see it transform into must not,
impossible, from exegetical considerations. Who, then, is to say
must in the interpretation of the New Testament, exterior to
itself ? Is the Talmud to say must to the words of our Lord
Jesus ? Is the traitor Josephus, or the pseudepigraph of Ezra,
to say must in an interpretation of the apostles ? Nay. We
let them speak for themselves, and if we are to choose between
a variety of possible interpretations of their words we prefer
to let Higher Criticism decide. For Higher Criticism is exact
1 Heb. 85, 919, 1221, etc. 2 Acts 322-24.

272 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and thorough in its methods, and prefers the internal evidence
of the Old Testament books themselves to any external evi
dence. This may bring Jesus into conflict with Josephus and
the rabbins and with traditional theories ; but it is more likely
to bring Him into harmony with Moses and the Prophets.
Professor B. Weiss has well said in another connection:
"However certainly, therefore, the religious ideas of later
Judaism, as well as the doctrines of Jewish Theology, had an
infiuence upon the forming of the religious consciousness as it is
exhibited in the Avritings of the New Testament, our knowledge
of the extent in which these ideas and doctrines lay Avithin the
field of vision of the writers of the New Testament is far from
being precise enough to permit us to start from them in ascertain
ing that religious consciousness. It is only in the rarest cases
that biblical theology will be able to make use of them with cer
tainty for the purpose of elucidation." '
No one could emphasize the importance of historical exegesis
more than we are disposed to do ; but we cannot allow tradi
tionalists — who are the last to use this method except when,
for the time being, it serves their purposes — by the improper
use of it to force upon criticism interpretations that are possible
but not necessary, and which are excluded by other and higher
considerations presented by the Word of God as contained in
the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
It has been a common literary usage for centuries to repre
sent a book as speaking by the name by which it is known,
whether that be a pseudonym, or indicate the subject-matter
or the author. To insist that it must always in the New Testa
ment indicate authorship is to go in the face of the literary
usage of the world, and against the usage of the New Testament
itself, certainly in the cases of Samuel and David and, therefore,
probably in other cases also, such as Moses and Isaiah.
We have shown that the questions of Higher Criticism have
not been determined by the ecclesiastical authority of creeds or
the consensus of tradition. And it is a merciful Providence
^Biblical Theology of the New Testament, T. & T. Clark's edition. Edin.,
1882, L p. 14.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 273
that this has not been the case. For it would have committed
the Church and Christians to many errors which have been ex
posed by a century of progress in the Higher Criticism. Those
Avho still insist upon opposing Higher Criticism with traditional
views, and with the supposed authority of Jesus Christ and His
apostles, do not realize the perils of the situation. They seem
to be so infatuated Avitli inherited opinions that they are ready
to risk the divinity of Christ, the authority of the Bible, and
the existence of the Church, upon their interpretation of the
Avords of Jesus and His apostles. They apparently do not see
that they throw up a wall to prevent any critic who is an un
believer from ever becoming a believer in Christ and the Bible.
They would force evangelical critics to choose between truth
and scholarly research on the one side, and Christ and tradition
on the other. But there are many far better scholars Avho are
Christian critics, and they will not be deterred from criticism
themselves, or allow others to be deterred, by these reactionary
alarmists. The issue is plain, the result is not doubtful: the
obstructionists will give way in this matter, as they have already
in so many other matters.' Holy Scripture will vindicate itself
against those who, like the friends of Job, have not spoken
right concerning God 2 in presuming to defend Him.
V. The Rise op the Higher Criticism.
The current critical theories are the resultants of forces at
work in the Church since the Reformation. These forces have
advanced steadily and constantly. In each successive epoch
scholars have investigated afresh the sacred records and brought
forth treasures new as well as old. Various theories have been
proposed from time to time to account for the new facts that
have been brought to light. Biblical science has shared the
fortune of the entire circle of the sciences. The theories have
been modified or discarded under the influence of additional in-
A^estigations and the discovery of new facts for which they could
not account. The facts have remained in every case as a per
manent acquisition of Biblical Criticism, and these facts have
1 See pp. 9 seq. , 223 seq. ^ Job 42 '.

274 study of holy scripture
gradually accumulated in mass and importance, until they now
command the services of a large body of enthusiastic investiga
tors. They have gained the ear of the literary world, and they
enlist the interest of all intelligent persons. The questions of
Higher Criticism have risen to a position among the great
issues of our time, and no one can any longer ignore them.
All great movements of human thought have their prelimi
nary and initial stages, and are preceded by spasmodic efforts.
Even the enemies of the true Faith not infrequently become
the providential agents for calling the Church to a fresh inves
tigation of the sacred oracles. Thus Spinoza, the pantheistic
philosopher, applied Historical Criticism to the Old Testament
books,' and concluded that Moses could not have written the
Pentateuch, and that the historical books from Genesis through
the books of Kings constitute one great historical work, a con
glomeration of many different originals by one editor, probably
Ezra, who does not succeed in a reconciliation of differences,
and a complete and harmonious arrangement. The books of
Chronicles he places in the Maccabean period. The Psalms
were collected and divided into five books in the time of the
second temple. The book of Proverbs was collected at the
earliest in the time of Josiah. The prophetical books are col
lections of different fragments without regard to their original
order. Daniel, Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah are from the same
author, who would continue the great historical work of Israel
from the captivity onwards, written in the Maccabean period.
Job was probably, as Aben Ezra conjectured, translated into
Hebrew from a foreign tongue. 2 This criticism was shrewd, but
chiefly conjectural. It paved the way for future systematic
investigations. Soon after Spinoza, Richard Simon,^ a Roman Catholic, began
to apply Historical Criticism in a systematic manner to the study
of the books of the Old Testament. He represented the his
torical books as made up of the ancient writings of the prophets,
who were public scribes, and wrote down the history in official
1 Tract. Theo. Polit, 1670, c. 8.
2 See Siegfried, Spinoza als Kritiker und Ausleger des Alten Testament,
Berlin, 1867. s Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, 1678.

higher criticism of holy scripture 275
documents on the spot, from the time of Moses onward, so that
the Pentateuch in its present shape is not by Moses. Simon
distinguished in the Pentateuch between that which was written
by Moses, e.g., the commands and ordinances, and that written
by the prophetical scribes, the greater part of the history. As
the books of Kings and Chronicles were made up by abridg
ments and summaries of the ancient acts preserved in the
archives of the nation, so was the Pentateuch. The later
prophets edited the Avorks of the earlier prophets, and added
explanatory statements. Simon presents as evidences that
Moses did not write the Pentateuch : (1) The double account
of the deluge. (2) The lack of order in the arrangement of
the narratives and laws. (3) The diversity of the style. The
Roman Catholic scholar goes deeper into the subject than the
pantheist Spinoza has gone. He presents another class of
evidences. These three lines were not sufficiently worked by
Simon. He fell into the temptation of expending his strength
on the elaboration and justification of his theory. The facts he
discovered have proved of permanent value, and have been
worked as a rich mine by later scholars, but his theory was
at once attacked and destroyed. The Arminian, Clericus, in
an anonymous work,' assailed Simon for his abuse of Protestant
writers, but really went to greater lengths than Simon. He
distinguishes in the Pentateuch three classes of facts, — those
before Moses, those during his time, and those subsequent to
his death, — and represents the Pentateuch in its present form
as composed by the priest sent from Babylon to instruct the
inhabitants of Samaria in the religion of the land. 2 Afterward
he gave up this wild theory and took the more tenable ground ^
of interpolations by a later editor. Anton Van Dale* dis
tinguishes between the Mosaic code and the Pentateuch, which
latter Ezra composed from other writings, historical and pro-
1 Sentimens de quelques theologiens de Holland sur V Histoire Critique,
Amst., 1685.
2 2 K. 17. In I.C., pp. 107, 129.
8 Com. on Genesis, introd. de Seriptore Pent., § 11. Simon replied to
Clericus in Beponse au Livre intitule Sentimens, etc. Par Le Prieur de Belle
ville, Rotterdam, 1686.
4 De origine etprogressu idol., 1696, p. 71, and Epist. ad Morin., p. 686.

276 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
phetical, inserting the Mosaic code as a whole in his work.
This is also essentially the view of Semler.'
These various Avriters brought to light a most valuable col
lection of facts that demanded the attention of biblical scholars
of all creeds and phases of thought. They all made the mis
take of proposing untenable theories of various kinds to account
for the facts, instead of working upon the facts and rising from
them by induction and generalization to permanent results.
Some of them, like Spinoza, Avere animated by a spirit more
or less hostile to the evangelical faith. Others, like Clericus,
were heterodox in other matters. The most important investi
gations were those of the Roman Catholics.
Over against these critical attacks on the traditional theo
ries, we note the scholastic defence of them by Huet, a Jesuit,2
Heidegger,^ a Calvinistic scholastic, and Carpzov,* a Lutheran
scholastic. These diAdnes, instead of seeking to account for
the facts brought to light by the critics, proceeded to defend
traditional views, and strove in every way to explain away the
facts and so to commit the Christian Church in aU its branches
against the scientific study of Holy Scripture.
There Avere, however, other divines who looked the facts in
the face and took a better way. Thus Du Pin,® Witsius,^
Spanheim,^ Prideaux,^ Vitringa,^ and Calmet,'" sought to ex
plain the passages objected to, either as improperly interpreted
or as interpolations, recognizing the use of several documents
and a later editorship by Ezra and others. They laid the
foundations for evangelical criticism, which was about to begin
and run a long and successful course. i'
It is instructive just here to pause by Du Pin, who lays
1 Apparatus ad liberalem Vet. Test. Interp., 1773, p. 67.
2 In his Demonstratio Evangelica, 1679, IV. cap. xiv.
8 Exereitiones Bibliex, 1700, Dissert. IX. 7.
4 Introduction ad Libros Canonicos Bib. Vet. Test. 2 ed., Lipsise, 1731.
^Dessert, prelim. Bib. des auteurs eccl., Paris, 1688. A Neio History of
Ecclesiastical Writers, 3d edition, London, 1696, pp. 1 seq.
6 Misc. Sacra, 1692, p. 103. ' Historia ecclesiast. V. T., I. p. 260.
8 Oldand Neiv Testaments connected, 1716-1718, I. 5 (3).
9 Observa. Sacra., 1722, IV. 2. lo Com. litterale, 1722, I. p. xiii.
11 See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp.
36 seq.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 277
down such admirable rules of literary criticism ' with refer
ence to ecclesiastical books. When Simon raises the question
why he does not apply these rules to the Pentateuch, he replies
by saying :
" A man may say, that all these rules which I have laid down,
are convincing and probable in different degrees, but that the
sovereign and principal rule is the judgment of equity and pru
dence, Avhich instructs us to balance the reasons of this and t'other
side, in distinctly considering the conjectures that are made of
both sides. Now this is the general rule of Rational Criticism,
and we abuse all the rest if we don't chiefiy make use of this." ^
In this way the difference between Simon and himself was
easily reduced to that between good sense and nonsense. This
method of settling difficult questions certainly stops debate
between the parties for the moment, but is far from convincing.
Before passing over to the Higher Criticism of the Holy
Scriptures we shall present the views of this master of the
literary criticism of ecclesiastical writers in his time, respect
ing the biblical books :
" Moses was the author of the first five books of the Pentateuch
(except sundry interpolations). . . . We can't so certainly tell
who are the authors of the other books of the Bible: some of 'em
we only know by conjecture, and others there are of which we have
no manner of knowledge. . . . The time wherein Job lived, is
yet more difiicult to discover ; and the author of the book, who
has compiled his history, is no less unknown. . . . Though the
Psalms are commonly called the Psalms of David, or rather the
Book of the Psalms of David, yet 'tis certain, as St. Jerom has ob
served in many places, that they are not all of 'em his, and that
there are some of them written long after his death. 'Tis therefore
a collection of songs that was made by Ezrah. . . . The Proverbs
or Parables belong to Solomon, whose name is written in the be
ginning of that book. ... We ought therefore to conclude, . . .
that the first twenty-four chapters are Solomon's originally, that
the five following ones are extracts or collections of his proverbs,
and that the two last chapters were added afterwards. ... The
book of Ecclesiastes is ascribed to Solomon by aU antiquity : And
yet the Talmudists have made Hezekiah the author of the book,
and Grotius, upon some slight conjectures, pretends it was com-
1 See pp. 96 seq. ^ ^'C-, P- 18.

278 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
posed by Zerubbabel. It begins with these words, Tlie Words ofthe
Preacher, the Son of David, King of Jerusalem ; which may be ap
plied to Hezekiah as well as to Solomon : ... we ought rather to
understand it of Solomon. . . . The Song of Songs ... is al
lowed to be Solomon's by the consent of the s.ynagogue and the
church. The Talmudists attribute it to Ezrah, but without
grounds. The books of the Prophets carry the names of their
authors undisputed."^
About the same time several Roman Catholic divines, as well
as Vitringa, took ground independently in favour of the theory
of the use of written documents by Moses in the composition
of Genesis. So Abbe Fleury,2 and Abbe Laurent Frangois ; ^
but it was chiefly Astruc, a physician, who in 1753* made it
evident that Genesis was composed of several documents. He
presented to the learned world, with some hesitation and timid
ity, his discovery that the use of the divine names, Elohim and
Jehovah, divided the book of Genesis into two great memoirs
and nine lesser ones.
This was a real discovery, which, after a hundred years of
debate, has at last won the consent of the vast majority of
biblical scholars. His analysis is in some respects too mechani
cal, and, in not a few instances, is defective and needed rectifi
cation, but as a whole it has been maintained. He relies also
too much upon the different use of the divine names, and too
little upon variations in style, language, and narrative.^ The
attention of German scholars was called to this discovery by
Jerusalem.^ Eichhorn was independently led to the same con
clusion.'^ But still more important than the work of Astruc
was that of Bishop Lowth,^ who unfolded the principles of par-
1 I.e., pp. 1-5.
2 MeBurs des Israelites, Bruxelles, 1701, p. 6. This was translated into Eng
lish and enlarged by Adam Clarke. 3d edition, 1809.
8 Preuves de la Beligion de Jesus Christ, contra les Spinosistes et les Deistes,
1751, I. 2, c. 3, art. 7.
4 In his Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux dont ilparoit que Moyse s'esf
servipour le livre de la Genese.
5 See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 46 seq.
6 In his Briefe uber d. Mosaischen Schriften, 1762, Ste Aufl., 1783, pp. 104 seg.
' Urgeschichte in the Bepertorium, T. iv., 1779, especially T. v., 1779.
8 InDe Sacra Poesi Hebrmorum, 1753, and, 1779, in Prelim. Diss., and Trans
lation of the Prophecies of Isaiah.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 279
allelism in Hebrew poetry, and made it possible to study the
Old Testament as literature, discriminating poetry from prose,
and showing that the greater part of prophecy is poetical. His
Avork on Hebrew poetry was issued in Germany by MichaeUs,
and his translation of Isaiah by Koppe, who took the position
that this prophetical book was made up of a number of docu
ments loosely put together from different authors and different
periods.' Lowth himself did not realize the importance of this
discovery for the literary criticism of the Scriptures, but thought
that it would prove of great service to Textual Criticism in the
suggesting of emendations of the text in accordance with the
parallelism of members.
The poet Herder 2 first caught the Oriental spirit and life
and brought to the attention of the learned the varied literary
beauties of the Bible,^ and "reconquered, so to say, the Old
Testament for German literature."*
But these writings were aU preparatory to the work of J. G.
Eichhorn, in 1780.® Eichhorn combined in one the results of
Simon and Astruc, Lowth and Herder, embracing the various
elements in an organic method which he called the Higher Criti
cism. In the preface to his second edition, 1787, he says:
1 Koppe, Bobert Lowth's Jesaias neu ubersetzt nebst einer Einleitung . . .
mit Zusatze und Anmerkungen, 4 Bd., Leipzig, 1779-1780.
2 In 1780 he published his Briefe Uber das Studium der Theologie, and in
1782 his Geist der Heb. Poesie.
8 Herder in his flrst Brief says : ' ' Richard Simon is the Father of the Criticism
of the Old and New Testaments in recent times." " A Critical Introduction to
the Old Testament, as it ought to be, we have not yet." 1780. In 2d Auf.,
1785. It is said on the margin, " We have it now in Eichhorn's valuable Ein
leit. ins Alt. Test., 1780-1783."
4 Dorner in Johnson'' s Eneyclopeedia, IL p. 528.
^Einleit. ins Alt. Test. As Bertheau remarks in Herzog's Beal Ency., I.
Aufl., IV. 115: "In Eichhorn's writings the apologetic interest is everywhere
manifest, to explain, as he expresses it, the Bible according to the ideas and
methods of thought of the ancient world, and to defend it against the scorn of the
enemies of the Bible. He recognized the exact problem of his times clearer than
most of his contemporaries ; he worked with unwearied diligence over the whole
field of Biblical literature with his own independent powers ; he paved the way
to difBcult investigations ; he undertook many enterprises with good success, and
conducted not a few of them to safe results. With Herder in common he has
the credit of having awakened in wide circles love to the Bible, and especially
the Old Testament writings, and excited enthusiasm carefully to investigate
them."

280 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" I am obliged to give the most pains to a hitherto entirely un-
worked field, the investigation of the internal condition of the
particular writings of the Old Testament by help of the Higher
Criticism (a new name to no Humanist). Let any one think what
they will of these efforts, my own consciousness tells me that they
are the result of very careful investigation, although no one can
be less wrapt up in them than I their author. The powers of one
man hardly suffice to complete such investigations so entirely at
once. They demand a healthful and ever-cheerful spirit, and how
long can any one maintain it in such toilsome investigations?
They demand the keenest insight into the internal condition of
every book ; and who will not be dulled after a while ? "
He begins his investigation of the books of Moses with the
wise statement:
" Whether early or late ? That can be learned only from the
writings themselves. And if they are not by their own contents
or other internal characteristic traces put down into a later cen
tury than they ascribe to themselves or Tradition assigns them,
then a critical investigator must not presume to doubt their own
testimony — else he is a contemptible raisonneur, a doubter in the
camp, and no longer an historical investigator. According to this
plan I shall test the most ancient Hebrew writings, not troubling
myself what the result of this investigation may be. And if
therewith learning, shrewdness, and other qualifications which I
desire for this work should fail me, yet, certainly no one will find
lacking love of the truth and strict investigation."
These are the principles and methods of a true and manly
scholar, the father of the Higher Criticism. It is a sad reflec
tion that they have been so greatly and generally ignored on
the scholastic and rationalistic sides. Eichhorn separated the
Elohistic and Jehovistic documents in Genesis with great pains,
and with such success that his analysis has been the basis of all
critical investigation since his day. Its great advantages are
admirably stated:
" Eor this discovery of the internal condition of the first books
of Moses, party spirit will perhaps for a pair of decennials snort
at the Higher Criticism instead of rewarding it with the full
thanks that are due it, for (1) the credibility of the book gains by
such a use of more ancient documents. (2) The harmony of the
two narratives at the same time with their slight deviations proves

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 281
their independence and mutual reliability. (3) Interpreters will
be relieved of difdculty by this Higher Criticism which separates
document from document. (4) Finally the gain of Criticism is
also great. If the Higher Criticism has now for the first distin
guished author from author, and in general characterized each
according to his own ways, diction, favorite expressions, and other
peculiarities, then her lower sister who busies herself only with
words, and spies out false readings, has rules and principles by
which she must test particular readings." '
Eichhorn carried his methods of Higher Criticism into the
entire Old Testament with the hand of a master, and laid
the foundation of views that have been maintained ever since
with increasing determination. He did not always grasp the
truth. He sometimes chased shadows, and framed visionary
theories both in relation to the Old and New Testaments, like
others who have preceded him and followed him. He could
not transcend the limits of his age, and adapt himself to future
discoveries. The labours of a large number of scholars, and the
work of a century and more, were still needed, as Eichhorn
modestly anticipated.
These discussions produced little impression upon Great
Britain. The conflict with deism had forced the majority of
her divines into a false position. If they had maintained the
fides divina and the critical position of the Protestant Reformers
and Westminster divines, they would not have hesitated to
look the facts in the face, and strive to account for them ; they
would not have committed the grave mistakes by which bib
lical learning was almost paralyzed in Great Britain for half
a century. 2 Eager for the defence of traditional views, they,
1 In I.e., II. p. 329; see also Urgeschichte in Bepertorium, 1770, A'', p. 187.
We cannot help calling attention to the fine literary sense of Eichhorn as
manifest in the following extract: "Read it (Genesis) as two historical works
of antiquity, and breathe thereby the atmosphere of its age and country.
Forget then the century in which thou livest and the Itnowledge it affords thee ;
and if thou canst not do this, dream not that thou wilt be able to enjoy the
book in the spirit of its origin."
2 Mozley in his Beminiseences, 1882, Am. edit.. Vol. IL p. 41, says: "There
was hardly such a thing as Biblical Criticism in this country at the beginning
of this century. Poole's Synopsis contained all that an ordinary clergyman
could wish to know. Arnold is described as in all his glory at Rugby, with
Poole's Synopsis on one side, and Facciolati on the other."

282 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
for the most part, fell back again on Jewish Rabbinical authority
and external evidence, contending with painful anxiety for
authors and dates ; and so antagonized Higher Criticism itself
as deistic criticism and rationalistic criticism, not discrimi
nating between those who were attacking the Scriptures in
order to destroy them, and those who were searching the
Scriptures in order to defend them. It is true that the
humanist and the purely literary interest prevailed in Eich
horn and his school ; they failed to apply the fides divina of
the Protestant Reformers ; but this was lacking to the scho
lastics also, and so unhappily traditional dogmatism and ration
alistic criticism combined to crush evangelical criticism.
VI. The Higher Criticism of the Nineteenth Century
There is a notable exception to the absence of the critical
spirit in Great Britain, and that exception proves the rule. In
1792 Dr. Alexander Geddes, a Roman Catholic divine, pro
posed what has been called the fragmentary hypothesis to
account for the structure of the Pentateuch and Joshua.'
But this radical theory found no hospitality in Great Britain.
It passed over into Germany through Vater,2 and there entered
into conflict with the documentary hypothesis of the school of
Eichhorn. Koppe had proposed the fragmentary hypothesis
to account for the literary features of the book of Isaiah, and
now it was extended to other books of the Bible. Eichhorn
had applied the documentary hypothesis to the Gospels, Isaiah,
,aiid other parts of Scripture. The first stadium of the Higher
Criticism is characterized by the conflict of the documentary
and fragmentary hypotheses along the whole line. The result
of this discussion was that the great variety of the elements
that constitute our Bible became more and more manifest, and
the problem was forced upon the critics to account for their
combination. 1 The Holy Bible ; or, the Books accounted Sccered by Jews and Christians,
etc. London, I. pp. xviii. seq.
2 Commentar uber den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Ab-
schnitten der eingesehalteten von Dr. Alex. Geddes' merkwurdigeren kritischen
und exegetischen Anmerkungen, etc. Halle, 1805.

higher criticism of holy scripture 283
De Wette' introduced the second stadium of the Hisrher
Criticism by calling the attention of the critics to the genesis
of the documents. 2 Gesenius supported him,^ and sharply
opposed the fragmentary hypothesis of Koppe, and strove to
account for the genesis of the documents of Isaiah and their
combination. Other critics in great numbers worked in the
same direction, such as Bleek, Ewald, Knobel, Hupfeld, and
produced a great mass of historical and critical work upon all
parts of the Old Testament. The same problems were dis
cussed in the New Testament, especially with reference to the
Gospels, the order of their production, and their inter-relation.*
A great number of different theories were advanced to account
for the genesis of the different books of the Bible. The result
of the conflict has been the conviction on the part of most
critics that the unity of the writings in the midst of the
variety of documents has been accomplished by careful and
skilful editing at different periods of biblical history.
It became more and more evident that the problems were
assuming larger dimensions, and that they could not be solved
until the several edited writings were compared Avith one
another and considered in their relation to the development
of the BibUcal Religion. The Higher Criticism thus entered
upon a third stadium of its history. This stadium was opened
for the New Testament by the Tiibingen school, and for the
Old Testament by the school of Reuss. These entered into
conflict with the older views, and soon showed their insuffi
ciency to account for the larger problems. They reconstructed
the biblical writings upon purely naturalistic principles, so
emphasizing differences as to make them irreconcUable, and
explaining the development in biblical history and religion
and literature by the theory of antagonistic forces struggling
for the mastery. These critics were successfully opposed by
^Kritik der israelitischen Geschichte, Halle, 1807; Beitrage zur Einleit.,
1806-1807 ; Lehrb. d. hist. krit. Einleit. in d. Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments,
Berlin, 1817-1826.
2 See author's article, "A Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criti
cism, with Special Reference to the Pentateuch," Presbyterian Beview, IV. pp.
94 seq.
8 Com. ii. d. Jesaia, Leipzig, 1821. 4 See Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. pp. 30 seq.

284 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the schools of Neander, Hoffmann, and Ewald, and have been
overcome in the New Testament by the principle of diversity
of views combining in a higher unity. The same principle will
overcome them in the Old Testament likewise.'
The Higher Criticism during the first and second stadia of
its development in Germany made little impression upon Great
Britain and America. In 1818, T. Hartwell Home issued his
Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures^ which has been highly esteemed for its many excel
lent qualities by several generations of students. His state
ment in the preface to the second edition of his work shows
how far Great Britain was behind the continent at that time :
" It (the work) originated in the author's own wants many years
since . . . when he stood in need of a guide to the reading of the
Holy Scriptures. ... At this time the author had no friend to
assist his studies, — or remove his doubts, — nor any means of
procuring critical works. At length a list of the more eminent
foreign Biblical critics fell into his hands, and directed him to
some of the sources of information which he was seeking ; he
then resolved to procure such of them as his limited means would
permit, with the design in the first instance of satisfying his own
mind on those topics which had perplexed him, and ultimately of
laying before the Public the results of his inquiries, should no
treatise appear that might supersede such a publication."
This dependence of Great Britain and America on the
biblical scholarship of the continent continued until the second
half of our century. Most students of the Bible contented
themselves with more or less modified forms of traditional
theories. Some few scholars made occasional and cautious use
of German criticism. Moses Stuart, Edward Robinson, S. H.
Turner, Addison Alexander, Samuel Davidson, and others
depended chiefly upon German works which they translated
or reproduced. At last the Anglo-Saxon world was. roused
from its uncritical condition by the attacks of Bishop Colenso,
on the historical character of the Pentateuch and the book of
1 See author's article, " Critical Study of the Higher Criticism," etc., Presby
terian Beview, IV. p. 106 seq. ; also pp. 586 seq. of this book.
2 It passed through many editions, 4th, 1823 ; 10th, 1856.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 285
Joshua ; aud by a number of scholars representing free thought
in the Essays and Reviews.^ These writers fell back on the
older deistic objections to the Pentateuch as history and as con
taining a supernatural religion, and mingled therewith a repro
duction of German thought, chiefly through Bunsen. They
magnified the discrepancies in the narratives and legislation,
and attacked the supernatural element, but added little to
the sober Higher Criticism of the Scriptures. So far as they
took position on this subject they fell into line with the more
radical element of the school of De Wette. They called the
attention of British and American scholars away from the
literary study of the Bible and the true work of the Higher
Criticism, to a defence of the supernatural, and the inspiration
of the Bible. They were attacked by several divines in Great
Britain and America from this point of view ; but their con
tributions to the Higher Criticism of the Bible were either
slurred over or ignored.2 The work of Colenso had little sup
port in Great Britain' or America at the time, but it made a
great impression upon the Dutch scholar, Kuenen, through
whose influence it again came into notice.^
It is only within recent years that any general interest in the
matters of Higher Criticism has been shown in Great Britain
and America. This interest has been due chiefly to the labours
of a few pioneers, who have suffered in the interest of biblical
science. In Great Britain, Samuel Davidson, Professor of Bib
lical Literature in the Lancashire Independent College at Man
chester from 1842 to 1857, in the latter year was compelled to
resign his position in consequence of his views with respect to the
1 The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined. Parts L-VIL,
1862-1879 ; Beeent Inquiries in Theology by Eminent English Churchmen, being
Essays and Beviews, 4th American edition from 2d London, 1862.
2 Among these may be mentioned the authors of Aids to Faith, being a reply
to Essays and Beviews, American edition, 1862 ; W. H. Green, The Pentateuch
vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, New York, 1863.
8 Godsdienst van Israel, 1869-1870, the English edition, Beligion of Israel,
1874 ; De vijf Boeken van Mozes, 1872 ; De Profeten en de profetie on der Israel,
1875, translated into English, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877; and
numerous articles in Theologisch. Tijdschrift since that time, and, last of all,
Hibbert Lectures, National Beligions and Universal Beligions, 1882. Kuenen's
views are presented in a popular form in the Bible for Learners, 3 vols., 1880.

286 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
questions of the Higher Criticism, expressed in the second vol
ume of the tenth edition of Home's Introduction to the Scripture,
1856.^ This stayed the progress of criticism in Great Britain
for some years. But in the ninth edition of the Encyclopmdia
Britannica, there appeared articles on "Angels," the "Bible,"
" Canticles," " Chronicles," and other topics by Prof. W.
Robertson Smith, which advocated essentially the development
hypothesis of the school of Reuss, and especially in the direc
tion of WelUiausen. W- R. Smith was Professor of Hebrew
in the Free Church College of Aberdeen, Scotland, where he
began to teach in 1870. These articles excited the attention
of the College Committee of the Free Church of Scotland, and
brought on a trial for heresy in that church. The case of Pro
fessor Smith reached its end in 1881, when he was removed
from his chair in order to the peace and harmony of the Church,
but acquitted of heresy in the matters in question. Although
Professor Smith was dealt with in a very illegal and unjust
manner, this contest gained liberty of opinion in Great Britain.
His teacher, A. B. Davidson, of Edinburgh, who held essen
tially the same views, was undisturbed, and the General As
sembly of the same Free Church, in May, 1892, chose Dr.
George Adam Smith, with full knowledge of the fact that he
held similar views, to be the successor of Principal Douglas, of
Glasgow, who had been one of the chief opponents of W. Rob
ertson Smith.
The first to suffer for the Higher Criticism in the United
States was C. H. Toy, who was Professor of Old Testament
Interpretation in the Baptist Theological School, at Greenville,
S.C, from 1869 to 1879. In the latter year he was forced to
resign because of his views as to Biblical Criticism. In 1880,
however, he was called to be Professor of Hebrew at Harvard
University, where he has remained until the present. The
discussion of the Higher Criticism in the United States began
for the Presbyterian body, in the plea for freedom of criticism
in my inaugural address as Professor of HebrcAV in the Union
1 2d edition, 1859 ; Introduction to the Old Testament, 1862-1863 ; Introdim-
tion to the New Testament, 1868 ; 2d edition, 1882 ; The Canon of the Bible,
1876 ; 3d edition, 1880.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 287
Theological Seminary, N. Y., in 1876.' This was received with
a mild opposition. The subject first excited pubUc attention
through my article on the " Right, Duty, and Limits of BibUcal
Criticism," pubUshed in the Presbyterian Review in 1881. This
was folloAved by a series of articles on both sides of the ques
tion. I was sustained by Henry P. Smith. W. Henry Green
defended the traditional theories, and was sustained chiefly by
A. A. Hodge and F. L. Patton ; S. Ives Curtiss and WiUis J.
Beecher took a middle position. The discussion was closed in
1883, by articles by F. L. Patton and myself.2 After the dis
cussion was completed, the traditional side was chiefly advo
cated by Bissel and Osgood, the side of the Higher Criticism
by Francis Brown, George F. Moore, J. P. Peters, and F. A.
Gast. W. R. Harper undertook a discussion in the Hebraica
with W. Henry Green. In this discussion Harper, instead of
setting forth his own critical views frankly and determinedly,
preferred to set up a man of straw, which he styled the views
of the critics, for W. H. Green to attack. The development
of this discussion was unfortunate, for it seemed to identify
Higher Criticism with the more radical views, and it caused
W. H. Green and his friends to combat them with an intense
earnestness, and a zeal for orthodoxy, Avhich disclosed a change
from their attitude in the discussion in the Presbyterian Review.
The intense hostility in the Presbyterian body to Higher
Criticism was due in considerable measure to this discussion in
the Hebraica. On Nov. 11, 1890, I was transferred, by the
unanimous choice of the Board of Directors of the Union Theo
logical Seminary, to a new chair of Biblical Theology, endowed
by the President of the Directors, Charles Butler. In the in
augural address delivered Jan. 20, 1891, on the "Authority of
the Holy Scripture," the subject of Higher Criticism was pre
sented as follows :
" It may be regarded as the certain result of the science of the
Higher Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Job ;
Ezra did not write the Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah ; Jeremiah
1 See pp. 26 seq.
2 The Dogmatic Aspect of Pentateuchal Criticism, by F. L. Patton. Critical
Study ofthe History ofthe Higher Criticism, by C. A. Briggs.

288 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
did not write the Kings or Lamentations ; David did not write
the Psalter, but only a few of the Psalms ; Solomon did not write
the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes, and only a portion of the
Proverbs; Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his
name. The great mass of the Old Testament was written by
authors whose names or connection with their writings are lost in
oblivion. If this is destroying the Bible, the Bible is destroyed
already. But who tells us that these traditional names were the
authors of the Bible? The Bible itself? The creeds of the
Church ? Any reliable historical testimony ? None of these !
Pure, conjectural tradition ! Nothing more ! We are not pre
pared to build our faith for time and eternity upon such uncer
tainties as these. We desire to know whether the Bible came
from God, and it is not of any great importance that we should
know the names of those worthies chosen by God to mediate His
revelation. It is possible that there is a providential purpose in
the withholding of these names, in order that men might have no
excuse for building on human authority, and so should be forced
to resort to divine authority. It will ere long become clear to
the Christian people that the Higher Criticism has rendered an
inestimable service to this generation and to generations to come.
What has been destroyed has been the fallacies and conceits of
theologians ; the obstructions that have barred the way of literary
men from the Bible. Higher Criticism has forced its way into
the Bible itself and brought us face to face with the holy con
tents, so that we may see and know whether they are divine or
not. Higher Criticism has not contravened any decision of any
Christian council, or any creed of any Church, or any statement
of Scripture itself." ^
After the General Assembly had tried in vain to deprive me
of my chair, through a stretch of authority which the Directors
of Union Seminary could not either legally or morally recog
nize, charges were brought against me before the Presbytery
of New York. Two of these charges were on the question of
Higher Criticism, namely : " with teaching that Moses is not
the author of the Pentateuch," and " with teaching that Isaiah
is not the author of half of the book that bears his name."
The Presbytery of New York acquitted me of these charges,
not on the ground that I did not hold these opinions, for I dis
tinctly asserted these opinions, and gave ample proof of them
1 The Inaugural Address, Authority of the Holy Scripture, 1891, pp. 33, 34.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 289
in my Defence,'^ but on the ground that these opinions did not
conflict with Holy Scripture or the Westminster Confession of
Faith. But the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
of the United States of America found me guilty of heresy in
these two particulars, as well as in others,2 in which I held
either catholic or scientific truth against traditional and modern
error ; and they suspended me from the ministry untU " such
time as he shall give satisfactory evidence of repentance to the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America."
In the same panic Prof. Henry Preserved Smith Avas tried on
similar grounds. One of the specifications in the charges
against him, which Avas sustained, was, " He teaches that the
last twenty-seven chapters of the book of Isaiah are not cor
rectly ascribed to him." He was also suspended from the
ministry in the same year by the Presbytery of Cincinnati,
which action was sustained next year by General Assembly.
Thus the Presbyterian denomination in the United States of
America, under the guidance of Prof. William Henry Green,
the American Hengstenberg, and others like minded, has, for
the first time in history, made a determination of questions of
Higher Criticism, and has decided that it is heresy to say that
" Moses did not write the Pentateuch," and that " Isaiah did
not Avrite half of the book that bears his name " ; the sure
results of the Higher Criticism accepted by all genuine critics
the Avorld over, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant,
Jew or Christian. The General Assembly went no further.
There are other scholars who agree with Henry P. Smith and
myself, and who remain unchallenged. The General Assembly
could not prevent Professor Smith or myself from pursuing our
researches, nor have they stayed the hands of other scholars.
They have simply committed the Presbyterian body to a false
position. The more recent work of the Higher Criticism has been in
the detailed work of analysis of the different writings. In the
1 The Defence of Professor Briggs, 1893, pp. 115 seq. ; The Case against
Professor Briggs, Part III. pp. 205 seq.
2 See pp. 615 seq.

290 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Old Testament, the effort is to find the sources of the Judaic,
Ephraimitic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly authors in earlier doc
uments of the same type, J''^ E''^ D'-^ P'"', and, in this way,
push back to primitive times ; and to trace out the documents
of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and to ascertain how far they
resemble or are the same as the documents of the Hexateuch. It
seems to be evident that there were groups of earlier Ephraim
itic and Judaic writers, and that these were followed by groups
of Deuteronomic and Priestly writers, and that the composition
of the historical books of the Old Testament was a much more
elaborate affair than the earlier critics supposed. The same is
true of the Gospels. The use of the primitive Gospel of Mark
and the Logia of Matthew by our Matthew is now well assured.
The use of other sources is also under iuA-estigation. The work
of Luke, in his use of various sources in the Gospel and the
book of Acts, is a burning question of New Testament criti
cism, especially in view of the recent theory of Blass, that the
Western text represents an original, independent edition of the
work of Luke.'
I have myself, in recent years, endeavoured to show five dif
ferent archseological sources of Hebrew Law, in the Words,
Statutes, Judgments, Commands, and Laws. 2 I have also
endeavoured to use the references in the Gospels to the words of
Jesus, and recover the original gnomic poetry in which he
uttered his wisdom.^
The Old Testament prophets have been analyzed in detail,
especially the former prophets, by Wellhausen, Driver, Moore,
and H. P. Smith, and the later prophets by Cheyne, Cornill,
and Duhm, to an extent that seems like a return to the frag
mentary hypothesis. But they have made it evident that aU
the books of the Old Testament have passed through the hands
of editors who did not hesitate to make the most radical changes
in the original, in the adaptation of them to later uses. The
Writings have also been searched, especially by Toy and Cheyne,
1 See pp. 203 seq.
" Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, pp. 242 seq. See also pp.
560 seq. of this volume.
8 "Wisdom of Jesus," articles in the Expository Times, 1897. See also pp.
69, 90, 244, 305, of this volume.

HIGHER CRITICISM OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 291
with the result of pushing the whole body of them, in their
present form, down into the period of the Restoration, and the
disclosure of editorial changes by successive hands to an extent
which seems unsettling to those unfamiliar with the detaUs of
the investigation. The Apocalypse of the New Testament has
been analyzed with as much attention to detail as the Pseu
depigrapha. ^ The epistles of the New Testament are also being
searched by criticism, and it is becoming evident that we must
recognize the hands of editors even in some of them. The
great questions of criticism have been settled by the consensus
of all real critics. It now remains, out of the confusion caused
by the more detailed investigations of a mass of workers, in all
religious bodies, and in all nations, to organize the results into
the fiual system. This much may be said in general, that the
tendency of all this criticism in detail is to work backwards to
closer contact with the original authors and the original read
ings. When all the work of editors has been removed from
the discussions, the original stands out in its historical environ
ment, with graphic realism and an illuminating authority.
The literary study of Holy Scripture is appropriately called
Higher Criticism to distinguish it from the Lower Criticism,
which devotes itself to the study of original texts and versions.
There are few who have the patience, the persistence, the life
long industry in the examination of the minute details that
make up the field of the Lower or Textual Criticism. But the
Higher Criticism is more attractive. It has to do with literary
forms and styles and models. It appeals to the imagination
and the aesthetic taste as well as to the logical faculty. It
kindles the enthusiasm of the young. It will more and more
enlist the attention of men of culture and the general public.
It is the most inviting and fruitful field of biblical study in
our day. Many who are engaged in it are rationalistic and
unbelieving, and they are using it with disastrous effect upon
the Sacred Scriptures and the orthodox Faith. There is also a
prejudice in some quarters against these studies and an appre
hension as to the results. This prejudice is unreasonable.
This apprehension is to be deprecated. It is impossible to pre-
1 Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 284 seq.

292 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
vent discussion. The Divine Word will vindicate itself in all
its parts. These are not the times for negligent Elis or timor
ous and presumptuous Uzzahs. Brave Samuels and ardent
Davids, who fear not to employ new methods and engage in
new enterprises and adapt themselves to altered situations, will
overcome the Philistines. The Higher Criticism has rent the
crust with which Rabbinical tradition and Christian scholasti
cism have encased the Old Testament, overlaying the poetic
and prophetic elements with the legal and the ritual. Younger
biblical scholars have caught glimpses of the beauty and glory
of Biblical Literature. The Old Testament is studied as never
before in the Christian Church. It is beginning to exert its
charming influence upon ministers and people. Christian The
ology and Christian life will ere long be enriched by it. God's
blessing is in it to those who have the Christian Avisdom to
recognize and the grace to receive and employ it.

CHAPTER XII
THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM
The Sacred Scriptures are composed of a great variety of
literary products, the results of the thinking, feeling, and act
ing of God's people in many generations. Though guided by
the Divine Spirit so as to give one divine revelation in contin
uous historical development, they yet, as literary productions,
assume various literary styles in accordance with the culture,
taste, and capacity of their authors in the different periods of
their composition. Especially is this true of the Old Testa
ment, which contains the sacred literature of the Hebrews
through a long period of literary development. For their
proper interpretation, therefore, we need not only the religious
spirit that can enter into sympathetic relations with the authors,
and through vital union with the Divine Spirit interpret them
from their inmost soul ; we need not only training in grammar
and logic to understand the true contents of their language and
the drift of their discourse ; we need not only a knowledge of
the archseology, geography, and history of the people, that we
may enter into the atmosphere and scenery of their life and its
expression ; we need not only a knowledge of the laws, doc
trines, and institutions in which the authors were reared, and
which constituted the necessary grooves of their religious cult
ure, but in addition to all these we need also a literary train
ing, an sesthetic culture, in order that by a true literary sense,
and a sensitive and refined sesthetic taste, we may discriminate
poetry from prose, history from fiction, the bare truth from its
artistic dress and decoration, the fruit of reasoning from the
products of the imagination and fancy.
293

294 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Every race and nation has its peculiarities of literary culture
and style, so that while the study of the best literary models
of the Greeks and Romans, and of modern European languages,
may be necessary to develop the best literary taste, yet in
entering upon the study of Biblical Literature we come into
a field that was not influenced at all by any of these, — to the
literature of a race radically different from all the families of
the Indo-Germanic race, — one which declines to be judged by
the standards of strangers and foreigners, but which requires
an independent study in connection with the literature of its
own sisters, especially the Arabic, Syriac, and Assyrian. A
special training in these literatures is, therefore, necessary in
order to the proper estimation of the Hebrew literature ; and
criticism from the point of view of our ordinary classic literary
culture alone is unfair and misleading. And it is safe to say
that no one can thoroughly understand the Greek New Testa
ment who has not made himself familiar with the Old Testament
literature, upon which it is based. The student must enter
into sympathetic relations with the spirit and life of the Orient
that pervade it.
The literary study of the Bible is essentially the Higher
Criticism of the Bible. A reader may enjoy the literary feat
ures of Shakespeare, Milton, and Homer, without himself taking
part in critical work, but consciously or unconsciously he is
dependent upon the literary criticism of experts, who have
given him the results of their labours upon these authors. So
is it with the Holy Scripture : the ordinary reader may enjoy
it as literature without being a critic, but the labours of critics
are necessary in order that the Scriptures may be presented to
him in their proper literary character and forms. Biblical,
Literature has the same problems to solve, and the same
methods and principles for their solution, as have been em
ployed in other departments of the world's literature.'
We shall first show how the great lines of evidence used by
the Higher Criticism should be applied to Holy Scripture, and
then present the result of that evidence with reference to the
great problems of Higher Criticism. 2
1 See pp. 92 seq. 2 See pp. 95 seq.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 295
I. The Historical Evidence'
The Higher Criticism first applies to Holy Scripture the
historical test. The writings must be in accordance with their
supposed historical position as to time, place, and circumstances.
(a) The Book of Comfort, Is. 40-66, cannot belong to the time
of Hezekiah, but to the time of the exile, as Driver shows.
" It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and deserted (e.g.
W\ 58'^ 61^ 63^^ 64i»^) ; to the sufferings which the Jews have
experienced, or are experiencing, at the hands of the ChaldEeans
(4222,25^ 4328 ^u_ V. marg.], 4:7% 62') ; to the prospect of return,
which, as the prophet speaks, is imminent (40^, 46^8^ 48^, etc.).
Those whom the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses
in person, arguing with them, appealing to them, striving to win
their assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric (4021.28,28^ 43^
488, 60'"-, 61"- ^f-, 683 ff, etc.), are not the men of Jerusalem, con
temporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh; they
are the exiles in Babylonia. Judged by the analogy of prophecy,
this constitutes the strongest possible presumption that the author
actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not
merely (as has been supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the
future, and holding converse, as it were, Avith the generations yet
unborn. Such an immersion in the future would be not only with
out parallel in the Old Testament, it would be contrary to the
nature of prophecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first
instance, to his own contemporaries ; the message which he brings
is intimately related with the circumstances of his time; his
promises and predictions, however far they reach into the future,
nevertheless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age,
and correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet
never abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it.
So Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, predict first the exile, then
the restoration ; both are contemplated by them as stUl future ;
both are viewed from the period in which they themselves live.
In the present prophecy there is no prediction of exUe. The exile
is not announced as something still future ; it is presupposed, and
only the release from it is predicted. By analogy, therefore, the
author will have lived in the situation which he thus presupposes,
and to which he continually alludes." ' ,
(6) An example of a plausible historical clue to date, is given
1 Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 6th ed., 1897,
pp. 237 seq.

296 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
in the Apocalypse of the Bowls,' which, in its original form, seems
to have been written soon after the death of Nero. The passage is :
" The seven heads are seven mountains.
On which the woman sitteth :
" (And they are seven kings ; the five are fallen, the one is, the
other is not yet come ; and when he cometh, he must continue a
little while.) (And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also
an eighth, and is of the seven ; and he goeth into Apoleia.) "
The seven heads of the beast are described by a later editor,
probably the one Avho combined the three a,pocalypses of the
Sevens, as a series of seven emperors. Eive have fallen —
Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero. One reigns. Some
think of one of the rivals, — Galba, Otho, Vitellius ; others of Ves
pasian, the three really being regarded as usurpers. The seventh
is not yet come, but when he comes he will reign for a little while.
The seventh completes the number of seven heads. It is probar
ble, therefore, that Harnack is correct in thinking that a later
editor interprets by inserting the reference to the eighth as the
beast of the scene, and so finds the beast in Domitian.^ We would
thus have three different interpretations of the seven heads, — the
original referring to the seven hills of Rome, written soon after
the death of Nero ; the editor of the second edition in the time of
Vespasian referring the seventh to a risen Nero ; the editor of the
third edition thinking of the eighth emperor as Domitian.8

II. The Evidence op Style
Differences of style imply differences of experience and age
of the same author, or, when sufficiently great, difference of
author and of period of composition. Differences in style are
linguistic and literary.
1. Linguistic differences may be etymological, syntactical, or
dialectic. (a) Etymological differences are of great importance in dis
tinguishing biblical authors. Word lists are given in all the
chief writings which deal with the Higher Criticism of the
Holy Scriptures. Thus Driver gives a list of 41 characteristic
1 Rev. 17.
2 Nachwort to Vischer, Die Offenbarung Johannes eine jiidische Apokalypse,
1886, s. 135.
8 Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895, pp. 427 seq.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 297
phrases of D, 50 phrases of P, and 20 of H. Holzinger dis
cusses 125 characteristic phrases of J and 108 of E.^
The following two specimens of linguistic usage may suflBce for
the Old Testament :
(1) The first person of the pronoun "'33K is used in Deuteron
omy 56 times. The only real exception is 12™, ^3X"D3, where the
reason for the abbreviation is evidently its use with DI The
other apparent exceptions in Deuteronomy are due to different
original documents which have been incorporated with Deuteron
omy, e.g. 32"'^' ^^, part of the priestly document ; the Song, 32'^ <° '¦' ;
and 29' (D^)j where there is a mixed text. This usage of Deuter
onomy is found elsewhere only in the song of Deborah, Jd. 5 ; the
prophet Amos, 10 times (except 4^, ''3S"DJ); the Deuteronomic
redactor of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, save in little pieces ;
Pss. 22, 46, 50, 91, 104, 141 ; and the prophecy Is. 21"°, where the
examples are too few to give us firm ground for usage. The
shorter form ^3K is used in H and P about 120 times. The only
exception is Gen. 23*, which is probably due to the use of an
ancient phrase (cf. Ps. 39^'). This corresponds with the usage
of exilic writings, as Ezekiel, which uses it 138 times (the only
exception 36^ in a phrase) ; Lamentations, 4 times ; and of post-
exilic prophets, Haggai, 4 times ; Zechariah 1-8, 10 times ; Mala
chi, 7 times (except 3^) ; Joel, 4 times ; also the Chronicler, 47
times (except 1 C. 17^ derived from 2 Sam. 7=^; and Neh. 1") ; Prov
erbs 1-8, 5 times ; Canticles, 12 times ; Daniel, 23 times (except
10^) ; Esther, 6 times ; Ecclesiastes, 29 times. No pre-exilic writ
ing uses "'is exclusively except Zephaniah twice and the Song of
Habakkuk once (regarded by many critics as a post-exilic psalm) ; ^
but these few examples cannot determine usage. The usage of E
and J differs both from D and P. In J of the Hexateuch ''D3S is
used 51 times to 32 of '':« ; in E, ''33S 32 times to 25 of ^3S. With
this correspond the original documents of Judges, which use "'^iX
15 times to 11 of ''3K, and the Ephraimitic documents of Samuel,
which use ¦'53« 19 times to 10 of ''J«. AU these show a prepon
derance of usage in favour of ''D3S. Hosea uses each 11 times,
and the earlier Isaiah each 3 times. Other writers show an in
creasing tendency to use ''JX. The Judaic documents of Samuel
1 Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 6th ed., 1897 ;
Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893. See also Briggs, Higher Criti
cism of the Hexateuch, new edition, pp. 69 seq. D stands for the Deuteronomio
writers of the Hexateuch, P the Priestly writers, E the Ephraimitic writers, and
J the Judaic writers. See pp. 278 seq.
2 See D. 314.

298 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and Kings use ''iH 62 times to 30 of ''5JX ; the Ephraimitic docu
ment of Kings, ^iX 22 times to 2 of ''5JS ; Jeremiah, "'JK 52 times
to 37 of ^33X ; Is. 40-66, 70 times ''3S to 21 "'33S ; Job, 28 times
¦"iX to 14 ''iJS. It is evident that three layers of the Hexateuch
are distinctly characterized by their use of this pronoun, and they
agree with other groups of literature in their usage.'
(2) The shorter form 37 is always used in the documents J and
P; the longer form 337 is always used in the law codes of D
and H. There is a difference of usage in E and the frame of
D. E uses ab. Gen. 31^", 42^, 45=«, 50^1; Ex. 4^1, 7^ (Driver's J,
Kautzsch's JE), 10^^; Nu. 24'^; but 33^, Gen. 20°' ", 31^«; Ex. 14*
(Driver's J, Kautzsch's JE), Jos. 24^. This use of 33^ might
be redactional, but it is not evident. The frame of D uses 337
constantly, except Dt. 4" (Sam. codex 33^), 28^ 29^'^^ (phrase
from Jeremiah) ; Jos. 11^ (phrase of E and P), 14^ (elsewhere in
this phrase 337). It is evident that this difference in the docu
ments of the Hexateuch is not accidental, but is characteristic of
literary preference and of periods of composition, for it corre
sponds with the usage of the literature elsewhere, (a) The form
37 is used in the earliest poetical literature, Ex. 15 ; Judges 5 ;
1 Sam. 2 ; the earliest prophets, Amos, Hosea, Is. 15, Zech. 9-11,
and the Judaic and Ephraimitic sources of the prophetic histories.
This corresponds with the usage of J. (b) The form 337 is
used in the earlier Is. 11 times (37 only 6'", 29", possibly scribal
errors) ; in Zeph. 1^, 2^ (37 3", scribal error) ; and the Deuter
onomic redaction of the prophetic histories. This corresponds
with the usage of D. (c) Nahum uses 33^ 2^, 37 2", but Jere
miah, Ezekiel, the second Isaiah, and Job prefer 37, but occa
sionally use 337. This corresponds with the usage of E. (d) Is.
13-14^8; Jer. 50-51; Haggai; Zech. 1-8 (except 7^^) ; Jonah; Joel;
Ps. 78, 90, 104, use ^'^b- This corresponds with the usage of
H. (e) Lamentations (except 3*^) ; Is. 24r-27, 34-35 ; Malachi ;
Obad. ; Zech. 12-14 ; Memorials of Ezra and Nehemiah, use 37.
This corresponds with P. So do Proverbs (except 4^', 6^) ; the
Psalter, Avith few exceptions ; Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes (except
98), and Canticles. (/) The Chronicler and Daniel use 33*7, but
there are a few examples of 3^, chiefly in set phrases. When
one considers how easy it was for an editor or scribe to exchange
37 and 337, it is remarkable that the difference in usage has
been so well preserved.^ (See my article 3^, 33*7, in the new
Hebrew Lexicon.)
1 Briggs, Higher Criticism ofthe Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 70, 71.
2 Briggs, I.e., pp. 256, 257.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 299
In the New Testament each writer has also his stock of words.
These are given by Vincent.' Eor example, take the words
" father " and " church."
(3) Apart from the Prologue, the Gospel of John uses Father,
of God as the Father of the Messianic Son from heaven; and
only in a single passage, of God as the Father of men. In this
latter passage, 20", Jesus says to the woman, " I ascend unto My
Father and your Father." Westcott ^ claims A"^''^, 5*^'^^'% 10^' =2^
12^8, 14«'8, 15'«, 1628.26.27 for the Fatherhood of men. But there is
nothing in the context of any of these passages to constrain us to
think of the Fatherhood of men. In several of them the refer
ence to the Son, in the context, suggests the prevailing usage.
In others, while it is possible to think of the Fatherhood of men,
that mere possibility cannot resist the overAvhelming usage of
this gospel, o Tra-r^p is used 79 times of God; o waTi^p pov, 25
times ; irdrep, 9 times ; o iraTrip aov, 8^' ; o ^Sv irarrip, 6*^ ; Tfarrjp iStos,
5." In the Synoptic Gospels God's Fatherhood of men seems to
come from the Logia. In Mark it is found only in 11^ = Mt.
gi4,i5^ where the phrase is evidently a logion, and the use of
6 iv ToTs oipavo?5 suggests an assimilation of this passage to Mat
thew. It is found in Luke, apart from passages parallel with
Matthew, only 1282, -^^i^xch is also probably from the Logia. But
God's Fatherhood of the Messiah is in all the Gospels : Mk. 88* =
Mt. 16^ = Lk. 9^; Mk. 13'^ = Mt. 2488; -^^_ 26"' = Lk. 22^; Mt.
1125-27 = Lk. lO'^.^^ besides in Lk. 3% 22'^, 29«, and in Matthew
with 6 ovpdvios 15^', 18^; with 6 iv (rots) oupavots 7 times and
without 7 times. It is evident that the use of " heavenly " and
"who (is) in heaven" comes from MattheAV, and not from Jesus
Himself; just as Matthew uses kingdom of heaven for the original
kingdom of God.'
(4) Church is used in the Gospels only Mt. 16", where it is
probably not original,* and twice Mt. 18'^ where it probably re
ferred to the brethren or brotherhood, or possibly to the local
assembly after the usage of the Septuagint. It is not used in the
epistles of Peter, of Jude, or in the first or second epistles of
John. It is used in the Epistle of Jas. 5", of the local assembly
with its elders, which is virtually the same as synagogue. It is
used in the Revelation in the prologue and in the epistles to the
seven churches in Asia, l*-3^, 19 times, elsewhere only in the
epUogue 22'", always of local assemblies. It is used in the third
Epistle of John thrice of the local church. It is used in the
1 Word Studies, 1887-1890. 8 Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 274.
2 Epistles of John, p. 31. * Briggs, Messiah ofthe Gospels, p. 190.

300 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
epistles of Paul: Romans, 5 times; Corinthians, 31 times; Gala
tians, 3 times ; Ephesians, 9 times ; Philippians, 2 times ; Colossians,
4 times; Thessalonians, 4 times;' Timothy, 3 times; Philemon,
once; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 times; in the historical
sections of the book of Acts, 22 times, three of which refer to a
Greek assembly. The Church of the Lord is used Acts 20"*
only, but the Church of God is used by Paul six times in the
earlier epistles. In the epistles of the imprisonment Church is
used alone, without qualification. But in the Pastoral Epistles
the Church of the living God is used, 1 Tim. 3'^, and the Church
of God, 1 Tim. 3«.
(5) Syntactical differences. The Hebrew language is strict
in its use of the Waw consecutive, in the earlier period of the
language. In the book of Ezekiel, the Waw consecutive of the
imperfect is often neglected, and the simple Waw with the per
fect is used instead. In the exilic prophecy Isaiah, 40-66, the
Waw consecutive of the perfect is neglected, and the simple
Waw Avith the imperfect is used instead. In the book of Eccle
siastes the Waw consecutive has well-nigh passed out of use.
This shows three stages of syntactical development of the He
brew language, and enables us to arrange the different writings
in accordance therewith.
(c) There are dialectic differences in the Old Testament.
There were doubtless three dialects in the Biblical Hebrew, —
the Ephraimitic, the Judaic, and the Perean. An example of
the Perean may be found in the main stock of the book of Job,
which tends towards Arabisms. The Ephraimitic dialect was
from the earliest times tending in an Aramaic direction. It is
represented in the Ephraimitic sections of the Hexateuch and
the prophetic histories.
2. Differences of style are evident in all of the four Gospels,
and are carefully defined by writers on the Higher Criticism of
the New Testament, and by the commentaries. Similar differ
ences are noted in the Old Testament between the Chronicler
and the prophetic histories. It is agreed among critics that
the Ephraimitic writer is brief, terse, and archaic in style ; the
Judaic writer is poetic and descriptive, — as Wellhausen says,
"the best narrator in the Bible." His imagination and fancy
' Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 81, 82.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 301
are ever active. The priestly writer is annalistic and diffuse,
fond of names and dates. He aims at precision and complete
ness. The logical faculty prevails. There is little colouring.
The Deuteronomic writer is rhetorical and hortatory, practical
and earnest. His aim is instruction and guidance.^
(a) A good specimen of the argument from style is given by
A. B. Davidson in his study of the book of Job.
"The objections that have been made to the long passage, chap
ters 40'°-41'*, describing Behemoth and Leviathan, are briefly such
as these : that the description of these animals would have been
in place in the first divine speech beside the other animal pictures,
but is out of harmony with the idea of the second speech ; that
the description swells the second speech to a length unsuitable to
its object, which is fully expressed in chapter 40'^'*; and that the
minuteness and heaviness of the representation betray a very dif
ferent hand from that which drew the powerful sketches in chap
ters 38, 39.
" The last-mentioned point is not without force. The rapid light
and expressive lines of the former pictures make them Avithout
parallel for beauty and power in literature ; the two latter belong
to an entirely different class. They are typical specimens of Ori
ental poems, as any one who has read an Arab poet's description
of his camel or horse will feel. These poets do not paint a picture
of the object for the eye, they schedule an inventory of its parts
and properties." ^
(6) A fine use of the argument from style is given by Bishop
Westcott in reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews : " The style
is even more characteristic of a practised scholar than the vocabu
lary. It would be difficult to find anyAvhere passages more exact
and pregnant in expression than 1'^, 2'*"" l'^'^, 12i^24_ rphe lan
guage, the order, the rhythm, the parenthetical involutions, all
contribute to the total effect. The writing shews everyAvhere
traces of effort and care. In many respects it is not unlike that
of the Book of Wisdom, but it is nowhere marred by the restless
striving after effect which not unfrequently injures the beauty of
that masterpiece of Alexandrine Greek. The calculated force of
the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence
of Saint Paul. The author is never carried away by his thoughts.
He has seen and measured all that he desires to convey to his
1 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, pp. 74, 75.
2 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Davidson, The Book of Job,
p. Iiv.

302 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
readers before he begins to write. In writing he has, like an ar
tist, simply to give life to the model which he has already com
pletely fashioned. This is true even of the noblest rhetorical
passages, such as chapter 11. Each element, which seems at first
sight to offer itself spontaneously, will be found to have been
carefully adjusted to its place, and to offer in subtle details re
sults of deep thought, so expressed as to leave the simplicity and
freshness of the whole perfectly unimpaired. For this reason there
is perhaps no Book of Scripture in which the student may hope
more confidently to enter into the mind of the author if he yields
himself with absolute trust to his words. No Book represents with
equal clearness the mature conclusions of human reflection. . . .
Some differences in style between the Epistle and the writings of
Saint Paul have been already noticed. A more detailed inquiry
shews that these cannot be adequately explained by differences
of subject or of circumstances. They characterize two men, and
not only two moods or two discussions. The student wiU feel the
subtle force of the contrast if he compares the Epistle to the
Hebrews with the Epistle to the Ephesians, to which it has
the closest aifinity. But it is as difiicult to represent the contrast
by an enumeration of details as it is to analyse an effect. It must
be felt for a right appreciation of its force." '
III. The Evidence of Opinion
The third great test of the Higher Criticism is the evi
dence from doctrine, opinion, and point of view. Differences
of opinion and conception imply difference of author, when
these are sufficiently great, and also difference of period of
composition. (a) There is a different conception of theophanies in the docu
ments of the Hexateuch.
E narrates frequent appearances of the theophanic angel of
Elohim. J reports appearances of the theophanic angel of Yahweh.
These theophanic appearances are mentioned in the Ephraimitic
and Judaic documents of the prophetic histories. But neither D
nor P knows of such a theophanic angel. When God reveals
Himself, in the Ephraimitic documents, He speaks to Moses face
to face, and Moses sees the form of God in the pillar of God
standing at the door of his tent. In the great theophany granted
to Moses in the Judaic document Ex. 23^^, Moses is permitted
1 The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1889, pp. xlvi, xlvii, Ixxvii.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 303
only to see the departing form of God, and it is represented that
it would be death to see God's face. In Deuteronomy it is said
that the voice of God was heard, but His form was not seen. In
the priestly document it is the light and fire of the glory of God
which always constitutes the theophany. How was it possible
for the same author to give four such different accounts of the
methods of God's appearance to Moses and the people ? '
(b) There is a difference in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
between Isaiah and the great prophet of the exile.
The doctrine of the Divine Spirit in Isaiah is still the ancient
doctrine, which conceives of it as an energy of God coming espe
cially on heroic leaders of the people. It was to be poured upon
the Messianic King to endow him with the sevenfold endowment
for his reign of peace, Is. 11^ ; and without guidance by the Divine
Spirit apostate children add sin to sin, 30' ; but in the Great Un
known the doctrine reaches a height which has no parallel except
in the late 139th Psalm. The Divine Spirit endows the Messianic
Servant in 42', 61', and will revive the nation, 448 . j^ accompanies
the ministry of the prophets, 48'". But in Chapter 63'° the Spirit
is named the Holy Spirit, an epithet used elsewhere in the Old
Testament only in Ps. 51'" It is personified beyond any other
passage in the Old -Testament. It is represented that He was
grieved by the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, that
He led them in their journeys to the Holy Land, and that He was
in the midst of them. Thus the Holy Spirit is assigned the work
of the theophanic angel of the historical narrative of JE, and
especially as bearing with Him the Divine face or presence as
in the document J. The Holy Spirit is associated with the
theophanic angel here, just as in the Book of Wisdom, Proverbs,
first chapter, the Divine Spirit and the Divine Wisdom are asso
ciated. This conception of the Divine Spirit shows a marked
advance, not only beyond Isaiah, but also beyond Ezekiel.^
(c) In the book of Revelation there are different and distinct
conceptions of the Messiah in the several apocalypses. The ear
liest of the apocalypses seems to me to be the Apocalypse of the
Beasts, which presents the conception of the Messiah of Ps. 110,
and which seems to have been composed in the reign of Caligula.
The second of the apocalypses was the Apocalypse of the Dragon,
which cannot be much later in time. It presents the Messiah of
Ps. 2. These apocalypses were possibly combined before they
1 Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 146, 147.
2 The Defence of Professor Briggs, before the Presb. of New York, 1893,
p. 139.

304 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
were incorporated with the apocalypses of the Sevens. But I
cannot see any decided evidence of it. The earliest of the apoca
lypses of the Sevens seems to be that of the Trumpets, whose
Messiah is the Son of Man on the clouds of the apocalypses of
Daniel and Enoch. I do not see any clear evidence of date. The
next of these was the Apocalypse of the Seals. The Messiah of
this Vision is the Lion of Judah, and the Lamb who purchased
men by his blood. The Apocalypse of the Bowls presupposes
both the Apocalypse of the Trumpets and the Apocalypse of the
Seals, and must be somewhat later. Its Messiah is the Lamb, but
especially as the husband of the Holy City, his bride. In ity
original form it seems to date from the reign of Galba.'

IV. The Evidence from Citations
Citations show the dependence of the author upon the
author or authors cited. A few examples wiU suffice :
(a) In the Psalter Pss. 35^^^, 40'"^ 70 are essentially the same.
The problem is to arrange these Psalms in their order of depend
ence by citation. Psalm 35 has in its title simply " belonging to
David " ; ^ that is, it was in the original Minor Davidic Psalter.
Psalm 40 besides "belonging to David" is classed as a Mizmor,8 and
was in the Director's Major Psalter. Psalm 70 has "belonging to
David," was in the Director's Psalter, and besides has a liturgical
assignment.* From these circumstances the probabilities are in
favour of the order 35, 40, 70. Psalm 35 is composed of seven
strophes of five pentameter lines each. Verses ^""^ constitute the
last of these strophes. Psalm 40'"^ has an additional line at the
beginning and two concluding lines, making thus the last seven
lines of a strophe of ten pentameter lines. Psalm 70 is equivalent
to Ps. 40'"^ There can be no doubt that Ps. 70 is a liturgical
extract from Ps. 40. It is possible to think that Ps. 35^-" might
be a liturgical addition. But its originality is favoured by the
fact that the language, style, and spirit of this strophe are similar
to those of the opening strophe of the Psalm. There is, however,
an awkward break, and the transition is not easy between Ps. 40'^
and 40". These considerations favour the order 35, 40, 70.
(b) Ruth 2'^ cites in the midst of the prose narrative a bit of
poetry : 1 Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895, p. 304.
2 •^^'h. 8 -natia. 4 '^''anh.

the practice of the higher criticism 305
May Yahweh recompense thy doing ;
And may thy reward he ample from Yahweh,
The God of Israel to whom thou art come,
To take refuge under His wings.
The last line of this extract is from Ps. 91* :
And under His wings shalt thou take refuge.
The exact words ' are found nowhere else in the Old Testament,
although the idea of seeking refuge under the wings of Yahweh
is a favourite idea of post-exilic psalmists. This extract from a
post-exUic Psalm shows that the book of Ruth is post-exilic also.
(c) Jonah 2"^ contains a Psalm. This Psalm has two complete
strophes concluding each with a refrain. These are followed by
a half strophe without a refrain. This shoAvs that the prayer is
only part of a longer Psalm that was complete and symmetrical.
The prayer is also a mosaic from several older Psalms.^ It is
evident, therefore, that the Psalm of Jonah presupposes all these
earlier Psalms, and that the Psalm is also presupposed by the
book of Jonah, which uses only part of it. The only question
which remains is whether the Psalm was originally used by
the author or was a subsequent insertion. If it Avas used by the
author, the book must have been written some time after the
restoration. id) We have in the Gospels a large number of parallel passages.
It is now agreed that both Matthew and Luke cite from the ori
ginal Mark. The Avords of Jesus respecting His kindred may be
taken as an example. The original narrative is Mk. 3^^-^.
"And there came his mother and his brethren, and, standing
without, they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was
sitting about him; and they say unto him. Behold, thy mother
and thy brethren (and thy sisters, well sustained A D E F H, etc.,
Tisch., W. H., margin) without seek for thee."
Matthew 12*"^^^ gives substantially the same, but varies the order
of the sentences, and the construction, and condenses. "While
he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his
brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. [And one said
unto him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without,
seeking to speak to thee.] " This clause, bracketed by Tisch.,
thrown into the margin by W. H., doubtless is a later insertion in
the text. Matthew interprets the object of the seeking as to
" speak to him." ivBji nnn non.
2 Pss. 18«-7, 3123, 428, 692 ; Dt. 322i.

306 study of holy scripturb
Luke 8""^ also condenses :
"And there came to him his mother and brethren, and they
could not come at him for the crowd. And it was told him, Thy
mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee."
Luke interprets the object of the desire as "to see thee," and he
interprets the multitude sitting about him as " the crowd." Both
Matthew and Luke omit the reference to the sisters, which prob
ably, through their infiuence, disappeared from the common text
of Mark also.
Mark 3"^^^ continues thus :
" And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my mother and my
brethren? And looking round on them which sat round about
him, he saith :
" Behold my mother and my brethren I
For whosoever shall do the wUl of God,
The same is my brother and sister and mother."
This is given by Mt. 12«-«':
" But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my
mother, and who are my brethren ? And he stretched forth his
hand towards his disciples and said :
" Behold my mother and my brethren !
For whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven.
He is my brother and sister and mother."
This is then given by Lk. 8^' in a condensed form :
"But he answered and said unto them. My mother and my
brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it."
Matthew interprets those " round about him" as his " disciples,"
and substitutes for the " looking round on them " of Mark, " he
stretched forth his hand towards" them. The logion is the
same, except that Matthew substitutes here, as usual, "my Father
which is in Heaven" for "God." Luke verifies the original as
" God." Luke condenses the logion into a prose sentence, but en
larges "do the Avill of God" into "hear the word of God and do
it," which is characteristic of Luke, but certainly was not ori
ginal. In all respects the originality of Mark is assured.

V. The Evidence of Testimony
The argument from testimony is so evident, that iUustrations
seem to be unnecessary. In direct testimony it may suffice to
refer to Jer. 26'^. " Micaiah the Morashtite prophesied in the

THE practice OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 307
days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, and he spake to all the people
of Judah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh Sabaoth :
" Zion shall be plowed as a field.
And Jerusalem shall become heaps,
And the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest."
This is a direct testimony to the authorship and date and
historical circumstances of Mi. S^. It is seldom that we have
such direct testimony. Usually when there is any testimony,
it is indirect, as in 2 Pet. 3'^, where there is an equivocal refer
ence to the epistles of Saint Paul.

VI. The Argument from Silence
The argument from silence is of great importance in the
Higher Criticism of Holy Scripture. The first thing to de
termine in reference to this argument, is whether the matter
in question came fairly within the scope of the author's argu
ment. '
1. Sometimes the matter did not come within the author's
scope at all. He had no occasion to refer to it, and therefore
no evidence can be gained from his silence. The author of the
Praise of Wisdom, Prov. 1-9, does not refer to the institutions
of the priest code. He had no occasion to do so. His purpose
was purely ethical, although he Uved in a period when the en
tire system of the priest code was in full operation.
2. The matter did not come within the author's scope, because
there were good reasons why it should not. There is an absolute
silence in aU the Ephraimitic and Judaic writers and prophets
prior to Jeremiah as to any wrong in the worshipping of
Yahweh on many high places. They constantly mention this
worship, never censure it, but aUude to it as the proper wor
ship, not only of the people but of the prophets and heroes
of the nation. This kind of worship must have had something
about it which prevented them from censuring it. It must
have been right and proper, and they knew of no legislation
against it. 1 See pp. 102 seq.

308 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
3. The matter in question came fairly within the scope of the
writer, and there must be good reasons why it was not mentioned.
(a) The simplest of these reasons is, that the omission was inten
tional. Thus in the introduction to the book of Job,' the author
represents Job as offering up whole burnt offerings for the sup
posed sins of his sons. Why were the sin offerings of the priest
code not offered ? If we could suppose, with many of the older
scholars, that Job was written by Moses before the Law was
given, the omission would be explained as due to the fact that he
knew nothing of the law of the sin offering. The same might be
true if we thought the book of Job Avritten before the priest code
came into operation after the exile. But if we hold that the book
of Job is post-exilic, then the omission of the reference to the sin
offering was intentional, namely, because he wished to put his hero
in the patriarchal state of society, entirely apart from the institu
tions of Israel. There is indeed an apparent incongruity between
the highly developed ethical sense of one who feared lest his sons
sinned in their minds, and the offering for their sins the pjimitive
whole burnt offerings.
(b) The omission of reference to the sin offering in Ps. 51, which
is a penitential Psalm, and which mentions the sacrifices of whole
burnt offerings and peace offerings, can hardly be regarded as in
tentional. The Psalm gives a real experience of the time of the
author, and it is improbable that he would omit the sin offering,
if it were then used in connection with the confession of sin in
order to its removal. It seems altogether likely, therefore, that
Ps. 51 was written before the sin offering of the priest code was
enforced in the ritual of worship.
4. Where a matter is absent from an entire range of litera
ture prior to a certain period, it is evident that the matter did
not constitute a part of public knowledge, and, if known at all,
must have been known to but few. A careful study of all the
ethical passages of the Old Testament convinces me that there
is an entire absence of censure of the sin of falsehood until
after the exile. The sin of false-witnessing is condemned in
the Tables ; and also the sin of falsehood, so far as it is con
nected with robbery and murder, is frequently and severely
scourged in the Prophets. But they seem to know nothing
of the sin of speaking lies as such. What is the evidence from
1 Job 18.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 309
their silence? They were altogether unconscious of its sinful
ness. The holiest men did not hesitate to lie whenever they
had a good object in view, and they showed no conscious
ness of sin in it. And the writers who tell of their lies are
as innocent as they. The evidence from this silence is that
the Hebrews did not, in their ethical development, reach the "
understanding of the sin of lying until after the return from
exile, and then largely under the influence of Persian ethics,
which from the earliest times made truth-speaking essential to
good morals.
These are examples of the method by which the evidences of
the Higher Criticism may be applied to Holy Scripture. They
are constantly applied by scholars all over the world, in all the
ranges of Biblical Literature. If carefully applied, tested, and
verified, they lead to sure results.
We have next to present the results of this evidence Avith
reference to the great problems of the Higher Criticism.

VII. The Integrity op the Scriptures
The first questions with reference to a writing are : (1) Is
it the product of one mind as an organic AA-hole ; or (2) com
posed of several pieces of the same author ; or (3) is it a col
lection of writings by different authors ? (4) Has it retained
its original integrity, or has it been interpolated ? May the
interpolations be discriminated from the original?
1. There are but fcAV biblical writings which can be regarded
as the product of one mind, as an organic Avhole. And few
of these have remained without interpolations which may be
easily detected. None of the historical books of the Old and
New Testaments can be assigned here. The only prophetic
writings which are certainly the products of one author at one
time are Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Malachi. Some
might add Nahum ; but it seems evident that the first part of
the prophecy is an alphabetical poem, which had been greatly
changed before it was prefixed to Nahum. The only one of
the writings that can be brought under this class is the Song

310 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
of Songs, and yet many recent scholars claim that it is com
posed of a number of separate love songs. In the New Testa
ment all the epistles, excepting Romans ^ and 1 Timothy ,2 may
be regarded as haAang few if any interpolations that can be
certainly detected, although not a few critics find interpola-
'tions in some of them. There are a number of other writings
in which interpolations of greater or less importance may easUy
be detected, such as Ruth, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Habakkuk,
the Epistle to the Romans, and the Gospel of Mark.^
2. There are several collections of writings by the same
author. Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Lamentations*
have escaped all but minor interpolations. Jeremiah has
passed through a series of editings, and has many important
interpolations. Jeremiah and Ezekiel each give a collection of
judgments against the enemies of the kingdom of God and
prophecies of restoration and Messianic felicity. Ezekiel's
name covers only his own predictions. To Jeremiah have
been appended two anonymous chapters, and a considerable
amount of historical material has been inserted by the several
editors. There are also not a few interpolations in the Hebrew
text that are unknown to the Greek version.
3. The twelve Minor Prophets are regarded as one book in
most of the ancient Jewish and Christian catalogues. The
Baba Bathra represents them as edited by the men of the Great
Synagogue after the exile. ^ This is a conjecture Avithout his
torical evidence. These prophets, in modern times, have ordi
narily been treated separately, and their original combination
has been to a great extent forgotten. Each one of them may
be tested as to its integrity. The only one about which there
has been any general questioning is Zechariah. The eaxlipr
doubts were based upon Mt. 27^, which ascribes Zech. 12-13
to Jeremiah.** If that passage be free from error, the section
of Zechariah in which the citation is contained must be sepa
rated from that prophet and attached to the prophecies of Jere-
1 McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 275 seq. See also pp. 315 seq. of this volume.
2 McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 405 seq.
8 See pp. 314, 317.
* Some scholars regard Lamentations as a collection of dirges by different
authors. 6 gee pp. 252 seq. « See p. 250.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 311
miah. It is now generally conceded that this cannot be done,
and that the evangelist has made a slip of memory in citation.
The integrity of Zechariah has been disputed in recent times
from literary grounds. Many scholars of the present day attrib
ute the second half to one or more different prophets. Others,
as Wright' and Delitzsch, ^ still maintain the integrity of the
book. The twelve represent different periods in prophetic
history. Amos is the simple yet grand herald of all the prophets.
Hosea, the great prophet of the northern kingdom, is the sweet
est and tenderest, the most humane of all. Micah was the con
temporary and co-worker with Isaiah. These three represent
the earlier prophets. Next comes Nahum, who prophesied
against Nineveh. The associates of Jeremiah in the age of
Josiah, were the lesser prophets, Zephaniah and Habakkuk, the
great theme of the one being the advent of Yahweh in judg
ment, of the other. His glorious march of victory. Obadiah
probably belongs to the exile. The prophets of the returned
exiles were Haggai and Zechariah, the latter the chief prophet
of the restoration. But there have been appended to Zechariah,
by the editors of the Prophetic Canon, two other predictions, —
one of the time of Hezekiah,^ the other of a much later time
than Zechariah. The date of Malachi, as indeed his name, is
quite uncertain, but he was not earlier than Nehemiah and may
have been later, in the Persian period. There remain to be con
sidered two of the prophets, which are in some respects most
difficult of all. Joel used to be regarded as the earliest of the
prophets ; he is now commonly considered one of the latest.
We have no knowledge of the prophet apart from his writings,
and the contents of these seem, on the whole, to favour a date
subsequent to Zechariah. Jonah differs from aU the Minor
Prophets, in being narrative rather than teaching. Jonah is
among the prophets because of the prophetic lesson which the
1 Zechariah and his Prophecies, considered in Belation to Modern Criticism,
Bampton Lectures, 1878, London, 1879, p. xxxv.
2 Messianic Prophecies, translated by S. I. Curtiss, Edin., 1881.
8 Some scholars think this also is post-exilic, and others that pre-exiUc
material has been worked over by a very late prophet.

312 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
story unfolds. The story is as ideal as any of the symbols in
the other prophetic writings. '
The book of Proverbs is represented by the Baba Bathra ^ as
edited by the college of Hezekiah. This is based upon a con
jecture founded on Proverbs 25. It has also been held that
it was edited by Solomon himself, and indeed that Solomon
was the author of the whole. It is now generally agreed that
the book is made up of several collections, and that it has
passed through the hands of a number of editors at different
times. ^
There are two great collections of sentences of wisdom, rep
resenting different periods of time and different conceptions
of wisdom, the earlier giving 376 couplets, with 2 appendices
containing 13 pieces of varying length from 2 to 10 lines
each ; the latter giving 115 couplets and 12 pieces of varying
length, not exceeding 10 lines.* There is an introductory
Praise of Wisdom, in the first 9 chapters, which is a great
poem of wisdom. There are two concluding chapters in
which the pieces are of a later and more misceUaneous char
acter. There are ascribed to Agur, 2 pieces of 10 lines and
one of 15. Under Aluqah is a collection of 8 pieces, 4 of
which are riddles.® Under Lemuel^ is given a temperance
poem of 18 lines. The book concludes vsdth an alphabetical
poem in praise of a talented wife, which is well named by
Doderlein, the golden A B C of women. '
The Psalter is composed of 150 Psalms in five books. The
Baba Bathra ^ makes David the editor, and states that he used
with his own Psalms those of ten ancient worthies. It has been
held by some that DaAdd wrote all the Psalms.® Calvin, Du
Pin, and others, make Ezra the editor.'" It is now generally
agreed that the Psalm-book is made up of a number of coUec-
tions, and, like the book of Proverbs, has passed through a
1 See pp. 345 seq. 2 gge p. 252.
8 Delitzsch, Bib. Com. on the Proverbs, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1874 ; Zockler
in Lange, Biblework, Com. on the Proverbs, N.Y., 1870.
* See p. 388. 6 gee p. 417.
6 See p. 418. 7 See p. 383.
8 See p. 252. 9 See p. 262.
1° See pp. 247, 277.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 313
number of editings. Some have thought it to be the Psalm-
book of the first temple. Others, and indeed most moderns,
think that it was edited in its present form for the second
temple.' Gratz thinks that the Psalter was finally edited for
the worship of the synagogue. ^
Isaiah is represented by the Baba Bathra as edited by the
college of Hezekiah.3 Its integrity was disputed by Koppe,*
who maintained that it was a collection of pieces of various
prophets loosely associated. It is generally held that the first
half of Isaiah is composed of groups of prophecies gathered about
those of Isaiah as a nucleus, and that the second half, 40-66,
is by an unknown prophet of the exile.®
More recent investigation makes it evident that Isaiah was
enlarged to be about the same size as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the
Twelve, by appending a number of anonymous prophecies.
The chief of these is the great Book of Comfort, Is. 40-66,
which reflects for the most part the situation of the exile. It
itself appeared in three successive editions, with different
themes and different measures of poetry, and did not assume
its final form until after the restoration, and even then did
not escape subsequent interpolation.^ This Book of Comfort is
separated from the earlier collections of prophecies by an his
torical section, 36-39, which has been taken from the book of
Kings and attached to the earlier collection. The earlier col
lection is also composite. The great apocalypse, 24-27, be
longs to the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great.
There are not a few other exilic and post-exilic anonymous
prophecies, such as 12, 13^-1 4^3, 32-35. There are earlier proph
ecies used, such as in 2^-*, 15-16'^, and there are numerous
interpolations by the successive editors even in the genuine
original prophecies of Isaiah.''
1 Perowne, Book of Psalms, 2d ed., London, 1870, p. 78; 3d ed., Andover,
1876, p. 63 ; Murray, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, N.Y.,
1880. 2 (7oTO. zu. d. Psalmen, I. pp. 62 seq. See p. 321.
8 See p. 252. * See p. 279.
6 Ewald, Die Propheten, Gottingen, 1868, 2te Ausg., IIL pp. 20 seq.; De
litzsch, Messianic Prophecies, 1881, p. 84 ; Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, 1881,
II. pp. 201 seq. ; Cross, Introductory Hints to English Beaders of the Old Testa
ment, London, 1882, p. 238. 8 Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 337 seq.
' Cheyne, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895.

814 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
It is evident, also, that the genealogical section, Ruth 4''^°^,
was appended to the story of Ruth. There is nothing in the
story as such that looks for such an ending. The story natu
rally comes to an end with the birth and naming of Obed, 4'7'*'\
The Psalm Hab. 3 is commonly regarded by modern critics
as a later insertion. It has a title, like many of the Psalms,
"Prayer of Habakkuk, the Prophet, upon Stringed Instru
ments," ' and a subscription ascribing it to the director.^ It
also has the selah ^ characteristic of the Psalter. It is evident,
therefore, that this Psalm was originally in the Director's Major
Psalter before it was attached to the prophet Habakkuk, and
while in that Psalter received the musical assignment, and also
the ascription to Habakkuk. It was because of that tradi
tional ascription that it came at last to be appended to the
prophecy of Habakkuk. The Psalm in its present form implies
earlier Psalms. The last verses, 17-19, seem to have been
added to the original Psalm for purely liturgical reasons. The
original Psalm in verses 10 seq. resembles so greatly Ps. 77"'"^'
that we must infer a use of one by the other. There can be
no doubt that Ps. 77 uses the Psalm of Habakkuk, for it is
itself a mosaic of three original separate Psalms or parts of
Psalms.* 4. There are interpolations in the Septuagint version in con
nection with Jeremiah, Daniel, and Esther. They are also
found in the New Testament by the general consent of scholars,
—in Mk. 16^20^® in the Gospel of John 7®3-8",6 in the famous
passage of the heavenly witnesses, the First Epistle of John 5^,
and elsewhere. We have seen that many scholars of the seven
teenth and eighteenth centuries found such interpolations in
the Pentateuch.^ They are found by scholars in other books of
the Bible.
1 nvm ¦?!? of Hebrew text is doubtless an error for nil'M bl3 of the Sept.
So the subscription TlS^Ma is a mistake for niJ'Jja of the Sept.
= rtSSab. = Ver. 3, 9, 13.
* 772-^ is a seven-lined trimeter ; 778-16 has two twelve-lined trimeters ; and
7717-21 ig a fourteen-lined trimeter. This last piece is in itself incomplete. It
was partly taken from the Psalm of Habakkuk, and condensed and otherwise
modified. 8 See the marginal note of the revisers in the Revised Version of 1881.
8 Bracketed in the Revised Version of 1881. ' See p. 276.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 315
In the New Testament, in addition to the passages already
cited, one more may suffice. Dr. McGiffert explains the addi
tions to the Epistle to the Romans thus :
"The brief note of introduction referred to throws more light
than any of the other sources upon the life of the Ephesian
church. It is found in Rom. 16'-^8_ rjj^g^^ ^^^^ passage did not
constitute originally a part of the Epistle to the Romans seems
plain enough. It is inconceivable that Paul, who had never been
in Rome when he wrote his epistle, should not only know per
sonally so many members of the Roman church, but should also
be intimately acquainted with their situation and surroundings.
There is far less of the personal element in the remainder of the
epistle than in most of Paul's letters, and yet in this single six
teenth chapter more persons are greeted by name than in all his
other epistles combined, and the way in which he refers to them
shows a remarkable familiarity with local conditions in the church
to which he is writing. The Epistle to the Romans comes to a
fitting close at the end of chapter fifteen, and the disordered state
of the text in the latter part of the epistle, and the repetitions and
displacements of the doxologies in some of the most ancient manu
scripts, suggests that one or more additions have been made to the
original letter. On the other hand, while the chapter in question
seems entirely out of place in a letter addressed to the church of
Rome, it contains just such greetings, and just such a wealth of
personal allusions, as might be expected in an epistle sent to Ephe
sus, where Paul labored so long and zealously. There are to be
found in it, moreover, certain specific references that point to
Ephesus as the place of its destination. Among those to whom
Paul seuds salutations are Epsenetus, the "first fruits of Asia,"
and Aquila and Priscilla, whom he calls his fellow-workers, and
who, as we know, labored with him in Ephesus during at least
the greater part of his stay in the city. He refers to the church
in their house both in this chapter and in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, which was written at Ephesus. Among those who
join Paul in sending greetings are Timothy and Erastus, both of
whom were with him in Ephesus. It is clear also from 1 Cor. 1"
and le"'""- that the intercourse between the Christians of Ephesus
and of Corinth was close and constant, and it is therefore not sur
prising that there should be others in the latter city at the time
Paul wrote who were personally known to the Ephesian disciples.
FinaUy, it should be observed that Paul's references to the fact
that Aquila and PrisciUa had laid down their necks in his behalf,
and that Andronicus and Junias had been his fellow-prisoners, —

316 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
references which seem to recall events well known to the Chris
tians to whom he was writing, — point to dangers and sufferings
similar to those we know he was called upon to face in Ephesus.
In the light of such facts as these it is altogether probable that
we have in the sixteenth chapter of Romans a letter addressed to
the Ephesian church. It is possible that it is only part of a
larger epistle now lost, but it is more likely that we have it prac
tically complete and in its original form. Just as it stands it
constitutes an appropriate note of introduction and commendation,
and there is no sign that it is merely a fragment. That it should
have been attached to the Epistle to the Romans is not particu
larly surprising. It was evidently written from Corinth, as the
Epistle to the Romans was, and at about the same time with that
epistle. It may have been transcribed also by the same hand,
and in that case nothing would be more natural than that the
smaller should become attached to the larger in copies of the two
taken in Corinth at the time they were written." '
Bishop Perowne gives this testimony as regards the Psalter:
"It is plain that these ancient Hebrew songs and hymns must
have suffered a variety of changes in the course of time, similar
to those which may be traced in the older religious poetry of the
Christian Church, where this has been adapted by any means to
the object of some later compiler. Thus, hymns once intended for
private use became adapted to public. Words and expressions
applicable to the original circumstances of the writer, but not ap
plicable to the new purpose to which the hymn was to be put, were
omitted or altered. It is only in a critical age that any anxiety
is manifested to ascertain the original form in which a poem ap
peared. The practical use of hymns in the Christian Church, and
of the Psalms in the Jewish, far outweighed all considerations of
a critical kind, or rather these last never occurred. Hence it has
become a more difficult task than it otherwise would have been
to ascertain the historical circumstances under which certain
Psalms were written. Some traces we find leading us to one period
of Jewish history ; others which lead to another. Often there is
a want of cohesion betAveen the parts of a Psalm ; often an abrupt
ness of transition which we can hardly account for, except on the
hypothesis that we no longer read the Psalm in its original form." ^
All these questions are to be determined by the principles of
the Higher Criticism. The authority of the Bible does not
depend upon the integrity of particular writings. If the edit-
1 McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, 1897, pp. 275-277. 2 in i^_^ p, g2.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 317
ing and interpolating Avere done under the influence of the
Divine Spirit, this carries with it the same authority as the
original document. If the interpolations are of a different
character, such as are found to be the case in some at least of
the apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther, they should be
removed from the Bible. If the authority of the Bible depended
upon our first finding who wrote these interpolations and Avho
edited the books, and whether these interpolators and editors
were inspired men, we could never reach conviction as to many
of them. But inasmuch as the authority of the Bible depends
not upon this literary question of integrity of writing, but upon
the Word of God recognized in the writing ; and we prove the
inspiration of the authors from the authority of the writings
rather than the authority of the writings from the inspiration
of the authors, — the authority of the Bible is not disturbed by
any changes in traditional opinion as to these writings. The
only question of integrity with which inspiration has to do is
the integrity of the Canon, whether the interpolations, the sepa
rate parts, the writings as a whole, are real and necessary parts
of the system of divine revelation — whether they contain the
Divine Word. This can never be determined by the Higher
Criticism, which has to do only with literary integrity and not
with canonical integrity. We doubt not the canonicity of Mk.
1Q^^\ although it seems necessary to separate it from the origi
nal Gospel of Mark.
VIII. The Authenticity of the Scriptures
Several questions arise under this head. (1) Is the author's
name given in connection with the writing ? (2) Is it anony
mous ? (3) Can it be pseudonymous ? (4) Is it a compilation ?
AU these are ordinary features of the world's literature. Is there
any sound reason why they should not all be found in Holy
Scripture ? There has ever been a tendency in the Synagogue
and the Church to ascribe the biblical books to certain well-
known holy men and prophets. Tradition has been busy here.
There is no book of the Bible that has not one or more tradi
tional authors. And so in all departments of literature, there

318 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
is scarcely a great name which has not been compeUed to father
writings that do not belong to it. The genuine writings of
Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose have to be sepa
rated by careful criticism from the spurious ; for example :
" Of the thirty to a hundred so-called Ambrosian hymns, how
ever, only twelve in the view of the Benedictine editor of his
works are genuine, the rest being more or less successful imitations
by unknown authors. Neale reduces the number of the genuine
AJmbrosian hymns to ten." '
It is well known that Shakespeare's genuine plays have to be
discriminated from the large number of others that have been
attributed to him. Shakespearian criticism is of so great im
portance as to constitute a literature of its own.^ Sometimes
the writings of a well-known author have been, in the process
of time, attributed to another. We have an example of this in
the Paradoxes of Herbert Palmer, which have been regarded
as Lord Bacon's.^
To question the traditional opinion as to authorship of a
writing is not to contest the authenticity of the writing. Au
thenticity has properly to do only with the claims of the writing
itself, and not with the claims of traditional theories. The
Baba Bathra does not discriminate between editorship and
authorship.* It is evident that to the scribes of the secoud
century the principal thing was official committing to Avriting
and not the original writing of the writing. The Talmudic
statements as to authorship are many of them absurd conject
ures. Josephus and Philo, when they make Moses the author
of the narrative of his own death, go beyond the Baba Bathra
and indulge in folly.
The titles found in connection with the biblical books cannot
always be relied upon, for the reason that we have first to deter
mine whether they came from the original authors, or have been
appended by inspired editors, or have been attached in the Rab
binical or Christian schools. Thus the difference in the titles
1 Schaff, History of the Christian Church, IIL, 1868, p. 591.
2 Knight's Shakespeare, Supplemental Volume.
8 See Grosart, Lord Bacon not the Author of the " Christian Paradoxes."
Printed for private circulation, 1865. * See p. 253.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 319
of the several Psalms between the Septuagint version and the
Massoretic text are so great as to force the conclusion that
many of the titles are of late and uncertain origin, and that
most, if not all, are of doubtful authority.'
In considering the question of authenticity, we have first to
examine the writing itself. If the Avriting claims to be by a
certain author, to doubt it is to doubt the credibility and author
ity of the writing. If these claims are found to be unreliable,
the credibility of the writing is gone, and its inspiration is in
volved. But if the credibility of the writing is not impeached,
its inspiration has nothing to do with the question of its human
authorship. 2
The Higher Criticism has been compelled by Deism and
Rationalism to meet this question of forgery of Biblical Writ
ings. This phase of the subject has now been settled so far
that no reputable critics venture to write of any of our canoni
cal writings as forgeries.
IX. Anonymous Holy Scriptures
There are large numbers of the biblical books that are
anonymous : e.g. the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings,
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Jonah, Ruth, many of
the Psalms, Lamentations, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Tradition has assigned authors for all of these. It is also
maintained that the internal statements of some of these books
point to their authorship by certain persons.
We have seen the traditional theories of Holy Scripture
embedded in the Talmud.^ Christian tradition modified these
in some respects, but the tradition was essentially this : the Pen
tateuch and Job were written by Moses ; Joshua by Joshua ;
1 Murray, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, 1880, pp. 79 seq. ;
Perowne in I.e., pp. 94 seq.
2 It may be said that the pseudonym claims to be by the author, whose name
is given. But in fact the pseudonym itself makes no such claim. It uses the
name as a fiction, and usually as a transparent fiction. If any one is deceived
it is his own fault or the fault of his teacher. He may be deceived in a similar
way by any kind of fiction. The pseudonym has never been regarded as forgery.
See pp. 323 seq.
8 See p. 252.

320 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Judges and Samuel by Samuel ; Kings, Jeremiah, and Lamen
tations by Jeremiah ; the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, by Ezra ;
Esther by Mordecai ; the Psalms by David ; Proverbs, Song of
Songs, and Ecclesiastes by Solomon ; the Prophets by those
whose names are attached to the books. Each Avriting was
fathered upon a well-known biblical character in whose inspi
ration it was supposed we might have confidence.
The traditional theory ascribes all the. Law to Moses, all the
Psalms to David, all the Wisdom to Solomon. One is impelled
sometimes to ask why all the Prophecy was not attributed to
Isaiah or to Jeremiah, according as the name of the one or the
other preceded the list of prophetic writings. How narrow an
escape has been made from attributing the whole of Prophecy to
Jeremiah, may be estimated when attention is called to the fact
that one of the ways by which the anti-critics try to avoid a
miss-citation in the Gospels,^ where a prophecy is attributed to
Jeremiah which was really anonymous, though united with
Zechariah,^ is by the theory that the name of Jeremiah was
given as a general title to the whole of the prophetic books, his
prophecy beginning them in the list of the Baraitha, the earliest
classification of books in the Talmud.^ From the point of view
of the modern scientific Higher Criticism, it is no more absurd
to attribute all the Prophecy to Jeremiah, than all the Law to
Moses, all the Wisdom to Solomon, and all the Psalms to David.
In none of these cases has there ever been any solid ground on
which such theories could rest.
Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes of the Wisdom Liter
ature are attributed by tradition to Solomon. The only reason
Job escaped this traditional parentage was probably because it
was not regarded by the ancients as belonging to the Wisdom
Literature ; and its patriarchal scenery made it most natural
for them to think of a patriarchal age, and then easily of Moses,
who stood on the borders of that age, and belonged to it whUe
in the land of Midian before he took the leadership of Israel.
But among the apocryphal books there is a Wisdom of Solo-
' Mt. 279. 2 gee p. 310.
8 See A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Art. " Inspiration," Presbyterian Be
view, 1881, p. 259.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 321
mon, and, among the pseudepigrapha, a Psalter of Solomon,
which are cited as canonical by some of the ancient Fathers.
But the Higher Criticism has shown that the Psalter of Solo
mon belongs to the times of Pompey, the first century B.C., and
that the Wisdom of Solomon belongs to the early part of the
first Christian century. We are thus prepared to question the
traditional parentage of the sapiential literature of the Hebrew
Canon. Ecclesiastes is the latest writing in the Old Testa
ment, as shown by its language, style, and theology. As De
litzsch says, if Ecclesiastes could be Solomonic, there would be
no such thing as a history of the Hebrew language.' The Song
of Songs is an operetta in five acts, describing the victory of a
pure shepherd girl over all the seductions and temptations that
were put forth by Solomon and his court to induce her to aban
don her affianced shepherd. Solomon is not even the hero of
the drama, but is the tempter of the Shulamite.
The Proverbs represent a collection of Avisdom, the result of
many centuries and oft-repeated editings. It was gathered
under the name of Solomon as the traditional king of the wise
men. Thus the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament and of
the Apocrypha is resolved into a number of writings of dif
ferent authors and of different coUections extending through
many centuries untU the time of Christ, and preparing the way
for the jewelled sentences of wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth, the
wisest of men.^
The Psalter is ascribed by tradition to David, partly as author
and partly as editor. But the testimony of the titles coming
from the early editors, and the evidence of the Psalms them
selves, make it evident that the Psalter contains the psalmody
of Israel in aU the centuries of his development in sacred lyrics
of prayer and praise. There were several minor psalters repre
senting different periods of literary activity; there were several
layers of psalms representing different periods of lyric develop
ment. The present Psalter is not earlier than the Maccabean
period; but whUe chiefly representing the Persian, Greek, and
Maccabean periods in the history of Israel, yet it also contains
1 Hoheslied und Koheleth, 1875, s. 197. 2 gee pp. 392, 396, 401.

322 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Psalms which go back to the times of the prophets and the
kings, and which sprang from the fountain-head of psalmody
in the tender, tuneful heart of King David himself. No name
so worthjr as David's under which to gather the psalmody of
the nation which he had started by his impulses in its centuries
of prayer and praise to God, even if he wrote few, if any, of the
present Psalms. The Psalter is a synagogue book more than
a temple book, and therefore it has been found appropriate for
the Christian worship of the congregation in all times.
The Psalter of Solomon is a collection of beautiful Psalms
which was made after the final editing of our Psalter ; other
wise, they, like the Psalm appended to the Septuagint text,
might have found their way into the Psalter itself.
The tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch has been so
evidently disproved that it is altogether unscholarly for any one
to hold to this opinion. The Pentateuch has been shown, after
a century of critical work, to be composed of four great docu
ments, which were written in different periods in the history
of Israel. These four documents have each its own narrative
and code of law. These narratives and law codes bear traces
of earlier narratives and law codes, which they have taken up
into themselves. These earlier narratives contain original
sources in the form of ancient poetry, legends, genealogies,
and other historical or traditional monuments. The law codes
contain various types of law, indicating their source in the
session of the elders, the court of the judges, the Levites and
the Priests, or in the prophetic word and divine command.
Criticism is carefully tracing these back through all their
varied development in the documents to their fountain-heads
in their archseological forms. The gain of this position is
immense. Instead of the old tradition that the Law and aU
the institutions, civil, religious, and domestic, were given in the
wilderness of the wandering to a nation who had had an expe
rience of several centuries of slavery, and had not yet had any
experience whatever as a free nation settled in a land of their
own, these laws and institutions are now seen to be the devel
opment of the experience of Israel during the centuries of his
residence in the Holy Land itself. No one could think of

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 323
ascribing the Constitution of the United States and all the
elaborate system of Common and Statute law in Great Britain
and America, to the Anglo-Saxon tribes who invaded England
and established the basis for Anglo-Saxon civilization. It
would be no more absurd than to ascribe the elaborate Penta
teuchal codes to Israel of the Exodus.
The Hebrew Law is Mosaic in that its essential fundamental
laws were derived from Moses, in that he shaped the legal policy
of Israel for all times : the institutions are Mosaic because Moses
established their essential nucleus. All that was subsequent in
the Law and the institutions was but an unfolding of the germs
given by Moses. But that development went on in the enlarge
ment of the law, in the expanding of the institutions, in the
unfolding of the precepts, in the experience and history of the
people, until the cope-stone of Mosaism was laid by Ezra,
the second Moses, in rebuilt Jerusalem and restored Israel.
We have in Hebrew literature an unfolding through the cen
turies of four distinct types: the legal type, beginning with
Moses, and continuing through all the ages of priestly legisla
tion until Ezra crowned the work with the completed Law ; the
prophetic type, beginning with Samuel and continuing through
all the centuries until the Maccabean Daniel ; the type of
psalmody, beginning with David and unfolding until our Psalter
was finally edited, late in the age of the Maccabees; and finally,
the type of wisdom, beginning with Solomon and extending to
Ecclesiastes of the Hebrew Canon, and the Wisdom of Sirach
and Wisdom of Solomon of the Greek and Latin Canons.
X. Pseudonymous Holy Scriptures
Are there pseudonymous books in the Bible ? This is a well-
known and universally recognized literary style which no one
should think of identifying -with, forgery or deceit of any kind.
Ancient and modern Uterature is full of pseudonymes as well
as anonymes. One need only look over the bibliographical
works devoted to this subject,' or have a little famUiarity with
1 Barbier, Dictionnaire des Ouvrages anonymes et pseudonymes, 4: torn., Paris,
1872-1878 ; Halkett and Lang, Dictionary of the Anonymous and Pseudonymous
.Literature of Great Britain, 4 vols., 1882, seq.

324 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the history of literature, or examine any public library, to settle
this question. There is great variety in the use of the pseu-
donyme. Sometimes the author uses a surname rather than his
own proper name, either to conceal himself by it from the pub
lic or to introduce himself by a title of honour. Thus Calvin
follows the opinion of some of the ancients that the prophecy
of Malachi was written by Ezra, who assumed the surname
Malachi in connection with it. Then again some descriptive
term is used, as by the authors of the celebrated Martin Mar-
prelate tracts. Then a fictitious name is constructed, as in the
title of the famous tracts vindicating Presbyterianism against
Episcopacy ; the authors, Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy,
Thomas Young, Matthew Newcommen, and WiUiam Spurstow,
coined the name Smectymnuus from the initial letters of their
names. Among the ancients it was more common to assume
the names of ancient worthies. There is an enormous number
of these pseudonymes in the Puritan literature of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. The descendants of the Puritans
are the last ones who should think of any dishonesty or impro
priety connected with their use.
Why should the pseudonyme be banished from the Bible ?
Among the Greeks and Romans they existed in great numbers.
Among the Jews we have a long list in extra-canonical books,
covering several kinds of literature, e.g. the apocalypses of
Enoch, Baruch, Ezra, Assumption of Moses, Ascension of
Isaiah, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalter
of Solomon. Why should there not be some of these in the
Old Testament ? It is now conceded by scholars that Ecclesi
astes is such a pseudonyme, using Solomon's name.' It is
claimed by some that Daniel ^ and Deuteronomy ^ are also pseu
donymes. If no a priori objection can be taken to the pseudo-
1 This is invincibly established by Wright, Book of Koheleth, London, 1883,
pp. 79 seq. : " Solomon is introduced as the speaker throughout the 'work iu the
same way as Cicero in his treatise on 'Old Age,' and on 'Friendship,' selects
Cato the elder as the exponent of his views, or as Plato in his Dialogues brings
forward Socrates."
2 See Strack in I.e., pp. 164 seq., and pp. 351 seq. of this vol.
8 So Riehm, Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, 1854, p. 112, represents the
Deuteronomio code as a literary fiction. The author lets Moses appear as a pro
phetic popular orator, and as the first priestly reader of the Law. It is a literary

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 325
nyme as inconsistent with divine revelation, — if one pseudo
nyme, Ecclesiastes, be admitted in the Bible, — then the question
whether Daniel and Deuteronomy are pseudonymes must be
determined by the Higher Criticism, and it does not touch the
question of their inspiration or authority as a part of the Script
ures. All would admit that no forger or forgery could be in
spired. But that every one who writes a pseudonyme is a
deceiver or forger is absurd. The usage of literature, ancient
and modern, has established its propriety. If it claims to be by
a particular author, and is said by a critic to be a pseudonyme,
then its credibility is attacked, and the question of its inspira
tion is raised. In the New Testament the Gospel of John was
thought by some to be a pseudonyme of the second Christian
century, but this has been entirely disproved. Weiss tells us :
"There was certainly in antiquity a pseudonymous literature,
which cannot be criticized from the standpoint of the literary cus
toms of our day, or judged as forgery. For it is just the ndiveti
with which the author strives to find a higher authority for his
words by laying them in the mouth of one of the celebrated men
of the past, in whose spirit he desires to speak, which justifies
this literary form. Quite otherwise is it in this case ; the author
mentions no name ; he only gives it to be understood that it is
the unnamed disciple so repeatedly introduced who is writing here
from his OAvn personal knowledge ; he leaves it to be inferred from
the comparison of one passage with another that this eye-witness
cannot be any one but John. It was Renan who, in the face of
modern criticism, said that it was not a case of pseudonymous
authorship such as was known to antiquity, it was either truth or
refined forgery — plain deception."'
fiction, as Ecclesiastes is a literary fiction. The latter uses the person of Solo
mon as the master of wisdom to set forth the lessons of wisdom. The former
uses Moses as the great lawgiver, to promulgate divine laws. This is also the
view of Noldeke, Alttest. Literatur, 1868, p. 30 ; and W. Robertson Smith, The
Old Testament in the Jewish Chureh, N.Y., 1881, pp. 384 seq., who uses the
term ' ' legal ' ' fiction as a variety of literary fiction. We cannot go with those who
regard this as an absurdity, or as involving literary dishonesty. Drs. Riehm
and Smith, and others who hold this view, repudiate such a thought with abhor
rence. The style of literary fiction was a familiar and favourite one of the later
Jews. And there can be no a priori reason why they should not have used it in
Bible times.
1 Weiss, Life of Jesus, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1883, I. p. 94.

326 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The authenticity of the Pauline epistles of the imprisonment
and the pastoral epistles has been contested in a similar way.
The Pauline epistles represent three stages of growth in the
experiences and doctrinal teaching of the apostle Paul himself.
It is not necessary to think of his disciples as their authors, or
to descend into the second century.' The Apocalypse has been
disputed from ancient times. It has been assigned by some of
the ancients to a presbyter, John. Recent criticism is more
and more against placing it with the pseudonymous apoca
lypses of Peter and Paul.

XI. Compilation in Holy Scripture
The historical books of Kings and Chronicles^ and the
Gospel of Luke^ represent themselves as compilations. They
use older documents, which are sometimes mentioned by name.
The question then is, how far this compilation has extended ;
and whether it has been once for all, or has passed through a
number of stages. Thus the books of Kings refer to books
of Chronicles which are not our books of Chronicles, and our
books of Chronicles refer to books of Kings which are not
our books of Kings. Both of these historical writers seem to
depend upon an ancient book of Chronicles, — only our book
of Chronicles has used it in its citation in another book of
Kings than the one presented to us in the Canon, for it gives
material not found therein.* The prophetic histories — Judges,
Samuel, and Kings — represent a number of Avriters, earlier and
later, who have worked over the story of Israel in the land of
Palestine till the exile. Some of these are Ephraimitic writers,
some Judaic. The final authors were Deuteronomic. The last
touch to this prophetic history was given by a Deuteronomic
editor, who reedited them all in a series, early in the exUe,
under the influence of the prophet Jeremiah.
1 See Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1882, pp. 784 seq. ; Weiss,
Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1882, I. p. 285.
2 1 K. 11", 1419 » 166 . 2 K. 118, 828^ 2020 ; 1 Ch. 2929 ; 2 Ch. 929, 1216, 1322,
1611, 2427, 2622, etc., 3318-19, 352' . Neh. II28. a 11-4.
* Noldeke, Alttest. Literatur, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 57 seq.

THE PRACTICE OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 327
The narratives of the Chronicler, in Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, which constituted one book, represent the view of
the histories taken by a priest centuries later, at the close of
the Persian or the beginning of the Greek period. His work
is the ecclesiastical chronicle of Jerusalem, rather than a his
tory of the kings or the people. He seems to have used a
Midrash of the books of Samuel and Kings, which has been
lost, intermediate between the present prophetic histories and
the Chronicles. The question arises Avhether the other his
torical books are not also compilations. In the New Testament
the chief disputes haA'^e been as to Matthew and Mark.'
The Gospel of Matthew is a compilation, using the Gospel of
Mark and the Logia of Matthew as the chief sources. The
Gospel of Luke is a compilation, using the same Gospel of Mark
and the Logia of Matthew, and also other Hebraic sources for
its gospel of the infancy, and, possibly also, another source for
the Perean ministry. The book of Acts is a compilation, using
a Hebraic narrative of the early Jerusalem Church, and the
" We " narrative of a co-traveller with Paul, and probably
other sources. The Gospel of John is also partly a compila
tion, using an earlier Gospel of John in the Hebrew language,
and the Hymn to the Logos in the Prologue.
The Apocalypse is a compilation of a number of apocalypses
of different dates.^ The book of Daniel is a compUation in
two parts, — the one giAdng stories relating to Daniel, the other,
visions and dreams of Daniel.^ It is written in two different
languages, — the Hebrew and the Aramaic.
The two remaining problems of the Higher Criticism cover
so much ground that it will be necessary to consider them in
several chapters. The literary forms will be considered in the
next chapter, on the Biblical Prose Literature, and the four chap
ters that follow on Biblical Poetical Literature. The question of
credibiUty will be discussed in the chapter on the Credibility
of Holy Scripture.
1 Weiss, Leben Jesu, L, 1882, pp. 24 seq., gives the best statement of this dis
cussion and its results.
2 Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 284 seq.
8 See pp. 351 seq.

CHAPTER XIII
BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE
There has been a great neglect of the study of Holy
Scripture as literature, in the Synagogue and in the Church.
Few scholars have ever given their attention to this subject.
The scholars of the Jewish and Christian world were interested
and absorbed in the study of Holy Scripture for religious, dog
matic, and ethical purposes. Even in the development of the
discipline of the Higher Criticism, the literary forms were the
last things to receive attention.
The literary forms have not shared to any great extent in the
revival of biblical studies. .And yet these are exactly the things
that most need consideration in our day, when the literature of
Holy Scripture is compared with the literatures of the other
religions of the ancient world, and the question is so often
raised why we should recognize the Christian Bible as the
inspired word of God rather than the sacred books of other
religions. Bishop Lowth in England, and the poet Herder in Germany,
toward the close of the last century, called the attention of the
learned world to this neglected field, and invited to the study
of the Sacred Scriptures as sacred literature. Little advance
has been made, however, owing, doubtless, to the fact that the
conflict has been raging about the history, the religion, and the
doctrines of the Bible ; and, on the field of the Higher Criticism,
in questions of authenticity, integrity, and credibility of Avrit-
ings. The finer literary features have not entered into the field
of discussion, to any extent, until quite recent times. De Wette,
Ewald, and especially Reuss, made valuable contributions to
this subject, but even these masters have given their strength
to other topics. 328

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 329
The most obvious divisions of literature are poetry and prose.
These are distinguished to the eye by different modes of writ
ing, and to the ear by different modes of reading ; but under
neath all this is a difference of rhythmical movement. It is
difficult to draw the line scientifically between poetry and prose
even here, for " Prose has its rhythms, its tunes, and its tone-
colors, like verse ; and, while the extreme forms of prose and
verse are sufficiently unlike each other, there are such near grades
of intermediate forms, that they may be said to run into each
other, and any line claiming to be distinctive must necessarily
be more or less arbitrary."' Hence rhetorical prose and
works of the imagination in all languages approximate closely
to poetry. The poetry of the Bible is written in the manu
scripts, and is printed in the Hebrew and Greek texts, as well
as in the versions, with few exceptions, exactly as if it were
prose ; and the Hebrew scribes, who divided the Old Testa
ment Scriptures and pointed them with vowels and accents,
dealt with the poetry as if it were prose, and even obscured the
poetic form by their divisions of verse and section, so that in
many cases it can be restored only by a careful study of the
unpointed text and a neglect of the Massoretic sections.
The subject of Biblical Poetry is reserved for the following
chapters. In this chapter the Prose Literature of the Bible
Avill be considered. This is found in rich variety.

I. Historical Prose
History constitutes a very large portion of the Old and New
Testaments. In the Old Testament there are different kinds
of history : the priestly and the prophetic. The priestly is
represented by Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and extends
backwards into the priestly sections of the Pentateuch. It is
characterized by the annalistic style, using older sources, such
as genealogical tables, letters, official documents, and entering
into the minute detaUs of the Levitical system and the organi
zation of the State, but destitute of imagination and of the
' Lanier, Science of English Verse, N.Y., 1880, p. 57.

330 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
artistic sense. The prophetic is represented by three different
strata of the books of Samuel and Kings, Joshua and Judges, and
the Pentateuch. The earUest of these, the Ephraimitic, is char
acterized by a graphic reaUstic style, using ancient stories,
traditions, poetic extracts, and entire poems. The Judaic writ
ing is more artistic, giving fewer earlier documents but working
over the material into an organic whole. It uses the imagina
tion freely, and with fine sesthetic taste and tact.^ The Deu
teronomic writers use the history merely for the great prophetic
lessons they find Avrapt up in it.
In the New Testament we have four biographical sketches of
the noblest and most exalted person who has ever appeared in
history, Jesus Christ, in their variety giving us memoirs in four
distinct types.^
The Gospel of Mark is graphic, plastic, and realistic, based
on the reports of the eye-Avitnesses, and is nearest to the person
and life of our Lord. It uses no other written source than the
original Logia of Matthew, which it cites rarely for special say
ings of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew uses the Logia and Mark,
and also oral tradition, in order to set forth Jesus as the Mes
siah of the Jews. The Gospel of Luke uses the Logia and
Mark, and other written as well as oral sources to represent
Jesus as the Saviour of sinners. The Gospel of John uses an
original memoir of the apostle John, and sets the person and
life of Jesus, as therein described by an intimate friend, in the
additional light of the total experience of the apostolic Church,
and sees Jesus in the halo of religious, philosophic reflection
from the point of view of the Messiah, the enthroned Son of
the Father.
The book of Acts presents the history of the planting and
training of the Christian Church, using especially a Hebraic
source for the story of Peter and the Church of Jerusalem, and
the story of a companion of Paul in his missionary journeys,
organizing the material into the second part of a work which
began with the life of Jesus, and was possibly designed to be
1 Dillmann, Genesis, 4te. Aufl., Leipzig, 1882, pp. xi seq. ; Noldeke, Alttest.
Literatur, Leipzig, 1868, pp. 15 seq.
2 Weiss, Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, I. p. 103.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 331
followed by a third work giving the story of the Church in
Rome, which the author did not live to write .^
AU these forms of history and biography use the same va
riety of sources as histories in other ancient literature. Their
historical material was not revealed to the authors by the
DiAdne Spirit, but was gathered by their own industry as his
torians from existing material and sources of information.
The most that we can claim for them is that they were in
spired by God in their work, so that they were guided into
truth and preserved from error as to all matters of religion,
faith, and morals ; but to what extent further in the details
and external matters of their composition has to be determined
by historical criticism. It is necessary also to consider to what
extent their use of sources was limited by inspiration, or, in
other words, what kinds of sources were unworthy of the use
of inspired historians. There are those who would exclude
the legend and the myth, which are found in all other ancient
history. If the legend in itself implies what is false, it would
certainly be unworthy of divine inspiration to use it ; but if it
is the poetical embeUishment of bare facts, one does not readily
see why it should be excluded from the sacred historians'
sources any more than snatches of poetry, bare genealogical
tables, and records often fragmentary and incomplete, such as
are certainly found in the historical books. If the myth neces
sarily implies in itself polytheism or pantheism, or any of the
elements of false religions, it would be unworthy of divine
inspiration. It is true that the classic myths which lie at the
basis of the history of Greece and Rome, with which all stu
dents are familiar, are essentially polytheistic; but not more
so than the religions of these peoples and all their literature.
It is also true that the myths of Assyria and Babylon as re
corded on their monuments are essentially polytheistic. Many
scholars have found such myths in the Pentateuch. But over
against this there is the striking fact that stands out in the
comparison of the biblical narratives of the creation and the
flood with the Assyrian and Babylonian ; namely, that the bib
lical are monotheistic, the Assyrian polytheistic. But is there
1 See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 3d edit., 1898, pp. 27, 28.

332 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
not a monotheistic myth as well as a polytheistic? In other
words, may not the literary form of the myth be appropriate
to monotheistic, as well as to polytheistic, conceptions ? May
it not be an appropriate literary form for the true biblical
religion as well as for the other ancient religions of the world ?'
These questions cannot be answered a priori. They are
questions of fact. The term "myth" has become so associated
with polytheism in usage and in the common mind that it is
difficult to use it in connection with the pure monotheism and
supernatural revelation of the Bible without misconception.
No one should use it unless he carefully makes the necessary
discriminations. For the discrimination of the religion of the
Bible from the other religions must ever be more important
than their comparison and features of resemblance. There can
be little objection to the term " legend," ^ which in its earliest
and still prevalent use has a religious sense, and can cover
without difficulty most if not all those elements in the biblical
history which we are now considering. There is certainly a
resemblance to the myth of other nations in the close and
familiar association of the one God with the ancestors of our
race and the patriarchs of Israel, however we may explain it.
Whatever names we may give to these beautiful and sacred
traditions which were transmitted in the families of God's
people from generation to generation, and finally used by the
sacred historians in their holy books ; whatever names we may
give them in distinction from the legends and myths of other
nations, — none can fail to see that poetic embellishment, natural
and exquisitely beautiful, artless and yet most artistic, which
comes from the imagination of the common people of the most
intelligent nations, in these sources that were used by divine
inspiration in giving us ancient history in its most attractive
form. Indeed, the imagination is in greater use in Hebrew
history than in any other history, with all the Oriental wealth
of colour in the prophetic historians.
1 Lenormant, Beginnings of History, N.Y., 1882, p. 187.
2 George P. Marsh, article "Legend," in Johnson's New Universal Cyclopcedia,
1876, II. p. 1714, and the Legenda Aurea, or Historia Lombardiea, of Jacobus
de Voragine of the thirteenth century.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 333

II. The Historical Use op the Myth
Scholars differ very greatly in their views as to the mythi
cal element in Holy Scripture. There is a general tendency
on the part of most critics to avoid the term. But, in fact, the
term "myth" means nothing more than a primitive religious
story as to the origin of the nation or race, or the association
of its ancestors with the deity. There is nothing essen
tially polytheistic in the term. If, therefore, we distinguish
between polytheistic mythology and monotheistic myths, there
is no valid objection to the use of the term " myth " in connection
with those stories of the origin of Israel, and the communion of
the ancient heroes with the heavenly world, which are so primi-
,tive that they are beyond the reach of external history and
criticism. Take, for example, the story of the intermarriage of the
daughters of men with the angels, in Gen. 6'"*- If this story
were found in any other sacred book but the Bible, no one
would hesitate to regard it as a myth. Vain efforts have been
made in recent times to explain away the angels in various
ways, but no respectable commentator would countenance such
a thing in our days. There can be no doubt whatever that the
passage refers to angels. Why, then, should we hesitate to
regard it as a myth ? A myth is not necessarily untrue to fact ;
it is rather a popular, imaginative colouring of a conception of
fact, or of a real fact. It is not necessary to deny that there
was such a real union of angels with mankind, even if one
hints that the form of the story is mythical.
It may be of value to listen to the words of several eminent
scholars on this question. Dr. Moore discusses the question with
reference to the story of Samson.
"The similarity, in several particulars, between the story of
Samson and that of Herakles was early noticed^ . . . Many modern
writers have made the same comparison, and inferred that Sam
son is the Hebrew counterpart of the Phoenician Melqart, the
Greek Herakles ; and that the story of his deeds was either ori
ginally a cognate myth, or has taken up numerous mythical ele
ments. . . . The older writers contented themselves with drawing

334 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
out the parallels to the Herakles myth ; each begins his career of
adventure by strangling a lion ; each perishes at last through the
machinations of a woman ; each chooses his ovm death. Samson's
fox-catching is compared with the capture of the Erymanthian
boar, the Cretan bull, the hind of Artemis ; the spring which is
opened at Lehi to quench his thirst, with the warm baths which
Sicilian nymphs open to refresh the weary Herakles ; the carrying
off of the gates of Gaza reminds some of the setting up of the
Pillars of Hercules, others of Herakles' descent to the nether
world. Meier and Ewald even discover that Samson has exactly
twelve labours, like Herakles (in late systems). Steinthal not
only identifies Samson with Melqart-Herakles, but attempts to
explain the whole story as a solar myth, by a thorough-going ap
plication of the method which Max Miiller and his school intro
duced in Aryan mythology. He is followed in the main by
Goldziher, Seinecke, and Jul. Braun. . . . Wietzke identifies
Samson with the 'Egyptian Herakles,' Horus-Ra. The Philistine
women all represent ' Sheol-Taf enet ' ; the Philistines, with whom
he is in perpetual strife, are the children of Set-Typhon. The tale
of Samson follows the Sun-god through the year : Spring (chap
ter 14), Summer (15'-*"), Autumn, and Winter (16**^'^) ; chapter 16
is his descent to the world below ; he breaks the gates of Hades
(16'-^) ; bound by Delilah, he loses his eyes and his strength, but
his might returns and he triumphs as a god over his foes (16*"™) •
The name ptZ^ttt^ is derived from tTOty ' sun.' ... A legend whose
hero bore such a name would attract and absorb elements of an
originally mythical character, such as the foxes in the corn-fields,
perhaps, represent; but if this be true, all consciousness of the
origin and significance of the tale had been lost, and the mythical
traits commingle freely with those which belong to folk-story.
This explanation is at least as natural as the alternative, that an
original solar myth has been transformed into heroic legend, with
the admixture of a large non-mythical element. The historical
character of the adventures of Samson may be given up Avithout
denying the possibility, or even probability, that the legend, which
is very old, has its roots in the earth, not in the sky." '
A more cautious view is presented by Dr. Robertson.
" Any traces of mythology to be found in the Old Testament
are far less elaborate. They may be said to be mere traces, either
remains of an extinct system or rudiments that were never devel
oped, — such as the references to the ' sons of God and the daugh
ters of men,' Rahab, Leviathan, Tannin, and such like. These, it
1 Moore, The International Critical Commentary, Judges, 1895, pp. 364, 365.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 335
should be observed, as they lie before us in the books, are handled
with perfect candour and simplicity, as if to the writers they had
become divested of all dangerous or misleading associations, or
were even nothing more than figures of speech." '
III. Historical Use of the Legend
There is very much less opposition to the use of legend for
the sources of bibUcal history. There are few real critics at
the present day who would deny the legends which lie at the
basis of the historical books of the Old Testament. These are
simply highly coloured and richly ornamented stories of actual
events which happened in the primitive times. They were
handed down from father to son in many generations of popu
lar narrative, passing through many minds and over many
tongues, receiving in this way colouring, increment, condensa
tion, changes of many kinds, which do not, however, destroy
the essential truth or fact.
Ryle gives an excellent statement with reference to the early
chapters of Genesis.
" The literature of JHoly Scripture differs not widely in its out
ward /orm from other literature. In its prehistoric traditions, the
Israelite literature shares many of the characteristic features of the
earliest legends which the literature of other nations has preserved.
" What though the contents of these chapters are conveyed in
the form of unhistorical tradition ! The infirmity of their origin
and structure only enhances, by contrast, the majesty of their
sacred mission. In a dispensation where every stage of Hebrew
thought and literature ministers to the unfolding of the purpose
of the Most High, not even that earliest stage was omitted, which
to human judgment seems most full of weakness. Saint and seer
shaped the recollections which they had inherited from a forgot
ten past, until legend, too, as well as chronicle and prophecy and
psalm, became the channel for the communication of eternal truths.
"The poetry of primitive tradition enfolds the message of the
Divine Spirit. Criticism can analyze its literary structure ; science
can lay bare the defectiveness of its knowledge. But neither in
the recognition of the composite character of its writing, nor in
the discernment of the childish standard ¦ of its science, is there
any reproach conveyed. For, as always is the case, the instrument
1 Robertson, The Early Beligion of Israel, 1889, p. 505.

336 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
of Divine Revelation partakes of limitations inalienable from the
age in which it is granted. The more closely we are enabled to
scan the human framework, the more reverently shall we acknow
ledge the presence of the Spirit that pervades it." '
Dr. Driver gives us his opinion as to one of the legends in the
life of David.
" The narrative 17'-18°, precisely as it stands, it appears
impossible to harmonize with 16'*"^^. The two narratives are
in fact two parallel and, taken strictly, incompatible accounts
of David's introduction to the history. In 16'^^ David is of
mature age and a ' man of war,' on account of his skill with the
harp, brought into Saul's service at the time of the king's mental
distress, and quickly appointed his armour-bearer (vv. 18, 21). In
17'-18' he is a shepherd lad, inexperienced in warfare, who first
attracts the king's attention by his act of heroism against Goliath ;
and the inquiry I753-S8 comes strangely from one who in 16'*"^ had
not merely been told who his father was, but had manifested a
marked affection for David, and had been repeatedly waited on
by him (vv. 21, 23). The inconsistency arises not, of course, out
of the double character or ofiice ascribed to David (which is
perfectly compatible with historical probability), but out of the
different representation of his first introduction to Saul. In LXX.
(cod. B) 1712-31. «, 50, 55_-]^g5 g^j,g j^Q^ recognised. By the omission of
these verses the elements which confiict with 16'^^ are greatly
reduced (e.g. David is no longer represented as unknown to Saul) ;
but they are not removed altogether (comp. 1733.38ff. -^yi^h 16"'^").
It is doubtful, therefore, whether the text of LXX. is here to be
preferred to MT. ; both We. (in Bleek's Einleitung, 1878, p. 216),
and Kuenen (Onderzoek, 1887, p. 392) agree that the translators
— or, more probably, perhaps, the scribe of the Hebrew MS.
used by them — omitted the verses in question from harmonistic
motives, without, however, entirely securing the end desired.
The entire section 17-18* was, however, no doubt derived by the
compiler of the book from a different source from 1&^^^ (notice
how David is introduced, 17'^^-, as though his name had not been
mentioned before), and embodies a different tradition as to the
manner in which Saul first became acquainted with David." ^
There are many examples of the use of legends in their
poetic form. Several of these are given elsewhere in this
volume. 3 It will be sufficient to cite one of them here.
1 Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, 1892, pp. 136, 137.
2 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text pf the Book of Samuel, 1890, pp. 116, 117.
8 See pp. 390, 391, 393.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 337
Joshua 10"-'* gives an account of a theophany at Beth-horon,
Avhich decides the battle in favour of Joshua and Israel. The
poetic extract is from an ancient ode, describing the battle, which
has been lost. It is a fragment of a strophe, taken from the book
of Yashar, as stated in the context :
" Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ;
And thou, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.
And the Sun stood still.
And the Moon stayed,
Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies."
But the previous context, Jos. 10", gives another entirely dif
ferent prose legend of the theophany :
" And it came to pass, as they fied from before Israel, while
they were in the going down of Beth-horon, that Yahweh cast
down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they
died : they were more which died with the hailstones than they
whom the children of Israel slew with the sword."
These two legends, the one poetic, the other prose, came from
two different original documents, and were based upon two en
tirely different versions of the battle.
The dialogues and discourses of the ancient worthies are
simple, natural, and profound. They are not to be regarded
as exact productions of the words originally spoken, whether
preserved in the memory of the people and transmitted in
stereotyped form, or electrotyped on the mind of the historian or
in his writing by divine inspiration ; they are rather reproduc
tions of the situation in a graphic and rhetorical manner, dif
fering from the like usage in Livy and Thucydides, Herodotus
and Xenophon, only in that the latter used their reflection and
imagination merely ; the former used the same faculties guided
by divine inspiration into the truth, and restrained from error
in all matters in which they were called to give religious in
struction. In the historical writings of Holy Scripture, there is a wealth
of beauty and religious instruction for those students who ap
proach it, not only as a work of divine revelation from which
the maximum of dogma, or of examples and maxims of practi
cal ethics, are to be derived ; but with the higher appreciation
and insight of those who are trained to the historian's art of
representation, and who learn from the art of history, and the

338 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
styles and methods of history, the true interpretation of histori
cal books, where the soul enters into the enjoyment of the con
crete, and is unwilling to break up the ideal of beauty, or de
stroy the living reality, for the sake of the analytic process,
and the abstract resultant, however important these may be in
other respects, and under other circumstances.

IV. Prophetic Discourse
The Bible is as rich in oratory, as in its history and poetry.
Indeed, the three run insensibly into one another in Hebrew
prophecy. Rare models of eloquence are found in the histori
cal books, such as the plea of Judah ; ' the charge of Joshua ; ^
the indignant outburst of Jotham ; ^ the sentence pronounced
upon Saul by Samuel ; * the chaUenge of Elijah.^ The three
great discourses of Moses in Deuteronomy are elaborate ora
tions, combining a great variety of motives and rhetorical forms,
especially in the last discourse, to impress upon Israel the doc
trines of God, and the blessings and curses, the life and death,
involved therein.
The prophetical books present us collections of inspired elo
quence, which for unction, fervour, impressiveness, grandeur,
sublimity, and power, surpass all the eloquence of the world, as
they grasp the historical past and the ideal future, and entwine
them with the living present, for the comfort and warning, the
guidance and the restraint, of God's people. Nowhere else do
we find such depths of passion, such heights of ecstasy, such
dreadful imprecations, such solemn warnings, such impressive
exhortations, and such sublime promises.
Each prophet has his own peculiarities and excellences.
"Joel's discourse is like a rapid, sprightly stream, flowing into
a delightful plain. Hosea's is like a waterfall plunging down
over rocks and ridges ; Isaiah as a mass of water rolling
heavily along."® Micah has no superior in simplicity and
originality of thought, spirituality and sublimity of conception,
1 Gen. 4418^. 2 jog. 24. » Jd. 9. < 1 Sam. 15. ' 1 K. 18.
« Wunsche, Weissagungen des Propheten Joel, Leipzig, 1872, p. 38.

biblical prose LITERATURE 339
clearness and precision of prophetic vision. " Isaiah is not the
especiaUy lyrical prophet, or the especially elegiacal prophet, or
the especially oratorical or hortatory prophet, as we would
describe a Joel, a Hosea, or a Micah, with whom there is a
greater prevalence of some particular colours ; but just as the
subject requires, he has readUy at command every different
kind of style, and every different change of delineation ; and it
is precisely this, that, in point of language, establishes his
greatness, as well as, in general, forms one of his most tower
ing points of excellence. His only fundamental peculiarity is
the lofty, majestic calmness of his style, proceeding out of the
perfect command which he feels that he has over his matter."'
Jeremiah is the prophet of sorrow, and his style is heavy and
monotonous, as the same story of woe must be repeated again
and again in varied strains. Ezekiel was, as Hengstenberg
represents, of a gigantic appearance, well adapted to struggle
effectively with the spirit of the times of the Babylonian cap-
tiAdty, — a spiritual Samson, who, with powerful hand, grasped
the pillars of the temple of idolatry and dashed it to the earth ;
standing alone, yet Avorth a hundred prophetic schools, and,
during his entire appearance, a powerful proof that the Lord
was stiU among His people, although His visible temple was
ground to powder.^
In the New Testament the discourses of Jesus and His para
bolic teaching present us oratory of the Aramaic type ; simple,
quiet, transparent, yet reaching to unfathomable depths, and as
the very blue of heaven, — every word a diamond, every sen
tence altogether spirit and life, illuminating with their pure,
searching light, quickening Avith their warm, pulsating, throb
bing love.^
The discourse of Saint Peter at Pentecost Avill vie with that of
Cicero against Catiline in its conviction of the rulers of Israel,
and in its piercing the hearts of the people. The discourses of
Saint Paul on Mars HiU, and before the Jews in Jerusalem, and
1 Ewald, Die Propheten, Gottingen, 1867, I. p. 279.
2 Hengstenberg, Christology, T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1864, Vol. II. p. 3.
8 See A. B. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, London, 1882, for a fine
appreciation of the literary forms of the parables.

340 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the magnates of Rome at Caesarea, are not surpassed by De
mosthenes on the Crown. We see the phUosophers of Athens
confounded, some mocking, and others convinced unto salvation.
We see the Jewish mob at first silenced, and then bursting forth
into a frantic yell for his blood. We see the Roman governor
trembling before his prisoner's reasonings of justice and judg
ment to come. We do not compare the orations of Peter and
Paul with those of Cicero and Demosthenes for completeness,
symmetry, and artistic finish ; this would be impossible, for the
sermons of Peter and Paul are only preserved to us in outline ;
but, taking them as outlines, we maintain that for skilful use
of circumstance, for adaptation to the occasion, for rhetorical
organization of the theme, for rapid display of argument, in
their grand march to the climax, and above all in the effects
that they produced, the orations of Saint Peter and Saint Paul
are preeminent.
Nowhere else save in the Bible have the oratorical types of
three distinct languages and civilizations combined for unity
and variety of effect. These biblical models ought to enrich
and fortify the sermon of our day. If we should study them
as literary forms, as much as we study Cicero and Demosthenes,-
or as models of sacred eloquence, the pulpit would rise to new
grandeur and sublimer heights and to more tremendous power
over the masses of mankind.

V. The Epistle
The Epistle may be regarded as the third form of prose litera
ture. This is the contribution of the Aramaic language to the
Old Testament in the letters contained in the books of Ezra
and Nehemiah. But it is in the New Testament that the epistle
receives its magnificent development in the letters of Saint James,
Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Jude, and Saint John, — some
familiar, some dogmatic, some ecclesiastical, some pastoral, some
speculative and predictive, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews
we have an elaborate essay.
How charming the letters of Cicero to his several familiar
friends ! What a loss to the Avorld to be deprived of them !

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 341
But who among us would exchange for them the epistles of the
apostles ? And yet it is to be feared that we have studied them
not too much as doctrinal treatises, perhaps, but too little as
familiar letters to friends and to beloved churches, and still less
as literary models for the letter and the essay. It might refresh
and exalt our theological and ethical treatises, if their authors
would study awhile Saint Paul's style and method. They
might form a juster conception of his doctrines and principles.
They certainly would understand better hoAV to use his doc
trines, and hoAV to apply his principles.

VI. Prose Works op the Imagination
There has been a great reluctance on the part of Christian
people to recognize such forms of literature in Holy Scripture.
But an increasing number of scholars find several such works
of the imagination among the Old Testament writings. We
shall approach the question by working back to it in the lines
of the history of Hebrew literature. Works of the imagina
tion play a very important part in Hebrew literature outside
the Old Testament. The Haggadistic literature of the Jews,
used chiefly for the instruction of the people in the synagogues
and in the schools, was largely composed of such writings.
Jewish rabbins used parables, stories, and legends of every
variety of form and content with the utmost freedom, in order
to teach doctrine and morals, and even to illustrate and enforce
the legal precepts of the Jewish religion. Our Saviour in His
teaching used the same method. His numerous parables have
never been equalled for their simplicity, beauty, and power.
No human imagination has ever equalled the imagination of
the Lord Jesus in story-teUing. The Prodigal Son, Dives and
Lazarus, the Good Samaritan, the Wise and FooUsh Virgins,
the Talents, are masterpieces of art. No historic incident, no
individual experience, could ever have such power over the
souls of men as these pictures of the imagination of our Lord.
The apocryphal literature has many such stories, — stories
which have been the favourite themes of Christian art in all

342 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
ages. Judith and Holofernes,' Zerubbabel and the King of
Persia,^ the Maccabee mother and her seven sons,^ Bel and the
Dragon,* Tobit,^ and Susanna,^ are sufficient to remind us of
them. These are all regarded as canonical in the Roman Catho
lic Church. Luther says of Tobit : " Is it history ? then is it
holy history. Is it fiction? then is it a truly beautiful, whole
some, and profitable fiction, the performance of a gifted poet."
Who can doubt at the present time that these are all stories
invented by the imagination of the authors, written in order to
teach important religious lessons ?
There are no a priori reasons therefore why we should not
find such prose works of the imagination in the Old Testament.
We should not stumble at such literature even if the idea be
new to us or repugnant to us. If we have poetic works of the
imagination in Job, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, why
not prose works of the imagination ? If Jesus used such imag
inary scenes and incidents as we see in his parables, why may
not inspired men in the times of the Old Testament revelation
have used them also ?
A careful study of the literature of the Old Testament shows
that we have four prose works of the imagination in the Old
Testament, all vrritten in the times of the restoration. These
are Ruth, Jonah, Esther, and Daniel.
VII. The Book of Ruth an Idyll
The book of Ruth is written in prose with two little snatches
of poetry. It has appended to it a genealogical table which
did not belong to the original document. The story is a sim
ple and graceful domestic story. It is a charming idyU. The
scene is laid in the times of the Judges, but there is nothing to
remind us of that time except certain antique customs which
the author thinks it necessary to explain to his readers. Debo
rah, Jael, and Jephthah's daughter were the appropriate heroines
of that period. They are the striking figures of a rude and
1 The book of Judith. * Greek addition to Daniel.
2 1 Esdras 4. 6 Book of Tobit.
8 4 Macc. 8 Greek addition to Daniel.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 343
warUke age. But Ruth seems altogether out of place in such
rough times. No historian would ever think of writing such a
domestic story as Ruth, as an episode in the history of such a
period.^ The scenery of the story is the time of Judges, so far as the
author's antiquarian knowledge goes ; but it is an ideal picture
of primitive simplicity and agricultural life in Bethlehem, sep
arated from all that was gross and rude and rough in the real
life of those times. The author invents the scenery for his
actors, and leaves out of it all that would mar its simplicity
and detract from its main interest. The lesson of this idyll
is given in the words of Ruth and the words of Boaz. Ruth
says to Naomi : ^ " Thy people shall be my people.
And thy God my God."
Boaz says to Ruth : ^
" May Yahweh recompense thy doing,
And may thy reward be ample from Yahweh (God of Israel),
Under whose wings thou art come to take refuge."
The Moabitess has left her native land and her father's
house, as did Abraham of old ; and she has sought refuge
under the wings of Yahweh, the God of Israel, and she has
received her reward.
This story of Ruth and Boaz is all the more striking that it
comes into conflict with a law of Deuteronomy, and its enforce
ment by Nehemiah. Deuteronomy gives this law : " An Am
monite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of
Yahweh ; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging
to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh for ever." *
This certainly excludes Ruth, a Moabitess of the first genera
tion. Nehemiah enforced this law against women. He teUs
us : " In those days also saw I that the Jews had married women of
Ashdod, of Ammon, of Moab ; and their children spake half in the
1 Some have sought a reason in the fact that she was an ancestress of David.
But there is nothing in the character of the monarchs of the Davidic dynasty
that would lead us to suppose that they would encourage a writer to trace their
descent from a poor and homeless Moabitess, however excellent her character.
2 116. 8 212. i Deut. 238.

344 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but
according to the language of each people. And I contended with
them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked
off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not
give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for
your sons, or for yourselves." '
Now how shall we reconcile the story of Ruth and Boaz with
the law of Deuteronomy and the history of Nehemiah ? We
are reminded of another law of Deuteronomy ,2 that the eunuch
shall not enter into an assembly of Yahweh. And yet the
prophet of the exile says : " For thus saith Yahweh of the
eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that
please me, and hold fast by my covenant : Unto them will I
give in mine house, and within my walls a memorial and a
name better than of sons and of daughters. I will give them
an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." ^
The book of Ruth and the great prophet of the exile take
essentially the same position. They see that the grace of God
to eunuchs and Moabites overrides legal precepts, and their
zealous enforcement by painstaking magistrates. This seems
to give a hint as to the time and purpose of the book of Ruth.
It was written probably soon after the return from exile under
Joshua and Zerubbabel, in the spirit of the great prophet of
the exile, to encourage Israelites to take advantage of the
imperial decree, and return to the Holy Land ; and with the
special purpose of encouraging those who had married foreign
wives, and also the foreign widows of Israelites, to return with
their children, and seek refuge under the wings of Yahweh, in
rebuilt Jerusalem.
Although the book of Ruth is a work of the imagination, it
is not necessary to deny that Ruth and Boaz were historical
characters. The historic persons, Ruth and Boaz, and the
events of their courtship and marriage, were embellished by
the imagination in order to set forth the great lessons the
author would teach. Just as Zerubbabel was used in the
apocryphal literature to set forth the lesson that truth is
mightier than wine, women, and kings, so Ruth is used to
1 Neh. 1323-25. 2 Deut. 23i. s jg. 564.5.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 345
teach us that the grace of God pushes beyond the race of
Abraham and redeems even the Moabitess, for whom no pro
vision was made in the law code of Deuteronomy or in the dis
cipline of Nehemiah.
VIII. The Story of Jonah
The book of Jonah is inserted in both the Hellenistic and
Rabbinical Canons among the Minor Prophets, and yet the book
does not contain discourses of prophecy as do the other Minor
Prophets. If the book of Jonah were history, its place ought
to have been among the historical books. It is among the
prophetical writings with propriety only so far as the story
which is contained in it was pointed with prophetic lessons.
For this prophetic purpose it is immaterial whether the story
is real history or an ideal of the imagination, or whether it is
history idealized and embellished by the imagination.
1. It was not the aim of the writer to write history. The
story is given only so far as it is important to set forth the
prophetic lessons of the book. There are two scenes, — the one
on the sea, the other at Nineveh. The story begins abruptly ;
it closes abruptly after giving the lessons. The transitions in
the story are the rapid flight of the imagination, and not the
steady flow of historical narrative.
2. The prophet Jonah is mentioned in the history of the
book of Kings,' and a prediction of minor importance is men
tioned as given by him. It seems very remarkable, on the one
hand, that the book of Jonah should omit this ministry in the
land of Israel ; on the other hand, that the author of the book
of Kings should mention such comparatively unimportant min
istry, and yet pass over such important prophetic ministry as
that given in the book of Jonah.
3. The two miracles reported in Jonah are marvels rather
than miracles. There is nothing at all resembling them in the
miracle-working of the Old Testament or the New Testament.
They are more like the wonders of the Arabian Nights than
the miracles of Moses, of Elijah, of Elisha, or of Jesus or His
1 2 K. 1425.

346 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
apostles. It is true that there are great sharks in the Mediter
ranean Sea which are said to have swallowed men and horses
and afterwards to have cast them up. But this being so, the
chief difficulty remains. How can Ave explain the suspended
digestion of the fish, and the self-consciousness of Jonah as
indicated by his prayer ? And even if we could overcome this
difficulty by an unflinching confidence in the power of God to
work any and ev^jy kind'of miracle, the most serious objection
would still confront u^^. It is not so much the supernatural
power i^ the miradle tliafc troubles us as the character of the
miracle. There is in it, whatever way we interpret it, an ele
ment of the extravagant and the grotesque. The divine sim
plicity, the holy sublimity, and the overpowering grace which
characterize the miracles of biblical history are conspicuously
absent. We feel that there is no sufficient reason for such a
miracle, and we instinctively shrink from it, not because of
a lack of faith in the divine power of working miracles, but
because we have such a faith in His grace, and holiness, and
majesty that we find it difficult to believe that God could work
such a grotesque and extravagant miracle as that described in
the story of the great fish. So the story of the wonderful
growth and withering of the tree is more like the magic of
the Oriental tales than any of the biblical miracles. It seems
to be brought into the scene as an embellishment rather than
for any real purpose of grace. A careful study of all the
miracles of Holy Scripture excludes this magic tree from their
categories, and, to say the least, puts it in a category by itself.
4. The repentance of Nineveh, from the king on his throne
to the humblest citizen, the extent of it, the sincerity of it, the
depth of it, is still more marvellous. Nineveh was at that
time the capital of the greatest empire of the world. It Avas a
proud and conquering nation, least likely of all to repent.
The history of the times is quite well known, and this history
.seems to make such an event incredible. Some have endeav
oured to minimize the repentance as a mere official one, such
as were ordered by monarchs during the Middle Ages. But
these apologists of traditional theory forget that according to
the story God recognizes the sincerity and the extraordinary

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 347
character of the repentance. God granted His mercy, and
recalled His decree of destruction on that account. This
repentance is a marvellous event. Nothing like it meets us in
the history of Israel or in the history of the Church. It is an
ideal of the imagination. Our Saviour uses the story of the
repentance of Nineveh to shame the unrepenting cities of His
time. There was no historical repentance so well suited to
His purpose.
5. The prayer given in the book is not suited to it if the
story be historical, but it is entirely appropriate if it be
regarded as ideal and symbolic.
This prayer is the prayer of thanksgiving of a man who,
either in fact or in figure, has been drowned in the sea. He has
gone down to the bottom, the seaweed is wrapt about his head;
he has then, in his departed spirit, gone down to the roots of
the mountains, has entered into Sheol, the abode of the dead,
and has been shut up in its cavern by the bars of the earth.
His deliverance has been a resurrection from the dead. Such
figures of speech to represent great sufferings of an individual
or of a nation are found in the Psalms and the Prophets.^
If the descent into the belly of the fish, the abode therein
three days, and the casting up again are simply a poetic symbol,
a devouring of Israel by the great sea-monster, Babylon,^ it
is entirely appropriate for the author to use in the song the
symbol of death, Sheol, and resurrection, as a parallel symbol
to that of the narrative, the swallowing by the fish, abiding
three days in the fish, and casting forth by the fish.
6. The whole style of the piece is such as we find in the
Jewish Haggada, of which this may be one of the earliest
specimens. 1 Hosea (13") uses the same figure of speech for the exile and the restoration.
" I will ransom them from thepower of Sheol; I will redeem them from Death."
Isaiah and Ezekiel also represent the restoration as a resurrection from Sheol,
the abode of the dead, and as the rising up of the dry bones from the battle-field
of the slain.
2 The author probably had in mind the words of Jeremiah: "Nebuchad
nezzar . . hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his maw with my
delicates; he hath cast me out" (513*). And he may have been thinking of
Hosea's words: "After two days will he revive us ; on the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live before him " (62).

348 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
It is objected that our Lord in His use of Jonah, gives His sanc
tion to the historicity of the story ; but this objection has little
weight, for our Lord's method of instruction was in the use of
stories of his own composition. We ought not to be surprised,
therefore, that he should use such stories from the Old Testament
likewise. It is urged that our Saviour makes such a realistic use
of it, that it compels us to think that he regarded it as real ; but,
in fact, he does not make a more realistic use of Jonah than he
does of the story of Dives and Lazarus. Just such a realistic use
of the story of Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses is made
in the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the author compares them
with the foes of Christ in his time, 2 Tim. 31 And Jude (v. 9)
makes just as realistic a use of the story of Michael, the arch
angel, contending Avith the devil, and disputing about the body of
Moses, and compares this dispute with the railers of his time.
These stories are from the Jewish Haggada, and not from the Old
Testament. No scholar regards them as historic events. If epis
tles could use the stories of the Jewish Haggada in this way, why
should not our Lord use stories from the Old Testament? Our
Saviour uses the story of Jonah just as the author of the book
used it, to point important religious instruction to the men of his
time. Indeed, our Lord's use of it rather favours his interpretar
tion of it as symbolic. For it is just this symbolism that the fish
represents, — Sheol, the swallowing up, — death ; and the casting
forth, — resurrection, — that we have seen in the story of Jonah
interpreted by the prayer, which makes the story appropriate to
symbolize the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Foj these reasons, the story of Jonah is commonly regarded
by modern scholars as an ideal story, a work of the imagination.
There are two great lessons taught in the book of Jonah, one
in each scene of the story. The first lesson is similar to that
taught by Amos and a later psalmist.^
God has power to bring up from the depths of the sea, from
the womb of Sheol, from the belly of the fish, those who turn
unto Him, to His holy temple. Israel's calling as the prophet
of the nations cannot be escaped. He may be overwhelmed in
the depths of affliction ; he may descend into Sheol, the abode of
the dead ; he may be swallowed by the great monsters who
subdue the nations, — but God will raise him up, restore him to
life and to his prophetic ministry. Jonah — Pharisaic Israel
1 Amos 92- 3 . Pa. lagr-io.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 349
— may renounce his high calling and perish; but a second
Jonah, a revived and converted preacher, will surely fulfil it.
But the greatest lesson of the story is in the repentance of
Nineveh, and the attitude of Jonah toward that great event.
Jonah again represents historic Israel, preaching with sufficient
readiness the doom of the nations, and watching for the Dies
Irce when that doom would be fulfilled. Jonah goes out of the
city and selects a good place from whence he can see the grand
sight, — the overthrow of the capital of that nation Avhich Avas
the greatest foe of his people. But Jonah does not represent
the ideal Israel. God has other views than Jonah. He does
not look with complacency upon the death of 120,000 babes,
who knew not enough to do right or wrong. He does not
delight in the death of men, but rather in the repentance of
men. A million or more human beings gathered in Nineveh,
that great capital of the ancient world, cannot perish without
giving sorrow to the heart of God. Jonah may delight in su6h
a scene ; God cannot. The repentance of Nineveh is sufficient
to change all. In an instant the decree of its destruction is
annulled, and divine love triumphs over the sentence of judg
ment. This author caught such a wonderful glimpse of the
love of God to the heathen world, that it makes the book of
Jonah a marvel in the doctrine of the Old Testament.

IX. The Story of Esther
The book of Esther is one of the Writings of the Rabbinical
Canon. In the Hellenistic Canon, it is placed after the
apocryphal pieces of fiction, called Tobit, and Judith, as if
recognized to be of the same type. The style of Esther is
dramatic and rapid in its development of incident. Scene after
scene springs into place, until the climax of difficulty is reached,
and the knot is tied so that it seems impossible to escape.
Then it is untied with wondrous dexterity. All this is the art
of the story-teller, and not the method of the historian. The
things which interest the historian are not in the book. Esther
is a didactic story, Uke Ruth and Jonah, Judith and Tobit,
and raises more historical difficulties than can easUy be re-

350 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
moved. The monarch seems to be Xerxes, the voluptuous and
absolute ruler of the Persian Empire. The story is one of court
intrigue, in which Esther, the favourite wife, and her uncle,
Mordecai, prevail over Haman, the prime minister. The book
is connected with the Purim festival, and is supposed to give
the historical account of its origin. This is denied by many
modern scholars. It is held that Esther is a piece of historical
fiction, designed to set forth the importance of the Purim fes
tival, as a national feast, and to teach the great lesson of patri
otism. It does not by any means follow from the connection
of the book with the feast, that the book is historical. Indeed
Esther does not explain the Purim feast.^ It does not give any
adequate reason why the Jews of Palestine and Egypt and of
the rest of the world should celebrate a feast which, according
to Esther, was connected with the deliverance of the Jews re
maining in exile in the Persian Empire, an event less worthy
of commemoration than a hundred others. But it is not neces
sary to determine its exact origin. Many a Christian feast
rests upon unhistoric legends. We need but mention the feast
of the Ascension of Mary, the feast of Saint Veronica, the
feast of the Finding of the Cross, and the feast of the Sleepers.
The sole redeeming feature of the book is its patriotism.
Esther and Mordecai are heroes of patriotic attachment to the
interests of the Jews. For this they risk their honour and
their lives. The same spirit we find in Judith, and, in a meas
ure, in Nehemiah and Daniel. If patriotism is a virtue, and
belongs to good morals in the Jewish and Christian systems,
then the book has its place in the Bible, as teaching this virtue,
even if everything else be absent. No book is so patriotic as
the book of Esther. Esther is the heroine of patriotic devo
tion. She is the incarnation of Jewish nationality, and thus is
the appropriate theme of the great national festival of the Jews.
And in all the Christian centuries Esther has been an inspira
tion to heroic women and an incentive to deeds of daring for
heroic men. And if, as many signs seem to indicate, woman
in the next century is to use her great endowments in a large
iSee C. H. Toy, "Esther as Babylonian Goddess" in The New World,
March, 1898, pp. 130 seq.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 351
measure for the advancement of the kingdom of God, Esther
will exert a vaster influence in inspiring her to holy courage
and unflinching devotion and service. For, granting that
patriotism in its narrower sense may be a form of selfishness,
yet when patriotism has been transformed into an enthusiasm
for humanity and a passionate devotion to the Saviour of man,
it then calls forth those wondrous energies of self-sacrifice with
which woman seems to be more richly endowed than man.
X. The Stories of Daniel
The book of Daniel also belongs to the group of prose litera
ture which may be caUed historical fiction. In the Hebrew
Canon Daniel is not classed with the Prophets, but with the
Writings. The Baraitha ascribes it to the men of the Great
Synagogue ; ^ later tradition to Daniel himself. But both these
theories are against the evidence. The language is of a later
type. As Driver says : " The verdict of the language of
Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period
after the Persian Empire had been well established ; the Greek
words demand, the Hebrew support, and the Aramaic permit a
date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Q-reat
(B.C. 332)." 2
The Hebrew book of Daniel encloses an Aramaic section,
2*''-7. This section is in the western Aramaic dialect, and
could not have been Avritten in Babylon, where the eastern
Aramaic was used. It seems probable that this Aramaic sec
tion is older than the enclosing Hebrew parts. ^ The book is
divided into two equal parts, Chapters 1-6, a series of stories,
and Chapters 7-12, a series of visions, both in chronological
order. This division does not correspond with the difference
in language, and comes from the final author. The stories are
aU in the older Aramaic section, in which Daniel is always
spoken of in the third person. They are not historical or bio
graphical, but are episodes with prophetic lessons. They are
grouped about the legendary Daniel of Ezek. 14'^20^ 28^, and
1 See p. 252. ^ Introduction, 6th ed., p. 508.
8 Strack, Einleitung, 5te Aufl., p. 150.

352 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
are of the same type of historical fiction as the later stories
of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which were added to
Daniel in the ancient Greek Septuagint version.
This is the opinion of Sayce : '
'"Darius the Mede' is, in fact, a refiection into the past of
Darius, the son of Hystaspes, just as the siege and capture of
Babylon by Cyrus is a refiection into the past of its siege and
capture by the same prince. The name of Darius and the story
of the slaughter of the Chaldaean king go together. They are
alike derived from that unwritten history, which in the East of
to-day is still made by the people, and which blends together in a
single picture the manifold events and personages of the past. It
is a history which has no perspective, though it is based on actual
facts ; the accurate calculations of the chronologer have no mean
ing for it, and the events of a century are crowded into a few
years. This is the kind of history which the Jewish mind in the
time of the Talmud loved to adapt to moral and religious pur
poses. This kind of history thus becomes, as it were, a parable,
and under the name of Haggadah serves to illustrate the teaching
of the Law."
The Aramaic vision of Chapter 7 is entirely parallel Avith the
vision of Chapter 2. If the story of Chapter 2 is fiction, the
prediction must be fiction likewise. These two visions are,
therefore, pseudepigraphic. The visions of Chapters 8-12 in
the Hebrew language are of a still later date than Chapters 2-
7, and are pseudepigraphic likeAdse. The book of Daniel is
unknown to Ben Sirach, who mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and the Twelve ; ^ and all Hebrew literature is sUent Avith ref
erence to it until the earliest Sibylline oracle, III. 388 ff., circa
140 B.C., and 1 Macc. 2^*, circa 100 B.C., both referring to the
Aramaic section. Daniel is frequently used in the subsequent
pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. The writer is evi
dently familiar with the Greek period of history, but un-
familiarity with Babylonian and Persian periods leads him into
grave historical blunders. The Hebrew sections seem to imply
the troublous times of Antiochus Epiphanes. The angelology,
eschatology, and Messianic ideas of the book are nearer to those
1 Sayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, 1894, pp. 528, 529.
2 See pp. 123 seq.

BIBLICAL PROSE LITERATURE 353
of the book of Enoch and the New Testament than they are to
those of other writings of the Old Testament. The religious
ideas are nearer those of the late Greek period. The evidence
from all these sources leads us to the opinion that the book of
Daniel was written as historic fiction in 168-165 B.C., Avith the
use of various earlier documents, as an encouragement to heroic
courage and fidelity to the national religion.
The words of Bevan may be cited here :
"The narratives are evidently intended to be consecutive in
point of time, but they are very loosely connected with each
other. Their most marked feature is the didactic purpose which
appears throughout. In every one of these stories we see the
righteous rewarded, or the wicked signally punished, as the case
may be. On the one hand Daniel and his three friends, the ser
vants of the True God, though apparently helpless in the midst
of the heathen, triumph over all opposition, while on the other
hand the mightiest Gentile potentates are confounded and humbled
to the dust. This would in itself sufB.ce to indicate that the book
was intended for the encouragement of the Jews at a time Avhen
they were being persecuted by pagan rulers. And Avhen we pass
from the narratives to the visions, we find that this view is con
firmed. Por in the visions the final victory of the ' Saints ' over
the Gentile powers is repeatedly insisted upon. Further exami
nation shews that this victory of the saints is to take place in
the days of a Gentile king who will surpass all his predecessors
in wickedness. . . .
"It is, however, necessary to guard against a possible mis
conception. Though the author of Dauiel has everywhere the
circumstances of his own time in view, we cannot regard Nebu
chadnezzar and Belshazzar, still less Darius the Mede, simply as
portraits of Antiochus Epiphanes. The author is contending, not
against Antiochus personally, but against the heathenism of Avhich
Antiochus Avas the champion. He justly considers the struggle
between Antiochus and the faithful Jews as a struggle between
opposing principles, and his object is to shew that under all
circumstances the poAver of God must prevail over the powers of
this world.
"That the author does not address his contemporaries in his
OAvn name, after the manner of the ancient prophets, but clothes
his teaching in the form of narratives and visions, is perfectly in
accordance with the spirit of later Judaism. The belief that no
more prophets were to be found among the people of God seems
2a

354 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
gradually to have established itself during those ages of Gentile
oppression (Ps. 74^). Loathing the present, the pious Jews natu
rally idealized the past." ^
These are then the most general forms of prose literature
contained in the Sacred Scriptures. They vie with the literary
models of the best nations of ancient and modern times. They
ought to receive the study of all Christian men and women.
They present the greatest variety of form, the noblest themes,
and -the very best models. Nowhere else can we find more
admirable sesthetic as well as moral and religious culture.
Christian people should urge that our schools and colleges
attend to this literature, and not neglect it for the sake of the
Greek and Roman literatures, which with all their rare forms
and extraordinary grace and beauty, yet lack the Oriental
wealth of colour, depths of passion, heights of rapture, holy
aspirations, transcendent hopes, and transforming moral power.
1 Bevan, The Book of Daniel, 1892, pp. 22, 23, 24.

CHAPTER XIV
CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY
The Hebrews were from the most ancient times a remark
ably literary and poetic people. Poetry pervaded and in
fluenced their entire life and history. The Bible has preserved
to us a large amount of this poetry, but it is almost exclusively
religious poetry. The most ancient poetry of Assyria, Baby
lonia, and Egypt is Ukewise religious. There is, however, evi
dence from the poetic lines and strophes quoted in the
historical books, as well as from statements with regard to
other poetry not included in the collections known to us,
sufficient to show that a large proportion of the poetic litera
ture of the Hebrews has been lost. This poetry had to do
with the every-day life of the people, and with those national,
social, and historical phases of experience that were not strictly
religious. For reference is made to the Book of the Wars of
Yahweh ^ and the Book of Yashar,^ anthologies of poetry earlier
than any of the poetic collections in the Hebrew Scriptures ;
and also to a great number of songs and poems of Solomon
with reference to flowers, plants, trees, and animals.^ The
mention of Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of
Mahol, in connection with the wisdom and poems of Solomon,
opens a wide field of conjecture with regard to the great
amount of their poetry.* And if such a masterpiece as the
book of Job is the product of a sacred poet whose name, or at
least connection with the poem, has been lost, how many more
such great poems and lesser ones may have disappeared from
the memory of the Hebrew people during their exile and pro
longed afflictions under foreign yokes. For we cannot believe
1 Nu. 211*. 2 Jo. 1013 . 2 Sam. 1". 8 1 k. 432. 33. 4 1 k. 48I.
355

356 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
that the few odes ^ preserved from the early times could exist
alone. These masterpieces of lyric poetry must have been the
flower and fruit of a long and varied poetical development.
Indeed there are fragments of other odes ^ which are doubtless
but specimens of many that have disappeared.
Reuss admirably states the breadth of Hebrew poetry :
" All that moved the souls of the multitude was expressed in
song ; it was indispensable to the sports of peace, it was a necessity
for the rest from the battle, it cheered the feast and the marriage
(Is. 5'^ ; Amos 6^ ; Jd. 14), it lamented in the hopeless dirge for
the dead (2 Sam. 3^), it united the masses, it blessed the individ
ual, and was everywhere the lever of culture. Young men and
maidens vied with one another in learning beautiful songs, and
cheered with them the festival gatherings of the villages, and the
still higher assemblies at the sanctuary of the tribes. The maid
ens at Shilo went yearly with songs and dances into the vineyards
(Jd. 21^^), and those of Gilead repeated the sad story of Jephthah's
daughter (Jd. 11*) ; the boys learned David's lament over Jona
than (2 Sam. 1^8) ; shepherds and hunters at their evening rests
by the springs of the wilderness sang songs to the accompani
ment of the fiute (Jd. 5"). The discovery of a fountain was the
occasion of joy and song (Nu. 21"). The smith boasted defiantly
of the products of his labour (Gen. 4?^). Riddles and witty say
ings enlivened the social meal (Jd. 14'^; 1 K. 10). Even into the
lowest spheres the spirit of poetry wandered and ministered to the
most ignoble pursuits (Is. 23 '° '^«).8
I. The Features op Hebrew Poetry
In the Hebrew poetry preserved to us in the Sacred Script
ures we observe the following characteristics :
1. It is religious poetry. Indeed it was most suitable that
Hebrew poetry should have this as its fundamental characteris
tic ; for the Hebrews had been selected by God from all
the nations to be His own choice possession. His first-born
among the nations of the earth ; * and therefore it was their dis
tinctive inheritance that they should be a religious people above
1 Ex. 15 ; Nu. 21 ; Jd. 5. See pp. 369, 379, 413.
2 Jos. 10 12- IS ; 1 Chr. 1218. see pp. 337, 393.
8 Art. " Heb. Poesie," Herzog, Encyklopddie, II. Aufl. V. pp. 672 seq.
* Ex. 4*, 195.

characteristics of BIBLICAL POETRY 357
all things else. And it is of the very nature of religion that
it should express itself in song ; for religion lays hold of the
deepest emotions of the human soul, and causes the heartstrings
to vibrate with the most varied and powerful feelings of which
man is capable. These find expression through the voice and pen
in those forms of human language which alone by their rhyth
mic movement are capable of uttering them. From this point
of view Hebrew poetry has unfolded a rich and manifold lit
erature that not only equals in this regard the noblest prod
ucts of the most cultivated Indo-Germanic races, the Greek,
the Roman, and the Hindu ; but also lies at the root of the
religious poetry of the Jewish Synagogue and the Church
of Christ, as their fruitful source, their perennial well-spring of
Ufe and growth. No poetry has such power over the souls of
men as Hebrew poetry. David's Psalms, Solomon's sentences,
Isaiah's predictions, the plaints of Job, are as fresh and potent
in their influence as Avhen first uttered by their masterly
authors. They are world-wide in their sway ; they are ever- ¦
lasting in their sweep. The songs of Moses and the Lamb are
sung by heavenly choirs.^
2. It is simple and natural. Ewald states that "Hebrew
poetry has a simplicity and transparency that can scarcely be
found anywhere else — a natural sublimity that knows but little
of fixed forms of art, and even Avhen art comes into play, it ever
remains unconscious and careless of it. Compared with the
poetry of other ancient peoples, it appears as of a more simple
and chUdlike age of mankind, overflowing with an internal
fulness and grace that troubles itself but little with external
ornament and nice artistic law." ^ Hence it is that the distinc
tion between poetry and rhetorical prose is so slight in Hebrew
literature. The Hebrew orator, especially if a prophet, inspired
with the potent influences of the prophetic spirit, and stirred
to the depths of his soul with the divine impulse, speaks
naturaUy in an elevated poetic style, and accordingly the greater
part of prophecy is poetic. And when the priest or king stands
before the people to bless them, or lead them in their de
votions, their benedictions and prayers assume the poetic
1 Rev. 158. 2 j)iQ Dichter, I. p. 15.

358 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
movement. Thus there is the closest correspondence between
the emotion and its expression, as the emotion gives natural
movement and harmonious undulation to the expression by its
own pulsations and vibrations. The pulsations are expressed
by the beat of the accent, which, falling as a rule on the ulti
mate in Hebrew words, strikes with peculiar power ; and the
vibrations are expressed in accordance with the great variety
of movement of which they are capable in the parallelism of
members. As W. Robertson Smith correctly says : "Among the
Hebrews all thought stands in immediate contact with Uving
impressions and feelings, and so if incapable of rising to the ab
stract is prevented from sinking to the unreal." ^ This faithful
mirroring of the concrete in the poetic expression is the secret
of its power over the masses of mankind, who are sensible of its
immediate influence upon them, although they may be incapable
of giving a logical analysis of it.
3. It is essentially subjective. The poet sings or writes from
the vibrating chords of his own soul's emotions, presenting
the varied phases of his own experience, in sorrow and joy, in
faith and hope, in love and adoration, in conflict, agony, and
despair, in ecstasy and transport, in vindication of himself
and imprecation upon his enemies. Even when the external
world is attentively regarded, it is not for itself alone, but on
account of its relation to the poet's own soul as he is brought
into contact and sympathy with it. This characteristic of
Hebrew poetry is so marked in the Psalter, Proverbs, and book
of Job, as to give their entire theology an anthropological and
indeed an ethical character. Man's inmost soul, and all the
vast variety of human experience, are presented in Hebrew
poetry in the common experience of humanity of all ages and
of all lands.
4. It is sententious. The Hebrew poet expresses his ethical
and religious emotions in brief, terse, pregnant sentences loosely
related one with another, and often without any essential con
nection, except through the common unity of the central theme.
They are uttered as intuitions, that which is immediately seen
and felt, rather than as products of logical reflection, or careful
1 British Quarterly, January, 1877, p. 36.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY 359
elaborations of a constructive imagination. The parts of the
poem, greater and lesser, are distinct parts, the distinction often
being so sharp and abrupt that it is difficult to distinguish and
separate the various sections of the poem, owing to the very
fact of the great variety of possibility of division, in which it
is a question simply of more or less. The author's soul vibrates
Avith the beatings of the central theme, so that the movement
of the poem is sometimes from the same base to a more ad
vanced thought, then from a corresponding base or from a
contrasted one ; and at times, indeed, step by step, in marching
or climbing measures. As Aglen says, " Hebrew eloquence is
a lively succession of vigorous and incisive sentences, produc
ing in literature the same effect which the style called arabesque
produces in architecture. Hebrew wisdom finds its complete
utterance in the short, pithy proverb. Hebrew poetry wants
no further art than a rhythmical adaptation of the same sen
tentious style." ^ Hence the complexity and confusion of He
brew poetry to minds which would find strict logical relations
between the various members of the poem, and constrain them
after occidental methods. , Hence the extravagance of Hebrew
figures of speech, which transgress all classic rules of style,
heaping up and mixing metaphors, presenting the theme in
such a variety of images, and with such exceeding richness of
colouring, that the Western critic is perplexed, confused, and be-
Avildered in striving to harmonize them into a consistent whole.
Hebrew poetry appeals through numberless concrete images to
the emotional and religious nature, and can only be appre
hended by entering into sympathetic relations with it by
following the guidance of its members to their central theme,
to which they are all in subjection as to a prince, while in com
parative independence of one another.
5. It is realistic. Shairp says : " Whenever the soul comes
into living contact with fact and truth, whenever it realizes
these Avith more than common vividness, there arises a thriU
of joy, a glow of emotion. And the expression of that thriU,
that glow, is poetry. The nobler the objects, the nobler wUl
be the poetry they awaken when they fall on the heart of a true
1 Bible Educator, Vol. II. p. 340.

360 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
poet."^ The Hebrew poets entered into deep and intimate
fellowship with external nature, the world of animal, vegetable,
and material forces ; and by regarding them as in immediate
connection with God and man, dealt only with the noblest
themes. To the Hebrew poet all nature was animate with the
influence of the Divine Spirit, who was the agent in the crea
tion, brooding over the chaos, and conducts the whole universe
in its development toward the exaltation of the creature to
closer communion with God, so that it may attain its glory in
the divine glory. Hence all nature is aglow with the glory
of God, declaring Him in His being and attributes, praising
Him for His wisdom and goodness. His minister to do His
pleasure, rejoicing at His advent and taking part in His
theophanies. And so it is the representation of Hebrew poetry
that all nature shares in the destiny of man. In its origin it
led by insensible gradations to man, its crown and head, the
masterpiece of the divine workman. In his fall it shared with
him in the curse ; and to his redemption it ever looks forward,
with longing hope and throes of expectation, as the redemption
of the entire creation. And so there is no poetry so sympa
thetic with nature, so realistic, so sensuous and glowing in its
representations of nature, as Hebrew poetry. This feature of
the sacred writings, which has exposed them to the attacks of
the physical sciences, presenting a wide and varied field of criti
cism, is really one of their most striking features of excellence,
commending them to the simple-minded lovers of nature ; for
while the Hebrew Scriptures do not teach truths and facts of
science in scientific forms, yet they alone, of ancient poetry, laid
hold of the eternal principles, the most essential facts and forms
of objects of nature, with a sense of truth and beauty that none
but sacred poets, enlightened by the Spirit of God, have been
enabled to do. Hence it is that not even the sensuous romantic
poetry of modern times, enriched with the vast stores of re
search of modern science, can equal the poetry of the Bible in
its faithfulness to nature, its vividness and graphic power, its
true and intense admiration of the beauties of nature and rever
ence of its sublimities. 1 Poetic Interpretation of Nature, p. 15.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY 361

II. Ancient Theories op Hebrew Poetry
The leading characteristics of Hebrew poetry determine its
forms of expression ; its internal spirit sways and controls the
form with absolute, yea, even with capricious, power. The
Hebrew poets seem acquainted with those various forms of
artistic expression used by the poets of other nations to adorn
their poetry, yet they do not employ them as rules or prin
ciples of their art, constraining their thought and emotion
into conformity Avith them, but rather use them freely for
particular purposes and momentary effects. Indeed Hebrew
poetry attained its richest development at a period when these
various external beauties of form had not been elaborated into
a system, as was the case at a subsequent time in other nations
of the same family of languages.
There are various ways employed in the poetry of the sister
languages of measuring and adorning the verses. Thus rhyme
is of exceeding importance in Arabic poetry, having its fixed
rules ^ carefully elaborated. But no such rules can be found in
Hebrew poetry. Rhyme exists, and is used at times with great
effect to give force to the variations in the play of the emotion
by bringing the variations to harmonious conclusions ; but this
seldom extends beyond a group of verses or a strophe. ^ So also
the Hebrew poet delights in the play of words, using their
varied and contrasted meanings, changing the sense by the
slight change of a letter, or contrasting the sense all the more
forcibly in the use of words of similar form and vocalization,
and sometimes of two or three such in the parallel verses.^ Al
literation and assonance are also freely employed. All this is in
order that the form may correspond as closely as possible to the
thought and emotion in their variations, as synonymous, anti
thetical, and progressive ; and that the colouring of the expres
sion may heighten its effect. The principle of rhyme, however,
remains entirely free. It is not developed into a system and
artistic rules.
The measurement of the verses, or the principle of metres, is
1 Wright, Arabic Grammar, 2d ed., II. pp. 377-381.
2 See pp. 373 seq. ' See pp. 375, 376.

362 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
thoroughly developed in Arabic poetry, where they are ordi
narily reckoned as sixteen in number.^ Repeated efforts have
been made to find a system of metres in Hebrew poetry. Thus
Josephus 2 represents that the songs Ex. 15 and Deut. 32 were
written in hexameters, and that the Psalms were written in
several metres, such as trimeters and pentameters. Eusebius *
says that Deut. 32 and Ps. 18 are in heroic metre of sixteen
syllables, and that trimeters and other metres were employed by
the Hebrews. Jerome * compares Hebrew poetry with the Greek
poetry of Pindar, Alcseus, and Sappho, and represents the book
of Job as composed mainly of hexameters with the movement
of dactyls and spondees ; and ^ he finds in the Psalter iambic
trimeters and tetrameters. But these writers seem to have
been misled by their desire to assimilate Hebrew poetry to the
great productions of the classic nations with which they were
familiar. And yet there is a solid basis of fact underlying these state
ments. It is true that the Massoretic system of vowel points
does not admit of any such arrangement of measured feet as
is known in Greek and Latin poetry. The fragments of the
transliterated Hebrew of Origen's Hexapla show us that the
Massoretic system is extremely artificial ; the pointing of
Origen's time does not yield the measured feet, or the equal
number of syllables in lines, according to the statement of
Eusebius, who must have either built upon the Hebrew pro
nunciation as given by Origen, or else upon information from
Hebrew sources or upon tradition. Jerome must have known
the Hebrew pronunciation of his day and the measures of
poetry as known to the Hebrew of his day. But it seems al
together likely that the accurate pronunciation of the ancient
Hebrew had already been lost, and that the knowledge of the
measures of bibUcal poetry had perished likewise.
There is no evidence in Jerome's version that he under
stood the measures of biblical poetry. There is certainly no
heroic metre of sixteen syllables in Ps. 18 or Deut. 32. The
1 Wright, Arabic Grammar, 2d ed., II. p. 387. 8 jjg p,-cEp. Evang., XI. 5.
2 Antiquities, II. 16, IV. 8, VII. 12. < Preface to the Book of Job.
5 Epist. ad Paulam.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY 363
number of syllables varies, if we count the two separated lines
of the Hebrew arrangement as one, usually from twelve to
sixteen syllables, seldom more and seldom less. There are
certainly no dactyls in the book of Job. It is quite possible
to arrange the book of Job like Ps. 18 and Deut. 32 ; for the
book of Job has the same measure as these ancient poems, and
so presents the appearance of hexameters to those who think
these other poems hexameters. The truth that underlies the
statement of these ancient authors, which they received from
Hebrew tradition, is that there are trimeters, tetrameters,
pentameters, and hexameters in Hebrew poetry. The measure
ment, hoAvever, is not of feet or of syllables, but of words or
word accents, just as in ancient Egyptian and Babylonian
poetry.^ If the hexameter is regarded as six measures, He
brew poetry has six measures, that is, six Avords or word groups,
just as truly as Greek and Latin poetry has six measures con
sisting of so many feet of varied arrangement as to quantity.

III. Modern Theories of Hebrew Poetry
More recent attempts have been made to explain and meas
ure Hebrew verses after the methods of the Arabic and Syriac.
Thus William Jones ^ endeavoured to apply the rules of Arabic
metre to Hebrew poetry. But this involves the revolutionary
proceeding of doing away with the Massoretic system entirely,
and in its results is far from satisfactory. The Arabic poetry
may be profitably compared with the Hebrew as to spirit, char
acteristics, figures of speech, and emotional language, as Wen-
rich has so well done,^ but not as regards metres ; for these, as
the best Arabic scholars state, are comparatively late and were
probably preceded by an earlier and freer poetic style.
¦ Saalchiitz* endeavoured to construct a system of Hebrew
metres, retaining the Massoretic vocalization, but contending
that the accents do not determine the accented syllable, and
1 See p. 378. " Com. Poet. Asiat. eurav., Eichhorn, 1777, pp. 61 seq.
" De Poeseos Seb. atque Arabic, orig. indole mutuoque consensu atque dis-
crimine, Lipsise, 1843.
* Von der Form der Hebrdischen Poesie, 1825.

364 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
so pronouncing the words in accordance with the Aramaic, and
the custom of Polish and German Jews, with the accent on the
penult instead of the ultimate.
Bickell 1 strives to explain Hebrew poetry after the analogy
of Syriac poetry. His theory is that Hebrew poetry is essen
tially the same as Syriac, not measuring syUables, but counting
them in regular order. There is a constant alternation of ac
cented and unaccented syllables, a continued rise and fall, so
that only iambic and trochaic feet are possible. The Masso
retic accentuation and vocalization are rejected, and the Ara
maic put in its place. The grammatical and rhythmical accents
coincide. The accent is, like the Syriac, generally on the
penult. The paraUelism of verses and thought is strictly
carried out. Bickell has worked out his theory with a degree
of moderation and thoroughness which must command admira
tion and respect. Not distinguishing between long and short
syllables, and discarding the terminology of classic metres, he
gives us specimens of metres of 5, 7, 12, 6, 8, 10 syllables, and
a few of varying syllables. He has applied his theory to the
whole of Hebrew poetry,^ and arranged the entire Psalter,
Proverbs, Job, Lamentations, Song of Songs, most of the
poems of the historical books, and much of the prophetic poetry
in accordance with these principles. He has also reproduced
the effect in a translation into German, with the same number
of syllables and strophical arrangement.* The theory is attrac
tive and deserves better consideration than it has thus far
received from scholars ; yet it- must be rejected on the ground
(1) that it does away with the difference between the Hebrew
and the Aramaic families of the Shemitic languages, and
Avould virtually reduce the Hebrew to a mere dialect of the
Aramaic. (2) It overthrows the traditional accentuation upon
which Hebrew vocalization and the explanation of Hebrew.
grammatical forms largely depend.
Doubtless the Massoretic system is artificial and designed

1 Metrices Biblicce, 1879 ; Carmina Veteris Testamenti Metriee, 1882.
2 Zeitschrift d. D. M. G., 1880, p. 557 ; Carmina Veteris Testamenti Metriee,
1882. 8 Diehtungen der Hebrder, 1882.

characteristics of biblical POETRY 365
more for rhetorical rendering than for speech; yet it must
have a real basis in ancient usage. I cannot think that the
accent on the ultimate was the invention of the Massorites or
the Sopherim. There seems rather to be just this original
difference between the great groups of the Shemitic family, that
the Hebrew accents on the ultimate, the Aramaic on the penult,
and the Arabic on the antepenult. The change of the accent
to the penult among the more ignorant Jews was more natural
than an artificial change from the penult to the ultimate.
(3) Furthermore, Bickell is forced to make many arbitrary
changes in the text to carry out his theory. He makes many
wise suggestions, however, and it is somewhat remarkable how
constantly his arrangements of the poetry in lines and strophes
correspond with those which I have made on the simpler prin
ciple of measurement by word instead of measurement by
syllable. Hebrew poetry, as Ewald has shown, may, on the Massoretic
system of accentuation and vocalization, be regarded as gener
aUy composed of lines of seven or eight syllables, with some
times a few more or a few less, for reasons that may be assigned.^
This is especially true of the ancient hymns, which are chiefly
trimeters, and of the major part of the Psalms, which are either
trimeters or double trimeters, and so hexameters. Yet even
here we must regard Hebrew poetry as at an earlier stage of
poetic development than the Syriac. The poet is not bound
to a certain number of syUables. While in general making the
syllabic length of the lines correspond with the parallelism of
the thought and emotion, he does not constrain himself to uni
formity as a principle or law of his art ; but increases or dimin
ishes the length of his lines in perfect freedom in accordance
with the rhythmical movements of the thought and emotion
themselves. The external form is entirely subordinated to the
internal emotion, which moves on with the utmost freedom, and
assumes a poetic form merely as a thin veil, Avhich does not so
much clothe and adorn, as shade and colour the native beauties
of the idea. This movement of emotion gives rise to a general
harmony of expression in the parallelism of structure in lines
1 Dichter, I. pp. 108 seq.

366 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and strophes — a parallelism which affords a great variety and
beauty of form. Sometimes the movement is like the wavelets
of a river flowing steadily and smoothly on, then like the ebb
ing and flowing of the tide in majestic antitheses, and again, like
the madly tossed ocean in a storm, all uniformity and symme
try disappearing under the passionate heaving of the deepest
emotions of the soul.
IV. Lowth's Doctrine op Parallelism
The first to clearly state and unfold the essential principle of
parallelism in Hebrew verse was Bishop Lowth,^ although older
writers, such as Rabbi Asarias, and especially Schottgen,^ caUed
attention to various forms of parallelism. Lowth distinguishes
three kinds :
1. Synonymous. O Jehovah, in Thy strength the king shall rejoice ;
And in Thy salvation how greatly shall he exult I
The desire of his heart Thou hast granted unto him,
And the request of his lips Thou hast not denied.8
2. Antithetical. A wise son rejoiceth his father ;
But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.*
3. Synthetic. Praise ye Jehovah, ye of the earth ;
Ye sea monsters, and all deeps :
Fire and hail, snow and vapour,
Stormy wind, executing His command.s
Bishop Lowth also saw that there was some kind of metre in
Hebrew poetry. He said : *
" Thus much, then, I think, we may be allowed to infer from
the alphabetical poems ; namely, that the Hebrew poems are writ
ten in verse, properly so called ; that the harmony of the verses
does not arise from rhyme, that is, from similar corresponding
sounds terminating the verses, but from some sort of rhythm,
probably from some sort of metre, the laws of which are now
altogether unknown, aud wholly indiscoverable."
1 De Sacra Poesi Hebr. XIX., 1753 ; also Preliminary Dissertation to his work
on Isaiah, 1778.
2 Horx Heb., Diss. VL, De Exergasia Sacra. « Ps. 21i-2.
' Prov. 101. 6 Ps. 1487. 8. 6 Isaiah, Preliminary Dissertation, p. vii.

characteristics of biblical poetry 367
Bishop Lowth's views have been generally accepted, although
they are open to various objections ; for the majority of the
verses are synthetic, and these in such a great variety that it
seems more important in many cases to classify and distinguish
them than to make the discriminations proposed by Bishop
Lowth. There is a general mingling of the three kinds of
parallelism in Hebrew poetry, so that seldom do the synony
mous and antithetical extend beyond a couplet, triplet, or
quartette of verses. The poet is as free in his use of the
various kinds of parallelism as in the use of rhyme or metre,
and is only bound by the principle of parallelism itself.
4. Bishop Jebb ^ added a fourth kind, which he called the
introverted parallelism, where the first line corresponds with
the fourth, and the second with the third, thus :
My son, if thine heart be wise,
My heart also shall rejoice ;
Yea, my reins shall rejoice,
When thy lips speak right thLngs.2
This is a difference in the structure of the strophe and in the
arrangement of the parallelism, rather than in the parallelism
itself. We may add two other kinds of parallelism, — the
emblematic and the stairlike.
5. The emblematic parallelism is quite frequent in HebrcAV
poetry : For lack of wood the fire goeth out :
And where there is no whisperer, contention ceaseth.
Coal for hot embers, and wood for fire ;
And a contentious man to infiame strife.8
Take away the dross from silver.
And there cometh forth a vessel for the finer.
Take away the wicked from before the king.
And his throne shall be established in righteousness.*

6. An unusual but graphic kind of parallelism is the stair
like movement, especially characteristic of the PUgrim Psalms
I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains —from whence cometh my help :
My help is from Yahweh — Maker of heaven and earth.
1 Sacred Literature, § iv., 1820. = Prov. 2315- 16.
8 Prov. 262»-2i. 4 Prov. 25«. ^ Ps. 120-134.

6

368 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
May He not suffer thy foot to be moved ; — may He not slumber, thy Keeper.
Behold He slumbers not and sleeps not, — the keeper of Israel.
Yahweh is thy keeper^ — is thy shade on thy right side ;
By day the sun will not smite thee, — nor the moon by night.
Yahweh will keep thee from every evil — he will keep thee, thyself.
Hei will keep thy going out and thy coming in — from now on even for ever.2
The last word of the first line becomes the first word of the
second. The last two words of the third line are taken up in the
fourth. The fifth, seventh, and eighth lines repeat the keeper of
the fourth line.
An example may be given from the Song of Deborah : '
Curse ye Meroz, saith the angel of Yahweh,
Curse ye for ever — the inhabitants thereof ;
Because they came not — to the help of Yahweh,
To the help of Yahweh against the mighty.
Blessed above wives be Jael,
• The wife of Heber the Kenite,
Above wives in the tent be she blessed.
Water he asked — milk she gave ;
In the lordly dish — she brought him curds;
Her hand to the tent pin she put forth.
And her right hand to the workman's hammer;
And she hammered Sisera — she smote through his head,
And she pierced, and she struck through his temples.
At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay ;
At her feet he benoed, he fell ;
Where he bowed, there he fell slain.
This parallelism of members was until recently thought to be
a peculiarity of Hebrew poetry, as a determining principle of
poetic art, although it is used among other nations for certain
momentary effects in their poetry ; but recent discoveries have
proved that the ancient Assyrian, Babylonian, and Akkadian
hymns have the same dominant feature in their poetry, so that
the conjecture of Schrader,* that the Hebrews brought it with
them in their emigration from the vicinity of Babylon, is highly
probable. Indeed, it is but natural that we should go back of
the more modern Syriac and Arabic poetry to the more ancient
Assyrian and Babylonian poetry for explanation of the poetry
of the Hebrews, which was historically brought into connection
with the latter and not with the former. Taking these ancient
1 illn' has been inserted without reason in the Massoretic text of these two
passages. 2 Ps. 121. 3 Jd. 523-27. 4 Jahrb. f Prot. Theo., I. 122.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BIBLICAL POETRY 369
Shemitic poetries together, we observe that they have unfolded
the principle of parallelism into a most elaborate and ornate
artistic system. Among other nations it has been known and
used, but it has remained comparatively undeveloped. Other
nations have developed the principles of rhyme and metre,
which were known and used, but remained undeveloped by
the Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians.
V. Ley's Theory op Measures
In addition to the principle of parallelism, others have sought
a principle of measurement of the verses of Hebrew poetry by
the accent. Thus Lautwein,^ Ernst Meier,^ and more recently
Julius Ley.^ The latter has elaborated quite a thorough system,
with a large number of examples. He does not interfere with
the Massoretic system, except in changes of the maqqeph and
metheg, and in his theory of a circumflex accentuation in mono
syllables at the end of a verse. He arranges Hebrew poetry
into pentameters, hexameters, octameters, and decameters, with
a great variety of breaks or caesuras, as, for instance, in the
octameter, which may be composed of 4-1-4 tones, or 2-1-6, 3 -J- 5,
or 5 -I- 3. His theory gives longer verses than seem suited to
the principle of parallelism and the spirit of Hebrew poetry.
His octameters are, in my opinion, chiefly tetrameters, and his
decameters pentameters, and many of his pentameters trimeters.
At the same time his views are in the main correct. He has
done more to establish correct views of Hebrew poetry than any
other since Lowth. The accent has great power in Hebrew
verse. The thought is measured by the throbbings of the soul
in its emotion, and this is naturally expressed by the beat of the
accent. The accent has no unimportant part to play in English
verse, but in Hebrew, as the poetic accent always corresponds
with the logical accent, and that is as a rule on the ultimate, it
falls with peculiar power. Even in prose the accent controls
the vocalization of the entire word, and in pause has double
1 Versuch einer richtigen Theorie von d. biblischen Verskunst, 1775.
2 Die Form der Hebr. Poesie, 1853.
8 Grundziige d. Bhythmus des Vers- und Strophenbaues in d. Hebr. Poesie,
1875 ; Leitfaden der Metrik der Hebr. Poesie, 1887.
2b

370 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
strength. How much more is this the case in poetry, where
the emotion expressed by homogeneous sounds causes it to beat
with exceeding power and wonderful delicacy of movement.
This can hardly be reproduced or felt to any great extent by
those who approach the Hebrew as a dead language. We can
only approximate to it by frequent practice in the utterance of
its verses.
In 1881 I published my views of Plebrew poetry, which in
the main correspond Avith those of Ley. I could not accept
his long measures, or the vicAvs of substitution and compensa
tion, which he has since abandoned. But I have held, with
increasing firmness in my teaching and writing, that the Hebrew
poet measured his line by the word accent or word group.^
The Hebrew poet had the liberty of uniting, in a word group,
two or more short words. The many monosyllables, particles,
segholates, infinitives, etc., might be used in this way, or might
be treated as independent words. The particles often assume
an archaic ending for this purpose, or a conjunction is pre
fixed. ^
There are, however, long words where the secondary accent
must be counted in the measure. Such long words are not
common in Hebrew, but they have to be considered when they
occur.^ It should also be said that the Hebrew poet changes
his measure at times just as the poets of other literatures, in
order to give variety and force to his style. This is most
frequent at the beginning or the end of strophes.*
There has been a strange reluctance on the part of Hebrew
scholars to recognize the measures of Hebrew poetry, but
within a few years great advance has been made in this respect
in all parts of the world.
1 Homiletical Quarterly, London, 1881, pp. 398 seq., 555 seq. ; Biblical
Study, 1st ed., 1883, pp. 262 seq.; Hebraica, five articles on Hebrew poetry,
1886-1887. 2 The prefix prepositions ja, b, 3, 3 might be used as separate words by giving
them the ancient form of ''Jtt, labjiaa, 183. So also the monosyllables 7S, bs,
nu, 7SJ, if they are to be accented as separate words, assume the archaic form
'bs, •'ba, ''nr, 'hv. So )h would be usually it not always toneless ; but )h\
vh'Z, X^''^ may receive the accent. (See Ley, Leitfaden, s. 4 seq.)
8 For specimens, see Ley, Leitfaden, s. 4, and notes, pp. 382, 383.
* See for illustrations pp. 383, 384.

characteristics of BIBLICAL POETRY 371
Upon these two principles of the parallelism of members and
the play of the accent the form of Hebrew verse depends. The
ancient verse divisions have been obscured and lost, even if
they were ever distinctly marked. We can recover them only
by entering into the spirit of the poetry, and allowing ourselves
to be carried on in the flow of emotion, marking its beats and
varied parallelism. These features of Hebrew poetry make it
a universal poetry, for the parallelism can be reproduced in
the main in most languages into which Hebrew poetry may be
translated, and even the same number of accents may be to a
great extent preserved ; only that the colouring of the words,
and the varied rhythm of their utterance, and the strong beat
ing of the accent, can only be experienced by a Hebrew scholar
in the careful and practised reading of the Hebrew text.
VI. The Poetic Language
As in all other languages, so in the Hebrew the poetic style
is elevated, artistic, and cultivated, and hence above the every
day talk of the houses and streets. For this purpose it selects
not the language of the schools, which becomes technical, pe
dantic, and artificial, but the older language, which, with its
simplicity and strong vital energy, is in accord with the poetic
spirit. Thus in the forms of the language there is (a) an occasional
use of the fuller sounding forms, as athah for ah, of the fem.
noun ; (5) the older endings of prepositions in bHi for bal,
minni for min, 'SIS for 'el, 'ali for 'al, 'ddhe for 'adh ; (c) the
older case endings of nouns, as chayHho for chayyath, and b^ni
for ben; (c?) the older sufflx forms in m6 and Smd for dm; (e)
the fuller forms of the inseparable prepositions l^md for l", b^md
for ¥ ; (/) the nun paragogic or archaic ending of 3 pf. of
verbs, Un for 4.
The style is more primitive, using many archaic expressions
that have been lost to the classic language. The monuments
of Assyria and Babylon show us that the earlier Hebrew lan
guage was historically in contact with the languages of Syria
and the Euphrates. The Assyrian and Babylonian shed great

372 study of holy scripture
light on these poetic archaisms. A later connection of Hebrew
with Aramaic is indicated in the later historical writings of the
Bible. The poetic language is also remarkably rich in syno
nyms, exceedingly flexible and musical in structure, and thus
., the older forms are retained in these synonyms for variety of
' representation, when they have long passed from use in the
\ prose literature.

CHAPTER XV
the measures of biblical poetry
Hebrew poetry is measured in part by rhyme and assonance,
but chiefly by the beats of the accents.
I. Assonance and Rhyme
Many specimens of word painting may be found in Hebrew
poetry. The following examples may suffice :
Psalm 105 is composed of six hexameter strophes of seven
lines each. Two of these strophes (I. and V. ) have rhyme in
the form of identical suffixes of the noun and verb. This may
be sufficiently represented in English by the italicized personal
pronouns. Each line of the first strophe closes with the suffix
aw; each line before the caesura has .the suffix 6 or mo; each
line of the fifth strophe closes with the suffix am.
Strophe I
O give thankSji proclaim His^ name — make 8 known among the peoples His*
doings.
Sing to Him, make melody to Him — muse on all His wonders.
Glory in His holy name — let the heart of them be glad that seek Him.^
Resort to Yahweh and His strength — seek continually His face.
1 mn'''? has been inserted to make the ascription more definite ; but it makes
the line too long, and was unnecessary in the original.
2 The first half of the line throughout ends in the suffix 1, 3d pers. sing.
masc. suffix to singular noun, His, except where the infinitive construct is used,
line 5, and the 3d plural (in itt), line 7. See note on p. 370.
8 The hexameter always has a csesura. See p. 382. This is indicated by the
mark — .
4 The line always closes with V, 3d pers. sing. masc. suflix to plural noun. His.
8 rt\Tf Tp2l2 for the original TlTpaa. The insertion of mn'' makes the line
too long. 373

374 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Remember the wonders of His^ doing — the judgments of 5is mouth and His
marvels ; 2
Ye seed of Abraham His servant — ye children of Jacob, His chosen ones.
He is Yahweh their' God — in all the earth are His acts of judgment.*

Strophe V
Their land swarmed with frogs — in the chambers of their 8 king.
He said it, and the swarm came — lice in aU their border.
He gave their rains to be hail — flaming fire in their land.
And He smote their vine and their fig tree — and brake in pieces the tree of
their border.
He said it, and the locust came — and the young locust, countless their'
number,
And did eat up every herb of their land — and did eat up the fruit of their
ground.
And he smote all the firstborn in their land — and the firstfrnits of all their
strength.'
The 6th Psalm is an example of the use of the suffix of the
first person singular, I, at the close of each line except the last
two of the first strophe, where the change to two lines with kd
= Thee is effective.
1. Yahweh, do not in thine anger rebuke me.
Yahweh,8 do not in thy heat chasten me.
Since ^ I am withered i" be gracious to me;
Since ' my bones are vexed i" heal me ;
Yea sorely vexed is ^ my soul,
And it is come," Yahweh, unto my death.
1 Read iniru msbfiJ for Hebrew nwr nwii mvhSi:, which is prosaic.
2 There has been a transposition ; Vnstt goes to the end of the line. The
scribe has transformed this hexameter line with csesura into a prose line.
8 Read Ifi'n'pX for 13'nbx. This keeps the rhyme in 0, although ID is 3d plural
suffix. * Ps. 1051-7.
^ Hebrew Onwa is evidently a mistake for DS'^tt. There is only one king of
Egypt to whom this passage can refer.
s The suffix was unnecessary here, and it was omitted by a scribe who had no
interest in the rhyme. We should read mSDa for "IBDtt. To give the force in
English, it is necessary to paraphrase. ' Ps. 1058''-38.
8 The parallelism requires the insertion of Yahweh.
' Transpose the clauses.
1° Omit Tahweh in these inst.ances. It makes the lines too long, and is
unnecessary. " This line is corrupt. Instead of 'na-IU mn'' riSI. read 'Hfa-nU ni.T n8>1.
The omission of ^ in the first word has occasioned the incorrect traditional
pointing, which yields no good sense. Besides the Massoretic "¦ over F, , while
it suggests the nnx of the second singular, really implies a traditional doubt as
to the form.

THE MEASURES OF BIBLICAL POETRY 375
O re turn, 1 deliver my soul :
For the sake of thy kindness,2 save me.
For in death there is no remembrance of thee :
In Sheol, who will give thanks to thee ?
2. I am weary with my groaning ;
All night make I to swim my bed ;
I water with my tears 2 my couch.
Because of grief wasteth away mine eye ;
It waxeth old because of mine adversary.8
All ye workers of iniquity, depart* from me;
For Yahweh hath heard the voice of my weeping ;
Yahweh hath heard my supplication ;
Yahweh receiveth 4 my prayer.
They will be ashamed and will be sore vexed all mine 8 enemies.
There is a fine example of assonance in the first pentameter
strophe of Ps. 110.
utterance of Yahweh to my lord — Sit at my right hand.
Until I put thine enemies — the stool for thy feet.
With the rod of thy strength 8 — rule in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people will be volunteers — in the day of thy host, on the holy mountains. ^
From the womb of the morning there will be for thee, — the dew of thy young
men.
A fine example of word-painting is found in Jd. 5^ :
DID 'apy laVn ts
VTSS nnm nnma
The movement of the words in utterance is like the wild
running of horses.
The most elaborate example of word play is in the great
apocalypse, Is. 24-27. It is indeed characteristic of this mar
vellous hexameter. The force of the original Hebrew can
hardly be represented in English:
nan ram f nsn pian pian 248
Hibboq tibboq hd'dretz Whibbbz tibboz.
ban nbaj rbbt^ f^^T] nbaj nbax 24*
'AbhHd ndbh'ld hd'dretz, 'uml'ld ndbhHd tebhel.
1 Omit Yahweh in this instance. It makes the line too long, and is unneces
sary. 2 Transpose the clauses.
8 Point singular ^'lT)i¥ for Massoretic ''^'TliS. * Transpose words.
8 The change to plural is probably designed at the close of the strophe. The
last clause of the psalm is a later addition.
8 "May Yahweh send it forth from Zion," is a gloss of prayer. It breaks
the movement of the poetry by an abrupt change of subject.
' ''Tin , mountains, instead of "'Tin , attire : frequent mistake of T for H.

376 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
^b "IS 'h ''n "h ''n laxi 2418
naa ainaia -wai nja D^naa
ITa'oniar razJ li rdzi li 'owi li
Bogh'dhim bdghddhu, wubheghedh bogh'dhtm baghddhU.
onaip nnira D'^mts nnoa 258
oppja D''iatr o'naa o'jaB'
Mishte sh'mdnim, mishte sh'mdrim
Sh'mdnim m'muchdyim sh^mdrim m'zuqqdcp,m.
j-n rjnn Jina dk man inaa naaan 27'
"As the smiting of those that smote him hath he smitten him ? or as the slaying
of them that were slain by him is he slain ? "
Sometimes great force is produced in a poem by the change
of a single letter of a word in word play.
At the brooks of Reuben were great decrees of mind.
Why didst thou dwell among the sheepfolds,
Listening to the bleatings of the flocks ?
At the brooks of Reuben were great searchings of mind.
This tetrastich begins and closes with the same identical line,
except that for the word ''PpH, decrees, we have ''"IpH, searchings.
There is a single letter changed, p to ^, to emphasize the trans
formation of the bold mental decrees into the timid, hesitating
searchings of the mind.^
II. The Measures by Word or Accent
The Hebrew poet measured his lines by the beats of the
accent, or by word, or word-groups, as did ancient Babylonian
and Egyptian poets. Accordingly three beats of the accent
give us trimeters, four tetrameters, five pentameters,- and six
hexameters. All these measures appear in Hebrew poetry, as
they do in Babylonian and Egyptian poetry. There are no
dimeter lines, except occasionally in connection with trimeters
and tetrameters to vary the measure.
1. The Trimeter
The trimeter is the most frequent measure, especially in the
more ancient historical poetry, and in the Psalter, and in
the Wisdom Literature. The alphabetical poems enable us to
1 Jd. 518I6. Geo. Moore in his Commentary on Judges thinks the second line
a mistaken repetition of the flrst, and that it gives the true, original text. I
cannot agree with him.

the measures of biblical poetry

377

study the trimeters, as the lines are limited by the letters
of the alphabet in their progress. The first example will be
taken from the alphabetical Ps. 9, where there is a double
limitation by the letter Aleph and by the rhyme in the
suffix Ka. ^b 2 "a'j-baa i n'liK
T'niKbsir'ra 8 h'ibds
¦la nibrxi nrJatpx
¦faE> fbv* n'TBJX
Each line begins with the first person of the cohortative imper
fect of the verb and with the letter Aleph ; each line closes with
the su£B.x of the second singular noun. Here, then, the lines are
distinctly marked at the beginning and at the end by words in
assonance. One Avord only remains in each line between the two.
These lines are measured by three words or three word accents.
Psalm 111 is a fine example of an alphabetical psalm :

B^'lJ

nb"™'

nnb

ib=

aab-baa

n'liK

tsB^ai

naK

wca 8

mn

tr^v

maa

vnipB-

bS

D''ras3

mm

'irra

U^'^l

d'tii}'?

-fb

n''aiaD

vasne

bal?

o^m

im

nasa

tf\m

ifsJB

mm

mn

larb

fhs

nns

nab

mar

irpiiti

in''na

D'yir'?

ms

rrnsbBJb

r^m

-laf

iat»

S'TIJI

trnp

mm

mnm

•fin

sinsT'

naan

T\^'m,''\

ritn^b

liij

sina

amtru

bab

aiB-baip

irria

•dyxh

nap

ivb

mar

in'pnn

ysab

n^n

i"'ir!?a"na

1 "Yahweh" has been inserted in the Massoretic text, as usual in such
circumstances. In use in worship the reference to Yahweh was plain enough.
For private reading it seemed necessary to the scribe to insert it.
2 "^ has been omitted by the Massoretic text. It is implied by the Greek aal.
8 The long word '^''niKbso has two accents, therefore ba is to be attached to
it by Maqqeph.
* There has been a transposition of jv"?!? and ^a^^ by a scribe who did not
understand the rhyme and who followed the prose order of words.
8 The Greek version has aol, which implies either an interpretation, or lb in
the text, mn'' has been inserted as usual, but it makes the line a tetrameter.
It is possible that the poet has increased his measure here, for sometimes trim
eters begin with tetrameters, but it is not probable.
8 The Greek version has BeK-finaTa. airoO = 1''JtBn, which is more probable than
the Hebrew Dn''JtBn. ^ Dnb has been inserted for preciseness of statement.
8 vTi itrua makes the line a tetrameter. It is improbable ; read TV)Va.
8 mn'' nKT', in the Hebrew stands for an original inKIV

378 STUDY of holy scripture
The lines are distinctly separated by the fact that each one
begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and they continue
in the order of the alphabet untU the psalm is complete in
twenty-two lines. Each line has three accented words.^
Psalm 112 is also an alphabetical psalm of exactly the same
structure as Ps. 111.
In the Hebrew manuscripts there is a separation of lines in
Deut. 32, 33; 2 Sam. 22; Ps. 18, which indicates that these
are aU trimeters. The poems ascribed to Balaam ^ are also
trimeters, although there is nothing in the text itself to show it.
A fine example of the trimeter may be given from the Egyp
tian poem called the Hymn to the Nile :
Adoration to the Nile !
Hail to thee, 0 Nile !
Who manifesteth thyself over this land.
And comest to give life to Egypt !
Mysterious is thy issuing forth from the darkness,
On this day whereon it is celebrated !
Watering the orchards created by Ra,
To cause all the cattle to live.
Thou givest the earth to drink, inexhaustible one !
Path that descendest from the sky.
Loving the bread of Seb and the firstfrnits of Nepera,
Thou causest the workshops of Pthah to prosper.'
A French scholar says of this poem :
" The text of the Hymn is divided into fourteen verses, intro
duced by red letters, and each, with two exceptions, containing
the same number of complete phrases, separated from one another
by red points. Unfortunately we are still ignorant of the rules
of Egyptian poetry, but as the variant readings show that the
number of syllables in one and the same sentence is not the same
in the difEerent texts, it is probable that the tonic accent played a
chief part in it." *
Erman,^ the distinguished Egyptologist of Berlin, also says
that Egyptian poetry is measured by the tonic accent, and that
there is a vast amount of poetry in Egyptian literature.
1 No emendation is necessary in the Hebrew text. The use of the MSqqeph
is sufficient in lines 1, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21. But it is probable that in some of
these lines there has been a slight corruption of the original text, as I have
indicated in the notes.
2 Nu. 23'™«-. 18-2*. 8 Beeords of the Past, new edition, III. 48.
* Paul Guieysse, Beeords ofthe Past, III. p. 47.
8 Life in Ancient Egypt, 1894, p. 395.

THE MEASURES OF BIBLICAL POETRY 379
2. The Tetrameter
The tetrameter is composed of four beats of the accent or
word-groups. It is usually divided by a csesura in the middle.
The following specimen of an ancient Babylonian hymn may
suitably introduce the subject : ^
In heaven who is great ? — Thou alone art great.
On earth who is great ? — Thou alone art great.
Where Thy voice resounds in heaven — the gods fall prostrate.
Where Thy voice resounds on earth — the genii kiss the dust.
This resembles in some respects the ode of the Red Sea.^ The
latter has a refrain which does not appear at the close of the
strophes, but is given apart from them. It should be placed at
the close of the strophes. The strophes increase, the second
strophe being twice the length of the first, and the third strophe
three times its length. The movement is clearly tetrameter,
with the csesura in the midst of each line.
Strophe I
r\awh ¦''^¦'mi-n''-n'nar ¦'tu
in:aa-isi ^a«-\n'?x-im:si ¦bx-n
iat£> mn''-nan'7a-u>''x mm
D''a nm-ib''m nu'ia-naana
pliD-D''a lyaB-rtybc inaai
*ia«"iaa n'7iiaa3-ia''Da'' nann
nsj nsr''a-mn'''7 nT'tys-i
D'a nan-iaa-n did/ ^^"*"^'

Strophe II naa ''mw-mm ^3•'a¦'
a'lx funn-mm -i3''a'
T-ap D'nnn-iJiKJ anai
!»pa ia'7ai<''--i3m nbt^n
D^a 1a-l^3-'^''BS nnai
D'''?i: n: laa lasj
w a'ra-nann issp
1 Transactions Soc. Bib. Arch., II. p. 62. 2 ex. 15.
8 nm is a prosaic insertion.
* The csesura is striking in each of these lines. The arrangement agrees with
the usual division of the lines, except in the second line, which is divided in the
Massoretic text into two lines, spoiling the movement.
8 There is no departure from the tetrameter movement in this long strophe.
In most of the lines the caesura is plain. In the Massoretic text, lines 5, 6, 7
are changed into trimeters by the misuse of the MSqqeph.

3TX Bin'nK-a''ix nax
''iffBj laxban-bbir pbn^
''T iai»''mn-''ann p''"iK
D'' laoa-'^mna r&m
'!B''mnK D^aa msira ibbs'
nxj nsr''a-mm'7 nmtr«
B''a nan-iaam did

>¦ Refrain.

380

STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

Strophe III

|wa ''a©'' ba uaj
nnsi nna''x-Dn'''?y ban
;axa lam-irnt bin
mn'' ^aIJ-^alJ'' ni?
n''3p irDU-'naa'' nu
inbns nna-iarem lasan
mm n'^UB-inair'? jiaa
27T i:3ia-mm t»npa
ns3 nsj-'a-mm'? nmtrsi
D'a nan-iaa-n did J

Refrain.

mm n'pxa naaa ¦'a
tt>npa ms3-naaa ''a
»,b& nisr-n'^nn xm:
pK iai>'?an-i3''a'' mw
nbxj iroy-'^nDna n''n3
-pip m3-bK-7aa n'?n3
D''i3i pHT'-D''ai; waw
nobs ''aiy-mx '?''n
onx "si'px-ibnas ix
nyn iaTns''-a>?ia '''?''X

Psalm 13 gives an example of a tetrameter, where the begin
ning of the lines in the first strophe is marked by an identical
phrase, and the lines conclude with rhyme :
How long, Yahweh, — forever 8 wilt thou forget me ?
How long wilt thou hide thy face from me ?
How long shall I take counsel in my soul ?
How long* shall I have sorrow — by day 8 in my heart ?
How long shall he be exalted — over me 8 be mine enemy ?
There are not so many examples of the tetrameter in Hebrew
poetry as of the other measures. There are few in the Psalter.
Fine specimens, however, are the Song of Deborah,^ the Lament
of David over Jonathan,^ and Pss. 1, 4, 7, 12, 16, 45, 46, 58.

3. The Pentameter
The pentameter has five beats of the accent, or five word-
groups. There is always a csesura, usually after the third beat,
but sometimes for variety after the second beat.
The epic of the Descent of Istar to Sheol is a fine example
1 It is improbable that this line only should be trimeter. Insert D''1J in accord
ance with parallelism.
2 We now have a supplementary line which seems not to have belonged to
the original poem. It is just such a liturgical supplement as we often find in
the Psalter. The Massoretic text reduces a few of the lines to trimeters by an
improper use of the Maqqeph. In the last line mm is to be preferred to ''3ns.
8 These three cases are transpositions made by the scribe, who did not discern
the rhyme, and so followed the prose order of words. The restoration of the
original order restores the caesuras also.
* n3S"n!3 is restored in this line. The Massoretic text omits it. It is improb
able that the original lacked it. 8 j^. 5. 6 2 Sam. li»-2^.

THE MEASURES OF BIBLICAL POETRY 381
of the pentameter in Babylonian poetry. ^ The following ex
tract may suffice :
To the land without return — the region of darkness,
Istar, daughter of Sin — her face did set ;
Yea, the daughter of Sin — did set her face
To the house of darkness — the abode of Irkalla,
To the house whose entering — knows no going out again.
To the path whose way — has no returning,
To the house which cuts oft — him entering it from light,
Where dust is their nourishment — their food is slime,
Light is never beheld — in darkness they dwell :
They are clothed like the birds — their garments are wings.
On the door and its bolt — is lying the dust.
The pentameter is the most frequent measure in Hebrew
poetry, next to the trimeter. This is the measure which is
called by Budde the Kina measure, because apparently he first
noticed it in the book of Lamentations. But, in ^fact, there is
no propriety in this name. The earliest Hebrew dirge, the
Lament of David over Jonathan, is not in this measure, but in
the tetrameter ; and on the other side this measure is not espe
cially adapted to the dirge. All kinds of poetry appear in this
measure. It seems especially adapted to didactic poems, such
as Ps. 119.
The pentameter line is often treated as if it were composed of
two lines in parallelism. But the second half of the pentameter
line is not in such marked parallelism with the first as the
second line of a trimeter poem. It is rather supplementary to
the first half, even when parallelism appears.
A fine specimen of the pentameter is the alphabetical dirge
contained in Lam. 3. The dirge has twenty-two strophes, in
which the initial letter of the strophe is a letter in the order of
the Hebrew alphabet. But the alphabetical structure is not
confined to the initial letters of the strophes. Each strophe
contains three lines, and each line begins with the characteris
tic letter of the strophe. Four of these strophes will suffice as
specimens of the twenty-two. Bickell makes these lines of
twelve syllables in accordance with his theory of the structure
of Hebrew verse. In general, his lines of tAvelve syllables
correspond with our pentameter.
1 F. Brown, " Religious Poetry of Babylona " in Presbyterian Beview, 1888, p. 69.

382

STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

¦'ntrm T'aan-xi's-Kbi •''lua nni
''fibsn Dnir-ywsi psTis ''a'"D3
m1} ''ma''n3-n''wa ''ann nnj

innar? tiae>a-''3y n^i n3Jn-''3K
m's-K'?i '!itt>n-i'Ti j™ ''nix
Divrba 1'^''-^Bm a©'' "£"]«

•'nia:£u -iat!7-'''Tit}i '''lira nba
nsbni tt'xn ffip''i-"''?r nJa
d"?!!? ''naa-''3a''irini D''at»naa

D'''T'nDaa mnx-''b-Kin anx an
Daitr ''3aiy-''3TOa''i n'lio ¦'ann
yfh x'T'oaa ¦'3a''3:''i-intyp Tin 2
The great alphabetical poem in praise of the Divine Word,
Ps. 119, has twenty-two strophes, and each strophe is com
posed of eight lines, and each line of the strophe begins with
the characteristic letter of the strophe. The pentameter move
ment is clear, and the lines are distinctly marked off by the
letters of the alphabet. Bickell regards the lines of this poem
also as composed of twelve syllables.

TTana naisb-imx-nx nui^nar naa
T'rnjraas ''3jirn-^s-'T'nirnn ''a'p-baa
'I'r'stanx x'T¦iuab-^^haK ''n3Bi!: ^Sb'2
-[¦'¦pn ''3'Tab-mn'' nns nna
¦fa ''BBtt'a-bas-imBD ''naisa
pn-'^a '?ira-''nw ymiv nTia
^nnnss ,-i{a''axi-nn''trK "inipaa
8 Tian nat»x-K'?-ririjnip«8 ^npna

n-iina* D''a'7nn-in'T'-''a''an ¦''%«
imirnn' ab-baa-rnnu ''%3 ¦'¦wx
labn rrnna-n'?m I'fya s'rfix
nxa mats'? -T'-fps nn''T3£ nnx
¦ypn natt>'?-''ann isa'' ¦''rix
Tnijta b6-bii ''D^'ana-tpiax x'rix
I'pii "'BBtra '''Ta'?a-aaynt»''a fnix
nxa-nu •'saiun-bxs-naipx ^pmnx

4. The Hexameter
The Hebrew hexameter is a double trimeter. The csesura
ordinarily divides the line in the middle. Hence it is not
always easy to decide whether the line is a hexameter or two
trimeters. But there are several helps to the decision of this
question : (a) The hexameter line is occasionally divided by
the csesura into 4 4- 2 or 2 -|- 4. (6) There will also be exam-
1 This word has two accents, on account of the number of long vowels.
2 The only changes in the Massoretic text are insertion of Maqqephs in lines
1, 3, 7, 8, 10, all of which are in accordance with good usage. The lines have
the caesuras after the third beat of the accent, except lines 5 and 12.
8 These are all long words with two accents, both of which are counted in the
measure. * The Hebrew language prefers ¦lTf"'a''an to "["n ''a'an. It is improbable
that the line is hexameter. Read therefore nmna instead of mm nmna. The
divine name is unnecessary.
8 The MSqqephs are changed in lines 3, 6, of the X strophe, and in lines 3, 5, 8,
of the a strophe. These need no justification.

THE MEASURES OF BIBLICAL POETRY 383
pies of two caesuras dividing the line into 2 -j- 2 -F 2. (c) Pen
tameter lines will be found to vary the movement. As the
poet will sometimes shorten his trimeter into a dimeter, his
tetrameter into a trimeter, and his pentameter into a tetrame
ter, so there are occasional pentameter lines in hexameter
poems. (cZ) The second half of the line will be complement
ary to the first half, and the parallelism will be between the hex
ameter lines. I shall use as an illustration " the golden ABC
of women." ^ nnaa D''3'^3Ba pnni-xsa'' ''a bTrntrx
nom-x"? b^vit-nbvi £b na naa
m'ri •'£"' fa-sn-xbi aia innb'aj
msa fsna truni-o-'nirBi nai mmi
nan'? x'an prhaa-nma nfssa nm
mmw'r pm-nrra'? BinB-fnni-n'?'''r"mua Dpni
Dna-yts3 n'sa ''¦iBa-innpm nnir naai
mnuni2 faxm-m3na wn T\i:n
n-ii '^''fa naa''-x'?-n'T'nD aiV'a nara
n'7B laan maai-mK^'aa nfhio mm
ivax"? nn'?K' n''Ti-''3'i)'? nirns naa
B''3tt> v>£b nrra-'jas-s'jaJa nma'? xmn-x"?
nria'? lainxi w-n^nnirr o^nana
fnx-'3prD!; ' inawa-nfua anm^ vr\:
^fvab nihi mini-naam nnsv p'lb
jnnx Dv"? pprom-nt^ia'? n'lm to
rt:wb-bv ion nTTm-naana nnna ma
'?axn-x'? mfstu anfi-nma mSb^n maist
n'?'?mi n'wa nai}*-mnirx'"i m33 lap
n3'»-'?!) rc^v nx'i-'?''n-'nrB mJa man
'?'?nnn xfi-mm-nxm nt»x-''arr'?am fnn-npir
smipaa D''TOiya ni'i'^n'i-m'r nsa n'ri:n
There are also alphabetical psalms in the hexameter move
ment. Psalm 145 has twenty -two alphabetical hexameter lines.
Psalm 37 has twenty-two alphabetical hexameter couplets.
1 Prov. 31i''-8i. 2 These long words have two accents.
8 ''a has come into the Massoretic text by dittography.
* The Waw eonsec implies a verb, and the measure is just this much too
short. I have ventured to insert nai? as parallel with lap.
8 This beautiful alphabetical poem might be taken as composed of alphabetical
trimeter distichs so far as most of the poem is concerned, for the caesura is in the
middle of the line in all cases except three lines. But lines 1 and IT have two
csBsuras, and line a has a caesura after the fourth beat.

384 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
There are many other hexameter psalms. It is a favourite
measure of later prophecy. Thus the beautiful hymn. Is. 60,
and the magnificent apocalypse, Is. 24—27, are in this measure. ^
5. Varying Measures
There are a few cases in which the measure varies in the
several strophes. The simplest and finest example of these is
Ps. 23, which in the first strophe is trimeter, in the second
tetrameter, and in the third pentameter.
1. Yahweh is-my-shepherd : I-cannot-want.
In-pastures of -green-grass He-causeth-me-to-lie-down ;
Unto-waters of-refreshment He-leadeth-me ;
Me-myself He-restoreth.2 , 
2. He-guideth-me in-paths of-righteousness for-his-name's-sake.
Also when-I-walk in-the-valley of-dense-darkness
I-fear-not evil, for-Thou-art with-me :
Thy-rod and-Thy-staff they comfort-me.
3. He-prepareth before-me a-table in-the-presence-of my-adversaries ;
Has-He-anointed with-oil my-head; my-cup is-abundance.
Surely-goodness and-mercy pursue-me all-the-days of-my-life,
And-I-shall-return 8 (to-dwell)-in-the-house-of Yahweh, for-length of-days.*
We have seen that Hebrew poetry has its measures as clearly
and accurately marked as other poetry. Great light is thrown
upon the meaning of a multitude of passages by arranging the
poetry in accordance with its true measures. And it is a sure
guide to glosses inserted by later editors in the text. We are
yet in the infancy of this study. Great fruit may be antici
pated from the prosecution of it in the future.
1 See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 7th ed., pp. 296 seq., 394 seq., where these
hexameters are arranged in measures and strophes.
2 A broken line ; a dimeter.
8 A pregnant term implying the verb " dwell," which has been inserted.
* I have here indicated the number of accents by combining in English the
words combined in Hebrew.

CHAPTER XVI
THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY
The great formative principle of Hebrew poetry is the par
allelism of members. These members vary from the couplet
to the strophe of fourteen lines. Seldom does the strophe
extend beyond this number of lines. However numerous the
lines may be, and however the strophes and larger divisions of
a poem may be arranged, the principle of parallelism determines
the whole.
I. The Couplet
The simplest form of the parallelism of members is seen in
the couplet, or distich, where two lines balance one another in
thought and its formal expression. The couplet is seldom used
except in brief, terse, gnomic utterances.
1. The simplest form of the couplet is the synonymous
couplet. The following specimens of the synonymous couplets may
suffice : The liberal soul shall be made fat :
And he that watereth shall be watered also himself.i
The evil bow before the good ;
And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.2
A man hath joy in the answer of his mouth :
And a word in due season, how good it is ! 8
A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doing wrong ;
And an huckster shall not be freed from sin.*
Saul smote his thousands,
And David his myriads.8
1 Prov. 1126. 2 Prov. 14". « Prov. 152'. * Eccius. 2629.
8 1 Sam. 18^.
2 c 385

386 study of holy scripture
2. Antithetical couplets are numerous and varied :
A wise son maketh glad his father ;
But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
Treasures of wickedness profit not ;
But righteousness delivereth from death.
Yahweh vriU not let the desire of the righteous famish ;
But the craving of the wicked He disappointeth.
He becometh poor that worketh with an idle hand ;
But the hand of the diligent maketh rich.
He that gathereth in fruit harvest is a wise son ;
But he that lies in deep sleep in grain harvest is a base son.i
In the second of these couplets the antithesis is throughout:
" Righteousness " to " treasures of wickedness," and " delivereth
from death" to "profit not." Usually, however, there are one or
more synonymous terms to make the antithesis more emphatic.
In the fourth couplet " hand " is a common term, and the contrast
is of "idle" and "diligentj" "becometh poor" and " maketh rich."
In the third couplet " Yahweh" is a common term with " He," and
" desire " synonymous with " craving," in order to the antithesis
of " righteous " with " wicked," and of " will not let famish " with
" disappointeth." In the first couplet " son " is a common term ;
" father " and " mother " are synonymous, in order to the antithesis
of "wise" and "foolish," "maketh glad" and "grief." In the
fifth couplet " son " is a common term, " fruit harvest " is synony
mous with " grain harvest," whereas " wise " has as its antithesis
"base," and "gathereth" "lies in deep sleep."
Sometimes the antithesis is limited to a single term :
Man's heart deviseth his way ;
But Yahweh directeth his steps.2
Here the contrast is between " man's heart " and " Yahweh " ; the
remaining terms are synonymous.
The antithesis sometimes becomes more striking in the anti
thetical position of the terms themselves :
He that spareth his rod, hateth his son ;
But he that loveth him seeketh him chastisement."
The common terms are " father " and " son," the antithetical,
" spareth his rod " with " seeketh him chastisement," and " hateth"
with " loveth " ; but that which closes the first line begins the
second, and that which begins the first closes the second.
The following additional specimens from the Wisdom of J^sus
may be studied.
1 Prov. 101-5. 2 Prov. 169. 3 Prov. 132*.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 387
Whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled ;
But whosoever humbleth himself shall be exalted.i
Unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance ;
But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.2
Think not that I came to destroy the law ;
I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.8
3. Parallelism is ordinarily progressive in that great variety
of form which such a rich and powerful language as the Hebrew
renders possible.
The blessing of Rebekah by her brothers* is a progressive dis
tich: 0 thou our sister, become thousands of myriads.
And may thy seed inherit the gate of those that hate them.
The second line sums up the " thousands of myriads " of the
first, in order to give the climax of the wish, in the inheritance of
the gate of their enemies.
The words of Moses when the ark of the covenant set forward
and when it rested are couplets.'
Arise, Yahweh, and let Thine enemies be scattered ;
And let those who hate Thee flee from before Thee.
Return, Yahweh,
To the myriads of thousands of Israel.
The first of these couplets is synonymous throughout; the
second is an example of an unfinished line ; the pause in the poet
ical movement is to give more emphasis to the second line when
its advanced idea is expressed.
The following additional specimens will illustrate the variations
possible in the synthesis.
The fear of Yahweh is a fountain of life,
To depart from the snares of death.8
The eyes of Yahweh are in every place,
Keeping watch upon the evil and the good.'
Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation :
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. 8
Till heaven and earth pass away.
Not one yodh shall pass away from the law.'
1 Mt. 231^ = Lk. 1411, 1814. 2 Mt. 2529 =Mk. 426 . Lk. 8", 1928.
8 Mt. 51'. " Prophets " in the flrst line is a later addition to the text which
• has nothing to justify it in the context. * Gen. 248o.
6 Num. 1085. 86. 6 Prov. 1427. '' Prov. 158. « Mk. 1488 ~ Mt. 26*i.
" Mt. 518 = Lk. 16". The n p,ia xepea of Matthew is not in Luke, and is not
original. It makes the line too long.

388 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
4. There are many emblematic couplets :
A word fitly spoken.
Is like apples of gold in baskets of silver.
As an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold,
So is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.i
As cold water to a thirsty soul,
So is good news from a far country.2
They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick :
I came not to call the righteous, but on the contrary, sinners.8
The book of Proverbs in its first great collection contains
376 couplets, of every variety.* The second great collec
tion is also composed chiefly of couplets, although specimens
of other forms occur. ^ The Wisdom of Jesus has a large num
ber also.^
II. The Triplet
The tristich, or triplet, of three lines is not common in He
brew poetry. There are only eight in the entire book of
Proverbs.'' 1. The synonymous triplet is most frequent.
The priests' blessing is a fine specimen of a synonymous tris
tich. Yahweh bless thee and keep thee ;
Yahweh let His face shine upon thee and be gracious to thee ;
Yahweh lift up His face upon thee and give thee peace."
The oldest of the sayings of the Jewish Fathers is of this form :
Be deliberate in judgment,
And raise up many disciples,
And make a fence to the Law.'
Jesus uses this form also.
Ask and it shall be given unto you ;
Seek, and ye shall find ;
Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
1 Prov. 2511- 12. 6 Prov. 25-29.
2 Prov. 2526. 6 See pp. 69, 86.
8 Mk. 2" = Mt. 912 = Lk. 581- 82. 7 Prov. 2229, 258- 13. 20.^ 271''- 22., 281°, 3020.
* Prov. 10-2218. 8 Num. gai-ae.
s Pirqe Aboth l^.

THB PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 389
This is followed by another triplet, progressive to it.
For every one that asketh, receiveth,
And he that seeketh, findeth.
And to him that knocketh it shall be opened.i
2. The antithetical triplet takes the form of one antithetical
line to two other lines. Sometimes the antithesis appears in
one line, sometimes in another.
These examples will suffice :
Seest thou a man diligent in his business ?
He shall stand before kings ;
He shall not stand before mean men.2
Thine own friend, and thy father's friend, forsake not ;
But go not to thy brother's house in the day of thy calamity :
Better is a neighbor that is near than a brother far off.'
The foxes have holes,
And the birds of the heaven nests ;
But the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.*
3. Progressive triplets are more frequent, but the progres
sion is seldom thorough-going.
These specimens show the variety of method :
Go not forth hastily to strive.
Lest in the end, therefore, what wilt thou do.
When thy neighbour hath put thee to shame ? 8
Be ye of the disciples of Aaron :
Loving peace and pursuing peace,
Loving mankind and bringing them nigh.'
4. The emblematic tristich may be illustrated by the fol
lowing specimens :
As the cold of snow in the time of harvest.
So is a faithful messenger to them that send him ;
For he refresheth the soul of his masters.'
As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather.
And as vinegar upon nitre ;
So is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.8
1 Mt. V-^. 8 Prov. 2718. 8 prov. 258. 7 prov. 25i'.
2 Prov. 2229. 4 Mt. 820 _ Lk. 989. 6 Pirqe Aboth li*. » Prov. 252<>.

390 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

III. The Tetrastich
The tetrastich is formed from the distich, and consists gen
erally of pairs balanced over against one another, but some
times of three Unes against one ; rarely there is a steady march
of thought to the end.
The oracle respecting Jacob and Esau^ is an example of bal
anced pairs :
Two nations are in thy womb,
And two peoples will separate themselves from thy bowels ;
And people will prevail over people.
And the elder will serve the younger.
The pairs are synonymous Avithin themselves, but progressive with
reference to one another.
The blessing of Ephraim by Jacob is an example of antithetical
pairs : He also will become a people,
And he also wUl grow great ;
But yet the younger will become greater,
And his seed abundance of nations. ^
The song of the well is an interesting and beautiful example of
a more involved kind of paraUelism, where the second and third
lines constitute a synonymous pair ; while at the same time, as a
pair, they are progressive to the first line, and are followed by a
fourth line progressive to themselves :
Spring up well 1 Sing to it !
Well that princes have dug ;
The nobles of the people have bored.
With sceptre, with their staves.8
The dirge of David over Abner presents a similar specimen,
where, however, the first and fourth lines are synonymous 'with.
one another, as well as the second and third lines :
Was Abner to die as a fool dieth ?
Thy hands were not bound.
And thy feet were not put in fetters :
As one falling before the children of wickedness, thoa didst fall.*
A fine example of a tetrastich, progressive throughout, is found
1 Gen. 2528.
2 Gen. 4819. The measures of the last two lines are spoiled by the later pro
saic insertion of VnS, 13aa, and mm, none of which are needed for the sense.
3 Nu. 211?- w. * 2 Sam. 383- s*.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 391
in the extract from an ancient ode describing the Gadites who
joined David's band :
Heroes of valour, men, a host.
For battle, wielders of shield and spear ;
And their faces were faces of a lion,
Anid like roes upon the mountains for swiftness.i
The blessing of Abram by Melchizedek is composed of two pro
gressive couplets :
Blessed be Abram of Giod Most High,
Founder of heaven and earth ;
And blessed be God Most High,
Who hath delivered thine adversaries Into thine hand.2
The tetrastich is quite frequent in Proverbs. The little sup
plementary collection of the Words of the Wise ^ has no fewer
than fourteen of them.* The second great coUection of the
proverbs of Solomon® has four examples,® the words of Agur
one,'' and the coUection of Aluqa one.®
These may suflBce as specimens :
The eye that mocketh at his father.
And despiseth to obey his mother.
The ravens of the vaUey shall pick it out^
And the young eagles shall eat it.8
The second couplet gives the punishment for the sin of violation
of the parental law, which violation is stated in the first couplet.
The following tetrameter is a fine specimen of two couplets, in
which the first gives the comparison, the second the explanation :
Take away the dross from the silver,
And there cometh forth a vessel for the finer.
Take away the wicked from before the king,
And his throne shall be established in righteousness.9
A third specimen is also of two couplets :
If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat ;
And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink :
For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head,
And Yahweh shall reward thee.i"
The second couplet gives the reasons for the conduct recom
mended in the first.
1 1 Chr. 128. 2 (Jen. 141'. 8 prov. 22"-24.
4 Prov. 2222-23. 21-25. 26-27 231'*-"- 13-1*- 15-16. 17-18 241-2- 3-*- ** 1*-18- 17-18- 13-20. 21-22.
8 Prov. 25-29. ' ^ Prov. 308-«. « prov. 25*-=.
8 Prov. 25*-5-9-i<'- 21-22, 26*-«. 8 Prov. 30i'. i" Prov. 2521-22.

392 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Jesus gives many sentences of this type :
No household servant i can have two masters :
For either he will hate the one and love the other ;
Or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.
Ye cannot serve God and Mammon .2
This is a fine specimen of introverted parallelism. The following
have two progressive couplets :
Every idle word that men speak.
They shall give account thereof in 3 the judgment ;
For by thy words thou shalt be justified,
And by thy words thou shalt be condemned.*
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs.
Neither cast your pearls before the swine,
Lest haply they trample them under their feet.
And turn and rend you. 8
An interesting specimen of the tetrastich is : ^
If '' ye forgive men their trespasses,
Your Father 8 will also forgive you your trespasses ; "
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
Neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
This is composed of two antithetical couplets. It is inserted by
Matthew immediately after the Lord's Prayer. But it is not
given by Luke in that context.
IV. The Pentastich
The pentastich is usually a combination of the distich and
tristich. A beautiful specimen is given in a strophe of an ode
of victory over the Canaanites at Bethhoron, which has been
lost.io 1 Matthew omits oIk^ttis of Luke, probably in order to generalize, as usual in
his collection of the Wisdom of Jesus (Mt. 5-7). 2 Mt. 62* = Lk. I6I8.
3 It is common in Matthew to insert day before judgment in order to make
the reference more distinct to the ultimate day of doom. See my Messiah of
the Gospels, p. 240.
* Mt. 1236-37. 5 Mt. 78. 6 Mt. 6i*-i5 = Mk. II25-26.
'' The connective y&p has been inserted in order to attach the logion to its
context in the Gospel.
8 The evangelist inserts "heavenly " before Father in the first couplet, but
not in the second. This is in accord with the peculiar usage of our Matthew.
See my Messiah of the Gospels, p. 79.
9 Matthew omits "trespasses" in the second line, but the measure requires
it, as well as the antithetical statement in the fourth line.
18 Jos. 1012-13. See p. 337, where it is cited.

the PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 393
The oracle^ with which Amasai joined David's band is an exam
ple of the same kind, save that the fifth line is progressive to the
previous four lines : Thine are we, David,
And with thee, son of Jesse.
Peace, peace to thee.
And peace to thy helpers ;
For thy God doth help thee.
The song of Sarah gives a couplet and triplet :
Laughter hath God made for me.
Whosoever heareth will laugh with me.
Who could have said to Abraham :
Sarah doth suckle children ?
For I have borne a son for his old age.2
The pentastich is rare in the book of Proverbs. I have noted
four specimens.^ The last is a good one :
Put not thyself forward in the presence of the king,
And stand not in the place of great men ;
For better is it that it be said unto thee. Come up hither ;
Than that thou shouldst be put lower in the presence of the prince
Whom thine eyes have seen.
Here the triplet gives the reason for the recommendation in the
couplet, which begins the quintet.
There are several specimens in the Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers. I shall give two :
Be not as slaves that minister unto the Lord,
With a view to receive recompense ;
But be as slaves that minister to the Lord
Without a view to receive recompense ;
And let the fear of heaven be upon you.*
This tetrameter is a finer specimen than we have found in Prov
erbs. It is composed of two antithetical couplets, and a conclud
ing line of exhortation synthetic to both.
Here is a still finer specimen of the tetrameter pentastich —
an antithetical pair :
1. More fiesh, more worms ;
More treasures, more care ;
More maid-servants, more lewdness ;
More men-servants, more thefts ;
More women, more witchcrafts.
1 1 Chr. 1218. 8 Prov. 23*-8, 24i3-i*. 28-25^ 256-'.
2 Gen. 218-'. 4 pjrqe Aboth 13.

394 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
2. More law, more life ;
More wisdom, more scholars :
More righteousness, more peace ;
He who has gotten a name, hath gotten a good thing for himself ;
He who has gotten words of law, hath gotten for himself the life of
the world to come.i
The following is the best specimen of introverted ^ parallelism
that can be found in the entire range of Wisdom Literature :
All men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given ;
For there are eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb.
And there are eunuchs which were made eunuchs by men.
And there are eunuchs which made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
kingdom of God :
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.'
V. The Hexastich
The hexastich may consist of three couplets, two triplets,
and other various combinations. A few specimens Avill suffice,
as others wiU be given in connection with the study of the
strophe. The blessing of the sons of Joseph by Jacob is a fine hexa
stich :
The God before whom my fathers walked — Abraham and Isaac,
The God who acted as my shepherd — from the first even to this day.
The Malakh who redeemed me from every evil — bless the lads:
And let my name be named in them,
And the name of my fathers, — Abraham and Isaac ;
And let them increase to a great multitude — in the midst of the land.*
The first tristich is in its three lines synonymous so far as the
first half of the lines, but in the second half there is a steady march
to the climax. The second tristich is synonymous in its first
and second lines, where the leading idea of the name is varied
from Jacob himself to Abraham and Isaac, but the third line is
an advance tn thought.
Isaac's blessing of Esau is also a hexastich :
Lo, far from the fatness of the earth will thy dwelling-place be.
And far from the dew of heaven above.
And by thy sword wilt thou live ;
And thy brother wilt thou serve.
And it will come to pass when thou wilt rove about,
Thou wilt break oft his yoke from upon thy neck.8
1 Pirqe Aboth 28. 2 gee p. 367. » Mt. 19U-12.
* Gen. 4818-16. 6 Gen. 2789-4<>.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 395
There are ten hexastichs in the book of Proverbs.^ I shall
give one specimen :
Deliver them that are carried away unto death.
And those that are ready to be slain see that thou hold back.
If thou sayest, Behold, we knew not this,
Doth not He that weigheth the hearts consider it ?
And He that keepeth thy soul, doth He not know it :
And shall not He render to every one according to his work ? 2
In Ben Sirach we find the following :
Any plague but the plague of the heart ;
Any wickedness but the wickedness of a woman ;
Any affl-iction but the afBiction from them that hate me ;
Any revenge but the revenge of enemies ;
There is no poison greater than the poison of a serpent ;
There is no wrath greater than the wrath of an enemy. 8
The Sayings of the Fathers gives the following choice
specimens :
There are four characters in those who sit under the wise :
A sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sieve.
A sponge, which sucks up all ;
A funnel, which lets in here and lets out there ;
A strainer, which lets out the wine and keeps back the dregs ;
A bolt-sieve, which lets out the dust and keeps back the fine flour.*
We add this specimen because it is similar to one of Jesus'
soon to follow :
AVhosesoever wisdom is in excess of his works — to what is he like ?
To a tree whose branches are abundant and its roots scanty ;
And the wind comes and uproots it and overturns it.
And whosesoever works are in excess of his wisdom — to what is he like ?
To a tree whose branches are scanty and its roots abundant ;
Though all the vrinds come upon it they stir it not from its place.*
This has two antithetical pentameter triplets.

VI. The Heptastich
The heptastich is capable of a great variety of arrangements.
The blessing of Noah is a heptastich. It is comprised of two
distichs and a tristich.
Cursed be Canaan ; —
A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.
1 Prov. 231-8- 19-21, 26-28 2411-12 262*-26 3018-16- 18-19. 21-28. 29-81, 82-83.
2 Prov. 2411-12. s Eccius. 25i8-i8. * Pirqe Aboth 521.
8 Pirqe Aboth 32'. See p. 404.

396 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
Blessed be Yahweh, God of Sheni,
And let Canaan be their servant.
May God spread out Japheth,
And may He dwell in the tents of Shem,
And let Canaan be their servant. i
In the first distich we have an example of an unfinished line, a
dimeter with the second line progressive to it. In the second dis
tich we have a simple progression in the thought. In the final
tristich the progression runs on through the three lines. It is
also worthy of note that the last line is in the three examples of
the nature of a refrain.
The heptastich is not common in Hebrew Wisdom. There are
two examples in Proverbs. The first of these is the picture of the
sluggard.^ The other is the following :
Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye,
Neither desire thou his dainties :
For as he reokoneth within himself, so is he.
Eat and drink, saith he to thee ;
But his heart is not with thee.
The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up,
And lose thy sweet words. 8
A fine example of this type is found in the Sayings of the Jew
ish Fathers, a pentameter :
Consider three things, and thou wilt not come into the hands of transgressors.
Know whence thou comest and whither thou art going.
And before whom thou art to give account and reckoning.
Ifnow whence thou comest : from a fetid drop ;
And whither thou art going : to worm and maggot ;
And before Whom thou art about to give account and reckoning,
Before the King of the king of kings. Blessed be He.*
A still more beautiful specimen is given by Jesus :
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,
Where moth and rust doth consume,
And where thieves break through and steal :
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
Where neither moth nor rust doth consume.
And where thieves do not break through and steal ;
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.*
This heptastich is composed of two antithetical triplets of ex
hortation, with a concluding line giving the reason for the exhor
tation. 1 Gen. 926-27. gee Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 30.
2 Prov. 2430-82. gee p. 418. * Pirqe Aboth, 3i.
8 Prov. 238-8. 6 Mt. 619-21.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 397
The triplets are antithetical, line for line, in a most impressive
correspondence of language and thought.
VII. The Octastich
The octastich of eight lines is used thrice in Proverbs. ^
A favourite everywhere is the one of Agur :
Two things have I asked of Thee,
Deny me them not before I die :
Remove far from me vanity and lies :
Give me neither poverty nor riches ;
Feed me with the food that is needful for me.
Lest I be full and deny, and say, Who is Yahweh ?
Or lest I be poor and steal,
Or use profanely the name of my God. 2
A fine specimen is in Ecclesiastes :
He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it ;
And whoso breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.
Whoso heweth out stones shall be hurt therewith ;
And he that cleaveth wood is endangered thereby.
If iron be blunt, and one hath not whet the edge,
He must put forth strength : and wisdom is profltable to direct.
If the serpent bite before it is charmed,
Then there is no profit in the charmer.3
Ben Sirach also has some fine specimens. The following may
be cited, because of its similarity to some sentences of Jesus :
And stretch thine hand unto the poor.
That thy blessing may be perfected.
A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living,
And from the dead detain it not.
Fail not to be with them that weep,
And mourn with them that mourn.
Be not slow to visit the sick :
For that shall make thee to be beloved.*
VIII. The Decastich
The decastich, a piece of ten lines, is used in Proverbs in the
pentameter temperance poem ; ^ in the beautiful piece of recom
mendation of husbandry ; ^ also in a word of Agur, which is
regarded as an early specimen of the sceptical tendencies which
are so strong in Ecclesiastes,' in the riddle of the four little
1 Prov. 2322-26, 307-9, 11-14. 4 Eccius. 782-36. 6 Prov. 2728-27.
2 Prov. 307-9. 6 Prov. 2329-36 ; see p. 418. ' Prov. 50^.
8 Eccles. 108-11.

398 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
wise creatures,^ and in the ten-lined strophes of the Praise of
Wisdom. 2
A fine specimen is given in Tobit, as follows :
Give alms of thy substance ;
And when thou givest alms let not thine eye be grudging ;
Neither turn thy face from any poor.
And the face of God shall not be turned away from thee.
If thou hast abundance, give alms accordingly ;
If thon hast little, be not afraid to give according to the little :
For thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.
Because alms delivereth from death ;
And suflereth not to come into darkness :
For alms is an offering for aU that give it in the sight of the Most High. 3
When we go beyond the decastich to the pieces of twelve
lines or fourteen lines, we gain nothing additional to illustrate
the principles of parallelism.

IX. The Strophe
The strophe is to the poem what the lines or verses are in
relation to one another in the system of parallelism. Strophes
are composed of a greater or lesser number of lines, sometimes
equal, and sometimes unequal. Where there is a uniform flow
of the emotion the strophes will be composed of the same num
ber of lines, and will be as regular in relation to one another as
the lines of which they are composed ; but where the emotion is
agitated by passion, or broken by figures of speech, or abrupt
in transitions, they will be irregular and uneven. The strophes
are subject to the same principles of paralleUsm as the lines
themselves, and are thus either synonymous to one another,
antithetical, or progressive, in those several varieties of paral
lelism already mentioned. A favourite arrangement is the bal
ancing of one strophe with another on the principle of the
distich, then again of two with one as a tristich. Thus the
song* of Moses has three parts, with four strophes in each part,
arranged in double pairs of strophe and antistrophe, according
to the scheme of 3 x 2 x 2. The song of Deborah ^ is composed
1 Prov. 302*-28. See p. 418. 2 prov. 1-9. » Tobit 4'-".
* Deut. 32. 6 Jd. 5.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 399
of three parts, with three strophes in each part, according to the
scheme of 3x3. These divisions are determined by the prin
ciples of parallelism, not being indicated by any signs or marks
in the Hebrew text.
D. H. Muller 1 has recently called attention to the fact that
there is what he names responsion, concatenation, and inclu
sion, in Hebrew as well as in Babylonian and Arabic strophical
organization. He gives ample Ulustrations, for which he de
serves more credit than most scholars have been disposed to give
him. He is entirely right in this matter, although there is
nothing new in his theory but the terminology and some of the
illustrations.^ Responsion is simply the antithetical parallelism
of strophes, concatenation is the stairlike parallelism of lines
used in strophical relations, and inclusion is the introverted
paralleUsm of strophes.
Babylonian and Egyptian poetry have clearly marked stroph
ical organization. The hymn to Amen Ra, said to be of the
fourteenth century B.C., in the golden age of Egyptian history
and literature, is a fine specimen. The beginning of each verse
is indicated by a red letter ; and each verse is also diAdded into
short pauses by small red points.^
This is the eighth strophe :
Deliverer of the timid man from the violent ;
Judging the poor, the poor and the oppressed ;
Lord of Wisdom, whose precepts are wise ;
At whose pleasure the Nile overflows ;
Lord of Mercy, most loving ;
At whose coming men live ;
Opener of every eye ;
Proceeding from the firmament ;
Causer of pleasure aud light ;
At whose goodness the gods rejoice ;
Their hearts revive when they see him.
This hymn has twenty strophes, the number of lines in each
being as follows : 12, 14, 8, 7, 13, 8, 9, 11, 9, 15, 14, 9, 10, 5, 11,
13, 10, 5, 10, 18.
1 Die Propheten in ihren ursprilnglichen Form. Die Grundgesetze der ur-
semitisehen Poesie. 2 Bde., Wien, 1896.
2 I have taught all these to my classes for years, and references to them will
be found in my earlier writings.
8 Beeords of the Past, II. pp. 129 seq.

400 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Hymn to the Nile is remarkably regular, and it resem
bles in length, and in the number of its strophes and the lines
that compose them, the song of Moses. ^ The Hymn to the Nile
has the following fourteen strophes : 11, 8, 8, 10, 10, 8, 10, 11,
12, 10, 9, 8, 14, 8. 2
The development of the strophical system in ancient Egyp
tian poetry doubtless influenced Hebrew poetry. The Egyptian
culture, combined with the inherited Shemitic culture, enabled
the Hebrew poets to appropriate the artistic forms belonging
to the poetry of the two great nations of the old world, and
reproduce them under the influence of the Divine Spirit for
the training of Israel in the holy religion.
There is no intrinsic reason why the strophes of Hebrew
poetry should be more regular than those of Egyptian poetry,
but in fact the strophes of Hebrew poetry are ordinarily regu
lar in the number of the lines.
1. Strophes of Two Lines
Strophes of two lines are not common. Psalm 34 is an ex
ample of alphabetical trimeter couplets.
Two of these will sufl&ce as examples :
X. I will bless Yahweh at every time,
Continually His praise shall be in my mouth.
3. In Yahweh my soul will make her boast ;
The meek will hear and they will be glad.
An example of an alphabetical hexameter couplet is found in
Ps. 37. I shall take the strophes with *? and S2 as illustrations,
because these give examples where the csesura does not come in
the middle of the line :
b. The wicked borroweth and payeth not — but the righteous dealeth grar
ciously and giveth.
For they that be blessed of Him inherit the land — but they that be cursed
of Him shall be cut off.
a. Of Yahweh are a man's goings established — but He delighteth in His way :
Though he fall he shall not be utterly cast down — for Yahweh upholdeth
with His hand. 3
1 Deut. 32. 2 Heeords of the Past, New Series, III. pp. 46 seq.
3 Ps. 3721-24.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 401
2. Strophes of Three Lines
The triplet is more frequently used in strophes.
An example has been given in the alphabetical dirge of Lam. 3.'
Another specimen may be found in the Wisdom of Jesus already
given.^ This additional one will suflB.ce.
Be not ye called Rabbi :
For One is your Rabbi ;
And all ye are brethren.
Call ye no one Father : »
For One is your Father,
He which is in heaven.
Be not ye called Master :
For One is your Master ; ^
The greatest among you is your servant. — *
This beautiful piece of Wisdom is of great artistic beauty. In
the Hebrew original ° each line was a trimeter measured by three
beats of the accent. The lines are organized in three strophes of
three lines each. The number three determines its artistic struct
ure, and it is, accordingly, the cube of three ; three strophes of
three lines of three accents.
3. Strophes of Four Lines
The tetrastich as a double couplet is very frequent in
strophes. Psalm 3 is a good specimen of the quartette trimeter.
1. Yahweh, how are mine adversaries increased !
Many are rising up against me ;
Many are saying of my soul.
There is no salvation for him in God.
2. But Thou 8 art a shield about me ;
My glory and the lifter up of mine head.
With my voice unto Yahweh I was crying.
And He answered ine from His holy hill.
3. As for me I laid me down and slept ;
I awaked ; for Yahweh was sustaining me.
1 See p. 382. 2 gee pp. 388, 389.
3 " On the earth" and "Messiah" are explanatory additions, which destroy
the measure. * Mt. 23*-i2.
8 In translating into an unknown original, we cannot be sure of the exact
words that were used, but we may come sufficiently near for our present
purpose. 8 mn'' makes line too long.
2d

402 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
I will not be afraid of myriads of the people.
That have set themselves against me round about.
4. O Arise,i Save me, my God !
For Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone ;
Thou hast broken the teeth of the wickgd •
Salvation belongs to Yahweh.2
4. Strophes of Five Lines
The author of the book of Samuel gives us ^ a little piece of
poetry of the didactic type that he caUs : " The Last Words of
David." This lyric is composed of four strophes of five trim
eter lines each.* 1. utterance of the man whom the Most High raised up ;
The spirit of Yahweh speaks in me.
And his word is upon my tongue ;
The God of Israel doth say to me.
The Rock of Israel doth speak.
2. A ruler over men — righteous;
A ruler in the fear of God.
Yea, he is like the morning light when the sun rises,
A morning without clouds.
From shining, from rain, tender grass sprouts from the earth.
3. Is not thus my house with God 1
For an everlasting covenant hath He made with me.
Arranged in all things, and secured ;
Yea, all my salvation and every delight
Will He not cause it to sprout ?
4. But the worthless, like thorns all of them are thrust away.
For they cannot be taken with the hand.
The man touching them,
Must be armed with iron, and the spear's staff ;
And with fire they will be utterly consumed.
Psalm 67 has three trimeter pentastichs.
1. May God be gracious to us and bless us ;
Let His face shine toward us,
1 " Yahweh " is inserted in the Hebrew text without need.
2 The last clause, which I have omitted, is a liturgical addition.
3 2 Sam. 231-''.
* The lyric is introduced with these words : " David, the son of Jesse, saith."
Two explanatory statements are inserted : ' ' The anointed of the God of Jacob "
and " Sweet in the songs of Israel " ; which call attention to the fact that the
supposed author was king of Israel by divine appointment and that he was a
sweet singer, renowned for lyric composition. These statements have no place
in the poem as such.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 403
And give to us peace ; ^
That Thy way may be known in the earth ;
Among all nations Thy salvation.
2. Let the people jiraise Thee, 0 God ;
Let the people praise Thee, all of them ;
Let the nations be glad and sing for joy ;
For Thou wilt judge the peoples with equity.
And the nations Thou wilt lead in the earth.
3. Let the people praise Thee, 0 God,
Let the people praise Thee, all of them ;
The land hath given her increase ;
And Yahweh, our God, will bless us, 2
And all the ends of the earth will fear him.
5. Strophes of Six Lines
The six-lined strophe may be iUustrated by the tetrameter,
Ps. 46, which also has a refrain.
1. God is ours, a refuge and strength,
A- help in troubles ready to be found ;
Therefore we shall not fear though the earth change.
And though mountains be moved into the heart of the seas ;
Its waters roar, — be troubled.
Mountains shake with the swelling thereof.
Yahweh Sabaoth is with Jis ; 3
The God of Jacob is our refuge. '
2. A river (there is) whose streams make glad the city of Gtod,
The holy place of the tabernacles of Elyon.
God is in her midst ; she cannot be moved ;
God will help her at the turn of the morn.
Nations raged — kingdoms were moved ;
Has He uttered His voice, the earth melteth.
Yahioeh Sabaoth is vrith us ;
The God of Jacob is our refuge.
3. Come, behold the doings of Yahweh,
What wonders He hath done in the earth.
He is causing wars to cease unto the ends of the earth ;
The bow He breaketh, and cutteth the spear in sunder.*
1 It is improbable that the high-priest's blessing (Nu. 62*-26) would be mu
tilated, especially as the third line is needed to make up the five lines of the
strophe. I do not hesitate, therefore, to restore it.
2 The words D^n'7S 133n3' are repeated in the Hebrew text by dittography.
They destroy the measure. I have therefore elided them. The original Yahweh
I have used instead of the later Elohim.
3 The refrain at the close of this strophe has been omitted as occasionally
elsewhere in Hebrew poetry, and it should be restored.
* The destruction of the instruments of war is as in Hos. 22", Is. 9*. We
regard the clause iTSi e]nc rnbJD as a later marginal addition that has crept

404 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Be still and know that I am God :
I shall be exalted among the nations, I shall be exalted in the earth.
Yahweh Sabaoth is with us ;
The God of Jacob is our refuge.
Jesus gives us tAvo fine specimens of this type. The first has '
two antithetical hexastichs in the tetrameter movement, in which
each line of the second strophe is in parallelism with its fellow
in the first strophe :
1. Every one which heareth 2 these words of mine and doeth them.
Shall be likened unto a wise man.
Which built his house upon the rock :
And the rain descended, and the floods came.
And the winds blew, and beat upon that house ;
And it fell not : for it was founded upon the rock.
2. But every one which heareth these words of mine and doeth them not.
Shall be likened unto a foolish man.
Which built his house upon the sand :
And the rain descended, and the floods came.
And the winds blew, and smote upon that house ;
And it fell ; and great was the fall thereof.
This certainly is finer than any specimen of the hexastich in the
Avhole range of the literature of Wisdom. The gospel of Mat
thew has preserved this piece in its original form, but Luke ^ has
condensed it and made it into a prose parable.
We shall Aow consider a longer piece, where the gospel has
condensed the concluding strophe, and at times, also, by minor
changes, mars the beauty of the other strophes. But the piece is
so symmetrical that it is quite easy to see its original structure.
This splendid piece of the Wisdom of Jesus describes His royal
judgment.* It is unsurpassed for simplicity, grandeur, pathos,
antithesis, and graphic realism. It is composed of five pentameter
strophes of six lines each. The first strophe is introductory,
describing the King taking His seat on His judgment throne, sur
rounded by angels, the assembly of all nations before Him, and
His separating them as a shepherd divides his sheep from his
goats. The judgment itself is presented in four strophes, a pair
for the righteous and a pair for the wicked, each pair composed
of a strophe and an antistrophe, and the second pair being in
such thorough-going antithetical parallelism to the first pair that
into the text. It is trimeter in the midst of tetrameters, and makes the strophe
one line too long. 1 Mt. 724-27.
2 ttSs Sa-Tis dKoiei (v. 24) and xas 6 i,Koiav (v. 26) go back to the same
original, )31itin 73. otiv is a connective that was inserted by the evangelist to
adapt this sentence of Wisdom to its context.
8 Lk. 6*''-*9. 4 Mt. 253i-*3.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 405
every line in the one is in antithesis to every line of the other.
The whole concludes Avith a couplet summing up the everlasting
penalty :
1. When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him,
Then shall He sit on the throne of His glory :
And before Him will be gathered all the nations :
And he shall separate them one from another.
As the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats :
And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
2. Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand.
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, i
Which was prepared for you from the foundation of the world :
For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave
Me drink :
I was a stranger, and ye took Me in : naked, and ye clothed Me :
I was sick, and ye visited Me : I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.
3. Then shall the righteous answer him,2 Lord,
When saw we Thee an hungered and fed Thee, or athirst and gave Thee
drink ?
When 3 saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in ? or naked, and clothed
Thee?
When 3 saw we Thee sick, and visited Thee ? * or in prison, and came unto
Thee ?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these least of My brethren, ye did it unto
Me.
4. Then shall the King 6 say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from Me, ye cursed, into Gehenna,8
Which is prepared for the devil and his angels :
For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave
me no drink :
I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in : naked, and ye clothed Me not ;
I was sick, and ye visited Me not : I was in prison, and ye came not unto
Me.'
1 The Greek combines lines 2 and 3 into one prose sentence, rijy iiToifji,a<riJ.ivriv
6/ui> ^aaikelav, but the Hebrew, as Delitzsch gives it, is tab nJSian msban, so
that the third line begins with the participial clause (cf . strophe 4, line 3).
2 "K^ovTcs is a prosaic insertion. Hebrew poets usually omit l&nb, leaving it
to be understood (cf. Ps. 22). 3 s4 is an insertion of the Greek translation.
* This clause is verified by the parallel in 2, line 6 ; it was left out in the
prose translation.
6 The parallelism of 2, line 1, requires "King." The Greek has reduced it
to the mere subject implied in 4pet
8 There is a tendency in the Gospels to explain the Hebrew Gehenna to Gen
tile readers. I think that Gehenna was in the original in antithesis with
"kingdom," and that "eternal fire" is an explanatory substitution (see The
Expository Times, June, 1897, p. 397). See also Chap. IV. p. 90.
' This line has been reduced as strophe 3, line 4. There the verb " visited
thee" was left out, here the verb "came unto me."

406 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
5. Then shall the wicked i answer him. Lord,
When saw we Thee an hungered (and did not give Thee meat 2), or athirst
(and gave Thee not to drink) ;
(When saw we Thee) a stranger (and took Thee not in), or naked (and
clothed Thee not) ;
(When saw we Thee) sick (and did not visit Thee), or in prison (and did not
come unto Thee).
Then shall He answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto
Me.
The following couplet was probably added by the evangeUst :
And these shall go away into eternal punishment ;
But the righteous into eternal life.
6. Strophes of Seven Lines
The seven-lined strophe may be Ulustrated by the four pen
tameter strophes of Ps. 118.
1. Give thanks to Yahweh ; for He is good — for His mercy is for ever;
Let Israel now say — that His mercy is for ever ;
Let the house of Aaron now say — that His mercy is for ever ;
Let them now that fear Yahweh say — that His mercy is for ever.
Out of my distress I called upon Yah — He answered me in a large place.
Yahweh is mine ; I will not fear : — what can man do unto me ?
Yahweh is mine, as among them that help me — I will see my desire in my
enemies.
2. Better to seek refuge in Yahweh — than to trust in man.
Better to seek refuge in Yahweh — than to trust in nobles.
All nations do compass me about — it is in the name of Yahweh that I will
destroy them.
They do compass me about ; yea, they do compass me all about — it is in the
name of Yahweh that I will destroy them :
They do compass me about as bees — they will surely be quenched as the fire
of thorns.3
They did thrust sore at me that I might fall — but Yahweh helped me ;
My help and my song is Yah — and He is become mine for victory.
3. The voice of rejoicing and victory — is in the tents of the righteous :*
The right hand of Yahweh is exalted — the right hand of Yahweh is doing
valiantly.
iThe antithesis requires the "wicked" over against the " righteous," and
not simply the subject of the verb, The measure of the line also demands it.
2 In this strophe the clauses were all condensed in the Greek prose translar
tion by omission of all the verbs, and the summing of them up in "minister
unto thee." They should all be restored.
3 The third "It is in the name of Yahweh that I will destroy them," is
dittography. I elide it therefore.
* "The right hand of Yahweh is doing valiantly," is a dittograph from the
line below. I elide it therefore.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 407
I shall not die but I shall live — and I will declare the works of Yah.
Yah hath chastened me sore — but to death he did not give me.
Open for me the gates of righteousness — that I may enter into them to give
thanks to Yah.
Yonder gate is Yahweh's — the righteous may enter therein.
I will give thanks to Thee, for Thou hast answered me — and art become mine
for victory.
4. The stone the builders rejected — is become the head of the corner.
From Yahweh is this — it is marvellous in our eyes.
This very day Yahweh hath made — let us rejoice and let us be glad in it.
O now Yahweh give victory — O now Yahweh send prosperity.
Blessed be he that cometh in the name of Yahweh — we bless you from the
house of Yahweh.
Yahweh is God and He hath let shine His face for us i even unto the horns
of the altar.
My God art Thou, and I wUl give thanks unto Thee — my God I will exalt
Thee.2
A choice pentameter of seven-lined strophes is the prophecy
(Is. 14). The following strophes will be sufficient to illustrate :
1. How art thou fallen from heaven — 0 day star, son of the morning !
How art thou cut down to earth — thou who didst lay low the nations I
Thou, indeed, who saidst in thine heart — I will ascend unto heaven.
Above the stars of God — I will lift up my throne,
And will sit in the mount of congregation — on the remote parts of the
north :
I will ascend above the heights of cloud — I will be like to "Elyon.
Yet unto Sheol thou art brought down — to the sides of the pit.
2. They that look upon thee, narrowly look upon thee — upon thee consider ;
Is this the man that made the earth tremble — shook kingdoms ;
Made the habitable world as a wilderness — and its cities overthrew ;
His prisoners did not loose to their homes — all (of them) kings of nations ?
All of them lay down in honour — each in his own house :
But thou art cast forth as an abhorred vulture 3 — clothed with the slain.
Among those pierced with the sword, descending to the stones of the Pit * —
thou art like a carcass trodden under foot.6
7. Strophes of Eight Lines
The strophe of eight lines is more frequent.
Psalm 8 is a beautiful example of a hymn in two strophes of
eight lines each, with a refrain, having the peculiarity that the
1 The clause omitted is a gloss from the margin. It was a liturgical direction
with regard to the thank offering accompanying this Te Deum for victory.
2 The psalm closes with a final liturgical line : " Give thanks to Yahweh ; for
He is good — for His mercy is for ever."
3 Read ntr3, vulture, for nSJ, branch, and strike out "jnapa as a gloss.
* This, according to usage, is the Pit of Sheol. 6 ig. 1412-19.

408 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
refrain begins the first strophe and closes tbe second, thus
ending the psalm :
1. Yahweh, our Lord,
How excellent is Thy name in all the earth !
Thou whose glory doth extend over the heavens,
Out of the mouth of little children and sucklings
Thou dost establish strength because of Thine adversaries,
To silence enemy and avenger.
When I see Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers.
Moon and stars which Thou hast prepared ;
What is frail man, that Thou shouldst be mindful of him ?
Or the son of man, that Thou visitest him ?
2. When thou didst make him a little lower than divine beings.
With glory and honour crowning him,
Thou mad'st him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands ;
All things Thou didst put under his feet :
Sheep and oxen, all of them ;
And also beasts of the field ;
Birds of heaven, and fishes of the sea ;
Those that pass through the paths of the sea.
Yahweh, our Lord,
How excellent is Thy name in all the earth !
Jesus gives a strikingly beautiful specimen of the octastich ^ in
three tetrameter strophes, with an introductory couplet. These
strophes are in synonymous parallelism, line for line, throughout
the eight lines of the three strophes. There are a few places
where the gospel has marred the original line by the Greek trans
lation, by words of explanation, or by condensation. But the
piece is so symmetrical that it is diflB,cult to miss the original.
Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men,2
Else ye have no reward with your Father. 8
This is the introductory couplet. Three kinds of righteousness
are now taken up : almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. Between the
prayer and the fasting, Matthew, as often in the Sermon on the
Mount, has inserted other material relating to prayer; namely,
the Lord's Prayer, which is given by Luke in a more appropriate
historical place, and a tetrastich as to forgiveness.* The three
strophes are as follows :
1 Mt. 61-6- 18-18.
2 The Greek adds the explanatory wpbs ri BeaBiivai airoTs, which makes the
line too long, and is tautological.
8 Matthew as usual adds tiJ iv rots oipavois.
* See The Expository Times, July, 1897, p. 453.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 409
1. Wheni thou doest alms, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites :2
For they sound a trumpet before them in the synagogues and in the streets.
That they may have glory of men.
Verily I say unto you. They have received their reward.
But thou,3 when thou doest alms.
Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth :
That thine alms may be in secret ;
And thy Father which seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
2. When* thou prayest,8 thou shalt not be as the hypocrites :
For they love to stand 8 in the synagogues and on '' the streets.
That they may be seen of men to pray.
Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest,
Enter into thine inner chamber and close * the door :
And pray to thy Father which is in secret ;
And thy Father which seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
3. When thou fastest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites :
They 9 are of sad countenance, because they disfigure their faces,
That they may be seen of men to fast.
Verily I say unto you. They have received their reward.
But thou, when thou fastest.
Anoint thy head and wash thy face : i"
That thou mayest be seen of thy Father which is in secret ;
And thy Father which seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
The threefold reiteration in these parallel lines as to the three
classes of righteous conduct is exceedingly powerful.
1 oSv has been inserted as a connective.
2 Comparison with the other strophes makes it evident that there has been
a transposition here, which has destroyed the measure of the two lines, and
made them into one prose sentence. It is easy to restore the original.
8 " Thou " should be inserted, as in the other two strophes.
* Kal is a Greek insertion.
6 There is a variation in the Greek between the second singular and second
plural, which is due to the inexactness of the translator. I do not hesitate to
restore the second singular, which was evidently original throughout.
8 "Pray" has been transposed in Greek from the next line. The parallel
lines and other strophes show that it belongs there.
' " Corners " has been inserted to make it more specific.
8 The Greek connects this clause with the following sentence because of its
idiomatic use of the participle for the Hebrew verb.
9 The Greek attaches a-Kvepawol to the "hypocrites," but the parallel lines
show that there should be a statement respecting them at the beginning of the
second line.
19 iCi?} Tois avBpiiiroLs — dXXa are insertions to make the statement more em
phatic, but they destroy the measure of the line and the parallelism with the
other strophes.

410 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
8. Strophes of Nine Lines
Psalms 42, 43, give strophes of nine lines with refrains :
1. As a hart which crieth out after the water brooks,
So my soul crieth out for Thee, 0 God !
My soul doth thirst for God, for the God of life :
How long ere I shall come to appear before the face of God ?
My tears have been to me food day and night ;
While they say unto me all day. Where is thy God ?
These things would I remember, and would pour out my soiil within me :
How I used to pass along in the throng, used to lead them up to the house of
God,
With the sound of rejoicing and praise, a multitude keeping festival.
Why art thou bowed down, my soul? and why art thou moaning
within me ?
Wait on God : for yet shall I praise Him,
The deliverance of my face, and my God.
2. Therefore would I remember Thee from the land of Jordan, and the Hermons,
from the mount Mizar.
Deep unto deep is calling to the sound of Thy cataracts ;
All Thy breakers and Thy billows do pass over me :
By day Yahweh wiU appoint His mercy,
And by night His song will be with me, prayer to the God of my life.
I must say to the God of my rock, Why dost Thou forget me ?
Why go I mourning because of the oppression of an enemy ?
As a breaking in my bones my adversaries do reproach me ;
While they say unto me all day. Where is thy God ?
Why art thou bowed down, my soul ? and why art thou moaning
within me ?
Wait on God : for yet shall I praise Him,
The deliverance of my face, and my God.
3. Judge me, 0 God, and plead my cause against an unmerciful nation ;
Against a man of deceit and wickedness, deliver me.
0 Thou God, my fortress, why dost Thou cast me off ?
Why must I go about mourning because of the oppression of an enemy ?
Send Thy light and Thy truth : let them lead me ;
Let them bring me unto Thy holy mount, even to Thy dwellings :
That I may come to the altar of God,
To the God of the joy of my rejoicing,
That I may praise Thee with harp, O God, my God.
Why art thou bowed down, my soul ? and why art thou moaning
within me ?
Wait on God : for yet shall I praise Him,
The deliverance of my face, and my God.
The strophes have each nine lines, the refrain three lines. I
am well aware that other arrangements of the lines are usual, and
that objection may be taken to my elimination of v. 7 a ; but it
seems clearly established that a copyist's mistake has caused the

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 411
refrain of the first strophe to be deprived of its closing word,
which begins this verse ; and the other three words are easiest to
explain as copyist's mistakes, also repeated from the refrain.
9. Strophes of Ten Lines
Strophes of ten lines are frequent. The Psalm of Creation ^
has eight trimeter strophes of ten lines each.
Two strophes will sufl&ce to illustrate :
1. Bless, O my soul, Yahweh.
My God 2 Thou art very great ;
With grandeur and glory Thou art clothed ;
Covering Thyself with light as a garment.
Stretching out heaven as a curtain ;
He who layeth in the waters His chambers.
He who maketh the clouds His chariot.
He who walketh on the wings of the wind ;
Making winds His messengera,
His ministers flaming fire.
2. He laid the earth on its foundations :
It cannot be moved for ever and ever.
With the deep as a vesture Thou didst cover it.
A.bove the mountains waters were standing ;
At Thy rebuke they flee,
At the sound of Thy thunder they haste away ;
They flow over the mountains, they descend into the valleys,
Unto the place that Thou didst lay for them.
The bound Thou didst set that they might not pass over :
They may not return to cover the earth.
10. Strophes of Twelve Lines
The strophe of twelve lines may be iUustrated by the beauti
ful piece of Wisdom (Prov. 9) :
1. Wisdom hath builded her house,
•She hath hewn out her seven pillars :
She hath killed her beasts ; she hath mingled her wine ;
She hath furnished her table.
She hath sent forth her maidens to cry
Upon the high places of the city :
Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither ;
As for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him :
Come, eat of my bread;
1 Ps. 104.
2 The Massoretic mn'' has been inserted from dittography. It makes the
trimeter into a tetrameter without reason.

412 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
And drink of the wine which I have mingled.
Leave off, ye simple ones, and live ;
And walk in the way of understanding.
2. The woman Folly is clamorous ; j
Simplicity, — she knoweth nothing.
And she sitteth at the door of her house.
On a seat in the high places of the city,
To call to them that pass by,
Who go right on their way :
Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither ;
And as for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him,
Stolen waters are sweet.
And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
But he knoweth not that the Shades are there,
That her guests are in the depths of Sheol.
11. Strophes of Fourteen Lines
The strophe of fourteen lines is frequent in Hebrew poetry.
Psalm 18 = 2 Sam. 22 is a good example.
Two strophes will suffice to show it :
1. I love Thee, Yahweh, my strength,
My 1 rock and my fortress and my deliverer ;
My God, my strong rock in whom I seek refuge ;
My shield, and horn of my salvation, my high tower,
(I said) I will call upon Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised :
So shall I be saved from mine enemies.
The breakers 2 of death compassed me,
And the floods of Belial terrified me,
The cords of Sheol compassed me.
The snares of Death came upon me ;
In my distress I call upon Yahweh,
And cry unto my God ;
He hears my voice out of His temple,
And my cry 8 comes unto His ears.
2. Then the earth shook and trembled,
And the foundations of the mountains moved.
And were shaken, because He was wroth.
There went up a smoke in His nostrils,
And fire out of His mouth devoured :
Coals were kindled by it.
And He bowed the heavens and came down.
Thick darkness under His feet,
1 mn'' of Hebrew text should be elided. It is an assimilation to 2 Sam. 22,
which omits previous line.
2 ''ban of Hebrew text is dittography from next line. The reading of
2 Sam. 22 is correct. See p. 91.
8 Vi?h is not in 2 Sam. 22. It makes the line too long, and should be elided.

THE PARALLELISMS OF HEBREW POETRY 413
And rode upon the cherub and flew ;
Yea, flew swiftly upon the wings of the wind.
He made darkness i round about Him His pavilion,
Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies,
From the brightness before Him,2 they passed,
Hailstones and coals of fire.

12. Unequal Strophes
The strophes are not always of an equal number of lines.
Often there is an intentional variation of their number. One
of the earliest odes ^ is composed of three strophes, gradually
diminishing, in accordance with its dirgelike character, in
6x5x4 lines. The ode is abrupt in style, rapid in transitions,
full of rare forms and expressions, with frequent aUiterations,
and of real beauty :
Come to Heshbon !
Built, yea established be the city of Sihon ;
For fire went forth from Heshbon,
Flame from the city of Sihon.
It consumed Ar of Moab,
The lords of the high places of Arnon.
Woe to thee, Moab !
Thou art lost, people of Chemosh !
He hath given over his sons unto flight,
And his daughters unto captivity,
Unto the king of the Amorites, Sihon !
Then we shot at them — He was lost —
Heshbon unto Dibon —
And we wasted them even unto Nophah,
With fire unto Medeba.
The refrain is frequently used in Hebrew poetry. We have
had a number of examples where it begins or closes strophes of
equal length.* But the refrain does not always divide the
poem into equal strophes. Thus the dirge of Saul^ is com
posed of three parts, which melt away according to the scheme
of 18, 5, 1. The refrain itself does not always correspond
throughout. Thus in Ps. 80 it increases itself for emphasis in
the heaping up of the divine names in the successive strophes ;
1 inno of Hebrew text is an explanatory insertion.
2 VSO of Hebrew text is from dittography.
3 Nu. 2127-30. » See pp. 403, 406, 410. 6 2 Sam. 119-27.

414 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the third and fourth strophes constitute a double strophe, giv
ing the allegory of the vine with a double refrain at the close,
massing together a series of imperatives. Psalm 45 gives a
varying refrain and three gradually increasing parts. The
refrain is also used for the division of larger pieces of poetry,
as in the Song of Songs, where it divides the poem into five
acts ; and in the great Book of Comfort of the second Isaiah,
where the two earUer editions, as well as the final division, are
all marked by refrains.^ In aU these cases the strophes and
the divisions of the poems are of unequal lengths. The strophes
of the book of Job and of the Prophets are also usually unequal.^
1 See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 7th ed., pp. 141 seq., 229 seq., 338 seq.
2 See pp. 422-425.

CHAPTER XVII
THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY
Hebrew poetry may be divided into three general classes,
— Lyric, Gnomic, and Composite.
I. Lyric Poetry
Lyric poetry is the earliest development of literature. We
find it scattered through the various historical and prophetical
books, and also in the great collection of Hebrew lyric poetry,
the Psalter. The three pieces ascribed by tradition to Moses -
subdivide lyric poetry into the hymn, the prayer, and the song.
The hymn is found in rich variety, — the evening hymn, the
morning hymn, the hymn in a storm, hymns of victory or odes,
the thanksgiving hymn. The Korahite Psalter is composed
chiefly of hymns ; so also the most of the fourth and fifth books
of the Psalter, including the greater and lesser hallels, the hal
lelujahs, and doxologies. The prayers are in great abundance,
— evening and morning prayers, a litany before a battle, prayers
for personal and national deliverance, psalms of lamentation,
penitence, religious meditation, of faith and assurance, — in all
the rich variety of devotion. These are most numerous in the
psalms ascribed to David, and may be regarded as especially
the type of the Davidic Psalter, the earliest prayer-book of
Israel. A special form of this class is the dirge, r-epresented
in the laments of David over Saul and Jonathan, and over
Abner, and in the very elaborate and artistic book of Lamenta
tions, and not infrequently in the Prophets. The songs are
abundant, and in every variety of historical description, pict
ures of nature, didactic exhortation and advice, social and
other poems. In the Psalter there are songs of exhortation,
1 Ex. 15 ; Ps. 90 ; Deut. 32.
415

416 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
warning, encouragement, historical recollection, prophetic an
ticipation, and the love song. The psalms of Asaph are chiefly
of this class of poems. II. Gnomic Poetry
Gnomic poetry has but few specimens in the historical books.
There has been preserved a riddle of the ancient hero Samson :
From the eater came forth food,
And from the strong came forth sweetness.
This is followed by a satire :
If you had not ploughed with my heifer.
You would not have found out my riddle, i
Another witty saying of this hero is preserved :
With the jawbone of an ass a heap two heaps ;
With the jawbone of an ass have I smitten a thousand men.2
The fable of Jotham ^ is the finest specimen of this gnomic
poetry to be found in Hebrew apart from the Wisdom Litera
ture. The trees went forth on a time
To anoint a king over them.
1. And they said unto the olive tree :
Come thou, and reign over us.
But the olive tree said unto them .
Shall I leave my fatness.
Wherewith they honour God and men,
And go to sway over the trees ?
2. And the trees said to the fig tree :
Come thou, and reign over us.
But the fig tree said unto them :
Shall I leave my sweetness.
And also my good fruit.
And go to sway over the trees ?
3. And the trees said unto the vine :
Come thou, and reign over us.
And the vine said unto them :
Shall I leave my wine.
Which cheereth God and man,
And go to sway over the trees ?
4. And * the trees said unto the bramble :
Come thou, and reign over us.
1 Jd. 141*- 18. 2 Jd. 1516. S Jd. 98-15.
* The Hebrew 73 = all seems an unnecessary insertion.

THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY 417
But the bramble said unto the trees ; i
Come, seek refuge in my shadow :
1 And fire will come out of the bramble.
To devour the cedars of Lebanon.
The Hebrews were fond of this species of poetry, but Ave
could hardly expect to find much of it in the Bible. ^ Its re
ligious and ethical forms are preserved in a rich collection in
the Proverbs, consisting of fables, parables, proverbs, riddles,
moral and political maxims, satires, philosophical and specula
tive sentences. There are several hundred distinct couplets,
— synonymous, antithetical, parabolical, comparative, emble
matical, — besides fifty larger pieces of three, four, five, six,
seven, and eight lines, with a few poems, such as the temper
ance poem,^ the pastoral,* the pieces ascribed to the poets
Aluqah, Agur, and Lemuel, the alphabetical praise of the tal
ented wife,^ and the great admonition of Wisdom in fifteen
advancing discourses.^
A few specimens of this kind of poetry will suffice to illus
trate it.
There are several riddles ascribed to Aluqah.'f
(1) The riddle of the insatiable things ; ''
Two daughters (cry) : give ! give !
Three are they which cannot be satisfied ;
Four say not, Enough.
The answer :
Sheol, and a barren womb ;
Land cannot be satisfied with water ;
And fire says not : Enough.
(2) The riddle of the little wise people.'
Four are little ones of earth ;
But they are wise exceedingly.
The answer :
The ants are a people not strong.
But they prepare in summer their food ;
1 The Hebrew text inserts the conditional clause "if in truth ye anoint me
king over you," which is a prose sentence, and "if not," as an explanation:
but it destroys the measure.
2 See Wunsche, Die Bdthselweisheit bei d. Hebrdern, Leipzig, 1883.
'¦> Prov. 2329-36. 8 Prov. 1-9.
* Prov. 2722-27. 7 Prov. 3016-18.
5 Prov. Slif-^i ; see p. 383, where it is given. 8 prov. 302*-28.
2 B

418 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Conies are a people not mighty,
But they make in the rock their home ;
A king the locusts have not.
But they march forth in bands — all of them ;
The spider with the hands thou mayest catch.
But she dwells in the palaces of kings.
There is also a beautiful temperance poem ^ composed of ten
pentameter lines.
Who hath woe ? who hath wretchedness ? who hath stripes ? who hath
murmuring ?
Who hath wounds without cause ? who hath dark flashing eyes ?
Those tarrying long at the wine : those going to seek spiced wine.
Look not on wine when It sparkleth red ;
When it giveth in the cup its glance ; floweth smoothly :
Its end is that as a serpent it biteth, and like an adder it stingeth.
Thine eyes will see strange things, and thine heart utter perverse things ;
So that thou wilt become like one lying down in the heart of the sea ; and
like one lying down on the top of a mast.
They have smitten me (thou wilt say), but I am not hurt : they have
wounded me, I feel it not :
How long ere I shall arise that I may seek it yet again ?
Another choice piece is the poem of the sluggard ^ of seven
trimeters. By the field of a slothful man I passed.
And by the vineyard of a man without understanding ;
And lo, its wall was overgrown with thorns,
Its face covered over with nettles,
And its wall of stones was broken down ;
So that I gazed to give it attention :
I saw — I received instruction.
This is followed by a tetrastich trimeter, which is quoted from
the Praise of Wisdom.^
A little sleep, a little of slumber,
A little folding of the hands to lie down ;
And thy poverty comes walking on,
And thy want as a man armed with a shield.

III. Composite Poetry
Composite poetry starts in part from a lyric base, as in
prophecy, beginning with the blessings of Jacob and Moses,
and the poems of Balaam, and continuing in lesser and greater
pieces in the prophetical writings, fhe Song of Songs, and
1 Prov. 2329-ss. 2 Prov. 2480-8*. 8 prov. 61°.

THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY

419

Lamentations ; in part from a gnomic base as in the book of
Job and Ecclesiastes.

IV. Dramatic Poetry
The dramatic element is quite strong in Hebrew poetry.
few examples will suffice.
1. I shall give the first from the Psalter :

Chorus.

Inquiry.

Chorus.

Inquiry.

f Lift up your heads, O ye gates ;
\ Yea, lift yourselves, ye everlasting doors :
L That the King of Glory may come in.
AVho, then, is the King of Glory ?
( Yahweh, strong and mighty,
( Yahweh, mighty in battle.
r Lift up your heads, O ye gates ;
-! Yea, lift them, ye everlasting doors ;
L That the King of Glory may come in.
AiVho is he, the King of Glory ?
J Yahweh Sabaoth,
( He is the King of Glory .1
2. The prophet Hosea gives a good example :
Prophet. O return, Israel,
Unto Yahweh thy God ;
For thou hast stumbled by thy iniquity.
Take with you words,
And return unto Yahweh ;
Say unto Him everything.
Ephraim. Forgive iniquity and accept good things ;
And we will render the fruit of our lips.
Asshur cannot save us,
Upon horses we will not ride,
And we will not say any more ' our god '
To the work of our hands ;
Thou by whom the orphan receives compassion.
Yahweh. I will heal their apostasy,
I will love them freely ;
For my anger hath turned from him.
I will be as the dew to Israel ;
Let him bloom as the wild flower,
And let him strike his roots like Lebanon,
Let his shoots grow.
And let his majesty be as the olive,
And let him have scent like Lebanon ;
Let those who abide in his shadow return,
Let them quicken the corn,
1 Ps. 24'-!". See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 146.

420

STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

And let them bloom like the vine.
And their memory be as the wine of Lebanon.
Ephraim. What have I to do any more with idols ?
Yahweh. I have responded, and I shall regard him.
Ephraim. I am like a green cypress.
Yahweh. Of me is thy fruit found.
Prophet. Whoso is wise, let him understand these things ;
Understanding, let him know them :
That the ways of Yahweh are upright.
And the righteous walk therein.
But transgressors stumble therein, i
3. The book of Isaiah gives one of the grandest specimens :
Prophet. Who, there, is coming from Edom,
Stained red in his garments from Bozrah ;
Who, there, made glorious in his apparel.
Strutting in the greatness of his strength ?
Yahweh. I that speak in righteousness,
That am mighty to save.
Prophet. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel,
And thy garments like him that treadeth in the vrine fat ?
Yahweh. I have trodden the wine-press alone ;
And of the peoples there was no man with me :
Yea, I have been treading them in mine anger,
And trampling them in my fury,
-So that their juice is sprinkled upon my garments.
And all my raiment I have stained.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart ;
And the year of my redeemed is come.
Yea, I was looking and there was none to help ;
And I was wondering and there was none to uphold ;
And so mine own arm brought salvation for me,
And my fury it upheld me.
Verily, I have been stamping the peoples in mine anger.
And I have been breaking them to pieces in my wrath.
And I have been pouring down their juice on the earth.2
The book of Job uses the dramatic element in a series of
dialogues between Job and his friends, and concludes with the
voice of God. The dramatic element reaches its climax among
the Hebrews in the Song of Songs.
The first act of the Song of Songs is as follows :

Scene I
Solo. Let him kiss me with some kisses of his mouth.
For thy caresses are better than wine ;
For scent thine ointments are excellent ;
1 Hos. 142-10. See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 176 seq.
2 Is. 6.31-8. See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 313 seq.

THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY

421

O thou sweet ointment, poured forth as to thy name 1
Therefore the virgins love thee.
Solo. Oh ! Draw me !
Chorus. After thee we will run !
Solo. O that the king had brought me to his apartment !
Chorus. We will rejoice and we will be glad with thee,
We will celebrate thy caresses more than wine.
Rightly they love thee. Scene II
Shulamite. Dark am I —
Chorus. — but lovely —
Shulamite. — daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar,
Chorus. — as the curtains of Solomon.
Shulamite. Gaze not upon me because I am swarthy.
Because the sun scanned me :
My mother's sons were angry with me.
They set me as keeper of the vineyards ;
My vineyard, which is my own, have I not kept.
O tell me, thou whom my soul loveth :
Where f eedest thou thy flock ?
Where dost thou let them couch at noon ?
Why should I be as one straying
After the flocks of thy companions ?
Chorus. If thou knowest not of thyself, thou fairest among women,
Go forth for thyself at the heels of the flock,
And feed thy kids at the tabernacles of the shepherds.

Scene III
Solomon. To my mare in the choice chariot of Pharaoh I liken thee, my
friend.
Lovely are thy cheeks in rows (of coin) , thy neck in thy necklace !
Rows of gold we will make thee, with chains of silver.
Shulamite. While the king was in his divan, my nard gave its scent.
A bundle of myrrh, is my beloved to me, that lodgeth between
my breasts ;
A cluster of henna, is my beloved to me, in the vineyards of
En Geddi.
Solomon. Lo thou art lovely, my friend,
Lo thine eyes are doves.
Shulamite. Lo thou art lovely, my beloved,
Yea sweet, yea our arbor is green.
Solomon. The timbers of our houses are cedar.
Our wainscoting cypress.
Shulamite. I am the flower of Sharon,
The anemone of the valleys.
Solomon. As the anemone among the thorns,
So is my friend among the daughters.
Shulamite. As the apricot among the trees of the wood,
So is my beloved among the sons.
In its shadow I delighted to sit.

422 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
And its fruit was sweet to my taste.
O that he had brought me to the vineyard,
His banner over me being love —
Sustain me with raisin-cakes, support me with apricots j
For I am love sick —
His left hand would be under my head.
His right hand would embrace me.
I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles.
Or by the hinds of the field that ye arouse not,
And that ye stir not up love till it please.

V. The Poetry of Wisdom
There are many fine pieces of composite poetry in Hebrew
Wisdom. I shall give as an example the finest piece of ethics
in the Old Testament,^ where the strophes vary with the
theme :
1. A covenant have I concluded with my eyes ;
How then should I consider a maiden ?
Else what portion of Eloah from above.
Or inheritance of Shadday from on high ?
Is there not destruction for the evil doer ;
And calamity for the worker of iniquity ?
Is He not seeing my ways ;
And all my steps counting 'f
2. If I have walked with falsehood.
And my foot has made haste unto deceit ;
Let Him weigh me in righteous balances,
That Eloah may know my integrity !
If my step used to incline from the way,
And after my eyes my heart did walk.
And to my palms a spot did cleave,
Let me sow and let another eat.
And as for my crops, let them be rooted out.
3. If my heart hath been seduced unto a woman,
And at the door of my neighbour I have lurked.
Let my wife grind the mill for another,
And over her let others bend ;
For that were infamy ;
And that were an iniquity for the judges ;
For it is a fire that devoureth unto Abaddon,
And in all my increase it rooteth up.
4. If I used to refuse the right of my slave,
Or my maid servant, when they plead with me ;
What could I do when God should rise up,
1 Job 31.

THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY 423
And when He would investigate, what could I respond to Him ?
Did not, in the womb, my Maker make him,
And One Being form us in the belly ?
5. If 1 used to keep back the weak from his desire,
And caused the eye of the widow to fail,
And ate my portion alone,
And the orphan did not eat of it : —
Nay — from my youth did he grow up unto me as a father ;
And from the womb of my mother I was accustomed to guide her.
6. If I could see a man ready to perish without clothing
And the poor having no covering —
Surely his loins blessed me.
And from the fleece of my sheep he warmed himself.
If I lifted up my hand over the orphan.
When I saw my help in the gate —
My shoulder — let it fall from its blade,
And my arm — let it be broken from its bone !
For there was fear unto me of calamity from God,
And because of His majesty I could not.
7. If I have made gold my confidence.
And unto fine gold said, thou art my trust ;
If I used to rejoice that my wealth was great.
And that my hand had found vast resources ;
If I used to see the light that it was shining brightly,
And the moon moving in splendour,
So that my heart was enticed in secret,
And my hand kissed my mouth ; —
This also were an iniquity for judges.
For I had denied El on high.
8. If I was accustomed to rejoice in the calamity of the one hating me,
Or was excited with joy when evil overtook him ; —
Nay ! I did not give my palate to sinning,
In asking with a curse his life.
Verily the men of my tent say :
Who can shew us one not filled with his meat ?
Without the stranger used not to lodge,
My doors to the caravan I used to open.
9. If against me my land crieth.
And together its furrows weep ;
If its strength I have eaten without silver,
And the life of its lord I have caused to expire ;
Instead of wheat let thorns come forth,
And evil weeds instead of barley .i
10. If I have covered as man my transgression,
Hiding in my bosom my iniquity ;
1 This strophe has been misplaced in the Hebrew text. It does not come
appropriately at the close of the piece. I have accordingly transposed strophes
9 and 10.

424 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Because I feared the great multitude.
And the contempt of the clans made me afraid ;
And so was silent, would not go out to the gate : —
0 that I had one to hear me —
Behold my mark ! — Let Shadday answer me !
O that I had the bill (of accusation) my adversary has written !
Surely I would lift it up on my shoulder,
I would bind it as a crown of glory upon me,
The number of my steps would I declare to him,
As a prince I would approach him.

VI. Prophetic Poetry
I shall finally present a specimen of prophetic poetry from
the great unknown prophet of the exile, and, indeed, the most
sublime piece in the Old Testament, as weU as one of the most
artistic,^ consisting of five gradually increasing strophes.
1. Behold my servant shall prosper.
He shall be lifted up and exalted and be very high.
According as many were astonished at thee —
So disfigured more'than a man was his appearance,
And his form than the sons of men ; —
So shall he startle many nations ;
Because of him kings will stop their mouths ;
For what had not been told them they shall see.
And what they had not heard they shall attentively consider.
2. Who believed our message,
And the arm of Yahweh, unto whom was it revealed ?
When he grew up as a suckling plant before us,
And as a root out of a dry ground ;
He had no form and no majesty that we should see him.
And no appearance that we should take pleasure in him ;
Despised and forsaken of men !
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief !
And as one before whom there is a hiding of the face !
Despised, and we regarded him not 1
S. Verily our griefs he bore
And our sorrows — he carried them.
Yet we regarded him as stricken.
Smitten of God, and humbled.
But he was one pierced because of our transgressions.
Crushed because of our iniquities ;
The chastisement for our peace was upon him ;
And by his stripes there is healing for us. '
We all like sheep strayed away ;
Each one turned to his own way.
While Yahweh caused to light on him the iniquity of us all.
1 Is. 5213-53.

THE KINDS OF HEBREW POETRY 425
4. He was harassed while he was humbling himself.
And he opens not his mouth ;
Like a sheep that is being led to the slaughter
And as an ewe that before her shearers is dumb ; —
And he opens not his mouth.
From oppression and from judgment he was taken away,
And among his ootemporaries who was considering.
That he was cut off from the land of the living,
Because of the transgression of my people, one smitten for them ?
With the wicked his grave was assigned,
But he was with the rich in his martyr death ;
Because that he had done no violence.
And there was no deceit in his mouth.
5. But Yahweh was pleased to crush him with grief I
When he himself offers a trespass offering.
He shall see a seed, he shall prolong days ;
And the pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hands :
On account of his own travail he shall see ;
He shall be satisfied with his knowledge :
My righteous servant shall justify many.
And their iniquities he shall carry.
Therefore will I give him a portion consisting of the many.
And with the strong shall he divide spoil ;
Because that he exposed himself to death,
And he was numbered with transgressors,
And he did bear the sin of many.
And for transgressors was interposing.
In such pieces as these Ave find the climax of Hebrew poetic
art, where the dramatic and heroic elements combine to pro
duce in a larger whole, ethical and religious results with won
derful power. While these do not present us epic or dramatic
or pastoral poems in the classic sense, they yet use the epic,
dramatic, and pastoral elements in perfect freedom, combining
them in a simple and comprehensive manner for the highest
and grandest purposes of the prophet and sage inspired of God,
giving us productions of poetic art that are unique in the
world's literature. The dramatic, epic, and pastoral elements
are means used freely and fully, but not ends. These forms of
beauty and grace do not retard the imagination in admiration
of themselves, but direct it to the grandest themes and images
of piety and devotion. The wise men of Israel present us in
the ideals of the Shulamite, Job, and Koheleth, types of noble
character, moral heroism, and purity that transcend the heroic
types of the Iliad or JEneid, wrestling as they do with foes to

426 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
their souls far more terrible than the spears and javelins and
warring gods of Greek or Trojan, advancing step by step,
through scene after scene and act after act, to holy victory in
the fear of God ; victories that avUI serve in all time for the
support and comfort of the human race, which has ever to meet
the same inconsistencies of evil, the same assaults on virtue,
the same struggle with doubt and error, therein so vividly and
faithfully portrayed to us. The prophets of Israel play upon
the great heart of the Hebrew people as upon a thousand-
stringed lyre, striking the tones with divinely guided touch,
so that from the dirge of rapidly succeeding disaster and ruin,
they rise through penitence and petition to faith, assurance, ex
ultation, and hallelujah ; laying hold of the deep thoughts and
everlasting faithfulness of God ; binding the past and present
as by a chain of light to the impending Messianic future ; see
ing and rejoicing in the glory of God, which, though now for
a season shrouded behind the clouds of disaster, is soon to
burst forth in a unique day.^ iZech. 148'8«-.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Word of God came to man at first orally, in connection
with theophanies. These theophanies are divine manifestations
in forms of time and space. From them, as centres, went forth
divine influences in word of revelation and deed of miracle.
These theophanies attained their culmination in Jesus Christ,
the incarnate, risen, and glorified Saviour. The Word of God,
issuing from these theophanic centres, was appropriated more
and more by holy men, upon whom the Divine Spirit came,
taking possession of them, influencing and directing them in the
exercise of prophetic ministry. An important part of this min
istry was the oral delivery of the Divine Word to the people of
God in ascending stages of revelation. This Word was gradu
ally committed to writing, and assumed the literary forms that
are presented to us in the Canon of Scripture.
The Word of God, as written, is to be appropriated by man
through reading it, meditating upon it, and putting it in practice.
Reading is an appropriation through the eye and ear and sense
perception, of letters, words, and sentences as signs of thought.
Meditation is the use of the faculties of the mind in the appre
hension of the substance of thought and emotion contained in
these signs, the association of it with other things, and the
application of it to other conditions and circumstances. This
appropriation must be in accordance with the laws of the appre
hending human soul, with the principles of the composition of
written documents, and also with the nature of the things con
tained in and expressed by the sensible signs. Biblical inter
pretation is a section of general interpretation, and it differs
from other special branches in accordance with the internal
character of the contents of the Bible. Interpretation is usually
427

428 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
regarded as a section of applied logic. ^ Schleiermacher defines
it as the art of correctly understanding an author ; ^ Klausen ^
as " the scientific establishment and development of the funda
mental principles and rules for the understanding of a given
discourse." I am constrained to think that this is too narrow a
definition. I agree with most interpreters in the opinion that
it embraces not only the art of understanding an author, but
also the art of exposition or explanation of an author to others.*
I am also compelled to go still further and include as a part of
interpretation the practical application of the substance of the
writing to other appropriate conditions and circumstances. The
older interpreters, especially among the Puritans, regarded this
latter as the chief feature. The interpreter needs, according to
the older writers, oratio, meditatio, et tentatio. This tentatio,
trial, experience, is the most important of all. This was urged
by Jesus : " If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know
of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from
myself."^ Bernard says: "He rightly reads Scripture who
turns words into deeds." Francis Roberts says : " The mighti
est man in practice, will in the end prove the mightiest man in
Scripture. Theory is the guide of practice, practice the life of
theory ; where Scripture, contemplation, and experience meet
together in the same persons, true Scripture understanding
must needs be heightened and doubled."®
Biblical interpretation is the central department of Biblical
Study whence all other departments derive their material. In
this field the strifes and struggles of centuries have taken place.
There is no department of study where there have been so many
differences, and where there still remains so much confusion.
The Bible has human features and divine features. To under-
1 See Carpzov, Primes Linece Herm. , Helmstadii, 1790, p. 5 ; Sir William
Hamilton, Logic, p. 474 ; Klausen, Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig,
1841, p. 7.
2 Hermeneutik und Kritik, Berlin, 1838, p. 3. 3 Xn I.e., p. 1.
* Ernesti, Institutio Interp. N. T., 1761, § 10; Principles of Interpretation,
ed. Moses Stuart, Andover, 4th ed., 1842, pp. 14 seq.; Morus, Hermeneutica
N. T., ed. Eichstadt, Lips., 1797, I. pp. 3 seq. ; Immer, Hermeneutics, Andover
edition, 1877, p. 10. 6 john 7i'.
8 Clavis Bibliorum, 4th ed., London, 1675, p. 11 ; see, also, Rambach, Insti
tutiones HermeneutieeB, Jena, 1723, Sth ed., 1764, pp. 2 seq.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 429
stand them in their harmonious combination is the secret of inter
pretation. This secret is the philosopher's stone after which
multitudes of interpreters have been seeking through the
Christian centuries. As Lange appropriately says : ^
" As Christ has overcome the world by his cross, as the blood of
the martyrs has become the seed of the Church, so also the miscon
ceptions and abuse of the Bible have been obliged to more and
more redound to its glorification. The battle of Biblical Criticism
in the first four centuries brought about the collection and estab
lishment of a purified canon ; the arbitrariness of copyists occa
sioned the collection of codices and the criticism of the text ; the
exegesis of the allegorical method, called into life the vindication
of the historical sense of Scripture ; the fourfold enchaining of the
Bible by exegetical tradition, hierarchical guardianship, ecclesias
tical decisions, the Latin language, raised the Bible in the Protes
tant world almost above the dignity of a historical revelation of
God; the humanistic exposition, as well as the naturalistic ex
planation of miracles, called into life along with the New Testa
ment Grammar, also the understanding of the New Testament
idiom, over against its customary depreciation in comparison with
the classic models ; and finally the pantheistic criticism occasioned
the revival and rich unfolding of evangelical history."
We shall first consider the history of biblical interpretation,
then on the basis of its history state its principles and methods.
I. Rabbinical Interpretation
The Jewish Rabbinical schools from the most ancient times
recognized, alongside of the written Word of God, another oral
or traditional Word of much greater extent and authority de
livered to the ancient teachers, and handed down from genera
tion to generation in the esoteric teaching of the faithful scribes,
as the official interpretation of the written Word. This was
not only the view of the Pharisees, who subsequently committed
this tradition to writing in the Mishnas and Talniuds,^ but also
of the Zealots and Essenes. It Avas claimed that this oral
Divine Word had been faithfully handed down from Ezra,^ who
received it by divine inspiration as esoteric wisdom for the
1 Grundriss der biblischen Hermeneutik, Heidelberg, 1878, p. xxi.
2 Weber, System d. Altsynagogalen Pdlestinischen Theologie, 1880, Leipzig,
pp. 92 seq. 8 See p. 257.

430 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
initiated disciples. Others claimed a still higher antiquity for
it, going back to Joshua and the elders, and even in part to the
twelve patriarchs, Enoch, and Adam : hence the large number
of pseudepigraphs in which this wisdom is contained, as well as
in the Talmuds.
This traditional interpretation was of two kinds, Halacha
and Haggada. The Halacha was legal, containing an immense
number of casuistic distinctions, making fences about the Law
in wider and Avider sweep till the Law itself became for the peo
ple of God as inaccessible as the temple of Ezekiel, into which
none but the priests of the line of Zadok might enter. The
Haggada was illustrative and practical, embracing a wealth of
legend and allegory that so coloured and enlarged biblical his
tory that it became as obscure as the New Testament history
upon the palimpsests under the legends of the monks that were
written over it.
E'rom the older Halacha and Haggada methods of interpre
tation were subsequently separated the Peshat and the Sodh.
The Peshat is the determination of the literal sense, and is
really a branch of the Halacha. The Sodh is the determination
of the mystical or allegorical sense, and is a species of the
Haggada.^ The rules of Rabbinical interpretation gradually increased in
extent. Seven rules of the Halacha are ascribed to Hillel in
the Siphra.^ These are enlarged in the Baraitha oi R. Ismaell
to thirteen.^
These rules are : (1) That which is true of the easier or less
is true of the greater or more difficult, and the reverse ; (2) two
similar passages supplement one another ; (3) that which is
clearly established in one part of Scripture is to be presumed
in interpreting others ; (4-11) eight rules with reference to
the relation of the genus to the species, by inclusion, exclusion,
contrast, and their relation to a third term, in the forms of
1 Wogue in I.e., pp. 134, 164 seq,
2 These are given by Schiirer, N. T. Zeitgeschichte, 1874, p. 447, and Hausrath,
Zeit Jesu, Heidelberg, p. 96.
3 Chiarini in I.e., I. pp. 66 seq. ; Weber in I.e., pp. 106 seq. The best state
ment of them, with ample illustrations, is given by Waehner, Antiquitates
Ebrceorum, Gottingse, 1743, pp. 422 seq.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 431
Rabbinical logic ; (12) the word is determined by the context,
and the sentence by the scope of the passage ; (13) when two
A^erses contradict, we must Avait for a third to explain them.
Some of these rules are excellent, and so far as the practical
logic of the times went, cannot be disputed. The fault of Rab
binical exegesis was less in the rules than in their application,
although latent fallacies are not difficult to discover in them,
and they do not sufficiently guard against slips of argument. ^
The Haggada method was elaborated by R. Eliezar into
thirty-two rules. ^
The principles of the two methods are admirably summed up
by Wogue :
" These forty -five rules may all be reduced to two fundamental
considerations. (1) Nothing is fortuitous, arbitrary, or indifferent
in the Word of God. Pleonasm, ellipsis, grammatical anomaly,
transposition of words or facts, everything is calculated, every
thing has its end and Avould teach us something. The casual, the
approximate, the insignificant and inconsequential flower of rhet
oric, all that belongs to the setting in human language, are strange
to the severe precision of Biblical language. (2) As the image
of its author, who is one by Himself and manifold in His manifes
tations, the Bible often conceals in a single word a crowd of
thoughts ; many a phrase, which appears to express a simple and
single idea, is susceptible of diverse senses and numberless inter
pretations independent of the fundamental difference between
literal exegesis and free exegesis, in short, as the Talmud says,
after the Bible itself, the divine word is like fire which divides
itself into a thousand sparks, or a rock Avhich breaks into number
less fragments under the hammer that attacks it. These two
points of view, I repeat, are the soid of the Midrash in general ;
the latter above all serves as the common basis of the Halacha
and Haggada, and it explains, better than any other theory, the
long domination of the midrash exegesis in the synagogue." ^
This admirable statement shows the radical errors of the
Rabbinical idea of the Scriptures : (1) everything must be in-
1 A very useful illustration of all these rules is given in Mielziner, Introduc
tion to the Talmud, 1897, pp. 117-187. He concludes by saying : " This system of
artificial interpretation was mainly calculated to offer the means of ingrafting the
tradition on the stem of Scripture, or harmonizing the oral with the written law."
2 Selections of these are given by Chiarini in I.e., I. p. 81. A full statement,
with ample illustrations, is given by Waehner in I.e., I. pp. 396 seq.
8 Wogue in I.e., p. 169.

432 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
terpreted in accordance with that severe precision, which alone
is worthy of God ; (2) the Scriptures are altogether divine and
have the same attributes of unity and infinity that God Himself
has. The Sodh was used in the most ancient times by the Essenes
and Zealots and found expression in the numerous apocalypses
and pseudepigraphs of the four centuries in the midst of which
the Messiah appeared. It attained its culmination in the Cab
alistic system of the thirteenth century. ^ These mystics re
garded every letter of the Bible as so highly important that it
contained a secret sense for the initiated. The book of Sohar ^
describes the system in the following parable :
" Like a beautiful woman, concealed in the interior of her palace,
who when her friend and beloved passes by, opens for a moment a
secret window and is seen by him alone, and then withdraws herself
immediately and disappears for a long time, so the doctrine only
shows herself to the chosen, (i.e., to him who is devoted to her body
and soul) ; and even to him not always in the same manner. At first
she simply beckons at the passer-by with her hand, and it generally
depends upon his understanding this gentle hint. This is the
interpretation known by the name Itt"). Afterwards she ap
proaches him a little closer, lisps him a few words, but her form
is still covered with a thick veil which his looks cannot penetrate.
This is the so-called 'WT\X She then converses with him with
her face covered by a thin veil ; this is the enigmatical language
of rni'n. After having thus become accustomed to her society,
she at last shows herself face to face and entrusts him with
the innermost secrets of her heart. This is the secret of the law
niD."^ There are three principles of Cabalistic interpretations : (1)
Notariqon — to reconstruct a word by using the initials of many,
or a sentence by using aU the letters of a single word for initial
letters of other words ; (2) Grhematria — the use of the numeri
cal values of the letters of a word for purposes of comparison
with other words which yield the same or simUar combina
tions of numbers; (3) Temura — the permutation of letters
1 Ginsburg, Kabbalah, Loudon, 1865. 2 II. 99.
8 1 give the translation of Ginsburg in I.e., p. 130; comp. Siegfried, Philo
vou Alexandria als Ausleger des Alt. Test., 1875, Jena, p. 291.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 433
by the three Cabalistic alphabets, called 'Atbaeh, 'Album, and
'Athbash.'^ The Peshat, or literal interpretation, is used in the Targum
of Onkelos, and the Greek version of Aquila, with reference to
the Law, but found little representation among the ancient
Jews. The Qarites were the first to emphasize it in the eighth
century. Before this time there is no trace of Hebrew gram
mar, or Hebrew dictionary. The Qarites threw off the yoke
of Rabbinical Halacha, and devoted themselves to the literal
sense and became extreme literalists. Influenced by them,
Saadia introduced the literal method into the Rabbinical
schools, and used it as the most potent weapon to overcome
the Qarites. He became the father of Jewish exegesis in tbe
Middle Ages, and was followed by a large number of distin
guished scholars, who have left monuments of Jewish learning. ^
Wogue attributes this rise of the literal method to the influence
of Arabic learning at Bagdad, Bassora, and Cairo. But the
Arabs and the Persians received their impulses from the Nesto
rian schools of Edessa and Nisibis, which mediated the transition
of Greek learning to the Orient, which also from the times of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Lucius of Samosata, had been
chiefly characterized by their historic method of exegesis. ^
Thus in Judaism there grew up three great parties which
struggled with one another during the Middle Ages. The
sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament were buried under a
mass of tradition that was heaped upon them more and more
for centuries, until it became necessary for the interpreter who
would understand the holy word itself to force his way through
this mass, as at the present day one who would find the ancient
Jerusalem must dig through eighteen centuries of debris under
which it has been buried in the strifes of nations.
There is doubtless truth at the bottom of all these systems.
There is a certain propriety in distinguishing the fourfold sense.
The literal sense will not apply except to the plainest matter-of-
1 See Ginsburg, The Kabbalah, London, 1865, pp. 131 seq. ; Wogue in I.e.,
pp. 274 seq.; Chiarini in I.e., pp. 95 seq.; Siegfried in Z.c, pp. 290 seq.;
Etheridge, Jerusalem and Tiberias, Sora and Cordova, 1856, pp. 354 seq.
2 Wogue in I.e., pp. 208 seq. ; Etheridge, I.e., p. 226. 3 p. 193.
2p

434 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
fact passages ; the Haggada method is necessary in the rhetori
cal parts of Scripture. The Halacha method is necessary for
the determination of the principles embedded in the Scriptures.
The Sodh method is necessary in the interpretation of prophetic
symbolism, and the esoteric instruction of the Bible. If each
of these four methods had been restricted to its own appro
priate sphere in the Bible, they would have cooperated with
great advantage ; but where these methods are applied at the
same time to the same passages with the view that the Scripture
has a manifold sense ; where again these methods are applied
arbitrarily to all passages ; where they are used to remove diffi
culties and to maintain traditional opinions ; or where any one
method is made to usurp the functions of all, — there can only
result — as there did result in fact — the utmost arbitrariness
and confusion. The Bible was no longer interpreted ; it was
used as the slave of traditional systems and sectarian prejudices.
II. Hellenistic Interpretation
The Hellenistic Jews were largely under the influence of the
Platonic philosophy, which they sought to reconcile with the
Old Testament Scriptures. The chief of the Hellenistic Jews
is Philo of Alexandria. Philo Avas not a Hebrew scholar, but
was acquainted with the Aramaic of Palestine, and probably
also Avith the ancient Hebrew.^ He does not use the Hebrew
text, but bases himself entirely on the Greek version, and uses
tradition in its two forms of Halacha and Haggada, but especially
the latter, which he elaborates in the direction of the Sodh or
allegorical method. He distinguishes between the literal sense
and the allegorical as between the body and the soul.^ The
sense like a fluid pervades the letter. The allegory is a wise
architect who builds on the ground of the Scriptures an
architectural structure.^
The allegorical method of Philo is so well stated by Siegfried,
that I shall build upon him in detail, while I pursue my own
method in a more general arrangement. There are three rules to
determine when the literal sense is excluded : (1) when anything
1 Siegfried in I.e., pp. 141 seq. 2 jj^ migr. Abraham, xvi.
8 De Somn., II. 2.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 435
is said unworthy of God ; (2) when it presents an insoluble diffi
culty ; (3) when the expression is allegorical. The last rule
alone is sound, the others are a priori, and result in the imposi
tion on the Scriptures of the preconceptions and prejudices of
the interpreter. The rules of Philo's allegorical method given
by Siegfried are twenty-three in number, i I shall arrange them
under four heads in a somewhat different order.
I. Gframmatical allegory. An allegory is indicated in the
use of certain particles ; in the modifications of words by pre
fixes or affixes ; in stress upon number of noun and tense of
verb ; in gender of Avords ; in the use or absence of the article.
Here grammatical exegesis is insufficient ; there are mysterious
hidden meanings to be found in these grammatical peculiarities.
II. Rhetorical allegory is found : in the repetition of words ;
in redundancy of style ; in reiteration of statement ; in changes
of expression ; in synonyms ; in play upon words ; in striking
expressions ; in position of words ; in unusual connections of
verses ; in the omission of what would be expected ; in the
unexpected use of terms. Here rhetorical exegesis is insuffi
cient ; there must be a hidden sense in any departure from the
plain prosaic form.
III. Allegory by means of new combinations is gained : by
changing the punctuation ; by giving a word all its possible
meanings ; by internal modifications of the word ; by ncAV com
binations of words. This method was more fully wrought out
b};- the Cabalists^ and is the most abnormal of all forms of
allegory. IV. Symbolism is of three kinds : of numbers, of things,
and of names. This method is the most appropriate of the
forms of allegory ; its propriety is recognized by modern exe
gesis when used within due bounds.
To Philo and his school the inner sense attained by allegory
was the real sense designed by God. The method of Philo
was doubtless used to a great extent among the Essenes and
the Zealots. There are traces of it in the pseudepigraphs and
apocryphal books that were composed in the time of Philo.
Josephus was also influenced by Philo, and was inclined to the
1 In l.c. , pp. 165 seq. 2 See p. 432.

436 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
use of allegory, as we see from his treatment of the tabernacle.^
There is truth at the bottom of the allegorical method, namely,
that human language is inadequate to convey the thoughts of
God to man. At the best it can only be a sign and external
representation. We must go back of the sign to the thing
signified. The mistake of the allegorical method is in extend
ing it beyond its legitimate bounds, and making every word and
syllable and letter of Scripture an allegory of some kind, and
in using it to escape difficulties of philosophy and theology,
and in order to maintain peculiar religious views.
III. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in
THE New Testament
The writings of New Testament Scripture use and interpret
Old Testament Scripture. It is important for us to determine
the nature and principles of this interpretation, and its relation ,
to the Rabbinical and Hellenistic methods.
In the Old Testament prior to the exile, the prophets use
earlier writings by way of citation rather than interpretation.
This use is in the nature of free reproduction and application
rather than an exposition of their sense. During the periods
of oral revelation and prophecy, the interpretation of ancient
Scripture was of little importance. It was only when prophecy
ceased, and oral revelations were discontinued, that it was
necessary to ascertain the divine Avill by the interpretation of
ancient written documents.
After the exile, Ezra introduced the more systematic study
of the Scripture, and established the midrash method, in seek
ing for the meaning of ancient Scriptures and their application
to the present. The people were assembled, and Ezra and the
Levites " read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and
gave the sense, and they understood in the reading. "^ The aim
of Ezra and his associates was to make the law of God so plain
that the people generally could understand it.
The New Testament writers constantly use the Old Testa
ment. Do they employ the methods in use by the Palestinian
1 Antiq., III. 7, 7 ; Siegfried in I.e., pp. 278 seq. 2 Seh. 88.

HISTORY OF THB INTERPRETATION 437
and Hellenistic Jews of their time ? Different answers have
been given to this question from partisan points of view. It
is important to ascertain the real facts of the case. The most
important use of the Scripture is CA'^er the last and the highest
in the process of interpretation, namely, practical interpretation
or application ; for the divine revelation has in view, above
all, human conduct. This is most frequently employed in the
New Testament by Jesus and His apostles. The most familiar
example is in the temptation of Jesus, when He overcomes
Satan by the application of the words of the law : " Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God ; " " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God ; " " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only
shalt thou serve." ^ These will suffice, also, as specimens of
the literal interpretation as used by Jesus.
In conflict with the Pharisees He usually employs the
Halacha method as most appropriate to controversy with them,
defeating them with their own weapons. Thus He employed
Ps. 82^, arguing from the greater to the less.
" Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ? If He
called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the
Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Pather
sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I
said, I am the Son of God ? " ^
He used the Halacha method of arguing from the inner con
trast of general and particular in Ps. 110^.
"How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying:
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I
put thine enemies underneath thy feet ? If David then calleth
him Lord, how is he his son ? " '
Again in the interpretation of the Sabbath law Matthew let
Jesus quote from 1 Sam. 211-6 ; Num. 289-1" . jjos. 6^ ; on the
principle that Scripture passages may be used to supplement
one another. " Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered,
and they that were with him ; how he entered into the house of
1 Mt. 4*-ii'. 2 John 103*-38. 8 Mt. 22«-<6. See p. 264.

438 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
God, and did eat the shew-bread, which it was not lawful for him
to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the
priests ? [Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sab
bath day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are
guiltless ? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple
is here. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy,
and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.]
Por the son of man is lord of the Sabbath." ^
In these and similar instances Jesus interprets Scripture, as
a Jewish rabbin, after the Halacha method, with which the
Pharisees were familiar, and to which they were accustomed in
discussion and argument.
Jesus also employs the Haggada method. This indeed is
His own favourite method of teaching, inasmuch as His dis
courses were in the main addressed to the people. His method
of illustration and enforcement of truth is perfect in its kind,
as only a divine master could fashion it. If we take the series
of parables in Lk. 15 as an example, what could be more
simple, appropriate, beautiful, and impressive ? They have
been the gospel of redemption to millions of our race. A few
examples may be given of this method of interpretation. In
reply to the bald literalism of the ruler of the synagogue.
"There are six days in which men ought to work: in them
therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the Sab
bath ; " Jesus says : " Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on
the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him
away to the watering ? And ought not this woman, being a
daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, eighteen years,
to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the Sabbath ? " ^
In the interpretation of prophecy and history Jesus comes
into connection with the allegorical method of interpretation,
and it has been claimed that He applies it with the freedom of
a Hellenist. In His first discourse in the synagogue of Naza
reth ^ He interprets the prophecy Is. 61 as applying to Him
self. This prophecy is in its nature figurative, as it presents
1 Mt. 12*-8. But Mk. 226-28 and Lk, 63-6 omit the bracketed clause. It is evi
dent that Matthew is responsible for this heaping-up of citations from the Old
Testament. Jesus, according to Mark, uses here the argument from the general
to the particular, when he says, " The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath." 2 XM.. 13" «j- 3 l^. 416-22.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 439
the servant of Yahweh in his faithful preaching to the people.
Jesus correctly sees the inner sense of the passage and finds
His own likeness depicted there. Jesus interprets the corner
stone of Ps. 118^^23 as referring to Himself and His kingdom.^
This is not a prophecy in the original passage, but a symboli
cal representation of the reestablishment of the kingdom of
God. The work of Jesus was preeminently such a work.
Hence the inner sense affords the connection that makes the
use of the symbol appropriate. A touching example of the
historical allegory is the caution of Jesus,^ " Remember Lot's
wife," 3 in connection with His prediction of the judgment upon
Jerusalem and the nations.
I shall now examine some of the most striking passages, in
which certain distinguishing features of our Saviour's inter
pretation appear.
The Sadducees came to Him with a difficult case under a
general law.*
" Moses wrote unto us,^ If a man's brother die, and leave a
wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should
take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."
The case is : "There were seven brethren : and the first took
a wife, and dying left no seed ; and the second took her, and
died, leaving no seed behind him ; and the third likewise:
and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died.
In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them ? For the
seven had her to wife."
Jesus does not determine this case by an appeal to Holy
Scripture, but on His own authority delivers a doctrine which
settles it: "For Avhen they rise from the dead they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven."
He takes occasion, however, to overcome the Sadducean denial
of a resurrection by an appeal to the Law : * " Have ye not
read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ' I am
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
It is clear that our Saviour takes the passage out of its context
1 Mt. 21*2-** _ Mk. 1218-11 _ Lk. 20W-18. 2 Lk. 1782. 3 (jen. I926.
* Mk. 1218-27 = Mt. 2223-82 _ Lk. 2027-38. 6 Deut. 258. 8 Ex. 88.

440 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and gives it a meaning which is not explicitly there. Where,
then, is the justification for His interpretation, and what is the
method of it ? He derives from the statement of the covenant
relation between God and the patriarchs, the principle that
God being a living God, the relation is a vital relation, and
therefore those who are in this relation are living ones as
possessors of the life they have received from God, the foun
tain of life.
The continuation in life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob after
they died to this life implies that they as well as their seed
will eventually enjoy all the blessings God promised them.
These they cannot enjoy unless they take part in the resur
rection. All this is implicitly contained in the words cited;
but it cannot be inferred except by the stress on the living
God and His power, which Jesus added to the original passage.
A similar argument was used by an ancient rabbi from another
passage of the Law.i
" Go in and possess the land which Yahweh sware unto your
fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give unto them
and to their seed after them." The rabbi called the attention
of his hearers to the fact that Yahweh sware to give the land
to them, and not to give it to you.
Jesus uses the laws of the Tables,^ and contrasts His own
interpretation of them with the traditional interpretation.
The latter looked at the external letter and warped this into
accordance with traditional theory and practice. The former
enters into the internal spirit. Jesus goes in His interpreta
tion beyond any human propriety, and interprets them from
the point of view of the divine Lawgiver Himself. No human
interpreter would be justified in following the Master thither.
It is His sovereign prerogative so to interpret.
Jesus recognizes the principle of accommodation in the use
of the Old Testament.^ The law of divorce was granted by
Moses, owing to the hardness of the hearts of the people of
his time. That law was, however, inconsistent with the original
divine ideal at the creation. And here again Jesus interprets
from the mind of God in the Halacha method, the words:
' Deut. 18. 2 Mt. 5-1 ¦««¦. 3 Mt. 193 m-.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 441
" For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife ; and the twain shall become one
Hesh." 1 This He interprets by laying hold of the great
thought: '•'•one flesh." "So that they are no more twain, but
one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. "2 No one would ever have thought of this
interpretation but Jesus, who interpreted the mind of God,
the creator of man and the author of marriage.
Jesus after His resurrection said :
" These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet
with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are
written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, con
cerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might under
stand the Scriptures ; and he said unto them. Thus it is written,
that the Messiah should suffer, and rise again from the dead the
third day ; and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." ^
Here our Saviour grasps the entire Old Testament revelation
in its unity, and represents Himself and His kingdom as its cen
tral theme. The same is the case in the institution of the Lord's
Supper, where He represents the feast as the new covenant feast
over against the old covenant sacrifice.
Jesus Christ, in His method of interpretation, thus laid down
the distinctive principles of scriptural interpretation which en
abled His apostles to understand the Old Testament, and de
livered them from the perils of the allegorical and legal
methods of His times. He uses the four kinds of biblical in
terpretation, in accordance with the usage of the various classes
of men in His times, in those ways that were familiar to the
Rabbinical school, the synagogue instruction, the popular au
dience, and the esoteric training of the disciple. He uses all
that was appropriate in these methods : but never employs any
of the casuistry or hair-splitting Halacha of the scribes ; or any
of the idle tales and absurd legends of the Haggada; or any of the
strange combinations and fanciful reconstructions of the Sodh
of the Alexandrians. His use of Scripture is simple, beautiful,
profound, and sublime. One sees through the Divine Master
1 Gen. 22*. 2 See pp. 87 seq. 3 Lk. 24**«j-.

442 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
that the written Word is the mirror of the mind of God ; and
the eternal Word interprets the former from the latter. The
rabbins interpreted the Scriptures to accord with the traditions
of the elders ; Jesus interpreted them to accord with the mind
of God their author. Hence the characteristic authority with
which He spake ; the freedom with which He added to the
ancient Scriptures, and substituted a higher revelation for
the lower, wherever it was found necessary. As Dorner appro
priately says :
" This is the wondrous charm of His AVords, their unfathomable,
mysterious depth, despite all their simplicity, that they are ever
uttered, so to speak, from the heart of the question ; for the har
mony which binds together and comprehends in one view the op
posite ends of things, is lovingly and consciously present to Him,
since everything is related to His kingdom. Other words of men,
this or that man might have spoken ; nay, most that is spoken or
done by us is merely a continuation of others through us ; we are
simply therein points of transmission for tradition. But the
words which He drew from within — these precious gems, which
attest the presence of the Son of Man, who is the Son of God —
have an originality of an unique order; they are His, because
taken from that which is present in Him. In this sense, His
prophetic activity is simply manifestation. Certainly, where in
the accommodation of love He condescends to men in figurative
speech, or in simple talk, intelligible even to children, or avails
Himself of ordinary, especially Old Testament ideas, He there
suppresses the rays of His originality. But when He does this, it
is in order to fill the Old Testament husk or the types and forms
taken from nature with the highest, the true contents." ^
Jesus does not lay down any principles of interpretation.
But we may venture from the synthesis of His exegesis to state
the three following principles : (1) He recognized that the words
of Scripture are living words of God to man, bearing upon
human conduct. They are to be interpreted by entering into
Uving communion with the living God and from internal per
sonal relations to their author, and not by roundabout methods
of traditional definition and illustrative legend. (2) The di-
Adne revelation was made on the principle of accommodation to
the weakness, ignorance, and sinfulness of man, requiring no
¦tem of Christian Doctrine, Vol. III. p. 389.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 443
more than he was able to bear. The temporary provisions are
to be eliminated from the eternal principles and the divine
ideals. (3) The Scriptures are an organic whole, the Gospel
of the Messiah is the fulfilment of the Old Testament, the
Messiah and His kingdom the key to the whole. These were
fruitful principles and ought to have guided the Church in all
time and preserved it from manifold errors.
The apostles and their disciples in the New Testament use
the methods of the Lord Jesus rather than those of the men of
their time. The New Testament writers differ among them-
selA-es in the tendencies of their thought. St. Peter, St. James,
St. Jude, St. Matthew, and St. Mark incline to use the Haggada
method ; St. Stephen, St. Paul, and St. Luke to the more
learned Halacha method; St. John and the Epistle to the
Hebrews to the Sodh or allegorical method; but in them all,
the methods of the Lord Jesus prevail over the other methods
and ennoble them.
1. The Haggada is used by St. Peter when he cites Scripture i
with reference to the case of Judas. The propriety is in the
parallelism of the cases of the doom of the traitor and persecutor.
The Gospel 2 of Matthew makes similar uses of Holy Scripture
and applies it to the situation of Jesus. ^ There is here a
parallelism of circumstances, in which the ancient prophecies
illustrate the descent of Jesus into Egypt and the lamentation
at Bethlehem, by the descent of Israel into Egypt and the wars
that desolated Judea. There is no prediction in these prophe
cies, or interpretation of them by the evangelist as prediction ;
but the association of the passages with Jesus has its propriety
in that He is conceived to be the Messiah, in whom the fortunes
of Israel are involved. "Here is incorrectness of form with
truth of thought."*
The Epistle of St. James ^ uses by preference what has been
called the moral Haggada. To maintain his proposition that
faith without works is dead, he cites the examples of Abraham
and Rahab. ^ So he refers to the patience of Job and the fervent
1 Cf. Acts 128; Ps. 6926, 1098. 2 Mt. 3i3-i8. s Hos. Ill . jer. 3115.
* Tholuck, Alt. Test, in N. T., 6te Aufl., Gotha, 1868, p. 44.
8 Jas. 22i«=«-. 8 Gen. 22 ; Jos. 2.

444 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
prayers of Elijah, i St. Paul also uses the Haggada in his citation
of Ps. 19*, to illustrate the going forth of the gospel to the ends
of the earth,2 and of Deut. 30" *^-, to iUustrate the truth that
the word of the gospel was nigh in the preaching of the
apostles, in the faith of the heart, and in the confession of the
mouth.3 The Epistle to the Hebrews uses it especially in call
ing the roll of the heroes of faith.* There are also a few ex
amples in the New Testament of the use of legends and fables ^
for purposes of illustration, which do not commit the authors to
their historical truthfulness.
2. The Halacha method is used by St. Paul arguing from the
less to the greater ; ^ from analogy ; ' from general to partic
ular; ^ from the combination of passages to prove the corruption
of sin.^
The Halacha method is also used by St. James to prove his
point that whoso transgresseth one of the laws is guilty of aU,!"
by citing the general law,ii and the special commands, i^
3. The allegorical method is used by St. Paul, where Hagar
and Sara are taken to represent the Pharisee and the Christian,!^
and where he uses the water from the rock as an allegory of
Christ. 1* Here the apostle sees a principle clothed in the history.
He uses it to illustrate and enforce an analogous case where
the principle applies. As Tholuck says, " The apostle is like
one who has seen a finished picture and then afterwards sees in
the sketch of it more than we do who have only the sketch." i^
Is it not rather with the sunlight of prophetic insight he sees
into the essential features of the ancient histories, whereas to us
they are in the obscurities of candlelight? He tells us more
about them than we can see even with his guidance. It is in
the Epistle to the Hebrews that the allegorical method has its
greatest display in the New Testament. St. Paul uses it occa
sionally, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews constantly.
As Tholuck says, " The literary character of Paul is Talmudic
1 Jas. 511- 17. 2 Rom. IO". s Rom. 108-i».
« Heb. 11. 6 2 Pet. 2* «««• ; Jude 9 seq. ; 2 Tim. 38. See p. 348.
8 1 Cor. 9' '««• ; Deut. 25*. ' 2 Cor. 37 ; Ex. 24", 342!>-35.
8 Rom. 43««- from Gen. 158, pg. 321-2 . i cgr. 1421 fcg. from Is. 2811-12.
2 Rom. 39-18 from Ps. 14i-3, S', 1408, 107 . ig. 597.8 . pg. ggi. 10 jag. 28-is.
11 Lev. I918. 12 Ex. 2013-1*. is Gal. 42* «?-. 1* 1 Cor. 10*. 18 In I.e., p. 37.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 445
and dialectic, the Epistle to the Hebrews is Hellenistic and
rhetorical."! Thus the Sabbath of the Old Testament is used
to allegorize the Sabbath rest^ at the end of the world. The
person and office of Melchizedek are used to allegorize the Mes
sianic high-priest, and there is an allegory in the etymology of
the names Salem and Melchizedek. ^ Here, according to Riehm,
the author " leaves out of consideration the historical meaning
of Old Testament passages, and only sees the higher prophetic
meaning which belongs to them on account of their ideal
contents."* The Apocalypse uses the allegorical method of symbolism in
the number of the beast, 666,^ the sun-clad woman,® the river
Euphrates,'^ the city of Babylon,* the place Harmageddon,^ the
prophetic numbers of Daniel i" and the recombination of ancient
prophecies,!! and the descriptions of Paradise. !2
There are many who in our times seek to explain away the
allegorical interpretation, as used in the New Testament, as
unbecoming to Jesus and His apostles. These forget that it
was just this allegorical method, with all its abuses, that has
been chiefly employed in the Synagogue and in the Church for
ages by the ablest and most pious of her interpreters. Thus
Bishop Lightfoot reproves such persons : !^
" We need not fear to allow that Saint Paul's mode of teaching
here is colored by his early education in the rabbinical schools. It
were as unreasonable to stake the apostle's inspiration on the turn
of a metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an
argument, as on purity of diction. No one now thinks of main
taining that the language of the inspired writers reaches the clas
sical standard of correctness and elegance, though at one time it
was held almost a heresy to deny this. ' A treasure contained in
earthen vessels,' ' strength made perfect in weakness,' ' rudeness
in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is the far nobler conception
of inspired teaching, which we may gather from the apostle's own
language. And this language we should do well to bear in mind.
But, on the other hand, it were sheer dogmatism to set up the
1 In I.e., p. 52. 2 Heb. 4. 3 Heb. 7.
* Lehrb. Hebrderbriefes, Neue Ausg., 1867, p. 204. « Rev. I318.
8 Rev. 12i«««'. 7 Rev. I612. 8 Rev. 176, 182. 9 Rev. I6i«.
w Rev. 128, 135. ' 11 Rev. 21, 22 ; Ezek. 33-38; Dan. 79»«J-, 12 ; Is. 258, 65i7'=«-.
12 (Jen. 23'««-. 18 Saint Paul 's Epistle to the Galatians, Andover, 1870, p. 370.

446 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
intellectual standard of our own age or country as an infallible
rule. The power of allegory has been differently felt in different
ages, as it is differently felt at any one time by diverse nations.
Analogy, allegory, metaphor — by what boundaries are these sepa
rated, the one from the other ? What is true or false, correct or
incorrect, as an analogy, or an allegory ? What argumentative
force must be assigned to either ? We should at least be prepared
with an answer to these questions, before we venture to sit in
judgment on any individual case."
4. The apostles were taught by Jesus to consider the old
covenant as a whole ; to see it as a shadow, type, and prepara
tory dispensation with reference to the new covenant ; to re
gard the substance and disregard the form. Hence under the
further guidance of the Holy Spirit they eliminated the tem
poral, local, and circumstantial forms of the old covenant, and
gained the universal, eternal, and essential substance ; and this
they applied to the circumstances of the new covenant, of which
they were called to be the expounders. They interpreted in
accordance with the mind of the reigning Christ as Jesus had
interpreted in accordance with the mind of His Father.
Thus St. Peter on the day of Pentecost ! grasps the situation
and sees in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the inauguration
of the new dispensation described by the prophet Joel.^ In
his epistle ^ he applies the Sinaitic covenant * to the new cove
nant relations. This was from the sense of the unity of both
covenants in Christ, and the fulfilment of the earlier in the later.
So St. Paul goes back of the law of Sinai to the Abrahamic
covenant and finds that all believers are the true children of
Abraham. 5 He represents the ancient institutions as "a
shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's."®
And so the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews finds the en
tire system of Levitical priesthood, purification, and offerings
fulfilled in Christ and His ministry, so that the form is thrown
off noAv that the " very image " of these things has been made
manifest.' The author of the Apocalypse gathers up the sub
stance of unfulfilled prophecy and attaches it to the second ad
vent of Jesus Christ.
iActs2i8"3-. 2 Joel 3i»e3. (228se}.). » 1 Pet. 2'"«-. * Ex. 19.
6 Rom. 4. 6 Col. 217. 7 Heb. 10i«9-.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 447
This organic living method of interpretation of Jesus and
His apostles is the true Christian method. The errors in the
history of exegesis have sprung up to the right and the left of it.
IV. Interpretation of the Fathers and Schoolmen
In the ancient Church the methods of exegesis ! of the Pales
tinian and Hellenistic Jews, as well as those of Jesus and His
apostles, were reproduced. The strife of the various elements
that entered into the apostolic Church is clearly to be seen in
the New Testament itself.^
The Palestinian methods were represented in the Ebionites
and the JeAvish-Christian tendency that passed over into the
Church. Thus Papias, in his naive way, appeals to the elders,
Aristion, the Presbyter John, and others, rather than to tlie
New Testament, to establish his premillenarianism.^ The
Clementine pseudepigraph represents the apostle Peter in con
flict with Simon Magus, as the embodiment of Church authority
over against Gnosticism. St. Peter, speaking of the prophetic
writings, is made to say :
" Which things were indeed plainly spoken, but are not plainly
written; so much so that when they are read they cannot be
understood without an expounder, on account of the sin which
has grown up with men." *
Tertullian also says :
" Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures ;
nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will
either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. . . .
The natural order of things would require that this point should
be first proposed, which is now the only one which Ave must dis
cuss : ' With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures
belong ? Prom what, and through whom, and when, and to whom,
has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians ? '
Por wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and
1 For the history of exegesis in the Christian Church, see Rosenmiiller,
Historia interpretationis librorum sacrorum in Ecclesia Christiana, 5 Tom.,
Hildburghusse, 1795-1814, but especially Klausen, Hermeneutik des Neuen
Testaments, Leipzig, 1841, and Samuel Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, Edin.,
1843 ; M. S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2d ed., 1885.
2 Acts 15 ; 1 Cor. 3 ; Gal. 2 ; 1 Tim. 1 ; Jas. 2 ; Rev. 2.
3 Eusebius, Eeel. Hist., III. 39. * Becognitions, I. Chap. XXI.

448 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
faitli shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expo
sitions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." '
Irenseus ^ and Cyprian ^ laid stress upon the literal method
of exegesis and the authority of tradition, and exercised an un
fortunate influence upon the early Latin Church.
The Hellenistic methods found the greatest representation
in the early Church. The New Testament writers employed
the Greek language and the Septuagint version. It is probable
that the great majority of the earliest Christians were Hellenists.
Naturally the influence of Philo and the allegorical method
became very great. We see that influence already in the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings. We find it
in the epistles of Clement of Rome and Barnabas, of the apos
tolic Fathers ; in Justin and the apologists generally.* Clement
of Alexandria gave it more definite shape when he distin
guished between the body and soul of Scripture and called
attention to its fourfold use. He compares it to engrafting :
(1) The way in which we instruct plain people belonging to
.the Gentiles, who receive the word superficially ; (2) the
instruction of those who have studied philosophy, cutting
through the Greek dogmas and opening up the Hebrew Script
ures ; (3) overcoming the rustics and heretics by the force
of the truth ; (4) the gnostic teaching, which is capable of
looking into the things themselves.^ He makes the remark:
" The truth is not to be found by changing the meanings, but
in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the
sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demon
strated in the Scriptures from similar Scriptures." *
Klausen well says :
" By the assertion and vindication of this principle of interpre
tation the Alexandrian teachers have been the preservers of the
pure Christian doctrine, when the crass literal interpretation in
many parts of the Latin church, especially the African provinces,
worked to justify from the sacred Scriptures the grossest ideas of
the being of God, the nature of the soul, and the future life." '
1 Adv. Heer., Chap. XIX. * Klausen in I.e., pp. 97 seq.
2 Adv. Heer., I. Chap. IX. 4 ; Chap. X. 1. 8 Stromata, VI. 15.
8 Epist. U. 6 Stromata, VII. 16.
7 In I.e., p. 103.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 449
Origen carried out the principles of interpretation still *
further and became the father of the allegorical method in tho
Church. He distinguishes a threefold sense : body, soul, and
spirit.! He uses thirteen of Philo's rules.^ He lays stress on
the allegory and often uses it to get rid of anthropomorphisms,
and turns a good deal of ancient Jewish history into allegory ;
but he does not neglect the literal sense. He uses the three
senses, but ranges them in the order of ascent from loAvest to
highest, and finds in the spiritual sense the one chiefly de
sirable. Eucherius of Lyons in the first half of the fifth century ^
divides the mystical sense into two kinds, — the allegorical,
what is to be believed in now ; the anagogical, what is pre
dicted.* In Hilary and Ambrose the allegorical method became
dominant in the Latin Church. Ambrose says :
" As the Church has two eyes with which it contemplates Christ ;
namely, a moral and a mystic, of Avhich the former is sharper, the
latter milder, so the entire divine Scripture is either natural, or
moral or mystic." °
Tychonius belonged to this school, and laid down seven rules
of interpretation : (1) Of the Lord and His body; (2) the
twofold division of the Lord's body ; (3) promises and law ;
(4) relation of species and genus ; (5) the times ; (6) reca
pitulation ; (7) the devil and his body. These rules have more
to do with the doctrinal substance of the Scriptures, the rela
tion of the Church to Christ, the Law to the Gospel, and the like.
They have been of service in the history of the Church and are
mentioned with approval by Augustine, although he shows
their insufficiency.* Augustine gave the allegorical method a
better shaping in the Latin Church. He distinguishes four
kinds of exegesis : (1) historical, (2) setiological,'' (3) ana
logical, (4) allegorical,^ and lays down the principle that what-
1 Hom. V. in Lev. 2 Siegfried in I.e., pp. 353 seq.
3 Liber formularum spiritualis intelligentice, Migne edition, Tom. 50, p. 727.
See Reuss, Gesch. d. Heil. Schrift. N. T., 4te Ausg., Braunschweig, 1864, p. 543.
* Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten,
Freib., 1880, p. 30.
8 Exposit. in Ps. 118, Serm. ii., n. 7 ; ibid., 36, Preef.
8 De doetrina, III. 30. 7 An inquiry into the causes. 8 j)^ util. cred. , Chap. V.
2g

450 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ever cannot be referred to good conduct or truth of faith must
be regarded as figurative.! Klausen gives a careful summary of
the exegetical principles of Augustine. These are reproduced
by Davidson, from whom I quote ^ in a more condensed form :
" (1) The object of all interpretation is to express as accurately
as possible the thoughts and meaning of an author. ... (2) In
the case of the Holy Scriptures, this is not attained by strictly
insisting on each single expression by itself. ... (3) On the
contrary, we should endeavor to clear up the obscurity of such
passages, and to remove their ambiguity — first, by close attention
to the connexion before and after ; next, by comparison with kin
dred places where the sense is more clearly and definitely given ;
and lastly, by a reference to the essential contents of Christian
doctrine. (4) The interpreter of Holy Scripture must bring with
him a Christian reverence for the divine word, and an humble
disposition which subordinates preconceived opinions to whatever
it perceives to be contained in the Word of God. ... (5) Where
the interpretation is insecure, notwithstanding the preceding meas
ures, it must be assumed, that the matter lies beyond the circle of
the essential truths belonging to the Christian faith. (6) It is
irrational and dangerous for any one, whilst trusting in faith, and
in the promises respecting the operations of the Holy Spirit on
the mind, to despise the guidance and aid of science in the inter
pretation of Scripture."
The spirit that should actuate the interpreter is beautifuUy
stated by Augustine :
"The man who fears God seeks diligently in Holy Scripture for
a knowledge of His will. And when he has become meek through
piety, so as to have no love of strife, when furnished also with a
knowledge of language so as not to be stopped by unknown words
and forms of speech, and with the knowledge of certain necessary
objects, so as not to be ignorant of the force and nature of those
which are used figuratively ; and assisted, besides, by accuracy in
the texts, which has been secured by skill and care in the matter
of correction; — when thus prepared, let him proceed to the
examination and solution of the ambiguities of Scripture."'
I think on the whole that Klausen is justified, so far as the
Latin Church is concerned, in his statement that :
1 De doetrina, III. 15.
2 Klausen in I.e., pp. 162 seq. ; Davidson in I.e., pp. 133 seq.
8 De doetrina, III. 1.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 451
"None of the rest of the fathers, earlier or later, came near
Augustine in the conception and statement of the essential charac
ter and conditions of the interpretation of Scripture. The truths
which the Reformation in the sixteenth century again invoked
into fruitful life, namely, of the relation of the sacred Scriptures
to Christian doctrine, and of the scientific interpretation of the
Scriptures, and which have become subsequently the foundations
for the erection of evangelical dogmatics, may all be shown in the
writings of Augustine, expressed in his clear, strong language." ^
This should, however, be qualified with the remark that
Augustine's practice did not altogether accord with his pre
cepts. He was dominated by the rule of faith ^ and the
authority of the Church, as Irenseus and Tertullian had been.^
Augustine, in his practice, used too much of the allegory ; and
the Latin Fathers followed his example rather than his precepts,
and more and more gave themselves up to this method. Greg
ory the Great went to the greatest lengths in allegory.
Toward the close of the third century Lucius of Samosata
established at Antioch a new exegetical school, which soon rose
to a great power and influence, and produced the greatest exe
getes of the ancient Church. Its fundamental principles are
well stated by Kihn.* (1) Every passage has its literal mean
ing, and only one meaning. We must, however, distinguish
between plain and figurative language, and interpret each pas
sage in accordance with its nature. (2) Alongside of the literal
sense is the typical sense, which arises out of the relation of the
old covenant to the new. It is based upon the literal sense
which it presupposes. These are sound principles and are in
accord with the usage of the New Testament.
"The Antiochans mediated between the two contrasted posi
tions : a coarse, childish, literal sense, and an arbitrary allegorical
interpretation ; between the extremes of the Judaizers and Anthro-
pomorphites on the one hand, and the Hellenistic Gnostics and
Origenists on the other ; and they paved the way for a sound
1 In Z.c;, p. 165.
2 Diestel, Gesch. d. Alt. Test, in d. Christ. Kirche, Jena, 1869, p. 85 ; A. Dorner,
Augustinus sein theologisehes System, Berlin, 1873, pp. 240 seq.
3 He did not apprehend the essential Protestant principle of interpretation,
namely, the analogy of faith m the Scriptures themselves.
*i:c., p. 29.

^

452 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
biblical exegesis which remained influential for all coming time, if
indeed not always prevalent." ^
The Antiochan school produced scholars of different ten
dencies. Some of them, like Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus
of Tarsus, and Nestorius, pressed historical and grammatical
exegesis too far, to the neglect of the higher typical and mysti
cal ; but in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ephraem the Syrian,
the principles of the school find expression in the noblest prod
ucts of Christian exegesis, which served as the reservoir of
supply for the feeble traditionalists of the Middle Ages, and are
valued more and more in our own times. ^
With the decline of the school of Antioch, its principles were
maintained at Edessa and Nisibis, and thence gave an impulse
to the Arabs and the Jewish exegesis of the Middle Ages ; and
thus in a roundabout way again influenced the Church of the
West at the Reformation. But an earlier influence may be
traced in the reproduction of the work of Paul of Nisibis by
Junilius Africanus in his Institutes.^ The rules of Junilius are
brief but excellent :
" (Disciple.) What are those things which we ought to guard in
the understanding of the sacred Scriptures ? (Master.) That those
things which are said may agree with Him who says them ; that
they should not be discrepant with the reasons for which they
were said ; that they should accord with their times, places, order,
and intention. (Disciple.) How may we learn the intention of the
divine doctrine? (Master). As the Lord Himself says, that we
should love God with all our hearts and with all our souls, and
our neighbors as ourselves. But corruption of doctrine is, on the
contrary, not to love God or the neighbor." *
The school of Nisibis influenced the Occident also through
Cassiodorus, who wished to establish a corresponding theologi
cal school at Rome, but failed on account of the warlike times.^
If this had been accomplished, the history of the Middle Ages
might have been very different. He introduced the methods
of the school of Nisibis in his Institutions. This was an impor
tant text-book in the Middle Ages and exerted a healthful influ-
^ L.c, p. 29. 3 jjistituta Begularia Divinai Legis.
2 Diestel in I.e., pp. 135, 138. * Kihn in I.e., p. 526.
8 Kihn in I.e., p. 210.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 453
ence. He urges the use of the Fathers as a Jacob's ladder by
which to rise to the Scriptures themselves. He insists upon
the comparison of Scripture Avith Scriptures, and points out
that frequent and intense meditation is the way to a true under
standing of them.!
Jerome seems to have occupied an intermediate and not alto
gether consistent position. He strives for historical and gram
matical exposition, yet it is easy to see that at the bottom he is
more inclined to the allegorical method. He lays down no
principles of exegesis, but scattered through his writings one
finds numerous Avise remarks :
" The sacred Scripture cannot contradict itself." ' " Whoever
interprets the gospel in a different spirit from that in which it was
written, confuses the faithful and distorts the gospel of Christ." '
"The gospel consists not in the words of Scripture but in the
sense, not in the surface but in the marrow, not in the leaves of
the words but in the roots of the thought."*
Thus there grew up in the ancient Church three great exe
getical tendencies : the literal and traditional, the allegorical
and mystical, the historical and ethical, and these three strug
gled with one another and became more and more interwoven,
in the best of the Fathers, but took on all sorts of abnormal
forms of exegesis in others.
In the Middle Ages the vital Christian spirit was more and
more suppressed, and ecclesiastical authority assumed the place
of learning. The traditional principle of exegesis became more
and more dominant, and alongside of this the allegorical method
was found to be the most convenient for reconciling Scripture
with tradition. The literal and the historical sense was almost
entirely ignored. The fourfold sense became fixed, as expressed
in the saying : the literal sense teaches what has been done, the
allegorical what to believe, the moral what to do, the anagogical
whither we are tending.^
In the Middle Ages exegesis consisted chiefly in the reproduc-
1 Kihn in I.e., pp. 211, 212 ; Prcef. de Instit. div. litt. , Migne, Tom. 70, p. 1105
seq. "Epist. ad Marcellam. 8 Epist. ad Gal., i. 6. * Epist. ad Gal., i. 11.
6 Litera gesta docet, quid credos allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas
Anagogia.

454 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
tion of the expositions of the Fathers, in collections and compila
tions, called epitomes, glosses, postilles, chains. In the Oriental
Church the chief of these compilers were : Oecumenius (f 999),
Theophylact (tl007), and Euthymius Zigabenus (tlll8).
These give chiefly the exegesis of Chrysostom, Theodoret,
and the Antiochan school. In the Occidental Church, there
is more independence and greater use of the allegory. The
chief Latin expositors of the Middle Ages are Beda (1735) : Al
cuin (1804), Walafrid Strabo (1849), Rhabanus Maurus (1856),
Peter Lombard (fll64), Thomas Aquinas (11274),! Hugo de
St. Caro (fl260). The only exegete of the Middle Ages who
shows any acquaintance with the Hebrew text of the Old Testa
ment is the converted Jew, Nicolaus de Lyra (f 1340). He seems
to have apprehended better than any previous writer the proper
exegetical method, but could only partly put it in practice. He
was doubtless influenced greatly by the grammatical exegesis of
the Jews of the Middle Ages, from Saadia's school, and especially
by Rashi.2 He wrote postilles on the entire Bible. He men
tions the four senses of Scripture, and then says :
"All of them presuppose the literal sense as the foundation.
As a building, declining from the foundation, is likely to fall, so
the mystic exposition, which deviates from the literal sense, must
be reckoned unbecoming and unsuitable."
And yet he adds :
" I protest, I intend to say nothing either in the way of assertion
or determination, except in relation to such things as have been
clearly settled by Holy Scripture on the authority of the Church.
All besides must be taken as spoken scholastically and by way of
exercise ; for which reason, I submit all I have said, and aim to
say, to the correction of our holy mother the Church." *
It is astonishing that he accomplished so much while work
ing in such limits. He exerted a healthful, reviving influ-
1 His Catena Aurea on the Gospels have been translated by Pusey, Keble,
and Newman, 6 vols., Oxford, 1870, and may be consulted as the most accessible
specimen of the interpretation of the Middle Ages.
2 See Siegfried, " Raschi's Einfluss auf Nicolaus von Lira und Luther in der
Anslegung der Genesis," in Merx, Arehiv, I. pp. 428 seq. ; II. pp. 39 seq.
8 Postillce perpetucB, seu brevia eommentaria in Universa Biblia, prol. ii. ;
Davidson in I.e., pp. 175 seq.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 455
ence in biblical study and in a measure prepared for the |
Reformation. There is truth in the saying, " If Lyra had not )
piped, Luther would not have danced."! Luther thought/
highly of Lyra, and yet Luther really started from a principle/
entirely different from the literal sense. For this he was rather \
prepared by Wicklif and Huss. Wicklif was a contemporary
of Lyra, and opposed the abuse of the allegorical method from
the spiritual side, and in contrast with Lyra recognized the au
thority of the Scriptures as above the authority of the Church.
He makes the all-important statement, which was not allowed
to die, but became the Puritan watchword in subsequent times :
" The Holy Spirit teaches us the sense of Scripture as Christ
opened the Scriptures to His apostles." ^ Huss and Jerome of
Prague followed Wicklif in this respect.^
With reference to the interpretation of the Middle Ages as a
whole, the remarks of Immer are appropriate : *
" It lacks the most essential qualification to scriptural interpre
tation, linguistic knowledge, and historical perception. . . . This
defect inheres in the mediseval period in general. Hence there
could be no advance in interpretation. But what it could do it
did: it collected and preserved; and what was thus preserved
waited for new fructifying elements, which were to be introduced
in the second half of the fifteenth century."
The mediseval exegesis reached its culmination at the Council
of Trent, where Roman Catholic interpretation was limited by
the four rules : that it must be conformed to the rule of faith,
the mind of the Church, the consent of the Fathers, and the
decisions of the councils. But the seeds of a new exegesis had
been planted by Lyra and Wicklif, which burst forth into fruit
ful life in the Protestant Reformation.
1 Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset.
2 Lechler, Johann von Wiclif, Leipzig, 1873, I. pp. 483 seq. ; Lorimer's edi
tion, London, 1878, II. pp. 29 seq.
8 Gillett, Life and Times of John Huss, Boston, 1864, 2d ed., I. pp. 295 seq.
* Immer, I.e., p. 37.

456 study of holy scripture
V. The Interpretation of the Reformers and their
Successors
The Reformation was accompanied by a great revival of
biblical study in all directions, but especially in the interpre
tation of the Sacred Scriptures. The Humanists were influ
enced, by their studies of the Greek and Hebrew languages
and literatures, to apply this new learning to the study of the
Bible. Erasmus is the acknowledged chief of interpreters of
this class. He insisted that the interpretation of the Script
ures should be in accordance with the original Greek and
Hebrew texts, and urged the giving of the grammatical and
literal sense over against the allegorical sense, which had been
the ally of tradition.! The Humanists, however, did not go to
the root of the evil ; they were too deferential to ecclesiastical
authorities, and sought to correct the errors in exegesis by
purely scholarly methods. The Reformers, however, revived
the principle of Wicklif and Huss, strengthened it, and made it
invincible. They urged the one literal sense against the four
fold sense, but they still more insisted that Scripture should be
its own interpreter, and that it was not to be interpreted by
tradition or external ecclesiastical authority. Thus, Luther
says :
" Every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning
and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to
it.^ ... It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets
itself by passages and places which belong together, and can only
be understood by the rule of faith." 8
Tyndale says :
" Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but
one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the
root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, where
unto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.
And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of
the way. Neverthelater, the Scripture useth proverbs, similitudes,
riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do ; but that which the
proverb, similitude, riddle, or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal
1 Klausen in I.e., p. 227. 2 Walch edition, XIX. p. 1601.
» Walch, III. p. 2042.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 457
¦ sense, which thou must seek out diligently : as in the English we
borrow words and sentences of one thing, and apply them unto
another, and give them new significations. . . . Beyond all this,
when we have found out the literal sense of the Scripture by the
process of the text, or by a like text of another place, then go we ;
and as the Scripture borroweth similitudes of worldly things, even
so we again borrow similitudes or allegories of the Scripture, and
apply them to our purposes ; which allegories are no sense of the
Scripture, but free things besides the Scripture, and altogether in
the liberty of the Spirit. . . . Finally, all God's words are spirit
ual, if thou have eyes of God, to see the right meaning of the
text, and whereunto the Scripture pertaineth, and the final end
and cause thereof." ^
The view of the Reformed Churches is expressed in the 2d
Helvetic Confession : ^
" We acknowledge that interpretation of Scripture for authen-
tical and proper, which being taken from the Scriptures them
selves (that is, from the phrase of that tongue in which they were
written, they being also wayed according to the circumstances and
expounded according to the proportion of places, either hke or
unlike, or of more and plainer), accordeth with the rule of faith
and charity, and maketh notably for God's glory and man's
salvation." ^
The Protestant Reformers by the use of these principles pro
duced masterpieces of exegesis and set the Bible in a new light
before the world. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were great
exegetes; * Bullinger (f 1575), Oecolampadius (f 1531), Melanch
thon (f 1560), Musculus (f 1563), were worthy to stand by their
side. Their immediate successors had somewhat of their spirit,
although the sectarian element already influenced them in the
maintenance of the peculiarities of the different national
Churches. The Hermeneutical principles of the Lutherans are
well stated by Matthias Flacius,^ those of the Reformed by Andre
Rivetus.^ The weakness of the Protestant principle was in the
1 The Obedience of a Christian Man, 1528 ; Parker edition. Doctrinal
Treatises, pp. 307 seq. 2 21.
3 I give the English version from the Harmony of the Confessions, London,
1643, on account of its historical relations.
* Klausen in I.e., p. 223 ; also, p. 112.
6 Clavis Scriptures Sacree, Antwerp, 1567 ; BasUeae, 1609. Best edition, ed.
Musaeus, 1675. 8 isagoge, 1627.

458 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
lack of clear definition of what was meant by the analogy or
rule of faith. It is clear that the Protestant Reformers set the
rule of faith in the Scriptures themselves, — in the substance
of doctrine apprehended by faith. But when it came to define
what that substance was, there was difficulty. Hence, so soon
as the faith of the Church was expressed in symbols, these were
at first unconsciously, and at last avowedly, identified with the
rule of faith in Holy Scripture itself. The Lutheran scholastic,
Gerhard, says :
"From these plain passages of Scripture the rule of faith is
collected, which is the sum of the celestial doctrine collected from
the most evident passages of Scripture. Its parts are two — the
former concerning faith, whose chief precepts are expressed in
the apostles' creed ; the latter concerning love, the sum of which
the decalogue explains." ^
HoUazius ^ defines the analogy of faith as " the funda
mental articles of faith, or the principal chapters of the Chris
tian faith, collected from the clearest testimonies of the
Scriptures." Carpzov^ makes it "the system of Scripture
doctrine in its order and connection."
If this system of doctrine had been that found in the
Scriptures themselves, in accordance with the modern discipline
of Biblical Theology,* there would have been some propriety in
the definition ; but inasmuch as the scholastic theologians pro
posed to express that system of doctrine in their theological
commonplaces, in other methods and forms than those presented
in the Scriptures, the rule of analogy of faith became practically
these theological systems ; and so an external rule was substi
tuted for the internal rule of the Scriptures themselves, the
Reformation principle was more and more abandoned, and the
Jewish Halacha and the mediseval scholasticism reentered and
took possession of Protestant exegesis.®
The Reformed Church was slower in attaining this result than
the Lutheran Church, owing to the exegetical spirit that had
come down from Oecolampadius, Calvin, and Zwingli ; but
1 Gerhard, Loci, Tubingae, 1767, Tom. I. p. 53.
2 Exam. Theologici Acroamatici, 1741, Holmiae, p. 1777.
3 Primix Linee Herm., Helmstad., 1790, p. 28. * See Chap. XXIH.
8 Volck, in Zockler, Handb. Theo. Wiss., p. 657 ; Klausen in I.e., p. 254.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 459
already Beza leads off in the wrong direction ; and, notwith
standing the great stress laid upon literal and grammatical
exegesis by CappeUus and the school of Saumur in France, by
Drusius, De Dieu, and Daniel Heinsius in Holland, the drift
was in the scholastic direction, and when the Swiss churches
arrayed themselves against the French exegetes, and the
churches of Holland were divided by the Arminian controversy,
and the historical and literal exegesis came to characterize the
latter, the scholastic divines more and more employed the
dogmatic method, and urged to interpret in accordance with
the external rule of faith.
VI. The Interpretation of the Puritans and the
Arminians
British Puritanism remained true to the Protestant principle
of interpretation till the close of the seventeenth century. The
views of Tyndale and the Puritans went deeper into the essence
of the matter than those of the continental Reformers. This
was doubtless owing to the fact of their confiict against eccle
siastical authority and the prelatical party, and their protests
against "the obtrusion of Popish ceremonies" on the Chris
tians of England. They urged more and more the principle
of the Scripture alone as the rule of the Church, and insisted
on the jus divinum, the Divine authority of Holy Scripture as
the supreme appeal. Thus Thomas Cartwright :
"Scripture alone being able and sufi&cient to make us wise to
salvation, we need no unwritten verities, no traditions of men, no
canons of councels, or sentences of fathers, much less decrees of
popes, to supply any supposed defect of the written word, or to
give us a more perfect direction in the way of life, then is already
set down expressly in the canonicali Scriptures. . . . They are
of divine authority. They are the rule, the line, the squyre and
light, whereby to examine and trie all judgements and sayings of
men, and of angels, whether they be such as God approveth, yea
or no ; and they are not to be judged or sentenced by any." ^
Especially noteworthy is the statement that no external rule
is to be used to supply any supposed defects of the written
1 Treatise of Christian Beligion, 1616, p. 78.

460 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
word, and that plain direction is given by what is set down
expressly in the Scripture. John Ball gives an admirable state
ment of the Puritan position :
" The expounding of the Scriptures is commanded by God, and
practiced by the godly, profitable both for the unfolding of obscure
places, and applying of plaine texts. It stands in two things.
(1) In giving the right sense. (2) In a fit application of the
same. Of one place of Scripture, there is but one proper and
naturall sense, though sometimes things are so expressed, as that
the things themselves doe signifie other things, according to the
Lord's ordinance: Gal. 4?'-^; Ex. 12«, with John 1988; pg. 2\ with
Acts 4^-^- We are not tyed to the expositions of the Fathers or
councels for the finding out the sense of the Scripture, the Holy
Ghost speaking in the Scripture, is the only faithful interpreter
of the Scripture. The meanes to find out the true meaning of the
Scripture, are conference of one place of Scripture with another,
diligent consideration of the scope and circumstances of the place,
as the occasions, and coherence of that which went before, with
that which foUoweth after; the matter whereof it doth intreat,
and circumstances of persons, times and places, and consideration,
whether the words are spoken figuratively or simply ; for in figu
rative speeches, not the outward shew of words, but the sense is
to be taken, and knowledge of the arts and tongues wherein the
Scriptures were originally written. But alwayes it is to bee ob
served, that obscure places are not to bee expounded contrary to
the rule of faith set downe in plainer places of the Scripture." ^
The analogy or rule of faith is expressly defined by him as
" set downe in plainer places of the Scripture," and it is main
tained that " the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture is the
only faithful interpreter of the Scripture." This improvement
of the Protestant principle, by lifting it to the person of the
Holy Spirit speaking in the word to the believer, prevents any
substitution of an external symbol or system of theology for
the rule of faith of the Scriptures themselves. Archbishop
Usher takes the same position as Ball :
" The Spirit of God alone is the certain interpreter of His word
written by His Spirit. For no man knoweth the things pertaining
to God, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2"). . . . The interpretation
therefore must be of the same Spirit by which the Scripture Avas
1 Short Treatise containing all the principall Grounds of Christian Beligion,
Tenth Impression. London, 1635, p. 39.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 461
written; of which Spirit Ave have no certainty upon any man's
credit, but onely so far forth as his saying may be confirmed by
the Holy Scriptures. . . . How then is the Scripture to be inter
preted by Scripture ? According to the analogy of faith (Rom. 128),
and the scope and circumstance of the present place, and confer
ence of other plain and evident places, by which all such as are
obscure and hard to be understood ought to be interpreted, for
there is no matter necessary to eternal life, which is not plainly,
and sufiiciently set forth in many places of Scripture." *
These extracts from the Puritan Fathers, who chiefly influ
enced the Westminster divines, will enable us to understand
the principles of interpretation laid down in the Westminster
Confession, which are in advance of all the symbols of the
Reformation in this particular :
" The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Script
ure itself ; and therefore, when there is a question about the true
and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one),
it must be searched and known by other places that speak more
clearly." " The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are
to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient
writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined,
and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the
Holy Spirit, speaking in the Scripture." ^
These principles of interpretation give the death-blow to the
manifold sense, and also to any external analogy of faith for
the interpretation of Scripture. It has been made contra-con-
fessional in those churches which adopt the Westminster sym
bols to believe and teach any but the one true and full sense of
any Scripture, or to appeal to " doctrines of men," or any
external rule or analogy of faith, or to make any other but the
Holy Spirit Himself the supreme interpreter of Scripture to the
believer and the Church. It was not without good and suffi
cient reasons that the Westminster divines substituted the
" Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture " for the analogy of
faith Avhich had been so much abused, and which was to be
still more abused by the descendants of the Puritans, after they
1 Body of Divinitie, London, 1645 ; 4th ed., London, 1653, pp. 24, 25.
2 19-10.

^

462 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
had forgotten their Puritan Fathers, and resorted to the Swiss
and Dutch scholastics for theological instruction.
Edward Leigh clearly states the Puritan position in his chap
ter on the Interpretation of Scripture :
" The Holy Ghost is the judge, and the Scripture is the sentence
or definite decree. We acknowledge no publick judge except the
Scripture, and the Holy Ghost teaching us in the Scripture, He
that made the law should interpret the same. . . . The Papist
says that the Scripture ought to be expounded by the rule of
faith, and therefore not by Scripture only. But the rule of faith
and Scripture is all one. As the Scriptures are not of man, but
of the Spirit, so this interpretation is not by man, but of the Spirit
likewise." ^
I shall call attention to some other features of the interpre
tation of the seventeenth century in England, because it has
been neglected by British and American scholars, and conse
quently also by German critics and historians, upon whom most
of our modern Anglo-Saxon interpreters depend.
Henry Ainsworth says :
"I have chiefly laboured in these annotations upon Moses, to
explain his words and speech by conference with himself, and
other prophets and apostles, all which are commenters upon his
lawes, and do open unto us the mysteries which were covered
under his veile ; for by a true and sound literall explication, the
spiritual meaning may be the better discerned. And the exquisite
scanning of words and phrases, which to some may seeme need-
lesse, will be found (as painful to the writer) profitable to the
reader." ^
Francis Taylor, a Westminster divine, a great Hebrew
scholar and Talmudist, author of many commentaries and
other practical and theological works, says :
"The method used by me is new, and never formerly exactly
followed in every verse, by any writer, Protestant or Papist, that
1 Systeme or Body of Divinity, London, 1654, pp. 107, 119. Leigh was a
lawyer and a member of the Long Parliament, and is said to have been a lay
member of the Westminster Assembly. Thomas Watson, in his Body of Prac
tical Divinity, in exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, London,
1692, p. 16, takes the same position : "The Scripture is to be its own interpreter,
or rather the Spirit speaking in it ; nothing can cut the diamond but the dia
mond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture; the sun best discovers
itself by its own beams." 2 Pentateuch, Preface, 1626.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 463
ever I read. (1) Ye have the grammatical sense in the various
significations of every Hebrew word used throughout the Old Tes
tament, which gives light to many other texts ; (2) Ye have the
rhetorical sense, in the tropes and figures ; (3) The logicall, in the
several arguments ; (4) The theological in divine observations." ^
This is an exact and admirable method, which would have
delighted Ernesti in the next century, if he had known of it,
with the exception of the last point in which the Puritan prac
tical interpretation comes in play. Edward Leigh ^ also lays
down excellent principles :
" The word is interpreted aright, by declaring (1) the order,
(2) the summe or scope, (3) the sense of the words, which is done
by framing a rhetorical and logical analysis of the text. In giv
ing the sense, three rules are of principal use and necessity to
be observed. (1) The literal and largest sense of any words in
Scripture must not be embraced further when our cleaving thereto
would breed some disagreement and contrariety between the pres
ent Scripture and some other text or place, else shall we change the
Scripture into a nose of wax. (2) In case of such appearing disa
greement, the Holy Ghost leads us by the hand to seek out some
distinction, restriction, limitation or signe for the reconcilement
thereof, and one of these will always fit the purpose ; for God's
word must always bring perfect truth, it cannot fight against itself.
(3) Such figurative sense, limitation, restriction or distinction must
be sought out, as the word of God affordeth either in the present
place or some other ; and chiefly those that seem to differ with the
present text, being duly compared together."
I do not know where a more careful statement of this deli
cate problem of harmonizing Scripture with Scripture can be
found. ^
^ Epist. dedicatory to the Exposition of the Proverbs, London, 1655.
2 In I.e., p. 119.
3 This same Edward Leigh was one of the best biblical scholars of the seven
teenth century. He published Annotations upon all the New Testament, phil-
logioall and theologicall wherein the emphasis and elegance of the Greeke is
observed, some imperfections in our translation are discovered, divers Jewish
rites and customes tending to illustrate the text are mentioned, many antilogies
and seeming contradictions reconciled, severall darke and obscure places opened,
sundry passages vindicated from the false glosses of Papists and Heretics, Lon
don, 1650, folio. The title is descriptive of a sound method. He also published
Critica Sacra on the Hebrew of the Old Testament, 4to, London, 1639 ; Critica
Sacra on the Greek of the New Testament, 4to, London, 1646. These were

464 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The Puritan interpreters laid stress upon the practical inter
pretation or application of Scripture. The best statement is
given by Francis Roberts.!
" That the Holy Scriptures may be more profitably and clearly
understood, certain rules or directions are to be observed and
followed :
" I. Some more special and peculiar, more particularly concern
ing scholars. As (1) The competent understanding of the original
languages. ... (2) The prudent use of Logick. ... (3) The
subservient help of other arts, as Rhetoric, Natural Philosophy,
etc. ... (4) The benefit of humane histories to illustrate and
clear the theme. (6) The conferring of ancient translations with
the originals. ... (6) The prudent use of the most orthodox,
learned, and judicious Commentators. (7) Constant caution that
all tongues, arts, histories, translations, and comments be duly
ranked in their proper places in subserviency under, not in regency
or predominancy over the Holy Scriptures which are to controle
them all.
" II. Some more general and common directions, which may be of
use to all sorts of Christians learned and unlearned. ... (1) Beg
wisdom of the onely wise God, who gives liberally and upbraids
not. ... (2) Labour sincerely after a truly gracious spirit, then
thou shalt be peculiarly able to penetrate into the internal marrow
and mysteries of the holy Scriptures. ... (3) Peruse the Script
ure with an humble self-denying heart. ... (4) Familiarize
the Scripture to thyself by constant and methodical exercise
therein. ... (5) Understand Scripture .according to the theo
logical analogy, or certain rule of faith and love. ... (6) Be
well acquainted with the order, titles, times, penman, occasion,
scope, and principal parts of the books, both of the Old and New
Testament. (7) HeedfuUy and judiciously observe the accurate
concord and harmony of the Holy Scriptures. (8) Learn the
excellent art of explaining and understanding the Scriptures, by
the Scriptures. (9) Endeavor sincerely to practice Scripture, and
you shall solidly understand Scripture."
I have given these rules at length, both on account of their
intrinsic excellence and also to call attention to a work of great
combined in a folio, 1662. They were translated into Latin by Henry Middoch
and published at Amsterdam, 1679, and then at Leipzig, 1696, with preface by
John Meyer, a Hebrew professor there, and in this way exerted a great influence
on the continent until the close of the century.
1 Key of the Bible, 4th ed., London, 1675, pp. 5 seq.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 465
value which has been lost sight of for a long time in the his
tory of interpretation.
The same Francis Roberts ' is the author of a massive work
in two folio volumes, which construct a system of theology on
the doctrine of the covenants.^
In his epistolary introduction he says : " I began my weekljr
lectures, to treat of God's Covenants, on Sept. 2, 1651, and
have persisted therein till the very publication of this book, in
May, 1657."
In the same introduction he describes his treatise as — ¦
" A Work of vast extent, comprising in it : all the methods of
divine dispensations to the Church in all ages ; all the conditions
of the Church under those dispensations ; all the greatest and
precious promises, of the life that now is, and of that which is to
come; all sorts of blessings promised by God to man; all sorts
of duties repromised by man to God ; all the gradual discoveries
of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator and Saviour of sinners; the
whole mystery of all true religion from the beginning to the end
of the world ; and which as a continued thred of gold runs through
the whole series of all the Holy Scriptures, . . . because I have
set my heart exceedingly to the Covenants of my God, which (in
my judgment) are an universal basis or foundation of all true
religion and happiness, I have shunned no diligence, industry, or
endeavor that to me seemed requisite for the profitable unveiling
of them."
Francis Roberts in this work carries out a plan devised and
partially executed by John Ball.^ According to Thomas Blake,*
" his purpose was to speak on this subject of the covenant, all
that he had to say in all the whole body of divinity. That
which he hath left behind gives us a taste of it. " In this. Ball
anticipated Cocceius and the Dutch Federal theology, as indeed
1 He was a Presbyterian minister in London during the Commonwealth period,
but at the Restoration remained in the Church of England.
2 The Mysterie and Marrow ofthe Bible : viz., God^s Covenants with man, in
the first Adam, before the Fall ; and in the last Adam, Jesus Christ, after the
Fall ; from the Beginning to the End of the World; Unfolded and Illustrated
in positive Aphorisms and their Explanations. 2 vols., London, 1657.
3 Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, London, 1645, 4to, published after his
death by his friend Simeon Ashe, and with commendatory notices by five other
Westminster divines.
* Treatise of the Covenant of God entered with mankinde in the several kindes
and degrees of it. Preface, London, 1653.
2h

466 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
( his system of the covenants is of a purer type, having aU the
' advantages of the historical method of the Dutch Federal
school without its far-fetched typologies. Indeed the theology
of the covenants had been embedded in Puritan theology since
Thomas Cartwright.! The covenant principle is also in Usher's
Body of Divinity, and the Westminster symbols. In truth,
the historical principle that characterizes the covenant theol
ogy is better wrought out by John Ball and Francis Roberts
than by Cocceius. It will be found that the doctrine of the
covenants passed over from England \^dth the Puritan spirit
into the Federal school of Holland, and thence into Spener and
the German Pietists. The essential mystic spirit is common
to these three great movements, which were the historic succes
sors of one another in the order, England, Holland, Germany,
although each assumed a form adapted to its peculiar circum
stances and conditions.^
The Federal school in HoUand was characterized by a ten
dency to allegorize, which was foreign to the best Puritan
type, although Thomas Brightman, in his commentaries on
Revelation, Song of Songs, and Daniel, reintroduced the alle
gorical method into the Protestant Church and carried it to
great lengths. He had not a few followers in Great Britain,
and on the continent, where his works were republished.
This element is unites, with the principle of the covenant in
the Federal theology, and proved its greatest weakness. The
Federal theology, however, exerted a wholesome influence in
preserving the mystic spirit of interpretation over against the
purely external historical method of the Arminians, and in main
taining the historic method of divine revelation over against the
external and mechanical systematizing of the Dutch scholastics.
Spener and the German Pietists also represented the mystic
spirit of interpretation and adopted many of the chief features
of Puritanism. They laid stress upon personal relations to
1 In his Treatise of Christian Beligion, 1616, he treats first of the doctrine of
God and then of man ; next of the Word of God, and this he divides into two
parts : the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, called the Law, the Covenant of
, Grace, the Gospel ; and treats of Christology and Soteriology under the latter.
1 2 Cocceius was a pupil of ^(es, the British Puritan. See Mitchell, Westmin
ster Assembly, London, 1883, pp. 344 seq.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 467
God and experimental piety in order to the interpretation of
Scripture. This was piiccompanied among the best of them with
true scholarship. The Pietistic interpretation may be found
stated by Franke,! but especially by Rambach,^ whose work
was fruitful for many generations and still retains its value.
The best exegete in this direction is the celebrated Bengel,
whose interpretation is a model of piety and accuracy.^ His
principle of interpretation is briefly stated : " It is the especial
office of every interpretation to exhibit adequately the force
and significance of the words which the text contains, so as to
express everything which the author intended, and to introduce
nothing which he did not intend." * —
The principles of interpretation of the Puritans worked '
mightily during the seventeenth century in Great Britain, and
produced exegetical works that ought to be the pride of the
Anglo-Saxon churches in all time. Thomas Cartwright, Henry
Ainsworth, John Reynolds, John Fox, Nicholas Byfield, Paul
Bayne, Hugh Broughton, J. Davenant, Francis Taylor, Wil
liam Gouge, John Lightfoot, Edward Leigh, William Attersol,
Thomas Gataker, Joseph Caryl, Samuel Clapp, John Trapp,
WiUiam Greenhill, ITrancis Roberts, and numerous others have
opened up the meaning of the Word of God for all generations.
Among the last of the Puritan works on the more learned side
was the masterpiece ^ of Matthew Poofe' ; but the more practi
cal side of interpretation continued to advance, until it attained
its highest mark in Matthew Henry.^ Other practical com
mentaries have been of great service to the churches, such as
those of Philip Doddridge'^ and Thomas Scott,^ but the Puritan
interpretation soon lost its strength by the neglect of the non
conformists to give their young men a thoroughly English
Puritan theological education. Excluded from the English
1 Manducatio ad lectionem, S.S., 1693; Prcelectiones Hermeneut., 1717.
2 Institutiones Hermeneutiece, 1723, 8th ed., Jente, 1764, ed. Buddeus.
8 Gnomon N. T., Tiibingen, 1742, English edition by T. Carlton Lewis and
Marvin R. Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860-1862.
* Preface, xiv.
8 Synopsis Criticorum, 5 vols, folio, 1669. f
8 Expositions ofthe Old and New Testaments, London, 1704-1706.
7 Family Expositor, 6 vols. 4to, London, 1760-1762.
8 Family Bible, with notes, 4 vols. 4to, 1796.

468 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
universities by their religious principles, the nonconformists
Avere unable to organize educational institutions of their own
that were at all adequate, and hence the ministry fell back
upon dogmatizing or spiritualizing, equally perilous, without
an exact knowledge of the biblical text.!
In the meanwhile, the Humanistic spirit had maintained
itself in the Church of England, and it found expression
among the Arminians of Holland. The chief interpreter of
the seventeenth century was Hugo Grotius, who revived the
spirit of Erasmus. He laid stress upon historical interpreta-
tion.2 He was followed by the Arminians generally, especially
Clericus. In Great Britain Henry Hammond had the same
spirit and methods.^ Edward Pocock* seeks as the main
thing "to settle the genuine and literal meaning of the text."
Daniel Whitby ^ also represents this tendency ; and still later
Bishop Lowth ^ and John Taylor of Norwich.' The latter
says :
" To understand the sense of the Spirit in the New, 'tis essen
tially necessary that we understand its sense in the Old Testa
ment. But the sense of the Spirit cannot be understood unless
we understand the language in which that sense is conveyed.
For which purpose the HebreAv Concordance is the best Expositor.
For there you have in one view presented all the places of the
sacred code where any words are used ; and by carefully collating
those places, may judge what sense it will, or will not bear, which
being once settled there lies no appeal to any other writing in the
world : because there are no other books in all the world in the
J 1 It is the merit of C. H. Spurgeon that he has recently called attention to the
neglected Puritan commentators and expressed his great obligations to them.
See his Commenting and Commentaries, N.Y., 1876, and also Treasury of
David, London, 6 vols., 1870 seq., which contains copious extracts from the
Puritan commentaries.
2 Annotations in lib. evang., Amst., 1641 ; Annot. in Vet. Test., Paris, 1664.
8 Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament,
1653, 8vo, 3d ed., folio, London, 1671. In a postscript concerning new light or
divine illumination, over against the Quakers, he insisted upon the plain, literal,
and historical sense.
* Com. on Mieah, 1677, Hosea, 1685, Joel, 1691.
8 Pharaphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols., 1703-1709,
folio. 0 See p. 227.
7 Hebrew Concordance, 2 vols, folio, London, 1754.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 469
pure original Hebrew, but the books of the Old Testament. A
judgment therefore duly founded upon them must be absolutely
decisive." '
Taylor acknowledges his great indebtedness to the philoso
pher Locke,2 and shows the influence of that philosophy in his
exegesis. Toward the close of the century biblical interpreta
tion more and more declined in Great Britain, and one must go
to the continent, and especially to Germany, for the exegesis as
well as for the Higher and Lower Criticism of modern times. ^
VII. Biblical Interpretation of Modern Times
We have seen in our studies of biblical literature that there
was a great revival of biblical studies, especially in Germany,
toward the close of the eighteenth century, which extended to
all departments. For biblical interpretation Ernesti was the
chief of the new era. Ernesti was essentially a philologist
rather than a theologian, and he applied to the Bible the princi
ples which he had employed in the interpretation of the ancient
classics. He began at the foundation of interpretation, gram
matical exegesis, and placed it in such a position before the
world that it has ever since maintained its fundamental impor
tance. He published his principles of interpretation in 1761.*
Ernesti was followed by Zacharia,^ Morus,® C. D. Beck,'^ and
others. Moses Stuart translated Ernesti with the notes of
Morus abridged.^
About the same time as Ernesti, Semler urged the importance
1 Preface of Hebrew Concordance. See also his Paraphrase with notes on
the Epistle to the Bomans, London, 1745, pp. 114, 127, 146.
2 In I.e., p. 149. 3 See pp. 227, 281.
* Institutio Interpretis N. 7., 1761, 3te Aufl., 1774 ; 5te Aufl., ed. Ammon,
1809. It was translated into English and edited by Bishop Terrot in 1809 from
Ammon's edition, for the Biblical Cabinet, I. and IV., Edinburgh.
6 Einleit. in d. Auslegekunst, 1778.
8 Acroases. acad. super Herm., N. T., 1797 and 1802, ed. by Eichstadt.
7 Monogram, henneneutices librorum N. Foed., Lips., 1803.
8 Elementary Principles of Interpretation, translated from the Latin of J. A.
Ernesti, accompanied by notes, with an appendix containing extracts from
Morus, Beck, Keil, and Henderson, 4th ed., Andover, 1842. The earlier
edition was republished in England with additional observations by Dr. Hen
derson, London, 1827, which were used in Stuart's fourth edition.

470 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
of historical interpretation.! Semler was an open-minded, de
vout scholar, and appropriated freely the material wherever
he could find it, and reproduced it in forms fashioned by his
own genius. He was greatly influenced by foreign inter
preters, and was the channel through whom the historical
interpretation, still lingering in Reformed lands, made its way
into Lutheran Germany. Among those who influenced Semler
may be mentioned : J. A. Turretine, who had introduced the
Swiss revolt against scholasticism,^ John Taylor of Norwich
and Daniel Whitby,^ and L. Meyer, the Spinozist.* Semler
was followed by J. G. Gabler, G. L. Baur, K. C. Bretschneider,
and others. These elements of interpretation were combined
in the grammatico-historical method of C. A. G. Keil.^ The
grammatico-historical method was introduced into the United
States of America chiefly by Moses Stuart and his school.
The defects of the grammatico-historical method were dis
covered, and attacks were made upon it from both sides.
Kant and his school urged rational and moral exegesis, to
which the historical must yield as of vastly less importance.
There was truth in this rising to the moral sense, but as it was
stated and used by the Kantians it resulted in binding the
Bible in the fetters of a philosophical system that was far more
oppressive than the theological system had been. Staudlein,®
Stern,^ Stark,^ and Kaiser,^ and above all Germar,!0 rendered
great service by urging that the interpreter should enter into
sympathy with the spirit of the biblical authors.
On the other side the little band of Pietists of the older
Tubingen school urged the inadequacy of the grammatico-his
torical method, and insisted upon faith and piety in the inter-
1 Vorbereit. zur theol. Herm., 1760-1769; Apparatus ad liberalem, N. T.
Interp., 1767.
2 De S. S. interp. tractatus bipartitus, 1728. This was an unauthorized and
defective edition, and it was repudiated by the author. A better edition was
edited by Teller in 1776.
8 See Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, Hamburg, 1839, pp. 30, 40.
* Author of an anonymous treatise : Philosophice Script, interpres., 1666.
" Lehr. d. Herm., 1810. « De interp. N. T., 1807.
7 Ueber den Begriff und obersten Grundsatz d. hist, interp. d. N. T., 1815.
8 Beitr. z. Herm., 1817. 9 System Herm., 1817.
1" Beitrag zur allgemein. Hermeneutik, Altona, 1828.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATIOly 471
prefer.! The chief of these were Storr ,2 Flatt and Steudel of
Tubingen, Knapp of Halle, and Seller of Erlangen.^
This conflict of principles worked more and more confusion.
If the older exegesis was at fault in neglecting the human
element and the variety of features of the Bible on the human
side, the newer interpreters of the grammatico-historical school
were still more at fault in neglecting the divine element and
the unity of the Bible.
A healthful method of interpretation had been introduced
from England in the translation of the works of Bishop Lowth,
which urged literary interpretation. Herder, Eichhorn, and
others exerted their influence in the same direction. Schleier
macher deserves the credit for combining all that had thus far
been gained into a higher unity, by his organic method of
interpretation.* Schleiermacher lays down his principles in a series of theses:
" In the application (of Hermeneutics) to the New Testament
the philological view, which isolates every writing of every author,
stands over against the dogmatic view, which regards the New
Testament as the work of one author. Both approach one another
when one considers thatj in the view of the religious contents, the
identity of the school comes in, and in view of the details,
the identity of language. . . . The philological view lags behind
its own principle when it rejects the general dependence for the
sake of the individual culture. The dogmatic view transcends
its needs when it rejects individual culture for the sake of
dependence, and so destroys itself. The only question that re
mains is which of the two is to be placed above the other ; and
this must be decided by the philological view itself in favor of
its own dependence. When the philological view ignores this it
annihilates Christianity. When the dogmatic view extends the
canon of the analogy of faith beyond these limits it annihilates
Scripture." °
1 Reuss, Gesch. d. H. S. N. T., 4te Aufl., 1864, p. 582 seq.
2 De sensu historico, 1778.
8 Bib. Herm., 1830, edited in Holland by Heringa, and translated from the
Holland edition and edited with additions by Wm. Wright, London, 1835.
* His Hermeneutik und Kritik is a posthumous work by his pupil, F. Liicke,
published in Berlin, 1838, but the influence of his method was felt at an earlier
date, and expressed by his disciples.
8 In I.e., pp. 79-81.

472 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Lucke, of Schleiermacher's school, well states the principle
when he says that we must
" so construct the general principles of Hermeneutics as that the
proper theological element may be united with them in a really
organic manner, and likewise so fashion and carry on the theo
logical element that the general principles of interpretation may
maintain their full value." ^
He also insisted upon love for the Word of God, as the
indispensable requisite for the interpreter.^
The vast importance of this organic method is seen in the
exegetical works of De Wette, Neander, Klausen, Bleek, Lutz,
Meyer, and most of the chief interpreters of modern Germany.
The greatest defect of interpretation at this time was in the
lack of apprehension of the true relation of the New Testa
ment to the Old Testament. The Old Testament was neg
lected by Schleiermacher and many of his school. It was
necessary for the discipline of Biblical Theology to come into
the field ere this defect could be overcome. The unfolding of
the discipline of Biblical Theology in the school of Neander
established the organic unity of the New Testament in the
combination of a number of historical types. The organic
unity of the Old Testament was also especially urged by
Oehler in the spirit of Neander, together with some of the
features of the older Tubingen school. The organic unity of
the whole Bible has been especially insisted upon hj Hofmann
of Erlangen, Delitzsch, and others of their school. This is a
further unfolding of the organic principle of Schleiermacher,
and the revival in another form of the Puritan principle wrapt
up in the covenant theology, and which has worked through
the schools of Cocceius and the Pietists, to attach itself to the
scientific principles of exegesis that have thus far been devel
oped. The school of Hofmann claim the principle of the
history of redemption ^ as the highest attainment of Her
meneutics. This insisting above all upon interpreting Script
ure as one divine book giving the history of redemption is the
1 Studien und Krit., 1830, p. 421 ; see also his Grundriss d. N. T. Herm., 1817.
2 See Klausen in I.e., p. 311 ; Immer in l.c., p. 66 ; Reuss in I.e., p. 605.
3 See Volck, in Zockler, Handb., p. 661 seq. ; Hofmann, Bib. Herm., Nord.
1880.

HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION 473
restatement of the Puritan principle of the gradual revelation
of the covenants of grace. The variety of the Bible is better
understood in relation to its unity, and when the genesis of its
revelation of redemption is made more prominent.
Francis Roberts already states the principle admirably :
"Still remember how Jesus Christ is revealed in Scripture,
gradually in promises and covenants, till the noon-day of the
gospel shined most clearly. . . . For (1) God is a God of order ;
and He makes known His gracious contrivances orderly. (2)
Christ, and salvation by Him are treasures too high and precious
to be disclosed all at once to the church. (3) The state of the
church is various ; she hath her infancy, her youth, and all the
degrees of her minority, as also her riper age ; and therefore God
revealed Christ, not according to his own ability of revealing, but
according to the churches capacity of receiving. (4) This gradual
revealing of Christ suits well with our condition in this world,
which is not perfect, but growing into perfection, fully attainable
in heaven only. Now this gradual unveiling of the covenant and
promises in Christ, is to be much considered throughout the whole
Scripture; that we may see the wisdom of God's dispensations,
the imperfections of the churches condition here, especially in her
minority; and the usefulness of comparing the more dark and
imperfect with the more clear and complete manifestation of the
mysteries of God's grace in Christ."^
ii.c.,p. 10.

CHAPTER XIX
THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION OP HOLY SCRIPTURE
Holy Scripture is composed of a great number of different
kinds of literature. As such it is a part of the literature of
the world, having features in common with all other literatures,
and also features peculiar to itself. From these circumstances
arise the fundamental principles of interpretation. Biblical
interpretation is a section of general interpretation. Here all
students of the Bible are on common ground. Rationalistic,
evangelical, soholastical, and mystical, — they should all alike
begin here. This is the broad base on which the pyramid of
exegesis is to rise to its apex. It is the merit of Schleiermacher
that he clearly and definitely established this fundamental re
lation. From general interpretation arises:
I. Grammatical Interpretation
Holy Scripture is written in human languages. These lan
guages contain the scripture which is to be studied. There is
no other way than to master them, and thoroughly understand
their grammar.!
"¦ Only the philologist can be an interpreter. It is true that the
ofiice of interpretation requires more than mere philology, or an
acquaintance with language ; but all those other qualifications that
may belong to it are useless without this acquaintance, whilst on
the contrary, in very many cases nothing more than this is neces
sary for correct interpretation." ^
Others than philologists may become interpreters of Script
ure by depending upon the labours of philologists in the trans-
1 See Chap, III.
s Planck, Introduction to Sacred Philology and Interpretation, trans, and
edited by S. H. Turner, Edin., 1834, pp. 140-141.
474

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 475
lations and expositions that they produce — but without these
the originals of Scripture would be as inaccessible as the
Hamathite inscriptions, which still defy the efforts of scholars
to decipher them.
The great defect of ancient and mediseval interpretation was
in the neglect of the grammar of the Bible, and in the depend
ence upon defective texts of the Septuagint and Vulgate ver
sions.! Hence the multitude of errors that came into the
traditional exegesis through the Fathers and schoolmen, and
became rooted in the history of doctrine and the customs of
the Church as evil weeds, so that it has taken generations of
grammatical study to eradicate them. It is the merit of Ernesti
in modern times that he so insisted upon grammatical exegesis
as to induce exegetes of all classes to begin their work here at
the foundation. Grammatical exegesis is, however, dependent
upon the progress of linguistic studies. There has been great
progress in the knowledge of the New Testament Greek : in
the study of the dialects, in the comparison of the Greek with
its cognates of the Indo-Germanic family of languages, in the
science of etymology of words, and still more in the history of
the use of words in Greek literature. In the study of the He
brew language there has been still greater progress. When one
traces the history of its study in modern times, and rises from
Levita and Reuchlin, through Buxtorf and Castell, Schultens
and John Taylor, to Gesenius, Rodiger, and Ewald, Kautzsch,
Stade, Konig, Buhl, Driver, and P'rancis Brown, one feels that
he is climbing to greater and greater heights. The older in
terpreters, who knew nothing of comparative Shemitic phi
lology, who did not understand the position of the Hebrew
language in the development of the Shemitic family, who Avere
ignorant of its rich and varied syntax, who relied on traditional
meanings of words, and had not learned their etymologies and
their historic growth, lived almost in another world. The
modern Hebrew scholars are working in far more extended
relations, and upon vastly deeper principles, and we should not
be surprised at new and almost revolutionary results.
1 See pp. 219, 456.

476 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
II. Logical and Rhetorical Interpretations
The second stage of our pyramid of exegesis is logical and
rhetorical interpretation. Here also there are general features
in common with other literatures, and also features peculiar to
Biblical Literature.
(a) The laws of thought are derived from the human mind
itself. These enable us to determine the value of all thought,
to discriminate the true, close, exact reasoning from the inexact
and fallacious. It is assumed by some that the Bible is divine
in such a sense that it corresponds with these laAvs of thought
exactly and is faultless in its logic. If this be so, it is astonish
ing that we find so little that is technical, or in the form of
logical propositions, in the Bible. Here was the fault of the
Jewish Halacha, and the mediseval dialectic, and the modern
scholastic use of proof texts. The Bible has been interpreted
by the formulas of Aristotle in the Middle Age, and then by the
logical methods of the different philosophies in the modern age.
These scholastic and philosophical logicians OA^erlook the fact
that pure logic is one thing, applied logic another, and the his
tory of its application a third. There are differences in logic
as in other things. Human logic is far from infallible. Our
modern logic has not remained in the state of innocence, nor
has it reached the state of perfection. Certainly there are few,
if any, dogmatic divines and philosophers who do not violate
its principles and neglect its methods as stated in our logical
manuals. Every race has, indeed, its own methods of reason
ing. The German and the French minds move in somewhat
different grooves. Still more is this the case when we consider
the Hebrew and the Greek and the Anglo-Saxon. The biblical
writers wrote for the men of their own time and used the forms
of thought of the men of their time. It is not sufficient, there
fore, to apply logical analysis to the text of the Scripture, as is
so often done.! -pj^g proper use of logical interpretation is to
seek for the method of reasoning of the biblical author, — his
plan, his scope, his course of argument, and the relation of
his methods to those of his contemporaries.
1 Lange, Hermeneutik, p. 43.

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 477
" The Scripture doth not explaine the will of God by universal
and scientific rules, but by narrations, examples, precepts, exhortar
tions, admonitions, and promises ; because that manner doth make
most for the common use of all kinde of men, and also most to
affect the will, and stirre up godly motions, which is the chief
scope of divinity." ^
" Language is not the invention of metaphysicians or convoca
tions of the wise and learned. It is the common blessing of man
kind, framed for their mutual advantage in their intercourse with
each other. Its laws therefore are popular, not philosophical,
being founded on the general laws of thought which govern the
whole mass in the community. . . . Scarcely will we hear in a
long and serious conversation between the best speakers, a sen
tence which does not need some modification or limitation in order
that we may not attribute to it more or less that was intended.
Nor is the operation at all difficult. We make the correction
instantly, with so little cost of thought that we would be tempted
to call it instinct did we not know that many of our perceptions
which seem intuitive are the results of habit and education. It
would be an exceedingly strange thing, if the Bible, the most
popular of all books, composed by men, for the most part taken
from the multitude, addressed to all, and on subjects interesting
to all, were found written in language to be interpreted on differ
ent principles. But, in point of fact, it is not. Its style is emi
nently, and to a remarkable degree, that which we would expect
to find in a volume designed by its gracious Author to be the
people's book — abounding in all those kinds of inaccuracy which
are sprinkled through ordinary discourse; hyperboles, analogies,
and loose catachrestical expressions, whose meaning no one mis
takes, though their deviation from plumb, occasionally makes the
small critic sad."^
Again, it is an abuse of logical interpretation to regard the
biblical writers as all alike logical. Those who take the logical
methods of St. Paul as the key to the New Testament, and in
terpret, by the apostle to the Gentiles, the practical St. Peter
and St. James and the mystic St. John, and above all our blessed
Lord Jesus Himself, the Son of man, embracing in Himself all
the types of humanity for the redemption of all, — do violence
to these other writers, rend the seamless robe of the gospel, and
do not aid the proper understanding of St. Paul himself. Those
1 Ames, Marrow of Sacred Divinity, London, 1643.
2 McClelland, Manual of Sacred Interpretation, N.Y., 1842, pp. 61-63.

478 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
who would find the key of the Old Testament in the Wisdom
Literature, would commit a most unpardonable blunder. How
much greater is the sin of those who first insist upon interpret
ing the epistles of St. Paul in accordance with the analytical
principles of modern logic, and then of interpreting all the rest
of the New Testament by this interpretation of St. Paul, and
then the whole body of the Hebrew Old Testament by this in
terpretation of the New Testament. In view of such a method,
one might inquire, why take aU this trouble to impose meanings
upon such a vast body of ancient literature ? It would be far
easier and more honest to construct the dogmatic system by
logical principles, and leave the Bible to itself. We are not
surprised that when and where such methods have prevaUed,
biblical studies have been neglected and despised.
(6) Rhetorical interpretation is closely connected with logi
cal. There are common features of rhetoric that belong to all
discourse, and there are special features which are peculiar to
the Biblical Literature. The Bible has been tested and inter
preted too often, after Greek, German, PYench, and EngUsh
models. We have to discriminate in the Bible the more logi
cal parts from the more rhetorical parts. The fault of the
Halacha and scholastic methods was in their OA^erlooking the
rhetorical features of the Bible. The fault of the Haggada
and allegorical methods was in overlooking the logical. In
rhetorical exegesis it is essential to discriminate poetry from
prose, the different kinds of poetry and prose from each other,
the style of each author, as well as the literary peculiarities of
the people and race which produced the Bible. Here is a field
of study which promises still greater rewards to those who wUl
pursue it,! and it wiU prove of especial richness to the homiUst
and catechist. III. Historical Interpretation
Thus far all parties work in common. As we rise to the
higher stage of historical interpretation there arise differences
between the rationalistic and supernaturalistic interpreters,
owing to certain presuppositions with which they approach the
1 See Chap. XIII.

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 479
Bible. There are different conceptions of history. The super-
naturalistic interpreters recognize the supernatural element as
the determining factor ; the rationalistic interpreters endeavour
to explain everything by purely natural laws. Among believ
ers in the supernatural there is also a difference, in that some
are ever resorting to the supernatural to explain the history,
Avhile other more judicious interpreters explain by the natural
element until they are compelled by overpowering evidence to
resort to the supernatural. Semler has the credit in modern
times of laying great stress on the historic interpretation. In
historical exegesis we have to recognize that the biblical writers
were men of their times and yet men above their times. They
Avere influenced by inspiration to introduce new divine revela
tions, and to revive old truths and set them in new lights ;
they were reformers, and so came into conflict with the con
servatives of their time. Many errors spring up here. The
Pharisees interpreted the Old Testament by tradition. The
scholastics pursue the same course with reference to the New
Testament. The rationalists interpret Scripture altogether by
history and natural forces. Here the scholastic and rationalis
tic interpreters of our times lock horns. The}^ are both alike
in error. Tradition is the bastard of history and should be
resorted to only when Ave have no history, and then with cau
tion and suspicion as to its origin. History is to help, not
rule ; for in the history of redemption the supernatural force
shapes and controls history. The true method is to rise from
the natural to the supernatural. History has been impregnated
with the supernatural. We must not expect to find the super
natural everywhere on the surface. The supernatural comes
into play only when the natural is incapable of accomplishing
the divine purpose; so it is to be sought when it alone is
capable of affording explanation of the phenomena. Then the
supernatural displays itself Avith convincing, assuring force.
Lutz has some admirable remarks here : !
" The historico-grammatical method of interpretation has brought
out truths which cannot be valued too highly. No book needs
more than the Holy Scriptures to be understood in accordance
1 Bib. Herm., Pforzheim, 1861, 2te Ausg., p. 168.

480 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
with the times in which they were first read. . . . But it is
just as true that such an exposition in its one-sidedness limiting
itself to grammar and history, entirely loses sight of the peculiar
features of the Bible, and would bring about a complete separation
between church and exegesis. Thereby the church would be de
prived of its light, and exegesis would dig its own grave."
IV. Comparative Interpretation
In rising to comparative interpretation we have to distin
guish still further the attitude of interpreters toward the Bible.
Supernaturalists come to the Bible as a sacred Canon, an or
ganic whole. Rationalists come to the Bible as a collection of
merely human writings. It is the merit of the Puritans, of
the P'ederalists of Holland, and in recent times of the schools
of Schleiermacher and Hofmann, that they urged the organic
unity of Scripture. It is presumed that writers are consistent,
and that writers of the same school are in substantial accord.
This is a general presumption derived from the study of all
literature. But we must go further and insist that as all the
writers of the Bible are of the school of the Holy Spirit and all
conspired to give us the complete organism of the Canon, there
is a unity and concord that extends throughout the Bible.
There is error here on the right and the left. The rationalists
regard the Bible as a bundle of miscellaneous and heteroge
neous writings. The scholastics regard them as a homogeneous
mass. As Lange says :
"We should read the Bible as a human book, but not as a
heathen book ; as a divino-human book according to the fact that
there is a distinction between elect men of God who walk on the
heights of humanity and the populace in the low plains of human
ity ; as the documents of revelation, which participate throughout
in the revelation, the unicum among all religious writings." '
The rationalists sink the unity in the variety ; the scholas
tics destroy the variety for the sake of the unity. The true
position is, that the Bible is a vast organism in which the unity
springs from an amazing variety. The unity is not that of a
mass of rocks or a pool of water. It is the unity that one finds
1 Grundriss d. bib. Hermeneutik, Heidelberg, 1878, p. 68.

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 481
in the best works of God. It is the unity of the ocean, where
every wave has its individuality of life and movement. It is
the unity of the continent, in which mountains and rivers, val
leys and uplands, flowers and trees, birds and insects, animal
and human life combine to distinguish it as a magnificent whole
from other continents. It is the unity of the heaven, where
star differs from star in form, colour, order, movement, size, and
importance, but all declare the glory of God.
V. The Literature of Interpretation
The fifth stage of exegesis is the use of the literature of
interpretation. The Bible is the Canon of the Christian
Church. What relation does it sustain to the Church ? We
are separated from the originals by ages. Multitudes of stu
dents have studied the Bible, and their labour has not been in
vain. As a prince of modern preachers says :
" In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to
your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the com
mentators : a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance
will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wise
acres as to think or say that you can expoimd Scripture without
assistance from the works of divines and learned men, who have
labored before you in the field of exposition. ... It seems odd,
that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals
to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to
others." ^
But the question presses itself upon the exegete, how far he
is to go in allowing himself to be influenced by the history of
exegesis. The Roman Catholic Church makes the literature
of the Church itself, the consent of the Fathers, the decision of
councils, and the official utterances of the Popes the authorita
tive expositors of Holy Scripture, to which all other exposition
is to be conformed. We have learned from the history of exe
gesis how cautious we should be with the expositions of the
Fathers.^ We have found the best interpreters using false
methods and following false principles. The literature of
exegesis is an invaluable help, but this help is negative as well
1 Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, p. 11. 2 gee pp. 447 seq.
2i

482 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
as positive. It exhibits a vast multitude of errors that have
been exposed, and so prevents us from stumbling into them.
It shows us a great number of positions so plainly established
and fortified, that it were foUy to question them. But at the
same time it presents a number of positions so weakly sup
ported that they excite suspicion of their validity ; and others,
where contests have not resulted in settlement. The literature
of exegesis enables us to understand the real state of the ques
tions that have to be determined by the interpreter of the
Scriptures. It prevents us from wasting our energies in doing
what others haA^e done before us, or in working in barren or
unprofitable fields ; and it directs us to the fruitful soil of the
Bible, the mines to be worked, and the problems to be solved.
If it is suicidal for interpretation to limit itself to the exegesis
of the Fathers and the schoolmen, it is just as perilous to im
plicitly follow the Reformers and theologians of the Protestant
churches. It would result in our forsaking the interpretation
of the Scriptures, and devoting ourselves to the interpretation
of the interpreters. In some respects Protestants have been in
greater bondage here than Roman Catholics, for Roman Catho
lics have been held in check only by the authoritative decisions
of the Church and the consent of the Fathers, whereas Protes
tant interpreters have very generally followed the private
opinions of Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or Wesley, or some
other. If there is to be a limitation it is safer that such limits
should be found in a consensus or official decision than that
they should be found in any individual, however great he
may be.
Francis Roberts happily says:
" There must be constant caution that all tongues, arts, histories,
translations, and comments be duly ranked in their proper place,
in a subserviency under, not a regency or predominancy over the
Holy Scriptures, which are to controule them all. For when
Hagar shall once usurp over her mistress, it's high time to cast
her out of doors till she submit herself." ^
1 In I.e., p. 5.

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 483

VI. Doctrinal Interpretation
In rising a stage higher in our pyramid to doctrinal interpre
tation, we must part company with the Protestant scholastics,
for which we have been prepared, as were Abraham and Lot,
by previous minor contentions. The Bible contains a divine
revelation. The Bible gives the rule of faith. It is to be in
terpreted in accordance with the analogy of faith. This anal
ogy is the substance of Scripture doctrine found in the plainest
passages of Scripture. This was the view of the Reformers.
But the scholastics substituted for this internal rule of faith an
external rule of faith, — first in the Apostles' Creed, then in the
symbols of the churches, and finally in the Reformed or Lu
theran, or some other sectarian system of doctrine. And thus
the Sacred Scripture became the slave of dogmatic systems.
The modern exegete finds a Biblical Theology in the Bible itself
which he has learned to carefully distinguish from Dogmatic
Theology. He has found that Saint Peter and Saint John and
Saint James and Saint Paul were all disciples of Jesus Christ,
and have in Him their centre and life; that no one of them can
be relied on in the writings attributed to him for a complete
statement of Christian doctrine and Christian life, that aU have
to be comprehended in a large synthesis for a complete under
standing of Christianity. The modern interpreter has learned
that the Old Testament is an organic whole, in which priests
and prophets, sages and poets find their centre and life in the
theophanies of God. He has learned that Yahweh and Jesus
are one, and that in the Messiah of prophecy and history the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments become an organic
whole. With this bringing forth of the internal substance of
the Scriptures in its unity and variety, theological exposition
finds its satisfaction and delight, and the analogy of faith is
harmonized with the principles of interpretation which have
prepared the way for its advance and achievements.! Francis
Roberts saw this in part and stated it fairly well in the seven
teenth century.2 1 See Chap. XXIII. 2 ic, p. 10.

484 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" Now that we may more successfully and clearly understand
Scripture by Scripture, these ensueing particulars are to be ob
served: (1) That Jesus Christ our mediator and the salvation of
sinners by Him is the very substance, marrow, soul, and scope of the
whole Scriptures. What are the whole Scriptures, but as it were
the spiritual swadling cloathes of the Holy child Jesus. (1)
Christ is the truth and substance of all the types and shadows.
(2) Christ is the matter and substance of the Covenant of Grace
under all administrations thereof ; under the Old Testament Christ
is veyled, under the New Covenant revealed. (3) Christ is the
centre and meeting-place of all the promises, for in him all the
promises of God are yea, and they are Amen. (4) Christ is
the thing signified, sealed, and exhibited in all the sacraments of
Old and New Testaments, AA'hether ordinary or extraordinary. (5)
Scripture genealogies are to lead us on to the true line of Christ.
(6) Scripture chronologies are to discover to us the times and
seasons of Christ. (7) Scripture laws are our schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ ; the moral by correcting, the ceremonial by
directing. And (8) Scripture gospel is Christ's light, whereby we
know him ; Christ's voice, whereby we hear and follow him ;
Christ's cords of love, whereby we are drawn into sweet union and
communion with him ; yea it is the power of God unto salvation
unto all them that believe in Christ Jesus. Keep therefore still
Jesus Christ in your eye, in the perusal of the Scripture, as the
end, scope, and substance thereof. For as the sun gives light to
all the heavenly bodies, so Jesus Christ the sun of righteousness
gives light to all the Holy Scriptures."
VII. Practical Interpretation
In rising now to the highest stage of interpretation — prac
tical interpretation — we part company with the mystics as well
as the scholastics. The Bible is a book of life, a people's book,
a book of conduct. It came from the living God. It tends to
the living God. Here is the apex of the pyramid of interpre
tation. He who has not reached this stage has stopped on the
way and will not understand the Bible. The Bible brings the
interpreter to God. We can understand the Bible only by
mastering it. We need the master key. No one but the Mas
ter Himself can give it to us. It is necessary to know God and
His Christ in order to know the Bible. The Scriptures cannot
be understood from the outside by gramniar, logic, rhetoric,

THE PRACTICE OF INTERPRETATION 485
and history alone. The Bible cannot be understood when in
volved in the labyrinth of its doctrines. The Bible is to be
understood from its centre — its heart — its Christ. Jesus
Christ does not reveal Himself ordinarily aside from the Bible,
by new rcA-elations outside of it casting new light upon it from
the exterior, as the mystics suppose. But the Messiah is the
light-centre of the Scriptures themselves. He is enthroned in
them as His Holy of Holies, as was Yahweh in the ancient
temple. Through the avenues of the Scriptures we go to find
Christ — in their centre we find our Saviour. It is this per
sonal relation of the author of the entire Scripture to the inter
preter that enables him truly to understand the divine things
of the Scripture. Jesus Christ knew the Old Testament and
interpreted it as one who knew the mind of God.! He needed
no helps to climb the pyramid of interpretation. He ever lived
at the summit. The apostles interpreted the Sacred Scriptures
from the mind of Christ, read by the Spirit He had given
them. 2 We have no such divine help. These who claim such
help are mistaken. They mistake the ordinary guidance of the
Divine Spirit, always given to the devout Christian, for His
extraordinary guidance given to the founders of the Church.
They are presumptuous in assuming to rank with the founders
of the Church. We cannot use their a priori methods, but Ave
may climb toward them. We may have all the enthusiasm of
the quest — all the joy of discovery.
It is not necessary for us to complete our studies of the lower
stages of exegesis ere we climb higher. The exegete is not
building the pyramid. He is climbing it. Every passage tends
tOAvard the summit. Some interpreters remain forever in the
lowest stages. Others spring hastily to the higher stages and
fall back crippled and are flung down to the lowest. The
patient, faithful, honest exegete climbs steadily and laboriously
to the summit.
The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the supreme interpreter
of Scripture is the highest attainment of interpretation. The
greatest leaders of the Church in all ages have acted on this
principle, however defective their apprehension of it may haA'e
1 See p. 442. 2 gee p. 443.

486 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
been, and however little they may have consciously used it in
the interpretation of the Holy Scripture. It was this conscious
ness of knowing the mind of the Spirit and having the truth of
God that made them invincible. It was Athanasius against
the world. With the Divine Truth of the blessed Trinity he
was mightier than the world. It was Luther against pope and
emperor. He could do no other. The Word of God in his
hands and in his heart assured him of forgiveness of sin and
justification by faith ; and poor, weak man though he was, he
was mightier than Church and State combined.
It is this principle "that the supreme judge, by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees
of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and
private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we
are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scripture," ! that made the Puritan faith and life invincible.
Let us cling to it as the most precious achievement of British
Christianity ; let us raise it on our banners, and advance with
it into the conflicts of the day ; let us plant it on every hill
and in every valley throughout the world ; let us not only give
the Bible into the hands of men and translate it into their
tongues, but let us put it into their hearts, and translate it
into their lives. Then will biblical interpretation reach its
culmination in practical interpretation, in the experience and
life of mankind. 1 Westminster Confession, I. 10.

CHAPTER XX
HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY
The historical material contained in Holy Scripture must be
tested and verified just the same as all other historical material.
Until this historical criticism has done its work, faithfully,
thoroughly, and well, the material may have religious value for
all who are willing to accept it on the testimony of the Church
or because of its religious influence upon themselves or others,
but it cannot have any scientific value ; it cannot be used as a
reliable part of human knowledge.
The historical criticism of biblical history has the same
methods and principles as those employed by historical criti
cism in all other departments. In the study of Holy Scripture
these principles and methods should be used reverently, because
of the holy character of the material, but with all the more
scrupulous thoroughness and accuracy.
The historical material contained in Holy Scripture has been
used for many centuries by Jew and Christian, and employed
not only for religious purposes but also for historical purposes.
But it is only in quite recent times that any serious attempt
has been made to study biblical history in a scientific spirit
and by the use of historical criticism.
I. The Use of Biblical History prior to the Six
teenth Century
Josephus is the father of Biblical History outside the Bible.
In his Antiquities (20 books), and Jewish War (7 books), he
endeavours, as an advocate of the Jewish people, to set forth
their history in the most favourable light before the Greek and
Roman world of his time. He was an excellent and, indeed,
487 <

488 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
brilliant writer and story-teller, but he had no conscience for
historical accuracy, and had little interest in the discrimination
of truth from error, or fact from fiction. Philo wrote a life
of Moses, but it has no historical value; it is altogether alle
gorical and didactic in its purpose.
Subsequent to Josephus there seems to have been no interest
in biblical history among the Jews. Their whole life was in
the study and practice of the Law, and the only use the
rabbins made of history was to illustrate and enforce the Law.
For this purpose they did not hesitate to embellish history and
transform it into historic fiction. This method goes back into
the Old Testament Canon itself, into the stories of Daniel and
Esther, Ruth and Jonah, and even into the Chronicler and
the Deuteronomic writers, who idealized the past in order to
enforce the historic lessons they would teach.! -pj^g only his
torieal works used by the Jews until modern times were the
Sedar olam rabba and Sedar olam zutta,^ which were again and
again interpolated in the course of the centuries.
Among Christians the earliest historical efforts were natu-
lally upon the life of Christ and the acts of the apostles. A
large number of apocryphal books of this kind were produced,
jione of which gained extensive recognition. They were full
of mythical and legendary material, and were all eventually
pushed aside and crowded into oblivion by the canonical
Gospels and book of Acts. The orthodox limited themselves
to the construction of harmonies and poetical representations
of various kinds. The Harmony of Tatian was extensively
used in the Eastern Church, and among the Syrians crowded
the four Gospels out of use for several generations. The
earliest Christian efforts to present biblical history in a more
systematic way were those of Hegesippus and Julius Africanus.
Hegesippus,^ in the latter part of the second century, Avrote
five books of memoirs, the result of his historical investigations
at Rome and elsewhere. But only fragments have been pre
served. Julius Africanus, of the first half of the third cen
tury, wrote five volumes of chronology, which were extant in
1 See p. 341 seq. 2 gee p. 235.
^Eusebius, Chureh History, McGiffert's ed., II. 23; IV. 22, pp. 125, 198.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 489
Jerome's time,! but which have perished with the exception of
fragments. Eusebius in the fourth century was the chief his
torian of the ancient Church, the father of Church history. He
wrote a chronicle giving the history of the world up to his OAvn
times and chronological tables.^ He takes up into his ecclesias
tical history all that was deemed valuable in the earlier writ
ings, and in geographical work laid the foundation for biblical
geography.3 In the Latin Church the first and chief writer upon biblical
history was Sulpicius Severus (c. 400 B.C.). He wrote a sacred
history in two books. The first book extends from the creation
of the world until the exile, in 54 chapters ; the second book,
from the exile until the martyrdom of Priscillian, in 51 chap
ters. The story of Christ is told in a single chapter, 27, and
the story of the apostles in two chapters, 28-29. There is no
discrimination between historic fact and fiction. Judith and
Esther and the tales of the Maccabees take their place in the
history on the same level as the most important events of the
Old and New Testaments. Augustine, in his de civitate dei, uses
biblical history merely in the interests of Christian doctrine.
In the Middle Ages biblical history was studied for dog
matic or devotional purposes. Many poetical representations
were made for the instruction of the people, and ancient har
monies were reproduced and devotional studies were given.
The greatest work upon biblical history in all this period was
the Life of Christ, by Rudolf of Saxony, 1470, which went
through many editions. It is innocent of any historic sense,
and knows no difference between fact and fable.
II. The Study of Biblical History in the Sixteenth
AND Seventeenth Centuries
The Reformation was not a reviA^al of historical studies so
much as of literary and dogmatic studies. There were sev
eral efforts to study the Gospels and the Pentateuch in a
1 Jerome, De viris illustribus, 63.
2 x/Jovi/cii Kavdves, see McGiffert's Eusebius, 31.
8 irepl Twv totikSiv dvop-irav twi' iv Ty $elf •ypa<pri, translated in the Onomas
ticon of Jerome,

490 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
harmonistic way. The most important works of this kind
were the Grospel Harmonies of Osiander, 1537, and Chemnitz,
1593 ; and especially the Harmony of the Pentateuch and the
Harmony of the Gospels by Calvin.
It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that
Biblical History became of interest, and then chiefly from an
archsBological point of view, because of the increased attention
to the study of the Hebrew and Greek languages and antiqui
ties. A great collection of writings of archseological writers
from this period was subsequently made by Ugolino.!
Scaliger laid the foundations for chronology ^ and Usher ^
wrote an invaluable work upon the chronology of the Old and
New Testaments, which has been the basis of all chronological
studies until recent times. But other scholars, such as Good
win,* Lightfoot,^ Selden,^ Buxtorf,^ Bochart,^ and Vitringa,^
made special investigations in various departments and en
larged the field of historical knoAvledge. They did not criti
cally sift their material, but they gathered it and arranged it
for subsequent sifting by historical criticism.
III. The Study op Biblical History in the Eigh
teenth Century
In the eighteenth century the conflict between Christianity
and Deism, Atheism, and Rationalism, led to a re-investigation
of the entire field of biblical history, in Avhich England, France,
Holland, Switzerland, and Germany shared. On the one side
every effort was put forth to discredit the supernatural in
1 Thesaurus antiquitatt. sacra, 34 vols, folio, A''enice, 1744-1769.
2 Thesaurus temporum Eusebii, 1606.
8 Annales Vet. et N. Test., 2 vols., 1650-1654.
* Moses et Aaron, 1616.
8 Harmony of the Gospels, 1044-1650 ; Erubim, 1629 ; Acts of the Apostles,
1645 ; Harmony, chronicles, and order of the Old Testament, 1647 ; Harmony,
chronicle, and order of the New Testament, 1655 ; and especially Horae
Hebraieee et Talmudicai, 1658-1664.
8 De jure naturall et gentium juxta disciplinam Hebrceorum, 1640 ; De sue-
cessione in pontifieatum Hebrceorum, 1638 ; De Synedriis, 1650.
7 Synagoga Judaica, 1604.
8 Geographia sacra seu Phaleg et Canaan, 1646 ; Hierozoicon, 1663.
' Hypotyposes histories et ehronologice Sacree, 1698.

history of biblical history 491
biblical history and to put it in the category of all other
ancient histories, and even to depreciate it as a mass of
legends and fables. On the other side, every effort was made
to defend the supernatural, and even to exaggerate it. A
piiddle course was pursued by a few. These strove to con
serve all that was true and real in the history, and to let all
that was untrue perish. A terrible sifting went on, and all
the material gathered with so much industry in the previous
century had to pass through the fire. In England the prin
cipal writers of solid merit were Prideaux,! Schuckford,^ Stack-
house,^ Paley ; * in France, Basnage,^ Calmet ; ^ in Holland,
Reland '' and Spanheim ; ^ in Germany, Buddeus,® Waehner,!"
Bengel,!! Rous,!^ Hess,!^ and Michaelis.!*
IV. Biblical Historical Criticism in the Nineteenth
Century
Toward the close of the eighteenth century. Herder,!^ and
especially Eichhorn,!^ laid the foundations for a more historical
study of Holy Scripture, and began to use the historical mate
rial in the Bible with a genuine historical spirit. They en
deavoured to put the biblical writings in the midst of the
scenery of the ancient world, and to interpret them with a true
understanding of their literary characteristics. They saw the
many sources and variety of colours of the historical material ;
1 The Old and Neiv Testaments Connected, 1716-1718.
2 Sacred and Profane History of the World, 1728.
8 New History of the Holy Bible, 2 vols., 1732. * Horce Paulinx, 1790.
8 Histoire des Juifs depuis Jesus-Christ jusqu' a present, 1706.
8 Dictionnaire de la Bible, 1722.
7 Antiquitates Sacree, 1708 ; Palestina ex monumentis, 1704.
8 Opera quatenus complectantur geographiam, chronologiam et historiam
sacram, 1701-1703.
8 Hist. eccl. Vet. Test., 2 Bde., 1715.
1" Antiquitates Hebrceorum, 2 vols., 1701-1703.
11 Ordo temporum, liii. ^ Einleitung in d. Bib. Gesch., 1770.
18 Gesch. d. 3 letzten Lebensjahre Jesu, 1768 ; Apostelgeschichte, 3 Bde., 1775 ;
Gesch. der Israeliten, 12 Bde., 1776-1788.
1* Spicilegium geographiae Heb., 1769 ; Mosaisches Becht, 6 Bde., 1770-1775.
16 Alteste Urkunde des Menschengesehlechts, 1774.
18 Eichhorn, Urgeschichte, first published in the Bepertorium, 1779, and after
wards edited by Gabler, 1791, 1793.

492 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
they knew how to appreciate the mythical and legendary mate
rial in Holy Scripture, and they endeavoured to reconcile these
historical features with their holy character and religious use.
The recognition, by such a preeminent biblical scholar as
Eichhorn, of the mythical, legendary, and poetic material in
the Holy Scriptures and their use of more ancient documents,
gave a new impulse to the study of Biblical History. The study
of Biblical History had thus far been unscientific and capricious,
both on the side of the Supernaturalists and their Deistic,
Atheistic, and Rationalistic opponents. The Supernaturalists
were loath to recognize anything like legend and myth, and
they were reluctant to- admit even poetry and original docu
ments. Their opponents were more concerned to discredit the
materials of biblical history than to test their true character
istics. Thomas Payne may be taken as a representative of the views
of the Deists at the close of the century. A few sentences from
his famous book may suffice. " It is not the antiquity of a tale
that is any evidence of its truth ; on the contrary, it is a symptom
of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends
to be, the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of
every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews
is as much to be suspected as any other." ^ " Speaking for myself,
if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous than the
sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would
be sufficient to determine my choice." ^
Speaking of the immaculate conception he says, " This story is,
upon the face of it, the same kind of story as that of Jupiter and
Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or any of the amorous adventures of
Jupiter, and shews, as is already stated in the former part of the
Age of Reason, that the Christian faith is built upon the heathen
Mythology." '
Speaking of the resurrection he says, " The story of the appear
ance of Jesus Christ is told with that strange mixture of the natu
ral and impossible that distinguishes legendary tale from fact."^
It is evident that Payne, like all his associates and predecessors
of the Deistic school of writers, plays fast and loose with tales,
legends, and myths, and is destitute of any real scientific or his
toric interest.
1 Age nf Beason, Conway's edition, N.Y., 1896, p. 90.
= i.e., p. 90. 8 ^.c, p. 153. *Z.c., p. 169.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 493
V. The Mythical Hypothesis
Through the influence of Eichhorn a scientific and historic
interest began to prevail, and scholars set themselves to work
to ascertain how much poetry, fiction, legend, and myth was
contained in the Bible, and how the real facts and truths of
history could be eliminated therefrom. Many scholars took
part in the investigation, but the most comprehensive Avork
Avas done by DeWette! and G. L. Baur.^ De Wette recog
nized the poetic, mythical, and legendary material in biblical
history, not only in the early history of Israel, but also in the
life of Jesus. G. L. Baur was, however, the first to apply the
theory of the myth in a thorough-going manner to the explana
tion of Biblical History. But he, and all others, were outdone
by Strauss, who in 1835 used the mythical theory in a most
drastic manner for the interpretation of the life of Jesus.
The situation is well described by A. M. Fairbairn:
" Strauss elaborated his hypothesis with extraordinary inge
nuity. The air was full of mythological theories. Wolf's
Prolegomena had started many questions — critical, mythical,
religious — as to the Homeric poems and primitive Greece. Nie
buhr had carried a new light into the history of ancient Rome.
Heyne had enunciated the principle, A mythis omnis priscorum
hominum cum historia turn philosophia procedit; and he and Her
mann had, though under specific differences, resolved mythology
into a consciously invented and elaborately concealed science of
nature and man. Creuzer had made it a religious symbolism,
under which was hidden an earlier and purer faith. Ottfried
Miiller, in a finer and more scientific spirit, had explained myths
as created by the reciprocal action of two factors, the real and
ideal, and had traced in certain cases their rise even in the his
torical period. The same tendence had existed in scriptural as
in classical studies. Mythical interpretations had been applied
long before to certain sections of the Old Testament. Eichhorn
and Baur, Vater and De Wette, had employed it with greater or
less freedom and thoroughness. It had even been carried into the
New Testament, and made to explain the earlier and later events
1 Kritik d. israelitischer Geschichte, 1806 ; see also article De Wette in
Herzog, B.E., Bd. 17, s. 12 seg.
2 Geschichte der Heb. Nation, 2 Bde., 1800 ; Hebraische Mythologie, 2 Bde.,
1820.

494 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
in the life of Jesus, those prior to the Temptation, and those sub
sequent to the Crucifixion. Strauss thus only universalized a
method which had been in partial operation before ; made the
myth, instead of a portal to enter and leave the Gospels, a com
prehensive name for the whole. In doing so it was not enough
to build on old foundations. The enormous extension of the
structure needed a corresponding extension of the base. The
man could not but fail at the end whose Avork at the beginning
was not simply ill done, but not done at all." ^
The position of Strauss is thus stated by himself:
" The precise sense in which we use the expression mythus,
applied to certain parts of the gospel history, is evident from all
that has already been said ; at the same time the different kinds
and gradations of the mythi which we shall meet with in this
history may here by way of anticipation be pointed out. We
distinguish by the name evangelical mythus a narrative relating
directly or indirectly to Jesus, which may be considered, not as
the expression of a fact, but as the product of an idea of his
earliest folloAvers : such a narrative being mythical in proportion
as it exhibits this character. The mythus in this sense of the term
meets us, in the Gospel as elsewhere, sometimes in its pure form,
constituting the substance of the narrative, and sometimes as an
accidental adjunct to the actual history. The pure mythus in the
Gospel will be found to have two sources, which in most cases
contributed simultaneously, though in different proportions, to
form the mythus. The one source is, as already stated, the
Messianic ideas and expectations existing according to their
several forms in the Jewish mind before Jesus, and independently
of him ; the other is that particular impression Avhich was left by
the personal character, actions, and fate of Jesus, and which
served to modify the Messianic idea in the minds of his people.
The account of the Transfiguration, for example, is derived almost
exclusively from the former source ; the only amplification taken
from the latter source being that they who appeared with Jesus
on the mount spake of his decease. On the other hand, the
narrative of the rending of the veil of the temple at the death of
Jesus seems to have had its origin in the hostile position which
Jesus, and his Church after him, sustained in relation to the
Jewish temple Avorship. Here already we have something his
torical, though consisting merely of certain general features of
character, position, etc. ; we are thus at once brought upon the
lA. M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, 1893, pp.
241-242.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 495
ground of the historical mythus. The historical mythus has for
its groundwork a definite individual fact, which has been seized
upon by religious enthusiasm and twined around with mythical
conceptions culled from the idea of Christ. This fact is perhaps
a saying of Jesus, such as that concerning 'fishers of men' or
the barren fig-tree, Avhich now appear in the Gospels transmuted
into marvellous histories ; or, it is perhaps a real transaction or
event taken from his life; for instance, the mythical traits
in the account of the baptism were built upon such a reality.
Certain of the miraculous histories may likewise have had some
foundation in natural occurrences, Avhich the narrative has either
exhibited in a supernatural light or enriched with miraculous
incidents. All the species of imagery here enumerated may justly
be designated as mythi, even according to the modern and precise
definition of George, inasmuch as the unhistorical which they
embody — whether formed gradually by tradition or created by
an individual author — is in each case the product of an idea.
But for those parts of the history Avhich are characterized by
indefiniteness and want of connection, by misconstruction and
transformation, by strange combinations and confusion — the nat
ural results of a long course of oral transmission ; or which, on
the contrary, are distinguished by highly coloured and pictorial
representations, which also seem to point to a traditionary origin,
— for these parts the term legendary is certainly the more appro
priate. Lastly. It is requisite to distinguish equally from the
mythus and the legend that Avhich, as it serves not to clothe
an idea on the one hand, and admits not of being referred to
tradition on the other, must be regarded as the addition of the
author, as purely individual, and designed merely to give clearness,
connection, and climax to the representation. It is to the various
forms of the unhistorical in the Gospels that this enumeration
exclusively refers ; it does not involve the renunciation of the
historical which they may likewise contain." ^
Strauss recognizes Ullmann ^ as his chief opponent, although
many others from all sides attacked him. He Avas correct in
his judgment. Ullmann states that the only thing new in
Strauss was that he carried out in detail, more completely and
strenuously, the mythical hypothesis which had long been held
by others, in general or in some particulars.^ He shows that
Strauss does not sufficiently distinguish between the canonical
1 Strauss, The Life of Jesus, Eng. trans., Vol. I. pp. 85-87.
2 Historisch oder Mythischf 1838. 8 i^., s. 52.

496 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and the apocryphal gospels, when he makes the former the first
stage of mythical production, and the latter the second stage.!
He urges that there is a middle way betAveen the denial of the
poetic, the legendary, and mythical elements altogether, and
the extreme assertion of them by Strauss.^ He claims that
the symbolic is a necessary clothing of the historical in the
Christian as in all other religions ; that the history of the
origin of the Christian religion must, in the very nature of
the case, have a different character from that of other ordi
nary history ; that it was a new spiritual creation, in which
the extraordinary and even the inexplicable occurs, and that
it is accompanied with the religious enthusiasm of its adher
ents ; that the ideal of the divine and perfect everywhere pre
vails ; that there is a rich fulness of new ideas, a new life
Avhich clothes itself in the symbolical, the allegorical, and the
highest poetry ; and that, from this point of view, the life of
Jesus is a religious epic of the most glorious character.^ With
a full recognition of all these elements, Ullmann shows that
there is no real myth in the life of Jesus as given us in the
four Gospels.
" This real historical point of unity of God and man, this com
plete presentation of the true life in a perfector of faith, must be
given, if, in fact, a kingdom of God was to be founded and man
kind won for it. The Church must have a living head and a
human exemplar ; it could be founded only, if an individual, who
bore in himself the creative fulness of the divine life, was really
there first of all, as the kernel and the root of the mighty growth
which then spread itself out over all peoples." *
The result of the contest as to the Ufe of Christ introduced
by Strauss was to show that, while there are poetical and sym
bolical elements in the canonical Gospels, there are no myths
whatever. The New Testament uses the mythical element
for illustration in the imagery of the apocalypse and in the
exhortations of the Epistles. ^ There are no real myths in the
New Testament history, but only mythical germs which have
been preserved and are used for illustrative purposes.
^l.e.,s.54:. '^l.c.,s.60. « I.e., s.lS-16.
*l.c.,s.S5. 8 gee pp. 333, 348.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 497

VI. The Legendary Hypothesis
In the discussions of the previous century it had been recog
nized by the Deistic, Atheistic, and Rationalistic assailants of
the Bible that there was a large amount of legendary material
in biblical history. Eichhorn, De Wette, and their pupils had
also recognized it with sobriety and moderation ; but Renan,
in 1863, was the first to apply the legendary theory rigorously
for an explanation of the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.
Renan states his position thus :
" The historic value which I attribute to the Gospels is now,
I think, quite understood. They are neither biographies, after
the manner of Suetonius, nor fictitious legends like those of
Philostratus ; they are legendary biographies. I would compare
them with the legends of the Saints, the Lives of Plotinus, Proclus,
Isidorus, and other works of the same kind, in which historic truth
and the intention of presenting models of virtue are combined in
different degrees. Inaccuracy, which is one of the peculiarities
of all popular compositions, is especially perceptible in them.
Suppose that ten or twelve years ago, three or four old soldiers
of the empire had each sat down to write the life of Napoleon
from memory. It is clear that their relations would present
numerous errors and great discrepancies. One of them would
put Wagram before Marengo ; another would write without hesi
tation that Napoleon drove the government of Robespierre from
the Tuileries; a third would omit expeditions of the highest
importance. But one thing would certainly be realized with a
good degree of truth from these artless relations, — the character
of the hero, the impression which he made upon those about him.
In this view, such popular histories are better than formal, authori
tative history. The same thing may be said of the Gospels.
Intent solely on setting prominently forth the excellence of the
Master, his miracles and his teachings, the evangelists exhibit
complete indifference to everything which is not the very spirit
of Jesus. Contradictions as to times, places, persons, were re
garded as insignificant ; for, the higher the degree of inspiration
attributed to the words of Jesus, the farther they were from
according this inspiration to the narrators. These were looked
upon simply as scribes, and had but one rule: to omit nothing
that they knew." '
1 Renan, The Life of Jesus, Eng. trans., N.Y., 1873, pp. 38, 39.
2 k

498 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
Renan made the life of Jesus into a religious romance : and
thereby reduced the legendary theory to an absurdity. His
own book is the very best reply to his theory. The best his
torical critics recognize now as they did before, that there is
legendary material in biblical history, in the New Testament
as well as in the Old Testament ; but the legendary theory
Avill not account for biblical history or any important part
of it.
The books of Strauss and Renan by the drastic application
of their theories to the most sacred of all histories, the life of
the Messiah and Saviour of men, did immense service to the
cause of Historical Criticism ; not only by drawing the atten
tion of Christian scholars to the greatest of all persons and
themes, but also by testing the mythical and legendary theories
so fully as to lead to the verification by historical criticism of
all the essential facts of the life of Jesus, and so establishing a
basis for the testing in like manner of the entire field of bib
lical history. The work of Keim! gummed up all that was
valuable in previous critical investigation. He took an inter
mediate position, such as had been suggested by Ullmann. He
was full of ardour for truth and right, and shows a genuine
historical and scientific spirit. The more recent works of
Weiss,^ Beyschlag,^ and Wendt* are built on his foundation.
Many lives of Jesus have been published in Great Britain,
America, and other countries which have been able, valuable,
and useful ; but none of them has any independent scientific
value when compared with the works above mentioned.

VII. The Development Hypothesis
More permanent contributions to the study of biblical history
were made for the New Testament by the greatest of all modern
Church historians, Ferdinand Christian Baur, who became the
1 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, 3 Bde. , 1867-1872.
2 Das Leben Jesu, 2 Bde., 1882. s Das Leben Jesu, 2 Bde., 1885-1886.
* Die Lehre Jesu, 2 Bde., 1886-1890.

history of BIBLICAL HISTORY 499
founder and leader of the Tubingen School ; and for the Old
Testament by Wilhelm Vatke, who founded no school and left
no disciples, and who received due recognition only shortly
before his death. Both of these scholars simultaneously in
1835 applied the doctrine of development of the Hegelian
philosophy to the study of biblical history.
Baur took the position that the Pastoral Epistles represented
the advocacy of the traditional doctrine and polity of the
Church against Gnostics of the second century ; and he thus
gained a foothold for tracing the origin of Christianity in the
conflict of the two chief apostles. Saint Peter and Saint Paul,
in the New Testament times, and in the ultimate reconciliation
of their disciples. His more developed theory appears in his
later works.! All study of New Testament history and, indeed,
of Church History since that date has depended upon the work
of Baur. The chief opponent of Baur was Neander, who recog
nized several types of apostolic teaching reconciled in a higher
unity. 2 About these two great historians most scholars rallied
in all subsequent historical investigations. The chief pupils of
Baur were Edward Zeller,^ Albert Schwegler,* and Karl Kost
lin.^ The more recent representatives of the school, such as
Hilgenfeld,® Volkmar,'^ Holsten,^ and more especially Weiz
sacker^ and Pfleiderer,!** have learned from the master, but
pursue independent and fruitful investigations. The medi
ating school of Neander was represented by Dorner,!! Lechler,!^

1 Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe, 1835 ; Paulus, 1845 ; Lehrbuch d. christ
lichen Dogmengeschichte, 1847 ; Das Christenthum u. die christliche Kirche in
den 3 ersten Jahrhunelerten, 1853.
2 See p. 578. 8 Di^ Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung, 1854.
* Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1846.
8 Essays in Tlieo. Jahrbucher, 1847-1850.
8 Das Urchristenthums in den Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwickelungs-
gauges, 1855.
7 Die Beligion Jesu und ihre Entwickelung, 1857 ; Jesus Nazarenus und die
erste christliche Zeit, 1882.
8 Zum Evangelium d. Paulus u. d. Petrus, 1867 ; Das Evangelium des
Paulus, 1880.
' Das apostolische Zeitalter, 1886. i" Das Urchristenthum, 1887.
11 Entwieklungsgesehichte der Lehre von der Person Christi von den dltesten
Zeiten, 1839, 2te Aufl., 1845-1856 ; transl. in English, 1861-1863.
12 Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1851, 3te Aufl., 1885.

500 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Schaff,! Fisher,^ Weiss,^ Beyschlag,* and many others who
strove to use all the results of historical science and to con
struct a biblical history which should be alike altogether
Christian and scientific.
An intermediate and independent position was maintained
by Hase, whose Life of Jesus and History of the Church pre
ceded the works of Strauss and Baur. He learned from both
and all others, but did not move from his own foundation.
Ritschl was an early adherent of the school of Baur, but he
eventually broke with that school and advanced a new theory of
apostolic history. In 1850 he came into conflict wifh Schwegler
of the school of Baur in his interpretation of apostolic history,
but it was not until 1857 that he broke with the master him-
self.5 The thesis of Ritschl was that Catholic Christianity is a defi
nite stage of the religious idea within the Gentile-Christian
sphere, independent of the conditions of Jewish-Christian life
and in contrast to the fundamental principles of Jewish Chris
tianity. Yet it is not merely dependent on the authority of
Saint Paul, but bases itself on the authority of all the apostles,
represented by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, as well as of the
Old Testament and the discourses of Christ.®
This thesis is an improvement upon Baur, as is recognized by
most recent scholars,^ however much they may differ from the
dogmatic principles of Ritschl and his school.
Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Harnack, and McGiffert are the chief
Avriters upon apostolic history in recent times. They all build
on Baur or Ritschl, or both.
Harnack says: "Only one Gentile Christian, Marcion, under
stood Paul, and he misunderstood him. The others did not
go beyond the appropriation of some particular Pauline teach-
1 History of the Apostolic Church, 1851 (German) ; 1853 (English) ; em
bodied in History of the Christian Church, Vol. I. 1882.
2 The Beginnings of Christianity, 1877 ; History of Christian Doctrine, 1896.
8 Lehrbuch der bib. Theologie des N. T., 1868; Einleitung in das N. T., 1886.
* Die Christnlugie des Neuen Testaments, 1866 ; Die christliche Gemeinde-
verfassung im Zeitalter der N. T., 1874; Neutestamentliehe Theologie, 1891.
6 Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 1st Aufl,, 1850 ; 2te Aufl., 1857.
^ Albrecht Bitsehl's Leben, Bd. I., 1892, s. 290.
' Pfleiderer, Die Entwicklung der Prot. Theologie, 1891, s. 284.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 501
ings, and showed no understanding for the theology of the
apostle, so far as there is shown in it the universalism of
Christianity as a religion without recourse to moralism, and
without explaining aAvay the Old Testament religion." He
holds that there are four chief tendencies in the apostolic times
and not merely two, the Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian,
namely : (1) The strictly Jewish, in which the Law must be
scrupulously obeyed — Practical Particularism and Nomism.
(2) The milder Jewish-Christian, in which the Jewish Chris
tians are required to fulfil the law, the Gentile Christians not,
but the tAvo have to be kept apart — Practical Particularism ;
Universalism in principle. (3) Neither Jew nor Gentile is any
longer obligated to the Law. It has been done away with in
Christ. Paulinism, Universalism in principle and practice, and
Antinominanisin. (4) Neither Jew nor Gentile is obligated to
the ceremonial LaAvs, because these are only the shell of the
spiritual and moral laws which have been fulfilled in the Gospel
— Universalism in principle and practice, spiritualization, and
limitation of the Law.!
This is logical ; but no sufficient evidence is given that it is
historical. There is little doubt that there were four parties
in the Apostolic Church, but there is no sufficient evidence that
they were in such sharp antagonism as this scheme would
imply. 2
Harnack asserts that the Catholic Church of the second cen
tury cannot be explained as a development out of the theology
of Paul or as a compromise between original apostolic concep
tions, and that it is necessary to call in the Hellenistic spirit,
which began to stream into the Church before the close of the
first century.^
Pfleiderer * criticises this view of Harnack as a reaction to
the view of the older Protestant theologians, who regarded the
ancient Church doctrine as a falling away from the apostolic.^
^Dogmengeschichte, 1886, L, s. 63-65; History of Dogma, tvmsl. trom 3d
German edition, 1895, I. p. 90. ^ See pp. 586 seq.
8 Dogmengeschichte, I., s. 41-42. * Urchristenthum, 1887, s. iv.
8 " Ware also die hellenistische Denkioeise als solche schon eine Verkehrung
der christlichen Wahrheit, wiejene Theologen voraszusetzen scheinen, so wiirde
man zu dem seltsamen Schluss kommen mussen, dass die christliche Theologie

502 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
It was the merit of Bruno Baur,! Hatch,^ and Havet ^ to have
called attention to the importance of the Greek element for the
explanation of the rise of Christianity ; but to Harnack, more
than to any one else, is due the working out of the theory. It
may be questioned, however, whether he has not exaggerated
it, and whether Pfleiderer does not more truly estimate the
Greek influence when he represents that the Gentile Christians
had already been prepared by the Greek spirit in Hellenistic
Judaism for the reception of the teaching of Paul, and that the
combination of Paulinism with it was natural and not of the
nature of an apostasy or decline from original Christianity.
If this representation of Harnack and his school is a true
representation, then there is a discrepancy between the faith
and life of the Apostolic Church and the major part of the
writings of the New Testament. According to these histo
rians, the New Testament in the main represents the views
of Saint Paul and his disciples ; for even the writings attrib
uted by tradition to Saint John and Saint Peter are assigned
by them to the school . of Saint Paul. This being so, few of
the NcAv Testament writings, and those the ones least used
in the Church, represent the real faith and life of the apostolic
age. Where, then, are we to find the teaching of the Twelve,
who were trained by the Master Himself, and commissioned
by Him, before He ascended to heaven, to be His witnesses,
and to be the twelve foundations of the Christian Church?
If we have not the teachings of Saint Peter and Saint James
and Saint John — the pillars of the Church — in the New
Testament, where are we to find them apart from the tradi
tions of the apostolic Sees and the results of their teaching in
the faith and life of the local churches which they founded
and taught ? But if this be so, the New Testament can no
longer be regarded as the sole authoritative norm for the Chris
tian Church. It gives us for the most part only the norm of
Pauline Christianity, whicli, as Harnack claims, the Church never
bereits in ihren neutestamentliehen Anfdngen von der christlichen Wahrheit
abgefallen sei. Mit der unm'oglichkeit dieses Schlusses hebt sich jene Theorie
von selbst auf."— I.e., s. iv.-v. i Christus und die Cdsaren, 1877.
2 The Organization of the Early Christian Chureh, 1881.
8 Le Christianisme, 1884.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 503
in fact followed, and which was only understood by Marcion,
and by him misunderstood. The normal Christianity of the
Twelve Apostles is not in the New Testament. If this position
is the true one, Protestantism must lay aside the formal princi
ple of the Protestant Reformation and make a still more radical
reformation under the guidance of the new interpretation of
Saint Paul's Gospel, or else acknowledge that the Roman tradi
tion bears in it the true teaching of Saint Peter and the Twelve,
by which even the New Testament and Saint Paul himself
must be tested and explained. This theory of apostolic his
tory is in some respects an improvement upon its predecessors,
in that it recognizes the real character of Catholic Christianity
in the apostoUc age, and makes it plain that Saint Paul did not
dominate the faith and life of the apostolic age, as has been
commonly supposed among Protestants.!
But the theory is defective in its interpretation of the Gospel
of Saint Paul. He is not the antinomian that they represent him
to be. They greatly exaggerate the Epistle to the Galatians as
the norm of ihe theology of Saint Paul. This is all the more
unreasonable in connection with the tendency at present to re
gard this epistle as the earliest of the epistles. The theory
is also defective in its neglect of the elements of Saint Peter,
Saint James, and Saint John in the New Testament. In
fact there are four types of New Testament doctrine, all
represented in the Now Testament ; and Catholic Christian
ity is a result of the harmonious combination of these types.^
Hellenistic Judaism, Palestinian Judaism, the Greek and the
Roman world, each in its measure contributed elements of in
fluence for the constitution of the doctrine and life of the Apos
tolic Church ; but there is no sufficient evidence that any of
them or all of them were able to impair the genuine apostolic
types of teaching.
1 "In dieser Beziehung hat das quantitative Verhaltniss der paulin. Literatur
zum Ganzen unseres neutest. Kanon irrefiihrend gewirkt, indem man die langste
Zeit uber auch den Beitrag, welchen der paulin. Lehrbegriff zum Glaubenstand
der alten Kirche geliefert haben solltc, nach demsclben Maasstabe abschatzte.
Und doch cin kirchl. Gomeindebewusstsem, durch und durch angefilllt mit der
Gedankenwelt der Pis, zumal, am Anfange der gesammten Enwickelung, eine
reine Unmoglichkeit." — H. J. Holzmann, Lehrb. d. N. T. Theologie, 1897, 1., s.
490, 491. 2 See pp. 538 seq.

504 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
It is a common fault of all these later expositions of apos
tolic history that they exaggerate certain doctrines of Paul
which they consider normal, and depreciate the importance of
all others, and that they neglect to a large extent the events
and facts of apostolic history as recorded in the New Testa
ment. They reverse the relative proportions of doctrine and
life as found in the Gospels and book of Acts.
The new impulse to the study of the Old Testament history
given by Vatke produced little effect at the time. The school
of Hengstenberg was zealous for traditional views of the his
tory, and Vatke's position was too theoretical and too little
grounded in genuine literary or historical criticism to be con
vincing. The school of Hengstenberg reached its goal and
end in Keil. Ewald,! in his massive work on Biblical History,
organized the discipline in a scientific form and with extraordi
nary richness of material, gathered from the treasures of a life
time of study. Ewald recognized, with the insight of genius,
the documentary, poetic, legendary, and even mythical sources
in biblical history ; but he also saAV the facts and events and
truth that were involved in them. He hesitates, however, to
use the term "myth" because, as he says, the Greek name
" mythus " is inseparably connected with the entire nature of
heathenism, and is not " Ciottessage," but " Gottersage." He
prefers to use for the mythical element " heiliger oder besser
Gfottessage." All subsequent work on the Old Testament his
tory is built on Ewald. The school of Ewald was represented
in Great Britain by Stanley ,2 whose work exerted a wide influ
ence, and had a wholesome effect.
Julius Wellhausen first applied the development hypothesis
of Vatke to the entire Old Testament history, and reconstructed
it accordingly.^ The most elaborate work in the same essential
direction is the history of Stade.* The school of Ewald is still
represented by the work of Kittel.^ Kent has recently pub-
1 Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, 7 Bde,, 3te Ausg., 1864-1868.
2 History of the Jewish Church, 3 vols., 1863-1879.
" Wellhausen himself says: ''Meine Untersuchung ist breiter angelegt als
die Grafts und ndhert sich der Art Vatke's von welchem letzteren ich auch das
Meiste und Beste gelernt zu haben bekenne." -— Geschichte Israels, 1873, s. 11.
* Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 Bd., 1887, 1888.
-• Geschichte der Hebrder, 1888-1892.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 505
lished a brief history of the Hebrew people,! j^ ^ ^j.^g scientific
spirit, but without the extravagance of Wellhausen and Stade.
He may be classed with Kittel. All these recent scholars at
tempt to give us a history of Israel rather than a biblical history.
A more conservative position has been taken by Kohler,^ who
has yet not been able to escape severe criticism from the still
more conservative men remaining in the German pulpits.
An able work upon the history of the Jews was written by
Gratz, a Hebrew scholar of the first rank, with an excellent
historical sense and a rich gathering of material.^
The history of Jost * is chiefly devoted to the history of the
Jews subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is of
little importance for biblical history.
VIII. Advance in Several Departments of Biblical
History
In the meanwhile a new department of biblical history sprang
into being, and had a rapid development. This was made neces
sary by the wonderful increase of the knowledge of ancient
Greece and Rome, and more especially of the historic monu
ments of Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria. The first to organize
this branch of history into a discipline was Sohneckenburger.
He defines the discipline in his posthumous lecture, 1862, as
the Contemporaneous History, the historical frame for the his
tory, the outer ground on which it moves, or the history of the
time in which the events occur. He limits himself to the New
Testament, and divides his subject into two parts : (1) The
state of affairs in the Roman Empire, especially with reference
to religions. (2) Judaism of the New Testament times.^
1 History of the Hebrew People, 1896.
2 Lehrbuch der biblischen Geschichte des A. T, 2 Bde., 1875 seq.
" Geschichte der Juden von den dltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 11 Bde.,
2te Aufl., 1864-1870.
* Geschichte des Judenthums, 3 Bde., 1857-1859.
8 Sohneckenburger, Vorlesungen iiber Neutestamentliehe Zeitgeschichte, 1862 :
"Die Neutestamentliehe Zeitgeschichte ist zu unterscheiden von der Neutesta
mentliehen Geschichte. Sie ist die gleichzeitige Geschichte, gleiehsam der
historische Bahmen fur dieselbe, der aiissere Boden, auf welchen sich die Neu
testamentliehe Geschichte fortbewegt, oder Geschichte der Zeit, in weleher die
Neutestamentliehen Begebenheiten vorfielen.'"

506 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Bertheau! had paved the way for this discipline in the Old
Testament in 1842, in his dissertation on the inhabitants of
Palestine from the most ancient times until the destruction
of Jerusalem by the Romans. The contemporary history of
the New Testament was further advanced by Hausrath,^ Eders
heim,^ and especially by Schurer* and O. Holtzmann^ ; but no
scholar has as yet organized this department for the Old Testa
ment, although a large amount of preparatory work has been
done in the study of the archseology and history of Babylonia,
Assyria, Egypt, Phoenicia, Persia, and the other ancient nations,
who were involved more or less in the history of Israel.
Some of these workers have, by their sound judgment, care
ful sifting of the material, and scientific use of the methods of
historical criticism, made important contributions to our know
ledge of the history of the Oriental nations and have thrown
much light upon biblical history. Especially deserving of
mention are : Schrader,^ George Smith,^ Lenormant,® W. Rob
ertson Smith,^ Francis Brown,!" Ebers,!! Erman,!^ Baudissin,!^
Baethgen,!* Tiele,!^ McCurdy.is
Others have discredited Oriental archseology by hasty con
jectures, by unscientific methods of using their material, by
1 Zur Geschichte der Israeliten, 1842.
2 Neutestamentliehe Zeitgeschichte, 3 Theile, 1868-1874.
8 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols., 1883.
* Lehrbuch der Neutestamentliehen Zeitgeschichte, 1874 ; Geschichte des
Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 1886-1890.
8 Neutestamentliehe Zeitgeschichte, 1895.
8 Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., 1872 ; 2te Aufl., 1883; translated into
English, 2 vols., 1885-1886.
' The Chaldean Account of Genesis, 1876.
8 The Beginnings of History according to the Bible and the Traditions of
Oriental Peoples, translated from the 2d French ed., 1882.
s Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 1885 ; Lectures on the Beligion of
the Semites, 1889.
10 Assyriology, its Use and Abuse in Old Testament Study, 1885.
11 Aegypten und die Biicher Moses, I., 1868.
12 Aegypten und dgyptisehes Leben im Alterthum, 1885-1887 ; English ed., 1892.
18 Studien zur semitisehen Beligionsgesehichte, 1876-1878.
1* Beitrage zur semitisehen Beligionsgesehichte, 1888.
18 Geseh. v. d. Godsdienst., 1876 ; translated as Outlines of the History of Be
ligion, 3d ed., 1884 ; De vrueht der Assyriologie voor de vergelijkende geschiede-
nis der Godsdiensten, 1877.
18 History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, 3 vols., 1894 seq.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 507
unscrupulous striving for popularity, by the hasty publication
of any possible illustration of biblical narratives or any pos
sible verification of biblical material. Among these may be
mentioned : Vigouroux,! Sayce,^ and Hommel. ^
Biblical geography has been greatly advanced in the present
century. Reland * summed up all previous knowledge of Pal
estine, and laid the foundations of the discipline in 1714.
But Edward Robinson is the father of modern biblical geog
raphy. He made a personal investigation of the greater part
of the Holy Land in two expeditions, the one in 1837, the other
in 1852, and published the results in three monumental vol
umes.^ The most important systematic work on the subject
was pubUshed by Carl Ritter,** 1848-1855.
The work of Robinson was followed up by Tobler,'' De
Saulcy,8 Sepp,9 Guerin,!" Stanley,!! Tristram,!^ Merrill,!^ Wetz-
stein,!* Palmer,!^ Arnaud,!<5 Thomson,!'^ Trumbull.!®
A new impulse to the study of biblical geography was given
by the Palestine Exploration Societies, established in England,
the United States, and Germany. The American society had
1 La Bible et les decouvertes modernes, 4 Tom., 3d ed., 1881.
2 The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 1894 ; The Early
History of the Hebrews, 1897.
8 The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 1897.
* Paloestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata, 1714.
8 Biblical Besearches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Begions, 3 vols., Bos
ton, 1841, 2d ed., 1860 ; Later Biblical Besearches in Palestine and in the Adja
cent Begions, 2d ed., 1857 ; Physical Geography of the Holy Land, 1865.
8 Vergleichende Erdkunde der Sinaihalbinsel, von Paldstina und Syrien,
4 Bde., 1848-1855 ; trans, by Gage, 4 vols., 1866.
' Bethlehem in Paldstina, 1849 ; Golgotha, 1851 ; Die Siloaquelle, 1852 ;
Zwei Biicher Topographic von Jerusalem, 2 Bde., 1853-1854; Dritte Wan
derung nach Paldstina, 1857; Bitt durch Philistda, 1859; Nazareth, 1868;
Bibliographia Oeographiea Palestines, 1867 ; Descriptiones Terrez Sanctoe, 1874.
8 Voyage en Terre Sainte, 2 Tom., Paris, 1865 ; Jerusalem, 1882.
^ Jerusalem und das Heilige Land, 2 Bde., 2te Aufl., 1873-1876.
18 Description geographique, historique et areheologique de la Palestine, 3
Tom., 1868-1880.
11 Sinai and Palestine, in connection with their history, new ed., 1883.
12 The Topography of the Holy Land, 1876; The Land of Israel, 2d ed,
1866 ; The Land of Moab, 1873.
18 East of the Jordan, 1875-1877 ; new ed., 1883.
1* Beisebericht iiber Hauran und die Trachonen, 1860.
18 Desert of the Exodus, 1871. i8£a Palestine, 1868.
" The Land and the Book, 1864. i8 Kadesh Barnea, 1884.

508 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
a brief life, but the English and German societies have had a
long and fruitful life. The results of their researches appear
from time to time in their journals.! The English society has
also published many volumes and maps, and has accomplished
a complete survey of Western Palestine.^
In recent years the most valuable contributions have been
made by Socin,^ George Adam Smith,* and Gautier.^
IX. The Results of Historical Criticism
It is safe to say that the Bible has become a new book to the
modern scholar, as the result of all these historical studies and
the researches of Historical Criticism. The material has been
in large part sifted and has been scientifically arranged. The
more external side of Biblical History has naturally received
the greatest attention in recent years. More work has been
done in Biblical History since 1835 than in all the previous
centuries combined. The history of Israel has been distin
guished from the Contemporary History.^ It is now necessary
to lift the more internal Biblical History into its high position
and supreme importance.^
Let any one compare the new Biblical History in its several
branches with the Biblical History of thirty years ago, and he
will not fail to notice that, to all intents and purposes, the Bibli
cal History we now have is new.
The older history is full of traditional material which over
lays and overrides the real history contained in the Old Testa
ment. It fails to take account of the points of view of the
parallel narratives of the chronicler and the prophetic histories.
It does not distinguish the documents which underlie the
1 Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1869 to date ; Zeit
schrift des Deutsehen Paldstin. Vereins, 1876 to date ; Palestine Exploration
Society Statements, 1871-1877.
2 The Survey of Western Palestine, special papers, 1881 ; Arabic and Eng
lish Name Lists, 1881 ; Memoirs of the Typography, Orography, Hydrography,
and Archceology, 3 vols., 1881-1883 ; The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 1884.
8 In several editions of Badeker's Paldstina und Syrien, 3d ed., 1891.
* Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 1894.
8 Souvenirs de Terre-Sainte, 1898.
8 See p. 534. ? See p. 538.

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 509
prophetic histories, and note the varying representations of the
same events involved therein. It does not estimate the four
great documents of the Hexateuch, and knows nothing of
the development of Hebrew institutions and codes of law.
It does not see the light which shines on the history in its
different epochs from the prophets, the psalmists, and the sages.
It treats all the legends and stories of the imagination as if they
were narratives of real events. It overloads certain periods
with a literature which does not belong to them, and thus
lights them with illusive and delusive colours. It deprives
other periods of the literature which belongs to them, and so
makes biblical blanks. Cheyne has called attention to the very
great difference between the David of the historical books and
the traditional David interpreted by the Psalter.!
A still greater difference is to be found between the history
of the Exodus contained in the narratives of the Exodus and
that same history when read with the variegated colours of all
the institutions and laws of the Pentateuch. The exile, Avhich
has no historical narrative to unfold its lessons, is a time of
dense darkness when tradition deprives it of its literature ; but
when filled up Avith a literature which belongs to it, gathered
about Ezekiel and the author of the Book of Comfort of Isaiah
40-66, it is seen abounding in prophets and psalmists and sages
and priestly scribes ; it becomes eloquent with historic mean
ing. There is truly a biblical blank, enduring for centuries, if
we make the Canon close with Malachi and the history with
the work of Nehemiah ; but if we see that a large portion of
the literature of the Old Testament dates from the Persian,
Greek, and Maccabean periods, all subsequent to the exile, and
view the history in the light of this literature, the biblical blank
has disappeared ; the gap of centuries is filled up, and the
history of redemption goes right on in prophetic succession, in
glorious continuity, until the advent of our Lord and Saviour.
The history contained in the Old Testament has ever accom
plished its redemptive purpose by its sacred facts and lessons.
But when that history has been taken from the sacred writings
and worked up with ill-founded traditions and crude theories
1 Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism, 1892, pp. 16 seq.

510 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and speculations into those so-called biblical histories which
have been used in our schools and families until the present
time, we ought not to Be surprised that the real biblical history,
as disclosed by historical criticism, should differ still more from
them than the modern histories of Greece and Rome, or even
of Britain and America, differ from those used in the early
years of our century. It makes an immense difference whether
we look at the history of the Bible through the spectacles of
tradition, or with the microscope of criticism ; Avhether we
study it in the light of speculative dogma, or in the light of
the ancient monuments of Assyria and Babylonia, of Egypt
and of Palestine. It makes an immense difference whether we
study it under the cloud of the pessimistic theory that it gives
us a series of backslidings ; or in the sunshine of the knowledge
that the whole history is the march of a redeemed nation under
the banner of their King and their God, ever onward and for
ward toward the goal of redemption in the Messianic age.
The pessimistic theory of biblical history which has so widely
prevailed in Great Britain and America, and which stiU lingers,
makes the times of the conquest of Palestine under Joshua and
the subsequent barbaric times of the Judges, the Golden Age,
from which all the rest of the history is a falling away into
ever increasing sin and depravity.
To the modern historical criticism of the Bible, the times of
Samuel and David were higher and better than those of Moses,
but the times of Hezekiah and Joshua were higher still. The
Exile was a higher discipline and more productive of religious
and moral teaching than the Exodus. The restoration under
Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah vastly transcended the con
quest of Joshua and his successors. The Maccabees were
greater heroes than the Judges, and the Maccabean age vastly
richer in holy literature and in holy deeds. The older writers
made biblical history a funeral march and the book of Lamen
tations its appropriate dirge. The newer criticism sees that
biblical history is the victorious march of the kingdom of God,
and the sixty-eighth psalm is its hymn.

CHAPTER XXI
THE PRACTICE OP HISTORICAL CRITICISM
The principles and methods of historical criticism Avhen
applied to Holy Scripture are essentially the same as those
appUed to all other historical documents. Tbe older historical
criticism was greatly hampered by its lack of knoAvledge of the
documents. This was true when the great impulses of the
modern historical criticism of biblical history was started. But
now through the researches of the Higher Criticism the doc
uments have been in great measure correctly estimated and
arranged. The poetic elements of the Bible have also for the
most part been defined and separated. The history of Hebrew
legislation is now quite well known. The chief work that his
torical criticism has still to do is to eliminate more carefully
the myth and the legend, and to determine the historical ele
ments involved therein ; and then to study the historic material
in order to determine its origin, its historical evolution and its
results, its genuineness, and its reliability. There are thus
three great departments of historical criticism : 1. Genesis of
the material. 2. Genuineness. 3. Reliability.
I. Genesis op Historical Material
It is first necessary, as regards the biblical historical material,
to determine, so far as possible, its genesis ; that is, its origin,
its stages of development, and the changes that have taken
place in this development. We have studied the question of
integrity as applied to the documents ; ! we have now to study
it as regards the material contained in the documents.
1 See pp. 92, 309 seq.
511

512 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
1. Biblical Chronology
The book of Genesis gives us a chronology of the antedilu
vians. There are three different statements of the numbers :
that of the Massoretic text, that of the Samaritan codex, and
that of the Septuagint version. We cannot determine the
origin of these numbers ; but we may by a study of these ver
sions ascertain something about their development, and so work
back toward their origin. It will be sufficient to cite tAvo
recent scholars.
" Thus we have three different lengths assigned for the period
from the creation of man to the Flood. The numbers of the
Heb. text have generally been regarded as the original, although
recently those of the Sam. have been defended by Dillmann and
Budde. The LXX text, however, was accepted by the Hel. Jews
and the early Christian Church, and has found defenders among
certain Eng. scholars (Hales, Jackson, Poole, Rawlinson, and
others), who have looked upon it with favour as furnishing a
chronology more in accord with the antiquity of man than that
of the Heb. text. But these numbers, Avhichever table may be
regarded as the original, cannot, in any case, be accepted as
historical, and hence for a real chronology of the early ages of
man they are valueless. To accept them as genuine is to assume
from the creation of man a degree of civilization high enough to
provide a settled calendar and a regular registration of births
and deaths, and the preservation of such records from the cre
ation of man to the time of the composition of Gn. All that
is known of primitive antiquity is against such a supposition.
The art of writing was not then known ; and however tenacious
may have been the memory of man it is doubtful whether lan
guage then possessed the requisite terminology for the expression
of such lapses of time. Man also has been upon the earth for a
far longer period than that given even by the LXX chronology.
The conjectural character of the table of Gn. 6 may be also rec
ognized from the variations of the three texts. Such liberties
would probably not have been taken with figures supposed to rest
upon authentic historical documents. The sacred writer chose the
form of a genealogical table to represent the early period of the
Avorld's history. The number of the patriarchs, ten, is a common
one in the lists of the prehistoric rulers or heroes of many peoples.
It appears at once to be a suggestion from the ten fingers." '
1 F. Brown, " Chronicles," in Dictionary of the Bible, 1898, Vol. I. p. 397.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 513
" It seems more candid and natural to admit that Israelite tra
dition, like the traditions of other races, in dealing with personages
living in prehistoric times, assigned to them an abnormally pro
tracted period of life. Hebrew literature does not, in this respect,
differ from other literature. It preserves the prehistoric tradi
tions. The study of science precludes the possibility of such
figures being literally correct. The comparative study of litera
ture leads us to expect exaggerated statements in any work incor
porating the primitive traditions of a people." ^
Sayce is radical as usual. He says : " We can learn nothing,
accordingly, from the books of the Old Testament about the
chronology of Israel down to the time of David." ^ There is
no justification for such an extreme statement.

2. The History of the Chronicler
The history of the Chronicler is based upon a midrash,^ or
illustrative use, of the earlier history contained in the books
of Samuel and Kings. We may thus trace the development of
the historical material back from the Chronicler to the book of
Kings, and then strip off the accretions of the Deuteronomic
writers and find the original Judaic or Ephraimitic story. As
to the historical value of the numbers and names of Chronicles,
I shall quote Francis Brown, G. B. Gray, and E. L. Curtis.
" The late date of Ch. presumably hinders it from being a his
torical witness of the first order. It could be so only if its sources
were demonstrably such. But it has no sources certainly older
than the canonical S. and K. ; its chief source is probably much
later. An interval of 250 or 300 years separates it from the last
events recorded in K. In all cases of confiict, then (see the
examples above), preference must be given to S. and K. The
obvious special interests of Ch. also (see above) are not to its
advantage as a simple witness to facts. Intrinsic probability
points the same way in many instances (see especially Comparison
D, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20, and Driver, Bertheau,
Oettli. etc., on the passages) ; this holds true of the huge numbers
of Ch. as well." ^
1 Herbert Edward Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, 1892, p. 87.
2 The Early History of the Hebrews, 1897, p. 146.
8 See pp.- 329 seq.
* F. Brown, " Chronicles," in Dictionary of the Bible, 1898, Vol. I. p. 395.
2l

514 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
"From the inaccuracy of some of the biblical numbers, and
from the symmetry of their sum, it is not improbable that missing
lengths of the reigns of some kings were supplied by conjecture,
so as to make the duration of the N. kingdom 240 years, and the
interval between the founding of the two temples 480 years.
Such an arrangement would be helpful to the memory and analo
gous to reckonings of the early periods of the world and of Israel,
and such an arrangement also finds a counterpart in the genealogy
of Jesus in Mt., Avhere the generations are reduced to three series
of 14 each. But. taking the biblical data as a whole for this
period, they do not present suflicient symmetry to be entirely or
mainly artificial. Errors doubtless crept into lists of reigns, and
the lengths of some probably were not preserved, and hence were
supplied by conjecture." ^
" To summarize the bearing of the names on the question of the
Chronicler's sources : to a certain extent, though a comparative
small one, the Chronicler availed himself, directly or indirectly,
of trustworthy sources of early periods now no longer extant ; this
is most conclusively shown by the personal genealogies of 1 Chr.
234-41^ §33-40^ 2ess conclusively suggested by other passages, e.g.
1 Chr. 27^^*^!; but in many cases his sources were thoroughly un
historical, e.g. in 1 Chr. 4?^\ and, if he is there dependent on a
source at all, in 1 Chr. 24-27 (except 2T^)."^
3. The Naming of Saint Peter
The Gospels give several reports as to the naming of Saint
Peter. Saint Mark gives an account of the appointment of the
Twelve. The first name that appears is " Simon he surnamed
Peter." ^ In the Gospel of Matthew this passage of Saint Mark
is used and is given as " The first, Simon, who is called Peter."*
In the Gospel of Luke it is also cited in the form, " Simon, whom
he also named Peter."* Saint Luke agrees Avith Saint Mark.
If we depended on these two Gospels alone, it would be most
natural to suppose that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter when
the Twelve were appointed. But Matthew modifies the state
ment of Luke in order to make it consistent with its report of
the naming of Saint Peter which, according to it, took place
IE. L. Curtis, "Chronology of Old Testament," in the Dictionary ofthe
Bible, 1898, Vol. I. p. 403.
2 G. Buchanan Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 1896, p. 242.
8 Mk. 318. 4 Mt. 102. 6 Lk. O".

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 515
at a much later date in connection with Saint Peter's recogni
tion of Jesus as the Messiah.
"And Jesus answered and said unto him. Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-Jonah : for fiesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and what
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." i
These words of Jesus to Saint Peter are given only in
Matthew. They are inserted in a narrative which Matthew
and Luke both derive from Mark, and therefore must be
regarded as coming from the author of our Gospel of Matthew.
The question then arises, where did it get this word of Jesus ?
But before this question is discussed, we have to notice that
the naming of Saint Peter by Jesus is given by John in still
another connection, namely, when Saint Andrew, the disciple
of Saint John the Baptist, brings him to Jesus.
" One of the two that heard John speak, and followed him, was
Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He findeth first his own brother
Simon, and saith unto him. We have found the Messiah (which
is, being interpreted, Christ). He brought him unto Jesus. Jesus
looked upon him, and said, Thou art Simon, the son pf John :
thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)." 2
It is evident that the Gospels give three entirely different
times in Avhich the naming occurred. There was no fixed
tradition as to the exact time. Mark and Luke are against the
time of Matthew, and all three against the time of John. They
all agree, however, in the fact of the naming.
The story of John seems to belong to the original Hebraistic
source of the Gospel. The Aramaic Messiah and Cephas are
explained by the Greek terms Christ and Peter.
The preceding recognition of Jesus as the Messiah is common
to this narrative and to Matthew. Such a recognition is in
credible at so early a date as John gives it. It is more appro
priate at the date when Matthew gives it. Such a recognition
1 Mt. 161M9. 2 John l*8-*2.

516 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
at the later date is confirmed by Luke, and especially by Mark.
The date of Matthew and the circumstances giA'en by Matthew
are more probable. But it is by no means certain that the
naming occurred at so early a date as Matthew gives for it.
It is difficult to understand why Mark and Luke should not
have mentioned it in that connection. The Avords of Jesus,
according to Matthew, bear on their face the traces of later
conceptions. It is quite certain that Jesus said, " my Father,"
and "kingdom of God," and not "my Father which is in
heaven," or "kingdom of heaven," both of which expressions
are peculiar to Matthew.! It is extremely probable that Jesus
did not use the Aramaic equivalent for " ecclesia " = church,
and that Pauline ^ influence is responsible for the substitution
of " church " for an original word of Jesus, which was probably
"kingdom," or "house." This is more consistent Avith the
opposing " gates of Hades," the imagery of building on a rock,
and the use of " keys " ; and also with the subsequent use of the
imagery by Saint Peter and Saint Paul.^ It seems altogether
probable that underlying the Word, as our Matthew gives it,
is a logion, and that the author of the Gospel derived it from
the Logia, and gave it the place in the Gospel which seemed
to him most appropriate. There is no safe clue for the date
of the naming, but the naming itself is made certain by the
three stories relating to it, which are so discrepant as to show
independent historical sources. The Word given by MatthcAv
stands alone without external support ; but if a logion really un
derlies it, the substance of the Word is sustained by the prim
itive Logia of Saint Matthew. And the substance of the logion
is also sustained by the intrinsic meaning of the word Cephas,
Peter, and the consistency of the name with his historic posi
tion as the primate of the apostles, not only during the ministry
of our Lord, but also in the apostolic age of the Church.
1 See Briggs, Messiah of Gospels, pp. 78-79, 198, 203.
2 See Briggs, Messiah of Gospels, pp. 190 seq.
8 1 Pet. 2*"«-; Eph. 220-22.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 517
4. The Speaking with Tongues at Pentecost
The great importance of this phase of historical criticism
justifies another illustration taken from the book of Acts;
namely, the story of the speaking with tongues at Pentecost.
I shall first quote McGiffert.
" From various passages in the New Testament we learn that
a peculiar gift, known as the ' gift of tongues,' was very widely
exercised in the apostolic church, and the fourteenth chapter of
Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians makes the general nature
of the gift sufficiently plain. It was evidently the frenzied or
ecstatic utterance of sounds ordinarily unintelligible both to
speakers and to hearers, except such as might be endowed by the
Holy Spirit with a special gift of interpretation.! The speaker
was supposed to be completely under the control of the Spirit, to
be a mere passive instrument in his hands, and to be moved and
played upon by him. His utterances were not his own, but the
utterances of the Spirit, and he was commonly entirely uncon
scious of what he Avas saying. He was not endowed with the
power to speak in foreign tongues; his words were divine, not
human words, and had no relation whatever to any intelligible
human language. It was not unnatural, therefore, that the speaker
should appear demented to an unbelieving auditor, as Paul implies
was not infrequently the case.^ But his ecstatic utterances, in
spired as it was believed by the Holy Ghost, were regarded by
his fellow-Christians as spiritual utterances in an eminent sense.
The ' speaking with tongues ' constituted, in the opinion of a large
part of the church, the supreme act of worship, — the act which
gave the clearest evidence of the presence of the Spirit and of the
speaker's peculiar nearness to his God. No other gift enjoyed
by the early church so vividly reveals the inspired and enthusi
astic character of primitive Christianity. It was apparently this
' gift of tongues ' with which the disciples were endowed at Pente
cost, and they spoke, therefore, not in foreign languages, but in
the ecstatic, frenzied, unintelligible, spiritual speech of which
Paul tells us in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. That the
Pentecostal phenomenon is thus to be regarded not as something
unique, but as the earliest known exercise of the common gift of
tongues, is rendered very probable by the lack of all reference to
it in other early sources; by the absence of any hint that the
disciples ever made use in their missionary labours, or indeed on
1 1 Cor. 1218. 2 1 Cor. 142s.

518 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
any other occasion than Pentecost itself, of the miraculous power
to speak in foreign languages ; by the effect produced by the phe
nomenon upon some of those present, who accused the speakers
of intoxication, and by the fact that it is treated as a fulfilment
of the prophecy of Joel, Avho says nothing of ' other tongues,' but
characterizes the Messianic Age as an age of revelation and of
prophecy. But the most decisive argument is to be found in
Peter's discourse, which constitutes our most trustworthy source
for a knowledge of what actually occurred. Nowhere in that dis
course does he refer to the use of foreign languages by his fellow-
disciples, not even when he undertakes to defend them against
the charge of drunkenness, though it would certainly have con
stituted a most convincing refutation of such a charge." i
There are in the narrative three stages of explanation of the
phenomena. 1. The first, from the original Hebraistic written
source, represents those upon whom the Spirit came as speak
ing with tongues in the ecstatic state, just as in the two other
narratives of the gift of the Spirit reported in the book of
Acts : ^ some of them spake with their tongues without human
speech* others interpreted the tongues, and spake of the great
works of God to those about them.
2. The second stage is the speech of Saint Peter, which
interprets the event as in accordance with the previous story,
but Avhich lays stress upon prophetic speaking with tongues in
inteUigent speech in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel.
3. The third stage advances upon the interpretation in the
sermon of Saint Peter, and neglects that phase of speaking
with tongues which Saint Paul describes as the interpretation
of tongues, and which was in the mind of the original narrator
as well as of Saint Peter in his discourse ; and it interprets the
speech as in a great many different languages.
The speaking Avith tongues in the form, both of unintelUgible
speech and of its interpretation, is sustained by many allusions
in the New Testament as entirely historical, and is psycho
logically and physically probable. But the speaking in many
different languages unknown before is not only psychologically
and physically incredible, but it has little historic support in
' McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897, pp. 50-52.
2 Acts 10**^', 198.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 519
the later and unsupported interpretation of the ancient docu
ments by the author of our book of Acts.

¦ II. Genuineness of Historical Material
We have also studied the question of genuineness of docu
ments.! We have now to study it in connection with facts
and events. We have to consider under this head what Avas
the design of the one who furnished the material, or from whom
it originally came. Was his purpose to give us fact or fiction ;
to tell us the truth, or to deceive us by a forgery of lies ; or
was he careless as to truth and fact, and only intent upon
enlisting interest and giving instruction ? Under this head we
have to consider the forgery, the myth, the legend, the fiction,
and the historical fact.

1. The Historicity of Daniel
The stories of the book of Daniel, as written in a book that
bears the name of Daniel as a pseudonym,^ raises the question
whether the author meant to deceive his readers by forging
uniiistorical tales. Such a forging of tales to deceive is opposed
(1) by the fact that the book of Daniel throughout breathes
the spirit of truth and righteousness, and encourages fidelity
to God and His kingdom, even to the utmost limits of martyr
dom ; (2) by the fact that the author, in using the pseudonym
of an ancient worthy, is doing nothing more than to use a
common literary artifice, which has never been regarded as
dishonest. It was transparent to his original readers, and
only his readers in later generations have confounded him with
the real Daniel. (3) It is a fact that the stories bear upon
their faces the characteristics of historical fiction, and were
doubtless so received in the times when they were written.^
These stories about Daniel were subsequently enlarged by
others still less historical in the tales of Bel and the Dragon,
and of Susanna. But even the extravagance of these tales did
not stay later generations from regarding them as historical.
1 See pp. 317 seq. 2 See pp. 323 seq. ' gee pp. 351 seq.

620 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
No one has ever succeeded in pointing to a single biblical
narrative or story in which there was the intent to deceive, or
in which there is the slightest evidence of a forgery.
2. Erroneous Historical Statements
There are, however, many instances in which a biblical writer
has, owing to lack of sources and dependence on local tradi
tions, been led into erroneous historical statements. H. G.
MitcheU reviews the statement of the book of Kings with
regard to the destruction of Sennacherib's army thus :
"One would naturally infer from 2 K. 198^ that Sennach
erib's army was almost completely annihilated by the angel of
Jehovah, and that he himself escaped only to be assassinated by
two of his sons soon after his return to Nineveh. This, however,
was not the case. In the first place, although, as one can read
between the lines of his own statements, he was obligeH, to
abandon his plan for the conquest of Egypt, his expedition was
so far successful that he retained his hold on the region actually
overrun, and prevented Tirhaka from getting possession of it.
Secondly, he lived after his return no fewer than twenty years,
and conducted several successful campaigns, one of which was
directed against Edom and the Arabs on its border. Finally, in
681 B.C., he was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon ; but upon that
date (686) Hezekiah had been succeeded by Manasseh, and Isaiah
also had probably finished his labors." i
I know of no one who so frequently questions the historical
accuracy of statements in the biblical writings as Sayce. This
is all the more remarkable that he poses before the public as a
defender of the historicity of the Bible against "higher critics."
In fact, he is defending his pet theories, and he does not hesi
tate to discredit biblical statements, to a rash and to an extreme
degree, whenever the Holy Scripture obstructs him. Thus he
questions the naming of Jacob.
"The etymology, however, is really only, one of those plays
upon words of which the biblical writers, like Oriental writers
generally, are so fond. It has no scientific value, and never was
intended to have any. Israel is, like Edom, not the name of an
individual, but of the people of whom the individual was the
1 Isaiah, p. 43.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 521
ancestor. The name is formed like that of Jacob-el, and the abbre
viated Jeshurun is used instead of it in the Song of Moses. If
the latter is correct, the root will not be sdrdh, 'he fought,' or
ydsar, 'he is king,' but ydshar, 'to be upright,' 'to direct'; and
Israel will signify ' God has directed.' Israel, in fact, will be the
' righteous ' people who have been called to walk in the ways of
the Lord." i
Many examples might be given of Sayce's lack of appreciation
of the genuine principles of historical criticism. It is not so
much that one objects to his results. All scholars make mistakes,
and occasional mistakes are pardonable to accurate scholars. But
Sayce's historical criticisin is seldom more than mere speculation.
Thus he makes the statement : " The poets and later writers of
the Old Testament came to forget what was meant by ' the sea.'
It was confounded Avith Y8,m Siiph, and the scene of the Exodus
was accordingly transferred from the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of
Akaba. It is in the song of triumph over the destruction of the
Egyptians that the confusion first makes its appearance. Here
(Ex. 16*) ' the sea ' and ' the Yam Suph ' are used as equivalents,
and the contents of the song are summed up at the end in the
statement that ' Moses brought Israel from the Y§,m Siiph.' But
elsewhere in the Pentateuch the geography is accurate, and it is not
until we come to the speeches in the book of Joshua that the two
seas are once more confused together. The same geographical
error is repeated in two of the later Psalms, as well as in a pas
sage of the book of Nehemiah." ^
" We must, then, look to the frontiers of Edom and the desert
of Paran for the real Sinai of Hebrew history. But it is useless
to seek for a more exact localization until the mountains of Seir
and the old kingdom of Edom have been explored. Then, if ever,
the Sinai of the Pentateuch may be discovered. It would seem
that it formed part of a range that was known as ' Horeb,' the
'desert' mountains, and as late as the age of Elijah it was still
reverenced as 'the Mount of God' (1 Kings 19^)."^
We could not refuse to accept this assertion of abundant
errors in Holy Scripture as regards the sea and Mount Sinai,
if it were supported by facts and established by genuine his
torical criticism. But the brief discussion of the subject in the
context of the passages cited is entirely uncritical and is mere
theorizing. 1 Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews, pp. 73-74.
2 le., pp. 18.S-184. ' I.e., p. 189.

522 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
3. The Myth
We have already seen ! that sober historical critics do not
hesitate to recognize mythical elements in Holy Scripture;
although many hesitate to use the term for fear lest they may
be understood to imply thereby polytheistic elements in the
Bible, or a confounding of God with man and nature. There
can be no doubt that there are mythical stories in the apocry
phal gospels, relating to Jesus, especially in the story of the
infancy. This one may suffice for an example :
" Now when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from his
birth, on a certain day, he was occupied with boys of his own age,
for they were playing among clay, from which they were making
images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals, and each one
boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord
Jesus said to the boys, ' The images that I have made I wUl order
to walk.' The boys asked him whether then he were the son of
the Creator ; and the Lord Jesus bade them walk. And immedi
ately they began to leap ; and then when he had given them leave
they again stood still. And he made figures of birds and spar
rows, which flew when he told them to fiy, and stood still when
he told them to stand, and ate and drank when he handed them
food and drink. After the boys had gone away, and told this to
their parents, their fathers said to them, ' My sons, take care not
to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard ; fiee from him
therefore and avoid him, and do not play with him again after
this.'"'' There is nothing of the kind in the canonical Gospels. The
virgin birth of our Lord, and the story of the Incarnation as
cited in the Gospel of the Infancy in Matthew and Luke, are
more exposed to the mythical hypothesis than any others in the
Gospels. It is represented that the virgin birth is unknown
to the primitive Gospels of Saint Mark and the Logia of Saint
Matthew ; or to the epistles, even when they urge the doctrine
of the Incarnation; or to the Gospel of John^ that the sources
used by our Matthew and Luke are poetic in form and in con-
1 See pp. 495 seq., 504.
2 Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 36. See in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII.
p. 412.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 523
tent, and of unknown origin ; that the description of the virgin
birth as given by them conflicts with physical science and psy
chology; and that their story resembles the myths of other
ancient religions.
These reasons must be candidly considered by all those who
desire to attain certainty as to the immaculate conception and
the virgin birth of our Lord. I think they may all be sincerely
met and entirelj^ overcome.
1. The story as given by our Matthew and Luke does not
come from these writers, but from their sources. They briefly
remark upon it and interpret it, but they do not materially
change it. These sources are poetic in form and also in sub
stance, and have all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry as to
parallelism, measurement of lines, and strophical organization.
They evidently came from a Jewish-Christian community
and not from Gentile Christians. They were therefore ancient
sources, different from and yet to be classed Avith the Gospel
of Saint Mark and the Logia of Saint Matthew, rather than
with our Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John.
2. We have to take account of the poetic clothing of the
story. The piece cited by Matthew is :
Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife :
For that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus ;
For it is He that shall save His people from their sins.i
We know not how much more extensive this piece of poetry
was, but it implies all that the evangelist says in his context;
namely, that the virgin bride of Joseph was found to be with
child, and that he recognized that the child was begotten not
by him but by the Divine Spirit. The evangelist may or may
not be mistaken in the translation and in his interpretation
of the predictions of Isaiah ;2 or he may use it as a suitable
embodiment of his thought. Whatever opinion one may form
on this subject, it does not affect the main question: that
Matthew used a poetic source for this story and interprets it,
just as he used the Gospel of Saint Mark and the Logia of Saint
Matthew, and frequently interpolated them with interpretations
1 Mt. 120-21. 2 Mt. 122-28 ; Ig. 714.

524 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
also. There is a larger use of poetic sources in Luke. Indeed,
it gives a series of beautiful canticles to tell us the story of the
Forerunners and the birth of Jesus, with comments of its own.
The chief of the poetic extracts used by Luke is the follow
ing: The Holy Spirit shall come npon thee.
And the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee :
Wherefore also that holy thing that is to be born
Shall be called the Son of God.
And behold, Elizabeth thy kinswoman,
She also hath conceived a son in her old age :
And this is the sixth month with her that was called barren :
For no word from God shall be void of power. — Lk. 1^-^.
The virgin conception of Jesus, as here announced by the
archangel, is not to be interpreted as if it were a miracle in
violation of the laws of nature, but rather as brought about by
God Himself present in theophany. The conception of Jesus
in the womb of the Virgin Mary differs from all other concep
tions of children by their mothers, in that there was no human
father. The place of the human father was taken by God Him
self; not that God appeared in theophany in human form to
beget the child, after the analogy of the mythologies of the
ethnic religions ; but that God in a theophany, in an extraor
dinary way unrevealed to us, and without violation of the laws
of maternity, impregnates the Virgin Mary with the holy seed.
The words of the angel imply a theophanic presence ; for though
it might be urged that the coming of the Spirit upon her was
an invisible coming after the analogy of many passages of the
Old Testament, yet the parallel statement that the divine power
overshadowed her cannot be so interpreted. For it not only
in itself represents that the divine power covered her with a
shadow, but this is to be thought of after the uniform usage of
Holy Scripture as a bright cloud of glory, hovering over her,
resting upon her, or enveloping her with a halo of divinity, in
the moment when the divine energy enabled her to conceive
the child Jesus.!
1 The same verb, ivurKiiia, is used in the Septuagint of Ex. 4088, with refer
ence to the cloud of glory of the Tabernacle, and also to the theophanic cloud of
the Transfiguration in Mt. 178 _ m^ 97 _ xk. 98*. The cloud of glory is always
connected with God, and implies more than the agency of the Divine Spirit.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 525
This representation is based upon the well-known pillar of
cloud lighted Avith divine glory, of the story of Exodus,! and of
the erection of Solomon's temple. ^ The entrance of God into
His tabernacle and temple to dAvell there in a theophanic cloud
would naturally suggest that the entrance of the divine life
into the virgin's womb to dwell there would be in the same
form of theophanic cloud. The earthly origin of Jesus in the
virgin's womb Avould thus begin Avith a theophany, just as the
ophanies accompany His birth. His baptism, His transfigura
tion. His crucifixion, and His resurrection.
This annunciation represents the conception of Jesus as due
to a theophany. It does not state the doctrine of His preexist-
ence, although that doctrine is a legitimate inference. It rep
resents an early stage of New Testament Christology. It does
not go a step beyond the Paulinism of the epistles to the
Corinthians. This annunciation knows nothing of the incarnation of the
Logos, of the prologue of the Gospel of John ; ^ or of the Son
of man from heaven, of the Gospel itself;* or of the effulgence
of the glory of God, of HebrcAvs;^ or of the firstborn of all
creation, of Colossians;^ or of the epiphany of the Messiah, of
2 Timothy;^ or of the Kenosis, of Philippians;^ but represents
an earlier Christology than any of these writings. Holzmann^
truly states that Rom. 1^, 8^, Gal. 4*, do not imply a virgin
birth, but may be interpreted of a birth of Joseph and Mary, in
accordance with the reference to Joseph as the father of Jesus
in the primitive Gospels. But, as Schmiedel shows,!" ^j^g epis
tles to the Corinthians teach an early stage of the doctrine of
the preexistence of Jesus in the second Adam from heaven,"
and the head of humanity, !2 of 1 Corinthians ; and especially in
the self -impoverishment of the rich Messiah, of 2 Corinthians, i^
This more primitive form of the doctrine of the preexistence of
the Messiah is still in advance of the doctrine of this annun
ciation. This annunciation of a theophanic birth is really a
1 Ex. 408*-3« ; Nu. 91=. * John 3i8. ' 2 Tim. l^.
2 1 K. 81M1. 8 Heb. 18. 8 Phi]. 26-8.
8 John 1". 8 Col. 118. 9 Die Synoptiker, s. 532.
1° Die Briefe an die Thess. und an die Korinther, s. 168.
11 1 Cor. 15*^'7. 12 1 Cor. 118. is 2 Cor. 88.

526 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
simpler conception and one more in accordance with the repre
sentations of the Old Testament than the sending of the Son
of God, born of a woman, of the epistles to the Romans ! and
Galatians. 2 It is true that none of these passages teach a
virgin conception and birth; but they teach or imply more
than the virgin birth, namely, the preexistence of the Messiah
before His entrance into the world. ^
Thus I explained the story in its connection in 1894. I shall
only add that the doctrine of the preexistence of the Messiah
and the doctrines of the Kenosis, of Saint Paul, and the in
carnation, of the Prologue of John, are more difficult doctrines
than the doctrine of the virgin birth. If the preexistent Mes
siah was to enter the world and become a man, what was the
most natural and reasonable and divine way of doing it?
Would He enter and take possession of a full-grown man, as,
for example, the human Jesus at His baptism ? The ancients
who taught this were regarded rightly as heretics. Would
He enter and take possession of a boy or an infant after birth?
Or would He clothe Himself in an unconscious foetus in the
womb of a mother ?
It is only sufficient to raise these questions in order to be
pressed back by an inevitable necessity of logical consistency
from every kind of dualism, such as would be involved in any
other mode of incarnation except the one described in the story
of the virgin birth ; namely, the theophanic entrance of the pre
existent Christ into the womb of the virgin as the primal germ
of a living individual. It does not seem incredible that He,
who is immanent, omnipresent, and omnipotent, should concen
trate His real presence, for His work on earth as the Messiah, in
the womb of a virgin ; and there is no violation of physiology
or psychology if that concentrated presence should assume the
form of the first beginning of a human organism and attach
itself for substance and growth to the maternal springs of vital
energy. 1 Rom. 88. 2 (jal. 4*.
' Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 48-51.

THB PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 527
4. Legends
We have seen that the best Christian scholars recognize that
there are legends in Holy Scripture.! The only question is as
to the number and extent of them, and the way in which we
may distinguish them from the reality that underlies them.
There can be no doubt that the story of Jannes and Jambres
used in the Second Epistle to Timothy ^ is such a legend. Few
find difficulty in recognizing that; but what shall we say as
regards the story of the angel stirring the waters, in the Gospel
of John in the Authorized Version ? ^ The Revised Version
omits this story, although it gives it on the margin as contained
in many ancient authorities. There can be little doubt that it
is a legend which crept into some ancient texts.
The Revised Version also brackets the story of the Avoman
taken in adultery, and states on the margin that " most of the
ancient authorities omit John 7^^-8!!. Those which contain it
vary much from each other." This is a beautiful story, and
there is nothing in it that seems unnatural or inconsistent with
the character and teachings of Jesus. Indeed, it is a story that
is a favourite among many who would gladly reject other parts
of the Gospels as mythical or legendary. And yet, while it
may be a true story, it is probably a legend.
Some have thought that the stories of the dream of Pilate's
wife * and the washing of Pilate's hands ^ are legendary. They
are peculiar to Matthew. This Gospel has inserted them in
the midst of the narratives derived by it from Saint Mark.
They are just the sort of things of which legends are made.
The Gospel according to Peter adds to the washing of Pilate's
hands the statement : " But of the Jews none washed his hands,
neither Herod nor any one of His judges. And when they
wished to wash them Pilate rose up." ^ The question, whether
such incidents are legendary or not, does not in the slightest
degree impair the holy character of the Bible or the particular
narrative, or in any way discredit the genuineness of the great
historic facts of the religion and faith of the Bible.
1 See pp. 335 seq. 2 2 Tim. 3'. 8 John 53-*. * Mt. 27".
8 Mt. 272*i>-28. 6 11 ; Robinson and James, Gospel according to Peter, p. 16.

528 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
The question whether a statement is historical or legendary
is not decided by the fact that it is Avritten in Holy Scripture.
So soon as we see clearl}' that the holy writers used legends
for holy purposes, as well as history, we may leave it to his
torical criticism to determine whether the statement is legen
dary or not. But historical criticism must be used Avith
reverence and caution. I shall give an example of irreverent
and incautious criticism of a biblical narrative such as should
be avoided. " Moses was met by Aaron ' in the mount of God,' and the two
brothers returned to Egypt together, determined to deliver Israel
from its bondage, and to lead it to that sacred mountain whereon
the name of its national God had been revealed. Unlike Sinuhit
Moses took with him his Midianitish wife and the children she
had borne him. At this point in the narrative there has been
inserted the fragment of a story Avhich harmonizes but ill with it,
or with the general spirit of Old Testament history. The anthro
pomorphizing legend, that ' the Lord ' met Moses and would have
killed him had not Zipporah appeased the wrathful Deity by
circumcising her son, belongs to the folklore of a people still in a
state of crude barbarism, and is part of a story which enforced the
necessity of circumcision among the Hebrew worshippers of Yah
weh. An over-minute criticism might find a contradiction between
the statement that Zipporah had but one son to circumcise, and the
fact that it was the ' sons ' of Moses who accompanied him to Egypt
(Ex. 4^"). Such verbal criticism, however, is needless; it is
sufficient for the historian that the story is a mere fragment,
almost unintelligible as it stands, and in complete disaccord with
the historical setting in which it is placed." i
III. Reliability of Historical Material
Historical reliability is a question of very great importance.
It has to be determined by careful criticism. There are, indeed,
many gradations of reliability. Some things are impossible,
some improbable, some uncertain ; others possible, or probable,
or certain. Every one of these gradations appear in the study
of human testimony and the sources of history. Under this
head I shall give a few specimens to illustrate the different
departments of Biblical History.
1 Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews, p. 165.

the PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 529
1. The Story ofthe Deluge
The story of the Deluge appears in two poetic narratives
interwoven in the book of Genesis. How far is it reliable his
tory? Let Ryle answer.
"It would argue want of candour not to consider frankly at
this point the historic character of the narrative which describes
so tremendous a calamity. And, on the threshold of such an
inquiry, we have to deal with the fact that science speaks in no
hesitating language upon the subject. There is no indication that
since man appeared upon the earth any universal and simultane
ous inundation of so extraordinary a character as to overwhelm
the highest mountain peaks has ever occurred. So vast an accu
mulation of water all over the terrestrial globe would be in itself
a physical impossibility. None, at any rate, has taken place in
the geological period to which our race belongs. The language
relating the catastrophe is that of an ancient legend describing a
prehistoric event. It must be judged as such. Allowance must
be made, both for the exaggeration of poetical description and
for the infiuence of oral tradition during generations, if not cen
turies, before the beginnings of Hebrew literature." i
2. The Water from the Rock
There are two stories of the bringing of the water from the
rock. The prophetic narrative^ puts it in the wilderness of
Sin early in the wanderings. The priestly narrative ^ puts it
in the wilderness of Zin, forty years after.* The probability
is that these are two different accounts of the same miracle,
occasioned by an unconscious mistake of a single letter in
reading Sin for Zin, or vice versa. The difference as to the
name of the place does not impair the reliability of the event.
It rather tends to verify it ; for it shows that the two narratives
are independent, and that we have two witnesses of the event
rather than one, the second dependent on the first. There is
certainly a geographical error, and it involves an error as to the
time of the event. But these errors do not destroy the relia
bility of the event itself.
1 Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, 1892, p. 112.
2 Ex. 17. ' Nu. 20.
* See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new ed., 1897, p. 79.
2 m

530 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
3. The Census of Quirinius
The story of the census of Quirinius as given in Luke 2^
is open to serious doubt. Plummer states the case with care
fulness and sobriety.
" From B.C. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor ; from b.c 6
to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then aU is uncertain until a.d. 6, when
P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the census
mentioned in Acts &", and also by Josephus (Ant, xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1).
It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, that Qui
rinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval between
B.C. 4 and a.d. 6, and that his first term of office was b.c. 3, 2.
But it seems to be impossible to find room for him between b.c 9
and the death of Herod ; and, unless we can do that, Lk. is not
saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian states that the
census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marc, iv. 19) ; and
if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun by him
and continued by his successor. On the other hand, Justin
Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born im TLvpt^viov,
and in one place states that this can be officially ascertained «
rSiv aTroypa<j>S>v rSiv ye.vop.fv<jiv (Apol., i. 34, 46 ; Dial., Ixxviii.). We
must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is mon
strous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake as
to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole
story about the census and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem is a
fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business con
nected with enrolment might take Joseph to Bethlehem, and Lk.
would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused
this census with the one in a.d. 6, 7, which he himself mentions.
Acts 58', is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1)
that a Koman census in Judaea at this time, in accordance with
instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable ; and (2) that
some official connection of Quirinius with Syria and the holding
of this census is not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such
that we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any
statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far better
to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade this by
either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it." 1
Many other examples might be given, but our purpose is
merely to illustrate the principles and methods of historical
criticism, and not to collect results.
1 Alfred Plummer, Gospel according to Saint Luke, 1896, pp. 49-50.

THE PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM 531
IV. The Aim op Historical Criticism
The work of historical criticism of Holy Scripture has only
begun its career. It has given us a new biblical history illumi
nated with new light and enriched with the colouring of Bible
times. The work will go on until it fulfils its entire task.
Ancient Jerusalem lies buried beneath the rubbish of more
than eighteen centuries. It is covered over by the blood
stained dust of myriads of warriors, who have battled heroically
under its walls and in its towers and streets. Its valleys are
filled with the debris of palaces, churches, and temples. But
the Holy Place of three great religions is still there, and
thither countless multitudes turn in holy reverence and pious
pilgrimage. In recent times this rubbish has in a measure
been explored; and by digging to the rock-bed and the ancient
foundations bearing the marks of the Phoenician workmen, the
ancient city of the holy times has been recovered, and may now
be constructed in our minds by the artist and the historian with
essential accuracy. Just so the Holy Scripture, as given by
divine inspiration to holy prophets, lies buried beneath the
rubbish of centuries. It is covered over' with the debris of the
traditional interpretations of the multitudinous schools and
sects. The intellectual and moral conflicts which have raged
about it have been vastly more costly than all the battles of
armed men. For this conflict has never ceased. This battle
has taxed and strained all the highest energies of our race.
It has been a struggle in the midst of nations and of families,
and has torn many a man's inmost soul with agony and groan-
ings. The valleys of biblical truth have been filled up with the
debris of human dogmas, ecclesiastical institutions, liturgical
formulas, priestly ceremonies, and casuistic practices. His
torical criticism is digging through this mass of rubbish. His
torical criticism is searching for the rock-bed of divine truth
and for the massive foundations of the Divine Word, in order
to recover the real Bible. Historical criticism is sifting all
this rubbish. It will gather out every precious stone. Nothing
will escape its keen eye. Like the builders of Nehemiah's

532 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
time, every critic has to build with his weapons in hand; for
the traditionalists prefer the modern ruins to the ancient city
of God, and they battle for every speck of rubbish as if it were
the choicest gold. But as surely as the temple of Herod and
the city of the Asmoneans arose from the ruins of the former
temples and cities, just so surely Avill the old Bible rise in the
reconstructions of biblical criticism into a splendour and a
glory greater than ever before.
My honoured teacher, Edward Robinson, the father of modern
biblical geography, on his first exploring expedition discovered
several huge stones jutting out from the western wall of the
temple area. Close examination showed that they were the
first courses of the spring of an arch which bridged the valley
between the temple and Mount Zion. Men wise in traditional
opinions disputed the discovery for a time. But after the death
of Robinson, the English Palestine Exploration Society dug a
pit near these stones, and deep down beneath the rubbish of
centuries the remains of the bridge were discovered and the
critical judgment of Robinson vindicated. It was a great joy
for me, his pupil and his successor, to descend into the pit and
see these stones with' my own eyes. Robinson's experience
and mine is. the lot of most explorers and their successors, and
in a general way it illustrates the present situation in the his
torical criticism of Biblical History and its ultimate results.

CHAPTER XXII
BIBLICAL HISTORY
Biblical History is the history contained in the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
I. The Scope of Biblical History
Those who exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament
Canon find a long blank in the history between the times of
Nehemiah and the advent of Jesus the Messiah. Those who
include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament Canon fill up this
blank in large measure by the history of the Maccabean times.
Much of the blank is filled in other respects by the historical
material contained in other biblical writings. It is not neces
sary that Biblical History should limit its sources to the his
torical prose literature of the Bible. A large amount of
historical material may be derived from the prophets and poets
and sages, and also from the epistles and the apocalypse.
Biblical History is not coextensive with the histories con
tained in the Canon of Holy Scripture ; it is rather a history
which comprehends all the biblical material in the entire extent
of Biblical Literature. Biblical History, moreover, is not con
fined to the forms and methods of historical composition and
representation, or to the grooves of historical interpretation of
the biblical historian. It organizes the entire biblical material
in accordance with the most exact and thorough scientific
methods. It is necessary to distinguish Biblical History from the his
tory of Israel on the one hand, and from the contemporary history
of the Old and Ncav Testaments on the other; and to put these
three branches of history, which deal more or less with the same
themes, in their true relations. 533

534 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
II. Contemporary History
The contemporary history of the Old Testament aims to study
the history of the nations that influenced Israel. It studies the
monuments of Babylonia, Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, and the
lesser nations that encompassed Israel or Avere entwined with
him in his development. It studies the histories of Persia,
Greece, and Rome, — the ancient masters of the world that
held Israel in subjection. The contemporary history of the
New Testament studies the history and civilization of Greece
and Rome and the influences that came from Oriental life and
thought, so far as these constituted the environment of the life
of Jesus and the history of the Apostolic Church.! j^n these
cast a flood of light upon the history recorded in the Bible, and
give us invaluable information with regard to the external in
fluences working upon Israel and cooperating with the internal
influences to produce his historical training. Great attention
has been paid to this method of study in recent times, and it
has in many minds overwhelmed and absorbed the study of Bib
lical History itself.
Biblical History moves on its Avay in the narratives of the
Bible, touching the great nations of the Old World at various
points in its advancement, giving and receiving influences of
various kinds, but pervaded with a sense of an overpowering
force that has determined not only the History of Israel, but
of all nations of the world. Israel has been a football of the
nations, trodden under foot and tossed hither and thither by
those mightier than he, but he has been a ball of light and fire
that no violence could quench; for a divine blessing was in
him for all mankind. God cast Israel into the fiery furnace
that his dross might be consumed and the pure gold shine in its
glorious lustre. The nations were his hammers, to beat him into
the holy image God had designed for him from the beginning.
The Hebrew prophets see that Yahweh, the God of Israel,
shaped all the migrations of the nations, all the movements of
mankind, all the revolutions of history, for the training of His
own Avell-beloved people.^
1 See pp. 505 seq. 2 Deut. 328-9.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 535
And yet Israel was not for himself alone. The biblical his
torians do not encourage any neglect of the other nations of the
world. They represent that all are to share in the blessings of
Abraham ; they see all nations ultimately before the judgment-
seat of God; they look forward to their ultimate incorporation
in the kingdom under the Messianic King. The prophet re
bukes Israel for supposing that he alone was the people of God,
and that all the other nations were neglected by the God of all
the earth.!
God watched over the other nations of the world, guided their
history, and will bring them also to salvation and judgment.
No one can altogether understand Biblical History until he has
placed it in the light of its contemporary history; and yet he
would make a serious mistake who would suppose that this
contemporary history is the key to Biblical History. The
Biblical History is the centre of this circumference of nations.
It is the Sun in the midst of the world in whose rising all
mankind are to rejoice.^ It is the light streaming forth from
Biblical History that illuminates the contemporary history.
Contemporary history reflects the rays of that light. The
study of the one ought not to conflict with the study of the
other.
III. The History of Israel
It is also necessary to distinguish Biblical History from the
History of Israel. The History of Israel is a part of the his
tory of the world. It is a section of the discipline of universal
history. It should be studied with a purely scientific interest.
It uses Biblical History as one of its sources ; it uses contem
porary history as another; it arranges all its material in a
scientific manner, in accordance with the principles of historic
development. It is more extensive than Biblical History. It fills up the
numerous blanks that are left therein from other sources of
information. The history of the struggle between Persia and Greece, and
of the fortunes of Israel in those times, is of little importance
1 Amos 9'. ° Is. 60.

53^ study of holy scripture
to Biblical History; but it is of great importance to the history
of Israel. The historian will lay much more stress upon it than
upon many earlier periods where the biblical writers dwell at
length. The student of the history of Israel is greatly interested in
the events of external history, such as battles and sieges and
political relations. The writers of the Bible have little interest
in these, and omit to mention them, save so far as they have
religious bearings or can be used for religious instruction. As
Professor Kent says :
" Historic proportion is quite disregarded. For example, in the
book of Samuel the important battle of Gilboa is treated in a
few verses, while the relations between Samuel (the prophet) and
Saul occupy several chapters. This and kindred facts are ex
plained when the aim of the prophetic writer is fully appreciated.
For him events in themselves were of little importance, since his
purpose was not merely to write a history of his people ; instead,
it was primarily and simply to teach spiritual truth. To attain
this exalted end, he was as ready to employ a late tradition as an
early narrative. Often when he found two accounts of the same
event he introduced both of them, even though this involved
small contradictions and historic inaccuracies. If he had had the
data at his command whereby he could determine which of the
two was the older and therefore the more authentic record, he
probably would not have deemed it worthy of his attention, for
it would not have rendered his teaching any more effective with
his contemporaries." i
The history of Israel is less extensive than Biblical History.
It does not enter into the province of the divine influence, that
most characteristic feature of Biblical History. It stumbles at
theophanies, miracles, and prophecies. It finds it difficult to
adjust these divine influences to the principles of scientific
study. The purely personal relations of Yahweh to His people
are matters into which the scientific historian does not venture.
The scientific study of the history of Israel is of inestimable
importance. No one can understand altogether the history of
Israel, unless Israel's true place and importance in universal
history have been determined. Each one of the great nations
1 A History of the Hebrew People, 1896, Vol. I. p. 10.

BIBLICAL history 537
of the Old World has contributed its own best achievements
for the weal of humanity. No one can understand the work
ings of God in history who does not estimate, to some extent
at least, the work of Egypt and Assyria, of Phcenicia and
Persia, of Greece and Rome, in the advancement of mankind.
The history of the world is, as Lessing shows, the divine edu
cation of our race; and every nation has its share in that
instruction, and contributes its quota of experience to the suc
cessive generations. The nations of the modern world have
all come into line with their interplay of forces, making the
problem more complex and wonderful. The old nations of
the Orient, — China, India, and Japan, — with Africa and the
islands of the sea, share in that education and service. The
world is one in origin, in training, and in destiny. There is
force in tlenan's remark:
" Jewish History that would have the monopoly of the miracle
is not a bit more extraordinary than Greek History. If the
supernatural intervention is necessary to explain the one, the
supernatural intervention is also necessary to explain the other." i
I do not agree with his use of the term "supernatural." But
I do agree with him in the opinion that the hand of God alone
can explain the history of Greece and the blessings it contained
for mankind. The school of Clement of Alexandria were cor
rect in the opinion that the philosophy of Greece was a divinely
ordered preparation for the gospel, as were the Law and the
Prophets of Israel. The biblical historians were the first to
see this fact, and to set it forth in the horizon of their narra
tives. They see that the God of Israel is the God seated upon
the circle of the heavens, turning the hearts of kings and
nations ; they know that the Messiah of Israel is the universal
King; they see all the forces of history converging toward His
universal sway. It is a Hebrew poet who describes the New
Jerusalem as the city of the regeneration of the nations :
Glorious things are being spoken in thee, city of God !
I mention Rahab and Babel as belonging to those who know me ;
Lo, Philistia and Tyre with Cush : " This one was born there,"
And as belonging to Zion, it is said, — " This one and that one were born in
her," 1 Histoire du Peuple d'Israel, I. p. v.

538 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
And "Elyon, Yahweh — he establisheth her.
He counteth in writing up the peoples, — ' This one was bom there.' "
Yea, they are singing as well as dancing, all those who dwell in thee.i
The origin of Christianity and its development in the Apos
tolic age may also be treated in the same way as a section of
Universal History, where the Biblical sources will take their
place alongside of other historical sources and no attention
will be paid to Canonical limitations or Biblical proportions.
Such a method is quite legitimate so far as it is faithful to its
own ideals and does not usurp the functions or depreciate the
importance of a more strictly Biblical History from the point
of view of the History contained in Holy Scripture itself.
I do not by any means undervalue the scientific study of the
history of Israel and the origins of Christianity; I do not
depreciate the importance of the contemporary history of the
Old and the New Testaments, when I insist that a more strictly
Biblical History from a Biblical point of view has its own place
and importance as the lamp of the nations and the key for the
development of mankind.
IV. The Types of Biblical History
Biblical History has an extensive variety of sources. There
is first a group of histories that are of unique importance.
We have already considered these as to their form as specimens
of historical prose literature. ^ We have now to consider them
as to their substance and the use of the historical material they
give us. These historical writings cover a long range in time
and an immense mass of detail; they were written by many
writers in three different languages ; and yet they have common
features, which distinguish them from all other histories and
entitle them to be bound together in one book as Biblical
History. The history extends over a vast period of time; it
begins with the creation of the world, it closes with the erection
of the banner of the Messiah in Rome, the capital of the world.
It is narrower in its geographical range. Its centre is Pales
tine, a little land that has always been and always must be, for
geographical reasons, the centre of the world. But it radiates
1 Ps. 87. See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 227. 2 gee pp. 329 seq.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 539
from this centre into all the territories of the great nations of
the Old World. It deals with a little nation and very often
with single persons; but that nation was the people of God,
the bearer of the greatest religions of the world, Judaism and
Christianity, which have determined the entire development
of mankind; and these individuals were the prophets of God:
Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezra, — names that outshine the brightest stars of
other nations in moral worth, and all of whom point, as
watchers of the night, to the dawn of the sun of the world,
Jesus Christ, the greatest of men, the Son of God, and Saviour
of man. Such a history that discloses to us the religious heroes
of mankind, the banner-bearers of God, and that culminates in
the glories of God manifest in the flesh, has a unique place and
importance in the development of the world.
Biblical History is wonderful in its variety. Four different
types of writers give us four different points of view of the
most important and fundamental characters and events. There
are four Gospels, that combine to give us a comprehensive view
of Jesus Christ, our Saviour. Any one of them is easily worth
all other books written by men. We have also four narratives
of the establishment of the Old Covenant.
Higher Criticism has traced these four narratives in the
Hexateuch, and has for the most part separated them so that
we can place them in parallelism, just as we do the Gospels in
our Harmonies. A post-exilic editor compacted them together,
just as Tatian did the Gospels in the second Christian century.!
Four Gospels are historically better than one ; four narratives
of the story of the founding of the Old Covenant are also better
than one for all those who desire to investigate the historicity
of the material contained in them. We have to give up the
traditional theory of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but
we gain four writers in the place of Moses ; and the history of
Moses, and the establishment of his covenant, gains in strength
by the testimony of four witnesses instead of one.
In the history of the kingdom from its establishment to the
exile, we have two parallel narratives, in the books of Samuel
1 See pp. 278 seq.

540 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and Kings on the one hand, and the Chronicler on the other ;
but Higher Criticism finds in the narratives of Samuel and
Kings three original writers, similar to three of the writers
of the Hexateuch.
In the period subsequent to the exile, the Chronicler tells
the story of the times of Ezra and Nehemiah; and the first book
of Maccabees the glorious revolution of the Maccabean age.
Biblical History is, however, much more extensive than the
historical writings contained in the Bible. The chief writers
of Biblical History were prophets, poets, and priests, and these
have given us historical material in other literary forms.
Hosea and Amos share the features of the Ephraimitic his
torian. Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, share
the features of the Judaic narrator. Jeremiah, the second
Isaiah, and Haggai are kindred to the Deuteronomic writers,
Ezekiel, Zechariah, Joel, and Malachi to the priestly writers.
These prophets all are involved in the history of their times, and
either shape that history or interpret it from the point of view
of the divine mind as made known to them. If there is any
such thing as a philosophy of Hebrew history, a divine plan
and purpose in it all, we can learn more of the secret springs
of that history from the prophetical writings than from the his
torical writings.
So in the New Testament the epistles give us the underlying
principles and formative ideas of apostolic history. No one can
understand the foundations of the apostolic Church who depends
on the book of Acts alone. And the great collection of prophe
cies contained in the Apocalypse of John gives us historical
information as to the martyr period of the apostolic Church
which extends beyond the history of the book of Acts, without
which we would be left in darkness.
The Hebrew poets and wise men are not so important for
historical purposes, and yet there are historical poems of great
value in the Psalter; and, besides, the lyrics and the sentences
of wisdom, not to speak of the larger products of the imagina
tion in prose and poetry, give us clues to the inner spirit, reli
gious experience, and ethical ideals of the history, especially
in periods when all other information is lacking.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 541
These four kinds of writers of Biblical History that we find
in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, are not without sig
nificance, for they correspond with four types that run through
the entire literature of the Bible. St. James, St. Peter, St. Paul,
and St. John represent four different points of view in the New
Testament epistles. Each of these types has its corresponding
gospel. In the Old Testament we distinguish the writers of
the Wisdom Literature from the Avriters of the lyric poetry,
and both of these from the prophetic and the priestly writers.
These are the same types that we find in the New Testament,
and Ave ought to expect to find them represented in the older
histories. These are not fanciful combinations of theorists and
speculators, but they are the interesting product of the scien
tific study of the Bible itself. When we compare these four
types of biblical writers with the results of the scientific study
of other religions and races, we find that they correspond with
the four great temperaments of mankind, and the four great
types of character that reappear throughout human history.!
It is one of the wonderful results of the Higher Criticism of
the Bible that all the important events and doctrines rest upon
a fourfold foundation, and a comprehension of the four great
ways of looking at things that are possible to the human mind.
There is danger in our study of the Bible on this very account.
Few minds are sufficiently comprehensive to grasp the entire
representation of these biblical writers. Each man will natu
rally look at any subject through the eyes and the representa
tions of the author of kindred temperament and type. The
analysis of the Hexateuch has brought to light a large number
of apparent inconsistencies. This was what ought to have
been expected. They are no more, however, than those that
ti'ouble scholars in the Harmony of the Gospels after all these
centuries of study. On the other hand, many old difficulties
have been removed. Many statements that were inconsistent
and even contradictory in the same author are complementary
and supplementary in different authors; and so we gain a
higher unity of representation, which is all the grander for the
fourfold variety out of Avhich it springs. The history has not
1 See pp. 569 seq., for a further study of the types.

542 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the unity of a straight line, a series of points, but the unity of
a cube — such unity as we see in the cubical structure of the
Holy of Holies of the tabernacle, and the temple. The new
Jerusalem of the Apocalypse is four-square. The army of the
living God marches in four solid divisions. The cherubic
chariot of its King faces the four quarters of the earth. The
four cherubic faces represent not only the four Gospels, but
also the four types that are in the epistles of the New Testa
ment, and the histories and writings of the Old Testament.
1. The Theophanic Presence
Biblical History has certain features that distinguish it
from all other history. The most important of these is the
theophanic presence of God.
There are some who would point to miracles and prophecy
as the great supernatural features of the Bible, which prove its
uniqueness and its divine origin. But it is just these super
natural features of miracles and prophecies that, in our day,
constitute, for scientific and literary scholars, the chief obsta
cles to their faith in the Bible. Biblical History is not unique
in this regard. The ancient histories of other nations claim
miracles and divine prophecy for the leaders of their religion.
The scientific historian is tempted to treat the miracles and
prophecies of Biblical History in the same way in which he
treats them in the history of Egypt, Assyria, Greece, and the
Christian Church. He is bound so to do, unless something of
a distinguishing character is found in these features of the
Bible. It is also noteworthy that Moses and Jesus recognize
miracle-working and prophecy beyond the range of prophetic
working, outside the kingdom of God.! There must be some
thing in the divine character of Biblical History that will vin
dicate its reality and power, or it cannot be saved from the
tomb into which modern historical criticism has cast the super
natural in all other history.
It has long been evident to Christian historians of critical
sagacity that the Bible does not magnify the supernatural in
1 Deut. 13 ; Mt. 2428-2*.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 543
miracle-working and prophecy to the same extent as is common
in treatises on the evidences of Christianity and in systems of
Apologetics. Undue stress upon these things has called attention away
from still more important features in Biblical History. The
miracles of Biblical History were not wrought in order to give
modern divines evidences of the truth and reality of the biblical
religion. The prophets did not aim to give apologists proofs
for the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles were
wrought as acts of divine judgment and redemption. Prophecy
was given to instruct men in the religion of God, in order to
their salvation and moral growth. The miracles were not
designed to shoAv that God was able to violate the laws of
nature, to overrule or suspend them at His will. The miracles
of the Bible rather show that God Himself was present in
nature, directing His own laws in deeds of redemption and of
judgment. The miracles are divine acts in nature. Prophecy
was not designed to show that God can overrule the laws of the
human mind, suspend them, or act instead of them, using man
as a mere speaking-tube to convey heavenly messages to this
world. Prophecy rather discloses the presence of God in man,
stimulating him to use all the powers of his intellectual and
moral nature in the instruction of the people of God.! Mira
cles and prophecy in Biblical History are the signs of the
presence of God in that history. He has not left that history
to itself. He has not left the laws of nature and of mind to
their ordinary development, but He has taken His place at the
head of affairs as the-monarch of nature and the king of men to
give His personal presence and superintendence to a history
which is central, and dominant of the history of the world.^
This is the conception that we find in Biblical History.
Miracles were chiefly at the exodus from Egypt and the entrance
into Palestine. Here they are associated with the theophanic
presence of God. They reappear in the age of Elijah and
Elisha, a period marked by theophanies. Then again they
were wrought by Jesus, the Messiah, and by His apostles,
in connection with theophanies of the Divine Spirit. The
1 Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 21 seq. 2 1 Cor. 152*- 2s.

544 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Theophany, the Christophany, and the Pneumatophany are the
sources of the miracles of the Bible. When God is really
present in nature, in the forms of time and space and circum
stance, then miracles are the most natural things in the world.
The prophecy of the Old Testament also springs from the
ophanies. The great master-spirits of prophecy were called by
theophanies. The apostles were commissioned by Christoph-
anies and Pneumatophanies. God entered into the human
mind, into its perception, conception, and imagination, and
guided these to give utterance to the wonderful things of God.!
I do not presume to say that every miracle and every prophetic
discourse may be traced directly to theophanic influence, yet I
do venture to say that the most of them can be traced to such
origination, and that the others may likewise be referred to a
more secret divine presence in nature and in man, even if that
presence was not always disclosed in some external manner.
It is necessary, however, to go much farther, in order to
realize the importance of the theophany in Biblical History.
It is the representation of the Patriarchal History that God
was constantly manifesting Himself to the antediluvians and
patriarchs in various theophanic forms, to guide them in all the
important affairs of their lives. The primitive narratives of the
exodus tell us that God assumed the form of an angel and then
of a pillar of cloud and fire, and remained with His people in
a permanent form of theophany from the exodus from Egypt
until the entrance in the Holy Land. God's theophanic pres
ence remained Avith His people until the exile. The ark was
His throne, the tabernacle His abode, the temple His palace.
The sacred writers of the Old Testament knew that God was
reigning in Jerusalem as the real King of Israel and the
nations, by personal theophanic presence.
The theophanic presence was withdrawn from the nation
during the exile and only granted to a few prophets ; but on
the return to the Holy Land, God again appeared in wondrous
theophanies. These are not recorded in the cold, dry narrative
of the Chronicler, but they appear in the psalms and proph
ecies of the period. All the theophanies of the Old Testa-
1 Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 7th ed., pp. 20 seq.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 545
ment were in order to prepare mankind for the grandest of all
theophanies — the Incarnation of the Son of God. Indeed,
Saint Paul saw the preexistent Messiah in the angel of the
presence, who guided Israel through the wilderness of the
wanderings.! From this point of vicAv the theophanic Christ
prepares the way for the Incarnate Christ. The Incarnation
was God manifest in the flesh, an abiding presence of God, no
longer in the Holy of Holies, but in familiar intercourse with
men until His death on the cross and ascension to the heavenly
throne. Then a few days of divine absence, and the theophany
of the Divine Spirit came at Pentecost.
Pneumatophany and Christophany abound in the period of
planting the Church in the world. The last known to the
biblical writings is the wonderful one to Saint John in Patmos.
And here Biblical History comes to an end, Avith a prophetic
picture of the final scenes of all history.
From this survey, it is clear that the most distinguishing
feature of Biblical History is the theophanic presence of God.
The narratives of the biblical writers treat of the times of that
presence. When the theophany is absent, the biblical narra
tive is absent also. When the theophany is absent, the biblical
historian sees nothing to narrate ; his Lord is not there. His
tory is to him a blank. When the theophany is withdrawn and
the enthroned Saviour governs His kingdom without theophanic
manifestations, Biblical History passes over into Church His
tory. From this point of view. Biblical History is the history
of the theophanic presence of God in His kingdom of grace.
This central feature of Biblical History determines all others.
The Ephraimitic historian begins his narrative with the story
of theophanic manifestations to the patriarchs, taking a special
interest in Israel, the father of the nation. This writer is
graphic, plastic, and realistic. God appears in dreams. He
comes in forms of man and angel. He lets Himself be seen
and touched. He even condescends to wrestle with Jacob.
He appears to Moses in the burning bush as the angel of the
presence. He assumes human form and lets Moses see Him
and commune with Him in his tent. He manifests Himself to
1 1 Cor. 10'^. See Briggs, Messiah of Apostles, p. 99.
2n

546 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the elders of Israel, enthroned on a glorious throne, and lets
them eat the covenant sacrifice in His presence. God is to this
narrator ever present to guide the nation as their King.
The same spirit guides the Ephraimitic narrator who tells
the story of the later history. He is very zealous for his own
God, and scorns the gods of the nations. Elijah condenses this
feeling in his bitter irony to the prophets of Baal :
" Cry aloud : for he is a god ; either he is musing, or he is gone
aside, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must
be awaked." i
The calm, serene confidence of the prophet is justified by the
theophanic interposition and the cry of the people :
"Yahweh, He is God! Yahweh, He is God ! "^
Saint Mark Avrites in a similar spirit in the New Testament.
Saiiit Mark has no interest in introductory matters or even
results. He is absorbed in the Christ of history, in His life
and deeds. His plastic style gives us Jesus as He mani
fested Himself. He tells his story in such a realistic and
powerful manner that we bow before the Christ as the King
of nature and of men, without waiting for solicitation or
argument. Other histories give us evidences of the presence and power
of God. Mythological conceptions lie at the basis of the his
tories of other ancient nations. There the gods descend to
earth and clothe themselves in forms of nature and man; but
they thereby assume the parts and passions of man and share
in all his weaknesses, sins, and corruptions; or they become
merely forces and forms of physical nature. But the the
ophanies of these biblical historians never confound God Avith
man, with angels, or with nature — the form assumed by God
is merely for manifestation to holy men ; and it is a thin veil
through which as much of the glory of deity shines as the holy
men were able to bear. And whereas mythological conceptions
are only at the mythical roots of other ancient histories, the
theophanies pervade and control Biblical History from the
beginning to the end. There is no other history in which
1 1 K. 1827. 2 1 K. 1889.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 547
God is manifest in such a simple, natural, and yet kingly way,
where men see Him, know Him, and obey Him as their own
Prince and King. 2. The Kingdom of Redemption
The Judaic historian begins his story with an epic poem,
disclosing, on the one side, the origin and development of
human sin and the divine wrath, and on the other the grace of
God in the progress of redemption. The great theme of his
history is redemption from sin. He and other biblical his
torians of the same type give us the development of the
Kingdom of Redemption. The great Hebrew epic that con
stitutes the preface of this history is the most wonderful of
stories.! The history of mankind begins with Adam, sculpt
ured by the hands of God and quickened by the breath of God.
The man is placed in a paradise planted by the hands of God,
and has charge of animals formed, like himself, by the hands
of God. He receives his wife from the hands of God, built
out of a portion of his own body. He is trained in conception
and speech by the voice of God. All things in him and about
him exhibit the marks of God's personal presence and contact ;
and yet Adam sinned against his creator and benefactor, and
brought an entail of woe upon our race. The epic describes,
in a series of pictures, the successive catastrophes of mankind,
the Fall, the Fratricide, the Deluge, and the Dispersion, events
that lie at the foundations of human history. Faint reflections
of these events are found in the legends and myths of other
ancient nations, but nowhere do we see such a beautiful, sim
ple, touching, and profound story. It is an artist's master
piece. It is poetry in form as well as substance — an epic
poem of the highest order. Here the imagination and fancy
are supreme, and yet there is nothing of those grotesque mytho
logical forms, and those extravagant legendary scenes, that
constitute the staple of all efforts to depict the origin of things
among other ancient nations. The poem is so simple, so chaste,
so realistic, so artless, that it has been mistaken by most stu-
1 See Briggs, The Bible, the Church, and the Beason, pp. 281 seq.

548 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
dents for prose. Such poetry must have been inspired by a
divine art; such imagination and fancy must have been in
flamed and at the same time tempered and subdued by a divine
breath. The poem describes the origin and development of sin in the
family of Adam, in the descendants of Cain, in the human race,
in the family of Noah, in the builders of Babel. The wrath of
God comes upon sin in several catastrophes of judgment. But
redemption is never absent. The promise to the woman's seed
opens up the path of Messianic prophecy, which the prophet
traces in its stages of divine revelation, so that human sin is
overwhelmed and destroyed in the progress of redemption. Sin
and Redemption are the master words of his entire history.
We see them unfolding in the patriarchal story, in the exodus,
and the wanderings, and the conquest. Yahweh, the personal
God and Saviour, is ever with His people to guide and to bless.
This prophet is the brightest and best narrator in the Bible.
His stories never tire us, for they ever touch the secret springs
of our heart's emotions.
A writer of a similar spirit tells the story of David, of his
sins and sorrows and restoration, and traces the history of the
kingdom of redemption in his seed.
Matthew is an evangelist of a similar spirit — the favourite
among the Gospels. He is the evangelist of the Messianic
promise, of the kingdom of redemption, and of the confiict of
sin and grace.
The history of sin and of redemption in these biblical his
torians is unique. Sin, indeed, is everywhere in the world.
Other histories cover it over. These histories expose it. And
yet Israel was not the greatest sinner among the nations. If
his sins are more patent, are more in the light of history,
it is because he has ever been a penitent sinner. Deceitful
Abraham, crafty Jacob, choleric Moses, wilful Saul, passionate
David, voluptuous Solomon, hasty Peter, doubting Thomas,
heresy-hunting Paul, — -these are not the chief of sinners.
Their counterparts are to be found in all ages and all over the
world. We see them every day in our streets. They are not
distinguished above other men as sinners ; but they are distin-

BIBLICAL HISTORY 549
guished as repenting sinners, the discoverers of the divine for
giveness of sin, the banner-bearers of redemption, the trophies
of divine grace. No other history but Biblical History gives
us such a history of redemption, an unfolding of the grace of
God, from the first promise of the ancient epic, through all the
intricate variety of Messianic prophecy and fulfilment, until
we see the Redeemer ascend to heaven, the son of woman, the
second Adam, the serpent-bruiser, victor over sin and death,
to reign on a throne of grace as the world's Redeemer.
3. Divine Fatherly Discipline
The fifth book of the Hexateuch is called Deuteronomy, on
the ancient Hellenistic theory that it was a repetition of the
law. Its legislation is represented in the narratives of the
book of Kings, rather, as the Instruction or the Covenant.
This legislation is embedded in narratives that assume the
oratorical form. They have a character of their own ; they are
of a distinct type from the narratives thus far considered. The
same writer is largely responsible for the history of the Con
quest of Canaan. A writer of the same type has touched up
the history in the books of Samuel and Kings. This writer
has the conception of the Fatherhood of God, and from this
point of view he estimates the history of God's people. The
whole history is a discipline, a training of the child Israel by
his father God. The love of the Father and His tender com
passion are grandly conceived, and the sin of the nation is a
violation of the parental relation. The ideal life of God's
people is a life of love to the Heavenly Father. Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by the word that issues from the mouth
of God. The divine instruction, the holy guidance, is what
the child needs for life, growth, and prosperity. All blessed
ness is summed up in loving God and serving Him with the
whole heart. All curses will come upon those who forsake
Him and refuse His instruction and guidance. God is Judge
as well as Father, and this discipline is to end in an ultimate
judgment that will award the blessings and curses that have
been earned. The Deuteronomist judges the whole history of

550 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Israel from this point of view, and regards it as determined by
the disciplining love of God.
The Gospel of John is of the same type, in the New Testa
ment. It is the gospel of light and life and love. The love
of God, displayed throughout Biblical History, reaches its
climax in that love which gave the only begotten Son for the
salvation of the world. The life that Avas in the words of the
Old Covenant was intensified in the words of Jesus, which are
spirit and life; it entered the world and dwelt among us as
the Incarnate Word, the light of the world, and the true life
for mankind. The Biblical History is thus a history of the
fatherly love of God. We shall not deny that other histories
display the love of God, and that all mankind share in the
heavenly discipline. But it was left for the biblical histories
to discern that love, and to describe it as the quickening breath
of history. 4. The Sovereignty of the Holy God
The priestly historian takes the most comprehensive view of
Biblical History. He begins with an ancient poem describ
ing the creation of the world. This stately lyric, in six pen
tameter strophes, paints the wondrous drama of the six days'
work in which the Sovereign of the universe, by word of com
mand, summons His host into being, and out of primitive
chaos organizes a beautiful and orderly whole. The sover
eignty of God and the supremacy of law and order are the most
striking features of this story of creation.! I doubt if there is
any other passage of the Bible that has attracted such universal
attention and been the centre of such world-wide contest from
the earliest times. Here Biblical History comes into contact
with physical science in all its sections, with philosophy, with
the history of ancient nations, as well as with theology. I
shall not attempt to discuss the numberless questions that
spring into our minds in connection with the first chapter of
Genesis. I shall only remark that if one takes it as a lyric
poem, and interprets it in the same way as we are accustomed
1 Briggs, The Bible, the Church, and the Beason, pp. 283 seq. See pp. 380
seq. for the pentameter.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 551
to interpret the psalms of creation ! and the poetic descriptions
of the creation in Hebrew Prophecy ^ and Hebrew Wisdom,^ the
most of the difficulties will pass away ; and the greater part
of the contest with science, philosophy, and archseology will
cease. It is plain that the poem does not teach creation out of noth
ing. Its scope is to describe the bringing of beauty and order
and organism out of primitive chaos. It is clear that the poem
makes the Word and Spirit of God the agents of creation, and
these are just as suitable to the conception of development in
six stages as to the conception of an indefinite number of dis
tinct originations out of nothing.
The order of creation should not trouble us ; for the poet is
giving us six scenes in the Act of Creation, six pictures of the
general order of the development of nature. It is not necessary
to suppose that there was a wide gap between these pictures, and
that there was no overlapping. When God said, " Let light
come into being,"* He did not continue saying these words
for twenty-four hours, or a century or more. Divine speech is
instantaneous. The effect of His saying may go on forever,
but His word is a flash of light. God did no more speaking
on the second day than on the first, no more on the sixth than
on the third. The poet certainly does not tell us that God
spake a creative word for every object of creation, or even for
every species or genus. He, who in His divine conception is
above the Umits of time and space and circumstance, who grasps
in one conception the whole frame of universal nature, with
one word, or one breath, or a thought, might have caUed the
universe into being. The poem of the Creation conceives God
as speaking six creative words, in order thus to paint the six
pictures of creation in an orderly manner. The poet does not
propose to comprehend in his representation all the forces and
forms and methods of the work of God.
Take it as it is, it is a lyric poem of wonderful power and
beauty. Science has not yet reached a point when it can tell
the story of creation so weU. The story of creation is set forth
in the legends and myths of many nations. The Babylonian
1 Pss. 33, 104. "¦ Is. 40i2»'s-, 442*. 3 Prov. 8, Job 38. * Gen. 1'.

552 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
poem gives us the best ethnic representation. But all these
ethnic conceptions are discoloured by mythological fancies and
grotesque speculations. Compared Avith the best of them, the
Biblical Poem is pure and simple and grand. A divine touch
is in its sketchings. A Divine Spirit hovered over the mind
of the poet to bring order and beauty out of his crude and toss
ing speculations, no less than He did over the primitive chaos
of the world itself.
The priestly historian gives another ancient poem of the
Deluge, which also is marked by the same general characteris
tics of the sovereignty of God and the supremacy of law, that
Ave have seen in the poem of the Creation. He connects these
and his other histories by a well-arranged table of genealogies,
giving us the line of mankind from Adam through the cen
turies of the holy race. He conceives of God as a holy God,
and of man as created in the image of the holy God, with
sovereignty over the earth. It is sin against the divine majesty
that involves the catastrophe of the deluge. This historian
traces the history of Israel in a series of divine covenants with
Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. These involve the govern
ment of God and the service of a holy people. The constitu
tion of a holy law and holy institutions is his highest delight.
God's people must be a holy people, as God their Lord is holy,
and all their approaches to Him must be in well-ordered forms
of sanctity. The entire history of the exodus and the conquest
is conceived from this point of view.
The Chronicler is an author of kindred spirit. He describes
the history of the kingdom until the exile, and judges of it
from the point of view of the holy law of God. He also gives
us an account of the restoration and establishment of the holy
people in the Holy Land, under the priestly rule and the holy
law. And here he brings his history to an end.
A writer of similar spirit in the New Testament is Luke.
He also begins his genealogy with Adam. He also gives a
later unfolding of the history in the story of the planting of
Christianity among Jews aud Gentiles. He also has a pro
found sense of the sovereignty of God, the work of the Divine
Spirit, and the ideal of holiness.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 553
When now we compare these biblical historians with other
ancient historians, we observe that the Egyptians come nearest
to the Hebrews in their conception of sanctity, but the Hebrews
transcend them in making holiness the norm of history. The
ideal of the image of the Holy God in man is the ideal that
these biblical writers held in mind as the goal of history.
Whence could they have derived this ideal if not from the
mind of God?
V. The Order of Biblical History
The material of Biblical History may be divided in accord
ance with its great underlying principles into two parts : the
history of the Old Covenant, guided by theophanies, which
established the Old Covenant and determined the order and
sequence of its historical development ; and the history of the
New Covenant, guided by the incarnate Christ and His Chris-
tophanies, which established the New Covenant and determined
its history. The unfolding of the Covenant under the guid
ance of theophanies and Christophanies makes the subordinate
periods. The history of the Old Covenant is divided into three great
periods. These may be distinguished by the three great names
which more than any others determine them, — Moses, David,
and Ezra. Moses' great covenant, and the theophanies received
by him, determine the fundamental period of Biblical History.
All the patriarchal and antediluvian stories prepare for it.
David's covenant, and the theophanies witnessed by him, deter
mine the whole central period of the Hebrew monarchy. The
stories of Samuel and Saul prepare for this. Ezra's covenant,
and the more spiritual but no less potent influence of "the good
hand of his God upon him,"! determine the whole final period
of the priests and scribes until the advent of Christ. The his
tory of the New Covenant is greater in intension, but much less
in extension, whether of time or place or circumstance. It may
be divided into the time of the Forerunners, during the infancy
and early life of our Lord; the time of tbe manifestation of the
1 Ezr. 79, 818 . Neh. 2S- is.

554 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Messiah, His brief earthly public career; and finally the times
of the apostles as commissioned by the reigning Lord and
empowered by the indwelling Spirit to organize and establish
the Christian Church in the world.
VI. Sections of Biblical History
Biblical History, even more truly than other history, has a
wide field of material, which may be subdivided and variously
arranged. There is first the external frame of the history, its
environment in time, place, and circumstance. Its environ
ment in time gives the discipline of Biblical Chronology ; its
environment in place, the discipline of Biblical Creography ; its
environment in other circumstances of various kinds relating
to human nature aud affairs may be classified under the elastic
term of Biblical Archceology. There are many recent writers
Avho include Biblical Chronology and Biblical Geography under
the more general head of Biblical Archseology, but without
propriety. It is doubtful, indeed, whether Biblical Archaeology is used
with propriety for many of the other things that are usually
classified under it. The Natural History of the Bible, dealing
with animals and plants, the rocks and the soil, has no logical
or vital connection Avith archseology. Archseology, as the sci
ence of antiquities, belongs to another group of subjects than
Biblical Geography, Chronology, and Natural History. These
latter belong to the external environment of the history.
Archseology belongs more closely to the history itself, to the
inner environment, to the monumental records of the history,
and to the source of the history. Christian Archseology is
termed by Piper Monumental Theology. ! Biblical Archseology,
from this point of view, would be the Monumental Theology
of the Bible. Its subdivisions would then be the various
monuments of Biblical History. Biblical Archseology would
then embrace Numismatics, the study of coins mentioned in
the Bible ; ^ Epigraphies, the study of biblical inscriptions ; and
1 Einleitung in d. Monumentale Theologie, Gotha, 1867.
2 F. W. Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, London, 1864.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 555
Biblical Architecture and Sculpture, the study of the buildings
and various examples of plastic art mentioned in Holy Script
ure.! But there are other matters which cannot be classed
with the study of the monuments ; namely, the domestic, social,
religious, and political life of the Jewish people. These sub
jects may in great part be considered in connection with the
Biblical History itself or with Biblical Theology. Thus the
religious life and all the religious antiquities may be con
sidered under the head of Biblical Religion. The domestic,
social, and political life may come under the head of Biblical
Ethics. The political and religious organizations can hardly
escape the attention of the biblical historian. But there will
still remain a residuum of these topics that can be discussed
but inadequately, and as it were aside, in Biblical History and
Biblical Theology, and therefore a place must be found for them
in Biblical Archseology, which then under this head will sub
divide itself into domestic antiquities, social antiquities, reli
gious antiquities, and political antiquities.
VII. The Sources of Biblical History
The primitive sources of Biblical History are mythologies,
legends, poems, laws, whether inscribed, written, or traditional,
historical documents, and the use of the historical imagination.
1. Mythical Sources
There can be little doubt that there is a strong mythological
element at the basis of Biblical History as weU as of other
ancient histories. The myth is indeed the most primitive
historic form and mould in which that which is most ancient
is transmitted from primitive peoples. There are such myths
in the stories of the book of Genesis, and in the poetry of Job,
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and not a few of the Psalms. But
it is characteristic of aU these myths that they have been trans
formed by the genius of Hebrew poets under the influence of
the Divine Spirit, so that aU that is polytheistic has disap-
1 Conrad Schick, Die Stiftshiitte, der Tempel in Jerusalem und der Tempel-
platz der Jetztzeit, Berlin, 1896.

556 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
peared, and nothing remains which is unworthy of the ideals
of the Hebrew religion. It will be sufficient if I quote here
from recent authorities who have given their attention to this '
subject, and I have selected for this two recent scholars.!
" To the student of comparative religion it is no doubt of great
interest to notice that in the story of the origins we have a nar
rative which shows clear traces of connection with Chaldsean
traditions ; to the believer in divine inspiration it is of chief im
portance to notice how primitive myth is consecrated to spiritual
uses, and how in the process it is purged of all that is puerile or
immoral, the main outlines of the original Babylonian story being
retained, while the lower elements in it are entirely overmastered
by the sublime spiritual thoughts of a lofty religion. Such ele
ments are indeed only survivals, like the survivals in natural
history, serving, for aught we know, some beneficent purpose,
showing that Israel's religion had its roots in a Semitic paganism,
from which under the impulse of the Spirit of God it gradually
emancipated itself. No student of the Old Testament will find
serious difficulty in the existence of mythical or even polytheistic
elements which have in fact become the medium of pure religious
ideas, and which have been so far stripped of their original char
acter as to serve the purposes of a monotheistic system." ^
Cheyne, in writing of mythological elements in the book of
Job, says:
" One of the peculiarities of our poet (which I have elsewhere
compared with a similar characteristic in Dante) is his Avillingness
to appropriate mythic forms of expression from heathendom.
This willingness was certainly not due to a feeble grasp of his own
religion ; it was rather due partly to the poet's craving for imagi
native ornament, partly to his sympathy with his less developed
readers, and a sense that some of these forms were admirably
adapted to give reality to the conception of the 'living God.'
Several of these points of contact With heathendom have been
indicated in my analysis of the poem. I need not again refer to
these, but the semi-mythological allusions to supernatural beings
who had once been in conflict with Jehovah (21^^, 26^, and the
cognate references to the dangerous cloud-dragon ought not to be
overlooked. Both in Egypt and in Assyria and Babylonia, we
find these very' myths in a fully developed form. The ' leviathan '
1 See also Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 1895.
2 Robert Lawrence Ottley, Aspects ofthe Old Testament, 1897, pp. 57, 58.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 557
of 3', the dragon probably of 7^^ (tannin) and certainly of 26"
(ndkhdsh), and the 'rahab' of 91", 26'^, remind us of the evil
serpent Apap, whose struggle with the sun-god Ka is described in
chap. 39 of the Book of the Dead and elsewhere. ' A battle took
place,' says M. Maspero, 'between the gods of light and fertility
and the " sons of rebellion," the enemies of light and life. The
former were victorious, but the monsters were not destroyed.
They constantly menace the order of nature, and, in order to resist
their destructive action, God must, so to speak, create the world
anew every day.' An equally close parallel is furnished by the
fourth tablet of the Babylonian creation-story, which describes the
struggle between the god Marduk (Merodach) and the dragon
Tiamat or Tiamtu (a fem. corresponding to the Heb. masc. form
t'hom 'the deep'). . . . Nor must I forget the 'fool-hardy' giant
(K'sil = Orion) in 9°, 38'i, nor the dim allusion to the sky-reaching
mountain of the north, rich in gold (comp. Is. 1^^, and Sayce,
Academy, Jan. 28, 1882, p. 64) and the myth-derived synonyms
for Sheol, Death, Abaddon, and ' the shadow of death ' (or, deep
gloom), 26", 28^^ 38", also the 'king of terrors' (18"), who like
Pluto or Yama rules in the Hebrew Underworld. Observe, too,
the instances in which a primitive myth has died down into a
metaphor, e.g. ' the eyelids of the Dawn ' (3^, ll'^). . . . How far
the poet of Job believed in the myths which he has preserved, e.g.
in the existence of potentates or potencies corresponding to the
' dragon ' of which he speaks, we cannot certainly tell. Mr. Budge
has suggested that Tiamat, the sky-dragon of the Babylonians,
conveyed a distinct symbolic meaning. However this may have
been, the ' leviathan ' of Job was probably to the poet a ' survival '
from a superstition of his childhood, and little if anything more
than the emblem of all evil and disorder." 1

2. Legendary Sources
Legends constitute the form in which historical material is
handed down from generation to generation in oral transmis
sion, especially in times prior to written literature. Holy
Scripture uses a great abundance of these legends. The popu
lar imagination embeUishes them ; changes them in many ways
as to time, place, and circumstances; and only preserves the
substance of the truth and fact. As an illustration we may
take the patriarch's representation that his wife was his sister.
1 Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 1887, pp. 76-78.

558 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
There are three narratives of this event.! Doubtless there was an
actual occurrence of this kind in the times of the patriarchs ; but
each one of these narratives shows the legendary embellishment.
The Ephraimitic narrative represents that Abraham was the
patriarch and that the event took place at the court of Abime-
lech, king of Gerer. But the Judaic narrator already found
two stories current in his time, one making Abraham the hero,
the other Isaac ; the one putting the event at the court of Pha
raoh, the other at the court of Abimelech. Historical criticism
cannot do otherwise than regard these as three legends of one
and the same event. ^
Another example is the story of the slaying of the giant
Goliath. I shall here quote Kent's compact statement :
"The language and representation of chapter 16i"i^, proclaim
its affinity with the later stratum of narrative contained in
8, 12, and 16. The remainder of the chapter, however, is old.
This records the introduction of the youthful David, already ' a
mighty man of valor, and a man of war and prudent of speech '
(16"), to the court of Saul, and of his Avinning the favor of the
king until the latter makes him his armor-bearer. If we had not
discovered that the book of Samuel is a compilation, we should
share with the translators of the Septuagint the difficulty which
led them to leave out a large part of the following chapter in the
fruitless endeavor to reconcile it with the preceding. For chap
ter I71-I8' tells of the victory of the lad David over Goliath, and
of his subsequent introduction to Saul and his court, who are
wholly unacquainted with the youthful champion. Even if this
section be placed before 16i*"^, the difficulty is not entirely re
moved. It is further increased when we read in 2 Sam. 21i°, ' And
there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan, the
son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite,
the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam' (cf. 1 Sam.
17^. Evidently here are distinct narratives handed down thi-ough
diiferent channels. Whether the Goliath mentioned was actuaUy
slain by David or Elhanan can never be absolutely determined.
The statement of 1 Chr. 20', that it was a brother of Goliath
who fell by the hand of Elhanan, seems to be an endeavor of the
later chronicler to harmonize the two statements in Samuel. It is
1 Gen. 1210-20 (J), 20 (E), 266-" (j).
2 See Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews, pp. 64-65. He admits diflerent
versions here.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 559
by no means impossible, however, that in some one of the many
forays of the Philistines into Judah the youthful David slew the
champion of the Philistines. The memory of the act was pre
served among David's kinsmen, the Judeans, until at last it found
a place in the prophetic history which is our great source for the
period. Certainly, some such deed or deeds he performed before
he gained the reputation of being ' a mighty man of valor,' which
he bore when introduced to Saul's court. His subsequent record
confirms this conclusion." i
3. Poetical Sources
A very large amount of ancient poetry is given either in
whole or in fragments in the historical prose of the Old Testa
ment. A large part of this poetry is given by the Ephraimitic
writers, such as the birth-song of Isaac,^ the blessings of Isaac,^
the blessings of the sons of Joseph,* the ode of the Red Sea,^
the oath against Amalek,® Yahweh's Avord establishing the royal
priesthood of Israel,'' the calling of Moses,* the citation from the
book of the wars of Yahweh,® the song of the fountain,!" t}ig Qde
of triumph over Moab,!! the oracles of Balaam,!^ the blessings of
Moses,!^ the song of Deborah,!* the fable of Jotham,!'' the pro
tests of Samuel,!® the extract from the ode of victory.!^
The Judaic writers also cite ancient poetry as follows : The
blessing of Abraham,!^ the blessing of Rebekah,!® oracle about
Jacob,^'' Jacob's blessing,^! song of the ark,^ song of Moses,^^ and
the great epic of the catastrophes of the fall and the deluge,^
the sayings of Samson,^^ the triumph of the Philistines,^ the
hymn of Hannah,^^ a saying of Samuel,^ the refrain of the ode
of triumph over the Philistines,^ a proverb quoted of David,^**
1 Kent, A History ofthe Hebrew People, 1896, Vol. I. pp. 104-105.
2 Gen. 216-''. See p. 393. i' Deut. 33.
» Gen. 2727-28- sm). See p. 394. " Jd. 5. See p. 368.
* Gen. 4815-16' w- 20. See pp. 390, 394. « Jd. 97-". See p. 416.
6 Ex. 15. See p. 379. i« 1 Sam. 123, 1522-23. 29. 33.
8 Ex. 1716. 7 Ex. 19»^. 17 1 Sam. 173*-s6. 45-47. is Qen. 121-3.
» Nu. 126-8. 9 Nu. 21i*-i5. " Gen. 24«o. See p. 387.
1° Nu. 2117-18. See p. 390. 20 Qen. 2523. 21 Qen. 492-27.
11 Nu. 2127-30. See p. 413. 22 nu. loss-se. See p. 387.
12 Nu. 237-10- 18-24^ 243-0- 1^24. 23 Deut. 32i-*3. See p. 390.
2* Gen. 2*-4, and the Judaic parts of the narrative of the Deluge. See p. 396.
25 Jd. 141*- 18, 1518. See p. 416. 27 1 sam. 2i-io. 29 1 Sam. 18'. See p. 385.
26 Jd. 162*. 28 1 Sam. 167. 3o 1 Sam. 24i3.

560 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
the covenant with David,! extract from the book of Yashar ; ^
and also ascribed to David, a saying to Saul,^ the dirge of Saul,*
the dirge of Abner,^ the hymn of victory,^ and the swan song
of David.'^
The Deuteronomic writer only uses a strophe from the ode
of the battle of Beth Horon.*
The priestly narrator begins with the poems of the Creation
and the Deluge,® and also gives the blessing of Jacob,!® ^^^j the
benediction of the priests.!!
There is also inserted in the book of Kings, Isaiah's prophecy
against Sennacherib.!^ The blessing of Melchizedek is given
in a midrash of uncertain origin.!^
The Chronicler preserves two extracts from an ode describ
ing the volunteers of David !* and several hymns of later date.!^
In the aggregate this poetry is more extensive than either
of the two great collections of Hebrew poetry, the Psalter and
Proverbs. The earlier chapters of the gospel of Luke also contain sev
eral canticles and other snatches of poetry derived from a Jew
ish Christian community, including the Annunciations,!® the
Song of Elizabeth,!^ the Magnificat,!^ the Benedietus,!® and the
Nunc Dimittis.2® 4. Ancient Laws
I have recently shown 2! that Hebrew laws may be classified
under the technical terms "words," "commandments," "stat
utes," " judgments," and " laws " ; and that each of these terms
comprehends a group of laws which may be traced to their
archseological sources.
1 2 Sam. 711-16. 5 2 Sam. 333-3*. See p. 390.
2 1 K. 812-13 (LXX). 6 2 Sam. 22 = Ps. 18. See p. 412.
3 1 Sam. 2416. 7 2 Sam. 23i-7. See p. 402.
* 2 Sam. 119-27. See p. 390. 8 jogh. 10i2b-i4». See p. 337.
9 Gen. 1 and the priestly parts of the story of the Deluge, Gen. 6-8.
i» Gen. 281-*. is 1 chr. 168-36.
11 Nu. 62*-26. See p. 388. w Lk. I13-17, sews, 35-37 210-12.
12 2 K. 1921-34- = Is. 3722-35. 17 L]j. 142-15. 'l8 Lk.' 1*^^.
13 Gen. 1410-20. See p. 391. w Lk. 16«-70. 20 Lk. 229-35.
1* 1 Chr. 128-18. See pp. 391, 393.
21 Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edition, 1897, pp. 242 seq.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 561
(a) The earliest type of the Hebrew law is the Word, a
short, terse sentence in the form of "Thou shalt not," or
" Thou shalt," coming from God through the prophets, begin
ning with Moses. The Ten Words on the two tables are of
this type.! go are also the words of the Greater Book of the
Covenant,^ given by the Ephraimitic Avriter, and of the Little
Book of the Covenant,^ given by the Judaic writer. Such
older words are also embedded in the legislation of the three
later codes, — the Deuteronomic code, the code of Holiness,
and the Priest code. They may easily be seen underlying the
material given in these codes.
(6) An ancient type of law-is the statute. These statutes
came from the primitive courts of Israel before the institution
of elders and judges.* These decisions and statutes were
originally short, crisp sentences inscribed upon stones, and set
up in public places for the warning of the people, usually with
the penalty attached. A decalogue of such statutes is pre
sented in Deuteronomy apart from the Deuteronomic code.^
They are in the participial form ; e.g. :
Cursed he whoso setteth light by his father or his mother.
A group of them is found in the Larger Book of the Covenant
also.^ They are found occasionally in the later codes,^ but in
the Deuteronomic code the participial form passes over into the
form of the third person of the verb ; e.g.:
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.'
In the code of Holiness these assume the relative clause ^; e.g. :
Any person that eateth any blood that person shall be cut off from his people.i"
These later statutes evidently came from the courts of the priests.
(c) The Deuteronomic code has a group of laAVS which are
called commandments.^^ These are a further unfolding and a
later type of the Words, and are prophetic in character. They
assume the form of the second person plural. They are char-
1 ;.c., pp. 181 se(?. ^ I.e., pp. 211 seq. ^ I.e., pp. 189 seq.
* Then the rulers were called Dppna and their decisions D'pn.
5 i.e., pp. 239 seg. « I.e., pp. 211 seq. U.c, pp. 2i9 seq. 8 Deut. 22^.
9 The Opn take the form of mpn and the relative clause is either "ItTS tr''K tt>''«
or im B>B3. 10 Lev. 727. " msa, I.e., pp. 246 seq.
2o

562 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURB
acteristic of the Deuteronomic code ; but they are taken up
into the code of Holiness and the Priest code, and are also in
redactional passages of the earlier codes. This is a pentade
of the type :
Ye shall break down their altars.
And ye shall dash in pieces their Mazzeboth,
And ye shall burn their Asherim with fire,
And ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods.
And ye shall destroy their name out of that place.i
(d) Another type of law is the judgment.^ This is a later
form of the statute. It gives the decision of a case by a judge,^
which becomes a legal precedent. It is always in the form of
a temporal or conditional clause. The earliest collection of
these is found in the Greater Book of the Covenant, but they
are also found embedded in all the subsequent codes. This
will serve as a specimen :
" 1. If a man steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it, or sell it,
five cattle shall he pay for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
" 2. If the thief be found while breaking in, and he be smitten
and die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.
" 3. If the sun has risen upon him, there shall be blood-guilti
ness for him. He shall pay heavily.
" 4. And if he have nothing, he shall be sold for his theft.
" 5. If the theft be at all found in his hand alive, from ox to
ass to sheep, he shall pay double."*
In the judgments of the code of Holiness the type assumes
the form of a conditional clause with the word " man " prefaced.^
And a man, if he smite any person of man, shall be put to a violent death.6
In the Priest code a slightly difEerent form is at times assumed.''
(e) It is the usage of the Priest code to use the word " law " ^
for special priestly enactments. In the earlier literature law
is used of the Law in general, and not of particular laws.
Thus we have in the law codes, in the technical terms and
types of law, archseological evidence of their origin in the vari
ous ancient centres, prophetic, judicial, and priestly, which in
successive generations, under divine guidance, gave laws and
codified them.
1 Dent. 123. a ^sijj. « •'5 t»''X. ' ''3 BIX.
2 tsfiiris, I.e., pp. 252 seq. * Ex. 2137-228. 6 Lev. 24". 8 nim.

BIBLICAL HISTORY 563
5. Documentary Sources
We have already seen that it is characteristic of Biblical
History to use earlier documents. The Higher Criticism has
shown the documentary sources of our Hexateuch in four great
narratives. It is also at work on these narratives in detail,
and finds that each of them used still more ancient sources.
There are several distinct strata of the priestly narratives.
There are also two strata of the Deuteronomic writers
clearly marked. The work of distinguishing primary Judaic
and Ephraimitic writers has not as yet reached such decided
results ; but we may confidently expect that it avUI ere long
attain them. Thus we have disclosed in Hebrew historical
composition a working over and a reworking over, in several
stages, of original documents ; which documents, of great an
tiquity themselves, used the sources already pointed out ; and
thus we are enabled to sift the material and arrange it in the
order of its genesis, and to test its real historical value.
So in the New Testament we have at last gained firm ground
in the two written sources of the synoptic Gospels, the original
St. Mark and the Logia of St. Matthew. We have still to de
termine the other written sources of Luke, and to distinguish
the apostolic source or sources of the Gospel of John and the
book of Acts. These problems will eventually be solved ; and
the historical value of the material will be greatly increased by
this thorough sifting and arranging.
There are some who shrink from the late dates to which the
Higher Criticism refers the historical documents of the Bible
in their present form. They think this impairs and threatens
to destroy their historicity. There can be no doubt that near
ness to the event is valuable to the historian, and remoteness in
a measure impairs his testimony. But whUe this is true, yet
the historicity of the material is not really impaired by the
remoteness of the event reported, provided Ave have sufficient
evidence that the historian used for his purpose proper sources
of information, which bridge the chasm between him and the
event. An early writer who did not use documentary sources
is really not as reliable an authority as a later writer who did

564 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
use documentary sources. The evidence that the Higher Criti
cism affords for the fidelity of ancient biblical writers to their
documents — that they used them, just as they were, without any
apparent effort to harmonize them, or to remove discrepancies —
is a strong evidence of their historicity. As Robertson says :
" It seems to be too readily assumed and too readily admitted,
that contemporaneousness and credibility of documents are neces
sarily inseparable, or to be inferred as a matter of course one from
the other. A moment's reflection will show that an event may
have historically occurred, and that we may have good evidence
of it, even although no account of it was written down at the
moment of its occurrence ; as also that false statements in regard
to certain matters of fact may be made, and put on record at the
time of the actual occurrences. The mere writing down of these
at the time does not make them credible, nor does the omission
to write those make them incredible. Assyrian and Egyptian
kings may lie upon stone monuments — very probably they did —
in regard to events of their own day ; and Hebrew historians may
tell us a true story of their history, though they wrote it long
after the events. The point to be established is, that for the bib
lical theory of the history it does not matter who wrote the histori
cal books. The theory does indeed imply that those books con
tain true history ; but its acceptance of the facts does not depend
on a knowledge of who wrote them down ; for on this point the
books themselves are for the most part silent. Moses may have
written much, or may have written little, of what is contained in
the Pentateuch ; it will remain unknown who were the authors of
the succeeding books : our knowledge of these things would not
necessarily guarantee the history. The biblical theory, as an
account of the manner in which things took place, does not stand
or fall by the determination of the contemporaneousness of docu
ments, and the modern theory certainly has no higher claim to the
possession of contemporary sources for its support." i
VIII. The Historic Imagination
After all has been said as to the use of the sources of the
biblical historians, there can be no doubt that they also used
their historical imagination. This is not a fault. It is an
excellence. It is an essential quality of all the best historic
1 Robertson, The Early Beligion of Israel, 1892, pp. 46-47.

BIBLICAL. HISTORY 565
writing in all ages. It is doubtful whether better examples of
its use can be found than in the biblical histories. We have
to remember that the writers of biblical history were aiming
above all to be religious teachers ; and that they did not study
the histories with a purely historic interest, but with a very
practical interest, as prophets or as priests.
As Kent says:
"Prom these many sources the prophets gleaned their illustra
tions and the data wherewith they reconstructed the outlines of
their nation's history, which was itself a supreme illustration of
the truths concerning Jehovah which they wished to impress.
Scientific or historic accuracy they did not claim. One's respect,
however, for the Old Testament and the work of the prophets
deepens when it is perceived that they were subject to all the
limitations of an era when scientific methods of investigation
were unknown and the exact historic spirit still unborn. The
scientific and historical variations are in themselves proofs of the
truth of the divine message which was thus given forth in a
form attractive and intelligible to all." ^
Therefore we have to take into account the point of
view of those priests who wrote the priestly section of the
Hexateuch and the work of the Chronicler. Their priestly
interest determined their choice of material, the use they made
of it, and the colours and shading which their imagination put
upon it. There can be no doubt that they idealize the history
in the interests of the priesthood and the temple and the
Levitical law.
So the point of view of the Deuteronomic writers is the
Deuteronomic Law, and they judge the history by that Law,
and they idealize Moses and the entire previous history in the
light of that Law. Even the earlier prophets, who wrote
the Ephraimitic and Judaic narratives, wrote in the prophetic
interests of their times. ^
We may say with reference to them all that they did not,
and could not, distinguish between truth and the fiction in any
of the older legends and historic documents at their disposal.
They could not separate the bare fact from its mythical, leg-
1 Kent, A History of the Hebrew People, 1896, p. 12.
2 See Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new ed., 1897, pp. 126 seq.

566 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
endary, and poetic embellishment. Indeed, they preferred it
as thus embellished, for it was more appropriate in this form
for their purpose of instruction. Furthermore, it is evident
that they did not hesitate to indulge themselves in historical
fiction where they had not suflEicient historic information and
the lessons had yet to be taught. Midrashim of this sort are
incorporated here and there throughout the history. It is only
by the use of the Higher Criticism assisted by historical criti
cism that they can be eliminated.
There is no evidence that the Divine Spirit guided these his
torians in their historic investigations so as to keep them from
historic errors. The Divine Spirit guided them in their re
ligious instruction in the lessons they taught from history.
But there is no evidence of other guidance. The evidence is
all against such guidance as prevented them from making
historic errors. They certainly did record error. The words
of Ottley are appropriate here :
" On a survey of the ground we have traversed, it appears that
there are good reasons for believing that the inspired writers give
a presentation of the facts which is not primarily historical, but
prophetic, their main design being that of religious edification.
It follows that we can await with equanimity the verdict of
criticism in regard to the exact historical worth of the narra
tive. That there is a great regard for certain outstanding facts
of the history is unquestionable, but the facts are often col
oured by high imaginative power, and are estimated according
to moral significance. In regard to minor details there is ample
room for diversity of opinion. To take two passing illustra
tions. The religious lessons of Samson's history are not mar
terially affected by any particular view respecting the precise
character of the narrative which describes his career. The por
trait of David is not the less a treasure for all time because to a
great extent it is idealized by devout writers of a later age. The
important question is whether, in their interpretation of Israel's
history, the prophetic Avriters of the Old Testament are fundamen
tally wrong. We have found reasons for supposing that in its
general point of view 'the prophetic philosophy of history' is
true, and we may accept the cautious summary of Professor Eob
ertson as fairly stating our conclusions. ' The great events,' he
says, ' of Israel's history, the turning-points, the points determinar
tive of the whole life and historj-, are attested by the nation at

BIBLICAL HISTORY 567
the earliest time at which we are enabled to look for materials on
which an opinion can be based. No reason can be given for the
invention of them just at this time, or for the significance which
the prophets assign to them. It may be that a fond memory
invested with a halo of glory the great fathers of the race;
it may also be that a simple piety saw wonders where a modern
age would see none. Yet the individuality of the characters is
not destroyed, nor are the sequence of events and the delineations
of character shown to be the work of a fitful and unbridled imagi
nation.' " 1
It is quite true that from this point of view it is difiicult to
draw the line between historic fact and historic fiction; and
to many minds it is painful to transfer that material to the
realm of fiction which they had always supposed was safe in
the realm of historic fact. It is still more difiicult for some
minds to be unable to draw the lines and to be left in uncer
tainty. Nevertheless this is the exact situation in which we
are left in the study of Biblical History ; and the only thing we
can do, so far as the study of that history is concerned, is faith
fully to apply the principles of Historical Criticism and to abide
by the results. We cannot change the facts, discolour them or
distort them, in order to ease the intellectual and moral difficul
ties of those who are loath to accept the results of Historical
Criticism. If these persons are unwilling to make the investi
gations themselves, they must be content to abide the decision
that may be reached by scholars who reverently and conscien
tiously, and yet rigorously and thoroughly, make the necessary
researches. But apart from the interests of history, it makes not the
slightest difference so far as the teaching of the Bible as to
faith and morals is concerned, how greatly the proportions of
fact and fiction, of the real and ideal, may be changed in the
progress of Historical Criticism, so long as the great historic
events upon which our religion depends remain unimpeached.
To impeach the historicity of the incarnation and the resurrec
tion of our Lord destroys the Christian religion. Some critics
seek to do this by the use of Historical Criticism ; but Histori
cal Criticism is really the sure weapon which God has put into
1 Ottley, Aspects ofthe Old Testament, 1897, pp. 156-158.

568 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
our hands to vindicate everything which is really historical.
Historical Criticism enables us successfully to sift the entire
material and to separate the wood, hay, straw, and stubble of
human opinion from the gold and gems of the real historical
and everlasting city and kingdom of God.
At Constantinople one sees the greatest and noblest of all
Christian churches transformed into a Mahometan mosque.
The cross was displaced by the crescent, the towers by the
minarets, and the beautiful mosaic work, telling in pictorial
art the wonders of the life of Christ and of Christian history
encircling the dome, was plastered over and hidden from the
eyes of men for centuries. The plastering is beginning to dis
appear, and keen eyes can see through it the outline of the
mosaic work which still exists behind. Some day when the
Church has gained possession of this metropolitan cathedral of
the East, it will remove all this plastering, cut down the cres
cent and the minarets, elevate the cross, and the story of
Christ and Christianity will once more shine from every part
of the Church of the Divine Wisdom. Just so the true Biblical
History has been plastered over for centuries by traditional
theories. Men have been adding layer on layer to these tradi
tions. The Reformation began to rub them off. But the
reactionary age conserved those which were left and plastered
others on. Modern Historical Criticism Avill not cease its work
until they have all been removed once for all and forever.
Critics are determined to know the true Biblical History for
themselves and for all men.

CHAPTER XXIII
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Biblical Theology, as a theological discipline, had its
origin in the effort to throw off from the Bible the accumulated
traditions of scholasticism, guard it from the perversions of
mysticism, and defend it from the attacks of rationalism. Its
growth has been through a struggle with these abnormal ten
dencies. It has finally developed into a well-defined discipline,
presenting the unity of the Scriptures as a divine organism,
and justly estimating the various human types of religion, doc
trine, and morals.
I. The Four Types op Theology
The Bible is the divine revelation as it has become fixed and
permanent in written documents of various persons in different
periods of history, collected in one body called the Canon, or
Holy Scripture. All Christian theology should be founded on
the Bible, and yet the theologians of the various Christian
churches, and of the several periods of Christian history, have
differed greatly in their use of the Bible. Each age has its
own providential problems to solve in the progress of our race
and seeks in the Divine Word for their solution, looking from
the point of view of its own immediate and peculiar necessities.
Each temperament of human nature approaches the Bible from
its own needs. The subjective and the objective, the form and
the substance of knowledge, the real and the ideal, are ever
readjusting themselves to the advancing generations. If the
Bible were a codex of laws, or a system of doctrines, there
would still be room for difference of attitude and interpretation ;
but inasmuch as the Bible is rather a collection of various kinds
569

570 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
of literature, — poetry and prose, history and story, oration and
epistle, sentence of wisdom and dramatic incident, — and is, as
a whole, concrete rather than abstract, the room for difference
of attitude and interpretation is greatly enhanced. Principles
are not always distinctly given ; they must ordinarily be derived
from a concrete body of truth and facts, and concrete relations ;
and everything depends upon the point of view, method, process,
and the spirit with which the study is conducted.
1. Thus the mystic spirit arising from an emotional nature
and unfolding into a more or less refined sesthetic sense, seeks
union and communion with God, direct, immediate, and vital,
through the religious feeling. It either strives by mystic
insight to break through the forms of religion to the spiritual
substance, or else by the imagination sees in the sensuous
outlines of divine manifestation and its colours of beauty and
grandeur, allegories to be interpreted by the religious agsthetic
taste. The religious element is disproportionately unfolded,
to the neglect of the doctrinal and ethical. This mystic spirit
exists in all ages and in most religions, but it was especially
prominent in the Ante-Nicene Church, and in Greek and
Oriental Christianity, and it was distinguished by intense
devotion and too exclusive absorption in the contemplation of
God and of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savioui'. Its exegesis is
characterized by the allegorical method.
2. The scholastic spirit seeks union and communion with
God by means of well-ordered forms. It searches the Bible
for well-defined systems of law and doctrine by which to rule
the Church and control the world. It arises from an intel
lectual nature, and grows into a more or less acute logical
sense, and a taste for systems of order. This spirit exists in
all ages and in most religions, but it was especially dominant
in the middle age of the Church and in Latin Christianity.
It is distinguished by an intense legality and by too exclusive
attention to the works of the law, and a disproportionate con
sideration of the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man,
and the satisfaction to be rendered to God for sin. In biblical
studies it is distinguished by the legal, analytic method of
interpretation, carried on at times with such hair-splitting dis-

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 571
tinction and subtilty of reasoning that Holy Scripture be
comes, as it Avere, a magician's book. Through the device of
the manifold sense the Bible is made as effectual to the purpose
of the dogmatician for proof texts as are the sacraments to the
priests in their magical operation. The doctrinal element pre
vails over the religious and ethical. Dogma and institution
alike work ex opere operato.
3. The speculative spirit seeks union and communion Avith
God through the human reason, and, like the mystic spirit,
disregards the form, but from another point of vicAv. Under
the guide of conscience it develops into a more or less pure
ethical sense. It works with honest doubt and inquisitive
search after truth, for the solution of the great problems of the
world and man. It is distinguished by an intense rationality
and morality. It yearns for a conscience at peace with God
and working in faith toward God and love toward man. This
has been the prevailing spirit in the Germanic world since the
Reformation, and is still the characteristic spirit of our age.
The Church, its institutions and doctrines, the Sacred Script
ures themselves, are subjected to earnest criticism in the
honest search for moral and redemptive truth, and the eternal
ideas of right, which are good forever, and are approved by
the reason. The ethical element prevails over the religious
and the doctrinal.
4. The practical spirit seeks union and communion with
God in various forms of Christian life and work. It aims to
obey the word of God and do the will of God. It is distin
guished by an intense interest and enthusiasm for all kinds of
religious activity. In biblical studies it seeks above all, prac
tical exegesis and the application of the teachings of Holy
Scripture to human conduct. This spirit is a special charac
teristic of the Anglo-Saxon race, and it is dominant in British
and American Christianity.
5. The truly catholic spirit combines what is true and of
advantage in all these tendencies of human nature. Born of
the Holy Spirit, it is ever appropriating all the faculties and
powers of man, and eliminating therefrom defective and abnor
mal tendencies and habits. It is reverent, believing, loving

572 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
approach to God through the means of grace. It is above all
vital union and communion with the Triune God in the forms
of divine appointment, and the love and service of God and the
brethren with all the faculties. It uses the form in order to
the substance. It is inquiring, obedient, devout, and reforma
tory. It combines the subject and the object of knowledge,
and aims to realize the ideal. It unites the devotional Avith
the legal and moral habits and attitudes. It strives to unite
in the Church the various types of human experience in order
to complete manhood, and the completion of the kingdom of
God in the golden age of the Messiah.
This spirit is the spirit of our Saviour, who speaks to us
through four evangelists in the various types, in order to give
us a complete and harmonious representation of Himself. This
is the spirit which combines the variety of the Old and New
Testament writers into the unity of the Holy Spirit. This is
the spirit which animated the Christian Church in its great
advancing epochs, when a variety of leaders, guided by the
Holy Spirit, combined the types into comprehensive move
ments. This was the underlying and moving principle of the
Reformation, where vital religion combined with great intel
lectual activity and moral earnestness to produce the churches
of Protestant Christianity.
The great initial movements by which the Christian Church
advanced in every age combined the variety of forces into
harmonious operation; but these in every case gave way to
reaction and decline, in which the various forces separated
themselves, and some particular one prevailed. So it was
again in the seventeenth century after the Reformation. The
successors of the Reformers, declining from their vital religion
and moral vigour, broke up into various antagonistic parties
in the different national churches, in hostility with one another,
marring the harmony of catholic truth and the principles of the
Reformation. The reaction first began with those who had
inherited the scholastic spirit from the Middle Age, and sub
stituted a Protestant scholasticism for the mediseval scholasti
cism in the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the continent,
and a Protestant ecclesiasticism for a papal ecclesiasticism in

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 573
the churches of Great Britain. The Scriptures again became the
slaves of dogmatic systems and ecclesiastical machinery, and
again they were reduced to the menial service of furnishing
proof texts to the foregone conclusions of dogmaticians and
ecclesiastics. The French Huguenots and British Puritans, in their strug
gles against persecution, maintained a vital religion, and
reacted to the unfolding of the mystic type of theology. They
devoted their attention to works of piety, to union and com
munion with God, and to the practical application of the
Scriptures to Christian life, holding fast to the covenant of
grace as the principle of their entire theology, while they
distinguished between a theoretical and a practical divinity,
presenting the former in the common Reformed sense, but
advancing the latter to a very high degree of development, the
best expression of which is found in the Westminster s.ymbols.!
Puritanism had, however, within itself antagonistic elements,
which separated themselves after the composition of the West
minster standards, into various types, and the Puritan spirit
largely became stereotyped in the Puritanical spirit. On the
one side it reacted to scholasticism in the school of the great
Independent divine, John Owen, and on the other into mys
ticism, in the many separating churches of Great Britain.
1 John Dury, one of the Westminster divines, a Scotchman, the great peace
maker of his age, in his work, An Earnest Plea for Gospel Communion, sheds
much light upon this subject. He defines practical divinity to be "a system or
collection of divine truth relating to the practice of piety." The great majority
of the writings of the Puritan divines and Westminster men are upon this
theme. It embraces Chaps. XIX.-XXXI. of the Westminster Confession of
Faith, the larger part of the Catechisms, and, indeed, the more characteristic,
the abler, and the better parts. William Gouge (also member of Westminster
Assembly) in 1633 headed a petition of the London ministers to Archbishop
Ussher to frame a system of Practical Divinity, as a bond of union among
Protestants, distinguishing between essentials and circumstantials. John Dury,
in 1654, presents such an outline himself, working it out on the principle of the
covenant of grace. He says: " Nor is it possible (as I conceive) ever to unite
the Professors of Christianity to each other, to heal their breaches and divisions
in Doctrine and Practice, and to make them live together, as brethren in one
spirit ought to do, without the same sense of the Covenant by which they may
be made to perceive the terms upon which God doth unite all those that are
His children unto Himself." — p. 19, An Earnest Plea for Gospel Communion,
London, 1654.

574 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Puritanism passed over to the continent through William
Ames and others, and in the school of Cocceius maintained a
more biblical cast of doctrine in the system of the covenants.
It afterward gave birth to Pietism in Reformed and Lutheran
Germany, producing the biblical school of Bengel and the
Moravians; and subsequently bursting forth in England in
the form of Methodism, which is a genuine child of Puritanism
in the stress that it lays upon piety and a Christian life,
although it shares with all these movements that have grown
out of Puritanism the common fault of undue emphasis upon
the religious element, and of a more or less exaggerated mysti
cism, to the neglect of the doctrinal and the ethical.
The school of Saumur in France, the school of Calixtus in
Germany, and the Cambridge Platonists in England (who were
Puritan in origin and training) revived the ethical type and
strove to give the human reason its proper place and functions
in matters of religion, and prepared the way for a broad, com
prehensive Church. They were accompanied, however, by a
more active movement, which, by an undue emphasis of the
rational and the ethical, followed John Goodwin,! Biddle,^ and
Hobbes ^ into a movement which in England assumed the form
of Deism, in France of Atheism, in Holland of Pantheism,
and in Germany of Rationalism. And thus the four great
types became antagonized both within the national churches,
in struggling parties, and without the national churches, in
separating churches and hostile forms of religion and irreligion,
of philosophy and of science. And so the spirit of the Refor
mation was crushed between the contending parties, and its
voice drowned for a while by the clamour of partisanship. The
struggle continued into the present century, but has been modi
fied since Schleiermacher in the growth of the evangelical spirit
1 John Goodwin was the greatest leader of the Independents in their struggle
against a dominant Presbyterianism. He was a most prolific writer and skilful
combatant. It is astonishing how much he has been neglected by the Inde
pendents, who eventually preferred the scholastic Owen and the mystic Thomas
Goodwin to him.
2 Biddle was the leader of the Unitarians of the period of the Common
wealth, the author of the Larger and Shorter Catechism of the Unitarians, in
opposition to the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
3 Hobbes was the great political philosopher of the period.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 575
SO as to become the potent reconciling force of the nineteenth
century.! II. The Rise of Biblical Theology
It was in the midst of this conflict of theological types that
Biblical Theology had its origin and historical development.
It was first during the conflict between Rationalism and Super
naturalism in Germany that the need of a Biblical Theology
began to be felt. Ploly Scripture was the common battle-field
of Protestants, and each party strove to present the Scripture
from its own peculiar point of view; and it became important
to distinguish the teachings of the Scripture itself from the
teachings of the schools and the theologians of the contending
parties. This was attempted almost simultaneously from both
sides of the conflict. G. T. Zacharia, a pupil of Baumgarten
at Halle, and a decided supematuralist, ^ sought to compare the
biblical ideas with the Church doctrine in order to correct and
purify the latter. He would base Dogmatics on the Scriptures,
which alone can prove and correct the system. The author
speaks of the advancing economy of redemption, but has no
conception of an organic development.^ Soon after, C. F.
Ammon issued his work on Biblical Theology.* Ammon was
a rationalist. Miracles and prophecy were rejected as unten
able because they would not bear critical and historical inves
tigation. Ammon would gather material from the Bible for a
dogmatic system without regard to the system that might be
built upon it.^ Thus from both sides the scholastic system
was undermined by the scriptural investigation.
1 The various types are not always found in their strength and purity as
divergent forces, but frequently in a more or less mixed condition. Thus the
Cambridge Platonists, while predominantly rational and ethical, were also char
acterized by the mystic spirit, especially in the case of Henry Moore. The
Puritans, William Perkins and William Ames, combined the scholastic and
mystic types. The scholastic and the rational were combined in Calixtus and
Arminius. This might be illustrated by numerous examples.
2 Bibl. Theol. oder Untersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten
theologischen Lehren, 1772.
3 See Tholuck's view of him in Herzog, Beal Ency., Ite Auf., xviii. p. 351.
* Entwurf einer reinen Bibl. Theologie, 1792, and Biblische Theologie, 1801.
5 Tholuck regards his Biblical Theology as a fundamental one for the his
torico-critical rationalism. See Herzog, Ite Aufl., xix. pp. 54 seq.

576 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
In the meanwhile Michaelis, Griesbach, and Eichhorn had
given a new impetus to biblical studies. J. F. Gabler first
laid the foundations of Biblical Theology as a distinct theo
logical discipline.! He was the pupil and friend of Eichhorn
and Griesbach, who influenced him and largely determined his
theological position. He presented the historical principle as
the distinguishing feature of Biblical Theology over against a
system of Dogmatics. ^ Gabler himself did not work out his
principles into a system, but left this as an inheritance to his
successors. Lorenzo Baur^ defines Biblical Theology as a
development, pure and unmixed with foreign elements, of the
religious theories of the Jews, of Jesus, and the apostles,
according to the different historical periods, the varied acquire
ments and views of the sacred writers, as derived from their
writings. He sought to determine the universal principles
which would apply to all times and individuals. He would
from the shell of biblical ideas get the kernel of the universal
religion.* De Wette ^ sought to separate the essential from the
non-essential by religious philosophical reflection. He would
exclude the local, the temporal, and the individual in order to
attain the universal religion. He made the advance of treating
Biblical Theology in periods, and of distinguishing the charac
teristic features of Hebraism and Judaism, of Christ and His
apostles; but in his treatment the dogmatic element has too
great prominence given to it, so that he justly gives his work the
1 In an academic discourse : dejusto diserimine theologies biblices et dogmatical
regundisque recte utriusque finibus, 1787.
2 Gabler was a man of the type of Eichhorn and Herder, on the borders
of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from whom the fructifying influ
ences upon the Evangelical Theology of the nineteenth century went forth.
He laboured for many years as professor at Jena, and worked for the ad
vancement of Biblical and Historical Learning with an intense moral earnest
ness. 3 Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., 1800-1802.
* P. C. Kaiser's Biblische Theologie oder Judaismus und Christianismus
nach grammatisch-historischen Interpretationsmethode und nach einer frei-
muthigen Stellung in die kritisch vergleichende Universalgeschichte der Belig
ion und die universale Beligion (Bd. I., 1813 ; II. a, 1814 ; II. b., 1821) is of
the same point of view.
* Bibl. Dogmatik des Alt. und Neuen Testaments oder kritische Darstellung
der Beligionslehre des Hebraismus, des Judenthums, des Urchristenthums, 1813,
3te Aufl., 1831.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 577
title, Biblical Dogmatics.^ W. Vatke,^ in 1835, issued an able
and instructive work, discussing fully the essential character
of the biblical religion in relation to the idea of religion. He
divides his theme into two parts, presenting the religion of the
Old and the New Testaments. The first part is subdivided
into two stages : the Bloom and the Decay, historically traced.
The author also divides into a general and a special part ; the
former alone has been published, and is entirely speculative
in character. It does not consider the individualities of the
authors, and shows no real advance beyond L. Baur and De
Wette ; ^ although he prepares the way for the school of Reuss,
by his use of the philosophy of Hegel for a new conception of
the development of the religion of Israel.* Daniel von Coin ^
carries out the historical method more thoroughly than any of
his predecessors, and presents a much more complete system,
but he does not escape the speculative trammels of his prede
cessors. He presents the following principles of Biblical
Theology :
"(1) To carefully distinguish the times and authors, and the
mediate as well as the immediate presentation of doctrine; (2) To
strongly maintain the religious ideas of the authors themselves ;
(3) To present and explain the symbolical mythical forms and
their relation to the pure ideas and convictions of the authors ;
(4) To explain the relation of the authors and their methods to
the external conditions of the people, the time and the place
under which they were trained ; (6) To search for the origin of
the ideas in their primitive forms." *
1 L. F. 0. Baumgarten Crusius' Grundz'dge der Biblischen Theologie, 1828,
is of slight importance, reacting from the advances made by L. Baur and De
Wette. 2 Beligion des Alten Testaments nach den kanonisehen Buchern entwiekelt,
as the flrst part of a Biblical Theology.
3 It has recently come into prominence, owing to the author's views of Old
Testament Literature, which are in agreement with those of Reuss and Kuenen,
at the basis of the Critical Theories of Wellhausen. J. C. F. Steudel's Vor
lesungen uber die Theologie des Alten Testaments nach dessen Tode heraus-
gegeben von G. F. Oehler, 1840, is still on the older ground, taking Biblical
Theology to be "the systematic survey of the religious ideas which are found
in the writings of the Old Testament," including the Apocryphal, without dis
tinction of periods or authors or writings, all arranged under the topics : Man,
God, and the relation between God and Man.
* See p. 499. ^ Bibl. Theol., 1836. o Bibl. Theologie, L p. 30.
2p

578 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
De Wette and Von Coin recognize a difference of the authors,
but not from any inner peculiarity of the authors themselves,
but from the external conditions of time, place, and circum
stances. The authors are placed side by side without any real
conception of their differences or of their unity. The historical
principle is applied and worked out, but in an external fashion,
and the relation to the universal religion and to other religions
is considered, rather than the interrelation of the various doc
trines and types of the Scriptures themselves.
III. Development of Biblical Theology
This was the condition of affairs when Strauss issued his
Life qf Jesus, and sought, by arraying one New Testament
writer against another, as F. Baur justly charges against him,
to prove the incompetence of all the witnesses and reduce the
life of Jesus to a myth.! F. Baur himself sought by the
historico-critical process to show the natural development of
Christianity out of the various forces brought into conflict with
each other in the first and second Christian centuries, reducing
the life and teachings of Jesus to a minimum. Neander grap
pled with the mythical hypothesis of Strauss, and the develop
ment hypothesis of F. Baur, and sought to construct a life of
Jesus and a history of the apostolic Church, resting upon a
sound historical criticism of the New Testament writings.^ He
introduced a new principle into Biblical Theology, and made it
a section in his History of the Apostles. He sought to distin
guish the indiAddualities of the various sacred writers in their
conception of Christianity and to unite them in a higher unity.
" The doctrine of Christ was not to be given to man as a stiff
and dead letter, in a fixed and infiexible form, but, as the word of
IF. Baur, Krit. Untersueh. in d. kann. Evang., p. 71; F. Baur, Kirchen-
geschichte des 19 Jahrhunderts, p. 397. Strauss replies in his Leben Jesu f. d.
deutsche Volk., p. 64. See pp. 493 seq.
2 Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche dureh die
Apostel, 1832, 5te Aufl., 1862 ; translated into English in Biblical Cabinet, Edin
burgh, 1842 ; Bohn's Library, London, 1856 ; translated by J. E. Ryland, revised
and corrected according to the 4th German edition by E. G. Robinson, N. Y.,
1865.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 579
the Spirit and of life, was to be proclaimed in and by its life in
living variation and variety. Men enlightened by the Divine
Spirit caught up these doctrines and appropriated them in a living
manner according to their respective differences in education and
life. These differences were to manifest the Uving unity, the rich
ness and depth of the Christian spirit according to the various
modes of human conception, unconsciously complementing and
explaining each other. For Christianity is meant for all men,
and can adapt itself to the most varied human characters, trans
form them and unite them in a higher unity. Por the various
peculiarities and fundamental tendencies in human nature are
designed to work in and with one another at all times for the
realization of the idea of humanity, the presentation of the king
dom of God in humanity."!
Neander thus gave to Biblical Theology a new and important
feature that was indispensable for the further development of
the discipline. Neander's presentation has still many defects.
It is kept in a too subordinate position to his history. But he
takes the stand so necessary for the growth of Biblical Theology
that the theology of the various authors is to be determined
from their own characters and the essential and fundamental
conceptions of their own writings. Neander presents as the
central idea of Paul, the Law and righteousness, which give
the connection as well as contrast between his original and final
conceptions. The fundamental idea of James is, that Chris
tianity is the perfect law. John's conception is, that divine life
is in communion with the Redeemer ; death, in estrangement
from Him.
Schmid, a colleague of F. Baur at Tubingen, first gave
BibUcal Theology its proper place in Theological Encyclo-
p8edia.2 He defined Biblical Theology as belonging essen
tially to the department of Exegetical Theology. "We
understand by Biblical Theology of the New Testament the
historico-genetic presentation of Christianity as this is given
in the canonical writings of the New Testament ; a discipline
which is essentially distinguished from Systematic Theology
1 Gesch. d. Pf. und Leit., Gotha, 5te Aufl., p. 501.
2 In his invaluable essay, "Ueber das Interesse und den Stand d. Bibl. Theo.
des Neu. Test, in unserer Zeit," Tiibinger Zeitschrift f. Theo., 4te Heft., 1838,
pp. 126, 129.

580 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
by its historical character, while by its limitation to the bibli
cal writings of the New Testament, it is separated from His
torical Theology, and is characterized as a part of Exegetical
Theology. Of this last it constitutes the summit by which
Exegetical Theology is connected with the roots of Systematic
as well as Historical Theology, and even touches Practical
Theology." Schmid regards Christianity as the fulfilment
of the Old Covenant, which consists of Law and Promise.!
He seeks to present Christianity in its unity with the Old
Testament as well as in its contrast thereto. He thus gains
four possibilities of doctrine, which are realized in the four
principal apostles. James presents Christianity as the fulfilled
Law ; Peter, as the fulfilled Promise ; Paul, as contrasted with
the Law ; and John, as contrasted with both Law and Promise.
For many years he lectured on the Theology of the New Tes
tament. These lectures were published after his death by
his pupils. 2
Oehler (G. F.), also of the university of Tubingen, takes
the same position with reference to the Old Testament.^ He
defines the Theology of the Old Testament as " the historico-
genetic presentation of the revealed religion contained in the
canonical writings of the Old Testament." His lectures were
first issued in 1873-1874,* by his son. Oehler distinguishes in
the Old Testament three parts : Mosaism, Prophetism, and the
Chokma — the first fundamental ; the Prophetism representing
the objective side, and the Chokma the subjective ; these two
unfolding in parallelism with one another. Thus he marks au
advance in the Old Testament in the discrimination of types,
corresponding with the distinguishing of types in the New
Testament by Neander and Schmid.* Schmid and Oehler
combine in giving us organic systems of Biblical Theology
1 Bib. Theo., p. 367.
¦' Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1853, 4th ed., 1869. Translated
into English, but without the invaluable definitions at the beginning of the sec
tions. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1870.
3 Prolegomena zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1845.
* Theologie des Alten Test., 2 Bde., 2te Aufl., 1883, 3te Aufl., 1891.
^ His work has been translated into English in Clark's Library, Edin., 2 vols.,
1874 ; also revised and edited by Prof. G. E. Day, N.Y., 1883.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 581
as the highest point of Exegetical Theology, with a distinction
of types combining in a higher unity, and with Neander intro
duce a new epoch in Biblical Theology.!
On the other hand, F. Baur attempts to account for the
peculiarities of the New Testament writings, as well as the
origin of the Christian Church, by his theory of the two oppos
ing forces, the Judaistic and the Pauline, gradually uniting in
the later writings of the New Testament in the second century
into a more conservative and mediating theology, reaching its
culmination in the Johannean writings, which are at an eleva
tion above the peculiarities of the earlier stages of development.
Biblical Theology is to Baur a purely historical discipline. In
it the scriptural doctrine loosens itself from the fetters of the
dependent relation in which it has been to the dogmatic sys
tems of the Church, and will more and more emancipate itself
therefrom. New Testament Theology is that part of Historical
Theology which has to present the doctrine of Jesus as well as
the doctrinal systems resting upon it, in the order and connec
tion of their historical development, according to the peculiar
characteristics by which they are distinguished from one
another, so far as this can be ascertained in the New Testa
ment writings. Baur strongly objects to the idea of Neander
and his school, that there is a unity in the variety of New Tes
tament doctrines, which is the very opposite of his own view
of a development out of contrasted and irreconcilable forces.
Baur justly admits that the doctrines of Jesus must be at the
foundation. The doctrine of Jesus must be drawn chiefiy from
the discourses in Matthew, yet these not in their present form,
as given in our Greek Gospel, but in their original form, to be
determined by sound criticism. The essential principle of
Christianity and of the doctrine of Jesus is the ethical prin-
1 The posthumous lectures of Professor Havernick, of Konigsberg, on Bibl.
Theo. d. Alt. Test., were published by Hahn in 1848, and a revised edition by
Hermann Schultz, in 1863, but are of no special value. Prof. H. Messner,
of Berlin, in 1856, published Die Lehre der Apostel in the spirit of Neander.
He begins with the system of James, Jude, and Peter ; makes the discourse of
Stephen a transition to the Pauline system, and gives the theology of Paul with
that of the Epistle to the Hebrews appended, and concludes with the theology
of John and the Apocalypse. He finally gives a searching comparison of the
various forms of apostolic doctrine, seeking a unity in the variety.

582 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ciple ; the law is not only enlarged by the Gospel, but the
Gospel is contrasted with it. They are related as the outer to
the inner, the act to the intention, the letter to the spirit.
" Christianity presented in its original form in the doctrine of
Jesus is a religion breathing the purest moral STpirit." "This
moral elemelit, as it is made known in the simple sentences of
the sermon on the mount, is the purest and clearest content
of the doctrine of Jesus, the real kernel of Christianity, to
which all the rest, however significant, stands in a more or less
secondary and accidental relation. It is that on which the
rest must be built, for however little it has the form and colour
of that Christianity which has become historical, yet it is in
itself the entire Christianity. " !
Neander and Baur, the great historical rivals of our century,
thus attain the same end in John's contemplation which recon
ciles and harmonizes all the previous points of view. Accord
ing to Neander and his school, the variety therein attains a
higher unity ; according to Baur and his school, the contra
dictory positions are reconciled in an ideal spirit which is
indifferent to all mere externals. The lectures of Baur were
published after his death in 1864.^
Professor Reuss, of Strassburg, in 1852 issued his History of
Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age.* In the Preface to
the last edition he states :
"The unity which has been sought at the end of the work, I
have dwelt upon where the history itself points to it — namely,
at the beginning. It is in the primitive Gospel, in the teaching of
the Lord Himself, that we find the focus of those rays which the
prism of analysis places before us, separately in their difEerent
shades of colour. As it has not been my design to produce a criti
cal or theoretical, but a historical work, I have necessarily followed
the natural evolution of the ideas, nor did it come within my prov
ince to violate this order to subserve any practical purpose, how
ever lawful."
1 Neu. Test. Theologie, pp. 64 seq. See p. 499.
2 Vorlesungen iiber Neutestamentliehe Theologie.
3 Histoire de la Theologie ChrUienne au Siecle Apostolique, 2 tomes. A
translation of the 3d edition into English was published by Hodder & Stoughton,
London, in 2 vols., 1872.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 583
It is the distinguishing merit of Reuss that he sets the
Biblical Theology of the New Testament in the midst of the
religious movements of the times. He begins with a discus
sion of Judaism, e.g. the theology of the Jews subsequent to
the exile and in its various sects, then considers John the Bap
tist and the Forerunners. In the second part he treats of the
Gospels, in the third part the Jewish-Christian Theology, in
the fourth the Pauline, and in the fifth the theology of John.
But the historical method absorbs and overwhelms the induc
tive, and he justly names his work a History of Christian
Theology in Apostolic Times. Standing with the school of
Baur in contending for the position of the discipline in His
torical Theology, he differs from it in his giving up the recon-
ciUation of contrasts in John's Theology. In the same year,
1852, Lutterbeck,! a Roman Catholic writer, goes even more
thoroughly than Reuss into the doctrinal systems in the midst of
which Christianity arose : (1) The Heathen systems ; (2) the
Jewish ; (3) the mixed sj'-stems and heresies of the apos
tolic period. He then passes over to the Christian system,
distinguishing the various types as did Neander, and shows
their genesis and internal harmony in an able and thorough
manner, distinguishing three stages of apostolic doctrine :
(1) From the death of Christ to the Apostolic Council, the
original type ; (2) the time of contrasted Adews, 50-70 ;
(3) the period of mediation, or the later life of the apostle
John, 70-100 A.D.
G. L. Hahn 2 reacts to the historical ground without dis
tinction of types. B. Weiss ^ has also been influenced by the
conflict between the schools of Neander and Baur to take an
intermediate position. He excludes the life of Jesus and the
great events of apostolic history, and also restricts Biblical
Theology to the variety of the types of doctrine and aban
dons the effort for a higher unity. Within the limits chosen
by the author his work is elaborate and thorough, and a most
1 Neutestamentliehen Lehrbegriffe, 2t6 Bde., 1852.
2 Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol I., 1854.
^ Lehrb. d. Bibl. Theo. d. N. T., 1868, 3te Aufi., 1880. Translated into
English in Clark's Library, Vol. I., 1883.

584 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
valuable addition to the literature, but it does not show any
progress in his conception of the discipline.
Hermann Schultz, in 1869,! i^id stress upon the historico-
critical method of the school of Baur. He includes reUgion
as well as dogmatics and ethics in his scheme, excluding the
apocryphal books and limiting himself to the canonical Avrit
ings. His work is elaborate and thorough in its working out
of details, but does not show any real pr ogress. ^
In his Biblical Theology, 1870, Van Oosterzee* does not
enter much into details or present a thorough-going compari
son, yet he seeks the higher unity as well as the individual
types. He regards Biblical Theology as a part of Historical
Theology, but his treatment of it is after the style of Neander.
He does not estimate the life of Jesus and the religious life of
the apostolic Church. He neglects the religious and ethical
elements, and as a whole must be regarded as falling behind
the later treatises on the subject. Bernard* issued a brief
work in the spirit of Neander, bat without any advance in
the working out of the theme.
Ewald in 1871-1876 issued his massive and profound work.^
The first volume treats of the doctrine of the Word of God,
the second of the doctrine of God, the third of the doctrines of
the world and man, the fourth of the life of men and of the
kingdom of God. These divisions of the subject-matter are
simple and comprehensive, and the treatment, especiaUy in the
first volume, is admirable and profound ; and yet the historical
side of the discipline falls too much into the background ; so
that we must regard the work on the whole as a decline from
the higher position of the schools of Neander and Baur. In-
1 Alttestamentliehe Theologie, 2te Aufl., 1878; 5te Aufl., 1896.
2 In his last editions Schultz has gone over to the school of Wellhausen, and
reconstructed his Biblical Theology so as to distinguish a Prophetic and Levitical
period, and abandons the historical development, and thus like Ewald declines
from the advanced position of F. Baur and Neander.
3 Bibl. Theo. of the New Test. Translated from the Dutch by M. J. Evans.
N.Y., 1876.
* Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, Bampton Lectures, 1864, 2d ed.,
1867. ^ Lehre der Bibel von Gott oder Theologie des Alten und Neuen Bundes.,
4 Bde.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 585
deed, Old Testament Theology was not yet ripe for the treat
ment that was necessary to bring it up to the standard of the
New Testament Theology. The older views of the biblical
writings of the Old Testament, both of the Critical and Tradi
tional sides, were too mechanical and uncertain. There was
needed a great overturning of the soil of the Old Testament
by a radical critical study of its religion and history, such as
Strauss had made in the New Testament. Such a treatment
was prepared for by Vatke, Reuss, and Graf,! j-^^ gpg^ carried
out by Kuenen,^ and then by Julius Wellhausen.^ These dis
tinguished three great codes and sections in the Pentateuch,
found two antagonistic elements in the Old Testament Script
ures, ventured upon a radical reconstruction of Old Testament
religion and history, and established a large and enthusiastic
school. Kuenen, in his history of Israel, finds in the period from
Hezekiah to the exile two antagonistic parties in perpetual
confiict. The one is the more popular and conservative party,
advocating the ancient religion of the land, the local sanctuaries
and image worship, together with various deities. This party
was formed by the majority of the prophets and the older Le
vitical priests. The other party was the progressive and the
reforming party, aiming at a central and exclusive sanctuary,
and the worship of Yahweh alone in a more spiritual man
ner. This was the priestly party at Jerusalem, formed by the
prophets Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah. These parties strug
gled with varying fortunes until the exile. The reforming
party issued as their programme the Deuteronomic code. In
dependent of them, yet at times merging with the party of
progress, was the tendency of Hebrew wisdom.* The struggle
was thus "between Yahwism and Jewish nationality. " ^ Dur-
1 Hitzig, in his posthumous Vorlesungen uber Bibl. Theo. und Mess. Weissa
gungen, 1880, treats flrst of the principle of the religion of the Old Testament,
e.g. the idea of God as a holy spirit. This developed itself in two directions :
Universalism and Particularism. The book is defective in method, arbitrary
in judgment, and shows no real progress beyond this distinction of types.
2 Beligion of Israel, 1869-1870 (in the Dutch language, translated 1873-1875
into English) and by his Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 1877.
3 Gesch. Israel, Bd. L, 1878, 2te Ausg., 1883.
* Beligion of Israel, II. Chap. 6. ^ In I.e., L p. 70.

586 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
ing the exile, influenced by Ezekiel's programme of reconstruc
tion, the priestly legislation of the middle books of the Pen
tateuch was composed, and Ezra introduced it to the new
commonwealth at Jerusalem.
" Ezra and Nehemiah assailed as much the independence of the
religious life of the Israelites, which found utterance in prophecy,
as the more tolerant judgment upon the heathen to which many
inclined ; their reformation was in other words anti-prophetic and
anti-universalistic. History teaches us that the Eeformation of
Ezra and Nehemiah nearly coincides in date with the disappear
ance of Prophecy in Israel." i
The three great codes were afterward combined in the Pen
tateuch. Thus this scheme of the reconstruction of the Old
Testament legislation and religion, adopted by such a large
number of critics, resembles in a most remarkable degree the
reconstruction of the New Testament history and doctrine pro
posed by Baur; namely, two antagonistic and irreconcilable
forces resulting in a final system above them both.
The several codes and sections of the Pentateuch have now
been recognized by all critical scholars. They correspond in a
remarkable manner with the various presentations of the Gos
pel of Jesus. And so the great types such as we find in the
Prophetic, Priestly, and Sapiential writings are clearly defined,
corresponding closely with the Petrine, Pauline, and the Johan
nine types of the New Testament. The correspondence goes
even farther, in that, as the Jewish-Christian type is divided in
tAvain by the gospels of Mark and Matthew, and by the apos
tles Peter and James, so the prophetic type brealcs up into
the Psalmists and the Prophets. The three great types must
be recognized in the Old Testament, extending through the his
torical, prophetical, and poetical books and other writings, as in
the New Testament the types are recognized in the Gospels, the
book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The school of
Kuenen and Wellhausen regard them as antagonistic Uke the
III, pp. 240 seq. See the article, "The Critical Theories of Julius Well
hausen," by Prof. Henry P. Smith, in the Presbyterian Beview, 1882, pp. 357
seq.; and my article, "Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism,"
in the same Beview, 1883, pp. 69 seq.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 587
parties in Church and State in our own day, the history and
religion having a purely natural development. Christian schol
ars will, in the main, deal with the Old Testament as they
have done with the New Testament under the lead of Neander,
Schmid, and Oehler, and recognize the variation of type in
order to a more complete and harmonious representation as
they combine under the supernatural influence of a divine
progressive revelation.
Among more recent works may be mentioned : Piepenbring,!
of the school of Reuss. He arranges the theology of the Old
Testament in periods. (1) Mosaism from the beginning to the
eighth century B.C. (2) Prophetism until the close of the exile.
(3) The priestly period from the exile to the first century B.C.
Riehm also, in his posthumous work,^ little influenced by the
school of Reuss, arranged the theology of the Old Testament
in periods. He distinguishes Mosaism, Prophetism, and Ju
daism. Dillmann, however, in his posthumous lectures ^ agrees
with Ewald, and abandons the attempt to arrange the material
in periods. After a historical introduction he discusses the
subject under the topics : doctrine of God, doctrine of Man,
and doctrine of the Kingdom of God.
Smend,* of the school of Reuss, treats the subject in the three
periods : (1) the Religion of Israel ; (2) the Religion of the
Prophets, beginning with Elijah, and (3) the Religion of the
Older Judaism, beginning with the Reformation of Josiah.
His volume is the richest of all in detailed investigation ; but
his historical divisions are a decline from those of Piepenbring,
and his arrangement of the material is confusing and unsatis
factory. By his title he shows that he unduly emphasizes the
religious element over against Faith and Morals.
C. H. Toy ,6 on the other side, emphasizes the ethical element
1 Theologie de VAncien Testament, 1887, trans, by H. G. Mitchell.
2 Alttestamentliehe Theologie, bearbeitet und herausgegeben von K. Pahncke,
1889. 3 Handbuch der Alttest. Theologie, herausgegeben von R. Kittel, 1895.
* Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Beligionsgesehichte, 1893.
« Judaism and Christianity, 1890. It is discreditable to German and British
¦writers that they so generally ignore a volume which is on the whole the best
that has ever been written on its subject.

588 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and gives the best statement of biblical ethics and sociology that
has yet been produced.
A considerable amount of special investigation in Old Testa
ment Theology has been made by many scholars — such as
Orelli,! Duff,2 Kahle,^ and Kirkpatrick.* The archseological
sources of Old Testament Theology have been investigated by
Baethgen,^ and especially by W. Robertson Smith.®
Recent works on New Testament Theology have devoted
themselves more to a study of the particular types with refer
ence to their psychological development out of the condition of
mind and historical position and training of the various New
Testament writers. Immer '^ restates the positions of the school
of Baur, but with the important advance that he traces the
various stages of the development of the Pauline theology
itself with considerable industry and skiU; so Pfleiderer ,8
Sabatier,® and especially Holsten,!® who strives to derive the
peculiarity of the doctrine of Paul out of his consciousness
rather than from the vision and Christophany on the way to
Damascus.!! Thoma !2 strives to explain the theology of John
1 Die Alttestamentliehe Weissagung von der Vollendung des Gottesreiches,
1882. 2 Old Testament Theology, or The History of Hebrew Religion from the
Year 800 B. C, 1891.
3 Biblische Eschatologie, 1870. * Doctrine ofthe Prophets, 1892.
^ Beitrage zur Semitisehen Beligionsgesehichte, 1888.
« Beligion ofthe Semites, 1894. 7 xheo. d. N. T, 1877.
3 Influence of the Apostle Paul, 1885. It was natural that the theology of
Paul should receive at first the closest examination. Usteri, Entwickelung des
Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, 1829, 6te Aufl., 1851, is a classic work; followed by
Dahne, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, 1835 ; Baur, Paulus der
Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845, 2te Aufl., 1866 ; Opitz (H.), System des Paulus, 1874.
5 L^Apotre Paul esquisse d'une Histoire de sa Pensee, 1870. Deuxifeme gdi-
tion revue et augment^e, 1881, Paris. He finds the origin of Paul's theology
in the combination of the three facts — his Pharisaism which he left, the Chris
tian Church which he entered, and the conversion by which he passed from the
one to the other. He then traces the genesis of the Paviline theology in three
periods. 1° Zum Evangelium des Paulus u. d. Petrus, 1868 : Evanqelium des Paulus,
1880. 11 Prof. A. B. Bruce, of Glasgow, in his article on " Paul's Conversion and the
Pauline Gospel," in the Pres. Beview, 1880, pp. 652 seq., ably discusses these
theories, and shows the connection of Pauline theology with the supernatural
event of the Christophany and the apostle's consequent conversion.
12 Die Genesis des Johannes Evangelium, 1882.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 589
as a development out of the struggling doctrinal conceptions
of Judaism and Alexandrianism.!
Beyschlag 2 gives first, the doctrine of Jesus (a) according
to the synoptists, (6) according to the Gospel of John ; and
then the doctrine of the Apostles : (a) the original apostolic
ideas of the Jerusalem community according to the book of
Acts, of the Epistle of James, of the P'irst Epistle of Peter, and
of the Epistles of Paul ; (6) the later and more advanced doc
trine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse and the
Epistle of John, and the author of the fourth Gospel; and
finally (c) the pre-apostolic doctrine of the authors of the
synoptic Gospels and book of Acts, the Epistle of Jude, and
2 Peter, and the Pastorals. W. F. Adeney in 1894 issued a
brief outline ^ very much after the same method, giving first the
teaching of Jesus according to the synoptists, then the primi
tive type of the apostles, the Pauline type, the theology of the
epistle to the Hebrews, and the Johannine type of the Apoca
lypse, Gospel, and Epistles.
The most important works in the theology of the New Testa
ment in the present time are those of Wendt and H. J. Holtz
mann.* Wendt endeavours to distinguish the teaching of the
Logia from the teaching of Jesus according to the synoptists,
and also, in a measure, the teaching of the original Gospel
of John from our present fourth Gospel. And he traces the
relation between these various forms of the teaching of Jesus
and the religious ideas of the Jews of the time as expressed
in the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha.^ Holtzmann empha
sizes the religious ideas enveloping the teaching of Jesus and
introductory to the apostolic doctrine, after the method of
Reuss and Lutterbeck. Thus he puts the teaching of Jesus
1 Other special writers upon particular types are : Riehm, Lehrbegriff des
Hebraerbriefs, 1867 ; K. R. Kostlin, Lehrbegriff des Evang. und der Briefe
Johannes, 1845 ; B. Weiss, Petrinisehe Lehrbegriff, 1855 ; Johanneisehe Lehr
begriff, 1862 ; Zschokke, Tlieologie der Propheten des Alten Testaments, 1877 ;
W. Schmidt, Lehrgehalt des Jacobus Briefes, 1869 ; H. Gebhardt, Lehrbegriff
der Apokalypse, 1873.
2 Neutestamentliehe Theologie, 2te Bde., 1891-1892.
3 Tlie Theology of the New Testament.
* Lehrbuch der Neutestamentliehe Theologie, 2te Bde., 1897.
= Die Lehre Jesu, 2 Th., 1886-1890.

690 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
as (2) in the midst of (1) the religious and moral world of
thought of contemporary Judaism and (3) the theological prob
lems of primitive Christianity. He abandons the effort to dis
tinguish types of doctrine, and gives under Paul and apostoUc
literature (1) Paulinism, (2) Deuteropaulinism, and (3) the
Johannine theology. However rich in material these volumes
may be, in conception of the discipline and in method they are
reactionary from the true ideals of Biblical Theology. In one
respect Holtzmann is greatly to be commended. He regards
the recent tendency to make the Kingdom of God the central
or fundamental and determining element in the Teaching of
Jesus as a mistake, and he rightly begins with the fundamental
question of the attitude of Jesus to the law.! He greatly ex
aggerates the mythical and legendary elements in the Gospels,
and also the external reUgious ideas of the times in their forma
tive influence upon primitive Christianity.
A large amount of special work has been done in the New
Testament theology by Irons,^ Menegoz,^ Dickson,* Issel,^
Gloel,6 Everling,^ Bruce,^ Stevens,^ Du Bose,!" Everett,!!
Kabisch,!^ Schwartzkopff,!^ Bousset,!* and others too numerous
to mention. The theology of the Jews in the time of our Lord
has been investigated especially by Drummond!* and Stan-
ton.!6 I may be permitted to mention my effort to trace the doc
trine of the Messiah with correlated conceptions in its historical
1 L. c. s. , 130 seq. 2 Christianity as taught by St. Paul, ISIS.
3 La peehe et la redemption d^apres St. Paul, 1882 ; La theologie de Pipitre
aux Hebreux, 1894.
* Saint PauVs Use ofthe Terms Flesh and Spirit, 1883.
s Der Begriff der Heiligkeit in N. T., 1887.
^ Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkundigung des Paulus, 1888.
7 Die paulinische Angelologie und Ddmonologie, 1888.
3 Kingdom of God, 1889 ; Saint PauVs Conception of Christianity, 1894.
' Pauline Theology, 1892 ; Johannine Theology, 1894.
1" Soteriology of the New Testament, 1892.
11 Gospel of Paul, 1893.
12 Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893.
13 Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi, 1895.
1* Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung des Judenthums des N. T. und der
alten Kirche, 1895.
15 The Jewish Messiah, 1877.
1^ The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, 1886.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 591
development in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and Pseude
pigrapha, and the New Testament.!
Many younger men have been misled by the theories and
speculations of Ritschl and Weiszacker to abandon the attempt
to trace a development in the theology of Paul or of Jesus.^
They have a theory of what the teaching of Jesus was, and of
what the doctrine of Paul was at the beginning ; and they do
not hesitate to exclude from the teaching of Jesus and Paul
and assign to other and later writers what does not accord Avith
these conceptions. This I can only regard as a reaction toward
the mischievous tendencies of the school of Baur, which have
been, to such a great extent, overcome. There is also a re
action in the same school toward an undue emphasis of the
historical side of the discipline, especially to be seen in Stade,*
Deismann,* and Wrede,* which results in doing away with the
discipline of Biblical theology as the highest department of
Biblical Study, and the substitution for it of a history of religion
in the times of the Bible.
Biblical Theology may be expected to make still further
advances : (1) in the study of the relation of the various types
to one another and to their unity ; (2) in the origin and devel
opment of the particular types ; (3) and more especially in
the relation of the New Testament Theology to the Old Tes
tament Theology and to the theology of the Apocrypha and
the Pseudepigrapha.
We have thus far distinguished two stages in the develop
ment of the discipline of Biblical Theology. Gabler first
stated its historical principle, and distinguished it from Sys
tematic Theology. Neander then distinguished its variety of
types, and Schmid stated its exegetical principle, and distin-
^ Messianic Prophecy, 1886, 7th ed., 1898; Messiah of the Gospels, 1894;
Messiah ofthe Apostles, 1895. ^ See pp. 500 seq.
3 Ueber die Aufgaben der biblischen Theologie des N. T. in Zeitschrift f
Theologie und Kirche, 1893, s. 31 seq.
* Zur Methode der bib. Theo. des N. T. in Zeitschrift f. Theologie und
Kirche, 1893, s. 126 seq.
5 Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentliehen Theologie,
1897.

592 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
guished it from Historical Theology as a part of Exegetical
Theology. We are now in a third stage, in which Biblical
Theology, as the point of contact of the biblical discipline with
the other great sections of Theological Encyclopsedia, is show
ing the true relation of its various types to one organic system
of divine truth, and tracing them each and all to their divine
origin and direction as distinguished from the ordinary types
of human thinking. Biblical Theology will act as a conserv
ing and a reconciling force in the theology of the next century.
Step by step Biblical Theology has advanced in the progress of
exegetical studies. It is and must be an aggressive discipline.
It has a fourfold work: of removing the rubbish that scholas
ticism has piled upon the Word of God ; of battling with
rationalism for its principles, methods, and products ; of re
sisting the seductions of mysticism ; and of building up an
impregnable system of sacred truth. As the Jews returning
from their exile built the walls of Jerusalem, working with
one hand, and with the other grasping a weapon, so must bib
lical scholars build up the system of Biblical Theology, until
they have erected a structure of biblical truth containing the
unity in the variety of divine revelation, a structure compacted
through the fitting together of all the solid stones of sacred
truth according to the adaptation of a divine pre-arrangement.
IV. The Idea op Biblical Theology
Having considered the origin and history of Biblical The
ology, we are now prepared to show its position and impor
tance, and define it as to its idea, method, and system.
1. Biblical Theology is that theological discipline which pre
sents the theology of the Bible in its historical formation
within the canonical writings. The discipline limits itself
strictly to the theology of the Bible, and thus excludes from
its range the theology of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphi
cal writings of the JcAvish and Christian sects, the ideas of
the various external religious parties, and the religions of the
world brought in contact with the people of God at different
periods in their history. It is true that these must come into

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 593
consideration for comparative purposes, in order to show their
influence positively and negatively upon the development of
biblical doctrine; for the biblical religion is a religion in the
midst of a great variety of religions of the world, and its dis
tinctive features can be shown only after the elimination of the
features that are common with other religions. We must show
from the historical circumstances, the psychological prepara
tions, and all the conditioning influences, how far the origin
and development of the particular type and the particular
stage of religious development of Israel and the Church were
influenced by these external forces. We must find the super
natural infiuence that originated and maintained the biblical
types and the biblical religion as distinct and separate from all
other religions. And then these other religious forces will not
be employed as coordinate factors with biblical material, as is
done by Reuss, Schwegler, and Kuenen, and later writers of
the school of Ritschl, who make Biblical Theology simply a
history of religion, or of doctrine in the times of the Bible
and in the Jewish nation. Rather these theological concep
tions of other religions will be seen to be subordinate factors
as influencing Biblical Theology from without, and not from
Avithin, as presenting the external occasions and conditions of
its growth, and not its normal and regulative principles.
Thus Stade urges that Old Testament Theology is a his
torical discipline and that it cannot be limited to the Canon of
the Old Testament. He insists that there should be a return to
the sound principles of De Wette and Von Coin.! Deissmann
also thinks that the theology of the New Testament should not
be limited to the Canon ; but that its purpose is to give the
theology of primitive Christianity rather than the theology of
the New Testament writings. He represents that it has three
chief problems : (1) to present the religious and moral con
tents of the thought of the age in which Christianity origi
nated; (2) to give the special formations of the primitive
Christian consciousness; (3) the comprehensive character of
the whole. Under the second head he would give : (a) the
1 Zeitschrift /. Theologie und Kirehe, 1893, s. 48. " Sie hat sich an dem
A. T. als Institution und nicht an dem A. T. as Canon zu orientieren," s. 46.
2(j

594 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
synoptic preaching of Jesus ; (6) the Pauline Christianity ;
(c) the Johannine Christianity.! The climax is reached in
Wrede, who proposes to do away with the term " Biblical The
ology " and substitute for it the term " History of the Primitive
Christian Religion." ^
There is doubtless room for a special discipline devoting its
attention to the history of the primitive Christian religion, and
using other sources than the Biblical sources, the Canon of
Holy Scripture. But such a discipline can never take the
place of Biblical Theology, which is entitled to the name Bib
lical only so far as it uses the Biblical writings as not only
normal to the discipline, but also as defining its scope. The
biblical limit must be maintained; for the bibUcal material
stands apart by itself, in that the theology therein contained
is the theology of a divine revelation, and thus distinguished
from all other theologies, both as to its origin and its develop
ment. They give us either the products of natural religion
in various normal and abnormal systems, originating and de
veloping under the influence of unguided or partially guided
human religious striArings, or else are apostasies or deflections
from the religion of revelation in its various stages of develop
ment, or else, at the best, represent the genuine strivings of
Christianity apart from and beyond the biblical guides.
2. The discipline we have defined as presenting the theology
of the Bible. It is true that the term "Biblical Theology"
is ambiguous as being too broad, having been employed as a
general term including Biblical Introduction, Hermeneutics,
and so on. And yet we must have a broad term, for we can
not limit our discipline to Dogmatics. Biblical Dogmatics, as
rightly conceived, is a part of Systematic Theology, being a
priori and deductive in method. Biblical Dogmatics deduces
the dogmas from the biblical material and arranges them in an
a priori dogmatic system, presenting not so much the doctrines
of the Bible in their simplicity and in their concrete form as
they are given in the Scriptures themselves, but such doctrines
as may be fairly derived from the biblical material by the logi-
1 Zeitschrift f. Theologie und Kirehe, 1893, s. 126 seq.
2 Ueber Aufg. und Methode der sogenannten N. T. Theologie, 1897, s. 80.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 595
cal process, or can be gained by setting the Bible in the midst
of philosophy and Church tradition. We cannot deny to this
department the propriety of using the name "Biblical Dog
matics." For where a dogmatic system derives its chief or
only material from the Scriptures, there is force in its claim
to be Biblical Theology. We do not, therefore, use the term
" Biblical Theology " as applied to our discipline with the im
plication that a dogmatic system derived from the Bible is non-
biblical or not sufficiently biblical, but as a term which has
come to be applied to the discipline which we are now distin
guishing from Biblical Dogmatics. Biblical Theology, in the
sense of our discipline, and as distinguished from Biblical Dog
matics, cannot take a step beyond the Bible itself, or, indeed,
beyond the particular writing or author under consideration at
the time. Biblical Theology has to do only with the sacred
author's conceptions, and has nothing whatever to do with the
legitimate logical consequences of these conceptions. It is not
to be assumed that either the author or his generation argued
out the consequences of their statements, still less discerned
them by intuition ; although, on the other hand, we must
always recognize that the religion and, indeed, the entire
theology of a period or an author may be far wider and more
comprehensive than the record or records that have been left
of it ; and that, in all • cases, Biblical Theology will give us
the minimum rather than the maximum of the theology of a
period or author. But, on the other hand, we must also esti
mate the fact that this minimum is the inspired authority to
which alone we can appeal. The only consequences with
which Biblical Theology has to do are those historical ones
that later biblical writers gained in their advanced knowledge
of divine revelation, those conclusions that are true histori
cally — whatever our subjective conclusions maybe as to the
legitimate logical results of their statements. And even here
the interpretation and use of later writers are not to be assigned
to the authors themselves or the theology of their times. The
term " Biblical Dogmatics " should be applied to that part of
Dogmatics which rests upon the Bible and derives its material
from the Bible by the legitimate use of its principles. Dog-

596 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
matics as a theological discipline is far wider than the biblical
material that is employed by the dogmatician. The biblical
material should be the normal and regulative material, but the
doermatician will make use of the deductions from the Bible
and from other authorities that the Church has made in the his
tory of doctrine, and incorporated in her creeds, or preserved
in the doctrinal treatises of the theologians. He wiU also make
use of right reason, and of philosophy, and science, and the re
ligious consciousness as manifest in the history of the Church
and in the Christian life of the day. It is all-important that
the various sources should be carefully discriminated, and the
biblical material set apart by itself in Biblical Dogmatics, lest,
in the commingling of material, that should be regarded as
biblical which is non-biblical, or extra-biblical, or contra-bibli
cal, as has so often happened in the working of ecclesiastical
tradition. And, even then, when Biblical Dogmatics has been
distinguished in Systematic Theology, it should be held apart
from Biblical Theology; for Biblical Dogmatics is the point
of contact of Systematic Theology with Exegetical Theology ;
and Biblical Theology is the point of contact of Exegetical
Theology with Systematic Theology, each belonging to its oavu
distinctive branch of theology, with its characteristic methods
and principles. That system of theology which would anx
iously confine itself to supposed biblical material, to the neg
lect of the material presented by philosophy, science, Uterature,
art, comparative religion, the history of doctrine, the symbols,
the liturgies, and the life of the Church, and the pious reUgious
consciousness of the individual or of Christian society, must be
extremely defective and unscientific, and cannot make up for
its defects by an appeal to the Scriptures and a claim to be
biblical. None of the great systematic theologians, from the
most ancient times, have ever proposed any such course. It
has been the resort of the feebler Pietists in Germany, and of
the narrower Evangelicalism of Great Britain and America,
doomed to defeat and destruction, for working in such con
tracted lines. The errors involved in this exclusive depend
ence on biblical material have now been made so evident that
none can reasonably dispute them. It is now perfectly clear

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 597
that the New Testament is predominantly Pauline, and we
must recognize a large and strong tradition, based on the
teaching of Jesus and of the Twelve, which has no adequate
representation in the New Testament proportionate to the
teaching of Saint Paul. Only in this way can the Christianity
of the second century be historically explained.!
Biblical Theology cannot be a substitute for Systematic
Theology. Systematic Theology is more comprehensive than
Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology is important in order to
the distinction that should be made, in the first place, between
the biblical sources and all other sources of theology, and then,
in the second place, to distinguish between Biblical Theology
as presented in the Holy Scriptures themselves, and Biblical
Dogmatics which makes deductions and applications of the
biblical material.
3. But Biblical Theology is wider than the doctrines of the
Bible. It includes Ethics also. It is somewhat remarkable,
however, that no one has thus far attempted to publish a Bibli
cal Ethics, and that the ethical element has little, if any, con
sideration in the most of the Biblical Theologies which have
thus far been published. So far as it appears it is interwoven
with the doctrines of faith, and has no separate existence, and
no consideration is given to the ethical point of view. The
only way in which the Ethics of the Bible can be given proper
recognition is in the recognition of it as a separate department,
just as it is recognized in the discipline of Dogmatics. Not
until this has been done and the ethics of Holy Scripture has
been thoroughly considered in its historical development and
in its unity and variety, will the question of the relation of
the Gospel to the Law, and of the New Testament to the Old
Testament, be satisfactorily answered. It is at the bottom an
ethical question rather than a question of faith.
4. The school of Baur, and even Weiss and Van Oosterzee,
would stop with biblical doctrines of faith and Biblical Ethics.
But Schmid, Schultz, and Oehler are correct in taking Biblical
Theology to include religion as well as doctrines and morals ;
1 See p. 503.

598 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
that is, those historic persons, facts, and relations which embody
religious, dogmatical, and ethical ideas. This discrimination
is important in Systematic Theology, but it is indispensable in
Biblical Theology where everything is still in the concrete.
Thus a fundamental question in the theology of the New
Testament is, what to do with the life of Jesus. The life of
Jesus is, as Schmid shows, the fruitful source of His doctrine,
and a theology which does not estimate it lacks foundation and
vital power. The life of Jesus may indeed be regarded from
two distinct points of view, as a biographical, or as a doctrinal
and religious, subject. The birth of Jesus may be regarded as
a pure historical fact or as an incarnation. His suffering and
death may be historical subjects, or as teaching the doctrine of
the atonement. His life may afford biographical matter, or be
considered as religious, doctrinal, and ethical, in that His life
was a new religious force, a redemptive influence, and an ethi
cal example. Biblical Theology will have to consider, there
fore, what the life of Jesus presents for its various departments.
And so the great fact of Pentecost, the Christophanies to Peter,
Paul, and John, and the apostolic council at Jerusalem must all
be brought into consideration. And in the Old Testament we
have to consider the various covenants and the religious insti
tutions and laws that were grouped about them. Without
religion, with its persons, events, and institutions, Biblical
Theology would lose its foundations, and without ethical re
sults it would fail of its rich fruitage. It is therefore a whole
some movement of the more recent Ritschlians to emphasize
the religious and vital element in early Christianity. It can
become unwholesome only so far as they unduly magnify this
element over against the other equally important elements.
5. The discipline of Biblical Theology presents the theology
of the Bible in its historical formation. This does not imply
that it limits itself to the consideration of the various particu
lar conceptions of the various authors, writings,, and periods,
as Weiss, and even Oehler, maintain, but that, vrith Schmid,
Messner, Van Oosterzee after Neander, it seeks the unity in
the variety, ascertains the roots of the divergencies, traces them
each in their separate historical development, shows them co-

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 599
operating in the formation of one organic system. For Bib
lical Theology would not present a mere conglomerate of
heterogeneous material in a bundle of miscellaneous Hebrew
literature, but would ascertain whether there is not some prin
ciple of organization ; and it finds that principle in a super
natural divine revelation and communication of redemption in
the successive covenants of grace, extending through many
centuries, operating through many minds, and in a great vari
ety of literary styles, employing aU the faculties of man and all
the types of human nature, in order to the accomplishment
of one massive, all-embracing, and everlasting Divine Word,
adapted to every age, every nation, every type of character,
every temperament of mankind; the whole world.
V. The Place op Biblical Theology
Biblical Theology belongs to the department of the Study of
Holy Scripture as a higher exegesis, completing the exegetical
process, and presenting the essential material and principles of
the other departments of theology.
The boundaries between Exegetical and Historical Theology
are not so sharply defined as those between either of them and
Dogmatic Theology. All Historical Theology has to deal with
sources, and in this respect must consider them in their variety
and unity as well as their development ; and hence many theo
logians combine Exegetical Theology and Historical Theology
under one head — Historical Theology. It is important, how
ever, to draw the distinction, for this reason. The sources of
Biblical Theology are in different relation from the sources
of a history of doctrine, inasmuch as they constitute a body of
divine revelation, and are in this respect to be kept distinct
from all other sources, even cotemporary and of the same
nation. They have an absolute authority which no other
sources can have. The stress is to be laid less upon their his
torical development than upon them as an organic body of
revelation ; and this stress upon their importance as sources,
not only for historical development, but also for dogmatic
reconstruction and practical application, requires that the spe-

600 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
cial study of them should be exalted to a separate discipline
and a distinct branch of theology.
In the biblical discipline. Biblical Theology occupies the
highest place, is the latest and crowning achievement. It is a
higher exegesis, completing the exegetical process. AU other
branches of the study of Holy Scripture are presupposed by
it. Biblical Literature must first be studied as sacred litera
ture. All questions of date of writing, integrity, construction,
style, and authorship must be determined by the principles of
the Higher Criticism. Biblical Canonics determines the extent
and authority of the various writings that are to be regarded
as composing the sacred Canon, and discriminates them from
all other writings by the criticism of the believing spirit enlight
ened and guided by the Holy Spirit in the Church. Biblical
Textual Criticism ascertains the true text of the writings in
the study of manuscripts, versions, and citations, and seeks to
present it in its pure primitive forms. Biblical Hermeneutics
lays down the rules of Biblical Interpretation, and Biblical
Exegesis applies these rules to the various particular passages
of the Sacred Scriptures. Biblical Theology accepts aU these
rules and applications. It is not its office to go into the
detailed examination of the verse and the section, but it must
accept the results of a thorough exegesis and criticism in order
to advance thereon and thereby to its own proper work of
higher exegesis ; namely, rising from the comparison of verse
with verse, and paragraph with paragraph, where simple exe
gesis is employed, to the still more difficult and instructive
comparison of writing with writing, author with author, period
with period, until by generalization and synthesis the theology
of the Bible is attained as an organic whole.
Biblical Theology is thus the culmination of Exegetical The
ology, and must be in an important relation to all other branches
of theology. For Historical Theology it presents the great
principles of the various periods of history, the fundamental
and controlling tendencies, which, springing from human nature
and operating in all the religions of the world, find their proper
expression and satisfaction in the normal development of Divine
Revelation, but which, breaking loose from these salutary bonds.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 601
become perverted and distorted into abnormal forms, producing
false and heretical principles and radical errors. And so in
the biblical unity of these tendencies Biblical Theology pre
sents the ideal unity for the Church and the Christian in all
times of the world's history. For Dogmatic Theology, Biblical
Theology affords the holy material to be used in Biblical Apolo
getics, Dogmatics, and Ethics, the fundamental and controlling
material out of which that systematic structure must be built
which will express the intellectual and moral needs of the par
ticular age, fortify the Church for offence and defence in the
struggles with the anti-Christian world, and give unity to its
life, its efforts, and its dogmas in aU ages. For Practical The
ology it presents the various types of religious experience and
of doctrinal and ethical ideas, which must be skilfully applied
to the corresponding differences of type which exist in all
times, in all churches, in all lands, and, indeed, in all religions
and races of mankind. Biblical Theology is, indeed, the Irenic
force which will do much to harmonize the antagonistic forces
and various departments of theology, and bring about that
toleration within the Church which is the greatest requisite of
our times.
VI. Method of Biblical Theology
The method employed by Biblical Theology is a blending of
the genetic and the inductive methods. The method of Bibli
cal Theology arises out of the nature of the discipline and its
place in Theological Encyclopsedia. As it must show the theol
ogy of the Bible in its historic formation, ascertain its genesis,
the laws of its development from germinal principles, the order
of its progress in every individual writer, and from writer to
writer and age to age in the successive periods and in the
whole Bible, it must employ the genetic method. It is this
genesis which is becoming more and more important in our
discipline, and is indeed the chief point of discussion in oui
day. Can all be explained by a natural genesis, or must an
extraordinary divine influence be caUed in ? The various ra
tionalistic efforts to explain the genesis of the biblical types of
doctrine in their variety and their combination in a unity in the

602 study of holy scripture
Scriptures are extremely unsatisfactory and unscientific. With
aU the resemblances to other religions, the Biblical Religion is
so different that its differences must be explained, and these
can only be explained by the claims of the sacred writers them
selves, that God Himself in various forms of Theophany and
Christophany revealed Himself to initiate and to guide the
religion of the Bible in its various movements and stages.
Mosaism centres about the great Theophany of Horeb, as
Christianity centres about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It
is the problem of Biblical Theology, as it has traced the The
ology of the Jewish Christian type to the Theophany of Pente
cost, and of the Pauline type to the Christophany on the way
to Damascus, so to trace the Johannine type and the various
Old Testament types to corresponding supernatural initia
tion. The Johannine type may be traced to the Christopha
nies of Patmos. The Old Testament is full of Theophanies
which originate particular Covenants and initiate all the great
movements in the history of Israel.!
As it has to exhibit the unity in the variety of the various
conceptions and statements of the writings and authors of
every different type, style, and character, and by comparison
generalize to its results. Biblical Theology must employ the
inductive method and the synthetical process. This inductive
method is the true method of Exegetical Theology. The
details of exegesis have been greatly enriched by this method
during the present century, especially by the labours of German
divines, and in most recent times by numerous labourers in
Great Britain and America. But the majority of the labourers
in Biblical Theology have devoted their strength to the work
ing out of the historical principle of our discipline. Within
the various types and special doctrines a large amount of higher
exegesis has been accomplished in recent years. The highest
exegesis in the comparison of types and their arrangement in
an organic system, with a unity and determining principle out
of which all originate and to which they return their fruitage,
remains comparatively undeveloped. Indeed the study of the
1 See pp. 542 seq.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 603
particular types, especially in the Old Testament, must be con
ducted still further and to more substantial results ere the
highest exegesis can fulfil its task.
The genetic and the inductive methods must combine in
order to the best results. They must cooperate in the treat
ment of every writing, of every author, of every period, and of
the whole. They must blend in harmony throughout. On
their proper combination the excellence of a system of Biblical
Theology depends. An undue emphasis of either will make
the system defective and inharmonious.

VII. The System op Biblical Theology
This is determined partly by the material itself, but chiefly
by the methods of dealing with it. We must make the divi
sions so simple that they may be adapted to the most elemen
tary conceptions, and yet comprehensive enough to embrace
the most fully developed conceptions ; and also so as to be
capable of a simple and natural subdivision in the advancing
periods. In order to this we must find the dominant principle
of the entire revelation and make our historical and our induc
tive divisions in accordance with it. The divine revelation
itself might seem to be this determining factor, so that we
should divide historically by the historical development of that
revelation, and synthetically by its most characteristic features.
But this divine revelation was made to intelligent man and
involved thereby an active appropriation of it on his part, both
as to its form and substance, so that from this point of view
we might divide historically in accordance with the great
epochs of the appropriation of divine revelation, and syntheti
cally by the characteristic features of that appropriation. From
either of these points of view, however, there might be — there
naturally would be, an undue emphasis of the one over against
the other at the expense of a complete and harmonious repre
sentation. We need some principle that will enable us to
combine the subject and the object — God and man — in the
unity of its conception. Such a principle is happily afforded
us in the revelation itself, so distinctly brought out that it has

604 STUDY OF HOLi SCRIPTURE
been historically recognized in the names given to the two
great sections of the Scriptures, the Old and the New Testa
ments or Covenants. The Covenant is the fundamental prin
ciple of the divine revelation, to which the divine revelation
commits its treasures and from which man continually draws
upon them. The Covenant has a great variety of forms in
the Sacred Scriptures; but the most essential and compre
hensive form is that assumed in the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai,
which becomes the Old Covenant, preeminently, and over
against that is placed the New Covenant of the Messiah Jesus
Christ ; so that the great historical division becomes the
Theology of the Old Covenant and the Theology of the New
Covenant. The Covenant must also determine the synthetic divisions.
The Covenant is a union and communion effected betAveen
God and man. It involves a personal relationship which it
originates and maintains by certain events and institutions.
This is religion. The Covenant and its relations, man appre
hends as an intelligent being by meditation, reflection, and
reasoning. All this he comprehends in doctrines, which he
apprehends and believes and maintains as his faith. These
doctrines will embrace the three general topics of God, of Man,
and of Redemption. The Covenant still further has to do
with man as a moral being, imposing moral obligations upon
him with reference to God and man and the creatures of God.
All these are comprehended under the general term "Ethics."
These distinctions apply equally well to all the periods of
divine revelation ; they are simple, they are comprehensive,
they are all-pervading. Indeed they interpenetrate one
another, so that many prefer to combine the three under the
one term " Theology," and then treat of God and man and the
union of God and man in redemption, in each division by itself
with reference to religious, ethical, and doctrinal questions ;
but it is easier and more thorough-going to keep them apart,
even at the expense of looking at the same thing at times
successively from three different points of view.
From these more general divisions we may advance to such
subdivisions as may be justified in the successive periods of

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 605
Biblical Theology, both on the historic and synthetic sides,
and, indeed, Avithout anticipation.
The relation between the historical and the synthetic divi
sions may be variously viewed. Thus Ewald, Dillmann, and
Schultz make the historical divisions so entirely subordinate as
to treat each topic of theology by itself in its history.
This method has great advantages in the class-room. It is
difficult to keep the attention of students to the development
of the whole field of Biblical Theology. The lines are too
extended. It is easier to show the development by taking a
large number of topics, one after another, and tracing each
one in its order in its historical development.! The historical
divisions may be made so prominent that the synthetic will be
subordinated to them. This leads towards making Biblical
Theology a history of the development of theology in the
Bible. The ideal method for a written Biblical Theology is not to
sacrifice the interest of the whole for any or all particular sec
tions. They should be adjusted to one another in their his
torical development in the particular period. The periods
should be so large and distinct as to leave no reason to doubt
their propriety.
It will be necessary to determine in each period : (1) the
development of each particular doctrine by itself, as it starts
from the general principle, and then (2) to sum up the general
results before passing over into another period.
It will also be found that theology does not unfold in one
single line, but in several, from several different points of view,
and in accordance with several different types. It will there
fore be necessary, on the one side, ever to keep these types
distinct, and yet to show their unity as one organism. Thus
in the Hexateuch the great types of the Ephraimitic, Judaic,

1 There are undoubtedly grave perils connected with this method. I think
these are greatly exaggerated by Wrede (Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten
Neutestamentliehen Theologie, 1897, s. 17 seq.), but I nevertheless think that
he has rendered a real service by pointing them out. On the other hand he
seems to be blind to the even greater perils which beset the exaggerated use of
the historic method.

606 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Deuteronomic, and priestly narrators will be distinctly traced
until they combine in the one organism of our Hexateuch,
presenting the fundamental Law of Israel. In the histori
cal books the same four types of historians will be distin
guished and compared for a higher unity. The four great
types — the psalmists, wise men, the prophets, and the scribes
— will be discriminated, the variations within the types care
fully studied and compared, and then the types themselves
brought into harmony ; and at last the whole Old Testament
will be presented as an organic whole. The New Testament
wiU then be considered in the forerunners of Christ ; then the
four types in which the evangelists present the Theology of
Jesus, each by itself, in comparison with the others, and as a
whole. The Apostolic Theology wUl be traced from its origin
at Pentecost in its subsequent division into the great types,
the conservative Jewish Christian of Saint James and the ad
vanced Jewish Christian of Saint Peter ; the Gentile Christian
of Saint Paul and the Hellenistic of the Epistle to the Hebrews ;
and, finally, the Johannine of the Gospel, Epistles, and Apoca
lypse of John ; and the whole will be considered in the unity
of the New Testament.! As the last thing the whole Bible
will be considered, showing not only the unity of the Theology
of Christ and His apostles, but also the unity of the Theology
of Moses and David and all the prophets Avith the Theology of
Jesus and His apostles, as each distinct theology takes its place
in the advancing system of divine revelation, all conspiring to
the completion of a perfect, harmonious, symmetrical organism,
the infaUible expression of God's wUl, character, and being to
His favoured children. At the same time the religion of each
period and of the whole Bible will be set in the midst of the
other religions of the world, so that it Avill appear as the divine
grace ever working in humanity, and its sacred records as the
true lamp of the world, holding forth the light of life to all the
nations of the world.
' I have carefully considered the arguments of the Ritschlians ; but they have
not convinced me that Saint Paul is so dominant of the New Testament as they
suppose, or that they are correct in their interpretation of Saint Paul, or that
there is so great an antithesis as they find between Saint Paul and the Twelve.

CHAPTER XXIV
THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
All of our studies of the Bible, thus far, have led us to the
threshold of the inquiry how far Holy Scripture is credible and
of divine authority. The deeper study of Holy Scripture in
our day has made this a question of far greater seriousness than
it has been in any previous generation of Jews or Christians.
The prevalent dogmatic theories of the inspiration and infalli
bility of the Bible have been undermined in the entire range of
Biblical Study, and it is a question in many minds whether
they can ever be so reconstructed as to give satisfaction to
Christian scholars. It is evident that such a reconstruction is
most necessary ; but men are reluctant to undertake it, for it
has cost severe struggles in the past and it is altogether proba
ble that still severer contests are in store for the men of this
generation who have the insight, ability, and courage to do so
great a work.
The history of the Christian Church shows that it is the
intrinsic excellence of the Holy Scriptures which has given
them the .control of so large a portion of our race. With few
exceptions, the Christian religion was not extended by force
of arms or by the arts of statesmanship, but by the holy lives
and faithful teaching of self-sacrificing men and women who
had firm faith in the truthfulness of their Holy Scriptures, and
who were able to convince men in all parts of the world that
they are faithful guides to God and salvation. A valid argu
ment for the truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures might be
made from their efficacy in the religious training of so large a
portion of mankind, and from the consecrated lives and the
supreme devotion to their religion of the heroes of the faith in
all ages. 607

608 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
But such an argument would only authenticate the substance
of Holy Scripture ; it would not verify the dogmas about the
Bible that are under fire, no more would it disprove them.
But it ought to give encouragement to simple-minded Christians
who are incapable of taking part in theological controversy.
I. The Bible and Other Sacred Books
AU the great historical religions of the world have sacred
books which are regarded by their adherents as the inspired
word of God. Preeminent among these sacred books are the
Holy Scriptures of the Christian Church ; for these are now
the religious guides of Europe and America, AustraUa and the
islands of the Pacific, and they are ever increasing their adher
ents in Asia and Africa.
If the Holy Scriptures are classed Avith these other sacred
books provisionally, it is in order that we may define the feat
ures that are common to those books and so distinguish the
features that are peculiar to each of them.
If the distinctive features of the Old and New Testaments
are those of God, and the distinctive features of all the other
sacred books are those of man, the comparative study wiU make
it so CArident that every one in the world will eventually see it.
That Christian who fears to put his Bible to such a test lacks
confidence in it. The Old Testament prophets and the New
Testament apostles never hesitated to challenge all other reli
gions to such a test. If Christians would conquer the world,
here is an opportunity such as has never before been given in
the history of the world. But this comparison must be scien
tific, entirely fair, reasonable, and honourable in order to be
effective. Several faults are commonly committed by Christian
apologists in such comparisons.
1. A great error is committed by some missionaries and
apologists in laying stress upon the errors in science, history,
philosophy, and geology, and the grotesque imagery found in
the sacred books of the East. The same argument may be
brought to bear on the Holy Scriptures. It has been brought
by many in our time. It is said that Biblical Criticism, in

the CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 609
pointing out errors in the Bible, is doing its best to destroy the
Bible, because it is pursuing the same method that our mis
sionaries are pursuing in the East in order to show that sacred
books so full of errors as they are cannot be inspired. The
argument is invalid on both sides. There are errors in cita
tions, in geography, in science, and in other matters also, in the
sacred books of the East ; but there are also errors in the Holy
Scriptures, as all scholars knoAV. Does this destroy the Bible
as a divine revelation ? Some say so. Some say that " a proved
error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine, but also
the Scripture's claims, and, therefore, its inspiration in making
these claims." ! But these errors are only in the form and cir
cumstantials, and not in the essentials. They do not impair
any doctrine or principle of morals or religion. Many of the
advocates of the religions of the East are now meeting Chris
tian apologists face to face, and saying: " As there are errors in
our sacred books, so there are in your Bible also." The man
who makes an attack can easily find ten errors to one seen by a
friendly critic. The Moslem has as good a right as the Chris
tian to say that a sacred book which contains errors cannot be
inspired. There are, doubtless, more errors in the sacred books
of the East than in the Holy Scriptures. Errors abound in
them, in comparison with which the errors in the Holy Script
ures are inconsiderable. Yet it is a false argument to claim
that there is nothing reliable in these books on that account.
We should be entirely candid in all our relations with men of
other religions ; we should recognize all that is true, noble, and
highest in their sacred books ; we should tell the adherents of
these religions to strive to reach the highest ideals of their own
religions, and then they will approach nearest to Christianity ;
then they will be the best subjects for the grace of God.
2. Another fault often committed against the sacred books
of the East is in undue emphasis on their imperfect morality.
It is astonishing how many Christian writers have been depre
ciating the sacred books of the other religions of the world.
They seem altogether unconscious of the fact that the same
1 See Briggs, Whither, pp. 68 seq., where this statement of A. A. Hodge and
B. B. Warfield is disproved. See also pp. 615 seq.
2k

610 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
method may be pursued with the Holy Scriptures. There are
many who have pointed to the mistakes of Moses, and to the
gross immoralities and barbarities of the book of Judges. How
can a divine religion countenance such barbarities as these ?
These arguments may be used against the Bible with terrific
force. We commonly say that these things represent a lower
stage of divine revelation, coming to men as they could bear it,
educating them, little by little, to prepare them for the higher
religion of Jesus Christ. The lower stage cannot be expected
to compare with the higher stages. But we must treat the
other religions of the world in the way in which we are obliged
to treat the Old Testament. We must recognize that they
belong to earlier stages of human development, that they have
sprung up, not in Christian countries, but far away from the
light of Christianity. It was the teaching of the earlier Church
and of many of the Christian Fathers, that Greek religion and
philosophy were used by the Divine Spirit in preparation for
Christianity, to a less degree, but no less certainly, than the
Jewish religion itself ; and that Plato and Socrates were pre
paring the way by which Christianity might achieve great vic
tories over the ancient world.! jf ^q recognize this as true
with reference to the religion and philosophy of Greece, why
not recognize it as true of the great religions and sacred
books of the East also ? May it not be that God has been pre
paring them by the light of the Logos, who is shining in aU the
world, so far as they can understand it, for the time when
Christianity shall be preached to them ?
3. Another fault has been committed in the study of the
sacred books of the East. Christian men who are compelled
to recognize that there are some good things in them which
cannot be explained away, try to explain them as derived from '
divine revelation by some indirect subterranean passage from
the Jewish religion, or maintain that Christianity, in some
secret and undiscovered paths, has been brought to bear upon
them. It has been shown clearly that the Jewish religion
derived more from other ancient religions than it gave them.
The Jewish religion derived much from the Babylonians and
1 See p. 537.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 611
Persians, and gave very little. The Christian reUgion has
been influenced much more by Buddhism than Buddhism has
been influenced by Christianity.
Some have been alarmed because so many of the ethical say
ings of our Lord have been found in the sayings of Jewish
rabbins before the time of our Lord. Granted that Holy Script
ure has derived much from other religions, that only brings
out one of its characteristics of excellence. It gives the re
ligion of Humanity ; it appropriates everything good in man
or religion found anywhere in the world; it takes up into
itself everything that is good; it goes on absorbing the best
features of other religions, as all the rivers are absorbed by the
ocean. The national and provincial religions and mere secta
rianism have shut themselves up from everything that is
derived from others. But the religion of Humanity, the uni
versal religion, appropriates everything that is good and noble
from all.
These faults of advocates and polemic divines have greatly
injured the cause of Christianity in its relation to other re
ligions, and have greatly retarded the influence of the Bible
upon men of other faiths. But a large number of scholars
have been studying the science of religion with industry and
abundant fruit ; they have not hesitated to discern the true
excellences of other religious books, and to point out the
defects of Holy Scripture, as a result of the comparative study
of the sacred books of the world.
"But what shall we say, then, of the pagan religions which teach
exactly the same doctrine ? Shall we say they borrowed it from
Christianity? That would be doing violence to history. Shall
we say that, though they use the same words, they did not mean
the same thing ? That would be doing violence to our sense of
truth.' Why not accept the facts such as they are ? At first, I
quite admit, some of the facts which I have quoted in my lect
ures are startling and disturbing. But, like most facts which
startle us from a distance, they lose their terror when we look
them in the face, nay, they often prove a very Godsend to those
who are honestly grappling with the difficulties of which religion
is full. Anyhow, they are facts that must be met, that cannot be
ignored. And why should they be ignored ? To those who see

612 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
no difficulties in their own religion, the study of other religions
will create no new difiiculties. It will only help them to appre
ciate more fully what they already possess. For with all that I
have said in order to show that other religions also contain all
that is necessary for salvation, it would be simply dishonest on
my part were I to hide my conviction that the religion taught by
Christ, and free as yet from all ecclesiastical fences and intrench-
ments, is the best, the purest, the truest religion the world has
ever seen. When I look at the world as it is, I often say that we
seem to be living two thousand years before, not after, Christ." i
We may now say to all men : All the sacred books of the
world are accessible to you. Study them, compare them,
recognize all that is good and noble and true in them aU, and
tabulate the results, and you Avill be convinced that the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are true, holy, and
divine. When we have gone searchingly through them all, the
sacred books of other religions are as torches of varying size
and brilliancy, lighting up the darkness of the night ; but the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are like the
sun, dawning in the earliest writings of the Old Testament,
rising in prophetic word and priestly thora, in Ij^ric psalm, and
in sentence of wisdom until the zenith is reached in the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. Take them,
therefore, as the guide of your religion, your salvation, and your
life.
II. Science and the Bible
The Holy Scriptures of the Christians are now the centre of
a world-wide contest. We are living in a scientific age which
demands that every traditional statement shall be tested by
patient, thorough, and exact criticism. Science explores the
earth in its heights and depths, its lengths and breadths, in
search of all the laws which govern it and the realities of
Avhich it is composed. Science explores the heavens in quest
of all the mysteries of the universe of God. Science searches
the body and the soul of man in order to determine his exact
nature and character. Science investigates all the monuments
of history, whether they are of stone or of metal, whether they
1 Max Muller, Physical Beligion, 1891, pp. 363-364.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 613
are the product of man's handiwork, or the construction of his
voice or pen. That man must be lacking in intelligence or in
observation who imagines that the sacred books of the Chris
tian religion or the institutions of the Church can escape the
criticism of this age. It will not do to oppose science with
reUgion, or criticism with faith. Criticism makes it evident
that a faith which shrinks from criticism is a faith so weak and
uncertain that it excites suspicion as to its life and reality.
Science goes on in its exact and thorough work, confident that
every form of religion which resists it will erelong crumble
into dust.
Searchers after truth have found in all ages that they have
been resisted by the same kind of Pharisees as those who re
sisted the teaching of Jesus and of Saint Paul. These are
always found guarding ancient traditions in venerable tombs,
whUe the neglected truth of God is springing up in beautiful
flowers and plants of grace all around them.!
All departments of human investigation sooner or later come
in contact with the Christian Scriptures. All find something
that either accords with or conflicts with their investigations.
If the statements of Holy Scripture are altogether true, infal
lible, and inerrant, they ought to exert a controlling influence
on aU these studies. If there is irreconcilable difference
between the Bible and the results of these studies, the student
is compelled to choose between them. All the Avorld knows
the history of the conflict between scientific men and defenders
of the thesis that the Bible is infallible in all its statements
about matters of science. So long as this thesis was enforced
by ecclesiastical authority against scientific men, science was
throttled ; scientific men took their lives in their hands in
every investigation. The first stage of the conflict resulted
in the delivery of science from the thraldom of the ecclesi
astics. The next stage of the conflict was the advance of
science in spite of all the opposition of the dogmaticians,
until the situation emerged in which science pursued its own
independent way without giving any heed to the statements
of the theologians. No real student is checked for a moment
1 See pp. 8 seq.

614 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
by any apparent confUct between the results of his science and
a statement of the Old Testament. He has learned that the
Bible was not given to teach science but religion, and that the
statements of the Bible which come in conflict with science
are, from the point of view of their authors, as a part of
the human setting of the truth of God, and are not to be
regarded as part of the true, infallible, divine instruction com
mitted to them by the Spirit of God. This is the real situa
tion at the present time, however uncomfortable it may be for
those who stUl think it necessary to defend the inerrancy of
the Bible in every particular statement. The question thus
forces itself upon us, Can we maintain the truthfulness of the
Holy Scriptures in the face of all these modern sciences ?
We are obliged to admit that there are scientiflc errors in
the Bible, errors of astronomy, of geology, of zoology, of bot
any, and of anthropology. In all these respects there is no
evidence that the author of these sacred writings had any other
knowledge than that possessed by their ootemporaries. They
were not in fact taught by the Holy Spirit any higher know
ledge of these subjects than others of their age. Their state
ments are just such as indicate a correct observation of the
phenomena as they would appear to an accurate observer at the
time when they wrote. It is evident in a cursory examination
that they had not that insight, that foresight, and that grasp of
conception and power of expression in these matters which
they exhibit when they wrote concerning matters of reUgion.
If, as all must concede, it was not the intent of God to give to
the ancient world the scientific knowledge of our nineteenth
century, why should any one suppose that the Divine Spirit
influenced them in relation to any such matters of science?
Why should they be kept from misconception, from misstate
ment, and from error ? The divine purpose was to use them as
religious teachers. So long as they made no mistakes in reli
gious instruction, they were trustworthy and reliable, even if
they erred in some of those matters in which they come in con
tact with modern science. The fact that the errors are few
show us, not that they were restrained from error by an irre
sistible impulse of the Divine Spirit, but rather that they were

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 615
in that exalted spiritual frame of mind which made them so
anxious to be truthful that they abstained from those extrava
gant speculations and crude conceptions Avhich mark the writ
ers of ancient times who were less spiritually minded.
III. The Canon and Inerrancy
It is maintained by some modern theologians, of the Prince
ton School of Theology, that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the
original autographs of Holy Scripture is an essential doctrine
of the Christian religion. The General Assembly of the Pres
byterian Church in the United States of America condemned
me for heresy because I declined to say that the original auto
graphs were inerrant. The statement upon which I was tried
and condemned was :
"It has been taught in recent years, and is still taught by some
theologians, that one proved error destroys the authority of Script
ure. I shall venture to affirm that, so far as I can see, there are
errors in the Scriptures that no one has been able to explain away ;
and the theory that they were not in the original text is sheer
assumption, upon which no mind can rest with certainty. If such
errors destroy the authority of the Bible, it is already destroyed
for historians. Men cannot shut their eyes to truth and fact.
But on what authority do these theologians drive men from the
Bible by this theory of inerrancy ? The Bible itself nowhere
makes this claim. The creeds of the Church nowhere sanction it.
It is a ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children. The
Bible has maintained its authority with the best scholars of our
time, who with open minds have been wUHng to recognize any
error that might be pointed out by Historical Criticism ; for these
errors are all in the circumstantials and not in the essentials ; they
are in the human setting, not in the precious jewel itself ; they are
found m that section of the Bible that theologians commonly
account for from the providential superintendence of the mind of
the author, as distinguished from divine revelation itself." i
The decision of the General Assembly was the foUowing :
" We find that the doctrine of the errancy of Scripture, as it
came from them to whom and through whom God originally com
municated His revelation, is in conflict with the statements of the
1 Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture, p. 35.

616 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Holy Scripture itself, which asserts that all Scripture or every
Scripture is given by the inspiration of God (2 Tim. 31^), that the
prophecy came not of old by the will of man, but that holy men
of God spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost (2 Peter l^i) ;
and also with the statements of the standards of the Church which
assert that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
are the Word of God (Larger Catechism, question 3), of infallible
truth and divine authority (Confession, Chapter I., section 5)." 1
This remarkable statement of doctrine is apparently due to
the chairman of the committee of the General Assembly. Of
course no scholar could vote for such a proposition ; it shows
such profound ignorance of Scripture and of the Westminster
symbols, and it presents such an unjust caricature of my opin
ion. In point of fact, all the scholarly members of the Assembly
protested against it to the number of sixty-three. But they
were overcome by a majority who, blinded by partisanship, and
in a panic about the Bible, had not taken the trouble to inform
themselves as to the real issue and as to the serious conse
quences of their votes before they cast them.
The question in dispute was not whether there are errors in
the present accessible texts of Holy Scripture, but whether or
not these errors were in the original autographs. This Assem
bly attempted to define what were the original autographs:
" Scripture as it came from them to whom and through whom
God originally communicated His revelation." The Scripture
in their opinion consisted of the writings as first written down
by those to whom God communicated His revelation. We must
go back of all the texts till we get to the original autographs
of the authors before we have the inerrant Scripture. What
has the criticism of the Canon to say to this astonishing dogma ?
1. We have studied the history of the formation of the
Canon and then the criticism of the Canon.^ We have seen that
the Canon Avas a gradual formation ; first the Law, then the
Prophets, then the Writings of the Old Testament, then the
Gospels, then the Epistles of St. Paul, and finally the Catholic
Epistles and Apocalypse of the New Testament. The Canoni-
1 The Case against Professor Briggs, Part III. p. 309.
2 See Chaps. V., VI.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 617
cal Scripture was ever historically the Scripture in the text at
the time recognized by the Synagogue and the Church. No
one ever thought of searching for the original autographs.
And from the point of view of canonical criticism it is ever
the text of Scripture in one's hands that is recognized as ca
nonical or not. i'rom this point of view, it is evident that
what is canonical in Holy Scripture is entirely independent
of any special form of the text or of the original autographs.
It is true that the Protestant Reformers and the Puritans in
their symbolical books made the Greek and Hebrew texts the
final appeal in matters of religion over against the Roman
Catholic Church, which made the Latin Vulgate the final
authority ; but even the Protestants did not think of making
the original autographs their authority. They knew as well
as we do that they had them not and could never have them.
The Protestants appealed to the Greek and Hebrew texts that
they knew, and devoted themselves chiefly to translating them
into modern languages to give the Word of God to the people;
and they used these translations as the Word of God of infalli
ble, divine authority. No one in the time of the Reformation
was so foolhardy as to affirm that " the Canon of Scripture is
not in the Latin Bible, is not in the Greek Testament of Eras
mus, is not in the Hebrew Bible of Bomberg, but is solely and
alone in the original autographs of the inspired authors," which
have not one of them been in the possession of the Church
since the second century a.d. It was a rational position for the
Council of Trent to make the Latin Vulgate the authoritative
Bible and to provide for a correct official text. It would be a
reasonable procedure for a Protestant assembly to decide that
the Massoretic Hebrew text of Ben Asher and the Greek Bible
of the Vatican codex should be the final arbiter, as the most
correct texts at present attainable. But it is altogether irra
tional to take the position that the inerrant Bible is solely and
alone in the original autographs which no one has seen since
the Church had a Canon, and which no one can ever see.
When one clearly recognizes the essential principles of ca
nonical criticism, he sees clearly that that which is canonical
in Holy Scripture must be in every recognized text and in

618 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
every recognized version, and that the Canon cannot be con
fined to any version, or to any text, still less to the original
autographs. In point of fact, so far as the evidence goes, the
original autographs of Holy Scripture were never Tecognized
as canonical. It was not until the Holy Writings had been
copied and circulated that they received that general recogni
tion which is essential to canonicity. The copies, which in
many cases were many degrees distant from the autographs,
were recognized as canonical ; and in no case, so far as we can
determine, were the autographs recognized as canonical.
It is instructive just here to note that the early Church took
no pains whatever to preserve the autographs of the apostolic
founders of the Church. No autograph of St. Peter or St. Paul
or St. John or St. James was known to the early Church ; still
less an autograph of our Lord and Saviour.!
2. The question of the original autographs is not so simple
and easy of solution as the majority of this General Assembly
seem to have thought. The question emerges, Which autograph
do you seek ? What shall we say as regards the story of the
resurrection of our Lord at the close of the Gospel of Mark?
There can be no doubt that it was not in the Gospel of Mark
as that Gospel "came from him to whom and through whom
God originally communicated His revelation." It was appended
to Mark. 2 And yet there can be no doubt that this story was
attached to the Gospel of Mark at an early date, and that it
has been recognized as no less truly canonical and diAdnely
inspired than any other part of the Gospel. Is it now to be
cast out of the Canon of Holy Scripture because it was not in
the original autograph of Mark ? And what shall we say of the
two chief texts of Luke ? ^ Which of these two is the original
autograph ? They have both been recognized by the Church
for centuries as canonical, one by one section of the Church,
and the other by another section. Is it first necessary for us
to determine this question before we can have access to the
original, inerrant, inspired autographs ? Or will it be sufficient
to recognize either or both texts as inspired Scripture, although
they are discrepant and both of them not without errors ?
1 See p. 190. 2 gge p. 314. s See p. 202.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 619
If we regard the last chapter of Romans as not in the original
autograph of the Epistle to the Romans,! does this remove it
from the Canon of inerrant, inspired Scripture? And what
shall we say of the difference between the Hebrew and Greek
Bibles? If we compare the Greek version with the Hebrew
text of the Writings, it is evident that editors and scribes have
been at work subsequent to the time when the translations Avere
made of the texts upon which the one or the other of these
original authorities rely.^ The additions to Daniel, Esther,
and Ezra in the Greek version show the work of editors and
scribes upon these books. There are also serious differences
in Jeremiah, the Psalter, and the book of Proverbs. Even in
the Pentateuch the arrangement of the material is different.
If we maintain that in all cases the Hebrew text should be
followed, and the work of the scribes upon the Hebrew manu
scripts which underlie the Greek text should be rejected, we
are met with the use of the Greek text by the apostles in the
New Testament and by the Christian Fathers in the sub-apostolic
age. But what shall we say of the editors and scribes who
have made the editorial changes, which may be traced in the
Hebrew text itself ? Can we fix a time when the Divine Spirit
ceased to guide the sacred scribes who edited and reedited,
arranged and rearranged the writings of the Old Testament ?
Will it be necessary to eliminate all the editorial additions and
glosses, readjust all the transpositions, correct all the mistakes,
and restore the text to the exact original before we get at the
original inerrant Scripture ? When any one gives his serious
attention to the practical Avork of criticism, as it has been
described in the pages of this book, he Avill see in what an
untenable position he involves himself by recognizing errors in
all documents accessible to us, and by insisting solely and alone
upon the inerrancy of the original autographs. In point of
fact as regards the greater part of the writings of Holy Script
ure, it may be said that the original autographs, as they " came
from them to whom and through whom God originaUy commu
nicated His revelation," were not the ones which were recog
nized by the Church as inspired and canonical ; but the Jews
1 See pp. 315 seq. ^ See pp. 173, 314.

620 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and the Christians alike recognized rather the documents as
they came from the hands of later editors at many stages of
removal from the original autographs.
3. It is a most remarkable fact that the original autographs
of the holy men and prophets, from whom the Holy Scriptures
came, were edited and changed with so much freedom by the
later editors from whom our Bible ultimately came.
One would suppose that no original autograph that ever was
written could be so holy, inerrant, and safe from change as the
Logia of Jesus by the apostle Matthew. And yet the Logia
was used, in part, in quite drastic ways by both our Matthew
and Luke, and then neglected and ultimately lost. The only
way in which we can recover it is by the process of criticism.
The most precious words in the Old Testament are those of the
Psalter. And yet nothing is more evident than the fact that
many of the choicest psalms have passed through the hands of
many editors in a number of minor and major psalters, before
they attained their present form in our Psalter.!
Our Psalter, as it has been used in Jewish and Christian
worship for two thousand years, is the work of editors as much
as authors ; and he who would seek the original autographs of
the original poets has a long and difficult road to travel, and
one in which no certainty can be attained. One can hardly
conceive of Dr. Harsha, or even Dr. Warfield, traveUing that
pathway to inerrancy and certainty.
If inerrancy and certainty are only to be found in this way,
they will never be found. Certainty has never been found in
this way. Such autographs the Church and the Synagogue
have never known. If we could find them, in all probability
we would see them containing as many errors, if not more,
than the present texts. This mdch we do know, that in all
these editorial matters the scribes made errors before the fixing
of the Canon, as well as subsequent thereto. Criticism can
find no errorless scribe, no inerrant person. This is immaterial
so long as the religious instruction, as given in these books, is
trustworthy, is truthful and reliable.
1 See pp. 312, 321.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 621

IV. Textual Criticism and Credibility
It is conceded by all biblical scholars at the present time
that there are errors in all the texts and versions of the Bible
accessible to us, but it is urged by some dogmaticians that if
we had the original autographs we would find them free from
error and altogether inerrant and infallible. From the point
of view of biblical science this is a mere speculation. It would
not be worthy of consideration were it not for the fact that it is
urged as an essential dogma by a dominant party in the Ameri
can Presbyterian Church.
Textual criticism shows that the best texts, versions, and
citations of these Holy Scriptures that we can get have numer
ous and important discrepancies. The errors do not decrease
in number as we work our way back in the laborious processes
of criticism toward the original text. The discrepancies be
tween the Samaritan and the Massoretic Hebrew codices,
between the earliest Hebrew manuscripts and the earliest man
uscripts of the Greek version, between the New Testament
citations and the Syriac and Vulgate versions, are so numerous
that few bibUcal scholars are able to take a comprehensive
view of them and to make a competent judgment upon them.
The most exact textual criticism leaves us with numerous
errors in Holy Scripture just where we find them in the trans
mitted texts of other sacred books.
How far does the exact condition of the text of the Bible
impair its credibility? How far does the science of textual
criticism go to verify the truthfulness of Holy Scripture ?
1. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, the theory of
Buxtorf, Heidegger, Turretine, Voetius, Owen, and the Zurich
Consensus, that the vowel points and accents were original and
inspired, has been so utterly disproved that no biblical scholar
of the present day would venture to defend them.! But can
their theory of verbal inspiration stand without these sup
ports ? Looking at the doctrine of inspiration from the point
of view of textual criticism, we see at once that there can be
1 See pp. 220 seq.

622 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
no inspiration of the written letters or uttered sounds of our
present Hebrew text; for these are transliterations of the
original Hebrew letters which have been lost,! ^nd the sounds
are traditional, and in many respects artificial and uncertain.
While there is a general correspondence of these letters and
sounds so that they give us essentially the original, they do
not give us exactly the original. The inspiration must there
fore lie back of the written letters and the uttered sounds, and
be sought in that which is common to the old characters and
the new, the utterance of the voice and the constructions of
the pen; namely, in the concepts, the sense and meaning that
they convey.
" All language or writing is but the vessel, the symbol, or decla
ration of the rule, not the rule itself. It is a certain form or
means by which the divine truth cometh unto us, as things are
contained in words, and because the doctrine and matter of the
text is not made unto one but by words and a language which I
understand; therefore I say, the Scripture in English is the rule
and ground of my faith, and whereupon I relying have not a
humane, but a divine authority for my faith." ^
Holy Scripture was not meant for the Hebrew and Greek
nations alone, or for Hebrew and Greek scholars, but for all
nations and the people of God. It is given to the world in a
great variety of languages Avith a great variety of letters and
sounds, so that the sacred truth approaches each one in his
native tongue in an appropriate relation to his understanding,
just as at Pentecost the same Divine Spirit distributed Himself
in cloven tongues of fire upon a large number of different per
sons. Thus every faithful translation as an instrument conveys
the Divine Word to those who read or hear it :
"Por it is not the shell of the words, but the kernel of the
matter which commends itself to the consciences of men, and that
is the same in all languages. The Scriptures in English, no less
than in Hebrew or Greek, display its lustre and exert its power
and discover the character of its divine original." '
This is shown by the process of translation itself. The
1 See p. 170. ' Lyford, Plain Man's Sense Exercised, etc., p. 49.
3 Matthew Poole, Bloio at the Boot, London, 1679, p. 234.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 623
translator does not transliterate the letters and syllables, trans
mute sounds, give word for word, transfer foreign words and
idioms ; but he ascertains the sense, the idea, and then gives
expression to the idea, the sense, in the most appropriate way.
It is admitted that close, literal translations are bad, mislead
ing, worse than paraphrases ; Aquila has even been a warning
in this regard.! The method of Ezra is far preferable, to give
the sense to the people without the pedantry and subtilties of
scholarship. As another Puritan says :
"Now, what shall a poor unlearned Christian do, if he hath
nothing to rest his poore soul on ? The originals he understands
not ; if he did, the first copies are not to be had ; he cannot tell
whether the Hebrew or Greek copies be the right Hebrew or the
right Greek, or that which is said to be the meaning of the Hebrew
or Greek, but as men tell us, who are not prophets and may mis
take. Besides, the transcribers were men and might err. These
considerations let in Atheisme like a flood." ^
It is a merciful providence that divine inspiration is not con
fined to particular words and phrases, and grammatical, logical,
or rhetorical constructions ; and that the same divine truth
may be presented in a variety of synonymous words and phrases
and sentences. It is the method of divine revelation to give
the same laws, doctrines, narratives, expressions of emotion,
and prophecies in great variety of forms. None of these are
adequate to convey the divine idea, but in their combination
it is presented from all those varied points of view that rich,
natural languages afford, in order that the mind and heart may
grasp the idea itself, appropriate and reproduce it in other
forms of language, and in the motives, principles, and habits
of every-day life. The external Avord, written or spoken, is
purely instrumental, conveying divine truth to the soul of
man, as the eye and the ear are instrumental senses for its
appropriation by the soul. It does not work ex opere operato
by any mechanical or magical power.
As the Lutherans tend to lay the stress upon the sacraments,
in their external operation, and the Anglicans upon the exter
nal organization of the Church, so the Reformed have ever been
1 See p. 191. 2 Rich. Capel, Bemains, London, 1658.

624 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
in perU of laying the stress on the letter, the external operation
of the Word of God. The Protestant principle struggles against
this confounding of the means of grace with the divine grace
itself, this identification of the instrument and the divine agent,
in order therefore to their proper discrimination. This is the
problem left unsolved by the Reformation, on which the sepa
rate churches of Protestantism have been working, and which
demands a solution from the Church of the nineteenth century.
Here the most radical question is that of the Divine Word and
its relation to the work of the Holy Spirit. This solved, all
the other questions will be solved. Herein the churches of the
Reformation may be harmonized. Its solution can come only
from a further working out of the critical principles of the
Reformation ; not by logical deduction from the creeds and
scholastic dogmas alone, but by a careful induction of the facts
from the Scriptures themselves. The fundamental distinction
between the external and the internal word is well stated by
John Wallis, one of the clerks of the Westminster Assembly :
"The Scriptures in themselves are a Lanthorn rather than a
Light; they shine, indeed, but it is alieno lumine; it is not their
own, but a borrowed light. It is God which is the true light that
shines to us in the Scriptures ; and they have no other light in
them, but as they represent to us somewhat of God, and as they
exhibit and hold forth God to us, who is the true light that ' en-
lighteneth every man that comes into the world.' It is a light,
then, as it represents God unto us, who is the original light. It
transmits some rays ; some beams of the diviue nature ; but they
are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold them. They
lose much of their original lustre by passing through this medium,
and appear not so glorious to us as they are in themselves. They
represent God's simplicity obliquated and refracted, by reason of
many inadequate conceptions ; God condescending to the weak
ness of our capacity to speak to us in our own dialect." i
The Scriptures are lamps, vessels of the most holy character,
but no less vessels of the divine grace than were the apostles
and prophets who spake and wrote them. As vessels they have
come into material contact with the forces of this world, with
human weakness, ignorance, prejudice, and folly ; their forms
1 Sermons, London, 1791, pp. 127-128.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 625
have been modified in the course of the generations, but their
divine contents remain unchanged. We shall never be able to
attain the sacred writings in the original letters and sounds and
forms in which they gladdened the eyes of those who first saw
them, and rejoiced the hearts of those who first heard them.
If the external words of these originals were inspired, it does
not profit us. We are cut off from them forever. Interposed
between us and them is the tradition of centuries and even
millenniums. Doubtless by God's "singular care and provi
dence they have been kept pure in all ages, and are therefore
authentical."! Doubtless throughout the whole work of the
authors " the Holy Spirit was present, causing His energies to
fiow into the spontaneous exercises of the writers' faculties,
elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere se
curing the errorless expression in language of the thought
designed by God " ; ^ but we cannot in the symbolical or his
torical use of the term call this providential care of His Word,
or superintendence over its external production, inspiration.
Such providential care and superintendence is not different in
kind with regard to the Word of God, the Church of God, or
the forms of the sacraments. Inspiration lies back of the
external letter : it is that which gives the Word its efficacy ;
it is the divine afflatus which enlightened and guided holy
men to apprehend the truth of God in its appropriate forms,
assured them of their possession of it, and called and enabled
them to make it known to the Church by voice and pen. This
made their persons holy, their utterances holy, their writings
holy, but only as the instruments, not as the holy thing itself.
The divine Logos — that is the sum and substance of the Script
ure, the holy of holies, whence the Spirit of God goes forth
through the holy place of the circumstantial sense of type and
symbol, and literary representation, into the outer court of the
words and sentences, through them to enter by the ear and eye
into the hearts of men with enlightening, sanctifying, and sav
ing power :
1 Westminster Confession of Faith, I. viii.
2 A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, art. "Inspiration," Presbyterian Beview,
IL 231. 2s

626 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
" Inspiration is more than superintending guidance, for that ex
presses but an external relation between the Spirit and writer. But
Inspiration is an influence within the soul, divine and supernatural,
working through all the writers in one organizing method, making of
the many one, by all one book, the Book of God, the Book for man,
divine and human in all its parts ; having the same relation to aU
other books that the Person of the Son of God has to all other mgn,
and that the Church of the living God has to all other institutions." i
True criticism never disregards the letter, but reverently
and tenderly handles every letter and syllable of the Word of
God, striving to purify it from all dross, brushing away the
dust of tradition and guarding it from the ignorant and pro
fane. But it is with no superstitious dread of magical virtue
or virus in it, or anxious fears lest it should dissolve in the
hands, but with an assured trust that it is the tabernacle of
God, through whose external courts there is an approach to
the Lord Jesus Himself. " Bibliolatry clings to the letter ;
spirituality in the letter finds the spirit and does not disown
the letter which guided to the spirit. " ^
Such criticism has accomplished great things for the New
Testament text. It will do even more for the Old Testament
so soon as the old superstitious reverence for Massoretic tradi
tion has been laid aside by Christian scholars. Critical theories
first come into conflict with the church doctrine of inspiration
when they deny the inspiration of the truth and facts of
Scripture ; when they superadd another authoritative and pre
dominant test, whether it be the reason, the conscience, or the
religious feeling. But this is to go beyond the sphere of
evangelical criticism and enter into the fields of rationalistic,
ethical, or mystical criticism. Evangelical criticism conflicts
only with false views of inspiration. It disturbs the inspiration
of versions, the inspiration of the Massoretic text, the inspiration
of particular letters, syUables, and external Avords and expres
sions ; and truly all those who rest upon these external things
ought to be disturbed and driven from the letter to the spirit,
from clinging to the outer walls, to seek Him who is the sum
and substance, the Master and the King of the Scriptures.
1 H. B. Smith, Sermon on Inspiration, 1855, p. 27. " In I.e., p. 36.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 627

V. The Higher Criticism and Credibility
This is the most delicate and difficult question of the Higher
Criticism with reference to aU literature, but especially with
reference to Biblical Literature. That there are errors in the
present text of our Bible, and inconsistencies, it is vain to deny.
There are chronological, geographical, and other circumstantial
inconsistencies and errors which we should not hesitate to
acknowledge. Such circumstantial and incidental errors as
arise from the inadvertence or lack of information of an author,
are not an impeachment of his credibility. If we distinguish
between revelation and inspiration, and yet insist upon inerrancy
with reference to the latter as well as the former, we virtually
do away with the distinction. No mere man can escape alto
gether human errors unless divine revelation set even the most
familiar things in a new and infallible light, and also so control
him that he cannot make a slip of the eye or the hand, a fault
in the imagination, in conception, in reasoning, in rhetorical
figure, or in grammatical expression ; and indeed so raise him
above his fellows that he shall see through all their errors in
science and philosophy as well as theology, and anticipate the
discoveries in all branches of knowledge by thousands of years.
Errors of inadvertence in minor details, where the author's posi
tion and character are well known, do not destroy his credibility
as a witness in any literature or any court of justice. It is not
to be presumed that divine inspiration lifted the author above
his age, any more than was necessary to convey the divine reve
lation and the divine instruction with infallible certainty to
mankind. We have to take into account the extent of the
author's human knowledge, his point of view and type of
thought, his methods of reasoning and illustration. The ques
tion of credibUity is to be distinguished from that of infaUi-
bUity. The form is credible, the substance alone is infalUble.
The Higher Criticism studies aU the literary phenomena of
Holy Scripture. It has thus far done an inestimable service in
the removal of the traditional theories from the sacred books,
so that they may be studied in their real structure and character.

628 study of holy scripture
The Higher Criticism recognizes faults of grammar and rhetoric,
and of logic in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The bib
lical authors used the language with which they were familiar ;
some of them classic Hebrew, others of them dialectic and cor
rupted Hebrew. Some of them have a good prose style ; others
of them have a dull, tedious, pedantic style. Some of them
are poets of the highest rank ; others of them write such infe
rior poetry that one is surprised that they did not use prose.
Some of them reason clearly, profoundly, and convincingly ;
others of them reason in a loose, obscure, and unconvincing
manner. Some of them present the truth like intuitions of
light ; others labour with it, and eventually deliver it in a crude
and undeveloped form. The results of these studies show that
in all these respects the biblical authors were left to themselves,
to their own individualities and idiosyncrasies. All these mat
ters belong to the manner and method of their instruction.
Errors in these formal things do not impair the infallibility of
the substance, the religious instruction itself.
The Higher Criticism shows us the process by which the
sacred books were produced ; that the most of them were com
posed by unknown authors ; that they have passed through the
hands of a considerable number of unknown editors, who have
brought together the older material without removing discre
pancies, inconsistencies, and errors. Take the Pentateuch, the
earliest canon of the Old Testament. It is composed of four
great documents, whose authors are unknown to us. These doc
uments were consolidated by an unknown editor in the times of
the Restoration. Each of these documents is made up of stiU
older documents and sources.! These may, within certain
limits, be assigned to their times of composition, but not to
their authors. In this process of editing, arranging, addi
tion, subtraction, reconstruction, and consolidation, extending
through many centuries, what evidence have we that these
unknown editors were kept from error in all their work?
With the precious divine instruction in their hands it seems
altogether likely that they were left to their honest human
judgment without any constraint or restraint of a divine influ-
1 See p. 322.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 629
ence, just as later copyists and editors have been left to them
selves. They were men of God, and judging from their work,
they were guided by the Divine Spirit in their apprehension
and expression of the divine instruction, but also judging from
their work, it seems most probable that they were not guided
by the Divine Spirit in their grammar, in their rhetoric, in
their logical expressions, in their arrangement of their material,
or in their general editorial work. In all these matters they
were left to those errors, which even the most faithful and
most scrupulous writers will sometimes make. Unless we take
some such position we are really exposed to the peril of making
the Holy Spirit the author of bad grammar, of the incorrect
use of words, of inelegant expressions, and of disorderly
arrangement of material ; which, indeed, was charged upon the
critics of the seventeenth century by their earliest opponents.!
From the point of view of the Higher Criticism, we are not
prepared to admit errors in the Scriptures, until they shall be
proven. Very many of those alleged have already received
sufficient or plausible explanation ; others are in dispute be
tween truth-seeking scholars, and satisfactory explanations
may hereafter be given. Ncav difficulties are constantly arising
and being overcome. The question whether there are errors is
a question of fact to which all theories and doctrines must
yield. It cannot be determined by a priori definitions and
statements on either side. Indeed the original autographs
have been lost for ages and can never be recovered. Hoav can
we determine whether they were absolutely errorless or not ?
To assume that it must be so, as a deduction from the theory
of verbal inspiration, is to beg the whole question.
Richard Baxter truly says :
"And here I must tell you a great and needful truth, which . . .
Christians fearing to confess, by overdoing tempt men to Infidelity.
The Scripture is Uke a man's body, where some parts are but for
the preservation of the rest, and may be maimed without death.
The sense is the soul of the Scripture, and the letters but the
body or vehicle. The doctrine of the Creed, Lord's Prayer and
Decalogue, Baptism and the Lord's Supper is the vital part,
1 See p. 276.

630 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and Christianity itself. The Old Testament letter (written as we
have it about Ezra's time) is that vehicle, which is as imperfect
as the revelation of these times was. But as after Christ's incar
nation and ascension the Spirit was more abundantly given, and
the revelation more perfect and sealed, so the doctrine is more
full, and the vehicle or body, that is, the words, are less imperfect
and more sure to us ; so that he that doubteth the truth of some
words in the Old Testament, or of some circmnstances in the
New, hath no reason therefore to doubt of the Christian religion,
of which these writings are but the vehicle or body, sufficient to
ascertain us of the truth of the History and Doctrine." i
Higher Criticism comes into confUct with the authority of
Scripture when it finds that its doctrinal statements are not
authoritative and its revelations are not credible. If the
credibility of a book is impeached, its divine authority and
inspiration are also impeached. But to destroy credibility
something more must be presented than errors in matters of
detaU that do not affect the author's scope of argument or his
religious instructions. It is an unsafe position to assume that
we must first prove the credibility, inerrancy, and infallibUity
of a book ere we accept its authority. If inquirers waited
until all the supposed errors in our canonical books were satis
factorily explained, they would never accept the Bible as a
divine revelation. To press the critics to this dilemma, iner
rant or uninspired, might be to catch them on one of the horns
if they were not critical enough to detect the faUacy and
escape, but it would be more Ukely to catch the people, who
know nothing of criticism, and so undermine and destroy their
faith. The Higher Criticism has already strengthened the credi
bility of Scripture. It has studied the human features of the
Bible and learned the wondrous variety of form and colour
assumed by the divine revelation. Many of the supposed
inconsistencies have been found to be different modes of repre
senting the same thing, complementary to one another and
combining to give a fuller representation than any one mode
could ever have given; as the two sides of the stereoscopic view
give a representation superior to that of the ordinary photo-
1 Tfte Catechizing of Families, 1683, p. 36.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 631
graph. The unity of statement found in the midst of such
wondrous variety of detail in form and colour is much more
convincing than a unity of mere coincidence such as the older
harmonists sought to obtain by stretching and straining the
Scriptures on the procrustean bed of their hau'-splitting scho
lasticism. Many of the supposed inconsistencies have been
found to arise from different stages of divine revelation, in each
of which God condescended to the weakness and the ignorance
of men, and gave to them the knowledge that they could appro
priate, and held up to them ideals that they could understand
as to their essence if not in all their details. The earlier are
shadows and types, crude and imperfect representations of
better things to follow.! Many of the supposed inconsistencies
result from the popular and unscientific language of the Bible,
thus approaching the people of God in different ages in con
crete forms and avoiding the abstract. The inconsistencies
have resulted from the scholastic abstractions of those who
would use the Bible as a text-book, but they do not exist in
the concrete of the Bible itself. Many of the supposed incon
sistencies arise from a different method of logic and rhetoric
in the Oriental writers and the attempt of modern scholars to
measure them by Occidental methods. Many of the incon
sistencies result from the neglect to appreciate the poetic and
imaginative element in the Bible and a lack of sesthetic sense
on the part of its interpreters. The Higher Criticism has
abeady removed a large number of difficulties, and will remove
many more when it has become a more common study among
scholars. VI. Historical Criticism and Credibility
We have seen that there are historical mistakes in Holy
Scripture, mistakes of chronology and geography, errors as to
historical events and persons, discrepancies and inconsistencies
in the histories which cannot be removed by any legitimate
method of interpretation. ^
The Historical Criticism of the Old Testament finds discre-
1 Heb. 86, 101, 11*0 ; Col. 2". ^ See pp. 512 seq.

632 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
pancies between the parallel narratives of Kings and Chronicles,
and between the different sources which have been compacted
by later editors in the Hexateuch, and in the prophetic his
torians. A comparison of these with the prophetical and the
poetical writings also makes it evident that there are historical
errors in these books. It is extremely improbable that these
are all due to copyists and scribes who worked upon the sacred
writings subsequent to the formation of the Canon. It is more
reasonable to suppose that, in all this historical framework of
the divine revelation, the sacred writers and scribes were left
to themselves to make those few mistakes, which the best men
will sometimes make in their most conscientious and pains
taking writing of history.
All such errors are just where you would expect to find
them in accurate, truthful writers of history in ancient times.
They used with fidelity the best sources of information acces
sible to them : ancient poems, popular traditions, legends and
ballads, regal and family archives, codes of law, and ancient
narratives.! There is no evidence that they received any of
this history by revelation from God. There is no evidence
that the Divine Spirit corrected their narratives either when
they were lying uncomposed in their minds, or written in man
uscripts. The purpose of the ancient historians was to give
the history of God's redemptive workings. There is evidence
that they were guided by the Divine Spirit in the conception
of their plan, and in the working of it out so as to give the
religious education which is embedded in these histories. This
made it necessary that there should be no essential errors in
the redemptive facts and agencies, but it did not make it neces
sary that there should be no mistakes in dates, in places, and
in persons, so long as these did not change the religious les
sons or the redemptive facts. None of the mistakes, discre
pancies, and errors which have been discovered disturb the great
religious lessons of biblical history. These lessons are the
only ones whose credibility we are concerned to defend. All
other things belong to the human framcAvork of the divine
story, and it is altogether probable that in this framework the
1 See pp. 555 seq.

THE CREDIBILITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE , 633
authors were left to their own honest judgment. They do not
show in their historical writing that insight, foresight, and
grasp which they show when they are pointing the religious
lessons of history. Where that insight, foresight, and grasp
are lacking, Ave may know that the writers have been left to
themselves, to the free exercise of their human faculties.
Thus all departments of the study of Holy Scripture lead to
the result that there are numerous errors of detail in Holy
Scripture, that there are no such things as inerrant documents
of any kind; but that the substance of Holy Scripture, the
divine teaching as to religion, faith, and morals, is errorless
and infallible.

CHAPTER XXV
THE TRUTHFULNESS OP HOLY SCRIPTURE
All departments of Biblical Criticism lead us to errors in the
Holy Scriptures. The sciences which approach the Bible from
without and the sciences which study it from within agree as
to the essential facts of the case. In all matters which come
within the sphere of human observation, and which constitute
the framework of the divine instruction, errors may be found.
Can the truthfulness of Scripture be maintained by those who
recognize these errors ?
It is claimed by some dogmatic theologians and their parti
sans, that " a proved error in Scripture contradicts not only our
doctrine, but the Scripture claims and, therefore, its inspiration
in making those claims. " ! This statement challenges scientific
men, historians, and biblical scholars to abandon either their
studies or their Bible. In reply to such a challenge scholars
say to these dogmaticians : " There are errors in the Bible.
Your dogma is a piece of human folly and presumption." This
party defend their thesis by an a priori argument. They
say : " God is true. He speaks a true word. His word is an
inerrant word. The Bible is the word of God. Therefore the
Bible is inerrant." This argument is plausible, but superficial
and specious. Both its premises are untrustworthy.
I. Is THE Bible the Word of God?
The minor premise of their argument, that the Bible is the
word of God, needs qualification and explanation ; otherwise it
begs the whole question. The Bible is the word of God in the
sense that its essential contents are the word of God. But it
1 See p. 609.
634

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 635
is not the word of God in the sense that its every word, sen
tence, and clause is the word of God. From that point of
view we must rather say the Bible contains the word of God.
The Bible is the word of God in the sense that it contains a
divine word of religious instruction to men. But we must
distinguish in the Bible between the divine word of instruc
tion and the human vessel which contains that divine word.
The errors of Holy Scripture are in the vessel, the frame
work, the setting ; not in the contents, or the substance of the
Bible. Therefore cA'cn if the major premise be true that a
divine word must be inerrant, the corrected minor premise
would only lead to the conclusion that the divine word of in
struction in the Bible is inerrant, and it would leave room
for errors in the human setting.
There is no a priori reason why the substantial truthfulness
of the Bible should not be consistent with circumstantial errors.
God Himself did not speak, according to the Hebrew Script
ures, more than a few words, in theophanies, which are recorded
here and there in the Old Testament. God speaks in much
the greater part of the Old Testament through the voices and
pens of the human authors of the Scriptures. Did the human
voice and pen in all the numerous writers and editors of Holy
Scripture prior to the completion of the Canon always deliver
an inerrant word ?
Even if all the writers were so possessed of the Holy Spirit
as to be merely passive in His hands, the question arises : Can
the finite voice and the finite pen deliver and express the iner
rant truth of God? If the language, and the style, and the
dialect, and the rhetoric are all natural to the inspired man, is
it possible for these to express the infinite truth of God ? How
can an imperfect word, sentence, and clause express a perfect
divine truth ? It is evident that the writers of the Bible were
not as a rule in the ecstatic state. The Holy Spirit did not
move their hands or their lips. He suggested to their minds
and hearts the divine truth they were to teach. They received
it by intuition in the forms of their reason. They framed it in
conception, in imagination, and in fancy. They deUvered it in
the logical and rhetorical forms of speech. If the divine truth

636 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
passed through the conception and imagination of the human
mind, did the human mind conceive it fully without any defect,
Avithout any fault, without any shading of error ? Had the
human conception no limitations to its reception of the divine
truth ? Had the human imagination and fancy no colours to
impart to the holy instruction ? Did the human mind add
nothing to it in reasoning or conception ? Was it delivered in
its entirety exactly as it was received ? How can we be sure of
this when we see the same doctrine in such variety of forms,
all partial, all inadequate ? How can we know this when we
find the same ethical principle in such a variety of shading ?
If the human medium could hardly fail to modify the divine
truth received by it in revelation, hoAV much more must the
human medium influence the divine instruction in connec
tion with biblical history, lyric poetry, sentences of wisdom,
and works of the imagination which make up the body of the
Old Testament. Here the mass of the material was derived
from human sources of information : the history depended upon
oral and documentary evidence ; the lyric poetry was the ex
pression of human emotion ; the sentence of wisdom was the
condensation of human ethical experience ; the works of the
imagination were efforts to clothe religious lessons in artistic
forms of grace and beauty. AU that we can claim for the
Divine Spirit in the production of these parts of the Old Tes
tament is an inspiration which suggests the religious lessons to
be imparted.
If, as some claim, in addition, there was a providential super
intendence guarding the biblical writers from every kind of
error, we are compelled to state that this guarding from error
is the matter in contention. It cannot be assumed. It has to
be proven. It is improbable, and it cannot be accepted except
through the most conclusive reasons, which no one has yet
been able to present.
It is plain, therefore, that the presumption is that the human
spokesman of the divine word has given the divine word in as
true and original a form as possible ; and yet that the limita
tions of his mind, his language, and the circumstances of his
time make it probable that he could give it only partially, and

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 637
that he would accompany its expression with such errors as
would spring from his ignorance and inadvertence in cir
cumstantial matters.

II. Must God speak Inerrant Words to Man?
The major premise of this argument is also specious and
needs rectification. We cannot assume that when God speaks
to men He must always speak an inerrant word. God is true.
He is the truth. There is no error or falsehood in Him. He
cannot lie. He cannot mislead or deceive His creatures.
There can be no doubt of this. But the question arises.
When the infinite God speaks to finite man, must He speak
words which are inerrant? This depends not only upon
God's speaking, but upon man's hearing, and also upon the
means of communication between God and man. It is neces
sary to show the capacity of man to receive the inerrant word
and the adequacy of the means to convey the inerrant word as
well as the inerrancy of God, before we can be sure that God
can only communicate inerrant words to man. We may be
certain of the inerrancy of the speaker of the word, but how
can it be shown that the means of communication are inerrant,
or that man is capable of receiving an inerrant word ? It is
necessary that we should consider that in all His relations to
man and nature God condescends. The finite can only con
tain a part of the infinite. God limits Himself when He
imparts anything of Himself to the creature. In the con
verse of heaven we may say that there may be inerrant com
munications. In the commands of God to seraphs and angels
God may be conceived of as speaking inerrant words. But
has God, in fact, spoken inerrant words to weak, ignorant, sin
ful men in a world so imperfect and inharmonious as ours?
We may argue from analogies.
1. The book of nature discloses much of the glory and
power and wisdom of the God in creation and providence.
But are these disclosures inerrant? Can we formulate an
exact doctrine of the attributes of God from these disclosures
of nature ? No one believes it. Nature is incapable of doing

638 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
any more than of disclosing faint, partial, and fallible words
of God. The material universe is incapable of doing any more
than to give, in many varying colours, faint reflections of the
light of the spiritual world.
It may be asked, "May not a revelation in nature, though in
complete, be inerrant as far as it goes ? " To this it may be
replied, yes, if it go only so far in its incompleteness as to issue
forth from God Himself. But if it go so far as to enter into
the realm of external nature and mingle with the physical it
will go so far as to lose its inerrancy. The inerrant word of
God in nature can be determined only by eliminating the essen
tial word from all the colouring and all the formal inexactness
and deflection from the normal, which its environment in nat
ure involves.
2. The revelation of God through the patriarchs and
prophets of the Old Testament was sometimes accompanied
by theophanies. In theophanies God manifests Himself to the
human senses of sight, hearing, and occasionaUy of touch, by
assuming some form discernible by the senses. Usually God
appears in some form of light or fire, sometimes as an angel or
man, sometimes in a voice and sound. These forms are not
the real form of God ; they are forms which He condescends
to assume for a purpose. They do not any of them give an
inerrant representation of the invisible God. The law forbids
Israel to represent God under any external form whatever.!
Those who worship Him, worship Him in spirit and in fideUty.
God does not give an inerrant representation of Himself in the
forms of time and space within the material universe. And
yet these manifestations are the stepping-stones of Biblical
History. The theophanies of the Old Testament lead on to
the Christophanies of the New Testament.^ They are indeed
the fundamental realities upon which all the divine revelation
in word depend.
3. If God does not reveal Himself inerrantly in the great
works of nature, or in theophanies, why should we suppose
that He makes an inerrant revelation when He makes a com
munication through the human spirit? It is quite true that
1 Deut. 415-". 2 See p. 542.

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 639
we are now rising from the material into the spiritual world.
Man is akin with deity by the inheritance of the reason and
all the wondrous faculties associated therewith. God may,
therefore, reveal Himself as Spirit to the spirit of men, far
more freely, fully, and clearly than in the forms of the material
universe. And yet we have to consider the immense distance
between the condescending God and the most exalted human
spirit. If the human spirit is capable of receiving an inerrant
word, we may believe that God would communicate it. But is
the human spirit capable? We know in our experience in
communicating one with another how extremely difficult it is
to transmit an inerrant message. The utmost pains have to be
taken. We cannot trust the mind; we must make a record
that cannot change. We know that it is impracticable to
teach the truth inerrantly to the ignorant and the unprepared,
even so far as we may have it. The instruction must be
adapted by the teacher to the pupil. The same truth must be
taught differently in an infant class, from the pulpit, through
the daily press, in the college class-room, in a scientific treatise.
A different training and different qualifications are necessary in
order to do successfully any of these different things. In each
one of these the truth is necessarily deprived of some portion
of its completeness and truthfulness. It seems to be impossible
for a teacher to convey the truth exactly as he sees it, or to
avoid so stating it that errors may not spring up on every side.
We know in part, we tell what we know in part. We are true
so far as we can be ; but we cannot be inerrant in our speech
or in our writing, even with regard to that measure of truth
which we really possess. If this is true in the relation of
human spirit with human spirit, how much more may it be true
of the Divine Spirit in its relation to the human spirit ?
4. Jesus had many things to say to His disciples that they
could not bear, that they could not understand.! xhe Divine
Teacher could not teach them because they were incapable of
receiving His teaching. If the apostles were incapable of the
teaching of Jesus, who condescended to become a man, to live
Avith them, and to speak to them in their own language, in their
1 John 1612.

640 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
own idiom, in their own methods of instruction ; if He had to
employ parables, which still remain the mysteries of the Gos
pels, which are capable of numerous erroneous interpretations ;
if His own wonderful sentences of wisdom are so capable of
erroneous application, how much more difiicult for the Divine
Spirit to communicate to men by internal suggestion divine
truth in such inerrant forms that the prophets and apostles
could only deliver it in speech and pen in the same inerrant
forms in which they received it. You may say that the para
bles and sentences of Jesus are inerrant, that the fault is in
the interpretation. But why were those parables and sentences
not given in such words and sentences as would make their
meaning clear for all time and avoid erroneous interpretation ?
The only answer we can give is that Jesus could not give His
teaching in inerrant forms ; the Holy Spirit could not com
municate the inerrant word to men without, in a measure,
depriving it of its inerrancy.
Thus the analogy of divine revelation in other forms, and of
the communication between men and men, and especially be
tween Jesus and His apostles, make it altogether probable that
the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures does not carry with it
inerrancy in every particular. It was sufficient if the divine
communication was given with such clearness as to guide men
aright in a religious life; it was sufficient that they knew as
suredly that God could not deceive or mislead them, but
would give them true, faithful, reliable guidance in holy
things. The errors of Holy Scripture are not errors of
falsehood, or of deceit ; they are such errors of ignorance,
inadvertence, of partial and inadequate knowledge, and of
incapacity to express the whole truth of God as belong to
man as man, and from which we have no evidence that even an
inspired man was relieved. Just as the light is seen, not in its
pure, unclouded rays, but in the beautiful colours of the spec
trum, as its beams are broken up by the angles and discolora-
tions which obstruct their course, so it is with the truth of
God. Its revelation and communication meet with such ob
stacles in human nature and in this world of ours, that men
are capable of receiving it only in divers portions and divers

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 641
manners, as it comes to them through the divers tempera
ments and points of view and styles of the biblical writers.
Few men are capable of discerning more than one portion of
these colours — the most capable know in part. Not till the
day which closes the dispensation dawns will any one know
the whole ; for not till then will men be capable of seeing the
Christ as He is, and of knowing God in His glory.
The major premise of the a priori argument is not an intui
tion ; it lacks sufficient evidence to sustain it. All the evi
dence that we can gain points the other way. The only thing
that we can say is that God's word to man Avill be as inerrant
as possible, considering the human and defective media through
which it is communicated. There is an intrinsic improbability
that we have a Bible inerrant any further than that religious
instruction extends which is necessary for the guidance of God's
people in every successive epoch in the development of divine
revelation.
III. Gradual Development of the Hebrew Religion
The position we have thus far attained enables us to dispose
of the greater difficulties which lie in the way of the truthful
ness of Holy Scripture. These are religious, doctrinal, and
ethical difficulties.
The religion of the Old Testament is a religion which, with
all its excellence as compared with the other religions of
the ancient world, inculcates some things which are hard
to reconcile with an inerrant revelation. The sacrifice of
Jephthah's daughter,! and the divine command to Abraham to
offer up his son as a whole burnt-offering,^ seem unsuited to
a divine religion. There are many Avho try to explain these
difficulties away by arbitrary exegesis and conjectures supple
mentary to the narratives, but in vain. The narrative in
Judges leaves upon our minds the indelible impression that
Jephthah did a praiseworthy act when he sacrificed his daugh
ter to God ; and there can be no doubt that God commanded
the sacrifice of Isaac, even if He subsequently accepted a sub-
1 Jd. 1129^. 2 Gen. 22.
2t

642 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
Stitute in an animal victim. There is, indeed, no prohibition
of the offering up of children in the earliest codes of the
Hexateuch. The prohibition was first made in the Deuter
onomic code and originated somewhat late in the history of
Israel. The early Hebrews shared with the Canaanites and
other neighbouring nations in the practice of offering up their
children in the flame to God. From the point of view of sacri
fice nothing could be more acceptable than the best-beloved
son, except the offerer himself. The higher revelation teaches
the offering of the whole body and soul to God in the spiritual
sacrifice of an everlasting ministry.! But it required cen
turies of training before that divine lesson cordd be taught and
learned. The Hebrews were taught the principle of sacrifice
as they were able to learn it. God accepted the sacrifice of
Jephthah's daughter. He graciously accepted the ram instead
of Isaac, though He stated His rightful claim upon the beloved
son. He provided a sacrificial system which graduaUy grew
in wealth of symbolism through the ages of Jewish history;
and animal and grain sacrifices were made the normal form of
worship. But the prophets, with great difficulty and increasing oppo
sition from priests and people, gradually taught them that the
sacrifices must be of broken and contrite hearts, and of humble,
cheerful spirits. But what pleasure can God take in the blood
of animals or in smoking altars? How could the true God
ever prescribe such puerilities? This is the inquiry of the
higher religion of our day. We can only say that God was
training Israel to understand the meaning of a higher sacrifice;
even the obedience of the Christ in a holy life and a martyr
death in the service of God and of humanity, and of the similar
sacrifice that every child of God is called upon to make.
The offering up of children and of domestic animals and
grains was all a preparatory discipline for the religion of
Christ. The training was true and faithful for the time. But
it was provisional and temporal, to be displaced by that which
is complete and eternal. Did the sacrifice of children express
the inerrant will of God for all men? Did the sacrifice of
1 Rom. 121.

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 643
animals express the inerrant word of God for all time ? By
no means. These were the forms in which it was necessary to
clothe the divine law of sacrifice in its earlier stages of revela
tion. These partial forms were the object lessons by which
the little chUdren of the ancient world could be trained to
understand the final law of sacrifice for men.
On the same principle we would explain the law of circum
cision, the law which prohibits the eating of swine and shell
fish, the laws of ceremonial uncleanness and purification, the
laws of mixtures and the exclusion of eunuchs, bastards, and
descendants of certain nations from the holy precincts. These
religious laws doubtless were of immense benefit to Israel in
his religious development. But they do not reflect truly and
accurately and inerrantly the mind of God as to the way in
which He would be everlastingly worshipped. He taught them
to worship Him in the forms of which they were capable, in order
to train them for the use of the highest forms when the proper
time should arrive. The institutions of Israel were appropriate
for the Old Testament dispensation, not for the Christian age.
They have their propriety as elementary forms, but they err
from the ideal of religion as it lies eternally in the mind and
wUl of God. Saint Paul calls them weak and beggarly rudi
ments,! a shadow of the things to come.^
IV. Gradual Development in Morality
We cannot defend the morals of the Old Testament at all
points. It is not in accord with the morals of our day that a
man who was a slaveholder, a polygamist, and who showed such
Uttle respect for truth as Abraham, should be called the friend
of God. It is not to be reconciled with modern morality that
a man who committed so much injustice and crime as David
should be called the man after God's own heart. It would be
impossible for modern writers to make such statements; and yet
we should not judge too harshly. We should consider the men
in the light of their times. Nowhere in the Old Testament
are polygamy and slavery condemned. The time had not come
1 Gal. 49. 2 Col. 2".

644 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
in the history of the world when they could be condemned.
Is God responsible for the " twin relics of barbarism " because
He did not condemn them, but on the contrary recognized them
and restrained them in the Old Testament? These laws could
hardly be inerrant. They err from the divine ideal in their
morals. But the errors in moral precept were such as were
necessary in order to educate Israel for a nobler time when
Israel, as well as the Christian Church, would abhor slavery
and polygamy as sins and crimes.
The patriarchs were not truthful : their age seems to have
had little apprehension of the principles of truth;! and yet
Abraham was faithful to God, and so faithful under tempta
tion and trial that he became the father of the faithful, and
from that point of view the friend of God. David was a sinner ;
but he was a penitent sinner, and showed such a devout attach
ment to the Avorship of God that his sins, though many, were
all forgiven him. And his life as a whole exhibits such gener
osity, courage, variety of human affection and benevolence,
such heroism and patience in suffering, such self-restraint and
meekness in prosperity, such nobility and grandeur of charac
ter, that we must admire him and love him as one of the best
of men ; and we are not surprised that the heart of God went
out to him also. He must be regarded as a model of excellence
when compared with other monarchs of his age.
The commendation of Jael by the theophanic angel for the
treacherous slaying of Sisera could not be condoned in our age,
and it is not easy to understand how God could have com
mended it in any age. And yet it is only in accord with the
spirit of revenge which breathes in the command to exterminate
the Canaanites, which animates the imprecatory psalms, which
is threaded into the story of Esther, and which stirred Nehe
miah in his arbitrary government of Jerusalem. Jesus Christ,
praying for His enemies, lifts us into a different ethical world
from that familiar to us in the Old Testament. We cannot
regard these things in the Old Testament as inerrant in the
light of the moral character of Jesus Christ and the character
of God as He reveals Him. And yet we may well understand
1 See p. 308.

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 645
that the Old Testament times were not ripe for the higher
revelation, and that God condescended to a partial revelation
of His word and will, such as would guide His people in the
right direction, with as steady and rapid a pace as they were
capable of making.
Jesus Christ teaches us the true principle by which we may
judge the ethics of the Old Testament, when He repealed the
Mosaic law of divorce, and said : " Moses for your hardness
of heart suffered you to put aAvay your wives : but from the
beginning it hath not been so."!
In other words, the Mosaic law of divorce was not in accord
Avith the original institution of marriage, or with the real mind
and AviU of God. In that law God condescended for a season
to the hardness of heart of His people, and exacted of them
only that which they were able to perform. The law was
imperfect, temporary, to be repealed forever by the Messiah.
So through all the stages of divine revelation laws were given,
which were but the scaffolding of the temple of holiness, which
Avere to serve their purpose in the preparatory discipline, but
Avere to disappear forever when they had accomplished their
purpose. The codes of law of the Old Testament have all
been cast down by the Christian Church as the scaffolding of
the old dispensation, with the single exception of the Ten
Words ; and with reference to the fourth of these, the words
of Jesus are our guide : " The sabbath was made for man, and
not man for the sabbath." ^ For the eternal principles of
morals we turn in the Old Testament rather to the psalmists,
the sages, and the prophets ; we think of the true citizens of
Zion of the Psalter ; ^ of the guest in the temple of wisdom
of the book of Proverbs ; * of the righteous sufferer of the
Psalms of humUiation,^ and of the great prophet of the exile ; ^
of the saintly Job triumphantly challenging and destroying
every slander of his pharisaic accusers, and vindicating his
integrity in a magnificent unfolding of ethical experience,^
which has no equal save in the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus
Christ. 1 Mt. 198. See pp. 440 seq. 2 Mk. 22?. » Ps. 15, 24. * Prov. 9.
5 Ps. 22, 69. 6 Is. 40-66. ^ Job 31. See pp. 422 seq.

646 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

V. Gradualness of Biblical Doctrine
When, now, we come to the doctrinal teachings of the Old
Testament we find less difficulty. Some of the doctrines of
the Old Testament are inadequate and provisional. All of
them are partial and incomplete.
1. The doctrine of God in the Old Testament is magnifi
cent. The individuality of God is emphasized in the personal
name Yahweh, which probably means " the One ever with His
people."! Xhe doctrine of the Uving God is so strongly
asserted that it is far in advance of the faith of the Christian
Church at the present day, which has been misled by scholastic
dogmaticians into abstract conceptions of God. The attributes
are so richly unfolded and comprehensively stated that there
is little to be added to them in the New Testament. The doc
trine of creation is set forth in a great variety of beautiful
poetical representations, which give in the aggregate a simpler
and a fuller conception of creation than the ordinary doctrine
of the theologians, who build on a prosaic and forced interpre
tation of the first and second chapters of Genesis. The doc
trine of providence is iUustrated in a wonderful variety of
historical incidents, lyric prayers, thanksgivings and medita
tions, sentences of proverbial experience, and prophetic teach
ing. The God of the Old Testament is commonly conceived
as king and lord ; He was conceived as the father of nations
and kings and His love as the love of Israel and the Davidic
dynasty : but the " our Father " of the common people was
not known until Jesus Christ ; the profound depths of the
mercy of God in Jesus Christ was not yet manifest; the doctrine
of the Holy Trinity was not yet ripe. There is an advance in
God's revelation of Himself through the successive layers of
the Old Testament writings which is like the march of an
invincible king.
It is true that there are at times representations of vindic
tiveness in God, a jealousy of other gods, a cruel disregard of
1 See Robinson, Gesenius' Heb. Lex., new edition by Brovra, Driver, and
Briggs, article nin\

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 647
human suffering and human life, an occasional vacillation and
change of purpose, the passion of anger and arbitrary prefer
ences, which betray the inadequacy of ancient Israel to under
stand their God, and the errancy of their conceptions and
representations. But we all know that the true God does not
accord with these representations. We may call them anthro
pomorphisms and anthropopathisms; but whatever we may
name them they are errant representations. They do not,
however, mar the grandeur of the true God as we see Him in
the Old Testament. The truthfulness of the teaching of the
doctrine of God is not destroyed by occasional inaccuracies of
the teachers.
2. The doctrine of man in the Old Testament is a noble
doctrine. The unity and brotherhood of the race in origin and in
destiny is taught in the Old Testament as nowhere else. The
origin and development of sin are traced with a vividness and
an accuracy of delineation that find a response in the experi
ences of mankind. The ideal of righteousness as the original
plan of God for man and the ultimate destiny for man is held
up as a banner throughout the Old Testament. Surely these
are true instructions ; they are faithful, they are divine. There
are doubtless dark strands of national prejudice, of pharisaical
particularism, of faulty psychology, and of occasional exaggera
tion of the more external forms of ceremonial sin ; but these
do not mar, they rather serve to magnify the golden strands
which constitute the major part of the cord that binds our race
into an organism created and governed by a holy God in the
interests of a perfect and glorified humanity.
3. The most characteristic doctrines of the Old Testament
as well as the New Testament are the doctrines of redemption.
These are so striking that they entitle us to regard Biblical
History as essentially a history of redemption, and Biblical
Literature as the literature of redemption.!
The redemption of the Bible embraces the whole man, body
and soul, in this world and in the future state, the individual
man and the race of man, the earth and the heavens. The
biblical scheme of redemption is so vast, so comprehensive, so
1 See pp. 547 seq.

648 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
far-reaching that the Christian Church has thus far failed in
apprehending it. The doctrine of redemption unfolds from
simple germs into magnificent fruitage. The central nucleus
of this redemption is the Messianic idea. This comprehends
not only the person of the Messiah, but also a kingdom of
redemption and the redemption itself. Man is to pursue the
course of divine discipline until he attains the holiness of God.
Israel is to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. AU the
world is to be incorporated as citizens of Zion. Zion is the
light and joy of the entire earth. A Messianic king is to reign
over all nations. A Messianic prophet is to be the redeemer
of all. A priestly king is to rule in peace and righteousness
a kingdom of priests. All evil is to be banished from nature
and from man. The animal kingdom is to share in the uni
versal peace. The vegetable Avorld is to respond in glad song
to the call of man. There are to be new heavens and a new
earth as well as a new Jerusalem from which all the evil will
be excluded. Such ideals of redemption are divine ideals which
the human race has not yet attained. But in the course of
training for these ideals, the provisional redemption enjoyed
in the experience of God's people is rich and full. Study the
psalms of penitence, the psalms of faith and confidence in God,
the thanksgivings and the Hallels, and where else will you find
religious poetry which so aptly expresses the redemptive experi
ence of all the children of God ?
It is quite true that forgiveness of sins was appropriated
Avithout any explanation of its grounds. The sacrifice of Cal
vary was unknown to the Old Testament as a ground of salva
tion. The mercy of God was the ultimate source of forgiveness.
There is a lack of apprehension in the Old Testament of the
righteousness of faith. It was Jesus Christ who first gave
faith its unique place in the order of salvation. The doctrine
of holy love, which is urged in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and
the great prophet of the exile, is only a faint aspiration when
compared with the breathings of the love of God to man, and
man to God, as taught by Jesus and Saint Paul.
The doctrine of the future life in the Old Testament is often
obscured by questioning and doubts. It is only in the later

THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 649
stages that there is a joyous confidence in the enjoyment of the
favour of God after death, and not till Daniel do we have a
faith in a resurrection of some of the dead. "Jesus Christ
abolished death, and brought life and incorruptiou to light
through the Gospel. " !
Thus in every department of doctrine the Old Testament is
seen advancing through the centuries in the several periods of
Biblical Literature, in the unfolding of all the doctrines, pre
paring the way for the full revelation in the New Testament.
The imperfections, incompleteness, inadequacy of some of the
statements of the Old Testament as to religion, morals, and
doctrine necessarily inhere in the gradualness of the divine
revelation. That revelation which looked only at the end, at
the highest ideals, at what could be accomplished in the last
century of human time, would not be a revelation for all men.
It would be of no use to any other century but the last. A
divine word for man must be appropriate for the present as
well as the future ; must have something to guide men in every
stage of religious advancement; must have something for every
century of history, — for the barbarian as well as the Greek, the
Gentile as well as the Jew, the dark-minded African as well as
the open-minded European, the dull Islander as well as the
subtile Asiatic, the child and the peasant as well as the man
and the sage. It is just in this respect that the Holy Script
ures of the Old and New Testaments are so preeminent. They
have in them religious instruction for all the world. They
trained Israel in every stage of his advancement, and so they
Avill train all men in every step of their advancement.
It does not harm the advanced student to look back upon the
inadequate knowledge of his youthful days. It does not harm
the Christian to see the many imperfections, crudities, and
errors of the more elementary instruction of the Old Testa
ment. Nor does it destroy his faith in the truthfulness of the
Divine Word in these elementary stages. He sees its appropri
ateness, its truthfulness, its adaptation, its propriety; and he
learns that an unerring eye and inerrant mind and infallible
will has aU the time been at work using the imperfect media,
1 2 Tim. 110.

650 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
and straining them to their utmost capacity to guide men, to
raise them, and advance them in the true religion. The sacred
books are always pointing forward and upward; they are
always expanding in all directions; they are now, as they
always have been, true and faithful guides to God and a holy
life. They are now, as they always have been, trustworthy
and reliable in their religious instruction. They are now, as
they always have been, altogether truthful in their testimony
to the heart and experience of mankind. And this we may
say with confidence, while at the same time with the apostle we
exclaim standing on the heights of the New Testament Revela
tion in Jesus Christ: "Now we see in a mirror darkly; but
then face to face : now I know in part ; but then shall I know
fully even as also I have been fully known."!
1 1 Cor. 1312.

CHAPTER XXVI
THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE
The essential principle of the Reformed system of theol
ogy is redemption by the divine grace alone. The Reformed
churches have ever been distinguished for their intense in
terest in the covenant of grace. Sometimes the divine grace
has been hardened by an undue stress upon the sovereignty
of it, so that sovereignty has taken the place of the divine
grace as the central principle of theology in some of the
scholastic systems ; and sometimes the divine grace has been
softened by an undue emphasis upon the Fatherhood of God.
But even in these more extreme tendencies of Calvinism the
essential principle of the divine grace alone has not been aban
doned, however little any of the systems have comprehended
the richness and the fulness of the "grace of God that bringeth
salvation."! Redemption by the diAdne grace alone is the banner prin
ciple of the Reformed churches, designed to exclude the uncer
tainty and arbitrariness attached to all human instrumentalities
and external agencies. As the banner principle of the Lu
theran Reformation was justification by faith alone excluding
any merit or agency of human works, so the Calvinistic prin
ciple excluded any inherent efficacy, in human nature or in
external remedies, for overcoming the guUt of sin and Avorking
redemption. In these two principles lie the chief merits and
the chief defects of the two great churches of the Reformation.
Intermediate between these principles of faith alone and grace
alone, Ues a third principle, which is the Divine Word alone.
This principle has been emphasized in the Reformation of Great
Britain and especially in the Puritan churches. The Word of
1 Titus 211.
651

652 STUDY OF kOLiX SCRIPTURE
God has been called the formal principle of Protestantism over
ao-ainst faith alone, the material principle, and it has been said
that the Reformed churches have laid more stress upon the
formal principle, while the Lutheran churches have laid more
stress upon the material principle. This does not, in our judg
ment, correspond with the facts of the case. Rather is it true
that in the three great churches of the Reformation, the three
principles, faith, grace, and the Divine Word, were empha
sized; but these churches differed in the relative importance
they ascribed to one of these three principles of the Reforma
tion in its relation to the other two. The Word of God is the
intermediate principle where faith and grace meet. The Word
of God gives faith its appropriate object. The Word of God
is the appointed instrument or means of grace.
I. The Gospel in Holy Scripture
The Word of God as a means of grace, as a principle of the
Reformation, has, however, its technical meaning. It is not
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety,
but rather the Gospel contained in the Scriptures :
" The Holy Gospel which God Himself first revealed in Para
dise, afterwards proclaimed by the Holy Patriarchs and Prophets,
and foreshadowed by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the
law and finally fulfilled by His well-beloved Son." i
The merit of the Lutheran Reformation was that it so dis
tinctly set forth the means by which man appropriates the
grace of the Gospel — by faith alone. Faith is the sole appro
priating instrument, and it becomes a test of the Word of God
itself ; for faith having appropriated the gospel of the grace
of God is enabled to determine therefrom what is the Word of
God and what is not the Word of God. As Luther said :
" All right holy books agree in this that they altogether preach
and urge Christ. This also is the true touchstone to test all books,
when one sees whether they so urge Christ or not, since every
scripture shews Christ (Rom. 3^i), and Saint Paul will know noth
ing but Christ (1 Cor. 2^) ; what does not teach Christ that is not
1 Heidelb. Cat., Quest. 19.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 653
yet apostolical, even if Saint Paul or Saint Peter taught it ; on the
other hand, what preaches Christ would be apostolical, even if
Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod did it." i
The merit of the Calvinistic Reformation is that it so dis
tinctly set forth the means by which God accomplishes human
redemption — by the divine grace of the Gospel. The divine
grace is the sole efficacious instrument of redemption, and this
grace becomes itself a test of the true Word of God. The
divine grace in the Scriptures gives its witness for the Script
ures, discriminating the true Canon from all other books.
"We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our
faith not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church,
as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit,
which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical
books, upon which, however useful, we cannot found any article
of faith." 2
It was the merit of the British Reformation from the begin
ning that it laid such stress on the Divine Word alone, and
it was especially in the British churches that this principle
received its fullest statement and development. Thus it was a
cardinal principle of the Church of England that :
" The Holy Scripture conteyneth all things necessary to salva
tion ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed
as an article of faith, or be thought requisite as necessary to
salvation. " '
And the Westminster Confession states :
" The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be
believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any
man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the
Author thereof ; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the
word of God."^
Thus the three principles of the Reformation were empha
sized variously in the three great branches of the Reformation.
The most serious defect was in the failure of the respective
1 Vorred. zu Epist. Jacobus; Walch, XIV. p. 149.
2 French Confession, Art. IV. ' Thirty-Nine Articles, Art. VL
* West. Conf, 1. 4.

654 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
churches properly to combine these principles, and especially in
the neglect to define with sufficient care the relation of the
divine grace and human faith to the Word of God. Hence
the common error into which the churches of the Reformation
soon feU, notwithstanding their symbols of faith, namely, the
undue emphasis of the external Word of God over against the
internal Word of God.! xhe solution of this problem has been
prepared for (a) by the exaltation of the Person of Jesus Christ
more and more during the last century, as the central principle
of theology. He is the Word of God in the Word of God, the
eternal Logos. He is the veritable grace of the Gospel in
whose person grace concentrates itself for the redemption of
mankind. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life."^
(6) Another preparation is in the deeper understanding of
the work of the Divine Spirit in the individual and in the
Church. It is just in these two respects that the venerable
mother of churches, the Roman Catholic communion, has its
share in so great a work. For the Roman CathoUc Church has
ever emphasized the real presence of the Divine Spirit and of
the Christ in the organism of the Church, and in all the insti
tutions of the Church. The Protestant churches in their zeal
against limiting the work of Christ and His Spirit to the oper
ations of the Church, and in their efforts to maintain the inde
pendence of the Christ and His Spirit of any and every means
of grace, have tended to depreciate the Church and its institu
tions, and so to lose sight of the real presence of the living,
reigning Christ, and of the real presence of His Spirit in the
Church and its institutions. The Roman CathoUc Church and
the Protestant Church have each their part to do in the
reconcUiation of all in a higher divine unity.
II. The Grace of God in Holy Scripture
The grace of God is the free, unmerited favour of God in
redemption. That grace is bestowed upon men in Jesus Christ
1 See pp. 621 seq. a John 3i«.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 655
the Saviour. That grace is presented to us by the Holy Spirit,
and appUed by Him to our persons and lives. This application
is made in the use of certain external media which are called
the means of grace. "The Holy Ghost works faith in our
hearts by the preaching of the holy Gospel, and confirms it by
the use of the holy sacraments."! Thus the chief of these
means of grace, according to the Reformed churches, is the
Word of God, or the holy Gospel as contained in the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments.
1. In what sense are the Scriptures means of grace ? The
Scriptures are means of grace in that they contain the Gospel
of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. The
Word of God is called the sword of the Spirit. For it "is
living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and
piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints
and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of
the heart." 2 It is the lamp of God. "Thy word is a lamp
unto my feet and a light unto my path."^ It is the seed of
regeneration. For Christians have "been begotten again, not
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the Word of
God, which liveth and abideth."* It is the power of God.
" For I am not ashamed of the gospel ; for it is the power of
God unto salvation," ^ says Saint Paul to the Romans ; and he
reminds his disciple, Timothy, that " from a babe thou hast
known the sacred writings, which are able to make thee wise
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. "^ These
attributes of the Word of God cannot be brought under the
category of inspiration. The inspiration of the Word of God
is a highly important doctrine, but it must not be so greatly
emphasized as to lead us to neglect other and stUl more im
portant aspects of the Bible. Inspiration has to do with the
truthfulness, reliabUity, accuracy, and authority of the Word of
God; the assurance that we have that the instruction contained
therein comes from God. But these attributes of the Divine
Word that we have just mentioned in biblical terms are deeper
and more important than inspiration. They lie at the root of
1 Heidelb. Cat., Quest. 65. 2 Heb. 412. 3 pg. 119106.
* 1 Pet. 128. 6 Eom. 116- 8 2 Tim. 3M.

656 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
inspiration, as among its strongest evidences. They stand out
as the most prominent features of the Gospel, independent of
the doctrine of inspiration. They are features shared by the
Bible with the Church and the sacraments, which are not
inspired and are not infallible. They are those attributes that
make the Bible what it is in the life of the people and the
faith of the Church without raising the question of inspiration.
They ascribe to the Word of God a divine power such as is
contained in a seed of life, the movement of the light, the
activity of a sword, a power that works redemption, the
supreme means of grace. As Robert Boyle well says : !
"Certainly then, if we consider God as the Creator of our
souls, and so likeliest to know the frame and springs and nature
of his own workmanship, we shall make but little difficulty to
believe that in the books written for and addressed to men, he
hath employed very powerful and appropriated means to work
upon them. And in effect, there is a strange moAdngness, and, if
the epithet be not too bold, a kind of heavenly magic to be found
in some passages of Scripture, which is to be found nowhere else."
2. What, then, is this power of grace contained in the Script
ures? The power of grace contained in the Scriptures is the re
demption made knoAvn to us, freely offered to us, and effectuaUy
applied to us in Jesus Christ the SaAdour. It is the holy Gospel
in the Scriptures, the Word of God written, presenting as in a
mirror of wonderful combinations from so many different points
of Adew, the glorious person, character, life, and achievements
of the Word of God incarnate, the eternal Logos. Thus the
Scriptures give us not merely the history of Israel, but the his
tory of redemption from its earliest protevangelium to its
fruition in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of history and prophecy.
They give us not ordinary biography, but the experience of
redeemed men, telling us of their faith, repentance, spiritual
conflicts, and the victories of grace. They give us the grand
est poetry of the world and the most sublime moral precepts;^
but this poetry is composed of the songs of the redeemed, and
these precepts are the lessons of those who are wise in the fear
1 Some Considerations touching the Style of tlie Holy Scriptures, London,
1661, p. 241. 2 See pp. 355 seq.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 657
of God. They give us oratory;! but the orations are pro
phetic, impassioned utterances of warning and comfort in view
of the conflicts of the kingdom of grace and its ultimate tri
umph, and the preaching of the gospel of a risen and glorified
Saviour. They give us essays and epistles ; 2 but these are not
to enlighten us in the arts and sciences, the speculations of
philosophy, and the maxims of commerce, that we may be
students in any of the departments of human learning. They
set forth Jesus Christ the Saviour, in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge.^ Redemption is written
aU over the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The
grace of God that bringeth salvation is the one all-pervading
influence. This is the holy substance of the Bible to which all
else is the human form in which it is enveloped. Hence the
two great divisions of the Bible are called Testaments or Cov
enants, for they are covenants of grace, the great storehouses
in which God has treasured up for all time and for all the
Avorld the riches of His grace of redemption. This grace of
redemption contained in Jesus Christ and conveyed by the
Scriptures is redemption from sin to holiness, from death in
guilt to life in blessedness; it is a grace of regeneration and a
grace of sanctification.
(a) It is a grace of regeneration. Christians are begotten
again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the
Word of God which liveth and abideth forever.* Jesus repre
sents His word as a seed of grain which He Himself plants in
the human heart. It springs up in the good soil, first the
blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear, and grows
to maturity amidst all kinds of difficulties and dangers.^ It
is a germ of life that imparts itself to man's heart and finds
therein the prepared ground of its growth. The words of
Jesus are spirit and life ; ^ they bear in them the regenerating
force of the Divine Spirit to quicken the human spirit. The
Gospel is no dead letter, it is a living organism ; for Christ
Jesus is in it, in it all, and in every part of it, and the energy
of the Divine Spirit pervades it, so that its words are endowed

1 See pp. 338 seq.
« 1 Pet. 128.

2 See pp. 340 seq.
5 Mk. 4.

8 Col. 28.
8 John 668.

2u

658 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
with the omnipotence of divine love and the irresistibleness of
divine grace. Those brief, terse, mysterious, yet simple texts,
spread all over the Bible, the inexhaustible supply for preachers
and teachers, those little Bibles, that contain the quintessence
of the whole — like the mountain lakes, clear yet reaching to
vast depths, like the blue of the sky, charming yet leading to
infinite heights — they lay hold of the sinner with the irresisti
ble conviction of his sin ; they persuade the penitent of the
divine forgiveness ; they constrain faith by the energy of re
deeming love ; they assure the repenting of the adoption of the
Heavenly Father. There are no other words like the words of
God contained in the sacred Scriptures, in which the grace of
God appropriates, moulds, and energizes the forms of human
speech with creative, generative power.
(6) The grace of redemption contained in the Scriptures is
also sanctifying grace. Our Saviour prays the Father for His
disciples: " Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth."!
He teUs His disciples, "Already ye are clean because of the
word which I have spoken unto you."^ The word of the
Gospel is thus a cleansing, sanctifying word : for it is not bare
truth appealing to the intellect with logical power, it is not
truth clothed with beauty and charming the aesthetic nature
of man ; but it is truth which is essentially ethical, having
moral power, and above all energized by the religious forces^
which lay hold of the religious instincts of man, and it leads
him to God. This could not be accomplished by the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, but only by the Gospel
of the grace of God, the soul-transforming words of our holy
religion. For the Gospel sets forth God, the Holy Redeemer,
the Father, and the Preserver. The Gospel sets forth Jesus
Christ as the crucified, risen, and glorified Saviour ; presents
us His blood and righteousness, throws over our nakedness the
robe of His justification, and commands us and transforms us
by the vision of His graces and perfections. The Word of
God is a purifying and sanctifying word ; because it contains
the words of holy men, of a sinless and entirely sanctified
Saviour, of a perfect God, the Holy One of Israel.
1 John 171'. 2 John 16».

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 659
Human speech is a most wonderful endowment of man.
It is the tower of strength in little children, who as babes and
sucklings are enabled to praise their God.! It is the means of
communication between intelligent beings. It is the means of
communication between God and man. Human speech finds
its noblest employment by man in prayer, praise, adoration,
and preaching of the Gospel of the grace of God. Human
speech finds its highest employment by God in being made the
instrument of His divine power. It enwraps and conveys to
sinful man the divine grace of regeneration and sanctification ;
it presents the Divine Trinity to man in all their redemptive
offices ; and it is the channel of communication, of attachment,
of communion, of organic union, and everlasting blessedness.
" For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all
men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and
worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in
this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of
the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ; who gave
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of
good works." *
III. The Efficacy of Holy Scripture
The Holy Scriptures are means of grace, because they have
in them the grace of God in Jesus Christ, the grace of regen
eration and sanctification. In what, then, Ues the efficacy of
this grace? How are we regenerated and sanctified by the
word of redemption in Christ?
"The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the
preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, con
vincing, and humbling sinners, of driving them out of themselves,
and drawing them unto Christ ; of conforming them to His image,
and subduing them to His wUl; of strengthening them against
temptations and corruptions; of budding them up in grace, and
establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith
unto salvation." '
These are faithful and noble words. They ought to become
1 Ps. 82. 2 Titus 211-1*. s y^est. Larger Cat., Quest. 155.

660 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
more real to the experience of the men of this generation,
where the peril, on the one hand, is in laying too much stress
on doctrines of faith, and, on the other, in overrating maxims
of morals. Religion, the experience of the divine grace and
growth therein, is the chief thing in the use of the Bible and
in Christian life. The Holy Scriptures are means of grace, but
means that have to be applied by a divine force to make them
efficacious. There must be an immediate contact and energetic
working upon the readers and hearers and students of the
Word by a divine power. The Word of God does not work
ex opere operato, that is, by its mere use. It is not the mere
reading, the mere study of the Bible, that is efficacious. It is
not the Bible in the house or in the hands. It is not the Bible
read by the eyes and heard by the ears. It is not the Bible
committed to memory and recited word for word. It is not the
Bible expounded by the teacher and apprehended by the mind
of the scholar. All these are but external forms of the Word
which enwrap the spiritual substance, the grace of redemption.
The casket contains the precious jewels. It must be opened
that their lustre and beauty may charm us. The shell contains
the nut. It must be cracked or we cannot eat it. The pitcher
contains the water. But it must be poured out and drunk to
satisfy thirst. The Word of God is effectual only when it has
become dynamic, and has wrought vital and organic changes,
entering into the depths of the heart, assimilating itself to the
spiritual necessities of our nature, transforming life and char
acter. This is the purpose of the grace which the Bible con
tains. This is the power of grace that the Bible exhibits, in
holding forth to us Jesus Christ the Saviour. This can be
accomplished in us only by the activity of the Holy Spirit
working in and through the Scriptures in their use.
IV. The Appropriation of the Grace of Holy
Scripture
How, then, are we to obtain the grace of God contained in
the Scriptures and effectually applied unto us by the Holy
Spirit as regenerating and sanctifying grace? The universal

the holy scripture as means of grace 661
Protestant answer to this question would be, the grace of the
Scriptures is received by faith. Faith is the hand of the soul
which grasps and takes to itself the grace of God. But the
nature of this appropriation by faith needs unfolding. The
Westminster Shorter Catechism! gives a good answer to the
question :
"That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must
attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer ; receive
it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practise it in
our lives."
1. The first thing we have to do in our study of the Word
of God is to giv^e it our attention. Indeed attention is the first
requisite of all study and of all work. Diligence and prepara
tion are necessary for all undertakings. No one can fulfil his
calling in life without these qualifications. But there is an
attention to be given to the Word of God which is peculiar,
and vastly higher than the attention given to ordinary avoca
tions of life. It is an attention that is distinguished by prayer ;
for the study of the Bible is a study of redemption, a search
for the power of God in Jesus Christ, a quest for the grace of
salvation. Such study must be pointed with prayer, for prayer
is the soul's quest after God. Prayer directs the student of
the Bible to God in the Bible. It withdraws the attention
from aU other things that might absorb and attract it, and
concentrates it on God. Prayer is the arrow-head that bears
the arrow of attention to its mark — God. If the grace of
God in the sacred Scriptures, the prevenient grace, — always
preceding and anticipating the quest of man, ready to be found,
waiting to impart itself to us, — be directed by the Holy Spirit,
then the attention of the Bible student, directed by prayer,
comes in immediate contact with this Spirit of grace and
receives the power of salvation in personal union with Him.
Hence it is that prayer is associated with the Word of God
and the sacraments as a means of grace. It is not a means
of grace in the same way as the Word of God, but it is a means
of grace of no less importance ; for if the Word of God is the
1 Ques. 90.

662 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
instrument, the means by which the grace of God is given to
us by the Holy Spirit, prayer is the instrument or means of
grace whereby we are able to receive and use the grace of God.
It is of prime importance, therefore, that the student of the
Bible should be bathed in prayer, and that the spirit of prayer
should be the animating influence in all our investigations
of the Scriptures. Prayerful attention seeks and finds God,
appropriates His grace and the redemptive influence of His
Word. Robert Boyle well says :
"And surely this consideration of the Bible's being one of the
conduit pipes, through which God hath appointed to conveigh his
Truth, as well as graces to his children, should methinks both
largely animate us to the searching of the Scriptures, and equally
refresh us in it. Por as no Instrument is weak in an omnipotent
hand: so ought no means to be looked upon as more promising
than that which is like to be prospered by Grace, as 'tis devised by
Omniscience. We may confidently expect God's blessing upon his
own institutions, since we know that whatsoever we ask according
to the will of God, he will give it us, and we can scarce ask any
thing more agreeable to the will of God, than the competent under
standing of that book wherein his will is contained." i
In order to emphasize this all-important point and give it its
proper position in biblical study, it will be necessary for us to
make some discriminations.
(ci) The first work in the scientific and systematic study of
the Scriptures is called Textual Criticism, or the Lower Criti
cism. It is, first of all, necessary to know the text in which
the Scriptures are contained. Hence the candidates for the
ministry devote a large portion of their time to a study of the
sacred languages, in order that they may undertake the work
of Textual Criticism and study the various versions and manu
scripts of the Word of God. All translations must be derived
from a faithful study of the originals. It is indispensable that
a living Church should have a ministry who are brought into
immediate contact with the divine originals. The Bible in un
known tongaes is a Paradise fenced and barred.^ The acquisi-
1 Some Considerations touching the Style of the Holy Scriptures. London,
1661, p. 50. 2 See Chaps. IIL, XIX.

THB HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 663
tion of the original text removes the barrier ; the translation
into the tongue of the people opens the gates, that all who will
may enter in. Hence Protestant churches have made it an
article of faith that the Bible must be given to the people in
their own tongue, and continually interpreted to the people by
ministers, who know themselves the originals, and are able to
remove misapprehensions that will always arise, to some extent,
in connection with all translations and reproductions. But this
first step of the mastery of the divine original text may be ac
complished, and yet the grace of God that is in the Scriptures
remain entirely unknown. It is as if a man should enter the
king's garden and devote his entire attention to the study of
the gates and walls.
(5) The second step in biblical study is Uterary criticism or
Higher Criticism.! The sacred Scriptures are composed of a
great variety of writings of different authors in different periods
of history, writing in many different styles, such as poetry and
prose, history and story, epistle and prophecy. Some of this
literature is exceedingly choice from a purely literary point of
view. An anthology of the choicest pieces of biblical litera
ture would certainly be a very profitable study for many of
God's people. Their eyes would be opened to the wondrous
forms of beauty in which God has chosen to reveal His grace
of redemption. But to study the Bible as sacred literature is
not to study it as a means of grace. Exclusive devotion to
that theme is as if we should enter the king's garden, and
instead of going at once to his gracious presence, in accordance
with his invitation, we should devote ourselves to the beautiful
trees and flowers and ornamental shrubs and landscape.
(c) The third work of biblical study is biblical exegesis.^
In this department the student in every way endeavours to get
at the true meaning of the Scriptures. The particular passage
and the entire writing under consideration must be studied
with the most minute accuracy, and, at the same time, the
most comprehensive summation of evidence. But even this
may be carried on in a most thorough and successful manner
in all its stages, except the last and highest,^ without finding
1 See Chaps. XI. -XVIL 2 See Chaps. IIL, XIX., pp. 474 seq. » See pp. 484 seq.

664 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
God in Jesus Christ. Some of the best exegetes have not been
true Christians. The peril in exegesis is, the becoming absorbed
in details, and in giving ourselves to the quest after truth and
scholarly accuracy. It is as if one entered the king's garden
and devoted himself at once to a scientific examination and
classification of its contents, the survey and mapping out of
its sections.
(d} The fourth work of biblical study is the study of the
history and theology of the Bible,! — its history, its religion, its
doctrines, and its morals. This is the highest attainment of
biblical scholarship, but it is not the study of the Bible as a
means of grace. It is as if we entered the king's palace and
devoted our attention to the principles and maxims of his
administration, the rules of his household, while the king him
self was graciously waiting to receive us into his own presence
and give us the kiss of fatherly salutation.
All of these various subjects of biblical study are vastly
important. The Church has not yet awakened to the vast
possibilities and the wonderful fruitage to be derived from
biblical study. No one could exalt these departments, each
and all of them, more highly than I am disposed to do ; but
notwithstanding, it must be said that if all these studies were
to be accomplished in a most scholarly manner, the chief thing,
the one supreme thing, might still remain unaccomplished —
namely, the study of the Bible as a means of grace. This is
the highest achievement of biblical study. For prayer will
seek first the presence and the person of God. It will not be
detained by anything in the Bible. It wUl press on through the
text, the literature, the exegesis, the history, and the theology,
giving them but slight attention, a mere passing glance, firmly
advancing into the presence-chamber of God. It will run in the
footsteps of the DiAdne Spirit, until the man is ushered into
the presence of the Heavenly Father, and bows in adoration
and love to the dear Saviour, and has the adoption and recogni
tion of sonship. Then first will he be assured that the Bible
is indeed the Word of God, the inspired Canon, when he has
found God in the Bible ; 2 then first will he understand the
1 See Chaps. XX.-XXIII. 2 gee Chap. VI. pp. 166 seq.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 665
Scriptures at their centre, in their very heart, when he has
recognized his Saviour in them ; ! then in the light of the
Redeemer's countenance, the student may go forth to the
enjoyment of all the beauties and glories and wondrous mani
festations of truth and love in the Scriptures, and find them
radiant with the love of Christ, and pervaded throughout with
the effectual grace of God. As an ancient Puritan divine has
said :
"Thus in the Scriptures ye find life, because the Word is so
effectual to doe you good, to convert your soul, to pull down
Satan's throne, and to build up the soul in grace. It is a hammer
to break the hard heart, a fire to purge the drossie heart, a light
to shine into the darke heart, an oyle to revive the broken heart,
armour of proof to stablish the weake and tempted heart. If
these precious things be matters of Christian religion ; then surely
the written word is the foundation of it. Eternal life is in the
Scriptures, because they testify of Christ, they set forth Christ
who is the way, the truth and the life; in them ye find life,
because in them ye find Christ. So far as by Scripture we get
acquaintance with Christ ; so far we are acquainted with salvation
and no farther. For if you knew all Histories and all the prophe
cies, if ye had the whole Bible by heart, if by it you could judge
of all disputes, yet until you find Christ there, you cannot find
life; the Scriptures are to us salvificall because they bring us
unto Christ." ^
2. Faith in the form of prayerful attention and investiga
tion is followed by appropriating faith. The attention becomes
more and more absorbed in its object. Prayer having attained
its quest is satisfied and grateful. The grace of God, so evi
dently set forth in the Scriptures in Jesus Christ the Saviour,
is appropriated in this personal contact. The affections are
generated, and impart to faith new vigour. The Holy Spirit
grasps the hand of prayer, and pours into it the treasures of
grace, and they are clasped as infinitely precious to beUeving
and loving hearts. As a distinguished modern divine says :
" Holy Scripture gives faith its object. It puts Christianity in
its purity and attractiveness before our eyes as an object which is
1 See p. 485.
2 Lyford, Plain Man''s Senses exercised, 1655, pp. 59, 60.

666 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
itself a challenge and inducement to enter into union with it by
faith." ... " The Holy Spirit perpetually glorifies Christ as He
is set forth in Scripture, makes Him emerge, so to speak, from
the letter and stand out in living form before us. He thus
brings us through the medium of Holy Scripture into communion
with the living Christ." i
Thus faith and love are the two eyes of the soul that see the
living Christ present in His Word. They are the spiritual
appetites by which we partake of the bread of heaven and
living water. Such a receiving is an ever-increasing enjoy
ment of the infinite riches of divine grace, the inexhaustible
treasures of redemptive love. The supply of grace in the
Scriptures is inexhaustible. The possibUities of the growth
of the affections of faith and love are only limited by the pos
sibilities of grace itself. This system of grace is compared by
the prophet Zechariah to a vast, self -feeding lamp-stand Avith
its seven branches and lighted lamps, supplied by the ever-
Uving, growing, and oil-producing olive-trees that stand by its
sides and overshadow it.^ The oil of grace is ever fresh and
new — the light is ever bright and brilliant. Faith's eye sees
and understands it more and more.
But just here it is necessary to guard against a too common
error. It is true that the grace of God pervades the Scriptures,
and Christ is the master of the Scriptures, but it is not equally
easy for faith to see and appreciate the grace of God in every
passage. The Bible contains supplies of grace for all the world,
and for all time, for the weak and baby Christians, for the
strong and manly Christians, for the immature Christian centu
ries, and for the Church in its highest dcA'-elopment as the
Bride of the Lamb. Training in the school of grace is indis
pensable for the appropriation of the grace of the Scriptures.
There are but few who are able to appropriate more than the
grace that lies on the surface of the plainest passages of Script
ure. The Church is constantly learning new lessons of grace
from the Scriptures. We have a right to expect stUl greater
light to break forth from the Scriptures when the Church has
1 Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, IV. pp. 260, 261.
2 Zech. 4.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 667
been prepared to receive it. The Church did not attain its
maturity at the Nicene Council. Augustine was not the high
est achievement of Christian faith and experience. The Prot
estant Reformation did not introduce the golden age. A
church that is not growing in grace is a lukewarm, if not a
dead, church. A theology that is not progressive is a bed
ridden, if not a dead, theology. The Church needs a greater
Reformation than it has ever yet enjoyed — a more extensive
living in the Holy Spirit, a deeper quickening, a more intense
devotion in love and service to our Saviour and the interests
of His kingdom. We are convinced that the seeds of such
a Reformation are embedded in the Bible, only waiting a new
springtime of the world to shoot forth. The grace of God
will reveal itself to another Luther and another Calvin at
no very distant day, in vastly greater richness and fulness, for
the sanctification of the Church and the preparation of the
Bride for her Bridegroom. In the meantime it behooves us
all to turn away from the abnormal, immature, and defective
experiences and systems of very poor Christians, so often held
up to us as models for our attainment, and. to set our faces as
a flint against every wresting of Scripture in the interest of
any dogma, new or old, and to fix our faith and love upon the
image of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, the crucified, risen,
and glorified Redeemer. He is the one object that concentrates
the grace of God — the fountain source of supply for all be
lievers. Into His image as the divine likeness we are to be
transformed, and we ought to think of no other.
The Scriptures are indeed means, not ends. They are to
bring us to God, to assimilate us to Christ, to unite us in
organic union with Him. If this has not been accomplished,
there has been very great failure, however much we may have
accomplished in biblical scholarship or Dogmatic Theology,
in the history and polity of the Church, in devotional read
ing and preaching, in the application of particular passages
to our souls. But those who have become personally attached
to Jesus Christ have found the Master of the Scriptures. He
is the key to its treasures, the clue to its labyrinths. Under
His instruction and guidance believers search the Scriptures

668 STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
with ever-increasing pleasure and profit. They ever find treas
ures new and old. They understand the secret of grace.
They know how to extract it from the varied forms in which
it is enveloped. They explore the deepest mines and bring
forth lustrou's gems of truth. They climb the highest peaks
and rapturously gaze on the vast territories of their Lord.
With the Psalmist they exclaim :
O how I love thy instruction ! ^it is my meditation all the day.
How sweet are thy words unto my taste ! — sweeter than honey to my mouth !
I love thy commandments above gold, — yea above fine gold.
The sum of thy word is truth, — and everlasting all thy righteous judgments, i
3. The grace of God in Holy Scripture can be fully appro
priated only by practising faith. Our Saviour taught His dis
ciples : " If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of
the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from
myself."^ Experiment is ever the victor of doubt. Faith is
tested by practice. Abraham's faith was proved by his will
ingness to sacrifice his well-beloved son. Mere faith is seem
ing faith, a shadow, a dead vanity. A real, genuine, liAdng
faith apprehends and uses divine grace. The grace of God is
effectual. It is dynamic in its application of redemption. It
is no less dynamic after it has been appropriated by man. The
light of the world lights up Christian lamps. The water of life
becomes in the believer a fountain, from which shall flow rivers
of living water.3 The grace of God is made effectual by "lay
ing it up in our hearts and practising it in our lives." The
grace of God becomes a grace of experience. Unless the divine
grace continue to flow forth from a man in his life and conduct,
the source of supply is stopped. A reservoir which has no out
let wiU have no incoming waters. A lamp that does not burn
will not be able to receive fresh supplies of oil.
From this two things follow :
(a) If a Christian man would use the Scriptures as a means
of grace, he must continually put them in practice in his heart
and Ufe. If the Church would apprehend more and more the
riches of the grace of Jesus Christ contained in the Scriptures,
1 Ps. IIO^?' ic- 127- 160. 2 John 7". i" John 788.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AS MEANS OF GRACE 669
it must become a more practical, earnest, Christ-like Church.
The source of supply from the reservoir Scripture is feeble
because the outflowing of grace from Christian men and women
is feeble. (6) Christians become secondary sources of supply. The
Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when appropriated
by the Christian, assimilated to his needs, transformed into his
life, does not cease to be the Gospel of the grace of God. The
external form has been changed, but the internal substance of
grace is the same. The Word of God does not cease to be the
Word of God when wrapped in other than Scripture language.
Hence it is that the Christian becomes a living epistle of God,!
and the Church, as a body of such epistles, a means of grace,
conveying the divine grace in another form to the world. It
is ever the grace of God that is the effectual divine force, and
not the form in which for the time it may be enveloped.
Happy the Church when its ministers have become more really
such liAdng epistles, written with the Spirit of the living God !
Blessed will that time be, when the entire membership of the
Church shall become such epistles, when Christ, who so loved
the Church and gave Himself for it, shall have sanctified it,
having cleansed it by the washing of water with the Word ! ^
Then will the ancient prophecy be reali-zed.^
Lo, days are coming, is the utterance of Yahweh,
When I will conclude with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
a new covenant ;
Not according to the covenant that I concluded with their fathers
In the day of my strengthening their hand to bring them forth from the land
of Egypt ;
Which covenant with me they did break, although I was lord over them, is
the utterance of Yahweh.
For this is the covenant that I will conclude with the house of Israel after
those days, is the utterance of Yahweh :
I do put my instruction within them, and upon their heart will I write it ;
And I will become a God for them, and they will become a people for me ;
And they will not teach any more, each his friend, and each his brother, say
ing, " Know Yahweh " ;
For all of them will know me, from the least even to the greatest of them, is
the utterance of Yahweh.
For I vriU pardon their iniquity, and their sins I will not remember any
more. *
1 2 Cor. 38. 2 Eph. 525-26. 3 Heb. 8i«-ii. « Jer. ZV^st.

INDEX OF TEXTS
The large-faced type indicates the most important references, especially where there
is criticism of the text or exposition.

entateuch

: 18£

, 211,

234,

Genesis :

Leviticus :

235, 247,

252,

253,

257-

Xlii28

298
ixi
174
258, 269-271
274,
275,
Xliii26
182
xiis
269
277, 282,
283
287,
290,
xlivl8-34
338
xiv
269
319, 332-323,
329
Xlv26
298
xviii2i
174
xlviiii6-i6
394
559
xixi8
444
tenesis :
234
278
xlviii"
390
559
xx2-5
174
i
550-551
560
xlix2-2r
559
xxiviT
562
18
551
xlix"
238 seq.
iiMT
547
, 559
121
298
Numbers :
234
iiS 3»g.
445
iii39
177
ii24
441
Exodus :
234
yi24-26
338, 403, 560
iv23
356
iii
174
ixio
177
V
512
iiis
439
ixl6
525
vii-^
333
iv20
538
X35
174
vi-viil
560
iv2i
298
XS5-S6
177,387,559
ix25-27
396
iv22
356
Xil5
178
Xi8
182
iv26
269
xii6-8
559
xiil-«
659
Vii23
298
Xiil2
178
xii"
53
X27
298
XX
529
xiT
52
xii«^8
269
xxi
35S
Xivl9
391
xiv6
298
xxi"
355
xivl9-2»
560
XV 298, 356,
362,
379-
xxii^is
559
XV6
444
380, 415, 559
xxii?
336
xvis
177
XV*
521
Xxili'-18
390, 559
xTiiiS
177
xvii
529
XXi2i--80
413, 559
xviii^
177
xviiis
559
xxiso
177
xviii22
178
xix
440
xxiii'' "<i.
378
xix26
439
xix6
356
xxiiiM"
559
xixss
177
xix3-6
559
xxiiii8-24
378, 559
xxp-^
298
XX
118
xxiv8-9
559
Xxi6-7
393
559
XXl2
268
y y 1 vl3
298
xxii
443, 641
xxis-w
444
XXivl6-21
559
xxiii^
297
xx2S-xxiii
119
xxix' 5
177
xxiv65
177
xxi"
268
XXJi.12
177
xxivBO
387
,559
xxi37-xxii8
563
XXV28
890,
559
Xxiii20-23
303
Deuteronomy : 234, 303, 324
xxvii2
182
xxiv^
176
i8
440
xxvii2!'-29
S59
xxivi''
444
iv"
298
xxviiS9-«
394,
559
xxxiv
119
ivl5-19
638
xxviiii-^
560
inrTiv29-36
444
V
118
xxxi20
298
xise
524-525
viii'
14
xxxi26
298
xi7
55
xxxiii*
177
Leviticus :
234
xiis
563
xxxviii2
177
yii27
561
xiii
543
671
672

INDEX OF TEXTS

Deuteronomy :

Ruth:

1 Kings :
XViiil8-19
270
liU
177
xviii2'
546
xxii^
561
iii2
304-305, 343
xviii'"
546
xxiiii
344
iiis
177
xix
174
xxiii'
343
liii2
177
xii8
521
xxivi-*
269
iiilT-
177
xxv*
444
ivl7-22
314
2 Kings:
xxv5
439
yl8
177
xxviii2'
178
1 Samuel:
173,
189, 253,
Vi25
178
xxviii'"
178
255, 297
319,
330
X2'
178
xxviii"^
398
ii
298
Xiv25
345
xxix'
398
iii-i"
559
xviiiii
61
xxixS
397
ii'
55
xviii2'
178
Txixis
398
iiii'
178
Xix21-S4
560
XXix28
177
y6
178
xix'6
520
xxxii 397, 362-363
398,
vi*
178
xxii-xxiii
119
400, 415, 559
xii'
559
xxiiii"
174
xxxiiS-9
534
XV
338
xxxii2i
305
Xv22-23, 29
."
559
1 Chronicles : 127
,130
132,
xxxii*9. 52
297
xvji-is
558
137, 138, 164,
173,
211,
xxxiii
559
xvi'
559
252, 253, 261
274,
275,
xxxiii2r
176
Xvil4-23
336
287, 397, 298,
319,
326,
xviii-xviiiS
336, 558
327, 329, 513
Joshua: 189, 252,
353,
xvii'
558
ii'4^1
514
282, 319, 330.
xviii'-'".
45-47
559
iv8i-4i
514
ii
443
xviii'
385, 559
viiiSS-40
614
xll-"
337
xxivi'
559
xii'
391
,560
xl2-" 356,
392,
560
xxivi5
560
xiiis 356
,393
,560
xl'
355
XV18-S6
560
xi2o
398
2 Samuel :
xvi*"
117
xiv'
298
il8
355, 356
xviii
397
xxiv
338
il"-2' 66, 38C
, 413, 560
xx6
558
xxiv2'
298
iii33-34 vii2
35«
, 390, 560 297
xxiv-xxviiixxvii25-'i
514 514
Judges: 127,253
297
319,
viill-16
560
330
viii'
177
2 Chronicles :
V 56,397,298
356
380,
Xi21
173
xl"
178
398, 659.
Xii"
178
xxxiv-xxxv
119
vll
66
,366
xvil2
178
xxxivis
117
vlS-16
376
Xvi2S
177
XXXV26
117
y23-27
368
Xix2»
177
ix
338
xxi
178
Ezra: 127, 130,
131,
137,
ix7-i6 416-417
,559
xxii"
558
138, 164, 173,
212,
253,
xi*«
356
xxii 23, 412-413, 560
255, 261, 274,
287,
298,
xiv
334
,356
xxiis
91
319, 327, 329, 340
Xivl2
356
xxiiii
91
vii"
553
xiv", 18
416
,559
xxiiii-'
403, 560
viii"
117
xvi~8a
334
xxiii'
173
viiii'
553
XvSb-19
334
xvis
416
,559
1 Kings :
252-253, 274,
Nehemiah: 131,
137,
138,
xvi
334
275, 287
297,
319, 326,
164, 173, 274,
287,
398,
xvi24
559
330
319, 327, 329, 340
xviii'"
177
iySl-SS
355
i«
297
xxii"
356
viiiio-uviiii2-ia
525
560
iiS, 18
vili-x
553 120
Ruth: 126, 128,
131,
164,
X
356
viii" 63, 117
,436
173, 234, 253,
262,
298,
Xi2
174
X29-S0
117
310, 319, 342, 343
xiji'
178
x86-a7
117
il6
343
xviii
338
Xiii28-2t
344
INDEX OF TEXTS

673

Esther: 10

2, 12e

,127

,128,

Psalms :

Psalms :

130, 131,

137,

138,

139,

xivi-3

444

xci

297
305
141, 143,
164,
195,
212,
XV
645
xci*
234, 252,
353,
354,
355,
xvi
380
xcv'-8
263
361, 274,
297,
298
310,
xvi8-ii
262
xcviiii
66
319, 349 seq.
xviii 23,
362-^3, 413-
civ 2°n
,298,
411,551
413, 560
cv
373-374
Job : 126, 127, 129, 138
,160,
xviii5
91
cvi2o
178
177
262, 443
164, 173,
211,
249,
253,
xviii^-'
305
cvii23-29
255, 261
, 274
287
298,
xviiiU
91
cix8
300, 301
, 310
319
362,
xxii-2
366
ex
264
, 303, 375
363
xxii
297, 645
cxi
262
i5
308
xxiil"
240
cxi
56, 377
iii'
657
xxiii
384
cxii
56, 378
iii"
557
xxiv
645
cxviii
406-407
vli2"
178
xxiv'-io
419
cxviiii2i 15
243
ix"
557
xxv
243
cxviii22-23
439
ixi'
557
xxv"
29
cxix
66
, 381, 383
xviii"
557
xxxi2
243
cxix"?. 103,
105, 127
. 16" 668
xxi22
556
xxxi28
305
cxixi"5
605
XXV2
556
xxxiii-2
262, 444
cxx-cxxxiv
367
xxvi'
557
xxxiii
551
cxxi
368
xxvii2
657
xxxiv
56,400
cxxxix
303
XXVill22
667
XXXv2f^28
304
cxxxlx'-l»
348
xxviii2'
29
xxxvii
444
cxl'
444
xxxii'
178
xxxvi'
177
cxi"
343
xxxvii
422-424
xxxvii
56, 383, 400
cxli
297
xxxviii
551
xxxixi'
297
cxliii"
343
xxxvm-xxxix
301
X114-18
304
cxliv2
343
xxxviiii'i
13
177
xlii-xliii
410-411
cxlv
66, 383
xxxviiii'
557
xiii'
395
cxlviii'-8
366
TTTviii'i
557
xiv
380, 413
Xll6_xU3*
301
xlvi 297,
380, 403-404
Proverbs :
126,
127, 129,
xliis
557
1
297
160, 164,
173,
189, 212,
Xlii2
273
li
308
352-253,
1274,
277, 287,
liis
303
297, 298, 320, 321
Psalms : 160, 164
, 173
211,
liii
23
i-ix
307, 398, 417
247, 250, 252,
353,
261,
iviii
380
vii"
418
263, 274,
277,
287,
298,
Ixvii
402-403
viii
551
312, 313,
318,
319,
321,
ixvii'
243
viiii'
29
333
ixviii
510
ix
411, 645
i
380
ixviiii'
243
ixi
174
ii
303
lxviii2"
177
ixi"
55
iii-2
262
Ixix
645
x-xxiii'
388
iii
401
lxix2
305
xl
366
iv
380
1x1x22-23
262
Xl-5
386
v"
444
lxix25
443
xi26
385
vi
374
lxix26
262
xiii24
386
vii
380
ixx
304
xivi"
385
viii
407-408
lxxiI-5
343
xiv2'
387
viii2
659
Ixxi'
240
xv'
387
ix
377
ixxiii'
239
XV23
385
ix-x
56
Ixxviii
298
xvi"
386
x'
178
lxxviiii'-2i
34
xxiil'-2«
391
x'
444
lxxix2-3
129
Xxli22-23
391
xii
343
Ixxx
413
Xxii24-25
391
xii
380
Ixxx"
177
Xxii2B-27
391
xiii
380
Ixxxvii
538
Xxii29
388, 389
xiv
2
X
23
xo
298, 415
xxiiil-3
395
674

IffDEX OF TEXTS

Proverbs :

Song of Songs

126,

127,

Isaiah:

xxiii*-5

393
128, 130, 131
, 141,
143,
Ixi
438
xxiii6-s
396
164, 234, 253,
253,
255,
hdi
303
xxiiiio-ii
391
261, 278, 287
297,
298,
lxii-2
267
xxiiii3-i8
391
310, 331, 326,
430-433
lxiiii-«
430
xxiii'5-16
367
i'
58
Ixiiii"
303
xxiiii"-2i
395
viii-'
58
Ixvi •««¦
267
xxiii22-25
397
Ixvi'MJ-
446
xxiii26-28
395
Isaiah: 94, 160,
353-255,
Xxiii29-35
397
417,418
279, 282-283,
287,
298,
Jeremiah: 160,
L89, 253-
xxivi-s
391
303, 313, 338,
339
354, 287, 298, 310, 339
xxivii-12
395
i"
267
ii"
178
xxivi'-"
393
il"
267
li2S
173
Xxivl5-22
391
ii2-4
313
iii2
178
Xxiv2'-25
393
Vl2
356
Vi2
347
Xxiv'"-32
396
Vi9 aei.
267
vii"
173
xxiv'o-'i
418
vii"
298
xiu."
173
xxv
312
vii"
523
xvii'
239
XXV*-5
367, 391
1x1 seq.
267
Xix5
173
xxvi-1"
391
ix*
403
xxvii'
306-307
XX vi^-'
393
X22 «e5.
267
xxxjis
266, 443
xxv'
388, 389
Xi2
303
XXXi31-34
669
xxv". 12
388
xii
313
xxxi"
177
xxvi'
388, 389
xiii-xiv2'
298
313
xxxii"
177
XXV2»
388, 389
xiiii'
178
xxxii'5
174
XXV"-1". 21-
12
391
xiv
407
xxxvi2
170
XXV25
388
XV
298
1-U
298
xxv-xxix
388, 391
xv-xvii2
313
129
177
xxvi*-5
391
xxii-10
297
li'
177
XXVi2l>-21
367
xxxiiii5 «««•
356
xxvi2*-26
395
xxiv-xxvii
123,
398,
Lamentations : 56, 126, 128,
xxviii"
388
313, 375-376, 384
164, 173, 234,
252, 253,
xxviii"
389
xxv'
445
261, 287, 397,
298, 310,
xxvii22
388
xxviiiii-12
444
319
xxvii23-2f
397, 417
xxixis
267
298
il6
239
xxviiii"
388
xxxi
303
iii 381
, 382, 401
TXT2-4
397
xxxii-xxTV
313
iii2"
178
XXx5-«
391
xxxiiis
303
iii*l
298
xxx'-9
397
xxxiv-xxxv
298
xxx"-"
397
xxxvii2
178
Ezekiel : 126, 127
, 128, 132,
xxx's-is
396, 417
XXXvii22-35
560
160, 353-355,
297, 298,
xxxi'
391
xl-lxvi 56, 58, 295
298,
300, 310, 339
XXX18-19
395
300, 303, 313, 645
viiii'
178
XXX2"
388
xl'
266, 267
xivi*-20
361
XXX21-23
395
X13-5
267
xxi'2
240
XXX24-28
398
417^18
Xll2 seg.
551
xxviii'
351
XXt29^
395
xliii
303
xxxiii-xxxviii
445
xxxi"^3i
383, 417
xliil-4
267
XXXvi28
297
xliv'
303
Xli2"
177
Ecclesiastes
: 126
, 127, 128,
xliv"
177
Xlvi22
177
130, 131,
141,
143, 145,
xliv2*
651
xl viiii'
177
164, 234,
247,
248, 253,
xlviiii"
303
353, 255
261
277, 287,
liii'-liii
434-425
Daniel: 123, 126
127, 128,
297, 298,
300,
310, 320,
liiii
267
129, 164, 212,
352, 353,
321, 324
liii*
239, 267
354, 255, 261
, 274, 297,
v'
55
liii'-8
267
398, 304, 334,
327, 343,
ix'
298
lvi4-ii
344
351 seq., 519
x8-u
397
lix'-8
444
viii
265
Ix
384
535
vii" »«!•
445
INDEX OF TEXTS

675

Daniel :

Zechariah

: 160,

260,

252,

Matthew :

1x2

117, 123

297, 310-311

xv'
8
xl
397
i-viii
298
xv'
267
xi'i
265
1112
178
xvis
299
xii
445
iv
666
xvii'-i"
515
xili
265
viii2
398
xvii'
299
Ix-xl
298
xvi26
69
Hosea: 160, 252,
354, 298,
xii2. IS
266
xvi2'
299
310, 338
xii-xiv
298
310
xvii5
524
il"
266
xiv2
178
xviii8-9
90
iii"
173
xiv' e«f-
132
,426
xviiii'
399
1120
403
xviii"
299
1123
266
Malachi :
247, 262
,254
297,
xix'
260
iv'
178
298, 309
311
xix' «««•
440
xii
443
111-14
132
xix'-s
369
xiiii
173
113
178
xix8
645
xiii"
347
iili
267
xix"-i2
394
xlv2-io
419-430
11123
397
xxi'2
201
iv"
4
Xxl*2-44
439
Joel: 160, 297,
298, 309,
xxiii5-*'
63
311,338
Matthew :
133,136,136,290,
XXii23-32
439
1128-32
266
337, 330
xxii29
117
liii aeq.
446
120-21
533
XxiilfMS
262, 437
122-23
523
xxiii8-i2
401
Amos: 160, 262,
297, 298,
1117
266
xxiiii2
387
310, 311
iii'
267
xxivi5
2K5
iv'
397
11113-18
443
XXiv23-24
543
Vi6
356
iv*
14
xxiv"
299
ix2-3
348
iv4-10
437
XXV29
387
ix'
535
Iv"
267
XXv31-*8
404, 405
v-vii
392
xxvi'9
299
Obadiah :
160, 298
Vl7
123
,131
387
xxviii
387
Vl8
14
387
xxvii" 260,
366, 310,
Jonah: 160, 298,
309, 311,
y21 B6q.
440
320
319, 345 seq.
v29-30
90
xxviii"
527
112-9
305
v45
:^,
xxvii2*-25
627
vll-6
408-409
Micah: 160, 252,
310, 311,
V114-15
299
392
Mark: 133, 135, 136, 310,
338
Vil6-18
408-409
327, 330
iiil2
307
Vil9-21
396
123
267
Vl24
392
144
269
Nahum : 160
, 309, 311
vii'
393
1117
388
ii'
298
vil7-8
389
1125-28
438, 645
ii"
298
vil24-27
404
iiil'
514
viiii'
267
lii81-35
305
Habakkuk: 160,
297, 310
viii2"
389
11133-35
306
311
ixl2
388
iv
657
112
178
X2
514
iv26
387
iii
314
X89
70
vi*
244
xi25-27
299
vii'
267
Zephaniah: 160,
297, 309,
xii*-8
438
viii"
268
311
xlii'
267
viji'
5
112
298
Xii36-S7
392
viii*
269
1115
298
xii'Mi
266
viii'5
69
iii"
298
xii*«-<'
305
viii"
299
X1148-50
306
Ix'
524
Haggai : 160, 262
297, 298,
xiii"
267
1x43-48
90
309, 311
xiii"
344
ix*"
242
XV*
268
x3-5
269
676

INDEX OF TEXTS

Mark:

Luke:

Acts:

xll-12

86

Xx2'-38

439

vlil28-30

267

xi23-26

299, 392

XX*2

260

X*4-*'

518

xiiio-u

439

XX*2^

262

xiiii'

123, 131, 179

X1118-27

439

XXi2"

265

Xiii2'

131, 179

xii26

174, 268

XXil29

299

xiii"

364

Xll"-"

262

XTii*2

299

XV

447

xiii"

265

xxiv2'

268

Xv21

268

xiii'2

299

Xxiv25

131

xvii2i "

117, 131

xiv"

387

xxiv**

129, 131

XViil24, 28

131

XV19-20

314

xxlv** "I-

441

xix'

518

xviis

4

xxlx*9

299

XX28
XXVi22

241, 300270

Luke: 133, 135,

136, 190,

John: 103, 133

136, 136,

xxvill23

131, 268

290, 326, 330

326, 327, 330
xxvlii23
131, 268
113-17
580
114
73, 525
130-33
560
11-14
72
Romans : 134, 135, 136, 300,
135-37
524, 560
118
63
310
142-45
560
123
257
1'
526
14ft.55
560
140-42
516
116
655
168-79
560
1*5
270
iiil
74
ii2
530
11113
525
1119-18
444
1110-12
560
11116
654
11121
652
1129-36
560
1V*4
244
iv
446
iii*
267
V3^
527
lv3 seq.
444
iii8
299
Vl8
299
lv6-8
262
ivl'
179
VS9
117
lvl9
201
lvl6-22
438
v46-47
270
v"
201
ivl7
267
vi"
657
vlli'
625^26
iv23-i!4
344
Vill'
428,668
ix25
266
Vl4
269
V1119-23
369
ix2'
267
v31-32
388
Vil23
268
1x29
267
vlSJ
438
vii'8
668
x6-10
444
vl"
514
vii"- viii"
314, 537
Xl6
267
vl85
3
x'*
117, 131
xis
444
vi47-49
404
X34^
437
x20-2l
267
viiii8
387
Xll26
70
Xi2
174
V11119-20
306
xiis*
131
xl*
173
viii2i
306
xii's
267
X19-10
262
ix24
70
Xii39^1
267
xiii
642
ix26
299
XV3
668
XV12
267
ix'*
524
XV25
131
Xvll-23
315
ixS9
389
xvi8
73
x'
270
xviii'
• 658
1 Corinthians: 134. 135.
x21-22
299
xx"
399
136,300
Xi*8
201
i"
315
Xi62
6
Acts: 134, 136,
136, 290,
ii2
662
Xii'2
299
327, 330, 331
iii
447
xiii" »«?¦
438
116-20
262
viuo-n
88
xiv"
387
120
443
1x9 seg.
444
XV
438
ii
517-518
Ix"
270
xvii'
392
1116
268
x»-*
545
xvii'
387
1116 seq.
446
X*
444
xvii'
87
1125-29, 34
262
xi'
526
xvi2"-3i
131
11122-24
270-271
xl23fle?.
270
xvil'2
439
11124
266, 208
xlll"
517
xviii"
387
1V25
262
Xliil2
650
xix2'
387
V37
530
Xiv21
117, 131, 444
xxi'-w
439
vii"
270
xivsa
517
INDEX OF TEXTS

677

1 Corinthians :
XV24-25XV*^-*7 Xvil5 seq.

543524 315

2 Corinthians : 134, 135
136, 300.
iii'

iii"iiiisviii"

669 444 118
268525

Galatians : 134, 135, 136, 300
ii 447
ii' 201
iv* 525-526
iv" 643
lv22 j^
iv24 444
v' 201
Ephesians : 134, 135, 136
ii2'>-22 516
v25-26 669
Philippians : 134, 136, 136
ii'-' 525
lii2 9
Colossians : 134, 135, 136
ii5 525
11' 657
11' 5
ii" 63, 446, 643
1 Thessalonians : 134, 135,
136
2 Thessalonians : 134, 135,
136
1 Timothy : 134, 135, 136,
310 i 447
iii' 300
iiiis 300
2 Timothy: 134,135,136
il" 525

Hebrews: 134, 135, 136, 138,
247, 248, 301, 319
11-4 301

Hebrews :
1' 1114-18iviv'ivi2 vii
vii"Vii26-28viii' villio-u1X19
xlx28
xlxi*"X1118-24Xll21

525 301
445 268
60, 655
445 270301
271, 631669271
446, 631270
444 631301 271

James: 134, 135, 136, 138,
141, 143, 146, 164, 190, 247,
340
ii 447
118-13 444
1121 eeq. 443
v" 444
v" 299
v" 444
1 Peter : 134, 135, 136, 164,
299123 14, 655, 657
119565. 446
iii seq. 616
11115 240 seq.
2 Peter : 135, 136, 138, 143,
247121 27
114 seq. 444
liiis 307
1 John : 134, 135, 136, 164
v' 314
xiv2' 69
2 John: 134, 135, 136, 138,
164

iii'iiii5

348, 444, 527
131, 656

3 John : 134, 135, 136, 138,
164, 299

Titus :
li"

134, 135, 136
651, 659

Jude: 134, 135, 136, 138,
143, 164, 247, 299
9 348

Philemon :

134, 145, 136

9-14 132, 444

Revelation: 135, 136, 137,
138, 139, 141, 143, 164,

190, 247, 291, 299, 803,
326, 327
14-iii22 299
ii 447
xiii seq. 445
xii" 445
xiii" 445
xiiil8 445
xvil2 445
xvii6 445
xvii 296
xvii' 445
xviii2 445
xxi-xxii 445
xxiil' 299
xxiii8-i9 7
Old Testament Apoc
rypha
Esdras : 138, 195, 198
iv 342
iv"-*l 60, 78
Tobit : 63, 138, 195, 198, 343
iv'-il 398
ivl5 132
Judith: 63, 138, 195, 196,
198, 343
Wisdom of Solomon: 129,
138, 164, 195, 197, 198,
301, 320
Ecclesiasticus : 123, 138,
145, 164, 189, 195, 197,
198, 352
iv6 132
iv'l 132
vii32-35 397
xxlv2' 118

xxv^*--^'XXvi29xliv-1xlixi"
1
Baruch :

395385123
133 124
138, 198

Epistle of Jeremiah: 138,
198
Prayer of Manasseh: 138,
195
Books of Maccabees : 138,
195, 196, 198
i aud ii 138

1 Maccabees :
166

164
117

678

INDEX OF TEXTS

1 Maccabees :

157

118

1160

352

Vii"

129

xii"

117

2 Maccabees :

145

11"

172

4 Maccabees :

342

Pseudepigrapha
Apoc. Enoch : 129, 131, 132,
138, 304, 324, 353

Apoc. Baruch: 324
Apoc. Ezra: 128, 129, 134,
138, 357
xivi9 120
Assumption of Moses : 132,
342
Ascension of Isaiah: 324
Testament of Twelve Pa^
triarchs : 324
Martyrdom of Isaiah : 138
Book of Jubilees : 138, 175
Psalter of Solomon : 320,
322, 324

New Testament Apoc
rypha
Dldache: 132,136,136
Hermas : 136, 136, 197
Clement : 136, 138, 198
Barnabas: 136, 136, 138,
197
Gospel to the Hebrews : 136
Acts of Paul : 136, 136
Apocalypse of Peter: 135,
136
Preaching of Peter : 135

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Abbot, Ezra, 206, 241
A. B. C. of women, 313
Aben Ezra, 274
Abraham, 52, 53
Abraham ben Meir, 235,
236
Accents, 59, 181, 220, 358,
369 seq., 377 seq.
Accommodation, principle
of, 260
Adams, Wm., 66
Addai, 134
Adeney, W. F., 589
Adonay, 173
Adultery, Jesus views of,
86 seq.
Aglen, A. S., 359
Ainsworth, Henry, 483,
467
Akiba, 130, 145, 175, 191,
232
Aldine Text, 206
Alexander, Add., 284
Alexandrian Codex, 138
Alexander the Great, 64,
121, 122, 172
Allegory, 434 seq., 444, 448
seq.
Alphabetical poems, 56,
377, 382, 383, 400
Alphonso de Alcala, 140
Alphonso de Zamora, 140
Amana, Sixtus, 225
Ambrose, 318, 449
Ames, Wm., 466, 477, 574
Amira, 222
Ammon, C. F., 575
Amoraim, 253 seq.
Anagogical sense, 453
Analogy of Faith, 461,
483
Analogy of Prophecy, 295
Angel, theophanic, 302
Angels, evil, 333
Anglo-American Revision,
216

Anglo-Catholic party, 148
Anglo-Saxon Versions, 214
Anonymes, 319 seq.
Anselm, 41
Anthropomorphisms, 57,
178
Antiochan school, 258, 457
seq.
Antwerp Polyglot, 187,
206
Aphraates, 239
Apocalypse, 143, 145, 296
Apostles' Creed, 92, 106, 143,
145, 483
A priori method, 115, 116
Appropriation of Grace,
660 seq.
Aquila, 191
Aquinas, Thomas, 454
Arabic Gospel of the In
fancy, 523
Arabic language, 48
Arabic Version, 214
Aramaic language, 49, 81
seq.
Aramaic script, 1 89
Aramaic Versions, 210 seq.
Archseology, Biblical, 490,
554
Archaeology, Oriental, 506
Arias Montanus, 187, 222.
Aristeas, 189
Aristion, 447
Armenian Version, 195
Arminians, 459
Arnaud, 507
Articles of Religion, 15,
148, 653
Asarias, 366
Ashe, Simeon, 465
Assimilation, 201
Assonance, 373 seq.
Assyrian language, 47
Astruc, 246, 250, 378 seq.
Atheism, 77, 574
Attention in prayer, 661
679

Attersol, Wm., 467
Augustine, 41, 100, 139,
143, 449, 450, 489
Augustinian tradition, 147
Authenticity, 93 seq.
Authority of Christ, 261
Authority of Holy Scrip
ture, 630
Authorized Version, 816
Autographs, 190, 818 seq.
Baba Bathra, 121, 253,
312, 313, 318
Bacher, W., 175, 181, 183
Bacon, B. W., 10
Bacon, Lord, 100
Baer, S., 184, 185, 187,
231
Baethgen, F. R., 508, 688
Ball, John, 460, 465, 466
Baraithoth, 232, 358, 320,
361, 430
Barbier, A. A., 333
Bar Kappara, 232
Barnabas, 133, 448
Basil, 258
Basnage, 491
Baudissin, W., 606
Baumgartner, Ant., 173,
189
Baur, Bruno, 503
Baur, F. C, 498 seq., 578
seq., 581 seq., 597
Baur, G. L., 493
Baur, Lorenzo, 576
Bayne, Paul, 467
Baxter, Richard, 101, 167,
226, 330, 689, 630
Beck, C. D., 212, 469
Beda, 454
Beecher, W. J., 287
Belgian Confession, 142
Bellarmin, 213
Benedietus, 560
Bengel, J. A., 307, 227,
491, 574

680

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Bensly, R. L., 212
Bentley, Rich., 107, 386,
260
Benzinger, J., 37
Berg, Conrad, 101
Berger, Sam., 143
Berliner, 311
Bernard, 584
Bertheau, Karl, 59, 101,
379, 506
Bevan, A. A., 353, 354
Beza, Theo., 208, 217, 224,
459
Beyschlag, W., 498, 500,
589
Bible Educator, 359
Bible for Learners, 385
Bibles, Little, 7
Biblical Dogmatics, 577,
594
Biblical Ethics, 597
Biblical Religion, 698
Bibliology, 113
Bibliolatry, 5, 626
Bickell, G., 137, 364, 365,
381,388
Biddle, 574
Bilson, T., 216
Birt, T., 191
Bishops' Bible, 315
Bissel, E. C, 287
Blake, F., 465
Blasphemous, 178
Blass, F., 203, 209
Blayney, Benj., 188
Bleek, F., 70, 283, 472
Block, Ph., 47
Bochart, 490
Boderianus, Pabr., 222
Bohl, Edw., 810
Book of Adam, 49
Book of Common Prayer,
92
Book of John, 49
Book of Jubilees, 237
Book of Sohar, 432
Book of Yashar, 355
Book of Wars of Yahweh,
355
Bosheth, 173
Bottcher, F., 57, 59
Bousset, Wm., 590
Boyle, Robert, 658, 683
Brentius, 224
Brightman, Thos., 466
Brockelmann, C, 49
Broughton, Hugh, 221, 467
Brown, C. R., 50
Brown, Francis, 10, 20, 47,

48, 263, 365, 287, 381,
475, 508, 518, 513
Browning, Robt., 92
Bruce, A. B., 339, 588,
590
Buber, Sol., 234
Budde, Karl, 381
Buddeus, 491
Buhl.F., 48, 117, 118, 138,
189, 192, 200, 204, 211,
212, 475
Bullinger, H., 457
Bunsen, 286
Buxtorf, 131, 147, 221, 235,
269, 475, 490, 621
Byfield, Nich., 84, 467
Cabala, 432
Calamy, Ed., 144, 167,
226
Calmet, A., 276, 491
Calvetus, 147, 574
Calvin, 41, 93, 142, 217,
220, 224, 247, 248, 457,
458, 482, 490
Cambridge Platonists, 575
Cambridge School, 167, 226
Cantilation, 181
Canus, Melch., 249
Capel, Rich., 633
CappeUus, Jac, 226
CappeUus, Lud., 89, 322
seq., 225, 246, 259, 459.
Carlov, A. C, 147
Carlstadt, A., 250
Carpzov, J. G., 259, 276,
428, 458, 467
Cartwright, Thos., 149,
248. 459, 466, 467
Caryl, Joseph, 467
Casaubon, Isaac, 225, 350
Caspari, C. E., 46
Castell, Edw., 49, 222, 476
Catholic Church, 501
Catholic spirit, 571
Cave, A., 36
Census of Quirinius, 530
Ceriani, A. M., 193, 198,
199, 202, 203
Chains, 454
Charles, R.H., 237
Charteris, A. H., 143, 144
Chase, F. H., 303
Cheltenham list, 135, 138
Cheyne, T. K., 130, 290,
313,490,509,556,557
Chiarini, L. A., 333, 430, 433
Chiya, 232
Christophany, 545

Chronology, 490, 612, 554
Chrysostom, 138, 257, 452,
454
Church, 241, 299
Church of England, 148
Cicero, 340
Circumcision, 269
Citations, 100, 210, 266, 304
Clapp, Sam., 467
Clarke, Adam, 278
Clean and unclean, law of,
643
Clement of Alexandria,
257, 448
Clement of Rome, 133, 448
Clementine Homilies, 267
Clementine Recognitions,
447
Clementine Text, 213
Clericus, J., 259, 275
Cocceius, J., 222, 465, 472,
574
Codex, 191, 194; Alexan
drinus, 197, 198, 207;
Ambrosianus, 199 ; Am
iatinus, 213; Baby
lonicus, Petr., 185;
Barberinus, 200 ; Ben
Asher, 184 ; Bezae, 200 ;
Bodleianus, 199 ; Borne
rianus, 201 ; Chisianus,
300 ; Claromontanus,
301 ; Coislinianus, 800 ;
Ephraem, 198; Fulden
sis, 213; Hillel, 184;
Jericho, 184 ; Leon, 303 ;
MarchaUanus, 199, 200;
Mugar, 184; Samaritan,
185; Sanbuki, 184; Sar
ravianus, 300 ; Sinai,
184; Sinaiticus, 198,
197; Toletanus, 213;
Vaticanus, 195, 196;
Vaticanus"", 204 ; Vatl-
canus452, 198; Vati-
canus556, 199 ; Venetus,
200
Cohn, 237
Coins, Maccabean, 170
Colenson, J. W., 284, 385
Collections of writings,
310 seq.
Coin, Daniel von, 577, 578,
593
Commandments of Law,
560, 561
Compilations, 336
Complutensian Polyglot,
140, 186, 206

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

681

Concatenation in Poetry,
399
Conflation in Text, 194,
205, 242
Consistency in Text, 90
Constantine, 194
Construct state, 56
Contemporary History,
505
Contradiction, law of, 82
CorniD, C. H., 118, 175,
192, 194, 199, 200, 204, 290
Corpus Insoriptionum
Semit., 47
Corrections of Scribes, 178
Cosin, J., 151, 156
Council of Laodicea, 137
CouneU of Trent, 77, 143,
144, 145, 146, 156
Covenant, 553, 604
Covenant, new and old,
119
Covenant, principle of,
466
Coverdale, Miles, 105, 214,
215
Cowley, 49
Creation, story of, 551
Credibility, 95
Cremer, H., 73
Cross, J. A., 313
Crusius, L. F. O. B., 577
Cureton, 212
Curtis, E. L., 514
Curtis, S. I.,287, 311
Curtius, E., 85, 66, 67
Cyprian, 448
Cyril of Alexandria, 186
D, 297
Dagesh, 180
Dahne, 588
Dalman, G. H., 50, 211
Daniel, 94
Davenant, J., 467
David, 53, 56, 94, 336
Davidic Psalter, 304
Davidson, A. B., 286, 301
Davidson, Saml., 90, 137,
229, 284, 285, 447, 450,
454
Deborah, 56
De Dieu L., 226, 459
D'Etaples, Lefevre, 217
De imitatione Christi, 93
De Rossi, Az., 331, 228
De Rossi, J. B., 183
De Saulcy, F., 507
De vita contempl., 125

De Wette, W. M. L., 241,
283, 285, 472, 493, 497,
576, 577, 578, 693
Defile the hands, 130
Deism, 77, 574
Deissmann,G.A.,591,593Deists, 492
Delitzsch, Franz, 187, 231,
312, 313, 321, 391,472
Delitzsch, Fried., 47, 81
Deluge story, 529
Demetrius Ducas, 140
Demosthenes, 74, 340
Descartes, 9
Deuteronomic code, 119
Deuteronomic history, 540
Deuteronomic writers, 301
Deutsch, Eman., 232
Development hypothesis,
283 seq.
Dexter, H. M., 96
Dialectic differences, 300
Dickson, W. P., 590
Dietenberger's version,
217
Diestel, Lud., 28, 247, 451,
452
Dillmann, Aug., 47, 173,
175, 181, 198, 837, 330,
587
Diodorus ol Tarsus, 452
Director's psalter, 243
Dirge, 381
Dittography, 243
Divorce, 269, 645
Documentary hypothesis,
280 seq.
Documentary sources, 563
seq.
Doddridge, Philip, 487
DodweU, H., 157
Donaldson, J. W., 88
Dorner, Aug., 451
Dorner, Isaac, 33, 73, 167,
143, 147, 158, 279, 443,
499, 665, 666
Douay version, 315
Driver, S. R., 48, 49, 54,
170, 803, 239, 290, 295,
298, 397, 338, 351,475
Droysen, J. G., 84
Drummond, James, 590
Drusius, J., 224, 459
Du Bose, W. P., 590
Du Pin, L. E., 98, 97, 99,
101, 102, 106, 276, 377,
378
Duff, Arch., 588
Duhm, B., 290

Dury, John, 573
Dutch version, 317
Duval, 49
E, 297
Ebers, G., 506
Eck, J., 142
Eok's version, 317
Edersheim, 506
EfScacy of Holy Script
ure, 659.
Egyptian text, 197
Egyptian version, 195
Eichhorn, J. G., 186, 187,
132, 186, 350, 351, 278,
379 .seq., 282, 471, 491,
493, 493, 497, 576
Eleazer ben Azariah, 130
Elieser, 235, 431
Eliot, John, 96
Eloquence, 359
Elzevir editions, 207
Emancipation proclama
tion, 100
Emendations of the scribes,
173
Eraser's version, 217
English version, 214 seq.
Ephraem, the Syrian, 137,
239, 462
Ephraimitic writers, 119.
300, 545, 559
Epic of Istar, 380
Epiphanius, 192
Epitomes, 454
Erasmus, 141, 206, 219,
468
Erman, A., 378, 506
Ernesti, J. A., 438, 489
Erpenius, 314, 222, 225
Errors in Scripture, 520,
608, 614, 627 seq., 634 seq.
Essays and Reviews, 385
Essenes, 128
Etheridge, J. W., 63, 311,
433
Ethiopic language, 46
Etymological differences,
396, 897
Eucherius of Lyons, 449
Euphemisms, 178
Eusebius, 64, 103, 136, 185,
191, 192, 194, 362, 447,
488, 489
Euthymius, zigabenus, 454
Evans, L. J., 10
Everett, C. C, 590
Everling, 590
Ewald, H., 45, 59, 138,

682

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

283, 284, 313, 339, 357,
365,475, 604, 684,587
Excluded Middle, Law of,
82
Extermination of Canaan
ites, 644.
External evidence, 101 seq.
Extraordinary points, 177
Fables, 416
Fabricius, J. A., 258
Fairbairn, A. M., 493, 494
Faith, 665 seq., 668
FaU of Man, 547
Father, used of God, 299
Fathers, Christian, 156, 190
Feasts, 183, 350
Federal school, 466
Fides divina, 143, 150, 281,
282
Fides humana, 160
Field, Fred., 193, 194, 204
Fisher, G. P., 500
Five Rolls, 181
Flacius, Matth., 467
Flatt, C. C, 471
Fleury, 278
Forgery, 96, 319, 323, 619
Formal principle, 223
Fox, John, 467
Fragmentary hypotheses,
282 seq., 290
Franc, Geo., 101
Francois, Laurent, 278
Franke, A. H., 467
Frankel, Z., 125
French Confession, 653
French versions, 217
Frensdorff, Sam., 328
Freudenthal, 189
Friedlander, 235
Friedmann, 234
Friends, 155
Fulke, Wm., 221
Future Life, 648
Gabler, J. P., 470, 491, 576,
591
GaUleo, 9
Gallican Confession, 142
Ganneau, Cler., 48
Gast, F. A., 287
Gataker, Thos., 467
Gautier, L., 508
Gebhardt, O. von, 203,
307, 308
Gebhardt, H., 589
Geddes, Alex., 383
Gehenna, 91

Geiger, A., 49
Gelbhaus, 333
Gemara, 833, 852
Genevan version, 215
Geography, Biblical, 607,
654
Gerhard, J., 458
German versions, 218 seq.
Germar, F. H., 470
Gerson, J. C, 93
Gesenius, 47, 48, 117, 141,
181, 185, 186, 883, 476,
646
Giesebrecht, F., 200
Gieseler, J. C, 83
Gilby, Ant., 216 .
GiUespie, Geo., 83, 84
GiUett, E. H., 455
Ginsburg, C. D., 170, 172,
173, 175, 176, 177, 178,
179, 184, 187, 231, 228,
231, 432, 433
Ginza, 49
Gladstone, 61
Gloel, J., 590
Glosses, 454
God, doctrine of, 646
Godwin, Thomas, 490
Goe.ie, M. J. de, 46
Goldsmidt, L. 233
Goodwin, John, 574
Gospel according to Peter,
527
Gospel in Holy Scripture,
652
Gothic Version, 195
Gouge Wm., 388, 467
Gouldman, Henry, 236
Grabe, 207.
Grace of God, 624 seq., 651
seq.
Gradualness of develop
ment in Bib. Theo., 641
seq.
Graf, K. H., 586
Grammatico-historical method, 470
Gratz, H., 137, 130, 173,
188, 339, 313, 505
Gray, G.B., 514
Great Bible, 215, 2,39
Great Synagogue, 121 seq.
Green, W. H., 839, 285,
287, 289
Greenhill, Wm., 467
Gregory, C. R., 138, 196,
197, 198, 200, 207
Gregory the Great, 461
Grenfell, B. P., 133

Griesbach, J. J., 207, 227
Grill, J., 54, 67
Grosart, A. B., 100, 318
Grotius, 186, 225, 468
Guerin, Victor, 507
Guieysse, Paul, 378
Gunkel, Herm., 556
Gwilliam, C. H., 181
Hadrian, 176
Haggada, 63, 74, 236, 341,
seq., 347, 348, 430, 438,
443
Hagenbach, K. C, 38, 37
Hahn, G. L., 187, 583
Halacha, 63, 74, 430 seq.,
437 seq., 444
Hamilton, Patrick, 105
Hamilton, Sir Wm., 82,
106, 428
Hammond, Henry, 250,
468
Hampton Court confer
ence, 216
Haphtareth, 179
Harkavy, A., 185
Harmonies of Gospels, 247,
490
Harmonistic corruption,
202
Harnack, Adolph, 134,
396,500, 501,503
Harper, W. R., 10, 20, 287
Harris, Rendel, 181, 802,
303, 212
Hase, Karl, 500
Hassencamp, 185, 186
Hatch, E., 88, 71, 503
Haupt, Paul, 10
Hausrath, 63, 508
Havernick, H. A. C, 581
Havet, E., 502
Hebrew Law, 323
Hefele, C. J. von, 137
Hegesippus, 488
Heidegger, J. H., 147, 223,
259, 276, 621
Heidelberg Catechism, 662,
665
Heinrici, C. F., 38, 37
Heinsius, Dan., 459
Helvetic confession, 142,
457
Henderson, E., 469
Hengstenberg, E. W., 259,
339, 504
Henry, Matthew, 467
Herder, 246, 250, 279, 471,
491,576

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

683

Heresy charges, 288 seq.
Herle, Chas.. 84, 152
Hermas, 133
Hess, 491
Hesychius, 193, 199, 219
Hexapla, 200
Hieronymian tradition,
147, 148
Hilary, 449
Hilgenfeld, 176, 499
Hillel, 130, 131, 133, 232
Himyaric language, 46
Historic errors, 566
Historic fiction, 567
Hitzig, F., 585
Hobbes, Thos., 250, 574
Hodge, A. A., 158, 287, 320,
609, 625
Hodge, Chas., 132
Hofmann, J. C. K., 284,
472
HoUazius, M. D., 458
HoUenberg, 189
Holmes and Parsons, 192,
198, 199, 200, 204, 206,
207
Holsten, C, 499, 588
Holtzmann, H. J., 117, 133,
193, 503, 535, 589, 590
Holtzmann, O., 506
Holy Spirit, 303, 635, 654
Holzinger, 297
Hommel, F., 46, 507
Home, T. H., 259, 884
Hort, F. J. A., 86, 89, 90
Hottinger, J. J., 185, 186
Houbigant, 185
Huet, P. D., 276
Humanists, 456, 468
Hume, David, 80
Hunt, A. S., 133
Hupfeld, H., 179, 283
Huss, John, 455, 456
Hutter, 187
Hyde, Thos., 222
Hymns, 415
Hymn to Amen Ra, 399
Hymn to the Nile, 400
Hyslop, J. H., 82
Iben Ezra, 235
Identity, Law of, 178
Idyll, 342 seq.
Ignatius, 241
Immer, A., 27, 71, 73, 428,
453, 472, 588
Imperfect morality, 609
Incarnation, 523 seq.
Inclusion in poetry, 399

Indelicate expressions, 178
Inerraucy,613, 616,619«eg.,
632 seq., 637 seq.
Inspiration, 110 seq., 331
Integrity, 92 seq., 106
Intensive forms, 55
Internal evidence, 101, 157
Interpretations, 314
Intrinsic probability, 90
Inverted nuns, 177
Ireuajus, 191, 192, 357,
448, 451
Irons, W. J., 590
Ismael, 430
Israeli, Isaac, 235
Issel, 590
J, 297
Jablonsky, P. E., 187, 252
Jacob, 303
Jacob ben Chayim, 140,
186, 187, 219, 330
Jacobus de Voragine, 332
Jacob of Edessa, 194
Jael, 644
James, M. R., 189
Jameson, Wm., 248
Jamnia, Synod of, 128, 130,
133, 141, 175
Jay, Mich, de, 222
Jebb, J., 367
Jehuda, Rabbi, 333, 253
Jelf, W. E., 67
Jerome, 127, 137, 138, 139,
143, 152, 174, 185, 191,
192, 193, 194, 213, 219,
258, 362, 453, 489
Jerome of Prague, 455
Jerusalem, 278
Jochanan, 130, 252
Johannine type, 602
John, the Presbyter, 138,
447
Jonathan, 56
Jones, Wm., 363
Jose, 130
Joseph the Blind, 211
Josephus, 117, 127, 128, 174,
175, 204, 337, 356, 318,
363, 435, 487, 488
Jost, J. M., 232, 505
Juda ha Levi, 235
Judaic writers, 119, 300,
301, 547, 659
Judas Macc, 128,
Judgments of law, 580,
563
Jiilicher, A., 134, 135
Julius Africanus, 488

Junilius Africanus, 127,
358, 453
Junius, Letters of, 93
Justin Martyr, 134
Kabisch, 590
Kabana, 334
Kahle, A., 588
Kaiser, P. C, 470, 576
Kant, 9, 82, 470
Kattenbusch, 106
Kaulen, F., 214
Kautzsch, 48, 50, 181, 476
Keil, C. A. G., 470
Keil, C. F., 229, 259, 504,
536, 558, 559, 565
Keim, Th., 498
Kennicott, B., 183, 228
Kidder, R., 250
Kihn, H., 127, 449, 451,
452, 453
Kimchi, David, 184, 336
Kimchi, Joseph, 836
Kina measure, 381
Kindred of Jesus, 305, 306
King James's Version ,316
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 588
Kittel, B., 504
Klausen, H. N., 438, 447,
448, 450, 451, 456, 457,
458, 472
Klostermann, E., 199, 200
Knapp, G. C, 471
Knight, C, 318
Knobel, A., 283
Knox, John, 482
Kohler, 505
Kohn, S., 186
Kohut, A., 175
Konig, F. E., 48, 476
Koppe, 279, 282, 313
Koran, 46
Kostlin, K. R., 499, 589
Krug, W. T., 9
Kuenen, A., 122, 175, 285,
385 seq.
Labrat, 235
Lachman, C, 308, 228
Lagarde, P., 175, 184, 200,
204, 809, 840
Lane, E. W., 46
Lange, J. P., 78, 312, 429,
476, 480
Latinization, 202
Law, Ancient, 560
Lechler, G. V., 157, 455,
499
Lee, W., 207

684

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Legend, 332, 336 seq., 497
seq., 527
Legenda Aurea, 332
Legendary sources, 557
Leigh, Edw., 483, 483,
464, 467
Lenormant, 333, 506
Letters, 340
Leucius Charinus, 135
Leusden, 187
Leviathan, 334
Levita, EUas, 131, 140,
141, 319, 320, 236, 475
Levy, Jacob, 47, 50, 232
Lewis, Mrs., 50, 212
Ley, JuUus, 369, 370
Liberty of conscience, 114,
115
Liberty of opinion, 146
Lightfoot, John, 84, 221,
467, 490
Lightfoot, J. B., 103, 445
Linguistic differences, 296
Literal sense, 453
Literary study of the Bible,
294 seq.
Lock, Walter, 133
Locke, John, 469
Logia Jesu, 133
Logos, 625, 654
Loisy, A., 170
London Polyglot, 185, 207
Lord, applied to Christ, 241
Love of God, 349, 646
Lowth, 94, 226, 227, 229,
230, 246, 250, 278, 366,
367, 468, 471
Lucian, 173, 193, 204, 205,
219, 451
Lucian's text, 203 seq.
Lucius, P. E., 128
Liicke, F., 101, 471, 473
Lumby, J. R., 108
Luther, Martin, 41, 80, 142,
206, 216, 224, 247, 343,
455, 458, 458, 482, 653,
653
Lutterbeck, J. A. B., 589
Lutz, J. L. S., 472, 479,
480
Lux Mundi, 92
Luzzato, S. D., 50
Lyford, 154, 883, 885
Maccabeus, Judas, 172
Madden, F. W., 554
Magnificat, 560
Maimonides, 235
Man, Doctrine of, 647

Mandeans, 49
Mangey, 237
Manifold sense, 461
Mansi, J. D., 137
Mappiq, 180
Mar Ukba, 170
Mar Zutra, 170
Marcus Aurelius, 192
Maresius, 359
Marsh, G. P., 333
Martin Marprelate tracts,
93
Martinius, M., 226
Masius, 350
Massebieau, 136
Massorites, 180 seq.
Matthew, Thos., 315
McCleUand, A., 477
McCosh, J., 88
McCurdy, J. F., 508
McGiffert, A. C, 84, 136,
310, 315, 316, 488, 489,
500,517, 518
Means of Grace, 651 seq.
Mechilta, 178, 234
Mede, Joseph, 225, 260
MegiUath Taanith, 335
Meier, Ernst, 389
Melancthon, 457
Memphitic version, 195
Mene'goz, E., 590
Mercer, J., 224
Mercati, G., 192, 193
MerriU, Selah, 507
Merx, A., 135
Mesha stone, 48, 170
Messianic idea, 303, 304, 648
Messner, H., 581
Metaphors, 359
Metres, 361
Methodism, 157
Meyer, A., 60
Meyer, H. A. W., 241, 472
Meyer, L., 470
Michaelis, J. D., 185, 187,
279, 491
Midrashim, 174, 177, 189,
334, 236
Mielziner, M., 353, 431
MiU's text, 207, 238
Minuscules, 195
Miracles, 3i5 seq., 543
Mishna, 130, 238, 429, 431
Mitchell, A. F., 84, 115,
225, 248, 466
MitcheU, H. G., 520
Moabite stone, 48
Mombert, J. I., 105
Moore, Geo. F., 10, 20, 181,

287, 290, 333, 334, 335,
376
Moore, Henry, 675
Moral sense, 453
Morals of O. T., 643
Morinus, J., 185, 222, 223
Morus, S. F., 438, 469
Moses, 53, 94
Moses Ibn Ezra, 235
Mozley, T., 281
MSS., private, 183, 190
Muller, Max, 811, 612
Miiller, D. H., 399
Muller, Julius, 143, 158
Miinster, Sebast., 186, 239
Muratorian fragment, 135
Murray, T. C, 313, 319
Musculus, 224, 457
Mystic spirit, 570
Mystical sense, 453
Myth, 331 seq., 333 seq.,
4:93 seq., 522
Jlythical sources, 656 seq.
Nabatean language, 60
Natural History of the
Bible, 554
Neale, J. M., 318
Neander, 158, 284, 472, 499,
578*62., 588, 587, 591
Nestle, E., 49, 194, 199,
200, 206, 207, 211
Nestorian Canon, 138
Nestorius, 452
Neubauer, A., 49, 50, 170,
172, 184, 210
Neutral Text, 195, 240
Nicene Creed, 106
Nicolaus de Lyra, 454, 45 5
Niemeyer, A. H., 15
Niese, B., 237
Noldeke, Theo., 49, 176,
326, 326
Nunc Dimlttis, 560
Nutt, J. W., 50, 186
CEcolampadius, 224, 248,
457, 468
CEcumenius, 241, 454
CEhler, G. F.,472, 577, 580,
587, 597
Olivetan, 217
Olshausen, J., 175
Opinion, differences of, 99
seq.
Opitius, 187
Opitz, H., 588
Oratory in the Bible, 338
seq.

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

685

Orelli, C. von, 588
Organic method, 471
Origen, 127, 136, 137, 192,
193, 199, 219, 362, 449
Osgood, H., 287
Osiander, And., 213, 490
Ottley, R. L., 556, 568,
567
Owen, John, 157, 162, 223,
334, 259, 621
P, 297
Palestine Exploration
Fund, 508
Paley, W., 491
Palmer, Herb., 83, 100, 318
Palmer, E. H., 507
Palmyra, 60
Papias, 447
Papyrus, 170, 190, 191
Parables of Jesus, 341
ParalleUsm, 366 seq., 385
seq.; antithetical, 386,
389, 392, 395, 396, 404
emblematical, 388, 389
Introverted, 392, 394
progressive, 387, 389
synonymous, 386 seq.,
388, 408
Paraphrase, 201
Parashiyoth, 179
Paris Polyglot, 206
Parker, Matth., 215
Patriotism of Esther, 350,
351
Patton, F. L., 287
Paul of Nisibis, 258, 452
Paul of TeUa, 193
Pauline Christianity, 502
Payne, Thos., 492
Pearson, John, 226
Pearson, Rich., 236
PeUicane, 224
Perkins, Wm., 575
Peries, F., 173, 176
Perowne, J.J. S., 313, 316
Persian version, 814
Peshat, 433
Peshitto version, 23, 173,
813
Pesikta, 334
Pesuklm, 179
Peter, naming of, 514 seq.
Peter Lombard, 464
Petermann, J. H., 49, 50,
186
Peters, J. P., 10, 20, 287
Pfleiderer, O., 499, 500,
501, 588

Phagius, P., 224
Phalaris, epistle of, 93, 107
Pharisees, 128
Philo, 117, 125, 126, 127,
128, 133, 337, 857, 318,
434, 435, 448, 488
Philoxeuus, 312
Phoenician language, 47
Photius, 135
Piepenbring, Ch., 587
Pietro deUa VaUe, 186
Piper, F., 554
Pietism, 470, 574
Pirque Aboth, 121, 129, 238,
388, 389, 393, 394, 395,
398
Piscator, 224
Planck, G. J., 260, 474
Plato, 74
Plummer, Alf., 864, 530
Plural, abstract, 55
Pneumatophany, 645
Pocock, Edw., 222, 235,
468
Poetry, Arabic, 361 ; Baby
lonian, 380; composite,
418 ; dramatic, 419 ;
Egyptian, 378, 399 ;
gnomic, 416; lyric, 416
seq.; prophetic, 424;
Syriac, 364
Poetical sources, 559
Point of view, 566
Polyglots, 187
Poole, Matth., 226, 249,
467, 822
Postilles, 454
Practical divinity, 573
Practical spirit, 571
Prsetorius, 47
Prayer, 415
Pratensis, Felix, 186
Prelatical authority, 161
Presbyterians, 156, 226
Presbytery of New York,
288, 289
Prideaux, H., 225, 276, 491
Priestly writers, 550, 560
Princeton school, 162, 229
Probebibel, 217
Procopius, 186
Pronunciation in Hebrew,
176
Prophecy, 544
Prophets without honour,
244,245
Protestant Reformers, 141,
145, 146, 151, 219, 246,
281, 282, 457

Providence, 102, 103
Pseudonymes, 323 seq.
Ptolomseus, Philadelphus,
124
Pui-itans, 149 seq., 162, 673
Pusey, E. B., 454
Qarites, 433
Qeris, 177
Quakers, 155
Rab, 252, 333
Rabbinical Bible, Bam
berg's, 186 ; Buxtorfs,
187
Rabboth, 234
Rahab, 334
Rainy, Robt., 110
Rambach, J. J., 428, 467
Ramsay, W. M., 331
Raphe, 180
Rapheleng, Franz, 222
Rashi, 174, 211, 236, 454
Rationalism, 77, 158, 480,
492, 574
Redemption, doctrine of,
647 seq.
Reformation, 77, 141, 219,
246, 489, 652 seq.
Refrains, 403, 408, 410, 413,
414
Regeneration, 657
Reland, 491, 507
Remoteness, 563
Removal of particles, 176
Renan, E., 497, 498, 537
Repentance of Nineveh, 346
Resch, A., 203
Responsion in poetry, 399
Reuchlin, J., 140, 141, 475
Reuss, Edw., 68, 71, 143,
153, 283, 356, 449, 471,
582, 583, 585, 589
Revelation iu Jesus, 639
seq.; in Nature, 637 seg.;
in Reason, 639; In The
ophanies, 638
Reynolds, John , 467
Rhabanus Maurus, 454
Rheims version, 215
Rhyme, 361, 373 seq.
Richter, 237
Riddles, 416, 417, 418
Riehm, Edw., 324, 445, 587
Right of private judgment,
161
Ritschl, Albr., 500, 507,
591
Rivetus, And., 222, 349,457

686

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Roberts, Francis, 464, 465,
468, 467, 473, 482, 484
Robertson, J., 334, 335,
564
Robinson and James, 527
Robinson, Edw., 48, 284,
507, 532, 646
Bodgers, John, 215
Rodiger, Emil, 475
Rolls, 169 seq., 191
Roman tradition, 147
RosenmuUer, C. F. K., 447
Rothe, 158
Rous, Fr., 491
Row, C. A., 10
Rudolph of Saxony, 489
Rupertus Meldenius, 100,
101
Ryle, H. E., 118, 119, 120,
122, 127, 139, 131, 237,
335, 336, 513, 539
Saadia, 814, 236, 454
Saalschiitz, J. L., 363
Sabatier, A., 688
Sabbath, 269
Sabean language, 46
Sabians, 49
Sacrifices, 308, 641 seq.
Sacrifices for the dead, 145
Sadducees, 128
Salvation by works, 145
Samaritans, 128
Samaritan canon, 120
Samaritan codex, 170
Samaritan language, 60
Sampson, Thos., 215
Samson and Hercules, 333
seq.
Sanctification, 658
Sandy, Wm., 186, 133, 135,
137, 1.38
Sayce, 45, 353, 513, 530,
531,538,558
ScaUger, J. J., 225, 490
Scattergood, 226
Schaff, Ph., 15, 64,66,71,
72, 108, 208, 213, 216,
318, 326, 500
Schick, Conrad, 555
Schiller, Szinissy, 184
Schindler, 225
Schleiermacher, 471, 472
Schmid, C. F., 580, 587,
591,697, 598
Schmidt, W., 589
Schmiedel, P. W., 535
Schneckenburger, M., 505
Schnedermann, G., 832

Scholastic spirit, 570
Scholasticism, 112 seq., 141,
575
Scholastics, Lutheran, 147,
259, 458
Scholastics, Protestants,
480
Scholastics, Reformed, 147,
225
Scholastics, Swiss, 259
Scholtz, J. M. A., 135, 227
School of Calixtus, 147
School of Reuss, 587
School of Saumur, 122
Schottgen, 366
Schrader, E., 47, 51, 388,
506
Schroeder, P., 47
Schuckford, 491
Schultens, A., 475
Schultz, Herm., 584, 597
Schultze, 191
Schurer, E., 63, 192, 211,
233, 430, 506
Schwab, M., 333
Sehwally, Fr., 50
Schwartzkopff, 590
Schwegler, 499, 500
Science and Bible, 612
Scotch Confession, 149
Scott, Thos., 467
Script, Aramaic, 170 seq.
Script, Phcenician, 170
Scrivener, F. H. A., 86,
89, 90, 226, 228, 241
Sectarianism, 6
Sedar olam zutta, 335,
488
Sedar olam rabba, 335,
488
Sedarim, 179
Segond, Louis, 217
Seller, G. F., 471
Selden, J., 84, 225, 490
Semler, J. S., 163, 207, 276,
469, 470
Separation of words, 243
Sepp, 507
Septuagint, 23, 126, 173, 176
Shairp, 359, 360
Shakespeare, 318
Shammai, 130, 232
Shedd, W. 6. T., 159
Shemitic languages, 19, 20
Shewa, 59
Shilo, 238
Shulamite, 58
Sidra d' Yahya, 49
Sidra rabba, 49

Siegfried, K., 374, 433,
433, 435, 436, 449, 464
Sifra, 234
Sifrl, 177, 234
Silberstein, 199, 203
Silence, argument from,
101 seq.
Siloam inscription, 48, 170
Simeon ben Azai, 130
Simeon ben Menasiah, 131
Simeon Kara, 236
Simon the Just, 121
Simon Magus, 447
Simon, Richard, 274, 375
Sinaitic Codex, 138
Sionita, Gabr., 222
Sittenfeld, 232
Sixtine text, 207, 313
Slaying of Goliath, 658
Smend, R., 48, 587
Smith, Geo., 53, 506
Smith, Geo. Adam, 386,
508
Smith, H. B., 624, 626
Smith, H. P., 10, 95, 289
seq., 290, 536
Smith, Miles, 216
Smith, R. P., 49
Smith, W. R., 26, 47, 130,
143, 176, 229, 286, 326,
358, 588
Socin, A., 48, 508
Socrates, 9, 73
Sodh, 432, 438, 439
Solomon, 53, 94
Sopherim, 176 seq.
Sources of history, 331
Spanheim, F., 276, 491
Speaking with tongues,
517 seq.
Speculative spirit, 571
Spinoza, B., 374
Spittler, 137
Spurgeon, C. H., 488, 481
Stackhouse, 491
Stade, B., 475, 504, 591
Stanley, A. P., 507
Stanton, V. H., 590
Statutes of Law, 560, 561
Stark, CL. W., 470
States Bible, 317
Staudlein, C. F., 470
Stephens, Robt., 186, 306,
213
Stern, 470
Steudel, J. C. F., 471, 577
Stevens, Geo. B., 590
Strabo, Walafrid, 454
Strack, Herm, 49, 50, 131,

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

687

128, 175, 184, 185, 189,
238, 2.54, 265, 324, 351,
471
Strauss, D. F., 80, 494,
495, 496, 498, 578
Strophes, 398 seq.
Stuart, Moses, 284, 428,
469, 470
Style, 97 seg., 330
Style of Epistle to the
Hebrews, 301, 302
Style of Job, 301
Style of prophets, 338 seq.
Sufficient reason, law of,
82
SuflSxes, 56
Sulpicius, Severus, 489
Supernatural, 490, 537
Supernaturalists, 492
Surenhusius, 833
Survey of Western Pales
tine, 508
Susanna, 63
Suspended letters, 177
Swete, H. B., 138, 198,
197, 198, 199, 309
Symbols of faith, 114
Symmachus' version, 191
Synod of Carthage, 137,
133
Synod of Hippo, 137, 138
Synagogues, 188
Synagogue rolls, 183
Synagogue worship, 125
Synonyms in Hebrew, 57,
58
Syntactical differences, 300
Syriac language, 49
Syriac versions, 213
Syrian text, 304 seq.
Tables of stone, 169
Talmud, 23, 121, 141, 170,
174, 176, 177, 178, 179,
183, 191, 211, 333 seq.,
429
Talmud, Jerusalem, 233
Tanaim, 253 se?., 334
Tanchuma, 235
Targum, 23, 125, 176, 210
seq.
Targum, Jonathan, 211,
236
Targum, Onkelos, 311, 236
Targum, Yerushalmi, 311
Tatran, 134, 212, 488
Taverner, Rich., 315
Tawus, Jacob, 214
Taylor, Chas., 131

Taylor, Francis, 313, 249,
250, 462, 467
Taylor, Isaac, 89
Taylor, John, 468, 469,
470, 475
Temperaments, 569
Ten Words, 118, 169
Terry, M. S., 447
Tertullian, 267, 447, 451
Testimony of Loudon min
isters, 153
Text of Ben Asher, 231
Thayer, J. H., 70
Thebaic version, 195
Theile, E. G. W., 187
Theodore of Mopsuestia,
137, 138, 268, 449, 452,
454
Theodoret, 138
Theodotian, 191,200
Theophanies, 337, 542 seq.
Theophylact, 241
Tholuck, A., 223, 443, 576
Thomson, W. M., 507
Thousand and One Nights,
92
Tiele, C. P., 506
Tischendorf, Const., 196,
197, 238, 241, 264
Tischendorf's text, 808
Titus, 176
Tobia, 234
Tobler, T., 507
Tosaphoth, 234
Tosephtoth, 233
Toy, C. H., 10, 20, 210,
888, 290, 350, 587
Traditional opinion, 109
seq.
Traditional sense, 453
Transcriptional probabil
ity, 265
'Translations and inspira
tion, 622
Trapp, John, 467
Tregelles, S. P., 228
Tregelles' text, 209
Trench, R. C, 73
Tristram, H. B., 507
Trullan council, 137
TrumbuU, H. C, 507
Tiibingen school, 499
Tuckney, Aut., 145
Turner, S. H., 260, 284,
474
Turpie, D.M., 211
Turretine, J. Alp., 225, 470
Turretine, Fr., 147, 223,
621

Tychonius, 449
Tychsen, 185
Tyndale, Wm., 105, 106,
814, 456, 457
Twisse, Wm., 84
Types of BibUcal History,
539 seq.
Ugolino, 233, 234, 490
Ulenberg, 317
UUmann, Karl, 495, 496,
498
Uncials, 194 seq.
Union Theological Semi
nary, 288 seq.
Unity and Variety, 606
Usher, J., 186, 225, 248,
460,461,466,490
Usteri, L., 588
Valla, 219
Van Dale, Anton, 275
Van der Hooght, 187
Van Ess, Leander, 814
Van Liesveldt, Jacob, 317
Van Oosterzee, J. J., 584,
597
Van Uttenhove, 817
Vater, J. S., 382
Vatican codex, 138
Vatke, Wm., 499, 504,
577, 585
Verbal inspiration, 223
VerceUone, 203
Via media, 156
Vigouroux, F., 507
Vincent, M. R., 71, 299
Vindictiveness, 646
Virgin-birth, 533 seq.
Vischer, Eberh., 896
Vitringa, 276, 490
Voetius, 147, 621
Volkmar, G., 499
Vollers, 189
Voltaire, 80
Vowel points, 59, 181, 220
seq.
Vulgate version, 23, 173,
213 seq.
Waehner, 430, 491
Walch, J. G., 247
Walton, Brian, 222, 223,
224, 246, 259
Warfield, B. B., 320, 609,
635
Watson, Thos., 468
Weber, F., 439
Weiss, B., 209, 272, 283,

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

335, 338,387,330,498,
500,583, 589,598
Weiss, J. H., 834
Weizsacker, Carl, 83, 499 ,
591
Wellhausen, Julius, 203,
290, 504, 505, 585
Wendt, H.H., 498, 589
Wenrich, 383
Wesley, John, 482
Westcott, B. F., 86, 89, 90
Westcott and Hort, 190,
196, 197, 200, 201, 303-
208,209,228,331,240,242, 284, 399, 301, 303
Western text, 301-303,
340
Westminster Assembly, 83,
84, 152, 248
Westminster Confession, 8,
15, 25, 92, 99, 116, 150,
461, 625, 663
Westminster Larger Cate
chism, 659
Westminster Shorter Cate
chism, 15, 83, 92, 661

Wetzstein text, 207
Wetzstein, J. C, 227, 507
Whately, R., 35, 105
What Is God? 83
Whichcote, Benj., 145
Whiston, Wm., 237
Whitby, Dan., 468,470
White, A. D., 9, 10
Whltehouse, O., 47
Whittingham, Wm., 216
Wickes, W., 181, 183, 184,
185
Wicklif, 214, 455, 466
Winckler, Hugo, 48
Winer, G. B., 70, 71
Witness of Holy Spirit,
166 seq.
Witsius, Herm., 259, 276
Wogue, 331, 232, 430, 431,
433
Word of God, 6,34
Word of Peace, 100, 101
Words in Law, 580, 561
Workman, G. C, 189
Wrede, Wm., 591, 594,
605

Wright,C. H. H.,265, 311,
334
Wright, Wm., 48, 361, 362,
470
Wiinsche, Aug., 63, 234,
338, 417
Ximenes, 140, 186, 219
Yalqut Shimeoni, 335
Yanai, 232
Zacharia, 6. T., 489, 675
Zahn, Theo., 134
Zealots, 128
ZeUer, Edw., 499
Zerubbabel, 69, 63
Zezschwitz, 68, 73, 73
Zimmern, H., 45
Zockler, O., 313
Zohar, 221
Zschokke, 589
Zunz, L., 63, 128, 233
Zurich consensus, 621
Zwingli, 80, 220, 224, 248,
457

BY CHARLES A BRIGGS, D.D.
Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology
in the Union Theological Seminary, New York.
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
153-157 Fifth Avenue, New York.

Crown Svo
A General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture. Net . $3.00
Messianic Prophecy ; The Prediction of the Fulfilment of Redemp
tion through the Messiah. Seventh Edition .... $2.50
The Messiah of the Gospels  $2.00
The Messiah of the Apostles ....... $3.00
The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. New Edition. Revised
and enlarged ........ . $2.50
The Bihle, the Church, and the Reason : The Three Great Foun
tains of Divine Authority. Second Edition .... $1.75
American Presbyterianism : Its Origin and Early History, together
with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of which
have recently been discovered. With maps .... $3.00
Whither? A Theological Question for the Times. Third Edition $1.75
The Authority of Holy Scripture : An Inaugural Address. Ninth
Edition, paper .......... .50
The Defense of Professor Briggs. Paper, net  50
The Case against Professor Briggs. In three parts, paper. Parts
L and II.j each, 50 cents ; Part III  , .75

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
The Principles, Methods, History, and Results of its Several Depart=
ments, and of the Whole. Crown Svo. $3.00 net.
Dr. Briggs's new book covers the whole ground of Biblical Study,
gives a history of every department, with ample illustrations from the
New Testament as well as from the Old, and states the results thus far
attained, the present problems, and the aims for the future. It is
written so that any intelligent person can read it with enjoyment and
profit. The work takes the place of the author's Biblical Study, which
has been extraordinarily successful, and which has been here revised,
enlarged to double its former size, and entirely reset, so that it is essen
tially a new book.

2 By Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D.
MESSIANIC PROPHECY: The Prediction of the
Fulfilment of Redemption through the Messiah.
A Critical Study of the Messianic passages of the Old Testament in
the order of their development.
Seventh Edition. Crown Svo. $2.50.

" Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common interest, and this book is no or
dinary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very first order, the ripe product
of years of study upon the highest themes. It is exegesis in master-hand, about its
noblest business  It has been worth while to commend this book at some
length to the attention of Bible students, because both the subject and the treatment
entitle it to rank among the very foremost works of the generation in the department
of Exegetical Theology. Union Seminary is to be congratulated that it is one of her
professors who, in a noble line of succession has produced it. The American Church
is to be congratulated that the author is an American, and Presbyterians that he is a
Presbyterian. A Church that can yield such books has large possibilities." — New
York Evangelist.
" It is second in importance to no theological work which has appeared in this
country during the present century." — The Critic.
" His arduous labor has been well expended, for he has finally produced a book
which will give great pleasure to Christians of all denominations  The pro
found learning displayed in the book commends it to the purchase of all clergymen
who wish for the most critical and exact exposition of a difficult theme; while its
earnestness and eloquence will win for it a place in the library of every devout lay
man." — New York Journal of Commerce.
" It is rich with the fruits of years of zealous and unwearied study, and of an ample
learning. In it we have the first English work on Messianic Prophecy which stands
on the level of modern Biblical studies. It is one of the most important and valuable
contributions of American scholarship to those studies. It is always more than in
structive : it is spiritually helpful. We commend the work not only to ministers, but
to intelligent laymen." — The Independent.
" On the pervading and multiform character of this promise, see a recent, as well
as valuable authority, in the volume of Dr. Briggs, of the New York Theological
Seminary, on 'Messianic Prophecy.'" — W. E. Gladstone.
" Professor Briggs's Messianic Prophecy is » most excellent book, iu which I
greatly rejoice." — Professor Franz Delitzsch.
" All scholars will join in recognizing its singular usefulness as a text-book. It has
been much wanted." — Rev. Canon Cheyne.
" It is a book that will be consulted and prized by the learned, and that will add
to the author's deservedly high reputation for scholarship. Evidences of the ability,
learning, and patient research of the author are apparent from the beginning to the
end of the volume, while the style is remarkably fine." — Philadelphia Presbyterian.
" His new book on Messianic Prophecy is a worthy companion to his indispen
sable text-book on Biblical study. . . . "What is most of all required to insure the
future of Old Testament studies in this country is that those who teach should satisfy
their students of their historic connection with the religion and theology of the past.
Professor Briggs has the consciousness of such a connection in a very full degree, and
yet he combines this with a frank and unreserved adhesion to the principles of modern
criticism. ... He has produced the first English text-book on the subject of Mes
sianic Prophecy which a modern teacher can use." — London Academy.

By Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D.
THE MESSIAH OF THE GOSPELS.
Crown Svo. $2.00.

THE MESSIAH OF THE APOSTLES.
Crown Svo. $3.00.
Professor Briggs in these two volumes takes up the ideas presented
in the author's Messianic Prophecy of the Old Testament, and traces
their development in New Testament prophecy. The method and
scope of the work are entirely original ; and it is full of fresh statements
of the doctrine of the person and work of Christ, as the result of the
new point of view that is taken.
" It is learned, sound, evangelical, and is a useful contribution to the Christologi
cal literature of the day." — New York Tribune.
" Dr. Briggs is to be congratulated on having brought to a successful termination
this truly remarkable series of volumes on one of the most important themes of Bibli
cal study. The Christology of the New Testament is likely to wait long for a more
competent and more successful expositor." — The Christian Register.
" As we lay the book down, we have a renewed sense of the courage, independ
ence, and erudition of the author." — The Churchman.

THE BIBLE, THE CHURCH, AND THE REASON:
The Three Great Fountains of Divine Authority.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. $1.75.
" An impartial judgment will not fail to give full credit for purity of motive and
loftiness of purpose to a man who writes like this." — The Evangelist.
" It consists of lectures delivered at different times since the recent assault upon
him. . . . He simply elaborates and substantiates the positions in his inaugural which
have subjected him to public criticism." — The Christian Union.
" The problems which are discussed with masterly power in this volume are not
those of Presbyterianism, or of Protestantism, but of Christianity, and, indeed, of all
Biblical religion. To any man for whom the question of God and revelation has an
endlessly fascinating interest, the book will prove suggestive and stimulating. We
cannot see why even the Israelite and the Roman Catholic should not desire to taste
— despite the traditions of synagogue and Mother Church — this latest forbidden
fruit of the tree of knowledge." — The Literary iVorld.

4 By Professor Charts; /I. liriggi, D.D.
THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE HEXATEUCH.
New Edition, revised and enlarged. Crown Svo. $2.50.
" When this book first appeared it was recognized as a masterlyproduction. Written
in a clear style, and full of the largest learning, it easily took a foremost place in dis
cussions of the subject. ... It appears again in a new and thoroughly revised edition,
with fuller statements on many points. We congratulate the author upon his sound
ness of judgment and his clearness of statement, as well as upon the admirable temper
which his book has preserved." — The American Journal of Theology.
" The pivotal question in Old Testament study still remains that of the authorship
and composition of the Pentateuch; and this work of Dr. Briggs is an admirable
introduction to this subject, giving a history and abundant illustrations of the criti
cism." — Edward L. Curtis, Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at Yale.

WHITHER? A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION FOR
THE TIMES.
Third Edition. Crown Svo. $1.75.
" He shows that genuine Christianity has nothing to lose but much to gain by
unfettered thought and by the ripest modern scholarship, . . . and that the 'higher
criticism ' of which timid and unscholarly souls are so much afraid, is really making
the Bible more manifestly the Book of God, by relieving it from the false interpreta
tions of men." — Philadelphia Press.
" It is written in nervous, virile English that holds attention. It has unusual grasp
and force. The title and the chapter headings suggest compression : ' Whither ? '
' Drifting,' ' Orthodoxy,' ' Changes,' ' Shifting,' ' Excesses,' ' Failures,' ' Departures,'
' Perplexities,' ' Barriers,' ' Thither.' There is a whole history in some of these words,
and a whole sermon in others." — The Critic.

AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM :
Its Origin and Early History, together with an Appendix of Letters
and Documents, many of which have recently been discovered.
Crown Svo, with maps. $3.00.
" His vigorous, skilful, and comprehensive researches put all Protestant Christians,
and especially Congregationalists, under obligation to him." — Boston Congregation-
alist. " This is an admirable and exhaustive work, full of vigorous thinking, clear and
careful statement, incisive and judicious criticism, minute yet comprehensive research.
It is such a book as only a man with a gift for historical inquiry and an enthusiasm
for the history and principles of his Church could have produced. It represents an
amazing amount of labor." — British Quarterly Review.

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers,
153-157 Fifth Avenue, New York.

,'WrMhll«WTY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 2273

11^

.SjJ

r^^/

>.:^<
"'-^nM/
n^.
-^^Ji ^%\
¦Iff
'••».4.